Mary Mediatrix of all Grace?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi All
This has been interesting to say the least. As I read all your posts, there is only one thing that comes to mind, and that is sadness. To say that without Mary God would not have saved us is sad. To say that it was Mary’sYes!" to God, that allowed Jesus Christ to come in human form is sad. To say that you do believe Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces is sad. I now know why the statue of Mary in Asia or wherever is crying, she is saddened by the amount of praise Catholics are showing towards her and not Jesus. If Mary were here today I’m sure she would tell you to stop focusing on her and focus more on the one who deserves it.
 
40.png
NonDenom:
To say that without Mary God would not have saved us is sad.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure anyone has said that. But we can say that God chose to save us by approaching the Virgin Mary.
40.png
NonDenom:
To say that it was Mary’sYes!" to God, that allowed Jesus Christ to come in human form is sad.
Click to expand...
But why? Wasn’t it Abraham’s “yes” that initiated the covenant?Wasn’t it Moses’ “yes” that allowed God to give us the law?

Wasn’t it our “yes” to Christ that allows Him to come to us? Wasn’t it someone else’s “yes” to Christ that allowed Him to come to you?

VC
 
40.png
NonDenom:
Hi All
This has been interesting to say the least. As I read all your posts, there is only one thing that comes to mind, and that is sadness. To say that without Mary God would not have saved us is sad. To say that it was Mary’sYes!" to God, that allowed Jesus Christ to come in human form is sad. To say that you do believe Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces is sad. I now know why the statue of Mary in Asia or wherever is crying, she is saddened by the amount of praise Catholics are showing towards her and not Jesus. If Mary were here today I’m sure she would tell you to stop focusing on her and focus more on the one who deserves it.
Click to expand...
The whole point of Mary Mediatrix of all grace is to reverse the effect of Original Sin, but to do it in the same order.

Eve tempted Adam, who as Paul says in Romans, that ‘through one man, sin entered the world’. A woman ushered sin into the world. Well in being the redemption of sin, Jesus had a woman usher that redemption into the world. That was her role then, it is her role still.

She was the channel of redemption then, she is still the channel today. God didn’t have to take on flesh, and He doesn’t have to use anyone now. He chooses to involve us. We are not only His creation, but His adopted children. What parent doesn’t want to involve His children. It is responsible parenthood.
 
Non denom,

<< To say that without Mary God would not have saved us is sad.>>

God knew in advance that Mary would say yes. It is not an occasion for sadness…but for rejoicing!
 
Verbum Caro,

<<But why? Wasn’t it Abraham’s “yes” that initiated the covenant?Wasn’t it Moses’ “yes” that allowed God to give us the law?

Wasn’t it our “yes” to Christ that allows Him to come to us? Wasn’t it someone else’s “yes” to Christ that allowed Him to come to you?>>

And, it was through Mary’s “yes” that Jesus Christ took on flesh.
 
40.png
NonDenom:
To say that it was Mary’sYes!" to God, that allowed Jesus Christ to come in human form is sad.
Click to expand...
It’s not sad. It’s what actually happened. Read the Gospels yourself if you don’t believe.

If Mary had said “No,” could the Son of God become the Man-God in another way? Certainly. With God all things are possible. But that’s irrelevant because the fact is this: The Son of God became flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary because she submitted to the will of God.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Dorothy:
Verbum Caro,

<<But why? Wasn’t it Abraham’s “yes” that initiated the covenant?Wasn’t it Moses’ “yes” that allowed God to give us the law?

Wasn’t it our “yes” to Christ that allows Him to come to us? Wasn’t it someone else’s “yes” to Christ that allowed Him to come to you?>>

And, it was through Mary’s “yes” that Jesus Christ took on flesh.
Click to expand...
Hiya Dorothy, I think this is the first time “talking” to you on the forums, so welcome to the forums!

Thank you! But you really should addressing that to Nondenom. I do have a denom, and its Catholic. And I am a dyed-in-the-wool Incarnationalist – hence my screen name: Verbum Caro Factum Est (“The Word became flesh”)

👍 VC
 
40.png
NonDenom:
Hi All
This has been interesting to say the least. As I read all your posts, there is only one thing that comes to mind, and that is sadness. To say that without Mary God would not have saved us is sad. To say that it was Mary’sYes!" to God, that allowed Jesus Christ to come in human form is sad. To say that you do believe Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces is sad. I now know why the statue of Mary in Asia or wherever is crying, she is saddened by the amount of praise Catholics are showing towards her and not Jesus. If Mary were here today I’m sure she would tell you to stop focusing on her and focus more on the one who deserves it.
Click to expand...
Hi there.

I said that, and it’s not “sad”, IT IS THE BIBLE!

Do you see any other salvific plan in there?

No ?

Uh, just as I thought !

Actually, it’s great that God respects our free will, our existence and our cooperation for salvation.
 
mlchance said:
It’s not sad. It’s what actually happened. Read the Gospels yourself if you don’t believe.

If Mary had said “No,” could the Son of God become the Man-God in another way? Certainly. With God all things are possible. But that’s irrelevant because the fact is this: The Son of God became flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary because she submitted to the will of God.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hi All
I didn’t make it clear enough, God could have chose any way to come here, the point I was trying to make is that some of you make it sound as if it hadn’t been for Mary saying “Yes”, we would all be lost. I will try to explain my points better in the future.
Thanks
 
Verbum Caro,

Sorry for the mixup…

And, thank you for the welcome, and the clarification!
 
40.png
NonDenom:
I didn’t make it clear enough, God could have chose any way to come here…
Click to expand...
Yes, He could have, but, again, that’s irrelevant. God didn’t choose “any way;” He chose on particular way. The fact is He chose to become flesh and dwell among by being born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore, salvation for all literally entered the world through the Virgin Mary.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
NonDenom:
Hi All
some of you make it sound as if it hadn’t been for Mary saying “Yes”, we would all be lost.
Click to expand...
That is true, because God did need our cooperation. He knew before hand that we would sin and that Mary would say yes.
 
The one thing that keep sticking out to me in this thread is the constant drum beat of Mary said “yes”. And we say “yes” to allow God to do this or that. Folks God does not need or require our permission to do anything. He alone is sovereign, not us. Sure he allows us free will. But it is so overblown. The scriptural emphasis is always in God’s will not man’s will.

This exaltation of human free will is a bit extreme. Mary did indeed accept what God chose for her. She did not give God permission to be incarnate in her womb. Gabriel told her what would happen and she submitted to it. But you will not find all this stuff about man’s free will in scripture and certainly not in the story of Mary.

It is important to not confuse obedience to God’s will with the supremacy of man’s will. Obedience and free will are in different categories. Sure one needs to be exercised for the other to happen but it is merely a process not the end result. This over-emphasis on the human will borders on pelagianism. God does not need our permission and it is He who inclines our hearts toward Him before we excercise our will.

That in mind Mary being the Mediatrix of all graces is problematic because it travels the road of logical conclusions to an illogical and irrelevent point. We could keep going to say that Mary’s dad was the mediator of all graces as well because he was obedient to God by raising his daughter to then be the Theotokos and bringing her into the world. All Marian dogma points to Jesus. Making another based on this serves no purpose but to confuse. It tells us nothing more about Jesus therefore it is pointless.

Mel
 
40.png
mlchance:
Yes, He could have, but, again, that’s irrelevant. God didn’t choose “any way;” He chose on particular way. The fact is He chose to become flesh and dwell among by being born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore, salvation for all literally entered the world through the Virgin Mary.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
But we alreayd know that? Every Catholic, Protestant and Orhtodox know that Mary entered the world through Mary. It is redundant and silly to use loaded language that complicates future Christian unity to make a point that was never in dispute. All grace is from God alone. He always uses means of grace to apply them. It would be more accurate to say that the Bishop is the mediator of all graces since he is the one who can perfom all 7 Sacraments (or means of Grace). What is so theologically important to dogmatize this. It is theological hair splitting and does not elevate or point to Jesus in anyway beyond what is already accepted.

It is a rabbit hole. This get’s dogmatized them in 200 years Mary as the bringer of Pentacost would be just as logical since Jesus came through her and he oured out the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Pentacost therefore…

You get it?

Mel
 
Hi all,

I too have had LOTS of problems with this topic. For starters - Mary is billed as the Ark of the new Covenant, based on the fact of the original Ark in Exodus, and all the parallels there. So…that being the case, when the Old Ark was in use [here on earth] God CHOSE to work through it to do whatever needed to be done - true the israelites venerated the ark - but did not pray to it to recieve anything - they Prayed to God, as far as I can see. The Ark - in this area - had a passive role…like a conduit. Mary appears in scripture to have had the same role - she is the only other person mentioned by name [apart from certain Apostles that is] at both the choosing of a new member to replace Judas, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at pentecost. A passive role it seems, because nothing else is written concerning it - or her for that matter, anywhere else outside of Revelations. At least as far as I know anyway.

So…that being the case - I can grasp the idea that she is part of the ‘body of believers’ – the Bride of Christ, whatever you wish to call us all together like this - lol - and as such she has certain functions there as does everyone else who is alive, passed on to heaven, or is in purgatory - yet ALL things come from God because of Christs mediation for us. When the old Ark was removed, nothing else is mentioned about it, anywhere outside of Rumor at least - again, as far as I can tell. So we are left to conclude then that God chose NOT to work through the Ark to accomplish anything else he did with the israelites after this. Wouldn’t the same then also be true of Mary? Or does her presence in the body facilitate this role as mediatrix?

As I said - confusion here. :confused: I have looked through several sites online, as well as the CCC, and several books - but still I am confused. :eek: Help?

peace
 
40.png
Melchior:
But we alreayd know that? Every Catholic, Protestant and Orhtodox know that Mary entered the world through Mary. It is redundant and silly to use loaded language that complicates future Christian unity to make a point that was never in dispute. All grace is from God alone. He always uses means of grace to apply them. It would be more accurate to say that the Bishop is the mediator of all graces since he is the one who can perfom all 7 Sacraments (or means of Grace). What is so theologically important to dogmatize this. It is theological hair splitting and does not elevate or point to Jesus in anyway beyond what is already accepted.

It is a rabbit hole. This get’s dogmatized them in 200 years Mary as the bringer of Pentacost would be just as logical since Jesus came through her and he oured out the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Pentacost therefore…

You get it?

Mel
Click to expand...
Correction: Every Catholic, Protestant and Orhtodox know that Jesus entered the world through Mary.
 
Budd said:
Hi Asteroid, I like your line of thought.

I am having a great deal of trouble with alot of what I’m seeing and hearing in regard to the Blessed Mother. Protestants accuse us of worshiping her and we give them a latin translation of the word worship. I speak english as do the vast majority of the folks in this country. We are to worship God and God alone. We as catholics don’t believe in the doctrine of scripture alone, but isn’t it interesting that we can justify all of our beliefs with scripture until we get to Mary? I have a very special place in my heart for Christ’s mother because she heard the Word of God and did it. This is what Jesus said made her special, Lk 11:27-28. I pray that she along with all the saints pray for all of us to Jesus the Christ in whom all of our hope rest. Happy Thanksgiving to all, Budd
Click to expand...
If you believed that a stone is a tree, would it become a tree? By no means NO! It will remain what it is; on the contrary its you to change your believe to what it should be.
So, if a Catholic believes in something eg that Mary is the Queen of heaven while she is not, Mary will not become because he believes so, but the fact will remain. It would be beneficial to the person if he’d change the believe from the imagined to the reality. A dogma is implied and not factual; if it turns out that its not true you’ll suffer. If you don’t believe on the dogma and it turns out not to be true, you’ll be safe. I better be safe than to put my hope in something that am not sure about.
 
asteroid said:
Are there any other cases in which someone gives us a gift and we run off and thank their mother? If my wife gives me a present I don’t thank her mother and say that the gift came in some way through her since she gave birth to and raised my wife.

Grace comes through Jesus.

Grace does not come through Mary.

Giving birth to someone does not mean that everything they subsequently give actually comes indirectly through you.

I don’t understand why we as Catholics have to say that what a (grown-up, eternal, fully God) child gives comes indirectly from the mother.
Click to expand...
The Church itself warns against excess devotion to Mary, but it’s often hard to see where the line is drawn, in the sand, so to speak.

As I heard a priest say, Mary doesn’t need more honors. I don’t see how we can exceed any honor that God has given her, or why we would want to even try.

It seems that over the centuries, Catholic theologians have been tripping over themselves to say excessive things about Mary, to add superlative to superlative.

Logically, whatever came “through” Mary came through her parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. Where does it stop?

The conversation takes an altogether different turn, when you consider what some have said, like the late Fr. Raymond Brown, that the infancy narratives of the gospel are all fiction. So, what’s left after all this slicing and dicing of scripture? Brown was very highly respected and on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. His utterances are not considered infallible, for sure; he tried to pull every end run around church teaching (it seems to me) that he could get away with – because in doing so, he was not contradicting actual Church dogmatic teaching. Whatever.

If you wander into Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume History of Church Doctrine, you find that the teaching of Mary-mediatrix is much older than you thought, going back somewhere to around the fifth century, if I recall correctly. People have really been busy staking out ground for Mary.

While it sounds very negative of me to point this out, I don’t know that Mary ever said the Rosary or otherwise prayed to herself. So, why should we?

It’s hard to really understand what was widespread or universal belief in the early church. All we have are selected writings that have survived. Look at Duns Scotus. He defended the immaculate conception of Mary. Then, 500 years later, it becomes a dogma. So, are those other people in the last 500 years who didn’t even know about this dogma now condemned? or those who may have disagreed with Scotus even til the day they died?

Did Christ bring a religion that was to become the domain of these technical scholars?
 
In St. Louis de Montfort’s book “True Devotion to Mary” he explains clearly what false devotions to our Blessed Mother are.

He also explains the characteristics of true devotion to the Blessed Virgin. (Basically, imitating her virtues.)

The goal of devotion to Mary is union with our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 16:12-15 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

The development of doctrine about our Blessed Mother should be received with rejoicing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top