Fifth Dogma Relating to Mary?

[Lazerlike42]

Oh. I don’t think there has been a link. It wasn’t Catholic Answers Live, I know that.

 

[delorean_boy]

I hope they do define the fifth marian dogma,
here is a link to a website that has an exaustive amount
of info about it.

www.voxpopuli.org

tons of info about mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix

 

[Neithan]

delorean_boy:

here is a link to a website that has an exaustive amount
of info about it.

www.voxpopuli.org

Unfortunately this website does not raise any of the
objections that Mary ‘Mediatrix’ obscures the work and role of the Holy Spirit.

That would be my chief objection: if Mary is the mediator to Christ, and she gives us all Graces from Him… this relegates the Holy Spirit to a very impersonal role–a mere object which is given to us passively from the hands of Mary. The Holy Spirit is a divine Person, sent to us by the Son, and it is the Paraclete Who ‘mediates’ between us and Christ as far as actively bestowing Grace goes. I agree with Lazerlike’s concerns where previous Popes and Saints have made Mary seem the actual *giver *of Grace, rather than the intercessor.
I would say Mary assists the Holy Spirit in Mediating all Graces, because she has no power without Him, rather than the other way around. That’s really the whole trouble with all of this–not that it obscures Christ but that it makes Mary into a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Don’t forget that the Popes are only infallibles when they speak “ex cathedra”. The saints are not infallibles too.

 

[sherilo]

Just wondering if elevating Mary to a more prominent position will lead any more people to Christ or inspire us to strive to follow him more closely. Just wondering what actual good it will really do, or what purpose it would serve other than to validate those who believe she should have the title. Also, I wonder just what Mary thinks about it all, given the controversy and obvious misunderstsandings surrounding this movement. While it is true, that we can’t allow others to tell us how to define dogma, it is obvious that if it was something that was good for us and the church, it would have been done already, by Pope John Paul II. Would Mary really want to be elevated to such a position, knowing the controversy surrounding it? What would she and we gain out of such a declaration?

Sherilo

 

[Lazerlike42]

I know others have said it’s fine, but I have a real problem with people making movements to define things and whatnot. That is the role of the Holy Spirit, NOT a bunch of people who are really big fans of the Blessed Virgin or whatever. If it was meant to be, the Holy Spirit would do it without their intervention.

What’s more, they’ve put the Church in a terrible position. If the dogma really were true and needed to be defined, the Church would seem like they were only defining it out of giving in to these people. If it really weren’t true, then it seems like the Church isn’t defining it just to keep itself from being accused of giving in.

Very irresponsible, shortsighted, and selfish in my opinion. (though I don’t mean to imply concious or intentional selfishness)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42,

Lazerlike42:

These quotes frankly are really disturbing. Of course, they’re just opinions, but they really do, as porthos pointed out, contradict the Sacramental teachings of the Church, and some other doctrines too.

The things that those quotes say are the kinds of thing Protestants accuse us as believing and we always say we don’t.

I disagree that this is “only opinion.” This is Catholic doctrine. That means it is what Catholics believe and are obliged to submit to with religous submission of intellect and will. No dogmatic theologian would assert otherwise.

The discussion is whether it ought to be defined as Catholic dogma (de fide definita). However, if you don’t assent to Catholic doctrine, then I recommend you research this doctrine further and prayerfully contemplate the TRUTH of this doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Mary the Mediatrix in Scripture and Tradition:

In Luke 1:38, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Her *fiat *to the angel Gabriel was a deliberate co-operation in giving the Redeemer to the world through her obedience.

At the Wedding Feast at Cana, her request of her Son resulted in a miracle and increased the faith of Jesus’ disciples.

On the Cross, Christ stated (John 19, 26): “Woman behold thy son, son behold they mother.” The Church interprets this passage as Christ giving Mary to all his beloved disciples as the spiritual mother.

St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast).

St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

St. Jerome said: “By a woman the whole world was saved” (Tract. de Ps. 96). In other words, the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix is of such antiquity that it pre-dates the canonization of Scripture. It is based upon the spiritual motherhood of Mary for all Christians, which is supported by Scripture.

Like her intercession at Cana, Mary continues to participate in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession in heaven. “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.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholci Dogma, 213)

Pope Leo XIII: “From the great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary” (*Octobre mensi, *1891)

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)

Pope Benedict XV declared: “All gifts which the Author of all good has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin” (AAS 9, 1917, 266)

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

To deny this to be authentic Catholic doctrine is absurd. I can care less if it is defined as de fide definita. It is authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium, which all Catholics are obliged to give their religious submission of intellect and will.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Citing Church fathers does not address the objections that the idea contradicts the Bible and other Magesterial statements. I am in no way professing that every doctrine must be found in the Bible, as that is truly absurd. I only state as fact that no doctrine can contradict the Bible. So long as they are in agreement, there is no concern. However, the Bible is the Word of God and as such can not be contradicted.

Most of those statements actually profess the idea of Mediatrix in the sense that she bore Christ, and thus Christ, who is all Grace, came through her. Those are fine and in perfect agreement with everything.

The statements that Mary is required for the distribution of all Grace DO contradict both the Bible and the Magesterium.

according to God’s positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary."

^That^ contradicts a great much of what the Scriptures teach, and a great bit of what the Magesterium teaches.

It also begs the question of how any grace was given to the people in the gospels when Jesus was there but Mary was nowhere to be found.

 

[reen12]

Of course, the Church hasn’t declared it a dogma.

[And I doubt She ever will…but then that’s just my
assessment.]
My assessment: 0
Holy Spirit: 10 to the inifinte power

The only way “my assessment” counts, is in the
realm of the “sensus fidei” [spelling?]
Couldn’t the Holy Spirit act* through* the faithful,
yelling their heads off in opposition to such a
proposed dogma?

Is there historical precedent? [Dave, do you know,
in terms of *sensus fidei?]

Am I spelling that right?

reen12

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

In Luke 1:38, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Her *fiat *to the angel Gabriel was a deliberate co-operation in giving the Redeemer to the world through her obedience. Absolutely.

At the Wedding Feast at Cana, her request of her Son resulted in a miracle and increased the faith of Jesus’ disciples. Absolutely.

On the Cross, Christ stated (John 19, 26): “Woman behold thy son, son behold they mother.” The Church interprets this passage as Christ giving Mary to all his beloved disciples as the spiritual mother. Absolutely.

St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast). As long as the word “after” is included, I get this.

St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4). True, because by OUR own obedience, we may be said to become the cause of our own salvation (inasmuch as we responded to Grace). Further true, insofar as our salvation would not have been possible without Our Lady’s fiat.

St. Jerome said: “By a woman the whole world was saved” (Tract. de Ps. 96). In other words, the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix is of such antiquity that it pre-dates the canonization of Scripture. It is based upon the spiritual motherhood of Mary for all Christians, which is supported by Scripture. ***As long as it’s understood that it was by her fiat, her “yes,” her consent, that it was made possible. This is how I understand it, at least. Mary was not competant to save anyone on her own, nor could she be, as it is all dependent on Jesus. Jesus, being God, COULD have saved anyone on His own. That’s the difference and what worries some people. ***

Like her intercession at Cana, Mary continues to participate in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession in heaven. “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.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholci Dogma, 213) This troubles me and I would appreciate help with this. Does this imply that we must go through Mary, that there is no recourse to Jesus directly? It seems entirely reasonable to say that “the redemptive grace of Christ is confered on nobody without the historical co-operation of Mary.” It doesn’t seem scriptural to say that her current intercession is absolutely, resolutely necessary to obtain salvation (redemptive grace).

Pope Leo XIII: “From the great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary” (*Octobre mensi, *1891) Right, because of her fiat. I can’t reconcile this in any other way.

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) Again, I can only see this (wrap my brain around it in light of scripture and the nature of God vs. the nature of creature) as a looking back over what her “yes” made possible, not (at least yet) of Our Lady in the role of either giver or denier.

Pope Benedict XV declared: “All gifts which the Author of all good has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin” (AAS 9, 1917, 266) Please see above.

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214) ***This is very troubling, to call her “Most Holy One,” esp. when one considers that this is a title of Christ in the Gloria (“tu solus sanctisimus”), and in the notion that she dispenses salvation in a proprietary way. She can be said to “dispense” it in an historical sense inasmuch as Salvation took form in her womb, by her consent. ***

It is authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium, which all Catholics are obliged to give their religious submission of intellect and will.

Dave, you know I hold your postings and explanations in respect and that I should be very glad to be instructed by you. Would you clarify or explicate further?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Citing Church fathers does not address the objections that the idea contradicts the Bible and other Magesterial statements.

Simply stating that it condradicts the Bible and magisterial statements does not make a convincing argument that it does.

Let’s make this simple… let’s first address your claim that this is against magisterial teachings. Do you dissent with these two Acta Apostolicae Sedis (magisterial texts)? If so, why?

**Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical *Octobre Mense *(1891):
**
**

The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.[5] **With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.[6] Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. **(par. 4)
**
**Pope Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182: **

“… the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. … for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin”

Do you disagree with Pope John Paul II? If so, why?

“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)"

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12,

Is there historical precedent? [Dave, do you know,
in terms of *sensus fidei

?]

The earliest extant reference to Mary’s title of redemptrix, is from a 10th century English liturgical manuscript:

Sancta Regina Mundi, ora pro nobis;
Sancta Salvatrix Mundi, ora pro nobis;
Sancta Redemptrix Mundi, ora pro nobis

This has been the assent of prayers of the faithful well before any objections. There has been no magisterial text contradicting this teaching. In fact, John Paul II uses this title.

However, the title “redemptrix” connotes Mary’s role in the salvation of all humanity, which is explicitly taught in the extant evidence of the 2nd century.

St. Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150), in his *Dialogue with Trypho, *said that Christ “was made man of the Virgin, so that the disobedience brought on by the Serpent might be cancelled out in the same manner in which it had begun.” He continued, contrasting Eve and Mary: “For Eve … conceiving the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But Mary … when the angel announced to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her … answered: Be it done to me according to your word.”

Likewise, St. Irenaeus in AD 189 asserted: “Mary … by her obedience became a cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

Just as our understanding of Christology increased over time, so did our understanding of Mary’s role in our salvation. You won’t find the earliest quotes referring to the Trinity, for example, as fully explaning the doctrine as it was understood centuries later.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Note that there is no disagreement over the title of corepemptrix and it is fully accepted. We are solely concerned with the title of Mediatrix of all Graces, and only then concerned with the singular interpretation of the title which proclaims Mary as a perpetual distributor of all Graces; the idea that she instantaneously distributed all Grace via the act of giving birth is not contested and is affirmed.

Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.

I don’t have a full library of Magesterial documents in my head, but I’m sure someone out there does, and in any case I am quite sure that the idea we cannot go to Christ directly has mahor problems, both as far as the Bible is concerned and the Magesterium.

Neither I nor anybody else has any problem whatsoever with the idea that Mary obtains many Graces for us through her intercession. However, the idea that one can receive NO Grace if not by Mary is antibiblical.

 

[Lazerlike42]

There’s also another problem here. The Bible, while not formally sufficient, is materially sufficient. Therefore, the idea of Mary as a strict Mediatrix must be able to be found in some sense in there, but it’s not.

Just showing that Mary has gotten Graces for people on some occasions does not show or allude that she MUST get Graces for people on ALL occasions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I want to be clear, I am not among those advocating this become de fide definita. Nevertheless, I do assert that this is Catholic doctrine, and those that assert that it is false do so contrary to canon law and the teaching of the authentic magisterium.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

I want to be clear, I am not among those advocating this become de fide definita. Nevertheless, I do assert that this is Catholic doctrine, and those that assert that it is false do so contrary to canon law and the teaching of the authentic magisterium.

I’m fully prepared to say now that even if I don’t understand it, I acknowledge that I’m bound to give my assent and submission to all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God. I just want to find a way to either understand it or see if I already understand it adequately (ie, my current understanding is or is not out of line with the magisterium).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Bible, while not formally sufficient, is materially sufficient. Therefore, the idea of Mary as a strict Mediatrix must be able to be found in some sense in there, but it’s not.

Firstly, according to Catholic teaching, one can freely hold that the Bible is materially sufficient. But, one can also hold that it is not. Thus, this claim is a non sequitur.

Secondly, I believe it is implicit in Scripture, as it is derived from facts found in Scripture. Similarly, the creedal teaching that the “Son is eternally begotten of the Father” is not found explicitly within Scripture, but in the view of the Church, is based implicitly on the Sacred Scripture, as interpreted by ecclesiastical tradition.

Consequently, from Sacred Scripture we know that God chose to involve human mediation in the Incarnation, by including Mary. God could have simply appeared incarnate without Mary. He could have appeared fully grown, as did Adam, right before his baptism by John the Baptist. He didn’t. The question is why? Why didn’t God the Son appear as fully grown. The answer points to the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix (which includes her role as redemptrix).

Mary and Joseph were real parents to Jesus. They really raised him. In this sense they were both human mediators between the rest of us poor slobs and God the Son. Mary’s role, however, was unique from Joseph, in that God chose her specifically to be the living ark of the Living Word of God. The ark of the covenant was the most holy creation of God in the OT. Catholics see a foreshadowing in the typology of the ark. Like the OT ark, God made the living ark pure (Immaculate Conception), kept it pure (Perpetual Virginity), and free from corruption (Assumption).

Mary continued throughout Scripture to show that she was not only the “woman” of Gen 3:15 who with her Son would have the same enmity against Satan and his seed, but she also introduced Christ to us at the Nativity, first to the shephards in the field (Jews) then to the magi (Gentiles), she was also the “woman” at the wedding feast at Cana, introducing the miraculous ministry of Jesus to the disciples, by which they began to believe. She was the “woman” at the Cross offering her own suffering (likened to being pierced with a sword by the prophecy of Simeon) along with her Son.

In all of these, Catholics see Mary as the archtype of Holy Jersalem in her faithfulness to the Old Covenant, and the archtype of Christianity and Mother Church in her faithfulness to Christ (cf. Rev 12). The Church believes that the Church is the channel of all graces, not just once but throughout all time. Similarly, Mary as the archtype of the Church (both OT and NT), is the channel of all graces. Not just once, but through all time.

An ancient theme of the early Church Fathers is of Mary as the “second Eve.” Eve, after listening to a fallen angel, disobeyed the Lord resulting in the fall of all mankind. Mary, after listening to an archangel obeyed the Lord, resulting in the redemption of all mankind. She untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience and is the new Mother of the Living because she is the Mother of the One who gives us Life.

The Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of mankind by the vicarious atonement of Christ were dependent on her assent. St. Thomas Aquinas asserts: “At the Annunciation the concurrence of the maiden was awaited as a representative of all human nature” (S. Th. III, 30, 1). Some will think this mere conjecture. Those familiar with the tradition of the Catholic Church understand it to be the common and constant consent of Catholicism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I just want to find a way to either understand it or see if I already understand it adequately (ie, my current understanding is or is not out of line with the magisterium).

I understand. My effort here is to show that it is true and certain teaching of the Church, even if not defined infallibly. There’s some speculative theology related to this doctrine. Yet the teaching that Mary merits de congruo what Jesus merited de condigo is papal teaching which does not appear to have ever been contradicted by any magisterial text.

Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical “Ad diem illum” (1904):

The blessed Virgin merits (promerit) for us *de congruo *what Christ merited de condigno

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *the present tense “promeret” refers to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.

According to Dr. Ott, Catholic teaching asserts:

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. **

Like her intercession at Cana, Mary continues to participate in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession in heaven.

Dr. Ott makes clear, however,

"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, ibid, 213)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Could you provide a translation/explanation of the terms congruo and condigo?