Why Protestants should call Mary, the Mother of God.

[All4Christ]

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".

I cannot speak to RCC beliefs, but can speak to 2000 years of other churches beliefs who also call her the mother of God. A misinterpretation of the term doesn’t mean that the term is wrong in and of itself. There have been many who misinterpreted the phrase “mother of Jesus Christ” as well. Does their misinterpretation mean she wasn’t actually the mother of Jesus Christ?

She is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is and always was also God the Son - inseparably, who was begotten of the Father before ages, who became incarnate, humbled Himself to assume flesh, was born fully man and fully God, and rose from the dead, conquering death by death.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Mother of God" is confusing because it's in and of itself incorrect.
God simply has no mother.
"Mother of Jesus Christ" is correct, because the blessed woman Mary bore Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, who is a Man born of a woman.
Conclusion:
Theotokos is incorrect, Christotokos is correct.
Unless of course you want to bend meaning of words and be confusing, or wish to proclaim a divine Mary (queen of the heavens).
If that's what you aspire, then by all means, call Mary Theotokos.

 

[Major1]

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.

Now, you do know that the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses ARE NOT Christians.

I can not agree they came up with proper interpretations to support their belief as they both deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and they denounce the Trinity.

 

[All4Christ]

Now, you do know that the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses ARE NOT Christians.

I can not agree they came up with proper interpretations to support their belief as they both deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and they denounce the Trinity.

I certainly agree on both points.

My point was that they used Biblical scriptures and came up with wildly invalid interpretations. (I was trying to choose groups of people who were not Christian so that I wouldn’t be bringing up any debatable theology from Christian groups. Certainly, it was an extreme example.)

 

[Major1]

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:



and I think you should, too.

A wonderful thought and I thank you for it.

I am not saying that Mary gave birth to the Trinity or that she created God. Since you are believing that is my position I apologize for the misunderstanding.

What I am trying say and which does not seem to be coming across correctly to you is that The Roman Catholic Church frequently refers to Mary as "The Mother of God."
The phrase is associated with the Greek word is theotokos which means God-bearer.

God Himself is a supreme being, and the emotional inference of being the "mother of" someone carries with it authority over, maturity beyond, and even superiority. This kind of attitude has led to further errors. I have posted this before but again the Catholic positions are clear and I think I need to be also...............
1). Mary is called the second Eve, (Mystici Corpois Christ, par. 110)
2). The RCC gives expressed devotion to Mary, (CCC 971)
3). The RCC pray to Mary, (CCC 2679)
4). Mary sits at the right hand of Christ, "(Pope Pius X, 1835-1914).
5). Mary is second only to Jesus, (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p. 31)
6). "so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother," (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914).

As you can see from the above quotes, Mary is highly exalted by the RCC.
Add to this the error that no one goes to Christ but through Mary (Pope Leo 13th), and it should be clear that Mary is being idolized beyond what is appropriate. That is why Roman Catholicism advocates praying to Mary (CCC 2679). This is a problem because this leads to people putting their focus, hope, and prayers in Mary instead of Jesus. This is heresy. It is idolatry.

When the RCC or anyone else for that matter continually uses the term "mother of God" they run the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.
Now I understand that you have a problem with that comment but every false teaching has a beginning somewhere and the suggestion can lead to a false teaching.

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. You may not have heard that but I for one have been told that by my Catholic friends. You are correct in that The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has rightly denounced this kind of thinking, 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 above references that exalt her far beyond what the Scriptures teach which is the exact reason I listed them.

I will agree that Mary is the mother of the Redeemer however I will stick with my opinion that she is not equal to the Redeemer in actions or positions.

I hope that this is an acceptable answer to what I have been trying to get across.

 

[Major1]

I certainly agree on both points.

My point was that they used Biblical scriptures and came up with wildly invalid interpretations. (I was trying to choose groups of people who were not Christian so that I wouldn’t be bringing up any debatable theology from Christian groups. Certainly, it was an extreme example.)

I thought as much! Agreed.

 

[Albion]

The phrase is associated with the Greek word is theotokos which means God-bearer.

God Himself is a supreme being, and the emotional inference of being the "mother of" someone carries with it authority over, maturity beyond, and even superiority. .

That is your thinking. And I see that you have to word it very carefully in order to leave a theoretical possibility that something sorta like what you are alleging might have a small element of plausibility in it.

There is nothing to support it, however, if we check with Catholics (including EO) or official statements from those churches.

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.

That movement has been around for awhile and it's gotten nowhere. That doesnt mean that it might not happen in the future, but it's also not about conferring divinity upon Mary. But the idea of Mary as Mother of God wouldn't make it any more likely than if this title had not been conferred on her way back in the ancient church.

 

[Major1]

That is your thinking. And I see that you have to word it very carefully in order to leave a theoretical possibility that something sorta like what you are alleging might have a small element of plausibility in it.

There is nothing to support it, however, if we check with Catholics (including EO) or official statements from those churches.


That movement has been around for awhile and it's gotten nowhere. That doesnt mean that it might not happen in the future, but it's also not about conferring divinity upon Mary. But the idea of Mary as Mother of God wouldn't make it any more likely than if this title had not been conferred on her way back in the ancient church.

Correct. It was always MY thinking.

And YES I did word it carefully, I always try to do that. But not for what you are suggesting. I do that so there will not be a theoretical miscommunication.

Also, I did clearly state......"So far, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach this."
And also........."You are correct in that The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has rightly denounced this kind of thinking,".

What I am saying is NOT something that I made up my dear friend. This subject has been talked about and tossed around by several of my Catholic neighbors and friends. We have had several in depth discussions on just this possibility which THEY brought to me for an opinion.

What I shared on this site stemmed from those conversations instigated by those Catholic believers.

If YOU do not think that there is a chance of this subject being ever considered by the RCC or even being talked about today in some circles than so be it. Absolutely no problem from me.

That does not mean it does not exist, only that you personally are not believing it is out there.

You are welcome to the last word on this.

 

[Albion]

What I am saying is NOT something that I made up my dear friend. This subject has been talked about and tossed around by several of my Catholic neighbors and friends.

Several neighbors and friends--the old standby "proof" that is always cited when a sweeping statement online is challenged. Well, several Catholic neighbors and friends do not a denomination or even a trend make. But let me ask you this...how many of them actually cited the Theotokos doctrine as a reason why they think it's high time to declare Mary to be divine?

What I shared on this site stemmed from those conversations instigated by those Catholic believers.

Frankly, I doubt that any of those people said that they think Mary should be declared divine, the fourth person of the Trinity, or anything like that. Most likely, they said that they think that Mary should be declared to be the co-redemptrix of mankind.

 

[Major1]

Several neighbors and friends--the old standby "proof" that is always cited when a sweeping statement online is challenged. Well, several Catholic neighbors and friends do not a denomination or even a trend make. But let me ask you this...how many of them actually cited the Theotokos doctrine as a reason why they think it's high time to declare Mary to be divine?

Frankly, I doubt that any of those people said that they think Mary should be declared divine, the fourth person of the Trinity, or anything like that. Most likely, they said that they think that Mary should be declared to be the co-redemptrix of mankind.

To say I am surprised at your response would be an understatement of your carefully worded comment in calling me a liar.

God bless you my friend.

 

[Albion]

Huh? I am sorry you misunderstood me that way. I actually was accepting of what you reported but offered some observations that I think you should consider.

Did the friends actually cite the Theotokos matter, or did you just assume that it must have affected their thinking? And is it reasonable to conclude that if a few friends say something about their own views, that this characterizes the church itself or the rest of the world's Catholics--those who post here regularly, for example?

 

[Major1]

Huh? I am sorry you misunderstood me that way. I actually was accepting of what you reported but offered some observations that I think you should consider.

Did the friends actually cite the Theotokos matter, or did you just assume that it must have affected their thinking? And is it reasonable to conclude that if a few friends say something about their own views, that this characterizes the church itself or the rest of the world's Catholics--those who post here regularly, for example?

No misunderstanding. I was very clear, and it is always nice to talk with you. God bless.

 

[Albion]

The misunderstanding I was referring to was the perception that I was calling you a liar. I certainly did not do that, and would not. In fact it's something of a pet peeve of mine that some people (none around here at the moment) resort to calling others liars so easily.

This thread seems to be pretty much worn out now, anyway, so I hope to discuss something or other with you at another time and in another thread--on the same side, hopefully.

 

[Major1]

The misunderstanding I was referring to was the perception that I was calling you a liar. I certainly did not do that, and would not. In fact it's something of a pet peeve of mine that some people (none around here at the moment) resort to calling others liars so easily.

This thread seems to be pretty much worn out now, anyway, so I hope to discuss something or other with you at another time and in another thread--on the same side, hopefully.

You might find this interesting. It seems as though someone else has some input on "Mary the Mother of God".

Whatever Happened to Mary?

 

[All4Christ]

You might find this interesting. It seems as though someone else has some input on "Mary the Mother of God".

Whatever Happened to Mary?

I know you weren’t addressing this to me - so please humor my reply

Many people today have issues with it. Often they (not referring to you) have misunderstandings and promote things that are not true. They also often accuse us of believing things that we don’t. I understand why, but it is frustrating at times.

I’m guessing you have experienced this at times with other subjects? Most Christians do have others misunderstand their beliefs. Mary tends to be a very common theme for people talking to Orthodox Christians

 

[Major1]

I know you weren’t addressing this to me - so please humor my reply

Many people today have issues with it. Often they (not referring to you) have misunderstandings and promote things that are not true. They also often accuse us of believing things that we don’t. I understand why, but it is frustrating at times.

I hear you and understand.

My point is and has been that the thought of "Mary is the Mother of God" is out there and people are discussing it.

No more and no less.

 

[All4Christ]

I hear you and understand.

My point is and has been that the thought of "Mary is the Mother of God" is out there and people are discussing it.

No more and no less.

Understood It’s just something I’ve been thinking about lately in regards to these threads.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

The deadline for the Australian Plebiscite has passed, right now I'm just waiting waiting for the results. Once I know, and finish either rejoicing or mourning the results of the Australian Plebiscite, I'll return here and continue defending the Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God.

In the meantime check-out this video on the history and power of the Holy Rosary:

 

[Major1]

The deadline for the Australian Plebiscite has passed, right now I'm just waiting waiting for the results. Once I know, and finish either rejoicing or mourning the results of the Australian Plebiscite, I'll return here and continue defending the Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God.

In the meantime check-out this video on the history and power of the Holy Rosary:

There you go .......... @Albion. Isn't that pretty much what I was saying to you that the discussion is and has been out there in the Catholic church.

"Jesus loves our Lady" said..........
"I'll return here and continue defending the Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God."

 

[Basil the Great]

A wonderful thought and I thank you for it.

I am not saying that Mary gave birth to the Trinity or that she created God. Since you are believing that is my position I apologize for the misunderstanding.

What I am trying say and which does not seem to be coming across correctly to you is that The Roman Catholic Church frequently refers to Mary as "The Mother of God."
The phrase is associated with the Greek word is theotokos which means God-bearer.

God Himself is a supreme being, and the emotional inference of being the "mother of" someone carries with it authority over, maturity beyond, and even superiority. This kind of attitude has led to further errors. I have posted this before but again the Catholic positions are clear and I think I need to be also...............
1). Mary is called the second Eve, (Mystici Corpois Christ, par. 110)
2). The RCC gives expressed devotion to Mary, (CCC 971)
3). The RCC pray to Mary, (CCC 2679)
4). Mary sits at the right hand of Christ, "(Pope Pius X, 1835-1914).
5). Mary is second only to Jesus, (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p. 31)
6). "so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother," (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914).

As you can see from the above quotes, Mary is highly exalted by the RCC.
Add to this the error that no one goes to Christ but through Mary (Pope Leo 13th), and it should be clear that Mary is being idolized beyond what is appropriate. That is why Roman Catholicism advocates praying to Mary (CCC 2679). This is a problem because this leads to people putting their focus, hope, and prayers in Mary instead of Jesus. This is heresy. It is idolatry.

When the RCC or anyone else for that matter continually uses the term "mother of God" they run the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.
Now I understand that you have a problem with that comment but every false teaching has a beginning somewhere and the suggestion can lead to a false teaching.

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. You may not have heard that but I for one have been told that by my Catholic friends. You are correct in that The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has rightly denounced this kind of thinking, 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 above references that exalt her far beyond what the Scriptures teach which is the exact reason I listed them.

I will agree that Mary is the mother of the Redeemer however I will stick with my opinion that she is not equal to the Redeemer in actions or positions.

I hope that this is an acceptable answer to what I have been trying to get across.

Your post reminds me that I read somewhere about Catholics making Mary a fourth member of the Trinity. I shook my head when I read that statement. Still, I will say that when I first came across the unofficial title of Mary being the Mediator of all graces, I was reminded of the startling claim about making Mary divine.

Now, let's be honest. If one digs into the detailed explanations about the unofficial titles of Co-Redeemer and Mediator of all graces, nowhere it is taught or believed that Mary is actually divine. However, if it is indeed true that she is the Mediator of all graces, this sure would seem to elevate her to a level that is way beyond any other human being. I have asked the Eastern Orthodox board about said unofficial titles and I do not recall a single positive reply there concerning said proposed Marian titles.