The Quadrality

[PumpkinCookie]

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?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi P.C. With all due respect, the purpose of your thread is…?
Play?

Happy New Year!

Love and Peace

 

[Gorgias]

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.

From the very beginning, this is a non-starter. The teaching of the Trinity already is doctrine, so there cannot be another ‘infallible’ teaching in contradiction of an existing infallible teaching.

But, as a thought experiment, let’s see how it goes: it might not lead us to any useful conclusion, but it might just help us understand something about infallible teachings…

Father, mother, son, spirit: four persons, one being. In other words, the pope formally declares that the theotokos is actually a divine person

In order for this to be true, then there would have to be a finding that Mary always existed. Remember: the second person of the Trinity (i.e., the Logos) always existed; but, in the course of time in the context of creation, he was made incarnate. Is this what you’re suggesting that might be ‘discovered’? That Mary always existed? You’d have to have a finding – from tradition, right? – that she always was. This, too, would be problematic, since it would contradict the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

, 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.

This seems to be a take-off of what was said in the statement of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It follows a similar (but not exact) train of thought. Of course, in the statement of that dogma, what was actually said wasn’t that an unknown dogma was being followed (unbeknownst to anyone), but that the devotion always existed and the understanding of Mary as a special human was always known. So, your take here, too, would seem to fail the smell test.

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?

As I’ve already mentioned, this would be possible to refute by showing that it contradicts existing doctrine.

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.

I guess I’d respond that you would need to demonstrate how this assertion doesn’t contradict existing doctrine regarding Trinitarian theology.

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 can’t “use the same arguments”, since these arguments utilize Scripture and the teaching of Christ Himself.

 

[Alex_H]

Traditionally, Christians have always believed in a trinity. This is evident as Sacred Scripture tells us in Matthew: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Here we see in Sacred Scripture the three persons of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So this idea fails on the ground of sacred scripture.

However, there is another argument I would like to make. It is that this very heresy was brought up early on within the church. Saint Epiphanius, a bishop, wrote of a group called the Collyridians. In his book on heresies,*** Panarion***, St. Epiphanius writes: “It is not right to honor the saints beyond their due.” (78:23) He goes on to say:“Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worshiped him who was born in the flesh from her… Honor Mary, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshiped, but let no one worship Mary, . . . even though Mary is most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshiped.” (Panarion 79:1-4)

He was writing this at a time when there were two groups in Arabia. One, which was made up almost entirely of women, worshiped Mary and offered sacrifices to her. This is blatant idolatry. No one is to be worshiped outside of God. Second, there was a group that believed that Mary had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ. This too was considered heretical.

We must remember the words of the Angel when John, the writer of Revelation, fell at his feet to worship him. We would do wise to listen to these words found in Revelation: “And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God.”

For this reason, this idea would never become doctrine because it fails on the grounds of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Something can only become doctrine if the Sacred Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition all agree on it.

This post was written with help from this article: Link

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Your scenario cannot happen, so there is no need to worry about it. The Holy Trinity is a Teaching that can never be changed.

 

[jinglebelle]

In the 1970’s in our high school a sixth former was expelled for refusing to retract the same issue. He has gone on to have a happy life.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

From the very beginning, this is a non-starter. The teaching of the Trinity already is doctrine, so there cannot be another ‘infallible’ teaching in contradiction of an existing infallible teaching.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s a fuller clarification of a doctrine the Church has always believed.

In order for this to be true, then there would have to be a finding that Mary always existed. Remember: the second person of the Trinity (i.e., the Logos) always existed; but, in the course of time in the context of creation, he was made incarnate. Is this what you’re suggesting that might be ‘discovered’? That Mary always existed? You’d have to have a finding – from tradition, right? – that she always was. This, too, would be problematic, since it would contradict the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

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.

This seems to be a take-off of what was said in the statement of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It follows a similar (but not exact) train of thought. Of course, in the statement of that dogma, what was actually said wasn’t that an unknown dogma was being followed (unbeknownst to anyone), but that the devotion always existed and the understanding of Mary as a special human was always known. So, your take here, too, would seem to fail the smell test.

Generations of Catholics have revered Mary. Her altar occupies a special place next to the altar of sacrifice. She has the power to work miracles, and appears to be different ethnicity depending on the audience. This is a manifestation of her divine nature as “mother.” Yes, her status as a special human has always been known, and more of her special-ness was revealed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and still more of her special-ness has been revealed by the “quadrality.”

As I’ve already mentioned, this would be possible to refute by showing that it contradicts existing doctrine.

It doesn’t contradict, it develops! It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

I guess I’d respond that you would need to demonstrate how this assertion doesn’t contradict existing doctrine regarding Trinitarian theology.

The doctrine of the trinity is true, and the quadrality is a further development. These beliefs aren’t contradictory, the latter is a clarification of the former.

You can’t “use the same arguments”, since these arguments utilize Scripture and the teaching of Christ Himself.

The magnificat of Mary is the primary source text for the doctrine of the quadrality. Mary’s soul (divine nature) magnifies the divine essence as divine mother. When she calls herself a servant, it is because she is speaking about her human nature, not her divine mothership.

For centuries, true Catholics have revered Mary as the prime divine intercessor because they were focusing on her human nature, but now the pope has shown us that her divine nature was truly believed though not explicitly. The belief was shown through the actions and liturgy of the faithful.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi P.C. With all due respect, the purpose of your thread is…?
Play?

Happy New Year!

Love and Peace

Yes, I learn best by playing! Happy New Year to you too!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Traditionally, Christians have always believed in a trinity. This is evident as Sacred Scripture tells us in Matthew: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Here we see in Sacred Scripture the three persons of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So this idea fails on the ground of sacred scripture.

There are lots of things Catholics believe that are not specified in scripture. The doctrine of the quadrality is part of tradition, and has always been believed in a latent way, by true Catholics. Fortunately, the pope has made this belief clear and explicit at the prompting of his charism as pastor of the universal church. The scripture is all true, but the truth is bigger than scripture. The trinity is true. And, the quadrality is a further development of this truth.

However, there is another argument I would like to make. It is that this very heresy was brought up early on within the church. Saint Epiphanius, a bishop, wrote of a group called the Collyridians. In his book on heresies,*** Panarion***, St. Epiphanius writes: “It is not right to honor the saints beyond their due.” (78:23) He goes on to say:“Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worshiped him who was born in the flesh from her… Honor Mary, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshiped, but let no one worship Mary, . . . even though Mary is most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshiped.” (Panarion 79:1-4)

He was writing this at a time when there were two groups in Arabia. One, which was made up almost entirely of women, worshiped Mary and offered sacrifices to her. This is blatant idolatry. No one is to be worshiped outside of God. Second, there was a group that believed that Mary had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ. This too was considered heretical.

Well, similarly to how other saints have had a less than full understanding of certain dogmas, we can assume that St. Epiphanius was incorrect here. St. Thomas Aquinas never once said that the quadrinity is false, therefore we can assume he must have thought it to be true! In fact, no famous saints I can call to mind ever spoke out against the quadrinity, so therefore we can assume they accepted it implicitly.

There were a lot of heretics in the early church period, fortunately the pope has declared on this subject to help Catholics become self-aware of a belief that has always been traditional. You are right, no one is to be worshiped outside of God. Fortunately, Mary in her divine nature is part of the quadrinity and thus worthy of worship. It would be wrong to worship Mary’s human nature alone, and this is most likely what St. Epiphanus is concerned with.

We must remember the words of the Angel when John, the writer of Revelation, fell at his feet to worship him. We would do wise to listen to these words found in Revelation: “And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God.”

Yes, you are right, we shouldn’t worship angels. It is good to worship Mary as a person of the quadrinity though, and we know this because she is higher than the angels. The only thing higher than angels is God, therefore Mary must be God too. Below is the ancient Eastern “Ode of the Theotokos:”

You who are more to be honoured than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim, you who, uncorrupted, gave birth to God the Word, in reality the God-bearer, we exalt you.

She is the “God-bearer” in the sense that she reveals the divine mother of the quadrinity. As you can see, this belief is very ancient and has always been a part of sacred tradition, both East and West, though it has only know become explicit and clear thanks to the pope’s infallible teaching.

For this reason, this idea would never become doctrine because it fails on the grounds of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Something can only become doctrine if the Sacred Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition all agree on it.

This post was written with help from this article: Link

Tradition, Scripture, the Saints, Liturgy, and the sense of the faithful all agree that Mary is divine, it’s just that they weren’t self-aware of this belief until now. Fortunately, Catholics are better able to understand the deposit of faith as new insights inspire the magisterium to define, develop, or clarify the doctrines.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Your scenario cannot happen, so there is no need to worry about it. The Holy Trinity is a Teaching that can never be changed.

It’s not being changed! It’s just that we have a fuller understanding now with the development of the quadrality.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In the 1970’s in our high school a sixth former was expelled for refusing to retract the same issue. He has gone on to have a happy life.

What’s a “sixth former?” Anyway…this is more proof that the belief in Mary’s divinity has always been part of the faith, though not in an explicit way. The fact that he went on to live a happy life proves that he was right about this and God must have given him special insight into their essence.

 

[JerryZ]

It’s not a contradiction. It’s a fuller clarification of a doctrine the Church has always believed.

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.

Generations of Catholics have revered Mary. Her altar occupies a special place next to the altar of sacrifice. She has the power to work miracles, and appears to be different ethnicity depending on the audience. This is a manifestation of her divine nature as “mother.” Yes, her status as a special human has always been known, and more of her special-ness was revealed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and still more of her special-ness has been revealed by the “quadrality.”

It doesn’t contradict, it develops! It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

The doctrine of the trinity is true, and the quadrality is a further development. These beliefs aren’t contradictory, the latter is a clarification of the former.

The magnificat of Mary is the primary source text for the doctrine of the quadrality. Mary’s soul (divine nature) magnifies the divine essence as divine mother. When she calls herself a servant, it is because she is speaking about her human nature, not her divine mothership.

For centuries, true Catholics have revered Mary as the prime divine intercessor because they were focusing on her human nature, but now the pope has shown us that her divine nature was truly believed though not explicitly. The belief was shown through the actions and liturgy of the faithful.

Point A: The Church HAS NEVER believed such a thing. Instead it thoroughly admonishes all to reserve Adorazio ONLY to GOD (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Read our Creed.

Point B: Mother of GOD is a true title since she did bore the word incarnate whom again as our creed recites was before all ages, Jesus took HIS human flesh from her but the Son of GOD was NOT created. Nowhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition we find Mary as coexistent with GOD the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Your assertion of "Before would mean that “God the Father and Mary” Pre-existed The Son and presumably the Holy Spirit. When the Dogma States clearly that there cannot be any “creation” of the Triune GOD. IT is ONE GOD, Three Persons Existing together, unchanging.

Mary was born protected BY GOD from original sin and given extraordinary grace merited by Jesus for HIS role in human salvation. Notice that the merit was NOT attributed to Mary but to Jesus.
Notice also that your theory requires Mary to be protected from original sin BY Mary. If she is part of this “GOD Quadrality”

Point C: Mary does not have any power. NONE She is a creature. She has like all Saints and Angels in Heaven a possibility to ask on our behalf for favour. She CANNOT work miracles. Any miracles are the direct intervention of GOD!

The pre-existence of Mary is contradicted by the Immaculate Conception Dogma. If she was divine she would not need to be saved.
Sorry but no cigar on this one.

…

 

[MaryHelp777]

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?

It can never happen because the Holy Spirit speaks infallibly through the Popes on all doctrinal.issues.
The Holy Spirit is truth and will only tell the truth. Which is.of a Triune God. Also the church states all public Revelation is from the birth of Jesus to.the death of the Last Apostle, that no new.doctrines.can ever happen outside of God’s public Revelation given through Jesus. We may find doctrines in the New Testament through theology, but they were already there, they are not new. They are in the New Testament. Which declares God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Point A: The Church HAS NEVER believed such a thing. Instead it thoroughly admonishes all to reserve Adorazio ONLY to GOD (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Read our Creed.

Right, that’s all true, this is just a further development, not a contradiction! The dogma of the quadrinity isn’t saying the creed is false or that Mary is the only divine person, it just clarifies what Catholics have always latently believed: that Mary is a divine person.

Point B: Mother of GOD is a true title since she did bore the word incarnate whom again as our creed recites was before all ages, Jesus took HIS human flesh from her but the Son of GOD was NOT created. Nowhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition we find Mary as coexistent with GOD the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Your assertion of "Before would mean that “God the Father and Mary” Pre-existed The Son and presumably the Holy Spirit. When the Dogma States clearly that there cannot be any “creation” of the Triune GOD. IT is ONE GOD, Three Persons Existing together, unchanging.

Right, Mary’s divine nature as mother has always existed. Her human nature was conceived. This is a great mystery.

Mary was born protected BY GOD from original sin and given extraordinary grace merited by Jesus for HIS role in human salvation. Notice that the merit was NOT attributed to Mary but to Jesus.
Notice also that your theory requires Mary to be protected from original sin BY Mary. If she is part of this “GOD Quadrality”

Right, Mary’s human nature was protected from original sin by the merits of her son, that’s why she didn’t actually die (though this hasn’t been dogmatically defined yet, true Catholics have always believed it). Right, in a mysterious way, Mary’s human nature was protected by Jesus her son, who is also divine. But, though both of them are God, they are each distinct persons so it isn’t appropriate to say Mary protected herself. Just as you say the son sacrificed himself to the father, not the father to the father, etc.

Point C: Mary does not have any power. NONE She is a creature. She has like all Saints and Angels in Heaven a possibility to ask on our behalf for favour. She CANNOT work miracles. Any miracles are the direct intervention of GOD!

Have you ever prayed the “memorare?” Whose protection do you flee to? This shows she has protection to offer, as divine mother. What of Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, Guadalupe? All miracles done by Mary. Yes, all miracles are the direct intervention of God, and Mary is a person of God, she is the fourth person of the quadrinity. It’s not either/or but both/and.

The pre-existence of Mary is contradicted by the Immaculate Conception Dogma. If she was divine she would not need to be saved.
Sorry but no cigar on this one…

Her human nature needed to be cleansed by the retroactive future merits of her son. Her divine nature did not need saving, you are right. Just as Jesus’ divine nature did not die on the cross, but his human nature did.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It can never happen because the Holy Spirit speaks infallibly through the Popes on all doctrinal.issues.
The Holy Spirit is truth and will only tell the truth. Which is.of a Triune God. Also the church states all public Revelation is from the birth of Jesus to.the death of the Last Apostle, that no new.doctrines.can ever happen outside of God’s public Revelation given through Jesus. We may find doctrines in the New Testament through theology, but they were already there, they are not new. They are in the New Testament. Which declares God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Oh yeah you are totally right. It is true that God is at least a trinity, but part of the public revelation of Jesus is that Mary is also God and a person of the divine quadrality. When he says to John “behold thy Mother” he meant it in a cosmic and divine sense. The doctrine of the quadrality has always been there, but thanks to the pope we now have a more developed theology and a clearer understanding. This is not a new doctrine, we just discovered more of its “fullness” recently, that’s all.

Second part of the question:

If a pope actually came out and said this while fulfilling all of the conditions for infallibility, how would you know whether it was true or not?

Would you just accept it is true? Would you think the pope has excommunicated himself and therefore wasn’t the true pope at the time of declaration? How would we know?

 

[Alex_H]

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?

 

[MaryHelp777]

Oh yeah you are totally right. It is true that God is at least a trinity, but part of the public revelation of Jesus is that Mary is also God and a person of the divine quadrality. When he says to John “behold thy Mother” he meant it in a cosmic and divine sense. The doctrine of the quadrality has always been there, but thanks to the pope we now have a more developed theology and a clearer understanding. This is not a new doctrine, we just discovered more of its “fullness” recently, that’s all.

Second part of the question:

If a pope actually came out and said this while fulfilling all of the conditions for infallibility, how would you know whether it was true or not?

Would you just accept it is true? Would you think the pope has excommunicated himself and therefore wasn’t the true pope at the time of declaration? How would we know?

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

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,

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.

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

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.

 

[Alex_H]

Oh yeah you are totally right. It is true that God is at least a trinity, but part of the public revelation of Jesus is that Mary is also God and a person of the divine quadrality. When he says to John “behold thy Mother” he meant it in a cosmic and divine sense. The doctrine of the quadrality has always been there, but thanks to the pope we now have a more developed theology and a clearer understanding. This is not a new doctrine, we just discovered more of its “fullness” recently, that’s all.

Second part of the question:

If a pope actually came out and said this while fulfilling all of the conditions for infallibility, how would you know whether it was true or not?

Would you just accept it is true? Would you think the pope has excommunicated himself and therefore wasn’t the true pope at the time of declaration? How would we know?

If something was taught in scripture, and passed down from the apostles through tradition, and pronounced infallibly by the pope, I would agree with it.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not a contradiction. It’s a fuller clarification of a doctrine the Church has always believed.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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).

Mary has the power to work miracles

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

The doctrine of the trinity is true, and the quadrality is a further development. These beliefs aren’t contradictory, the latter is a clarification of the former.

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:

The magnificat of Mary is the primary source text for the doctrine of the quadrality. Mary’s soul (divine nature) magnifies the divine essence as divine mother.

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

For centuries, true Catholics have revered Mary as the prime divine intercessor

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).

 

[fisherman_carl]

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?

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.