[Tj3]

Mary's role is different. She had no power outside of that of being the Mother of God.

She was not and could not be "mother of God".

1) God is a trinity - she was not mother of the Holy Spirit and the Father in any sense.
2) A mother pre-exists the chikld - she did not pre-exist God. Indeed, Her son created her.
3) She was merely a vessel through whom God entered the world. God was not conceived in her womb.

Christ on the other hand was fulfilling prophesies of the Old Covenant.

Yes He was.

The temple which held him for 9 months was and remained a Tabernacle. Until Christ, God remained behind a veil. Behind that veil was the Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God.

Really? I could quote so many passages in the Old Testament where God spoke with men directly. Shall I?

Let me give you one conversation:

Judg 13:15-22
15 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "Please let us detain You, and we will prepare a young goat for You." 16 And the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Though you detain Me, I will not eat your food. But if you offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the LORD." (For Manoah did not know He was the Angel of the LORD.) 17 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "What is Your name, that when Your words come to pass we may honor You?" 18 And the Angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?" 19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on-- 20 it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar-- the Angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. 21 When the Angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!"
NKJV

Where was the veil?

In Mary's womb, God remained behind a veil which was too, the dwelling place of God.

Do you deny the omnipresence of God? Are you saying that the trinity became flesh through Mary? Or are you denying the trinity?

[arcura]

ScottRC,
That is a superb answer and post regarding "Mary ever virgin".
Accurate and Very well done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

I'm not sure what I'm looking for on those sites.... they don't declare that Mary MUST have been anything or else Christ could not save us.... or anything even close from what I skimmed over.

The doctrines and teachings about Mary DO NOT improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but are meant to help us live more fully by it.

I wasn’t trying to suggest anything of the sort. But, obviously I need to work more on articulating my thoughts and providing scriptural confirmation.

Again, the fifth ecumenical council makes it quite clear that the proper subject of Jesus Christ... even in the womb.... is his DIVINE PERSON. So, contrary to what some may believe, he was ALWAYS without sin (the Holy Spirit did not "make" Him so) and never could have been contaminated by sin.

In my own defense, I’ve got to respond to this. My intent wasn’t to say that Mary MADE Christ pure; but rather because he was pure she too needed to be pure.

Now that I’ve trampled all through the rose garden; I’m going to drop this approach for now; at least until I can evaluate my position. Obviously I need to re-formulate and restate my thoughts to better conform to the Teachings of the Church.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777,
Yes you are right.
Obviously, because baby Jesus in the womb was pure Mary HAD TO BE pure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[ScottRC]

In my own defense, I’ve got to respond to this. My intent wasn’t to say that Mary MADE Christ pure; but rather because he was pure she too needed to be pure.

... and this is blasphemy.

Christ did not NEED Mary to be anything...

Looking forward to chatting after you gather your thoughts.

[Wondergirl]

[Jesus] was pure she too needed to be pure.

Not at all. Mary is the perfect example of the whole point of the Gospel message--even though we are steeped in sin and guilt, God comes to us wherever we are and sends His Holy Spirit to dwell within us. Like with Mary, despite our fallen state, God is willing and even eager to work miracles of love within us.

[Tj3]

JoeT777,
Yes you are right.
Obviously, because baby Jesus in the womb was pure Mary HAD TO BE pure.

Then for Mary to be pure, her parents would have to both be pure, right back to Adam and Eve. If they were all pure, then Jesus' death on the cross was for nothing.

ScottRC described this claim accurately in post #146.

[JoeT777]

... and this is blasphemy.

Christ did not NEED Mary to be anything.....

Looking forward to chatting after you gather your thoughts.

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.

JoeT

[ScottRC]

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.

Granted... but appreciating for God's plan does not mean that we must try to force additional meaning upon the role of Mary, and certainly not at the expense of the truth about our Lord.

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

Totus tuus,
Scott

[Tj3]

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.

What you claim He did with Mary is only true if we find that it is validated by God's word. It is not true simply because one of more men believe it.

In this case the claim is not just not found in scripture, it is refuted by scripture.

[arcura]

ScottRC
Agreed!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary .... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility.... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

That "simple handmaid" would reject being given attributes of deity.

[JoeT777]

Granted.... but appreciating for God's plan does not mean that we must try to force additional meaning upon the role of Mary, and certainly not at the expense of the truth about our Lord.

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary .... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility.... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

Totus tuus,
Scott

Professor Scott:

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night. It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:

21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

JoeT

Question for the Prof: Unrelated to topic - What's a "camel dance"? St. Jerome seems to take some kind of pleasure in watching a "camel dance." Do you know what he means?

[Tj3]

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night. It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:

Why would it matter what he thought? Would you not agree that God's word is more important?

[arcura]

Tj3,
No one that I know of has given Mary, the mother of Jesus, divine attribute status.
So what were you inferring when you said this "That "simple handmaid" would reject being given attributes of deity."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ScottRC]

Professor Scott:

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be respectful or just a jerk... if it is the former, please know I don't expect you to do anything other than what pleases you.

If it is the latter, feel free to put me on "ignore".

It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:

So did Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius... and me. ;)

Not sure what point you are trying to make...

Question for the Prof: Unrelated to topic - What's a "camel dance"? St. Jerome seems to take some kind of pleasure in watching a "camel dance." Do you know what he means?

While I can't be sure, I heard the term used while in Africa referring to the practice of tying up one of the front legs of a Camel to prevent them from running away... when they try, they simply bounce and shake (dance)----- and so it's generally used as a reference to a futile attempt at something... but again, I can't be sure that's what Jerome is referring to.

Peace.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
No one that I know of has given Mary, the mother of Jesus, divine attribute status.

Not true, one cannot be "mother of God" without being another god. Scripture says that only Jesus (God) was sinless, and yet this attribute of deity is attributed to Mary.

These are just a couple. Alphonse Liguori also said that God would have bow the knee to Mary, that Mary must be worshiped, and that she was omnipotent.

[ScottRC]

Not true, one cannot be "mother of God" without being another god.

Just FYI:

Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.
Theotokos - OrthodoxWiki

Scripture says that only Jesus (God) was sinless, and yet this attribute of deity is attributed to Mary.

You'd be correct if the teaching was that Mary did this on her own, but the teaching simply states that Mary was preserved from sin BY CHRIST... so, the charge of a "divine attribut" does not work here either.

These are just a couple. Alphonse Liguori also said that God would have bow the knee to Mary, that Mary must be worshiped, and that she was omnipotent.

I love his Stations of the Cross, but all in all I think St. Liguori was a nut! :D He was quite wrong if he indeed said any of those things.

Be well.

[arcura]

Tj3,
You and I have been through that before an I provided several bible passages that show that Mary was/is the mother of God the Son.
You however rejected what the bible said.
And it is just your opinion that Mary being the mother of God gives her divine status.
With God all things are possible and the bible tells us that God had a human female be the mother of His Son who at the moment of conception was God the Son.
So the bible says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Just FYI:

Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church.

As I have indicated before, my beliefs are not driven or directed by the teachings of any denomination or the councils of that denomination.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

The problem here is that to correct one error, the denomination chose to go too far the other way, creating a second error.

Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.

The problem is that when you use extreme terminaology like this, regardless of whether the original intent was not so radical, over time we end up with people today who teach that Mary was indeed the mother of God, which requires that she be a god in her own right and pre-exist God..

You'd be correct if the teaching was that Mary did this on her own, but the teaching simply states that Mary was preserved from sin BY CHRIST...

It does not matter how. It is still contrary to scripture, and scripture still says that ALL have sinned except Jesus. There are no other exceptions, therefore one would have to be God to have not sinned.

I love his Stations of the Cross, but all in all I think St. Liguori was a nut! :D He was quite wrong if he indeed said any of those things.

Are you aware of that he was declared a doctor of your denomination?