Correct (congrats) but so is the logic regardless with Anne being the grandmother of God, and so forth back to Eve.
(here's a link to an NON-Catholic site with information of Mary's mother,
Many if not most of the Orthodox would object to you denying they are Catholic. At least they seem to prefer Theotokos.
The only "logic" on this thread from people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb
And where was I objecting to that, versus an extrascriptural misleading unqualified term?
making bizarrely illogical arguments with "logic" that would conclude: President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President,
Wrong, and an illogical argument, since you are confusing a name which denotes a unique being due to possessing an uncreated nature with title of an elected position which has nothing to due with nature. If the objection was to Mary being called the mother of the Savior then your logic would be valid.
A fireman's mother must have existed "before there were firemen", since she's recognized as the mother of one.
Likewise invalid, as this also is the title of a occupation, not a title denoting a unique nature no one can ontologically be the mother of. If a ewe gave birth to a lamb that was God in nature who created the sheep, but was incarnated thru the ewe, and the latter was called the Mother of God, then it would be logically analogous to Mary being called "Mother of God," and just as misleading.
Angie Jolie must have "created" her Cambodian son that she adopted, she since is universally accepted as his mother.
But she well could have authored his Cambodian nature thru a Cambodian father, yet the son could not have created his mother, while Mary could not have contributed something to the Divinity of Christ, yet who made her.
In addition, adoption of humans is a common thing, nor is she uniquely titled "Mother of Cambodian," and while her contributing to his racial nature would not be unique, yet a qualifying aspect to her being described as his mother would often still be in order for adoption. And if so, then how much the more with the unique title "Mother of God." But instead of even that, man should respect the use of terms which the Spirit uses in describing Deity.
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “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 the Letter 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” - God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
What Ratzinger reasoned based upon the "language of Scripture and that of the Fathers" applies to Mother of God" as concerns the language of Scripture.
In short, none of the "logic" objecting to the use of the term "Mother of God" is used in the real world for any motherhood
Rather, it is your analogies that manifest illogic.
Any Christian can understand that God prepared a body by means of Mary's womb. Jesus already existed prior to the body He occupied, as John chapter one details.
The Bible tells us God made Jesus the man a little lower than the Angels, to occupy that body, that human four dimensional limitations body prepared in Mary's womb:
Young's Literal Translation)
Hebrews 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Because Jesus existed BEFORE He occupied that body prepared for Him, Mary is NOT the mother of God, she is the blessed Mother of the body God as Jesus took up to complete His mission of our Salvation High Priest and Sacrifice and thus our Savior/Deliverer.
The Bible makes clear that Jesus is of/from the I AM (John 14), existing before God prepared a body for Him. The Bible does not tell us upon which day in the gestation womb life of the water world Jesus came into that body to dwell for little over three decades, but it is clear that He existed before that occupying and still exists with that body transformed into a physical body fit to live in eternity. That He no lives in that body eternally in no way negates that He lived in eternity prior to taking up residence int hat body, so Mary is not the Mother of God, but she is the Mother of the body PREPARED BY GOD FOR JESUS TO OCCUPY.
"Theotokos" is the most theologically correct title for the virgin Mary. The only reason its not used in western Christianity (Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) is because it's a Greek term and the liturgical language of the west has been Latin. There's no exact way to say "Theotokos" in another language. The closest English phrase would be "God-bearer". Mary is God-bearer.
All Catholics have no problem accepting that Mary is God-bearer. The disturbing thing is that numerous protestants claim to accept traditional Christian doctrine but refuse to admit that Mary is God-bearer. In fact, I can show you numerous posts on this very thread where they vehemently insist that Mary "only gave birth to Jesus" and that his divinity was separate and not united with his humanity when he was in Mary. This is a heresy in Christianity. Protestants on this thread who claim that she "only gave birth to Jesus" are preaching that Mary is Christotokos ("Christ-bearer") rather than Theotokos. Again, the concept that Mary is only Christotokos has been rejected as a heresy in ALL of Christendom for the last 1600 years.
I suggest you read post #518 from Kolokotronis. The English translation of the original Greek statement reads that Christ was:
"born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten"
That has been accepted by the ENTIRE Christian world for 1600 years. Its not something the Roman Catholic Church "invented" years later to "exhalt Mary". If you have a problem with the statement as written in 451 A.D., you have a problem with mainstream Christian theology.