Vatican stops use of titles for Mary

[Servus]

Speaking as an Anglican, but in no way speaking for Anglicans or Anglicanism:

Should? I don't see any necessity to ask the BVM to pray for me, but why would I not want the Mother of God to pray for me? "Oh, but she can't hear you." OK, then I wasted my time.

Need? Not that I can see, but it couldn't hurt, could it?


I'd kneel to ruling monarch (and have actually bowed to the then-queen of Denmark), but they're physically present. Kneeling before a statue? Not sure about that.

Not sure what that actually means.

I tend to go with my Orthodox friends on that point,, so yeah,

Yes.

As the God Bearer, ye

I'm not a Romn Cathoic.

I was asking those questions of a particular individual to see where he was at regarding those issues. When it comes to someone who's Anglican or Orthodox or Roman Catholic, I already know where they're at based on the doctrine, tradition and practice of those churches.

 

[Servus]

Do you believe Mary is the Ark of the Covenant?

As the God Bearer, ye

Here's the thing with that, and I'm surprised others don't see it.

God was not inside of the Ark of the Covenant. God in the form of the shekinah glory, hovered above the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God, not a vessel that housed God.

 

[Fervent]

Here's the thing with that, and I'm surprised others don't see it.

God was not inside of the Ark of the Covenant. God in the form of the shekinah glory, hovered above the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God, not a vessel that housed God.

This doesn't seem to understand the connection being made, because the Ark of the Covenant bore God in the OT, Mary bore God in the flesh. It's not about housing God, but carrying His glory. So the specific details aren't relevant to the analogy.

 

[o_mlly]

Haven’t you heard, we Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans do not exist.

In the spirit of ecumenism:

​

"We are all Roman Catholics, know it or not, like it or not. Admittedly, there is that qualifier "imperfect" but then who is a perfect member of any church?" (The Catholic Moment, Richard John Neuhaus, 1987).​

Fr. Neuhaus wrote his book as a Lutheran minister prior to his 1990 conversion to Catholicism.

 

[Always in His Presence]

From the link:

He explained that note was intended to help Catholics avoid either exaggerating or underrating the importance of devotion to Mary.​

​

“We care for the people’s faith without complicating it with issues that are not among the concerns of the vast majority and that add nothing essential to their love for Mary,” he added.​

​

He also called debates online defending Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” evidence of the “maximalism” the dicastery wants to avoid.​

 

[Clare73]

Here's the thing with that, and I'm surprised others don't see it.

God was not inside of the Ark of the Covenant. God in the form of the shekinah glory, hovered above the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God, not a vessel that housed God.

Indeed. . .

The Atonement Cover was the throne where God sits (Ps 9:1, Ex 25:22, 1 Sa 4:4, 2 Sa 6:2),
the two angels--Justice and Righteousness--being the foundation of his throne (Ps 89:14, 97:2).

The Atonement Cover was both
God's Judgment Seat - God sitting in judgment on their sin in the Ark
1) jar of manna - testimony to their grumbling (Ex 16:2-4, 33),
2) Aaron's staff - testimony to Korah's rebellion against priesthood (Nu 16:1-3, 17:10); and

2) God's Mercy Seat - covering their sin (grumbling, rebellion) in the Ark.

The throne of God (Mt 24:31) is both the Judgment Set of the nations and the Mercy Seat of the Sons of God (Mt 24:32-34, 41).

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm only quoting what the Vatican said and the pope agreed with. I figured they would actually know actual Roman Catholic Theology - especially since the Author is DDF prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and authorized by the Pope.

Seems your issue is with them.

I actually read Mater Populi Fidelis and linked to the actual document. I encourage you to read what is says.

I finally was able to read it.

And yes, my issue is with cardinal Fernandez. He's the author of that book, 'Heal Me With Your Mouth' which was a treatise on kissing. His other book was even worse, and he tried to bury it. But he was a friend of pope Francis, and thus promoted way beyond the merits of his competence. He was given the position as head of the DDF in one of the strangest appointments ever, only after pope Francis got incredible heat for proposing someone even worse for the same job. Cardinal Fernandez was the author of the document 'Fiducia supplicans', which proposed that we can now bless married homosexuals, if only it is an impromptu blessing not of them as a couple but as two independent blessings in a non-liturgical and spontaneous act clearly different from an actual wedding. This was so wrong on the face of itthat most of the bishops in Africa, and at least a third of the bishops around the world were in formal dissent from this document and cardinal Fernandez had to back down. The document still stands, with a follower or two here and there but Fernandez has the egg on his face and the document has no power.

That Fernandez.

Now I sort of agree that speaking about Mary as co-redemptrix and as mediator of all graces is not terribly opportune. And that because most Protestants would go all apoplectic over mention of such things even if I went into the ten minute explanation of what is and is not involved with those terms. Most Protestants are invincibly ignorant on such matters and cannot endure hearing such things. So why bother? Many Protestants go apoplectic too about Mary as the mother of God, thinking that we have decided that she gave birth to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Discussions with those sorts of people is also inopportune. That is the extent of my marginal agreement with MPF.

Actually, much of the document appears to be from notes compiled years ago, before cardinal Fernandez and before pope Francis. That part, the historical discussion of past use of the terms, seems OK. Selective though, as there are some glaring omissions of past usage by popes and by Vatican II. That part leaves it understood that Mary as co-redemptrix or as mother of all graces are not in error. But that was the position of pope Benedict, who decided that is was not opportune to define those terms as dogma while he was pope. He did not rule against them, nor rule for them, but deferred the whole discussion.

This new document does not rule against believing in those two terms. It just says it is 'always inappropriate' to speak using those terms. I consider this to be a 'silencing' rather than a doctrinal statement. Fernandez could have made a doctrinal statement against those two titles of Mary. He didn't. He kind of left that an open question. But he expects us to bite our tongues nonetheless. That is a disciplinary matter. One that I was following even without his special encouragement to bite my tongue.

Cardinal Fernandez made a special point that this document, approved by pope Leo, is now part of the Magisterial teaching of the faith. Which is him implying that this is infallible teaching. Ha! It's a very fallible disciplinary matter, imprudent in that it raised an issue that very few Catholics knew anything about, and probably advanced the cause of Mary as co-redemptrix and as mother of all graces well beyond anything else that has been done in the last 100 years. In that sense an epic fail. Which is par for the course for things cardinal Fernandez touches.

Cardinal Fernandez is no expert on Catholic theology. His predecessors, cardinal Mueller and cardinal Ratzinger were such experts. I hope cardinal Mueller has some comments on MPF some time soon. In the mean time there have been plenty of comments on how inopportune and confused and pretentious MPF is. And I agree. Even while I wouldn't be touting Mary as co-redemptrix or mother of all graces anyway.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In the spirit of ecumenism:

​

"We are all Roman Catholics, know it or not, like it or not. Admittedly, there is that qualifier "imperfect" but then who is a perfect member of any church?" (The Catholic Moment, Richard John Neuhaus, 1987).​

Fr. Neuhaus wrote his book as a Lutheran minister prior to his 1990 conversion to Catholicism.

I miss Fr. Neuhaus. I was a subscriber to 'First Things' back in the day and couldn't wait to read what he wrote in 'The Public Square' in the back of that monthly.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I finally was able to read it.

And yes, my issue is with cardinal Fernandez. He's the author of that book, 'Heal Me With Your Mouth' which was a treatise on kissing. His other book was even worse, and he tried to bury it. But he was a friend of pope Francis, and thus promoted way beyond the merits of his competence. He was given the position as head of the DDF in one of the strangest appointments ever, only after pope Francis got incredible heat for proposing someone even worse for the same job. Cardinal Fernandez was the author of the document 'Fiducia supplicans', which proposed that we can now bless married homosexuals, if only it is an impromptu blessing not of them as a couple but as two independent blessings in a non-liturgical and spontaneous act clearly different from an actual wedding. This was so wrong on the face of itthat most of the bishops in Africa, and at least a third of the bishops around the world were in formal dissent from this document and cardinal Fernandez had to back down. The document still stands, with a follower or two here and there but Fernandez has the egg on his face and the document has no power.

That Fernandez.

Now I sort of agree that speaking about Mary as co-redemptrix and as mediator of all graces is not terribly opportune. And that because most Protestants would go all apoplectic over mention of such things even if I went into the ten minute explanation of what is and is not involved with those terms. Most Protestants are invincibly ignorant on such matters and cannot endure hearing such things. So why bother? Many Protestants go apoplectic too about Mary as the mother of God, thinking that we have decided that she gave birth to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Discussions with those sorts of people is also inopportune. That is the extent of my marginal agreement with MPF.

Actually, much of the document appears to be from notes compiled years ago, before cardinal Fernandez and before pope Francis. That part, the historical discussion of past use of the terms, seems OK. Selective though, as there are some glaring omissions of past usage by popes and by Vatican II. That part leaves it understood that Mary as co-redemptrix or as mother of all graces are not in error. But that was the position of pope Benedict, who decided that is was not opportune to define those terms as dogma while he was pope. He did not rule against them, nor rule for them, but deferred the whole discussion.

This new document does not rule against believing in those two terms. It just says it is 'always inappropriate' to speak using those terms. I consider this to be a 'silencing' rather than a doctrinal statement. Fernandez could have made a doctrinal statement against those two titles of Mary. He didn't. He kind of left that an open question. But he expects us to bite our tongues nonetheless. That is a disciplinary matter. One that I was following even without his special encouragement to bite my tongue.

Cardinal Fernandez made a special point that this document, approved by pope Leo, is now part of the Magisterial teaching of the faith. Which is him implying that this is infallible teaching. Ha! It's a very fallible disciplinary matter, imprudent in that it raised an issue that very few Catholics knew anything about, and probably advanced the cause of Mary as co-redemptrix and as mother of all graces well beyond anything else that has been done in the last 100 years. In that sense an epic fail. Which is par for the course for things cardinal Fernandez touches.

Cardinal Fernandez is no expert on Catholic theology. His predecessors, cardinal Mueller and cardinal Ratzinger were such experts. I hope cardinal Mueller has some comments on MPF some time soon. In the mean time there have been plenty of comments on how inopportune and confused and pretentious MPF is. And I agree. Even while I wouldn't be touting Mary as co-redemptrix or mother of all graces anyway.

The current pope agreed with it.

Now what?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The current pope agreed with it.

Now what?

What does that 'agreement' entail? Specific agreement in every detail? A conversation they had where the topic was raised briefly? An infallible statement saying "I agree that what cardinal Fernandez said is dogma? Please clarify. Pope Francis said many goofy things. He had a damage control unit coming after him to 'clarify' what he said. I don't hang on every word of a pope or of a cardinal. It's not required of me to do so.

 

[The Liturgist]

God was not inside of the Ark of the Covenant. God in the form of the shekinah glory, hovered above the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God, not a vessel that housed God.

The Ark contained the a copy of the word, and according to John 1:1, Christ our God is The Word, so the Ark as a typological prophecy of her holds. Also I would note my denomination would never presume to try to depict the Shekinah in the manner of your image.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the spirit of ecumenism:

​

"We are all Roman Catholics, know it or not, like it or not. Admittedly, there is that qualifier "imperfect" but then who is a perfect member of any church?" (The Catholic Moment, Richard John Neuhaus, 1987).​

Fr. Neuhaus wrote his book as a Lutheran minister prior to his 1990 conversion to Catholicism.

Indeed the difference being people do harm to the Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans when they deny our existence to focus on bashing the Roman church. I posted a thread in Denomination Specific Theology where I explained the acute danger accusing Catholics of various falsehoods, particularly idolatry, puts Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox as well Roman and Eastern Rite Catholics in the Middle East, Africa and Pakistan in especially when combined with the common Restorationist trope that we are all under Roman control.

If you convince a Muslim we are idolaters you give them a religious imperative to kill us; we cease to be Dhimmi and become Kafiri. As we see in Pakistan and Nigeria.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What does that 'agreement' entail?

From the Link:

Pope Leo XIV approved the document, signed by DDF prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, on Oct. 7.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From the Link:

That's your WHOLE response? As if this is infallible teaching or something? Am I understanding you correctly here?

 

[Always in His Presence]

That's your WHOLE response? As if this is infallible teaching or something? Am I understanding you correctly here?

No - it is pointing out that the pope approved of the document - nothing to get apoplectic over. Obviously, if the good pope found error, as you have, he would not have agreed with the writing.