HOW COULD MARY BE GOD’S MOTHER? MISCONCEPTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS

HOW
COULD MARY BE GOD’S MOTHER?
MISCONCEPTIONS
& CLARIFICATIONS

1. CLARIFICATION
2. OBJECTION 1: WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE?
3. OBJECTION 2: THE “QUADRINITY”?
4. A SIMPLE ANALOGY
5. CONCLUSION
CLARIFICATION
The dogma of “Mary Mother of God” has been greatly misunderstood,
ranging from non-Catholics to lukewarm Catholics. By saying that Mary is the Mother of
God, the Catholic Church is NOT saying that Mary is the source of the divine
nature among the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, NOR is she the source of
the divine nature of the second Person (Jesus).
An analogy would suffice in
aiding our understanding on this topic, and this would come up towards the end
of this post.
In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…
(John 1:1) This “Word” the Scriptures tell us was made flesh in the
womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and dwelt among us. This very “Word”,
the entire Christendom believes to be our Lord Jesus Christ. Now the pure fact
arises: “If Jesus Christ is truly God, then Mary is truly the Mother of
God”. But millions of others in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian
communities would not accept this aspect of the faith. The objections to this
great dogma of the faith are essentially two:

OBJECTION 1: WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE?
To say Mary cannot be the Mother of God because Sacred Scripture does not use
those explicit words places the Protestant in a very uncomfortable position.
They would also have to conclude multiple essential Christian doctrines to be
erroneous because they are not found verbatim in the Bible either. Take the
Trinity, for example. This doctrine is preeminent among all Christian
doctrines—and yet the term “Trinity” is not found in the Bible. Nor are terms
like homoousios (Greek, “same nature”; Jesus has the “same nature” as his
Father) or hypostatic union. The question the Protestant should ask is: “IS
THE CONCEPT OF MARY, MOTHER OF GOD REVEALED TO US IN SACRED SCRIPTURE?

And we will see that it is. Thus, this first objection is quite easily
dismissed. Now, let us journey through the scriptures and see how it explains
the concept of MOTHER OF GOD.

In Luke 1:43 “But why am I so favored, that the Mother of my Lord should
come to me?” A careful understanding of that phrase would cast our minds
back to the Old Testament antecedent, the conclusion becomes clear. Elizabeth
was referring, almost verbatim, to a text from 2 Samuel 6:9 wherein David
exclaims concerning the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant: “And David was
afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come to
me?’” (This I treated some days ago). When Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry
. . . Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me”
(Luke 1:42-43), Mary was revealed to be the New Testament Ark of the Covenant.
The question for us, then, is: WAS THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT THE ARK OF AN EARTHLY POTENTATE, OR WAS IT THE ARK OF ALMIGHTY GOD?

The answer is obvious; It was the Ark of the Almighty God. In the
same way, the more glorious New Testament Ark of the Covenant is not an ark of
an earthly potentate, but it is the Ark of Almighty God.
The
Catholic Church confesses that Mary is truly the “Mother of God”
(Theotokos: God bearer) (CCC 495). Mary is the Mother of God precisely because
Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth
to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to One, divine Person. To deny
this essential truth of the faith, as the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
declared, is to cut oneself off from full communion with Christ and his Church.
The
real problem with denying Mary as Mother of God and affirming Mary to be only
the mother of the man Christ Jesus is that in doing so, one invariably either
denies the divinity of Christ (as the fourth century Arians did), or one
creates two persons with regard to Jesus Christ. Either error results in HERESY
as clearly expressed “Patrology”. The Councils of Nicaea (325) and
Constantinople (381) dealt decisively with the Arian heresy. The Arian Heresy,
rather than teaching the TRUTH that Christ is One divine person with two natures—one
human, and one divine— hypostatically unified, or joined together, It teaches
that Christ is two persons with a merely moral union. The Council Fathers
understood Christians could never affirm this. The Bible declares to us: “IN
HIM the whole fullness of DEITY dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). And, “IN HIM all
things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Col.
1:16). Nowhere do we read IN THEM; we only read of HIM, the divine Person.
Hence, if one prays to a Jesus who is two persons, one prays to a “Jesus” who
does not exist!
OBJECTION 2: THE “QUADRINITY”?
“If God is Trinity, and Mary is the Mother of God, would that not mean Mary is
the Mother of the Trinity?” Actually,
it does not apply…


Paragraph 495 of the Catechism is very clear that Mary is the Mother of the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity because neither the Father nor the Holy
Spirit is incarnate. Simple enough. But the problem here may be deeper than
just a confusion of persons within the Godhead. The error that may come to mind
is: “Even if Mary is only the Mother of the second Person of the Blessed
Trinity, Jesus is just as eternal as the other two divine Persons are… Thus,
in order to be his mother, Mary would have to be equally as eternal.” (This
is wrong to conceive because it distorts the idea of the Trinity, making it a
Quadrinity).
The
root of this “Quadrinity” problem is a false understanding of what is meant
by Mary’s true “motherhood” and perhaps a false understanding of what
is meant by “motherhood” in general. Let us take a proper look at
what motherhood is concerned.

A SIMPLE ANALOGY 
By saying that Mary is the Mother of God, the Catholic Church is not saying
that Mary is the source of the divine nature among the three Persons of the
Blessed Trinity, nor is she the source of the divine nature of the second
Person (Jesus). But she doesn’t have to be in order to be the Mother of the
second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
For example: I’m the son of
my mother. But this does not mean she is the source of my immortal soul. God
directly and immediately created my soul as He does with every human being (see
Eccl. 12:7). However, we cannot conclude then that my mother is merely “the
mother of my body.” She is my mother, period! She did not give birth to a body;
she gave birth to a human person who is a body/soul composite (CHINAKA)”

Analogously, though Mary did not provide Jesus with either his divine nature or
his immortal human soul, she is still his Mother because she did not give birth
to just a body, or a soul, or a nature, she gave birth to One Person (Jesus
Christ). And that One Person is God.

CONCLUSION
The conclusion to the whole matter is inescapable: “If Jesus Christ is
One, Eternal and Unchangeable Divine Person—God—and Mary is his Mother, then
Mary is the Mother of that One, Eternal and Unchangeable God.

Leave a Reply