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. 

[Bayard]

>>Can God die? If so, He is not eternal, and thus not God?<<

When it is said that God died on the Cross the human nature of Jesus dies. However, since Jesus is one person both God and Man what is experienced in his humanity is experienced in his divinity. Similarly, the value of his sacrifice is given infinite value because of this communicability. Otherwise, only a man died on the Cross and not God.

If this were not so John would err when he says The Word became Flesh Jn 1:14.

[verga]

Thousands Expected To Ring In The Solemnity Of Mary Mother Of God In Times Square.

[verga]

Lets see how many heresies our separated brethren (and sisthren: Yes intentional misspelling) can expound on in their attempts to tear down the truth.

Gnosticism Was a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

Modalism/Monarchianism Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout Biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested Himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son, and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a nontrinitarian theological teaching that Jesus was adopted as God's Son at either his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.

Arianism Arius was a pastor of a Church in Alexandria in 318. He presented the belief that Jesus was a created being and that there was a time when He did not exist. after a meeting with the Bishop and other priests he was ordered not to present these ideas again. He refused and was excommunicated.

Apollinarianism Apollinaris held that Christ did not have a complete human nature, and that he could not have a human mind and free will. He held that Christ had one one nature, a divine spirit, but a partially human (body and soul)

Manichaeism Mani taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. Through an ongoing process which takes place in human history, light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light whence it came. Its beliefs were based on local Mesopotamian gnostic and religious movements. They accepted Christ but not as the second person of the trinity. Augustine of Hippo was originally a follower of Mani But did not see any intellectual rigor in the belief system.

Donatism. Prior to 312, Donatus. Held that the validity of the sacraments depended on the holiness of the individual minister of the sacraments. Traditor were the ones that handed over the books or said they handed over the books. Created a schismatic group among the middle and upper class. after the death of Donatus Augustine of Hippo, was able to reunite many of the Donatists with the Catholic Church.

Pelagianism Pelagius (354–420 or 440),British monk. The belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Later he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagianism has come to be identified with the view, (whether Pelagius agreed or not), that human beings can earn salvation by their own efforts.

Semi Pelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semi pelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529

Nestorianism Nestorius (386–450), Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431 He developed his Christological views as an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, He challenged the long-used title Theotokos (Bringer forth of God) for the Virgin Mary. He suggested that the title denied Christ's full humanity, arguing instead that Jesus had two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus. As such he proposed Christotokos (Bringer forth of Christ) as a more suitable title for Mary

Monophysitism is the Christological position that, after the union of the divine and the human in the historical Incarnation, Jesus Christ, as the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word (Logos) of God, had only a single "nature" which was either divine or a synthesis of divine and human. Monophysitism is contrasted to dyophysitism (or dia-, dio-, or duophysitism) which maintains that Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation.

So far after reading the first 20 post I saw Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

[verga]

Wonder why the RCC hated the printing press so... and Gutenberg. Hmmm?

This statement is not right and is so absurd it is not even wrong.

Gutenberg Bible

The first Bible printed using movable type was The CATHOLIC BIBLE in the mid 1400's. It contained the exact same canon used by the Catholic Church today. Approximately 200 were scheduled to be printed on rag cotton linen paper and around 30 on velum (animal skin).

There are less than 25 known to have survived. One of which is in the Library of Congress. Learn some real history.

[verga]

I can already see that the stupid is going to be out and strong on this thread.

[HossB86]

Wycliffe, Tyndale,and Luther...All loved by Mother Church I'm sure.

Nice try, though.

Hoss

[HossB86]

I can already see that the stupid is going to be out and strong on this thread.

Glad you could join us.

Happy New Year

Hoss

[HossB86]

When it is said that God died on the Cross the human nature of Jesus dies. However, since Jesus is one person both God and Man what is experienced in his humanity is experienced in his divinity. Similarly, the value of his sacrifice is given infinite value because of this communicability. Otherwise, only a man died on the Cross and not God.

So, you're saying God is not eternal. Nice.

Hoss

[Cvengr]

It wasn’t God who died on the Cross, but rather Jesus Christ, in His humanity, who was one with God.

If God died on the Cross, it would have been double separation of God from man, rather than double indemnity.

The penalty of sin is death. The spiritual death of Adam in the Garden by Adam’s volition mandates a redemption of that unmerited sin against God, which can only be provided by the Perfect Sacrifice of a human with body, soul, and spirit.

It also requires the propitiation of His Perfect Integrity, which is atoned by the Perfect Blood Sacrifice.

There is another invalid consequence if Mary was perfect as the “Mother of God”. If Mary was without sin and the mother of God who is also Spirit, then her failure to offer her supposed perfect spirit, i.e. her life prior to her son, means she also failed in God’s Plan to provide the sacrifice instead of her Son, hence again a sinful person.

It is more truthful to acknowledge Mary as a human, was blessed in being the physical mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ, who received His perfect human spirit from God the Father via God the Spirit. The mother is not the source of our human spirit.

[Cvengr]

Nice summation. Thanks.

[The Cuban]

Ummm no.

[The Cuban]

There are at least 30 thousand protestants each with different views. Don’t be upset that why protestants are protestants the want to interpret the Bthier each in their own way. It’s actually beatiful and heartbreaking at the same ime,we declare one mystical body we are so divided. Peace brother and go knowing that Jesus takes no offense with the friend of His,Mother just like,she takes no offense to you

[Rashputin]

"The actual term in Greek (the original language that Luke was written in) is 'kecharitomene,' which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek word "charitoo" (grace). In other words, kecharitomene means "You who have been graced." And when you add the word "full" to kecharitomene, Gabriel is calling Mary by her new title of "You who have been filled with grace""

The above from http://www.catholicbible101.com/fullofgrace.htm

Apparently going to the original language and seeing that it clearly states Mary was filled (i.e. by God who is the only one who could do that) with Grace doesn't matter to people who enjoy repeating their favorite trash talk. The original text totally destroys the non-Catholic argument that to be free of sin Mary would somehow be an exception when in fact, she was saved by Grace exactly like anyone else is.

People who choose to deny that God could bestow that Grace on Mary whenever He wanted to, while she was in her mother's womb or later, are arguing that God can create a rock He cannot lift.

[Iscool]

First, God who has a mother does not treat his family poorly

Perhaps the Quran has a mother for Allah...Or maybe Aristotle conjured up a mother for God...But you won't find any such thing in the written testimony of God, the Bible...Anyone who starts off a discussion on God with 'God who has a mother' has no business attempting to discuss things Christian...

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God,,,,,

[Iscool]

Jesus who is Man could die for our sins. God who died for our sins.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Jesus doesn't seem to think God died...Jesus commended his spirit to God as he died...So God did not die...How do you explain that???

Or let me guess...You won't even attempt to explain it because it doesn't fit your narrative...

[trebb]

The focus, all the focus, should be on Christ. He took the beating, took being cursed, took all of the false charges, hung on the cross while being ridiculed. He is the One who rose again and forgives those who believe in Him. Any focus on Mary is a distraction.

For some, God (The Father/Son/Holy Spirit) is not enough so they need to worship dead humans and periodically seed the field with a new saint or two ....

The way I see it, she was special and also part of prophesy as far as the Savior being born to one of David's line. While Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God at the same time, Mary was always 100% "Man". She's special as far as her part, but not someone I would pray to since Jesus'death on the Cross and His Resurrection gave me a direct line to God - why talk to some operators when you have a direct line to the Party you wish to speak to????

I used to argue with those who create the saints but decided that it isn't worthwhile and it also isn't Christian to trash a religion that does claim to have Jesus as it's first priority (even if He sometimes seems to be eclipsed by other issues)....

[verga]

Wycliffe, Tyndale,and Luther...All loved by Mother Church I'm sure.

Yes they were, sadly like many on this site they chose to separate themselves from the truth of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, Like Jesus does not hate people, just the sins they commit.

Now please address the points I made about the Gutenberg Bible.

[verga]

Nice summation. Thanks.

Thank you, This was a paper I presented on the origin and meaning of the Nicene- Constantinople Creed to a discussion group at my parish.

[NKP_Vet]

If you don’t honor Mary you are committing a sin against God by not obeying the 5th Commandment.

She is your mother. To put it simply, she is our mother because we are all members of the Body of Christ. Since she gave birth to that Body, then she is our mother, too. At the moment she gave her fiat (said yes), she became our mother in the order of grace. She may not have given birth to us physically, but she certainly has given birth to us spiritually.

[Arthur McGowan]

The title “Mother of God” does not mean that Mary pre-existed God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Therefore, Mary is the mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

That is what the title “Mother of God” means, and has always meant. The title has never meant, “Mary existed before God.”