So why then all the hyperventilating whenever a non-Catholic tries to express the belief that Jesus IS God in the flesh, incarnated, but say it doesn't by default make Mary the Mother of God? I think they could have done a good job of explaining the Deity of Jesus without going into what it made Mary. Of course, if one believes that Jesus is Almighty God, the Son of God, in the flesh, it only stands to reason that Mary gave birth to the incarnate Son of God. I think they went overboard by calling Mary the Mother of God because look at all the consternation it has caused not to mention the developing dogmas that were invented outside of Holy Scripture that gave her attributes reserved to God alone. From this decision of the Council, evolved the sinlessness of Mary, her ever-virgin state and her bodily assumption - dogmas that all the "faithful" are required to give ascent under threat of excommunication. "Because we said so" is the reason given.
I think y'all can believe whatever you want about the subject, but other Christians can disagree and STILL be Christians. Nobody here is disrespecting Mary.
I don't see how you don't see the contradiction here. Isn't God Incarnate fully God?
If we said "Mary is the mother of the Godhead, or the Most Holy Trinity or God the Father or the Holy Spirit... that would be an error in the other direction.
I think it's fine to say Mary is the mother of God Incarnate. But to say she is *not* the mother of God is to make another error.
If your point here is we can, in common use mean the Holy Trinity when we say God, so we could have a problem saying Mary is the mother of God because we don't mean the Holy Trinity… then I would say, well, let's use clearer language when we talk, no problem, now we both know what we mean.
If it's a problem in this regard, it's no problem. What we see here is not that kind of problem, we're not confusing the terms, but objecting to a clear usage.
Bottom line, you can call Mary "Mary" if you wish. It is denying that she is the mother of God, understanding the terms, that usually is due to an error about Christ.
From this decision of the Council, evolved the sinlessness of Mary, her ever-virgin state and her bodily assumption - dogmas that all the “faithful” are required to give ascent under threat of excommunication.
>>You are incorrect.
Patristic teachings about Mary’s sinlessness, her perpetual virginity, and her Dormition predated the Council of Ephesus by centuries.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary.htm
What’s wrong with excommunication?
>> I think they went overboard by calling Mary the Mother of God because look at all the consternation it has caused <<
Catholic creates a doctrine.
Protestant needs another reason to hate Catholic, so he refutes the doctrine.
Catholic affirms doctrine in scripture AND in tradition.
Protestant says, “Yes, but that doctrine causes so much consternation; shouldn’t we just throw it out?”
Try this: Quit attacking scripture and the Church fathers, and there won’t be any consternation.
“...not to mention the developing dogmas that were invented outside of Holy Scripture that gave her attributes reserved to God alone.”
Pope: God redeemed the world through Mary! And she chose to be used for this!
Saint: Without needing to be born again?
Pope: No, of her own will!
Saint: That means she willingly participated in the salvation of the world! That would make her co-redemptrix!
Pope: Better not use that term. Protestants would be confused into thinking that we were making her an equivalent to Christ. She had no power to do so on her own, but relied on God. God, being God, chose to involve her.
Saint: But you see what I mean?
Pope: Yes. You’re not a heretic. But just don’t give her that title. It’ll cause consternation.
Protestant: The Catholics are calling Mary co-redemptrix!
Catholic: No, we’re not. We see how the word could confuse you, so we agree: not worth the consternation.
Protestant: Look here, Saint called her that. You’re making her a goddess AND you’re lying about it!