“that you Catholics are sloppy in your use of terminology because by saying “God” without further specification of the Person to which you are referring, you are basically affirming that all three Persons were in Mary’s womb “
Actually I did specify the Son.
I just said that if she carried the Son she carried God because the Second Person is fully God. That’s Nicea.
Or are you an Arian rather than a Nestorian? At least Nestorius accepted Nicea. He just thought that the only way Christ could be fully human was to be both a human person and divine person.
We “Catholics” (you left out the Eastern Orthodox) believe He was a single divine Person with a full human nature united to himself. The “self” was divine, second Person, Son. The Father is a different Person but equally God. The Spirit is a different Person but equally God. The Second Person carried by Mary doesn’t have to have the Father and Son incarnated with him in order to be God.
God the Son was incarnated in Mary. Not schizoided. She was God’s mother. Not the Father’s mother nor the Spirit’s mother but the Second Person Incarnate’s mother. God’s mother.
Period.
It's also sloppy terminology. Saying that Jesus is God is not the same thing as saying that God is Jesus - which is what you're implicitly saying by the way you are using your terms.
God the Son was incarnated in Mary. Not schizoided. She was God’s mother. Not the Father’s mother nor the Spirit’s mother but the Second Person Incarnate’s mother. God’s mother.
Well, I'm glad to see that you haven't descended into heresy then (or at least deeper heresy than that which is already part and parcel with Catholicism). You're still extremely sloppy in your terminology.