5th Marian Dogma

[Joe_5859]

I haven’t read through all the posts, though I imagine you’ve already received many colorful replies. Nontheless, in case it hasn’t been said…

1. If it’s been believed and taught since the beginning of the Church, then why would it need to be officially declared as dogma in an Infallible Statement by the Pope?

It is a necessary precursor to declaring anything a dogma that it be proved to have been believed and taught since the beginning of the Church. The Dogma of the Assumption wasn’t formally declared until 1950, but there is evidence that it was believed from the beginning. For example, there was a Feast of the Assumption that goes back at least to the fifth century.

1. If it’s been believed and taught since the beginning of the Church, then why don’t we see it referenced anywhere in Church History & Tradition?

The Bible was silent about it, the Councils were silent about it and the Fathers were silent about it.

That’s exactly what is up for debate. Those who argue in favor of the proposed fifth Marian Dogma do not do so without evidence. Just look at the website www.fifthmariandogma.com (particularly their FAQ section). Dr. Mark Miravalle (professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville) has written/edited many books on the subject and is the name you hear most often in this discussion as one of the chief supporters of this Fifth Marian Dogma.

I think people tend to get hung up on the verbiage (“Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix”). What this proposed dogma is really all about is simply about the role that Mary plays in the life of the Church and in the world today. Mary still has a role and she still intercedes for us. That’s far from new teaching.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I was getting it mixed up with co-redemptrix, sorry!!

No worries.

I don’t think that any Christian would have a problem with calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” - well maybe some Protestants, but only if they don’t think it through.

 

[Joe_5859]

No worries.

I don’t think that any Christian would have a problem with calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” - well maybe some Protestants, but only if they don’t think it through.

Just to clarify, the Fifth Marian Dogma also includes her role as Co-Redemptrix. In a nutshell, the proposed dogma is about Mary’s maternal mediation and has three corollaries:

• Co-Redemprtix
• Mediatrix of All Graces
• Advocate

It appears the discussion here has focused primarily on the second point, but all three are part of this proposed dogma.

 

[bookgirl32]

No worries.

I don’t think that any Christian would have a problem with calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” - well maybe some Protestants, but only if they don’t think it through.

But that’s the thing. Mary as mediatrix is just an extension of the line of logic that gives her the title co-redemptrix. Again, I don’t think it will be defined, and I’m not really arguing for it. But I also don’t think that the Church sees it as an incorrect concept in anyway, nor is it’s refusal to define it as dogma denying the truth of it.

 

[bookgirl32]

Just to clarify, the Fifth Marian Dogma also includes her role as Co-Redemptrix. In a nutshell, the proposed dogma is about Mary’s maternal mediation and has three corollaries:

• Co-Redemprtix
• Mediatrix of All Graces
• Advocate

It appears the discussion here has focused primarily on the second point, but all three are part of this proposed dogma.

The same basic defenses would be used to defend all three. Actually, even though I don’t think it will be defined, when you look at the anti-Marian movements put out there by many Protestant faiths, if it is defined as dogma, that is the “heresy” that it would be addressing.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Wait a minute wait a minute. This is your understanding of this title. Please quote something, infallible or not, from the Church that interprets the title in the way you do above.

Yes, after looking it up some it does appear that “mediator of all graces” would point to all graces passing through the hands of Mary. But saying that Mary chose anything is claiming that Mary’s will is different that God’s. Her will is perfectly aligned with God’s. All of the same arguments defending the Church’s Marian dogma would apply to this one. Again, I dont’ think it will be defined as I dont’ think it would really change anything.

On your first point: I can find nothing from the Catholic Church which says that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces. However, someone here on this thread pointed to a paragraph of the CCC & of LG which make mention that Mary is a mediatrix of grace.

It’s the “ALL” that Orthodox Christians would have a problem with since Mary is not the Sole Despenser of God’s Grace. Nothing in the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, the Early Church Councils nor in Tradition says or even hints that she is Mediatrix of “ALL” Grace.

On your 2nd point: You are saying that Mary did not choose to co-operate with God by giving her “Yes” aka “Fiat”? You are correct that her will is perfectly conformed with the Will of God; however, it is perfectly conformed because she has chosen and continues to choose that. Mary is a human being and has Free Will to accept or reject God. She is the only perfect person with only a human nature (Christ has 2 natures: fully human and fully man).

The Theotokos is so amazing and so unique in this constant sinlessness but her sinlessness would mean nothing though if she’d had no free will to chose to accept God. If she had no choice to choose to maintain conformity to God Will’s, then conformity to His Will would mean nothing and she would not be highly honored.

We rightly honor her even above the Angels because she had free will and she chose the Right, the Truth, at every moment of her life!

Please do not belittle the Mother of God by saying she had no choice in the matter.

 

[bookgirl32]

On your first point: I can find nothing from the Catholic Church which says that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces. However, someone here on this thread pointed to a paragraph of the CCC & of LG which make mention that Mary is a mediatrix of grace.

And I’m assuming there’s no problem there.

It’s the “ALL” that Orthodox Christians would have a problem with since Mary is not the Sole Despenser of God’s Grace. Nothing in the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, the Early Church Councils nor in Tradition says or even hints that she is Mediatrix of “ALL” Grace.

I’m just asking, again not really arguing for the title to be dogma, but if she’s good with dispensing some grace but not all grace, what grace is okay and what’s not? And why?

On your 2nd point: You are saying that Mary did not choose to co-operate with God by giving her “Yes” aka “Fiat”?

No, sorry, I guess you could’ve read it that way. I’m saying that she wouldn’t chose to do something different than what God willed. It is evidenced by her Fiat. The Fiat is a basis argument for co-redemptrix, mediator and advocate.

You are correct that her will is perfectly conformed with the Will of God; however, it is perfectly conformed because she has chosen and continues to choose that. Mary is a human being and has Free Will to accept or reject God. She is the only perfect person with only a human nature (Christ has 2 natures: fully human and fully man).

And we totally agree on this, so how would passing all graces through her hands, just as Jesus passed through her body (with her permission, yes), be any different? I don’t know if there’s evidence that the Church has always taught this. But I don’t see how the idea itself is anything but an extension of the other dogmas.

The Theotokos is so amazing and so unique in this constant sinlessness but her sinlessness would mean nothing though if she’d had no free will to chose to accept God. If she had no choice to choose to maintain conformity to God Will’s, then conformity to His Will would mean nothing and she would not be highly honored.

We rightly honor her even above the Angels because she had free will and she chose the Right, the Truth, at every moment of her life!

Please do not belittle the Mother of God by saying she had no choice in the matter.

I’m not, I’m completely agreeing with you on this.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

But I’ve yet to hear “co-mediatrix” and “co-redemptrix” explained as though they somehow excluded or detracted from Christ, except from posters on the internet who argue about most of the Marian dogmas regardless. So my apologies if there’s something in this conversation I’ve overlooked.

I don’t think any Christian, save a few radical Protestants that do not think it through, would have any problem with either refering to Mary as “co-mediatrix” or “co-redemptrix”.

The problem is with considering Mary as the Mediatrix of “ALL” Graces. That no Grace has ever been nor ever will be given to humanity except to Mary alone. That she alone receives Grace from God.

The fact that she is co-mediatrix of grace is not a problem. Every Christian does, or at least should, recognize that she mediated with God and humanity when she of her own free will gave her, “Yes” to God when the Arch-Angel Gabriel appeared to her. We can and should ask her to save us, to help us, to give us the Grace we need. But God can also save us, help us and give us the Grace we need directly. The Most Holy Trinity and the Most Holy Theotokos cooperate. They both want the salvation of all humanity.

 

[AshleyBelle]

On your first point: I can find nothing from the Catholic Church which says that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces. However, someone here on this thread pointed to a paragraph of the CCC & of LG which make mention that Mary is a mediatrix of grace.

It’s the “ALL” that Orthodox Christians would have a problem with since Mary is not the Sole Despenser of God’s Grace. Nothing in the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, the Early Church Councils nor in Tradition says or even hints that she is Mediatrix of “ALL” Grace.

On your 2nd point: You are saying that Mary did not choose to co-operate with God by giving her “Yes” aka “Fiat”? You are correct that her will is perfectly conformed with the Will of God; however, it is perfectly conformed because she has chosen and continues to choose that. Mary is a human being and has Free Will to accept or reject God. She is the only perfect person with only a human nature (Christ has 2 natures: fully human and fully man).

The Theotokos is so amazing and so unique in this constant sinlessness but her sinlessness would mean nothing though if she’d had no free will to chose to accept God. If she had no choice to choose to maintain conformity to God Will’s, then conformity to His Will would mean nothing and she would not be highly honored.

We rightly honor her even above the Angels because she had free will and she chose the Right, the Truth, at every moment of her life!

Please do not belittle the Mother of God by saying she had no choice in the matter.

I hardly think anyone wishs to belittle the Mother of God… and in fact, her fiat, her freely given consent to the will of the Father is an imporant part of this discussion. The point people are making, is that now in heaven, her will is perfectly alligned with the Father’s.

 

[bookgirl32]

The problem is with considering Mary as the Mediatrix of “ALL” Graces. That no Grace has ever been nor ever will be given to humanity except to Mary alone. That she alone receives Grace from God.

You’re looking at the concept as if anyone is saying that God is just giving the grace to Mary for Mary and that’s it. God the Father gave Jesus to Mary for her (he was her son, not ours) AND for us. Why would it be any different? All this is about is recognizing the role that God chose for her to play, and that she accepted.

 

[bookgirl32]

Here’s two different scenarios:

One:

God: Mary, I’d like to give you this grace. It’s all of my grace. Please take it and do whatever you would like with it.

Mary: Thank you, I will.

Two:

God: Mary, would you please take my infinite grace and give it to all of my children, who are also your children, because I love them, and I love you, and I choose to have you give it to them.

Mary: Thank you, I will.

What you’re really questioning is God’s intent in this scenario, not Mary’s. God obviously does not intend the first scenario, in any Church’s doctrine. The second may or may not be the case, but even if it was, how is it bad?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

take into consideration that, 1)this is the way God chose to do it and 2)her will is perfectly aligned with His. So nothing that God does not want to happen, happens.

Your assumption is that "this is the way God chose to disepense Grace - by giving it all only to Mary and for her to give it to the rest of humanity…this is a faulty assumption because that idea is not found any where in Tradition!

Again, I don’t think it will be defined, but if you look at Mary as the new Eve, and that all sin is passed onto humans through Eve

Your assumption is that because Eve sinned, that her Original Sin passes on to each human being born so that each is guilty of her Original Sin…this is a faulty assumption, not even the Catholic Church teaches that. CCC in paragraph 405 that Original Sin does not have the character of personal fault The Tradition of the Church is much different from that whole concept which originated with Augustine of personal guilt for our First Parent’s Sin. The Tradition of the Church, like Genesis says: is that through Adam & Eve’s Sin all of humanity is affected by Ancestral Sin because physical death entered into the world - it was now possible for humans to get sick (mentally and physically) and die. Temptation to sin was always going to be there - after all Satan was in the garden doing just that when Eve and Adam sinned. The West seemed to really cling onto St. Augustine’s idea of OS causing people to be born into the world spiritual dead - yet not even the Eastern Catholics believe that. This is a separate issue though from the one at hand, so a separate thread should be started if you want to discuss it further.

 

[bookgirl32]

Okay, I’ll stop after this, I promise.

I mean, Jesus Himself is the source of all graces, correct? Without Him, as a human, dying on the cross, there is no grace, correct? So, really, you could say that when God gave Jesus to Mary to raise, protect, feed, clothe, teach, etc. He was giving Him to her to give to us. So God gave Mary the source of all graces. God trusted Mary with His grace, trusted her to keep it safe, and raise it correctly, for us. I mean, she could’ve done something to prevent His sacrifice, whether it be being a negligent mother somehow when He was young and not keeping Him safe, or whether it be being a mother who loves her son being terrified of losing Him and trying to prevent it, or to protect Him against the sacrifice He must make. But she didn’t, and she wouldn’t have. She kept the source of all graces (therefore, all graces, really, there’s your teaching that’s been around since the beginning), safe in her possession, as God asked her to, for us. And then she gave Him to us, at the wedding at Cana. So . . . I guess I don’t see what the problem is.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

That’s like saying that Christ did not come to us from the Father since he came through Mary.

No it’s not. No one claims that Christ comes only from Mary, but some Catholics are saying that the Catholic Church has always taught that all Grace comes only from Mary by saying that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces.

 

[bookgirl32]

Your assumption is that "this is the way God chose to disepense Grace - by giving it all only to Mary and for her to give it to the rest of humanity…this is a faulty assumption because that idea is not found any where in Tradition!

But, like I said, He already gave all graces, in the form of the source of all graces, Jesus, to Mary to give to us. God DID choose to do that (Jesus Himself given to Mary, not to keep, but to prepare for us) that way. You can’t deny that, nor that that has been taught since the beginning of Christianity.

 

[bookgirl32]

No it’s not. No one claims that Christ comes only from Mary, but some Catholics are saying that the Catholic Church has always taught that all Grace comes only from Mary by saying that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces.

No one, ever, in official Catholic teaching anywhere, teaches that all grace comes only from Mary. That is simply not what is meant by “mediatrix of all graces”.

 

[bookgirl32]

Your assumption is that because Eve sinned, that her Original Sin passes on to each human being born so that each is guilty of her Original Sin…this is a faulty assumption, not even the Catholic Church teaches that.

I’m not speaking of personal fault. That’s not my assumption at all. I’m speaking of the stain of original sin, passed down to us from Adam and Eve. Yes, the Catholic Church does and always has taught this. This is one reason why the Church also requires us to believe that there definitely were two original parents in the whole Evolution debate, even though we are free to believe in Evolution. It is because this is passed down to us through them.

CCC in paragraph 405 that Original Sin does not have the character of personal fault The Tradition of the Church is much different from that whole concept which originated with Augustine of personal guilt for our First Parent’s Sin. The Tradition of the Church, like Genesis says: is that through Adam & Eve’s Sin all of humanity is affected by Ancestral Sin because physical death entered into the world - it was now possible for humans to get sick (mentally and physically) and die. Temptation to sin was always going to be there - after all Satan was in the garden doing just that when Eve and Adam sinned. The West seemed to really cling onto St. Augustine’s idea of OS causing people to be born into the world spiritual dead - yet not even the Eastern Catholics believe that. This is a separate issue though from the one at hand, so a separate thread should be started if you want to discuss it further.

You’re right, it would derail the thread. But the Church does teach that Origianl Sin (concupiscence) is directly inherited from the original couple. Not just that physical death entered the world at that point. That teaching is dogma.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Just to clarify, the Fifth Marian Dogma also includes her role as Co-Redemptrix. In a nutshell, the proposed dogma is about Mary’s maternal mediation and has three corollaries:

• Co-Redemprtix
• Mediatrix of All Graces
• Advocate

It appears the discussion here has focused primarily on the second point, but all three are part of this proposed dogma.

Just remove the word “ALL” from the second point and then I don’t think that any Christian would have any argument with any of it - save of course the issue as to whether or not the Pope, rather than a Church Council, has the authority to make it a dogma of Faith.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Here’s two different scenarios:

One:

God: Mary, I’d like to give you this grace. It’s all of my grace. Please take it and do whatever you would like with it.

Mary: Thank you, I will.

Two:

God: Mary, would you please take my infinite grace and give it to all of my children, who are also your children, because I love them, and I love you, and I choose to have you give it to them.

Mary: Thank you, I will.

What you’re really questioning is God’s intent in this scenario, not Mary’s. God obviously does not intend the first scenario, in any Church’s doctrine. The second may or may not be the case, but even if it was, how is it bad?

No, I’m not questioning God’s intent nor Mary’s - what I’m questioning is there ANY WHERE in Church Tradition: the Bible, the Councils, the Early Church Fathers that says that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL of God’s Graces.

 

[bookgirl32]

No, I’m not questioning God’s intent nor Mary’s - what I’m questioning is there ANY WHERE in Church Tradition: the Bible, the Councils, the Early Church Fathers that says that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL of God’s Graces.

Like I said, the argument could obviously be made that when God gave Jesus Himself to Mary, He already had given her all graces to give to us. I don’t know if it would hold up, but I could see it as an argument.