The snare of devotion to Mary.

[PaladinValer]

Meanwhile I will reiterate my concerns around these things that have come up in SCIM's posts, and which from the responses so far I see a little distancing by some Catholic brethren from such an intense and dogmatic insistance that demands Mary be given her due...but I see little evidence so far that strongly opposes these views...which gives me further concerns.

Little evidence only when the two primary sources that I provided, which contradict SCIM's view that they are dogmatic teachings of the Vatican Catholic Magistarium, are ignored.

Whether "traditionalist" Vatican Catholics will like this fact or not, their ideas of St. Mary the Theotokos being "Mediatrix of All Graces" or "Coredemptrix" being dogma is wrong. At the same time, just the titles of "Mediatrix" (note it drops three words) and potentially "Coredemptrix" in and of themselves are not theologically unorthodox if they are defined carefully, and most Vatican Catholics, including the official view of their church, do use those terms carefully and judiciously enough to render rational fear null and void.

As my initial post said, both extremes on this thread are equally wrong. I've consulted another licensed expert and he has agreed with me, so quite honestly, any post of "non-Xs cannot say anything about X" is little more than prideful and egotistical snot. We can, but only when we have primary sources or expertise backing us up, and that's true for any value of "X".

1. The idea that Marian devotion is not optional, and that 'devotion to Our Blessed Lady is most necessary to salvation'.

His view is flat out wrong. Ignore it.

2. Part of Catholicism demands a potential convert develops their devotion to 'Our Lady'...the crux of this being twofold, the first concerns every flavour of Christian when it has been said, a)' if you do not love Mary, you cannot love Jesus, and b) If you have no love for Our Lady and do not let her enter your heart, then you are not a Catholic.

His view is flat out wrong. Ignore it.

3. Saint Bonaventure was quoted for good measure, "no one "can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate."

His view is not doctrine or dogma.

4. Every great spiritual author teaches us that we must have Mary in our hearts.

Their views are not doctrine or dogma.

1. Mary has no direct input into our salvation...she was never included in any preaching of the Gospel.

She had a roll in her cooperation with God. While this does not make her a source of grace in and of herself, it is illogical and even unorthodox to say her participation in the Incarnation and Nativity had nothing to do with God the Son's entry into our material plane.

This doesn't mean "Mediatrix of All Graces" nor "Coredemptrix" in the sense of her being a source of grace; it just acknowledges that her choices had logical implications.

2. 'If you do not love Mary, you do not love Jesus' is really a rather weighted obsevation, and a bit like putting the cart before the horse...anyone who comes to salvation through Jesus will automatically love Mary...however this is not really the issue...it is they must love Mary according to Catholic doctrine...and IMO this isn't right at all.

Again, it is not infallible doctrine, despite what some will say. There are levels of teaching authority that obviously some are not aware of, or may be willingly ignorant or (or unwilling to share). It would appear that his views are, at best, towards the bottom of the totem poll.

3. Trying to make Mary a means for entering Heaven, is adding to the Gospel, it is not true and should be stopped or shown up for what it is.

Nothing to worry about since his view is wrong.

4. There is nothing that talks about 'having Mary in our hearts'...she is neither the Father, nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit.

Nothing to worry about since his view is wrong...and admittedly, he never strongly equated her to the Holy Trinity, and that is a really gross Straw Man on your post's part...

...as well as more proof of the ridiculousness of both polarized arguments in this thread.

 

[Zeek]

Interesting and informative post...thanks.

Just to comment:-

4. There is nothing that talks about 'having Mary in our hearts'...she is neither the Father, nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
​

Nothing to worry about since his view is wrong...and admittedly, he never strongly equated her to the Holy Trinity, and that is a really gross Straw Man on your post's part...

I was thinking particularly of John 14 through to 16 where Jesus tells the disciples that He and the Father will come to them, be with them and be in them. I equated the idea of 'having Mary in our hearts' with this...I was not pulling a straw-man out of a hat just for the sake of arguing against it...and I suspect other readers who see the expression 'Mary in our heart' will appreciate my point.
​

 

[Rhamiel]

maybe SCIM can elaborate on what he means by "having Mary in our hearts"

or maybe he is just tired of this thread
I dunno

 

[Zeek]

maybe SCIM can elaborate on what he means by "having Mary in our hearts"

or maybe he is just tired of this thread
I dunno

My suspicion is that within Catholicism there has been a growing attempt over 100's of years to make Mary a far greater focus of attention than she has already been, and that in this present age the emphasis has been upon her redemptive qualities and that from within the Catholic Body there are petitions demanding this be made 'official'.

SCIM's quotes and passionate appeals leave no doubts that the type of Co-Remptive qualities attributed to Mary, are an essential component of salvation...I thought other Catholics would strongly object, and while they might embrace the same terminology, hold it rather more loosely.

I found this site instructive, and although I don't hold with a great deal of it, I can understand the Christian logic behind some of the arguments.
Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections

 

[PaladinValer]

maybe SCIM can elaborate on what he means by "having Mary in our hearts"

or maybe he is just tired of this thread
I dunno

Or cannot answer the fact that the two primary resources blow his opinion that his particular beliefs are dogma right out of the water.

It is not possible to disagree with dogma in your church without excommunication as a result. There is no way a dogma can be up for argument like it was in that panel and there is no need to petition a pope to declare something to be dogma ex cathedra if it wasn't already.

My suspicion is that within Catholicism there has been a growing attempt over 100's of years to make Mary a far greater focus of attention than she has already been, and that in this present age the emphasis has been upon her redemptive qualities and that from within the Catholic Body there are petitions demanding this be made 'official'.

And it isn't going to happen. I believe my proofs have made that clear, as well as the fact that any argument against those beliefs when they are not officially held is a Straw Man and little more than typical anti-anything-sounding/seeming-Catholic here in GT.

SCIM's quotes and passionate appeals leave no doubts that the type of Co-Remptive qualities attributed to Mary, are an essential component of salvation...I thought other Catholics would strongly object, and while they might embrace the same terminology, hold it rather more loosely.

How the bloody heck do two or three individuals constitute a broad enough sample? Talk about the Hasty Generalization fallacy!

I found this site instructive, and although I don't hold with a great deal of it, I can understand the Christian logic behind some of the arguments.
Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections

Again, how many of the whole want that, and furthermore, this only proves my point even more that it isn't dogma so any sort of suggestion that their church is in error isn't correct. Instead, the attention needs to be given to that group of individuals within their church that make up a dogma and falsely say "it's dogma".

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zeek

My suspicion is that within Catholicism there has been a growing attempt over 100's of years to make Mary a far greater focus of attention than she has already been, and that in this present age the emphasis has been upon her redemptive qualities and that from within the Catholic Body there are petitions demanding this be made 'official'.
​

And it isn't going to happen. I believe my proofs have made that clear, as well as the fact that any argument against those beliefs when they are not officially held is a Straw Man and little more than typical anti-anything-sounding/seeming-Catholic here in GT.

Just to be quite clear, I am not anti-Catholic in any shape or form...

SCIM's quotes and passionate appeals leave no doubts that the type of Co-Remptive qualities attributed to Mary, are an essential component of salvation...I thought other Catholics would strongly object, and while they might embrace the same terminology, hold it rather more loosely.

How the bloody heck do two or three individuals constitute a broad enough sample? Talk about the Hasty Generalization fallacy!

In your haste to express yourself so articulately you are missing my point completely...that is that if such views are promulgated here and are so obviously not what Catholicism is about, I am concerned and surprised that they have not been seriously challenged but more Catholics...IMO this in itself sends out some sort of message.

I found this site instructive, and although I don't hold with a great deal of it, I can understand the Christian logic behind some of the arguments.
Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections

Again, how many of the whole want that, and furthermore, this only proves my point even more that it isn't dogma so any sort of suggestion that their church is in error isn't correct. Instead, the attention needs to be given to that group of individuals within their church that make up a dogma and falsely say "it's dogma".

Good point and I take it.

 

[Rhamiel]

PaladinValer

There is no way a dogma can be up for argument like it was in that panel and there is no need to petition a pope to declare something to be dogma ex cathedra if it wasn't already.

the difference between dogma and doctrine is not "do we have to believe this"

you have to believe both

the difference is how narrowly is this defined
the Trinity for example is normally described as a doctrine because it is understood that there is a sense of mystery and transcendence in this teaching of the Church

 

[PaladinValer]

Just to be quite clear, I am not anti-Catholic in any shape or form...

Yet your posts attempt to equivocate Catholicism with the opinions of only some members of the Vatican Catholic Church; your Hasty Generalization fallacy argument is proof enough of this phenomenon.

In your haste to express yourself so articulately you are missing my point completely...that is that if such views are promulgated here and are so obviously not what Catholicism is about, I am concerned and surprised that they have not been seriously challenged but more Catholics...IMO this in itself sends out some sort of message.

Same Hasty Generalization fallacy and therefore null and void. Stop arguing lack of numbers when the sample size is unsubstantial and also unrepresentative.

PaladinValer

the difference between dogma and doctrine is not "do we have to believe this"

you have to believe both

the difference is how narrowly is this defined
the Trinity for example is normally described as a doctrine because it is understood that there is a sense of mystery and transcendence in this teaching of the Church

The Trinity was declared dogma back in Nicaea I.

And again, since dogma is not debatable in the sense of questioning whether it is true, then my primary sources proves that your church does not believe them to be dogmas.

Instead of dealing with my posts, I suggest dealing with his, particularly his use of the ad hominem.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zeek

Just to be quite clear, I am not anti-Catholic in any shape or form...
​

Yet your posts attempt to equivocate Catholicism with the opinions of only some members of the Vatican Catholic Church; your Hasty Generalization fallacy argument is proof enough of this phenomenon.

That is simply untrue...I have been very particular in how I have broached this subject and made it clear that what SCIM posted is not what I think Catholicism teaches concerning Mary, but at the same time wondered why it wasn't directly challenged by fellow Catholics because what is implied is not part of the Gospel.

 

[MrMoe]

PaladinValer

the difference between dogma and doctrine is not "do we have to believe this"

you have to believe both

the difference is how narrowly is this defined
the Trinity for example is normally described as a doctrine because it is understood that there is a sense of mystery and transcendence in this teaching of the Church

What about purgatory?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What about purgatory?

Good question. Purgatory seems to be caught in a strange sort of limbo (pardon my play on that word) between a clearly defined doctrine and a very wide range of definitions. There is such a diversity of opinion on it among the Catholics here at CF that I have concluded that it no longer has much, if any, real meaning.

 

[Tallguy88]

Purgatory is a required belief. Traditional belief is about it being a place to pay off the temporal consequences of our sins, our eternal consequences having already been forgiven (elsewise we would be on hell, not purgatory). A more recent interpretation is that it is a place to become more holy by getting rid of our sinful nature. I believe the latter view was promoted by Pope Benedict XVI when he wasCardinal Ratzinger.

It should be noted that the two views are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tallguy88]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (published 1994)

"1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in life everlasting

 

[Tallguy88]

And from the Baltimore Catechism (published 1885):

"Question: What is Purgatory?

Answer:

Purgatory is a state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.

Question: Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?

Answer:

The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms-deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them."

(public domain)

It's a simpler explanation, as it was intended to educate children, but you can still see the different emphasis over the CCC quoted above.

 

[PaladinValer]

Purgatory is a required belief. Traditional belief is about it being a place to pay off the temporal consequences of our sins, our eternal consequences having already been forgiven (elsewise we would be on hell, not purgatory). A more recent interpretation is that it is a place to become more holy by getting rid of our sinful nature. I believe the latter view was promoted by Pope Benedict XVI when he wasCardinal Ratzinger.

It should be noted that the two views are not mutually exclusive.

I believe other recent popes, including Pope John Paul II, have used similar language.

A very refreshing change, I might add. Apt too, since it dispels a lot of the critics of your church about the theology behind the term. It reminds me of some of the things St. Clive Staples Lewis said and wrote.

 

[MKJ]

Purgatory is a required belief. Traditional belief is about it being a place to pay off the temporal consequences of our sins, our eternal consequences having already been forgiven (elsewise we would be on hell, not purgatory). A more recent interpretation is that it is a place to become more holy by getting rid of our sinful nature. I believe the latter view was promoted by Pope Benedict XVI when he wasCardinal Ratzinger.

It should be noted that the two views are not mutually exclusive.

It's a bit difficult though when some practices are really tied to the former, rather than the latter view. For example, the way Catholicism tends to talk about penance, or even the modern use of indulgences. The reason you don't see those things in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and Lutheranism is because although they typically believe in purgation, they reject "paying off" sins in that kind of paradigm.

As long as one still sees that approach to practice being allowed or advocated, it seems to necessitate the payment view.

 

[Tallguy88]

I believe other recent popes, including Pope John Paul II, have used similar language.

A very refreshing change, I might add. Apt too, since it dispels a lot of the critics of your church about the theology behind the term. It reminds me of some of the things St. Clive Staples Lewis said and wrote.

Yes. Since St JPII was a major proponent of the CCC and promogulated it during his pontificate (the first Universal Catechism in centuries), it's fair to assume that he agreed with the view of Purgatory put forth in the CCC. Interestingly, I believe the Tractatrians in your own communion were some of the first ones to popularize this view in the 19th century. They saw it like "taking a shower before meeting the King/Queen".

 

[Tallguy88]

It's a bit difficult though when some practices are really tied to the former, rather than the latter view. For example, the way Catholicism tends to talk about penance, or even the modern use of indulgences. The reason you don't see those things in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and Lutheranism is because although they typically believe in purgation, they reject "paying off" sins in that kind of paradigm.

As long as one still sees that approach to practice being allowed or advocated, it seems to necessitate the payment view.

You can't outright buy an indulgence anymore. Nor can you get one for a donation. Usually you obtain indulgences by certain prayers on certain days.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You can't outright buy an indulgence anymore. Nor can you get one for a donation. Usually you obtain indulgences by certain prayers on certain days.

Here is the interesting Wikipedia entry on the topic of indulgences - Indulgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have often wondered about the Treasury of Merit. Perhaps you can explain its relationship to indulgences and the need for it if, indeed, Purgatory is really not at all anything to be dreaded.

 

[Zeek]

Friends...I was hoping the thread might not get side-tracked and that the issues raised might be more fully explored.