I don't have a lot of confidence that even their own Papal document via their own stfassisi will influence such obtuseness in behalf of truly Biblical understanding.
I don't think I've ever ran onto a single other Christian in all my 63 years who would brazenly claim that Mary was the mother of Almighty/Father God. Someone needs to give these folks lessons in when to stop digging.
Alamo-Girl:
“”I prefer the title “Mother of the Incarnate Word” Arius notwithstanding.””
From Pope John Paul II
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm37.htm
Now, the difficulties and objections raised by Nestorius offer us the opportunity to make several useful reflections for correctly understanding and interpreting this title. The expression Theotókos, which literally means, “she who has begotten God”, can at first sight seem surprising; in fact it raises the question as to how it is possible for a human creature to give birth to God. The answer of the Church’s faith is clear: Mary’s divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary.
In proclaiming Mary “Mother of God”, the Church thus intends to affirm that she is the “Mother of the Incarnate Word, who is God”. Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, who, in becoming incarnate, took his human nature from her.
. . .
6,730 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:36:49 PM by stfassisi
IF such absurd manglings of Scripture didn't tend to give one a horrid case of whiplash, they might be more amusing. Sheesh! WHAT NONSENSE!