The Quadrality

[ahs]

Second issue: do you think it is a problem if I can use the same arguments to “prove” the “quadrality” that apologists use to “prove” the “trinity?” Why or why not?

You would not be able to use the same arguments. As we have seen from your posts already, you are having to deconstruct, and then rebuild those arguments into something they are not in order to “use them”, and then, as we see in Post 18 (for example), they’d have to be corrected.

You can’t call something a “clarification” or “building on existing doctrine” if it directly contradicts doctrine. This “quadrality” directly contradicts doctrine. The only way to make it “clarify” a doctrine, is to misrepresent that existing doctrine and then build upon that misrepresentation. And that’s not an argument; it’s deception.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Let’s make it real simple: For the Quadrality to become dogma, it has to pass three tests:

1. Is it scriptural?
2. Is it part of sacred tradition? (Meaning those traditions passed down from the apostles)
3. Is it taught by the magisterium?

1. The angel says to Mary “full of grace” and the angel meant full as in 100%. If a thing is 100% grace, then it must be God.
2. True Catholics have been praying to Mary for centuries. Though they may not have been explicitly aware of her status as a member of the quadrality, their liturgical and prayerful actions showed that they believed her able to offer divine help.
3. The pope just infallibly proclaimed it, so it must be true!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Mary is Jesus mother. And hence has.the title Mother of God.
But.she.is not Divine
That is.heresy.
Only God is Divine

Yes, Mary is the mother of Jesus in her human nature and her divine nature. Just as Jesus’ human nature and divine nature are inseparable, so too is Mary’s human and divine nature as divine mother. Her motherhood proceeds the filiation of the son in eternity.

It’s not “heresy” but a fuller understanding of revelation. Besides that, the pope has just proclaimed this as doctrine, so how would you know if it were heresy?

Mary is a human being, a Saint, born without original sin, immaculately conceived, remained a Virgin her whole life, never sinned in even venial.sin, and conceived Jesus (the incarnation of Jesus in her womb through the Holy Spirit),

Yes, Mary is the greatest of all the saints for all those reasons.

But Mary is not Divine, she did not preexist the world, God created Mary, and God choose her to carry Jesus in her womb,

Where in the scriptures does it say that God created Mary? I do not see it. Do any of the creeds say God created Mary? No, they say nothing, which means that the authors of the creeds implicitly understood the truth of the quadrality.

But, yes, Mary’s human nature came into existence at a particular time, but her divine motherhood has always existed. Just like Jesus’s human nature came into existence but his divine sonship has always existed as part of the quadrality.

Mary was CHOSEN by God to be His mother on earth, and retain.that title for all eternity in Heaven, and in Heaven carry the title of Queen of Heaven.

To say Mary is Divine or a goddess is heresy.

Yes, she is queen of heaven as divine mother, the 4th person of the quadrality. She was the “chosen one” from all eternity as the father’s spouse. Her spousal-divinity spirates from the essence of the father. None of the creeds say one single thing against any of this, therefore the Catholic faith must have been open to the quadrality from the beginning, though only a few explicitly recognized it.

The Commandments are clear: “I am the Lord your God, you shall not have strange God’s before Me”

Well, Jews and Muslims think God is a singularity, but we know that isn’t the case due to the revelation of the Catholic Church. Now though, we know that God is not just a trinity, but also a quadrinity. This isn’t a contradiction of prior belief, we have merely become self-conscious of this due to the pope’s proclamation.

God alone is the source of grace
Mary only intercedes for us, but God.gives the grace

Read St Louis De Montforts writings or the writings of St Francis of Assissi.
They both say she is the greatest help we have in Heaven after God Himself, but she is not Divine, she is an intercessor like.the saints, but has the greatest intercession because of her virtues and the graces God gave her.

Right, God alone is the source of grace. Mary is called the “crystal font of all grace” therefore true Catholics have always recognized her divine personhood, since they acknowledge that grace flows from within her essence.

The great saints you mention were not self-aware of their belief in Mary’s divinity because they did not have the charism of infallibility like the pope does. Good thing we have the pope to tell us what we didn’t know we already knew!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No. The doctrine isn’t that God isn’t “at least” at Trinity; it’s that God is precisely a Trinity, as revealed by Jesus.

Read the creeds. Do they say “Only Jesus is God?” Do they say “Only the holy spirit is God?” They express belief in the divinity of the creator, Jesus, and the holy spirit. That’s all true. However, we also now know Mary is the fourth person of God. This isn’t a contradiction of prior beliefs, but a fulfillment/development/clarification of what true Catholics have always believed.

It’s not either/or…it’s both/and!

There are quite a few problems here.

First of all, if you’ve studied the history of the Church, you’d know that there was quite a lot of discussion about what the title “Theotokos” precisely means – and what it doesn’t mean! Some opposed the title on exactly the grounds you’ve proposed – that is, that the title “Mother of God” means something about Mary’s humanity. It doesn’t, and the doctrinal definition of “Theotokos” specifically addresses this point.

Right, Mary’s human nature isn’t the mother of her’s son’s divine nature. Rather, her human nature is the mother of her son’s human nature, and her divine nature is the mother of her son’s divine nature. She is unified in motherhood from all eternity, and mothers can only exist with fathers, therefore we know that her motherhood must have always existed, therefore she is a divine person.

Scriptural evidence: the Song of Songs is actually about the divine marriage of Mary and the father. For centuries it was thought to be about Israel, or the Church, but thanks to the clarification of the pope, we know have a more complete understanding of this mysterious book of scripture.

Second of all, your use of language is sloppy: ‘fundamentally’ is the wrong approach here. In any case, without getting too deep into it, let’s just affirm the following:

1. Jesus is fully human and fully divine.
2. Jesus is not divisible into ‘human’ and ‘divine’ parts.
3. Jesus is the incarnate Second Person of God.
4. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
5. Mary is human.

Therefore, since Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God. She existed prior to Jesus (in his incarnation), but did not pre-exist the Second Person of God.

1. yup
2. yup
3. yup
4. yup
5. that is not the “fullness of truth.”

Mary has both a divine and human nature, just like Jesus. She is fully his mother, and rightly the mother of God just like the father is the father of God. She cannot be separated into divine and human parts, but is joined by a hypostatic union. She is not mother of “half” of Jesus, but rather totally his mother, and totally joined to the divine essence. The holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son by way of the mother.

No, this precisely contradicts the doctrine, which states that Jesus was the cause of His mother’s salvation. In other words, Mary needed a savior (which doesn’t make any sense if she were divine).

Her human body needed a savior. Just like Jesus had to be born of a virgin with no original sin, Mary’s body had to be saved from original sin, since it wouldn’t be fitting for God to inhabit a sinful body.

No; Mary does not work miracles on her own or by her own power.

Tell that to the millions of people who pray the memorare, rosary, Fatmia prayers, etc. Tons of Catholics think Mary works miracles. You are right, it isn’t by her own power…just like Jesus doesn’t work miracles by his own power. Mysteriously, they both work miracles by the power of the father, though they too are divine persons. This is a great mystery!

No, it’s contradictory. It’s like saying:

E = mc[sup]2[/sup]

and then later saying

E = mc[sup]3[/sup]

and then claiming that this is a ‘clarification’ and ‘development’ of the earlier claim. That dog just don’t hunt… :nope:

It’s not either/or! It’s both/and!

This isn’t a contradiction of prior doctrine. No where in any infallible dogmatic teaching does it say that God is only a trinity. I mean, the entire Old Testament is devoted to the idea that God is a singularity, but the doctrine of the trinity is a fulfillment of that truth. It isn’t a contradiction, it’s a more complete truth! The quadrality is a further clarification.

Wow… from bad to worse: the Magnificat affirms that God is Mary’s savior. A divine being does not require a savior.

Like I said above, her human body needed a savior, not her divine nature. Or, maybe she is rejoicing that God is the savior of humanity in general, of which she and her son are mysteriously members.

No; for millennia, true Catholics have venerated Mary as a human intercessor.

But… let’s get down to brass tacks: it seems that you’re attempting to use caricatures of the arguments that the Church uses in the service of something it doesn’t teach. In other words, if we deny the caricature, then you’ll claim that the actual teaching isn’t supported by reason. That won’t work, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that Church teaching has a Scriptural basis, as affirmed by the Church’s magisterium).

Yes, that is explicitly my project. It’s going to go down like this:

1. Some people will hammer away at my arguments and point out the ridiculous illogic, sophistry, and casuistry. As they demolish my arguments, they’re demolishing Catholic apologetic arguments for the trinity, papal infallbility, and any number of other doctrines.
2. Other people will not be able to overcome these arguments, and I will have shown that these forms of argumentation “do too much work” in that they will “prove” any manner of nonsense.

Either way:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, Mary never claimed to be God. Nor is it part of any Christian tradition that she is. And no Pope could make Mary God no matter what authority he has. It is metaphysically impossible. Honor given to someone does not make them God. It doesn’t matter how much praise you give a person it can’t metaphysically change them into the divine being.

The holy spirit never claimed to be God either! We have no documentation suggesting that he said anything like that, but because of the Catholic Church we know that he is God too.

It has always been the tradition of true Christians that Mary is a divine person, it’s just that only very few of them understood it in such terms and in an explicit way. That’s why we have the Church, to clarify to us what we already believe.

The pope isn’t making Mary God, she has always been God! No one’s praises or prayers have made Mary into God, they merely prove that she is the fourth person of the quadrality.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You would not be able to use the same arguments. As we have seen from your posts already, you are having to deconstruct, and then rebuild those arguments into something they are not in order to “use them”, and then, as we see in Post 18 (for example), they’d have to be corrected.

You can’t call something a “clarification” or “building on existing doctrine” if it directly contradicts doctrine. This “quadrality” directly contradicts doctrine. The only way to make it “clarify” a doctrine, is to misrepresent that existing doctrine and then build upon that misrepresentation. And that’s not an argument; it’s deception.

Nowhere in any infallible statement does it say that God is only or exclusively or limited to a trinity. The wise council fathers and prior popes left it open, at the guidance of the holy spirit, so that we could have the joy of this fuller clarification of revelation during these dark times when the world so desperately needs a divine mother.

It isn’t a contradiction! The Old Testament repeatedly insists on the idea that God is a singularity, and yet you believe in a trinity because of the revelation of Jesus. Is that a contradiction? Of course not: it is a fulfillment! You see, the Old Testament was right in that God is a singularity, but now we know he is also a trinity…and today we have a more complete “fullness” in that we are consciously aware of the quadrality thanks to the pope.

It’s not either God is a trinity or a quadrality.

It’s that God is both a trinity and a quadrality!

Just like it isn’t that God is a singularity or a plurality, it’s that God is both a singularity and a plurality!

Fortunately we are conscious of this belief now, good thing we know we can trust our infallible guide to help us realize what we didn’t know we already realized.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

For the sake of argument, let’s say a future pope officially fulfills all of the required conditions for an infallible teaching and formally declares that God is a quadrality. Father, mother, son, spirit: four persons, one being. In other words, the pope formally declares that the theotokos is actually a divine person, and that the quadrality was a doctrine that had always been believed by true Catholics, but only recently have we become aware of it consciously. This explains the devotion to Mary seen throughout history more fully and completely than prior theological notions.

Do you think it would be possible to refute this teaching? How would you overcome the arguments from scripture, authority, tradition, “development of doctrine” and other techniques that would surely arise in the wake of such a pronouncement?

How about this: you go ahead and attempt to prove this pope wrong, and I’ll argue on his behalf using the same arguments put forward by contemporary apologists.

Second issue: do you think it is a problem if I can use the same arguments to “prove” the “quadrality” that apologists use to “prove” the “trinity?” Why or why not?

What are “all the required conditions for an infallible teaching” in the Catholic Church, PumpkinCookie?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What are “all the required conditions for an infallible teaching” in the Catholic Church, PumpkinCookie?

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

• Jeffrey Mirus, PhD. Source:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

 

[JuanFlorencio]

• Jeffrey Mirus, PhD. Source:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Ok. And what you are asking, in simpler words, is if Catholics would argue against a dogmatic declaration of a pope, which he declared based on his infallibility.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ok. And what you are asking, in simpler words, is if Catholics would argue against a dogmatic declaration of a pope, which he declared based on his infallibility.

Yes I think that is an interesting question. I supplied a theoretical example so we can discuss this problem concretely. How would Catholics know whether an infallible declaration is true or not in order to argue? It would seem that apologetic arguments can be supplied to defend any kind of belief, and if we supplant reason with the proclamations of a human being or group of people, there seems to be no limit to what we can believe!

 

[fisherman_carl]

The holy spirit never claimed to be God either! We have no documentation suggesting that he said anything like that, but because of the Catholic Church we know that he is God too.

It has always been the tradition of true Christians that Mary is a divine person, it’s just that only very few of them understood it in such terms and in an explicit way. That’s why we have the Church, to clarify to us what we already believe.

The pope isn’t making Mary God, she has always been God! No one’s praises or prayers have made Mary into God, they merely prove that she is the fourth person of the quadrality.

The Holy Spirit is God by definition,for he is the very Spirit of God. There should not be any difficulty in the Spirit of God being God. No such tradition about Mary exists. Can you provide any examples?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Holy Spirit is God by definition,for he is the very Spirit of God. There should not be any difficulty in the Spirit of God being God. No such tradition about Mary exists. Can you provide any examples?

The Holy Spirit was twice mentioned in the Old Testament without noting that it was a person in the Godhead. Originally The Holy Spirit was thought of as either a description of God’s power or an entity working for God (like an angel). It was only later did God reveal that The Holy Spirit was the third person of God. This shows that God can introduce us to persons then later demonstrate that they are persons of the Godhead.

The same can be said for the second person of the Godhead. If Jesus is the Messiah as described in the Old Testament (and the Church says he is) then we see him not described as a person of God but as a man (just ask the Jewish people). It’s only much later did God choose to reveal that the Messiah was God as well as man. Again we see how God can choose to introduce us to persons and then much later reveal them to be God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The Holy Spirit is God by definition,for he is the very Spirit of God. There should not be any difficulty in the Spirit of God being God. No such tradition about Mary exists. Can you provide any examples?

The divine mother is God by definition, since fathers and sons don’t exist without mothers. She is the very mother of God. There should not be any difficulty in the mother of God being God.

There is not a single infallible teaching that Mary is not God. Therefore it is safe to assume she is, but that’s why an infallible declaration of the pope was necessary in our times, since we’ve recently become confused about her nature.

Since we have no record of the early church fathers proclaiming that Mary is not part of the quadrality, we can assume the true church has always believed in it, though not in an explicit way. If any early church fathers ever said she is not part of the quadrality, I’m unaware of it, or maybe they were heretics. It’s a “silent” tradition, but a tradition none the less.

 

[Gorgias]

Read the creeds. Do they say “Only Jesus is God?” Do they say “Only the holy spirit is God?” They express belief in the divinity of the creator, Jesus, and the holy spirit. That’s all true.

Yet, you’re missing the point. For your project to work, the statement of doctrine would have to be that God is “at least” a Trinity, or perhaps “no less than” a Trinity. That’s not the statement; rather, it is that God is a Trinity. Your argument fails on this point alone.

However, we also now know Mary is the fourth person of God. This isn’t a contradiction of prior beliefs, but a fulfillment/development/clarification of what true Catholics have always believed.

And you can demonstrate that Catholics call Mary by the name of ‘God’ or ‘divine’? You cannot… because we do not. It’s that simple.

Right, Mary’s human nature isn’t the mother of her’s son’s divine nature. Rather, her human nature is the mother of her son’s human nature, and her divine nature is the mother of her son’s divine nature.

Another fail, I’m afraid. You’re forgetting that we aren’t a duality of natures, but a unity of soul and body. Yet, you point to something important: how is it that we can assert that Jesus is an exception – that is, a hypostatic union that is singular among all creation. The Church has stated this, doctrinally, and therefore, it cannot be an “and/or” that has the possibility of being developed from an “either/or”.

She is unified in motherhood from all eternity, and mothers can only exist with fathers, therefore we know that her motherhood must have always existed, therefore she is a divine person.

Poor logic. “Mothers can only exist with fathers” in the physical, created realm. Your example forces us to think in the wrong direction: that is, “what exists in creation must also be true in the divinity”. This is patently wrong: if it were true, then God the Father must die (since humans die in the flesh). Yet again… fail.

Scriptural evidence: the Song of Songs is actually about the divine marriage of Mary and the father. For centuries it was thought to be about Israel, or the Church, but thanks to the clarification of the pope, we know have a more complete understanding of this mysterious book of scripture.

Nice try, but yet again… no. The wife in the Song of Songs leaves her father’s house in order to be with her spouse. Who’s the father of the divine mother (who, in this construct, marries the ‘divine father’)? Too much incest, there. Just doesn’t work.

Mary has both a divine and human nature, just like Jesus.

What would your evidence be? Certainly, we don’t find this in Scripture – either alluded to in the OT, or expressed by Jesus in the NT.

She cannot be separated into divine and human parts, but is joined by a hypostatic union.

Again, asserted without evidence. Nice try.

Her human body needed a savior.

This is the worst fail of all: it implies that Jesus – who has a human body – likewise needed a savior for his human body. If it were true, then it would mean that Jesus had no power to save. Moreover, it relies on Cartesian dualism, which – as we know – is not what the Church holds to be true.

Just like Jesus had to be born of a virgin with no original sin

No; yet again, you misunderstand (or, at least, misrepresent) Church teaching. Jesus did not have to be born of a virgin without original sin; it was merely fitting that this is so.

, Mary’s body had to be saved from original sin, since it wouldn’t be fitting for God to inhabit a sinful body.

And again, the dance. Mary (not just her body, since we’re not Cartesian dualists) needed to be saved from original sin – not because it was “not fitting”, but because she required a savior.

Tell that to the millions of people who pray the memorare, rosary, Fatmia prayers, etc.

They’re praying to the Mother of God; not to God.

Jesus doesn’t work miracles by his own power.

I can’t tell where your little experiment ends and your misunderstanding of Catholic theology begins. Jesus certainly does work miracles by his own power… just read the NT!

This isn’t a contradiction of prior doctrine. No where in any infallible dogmatic teaching does it say that God is only a trinity.

No – nowhere in infallible dogmatic teaching does it say that God is no less than a trinity.

Yes, that is explicitly my project. It’s going to go down like this:

Yep. No surprise.

1. Some people will hammer away at my arguments and point out the ridiculous illogic, sophistry, and casuistry. As they demolish my arguments, they’re demolishing Catholic apologetic arguments for the trinity, papal infallbility, and any number of other doctrines.

No. The Catholic arguments are based on Scripture and on Jesus’ grant of proxy to the Apostles and the Divine Commission, whereas your arguments are based merely on your own assertions.

1. Other people will not be able to overcome these arguments, and I will have shown that these forms of argumentation “do too much work” in that they will “prove” any manner of nonsense.

No; you will have proven that sophistic arguments can ‘prove’ all sorts of things that they don’t really attempt to prove. Congratulations.

Either way:

Stick to popcorn, Pumpkin; theology seems not to be your oeuvre.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yet, you’re missing the point. For your project to work, the statement of doctrine would have to be that God is “at least” a Trinity, or perhaps “no less than” a Trinity. That’s not the statement; rather, it is that God is a Trinity. Your argument fails on this point alone.

The “at least” is implicit. The reason the early church didn’t formally define the quadrality right from the beginning is because they all believed it and there was no controversy (just like the trinity/papal infallibility/the eucharist/tons of other stuff). We need the pope to remind us and clarify for us the unchanging faith held by the apostles.

And you can demonstrate that Catholics call Mary by the name of ‘God’ or ‘divine’? You cannot… because we do not. It’s that simple.

Most Holy? Mother of God? Queen of Heaven? Mother of Divine Grace? Cause of Our Salvation? Seat of Wisdom? Immaculate? These are all divine titles. We just haven’t become conscious of it until the pope formally declared it.

Another fail, I’m afraid. You’re forgetting that we aren’t a duality of natures, but a unity of soul and body. Yet, you point to something important: how is it that we can assert that Jesus is an exception – that is, a hypostatic union that is singular among all creation. The Church has stated this, doctrinally, and therefore, it cannot be an “and/or” that has the possibility of being developed from an “either/or”.

Right, we’re not a duality of natures, and neither do Jesus and Mary have dual natures though they each have a human and divine nature which is mysteriously intertwined. Yes, the mysterious nature of the son’s hypostatic union is singular and unique, and so is Mary’s. There is no contradiction here, merely a development.

Poor logic. “Mothers can only exist with fathers” in the physical, created realm. Your example forces us to think in the wrong direction: that is, “what exists in creation must also be true in the divinity”. This is patently wrong: if it were true, then God the Father must die (since humans die in the flesh). Yet again… fail.

No no, of course not! Motherhood and fatherhood cannot be extricated from one another, just like love needs an object so we know that God must be a plurality if he is love itself. Is the son motherless? Is God a broken family? I think not!

Nice try, but yet again… no. The wife in the Song of Songs leaves her father’s house in order to be with her spouse. Who’s the father of the divine mother (who, in this construct, marries the ‘divine father’)? Too much incest, there. Just doesn’t work.

The father of Mary’s human nature is her biological father. This does not mean she is not fully divine and fully human though. Incest, how terrible! The quadrality does not imply incest anymore than the trinity implies such a thing. Impossible!

What would your evidence be? Certainly, we don’t find this in Scripture – either alluded to in the OT, or expressed by Jesus in the NT.

The evidence is from reason based on tradition. It wasn’t Jesus’ mission to describe the quadrality, he wanted to leave that for later generations. Notice he doesn’t describe the trinity explicitly either. The baptismal formulation doesn’t imply that the holy spirit is necessarily God. Notice Jesus never says “the holy spirit and I are one” similarly to how he says “I and the father are one.” Does this mean the holy spirit isn’t God too? Of course not! Just because the gospel authors didn’t give us a totally specific theology of the quadrinity doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Catholics aren’t sola scriptura.

Again, asserted without evidence. Nice try.

Does evidence trump an infallible statement of the pope?

This is the worst fail of all: it implies that Jesus – who has a human body – likewise needed a savior for his human body. If it were true, then it would mean that Jesus had no power to save. Moreover, it relies on Cartesian dualism, which – as we know – is not what the Church holds to be true.

Jesus didn’t need a savior because he saved himself in himself. Plus, his body was totally made out of God as well since Mary was God too. However, Mary’s human nature had to be “rescued” from the physical pollution of original sin. Jesus’ human nature didn’t need to be rescued because Mary’s human nature which was communicated to Jesus was already perfect. No Cartesian dualism here. Mary and Jesus both have two natures but are each one person. And, they all share a common being. No contradiction, just a development.

No; yet again, you misunderstand (or, at least, misrepresent) Church teaching. Jesus did not have to be born of a virgin without original sin; it was merely fitting that this is so.

And again, the dance. Mary (not just her body, since we’re not Cartesian dualists) needed to be saved from original sin – not because it was “not fitting”, but because she required a savior.

In a mysterious way Mary’s human and divine natures are united so we can speak of “her” needing a savior though she is God too. What an ineffable mystery!

They’re praying to the Mother of God; not to God.

Right, but the pope is saying Mother of God = God so you’re reiterating the point here.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I can’t tell where your little experiment ends and your misunderstanding of Catholic theology begins. Jesus certainly does work miracles by his own power… just read the NT!

Ok sure, we can do this however you want. If Jesus works miracles by his own power so does Mary since she is God too. She is so powerful, she can hold back the wrath of the father, she said so at Fatima and to many other visionaries. Only God could stop God; the conclusion is obvious.

No – nowhere in infallible dogmatic teaching does it say that God is no less than a trinity.

Right, God is no less than a trinity, we agree. It also doesn’t say God is not more than a trinity, therefore we can conclude that the holy spirit prevented the earlier church from teaching heresy in preparation for the future clarification of the quadrality.

Yep. No surprise.

No. The Catholic arguments are based on Scripture and on Jesus’ grant of proxy to the Apostles and the Divine Commission, whereas your arguments are based merely on your own assertions.

No; you will have proven that sophistic arguments can ‘prove’ all sorts of things that they don’t really attempt to prove. Congratulations.

Stick to popcorn, Pumpkin; theology seems not to be your oeuvre.

Thank you for playing my game. Please, hammer away at my argument more vigorously, you’re doing a great job of pointing out my fallacious reasoning, lack of evidence, appeals to authority, and sheer nonsense.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is the worst fail of all: it implies that Jesus – who has a human body – likewise needed a savior for his human body. If it were true, then it would mean that Jesus had no power to save. Moreover, it relies on Cartesian dualism, which – as we know – is not what the Church holds to be true.

No; yet again, you misunderstand (or, at least, misrepresent) Church teaching. Jesus did not have to be born of a virgin without original sin; it was merely fitting that this is so.

I thought of another apologetic argument for this one just now.

Now, the dogma states the following:

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

Notice how it doesn’t say “Mary would have had original sin if this didn’t happen.” She was really preserved from original sin, but the dogma doesn’t state that she actually would have been born in original sin had this not happened.

Mary wouldn’t have had original sin regardless of the immaculate conception, it’s just that Jesus wished to include her in his salvific act to give us a good example of what it means to be a son. She didn’t actually need saving, just like Jesus didn’t actually need to be baptized. The whole point is to give us good examples.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes I think that is an interesting question. I supplied a theoretical example so we can discuss this problem concretely. How would Catholics know whether an infallible declaration is true or not in order to argue? It would seem that apologetic arguments can be supplied to defend any kind of belief, and if we supplant reason with the proclamations of a human being or group of people, there seems to be no limit to what we can believe!

Well, if that declaration is infallible, then it is true. But, I guess you wanted to mean: How would Catholics know if a papal declaration is infallible or not? Then I would say: “the pope himself will let us know”.

Have you noticed if the dogma of papal infallibility has been used by our popes to proclaim thousands of new dogmas with no limit? I don’t remember anything new in my whole life, but maybe you are older than me and you must know. That must be the reason why you would you like to stop what you perceive as an abuse; because your main interest must be the truth, right?

But if in your devote search of truth you pay more attention, you won’t find those unlimited new beliefs that you think there are in the Catholic Church. Those processes take long times. In general, it is no different to what happens in scientific realms (even in Mathematics). If a new theory is proposed which contradicts already accepted theories (especially the most fundamental), it will find opposition or will be ignored. So, how do scientists know if a new theory is “acceptable” or not? One of the criteria is its conformity with accepted theories within the scientific community, through examination by the scientific authorities. Did you think that you just have to say whatever comes to your mind and everybody will accept it as scientific?

In the case of catholic dogma, the addition of a new dogmatic declaration amounts to the addition of a new axiom to the existing doctrine. Surely theological reflection will take it to analyze its sources, its implications, etcetera.

 

[Gorgias]

The “at least” is implicit. The reason the early church didn’t formally define the quadrality right from the beginning is because they all believed it and there was no controversy (just like the trinity/papal infallibility/the eucharist/tons of other stuff).

If this were to hold, you would have to be able to demonstrate for us that this is what all Catholics believe and what the Church affirms. Go ahead; we’re waiting. Have at it.

Most Holy? Mother of God? Queen of Heaven? Mother of Divine Grace? Cause of Our Salvation? Seat of Wisdom? Immaculate? These are all divine titles.

No – these are all titles that speak to Mary’s humanity: she is the most holy of all humans; she is the mother of God by virtue of Christ’s divinity; she is the queen of heaven because Christ is the King of Heaven (and because the mother of a Davidic king is the queen); she is the mother of Christ – who is the source of Divine Grace; she is the cause of our salvation inasmuch as Christ is our salvation and she is the humanly maternal ‘cause’ of his incarnation; she is the seat of wisdom because Christ is envisioned as the incarnation of Wisdom and she is pictured with him on her lap; she is immaculate because she is free of sin.

These are all human titles. Sorry, Pumpkin.

The father of Mary’s human nature is her biological father. This does not mean she is not fully divine and fully human though.

If that were the case, then you’d have to show that Mary’s mother was immaculately conceived, too, from Scripture or Apostolic Teaching. Go ahead; we’re waiting.

Incest, how terrible! The quadrality does not imply incest anymore than the trinity implies such a thing. Impossible!

You were making the case from the Song of Songs. If you want to refute my objections, please continue to refute them from the Song of Songs. Thanks…

The evidence is from reason based on tradition. It wasn’t Jesus’ mission to describe the quadrality, he wanted to leave that for later generations.

You misunderstand divine revelation, then. It ended with the death of the last apostle. If you want to assert that your notion proceeds from Sacred Tradition… please demonstrate it. If you can’t, then just give up the thought experiment. We’ve shown in spades that it’s impossible.

Notice he doesn’t describe the trinity explicitly either.

Except for where He does, I guess.

The baptismal formulation doesn’t imply that the holy spirit is necessarily God.

How in the world does it not?!?!?

Does evidence trump an infallible statement of the pope?

We believe that, since infallible statements are, as they claim to be, ‘infallible’, (umm… duh! ) there is no evidence that can trump them. If you have any, then please… show us.

Jesus didn’t need a savior because he saved himself in himself.

Reacquaint yourself with the Letter to the Hebrews. It refutes your claim, here. Sorry.

Plus, his body was totally made out of God as well since Mary was God too.

That would contradict doctrine, too. The Incarnation is all about Jesus becoming human – not about Him becoming spiritually divine and physically divine. Really – if you don’t know the theology, please stop throwing out these easily refutable assertions, ok? Please?

However, Mary’s human nature had to be “rescued” from the physical pollution of original sin. Jesus’ human nature didn’t need to be rescued because Mary’s human nature which was communicated to Jesus was already perfect. No Cartesian dualism here.

Just a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Again… nice try, but no cigar.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

For the sake of argument, let’s say a future pope officially fulfills all of the required conditions for an infallible teaching and formally declares that God is a quadrality. Father, mother, son, spirit: four persons, one being. In other words, the pope formally declares that the theotokos is actually a divine person, and that the quadrality was a doctrine that had always been believed by true Catholics, but only recently have we become aware of it consciously. This explains the devotion to Mary seen throughout history more fully and completely than prior theological notions.

Do you think it would be possible to refute this teaching? How would you overcome the arguments from scripture, authority, tradition, “development of doctrine” and other techniques that would surely arise in the wake of such a pronouncement?

How about this: you go ahead and attempt to prove this pope wrong, and I’ll argue on his behalf using the same arguments put forward by contemporary apologists.

Second issue: do you think it is a problem if I can use the same arguments to “prove” the “quadrality” that apologists use to “prove” the “trinity?” Why or why not?

The word of God would prove this wrong. Jesus only identifies Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

What place in the Quadrality would this mother be? Remember, nothing within scripture assumes Mary’s divinity. She would have to have a divinely active part in Jesus’ mission. Remember, Mary had to be told by an angel that she was to give birth to God.

If Mary had self-given foreknowledge that she would give birth to the Savior then she would be divine. But no such divinity is expressed within scripture.