Fifth Dogma Relating to Mary?

[itsjustdave1988]

First you have to understand what supernatural merit is. Simply put, God blesses the already justified person for acting faithfully. He doesn’t owe man this supernatural blessing, but he blesses man supernaturally nonetheless, due to the condign merit of Christ (condign = based upon intrinsic deservedness). Intrinsic necessity relates to condign merit, not congruous merit.

Thus, by God’s will, what Jesus merited condignly (by intrinsic necessity), Mary also merits congrously by her Motherhood, her co-operation with Christ’s ministry and redemption, and her continued intercessory supplications.

Her prayes will be answered by God, not because of intrinsic necessity, not because of any creature’s deservedness, but because of God’s love. In this way, her prayers are not “intrinsically necessary,” but are necessary in another sense, as in “most fitting.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on “merit”:
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

“Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. … The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination”

It is my belief that most don’t understand the difference between 1) Condign merit or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adœquatum sive de condigno), and 2) congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadœquatum sive de congruo), and so they rail against what they don’t understand.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Dave,

I must say, while I cannot hold many things to be true that
you hold to be true, IMHO, you are getting better and better at
apologetics! [and you were good at it to start with.]

My constant complaint is that many individuals cannot
state what *is *the case in Church teaching, so that a
clear debate can take place.

It’s grand to know that I can ask your assistance in
claryifying what the Church* does* teach.

OK, so here’s a question:

quote: itsjustdave

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).

It’s clear to me that I don’t understand the difference between
“Catholic doctrine” and a defined dogma “de fide definita”.

If the faithful “…are obliged to submit to with religious
submission of intellect and will.” to a doctrine, then what
is the distinction, in terms of a dogma?

Thanks, Dave,

reen12

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dave: I’ve got more to post as a result of your postings, but I’m beginning to see a bit more clearly. I just haven’t time right now. In recompense for your time, I will include your intentions with my own when I say the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy during the Mercy Hour (3:00 PM, Pacific Time) today at the DM shrine at my parish. I am terribly grateful for your help.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12,

According to Heb 13:17, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. "

It seems reasonable to presume the ecclesiology of the author of Hebrews was such that those in authority, the prelates, were to be obeyed, whether the subordinates were totally convinced of their reasons, based upon the *authority *God has given them. Much like Abraham, who likely didn’t understand why he was supposed to depart his home for an unknown land. The obedience of faith is expected, regardless of understanding, based upon the faith that Mother Church has her children’s best interest at heart, and can never lead the universal church into believing something dangerous or harmful to the faithful.

Jesus taught, “Those who hear you, hear me.” We believe this applied to the pope and the lawful pastors having historic succession from the apostles who remain in union with the pope. The Catholic Church insistt this applies not only to de fide (of faith) or infallible dogmas, but also to ordinary magisterial teachings (day-to-day teachings of the pope and college of bishops). This is how Catholics practically adhere to Heb 13:17.

Thus, Catholic subordination to the authentic teaching of the magisterium is well-summarized by St. Catherine of Sienna:

St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctor of the Church:

For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

Not everything my pope says is infallible. But for everything he authentically and formally teaches, I am bound by canon law and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church to give my religious submission of intellect and will. For sound reasons, I can withold internal assent while attempting to more fully understand what is being taught and why. But religiousum obsequium is not compatible with explicit dissent. It is important that when the lawful pastors teach, that I remember that my obedience must be such "that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. " (Heb 13:17).

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

There are varying levels of theological certainty presented by the Catholic Church.

Infallible truths (de fide). - must be assented to by all the faithful as Divinely revealed truth, an authentic part of the deposit of faith. This includes things immediately revealed by God (de fide divina). If the Church, through its infallible teaching authority vouches that the truth is contained in revelation, it is also called Catholic faith (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by solemn judgement of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide defina”. Truths not taught as solemnly pronounced, but are formally and universally taught by the body of Catholic bishops in communion with the Pope throughout ecclesiastical tradition, they are also infallible (*fides ecclesiastica). ***Willful refusal to assent to de fide dogmas constitute heresy, and automatic excommunciation.

**Certain official doctrine, yet less-than-infallible teaching. **all the faithful owe their religious submission of intellect and will to these teachings (religiosum obsequium). They do not have sufficient universal consent such that they can be reasonably judged *fide ecclesiastica. *However, they are not to be considered doubtful, but are in fact are to be believed with certitude and thus are not a matter of free opinion. The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed the extent of religious submission on doctrines which “difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him.” It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium."

Dr. Ott describes this teaching as teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima), teaching pertaining to faith (sententia ad fidem pertinens), theologically certain (theologice certa), certain teaching (sententia certa), or common teaching (sententia communis). Withholding religious submission, contrary to the instruction cited above, is not heretical, but may be considered sinful disobedience and heterodox.

Non-official doctrine that is not condemned as error by the Church is called Catholic speculative theology.

Free and tolerated opinions. These theological opinions may be held freely without heresy, and may be considered probable, more probable, well-founded, or pious. These are not the official doctrines of Catholicism which are binding upon all the faithful. Some opinions may even be weakly founded, yet is tolerated by the Church.

Other opinions have been condemend as errouneous by the Church, and are no longer legitamitely to be considered free opinion by Catholics.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Let me approach this from a different angle.

Let us assume that Mary as continuous mediatrix of all Graces is true exactly as you have described. How did this first come to be known, and how can it be explained?

In other words, you and I know that it is true because it is in the Magesterium, so we know it is true because the Pope does.

How did the first Church father, or the first Pope to realize this, come to the conclusion?

The Holy Spirit is promised to grant infallibility to the Pope and Magesterium, however, it has not promised to simply plop ideas into the heads of Popes. Once an idea has been forumlated from various sources, then the Spirit keeps safe the Pope from proclaiming formulated ideas that are false. However, where did the ideas come from? In a similar way we must ask how we could explain these ideas to somebody who does not understand them.

For example. We can understand the Immaculate conception, the Perpetual Virginity, and the Assumption by starting with the Semitism, “Blessed art thou among women,” and from that realizing Mary must be more blessed than all women, Eve included, and from that realizing that Mary must also have had no sin and no concupiscence, just as did Eve not, and from there realizing that additionally she must have never sinned, as otherwise Eve would be just as Blessed as Mary, and so on and so forth. This is not necessarily the only process by which the formulation of these doctrines proceeded, but nevertheless it is one of the processes.

If the idea of Mary as Mediatrix is true, then there must have been some process by which the doctrine was developed, and some chain of facts. In other words, the fathers and the Popes worked it out, they did not simply wake up one morning with the idea having been stuck in their heads by the Holy Spirit.

If no process, and no chain of thought or facts can be shown, than the entire idea of Mary as Mediatrix may as well have been an idea invented one day by someone who was too devoted to Mary. Of course we assume that this is not the case, but that being so, we must be able to trace back through history not only the process by which the ultimate conclusion was reached, but also to the original concept of facts which served as the seed for the thought processes that led to the fully developed doctrine. We must be able to find it in undeveloped, seminal form.

Similarly, the very reason we are able to practice apologetics is because for every doctrine of the faith, there are some facts which we can present to people to explain and defend the faith. Just the very fact that something is true implies that there exists in some sort evidence that it is true. All truths manifest themselves in some way; all truths have some noticeable effect. Now quotes from the Church fathers serve in part as evidence, but only insofar as that they believed it because of other evidence. For example, forget that we are living in 2005 and imagine that we live in 150. The fathers did not have 2000 years of statements to defend their faith with. They had to present the original, source, seminal evidence. Insofar as is concerned the Mediatrix, what source evidence would these men have used?

I hope that this clarifies my problem.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42,

How did this first come to be known, and how can it be explained?

I believe it came to be known by contemplating Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Yet, how one would attempt to explain this varies, for example for a Seventh Day Adventists versus an Anglican who respects legitamite doctrinal development because they see this as evident in ecclesiastical tradition. So, how one evangelizes the truth of Catholic doctrines will vary dependent upon the person you are evangelizing.

For one who does not totally reject the writings of the early fathers, I would begin by citing St. Basil, against those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit.

“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of ‘sound doctrine’ is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,–of course bona fide debtors.–they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” (St. Basil, Holy Spirit, 10:25)

What was believed implicilty was later expressed explicitly by the Church. There are countless examples of this regarding other less controversial doctrines.

It will be important to first convince any opponent of Catholic doctrine that the ancient rule faith of the Church was not that of relying upon only written proof, but they equally held fast to the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.

One might also quote Protestant authors as to the importance of tradition in the early Church…

For Irenaeus…tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing." (Ellen Flessman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p 139)

“Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.”
ibid., p.188

The teaching that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces is so ancient, that it precedes the canonization of Sacred Scripture. In the history of ecclesial tradition, it was never refuted, never, until modern times. For a greater perspective, the canon of Sacred Scritpure was more in dispute throughout the history of Christianity than the teaching that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces.

For a more complete source of patristic support for Mary as Mediatrix, see Dave Armstrong’s web page here:

Mary as Mediatrix: The Patristic, Medieval, and Early Orthodox Evidence web.archive.org/web/20030604150503/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ321.HTM

See also Dave Armstrong’s article here:

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

 

[reen12]

Thanks, Dave. I’m going to have to re-read your
post several times, to be sure I understand what
is being stated.

Many, many thanks for the effort it took to answer
my question.

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If this doctrine is a mere novelty or “out of the blue” one would reasonably expect historical evidence of objection by the faithful. For example, such seemingly unimportant things as the date of Easter found much dispute in the early Church. Not so regarding the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all Grace.

Where is this record of objection? Why didn’t the orthodox refute all the of patristic assersions thoughout the centuries who contended that all grace has its source in God, and is dispensed through Mary?

Was the Holy Spirit neglecting to guide the Church for all those centuries, or is it more probable that since the objection is found no where in ecclesiastical history until recently, that the novelty is rather more likely to be in the recent objection than in the ancient doctrine expounded by the Church?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JKirkLVNV,

I recommend the following …

**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

… and the following articles from Fr. William Most:

Jean Guitton and the Mediatrix of All Graces
Ordinary Magisterium on Mary’s Immediate Cooperation in the Objective Redemption
Cooperation in Redemption
Co-redemption and Queenship in Ad Caeli Reginam
Our Lady’s Cooperation in the Redemption
Vatican II on Mary: Mother of Redemption

 

[barsapp]

itsjustdave1988:

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

“14. We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace – a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us “de congruo,” in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us “de condigno,” and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus “sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high” (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son – a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (Pius IX. in Bull Ineffabilis).”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10imcon.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank you barsapp.

Also from Pope Leo XIII (1894):
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08091894_iucunda-semper-expectatione_en.html

Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “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.” (Encyclical Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 5)

 

[barsapp]

itsjustdave1988:

Thank you barsapp.QUOTE]
many thanks to you! you are the king here!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

My two cents… :twocents:

I think that the Church already recognized Mary as our Mother in the order of grace, and that she holds a singular position in that regard for which she is accorded great honor. In a sense she is already the mediator of all graces to the extent that it was her unceasing devotion and ascent to God’s will that played a key role in salvation history. And she is a current mediator of grace by way of her intercession. I don’t think the new title would take her position any further that has already been described in the CCC:

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 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 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 "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 "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

510 LG 53; 63.
511 LG 61.
512 LG 62.
513 LG 60.
514 LG 62.

Peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

To address Lazerlike42’s concern: “That statement REQUIRES us to go through her to God.”

God offered Himself, the source of all grace, through Mary to us. He didn’t have to, as he could have redeemed mankind in many number of ways. Yet, he must have found it fitting to give to us all that we need for eternal life, through a mere mortal, Mary. It seems then perfectly fitting that we offer all that we have through Mary, to Him. This is the essence of John Paul II’s papal motto "Totus Tuus (“all yours”), which he borrowed from the Marian consecrating prayer of St. Louis Marie Grignion de Monfort.

Consecration to the Virgin Mary began at the foot of the Cross, whereby Our Lord entrusted the Beloved Disciple and, symbolically through him, all Christians to the Virgin Mary. From the foot of the Cross to the earliest known prayer to Mary, the Sub Tuum Praesidium (c.300), to St. John Damascene (d.750) to St. Louis de Monfort (d.1716), devotion to Mary and consecration to her has been part of the Christian tradition and faith.

It is most fitting, as God himself offered Himself to us through Mary, that we offer all through Mary back to Him. Yet, it is not required by instrinsic necessity that we ask Mary for her intercession. She’ll pray for those who need it, whether they ask for it or not.

This is reiterated by Dr. Ludwig Ott when he insists:

“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)

 

[Neithan]

Dave your patience and clarity are admirable! Of course that’s required wherever any teaching is attempted. That’s a great quote by Dr. Ott.

I think that many of us with Protestant backgrounds and *sola scriptura *remnants have a hard time accepting Mary’s prominence. We see something like ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ and panic, because our absolute confidence in the Church is not truly solidified yet.

It’s really simple though: all Grace comes to us *from *the Father, *through *the Son, *by *the Holy Spirit, *with *the prayers of Mary and all the Saints. Mary is a ‘super-saint’ though, she is the only one who is glorified in both body and soul in heaven; her prayers are **always **there, wherever the Holy Spirit is in action; she is an omnipresent intercessor.

If one accepts ‘Co-Redemptrix’ (which is easier for some of us to grasp), then ‘Mediatrix’ necessarily follows.

It’s not like we *have *to ask Mary for Grace, no, we don’t even *have *to ask Christ; we can ask the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or simply the Triune God–but we can also ask Mary to pray for us, and we do. That exemplifies her role as the Mediatrix. Doesn’t matter how we pray for it, Grace is given to us always in the same way (from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit, with the prayers of Mary). No Grace comes to us except with the intercessory prayers of Our Lady, by the Will of God.

Lazerlike42:

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.

No one in the Gospels–except for Jesus, Mary (and I think St. Joseph and John the Baptist?)–possessed Grace like we do in the Church today. Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross merited for us the Grace of the Holy Spirit, Whom He sent after His Ascension, primarily with the prayers of His Mother.
Mary’s intercession was powerfully present at Pentecost, and continues in eternity. The Paraclete always comes to us with her prayers, therefore, Grace is always distributed with her intercession by the Holy Spirit.

In the words of Pope Paul VI:

This traditional faith, shared by the eastern and western Churches alike, was authoritatively confirmed in the teaching of Our great predecessor, Leo XIII. He issued many encyclicals in order to foster devotion to the Mother of God, especially under the title of Queen of the Holy Rosary. But he also devoted an extensive, well documented
encyclical to the honor of the Holy Spirit (which is even more important than that of the Virgin) and the spread of devotion to him (emphasis mine).

 

[Asking]

Neithan:

Dave your patience and clarity are admirable! Of course that’s required wherever any teaching is attempted. That’s a great quote by Dr. Ott.

I think that many of us with Protestant backgrounds and *sola scriptura *remnants have a hard time accepting Mary’s prominence. We see something like ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ and panic, because our absolute confidence in the Church is not truly solidified yet.

It’s really simple though: all Grace comes to us *from *the Father, *through *the Son, *by *the Holy Spirit, *with *the prayers of Mary and all the Saints. Mary is a ‘super-saint’ though, she is the only one who is glorified in both body and soul in heaven; her prayers are **always **there, wherever the Holy Spirit is in action; she is an omnipresent intercessor.

If one accepts ‘Co-Redemptrix’ (which is easier for some of us to grasp), then ‘Mediatrix’ necessarily follows.

It’s not like we *have *to ask Mary for Grace, no, we don’t even *have *to ask Christ; we can ask the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or simply the Triune God–but we can also ask Mary to pray for us, and we do. That exemplifies her role as the Mediatrix. Doesn’t matter how we pray for it, Grace is given to us always in the same way (from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit, with the prayers of Mary). No Grace comes to us except with the intercessory prayers of Our Lady, by the Will of God.

No one in the Gospels–except for Jesus, Mary (and I think St. Joseph and John the Baptist?)–possessed Grace like we do in the Church today. Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross merited for us the Grace of the Holy Spirit, Whom He sent after His Ascension, primarily with the prayers of His Mother.
Mary’s intercession was powerfully present at Pentecost, and continues in eternity. The Paraclete always comes to us with her prayers, therefore, Grace is always distributed with her intercession by the Holy Spirit.

In the words of Pope Paul VI:

What about Enoch, Elijah and maybe Moses, arent they also body and soul in heaven?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Neithan:

No one in the Gospels–except for Jesus, Mary (and I think St. Joseph and John the Baptist?)–possessed Grace like we do in the Church today. Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross merited for us the Grace of the Holy Spirit, Whom He sent after His Ascension, primarily with the prayers of His Mother.
Mary’s intercession was powerfully present at Pentecost, and continues in eternity. The Paraclete always comes to us with her prayers, therefore, Grace is always distributed with her intercession by the Holy Spirit.

Let me change my question then. How did people get grace until the Assumption? Mary could not have sat on earth and prayed for every Grace that anybody received.

Also, is there any doctrinal basis to say that saints in heaven are outside of time, just as God? If they are not outside of time, there are very large problems for the idea of Mediatrix, but if they are, then it could work.

 

[Neithan]

Asking:

What about Enoch, Elijah and maybe Moses, arent they also body and soul in heaven?

I think you might be right. Good question; but Mary is Queen of Heaven so they must also be subservient to her in the Communion of Saints.

Lazerlike42:

Let me change my question then. How did people get grace until the Assumption? Mary could not have sat on earth and prayed for every Grace that anybody received.

Since Mary’s intercession was the primary factor in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost
all the Grace which the Apostles then distributed could ultimately be attributed to her prayers. Also, JPII mentions in the linked article that Mary had a special influence in the early Christian community–and it is not unlikely that she spent a great deal of her time in prayer. She wouldn’t have needed to see with the specific clarity she does now in a glorified state, I imagine, for one because the Apostles were also specially anointed to distribute Grace, and that her continual intercession of the Holy Spirit fueled their ministry.

Also, is there any doctrinal basis to say that saints in heaven are outside of time, just as God? If they are not outside of time, there are very large problems for the idea of Mediatrix, but if they are, then it could work.

Heaven is a dimension outside of time, in eternity, so naturally all who dwell there are outside of time…

These are good questions, and I’m not so well-versed in Church Tradition as itsjustdave1988, but the point is that, even though it might take some time—you’ll come to find that the Church really does have all the answers and anything she definitively teaches need not be seriously doubted.

 

[Asking]

I just want to say dont I dont understand it, but I obey the church and accept it, I dont need to understand every little detail like a theologian.