I don't have a lot of confidence that even their own Papal document via their own stfassisi will influence such obtuseness in behalf of truly Biblical understanding.
I don't think I've ever ran onto a single other Christian in all my 63 years who would brazenly claim that Mary was the mother of Almighty/Father God. Someone needs to give these folks lessons in when to stop digging.
Alamo-Girl:
“”I prefer the title “Mother of the Incarnate Word” Arius notwithstanding.””
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.
. . .
6,730 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:36:49 PM by stfassisi
IF such absurd manglings of Scripture didn't tend to give one a horrid case of whiplash, they might be more amusing. Sheesh! WHAT NONSENSE!
I really think a lot of the responses you get are due to (bearing in mind all the usual apologies for my projections, etc.) the way when we Cat'licks read your posts, we only know we've been clobbered, but we're not sure where or why. So all we can respond to is the general clobbering, but not to any particular assertion.
I don't even know, sometimes, if you are quoting something with approval or disapproval. For example, you gave us this:
Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, ...Do you like this or not -- and in either case, why? I think it's fine.
One of our titles for Jesus is "Pantocrator" which essentially means all-powerful or all-ruler ('crator' as in aristocrat), but I don't know any serious theologian who thinks that The Entire Trinity was in Jesus, rather than "God the Son of God."
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.
And thus Mary is not "the Mother of God Almighty," as you allege, dear brother in Christ. Pope John Paul II makes this crystal clear in the above excerpt.
As Alamo-Girl has written, "I prefer the title 'Mother of the Incarnate Word,' Arius notwithstanding." If we all could take a page from John Paul II and stick with his authoritative, biblically-based understanding of the matter, there would probably be less confusion among co-religionists from different Christian confessions.
If you are going to mention my name as posing Pope JPII's document you should have the courtesy to ping me.