FL: "Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!"
X: "The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son."
It seems to me, Padre, that FL has hit the nail on the head. Why would it be necessary to change the Christologic term "Theotokos" because some Christians today don't understand or have a deficient knowledge of Christian Trinitarianism? After all, most Christians accept the dogmas of the Council of Ephesus and have for nearly 1700 years. Doesn't the fact that it sounds "odd", or one might feel compelled to assert that to say "Theotokos" is either to speak in code or evidence an intent to confuse or finally to misunderstand the Trinity actually point to a deficient preaching on the part of the pastors of those Christians that they haven't explained what Christians mean by the Trinity? Perhaps some solid preaching of the Creed is in order. The problem lies not with the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, but rather with modern catechetical methods.
X: "Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?"
Padre, why would anyone who understands that God is "Ο ΩΝ" or who prays the Creed then believe that the Theotokos is the mother of God the Father?
FK's use of the term "Mother of Christ" as explained by him is not heretical. The fact remains, however, that it was just that term which expressed the Nestorian heresy, a heresy which arose out of a deficient understanding of the Trinity. Given the fact that there appears to be a fear (for whatever reason) that the use of the Council term Theotokos is code or misleading, isn't it therefore very dangerous, in this age of people who don't understand Christian Trinitarianism, to revert back to old heretical formulas?
Simple logic, my friend.
If there is only one God and the Father is God and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Father.
As to how they differ from the heretics of Core/Korah and hias followers is unclear. In fact, there have been not a few posts in here which read as though they were lifted directly from Core/Korah...especially the explicit rejection of authority
Numbers 16 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?
*A you well know,..
Hebrews 13..teaches the authority Core/Korah and his followers rebelled against, still exists in the New Covenant...
Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines...Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you
*BTW, whatever happened to Core and his authority-rejecting followers?
I believe in clear translation and interpretation.
Clarity is best achieved by precision.
Mother of God is not precise.
I know you can imagine instances when the lack of precision in language would lead to legal difficulties.
For my part, though, I think we've pretty well beat this horse to death. I'll stick with the expression: "Mother of Jesus the Christ." It is precise, and is not open to trinitarian nitpicking.