[Mad Dawg]

Tap Dancer:

But as evidence above, it WASN’T part of the doctrine (e.g. dogma) of the Church and was never accepted until well after the split.

Yes, I think saying "Get real," is contemptuous. If I had seaid, say,"Get real! That's the Assumption hyo're talking about not the Immaculate Conception, that would be okay with you?" It wouldn't with me.

I'll cop to using doctrine and dogma carelessly.

The fact remains that you said "Get real," in response to my saying that the Church moved slowly in making the Assumption Dogma, while it was widely, if unofficially held for 1500 years before the definition.

Again you were arguing that you KNEW that the Church would move speedily to make co-redemptrix official. Against that I was saying that the church moved SLOWLY on The Assumption.

Now if you are saying that the church moved quickly in that it wasn't dogma until it was dogma, I'll gladly stipulate the tautology.

But if you are or were arguing something meaningful, I say again the belief was widely but unofficially held for something like 1500 years before it was made dogma, and you have adduced nothing but your contemptuous "Get real," to show that that is not so.

What you are not getting is that a thing can be widely believed without being officially declared doctrine. And the only way your initial "get real" -- which you now seem to be tap dancing away from in a manner to dazzle Ginger Rogers -- can make any sense at all is ... no, wait, it doesn't make sense. A belief which was widely but unofficially held was formalized more than a millenium and a half after its general but not universal acceptance -- and you adduce it as evidence that the Church moves quickly on making Marian doctrine.

I also say again that you do not seem to understand, despite your lengthy researches how dogma or doctrine gets to be defined. The councils were called in response to questions and controversies. There wasn't a rulingon Icons until some yahoos started working against them. The Marian dogmas were defined in response to questions and appeals for their definition. So the absence of a definition is not a matter of slowness in deciphering but of the absence of a perceived need to make a determination.

You seem to think that it isn't believed until the people are told to believe it, while at the same time you think that the Vatican will precipitously give into popular pressure to declare Mary co-redemptrix. So they're slow to decipher but prone to act too quickly? The people who didn't reallybelieve anything about the Assumptionuntil they were told to are now forcing the Vatican to knuckle under on co-redemptrix? I must be missing your argument entirely.SLow and fast, weak and inert AND strong and uncontrollable. Get real?

BTW I think when RC's say "Dogma" they mean it's been defined.

Maybe we'd better start over. What is your worry about the whole co-redemptrix mess? (I mean outside of disagreeing with it?) On what basis did you say that we knew it would be made official soon? and what di the history of the Assumption (or the Immaculate conception) have to do with your knowledge?

[HarleyD]

Yes, I think saying "Get real," is contemptuous.

I've gone back over the posts. I cannot find anywhere that I've stated "Get real". Do you have a particular post this is found at? I did say, "Oh, please....(and rolled my eyeballs but you can't see that).

Again you were arguing that you KNEW that the Church would move speedily to make co-redemptrix official. Against that I was saying that the church moved SLOWLY on The Assumption.

I don't believe I ever said "speedily". The Roman Catholic Church never does anything speedily. However, compared to the Orthodox they look frightfully fast. I did say that this is all political and with enough Cardinal support it will come about.

What you are not getting is that a thing can be widely believed without being officially declared doctrine.

My point is that why would you not declare it a doctrine if everyone believes it to be so? Why would the eastern church not declare it while the Roman Church does?

And the only way your initial "get real" -- which you now seem to be tap dancing away from in a manner to dazzle Ginger Rogers

I'm not tap dancing away from anything. I'm simply saying that the co-redeptix is similar to the Assumption in that it was never viewed as a doctrine. There is a disconnect in the east not declaring this to be a doctrine and Rome does.

And, btw, as is often pointed out Ginger Rogers was a much better tap dancer than Fred Astair simply because she did the same steps only in heels.

Maybe we'd better start over. What is your worry about the whole co-redemptrix mess?

My point (not worry) is that if this was consistently viewed in the Church as a fundamental principle of faith, should both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church accept it as doctrine (dogma)?