The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
P H, Hardrada, DMP, Kyrie Eleison, Oviprgcat
5600 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 67 guests, and 425 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,724
Posts411,825
Members5,600
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419340
06/27/19 02:30 AM
06/27/19 02:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 545
Peabody, MA
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Utroque  Offline
Member
U

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 545
Peabody, MA
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term "Mother of God" was adopted by one of the first Ecumenical Councils. The term predates the adoption of the accepted New Testament canon of Scripture. It is a statement of the Church's theology that is related to who Jesus Christ is. It is actually auxiliary to this latter point. The whole idea of our salvation hinges on getting Jesus Christ right--Who He is. He is God in the flesh. If we don't get Him right, then we actually don't get our salvation right.


He is and shall be!

I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, I do not believe it was used at the Council of Ephesus where Mary was proclaimed "Theotokos" (Deipara, in Latin) in contrast to the Nestorian "Christotokos". My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable. They could also ponder deeply the significance of Elizabeth's cry to Mary in the Gospel of Luke: "How should the Mother of My Lord come to me?", paralleling King David's cry in 2 Samuel 6:
"How should the Ark of My Lord come to me?" And as David danced before the Ark, the unborn John leapt in his mother's womb in the presence of the Theotokos.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Utroque] #419341
06/27/19 04:12 AM
06/27/19 04:12 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 64
Paraná, Brazil
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Santiago Tarsicio  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 64
Paraná, Brazil
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term "Mother of God" was adopted by one of the first Ecumenical Councils. The term predates the adoption of the accepted New Testament canon of Scripture. It is a statement of the Church's theology that is related to who Jesus Christ is. It is actually auxiliary to this latter point. The whole idea of our salvation hinges on getting Jesus Christ right--Who He is. He is God in the flesh. If we don't get Him right, then we actually don't get our salvation right.


He is and shall be!

I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, I do not believe it was used at the Council of Ephesus where Mary was proclaimed "Theotokos" (Deipara, in Latin) in contrast to the Nestorian "Christotokos". My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable. They could also ponder deeply the significance of Elizabeth's cry to Mary in the Gospel of Luke: "How should the Mother of My Lord come to me?", paralleling King David's cry in 2 Samuel 6:
"How should the Ark of My Lord come to me?" And as David danced before the Ark, the unborn John leapt in his mother's womb in the presence of the Theotokos.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, the oldest ' Western ' translations of Thetokos were Deipara and Dei Genetrix... Mater Dei would have been more used later, I think (on the other hand, in the gospel when St. Elizabeth salutes Our Lady, she says mother of my lord).

But I don't see where to run away; being Christ totally God and totally man by hypostatic union, the Virgin is truly the Mother of God - it will take a lot of juggling to oppose.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Utroque] #419343
06/27/19 06:32 AM
06/27/19 06:32 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
Originally Posted by Utroque
... I feel the phrase "Mother of God" (Mater Dei) which is used prominently in the west, can be misleading and does seem to convey the sense that Mary somehow generates and is prior to God, and so gives umbrage to our Protestant brethren.

Originally Posted by Utroque
I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, ... My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable.

Consider, however, that in the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, the Ἄξιόν ἐστιν (It is truly proper...), has the phrase μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God). Also in iconography, Mary's title is usually the abbreviation ΜΡ ΘΥ, Μήτηρ Θεοῦ, Mother of God.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419349
06/29/19 06:17 PM
06/29/19 06:17 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,431
Hollidaysburg, PA
theophan Offline
Moderator
theophan  Offline
Moderator
Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,431
Hollidaysburg, PA
Christ is in our midst!!

The term Mother of God came out of the Christological formulations of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. In defining the answer to the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" and its next question "How does this explain His Saving Passion?" the term Mother of God comes out.

Christ is both God and man; eternal and without beginning and also born in time; He has two natures in one Hypostasis or Person. As God He is eternal and without beginning; as perfect man, He is born of a woman. There is a long theology that others may better lay out, but to deny His humanity throws doubt on whether He died as a man in His Saving Passion. One has only to look at all the old heresies about who He is and what is His nature to see how this all evolved.

The Council of Chalcedon, number 4, is where this was finally defined.

Now for Protestants who deny that anything happened in the Church prior to 1517, this all may be something hard to take. But it goes to show that Sola Scriptura has limits. Nowhere do the Christological definitions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils appear in the New or Old Testaments. The question then becomes "How do we know Who and What Jesus Christ is?" IMHO, without the Tradition that has come to us--of which the final definition of what books would constitute the new Testament has also come--there is no way to say with authority Who Jesus is or how our claim that he is God in the flesh has any more validity than the Islamic claim that He is merely another prophet.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419375
07/04/19 08:53 PM
07/04/19 08:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 64
Paraná, Brazil
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Santiago Tarsicio  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 64
Paraná, Brazil
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term Mother of God came out of the Christological formulations of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. In defining the answer to the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" and its next question "How does this explain His Saving Passion?" the term Mother of God comes out.

Christ is both God and man; eternal and without beginning and also born in time; He has two natures in one Hypostasis or Person. As God He is eternal and without beginning; as perfect man, He is born of a woman. There is a long theology that others may better lay out, but to deny His humanity throws doubt on whether He died as a man in His Saving Passion. One has only to look at all the old heresies about who He is and what is His nature to see how this all evolved.

The Council of Chalcedon, number 4, is where this was finally defined.

Now for Protestants who deny that anything happened in the Church prior to 1517, this all may be something hard to take. But it goes to show that Sola Scriptura has limits. Nowhere do the Christological definitions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils appear in the New or Old Testaments. The question then becomes "How do we know Who and What Jesus Christ is?" IMHO, without the Tradition that has come to us--of which the final definition of what books would constitute the new Testament has also come--there is no way to say with authority Who Jesus is or how our claim that he is God in the flesh has any more validity than the Islamic claim that He is merely another prophet.


Yes, but some Lutheran may argue that in the Lutheran church for a correct exposition of Sacred Scripture there are the Confessions of Faith and that, therefore, it is no problem for him the divine motherhood of Mary (not by chance that I said earlier that this understanding is not uniform in Protestantism):

The Augsburg Confession:

"Article III: Of the Son of God.

Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2] the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 3] buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."


http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article3


Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

"VIII. The Person of Christ.
7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.

9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God's blood.

10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother's womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest."


http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php


The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

VIII. The Person of Christ

24: On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.


http://bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1
(Release build 20190129)
PHP: 7.1.31 Page Time: 0.020s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 2.5834 MB (Peak: 2.6497 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2019-09-17 06:49:30 UTC