Mary the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”: Blasphemy or Biblical?

[kepha31]

Here we have another massive misunderstanding as to the patristic and Catholic meaning of a striking phrase: similar to the false perception of “Mother of God”.

Having a child conceived by the Holy Spirit has no direct analogy, because it was a one-time extraordinary event, in order to bring about the incarnation. We should fully expect to have some difficulty understanding it.

Christianity is filled with such anomalies, wonders, and paradoxes. How could Jesus be fully God and fully man? Run-of-the-mill logic cannot accept this, anymore than it can grasp the Trinity (hence many heretics deny both). It requires the eyes of faith and a comprehension of the “both/and” biblical, Hebraic outlook.​

St. Augustine (354-430) stated that “Mary was that only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse of God.” (Sermon 208). Scripture speaks in terms of the bride being the Church, and makes analogies between marriage and Christ and His Church. So why should there be controversy about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

By the same general reasoning that applies to Theotokos (arguing solely from the Bible, not Catholic tradition), it seems to me that “spouse of God” would also be appropriate and non-objectionable. That Jesus’ conception was of the Holy Spirit as a sort of “Father” is plain in the Bible: Matthew 1:18-20

If we ask, then, “Who is Jesus’ father?” (in terms of the origin of His conception), it’s not Joseph, but the Holy Spirit in one sense, and God the Father in another. Multiple senses and meanings and applications are common in Holy Scripture.

By analogy, then, if Jesus’ parents were Mary and the Holy Spirit, then by simple analogy it follows that Mary (in this particular sense, and this alone) is the “spouse of God” just as she was the Mother of God.

Likewise, “spouse of God” is thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1), or St. Peter referring to men becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4; cf. 1 Jn 3:2). These are similarly understood as not entailing equality with God.

Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5

Isaiah 62:5

Jeremiah 31:32 (cf. Jer 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 (cf. Hos 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

Given all of this biblical data, saying that Mary is the “spouse of God” should not present any difficulty at all to anyone who accepts the Bible as God’s inspired revelation. The only possible objection would come from not understanding what is meant by the phrase in the first place.

 

[Sketcher]

Well, she was a Christian, and Christians are part of the church, which is referred to as the Bride of Christ. In that sense, you could say she was, but that doesn't make her special, that's the same status that every Christian has. She certainly is no less a member of the church than you or I.

When you go with her uniquely being a spouse of God outside of that sense, that becomes problematic. After all, we believe in the Virgin Birth. Part of marriage is consummation, and God certainly didn't have a sexual encounter with her. Furthermore, the church is the Bride of Christ, so going too far with the spouse idea takes you to the concept of divine incest, which we as Christians certainly do not believe in.

The only possible objection would come from not understanding what is meant by the phrase in the first place.

Then perhaps using better understood metaphors would be the more responsible way to go.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I think that Catholic terms used to describe Mary and the Saints are natural outpourings from the Catholic teaching that Christ is fully God, and the Second Person of the Trinity.

Granted, no where in Scripture does it spell out precisely and exactly "Christ is God", nor is the word "Trinity" anywhere in the Scriptures. But historic and Apostolic theology quickly explained and honored these Truths, and in the same time frame we see evidence of Marian veneration, and devotion to Holy Saints and martyrs.

 

[kepha31]

Well, she was a Christian, and Christians are part of the church, which is referred to as the Bride of Christ. In that sense, you could say she was, but that doesn't make her special, that's the same status that every Christian has. She certainly is no less a member of the church than you or I.

Mary is nothing special in the sense of being an ordinary human being like us, but we think her relationship with her Son is more special than anybody else.

When you go with her uniquely being a spouse of God outside of that sense, that becomes problematic.

Any aspect of Mariology is problematic when viewed apart from Christ, which Protestants tend to do in these discussions.

After all, we believe in the Virgin Birth. Part of marriage is consummation, and God certainly didn't have a sexual encounter with her. Furthermore, the church is the Bride of Christ, so going too far with the spouse idea takes you to the concept of divine incest, which we as Christians certainly do not believe in.

It's a focus on one title. When you pick a subject, you don't go in 20 directions. If you extract incest from my post, it's not me with a problem.

Then perhaps using better understood metaphors would be the more responsible way to go.

Scripture speaks in terms of the bride being the Church, and makes analogies between marriage and Christ and His Church. So why should there be controversy about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

It's not that hard to understand.

 

[kepha31]

Some mysteries are so profound, that they can only be fully revealed and disclosed over time. Hence, it is no surprise that the fullness of some truths is not explicitly expressed by the Sacred Scriptures or the early Fathers, though typically there is a basis. Without doubt, Saint Luke provides us with the basis for Mary as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, in his beautiful account of the Annunciation and the circumstances of the Conception by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It follows from this that, in a mystical and spiritual sense, the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of the Blessed Mother. Mary, in fact, has a special relationship with each Person of the Holy Trinity: The perfect Daughter of our heavenly Father, the Mother of the Son of God, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[anna ~ grace]

If you think on it, no human being was as close to Christ, as much in union with God's will, or more filled with and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit than Mary.

 

[Sketcher]

Mary is nothing special in the sense of being an ordinary human being like us, but we think her relationship with her Son is more special than anybody else.

Which is their business.

It's a focus on one title. When you pick a subject, you don't go in 20 directions. If you extract incest from my post, it's not me with a problem.

I simply stated why thinking of her as the spouse of God is problematic, in view of Scripture and the ancient creeds.

Scripture speaks in terms of the bride being the Church, and makes analogies between marriage and Christ and His Church. So why should there be controversy about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

That's not what I took issue with. I thought I made that clear.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've never heard eastern Christians use this sort of language, it seems unique to Latins.

 

[kepha31]

Which is their business.

I simply stated why thinking of her as the spouse of God is problematic, in view of Scripture and the ancient creeds.

Was the Mariology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger also problematic for present day Protestants?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Which is their business.

I simply stated why thinking of her as the spouse of God is problematic, in view of Scripture and the ancient creeds.

That's not what I took issue with. I thought I made that clear.

I agree entirely with you that elevating a person to a position such as this does create a real minefield of problems.

 

[kepha31]

I agree entirely with you that elevating a person to a position such as this does create a real minefield of problems.

No, it creates a minefield of misunderstandings. The Biblical Mary takes time and study. You can't expect a child who is learning the times table to jump in to advanced calculus or trigonometry. It takes time and an open mind. It may appear we are elevating Mary, but the whole purpose of Marian devotion is to elevate her Son. "do whatever He tells you" is her constant command.

Was the Mariology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger also problematic for present day Protestants?

 

[kepha31]

The rationale for devotion to Mary, and devotion means honoring her and seeking her intercession, is simple and forceful. Mary's primary role in the divine scheme of salvation revealed in Scripture is to lead all her children to her Son.
The Genesis 3:15 prophecy of the Woman and her seed in battle with the Devil reaches its climax in Revelation 12 where the Woman's seed now includes not just the Son but also all His followers.
The author of Revelation had already laid the groundwork for this startling image with John 19 in which the "beloved disciple" (symbolizing all believers) is given the Woman as his Mother by her Son. In Marian devotion and in Marian appearances throughout history and throughout the world we see this Scriptural portrait come to life with the Mother of all believers leading them to salvation in her Son.

She is not the Savior and she is not the source of salvation but she leads us to the Savior and to salvation. This is the mission assigned to her by God that we see in Scripture. The fundamental theme of Marian devotion is of going "to Jesus through Mary".

The choice we face is not: "Do I surrender to God directly or do I go through Mary to God?" Rather, the choice we face is this: "Do I surrender to God through the instrumentality He has set up, i.e., through Mary, or do I surrender to God through the instrumentality I set up, i.e., without going through Mary?

The choice is: "Do I go to God on His terms or on mine?" The choice is not: "Do I want to follow Jesus or Mary?" but "Do I want to follow Jesus (by going to Him through Mary)?"

It is a hard fact of history that devotion to Mary has been a fundamental part of the historic Faith for 20 centuries. The Sub Tuum prayer dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries establishes this to be the case along with numerous other pieces of evidence.

Any criticism of Marian devotion must overcome this "hard fact". Also Marian devotion has always been directly related to the centrality of Christ and has been the surest protector of sound Christology.

Marian devotion stems from the surest sources: the witness of Scripture; the inerrant interpretation of Scripture handed down by Councils, Creeds and the Fathers; the universal and ancient practice among Christians of venerating Mary and seeking her intercession in line with scriptural teaching; the Marian experience of the faithful; and the appearances of Mary throughout history in the most diverse cultures that have resulted in mass conversions and the renewal of Christian life.

It may be argued that Christians were in error on this matter from the beginning but in response we will have to ask who has the authority or competence to make such an arbitrary interpretation.

Should we trust the interpretations of Augustine or Jimmy Swaggart?, the teachings of the Council of Ephesus or the pronouncements of Dave Hunt? Should we be guided by the prayer and worship practices of Christians in the first three centuries who were the closest to the New Testament Church or the prayer-and-worship routines of thousands of denominations?

The "world" of Marian devotion is one which has been familiar to almost all Christians, including the holiest and the wisest, for the last 20 centuries. The Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have not entered this world. Neither have Mormons or Buddhists.

Before they criticize or reject a part of Christian experience that has been accepted as basic and normal by most Christians, 20th century Christians should consider understanding or even better entering it.

Three aspects of Marian devotion are vital here.
(i) The basic objective of Marian devotion is growth in sanctification on our path to salvation. From Mary came Jesus Who brought salvation to the world. Through Mary came the first of Jesus' miracles wrought at her request and bringing faith to the disciples.
Now Mary comes to us from Jesus Who gives her to us as our Mother. Her children, we are told by Scripture, are those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Her God-given mission is to help us in keeping the "commandments", in battling the world, the flesh and the devil.

Those who believe, like Luther, that the Christian can "be a sinner, and sin boldly" and "even commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day" may decide that we do not need assistance in resisting the world, the flesh and the Devil since our salvation is "assured" regardless of our future choices and actions.

But this is a perilous decision. It ignores the dire warnings of Paul and James and Our Lord's own admonition: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

We have seen that Hebrews 10:26 warns us, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries."
If we take these warnings seriously we will gladly accept the assistance of the maternal love that has been experienced by millions of Christians.

(ii) Secondly, Marian devotion can only be comprehended in relation to the Christian belief in the "communion of saints", an article of faith preserved even in the Apostles' Creed.
According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "For many centuries believers have affirmed in the Apostles' Creed their faith in ‘the communion of saints.’ ... This affirmation of belief has been interpreted in various ways.

The traditional, and probably the best interpretation refers the phrase to the union of all believers, living or dead, in Christ, stressing their common life in Christ and their sharing of all the blessings of God."1

The communion of saints is clearly a scriptural teaching that is emphasized in the New Testament references to the cloud of unseen witnesses and the mystical Body of Christ ("Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"). Among Protestants, Methodists have shown a lively awareness of the close relation between the communion of saints and a scriptural faith.

According to John De Satge: "The solidarity of which Christians find themselves members is therefore one into whose ongoing life they are caught up so as to be penetrated by it, and ultimately transformed. It is a solidarity which stretches back at least as far as the call of Abraham. ... It is a solidarity ... which implies resurrection of its members, to whom death has become incidental to their ultimate destiny."2

Once we have understood the historic affirmation of the communion of saints, an affirmation that has dropped out of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical theological systems, we are in a better position to understand the role of Mary.

(iii) Finally we must ask ourselves how we would respond if we were given the opportunity to spend a day with Mary. Would we ask her questions about Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Would we ask her how we can grow closer to God and learn to obey Him better?

Would we seek her guidance in fighting the Dragon? Even suspicious Fundamentalists would find it hard not to ask these questions to the Mother of their Savior - the one so favored by God the Father as the Angel Gabriel tells us - if given the opportunity.

Marian devotion springs from the realization through Scripture and universal experience that the Mother of Jesus will be with us every day of our lives guiding us to her Son and away from her adversary. Her Son has given her to us as our Mother (John 19, Revelation 12). Dare we refuse His gift?

She is the mother God has given us. If we say we do not need a mother, then we are presuming to question the wisdom of God's provision for our needs.
The awareness of Mary's intercessory and maternal presence was a secure part of Christian experience from the beginning. Several exegetes have been quoted on this (McHugh, Breck, Miguens).

The clearest line of separation between Fundamentalism and historic Christianity, when it comes to devotion to Mary, is the differing perspectives on the dictum "to Jesus through Mary."
Historic Christianity has never seen Mary in isolation from Jesus and has viewed Marian doctrine and devotion as the safest, surest and swiftest path to a true and lasting commitment to Christ. Fundamentalists claim that they "do not need Mary" to go to Jesus and that they prefer to go directly to Jesus.
This response is a misunderstanding of the traditional teaching. All Christians can and should pray directly to Jesus. But no one actually "goes" to Jesus "alone". We all carry with us some mediating group or individual when we go to Jesus.
- Fundamentalists approach him with a Calvinist picture of a god who has predestined the majority of mankind to damnation
- or with a Dispensationalist picture of a god who operates through various covenants and dispensations established with Israel and the church.
- Faith movement Charismatics have their own health-and-wealth conception of god. Nobody goes to Jesus "alone". We go with various pictures of God and salvation. If we go to Jesus through Mary we go with the right picture, the historic picture, the God-given picture.
When we talk about going "to Jesus through Mary" we are not suggesting that Mary's function is to "introduce" us to Jesus. We are talking about growing deeper in our life in Jesus with and through Mary's assistance.
With Mary as our model, teacher and guide we become the kind of Christian God wants us to be. With and through Mary we become more and more like Jesus. Thus "through Mary" does not mean that she functions as a door-opening "go-between".
In actuality, it means that she is acting as our Mother trying to make us more like her divine Son. We are simply doing what Jesus commanded in John 19 and what the book of Revelation teaches when it says that those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" are "her seed." (Revelation 12:17).

To go to Jesus through Mary is to have a maternal companion at your side given to you by Jesus to help you follow His commandments and stay faithful to Him. We may ask why we need this companion when Jesus can do this for us just as well. This is like asking why God has given us guardian angels when we could go directly to God for all our needs.

The question is: how does God want things to work? Does He want us to work with our guardian angels, does He want our angels to protect us? If the answer is yes, as Scripture tells us, our conceptions of what is or is not "appropriate" are irrelevant. Similarly if God ordains Mary to be our Mother and guide - as Scripture and the historic Faith affirm - then that is what is best for us.

In practice the Fundamentalist does not go to Jesus "alone".
He is nurtured by his minister,
his Bible teacher,
his church and other such "support groups" in forming his understanding of Jesus and then "goes" to Jesus on the basis of the training and guidance he gets from these groups, often with the groups or individuals actually praying with him and guiding him.

To go to Jesus through Mary is simply to embrace another "support" or "fellowship" group in our journey - one whose role in this regard has been biblically mandated. True, we cannot see Mary. But we cannot see our guardian angels either - and we are perfectly justified in seeking their help.

To put it another way, a father who helps his son learn to pray, corrects his misconceptions about God, teaches him the Bible, and directs him in leading a Christian life is not "supplanting" Jesus or acting as an obstacle between his son and Jesus. He is helping his son establish a full and lasting commitment to his Savior.

Of course the son could try to "go" to Jesus alone - but how much easier and how much safer it is to have the guidance of someone who is an experienced Christian and who loves him with a father's tenderness. This is all that is involved in going to Jesus through Mary. "Do whatever he tells you" is her constant encouragement.

"To Jesus through Mary": according to the historic Faith this is the path to salvation ordained by the Trinity. "To Jesus through Calvinism, Dispensationalism, the Faith Movement, etc.": this is the path to salvation taught by Fundamentalism.
The historic Faith is authoritative simply because it originates from the apostolic community. It is also more true to our experience. No one came to Jesus alone.
Apostles, missionaries, preachers, theologians, writers, parents, and the Church brought us to Jesus. God could have chosen to act directly but he did not. He chose to act through human beings. These human beings were pathways to Him not obstacles. So it is with Mary.

Now it may be said that Mary is just another human being and so it would be wrong to put our trust in her or to rely on her to come to Jesus. Here we must not forget that all the individuals and institutions that brought us and bring us to Jesus are human as well.

Both the Israelites and the early Christians honored the "holy ones" of their time and tried to be guided by them. When you became a follower of a "holy one" like an Old Testament Prophet or John the Baptist you focus not on him but on Whom they point to: GOD.

The "holy one" protects and guides his followers in their spiritual journey and provides them companionship sharing the benefits of his greater experience. We are fellow creatures on the same journey to God. Some of our fellows are more advanced than others and we may need their help in overcoming the hurdles we face in our spiritual life.

This is a simple fact of human experience, one which has been experienced also by Christians at all times.
When we take Mary for our companion and guide we are choosing a fellow creature but one who is the Mother of God, untainted by Original Sin, the Woman clothed with the Heavenly Sun, the Spouse of the Spirit through whom we receive the grace won by her Son.

She is a fitting leader of humanity because she is the only human person who did not give in to the greatest Adversary of God ("our tainted race's solitary boast" said the poet William Wordsworth). She is the Mother of Jesus and the one who has been instituted as our Mother by her Creator.

Devotion to Mary is almost instinctive for a Christian. The first generation of believers who reflected on the Christian revelation inevitably saw the link between Mother and Son, the New Eve and the New Adam. This is the origin of the "To Jesus through Mary" path.

To reject this great scriptural insight is really a kind of regress, a fall from grace.
The main obstacle to Marian devotion for some Fundamentalists is the fear that somehow their conscious prayer life will be "cluttered up" or confused. How can we integrate devotion to Mary with prayers to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit?

This apparent difficulty was not a problem to the greatest pray-ers of Christendom. For the great "prayer warriors" we call the saints, Marian devotion was a pathway to a rich and robust prayer life in which God was all-encompassing.
In praying to Mary we must come back again to the point that there is no "competition" between devotion to Jesus and to Mary. Once we realize that she is our Mother, a Mother who leads us to God, to the Holy Trinity, we realize that devotion is a matter of understanding relationships.

When we realize that God is infinite love, we see this love expressed as a human Mother in Mary. All human beings long for the love of a mother and God Who has implanted this yearning in us gives us a Mother in Mary.

We have a relationship with her on one level as mother and on another level we have a relationship with the Trinity, with God. She is the Mother who draws us closer to the God to Whom she is so intimately united.

Does a focus on Mary and the saints take us away from attention to God? The answer to this question is a question: Does attention to our closest friends and family in this world take us away from God?

In both instances we see the love of God expressed through these other human persons. They enable us to appreciate His glory in newer and fuller ways. At the same time we should and can pray to Him without restraint.
If there is any confusion in prayer life and devotion we find it with the Fundamentalists. In real life they find it hard to focus on more than One of the Three Persons of the Trinity.
That is why some focus on the Father, others on the Son and a third group just on the Spirit. Marian devotion, on the other hand, will clarify the distinctions within the Trinity while leading us to a real relationship with each of the Three Persons.

The infinite love of God is central to our Christian experience. In embracing Mary as Mother we enter more fully into this great Love. She loves us like she loves Jesus and we should love her like Jesus loves her.
All that we have said here helps us know about Mary. But knowing about Mary is simply a stepping-stone to knowing Mary. And knowing Mary is immeasurably more important than knowing about Mary since she takes us right to Jesus.
Our fellow pilgrims can help us in knowing about Mary. But only we can know Mary. So it is time to take the plunge. The Consecration to Jesus Through Mary is the gateway to a personal relationship with Mary that deepens and consolidates our relationship with Jesus.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, it creates a minefield of misunderstandings. The Biblical Mary takes time and study. You can't expect a child who is learning the times table to jump in to advanced calculus or trigonometry. It takes time and an open mind. It may appear we are elevating Mary, but the whole purpose of Marian devotion is to elevate her Son. "do whatever He tells you" is her constant command.

Was the Mariology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger also problematic for present day Protestants?

Very well. Please tell us in what sense God and Mary are mutual spouses of each other.

 

[kepha31]

Very well. Please tell us in what sense God and Mary are mutual spouses of each other.

Where did I say they were mutual spouses? Read carefully:
Mary is a human, God is divine. "Mutual" is the wrong word.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where did I say they were mutual spouses? Read carefully:
Mary is a human, God is divine. "Mutual" is the wrong word.

I apologize for my mistake. Please define their relationship for us. In what sense is Mary a spouse?

 

[kepha31]

I apologize for my mistake. Please define their relationship for us. In what sense is Mary a spouse?

See post #1

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here we have another massive misunderstanding as to the patristic and Catholic meaning of a striking phrase: similar to the false perception of “Mother of God”.

Having a child conceived by the Holy Spirit has no direct analogy, because it was a one-time extraordinary event, in order to bring about the incarnation. We should fully expect to have some difficulty understanding it.

Christianity is filled with such anomalies, wonders, and paradoxes. How could Jesus be fully God and fully man? Run-of-the-mill logic cannot accept this, anymore than it can grasp the Trinity (hence many heretics deny both). It requires the eyes of faith and a comprehension of the “both/and” biblical, Hebraic outlook.​

St. Augustine (354-430) stated that “Mary was that only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse of God.” (Sermon 208). Scripture speaks in terms of the bride being the Church, and makes analogies between marriage and Christ and His Church. So why should there be controversy about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

By the same general reasoning that applies to Theotokos (arguing solely from the Bible, not Catholic tradition), it seems to me that “spouse of God” would also be appropriate and non-objectionable. That Jesus’ conception was of the Holy Spirit as a sort of “Father” is plain in the Bible: Matthew 1:18-20

If we ask, then, “Who is Jesus’ father?” (in terms of the origin of His conception), it’s not Joseph, but the Holy Spirit in one sense, and God the Father in another. Multiple senses and meanings and applications are common in Holy Scripture.

By analogy, then, if Jesus’ parents were Mary and the Holy Spirit, then by simple analogy it follows that Mary (in this particular sense, and this alone) is the “spouse of God” just as she was the Mother of God.

Likewise, “spouse of God” is thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1), or St. Peter referring to men becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4; cf. 1 Jn 3:2). These are similarly understood as not entailing equality with God.

Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5

Isaiah 62:5

Jeremiah 31:32 (cf. Jer 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 (cf. Hos 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

Given all of this biblical data, saying that Mary is the “spouse of God” should not present any difficulty at all to anyone who accepts the Bible as God’s inspired revelation. The only possible objection would come from not understanding what is meant by the phrase in the first place.

Our mutual friend, Kepha, has directed me back to your OP.

I have a couple of questions.

Why do you think Israel is described as the "bride" of God when, in fact, Israel is cited as being the "wife" of God in the Old Testament (cf. Hosea in particular) and the church is cited in the New Testament as being the "bride" of Christ?

If Israel is God's wife (or bride, if you will) and the Church is Christ's bride and God and Christ are One God with the Holy Spirit, and God has a "spouse" named Mary, does that not make God a polygamist?

 

[All4Christ]

I've never heard eastern Christians use this sort of language, it seems unique to Latins.

I agree - I also have never heard it in the Eastern Church.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Was the Mariology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger also problematic for present day Protestants?

And why would it?

 

[Phil 1:21]

I agree - I also have never heard it in the Eastern Church.

I've never heard is outside Catholicism. Even being a former RC I still don't understand their obsession with Mary.