'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Blogger]

Wouldn't the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ solve the problem?

[redgolum]

Which are good points. The title "Mother of God" can lead to problems, but to call Mary the "Mother of Christ" or the "Mother of Jesus" only leads to more problems. Heck, I see it often in Bible classes where people don't want to sound "to Catholic" and end up Unitarian or Arian. It isn't a cure all title, but it was chosen for a reason, and a pretty good one. The risks of calling Mary "The Mother of God", are as you said, it can leave some with the impression that Mary "made" God, and therefore is some sort of god herself. She isn't, and that isn't what the title is about, but if one doesn't understand the background and the Incarnation that well, it can be the impression one gets.

The best answer would be good confirmation classes (not sure what others call them) early on that explicitly says who and what Jesus Christ is. Unfortunately, across the board, that is pretty rare. As you said, few really take the time to learn what they proclaim to believe, and has been the case since about 35 AD or so.

[kosta50]

I asked you not to ping me. I am asking you again, one more time. I have no desire to read or to respond or to receive anything from you.

[Blogger]

We don't have confirmation, but certainly every church needs to have thorough doctrinal studies. I teach Sunday school at my church and that is the whole purpose of my class. We call it the Ready Answer class. It is knowing WHY you believe what you believe. I think this topic may be one worth pursuing.

[xzins]

I don't really care.

The protocol is to ping those cited. When cited or responded to, you'll get pinged. It's an open forum.

I'd suggest you quit throwing around charges of "heresy" at others.

[redgolum]

Wouldn't the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ solve the problem?

In a sense it would. But only if you define what you mean as "The Incarnate Christ". The Nestorians of the time would have agreed with that statement, even though they have a radically different view of what the Incarnation is than most Christians. They believed that Jesus was a divided man, in effect two people. That is what the Incarnation meant to them. It was one of the titles suggested (or something close), but was not chosen because it wasn't explicit enough.

[redgolum]

I think this topic may be one worth pursuing.

Might be. But make sure you define what is meant by Jesus being true God and true man in one Person.

[Blogger]

I think it would, however, put the emphasis more on the person of Christ; however, than the person of Mary. To be the Mother of the Incarnate Christ doesn't neccessitate that she pre-exists before God. One would then concentrate on what happened at the incarnation. Christ became BOTH God and Man, a 100%/100% person in complete unity and yet distinct in the fact that his Godhood preexisted eternally, whereas his manhood had a beginning.

[Blogger]

What do you think of the title, Mother of the Incarnate Christ?

[kosta50]

Yes and +John (1:2w) says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John is not calling the Word to be the Father, nor is causing any confusion by calling Word God, nor when he says the Word was with God. Nor is gthere confusion that Christ was born of Virign Mary and was and is and will be God.

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

It isn't "gotcha" if one insists on saying that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but ought not be called the Mother of God.

And the fact is, there seems to be some opposition here on this thread to calling Mary the Mother of God. Period. Full stop.

That is precisely what the early Church was getting at with the title "Mother of God."

Part of the difficulty in my view, is that to the Catholic and the Orthodox (perhaps to redgolum's Lutheran) eye, the title "Mother of God" isn't as much about Mary as about Jesus. It's an issue of Christology. When we say, "Mary, Mother of God," we're focused on Who Jesus is, not so much who Mary is. Our focus is on Jesus.


sitetest

[kosta50]

Blogger, mainstream Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians) to the best of my knowledge do not deny Mary as the Mother of God. Other Protestants, offshoots from those original groups, do. There is no insult, nothing derogatory in saying "offshoots" of Protestantism. Protestants are continuously in a state of fragmentation. That is basic and elementary knowledge and fact.

[Blogger]

Sitetest
I think the matter is further complicated by some other titles that Mary has acquired over the years

Co-Redemtrix
Our Mediator
Mother of the Church
Mother of divine grace
Virgin most merciful
Cause of our joy
Gate of heaven
Morning star
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners
Queen of angels,
Queen of Heaven,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of families
Queen of peace.


Mary is called NONE of these things in Scripture, or are they implied. When you add Mother of God to the equation with all of her other titles, it makes her seem divine.

[Blogger]

Catholics are as well. There are many varieties. They may still call themselves Catholics, but there are liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, feminist Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Tridentine Mass Catholics, etc.,

As far as continuously being in a state of fragmentation - that is NOT a basic and elementary fact, though you would like it to be. Some denominations are quite stable. Yes, they have variety within; but the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, & Lutherans (and others), have existed since at least the 1700s, many quite earlier.

[P-Marlowe]

Marlowe, I think you just got called a heretic. With finesse, of course, but the meaning is clear.

It would not be a complete day unless someone calls me a heretic. Judging from some of the weird stuff I have read by the so-called "orthodox" around here, being called a heretic by them is not something I would be too upset about.

[kosta50]

If you don't care then I don't care either. Ping to your heart's content. If something is heretical I will so state. It's MY OPINION, get it? In my opinion those who deny that Christ is God and Mary is the Mother of Christ, and therefore the Mother of God, not of Father or Spirit, but of Son, all equally God in nature but not in Person, ARE HERETICS. And, in my opinion, those who agree with heretics are HERETOCS themselves. Get it?

[Blogger]

P-Marlowe, what do you think about the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ? Would it solve any issues with Mary's title?

[The_Reader_David]

Do read the acta of the Third Ecumenical Council. They are available on line in the Eerdmans translation.

'Christotokos' was the title Nestorius insisted on, and it was precisely because the title introduced a distinction between 'the one from the Virgin' and the Divine Logos that the Church has inisted on the title Theotokos as a guard of sound Christology.

[kosta50]

Judging from some of the weird stuff I have read by the so-called "orthodox" around here, being called a heretic by them is not something I would be too upset about

At least I am not hiding what Church I belong to.

[sitetest]

Dear Blogger,

I'm entirely uninterested in the opinions of non-Catholic/non-Orthodox folks regarding these titles. Inability to understand them properly in context is likely a result of inability or refusal to accept what the Church has infallibly taught:

Mary is the Mother of God.


sitetest