What need would the "immaculate" "Mother of God" have for a Savior?

Dangus ^ | 3-20-2011 | Dangus

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply, my apologies in not replying sooner.

Why did the Roman Catholic Church's magesterium go against the teachings of some of their revered "fathers" who disputed that Mary was the "Mother of God"

The theology here was decided and proclaimed by councils. The one under discussion here is The Council of Chalcedon, one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and many Protestant Christian churches. These councils, as you likely know, are usually held to resolve or settle controversies among fathers, bishops, differing views.

The declarations of the councils are binding on those that accept them and their creeds. Nicea and and the Nicene Creed being probably the best-known example.

Did Jesus exist before Mary existed?

For "Jesus" I would say no, because that is the name given to Mary's son. But in everyday use, the answer could go either way. In Christian theology, there is a distinction made often by the use of the two terms "God the Son" and "Son of God." These are theological terms not tight scriptural usages. Jesus, "God the Son" pre-existed Mary. Jesus, "Son of God" did not.

Since we agree that Jesus is both human and divine, when you say they cannot be separated, then did God the Son die on the cross? The human nature had a beginning, did it not?

The theology of who Christ is can be separated from questions of His or other's death, body/soul/spirit, the glorified body, etc. What is and what has a soul and spirit and what happens after death, would involve a great deal more discussion and not relate directly to Christology in our discussion. The inseparability here refers to who Jesus is at birth - the Incarnation. This was what the controversy was about that resulted in the theology concerning Mary, mother of God.

The point of declaring Jesus as "fully human and fully divine" and ""true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father…," etc. is to distinguish from various heresies and controversies that arose splitting the Church and resulting in the early councils to settle them. These Christologies included: Docetism (fully divine, human body an illusion); Adoptionism (born fully human adopted as God's Son at His baptism); e Ebionites (human only, but Messiah); Arianism {divine, but he was a created being only); Nestorianism (two persons—one divine and one human); and on and on.

The term "Mother of God" can be best understood as about Jesus and this explains why it was declared in councils settling controversies over who Jesus is.

The Chalcedonian Creed was written amid controversy between the western and eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation. WIth this in mind, if we read this Creed in full (below), I believe your questions are answered and the Orthodox belief, theology, of the person of Jesus accurately defined.

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

Thanks very much for your discussion.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

That Mary is the woman through whom God became flesh is not in dispute, but God (Specifically God the Son) has existed for all eternity, and has no mother.

It would also be correct to say the woman through whom someone fully human becomes flesh is the mother of this person. If that person is also fully God, it is correct to say she is the mother of God.

This is in order to be correct about the Incarnation. Other distinctions and theology of the Holy Trinity still apply.

Thanks again and may God bless you.

[D-fendr]

Then you must mean Christ? Did not Christ, God the Son, pre-exist Mary, or was she "with God" (John 1) during creation?

I think my previous two replies address this issue.

Can't you see the failure of the semantics games Rome plays?

I think we sometimes take for granted our Orthodox faith and theology of the Incarnation, who Jesus is and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

If we study the history of the Church in the early centuries we see that every other view possible - those which we now know as heresy - was taught and held sway over various parts of the Church, all done with slight variations of words. Had there not been councils to resolve these variants and controversies, to tightly define the meaning and words of doctrine, we wouldn't have the solid foundation of Orthodox faith and creeds that we have today.

Thanks very much for your post and may God bless you and yours.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Mad Dawg]

Mind reading, MD?

Nope. She said she didn't want to. Not mind reading at all.

But, once again, there are all the signs I need to conclude that this conversation is for those who prefer winning to learning. So, I'll leave it to you all.

[Quix]

Well and accurately put . . . to the last line.

Thx.

[D-fendr]

Speaking of learning.. :)

I learned about MD 20/20 (Mogen David wine) when I was 16 years old. I learned that you paid greatly for cheap wine the next morning.

And to this day, nearly a half century later, I cannot read your screen name without recalling my misspent youth and MD 20/20, or as we called it “Mad Dawg.”

[Mad Dawg]

I really should have a sip of that stuff before I die.

I took the name because I was exposed to rabies, and it seemed a pretty funny name for an ex-clergyd00d.

[D-fendr]

I really should have a sip of that stuff before I die.

Yep, that might accomplish it.

My new favorite bargain wine is 14 Hands Merlot.

$14 and it even has a cork.

[presently no screen name]

winning to learning

I already won - as I'm coming from the Victory of The Cross not waiting for it for It is Written. Thank You, Jesus!

Everything that needs to be known/learned is in God's Word - The Final Authority. Praise God!

[boatbums]

I have to say that kind of talk gives me the heebie-jeebies.

You say this because you are a thinking and knowledgeable man. What is the excuse of those who let such talk pass on by without the faintest glimmer of disapproval? Where is the "official" disclaimer of such hyperbole or a suitable counter explanation? Why does SO MUCH of the same seem to be tacitly approved of and even exalted by those whose JOBS are to keep their adherents on the right track? I've heard the excuse of excessive exuberance but when is it just plain irrational exuberance and why has it been allowed to go unchecked for so long?

On another note, you said earlier you were "not in the pink", I pray you get to feeling better soon!

[boatbums]

You guys forget Two-Buck Chuck??? ;o)

[D-fendr]

Had to google that one, BB. Hadn’t heard of that wine; must not have hit the Southern market.

Thank God!

:)