Replies

What I did say was that it was not de Fide until the definition. Assent to it was not required.

Here I keep getting told by Romanists that their church is the one that the "truth once delivered" was delivered to but yet apparently not all the truth?

So if someone wants to join the Romanist Church today they have to assent not only to "Mary mother of God" but to "Mary mother of God with additional premises"?

What great heresy was the Romanist Church fighting that made them have to declare that Mary was sinless?

Here I keep getting told by Romanists that their church is the one that the “truth once delivered” was delivered to but yet apparently not all the truth?

So if someone wants to join the Romanist Church today they have to assent not only to “Mary mother of God” but to “Mary mother of God with additional premises”?

What great heresy was the Romanist Church fighting that made them have to declare that Mary was sinless?

There ya go agin’

One can’t EXPECT

the theology promulgated by the

VATICAN ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING

to be rational, coherent, stable, timeless, NON-convoluted, consistent, BIBLICAL, historically accurate, nor largely true.

Sadly.

Here I keep getting told by Romanists that their church is the one that the "truth once delivered" was delivered to but yet apparently not all the truth?

The mess-understanding is ENTIRELY due to your poor judgment in deciding not to come to MOI with your questions, my son. I KEEP on SAYING that the working definition of "poorly catechized" is "disagrees with Dawg," but do they listen? "A prophet is not without honor save in his own forum and thread ..."

(Jeepers it's hard to be humble when I'm so great.)

Seriously (well, almost) ...Alla TIME we are talking about "development" or, as I call it, "unfolding." Again and again, repeatedly, over and over, redundantly, AND a whole lot have I said that the unfolding is articulated into some kind of crisis (not necessarily a heresy, BTW).

It's a lot like how cases get to the Supremes. The royal road is if one Circuit court says "A" and another says, "Not A."

I really don't know the history of the Marian dogmata. My IMPRESSION (FWIW = not much) is that there was a mounting clamor in the Cat'licks for the question of the IC to be settled. There were Catherine Laboure's apparitions and the subsequent miracles claimed for the so-called "miraculous medal". (My usual tag line is from one of the apparitions and is around the edge of the obverse of the medal. The money phrase is "conceived without sin.)"

If I am right (good luck with that), it wasn't so much a controversy as a strong and strongly expressed desire that the matter be defined and settled.

People who actually know stuff are invited to chime in.