Sorry.
However, the qualifications don’t wash.
FOLKS PERSISTENTLY HEAR
ONLY
THE PHRASE
MOTHER OF GOD.
THAT IS THE PHRASE. THAT IS THE MESSAGE.
THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT IS EMBELISHED UP ONE SIDE AND DOWN THE OTHER.
There is not immediately following qualification about it NOT AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM INCLUDING THE FATHER.
It is just starkly that
MOTHER OF GOD.
NOPE. Doesn’t wash with this psychologist.
WORDS ARE IMPORTANT.
THE IMPRESSIONS AND MEMES AND HYPNOTIC EFFECTS OF WORDS
ARE IMPORTANT—ALL THE MORE SO RELIGIOUS WORDS AND PHRASES WITH ALL MANNER OF INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUTRAMENTS ATTACHED.
NOPE. DOESN’T WASH BY A TRILLION MILES.
And those words are a deception, falsehood that the Vatican uses to squeak by on an extremely thin technicality.
AT the risk of offending my dear Friend and Sister . . . let me try an analogy that I think MAY highlight the problem.
Let’s take the family unit of Alamo-Girl.
Alamo-Girl has a dog.
That dog has a mother.
By some stretch, one might refer to the mother of that dog as Alamo-Girl’s Mother. After all, that dog’s mother is the mother of Alamo-Girl’s currently only in-home ‘child.’
Of course, in this case, it’s brazenly and plainly absurd.
And to many Proddys the other VERY DECEPTIVE phrase is just as brazenly absurd and inappropriate.
If she’s not the Mother of God, then who is Jesus?
If he were human, he'd probably call me "mother" and when he was old enough to understand, I would explain the difference.
I'm confident Jesus called Mary "mother." And I can't think of any Christian who would object to Mary being called "Jesus' mother" or "Mother of the Incarnate Word."
But the title "Mother of God" requires a footnote and therefore can cause problems.
I prefer clarity.
Thank you for sharing your insights and pinging me to this sidebar, dear brother in Christ!