Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[Vicomte13]

To me it is interesting how many of the post-96AD Marian apparitions involved young adults or children. Not absolutely---Guadeloupe involved a well-aged man---but a child-like innocence seems to be a important component in many of the BVM visitations.

Indeed, and when she spoke to Juan Diego, at Guadelupe, she spoke to him in the diminutive, as though he were a little child.

 

[Vicomte13]

To me it is interesting how many of the post-96AD Marian apparitions involved young adults or children. Not absolutely---Guadeloupe involved a well-aged man---but a child-like innocence seems to be a important component in many of the BVM visitations.

You there, you are new to the thread. You're a Catholic, who surely has some experience with the Scriptures. Could you provide your viewpoint, just from Scripture, of why we Catholics know that Peter was the head of the Church?

I've been challenged a couple of times on this thread about it, and I sort of shake my head and wonder "How?" So I'm irritated and not thinking in a linear manner. You're fresh here, and I'm sure you can do a better job than I at simply laying out the bricks as to why Peter was obviously made leader of the Church by Jesus. I think that just about any Catholic can do that. So why not you?

Please proceed.
Thank you.

 

[Germatria1128]

You there, you are new to the thread. You're a Catholic, who surely has some experience with the Scriptures. Could you provide your viewpoint, just from Scripture, of why we Catholics know that Peter was the head of the Church?

I've been challenged a couple of times on this thread about it, and I sort of shake my head and wonder "How?" So I'm irritated and not thinking in a linear manner. You're fresh here, and I'm sure you can do a better job than I at simply laying out the bricks as to why Peter was obviously made leader of the Church by Jesus. I think that just about any Catholic can do that. So why not you?

Please proceed.
Thank you.

Hello--- The important role of Peter in the early church is a fascinating subject. But first, a little about myself: Although I am Catholic now, I converted away from Protestantism and to Catholicism in my late 20s---after much study and questioning. I believe that the information in the Gospels, in Acts, and in Church teaching/tradition strongly supports the Petrine foundation of Christ's church. Vicomte's MULTIPLE examples of Peter's leadership are very well taken and argue the case very well.

Rather than spend more time than I have right now developing the argument for Peter's Primacy and his role as first leader of the Church, allow me to quote the excellent passage from Wikipedia that states the case well:

"Catholics believe that Saint Paul saw Judaism as the type or figure of Christianity: "Now all these things happened to [the Jews] in figure...."[1 Cor. 10:11] In the Old Law, Deut. 17:8-12 attributes to the High Priest the highest jurisdiction in religious matters. Therefore, it is argued, logic dictates that a supreme head would be necessary in the Christian Church, though the relevance of Biblical law in Christianity is still disputed, see also New Covenant and New Commandment.

In the New Testament, which some call the New Law or "New Greek Testament",[11] Matthew 16:16-18 reports that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Elsewhere in Scripture such a name change always denotes some change in status (e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul).

Jesus also said to Peter in verse 19, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Especially for the Hebrew people, keys were a symbol of authority. Indeed, Jesus declares in the Book of Revelation, that He has the "keys of death and hell," which means that He has power over death and hell; Isaiah 22:21-22 also supports this. Cardinal Gibbons, in his book The Faith of Our Fathers, points out that keys are still a symbol of authority in today's culture; he uses the example of someone giving the keys of his house to another person, and that the latter represented the owner of the house in his absence.

Another source indicating Peter's supremacy can be found in John 21:15-17 where Christ tells Peter three times to "feed His sheep" and "feed His lambs." The "sheep" are understood to be the stronger portion of Jesus' flock (the clergy), and the "lambs" are understood as the weaker portion (the laity)[citation needed]. From this, Catholics believe that Peter was given charge over Christ's whole flock, that is, the Church.

Moreover, Peter is always named first in all listings of the Apostles; Judas is invariably mentioned last. In Matthew 10:2 Peter is described as the "first Apostle". It is important to note that Peter was neither the first Apostle in age nor election; therefore, Peter must be the first Apostle in the sense of authority, if you ignore the possibility of him being first in the sense of first in the list of Twelve Apostles.[Mk. 3:16] [Mt. 4:18-19] According to Acts 1-2,10-11,15, St. Peter was the leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. Jesus also instructed St. Peter to strengthen his brethren, i.e., the apostles, according to Luke 22:31-32.

Both Latin and Greek writers in the early church (such as the St. John Chrysostom) referred to "rock" as applying to both Peter personally and his faith symbolically, as well as seeing Christ's promise to apply more generally to his twelve apostles and the Church at large.[12]

Vatican Council I defined the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the whole Catholic Church as an essential institution of the Church that can never be relinquished. This primacy is thus crucial to the understanding of the church from a Catholic viewpoint. At the same time, the history of papal primacy has always been imperfect and much-debated.[13] This is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the living Stone, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.[14]"

St. Peter was "the Man."

 

[DamianWarS]

Ah, that's precisely the problem with denying that Mary is the Mother of God. If Jesus' Divinity and humanity are separated, than the Son of God did not die on the cross for our sins, it's just human sacrifice! Jesus' Divinity and humanity, must be united!

I actually plan on, sometime in the distant future, posting a debate entitled: "Why Protestants should call Mary: The Mother of God!"

Jesus' divinity and humanity are a paradox and illogical yet they are true. They are a mystery which we cannot explain and are left with saying that he is fully human, fully God and inseparable.

I'm not trying to separate Jesus but I do recognize that Mary, as a human did not have the capacity to nurture or equip the divine. Jesus does not need to be separated to recognize that Mary and Jesus are not equal and Mary would be limited in her ability to nurture Jesus. It's in that limitation where she is unable to mother God.

Jesus is fully human and fully divine, Mary bore in her, womb, gave birth to and raised, a fully human, and fully Divine child, therefore Mary is the Mother of a divine being!

again mother needs to be defined. I defined a mother as a biological component and a nurturing component which led to a conclusion that since mary could do neither with the divine she could not be mother of God. Repeating these statements about Mary does not change this nor does it show how mother can be defined to allow Mary to be the mother of God. So please explain what mother means in the context of these statements.

 

[Halbhh]

If Mary didn't hear the word of God and keep it, would Jesus have been born? You are missing the point. Jesus is making a unity with those hear the word of God and keep it, with His mother as a model of faith (who kept the word of God), you make a false dichotomy.
Furthermore, in your interpretation, Jesus is slighting His mother, a violation of the 4th Commandment, (honor your parents). It's not the "gotcha" verse Protestants think it is.

I'm happy to be able to tell you I presumed Jesus has great respect for Mary.

But, perhaps you knew that? (you should....)

I did indeed mean to ask the question that I did ask, that very different question that I did ask.

I can't see though the other part of what you've said -- that Mary is the model -- from the verse: "But he replied, 'More blessed still are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" After all, what does "more" mean then?

To me, these words seem to mean the people who hear the Word of God and keep it are blessed, more so than from being *even* the mother of Jesus!

Which is quite a amazing statement....

And, I am really asking how you got to your version of meaning -- were you omitting the word "more"? If so, why? If not, then what allows the connection you make?

 

[Beaker]

I was once severely rebuked by a catholic when I said that Mary was just a 'tool' used by God to bear the Son in human form. She insisted that Mary was "the mother of God" - who, according to Genesis was "in the beginning". She said that Mary has an important part in her life and that of many thousand catholics. So obviously, the catholic church holds her in highest esteem equal to Christ Himself.

 

[PeaceB]

Jesus' divinity and humanity are a paradox and illogical yet they are true. They are a mystery which we cannot explain and are left with saying that he is fully human, fully God and inseparable.

I'm not trying to separate Jesus but I do recognize that Mary, as a human did not have the capacity to nurture or equip the divine. Jesus does not need to be separated to recognize that Mary and Jesus are not equal and Mary would be limited in her ability to nurture Jesus. It's in that limitation where she is unable to mother God.



again mother needs to be defined. I defined a mother as a biological component and a nurturing component which led to a conclusion that since mary could do neither with the divine she could not be mother of God. Repeating these statements about Mary does not change this nor does it show how mother can be defined to allow Mary to be the mother of God. So please explain what mother means in the context of these statements.

Is Jesus divine?

 

[Halbhh]

We know Mary was the mother of God in actual fact, as a simple truth, in His human birth.

But I was asking a *very different question* in post #150 above, sincerely hoping to get a substantial Catholic answer, in good faith.

I'm asking in good faith, and would like a good faith answer.

It might help to know I have a very positive impression of Catholic thinking and of the Catholic church. I'm not at all a person who is partisan for one group vs another, though.

Does anyone know if this has been answered here at Christian Forums and where, or who might answer it?

Perhaps it's a bad idea to ask in this thread, but instead it should be a new thread?

 

[Vicomte13]

I have questions about Luke chapter 11 where a woman called out:

27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” -NIV

27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” -ESV

27 And it came to pass, in his saying these things, a certain woman having lifted up the voice out of the multitude, said to him, ‘Happy the womb that carried thee, and the paps that thou didst suck!’
28 And he said, ‘Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!’ - YLT

All of these I took from Biblehub

But I found an online "Catholic Bible" which reads:

27 It happened that as he was speaking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, 'Blessed the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you!'
28 But he replied, 'More blessed still are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'
Luke - Chapter 11 - Bible - Catholic Online

Either way, it does also seem to have a message, right? What is that message? Why did He say this?

What is the reason He spoke and said these words?

He spoke and said those words to emphasize that God's central concern with humanity is that we do as he says - follow his commandments - that our deeds comport with what he wants of us. The Jewish woman who said that to him was not herself a Christian, knowing anything about the virgin birth. To her, Jesus was just an itinerant preacher with the good word. She praised him by praising his mother, a traditional thing to do.

Jesus doubled down on his teaching, by coming back at her that even more blessed than family relationships was obedience to God.

I can understand why you would think that this somehow diminishes the importance of Mary, his mother. And I can understand why, if it were important to diminish the importance of Mary, somebody would point to this.

I would merely say that the Bible cannot teach the full importance of Mary, because God didn't use Mary as an emissary to Christians in the First Century. But in the 16th, 19th and 20th Centuries, Marian visitations have been the sources of the most powerful divine revelations and exposition of miracles.

So I would say that given the reality of what we know now, given those events, that when we read back into Scripture, if faced with the prospect of something like this that can be taken two ways, we err if we interpret the Scripture to diminish Mary, when God has greatly exalted her during our own centuries.

 

[Vicomte13]

We know Mary was the mother of God in actual fact, as a simple truth, in His human birth.

But I was asking a *very different question* in post #150 above, sincerely hoping to get a substantial Catholic answer, in good faith.

I'm asking in good faith, and would like a good faith answer.

It might help to know I have a very positive impression of Catholic thinking and of the Catholic church. I'm not at all a person who is partisan for one group vs another, though.

Does anyone know if this has been answered here at Christian Forums and where, or who might answer it?

Perhaps it's a bad idea to ask in this thread, but instead it should be a new thread?

I answered you directly just above.

 

[Albion]

My own history is the reason that I know God performs dramatic healing miracles, and do not have skeptical doubt about the healings at Lourdes.

As said, we all believe in miracles. That doesn't mean that every claim of one is genuine.,

As far as Peter's leadership goes, I suppose we could just pick up the Gospels and Acs and start reading, front to back, noting that Peter is the central character among the Apostles, the first to do so many things, the rock, he who walked upon the water, the one two whom the keys were given, the one directed "feed my sheep", the one who spoke for the Apostles to the crowd at Pentecost, the one who faced down the Jewish authorities, the one released from prison where he had been seized by the ruler because he was the leader of the Christians, the one who was given the vision to baptize the uncircumcised, the one of whom Paul said that he "even stood up to Kephas".

The claim was that Jesus appointed him to be the head of the Apostles. Yes, he was important and Jesus gave him responsibility. That he was chosen to be the head of the Apostles was not believed by the early church, however, and there is nowhere in Scripture where Jesus appoints him such. As with the Lourdes story, some people WANT to believe all this to be true, so they do. However, neither history nor Scripture confirm it, that's all.

 

[DamianWarS]

Is Jesus divine?

yes

 

[kepha31]

Jesus' divinity and humanity are a paradox and illogical yet they are true. They are a mystery which we cannot explain and are left with saying that he is fully human, fully God and inseparable.

I'm not trying to separate Jesus but I do recognize that Mary, as a human did not have the capacity to nurture or equip the divine. Jesus does not need to be separated to recognize that Mary and Jesus are not equal and Mary would be limited in her ability to nurture Jesus. It's in that limitation where she is unable to mother God.

The title "Mother of God" was acclaimed at the Council of Ephesus which convened in 431 to refute the Nestorian heresy.

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh"). That might explain why the glory goes to Jesus and the honor goes to Mary. I think part of the misunderstanding is a hyper-literalist view of the title "Mother of God" and a lack of historical context.

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

again mother needs to be defined. I defined a mother as a biological component and a nurturing component which led to a conclusion that since mary could do neither with the divine she could not be mother of God. Repeating these statements about Mary does not change this nor does it show how mother can be defined to allow Mary to be the mother of God. So please explain what mother means in the context of these statements.

Motherhood is a difficult idea to grapple with. This is because mothers are by nature and definition relational. They are considered mothers only in their relationship with their children. Nature keeps mother and child so close as to be almost indistinct as individuals through the first nine or so months of life. Their bodies are made for each other. During pregnancy, they share the same food, blood and oxygen. After birth, nature places the child at the mother’s breast for nourishment. The newborn’s eyes can see only far enough to make eye contact with the mother. The newborn’s ears can clearly hear the beating of the mother’s heart and the high tones of the female voice. Nature has even made a woman’s skin smoother than her husband’s, the better to nestle with the sensitive skin of a baby. The mother, body and soul, points beyond herself, to her child. Yet as close as nature keeps us to our mothers, they remain mysterious to their children. In the words of G.K. Chesterton “A thing can sometimes be too close to be seen.”

As the Mother of God, Mary is the mother par excellence. So, as all mothers are elusive, she will be more so. As all mothers give of themselves, she will give even more. As all mothers point beyond themselves, Mary will to a much greater degree. A true mother, Mary considers none of her glories her own. After all, she points out, she is only doing God’s bidding: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Even when she recognizes her superior gifts, she recognizes that they are gifts: “All generations shall call me blessed” (Lk 1:48). For her part Mary’s own soul “magnifies” not herself but “the Lord” (Lk 1:46). Since Mary always deflects attention away from herself, we must look to the One she points us to in order to understand her better.

To understand the Mother of God, we must begin with God. All Marian devotion must begin with solid theology and a firm faith based on the Creed. All that Mary does, and all that she is, flows from her relationship with God and her cooperation with His divine plan. She is His mother. She is His spouse. She is His daughter. She is His handmaid. This is the truth as shocking as it may sound.

#53 LOVING MOTHERHOOD

 

[kepha31]

I'm happy to be able to tell you I presumed no such thing as the unusually bad idea that Jesus was disrespecting Mary, and cannot even see how anyone could get that from the text even with convoluted reasoning. But, I did indeed mean just the precise question that I did ask, that very different question.

I can't see though the other part of what you've said -- that Mary is the model -- from the verse: "But he replied, 'More blessed still are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" After all, what does "more" mean then?

That's not what the text says. From your quote:
28 And he said, ‘Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!’ - YLT
'More blessed" is either/or thinking. Jesus is speaking in terms of "both/and" which is biblical/Hebraic thinking. "Rather" does not mean "instead of", it's a both/and word.

To me, these words seem to mean the people who hear the Word of God and keep it are blessed, more so than just from being a mother of a righteous son by itself, which is indeed a blessing though. In Mary's case we can surmise she did indeed hear and keep the Word of God also.

So, it appears as if to mean the most blessed people are the ones that hear and obey the Words of God, better than even the big, powerful blessing of having a righteous child of great quality.

That's assuming the ones that hear and obey the Words of God persevere to the end.

But, I am still really asking what it means to others, and hope you can explain more completely how you got your idea.

By staying away from false misleading anti-Catholic web sites.

 

[wilts43]

The title "Mother of God" was acclaimed at the Council of Ephesus which convened in 431 to refute the Nestorian heresy.

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh"). That might explain why the glory goes to Jesus and the honor goes to Mary. I think part of the misunderstanding is a hyper-literalist view of the title "Mother of God" and a lack of historical context.

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Motherhood is a difficult idea to grapple with. This is because mothers are by nature and definition relational. They are considered mothers only in their relationship with their children. Nature keeps mother and child so close as to be almost indistinct as individuals through the first nine or so months of life. Their bodies are made for each other. During pregnancy, they share the same food, blood and oxygen. After birth, nature places the child at the mother’s breast for nourishment. The newborn’s eyes can see only far enough to make eye contact with the mother. The newborn’s ears can clearly hear the beating of the mother’s heart and the high tones of the female voice. Nature has even made a woman’s skin smoother than her husband’s, the better to nestle with the sensitive skin of a baby. The mother, body and soul, points beyond herself, to her child. Yet as close as nature keeps us to our mothers, they remain mysterious to their children. In the words of G.K. Chesterton “A thing can sometimes be too close to be seen.”

As the Mother of God, Mary is the mother par excellence. So, as all mothers are elusive, she will be more so. As all mothers give of themselves, she will give even more. As all mothers point beyond themselves, Mary will to a much greater degree. A true mother, Mary considers none of her glories her own. After all, she points out, she is only doing God’s bidding: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Even when she recognizes her superior gifts, she recognizes that they are gifts: “All generations shall call me blessed” (Lk 1:48). For her part Mary’s own soul “magnifies” not herself but “the Lord” (Lk 1:46). Since Mary always deflects attention away from herself, we must look to the One she points us to in order to understand her better.

To understand the Mother of God, we must begin with God. All Marian devotion must begin with solid theology and a firm faith based on the Creed. All that Mary does, and all that she is, flows from her relationship with God and her cooperation with His divine plan. She is His mother. She is His spouse. She is His daughter. She is His handmaid. This is the truth as shocking as it may sound.

#53 LOVING MOTHERHOOD

Very well said!"
Most of the Protestant objectors are indeed Nestorians.

And they insist on ultra-literal proof texts (except when they are "Catholic" like John 6 "Bread of Life" discourse or "Thou art Peter....").
Simplistically they think if Mary can be called "mother-of-God" she is older than God or as great as God......(or that bread cannot be Christ's body)....But God can do all things.

When your faith is "Jesus-&-me" or "Bible-&-me".......every article of faith settled by Christ's Holy Body in His One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church has to be re-tested by "me".

 

[DamianWarS]

The title "Mother of God" was acclaimed at the Council of Ephesus which convened in 431 to refute the Nestorian heresy.

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh"). That might explain why the glory goes to Jesus and the honor goes to Mary. I think part of the misunderstanding is a hyper-literalist view of the title "Mother of God" and a lack of historical context.

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

"Mother of God" is a title given to Mary to combat Nestorianism. The purpose of the title, by your synopsis of the Council of Ephesus, is not about about Mary but about Jesus in that the in utero Jesus was still God. The title is a reminder that Jesus was fully man and fully God since conception.

Motherhood is a difficult idea to grapple with. This is because mothers are by nature and definition relational. They are considered mothers only in their relationship with their children. Nature keeps mother and child so close as to be almost indistinct as individuals through the first nine or so months of life. Their bodies are made for each other. During pregnancy, they share the same food, blood and oxygen. After birth, nature places the child at the mother’s breast for nourishment. The newborn’s eyes can see only far enough to make eye contact with the mother. The newborn’s ears can clearly hear the beating of the mother’s heart and the high tones of the female voice. Nature has even made a woman’s skin smoother than her husband’s, the better to nestle with the sensitive skin of a baby. The mother, body and soul, points beyond herself, to her child. Yet as close as nature keeps us to our mothers, they remain mysterious to their children. In the words of G.K. Chesterton “A thing can sometimes be too close to be seen.”

As the Mother of God, Mary is the mother par excellence. So, as all mothers are elusive, she will be more so. As all mothers give of themselves, she will give even more. As all mothers point beyond themselves, Mary will to a much greater degree. A true mother, Mary considers none of her glories her own. After all, she points out, she is only doing God’s bidding: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Even when she recognizes her superior gifts, she recognizes that they are gifts: “All generations shall call me blessed” (Lk 1:48). For her part Mary’s own soul “magnifies” not herself but “the Lord” (Lk 1:46). Since Mary always deflects attention away from herself, we must look to the One she points us to in order to understand her better.

To understand the Mother of God, we must begin with God. All Marian devotion must begin with solid theology and a firm faith based on the Creed. All that Mary does, and all that she is, flows from her relationship with God and her cooperation with His divine plan. She is His mother. She is His spouse. She is His daughter. She is His handmaid. This is the truth as shocking as it may sound.

Grammatically "Mother of God" is different than "mother of God". The latter demands a biological or nurturing role but the former, as a title, can be symbolic and as you pointed out was to combat Nestorianism not to change how we approach Mary. Mary as the mother of God is impossible as Mary could do nothing to influence the divine regardless of how much she gave.

The connection between a mother and child is special and uniquely designed for a woman especially when we speak of natural motherhood as you have so eloquently put it. Although uncommented in scripture it is good to assume Mary and Jesus shared this same Mother/Child relationship and it is good to assume she was not just a good mother but an excellent mother. However we have to be careful not to superimpose abilities on her simply because we wish them to be or it makes a pretty picture. It would be irresponsible to form doctrine on the qualities of her motherhood that are beyond the capacity of Mary and beyond what is revealed of her. However special she was her motherhood would still not be able to influence the divine.

 

[JacksBratt]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception hinges on Luke 1:28. According to 99.9% of Protestants, grace is what makes you holy and righteousness. When an angel from God declares Mary "Full of Grace", there is no room for sin, not even the propensity for sin. So the argument for the IC is based on the Protestant premise for "grace".
It also flows from the foreshadowing of the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus is foreshadowed by the CONTENTS of the Ark, while the Ark foreshadows Mary.

Thanks for those explanations for a couple of the claims. However, Luke 1:28 does not use the words "full of grace". It does give honor to Mary but does not indicate "full of grace".

I have heard of the connection, that many make, between Mary and the ark of the covenant. However, there is no scripture to back it up.

We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-13. Why couldn’t God do this with Mary?

We have dispensationalists claiming every believer and their dog will be taken up to heaven, but Jesus doesn't have the power or authority to do that for His own mother???

Protestants know very little about Mary, so I invite you to brows this page:
Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)

I agree, Enoch and Elijah were taken without an earthly death. The Bible makes it clear, in it's scriptures. There are no scriptures that indicate that this happened to Mary.

Could Christ have done this for His mother? Of course. It just doesn't say He did, anywhere.

Protestants know as much about Mary as the word of God tells them.

 

[JacksBratt]

I respect the catholic right to believe the things that they believe about Mary, Jesus' mother.

However, I believe that she was just a woman, a very special and honorable woman. I believe that Jesus got His humanness from her and His God aspects from the fact that He was from the beginning and was, in fact God's son. I believe Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that she had other children through biological relations with Joseph. I believe she died and was buried. I don't believe we should pray to Mary or any other saints, no matter who. I believe we should only pray to God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy spirit.

I respect the beliefs of the Catholics here. I would like them to respect my views.

My views, although different than those that the catholic church teaches, have no bearing on the life of Jesus and His death and resurrection. It removes none of the divine aspects of Christ and doesn't diminish His ability to be our savior.

My views are in contradiction of no scripture.

So, I will not insult you for your belief in the supernatural qualities of Mary, please don't condescend me for believing what the word of God says while caring less of some council of men, determining what Mary should or shouldn't be, or some miracles that happened after the time of Christ.

 

[AlexDTX]

Really so the Crucifixion is human sacrifice? I thought that was an abomination against God, but please correct me if I'm wrong, tell me how God loves human sacrifice!

This is the lesson of Abraham and Isaac. Isaac was a type of Christ. Jesus fulfilled the eye for an eye requirement. When Adam was created he was the perfect image of God. When in Adam sinned he was changed into an imperfect image of God. In order for justice to occur, a perfect image of God had to be punished. However, there no longer was a perfect image of God. So God, in his foresight, had anticipated this need and the Word agreed to become flesh in the fulness of time to fulfill this need. Romans 5 tells us that by one man, Adam, all were made disobedient, but by one man, Jesus, all are made righteous. Human sacrifice is an abomination because no imperfect human could fulfill the requirement. But Hebrews tells us that once for all Jesus fulfilled that requirement and ever stands as our high priest and lives forevermore. Our justification is by his humanity, not his divinity. His divinity guaranteed the success of his life, but his humanity proved that God's creation was good. Creation had to save creation.

 

[AlexDTX]

If this thread illustrates anything at all; it shows that with Luther's thinking of rejecting Tradition, we get to revisit the ancient heresies over and over again.

Heresy and error are not synonyms. Heresy means division. Just because some people decided something is error, does not make it error. What God has done through Christ is only fully understood by God. It is the hubris of men to declare something wrong when they can not truly know right and wrong. Frankly, God does not tell us everything. Apart from the fundamentals: Jesus is God incarnate who died for our sins and gives us forgiveness through his resurrection and our new birth when we recognize our sin and need for a Savior; all else is open for discussion. The label of heresy is a power play by those who want to control what people think. But God wants every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind, which is individual freedom. Our individual freedom is the basis of our love for God. We love Him because we are fully persuaded that He loved us first.