Why do you keep repeating that concern when I’ve already clarified multiple times that public revelation is complete, and that private revelation is non‑canonical, non‑binding, and never adds new doctrine — though it can illuminate, explain, or make explicit truths that are already contained within the deposit of faith. I’ve never claimed otherwise. My point has only been that private revelation can still be authentic and inspired without becoming public revelation, which is exactly what the Church teaches.
You say I’m being uncharitable by acting as though you “must” believe in every apparition or private revelation I think is true. But I haven’t. In fact, we already went over this in another thread:
That clarification still stands. I have not claimed that God has performed any particular apparition or private revelation in this thread, nor have I suggested you are obliged to believe any that I personally find credible. My only question has been about the theological principle behind your belief that God would not choose Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation such as delivering messages. So when you say I’m acting as though you “must” believe the same apparitions I do, you’re confusing my request for a theological principle with an attempt to persuade you to believe an apparition or private revelation.
You say I seem to be claiming that God has done certain apparitions “based on faith.” But I haven’t made any claims in this thread about which apparitions or private revelations are authentic. Again, my only question has been about the theological principle behind your belief that God would not choose Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation such as delivering messages. That question stands independently of whether you accept or reject any particular apparition or private revelation.
I’m not asking you to believe in anything because I’m “passionate” about it. I haven’t claimed that any specific apparition or private revelation is authentic in this thread. What I’ve been asking — consistently — is for the theological principle behind your own universal statements, such as: “Listen to God through Mary? That is a step too far for me,” and “I do not believe that God sends Mary to deliver secrets; to me that is what humans who want to feel special or to manipulate do.” Those are claims about what God does not do, and I’m simply asking for the principle that makes those claims theologically grounded rather than personal impressions.
But a personal belief about what God would not do is still a claim about God’s action. When you say, “I do not believe that God sends Mary to deliver x,” that is a statement about God, not about you. And when you say, “Listen to God through Mary?” Yeah, that is a step too far for me,” you are expressing the same conclusion — that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages.
When I asked for the theological principle that supports that universal claim, you responded with a mixture of biblical truths, personal beliefs, and prudential cautions — followed by, “What is not more theological than the Bible?” Scripture is certainly theological, but quoting truths about identity and relationship — or adding personal beliefs and cautions — is not the same as providing a theological principle that explains why God would not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. A theological principle must be universal, must logically entail the conclusion, and must actually restrict divine action in the way your belief requires — and none of the items you listed do that.
So, the question remains:
You believe that the Holy Trinity chose Mary for the greatest instrumental mediation — delivering God the Word to the world, so that souls might be brought back or closer to Him. What theological principle lies behind your belief that it would be “a step too far” for Them to choose Her for a lesser instrumental mediation, such as delivering messages to the world for the same purpose?