Replies

Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.

A:
Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.

B:
Evelyn is the mother of a fireman.
Gordon is a fireman.
Evelyn is the mother of Gordon.

C:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.

D:
Mary is the Mother of God.
The Trinity is God.
Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.

Arthur, this is too good not to keep.

I can't believe that you have not received a reply to this yet /SARC.

Maybe we should ask another non-Catholic:

Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.

A:

Dorothy is the mother of Sam.

Sam is a fireman.

Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.

B:

Evelyn is the mother of a fireman.

Gordon is a fireman.

Evelyn is the mother of Gordon.

C:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is God.

Mary is the mother of God.

D:

Mary is the Mother of God.

The Trinity is God.

Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.

No Art; YOU explain your stuff.

It ain't MY job!

Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.

Only one of your syllogisms quoted above. All of them lack one thing...Dorothy, Sam, Evelyn, Gordon, and Mary were all created beings. And who created them? Yes indeed...

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.

To begin with D is invalid, as one person being God does not make him the Trinity. Nor does being the mother of a member of Congress make her the mother of Congress. God is a Trinity, and while Jesus is rightly called God as He is indeed God by nature, yet could not be God alone.

And which illustrates the problem with the uncritical use of the phrase, "Mother of God," which too easily conveys ontologically begetting Divinity. As much as you may want to avoid Mary being inferred to be the mother of the Trinity, the popular abundant use of MOG easily infers Mary as at least being some sort of Divine goddess, and the protest against MOG cannot be separated from the hyper hyperdulia ascribed to her.

As i have said, what Ratzinger said about the use of the term " Co-redemptrix" that it "departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” applies to MOG as regards the language of Scripture.

Instead of saying anyone is the mother of God, Scripture even adds "as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 9:5) when stating that Christ came out of Israel.

And as concerns the logic of the polemic "if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God," one could say that since the Jews (standing for us) killed Christ, and Christ is God, then... Technically allowed with equivocation, but you see the problem. Also, CARM states ,

There is a sense in which the syllogism is true but also another in which it is not. Let's take a look.

A syllogism is a set of premises with a conclusion. Here is their syllogism about Mary . . .

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

Within this syllogism is the fallacy of equivocation. This fallacy occurs when a word or words change meaning in the usage of an argument.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
1. Response: This is definitely true as is verified in Scripture. The term "mother" must refer to the biological sense of Jesus because Mary did not precede the Word that became flesh, (John 1:1, 14), nor is she the author of His divine essence.
Jesus is God.
1. Response: When we say that Jesus is God, we our affirming that Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature (see Hypostatic Union). Therefore, the word, "God," here must refer to the divine nature, the divine essence.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
1. Response: In what sense is the term, "God," used here? Does it mean God in the divine essence? Or does it mean God as a Trinity? Also, in what sense is the word, "mother," used here? Does it mean that she is the mother of the divine nature? If so, it cannot mean that she's the mother in the sense of being before the divine nature the same way that all mothers are before their offspring. It cannot mean that she is in a superior position than the divine Word since she is a creature. So, how is it meant? The lack of clarity is the problem.