Jo kus,
I have been called a Nestorian, A Sabellian, I think even an Arian. None of which are true. I have gone through great pains to spell out my beliefs concerning Christology and what I have said concerning Christ wouldn't contradict any of your Creeds. I have simply rejected the title "Mother of God", not because Jesus wasn't God and Mary wasn't His mother, but because it leaves the impression on the surface of it that Mary pre-existed God. I know from the minutes of the council itself what the true meaning is - but the term is not a good one and was made in a reactionary fashion. As proof, I note the same council's rejection of Nestorius's desire to call her mother of Christ. Why would they reject that? Wasn't she? They rejected it on the same grounds we reject "Mother of God." Namely, that it gives out a false impression (as far as Nestorius's definition went) of who Christ was and who Mary was.
If one calls her what the Bible calls her, Mother of Jesus; then the Christology takes care of itself. Don't focus on who Mary was. Focus on who Jesus was and we can come to an agreement.
If true, they are not personal attacks. They are philosophical statements of what you believe - or what others think you believe. I am an orthodox Catholic. Someone calling me that is merely placing my philosophical and religious beliefs into a charecterization for their own needs. Thus, the next time a person talks to me, they have an idea where I stand, knowing where an "orthodox Catholic" generally stands. When someone calls you a Nestorian, they understand that you believe that Mary is the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God.
I have not read the "great pains" you have taken to spell out your beliefs. I have not really followed this thread a lot - only when I am personally addressed or when someone pings me because they desire my feedback. When you say you believe that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but not God, by definition, you place yourself in the camp of father Nestorius. As Kolokotronis suggested, you might want to read the Council of Ephesus' ruling on WHY they call Mary the Mother of God, rather than the Mother of Christ. I realize it COULD lead one to think that Mary gave birth to God. However, when properly stated, truth is better. We could certainly delve into many Christian beliefs that COULD be taken the wrong way - but we STILL profess them nonetheless. Trinity is one example that sticks out in my mind. Just because it is a difficult theological concept doesn't mean we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. Our understanding of Trinity has a lot to do with what we believe God is Himself.
I know from the minutes of the council itself what the true meaning is - but the term is not a good one and was made in a reactionary fashion.
That may be so. If you are familiar with the concept of "development of doctrine", then you know that IF the Church struggles with the definition given at a Council, later Church Councils or Popes will clarify what the Church meant years ago by a now-confusing definition. The men of 400 had different philosophical paradigms (such as a background of Greek philosophy that we don't necessarily hold to) than we do. To speak to the people of 2006, it may become necessary to explain what "Mother of God" means. If the Church sees excessive divisiveness over the term, I am sure she would. But for the time being, people apparently do not think that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of the Logos.
If one calls her what the Bible calls her, Mother of Jesus; then the Christology takes care of itself.
Hardly! WHY do you think later Christians discussed such issues? For heaven's sake, even in Scriptures themselves, we see people disagreeing on WHO Jesus Christ was! Have you not read 1 John? Are you familiar with Docetism? The reason why WE discuss such issues is because Scriptures are NOT crystal clear. If they were, this would be a dead topic and very little would be discussed on FR! We Catholics are NOT being purposely intransigent. We believe that the Church has taught "x" and we hold to it because that is our paradigm of interpreting Scriptures. If the paradigm didn't make Scriptural sense, we wouldn't hold to it, because we believe that the Bible is the Word of God AND so is Apostolic Tradition. How can they disagree? You are going to have to accept that there are other ways of interpreting the book we call "the Bible".
Regards