I’m going to try to handle this even though I’m only an catechumen in the Orthodox Church.
>>>>>>>>>My immediate reaction to hearing Mary called “Mother of God” is hold on there, God always was, how could he have been preceeded by a mother?
When God decided to condescend to his creation and take flesh, he subjected himself to the experiences of his creation, including, like every human being on earth, having a human mother. It’s takes quite a leap of logic to think that by God having a human mother implies that he is not eternal.
>>>>This is not a name taken from Scripture but arrived at in the fourth century by some teachers within the Catholic Church in Rome.
No it’s not spelled out in black and white, but it is certainly inferred.
As for this: “but arrived at in the fourth century by some teachers within the Catholic Church in Rome.”
Well, this is really a mess. It wasn’t “arrived at” but rather reiterated (they “arrived at” the conclusion that Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was a heretic).
It wasn’t a “bunch of teachers” but Bishops within the catholic church, both east and west(it wasn’t just Rome), undertaking something called an ecumenical council, which is what is supposed to be done when there is an issue that commands significant enough attention and challenges the dogma of the faith. (And yes! It’s in the Bible. Reread the Acts of the Apostles.)
>>>>>My point is, why cause the confusion in the first place? Why seem to exalt Mary above Jesus Christ, because that is what our human experience interprets this as saying? A mother comes before a child.
Since I’m Orthodox, I do disagree with the Romans on their view of Mary (Immaculate Conception). But you’ve misstated what their view is. They do not exalt Mary over Jesus, but they do come dangerously close to putting her on equal footing with him.
Look to your holy icons and see the reverence with which the Orthodox hold Mary so dear. We differ concerning the Immaculate Conception, but otherwise, no.
saullysallu:
I am not into getting into polemics with our esteemed Eastern Orthodox brethren on this site as getting into threads with some of these Protestants does enough to test my Sicilian temper. With respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome defining Mary’s Immaculate Conception is entirely consistent with the Eastern Orthodox Church’s referring to Mary as “Panagia”, the “All-Holy” and when united with “Theotokos” one gets the translation All-Holy Mother of God which is consistent with the language used in the Catholic Church in the Rosary “Holy Mary Mother of God Pray for Us Sinners”, etc.
Back to the Eastern Term “Panagia”, it reflects the Eastern Church’s reflection on St. Luke’s passage “Hail Mary Full of Grace” (cf. Luke 1:28, reflecting St. Jerome’s Latin translation from the Greek) and the Eastern Fathers declaring that Mary was free from stain of sin and fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.
So, in the Western Church, you get formal definition of “Immaculate Conception” specifiying “how God formed Mary into a new creature” whereas in the Eastern Tradition, you say it happened by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, but don’t define it like Rome does.
As for the original point of the thread, this refers what I have stated for years since I have been posting here that many of the Prostants on this site embrace major Christological heresies as evidenced by this thread [Nestorianism, Modalism, etc]
Blessed Ephiphany to you and all our Orthodox brethren around the world