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?
You just shot yourself in the foot with that one, MD.
Mary gave birth to the person who was the Christ, who was God in nature but not God as a person, therefore by your own reasoning, could not have given birth to God.
If Jesus was GOD, the person, then He was confined to a human body for His sojourn on earth and when He was crucified, the Romans crucified GOD. God died.
Is that what you're really saying because it sure sounds like it. Otherwise, it is treating Jesus as if that is all of God that there is.