But what does this even matter, since it's not the definition used by the Council? Continuing to discuss this specific point of "mater Dei", defending it, going back and forth on it, just has to do with a translation found in the Latin middle ages. Therefore who cares about it? To me it is little more than trivia from the Latin and Greek middle ages. The literal word used by the holy Council of Chalcedon, was God-bearer. I don't care if people find if clunky or whatever. It's what the council fathers chose to use. Therefore I see nothing wrong with using it, and with sticking to the precise definition of it. We are all completely in agreement on the Chalcedonian definition. I see no need to wrangle over possibilities and hypotheticals that don't really actually matter, were never defined. They literally don't matter, except in some documents of the Latin and Greek middle ages. And if that's all that "mother of God" matters for, then who cares? It has nothing to do with Chalcedonian christology, which is all that I cared about. So at this point to avoid raising anyone's blood pressure, since clearly I did raise some people's, I'll just bow out of the thread.
Theotokos and “Mother of God” occur constantly in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy and domestic daily prayers, in both Greek and English. Somebody, remind me where Theotokos occurs in the Anglican liturgy… Anybody? This is supposed to be a pivotal dogma, solemnly defined by the great and holy 3rd Ecumenical Council (which all good Anglicans revere, we’re told), and confirmed by the 4th! Theotokos occurs nowhere in our liturgy (not even that of the ACNA!), yet some here, apparently with no working familiarity with actual orthodox Christology (let alone pain of severe persecution, as Eastern Christians have constantly faced), think it’s perfectly ok to denigrate 1,000 years of Eastern Christian piety while actively promoting crude Nestorianism. I don’t know that I can be associated with a site that tolerates that sort of thing, certainly not in the name of “Anglicanism”.
When we talk about Jesus' humanity and divinity being inseparable in all regards, what about the day He was crucified? One cannot kill God, after all; yet Jesus died. I think we need to fine-tune what we mean when we say His two natures were inseparable. And if we can draw some sort of distinction whereby God the Son was put to death, then perhaps a similar distinction could/should apply to His mortal birth as it bears upon His mortal mother.
I tend to disagree. Rather than 'deny' that Mary was the bearer of the Logos, Christotokos simply does not speak to it one way or the other. But 'Christ-bearer' certainly identifies Mary as the birth-bearer of the Christ, the Anointed One, the prophesied Messiah. Whereas Theotokos might well have been decided upon for the express purpose of upholding the Trinity, it also opened the door to a Marian magnification (as history demonstrates). Ah, well. Six and half a dozen?
Surely the tension here is with the definition of begotten? Some see the term "mother of God" as conflicting, or inviting conflict, with the statement "eternally begotten of the father". To reconcile this they divorce Jesus the Son with Jesus the man so they can say Mary never gave birth to God, and so the Son was not begotten of Mary. But it misunderstands an archaic phraseology. A birth is not a begotten-ing (forgive me), conception is. beget; (especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction. beget; to procreate as the father synonyms; to father, to sire, to spawn, to procreate, to engender, to create, to generate I agree that "God-bearer" is a more desired term because it avoids any misunderstanding. But that doesn't mean "Mother of God" is an undesired term, and certainly not heretical. Mary is the Mother of God (the Son). It is heretical to say that when Jesus calls Mary "mother" it is only Jesus the man speaking and not Jesus the Son. How then are we to distinguish which passage is the human Christ speaking and which is the God Christ?
What are some of the other improper things the RCs of our southern neighbors blend into their worship, can you give any details? I've heard stories, but never anything directly from someone who knew for sure.
I actually think that it is shame that our liturgy has failed to accord the correct title. Many Anglican Churches no observe the 15th of August 1662: blank COE : The Blessed Virgin Mary ACNA: Saint Mary the Virgin ACoA: Mary, Mother of the Lord NZ: St Mary, the Mother of Jesus TEC: Saint Mary the Virgin: Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ We have clearly seen fit to change our calendars and fall in line with the predominate western church seeming to ignore the vagaries that surround much of what is taught in that tradition. We seem to have missed our opportunity to celebrate Mary, Theotokos. I suspect that our failure to be clear about this teaching, and this council, and the Christology that it invokes, and our fear that the Chalcedonian Definition might be too much for the laity to bear, means we have left the door ajar for various inauthentic expressions to emerge, including sadly Nestorianism, Adoptionism, Semi Arianism and various forms that we might group together as Spongism.
Yep, literally God-bearer. And Mary did carry God the Son in her womb. The Chalcedonian definition does seem to weave intricately through a minefield. Some parts of it seem to be somewhat in conflict with other parts of it, to my eye, but I think we simply accept it at face value because it's the best anyone could ever come up with (and it's really quite good). It's the actual practices of certain groups, where they carry the idea of "Mother of God" somewhat to the extreme, that has bothered me over the years. And really, since mothers (and fathers) are so commonly thought of (I'm talking about the concept in the average person's mind) as having initiated or begun a new life by their physical relations with one another, that is where it gets sticky insofar as Mary's miraculous conception of Jesus; the average layperson down through the millenia didn't think about it in 'perfectly, theologically correct' terms (and some folks in other denoms still don't). I'm saying that the "Mother of God" translation has caused harm to the Body of Christ.
I think all of those are quite splendid titles! They don't leave room for the common error that certain others fell into.
Good of you to say so! It is after all the standard orthodox Christology held both East and West. I am sure the Holy Fathers will appreciate the accolade.
Yes well his divine nature could not be crucified because it is not physical and can’t die. But the person of Christ, who is divine, was crucified. So saying his divine nature can be separated from his human nature in this regard is wrong in my opinion. It wasn’t separated it’s just his divine nature can’t die and it can’t be crucified. It was still “the Lord of glory” who was crucified. Paul doesn’t even separate his divinity from his humanity in his crucifixion even if only one of them was crucified. I understand your aversion to the term mother of God because it does lead to weird beliefs in uneducated minds and ears, but that shouldn’t mean we can’t say it, or we should try and separate the person of Christ and his two natures when Mary bore Christ. We should always err on the side of Christ being inseparable rather than to try and separate his natures. I remember saint augustine said Christ offered sacrifice to his divine nature and not his human nature because sacrifice can’t be offered to humans. This was before the declaration of theotokos. I don’t know if he still would have said this. It makes sense, but at the same time confuses me… idk what to say about this one specifically lol
I think you would agree that Jesus' divine nature likewise could not have a mother, right? But my human brain goes 'tilt', I guess, when we try to say that Jesus' divine nature could neither die nor begin in a mother, and at the same time say that His divine and human natures could not be separated. Maybe it's just my finite brain, struggling.
I think it's easy to comprehend when we consider that God is spirit. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.’ ~ John 4.24 Mary is the "co-beginner" of Jesus's divine flesh, if we need to say that, but his divine spirit has always been. Mary is neither the "co-beginner" of Jesus's divine spirit, nor of his earthly spirit. This does not mean Mary is not the mother of God, because mother does not mean "creator of spirit". None of our spirits have been made by our mothers, or even in our mortal case, begotten by our fathers. Our spirit/soul is the work of God. But our mothers are still our mothers. Thusly Mary is the mother of Jesus, both the man Jesus and the Lord Jesus, for they are inseparable. "Mother of God" is not synonymous with "Creator of God" or "Beginner of God". That is why I think "God-bearer" is preferable, it's much clearer that way. Likewise when Jesus's body died on the cross, including the divine body of Jesus because His divine body is the same as his earthly body, indivisible and inseparable, his spirit was not killed, so man did not kill God. As Ezekiel says, the spirit dies through sin, not through mortal wound. That is why Jesus taught us not to fear those who would kill the body but not the soul: Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. ~ Matthew 10.28 Man did not successfully tempt Jesus to sin, neither his divine spirit nor his earthly spirit (because they are inseparable, one and the same spirit, not two persons), and so both his divine and mortal flesh died on the cross, and neither his divine nor earthly spirit were killed.
This is the historic faith of the Church. Any Anglican ought to be able to affirm this, wholeheartedly and without reservation, just as Andrewes did, and our liturgy should never have jettisoned this kind of language. The alternatives with which it has been replaced are, like much Anglican catechesis these days, wishy-washy and doctrinally non-committal. When liturgy is allowed to conform to the Chalcedonian Definition, it does indeed safeguard orthodox teaching and belief. When it is not, error and confusion prevail.
Christokos and the theology behind it was declared heretical. It should not be attempted to be rehabilitated.
I think the key phrase in your first sentence is "the theology behind it." Because, lest we forget, Nestorianism is a name that's been applied to a pair of teachings, and it is not necessary to conclude that both teachings were heresy. There is nothing heretical per se about saying that Mary was the bearer of Christ. It's only heretical if one tries to argue, as Nestorius did, that Mary can't be "God-bearer" for the particular reason Nestorius had: namely, to reject the hypostatic union. Nestorius' "two separate persons" concept was the theology which Chalcedon rejected.
However one notes historically that when people use the term Christotokos they do so because the specifically want to not use the term Theotokos. and therein lies the problem. I am a little worried by those who argue that Christ's divine nature did not die on the cross, only his human nature. This of course flies in the face of traditional atonement theologies. God loved us so much that he is prepared to die for us. The great cry recorded in the gospels, untranslated from the Aramaic (which I think gives head to the importance placed upon these words) Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani which surely must bring to mind the opening of Psalm 22. God holds nothing back in his bid for the liberation and redemption of humankind. The reason why the Church argued and deliberated so long on the matter of Christology, is because if you cant build a solid and proper theology of the Incarnation, you and likely unable to build a proper theology of atonement, and you really can't have one without the other. I spent some time amongst a group who would have preferred that Jesus had been a test-tube baby in order to ignore Mary, and ultimately their theology of the atonement was troublingly legalistic, arid, full of hell and punishment without love getting a look in. Aside from Jesus, (special case) only two human beings made it to the Nicene Creed, Pontius Pilate and Mary, one implicit in Jesus Birth and one implicit in his death. And the word became flesh and tabernacled in our midst.
The nature of Christ is a hard topic to understand. But I feel like most eastern orthodox understand it pretty well. Idk if it’s anglicans or just Protestants in general but I’m getting the feeling we on this forum are not very acquainted with proper christology… Idk if I will become Anglican now
The divine nature, being unchangeable, cannot die, neither can it suffer. 20th centuries theologies that tried to argue otherwise were a fad of the times and an intellectual dead end. The theory of atonement that does the most justice to the biblical data and is consistent with the Chalcedonian Definition is the Moral Example Theory, in my view.