I posted a form of this argument on a different forum (not CAF), but the people there seemed more intereseted in hurling insults at Catholics than addressing my points.
I’m trying to understand the hangup many people have in calling Mary the Mother of God. The way I see it, the whole thing has more to do with who Jesus is than who Mary is. (Nestorius, who first denied the title did so because of his false christology).
I did my best to formulate the Catholic position in the form of a logical argument:
Premise 1: Jesus is ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES (a human nature and a divine nature).
- Corollary 1: Jesus existed in his divine nature from all eternity.
- Corollary 2: With the Incarnation, Jesus ASSUMED a human nature and a human body.
- Corollary 3: In the Incarnation, the divine and human nature are UNITED in Jesus, without being confused (that is, without being blended together into some third, altogether different thing).
Premise 2: Women give birth to PEOPLE, not NATURES.
Premise 3: Mary conceived, gave birth to, and raised Jesus.
Premise 4: Jesus is God.
Premise 5: A woman who conceives, gives birth to, and raises a child is considered his or her mother.
Conclusion: Therefore, since Mary gave birth to Jesus, and women give birth to people, and Jesus is one person, and Jesus is God, we can say that Mary is the Mother of God.
Here is my question for non-Catholics (particularly those who deny that we can call Mary the Mother of God): Is this argument at all compelling? Is there something wrong with it that I’m not seeing?
The way I see it, in order to reject the conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God, you have to reject one of these five premises. Premises 3, 4, and 5 would seem to be acceptable to all Christians. Therefore, it seems that Premise 1 and 2 would be the most likely candidates as to where the problem lies.
So which premise is it that you don’t agree with and why?
I’m not trying to brow-beat anyone into accepting the Catholic position. I’m just trying to understand the root of the disagreement.