Replies

Your error is in ASSUMING that at any point, I was making reference to the Triune God. Not one of my syllogisms used the term “God” in the sense of “the Trinity.”

ALL the objections to the title “Mother of God” are based on the assumption that “God” always refers to the Triune God, i.e., the Trinity.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

Mary is the mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

That is what is meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.” It is what has ALWAYS been meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.”

No Catholic has ever said that Mary is the mother, or the origin, or the Trinity.

Therefore: The objection that Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity is NOT an objection to anything that any Catholic has ever said or believed.

Your error is in ASSUMING that at any point, I was making reference to the Triune God. Not one of my syllogisms used the term “God” in the sense of “the Trinity.”
ALL the objections to the title “Mother of God” are based on the assumption that “God” always refers to the Triune God, i.e., the Trinity.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary is the mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

That is what is meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.” It is what has ALWAYS been meant by saying that Mary is the “Mother of God.”
No Catholic has ever said that Mary is the mother, or the origin, or the Trinity.
Therefore: The objection that Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity is NOT an objection to anything that any Catholic has ever said or believed.

There is no God but the triune God. As I have no doubt you profess to be a trinitarian, I have no logical choice but to assume you mean "triune God" whenever you refer to God without further qualification. The term "God," without qualifiers, and stated in a trinitarian context, MUST refer to the triune God. There is no other.

But you have added qualifiers. And that's a step in the right direction. You must realize that our objection to the term "Mother of God" is mainly about the collateral damage of the language of Chalcedon, not about the Christological findings of Chalcedon. Look at all the confusion it breeds. You say no Catholic regards Mary as the ontological mother of the triune God, but I have Catholic relatives who are definitely confused on the matter, and frankly I do not blame them so much as the reckless use of that under-qualified language. Saying Mary is the mother of God leads to serious ontological confusion. The more sophisticated Catholic who is privately and mentally adding qualifiers may be quite satisfied with their private orthodoxy, but on its face the expression appears to put Mary in the wrong relationship with God.

The language is the problem. A mother gives birth to an immature entity of the same ontological kind as the mother. That is the common understanding of the term. But we are now being asked to think that what is being said means something quite different than what the words mean on their face. Lawyers and politicians learn how to do that sort of thing quite easily. More straightforward-thinking people tend to stick with straightforward meanings. We know what a mother is, and we know what God is. If you say Mary is God's mother, then we assume that's what you mean, and you may rely upon us to object every time to that assertion, no matter how carefully you qualify the expression in the privacy of your own mind.

Peace,

SR