Replies

AB: That's a 10-4.

ftD: Those who use argument to learn rather than to control and irritate will easily find that no Catholic on this thread said:
Christ needs Mary in order to elevate Him to the Godhead.

As discussed here the actual words used, if that matters, were

On the contrary, referring to Mary as "Mother of God" elevates Jesus Christ.
(here.)

I guess this needs some parsing: The subject is the verbal phrase "referring to Mary". the verb is "elevates". (And, to be complete, nobody is claiming that the way WE SPEAK about Mary or Jesus elevates Him to Godhead. It's a shame that the quality of argument requires that that obvious point be explicitly made.)

Mere grammar makes it obvious that perverting this into 'Christ needs Mary to elevate Him', is not about reasonable disagreement or about seeking the truth. You have to wonder what might be the point of basing an argument against us not on what we actually say, but on a perversion of it.

(For the elventy-twelfth time, to give the 'title' "theotokos" to Mary is to make a Christological statement, specifically one about the union (at conception) of two natures in one person. The child whom Mary bore and birthed was Jesus, and Jesus is Lord.)

If that was the case why didn't Christ ever call Mary His mother, He always used the term 'woman'.

Well I hope I've shown that no one says "that was the case." But would you like to consider a rephrasing of your assertion? Before my second cup of coffee I can only recollect three things IHS said to Mary. Are you claiming that He only spoke to her three times between His Nativity and His Crucifixion? Or is it your argument that we are to take these three things as sufficiently representative of everything He said to her in thirty some years that we can say he "always" called her Woman and "didn't ever" call her Mother? That's a lot of conclusion to balance on the top of so few data.

He always used the term 'woman'.

Well, in approximately 67% of the recorded times (that I can remember) that He spoke To her, he addressed her as "Gynai." But in referring to her in John 19:26-27 the Evangelist calls her he meter autou and when Jesus 'gives' her to "the disciple whom He loved" He, Jesus, refers to her as "he meter sou". So we are left with no record of His calling His own mother, "Mother," but He calls her John's mother.

And I do not know enough about the colloquial Aramaic of the 1st century (because I know NOTHING about it) to know whether ANY son addressed his mother as "mother" OR to say, with every single scholar whom I have read on the matter (gotta be at least 5) that "Gynai" was an at least respectful and possibly affectionate manner of address.

So we have

a blatant mischaracterization of something a Catholic said;
A crippling paucity of data on how Jesus addressed Mary;
An instance of His referring to her as a "mother";and
Not enough info on colloquial 1st century Aramaic to know how sons addressed their mothers.

I wouldn't try to build much of an argument on so shaky a foundation.

That is correct, He calls her John's mother, He never addresses her by that designation.

He rates all those who follow Him and obey His words as equal in status to His mother, brother and sister.

So, why don't you do the same?