I never I said or implied that I “do not care to have a conversation about what I believe.” In fact, I’ve explicitly said:
I’m sincerely willing to discuss my beliefs, but not in a way that helps you avoid answering the question already on the table.
I never argued that your position is God could not do X. In fact, I explicitly said:
Cade, yes — of course God could choose Mary for any mediation He wills. That’s never been in dispute. My question has never been about whether God could do so, but about the principle behind your claim that God would not or does not do so.
Regarding “secret messages", you said:
Secret messages, which I consider different than (capital “P”) Private Messages. There is a difference.
You don’t have to call it (small “P”) public revelation, but it is being presented as an elevated form of private revelation that, as a follower of Christ, I do not feel comfortable with.
You continue treating “secrets” as a distinct category separate from private revelation. But the Catholic Church does not recognize the distinctions you’re making. Messages from Mary — including content meant to be withheld for a time — are all classified as private revelation in Catholic theology.
A “secret” describes timing of disclosure, not a different kind of communication.
If Mary communicates content to a visionary — whether immediately public or temporarily withheld — it is still a message and still a private revelation.
Catholic theology does not divide Mary’s communications into “secret messages” versus “private messages.” That distinction doesn’t exist in the Church’s categories.
And the idea of an “elevated form of private revelation” doesn’t exist either. The Church has only two categories:
– public revelation, which ended with the Apostles.
– private revelation, which is one single category. Warnings, conditional prophecies, secrets, instructions, and so on, are not separate kinds of revelation — they are the message itself. They are simply different forms of content within a single act of private revelation.
You’ve also said before that “a step too far for me” refers to your personal belief about the authenticity of modern apparition claims. But you haven’t addressed the point I made in response: a personal belief about what God would not do is still a statement about God’s action, not merely about your comfort level.
So when you say, “I do not believe that God sends Mary to deliver x,” that is a claim about what God does or does not do. 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. That is why I’m asking for the theological principle behind that belief.
So the question remains:
Since the Church doesn’t support the distinctions you’ve been making, what remains is the principle itself. What theological principle grounds your claim that God would not authorize Mary for this mediation?
If you have one, share it. If you don’t, that’s fine — just say so.