Replies

As you know, the term “Theotokos” came up in a Christological controversy.

It's funny: Today we Cat’licks observe a “feast” of the Apostles Philip and James. An assigned reading from “church documents” is from Tertullian, who seems later to have gone off the rails. And he makes much of the Lord's promise in John's gospel that the Spirit will come and lead the apostles into all truth... therefore the Church is one, etc. etc.

But figuring out what that means ain't easy. Peter seems to have wussed out in Antioch, and while we would hold that the truth of the Trinity finally prevailed, it didn't come like water from a spring. Athanasius (memorial was yesterday!) kept being run out of town!

So, I guess my image of “Magisterial” truth is that it gradually precipitates out of Church conflicts.

And, believe me, I know and have suffered from the excesses of the “Mary cult.” I once wrote something for me “chapter” which was ... get this ... open to the shocking idea that Mary delivered IHS vaginally. /gasp!/ So a few fussy ladies were persistent in their condemnation of radical me.

I just shake my head, y’know?

But, well, if Jesus is God, then “Mother of Jesus” and “Mother of God” seem semantically equivalent to me.

AND, in my experience and alleged mind the phrase is less about Mary and more about the incomprehensible (Lewis would say “appalling”) humility of God.

The MAIN deal, always but especially in these fifty days, is God and his Love. That is where I focus my attention.

But, well, if Jesus is God, then “Mother of Jesus” and “Mother of God” seem semantically equivalent to me.

While they may be to you, they do not SAY the same thing. For anyone not familiar with Catholic doctrine, the whole thing needs way too much explanation.

And if it needs to be explained to understand if correctly, then it's inadequate for the job.

AND, in my experience and alleged mind the phrase is less about Mary and more about the incomprehensible (Lewis would say “appalling”) humility of God.

I have to disagree. The reason Mary was identified as *mother of Jesus* was to tell us which of the many Mary's mentioned in the Holy spirit was referring to.

The phrase used is to ID Mary NOT to tell us about Jesus and His deity and Incarnation.

That is dealt with in other places.

So if there was confusion about the nature of Jesus, the better option would have been to correct the error with solid Scriptural teaching instead of assigning a title to Mary in a claim to correct errant teaching about the nature of Jesus.

That just plain and simple does NOT make any sense.