"Anyway, in the same breath I agree with the criticisms of the other Protestants here, in that such a term could very well lead to a wrong impression, especially in witnessing."
How so, FK? The term was "coined" to address a Christological heresy and as such really wrote "finis" to that heresy. Do you suppose that the reason the term causes such consternation among Protestants is that Protestant Christology, so long cut off from that of The Church, has itself become, since the days of Luther and Calvin, distorted, or at least different from that held by The Church and the first reformers?
Good morning, Kolo
Because mother of God is only partially accurate. What is actually being said is "Mother of the Incarnate 2d Person of the Trinity."
"Mother of God" ignores the Trinity.
That's why using it in conversations with non-Christians would add an additional layer of communication problems that it would be best to avoid. Best to say that Mary is mother Jesus the Christ.
FK is exactly correct, because he has carefully pointed out that his concern is communication with a person not steeped in subtle Christian distinctions.
How so, FK? The term was "coined" to address a Christological heresy and as such really wrote "finis" to that heresy.
I think Xzins nailed exactly where I was coming from in his 5654. Perhaps WAY back in the day, the context would have better understood by the average layman. I'm just saying that today, I don't think it is. To a person who didn't know what was behind it, "mother of God" "sounds" bad for the reasons already discussed. However, with a full explanation, then it's OK. In the same way, "mother of Christ" "sounds" bad to you because it has a defined meaning under Nesotrianism. However, Nestorianism aside, it "sounds" perfectly good to me, and if I said I thought it was OK, and then gave you a full explanation of what I meant by it, you would probably say "fine" to the idea I was conveying, just in that context.