"Some Christians see little more in Mary than..."

[MariaChristi]

Dear godisgood,

In reply to your two posts: First, let me repeat my response to FractalFire which you may not have seen; I’m not sure if you went through the entire thread or not:

Originally Posted by MariaChristi View Post
Dear FractalFire and SyroMalankara,

Fr. Neubert is speaking of “man” as mankind or humankind, which includes all of the human race – men and women who are only human persons. I wonder if this translation from the original French to English was a poor translation. Obviously, Father is not “forgetting” the God-Man, Jesus Christ, Who is the Divine Person who assumed our human nature. Father Neubert’s most famous book is entitled “My Ideal, Jesus, Son of Mary”.

Second, in reply to your next post, in which you stated:

godisgood:

Maria…here is a summary of the last official Church action on this topic… The idea of Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemtrix and advocate is still hotly debated in the Church. Let alone ‘all graces’. We should not speak as though this is a teaching of the Church that the faithful must believe…in fact, we should carefully avoid it as directed by Lumen Gentium chapter 8. It is unfortunate that so many try to speak for the Church on this subject and act as though it is already a teaching of the Church

“Co-redemptrix” may still be debated by some, but the titles of “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church without any apology, in paragraph 639:

639 “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 fulfilment 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.” (Underlining is mine for emphasis).

The footnote for the last sentence is taken from Lumen Gentium, paragraph 62:

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*) (Underlining is mine).

The footnotes (16), (17) and (18) are all references from the New Testament. It seems to me that Lumen Gentium is not warning us not to use such titles but it is telling us they need to be understood. That is very important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written in order to help Catholics better understand their faith. Unfortunately there are still many Catholics who do not understand the faith but have rather many misunderstandings . There was very poor catechesis following Vatican II, in many areas and there are still many misunderstandings about Mary. Pope St. John Paul II saw this sad truth in 1982, stating:

…It is no wonder that today, in various sectors of secularized society, we note a widespread crisis of faith in God, preceded by a drop in devotion to the Virgin Mother…(Address to Legion of Mary, Oct. 30, 1982)

I appreciated your concerns and your posting the text of the Theological commission, but It seems to me this thread was not discussing a definition of any dogma. It is merely pointing out the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church, especially as given in the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. In reading the report of the theological commission and their conclusions, it is understandable they wanted further study, before any definition could be made on titles which could have different meanings, but I thought the last sentence of the report was especially significant: “the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.”

 

[godisgood77]

Second, in reply to your next post, in which you stated:

“Co-redemptrix” may still be debated by some, but the titles of “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church without any apology, in paragraph 639:

Agreed. However, those terms are not defined and,as such, are subject to many different interpretations.

The footnote for the last sentence is taken from Lumen Gentium, paragraph 62:

The footnotes (16), (17) and (18) are all references from the New Testament. It seems to me that Lumen Gentium is not warning us not to use such titles but it is telling us they need to be understood. That is very important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written in order to help Catholics better understand their faith. Unfortunately there are still many Catholics who do not understand the faith but have rather many misunderstandings . There was very poor catechesis following Vatican II, in many areas and there are still many misunderstandings about Mary. Pope St. John Paul II saw this sad truth in 1982, stating:

I’ll post a summary about Mediatrix and Lumen Gentium in a moment

]I appreciated your concerns and your posting the text of the Theological commission, but It seems to me this thread was not discussing a definition of any dogma. It is merely pointing out the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church, especially as given in the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. In reading the report of the theological commission and their conclusions, it is understandable they wanted further study, before any definition could be made on titles which could have different meanings, but I thought the last sentence of the report was especially significant: “the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.”

Agreed, not discussing dogma here. Simply the correct understanding of these titles and their meaning. While the some of the titles have been used; albeit sparingly, they do not have a unified meaning yet. Not even among scholars and theologians. Issues arise when good Catholics put forth their ideas on this subject as if they are fact when, in reality, these are hotly debated subjects at the highest levels of the Church. That’s all I’m saying.

Thank-you so much for the response! I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[godisgood77]

Maria, Here is a summary on the idea of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces. Interested in your thoughts.

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.

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? What are we to think of the commissions put together by Popes to study the topic finding deciding against pursuing this subject?

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

 

[MariaChristi]

Dear godisgood,

Thanks for going back to this point:

godisgood:

Agreed, not discussing dogma here…

This thread began with a quote from Fr. Neubert, for more on this holy priest called "Marian Apostle of Modern Times see HERE.
I continue to agree with Pope St. John Paul II whom I quoted:

…It is no wonder that today, in various sectors of secularized society, we note a widespread crisis of faith in God, preceded by a drop in devotion to the Virgin Mother…(Address to Legion of Mary, Oct. 30, 1982)

May the Holy Spirit continue to guide God’s Holy Church into the complete truth (cf Jn 16:13)
Come Holy Spirit, kindle in us the Fire of Your Love
Our Lady of Light, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mother of the Church, pray for us.
Jesus, I trust in You.

 

[chaplainmom]

Thank you for sharing this!

 

[godisgood77]

Dear godisgood,

Thanks for going back to this point:

This thread began with a quote from Fr. Neubert, for more on this holy priest called "Marian Apostle of Modern Times see HERE.
I continue to agree with Pope St. John Paul II whom I quoted:

May the Holy Spirit continue to guide God’s Holy Church into the complete truth (cf Jn 16:13)
Come Holy Spirit, kindle in us the Fire of Your Love
Our Lady of Light, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mother of the Church, pray for us.
Jesus, I trust in You.

I agree with you and St JPII that there is a correlation between decline in faith in God and devotional practices. I think we need to take a serious look at why Marian devotion drops. I believe that it is because we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotional practices; especially Marian devotions. It our devotions are not rooted in the deposit of faith and steeped in scripture, then we have an issue.

I highly recommend the book “The Question of Mary” by Fr Rene Laurentin - an acclaimed Marian scholar. The book carries an imprimatur and nihil obstat and does a masterful job of articulating the tendencies that corrupt Marian devotional practices. The best book, in my view, to aid in forming a properly ordered love and devotion to Mary.

 

[MariaChristi]

Thank you for sharing this!

Dear chaplainmom,

Thanks for your reply. Would you like to add more on what particularly blessed you? I hope you were able to spend some time with the article on Fr. Neubert. I was blessed especially reading this paragraph from the article:

…Heir to the teachings of the founder of the Society of Mary (Marianists), Blessed William Joseph Chaminade, Neubert, in his small book Mon ideal, Jésus, Fils de Marie, gives us, in a kind of short “tract of missionary spirituality,” a veritable pedagogy for walking the road to holiness. It is an itinerary of the Christian life in which Jesus and Mary speak to all the baptized in an interpersonal relationship. Translated into more than fifty languages, a pocket edition of this work inspired millions of Christians, including Saint Maximilian Kolbe and Frank Duff.

After this little masterpiece of Marian spirituality, Neubert would go more deeply into Mary’s mission and ours with a concern for evangelization…

Following the path traced by the written work of Emile Neubert, a new response to this desire should “further a devotion rooted in the doctrinal exigencies of faith.”

We live at a time when saints like Pope John Paul II, St. Maximilian Kolbe St. Louis de Montfort, and the Servant of God Frank Duff are shining examples of men who, by God’s Grace, saw deeply into the the Mystery of Mary and her role in the Mystical Body of Christ. The New Evangelization which Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI called for echoes clearly to me the messages I’ve read by all these holy men.

Servant of God Frank Duff was given a standing ovation by the Bishops at Vatican II for his work in the Legion of Mary. Ven. Edel Quinn “wrote large” with her life spreading devotion to Mary through the Legion in Africa. and Servant of God Alphonsus Lambe gave himself so totally to Jesus through Mary’s Legion in Latin America – both offer shining examples to all as well.

Pope Francis in his Lenten message for 2016 wrote:

…After receiving the Good News told to her by the Archangel Gabriel, Mary, in her Magnificat , prophetically sings of the mercy whereby God chose her. The Virgin of Nazareth, betrothed to Joseph, thus becomes the perfect icon of the Church which evangelizes, for she was, and continues to be, evangelized by the Holy Spirit, who made her virginal womb fruitful. In the prophetic tradition, mercy is strictly related – even on the etymological level – to the maternal womb ( rahamim ) and to a generous, faithful and compassionate goodness ( hesed ) shown within marriage and family relationships…

“…Let us not waste this season of Lent, so favourable a time for conversion! We ask this through the maternal intercession of the Virgin Mary, who, encountering the greatness of God’s mercy freely bestowed upon her, was the first to acknowledge her lowliness (cf. Lk 1:48) and to call herself the Lord’s humble servant (cf. Lk 1:38).”

By God’s Grace, may we “not waste this season of Lent, so favorable a time for conversion. We ask this through the maternal intercession of the Virgin Mary…” May all Christians hear more deeply Jesus’ words: “Behold your Mother” . May we obey as John did, and take her into our lives.

 

[fide]

I agree with you and St JPII that there is a correlation between decline in faith in God and devotional practices. I think we need to take a serious look at why Marian devotion drops. I believe that it is because we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotional practices; especially Marian devotions. It our devotions are not rooted in the deposit of faith and steeped in scripture, then we have an issue.

I highly recommend the book “The Question of Mary” by Fr Rene Laurentin - an acclaimed Marian scholar. The book carries an imprimatur and nihil obstat and does a masterful job of articulating the tendencies that corrupt Marian devotional practices. The best book, in my view, to aid in forming a properly ordered love and devotion to Mary.

Hello Godisgood77.

St. JPII’s phrase, quoted by MariaChristi was “…It is no wonder that today, in various sectors of secularized society, we note a widespread crisis of faith in God, preceded by a drop in devotion to the Virgin Mother…” He used the phrase “devotion to the Virgin Mother”; you translated your agreement with him to “devotional practices.”

You then stated your current belief with that phrase: “I believe that … we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotional practices; especially Marian devotions.”

I do not understand what you mean by this word “sensationalize” here. Can you explain what “sensationalized devotional practices” are, or look like?

Certainly authentic “devotion” to Mary is a deeply interior reality, which can be expressed in many ways, through many “devotional practices.” And it is possible to include certain “devotional practices” in one’s life in different ways, by some people with deeply held interior devotion - and perhaps by others with a devotional life much more superficial, and far less developed or mature.

John Paul II was speaking specifically of the interior reality of authentic devotion, and not merely “devotional practices”. A slightly expanded portion of his address to the Legion of Mary (from the Legion of Mary Handbook, which includes that which MariaChristi quoted) is:

1. Yours is an eminently Marian spirituality, not only because the Legion glories in carrying Mary’s name as its unfurled banner, but above all because it bases its method of spirituality and apostolate on the dynamic principle of union with Mary, on the truth of the intimate participation of the Virgin Mary in the plan of salvation.
   In other words, you intend to render your service to every person, who is the image of Christ, with the spirit and the solicitude of Mary.

If our one and only Mediator is the man Jesus Christ, as the Council states, “Mary’s motherly role towards men in no way dims or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ: on the contrary, it demonstrates its efficacy” (LG 60). So the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Perpetual Help, Mediatrix, Mother of the Church.

For its birth and growth, apostolic work looks to her who gave birth to Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Where the Mother is, there too is the Son. When one moves away from the Mother, sooner or later he ends up keeping distant from the Son as well. It is no wonder that today, in various sectors of secularised society, we note a widespread crisis of faith in God, preceded by a drop in devotion to the Virgin Mother.

Your Legion forms a part of those movements that feel personally committed to the spread or the birth of that faith through the spread or the revival of devotion to Mary. It therefore will always be able to do its utmost that, through love for the Mother, the Son, Who is the way, the truth and the life of every person, will be more known and loved.
In this perspective of faith and love I impart the Apostolic Blessing to you from my heart.

I think it is clear from this, that he was praising the Legion specifically for that deep, authentic heart-true devotion to Mary which finds authentic, real expression in many “practices” and ways of living out such faith - the authentic Faith of the Church.

But again, what do you mean by “we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotional practices; especially Marian devotions”?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Our Blessed Lady is unique in that she alone was worthy of creation. She was created without original sin but from the moment of her conception she did exactly what God would want an individual to do. She grew every moment even in the womb to know love and serve God perfectly. She lived a life as perfect in a finite way as God is perfect in an infinite way.

She not only did not commit a mortal sin but she did not even commit a venial sin. This was by her own choices. She swam in grace like a fish in water as nature itself and God intended for a human being to be.

God is Heaven to us but to God being with His Blessed Mother is His Heaven.

For those who do not recognize how much like Jesus Our Blessed Mother was they must just look at nature itself. Was he not taken from her flesh alone. Was it not her egg that was fertilized by the Holy Spirit. Was it not her blood that flowed through her child in her womb who was God. She feed God. Did God not grow from His mothers food. Did she not give birth to him, wash him, feed him from her own milk, hold and worship and adore her son and her God. Did she not kiss and embrace her God in her arms.

Did she not spend 30 years living and hearing the perfect wisdom of His mind. Our Blessed Mother knows loves and serves God better then all the rest of us put together.

He tried not to brag about her too much but he spoke about the great treasure which was buried in the earth and someone sold all they have to buy the field to possess the treasure. He was talking about the Blessed Trinity and Our Blessed Mother and Our Holy Mother the Church. God sold everything he had by becoming a man. A piece of the earth.

Anyway I hold the conviction that Our Blessed Mother did not require salvation and was the only human who was worthy of creation which is one element that is behind creation as well as the love of creation. For God is infinitely just and justice would convince me that someone worthy of creation should be created.

So no other human being was worthy of creation? God never makes mistakes when he creates a new human but this is what you imply. Please tell me that was just hyperbole.

 

[MariaChristi]

So no other human being was worthy of creation? God never makes mistakes when he creates a new human but this is what you imply. Please tell me that was just hyperbole.

Dear Jon,

Of course, HeartnSoulMan, can only answer for himself, and I’m not sure he’ll return to this thread. When I read his post, I took it to be hyperbole. Certainly Mary Mother of God is unique in all of creation as the only human person conceived without original sin and she remained sinless throughout her life. The phrase “she alone was worthy of creation” is an attempt at high praise but I do not think he was implying that God ever makes a mistake. Every human being is known to God in a unique way, It is possible God looked at the totality of Mary’s existence and was immeasurably pleased – really more pleased with Mary-- than with any other except His only Son Who became Incarnate in Mary’s womb.

Perhaps HeartnSoulMan will explain for himself. Often when one is in love, he can speak in hyperbole, don’t you think. I think that is the case here.

 

[godisgood77]

But again, what do you mean by “we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotional practices; especially Marian devotions”?

Hello Fide,

When I say we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotions… I mean our devotions are often prone to exaggeration, hyperbole which give a poor representation of the belief of Catholics and we often say things like this:

Our Blessed Lady is unique in that she alone was worthy of creation. She was created without original sin but from the moment of her conception she did exactly what God would want an individual to do.

and this:

Anyway I hold the conviction that Our Blessed Mother did not require salvation and was the only human who was worthy of creation which is one element that is behind creation as well as the love of creation.

I am speaking of the tendencies that Popes and Saints have warned us against:

From Fr Rene Laurentin’s book “The Question of Mary” pg 12…

“Pius XII recognized some real problems in the development of Marian devotion. The Marian fervor and piety of this pope accompanied a concern for a true sense of proportion, a reticence which astonished some mariologists, and moderating influence in which he carried on the ancient tradition of the Holy See in the matter. Pius XII was very guarded about the dogmatization of Mary as the mediatrix and co-redemtrix, for he did not wish to do anything which might veil the transcendence of the unus Mediator. He systematically avoided the title co-redemtrix in his pontifical acts, and in his directives to the Marian theologians was ver careful to warn against exaggeration as well as against understatement.”

Pope Saint John XXIII adopted the same moderating voice as his predecessor when he said

“…to cultivate certain excessive practices and special devotions in the cult of the Madonna… devotions which at times give a poor idea of the piety of our good people…Certain pious practices satisfy only the emotions, but they do not suffice for the fulfilling of religious obligations, and correspond even less to the first three weighty and imperious commandments of the Decalogue”

Again from Pope Saint John XIII -

" The experience of this first year… of the new Bishop of Rome… has given him the feeling that certain souls make use of special devotions, new titles and a cult of local inspiration and character, which give the impression of leaving the field free to fantasy with little room for the concentrated activity of the soul. We would invite you to keep to what is simplest and most ancient in the practice of the Church."

Last I look to the moderating influence of Pope St John Paul II in his letter dated 12/9/2003 to none other than the Montfort Religious Family:

This Saint’s teaching has had a profound influence on the Marian devotion of many of the faithful and on my own life. It is a lived teaching of outstanding ascetic and mystical depth, expressed in a lively and passionate style that makes frequent use of images and symbols. However, the considerable development of Marian theology since St. Louis Marie’s time is largely due to the crucial contribution made by the Second Vatican Council. The Montfort teaching, therefore, which has retained its essential validity should be reread and reinterpreted today in the light of the Council.

I posted a summary of the development of Marian teaching and its direction from the Second Vatican Council in a post earlier in this thread.

My point is only that we have to be aware of the tendency that exists to corrupt properly ordered devotions…I point to another quote from Fr. Laurentin - a world renowned scholar in Marian studies…

"The abundance of the Marian movement is, to a large extent, inorganic. Certain features of normal growth can be discovered, but many phenomena suggest unavoidably what in the field of biology would bear such names as mobbed giantism, elephantitis or metastasis.

 

[fide]

Hello Fide,

When I say we Catholics tend to sensationalize our devotions… I mean our devotions are often prone to exaggeration, hyperbole which give a poor representation of the belief of Catholics and we often say things like this:

and this:

I am speaking of the tendencies that Popes and Saints have warned us against:

From Fr Rene Laurentin’s book “The Question of Mary” pg 12…

Pope Saint John XXIII adopted the same moderating voice as his predecessor when he said

Again from Pope Saint John XIII -

Last I look to the moderating influence of Pope St John Paul II in his letter dated 12/9/2003 to none other than the Montfort Religious Family: I posted a summary of the development of Marian teaching and its direction from the Second Vatican Council in a post earlier in this thread.

My point is only that we have to be aware of the tendency that exists to corrupt properly ordered devotions…I point to another quote from Fr. Laurentin - a world renowned scholar in Marian studies…

With a positive and affirmative focus, how would you describe your own devotional life as a Catholic? What is your center? What are the major branches? Where is the organic growth now appearing? What fruit are you hoping for? What is Mary’s place in it?

 

[godisgood77]

With a positive and affirmative focus, how would you describe your own devotional life as a Catholic? What is your center? What are the major branches? Where is the organic growth now appearing? What fruit are you hoping for? What is Mary’s place in it?

Quite simply, Christ-centered. First and foremost, I try attend Mass as frequently as feasible. Mass is the highest form of prayer and the only absolutely necessary one for me. Behind that, a Divine Mercy Chaplet in the morning and a Rosary before bed…both with my wife (I try to sneak a Lorica of St Patrick in when I can). Each night we pray personal prayers with our children. Behind that, close alignment to the Church’s liturgical calendar… saints of the day are something that our family pays close attention to.

For Mary and the rest of the Saints, we pray with them to God. We try to join our voices to theirs to make a more lovely sound for God. I think of it as if each individual is singing a solo and the choirs of angels and saints, join their voices to that solo (which is normally a bit off key) to form a symphony of syncopated sound that comes close to being worthy of our God’s ears.

What fruit do hope for? Beside asking for protection and guidance for my children, I try to only ask God for the wisdom and courage to do His will. I know Mary and the rest of the saints pray with me on that point. Discerning God’s will…

Other than that, I enjoy spiritual reading… Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs Van Balthasar, Yves Congar… are some favorites of the recent century… I’m particularly drawn to Ignatian Spirituality and have dabbled in the Spiritual Exercises. I’ve read, Montfort, St John of the Cross, Therese of Avila and Lisieux, love Mother Theresa, Thomas Merton… I read as much as a husband and dad of young kids can…

Ultimately… I fall well short of being the Saint that we are all called to be, but try to point all of the above toward action in the for of the Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy… without works, the rest means nothing…

That’s was a mouthful…Why do you ask?

 

[fide]

Quite simply, Christ-centered. First and foremost, I try attend Mass as frequently as feasible. Mass is the highest form of prayer and the only absolutely necessary one for me. Behind that, a Divine Mercy Chaplet in the morning and a Rosary before bed…both with my wife (I try to sneak a Lorica of St Patrick in when I can). Each night we pray personal prayers with our children. Behind that, close alignment to the Church’s liturgical calendar… saints of the day are something that our family pays close attention to.

For Mary and the rest of the Saints, we pray with them to God. We try to join our voices to theirs to make a more lovely sound for God. I think of it as if each individual is singing a solo and the choirs of angels and saints, join their voices to that solo (which is normally a bit off key) to form a symphony of syncopated sound that comes close to being worthy of our God’s ears.

What fruit do hope for? Beside asking for protection and guidance for my children, I try to only ask God for the wisdom and courage to do His will. I know Mary and the rest of the saints pray with me on that point. Discerning God’s will…

Other than that, I enjoy spiritual reading… Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs Van Balthasar, Yves Congar… are some favorites of the recent century… I’m particularly drawn to Ignatian Spirituality and have dabbled in the Spiritual Exercises. I’ve read, Montfort, St John of the Cross, Therese of Avila and Lisieux, love Mother Theresa, Thomas Merton… I read as much as a husband and dad of young kids can…

Ultimately… I fall well short of being the Saint that we are all called to be, but try to point all of the above toward action in the for of the Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy… without works, the rest means nothing…

That’s was a mouthful…Why do you ask?

Thank you for such an open and full response! It helps me understand, I think, your response to Marian devotion that you find to be sensational, or exaggerated. If there were only two “languages” in the world, they might be the language of theology (the “logic” of theos-God), and the love-language of devotion.

If this were the case - bear with me as I extrapolate this thought to see where it leads… - it seems that you prefer the language of theology with its requirement of precision - to express most clearly and precisely, the concepts of the Faith as understood. The language of devotion is not so precise, because it is so very close to the heart, so infused with love that truth becomes merged and enfolded with that love. Devotion expresses the interior living substance of the Faith; theology seeks to contain the truths of the Faith in concepts - words and sentences. Theology is like, it seems, a guardian of devotion - the protector and defender of truth.

Both are necessary! Theology must be done on one’s knees, with a heart humbled before the living God. Theology without devotion is like a head without a heart, and devotion without theology is like a heart with no head - like feelings ungrounded in reality. On this point, it seems that in defense of Truth you judge some language of devotion to be sensational, or exaggerated. And so concerning this, I would encourage you to be a bit less critical of language that, may be fuzzy and excessive and effusive, seems to threaten Truth. Words of love, spoken in reference to the Beloved, can sound excessive and extravagant in the harsh light of day and on a busy sidewalk.

Mary’s place in Catholic Faith is unique - “completely” unique, although that is redundant, but “unique” by itself in this case must be stressed. Maybe, “Mary’s place in Catholic Faith is unique!” The word “hyperdulia” is used to express this unique devotion:

The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son. “The various forms of piety towards the Mother of God, which the Church has approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine according to the dispositions and understanding of the faithful, ensure that while the mother is honored, the Son through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly loved and glorified and His commandments are observed” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, VII, 66). (Etym. Latin hyperdulia, virtue of deep submission.)
(from CatholicCulture.org)

Thus the veneration due Mary is not “merely” dulia that is due the other saints - she is special, indeed unique. If a saint or writer in the Church (and faithful to the Church) seems effusive, extravagant and excessive in his language concerning Mary, give him some slack. He loves her.

 

[godisgood77]

Thank you for such an open and full response! It helps me understand, I think, your response to Marian devotion that you find to be sensational, or exaggerated. If there were only two “languages” in the world, they might be the language of theology (the “logic” of theos-God), and the love-language of devotion.

If this were the case - bear with me as I extrapolate this thought to see where it leads… - it seems that you prefer the language of theology with its requirement of precision - to express most clearly and precisely, the concepts of the Faith as understood. The language of devotion is not so precise, because it is so very close to the heart, so infused with love that truth becomes merged and enfolded with that love. Devotion expresses the interior living substance of the Faith; theology seeks to contain the truths of the Faith in concepts - words and sentences. Theology is like, it seems, a guardian of devotion - the protector and defender of truth.

Both are necessary! Theology must be done on one’s knees, with a heart humbled before the living God. Theology without devotion is like a head without a heart, and devotion without theology is like a heart with no head - like feelings ungrounded in reality. On this point, it seems that in defense of Truth you judge some language of devotion to be sensational, or exaggerated. And so concerning this, I would encourage you to be a bit less critical of language that, may be fuzzy and excessive and effusive, seems to threaten Truth. Words of love, spoken in reference to the Beloved, can sound excessive and extravagant in the harsh light of day and on a busy sidewalk.

Mary’s place in Catholic Faith is unique - “completely” unique, although that is redundant, but “unique” by itself in this case must be stressed. Maybe, “Mary’s place in Catholic Faith is unique!” The word “hyperdulia” is used to express this unique devotion:

The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son. “The various forms of piety towards the Mother of God, which the Church has approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine according to the dispositions and understanding of the faithful, ensure that while the mother is honored, the Son through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly loved and glorified and His commandments are observed” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, VII, 66). (Etym. Latin hyperdulia, virtue of deep submission.)
(from CatholicCulture.org)

Thus the veneration due Mary is not “merely” dulia that is due the other saints - she is special, indeed unique. If a saint or writer in the Church (and faithful to the Church) seems effusive, extravagant and excessive in his language concerning Mary, give him some slack. He loves her.

Thanks for the note fide, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I truly come at this issue prayerfully and as delicate as I can… I am in love with our Blessed Mother, too and feel compelled in conscious to speak up. Forgive me if I come across as anything less than charitable, that is not my intent.

I have had experiences recently where some folks with, shall we say, a robust Marian devotion, have indicated that Catholics without their level of effusive, extravagant and excessive language are undervaluing her or don’t have as deep a devotion. That is why I point out the positions of a few saint and Popes to make sure we give to Mary the veneration that she is properly due… , but in accordance with the Church’s teaching.

All in, I’m thrilled that there are people with deep devotion to Mary, as I am myself. I do think, though, that we do her offense when we sensationalize our language and gestures toward her.

I’d be very interested in comments related to what the few posts I’ve put out there in this thread. I haven’t seen any comments on their substance.

 

[fide]

Thanks for the note fide, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I truly come at this issue prayerfully and as delicate as I can… I am in love with our Blessed Mother, too and feel compelled in conscious to speak up. Forgive me if I come across as anything less than charitable, that is not my intent.

I have had experiences recently where some folks with, shall we say, a robust Marian devotion, have indicated that Catholics without their level of effusive, extravagant and excessive language are undervaluing her or don’t have as deep a devotion. That is why I point out the positions of a few saint and Popes to make sure we give to Mary the veneration that she is properly due… , but in accordance with the Church’s teaching.

All in, I’m thrilled that there are people with deep devotion to Mary, as I am myself. I do think, though, that we do her offense when we sensationalize our language and gestures toward her.

I’d be very interested in comments related to what the few posts I’ve put out there in this thread. I haven’t seen any comments on their substance.

I am happy to hear of your devotion to Mary. I can understand your taking a counter-position to some whose devotion is in fact beyond the truth - but I no longer want to wade into that pool of contention, a pool of arguments and counter-arguments that goes on, it seems, forever with no resolution.

For example, concerning the title Mediatrix of all Graces (which you seem to resist) as opposed to Mediatrix (which I think you support, as it is in LG). To me the distinction is not important. If she is mediatrix at all, what sense would it be to grant her only some “graces” but not others? Grace is a participation in the life of God - and His life is one, not composed of parts and pieces. Mary in a sense is the Church in perfection - the perfect example of redeemed humanity, humanity saved from sin and saved for God - and His Church, His Body, His Bride, was sent in His name to convey His saving grace to this world. So her (her the Church, her Mary) her mediation in His name is simply true and I see no argument against the truth of it. Except “ecumenical sensitivity” which I don’t take too seriously.

May the good Lord bless you! And continue to lead you into His life and truth. But I don’t think that inappropriate devotion to Mary can be corrected by rigorous attention to defined mariology. Inappropriate devotion to Mary flows, I think, from inadequate evangelization and catechesis. Magisterial documents will not get “down into the pews” where many related problems rest. IMHO, we need proper adult lay formation.

 

[godisgood77]

Very good my friend… Happy to have traded thoughts. Pax, Dan

If she is mediatrix at all, what sense would it be to grant her only some “graces” but not others?

The answer is this - the same sense it would be to grant her all graces…it’s an unknown, not an objective truth and shouldn’t be put forward as such …(sorry, couldn’t resist one last counter argument)