Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

http://www.catholicchristiananswers.com ^ | August 12, 2015 | Jessie Neace

[Springfield Reformer]

Your error is in ASSUMING that at any point, I was making reference to the Triune God. Not one of my syllogisms used the term “God” in the sense of “the Trinity.”
ALL the objections to the title “Mother of God” are based on the assumption that “God” always refers to the Triune God, i.e., the Trinity.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary is the mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

That is what is meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.” It is what has ALWAYS been meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.”
No Catholic has ever said that Mary is the mother, or the origin, or the Trinity.
Therefore: The objection that Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity is NOT an objection to anything that any Catholic has ever said or believed.

There is no God but the triune God.  As I have no doubt you profess to be a trinitarian, I have no logical choice but to assume you mean "triune God" whenever you refer to God without further qualification.  The term "God," without qualifiers, and stated in a trinitarian context, MUST refer to the triune God.  There is no other.

But you have added qualifiers.  And that's a step in the right direction.  You must realize that our objection to the term "Mother of God" is mainly about the collateral damage of the language of Chalcedon, not about the Christological findings of Chalcedon.  Look at all the confusion it breeds.  You say no Catholic regards Mary as the ontological mother of the triune God, but I have Catholic relatives who are definitely confused on the matter, and frankly I do not blame them so much as the reckless use of that under-qualified language.  Saying Mary is the mother of God leads to serious ontological confusion.  The more sophisticated Catholic who is privately and mentally adding qualifiers may be quite satisfied with their private orthodoxy, but on its face the expression appears to put Mary in the wrong relationship with God.  

The language is the problem. A mother gives birth to an immature entity of the same ontological kind as the mother.  That is the common understanding of the term.  But we are now being asked to think that what is being said means something quite different than what the words mean on their face.  Lawyers and politicians learn how to do that sort of thing quite easily.  More straightforward-thinking people tend to stick with straightforward meanings.  We know what a mother is, and we know what God is.  If you say Mary is God's mother, then we assume that's what you mean, and you may rely upon us to object every time to that assertion, no matter how carefully you qualify the expression in the privacy of your own mind.

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

Read the sentence in the Greek. Jesus was not establishing an organization. Poor thing, you have been fed this lie so often that now you are stuck with it as if it is the Gospel. Check the Greek word ekklesia and the meaning thereof. Even Augustine affirmed that the profession of Whom Jesus IS was the rock upon which Jesus is building His ekklesia. But dance some more on the head of that lie and see what it results in for your eternal destiny, as you strive to obtain eternal life by working through the institutionalizations of your religion.

[MHGinTN]

LOL ... you’re a hoot, dude!

[terycarl]

Not God because HE never uses that term to identify her.

are you saying that Jesus never referred to Mary as His mother.....mom....?????

[Faith Presses On]

The point of saying she is “the Mother of God” is that God became man, through being born of a virgin.

God “visited His people,” took on human form, and in doing so, He just didn’t appear as a man, as God other times did in the Old Testament. He came as a baby in the womb of a woman.

I have almost no doubt that you don’t know that these points are articulated in the Five Fundamentals of fundamental Christianity. In the same way, I’m sure you know that Bible-believing evangelicals believe this.

But the above is all that your syllogism covers. And there is so much more to logic than what you mention, when you study all the different rules for it. But yes, Mary is “Mother of God,” within some very limited sense.

Catholics also don’t believe, though, that as Jesus existed with the Father, and of course the Holy Spirit, before the world began, that Mary is the mother of the Tri-une God, or that Jesus didn’t exist before He was born to Mary. That’s all evangelicals are discounting.

A lot of this is just obfuscation that begins with our limited and incomplete understanding of the Trinity. We have simply not been given a complete understanding of it by God.

And the problem with the Catholic title of “Mother of God” is that the context seems deliberately downplayed and put out of the mind in all sorts of ways and exalting Mary begins to be brought in from there, to the point she ends up being Co-Redemptrix and someone a Catholic should devote themselves to completely.

[af_vet_1981]

No one, at this time, can force anyone to confess that Jesus is Immanuel and that Mary is the mother of Immanuel. It is totally an act of faith and love.

[ebb tide]

Where does God, the Father, refer to Jesus Christ as “God”.

Chapter and verse, please.

[terycarl]

It is astonishing how many people have been poisoned with hatred of Mary, to such as extent that they can look at a formally valid syllogism, and declare it invalid. Or they can look at a declaration in the gospel that Mary is the mother of God—”Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”—and deny that it is saying any such thing.

As usual, they are trying their best to justify their falling away from true Christianity....the Bible really didn't mean this, or the Bible was just talking about bread, not transubstantiation, Mary is buried somewhere but nobody remembers where....when you make serious errors in your life, you do anything that you can think of to justify them.....it never works.

[MHGinTN]

Catholic behavior regarding the Mary of that religion, catholiciism, evidences the inappropriate assignations to the Mother of Jesus, the Jesus Who Is God with us. That catholiciism seeks to exploit this confusion is evidenced by the many catholic voices on this thread trying desperately to float their deceptions, the ones they've been inculcated with by their religion.

This unsubstantiated veneration of the Mother of Jesus is yet more evidence that catholiciism is not Christianity, it is 'another religion' foisting 'another gospel' ... and we have Paul's instructions on how to deal with 'another gospel'.

[af_vet_1981]

.. I believe the Jesus is God the Son, ..

Well done; do you believe Mary is the mother of Immanuel, which the scripture translates as "God with us?"

[metmom]

Scripture always quotes Him as calling her *Woman*.

Do you have other Scripture showing where He called her *Mom*?

[ealgeone]

Well, what do they know?

From the website:

The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. This easy-to-search online version was originally printed between 1907 and 1912 in fifteen hard copy volumes.

[metmom]

Where does God, the Father, refer to Jesus Christ as “God”. Chapter and verse, please.

That's a great question for YOU to answer and explain then why the Catholic church changed the title the Holy Spirit gave to her.

Holy Spirit inspired *mother of Jesus* works just fine for me.

It says all I need to know about Mary's role in the life of Jesus, and it prevents any theological error by attributing beginning to God and deifying Mary.

I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.

That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.

The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*. John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[ealgeone]

Could you put your question on context? It makes no sense.

[metmom]

Oh goodie.

Does Can get a treat for being right?

The snotty, condescending attitude of Catholics towards other of whom they approve is one reason why so many of your questions remain unanswered.

Nobody is required to answer to you, nor is anyone seeking for your approval when they do.

[metmom]

Red herrings never make sense.

[terycarl]

Read the sentence in the Greek

Who cares what Greek says???..Jesus wasn't speaking Greek when He said it, He was probably speaking aramaic and Peter knew EXACTLY what He was saying.

[terycarl]

LOL ... you’re a hoot, dude!

you are easily entertained!!

[ealgeone]

Who cares what Greek says???..Jesus wasn't speaking Greek when He said it, He was probably speaking aramaic and Peter knew EXACTLY what He was saying.

You may recall the NT is written in Greek...and for a reason. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Most likely He was talking Hebrew if with Peter.

Ignoring the Greek has gotten roman catholicism into some of the false teaching it proclaims today.

[metmom]

Who cares what Greek says???..Jesus wasn't speaking Greek when He said it, He was probably speaking aramaic and Peter knew EXACTLY what He was saying.

"PROBABLY" speaking Greek?!?!?!

You don't care what the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture says in the language in which it was inspired, and hang your hat on what may have been said in maybe a different language??????

And you know what Jesus said in the Aramaic just how? And you know He was speaking Aramaic in the first place, just how?

How do you know He wasn't speaking Hebrew?