As a protestant, I was hoping James would say something like, "Okay, I can easily see that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity and therefore God; but to insist that Mary was the "Mother of God" confuses that relationship. It suggests that Mary would have to be the origin of Jesus' divine nature as well. After all, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. That is, at least until you clarify that you mean she was the mother of Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.
"At face value, the statement could logically imply that Mary is also the mother of the other persons of the Trinity, which is not correct. Is not the Holy Spirit also God? If Mary is the mother of God, is she not the mother of the Holy Spirit? Clearly not, but the language of the dogma is cause for confusion.
"Even if I understand you're not really saying Mary is greater than Jesus or in some way divine, why should we use that language if it evidently is a stumbling block and cause for confusion, especially given that Scripture never applies that name to Mary. It would be more precise to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and then to clarify if necessary that she is the mother of His human nature, not His divine nature. That creates no confusion about Mary's relationship to the other persons of the Trinity, nor creates a logical dilemma about her relationship to divine nature."
I would have liked to see how Thomas would have responded.
Thanks mate. My response would be, just because something may be confusing, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't state or stress it! Try explaining the Trinity to a Muslim. That you know it *sounds* like you're saying that there are three God's but you are most certainly not! ... Someone might say, "it confuses things. Gives the impression that there are three God's," Just like you said, "It suggests that Mary would have to be the origin of Jesus' divine nature as well." Well, there aren't three God's and Mary isn't the origin of Jesus' divine nature. Theology, like any specialized discourse, get's deep quick. Dumbing down (or omitting) concepts or theological truths is not the answer. In my opinion, which is infallible, btw.
Just out of curiosity, what term would convey the nature of the hypostatic union and Mary's relationship to it better than "Mother of God"?
Not asking in a snide way, I'm genuinely curious if you've got an idea for one. It seems to be an important enough point that we need a term for it ((shoots a long, hard glare at Arianism and Docetism)).
The literal translation of Theotokos as "God-bearer" or "Bearer of God" could be preferable. That said, I have not thought about this question nearly as much as some others have.
I guess I could see that. It seems very clinical, but I guess that answers your original concern about the confusing emotional reaction/implications the term "mother" carries with it.
Christ uses the term "mother" for her from the cross though, "behold your mother." So I think it's Scripturally appropriate to refer to her as such (though I see the appeal of a purely technical term too, I suppose).
It's interesting seeing it from your perspective as someone who grew up Catholic -- where the emotional connection to her as "mother" and as an active intercessor is a part of the whole picture of my faith. The same things aren't taken for granted, I guess.
I appreciate it. Catholics and Protestants have been separated for over 500 years. It shouldn’t surprise us that we use language differently. The word prayer is a prime example. When Protestants use it they often mean it synonymous with worship. Catholics can use it to mean “request.” I can ask you to pray for me without usurping the unique mediatorship of Christ, and I can ask the saints in Heaven to do the same. Hope that sheds light on how Catholics view it.
"You don’t even finish saying, ‘All-holy Theotokos, help me’ and at once, like lightning, she shines through the nous and fills the heart with illumination. She draws the nous to prayer and the heart to Love.”
What a beautiful thing the internet could be if this is how people conducted themselves in comments sections.
As a protestant, I was hoping James would say something like, "Okay, I can easily see that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity and therefore God; but to insist that Mary was the "Mother of God" confuses that relationship. It suggests that Mary would have to be the origin of Jesus' divine nature as well. After all, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. That is, at least until you clarify that you mean she was the mother of Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.
"At face value, the statement could logically imply that Mary is also the mother of the other persons of the Trinity, which is not correct. Is not the Holy Spirit also God? If Mary is the mother of God, is she not the mother of the Holy Spirit? Clearly not, but the language of the dogma is cause for confusion.
"Even if I understand you're not really saying Mary is greater than Jesus or in some way divine, why should we use that language if it evidently is a stumbling block and cause for confusion, especially given that Scripture never applies that name to Mary. It would be more precise to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and then to clarify if necessary that she is the mother of His human nature, not His divine nature. That creates no confusion about Mary's relationship to the other persons of the Trinity, nor creates a logical dilemma about her relationship to divine nature."
I would have liked to see how Thomas would have responded.
Thanks mate. My response would be, just because something may be confusing, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't state or stress it! Try explaining the Trinity to a Muslim. That you know it *sounds* like you're saying that there are three God's but you are most certainly not! ... Someone might say, "it confuses things. Gives the impression that there are three God's," Just like you said, "It suggests that Mary would have to be the origin of Jesus' divine nature as well." Well, there aren't three God's and Mary isn't the origin of Jesus' divine nature. Theology, like any specialized discourse, get's deep quick. Dumbing down (or omitting) concepts or theological truths is not the answer. In my opinion, which is infallible, btw.
Just out of curiosity, what term would convey the nature of the hypostatic union and Mary's relationship to it better than "Mother of God"?
Not asking in a snide way, I'm genuinely curious if you've got an idea for one. It seems to be an important enough point that we need a term for it ((shoots a long, hard glare at Arianism and Docetism)).
The literal translation of Theotokos as "God-bearer" or "Bearer of God" could be preferable. That said, I have not thought about this question nearly as much as some others have.
I guess I could see that. It seems very clinical, but I guess that answers your original concern about the confusing emotional reaction/implications the term "mother" carries with it.
Christ uses the term "mother" for her from the cross though, "behold your mother." So I think it's Scripturally appropriate to refer to her as such (though I see the appeal of a purely technical term too, I suppose).
It's interesting seeing it from your perspective as someone who grew up Catholic -- where the emotional connection to her as "mother" and as an active intercessor is a part of the whole picture of my faith. The same things aren't taken for granted, I guess.
"Mary isn't divine!"
*Prays to Mary*
But in all seriousness, I enjoyed this post I think it explains the concept well.
I appreciate it. Catholics and Protestants have been separated for over 500 years. It shouldn’t surprise us that we use language differently. The word prayer is a prime example. When Protestants use it they often mean it synonymous with worship. Catholics can use it to mean “request.” I can ask you to pray for me without usurping the unique mediatorship of Christ, and I can ask the saints in Heaven to do the same. Hope that sheds light on how Catholics view it.
Is there anything in scripture that says Mary can even hear our prayers? Why not go directly to God? Surely He doesn't need a go-between.
"You don’t even finish saying, ‘All-holy Theotokos, help me’ and at once, like lightning, she shines through the nous and fills the heart with illumination. She draws the nous to prayer and the heart to Love.”