Posted on 11/05/2025 1:08:50 PM PST by ebb tide
Just a smidge!
The article gives me a better understanding of why some would say that Mary is not the mother of God. But one thing I noticed was contradictory.
The writer pointed out that while Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus, she is not the mother of the divine nature of Christ.
The writer then states that the word Theotokos (God-bearer) was introduced in the early church to affirm that Jesus was both fully God and fully man—even from the moment of conception.
The writer goes on to say “Nestorius argued that Mary was the mother of Jesus’ human nature only, not His divine essence. But in doing so, he unintentionally introduced another problem—dividing Christ into two separate persons: one divine and one human.”
After that, the writer says church leaders declared at the Council of Chalcedon that Jesus Christ is: “One and the same Son… perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man… acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”
The writer concludes that we might say Mary is the mother of God, with three qualifiers:
- Mary is not the origin of Jesus’ divine nature.
- She did not create or contribute to His deity.
- She is the mother of the Incarnate Christ, but not of the eternal Son of God in His divine essence.
We can agree on the first two. Furthermore, Mary herself is not divine, nor does she herself have any deity. But the third qualifier presents the same problem that was introduced by Nestorius, dividing Christ into two separate persons.
My understanding is that in becoming the mother of Jesus in his divine essence, Mary neither elevated herself nor was she elevated to divinity. She remained the young Jewish human being that she was. Rather, taking my cue from Philippians 2, God, in Jesus Christ, humbled himself to become the son of Mary in his humanity and in his divinity. Therefore, in this limited theological sense, Mary can be called the mother of God.
The absolute dumbest RC talking point, no less.
The entire point of muh bazillion denominations isn’t because we’ve all excommunicated each other; we choose decentralized polities explicitly in order to prevent the blatant heresy and blasphemy that Catholicism caused with its centralized structure.
There’s more common ground between all the non-Catholic denominations with each other than exists in all of Catholicism.
Because at least muh bazillion denominations *doesn’t encourage idol worship like Catholicism does.* If one does? We just *don’t talk to them any more.* Simple, clean, and Biblical.
Whereas you Catholics have to lump every heretical thing Pope Frank did and accept it, because it’s Catholicism.
Hilarious. You get humiliated and immediately start screaming “MUH LUUUUUTHERRRRR!”
Living in your head rent free; I love it.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote!
...until the very end of the last sentence.
You built a good case for distinction and then came to the wrong conclusion, even with the “in this limited theological sense” qualifier.
But I enjoyed your perspective.
romans believe Mary is the co-redemptrix.
They believe it already....they're just afraid to declare the fifth marian dogma due to the push back it'll create. Ratzinger noted this.
*****
In 2000 then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was asked if the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-Redemptrix replied, “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future…the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.
—> the third qualifier presents the same problem that was introduced by Nestorius, dividing Christ into two separate persons.
Christ has both a fully human nature and remains eternally God as He has always been - in One Person.
Mary was simply a vessel God chose to bring His only Son into the world.
It was a crucial role, not based on merit, but based on God’s sovereign choice among all Jewish women at that time. She was “blessed among women.” Never above women.
*****
Could you possibly imagine a scenario where Mary would have said no to what was presented to her....or IF it had been any other Hebrew girl.
No, because God's sovereignty can not be opposed.
sure you can.
The EO folks - who are they sons of?
...cause EVERYONE knows it’s 88K!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Cousins??? 😆😆😆😆😆 I think it really DOES mean brothers, as in the same mother. 👍 In other words, Mary and Joseph really did consummate their marriage, and had other children. Why is that so difficult to understand? 😙 They were just doing what God commanded, to be fruitful and multiply. 👍
Kinsmen! Anything but brothers. romans are so messed up in their theology.
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.