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

[bookslover]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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:

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]

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.

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.