[Arthur McGowan]

It’s not a “continuation of Catholic reasoning.”

You think ANY Catholic is moronic enough to believe that the Trinity owes its existence to Mary?

What do you hope to accomplish by telling Catholics over and over and over again that they believe idiotic things that ALL Catholics know full well they DON’T believe? What kind of spiritual sickness makes a person do that?

It’s malicious, willful misinterpretation of what the title was always intended to signify.

It has been explained to you in excruciating detail precisely what the title always meant, and what it never meant, but because of your blinding hatred of the Catholic Church, you choose to repeat and repeat your deliberate misrepresentations of it.

Your intellectually dishonest posts are full of hate, hostility, and malice. Of course, I can never “prove” this to you, but every intellectually honest third party who has been reading this thread knows this to be the case. You need to dig into your soul and discover the root cause of the malice that is there.

[CynicalBear]

>>You think ANY Catholic is moronic enough to believe that the Trinity owes its existence to Mary?<<

Wow! Those vitriolic words from someone who calls himself a priest!! Oh well.

I didn't say they would believe it. The Catholics all the time tell us Jesus is "one person". In their Catechism they also believe that God is one. They also tell us Mary is the mother of God.

I can honestly tell you the Catholicism is the most dangerous religion on earth. It will one day incorporate all other religions. It is the religion could cause even the very elect to be deceived. And it is the religion that God said to "come out of her my people lest ye be partakers of her plagues".

[Elsie]

Of course, I can never “prove” this to you, but every intellectually honest third party who has been reading this thread knows this to be the case.

RM; could you just this once just let us see the PRIVATE replies that AG has gotten from these 'intellectually honest third parties'??

[metmom]

Catholicism - church of the perpetually Offended.

I don’t see CB telling anyone what they believe about Mary.

What is being addressed is what is being SAID with the titles given her.

It is focusing on the meanings of the words and the message they convey. They in no way represent any of the plethora of things you have accused CB of.

As usual, when all else fails, attack the messenger.

[Springfield Reformer]

You think ANY Catholic is moronic enough to believe that the Trinity owes its existence to Mary?

Um, not exactly "owe existence," but my priceless Catholic relatives up by Chicago do sincerely believe she has an equal place as co-redemptrix with Jesus, as a matter of feminist progressive theology.  For these folks, I don't think the actual number of Persons in the Trinity matters nearly as much as social justice for women.  Seriously. It's that bad. 

I understand that theoretically the formulation of "theotokus" (God-bearer) avoids that, but the rank and file are having a dickens of a time keeping out of the false syllogism that becomes virtually inevitable when you start verbally mixing ontological categories with expressions like Mary Mother of God.  God in His divine nature does not have parentage, and for most folks the main reason for using a label like "mother" is to describe parentage.  It's really why, I think, ol' Nestorius was concerned about the term, namely, that only things of like nature may beget one another, a concept called "generation," in which case it would never be proper to say that Mary generated God. It is an ontological impossibility, and not at all a necessary consequence of the incarnation. Yet right or wrong, this inference of Mary as deity is exactly what the term "Mother of God" conveys to many who hear it, apparently even my Catholic relatives up north. The article below explores this nature versus person aspect of the Nestorian crisis in some detail:  

http://lukebray.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/nestorius-understanding-of-the-person-of-christ-34/

After reading the above, I would ask whether perhaps Nestorius was wronged, falsely accused of unorthodoxy, when in fact his formulation appears to come closer to the language of Chalcedon than that of his more politically savvy accuser, Cyril of Alexandra. In any event, the conflict was rooted in confusion over terms steeped in Greek philosophical nuance, rife with ontological confusion, and resolved not by irenic and loving deliberation between brothers in Christ, but by invoking imperial Rome to arbitrate against Nestorius, in clear violation of Paul's admonition to resolves disputes within the household and family of God.  It should be noted that Nestorius defended his orthodoxy to the end.

Peace,

SR