What Do Catholics Really Believe About Mary—and Should Protestants Care? ONESTOP THREAD

Theology
21

StephenAndrew & Samuel_23

Thank you both for your diligent efforts at explaining your deeply-held positions and beliefs. Reading your posts does actually help me understand how you think, and how you have arrived at your position regarding Mary and her unique role in the redemption of mankind. One way it helps me is by paying careful attention to what (or who) you rely on as authoritative; from where you harvest veritable source material; what sources outside yourselves do you refer to as supportive, or as originators of your ideas. Your posts are very convincing, not that your doctrine is true, but that you have been diligent in you search, and have applied yourself to this understanding, having given much credence to the sources you put forth. I won’t list them here as anyone can find them in the above posts.

I would like to offer some comments on one thing Samuel_23 mentioned above:

“Now telling that Mary is not explicitly called as Ark of Covenant and Mary is not referred to as New Eve in the Scriptures are what I commonly encounter with arguments against protestants, this is because they don’t recognize biblical-parallelism, which is clearly another important pillar of scriptural decoding and analyzing layers of scriptures, for scripture is multi-layered, not a single layer.”

I want to say this as gently as I can, but Biblical parallelism is not what you think it is. Biblical parallelism is a poetic technique of proximate repetition for emphasis. In other words, Biblical parallelism is a name we give to a technique Biblical poets used to bring clarity and emphasis to an idea.

e.g. “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction.” (Proverbs 3:11)

Biblical parallelism is not synonymous with allegory, typology, symbology, or other Biblical expressions that recognize the transcendent nature of this spiritual book, a scripture that often presents a section or passage as “layered”, whereas there is a historical meaning, and a theological meaning, and possibly a deeper spiritual or typological meaning implied. I know of few protestants who don’t “recognize this” reality. Could it be, while denigrating those with whom you are “arguing” for not understanding a term, you have missed the log in your own eye? (Matt 7:3) (sorry if this is too harsh)

You may have used the phrase “scriptural decoding” unadvisedly, but I’d like to remind us of the nature of the Bible as “revelation”. In a foreign language it would be called an “apocalypse” for those who like to rely on foreign languages to explain a concept. It means it is an UNveiling, it reveals, it exposes truth, it is light shining into darkness, in other words, it is designed to bring clarity and understanding to transcendent concepts through the assistance (paráklētos) of God, The Holy Spirit. It does not require “decoding”, it IS the “decoder” to use your term. Holy Scripture makes sense of (brings clarity to) metaphysical reality. It does not require advanced degrees, or familiarity with ancient writers from other cultures, it requires a submissive and loving relationship with the Author. Quoting extrabiblical sages, and concepts in esoteric foreign terms does little to establish verity, rather it introduces confusion and doubt (IMHO).

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:1-4.

While this event looked confusing to some onlookers, and they expressed their dismay by accusing the disciples of being drunk (v13), actually the Holy Spirit gave them access to foreign languages to bring clarity, understanding, and unity, and that is exactly what it did. It did not foster “argument” but agreement, it did not cause confusion, on the contrary, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, even visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs were amazed, saying “we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:9-11 God is speaking in my language! This was no show of sophistication, this was no demonstration that certain men could stream together long ecclesiastical Latin terms to convince others of the depth of their understanding. I personally agree with The Apostle Paul who said:

“I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:18-19.

His is the spirit of unity; this is the spirit of teaching; this is the spirit of paráklētos. (and THAT was parallelism (glóssa in cheek)).

A contemporary sage once said: “If theology needs six hours of Greek, Latin, metaphysics, and Newman’s development theory to defend why it doesn’t violate Sola Christus—maybe it does.”
Heed this.

I understand (even better now), from your posts, why you defend the veneration of Mary. Christians everywhere respect her, and the role she was given in the redemption of mankind. I recently read in the National Catholic Register an article by Dave Armstrong who wrote:

“Mary takes no credit for herself. All goes to God. And this is why we venerate and honor holy people — because they always do this. Venerating them is not antithetical or contrary to worshiping and adoring God; it’s part of that, while we make a sharp distinction between the veneration or honor of saints and angels, over against worship and adoration, which is reserved for God alone.”

That made sense to me. That was written in plain English, stated the Catholic position clearly, and required no advanced degree to understand. Even if Dave left out certain doctrinal aspects of this catholic dogma, he did present it in such a was as to promote peace, unity, and fellowship. To this end, I applaud him.

Peace and unity in The One who Unifies.
KP

22

StephenAndrew, my friend—your passion is undeniable, your word count unstoppable, and your OMNILogic… let’s just say it’s orbiting the outer rim of coherence. So allow me, with due respect and a hefty dose of truth, to offer a response that cuts through the fog of mystical meandering with the double-edged sword of Scripture and sound doctrine.

:fire: “Mary Helps Us Understand the Trinity”

You say that Mary is necessary to logically understand the Trinity. Respectfully, that’s not just a stretch—it’s a theological pulled hamstring.

The Trinity is not derived from Mary.
The Trinity is revealed in God’s own self-disclosure:

  • The Father speaks,
  • The Son is sent,
  • The Spirit descends.

“Go therefore and make disciples… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” – Matthew 28:19

Mary wasn’t there in Genesis 1:1. She’s not pre-existent. She didn’t create. She didn’t co-breathe the breath of life. She was created, chosen, and graced—but she is not God, not part of the Trinity, and not the key to unlocking it.

Saying Mary is in the Trinity is not poetic—it’s heresy.

:prohibited: “No Catholic Logically Understands the Trinity… but You Do?”

You say no Pope, bishop, or priest understands the Trinity—but you do. That’s a bold claim, my friend. Scripture doesn’t call us to understand the Trinity exhaustively. It calls us to believe what’s been revealed and worship in reverence.

“Great is the mystery of godliness…” – 1 Timothy 3:16

You’ve invented a new system, branded it “OMNILogic,” and placed yourself as the sole interpreter of divine mystery. That’s not theology—that’s Gnosticism with a thesaurus.

:stop_sign: “Mary is in the Trinity and God of Mercy”

Absolutely not. That crosses every biblical boundary God has established.

“You shall have no other gods before Me.” – Exodus 20:3
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” – Isaiah 42:8

Mary is not the “God of Mercy.” She is a recipient of God’s mercy. She said so herself:

“My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” – Luke 1:47

:exploding_head: “OMNILogic” vs. Scripture

Let me be plain: Your system is not logical. It’s mystical stream-of-consciousness, borrowing Christian terms and rearranging them into abstract metaphysical poetry. It may sound spiritual, but it lacks biblical roots, apostolic grounding, and Christ-centered clarity.

God doesn’t call us to OMNILogic. He calls us to:

  • Renew our minds (Romans 12:2)
  • Rightly handle the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15)
  • Contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)

What you’re offering is not that faith. It’s spiritual improvisation with no seatbelt.

:bomb: Final Word

Jesus said,

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” – John 14:6

Not through Mary. Not through OMNILogic. Not through mystical algebra.

If your theology needs a glossary, a decoder ring, and an oxygen mask, it’s time to come back to the simplicity and power of the Gospel.

So I’ll say it plainly:

  • Mary is blessed.
  • Jesus is Lord.
  • The Trinity is not a math puzzle—it’s a revealed reality.
  • And OMNILogic needs to be OMNIREPENTED.

Peace always,
But only in the truth.

23

Samuel_23, I see your theological engine is firing on all twelve cylinders—and I’ll give you this: your Latin’s clean, your Greek’s tight, and your passion is undeniable. But here’s the hard truth wrapped in some sanctified sass:

You’re not defending Scripture. You’re defending a doctrinal system built on theological extrapolation, not divine revelation. So let’s hit this in chunks—with precision, with Scripture, and with the fire that truth demands.

:magnifying_glass_tilted_left: Immaculate Conception: Ontological Fittingness or Scriptural Fitness?

You say it’s “ontologically fitting.” But God doesn’t do things because they’re fitting to human philosophy—He acts in accord with His will and word. “Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit” (He could do it, it was fitting, so He did) isn’t divine revelation—it’s theological fan fiction. It’s not Ephesians 2, it’s Aristotle in a cassock.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23
“There is none righteous, not even one.” – Romans 3:10

You can Latin-wrap it with praeredemptio all day long, but unless the text of Scripture says Mary was preserved from sin at conception, you’re importing concepts into a silence that Scripture doesn’t beg you to fill.

:open_book: Kecharitōmenē ≠ Sinlessness

You go full grammatical kung fu here with perfect passive participles, but let’s be clear: Kecharitōmenē (“having been graced”) doesn’t demand sinlessness—it demands grace. You’re turning a description into a doctrinal cornerstone.

Tell me: is every person full of grace sinless?

Because Stephen is called “full of grace” in Acts 6:8 (plērēs charitos). Should we now believe Stephen was immaculately conceived too?

No? Then let’s not hang dogma on one participle.

:person_juggling: Mediatrix: Participatory Causality or Doctrinal Gymnastics?

You say it’s not competition with Christ. But here’s the Word:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” – 1 Timothy 2:5

That’s not a false dichotomy. That’s a Scriptural exclusivity. Saying Mary mediates “de congruo” (by fittingness) doesn’t soften the blow—it undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s office. Yes, believers can pray and intercede—but Scripture never once calls Mary the “neck” or the “Mediatrix of all graces.” That’s tradition talking, not the Holy Spirit.

And when you invoke typology—the New Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, the Gebirah—careful. Typology supports truth already revealed; it does not manufacture new dogma. It’s not a license to reverse-engineer doctrine from metaphor.

:candle: Latria, Dulia, and the Duck That Quacks

You call my duck test a phenomenological fallacy. Respectfully? Intent doesn’t excuse confusion. You can light a candle, kneel, chant, sing, and offer prayers to a statue—and tell me it’s hyperdulia. But when it looks, sounds, and functions like worship, the optics matter because they affect souls.

Jesus warned of appearances misleading the faithful.

“Woe to you… for you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of robbery and self-indulgence.” – Matthew 23:25

If millions mistake hyperdulia for worship, the problem isn’t with the viewer. It’s with the system.

:stop_sign: You Say “Deny Her Sinlessness and You Imply Imperfection in Christ’s Flesh”

That’s a false leap. Christ’s sinlessness wasn’t borrowed from Mary—it was guaranteed by His divinity.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you… so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” – Luke 1:35

You want Mary sinless so Christ can be sinless. But the Word says it was the Holy Spirit, not Mary’s DNA, that ensured His purity. Christ’s holiness is not dependent on Mary’s nature—it overrides it.

:firecracker: Final Explosion: Marian Dogmas Safeguard Christology?

No, brother. The Gospel safeguards Christology.
The Word Incarnate doesn’t need Mary exalted to secure His identity.
He doesn’t need a co-redeemer, a co-mediatrix, or a queen mother to validate His reign.
He reigns because He is Lord, not because He shares the spotlight.

“For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” – Colossians 2:9

So I’ll say it like this:

  • You don’t protect the crown of Christ by gilding His mother.
  • You don’t elevate grace by inventing extra channels for it.
  • And you don’t honor Scripture by constructing doctrines that need a Latin glossary, a Greek parsing manual, and a telescope to find in the Bible.

Mary is blessed.
Christ is supreme.
And anything that competes with that—even wrapped in theological sophistication—is still a distraction.

You can call it fitting.
I call it extra-biblical.
And Christ alone is more than enough.

24

@KPuff it was a good answer and I liked it, and ur answer truly makes sense. Nothing to go against. But I wanted to make a certain statement clear, because I may have used a certain term loosely in the previous answer to @SincereSeeker
I feel the human intellect is darkened by sin, we must understand the bible. The bible was written in Koine Greek (NT), and it has nuances like the difference between agapao and phileo (this one is particularly famous) and present imperative and aorist; they do carry theological weight and have significance. I feel learning Greek and using Greek terminologies and Latin terminologies gives a stricter sense to the terms which cannot be replicated in the English language. When we read the bible in depth,h we need to analyse its grammar, syntax, context, typology and theological telos. And Greek is completely different from English, and if we go from a purely English perspective, many points will go unnoticed.
And about biblical parallelism, I may have used that term loosely (ur right about it, it was a mistake from my part), because what I was referring to is the broader tradition of typology and canonical intertextuality, not the poetic per se. My point was that the Scripture is multi-layered, and has types, shadows and narrative echoes. So when I said Mary is the New Ark or the New Eve, I’m receiving how the early church read the scripture in light of Christ.
If Jesus is the New Adam, who then is the Woman, mother of all the living, who crushes the serpent’s head… What this question illustrates is coherence.

If one’s theology collapses the moment someone speaks Latin or cites Athanasius or invokes Marian Dogma, it’s not the doctrine that is confused, but because the foundations need to be strong. The goal is to behold the glory of God in the face of Christ, and sometimes requires us to jump deeper, and confusing terms, but if we keep everything simple, then we risk flattening the very mystery of God intended for us to marvel. The depth of the Scriptures is like that of the Ocean, can’t reach the bottom of it, and requires deep training before going to the deepest levels. In the end, every layer, every term, and every study points towards Christ, not away from him.
With love and Peace
Samuel_23

25

Samuel_23, I hear your heart—and I respect the tone you brought here. You’re digging deep, aiming for reverence, and clearly striving to let your theology exalt Christ. That’s commendable. But allow me to push back, lovingly but firmly, with a reminder: depth should never drown clarity. So let’s dive in, snorkel-style, without getting lost in a sea of syllables.

:scroll: Greek and Latin Are Tools, Not Thrones

You said Koine Greek and Latin “give a stricter sense” to the biblical text. True—to a point. They bring nuance. But nuance isn’t license to build dogma out of grammar alone.

  • Agapao vs. phileo? Sure, it’s a beautiful wordplay—but Peter still got reinstated (John 21).
  • Kecharitōmenē? Interesting, but not exclusive proof of sinless conception.
  • Typology? Powerful—but typology supports revealed doctrine; it doesn’t replace it.

If your theology leans so heavily on Greek tenses and patristic citations that the average Spirit-filled believer can’t find it in their Bible—you’re not unfolding revelation, you’re building an ivory tower.

:brain: Yes, Sin Darkens the Intellect—But the Spirit Illuminates the Word

“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” – Psalm 119:130

You don’t need a seminary degree in Greek to see Jesus. You need the Spirit of Truth.

You mentioned mystery. Yes—God is infinitely deep. But He is not indefinable. The Bible is sufficient—not exhaustive, but clear where it counts. The Reformers didn’t flatten theology. They just knocked over the scaffolding that obscured the cornerstone.

:crown: Mary as the New Eve?

You said, “If Jesus is the New Adam, who then is the woman?” Good question. Let’s let Scripture answer it:

“But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” – Galatians 4:26
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed…” – Genesis 3:15

Could Mary participate in that role? Sure—as a faithful Israelite woman chosen by God. But does Scripture call her the fulfillment of the New Eve typology? No. That’s a later reflection, not a revealed designation.

Typology is a servant of doctrine, not its sovereign.

:warning: Mystery Isn’t a Cloak for Theological Overreach

You say if someone’s theology “collapses the moment Latin is cited,” it’s their foundation that’s weak. Maybe. But sometimes, it’s because the Latin is covering a weak point with flair instead of faithfulness.

Mystery is not a license for confusion. And “Sola Christus” isn’t a flimsy bumper sticker—it’s a granite slab of biblical revelation. If it takes six hours of linguistic acrobatics to show how your doctrine doesn’t violate it… maybe it does.

“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

:latin_cross: Final Word: Keep the Ocean, Guard the Shore

Dive deep. Read Greek. Quote Irenaeus. Study typology. But don’t build what the apostles never laid. The Church was not founded on Marian elevation—it was founded on Christ, crucified and risen, proclaimed with clarity and fire.

In the end, if every layer points to Christ, then let’s ask honestly:

  • Do Marian dogmas clarify Him?
  • Or do they complicate Him?

If the shadow obscures the Sun, it’s time to step into the light.

With love,
and in the truth that sets free.

1 Like
26

@SincereSeeker and @KPuff , accept my humble answers to the questions raised. I’ll try to explain each terms properly and not use it loosely.
This time I’ll elaborate.
The Immaculate Conception is an ontological necessity rooted in divine oikonomia. Brother’s dismissal of the Immaculate Conception as “theological fan fiction” is rooted in what I and many others call philosophical fittingness, which misrepresents oikonomia tou mystēriou (Eph 3:9), meaning God’s salvific plan. The Immaculate Conception is not a human construct but a theandric necessity flowing from the hypostatic union, Christ’s dual nature as fully God and fully man (Chalcedon, 451 AD). Mary, as Theotokos (God-Bearer, Luke 1:43), must be preserved from original sin to ensure untainted humanity assumed by the Logos, let the kenosis (Phil 2:7) is not compromised by sinful death. To claim this is merely “fitting” ignores the biblical pattern of God preparing holy vessels for sacred purposes ( Ex 25:10-22, Ark’s purity; Heb 11:5, Enoch’s sanctification).
Romans 3:23 (“All have sinned”) is not absolute as exceptions are Christ (Heb 4:15) and infants and those sanctified in utero, like Jer 1:5 and Luke 1:15,41. Mary’s praeredemptio, meaning preemptive redemption, is a unique application of Christ’s universal atonement (1 Tim 2:6), not an EXEMPTION from it. Luke 1:28 kecharitōmenē means perfectly grace and implies a sinless state, as since cannot coexist with divine favour (ps 5:4)
BI.Duns Scotus’ potuit decuit ergo fecit, reflects divine wisdom’s convenientia (fittingness Eph 1:11), not some Aristotelian speculation. The superabundantia redemptionis (Rom 5:20) allows Christ to save Mary preventively, preserving her from original sin (gratia praeveniens). Denying this risks implying that Christ’s humanity is derived from Mary, this tainted and moves towards Nestorian’s separation of natures or adoptionism’s denial of His divine origin.
@SincereSeeker’s appeal to Roman 3:10 ignores analogia fidei Rom 12:6), which harmonises scripture with Tradition.
Now moving to
Kecharitōmenē
@SincereSeeker’s reduction of Kecharitōmenē to generic “having been graced” and comparison to Stephen’s plērēs charitos of ACTS 6:8 is a clear hermeneutical error. The greek kecharitōmenē (Luke 1:28) is a perfect passive participle, a rare NT present denosting a completed action with enduring results, used as an evocative title to replace Mary’s name. In contrast, what u said plērēs charitos used for Stephen is an adjectival phrase describing Stephen’s charismatic endowment, not a title implying sinlessness.
The perfect tense of kecharitōmenē parallels with tetelestai (“it is finished” John 19:30), where grammary conveys theological finality. As God is ‘holy holy holy’ (Isaiah 6:3). His grace in Mary excludes sin (Leviticus 11:44). Unlike Stephen’s grace for ministry, Mary’s status gratiae (state of grace) aligns with her unique vocation as Theotokos (Luke 1:43). Early Church Fathers like Ephrem the Syrian (hymns on the Nativity) affirm her sinlessness rooting in Luke’s text
Kecharitōmenē’s uniqueness in NT shoes Mary’s singularis gratia (singular grace, council of trend DS 1516). And to the question “Is every person full of grace sinless?” is again a classic strawman argument. Mary’s grace is sui generis, tied to her role as the bearer of Logos (Luke 1:35). Their comparison to Stephen ignores SYNTACTIC and CONTEXTUAL DIFFERENCE, as Kecharitōmenē’ functions as a divine title, not some description. By ignoring Kecharitōmenē’ weight, @SincereSeeker undermines the sensus plenior, ignoring the Scripture-Spirit guided depth.
Coming to
Mediatrix
The claim that 1 Tim 2:5 (“one mediator”) precludes Mary’s role as Mediatrix erects a false dichotomy, which is being repeated again and again. The Mediatrix omnium gratiarum doctine is again not competitive but subordinate, originating from Christ’s redemptive act through Mary’s synergia (cooperation , Luke 1:38)
Secondary mediation is biblical. Paul’s ministry of reconciliation (again brought this forward but it was ignored, rather portions of my argument were cut-off and they were scrutinzed without taking the full theological evidence I had put forward before) in 2 Cor 5:18-20 an intercessory prayers in 1 Tim 2:1-2 participates in Christ;s work. Mary’s intercession at Cana, in John 2:1-11 and her universal motherhood in John 19:26-27, “Behold your mother” exemplify her mediatio de congruo (fitting participation, again I put this but it was called some softner to hard core truth, breh…this is theology, and there are concepts, everything is not primary level…time to come to higher grades) Typologically she is the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Rev 12:1-5), Ark of the Covenant (Rev 11:19-12:1) and gebirah (1 Kings 2:19-20), roles confirmed by Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 100 ) and Irenaeus (Adv. Haer 3.22) This point was again ignored.
The title “Mediatrix of all graces” is a dogmatic development, not a new revelation rooted in sensus fidelium in 2 Tim 1:14. Mary’s fiat enabled the Incarnation, making her unique conduit of grace in Luke 1:38. @SincereSeeker claim ignores Christ’s uniqueness and ignores the ordo subordinationis (order of subordination), where creatures participate in divine work without rivalling it as in Hebrews 12:1. The objection that the title is extra-biblical misreads typology’s role in unveiling the mysterium, as in Romans 16:25-26 and it contradicts the communio sanctorum (Heb 12:1)
Next, I don’t know why, but I already explained the Duck test Is phenomenological fallacy, no doubt
The duck test, used to accuse hyperdulia of resembling worship, commits a phenomenological fallacy, conflating external acts with internal intent. The distinction of latria and dulia and hyperdulia are rooted in ordo caritatis (Order of Charity in Rom 13:8-10)
Scripture mandates honouring holy figures (Heb 12:7) and Mary is blessed by all generations (Luke 1:48). Hyperdulia, formalised at Florence (1439) reflects her role as Theotokos. External acts like kneeling to icons parallel God-ordained cherubim statues (Ex 23:18-20), distinct from idolatry (Exodus 20:4-5). The misuse of Matthew 23:25 (hypocrisy crique) ignores the intentio cordis (1 Samuel 16:7). The incarnational principle, matter mediating grace (John 6:51 and Acts 19:11-12) validates veneration.
Hyperdulia is veneratio singularis proportionate to Mary’s synergia in salvation (Luke 1:38). The Chruch’s catechesis (CCC 971, Second Nicea, 787) clarifies these distinction, preventing confusion. And telling “optics” is addressed by proper formation, not by abolishing biblical honour. The rejection of hyperdulia ignores analogia entis (analogy of being), which distinguishes creaturely participation from divine essence. Again bro, using “optics” is ligit phenomenological fallacy, and it undermines the Church’s authority to define devotion (refer 1 Timothy 3:15)
then comes Marian Doctrines
The claims that Marian doctrines “complicate” Christ misreads their role as anchors of the theologia crucis (1 Co 1:23). THe immaculate conception, theotokos, and Mediatrix protect the hypostatic union agianst heresies like Nestorianism and monophysitism(absorbing His humanity), this is what I was saying, again this was ignored, and my answer were completely mis-represented.
Mary’s title as theotokos refutes Nestorianism (Luke 1:43, @SincereSeeker, I advise for you to learn more about this topic, because the representation before was shallow but its a deeply rooted topic, try to mediate calmly). It ensures Christ’s unified personhood. Her sinlessness preserves caro pura (pure flesh Heb 2:14) assumed by the Logos, as a sinful mother would imply imperfection, contra Hebrews 4:15. Gregory of Nazianzus (EP.101) insist that Christ’s humanity needs pure source. Typologically, Mary is the Ark (Rev 11:19-12:1 and Heb 9:4) and New Eve (Gen 3:15, protoevangelion) @SincereSeeker’s appeal and use of Luke 1:35 (“Holy Spirit overshadows”) complements, not negates Mary’s purity as the Spirit prepares Holy vessels (ecodus 25: 10-22)
Denying Mary’s sinlessness risks suggesting the Logos assumed taiend flesh, undermining the communication idiomatum (exchange of properties in Christ’s natures, Chalcedon) . Mary’s synergia as typus ecclesiae (type of Chruch, Rev 12;1) reflects her role in salvation history (Romans 5;12-14). THe claim that gospel alone safeguards Christology ignores the depositum fidei ( 2 Tim 1:14), which integrates Mary’s role.
Lastly, Sola Scripura’s hermeneutical inefficiency
The claim that the sola Scriptura framework, claiming Scripture’s clarity improves the pleroma (fullness Eph 3:19) of revelation by rejecting the Church’s interpretive authority. The demand for explicit texts mirrors the Sadducees’ error in Matthew 22:23-32, which Jesus corrected through implicit exegesis.
Scripture affirms Tradition as coequal revelation ( 2 Thess 2:15, “hold to the traditions”). THe paradosis of the Fathers like Augustine De Nat et Gratia 36 clarifies implicit truth like the Trinity as in John 1:1 and Matt 28:19 and Mary’s sinlessness (Luke 1:28). typology used by Paul in Gal 4:24-26, Christ as new Adam) unveils Mary as New Eve and Ark as Justin Martyr in Dialogue 100 attests. MIsteading of Glalations 4:26 (“Jerusalem above”) as negating Mary’s role ignores its ecclesial context which complements her typology(Rev 12:1-5)
The magisterium vivum (1 Tim 3:15) ensures doctirnal difelity as seen in Ephesus and Chalcedon. @SincereSeeker 's claim that typology manufactures dogma misrepresents its apostolic use (Heb 9:11-12). The simplicity argument failts as the Spirit guides the Church to unfold the scipture’s depths (John 16:13) not to flatten them.
I truly think that any scholar or novice would at least take a day to understand what I have written before and now, so @SincereSeeker read carefully and analyze each evidence, don’t pick and choose, brother, that’s my kind request because the posts given as reply to my answer mis-represents me and takes my argument in the wrong sense. I, humbly ask, to prevent such cut-reply formats as it grossly takes me in the wrong sense, and demotivates me from further study, as people continue to misunderstand me. I started studying and took me days and months to understand, so again, pls read properly, don’t make me sad my brothers.
Peace my brother, ima head on to another topic now
@KPuff, I hope u enjoyed this discussion.

27

Samuel_23
I did enjoy it.
I will take you up on your challenge to “read carefully and analyze each evidence”.

I hope you also read carefully what I wrote regarding the necessity of teaching with clarity, showing deference to your audience. Love seeks the best for the other person, this is never more important than in teaching, or presenting an argument.

You said:

Don’t tilt at windmills, no one is suggesting that. If the Latin helps clarify, use it, if you have to explain it, or put the english in parenthesis, then you probably don’t need it. Just go with your personal english explanation for clarity. Citing Athanasus adds nothing to your point, any more than me saying “I think cats are divine, Joe thinks so too.” If Athanasus says something with better clarity than you can, go ahead quote him. If you can say it with better clarity, maybe just learn from him and speak from your heart.

I will try to pull your heart out of what you wrote, but frankly, you made it pretty difficult for a simpleton like me, and due to the work involved, I may miss the very thing you really wanted me to get. I hope not.

Thanks for all you dilligence and effort.
I’ll let you know if I have any questions.

Serving Our Savior
KP

28

Samuel_23, I hear you—and I mean that. You’ve labored long in this vineyard of theological nuance, drawing from deep wells of tradition, language, and systematics. So let me begin by saying this plainly: I don’t doubt your sincerity, your study, or your desire to honor Christ. But truth isn’t measured in syllables, citations, or syllogisms—it’s measured in Scriptural fidelity and Christ-centered clarity. And on that front, we need to talk.

Let’s engage, not to belittle, but to bring every lofty thought captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Let’s go point by point—but with surgical brevity, because the truth doesn’t need ornamentation to be glorious.

⸻

  1. Immaculate Conception: “Ontological Necessity” or Exegetical Silence?

You call it a theandric necessity, yet the Bible never once says Mary was conceived without sin. Not once.

“All have sinned…” (Rom 3:23)
“There is no one righteous, not even one.” (Rom 3:10)

You carve out exceptions based on typology and tradition, but Paul doesn’t.

Claiming Mary must be sinless so Christ’s flesh is “untainted” presumes that sin is genetically transmitted, and that God can’t sanctify a vessel unless it’s perfect from conception. That logic undermines the sovereignty of the Spirit, who overshadowed her precisely to set apart what was conceived—not to inherit sin from her.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you… therefore the child will be holy.” – Luke 1:35
Not: because Mary was holy. But: because God made Him holy.

⸻

  1. Kecharitōmenē: Grammar ≠ Dogma

Yes, it’s a perfect passive participle. Yes, it’s rare. No, it’s not a license to create a doctrine.

Your attempt to separate Mary’s “title” from Stephen’s “description” is linguistic sleight-of-hand. Full of grace is not a divine fingerprint—it’s a divine gift. Paul says all believers are “blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3)—do we then say we were immaculately conceived?

You said I ignored the sensus plenior. I didn’t. I just refuse to build an entire dogma on one verb. That’s not fuller meaning. That’s creative theology with apostolic silence.

⸻

  1. Mediatrix: Participation or Distraction?

You said Mary’s mediation is “de congruo,” not “de condigno.” I understand the scholastic distinction—but the text of 1 Timothy 2:5 doesn’t.

“There is one Mediator…”

You don’t get to keep slicing that word into layers of primary, secondary, de congruo, typological, maternal, mystical—until Christ’s exclusive office becomes crowded. The moment the world’s graces have to pass through another channel—even in theory—Christ’s sufficiency is diluted, no matter how many footnotes you bury it under.

And Cana? Mary pointed to Jesus. She didn’t mediate the miracle—He did. Her command wasn’t “come to me,” it was:

“Do whatever He tells you.” (John 2:5)
That’s not a Mediatrix. That’s a witness.

⸻

  1. The “Duck Test” and Worship Optics

You call it a phenomenological fallacy. But here’s what you don’t address: the fruit. The optics of Marian devotion matter because they shape real people in real pews who don’t parse latria, dulia, and hyperdulia before they light a candle to a statue.

You say the intent is what counts. But Jesus said:

“You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6

External form does matter. When millions mistake your devotion for idolatry, it’s not their ignorance—it’s your system’s lack of clarity.

⸻

  1. Sola Scriptura Isn’t Shallow—it’s Submission

You say Sola Scriptura is “hermeneutically inefficient.” I say it’s biblically essential.

You build Marian doctrines from typology, councils, Greek parsing, and the sensus fidelium. I’ll stick with what’s written:

“That the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Tim. 3:17

If Mary’s sinlessness, mediation, or immaculate conception were essential to the faith, Paul missed the memo. He never taught them. Neither did Peter. Neither did John. And that silence thunders louder than centuries of speculation.

⸻

Final Word: Doctrinal Depth Without Doctrinal Drift

You say mystery must be protected. Agreed. But mystery isn’t an excuse to invent.

Mary is blessed.
Mary is honored.
But Christ is exalted—and He will not share His glory (Isaiah 42:8).

The more layers you stack between sinners and the Savior—even elegant ones—the more you risk obscuring the cross with a crown Mary never asked for.

So yes, I’ll read your words. Carefully. But I’ll measure them by the Word. Unapologetically.

With peace,
and for the supremacy of Christ alone.

1 Like
29

Yoooooo, I didn’t think about this @SincereSeeker, oh man I have a lot to study

30

That’s right, I’ll try to keep plain English, only using seldom for theological clarity…@kpuff, thanks for bring it to my notice