Replies

I'm intrigued with the suggestion that IHS would be cruel to his mother in order to lay a predicate to argue against future theological errors. That's kind of a mariological statement.

In fact, Jesus elevated believers to the state of mother and brother; to Jesus, the biological connection is WEAKER than the spiritual one! This would necessarily demote Mary's "mother of God" position to be no more important than any believer.

First, the comment is a distraction. Mr. Rogers and I were talking about what Mariology is. I was alleging that his understanding of what our Lord said at Cana indicated a kind of mariology. To introduce the Synoptic "those who hear the word of God and do it" episode seems a little off topic.

I read your assertion. I don't see the support. I do see a possible contradiction (and note the gathering of opponents, while the person I was talking to seems to have backed off, probably because he has a real job.)

How can one sentence be that believers are elevated to the state of Mother and brother on one clause while the biological connection be WEAKER than the spiritual in the net clause.

I'm assuming that in the game of Biblical gotcha so popular among some no one has taken the trouble to find out what Catholics teach about this passage, which is usually presented as though we'd never heard it or thought about it.

I am noting that the implication, also, is that Mary — who had heard the Word of God conveyed to her by an angel, who had responded "Ιδου η δουλη κυριου· γενοιτο μοι κατα το ρημα σου," who then received the Word into her body — nevertheless somehow fell short compared to others with respect to hearing and doing the word of God.

I have noted before that some evidently despise or fail to understand motherhood. It is well known that the sound of her child's cry will stimulate milk let-down in many mothers. Yet you would argue that Mary did not hear or respond to the Word of God, whom she had born.

I am not persuaded.