You say you don’t understand what I mean, but then you respond to an interpretation I didn’t explicitly or implicitly convey. I’m not equating Mary’s role in private revelation with Her role in the Incarnation — that category doesn’t even exist in Catholic theology. I’m describing a hierarchy of mediation: the Incarnation is the greatest mediation through Mary, and anything God chooses to do through Her afterward is a lesser mediation. That’s all I meant by “extension.”
I agree that Christ’s mediation in 1 Timothy 2:5 refers to His unique redemptive role. I’m not talking about that category of mediation at all. I’m talking about creaturely, instrumental mediation — the kind you already affirm when you say Mary can appear, comfort, help, and lead people to Christ. If Mary can mediate God’s grace and guidance in those ways, then verbal communication is simply another mode of that same creaturely mediation. The distinction you’re raising doesn’t address the point I’m making.
Galatians 4:14 doesn’t need Paul to be an angelic spirit‑being for the point to stand. The verse shows that “ángelos” can be applied to a human as a messenger of God. Paul is obviously not an angel in nature, nor Christ Himself — yet the text still uses those comparisons to express the role he fulfilled for them. That’s exactly my point: Scripture uses “ángelos” for human messengers of God. So calling Mary Theotokos doesn’t exclude Her from also being a messenger of God — and you agreed that’s fair to say:
If you agree that Mary isn’t excluded from being a messenger of God, and you affirm that She can appear, comfort, help, and lead people to Christ, then the question still stands: how is the greatest mediation in history—God the Word coming to us through Mary—not “a step too far,” while a lesser mediation, God speaking through Mary, suddenly is?
Your previous answer — “I do not view these two things as being the same, but lesser. I see them as different things” — doesn’t explain why the greater is acceptable but the lesser is not.
Different things can still be compared in terms of greater and lesser mediation. The Incarnation is the greatest mediation through Mary; anything God does through Her afterward is a lesser mediation. That’s the category I’m using. If you reject that category, what principle replaces it?
Okay, let me give you an analogy. Let’s say I am planning something for someone I care a lot about and I ask you if you would like to help do some of the work to implement the plan, but I want to be the one who tells the individual about the something. Telling someone something is less work than doing everything that went into doing the plan. We should not imply that, because the latter is less work that this individual therefore has the role of telling the person about the something.
I know analogies fall short and we all, including Mary have a role to share the Gospel, but we are not talking about spreading the Gospel here. I am simply illustrating how just because something is lesser on the “hierarchy” of doing something does not automatically give a particular lesser role to anyone.
I appreciate the analogy, but it addresses a claim I’m not making.
Your analogy argues that doing a greater task doesn’t automatically give someone the role of doing a lesser task. I agree with that completely. Mary doesn’t automatically deliver private revelations; She only does so if God wills it.
But my question wasn’t about whether Mary automatically has this role. My question is about permissibility and consistency.
In your analogy, the only reason the assistant doesn’t deliver the message is because the organizer explicitly wills otherwise. But if the organizer did choose to send the assistant with a message, the assistant would be entirely capable and authorized to deliver it.
So the core question remains:
If God chose Mary for the greatest instrumental mediation (the Incarnation), what theological principle makes it “a step too far” for God to choose Her for a lesser instrumental mediation (delivering a message)? The limitation isn’t on Mary’s status; it’s a question of why you view verbal mediation as a boundary God wouldn’t cross, when He already crossed a much greater one.
[qutoe]
But my question wasn’t about whether Mary automatically has this role. My question is about permissibility and consistency.
[/quote]
Where you and I disagree is that you believe God either tells Mary or permits Mary to deliver secrets 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.
We agree here as well.
You can ask this a hundred times and I still do not understand what you are getting at. You can bold it. You can italicize it. You can even underline it, and I still do not understand what you are asking me to agree with you on. And therefore, I abstain. I do not vote on something that I do not understand.
I thought that I understood your question and took a crack at it with my analogy. But, you tell me, like everything else I say, that I got the answer wrong. So, I’m done guessing what you mean.
As I have said, I do not see these two things as being mutually or even partially the same thing. I could try to think of another analogy for you, but I’m sure that will be the wrong answer too. So, I’m choosing to just abstain.
I’m glad you agree on that point now. I restated it because your analogy treated my position as if I were arguing for automatic roles, which I wasn’t. My question has always been about permissibility and consistency.
I’m glad you agree on that point now. I restated it because your analogy assumed I was arguing that greater mediation automatically implies lesser mediation, which wasn’t my claim.
That’s exactly why I’ve been asking for the principle behind your claim. You’re saying God would not send Mary with a message because that “sounds like something humans who want to feel special or manipulate would do.” But that’s not a theological principle — it’s a psychological suspicion about human behavior. It doesn’t explain why God Himself would be unable or unwilling to choose Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation when He has already chosen Her for the greatest one.
Thank you for the reply. Just to be clear: the question isn’t complicated, and it isn’t asking you to agree with me — it’s asking you to articulate a principle. You’ve said repeatedly that Mary can appear, comfort, help, and lead people to Christ, and that She can do so only if God wills it. We agree on that.
The question I’ve been asking is simply this:
If God can choose Mary for the greatest instrumental mediation — the Incarnation — what theological principle makes it impossible or “a step too far” for God to choose Her for a lesser instrumental mediation, such as delivering a message? That’s a question about permissibility and consistency, not about automatic roles.
You’re saying you “abstain” because you don’t understand the question, but the question is just asking for the principle behind your claim that God would not send Mary with a message. You’ve stated the conclusion (“God doesn’t do that”), but not the principle that leads to it. That’s the part I’m trying to understand.
If you’d like to clarify the principle you’re using — whether it’s about the nature of mediation, the limits of private revelation, or your criteria for red flags — I’m ready to continue the conversation.
Okay, I think I understand what you are getting at.
If you are saying that you believe that it does not therefore mean God has, but rather could, then we agree. God is God and He can do anything, even if I believe it would be unlikely or problematic, based on my understanding of Who God is, Who Jesus is, and who Mary is.
My Principle is this:
God is God and I am not God.
Jesus, the “New Adam”, is God incarnate and He came to earth to save mankind from sin and death.
Mary, the “New Eve”, played a part in bringing Jesus into our world and just a Eve contributed to Adam’s bringing sin and death into this world, Mary played a part in bringing Redemption and new Life into this world.
Mary points us to her Son, our Savior.
She does not glorify herself, but rather Jesus Christ.
Mary does not come to give secret messages so some (and you may disagree). Could God send her here to give secret messages? Sure. Do I believe He does? No.
Mary does not come to predict the future (and you may disagree). Could God send her here to predict the future? Sure. Do I believe He does? No.
Do I believe God can use places where individuals believe an Apparition has occurred (meeting them where they are)? I do. Just as He can someone who is unchurched and attends a non-Denominational Church for the first time.
If Mary appeared to me personally and gave me secret knowledge would I believe it? Maybe or maybe not. It is hard to say.
My final principle (not really my final principle, but my final in this list, so that you don’t take it literally) is to be cautious as Christians. I agree discernment is good. And what happens though if you discern and I discern and we both come to different conclusions? We then turn to the Church. Often there is not a unanimous decision on whether or not an Apparition is true or not. We’ve already discussed and agree on the different classifications the Magisterium uses after investigating claims. I also would add that in many cases not all who are on an investigative committee agree on the conclusion (as committees often do).
Some of these, you may not accept as “principles,” but these are some of the things that I think about or consider when I hear about certain claims being made by individuals or groups of individuals.
And yes, I also ask why someone might make up such claims or reasons that could cause someone to believe they have seen or heard things that may not be real.
Again, I am not your enemy. I am simply someone who asks questions. And you may not like that question (and that is fine).
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. You’ve said it would be “a step too far,” “not something God does,” and “something humans who want to feel special or manipulate would do.” Those are personal impressions, not theological principles, and they don’t explain why God Himself would refrain from choosing Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation (delivering messages) when He has already chosen Her for the greatest one (the incarnation).
Cade, thank you for laying out your list. But none of the items you’ve listed function as theological principles that justify your universal claim that God “does not” send Mary to deliver verbal messages and that such an action would be “a step too far” or “something humans who want to feel special or manipulate would do.”
Several of your points are simply basic truths we both agree on — God is God, Jesus is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve, Mary magnifies the Lord, and Mary does not glorify Herself. Those are beautiful and orthodox, but they do not logically imply the conclusion you’re drawing. They don’t create any theological constraint that would prevent God from choosing Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation such as delivering a message.
Other points in your list are not principles at all, but personal impressions: “Mary does not come to give secret messages,” “Mary does not come to predict the future,” “I don’t believe He does.” You acknowledge that God could send Her — which means these statements are not principles, but simply your sense of what seems unlikely. A principle explains why God would not do something; a preference simply says I don’t think He does.
And the statements about manipulation — that delivering messages “sounds like something humans who want to feel special or manipulate would do” — are psychological suspicions about human behavior, not theological principles about divine action. They don’t explain why God Himself would refrain from choosing Mary for a lesser instrumental mediation when He has already chosen Her for the greatest one.
Finally, the points about caution, discernment, and committees are good general advice, but they are procedural norms, not theological principles that justify your universal claim about what Mary “does not” do.
So while your list contains many true and thoughtful statements, none of them supply a theological principle that makes your conclusion necessary or consistent. That’s the specific gap I’ve been trying to understand. And until you can name a theological principle — one drawn from actual Catholic discernment criteria rather than personal impressions — your universal claims don’t carry theological weight. They remain subjective judgments, not Catholic principles capable of supporting the conclusion you’re drawing.
A step too far for me, not a step too far for God. Perhaps this is our disconnect. You were hung up on this line, “a step too far” and thinking I am applying it to God, whereas I was applying it to my belief in modern Apparitions. Do you see the difference? I now understand your question that you were asking over and over and over and over again. I see the confusion. I was never saying that it was a step too far for God. My argument has always been that it is a step too far for what I believe God has revealed publicly about Himself, and about Jesus, our Savior, and about Mary, our Blessed Mother.
Why am I not surprised by this I predicted as such. What is not more theological than the Bible?
Correct, theological Truths.
I am not trying to constrain nor prevent God from anything. That, again, is the disconnect you are having with me. You want me to make an argument that I am not willing to make, because I am not God. I’m not sure how many different ways I can say this.
You have taken some of the things I have said and are doing the very thing that you are accusing me of. You are claiming to speak for God, which I am not. I am simply sharing my understanding of God, Jesus, and Mary, while you seem to be claiming that God has done these Apparitions, but based on what? It is not evidence, but rather on faith. And there is nothing wrong with that! And then to act like I must believe in every Apparition and private revelations that any individual has that you believe is true, is simply uncharitable.
I have been frustrated with this conversation for a while now. You have twisted my words, misunderstood my point of view, and when I try to clarify (many times over), you quote something I have said and demand I answer for it, even though I have already tried to clarify numerous times!
You want me to believe in something that you feel very passionate about and I get that. I have given you an example in my own life, of an individual I know who is equally as passionate about a poem he believe he received from God. I have explained how I believe this was a gift to him, but not meant for public adherence or that it should be equally as meaningful to others as it was for him. And I hold this same view towards your passion here. It is great if it helps your faith. I am genuinely happy for you. However, as soon as you try to take Private Revelation and claim it as (small “P”) public revelation, then you lose me.
If you make a claim that an Apparition is absolutely true, then I have a right to ask you why you believe it to be true.
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?
You say numerous times “in this thread.” I thought it was originally strange that you were bringing up things from our other conversation happening on the other thread, but since you brought things up here from the other thread, so I played along.
This conversation has been exhausting and unenjoyable.
Yes, I’ve had to correct you multiple times simply to state that I haven’t said or done x, y, or z in this thread — nor in any other. I only referenced the other thread because you repeated here a claim that had already been clarified there.
And I understand that you find the conversation tiring. But the only point I’ve been asking you to clarify is the theological principle behind your own statements about what God does not do. You’ve made universal claims about God’s action — for example, that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages — and I’ve asked for the principle that makes those claims theologically grounded rather than personal impressions. If you don’t have a principle, that’s fine; just say so. But the question itself is not emotional or personal. It’s theological.
Since you’re finding this exhausting, I’m content to pause here. If you decide later to provide the universal theological principle supporting your claims about God, I’ll be happy to resume.
It’s not a truce, as I’m not conceding any points or compromising on my position. It is simply a pause out of respect for your expressed exhaustion. As I said, the door remains open whenever you are ready to provide the theological principle in support of your universal claims about God. If you don’t have a principle, that’s fine; just say so.
Cade, you used “truce” in a way that doesn’t match what I actually said. A truce implies mutual concession or compromise, and I haven’t conceded any points. I simply paused the discussion out of respect for your expressed exhaustion.
If you decide later to provide the theological principle supporting your universal claims about divine action — for example, that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages — I’ll be happy to resume. If you don’t have a principle, that’s fine; just say so.
It are precisely these posts and replies between two people which put a huge smile on my face and give me a chuckle. I find this inspiring!
On one hand, @Mathetria is unwilling to bend or compromise with personal convictions. This, as I see it, is a quality characteristic of being devout. This is what makes a Catholic, be a good Catholic – discerning, and unwilling to bend.
On the other hand, @Cade_One hangs in there tough and continues to pursue presenting a point. Another quality characteristic of being being devout.
You both have so much in common. And it’s inspiring! (and humorous at the same time!)
Thank you — I appreciate the kindness in your comment. But just to clarify: I’m not holding firm to a personal conviction here, nor asking @Cade_One to bend to mine. I’ve only been asking for the theological principle behind his universal claims about divine action — for example, that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That’s a question of theology, not personal devotion.
Cade expressed that he was exhausted, so I paused the discussion out of respect for that. If he ever wants to provide the principle that grounds his claim, I’ll be happy to resume. If he doesn’t have one, that’s fine; he can simply say so.
Yes, and this is what I got a chuckle from, and made me smile. It’s all good!
I commend with joy what the both of you have brought to the table. And I admire with much respect that neither of you resorted to name calling or condemning each other.
Take a time-out, pause, and reflect. Often times when we do so, we can see clearer the fire through the smoke. But at the end of the day, we give thanks for others who unknowingly give us our daily Bread. TY
Thank you — I appreciate the kindness. And yes, a pause is sometimes the best way to let things settle. If the theological question I raised ever gets addressed, I’ll be glad to continue the discussion.
I predicted as such. What is not more theological than the Bible?
at the same time!)
