For me, the issue goes to the importance of a name and most especially, a Name of God.
And it is why the Jewish mystics refer to God the Creator as Ayn Sof which literally means "no thing." The point is that any time we sincerely use a word to describe God, we reduce Him in our own minds to the limits of our language. Or to put it another way, no mortal words can define God and when we use them that way then we are mentally creating a reduced false image of a 'god' who is not God, an idol.
Another example, though not in the language of words but of art is the beautiful albeit woefully misleading Michaelangelo painting "The Creation of Adam" showing Adam and God touching fingers. It presents God as an old gray-haired man on a cloud. That is not God but a reduction of Him.
Which brings me back to the titles given to creatures in an attempt to reveal Who God IS by description of the creature.
The title "Mother of the Incarnate Word" does not require a footnote in the mind of the hearer because God the Creator's Name is Word and the phrase "mother of the incarnate" further defines Mary, a creature.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, - Isaiah 46:9
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
So just like admiring the beautiful Michaelangelo painting with a younger requires us to then explain that God is not an old gray-haired man on a cloud, using the title "Mother of God" with a younger requires us to explain that there was no thing and no one and no time before God. Otherwise the younger may walk away with a reduced image of God, a false 'god' of his own imagining.
God's Name is I AM.
Great post, A-G, all affirming the second and third commandments of God.
Of course, one may do whatever one pleases. One is free to ignore history and the experience gained thereby. One is free to attach any name to anything or anyone. But, one must face the consequences for those actions as well.
One can be "fully persuaded" yet wrong.
For me, the issue goes to the importance of a name and most especially, a Name of God.
And it is why the Jewish mystics refer to God the Creator as Ayn Sof which literally means "no thing." The point is that any time we sincerely use a word to describe God, we reduce Him in our own minds to the limits of our language. Or to put it another way, no mortal words can define God and when we use them that way then we are mentally creating a reduced false image of a 'god' who is not God, an idol.
Another example, though not in the language of words but of art is the beautiful albeit woefully misleading Michaelangelo painting "The Creation of Adam" showing Adam and God touching fingers. It presents God as an old gray-haired man on a cloud. That is not God but a reduction of Him.
Which brings me back to the titles given to creatures in an attempt to reveal Who God IS by description of the creature.
The title "Mother of the Incarnate Word" does not require a footnote in the mind of the hearer because God the Creator's Name is Word and the phrase "mother of the incarnate" further defines Mary, a creature.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, - Isaiah 46:9
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
So just like admiring the beautiful Michaelangelo painting with a younger requires us to then explain that God is not an old gray-haired man on a cloud, using the title "Mother of God" with a younger requires us to explain that there was no thing and no one and no time before God. Otherwise the younger may walk away with a reduced image of God, a false 'god' of his own imagining.
God's Name is I AM.
I am in 100% agreement with you on this. I have a suspicion that the main reason some are unable or unwilling to consider that the name "Mother of God" for Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, was an unfortunate decision to come down dogmatically on is because, to do so, is to acknowledge that their magesterium may have been wrong or mistaken.
Being conditioned from almost birth that The Church is infallible in all doctrines of faith and morals, is a difficult thing to doubt. All other dogmas could then also be suspect. So much balances on this holding, that to allow in even a shadow of a doubt is to be opened up to the question of "What else did they make a mistake about?". I fully understand the fierce defense and the almost hair-trigger response and objection to any disagreement.
I feel sometimes like the people are expected to defend any and everything their Church states and that they are really expected to, as a matter of status of membership. I puts some in awkward positions and may explain why many are reluctant to even discuss their faith with others.
“”I prefer the title “Mother of the Incarnate Word” Arius notwithstanding.””
This is pretty much what the Church teaches ,dear sister. It’s not wrong to call Mary Mother of God though and one should have no problem saying so.
From Pope John Paul II
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm37.htm
Now, the difficulties and objections raised by Nestorius offer us the opportunity to make several useful reflections for correctly understanding and interpreting this title. The expression Theotókos, which literally means, “she who has begotten God”, can at first sight seem surprising; in fact it raises the question as to how it is possible for a human creature to give birth to God. The answer of the Church’s faith is clear: Mary’s divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary.
In proclaiming Mary “Mother of God”, the Church thus intends to affirm that she is the “Mother of the Incarnate Word, who is God”. Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, who, in becoming incarnate, took his human nature from her.
Motherhood is a relationship of person to person: a mother is not only mother of the body or of the physical creature born of her womb, but of the person she begets. Thus having given birth, according to his human nature, to the person of Jesus, who is a divine person, Mary is the Mother of God.