Posted on 11/20/2016 10:43:00 AM PST by NRx
Among the greater mysteries of the New Testament are those surrounding the Mother of God. A large segment of modern Christianity has become tone deaf in this regard, a result of centuries of antagonism towards certain aspects of older tradition. It is a deafness that grieves my heart, primarily in that it represents a great gulf within the broader experience of the faith. A few years after my reception into the Orthodox Church, a friend from my Anglican past asked me if I ever thought of returning. He had no idea of how foreign the thought was to me. But within my mind, the first thought was the absence of Mary. I think I said something to the effect that I could never consider leaving “my mother.”
I’m not sure what those who are strangers to Mary imagine goes on in the life of an Orthodox or Catholic Christian. I cannot speak for Catholics (they’re more than capable of speaking for themselves). First, I know that there is nothing even remotely like worship accorded to her. The entire experience of veneration seems to have been lost within Protestant thinking. I often use examples of patriotic feeling, or some such inadequate experience, to suggest analogies. But, in truth, it is an experience that has no parallel.
For one, I have no conception of Mary apart from Christ. She is not someone-in-herself to be considered alone. The traditional title affirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council is “Theotokos,” the “Birthgiver of God.” In the same manner, we say of Christ, “born of the Virgin Mary.” Christ is the God become man, and His humanity is utterly and completely derivative of Mary. He is bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh. It is the nature of our humanity that if we speak of His Body and Blood, we cannot do so in a manner that excludes her from that reality.
But saying this can easily be lost in words of doctrine. Doctrine is always a discussion of reality, and it is the reality we want rather than the words. The Body and Blood of Christ are not an abstraction. They are a sweet warmth within the experience of the believer. How would I describe to the non-Christian the experience of communion? There are no words that I would ever exchange for that singular taste.
The oldest known devotion to Mary can be found in the words of a hymn that is documented to have existed and been sung before the middle of the 3rd century. It remains a very important hymn within Orthodoxy to this day:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Theotokos:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble;
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Anyone who might suggest that this hymn represents some pagan-importation is simply historically ignorant. The 3rd century is the great century of martyrs when the Church was in constant conflict with the official paganism of the Empire. There is no historical legitimacy for a claim of a paganizing of the faith during this period. Honoring Mary, including asking her intercessions, was perfectly at home within the mind of the primitive Church.
But what heart first uttered this cry to the compassion of the Theotokos? How did the Church learn of such a thing? That compassion is well described, for it was prophesied in Scripture.
At the time of Christ’s presentation in the Temple (at 40 days of age), Mary is warned about his coming role in Israel, and told that “a sword will pierce your own soul also” (Lk 2:34-35). This is more than maternal grief. Her union with Christ, expressed in the words of her innocent humility, rendered her uniquely vulnerable at the Cross. Christ is wounded for our transgressions, but she is wounded as well. The Church’s instinct and experience says that she is vulnerable to the sufferings of all.
The word translated “compassion” (εὐσπλαγχνία) is itself worth noting. It seems to be a Greek effort to translate a Hebrew word (רַחֲמִים rachamim) and indicates a deep pain identified with the womb. It is the very deep heart of maternal suffering.
The fear of this experience and knowledge, I suspect, is driven by the centuries-old accusation of “Mary-worship,” as well as an idea that anything or anyone given honor other than God represents competition for God, and denigrates His glory. People might argue with the form that honor has taken over the centuries (icons, candles, hymns, prayers, etc.), but at no time has there ever been any intention of offering worship. Indeed, that would be condemned as the worst of heresies.
But we have forgotten the ancient Christian ethos of honor and veneration. The Scriptures nowhere describe God as “alone.” Instead, He is consistently depicted as the Lord of “Hosts” (a vast crowd). The God made known in Christ is a relational God who is Himself described as “love.” The honor and veneration given to the saints within the Church is simply the liturgical expression of love. It is not worship. Generations of Christians, however, have become estranged from the court of Christ, and fancied the Kingdom either as a democracy, or the King without His entourage. They have forgotten the place of the King’s mother and the honor due His friends. In short, we have become rude in our spiritual bearing and made ourselves strangers to heaven.
God is a generous God, quick to forgive. He has not allowed us to destroy the ethos or the witness of the Apostles’ successors. The reality of His heaven abides. We can regain was has been lost, beginning, perhaps, with careful consideration of the doctrine and practice involved (free of passions and mischaracterizations). But only time and usage heal what is essentially a relational matter.
Perhaps reciting the words of that ancient hymn that has found its place on the lips of saints through the ages would be a good place to begin.
We need all the friends we can find!
Written in honor of the Feast of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple, November 21
You’re one of the few Catholics I’ve seen to say were saved by grace alone and that we have a personal relationship with Christ.
Then define Who is God.
I will take that as a complement. You should talk to more Catholic. I will say that many Catholics are not theologically well educated and may not use the terms you are familiar with. But believe me, the whole point of Catholicism is to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ even if we are not comfortable with speaking about it to others.
It is not as rare as you would like to think.
“God” is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.
In God there are three Persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
About 2000 years ago, God the Son became Man, or, as St. John says: “The Word became flesh.”
This event occurred in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Because Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, Mary is the mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Question:
Do you deny that the son of Mary is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity?
Anyone reading both of our posts will notice that I define my terms, and I answer your questions. You, on the other hand, never answer my questions, but respond with insults.
You have never responded to my yes-or-no questions concerning my two syllogisms.
You continue to refuse to answer my yes-or-no questions. Instead you spit out insults against Catholics.
Intellectually honest people answer yes-or-no questions. Intellectually dishonest people refuse to answer yes-or-no questions.
The term "mother of God" implies way more than the catholic wants to limit it to.
As you correctly note, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
If Mary is the "mother of God", then she is the mother of the Father as well and the Holy Spirit.
Catholics would do well to use the terms the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT to use.
Mary, His mother (Matt 2:11,13,14,20,21)
...by the cross of Jesus were His mother...Jn 19:25)
Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14)
Here’s a yes-or-no question:
Is Jesus God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity?
The term "mother of God" is not accorded to Mary in the New Testament.
Your attempt at logic fails.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.These and the other references you gave all speak of what happens after one is justified. Catholics and Protestants agree that justification is only by the grace of God without any merit on the part of man. The dispute is whether, after justification has be received, is there an actual sanctification or increase in holiness (as Catholics believe), or do we remain hopelessly corrupt with only a legal imputation of God's righteousness (as Protestants believe). This latter would leave us as the whitewashed sepulchers that our Lord condemned with the Pharisees. There are enough disputes between Catholics and Protestants that you do not have to create new ones where they do not exist.CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
A simple category mistake of logic! What do they teach in Catholic seminaries these days??
I see. You are unwilling to affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
You DO realize, I hope, that refusing to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God means that you are damned, right? Jesus says that if you deny Him before men, He will deny you before the Father.
You have been asked whether Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
You responded to this yes-or-no question with something about Mary—who is not mentioned in my question.
Since you refuse to affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, I conclude that you are not a Christian.
Is Jesus also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit? No. In the context Thomas' declaration of "My Lord and my God!" is only referring to him as God the Son. Likewise, the title of "Mother of God" is only referring to her motherhood of Jesus, God the Son, who is the Son of God and the Son of Mary. Not really hard to understand if you want to.
Sorry Art...that was not your original question.
I have no problem with saying Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I have on more than one occasion and in more than one thread confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I will add further that it is only through faith in Him that we gain Heaven. He, and only He, is our Redeemer and Mediator.
Mary plays no role in our salvation. She is not our co-redemtrix or mediatrix.
Are you willing to agree, based on the New Testament, there is only One Redeemer and Mediator?
Is Jesus also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit? No. In the context Thomas' declaration of "My Lord and my God!" is only referring to him as God the Son. Likewise, the title of "Mother of God" is only referring to her motherhood of Jesus, God the Son, who is the Son of God and the Son of Mary. Not really hard to understand if you want to.
The primary difference, and it's a huge one, is that Thomas' statement is recorded in the text. And as you note...it is about context.
No where in the NT do we have Mary refereed to as the "Mother of God".
Why? For the reasons I've already stated.
Not really hard to understand if you want to.
And where in the Bible does it say that our faith is to be based solely on the Bible?
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.