Mary as mediatrix?

[WarriorAngel]

kisstheson, if you think going EO will rectify anything about the importance of Mary - then clearly you do not know how much the EO - and OO [coptic] revere Mary as much as we do.

It is Tradition.

So you should pray over this, and let God answer you.
He will if you knock. [See my sig]

Taking the subject material to your own interpretations is only going to frustrate you.

WE - as well as you - focus on Christ....God.
But we won't ignore the importance of Mary even if it disgusts someone.

You are arguing against something you dont understand.
And whenever i dont understand something - i ask the Lord to help me. [praying with the faith He will show me] and so far - He hasnt let me down.

So take this trust you have in Him and speak to Him about Mary.

Then let Him lead you to HIS way in this.
You do trust Him, correct? I believe you do.

 

[isshinwhat]

Kisstheson, I know I said I was staying out of this thread once before, but I really am this time. I know this is painful for you, but unless you have the background and the foundation to understand these things, I can see being next to impossible to understand coming from a Protestant background. For me during my conversion it was the Immaculate Conception. In the end, though, I prayed the Rosary, studied, and I cannot describe the intimacy I feel with God and I credit that to God's answering my prayer to know Christ as Mary did. May God love you, and may the prayers of the Blessed Virgin lighten your burden.

Take care.

 

[isshinwhat]

. Double post

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mary is the proposed Mediatrix, & Coredemtrix by the laity.
Just so we can clarify this. [I read this has been a belief but not a doctrine, once.]

Proposed 5th Marian Dogma
Links

The Pope has not stated this as dogma.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/voxpopbk2-1.htm

The Pope hasnt done anything in the way of defining this as dogma.

But even if he did, the above link has a very good argument on why he would.
As for myself, i am not going to sweat this.

It is NOT something the Pope has defined.

Here is one such argument - which i will show you that it is a proposal, from the Church itself to the Pope...

My Initial Doubts Concerning the Advisabilility of a Dogma of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix[1]​

When Professor Mark Miravalle shared with me information concerning the efforts and prayers of many Catholics to obtain a new dogma that would declare that Mary—in cooperation with, and in radical creaturely subordination to, her divine Son—is Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces,[2]I Was at first hesitant whether I should declare support for the declaration of such a double (or triple) Marian dogma. For tocall Mary Mediatrix of allgraces seems to be an exaggeration and almost contradictory: how could she be the Mediatrix of the graces Adam and Eve received, or Abraham, or her own ancestors, or of those graces which she herself received such her Immaculate Conception? On the other hand, to give Mary the title Coredemptrix seemed to me at first to touch a merely marginally Catholic belief and one that is open to many misunderstandings, given the fact that there is only one Saviour and one Redeemer, Jesus Christ.[3]I thought that a dogmatic declaration of this truth, though I firmly believed it, would b unnecessary and even undesirable for various reasons: It would bind all faithful to accept a truth which (1) neither appears inseparable from the deposit of faith nor (2) free of being prone to an enormous misunderstanding that would efface the difference between God and man and turn Mary into some kind of fourth divine person. (3) Besides, this doctrine did not seem to me central enough to justify a dogmatic formulation. For dogma does not only assert the objective and indubitable truth of a supernaturally revealed truth or a doctrine presuppose by the faith (such as the ability of man to know the existence~ and some attributes of God by means of his reason, a philosophical content defined by Vatican I). Rather, much more than that, a dogma binds all faithful to accept it, and it involves, and in some cases even creates, the moral obligation to the consent of all the faithful to the dogmatically declared truth of the Catholic faith as a condition of achieving eternal salvation. Thus a dogma is a very serious thing not to be demanded lightly.

 

[thereselittleflower]

And Paul stated that there was one mediator and it was Jesus.

And the Church says Mary is Mediatrix.

Anyone is arguing against the infallible teaching of the Church if they say otherwise.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Mary is the proposed Mediatrix, & Coredemtrix by the laity.

Mary is officially recognized as Mediatrix by Vatican II. There is no question as to the legitimacy of this title.

Official recognition of "Co-Redemptrix" was also debated in Vatican II but it was decided that due to the nature of the council, being ecumenical in purpose, and the difficulty non-Catholics in attendence would have understanding this title, it would not be dealt with then at all.

What is being proposed by clergy and laity alike is the dogmatic definition of these terms.

Dogmas can only come from doctrines, so the fact that these are being propsed for dogmatic definition means THEY ARE BOTH ALREADY DOCTRINE.

Just so we can clarify this. [I read this has been a belief but not a doctrine, once.]

Proposed 5th Marian Dogma
Links

The Pope has not stated this as dogma.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/voxpopbk2-1.htm

The Pope hasnt done anything in the way of defining this as dogma.

But even if he did, the above link has a very good argument on why he would.
As for myself, i am not going to sweat this.

It is NOT something the Pope has defined.

Only already existing doctrines can be propsed as dogma.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Sorry..I can't walk this way...taking my eyes off of Jesus and giving Mary titles that are too lofty for her. I don't believe it. It grieves me incredibly and if you can't understand that...what can I say? Call me whatever you will. This has me VERY upset. I will not shut off my brain and prestend that words don't matter. I do not expect christ to go against scripture either so I am not going to ask Him if His mother is the root of jesse or the tree of life or the gate when I know that Christ Himself is all of these. I don't need competing forces in my life. Christ get all my attention, praise, love and adoration.

Saying that--as though it somehow oppose what the Church teaches-- shows the depth of your ignorance about what the Church truly teaches about Mary. Mary always, always point to her Son and says "Do whatever He tells You". Mary and Jesus aren't in competition.

You want to hang on the pride of interpreting Scripture in a private little bubble-- leaving out symbolism and typography and 1500 years of Tradition before Protestantism rolls around. I dunno I guess I always figured that guys like Athanasius and Aquinas and Pope John Paul II are just way, way, way smarter than me- and have the background of formal study--and that whether I agreed with what they wrote or not , that it would be folly to dismiss it outright. I knew it deserved prayer and careful study and certainly something more in depth than tallking about other people's opinions on the internet. IThe Truth deserved more personal work and effort than the ease of reading other people's thoughts on the world wide web.

You criticize "cultural" Catholics--but then go on and on about how faulty thinking are those who venerate Mary and use terms and titles for her that are a part of ancient Church tradition, and those who know through study and sometimes formal teaching that Scripture is 100% consistent with the Church's view of Mary (having deferred their personal intellect at times to the authority of the Church). I

 

[BAFRIEND]

And the Church says Mary is Mediatrix.

Anyone is arguing against the infallible teaching of the Church if they say otherwise.

The Church states that you cannot use a title, including mediatrix in a way that takes away from the effacy of Christ as the only mediator and redeemer. And I believe that is the infallible teaching of the Church that is being argued against here and that argument is not coming from me.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

As an aside Mary is referred to as mediatrix in the Compendium of the Catechism...in entry # 198 (as well as advocate, helper and benefactress). In Entry #100 she is referred to as the new Eve.

Of course then the Compendium goes on to say that Mary is honored with a sngular devotion- which differs essentially from that of the Trinity. Which for some reason people in this thread find difficult to believe that this is a glorious Catholic both/and...that Mary can be both mediatrix or new Eve and be subservient to Christ.

 

[BAFRIEND]

[QUOTESaying that--as though it somehow oppose what the Church teaches-- shows the depth of your ignorance about what the Church truly teaches about Mary. Mary always, always point to her Son and says "Do whatever He tells You". Mary and Jesus aren't in competition.

Like I stated Kisstheson, go to inquiry at your local parish and see if those on the RCIA team agree with the fringes here.

You want to hang on the pride of interpreting Scripture in a private little bubble--]
[/QUOTE]

That in fact is not what she is doing. What I believe is occuring here is that she is listening to her conscience which the Church teaches is the voice of God. It is not her private interpretation creating the confussion.

 

[Lady Bug]

This is going to be very obvious that I did not read the whole thread, but I saw somewhere in Catholicism for Dummies that the title of Mary as co-Redemptrix was NOT officially a Church dogma - even though the Church ACCEPTS the title, it is not to the point of making it DOGMA. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I don't know about the mediatrix thing - but anyway - I would imagine it's similar for that term too)

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

That in fact is not what she is doing. What I believe is occuring here is that she is listening to her conscience which the Church teaches is the voice of God. It is not her private interpretation creating the confussion.

You'll forgive me if I dismiss the theological opinions of someone who doesn't even know which books are part of the Canon. Your thoughts in this thread might be your thoughts- but they are inconsistent with Church teaching both now and throughout the ages.

Yeah-- I am sure that God's voice is telling her not to be part of the Church.....

 

[kisstheson]

Saying that--as though it somehow oppose what the Church teaches-- shows the depth of your ignorance about what the Church truly teaches about Mary. Mary always, always point to her Son and says "Do whatever He tells You". Mary and Jesus aren't in competition.

You want to hang on the pride of interpreting Scripture in a private little bubble-- leaving out symbolism and typography and 1500 years of Tradition before Protestantism rolls around. I dunno I guess I always figured that guys like Athanasius and Aquinas and Pope John Paul II are just way, way, way smarter than me- and have the background of formal study--and that whether I agreed with what they wrote or not , that it would be folly to dismiss it outright. I knew it deserved prayer and careful study and certainly something more in depth than tallking about other people's opinions on the internet. IThe Truth deserved more personal work and effort than the ease of reading other people's thoughts on the world wide web.

You criticize "cultural" Catholics--but then go on and on about how faulty thinking are those who venerate Mary and use terms and titles for her that are a part of ancient Church tradition, and those who know through study and sometimes formal teaching that Scripture is 100% consistent with the Church's view of Mary (having deferred their personal intellect at times to the authority of the Church). I

call it pride..call it my "little bubble..." insult me all you want. I don't care. I can't agree with this teaching in good conscience.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

call it pride..call it my "little bubble..." insult me all you want. I don't care. I can't agree with this teaching in good conscience.

That's ridiculous- because you don't actually have a grasp on what the teaching actually is. How can you disagree with something that you don't fully understand??

If this is a make or break issue for you- don't you deserve it to yourself- to Christ-- to do some actual research and study for a longer period than a couple days--and read, and talk to someone who can comminicate with you verbally about the Church's view of Mary and your objections??

What you think you are disagreeing with, is not what the Church teaches--the Church doesn't teach that Mary is equal to God, is due equal veneration to Jesus, or has equal power to JEsus. None of that is even close to what the Church teaches.

And those are not insults...I call it as I see it, and I think it's folly for someone to base their faith on a thread on the internet. Protestants interpret Scripture privately and in a little bubble outside of 1500 years of tradition... if you're alright with being a Protestant then there's no insult there, is there?

 

[kisstheson]

I am simply trying to help you see that you are being overly resrtictive and narrow in your understanding of biblical symbolism in ways never intended by God and the problems it causes.


For instance, you have said Jesus is the Tree of Life.

Where does it say that in the bible?


You have said the Cross is the Tree of Life.

where does it say that in the bible?


What you gave earlier from the bible does not have anything about either Jesus or the Cross being the Tree of Life.

Yet you are so sure that Jesus is the Tree of Life, and also that the Cross is the Tree of Life.

Where do you get this from?


And how can both Jesus and the Cross be the Tree of Life?

Sorry..That Jesus is the tree of life is very basic dogma. Tree=Vine. You're not going to get me to "see" anything. Your over the top statements about Mary is a total turn off to me. before I even consider the Catholic church I have to get away from this stuff.

 

[kisstheson]

That's ridiculous- because you don't actually have a grasp on what the teaching actually is. How can you disagree with something that you don't fully understand??

If this is a make or break issue for you- don't you deserve it to yourself- to Christ-- to do some actual research and study for a longer period than a couple days--and read, and talk to someone who can comminicate with you verbally about the Church's view of Mary and your objections??

What you think you are disagreeing with, is not what the Curch teaches--the Church doesn't teach that MEry is equal to God, is due equal veneration to Jesus, or has equal power to JEsus. None of that is even close to what the Church treches.

I beg to differ. I was raised catholic, went to catholic school, recieved most of the sacraments, prayed the rosary...I was talking about reverting. Now I'm not so sure. This over the top acclaiming of mary is a huge turn off.

 

[kisstheson]

Kisstheson, I know I said I was staying out of this thread once before, but I really am this time. I know this is painful for you, but unless you have the background and the foundation to understand these things, I can see being next to impossible to understand coming from a Protestant background. For me during my conversion it was the Immaculate Conception. In the end, though, I prayed the Rosary, studied, and I cannot describe the intimacy I feel with God and I credit that to God's answering my prayer to know Christ as Mary did. May God love you, and may the prayers of the Blessed Virgin lighten your burden.

Take care.

I was raised RC hun.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I beg to differ. I was raised catholic, went to catholic school, recieved most of the sacraments, prayed the rosary..

So? I was too- and when I got to adulthood I didn't know a darn thing beyond the very, very basics of my Faith--and even some of that turned out to be wrong.

Are you saying that you know all about what the Church teaches? If so--I admire you...I have but scratched the surface of Her depths in my study and instruction.

 

[kisstheson]

Mary is the proposed Mediatrix, & Coredemtrix by the laity.
Just so we can clarify this. [I read this has been a belief but not a doctrine, once.]

Proposed 5th Marian Dogma
Links

The Pope has not stated this as dogma.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/voxpopbk2-1.htm

The Pope hasnt done anything in the way of defining this as dogma.

But even if he did, the above link has a very good argument on why he would.
As for myself, i am not going to sweat this.

It is NOT something the Pope has defined.

Here is one such argument - which i will show you that it is a proposal, from the Church itself to the Pope...

My Initial Doubts Concerning the Advisabilility of a Dogma of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix[1]​

When Professor Mark Miravalle shared with me information concerning the efforts and prayers of many Catholics to obtain a new dogma that would declare that Mary—in cooperation with, and in radical creaturely subordination to, her divine Son—is Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces,[2]I Was at first hesitant whether I should declare support for the declaration of such a double (or triple) Marian dogma. For tocall Mary Mediatrix of allgraces seems to be an exaggeration and almost contradictory: how could she be the Mediatrix of the graces Adam and Eve received, or Abraham, or her own ancestors, or of those graces which she herself received such her Immaculate Conception? On the other hand, to give Mary the title Coredemptrix seemed to me at first to touch a merely marginally Catholic belief and one that is open to many misunderstandings, given the fact that there is only one Saviour and one Redeemer, Jesus Christ.[3]I thought that a dogmatic declaration of this truth, though I firmly believed it, would b unnecessary and even undesirable for various reasons: It would bind all faithful to accept a truth which (1) neither appears inseparable from the deposit of faith nor (2) free of being prone to an enormous misunderstanding that would efface the difference between God and man and turn Mary into some kind of fourth divine person. (3) Besides, this doctrine did not seem to me central enough to justify a dogmatic formulation. For dogma does not only assert the objective and indubitable truth of a supernaturally revealed truth or a doctrine presuppose by the faith (such as the ability of man to know the existence~ and some attributes of God by means of his reason, a philosophical content defined by Vatican I). Rather, much more than that, a dogma binds all faithful to accept it, and it involves, and in some cases even creates, the moral obligation to the consent of all the faithful to the dogmatically declared truth of the Catholic faith as a condition of achieving eternal salvation. Thus a dogma is a very serious thing not to be demanded lightly.

Thank you...so how is it that catholics argue in support of such a dangerous doctrine? It sure is a SERIOUS dogma.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Church states that you cannot use a title, including mediatrix in a way that takes away from the effacy of Christ as the only mediator and redeemer.

No one has done so BA. To insinuate that anyone here has is very disengenuous.

And I believe that is the infallible teaching of the Church that is being argued against here and that argument is not coming from me.

I appreciate that this is your opinion, however, I haven't found that to be the case.