Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
The Holy Theotokos St. Mary
Hello to everyone.
I was just wondering about what we mean when we say that St. Mary is the mother of God. Is it safe to say that she is the mother of God the Son?
How can God the Father have a mother, if he created all of the cosmos, and everything? If God the Father was born, that would mean that he is limited, but we know that this does not make sense. Likewise, God the Son was not limited. There is a limit to our fragile human understanding and explanations. But the main issue is this: Can we call St. Mary the mother of God the Son? Or just the Mother of God?
Please pray for me.
I was just wondering about what we mean when we say that St. Mary is the mother of God. Is it safe to say that she is the mother of God the Son?
How can God the Father have a mother, if he created all of the cosmos, and everything? If God the Father was born, that would mean that he is limited, but we know that this does not make sense. Likewise, God the Son was not limited. There is a limit to our fragile human understanding and explanations. But the main issue is this: Can we call St. Mary the mother of God the Son? Or just the Mother of God?
Please pray for me.
Comments
Be careful with that because i've heard that there was a heresy that said that she was Christotokos "the mother of Christ" and was fought by the church because how can you differentiate between Christ and god. Because Christ is God so do be careful. Anyone please correct me and/or inform my ignorance.
The term Christotokos (Birthgiver of Christ) was a compromise devised by the heretic Nestorius between the Orthodox who insisted on the term Theotokos (Birthgiver of God) and those heretics who held that she should be called Anthropotokos (Birthgiver of Man).
The problem with the terms Christotokos and Anthropotokos is that they are open to the interpretation that Christ was not fully God, something that is essential to our salvation.
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5879.msg78883#msg78883 date=1193696845]
I was just wondering about what we mean when we say that St. Mary is the mother of God. Is it safe to say that she is the mother of God the Son?
Our Lady is called the Theotokos because she gave birth to God in the flesh. It was God the Son, not the Father or the Holy Spirit, Who became flesh for our sake. Therefore she is called Mother of God by virtue of her being the Mother of the Son of God.
So what you say is correct, although unnecessary in my opinion. Well the Son was likewise the Creator of all the cosmos, without limits. But this does not mean He could not have been born in the flesh.
One must draw a distinction between Christ's eternal birth from the Father and His birth in time from the Virgin.
So what you say is correct, although unnecessary in my opinion.
What do you mean it is unnecessary. You are contradicting yourself, by saying she is the mother of God and should be called so but it is unnecessary. [glow=red,2,300]WHAT? EXPLAIN [/glow]
Orthodox11 was referring to Severus' post when Severus said that we should call St. Mary the Mother of God the Son as opposed to the Mother of God. They are, in essence, the exact same titles, and so it is unnecessary to say 'Mother of God the Son'. 'Mother of God' is sufficient.
Thanks for that :)
Be careful with that because i've heard that there was a heresy that said that she was Christotokos "the mother of Christ" and was fought by the church because how can you differentiate between Christ and god. Because Christ is God so do be careful. Anyone please correct me and/or inform my ignorance.
Yes you are right. Nestorius was the one who said that. A heretic who was patriarch of constantinople.
Perhaps Theoanthropotokos is a better title :P
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5879.msg78906#msg78906 date=1193748402]
Does not the title "Theotokos" leave open interpretation that Christ is not fully Man also?
Perhaps Theoanthropotokos is a better title :P
Not entirely. "Theotokos" means 'God-bearer' correct? Since St. Mary bore God, and St. Mary is human, God, in order to have been born to a woman, would have to become Man. Like begets like, and so humans beget humans, God begets God. In the act of begetting God, God must have taken on flesh and become man so that the equation 'human begets human' holds.
Not entirely. "Theotokos" means 'God-bearer' correct? Since St. Mary bore God, and St. Mary is human, God, in order to have been born to a woman, would have to become Man. Like begets like, and so humans beget humans, God begets God. In the act of begetting God, God must have taken on flesh and become man so that the equation 'human begets human' holds.
Exactly. And "tokos" doesn't just mean to bear, as in to carry (which is phoros), but to give birth. Therefore, the notion that the Virgin just bore God in her womb without Him taking anything from her - i.e. the gnostic position that Christ's humanity was an illusion - is also excluded.
That being said, St. Cyril the Great had to spend considerable time and effort to defend himself against charges of Apollinarianism (that Christ only had one divine nature) which were levelled against him by the Syrian Church at the time - and so even that term was not completely without ambiguity, which is why we should appreciate the fact that any one statement of doctrine cannot wholly express divine reality and we should therefore be careful not to attach ourselves soley to one form of terminology to the exclusion of others.
P.S. Apollinarius did not teach that Christ had one divine nature. I don't think anyone in the history of Christianity ever held to such a view. Apollinarius' Christology was much more sophisticated than that. The crux of the problem concerned the place, role, and meaning of the soul.
As I understand it, Apollinaris (of Laodicea) believed that Christ were to be found the (i) human body and (ii) irrational soul(Spirit of God) (rather than the rational soul of a complete manhood). The rational soul is, as I am told, the controlling and determining chief of man- and thus, the possibility for doing good and evil by Christ. So, instead, Apollinaris believed thus that in Him was the (a) the perfect Godhead, but (b) not the perfect/complete Manhood.
He thought that two perfect entities/beings cannot unite, but become hybrid or compromise the other. He also believed that Christ could not have the possibility of doing evil in Him.
The second reason is obviously false, sense we know that Christ was tempted as much as we are, but without sin. The first reason, however, is probably due to trying to use human logic to understand a Mystery, which is intrinsically faulty. It reminds me of the statement that "only negative statements about God are wholly true."
GB. pp4m.
On this point, however: The Church does not admit the possibility of Christ to sin, she simply denies the logic of Apollinarius which holds that Christ consequently could not have possessed a human mind/spirit.
You're drawing a logical conclusion which simply does not hold. The same logic (i.e. that the possibility of sin is a necessary feature of fallen humanity) was in fact employed by another heretic, the sixth century Phantasist Julian (who went as far as to argue that sin itself was in fact intrinsic to fallen humanity), who argued that Christ assumed a pre-fall humanity out of concern for the purity of Christ.
In response to both Apollinarius and Julian, the Church has acknowledged the legitimacy of their concerns (i.e. to preserve the truth that Christ could not have sinned), whilst rejecting their logic and the conclusions that follow from such logic (i.e. that Christ did not have a rational human soul or a post-fall humanity, respectively).
Sin is rooted in, and is ultimately a product of, the personal will, not the nature. The presuppositions which account for the inevitable sinlessness of Christ are in fact directly concerned with our salvation.
This is perhaps a more precise name given to her, and was first used in the second century by Origen, if I am not mistaken. Since Mother of God may confuse people. The Bearer of God is more accurate. God the Creator and Infinite can have no Mother, because He is the Origin of All, God Incarnate has a fleshly mother who is the Pure Virgin St. Mary. This is why we call her the Bearer, or Birthgiver of God. This is why we do not see the term Mother of God, in those exact words very often in our hymnology (Timah-esnouti). We use Ti-Theotokos at least thirty times more.
Theotokos = God-Bearer = Walidat Al-Elah
This is perhaps a more precise name given to her, and was first used in the second century by Origen, if I am not mistaken. Since Mother of God may confuse people. The Bearer of God is more accurate. God the Creator and Infinite can have no Mother, because He is the Origin of All, God Incarnate has a fleshly mother who is the Pure Virgin St. Mary. This is why we call her the Bearer, or Birthgiver of God. This is why we do not see the term Mother of God, in those exact words very often in our hymnology (Timah-esnouti). We use Ti-Theotokos at least thirty times more.
If you're speaking about which translation of the Greek word QeotokoV is more accurate, then Birthgiver of God is the most accurate (God-bearer would be QeoforoV, which is a title given to numerous saints - it does not sufficiently convey the notion of child birth).
However, I do not believe Theotokos can be said to be "more accurate" than the term Mother of God. Yes, it can lead to confusion among those who are ignorant of the Church's teaching, but so can pretty much everything to do with the Incarnation, not to mention the Trinity which has been a crux for countless numbers of people.
At least in the Byzantine iconographic tradition, the letters MR QU, an abbreviation of Mhter Qeou (Mother of God), appear on every icon of the blessed Virgin.
There is no fault or ambiguity in the formula. The ignorant perceptions and interpretations of some arose from, well, ignorance, or worse, the adherence to heresy; but not out of any sort of reasonable misunderstanding of the formula.
I suppose my choice of words was somewhat reckless. My point was mainly that no single word or formula can really stand alone without a context or sufficient explanation. While I realised my statement was a gross oversimplification, I had not intended it to be so to the point of error, so I appreciate the correction.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil " 1 John 3:9-10
I understand that after baptism we acquire such nature, “ If any one is in Christ he is a new creation: the old things passed away behold, new things come “ .
The same statement wouldn’t be correct before the Divine Incarnation and subsequently the baptism? I mean the people of the old did not have such renewed nature which we have gained it after the salvation so their sins were the result of their nature not of their will, Am I making sense These are my questions:
+ Does the nature we have now is the same one as that of Adam before he sinned?
+ What is the difference between the sinlessness nature of Christ and that of Adam before his fall?
+ We know that St Mary did not sin, but what is the difference between her sinlessness and that of Christ?
Sorry Iqbal, for all my inquires, I appreciate if you can explain all that points, many thanks.
That the Original Sin had caused a loss of justice and desire of the flesh (concupiscentia) darkened (but did not destroy the "image" of God in man). That Adam no longer was Sanctified by the Divine Grace, and thus he become "...natural man...who according to the flesh and has only the inborn and natural prudence(Cyril: To Romans) and thus scoffs at the "things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:14).
As I understand it, St Mary was cleansed of the Original Sin by the Holy Ghost.
I was confused. If Christ did not take on the corrupted nature, then how are we saved? I thought He assumed our flesh to Sanctify it by His Divine.
This is where I want clarification:
At this I went back to "On the Incarnation" and I read, "Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. "
So, if He did take on the corrupted nature he would have been liable of death- but because He took a pure body, He was able to surrender it by His own ammunition- a voluntary sacrifice to the Father. Hence, can save us.
Thus the necessity of Baptism to become the "new creation in Christ" by this "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
It that the crux of it?
We must remember that the salvation of man is not simply to be found in the restoration of his nature, but also in the incapacitation of the afore-mentioned influences. Potentially, but not necessarily. Baptism doesn't automatically transform us to a pre-fall condition--it's not a magical formula. It re-establishes the potential to go back to our original state and to even surpass it beyond what Adam and Eve achieved, but it is ultimately up to us to work with God's Grace and His Holy Spirit to realise that potential. Adam was sinless by Grace, until he rejected that Grace and fell into sin, whilst Christ was sinless in His humanity by virtue of the hypostatic union. The same answer as above. St Mary's condition can be likened to that of Adam and Eve. She is the new Eve, because unlike the old one, she consistently accepted and grew in God's Grace through perfect obedience to His will.
I hope I have been of some help.
Thanks a lot, you’ve been of great help
This statement can explain almost half of the holy Gospels and is a brilliant answer to the those in generals who reject the works as an essential element for the salvation of the soul. So when we hear Abouna saying to us “ The love of God the Father, the Grace of the only Begotten Son and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you “, we realize that it is a fellowship between the Grace of the Holy Spirit and us to bring our will to be in communion with the Will of God And then the sparks will start. So no matter if we are baptized and, I might say even, partaking from the Holy Eucharist, if we do not walk in the Will of God, all our life on earth are in vain.
This also explain the following :
+ The Parable of the ten virgins, the five foolish did not submit their will or did not work with the Will of God.
+ The verse that says “ Work out your salvation with fear and trembling “
+ When St Paul said “ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith....”
+ “ The Kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent shall take it with force “
+ “ Do not grieve the Spirit, do not quench the Spirit, do not resist the Spirit. “
God wills that all people to be saved, but at the end it depends where are our will!!!
Thank you so much Iqbal,
It would be a good project if someone can collect all you writing on tasbeha and categorised for anyone interested on certain subject
I'm glad my response was of some help.
On this point: I would just like to make very clear that I have been blessed to be part of various institutions and to be in contact with certain people who have presented me with unique opportunities to discover the fruits and wisdom of many great Fathers--fruits and wisdom which have been collecting dust on obscure library shelves, hidden in articles of rare periodicals, and disguised in the characters of ancient languages. Ultimately, anything good in anything I have to say comes from God through the Fathers. Consider me the irrational instrument mechanically conveying what I have read and heard. Whether by coincidence or providence, I am in the position that I am and it would be wicked of me to keep all the priveleged information I have stored for myself and my own edification. On that note, I should inform you that I am already in the process of pursuing a number of publications for the diocese to present the wisdom of the Fathers in a coherent, systematic, and academic manner for the benefit of all. I am also in the process of setting up a website dedicated to this purpose; it's only a matter of time. Be sure to keep this project in your prayers, for the sake of His Holy Fathers and His Good Name which our Fathers have promoted in such an exemplary manner.
May the prayers of our holy Fathers give you wisdom, knowledge and strength to rediscover their pearls and fruits of their writing for the Glory of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the edification of His Orthodox Church and for the benefit of such unworthy one as myself.
On that note, I should inform you that I am already in the process of pursuing a number of publications for the diocese to present the wisdom of the Fathers in a coherent, systematic, and academic manner for the benefit of all. I am also in the process of setting up a website dedicated to this purpose; it's only a matter of time.
May God bless this work!
Until that time, would you consider posting a list of available books that you consider the most valuable in the study of dogmatic theology? It's a topic I would like to begin studying at some point in the near future, and some recommendations would be greatly appreciated (not just by myself, I'm sure).