Faithful Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Why would Jesus inherit original sin just because he was born of a mother that had sinned? Im not accountable for the sins that MY mom committed prior to my birth, why would Jesus be accountable for Mary's sin?

---

Are you considering the original sin of Adam and Eve?

BusterAg said:

---

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to be born of a sinful woman without inheriting original sin?

Did Mary inherit original sin from her Mom? If so, how was she without sin?

---

Respectfully, I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. It's not about Mary. It's about Jesus and what is fitting for God. The OT arc was pure and holy inside and out because it was the dwelling place of God on earth. Likewise the NT arc, Mary, was pure and holy and without sin or stain because she was the literal dwelling place of God Incarnate. This is the primary reason we believe Mary was without sin.

A secondary reason is because we know Jesus, being God, is without sin and that Jesus obeyed and fulfilled all of the OT, including the commandment to honor your mother and father. God is not bound by space and time and therefore He can do anything - including saving Mary from sin from the very beginning of her creation. Surely Jesus honored his mother and loved her so perfectly that he provided her with all the graces needed to keep her free from the evil of sin.

To your question about inheriting original sin…Adam and Eve were created without original sin and chose to eat from the tree of knowledge instead of the tree of life. Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve. They chose the will of God and tree of life. We believe that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception and that she never committed a single personal sin because God provided her with super-abundant graces and as "the Woman" from Genesis Mary was always against the devil (enmity).

Nothing is impossible with God and God was not required to do anything. God chose the how, where, and when he would enter our sinful world and he wrote his story in the stars from the beginning of creation…and he chose who among all women would be his mother and through whom he would enter our world. Mary was uniquely set apart for the Holy Spirit to overshadow, and to give humanity - flesh and blood - to our savior in the miracle of life, and to deliver Jesus her son to the world. Mary literally had the blood of Jesus running through her veins while Jesus was in her womb. His blood was her blood.

Jesus honored his mother as the law of God commands and saved her proactively from sin by applying his sacrifice on the cross to his mother before creating her. In the same way the Eucharist, the body and blood of our savior, comes to us today from the table of the last supper and his sacrifice on the cross. It's the same sacrifice offered by Jesus once for ALL. The issue in question is how and when is that sacrifice applied to each of us? It is our belief that Jesus applies his salvation to his mother at the moment of her conception.

Merry Christmas!

---

This was a good explanation and I appreciated reading it.

My question is this: do you believe once we are saved we all remain sinless? Or the Lord just gave Mary a unique salvation, that He gives no one else, to keep her sinless her entire life? And is there a purpose, or a need, for her to have remained sinless after His birth?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

My question is this: do you believe once we are saved we all remain sinless? Or the Lord just gave Mary a unique salvation, that He gives no one else, to keep her sinless her entire life?

---

My question to you is this: WHEN do you think we are saved?

To address your question I would say that yes I do believe that from the moment we receive our final judgement and purification we receive the remission of our sins and we will cease to sin or have the inclination toward sin. However, the WHEN this happens is something we most likely disagree about. I do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of "once saved always saved" because it was not held by the early Christians or the Apostolic Church, and the teaching is not Biblical. As Catholics we believe that our eternal salvation (or damnation) happens at the moment of our death and not when we pray the "Sinner's Prayer". We believe we must run our race to the very end by living and conforming our lives to Christ. He offers all of us salvation through his sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection, but we must accept that gift throughout our lives. Accepting Jesus at an altar call at church camp is great, but the idea that in that moment we become eternally secure in our salvation is a novel, modern teaching and foreign to Apostolic Christianity.

Jesus applied his sacrifice on the cross to Mary at the moment of her conception (remember God is not bound by space or time). God provided Mary with all the graces she needed to protect her and keep her from sin, and in that way did something for Mary that was unique among all mankind. Mary was "full of grace".

Quote:

---

And is there a purpose, or a need, for her to have remained sinless after His birth?

---

I think the best I can offer here is that in honoring his mother faithfully Jesus would have done what he needed to help prevent Mary from personal sin. I would think being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and being Full of Grace, and bearing God in your womb, and giving birth to your son who is God, and nursing him from your breast, etc., etc. that remaining without sin would seem appropriate. Jesus touches on this as well in Luke 11 when responding to the lady who said:
"Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!". A more accurate translation would be "Blessed even more are those who hear the word of God and keep it". Mary heard the word of God and she kept it perfectly. Jesus was honoring Mary here - not minimizing her as some might think. I would also say this supports the idea that Mary remained without sin.

https://youtube.com/live/rlok0eC7fD4?si=AFyJQweyU6vriqdj

This is a great talk I listened to this morning about Mary and how she fulfills the Jewish OT types of Mary. Well worth the listen.

He does a great job of laying out Mary as the New Eve and touches on the fact that Eve was a full covenant partner in the OT…likewise Mary as the New Eve is a true covenant partner in the fulfillment.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

My question is this: do you believe once we are saved we all remain sinless? Or the Lord just gave Mary a unique salvation, that He gives no one else, to keep her sinless her entire life?

---

My question to you is this: WHEN do you think we are saved?

To address your question I would say that yes I do believe that from the moment we receive our final judgement and purification we receive the remission of our sins and we will cease to sin or have the inclination toward sin. However, the WHEN this happens is something we most likely disagree about. I do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of "once saved always saved" because it was not held by the early Christians or the Apostolic Church, and the teaching is not Biblical. As Catholics we believe that our eternal salvation (or damnation) happens at the moment of our death and not when we pray the "Sinner's Prayer". We believe we must run our race to the very end by living and conforming our lives to Christ. He offers all of us salvation through his sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection, but we must accept that gift throughout our lives. Accepting Jesus at an altar call at church camp is great, but the idea that in that moment we become eternally secure in our salvation is a novel, modern teaching and foreign to Apostolic Christianity.

Jesus applied his sacrifice on the cross to Mary at the moment of her conception (remember God is not bound by space or time). God provided Mary with all the graces she needed to protect her and keep her from sin, and in that way did something for Mary that was unique among all mankind. Mary was "full of grace".

Quote:

---

And is there a purpose, or a need, for her to have remained sinless after His birth?

---

I think the best I can offer here is that in honoring his mother faithfully Jesus would have done what he needed to help prevent Mary from personal sin. I would think being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and being Full of Grace, and bearing God in your womb, and giving birth to your son who is God, and nursing him from your breast, etc., etc. that remaining without sin would seem appropriate. Jesus touches on this as well in Luke 11 when responding to the lady who said:
"Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!". A more accurate translation would be "Blessed even more are those who hear the word of God and keep it". Mary heard the word of God and she kept it perfectly. Jesus was honoring Mary here - not minimizing her as some might think. I would also say this supports the idea that Mary remained without sin.

---

Taking into account your belief, this all makes sense to me. I appreciate the response!

The RCC obsession with Mary I have long believed to be derived from the 'celibate' priesthood structure. This priest gives some overview to the class' need for masculinity in the void of women as leaders/a wife etc.

Quote:

---

A man's mother is his primal relationship to the feminine out of which he grows in all his relationships with women. Of course his father and brothers, if he has them, have essential roles as well, especially in how his father treats his mother. In his father, a man finds the primary masculine response to feminine complementarity; the father hopefully confirms it: cherishing his wife, loving her, and giving himself over to her. A mother also prepares her son for his wife.

In marriage, a man's wife changes him. He practices giving himself in love to her. He allows himself to be determined by her. He must attune himself to her, and she engages his heart and helps to develop his eros into agape love. As a man, he desires to protect her, to provide for her, to give her children, to do mighty deeds for her, to cherish her and shower his affection upon her. Of course this describes something ideal, and does not automatically happen in marriage. But the reader can see what I mean.

The Blessed Virgin Mary's Role in the Celibate Priest's attainment as Husband and Father

In the life of grace, we immediately grasp Our Lady's role in helping a man be a good son. As the archetype of Mother Church she gives birth to him and nurtures him through grace. She plays an essential feminine role in leading him to relate to the Father, her Incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit. She teaches her sons about trust, surrender, and the acceptance of weakness and poverty without self-hatred. She cultivates in her sons the spirit of childhood. But what about the last two dimensions for the celibate priest? In the natural order, a man's wife helps him develop into a husband and father. I suggest that in the order of grace, the Blessed Virgin Mary assumes this role in a very real, though nuanced way.

When it comes to developing the spousal and fatherly dimensions of his masculinity, we cannot help but see the Freudian in the audience raise his hand in objection that the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary helps bring about the celibate priest's fulfillment as husband and father is simply rife with Oedipal "stuff". I think our response to such an objection begins with the distinction between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church; she is a type of the Church, in fact, she is the archetype of the Church. Mary is not the spouse of the celibate priest as the Church is. Our Lady is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, not her Incarnate Son. There is nothing Oedipal going on here if we understand the relationships correctly, and understand them in symbolic and spiritual terms and not in a crude, literal way. Moreover, we cannot forget that the concrete form of the priest' spousal love is a celibate love.

---

Quite separate from debates as to the homosexual composition of even ancient monasteries (which are fairly well documented) I think this explains some of this (often absurd to me) RCC dogmatism/psychosis about/with respect to her.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

For the education of agliving06 in truth...

Martin Luther quotes...

If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone' Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants quelle a produits. (E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138).
A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone (On The Babylonian Captivity of the Church).
No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day ( Smtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).
Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu'elle a produits. (E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).
Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: Whatever has He been doing with her? Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107).

---

Thank you for showing exactly what I posted. It's weak quote mining without any attempt to be charitable or handle the text correctly.

Lets start with the obvious. Luther was not the first to insert the "alone" in Romans 3. It's well documented that this is some silly argument Papists like to make. So I won't go beyond that.

The comments about sin are stupid. Luther doesn't hold to Rome's invented standards.

The last one is clearly what you're pinning your hopes on.

Even a quick check would have shown that this quote comes from Luther's Table Talks which consisted of conversations that Luther had around a table with his friends and/or students. Was he taking a contrarian position to his students to force them to think? Was he being bombastic? Was he doing it to emphasize a point? Yes to all of those.

Is he trying to make a rigorous theological point? clearly not.

What was he likely doing? Making a play off of 2 Corinthians 5:21 "21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Or Galatians 3: 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. "

We of course see Luther's real scholarly response in his Galatians commentary:

Quote:

---

Paul guarded his words carefully and spoke precisely. And here again a distinction must be made; Paul's words clearly show this. For he does not say that Christ became a curse on His own account, but that He became a curse "for us." Thus the whole emphasis is on the phrase "for us." For Christ is innocent so far as His own Person is concerned; therefore He should not have been hanged from the tree. But because, according to the Law, every thief should have been hanged, therefore, according to the Law of Moses, Christ Himself should have been hanged; for He bore the person of a sinner and a thiefand not of one but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore we are worthy of death and eternal damnation. But Christ took all our sins upon Himself, and for them He died on the cross. Therefore it was appropriate for Him to become a thief and, as Isaiah says (53:12), to be "numbered among the thieves."

And all the prophets saw this, that Christ was to become the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc., there has ever been anywhere in the world. He is not acting in His own Person now. Now He is not the Son of God, born of the Virgin. But He is a sinner, who has and bears the sin of Paul, the former blasphemer, persecutor, and assaulter; of Peter, who denied Christ; of David, who was an adulterer and a murderer, and who caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord (Rom. 2:24). In short, He has and bears all the sins of all men in His bodynot in the sense that He has committed them but in the sense that He took these sins, committed by us, upon His own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood."

---

Martin Luther, On Galatians 3:13 (Luther's Works 26:277)

--------
So yes, when you show laziness and rely on poorly sourced Roman Catholic sites to take something out of context or to just plain misquote something, it shows you have no desire for the truth or charitable conversation. You just want to post random nonsense and hope people don't realize you have no clue what you're doing or saying.

So one priest, who admits this:

Quote:

---

My intention is not to offer a deductive investigation and proof that answer the contemporary challenge and perennial condition of the celibate priest's spousal and paternal love. What I do offer is an emerging interior conviction that the answer to the perennial condition of the celibate priest's masculinity lies in the depth of this mystery

---

is evidence of why the Catholic Church respects Mary like it does?

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Charitable contribution? I wrote a long post detailing that the historical fathers don't agree with Rome on either issue, and your response amounted to "yeah, but Thaddeus has a single unsourced quote."

---

No, my "entire claim and response" are not based on Thaddeus in any way whatsoever, but rather I am capable of thinking and speaking for myself. I have not engaged with anything Thaddeus has posted directly or indirectly save the fact that he started the thread. Twice in this thread you have flippantly dismissed my view using Thaddeus as your rationale stating he is my source. He is not. It's a dishonest tactic, insulting to my intelligence, and not charitable. Unfortunately, you do this with regularity and especially anytime someone invokes your precious Luther.

Example below:

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

You build your entire claim about Luther off a Thaddeus quote from a roman catholic website.

Very little he posts is ever particularly credible.

---

Thank you for your charitable contributions to this discussion. Always nice to have you assuming the worst in others and insulting those who offer a different perspective.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

In was more than charitable, but Thaddeus spams this forum with random quotes all the time that are less than accurate with little ability to respond when challenged. So forgive me for not taking anything his says with any real seriousness.

---

First, I am not Thaddeus. And in responses to ME you continue to ignore what I have said in your zeal to bring down Thad. That is why your post failed to be charitable.

To your "long, charitable post" you essentially stated an opinion as fact because YOU studied it first 6 months and so we should all just accept you're right. We don't And we think your view is flawed. You offered no specifics and no sources other than "trust me that the Catholics are wrong."

The visible and Apostolic Church has held and taught that Mary was without personal sin with high confidence and strong consensus including both East and West up to and including the reformers in the mid 1500s. To claim Mary was an ordinary sinner is a novel, modern, Protestant belief that was foreign to the church until well after the time of the Reformation.

But I guess you pretty much admit that fact here:

AgLiving06 said:

---

Finally, where do I actually think Luther stood? He may have initially held to the immaculate conception. He was, after all, a roman catholic for a time. However, I think it's most likely that at the end of his time, he held that Mary was purified at the moment she said yes to the Angel and that she was free from sin only while pregnant with Jesus. This is most consistent with ALL his quotes and not cherrypicked stuff.

---

---

Precious Luther?

I spend so much time defending "precious Luther," that I did not mention him at all in my post. My post was about the historic church's view of Mary. Luther was not quoted or mentioned by me.

Instead of responding to anything I wrote, it was, in fact, you who felt the need to try and pull Luther into the conversation. That I mentioned "precious Luther" was only in response to your attempts to draw him into the conversation. I was content to not even bring him up.
--------------

Quote:

---

And in responses to ME you continue to ignore what I have said in your zeal to bring down Thad.

---

I don't have zeal for bringing down Thaddeus. I have annoyance (as you should) that he negatively impacts Christianity by random quote mining garbage that even the simplest google searches show to be wrong.

Quote:

---

The visible and Apostolic Church has held and taught that Mary was without personal sin with high confidence and strong consensus including both East and West up to and including the reformers in the mid 1500s. To claim Mary was an ordinary sinner is a novel, modern, Protestant belief that was foreign to the church until well after the time of the Reformation.

---

This, of course, is an attempt to shift the argument.

That there was robust mythology developed around Mary by the 1500's does not change the fact that even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge the early church did not believe in the immaculate conception. It's seems pretty clear that it was only in response to Nestorianism that stories about Mary in apocryphal texts began to seep into the Church itself.

So that something existed 1000 years later does not mean it has origins in the early church...merely that error can enter into the church when it does not have a firm foundation.

The Banned said:

---

So one priest, who admits this:

Quote:

---

My intention is not to offer a deductive investigation and proof that answer the contemporary challenge and perennial condition of the celibate priest's spousal and paternal love. What I do offer is an emerging interior conviction that the answer to the perennial condition of the celibate priest's masculinity lies in the depth of this mystery

---

is evidence of why the Catholic Church respects Mary like it does?

---

I don't know that 'evidence' is the right word to use, but I think something of a mindset is revealed in that mostly introspective piece. The eternal virginity, perceived presence in all kinds of mysteries (including supposed NT allusions such as in Revelation 12), intercessory prayers to/through her, etc. are all manifestations of that author's (common priestly-) mindset, imho.

To me again it is all just…odd, perhaps akin to how for many years African American athletes would always thank their mothers first and foremost for success. (Which often ironically indicated a lack of paternal familial presence, imho).

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So one priest, who admits this:

Quote:

---

My intention is not to offer a deductive investigation and proof that answer the contemporary challenge and perennial condition of the celibate priest's spousal and paternal love. What I do offer is an emerging interior conviction that the answer to the perennial condition of the celibate priest's masculinity lies in the depth of this mystery

---

is evidence of why the Catholic Church respects Mary like it does?

---

I don't know that 'evidence' is the right word to use, but I think something of a mindset is revealed in that mostly introspective piece. The eternal virginity, perceived presence in all kinds of mysteries (including supposed NT allusions such as in Revelation 12), intercessory prayers to/through her, etc. are all manifestations of that author's (common priestly-) mindset, imho.

To me again it is all just…odd, perhaps akin to how for many years African American athletes would always thank their mothers first and foremost for success. (Which often ironically indicated a lack of paternal familial presence, imho).

---

I'll add in that during the medieval times, Mary was often depicted as hiding Christians under her cloak to shield Christians from the wrath of Jesus/God.

https://www.saint-faustina.org/in-the-church-iconography/

Quote:

---

Within this relic's veneration grew an idea of the Mother of God's protectiveness, which has survived to this day. With time, new strands were introduced into the veneration of Mater Miserticordiae in the West a defence against the wrath of God, which also changed the iconography. Mary was presented without the mantle of protection, but as the one who breaks the arrows of God's anger. In the beginning, some places affected by the wrath of God were shown in the background of her figure: later only the figure of Mary remained, breaking in her hands the arrows of God's anger.

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So one priest, who admits this:

Quote:

---

My intention is not to offer a deductive investigation and proof that answer the contemporary challenge and perennial condition of the celibate priest's spousal and paternal love. What I do offer is an emerging interior conviction that the answer to the perennial condition of the celibate priest's masculinity lies in the depth of this mystery

---

is evidence of why the Catholic Church respects Mary like it does?

---

I don't know that 'evidence' is the right word to use, but I think something of a mindset is revealed in that mostly introspective piece. The eternal virginity, perceived presence in all kinds of mysteries (including supposed NT allusions such as in Revelation 12), intercessory prayers to/through her, etc. are all manifestations of that author's (common priestly-) mindset, imho.

To me again it is all just…odd, perhaps akin to how for many years African American athletes would always thank their mothers first and foremost for success. (Which often ironically indicated a lack of paternal familial presence, imho).

---

But there you go again. One priest writes on it, and you say this is a common priestly mindset. I've heard a handful of priests profess their devotion to Mary at the most. I don't see where you'd have any basis to claim that

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So one priest, who admits this:

Quote:

---

My intention is not to offer a deductive investigation and proof that answer the contemporary challenge and perennial condition of the celibate priest's spousal and paternal love. What I do offer is an emerging interior conviction that the answer to the perennial condition of the celibate priest's masculinity lies in the depth of this mystery

---

is evidence of why the Catholic Church respects Mary like it does?

---

I don't know that 'evidence' is the right word to use, but I think something of a mindset is revealed in that mostly introspective piece. The eternal virginity, perceived presence in all kinds of mysteries (including supposed NT allusions such as in Revelation 12), intercessory prayers to/through her, etc. are all manifestations of that author's (common priestly-) mindset, imho.

To me again it is all just…odd, perhaps akin to how for many years African American athletes would always thank their mothers first and foremost for success. (Which often ironically indicated a lack of paternal familial presence, imho).

---

But there you go again. One priest writes on it, and you say this is a common priestly mindset. I've heard a handful of priests profess their devotion to Mary at the most. I don't see where you'd have any basis to claim that

---

One priest, how about these two? Or countless others. It doesn't take a lot to find a priestly deification/obsession with Mary and her eternal virginity etc.

Quote:

---

From my earliest memories, Mary beckoned me to relationship with her. When I finally took Mary up on being devoted and praying to her, it transformed my life and continues to do so. Late in the fall of 1972, when I was in third grade at St. Mary's school in Green Bay, I sat in the front of the room right next to a statue of our Blessed Mother. One day the statue of Mary seemed to come alive, and Mary spoke three simple words to me: "Pray to me." My response as a young lad was "shouldn't I pray to Jesus instead?" but Mary just smiled at me. Although I didn't realize it at the moment, Sr. Joselle and Fr. Vianney were observing the whole incident, and they wanted to know everything Our Lady had told me.

Unfortunately, at that time, I did not follow her advice, but I heard Mary's sweet voice say clearly that "later on in life you will be devoted to me." As a good Mother, Mary never gave up on my reversion but played a key role by interceding with her Son on my behalf.

In the Spring of 1990, my reversion story began when Green Bay had a massive flood. All the basements in my neck of the woods were flooded. When I ventured part way down the basement steps to check how high the water rose, I observed my brown scapular and rosary, which I had not seen in many years, floating around in the debris. This inspired me to go down to our local Catholic bookstore and buy a new rosary and scapular. I started wearing the new brown scapular every day.

This marked a new chapter in my life. Soon enough I was praying all three mysteries of the rosary every day. In just a few months, Mary led me back to confessiona sacrament I had not received in more than 17 years.

After confession became a part of my life, I felt Mary's call to be a priest. In fact, I heard her voice say to me: "How long are you going to wait? I want you to be one of my priests. Just keep being devoted to me, and I'll take care of everything else."

---

It's a simple cultural reality for centuries among the RCC priesthood (and monks etc.) that 'Our Lady' is deified/sanctified and worshipped in a manner entirely unnatural to me. Again, I just think it's most easily explained as some sort of link to masculinity and a search for a marital/familial relationship among a largely homosexual/celibate priesthood, but whatever, I will never really understand it and just find it odd, mostly.

If Christ wanted me to worship Mary I trust he'd have let me know. The orthodox Theotokos teachings seem much more common sense generally, imho.