The hermeneutic is in the Chalcedonian definition. And ONE thing that means is that we can't do Xtological theology in sound bites anymore ... and so we can't do Mariology that way either.
If he REALLY was a baby, then he, in some sense, is owed milk, and, in another, owes gratitude to her who provided it. And so for all the ὕλη of which he is made.
As Son of God He is eternal. As Son of Mary he is sempiternal. But he is one and not two, so Mary fed God, and heart the beat of God's heart.
===
(P.S.: I think we do better to stick with "really," "truly," and "substantially," in trying to depict what Catholics teach about the Eucharist. "Actually" is a very complicated word, IMHO.)
(P.P.S.: I do see the possible connection between the hypostatic union as articulated at Chalcedon and the teaching of the Sacrament.)
(P.P.P.S.: I think the real theological hinge is at John of Damascus.)
This is not a tactic, but substantiated examples of what is seen in Catholicism without censure, including by popes. If i do not example what i am protesting, then it has little impact. And this extra and un Scriptural hyper exaltation is a broad front. Even if not all official doctrine, Ja. 2:18 teaches that what we do constitutes the evidence of what we believe.
The hermeneutic is in the Chalcedonian definition. And ONE thing that means is that we can't do Xtological theology in sound bites anymore ... and so we can't do Mariology that way either.
Which the laity, and even clerics who hold it is impossible to honor Mary to excess (what if we said that about Paul?) understand.
If he REALLY was a baby, then he, in some sense, is owed milk, and, in another, owes gratitude to her who provided it.
That is frankly absurd and unintentional blasphemy. The creator is not indebted to any of His creation. God needs nothing and no one, (Acts 17:25) and He did not need Mary as His vessel, but she owes Christ her soul mind and breath. You would have to say that Christ owes believers gratitude for supplying the instruments to spread His word, when in reality we owe Him for the privilege of serving Him, which saints will do in glory, but those in Hell are deprived from doing.
But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. (1 Chronicles 29:14)
. But he is one and not two, so Mary fed God, and heart the beat of God's heart.
God chose to use mortals to reveal Himself, and what Mary provided was nothing more than what God provided her, and prepared her to be His instrument.
And "God bearer" can be somewhat tolerable in theological context, but "mother of God" is the popular title which does convey ontologically oneness, as in Divinity birthing Divinity and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies that from Israel " as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen," (Romans 9:5) while "mother of God conveys a pagan concept (even Mormonism). What Ratzinger said as concerns “Co-redemptrix” applies here insofar as Scripture is concerned, that "the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” - God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, p. 306 Of course, the so-called "Fathers also began going beyond what Scripture said also. I think we do better to stick with "really," "truly," and "substantially," in trying to depict what Catholics teach about the Eucharist. "Actually" is a very complicated word What you stated is really, truly, actually the case. And I actually truly really read from a RC blog that "Real Presence" was an Anglican word to cover up its differences, but was co-opted by Rome. The church is to be the "Real Presence" to the world, and was the body of Christ in 1Cor. 11:17-34.
According to medical science, mother and the fetus do not share the same blood. There is a barrier (by deliberate design, we would likely agree) which precludes that from occurring directly.
Otherwise the ties between mother and child are quite strong in many other ways. We may not know the half of it.
Recent findings indicated that tissue, or cells (bodily cells -- I'm not sure which, perhaps skin cells? I don't recall which sort of cell, or if there could be more than one type) were claimed to be taken up and absorbed by the mother, and remain within her own body for years after giving birth, with those of a male fetus said to remain longer than from a female, with these cells from child to mother lingering many years altogether, if memory serves.
If that same memory further properly recalls (near enough) this taking up of bodily cells is something of a one way street -- from fetus to mother -- but very little or nothing the other direction?
But none of this 'circulating the same blood' talk (which you didn't say-- or perhaps do know better than) as in the same blood circulating through the heart and body of Mary, and Jesus as fetus, and his own heart -- then back to Mary, then again back to he who would be the Christ.
Medical knowledge says that not at all likely in normal human development, being that even small amount of blood leakage across the membranes which separate as part of the placenta(?) which functions as two-way exchange interface -- but not quite comparable to being "filter" per se other than for passing nutrients and oxygen, but not blood directly, could be hazardous for the fetus.
Though blood does not pass or flow directlythrough both circulatory systems, being as they are kept separate, the passing of oxygen on to the fetus --- entails the mother breathing --- and that oxygen when dissolved in her own blood then passing on from being pumped by her own heart to the placenta, so that portion of the physical breath of life (oxygen) comes from nowhere except through the mother first, along with nutrients (and possibly water molecules?)
It's something along the lines of the fetus being it's own self contained life from it's beginning formations, and in the 'sac' which develops shortly after implantation, with the later developing fetus all but fated to being sensed as intruder by the mother's own immune system -- IF not for some cellular/chemical trickery as it were, but which considerations taken all together (beyond my own sketchy and probably somewhat erroneous descriptions) leave the fetus, from near hours of implantation on uterine wall, first forming it's sac which shields it from outside intrusions, other than by connection to the placenta which itself begins formation almost simultaneously with the sac.
I do not recall the more precise details in how the masking of "foreign element" of the fetus functions-- but this sort of thing taking place possibly at the placenta(?)
There are better sources online for explanation of course, but to change the subject a bit --- the medical evidence rather blows away the portions of "pro-choice" abortion issue argument, where a woman claims that the fetus is her body. Uh-uh. From implantation, from medical perspective -- that foetus once it begins growth from blastocyst (or a bit before? shortly after?) is it's own life form, though admittedly utterly dependent upon womb & mother.
Which would well enough leave the pro-choice'ers needing change their argument to "IN my a woman's body" from the more stridently proclaimed "it's my body" to more honestly reflect the medical truth that a foetus, in regard to the mother's own circulatory systems -- IS a foreign life form, which means boys and girls -- the fetus is not the mother, long before that same becomes born. This has implications...