Posted on 01/02/2010 3:07:57 PM PST by NYer
|
For this reason, sometime in the early history of the Church, our Blessed Mother was given the title "Mother of God." St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), for example, composed in his Eucharistic Prayer for the Mass an anthem in honor of her: "It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God. "
However, objection to the title "Mother of God" arose in the fifth century due to confusion concerning the mystery of the incarnation. Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (428-431), incited a major controversy. He stated that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, a regular human person, period. To this human person was united the person of the Word of God (the divine Jesus). This union of two persons — the human Christ and the divine Word — was "sublime and unique" but merely accidental. The divine person dwelt in the human person "as in a temple. " Following his own reasoning, Nestorious asserted that the human Jesus died on the cross, not the divine Jesus. As such, Mary is not "Mother of God," but simply "Mother of Christ" — the human Jesus. Sound confusing? It is, but the result is the splitting of Christ into two persons and the denial of the incarnation.
St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 440) refuted Nestorius, asserting, ''It was not that an ordinary man was born first of the Holy Virgin, on whom afterwards the Word descended; what we say is that being united with the flesh from the womb, [the Word] has undergone birth in the flesh, making the birth in the flesh His own..." This statement affirms the belief asserted in the first paragraph.
On June 22, 431, the Council of Ephesus convened to settle this argument. The Council declared, "If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is truly God and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) (since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), anathema sit." Therefore, the Council officially recognized that Jesus is one person, with two natures — human and divine — united in a true union. Second, Ephesus affirmed that our Blessed Mother can rightfully be called the Mother of God: Mary is not Mother of God, the Father, or Mother of God, the Holy Spirit; rather, she is Mother of God, the Son — Jesus Christ. The Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius a heretic, and the Emperor Theodosius ordered him deposed and exiled. (Interestingly, a small Nestorian Church still exists in Iraq, Iran and Syria.)
The incarnation is indeed a profound mystery. The Church uses very precise — albeit philosophical — language to prevent confusion and error. Nevertheless, as we celebrate Christmas, we must ponder this great mystery of how our divine Savior entered this world, taking on our human flesh, to free us from sin. We must also ponder and emulate the great example of our Blessed Mother, who said, "I am the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." May we turn to her always as our own Mother, pleading, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
saullysallu:
I am not into getting into polemics with our esteemed Eastern Orthodox brethren on this site as getting into threads with some of these Protestants does enough to test my Sicilian temper. With respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome defining Mary’s Immaculate Conception is entirely consistent with the Eastern Orthodox Church’s referring to Mary as “Panagia”, the “All-Holy” and when united with “Theotokos” one gets the translation All-Holy Mother of God which is consistent with the language used in the Catholic Church in the Rosary “Holy Mary Mother of God Pray for Us Sinners”, etc.
Back to the Eastern Term “Panagia”, it reflects the Eastern Church’s reflection on St. Luke’s passage “Hail Mary Full of Grace” (cf. Luke 1:28, reflecting St. Jerome’s Latin translation from the Greek) and the Eastern Fathers declaring that Mary was free from stain of sin and fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.
So, in the Western Church, you get formal definition of “Immaculate Conception” specifiying “how God formed Mary into a new creature” whereas in the Eastern Tradition, you say it happened by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, but don’t define it like Rome does.
As for the original point of the thread, this refers what I have stated for years since I have been posting here that many of the Prostants on this site embrace major Christological heresies as evidenced by this thread [Nestorianism, Modalism, etc]
Blessed Ephiphany to you and all our Orthodox brethren around the world
“...wait, you don’t know anything about how I arrived at my thinking, do you?”
Sure I do; I read your about page.
“I am sorry you missed my point, but it has nothing to do with being against Roman Catholism.”
You wrongly claimed that the term Theotokos was dreamed up by some teachers in Rome. That is untrue. If you knew that was untrue, why did you post it? If you didn’t know what you were talking about, why did you post anything?
“I was responding to the OP about the council regarding Nestorian.”
I know what the thread was about and what you were responding to. The Council was in Ephesus, btw, not Rome and the heretic’s name was “Nestrorius” not “Nestorian”.
“My point is, if you find yourself having to backtrack to try to explain to the “unenlightened” that although Mary is referred to as Mother of God, you don’t mean it to imply she is to be worshipped alongside the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that she did not preceed the Son nor is she sitting on her own special throne right next to them, then why come up with the unscriptural title in the first place?”
Orthodoxy has never taught anything like that; the Creed makes it clear that she did not precede the Logos and we have no idea where she is “sitting”. The “unscriptural” (what would +Elizabeth know, right?) title Theotokos was applied to make clear that Christ is indeed God and not some demi-god a la Arius or divinely animated human form drone a la Nestorius. You do believe that Christ is God do you not?
“Finally, I am not trying to “advance my Protestantism”.”
Of course you are, your very own version of it. It appears to have as its defining hallmark the expected degree of anti-Romanism purely for the sake of anti-Romanism.
“I am still allowed, right?”
Of course you are still allowed. You can embrace any of the ancient heresies you wish, but when called on it, it would be better if you had a good scriptural and/or patristic or even scholastic argument for you position (+Paul’s epistles are full of good stuff to (wrongly in my opinion) base heresy on)and leave off the “Rome came up with this so it must be wrong” routine.
Oh? The Icon of the Visitation almost never shows Christ. For example:
There are others, for example, virtually all Annunciation icons:
I trust your spiritual father didn't teach you that, s. God Bless you in catechumenate.
You wrote:
“...how come the disciples did not instantly begin worshipping Mary?”
We don’t worship Mary. The Apostles didn’t worship Mary.
“She was still among them was she not?”
Yep.
“If they believed that she was the “easy way” to the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jesus), then why did they preach only about Jesus.”
Because He had JUST RISEN from the dead and many people knew of Him.
“Or did I miss Peter’s words about Mary’s “holiness” and her being our intercessor on Pentecost?”
You apparently missed many things.
jd, we had an Ecumenical Council in the late 8th century dealing with the Iconoclast controversy which had devastated The Church for decades before. After declaring iconoclasm heresy, the Holy Fathers of the Council proclaimed:
""We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor ( timitiki proskynisis ), but not of real worship ( latreia ), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."
jd, there is no way that The Church can make it any clearer. Worship (latreia) is reserved for God, the saints and the Most Holy Theotokos we venerate and honor. There is a universe of difference between latreia on the one hand and timitiki and proskynisis on the other...just as there is in English.
Mary, who hasn't been a virgin for a couple thousand years now was not the daughter of the Father...That idea is a hold over from the various Pagan religions of the Romans in that day...She was also called the Queen of Heaven...Ring a bell???
Interesting thing about the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit...There was no wedding ceremony under the Jewish Law, nor did the marriage take place in a Catholic church performed by a cleric...Since God makes no errors, you have to conclude that Mary was not the Holy Spirit's spouse, unless, the marriage took place due to the consumation and that's not a very popular view...
I think it's safe to say that Mary was not wedded to the Holy Spirit...Interesting stuff...
If you find it difficult to wrap your mind around these mysteries, feel free to join the club. None of us will fully understand these things, because we are not God. But one thing we do know is that “the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.”
Nope, I'm not going to join the club...And since you guys don't understand it, what business do you have making the thing up???
Well we see that from Luke 24:39-40, Jesus was in his glorified body in that he appeared suddenly to them. He was obviously not looking the same as he was before the crucifixion because earlier in that chapter he appeared to some including Peter, and they did not recognize him. He showed them his hands and feet. He was afterwards lifted up into heaven in this same form. Also in John 20:20 he showed his hands, feet and side. Thomas was not there then so he appeared again to them including Thomas, eight days later. Same demonstration verses 26-27.
See Zechariah 12:10 for a WOW verse. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." There is another verse where Jehovah says ,"See, I have engraved you upon the palms of my hands." So yes, I believe these scars will always be there as a reminder to us. Praise be to him!
Problem is, you guys think you get to define what worship is, and is not...I don't think that's the way it works...
Jesus Christ Himself defined what worship is when He instituted the Sacred Liturgy on Holy Thursday, the night before He died. Today it is found in the Western and Eastern Churches, i.e., those united with Rome, and the Orthodox Churches. Although in different Rites, it is the one Sacred Liturgy.
Actually, the real problem here is that you think you get to decide the intent of others. It certainly does not work that way.
The anti-Catholic bigot's obsession with Mary's sex life a is uniquely creepy fetish.
God makes no errors.
Iscool, on the other hand...*lolz*
Of course. But no pagan goddess or personage actually was Queen of Heaven, because they were not real. They were pagan.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is not pagan. She is Christian...the first Christian, actually.
Easy Iscool... I spoke the truth.
Her Holy Virginity is perpetual.
...was not the daughter of the Father...That idea is a hold over from the various Pagan religions of the Romans in that day...She was also called the Queen of Heaven...Ring a bell???
If Mary, of all people, has no right to be called Daughter of the Father, then we have no right to be called children of God. She is a co-heir of heaven along with us, although gloriously exalted because of her particular God created identity.
Interesting thing about the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit...There was no wedding ceremony under the Jewish Law, nor did the marriage take place in a Catholic church performed by a cleric...Since God makes no errors, you have to conclude that Mary was not the Holy Spirit's spouse, unless, the marriage took place due to the consumation and that's not a very popular view...
I think it's safe to say that Mary was not wedded to the Holy Spirit...Interesting stuff...
One thing that Protestantism has a great difficulty with is the concept of mystery. The spousal relationship that Mary had, and has, with the Holy Spirit is a mystical one. It's one of those things we will never fully understand.
Nope, I'm not going to join the club...And since you guys don't understand it, what business do you have making the thing up???
The Holy Spirit has revealed Truth - we did not make these things up. There is no way you can convince me that you fully comprehend the Mind of God - you being as much a created being as are each of us.
[9] For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
[10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
[11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child;
when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
[12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall
understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
1 COR 13: 9-12 RSV
We will understand more in Heaven, but we will never fully comprehend God. If we did, then we would be His equal.
I know He appeared to the Apostles with the marks of His crucifixion right up to the Ascension, so, yes, they did look upon Him whom they’d pierced; but it’s a long stretch to then say Scripture tells us He will bear those marks for eternity.
Aren’t you putting your own interpretation on Scripture? As many say, “show me in the Bible where it says that.” All we know is that He had the marks up until He ascended into heaven. There is no proof of eternal marks in Scripture.
I find it strange that you cited 5 passages in which the word eternity, forever, or the future are not mentioned as proof of your opinion. Meanwhile, Catholics can cite 20-30 passages that are the basis for one of their beliefs and are told “that’s not in the Bible, it’s unscriptural, etc.”
A very interesting inconsistency. I would say Catholics certainly have as much proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as you have that Christ will bear the marks of His crucifixion in His glorified body for all eternity.
I have a very broad understanding of theology and the development of Christian doctrine. That knowledge helps me counsel from within the persons own tradition rather than use it as a tool for proselytizing.
Here is an example from 1998...regarding abortion and family planning...
Well that's the rule isn't it? If Christ's glorified body had marks of his crucifixion then what is there to indicate that he will not bear them for all eternity? (BTW, just where is that body physically?)
Yet the church leads one to believe that a glorified body will be restored to its perfect form and the resurrected beings will appear as if in the prime of their lives! But, that perfection and "prime" will be for naught, since we will be like angels...if you know what I mean, and vanity will have no part in our existence whatsoever. And aren't angels bodiless creatures...so there is nothing but inconsistency to be found, conveniently, as you say.
That’s why I think we can’t make a pronouncement one way or another. Nowhere does it state Christ will wear the marks of His crucifixion for all eternity. At the end of the world, there would be no need to wear them anymore. It will have all been resolved and the sheep will have been separated from the goats. All is perfection in heaven. Still, He may choose to wear them. I don’t know. No one does.
My point was that the poster was making a proclamation based on inferences in a few passages. Yet he often takes Catholics to task for inferences based on 20-30 passages. That’s inconsistent, don’t you think?
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.