I think this is wrong because it separates the two natures of Christ… Mary gave birth to Christ who was a divine person. It’s not like you can separate his humanity from his divinity. That’s what the hypostatic union means. If Mary bore the person of God incarnate, she is the mother of God. She did not generate the divine nature of Christ, but she did bear the person in which there are two distinct but inseparable natures. What happens is mother of God makes it sound like mother of the godhead, which isn’t the intent at all. And the title on unlearned ears makes her sound like a pagan goddess. I think this is what Nestorius disagreed with. There was an empress that called herself the mother of god and had a special devotion to Mary. She also had her picture inside the church and made people venerate it (you can guess where icons come from…). She had beef with nestorius and so did all the people who venerated Mary. In the writings of the fathers you will see it solely as a Christological issue but that’s not what actually happened. There were a lot of people already venerating Mary and nestorius and others were uncomfortable with using the title. I think he did have christology issues but the veneration of Mary played a big part in it too. Notice the “Nestorian” Assyrian church of the East hardly venerates Saints like the EO do. This is why. After Mary got officially titled theotokos, Marian veneration went on an upswing. This is not to say the title is the cause of Mary veneration, just that it already existed.
It is in no sense “speculation”. There’s not a RC or EO theologian out there who says the Virgin Mary originated the Trinity, or the Father or the Holy Spirit specifically. Everyone understands that the Son specifically is meant. You’ll need to present some evidence if you intend to demonstrate otherwise. With respect, you seem not to understand the Chalcedonian Definition and how it is meant to be used as a “theological grammar”. One may make statements regarding one of the persons that one may not make regarding their common nature (in the case of the Trinity) or the two natures (of Christ), and vice versa. Statements or phrases like “Mother of God” or “they crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8) conform to the definition, because their plain meaning has reference to a specific person. His divine nature - shared in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit - was not crucified. Jesus the person, not his human nature, is the one through whom all things (including his human nature) were created (Col. 1:16). The Holy Spirit, not the divine nature, was sent by the Father and the Son at Pentecost. The divine nature isn’t “sent”. The divine nature is common to the Three Persons. The Persons themselves create, preserve, rule, think, will, etc., in common, because a nature is that through which a person acts, and the divine nature is one and indivisible. The Son was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, suffered, etc., not the Father (“confusion of persons”), or the divine nature (“confusion of persons”), yet the Son also created the world with the Father, to deny which is to “separate the persons”. “Without confusion or separation” must be held in perfect balance with equal tension between the two parts or one has fallen afoul of the Definition. Read On the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus. No heretic was he.
You don’t think that prayer I posted was problematic? It doesn’t matter if they don’t say it in their liturgy. Encouraged private practices are still problematic…
Okay but the divine person didn’t originate within her. So the natural meaning of the “gave birth” doesn’t apply. All I’m saying is, she didn’t originate the Son either. That’s not what the word Theotokos compels us to believe. But it is what the phrase Mater Dei compels us to believe. Thus even if you find an equivalent of Mater Dei in the Greek liturgies, it doesn’t make it one whit more acceptable. The Greeks fell into error; what else is new? Nor is it what Theotokos means! If the council fathers wanted to say Mother of God, they would have said Mother of God. They did have a specific word for that, but they didn’t use it. Thus Chalcedon remains acquitted, while the later Greek and Latin traditions have an error.
Theomitor is the greek word for mother of God. I am not sure how or why Mater Dei compels anyone to believe anything other than that she gave nurtured Christ in her womb and gave birth to him
I do not see that or similar prayers as problematic for the Orthodox. They make sense and are properly understood within the context in which they occur. They are legitimate expressions of a specifically Christian ethos and spirituality.
She most certainly did, according to his human nature. Any assertion to the contrary is Docetism. Here is the full Definition:
But God Bearer is correct or best translation of Theotokos but I prefer the Greek version as it avoids the translation issues
“God-bearer” may be the most literal rendering, but “Mother of God” communicates the same thing and is surely better English (and thus the “better” translation). No one calls their mother “Child-bearer”, and a liturgy bound by an unnecessary literalism would lose much of its beauty and spiritual quality in the process. The answer for people who don’t understand what “Mother of God” means is to educate them, not to deface the liturgy.
Ok, well. Can you explain what the difference is then between orthodox and Roman veneration and prayers to Mary? That orthodox prayer to me seems like the same thing Roman Catholics say. I genuinely don’t see a difference. Also maybe you are ok with it since you were orthodox, but it sounds so dramatic and overblown to me. And fails to account that Christ separated himself from Mary’s motherhood in order to emphasize her discipleship at the start of his ministry. Prayers that make it seem like Jesus obeys Mary or like in heaven she still has some motherly control over him are just wrong in my eyes. Mary is supposed to be submitting to God in heaven, not the other way around…
I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal to be honest. If Mary wasn’t the mother Christ who is God, then who was? I think it’s hard to understand, like the trinity. But I don’t think mother of god is a bad title. I also don’t think it’s meant to exalt Mary necessarily
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. Just to be clear, my sisters and brothers in Christ, we should be clear that what we expound in terms of the nature and person of Christ ought not to conflict with this statement.
Mary was the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, but not of the Logos who's eternal. However she was the bearer of them both (of Jesus and of the Logos), as they were united in one man: Jesus Christ the Messiah. The reason I would prefer the Theotokos to Christotokos is that it would deny that Mary was the bearer of the Logos within her womb; ie. it would deny the hypostatic union (that the Logos and Jesus of Nazareth were united). So even in her womb, she carried Logos the eternal Son, no less than the human Jesus. But she was not the mother of Logos the eternal Son. The creed says that the only source of Logos the eternal Son, is God the Father.
There is a difference in ethos between RC and EO piety with regard to reverence for the Mother of God. It is perceptible and undeniable. What precisely it consists in is something I have been trying nearly two decades to put my finger on in a precise way, without success. Although the Mother of God is mentioned far, far more often - and in much more exalted terms - in the Orthodox liturgy and in private devotion than she ever has been at any time in the Roman Catholic tradition, the Roman Catholic approach has nonetheless always felt “uncontrolled” in a way. Orthodox piety at the popular level is strictly controlled by the public liturgy in a way that Roman Catholic piety simply is not. For all the lofty titles applied to her in Orthodox services, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox Christian who wouldn’t say without hesitation that the title of Co-Redemptrix for the Virgin Mary is outright heretical. Although piety toward the Mother of God and the Saints is certainly extremely high in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a clear distinction between God the Trinity, and the Saints, that is constantly reinforced throughout the liturgy and in everyday practice. One has to experience it firsthand to fully understand and appreciate it, but it is there nonetheless. You owe it to yourself to experience it firsthand before you decide to commit yourself to one particular tradition to the exclusion of all others.
I’m sorry but this is plain Nestorianism, unmistakably and indisputably. It turns out you are more “Reformed” than you realized. Still want to take shots at Episcopalians for being “heretical”? It looks like the ACNA has its own housecleaning to do first…
I see. Could it be the orthodox never developed the concept of merits and mortal sin, so the Roman notion of praying to Mary when in a state of mortal sin as co mediatrix is foreign to them? I’ve also heard orthodox aren’t really obsessed with Mary apparitions like the RCs are. Some of them treat Fatima like prophecy from God to the church lmao. Especially the trads or sede vacant. I’m from Latin America, and I can tell you a lot of uneducated Roman Catholics there do worship Mary. Could that be it as well? Idk what else it could be. I have seen orthodox denying the term co redemptrix as heresy but then the RCs will go and say it just means Mary helped redeem us by giving birth to Christ, which the orthodox agree with. So it feels like it’s just the name that they don’t like not the actual doctrine behind it. Do orthodox consecrate themselves to Mary? Also they don’t believe Mary dispenses the grace of God like the RCs. That’s one of their worst doctrines tbh. It means that Mary is actively dispensing grace while god sits back and does nothing. Not to mention grace isn’t an object so how in the world does she dispense it? Anyways from an outside POV it looks basically the same to me. I know you said the orthodox liturgy regulates it, but it’s not like orthodox don’t pray to Mary privately. I don’t think I’d know unless I spent considerable time as both RC and EO
Of course Mary was not the mother of the Logos. She was mother to Jesus on earth and since Jesus the man and Jesus the God were joined by the hypostatic union Mary was in sense the mother of God. I am not sure anyone says or would even try to defend or even attempt to say that Mary was the Logos's mother outside of giving birth to Jesus on earth in which his human and God form were joined together. But Mother of God is not heretical nor a bad term. It does flow better than God bearer and it is not theologically wrong or harmful so there is no harm in using it.
Please everyone reread the chalcedonian definition. It is a foundational statement of orthodox christology. Even the Oriental position when properly understood is within a whisker of this.
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. This is orthodoxy. As all Anglicans we assent to this.
This exchange on this thread almost makes me wonder if I made the right decision. 8-year-old Orthodox Christians have a better grasp of Christology than most Anglicans I’ve met, including on this site. This subject is basic for the Orthodox. It’s embarassing.