Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[knightbvm]

knightbvm

So why isn’t Noah, Abraham, King David etc considered as CoRedeemers? They all did God’s bidding and said Yes to him and are of his lineage.
Honoring her for what she did is one thing. What a wonderful example of accepting what the Lord asks. To me if one says she is a co-redemptrix, then I guess that makes Christ not THE redeemer but rather also a co-redeemer.

We’re gonna have to have Scripture changed then to be worded something like “He was half the team that came into the world for us” etc

Have a good day knightbvm and may God bless us both

Well Ken this is really quite simple --number 1. Noah, Abraham David didnt carry Jesus in their bodies for 9 months like Mary did. No one in the history of mankind had the role in redemption the way Mary did. 2. Oral Tradition (one of our source of revelation) teaches us that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Just like oral Tradition taught us the Immaculate Conception and Assumption before they were formally defined. The bottom line is that the Church has taught this doctrine over a constant period of time therefore it is infallibile by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.–PLEASE READ EARLY POSTS IN THIS THREAD FOR THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF THIS----

 

[rtconstant]

Well Ken this is really quite simple --number 1. Noah, Abraham David didnt carry Jesus in their bodies for 9 months like Mary did. No one in the history of mankind had the role in redemption the way Mary did. 2. Oral Tradition (one of our source of revelation) teaches us that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Just like oral Tradition taught us the Immaculate Conception and Assumption before they were formally defined. The bottom line is that the Church has taught this doctrine over a constant period of time therefore it is infallibile by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.–PLEASE READ EARLY POSTS IN THIS THREAD FOR THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF THIS----

I think everyone did read them its just they really aren’t that good explanations or even justifications. As stated earlier there is nothing to be gained by this doctrine and any justification for it beyond a default involvement seems to require apparitions.

Whether you’re wanting to see it or not, whether it is true or not, this is a dangerous doctrine. If you think the Immaculate Conception (which is true) drove a wedge into the Church you haven’t seen anything yet if this one gets through. The rest of world regardless of faith will see us as Mary worshipers and unlike previous titles like “Mother of God” which are easy to defend and explain. Not even the theologians are good at explaining this one.

We won’t have the ECF’s or Scripture to back us up. We’ll just have some documents from theologians who for the most part almost make it seem worse after you read them. This dogma would be a slam dunk for Haggee and Chick and all the big anti-Catholics out there.

 

[knightbvm]

I think everyone did read them its just they really aren’t that good explanations or even justifications. As stated earlier there is nothing to be gained by this doctrine and any justification for it beyond a default involvement seems to require apparitions.

Whether you’re wanting to see it or not, whether it is true or not, this is a dangerous doctrine. If you think the Immaculate Conception (which is true) drove a wedge into the Church you haven’t seen anything yet if this one gets through. The rest of world regardless of faith will see us as Mary worshipers and unlike previous titles like “Mother of God” which are easy to defend and explain. Not even the theologians are good at explaining this one.

I agree that one can make the (I said this earlier) case that it isnt prudent for the Pope to solemnly define this doctrine. Many Popes didnt define the Immaculate Conception and Assumption for various reasons.(read biographies on Pius X) This did not mean that the doctrines werent infallible. It just meant that the various Popes didn’t decide to act definitively. That is a given.

What is also a given is that the Holy Roman Catholic church has taught and does teach that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces and Co- Remptrix. How do we know this? We can read Benedict XV (quoted in this thread) Leo XIII, John Paul II, Tons of Fathers of the Church (also quoted in this thread) Benedict XV clearly states that Mary redeemed the world with Christ. Leo XIII clearly states that EVERY GRACE IS DELIVERED FROM THE FATHER TO THE SON THROUGH MARY?
For Catholics we have faith that when our Church teaches that it is God who speaks through her. Luke 10:18 “Whoever hears you hears me. Whoever rejects you rejects me.” Why did God choose to deliver His Graces this way? I dont know. Why did God choose lowly Peter as first Pope? Why did God choose Rome as his see?
I could go on and on with these questions and some could offer certain explanations, but ultimatley we dont know for sure why God does certain things. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT GOD HAS TAUGHT AND DONE THESE THINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TEACHING OF HIS HOLY CHURCH. MAKE NO MISTAKE, I HAVE QUOTED, (OTHERS HAVE AS WELL) NUMEROUS POPES AND FATHERS THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE CHURCH TEACHES THAT MARY IS THE CO- REDEMTRIX AND MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES. Whether our Holy Father Benedict XVI solemnly defines this is another matter that I will leave up to him and God.

We won’t have the ECF’s or Scripture to back us up. We’ll just have some documents from theologians who for the most part almost make it seem worse after you read them. This dogma would be a slam dunk for Haggee and Chick and all the big anti-Catholics out there.

 

[knightbvm]

I think everyone did read them its just they really aren’t that good explanations or even justifications. As stated earlier there is nothing to be gained by this doctrine and any justification for it beyond a default involvement seems to require apparitions.

Whether you’re wanting to see it or not, whether it is true or not, this is a dangerous doctrine. If you think the Immaculate Conception (which is true) drove a wedge into the Church you haven’t seen anything yet if this one gets through. The rest of world regardless of faith will see us as Mary worshipers and unlike previous titles like “Mother of God” which are easy to defend and explain. Not even the theologians are good at explaining this one.

We won’t have the ECF’s or Scripture to back us up. We’ll just have some documents from theologians who for the most part almost make it seem worse after you read them. This dogma would be a slam dunk for Haggee and Chick and all the big anti-Catholics out there.

I agree that one can make the (I said this earlier) case that it isnt prudent for the Pope to solemnly define this doctrine. Many Popes didnt define the Immaculate Conception and Assumption for various reasons.(read biographies on Pius X) This did not mean that the doctrines werent infallible. It just meant that the various Popes didn’t decide to act definitively. That is a given.

What is also a given is that the Holy Roman Catholic church has taught and does teach that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces and Co- Remptrix. How do we know this? We can read Benedict XV (quoted in this thread) Leo XIII, John Paul II, Tons of Fathers of the Church (also quoted in this thread) Benedict XV clearly states that Mary redeemed the world with Christ. Leo XIII clearly states that EVERY GRACE IS DELIVERED FROM THE FATHER TO THE SON THROUGH MARY?
For Catholics we have faith that when our Church teaches that it is God who speaks through her. Luke 10:18 “Whoever hears you hears me. Whoever rejects you rejects me.” Why did God choose to deliver His Graces this way? I dont know. Why did God choose lowly Peter as first Pope? Why did God choose Rome as his see?
I could go on and on with these questions and some could offer certain explanations, but ultimatley we dont know for sure why God does certain things. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT GOD HAS TAUGHT AND DONE THESE THINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TEACHING OF HIS HOLY CHURCH. MAKE NO MISTAKE, I HAVE QUOTED, (OTHERS HAVE AS WELL) NUMEROUS POPES AND FATHERS THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE CHURCH TEACHES THAT MARY IS THE CO- REDEMTRIX AND MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES. Whether our Holy Father Benedict XVI solemnly defines this is another matter that I will leave up to him and God.

 

[childofmary1143]

I am not a theologian or a Mariologist but I am a Catholic who believes in the ability of God who speaks to us through the Church.

The title that is being discussed here is whether Our Lady can be called Co-Redemptrix. This is not a nice little title that is going to be bestowed on Our Lady. It has theological significance. From my point of view either Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix or she isn’t. If the Infallible teachings of the Church and the Pope declare Our Lady to be Co-Redemptrix then she is.

As for ecumenical relations, unless we give up belief in the Real Presence then I don’t see how this is really going to harm that.

 

[rtconstant]

As for ecumenical relations, unless we give up belief in the Real Presence then I don’t see how this is really going to harm that.

Many Protestants believe in the Real Presence. Even the ones that don’t don’t see it as damning they see it as a theological disagreement. So in a Protestant’s mind while it is an interesting subject to debate it isn’t really anything that would stand in the way of ecumenical dialogue.

Dogmatizing Mary as Co-Redemptrix would be seen as blasphemy of the highest order by all Protestants. We won’t have the Anglicans or Lutherans or Methodists trying to bridge the gap on this one. In other words even the Protestants we have had good relations with will likely no longer even consider us Christian.

Also while I can’t speak from experience for the Orthodox I have a feeling they wouldn’t like it much better. If this became dogma the schisms would probably be final.

Finally dispite the personal belief’s of various Pope’s this doctrine is certainly not an ancient belief, nor is it a biblical one and it is not a belief that has always been held “by the Church” at large. Yes, I know before any one jumps up that the Church has always held that Mary is a Mediatrix to an extent. However, the doctrine of Co-Redemptrix that we’re speaking of here goes much further than that and that’s the part that everyone is going to pay attention to.

Nevertheless, we have no control over any of this so I guess there is no reason to continue debating it.

 

[TMC]

As this discussion goes on, the more I think about this issue the more convinced I am that this is a bad idea. I agree that it would harm ecumenism, but as childofmary points out, we already have doctrines that do that. I also think that this will cause more Catholics to leave the Church. But the real issue is that I just think that it is either wrong, or often presented in a way that makes it appear to be wrong.

Here is my problem – none of the other Marian doctrines, namely Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Mary’s role as Mediatrix and Advocate, play any necessary role in individual salvation. They talk about how Mary assisted in the Incarnation and therefore all salvation. Given that the Incarnation occured, none of these doctrines say anything about an individuals state of grace. I believe them, but frankly don’t think a belief in them is necessary to salvation.

IC, PV and Assumption are about Mary herself, what she was and is like, her relationship to Christ and His Church. The title Mediatrix deals with her role as an Advocate for mankind – it is a role that is different in scope and efficacy, but not different in kind, than the role of the other Saints.

Co-Redemptrix, at least as I have most often seen it defined, gives Mary an active role in salvation. It places a human creature between God and each and every man. I think this is a pretty big change in the common understanding of Mary’s role, and in the way Paul and other’s explain our relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirit.

If our interactions with the Holy Spirit flow through Mary, and/or if grace necessarily flow through her, I have trouble understanding why none of the Evangelists or Apostles were aware of this, or if they were aware why they would not have recorded it. I would like to hear more from those that say this was taught since early times, because I don’t think it was.

If the doctrine is just another way of saying that Mary has God’s ear and of recognizing the essential role she played in salvation; if what is meant by saying all grace comes through because she is the Theotokos and grace comes from her Child - then we already believe that. But that is not what I think people mean when they say Co-Redemptrix.

 

[TMC]

Another thought. The head/neck/body analogy really convinces me that this is wrong. It reinforces what I consider a common misperception amongst some Catholics and many Protestants – the idea that God is ‘out there’ somewhere. That He is far away and separate from us and must be channelled to us. I would submit that is not a Catholic belief. The Holy Spirit dwells within us. God is omnipresent. To describe Christ as the Head of the Church is a nice analogy, but to stick a neck in there is making the figurative literal. (I find this a common logical fallacy, to create an analogy to explain some aspect of the original and then study the analogy as if it were the original in all respects.)

I accept and appreciate Mary’s role in salvation history. I am truly thankful for her role as Advocate. But no other creature stands between the created and his Creator. There is no neck that must admit passage of what flows between God and Man.

 

[HollyDolly]

I think this is a very confusing term for Catholics,never mind protestants. Our Lady gave birth to Jesus,and it says in the bible that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. No where in the new testament does it say anything about Mary redeeming anyone.Most of the new testament is about Jesus and His ministry here on earth and His death and resurrection.
Very little information is given in regards to what Mary Our Mother was doing at this time.Did she help Jesus in his work, did any of the women who were followers of Jesus have any say in His Ministry or help Him in His mission? Certainly if Mary had played
a large role in her son’s teaching and preaching you would think
the apostles would have mentioned this fact.

I love Our Lady,but have grave doubts over this term.
An example for you. Back in the late 1960s I attended confirmation classes on Elemendorf AFB where we lived.
Momma one day asked what did Father talk about.
I told her that he mentioned the Holy Comforter,Mary.
My mother then replied the Holy Comforter is the Holy Ghost(old term for the Holy Spirit).The look on her face was like " What the heck are they teaching you??? Both she and my dad grew up in the 1920s and 30s long before Vatican 2.
.It made me wonder,the priest said one thing,momma another,who was correct? And if momma was right, why did the father make the statement he did? Well I later found out that momma WAS right,the Holy Comforter is a very old name for the Holy Spirit.
If this simple business confused me then as a kid,then how confused would a young person be, if the term Co-Redemptrix is troublesome to adults who have a hard time understanding it?
I can’t recall the book i read, but it mentioned that it appeared that the Holy Spirit was being neglected,that the Church was moving,at least some elements in the faith were, to a more Mariancentric ( Marian centered) Church at the expense of the Third Person of the Trinity.
Our Lady wants us to come to her if we need her,but she has always wanted us to honor and love her Son even more . She always put Jesus first,and even though her heart was full of sorrow and pain as He was dying on the cross,she was also aware of His mission and the will of the Heavenly Father,that it was the death and resurrection of Jesus that would save us all.
She had always followed and obeyed whatever the Father had desired for His Son in all things, and so she would in this matter too.

.
God may speak through the church, butthat does not mean the pope and theologians cannot be wrong.This is not biblical in any sense of the word.No where does it say in the old or new testament thatwe would be redeemed by a woman.
All the ancient prophets spoke of a Messiah,a man,born of a virgin,this man was Jesus Christ.

What I’d like to know is what is the reasoning behind this,there has to be some motive for it.That’s like adding mysteries to the perfectly good rosary.Was not in favor of that when they added the Luminous mysteries or whatever John Paul 2 called them.
Why tinker with things.This is not going to bring protestants in droves back to the church.And certainly won’t sit well with the Orthodox either.
It won’t stop me from being a Catholic and shall ignore it.
I imagine many other older Catholics like myself will do likewise.

 

[pprimeau1976]

As this discussion goes on, the more I think about this issue the more convinced I am that this is a bad idea.

I’m starting to agree that it might not be prudent to make it a dogmatic statement. But when I think of how I have to co-operate with the grace of God to work out my salvation, one can’t help but admire co-operated with God to obtain that salvation for everyone.

Here is my problem – none of the other Marian doctrines, namely Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Mary’s role as Mediatrix and Advocate, play any necessary role in individual salvation.

You don’t know what effects these doctrines (or any doctrine for that matter) have had on the salvation of individuals.

And BTW, does anyone know why a document on EWTN’s website is promoting this? Shouldn’t they just leave this up to the Bishops rather than have a petition drive?

 

[Joe_5859]

And BTW, does anyone know why a document on EWTN’s website is promoting this? Shouldn’t they just leave this up to the Bishops rather than have a petition drive?

A petition like this was also used prior to the promulgation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. It lets the bishops know that the faithful desire this to be declared dogma. It’s not an attempt to do an end-run around them or otherwise circumvent their authority.

Personally, I think that clarifying church teaching can only help, even if it seems it might have a negative effect. Certainly Humanae Vitae resulted in negative backlash, but it is far better that Paul VI issued the document rather than do nothing at all. Perhaps the two issues are not comparable, but I’m just trying to make the point that sometimes what can seem like a negative to us now might turn into a positive.

If anyone is interested in the theological foundations of the doctrine, here’s a good book on the subject: Mary Co-Redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today. It is rooted in the patristic notion of Mary as the “New Eve”. Many of the recent popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” as well. If JPII used it, I don’t see why I shouldn’t!

 

[Joe_5859]

But the real issue is that I just think that it is either wrong, or often presented in a way that makes it appear to be wrong.

All the more reason for the Church to step in and formulate it in the right way. The doctrine of Mary as Co-redemptrix is rooted in the notion of her as the New Eve, which is straight from the early Church Fathers. Just as the old Eve had an instrumental role in the Fall, so the new Eve (Mary) has an instrumental role in the remedy to the Fall.

Of course, this doesn’t mean she is equal to Jesus or anything like that. This is why I think defining it could be a good thing. It would give us a clear articulation to explain to non-Catholics exactly why it cannot be said that Catholics worship Mary and exactly what Catholics believe about the role Mary plays in salvation history.

Of course some people may take it the wrong way. There is always someone who takes anything the Church says in the wrong way. But in the long run, I think it would do far more good than harm.

 

[Joe_5859]

In summary it means that every grace that comes from God goes through the virgin. She is the distributer of all graces. She gives them to whom she wills, when she wills, and in whatever manner she wills. That’s paraphrasing Montfort. So you can see why many people inside and outside the church are uneasy with the idea.

Actually, this would more accurately be the definition for the title “Mediatrix of all graces”, not “Co-redemptrix”. The title Co-redemptrix refers to her role as uniquely participating with and under Jesus Christ in the redemption of the world.

The proposed Fifth Marian dogma includes the titles Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate. They are related, but distinct. The umbrella doctrine for all three titles would be Mary’s maternal mediation. This is, of course, nothing new in terms of Church teaching. It just hasn’t been formally defined yet.

 

[sphilomena]

And BTW, does anyone know why a document on EWTN’s website is promoting this?

Because Mother Angelica strongly believed in this and thought it would happen soon. She spoke about it on the air.

 

[knightbvm]

Finally dispite the personal belief’s of various Pope’s this doctrine is certainly not an ancient belief, nor is it a biblical one and it is not a belief that has always been held “by the Church” at large. Yes, I know before any one jumps up that the Church has always held that Mary is a Mediatrix to an extent. However, the doctrine of Co-Redemptrix that we’re speaking of here goes much further than that and that’s the part that everyone is going to pay attention to.

Nevertheless, we have no control over any of this so I guess there is no reason to continue debating it.
You need to really take the blinders off and read the posts from this thread. I PERSONALLY HAVE QUOTED MANY QUOTES FROM THE EARLY FATHERS CALLING MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX–WAKE UP WILL YOU!!! I also quoted from the magisterium. Just go back and read. It is an ancient belief and it is taught by the magisterium. Just because it hasnt been solemnly defined doesnt mean it isnt infallible. It is already infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium–I think I need to start a new thread explaining to you people the ways in which the Church can be infallible.

 

[rtconstant]

Finally dispite the personal belief’s of various Pope’s this doctrine is certainly not an ancient belief, nor is it a biblical one and it is not a belief that has always been held “by the Church” at large. Yes, I know before any one jumps up that the Church has always held that Mary is a Mediatrix to an extent. However, the doctrine of Co-Redemptrix that we’re speaking of here goes much further than that and that’s the part that everyone is going to pay attention to.

Nevertheless, we have no control over any of this so I guess there is no reason to continue debating it.

You need to really take the blinders off and read the posts from this thread. I PERSONALLY HAVE QUOTED MANY QUOTES FROM THE EARLY FATHERS CALLING MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX–WAKE UP WILL YOU!!! I also quoted from the magisterium. Just go back and read. It is an ancient belief and it is taught by the magisterium. Just because it hasnt been solemnly defined doesnt mean it isnt infallible. It is already infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium–I think I need to start a new thread explaining to you people the ways in which the Church can be infallible.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll “wake up” if you read up on what people have been saying here. No one is questioning those things that were covered by the early fathers including your quotes. We all accept the graces bestowed because of Mary’s fiat we all accept her as the second Eve. The ECF’s are clear about that. What they don’t say (without reading into it) is the newer additions that state ideas like Mary choses who graces will be distributed to and such. These are not ancient in origin. By all accounts these concepts began in the 1800’s.

It is those things that are causing people to get uncomfortable. Now you obviously believe those additions and I’m not knocking you. However, while you might see the idea of Mary as the active dispenser of the graces of the Holy Spirit as an ergo of ECF’s teachings on the second Eve. Most do not. The best you can hope for is to call it a development of doctrine. Which is viable but you better be able to back it up when people ask and the quotes you’ve given thus far aren’t going to do it.

 

[knightbvm]

You need to really take the blinders off and read the posts from this thread. I PERSONALLY HAVE QUOTED MANY QUOTES FROM THE EARLY FATHERS CALLING MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX–WAKE UP WILL YOU!!! I also quoted from the magisterium. Just go back and read. It is an ancient belief and it is taught by the magisterium. Just because it hasnt been solemnly defined doesnt mean it isnt infallible. It is already infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium–I think I need to start a new thread explaining to you people the ways in which the Church can be infallible.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll “wake up” if you read up on what people have been saying here. No one is questioning those things that were covered by the early fathers including your quotes. We all accept the graces bestowed because of Mary’s fiat we all accept her as the second Eve. The ECF’s are clear about that. What they don’t say (without reading into it) is the newer additions that state ideas like Mary choses who graces will be distributed to and such. These are not ancient in origin. By all accounts these concepts began in the 1800’s.

It is those things that are causing people to get uncomfortable. Now you obviously believe those additions and I’m not knocking you. However, while you might see the idea of Mary as the active dispenser of the graces of the Holy Spirit as an ergo of ECF’s teachings on the second Eve. Most do not. The best you can hope for is to call it a development of doctrine. Which is viable but you better be able to back it up when people ask and the quotes you’ve given thus far aren’t going to do it.

first off–I am arguing for the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix the way The Popes and Fathers have taught .!!! I have read that some Saints have taught that Mary chooses the graces independent of God—hmmmm—well please produce those quotes—righht here somene quote one of those quotes!!!
I am glad you finally admit that i am right about the Church teaching this------but I want a quote that you have a problem with—

 

[knightbvm]

Hey where did you all go? Either produce a quote that says (from a saint) Mary dispenses grace on her own–independent of God or admit you are just plain wrong!!!

 

[TMC]

You need to really take the blinders off and read the posts from this thread. I PERSONALLY HAVE QUOTED MANY QUOTES FROM THE EARLY FATHERS CALLING MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX–WAKE UP WILL YOU!!! I also quoted from the magisterium. Just go back and read. It is an ancient belief and it is taught by the magisterium. Just because it hasnt been solemnly defined doesnt mean it isnt infallible. It is already infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium–I think I need to start a new thread explaining to you people the ways in which the Church can be infallible.

I have gone back and read your posts, and I don’t think that you have provided any evidence that the ECF held a belief anything like the Co-Redemtrix belief that is being advocated today. The “neck” analogy is from Pius X in the 20th Century. Your other citations, even if it is assumed they support this doctrine, are also from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Saint Irenaenus quote is the only ECF quote, but it refers to the general idea that salvation came through Mary in that Mary bore Christ, not that Mary has a post-resurrection role in grace or salvation.

There are a number of things that trouble me here, but one of them is the relationship between this doctrine and 1 John. We know that Mary lived with John between the Passion and her death. It is likely that John was closer to her than any other Apostle. In 1 John, John gives us a clear statement of the faith, and a clear, of the path to salvation, and of the relationship between Christ, the Holy Spirt, and the faithful. Mary is not mentioned anywhere. John tells us that the Spirit dwells within us, and that the Spirit brings the love of God to perfection within us. Why did John not understand Mary’s role?

I think that the intention is to further glorify and revere Mary, and I have no problem with giving Mary her due. But this doctrine appears to also put distance between us and God. There is no distance between us and God. God dwells within us. He speaks directly to us. Why put Mary between God and man? There is no need for a ‘conduit’ for the flow of Grace from God to man. What is the basis for thinking such a thing would be required?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I have gone back and read your posts, and I don’t think that you have provided any evidence that the ECF held a belief anything like the Co-Redemtrix belief that is being advocated today. The “neck” analogy is from Pius X in the 20th Century. Your other citations, even if it is assumed they support this doctrine, are also from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Saint Irenaenus quote is the only ECF quote, but it refers to the general idea that salvation came through Mary in that Mary bore Christ, not that Mary has a post-resurrection role in grace or salvation.

There are a number of things that trouble me here, but one of them is the relationship between this doctrine and 1 John. We know that Mary lived with John between the Passion and her death. It is likely that John was closer to her than any other Apostle. In 1 John, John gives us a clear statement of the faith, and a clear, of the path to salvation, and of the relationship between Christ, the Holy Spirt, and the faithful. Mary is not mentioned anywhere. John tells us that the Spirit dwells within us, and that the Spirit brings the love of God to perfection within us. Why did John not understand Mary’s role?

I think that the intention is to further glorify and revere Mary, and I have no problem with giving Mary her due. But this doctrine appears to also put distance between us and God. There is no distance between us and God. God dwells within us. He speaks directly to us. Why put Mary between God and man? There is no need for a ‘conduit’ for the flow of Grace from God to man. What is the basis for thinking such a thing would be required?

THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!!!