Affinity for Gabriel but not Mary?

[dshix]

I’m sorry for you because you criticize me for going to her Son.

I did not. You are repeatedly setting up strawmen in regards to what I have said.

 

[USMC_Convert]

What question? Oh right, you want to label me a heretic because I don’t share your beliefs. Well here is my answer: no official Church dogma has named her Mediatrix of all Graces. The term has been avoided. So if you and UCMS want to label me a heretic, go ahead.

James, first off its USMC, as in United States Marine Corps, secondly don’t put me in the middle of your attempt to fight, I got out when I saw it was pointless to attempt to persuade you to go to Jesus through Mary.

See the difference is that those devoted to the Blessed Mother know that Jesus is God, that Jesus is the way to the Father and thus God is our end destination, we simply feel that we are not worthy to go straight to God. We would rather go through Mary to get there. If someone is driving from Virginia to Washington D.C. to New York they can rightly say that they are going to NY through Washington D.C.

I will not respond to further comments of yours, but know that I have nothing but love for you, I am not fighting with you nor am I trying to label you. In fact the only thing I will be doing is praying for you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am not interested in a combat, nor did I ever call you heretic - you are the one who introduced that word, not me.

Mary’s important role in bringing us to Christ has rarely been denied in the Church’s history, and her titles as “Mediatrix of all Graces” and “Co-Redemptrix” are well founded in Church Tradition. Nearly all of the Church’s dogmas began as doctrines which were believed by the faithful, but not “defined” officially by the Church until later.

I can only say that I am sorry for you, that you are missing out on such an important and useful part of Catholic belief - the road to perfection is significantly harder when one does not open himself to Mary’s assistance.

There is very good reason why both titles, Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemptrix have been rejected for any further definition…both by the Pope as well as by the world’s bishops.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Anyone not devoted to our Mother has an infinitely more difficult time in life than those who are…

This is completely as well as horrifyingly wrong, theologically, in how you have formulated it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well there’s Paul, Peter, Mark, Timothy,…

You are exactly correct.

And you do well, James, to follow members of the Magisterium and sound theologians as opposed to those who have criticised you on this forum.

 

[USMC_Convert]

You are exactly correct.

And you do well, James, to follow members of the Magisterium and sound theologians as opposed to those who have criticised you on this forum.

Well I have my answers, it seems you would rather have us follow you than the Saints the Church you represent has put up for us to follow.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I have a special affinity to Archangel Gabriel. I just do. Is that weird or creepy?

I don’t have a relationship to Mary per se…I try but there’s just like…nothing there.

Any ideas…thoughts?

Thanks!

kat

St Michael is my awesome go to ArchAngel. And my very patient long suffering Guardian Angel, one very awesome Angel I am blessed to have

 

[jtav]

As someone who is somewhat similar to the OP, remember that no devotion whether to Our Lady or any saint, is an end in itself. If your devotion to Gabriel is drawing you closer to God, that’s all that matters. Having no particular devotion to Mary may be unusual but is only sinful if it leads to doubting the dogmas of the Church.

 

[USMC_Convert]

As someone who is somewhat similar to the OP, remember that no devotion whether to Our Lady or any saint, is an end in itself. If your devotion to Gabriel is drawing you closer to God, that’s all that matters. Having no particular devotion to Mary may be unusual but is only sinful if it leads to doubting the dogmas of the Church.

Amongst all this arguing we have forgotten the OP who had a question/concern that needed to be addressed. Thank you, jtav, for getting us back on the right track. Furthermore, I completely agree with you!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well I have my answers, it seems you would rather have us follow you than the Saints the Church you represent has put up for us to follow.

What an absurd thing to say.

It is the Magisterium and the theologians who analyse the writings of the saints, who interpret them and, when necessary, correct them.

In terms of spirituality and the spiritual life, it is a theologian who specialises in mystical and ascetical theology who is normally best placed to help an individual discern the path of their own spiritual journey – which is why it is often the specialisation of those who are assigned to formation work.

 

[USMC_Convert]

What an absurd thing to say.

It is the Magisterium and the theologians who analyse the writings of the saints, who interpret them and, when necessary, correct them.

In terms of spirituality and the spiritual life, it is a theologian who specialises in mystical and ascetical theology who is normally best placed to help an individual discern the path of their own spiritual journey – which is why it is often the specialisation of those who are assigned to formation work.

There is no point in responding neither of us are going to convince each other, good day, God Bless

 

[Sarcelle]

Well I have my answers, it seems you would rather have us follow you than the Saints the Church you represent has put up for us to follow.

Don is right though.

There is no Catholic doctrine that says one must go through Mary or have an infinitely harder time if one goes through Jesus instead.
:
If someone does not have a devotion to Mary, why not pray that she show herself as a mother to him or her, instead? All I see from yours and Dshix posts is effectively driving someone away from Mary. She would not want that and neither should you.

 

[katpants]

Thanks everyone!

Kat

 

[Rosebud77]

You are the one who rolled your eyes at what I said. “Scorn” was a word that came to mind when I considered a person rolling his eyes - would you like to suggest a different one?

**Of course, I do not deny what you say. But are you rejecting Mary’s role as the mediator between Christ and us?/**QUOTE]

Absolutely.

 

[dshix]

There is very good reason why both titles, Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemptrix have been rejected for any further definition…both by the Pope as well as by the world’s bishops.

Please do elaborate on this; I am interested in what you have to say. I am not aware that those titles have been formally rejected, as you state, only that certain “apparitions” which made use of those titles were disproven.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Please do elaborate on this; I am interested in what you have to say. I am not aware that those titles have been formally rejected, as you state, only that certain “apparitions” which made use of those titles were disproven

No. It is not simply a matter of the apparitions at Amsterdam. The matter goes far beyond that, as those who were engaged by this question in the 1990s quite well remember

You will find the matter summarily but adequately explained in L’Osservatore Romano, in a synopsis from the time of the Commission ewtn.com/library/mary/ormaria2.htm

At the most recent Mariological Congress held at Czestochowa, 18-24 August 1996, a commission was established in response to a request, by the Holy See, which had asked to know the opinion of the scholars present at the Congress on the possibility and the opportuneness of defining a new dogma of faith regarding Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. In recent years, the Holy Father and various dicasteries of the Holy See have received petitions requesting such a definition

The response of the commission, deliberately brief, was unanimous and precise: it is not opportune to abandon the path marked out by the Second Vatican Council and proceed to the definition of a new dogma

From whatever perspective it is considered, the movement that is petitioning for a dogmatic definition of the Marian titles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate is not in line with the direction of the great Mariological text of the Second Vatican Council, chapter eight of Lumen gentium, which, in the judgement of Paul VI, constitutes the most extensive synthesis “of the Catholic doctrine on the place that the Blessed Virgin Mary occupies in the mystery of Christ and the Church” ever traced by an Ecumenical Council (Closing Allocution of the Third Session of the Council, 21 November 1964, n. 7). One should not undervalue the importance of the Mariological teaching of Vatican II, set forth in the exceptional context of a dogmatic constitution, the fruit of the action of the Spirit and of the considered reflection of the Bishops - those to whom the Lord has entrusted the task of preserving and elucidating the deposit of faith. The current movement for a definition is not manifestly in line with the direction of Vatican II, both with respect to the request for a new Mariological dogma, and the content that is proposed for such a hypothetical dogmatic definition

The Fathers of Vatican II and the Popes who presided at the Council, John XXIII and Paul VI decided not to proceed with new dogmatic definitions: a conclusion which came to maturity in the process of reflection and prayer involving, most prominently, John XXIII, Paul VI and the Theological Commission of the Council. Indeed, requests for new Marian dogmas had been forwarded to the Preparatory Commission for Vatican II. For example, 265 Bishops had asked that: “Doctrina mediationis universalis beatae Mariae Virginis definiatur ut dogma fidei”; 48 Bishops had forwarded the same request with the clause “si id opportunum visum fuerit” - in all, 313 Bishops - a number undoubtedly to be taken into consideration, But this was in the preparatory phase, “ante Concilium”. In fact, those requests became rare “in Concilio”, disappearing little by little as the debate proceeded in the Council hall, with universal significance, accompanied by the prayer of the Church. The result is well known. The Constitution Lumen gentium, which by deliberate choice does not contain a dogmatic definition of mediation, was approved by 2,151 votes out of 2,156 a morally unanimous approbation, a true and legitimate expression of the Magisterium of the Church. Among those 2,151 votes in favour were undoubtedly those 313 Bishops who, in the preparatory phase, had requested the dogmatic definition of the mediation of Mary /…/

The request for a dogmatic definition concentrates on three titles of the Blessed Virgin: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

The Declaration of Czestochowa correctly observes that while each of these titles can be given a content in conformity with the deposit of the faith, nevertheless such “titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways”. This is a serious observation, for, in a doctrinal pronouncement of such weight as a dogmatic definition, it is necessary that the terms should not lend themselves to ambiguous interpretations and that they be understood in a substantially univocal way. For example, the title of Mediatrix has been understood throughout the centuries and is presently understood in notably different ways. It is enough to check recent books on Mariology - from 1987 to the present some 20 manuals have been published - to note that the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is treated by theologians in contrasting ways - in terms of its doctrinal evaluation, the determination of the area in which it is exercised and in comparison with the mediation of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Prescinding from any other consideration, in the case of the mediation of Mary, with respect to many of its aspects one finds oneself before a quaestio disputata, far from that substantial theological unanimity which, in relation to every doctrinal question, is the necessary prelude for proceeding to a dogmatic definition /…/

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
25 June 1997, page 10

I will add a further note, personally, in answer to your query: With respect to the title “Mediatrix,” the history of the question should not be forgotten: in the first decades of this century the Holy See entrusted the study of the possibility of its definition to three different commissions, the result of which was that the Holy See decided to set the question aside.

 

[Fiasco]

No. It is not simply a matter of the apparitions at Amsterdam. The matter goes far beyond that, as those who were engaged by this question in the 1990s quite well remember

You will find the matter summarily but adequately explained in L’Osservatore Romano, in a synopsis from the time of the Commission ewtn.com/library/mary/ormaria2.htm

Thank you for the L’Osservatore Romano article.
i took a screen shot of it.

 

[godisgood77]

The way is Jesus her Son. Nothing else is required except following His teachings.

Amen… done and done