The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[PLeeD]

No. You’re reading something that isn’t there. It would be offensive to refuse to ever do it.

Mary is the Mother of God.

Can you say that, or are you a Nestorian?

Do I have to say that? I mean, it seems odd to say she is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus, who existed before her along with God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m missing some nuance.

I guess I fall in with the Chalcedonians? Jesus is both divine and human at once.

Jesus is one with God, so in that sense Mary could be said to be Mother of God. It still seems odd to think of the relationship that way. I’d probably reject some doctrine that said I have to think that way, or especially if I had to say it in order to be saved.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, budgie2,

What a vivid imagination! Tell me, did the Holy Family reunite just in time for the Luke 2:39 account when His Mother and Step-Father find Jesus in the Temple at about age 12? Did they ‘split up’ again…? Inquiring minds want to know!!

Really, where did you get that story about the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph splitting-up? Jesus having a ‘hard childhood’ - you really need a reference here… unless these references are ‘shrouded in mystery’

God bless

As far as I know Mary and Joseph split up when Jesus was about 5 or 6. They did not have a sexual relationship and Mary is ever-virgin. It was Mary’s own choice to be ever virgin and not by God’s command. In some ways Jesus had a hard childhood and was from a lone parent family, but it’s shrouded in mystery. (divine revelation)

 

[inkaneer]

I wouldn’t have thought so, but it seems to rub some people the wrong way to simply say “Mary”.

I’ve referred to apostles using “saint” occasionally, but only in a casual way. We typically refer to “Paul” as “Paul”, “Peter” as “Peter”, and “Blessed Mary” as “Mary”. The only bible figure that comes to mind as not generally being referred to solely by their first name is John the Baptist, and that’s only to differentiate him from John the Apostle Once it’s been established which John is the subject of discussion, he is subsequently only referred to by his first name. I assure you that no disrespect is intended in any case.

Inferring that a protestant intends disrespect by leaving out the word “saint” or “blessed” is unreasonable.

Probably the reason for that is protestantism has a different concept of “church” than Catholics and I wouldgather a different concept of the term “Communion of Saints” Although I must be candid here; I have never heard what the protestant definition of "Communion of Saints " really is. I have heard some denominations deny any such thing. Asfor Catholics the term “church” and communion of saints is practically the same. To Catholics the church is comprised of three parts; the church glorious- the saints in heaven, the church militant-those souls alive on earth and the church suffering- those souls in prurgatory. We are united or in common union with, those in heaven and Purgatory by faith. Protestantism has a far different picture. Church consists of the here and now. Once you die you go to heaven and of course they deny Purgatory. This explains why protestants will pray to their fellow pew sitter to intercede for them but not to any of the heavenly saints and why Catholics will not only invoke the heavenly saints for intercession but will also intercede for those in Purgatory. To me the protestant concept seems sort of dumb because basically what it says is that you spend your entire life devoted to your denomination [church as they would call it] and when you die they kick you out.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PLeeD,

I am not sure I follow the problem you are laying out here…

If you believe that Jesus Christ - True God and True Man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, has both a human and divine nature miraculously combined in One Person. AND that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ… THEN… Mary is the Mother of God.

God existed from all eternity - but the human nature of Christ took form in Mary’s womb at a certain point in time - and nine months later, Jesus Christ was born!

One of the major problems with the heresies of Dualism and Gnosticism is that they saw matter as evil and spirit as good. These heresies believed that Christ really did not have Body (matter = evil) so Christ was able to create the illusion of a Body while in reality remaining a spirit. Christ never died for our sins, and everything that was recorded was really a big act. By declaring that Mary is the Mother of God, the Catholic Church condemned these heresies for what they were - a total distortion of the Incarnation and the redemptive action of Christ’s death on the cross.

Hope this helps.

God bless

Do I have to say that? I mean, it seems odd to say she is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus, who existed before her along with God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m missing some nuance.

I guess I fall in with the Chalcedonians? Jesus is both divine and human at once.

Jesus is one with God, so in that sense Mary could be said to be Mother of God. It still seems odd to think of the relationship that way. I’d probably reject some doctrine that said I have to think that way, or especially if I had to say it in order to be saved.

 

[1holycatholic]

Do I have to say that? I mean, it seems odd to say she is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus, who existed before her along with God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m missing some nuance.

I guess I fall in with the Chalcedonians? Jesus is both divine and human at once.

Jesus is one with God, so in that sense Mary could be said to be Mother of God. It still seems odd to think of the relationship that way. I’d probably reject some doctrine that said I have to think that way, or especially if I had to say it in order to be saved.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.
Session V
…]

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon.

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God and the command of our most religious and Christian Emperors, Marcian and Valentinian, Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the Bithynian Province, in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has decreed as follows:

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the Faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his neighbour concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said, My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. But, since the evil one does not desist from sowing tares among the seeds of godliness, but ever invents some new device against the truth; therefore the Lord, providing, as he ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and zealous Sovereign, and has called together unto him from all parts the chief rulers of the priesthood; so that, the grace of Christ our common Lord inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and feed them with the tender leaves of truth. And this have we done with one unanimous consent, driving away erroneous doctrines and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all men the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and to their number adding, as their peers, the Fathers who have received the same summary of religion. Such are the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who afterwards assembled in the great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith, which was observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders, we do declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the Three Hundred and Eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at Nice in the reign of Constantine of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent: and that those things shall be of force also, which were decreed by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople, for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up, and for the confirmation of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith of ours.

The Creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nice.

We believe in one God, etc.

Item, the Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were assembled at Constantinople.

We believe in one God, etc.

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the Incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering; therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty.
…]
After the reading of the definition, all the most religious Bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers: let the metropolitans immediately subscribe it: let them immediately, in the presence of the judges, subscribe it: let that which has been well defined have no delay: this is the faith of the Apostles: by this we all stand: thus we all believe.​

:coffeeread:

 

[Chris258]

Do I have to say that? I mean, it seems odd to say she is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus, who existed before her along with God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m missing some nuance.

I guess I fall in with the Chalcedonians? Jesus is both divine and human at once.

I certainly hope you align with the Chalcedonians. To disregard the hypostatic union is to have a severely impoverished, and ultimately heretical, definition of the Incarnation.

However, as you can reason from the post above, your agreement with the Chalcedonians and simultaneous reluctance concerning the title of Mother of God is quite ironic, as the refusal of the Nestorians to accept the orthodoxy of the title is what sparked the debate that led to the Council of Chalcedon. That Mary is indeed the Mother of God is an inevitable conclusion from accepting the hypostatic union. It is not only that Jesus has a full, undiminished divinity and full, undiminished humanity but exactly in what way they are united.

The hypostatic union is an affirmation that in the Incarnation – not that the Divinity and humanity come together as two separate realities, uniting as body and soul – but that God exists as a man. That is, the almighty and infinite God truly experiences birth, growth, happiness, grief, suffering, and death as a man; likewise, the almighty and infinite God cures the sick, teaches us Truth, raises the dead, and is rises from the grave as a man. While at times we may speak of Christ doing things “as God” or “as man”, we must remember that the person of the God-man Jesus Christ is utterly indivisible.

Jesus is one with God, so in that sense Mary could be said to be Mother of God. It still seems odd to think of the relationship that way. I’d probably reject some doctrine that said I have to think that way, or especially if I had to say it in order to be saved.

I understand your reluctance to accept that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God. But you see that, if what I’ve written above is true, it is irrefutable that Mary is truly the Mother of God. To reject this doctrine is ultimately to reject the orthodox teaching of the Incarnation – that, as man, God himself receives all the human experience of the Incarnation, including birth and growing under the care of the woman he chose before the foundation of the world to be his mother.

I hope you can come to see that it is not out of some pagan sentimentality that the Church upheld Mary as Theotokos but out of an uncompromising and biblical view of the Incarnation.

 

[inkaneer]

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

I think if a question is to be asked then question should be directed to protestants rather than Catholics. I say that because if scripture says that future generations will call her “Blessed” and protestants in their sola scripturial zeal (or lack thereof) are not doing it then we have a right to ask why not.

 

[placido]

As far as I know Mary and Joseph split up when Jesus was about 5 or 6. They did not have a sexual relationship and Mary is ever-virgin. It was Mary’s own choice to be ever virgin and not by God’s command. In some ways Jesus had a hard childhood and was from a lone parent family, but it’s shrouded in mystery. (divine revelation)

Really? They “split up” when Jesus was about 5 or 6 … but re-united to go together to the temple when He was 12?

placido

 

[placido]

Do I have to say that? I mean, it seems odd to say she is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus, who existed before her along with God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m missing some nuance.

Your are missing nothing. Mary is the Mother of Jesus like you correctly stated. Jesus is God like you correctly stated.
In short,

1. Mary = Mother of Jesus
2. Jesus = God
   Therefore: Mother of Jesus = Mother of God.

placido

 

[FNDRB58]

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

Nobody should be offended by you calling her by her beautiful name. You are fine calling her Mary my friend.

No, Catholics don’t believe that you have to call her “blessed” every time you say her name…of course not. We don’t believe the verse saying all generations call me blessed literally means we have to use that adjective before her given name every time. But to never use the term is also not the way to go. We may call her Mary…sometimes, Blessed Mother other times, the Virgin Mary other times, and the Queen of Heaven and Earth as well, etc. The point is is that she is indeed blessED and the term was used in the same sentence as the Fruit of her womb being blessED. So we Catholics like to stress how special she is by describing her in this way…If we do as you say then I’ll just call him Barack when I see him or Elizabeth the next time I go to the UK.

 

[FNDRB58]

Pleed,

To help get your mind around the title Mother of God, I think you will find this helpful:

We all agree that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is therefore God the Son. He is not God the Father nor is He God the Holy Spirit. But he is God the Son and therefore…God. One could clarify to a Protestant that what we are saying is that Mary is not the mother of God the Father nor is she the Mother of God the Holy Spirit. She is the mother of God the Son…who is of course still…God.

 

[placido]

Pleed,

To help get your mind around the title Mother of God, I think you will find this helpful:

We all agree that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is therefore God the Son. He is not God the Father nor is He God the Holy Spirit. But he is God the Son and therefore…God. One could clarify to a Protestant that what we are saying is that Mary is not the mother of God the Father nor is she the Mother of God the Holy Spirit. She is the mother of God the Son…who is of course still…God.

Even if Pleed doesn’t (want to) believe that Mary is Mother of God, he/she should at least recognize as valid the Catholic reasoning behind the title: ** Jesus is God and His mother is Mary. **

placido

 

[FNDRB58]

Even if Pleed doesn’t (want to) believe that Mary is Mother of God, he/she should at least recognize as valid the Catholic reasoning behind the title: ** Jesus is God and His mother is Mary. **

placido

That is my hope. Mary is the mother of both Jesus’ human nature and His Divine nature. If Protestants accept that, and I believe most do, then there is no denying that the title Mother of God is indeed accurate. Remember…she is the mother of God the Son, not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

Also we must remember that three persons in one God means that each person of God is not a part of God but each person is wholy God. The Holy Spirit is wholy God and Jesus is wholy God…therefore Mary is the mother of God the Son who is wholy God. Pretty mysterious and awesome, huh?

 

[inkaneer]

That is my hope. Mary is the mother of both Jesus’ human nature and His Divine nature. If Protestants accept that, and I believe most do, then there is no denying that the title Mother of God is indeed accurate. Remember…she is the mother of God the Son, not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

Also we must remember that three persons in one God means that each person of God is not a part of God but each person is wholy God. The Holy Spirit is wholy God and Jesus is wholy God…therefore Mary is the mother of God the Son who is wholy God. Pretty mysterious and awesome, huh?

No, protestants don’t accept that and that is not the Catholic understanding either. Protestants understand Mary as the mother of Jesus human nature and not His divine nature. Catholics understand Mary not as the mother of a nature but the mother of a person. A person who just so happens to have two natures. The hypostatic union is a mysteryof faith which we humans are not capable of fully understanding. The best way to do it, I think, is to liken it to human conception. A human baby is the product of DNA from both mother and father. The mother only contributes half of the baby’s DNA but she is considered to be the mother of the whole baby and not just the mother of her part of the DNA. Likewise with the Blessed Virgin, she contributed all of the human nature which was joined to the Divine nature which always existed to form a baby that was both God and man. She is, therefore, the mother of the whole person and that person is God. The early Church made this statement of Theotokos because ofthe heresy of dualism where Jesus was being split into two persons one human and one divine. The Dualist even went so far as to say the human Jesus committed sin. Today we see the protestant world repeating what the dualist did 1700=1800 years ago; trying to split Jesus into two. Like the Nestorians they want to say she is the mother of Jesus, The Nestorians used the word Christotokos to say the same thing. That may seem like much to do about nothing but it has far reaching implications especially when it comes to the cross. Because if only the human natureof Jesus died then we are not saved. Salvation comes only if the human person of Jesus dies on the cross. So it is not much to do about nothing; it is much to do about everything.

 

[PLeeD]

Even if Pleed doesn’t (want to) believe that Mary is Mother of God, he/she should at least recognize as valid the Catholic reasoning behind the title: ** Jesus is God and His mother is Mary. **

Yes, I agree with that construction. I said as much in an earlier post.

It still seems intellectually awkward to say Mother of God, but I’d never say someone was wrong for using that term. If I was going to add qualifiers to her name, I’d say something more along the lines of Mother of Christ. I think that’s a little more accurate, and less confusing to a non-Catholic.

Also we must remember that three persons in one God means that each person of God is not a part of God but each person is wholy God. The Holy Spirit is wholy God and Jesus is wholy God…therefore Mary is the mother of God the Son who is wholy God. Pretty mysterious and awesome, huh?

Agreed!

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, I agree with that construction. I said as much in an earlier post.

It still seems intellectually awkward to say Mother of God, but I’d never say someone was wrong for using that term. If I was going to add qualifiers to her name, I’d say something more along the lines of Mother of Christ. I think that’s a little more accurate, and less confusing to a non-Catholic.

Agreed!

Then you line up with the Nestorian heretics. Read my post above to understand why the early Church insisted on using the word Theotokos and not Christotokos.

 

[PLeeD]

No, protestants don’t accept that and that is not the Catholic understanding either.

Wow! Thanks for telling me what I accept and what I don’t

Protestants understand Mary as the mother of Jesus human nature and not His divine nature.

I would have to say that’s where I stand. His humanity came from Mary, while his divinity was pre-existing. In some mysterious way, the two independent natures were fused into one being, to which Mary was blessed to give birth. In that sense I think I fully agree with what’s called the Chalcedonian position. AFAIK, my church does too.

If the Catholic position is that Mary “contributed” something divine, how could Mary to contribute to the already absolutely divine nature of Jesus? Why would it be necessary to contribute to that which already existed?

Catholics understand Mary not as the mother of a nature but the mother of a person… liken it to human conception. A human baby is the product of DNA from both mother and father. The mother only contributes half of the baby’s DNA but she is considered to be the mother of the whole baby…

To follow your DNA line of thinking, if Jesus was already existing prior to Mary giving birth, and was already divine, then why was the immaculate conception necessary? Why did Mary need any extra supernatural elements about her life?

I find it sufficient to assume that God could make it happen without any need for extra-human nature in Mary. Call it Occam’s razor, the simpler answer seems more likely to me.

Today we see the protestant world repeating what the dualist did 1700=1800 years ago; trying to split Jesus into two.

I completely disagree. I’ve never heard any other sort of teaching in any Protestant church that considers the nature of Christ to be different than what I understand that Catholics believe. There may be some who teach that, but I’ve never seen or heard it. So IMO you are painting with an overly broad brush, and seem to be doing it with intent to impugn the faith of all non-Catholic Christians.

The difference is in the understanding of the supernatural aspects of Blessed Mary that Catholics believe. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to hold the Chalcedonian position on the nature of Christ, but not assent to immaculate conception, assumption, etc. of Mary.

And by “not assent”, I don’t mean deny. I only mean that I’ve seen no evidence of it in scripture. While I don’t reject it as false, I only say that I don’t know enough to say whether it’s true or false. I understand that I could never join the Catholic Church without assenting to Marianism, but I don’t believe that receiving salvation hinges on that assent.

But regarding these Marian beliefs, what are the earliest references to them? Are they first century? Can anyone provide enlightening links?

 

[PLeeD]

Then you line up with the Nestorian heretics. Read my post above to understand why the early Church insisted on using the word Theotokos and not Christotokos.

Well then, I must not understand the nuances. The person of Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Both natures were fully united in human form.

How is that different from what you believe?

And, please try to explain your ideas rather than using labels.

 

[1holycatholic]

In that sense I think I fully agree with what’s called the Chalcedonian position. AFAIK, my church does too.
…]
I completely disagree. I’ve never heard any other sort of teaching in any Protestant church that considers the nature of Christ to be different than what I understand that Catholics believe.
…

Protestant communities are not properly called churches. Jesus only established one Church - the Catholic Church.

 

[PLeeD]

Protestant communities are not properly called churches. Jesus only established one Church - the Catholic Church.

So’s your old man.

Guess I should just leave the forum at this point? I find that post really offensive and hurtful. What does it add to the discussion?

Seriously, there should be an “ignore” function on this board. Then these useless posts wouldn’t get in the way.