[Catholicguy]

Ephesus 431 A.D.

Formula of union between Cyrill and John of Antioch

We will state briefly what we are convinced of and profess about

—the God-bearing virgin and

—the manner of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God

—not by way of addition but in the manner of a full statement, even as we have received and possess it from of old from

—the holy scriptures and from

—the tradition of the holy fathers,

—adding nothing at all to the creed put forward by the holy fathers at Nicaea.

For, as we have just said, that creed is sufficient both for the knowledge of godliness and for the repudiation of all heretical false teaching. We shall speak not presuming to approach the unapproachable; but we confess our own weakness and so shut out those who would reproach us for investigating things beyond the human mind.

We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connection with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity.

Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius; Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God", and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb

[redgolum]

So then, what do you think about the movement (not mainstream) to elevate Mary to godhood?

You are correct on Luther and Calvin's view of Mary. In many conservative Lutheran churchs, Mary did play a large role. This changed when the RCC position became that to be saved you have to go through Mary. The Lutheran churches did not want to be lumped into that and dropped most references to Mary out side of Christmas. Some of the older LCMS churches still celebrate the feast of Jesus's conception (not the real name, but I am on vacation so I beg a break :)) and even the assumption of Mary.

The difference is when it was declared, in 1870 I believe, that Mary had participated in the crucifixtion and was also sacraficed for our sins. That smelled a little to much like making Mary a goddess for many of the Lutheran theologians of the time, and as a result they began to remove references to Mary from the liturgy.