Mother of God!

I have noticed on other threads that some non Catholic faith traditions are not happy with such a title of Mary. I, as an Episcopalian, believe Mary is the Mother of God.

How can one not believe this if we believe Christ is God incarnate?

Jesus is God, and Mary raised Jesus so it does make sense to give her this title. However, Mary is not actually God’s mother because God doesn’t have a mother, so in that sense it doesn’t make sense.

If the title Mother of God meant that Mary is God’s originator, then of course, it would wrong. But, that’s not what it means. The Greek term is “Theotokos” which means “God-bearer” or “the one who bore God.”

This title was given to Mary to reaffirm that Jesus was full God and fully man from the instant of his conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. The Holy Spirit quicken Mary’s seed so that she conceived the God-man. This is what is means. Nothing more, nothing less.

Luke1:43 - And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

Our Lord is God. Mary is the mother of our Lord. It’s pretty clear.


Well I think And I hope That is really clear… that we don’t call Mary Mother of God the creator, God Father…We call Mary Mother Of God Son, Jesus Of Nazareth.

I think this can use on people who is not really educated meaning Catholics who don’t really know their faith, First thing you have to do is take Mary out of their lives, Using any possible theory.

What does “fully man” mean in this context? Does it mean G-d Incarnate as a corporeal being drained of His divinity or fully man, warts and all? Since Jesus was sinless, how can He be fully man in the strictly human sense? If it means the former, how can Jesus also be fully G-d, IOW both divine and human simultaneously? Further, did Jesus ever tell His Apostles that He was both fully G-d AND fully man? If not, who determined this?

Well stated.:thumbsup:

We believe Jesus is God but also man. His human side came from Mary, his mother.

Sure, and I would say it’s lawful to say such, but not always helpful.

Judaism, to my understanding, doesn’t necessitate a person sin to be human. Does it? He was fully human, real human body, DNA and all. Truly human, in other words; kin to us.

If it means the former, how can Jesus also be fully G-d, IOW both divine and human simultaneously?

God incarnate; He struck up a tent in human flesh and dwelt among us. You are physical and also have a spirit/soul, not either/or.

This is the mystery of the hypostatic union. Jesus is one person, with two natures. He has a divine nature and a human nature. Those who say that Jesus is a human person with no divine nature are known as Arians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those who say that Jesus has only a divine nature are known as Monophysites. Arianism and Monophysitism are both heresies as considered by the Church today. Ecumenical Councils called early in the history of Christianity settled these Christological questions and established the mystery that we know today. The “how” is part of the mystery which we acknowledge cannot be fully explained in human terms.

Well, θεοτοκος is the term dogmatically defined by Cyril and the synod which met at Ephesus, but the Greek church will often use the term μετερ θεου in iconography. The Latin Church will go even futher in referring to her not only as mater dei, but also as sancta dei genetrix.

Why not always helpful? Why do you think Mary was given this title at the Council of Ephesus? Was it to give her a pretty title? Or was it to combat the Arian heresy that denied Jesus’ divinity? Of course, it was the latter.

Mary’s position in God’s salvation plan is vitally important. If it were not, God the Son would not have bothered to have a human mother at all. He could have simply appeared in human form, but that would set up all kinds of questions about him being truly human and therefore truly the Lamb of God, the propitiation for the sins of man.

All the Marian doctrines/dogmas are in place to support a teaching about her Son, not merely to give her honor, although, since she was faithful in every respect and full of grace, it does that, as well.

It should be noted, perhaps, that historical Arians did think that Christ was divine, just not as divine as the Father. And monophysites do not deny the humanity of Christ, they just don’t articulate is clearly. You might be thinking of docetists.

Good point regarding sin. One has the potential to sin, however. Did Jesus have the potential to sin since we know He was tempted by Satan?

Thank you for this information, Elizium.

No, it was to combat Nestorianism. It’s about the hypostatic union, to defend the proposition that Mary gave birth to the second person of the trinity, rather than the heretical idea that she gave birth to a human person who just kind of happened to be somehow joined to the second person of the trinity.

In that he was fully human, yes, but since his human will was completely one with God the Father’s will, it wasn’t really possible. The Scripture tells us he was like us in all things except sin.

You’re right. Thanks for the correction. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit