The snare of devotion to Mary.

[Tallguy88]

Your priest is wrong.

I know him and respect him. He brought me into the Church. You'll understand if I trust him over you.

The Vatican put a stop to nothing. Pope Leo XIII said that "we may affirm that nothing, by the will of God, is given to us without Mary's mediation, in such way that just as no one can approach the Almighty Father but through His Son, likewise no one, so to speak, can approach Christ but through His Mother." But furthermore the exists the liturgical feast of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces. The Church has expressed herself solemnly through her liturgy.

These aren't mere opinions. The particulars of these doctrines have not been definitively defined, of course. God pray that the Church speedily does so. But that Our Lady is co-redemptrix and mediatrix is Catholic doctrine. We are only at liberty to discuss the particulars.

It is an on-going discussion. The Vatican is not opposing these discussions nor is it saying that people are placing too much emphasis on Mary. Otherwise she would be condemning countless popes and her own liturgy. The Second Vatican Council adequately expresses the absolute minimums of the Church's teaching on Mariology.

But I wonder, if your priest says that the Vatican hasn't defined these matters because it's placing too much emphasis on Mary, then what are his views on the fact that it took over 1800 years to dogmatically define the Immaculate Conception?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

St JPII chose specifically not to dogmatically define these statements in the way people were petitioning him to. We have to assume he had good reasons not to.

Btw, I'm not saying she isn't our advocate and mediator. Just that the specific doctrines around these concepts have not been dogmatically defined.

 

[mark46]

The catechism what it say with regard to Mary as Mediatrix. There was a move to make the understanding more complete and additional Marian dogma. That effort was rejected.

We are left with differences of opinions in understanding what the catechism means when it tells us that Mary has the title of Advocate and Mediatrix.

Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix

For folks that think that there is no difference of opinion (or that theirs is the only cir rest opinion), I suggest the use one's favorite search engine for "Mary - Mediatrix".

 

[WisdomTree]

I honestly don't see the point in dogmatising Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. What do these teach that Theotokos does not as defined in the Council of Ephesus?

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

I know him and respect him. He brought me into the Church. You'll understand if I trust him over you.

Of course I do. But you'll also understand why I'd rather trust to the writings of the saints and the popes of the Church.

St JPII chose specifically not to dogmatically define these statements in the way people were petitioning him to. We have to assume he had good reasons not to.

But he was just one pope. How many popes were there prior to the definition of the Immaculate Conception? Different popes will have different reasons for their actions, they'll have their own priorities. I personally think that Pope Saint John Paul II didn't define these doctrines dogmatically for the same reasons that Blessed Newman didn't want the Immaculate Conception defined. I find the reason, of course, to be wholly weak and almost cowardly. But hey-ho, no one's perfect.

Btw, I'm not saying she isn't our advocate and mediator. Just that the specific doctrines around these concepts have not been dogmatically defined.

Yes, then we're in agreement. Incidentally I don't know where I stand on the belief that Mary is mediatrix of all graces. I could go either way on the issue, what I do accept, and what the Church definitively teaches in her liturgy, is that she is mediatrix. I believe that this question should be settled definitively by Rome to put it to rest.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[mark46]

Protestant views on Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many might be shocked by the positive views of Luther, Calvin, Wyciffe and Zwingli toward Mary.

Their opposition to the Church and its excesses was clear. However, the almost total rejection of the role of Mary was NOT the teaching of the founders of Protestantism. That view came much later.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

I honestly don't see the point in dogmatising Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. What do these teach that Theotokos does not as defined in the Council of Ephesus?

Well that's the thing. These doctrines are entirey founded upon the Sacred Council's proclomation of Mary's divine maternity. Why should they be further defined? So that we have a clearer understanding. For the same reasons that one council after another taught more and more on the Christological truths.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[WisdomTree]

Protestant views on Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many might be shocked by the positive views of Luther, Calvin, Wyciffe and Zwingli toward Mary.

Their opposition to the Church and its excesses was clear. However, the almost total rejection of the role of Mary was NOT the teaching of the founders of Protestantism. That view came much later.

Very much later. In fact, Martin Luther wasn't completely wrong in the opinions of Catholics since after all, since less than half of his 95 theses were repudiated where the rest were conceded to have been correct.

 

[mark46]

We understand that you trust your own personal understanding of what the Church and its popes have taught.

We understand that you do not trust Pope JPII or Pope Benedict on these matters.

JPII decided that there needed to be no dogmatic statement defining the role of Mary as Mediatrix. He understood the difference of OPINION with regard to the teachings of Vatican II and the catechism. He saw no reason to go further than what you have called minimalist views.

Of course I do. But you'll also understand why I'd rather trust to the writings of the saints and the popes of the Church.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

We understand that you trust your own personal understanding of what the Church and its popes have taught.

We understand that you do not trust Pope JPII or Pope Benedict on these matters.

JPII decided that there needed to be no dogmatic statement defining the role of Mary as Mediatrix. He understood the difference of OPINION with regard to the teachings of Vatican II and the catechism. He saw no reason to go further than what you have called minimalist views.

What will you do if Pope Francis dogmatically defines that Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[mark46]

I agree with what you have posted.

I just wanted to emphasize that there is room in the Church (and in heaven) for those who do not understand, and even for those who disagree.

You're overthinking my post. I just mean as long as one knows what these mean, they shouldn't deny them. Poor catechesis is a mitigating factor for too many.

 

[mark46]

I would of course accept his statement from the Chair.

You must understand that there have been millions of Catholics over the ages who personally disagree with this or that teaching of the Church, even the dogmatic ones. As part of the discipline of the Church, we accept those dogmatic teachings.
=================
That being said, I PERSONALLY believe that millions, if not billions, have stayed away or left the Church or have become lapsed members because of the need the Church has had for the dogmatizing its views on Mary.

It is my personal view that millions of Calvinists, Lutherans, and Orthodox would be part of the Church. It is my view that many of the lapsed would be re-evangelized.
======================
BTW, as aside, I have many times prayed for Mary's intercession in healing someone wither of physical or family problems. I have asked Mary to protect many folks from harm.

IMHO, what we are talking about here is DOGMA, what must be accepted. We are also giving advice to someone who currently cannot become a Catholic because of the Marian dogma.

For me personally, although I must accept differently, NO dogma has been added since 787. For me personally, the Church has made many mistakes, resulting in the Schism and the Reformation. Dogmatizing the understandings about Mary is among the most important.

What will you do if Pope Francis dogmatically defines that Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

[. . .]

That is just about the saddest post I haveever read.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[Targaryen]

That is just about the saddest post I haveever read.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

Bury your head in the sand then, you'd be surprised at the number of Catholic theologians that have understood Mark's points and have said as much.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

Bury your head in the sand then, you'd be surprised at the number of Catholic theologians that have understood Mark's points and have said as much.

There are also many Catholic theologians that believe homosexual acts are not sinful. There are many Catholic theologians that believe one piece of nonsense after another. All that matters is the magisterial trachings of the pope, the councils and the liturgy. Which Mark is on the other side of. His position is completely antithetical to everything that the Catholic Church understands of herself and of her magisterial authority.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[ChesterKhan]

SCIM, I think we all can agree that, whatever we believe, it ought to lead us to Christ, and to appreciate Him more, and especially to love Him more. I know you believe Mary does just that, as do I. And if you read the rest of my last post you would see I think we largely agree.

It is a shame Protestants and cafeteria Catholics will not accept the doctrines and dogmas taught since the Apostles by the Church. Honestly, the Marian dogmas and doctrines do nothing for me emotionally. But they make sense. And the Church has taught most of them since the beginning. And even the Immaculate Conception makes sense based off of other dogmas (namely, being without personal sin, original sin, the Assumption...).

But I think the primary problem is when Catholics come in, all fiery and blazing with zeal for Our Lady, and address Christians who, not only have no zeal for Our Lady, but because they have no zeal and have never studied the doctrines and dogmas, don't understand that they make sense. And it scares them.

In other words, you're burning the Protestants. Get a level head and cool it down a bit, OK?

 

[mark46]

Please list where in my post, I indicated that I did not accept the magisterial teachings of the Church, and its magisterial authority.

You seems to be saying that not only must individuals accept all dogma which they must), but they must also NOT have any private opinions or questions.

We are one Church. I think that you would much prefer that it be very, very small, only including those who agree with your interpretations of its dogma.
IMHO, this is NOT the view of the Catholic Church in 2014, and has not been so for at least 65 years.

I think that it is important, and most reasonable, for those who disagree to stay within the one Church. (personally, I don't distinguish between RCC and Orthodox in that regard). I celebrate the diversity within the Church, as has been so since the beginning. You seem to reject it.
=============================

I do indeed reject even your signature. Jesus and Mary are not co-equal. The title of Redemtrix is one that has led to serious divisions in the Church. The title must be understood. If there is to be Church where Mary is the Mediator (Mediatrix) of ALL Graces, then I suspect the Church will eventually split, or at the very least become very much smaller.

As I said, I would accept such a decision from the Chair. I suspect that many would not.
================
You don't like the changes of the last century. I suspect that you were fine with Church of 500 years ago. I will be blunt. The Church of the past is just that. Praise Be To God!

There are also many Catholic theologians that believe homosexual acts are not sinful. There are many Catholic theologians that believe one piece of nonsense after another. All that matters is the magisterial trachings of the pope, the councils and the liturgy. Which Mark is on the other side of. His position is completely antithetical to everything that the Catholic Church understands of herself and of her magisterial authority.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[WisdomTree]

I do indeed reject even your signature. Jesus and Mary are not co-equal. The title of Redemtrix is one that has led to serious divisions in the Church. The title must be understood. If there is to be Church where Mary is the Mediator (Mediatrix) of ALL Graces, then I suspect the Church will eventually split, or at the very least become very much smaller.

In regards to the bolded, I would like to leave my interpretation and opinion of it from another thread:

Hi LiberalAnglicanCatholic (LAC)!

First of all, let me just clarify that since the title of Co-Redemptrix is a doctrine not a dogma it is not as centric to Catholic theology as you may think it is. However, a doctrine is a doctrine however and unlike devotions such as the Rosary, it is not something that can be brushed aside or even condemned unless during an Ecumenical Council.

Now let me just say that I can understand your uneasiness to it cause that's how I felt as well (for ages) and when I heard that there used to be calls for it alongside Co-Mediatrix to be dogmatised via Ex Cathedra, my face went pale until I realised it was during the tenure of Saint John Paul II (I believe) in which I let out a sigh of relief.

It's been about a year since then and I have grown to understand the concept a bit more. What may probably put you off the most is probably the "Co-", perhaps even more so than the "Redemptrix" part. To put you at east, this does not in any way indicate equality between Mary and Christ (or even any part of the Trinity). Co-Redemptrix in this case should be understood how Co-Emperor was during the post-Dioclotian offices of the Emperor, especially of that of the Byzantine Empire (symbasileus).

When Roman Emperors elevated their sons (who were usually infants) or even their best of buddies to the status of a Co-Emperor, it was not to give equal authority to their peer, but rather indicate a form of delegation of some sort or even a pathway of future succession (since hereditary succession was illegal).

Although the political analogy of the Roman Co-Emperors does not fit neatly into that of the theological aspect and implications of the Co-Redemptrix, you can see that the point of it is not to indicate equality. In this case, it is of recognition. The Virgin Mary, or Theotokos is a Co-Redemptrix not due to her merit, but rather God chose her to be the Ark of Christ. Since our Redeemer was born through her, she was inadvertently involved in the redemption of mankind, thus is acknowledged as the Co-Redemptrix.

I know this is all convoluted and all, but I hope you got something out of it.

What do you all think of it?

 

[mark46]

In regards to the bolded, I would like to leave my interpretation and opinion of it from another thread:



What do you all think of it?

I disagree with the analogy to Rome. I agree with the first part. often the intent in Rome was for the co-emporer to eventually become emperor. I think the better biblical tradition is that of the mother of the ruler, always held in very high regard. This is Jewish context within which many understood the role of Mary. Obviously Mary is also Mother of God.

I find some of the discussion of Mary as Redemtrix (use the word Redeemer or co-Redeemer and I think that you face would still pale. Using the feminine from somehow from the world. I understand that Redeemer has many components with the most important reserved for Jesus. The very concept of Mary as Redeemer is dividing and misleading,

 

[WisdomTree]

I disagree with the analogy to Rome. I agree with the first part. often the intent in Rome was for the co-emporer to eventually become emperor. I think the better biblical tradition is that of the mother of the ruler, always held in very high regard. This is Jewish context within which many understood the role of Mary. Obviously Mary is also Mother of God.

Well, I did mention that the analogy was not perfect and as such had fundamental flaws. However, I would reject your notion that the elevation to the co-Emperor was often to become the new Emperor. Granted, if it was granted by a father to son that would almost always be the case, but there were times when trusted courtiers were granted titles too. An example would be Michael III and Basil I, though the latter did succeed as the sole Emperor through murder, it was not the intent as the former was merely elevating him as a sign of trust. In fact, the office of the Junior Emperor, Caesar, became so devalued that it eventually lost its Imperial Authority thus becaming an honorary title usually handed out to foreign leaders (though it still retained the notion of co-Emperorship).

The rationale for me using Rome as an example was to try and explain the usage of "co-" since both the Roman Emperors and the Magisterium of the Papacy used Latin, meaning similar linguistic setting can explain things better within the context of things.

I find some of the discussion of Mary as Redemtrix (use the word Redeemer or co-Redeemer and I think that you face would still pale. Using the feminine from somehow from the world. I understand that Redeemer has many components with the most important reserved for Jesus. The very concept of Mary as Redeemer is dividing and misleading,

I think it is important to attach the "co-" prefix when attributing most of these titles to Theotokos. After all it is not through her merit that she is capable of doing anything, but rather through her Son. Even then, the vast majority of these titles are really honorary (another reason why dogmatising them would be meaningless) thus should not take attention away from Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My friend, I would call that 'putting out the party line'...what I have recorded goes way beyond what you are saying...please have another read of the thread I introduced, and try to see if I might have a point.

What you see people doing is probably different from what the Church teaches, and a distinction needs to be made. The Church has no control over how people manifest their faith, as long as they don't go out of bounds. But what the Church teaches is that Mary is the Mother of God, and must be honored for her role in salvation.

Honestly, do you know there are Catholics who have themselves nailed to crosses on Good Friday as a sign of piety? Do you believe the Church sanctions such things? Do you see the difference?