The Chaldean Catholic liturgy gives the priest the discretion to decide whether to say “Mother of Christ” or “Mother of God” in their liturgy.
But the use of the term “Mother of Christ” may not be used to deny the definition of the Council of Ephesus.
[Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Let there be a remembrance of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God (or: Christ), upon the holy altar.]
http://kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/PeopleBook_Eng.html
The Chaldeans descend from the same liturgical tradition as the Assyrian Church of the East, aka the “Nestorian Church.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church
Yes, I was aware if that. Still, to see Nestorianism in every objection to "the Mother of God" usage is to stare too intently upon past squabbles, imputing the two natures (but then what?) controversy, worked out centuries ago now, onto people whom are totally innocent of such things, not seeking "to divide Christ" as it is commonly put, in rhetorical fashion.
Then very insistence of the sole usage of the "of GOD!" and not anything else, instead of "of the Christ our Lord and Savior" , can be seen to be pushed most strenuously by the most fervent Marianists, although you yourself may have other primary motivations.
The Marianists too claim they do so for other reasons, but just as the usage of "mother of Christ" sets off alarm bells concerning an ancient schism, the insistence of the only proper usage being "mother of God" reminds many now, of the PRESENT DAY, ongoing hyper-inflated Mariology which seemingly engulfs the Catholic Church, today, not centuries ago. Certainly not from the very beginnings, and on much more muted terms when at all, in the first couple of centuries.