Martin Luther and John Calvin and the term "Mother of God"

[Jac3510]

Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions.

[RickD]

Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions.

Would you use it?

[Byblos]

It's not what I think Rick. it's just a matter of fact. I already granted your Nestorianism is material rather than formal, but that doesn't justify the error. You argue that very point in the OSAS debate. You're just being inconsistent, apparently due to an emotional reaction to Catholicism.

Jac, is Christotokos a proper term for Mary?

I was serious when I suggested TheoChristokos. Mother of God the Son. I think that makes crystal clear what is meant, avoiding all heresies including denying the Trinity.

[Jac3510]

Of course I'd use it, Rick. The problem is not using Christotokos. The problem is refusing to use Theotokos. That's like saying, "I'll call Jesus the Son of Man but not the Son of God." Sure, the Son of Man is an appropriate term. But using it doesn't mean you don't have to use Son of God also. Again, my problem is your refusal to use the term Theotokos. That necessarily and unavoidably implies Nestorianism. Even if you formally deny Nestorianism, the refusal to permit Theotokos necessarily implies the heresy, because if Mary is not the Mother of God, but she is the Mother of Christ, then the Person of Christ is distinct from the Person of God, which is just Nestorianism.

[RickD]

Jac3510 wrote:
Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions.

RickD wrote:
Would you use it?

Well Jac,

You wrote:

...We should not use the term Christotokos, not because it isn't true (strictly, Mary is the Christotokos--the mother of or bearer of the Christ) but because the basis for the term was to be in opposition the term theotokos...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 74#p200974

You said that we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because the basis for the term was in opposition to the term theotokos.

So, on one hand we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because it was in opposition to theotokos. But on the other hand, I have to use Mother of God.

Doesn't sound consistent to me. I can't have my issues with Catholicism, and not use the term "Mother of God". But you're allowed to have you're issues with nestorianism, and not use a perfectly good term.

[Byblos]

Jac3510 wrote:
Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions.

RickD wrote:
Would you use it?

Well Jac,

You wrote:

...We should not use the term Christotokos, not because it isn't true (strictly, Mary is the Christotokos--the mother of or bearer of the Christ) but because the basis for the term was to be in opposition the term theotokos...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 74#p200974

You said that we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because the basis for the term was in opposition to the term theotokos.

So, on one hand we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because it was in opposition to theotokos. But on the other hand, I have to use Mother of God.

Doesn't sound consistent to me. I can't have my issues with Catholicism, and not use the term "Mother of God". But you're allowed to have you're issues with nestorianism, and not use a perfectly good term.

Lol Rick, now you're really reaching. The levels you are willing to go to so as not to appear remotely Catholic is just astounding. It is like choosing to live in darkness, refusing to flip the light switch on because your electricity is supplied by a nuclear power plant on the principle of widespread nuclear power abuse.

Accepting the term mother of God doesn't make you (appear) Catholic, Rick. it does, however, make your position theologically sound, even if you may have to defend it from time to time.

[RickD]

Jac3510 wrote:
Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions.

RickD wrote:
Would you use it?

Well Jac,

You wrote:

...We should not use the term Christotokos, not because it isn't true (strictly, Mary is the Christotokos--the mother of or bearer of the Christ) but because the basis for the term was to be in opposition the term theotokos...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 74#p200974

You said that we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because the basis for the term was in opposition to the term theotokos.

So, on one hand we shouldn't use the term christotokos, because it was in opposition to theotokos. But on the other hand, I have to use Mother of God.

Doesn't sound consistent to me. I can't have my issues with Catholicism, and not use the term "Mother of God". But you're allowed to have you're issues with nestorianism, and not use a perfectly good term.

Lol Rick, now you're really reaching. The levels you are willing to go to so as not to appear remotely Catholic is just astounding. It is like choosing to live in darkness, refusing to flip the light switch on because your electricity is supplied by a nuclear power plant on the principle of widespread nuclear power abuse.

Accepting the term mother of God doesn't make you (appear) Catholic, Rick. it does, however, make your position theologically sound, even if you may have to defend it from time to time.

I was accused of being Catholic one time. I've never gotten over it! I mean seriously, do I look Catholic? I don't wear a crucifix. I don't wear a yarmulke. How anyone could think I'm Catholic, is beyond me. I don't even eat crackers.

[Jac3510]

My comments are perfectly consistent, Rick. Look more closely:

• We should not use the term Christotokos, not because it isn't true (strictly, Mary is the Christotokos--the mother of or bearer of the Christ) but because the basis for the term was to be in opposition the term theotoko

• Christotokos is an accurate description of her, as are a lot of other terms/descriptions. . . . Of course I'd use it, Rick. The problem is not using Christotokos. The problem is refusing to use Theotokos.

With exception to the verbiage of saying we should not use the term in the first and that I would use it in the second, everything is consistent. And, having written the words, I can tell you that "use it" is used in different senses in the two sentences. In the first, usage refers to Christotokos as opposed to Theotokos. In the second, usage refers to Christotokos as an accurate description (which, you'll note, is something I allowed for in my first reply).

So, if someone asked me if Mary is the Mother of Christ, I would say, yes. I would also immediately add--assuming I was talking to a non-Catholic--that she is therefore better understood to be the Mother of God. If they asked me if she was the Mother of God, I would say yes, and I wouldn't even bring up her being the Mother of Christ. If they asked me not to use "Mother of God" but instead use "Mother of Christ," I would strongly object, as I have been in this thread. Again, Christotokos is accurate as far as it goes. But it is inaccurate if it is being used as a substitute for Theotokos. And that goes back to the language I did use. I said "we" should not use Christotokos, where "we" refers to the Christian community generally with respect to this particular conversation--those who are uncomfortable with some of the Catholic devotional language to Mary. And I stand by that. We ought not use the word, because, historically (and just as much in the present, by the way), the word is used as a substitute for Theotokos and therefore implies heresy (materially if not formally). *I* on the other hand am comfortable with it because I know that I am also comfortable with Theotokos. For me, it Christotokos doesn't imply a rejection of Theotokos. But for most non-Catholics, the motivation for Christotokos is precisely in the rejection of Theotokos, and, again, the necessarily implication of a serious Christological heresy.

[RickD]

Just to be clear, I don't reject the term Theotokos. Which literally means one who bears, or gives birth to God.

I just prefer not to use that other translation.

Signed,

Heretic

[Jac3510]

*shrug* Then you are reducing Mary to a surrogate and claiming that Jesus has no mother at all.

[RickD]

*shrug* Then you are reducing Mary to a surrogate and claiming that Jesus has no mother at all.

For such an intelligent person, you can really say some ignorant things.

Because I don't like using the term, "Mother of God", to you that means I claim Jesus has no mother.

Good Jac. That's really good.

[RickD]

For anyone interested, This is the catholic "Mother of God".

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveM ... reator.htm

Let that sink in.

Instead of pulling quotes from the article, I'll just let it speak for itself.

[Jac3510]

*shrug* Then you are reducing Mary to a surrogate and claiming that Jesus has no mother at all.

For such an intelligent person, you can really say some ignorant things.

Because I don't like using the term, "Mother of God", to you that means I claim Jesus has no mother.

Good Jac. That's really good.

No, not "to me." The logic is necessary and inescapable. You don't accept the translation "mother of God." You accept the translation "God-bearer" or "one who gives birth to God." A person who bears or gives birth, but who is not a mother, is, by definition, a surrogate. If Mary was not Jesus' mother but rather simply His surrogate, then He had no mother. If, on the other hand, Jesus had a true mother, and if that woman was Mary, then since Jesus is God, Mary is the Mother of God. It is absolutely inescapable. The fact that you simply won't accept that makes you an awful lot like Kenny or our resident gappist on this particular subject. Willful blindness and intentional, irrational rejection of a proposition is the worst sort, as you well know.

[B. W.]

Well, I do not like the term, Mother of God, either as that was not how she is described in the bible but rather as Mary the mother of Jesus.

Mother of God phrase can be traced to Ishtar and Tammuz and was used to wean folks off of the paganism of that era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_(deity)

To say that Mary is the mother of God would mean God had a beginning - a mother which begs the questions where did this mother come from and who was the dad and next you are back into paganism of Babylon.

Mary bore the incarnate Jesus into the world so God and man can become reconciled. Great is that mystery!
-
-
-

[BigHamster]

Something I love to listen to before bedtime... Has the words "Theotokos - our lady pure and blessed"