The magisterium didn't say that. The written Gospels said that. 
Posted on 04/05/2007 11:10:10 AM PDT by MarkBsnr
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of what this particular title of Mary signifies, and what the Protestant Reformers had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism,
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Wrong doctrine will never lead to love.
God on the pot?
“And again, why not go directly to Jesus with your prayer.”
Would you please back that up with Scripture?
Mary in Feminist Theology: Mother of God or Domesticated Goddess?
Feast of Mary, Mother of God (not a Holy Day of Obligation this year)
MARIAN DEVOTION - Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God
A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
The magisterium didn't say that. The written Gospels said that.
The written Gospels as defined by the Magisterium under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Check and mate, brother. Have a blessed Good Friday!
The Gospels written before they were translated told the story the magisterium read. Otherwise, if the magisterium hadn't said it, it wouldn't have happened, which it did.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Have a blessed Good Friday.
So what does that mean I’m supposed to pray to her.You may pray for me and I may pray for you, right?
the whole point is that Mary is not to be worshipped.If you pray for me, am I worshiping you when I asked you to do so? Mary has the highest degree of respect of all of the Saints in Heaven, but she is not worshiped.
You said, "The Magisterium says that a man who was tortured to death came back to life on the third day." This can only mean you say the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected was because the magisterium said it happened.
I said that the event were written in the Gospels, in Greek, before they were translated, so the magisterium read it only.
You replied, "The written Gospels as defined by the Magisterium under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
I replied, "The Gospels written before they were translated told the story the magisterium read. Otherwise, if the magisterium hadn't said it, it wouldn't have happened, which it did."
Possibly the last sentence confused you. Suppose the magisterium had not "defined" that event. Did it have happen if not? If it did, the magisterium had nothing to do with it.
Surely you understand. Did not the Gospels in Greek tell the story? Which the Catholic church translated into English? What exactly did the church add, or change? Nothing, obviously, because other translations from the same source documents tell the same story.
So, my point was the magisterium had nothing to do with the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected - you seem to imply otherwise, the church just translated the text.
Sorry not to have been clear before, but I hope by saying it several ways, I can so better.
The books we know as “the Gospels” are only known as “the Gospels” because the Magisterium (acting by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) defined them as Scripture. The events depicted in the Gospels did occur, of course — but they would not have been included in the Bible had they not been made part of Scripture by the inspired decision of the Magisterium. The Magsterium assembled and defined the body of Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No Magisterium = no Bible.
God even used Ramses to accomplish His purposes. I'm sure He used the magisterium likewise. That in no way translates into any authority beyond the scriptures to that body any more than God's use of Ramses translated futher authorty to that person.
“It was His Sacred Humanity —He was Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity—and it was His Sacred humanity that He offered on the Cross for our eternal salvation. To say that He “used His physical body to walk on earth” is indeed Nestorian.”
Thank you.
Oh I don't know. I tend to think God would have made sure we had His word regardless, don't you?
“I tried to explain this several times, but one more try.”
I understand how you feel.
“God refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “
Yes...but this does not exclude us from referring to God the Father as “God”, God the Son as “God” and God the Holy Spirit as “God” as well.
“To refer to Mary as the Mother of the Jesus is correct.”
and Jesus is God.
Or more specifically, Jesus is God the second person of the Holy Trinity.
“But to say Mary is the Mother of God says she is also the Mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit, “
This is where we disagree, and this would also be a mischaracterization of what the Catholic Church teaches.
In fact - the Church is specifically against what you accuse it of.
“It may be just semantics on my part, but it strikes me as wrong to phrase it that way.”
Yes, I believe it is semantics.
Maybe you would be more comfortable with the Orthodox term “Theotokos” or “God-bearer”. A term given to Mary by the early church to refute the argument we see on this thread - that Christ’s human and divine natures were somehow separate from each other.
No one in here is going to sway anyone else.
I already know what I know, and you think you know what you believe.
:-p
“So what does that mean I’m supposed to pray to her. I think Jesus said to pray to his Father not Mary.
the whole point is that Mary is not to be worshipped.”
This has already been answered. Read the thread.
“Wrong doctrine will never lead to love”
Then I have nothing to worry about.
“Oh I don’t know. I tend to think God would have made sure we had His word regardless, don’t you?”
He did make sure we got the Word.
The history is there for all to learn.
Since you believe Mary is the mother of God you certainly do have major doctrinal issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.