Replies

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?
Better still, call her the Mother of Jesus and then define who Jesus was, including at His incarnation and prior to. I would submit "Mother of God" doesn't deal with Jesus prior to the incarnation and therefore is deficient as well. Focussing on the person of Christ obliterates this confusion. Theotokos may be a term with some longevity in Orthodox circles. It doesn't appear that Orthodoxy has as many nominal "Orthodox" as other Christian groups do. However, we want our faith to communicate to the masses. Even 100 years ago when people actually read books (wonder of wonders), it would have caused less confusion. Today, you have very little opportunity to share who Christ is period. The mind shuts off very quickly. We have to be precise and clear in order to get that little "sound byte" which might register on the screen of their minds. Even more so the younger you get. Mother of Christ is not heretical any more than "Christ" is heretical because some people have misused it. It is more precise than Mother of God but less precise than the Biblical Mother of Jesus since there are many who call themselves Christ. So- why not stick with "Mother of Jesus" and then talk about who he was 100% God and 100% Man, our Savior, Justifier, King, Judge.