Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. I believe Nestorius got a bad rap. Some scholars have recently concluded there was a technical language barrier that led to Nestorius being misunderstood, that his “two persons” were functionally identical to the “two natures” of Chalcedon. Based on this, I believe there are even discussions of reconciliation with the still existing Nestorian churches, a kind of belated apology for a tragic misunderstanding.
Which all goes to your larger point, if I understand it correctly, that there can be a great deal more heat than light in some of these conversations, and it is incumbent on all of us to nurture whatever good we can out of these conflicts.
Peace,
SR
STILL ... only a masochist would even THINK about considering wading into 1500 plus comments on an invented doctrine alien to Jesus.
Fits quite well!
“With that many Catholics around the globe, it’s likely you know some of them as relatives, friends, neighbors, or co-workers. Find out what they don’t know—the origin and error of Catholic doctrine—so you can help the Catholics you know out of the darkness and into the light”. ~ John MacArthur
Please point out any Catholics on these threads that have had that "confusion". I have yet to met one. I would go further and say tat I have never met a single Catholic that believes that Mary is the mother of either "The Father" of the "Holy Spirit". We all (Catholics) know that she gave birth to the infant Jesus.
Eventually, you'll see THIS - which was never answered.
Personally, I've reached P3 (Point of Pearls and Pigs.)
Just don’t like too many matches around all your strawmen you want me to play with.
Mary is dead.
Fact - no silly gisms needed.
Yep; you guys never reply once one is posted.
We?
You and your pigeon friends?
I got 'drawn in' when FR Catholics (the mouthy ones) keep boasting and bragging and insisting that ROME's way is the ONLY way to Heaven.
I just LOVE posting Scripture that SHOWs this to be incorrect.
I just LOVE when the 'non'-idols that they do 'not' worship get dragged thru the mud.
1 Samuel 5:1-3
We know.
Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.
A:
Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.
It IS?
Thanks for explaining!
This is Rome's argument:
Do what ever we tell you or you are
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Frustratin' ain't it; having to defend what you did NOT say!
What 'premise'?
I linked things together just like Rome has.
Therefore (ain't conclusions WUNNERFUL?) I am as good as Rome.
There that there is as good as a sillygism as you gonna find today!
Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of God. Anyone who says that any one of these syllogisms is invalid because one of the terms is “God,” does not have any idea what the science of Logic is about.
ELSIE is a poster on FR.
FR is like a GOD like Heaven to thousands of people.
ELSIE is SAINT there.
Anyone who says that this syllogism is invalid because a few of the terms is “ELSIE,” does not have any idea what not being a _______________.
Fill in your OWN blank: Rome does.
Mary is a HUMAN. Humans are sinners Mary was a sinner.
Mary was (do we have to PROVE it?) a human.
The BIBLE (which Rome assembled and compiled) says that ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of GOD. (Do I have to PROVE it?)
Now, somehow, Rome has influenced it's minions that Mary is; somehow; NOT a sinner.
Go figger...
Millions of times a day they say...
I have noticed that many of the Catholics resort to name calling and go on the OFFENSIVE when confronted with issues they can’t answer. I find that very typical.
Hell no!
They 'believe' apparitions and visions and magisterium decisions instead!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.