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

[Singinbeauty]

“May be” the mother of God the Son? Meaning, may be she’s not His mother, or maybe Jesus isn’t the True Son of God?

Let me rephrase that since you want to pick apart grammar… Does this work better for ya…

While Mary is the Mother of God the Son she is not the Mother of God as a whole.

Is that better?

 

[roadrunner570]

mlchance:

It’s a straw man because no one is saying that Mary is originating point for God, that God originates from Mary. Well, except for you setting up that tired notion as a straw man in order to knock it down.

The logic of the syllogism I’ve posted is inescapable. To deny its conclusion, you either must deny Jesus Christ’s divinity or else deny that Mary is Jesus Christ’s mother.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well, by saying that Mary is mother of God, it is my belief that is what is being said. A mother gives birth to her offspring, so if she is mother of God, then she gave birth to God.

No one is denying she gave birth to Jesus Christ, she did give birth to him, in his human form. Not in his divine form. Jesus existed prior to his birth here on Earth.

Like I said earlier, the original question is why don’t protetestants call Mary mother of God. That is the answer. If you want to call it a straw man, tired notion, whatever, that is fine, but I’m not going to change what I believe.

 

[Milliardo]

linus:

Number 2 can only be done in the physical presence of someone, or through some other medium such as telephone, computer e-mail, letter, carrier pigeon, relay runners, etc., etc.

That’s funny, because we ask fervent petitions to God. I guess that rules Him out as well.

Other than that you would have to pray TO that person in order to ask that person to pray FOR you. And in order to do that, that person you are asking (remotely) to pray FOR you, would need to be endued with super-natural powers, since they (normally) can neither see you, nor hear you, nor read your mind.

Interestingly, in Jesus’ narrative of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man can perfectly hear, see and know what his relatives were going through, and so does Abraham and Lazarus. Do they have supernatural powers then, or do they come from God?

“Titanite,” you may pray to me if you want, but let me assure you, I will not be able to hear you. If you want someone to pray FOR you then drive over to their house, call them by phone, send them a letter or e-mail, but prayer is reserved for God only, since He only has the power to hear you.

I think that worship is reserved for God alone; prayer though is much more a means to giving out a message. An analogy to this is a letter: now there are different forms of letters. A letter addressed to the President would not be the same as to one addressed to your friend, would it now? Of course not. The same is true with prayer then: prayer is simply a means to sending your message. It would help to study first prayers to saints, and I would recommend studying the prayer said most to someone outside of the Trinity, and that’s the “Hail Mary”.

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

You’re missing what she said. Jesus said:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty

Jesus in his divine state has no beginning or any end.

Jesus in his earthly state was born of Mary. Mary is Jesus’ earthly mother.

Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother because he has no beginning.

I think you are starting to fall into the **Nestorian Heresy ** here:

Mary isn’t Jesus’s “earthly” mother, she is His Mother. Full stop.

By saying that Jesus “in His divine state” has no mother, you are dividing Jesus into two persons, one whose mother is Mary and one whose mother isn’t Mary. This is exactly what nestorius attempted.

In fact Jesus is One Person not two, and His Mother is Mary. To deny this is actually to deny the reality of the Incarnation. By dividing Jesus, you say the incarnation was not real and permanent. This is the danger of your Nestorian position.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So if he made Mary, how could Mary be his divine mother?

Not trying to argue, but the question was why do we not call her mother of God. THis is why

In the beginning was the Word. Indeed.

And it was God the Word who became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary. In other words God the Word became man in the womb of the Virgin. He did not pretend to be a man. He did not “inhabit” or “posess” a human body. He united Himself permanently with human flesh and a human nature from Mary, and **became ** Jesus Christ, God the Son, One person, Fully God and Fully man.

The Mother of this Person, God the Son, is Mary. She is His mother because she bore Him and gave Him her flesh and humanity. Like any mother, she is not mother of part of her Son, but of **ALL ** of Him.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

You’re missing what she said. Jesus said:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty

Jesus in his divine state has no beginning or any end.

Jesus in his earthly state was born of Mary. Mary is Jesus’ earthly mother.

Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother because he has no beginning.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So if he made Mary, how could Mary be his divine mother?

Not trying to argue, but the question was why do we not call her mother of God. THis is why

But the orthodox doctrine of God does not separate whatever you mean here by “divine state” and “earthly state” – the terms ‘divine circumincession’ and ‘perichoresis’ may not register with you but they mean that the Divine and Human natures of Jesus cannot be separated.

 

[roadrunner570]

Axion:

I think you are starting to fall into the **Nestorian Heresy ** here:

Mary isn’t Jesus’s “earthly” mother, she is His Mother. Full stop.

By saying that Jesus “in His divine state” has no mother, you are dividing Jesus into two persons, one whose mother is Mary and one whose mother isn’t Mary. This is exactly what nestorius attempted.

In fact Jesus is One Person not two, and His Mother is Mary. To deny this is actually to deny the reality of the Incarnation. By dividing Jesus, you say the incarnation was not real and permanent. This is the danger of your Nestorian position.

In the beginning was the Word. Indeed.

And it was God the Word who became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary. In other words God the Word became man in the womb of the Virgin. He did not pretend to be a man. He did not “inhabit” or “posess” a human body. He united Himself permanently with human flesh and a human nature from Mary, and **became ** Jesus Christ, God the Son, One person, Fully God and Fully man.

The Mother of this Person, God the Son, is Mary. She is His mother because she bore Him and gave Him her flesh and humanity. Like any mother, she is not mother of part of her Son, but of **ALL ** of Him.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the “H” word came out. Why is it whenever anyone disagrees with something on here its heresy? Especially when the OP ASKED why we don’t believe in Mary as mother of God, unless that was simply a loaded question to try and bait protestants on this board in order to attack their beliefs and call us “heretics”.

I don’t knwo any other way to explain it. I’m not saying Jesus was two persons.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Christ existed BEFORE Mary gave birth to him?

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

But the orthodox doctrine of God does not separate whatever you mean here by “divine state” and “earthly state” – the terms ‘divine circumincession’ and ‘perichoresis’ may not register with you but they mean that the Divine and Human natures of Jesus cannot be separated.

In Genesis, Daniel, Joshua and a few other places, Christ appears in the OT, but sometimes as an Angel, or as a “Son of Man” or just as a man, but he was not in his Earthly incarnation yet. But he still appeared.

In the NT, after he is born, he still prayed to God the Father, and was filled with the Holy Spirit, he was God in the flesh, but he was not “born” into being God by Mary, he already was God. He was born in the flesh only to Mary.

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

I knew it was only a matter of time before the “H” word came out. Why is it whenever anyone disagrees with something on here its heresy? Especially when the OP ASKED why we don’t believe in Mary as mother of God, unless that was simply a loaded question to try and bait protestants on this board in order to attack their beliefs and call us “heretics”.

I didn’t put out any bait. But facts are facts. The line of argument you have been using is one that leads straight to the Nestorian Heresy. This is an ancient and well-defined heresy that is repudiated by all mainstream Christian Churches. It is a major heresy, in that it essentially denies the reality of the Incarnation of Jesus.

And that is the trouble with denying that Mary is Mother of God, to do it, you have to start denying that Jesus Christ is both Son of Mary and Son of God.

I don’t knwo any other way to explain it. I’m not saying Jesus was two persons.

But you did say that “Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother”

This is saying that there are somehow two Jesuses one of whom has no mother!

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Christ existed BEFORE Mary gave birth to him?

God the Word existed before He was born through Mary. Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, did not.

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

In Genesis, Daniel, Joshua and a few other places, Christ appears in the OT, but sometimes as an Angel, or as a “Son of Man” or just as a man, but he was not in his Earthly incarnation yet. But he still appeared.

he appeared in the** form** of a man or an angel, but not as a real man.

In the NT, after he is born, he still prayed to God the Father, and was filled with the Holy Spirit, he was God in the flesh, but he was not “born” into being God by Mary, he already was God. He was born in the flesh only to Mary.

Mary does not have to be the origin of Jesus’s divine nature to be His mother. Just as a blonde haired mother does not have to be the origin of her child’s dark hair to be his mother.

 

[roadrunner570]

Axion:

I didn’t put out any bait. But facts are facts. The line of argument you have been using is one that leads straight to the Nestorian Heresy. This is an ancient and well-defined heresy that is repudiated by all mainstream Christian Churches. It is a major heresy, in that it essentially denies the reality of the Incarnation of Jesus.

And that is the trouble with denying that Mary is Mother of God, to do it, you have to start denying that Jesus Christ is both Son of Mary and Son of God.

But you did say that “Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother”

This is saying that there are somehow two Jesuses one of whom has no mother!

God the Word existed before He was born through Mary. Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, did not.

well, it is bait. When you ask a question pretending to want to know why someone believes something, then when they explain it you call them heretics, I don’t know what else you call it. It is definitetly NOT charitable.

And you say Christ did not exist prior to being born of Mary?

God has never changed, the Trinity didn’t just spring up in the NT. God has always been the same.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

That sure sounds like Christ to me.

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

I knew it was only a matter of time before the “H” word came out. Why is it whenever anyone disagrees with something on here its heresy?

Because this had been discussed before in the Council of Ephesus, and it was deemed a heresy to state oherwise, thus carrying the idea of Nestorius is a heresy. 1000 years Christianity accepted it before Luther. Luther and many of the early Protestants accepted Mary as Theotokos as well; they knew it was simply unthinkable to state otherwise. I wonder where Protestantism went after that…

Do you believe that Christ existed BEFORE Mary gave birth to him?

Yes. Does that imply His human and divine nature were separate? No.

 

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

Yes. Does that imply His human and divine nature were separate? No.

Okay, so now I’m really confused, you say this above, but Axion said this:

God the Word existed before He was born through Mary. Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, did not.

So which is it?

 

[Milliardo]

You’ll have to wait for Axion’s reply; I cannot speak for him, though I should say that most Catholics would have the same answer I have. Perhaps Axion has his reasons why he replied so.

 

[Singinbeauty]

You’ll have to wait for Axion’s reply; I cannot speak for him, though I should say that most Catholics would have the same answer I have. Perhaps Axion has his reasons why he replied so.

So this is the unity and undivided TRUTH that the catholic church teaches? I was told that ALL teaching in the catholic church was the same and unchanging… I am confused…

 

[Milliardo]

Singinbeauty:

So this is the unity and undivided TRUTH that the catholic church teaches? I was told that ALL teaching in the catholic church was the same and unchanging… I am confused…

Last I checked, Axion is not the Church. Seriously though, people have different understandings and view. Does that imply the Church is divided? No. Like I said, wait for Axion to answer; I am sure he has reasons why he replied so.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Milliardo:

Last I checked, Axion is not the Church. Seriously though, people have different understandings and view. Does that imply the Church is divided? No. Like I said, wait for Axion to answer; I am sure he has reasons why he replied so.

But I have been told that the catholic church teachings are all the same and unchanging… if that were so your answers would be identical. People have different understandings? Now that sounds protestant to me… I don’t mean to be sounding sarcastic. I understand that is how it can come off but your answers are disagreeing with what I have been told of the catholic teachings.

 

[MonicaC]

Singinbeauty:

But I have been told that the catholic church teachings are all the same and unchanging… if that were so your answers would be identical. People have different understandings? Now that sounds protestant to me… I don’t mean to be sounding sarcastic. I understand that is how it can come off but your answers are disagreeing with what I have been told of the catholic teachings.

You stated that People have different understandings This is a true statement people do have different understandings. This is why the people rely on the Church and her magistraum (sp?) to hold the whole truth.

 

[linus]

E.E.N.S:

I want to quote St. Louis de Montfort for a moment:

"Just as in natural bodily generation there is a father and a mother, so in the supernatural and spiritual generation there is a father who is God and a mother who is Mary. All true children of God have God for their father and Mary for their mother; anyone who does not have Mary for his mother does not have God for his father.

So says man. Now let’s quote what the Word of God actually says:

*“But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” * (John 1:12).

No mention of Mary.

 

[linus]

Church Militant:

Linus,
Where you seem to think that we Catholics make too much of the Blessed Virgin you confirm our opinion that you make too little of her.

Sad…but it’s your loss.
Pax tecum,

In respect to Mary, I can go no further than where the Scriptures take her. Men born long after the actual events have said much about her. Scripture, on the other hand, says very little.

 

[Zooey]

Singinbeauty:

The Holy Trinity comes into play here…

We have God the Father
We have God the Son
We have God the Holy Spirit

Distinct yet three in one…

In my belief system Mary is the mother of God the Son… I will give you that. But She is not the mother of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit… I think this is where the confusion comes from… The Trinity is never clarified and there are many takes on it. So Mary may be the mother of God the Son (Jesus) but not the Mother of God as a whole. Did that make sense?

I do understand your belief, because at one point inmy life I was very close to it.
Further, let me say that I appreciate the extremely sensible way in which you express your beliefs. It is, may I say, a delightful contrast to some of the (ahem!) shenanigans that have been played out around here recently…
My one request would be that you read carefully the material on the Nestorian heresy which is available at Catholic Answers’ library. I think that it might clarify where we are all coming from.
The title of “Mother of God” was not & is not, intended to give to Mary any undue honor. Its purpose is what it was in the 5th century: to insure us all against any teacher who would try to claim thay Jesus Christ was any other than God the Son.
It is because the understanding of “Jesus Christ = God” is so essential for us to be Christian, that I spend time defending the title of “Mother of God”. If we look at the classic heresies that have worked havoc in the history of Christendom, the denial that Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man are a large part of them. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that this lies at the heart of all of those twistings of the teachings of both Scripture & Tradition.
God bless.