Is Mary really the “Mother of God?”
Tim: I know that Jesus is God in human form. I also know that the prayer goes, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world w...
Tim: I know that Jesus is God in human form. I also know that the prayer goes, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world w...
ithout end." In Genesis, God says, "Let us make man in our own image." I know that the Virgin Mary was the mother of Christ. But, Jesus existed before Mary did. Not in human form, I'll grant you. It sounds like you embrace a modualist position--that is, you believe that God the Father becomes God the Son who becomes God the Holy Spirit. I know that Catholics do not, but to call Mary the Mother of God is to call Mary a goddess, because God's mother existed before God did (hence the label, mother). As Jesus says in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." The Father existed before creation, as did the Son and the Spirit.
J. Salza: Tim, if Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother, than Mary is the Mother of God. Period. This does not mean Mary is the mother of Jesus' divinity. Not at all. Mary is the mother of the PERSON, Jesus Christ, who is God. We don't limit Mary's motherhood to Jesus' human nature. Do you call your mother the mother of your human nature only? No. Even though your mother did not give you your soul, she is still the mother of YOU, as a PERSON. Similarly, even though Mary did not give Jesus His soul or divinity, she still is His mother. This does not elevate Mary to a goddess anymore than it elevates your mother to a goddess, who participated in giving you an immortal soul. Your modalist point is way off base. Mary is the Mother of the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who is God. Don't confuse the human and divine natures, but also don't reduce Mary's motherhood to Jesus' nature alone, and not His personhood.
Tim: The Catholic Church has other authorities perhaps, but not others, save for the creeds. Again--all of the books of the Bible were written before 325 A.D., at the time of the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed was written in that year (and completed in 381) as a formal, clear statement of Christian belief. The same beliefs and Trinitarian doctrine are used in the Apostles' and the Athanasain Creeds. Notice that the universal Church at this time mentioned no Pope, nor any spiritual significance in regard to Mary, nor any "real presence" doctrine. Without the Bible, the ordained letters of the Popes would have no inspiration to draw upon. We would have no creeds, no ordained letters, not even any evangelical films like "Jesus" or "The Passion of the Christ." And based on the fact that there's no Scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary, it cannot be.
J. Salza: Tim, you are not correct on several things. First, the universal Church most certainly mentioned the pope during these councils. Pope St. Sylvester presided over Nicea and Pope St. Damasus was the one who first determined the canon of Scripture. Scripture does not tell us what the canon is. If you accept, for example, the inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament, you are doing so on the authority of the Catholic Church, not Scripture.
Second, many of the dogmas contained in the creeds are not found in Scripture, or found there only implicitly. Such doctrines as the Blessed Trinity (Nicea, A.D. 325), the two natures of Christ (Chalcedon, A.D. 451), and the divine and human wills of Christ (Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680-681) are not clearly taught in Scripture and were defined well beyond the apostolic age.
Further, Mary as the Mother of God and her Perpetual Virginity were defined at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) respectively, well before the Church defined the divine and human wills of Christ. This shows how you have misunderstood the development of doctrine. You cannot look at things chronologically when dealing with the truths of the faith. The Nicene creed is true even though it took the Church 300 years to promulgate it.
Note that the early creeds also profess faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This means belief in the Catholic Church is an article of faith, equal to those dealing with the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
You are operating under a false presupposition: that there must be "Scriptural proof" for something in order for that something to be true. This is what got the Arians in trouble in the third and fourth centuries - they read Scripture outside of the living Tradition of the Church who alone has the definitive authority to interpret it.
Source: http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701662541/9-is-mary-really-the-%E2%80%9Cmother-of-god%E2%80%9D/
J. Salza: Tim, if Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother, than Mary is the Mother of God. Period. This does not mean Mary is the mother of Jesus' divinity. Not at all. Mary is the mother of the PERSON, Jesus Christ, who is God. We don't limit Mary's motherhood to Jesus' human nature. Do you call your mother the mother of your human nature only? No. Even though your mother did not give you your soul, she is still the mother of YOU, as a PERSON. Similarly, even though Mary did not give Jesus His soul or divinity, she still is His mother. This does not elevate Mary to a goddess anymore than it elevates your mother to a goddess, who participated in giving you an immortal soul. Your modalist point is way off base. Mary is the Mother of the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who is God. Don't confuse the human and divine natures, but also don't reduce Mary's motherhood to Jesus' nature alone, and not His personhood.
Tim: The Catholic Church has other authorities perhaps, but not others, save for the creeds. Again--all of the books of the Bible were written before 325 A.D., at the time of the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed was written in that year (and completed in 381) as a formal, clear statement of Christian belief. The same beliefs and Trinitarian doctrine are used in the Apostles' and the Athanasain Creeds. Notice that the universal Church at this time mentioned no Pope, nor any spiritual significance in regard to Mary, nor any "real presence" doctrine. Without the Bible, the ordained letters of the Popes would have no inspiration to draw upon. We would have no creeds, no ordained letters, not even any evangelical films like "Jesus" or "The Passion of the Christ." And based on the fact that there's no Scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary, it cannot be.
J. Salza: Tim, you are not correct on several things. First, the universal Church most certainly mentioned the pope during these councils. Pope St. Sylvester presided over Nicea and Pope St. Damasus was the one who first determined the canon of Scripture. Scripture does not tell us what the canon is. If you accept, for example, the inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament, you are doing so on the authority of the Catholic Church, not Scripture.
Second, many of the dogmas contained in the creeds are not found in Scripture, or found there only implicitly. Such doctrines as the Blessed Trinity (Nicea, A.D. 325), the two natures of Christ (Chalcedon, A.D. 451), and the divine and human wills of Christ (Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680-681) are not clearly taught in Scripture and were defined well beyond the apostolic age.
Further, Mary as the Mother of God and her Perpetual Virginity were defined at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) respectively, well before the Church defined the divine and human wills of Christ. This shows how you have misunderstood the development of doctrine. You cannot look at things chronologically when dealing with the truths of the faith. The Nicene creed is true even though it took the Church 300 years to promulgate it.
Note that the early creeds also profess faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This means belief in the Catholic Church is an article of faith, equal to those dealing with the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
You are operating under a false presupposition: that there must be "Scriptural proof" for something in order for that something to be true. This is what got the Arians in trouble in the third and fourth centuries - they read Scripture outside of the living Tradition of the Church who alone has the definitive authority to interpret it.
Source: http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701662541/9-is-mary-really-the-%E2%80%9Cmother-of-god%E2%80%9D/
No comments:
Post a Comment