“Protestants are often needlessly harsh in our characterization of Marian dogma.”
I appreciate that acknowledgement.
“There is no evidence that Mary was either sinful or sinless.”
Discussions of what constitutes evidence are usually never-ending and bootless. I’ll just say that some things necessarily follow from known things. If someone says to us that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, we really shouldn’t need for them to spell out that this means Socrates is mortal.
“She was indeed the mother of Christ, and therefore the mother of God, BUT because Christ pre-existed before her in His perfect fullness she made no spiritually significant contribution to his incarnate being. The title "Mother of God" implies that Mary had a genitive role in the incarnation. Protestants deny such a role, and thus the title itself is viewed dimly.”
In His incarnation, Christ was both fully God and fully man. Is it conceivable that becoming fully man was not “spiritually significant?” If it were insignificant, why would He have done it?
Saint Mary had a genitive role in bearing Our Lord as fully man, and in acting as mother to Him as baby and child. Christ as God was begotten of the Father; Christ as man was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, then gestated, borne, and nurtured by Saint Mary. The importance of her genitive role derives from the importance of the Incarnation itself.
“There is no evidence that she remained a virgin after Christ's birth. In fact, scripture strongly suggests otherwise.”
For some reason, this issue always reminds me of the stadium scene in Life of Brian. I am obedient to the Church in this, but I frankly don’t see that it matters.
“There is no evidence that she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way (other than to bear Him in the first place and make it possible).”
I’m not well educated in Catholic dogma, but I don’t believe that the Church requires me to believe that she “she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way.” Maybe it’s simplistic, but I’ve always thought that we were redeemed through His suffering as He passed under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and died, which leaves me raising an eyebrow at the term, “redemptive work.”
Prior to His bitter Passion and death, He educated and He healed, but He redeemed with His suffering. After the Resurrection He continued to educate, but the Redemption was complete, which is what I think He meant on the Cross: “It is finished.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if Sister Mary Dieseldyke and Fr. Bruce Candypants, enemies of the Church as defined by Saint Pius X, went around preaching the equality of Saint Mary with Our Lord. Heretics do that kind of stuff. I do regret that some people get the notion that this is the true teaching of the Church.
“There is no reason to believe that Mary is "Queen of Heaven".
I’m not going to try to persuade you on this one, but I do think your statement would more accurately be phrased, “There is no reason *that I would accept* to believe that Mary is “Queen of Heaven.”
“Accrediting her such a title is perilous, as it may attract worship rather than respect.”
I don’t think that’s really a concern. The risk of heresy exists with or without the title, but a proper catechism and orthodox priests offset it.
In His incarnation, Christ was both fully God and fully man. Is it conceivable that becoming fully man was not “spiritually significant?” If it were insignificant, why would He have done it?
OK, bad choice of words on my part. I'll boil this down even further.
-Christ is fully God and fully man.
-He has always had this nature, because as a member of the Godhead, He is both eternal and immutable.
-It is indisputable that Mary conceived and sustained Christ in the manner of all mothers, with the caveat that she added nothing to his eternal nature. Were this the case, Christ would be, in some way, in at least one of his natures, a created being.
Saint Mary had a genitive role in bearing Our Lord as fully man, and in acting as mother to Him as baby and child. Christ as God was begotten of the Father; Christ as man was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, then gestated, borne, and nurtured by Saint Mary. The importance of her genitive role derives from the importance of the Incarnation itself.
See my points above. I think we have one of those differences in vocabulary at work here. I don't disagree with any of this, except to repeat that the "genitive" role should not imply that any addition was made by Mary to Christ's eternal nature.
I’m not well educated in Catholic dogma, but I don’t believe that the Church requires me to believe that she “she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way.”
This may also be an issue of language. Still, Mary's proposed title of "Co-Redemtrix" works overtime to create the wrong impression. This dogma, and others related to Mary's role at Calvary, need to be articulated clearly and free of exclusively Catholic theological language in order to have any hope of a hearing from Protestants.
Most Protestants to not belittle or (God forbid) hate Mary. But we are very concerned lest she be elevated so high that she receives a portion of the glory rightfully due to Christ, or ascends to His exalted level as an equal, or worst of all becomes a Goddess in her own right. The powerful emphasis on Marian devotion-seemingly at the expense of devotion to Christ-that many Catholics embrace reinforces this. Many Protestants fear that with the doctine of the "Co-Redemtrix" the Catholic Church is constructing a Quadrinity. This may be hogwash, but little is being done to clarify this doctrine (or even the need for it).