Did John Calvin Insist Mary be Called the Mother of God?

This little blurb above appeared in a Catholic vs. Protestant Facebook group. I'm going to skip past Luther and Zwingli because they both did positively use the title "Mother of God." However, with John Calvin it's a different story.  John Calvin did not insist Mary be called the Mother of God and shied away from using it. He also warned others not to use it.

Roman Catholic scholars know this. For instance, Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara states, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara also states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara documents this from  letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

Original text: Quant aux autres pointz quilz ont debatu, ie ne doute pas quil ny ayt eu de l'ignorance en ce quilz ont reprouvé ceste facon de parler que la vierge Marie soit mere de Dieu, et avec l'ignorance il se peut faire quil y ayt eu temerité et audace trop grande, comme le proverbe ancien dit que les plus ignorans sont les plus hardiz. Cependant pour aller en rondeur fraternelle avec vous, ie ne puis dissimuler qu’on trouve mauvais que ce tiltre soit ordinairement attribué aux sermons a ceste vierge, et de ma part ie ne scaurois trouver tel langage ne bon, ne propre, ne convenable. Aussi ne feront toutes gens de sens rassis. Parquoy ie ne me puis persuader quil y ayt eu tel usage en vostre eglise, car cela seroit autant comme de parler du corps, du sang, de la teste, de la mort de Dieu. Vous scavez que l'escriture nous acoustume a ung autre stile, mais il y a pis en cecy pour le scandale. Car de dire la mere de Dieu pour la vierge Marie, ne peut servir qu’a endurcir les ignorans en leurs superstitions. Et celuy qui se plairoit en cela, monstreroit bien quil ne scait que c’est d'edifier l’eglise (Corpus reformatorum 42:363).

 O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

This is exactly why John Calvin avoided "Mother of God" and why many Protestants do today. Dr. James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God" for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Jesus Christ developed into venerating over-the-top praise to Mary and a focus on her intercession. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."

Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26). This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Original text: Nam quod toties gregis sui faciunt mentionem Sorbonistae, se certe gregem porcorum esse hic prodiderunt. Invocationem Virginis, qua usi sunt antehac, ad petendam spiritus gratiam, quis non videt exsecrabilem blasphemiam esse? ut elogia illa anathematis plena omittamus, quibus dum Virginem volunt honorare, gravissimo probro afficiunt, quum reginam coeli et thesaurariam gratiae appellant. Audimus quid doceat Christus: missurum se a patre spiritum veritatis: illum ut petamus in suo nomine, iubet (Ioann. 14, 26 et 15, 26). Haec igitur iusta petendi regula, et certa obtinendi ratio est. Ad Virginem autem confugere, Christo praeterito, eamque in precatione compellare, non Deum, quis non profanum esse morem videt? A verbo sane Dei prorsus est alienus. Quin etiam exstat decretum concilii Carthaginensis quarti: quod vetat sanctos ad altare invocare. In eo quoque suam insulsitatem apertius etiamnum produnt, quum dicunt salutationem hanc nobis ab evangelio praescribi. Missus est quidem Gabriel, ut Lucas narrat, qui hoc modo Virginem salutaret: sed an sumus Gabrieles? Ubi hoc nobis unquam mandatum est? Quis ad Virginem nobis accessus patet, ut cum ea colloquamur? Ad haec, quorsum tunc salutatio, quum spiritus gratiam implorant, nisi ea precationis vice abutantur? (Corpus Reformatorum 35:44).