Just as Christ's human nature had no father, His divine nature had no mother.
And I know. Off we go to the Councils for our answers to the tradition of calling Mary the Mother of God.
In the meantime, I'm saying the RCC cannot have it both ways. If she is the mother of God, she must be present in the Eucharist, when the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST are changed from wafers and wine. And don't try that "we are the body of Christ" on me. You know, or should know, that that is the Spiritual Body of Christ, being formed even as we speak. Your church couldn't perform a decent Eucharist if you actually meant the spiritual body of Christ and not the literal body of Christ. Half the spiritual body of Christ is in purgatory right now, according to your teachings. You know and I know that it is the literal blood and body of Christ, seated at the right hand of God, that you claim the wafers and wine are turned into at Mass.
In Luke, Elizabeth calls her the mother of My Lord.
Jesus is Lord God, is He not?
Your question is an example of theology not explicitly contained in Scripture.
But, it is a question (and heresy) that arose in the very beginning.
I hope you are not disappointed to find out you have not
found a new silver bullet with which to pierce the heart of the church.
It is a heresy which calls into question the nature of Jesus.
Would you consider that important?
And to what and to whom did the councils turn for guidance?
Scripture, early church Fathers and Tradition.
Just as they had turned to these things in defining the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the Canon of Scripture. One a truly novel
concept, never before held or taught by the faith to which Jesus belonged.
Both Catholic in origin
and yet you have no problem accepting it.
Mothers do not give birth to natures. They give birth to persons. She gave birth to a person who was God. She is the mother of the person she gave birth to. That person was God. She is the mother of God.
That's not tradition, that's reason.
If she is the mother of God, she must be present in the Eucharist, when the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST are changed from wafers and wine.
I still don't get it. We call her Mother of the Eucharist. It is His body and blood, not hers. If I get cut is my mother wounded? If I go to New York is my mother tripping the lights fantastic?
You know, or should know, that that is the Spiritual Body of Christ, being formed even as we speak. Show me where Paul says You are being formed into the body of Christ. And You know or SHOULD know that we think of time differently from you in any case.
SO, a dispensationalist tries to teach me my Church's Eucharistic Doctrine!
As I have said many, many, many times on this forum, I confine myself to the usage of the doctrinal formulations. I do not know that "literal" or "actual" mean with respect to the Body of Christ. I use "real" or "substantial" because I have some faint clue what they mean in the context. If you can teach me what my church teaches, can you explain the terms "literal" and "actual" as applied to the body of Christ? I certainly can't. What sort of letters, what kind of act?