Mary, the Mother of God (a defense)

cerc ^ | FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

[NYer]

I was visiting an inner-city church one day and in the vestibule some graffiti was written on the wall which said, "Catholics, God has no mother," obviously referring to Mary's title as "Mother of God." How does one respond to such an objections?

To understand the title, "Mother of God," we must first clearly understand Mary's role as mother of our Savior, Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord: Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Lk 1: 26-38 and Mt 1: 18-25.) Through her, Jesus Christ — second person of the Holy Trinity, one-in-being (consubstantial) with the Father, and true God from true God — entered this world taking on human flesh and a human soul. Jesus is true God and true man. In His person are united both a divine nature and a human nature. Mary did not create the divine person of Jesus, who existed with the Father from all eternity: "In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly 'Mother of God' (Theotokos)" (Catechism, No. 495). As St. John wrote, "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we have seen His glory: The glory of an only Son coming from the Father filled with enduring love" (Jn 1: 14).

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."

[kosta50]

That’s why I think we can’t make a pronouncement one way or another

Glorified bodies are perfected and perfect (which means complete, or finished) is by deifnition changeless. So, no, Christ's perfected body would not change at the end of times, lest it be imperfect. If Christ's glorified body had marks of crucifixion then it was not perfected, ye the NT says it was.

That may be so, but this time she was spot on.

[Melian]

God can do anything. He can even change a glorified body or redefine what glorified means. He can remove the marks whenever He wills it.

The passages boatbums cited tell us Jesus wore the marks when he appeared to the Apostles after He rose. If I was like some Protestants, I would tell boatbums that he/she can’t hold that opinion that Christ will wear the marks forever because it isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Therefore, it can’t be true and it’s just the foolish tradition of men.

Now you tell me that you think it’s plausible to surmise what boatbums surmises, though there is no scriptural proof spelled out as many Protestants insist it has to be. You can’t have it both ways.

Either the Catholic Church and boatbums have the proof necessary for their beliefs (because they have passages that hint at or support them), or boatbums and the Catholic Church cannot hold those beliefs because they are not specifically and explicitly spelled out, word for word, in Scripture.

And THAT is the inconsistency. IIRC, boatbums is one of the posters who often chastises Catholics because they can’t cite a bald-faced statement from Scripture for some of their beliefs.

Personally, I think boatbums is probably right and Christ will wear the marks as a sign of His humanity forever. And, likewise, I think the Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation of John 6 and the meaning of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We have MANY more passages to cite for that belief than boatbums has to support his.

[Iscool]

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?

No, not at all...

It is, but the result is the splitting of Christ into two persons and the denial of the incarnation.

That isn't true at all...The more I read of Nestorius, the more I tend to agree with him...

[kosta50]

God can do anything. He can even change a glorified body or redefine what glorified means. He can remove the marks whenever He wills it

That's sophism. If something is perfect then it is unchanging, by definition. But if perfect can be imperfect then we cannot even talk about perfections or, for that matter, God himself.

We can only talk about God within the confines of our minds, and terms that define and limit our scope of understanding. Everything else is speculation, including your statement above.

So, either glorified bodies are restored or they are not; a body is either dead or alive, something either exists or doesn't exist, etc.

The passages boatbums cited tell us Jesus wore the marks when he appeared to the Apostles after He rose

First, they were not apostles yet, but only his disciples (students). There is a difference. Second, unless the marks were only illusionary his body was not restored, even though the Bible leads us to believe it was.

I would tell boatbums that he/she can’t hold that opinion that Christ will wear the marks forever because it isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Therefore, it can’t be true and it’s just the foolish tradition of men

If the Bible says or hints that his body was restored/glorified then she has all biblical evidence, for what it's worth, that he will wear his marks forever and that his body was not really restored. So, we have a contradiction. Nothing new there. The Bible is full of them.

Now you tell me that you think it’s plausible to surmise what boatbums surmises, though there is no scriptural proof spelled out as many Protestants insist it has to be. You can’t have it both ways

There is no scriptural proof that Mary either died or was assumed bodily into heaven yet the latter it is a Catholic dogma. Catholics should be the last people on earth arguing that something cannot be surmised because there is no scriptural proof for it. Besides, 'scriptural" is a matter of definition as well.

Either the Catholic Church and boatbums have the proof necessary for their beliefs (because they have passages that hint at or support them), or boatbums and the Catholic Church cannot hold those beliefs because they are not specifically and explicitly spelled out, word for word, in Scripture

Where is your scriptural proof of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven or of three co-equal hypostases of the Godhead? In fact, scriptures show evidence to the contrary. All early Christian apologists preached suboridnatrionalist Trinity.

[Melian]

I understand the desire to turn my argument into something easier to dispute.

The facts are that boatbums professed a belief that is not specifically spelled out in Scripture and I am reminding boatbums that Catholics are frequently ridiculed for doing that- with far more proof than boatbums has. You made my point for me when you said the Bible HINTS Christ’s body was glorified. I guess it’s suddenly okay for Protestants to decide to believe in things HINTED about in the Bible, but Catholics are silly for believing Jesus when he said, specifically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.” (John 6:54) No hinting there at all. He was direct, specific, and clear. He let many followers walk away over this statement. It was a bald-faced proclamation of God’s hard Truth. THAT’s perfect and unchanging.

Unless, of course, you’re reading the revised version of the Bible that men dared to cut passages out of— but that’s your choice.

Protestants make arbitrary choices about what to believe in the Bible and what not to believe. Catholics believe what Jesus said. Literally. I cannot understand the disconnect in Protestant thought. They claim to love the Word of God above all else— and then choose to ignore and ridicule Christ’s own words, faithfully recorded by the apostle Jesus loved most.

Inconsistent, at best. I am so happy to be Catholic.

[boatbums]

I think you are building a false construct comparing what I personally believe about the nail marks on Jesus’ body, which IS what you specifically asked me about. I think the scripture is very clear that Jesus was in his glorified state (he did suddenly appear to them, walked through a wall?). He, on several occasions encouraged them to look at and feel the wounds AFTER the resurrection. So, no, I don’t think I am giving myself a “bye” on this point while I “chastise” Catholics about the Eucharist or other doctrines. I do not ridicule or call them “silly” for believing what they do because I know, as a former Catholic, that we are to accept what we are taught, without questioning.

I think you may have problems with generalized comments like “Protestants make arbitrary choices” and “Catholics believe what Jesus said.” Because we both know these pat statements are not always true.

We could get into the difference between what main-stream Protestants and Catholics believe about the doctrine of Communion/Eucharist/The Lord’s Supper, but I’m pretty sure you wont be swayed from what you are comfortable believing and I wont be either. This topic has been bashed about many times on the RF. I see no need to go there again since the main topic of this post is concerning the titles of Mary. I assure you the inconsistency you think you see is not really there. I have never and will never ridicule nor ignore the word of God. It is the basis of faith and truth.

Be happy, but also know what you believe and why you believe it. Peace to you in the new year!

[Melian]

No one is denying that Jesus was in a glorified state. My issue is that you have very thin Scriptural evidence for assuming that Christ will choose to remain in that particular glorified state, with the marks of the crucifixion, “for all eternity.” He can remain in any form of glorified state He chooses- or change the form daily, if He chooses. Did he not glow more brightly as He was ascending into Heaven? Was that not a change in His glorified state from the day before?

I then pointed out the inconsistency of choosing to believe He will keep the marks based on the handful of scriptures, most of them not mentioning His glorified state or anything to do with eternity, that you cited. I then reminded you that you and others have taken Catholics to task for beliefs we have many, many scriptural passages to support.

I don’t have a problem with generalized or pat comments. The Protestant stance on Bible Alone is not consistent and is sometime arbitrary. I offered John 6:54 as a perfect example of that. The inconsistency IS there.

Catholics have as much scriptural proof that Mary was unique and special in her role in the redemption of man as you have for your belief that Christ will wear the marks of the crucifixion for all eternity. More, in fact. If you have chosen to ignore the words of John 6:54, then you have, in fact, chosen to ignore the Word of God, as it was faithfully recorded, preached, and lived by John himself— the apostle that Christ loved most.

Surely the Holy Spirit would inspire John, Christ’s favorite apostle to record Christ’s words and deeds correctly! Surely the early Church would teach and practice what John wrote correctly! He was still alive to tell them they were doing it wrong, had they been.

They were not wrong and Catholics are not wrong today. We take the words of Christ and live them as they were intended, as John and Peter and the other apostles lived them.

Catholics are not taught to believe without questioning. Maybe you were badly taught, however. It IS inconsistent to use the Protestant Bible if you love the word of God since mere men removed parts of it that they decided they didn’t like anymore, after hundreds of years. Wasn’t God’s Word perfect as it was first written? How dare men leave one word out! Much less whole passages, chapters and books! It’s “the basis of faith and truth.”

I am happy; I know very well what I believe. When I had doubts and questions, I went and found the answers. The Catholic Church has them all. It’s condescending to assume I (or any Catholic) haven’t examined or questioned, based on YOUR life and choices.

I say to you, out of love and concern, if you believe scripture is sacred, you should be reading the Catholic bible- the one with all the divinely inspired passages intact.