Fifth Dogma Relating to Mary?

[porthos11]

%between%
I’ll keep you in mind during the Rosary today

Include me too, please

 

[itsjustdave1988]

this still seems to say that it goes to the Virgin and only then to us.

I pray you don’t exegete figurative words in Scripture as you do magisterial texts.

You seem to want the supernatural (order of grace) explained into something natural (order of space/time). The order of grace does not move through space and time as you seem to think it does. Diagrams are nice, but they can still tend to mislead, especially if one believes there is a time/space order to the distribution of Divine grace.

Grace does not actually go at time t1 from the Father, then at time t2 it moves to the Son, then at time t3, the Holy Spirit’s got it, then He gives it to Mary at time t4, before it gets to man at time t5. It simply goes from the Blessed Trinity to man.

Supernatural merit does not imply that grace is given to the one meriting it for another. When you offer your spiritual or corporeal works of mercy for the blessings of another, the grace is not given to you to distribute to the one from whom you merit such reward.

The order of grace transcends time/space outside of the natural world. Furthermore, all grace was indeed merited conguously by Mary, through her fiat, her joining with Christ’s will throughout his ministry, through her being pierced by a sword as Simeon prophecies, and through her CONSTANT intercession in heaven. That’s not just my belief, but the doctrine of the Church. I’ve given links in this thread to John Paul II’s catechesis on Mary. I’ve given links from other Catholic priests. Have you read them? If you had, you’d know that what I’m asserting nothing that has not been asserted by the magisterium since the early Church fathers.

Lumen Gentium quotes from St. Germanus. Here’s what he states…

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) wrote of Mary: "nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee"

You may interpret “through thee” in an overly simplistic manner, thinking it occurs in the order of time/space, but I do not, nor am I bound to do so, given the corpus of magisterial texts regarding Mary’s role as Mediatrix. I agree with other Catholic authors and with Lumen Gentium in understanding that “through thee” means through her co-operation with Gods will and through her constant intercession in heaven.

Lumen Gentium also refers to the views of St. Pius X. Pope Pius X calls Mary: “the dispenser of all gifts, which Jesus has acquired for us by his death and His blood” (Denzinger 1978 a)

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

You can discern for yourselves what the ordinary magisterium teaches regarding this doctrine. I understand it to mean… “The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God’s positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 213). You’ll have to do your own homework and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Dave, I think the problem why we’re having so much trouble with your posts is that they are focused on defending the fact that it is Church doctrine (which we aren’t contesting), whereas we are trying to understand how and why it is Church doctrine. We don’t doubt it we want to understand it. Quotes from Popes and tehologians do prove that it is factually a doctrine, but we want to know why it is and how it works, that’s all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Paul II, Remdeptoris Mater:

…the description of the Cana event outlines what is actually manifested as a new kind of motherhood according to the spirit and not just according to the flesh, that is to say Mary’s solicitude for human beings, her coming to them in the wide variety of their wants and needs. At Cana in Galilee there is shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance (“They have no wine”). But it has a symbolic value: this coming to the aid of human needs means, at the same time, bringing those needs within the radius of Christ’s messianic mission and salvific power. Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself “in the middle,” that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she “has the right” to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary “intercedes” for mankind.

 

[Neithan]

porthos11:

I’ve always understood our Lady’s role as intercesorry, but even your corrected diagram (clearly showing intercession, which I agree with), doesn’t reconcile with Pope Leo XIII which says (emphasis added):

It seems that you already understand Mary Mediatrix as she is meant to be understood, but you’re reading into the text of Pope Leo XIII and creating a stumbling block for yourself.
Okay, now…keeping in mind that Encyclicals are not infallible, and that even infallibly defined dogmas do not carry the same inspiration in wording as Scripture. That means that in any single chunk of text (such as what we are dealing with here) there may be apparent discrepancies that must be judged in light of the entire document. In other words, unlike Scripture, papal documents are not inerrant on a verse-by-verse basis. Even with all of this said, this Encyclical which is giving you so much trouble isn’t even infallible! So much more must it be judged in light of the collective teaching of the Magisterium (note the extensive list which Dave has troubled to bring to this discussion) and should not be singled out to such an extent as so authoritative in its own right. Furthermore, these are not even the words of the Pope himself, but rather St. Bernardine of Siena.
Let’s take a look:

Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.

Notice what is strikingly absent from this quote? That’s right, the Holy Spirit. No mention is even made explicity of the Father, though we can infer that the word ‘God’ implies His involvement. Look at that, an entire Person of the Blessed Trinity left out of the equation… that should clue us in that a purely literal-analytical interpration of this quote is not its intent. It is merely referencing the prominence of Mary in the order of Grace, which St. Bernardine says has ‘three degrees.’ God—Christ—Virgin. I think what is being meditated on here is the strictly God-Human relationship, in which case Mary represents the first purely human ‘mediator’ of Grace (all the Saints, the Popes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons are subservient to her in the Communion of Saints). Then there is Christ in the ‘second degree’ as the God-Man, fully human and also fully God. Then at the source there is God Himself, which must here mean the entire Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). So Grace passes from God, through the God-Man, to the Virgin (her purely human cooperation) who is Queen of Heaven and Mother of the Church, wherein we receive this Grace.
An excellent (but not literal) analogy.

Again if this were to be literally understood it would leave out an entire Person of the Trinity, or worse, merge the Father and the Holy Spirit into ‘one degree’ and put them on a par with Mary. You have to accept that this simply is not a literal explication of the order of Grace, which is a simultaneous event and always works in the same way (which I’ve attempted to explain above). Even the word ‘descends’ betrays that this is metaphorical, as there is no space for it to descend from! This is simply a meaningful quote which the Pope inserted into his Encyclical to reinforce the prominence of the Blessed Virgin in the communication of the Divine Life. There is no actual ‘linear movement’ of Grace through her. Her role is strictly intercessory.

The key is the action of the Holy Spirit—which is implicit in the Leonine quote—and Mary’s close involvement in this action (which is explicit). She is His visible instrument, His ‘sacramental’, and in this way she is the primary conduit of Grace in the Commmunion of Saints. She truly is the ‘neck’ which connects the Church with God (this is only a metaphor).

Blessed Mediatrix, pray for us!

porthos11:

Include me too, please

I did! Hope it helped!

 

[porthos11]

Thank you Neithan , Dave, and the rest.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It seems that you already understand Mary Mediatrix as she is meant to be understood, but you’re reading into the text of Pope Leo XIII and creating a stumbling block for yourself.

I agree. I don’t think anyone on this forum is asserting anything other than what is doctrinal, as generally accepted by Catholic theologians. Ludwig Ott, a doctor of dogmatic theology was familiar with what Leo XIII stated, as well as all the popes and saints up to 1950s, when he wrote *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. *He wrote this text to be used to teach Catholic dogmatic theology. I think unless you have been educated in dogmatic theology, then he and others like him having the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Church are fairly trustworthy sources of Catholic dogmatic theology.

There are other theologians who disagree with Dr. Ott in some specific aspects. I’ve noted some disagreement between Fr. William Most and Dr. Ott, only because I’ve been studying dogmatic theology in my post-grad studies and have done a lot of reading about this doctrine. The disagreements between these theologians is not significant, and they unanimously agree to the following description by Ott:

Mary is designated meditarix of all graces in a double sense:

**1. Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. **

**2. Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. **(*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *212)

As I stated earlier, there’s some speculative theology pertaining to some aspects of this doctrine (e.g., the specifics as to how Mary co-operated with the objective redemption). But nobody on this thread has asserted a speculative opinion as binding over another. The two elements above which describe Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces is doctrinal, not speculative, especially given the Vatican II documents which affirm this teaching about Mary and John Paul II’s affirmation of this doctrine in *Redemtoris Mater *and his many other catechetical works.

… we are trying to understand how and why it is Church doctrine. We don’t doubt it we want to understand it. Quotes from Popes and tehologians do prove that it is factually a doctrine, but we want to know why it is and how it works, that’s all.

If you state that you simply want to understand it, then this is the meaning of this doctrine. When you attach other meanings to the papal documents, you create your own stumbling block…one the Church herself does not teach.

What John Paul II describes in Redemptoris Mater is the latest and greatest magisterial teaching on the matter. I cannot teach any more than what is taught by the Church. As doctrine develops within the Church, when we “think with the Church” as St. Ignatius Loyola commends, we grow in our understanding of the “why and how” of Catholic doctrine. But for now, Redemptoris****Materand the **Seventy General Audiences of Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin Mary (**6 September 1996 -12 November 1997) ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2BVM70.HTM
are our latest and greatest sources for understanding this teaching in is doctrinal form as opposes to the variant speculative aspects that theologians might expound upon.

The best description I’ve read about the “how and why” of this doctrine, is from John Paul II 1985 papal address, which I already posted but will post again:

“Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; …Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)…In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity…In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son” (1985 Papal Address of Pope John Paul II in Guayaquil, Ecuador)"

 

[LSK]

Lazerlike42:

My point is that if this becomes dogma, its obviously NOT the Holy Spirit willing it. I have full faith in the Church as keeper of the Word and interpreter of the Scripture, and full faith in “capital T” Tradition and the Magesterium, and if they say something then I can believe it. However, there is one exception to this, which is when they were to contradict God Inspired Scriptures. Again I say, Sola Scriptura is ludicrous, but they are still God-Inspired and can’t be contradicted. This (qualified with the condition that nobody shows me otherwise) to me would clearly contradict the Bible, showing that Hells gates HAD overcome the Church and that therefore the Church is not really the True Church. They have never contradicted Scriptures (or themselves) before, and I have faith they never will, but the thing about this is, it only takes once.

I think this is why it died. I think it is an interesting theological way to regard the Blessed Virgin and I am devoted to her. But I know, as a cradle Catholic, that I ask her to pray for me and WITH me because all grace and power comes, ultimately, from her Son, Our Savior and Our Lord.

I’m with you on this one - and I have no fear that a dogma that alters Mary into an almost ‘goddess’ status would never spring from the Holy Mother Church.