Role of Mary

Ainesis said:

It is hardly redundent. No more than God bearing the title of "Father" inherently means that He is a man, for He is not.

Click to expand...

That's just plain silly .. for we KNOW God is not a man . . And we know MARY is a HUMAN . . not a goddess . .

I would say that this is not Christ-centered at all, but Mary-centered.

Click to expand...

You can say whatever you like and obviously you can believe and perpetuate myth, as damaging and divisive as it is to inter-Christian relations

However, you are not the one who came up with the term, and the one's who came up with the term are the ones who get to define what it means . .

They say it is Christocentric . .

It is merely your preconceived notions about Catholicism and Orthodoxy that are getting in the way of understanding what this term "THEOTOKOS" means .


I do not see where you have the right to change its meaning and application simply because you don't like it and misunderstand it . .


You are not qualified to do so and change 2000 years of historical meaning just because it suits you to do so . .


You want to believe that Catholics and Orthodox hold Mary in to high a position of esteem and respect, and so this ancient word Theotokos, and its ancient meaning are fair game to be used to assert your version of our beliefs.


Your beliefs are based in myth . . and are completely groundless.

You have no authoritative base on which to stand to change the meaning of Theotokos, Mother of God.

Which does not make it any more accurate.

Click to expand...

I see .. the people who used and defined the word Theotokos 'Mother of God' simply didn't know what they were talking about . .

And you, almost 2000 years later, do???


I don't think so! You are going to hve to prove you have the credentials to make such a fundamental change in the meaning of a word as you are attempting here.




Peace to all!

I think what bothers many of us though are the misconceptions/teachings/dogmas that Mary must have been cleansed/purified/removed from the stain of original sin, as if God could not be present in her womb otherwise. Well that theory seems to fall short when we read the scripture about how John was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was in his mothers womb.

Click to expand...

FTR - This (bolded) is not the Orthodox view.

In addition, St. John the Forerunner (Baptist) being filled with the Holy Spirit is NOT the same as God being within the womb of the Theotokos.

Oblio said:

Essence Yes
Origin No

Click to expand...

Essence No

The essence of Jesus is both fully divine and fully man. Mother does not reflect the essence of who Jesus was because quite simply the essence of who He was - in part - superceded and preceded her. The very reason why you acknowledge how "mother" does not speak to Jesus' origin is exactly why it does not speak to Jesus' essence.

es·sence n.

1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
4. 1. <LI type=a>An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in concentrated form. <LI type=a>Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
   2. A perfume or scent.
5. One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly concentrated: a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
6. Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity.

Ainesis said:

And likewise "Mother" does not speak to Jesus' origin or essence.

TLF asserted that the term "Mother" already conveyed Jesus' humanity "inherently." I stated that this is not the case because the title of "Mother" or "Father" is not inherrently limited to mankind.

Click to expand...

RFLOL

Ainesis . .think of what you are saying for a momment . .

When one is speaking about humans, is not Motherhood inherrently limited to mankind?

Can a human mother produce a fish?


Really!


let's not take the words we use out of context . .


A human mother produces a human child . .

Mary was a human mother

She produced a human child

This child also just happened to be GOD!


It is absolutely inherent in the word Mother, when applied to a woman, that the offspring is human too!

It is NOT inherent in the word Mother, when applied to a woman, that the offspring is GOD


So Mother (with the inherent understanding that her offspring is human too) of God (explicitly stating what is not inherent in the word Mother).


Peace to all!

Lollard said:

Dude you had me goin there for a second. I was reading...

The Ever-Blessed Virgin Mary (nods head)
is just a normal woman (nods twice)
who heard the call and acted (nods three times)
she followed the Lord (shrugs, possibly as she was there some of the time anyway)
and remained sinless... Oops that is where it falls apart. If she were indeed normal she wouldn't be sinless(I know that does not jive with Orthodoxy). I know we will disagree there so instead I will move on to where we do agree first.

As for the rest I believe she is the Theotokos(sp?), or in english the mother of God. I can't see any other way of looking at it. From a technical stand point, if Jesus is God, and Mary did give birth to Jesus (who is God incarnate on this planet), then it can be said that Mary gave birth to God. Any female on this planet who gives birth to a child is considered that childs mother. So Mary is in fact the mother of Jesus/God.

I think what bothers many of us though are the misconceptions/teachings/dogmas that Mary must have been cleansed/purified/removed from the stain of original sin, as if God could not be present in her womb otherwise. Well that theory seems to fall short when we read the scripture about how John was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was in his mothers womb. If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all the same, and God could inhabit a child in the womb in the form of the Holy Spirit, then why couldn't He do the same in the womb of his mother? (God in fact inhabited a bush for a time being as well) Anyway the point being is for me I do not deny her title as Theotokos, as it in all technicalities is true. What I deny are the extras that have been added after the fact.

Have a great day

Click to expand...

Hi Lollard . .. Just a comment on something . .

Being "filled" with the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as being God . .

Jesus was not "filled" with God . .

He IS God . .


And so God Himself in His fulness took up residency in the womb of Mary . .


Other's have been filled with the Holy Spirit . and they were all sinful . .

But no one has ever had God Himself LIVING BODILY within them .. only Mary . .


Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower said:

That's just plain silly .. for we KNOW God is not a man . . And we know MARY is a HUMAN . . not a goddess . .

Click to expand...

Great. So then you can see how that 'knowledge' indicates that the titles mother and father are not inherrent indicators of humanity. As such, only one nature of Jesus is reflected in that title.

thereselittleflower said:

However, you are not the one who came up with the term, and the one's who came up with the term are the ones who get to define what it means . .

Click to expand...

Neither have I attempted to define it. I have merely looked at what it says on its face.

thereselittleflower said:

It is merely your preconceived notions about Catholicism and Orthodoxy that are getting in the way of understanding what this term "THEOTOKOS" means .

Click to expand...

Actually, you make this much more complex than it really is. My statements about this title for mary has nothing to do with orthodox beliefs, but has everything to do with what the title states. I understand that (for some)what is meant by the title is not necessarily the same as what is stated outright. And to the extent that the intention is Christological, then we agree. Beyond that, the title says what it does, outside of intent.

thereselittleflower said:

I do not see where you have the right to change its meaning and application simply because you don't like it and misunderstand it . .

You are not qualified to do so and change 2000 years of historical meaning just because it suits you to do so . .


You want to believe that Catholics and Orthodox hold Mary in to high a position of esteem and respect, and so this ancient word Theotokos, and its ancient meaning are fair game to be used to assert your version of our beliefs.


Your beliefs are based in myth . . and are completely groundless.

You have no authoritative base on which to stand to change the meaning of Theotokos, Mother of God.

I see .. the people who used and defined the word Theotokos 'Mother of God' simply didn't know what they were talking about . .

And you, almost 2000 years later, do???

I don't think so! You are going to hve to prove you have the credentials to make such a fundamental change in the meaning of a word as you are attempting here.

Click to expand...

Gee tlf...you seem a bit upset. There is actually too much personal missrepresentations above to comment further.

Thanks!

Oblio said:

FTR - This (bolded) is not the Orthodox view.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I was tryin to encompass the many beliefs in one sentence

In addition, St. John the Forerunner (Baptist) being filled with the Holy Spirit is NOT the same as God being within the womb of the Theotokos.

Click to expand...

I understand that Jesus IS God(the Son) and John was filled with God(the Holy Spirit), but either way they were both in wombs with deity present and accounted for. Not too mention if we are to believe that during Chrismation (According to an Orthodox site: From earliest times the church practised chrismation immediately following baptism. In the sacrament of chrismation the newly baptised person receives the Holy Spirit through the anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. The roots of this sacrament are clear in both the Old and New Testaments, and are especially brought to light on the Day of Pentecost.) that those persons are given the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit of God then inhabits a human being. Is this human being sinless at this point? Does the person lose the Holy Spirit if they do sin? If so do they have to go through the ceremony again?

To me it seems un-necessary to assume that Mary was indeed sinless after the birth of Jesus, or that she had been sinless before.

thereselittleflower said:

So Mother (with the inherent understanding that her offspring is human too) of God (explicitly stating what is not inherent in the word Mother).

Click to expand...

The purpose of the council that addressed this issue was to confirm the nature of Christ from His incarnation, that of fully God and fully man. You may think that the title mother of God reflects this, I do not. In fact, not only so, but I believe it can be misinterpreted to mean something completely unScriptural. Therefore, I do not ascribe to that title. I am sorry that offends you.

thereselittleflower said:

Hi Lollard . .. Just a comment on something . .

Being "filled" with the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as being God . .

Click to expand...

Agreed & I hope that I did not imply that it did.

Jesus was not "filled" with God . .

Click to expand...

Agreed & I hope that I did not imply that He was.

He IS God . .

Click to expand...

Agreed & I know I said that.

And so God Himself in His fulness took up residency in the womb of Mary . .

Click to expand...

Once again I am hoping there is a point here because so far we are no in disagreement YLF.

Other's have been filled with the Holy Spirit . and they were all sinful . .

Click to expand...

Once again you are correct.

But no one has ever had God Himself LIVING BODILY within them .. only Mary . .

Click to expand...

True again. Glad to see we agree on somethings

Ainesis said:

Pardon me tlf, but although I may understand why some believe this title to be appropriate, it certainly does not mean that I must agree.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about what "some" mean by it . . we are talking about what 1.4 BILLION people mean by it!!!

hardly "some" . ..

What I "do know better than" is to accept the beliefs of others that I do not find substantiated in Scripture. So, while we may have different approaches here, please do not assume that my failure to agree with you here means I am not aware of your position on the matter.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about accepting the "beliefs" of others . . we are talking about accepting the definition of the word as given by those who created the word . . nothing more . .

You keep trying to redefine it and make your definition the legitimate one . . what are your qualificiations for doing so?



I see 1.4 billion people using this word IN THE EXACT SAME WAY with the EXACT SAME UNDERSTANDING as the Early Church who DEFINED what it meant!

I see "some" christians who keep on "protesting" a false definition of that word, one they made up, one based on misunderstnding . .


Theotokos will NEVER mean what you say it means .. EVER .. .. and you can't make it mean something it has never meant and will never mean . .


You, and everyone else too, has one of two choices . .

continue to promote a myth and a lie, perpetuating the misunderstndings between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations . .

or accept the truth . .. and be a vessel of healing . .

Jesus is both fully God and man. To recognize both aspects of Jesus' inseparable nature is to recognize mary as the mother of the God-man Jesus.

The title of "mother" in no way assumes the attributes of humanity are inherent for even dogs have mothers. Conversely, if mary had been divine, she still would have been His mother.

Click to expand...

Yes, but do dogs have HUMAN mothers?

I made my point above . . and we do not call the
"'mother" of a dog "Mother" . .we call her "a b*tch" . .


It seems that some don't want to give up the false idea that Catholics and Orthodox believe Mary is somehow divine and that we worship her . .

It has been explained before this is not true, and has never been true for the 2000 years of Church history, and will never be true .


There is no divine mother in Christianity . .

There is a human mother, her name is Mary, she can only, humanly speaking, give brith to another human ..

She can only, by divine intervention, give brth to God . .

Mother (human) of God


Christ, fully man, fully God.


The term Theotokos was proclaimed as a CHRISTOLOGICAL WORD to combat hereise that either denied His full humanity (MOTHER) or is full Divinity (of God).


That is the ancient formula and meaning . .

That is what it means today for 1.4 billion people . .


It does not mean what you say it imeans to ANYONE other than those who wish to find fault, even if false, with the Catholic and/or Orthodox Church.

If that is not what you intend when you use the phrase, then great. It would appear then that we agree on what the basis of truth is in terms of who Jesus is. What is all of the fuss about?

Click to expand...

We agree on this l . the fuss is that people argue that it means Catholics believe Mary came first, and God came from Mary as if she were the cause of God from all eterninty . . and that we have made her divine ..

When we explain our words and are told we are wrong, that is also a prolbem.

You tell me what all the fuss is about? Why insist on a definition you have been told is not correct?

You are free to refer to mary as you choose. It still does not change the fact that both natures of Jesus are not relayed in that title, even though I understand that you may use it with that implicit understanding. I understand what you say you mean, I am looking merely at what it says.

Click to expand...

Thank you, however, I disagree with you . . you are not looking at what it says . . you are looking at what you think it says . .

The ones who drafted it are the ones who get to define what it says .. and they said it is Christological and means Christ was fully man and fully God . .

It is not how "I" use it .. it is how the Church has ALWAYS used it . .

As for this causing a rift, I suppose that is only possible if the title means more to you than the meaning it presumes to convey.

Click to expand...

Not at all . .

It comes as the result of people claiming it means something it does not, and thus fostering and perpetuating the idea that Catholics and Orthodox hold Mary in a position equal to God and that we treat her as though she is divine . .


If you understand what we mean by this word now, it would be greatly appreciated if you would work towards helping other Protestants understand what it means as well . .


Thanks.


Peace to all!

thereselittleflower said:

If you understand what we mean by this word now, it would be greatly appreciated if you would work towards helping other Protestants understand what it means as well . .

Click to expand...

While we are in the helping further relations mode it would do me a great honor if you would quite referring to anyone that is not CC or OC a protestant and spread that around as well.

Oblio said:

FTR - This (bolded) is not the Orthodox view.

In addition, St. John the Forerunner (Baptist) being filled with the Holy Spirit is NOT the same as God being within the womb of the Theotokos.

Click to expand...

Right,

And when it comes to the differences between the Orthodox view and the Catholic view of original sin, there really is little difference from what I can see . . Both beleive she was preserved Immaculate (sinless) from conception . . we just have slightly different ways of looking at it . .

But it is important to understand this is a belief shared by both East and West (and not get hung up on wwhat original sin is or means). .

Mary was preserved sinless (immaculate) from conception . .


Peace in Him!

Ainesis said:

Great. So then you can see how that 'knowledge' indicates that the titles mother and father are not inherrent indicators of humanity. As such, only one nature of Jesus is reflected in that title.

Click to expand...

Ainesis . .I don't know what else to say to you . .

If you don't realize that the title "mother" applied to a human by necessity MEANS that her child is also human, I can't help you any further .

A human mother cannot give birth to a dog . .

And when we speak of the title Mother of God . . only one nature is reflected in the word "mother" (we know it applies to Mary and we know Mary is a human, so we know her offspring is also human) . and the other nature is reflected in 'of God" . . the divine nature . .

I can't spell it out more clearly .

Neither have I attempted to define it. I have merely looked at what it says on its face.

Click to expand...

I don't see where you are qualified to tell us what it says on its face . . the ones who created this word are the ones . .

There really is nothing more to say . .


Peace to all!

The essence of Jesus is both fully divine and fully man. Mother does not reflect the essence of who Jesus was because quite simply the essence of who He was - in part - superceded and preceded her.

Click to expand...

FTR - This is essentially a description of the heresy of monophysitism

thereselittleflower said:

We are not talking about what "some" mean by it . . we are talking about what 1.4 BILLION people mean by it!!!

Click to expand...

Although I can appreciate what you are trying to say, I can only take your word for being representative of how you feel. It would be rather silly to think that you are speaking on behald of 1.4 billion people.

Additionally, large numbers are really not that significant. Afterall, broad is the way that leads to destruction and many will follow that path. That is not a comment about the 1.4 billion people you refer to (whomever they are), but it is simply an illustration of how massive numbers do not equate to Truth.

thereselittleflower said:

We are not talking about accepting the "beliefs" of others . . we are talking about accepting the definition of the word as given by those who created the word . . nothing more . .

Click to expand...

The council created the word "mother"?

thereselittleflower said:

I see "some" christians who keep on "protesting" a false definition of that word, one they made up, one based on misunderstnding . .

Click to expand...

How do you see these "protesters" defining the word "mother"?

thereselittleflower said:

I made my point above . . and we do not call the
"'mother" of a dog "Mother" . .we call her "a b*tch" . .

Click to expand...

Actually, "we" don't. The mother of my dog Cooney is referred to as Cooney's mother. But to each his own.

thereselittleflower said:

It seems that some don't want to give up the false idea that Catholics and Orthodox believe Mary is somehow divine and that we worship her . .

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone making that claim here tlf. Perhaps they have, but Ihaven't seen it. My only comments were about the title mother of God, and no, I do not agree with that.

thereselittleflower said:

The term Theotokos was proclaimed as a CHRISTOLOGICAL WORD to combat hereise that either denied His full humanity (MOTHER) or is full Divinity (of God).

Click to expand...

Which has actually been my point all along. I do not think that the title in question fully depicts that.

thereselittleflower said:

It does not mean what you say it imeans to ANYONE other than those who wish to find fault, even if false, with the Catholic and/or Orthodox Church.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are taking things just a little too personally. Why does someone disagreeing with this title mean in your mind that they are finding fault with any church? I understand what the title is meant to imply, and I agree with that implication. I do not agree that this title accurately reflects that intention on its face.

thereselittleflower said:

We agree on this l . the fuss is that people argue that it means Catholics believe Mary came first, and God came from Mary as if she were the cause of God from all eterninty . . and that we have made her divine ..

Click to expand...

Some people may very well believe that. I do not, so I cannot answer for them. I do believe that Catholic veneration of Mary is beyond what is Scriptural, but I do not think that error is due to the title under discussion.

thereselittleflower said:

When we explain our words and are told we are wrong, that is also a prolbem.

Click to expand...

Then you may want to get used to having problems, because there will always be someone somewhere who doesn't see things the way you do. If we understood that, and further appreciated that such disagreement is not always personal, it may help to temper responses.

Ainesis said:

The purpose of the council that addressed this issue was to confirm the nature of Christ from His incarnation, that of fully God and fully man. You may think that the title mother of God reflects this, I do not.
So, Ainesis . if I understand you right . .

Click to expand...

The council that addressed this affrimed that Christ was fully God and fully man at His incarnation . .

And this same council approved the term, already in use, Theotokos, to convey that understanding. .


So .. they were right in the Christology

But they were wrong in asserting that Theotokos reflects this??

In fact, not only so, but I believe it can be misinterpreted to mean something completely unScriptural. Therefore, I do not ascribe to that title. I am sorry that offends you.

Click to expand...

That's it in a nut shell . . that is the motivating factor . .

Even though, for almost 2000 years, the Church has never used the word Theotolos, Mother of God in an unscriptural manner, never to mean anything other than what the Council of Ephesus declared it to mean, and 1.4 BIlLION PEOPLE use this same word today to mean the EXACT SAME THING it meant at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, a word which we find in use in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome in 235 AD, yet, somehow there is cause for concern that it can be misinterpreted to mean somthing unscriptural by those who use it?

I think this is the root of the whole issue ..

That perhaps, if the Church continues to use this reckless title, the Catholic Church will somehow, in sptie of 2000 years of solid teaching to the contrary, start to see Mary in 'an unscriptural way' . .


That is why this is an issue . . and why it keeps coming up for discussin here at CF . .

Either people think we worship Mary or falsely elevate her to some divine statues, or they are afraid we will do that .


It is a theological word that simply needs to be explained and people should not be afraid of it . .



What I don't understand is why, once it has been explained, the same people keep arguing about what it means . .


Peace to all!

Oblio said:

FTR - This is essentially a description of the heresy of monophysitism

Click to expand...

Ohh of course it is not Oblio. Do you know what monophytism is? It is the belief that Jesus had only one nature, the divine nature. I have consistently stated how Jesus has two inseparable natures. In fact, in my response in question above I stated that "Mother does not reflect the essence of who Jesus was because quite simply the essence of who He was - in part - superceded and preceded her. "

Why in part? Because there was an aspect of Jesus' nature, His human nature, that Mary as mother does reflect the essence of.

It is really interesting how individuals are so quick to throw around claims of heresy unfounded. It really leads one to think that they have no logical, Scriptural argument to refute what is being discussed.

Lollard said:

While we are in the helping further relations mode it would do me a great honor if you would quite referring to anyone that is not CC or OC a protestant and spread that around as well.

Click to expand...

Hi Llolard . . I wish I could do that, I really do . .

I have tried to come up with some way of referring to all Christians who are not Catholic or EO in a simple manner without simply shifting the target . . Christian is too general as it puts a false distinction between the Catholic/EO and other Christiasns . .

I have not found a good word to use . . do you have a suggestion?

I gave up and so have been merely using the word "Protetant" in its usual dictinary sense of referring to all who are not Catholic/EO . .

I'm open to suggestions !


Peace in Him!

Ainesis said:

Ohh of course it is not Oblio. Do you know what monophytism is? It is the belief that Jesus had only one nature, the divine nature. I have consistently stated how Jesus has two inseparable natures. In fact, in my response in question above I stated that "Mother does not reflect the essence of who Jesus was because quite simply the essence of who He was - in part - superceded and preceded her. "

Why in part? Because there was an aspect of Jesus' nature, His human nature, that Mary as mother does reflect the essence of.

It is really interesting how individuals are so quick to throw around claims of heresy unfounded. It really leads one to think that they have no logical, Scriptural argument to refute what is being discussed.

Click to expand...

Nor does your mother reflect the essence of your father that is now a part of you. You didn't come completely from your mother....neither did Jesus. Part of you came from your mom and part from your dad....Just like Jesus. That doesn't mean that your mother isn't the mother of the part of you that came from your father.

thereselittleflower said:

So .. they were right in the Christology

But they were wrong in asserting that Theotokos reflects this??

Click to expand...

I never said that the council was right in that regard. I said that the purpose of the council was to define the nature of Christ and I agree with what they state the nature to be. I do not agree that mother of God accurately reflects that understanding. However, you alone are seeing this in terms of right versus wrong.

thereselittleflower said:

That perhaps, if the Church continues to use this reckless title, the Catholic Church will somehow, in sptie of 2000 years of solid teaching to the contrary, start to see Mary in 'an unscriptural way' . .

Click to expand...

Well, we would probably disagree about whether the catholic church has a 2000 year history of solid teaching, but that is not thye focus of this discussion. My comments about the title are just that, and not a reflection of any church or individual.

thereselittleflower said:

It is a theological word that simply needs to be explained and people should not be afraid of it . .

Click to expand...

Neither should people be afraid for others not to agree with that explanation.