5th Marian Dogma

[Good_Fella]

Not at all, I know what what Catholics believe. However unnecessarily defining things opens up more room for misinterpretation.

So when you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary, do you understand it even less?

I’m not saying that’s what I think you believe, I’m saying that what you’re saying may be interpretted by someone as meaning that, leading this person into heresy. It doesn’t help.

Well, it’s true, unless a teaching is clarified and made explicit in the form of dogma, a Christian mustn’t be held fully culpable of committing a formal act of heresy by rejecting what has been explicitly revealed by God through the Church - “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Yet the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) was convoked in response to the Arian heresy. The Church was compelled to decree that Christ "was begotten, not made; that He was not a human creature but is the divine Creator: “of the same essence as the Father” (homoousios to patri).

Quite, although we probably disagree on who those bishops were. This really has nothing to do with anything though.

Yes, the problem of mutual excommunication.

But you may recall that it was Pope Martin 1 who presided over the Lateran Synod of 649 at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome to condemn the Monothelite heresy which ravaged the eastern churches. The reason why this was not an ecumenical council proper was because a large number of bishops were absent. The bishops who would not attend were the majority of those of the patriarchates of Alexandria and Constantinople who had embraced this heresy and were condemned. One quarter of the number of bishops who attended the synod were from the East and had appealed to Rome in the wake of this crisis. It is a historical fact that most of the major heresies originated in the Greek east and that orthodox bishops from the eastern churches turned to the bishop of Rome for support. Pope Martin’s predecessor, Honorius 1, was nonetheless condemned by the next ecumenical council for being negligent and lax in dealing with this heresy. But he never embraced it nor taught it.

Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
Luke 22, 31-32

PAX :heaven:

 

[Hesychios]

The question I have for Orthodox Christians is:

1. If the Pope declares t his as Dogma in an Infallible Statement, will it speed up or slow down any progress made towards the reunification of Rome with the Orthodox Churches?

The proposed Fifth Marian dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon, and the very public efforts to make people think it has always been believed by everyone in the past are just causing the church to lose credibility.

It is pretty obvious Pope Benedict will table this thing.

There no chance whatever that Pope Benedict would risk relations with the other Apostolic churches (which know fully well that this is an invention) over what some Catholic fringe element is presently advocating.

Formally rejecting the proposal is not likely, by doing nothing he will keep this marginal group hopeful, and they will pester his successor… and his successor’s successor… and so on. Of course he should be honest with them and declare that the idea will not hold water, but he would be reluctant to alienate them, being among the most devout of his flock.

Ideally, when some oddball theologoumen becomes popular it should (given enough time) just eventually fade into the background and no one gets hurt. My concern is that because of it’s highly centralized structure the western church has always been subject to the influence of factions advocating a favored cause. In this system a Pope can declare a passing fad a dogma, and all the following generations will be stuck with it and have to defend it.

The new idea is a danger to relations with the Orthodox, who will feel betrayed if they reconcile with Rome first and then have to deal with some new dogma coming out of Rome. It will look like a “bait-N-switch” tactic, and the Orthodox will be forced to censure the bishop of Rome. It is also a danger to the Roman Catholic church, because when the fad subsides a whole lot of people are going to realize that declaring it was a big mistake, and if the church can make a whopper like that, everything else it does will be suspect as well. The fallout could be serious, affecting any other church that has associated itself with Rome.

Realizing this danger, I feel pretty certain that Orthodox will not unite in any way with a church that continues to claim the power to declare dogma on it’s own now, two thousand years after Christ. That possibility will have to go. Orthodox will not accept any new doctrines or dogmas on any point, and in particular have no need whatsoever to augment it’s own understanding of the Holy Theotokos at this late date.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Now, I’m not saying that the Catholic Radio Show I heard was infallible on the subject, but according to them this is already a dogma within the Catholic Church and yes all dogmas must be believed as they are the Faith’s essentials.

I wonder if it’s talked about in the CCC or not. I’ll check it when I get home tonight unless someone else has access to view it now.

(on the Vatican’s website, it doesn’t have available that section in the back allowing you to find if a Topic is there and if so the page #)

If it is Dogma and a Catholic fails to believe it, I don’t know if it would be considered Mortal Sin or not, but it would definitely make someone a “cafeteria Catholic” - a label no one wants if they are trying to be faithful to Christ, His teachings and His Church.

Not that I read the entire CCC last night, but I did research it - checked in the back of the CCC under:

Mediatrix - not there

Mary - nothing there that references Mediatrix of All Graces

Grace - nothing there referencing Mediatrix of All Graces

If it truly is a dogma already in the Catholic Church, I couldn’t find anything in the CCC that mentions it.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

What is it about the fifth marian dogma that the Church does not already believe?

It means that every single grace that is given to man comes from Mary because God only gives Mary the Grace to dispense to the rest of humanity.

Perhaps the Catholic Church does teach that, but I’m not able to find any reference to that belief in the CCC, nor in the ECF, nor in the Bible?

Have you always been taught and believed in that dogma?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

This is kind of what I thought. Dogmatically defining the title doesn’t really do anything, which is why I don’t think it will be defined. It’s really a matter of wording, as all it refers to is the fact that Mary played a role in all of salvation history in agreeing to do what she did. The fact that she did this is already dogma (Mother of God) so I don’t see the point in making the title a dogma.

You are right that Mary had a huge role in the salvation history, but that is NOT what this dogma is all about.

The dogma, as described on Catholic Radio, is that every single Grace from the beginning of the world to eternity is given by God soley to Mary and that Mary dispenses the Grace to the rest of humanity.

If this has truly been taught from the beginning, please show me where.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Infallible statement when made is not to introduce new belief but to reconfirm existing belief that’s why its infalliblity is not a problem. It is necessary for example to counter heresy of the day and the Church needs to reaffirm her stand.

God bless.

Exactly…so then, where is this particular “existing belief” show up in the Bible, in the Early Church Fathers, in an Early Church Council, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I can’t find it - please show me.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I am not Orthodox but I will give an answer anyway. I read an article a couple years back by Bishop Kalistos Ware on this question. He said essentially that if Rome were to define the mediatrix of all Graces it would end all ecumenical dialogue and there would be no chance of communion between Catholics and Orthodox.

Wow. That would be a huge impact and a negative one for sure. But it makes sense.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

#969 p. 252
I found it in the index under Mary, mediatrix of grace…

Glad you found a reference, I couldn’t.

Here is Lumen Gentium 62:

I’ve read both quotes you reference from both the CCC & LG; however, neither state what the 5th Marian Dogma says - neither claim that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Grace.

Both indicate that it is because she said “Let it be done to me according to your word” - her “Yes” to God - that she mediated for the rest of humanity. That is true…but to expound that to mean that she is the Mediatrix of ALL Grace - that no Grace comes to humanity from God, but that God through Christ (the 1 mediator) only gives All His Grace to Mary and that she dispenses it to the rest of humanity is not found in your references to the CCC nor the LG.

(personally, I think it is not found there because it is not true)

 

[dzheremi]

The dogma, as described on Catholic Radio, is that every single Grace from the beginning of the world to eternity is given by God soley to Mary and that Mary dispenses the Grace to the rest of humanity.

If this has truly been taught from the beginning, please show me where.

I can say with confidence that the doctrine described above was not taught to catechists as recently as 4 years ago, when I was in RCIA. Had it been, I would not have joined the Church.

There is healthy Marian devotion, and there is unhealthy Marian devotion. I think it is pretty obvious to most (including Pope Benedict XVI, from all that I’ve seen) that this belongs more to the second category than to the first. If it is a new way of saying an old thing, then why not stick with the old way of saying that same thing that more people and more churches are likely to agree on? I don’t see the “urgent need to combat specific heresy” test being passed by the promulgation of this doctrine. I can’t help but think that, as easily misunderstandable as it is, it is more likely to produce heresy or at least heretical understandings than to combat them.

I don’t understand why it’s NECESSARY. Can somebody point out why it is NECESSARY to add this as Marian dogma? If we know something is true without confusing ourselves by trying to define it in a way that causes a serious theological stomachache to so many learned men and women of the Church (not to mention idiots like me), then isn’t it more harmful to the faith to define it than to leave it be as an optional private devotion? I would add that I personally do not believe it to be true, but at least if it remains a private devotion I won’t have to pretend that I do. I like not having to pretend to believe in apparitions, Mary in a piece of toast, etc. There are some wacky people out there. Let’s not indulge them at the risk of our eternal souls.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

How does someone believing that it is through Mary alone that salvation comes maintain unity? Indeed I think we would all find that quite heretical, and yet by defining doctrine you open that doctrine up to interpretation. Let it be.

Yes, let us continue to pray: **Iperagia Theotoke soson imas! **(Most Holy Mother of God Save Us!), but let us Never say: All the Grace necessary for Salvation can only come to us from Mary (God only gives His Grace to her).

That even diminishes the Holy Spirit if you really think about it - since He’d only be able to work through Mary and not through the Church!

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Makes one wonder if there actually is a petition. Or, if there is, what perusal of the small print might reveal.

Doubtfully,
Mick

Hi Mick!

You can check it out for yourself. I just found the website that Catholic Radio referenced: fifthmariandogma.com/

"To His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
C/o Rev. Msgr. Gänswein, Private Secretary
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City State
(Europe)

Your Holiness:

In a spirit of filial love and obedience, we, as members of the People of God, wish to humbly bring before you our petition and prayer for the solemn papal definition of the revealed role of Mary most holy as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples under its three principal aspects as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.

We firmly believe, Holy Father, that the solemn papal declaration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity in her roles which God has given her as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church and the world by an explicit solemn recognition of her maternal role on the part of the Church, and thus allowing her to exercise fully the motherly gift which Jesus Christ gave to humanity from the cross: “Woman, behold, your son! … Behold, your mother!" (Jn. 19:26-27). We believe that this dogmatic proclamation will also further the authentic ecumenical mission of the Church by proclaiming the revealed truth about Mary, who collaborated in an altogether unique way in the work of our redemption in a manner that was completely subordinate to and dependent upon Jesus Christ, the one divine Redeemer of the human race.

In view of the many serious crises presently facing the entire human family, including war, terrorism, moral decline, and natural disaster, we humbly request that you solemnly declare the dogma of Mary as the Spiritual Mother all peoples, specifying that she is the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, and thus to provide for the full actuality of her motherly roles of intercession for humanity, which we believe will effect a profound historic and continuing grace for the Church and for the world."

 

[AshleyBelle]

It means that every single grace that is given to man comes from Mary because God only gives Mary the Grace to dispense to the rest of humanity.

Perhaps the Catholic Church does teach that, but I’m not able to find any reference to that belief in the CCC, nor in the ECF, nor in the Bible?

Have you always been taught and believed in that dogma?

Would this not be a Christological fact? All grace comes from God, made manifest in His Son, Jesus Christ. And how did God choose to bring us this grace incarnate, but through Mary. To define this formally would re-emphasize the very active and vital role the mother of God has played in our salvation, and likewise the very active, cooperative role we are called to share in our redemption through, with, and in Christ.

It seems a beautiful message to re-emphasize to a world that wants to down play all marian devotion as though it were taboo…

In the words of our Savior, which the late John Paul II called the Church to take to heart boldly, “Be not afraid!”

In my personal experience, when trying to explain the theology of Mary as “co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix” I find myself lacking in anything “official” to provide those who misunderstand what it means. If the dogma were formally declared, it could help immensly in dispelling confusion about the role Catholics believe Mary plays in our salvation.
For example, when accused of believing Mary saves us and not Jesus, or that we worship Mary, it would help to have an official teaching that expounded on who Mary is in the Catholic faith. I know it would still not satisfy those already with hardened hearts against “all things Mary…” But I have much more faith the Church’s ability to explain clearly how Mary “co-operated” with our salvation (as we are called to do as well…) And how Mary mediates with Christ (as we are also meant to share…), than I have in my own ability to explain it.

You won’t find “co redemptrix” and “co mediatrix” in the catechism any more than you would have found “immaculate conception” in an official teaching prior to its declaration. I’m sure there were many grumbles when any dogma was defined… “how dare the Church proclaim something NEW! etc…” But the simple fact is that the Church does NOT have the authority to create “new” teachings… Rather, the Holy Spirit has led her, throughout history, into great depth and understanding of what has already been revealed.
I can’t see anything in the idea of honoring our blessed Mother with these titles that does not simply help explain the deep mystery of our faith in Christ.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Mary as Mediator of all Graces is the only Marian teaching (including Dogmas and other Marian teachings) that I don’t get. I have no problem believing that she is a mediator of grace. We are all mediators of grace to a small extent when we pray for one another. Of course, this isn’t to be confused with Jesus’ special and prime mediation that He alone has due to his being God and man, our High Priest, etc. I can even understand that Mary’s mediation is special amongst God’s creatures. It makes sense that the mother of God who is the “Queen-mother” of the Davidic kingdom, is a special mediator. I just don’t understand why we would believe that she is the mediatrix of ALL grace. It could be true, but what evidence do we have? Maybe somebody could provide some good arguments in favor of the proposed dogma.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

And as they passed through the cities, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions ( decrees=dogmata) reached by the apostles and the presbyters in Jerusalem.
Acts 16, 4 [NAB]

This Scripture passage shows that the early Church came together in Council, not an individual (aka the Pope), to make the decisions of what Christians are to observe.

This verse in no way aids an argument that a Pope is Infallible to make a Dogmatic Decree, in fact it shows that it is against the practice of the original Church for any individual to do such a thing.

 

[AshleyBelle]

This Scripture passage shows that the early Church came together in Council, not an individual (aka the Pope), to make the decisions of what Christians are to observe.

This verse in no way aids an argument that a Pope is Infallible to make a Dogmatic Decree, in fact it shows that it is against the practice of the original Church for any individual to do such a thing.

It really seems at the heart of this thread, the issue is not a matter of what we believe about Mary. The issue is more centered around papal infallibility and the primacy of Peter… Naturally no matter what doctrine was under consideration, those who already reject the hoy father’s authority would be opposed.

 

[John_Larocque]

Yep, right on target, FifthMarianDogma/Vox Populi is a website run by heretics and adherents of a fraudulent Marian apparition.

Actually, Robert Conte, who authored that traditionalist website I referened earlier, also argues that, not only are there “more” than four Marian dogmas, but that affirming and teaching the Dormition is of great theological import.

Other important teachings about Mary, which at least fall under the Ordinary Magisterium, but might one day be taught infallibly, include Mary’s perfect discipleship, the extent and manner of her participation in the sufferings of Christ, and her Dormition.

Now certainly the Dormition is a teaching of at least the Ordinary Magisterium, for the teaching that Mary died and rose from the dead prior to her Assumption is found in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, which also defines Mary’s Assumption infallibly. In that Constitution, the Pope refers to the death of the Virgin Mary at least seven times, and to her resurrection at least twice. Also, the Dormition has been celebrated in the Catholic Church, particularly in the East, for many centuries, though it is less well-known in the West.

The death and resurrection of the Virgin Mary prior to her Assumption is a fundamental teaching. It relates to sin, which brought death into the world, and also to her perfect imitation of Christ, who died though he was sinless. Was Mary exempt from death because she was sinless, or was she subject to death because God willed her to imitate Christ fully? This question and its answer is fundamental to our understanding of sin, death, discipleship, and Mary. Therefore, the answer could one day be defined as a Dogma by the Church.

The Dormition is more well-developed theologically than Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix.
But if the latter were defined first, the Dormition would remain to be defined infallibly later, making Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix not the final Marian dogma.

Vox Populi and its supports have so thoroughly taught the faithful this term, ‘the fifth and final dogma,’ that many of the faithful know it by that term, as if that term were the name for this idea. And yet there is no support in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium for the idea that this is the fifth or the final dogma.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The proposed Fifth Marian dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon, and the very public efforts to make people think it has always been believed by everyone in the past are just causing the church to lose credibility.

It is pretty obvious Pope Benedict will table this thing.

There no chance whatever that Pope Benedict would risk relations with the other Apostolic churches (which know fully well that this is an invention) over what some Catholic fringe element is presently advocating.

Formally rejecting the proposal is not likely, by doing nothing he will keep this marginal group hopeful, and they will pester his successor… and his successor’s successor… and so on. Of course he should be honest with them and declare that the idea will not hold water, but he would be reluctant to alienate them, being among the most devout of his flock.

Ideally, when some oddball theologoumen becomes popular it should (given enough time) just eventually fade into the background and no one gets hurt. My concern is that because of it’s highly centralized structure the western church has always been subject to the influence of factions advocating a favored cause. In this system a Pope can declare a passing fad a dogma, and all the following generations will be stuck with it and have to defend it.

The new idea is a danger to relations with the Orthodox, who will feel betrayed if they reconcile with Rome first and then have to deal with some new dogma coming out of Rome. It will look like a “bait-N-switch” tactic, and the Orthodox will be forced to censure the bishop of Rome. It is also a danger to the Roman Catholic church, because when the fad subsides a whole lot of people are going to realize that declaring it was a big mistake, and if the church can make a whopper like that, everything else it does will be suspect as well. The fallout could be serious, affecting any other church that has associated itself with Rome.

Realizing this danger, I feel pretty certain that Orthodox will not unite in any way with a church that continues to claim the power to declare dogma on it’s own now, two thousand years after Christ. That possibility will have to go. Orthodox will not accept any new doctrines or dogmas on any point, and in particular have no need whatsoever to augment it’s own understanding of the Holy Theotokos at this late date.

I think you are right on each point you’ve made above.

 

[pnewton]

1. If the Pope declares this as Dogma in an Infallible Statement, will it make you more or less likely to become a Catholic?

As this has not been infallible defined by the Church, it is a doctrine, not a dogma. The petitioners calling it dogma do not make it so as they do not speak ex cathedra. If this was a dogma, then it would have to be accepted with faith, whether one agreed or not, based solely on its infallible nature. Therefore, there would be no need to declare something infallibly that was already considered to be infallibly declared. Since this petition exists, then we can know it is not yet a dogma.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Would this not be a Christological fact? All grace comes from God, made manifest in His Son, Jesus Christ. And how did God choose to bring us this grace incarnate, but through Mary. To define this formally would re-emphasize the very active and vital role the mother of God has played in our salvation, and likewise the very active, cooperative role we are called to share in our redemption through, with, and in Christ.

It seems a beautiful message to re-emphasize to a world that wants to down play all marian devotion as though it were taboo…

In the words of our Savior, which the late John Paul II called the Church to take to heart boldly, “Be not afraid!”

In my personal experience, when trying to explain the theology of Mary as “co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix” I find myself lacking in anything “official” to provide those who misunderstand what it means. If the dogma were formally declared, it could help immensly in dispelling confusion about the role Catholics believe Mary plays in our salvation.
For example, when accused of believing Mary saves us and not Jesus, or that we worship Mary, it would help to have an official teaching that expounded on who Mary is in the Catholic faith. I know it would still not satisfy those already with hardened hearts against “all things Mary…” But I have much more faith the Church’s ability to explain clearly how Mary “co-operated” with our salvation (as we are called to do as well…) And how Mary mediates with Christ (as we are also meant to share…), than I have in my own ability to explain it.

You won’t find “co redemptrix” and “co mediatrix” in the catechism any more than you would have found “immaculate conception” in an official teaching prior to its declaration. I’m sure there were many grumbles when any dogma was defined… “how dare the Church proclaim something NEW! etc…” But the simple fact is that the Church does NOT have the authority to create “new” teachings… Rather, the Holy Spirit has led her, throughout history, into great depth and understanding of what has already been revealed.
I can’t see anything in the idea of honoring our blessed Mother with these titles that does not simply help explain the deep mystery of our faith in Christ.

Your point is that at a single point in time Mary accepted Christ into her womb and that was how God chose to come to live among us - this is true.

But what the 5th Marian Dogma is saying is that God only gives His Grace (His Divine Energies) to Mary - only to Mary. That Mary then passes those graces necessary for salvation onto us.

This means that Christ died for only Mary and that Mary chose to share those Graces of Salvation with us.

If this were true, which it’s not, then Christ would Not have been able to heal anyone on earth because it’s only Mary’s role to share God’s Graces with the rest of humanity. But Christ did directly heal people on earth, Christ did forgive people their sins!

You apparently are in agreement that ALL Graces come to the human race from Mary, because Mary receives those Graces through the 1 Mediator of God and Man, Jesus.

Yet, what this means there is no point to pray to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit because only Mary can give us the Grace we so desperately need!

That is not in agreement with the teachings of the Church from the beginning. The Church has always taught that we **should **pray to Mary: Most Holy Mother of God Save Us. But has never taught that only Mary can save us. The difference is HUGE.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I can say with confidence that the doctrine described above was not taught to catechists as recently as 4 years ago, when I was in RCIA. Had it been, I would not have joined the Church.

There is healthy Marian devotion, and there is unhealthy Marian devotion. I think it is pretty obvious to most (including Pope Benedict XVI, from all that I’ve seen) that this belongs more to the second category than to the first. If it is a new way of saying an old thing, then why not stick with the old way of saying that same thing that more people and more churches are likely to agree on? I don’t see the “urgent need to combat specific heresy” test being passed by the promulgation of this doctrine. I can’t help but think that, as easily misunderstandable as it is, it is more likely to produce heresy or at least heretical understandings than to combat them.

I don’t understand why it’s NECESSARY. Can somebody point out why it is NECESSARY to add this as Marian dogma? If we know something is true without confusing ourselves by trying to define it in a way that causes a serious theological stomachache to so many learned men and women of the Church (not to mention idiots like me), then isn’t it more harmful to the faith to define it than to leave it be as an optional private devotion? I would add that I personally do not believe it to be true, but at least if it remains a private devotion I won’t have to pretend that I do. I like not having to pretend to believe in apparitions, Mary in a piece of toast, etc. There are some wacky people out there. Let’s not indulge them at the risk of our eternal souls.

That is a great question for Catholics: Why is it NECESSARY to add a 5th Marian Dogma that All Graces come to the rest of humanity only from Mary?