Replies

Typically, those who object to the title at all, prefer "Mother of Christ" and the conversation then draws distinctions between Christ the Man and Christ the God. The author correctly implies that in order to draw such distinction, one has to make Mary the mother of Christ's human nature only. I agree that it is not the language a Fundamentalist would use, at least not often, and the author leaps through a logical step or two here without explaining them.

The author also does not address the implication of authority that many fraw from "Mother of God". He does, however, say:

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

The author correctly implies that in order to draw such distinction, one has to make Mary the mother of Christ's human nature only.

It would seem that the issue isn't so much the "of God" part of the phrase, as it is the unspoken assumptions /definitions around the term "Mother of".

"Angry Write Mail" tells us that "the term Mother of God is an issue of authority", and to he honest, that's how I had defined it myself until I got involved in these Religion Forum threads. As "Always Right" correctly points out, it's really a matter of how each party defines (or doesn't) their terms. Some look at the nurturing aspect, some at the genetic/biological aspect, and others at the hierarchical aspect. "Is Mary the Mother of God?" might receive different answers, depending on the definition of "mother" used in the asking.

So in conclusion I have to say "no" to our sick Scotswife (hope you get better soon). IMO these threads are nothing like "beating a dead horse". They do serve a purpose, however small, in God's plan!