A freshman in Logic 101 class can spot the fallacy in this reasoning.
Your logic mimics the following:
1. Dogs can climb trees
2. There is a dog in a tree
3. The dog climbed the tree to get there.
That is the analogy of what your logic is claiming, and it clearly does not follow from the 2 premises.
1. Mary is certainly the mother of Jesus, she bore Him in the realm of His humanity. He underwent a normal human birth, normal human infancy, normal human childhood, etc. In the realm of His humanity Mary was the mother of Jesus. There is no issue with the first premise as long as you preface the statement as such; which none of the RCs on this forum have ever bothered to do.
2. Jesus was surely the Son of God. No one would deny the second premise either, but your conclusion based on 1 and 2 does not follow.
Here is where your logic breaks down. Yes, He is fully man, Yes He is fully God, the so-called hypostatic union that has been held since the apostles.
But what you are doing by ascribing the title 'Mother of God' is transitioning the source of the divine part of Christ to Mary, which is surely blasphemy.
Christ existed in the realm of His deity long before Mary's existence, so she cannot be the source of His divinity.
The title 'Mother of God' is clearly bringing the deity of Christ from premise 2 forward into the conclusion in 3.
Mary is NOT the source of His deity ... and here is my main point ...
You may have never said that she is ... but silence on your part and every other RC on this important distinction is affirmation that you believe she is.
Thanks for you concise and accurate syllogism.
I want to especially thank you for introducing the mysterious “hypostatic union” - a concept that we hardly comprehend, I think.
Certainly, I accept “fully God and “fully man” but I don’t even try to make conclusions that are not clearly expressed in God’s Word. To do otherwise is like expecting my dog to explain Higgs Bosen - only much less likely.
Again, thanks!