Why Catholics Honor Mary The Mother of God

[PsyOps]

If a mother's son is a doctor, she will proudly call him, "my son the doctor". And she will be called mother of a doctor. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and is therefore Mother of God!

I thought the trinity was “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. I don’t see Mary in there. Help me out here. :shrug:

You say there is one truth, the one truth is in the The One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by God on Pentecost. Extra Exclessia, Nulla Salus.

Clarify… If I am not catholic, am I not saved?

 

[ItalianScallion]

If a mother's son is a doctor, she will proudly call him, "my son the doctor". And she will be called mother of a doctor. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and is therefore Mother of God!
You say there is one truth, the one truth is in the The One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by God on Pentecost. Extra Exclessia, Nulla Salus.

I'm warning you people to stop blaspheming God!! He has NO mother or father!!! God always was and always will be! He is eternal; No beginning or end! Mary is the mother of Jesus, NOT GOD...That is all RC infidels!

 

[libby]

I'm warning you people to stop blaspheming God!! He has NO mother or father!!! God always was and always will be! He is eternal; No beginning or end! Mary is the mother of Jesus, NOT GOD...That is all RC infidels!

So you say Jesus is not God! Who is blaspheming here, IS! See!! This is why it's important to call Mary the mother of God, because it points to who Jesus is!
If you say God the Father is God, and Jesus is God, but Jesus had no mother or father, then you are a polytheist.

 

[PsyOps]

So you say Jesus is not God! Who is blaspheming here, IS! See!! This is why it's important to call Mary the mother of God, because it points to who Jesus is!
If you say God the Father is God, and Jesus is God, but Jesus had no mother or father, then you are a polytheist.

...

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you. Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Matthew 3:31-35

 

[ItalianScallion]

So you say Jesus is not God! Who is blaspheming here, IS! See!! This is why it's important to call Mary the mother of God, because it points to who Jesus is!
If you say God the Father is God, and Jesus is God, but Jesus had no mother or father, then you are a polytheist.

I'm sorry that YOU cannot separate the 2 natures of Christ Libby but you must, to properly understand and explain Him. Jesus is BOTH God & man. Mary is the mother of the HUMAN side of Jesus but not of the Divine side of Jesus. Calling her the mother of God denounces that entirely; along with a number of other Bible teachings about God.

The Father & Jesus & The Holy Spirit are 3 distinct & separate beings. They're NOT the same persons or beings. They're the same God but not the same persons. What you've described is called Modalism. Debriefing over....

 

[libby]

I'm sorry that YOU cannot separate the 2 natures of Christ Libby but you must, to properly understand and explain Him. Jesus is BOTH God & man. Mary is the mother of the HUMAN side of Jesus but not of the Divine side of Jesus. Calling her the mother of God denounces that entirely; along with a number of other Bible teachings about God.

The Father & Jesus & The Holy Spirit are 3 distinct & separate beings. They're NOT the same persons or beings. They're the same God but not the same persons. What you've described is called Modalism. Debriefing over....

He is one person, IS, and she is the mother of the Person, and that Person is God.
From CARM-the error of modalism states that, "These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous"
which is not my position, not is it the position of the RCC.

 

[Radiant1]

All that to justify why the RCC approves of giving reverence to a pagan deity that it included in its version of "Christianity". As mentioned on anther thread, the only time that the term "Queen of Heaven" appears in the Holy Bible is in reference to ancient paganism:

You're right. A queen of Heaven is mentioned in the bible in regards to a pagan goddess that the Isrealites were worshipping; however, it's mentioned in the OT; Mary is the NT and Catholics don't worship her.

In addition, the title alone doesn't imply Mary and this pagan goddess of the OT are one in the same. If that were the case, then you and binLaden are one in the same, for you are both titled "Dad". Or, you and Harold Camping are one in the same for you are both titled "bible-believing Christian". Or, all presidents of nations are one in the same for they are titled "President".

Now, you can continue to disregard reason and logic if you so wish, I can't stop you; however, truth is what it is whether you choose to grasp it or not.

"All generations will call me blessed" ~Mary (Luke 1:48)

 

[Radiant1]

I'm sorry that YOU cannot separate the 2 natures of Christ Libby but you must, to properly understand and explain Him. Jesus is BOTH God & man. Mary is the mother of the HUMAN side of Jesus but not of the Divine side of Jesus. Calling her the mother of God denounces that entirely; along with a number of other Bible teachings about God.

The Father & Jesus & The Holy Spirit are 3 distinct & separate beings. They're NOT the same persons or beings. They're the same God but not the same persons. What you've described is called Modalism. Debriefing over....

Jesus is one person, two natures. Libby is correct when she says Jesus is ONE PERSON. Mary gave birth to a PERSON, not just a nature. That person is BOTH God AND man in unity, so the logical conclusion is that Mary is the mother of God. You'd be right to be concerned if Catholics were to believe Jesus derived his divinity from Mary; however, Catholics don't believe that. It's not modalism, anymore than what you are saying is Nestorianism. :ahem:

 

[Radiant1]

I thought the trinity was “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. I don’t see Mary in there. Help me out here. :shrug:

He was saying Christ is the second person of the Trinity. I'm sure you wouldn't argue with that.

 

[PsyOps]

He was saying Christ is the second person of the Trinity. I'm sure you wouldn't argue with that.

Got that. I guess I misread it. I’m a bit dyslexic from time to time.

But if you read the verse I posted in post #24 you can see how Jesus downplayed the importance of Mary; an importance the RCC has decided to escalate, in my opinion contrary to the intent Jesus tried to establish. The message, in my opinion, is to not elevate any one person above another: "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23.

 

[libby]

Got that. I guess I misread it. I’m a bit dyslexic from time to time.

But if you read the verse I posted in post #24 you can see how Jesus downplayed the importance of Mary; an importance the RCC has decided to escalate, in my opinion contrary to the intent Jesus tried to establish. The message, in my opinion, is to not elevate any one person above another: "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23.

On the contrary, Catholics hold, as R1 said somewhere else in all this, that Jesus was not downplaying Mary, but pointing out that we can all have that "mother" and/or "brother" relationship with him. She was the first one to have in as a result of her Fiat. She had it perfectly, by His Grace. The biology is not what made her blessed, it was her perfect submission to the Will of God.

 

[PsyOps]

On the contrary, Catholics hold, as R1 said somewhere else in all this, that Jesus was not downplaying Mary, but pointing out that we can all have that "mother" and/or "brother" relationship with him. She was the first one to have in as a result of her Fiat. She had it perfectly, by His Grace. The biology is not what made her blessed, it was her perfect submission to the Will of God.

Then I think you miss the concept of "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". No doubt Mary was deemed blessed among women, but she wasn't even called as one of Jesus' disciples. When Jesus was on the cross, Jesus referred to her as ‘woman’. Mary assumed a humble and unassuming role throughout Jesus’ ministry. She died just like everyone else does. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying that Mary wasn’t blessed. She carried the Son of God in her womb. This is an extraordinary blessing. But all that I have read regarding her role after this was nothing more than an ordinary woman.

 

[Radiant1]

Got that. I guess I misread it. I’m a bit dyslexic from time to time.

But if you read the verse I posted in post #24 you can see how Jesus downplayed the importance of Mary; an importance the RCC has decided to escalate, in my opinion contrary to the intent Jesus tried to establish. The message, in my opinion, is to not elevate any one person above another: "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23.

Libby already adressed Mark 3:31.

As for Romans 3:23, Paul previously quoted Psalm 14 in verses 10-12, and his comment was in reference to that. Do you suppose Paul thought that nobody was righteous? After all, scripture tell us that Joesph was just, John the Baptists parents were considered righteous, etc. Psalm 14 also speaks of those who are righteous. If Paul used the word "all" as an absolute, then he's using it out of context with the Psalm he just quoted. In addition, Paul likely did not think infants or those who are mentally deficient could commit a personal sin.

So you see, there are exceptions to this "all", and it doesn't appear as what it seems at first glance. Paul is simply pointing out the universality of sin and that both Jews and Gentiles do so.

I could give you other examples in scripture where it uses the term "all", but obviously can't mean an all-encompassing absolute "all". In fact, it's already been laid out: http://forums.somd.com/4589667-post9.html

 

[Zguy28]

You know what, Zguy. Since both SM and I are equally sincere and fervent in our desire to please God, and show him due reverence, worship and honor, I suggest we break down our statements to something a bit more...temporal?
SM's fundamentalist position seeks to bring another human being down. Kind of the childish way kids with insecurity issues will do. They think that by knocking the other guy that it makes them look, somehow, superior.
OTOH, my Catholic position elevates another person, not as a deity, but as an example to follow; a person better and holier than I am.
So, even if I am the one erring, I am erring by seeing the good in someone else, vs. dragging someone through the mud as best I can.
Y'know, like saying, "Gosh golly, so-and-so seems to be such a nice person." Even if I'm wrong I have committed no crime.
Again, vs. SM saying, "Gosh golly, so-and-so seems to be such an evil, nasty person." Well, if he's wrong, harm has been done.
See the difference?

Sooooo....from a purely objective standpoint I think I might be on pretty safe ground.

Starman's critical nature aside...all I'm hearing is the sound of shovels.

 

[PsyOps]

Libby already adressed Mark 3:31.

As for Romans 3:23, Paul previously quoted Psalm 14 in verses 10-12, and his comment was in reference to that. Do you suppose Paul thought that nobody was righteous? After all, scripture tell us that Joesph was just, John the Baptists parents were considered righteous, etc. Psalm 14 also speaks of those who are righteous. If Paul used the word "all" as an absolute, then he's using it out of context with the Psalm he just quoted. In addition, Paul likely did not think infants or those who are mentally deficient could commit a personal sin.

So you see, there are exceptions to this "all", and it doesn't appear as what it seems at first glance. Paul is simply pointing out the universality of sin and that both Jews and Gentiles do so.

I could give you other examples in scripture where it uses the term "all", but obviously can't mean an all-encompassing absolute "all". In fact, it's already been laid out: http://forums.somd.com/4589667-post9.html

Paul was stating that in the eyes of God and His judgment no one is righteous. The reference to Psalm 14 is stating the same fact. If you read verse 9 you will note that Jews and Gentiles were ALL under the same power of sin; this would include Mary.

The term righteous is not meant as a term to define our righteousness, or justness, in relationship to God; it’s a term that is measured among men and the law. Some obviously live a more straight and narrow path of justice towards other men and the law than others. It’s a measure in accordance to the law, not in accordance to the eternal perfection of God. I think it goes without saying some lead more honest and virtuous lives than others. But this term was never meant to raise someone to the level of holiness.

The bible says we are to be holy, strive to be holy, live our lives in a path to try to obtain that goal; this holiness is a standard to live by. But the bible also says that only God is holy.

Who will not fear you, Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. – Revelation 15:4

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. – Matthew 23:9

 

[libby]

Starman's critical nature aside...all I'm hearing is the sound of shovels.

And all I've heard from you lately are one-liners. Go figure.

 

[ItalianScallion]

He is one person, IS, and she is the mother of the Person, and that Person is God.
From CARM-the error of modalism states that, "These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous"
which is not my position, not is it the position of the RCC.

She is the mother of the man Jesus not the divine Jesus so they (you) need to STOP calling her the mother of God. It is blasphemous but intentional by the RCC! Call her the mother of Jesus and I'll be fine with that.

Jesus is one person, two natures. Libby is correct when she says Jesus is ONE PERSON. Mary gave birth to a PERSON, not just a nature. That person is BOTH God AND man in unity, so the logical conclusion is that Mary is the mother of God. You'd be right to be concerned if Catholics were to believe Jesus derived his divinity from Mary; however, Catholics don't believe that. It's not modalism, anymore than what you are saying is Nestorianism. :ahem:

Call it what you want but it's still wrong. NO ONE is the mother of God.

On the contrary, Catholics hold, as R1 said somewhere else in all this, that Jesus was not downplaying Mary, but pointing out that we can all have that "mother" and/or "brother" relationship with him. She was the first one to have in as a result of her Fiat. She had it perfectly, by His Grace. The biology is not what made her blessed, it was her perfect submission to the Will of God.

God favored her because she drove a Fiat? :shrug:

 

[Zguy28]

And all I've heard from you lately are one-liners. Go figure.

Libby, how many mothers do you have?

Do you agree with Cyprian who said the church of Jesus Christ was our mother? (which is in accordance with Jesus' statement recorded in Matthew)

Do you think Clement of Alexandria is a heretic for this statement?

As it appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to still be a virgin.
Clement of Alexandria, c. 195


Never mind that I have no idea how someone could tell if a woman was still a virgin after giving birth to a child.

 

[Radiant1]

Paul was stating that in the eyes of God and His judgment no one is righteous. The reference to Psalm 14 is stating the same fact. If you read verse 9 you will note that Jews and Gentiles were ALL under the same power of sin; this would include Mary.

The term righteous is not meant as a term to define our righteousness, or justness, in relationship to God; it’s a term that is measured among men and the law. Some obviously live a more straight and narrow path of justice towards other men and the law than others. It’s a measure in accordance to the law, not in accordance to the eternal perfection of God. I think it goes without saying some lead more honest and virtuous lives than others. But this term was never meant to raise someone to the level of holiness.

The bible says we are to be holy, strive to be holy, live our lives in a path to try to obtain that goal; this holiness is a standard to live by. But the bible also says that only God is holy.

Who will not fear you, Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. – Revelation 15:4

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. – Matthew 23:9

Psy, nobody denies that Mary was under the power of sin or that she needed a savior; hence, her Immaculate Conception. If there were no need for it, it wouldn't have happened. :shrug:

The bible also says that believers are holy, btw. (Recall the "holy father" convo in a previous thread.) So, does scripture contradict itself, or are you misinterpreting something?

 

[libby]

Libby, how many mothers do you have?

Do you agree with Cyprian who said the church of Jesus Christ was our mother? (which is in accordance with Jesus' statement recorded in Matthew)

Do you think Clement of Alexandria is a heretic for this statement?

As it appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to still be a virgin.
Clement of Alexandria, c. 195


Never mind that I have no idea how someone could tell if a woman was still a virgin after giving birth to a child.

Catholics call it "Holy Mother Church", so I guess that would be a "yes".

Clement of Alexandria is entitled to his opinion, but Holy Mother Church has declared infallibly that Mary was conceived without sin, and remained free of sin her entire life.
I believe it because it's Scriptural, I believe it because it's logical, and I believe it because it is fitting.