Is Mary "the Mother of God"?

[eahaddix]

Is Mary "the Mother of God"? To justify this assertion, Roman Catholic apologists argue the following:

"If Christ Jesus is simultaineously man and God, [and]
If Mary bore Christ Jesus,
Then Mary is the Mother of God, or the Theotokos. Otherwise, you destroy the Incarnation by dividing Christ Jesus into two different people."

However, this argumentation employs a false dilemma logical fallacy. This issue is not about dividing the Incarnation (John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=49;)), but the legitimacy of defining the Incarnation as a "hypostatic union."

For starters, let us define the term hypostasis. The term hypostasis is composed of two parts:

hupo or hypo = "under" (ref. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %23108093))
stasis = "standing" (ref. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %2396271))

Hypostasis means "standing under" or "supporting," as in the substance, or substantial nature, which underlines the actual existence of an object (ref. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %23109195)). This is significant, for Greek philosophy differentiates between "substance" and "accidents," with:
(a) the former being the dynamic essence that "makes an object what it is," and
(b) the latter being how the object manifests or takes form to the senses.
While "accidents" depend on "a substance" to define their existence and operation, "a substance" is not defined by its "accidents." Hence, the term hypostasis was originally used by Neo-Platonists to personify impersonal forces, such as "the One," or an impersonal version of God.

When this philosophical concept is applied to (1) the Trinity and (2) the Incarnation, theological problems are created. Consider the following:
(1) Roman Catholicism defines each "member" of the Trinity as a different "person," or hypostasis, while employing the same term to describe the unified nature of the Trinity (ref. Paragraph 252 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/252.htm) of CCC). Now, if a hypostasis is the underlining substance that "makes an object what it is," then is Roman Catholicism not endorsing Tritheism?

Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them.

[Underlining by LuckyStrike]


Source: "Hypostatic Union" by NewAdvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm)

In response to this issue, many Roman Catholic apologists, such as the 4th Century Cappadocians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Fathers), redefine the Trinity as "three hypostases (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %23109195) with one ousia (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %2376030)." In this forumula, hypostasis is defined as "individual substance," while ousia is defined as "the substance of a kind." However, since Roman Catholicism views . . .
(a) God the Son as "begotten" by God the Father (Paragraph 242 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/242.htm) of CCC) and
(b) God the Spirit as "proceeding" from God the Son and God the Father (Paragraph 264 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/264.htm) of CCC) (ref. summary in Paragraphs 2789 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2789.htm), 254 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/254.htm), 246 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm) of CCC, etc.),
. . . Roman Catholicism nullifies this philosophical clarification through Ontological Subordinationism. Specifically, item (b) implies that two sources of diety exist within the Godhead. Otherwise, one must claim that divine essence, or ousia, is the sole source of deity, which results in the independent, self-origination of all members of the Godhead. Hence, either way, Roman Catholicism's Trinitarian forumla expresses the original logical problem, either through individual hypostases or the shared ousia.

(2) Despite the usage of the term "hypostatic union," Roman Catholicism claims that the humanity and divinity of Christ Jesus form "one person" (ref. Paragraphs 481 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/481.htm) and 483 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/483.htm) of CCC), or "one hypostasis" (Paragraph 468 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/468.htm) of CCC). This is illustrated by the following:

Be the case as it may in the matter of human nature that is not united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically united with the Divine, that is, the human nature that the Divine Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has certainly more of reality united to it than the human nature of Christ would have were it not hypostatically united in the Word.

[Underlining by LuckyStrike]


Source: "The Incarnation" by NewAdvent.org, Part 2, Section 4 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#II4)

However, this assertion creates two philosophical problems:
(1) If God and man are composed of different hypostases, then how can Christ Jesus exist as one hypostasis? Does this not mean that Christ Jesus ceases to exist as God or man, but rather a "God-man" hybrid?
(2) If . . .
(a) Mary is the Theotokos, or "Mother of God" (Paragraph 495 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/495.htm) of CCC), and
(b) the Godhead cannot be divided (Paragraph 2789 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2789.htm) of CCC),
. . . then is Mary not "the Mother of the Trinity"?

[CoreIssue]

Well, first off, I have never heard any Biblical person of note describe the Trinity as a hypostatical Union.

This is an effort to deny the Trinity is three distinct personages operating as a singular union God. Not a union of substance and being, but a union of purpose, function and reality that functions is such a complete harmony to be described as one.

Now, as for Christ, Mary is the Mother of Christ's humanity only. The Father BECAME the Father of his whole by sending the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, to take on humanity.

Christ is fully human in his flesh and fully God in his spirit. These two are in union that form Christ, being God in man.

As we are spirit housed in the flesh, Christ is God housed in the flesh. It does not make the flesh devine. It does not make the spirit human. It makes the total being fully God, fully man and fully both.

CARM (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm) says it very well. Christ is like us, as in being one person with two natures.

CARM (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/3.htm) also says it quite well on the Trinity.

An issue here that many do not get right is that 'being' is not limited to singular. So there is no contradiction to say God is three distinct persons composing one being (unity).

[Sid]

Is Mary "the Mother of God"?

However, this assertion creates two philosophical problems:
(1) If God and man are composed of different hypostases, then how can Christ Jesus exist as one hypostasis? Does this not mean that Christ Jesus ceases to exist as God or man, but rather a "God-man" hybrid?
(2) If . . .
(a) Mary is the Theotokos, or "Mother of God" (Paragraph 495 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/495.htm) of CCC), and
(b) the Godhead cannot be divided (Paragraph 2789 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2789.htm) of CCC),
. . . then is Mary not "the Mother of the Trinity"?


The Catholic teaching on Mary being the Mother of God leads to confusion, more questions and bad theology.



Jesus loved Mary, but did not elevate her above His other followers. In Matthew 12:46-49 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:46-49&version=49) we read, "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.' He replied to him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers.' "

Jesus didn't say that to disrespect Mary. He said that to show she was not to be given preferential treatment above His other followers. Yet in spite of Jesus' lesson to us, the Roman Catholic Church defies Him by elevating her above all others. Of course Mary was the mother of Jesus in the physical sense.

But she was not the mother of God - His God nature has existed from eternity and created her.


Response to Mary is not the Mother of God (http://www.contenderministries.org/mail/01112004marymotherresponse.php)

[Sid]

The Catholic teaching on Mary being the Mother of God leads to confusion, more questions and bad theology.



It might rightly be said that evangelicals have a tendency to ignore Jesus' mother Mary. Catholics, on the other hand, greatly exalt her. Such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption, coupled with such titles as "Queen of Heaven," "Queen of all Saints," and the "Immaculate Spouse of the Holy Spirit," make Mary in the minds of Catholics the most exalted of all God's creatures.

While Catholics propose Mary as a point of unity with other Christians, most evangelicals see Mariology as a formidable barrier between themselves and Catholics. Even evangelicals who are for the most part sympathetic to Catholicism generally view this element of Catholic belief as grossly unbiblical.

One evangelical commission on evaluating Catholic Mariology stated: We as evangelical Christians are deeply offended by Rome's Marian dogmas because they cast a shadow upon the sufficiency of the intercession of Jesus Christ, lack all support from Scripture and detract from the worship which Christ alone deserves.

Although the documents of Vatican II inform us that Mary's exalted role "neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator," most evangelicals believe Catholic Mariology actually undermines the foundation of orthodox Catholic Christology.


Mariology (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0096a.html)

[CoreIssue]

First, I don't accept the term evangelic for myself, as broadly used today.

With that said, I believe Mary, for the most part, receives the proper recognition.

God chose her to birth Christ. That is her unique historical place.

As a mother, what did she do to deserve more attention than any other mother?