What Can We Say About The Virgin?

[Tomster]

Observing4Grace:
In the New Testament, which often presents Jesus as Son of Mary in formal or equivalent terms, applies this name only ot Him. Never does it apply this name to the brothers of the Lord. In St. Mark the Nazarenes ask: “Is not this the son of Mary?” They do not say: “Is he not a son of Mary?” but “THE son of Mary,” as though they knew no others. The text is all the more significant since in Greek the definite article is placed before a substantive attribute only to indicate that it presents something unique in its kind.

 

[Tomster]

O4G,

In the first place, it should be noticed that Matthew and Mark mention as present on Calvary a certain Mary, mother of James and Joseph according to Matthew, of James and Jose according to Mark, that is, of two men who bear the same names as the first two among the brothers of the Lord pointed out by these Evangelists. This Mary is evidently not the Blessed Virgin, otherwise the narrators would have designated her as the mother of Jesus. St. Luke calls this woman simply mother of James (24:10) and Mark does the same in his account of the resurrection (16:1). James and Joseph - James especially - must have been persons well known to the first Christians, so that their names alone suffice to distinguish their mother. We known to famous Jameses: James, son of Zebedee and brother of John; and James, “brother of the Lord,” the first bishop of Jerusalem, who played such an important role in the primitive Church together with Peter and Paul. The woman in question was not the mother of the first James, for his mother was called Salome and is mentioned as being present on Calvary beside the mother of James (Matthew 27:56 & Mark 15:40). It follows, then, that she was the mother of the second James, of the “brother of the Lord.” (Galatians 1:19)

continued

 

[Tomster]

Therefore James and Joseph, the first two among those called “brothers of the Lord,” were not the sons of the Blessed Virgin. With all the more reason we can say that the last two were not “brothers of the Lord” either; otherwise they would have been mentioned before the other two. Furthermore, the second of them, Jude, presents himself at the beginning of his Catholic epistle, as brother of James and SERVANT of Jesus Christ (Jude 1:1).

Among the women who were standing at the foot of the cross, St. John singles out the sister of the mother of Jesus, Mary of Cleophus, but does not mention the mother of James. Would not this Mary of Cleophus be the very one whom the other Evangelists call Mary, the mother of James and Joseph? If she were sister or sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, we could easily understand why her sons would be called “brothers of the Lord,” since they would be his cousins. The historian Hegesippus confirms this hypothesis.

 

[guanophore]

I think it is against the rules to change the title on the thread.

No, what I’m saying here is that we cannot play on an imaginative notion of what scripture says if it’s not originally what the context is saying.

So you are saying that all the early Fathers, who believed that Mary remained a consecrated virgin, were entertaining imaginitive notions?

Observing4Grace:

And am I suppose believe that “James” the brother of our lord is a step brother? I highly doubt that Mary decided to live the rest of her life as a virgin. There wouldn’t be any reason for her to Mary if she decided that.

Why would such a possiblity be so incredulous? Why would you “highly doubt” that Mary would want to live as a consecrated Virgin? She married for a lot of reasons, the main one being that it was God’s will for her. God ordained that Joseph should protect her and the baby Jesus.

Your insistence on the Aramaic context of Matthew implies either that you know what it means or not. Since Matthew is translated in Greek, not Aramaic, for the most of manuiscripts, you’re going to have to show how early was the first text and whether or not it was written in Aramaic. Besides the point, just because Aramaic doesn’t have a word for brother doesn’t mean the text will not make distinction.

This would certainly leave an opening to explore what the early Fathers had to say, since they were closer to the original text.

It isn’t for me (to prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin) I’m not the one who’s enforcing the beliefs.

Nonsense! You know yourself no one can “enforce belief”! The Church PRESERVES the truths that were handed down from the Apostles, both in writing and tradition. No one is “forcing” you to believe it!

Catholic teaching is apostate instead of “in error” because she does depart from original teachings.

So, you are saying that you think the original teachings are all in the Bible?

Guanophore =So here is my question for you. where did your bible come from?

My Bible, you mean THE BIBLE. There are poor translations (i.e. World Translation, Mormon Bible etc.) doesn’t mean make mines mine actually.

I meant, the one you are using to refute the teachings of Catholicism.You didnt’ answer the question. Where did it com from? /FONT]

Why bother to go beyond the text?

We got beyond the text when you said “I see no reason”

 

[guanophore]

Well I’m not the one that insists that this actually happened or force all Catholics to believe it.

I am not sure how to understand this. The Catholic Church holds up the teachings of Christ, and invites all to partake of them. I don’t see that belief can be forced on anyone, and it seems to me that anyone who wishes to reject the teachings of Jesus is free to walk away.

Insulting the Protestant Churches because they don’t have an apocrypha doesn’t make your teachings true. Even if we had the apocrypha, I highly doubt it’d contained the rest of the teachings the Church Assumes.

I am not insulting Protestants. It is not their fault that books were removed from their Bible. In fact, most of them think that the Catholics “added” books, rather than the reformers taking them out. And they were taken out BECAUSE they support Catholic teachings that the reformers rejected. Furthermore, the Church does not “assume” doctrines. The church preserves doctrines that were handed down from the Apostles.

However, the reason why the Apocrypha is removed is because the books don’t hold any doctrinal authority or Biblical inspiration from a KNOWN AUTHOR. Historically, yes they make great books but nothing further. It’s also been said that Augustine rejected the books also.

I think you are lacking some historical theology! I wonder if you even know what books they were? Anyway, that would be another topic. As for Augustine, don’t believe everything you hear!

No, no, no. I’m making fair distinctions based on what’s given. Since you regard these oral teachings as sacred, there should be some scriptural back up. The proof texts the church provides for the mere purpose of defending the doctrines hold no water. What’s there to say, insist it’s still sacred tradition?

You have it backwards, my brother. Scripture was produced by the Church, when the sacred tradition was put into writing. It is not the other way around. The Church affirms the scripture, because she produced the scriptures from the sacred traditions. The scriptures are not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, as you have been misled, but the church (1 Tim 3:15). This is how the holy teachings were communicated throughout the first generation of Christianity.

2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, and 1 Thess 2:13 all teach that we are to hold fast to the “traditions” handed down to us. This includes traditions that come to us by “either word of mouth or by letter.”

Do you really think the Apostles said this about human traditions? Or were they talking about the Word of God?

–1 Tim 3:1 says that a bishop must be an apt teacher and that he must be able to take care of God’s church. Titus 1:7-9 says that a bishop is God’s steward and that he is a teacher and must be able to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it. Acts 20:27 indicates that bishops watch over the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. Likewise Hebrews 13:17 says "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.

These guidelines were written before there was any New Testament. Believers were urged to submit to their teachers and bishops because they embodied and preached the holy traditions, until such time as they could be written.

No, I want SOUND scriptural evidence. There isn’t any that hold water or isn’t full of holes. Therefore, it’s man-made. Parker

Wow. This is an awful rigid way of life. I am glad you have at least most of the scripture, since it is profitable for training in righteousness. I am sure, whatever Christ wants you to learn that is not in the scripture, you can reckon with him about it, and answer for rejecting it when the time comes.I still am mystified about why you say you are being forced to believe something that you can’t find in your Bible. You won’t find the word “trinity” in there either. Do you believe in the trinity? How can you, if it is not in the Bible?

 

[wifrost]

Just to comment on Mary being treated as a “goddess” of sorts, there were those who did indeed treat her this way at one time. The belief was called “Collyridianism,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridians , Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about and condemed them in the late 4th century.

 

[Tomster]

O4G,

Latria, Hyperdulia and Dulia.

O4G ! You do worship Christ, do you not? If so, please consider this.

Logically connected with the doctrine of the hypostatic union is the obligation of paying Christ divine worship. If Christ is God, then we must adore him; the conclusion is evident. What is perhaps less obvious is the duty of paying divine cult to the human nature of Christ: less obvious, because to worship the humanity of Christ wouls seem at first sight equivalent to worshipping a creature. However, it should be noted that theologians distinguish between what they call the material object and the formal object of worship. By the material object they mean the person to whom worship is rendered, by the formal object, the excellence or the perfection in the person which is the motive of the honor paid to him. Clearly, when we worship Christ we worship his whole person, the Word Incarnate, God and man. It is not because he is man that we adore him, but because he is God; nevertheless we do not dissect him, we do not separate his humanity from his divinity in order to adore the latter alone. “The Incarnate Word of God,” says St. Cyril, “since he is the one Son of God, is to be adored, not apart from his flesh, but together with it, just as in honoring a man we honor his soul together with his body.” Likewise St. Athanasius: “Although the flesh (i.e. the humanity of Christ) regarded separately is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. Thus we do not divide this body from the Word to adore it, nor when we wish to adore the Word do we separate him from his body; but mindful of words ‘The Word became flesh’ we recognize as God the one Word incarnate. Who then will be so foolish as to say to the Lord: ‘Depart from thy body that I may adore thee’?” Theologians express this truth technically when they say that the humanity of Christ is aprt of the material object of divine worship, while its formal object is the divinity.

Hence devotion to Christ is not devotion to a mere man, it is the worship of the Word Incarnate, and that worship embraces all that is in him, all that is united with his divine Person. It is here that the wisdom of God’s merciful dispensation becomes especially apparent. God became man “that while we know God visibly we may be led to the love of things invisible.”

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I think it is against the rules to change the title on the thread.

He didn’t change the Title, he just changed the response title

So you are saying that all the early Fathers, who believed that Mary remained a consecrated virgin, were entertaining imaginitive notions?

Why would such a possiblity be so incredulous? Why would you “highly doubt” that Mary would want to live as a consecrated Virgin? She married for a lot of reasons, the main one being that it was God’s will for her. God ordained that Joseph should protect her and the baby Jesus.

I totally agree with you. I have heard of women who are married, but live the life of a Consecrated Virgin. The vocation of Consecrated Virgin is given to many women, regardless of creed/race/marital status. It is, therefore, possible that Mary felt this call from God. Also, the Angel appeared to Joseph telling him to take Mary into his home. I don’t know about you, but if an Angel appeared to me and told me my wife (I am a girl, but you get my point) was giving birth to the Son of God, I don’t know if I would ever be able to “consummate” my marriage with her, knowing that she was the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Observing4Grace]

The fundamental function of Mary, the “raison d’etre” of all others, is the divine maternity. According to common opinion, the divine maternity is the “raison d’etre” of her very existence let alone her other privileges; that is to say, Mary was created only in order to become the Mother of God.

I do agree. This is exactly the underlying priniciple but it logic is quite flawed. For instance, if one were to agree that Mary is the Mother of God, she can also be the mother of the trinity, queen of the universe, etc. etc.

Consequently, the divine maternity explains all that there is in Mary, and without it nothing in her can be understood.

**So you’re telling me basically, is that if I don’t agree that Mary is the mother of God, then I’ll never understand the rest of the titles. That’s fair enough. However, like I said earlier, this is a fallacy. **

On the other hand, more so than with any other glory of Mary, the mind here faces a mystery - the mystery of the Incarnation in all its depth. Therefore, the question extends beyond the domain of Marian doctrine strictly so called and reaches into the field of Chistology.

**I don’t get what you mean. **

What, then, is the exact meaning of this title of Mother of God which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin?

**I don’t need to know what the meaning is. I want to know where the titles come from. Since my question has been answered coming from that title, then I can understand the flaws that come from this stance as well. **

Despite the claims of Nestorius in the fifth century and the accusations which certain protestants and rationalists make against us even today the title Mother of God does not signify, and never has signified in the minds of the faithful, that we consider Mary as Mother of the divinity, or as a sort of goddess after the manner of the goddesses of mythology.

Well, you’re going to have to change the title to “Mary the Mother of Jesus” instead of “Mary the Mother of God”. Yes, Jesus is man and God but Mary didn’t begat God in the first place. She’s what we both agree to as a “Theotokos” or “God-Bearing” one, not the other way around. You can’t have it work both ways.

We affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, not that she is Mother of the divinity; she is Mother of a person who is God, and not Mother of that person inasmuch as He is God.

**I’d rather say she’s the mother of the humanity of Jesus. Because what you say is simply implying another means.

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

To understand what we mean by the divine maternity, we must understand - as well as is possible when we are concerned with a mystery - the union of two natures, the divine and human, in the person of Jesus.

**Yes and Mary is the mother of one of them, not both! **

For them, Jesus was nothing more than a man upon whom the Spirit of God descended at the moment of the Baptism in the Jordan and from whom this Spirit went out shortly before the Passion, leaving the man Jesus to suffer and to die.

**We both know this isn’t true. **

In this theory, Mary was the Mother of a man who was destined to be the temporary dwelling of God, but she was not the Mother of God.

Then you can’t call her the “Mother of God”.

The second concept is that of a very close moral union consisting not only in a perpetual indwelling of the divinity in the humanity of Christ, but also in the faithful co-operation of this humanity with the divinity.

It’s not like Mary had a choice here, does it?

 

[Tomster]

Observing4Grace:
Obviously you have not read my previous messages. Please, re-read them.

Tomster

 

[Observing4Grace]

The soul and the body are two different principles, one spiritual, the other material.

How does this revolve around Mary? Just because two natures have been fused together into one being does not require one to be the mother of both. For Mary is a human, not God or divine hereself.

Yet, these two principles are united in such a way as to form only one whole, the human person, so that the qualities and the actions of the two component parts can be attributed to the whole, to the person itself.

**And so you’re saying she’s the mother of both which I say cannot be so. Just because God dwells in the flesh of a man, ultimately it belongs to himself, not to anyone. Mary may bear him at birth, it does not mean she begot God. However, we can say it’s his humanity that she is the mother of. **

A man says: “I eat, I walk,” though actually it would rather seem that it is only his body which takes food or moves about. On the other hand, he says, “I think, I know myself to be free,” even though it is his soul and not his body which thinks and exercises freedom.

**A Body may have these three components but it’s the creator, not our parents who have created us and made our generating capabilities. **

These two natures form only one whole, a single person, in such a way that the actions of both natures can be attributed to this person. The same person could say: “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” and “My soul is sad, even unto death.” The person to whom all the actions of Christ belong is the divine Person.

**Right but how does this relate to Mary. **

It can be said, then, in all truth, that God preached, God suffered, and God died.

**No, this is incorrect. God doesn’t die, it’s the human nature of Jesus that did. God didn’t suffer for he’s spirit but it’s the human nature that did. The same with preaching. **

Consequently, it is just as proper to say that God is born.

**How significantly flawed.

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

Someone may say that Jesus took only His body and not His divinity from Mary. This objection would be valid if this were merely a moral union, such as Nestorius posited, but not when the union is substantial.

It doesn’t have to a moral union alone. But since this is substantial, (carrying substance) one must understand fully that Mary has to be God in order for her son to “inherit” his divinity. It’s the same if God were to be put to the test. So, you’re stuck in a knot because Jesus wasn’t “made into God”. He is God from the moment of his conception and man. See your slippery slopes?

Since the body which she formed was, from the very first instant, the body of God, Mary herself became the Mother of God.

**No, rather the body of Jesus from the moment of conception is dwelled by God as well. Though you’re right that Jesus does have a divine nature, his nature wasn’t inherited but rather dwelled upon in a human flesh. **

We take only our bodies from our mothers, yet are we not in all reality their children?

What do you mean?

It is true that the conception of a human body calls naturally for the creation and infusion of the soul, while the conception which took place in Mary does not call naturally for the union of the Son of God with the humanity which the Blessed Virgin conceived.

How is the process different. The supernatural effect only functions in the sense that the body has God dwelling in the body instead of a soul.

 

[Observing4Grace]

Protestants who have preserved their faith in the mystery of the Incarnation admit the divine maternity of Mary. Yet they are far from seeing it, as we do, a source of imcomparable privileges for Mary. For Protestants, Mary was scarcely more than a physical instrument of the Incarnation…

**Right, these merits don’t grant her any other special priveliges. If this was so, then I’d completely understand and the Bible which we embrace would make some points about her. Since the Bible doesn’t mention it, all I can tell you is that she’s not to be regarded any higher than anything else. **

The attitude of Catholics and certain Eastern schismatics is entirely different. In our eyes, Mary was chosen not as a physical instrument to accomplish a material work, but as the moral, conscious, and free instrument of a divine mystery; she was prepared, in her body, to form the body of Jesus; and especially, in her soul, to become a worthy Mother of God.
**
I have a major problem with that. The Bible doesn’t describe Mary as the “moral, conscious and free instrument”. Jesus never addressed her in that kind of tone, only the RCC has done this. St. Clement, Polycarp, Martyr etc. don’t make her that way. How does it feel to have history against what the Church Teaches.

Parker **

 

[LilyM]

O4G, the whole point of hypostatic union is that the humanity and divinity of Christ are *inseparably *united in his personhood - it’s not a mere fusion in such a way that Mary can only be the mother of ‘part’ of Christ - that part being a discrete human part - and not of the whole person of Christ.

Much like Queen Elizabeth 2’s mother was given the title of ‘Queen Mother’ - because she was mother of a person who was Queen. This person’s Queenship is inseparable from her being, much as if I am a doctor or lawyer it is inseparable from my being and personhood. Thus is is quite appropriate to call my mother ‘Queen mother’, ‘mother of a doctor’ or ‘mother of a lawyer’, depending on my own attributes. And it is appropriate to call Mary ‘mother of God’.

 

[HailMary]

What Can We Say About The Virgin?
alot

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643780&postcount=14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643781&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643785&postcount=16

God Bless

 

[Tomster]

Observing4Grace:
Much of the Nestorian controversy is clouded in uncertainty. We do that from, from 428 on, a rising reluctance to call Mary Theotokos provoked violent reactions. We know that, when Nestorius of Constantinople gave his blessing to a bishop who preached, “If anyone says that holy Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema,” Cyril of Alexandria retorted, “If anyone does not confess that . . . the holy Virgin is Theotokos . . . let him be anathema.” We know that, when the Council of Ephesus convened in 431, Cyril wrote of that first session to his flock in Alexandria: "Know, then that on the [22nd of June] the holy synod met at Ephesus in the great church . . . of Mary, Mother of God. We spent the whole day there, and finally . . . we deposed . . . Nestorius and removed him from episcopal office.

That is the fact of Ephesus, and on its surface it is simple enough. A bishop had questioned Mary’s most precious prerogative, and his brother bishops had banned him from their fellowship. But that is not quite the significance of Ephesus. Nestorius’ concept of Mary stemmed from his concept of Christ. Similarly, what Ephesus determined with respect to Mary’ Motherhood was rooted in what Ephesus believed with respect to Christ’s Sonship. That is why Nestorius, for all his reluctance, could say to Cyril in all honesty: “It is not on the ground of a [mere] name that I part from you; it is on the essence of God the Word and on the essence of the Man.” What was at stake was the Incarnation itself. In what sense can we say with St. John, “the Word was made flesh?”

The solution of Nestorius is shrouded in obscurity. How he conceived that incredible union of God and human nature in the womb of a virgin is not at all clear; somehow God dwelt in flesh as in a temple. What is clear is the set of conclusions he drew threrefrom. Does God have a mother? [He does not.]" “I say it is the flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary, not God the Word . . . " “It is not right to say that God is two or three months old.” A born God, a dead God, a buried God I cannot adore.”

continued

 

[Tomster]

The answer of Ephesus was unequivocal. It canonized the letter to Nestorius in which Cyril declared: " We must not . . . sever two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ. Such severance will be no help at all to the correct expression of the faith, even if one alleges unity of persons. Scripture, you see, has not said that the Word united to Himself the person of a man, but that He has been made flesh. Now the Word’s being made flesh is nothing else than that He partook of flesh and blood in like manner with us, and made our body His own, and proceeded Man of a woman, without having cast away His divinity . . . This is what the expression of the exact faith everywhere preaches; this is the mind we shall find in the holy Fathers. In this sense they did not hesitate to call the holy Virgin God’s Mother (Theotokos) - not as though the nature of the Word or His divinity took beginning of being from the holy Virgin, but that of her was begotten the holy body animated with a rational soul; to this body the Word was united personally, and so He is said to have been born according to the flesh."

Briefly, then, Mary is the Mother of God. She is Mother, because the flesh which God took, He took from her flesh; and because Mary gave to her Son everything any mother gives to her child in its fashioning. She was pregnant with Christ. And she is Mother of God, simply because the human being who came forth from her womb was and is God

 

[Tomster]

Strangely enough what was first denied to Our Lady was not the prerogative, Mother of God, but what her contemporaries never dreamed of denying, that she was Mother of Jesus (Mark 6:1-3). The early crisis was Docetic - the affirmation that the Saviour did not have a genuinely human body, or at any rate simply passed through the Virgin without being fashioned of her substance. But there was a complementary denial. Where the Gnostics introduced a distinction between Jesus born of Mary and the Christ who descended into Jesus at baptism, they denied implicitly that the Child of Mary was God.

The Christian reaction in the first three centuries is expressive. Not that Our Lady is categorically denominated Mother of God; there is no indisputable evidence for any such title before the fourth century. But the orthodox East had a two-edged answer for the Gnostic position. On the one hand, it employed expressions tantamount to an affirmation of divine Maternity. On the other, it propounded the twin premises for its conclusion; a) Jesus was genuinely born of Mary; and b) Jesus born of Mary is God.

Ignatius is unceremonious. At odds with the heretics who refused Our Lord a true humanity, he states flatly that Jesus Christ is “David’s scion and Mary’s Son”; He “was really born and ate and drank . . .” More than that, He is “sprung both from Mary and God.” If the latter expression tempts us to conceive two individuals, one human from Mary, the other divine from God, living somehow side by side in Christ, Ignatius leaves no room for any such illusion: “The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God’s dispensation, ‘of the seed of David,’ it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.” Mary conceived God. That, in brief, is the message hurled across the second century by Aristides, for whom a Christian’s confession is that Christ “is the Son of the Most High God, that He . . . was born of a holy virgin . . . and so took flesh”, by Justin, who insists that it was God who became man by Mary; by Irenaeus, whose insight is that, if God’s birth from Mary is unreal, our Redemption is equally unreal."

With all of this discussion in regards to the Divine Maternity, I recall the cry of frustration from Julian the Apostate: “You Christians never stop calling Mary Mother of God.”

 

[guanophore]

 Mary was created only in order to become the Mother of God.

I do agree. This is exactly the underlying priniciple but it logic is quite flawed. For instance, if one were to agree that Mary is the Mother of God, she can also be the mother of the trinity, queen of the universe, etc.

Since you don’t know the logic, isn’t it a little early to say it is flawed? Why not understand the teachings of the early church before your make a judgement.

Consequently, the divine maternity explains all that there is in Mary, and without it nothing in her can be understood.

So you’re telling me basically, is that if I don’t agree that Mary is the mother of God, then I’ll never understand the rest of the titles. That’s fair enough. However, like I said earlier, this is a fallacy.

Judgement in advance that it is a “fallacy”? Won’t this prejudice your inquiry? Doesn’t it seem at all strange to you that ardent and devout believers espoused this view for 2000 years if it is a fallacy? It is not a matter of whether you agree. In order to understand the conclusions, you have to understand the premise upon which they are founded.

It derives immediately from the Christology (understanding who Christ is). Picture yourself in the early centuries of the Church, with all kinds of heresies flitting about. Some of them are saying that Jesus is not God - that he had human nature, but not divine nature. The Church held fast to the understanding that Jesus is both human and divine, two natures, one person. Working backward from that, Mary can be described as the Mother of God, since she was the mother of one person, Jesus.

I don't need to know what the meaning is. I want to know where the titles come from. Since my question has been answered coming from that title, then I can understand the flaws that come from this stance as well.

I don’t think you can properly understand where the titles come from, unless you can understand their meaning. They are part and parcel of the same doctrine. The titles flow out of the meaning. Also, since you are only looking for flaws, instead of opening your mind to understanding the underlying meaning, I am not sure you will be able to properly understand any of it!

Instead of putting your template over it, and assuming it is flawed, try understanding the terms within the historical and theological setting in which they evolved. this is a much better way to understand history.

Well, you’re going to have to change the title to “Mary the Mother of Jesus” instead of “Mary the Mother of God”. Yes, Jesus is man and God but Mary didn’t begat God in the first place. She’s what we both agree to as a “Theotokos” or “God-Bearing” one, not the other way around. You can’t have it work both ways.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me rather arrogant that someone who has not read the fathers, or understood the history would come along and say to the Church “well, you are going to have to change the title”. You mean, it has to be changed so that you can be comfortable with it? Mary was given that title as an affirmation that Jesus is God. It is not going to ever change, because his divine and human nature are permanent. Her motherhood of them is permanent as well. In fact, God can have it work however He wants! Who are YOU to say He can’t! In truth, she is described as the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit, since He overshadowed her, and the Son was conceived. He took his flesh from her flesh. The Holy Spirit did not just “drop” the fetus in her to grow.

We affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, not that she is Mother of the divinity; she is Mother of a person who is God, and not Mother of that person inasmuch as He is God.

This is why her title has as much to say about the identity of Jesus as it does herself.

I’d rather say she’s the mother of the humanity of Jesus. Because what you say is simply implying another means. Parker

What “other means” is that? If she is not the mother of God, then a case can be made that Jesus is not really God. That is why the title was given to her, to affirm that Jesus is God.