He's damned if he agrees with you that Mary is an atom or less compared to God and damned if he doesn't.
Can't you entertain the possibility of something like this: HE explains clearly "Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, “I am he who is”." Then, based on our notion, in her words, that He puts down the mighty from their seats and lifts up the lowly, de Montfort rejoices in her being lifted up.
There really is a schizophrenogenic double-bind here: If I say, as I have, that Mary is a living eschatological sign of the fulfillment of all that God offers all the saints, I am strangely accused of hedging or backing and filling. The clearest articulation I can make of my take on our doctrine is dismissed as dishonest -- but no evidence or argument is brought forward to support that charge.
It SEEMS that whatever we say, it will tend to be met with scorn and abuse merely because we said it. If that's the case, then -- as I have suggested before -- this is not a debate or a discussion. It is a false pretense of a debate in order to draw Catholics out so they can be more conveniently abused.
IF, when an original source is brought forward to make clear one of our contentions, it is met with "rationalization and weasel words," then your side has no grounds to complain about the abusive trangressions of our side, because abuse is the only coin your side will permit in this realm - abuse or capitulation.
IS that how it has to be?
Preach!
I’m not greatly perturbed by your navigating such double binds . . .
Proddys experience something similar in trying to nail the jellow of the rabid cliques’ postings down.
Beyond that, I’ll have to ponder more.
Thx.
Good summary of 99% of the posts from these anti-Catholics.