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

[TheOpenTheist]

One of the main reasons why I don’t often refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is because members of Christ’s Body such as myself are said to be favored or graced just as Mary was said to be highly favored in Luke according to Eph 1:6

Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted charitoo] in the Beloved.

 

[Genesis315]

TheOpenTheist:

One of the main reasons why I don’t often refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is because members of Christ’s Body such as myself are said to be favored or graced just as Mary was said to be highly favored in Luke according to Eph 1:6

That’s not why she is called Mother of God. She is called that because she bore God incarnate. You cannot separate the divine and human natures of Christ.

As for what you’re talking about, you actually make a good case for the Immaculate Conception. She was called that before Baptism and before the Incarnation and the Body of Christ even existed

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Genesis315:

That’s not why she is called Mother of God. She is called that because she bore God incarnate. You cannot separate the divine and human natures of Christ.

As for what you’re talking about, you actually make a good case for the Immaculate Conception. She was called that before Baptism and before the Incarnation and the Body of Christ even existed

I guess saying that is OK. She is highly favored. That does not mean she was going to spend eternity with God. Even she could have turned and fallen just as Moses almost did until his wife circumcised their son and angrily through the foreskin at Moses’ feet. God almost killed Moses cause he did not circumcise his son on the eighth day as God commanded. Had Mary turned she would be heading to an eternity of fire. Thankfully, she didn’t

 

[mercygate]

TheOpenTheist:

One of the main reasons why I don’t often refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is because members of Christ’s Body such as myself are said to be favored or graced just as Mary was said to be highly favored in Luke according to Eph 1:6

Hm. Perhaps a review of this thread would be helpful to you. This thread is actuallly not about why Protestants do not call Mary “Mother of God” but about why all Christians, including Protestants, who hold an Orthodox doctrine of God do call her that.

This is not a thread about Mary or about hypermariolatrous propensities run riot. This is a thread about the one divine Person present in two natures in the Incarnate Word.

As for Ephesians 1:6, the shade of meaning charitos/echapitosen is quite different from the Lukan form kecharitomene.

 

[Zooey]

TheOpenTheist:

I guess saying that is OK. She is highly favored. That does not mean she was going to spend eternity with God. Even she could have turned and fallen just as Moses almost did until his wife circumcised their son and angrily through the foreskin at Moses’ feet. God almost killed Moses cause he did not circumcise his son on the eighth day as God commanded. Had Mary turned she would be heading to an eternity of fire. Thankfully, she didn’t

I think that’s true. In fact, it’s a good point. She could have refused, she could have denied her Son’s deity. But she said “yes”, for which we can all be truly grateful.
Adam & Eve fell; they made the wrong choice. Mary made the right choice. Therein lies a great difference. All the difference in the world.

 

[Zooey]

mercygate:

Hm. Perhaps a review of this thread would be helpful to you. This thread is actuallly not about why Protestants do not call Mary “Mother of God” but about why all Christians, including Protestants, who hold an Orthodox doctrine of God do call her that.

This is not a thread about Mary or about hypermariolatrous propensities run riot. This is a thread about the one divine Person present in two natures in the Incarnate Word.

As for Ephesians 1:6, the shade of meaning charitos/echapitosen is quite different from the Lukan form kecharitomene.

Actually, a number of us on this thread are, indeed, Protestant Christians who are arguing for the orthodoxy of calling Mary the “Mother of God”, precisely because that title is in defense, not of Mary, but of the deity of Mary’s Son. That was its origin.
Bringing us, I believe, full circle to the Nestorian heresy.

 

[ChristianWAB]

I’ve generally referred to Mary as the mother of JESUS, simply because nobody who believes in Jesus could possibly dispute that. People don’t need to refer to Mary as the mother of God to prove the deity of Jesus. Jesus did a fine job of proving that on His own, did he not?

I’ve noticed a war of syllogisms between religious groups on several levels and, not to bash Catholicism exclusively (because they’re not the only ones), but I’ve noticed that most Catholic conclusions that are reached syllogistically are the ones that are most hotly debated.

The one that probably tops the list is the “Mother of God” argument. The Catholic syllogism could go something like this:

1.) Jesus is God.
2.) Mary was the mother of Jesus.

therefore…

3.) Mary is the mother of God.

I once heard a comedian use a similar method to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion by saying:

1.) God is love.
2.) Love is blind.

therefore…

3.) Ray Charles is God.

Silly, isn’t it? I certainly think so.

Sooooo…, Catholics and Protestants can go twelve rounds on semantics if they want to, but I simply accept and believe that God has always existed and Mary was a human who lived and died as all humans do, so I say that Mary was the mother of Jesus and move on to more important things… like focusing on Jesus Himself. :bowdown:

 

[Zooey]

ChristianWAB:

I’ve generally referred to Mary as the mother of JESUS, simply because nobody who believes in Jesus could possibly dispute that. Unfortunately, this has not been the way that history has played itself out.(Would that were so!!!)

All the major heresies of all time have grown out of the fact that there is something in man’s mind that just does not want to have to accept the truth that Jesus is indeed God the Son. Yet, these people would claim–& honestly believe–that He was no such thing.

People don’t need to refer to Mary as the mother of God to prove the deity of Jesus. Jesus did a fine job of proving that on His own, did he not?
You’d think so, wouldn’t you??? Yet the pages of history are littered with the names of heretical teachers who claimed the name of Jesus, without being willing to accept Him as God in human form, as 100% God and 100% man.
As a result, we have creeds, we have orthodox teachings…all to keep clear in the minds of the ordinary person that Jesus Christ is not just a good man, not just a prophet, not just somehow containing a portion of God, but that He is indeed God.

Sooooo…, Catholics and Protestants can go twelve rounds on semantics if they want to, If this were only about semantics, I would agree.
It is more than that. We are dealing with people’s lives in this world, & potentially with their destination in the next…Pretty important stuff, no???

but I simply accept and believe that God has always existed and Mary was a human who lived and died as all humans do, so I say that Mary was the mother of Jesus and move on to more important things… like focusing on Jesus Himself. :bowdown: I believe, with due respect, that since so many people have foundered on the beaches of the teachings of Nestorius, et al, that it is absolutely essential that we define our terms…
The question of whether Mary is the Mother of God has, really, little to do with her, and everything to do with the question: “What think you of Christ”?
Perhaps this is a case of: “To those who believe, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”…But I hope things are not so hopeless as that.
May God bless you and yours.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

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

It’s not either/or–it’s both/and.

linus:

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

Wrong.

 

[mercygate]

linus:

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

Absolutely not.

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

Taking things like this at “face value” is often problematic, and in this case is fatal.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

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.

Relativism.

linus:

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.

The councils were guided by the Holy Spirit–and The Holy Spirit is infallible.

 

[linus]

Zooey:

Linus, Linus, Linus…What can I say???It is, as my grandmother would have said enough to make a dog laugh!! Speak for yourself, I have no need of nonsense about gender equality". That is just too, too, silly for words. The very fact that it popped into *your *head, is revealing, though!!!

Actually, you’re the one who took the discussion down that path by accusing me of being bigoted, prejudice toward Mary’s gender. And you protest too loudly - revealing the fact I struck a nerve.

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.

You need to read the account from the Biblical text, Zooey. Not just RCC pamphlets. Joseph was going to put her away secretly, but an angel of the Lord appeared to him and informed him of the situation. She was not left to the “fate” of Joseph’s decision. God was with 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.

Do you really think that was even a remote possibility with Mary and the Child to whom she would give birth??? Jesus was born into this world to become the unblemished, *Lamb of God * who would through the sacrifice of Himself take away the sin of the world. She was told by Gabriel that she WOULD conceive and bear a Son and He WILL be great and God WILL give to Him the throne of His father David (Lk. 1:32-33). This was divine assurance, Zooey. You’re being too dramatic. Stick to the Biblical account, Zooey, and you’ll see it’s about Jesus and God’s plan of redemption through HIM. Not the “heroics” of Mary which you dramatically impose on the account.

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”.

Actually, she said, “be it done to me according to your word.” It was more a faith response than one of permission. She was a woman of faith. You tell the story as if she was all on her own and God was off somewhere occupied. Zooey, the Child she would give birth to was God. It was all according to HIS plan for your eternal welfare, and hers.

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 don’t know how old she was. One thing for sure is she was not a mere child playing with dolls. Where do you get this stuff???

You read out all of the beauty of the drama.

You read into it your own drama. Stick to the Biblical accounts, Zooey. You’ll see the beauty of her FAITH, but even more, God’s FAITHFULNESS toward her.

You underestimate what she said “yes” too. You underestimate her altogether…which may be the problem.

You WAY overestimate her, which is your problem. Stick to the Scriptures, Zooey. You won’t be led astray.

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”.

Why would I say that? She can’t hear me.

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.”

I’m not a “sinner,” I’m a “saint” by calling (1 Cor. 1:2).

How is it Zooey you haven’t converted to Catholicism? What holds you back? What are you afraid of?

 

[Mickey]

ChristianWAB:

The Catholic syllogism could go something like this:

1.) Jesus is God.
2.) Mary was the mother of Jesus.

therefore…

3.) Mary is the mother of God.

I once heard a comedian use a similar method to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion by saying:

1.) God is love.
2.) Love is blind.

therefore…

3.) Ray Charles is God.

Silly, isn’t it? I certainly think so.

Jesus is God = true
Mary was the mother of Jesus = true
Mary is the mother of God = true

God is love = true
Love is blind = false
Ray Charles is God = false

Silly, isn’t it?

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Why would I say that? She can’t hear me.

She most certainly can.

 

[ChristianWAB]

Zooey:
The question of whether Mary is the Mother of God has, really, little to do with her, and everything to do with the question: “What think you of Christ”?

That might be the intent, but as I’m sure you’d agree, confusion abounds and misconceptions about Catholic teachings arise from these seemingly innocuous statements.

When the majority of people hear the word* “GOD,”* they don’t just think of the Holy Spirit or of Jesus. Chances are, they’re thinking of God in His entirety and, knowing that Mary did not give birth to either the Father or the Holy Spirit, people are bound to raise a stink about Mary being referred to as the Mother of God instead of the Mother of Jesus.

Do I understand the Catholic explanation of why they call Mary the mother of God? Of course I do. But for the sake of eschewing an unnecessary holy war, I just call Mary the mother of Jesus and leave it at that.

We know that Mary was a virgin who was chosen by God for a very important task and she obeyed. For that, she will be forever respected. But I simply don’t see how squabbling over what to call Mary will ever matter in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve heard it all when it comes to Mary *(i.e.: Mary led a sinless life, Mary ascended into heaven, Mary is seated at the right hand of Jesus, Mary appeared to Catholics in an apparition to tell them to pray the Rosary, Mary’s image appeared on a frosted window in Uzbekistan, Mary’s image appeared on a piece of toast, etc). *

Do any of these alleged Mary sightings change Jesus’ message of salvation.** No**. If anything, they *distract *from it, which I would imagine makes Satan very happy. We’re taking our eyes off the ball and we’re losing focus in a big way. That’s just my opinion of course.

 

[Mickey]

ChristianWAB:

That might be the intent, but as I’m sure you’d agree, confusion abounds and misconceptions about Catholic teachings arise from these seemingly innocuous statements.

When the majority of people hear the word* “GOD,”* they don’t just think of the Holy Spirit or of Jesus. Chances are, they’re thinking of God in His entirety and, knowing that Mary did not give birth to either the Father or the Holy Spirit, people are bound to raise a stink about Mary being referred to as the Mother of God instead of the Mother of Jesus.

Do I understand the Catholic explanation of why they call Mary the mother of God? Of course I do. But for the sake of eschewing an unnecessary holy war, I just call Mary the mother of Jesus and leave it at that.

We know that Mary was a virgin who was chosen by God for a very important task and she obeyed. For that, she will be forever respected. But I simply don’t see how squabbling over what to call Mary will ever matter in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve heard it all when it comes to Mary *(i.e.: Mary led a sinless life, Mary ascended into heaven, Mary is seated at the right hand of Jesus, Mary appeared to Catholics in an apparition to tell them to pray the Rosary, Mary’s image appeared on a frosted window in Uzbekistan, Mary’s image appeared on a piece of toast, etc). *

Do any of these alleged Mary sightings change Jesus’ message of salvation.** No**. If anything, they *distract *from it, which I would imagine makes Satan very happy. We’re taking our eyes off the ball and we’re losing focus in a big way. That’s just my opinion of course.

The Trinity, one in substance and undivided. This is a mystery that human minds cannot comprehend. Jesus is God (the son). There should be no confusion with the title “Mother of God”. It is an absolute truth. I think what makes satan very happy is the fact that people would refuse to use this title which is rooted in Sacred Tradition.

P.S–Be very careful when you equate the vision of The Mother of God at Fatima, with frosted windows and pieces of toast. You are likely to raise the ire of many Catholics on this forum.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[ChristianWAB]

“P.S–Be very careful when you equate the vision of The Mother of God at Fatima, with frosted windows and pieces of toast. You are likely to raise the ire of many Catholics on this forum.”

…and if I were kidding, I’d heed that advisement without hesitation. Unfortunately for everybody, the frosted window and toast appearances weren’t just clever quips; they were just a couple of stories spun by people to bolster the idea of what I believe are collectively known as Marian Apparitions (though I do understand that people go nuts over this stuff, so I appreciate your advice).

We actually had an instance of this stuff in Milton, Massachusetts (not too far from where I live) where people thought they saw an image of the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child in a hospital window. It had later been determined that the “image” was caused by a window seal leak resulting in condensation inside the window. People flocked by the thousands to get a look at it and it got so bad that they were actually disrupting the goings-on in the hospital itself.

To the man with no belief in God, these events are laughable. To me, they’re just sad. Alas, people are free to converge on a perceived image etched on a piece of toast if it gives them comfort *(…though, now that I got to thinking about it more carefully, I think it was actually a tortilla in Mexico or something). :nope: *

 

[Mickey]

ChristianWAB:

…and if I were kidding, I’d heed that advisement without hesitation. Unfortunately for everybody, the frosted window and toast appearances weren’t just clever quips; they were just a couple of stories spun by people to bolster the idea of what I believe are collectively known as Marian Apparitions (though I do understand that people go nuts over this stuff, so I appreciate your advice).

We actually had an instance of this stuff in Milton, Massachusetts (not too far from where I live) where people thought they saw an image of the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child in a hospital window. It had later been determined that the “image” was caused by a window seal leak resulting in condensation inside the window. People flocked by the thousands to get a look at it and it got so bad that they were actually disrupting the goings-on in the hospital itself.

To the man with no belief in God, these events are laughable. To me, they’re just sad. Alas, people are free to converge on a perceived image etched on a piece of toast if it gives them comfort *(…though, now that I got to thinking about it more carefully, I think it was actually a tortilla in Mexico or something). :nope: *

Your sarcasm aside, you seem to be confused about apparitions. I would be happy to attempt a discourse on this subject if you care to start a thread about it. In the mean time, Catholic Answers has an informative article regarding apparitions. Here is the article: catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea4.asp

If your opinion on the Catholic Church is influenced by news reports of toast, tortillas, and window seal leaks, then I am greatly saddened.

May the peace and the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always,
Mickey

 

[ChristianWAB]

Mickey:

Your sarcasm aside, you seem to be confused about apparitions… If your opinion on the Catholic Church is influenced by news reports of toast, tortillas, and window seal leaks, then I am greatly saddened.

May the peace and the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always,
Mickey

Trust me, it’s not sarcasm – Just aggrieved commentary on the state of affairs. I’ve no doubt that, in the many years of the RCC’s existence, it’s managed to come up with an explanation for just about every belief that would seem, on the surface, absurd. Perhaps they’ve even authenticated these images as legitimate apparitions of Mary. Again, I’d ask… even if these were legitimate, how do they affect the Gospel?

My opinion of the Catholic Church is, indeed, influenced by the actions of its people, because they derive their beliefs from the church. If anybody is less than bemused by news reports of apparitions in a tortilla, then I am not the one for whom one should feel pity or sorrow. I’ll pray for the Roman Catholic Church to guide its followers in truth.

 

[mercygate]

ChristianWAB:

Trust me, it’s not sarcasm – Just aggrieved commentary on the state of affairs. I’ve no doubt that, in the many years of the RCC’s existence, it’s managed to come up with an explanation for just about every belief that would seem, on the surface, absurd. Perhaps they’ve even authenticated these images as legitimate apparitions of Mary. Again, I’d ask… even if these were legitimate, how do they affect the Gospel?

My opinion of the Catholic Church is, indeed, influenced by the actions of its people, because they derive their beliefs from the church. If anybody is less than bemused by news reports of apparitions in a tortilla, then I am not the one for whom one should feel pity or sorrow. I’ll pray for the Roman Catholic Church to guide its followers in truth.

With a billion Catholics in the world, some of 'em are likely to believe some pretty strange things which are not derived from the Church nor represent the authentic teaching of the Church.

Fortunately, authentic Catholic teaching is readily accessible – all the more now that we have *The Catechism of the Catholic Church. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm *

To judge the Church by something that does not represent her actual teaching smacks of calumny.