Why Mary?

[StrawberryJam]

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.

Well now. If Christ is God, then why would Mary be offended by being the bearer of God in the flesh amoung us (look up Issaiah)

 

[bluelake]

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

One reason could be Lu.1:28,32, 42-43,48

God bless,
bluelake

 

[RobbyS]

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

Those on their death bed who have ceased to recognize children or even spouse will call out for their mother. The memory of that face is, I think, the last to fade. How many of us whose earthly mothers have failed them have turned to Mary for the love that has been denied them!

 

[Gnowbie]

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.

The inherent parallels in Sacred Scripture between the Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of God are the overwhelming source of the Fathers of the Church calling Mary “the Ark of the New Covenant”. Look to these readings: Luke 1:39, 2 Sam. 6:2; Luke 1:41, 2 Sam. 6:16; Luke 1:43, 2 Sam. 6:9; Luke 1:56, 2 Sam. 6:11.

Consider these two exegetical points:

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” [Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216]

“Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.” [Gregory the Wonder Worker, Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary]

This is of course nothing new to your understanding, I am sure. However, I find this predication of the Catholic understanding of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant to be particularly interesting in light of your saying “through Mary we receive our Christian life”, especially when this antetypology is kept in mind when reading the book of Joshua.

Joshua is commanded to instruct the Levites to carry the Ark of the Covenant before the people as their guide, by which the waters of the Jordan are made passable.

Joshua iii,3-4 When you see the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God . . . you must also break camp and follow it that you may know the way to take, for you have not gone over this road before.

Joshua iii,11 The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of the whole earth will precede you into the Jordan.

This is of great interest especially concerning the baptism of Our Lord, and Sacred Scripture does not remain silent connecting this event of crossing the Jordan river with another Baptismal type, the crossing of the Red Sea.

Joshua iv,23 For the Lord, your God, dried up the waters of the Jordan in front of you until you crossed over, just as the Lord, your God, had done at the Red Sea, which he dried up in front of us until we crossed over . . .

To solidify the incredible image of covenant-entrance in this event, Sacred Scripture then reports that Joshua is commanded to circumcise the people who had just passed over the banks of the Jordan.

Joshua v,2 * . . . Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelite nation for the second time.*

Present in the Book of Joshua is the understanding that a forerunner leads us into our covenant.

While this certainly does not exhaust the answers that could be given to such a question, I think that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition affirm the necessity of a forerunner, an image of God’s might (cf. Psalm 132:8), to lead the people into the Kingdom.

EDIT: I particularly enjoyed Mary: The Church at the Source and Our Lady and the Church as introductions to the antetypes of Mary. Both books deserve long hours of reading and meditation.

Steve Ray also gives an excellent introduction to this imagery here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I thought that tradition calles for **St. John the Baptist **to have the title of forerunner. And, that the church has kept this title intact from the beggining of it’s history. I could be wrong.

I have no information about Mary being called the forerunner of Christ.

 

[Gnowbie]

Please, forgive my ambiguity in the phrase “forerunner” as it was not intended to convey the role that is given to St. John the Baptist, but an expression of St. Mary preceding something similar in time, as is expressed in our Catechism.

972 In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“Mother of God” means the Mother of “the First Cause”, The Father, and the Creator.

I just got done quoting you the definitive Council that explicitly shows that is NOT what the Church means by Mother of God.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

Iquote]I still think it is a very basic answer–she offers us motherhood

 

[James_S_Saint]

I just got done quoting you the definitive Council that explicitly shows that is NOT what the Church means by Mother of God.

And I just “got done quoting you”;

It doesn’t matter what someone wanted it to mean at one time. What matters is what it tempts into existence.

In the long run, what anyone intended is irrelevant. What IS is what counts at each moment, not was was intended. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

You are each expressing the very protectionism, ego, pride, and vanity that Jesus stood squarely against and is the very issue I am addressing concerning that title.

Jesus is where his ways are and you are ether with or against. But hey, Catholicism is MY religion. If you want to tempt vanity, go for it. God will sort it out.

“Mother of Christ” is the Truth.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

Yes, Eve was called “mother of the living” (Gn 3:20). She was mother of the physical living. Mary is mother of the spiritually alive, having given birth to the “firstborn” of a new creation, Jesus Christ. Mary as the type of Eve is one of the oldest revealed doctrines of the Church. *For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ (Justin Martyr, ca 150 A.D., Dialogue with Trypho)

That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin. (Irenaeus, ca 170 A.D., Against Heresies)*

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the long run, what anyone intended is irrelevant.

So if I go to your restaurant and ask for the bill, you might bring me a duck’s beak. Clearly, if that’s what you thought I meant by “the bill” that must be what I meant by “the bill.” Fun stuff.

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

There has been a lot of theological debate on this thread, and it’s interesting, but it seems to me that you do accept Mary in her position as Mother of God. You want to know what relevance she has to us.

I think you’re right, that since Mary is the mother of the Christ child, she has given birth to all Christians spiritually descended from Jesus. Certainly Jesus is the ultimate source of eternal life, not Mary, but Mary is the one who gave birth to him, and that is why we call her Mother, for as Jesus said to John and to all of us, and as you referenced, “Behold your Mother.” And is there anything more comforting that that? He gave us His Mother who stood by him and shared in his agony every step of the way, and we can be sure that whatever trial and tribulations we go through, she will be with us as well, every step of the way.

Mary was just a humble little teenager, the lowest of the low, when the angel Gabriel appeared to her and asked her if she would be the Mother of God. She said yes, and she is our model for obedience. She never hesitated in following the Will of God, even when it meant standing at the foot of her Son’s cross and watching him pour out his blood. And because she shared so fully in his suffering, she shares so fully in his glory.

We don’t worship Mary, but we do praise and adore her, and always, always, pray for her help and intercession, which she wants so much to give.

 

[mlchance]

I just got done quoting you the definitive Council that explicitly shows that is NOT what the Church means by Mother of God.

But, don’t you see, it’s not what the Church actually teaches that matters. What really matters is that people think the Church teaches something else that she doesn’t that makes it unacceptable to say the the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.

OTOH, that some people think the Bible means different things – some seemingly quite contrary to the plain meaning of the Bible – doesn’t somehow make, say, the Sermon on the Mount unacceptable, but if it weren’t for double standards, most us wouldn’t have any standards at all.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

I think I’ll take a stab at this debate. The argument you present is one, as posted earlier, that the Church itself debated and finally resolved at the Council of Ephesus. The matter has been settled in the Church since then, that Mary can rightly be called the Mother of God, even though she does have a beginning and God does not.

On June 22, 431, the Council of Ephesus convened to settle this argument. The Council declared, “If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is truly God and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) (since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), anathema sit.” Therefore, the Council officially recognized that Jesus is one person, with two natures–human and divine–united in a true union. Second, Ephesus affirmed that our Blessed Mother can rightfully be called the Mother of God. Mary is not Mother of God, the Father, or Mother of God, the Holy Spirit; rather, she is Mother of God, the Son–Jesus Christ. The Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius a heretic, and the Emperor Theodosius ordered him deposed and exiled. (Interestingly, a small Nestorian Church still exists in Iraq, Iran and Syria.)

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc1.htm

You can accept or reject that as you like, but as far as the Church is concerned, the argument is closed, and has been for centuries.

I’m not quite sure what Mary’s humility has to do with this argument. Humility means accepting yourself for what you are, and she was and is the Mother of God. If she was to say that she was some great person because of that, then yes, that would be a break in humility. But to just accept the title of what she is has nothing to do with being humble. Is the Queen of England being proud because she accepts the title of Queen of England? No, that is just identifying her.

Our Blessed Mother is the very definition of humility. Whenever you see pictures or statues of her, her head is almost always down and her eyes downcast, and I think that is very representative of her humility. If you have read about any of her apparitions, you will note that she is always expressing her love and concern for us, and sheds many tears for those who will not repent. Her message is always to pray for sinners.