The Quadrality

[JerryZ]

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.

Either way:

Sooo if your theology is correct, please explain to us WHO SAVED Jesus!

Jesus did not HAVE to be born of a virgin, rather it was a SIGN to let the Israelites and us know of HIS Divine nature. Had GOD wished He could materialize Jesus out of thin air.

 

[MaryHelp777]

That’s all heresy, to proclaim any Saint in Heaven as God.
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Mary has appeared in countless apparitions to saints,
Name one apparition where Our Lady said she was God? None.
Name one Saint that said Our Lady was God? None.
Many of the saints were given revelations that were later made into dogma or doctrine by the Popes, so the saints can be given then revelations before the Popes, which the Pope pronounces upon

Find the line in the Catechism or Canon Law that supports your claims exactly, (every catholic including the Pope is bound to obey the catechism and canon law, as rules of our church)

Why did Our Lady say in a recent apparition: “I.can only give you a motherly blessing, but the priest gives Jesus blessing, who is God.” “If you have to chose.between an apparition and mass, choose to go to mass.”

 

[Gorgias]

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

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.

Of all of your arguments, this one vies for ‘least logical’. If the dogma says she was preserved from original sin, it necessarily implies that she would have had original sin otherwise. If I say “the Steelers were preserved from not making the playoffs by the Bills’ win over the Jets”, then that implies that, if the Jets had won, then the Steelers would not have made the playoffs. Simple logic, Pumpkin.

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.

Umm… psst: Jesus included all of us in his salvific act! (He just included Mary in a way that’s different from the way he included us.)

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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”.

OK fair enough, it is totally circular. That’s the answer I expected.

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.

Each time a pope declares some or such other human being to be a saint, I consider it to be the proclamation of a truth that no one can actually verify. Catholics are required to believe that all the people declared to be saints are actually in heaven with God because they were heroically virtuous. We don’t even have good records for the existence of many of the “saints” but Catholics are required to believe the pope is infallible in his declaration of their sainthood. What do you count as a new doctrine?

If one counts everything added or subtracted from second temple Judasim, the church has added thousands of doctrines and dogmas, seemingly without limit! The Marian dogmas are particularly outrageous to many people because they were defined thousands of years after the fact with a documented and long history of dissent within the church among fathers, doctors, and other saints. The doctrine of papal infallibility itself was controversial within the church, though the church maintains that the faith was “whole and entire from the time of the apostles.” In fact, we have documentary evidence of catechisms being produced in England, France, and the Netherlands by bishops explicitly declaring that papal infallibility is not true (before the declaration).

What I’m doing here is introducing another outrageous dogma thousands of years after the fact while using the same apologetic arguments that prop-up the marian dogmas, infallibility, transubstantiation, the primacy of the pope, formal declarations of sainthood, etc.

The funny part is that the posters on this thread are using protestant arguments to tear this down. Suddenly everyone is sola scriptura and isn’t willing to accept the lack of evidence of negation as being evidence of support! Odd…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

Why? Can you demonstrate that the apostles believed in papal infallibility or transubstantiation? Can you demonstrate that they believed in religious freedom vis-a-vis Vatican 2’s Dignitatis Humanae? Of course not! There isn’t a single shred of any documentary evidence whatsoever. That’s OK though, because we know the Catholic faith has been “whole and entire” since the time of the apostles, so the quadrality must have been believed by them since the pope has clarified it as part of the faith recently.

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.

Well yes they are human titles as well as divine titles since Mary is 100% human and 100% divine. How appropriate that the Catholic tradition gave her adequately flexible titles in preparation for this development of doctrine.

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.

Um no, that’s why it is a miracle! With God, all things are possible.

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…

What? No incest there my friend! The father, mother, son, and spirit are one being but different persons.

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.

It’s a *silent, implicit/] tradition, like transsubstantion before the 5th century, or papal infallibility before the 19th century. You can’t expect me to demonstrate silence and implication! Further, we know that no council, saint, pope, or father specifically condemned the quadrality, so therefore we can conclude they accepted it though perhaps unconsciously.

Except for where He does, I guess.

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

The only line in the gospels perhaps referring to the trinity is the baptismal formula given in the “great commission.” Does the gospel author say Jesus says “oh yeah, and we’re all co-equal persons of God, consubtantial and all that.” NO. That’s why there were vigorous debates, and at one time most Catholic bishops sided with Arius. They had to be forcibly shut down with violence, book-burning, etc. That’s OK though, they weren’t true Catholics. We know for sure the trinity was believed by all the apostles and the entire dogma was “whole and entire” from Pentecost basically.

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.

Right, OK totally circular. That’s what I thought. No one can provide dis-confirming evidence if the person asking has decided that there isn’t any! As I’ve demonstrated here, one can engage in all kinds of silliness to avoid disconfirming evidence.

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

Right, Jesus didn’t need saving because he never sinned. Well, Mary never sinned either! She called God “her savior” as an exaggeration, kind of like when Jesus said he would be back within one generation. Or, like how the Church used to say that any interest on any loans at all was gravely sinful. Just hyperbole, that’s all.*

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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?

Hey, I’ve only had a couple days to generate a completely more developed and clear Mariology OK? My nonsense generator has only so much capacity! The church has had hundreds or thousands of years to come up with this stuff, give me a break!

Besides that…I never said he or she was physically divine. They are both 100% human and 100% percent divine, it’s a great mystery. I can understand why you’re confused, but both Jesus and Mary are fully and completely human and fully and completely divine, that’s how all of this makes sense.

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

Yes, I’ve abandoned that argument because it doesn’t accomplish what it needs to. Mary’s human nature wasn’t “polluted” by original sin like the rest of us. Since she was 100% human and 100% divine, therefore she was conceived immaculately. Though we may have thought the dogma meant one thing, now that the pope has clarified the qudrality, we can see that this is the fuller understanding of the dogma. In the divine economy, we say she was rescued from original sin by the son, and in some mysterious way she really was, but not really.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

The scriptures never once explicitly state this formulation of the trinity. Besides that, Catholics don’t accept sola scriptura.

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.

She is the 4th co-equal person. All of scripture assumes Mary’s divinty, we just finally realized it consciously now! Just like the entire Old Testament assumes Jesus’ divinty. You have to read it in a Christological sense. Now, we’ll need a Mariological sense to interpret the Old Testament. I think Hanna, Samson’s mother, is a type for the divine mother. Mary did have an active part in Jesus’ ministry. She encouraged his first miracle. She was at the cross. She was with the disciples in the upper room, etc. Mary’s human nature had to be told by the angel, but she already knew everything in her divine nature. Just because scripture doesn’t explicitly tell us that Mary had foreknowledge doesn’t mean she didn’t. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Sooo if your theology is correct, please explain to us WHO SAVED Jesus!

Jesus did not HAVE to be born of a virgin, rather it was a SIGN to let the Israelites and us know of HIS Divine nature. Had GOD wished He could materialize Jesus out of thin air.

Well technically, he did have to be born of a virgin or else the prophecy based on a mistranslated line of Isaiah would be wrong!

Jesus didn’t need saving since he was perfect. Mary didn’t really need saving either, but we say that she did so that we can feel more camaraderie with her. Jesus DID materialize himself out of thin air, several times in the gospels in fact! So has Mary, at Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, Guadalupe, Akita, etc. She can even change races! Only God could do that.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That’s all heresy, to proclaim any Saint in Heaven as God.
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Agree. Mary is much more than a saint though. Yes, all revelation ended long ago, the Catholic faith has been whole and entire ever since. No changes at all!

Mary has appeared in countless apparitions to saints,
Name one apparition where Our Lady said she was God? None.
Name one Saint that said Our Lady was God? None.
Many of the saints were given revelations that were later made into dogma or doctrine by the Popes, so the saints can be given then revelations before the Popes, which the Pope pronounces upon

Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. Besides that, she didn’t have to proclaim the quadrality since all true Catholics have believed in it. It is only in modern times due to the influence of protestantism that the pope has had to formally declare this dogma explicitly.

No, no. The revelations given to those saints were nothing new. They were clarifications of what Catholics have always believed. The Catholic faith has always been unchanging, whole, and entire since the time of the apostles, you said so yourself.

Find the line in the Catechism or Canon Law that supports your claims exactly, (every catholic including the Pope is bound to obey the catechism and canon law, as rules of our church)

Why did Our Lady say in a recent apparition: “I.can only give you a motherly blessing, but the priest gives Jesus blessing, who is God.” “If you have to chose.between an apparition and mass, choose to go to mass.”

Don’t be such a pharisee! Doctors of the law are so rigid… God is bigger than any particular Catechism or Canon Law book.

That apparition is wrong. Is it approved? Has it been investigated? Sounds heretical!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Of all of your arguments, this one vies for ‘least logical’. If the dogma says she was preserved from original sin, it necessarily implies that she would have had original sin otherwise. If I say “the Steelers were preserved from not making the playoffs by the Bills’ win over the Jets”, then that implies that, if the Jets had won, then the Steelers would not have made the playoffs. Simple logic, Pumpkin.

It is a great mystery for sure, how those Steelers, who play so poorly, could make it to the playoffs.

I’m using the same argument offered by apologists to explain why God is not unjust for demanding the sacrifice of the innocent (Jesus) on behalf of the guilty (everyone else). Apologists say God didn’t have to sacrifice Jesus in order to save us, we could have been saved another way. Nonetheless, God/Jesus chose the blood sacrifice route to give us an example of unconditional love. Jesus really did save everyone by his death, though it was, strictly speaking, unnecessary. We could have been saved anyway, by other means. We really needed him to die on the cross, but not really.

Umm… psst: Jesus included all of us in his salvific act! (He just included Mary in a way that’s different from the way he included us.)

Right OK, by my saying he included Mary in his salvific act, it doesn’t imply that he didn’t include everyone.

 

[inocente]

Well, the Church has always called Mary the “mother of God” so we can deduce that true Catholics have believed that she has always existed since the existence of “mother” is fundamentally prior to “son.” Though it is fundamentally prior, it is also “outside of time” so therefore she exists as divine mother in eternity with her son. It doesn’t contradict the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, rather it is a fuller clarification of it. Mary’s body was immaculately conceived due to her eternal motherhood as related to the sacrifice of her son.

The obvious symbol for your new quadrality sect is a square, and I very much hope you call it The Quadratics.

Now I’m only a Baptist, not sophisticated like you Quadratics, but if Mary isn’t human then Jesus has no human blood, his body isn’t human, he just pulled the wool over our eyes pretending to be human. He can’t identify with our suffering, nor can we identify with his. Without his humanity he can no longer be our friend, he’s just a different version of the Father. Christianity falls apart at the seams.

No doubt all new religions have these trivial teething problemettes . Re what you say above, see catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The obvious symbol for your new quadrality sect is a square, and I very much hope you call it The Quadratics.

The pope hasn’t created a new religion, he is merely clarifying what true Christians have always believed. The cross has four ends does it not? So, you can see the quadrality has been implicit from the beginning!

Now I’m only a Baptist, not sophisticated like you Quadratics, but if Mary isn’t human then Jesus has no human blood, his body isn’t human, he just pulled the wool over our eyes pretending to be human. He can’t identify with our suffering, nor can we identify with his. Without his humanity he can no longer be our friend, he’s just a different version of the Father. Christianity falls apart at the seams.

No doubt all new religions have these trivial teething problemettes . Re what you say above, see catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

Not a new religion here. Mary is 100% human and 100% divine just like Jesus. That makes perfect sense and isn’t contradictory at all. We have a real mother and a real brother.

 

[davidv]

The pope hasn’t created a new religion, he is merely clarifying what true Christians have always believed. The cross has four ends does it not?

The cross is not a symbol for God.

So, you can see the quadrality has been implicit from the beginning!

Not a new religion here. Mary is 100% human and 100% divine just like Jesus.

A baseless assertion supported only by multiple failures is logic. And very contrary to Church teaching

That makes perfect sense and isn’t contradictory at all. We have a real mother and a real brother.

Why does '“real” imply divine?

 

[Gorgias]

It is a great mystery for sure, how those Steelers, who play so poorly, could make it to the playoffs.

I attribute it to the grace of God. (Not to the deity of Rothlisberger… )

I’m using the same argument offered by apologists to explain why God is not unjust for demanding the sacrifice of the innocent (Jesus) on behalf of the guilty (everyone else).

God didn’t demand the sacrifice of the innocent. You’re listening to non-Catholic apologists; the Catholic Church doesn’t teach penal substitution.

Nonetheless, God/Jesus chose the blood sacrifice route to give us an example of unconditional love.

There… that’s a bit better!

Jesus really did save everyone by his death, though it was, strictly speaking, unnecessary. We could have been saved anyway, by other means.

That simply means that the means are contingent, not that they’re unnecessary.

We really needed him to die on the cross, but not really.

We would have to answer the question “if it’s not really ‘necessary’, then what would have sufficed?”

Right OK, by my saying he included Mary in his salvific act, it doesn’t imply that he didn’t include everyone.

And, he included Mary in the same way that he included everyone – as a divine savior to a human in need of salvation. Glad you’ve come around.

 

[ahs]

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.

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.

You just proved my point. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is based in the reality that Mary needed a savior, and was saved at the moment of conception. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception precludes your assessment/conclusion about what the angel meant when he said “full of grace”. You just contradicted an existing Dogma, or had to misrepresent it to make it fit your explanation.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Agree. Mary is much more than a saint though. Yes, all revelation ended long ago, the Catholic faith has been whole and entire ever since. No changes at all!

Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. Besides that, she didn’t have to proclaim the quadrality since all true Catholics have believed in it. It is only in modern times due to the influence of protestantism that the pope has had to formally declare this dogma explicitly.

No, no. The revelations given to those saints were nothing new. They were clarifications of what Catholics have always believed. The Catholic faith has always been unchanging, whole, and entire since the time of the apostles, you said so yourself.

Don’t be such a pharisee! Doctors of the law are so rigid… God is bigger than any particular Catechism or Canon Law book.

That apparition is wrong. Is it approved? Has it been investigated? Sounds heretical!

Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth?
Well the catholic church states all public revelation is from Jesus birth to the last Apostles death.
Therefore anything not in public revelation is Not catholic teaching.

Back up your view with a quote from Canon Law or the Catechism

The Pope put his apostolic authority on the catechism.as the rules and teachings and laws for all Catholics.
If it is not in the Catechism it is not in catholic teaching.
Anyone thinking and acting against the catechism.is in an automatic state of excommunication. Another church teaching
So if you cannot back up your allegations in the Catechism you are possibly under an automatic excommunication for.heresy.

Please provide us with a website to the Vatican giving us an actual quote of the Pope saying “Mary is God.”

Pope John Paul Ii followed the writings of St Louis De Montfort, and lived them in his motto “Totus tuus”
St Louis De Montfort wrote: we don’t worship Mary, Mary is not God, Mary is his greatest Saint, and has special titles and virtues and was given much grace by God, but God alone is the source of all grace, all Mary can do is pray for us, God is the one who gives grace and answers our prayers. To worship Mary would be a mortal sin.

Therefore according to a Saint who had apparitions of Our Lady, whom the Pope followed his writings, Mary is not God.
According to scripture Mary is not God.
According to public revelation Mary is not God.
According to all the saints (who were often given teachings that the Popes later made into dogmas) Mary is not God.
Pope Francis has not one quote officially saying “Mary is God.”

You are very wrong and teaching heresy my friend.

The catechism says anyone going against catholic teaching is in am automatic state of excommunication.
You need to talk to a Priest about this and follow His advice.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

You just proved my point. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is based in the reality that Mary needed a savior, and was saved at the moment of conception. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception precludes your assessment/conclusion about what the angel meant when he said “full of grace”. You just contradicted an existing Dogma, or had to misrepresent it to make it fit your explanation.

More to the point, though: Gabriel didn’t say “full of grace”, he said “kecharitomene” (as recorded in the original Greek of the text). St Jerome just used the phrase “gratia plena” as the way to translate a (really difficult to translate) Greek participle into Latin.

The word “kecharitomene” means ‘one who has been given grace (and in whom the grace endures to the present, and is expected to continue enduring)’. Pumpkin’s analysis holds – but unfortunately, to the detriment of the argument being made: only a deity is 100% grace; Mary is not 100% grace – she is a human who had been graced (passive voice). She (as a human) had been graced by a being who is grace itself – God. Good job, Pumpkin – your own analysis proves your assertion wrong!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You just proved my point. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is based in the reality that Mary needed a savior, and was saved at the moment of conception. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception precludes your assessment/conclusion about what the angel meant when he said “full of grace”. You just contradicted an existing Dogma, or had to misrepresent it to make it fit your explanation.

In a very mysterious way, Mary both needed a savior and is God. It’s not either/or but both/and. Or, maybe another explanation is that the actual infallible proclamation does not say she “needed a savior.” It says she “…was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin…” This doesn’t mean that she definitely would have had original sin, it merely affirms that she didn’t! It’s all true, but the quadrality is a more “full” truth.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The cross is not a symbol for God.

Um yes, when you make the sign of the cross you are invoking the trinity who is God. Little did you know, you have been actually invoking the quadrality! Four motions, four persons, one substance.

A baseless assertion supported only by multiple failures is logic. And very contrary to Church teaching

Why don’t you go ahead and flesh out precisely why my assertions are baseless and highlight some of my errors in logic. Careful though, you could be hoist by your own petard if your arguments can be used against other Catholic teachings.

Why does '“real” imply divine?

It doesn’t it implies human. Mary and Jesus are both 100% human and also 100% divine. It’s very convenient for explaining various difficulties.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I attribute it to the grace of God. (Not to the deity of Rothlisberger… )

God didn’t demand the sacrifice of the innocent. You’re listening to non-Catholic apologists; the Catholic Church doesn’t teach penal substitution.

There… that’s a bit better!

That simply means that the means are contingent, not that they’re unnecessary.

We would have to answer the question “if it’s not really ‘necessary’, then what would have sufficed?”

And, he included Mary in the same way that he included everyone – as a divine savior to a human in need of salvation. Glad you’ve come around.

Right, the immaculate conception wasn’t necessary since Mary is 100% divine and didn’t actually need a savior. Jesus just did that to give us a good example of how we should treat our parents. Should he have had no opportunity to fulfill the 4th or 5th commandment (depending on whom you ask)? I think not!

God could have asked us to sacrifice animals in order to forgive us. Or, he could ask us to make amends and help the poor/widows/orphans. Or, he could forgive us gratuitously based on our repentance and firm purpose of amendment. He chose, instead, to accept the death of the innocent in favor of the guilty…not because it was necessary strictly speaking, but he made it necessary in order to show us sacrificial love and solidarity in suffering or something like that.