But certainly the fetus is a distinct being from the mother. We know this from modern genetics, but even the mistaken embryology of Aristotle and the early Scholastics never identified ontologically or any way but materially the fetus with the mother. The dam, they thought supplied the hyle, the ‘stuff,’ of which the child was made, while the sire supplied the quiddity, the what sort of animal it was.
In any case the Chalcedonion definition of two distinct natures in one hypostasis survives modern genetics and embryology. So, if we understand IHS to be both God and Man in one person, and Mary was the mother of the one person, the we have Mary Theotokos and Deipara and Deigenetrix.
As to the criticisms made of Mariological teaching, every last one depends on graces bestowed by God — something that you'd think would be well received by our antagonists.
Yes, I understand how that can be. I'll attempt to explain.
It was not for reason that you had said that they shared the same blood (as in the same flowing through one, and then the other) yet many other Catholics have (not your fault they would say so, of course) but for the small portion which I did quote from you, including the less than clear, to me;
with that having followed prior contextual presentation of the concept
which with many other than yourself, judging by their own words, it becomes apparent that in the minds of many there is at least now, since her own dogmatically declared Assumption (and wait! there's more!) there is implied oneness of Mary herself with Christ's two indivisible "natures" (she's Queen of Heaven, sitting at the right hand, etc.)--- with those lines of thought and repetition of word usage, along with many other titles and statements regarding Mary (as Daniel posted short list of) which are similar or related, them corporately all together as 'body of teachings' for *some* Catholics leads far beyond a mere arms wide-open embracing of salutatory titles for Mary such the theological misleading "Co-redemptrix", which as daniel1212 included near the bottom of his comment #210 bringing commentary from Benedict XVI where (writing both as Pope and himself at the same time?) Benedict expressed precautionary towards the title "Co-redemptrix" saying such as;
But the language has been manipulated, and continues to be manipulated even by Benedict.
Persons today attributing continuing heavenly powers to Mary scarcely indistinguishable from those of the Holy Spirit (thus God Himself, theologically speaking) as "only coming from God" but still thru Mary herself as heavenly person-entity, is cover up for making Mary God-like, with that still allowed to continue, said to not be what it is --- for Marion considerations the nature of which I speak towards, most assuredly are significant theological addition.
Foundational support for them can not be found in scripture, or in the Christological debates either, other than by way of argument from silence perhaps, and a purposeful reading-in-between-the-lines of every word otherwise written towards her in adoration & praise. Well, that sort of thing, plus plentiful doses of a "if that-then this" continuation which Benedict himself seemed to prefer be on guard against, even as he craftily protected hyper-Marionism while appearing to tamp it down (somewhat).
Could anyone honestly imagine the Apostle Paul heartily agreeing to the Marion devotions of such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and the more thorough "development" of the devotion to "Mary" expressed by St. Louis de Montfort [secret of Mary]???
That latter makes Mary out it to be an indispensable (thus required) and heavenly gateway six ways from Sunday! What was that Benedict XVI was saying again about it being "simply improper to manipulate language?"
wow...just wow...and today there are many (not you I take it) little de Monfortian wanna-be clones runnin' 'round figuratively-rhetorically shaking their rosaries at folks -- and even (I've had this happen to myself here on FR, dealt out to me by one of the most prolific thread OP's) telling those who push back against Montfort-styled hyper-Marionism (for lack of a handier term) that those who speak against the breathless rhetoric (and the theological implications) have committed the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Ghost --- while no other "Catholic" steps in saying "wait a minute, you are going too far sister", thus leaving Mary here and elsewhere be elevated even higher than Jesus; for He said of Himself that all manner of things said against or about Himself (His own person) could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ---not.
Which in that sense, even as to theological consideration, (if one speaks out against the Marion theology and earns for themselves guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for doing so) puts Mary on par with the Holy Spirit(!), but what the hey -- that's what de Montfort does, without coming right out and admitting in so many words that he does so.
Perhaps de Montfort was oblivious to only but the narrowest hopes he held(?) that everything (as in all graces, and more) flowed thru "Mary" --- WITH NO EXCEPTION if one reads carefully just what he wrote as provided at the one link I provided. There is more along those lines in other writings of his which make everyone out to be so filthy that none can approach even the Eucharist without having Mary come to them (or them go to her) to be first cleansed inwardly by singular ministrations which God Himself (according to de Montfort) has assigned to "Mary" -- alone.
Please forgive me for being so long winded, and for repeating some parts of that which Daniel just posted to you also --- but for these sort of reasons and more, I wrote what I did concerning the blood of Mary & Christ not having "ontological oneness", with this of great significance for the life is in the blood, with that having far reaching theological implications, yes, within discussion of Christ's Incarnation.
The Risen Christ told his disciples that He would go to the Father, and must do so, or the Comforter could not (or would not) be sent to them. There was no mention that at some centuries later date the workings of the Holy Spirit would be transferred over to his own earthly mother (after her own alleged bodily Assumption).
Denial that the theological implications of Marionism have led to this consideration by saying -- but it still all comes from God, just thru "Mary" are as fig leaf hiding the nakedness of the theological addition & change, which has arrived incrementally, step by rhetorical step. I do believe the Apostle Paul would be aghast...
Initially, in the previous note to you, I was just repeating the information concerning the circulatory systems being entirely separate from one another, as much for reason this "oneness" spoken of was one of the points being discussed by yourself, with many Catholics in past times (and here on the pages of FR also) arguing among other things that Mary and Jesus shared the same blood while He was forming in Mary's womb, as support for the concept of this "ontological oneness" of Christ Himself now included Mary too (but to what extent?) for the ontological oneness was being reexamined/discussed, with yourself having made mention of related perceptions of implication as to Mary.
The abortion mentions came about as something of afterthought & addendum, but there also, although one may need focus not on the "sameness" of mother and child, and rather instead the very differences (two separate and individual living entities) happily enough, though that may let some of the air out of a few dedicated Marionist's balloons;
At the same time, very much can possibly be recovered in ideological ground against the Materialists pro-choice persons, as how in mother-child relationship, the individual living human beings are not the same entity.
Granted there is indeed much overlap between mother and child, particularly when that babe is yet to be born, but is in existence. The two persons are not ontologically one even when a babe be yet in the womb --- or else the pro-choice crowd is right, and it's all about only a woman's body, and none other, everybody else should just go mind their own business, nobody has any say whatsoever regarding the yet unborn child.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.