[boatbums]

The Council of Chalcedon, which Anglicans and most Protestants hold as ecumenical, declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person - a hypostatic union - which cannot be separated and still be Jesus. If we hold that Mary gave birth to Jesus the human, but not Jesus God, we split what cannot be split - Jesus, fully human and fully divine. If we say Mary gave birth to one nature of Jesus and not the other nature, we err, because mothers give birth to persons not natures. Jesus is a person who was born of a woman, Mary.

Okay, let me dip my toe into this as well.

Questions:

Did Jesus exist before Mary existed?

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?

You say mothers give birth to persons, yet do they not really give birth to a body that contains a personal spirit? Some mothers give birth to stillborn babies. They are persons, they have bodies, yet they do not have a spirit anymore.

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"? You DO know it was not universally accepted, don't you?

Finally, why didn't the "all-wise, Holy Spirit led" magesterium understand that they could have avoided the controversy by explaining the incarnation more clearly without assigning God-birthing to a human being? How many organizations exist today that are devoted to the Virgin Mary and who only acknowledge Jesus Christ in passing? Do you believe that is how it should be?

[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.