There is Still Something about Mary

[Zooey]

I wonder about her embarrassment at her children who don’t have the manners to be nice to their Mother or even acknowledge her existence.

Ah, yes…This is a large part of what made me realize how mistaken those are, who attempt to characterize those of us who are particularly devoted to Mary the Mother of God,as “idolaters”, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

[havemercy]

I really need to learn all of these latin terms. I feel so smart when I use one or two of them. Imagine knowing 20! OH MY!

 

[ChristianWAB]

Citing CARM. For shame. :tsktsk:

Well, I suppose that citing CARM is no better or worse than the tenth poster’s citation of the first book of Augustines *“On Christian doctrine” *since neither of them are the Holy Bible.

 

[mlchance]

Well, I suppose that citing CARM is no better or worse than the tenth poster’s citation of the first book of Augustines *“On Christian doctrine” *since neither of them are the Holy Bible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ChristianWAB]

So, we’ve cleared one hurdle. Mary is indeed the Mother of God.

Since you brought that up (though I have no idea, based on what you’d written beforehand, how you came to conclude that you “cleared” this particular hurdle), I wanted to say that pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but many arguments arise when you start saying that Mary is the mother of God.

For that reason alone, I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If nothing else, it’d give them one less thing to have to debate with the rest of the planet.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the “Mother of God” title… well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn’t it?

Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid), steam (the gas) or ice (the solid).

Steam and Ice are still water, but we don’t CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you’re referring to when you’re speaking of that good ol’ H2O.

Steam rooms aren’t called water rooms and ice cream isn’t called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true if a steamboat was really a waterboat.

If I want my drink with ice, I’ll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I’ll confuse fewer people if I say I’m going ice skating instead of water skating and I’ll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

 

[Truthstalker]

Since you brought that up (though I have no idea, based on what you’d written beforehand, how you came to conclude that you “cleared” this particular hurdle), I wanted to say that pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but many arguments arise when you start saying that Mary is the mother of God.

For that reason alone, I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If nothing else, it’d give them one less thing to have to debate with the rest of the planet.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the “Mother of God” title… well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn’t it?

Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid), steam (the gas) or ice (the solid).

Steam and Ice are still water, but we don’t CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you’re referring to when you’re speaking of that good ol’ H2O.

Steam rooms aren’t called water rooms and ice cream isn’t called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true if a steamboat was really a waterboat.

If I want my drink with ice, I’ll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I’ll confuse fewer people if I say I’m going ice skating instead of water skating and I’ll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God the Son. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. This doesn’t mean that Mary existed before God did. If you say Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God, you have a faulty Christology. This was settled over a thousand five hundred years ago, I think.

 

[jmcrae]

Since you brought that up (though I have no idea, based on what you’d written beforehand, how you came to conclude that you “cleared” this particular hurdle), I wanted to say that pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but many arguments arise when you start saying that Mary is the mother of God.

Either Jesus is God, or He is not. Either Mary is the Mother of God, or Jesus is not God.

For that reason alone, I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If nothing else, it’d give them one less thing to have to debate with the rest of the planet.

Anyone with an orthodox understanding of Christianity who gives it a little thought realizes that we’re right.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the “Mother of God” title… well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn’t it?

It still remains true that Mary gave birth to Him.

No mother “creates” her child, so it is of little importance how long the child existed before she gave birth. God creates all children. Mothers give birth to them. Mary gave birth to God - it was via her womb that He acquired a human nature and came physically into the world.

Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid), steam (the gas) or ice (the solid).

Steam and Ice are still water, but we don’t CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you’re referring to when you’re speaking of that good ol’ H2O.

Steam rooms aren’t called water rooms and ice cream isn’t called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true if a steamboat was really a waterboat.

If I want my drink with ice, I’ll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I’ll confuse fewer people if I say I’m going ice skating instead of water skating and I’ll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

This is the heresy of Modalism, which was supposed to have died out in the 4th century. (Apparently not, though.)

God is three persons who share one divine nature and one divine will. Jesus is the second divine person: he alone also has a human nature in addition to his divine nature - he acquired his human nature at the time of the Incarnation.

But whatever happens to one of the persons of God happens to all of them, because they share a single will and a single nature - all three of them experienced everything that Jesus experienced, including birth and death.

 

[mercygate]

Since you brought that up (though I have no idea, based on what you’d written beforehand, how you came to conclude that you “cleared” this particular hurdle), I wanted to say that pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but many arguments arise when you start saying that Mary is the mother of God.

For that reason alone, I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If nothing else, it’d give them one less thing to have to debate with the rest of the planet.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the “Mother of God” title… well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn’t it?

Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid), steam (the gas) or ice (the solid).

Steam and Ice are still water, but we don’t CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you’re referring to when you’re speaking of that good ol’ H2O.

Steam rooms aren’t called water rooms and ice cream isn’t called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true if a steamboat was really a waterboat.

If I want my drink with ice, I’ll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I’ll confuse fewer people if I say I’m going ice skating instead of water skating and I’ll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

Take up the “Mother of God” issue with a good Protestant, like R. C. Sproul or even Hank Hannegraaf. This is not an issue which divides Protestants and Catholics. Even Baptists (at least the one’s who know what they’re doing) agree that Mary is “the Mother of God.”

As for your modalist view of the Trinity: :bigyikes: That’s another one you could straighten out without acting like Catholics have some kind of lock on the Doctrine.

 

[havemercy]

Maybe someone can present a more solid argument (if one is at all necessary). I think I’ll look at St. Thomas’ Summa later tonight.

Let’s take it slowly now.

**P1: **Christ is fully God and fully man

**P2: **Christ’s divine and human natures are in hypostatic union and therefore inseparable from all eternity.

**P3: **Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus.

If Christ’s divine nature and human nature are inseparable then it would be logically impossible to deny that,
**P4: ** Mary conceived of and gave birth to Jesus’ entire person, viz. natures human and divine (as Christ’s dual-nature is one in His person).

Therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Eternal Word and Son of Man (divine nature as well as His human nature). However, this does not mean that she created His divine nature. Furthermore, you must deny the reality of hypostatic union if you wish to reject Mary as the Mother of God.

 

[jimmy]

Well, I suppose that citing CARM is no better or worse than the tenth poster’s citation of the first book of Augustines *“On Christian doctrine” *since neither of them are the Holy Bible.

Augustins On Christian Doctrine is one of the most important documents on the interpretation of scripture in the history of the Church. It has more effect than most other documents. Therefore, it is not the same thing as citing CARM.

 

[jimmy]

Since you brought that up (though I have no idea, based on what you’d written beforehand, how you came to conclude that you “cleared” this particular hurdle), I wanted to say that pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but many arguments arise when you start saying that Mary is the mother of God.

As soon as you justify this statement you justify nestorianism. It was condemned at Chalcedon. It makes Christ two persons, this is a heresy regarding a central aspect of the faith.

For that reason alone, I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If nothing else, it’d give them one less thing to have to debate with the rest of the planet.

No, it is outright heresy to say Mary is not the mother of God, therefore we will oppose it.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the “Mother of God” title… well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn’t it?

Really that is irrelevant. God pre-existed humanity too so you could bring up problems with calling God Father since He prexists the term and concept of ‘Father’.

Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid),

steam (the gas) or ice (the solid).

Steam and Ice are still water, but we don’t CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you’re referring to when you’re speaking of that good ol’ H2O.

Steam rooms aren’t called water rooms and ice cream isn’t called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true if a steamboat was really a waterboat.

If I want my drink with ice, I’ll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I’ll confuse fewer people if I say I’m going ice skating instead of water skating and I’ll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

This is modalism. This is really saying that there is no distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Another heresy condemned in the first half of the first millenium.

Jesus is one person, therefore it is incorrect to make a distinction between the divinity and humanity of Christ in this issue. You become nestorian. Elizabeth greeted Mary by calling her ‘the mother of my lord’. Her lord is God. Her lord is Jesus Christ, who is God.

 

[ChristianWAB]

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God the Son. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. This doesn’t mean that Mary existed before God did. If you say Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God, you have a faulty Christology. This was settled over a thousand five hundred years ago, I think.

See, there ya go.

A syllogism is used, but notice how you made the distinction in the second part, but not the third (conclusion).

1.) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2.) Jesus is God the Son.
3.) Therefore… Mary is the Mother of God THE SON.

---

But you didn’t say Mary is the Mother of God THE SON, did you? No, you left that last part out. Why? Who knows?

…but what have we traditionally called God THE SON? We call him JESUS. If I were to use this logic, I could easily say that Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

Notice, though, that nobody ever says this.

 

[mercygate]

See, there ya go.

A syllogism is used, but notice how you made the distinction in the second part, but not the third (conclusion).

1.) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2.) Jesus is God the Son.
3.) Therefore… Mary is the Mother of God THE SON.

But you didn’t say Mary is the Mother of God THE SON, did you? No, you left that last part out. Why? Who knows?

…but what have we traditionally called God THE SON? We call him JESUS. If I were to use this logic, I could easily say that Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

Notice, though, that nobody ever says this.

Do me a favor, Christian. Please. Pretty, pretty please? Go to R. C. Sproul’s website “Ligonier Ministries” and click around in there for information on this subject. R. C. is a card-carrying, nigh-onto-anti-Catholic, sola Scriptura/sola fide evangelical Presbyterian PROTESTANT. He gives the best talk on Mary’s title as Mother of God that I have ever heard.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

See, there ya go.

A syllogism is used, but notice how you made the distinction in the second part, but not the third (conclusion).

1.) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2.) Jesus is God the Son.
3.) Therefore… Mary is the Mother of God THE SON.

---

But you didn’t say Mary is the Mother of God THE SON, did you? No, you left that last part out. Why? Who knows?

…but what have we traditionally called God THE SON? We call him JESUS. If I were to use this logic, I could easily say that Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

Notice, though, that nobody ever says this.

You don’t acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God because Jesus is God the Son?

 

[MariaG]

Do me a favor, Christian. Please. Pretty, pretty please? Go to R. C. Sproul’s website “Ligonier Ministries” and click around in there for information on this subject. R. C. is a card-carrying, nigh-onto-anti-Catholic, sola Scriptura/sola fide evangelical Presbyterian PROTESTANT. He gives the best talk on Mary’s title as Mother of God that I have ever heard.

I’ll even get a quote for you.

From Ligonier Ministries: Mary Audio series

These lectures were designed to unravel false teaching about Mary’s role in the New Testament and in the life of the church. R.C. examines the Catholic rosary controversy, showing that while Protestants can affirm that Mary was “the mother of God,” the remainder of the prayer should be rejected as un-Biblical.

R.C. teaches that although we must reject false teaching about Mary, we should not minimize her. He teaches that by studying Mary’s life, Christians can discover an important example of godliness and submission to our magnificent God and Savior.

Clearly this guy does not believe in most of Marian Doctrine of the Catholic Church but affirms that we should call Mary Mother of God as well as cautions against minimizing her.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[StFrancissaveus]

My conscience tells me that Jesus will not be unhappy because humans have given His Mother a high degree of respect and honor. Catholics look to The Blessed Virgin as the model of Christian obedience.

Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it.

I totally agree. Ave Maria, Hail to her most blessed among women!

 

[rr1213]

See, there ya go.

A syllogism is used, but notice how you made the distinction in the second part, but not the third (conclusion).

1.) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2.) Jesus is God the Son.
3.) Therefore… Mary is the Mother of God THE SON.

---

But you didn’t say Mary is the Mother of God THE SON, did you? No, you left that last part out. Why? Who knows?

…but what have we traditionally called God THE SON? We call him JESUS. If I were to use this logic, I could easily say that Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

Notice, though, that nobody ever says this.

I understand the arguments you make…they are even attractive in some sense. Still, this is a point that was decided a very long time ago by the undivided Church and, so, to the best of my limited knowledge is accepted by all major branches of the Church, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

 

[mercygate]

I’ll even get a quote for you.

Clearly this guy does not believe in most of Marian Doctrine of the Catholic Church but affirms that we should call Mary Mother of God as well as cautions against minimizing her.

God Bless,
Maria

Nice work, Maria! Thanks for getting that quote from R. C. Sproul. :tiphat:

 

[ChristianWAB]

As soon as you justify this statement you justify nestorianism. It was condemned at Chalcedon.

I’ll simplify then.

I’m not talking about nestorianism, modalism, Sabellianism, Patripassianism or any other isms you can throw out to try and confuse the reader.

What I’m saying is that if you have two statements and both are equally true, but only one of the two statements is universally ACCEPTED to be the truth, why go to all the trouble to force your other statement on people if the first one works just as well?

Put another way, if the statement “Mary was the mother of Jesus.” is true, why isn’t that enough? People can accept that when God took on the human form of Jesus, Mary gave birth to Him, but to say that Mary is the Mother of God is a little too generalized because the SAME God didn’t choose the SAME form throughout history.

No, it is outright heresy to say Mary is not the mother of God,…

Precisely why I DIDN’T say that. I didn’t say what she WASN’T - I said what she WAS; that being Jesus’s mother. Those who would deny that she was the mother of Jesus are the ones uttering heresy.

Really that is irrelevant. God pre-existed humanity too so you could bring up problems with calling God Father since He prexists the term and concept of ‘Father’.

Before our Lord God, there was nothing. Before Mary, there was God. There is no “chicken or the egg” confusion regarding who came first - God or Mary. The confusion only begins when people say that Mary is the mother of God. If you know what you mean by Mary being the Mother of God, but can’t explain it away in a sentence or two, then you’re better off using a more precise name for Mary’s child.

I’m not saying, “Stop believing that Mary is the Mother of God.” I’m just saying it’d be better to save the declaration and subsequent explanation for people who have time to study and digest the information.

 

[ChristianWAB]

I understand the arguments you make…they are even attractive in some sense. Still, this is a point that was decided a very long time ago by the undivided Church and, so, to the best of my limited knowledge is accepted by all major branches of the Church, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

The belief is accepted and that’s fine. Calling Mary the mother of Jesus does nothing to compromise that belief… and it won’t confuse people. Everybody wins. That’s my point in a nutshell.