[redgolum]

I can understand the concern over calling Mary the Mother of God, as it can (if you don't remember why that title was settled on) imply that Mary is herself God. It doesn't.

When the title was officially chosen, it wasn't so much because of who Mary was, but to settle once and for all the question of the Incarnation. In other words, was Jesus one person with two natures, one person with one nature, or two persons with two natures. Since, the only way for the Incarnation to make sense is for Jesus to be both true God, and true Man, but only one person, and sense Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is, because of the Incarnation, the Mother of God.

That was the one coffee explanation of how the title was defined. Any errors are mine, or because I haven't had two coffees.

[kosta50]

When the title was officially chosen, it wasn't so much because of who Mary was, but to settle once and for all the question of the Incarnation...That was the one coffee explanation of how the title was defined. Any errors are mine, or because I haven't had two coffees.

That's why I suggested one reads the whole text of the Council (I have just finished my second cup). You are absolutely right, but that is not obvious from a superficial glance at the title itself. The context of the whole Council (convoked over a heresy) was profoundly Christological in content with the express goal of affirming that Christ is One Person, two natures, two wills, perfect God and perfect Man, inseparably united but not confused.