Replies

You never agreed to the reasonableness of my offer. That is, refrain from gratuitous assertions if I could prove the BVM's unique status before God, and not just as the only woman to bear Christ, either.

I don't know what you want me to agree to. But I am happy to hear what you have to say. Either say it, or let's just drop it.

"Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding."

Only the doctrine demonstrated in Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do not agree to the magisterium of the Church, or that it is infallible, or that it is always (notice, I don't say it can never be, just not always) of the Holy Spirit. Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit? Think again. In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's. The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here.

Why not let's try one, and see how we do?

I gave you one of the primary arguments, that the woman in Revelation is not Mary but is Israel. The details of that argument are found in many good commentaries, specifically I mentioned Grant R. Osborne (you can look up his credentials, they're impeccable) and the Baker Exegetical Commentary. There are others. The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.

Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.

Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?

I have read various things: the Catechism, the web pages on this issue from "Catholic Answers" (a good on-line Catholic apologetics resource), and various other items from Catholic web resources, as well as having listened to various Catholic apologists on EWTN radio, and such. Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it, and what the standard apologetic arguments are for defending the doctrine. As to my opinion of the adequacy of their defense of the doctrine, well, I already gave you that.

Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?

This is an illogical argument. There's nothing in scripture to preclude me believing in elves or trolls, either, but I don't feel the need to make things up or try to derive arguments for things, when it comes to Jesus or my faith, simply because scripture doesn't preclude them. It's silly, to say the least, and a silly argument.

Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?

The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.

Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?

What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.

Yes, idolatry is more heinous. Idolatry is numero uno on God's list of commandments, and it's #1 for a reason. And this has nothing to do with the myriad other sins of Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. We're not discussing any of that. Of course sin is sin and it's all equally ugly to God. Any Protestant denominations that are engaging in anything that is idolotrous (especially those that follow the Theology of Glory and the "Prosperity Gospel") are on the fast path to damnation and taking others with them. It's all wrong. But the worst possible thing one can do (it's a common liberal Democrat tactic, remember) is to say, "Well, maybe we are...but look at them, they do it too, see!". Come on, I respect you more than to believe you would resort to that kind of argument.

Now see, there you go limiting what we can find. Seems pointless to me to continue if you get to stack the deck. It also seems intellectually dishonest to me, but hey, that is me.

Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Yup. I can't think of anything the Kings of Israel did that made the kingdom they ruled over anything other than Israel.

In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's.

Of what value is the "fact" of your strong belief?

The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

And if you were, how could someone prove it to your satisfaction?

The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.

It doesn't take a handful of degrees to know that if you claim the child that's brought forth is Christ, the woman MUST be the Blessed Virgin Mary. To find otherwise is to engage in more "Peter is not the rock" eisegesis. You don't get one without the other, particularly since the text does not identify the woman as Israel.

So would it be safe to say, judging from your recommendations, that you will pay for scholarly commentaries that support your original belief, but you are satisfied by open source materials for the opposing viewpoint?

Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it

Would you be good enough to cite the Catholic source of your detailed understanding for "where and how" "they" derived it?

Not at all. The authoritative institution that declares the Marian dogmas is not asking anyone to believe in elves or trolls. There is only one source of authority we both agree on, and that is the Scripture. If you can not cite something in Scripture that specifically precludes the Marian dogmas, it is simply a matter of opinion. Incredulity is not prima facie proof of illogic.

The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.

Please explain how the Church's exercise of ecclesiastical authority given to it by Jesus Christ, is incompatible with the First Commandment, particularly since no flesh will be saved by works of the law, anyway. Do you not know that Christ is of no value to you if you expect to be justified by the law?

What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.

I am completely serious. If indeed Sola Fide is true, which accepting 1 Cor 15: 1-4 would satisfy, then no matter what a Christian does, under the doctrine of "eternal security," that person would be "saved," would they not?

As for the "democrat tactic," no it is more of a "mote in your brother's eye" tactic. The parent that boasts of never spanking their child while substituting emotional arm-twisting and blackmail to achieve the same results is nothing less than a monster.