Replies

“So sometimes I get a little impatient. Forgive me.”

On most of these debates, a little bit of humility shows that no one is going to suddenly discover an argument or scripture that hasn’t ever been noticed for the last 1000+ years.

The idea that I can PROVE beyond dispute XYZ from ANYTHING is a bit silly, or at least very presumptuous. At best, I can show WHY I interpret it the way I do, and let you decide if you agree.

Since Catholics consider sacred tradition to be of equal authority to scripture, Catholics will interpret scripture to make it conform with sacred tradition, just as I interpret James to make it agree with Paul.

I do hope to show that this results in sufficient discomfort to scripture that some will question if sacred tradition really is authoritative.

But a knock-out blow? I’m certain we both have enough sense to know that neither of us has a single verse, single argument, cannot be denied argument. Neither of us expects the other to slap his forehead and shout, “No one in 2000 years has ever been so wise!”

I’m usually content if no one slaps his forehead and shouts, “No one in 2000 years has ever been so stupid!” And I fail there, too...

First you feel bad.
So they give you medicine
Then you feel better.
So you stop taking the medicine
Then you feel bad because you stopped taking the medicine.

I just ran out of energy. Amazing. If I had a gas tank, there would have to be a hole in it.

Yes, our attitude toward tradition makes the (as I envision it) dynamic system which we try to capture in words different from the system in which tradition has a far less important role. I think that's an entirely fair thing to say.

It's also important to understand the role that each proposition has in maintaining the over all balance.

For example, the dogma in question was debated for a LOT of reasons but, as I hear (I have not really researched this), its promulgation was delayed for exactly (well, almost) the reason it's a problem - namely that it seemed to suggest that Mary didn't need saving, which sho' 'nuff knocks the universality of the redeeming work of Christ into a cocked hat. Not good.

But, as I understand it, through the "magic of eternity" (MY fatuous phrase) it was seen that we can understand the redeeming work of Christ to reach forward and backward in time so that Mary could be saved NOT by being pulled out of the cesspool but by being prevented from falling in in the first place.

(When I get tired I either shut up or ramble. YOU drew the "ramble" straw.)

For me myself personally, I am big into the notion that the coming Kingdom sort of leaks into the present. So, long yatta yatta short, I see Mary and everything about her as eschatological.

I know that objectively, the case that the woman in Revelation is Mary is, well, um, not a slam-dunk. But, it's like Newton's Laws: you can't PROVE them, strictly speaking, but if you ASSUME them, a whole lot of wonderful stuff makes sense.

Once I view Mary as she is taught by the papist conventicle, wonderful things happen.

Gotta lie down.

It is such a blessing to know you guys. Please pray that God keep me ticking over in His will as this illness stomps all over me. It's trivial compared to, say, Haiti - or even to a stubbed toe. But in my weakness I am, well, yeah, weak.

Off until late tonight. I have to get strong and rested for a class this PM.