Trying to see why what Mr. Schroeder said is heresy, I found several sites that said denial that Mary is the Mother of God is essentially Nestorianism. However, Nestorianism goes beyond not preferring a particular title for Mary; it also teaches, “that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Thus, Nestorians reject such terminology as “God suffered” or “God was crucified”, because they believe that the man Jesus Christ suffered.”
orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism
I don’t believe that’s the position Mr. Schroeder is taking.
By the way, a few people have reacted negatively to the fact that I quoted an ex-Catholic, so I’m sorry about that. I wasn’t trying to be offensive; I just thought he phrased a position held by many Protestants in a way that was appropriate to JohnNC’s post.
Aidanbradypop had said, “The whole denying Mary is the Mother of God baffles me. If one believes Christ is God, then one has to affirm that Mary is the Mother of God. BUT they do not.” I just tried to give a couple of reasons why some object to that title.
Here’s the argument from a person who is not an ex-Catholic:
The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that the incarnate Christ is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. This has very important consequences. It implies that since Christ existed prior to his incarnation, he was a divine person before taking on a human nature. He was and is the second person of the Trinity. In the incarnation this divine person assumes a human nature as well, but there is no other person in Christ than the second person of the Trinity. There is an additional human nature which the pre-incarnate Christ did not have, but there is no human person in addition to the divine person. There is just one person who has two natures.
Therefore, what Christ said and did, God said and did, since when we speak of Christ we’re talking about a person. For that reason the Council endorses speaking of Mary as “the mother of God.” She bore the person who is a divine person. Unfortunately, this language has been disastrously misleading because it sounds as though Mary birthed the divine nature of Christ when in fact she birthed Christ’s human nature. Mohammed apparently thought that Christians believed that Mary was the third member of the Trinity, and Jesus was the offspring of God the Father and Mary, a view which he rightly rejected as blasphemous, though no orthodox Christian holds it.
reasonablefaith.org/the-death-of-god-and-the-death-of-christ
Even Boettner of the infamous “anti-Catholic Bible” (his title, Roman Catholicism) acknowledges no problem with the title “Mother of God according to the manhood” as found in the Creed of Chalcedon. What many Protestant writers claim as the basis for their objection is that while the title was originally used to emphasize the deity of Christ, it has become used as a way to exalt Mary. As Boettner put it, “It no longer has reference to the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, but instead is used to exalt Mary to a supernatural status as Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels, etc.”
There are a lot of differences between Catholics and Protestants, but one thing we do share is the doctrine of the person of Christ–eternally God, yet also became man at the incarnation; both divine and human, yet not two persons but one Person with two natures, “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person.” (creed of Chalcedon)
Edit:
I fully agree. I have no problem with the title Mother of God applied to Mary, but I was trying to provide reasons from a Protestant perspective why some have objected to its use. I hope the above is clear. I don’t expect anyone to stop using the phrase; I just wanted to ease Aidanbradypop’s state of bafflement regarding “the whole denying Mary is the Mother of God” thing.
