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.
And I don't see anyone denying THAT.
“He [Jimmy Akin] went on to say, “This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”
I appreciate the admission.
Don't let it impress you too much. Wide is the road and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many are there who find it.
Numbers never impressed God much, and they don't impress me, except when you realize just how many people can be wrong about something.
I evaluated the question as incomplete with regards to the particulars.
Tell me you are not still beating your wife.
Do you believe Jesus is God with us? Do you believe there is a Holy Spirit/Paraclete/restrainer? Then with even a little reading comprehension you would avoid asking stupid questions Jesus cancelled when He said He would send to the disciples the Paraclete, unless of course you have denigrated Jesus to such an extent that your earthy catholic priests are on the same par with jesus.
For us Christians, the ONLY source of Biblical interpretation is The Holy Spirit.
One of the greatest mistakes that protestants made during the revolution was to give up Christ in the Eucharist
There is a Eucharist Catholic Church:
ABOUT US
+ A progressive, inclusive and affirming Catholic community
+ Welcoming the inclusion of women in the ordained ministry
+ Welcoming of married clergy
+ Full inclusion of LGBTQ people as gifts of God in the life of the Church, including ordained ministry and the Sacrament of Marriage
+ A place of healing for those who have been hurt by their church of origin, yet who still yearn for Catholic spirituality and liturgy
+ A Church in the Apostolic Succession, valuing His Holiness the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as patriarch, and symbol of unity
Wow that is great!
Were any of those drawings preserved?
Who was the artist?
You don’t think his father LOVED seeing him drug through the mud, do you?
Mary was superior to one third of the Trinity because she was gestating Jesus in her womb.
Wow, talk about confusion! Where ever did you get the idea that Mary is superior to God or that the Trinity could be split into thirds? Mary is not superior to any part of the Trinity. Even when Jesus was in her womb, He was still her God. And He was wholly God, not one third of the Trinity. You do believe that Jesus is God, whole and entire, don’t you?
You want me to mindread his father?
If I were a GUESSING man; I’d guess that old dad told GOD to do whatever it takes to bring him back home.
It is not Catholic teaching that is causing confusion. It is the erroneous extrapolation of Catholic teaching that is causing the confusion. What you infer from your speculations is nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Ah, I see ... and that’s why you pray to Mary in your religion and have statues of Mary you venerate to try and get her attention, and called her a mediatrix, and assign issues of salvation to her handling for you, and pray to get souls out of purgatory by running the Mariology Rosary. Got it.
Chapter and verse, please.
To quote Sgt. Joe Friday, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.”
Live by “sola scriptura”, die by “sola scripture”. That’s what happens when y’all abandon the Faith passed down.
Well, you were wrong. Every syllogism is either formally valid or formally invalid. There is no third possibility.
Refusing to answer that yes-or-no question is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Jn 14:16 ; Jn 14:26; Jn 15:26 ; Jn 16:7
Now you have put yourself int he position of having to deny The Word of God in order to continue this foolishness you put your faith in.
Chapter and verse, please.
You seem to be speechless in regards to quoting the Bible.
You partially got it, but the soup is very thin.
Well, I should have known a catechized person would not comprehend the abbreviations in my post. Jn stand fro John, as in John’s Gospel. The numbers stand for the chapter then a colon and the verse number. Try the system. You’ll find it useful.
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.