Replies

But my relatives, AFAIK, never heard of Theotokos, or Chalcedon, or Nestorius, etc. Without that intensive background, when you say "Mother of God," you trigger biological models of understanding based on practical human experience. "Mother" is the First Cause of the child. If the child has the essence of absolute deity, "Mother" becomes First Cause even to that. Yes, I know the councils and the teaching don't say that. The focus at Chalcedon was preserving the seamless, hypostatic union of both human and divine natures in Christ, despite having acquired His human nature by birth to Mary. And yes, I am aware there are debates even about the exact timing and origin of His human nature (preexistence of souls question etc.).

A problem with saying Mother of God in the modern world is the modern understanding of how someone is born.

Specifically a man and woman have sex. A sperm cell then enters an egg cell and a human being is formed (sidestepping pre-existence of souls). Nine months later a baby pops out. The human egg cell was only discovered in the 19th century. This raises a question of how was motherhood understood in the 4th century. AFAIK, back then it was understood that a man and woman have sex, nine months later a baby pops out.

I would disagree with your statement that Mother is the first cause and say that the Father of the child is the first cause. It is by his action (usually, I am sure you can find some exceptions) that the child is conceived; the question concerning the mother is did she willingly cooperate or was she raped?

But having a pope actually call her Queen of Heaven? Is not the queen coequal regent with the king? And if equal in rank, under monotheistic principles, how do we see her as not some way entangled with the Trinity as a peer?

Queen is the female title equivalent to King; however, it is (usually, Elizabeth II is an exception) the King that rules by right. The Queen is determined by hr relationship to the King. In some monarchies, it is the wife of the King that is Queen. In Czarist Russia, the Czarina was the Mother of the King. However, if he dies/abdicates, she ceases to be Queen. If she dies/abdicates, he does not. The Queen does not have her own power.

I would disagree with your statement that Mother is the first cause and say that the Father of the child is the first cause.

Granted, it takes two. But hard to say which has greater primacy in the process, either primacy of time or primacy of importance. At least in biological terms, "First Cause" is at best a tie. And when framed that way, it suggests a peer relationship in human partners that is simply not true of the incarnation. That discrepancy is what makes the expression problematic, not the Christological values sought to be protected by Chalcedon.

As for what sort of side-effects "mother of God" might imply back in the Fourth Century, that's an excellent question. It is too easy for us moderns to introduce anachronisms of perspective. There may be a clue though in Nestorius, as I recall reading somewhere part of what drove his concern over using "Theotokos" was precisely this potential for exaggeration of the status of Mary. If that truly was the case, then perhaps the difference over time is not so great, even though our biological science is more precise.

Queen is the female title equivalent to King; however, it is (usually, Elizabeth II is an exception) the King that rules by right. The Queen is determined by hr relationship to the King. In some monarchies, it is the wife of the King that is Queen. In Czarist Russia, the Czarina was the Mother of the King. However, if he dies/abdicates, she ceases to be Queen. If she dies/abdicates, he does not. The Queen does not have her own power.

But the problem is ontological. Typically, both King and Queen belong to the same class of being. Furthermore, if the Queen is the mother of the King's Son, as would be the case if Mary were the Queen of Heaven, that peer status is reinforced. Because the King is supreme deity, as a class of being, it is very difficult to not assign the Queen to that same class, though technically there may be a dodge for that, such as your proposed analogy of derived power. The problem is, clever dodges don't work for any but an extreme minority of very clever persons. Most folks are just not into the details and will reliably go with the big outlines, and the big outline is, if she's the Queen, and God's the King, and the jurisdiction is Heaven, we're talking about the functional equivalent of deity.

Peace,

SR

NOT Mary and Joseph!!!