# The Holy Mother Mary - Worship or just honouring/ respecting?



## Ken S. (Dec 25, 2011)

Allow me to post a purhaps-too-familiar question:
The other day I was a bit shock to hear even my brother in my church said that the Catholics don't really worhip the holy mother Mary, but they just honour or highly respect her. So, bace on what official teaching in the Catholic church do we judge the Catholics worship Mary?

Take the world as an exemple. If you enjoy wearing branded clothes and shoes, like Prada, Giorgia Amarni and Nike, all the time, watch lots and lots of holy-wood movies and play lots of Xbox and Playstation game, you can't deny that you love the world by simply saying "oh, i'm just highly appreciating the world pop culture." If the Catholics place Mary's statue at the centre of the church, pray to her and praise her, how could they deny worshipping Mary? Seems it's just a game of terminology, isn't it?


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 25, 2011)

Mary, according to official Catholic doctrine, is co-redemptrix with Jesus. Furthermore Catholic doctrine says that she intercedes for us with her Son.


----------



## Galatians220 (Dec 25, 2011)

Catholics do consider Mary the "co-Redemptrix:"Fifth Marian Dogma | Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

It's an outrage.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 25, 2011)

I mentioned in the sermon today that both Joseph and Mary were sinners in need of the grace of God. That was deliberate.


----------



## TimV (Dec 25, 2011)

Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 25, 2011)

TimV said:


> Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.



I would venture to say they are different as one is a declaration that a preacher's words led one to Christ as St. Paul states to Timothy. 

(1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The other is a matter of worship given to a woman who bore Christ in the flesh.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 25, 2011)

TimV said:


> Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.



Good point. I have yet to hear ANY answer to the question "What is the difference between you (believer) and a non believer?" Not ONE has EVER been able to answer why they believe and the unbeliever does not outside of the IDOL of free will. Now that is worship par excellence.


----------



## JennyG (Dec 26, 2011)

TimV said:


> Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.


maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that there's a huge difference. 
Does anyone, even an arminian, pray fervently to a preacher to save their families or friends or to be with them in death?


----------



## TimV (Dec 26, 2011)

I was addressing the point of co-redemptress, and that was God plus some other agent.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 26, 2011)

On a personal note, it troubles me to see the word "Virgin" capitalized in our Trinity Hymnal. That directs my thoughts toward the way references to deity are capitalized in many English Bible translations. It must be my hatred of popery bubbling to the surface.


----------



## athanatos (Dec 26, 2011)

Titles, whether divine or not, can be put in capitals. Like the Apostles.


----------



## TimV (Dec 26, 2011)

But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 27, 2011)

TimV said:


> I was addressing the point of co-redemptress, and that was God plus some other agent.



Like ones "free will".


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 27, 2011)

TimV said:


> But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.



I am curious Tim, when your church repeats the Symbolum Apostolorum or the Symbolum Nicaenum do you individually or as a church skip over the word “virgin” as it corresponds with Mary? Sorry Rich, I cant include you on this question because I know how baptist are about ancient creeds of the church in our church sevices. Also Tim am wondering what you think of the term Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)? Do you deny it as an orthodox term and title for Mary?


----------



## TimV (Dec 27, 2011)

Deleted over the top language, apologies.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 27, 2011)

TimV said:


> Sure, your mom wore diapers. But what woman didn't?



Eve.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 27, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.
> ...



To say that Mary was the "mother of God" is inaccurate, as God has no mother. It is accurate to say that she was the mother of Jesus Christ. While Jesus Christ is God, she was not the mother of the God "part" of Him.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 27, 2011)

Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Dec 28, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.


While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. I think that such a statement is only clarifying that the Word existed before Mary conceived.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 28, 2011)

This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism). 

The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary _Theotokos_ (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear. 

This is not a Romanist doctrine but a truly catholic doctrine (like the Trinity). That Rome subsequently promulgated Mariological errors does not detract from the ancient confession that the our Lord was God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He remains forever God and man in one person. 

It's late and I must retire. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## cajunhillbilly53 (Dec 28, 2011)

I agree Alan. And so many, not wanting to appear Roman Catholic, refuse to use a term which is Biblical, in that it acknowledges that He was born of Mary was and is both God and man. There is not a God "part" and a human "part". There is one Person Who is both God and Man. So many evangelicals are unknowingly saying things that are very Nestorian and are just ignorant of what the Church has always believed about Jesus.


----------



## raekwon (Dec 28, 2011)

Ken S. said:


> Take the world as an exemple. If you enjoy wearing branded clothes and shoes, like Prada, Giorgia Amarni and Nike, all the time, watch lots and lots of holy-wood movies and play lots of Xbox and Playstation game, you can't deny that you love the world by simply saying "oh, i'm just highly appreciating the world pop culture."



That's a bit presumptuous.


----------



## dudley (Dec 28, 2011)

*Roman Catholic doctrines are not right.*



Marrow Man said:


> I mentioned in the sermon today that both Joseph and Mary were sinners in need of the grace of God. That was deliberate.




I say amen to Tim Philips
Roman Catholic doctrines are not right. They directly contradict the scriptures. The Roman Catholic religion teaches multitudes to pray to "Mary" instead of in the name of Jesus. It calls its Mary "the Queen of Heaven". In Jeremiah chapters 7 and 44, the Queen of Heaven is revealed to be a devil. 

Of the scores and scores of doctrines taught by the Roman Church without one shred of authority from the Scriptures, the exaltation of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, is one of the most prominent, and certainly one of the most unscriptural. It is often referred to as Mariolatry, which means the worship of Mary. 

Undoubtedly many Roman Catholics themselves do not even know that there was a time when the Pope excommunicated members of the Church for praying to the Virgin Mary. The worship of Mary, today acclaimed as an infallible dogma, was once condemned by the same 'infallible' Church as a deadly sin. 

There is no record of any exaltation of the Virgin Mary until the fifth century, when she was first called the 'Mother of God'. The traditions concerning her were added from time to time until the latest pronouncement by Pope Pius XII on October 11, 1954, relating to the Assumption of Mary.. 

Much of what being Protestant has historically meant has involved a protest against the Catholic devotion to Mary. Nevertheless, the Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium that Mary is a potential ecumenical bridge, a source of the future unity of all Christians. I think that suggestion is ridiculous or insulting to Protestants. But recently there has been a flurry of publications by Protestants on Mary, works that suggest she could be an ecumenical bridge -- or at least that the Protestant aversion to Marian devotion is eroding.

The Immaculate Conception another Roman catholic deceit by Satan. Dec 8th in the Roman catholic church they celebrate what they call the feast of the Immaculate Conception. They give devotion and they worship Mary on that day. 

The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. 

-- Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)
According to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this doctrine, but only the Roman Catholic Church has solemnly defined the teaching, and the title "Immaculate Conception" is generally used only by Catholics. Most Protestants reject the idea as having no foundation in Scripture.

I totally reject the teaching of the Immaculate conception as well as the assumption and other Marian teachings in the papist church of the Romanists because they have no basis in scripture.

I also believe the RCC is trying to make Mary a co-redemtrix with Christ. That would be a major heresy.

I do not accept at all the position by the Romanists that Mary can be an ecumenical bridge between protestants and Catholics.

Catholic belief in Mary apparitions is also such a blasphemy and I believe it is as I think most of Roman Catholicism is a deceitful lie of Satan himself.

The Bible warns us that the devil can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Therefore, we should not be surprised if the devil and his demons can appear in the form of the Virgin Mary. The Bible warns us that there will be lying signs and wonders whose purpose is to deceive people and draw them away from God (Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).

I think that ecumenism itself is a lure by the devil to corrupt the Protestant fold and I do think that the very notion of Mary as a bridge of understanding between protestants and Roman catholic’s is again a trick of Satan himself.

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------




Rich Koster said:


> On a personal note, it troubles me to see the word "Virgin" capitalized in our Trinity Hymnal. That directs my thoughts toward the way references to deity are capitalized in many English Bible translations. It must be my hatred of popery bubbling to the surface.



I understand your feelings my brother, I too have a hatred of popery and it often bubbles to the surface. I say amen to you also Rich! I agree the Romanists try to deify Mary.


----------



## dudley (Dec 28, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



Amen brother Richard “she was not the mother of the God” "part" of Him. However this is evidence again that Rome is not the Church of Jesus Christ let alone the true Church, but rather the synagogue of Mary, a cult of papal invention.

In the true Church of Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ has all the preeminence. In the Church of Rome Mary

, by order of the Roman Antichrists, has all the preeminence.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are demoted to secondary places by the order of the self-professed infallible popes. The entire Godhead must stand aside for Mary – note it must be emphasized not Mary, the virgin mother of the Christ Child but a woman of Rome’s own invention as far apart from the Mary of the New Testament as heaven is from hellThe following are a few of the appellations of the Virgin: Holy Mother of God; Refuge of Sinners; Comforter of the Afflicted; Queen of Angels, of Patriarchs, of Apostles, of all Saints; Mirror of Justice; Seat of Wisdom; Mystical Rose; Tower of Ivory; House of Gold; and others equally extravagant. In the former, the honour due to Father, Son, and Spirit is given to a mortal – to the Virgin Mary; and the latter are too ridiculous to require comment. Popery is the same now as it was in the dark ages of the church; and the worship of the Virgin is still one of the favourite tenets of Romanism


----------



## dudley (Dec 28, 2011)

TimV said:


> But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.



Amen Tim and Rich...After showing that Christ was born of a virgin, the evangelist Matthew goes on to say that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus" (1:25). "Knew her" is the biblical expression for the act of marriage. Joseph did not know Mary "till" she gave birth to her firstborn, Jesus. The implication is clear enough.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------




rbcbob said:


> Mary, according to official Catholic doctrine, is co-redemptrix with Jesus. Furthermore Catholic doctrine says that she intercedes for us with her Son.



Did Jesus ever say that his mother should be worshipped or served? Matthew 4:10 plainly states; "[...] it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 28, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).
> 
> The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary _Theotokos_ (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.
> 
> ...



Good history, pastor. I believe the intent of the creed was to say more about the child than the mother. To the OP, it is clear that Rome "honors" Mary in a very different way than we do.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 29, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).
> 
> The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary _Theotokos_ (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.
> 
> ...



Actually, He was deity before His conception. Sounds nit-picky, I know, but it's important.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------




Unoriginalname said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
> ...



What he said.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------




Unoriginalname said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
> ...



What he said.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 29, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
> This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).
> 
> The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary Theotokos (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.
> ...



Of course, Br. Richard. If He was deity at his conception, He was deity before, already established in my first paragraph in several ways, including noting His being eternally begotten, in which I concluded, "Christ _was_ God who became a man."

I don't think that you are being nit-picky, it's just that I had already stated such in the first paragraph. He was God before so He was God at the conception, at which point he added humanity to his deity. 

As another brother said above, the formularly _Theotokos_ or _mater Dei_ had in view, in the fifth century, the One she bore much more than she who bore Him.

At any rate, good, as always, to hear from you.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Dec 29, 2011)

Unoriginalname said:


> While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature.



To strengthen the Christological backbone of this discussion, this is our position -- Christ was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person for ever. Christ is a divine person and full possessor of the divine nature from everlasting to everlasting. In the fulness of time this divine person was made of a woman. He did not become an human person but assumed an human nature.

Now, to put some flesh on this backbone, let's see how this Christologically strong position is affected by the statement that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. What is such a statement actually saying? It is saying one of two things: either that the mother gave birth to a mere human nature separated from the person of Christ, or that the mother gave birth to an human nature which was personal in some way.

Now, the advocate of this statement is free to choose which consequence he is willing to accept, but he is bound to explain himself one way or the other. Either way, the strong Christological position of two natures and one person is threatened by this statement, and this is the reason it has been rejected by the true Christian church throughout the ages.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Dec 29, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature.
> ...



Thank you for explaining that. I always appreciate your posts and critiques. So is it then how are we to say that Mary is Jesus' mother?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2011)

To call Mary the mother _of God_ is not biblical. As far as I can recall, the Bible never calls her that. Because of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the most we can say, in order to avoid heretical views, is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, which does not deny that His deity was present at His conception in her womb (indeed, this is why the Holy Spirit was involved in her conception). This also applies to the cross. We can't say that God died on the cross, since God is incapable of dying. Again, the best we can do, keeping the hypostatic union in view, is to say that Jesus Christ died on the cross. How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Dec 30, 2011)

Accrding the catholic doctrine, Virgin Mary is intercessor for people before the Christ Jesus. Catholics ask Mary to pray for them and they ask intercession from the dead. They say that just as we ask someone (living person) in the church intercession, just same way they ask saints, Mary and dead relatives to pray for them. 
Virgin Mary is equl with the Christ in catholic theology. Maybe you have seen the cross where is Virgin Mary and infant Jesus, so catholic worship Mary the same way as we Christians worship Christ Jesus our only Redeemer.


----------



## Mathetes (Dec 30, 2011)

Not sure if anyone follows Turretinfan's blog, but a while ago he posted something about Marian psalms - long story short, a Catholic saint some centuries ago composed some psalms that more or less replaced "God" or "the Lord" with "Mary" or "Our Lady". If there were ever any question about Rome's blasphemy, this would certainly put it to rest.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Mariolatry Exemplified

(I thought he had another post where he explains the background of this foul thing, but I can't find it)


----------



## py3ak (Dec 30, 2011)

bookslover said:


> To call Mary the mother _of God_ is not biblical. As far as I can recall, the Bible never calls her that. Because of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the most we can say, in order to avoid heretical views, is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, which does not deny that His deity was present at His conception in her womb (indeed, this is why the Holy Spirit was involved in her conception). This also applies to the cross. We can't say that God died on the cross, since God is incapable of dying. Again, the best we can do, keeping the hypostatic union in view, is to say that Jesus Christ died on the cross. How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway.



Your own confession sufficiently deals with this:


> Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.


(WCF VIII.7)

We can say that the Lord of Glory was crucified, because the person who is the Lord of Glory was crucified; though it was the physical and passible human nature that was capable of crucifixion.


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2011)

bookslover said:


> To call Mary the mother _of God_ is not biblical. As far as I can recall, the Bible never calls her that. Because of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the most we can say, in order to avoid heretical views, is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, which does not deny that His deity was present at His conception in her womb (indeed, this is why the Holy Spirit was involved in her conception). This also applies to the cross. We can't say that God died on the cross, since God is incapable of dying. Again, the best we can do, keeping the hypostatic union in view, is to say that Jesus Christ died on the cross. How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway.



Devotionally, I would not call her the mother of God, since such a statement without qualification is liable to misunderstanding, especially given the abuse of the term. Doctrinally, given the opportunity to make the kind of distinctions and qualifications which are taught in the Confession of Faith, I think we are bound to affirm the theotokos. It is not unbiblical to do so. In Acts 20:28, "blood" is ascribed to God, that is, the person who shed His blood is God. Likewise, Mary is called "the mother of Jesus," John 2:3; the person of whom she was the mother is God. True motherhood is motherhood of a person, not a nature. We are warranted in qualifying that the person's human nature alone was derived from the substance of the Virgin, but the unio personalis demands that we acknowledge Mary to be the God-bearer in a qualified sense lest we become guilty of one of the two errors I mentioned previously.


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2011)

Unoriginalname said:


> So is it then how are we to say that Mary is Jesus' mother?



I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you possibly rephrase it?


----------



## Unoriginalname (Dec 30, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > So is it then how are we to say that Mary is Jesus' mother?
> ...



You answered it in the post before it. I was concerned with how we describe how Mary is Jesus' mother but this statement answered it: 


armourbearer said:


> True motherhood is motherhood of a person, not a nature. We are warranted in qualifying that the person's human nature alone was derived from the substance of the Virgin, but the unio personalis demands that we acknowledge Mary to be the God-bearer in a qualified sense lest we become guilty of one of the two errors I mentioned previously.


----------



## dudley (Dec 30, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > To call Mary the mother _of God_ is not biblical. As far as I can recall, the Bible never calls her that. Because of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the most we can say, in order to avoid heretical views, is to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, which does not deny that His deity was present at His conception in her womb (indeed, this is why the Holy Spirit was involved in her conception). This also applies to the cross. We can't say that God died on the cross, since God is incapable of dying. Again, the best we can do, keeping the hypostatic union in view, is to say that Jesus Christ died on the cross. How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway.
> ...



“True motherhood is motherhood of a person, not a nature. We are warranted in qualifying that the person's human nature alone was derived from the substance of the Virgin, but the unio personalis demands that we acknowledge Mary to be the God-bearer in a qualified sense lest we become guilty of one of the two errors I mentioned previously.” 

I agree with you and say amen. However it is important to note that she was the Mother of Jesus the Person who is God , but not the mother of the nature of God. However Roman Catholicism has distorted this tremendously. I will place a piece here by Ian Paisley and as an ex Roman catholic and now a protestant I agree with what Paisley says: “There is no record of any exaltation of the Virgin Mary until the fifth century, when she was first called the 'Mother of God'. The traditions concerning her were added from time to time until the latest pronouncement by Pope Pius XII on October 11, 1954, relating to the Assumption of Mary.. 
Beginning with the adoption of the term 'Mother of God' there were several steps in the development of present-day Mariolatry. It was not until 451 A.D. that the dogma of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary was made binding upon all Roman Catholics. The next step was a matter of course, when on December 8, 1854 A.D. Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be a binding dogma of the Roman Church. Then in 1954 Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. When this step was taken, the Pope declared that all Roman Catholics were to accept it without question, under penalty of discipline. 
In view of this trend it would not be surprising if some day Rome will proclaim as a binding and infallible dogma the Deity of Mary. She is already addressed as the Queen of Heaven, which is tantamount to asserting her deity, for a queen is the wife of a king, and since she is called the Queen of Heaven, the inference is that she is the wife of the King of Heaven. Such a dogma only needs to be stated in so many words and confirmed in a Papal bull.”


----------



## earl40 (Jan 1, 2012)

bookslover said:


> How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway.



Now I may be off here, but when Jesus died it was the physical part of humanity that died and not His immaterial part (soul). For when He died the hypostatic union was never rendered apart for on the cross He rendered His spirit or soul to The Father which is part of the human nature.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 1, 2012)

Earl, I'm not sure I followed what you said, so please overlook it if what I say is needless.

Death is the separation of soul and body. Christ's human soul and body were separated; it was genuine death. But the personal union was not interrupted; soul and body still belonged to the Second Person. It may not serve to enable us to imagine the how of it, but in confirmation of the fact of it, we can mention the Catechism's teaching (Q.37) that even in death our bodies are united to Christ.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 1, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Earl, I'm not sure I followed what you said, so please overlook it if what I say is needless.
> 
> Death is the separation of soul and body. Christ's human soul and body were separated; it was genuine death. But the personal union was not interrupted; soul and body still belonged to the Second Person. It may not serve to enable us to imagine the how of it, but in confirmation of the fact of it, we can mention the Catechism's teaching (Q.37) that even in death our bodies are united to Christ.



I was just responding to the below to show His soul did not die and thus the hypostatic union never ceased. 

"How Jesus was able to actually, physically die on the cross (which He did), and yet maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union (which we must), is not something God has explained to us - probably because we wouldn't understand it, anyway."


----------



## py3ak (Jan 1, 2012)

I see. I think that means you are using "death" for "cease to exist"; of course, if death means the separation of soul and body then obviously they are both separated from one another. The person is dead when soul and body are separated, even though the soul retains conscience and the body (temporarily) retains physical integrity.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 2, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I see. I think that means you are using "death" for "cease to exist"; of course, if death means the separation of soul and body then obviously they are both separated from one another. The person is dead when soul and body are separated, even though the soul retains conscience and the body (temporarily) retains physical integrity.



Yes I am using death in the terms you say. I have a particular interest in that this is a great apologetic against those who espouse soul sleep. For the hypostatic union of His divine and human nature did not cease between the cross and resurrection.


----------

