[Mad Dawg]

Funny. as with the Holy Sacrament, I see questions asked and answered and then complaints that they weren't answered.

I wrote that it certainly wasn't thought so in any de Fide way before 1854 OR we wouldn't have waited until 1854 to get the encyclical.

I said further that, as far as I know, the encyclical does not deal with the necessity of the Immaculate Conception for the Incarnation. I could be wrong.

I have repeatedly said that it is hard to discuss whether God could have done something a different way. Presumably whatever way He chooses is the best way.

You do know what de Fide means, right?

If pressed I would say I don't see how it could be necessary. I do see how it is "fitting." I don't see how we can meaningfully say, "God didn't have to do that."

[the_conscience]

I wrote that it certainly wasn't thought so in any de Fide way before 1854 OR we wouldn't have waited until 1854 to get the encyclical.

Let me see if I understand this. Somehow the proposition that Mary needed to be immaculate is somehow dependent upon the time in which it is published in an encyclical?

Why would the proposition be dependent upon being published in a Romanist encyclical? Wouldn't the proposition be either true or false irregardless of when Romanists decided to publish a ruling?

I never realized how seriously you guys took the "bind on earth...bind in heaven" such that it could change the nature of a proposition.