Replies

First, the Church does not profess that Mary is the mother of God the Father. It is only through her motherhood of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, that she can be called the mother of God.

A couple points.

First, by calling her "mother of GOD" yes, the church is saying that she is the mother of GOD. Unless you are going to deny that the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, the title makes her the mother of them as well since the church uses the generic term of "God".

Second, by saying that she is the mother of the second person of the Trinity, that is saying that she is the mother of His Godhood, making Him a created being, with beginning. If that is the case, He is no longer GOD with us. He is merely another created being in intrinsic nature.

The title is wrong.

All that it implies is wrong.

The Catholic church was wrong for the hubris of changing the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit, which is "mother of Jesus".

Mary is mother of JESUS, not mother of GOD and all the weasel words, redefining words, convoluted explantions and justifications the church and Catholics put forth to excuse and justify their messing with the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God cannot change that.

They cannot improve on the work of God and have no right or authority to do so.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, GOD WITH US, the Incarnation; not the mother of GOD.

First, by calling her “mother of GOD” yes, the church is saying that she is the mother of GOD. Unless you are going to deny that the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, the title makes her the mother of them as well since the church uses the generic term of “God”.

We have been through this discussion before. The teaching that Mary is the mother of God is based on the understanding that, while each person of the Trinity is God, each person is a separate manifestation of God. The Father is God whole and entire, the Son is God whole and entire, and the Holy Spirit is God whole and entire. But the Father is not the Son; neither is the Holy Spirit the Son. It is with this understanding of Jesus as God, whole and entire, that Mary is the mother of Jesus, God (whole and entire) with us.

You yourself indicated that Jesus spoke to Mary as God.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3277170/posts?page=35#35

How could Jesus speak to His mother as God if Mary was not the mother of Jesus as God? How do you deny that Mary is the mother of God without also denying the divinity of Jesus?

A couple points.

First, by calling her "mother of GOD" yes, the church is saying that she is the mother of GOD. Unless you are going to deny that the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, the title makes her the mother of them as well since the church uses the generic term of "God".

Second, by saying that she is the mother of the second person of the Trinity, that is saying that she is the mother of His Godhood, making Him a created being, with beginning. If that is the case, He is no longer GOD with us. He is merely another created being in intrinsic nature.

The title is wrong.

All that it implies is wrong.

Amen! A succinct statement of the core of the problem. It is simple linguistics. You can't put out an unqualified title of "God" without implying the full Trinitarian Godhead to the average Christian. So the title "Mother of God" is irretrievably defective. It implies too much, and expects too much theological sophistication of rank and file believers. Even if some elite few claim they can parse it correctly under Nicaea and Chalcedon, it is 100% guaranteed to be misunderstood by the vast majority of those who will hear it. And I am a witness to this misunderstanding directly in my own extended family, who understand it as a basis for promoting Mary to virtual deity status.

And your second point is equally telling. It is nearly the same linguistic problem, but applied specifically to the person of Jesus. Motherhood to most people implies generation, not mere surrogacy. The problem is that in Jesus we have both. The divinity of Christ was never generated by Mary. She is not the generative mother of God. But from her humanity came Jesus' humanity. Of that she was truly the mother in the generative sense. But Jesus' humanity is not His deity. He is one, unified person, true, but under Chalcedon, His two natures, while existing in one person, cannot be recklessly confused. And that is precisely what "theotokus" ("mother/bearer of God") does. It fails to make a necessary distinction between the two natures as to generation, and the very predictable result is confusion of the faithful. Not good.

Which is why, as you say, the more robust approach is simply to use the language given to us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, Who anticipated this challenge and provided us with a ready and safe means of dealing with it. God's word is not just some random text over which we can debate. It is a gift of God to us, given in love. It's all there for our good, and will be a help to us in these matters, if we are willing to receive it as the gift of love it is.

Peace,

SR

The title is wrong.

All that it implies is wrong.

The Catholic church was wrong for the hubris of changing the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit, which is “mother of Jesus”.

They cannot improve on the work of God and have no right or authority to do so.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, GOD WITH US, the Incarnation; not the mother of GOD.

AMEN!

The title is wrong.

True. If Cath wanted to be sure to avoid blasphemy then at least they would be careful to call her the mother of God the Son. RCs even refrain from calling Mary the Theotokos as "God-bearer," which is less likely to be misunderstood than "Mother of God," since that naturally denotes ontological oneness.

But instead RCs insist on the most easily misleading term, as they are either ignorant or would rather exalt Mary as a demigoddess than be careful to avoid fostering a blasphemous idea about Mary.