Do the Church Father's say All graces comes through Mary?

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s try to cool this down.

First, it is possible that the early Church Fathers do or did address the idea of graces coming through Mary. None of us that I know of possesses the entire works of all the Church Fathers or indeed, works which are lost to posterity which we know existed because they were spoken of by others but have vanished, or works which are only fragmentary.

We DO know that the Church does indeed teach this. Therefore, at some time, The Holy Spirit made this revelation.

We also know that some of the ECFs (<<cough, Tertullian, cough>>) taught both true and false things. The way we know what were the TRUE teachings is because the Church tells us. Not because the ECF tells us, but because the Church does.

IF the Church teaches this, it must be true. . .whether or not we can prove (and again, since many works are lost or fragmented we cannot argue with certainty that a given doctrine was NOT taught) that it was specifically taught by a, some, or all the ECFs.

 

[jmj1984]

We certainly all fall short of perfection but is it any more charitable or humble to accuse people of sin when you cannot know their hearts?

You and At Trent have spent the most of the time acting as if me and TrueLight are heretics because we question non de-fide doctrine, indeed At Trent decided that to question it was in fact heresy. You convey your feeling in an uncharitable manner and generally decided to go on the warpath rather than address the issue at hand.

As for this nonsense of ‘you cannot know their hearts’ thats the same cover all excuse misused by almost everyone on the planet who doesn’t like being told what they are doing is wrong. Sin often manifests itself through a persons actions and speech, in cases where it does one does not need to look at the heart except to aggravate or lessen the sin.

I digress though, I’m still waiting for someone to say from the fathers that all graces come through Mary.

 

[jmj1984]

Assuredly the doctrine is not de fide. Holy Mother Church does not yet insist that all of the faithful hold to this doctrine so how can I at this time?

To jmj and true light:

All blessings be yours. Our Lady knows your concerns and misgivings.

If you could accept the doctrine if it were definitively proclaimed by the Church, that seems adequate to me.

But it wouldn’t seem right if you would take active opposition to it. (I do not say you have. You seem to be merely questioning. I am glad jmj, to see you accept the “acorn principle”. That’s good. We will have to differ for now on whether this doctrine qualifies.)

If at this time you continue to deny the doctrine while having proper respect for all the popes, saints, and doctors of the Church who have taught it, that seems adequate to me. Nobody changes their mind in a moment. If you would prayerfully ponder what has been presented, I could not expect much better result from an internet discussion.

PP

Thank you I will try

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You and At Trent have spent the most of the time acting as if me and TrueLight are heretics because we question non de-fide doctrine, indeed At Trent decided that to question it was in fact heresy. You convey your feeling in an uncharitable manner and generally decided to go on the warpath rather than address the issue at hand.

As for this nonsense of ‘you cannot know their hearts’ thats the same cover all excuse misused by almost everyone on the planet who doesn’t like being told what they are doing is wrong. Sin often manifests itself through a persons actions and speech, in cases where it does one does not need to look at the heart except to aggravate or lessen the sin.

I digress though, I’m still waiting for someone to say from the fathers that all graces come through Mary.

Excuse me. “Acting like you and TrueLIght are heretics?” I have done no such thing.

It seems you are not addressing what I actually DO say, but only seeing it in a defensive light. I have said NOTHING about heresy to you.

Uncharitable how? Again, you are making a lot of assumptions as to how you THINK I feel plus you’re accusing me of being uncharitable (based on what?), saying what I said was ‘nonsense’, etc. And that’s fine because you’re saying it instead of me? I am honestly puzzled. I want to help, I am trying to be quite polite and not make the mistake of jumping to conclusions or getting hurt feelings, but again, I would like, most respectfully, to ask why it is so important to you that a Church Father ‘said all graces come through Mary’ because, again with respect, is doctrine or dogma from Church Fathers (some of whom have in fact taught wrong things) or does it come from the Church?

If it would make you feel better to see a doctrine you can trace ‘way back’, again I ask why? If you are uncertain of the doctrine because it seems ‘new’, is there anything at all you can point to in Church teaching which says that doctrine HAS to be found X hundreds of years ago?

People have pointed out what the Church teaches, and that is what I believe. I make absolutely no bones about it, I accept it, and I think I have good reason. . .but I make no judgment whatsoever about those who don’t. I just repeat what the Church says and why and hope that it helps.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From Catholic Culture:

Mediatrix in the early Church
By the fourth century, the Church Fathers manifested a profound understanding of Mary’s function as Mediatrix. In reference to the Blessed Virgin, St. Ephraem (373) said: “With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world” (S. Ephraem, Syri opera graeca et latine, ed., Assemani, v. 3, Romae, pp. 525, 528-9, 532). St. Cyril of Alexandria, in one of the greatest Marian sermons of antiquity, said: “Hail Mary Theotokos, venerable treasure of the whole world…it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored,…through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom holy baptism has come to believers…through whom nations are brought to repentance…” (Hom. in Deiparam, PG 65, p.681). Antipater of Bostra, another Father of the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), wrote: “Hail you who acceptably intercede as a Mediatrix for mankind.” St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Bernardine of Siena all spoke either explicitly of Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces or of Marian mediation. Such citations became ever more frequent by numerous Doctors of the Church, mystics, saints, and writers throughout the Middle Ages up to the modern era. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated: “God has willed that we should have nothing which would not pass through the hands of Mary” (Hom. III in vig. nativit., n. 10, PL 183, 100).

 

[jmj1984]

Excuse me. “Acting like you and TrueLIght are heretics?” I have done no such thing.

It seems you are not addressing what I actually DO say, but only seeing it in a defensive light. I have said NOTHING about heresy to you.

Uncharitable how? Again, you are making a lot of assumptions as to how you THINK I feel plus you’re accusing me of being uncharitable (based on what?), saying what I said was ‘nonsense’, etc. And that’s fine because you’re saying it instead of me? I am honestly puzzled. I want to help, I am trying to be quite polite and not make the mistake of jumping to conclusions or getting hurt feelings, but again, I would like, most respectfully, to ask why it is so important to you that a Church Father ‘said all graces come through Mary’ because, again with respect, is doctrine or dogma from Church Fathers (some of whom have in fact taught wrong things) or does it come from the Church?

If it would make you feel better to see a doctrine you can trace ‘way back’, again I ask why? If you are uncertain of the doctrine because it seems ‘new’, is there anything at all you can point to in Church teaching which says that doctrine HAS to be found X hundreds of years ago?

People have pointed out what the Church teaches, and that is what I believe. I make absolutely no bones about it, I accept it, and I think I have good reason. . .but I make no judgment whatsoever about those who don’t. I just repeat what the Church says and why and hope that it helps.

The faith of the church is the faith of the Church Fathers and vice-versa.

 

[TuAutem]

Even though I am no Mary, I hope when I die, I too will be interceding for those who are alive with a will that is perfectly in accord with Christ’s will. If it is not, then why would I be in heaven?

Exactly! I think that Peter, Paul, James, John, Irenaeus, Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius–and, God willing, you and I, when we reach heaven–will also intercede with wills that fully correspond to God’s, and therefore, we too will participate in all graces.

Is “All graces come through Mary” really the equivalent of Mary’s will is in perfect accord with Christ’s will? I think those are two different statements.

If they were two different statements, no Catholic would ever say that all graces come through Mary. One really is the essential foundation, the sine qua non, of the other.

Again, all graces come from God. To say that they all come through Mary is a totally different assertion: and I do believe that it is the natural consequence of saying that Mary is in heaven. (Since in heaven, one contemplates God directly, and eternally.) Mary, Peter, Paul, etc. all form the heavenly Body of Christ, every member of which, in heaven, intercedes to God with prayers that are fully in accordance with God’s will. If they were not fully in accordance with God’s will, they would not be in heaven yet.

So again, to me, saying that Mary is mediatrix of all graces is functionally equivalent to saying that she is saved through Jesus Christ. And because she is, because she has attained this role in heaven, this is also my assurance that in following Jesus Christ, I can attain to salvation, and such place in heaven as will be accorded to me, because she obtained salvation and the place that was prepared for her–a place which includes harmony with God’s will for all eternity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Finally, this is what the Catechism says, in part, about Mary. This I believe.

1. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

[963](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/963.htm’) Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
**I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH **
**Wholly united with her Son . . . **
[964](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/964.htm’) Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."506 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."507
**. . . also in her Assumption **
[966](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/966.htm’) "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **
[967](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/967.htm’) By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.
[968](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/968.htm’) Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511
[969](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/969.htm’) "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512 [970](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/970.htm’) "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The faith of the church is the faith of the Church Fathers and vice-versa.

Not exactly. The Fathers did not possess some of the deepening understanding of dogma and doctrine the Church has today. Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century AD would not have had the kind of understanding of the blessed Trinity that St. Jerome would in the 5th century or St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th.

The idea that unless a teaching was part of the ECF teaching it isn’t part of the faith is a mistake. The faith grows and develops as the Holy Spirit leads it to Truth.

 

[jmj1984]

Not exactly. The Fathers did not possess some of the deepening understanding of dogma and doctrine the Church has today. Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century AD would not have had the kind of understanding of the blessed Trinity that St. Jerome would in the 5th century or St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th.

The idea that unless a teaching was part of the ECF teaching it isn’t part of the faith is a mistake. The faith grows and develops as the Holy Spirit leads it to Truth.

There is always a seed or an acorn, often something far more developed, and in this case one cannot see it. And as I said I did not refer to individual fathers but the consensus of the fathers.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also, as I stated, some of the ECFs taught wrongly, so no, the faith of the ECFs is NOT necessarily the faith of the Catholic Church now–or even the Catholic Church then.

 

[TrueLight]

Exactly! I think that Peter, Paul, James, John, Irenaeus, Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius–and, God willing, you and I, when we reach heaven–will also intercede with wills that fully correspond to God’s, and therefore, we too will participate in all graces.

If they were two different statements, no Catholic would ever say that all graces come through Mary. One really is the essential foundation, the sine qua non, of the other.

Again, all graces come from God. To say that they all come through Mary is a totally different assertion: and I do believe that it is the natural consequence of saying that Mary is in heaven. (Since in heaven, one contemplates God directly, and eternally.) Mary, Peter, Paul, etc. all form the heavenly Body of Christ, every member of which, in heaven, intercedes to God with prayers that are fully in accordance with God’s will. If they were not fully in accordance with God’s will, they would not be in heaven yet.

So again, to me, saying that Mary is mediatrix of all graces is functionally equivalent to saying that she is saved through Jesus Christ. And because she is, because she has attained this role in heaven, this is also my assurance that in following Jesus Christ, I can attain to salvation, and such place in heaven as will be accorded to me, because she obtained salvation and the place that was prepared for her–a place which includes harmony with God’s will for all eternity.

Hmm.

TuAutem, if mediatrix of all graces is equivalent to saying she is saved through Christ, what does it mean to be the only mediator between God and man?

I wish everyone’s view was as balanced, but I don’t think that is the case. In fact, I have seen some writers stop short of saying Mary is part of the Trinity by saying she was conceived by the trinity since the beginning of time and she was assumed back into the trinity. But that’s another topic.

Your posts have been very helpful.

 

[TrueLight]

Assuredly the doctrine is not de fide. Holy Mother Church does not yet insist that all of the faithful hold to this doctrine so how can I at this time?

To jmj and true light:

All blessings be yours. Our Lady knows your concerns and misgivings.

Thank you so much.

Yet if the Church does not hold its faithful to this doctrine, why do some in this thread and others say that the church teaches it and one should assent to church teaching?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is always a seed or an acorn, often something far more developed, and in this case one cannot see it. And as I said I did not refer to individual fathers but the consensus of the fathers.

But again, even the consensus at a given time could be in error. St. Augustine, for example, spent some of his earlier years teaching and writing as a Monophysite.

The consensus of the Fathers is a valuable tool for the Church to use, but it is not the only tool, just as Scripture is not ‘sola scriptura’.

I believe all graces come through Mary as the Catholic Church teaches, but if somebody were to tell me somebody about this that wasn’t what the Church teaches, I wouldn’t believe it.

The Church for example has not made a fifth Marian dogma specifically about Mediatrix of all graces. It seems, from what I’ve read, to have a lot of support Scripturally and traditionally speaking, but I do not have to believe this as dogmatically true in the statement that its proponents give. . .because it is not a formal teaching of the Church.

It IS a formal teaching that Mary is mediatrix, and it is a formal teaching or so I believe that graces, even ‘all’, come ‘through’ her, but that in no way, as the Catechism says, diminishes Christ’s role as mediator or puts her on an equal footing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmm.

TuAutem, if mediatrix of all graces is equivalent to saying she is saved through Christ, what does it mean to be the only mediator between God and man?

I wish everyone’s view was as balanced, but I don’t think that is the case. In fact, I have seen some writers stop short of saying Mary isQUOTE] part of the Trinity by saying she was conceived by the trinity since the beginning of time and she was assumed back into the trinity. But that’s another topic.

Your posts have been very helpful.



Wow! I have never heard of such a thing. . .but that surely would startle me!!

Well, we are all saved through Christ, aren’t we? But all of us. . .except Mary. . .were saved after our conception. . .at our baptism (or in some way such as baptism of blood or baptism of desire). Right? But Mary was saved through Christ before her conception. . .and that’s unique.

And Christ is still the only mediator between God and man.

 

[jmj1984]

But again, even the consensus at a given time could be in error. St. Augustine, for example, spent some of his earlier years teaching and writing as a Monophysite.

The consensus of the Fathers is a valuable tool for the Church to use, but it is not the only tool, just as Scripture is not ‘sola scriptura’.

I believe all graces come through Mary as the Catholic Church teaches, but if somebody were to tell me somebody about this that wasn’t what the Church teaches, I wouldn’t believe it.

The Church for example has not made a fifth Marian dogma specifically about Mediatrix of all graces. It seems, from what I’ve read, to have a lot of support Scripturally and traditionally speaking, but I do not have to believe this as dogmatically true in the statement that its proponents give. . .because it is not a formal teaching of the Church.

It IS a formal teaching that Mary is mediatrix, and it is a formal teaching or so I believe that graces, even ‘all’, come ‘through’ her, but that in no way, as the Catechism says, diminishes Christ’s role as mediator or puts her on an equal footing.

The consensus of the fathers is infallible, that is a basic rule of catholic theology. As I have stated before, the opinion of an individual church father is not consenus, the opinion of the majority of the church fathers over the period of the church fathers IS consensus.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you so much.

Yet if the Church does not hold its faithful to this doctrine, why do some in this thread and others say that the church teaches it and one should assent to church teaching?

Probably because it’s confusing in that the Church teaches Mary is a Mediatrix and that she is the Mother of all Graces which come through her, but there is also a proposed 'Fifth Marian Dogma" which is not (currently, and may never be) Church teaching.

I only believe what the Church teaches.

The Fifth Dogma proposes Mary as “Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate”.

I have never said co-redemptrix because the Church doesn’t say that specifically. I do say Mediatrix and Advocate; both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI among others have used those titles in things like Lumen Gentium, so I’m okay with that. And the idea of graces through Mary seems logical to me because she has been called Mother of all Graces.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The consensus of the fathers is infallible, that is a basic rule of catholic theology. As I have stated before, the opinion of an individual church father is not consenus, the opinion of the majority of the church fathers over the period of the church fathers IS consensus.

Actually I thought it was the consensus of the Magesterium which was infallible (of whom the Fathers are only part). . .but again, there is nothing to show in Catholic theology that unless a doctrine is mentioned by the fathers in consensus that it cannot be dogmatic infallible teaching. Right?

 

[jmj1984]

Actually I thought it was the consensus of the Magesterium which was infallible (of whom the Fathers are only part). . .but again, there is nothing to show in Catholic theology that unless a doctrine is mentioned by the fathers in consensus that it cannot be dogmatic infallible teaching. Right?

The church does not have the authority to reveal new teachings it can merely faithfully expound the deposit of faith, if something is not mentioned at all by the consenus of the church fathers it would be novel and not part of the deposit of faith.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The church does not have the authority to reveal new teachings it can merely faithfully expound the deposit of faith, if something is not mentioned at all by the consenus of the church fathers it would be novel and not part of the deposit of faith.

With respect, I don’t think you have that quite correct.

The Church cannot CHANGE a revealed truth by making a ‘new’ one. IOW, it cannot change the Trinity into the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four. But the Church can DEEPEN understanding through the revelation of the HOLY SPIRIT.

But a revealed truth can be implicitly found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And that need NOT have been a consensus of the Church Fathers. They did not speak about every single dogma and doctrine of the Church. I truly do not think that according to the definitions of infallibility and the deposit of faith as laid out in the Catholic Encyclopedia that something ‘not mentioned by the fathers’ would fall under the heading of ‘new teaching’ by definition.