So a 'protestant' wants to know when and why the mother of Jesus began to be worshipped (?) or venerated (?) by those who do worship her?
Not an argument, but a question because I simply don't know.
mm.
Found this from searching my resources (I'm not a Catholic but this is a Catholic resource):
"During the first three centuries, the veneration of Mary was intimately connected with the veneration of Christ. From the fourth century onwards we find a formal veneration of Mary herself. The hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian († 373) on the birth of the Lord “are almost equally songs of praise for the Virgin Mother” (Bardenhewer, Sermons on Mary II). St. Gregory Nazianzus († about 390) refers to the invocation of Mary’s intercession by saying of the Christian maiden Justina, that she had “besought the Virgin Mary to assist a maiden in danger,” when her virginity was threatened (Or. 24, 11). St. Epiphanius († 403) teaches in opposition to the sect of the Collyridians whose members paid an idolatrous veneration to Mary: “Mary should be honoured, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost should be adored. Nobody should adore Mary” (Haer. 79, 7). Saints Ambrose and Jerome depict Mary as the prototype of virginity, and demand that she should be imitated (St. Ambrose, De virginibus, II 2, 6–17; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 38; 107, 7).
The veneration of Mary was greatly promoted by the definition of her dignity as Mother of God, advocated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, at the Council of Ephesus (431). In the years following Mary was glorified in numerous sermons and hymns; in her honour Churches were built and feasts instituted. Side by side with the Candlemas of Mary (Hypapante = meeting), and the Annunciation, which were originally feasts of the Lord, there emerged, even in Patristic times, the Feast of the Home-Going (Assumption) of Mary, and of the Birth of Mary. The veneration of Mary achieved its richest development in the Middle Ages."
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957), 215–216.
Thanks Pam.
Can you supply me with an URL for it?
I can't find the resource on the current Logos website. The resource links to the old website:
https://classic.logos.com/resources/LLS_FUNDCATDOGMA/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma
I may have inherited it from my mom's legacy Verbum package.
To the best of my knowledge,no orthodox theology has ever permitted worship of Mary - worship is reserved only to God as the Ten Ritual Commandments clearly show.
"Beneath Thy Protection" (Greek: Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν; Latin: Sub tuum praesidium) is the earliest hymn to the Theotokos - still in common use in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic Traditions. The oldest manuscript of it is third century,
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus laid the theological basis for the veneration; Hippolytus gives the first liturgical mention.
Genuinely curious...what does "worship" mean in this context?
What does "veneration" mean in this context?
How are these different? They seem like the kind of words that would be used to define each other. Since they seem like the kinds of words that have a distinction without a difference, what is the difference?
I know if you asked many people what it means to worship, many would say "to pray to"...and many pray to Mary. So, I'd like to understand and have some clarity. Thanks. Quote Logos resources if you like...or not.
I can't find the resource on the current Logos website.
There are copyright issues with the English translation of this German work. It is no longer sold by Faithlife.
many would say "to pray to"...and many pray to Mary
Sloppy language, think Shakespearean English ... one only "prays to" Mary in the same sense that you could ask a neighbor "pray thee, pray for me." i.e. prayer is always to God; pray has an archaic meaning - don't let these two facts confuse you.
[quote]veneration (Lat. veneratio, “reverence”; Gr. douleia, “homage”) The act of honoring and reverencing a person or object. In the Roman Catholic tradition, varieties of veneration are latria or adoration (for God), hyperdulia (for Mary), and dulia (for saints). See also adoration; dulia; hyperdulia; saints, devotion to.
. . .
worship (Old Eng. weorthscipe, “worth-ship”) The service of praise, adoration, thanksgiving, and petition directed toward God through actions and attitudes. Christian worship is Trinitarian in form as praise is offered to God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Donald K. McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 348.
For Catholic theological perspectives on your question, I happened across what follows a few weeks ago:An accessible book from Logos is: De Montfort, Louis Mary. The Secret of the Rosary. Trans. Mary Barbour.
But don't buy it like that, buy it like this: https://www.logos.com/product/31760/st-louis-de-montfort-collectionDiscussions will include reasons for veneration such as:
If you want to go way back to OT origins: https://www.logos.com/product/42676/the-mother-of-the-lord-vol-1
This is not Catholic in perspective, yet interesting.
Searching Logos for these notions will help:
Regarding origins, search Logos (and elsewhere) for:
Specifically research:
A distinction should be made between Roman Catholic theology and practice. Mary is worshiped as the mother of God by many.
Excellent point, though MJ was careful in her wording to be specific. And all theologies are largely academic (vs actual behavior).
The Fundementals quote above was suspiciously worded, similar to protestant traditions. But watching the gospel move into folk worlds, I wouldn't be surprised if 'Mary' preceded the 'theology', the churchmen playing catch-up.
So a 'protestant' wants to know when and why the mother of Jesus began to be worshipped (?) or venerated (?) by those who do worship her? Not an argument, but a question because I simply don't know. mm.
here is a lengthy quote from an article on Mary in the Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality which is offered in Logos/Verbum. I got it when purchasing Verbum Gold, I believe.
In the Synoptic Gospels the mother of Jesus makes few appearances during Jesus’ public life. One significant incident is recounted by all the Synoptics. When the family of Jesus come searching for him, Jesus comments to the disciples that his true family is constituted by “those who hear the word of God and act on it” (Mark 3:20–35; Matt 12:46–50; Luke 8:19–21). Each of the Synoptic texts, however, interprets this incident somewhat differently. Mark implies a contrast between the physical family and the eschatological family, so that Mary and the brothers appear as examples of unbelievers in contrast to true believers. Matthew weakens this negative interpretation somewhat, while Luke’s Gospel makes Mary and the brothers positive examples of disciples who hear and act on the word of God. This Lukan interpretation anticipates and prepares for Acts 1:14, where Mary is pictured among the gathered disciples on Pentecost, traditionally considered the foundation event of the Church.Central to understanding John’s view of Mary is the account of her role at the foot of the cross (John 19:25–27). When Mary is given to the beloved disciple as his mother and he is given to her as her son, she is seen as a model of belief and discipleship, member par excellence of the believing community.From this rather meager biblical information has grown the complex and sometimes extravagant history of Marian devotion in the Church. Countless artists have taken Mary as their subject, poets have found inspiration in her, and theologians have analyzed her role in the mystery of redemption. The symbolic truth that the Marian tradition reveals about God, ourselves, and the Church far exceeds the limited historical information we possess. Nevertheless, the sober limitations of the biblical material provide a check against the extravagance that has been a permanent temptation of the Marian tradition.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTIn spite of the scarcity of information about Mary supplied by the Gospels, she very quickly became an object of both interest and devotion. The apocryphal mid-2nd-century Protoevangelium of James purported to supply a good deal of biographical information lacking in the orthodox Scriptures, such as the names of Mary’s parents, her presentation in the Temple, the choosing of Joseph as her husband, etc. Belief in the virginal conception and birth of Jesus, which became important themes for many of the Church Fathers, was also reinforced by the Protoevangelium. This work provided the background for much later popular devotion and artistic imagination. Another early evidence of popular devotion to Mary is found in the prayer Sub tuum praesidium, “Mother of God, [hear] my supplications; suffer us not [to be] in adversity, but deliver us from danger,” which is thought to date in an early form to the 3rd or early 4th century. Many scholars see in this prayer aspects borrowed from the goddess tradition, especially noting that in it Mary is invoked as a power in her own right.Theological themes of the patristic period concerning Mary include an increasing tendency to parallel Eve and Mary. Eve is depicted as the woman whose disobedience brought sin into the world, while Mary’s obedience, in the words of Irenaeus, became “the cause of salvation both for herself and for the whole human race” (Adv.Haer., 3.22). The early dogmas concerning Mary’s virginity and motherhood became part of the Church’s tradition during this period. Belief in the virginal conception of Jesus has its roots in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Scripture scholars today remind us that the intent of the affirmation of virginal conception is Christological: It is an affirmation that Jesus is Son of God and Son of David, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Although this belief reinforced early ascetic ideals, it is reinterpreted today within a different worldview. “Society and religion should not esteem [Mary’s] virginity for ascetic reasons; rather, like her motherhood, her virginity points toward service to the poor of Yahweh” (Gebara and Bingemer, p. 108). Belief in Mary’s virginity during and after Jesus’ birth is postbiblical in origin and is indicative of the growing interest in Mary herself, which eventually developed into Mariology.The greatest early impulse toward Marian theology and devotion, however, came from the proclamation of Mary as Theotokos, or “God-bearer,” at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. Although the concern was Christological, the affirmation of both the full humanity and divinity of Jesus led to the conviction that the woman who bore him can appropriately be called not only Mother of Jesus but Mother of God.The relationship of Mary and the Church, a theme retrieved as a central image at Vatican II, also appeared for the first time in the creative pastoral theologizing of the Church Fathers, especially Ambrose. The official teaching of the Church through the patristic period, exemplified by the Latin Fathers Ambrose and Augustine, although increasing in Marian devotion, continued to emphasize its Christological origin and impetus.Before moving to the medieval period, it is important to mention the most important Marian hymn of the Greek Church, the Akathistos, which is thought to have originated in the 6th century. This hymn celebrating the incarnation and Mary’s virgin motherhood is still used in the Byzantine liturgy. It is punctuated by a series of salutations to Mary that celebrate her role as Theotokos in the salvation of the world. “Hail, you who carried in your womb/the guide for all who stray …. Hail, pardon for those who have repented; / Hail refuge for those who despair.” Mary is the receptacle of wisdom, mighty intercessor, and minister of divine goodness. In this very influential hymn, the tendency to attribute to Mary power and activity more properly belonging to God alone is clearly evident. The poetic imagery of this lovely hymn and others of the same genre began to be taken literally and to influence the development of the theological tradition about Mary.This became very obvious in medieval times, which saw the development of ever-increasing Marian devotion sometimes leaning toward extravagance. Jesus appeared more and more distant in the theology of the period, as well as in the popular imagination, and was often viewed as stern king and judge. Mary became the gentle intercessor, able to change her Son’s mind...
Michael Downey, The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 635–637.
To the best of my knowledge,no orthodox theology has ever permitted worship of Mary - worship is reserved only to God as the Ten Ritual Commandments clearly show. A distinction should be made between Roman Catholic theology and practice. Mary is worshiped as the mother of God by many.
only God is worshipped. The title “Mother of God” implies no divinity. It acknowledges who Jesus is. I might suggest looking into the Refutation of the heresy of Nestorianism to understand this more fully.
Found this from searching my resources (I'm not a Catholic but this is a Catholic resource): Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957), 215–216.
Perhaps the prior paragraph would help from what was quoted above
"In view of her dignity as the Mother of God and her fullness of grace, a special veneration is due to Mary. This is substantially less than the cultus latriae (= adoration) which is due to God alone, but it is higher than the cultus Duliae (= veneration) due to the angels and to the other saints. The special veneration thus given to Mary is called cultus hyperduliae."
Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 215). St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company.
The entire article is from page 635 to page 645
and ends with "Mary calls us today particularly to listen to the voices of those traditionally marginalized by Church and society, women and the poor."
Downey, M. (2000). In The New dictionary of Catholic spirituality (electronic ed., p. 645). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
This discussion has gotten derailed on the mistaken assumption that Marian devotion is a Catholic phenomena. Here is my annual appeal for you to read Macquarrie, John. Mary for All Christians. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 2001.
A distinction should be made between Roman Catholic theology and practice.
True, but no more so than in other groups. I find most American Catholics know and make the distinction even if it is not evident in their practice. Reminds me of a ninety-something retired Presbyterian missionary to China who was surprised to discover Catholics were not required to pray the Rosary and the reason for chant over metered music was that the former respects the original text while the latter requires that it be adapted to meter.
I might suggest looking into the Refutation of the heresy of Nestorianism to understand this more fully.
Having been reading Athanasius recently, I have read that his is the earliest preserved use of the term for the refutation of the Arians. This only reinforces your point that the use of the term Theotokos is a Christological and Incarnational issue. I also discovered that the Logos Preaching Themes do not have an entry for Incarnation but rather fold it into Jesus:Birth as if it were a matter of physicality rather than "before the beginning of time/nature of God" issue as presented in the church fathers.
So a 'protestant' wants to know when and why the mother of Jesus began to be worshipped (?) or venerated (?) by those who do worship her? Not an argument, but a question because I simply don't know.
Philipp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, was once a free book, so there is the chance that you have it in your library. Look at § 81 through § 83.
Michael Downey, The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 635–637. The entire article is from page 635 to page 645 and ends with "Mary calls us today particularly to listen to the voices of those traditionally marginalized by Church and society, women and the poor." Downey, M. (2000). In The New dictionary of Catholic spirituality (electronic ed., p. 645). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
interesting!
yeah, I only included what I did because it bridges NT origins with some theological development, which was the OP query. I really like that ended, though. Hadn't read through the whole article. Thanks, David.
Certainly the original focus of the phrase "mother of God" was christological - it was an assertion that Mary's son was God, incarnate, and not just another good Jewish boy. I think the issue for most Protestants is twofold:
Certainly the original focus of the phrase "mother of God" was christological
The issue was/is Theotokis vs. Christotokis.i.e. was the foetus from the very conception God or did the child become God at a later date?
The distinction between "worship" and "veneration" seems a bit artificial
Or necessary as it has been used for millennia in multiple cultures -- or don't you believe in war and sports heroes? Saints are simple heroes of faith, often by popular proclamation/demand. Mary is a superhero because none can equal her achievement - we cannot parent and guide a young Jesus.
least looking in from the outside, there doesn't appear to be much practical difference in how the two are expressed;
From the inside, I find it harder to find the similarity which is why I gave the example of the elderly Presbyterian missionary. If you don't know where to look you won't see the difference e.g. Sarum chanted psalms vs. Tate and Brady or Sternhold & Hopkins
The idea that we need any other intercessor that Christ is inconsistent
It is also inconsistent with the Catholic/Orthodox view ... unless you are saying Protestants never use intercessory prayer - only petitionary & praise. If you promise to never ask a friend or relative to pray for you, I'll promise to never ask a saint to pray for me. The actual theological difference is best illustrated by walking into a traditional Eastern Orthodox church - all the walls are covered with icons of saints ... minor saints lower down, major saints higher up. Why? Because the worship service is the celebration of the whole church, living and dead, in union with the single universal celebration in heaven. So asking a saint to pray for me is as natural as you asking someone in your congregation.
I think the issue for most Protestants is :
To be blunt ... these same questions have been asked so many times and the answers not heard that I think the issue is more willful.
To get back to Logos - for a popular introduction to the issues I suggest:
Richard Foster on Prayer is the best you'll find on separating intercessory prayer out as 1 of the 15 types of prayer he discusses.
Do you mean: "Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home", Richard J. Foster ?????
I don't get this distinction, per se. MJ are you saying that if one says it is Christological that it can only mean that the child became God at a later date? As for "theotokos," I think I get what it means, meaning NOT that she gave birth to the original God (as in "God began when she gave birth") but that the child WAS God. However, I still have found it odd phrasing, because generally we think of someone being born INTO existence (after a gestation period, of course). Mary was not prior to God. I realize this is NOT what it means, but I think this is a quite normal/reasonable concern for people to have who were not raised with that word, because it does kind of sound like "Mary started God." Add to that all the Protestant concerns of their sense of overreaching by Marianist and even, perhaps, mariolotry, and, well, it makes them a little skittish. But, hopefully, they/we can learn.
THAT SAID, I'm curious, do you know of any Logos works that wrestle with how the humanity and divinity of Jesus intersect from an orthodox position? Certainly Luke seems to take a kind of process theology view: "little Jesus grew in wisdom, etc." I've kind of wondered: was there a divine Spirit saying "help, I'm a God trapped in a babies body!!! I REALLY can understand you all, I DON'T need to speak gibberish, but I got to play along to keep up appearances..."
I've always both accepted this and struggled with it, too. I DO think that some people border on worship of Mary which makes the protestant observer a bit more confused when Catholics assert that Mary is not worshipped. However, perhaps a Protestant version is those who essentially worship a leather-bound KJV Protestant Bible....
Since we don't have Pelikan's book on Mary
a shame
Oooooo, very interesting!
MJ, I appreciate your taking the time to provide a detailed and thoughtful response, and I apologize if offended you. I wasn't trying to win an argument here - I was just trying to articulate my sense for where the issues lie when seen from the Protestant perspective. That's why I tried to use words like "I think", "issue for most Protestants," "seems" and "with a Protestant view". I have been in Orthodox churches and cathedrals and seen the rows of icons, and quietly observed the devotions. I've been in Catholic churches and cathedrals as well, and observed those devotions. I recognize the sincere piety that's being expressed, and the centuries of tradition that lies behind those devotions. I believe I understand the point of view you're articulating, and I respect it. Having said that, these things do look very different when seen through Protestant eyes.
That being the case, I think this is a bit uncharitable.
There have been generations of devout and sincere Christians on both sides of these disagreements who have simply been unpersuaded by the arguments raised by the other "side." If that weren't so, these arguments would have been consigned to the dustbin of history (and I'd be likely be Eastern Orthodox).
MJ, I do apologize - I did not intend to make light of your tradition.
It is also inconsistent with the Catholic/Orthodox view ... unless you are saying Protestants never use intercessory prayer - only petitionary & praise. If you promise to never ask a friend or relative to pray for you, I'll promise to never ask a saint to pray for me.
I suspect this discussion has much to do with modern sensibilities, especially on the p-side. In late 2nd Temple, there was a whole jewish pantheon of angels, to try to either get YHWH's help, or at least help, if YHWH was too distant. The Saduccee's refusal for angel-something (who's to say) suggests how purvasive it was ... even the Qumranites. It's hard to imagine formal 'helpers' could instantly disappear (except with the likely end-time just years away). More likely (judging from NT-apocrypha), a slow formalization. P-land arrived with the new greek thinking.
I don’t doubt that there will be misinterpretation in any denomination. But it seems to me that we need to make a distinction between what the Church teaches and what certain people in error think the Church teaches. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not want the faithful to worship Mary, and seek to correct those who misunderstand the proper veneration.
THAT SAID, I'm curious, do you know of any Logos works that wrestle with how the humanity and divinity of Jesus intersect from an orthodox position?
I have been meaning to dig into the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, and to a lesser extent those of Leo the Great. I would think they would be a good start. And of course any Church History text should have some information about both the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In particular, JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines has a good discussion.
hat there will be misinterpretation in any denomination. But it seems to me that we need to make a distinction between what the Church teaches and what certain people in error think the Church teaches. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not want the faithful to worship Mary, and seek to correct those who misunderstand the proper veneration.
Indeed.
Just to (simultaneously) clarify and confuse the issue, in times past and as such in some older books we may find in our Logos/Verbum libraries, the meaning of the word "worship" was broader than it is today. It also encompassed what would now be considered veneration. The contemporary worship/veneration distinction follows the Greek distinction between latria and (hyper)dulia. You'll find this older use of "worship" in play in Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God with an Appendix on the Worship of the Saints, Relics and Images, Dogmatic Theology (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1919).
I've always both accepted this and struggled with it, too. I DO think that some people border on worship of Mary which makes the protestant observer a bit more confused when Catholics assert that Mary is not worshipped. However, perhaps a Protestant version is those who essentially worship a leather-bound KJV Protestant Bible.... I don’t doubt that there will be misinterpretation in any denomination. But it seems to me that we need to make a distinction between what the Church teaches and what certain people in error think the Church teaches. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not want the faithful to worship Mary, and seek to correct those who misunderstand the proper veneration.
David, exactly. which is why I think the more the various "sides" talk and listen and maintain and open posture of learning, a lot of misinformation could be dispelled and perhaps a bit of nuance and complexity introduced. (rather than something being all bad/all good.).
My dad left the Church as a teen and also interned with a former RC priest in Quebec City, who was abused and maligned by some current priests/hierarchy...so all I got were negative impressions about RC faith/practice. It wasn't until college and seminary as I expanded my horizons, had a non-denom prof who PhD'd at St Louis U, formed close friendships with deeply Catholic Christians, spent time at John Michael Talbot's hermitage/monastery that I was able to have new information and experiences to change the negative prejudices from the past. I even was starting to discern whether I should convert. While I never did, I'm thankful that I am not quite as ignorant as I was.
oh, heck, I still have LOADS of ignorance in all things, but...that's another story.
THAT SAID, I'm curious, do you know of any Logos works that wrestle with how the humanity and divinity of Jesus intersect from an orthodox position? I have been meaning to dig into the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, and to a lesser extent those of Leo the Great. I would think they would be a good start. And of course any Church History text should have some information about both the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In particular, JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines has a good discussion.
Thank you! I'll look at what I have so far in my library related to them. [Y]
Apology accepted. I know you're intentions were good ... its just that the 5,438,543rd time one has to explain that the Catholic and Orthodox do NOT worship or pray to Mary, it gets a bit tiresome. Especially when it's the 327,432nd time in the same forums ... okay, the numbers might be a wee bit exaggerated.
Having said that, these things do look very different when seen through Protestant eyes.
Having been raised in a conservative Protestant (Stone-Campbell) Church, with my father the elder, my late-grandfather the preacher, my great late-late grand uncle the founder of several such churches in the area, and on my mother's side a long line of Congregational preachers ending at her grandfather, I assure you there was no lack of understanding or charity. I recognize the standard "talking points" because I was taught them. Comparing the issues theologians find separate us when they are in ecumenical talks actually trying to understand each other to the nuggets laity were taught and repeatedly toss out, I think "willful ignorance" is an apt description. My favorite example was on a discussion of canon. Person A and myself agreed we lacked a common vocabulary. We had a pleasant exchange working out a common vocabulary to use. We start the discussion of canon. Person A in their very first statement interprets the Westminster statement in a way that violates the common vocabulary. That is what I mean by "willful ignorance" - an unwillingness to give up the meaning of a word in your particular tradition to understand what it means in another tradition.
There have been generations of devout and sincere Christians on both sides of these disagreements who have simply been unpersuaded by the arguments raised by the other "side." If that weren't so, these arguments would have been consigned to the dustbin of history
I wish I believed this but what I see are disagreements that preserve cultural differences that the laity value while the theologians find unity. As we saw during the heyday of ecumenical mergers - leadership agreement does not mean laity will follow.
Athanasius On the Incarnation is a solid starting point. Not in Logos but a useful sidekick is Thomas G. Weinandy's Athanasius: A Theological Introduction.
These issues could be debated passionately Ad infinitum, but that probably is beyond the scope of this forum or the desire of Faithlife.
Just sayin.
if one says it is Christological that it can only mean that the child became God at a later date? As for "theotokos," I think I get what it means,
I suspect my distinction is too stringent - being very thoroughly post-Nestorian:
"> We proclaim the Holy Virgin the Theotokos, because it is she who bore God when the Lord truly became incarnate of her. We know that she is the Christotokos, because she bore Christ. But since the snake-bit Nestorius abused this latter term to the detriment of the word Theotokos, we do not call her Christotokos at all, but look only to the more excellent and call her Theotokos. W. A. Jurgens, trans., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 3 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970–1979), 348.
We proclaim the Holy Virgin the Theotokos, because it is she who bore God when the Lord truly became incarnate of her. We know that she is the Christotokos, because she bore Christ. But since the snake-bit Nestorius abused this latter term to the detriment of the word Theotokos, we do not call her Christotokos at all, but look only to the more excellent and call her Theotokos.
W. A. Jurgens, trans., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 3 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970–1979), 348.
[quote]Cyril, rightly or wrongly, interprets Nestorius’s reluctance to describe Mary as theotokos as a threat to the reality of the union of God with human nature, a reluctance that in turn threatens the benefits obtained through such a union. For it is through the appropriation of human nature that the benefits of salvation are communicated to that nature by God and no other. In Cyril’s words: “since it was his own [the Word’s] and personal flesh, that of the incorruptible God, he set it beyond death and corruption.” Hence, all human nature, or, as Cyril puts it, “human bodies,” can be revitalized through “participation in his holy flesh and blood.”
Christopher A. Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2002), 90.
[quote]
1.5 Theotokos or Christotokos?
The virginal birth of Christ is not called into question in the dogmatic controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries. We should however investigate in what way theologians call upon the virginal birth to express their conviction regarding the divinity of Christ or his unity. Let us look here at two quite different forms of the Christological theme.In his apology for the incarnation of the Word, Athanasius appeals to the virginal birth as a not to be neglected proof for the divinity of Christ: “He who made that body is also the author of the other bodies”. His birth in the flesh is “inexpressible generation” (Is. 53:8), for no one can speak of his father according to the flesh, if his body be not born from a man but from a virgin only. For Athanasius, it is the Word of God who is born of a virgin in this way, or who moulds his own body to himself. Not only is the Word himself working in Mary, but he proceeds from her in this world. In one word, the virginal birth is expressed in the Alexandrine title Theotokos.Nestorius, on the contrary, rejects the title Theotokos and affirms that according to the scriptures God has passed through the holy Virgin, mother of Christ (Christotokos), for he has not taken the origin of his birth in her in the way in which his body is born from her. There is one Christ, who is born of the Father according to divinity and of the holy Virgin according to humanity, since there is union of the two natures.
A. Houssiau, “The Virginal Birth of Christ,” in The Incarnation: Ecumenical Studies in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed A.D. 381, ed. Thomas F. Torrance (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1998), 115–116.
These issues could be debated passionately Ad infinitum, but that probably is beyond the scope of this forum or the desire of Faithlife. Just sayin.
Noted. I will take more care to keep answers Logos oriented.
