[verga]

That is a good observation on your part, and yes, Jesus is God based upon the substantial weight of Scriptural evidence, being ontologically the Son of God. But the issue is that of the careful use of language in ascribing titles in Scripture to God and man, with the objections to ascriptions to Mary including some which may be technically allowed, but are objectionable (as the link explained) as being unnecessary and inferring more than is written (1Cor. 4:6) as part of an exaltation of Mary which does just that.

The problem with you understanding is that scripture itself disagrees with you. Thomas in addressing Jesus in the upper room: Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus was recognized as God just as John the Baptist recognized him in utero and why Elizabeth was able to address Mary as the Mother of God. all this was accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

[daniel1212]

You are making a hasty and wrong conclusion. I affirmed Jesus is God, but the issue remains the use careful use of titles. Thus Jesus is called Lord and God. Again, Lord primarily refers to what He is as ruler, and can be applied to mortals and the Messiah after the Jewish expectation, but God denotes His being, and Mary is never termed Mother of God, though again, that may be technically allowed in a sense (as would Mary’s mother being the grandmother of God by extension, and so on).

Likewise, Co-redemptrix can be technically allowed in a sense, but both are unnecessary, and easily infer more as part of the excess extrapolated exaltation of Mary, as overall seen here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2841954/posts?page=187#187