[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)?

[Mad Dawg]

You're right, it was the "Oh please" that I misremembered as Get real.

I'm just tired out.

My point is that why would you not declare it a doctrine if everyone believes it to be so?Why bother to declare it a doctrine if everybody believes it? I'm serious. If I got a telegram from God saying t hat every time I said,"I declare and define," people were going to have to work around it for a long, long time, I'd avoid saying it as much as possible. I just got home from a class about the last things. It's amazing how little doctrine we have on all the apocalyptic stuff: Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and we don't know when, and it's not good to try to figure it out. That's our end times doctrine.

Why would the eastern church not declare it while the Roman Church does?

Ask them. Kolo is saying they just don't do that stuff that much. My unresearched understanding is that We did it because there was a popular movement requestin a declaration.

I bet if a bunch of orthodox people started saying it wasn't true, then you'd see some declarin' goin' on 'roun' here.

Entre nous what troubles me is these visionaires saying that Mary says if we don't declare this or that by tea time next Saturday, Muslims will take over Yankee Stadium. Fortunately I don't think that's going to cut a lot of ice with Benedict XVI

I'm too zonked to check it out, but what I recall you're saying was that somebody "knew" that the curch was close to the declaration about co-redemptrix. I know there's agitation, I just don't know how we know it's close to happening.

Wow, do I disagree with you about Ginger Rogers! But I like Gene Keely better theneither of them.I'm simply saying that the co-redeptix is similar to the Assumption in that it was never viewed as a doctrine. I guess where the real disconnect is is that I just odn'[t get what you mean by "viewed as a doctrine".

I know my church has a rep for, as someone said, "nano-managing", but I just don't see it.

I see this vast chaotic body and a lot of unwaverng firmness on some points and wide open' "whatever's" on other points. And as far as the laity are concerned there's a lot of (too much?) patience with heterodox views. So my imagination is that evenif there were any Popes who did not believe in the assumption, they wouldn't feel a need to "correct it", they just let it be. And those who did believe would be happy that a lot of Catholics in all orders agreed with them.

I know J2P2 takes Fatima very seriously, and I'm inclined to so so only because of my deep respect, even love, for that man. But I don't think there's any official sho' 'nuff, "you have to believe Fatima was real or you're toast," declaration ever. This is what happens when codeine hits fatigue. I regret any bad temper I showed earlier if any. Okay. Now: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)?

"this" is Co redemptrix, or any similar thing or what?

Okay, here's the problem. When you talk of the RCC or the EO "accepting x as doctrine" I get all confused. There's almost a different doctrinal epistemology for the two bodies, so that we're much more prepared to "declare and define" (and we seem to face much more need or receive many more requests to do so) that the EO's do.;

But again, even the great Trinitarian and Christological issues were only "defined" because there was serious controversy. I suspect that only if there is serious controversy about the redemptrix business will there be a definition.

Is any contact happening here?