Why Protestants should call Mary, the Mother of God.

[amariselle]

Agreed. What I said and am saying ,is that the term "mother of God" runs the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.

We know that the RCC is very close to saying that Mary is divine. The RCC already says that she was sinless, and was assumed into heaven and was a perpetual virgin. How much closer will that get before making an official declaration????

So far, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach this, but there is a movement within Catholic adherents to exalt Mary to the level of divinity. The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has rightly denounced this proposal, but it does not mean that later on there might be a movement that succeeds in elevating her to divinity or semi-divinity.

After all, consider the references pertaining to non-Biblical practices now that exalt her far beyond what the Scriptures teach. If the Roman Catholic Church can go beyond what is written in Scripture in
1 Corth. 4:6, in disregard to it, who is to say that it won't eventually elevate her to the status equal to a goddess?

Exactly. One only needs to research all the Marian doctrines that have been added and declared "official" in the Catholic Church over the centuries (some comparatively recently - like the Assumption) to understand it is indeed a "slippery slope."

And yes, there are many Catholics who have called for Mary to officially be declared "co-redemptrix" with Christ. This is how other doctrines about Mary also started out as well. We cannot of course know when, or if the Vatican will ever officially give Mary such a title, but in practice they already do.

Such as the various ceremonies consecrating specific countries, the world and all humanity (including the "eternal destiny of all mankind) to "Mary" that various Pope's have taken part in.

Pope John Paul II in particular had a very strong devotion to "Mary" and when he chose his coat of arms he chose for his Papal motto the Latin phrase "Totus Tuus", ("I am all yours, and all that I have is yours")

Pope John Paul II believed and taught that the faithful give themselves entirely to Jesus through Mary. He also credits the "intercession of Our Lady of Fatima" with saving his life during the assassination attempt in 1981, and travelled to Fatima to pay homage to Mary afterwards.

We're talking about the then leader of the Catholic Church here, and Pope Francis has also "consecrated" all humanity to "Mary."

For anyone who doesn't believe that this really has and is happening, I suggest some serious research.

Source

 

[Hieronymus]

Major premise: Jesus is God

True, but He is the Word incarnate, and has always existed as the Word, even before Abraham.
Besides being God He came in the flesh as 100% human male.

Minor premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus

True, but she was the mother of the human Jesus Christ, because He was already existing as God, as an uncreated being, as the Creator himself (See John 1 )

Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of God

Wrong conclusion because you forgot half of the background information.

It’s that simple.

It was just as simple to refute it.

 

[Major1]

Exactly. One only needs to research all the Marian doctrines that have been added and declared "official" in the Catholic Church over the centuries (some comparatively recently - like the Assumption) to understand it is indeed a "slippery slope."

And yes, there are many Catholics who have called for Mary to officially be declared "co-redemptrix" with Christ. This is how other doctrines about Mary also started out as well. We cannot of course know when, or if the Vatican will ever officially give Mary such a title, but in practice they already do.

Such as the various ceremonies consecrating specific countries, the world and all humanity (including the "eternal destiny of all mankind) to "Mary" that various Pope's have taken part in.

Pope John Paul II in particular had a very strong devotion to "Mary" and when he chose his coat of arms he chose for his Papal motto the Latin phrase "Totus Tuus", ("I am all yours, and all that I have is yours")

Pope John Paul II believed and taught that the faithful give themselves entirely to Jesus through Mary. He also credits the "intercession of Our Lady of Fatima" with saving his life during the assassination attempt in 1981, and travelled to Fatima to pay homage to Mary afterwards.

We're talking about the then leader of the Catholic Church here, and Pope Francis has also "consecrated" all humanity to "Mary."

For anyone who doesn't believe that this really has and is happening, I suggest some serious research.

View attachment 211778

Source

AMEN! And thank you for those words. They are indeed what I was trying to say to our brother but seemed unable to articulate as well as you just did.

Every false teaching has a beginning somewhere and when one begins that "slippery slope" away from the Word of God it can only end in disaster.

 

[Albion]

I understood it just fine when you were saying it, Major. I just don't think that everything is a 'slippery slope.' This particular item--Mary, the Mother of God--has been official for about 1500 years and has been in use for nearly two millennia! As already was noted, it also wasn't the RCC which originated it.

I hardly think, therefore, that it will be responsible for the next Marian doctrine, if there is one coming from the Vatican. That's not how a 'slippery slope' works.

 

[Major1]

I'm sorry but it cannot be much of a risk if no one thinks that. And IF we are to suppress all our terminology as Christians because someone somewhere might possibly misinterpret...what would we be left with? We couldn't say "rapture," since that might imply sexual ecstasy to someone. And we've already changed 'Holy Ghost' to 'Holy Spirit' because someone might think we're dealing in Spiritism or the occult. It just might be that we, as a whole religion, run more of a risk of watering down our beliefs through such worrying than we are of elevating Mary to Godhood.

I can not agree with you on this subject.

Please consider comment #121 as it really says it all very clearly.

If you personally do not believe that the phrase "The Mother Of God" has not been used to propagate another false doctrine from the RCC, that does not mean that it has not already been done.

Do you agree that Roman Catholic Tradition dictates that Mary is part of the monarchy of heaven, soliciting grace and mercy from the Lord on behalf of sinners, and covering sin by distributing from her Treasury of Merit. She became a co-redeemer with Christ in His suffering on the cross, and is now a co-mediator alongside Him in heaven—essentially an alternative avenue of access to God. She replaces the Holy Spirit in bestowing aid and comfort to believers. In effect, she becomes an additional member of the Trinity.

 

[Major1]

I understood it just fine when you were saying it, Major. I just don't think that everything is a 'slippery slope.' This particular item--Mary, the Mother of God--has been official for nearly two millennia! I hardly think, therefore, that it will be responsible for the next Marian doctrine, if there is one coming. That's not how a 'slippery slope' works.

That is OK! I do however believe something else my brother.

 

[Albion]

I can not agree with you on this subject.

Please consider comment #121 as it really says it all very clearly.

If you personally do not believe that the phrase "The Mother Of God" has not been used to propagate another false doctrine from the RCC, that does not mean that it has not already been done.

HAS it been done? Why don't we know that if it's a valid concern?

 

[All4Christ]

I wonder what your thoughts are when the Catholic Church says that Mary is the "mother of God" and is there then the possibility of implying that Mary is the mother of the Trinity????

They don’t believe that or understand it to mean that. My church, the Orthodox Church, has also called her the Theotokos for 1500 years, and we never understood it to remotely imply that she is the mother of the Trinity. It is illogical if you know the smallest bit of scripture about the incarnation.

Since this is not logically possible, the Catholics would have to understand the term in a different sense. They would, of course, say that Mary is only the mother of the second person of the Trinity, the Word. But they don't clarify this very often. Instead, they continually use the phrase "mother of God" and leave it open that somehow Mary has a special relationship to God Himself by being the mother of Christ.

I have said this before. The term Mother of God purposefully uses the term God to combat Nestorianism. It is not a way to exalt her but to clarify the Incarnation.

Again, do you think that this is dangerous since it encourages people to take their eyes off of Christ, putting on to the creature: Mary.

Considering that there are many Christian churches who call her the Mother of God and view Mary in a proper manner - I don’t think it is more dangerous than a variety of other doctrines. Calling her the Mother of Jesus has potential dangers as well - and there are other much more potentially dangerous doctrines.

If you were talking about the Immaculate Conception, I would have a completely different reply.

 

[All4Christ]

Exactly. One only needs to research all the Marian doctrines that have been added and declared "official" in the Catholic Church over the centuries (some comparatively recently - like the Assumption) to understand it is indeed a "slippery slope."

And yes, there are many Catholics who have called for Mary to officially be declared "co-redemptrix" with Christ. This is how other doctrines about Mary also started out as well. We cannot of course know when, or if the Vatican will ever officially give Mary such a title, but in practice they already do.

Such as the various ceremonies consecrating specific countries, the world and all humanity (including the "eternal destiny of all mankind) to "Mary" that various Pope's have taken part in.

Pope John Paul II in particular had a very strong devotion to "Mary" and when he chose his coat of arms he chose for his Papal motto the Latin phrase "Totus Tuus", ("I am all yours, and all that I have is yours")

Pope John Paul II believed and taught that the faithful give themselves entirely to Jesus through Mary. He also credits the "intercession of Our Lady of Fatima" with saving his life during the assassination attempt in 1981, and travelled to Fatima to pay homage to Mary afterwards.

We're talking about the then leader of the Catholic Church here, and Pope Francis has also "consecrated" all humanity to "Mary."

For anyone who doesn't believe that this really has and is happening, I suggest some serious research.

View attachment 211778

Source

Problem is - many seem to equate the usage of this term to mean the inevitable acceptance of many other doctrines. I don’t agree with many Marian doctrines of the RCC, which is one of the reasons I decided not to join the RCC, though I certainly respect them. The term Mother of God though does not necessarily mean the acceptance of the other Marian doctrines or practices. Co-redemptrix, consecration of countries to Mary, the Lady of Fatima...these are not a direct outcome of the term Mother of God, as is evident by many not accepting them who do call her the mother of God.

 

[klutedavid]

Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and and to state the obvious, the Our Lady bore God the Son in her womb and gave birth to Him, who is God. Our Lady truly is the Mother of God, and to deny that inevitably leads to error.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

Major premise: Jesus is God
Minor premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus
Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of God

It’s that simple. “But wait!” many of you will be saying, “Why must we call Mary THAT!?! Why is that important? Why does this need to be a dogma?” Well the answer is really quite simple, all we have to do is see what the consequences are, for not calling Mary the Mother of God.

We’ll start with the first person who refused to call Mary the Mother of God, Nestorius. Nestorius objected to calling Mary the Mother of God, and when pressed as to why one shouldn’t call Mary the Mother of God, he argued the Jesus human nature, and Divine nature were separated. But claiming that Jesus’ Divinity and humanity are separated logically results in two separate persons, a human Jesus, and a Divine Jesus. Thus, according to Nestorianism, in one Biblical passage, human Jesus does X, and in another passage, Divine Jesus does Y, this totally contrary to the Biblical understanding of Jesus, there is only ONE, Jesus!

Next, we’ll turn to Dr. Roy D. Perkins. I while ago, someone on the OBOB posted a link to the Catholic Blog “Shameless Popery” and a brilliant article simply entitled “The Virgin Mary’s Uniques Role in the Salvation of the World,” (See here: The Virgin Mary’s Unique Role in the Salvation of the World – Shameless Popery) in this article, the blogger posts an excerpt from Dr. Roy D. Perkins’ Book “Without Denomination: a Critique of Church Doctrines” which reads as follows:

“Although Joseph is the father of Jesus, he is actually (sic) the step-father to Jesus. The Pharisees often refer to Jesus as the carpenter’s son as they do not realize that Joseph is not his blood father. Mary is not really the mother of Jesus either. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a virgin birth. There is no genetic material from Joseph or Mary in Jesus. The blood line does not come from either one of them. This is where Roman Catholicism gets things mixed up. The Catholics call Mary the mother of God. However, she is only a vessel for carrying and nurturing Jesus as an unborn child. We don’t pray to her. […] She is not holy. If Joseph and/or Mary had passed on genetic material to Jesus, the sin nature would have been passed on to Jesus, making him an imperfect sacrifice. The blood of Joseph and Mary does not run through Jesus’s veins. If their blood did flow through his veins, there would be no salvation by Jesus Christ.”
(emphasis added)

Once again, we see someone try and deny Mary as the Mother of God, and end up doing great violence to authentic Christology. (On top of that, if I might add, Dr. Roy D. Perkins unwittingly ends up proving all four Marian Dogmas! But we’re only discussing the Mother of God Dogma, in this thread.) Dr. Roy D. Perkins ends up denying that Our Lord received any human DNA from His Beloved Mother, which is tantamount to denying the coming of Our Lord in the flesh. And we all know what the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture says about denying Our Lord coming in the flesh:

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.”
-2nd John 1:7 DR​

And this is just two examples, I’m sure there are many more out there. The fact is cannot deny Mary as the Mother of God, without doing great violence to authentic Christology. This is why one must confess that Mary is the Mother of God, one cannot deny this, without also and ending up denying the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Objection 1: The term “Mother of God” isn’t in the Bible.

I Reply: Yes it is, although the term “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere on Scripture. Mother of God is found in two passages of the Bible, first, in Isaiah 7:14:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
(Douay-Rheims Version)​

I’m sure most of you know that Emmanuel, in Hebrew means, “God is with us.” The name Emmanuel itself states, that God is going to be with His people, via a virgin mother, and thus the virgin in this passage, is the Mother of God, who is with us. This is why the Council Fathers declared in 431 at Ephesus:

“If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”​

To confess Mary as the Mother of God, is to confess that Emmanuel, Jesus Christ Himself, is truly God!

But the big proof-text, for Mary as the Mother of God, is found in the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke 1:43:

“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Douay-Rheims Version, Emphasis added)​

Here, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord,” now what does she mean by “Lord?” Does Elizabeth mean “Lord” in the sense of “master” or “rabbi?” No, there is no evidence anywhere in Sacred Scripture that Elizabeth was ever a disciple of Jesus Christ. What about “Lord” in the sense of “King,” that is, the long awaited Davidic Messiah? No, both St. Joseph and (though this may be debatable among Protestants) the Blessed Virgin Mary, are descendants of King David, and none of them have the honor of being called “lord” or “lady,” on top of that -and this leads to the inevitable conclusion of what “Lord” means-, Jesus declares Himself to be the Lord of David. Now, who can be the Lord of King David? Only God Himself, can be the Lord of the Great King David, for God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Objection 2: Nestorius was right! There is a difference between Christ’s Divinity and Christ humanity. God can’t die, only His human side died on the cross, in reparation for the sin of Adam.

I Reply: If all that was needed to pay for the sin of Adam was a sinless human person, then why did the Christ have to be God? Why couldn’t the Christ simply be an immaculately conceived, sinless human being, as the Ebionites claimed Jesus was? God the Son, did in fact die on the Cross, how is that possible? Well it’s actually quite simple, in human beings, death is simply the separation of the soul, from the body, and that’s exactly what Christ experienced. God the Son experienced the pain of having His Soul ripped from His Body on the Cross, He didn’t cease to exist or anything, He simply suffered the same death, that human beings suffered since the sin of Adam.

Objection 3: The Mother of God is simply a bad term, it implies that Mary created God!

I Reply: Who created you? Your mother? Or God? A mother does create her child, God does. God creates and infuses the immortal soul into the child in the mother’s womb. However, the mother does not give birth to the body of her child, but to her child. Mothers give birth to the whole person, not part of the person. The same is true for Our Lady, she did not give birth to Jesus’ body, or Jesus human nature, but the Divine Person Jesus Himself, the Son of God.


Again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

Hello JesusLovesOurLady.

Jesus was born as a man.

Mary was the mother of that man.

Mary was not in union with another man for the conception of Jesus.

Hence, Mary cannot correctly be called the mother of God.

 

[All4Christ]

Do you agree that Roman Catholic Tradition dictates that Mary is part of the monarchy of heaven, soliciting grace and mercy from the Lord on behalf of sinners, and covering sin by distributing from her Treasury of Merit. She became a co-redeemer with Christ in His suffering on the cross, and is now a co-mediator alongside Him in heaven—essentially an alternative avenue of access to God. She replaces the Holy Spirit in bestowing aid and comfort to believers. In effect, she becomes an additional member of the Trinity.

While I disagree with some of the RCC Marian doctrines, I do not believe that they consider her to be a replacement of the Holy Spirit, and definitely don’t consider her to be an additional member of the Trinity.

There may be some laity that believe unofficial doctrines, but there is nothing in the CCC saying she is a fourth person of the Trinity. There are plenty of other concerning Marian doctrines that you can discuss that are promoted by the RCC.

 

[All4Christ]

Yeh, that was quite a slight (although unintended) to the EO, who are more associated with the term than the RCC is.

Agreed....and we have never ever understood it to make her the mother of the Trinity or a member of the Trinity. As I have said before and as you know...it is Christological and points to the way Christ provided to give us salvation. All this RCC talk in relation to the term Theotokos is kind of offensive, as it implies we all are in danger of going that direction, especially considering the importance of the term in the EO church.

 

[amariselle]

Problem is - many seem to equate the usage of this term to mean the inevitable acceptance of many other doctrines. I don’t agree with many Marian doctrines of the RCC, which is one of the reasons I decided not to join the RCC, though I certainly respect them. The term Mother of God though does not necessarily mean the acceptance of the other Marian doctrines or practices. Co-redemptrix, consecration of countries to Mary, the Lady of Fatima...these are not a direct outcome of the term Mother of God, as is evident by many not accepting them who do call her the mother of God.

We need to look beyond the title given her by the Catholic Church (as this thread was started by a Catholic, this is the context I am focusing on).

And when the leader of the Catholic Church consecrates all of humanity (temporally and eternally) to "Mary", I will indeed say I take issue with that.

In terms of the title and content of the OP, it was to insist that "Protestants" formally must refer to Mary as "Mother of God". And as this thread was started by a Catholic, I will consider the Catholic view of Mary, in its entirety.

I also know from previous discussions I've had with JLOL that much more would be advocated for in regard to Mary than simply a formal title.

As such, I consider it important and necessary to look at the "big picture" where Mary is concerned within Catholicism.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

It isn't arguable that Jesus was born of Mary. Scriptures clearly state that his fleshly mom was Mary. But as the father in this case was the holy spirit which allowed for the deity aspect of Christ, Mary was the vessel (the womb) for the becoming of flesh, allowing for the flesh and deity of Christ to be united. I am not understanding the veneration of her "godliness", as she was not of that Spirit but was of the flesh only. In much the same way, my mom has no ties with my dad's side of the family just because I was born. I am that one flesh, not my mom. The concept is rather weird though, because it seems to exalt the flesh over and above everything else that Jesus is. I would hear more on this though, as it is interesting.

 

[Major1]

While I disagree with some of the RCC Marian doctrines, I do not believe that they consider her to be a replacement of the Holy Spirit, and definitely don’t consider her to be an additional member of the Trinity.

There may be some laity that believe unofficial doctrines, but there is nothing in the CCC saying she is a fourth person of the Trinity. There are plenty of other concerning Marian doctrines that you can discuss that are promoted by the RCC.

I do agree with you and I am not saying that it is a subject talked about.

But like every other false doctrine that originates within the RCC, every single one of them had a starting point. That is all I am saying.

 

[Major1]

Agreed....and we have never ever understood it to make her the mother of the Trinity or a member of the Trinity. As I have said before and as you know...it is Christological and points to the way Christ provided to give us salvation. All this RCC talk in relation to the term Theotokos is kind of offensive, as it implies we all are in danger of going that direction, especially considering the importance of the term in the EO church.

Did you find it offensive when you 1st understood that the RCC promotes Mary as the co-redeemer of humanity?

Did you think that YOU would be in danger of going in that direction?

Mary helps in salvation (Pg. 332, # CC 1172).
"She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son."


Mary is like Jesus ........._Pg. 274-275, CC #969).
"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." (Pg. 274-275, #969).

 

[Major1]

They don’t believe that or understand it to mean that. My church, the Orthodox Church, has also called her the Theotokos for 1500 years, and we never understood it to remotely imply that she is the mother of the Trinity. It is illogical if you know the smallest bit of scripture about the incarnation.


I have said this before. The term Mother of God purposefully uses the term God to combat Nestorianism. It is not a way to exalt her but to clarify the Incarnation.


Considering that there are many Christian churches who call her the Mother of God and view Mary in a proper manner - I don’t think it is more dangerous than a variety of other doctrines. Calling her the Mother of Jesus has potential dangers as well - and there are other much more potentially dangerous doctrines.

If you were talking about the Immaculate Conception, I would have a completely different reply.

As Always, I respect your opinion and I have to disagree with it this time.

This idea of a “mother and father god” is seen in some Roman Catholic traditions that declare Mary to be the “Mother of God.” The Bible, however, declares that God, in the triune Godhead, rules heaven and earth alone and unaided in Daniel 4:25.

Nature is His creation and He alone sustains and protects it and, in doing so, He testifies to His goodness and kindness toward it.

Acts 14:17...........
“He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy".

 

[Major1]

HAS it been done? Why don't we know that if it's a valid concern?

The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium at the Second Vatican Council affirmed Mary as the Mother of God. "The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God AND Mother of the Redeemer."
Pope Paul VI. Lumen gentium, Vatican, November 21, 1964

 

[Albion]

She is the mother of the Redeemer. What you're doing there is IMO to take a clarification made in the direction that you favor and somehow interpret it in the opposite way as if it were saying that Mary created God or gave birth to all the persons of the Trinity.

I'm going to stick with your comment in post 135:

But like every other false doctrine that originates within the RCC, every single one of them had a starting point. That is all I am saying.

and I think you should, too.

 

[All4Christ]

Did you find it offensive when you 1st understood that the RCC promotes Mary as the co-redeemer of humanity?

Did you think that YOU would be in danger of going in that direction?

Mary helps in salvation (Pg. 332, # CC 1172).
"She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son."


Mary is like Jesus ........._Pg. 274-275, CC #969).
"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." (Pg. 274-275, #969).

Do I find it offensive that the RCC promotes that? I disagree with them, but I don’t find it offensive. False beliefs often start with something that is true. If a church decides to go further than I believe is valid, that is their perogative. That’s why I made sure to evaluate beliefs of churches and denominations before choosing one. Even the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses often have scriptures that back up their beliefs. I’m sure you agreee that that doesn’t mean they came up with the proper interpretation of those scriptures. I’m not offended by the choice of their members, though I strongly disagree with their theology.

Regarding the passage you quoted - I can interpret that passage multiple ways. That said, I definitely disagree with co-redemptrix, though I can understand the theology behind it. I think it would be very easy for people to interpret coredemptrix in a way contrary to orthodox (small o) beliefs.

Do I think I am in danger of going that direction? In a word - no. I have seen many in Orthodoxy - both who grew up in it and those who joined - and no one has agreed to the doctrine of co-redemptrix. That has stayed the same for almost 2000 years.