Jesus existed in the Spirit for eons, probably eternally, before he was born as man. Why would Elizabeth
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit call Mary "mother of my Lord"? That's what Theotokos means, mother of Jesus (in the flesh I think). Obviously Mary wasn't mother of Jesus in Heaven. The creed says eternally begotten of the Father.
But Jesus by his own words said "I and the Father are one". Ergo, Jesus is Lord. And Mary is mother of the Lord Jesus in the flesh as Elizabeth addressed her.
Now here I am defending what is true in the Catholic church. There are many things that I don't accept any more and some I'm not sure of.
Observe the following verse:
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
(John 4:11)
The word "sir" is "kurios," what in many places is translated "lord." When clearly applied to God, it expresses His supreme authority. But it is not like "theo," which is a specific reference to divinity, His nature as God.
In the passage above, the woman at the well does not know Jesus at all. Yet she calls him "kurios." It was a common title of respect and focused on a person's authority, not divine nature. Jesus uses the term Himself in His parables as the standard way to refer to figures of authority, such as the master of the vinyard. Or where He says you cannot serve two masters. Same word. The basic idea is "master," person of great authority. Yes, it can be applied to God, but it can be applied as well to any human authority. We do the same in English: "lord of the manor," etc. It is most certainly NOT the equivalent of the "Theo" in theotokus.
So when Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my lord," she would have been speaking of Jesus as the Messiah. He was to be the Son of David, the King of Israel, and "kurios" would be an apropos title for Messiah. But her words make no claim that Mary is "mother of God."
Remember, supposedly, the heresy the council was refuting was the false claim that Jesus acquired His divinity after coming into being physically. The point of "theotokus" was to assure the understanding that no, Jesus was God from the moment He came into being physically. The focus was Christological, not Marian.
And that's what I find intriguing about these debates. I'd bet a large sum of money that most folks on both sides believe the same thing about Jesus, that He always existed in His divine being, that He acquired His humanity in time through being born to Mary, and that there is a unity in His person, such that the divine and human natures, while distinguishable as to attributes, compose a single, seamless Person.
But these debates do not settle for solving that problem, but push beyond that to argue the status of Mary, which "theotokus" was not intended to do, at all. There are times I truly wish we could rejoice in the truths we hold in common, and resolve our differences in amicable conversation, rather than going incessantly in meaningless little circles powered by a fevered hostility. Don't people get tired of that? I know I do.
Peace,
SR