Protestants: Do you believe Mary is the spouse of God in any sense?

[Contarini]

I’m not sure why you state the miracle of this Conception is parthenogenetics, but that does not affect the point I was making. I don’t know the science of it, nor was I suggesting any scientific theory, nor do I know what Pat Madrid says about it. I just know the Holy Spirit caused the pregnancy which we have reason to believe was completely normal after the miraculous Conception. No?

That’s not what you said. You were willing to use the word “impregnate.” That implies the contribution of genetic material. Jesus had no “God genes.” Genetically, He was 100% human.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luke wasn’t saying that Christ didn’t exist UNTIL that time… Christ existed with God since the beginning as John says. He came to this earth through Mary. She didn’t create Him because He already existed long before she did. Luke indicates that Elizabeth didn’t know it was Him until that moment. Big difference. John came right out and said it, Jesus existed since the beginning with God… Plain as the nose on my face. MattG’s use of the verses below to make his point is weak and doesn’t prove that Christ didn’t exist until then…

I’m pretty sure MattG has not denied that the Son existed from the beginning, and that isn’t really relevant here. But I am getting that you deny Mary is the Mother of God? The problem with that is if you know Mary was Jesus’ mother (which Scripture says), and you know Jesus is God (which Scripture says), then denying Mary as the Mother of God is the same old Arian and Nestorian heresies from the first centuries.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I’m pretty sure MattG has not denied that the Son existed from the beginning,

Yes he did…

The 2ND Person of he Blessed Trinity, i.e., the Son of God, is as you say “uncreated,” but Jesus did not exist until Lk 1:38 by what we call The Incarnation, when God became man to save us.

and that isn’t really relevant here. But I am getting that you deny Mary is the Mother of God? The problem with that is if you know Mary was Jesus’ mother (which Scripture says), and you know Jesus is God (which Scripture says), then denying Mary as the Mother of God is the same old Arian and Nestorian heresies from the first centuries.

I get that Mary is the earthly mother of the 2nd person in the Trinity. I will concede to the term Mother of God the Son but Mother of God suggests something entirely different to me. That is why I don’t use it. The Trinity consists of 3 distinct persons yet they are ONE. But the important part of that is DISTINCT. Mary is the Mother of Christ but not the mother of God the Father nor the Holy Spirit.

So no, I don’t subscribe to the title Mother of God… But Mother of God the Son I agree with.

 

[MattG]

John makes it VERY clear that Christ existed in the beginning with God. VERY clear. That is why he says… wait for it… “In the beginning the Word ALREADY existed” I don’t know how much clearer that can be.
.

Singinbeauty, I don’t read in John 1 before the 14th verse anything about Jesus or the Christ, but this discussion is not fruitful. It is enough to know that God is and we weren’t and that we can be eternally happy.

It is odd to me that you balk at calling the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Since you affirm that Jesus, a Divine Person with two natures is God. Jesus must be two people; one the son of Mary and two, God, the Son of God. Jesus is the Word of God, but the Word of God is not Jesus until Lk 1: 38, at the conception, a fact with her fiat. In Lk 2:21, the Baby is named the name the Angel gave before his conception.

I am beginning to suspect that we are both right. Have a good day.

 

[jmcrae]

Luke wasn’t saying that Christ didn’t exist UNTIL that time… Christ existed with God since the beginning as John says. He came to this earth through Mary. She didn’t create Him because He already existed long before she did.

No mother ever actually creates her child. The role of the mother is to bear the child that God has created out of the flesh in her womb. In this respect, Mary was just like all other mothers - no difference here, other than the fact that God the Second Person, the child who was in her womb, was also her Creator.

Luke indicates that Elizabeth didn’t know it was Him until that moment. Big difference. John came right out and said it, Jesus existed since the beginning with God… Plain as the nose on my face. MattG’s use of the verses below to make his point is weak and doesn’t prove that Christ didn’t exist until then…

He is saying that Christ did not take on the human nature until He took on Mary’s flesh, in her womb.

Where, in any of that, does it say that Jesus did NOT exist until He was in Mary’s womb???

In the sense that there was no dual-natured God Man up until that moment, it’s true to say that Jesus (dual-natured God Man) did not exist until that time. But Jesus as Second Person of the Trinity has always been our Creator, even before He took on human nature and became Man.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Goth Catholic:

It suggest nothing of the sort. The Holy Spirt and God Himself are not men therefore physical intimacy cannot be assigned to the conception of Jesus. By your understanding the words of the gospel are just as disgusting “The Holy spirt shall come upon you, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you.”

Those words of St.Luke don’t imply that she committed adultery, or those other foul things. Catholic talk about her too often does ​

Explain. Mary is never made into an alternative Christ. God gave her the greatest position bestoyed upon any mortal. She was concieved without sin, carried the word incarnate, and was assumped body and soul into heaven where was crowned Queen of heaven and earth.

What I had in mind were theological howlers such as:​

• calling her a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit (St. Maximilan Kolbe)
• saying that her body is present in the Blessed Sacrament (a Professor Oswald in 1842)
• calling her co-head of the Church (Carlos del Moral, O.F.M, cited by Father P.D. Fehlner )
• claiming that she has done more for God than God has done for her (St. Bernardino of Siena)

• to name a few.

These aberrations are needless, verge on blasphemy (if they don’t amount to it), & make the CC look anything but Christian. Sometimes, the Church is her own worst enemy

God made her what she is. The Church has never placed or held her any higher then God himself does.

That doesn’t invalidate those comments - unfortunately. I stand by everything I said​

Our Lady brings us to Christ. All she does, she does through her son.

Agreed - but to read some authors, one could be forgiven for thinking that she saves us from the wrath of Christ, & similar rubbish. ​

 

[Goth_Catholic]

*]calling her a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit (St. Maximilan Kolbe)
*]saying that her body is present in the Blessed Sacrament (a Professor Oswald in 1842)
*]calling her co-head of the Church (Carlos del Moral, O.F.M, cited by Father P.D. Fehlner )
*]claiming that she has done more for God than God has done for her (St. Bernardino of Siena)

• to name a few.

I couldn’t find sources, save protestant anti-Mary propaganda please point me the direction of these claims. I did however find one particualrly riviting quote by St. Bernardino “All gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed through Mary’s hands to anyone she pleases, when she pleases, and as she pleases.” Beautiful.

These aberrations are needless, verge on blasphemy (if they don’t amount to it), & make the CC look anything but Christian. Sometimes, the Church is her own worst enemy

I beg to disagree. Mary is the Queen of heaven, she has power that is rivaled only by that of the Trinity.

That doesn’t invalidate those comments - unfortunately. I stand by everything I said## Agreed - but to read some authors, one could be forgiven for thinking that she saves us from the wrath of Christ, & similar rubbish. ​

She said herself at Fatima that she does indeed save us from the anger of Christ.

 

[Protestant101]

hello; May I please ask for some clarifications here?

It seems to me that after reading through this topic that the Catholic posters are calling Mary “Mother” or “Wife” of God, and other similar descriptors; from the viewpoint of her allegedly mediatorial role in our salvation, and the fact that by her, bodily, Jesus was born as a Babe in the manger. Is this correct?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I get that Mary is the earthly mother of the 2nd person in the Trinity. I will concede to the term Mother of God the Son but Mother of God suggests something entirely different to me. That is why I don’t use it. The Trinity consists of 3 distinct persons yet they are ONE. But the important part of that is DISTINCT. Mary is the Mother of Christ but not the mother of God the Father nor the Holy Spirit.

So no, I don’t subscribe to the title Mother of God… But Mother of God the Son I agree with.

Except, the persons of the Trinity are One… If you get the Son, you get the Father and Spirit too. Get the Spirit and you get the Father and the Son. Etc… The Son and Father and Spirit don’t exist separately.

And I don’t mean again to speak for MattG, but he specifically qualified Jesus not existing in the form from the “Incarnation”, not that the Son did not exist forever in another sense.

 

[MattG]

Except, the persons of the Trinity are One… If you get the Son, you get the Father and Spirit too. Get the Spirit and you get the Father and the Son. Etc… The Son and Father and Spirit don’t exist separately.

And I don’t mean again to speak for MattG, but he specifically qualified Jesus not existing in the form from the “Incarnation”, not that the Son did not exist forever in another sense.

Thank you, MarcoPolo, I’m not quite sure what “he specifically qualified Jesus not existing in the from from the “Incarnation”,” means unless it is: * specifically qualified in other words that Jesus did not exist as the Incarnation before an ovum of Mary miraculously began to develop into the Christ Child, i.e., the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. This is the same thing as saying it wasn’t until it was.

Singinbeauty seems to think I don’t believe the Word is eternal or God. We disagree for I intensely believe that God is eternal and that the Word is God from the beginning and further that the Word became Man, but was not always man. Jesus, however, is always the Word; it’s the reverse of that phrase that is wrong: The Word wasn’t always Jesus.

I fairly certain this will not resolve the differences we have because we are using the same phrases to mean different things and I am not one able to sort it all out.*

 

[MattG]

hello; May I please ask for some clarifications here?

It seems to me that after reading through this topic that the Catholic posters are calling Mary “Mother” or “Wife” of God, and other similar descriptors; from the viewpoint of her allegedly mediatorial role in our salvation, and the fact that by her, bodily, Jesus was born as a Babe in the manger. Is this correct?

Hello, David, let me fail miserably with you, too:

Mary is the Mother of God because Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother. She is the Mother of the Incarnation. How can anyone accuse Catholics of thinking Mary is the Mother of the Trinity, who had not a beginning? Joseph, the husband of Mary, understood the special relationship she had with God, but it tood a visit from an angel in a dream to convince him. It’s in Mt 1:19-25

David, please read John 2:2-11 for the first instance of Mary’s meditation, i.e., for the married couple who had run out of wine and for the disciples to believe in him. This passage contains her constant instruction to us, too, Lk 2:5, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Just as I can ask you to pray for me, you probably would, I would do the same for you, if you asked. Mary and the saints will, too. Just as we do not diminish the role of Jesus as mediator between man and God, we can still act as intercessors

 

[Protestant101]

Hello, David, let me fail miserably with you, too:

Mary is the Mother of God because Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother. She is the Mother of the Incarnation. How can anyone accuse Catholics of thinking Mary is the Mother of the Trinity, who had not a beginning? Joseph, the husband of Mary, understood the special relationship she had with God, but it tood a visit from an angel in a dream to convince him. It’s in Mt 1:19-25

David, please read John 2:2-11 for the first instance of Mary’s meditation, i.e., for the married couple who had run out of wine and for the disciples to believe in him. This passage contains her constant instruction to us, too, Lk 2:5, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Just as I can ask you to pray for me, you probably would, I would do the same for you, if you asked. Mary and the saints will, too. Just as we do not diminish the role of Jesus as mediator between man and God, we can still act as intercessors

Thanks for this explanation. I have not intended to accuse Catholics here; only to summarize what I thought I was reading in this topic. I was glad to see you recognize Mary’s instruction to “do whatever He tells you.” This is a very important step in the right direction for both Catholic & Protestant.

 

[blossom02]

Thanks for this explanation. I have not intended to accuse Catholics here; only to summarize what I thought I was reading in this topic. I was glad to see you recognize Mary’s instruction to “do whatever He tells you.” This is a very important step in the right direction for both Catholic & Protestant.

(“do whatever He tells you.”)This has always been the catholic way of thought. This is the reason we respect the BVM, and wish to model ourselves after her.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer;2896628

What I had in mind were theological howlers such as:​

• calling her a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit (St. Maximilian Kolbe)
• saying that her body is present in the Blessed Sacrament (a Professor Oswald in 1842)
• calling her co-head of the Church (Carlos del Moral, O.F.M, cited by Father P.D. Fehlner )
• claiming that she has done more for God than God has done for her (St. Bernardino of Siena)

Goth Catholic:

I couldn’t find sources, save protestant anti-Mary propaganda please point me the direction of these claims.

Here you are:​

• 1. Kolbe - consecration.com/ministergeneral.html
     “This indwelling of the Holy Spirit is so intimate and beyond human understanding, that Fr. Maximilian dares to speak of a “a quasi-incarnation”, specifying immediately: “in Jesus there are two natures (divine and human) and one person (the Divine Person of the Son), while in our case we have two natures and two persons, the Holy Spirit and the Immaculate; however the union of the divine and the human surpasses all understanding” (ibid,n.1310). Here we have a page of an exceptionally deep theology which merits to be further studied.”
• 1. Oswald - newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section5.html
     I am not denying the right of sacred Congregations, at their will, to act peremptorily, and without assigning reasons for the judgment they pass upon writers; but, when they have found it inexpedient to take this severe course, perhaps it may happen from the circumstances of the case, that there is no other that they can take, even if they would. It is wiser then for the most part to leave these excesses to the gradual operation of public opinion, that is, to the opinion of educated and sober Catholics; and this seems to me the healthiest way of putting them down. Yet in matter of fact I believe the Holy See has interfered from time to time, when devotion seemed running into superstition; and not so long ago. I recollect hearing in Gregory the XVI.'s time, of books about the Blessed Virgin, which had been suppressed by authority; and in particular of a pictorial representation of the Immaculate Conception which he had forbidden; and of measures taken against the shocking notion that the Blessed Mary is present in the Holy Eucharist, in the sense in which our Lord is present; but I have no means of verifying the information I then received [Note 4].

Nor have I time, any more than you have had, to ascertain how far great theologians have made protests against those various extravagances of which you so rightly complain.

• See also - newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/notes.html
  NOTE V. PAGE 107.
  On a Scandalous Tenet Concerning The Blessed Virgin
• I FIND the following very apposite passage at note t, p. 390, of vol. i. of Mr. Morris’s “Jesus the Son of Mary,” a work full of learning, which unhappily I forgot to consult, till my Letter was finished and in type.
• "An error of this sort [that our Lady is in the Holy Eucharist] was held by some persons, and is condemned in the following language by Benedict XIV. *, as has been pointed out to me by my old and valued friend, Father Faber: ‘This doctrine was held to be erroneous, dangerous, and scandalous, and the cultus was reprobated, which in consequence of it they asserted was to be paid to the most Blessed Virgin in the Sacrament of the Altar.’
  Near the foot of the page:
• “So much for Fr. de Someire’s wild notion. As to Oswald, his work is on the Index. Vide page 5 of “Appendix Librorum Prohibitorum a die 6 Septembris, 1852, ad mensem Junium, 1858.””
  …more…]*

 

[MarcoPolo]

We disagree for I intensely believe that God is eternal and that the Word is God from the beginning and further that the Word became Man, but was not always man. Jesus, however, is always the Word; it’s the reverse of that phrase that is wrong: The Word wasn’t always Jesus.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I interpreted you correctly, and I’m sorry if I didn’t express that well. :whacky:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. Del Moral & Fehlner - christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/fehlner1-1.htm

• If Mary pertains intrinsically to the order of the hypostatic union, it is only logical to suggest with del Moral that she pertains intrinsically, as does no other person, to the order of his headship. The appropriateness of Del Moral’s term “co-headship” (with Christ over the Church) may be argued, for according to some it implies an erroneous coordination of Mary with Christ. But whether this term or some other is employed, his essential point is valid: with Christ and under Christ Mary forms, in virtue of their joint predestination, a single redemptive personality. Hence, like him, she is a public person, viz., one capable of meriting not only for herself, but for others “de condigno.” And if that merit is redemptive, she is Coredemptrix. We want to stress: Mary pertains in this unique way to the redemptive order in such wise as to merit condignly for others, because she pertains as no other to the order of the hypostatic union.
  That position is a whisker away from suggesting that she is our Saviouress. Fr. Fehlner again: christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/fehlner1-2.htm
• If in one way or another questions of ecclesiology come to the fore in theology after the reformation, is it not logical that at the heart of their resolution there be the Virgin’s charity, and that our “transubstantiation” (to borrow St. Maximilian’s term) into the heart of the Immaculate Coredemptrix be the goal of sanctification, a goal wonderfully exemplified by the “Martyr of Charity.”
  She is not as important as that - such a position abolishes Christ except in name. It has nothing to do with Christ. It bears no resemblance at all to the utterly Christ-centred doctrine of St.Paul. If that is not “another gospel” than that of St.Paul, I don’t know what is. This article is far more Christian, & far more balanced theologically: mindyourmaker.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/evangelicals-and-the-virgin-mary/

1. As for St.Bernardino, the passage I have in mind is not on the Net; which is inconvenient, but you will find it in Hilda Graef’s book “Mary”, vol. 1. 315-18. I can copy it for you, if you like.

No Protestant sources of any kind have been quoted.
Catholic Goth:

I did however find one particualrly riviting quote by St. Bernardino “All gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed through Mary’s hands to anyone she pleases, when she pleases, and as she pleases.” Beautiful.

I’m familiar with it.​

Gottle of Geer - earlier post:

These aberrations are needless, verge on blasphemy (if they don’t amount to it), & make the CC look anything but Christian. Sometimes, the Church is her own worst enemy

Catholic Goth:

I beg to disagree. Mary is the Queen of heaven, she has power that is rivaled only by that of the Trinity.

Once again, you make my point - God is not her “rival”: for neither she, not any other creature nor the sum of creatures is anything, in comparison with God.​

The very idea of “rivalry” does not arise, since she cannot even remain in being unless God sustain her - as is true of all created beings. She would be “less than an atom” without the Trinity - as Louis de Montfort says in his “True Devotion”, section 6
Goth Catholic:

She said herself at Fatima that she does indeed save us from the anger of Christ.

That does not mean that this assertion is true. It is anything but true. It is not Christian. You’ve illustrated my point for me - because that idea makes a mere creature more merciful than Christ. This glorifies Mary, & teaches people to look to her rather than than to her Lord & Redeemer & God. I cannot & will not believe she could be more merciful than Christ. It is not the teaching of the Church. Mary is not & cannot be the Saviour of anyone or anything - how can she, when she herself acknowledged God as her Saviour ?​

Fortunately, there is no reason why every word of an apparition has to be treated as true - in such matters, ample allowance is made for mistakes on the part of the recipient of such things. This is not something one hears much about, but it is true nevertheless. In this case, one should also make allowances for the inadequate religious instruction of the children.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

That does not mean that this assertion is true. It is anything but true. It is not Christian. You’ve illustrated my point for me - because that idea makes a mere creature more merciful than Christ. This glorifies Mary, & teaches people to look to her rather than than to her Lord & Redeemer & God. I cannot & will not believe she could be more merciful than Christ. It is not the teaching of the Church. Mary is not & cannot be the Saviour of anyone or anything - how can she, when she herself acknowledged God as her Saviour ?​

Fortunately, there is no reason why every word of an apparition has to be treated as true - in such matters, ample allowance is made for mistakes on the part of the recipient of such things. This is not something one hears much about, but it is true nevertheless. In this case, one should also make allowances for the inadequate religious instruction of the children.

How can it not be Christian? Our God is merciful but also firm and just. Those who mock his church, deny his mother, and refuse his body and blood are condemned to the depts of hell. Since there is quite a lot of that going on right now, it does not surpise me that Christ would be angry with the world. He is afterall, man and God, therefore capable of human emotions. God even gets angry with sin, he destoryed the world in the time of Noah. In fact, if I remember correctly, he only promised not to destory the world with WATER again.

Mary herself admits that Christ is angry with us, not once, but several times throughout the visions of Fatima. There is not reason NOT to belive that Christ is angry with us, and because Mary is our mother of mercy, she stays his arm. God is our judge, therefore he can be both mercifull and vengenfull, Mary on the other hand, can not be angry with us because it is not her job to judge us, only to help us. Her requests cannot be denied. So I imagine she is probably telling Jesus not to send the world into the sun because of our sins. She’s not keeping Jesus from doing anything, only requesting of him, as she did at the wedding of cana. In the end even our Lady will be present at armagendon.

 

[MattG]

Thanks for this explanation. I have not intended to accuse Catholics here; only to summarize what I thought I was reading in this topic. I was glad to see you recognize Mary’s instruction to “do whatever He tells you.” This is a very important step in the right direction for both Catholic & Protestant.

Amen, David. Forgive my typos. ‘tood’ = took and earlier, ‘from from’ = form from and any others unedited, a function available only for a short time, evidently. Since my posts have not often, if ever, responded to the Topic directed to Protestants this should be my last here, if I can resist giving my Catholic thought to misconceptions of what Catholics really believe.
God bless you and the others in this Thread.