There is Still Something about Mary

[mercygate]

lol. No, I haven’t had a chance to hit the library yet to read it. I’m sure I’ll have an opportunity to check it out very soon though.

And on that thought, would calling Mary the mother of Jesus have required an entire ecumenical council? Probably not.

Actually, the nature of Jesus, as expressed in the term “Mother of Jesus,” is what prompted that council. The Nestorians were dividing the two natures of Christ in a way that created two persons. So “Mother of God” is not about Mary. It is about Jesus.

Go read Sproul’s essay. It is terrific!

 

[mercygate]

Here’s something that I think needs to be said, despite the fact that there are people who may flat out reject it. But this is importamt:
**Saying that Mary is the Mother of God is not **about Mary; it is about Jesus Christ & Who He really was.
I think this is the problem. It seems to be, people sometimes do not understand this. Mary was not declared to be the Mother of God in order to give her any new title, nor was it to put the emphasis on her at all.
At the time, & continuing today, there is a tendency to downplay and/or distort the nature of Christ. Some say “just a good man”, some say “a prophet”, some say “a son of God, but not God”, some say “another God”. etc.
OK, all these ideas are floating around, & the ECFs see that people spiritual state & eternal destiny can well depend on understanding that Jesus Christ was God made flesh; He is the 3rd Person of the Trinity…
But how do you say that? It’s not like nobody has tried to explain, but the same old heresies keep popping up…Finally, after much prayer, study, & consulation, the realization is made, that everything hinges on “What Child is This, Who laid to rest, in Mary’s arms is sleeping?” Who **is **Mary’s Son? Who was her Son at His conception (& before), during the time He was growing in her womb, & Who was He when he was born in the stable of Bethlehem?
This is where the rubber hits the road! This is where all the false doctrines about Christ’s nature are exposed–because if Mary’s Child is anything less than God Himself, from the start to the finish of His earthly life…Well, frankly, we might as well go back to sacrificing black puppies to Hecate at a crossroads in the middle of the night, because if He is not God, He is either a liar or a madman… See, those are out choices.! No other s available.
So, the pronouncement is made, “Mary is the mother of God Himself”.
Now, I know a lot of people seem allergic to this language. But the words are important. Because there simply is no other way to state the truth about Jesus Christ than to say this. Anything else leaves us open to yet another round of heretical imaginings.
It really is just as simple as that!!

Thank you, Zooey: our Resident Methodist. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

**Now, I could have easily avoided any possible backlash from my post by typing out what I meant by OMFG. **

“So, why didn’t he just type** “Offering myself for guidance**” in the first place?”

**Good question,… and it’s ***precisely *****the nature of my “Why can’t Catholics just say, “Mary was the mother of Jesus?”” question. The truth is that Catholics could easily say Mary was the mother of Jesus, confuse nobody and still maintain the belief that Jesus is God the Son.

**My point is that, in a world where religious conflict abounds, the solution isn’t to build more walls – it’s to tear down existing walls that don’t need to be there in the first place. If you assumed that OMFG meant something that I never intended it to mean, then you may start to understand how non-Catholics feel when you CHOOSE to say *“mother of God” *instead of “mother of Jesus.”

You have to understand that, to an outsider’s perspective, it seems that Catholics intentionally choose the more confusing statement and, in so doing, further separate themselves from the pack of people that are just as desperate to know the truth about God (if not more so) as you are. Some Catholics are knowledgeable to the point of arrogance and will spew off all kinds of esoteric sources to back their beliefs up. This tactic only fuels the hatred that so many have for Catholics and it serves to do nothing but separate us further.

If the Catholic Church is a teaching church as I’ve often heard, then the goal of the church can NOT* just* be to teach – it must also be to avoid unnecessarily misleading or overbroad statements. One poster told me to go duke it out with the Protestants. In other words, just give up on a soul. What I’m trying to say doesn’t require councils or anything more complicated than common sense.

If one has to travel all the way to Asia Minor to the year 451 A.D. to gain an understanding of why it’s cool to call Mary the mother of God, then there’s a problem. On that note, a few have recommended some text to read, so I’ll hit the library sometime tomorrow morning and have a look-see. Maybe that author can explain why saying Mary is the Mother of Jesus is so wrong.

And people wonder why so many people raise a stink over Mariolatry. This is only the tip of a very large iceberg.

Now, I know that the urge to RIP apart my analogies is burning within several of you, but before you go dissecting as usual, try to see the big picture in all of this. Not every soul on earth knows every council that has ever convened to discuss these matters.

Christian, my earnest brother. What are you doing with this? If you have time to write these lengthy posts, you have time to read R.C. Sproul’s article on the title “Mother of God.”

Then you can go argue with a Baptist who understands this doctrine, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Congregationalist.

 

[rr1213]

Here’s something that I think needs to be said, despite the fact that there are people who may flat out reject it. But this is importamt:
**Saying that Mary is the Mother of God is not **about Mary; it is about Jesus Christ & Who He really was.
I think this is the problem. It seems to be, people sometimes do not understand this. Mary was not declared to be the Mother of God in order to give her any new title, nor was it to put the emphasis on her at all.
At the time, & continuing today, there is a tendency to downplay and/or distort the nature of Christ. Some say “just a good man”, some say “a prophet”, some say “a son of God, but not God”, some say “another God”. etc.
OK, all these ideas are floating around, & the ECFs see that people spiritual state & eternal destiny can well depend on understanding that Jesus Christ was God made flesh; He is the 3rd Person of the Trinity…
But how do you say that? It’s not like nobody has tried to explain, but the same old heresies keep popping up…Finally, after much prayer, study, & consulation, the realization is made, that everything hinges on “What Child is This, Who laid to rest, in Mary’s arms is sleeping?” Who **is **Mary’s Son? Who was her Son at His conception (& before), during the time He was growing in her womb, & Who was He when he was born in the stable of Bethlehem?
This is where the rubber hits the road! This is where all the false doctrines about Christ’s nature are exposed–because if Mary’s Child is anything less than God Himself, from the start to the finish of His earthly life…Well, frankly, we might as well go back to sacrificing black puppies to Hecate at a crossroads in the middle of the night, because if He is not God, He is either a liar or a madman… See, those are out choices.! No other s available.
So, the pronouncement is made, “Mary is the mother of God Himself”.
Now, I know a lot of people seem allergic to this language. But the words are important. Because there simply is no other way to state the truth about Jesus Christ than to say this. Anything else leaves us open to yet another round of heretical imaginings.
It really is just as simple as that!!

This is a very good point to remember. Well said.

 

[RyanL]

Actually, the nature of Jesus, as expressed in the term “Mother of Jesus,” is what prompted that council…

Specifically, it was whether the title “Christotokos” (Christ-bearer) was more appropriate for Mary or “Theotokos” (God-bearer).

Please do read the essay.

I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary “Mother of God” we should call her “Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two”…but don’t you think “Mother of God” is easier? Which way is really less confusing?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JoeyWarren]

I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary “Mother of God” we should call her “Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two”…but don’t you think “Mother of God” is easier? Which way is really less confusing?

God Bless,
RyanL

:bowdown2: That was simply mahvalous!

Do you mind if I save that off and use it elsewhere?

 

[JoeyWarren]

How about this for better effect?

I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary:

** “Mother of God” **

we should call her

** “Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two”**

…but don’t you think “Mother of God” is easier? Which way is really less confusing?

 

[RyanL]

How about this for better effect?

Much better!

Please share as you please, as at my best I am merely a parrot of the constant teachings of the Church.

God Bless,
RyanL