M
mike182d
Guest
Is Christ not the source of all Grace? If so, did Mary not personally “hand-out” the source of all Grace to humanity by giving birth to Christ?
- Status
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee Approval of Mary as “Co-redemptrix”
By Stephen Hand
TCRNews.com, 10/5/02—Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said he does not think there will be any Church compliance with the request of some Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary be named “Co-redemptrix” in the history of salvation. Ratzinger made the comments in an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald which has been published in book form by Ignatius Press entitled God and the World.
Ratzinger said, “ I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.
The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.
"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.
“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)
Source : tcrnews2.com/mary.html
By Stephen Hand
TCRNews.com, 10/5/02—Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said he does not think there will be any Church compliance with the request of some Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary be named “Co-redemptrix” in the history of salvation. Ratzinger made the comments in an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald which has been published in book form by Ignatius Press entitled God and the World.
Ratzinger said, “ I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.
The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.
"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.
“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)
Source : tcrnews2.com/mary.html
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Of course you are correct. However, as I said, I have no problem, and fully endorse, the “one-time” handout idea. My problem is with the idea that EVERY Grace is a handout from Mary. In other words, the concept would hold that if I went to confession today, I would receive the Grace of God, but even though it is Christ who forgives me, the Grace I receive from that forgiveness I am handed by Mary. I really have a problem with this.
Also, in regards to the Ratzinger comments, they are reassuring, however this discussion was about a reference as late as yesterday to the 5th dogma. In other words, is the issue being re-visited 3 years later?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I feel much better. Benedict XVI is a brilliant theologian and I doubt much if it will happen, if he doesn’t think there are reasons not to proclaim it.
So do I, and for a good reason. The Church teaches that the Sacraments work ex opere operato (by the action being performed). When we go to Confession, we receive the grace of forgiveness, but even though the priest pronounces the words of absolution, it is really Christ who is absolving and forgiving us. Much more so with the holy Eucharist. The Eucharist is Jesus fully and substantially present, and when I receive him in Holy Communion, it is his body and his blood that fills me with grace. Nowhere here does Mary function as a grace broker.
But if we were just to understand Mary as the one who brought Grace Himself to man, then yes, we can indeed say she is the Mother of all grace. Just not in the grace broker sense.
S
Spooky7272
Guest
- God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary, so that, making herself poor and lowly, and hiding herself in the depths of nothingness during her whole life, she might be enriched, exalted and honoured by almighty God. Such are the views of the Church and the early Fathers. St Louis de Montfort "True Devotion to Mary"
“God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux
She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother of God.Pope Leo XIII "Magnae Dei Matris 1892"
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Spooky7272 said:
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.
O
otm
Guest
Just a thought: you might want to re- read the New Testament, and the discussion and decision that was made concerning eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols.
There is a good bit in there about giving scandal to the weaker of the faithful; I would think that the same could be readily applied to the “fundies”.
Giving scandal by doing something that one had an intrinsic right to do was still considered wrong. You might meditate on that passage a bit.
R
Roman_Army
Guest
**Of course Mary is our spiritual Mother. That is already expected to be believed by all Catholics. She is Queen of Heaven and Earth as infallibly described in Rev. 12:1-5. She is obviously under Jesus Christ and nothing more than the Greatest and first Saint. Here power does not come without God’s consent. Her will is in accord with his will. **
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Sarah Jane said:
People often misunderstand what is meant by the word “Co-redemptrix.” Many might take it to mean that she is equal to Christ’s power and is on an equal level as him or divine. Co-redemptrix simply should mean “vice” redemptrix. In other words, anyone who performs a great act that leads someone to convert or repent is a co redeemer in this sense. Christ is the supreme redeemer who works through the co-redeemer to redeem a person. We are one in him.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Roman_Army said:
Coredemptrix is fine with me. Nothing wrong with it. Perfectly correct.
The strong Mediatrix belief though is very problematic, or at least I have to say that because nobody has been able to show me a reason why it is not yet, and I have asked all over. All anyone does is produce quotes from people who believe it, never explanations or apologetics.
O
Oren
Guest
Every Catholic who thinks this is something weird should go and read De Monfort, read True Devotion to Mary. And also do some serious thinking and praying about it. I also don’t think dogmas should be held back just because they’ll be misunderstood by ignorant protestants. If that was the case, there would be no dogma about Mary like Theotokos or her Immaculate Conception. Especially the person who said, if I’m understanding it right, that they wouldn’t believe it even if the Church defined it. That’s not right in any way you look at it.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The reason that we can defend Catholicism here apologetically is because every teaching that the Church has declared has been something for which a reasoned case can be made. Evidence can be presented, either biblical, or from early Church fathers or history. That doesn’t mean that its ONLY believed because of the evidence or is ONLY true because of the evidence, it’s just that if something really is true then naturally evidence exists for it.
Therefore, if the Mediatrix idea is true, then even though it is true because the Church is infallible, there still must be some evidence for it out there, at least evidence of material sufficiency.
I don’t need evidence to prove that the Jesus rose from the dead, but I can certainly find it, because by the very nature of truth, something that is true manifests itself in evidence.
Yet nobody can provide me with this evidence for the Mediatrix. All anybody can do is to suggest I read this recent source or that recent source.
Therefore, if the Mediatrix idea is true, then even though it is true because the Church is infallible, there still must be some evidence for it out there, at least evidence of material sufficiency.
I don’t need evidence to prove that the Jesus rose from the dead, but I can certainly find it, because by the very nature of truth, something that is true manifests itself in evidence.
Yet nobody can provide me with this evidence for the Mediatrix. All anybody can do is to suggest I read this recent source or that recent source.
St. Louis was a great man, but his writings do not possess Magisterial force. Catholics are therefore free to ignore his work without danger of sin.
As earlier mentioned, the existing Marian dogmas are ultimately Christological dogmas because they teach truths primarily about Christ, not about Mary (Christ is a divine Person, hence Mary is Mother of God. Christ is God, therefore his Vessel had to be pure. Because of that purity, she could not corrupt.)
But Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix do not seem to hold any Christological truths, only truths about Mary. Thare are at present no Christological disputes that can presently be resolved by these definitions. I seriously doubt our Lady would want any dogma defined about her that does not ultimately point to her Son.
R
reen12
Guest
I think that the sensus fidei will prevail, here.
We had a Marian pope in John Paul II, and he did not
see fit to proclaim such a dogma.
If the Church were to proclaim such, I can see the
millions, swimming back across the Tiber, and
heading East.
reen12
We had a Marian pope in John Paul II, and he did not
see fit to proclaim such a dogma.
If the Church were to proclaim such, I can see the
millions, swimming back across the Tiber, and
heading East.
reen12
Hi Lazer,
For me, the only way I was advised to understand this in harmony with the Church’s teachings (after all, Mediatrix is indeed mentioned in Lumen Gentium) is to simply recognize Jesus as grace personified (which is true), and that Mary brought him into the world through her Yes to God. It is easier to understand the title of Mediatrix in this sense, because by her cooperation with God, she brought all grace into the world.
I prefer to express my understanding of Mediatrix in terms of who our Lady is, not what she does.
But another way of understanding it in terms of what she does, is her intercessory role. As members of the Church, we are all called to pray for the salvation of all. In that sense, we will the salvation of all. However, it is not in our power to bring it about. We can only intercede. Our dear Lady is much the same in heaven, but he is the one member of the Church closest to God. As a member of the Church she also wills the salvation of all, and intercedes, but in a very special and intimate manner, by virtue of her relationship with Christ. In that sense, no grace is supplied by Christ without our Lady willing it or interceding for it. This does not mean Jesus cannot give his grace unelss our Lady asks for it, and neither does it mean she needs to approve all graces given. It simply means she prays for the dispensation of all grace by Christ to all, much like we do. We become mediators of grace whenever we pray for someone’s conversion. She is that same mediator, par excellence, but never Mediator by reconciling God and Man. Only the Incarnate God can do that.
O
Oren
Guest
I wasn’t saying that people had to read it or it would be sinful if they didn’t, and I certainly never said it had magesterial force. Don’t put words in my mouth. I was simply saying that it is a good way to think about it and it is helpful to explain all of it to someone. If you want to see how it refers to Christ, you can read about Soloman and his mother Bathsheba, that is an example from the Bible that Scott Hahn uses to explain some things about how the Heavenly Court works, so to speak. It has a lot to do with Christ, if you even gave it a little thought, which is why I suggested some reading material. A lot of Protestants argue that none of the Marian dogmas has anything to do with Christ, probably most of them argue that, but it isn’t true. You just have to think about it.
N
Neithan
Guest
I thought Todd Easton’s post above was excellent; very well articulated.
Mediatrix of all Graces had been a persistent confusion for me (a convert) as well. Not because it obscures Christ–which I don’t see how it does–but that it obscures the work and role of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who actually imparts to us the Grace of God through Jesus Christ. When we slide Mary in there, and–as St. Maximillian Kolbe–make her into a “quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit” things get really scary.
What helped me to understand this title was a
letter I found written by Pope Paul VI regarding Mary in relation to the Holy Spirit, and mentions the title of Mediatrix of all Graces.
How I understand it is this (correct me if it is unorthodox): the Father is the source, Christ the mediator, the Holy Spirit the actualiser, and Mary the omnipresent intercessor of Grace. What ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ is saying is that with *all *Grace–habitual and actual–which comes to us from the Father, through Christ, by the Holy Spirit; Mary our Mother is interceding for us. In this way she is a ‘mediatrix’ in that her prayers are constantly present in the work of the Holy Spirit, calling down the comfortor in a constant Pentecost, just like she did in the upper room with the Apostles (Acts 2).
The word ‘Mediatrix’ is still confusing, and even though I understand what is implied by it, I think “Intercessor of all Graces” would be a much more fitting title.
Mediatrix of all Graces had been a persistent confusion for me (a convert) as well. Not because it obscures Christ–which I don’t see how it does–but that it obscures the work and role of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who actually imparts to us the Grace of God through Jesus Christ. When we slide Mary in there, and–as St. Maximillian Kolbe–make her into a “quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit” things get really scary.
What helped me to understand this title was a
letter I found written by Pope Paul VI regarding Mary in relation to the Holy Spirit, and mentions the title of Mediatrix of all Graces.
How I understand it is this (correct me if it is unorthodox): the Father is the source, Christ the mediator, the Holy Spirit the actualiser, and Mary the omnipresent intercessor of Grace. What ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ is saying is that with *all *Grace–habitual and actual–which comes to us from the Father, through Christ, by the Holy Spirit; Mary our Mother is interceding for us. In this way she is a ‘mediatrix’ in that her prayers are constantly present in the work of the Holy Spirit, calling down the comfortor in a constant Pentecost, just like she did in the upper room with the Apostles (Acts 2).
The word ‘Mediatrix’ is still confusing, and even though I understand what is implied by it, I think “Intercessor of all Graces” would be a much more fitting title.
Oren, just read some of the more recent posts and you’ll see that many of the faithful such as Lazer are disturbed by St. Louis’ quote above, from the very book you recommended. What Lazer and others are looking for are Magisterial pronouncements, not devotional ones. Surely recommending St. Loius to Lazer may not be helpful because St. Louis is using deep devotional language which can be easily misunderstood. Even I kinda feel uncomfortable with St. Louis’ language simply because on the surface, it appears to contradict the Church’s teachings of ex opere operato, and* in persona Christ*i.
I’m sure it can be reconciled, but by reading other sources first.
J
jimmy
Guest
I don’t see why they would define this. It would only make it tougher for people to follow the faith. It seems like the only result would be that it would tempt the faithfull to leave the Church. Personally, I think the likelyhood of there being another dogma declared is between slim and none, and slim just left the building. The big leaders of the Church are looking for Ecumenism with the eastern churches so it is highly doubtfull that they will define it.
I am all for keeping from defining dogmas unless it is absolutely necisary. It is not a matter of whether it is true. The only time when there should be a dogma defined is when there is some kind of heresy rising in the Church.
I am all for keeping from defining dogmas unless it is absolutely necisary. It is not a matter of whether it is true. The only time when there should be a dogma defined is when there is some kind of heresy rising in the Church.
- Status