I am looking at the plain meaning of what it says and what it means.
The phrase *mother of God* says, mother of GOD.
Calling her *Mother of Christ*, or *Mother of God the Son* is more accurate and less misleading. It does not give any false impressions about who she is mother of.
The rationalization that the Catholic church and some Catholics give to justify a term that means something other than what it says, just does not wash.
Is it too hard to be precise about something?
God does not, did not, have a Mother. God the Father didn’t, God the Holy Spirit didn’t. Unless the Trinity isn’t what Catholics say it is, and the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit and they are modes of each other, then calling her mother of God is not accurate.
Even so, she was mother of Jesus’ humanity, His flesh and blood human body, not His godhood. And the term mother of God does not delineate that. Calling her mother of Christ would recognize that.
No progress on the food issues. But it’s not any worse either. Thank you for your prayers.
If you deny Christ having a human Mother you end up denying Christ as Incarnate God in the flesh -The second person of the Holy Trinity .
You're walking along the same heresy as Nestorius by taking out the human connection of Mother in the Virgin Birth you end up denying the Trinity of God the Son being fully Man
Perhaps you need to take some time off of FR and really study Christian history and contemplate some things
Mary was the mother of the Person of Jesus Christ. One person with two indivisible natures, human and divine. So she was indeed the Mother of God.
I assume you learned about the Hypostatic Union or are the findings of the Council of Chalcedon(sp) also rejected by your sect?
You need to stand where you can hear what comes out the other side of their mouths...
As this Catholic chart shows at post 467, Jesus is God...The Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God...
If Mary is the Mother of God, Mary is the Mother of all three...