Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[Syncro]

verga’s answer to those that do not answer questions:

You still did not address the rest of the post, must mean you admit your(sic) wrong.

Either hypocritical or wrong.

And isn’t he the grammar police? LOL

[ealgeone]

I think I’ve heard that before.....

[Syncro]

No, Catholics here have ignored those pictures that prove bowing to praying to and worshiping Mary is taught to teenagers at Catholic schools.

Both Paul and the angel Michael told people to not bow down to them (Biblical proof available upon request lurkers), worship God only.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Yeah, but they don't worship her, dontcha know?

You're right.

From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516

Catechism of the Catholic Church

We also call her "Blessed," since "all generations will call me blessed."

[metmom]

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

You can relabel it, repackage it, rename it but actions speak louder than words.

[Travis T. OJustice]

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

That's called a sarchasm. :)

[Iscool]

See 100 below that. I need a “Yes” or a “No”, I am not interested in a thesis especially one that does not answer the question. Izzy spoke to the spirit and Soul of Jesus. Not a single one of those out of context verse specifically addresses the issue in regards to Jesus.

We know that a human person has a body, a soul and a spirit...I posted the scripture to show you that...We know that our body/flesh is a vile body...

We know from scripture that when a man dies his body is dead...
We know from scripture that when a person's body is dead his spirit returns to God who gave it...
We know the person's soul continues to live from reading scripture (sorry Elsie)...

We know Jesus was fashioned as a man which had a vile body...
We know from reading scripture that a man's vile body can not go to heaven until it is made incorruptible...
We know Jesus died as a man and was raised as a spirit...

Whether you accept or reject these things makes no difference at all...You obviously have never heard of any of these things which shows you are ignorant of scripture...

So instead of acting like a little kid why don't you show us where you got your information that convinces you how the death and resurrection of Jesus pans out...

You keep saying how wrong I am...Provide something that we can believe that shows I'm wrong... We know

[ealgeone]

Can you reconcile CCC 969's claim of Mary being a "mediatrix" with 1 Timothy 2:5? Do you stand with or against God? If you say 969 is correct, you deny God's inspired and inerrant word; if you deny 969, you deny Rome.

Well? You seem to be keen on unanswered questions: step up and do the right thing.

Hoss

Not only does CCC 969 contradict 1 Tim 2:5, it also contradicts the role of the Holy Spirit Who is our Helper and who intercedes for us as noted in John and Romans.

In other words there is no scriptural support for these titles as alluded to by the rcc.

In chess terms....CHECKMATE. Again.

[verga]

Psssst there is no difference between the soul and the spirit.

[omegatoo]

How do you define mediate?

Love,
O2

[ealgeone]

Good grief. Another redefined word by catholicism??

[rwa265]

The other explanation is that she bore the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, which says a different thing than saying she bore the second person of the Trinity.

---

I think I can see the difference. When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to only the flesh, and not the Word that was made flesh? That when Jesus died on the cross, it was only the flesh that died, and not the Word that was in the flesh? And that when He said, “before Abraham was, I AM,” He was not speaking as the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, but as the second person of the Trinity inside that body?

[BlueDragon]

You have not even attempted to explain how a woman can have a son who is God without being the mother of God.

Of course, there IS no way that can happen, unless 2+2=5.

You must mean that I "haven't attempted" to explained things to you, on this thread, and in context of the attempt on your part to force the contrived syllogism and have whatever explanation I offered yield to the misfitted syllogism because otherwise I've been doing plenty of explaining in my comments to yourself, and yet others here also.

Go back, review, check the math for that.

Otherwise, getting back to the larger issues of truth and reality; as much as possible, it's best to just stick with what the scriptures reveal, and how the first decades of the church beyond when the NT texts began to be widely circulated, initially, more originally understood things to be.

But I see here also, in context of this conversation (speaking of what 2+2 should equal to) that it very well may just be your turn again, for this;

You still didn't explain how a woman could have a son who always existed ---who existed prior to her own existence.

You hand-waved that question away, declaring it to be "irrelevant". I guess it didn't fit the the forced syllogism, and rather impeded the progress of it.

Check the math for that one maybe? Start there, from direction things began, rather than beginning the equation from where a certain someone briefly visited, traveled through, prior to returning back to where that certain someone was before.

Then if one so desires, mathematical re-calculations may be indulged in starting from perspective of that middling, just-passing-through place, to then work both directions outwardly-- AS LONG AS the calculus does not work both ends against the middle while doing so, and the calculations along the way do not alter the unalterable constants.

[BlueDragon]

Now wait a minute, youi just said taht giving birth to Jesus wasn't remarkable. Now it is? Can you make up your mind?

Bwaahaahaa!

Love the misspelling of taht, too. That works, in this instance. But who's youi? Anyone wee knoo?

[boatbums]

Just to clarify: The laws of logic are exactly the same, absolutely regardless of the subject matter. IOW: The laws of logic in a syllogism about Mary and Sam are exactly the same as for a syllogism about Mary and Jesus. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is a retreat into absolute, gibbering irrationality.

Just to clarify...this syllogism you are using falls apart simply because Jesus is not ALL OF GOD (meaning that he is the second person of the triune Godhead). Using your logic it would be like saying:

Mary is the mother of Sam. Sam is a fireman. Therefore, Mary is the mother of firemen. Get it?

[daniel1212]

Can you reconcile CCC 969's claim of Mary being a "mediatrix" with 1 Timothy 2:5? Do you stand with or against God? If you say 969 is correct, you deny God's inspired and inerrant word; if you deny 969, you deny Rome.

The Caths reply would be the Mary is the heavenly mediator btwn men and Christ, which is just another of the multitudinous major aspects of theology the Holy Spirit never said a word on while teaching at length on the believers access to grace thru supernatural intercession.

In which the victorious Lord Jesus is the only heavenly intercessor ever mentioned btwn God and man, and who uniquely "is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25)

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

Plus the Lord said to pray to "our Father," not Mother in Heaven, and the Spirit cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) not "Mama, Mother." That believers call upon Christ testifes to His deity, as only God is ever prayed to by believers, while it was pagans who offered incense to the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture.

“What saith the Scriptures?” (Rm. 4:3; 11:2; Gal. 4:30) “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)”

1	Prayers in Scripture addressed to God in Heaven	Over 200 prayers, besides instruction on prayer to Heaven. (“Our Father who art in Heaven,” not “Out Mother.”)
	Prayers in Scripture addressed to any created beings in Heaven	ZERO prayers or examples, or in instruction on prayer to Heaven
2	Examples or teaching showing God being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to Him in Heaven.	Multiple. “I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee..” (2 Kings 20:5; cf. Ps. 65:2; 66:19,20; Lk 1:13)
	Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them in Heaven.	ZERO. Angels and elders offering up prayers before the judgments of the last days in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) does not constitute this ability, which is unique to God.
3	Examples or teaching showing God able to personally communicate with man from Heaven.	Many. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9)
	Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to converse with man from Heaven.	ZERO. From what I see, all two-way communication required both created beings to somehow be consciously operating in the same realm.
4	Examples or teaching Christ as being the heavenly intercessor between man and God.	Many. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
	Examples or teaching any as created beings as heavenly intercessor between man and God.	ZERO. See under 2 above. Thus Caths must resort to extrapolating prayer to Mary and lesser created beings from human relationships on earth, but which ignores the manifest division btwn the 2 realms. But my fingers and mind are too tired to detail this again now.

[BlueDragon]

Psssst there is no difference between the soul and the spirit.

Then how is it that God could send His spirit to dwell & abide within an individual human being, within a soul as it were?

When it was given to John the Baptist to witness the Holy Spirit descend upon Christ and remain there -- was not Jesus then 'a soul' prior to that moment? (and afterwards also, of course)

John 3:8-10 (AKJV)

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

[HarleyD]

Where on Earth did you come up with that malarky???

I'd suggest you read the additional books which were added by the Council of Trent.

One can believe whatever their church leaders may tell them. After all, ISIS members do.

[Arthur McGowan]

Just to clarify...this syllogism you are using falls apart simply because Jesus is not ALL OF GOD (meaning that he is the second person of the triune Godhead). Using your logic it would be like saying:

Mary is the mother of Sam. Sam is a fireman. Therefore, Mary is the mother of firemen. Get it?

The title "mother of God" means that Mary is the mother of God the Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, because she conceived him in her womb and bore him. It has NEVER meant that Mary is the mother of God the Father and/or God the Holy Spirit.

In other words, you are arguing against an assertion that NO ONE HAS EVER MADE--namely, that Mary is the mother of the Trinity or the mother of one or both of the other Persons of the Trinity.

[ealgeone]

If one hears mother of God how does one know it is limited to only Christ? Why would the term not apply to the Father and Holy Spirit?