Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[itsjustdave1988]

You can see this thread …

Catholic friends have no need for confession

… for why good Catholic citizenship requires assent to even those things you may not understand and obedience to things you may not agree with. To do otherwise is to oppose Heb 13:17.

 

[Hesychios]

itsjustdave1988:

By canon law (Latin canon 752, Eastern canon 599), Catholics are bound to a religious submission of intellect and will to any doctrine proposed by the Roman Pontiff. To dissent is to disobey canon law, which is binding upon all Catholics.

Simply saying, “I don’t understand” is fine. But to oppose a doctrine as being incorrect is not religiosum obsequium.

When the Holy Father has made a dogma out of the concept, we will have something more to talk about, indeed.

Inventing dogma out of opinion will not work.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

By canon law (Latin canon 752, Eastern canon 599), Catholics are bound to a religious submission of intellect and will to any doctrine proposed by the Roman Pontiff. To dissent is to disobey canon law, which is binding upon all Catholics.

Wrong, again Canon 599 says…

Canon 599
A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.

Can you tell me what the underlined part means.

And to be complete I will post Canon 752 even though I am not bound by it.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

And again, tell me what the underlined part means.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can you tell me what the underlined part means.

Yes. See the other thread Catholic friends have no need for confession

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes. See the other thread Catholic friends have no need for confession

You didn’t answer it, you side stepped it.

But as I said there. We are at an impasse. We will not agree on this, we will not find common ground. As long as you insist that there is undefined dogma and ignore the underlined portions of the Canons, we will not come to agreement.

It is time to drop the whole issue and to move on. We have both attempted to make our points, it has gotten so all we are doing is repeating ourselves.

I am moving on now.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You didn’t answer it, you side stepped it.

You can claim this if you wish. I believe others will see that I’ve supported by view with source material from professors of dogmatic theology and commentaries on canon law, where you simply stated your opinion and questioned my sources, which are backed up by Vatican links, which I also provided.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As long as you insist that there is undefined dogma …

Again, this was your term, not mine.

My terminology was that used by professors of dogmatic theology, such as Dr. Ludwig Ott, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “dogma.” That is, “material dogmas” and “formal dogmas.”

While “material dogmas” are not “dogmas in the strict sense of the word,” it is a term used by theologians to describe the development of dogma.

The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dogma describes “material dogma” as that which is revealed but not yet defined, while “formal dogma” is both revealed and defined.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his introduction to his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma describes “material dogma” and “formal dogma” similarly. Theologians use “material dogma” to describe how the material aspect of dogma developed over time, but that material development ended with the revelation of Christ. However, while the development of the material aspect of dogma (i.e., general revelation) has concluded, the formal aspect of dogma still continues to develop in the life of the Church.

From Dr. Ott:
trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

2. Development of Dogmas in the Catholic Sense

1. 
   *]a) From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf. Hebr. I, I).

1. 
   St. Gregory the Great says: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets” (in Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12).
   

   With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)
   
   … As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

   1. Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 :… There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.) [these are called doctrines, i.e., material dogma]
   2. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas. this is the solemn act of the magisterium to define doctrine as formal dogma]
   3. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts. [this is explaining prior formal dogmas in a manner more coherant to the contemporary Church]
   4. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; … (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning). [this is the act of condemning propositions contrary to the authentic meaning of Catholic doctrine]

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No matter how great Dr Ott and the Catholic Encyclopedia are they are not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Please provide Church documents that spell out “material dogmas”.

And then explain how St Augustine was not a heretic for being against the Immaculate Conception.

But the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to trip you up as it says.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or “in relation to us”, quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

I have not seen anything from the Church which would support the underlined section and even if we did look to the bolded section, they are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

So if they are not dogmas in the strict sense, we do not have to assent to them.

I find support for this in the fact that special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations…

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles;** nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.**

And seeing that we do not have to assent to special dogmas, heck we can even out right dissent from private revelations, then I do not see how material dogmas, require assent (especially given the fact that Canon law (both East and West) say that assent of faith is not required).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No matter how great Dr Ott and the Catholic Encyclopedia are they are not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Nope, but they do have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Church, which is certianly no guarantee of orthodoxy. Do you have magisterial texts which show these sources to be heterodox?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Nope, but they do have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Church, which is certianly no guarantee of orthodoxy. Do you have magisterial texts which show these sources to be heterodox?

Do not need any as I do not doubt them.

What I find error in is your interpretation of those sources.

I do not see them to say what you are saying they say and I am not the only one.

Now, this is really my last word. If you want to go on do it privately. I will ask you a third time to not try and carry on with me publicly on this issue.

I would also ask that you respect my request this time.

Again, we are in disagreement and nothing will change this.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So if they are not dogmas in the strict sense, we do not have to assent to them.

As I’ve shown on the other thread, and as supported by a commentary on canon law and professor of theology, William May, religiosum obsequium is adherence or concurrence of intellect and will and is required of all doctrines proposed by the Roman Pontiff, while formal dogmas require “assent of faith”. With assent of faith, absolute and unconditional internal assent of intellect and will is required. No doubt or questioning is permitted. With religiosum obsequium, internal assent is not required, one may question and offer alternative hypothesis, yet one is not permitted to dissent or disagree. Withholding internal assent is not the same as dissent. Dissent is incompatible with religiosum obsequium.

Pope Pius XII’s comments of Humani Generis that I’ve quoted above asserts that teachings of papal encyclicals to that which this is also true “he who hears you, hears me.” That ought to clarify what he expects of obsequium to doctrines proposed by the Roman Pontiff.

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman sums it up nicley:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore **the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
**[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now, this is really my last word. If you want to go on do it privately. I will ask you a third time to not try and carry on with me publicly on this issue.

While I respect your decision to discontinue the discussion, I am posting not just for your benefit, but for others who might also believe that only formal dogmas require our belief.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

While I respect your decision to discontinue the discussion, I am posting not just for your benefit, but for others who might also believe that only formal dogmas require our belief.

Which is why I keep replying. As I have shown from your own sources, only formal dogmas are dogmas in the strict sense.

Seeing that no one else is really replying to this topic I would ask that you respect my request so that this disagreement between us does not serve as a stumbling block, a source of scandal, for others.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath,

only formal dogmas are dogmas in the strict sense.

I’ve never asserted otherwise. In fact, I explicity stated it, quoting from Dr. Ott.

Yet, you’ve stated that Mary’s title as Mediatrix of all Graces is not found in Catholic teaching.

You stated:

The Mediatrix of All Graces seems to say that all Graces come though Mary. I do not see this taught anywhere in the Church’s Teachings.

Whether you meant or not, you seem to have muddled the discussion regarding formal dogmas with your understanding of what is and is not Catholic teaching, as if Catholic teaching ONLY included formal dogmas. I felt obliged to correct this understanding.

Yes, Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces is not a formal dogma, that is, a dogma in the strictest sense. I referred to it as a material dogma, that as such, requires our *religiosum obsequium, *which is incompatible with dissent.

Yet you state that you don’t doubt my sources, such as Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, but only my interpretation of it.

Here’s what Ludwig Ott states:

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. (sent. certa)

2. Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis).

I’m baffled as to how anyone could interpret Dr. Ott in such a way that Mary, “designated as mediatrix of all graces” is not meant as “the channel of all graces” within Catholic teaching.

In fact, in the first sense, Dr. Ott asserts that this teaching is a “certain teaching” (sententia certa) of the Catholic Church. In the second sense, Dr. Ott describes this Catholic teaching as a “pious and probable teaching” (sententia pia et probabilis). How is this not part of Catholic teaching? How is my interpretation doubtful, whereas a more accurate interpretation of him is more clear?

You then implied that you didn’t need to adhere to doctrines that were not formal dogmas.

You said:

What I find disconcerting is that some would suggest that there are such things as undefined dogmas that we must adhere to.

I presumed you to mean that you do not need to adhere to the Catholic teaching Dr. Ott calls “material dogma” and describes as “certain teaching” concerning Mary, who is “designated mediatrix of all graces” in the sense she “is the channel of all Graces.”

If this was your implication, then I’m compelled to disagree with this as well, asserting instead what Pius XII’s asserted in *Humani Generis, *that for papal encyclicals, being an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, this also applies, “he who hears you, hears me.” Consequently, doctrines taught in papal encyclicals require religious submission or adherence of intellect and will (see also *Lumen Gentium *25). “Religiosum obsequium”, according to the Vatican web page, is translated “religious submission”, but according to my commentary on canon law is better translated “concurrence” or “adherence.” Nevertheless, its the same meaning. Yet, this is contrary to your implication that you to not need to “adhere” to doctrines that have not been defined as dogmas.

I’m sorry if you find my disagreement with you scandalous. However, I can’t allow such erroneous views to be asserted without rebuttal from alternative views which I believe to be more orthodox. To do so would be to tacitly agree with such a view, which I cannot.

 

[pnewton]

Boy, you guys have a lot more time than I do. I have a shorter reason fo believing that is is not already dogma. If it is already dogmatic, then why are proponents of the term advocating and praying for it to be **made **dogma?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

They are advocating it be made formal dogma. Nobody here has claimed that it is formal dogma.

 

[pnewton]

itsjustdave1988:

They are advocating it be made formal dogma. Nobody here has claimed that it is formal dogma.

So it is dogma, just not formal dogma? Isn’t that the same thing without the tux?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Ludwig Ott,

Definability: The doctine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the Faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition. (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Bk III, part 3, ch. 3, section 7, par.2, pg 215)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

pnewton:

So it is dogma, just not formal dogma? Isn’t that the same thing without the tux?

Good way of putting it

 

[QuicumqueVult]

No material comments, just an observation.

Such serious discussion in such a scholarly yet charitable tone is nothing short of meritorious in itself. What a privilege to be involved with so august a company of Saints Militant.

To put it Texanly, y’all are the best!

Now please carry on ignoring my obsequious non sequitur.

(But I am serious – what a splendid lot!)