[Mrs. Don-o]

• You seem entirely unaware of the Analogy of Faith and the Development of Doctrine;
• you remain obstinately ignorant of the difference between Dulia and Latria;
• you minimize, or have never even thought of, the relationship between Mary and the Mystical Body of Christ;
• you block out the significance of Revelation 12 identifying Mary as the Mother of all believers;
• your understanding of the Incarnation is so shallow, it makes out Mary to be some kind of robo-gestational unit, and not the true maternal genetrix of Christ's sacred humanity;
• you turn your face from the profound significance of Mary's heart and soul being pierced, participation in Christ's Passion by empathy, prophesied by Simeon;
• you ignore the difference between doctrinal language and poetic/analogous language;
• you don't have a clue about synechdoche in either the religious or literary sense;
• you don't grasp the variations of devotional genres through the centuries;
• you ignore archaeological evidence (inscibed over the bones of martyrs in the catacomb walls, lovingly embellishing ancient sites like the House Church at Dura Europos) showing devotion to Mary from the earliest centuries of Chrstianity;
• you don't have a clue about courtly and royal imagery, extending from Genesis through Revelation;
• your sense of "context" is so thin, it's "like water for chocolate";
• you're completely in the dark about the difference between a dogma, a speculation and a theologoumenon (a mere theological opinion);
• you make zero reference the wealth of foreshadowings and types of Mary in the Old Covenant, Virgin Daughter of Zion and so many, many others;
• you can pack so much dubious misinterpretation into one paragraph, it would take a book to straighten it out---

And yet you have the chutzpah to say, "You cannot refute what I've noted regarding the rcc on mary. If you could you would have posted the corrections."

Like I and others haven't done this about a hundred times for over a decade right here on the FR Religion Forum, and a good sample of it addressed or pinged directly to you??

You can google almost any phrase in the above list with my username Mrs Don-o, and read what I've written on this very Religion Forum since 2004, and before that back to about 1998 when I was putting my own signed comments on my husband's account (don-o).

And most of it has links to more in-depth treatment and primary sources.

Do it. Google me.

Once again, it profits you nothing to "tell" me what *I* believe. How tiresome, and how puerile. Tell me what *you* believe; ASK me what I believe.

And then read to understand, not to jump in with a half-baked refutation, when your own understanding of the vastness of Catholicism is a mile wide and a centimeter deep. /end rant mode/

Peace to you.

`

[ealgeone]

you block out the significance of Revelation 12 identifying Mary as the Mother of all believers;

Because Revelation 12 is not about Mary. It is about Israel and Christ. Mary is not the mother of all believers. Again, catholicism assigns something to Mary not accorded by Scripture.

you don't grasp the variations of devotional genres through the centuries;

I grasp when the rcc approves of various writings as being free from error that have been written through the centuries. If they are free from error it strongly suggests it is catholic doctrine.

you ignore archaeological evidence (inscibed over the bones of martyrs in the catacomb walls, lovingly embellishing ancient sites like the House Church at Dura Europos) showing devotion to Mary from the earliest centuries of Chrstianity;

I googled the House Church and find nothing to support the catholic claim this shows Mary. The scholars are in doubt as to exactly who this depicts. http://www.catholictranscript.org/news/news/local-news/4470-yale-gallery-may-hold-oldest-image-of-mary.html

If, as the article suggests, this is Mary at a well when the angel appears it is appealing to the Protoevangelium of James.

However, this would contradict Luke's narrative of 1:28 (NASB), "and coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." which suggests the meeting happened inside. Not at a well. And you complain I don't "have a sense of context"!

you're completely in the dark about the difference between a dogma, a speculation and a theologoumenon (a mere theological opinion);

I know this. The rcc has not refuted this writing nor cited it as error. IIRC, various popes have embraced it.

In the Glories of Mary by Alphonsus de Liguor, a catholic bishop, (page 129) we have this:

Hence St. Ephrem says: Thou art the only advocate of sinners, and of those who are deprived of every help; and he thus salutes her: Hail! refuge and retreat of sinners, to whom alone they can flee with confidence.

As noted earlier this is a contradiction of scripture to which you cannot offer rebuttal as the popes have embraced this doctrine.

Well, mrs d...it's been fun as always.

I'm off the read about the follies of the dnc. Good luck with the corn. btw....love cream corn and fresh field peas!