Protestant View of Mariology

[joe371]

But that is uniquely a Catholic belief. The Orthodox do not view Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. To believe in that is to believe that God had sex with Mary, which obviously did not happen.

Also, to say that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is to claim that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus, the one who begot him. But we profess that Jesus is begotten of the Father, not of the Holy Spirit. So if Mary is the mother of Jesus (which is true), it is absolutely false to claim that Mary’s spouse is the Holy Spirit. It is actually heretical to believe that as it violates one of the basic tenets of our faith.

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Then in Matthew 1:20 an angel says to Joseph “Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

You do not believe that Mary is the daughter of the father, the spouse of the Holy spirit and the mother of the Son?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Like Steve said, Mary had a singularly unique relationship with the Holy Trinity: point out another human who is the daughter of the Father, spouse of the Holy Spirit, and mother of the Son?

So, she cannot be the IC because it is something that others don’t get, but she can be the only human, other than 2 (OT) to be assumed bodily into heaven. Is that what you believe? Yes or no?

First, I’ve already debunked the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” claim, please read above.

Second, Mary bearing God in her womb does not change her humanity. Being the IC does.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do not believe that Mary is the daughter of the father, the spouse of the Holy spirit and the mother of the Son?

I believe only 2 of the three. As I explained, to claim that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is heretical, in that it goes against what is taught about Christ being begotten of the Father.

 

[dvdjs]

But the IC does exactly that, sets her apart from everyone else. She gets something not everyone else gets. Even being the Godbearer won’t be unique to Mary, though it is unique in the sense that she bore God in her womb, everyone else is called to bear God within themselves. St. Ignatius of Antioch is called the God bearer, though the Greek word for it is different from Theotokos (right now it escapes me).

Theophorus. That we can share in. Theotokos is unique. In the later “bearer” has the particular meaning of “birth-giver” - ACROD uses that term in its liturgies.

And as for the Assumption? Again, that is a fate that awaits for us all. This is a greatest difference between Catholic and Orthodox belief on the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, because the Catholics see the Assumption as simply about a privilege granted to Mary, again separating her from the rest of humanity. The Orthodox see that the only privilege is that Mary received the Final Resurrection ahead of others, because it is right for her body who bore God to be preserved from corruption. But that like Mary, at the end of the ages we all will be resurrected and assumed.

There is no dichotomy here. I ti snot either or, but both and. Both some thins that awaits us all, and a singular privilege granted, without the wait, to the Theotokos.

 

[joe371]

First, I’ve already debunked the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” claim, please read above.

Second, Mary bearing God in her womb does not change her humanity. Being the IC does.

Then in Matthew 1:20 an angel says to Joseph “Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Is of the HS…” That is right out of the bible. Very confused about your reasoning…With that logic, I could say that Jesus is the spouse of Mary…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Theophorus. That we can share in. Theotokos is unique. In the later “bearer” has the particular meaning of “birth-giver” - ACROD uses that term in its liturgies.

But that is what Theophorus means as well, though in a more mystical and spiritual sense rather than actual flesh bearing and birthing. Besides, it is humanly impossible for all of us to give birth physically to God.

There is no dichotomy here. I ti snot either or, but both and. Both some thins that awaits us all, and a singular privilege granted, without the wait, to the Theotokos.

But the waiting time is negligible from a theological standpoint. Regardless if it is now or 1000 years from now or 1,000,000 years from now, at the end of it we are all getting the same thing. We’re talking about eternity anyway, so time is irrelevant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then in Matthew 1:20 an angel says to Joseph “Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Is of the HS…” That is right out of the bible. Very confused about your reasoning…With that logic, I could say that Jesus is the spouse of Mary…

So do you believe that God can only conceive by taking Mary as His spouse?

I never said that Christ is not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I said that Christ is not conceived by the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary.

 

[joe371]

To believe in that is to believe that God had sex with Mary

, which obviously did not happen.

Are you saying that that is the only way God could do it? Are you being literal and serious??? I guess I will call it a night…

 

[joe371]

So do you believe that God can only conceive by taking Mary as His spouse?

No! There is no only, when it comes to God. I am saying what God said God did via the HS

:“Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which** is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” **

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you being literal and serious??? I guess I will call it a night…

What else does being the spouse of one means? The whole reason that you call Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit is because it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived, correct? Then it means that you believe this “power” is spousal, and what else is that if not sex? Can’t we just believe that God can make a woman pregnant without taking her for His wife?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No! There is no only, when it comes to God. I am saying what God said God did via the HS

:“Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which** is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit**.”

I’m not denying this, but again, why conclude that the relationship is spousal? It isn’t.

 

[joe371]

What else does being the spouse of one means? The whole reason that you call Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit is because it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived, correct? Then it means that you believe this “power” is spousal, and what else is that if not sex? Can’t we just believe that God can make a woman pregnant without taking her for His wife?

You and I do not believe the only way God could impregnate Mary was via sex? Scripture said God did it via the HS. Your hang up is the word spouse.

What it means is what was said to Joseph.

If we want to ignore the words of scripture which clearly define the HSs role then yes we can just believe that God can make a woman pregnant without taking her for His wife.

You are taking the word spouse, to mean wife, way too literal. OK forget the word spouse. What other person is the daughter of the Father, impregnated by God via the Holy Spirit via supernatural means, and the mother of the Son? What other person had that kind of relationship with the holy Trinity? None. That is pretty awesome…

 

[dvdjs]

But that is what Theophorus means as well, though in a more mystical and spiritual sense rather than actual flesh bearing and birthing. Besides, it is humanly impossible for all of us to give birth physically to God.

Phorus is to carry of bring, generally, but tokus is about bringing forth through birth. And yes only one, unique person did this.

But the waiting time is negligible from a theological standpoint. Regardless if it is now or 1000 years from now or 1,000,000 years from now, at the end of it we are all getting the same thing. We’re talking about eternity anyway, so time is irrelevant.

Perhaps, nevertheless she was treated in a unique manner, different from the rest of humanity.

 

[joe371]

Phorus is to carry of bring, generally, but tokus is about bringing forth through birth. And yes only one, unique person did this.

Perhaps, nevertheless she was treated in a unique manner, different from the rest of humanity.

Which is why I said to Constantine: You are taking the word spouse, to mean wife, way too literal. OK forget the word spouse. What other person is the daughter of the Father, impregnated by God via the Holy Spirit via supernatural means, and the mother of the Son? What other person had that kind of relationship with the holy Trinity, Who is the eternal source of time and space and everything it it? No one. That is pretty awesome. No response…Perhaps he has not seen it…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary is the daughter of the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the mother of the Son. Tell me of another person who had this kind of relationship with the Trinity?

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the East, she is said not only to be above all humanity, but above all creation.

Order of Grace? We would all be in agreement here I believe.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m not saying the Roman Church openly teaches to worship Mary, but the current state of praxis have lead so many to cross that line.

In no way, openly or otherwise does the Catholic Church teach that Mary should be worshipped in the latria sense. And, I know of no Catholic who believes that to be the case. Catholics praying to and petitioning a saint is not worshipping…and what saint would God hear the petitions from and respond to them more than than Mary?

Constantine, back to my earlier post, why do Orthodox kiss a picture of Mary? If Catholics did this, protestants would accuse us of worship and idolatry…not that I think there is anything wrong with it.

 

[Porknpie]

And as for the Assumption? Again, that is a fate that awaits for us all. This is a greatest difference between Catholic and Orthodox belief on the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, because the Catholics see the Assumption as simply about a privilege granted to Mary, again separating her from the rest of humanity. The Orthodox see that the only privilege is that Mary received the Final Resurrection ahead of others, because it is right for her body who bore God to be preserved from corruption. But that like Mary, at the end of the ages we all will be resurrected and assumed.

Constantine, below is the catechism on the Assumption. Reading the Catechism itself and not your opinions above, how does that Catholic view of the Assumption differ from the Orthodox?

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection** and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:**

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t make sense. So God has to let us suffer in sin and let His own Son become mortal and suffer even if He can prevent all that just so to do something completely unnecessary?

Again with the “had to”.

No one is positing God “had to” do anything.

At any rate, the Orthodox response to the atheist who asks, "Why did God let all of humanity suffer instead of saving us? " is the same as the Catholic one, so your objection is a bit** odd.**

 

[GaryTaylor]

“And an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians”

Maximus the Confessor- She ascended to Heaven by the Grace and assistance of Her Son before the general resurrection to draw our attention to the coming resurrection. She was assumed completely, but first Her Holy Soul. (Live of the Virgin PG-153)