Mary, Mother of God. What do you think.

Natters, I have my perception of what the contemparary meaning is, just want to see what others think about it. But it should be clear in the other thread what I think.

 

Natters, I would like you to explain something to me, if you don't mind. I think we all agree on two things. The title is dead in the protestant world, and the Chatolic world has abused it. So why is it so imortant for some to resurect it in the protestant wrold. Given that most protestants oppose the title, why not just let it stay dead?

 

I am really not trying to avoid your question, but I have answered it. Look at what HankD wrote in the other thread. I said I completely agreed with him on it in that thread. I'll paste it here and comment on it if you wish,.

But is it an original Doctrine? It is not in the Gospels, nor does Paul use it. Does he even mention Mary? Is it even in the Apocrypha? That council you guys mentioned was in 400+ AD. And was 100+ years after Constentine bought the churches and made a state church. I believe the church was already compromised by this time.

 

I am not sure if it ever had a proper meaning or if the Councils were uncompromised, I just don't know enough about that to say you are wrong. But if it did start out in orthodoxy, it lost that ortodoxy 1000+ years ago. And I don't think we can overcome its history. Also, it is problamatic to moderns in and of itself and prone to abuse and porblems as we have seen in the other thread.

Cutting and pasting momentarally.

 

Here is what HankD wrote, hope you don't mind HankD.

"Texas let me illustrate why I no longer use the phrase "Mother of God" for Mary.

I am a former Roman Catholic (a cradle Catholic so-called), I was saved reading the Bible along with listening to radio preachers while in the military.

When I finally began to think about leaving the Church of Rome, it was a struggle for me for several reasons: shunning by my family and doctrinal matters, but especially the doctrine of Mary.

I simply couldn't bring myself to pray to Mary anymore even though I was still officially a Catholic.

I asked my priest why should I pray to Mary because the Bible teaches that worship is for God alone to receive. His answer: Because she is the Mother of God and she can influence Him.

I objected that the title of "The Mother of God" was nowhere to be found in the Scriptures and his response was "It's the official teaching of the Church which is equally authoritative with the Scripture".

The title of Mother of God was/is the springboard of several other non-scriptural (but official teachings of Rome) elevating Mary with titles such as:

The Co-redeemer with Christ.
The Mediatrix of all the graces of God.
The Advocatrix of God.

To use the phrase "Mother of God" immediately invokes the Church of Rome "Marian dogma" in the minds of almost every Christian.

In today's society I will not use the title because I don't ever want to be associated with or appear friendly to the Church of Rome again as well as my beliefs stated in previous posts."------------------------------------------------

I think this explins it well, especially this sentence, "To use the phrase "Mother of God" immediately invokes the Church of Rome "Marian dogma" in the minds of almost every Christian."...............This is the modern meaning because it is true that it immediately invokes the image HankD said it does. I did not want to say that while the pole was going on, but you deserve it, you are a great conversationallist and I appreciate the historical insights you and others have provided.

Natter said..."Christianity in general is prone to abuse and problems, as we have seen in history and the world around us."-----------------------------------------------------------------

And that is precisley why we don't need to revive any more problems.

 

"But the association is not the meaning"

If it really does have a orthodox past, but even then it would only be true if the meaning of words and phrases were static over 2 mellinia. I am no expert, but I don't think they do remain static always, especially when it is single non-scriptural phrase that started out with an agreed upon meaning in another language and culture.

 

All I can say is you better not refer to a stright man as Gay here in the usa no matter what the origianal meaning of the word is. Its not association, the original meanning has changed. And folks recognize that.

I think most of us find it problematic no matter what its past is. Even if I were starting from scratch, I think I would find it problematic and unnecessary. Christ nor the Gospel ever felt the need to rely on Mary with a title or another device to emphasis the devine nature of Christ.

 

OK, natters, seems like a good place to end the discussion. Can you name those councils again. Ephesis, and one that started with a ch... and any others. I'll do some studying on them.