Well, there you have it.
Mary was the mother of the deity of Christ, the mother of the second person of the Godhead, making Jesus a created being.
And that makes her deity as well.
It most certainly does to them. They like to deny that but actions speak louder than words. But even when we look at the words of the prayers they have posted online we can see they give Mary the same attributes of God.
Well, there you have it. Mary was the mother of the deity of Christ, the mother of the second person of the Godhead, making Jesus a created being. And that makes her deity as well.
It certainly is misleading, but RCs are far more zealous to exalt Mary above that which is written than to avoid blaspheming God by ascribing to her uniquely Divine qualities.
For this does not simply make Mary the one who mothered one who was Divine, but too easily conveys that Mary was"the mother of" His Divine nature, as the term "mother" most naturally conveys ontology, and which nature makes Christ Divine.
"With the help of the Holy Spirit" does not clarify that Mary is the mother of God by relation, not nature as even Theodore of Mopsuestia clarified, as this can infer that Mary provided the Divine nature of Christ, by the Holy Spirit.
Notice that while being the "mother of my Lord," (Luke 1:43) as "Lord" primarily denotes position, and thus Christ is called Lord and God, (Jn. 20:28) and as God was positionally made Lord over all after His death, until all His foes be made His footstool (Acts 2:35,36) yet Mary is never titled "mother of God" which conveys ontological oneness.
Thus the Holy Spirit is careful to note that while Christ came thru Israel, thru Mary, yet this was "as concerning the flesh." (Romans 9:5)
Thus as this use of the unBiblical title "mother of God" most naturally conveys ontology, that of Mary providing divinity, it is an irreverent rejection of the careful use of terms used by the Holy Spirit, and the avoidance of ascribing uniquely divine attributes to man. And which term is akin to the use of the term “Co-redemptrix,” of which then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated,
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings..”
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language”
Of course, this right reverence of Christ is inconsistent in application as regards Scripture, since "mother of God" also departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture. The fact that so-called church "fathers" (which the foundational apostles and OT prophets were: Eph. 2:20) employed the term (or theotokos=God-bearing) is simply another example of the departure by pious men from Scripture, if not necessarily salvifically.
And this exaltation of Mary above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and often contrary to it, is part of the excess ascriptions, appellations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority), and which uniqueness and exaltation parallels that of Christ :
From a Catholic site of theirs...
The King's bride is his mother...I believe there are some pagan historical references to that scenario...
Yup