Consequences of not asking Virgin Mary for intercession

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First off, Aquinas himself says (along with the Church) that Mary IS our mother. So, if you wish to cite Aquinas, cite him consistently. Secondly, your statement above is a very foolish one, since what it really denies is the reality of our one-Flesh Covenant with Jesus, i.e., the fact that the Church is mysteriously but truly the Body of Christ. In Acts 9, when Christ appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, He does notsay “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting my church?” - which is what Saul was doing. He says, rather: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” This is more than a figure of speech; the Church’s status as the Body of Christ is more than merely figurative language, just as the Eucharist which we receive is more than a mere symbol, but truly the Body (the very Self) of Christ, which becomes one-Flesh with our bodies when we receive it, thereby making the Church the Body of Christ and establishing a true, one-Flesh Covenant between Christ and the members of His Church. In this mystery, Mary IS our Mother, for she bore the very Body of Christ which we ourselves now intrinsically belong to. If you deny this, then you deny the very heart and reality of the Catholic Faith, and specifically the Eucharist. Do you even realize that you are doing that?

This is not an either-or situation. Both Mary and our biological mothers are our true mothers, albeit in different senses. Mary is our mother in the sense that Eve is our mother; just as all human beings are one-flesh with Eve, so are all Apostolic Christians one-Flesh with Mary through Christ and His Eucharistic Covenant.

Your expression above is such bad theology that it’s not even worthy of a half-baked Fundamentalist. Mary is our mother in the order of grace.

**In the same sense as God the Father ? **​

The Catholic Church officially teaches that, and no Catholic is free to deny it.

##** That is nonsense - to be precise, damned nonsense (as C. S. Lewis said in another connection). The Church does** not **teach that Mary is equal in status to God the Father. If she were, she would be God; unless you believe that God the Father is a creature, as she is. Well done for inventing two new heresies. May they have no other followers. **

Secondly, the fact that Mary is our mother in the order of grace in no sense makes Mary an equal with God the Father, nor does it imply such a thing, for we also happen to believe that Abraham, for example, is our father in the order of grace (see Gal 3:29),

Let’s see:​

• [Gal 3:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=3&version=RSV#)
  And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

**You lose. Abraham is not the Cause of grace, nor does that verse say he is - God is the Cause of all grace. So to suggest that God’s causality is no different from that of any mere Saint - Patriarch, or Apostle, or any other - may be good polytheism, but it is certainly not a Christian position. It is Biblical as the Mormon myth of Abraham’s escaping sacrifice in Egypt. Be Mormon if you must, but don’t blame others for staying Catholic. **

What theological atrocity is next ? Abraham as the Mediator of all Graces ? as Co-Redeemer ? Why not ? If people are unable to recognise that God is God & that creatures are not God, any theological horror is possible. All of this comes from not letting the Holy Bible curb our bright ideas - break free of the mooring it provides, & any perversion of faith is possible. And to level God the Father with His creatures is pretty perverse.

as are many other patriarchs and saints, including St. Peter and all the Popes who followed him.

**OK - when did Alexander VI give up his dearly-beloved Son(s) for our salvation ? When did St. Hormidas give up St. Silverius for that purpose ? **​

God the Father did - Popes do not as a rule have sons, even though some did. Even you can’t seriously be suggesting that Cesare Borgia or St. Silverius are equal in status to Christ. Or maybe you are - excuse me for not following suit. Yet that is where your line of thought leads.

Mary’s grace-filled maternity applies to the area of the Incarnation itself, and to our Covenant with Christ which depends on this Incarnation, i.e., the Church as the Body of Christ (see above).

As for Mary’s relation to God the Father viz. the birth of Christ, do you not know that Jesus Christ the Messiah is the union between God and man. He is, so we teach and believe, fully God and fully man.

**I don’t recall denying it - for a very good reason: I didn’t. **​

He received His Divinity from all eternity through being eternally begotten of the Father, and thus One in Being with Him; but, He received His humanity from Mary. Thus, if you wish to claim that Christ is somehow “more” the Son of God than He is the son of Mary (i.e., the Son of Man), then you are professing the Monophysite heresy or, still worse, the Docetist heresy, which denied the reality of His Incarnation. If Christ is both fully-God and fully-man, then Mary is just as much His mother as the eternal Father is His Father. If you say otherwise, then you are denying that He Who is Divine and eternal truly became a man and truly experienced human birth, so as truly to acquire a human mother. It is blatantly clear that you have a very poor appreciation of the Incarnation of Christ, and so it is no wonder that you do not appreciate the role of Mary in the Church.

Wrong. See above.

Yes. Just as she is just as much Christ’s own mother as the Father is His Father. If you say otherwise, then you deny the Hypostatic Union of Christ - His being fully-God and fully-man - and you make yourself a Monophysite (or a Docetist …or, funny enough, a Nestorian …which is usually the opposite error of Monophysism!

No they are not. You only think they are because you do not realize what the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God really means. He Who was God from all eternity truly became a man, without ceasing to be God; thus, whatever was proper to the man known as Jesus of Nazareth belonged fully and totally to the eternal Divine Person of the Son. This includes His relationship to His human mother. Therefore, the Mother of Christ is the Mother of God, i.e., the human mother of the eternal Person of God the Son. Such is the true union of Christ’s Incarnation.

The Catholic Church is not confused, rather, you are. You are undermining and dismantling the Hypostatic Union of Christ in favor of either a Nestorian or a Monphysite view.

Who says that she does nothing for her children? And you base this on what evidence? Did you once pray to Mary yet fail to get that shiny new bicycle for Christmas?? Needless to say, one could make the same sort of irrational and oh-so-emotional argument in regard to God the Father Himself when one fails to receive a favorable answer to a prayer directed to Him. So, are we then to say that God Himself is a poor Father??? It is ridiculous that you would cite Aquinas but then preach both quasi-Nestorianism and quasi-Monophysism in the same breath!

**Several of your objections show that you don’t quite understand what I wrote. I’m not going to bother defending what I wrote, because I can’t be bothered to go through your comments on my post, because if you could not understand my point the first time round, explaining myself any further will probably not do any good. How could I possibly have made my meaning any clearer ? If you think the BVM is a cause of grace in exactly the same sense & mode as God the Father, be my guest - but please don’t expect me (or anyone else) to agree with you. **​

**I stand by what I said. Maybe you did understand - but your criticisms don’t suggest this. So we shall have to disagree. ****Though, that last sentence is amusing - “quasi-Nestorian” and “quasi-Monophysite” ? **

**Now perhaps we can return to the thread. **

 

[LilyM]

Why is all right to ask for intercession during the liturgy and not outside?

If it is ‘good’ for one, it is good for the other.

God is not contradictary. He does not have one set of rules to follow in ONE circumstance and a totally different set for another circumstance.

Quite the contrary - if the liturgy itself says that we rely on the ‘constant’ intercession of the Saints that means we rely on it outside of liturgy as well as during. Operative word being RELY!!! We can’t do anything on our own, we can’t BE anything on our own.

We rely on the help of the Saints in our spiritual lives just as we rely on others for help in our physical lives (since we’d be lost without the doctors who treat our illnesses, the people who keep the water and electricity supply going, who grow and prepare the food we buy etc etc).

Point being Mary, just as at Cana, intercedes for us whether we know it or ask for it or not. And we receive good things in part as a result of that intercession even when, like the steward, we don’t acknowledge where they come from.

Since Mary is interceding for you anyway, EM, how about at least a short prayer to her thanking her for all she’s done for you in the past and thanking her in advance for all that she will do for you in future?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why is all right to ask for intercession during the liturgy and not outside?

If it is ‘good’ for one, it is good for the other.

God is not contradictary. He does not have one set of rules to follow in ONE circumstance and a totally different set for another circumstance.

**Except that the Liturgy is one way of prayer, & private devotion another. **​

---

**Your argument proves too much: if it is right for the individual to pray a novena for the conversion of China, your argument requires that novenas for that intention should be part of the Church’s public prayer too. Novenas are not liturgical prayers - that does not mean they are not prayers, & it does not make them objectionable. It does mean that there is a time & a place for non-liturgical prayers such as they are; & that they are not in their place at Mass. **

---

**If your logic is valid, it must be quite all right to drink a cappucino or have a slap-up dinner in a Church - after all, these are permissible outside church; so they must by your argument, be equally permissible in church. It would probably be possible to confect some kind of spurious justification for living within a church as a form of (let us say) “praying constantly” - but it’s not likely anyone would propose this in earnest. **

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Except that the Liturgy is one way of prayer, & private devotion another.

Agreed, but I am not saying that we are to insert private devotions into the Mass, you know.

Further, when asked by a poster

Is there anyone here who prays this prayer and say “I don’t pray and ask Virgin Mary and the Saints for intercession”?

EM replied,

Go back and count the number of times it has been repeated that the discussion focused on the request for intercession OUTSIDE OF THE LITURGY and you will have your answer.

EM brought up the idea that intercession was OK ‘inside’ the liturgy but not outside. I didn’t. So I asked him/her to explain.

I am saying simply this: EM was at one point arguing this:

Does the Church to your knowledge require more than adherence and belief in its teachings and participation in its liturgies when it comes to requesting the intercession of the Communion of Saints?

Does the Church to your knowledge teach that you are rejecting God by not requesting the intercession of the Communion of Saints - especially the BVM outside of its liturgies?

Does the Church to your knowledge teach that one is in peril or is a “minimalist” (whatever that means in terms of the Chuch) by not requesting the intercession of the Communion of Saints - especially the BVM outside of its liturgies?

And what I said was, that God does not require us to do something in the liturgy that He does not require outside the liturgy that is contradictory; meaning, He does not ask us to pray to the saints IN the liturgy but NOT to pray to them outside the liturgy. What is required of us at Mass – an acceptance of the Creed, an acknowledgement of the Real Presence, our praise and prayers to God–are not expected ONLY at Mass, and to be ignored or denied outside Mass.

Therefore, acknowledgement that the saints and Mary do ‘constantly intercede for us’ which is made at Mass is not to be considered something that only is done by them ‘at Mass’.

The fact that they intercede for us thus exists. And that means that there is a very real difference between not taking advantage of that intercession through ignorance or --even though we know we can–being so ‘distracted’ by life we don’t bother to think of it; and actively and deliberately REJECTING the intercession because we think we don’t need it, it’s no good, etc. Especially the latter. It’s one thing to truly think there is no ‘need’–it is quite another to try to argue the point by personally attacking those who DO seek the intercession of the Virgin ‘outside the liturgy’.

 

[water]

Quite the contrary - if the liturgy itself says that we rely on the ‘constant’ intercession of the Saints that means we rely on it outside of liturgy as well as during. Operative word being RELY!!! We can’t do anything on our own, we can’t BE anything on our own.

Therefore, acknowledgement that the saints and Mary do ‘constantly intercede for us’ which is made at Mass is not to be considered something that only is done by them ‘at Mass’.

I could only be agreed with these.

 

[FCEGM]

**In the same sense as God the Father ? **​

No, of course Mary is not our mother in the same sense as God the Father; but, Mary is our mother to the same degree as God the Father is our Father. This is what you’re not getting. Mary’s motherhood is based upon the Incarnation of Christ by which the eternal Son became fully God and fully man, i.e., man to the same degree that He is God. Now, obviously, Christ is not man “in the same sense” that He is God. He is God both eternally and Personally. He is not man both eternally and Personally. Likewise, Mary is not our mother both eternally or personally (that is, in our regard as persons, i.e., she did not give personal birth to us, as our human mothers did). But, she is the mother of our new nature in Christ, and thus truly our mother, just as Christ is truly and “naturally” a man. God the Father, otoh, is our Father both eternally and Personally, just as He is the Father of Christ both eternally and Personally - and we must say that He is our Father Personally (in addition to our human father) because He is the Progenitor of us as persons, as well as our adoptive Father (through Christ) in regard to our new nature as re-created beings in Christ. Mary, however, is not our mother in the former sense, but only in the latter.

To understand all this, one must begin with the Church’s orthodox understanding of the Hypostatic Union of Christ, i.e., the fact that Christ is one, eternal Divine Person with two equal natures - a Divine nature, which He possessed from all eternity, and a human nature which He acquired in time and space from His human mother. This is the Incarnate Christ in Whom we believe.

Once you understand this, then Mary’s true maternity of all Christians must naturally follow in its proper context - just as Christ’s human kinship to all mankind (and His place as New Adam to the human race) must naturally follow. Christ is not “less God” than He is man, but now fully God and fully man, even though He is God (Personally and eternally) in a different sense than He is man (naturally and temporally). Likewise, Mary is not “less His mother” (or “less our mother”) than the Father is our Father, even though God is our Father (Personally and eternally) in a different sense than Mary is Christ’s mother and our mother (naturally and temporally). This is orthodox Christology 101, and you are not passing it.

Quote:
The Catholic Church officially teaches that, and no Catholic is free to deny it.
## That is nonsense - to be precise, damned nonsense (as C. S. Lewis said in another connection).

It is your half-baked and erroneous theology that is “damned nonsense”. If you wish to persist in your obvious error (which is, at its root, a Christological error), then you place yourself outside of the Catholic Church, along with Mr. Lewis …who, oddly enough, would never have made such an error. He was very Catholic in all but formal membership in the Church.

**The Church does not teach that Mary is equal in status to God the Father. **

It terms of her maternity, it does. Mary is your mother to the same degree that the Father is your Father. If you deny this, then you deny the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and you are in violation of two Ecumenical Councils - Ephesus (A.D. 431) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) - because what you’re really saying is that Christ is not man to the same degree that He is God. This, is a heresy - a denial of the reality of the Incarnation, for if Christ is man to the same degree that He is God (which is what the Church teaches and believes - such is the intimacy and reality of the Incarnation), then it obviously follows that Mary is “Mother of God” (mother of the Divine Person of Christ Who became a man) to the same degree that the Father is the Father of the Divine Person of Christ Who became a man. If this applies to Christ Himself, it also applies to the Body of Christ, the Church, i.e., to you and me.

So, your theology is flawed and myopic. You do not see the bigger picture, and the root of your problem is that you do not appreciate the reality of the Incarnation - a common Protestant shortcoming.

If she were, she would be God;

Wrong. Again, you have a flawed Christology; you do not understand the Incarnation or Who and What the Incarnate Christ is. This is why you do not understand how He relates to His mother, or how we, by extension, relate to her. Again, in the Incarnation, He Who was God from all eternity truly and really became a man. Christ is not merely God “disguised” as man, or God “in a man suit” or “transformed into a man for a certain period of time.” In the Incarnation, God truly and really (and irrevocably) became one of us; and thus a true humanity and a true and real human nature became the intrinsic possession of the eternal Divine Person of the Son of God.

Before the Incarnation, the Son did not possess human hands, but now, in the Incarnation, the hands of Christ truly and literally became the hands of God - hands which He will possess forever, from now on. Before the Incarnation, the Son did not possess human eyes, but now, in the Incarnation, the eyes of Christ truly and literally became the eyes of God - eyes which He will possess forever, from now on.

Likewise, before the Incarnation, the Son did not possess a human mother, but now, in the Incarnation, Mary truly and literally becomes the Mother of the Divine Person that she gave human birth to; and she will be His mother (and our Mother) forever, from now on. So, just as Christ can be fully-human without making all humanity God (or confusing His true human nature with His Divine Personhood), His mother does not need “to be God” in order to be His mother to the same degree that the eternal Father is His Father. If you say otherwise, then you deny that Christ is fully man to the same degree that He is fully God, and this is either Eutychian Monophysism or Nestorianism, depending on how you approach it. Again, this is basic Christology, and you do not appreciate it. You need to sit down and ponder it and to accept the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

**unless you believe that God the Father is a creature, as she is. **

Nope. See above.

Well done for inventing two new heresies. May they have no other followers.

If you wish to call the Tome of Leo and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon “heresies,” then be my guest, because that’s what I’m unpacking for you above: the true and orthodox Christology of the Catholic Church, as presented at Ephesus, Chalcedon, and in the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great. Face it, Michael, you are the one preaching heresy. The only thing that isn’t obvious yet is whether it’s Nestorianism or Monophysism, since you are advocating the error that is common to them both - a denial of the reality of the Incarnation.

Again, if Mary is not the mother of Christ (and our mother) to the same degree that the Father is Christ’s Father (and our Father), then what you’re essentially saying is that Christ is not man to the same degree that He is God, and this is a denial of the Hypostatic Union. If Mary is not our mother to the same degree that God is our Father, this can only mean that Christ’s humanity (which comes from Mary) is somehow “less than” His Divinity (which comes from the Father - indeed, which is held commonly by the Trinity); and, depending on how your approach it, this is either Nestorianism or Monophysism. You seem to be drawing a little from both heresies.

You seem to wish to say that only the Father is our Father (and not also our natural fathers), which means that we are somehow in Christ by virtue of His Divinity alone (and not His humanity as well) , and this would be Monophysism - the idea that Christ does not possess a true human nature, but that (in the words of the arch-heretic Eutyches) “His Divine nature so absorbed His human nature that His human nature ceased to be.” While you might not intend to preach this, this is certainly what you are implying by focusing on God’s Fatherhood (based on the Divine nature of Christ) to the exclusion of Mary’s motherhood (which is based on the human nature of Christ). OTOH, you present shades of Nestorianism, in that you wish to separate Christ the man (and His human connection to Mary) from Christ the God. So, it would be interesting to see which of these two heresies you would eventually arrive at if you took your erroneous views to their full extent. But, I would hope that you never get this far and can see the error you are making based on what I’ve presented above. Dare I hope for such a thing?

Quote:
Secondly, the fact that Mary is our mother in the order of grace in no sense makes Mary an equal with God the Father, nor does it imply such a thing, for we also happen to believe that Abraham, for example, is our father in the order of grace (see Gal 3:29),

** ## Let’s see: **
• Gal 3:29
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

**You lose. **

Do I?

Abraham is not the Cause of grace, nor does that verse say he is - God is the Cause of all grace.

So, you now wish to change the argument. We are not talking about causes. A mother is not a “cause” of anything. Even in biology, it is a father (who impregnates the woman and is the progenitor) who is the “cause” of the child. So, no one is saying that Mary is the “cause” of grace in the sense that the Father is the cause or source (“Ation” in Greek) of grace. But, just as your human mother, without being the progenitor or cause (“atia”) of your biology, is still your mother “in the order of biology,” so Mary is your mother “in the order of grace,” (which is precisely what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in #968which references Lumen Gentium 61) even though she is not the cause (Progenitor or Ation) of that grace. This should be obvious. Indeed, the reality is simple: While Mary is not the cause or originator of saving grace (which is God), the grace unto salvation (that is, the Covenant - which is based on the Incarnation of Christ) comes to us through Mary, and only through Mary, for, you and I are not (and cannot be) saved apart from the Incarnate Christ.

It is the God-man Who saves us, and there is no God-man apart from Mary. This is the simple reality. Thus, the Covenant of grace (by the will and design of God) depends on Mary, just as the Old Covenant depended on Abraham. Both are our parents in the order of grace. They did not need to be the “causes” of grace in order to be this.

**So to suggest that God’s causality is no different from that of any mere Saint - Patriarch, or Apostle, or any other - may be good polytheism, but it is certainly not a Christian position. **

I am not suggesting any such thing. You are projecting that into your argument in order to save face and cover up the fact that you are a bad theologian who does not know what he’s talking about, and who stands corrected for your earlier nonsense. I said that Mary is our mother in the order of grace. This does not make her (or Abraham, who is our father in the order of grace) the cause or originator (Progenitor) of grace. These are two different things.

**It is Biblical as the Mormon myth of Abraham’s escaping sacrifice in Egypt. Be Mormon if you must, but don’t blame others for staying Catholic. **

I’m not the one who is implicitly denying the reality of the Incarnation (a fairly “Mormonesque” position). You are doing this, not me.

What theological atrocity is next ? Abraham as the Mediator of all Graces ?

Well, Abraham was a mediatrix of the grace of the Old Covenant, yes.

as Co-Redeemer ? Why not ?

I’m of course not surprised, but you obviously don’t understand what the Church means or refers to when it speaks of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. Notice the terms and the Latin suffixes. We speak of Mary as Co-redempTRIX and MediaTRIX, not “Co-Redeemer” or “Mediator.” If you understood Latin, you would appreciate the distinction and what the distinction refers to. But, I’m not about to debate mere theolegouma with you when you have not yet grasped the dogmatic essence of Ephesus or Chalecdon. Understand the reality of the Incarnation first, then we can talk about Mary’s essential roles in the order of grace.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

**If people are unable to recognise that God is God & that creatures are not God, any theological horror is possible. **

We Catholics (i.e., Catholics, who understand Catholic dogma properly) understand the difference between God and His creatures quite well. The problem is that you do not understand that God truly and really became one of His creatures, and this profoundly effected and changed how God relates to mankind, and how we must relate to His acquired human mother. You subscribe to a very one-dimensional theological viewpoint. A Catholic is responsible for more than that.

All of this comes from not letting the Holy Bible curb our bright ideas - break free of the mooring it provides, & any perversion of faith is possible.

Charming. . .ignorant, but charming. Which verse of Scripture gives you a clear and comprehensive definition of the Hypostatic Union of Christ??? This, like a definition of the Trinity, is not found anywhere is Scripture. This all comes from the ancient, consistent, and organic understanding of the Apostles which was passed down orally and implicitly by the ancient city-churches that the Apostles founded, and dogmatized by Ecumenical Councils. This is why, as Scripture itself tells us, we are not bound by the content of the Bible alone, but also by the oral Traditions of the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) which are enshrined and preserved by the Christ-promised Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17 & 16:13) in the Spirit-protected Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). This is the Truth from which you have departed, and at which you so unwisely and rashly thumb your nose. In all sincerity and charity, I beg of you: Drop the nonsense. Learn what you do not know and stop pretending that you understand these issues, since you obviously do not.

And to level God the Father with His creatures is pretty perverse.

So, the Incarnation of Christ is “perverse”?? Spoken like a good Docetist or Monophysite. I suggest that you follow your own advice above, pick up your Holy Bible and take a good look at Philippians 2:6-7.

Quote:
as are many other patriarchs and saints, including St. Peter and all the Popes who followed him.
**## OK - when did Alexander VI give up his dearly-beloved Son(s) for our salvation ? **

Is that what makes someone a father in the order of grace? Not at all. Under the one Father Who is our Progenitor, there are many lesser fathers who are fathers in the sense that they are custodians and communicators of the Covenant. E.G., in 1 Cor. 4:15, Paul refers to his own Covenantal fatherhood toward the Corinthians, saying:

“*Even though you have countless guides to Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the Gospel.”/*COLOR]

Is the Gospel not part of the “order of grace”? Was not bringing the Gospel to Corinth an act of grace? If so, then is St. Paul wrong to call himself a “father” in doing this, since he is not the originator or cause of the grace? I don’t think so; as Paul also says in Eph. 3:14-15:

“For this reason I kneel before the Father (Pater), from Whom ALL FATHERHOOD (patria) in Heaven and on earth is named.”

While God the Father is the principal Father (the Cause, Ation, and Progenitor of grace) in the order of grace, there are many, many additional and vicarious fathers under Him. St. Paul was one of these, as was Alexander VI, who held the Divinely-created grace of the Petrine ministry and governed the Church with Christ’s own authority in the 15th Century. The fact that he was a sinful man does not erase his status in the order of grace. Alexander held an office that was the product of Divine grace, and this grace was clearly operational during his pontificate, as evidenced by the fact that, despite his personal sinfulness, he never taught anything wrong or imposed any doctrinal error on the Church.

**When did St. Hormidas give up St. Silverius for that purpose ? **

Huh? Are you trying to display an understanding of Church history here? I think you are confusing Pope St. Hormisdas with Pope Vigilius. Pope St. Hormisdas was the biological father of Pope St. Silverus. It was Pope Vigilius who secured the deposition (which is what I assume you mean by “give up”) of Pope St. Silverus. If Pope Silverus did not abdicate for the sake of peace (which is what he did), Vigilius would not have been a true Pope, but an anti-Pope. Yet, this obviously has nothing to do with what we are discussing. All these Popes (even the wily Vigilius) were fathers in the order of grace by virtue of the fact that he legitimately held the Chair of Peter - a Divinely-created office and thus a grace.

**God the Father did - Popes do not as a rule have sons, even though some did. **

Oh, I see what you’re saying, but, with respect, it’s quite ridiculous. No sensible Catholic would ever claim that Hormisdas passed the Papal charism to his son Silverus by virtue of their biological relationship. If you bother to read the history, both Hormisdas (in A.D. 514) and then Silverus (in A.D. 536) were elected to the Papal office by the Roman clergy, and there were 5 other Popes who reigned in between them!The fact that they were related (father and son) was just incidental, for it was common for members of the same Italian families to hold the Papal office again and again (e.g. the Medici). So, your point (if you can call it a point) is not pertinent at all. Being a father in the order of grace has nothing to do with mere biological relationships.

Even you can’t seriously be suggesting that Cesare Borgia or St. Silverius are equal in status to Christ

.

Sigh! Of course not; but, they did hold Christ’s pastoral authority on earth and were His vicars, just as St. Peter himself was. What about this don’t you understand? Christ, while on earth, acted as patriarch and father to His Jewish community - His “kabarah” (“rabbinical school”), if you will. It was Christ, e.g., Who presided (in the place of the father of a Jewish family) at the Passover meal. When Christ ascended to the Father, He entrusted this place and this office primarily to Simon Peter, and Simon Peter passed it on to his successors in the church of Rome. Now, obviously, Christ’s entrusting Peter with His own earthly place of visible authority (e.g. John 21:15-19) did not make Peter “equal in status” with Christ - unless, by “equal in status,” one is referring to the role of visible authority. But, as has been your problem all throughout this discussion, you do not choose your terms, or the context in which you use those terms, very carefully, but you paint with a very board, and irresponsible, brush. In theology, subtle distinctions are frequently all important. You don’t seem to appreciate this.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

**Or maybe you are - excuse me for not following suit. Yet that is where your line of thought leads. **

The Pope of Rome is the authoritative vicar of Jesus Christ. When he speaks formally and officially, it is Christ Himself speaking, and you are to obey him as you would obey Christ Himself. If you want to call this “equal in status,” so be it. But, the reality is that the Pope acts vicariously in Christ’s physical place and is Christ’s instrument on earth. This is what we believe. What this means is that the Pope (via his vicarious, Christ-given office) is a father to us in the order of Christ’s grace. Deal with it, because it’s true.This is why we call the Pope “Holy Father.” It is not a denial of God’s ultimate Fatherhood, but a recognition of the Apostolic principal found in Ephes 3:14-15 and elsewhere.

Quote:
Mary’s grace-filled maternity applies to the area of the Incarnation itself, and to our Covenant with Christ which depends on this Incarnation, i.e., the Church as the Body of Christ (see above).

As for Mary’s relation to God the Father viz. the birth of Christ, do you not know that Jesus Christ the Messiah is the union between God and man. He is, so we teach and believe, fully God and fully man.
**## I don’t recall denying it - for a very good reason: I didn’t. **

You are implicitly and essentially denying it. I illustrated why in painstaking detail above. If you can’t see this, then I feel very sorry for you, since it means that you simply aren’t able to discern the significance of your claims.

## Several of your objections show that you don’t quite understand what I wrote.

Oh, I understand what you wrote quite well. It’s you who apparently don’t understand what you are implying or essentially claiming. As a very wise bishop once said, “All heresies are true. The only problem with them is that they stress one truth at the expense of other truths.” This is precisely what you are doing. You are trying to uphold the distinctiveness and Divine greatness of the Father. But, you are doing this in such a way that you undermine the reality of the Incarnation and the significance and intrinsic importance of Christ’s humanity (Mary’s motherhood being a byproduct of this). That’s the problem, and what you obviously fail to see.

**I’m not going to bother defending what I wrote, because I can’t be bothered to go through your comments on my post, because if you could not understand my point the first time round, explaining myself any further will probably not do any good. **

You will not defend it because you CAN’T defend it. You are a poor theologian and what you presented is erroneous, and I think that you can see that (at least in part).

**How could I possibly have made my meaning any clearer ? **

What you presented was poorly reasoned and not consistently Catholic or orthodox. Again, you tried to “stress one truth at the expense of other truths.”

**If you think the BVM is a cause of grace in exactly the same sense & mode as God the Father, be my guest - but please don’t expect me (or anyone else) to agree with you. **

I never said anything close to that, and you know it. Your complaints about this are nothing but a smoke screen to cover up your obvious Christological errors, since that’s what your position really amounts to. I hope you can see that clearly now.

I stand by what I said.

Then you stand outside of the Catholic Church and apart from Christological orthodoxy.

Maybe you did understand - but your criticisms don’t suggest this. So we shall have to disagree.

It is not me you are disagreeing with. It is the dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church. If you don’t want to accept it, then I strongly suggest that you find a nice Protestant church to attend and stop presenting yourself as a Catholic since you are Denying the substance of dogma de facto.

**Though, that last sentence is amusing - “quasi-Nestorian” and “quasi-Monophysite” ? **

Again, whether you are a Nestorian or a Monophysite depends on which direction you take your essential denial of the reality of Christ’s Incarnation. What is apparent is that you essentially/implicitly deny the Incarnation’s reality. There is nothing “amusing” about that. Your unorthodox Christology is the root of your rejection of Marian devotion. I sincerely hope you set your pride aside and come to terms with this shortcoming one day.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nope. See above.

If you wish to call the Tome of Leo and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon “heresies,” then be my guest, because that’s what I’m unpacking for you above: the true and orthodox Christology of the Catholic Church, as presented at Ephesus, Chalcedon, and in the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great. Face it, Michael, you are the one preaching heresy. The only thing that isn’t obvious yet is whether it’s Nestorianism or Monophysism, since you are advocating the error that is common to them both - a denial of the reality of the Incarnation.

Again, if Mary is not the mother of Christ (and our mother) to the same degree that the Father is Christ’s Father (and our Father), then what you’re essentially saying is that Christ is not man to the same degree that He is God, and this is a denial of the Hypostatic Union. If Mary is not our mother to the same degree that God is our Father, this can only mean that Christ’s humanity (which comes from Mary) is somehow “less than” His Divinity (which comes from the Father - indeed, which is held commonly by the Trinity); and, depending on how your approach it, this is either Nestorianism or Monophysism. You seem to be drawing a little from both heresies.

You seem to wish to say that only the Father is our Father
(and not also our natural fathers), which means that we are somehow in Christ by virtue of His Divinity alone (and not His humanity as well) , and this would be Monophysism - the idea that Christ does not possess a true human nature, but that (in the words of the arch-heretic Eutyches) “His Divine nature so absorbed His human nature that His human nature ceased to be.” While you might not intend to preach this, this is certainly what you are implying by focusing on God’s Fatherhood (based on the Divine nature of Christ) to the exclusion of Mary’s motherhood (which is based on the human nature of Christ). OTOH, you present shades of Nestorianism, in that you wish to separate Christ the man (and His human connection to Mary) from Christ the God. So, it would be interesting to see which of these two heresies you would eventually arrive at if you took your erroneous views to their full extent. But, I would hope that you never get this far and can see the error you are making based on what I’ve presented above. Dare I hope for such a thing?

Do I?

So, you now wish to change the argument. We are not talking about causes. A mother is not a “cause” of anything. Even in biology, it is a father (who impregnates the woman and is the progenitor) who is the “cause” of the child. So, no one is saying that Mary is the “cause” of grace in the sense that the Father is the cause or source (“Ation” in Greek) of grace. But, just as your human mother, without being the progenitor or cause (“atia”) of your biology, is still your mother “in the order of biology,” so Mary is your mother “in the order of grace,” (which is precisely what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in #968which references Lumen Gentium 61) even though she is not the cause (Progenitor or Ation) of that grace. This should be obvious. Indeed, the reality is simple: While Mary is not the cause or originator of saving grace (which is God), the grace unto salvation (that is, the Covenant - which is based on the Incarnation of Christ) comes to us through Mary, and only through Mary, for, you and I are not (and cannot be) saved apart from the Incarnate Christ.

It is the God-man Who saves us, and there is no God-man apart from Mary. This is the simple reality. Thus, the Covenant of grace (by the will and design of God) depends on Mary, just as the Old Covenant depended on Abraham. Both are our parents in the order of grace. They did not need to be the “causes” of grace in order to be this.

I am not suggesting any such thing. You are projecting that into your argument in order to save face and cover up the fact that you are a bad theologian who does not know what he’s talking about, and who stands corrected for your earlier nonsense. I said that Mary is our mother in the order of grace. This does not make her (or Abraham, who is our father in the order of grace) the cause or originator (Progenitor) of grace. These are two different things.

I’m not the one who is implicitly denying the reality of the Incarnation (a fairly “Mormonesque” position). You are doing this, not me.

Well, Abraham was a mediatrix of the grace of the Old Covenant, yes.

I’m of course not surprised, but you obviously don’t understand what the Church means or refers to when it speaks of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. Notice the terms and the Latin suffixes. We speak of Mary as Co-redempTRIX and MediaTRIX, not “Co-Redeemer” or “Mediator.” If you understood Latin, you would appreciate the distinction and what the distinction refers to. But, I’m not about to debate mere theolegouma with you when you have not yet grasped the dogmatic essence of Ephesus or Chalecdon. Understand the reality of the Incarnation first, then we can talk about Mary’s essential roles in the order of grace.

continued. . .

**I appreciate all the effort you have put into correcting my - non-existent - doctrinal errors or heresies, but if I were to answer as fully as I could, this thread would be well & truly derailed. Besides, there are better things to do than worry about whether one is thought to be heretical; if you didn’t think so, someone else would. If we disagree on this thread again, it will be about something more obviously related to this thread. **​

 

[fix]

I put this on the other thread but thought it would do well here also.

Today, at Mass, Father said the Third Eucharistic Prayer.

In this prayer, after the consecration, Father prays, “To Mary and the saints. . .on whose constant intercession we rely for help”.

Now that is right at Mass.

I figure, that if the saints are interceding for us at our request, constantly, and we are relying on them for help, that indeed there IS a consequence to ‘not’ asking the Virgin for intercession.

I think that consequence is a ‘lessening’ of one’s participation in the Body of Christ.

I think the whole point is that the idea of making it into a competition and focusing on ‘me and Jesus’ is a very recent (last few hundred years), very ‘individualistic’, and at times a very “Protestant” idea. Because certainly our most ‘basic’ unity is ‘self and God’, it is not a ‘false’ idea, but it is not a COMPLETE idea. And if one does make it so complete as to IGNORE the ‘rest’ of God’s body (Church Militant, Church Suffering and Church Triumphant --the latter of whom include the saints and the Virgin)–then we are indeed ‘missing’ something which could make our relationship with God ‘deeper.’

You know how St. Paul talks of 'making up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering?" Well, of course Jesus Himself is not ‘lacking’ and it was HIS suffering which redeemed us, no question. But IF we are thinking that WE do not have to do anything in ourselves and WITH others, then there IS a lacking in Christ’s suffering–and the lacking is in US.

IMO it is the ‘minimalist’ approach that is more dangerous than the ‘inclusive’ approach.

The minimalists are ‘fearful that we may ‘neglect’ God for the saints, or become confused and misunderstand and think the saints are as powerful as God.’ But they fail to realize that THEY may come to neglect the true and authentic role the saints have in Christ, and THEY may and do become confused, misunderstand, and think that anybody who speaks of the saints is automatically thinking the saints are as powerful, etc. --when the persons are not, never have, and never will say that.

There are, it appears, more people (some Catholic as well as many Protestant) who are making that ‘minimalist’ error. Far more (despite the finger-pointing at one poster out of dozens) than those who might APPEAR to be or who even do err on the side of being confused into thinking the saints have more power than they do.

And don’t forget:

Having now been assumed into heaven, with her maternal charity she cares for these brothers of her Son who are still on their earthly pilgrimage and remain involved in dangers and difficulties until they are led into the happy fatherland.(7) All should devoutly venerate her and commend their life and apostolate to her maternal care…

DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
*** APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM***
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

and:

1. This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed.(22*)
   LUMEN GENTIUM

 

[Eilish_Maura]

So - we have more proof of no negative consequences.

 

[CradleCath]

IF that is true.

It seems to me that you are on a one woman campaign tp discourage asking Mary’s intercession when praying. This is, at least, the 5th thread that you have used to discourage Marion devotion. Have you ever thought that Mary is constantly interceding for you, even though your disregard of her is obvious.

 

[CradleCath]

The faucet is not the only way to get water.

Not all people are** drawn **