Opinions on 5th marian dogma?

[godisgood77]

Genesis315;1360245:

Finally, there is the idea of her being the Mediatrix of all Graces–the idea that she distributes or dispenses the graces won by her Son or at least that all graces flow through her like a channel or neck. While this doctrine has certainly been taught by Popes and an ecumenical Council, whether it can truly be called a revealed truth (rather than some lesser doctrinal category) I think is debatable. I think an argument for it can be drawn from Scripture (looking at the Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, and Pentecost, especially), but it is not as clear as the others. Looking at the Fathers and Magisterium, an argument can also be made from Tradition, but it is also not as clear as the other two points above. As such, it could be appropriate for the Church’s Magisterium to definitively decide whether it is indeed a revealed truth or not by an extraordinarydefinition.

This idea was never taught by a council. In fact, VII very purposefully stopped short of teaching it. In fact, the last official action on the topic decided unambiguously not to pursue if due to the difficulties it creates. See here:campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/internationalmarianacademy.htm

 

[godisgood77]

There is no 5th Marian Dogma. It is aggravating that some people speak as though the Church has defined it already and more frustrating that they stir up the faithful over it by presuming that it will be and speaking for the Church.

A few thoughts on the topic of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces…

I think it’s important to start by reminding everyone of the weight of the various Church teaching documents… in descending order of formal authority: apostolic/dogmatic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter, letter and message. Lumen Gentium is an Apostolic Constitution which carries the greatest weight and would hold a higher place than the Apostolic Letters and Encyclicals frequently referenced as mentioning the idea of Mediatrix of All Graces. Now it does not take and ex cathedra statement or a council to declare a magisterial teaching, but a council can clarify what may have been said previously and further develop doctrine - as in this case.

Lumen Gentium, an Apostolic Constitution and of highest teaching authority, very purposefully stopped short of declaring Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces when it said “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.” The footnotes that are mentioned earlier in this thread point to minor papal statements and radio addresses which express a personal devotion of various Popes.

This is clear when you understand how the Marian teaching was formed at the Second Vatican Council. During the daily interventions, Archbishop Corrado Mingo of Monorail, Italy argued at the Council that the title “Mediatrix” should be amplified to “Mediatrix of All Graces”, yet it was omitted from LG. Several other Council fathers made that argument as well, still it was not included. It’s a well documented fact that it was considered a compromise between disparate groups at the Council to include the title ‘Mediatrix’, but ‘of All Graces’ was excluded. The fact that the topic was openly argued on the council floor is pretty compelling evidence that the doctrine is not fully formed, let alone universally agreed on by Church Fathers… far from it.

Also at the Council, Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France said that title “Mediatrix” was given in LG, but at the same time it was given no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study as the topic is still heavily debated among theologians. "Perhaps the title ‘Mediatrix might be listed with the other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one’ he said.

To further reinforce the point that the doctrine was not fully formed in the Constitution…during the Council, Cardinal Alfrink of the Netherlands said “the title ‘Mediatrix’ should not be insisted upon, since it generates such great difficulties.” There was a clear divisions between the Council Fathers on whether or not to even include the title 'Mediatrix", let alone define it… And there is no mention of ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’

Last point, the last formal action on this subject was in 1996, when, at the request of the Holy See, a commission was formed to determine whether or not a 5th Marian Dogma should be defined addressing the titles Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously decided not to define a fifth Marian dogma on those titles. You can read more about it here: campus.udayton.edu/mary/resou…ianacademy.htm

So….A Dogmatic Constitution holds the Church’s highest teaching authority. Lumen Gentium did not declare Mary ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’ and purposefully omitted it from the Constitution. The Church has yet to define a teaching on Mary a ‘Mediatrix’ and the last formal action on the subject ended with a decision not to pursue a definition.

Why would the Church allow this issue be openly debated on the Council floor at VII if it was part of the ordinary Magisterium?

What about the graces that flow naturally from the sacraments?? Are we saying that Mary is involved in distributing sacramental graces?

Why wouldn’t it be included in the Catechism that was issued in the 1980’s?? There is no reference to it. The Catechism was developed under PJPII, as much a marian Pope as we have had, no?

Why are there no magisterial documents that define what the title means?

Ultimately, this piece of Marian devotion falls in to the category of personal devotion. The Church may one day declare Mary to be "Mediatrix of All Graces’, but it does not teach that today. Many theologians believe that it can never be declared because of the difficulties it creates.

Pax in Agno,
Dan

 

[paperwight66]

That’s such a helpful summary, Dan.

Thank you.

 

[DaveBj]

There is no 5th Marian Dogma . . . snip

That’s such a helpful summary, Dan.

Thank you.

+1

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I can’t imagine what would happen to ecumenical relations with Protestants and Orthodox if this was made into a dogma. They would only see it as another Catholic “innovation”.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I can’t imagine what would happen to ecumenical relations with Protestants and Orthodox if this was made into a dogma. They would only see it as another Catholic “innovation”.

Exactly why we shouldn’t define it! Yes Mary played a role in salvation, but she is not the Savior!

 

[JM3]

The footnotes that are mentioned earlier in this thread point to minor papal statements and radio addresses which express a personal devotion of various Popes.

Lumen Gentium

1. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)

(16) Cfr. Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Adiutricem populi, 5 sept. 1895: *** 15 (1895-96), p. 303. - S. Pius X, Litt. Encycl. Ad diem illum, 2 febr. 1904: Acta, I, p. 154- Denz. 1978 a (3370) . Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Miserentissimus, 8 maii 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 178. Pius XII, Nuntius Radioph., 13 maii 1946: AAS 38 (1946) p. 266.

Vatican II footnotes these, so called, “minor papal statements”.

Footnotes

A term used to describe additional information found at the bottom of a page. Often a footnote will contain the source of the information, or additional information about the text contained in the document.

Are you familiar with Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Acta Sanctae Sedis or Denzinger? (the *** is the abbreviation for Acta Sanctae Sedis. For some reason the abbreviation won’t post)

 

[godisgood77]

Lumen Gentium

Vatican II footnotes these, so called, “minor papal statements”.

Footnotes

Are you familiar with Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Acta Sanctae Sedis or Denzinger? (the *** is the abbreviation for Acta Sanctae Sedis. For some reason the abbreviation won’t post)

Thanks! I had no idea what a footnote is…

Not sure what your point is though? I’m not dismissing the footnotes… Just making sure they are given their proper weight

That that the footnotes trump what the Fathers saw fit to include in the document explicitly? Couldn’t be…

That Mary prays for us constantly? Agreed totally

That the commissions con ones by Popes to consider this item have declined to pursue this idea on multiple occasions combined with the points in the summary I provided, make the truth abundantly clear for me.

That

 

[JM3]

Thanks! I had no idea what a footnote is…

That that the footnotes trump what the Fathers saw fit to include in the document explicitly? Couldn’t be…

Sorry, I never assume that someone knows or doesn’t know something. However, your post sounds too much like conciliarism to me. Thus, my last question.

 

[godisgood77]

Sorry, I never assume that someone knows or doesn’t know something. However, your post sounds too much like conciliarism to me. Thus, my last question.

Got it… No I’m not putting forward the idea that an Ecumenical Council trumps the authoritative teachings of a Pope. Not at all. However, if you were to ask me to draw teaching from radio address by Pius XII (footnoted in LG) or explicit teaching from body of the Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium if itself, which is promulgated by a Pope, I’m going with the teaching document.

Fair question though… the flip side of counciliarism is, of course ultramontanism. We see ultramontainism often related to Marian topics where a Pope’s personal/private devotions are put forward as requiring ascent of all. That is why I reference the 3 or 4 times that a Pope has convoked official commission to study this particular topic and decided against defining and/or declaring authoritative pronouncements related to Mediatrix, Advocate or Co-redemtrix. Clarity on these sorts of things is important.

 

[ChaosGamma]

Is it necessary for salvation that the Church define this?

It would seem we have managed to survive 2,000 years or so without this definition, and likely will survive another 2,000 years if the Second Coming does not occur first.

And there are enough age-old lies circulating about the Church that there really appears to be no need to provide more ammunition. The Church seeks to reconcile all to Christ, not unnecessarily provide more roadblocks.

Truth is no less true if it is not raised to the level of dogma.

And this couldn’t apply just as much to the Immaculate Conception in 1854 or the Assumption in 1950, how? Was it unnecessary for those to be defined? Would more people convert if they didn’t have those roadblocks standing in their way?

Your last point is true, but to which, see my response below.

I can’t imagine what would happen to ecumenical relations with Protestants and Orthodox if this was made into a dogma. They would only see it as another Catholic “innovation”.

And I should think that whether a teaching is true or not matters far more than what non-Catholics will think of it. If something is the truth then we need to just teach the truth and not worry about what others will think about it. It seems to me that we already have a big problem in the Church today of too many pastors and teachers caring more about what people will think of the Church’s teachings rather than just presenting and explaining those teachings. John VI:61-67 shows me that Our Lord apparently doesn’t think that way.

On the subject at hand, I have no objection to these Marian teachings. They are true and good. Whether they “need” to be defined as dogma I leave the Church to determine.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

And this couldn’t apply just as much to the Immaculate Conception in 1854 or the Assumption in 1950, how? Was it unnecessary for those to be defined? Would more people convert if they didn’t have those roadblocks standing in their way?

Your last point is true, but to which, see my response below.

And I should think that whether a teaching is true or not matters far more than what non-Catholics will think of it. If something is the truth then we need to just teach the truth and not worry about what others will think about it. It seems to me that we already have a big problem in the Church today of too many pastors and teachers caring more about what people will think of the Church’s teachings rather than just presenting and explaining those teachings. John VI:61-67 shows me that Our Lord apparently doesn’t think that way.

On the subject at hand, I have no objection to these Marian teachings. They are true and good. Whether they “need” to be defined as dogma I leave the Church to determine.

So what do you think about the call to ecumenism so poignantly expressed in Vatican II and in the Catechism?

 

[otjm]

And this couldn’t apply just as much to the Immaculate Conception in 1854 or the Assumption in 1950, how? Was it unnecessary for those to be defined? Would more people convert if they didn’t have those roadblocks standing in their way?

Your last point is true, but to which, see my response below.

And I should think that whether a teaching is true or not matters far more than what non-Catholics will think of it. If something is the truth then we need to just teach the truth and not worry about what others will think about it. It seems to me that we already have a big problem in the Church today of too many pastors and teachers caring more about what people will think of the Church’s teachings rather than just presenting and explaining those teachings. John VI:61-67 shows me that Our Lord apparently doesn’t think that way.

On the subject at hand, I have no objection to these Marian teachings. They are true and good. Whether they “need” to be defined as dogma I leave the Church to determine.

I could be wrong - I don’t have a degree in Scripture - but my recollection is that John 6 is the only instance where Christ was teaching something and did not explain, as He usually did - when people did not understand what He meant. So I don’t think your quote from John 6 is relevant to the point you are trying to make. It was an exceedingly unusual way of teaching, where He not only did not explain, but let many walk away.
godisgood77 laid out a fairly thorough research on the issue, and it appears that Rome has essentially little or no interest in pursuing the matter.

The Church holds that not all truths are of equal weight, and this seems to be one of those matters which they choose not go go further with. That does not make it untrue, or even less true. It simply means that the Church does not give it the level of importance that those who continue to bring it up give it.

I understand you have an opinion on the matter and I don’t in any way mean to belittle it. But about 30 years ago I had a bit of an epiphany. It occurred to me in a very deep way that the Church, in 200 centuries or so, probably had more wisdom than I did in the few decades I had been alive. I have tried to let that guide me when I consider what the Church does or does not do since then.

There has been a significant emphasis on evangelization; I cannot describe exactly why 2,500 +/- bishops of the world indicated that needed to be a major emphasis on what the Church needs to do - perhaps it was a reflection on Christ’s commentary about leaving the 99 sheep to go find the one that was lost. For whatever reason, this is not just some minor pet issue with a Pope. And I suspect that consideration of how other Christians (and perhaps non-Christians) might react has a significant part to do with defining or not defining the matter of Mary as Mediatrix. No one has briefed me on the matter, but it does not seem all that hard to see a relationship.

 

[ChaosGamma]

So what do you think about the call to ecumenism so poignantly expressed in Vatican II and in the Catechism?

I could be wrong - I don’t have a degree in Scripture - but my recollection is that John 6 is the only instance where Christ was teaching something and did not explain, as He usually did - when people did not understand what He meant. So I don’t think your quote from John 6 is relevant to the point you are trying to make. It was an exceedingly unusual way of teaching, where He not only did not explain, but let many walk away.
godisgood77 laid out a fairly thorough research on the issue, and it appears that Rome has essentially little or no interest in pursuing the matter.

The Church holds that not all truths are of equal weight, and this seems to be one of those matters which they choose not go go further with. That does not make it untrue, or even less true. It simply means that the Church does not give it the level of importance that those who continue to bring it up give it.

I understand you have an opinion on the matter and I don’t in any way mean to belittle it. But about 30 years ago I had a bit of an epiphany. It occurred to me in a very deep way that the Church, in 200 centuries or so, probably had more wisdom than I did in the few decades I had been alive. I have tried to let that guide me when I consider what the Church does or does not do since then.

There has been a significant emphasis on evangelization; I cannot describe exactly why 2,500 +/- bishops of the world indicated that needed to be a major emphasis on what the Church needs to do - perhaps it was a reflection on Christ’s commentary about leaving the 99 sheep to go find the one that was lost. For whatever reason, this is not just some minor pet issue with a Pope. And I suspect that consideration of how other Christians (and perhaps non-Christians) might react has a significant part to do with defining or not defining the matter of Mary as Mediatrix. No one has briefed me on the matter, but it does not seem all that hard to see a relationship.

I may have gotten just a tad overexcited in my previous post. I have no problem with ecumenism or evangelization, provided that it’s not accomplished at the price of delivering a watered-down Catholicism. Which comes in on this subject: While I’m not particularly pushing that this needs a dogmatic definition, I do believe that the Co-Redemptrix/Mediatrix teaching is all rooted in other basic doctrines that are already, more or less, defined. Or as someone else said, it’s either there or it isn’t. So, my overreaction was in response to, it already being true, it would already be something that any potential converts would have to come to terms with, regardless of whether we’re actually using those titles or not.

Shorter answer: I overthink things too much when posting on the Internet.

I understand you have an opinion on the matter and I don’t in any way mean to belittle it. But about 30 years ago I had a bit of an epiphany. It occurred to me in a very deep way that the Church, in 200 centuries or so, probably had more wisdom than I did in the few decades I had been alive. I have tried to let that guide me when I consider what the Church does or does not do since then.

I more or less agree with this completely. Alas, I still must work on applying that last part.

200 centuries, though, might be just a tad high. I don’t think Holy Mother Church is quite that old.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

And this couldn’t apply just as much to the Immaculate Conception in 1854 or the Assumption in 1950, how? Was it unnecessary for those to be defined? Would more people convert if they didn’t have those roadblocks standing in their way?

Your last point is true, but to which, see my response below.

And I should think that whether a teaching is true or not matters far more than what non-Catholics will think of it. If something is the truth then we need to just teach the truth and not worry about what others will think about it. It seems to me that we already have a big problem in the Church today of too many pastors and teachers caring more about what people will think of the Church’s teachings rather than just presenting and explaining those teachings. John VI:61-67 shows me that Our Lord apparently doesn’t think that way.

On the subject at hand, I have no objection to these Marian teachings. They are true and good. Whether they “need” to be defined as dogma I leave the Church to determine.

Did Mary die for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Mary?

Mary leads us to her Son. If this is defined, it will lead people away from Him.

 

[Chatter163]

Did Mary die for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Mary?

Mary leads us to her Son. If this is defined, it will lead people away from Him.

I’m pretty sure the same thing was said in 1854 and 1950, as well. Yet here we are. I don’t favor the definition, but neither do I subscribe to “doom and gloom” forecasts.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I’m pretty sure the same thing was said in 1854 and 1950, as well. Yet here we are. I don’t favor the definition, but neither do I subscribe to “doom and gloom” forecasts.

Well that is what will happen if we define it!

 

[jschwartz]

Co-redemptrix, like the Assumption, or Immaculate Conception, seem like doctrines which lack the weight of universality behind them. Marian theology is very important to me, but if these are uniquely Roman doctrines, than they are optional, at best.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Co-redemptrix, like the Assumption, or Immaculate Conception, seem like doctrines which lack the weight of universality behind them. Marian theology is very important to me, but if these are uniquely Roman doctrines, than they are optional, at best.

The assumption is definitely not uniquely Roman, as it believed by the Eastern Orthodox and oriental orthodox( basically all non-Protestants). The Immaculate conception is more complicated, but has a fair degree of support from the Armenian and Ethiopian churches. But that’s not relevant to whether or not they are ‘optional’. If you are a catholic, you are required to believe them, end of story

 

[Chatter163]

Well that is what will happen if we define it!

No disrespect intended, but that is completely wrong. If God moves the Holy Father or a council to so declare, then it is the Holy Spirit at work, and He will provide, just as He always has. As I stated before, the same gloomy forecasts were made when the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were defined, and yet converts continued to come into the Church, some precisely because of the increased devotion to Our Lady. In fact, in the case of the Immaculate Conception, it helped lead to her appearance at Lourdes, where she so identified herself, and the many miracles that have occurred there helping to deepen the faith.

If asked, I do not favor such a definition, nor do I consider it likely, even from a pontiff as devoted to Our Lady as Pope Francis. However, he will not be asking for my opinion, nor will any of the bishops, so I will accept any dogmatic definitions that are promulgated.