Why won't Protestants call Mary "Mother of God"

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

Of course, you do realize I’m talking mainly about cafeteria Catholics, right?

They’re still Catholics, and still do what you accuse the Protestants of doing.

See, here is the problem. I see a lot of this business where people here see one thing a protestant says or does, and it becomes “PROTESTANTS DO THIS” but when we do the same with a Catholic, its “Oh, well…he doesn’t speak for the church”.

Something to think about.

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

I’m not even all that familiar with this Nestorian business.

Then you should, because your objections concerning Mary (actually the title Theotokos refers more to Jesus’ divinity; Mary only comes into the equation because Nestorius contends Jesus’ divine nature is separate from His human nature) have already come out a long time before. Curiously, as stated here many times, the early Protestants accept Ephesus without question. Why this change is answered by you below:

Most of us read our own Bibles and study for ourselves and determine what it is it says.

There is the problem: you read your Bible, pick and take apart and try to determine for yourselves what it says, and now Protestantism has this problem of over 28,000+ denominations, and still more coming in each day, simply because you pick and take apart the Bible and determine for yourselves what you think it says. This type of thinking has led more divisions than to unity.

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

They’re still Catholics, and still do what you accuse the Protestants of doing.

They’re nominal Catholics; one could question them if they’re faithful Catholics. Big difference there.

See, here is the problem. I see a lot of this business where people here see one thing a protestant says or does, and it becomes “PROTESTANTS DO THIS” but when we do the same with a Catholic, its “Oh, well…he doesn’t speak for the church”.

Because that’s exactly it: a cafeteria Catholic doesn’t speak for the Church, because he doesn’t follow what the Church teaches. What can you say then about someone who doesn’t follow what the Church teaches–that he speaks for the Church? Of course not. But when a Protestant say or does something, we say it’s a Protestant thing because, as you stated earlier, you pick apart what the Bible says, so not one of you can actually speak for the whole of Protestantism regarding a belief, or unbelief as the case may be.

 

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

. But when a Protestant say or does something, we say it’s a Protestant thing because, as you stated earlier, you pick apart what the Bible says, so not one of you can actually speak for the whole of Protestantism regarding a belief, or unbelief as the case may be.

Well, if you already know Protestants don’t agree on many things, why would you lump them all in one category when you see a televangalist say “send me $1000 and God will make you rich!” when obviously you should already know that the majority of protestants don’t believe this. However, doing that makes for much easier stone-throwing.

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

Well, if you already know Protestants don’t agree on many things, why would you lump them all in one category when you see a televangalist say “send me $1000 and God will make you rich!” when obviously you should already know that the majority of protestants don’t believe this. However, doing that makes for much easier stone-throwing.

Does anyone say all televangelists do it? Or for that matter all Protestant pastors do it? No. It only pertains to certain televagnelists. Unfortunately though, televangelism has become less about Christ and more of a money factory, hence the criticism.

 

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

Does anyone say all televangelists do it? Or for that matter all Protestant pastors do it? No. It only pertains to certain televagnelists. Unfortunately though, televangelism has become less about Christ and more of a money factory, hence the criticism.

Much in the way in some churches, Catholicism has become more about rituals and traditions than Christ.

There is no problem with traditions or rituals at all, but when they become the focus of worship, instead of tools of worship, then there is the problem.

And on another thread, people were pointing out protestant televangalists and saying “see what protestants believe!!!”

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

Much in the way in some churches, Catholicism has become more about rituals and traditions than Christ.

Have you been in a Mass before? If you haven’t, then the first thing to do is to go into one. If you have, then what else is the Mass but a focus on Christ?

There is no problem with traditions or rituals at all, but when they become the focus of worship, instead of tools of worship, then there is the problem.

If it helps any, the Church isn’t primarily on traditions. Its main focus is about Christ. As Bishop Soc Villegas said, “Only Jesus”. Now, rituals do help one in focusing, as it should make one maintain his eyes firmly on Christ. Rituals should not become so routine as to become almost unthinking though, but should be lively, thorough immersion into the act that it becomes an intimate part, and indeed something that is lived on. So ritual is not bad, but really good in focusing one’s self on Christ.

 

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

Have you been in a Mass before? If you haven’t, then the first thing to do is to go into one. If you have, then what else is the Mass but a focus on Christ?

If it helps any, the Church isn’t primarily on traditions. Its main focus is about Christ. As Bishop Soc Villegas said, “Only Jesus”. Now, rituals do help one in focusing, as it should make one maintain his eyes firmly on Christ. Rituals should not become so routine as to become almost unthinking though, but should be lively, thorough immersion into the act that it becomes an intimate part, and indeed something that is lived on. So ritual is not bad, but really good in focusing one’s self on Christ.

I wasn’t saying rituals were bad, but like you said…it can be easy for some to just go through motions and routinely do the actions without focusing on what is actually being done.

Protestants can do the same thing with our communion or just going to church in general. Go through the motions without focusing on Christ. That is the danger in any church. But the tradition itself is not a bad thing if it draws you closer to Christ.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

They’re still Catholics, and still do what you accuse the Protestants of doing.

See, here is the problem. I see a lot of this business where people here see one thing a protestant says or does, and it becomes “PROTESTANTS DO THIS” but when we do the same with a Catholic, its “Oh, well…he doesn’t speak for the church”.

Something to think about.

Ah, but the Church has the Magisterium, a defined body of doctrine.

I, Joe Catholic, may in good faith miss a trick on some fine theological point, but if I do not place my limited understanding above the truth as expressed in the Councils and dogmatic statements of the Church, I’m not going to get in trouble. I can privately speculate about points of doctrine, but my private speculations do not trump the Church (thank God!). That is the great thing about the Church: we do not all have to be our own Pope. It really is quite outstandingly different from “I’ll read my Bible and decide for myself.”

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

Thank you. Though I cannot answer for why some protestants do or don’t. I personally don’t know any protestants who call her mother of God.

Meet our friend Zooey, the Methodist, who articulately defends the doctrine on this thread!

I’m not even all that familiar with this Nestorian business.

Therein lies a fundamental weakness of a faith that does not flow in the current of history but relies exclusively on one’s personal interpretation of a Book. People wind up needlessly re-living old troubles.

THere seems to be this belief among Catholics here that all protestants hold to every teaching every single protestant teacher has had through history, but this is not the case. Most of us read our own Bibles and study for ourselves and determine what it is it says. Our pastors and teachers are there to guide us through the process, not tell us what to believe.

And if they do not know the history of doctrine, they’ll guide you right into a morass of heresy. “This Nestorian business” is one of the crucial turning points in the development of Trinitarian doctrine. You have come slam-bang up against a point where Scripture without the rigorous application of philosophical discipline is inadequate to answer a near-fatal challenge.

The Holy Spirit did appear in the OT. He was sent to David, Samson, and others. Just because it was not defined, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. God only chose when and how much of himself to reveal to us.

Right. But in the OT it is not clear that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person. Nor is it entirely clear in the NT. That needed to be defined against later doctrinal challenges. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is implicit in Scripture, but far from explicit. We think it’s obvious because we’re schooled to understand it. But if a Hindu were to read the Bible, it is not likely that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity would erupt full-blown out of the text and present itself to his untrained eye.

No, it was not Jesus in the flesh, but it was Christ, the Son of God

Exactly.

 

[Axion]

Singinbeauty:

Not if you believe that Mary was a conduit that God used to put Jesus here on earth. I am not trying to demean Mary in any way. She did something wonderful for us but I don’t think she holds any higher regard than being a human that God used for His wonderful gift to come into play.

I think you’re digging yourself deeper into trouble here.

A **conduit ** is not a mother. A conduit is like a pipe that adds nothing to what passes through it. If this is what you are alleging, this is not a Christian position, since it denies the reality of the incarnation. What you are implying is similar to the Gnostic heresies of Docetism and Appollinarianism.

Mary is **not ** a conduit, since she gave Jesus her human flesh and human nature. She is Jesus true mother. This is how Jesus is a descendant of Adam and of David.

God could have just planted Jesus here on earth without parents and even without having to grow as a child. God can do anything. But He chose to use Mary to bring Jesus into this life here on earth the way EVERY person is brought here on earth. So He could experience life just like the rest of us. The birth, the growing up, the work, the sacrifice… For us to FULLY receive that sacrifice that He made for us He became FULLY human and lived just like us. I don’t know if that makes sense…

Jesus could not be fully human if Mary was not His mother. If Jesus just passed through Mary as the Gnostics alleged, then he was a counterfeit human, not a real one.

I have had pastors tell me that she is a woman who is dearly loved and appreciated for her leap of faith but we are talking about a paradox here. She gave birth to Jesus but not to God because God did not originate from her. It’s the paradox of the trinity. No mere human can understand it but it’s there.

Again, you seem very confused about this. How can Mary give birth to Jesus but not God - if Jesus is God? There are not two Jesuses, one who is God and one who isn’t!

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

Christ, the Son of God did in fact exist before Mary. To say that he did not is heresy.

Who said He didn’t? You seem to be trying to twist my words.

What you didn’t answer was my question - Did Jesus Christ, fully Man and Fully God, exist as such before He was born of Mary?

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I don’t see any mention of Mary in this verse.

I don’t see any relevance to the present discussion in this verse.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Axion:

I think you’re digging yourself deeper into trouble here.

A **conduit ** is not a mother. A conduit is like a pipe that adds nothing to what passes through it. If this is what you are alleging, this is not a Christian position, since it denies the reality of the incarnation. What you are implying is similar to the Gnostic heresies of Docetism and Appollinarianism.

Mary is **not ** a conduit, since she gave Jesus her human flesh and human nature. She is Jesus true mother. This is how Jesus is a descendant of Adam and of David.

Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. She did not pass anything on to Jesus. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. She was a way for God to get Jesus onto this earth the same way the rest of us have. If she had said no God would have had someone else that He would have gone to. But Mary did not say no and I thank her for that.

Jesus could not be fully human if Mary was not His mother. If Jesus just passed through Mary as the Gnostics alleged, then he was a counterfeit human, not a real one.

Are you saying that God cannot do something??? Through God ANYTHING is possible. He could have planted Jesus on this earth without a mother… or do you not believe that Adam got here on this earth this way? Adam had no mother… So he was a counterfeit human?

Again, you seem very confused about this. How can Mary give birth to Jesus but not God - if Jesus is God? There are not two Jesuses, one who is God and one who isn’t!

She gave birth to God the SON. Not God the Father OR God the Holy Spirit. All three distinct yet three in one.

 

[Zooey]

No, now we have to clear this up: Mary certainly did pass something on to Jesus! She passed on her humanity!
If Jesus Christ was not truly the Son of Mary, then He was not human. If He was not human, then He cannot have participated in our condition (“save without sin”). And if He did not participate fully in the human condition, then we have no Saviour, and we are all still in our sins.
Could God have come up with another plan? Well, He is God, so I daresay that it would seem that He could…And yet, and yet…If there were an alternative to death by torture, why didn’t He??? We keep coming back to that question. There is clearly something in the Divine Economy which calls for the Sacrifice of Calvary. I, for one, do not intend to become involved with trying to second-guess God, so I bow to the fact that His plan was perfect. This was it, and if I will name the Name above all names, I am, as it were, “stuck with it”. (Not unwillingly; no, but I am not allowed to run out & think of another plan that I like better, & then demand that God follow my way, instead of His…After all, in the garden, Jesus prayed, “not My will but Thine”. OK, I stick with that. That is where, as they say, the “rubber hits the road”.)

 

[Zooey]

Singinbeauty:

She gave birth to God the SON. Not God the Father OR God the Holy Spirit. All three distinct yet three in one.

Well, yes; that is precisely the point of the title, the Mother of God. Mary gave birth to God the Son.
She is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. (Which latter, incidentally, is simply the acknowledgement that she conceived her Son not by force, not by some dillydallying as the Greco-Roman “gods” were said to be wont to do, fathering children on women everywhere; her conception was a sacred event, in which she legitimately & wholly morally became pregnant with God the Son.)

Now: your quote is very apropos: “All three distinct yet three in one”. Yes, precisely. Not 3 separate gods. Not some sort of a monstrous 3-headed god. No, neither of those.
The trinity is a great mystery, but it is also pillar & foundation of faith. We do not have the option of chopping God up into discrete parts, & treating them as separate entities; not if we choose to stay within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
So, when we say, “Mother of God”, we are saying precisely that Mary is the mother of God the Son. To stray from that, is to stray into dangerous waters, where many have, to their sorrow, foundered. It is that which is the source of this discussion, since there seems to be a great need, in these days, to remind people of the fact that while we may never (at least in this life) fathom the Holy Trinity, we are not, if we are Christians, given the option of tampering with the knowledge that we do have–however tempting it may be, when to tamper would support a pet belief or fancy.
Which brings us full circle, right back to our late, sad, acquaintance, Nestorius, whose acquaintance we have all been experiencing for no little time now…
God bless.

 

[Zooey]

roadrunner570:

I personally don’t know any protestants who call her mother of God.

http://bestsmileys.com/waving/3.gifYoohoo!!! I’m over here!!!http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/14.gif Happy to make your acquaintance…Zooey, Methodist at your service!! “Mary is the Mother of God.” (says I, panting from the jumping & waving).

roadrunner570:

I’m not even all that familiar with this Nestorian business.

It’s very easy to become familiar. Just :yup: meander on over to Catholic Answers home page, & type “Nestorius” or “Nestorian heresy” in the search box. There is a:thumbsup: jim-dandy little article there.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Zooey:

http://bestsmileys.com/waving/3.gifYoohoo!!! I’m over here!!!http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/14.gif Happy to make your acquaintance…Zooey, Methodist at your service!! “Mary is the Mother of God.” (says I, panting from the jumping & waving).

It’s very easy to become familiar. Just :yup: meander on over to Catholic Answers home page, & type “Nestorius” or “Nestorian heresy” in the search box. There is a:thumbsup: jim-dandy little article there.

Go Zooey!

 

[Psalm45_9]

Zooey:

Well, yes; that is precisely the point of the title, the Mother of God. Mary gave birth to God the Son.
She is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. (Which latter, incidentally, is simply the acknowledgement that she conceived her Son not by force, not by some dillydallying as the Greco-Roman “gods” were said to be wont to do, fathering children on women everywhere; her conception was a sacred event, in which she legitimately & wholly morally became pregnant with God the Son.)

Now: your quote is very apropos: “All three distinct yet three in one”. Yes, precisely. Not 3 separate gods. Not some sort of a monstrous 3-headed god. No, neither of those.
The trinity is a great mystery, but it is also pillar & foundation of faith. We do not have the option of chopping God up into discrete parts, & treating them as separate entities; not if we choose to stay within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
So, when we say, “Mother of God”, we are saying precisely that Mary is the mother of God the Son. To stray from that, is to stray into dangerous waters, where many have, to their sorrow, foundered. It is that which is the source of this discussion, since there seems to be a great need, in these days, to remind people of the fact that while we may never (at least in this life) fathom the Holy Trinity, we are not, if we are Christians, given the option of tampering with the knowledge that we do have–however tempting it may be, when to tamper would support a pet belief or fancy.
Which brings us full circle, right back to our late, sad, acquaintance, Nestorius, whose acquaintance we have all been experiencing for no little time now…
God bless.

This reminds me of the Catholic Answer’s Quiz, it’s link is in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76419

One of the questions was who died on the Cross. I got that question wrong, and apparently from the answers provided, a lot of people do too.

 

[Zooey]

“A great deal?” I could read it ALL in five minutes or less.

Even the speed reader that I am, would have trouble covering it in 5 hours, much less minutes.
As the old saying has it, “There are none so blind as they that will not see”. If you are determined not to find the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Bible, you will, of course, read her out of it.When you open your heart & your mind, she is everywhere.

Now you could use the phrase “a great deal” in reference to the Son - or even king David, or the Apostle Paul.

God the Son?? Yes, certainly. David and Paul?? They scarcely scratch the surface. But…I predicted that you would neither believe me, nor would you try to look beyond your prejudices…
You might start with “the Ark of the Covenant”, & go on from there.

Of course I said nothing “Nestorian.”

My dear man, you might* be* Nestorius!! If you do not quote him word for word, at times, I will miss my guess…Again: You need to find out just what it was that Nestorius both believed & taught. I have followed this thread from the beginning. You are a Nestorian; not what you want to hear, but, sadly, true.

What is not dead is your need to accuse falsely. Now that’s disrepectful, my dear.

I do realize that you want to believe that you are being accused falsely, but again, an old saying: “If the shoe doesn’t fit your foot, why do you keep trying it on?”
In the real world, if you espouse the teachings of Nestorius, you are a Nestorian…even when that does not please you. Whether you like it or not, the fact is that you are following in his footsteps.
Now, for me–or the others here–to say so, is then not disrespect, it is the simple truth.
The truth, I acknowledge, sometimes hurts…But, as I have said in previous posts, if you are going to use the man’s thoughts, at least have the decency to Nestorius to declare yourself Nestorian.
But to act the wounded innocent:nope: doesn’t work when you are caught with your hand in the cooky jar, & it :nope: doesn’t work here.
This is not, as you seem to think, a matter of Catholic versus Protestant belief. It is a matter of orthodox Christian teaching versus, well…heresy… I can’t help that, though I know it makes you unhappy. I am not trying to please you–or any other human. I am simply stating what is the essence of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, for all Christians, regardless of labels.
Again, God bless.