It is not Forest Keeper who is redefining words.
The "Mother of God" says exactly what its words mean.
The "Mother of the Incarnate 2d Person of the Trinity" means exactly what it says.
The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son.
Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?
FL: "Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!"
X: "The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son."
It seems to me, Padre, that FL has hit the nail on the head. Why would it be necessary to change the Christologic term "Theotokos" because some Christians today don't understand or have a deficient knowledge of Christian Trinitarianism? After all, most Christians accept the dogmas of the Council of Ephesus and have for nearly 1700 years. Doesn't the fact that it sounds "odd", or one might feel compelled to assert that to say "Theotokos" is either to speak in code or evidence an intent to confuse or finally to misunderstand the Trinity actually point to a deficient preaching on the part of the pastors of those Christians that they haven't explained what Christians mean by the Trinity? Perhaps some solid preaching of the Creed is in order. The problem lies not with the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, but rather with modern catechetical methods.
X: "Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?"
Padre, why would anyone who understands that God is "Ο ΩΝ" or who prays the Creed then believe that the Theotokos is the mother of God the Father?
FK's use of the term "Mother of Christ" as explained by him is not heretical. The fact remains, however, that it was just that term which expressed the Nestorian heresy, a heresy which arose out of a deficient understanding of the Trinity. Given the fact that there appears to be a fear (for whatever reason) that the use of the Council term Theotokos is code or misleading, isn't it therefore very dangerous, in this age of people who don't understand Christian Trinitarianism, to revert back to old heretical formulas?