Why Mary?

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Why do you suppose God wants us to behold Mary as our mother?

 

[Eucharisted]

Jesus is God and Man, Lord and King, I AM and the New Adam. Just as Adam had in himself all men, so dose Jesus, in much greater way, have all men in Himself. When He became incarnate in Mary’s womb, God assumed humanity, and He did not just assume Mary’s humanity but also our humanities through her: He took on our flesh, our blood, our souls, our sorrows, our joys, our glories, our sins, our deeds, our prayers, our lives and our everything. Jesus, True God and True Man, is the Son of Mary. Mary, the Mother of God, than is also the mother of man. In other words, because the God-Man is her son, Mary is both Mother of God and mother of man.

 

[Eucharisted]

This dose not mean Jesus was sinful. Indeed, He is impeccable, in light of the Hypostatic Union. Yet, from where did His impeccable Humanity come? It had to have come from a creature who was itself impeccable, and that solely by God’s grace because only Jesus is both God and Man. It follows than that Jesus’ impeccable Humanity came from His Mother Mary, who herself was an impeccable creature, free all sin, original and personal, which is why we call her the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, this is seen from the transparency of Mary to Jesus: she by herself points to and is dependent upon Jesus; her holiness and her virginity reveal to us the even greater holiness and virginity of the Messiah, which is the very source and summit of her holiness and virginity, and her assumption and her suffering at Calvary reveal to us the ever greater glory and agony of the Lord, which is the very source and summit of her holiness and virginity, because Mary is but a creature and a member of the Church, albeit, in light of her Divinity Maternity, also the Mother of the Catholic Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The theology of this is incredibly vast. The motherhood of Mary is rooted in so much of the Old Testament ante-types. Just BRIEFLY:

Mary is the NT version of Eve, who was called the “mother of the living” (Gn 3:20). This is a reference to Eve being the physical “mother” of human descendants. Mary, the superior type of Eve, is the spiritual mother of us all.

Mary is the mother of the “King.” Jesus of course speaks of His kingdom “not of this world” to Pilate. This makes Mary the mother of the king, or the queen mother. The role of the queen mother in the OT is one of intercession and counsel. The king says he does not refuse the queen mother (1 Kg 2:19-20), he receives counsel from the queen (Prv 31), and holds a place of honor (1 Kg 15:9-13), ruled in place of the deceased king (2 Kg 11:1-3), and shows further counsel (Dan 5:1-12). You see a great manifestation of this queen-mother role at the wedding at Cana, in which Mary intercedes for the “guests of the wedding feast” (a type of God’s true elect), and how she accomplishes for them their needs. This intercessory role, to whom the king has turned an alert ear, is central to the understanding of Mary as our Advocate. In God’s providence, He chose to deliver His Son to the world through Mary. We go to her to receive Him (cf. Pius X, Ad Diem Ilum Laeissimum, #6).

Mary’s maternity is also a figure of the Church. The journey she took of her life mimics the path of the Church. The Church ponders the Word in her heart, as did Mary (Lk 2:19, et al). The Church is the bride of Christ, just as Mary is also in a sense the spouse of the Holy Spirit, who with the Spirit, begot life in the person of Jesus Christ. (see JPII, Redemptoris Mater, or Pope Leo XIII, Adiutrecem, or any Pope after Leo writing a Marian encyclical)

 

[bpbasilphx]

Before we answer the question, “Why Mary?” I think we first have to deal with the question, “Why Jesus?”

 

[James_S_Saint]

Before we answer the question, “Why Mary?” I think we first have to deal with the question, “Why Jesus?”

Precisely.

I would enjoy a philosophical discussion of “why Mary”, but that isn’t likely to happen.

I don’t have a problem with serious reverence for Mary, but I would like to point out that my very first offensive glimpse of Catholicism came via the very obvious worship of Mary being expressed in the first Catholic church I entered. Privately I asked the local priest about it later in his office and he explained that “we are putting the church back as it was originally” and that “for the first 1000 years, Mary was actually the head of the church. It wasn’t until the first Vatican Council that they decided to make Jesus the head.”

I didn’t believe the guy for a second, but I had to wonder what inspired this ordained priest to believe or say such a thing. It smacked of the appalling and deceptive practices of political correctness.

The very notion of a “Mother of God” is a bit absurd from my perspective even though I can see the justifications. But if Jesus is the new Ahdam (which I well understand and have no problem with) and Mary is the new “Eve”, then emmm… Eve gave birth to Ahdam?? Something is amiss with such philosophical equivocating.

I cannot be so irreverent to God the Father such as to even imagine a “Mother of God”. Even though a son of God is also God, remember Jesus’ quote, “I was in the very beginning”, was Mary?

Understanding what Jesus meant, I can clearly see that he was right in his assertion and technically, in a philosophical sense, we could say that “Mary was in the beginning” too, but such an understanding has not been proposed as any part of any theology that I am aware of other than Mormon like constructs which change from time to time to suit the trend, besides it not being at all scriptural.

Realize the temptation of the fall. Eve wanted to be “as God”. Such equivocating as making the title “Mother of God” produces what but the notion that Eve is even superior to God. Must we really go through it all again?

I have deep reasons and incentives to truly cherish the Mother, but I offend all that is Holy by tempting presumption of ego and pride with such vanity endowed phrases and titles, fore Humility was Her essence.

“Why Mary?” - Because a Son, by necessity of God the Father, requires a Mother for nurturing and protecting. Such is a truth of all creation and within all things.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The very notion of a “Mother of God” is a bit absurd from my perspective even though I can see the justifications. But if Jesus is the new Ahdam (which I well understand and have no problem with) and Mary is the new “Eve”, then emmm… Eve gave birth to Ahdam?? Something is amiss with such philosophical equivocating.

Typology doesn’t quite work that way. After all, Romans 5:14, et al. says Jesus is the type of Adam. So does that mean Jesus has to be married? Is Paul demonstrating shoddy “philosophical equivocating”? No, rather Jesus is a first of His kind. Mary does not need to be an exact mirror of Eve, but rather she is the woman with Adam, and also the “mother of the living” just as Eve was (Gn 3:20), but now she is the “mother” of the spiritually alive, Jesus being the “firstborn.”

I cannot be so irreverent to God the Father such as to even imagine a “Mother of God”. Even though a son of God is also God, remember Jesus’ quote, “I was in the very beginning”, was Mary?

Mary is a creature, meaning she was created. She IS the mother of the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is fully God. To deny her being properly called the Mother of God (Theotokos in Greek) results in a denial of the divinity of Christ. This was the issue facing the Council of Ephesus in the 5th century (if I remember right).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yes, it was the Council of Ephesus in 431 that affirmed it proper to call Mary Mother of God counter to Nestorius. His position, which effectively separated the hypostatic union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ, became known as the Nestorian Heresy.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How it strikes me is that in a sense, using the title of “Mother of God” is tempting or offering a bribe to the heart of Mary to forsake her humility. It is just as offensive and insulting as trying to tempt the Pope into sin or perhaps taking the title of “Voice of God”. Mary could never have been the Mother of the Son if she was not ultimately humble.

The body and mind are given 2 perspectives (eyes) for the purpose of adjusting perception to reflect accuracy or real truth.

The concept of “The Trinity” makes the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit indistinguishable and carries the name “God”.

Perspectives;

1. Mary gave birth to God, the Son = “Mother of God”, her Son - Logical
2. Mary gave birth to God, the Father = “Mother of God”, her Father - Irrational

How is a holy man to worship such a dichotomy? Moses clearly stated to “not consume the meat of the cloven hoofed beast”. Or in more modern terms, to not accept an understanding that is not in unison or coherent.

Truth cannot be “cloven” or have a split foundation. Beliefs founded in such contrary concepts are susceptible to fracture and destruction and are most certainly “unholy”.

Thus I see the concept itself to be unholy and also offensive to Mary.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you read the Council of Ephesus I linked to, it is specifically to your “Logical” statement that Mary is Mother of God the Son who IS God.*And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.**If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, The Word was made flesh] let him be anathema.*John 1:1,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…"

Additionally, when Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, she addressed Mary “The Mother of my Lord” the term for God in the OT (Luke 1:43). Was the Holy Spirit offensive to Mary? Of course not. In fact, it is a great honor, and “all generations call Mary blessed” for this reason (Lk 1:48).

I don’t see how there’s anything here one can disagree with. Bottom line, if Mary is not “Mother of God” then Jesus is not God. Which is heresy.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think its much more simple. Why does Jesus want us to behold his mother? Because by his very incarnation he Shared with us flesh, pain, and many other things. He shared with humans everything except sin. Why not include sharing his mother in this? I also happen to think, this is further evidence Joseph must have been dead by the time he was on the cross, because it would not surprize me at all if he too, would share his adopted father with everyone. Catholics do hold him in very high respect and love anyway, but it must be because Jesus shares everything with his. Everything, even death.

 

[mlchance]

The concept of “The Trinity” makes the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit indistinguishable and carries the name “God”.

No, the concept of the Trinity doesn’t do that.

Perspectives;

1. Mary gave birth to God, the Son = “Mother of God”, her Son - Logical
2. Mary gave birth to God, the Father = “Mother of God”, her Father - Irrational

How is a holy man to worship such a dichotomy?

By recognizing the Church does not now nor has she ever claimed that your number 2 above is what is meant by Mother of God. You present a dichotomy that doesn’t exist in Catholic teaching and then use that to reject Catholic teaching. That hardly seems an honest way to approach the topic.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t see how there’s anything here one can disagree with. Bottom line, if Mary is not “Mother of God” then Jesus is not God. Which is heresy.

That is because you are only looking with one eye upon what appears acceptable and is from that one perspective.

But if you look with your other eye as well, you see something very wrong.

With the other eye/perspective, “Mother of God” means the Mother of “the First Cause”, The Father, and the Creator. That perspective is very wrong and presumptuous. It doesn’t matter what someone wanted it to mean at one time. What matters is what it tempts into existence.

Looking at the title with both eyes, as one should do with all things at all times, one sees that title, “Mother of God” as deviancy and divisive and certainly unholy because nothing can be holy that has a perspective that is in error.

You present a dichotomy that doesn’t exist in Catholic teaching and then use that to reject Catholic teaching. That hardly seems an honest way to approach the topic.

The existence of dichotomies is not up to the Church. They exist by virtue of tempted potential perspectives. What anyone intended at any time is comparatively irrelevant to what is later believed. Every religion has overwhelmingly proven that. “Judge a tree by the fruit it bares” in the time of harvest.

Titles or phrases that are not scriptural, yet accepted with such great reverence as to be gospel, take upon the responsibility of being totally holy, absolutely correct in every sense else misleading and the temptation of sin.

To serve the immediate apparent good and ignore the future potential harm is the inspiration of every deceiver.

 

[mlchance]

The existence of dichotomies is not up to the Church. They exist by virtue of tempted potential perspectives.

I never claimed anything about the existence of dichotomies. Of course folks are free to just make stuff up and ignore actual Church teaching in their efforts to malign Catholicism. In fact, that’s the most common modus operandi, as you’ve already demonstrated.

To serve the immediate apparent good and ignore the future potential harm is the inspiration of every deceiver.

You left out the other inspiration of deceivers, which is odd since it’s the one you’ve used. Namely, ignoring facts in favor of making up stuff and then claiming the made-up stuff demonstrates flaws among those who don’t believe what you’ve made up.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why do you suppose God wants us to behold Mary as our mother?

uh, because he said so, almost the last thing Jesus said before he died. is this a trick question?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

uh, because he said so, almost the last thing Jesus said before he died. is this a trick question?

No, not a trick question. My use of the word “behold” was a deliberate attempt to reference His dying words from the Cross.

I wanted to know what Mary can offer us.

I saw in a different thread that Mary is considered the first Christian, and hence a parallel to Eve. And it got me thinking back to this thread… Through Eve we receive our physical life, and through Mary we receive our Christian life; Does that make sense? It kind of makes sense to me. I was wondering if anybody else would agree.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, not a trick question. My use of the word “behold” was a deliberate attempt to reference His dying words from the Cross.

I wanted to know what Mary can offer us.

I saw in a different thread that Mary is considered the first Christian, and hence a parallel to Eve. And it got me thinking back to this thread… Through Eve we receive our physical life, and through Mary we receive our Christian life; Does that make sense? It kind of makes sense to me. I was wondering if anybody else would agree.

It makes sense, and remember there are a lot of people here who constantly are bombarded with mary bashing that they automatically are in defense mode I guess.

She can offer you a wonderful example of being just the way you are. Looking for truth.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You left out the other inspiration of deceivers, which is odd since it’s the one you’ve used. Namely, ignoring facts in favor of making up stuff and then claiming the made-up stuff demonstrates flaws among those who don’t believe what you’ve made up.

Well, no offense, but the demonstration of deception is entirely yours. I told both sides of the story and explained them both. You tell only the side you want seen.

My issue is not with the side that is true. It is with the side that CAN BE MADE UP so easily that it will be (and is). For sake of pride and vanity all sin is nurtured.

If the only intent is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, then what is wrong with the title, “Mother of Christ”? Isn’t that more obviously the truth?

But no, it is preferred to exalt her to “Mother of GOD!!” - why when such a statement CAN mislead and tempt vanity?

I will always see such a title as an effrontery to Mary. I’m sure she would never have wanted or accepted such a title.

 

[centurionguard]

Well, no offense, but the demonstration of deception is entirely yours. I told both sides of the story and explained them both. You tell only the side you want seen.

My issue is not with the side that is true. It is with the side that CAN BE MADE UP so easily that it will be (and is). For sake of pride and vanity all sin is nurtured.

If the only intent is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, then what is wrong with the title, “Mother of Christ”? Isn’t that more obviously the truth?

But no, it is preferred to exalt her to “Mother of GOD!!” - why when such a statement CAN mislead and tempt vanity?

I will always see such a title as an effrontery to Mary. I’m sure she would never have wanted or accepted such a title.

I’m sure she would never have wanted or accepted such a title.

Your overbearing self-confidence is proof of your ignorance
Mary never accepted the title GOD gave her the title.

Might I suggest you take time to read the following (“The Worlds First Love”):
pages 1 to 20 books.google.ca/books?id=bfdNFS5MheYC&dq=the+world%27s+first+love+fulton+sheen&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zNf8SovuDNPbnAfgtu2fCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[djeter]

The Importance Of Mary’s Conception Through The Spirit
Matthew’s genealogy is thus made possible by the resurrected Jesus’ charge to the disciples to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28 19-20) The gospel has gone to the Gentiles, but this does not mean that the special character of the people of Israel is denied, for God’s promise of salvation to Israel through the law — as the women named in the genealogy indicate — was never restricted to Israel.

The story of Jesus’ birth makes clear the extraordinary story that Matthew has to tell of God’s action on our behalf Mary, engaged to Joseph, is pregnant with a child “from the Holy Spirit.” This is to ordinary conception, but rather this is God acting on our behalf by becoming fully one of us. We stand, therefore, before what the church will learn to describe as the mystery of the incarnation. The timeless one is here conceived in time through the work of the Holy Spirit, that is, the third person of the Trinity.

It is often said that the Holy Spirit is an afterthought in modern theology; but the Spirit is certainly present in Matthew’s gospel from the beginning (Rogers 2005, 117). For Matthew, the work of the Spirit is to point to the humanity of Christ. Thus at the baptism of Jesus the heavens open, and “he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him” (Matthew 3:16). It is the same work of the Spirit that we seek when we pray, ‘And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and with thy Word and Holy Spirit, to bless and sanctify these gifts of bread and wine, that they may be for us the Body and Blood of thy dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ” (Book of Common Prayer 1979, 342).

That the Holy Spirit is necessary for our recognition of Jesus as the Son of God is not surprising, given our presumption that it is surely not possible for God to be one of us. Our temptation is to believe that if God is God then God must be the biggest thing around. Accordingly we describe God with an unending list of superlatives: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. God is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present, but these descriptions make it difficult for some to understand how God can be conceived by the Spirit in Mary: Yet that is to presume we know what it means for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent prior to God being found in Mary’s womb.

Admittedly this challenges our presumption that we can assume we can know what God must be prior to knowing Jesus, but such presumption is just another word for sin. By Mary’s conception through the Spirit, our prideful assumption that we are capable of knowing God on our own terms is challenged. As Jesus will later claim, a claim inherent in his conception: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27).

The Virgin Birth
Too often those who worry about whether we are required to believe in the virgin birth do so assuming they are being asked to believe something for which there is no evidence. But Matthew is telling the story of the God who refuses to abandon us — and even becomes one of us that we might be redeemed. Virgin births are not surprising given that this is the God who has created us without us, but (as Augustine observes) who will not save us without us. What the Father does through the Spirit to conceive Mary’s child is not something different than what God does through creation. God does not need to intervene in creation, because God has never been absent from creation. Creation is not “back there,” but is God’s ongoing love of all he has willed and continues to will to exist. What should startle us, what should stun us, is not that Mary is a virgin, but that God refuses to abandon us.

This all comes from readings selections from a Book Recommendation: Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) by Stanley Hauerwas which you can find here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/10/02/book-recommendation-matthew-brazos-theological-commentary-on-the-bible-by-stanley-hauerwas/

regards

dj

My own understanding of Mary comes from a wonderful poem called The Blessed Virgin Compared To The Air We Breathe by Gerard Manley Hopkins. It comes at the end of this essay here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/24/gerard-manley-hopkins/

I love it when people ask “Why Mary?” The answers are great and the more you explore the better it gets.