'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[adiaireton8]

John 6 ... where 2 fish and 5 barley loaves ... became many more.

So where's the violation of logic? It is not law of logic that one thing cannot become many things. You started off as one cell; now you are many cells. And logic was never violated.

Also 1 (the Father) + 1 (the Son) + 1 (the Holy Ghost) = 1 (God)

This is no violation of logic because, as I explained earlier in this thread, the respect in which God is one is not the respect in which He is three. If our theology really did say that God is one and three in the same respect and at the same time, then that would be violation of logic.

-A8

[redgolum]

As long as you admit that Jesus Christ, true Man and true God, one person, was born of Mary, but yet Mary was not the mother of the divinity, you are meeting the definition of the term "Mother of God".

In that it is a confusing term, and one that tends to make some believe that it means Mary was the mother of the second person of the Trinity, it should be used in the right context of Christlogical theology. If you are afraid that some may take the title "Mother of God" the wrong way, you are correct in stating that meaning differently to that person or group. Just be sure you do so in a manner that preserves the undivided person of Jesus.

[adiaireton8]

then Mary could only be considered to be the Mother of the Human Nature of God . . .

That's Nestorianism.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

and one that tends to make some believe that it means Mary was the mother of the second person of the Trinity

Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. There are not two persons in Jesus. The one person in Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that is the Person of whom Mary is the mother.

-A8

[Blogger]

I never said that it did. Calling Mary God's mother, however implies such.

God is 3 in 1. Mary would have to be the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if she were the mother of God.

Mothers give their children beginnings. She would have had to give God a beginning and therefore he wouldnt' be God. UNLESS - there is another agency working here.

By not differentiating amongst the persons of the trinity, a whole lot of confusion is thrown into the mix. If people would just call her mother of Jesus like the Bible does, the confusion disappears.

Jesus IS God. Mary is His Mother. But she is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. And God is not 3 independent parts, but one. So, calling her Mary mother of Jesus is the most proper way to refer to her.

[adiaireton8]

When you say that it is improper to call Mary the "mother of God" because "God entails more than just the person of Jesus", you imply that it is improper to call Jesus "God".

-A8

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your reply. And it is very refreshing to have a Protestant appeal to the transcendent.

As for the "loaded" Mother of God, perhaps it will help to think of God in this context as a more generic descriptive like we use "man."

I agree that Christology is the issue, but, as I've said too often on this thread, Christology and Mariology are inextricably linked. The Incarnation/Word became flesh/Born of a virgin..

This is very important in the whole. I wish I could get this across properly. That the Word became flesh, born, begotten.. This is important in salvation history. And it differentiates between God inspiring or filling an existing man, it differs from God appearing fully formed as a man/shell, it differs from God appearing as to Moses..

These differences are important to the whole of our faith, up and down, past, present future, within us/outside us..

The Incarnation is a fulcrum point, if you'll allow, for the history of man and his relationship to God, to who man is, and who God is. If the fulcrum is off only slightly, then the whole becomes unbalanced and the endpoint leaves the whole.

This is what we see in the history of heresy and what will occur again and again if we are not properly careful in the formation and transmission of faith.

Now as to possible confusion. This can and does occur. But if a true statement - particularly such an important true statement - is confused by some, then it does not follow that it should be avoided or changed.

It does follow that more is needed to know the Truth. And it is our responsibility to know and follow and pass this along as well as we possibly can.

thanks very much for your reply and consideration and forgiveness of typos...

[adiaireton8]

Mary would have to be the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if she were the mother of God.

This notion treats each of the Divine Persons of the Trinity as *parts* of God. But the *Persons* of the Divine Trinity are not parts of God. Each of the three Persons is God, not a part of God. That is why the line in the Athanasian Creed reads, "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."

No wonder you are having a hard time with "mother of God". First get your understanding of the Trinity straightened out, and "mother of God" will be no problem.

-A8

[Blogger]

I have no problems calling her Mary mother of Jesus. Nor do I deny even for a second that Jesus is God. She gave him a beginning though in his humanity even though he was eternally preexistant as God.

It isn't Nestorianism. I don't see it as two separate natures, but a unity within Christ which is a paradox.

Ya know, A8. It really is okay to say sometimes "I can't fully explain everything about God." He won't hold it against you.

By faith I believe
1)In the trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, eternally preexistant 3 persons and yet one
2)Jesus, as the Son of God, fully God and fully Man - who Was and Is and Is to Come. Creator. Redeemer. Sustainer. Keeper. Advocate. Mediator. Friend.
3)The virgin birth, by the Holy Spirit God through the virgin named Mary (or Miriam in the Hebrew), became a man and His name was Jesus (Jehovah Is Salvation) and Immanuel (God with Us).

And a whole bunch of other things that aren't pertinent to this particular discussion

[Blogger]

This is Mary the mother of The Father?

[adiaireton8]

This is Mary the mother of The Father?

No, Mary is not the mother of the Father.

-A8

[Blogger]

I've got my understanding of the Trinity "straigtened out". You seem to have a problem with it by saying Mary is mother of God but only applying that to the 2nd person of the trinity. It is you doing the division of God, not myself.

[adiaireton8]

You seem to have a problem with it by saying Mary is mother of God but only applying that to the 2nd person of the trinity. It is you doing the division of God, not myself.

That's the heresy of Sabellianism.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

That's Nestorianism.

Is Mary the mother of Christ's divine nature?

Did Christ's divine nature come into being at the incarnation?

Was the Trinity in place before the Incarnation or did the Trinity come into existence at the birth of Christ?

[Blogger]

Then you are dividing God up into separate parts. If she is mother of God, the she is mother of all of God. God isn't divisible.

[Blogger]

So why are you being a Sabellian?

[adiaireton8]

Mary is not the mother of a mere nature. She is the mother of a Person. The child whom she bore is a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Then you are dividing God up into separate parts.

Absolutely not. I'm not dividing God up into parts at all.

If she is mother of God, the she is mother of all of God.

Yes, but not the mother of all three Persons.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

So why are you being a Sabellian?

I'm not. When you say that if Mary is the Mother of God, then she must be the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit, then you are being a Sabellian.

-A8

[Blogger]

You are dividing God.