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

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.

To put it simply, "Wow!"

What a list! ("Our Lady of the Underground"??)

When I see this quackery, I think - "Is all this caused by someone's need for gender egalitarianism?" The RCC response is like a culture that is trying to be "fair" to women.

"We need to elevate the woman figure so that everyone is treated fairly... I know: We'll write a prayer to MARY!"

So, let's dissect the "Hail Mary" prayer:

Hail Mary full of Grace,
(We're addressing Mary. It's a prayer. We're praying to Mary.)
the Lord is with thee.
(Luke 1:28)
Blessed are thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
(Luke 1:42)
Holy Mary Mother of God,
(That's stretching our limited understanding of both hypostatic union and chickens and eggs. To quote Daniel1212: "Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture." )
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death Amen.
(Asking dead people for intercessory prayer? Unscriptural.)

The whole thing reminds me of Satan's lying tactic: Take scripture, twist it, leave some out, and add something of his own to mislead people then have them repeat it over and over again until "VIOLA!" - it's so engrained that they'll fight for 562 posts to preserve the tenants of their "Holy Roman Catholic" church.

"Theotokos" is the most theologically correct title for the virgin Mary.

Well that is a step in the right direction!

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.

Nice try but even saying that is "the only reason" is untenable and unreasonable.

1. As seen by the distinctive use of the title "priest" for NT pastors/presbyteros, from a Greek word word used exclusively for Hebrew or pagan priests (in Latin word "sacerdos" which is said to have no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter”) but never for NT presbyteros (outside all believers being calls priests), and Catholicism's choice of terms can easily be theologically driven - as here via imposed functional equivalence - versus a lack of lingual equivalents.

2. Since when is no exact way to say something a problem? I read that it has been found that the equivalent phrase "Mater Dei" (Mother of God) is more common in Latin and so also in the other languages used in the Western Catholic Church. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Titles)

The "Myroure of our Ldy" written for the Bridgettine nuns of Syon (fifteenth century) states,

Some saye at the begynnyng of this salutacyon Ave benigne Jesu and some saye after 'Maria mater Dei'...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm)

3. Rather than MOG being a satisfactory correct term or lacking one in Latin: “The term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. In English one must translate Theotokos as “Bearer of God.” The correct Latin would be deipara or dei genetrix, not Mater Dei. (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).

4. Rather than adding a qualifying note (such as God is careful to do in Rm. 9:5) that would make MOG more theologically correct, instead Catholicism uncritically abundantly and formally uses it as part of their hyperexaltation of Mary, even largely paralleling Christ.

All Catholics have no problem accepting that Mary is God-bearer.

For beginners, while what they end up with is a demigoddess to whom Christ owes His sinless blood to.

The disturbing thing is that numerous protestants claim to accept traditional Christian doctrine but refuse to admit that Mary is God-bearer.

You are now debating what I did not argue, and i am not representing or promoting a particular church belief that does, while you represent Catholic error.

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.

If true, it is likely due to inability to articulate that what they are opposing is that Mary authored or contributed anything to the Divine nature of Christ, which the title "God" represents, and that Mary is ontologically the mother of Deity is what MOG most naturally conveys and is what is being protested.

his divinity was separate and not united with his humanity when he was in Mary. This is a heresy in Christianity.

As is attributing to Mary glory and attributes only God is shown having, including being the dispenser of all graces in Heaven, and the object of prostrating praise and prayer addressed to her in Heaven, which she can hear and respond to. Out of over 200 prayers in Scripture by believers, only the Lord is addressed and alone shown to be able to hear all such . Offering prayers in memorial before the final judgments does not do it, nor is asking one another to pray for you on earth translate into this.

The English translation of the original Greek statement reads that Christ was: "born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,

Other, as show, deny that Theotokos means the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation, while this Chalcedonian Definition adds the qualifier, "according to the Manhood," which characteristic lack of continues to be an issue in the protest against MOG.

That has been accepted by the ENTIRE Christian world for 1600 years.

But which does not make it Scriptural, not any of the erroneous other accretions seen in the progressive deformation of the post-NT church (while yet holding to salvific truths) and the use of MOG cannot be divorced from the unScriptural exaltation of Mary which it is part of.

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.