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

[Knight4God]

But my entire point, and the point of the Church council that picked the term had nothing to do with origination in the sense at all.

“Mother” does not have to mean “origination” as if the eternal Word originated from the womb of Mary. That seems to be the way you are interpreting the phrase “theotokos”. But this definition is not what Theologins actually mean by it. “Meter” in the Greek world could mean “origin or source” (BDAG p.649) but the main definition is merely “female parent” (ibid). And because the Person of Jesus was both God and Man, then the female parent was the parent of the God-man in one person. When it comes to birth, it is similar. It’s not that theotokos means that the Word had it’s source in the womb of Mary, but that the Person of Christ in the incarnation started at the moment of conception, therefore the physical location of the Body of Christ in Mary’s womb was both God and Man, so that the Word presided in Mary’s womb because the Word had become incarnate there.

The abuse of the term in whatever ways is not the issue. If the phrase is true, the abuse does not make it false, it only means people need to be educated on it.

 

[Knight4God]

And actually, allot of Protestants do, Luther and Calvin do and did, Protestant seminaries acknowledge the truth behind it, even if not using it. Some Protestants debate it, but I think even if I remember James White acknowledged it in his book about Mary. He doesn’t use it outside of specific theological contexts, but he doesn’t deny it’s true. (I’d have to double check this one though, and his book is not with me right now). The only one I know for sure rejects it is Eric Svendsen.

 

[Mickey]

Zooey:

Mickey, I think you have pegged our friend perfectly! He is defending heresy because he believes that said heresy is actually true, and that orthodox belief is heretical…
OK, I leave you all to try to reason with him…He has:nope: rejected truth for a heterodox belief that allows him the freedom to attack those of us who are trying to explain what orthodoxy is…
But he knows that; it just isn’t helpful to his argument…
Very sad.

Exactly!

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Mary was human, right? As you rightfully state above, Mary gave the “flesh” (human nature) to the Word. Therefore in that respect she can be called His “Mother,” but only in connection to His humanity.

Nestorius! Nestorius! :bigyikes:

 

[linus]

Knight4God:

But my entire point, and the point of the Church council that picked the term had nothing to do with origination in the sense at all.

And this is specifically my point. It was MEN who predicated to her that title, you’ll find it nowhere in Scripture.

The abuse of the term in whatever ways is not the issue. If the phrase is true, the abuse does not make it false, it only means people need to be educated on it.

The problem is they weren’t, nor are, educated on the term. As I’ve pointed out previously, even more extra-biblical doctrines and appellations were developed and predicated to her down through the centuries, by men, and taught as the “orthodox” faith (see Gal. 5:9 for the divine principle).

When examining Church history and the development of doctrine, you’d have to admit the term “mother of God,” ulitmately, far more benefited the exaltation of Mary than Jesus. The fact that Jesus was/is God the Son from all eternity did not need to be expressed by men through Mary, since this truth could be very easily concluded by Scripture alone. It lacks absolutely no Scriptural support. Yet you’ll never find the term “mother of God” predicated to Mary by the same Holy Writ.

I claim and personally believe Jesus was and is one-hundred percent God and at the same time one-hundred percent human. Yet, because I do not accept the appellation, “mother of God,” predicated to Mary by men, I am being called a “heretic” on this thread. Since when is heresy based on one’s belief or rejection of what men have claimed, extra-biblically, concerning Mary? Is this just another elevation of Mary to juxtapostion with the Son that now even heresy is based on her?

I’m not trying to upset Catholics here, but the question of the thread is "why don’t Protestants call Mary “mother of God.” I’m simply providing some Protestant answers to the question.

Peace,
Linus

 

[linus]

Mickey:

Nestorius! Nestorius! :bigyikes:

So then you are saying Mary is the mother of His divine nature?

I don’t agree with you but in reality that is what the term, when taken at face value, means: “mother -of- God.”

 

[linus]

Zooey:

I don’t think that anyone called Mary an “associate”, but for sure, she was associated with the divine plan.

As was Paul, Peter, and all who even today witness to others the gospel message of salvation to the world. But to say, “sponsored by Mary,” is to make her an Associate on a level
with God.

She gave up 9 months of her life bringing the Author of said plan into the world. She spent the years of His childhood raising Him to manhood. And she spent hours standing at the foot of the cross, instead of running for cover, which would have been far safer. And was with the apostles in the upper room on the day of pentecost, when there was blood in the eyes of Jesus’ enemies all over again.

Have you read Paul’s account in 2 Cor. 11:25-33? Certainly he did his part in getting out the word concerning Jesus and salvation. Far more than any of the other Apostles. But we would never say he “sponsored” our redemption, would we?

Nor was it Mary’s idea to be the vessel chosen to give birth to the Messiah, was it? This was divinely decreed even before Mary was born.

 

[as-a-child]

but she, a creation of God, did not give birth to God, which is the unfortunate connotation of that title…

I thought theotokos meant , in a more literal greek translation, she who is pregnant with GOD.
Linus , you also mention that the declaration was made in ephesus because of some pagan goodess. Could you please elaborate.

 

[Knight4God]

Linus,

So then we agree that when understood as it was intended, or as I am explaining, then the title is correct? That’s really my entire argument. Not that you have to use the title, so long as the concept that lies behind the title, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man and cannot have his natures separated too much, that I’m concerned with. The word not being found in scripture is not a hang up for me, sola scriptura means we derive our theology from scripture as the sole ultimate source, not necessarily that it determines what theological language we can or cannot use (like the made up word “Trinity” to describe a Biblical concept). So yes, you don’t need to ever use the title to declare proper Christology, as long as you agree with the intention and meaning of the title as was intended.

I will not admit or deny that Thotokos lead to Marian doctrines I disagree with, I’d have to be shown conclusively that this title was the cause for everything else, and that it would not have developed otherwise. Although it may have been a factor, I’m sure there were many complex reasons during the Middle Ages that most of the Marian dogmas developed, some probably would have developed without the Theotokos title for other reasons. So you won’t get an argument out of me one way or the other on this.

As for your statement that

“The fact that Jesus was/is God the Son from all eternity did not need to be expressed by men through Mary, since this truth could be very easily concluded by Scripture alone”

I would say it is definite and conclusive in scripture alone, but actually this has not always been the case. Arius for example, used scripture a lot in his defense that the Son was a creature, similar to modern “Russelites” (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Which is why all those creeds were formed, because everyone claims to use scripture, but the point is how you interpret it. The Church at the time felt the title was needed to protect the correct interpretation of scripture against Arians and Nestorians. You have the right to disagree and say that the title was unwise (with our 20/20 hindsight). But I would not be to judging on their intentions, and I would at least accept their theological conclusions, if I didn’t like the term for reasons of later possible abuse.

Perhaps we have then reached a medium? Or at least may have to agree to disagree

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hegesippus:

whats funny is that the title “Mother of God” is not to put Mary on a platform but to defend the natures of Christ and thier unity when he became man.

Not originally, no - but the effect of emphasising Mary, has been to make her into something like a Jesa Christa - she’s become as prominent as Christ, even though she is not (in principle at least) to be treated as quite His ontological equal.​

Protestants often ignore her because of a sense that the subject has been too debased by Catholoic exaggerations to be safe to approach. (A similar attitude may be behind Catholic unease with the Bible).

After all, the Bible has no end of things to say of Christ - so she tends to be all but invisible. Paul alludes to her - once.

This is one aspect of the Church’s life where just about anything has been permissible - provide that what goes on falls short of explicit adoration of Mary, as though she were eternal and co-equal with the Three Divine Persons. Short of that, almost anything has been tolerable.

So she has been called

“Co-redemptrix”
“Virgin Priest”
“Co-head [of the Church]”

voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

“The appropriateness of Del Moral’s term “co-headship” (with Christ over the Church) may be argued, for according to some it implies an erroneous coordination of Mary with Christ. But whether this term or some other is employed, his essential point is valid: with Christ and under Christ Mary forms, in virtue of their joint predestination, a single redemptive personality.”

“omnipotent”
“divine”
“Saviouress”
“Mediatrix”

and the phrase “suppliant omnnipotence” has been used of her intercession. But why ascribe that to her and not all Christians ?

Some Catholics even talk of what they call “the marianity”. They are, like the author of the book just quoted, followers of Maximilian Kolbe:

“The new essential characteristic of our franciscan charism is the marianity, expressed by a new religious vow: the marian vow of unlimited consecration to the Immaculate, emitted in the religious profession, together with the other three vows of obedience, poverty and chastity.”

Can Protestants really be blamed for finding Catholic explanations (excuses?) for such things unconvincing ? It does look very much as if she is a substitute Christ; a more sympathetic version of the wrathful Judge Who is Jesus; after all, she is widely known as “a Mediator with the Mediator”, thanks to Louis de Montfort. He does his best to explain away the compassion of Christ, by playing it off against the Holiness of Christ - forgetting entirely that Christ was the friend of sinners, and has presumably not suddenly contracted an allergy to them.

If that title is false or misleading - Rome has had 160 years to do something about it (his book was published in 1842). Is it any wonder if Protestants (who frequently have a much better acquaintance with the Bible than Catholics do) find talk of Mary as a “quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit” disturbing ? How, given the canonisation of the man who came up with that, can Catholics say, with a straight face, that the CC’s attitude to Mary is not idolatrous ? If that is Christian - is there anything that can be said of her that the Church would regard as blasphemy and heresy ? Or can we look forward to theologians justifying her deification as the great Mother-Goddess Mary ? The answer ought to be obvious - but it has ceased to be.

If this massive emphasis on her were based on hundreds of NT references to her, with lengthy quotations of her hundreds of words in the NT, it might make some kind of sense - but she appears seldom and says very little, so the Catholic emphasis on her looks like a massive over-emphasis which bears little relation to what is revealed about her.

If there is a problem for Protestants, it is very largely the fault of the CC.

There is a real problem here, and trying to skewer the deficiencies of Protestant thought, real or supposed, is not the solution to it, but a failure to deal with it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Knight4God:

And actually, allot of Protestants do, Luther and Calvin do and did, Protestant seminaries acknowledge the truth behind it, even if not using it. Some Protestants debate it, but I think even if I remember James White acknowledged it in his book about Mary. He doesn’t use it outside of specific theological contexts, but he doesn’t deny it’s true. (I’d have to double check this one though, and his book is not with me right now). The only one I know for sure rejects it is Eric Svendsen.

We might do far worse than go back to the Latin title of “Deipara” - “she who brings God forth”. Leo I used in his letters, after Ephesus - so it can hardly be contrary to the definition.​

Maybe Nestorius was more on the ball than he has been given credit for - not because Christ is two persons (He’s not), but because “mother of God” has unfortunate overtones. “Christ-bearer” is far more satisfactory as a means of avoiding the horrid idea that she is mother of the Trinity. ##

 

[lurdes]

Rebecca New:

He who has seen Me has seen the Father. Mary is the Blessed Mother of Jesus. So it was Jesus that led me to believe that Mary is the Mother of God. The Holy Trinity is a mystery that I do not feel capable of really understanding, but it is not a mystery that They are one. Sometimes its not what you know but Who you know.

Hi Rebeca, I’ll try to explain the Trinity for you the way I saw in EWTN and that’s the way I explained it to my childrend, a ligth bulb it ligths up a room, inside that light bulb you’ll see three wires that are conected, without this three wires the ligth bulb can’t give ligth, well God is like a ligth bulb and the wires inside are like the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit united in the essence of God.
I hope you can undestand it a little better.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU, YOUR SISTER IN CHRIST LURDES.

 

[Knight4God]

## We might do far worse than go back to the Latin title of “Deipara” - “she who brings God forth”. Leo I used in his letters, after Ephesus - so it can hardly be contrary to the definition.

That’s interesting, I’ve not heard of that term being used. I defend the title “theotokos” based on the concept intended, but would not have an issue using that, as it means the same, but perhaps does remove some of the misunderstood connotations.

 

[Zooey]

linus:

As was Paul, Peter, and all who even today witness to others the gospel message of salvation to the world.

So why is it that you cavil only when it comes to Mary?? Because she’s a woman??? I’m serious, I cannot see why she puts your back up so badly. You even object to “theotokos”, which is specifically used to express Christ’s deity from the womb, as opposed to the suggestion that He was not God at all, simply another prophet.

But to say, “sponsored by Mary,” is to make her an Associate on a level
with God.

Again: stuff and nonsense! You are so allergic to Mary that you can’t stop sputtering your dislike long enough to realize that this is utter boloney.

Have you read Paul’s account in 2 Cor. 11:25-33? Certainly he did his part in getting out the word concerning Jesus and salvation.

Yeah, I have. I’ve read the whole Bible, many times, in many different translations. (She’s the Mother of God in all of them…unless you’re determined that she not be. Like Nestorius, in which case, a church council was needed).
I also know that Mary put her life on the line, again & again, just to bear her Son…She could have been killed for becoming pregnant. She could have died delivering Him, she could have been dragged off by the mobs & killed for following Him down the way of the cross. She could have been killed by anti-Christian people like the ppre-conversion Saul of Tarsus, for not publicly repudiating her Son & His ministry.

Far more than any of the other Apostles. But we would never say he “sponsored” our redemption, would we?

If St Paul’s role in the early days of Christianity were in question, I would hope & expect that somebody would rise to his defense. I would say that if he were a godfather–which is more than likely, considering his position & the state of the world then–I would say that he sponsored that child’s adoption into the family of God, which would be a giant step toward said child’s redemption, no??

Nor was it Mary’s idea to be the vessel chosen to give birth to the Messiah, was it?

No, but she said yes! It was her idea to agree to cooperate with the Divine plan. Despite the dangers, embarrassments, & discomforts, she said “YES!!” loud & clear. For which I thank her.

This was divinely decreed even before Mary was born.

That Jesus would be born? Yes. That he would be born of this particular virginal Jewish teenager?? No; that waited on her fiat. She had to say “yes”; to say it was simply “decreed before she was born”, & that she had no say, is to accuse the Holy Spirit of behaving no better than the Greek Zeus. He would scarcely be the Holy Spirit unless He were a Gentleman. Do you really want to:tsktsk: go there???

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Many Protestants take great offence in calling Mary “Mother of God”. I think this is because they assume that we mean “Mary, Mother of God-the-Father”. But (and please correct me if I’m wrong) don’t we mean “Mary, Mother of God-the-Son”? Although Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are One in the Trinity. I would like more information about the title “Mother of God” so that I can understand it better. Anyway, I suppose protestants simply assume it’s Catholics placing Mary in a higher place than God the Father.

 

[linus]

Zooey:

Sounds pretty convincing to me…For sure, all of them a lot closer to the events that your ‘friend’ is.

“Close” being the key word. NONE living at the time to eyewitness and document the alleged Roman Bishopric of Peter.

Ummm …let’s see…Nope, all those people are dead now.

Yes, and none lived at the time of Peter’s alleged Bishopric, hence none could leave behind an eyewitness, written document like John and Peter did regarding their personal, eyewitness experience with the Lord (see 1 Jo. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16).

You see, Zooey, what makes true Christianity superior to all other “religions” (for lack of a better term) is that it’s not simply based on “spiritual” writings, but on actual, historical facts, eyewitnessed and documented by real people. In fact, such was the commissioned job of the Apostles (see Acts 1:8; cf. 1:22-23).

True Christianity is not based on hearsay, traditions not grounded in historical facts, or flowery doctrines of men - but on the Word of God and men who, “from the beginning,” “heard,” “saw with their own eyes,” “handled with their own hands,” and then proclaimed to us the truth preserved in Holy Spirit, God-breathed (theopneustos), writings.

 

[linus]

Zooey:

So why is it that you cavil only when it comes to Mary?? Because she’s a woman???

Ahhhh, ok, now I understand what fuels your passion. It’s based on what you consider gender inequities in Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit all addressed as “He,” twelve male Apostles, through a man we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, and access to God, etc.). And the elevated, Marian doctrines of Catholicism tend to appease those sentiments of inequity for you. I did find it curious when you stated in a previous post: "She gave up 9 months of her life bringing the Author of said plan into the world." A reflection of many women today regarding the birthing of children, that they must “give up” a portion of their own lives. But it’s not fair to impose today’s attitudes toward child birthing, held by some women, onto Mary, or even the Jewish culture of her day. There’s no hint at all that Mary considered going through the process of birthing the Messiah as “giving up” anything - but instead counted herself “blessed,” as she knew all godly men and women would (Lk. 1:48).

I don’t think that anyone called Mary an “associate”, but for sure, she was associated with the divine plan

And in that respect, even ALL who share with others the gospel of Jesus Christ are “associated” with the divine plan of redemption. But none of us are the “sponsors” of it. If there is any “Sponsor” of the divine plan of redemption through Christ it is the “paracletos” sent by Christ Himself - the Holy Spirit who Jesus said “will glorify Me” (Jn. 15:26; 16:7-14).

That Jesus would be born? Yes. That he would be born of this particular virginal Jewish teenager?? No; that waited on her fiat. She had to say “yes”; to say it was simply “decreed before she was born”, & that she had no say, is to accuse the Holy Spirit of behaving no better than the Greek Zeus. He would scarcely be the Holy Spirit unless He were a Gentleman. Do you really want to go there???

Do you really believe God had to wait to know Mary’s response and which direction His plan of redemption needed to go?

“I am God and there is no other;
I am God and there is no one like Me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things which have not been done”
(Is. 46:9-10).

Your and my redemption did not hinge on Mary’s faith response to what the angel Gabriel told her. The “yes” that truly mattered was the one said in eternity past by the Son who agreed to take on humanity and, as a substitutionary sin-sacrifice, procure the salvation for all who believe in Him

 

[linus]

Knight4God:

So then we agree that when understood as it was intended, or as I am explaining, then the title is correct?

I can only agree that the title MUST be understood and restricted to its original context and intent; but that original intention has been fully obscured because of all the Marian doctrinal excesses that followed.

However, giving that title to Mary to explain the deity of Christ I cannot agree was the “correct” thing to do by the Council. Yes, we have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, and it’s because of this advantage we can now appraise with greater wisdom a hasty decision made by men. Remember, it’s a man-made designation and therefore subject to ambiguity and even blunder. But Catholicism believes in the infallibility of the Councils and therefore it must defend that title at all costs.

You cannot in fairness compare the extra-biblical term “Trinity” with “Theotokos.” The term “Trinity” conveniently expresses what the whole body of Scripture reveals concerning the eternal Persons of the Godhead. Expressing the divine nature of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - from all eternity, to all eternity. Is that true of Mary and the term “theotokos?” Catholicism (Western and Eastern) teach, based on the term, “theotokos,” that Mary exerts her motherly relationship with the Son for all eternity. Do you believe this?

I will not admit or deny that Thotokos lead to Marian doctrines I disagree with, I’d have to be shown conclusively that this title was the cause for everything else, and that it would not have developed otherwise.

Oh, I too am sure they would have still developed. Keep in mind the religious background of Gentiles that were coming into the Church, especially after Christianity was declared the official religion of the Empire. In fact, at the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the veneration of Mary was already on the rise amongst the populous, especially in Ephesus. The term “theotokos” simply opened the door as wide as it could go. And it didn’t take long for Christianity to begin to resemble the Mother-Son religions that existed in the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

You say you’re not sure if the excesses started with that term. But think about it. Could the “mother of God” be any less than sinless than the God she bore? Hence the “Immaculate Conception.” Would not a Son always listen to his “mother”? Hence the title “Mediatrix.” If the Son is King and now reigns in Heaven over His kingdom, would not the “mother of God” be queen of that alleged kingdom? Hence, the title “Queen of Heaven.” If the Son gives eternal life, wouldn’t the “mother of God” be the "Mother of all Life? Could the Son redeem without the “mother” first giving birth to Him? Hence, the title Co-Redemptrix. If the Son adcended bodily into Heaven to return to His glory, would not the “Mother of God” ascend bodily. Hence, the Assumption of Mary. And the logic goes on and on until she is elevated to the same position as the divine Son she bore.

Once given the title does it ever stop? Did the Council put a statute of limitations on it? Do you believe she continues in Heaven exercising the same relationship she had with Jesus on earth? Now that the Son has ascended and has resumed the same glory He had with the Father before His incarnation, does Mary in some peculiar way enter into that glory as His “Mother?” Do you believe she is “theotokos” forever? The “Trinity” is the Trinity forever. Is that true of the title “theotokos?”

For that matter, do you believe your own mother is your “mother” forever?

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Ahhhh, ok, now I understand what fuels your passion. It’s based on what you consider gender inequities in Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit all addressed as “He,” twelve male Apostles, through a man we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, and access to God, etc.).

Linus, Linus, Linus…What can I say???It is, as my grandmother would have said enough to make a http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gifdog laugh!! Speak for yourself, I have no need of nonsense about http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gif"gender equality". That is just too, too, silly for words. The very fact that it popped into *your *head, is revealing, though!!!And the elevated, Marian doctrines of Catholicism tend to appease those sentiments of inequity for you.

I did find it curious when you stated in a previous post: “She gave up 9 months of her life bringing the Author of said plan into the world.” A reflection of many women today regarding the birthing of children, that they must “give up” a portion of their own lives. But it’s not fair to impose today’s attitudes toward child birthing, held by some women, onto Mary, or even the Jewish culture of her day. There’s no hint at all that Mary considered going through the process of birthing the Messiah as “giving up” anything - but instead counted herself “blessed,” as she knew all godly men and women would (Lk. 1:48).

My dear Linus, you misunderstand the whole climate of Jewish society at the time of Christ…Unlike today’s world–when as many babies are born to unwed teenagers as to anyone else, and never a crossways look–In Mary’s world, for her to have a baby was a total scandal. She might well have been executed, had Joseph not stood fast by her.
Further, the maternal death rate was appalling!! Women died, left, right, and center, for the lack of elementary hygiene, as much as anything. If the birth went badly, she could & would most likely die. If not that, then perhaps be an invalid for life. That was life, Linus. Until the 20th century, every pregancy & birth was a trip through the “valley of death”. Every one. And most of those women had husbands, to stand by them. Mary had a fiance, who would have been well within his rights to declare her apparent infidelity to the world. But she loved God, more than the praise of man. She took the chance. She said “yes”. Freely, willingly, not knowing what lay ahead, but knowing full well that it might be disastrous for her own welfare, she said “Yes”.
And this was a child, Linus. This was a 13 or 14 year old child we are speaking of. A girl, not a woman yet, who might well have been playing with her dolls when Gabriel stepped on the stage of her life. You read out all of the beauty of the drama. You underestimate what she said “yes” too. You underestimate her altogether…which may be the problem.

And–I have been calling her “blessed” for quite some time now. It is you who refuse to say the words: “Hail, Mary, full of grace the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus”.
I say it every day, Linus, and I follow it with the salutation of Elizabeth, & that of countless believers down the centuries since: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

 

[Zooey]

linus:

And in that respect, even ALL who share with others the gospel of Jesus Christ are “associated” with the divine plan of redemption. But none of us are the “sponsors” of it.

None of us are sponsors., no, that is surely true. Neither are we “associates”. We, poor ornery people like You & me, we are the beneficiaries. All undeserving, we are handed the opportunity to follow, or not to follow. God is a gentleman, Linus. He does not force His way in where He is unwanted.
You & I battle against our “body of death” until we close our eyes in death. The will to sin is ever haunting us. We fight it, sometimes harder than others. Sometimes we fall, and when we do, we cry out for healing & forgiveness.
And even as our Lord hears us, and reaches to reclaim us, so does our Lady whisper a prayer for us. At the wedding at Cana, she said simply “they have no more wine”, & to the servants, “Do whatever He tells you”. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, of blessed memory, called that the greatest sermon in the history of Christianity".
And now, she whispers, “dear child”, and it breaks my heart. No one, more than Mary, draws me back into the sweet fellowship with her Son, because she breaks my heart.
She STOOD at the foot of the cross…I would have collapsed on the ground, if, indeed, I had not run for safe cover, but she STOOD there. He was her only one. She would not leave Him. Not now. Not ever. What are my poor sufferings, beside that???And that, too, is a sermon…That is a challenge. I pray God that I may not fall short.

If there is any “Sponsor” of the divine plan of redemption through Christ it is the “paracletos” sent by Christ Himself - the Holy Spirit who Jesus said “will glorify Me” (Jn. 15:26; 16:7-14)

. But, Linus, you are downgrading the Holy Spirit! You are dragging Him to the level of humanity. He did not “sponsor”; He was there all the time. He was weeping with the Father, and with all of creation.
But Mary stood surety. She pledged her own body and her own blood. The blood that Christ shed for you & me, was 100% from her. Every bit of DNA that the Lord Jesus had, came from Mary. There was not one hair on the head that was crowned with thorns, that was not hers.
“God is spirit”. God had/has no DNA to form a human side for the Son of God to become incarnate. Every bit of it, she gave. When she watched Him dying, it was her Son she saw, but it was also herself. And yet she stood, Linus, she stood.

Do you really believe God had to wait to know Mary’s response and which direction His plan of redemption needed to go?

I will say it again: God is a gentleman. Of course He needed her response!! She had to freely accept the role for which God had chosen her.
Did He know what she would say? He is God, so, yes, He knew. But He did not force it. He did not coerce. He asked, like a gentleman, he asked, and she said yes.
A tragedy had begun, in the garden of Eden, when Eve let herself be beguiled by the serpent. Mary crushed the serpent’s head. Instead of rebellion, she gave her fiat. Think of it: a child, a slight reed of a girl, said “Yes”. And the tragedy that began so long before, began its great turn into triumph.

“I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done”(Is. 46:9-10).

Indeed. One thing that had never been done was done at that “yes”. A woman, born to this earthly frame, said “yes”. Not “maybe”, not “sometimes”, not even “I suppose so”. Just “yes”.
That “yes” rings down the centuries. When the last page of earth shall be rolled up as a scroll, her “yes” will still be sung of, in the highest Heaven. They will sing it to their queen.

Your and my redemption did not hinge on Mary’s faith response to what the angel Gabriel told her.

Asked, Linus, not told; she was not ordered, she was asked. Unlike all the rest of humankind, Mary said “yes”.

The “yes” that truly mattered was the one said in eternity past by the Son who agreed to take on humanity and, as a substitutionary sin-sacrifice, procure the salvation for all who believe in Him

Indeed, that does matter, most of all. But it was God’s plan that a Jewish teenager should hold it in her hands to say “yes” or “no”.
She said “yes”. Whatever plan He might have had in reserve, we do not know. In this life, at least we will never know.
We know only that she said “YES!!”, to a new beginning for us all.
God bless.