Where did this nonsense come from? The term Theotokos is Greek, not Latin. Its first known use was probably by Origen in the early 3rd century....He wasn't a Roman. A 3rd century Father who used the term was +Dionysius of Alexandria....Obviously not a Roman. Then in the 4th century we have +Athanasius the Great, +Gregory Nazianzus +John Chrysostomos and Blessed Augustine of Hippo....None of them from Rome. Just who were theses "teachers within the Catholic Church in Rome" who were teaching this?
You know, bb, your Protestantism isn't advanced one bit by unthinking anti-papalism.
You know, Kolo...wait, you don't know anything about how I arrived at my thinking, do you? It is hardly "anti-papalism" - how odd a description. I was responding to the OP about the council regarding Nestorian. You may want to go back and follow the thread.
I am sorry you missed my point, but it has nothing to do with being against Roman Catholism. My point is, if you find yourself having to backtrack to try to explain to the "unenlightened" that although Mary is referred to as Mother of God, you don't mean it to imply she is to be worshipped alongside the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that she did not preceed the Son nor is she sitting on her own special throne right next to them, then why come up with the unscriptural title in the first place?
Finally, I am not trying to "advance my Protestantism". How utterly silly. What I care about the most is the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Yes, sola fide. When a religion that calls itself Christian messes up that simple doctrine, just about everything else they profess should be examined as well. That's how I see it. I am still allowed, right?