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

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

[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.

[af_vet_1981]

Both questions are irrelevant.

They are relevant since you (Pl) embrace denominations, sects, and cults that deny the Holy Trinity. Those associated with those groups hide their affiliations and refuse to truthfully and transparently answer that simple question. They knock on your door at home and seek to prosthetist you on the RF.

By sticking with Sola Scriptura we are on firm footing.

False; neither the Messiah nor the apostles gave that doctrine; it came along almost fifteen centuries later. Many of the cults devolved from the Protestant reformation of the Christian faith also hold Sola Scriptura. The doctrine, like OSAS, is not the insurance policy you seem to think it is.

How many times in the Bible does it say not to add to or take away from what is written?

It is written about the law of Moses, in both the Torah and in Matthew. Doesyour faith community add to or take away from the law of Moses ? It is written in the book of Revelation, the book where the Messiah is looking for "works." Does your faith community emphasize works ? It is not written in the Bible with respect to what constitutes the Bible. It was left to the successors of the Apostles to decide which books were in the Bible.

[Kolokotronis]

You're welcome, Padre.

One of the most important words in Christianity is in this declaration,ὁμοούσιον. It means of one essence, not really of one substance as it is often translated in English. Can we experience or see the "essence" of God? Many of the Fathers would deny that, asserting that what we can experience is not the essence of God, but rather the uncreated energies of God often as light, as at Mount Tabor.

[DungeonMaster]

In the bible Fatherhood is big, motherhood is incidental.

[af_vet_1981]

In the bible Fatherhood is big, motherhood is incidental.

Indeed, how often do we say the Our Father, the prayer that the Messiah gave ... ?

[MHGinTN]

How many catholics do you believe actually have this clear, spiritually? The point is that Jesus existed before God/The Trinity prepared a body for Jesus to occupy, therefore Mary cannot be the Mother of someone Who existed BEFORE SHE existed. Stating that Mary is the Mother of God is understood in what way do you suppose by the vast majority of catholics being taught to raise her beyond what God has given us to know of her through His Word? The only major wording in the 451 declaration I would object to is that which creates specious ambiguity regarding Mary The Mother of Jesus, not Mother of God. Whast do you see as the typical definition of the word Mother, as the person in whom a NEW soul is gestated? THERE is the specious ambiguity exploited in catholiciism.

As to the notion that He is now in a body like unto us: Jesus is a much more dimensionally complex being in His current body than we are now, but when we see Him we shall see Him as He is because we will be transformed in a moment int he twinkling of an eye to be like Him. EXCEPT, we will not be a third of the Trinity, so He will always be more than we can ever be.

[xzins]

My understanding is that He is in the body that was resurrected and is capable of both the resurrection appearances and of the appearance in Revelation to John.

It is not helpful to suggest Jesus might have had 2 natures, one divine and one human. That is not the testimony of scripture nor of the church.

[af_vet_1981]

In the bible Fatherhood is big, motherhood is incidental.

I would add that after Adam and Eve motherhood is fundamental, save should the LORD create life from dust or rocks. Your view seems to support scientific creation of life.

[MHGinTN]

Where have I said He has two natures? God existed before the body was prepared in Mary's womb. One personage of the Trinity came to dwell in that body. If we believe John One then we know ALL things that were made were made through The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us.

As Jesus occupies a physical body greater than 4D now, we are assured that some where/when we who faithe in Him will also occupy such bodies. But we will not have a share in being God, just glorified beings created by The Word Made flesh Who dwelt among us.

[daniel1212]

Wrong again. Mormonism does not use the title "Mother of God" at all

Wrong again, the concept of "Mother of God" versus simply a created being bearing an incarnated Deity is seen in Mormonism. As regards the actual misleading title, in speaking of the virgin Mary, 1 Nephi 11:18 of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon read: "... Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm)

In addition, while avoiding the term Mother of God, in Mormonism God has a wife, albeit a spirit one, and thru whom Christ was begotten, which makes ontologically her the Mother of God. In Catholicism Mary is the Spouse, Daughter and Mother of God, the latter inferring what Mormonism teaches.

And while not being the same, and though not being part of official Mormonic doctrine (nor is much of Marian devotion to which the title MoG is linked to), Mormon tradition supports the existence of a Heavenly Mother through scripture and modern revelation (as even FAIR - a Mormon Apologetic ministry - affirms: http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/The_Changing_World_of_Mormonism/Index/Chapter_7#Response_to_claim:_178_-_There_is_a_.22Heavenly_Mother.22)

Members of the Anointed Quorum, a highly select leadership group in the early church that was privy to Smith's teachings, also acknowledged the existence of a Heavenly Mother. An editorial footnote of History of the Church 5:254, quotes Smith as saying: "Come to me; here's the mysteries man hath not seen, Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen." (https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Heavenly_Mother_%28Mormonism%29)

Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, “This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund)

“Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father… Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:961)

[daniel1212]

LOL, you just pulled an oral tradition of your own straight out of your...hat.

A mere assertion in lieu of an argument. Just shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, shouting LALALA as loud as you can.

[BillyBoy]

>> Many if not most of the Orthodox would object to you denying they are Catholic. At least they seem to prefer Theotokos. <<

"Theotokos" is the most theologically correct title for the virgin Mary. The only reason its not used in western Christianity (Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) is because it's a Greek term and the liturgical language of the west has been Latin. There's no exact way to say "Theotokos" in another language. The closest English phrase would be "God-bearer". Mary is God-bearer.

All Catholics have no problem accepting that Mary is God-bearer. The disturbing thing is that numerous protestants claim to accept traditional Christian doctrine but refuse to admit that Mary is God-bearer. In fact, I can show you numerous posts on this very thread where they vehemently insist that Mary "only gave birth to Jesus" and that his divinity was separate and not united with his humanity when he was in Mary. This is a heresy in Christianity. Protestants on this thread who claim that she "only gave birth to Jesus" are preaching that Mary is Christotokos ("Christ-bearer") rather than Theotokos. Again, the concept that Mary is only Christotokos has been rejected as a heresy in ALL of Christendom for the last 1600 years.

I suggest you read post #518 from Kolokotronis. The English translation of the original Greek statement reads that Christ was:

"born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten"

That has been accepted by the ENTIRE Christian world for 1600 years. Its not something the Roman Catholic Church "invented" years later to "exhalt Mary". If you have a problem with the statement as written in 451 A.D., you have a problem with mainstream Christian theology.

[daniel1212]

Because Jesus existed BEFORE He occupied that body prepared for Him, Mary is NOT the mother of God, she is the blessed Mother of the body God as Jesus took

Indeed: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Hebrews 10:5)

But she was also the mother of Jesus as in mothering him, but as you rightly protest, "Mother of God" infers more than that, due to the ontological oneness that "mother" normally means, and the unqualified ("as concerning the flesh" which is carefully supplied by God in Rm. 9:5) and instead it is part of expansive adulation of Mary and attributes ascribed to her to the point that only deities have in totality.

But , as said, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining knee Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

[BillyBoy]

>> In addition, while avoiding the term Mother of God, in Mormonism God has a wife <<

Indeed.

Mormonism rejects the term "Mother of God" for the virgin Mary, while asserting that God is married and has a wife. (I believe they claim God the Father AND Jesus BOTH have "wives", in fact)

Catholicism accepts the term "Mother of God" for the virgin Mary, and absolutely does NOT believe God has a wife or sponse. Asserting that Jesus was married is blasphamy, and God the Father cannot marry.

Thus, they're preaching the exact opposite.

Mormons have FAR more in common with protestants when it comes to their understanding of Mary. If you don't believe this, feel free to ask a Mormon sometime if they pray to Mary or call her the Mother of God.

[ealgeone]

A man issued statement?? Over the Word?? No.

[BillyBoy]

>> A man issued statement?? Over the Word?? No. <<

If you want to the reject the first seven ecumenical councils in Christianity, and the 95% of Christians who accept them, that's your business. Lots of non-Christians claim they believe in the Bible.

[BipolarBob]

By sticking with Sola Scriptura we are on firm footing.

False; neither the Messiah nor the apostles gave that doctrine; it came along almost fifteen centuries later.

Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every Word of God is pure. He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him. Add thou NOT unto His Words, lest ye reprove thee, and thou be found a liar".

[ealgeone]

You presume those councils made no error.

[ealgeone]

Where do you get the stat that 95%of Christians accept these? Got proof?

[Elsie]

Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles that is NON-biblical and still endlessly prattled by millions od Catholics daily...

 

 

 

" The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -

- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."