The 5th Marian doctrine is heresy

[hurst]

AJV:

Originally Posted by hurst
Finally, we are given to understand that the Devil refused to go along with God because he couldn’t accept having to bow down before human flesh (Christ) or follow the commands of a female (Mary our Queen).

Finally, I can question someone knowledgeable on this one. From where did this come about?

You mean the notion? I read about it from a mystic to whom it was revealed. It is private revelation, so you are not obliged to believe it. But it is based on the fact that God created and judged the angels before He created Adam and Eve.

AJV:

Do not some of the great saints say that the devil was fooled until various stages in Our Lord’s life e.g. His temptation?

Yes, he was fooled. He waffled between possibilities.

AJV:

And how did the devil know about this anyway?

The angels were shown the prototype of what God intended to do. They were going to have to bow down and worship God as man in flesh, and obey a female human creature.

According to this line of thought, God had always intended to become man and for Mary to be Queen. The devil thought they were also to be created first. This is why the devil tricked Eve. He thought she was this woman. He was afraid to approach Adam, who he thought was Christ. But, as it is, man fell, and Christ and Mary thus had to dwell among fallen man instead of in the Garden of Eden. Yet this provided for our salvation. God’s way are inscrutable…

But again, this is private revelation and not binding. Personally, I think it makes sense, and I have grown stronger in my faith by seeing things this way. I have yet to come across any contradiction.

hurst

 

[hurst]

AJV:

Originally Posted by hurst
Ott refers to St. Germanus of Constantinople (+733), who said:

Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee ... O Most Holy One ... nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee ... O Most Chaste One
Or. 9,5 Lesson of the Office of the Feast

Dear Sir, is it possible for you to provide the full passage in which this quote was said?

Sorry, I have not come across the full quote.

However, Encyclopedia Brittanica says:

Because his writings were ordered burned by [Emperor] Leo III, only a few of Germanus’ works survive. In addition to Ad Armenos (“Letter to the Armenians”), he is credited with three tracts controverting Iconoclasm and seven conferences on the doctrinal history of the cult of the Virgin Mary. A strong advocate of Marian devotion, Germanus in his works is a source for the theological development of her role as mediator of supernatural blessings.

britannica.com/eb/article-9036585

hurst

 

[levi86]

hurst:

Yes.

In general, we can ask God, Mary, the angels, or saints for help. The saints ask God, Mary, or the angels. The angels ask God or Mary. Mary asks God.

In the same way, Mary dispenses to the angels, saints, or us. The angels dispense to the saints or us. The saints dispense to us. We dispense to each other via good works.

This is just a general way to view it.

hurst

First of all, I don’t mean any disrespect, but you seem to have a very complex understanding of the operations and the hierarchy within heaven. Where does this knowledge come from? isn’t it just speculation?

Secondly, perhaps my understanding of “grace” itself is not complete, but does Mary only distribute grace. What I mean is, does all the power of the Holy Ghost pass through Mary, or just those powers specific to applying grace. Does the Holy Ghost do anything without using Mary?

 

[DreadVandal]

Here’s a thought or two that I have (and I apologize that I only read through 20 or so of the 100 posts) on this subject.

I believe, as others have pointed out, that mediatrix is a patristic term. In the Byzantine liturgy, there are some feasts where the blessed Mother of God is referred to as Mediatrix. The term Co-Redemptrix is modern in origin (at least I think). As a Byzantine Catholic, here is my perspective:

Personally, I see no reason to proclaim a new Marian Dogma. But the eastern Church tends to be more reserved in proclaiming Dogma. While I believe in the Immaculate Conception because the Church teaches it, I must confess that I don’t see the necessity of making it Dogma either. But that is another story.

What I have found is that there is a significant difference between eastern and western Marian piety. In authentic eastern iconography, you will never see any depiction of Mary by herself without the Christ child. Also, in the liturgy, Mary is always venerated for her role in bringing forth the Christ child. That is why the principle title of the blessed Virgin in the eastern Church is Theotokos (God-bearer).

In the west, it seems that a private devotion to Mary, separated from her role as bearer of Christ has sprung up. That is why Marian apparitians seem to be more common in the west. It is also why this phenomenon of private revelations and messages from the Virgin happens in the west and not, so much, in the east. In eastern Christianity, devotion is always directed toward the public liturgy and is explicitly Christocentric in a way that I think is obscured occasionally in Western Christianity. Now I have a theory as to why this is the case. I believe that the grandiose exaltation of Mary in the west in isolation of Christ is due in large part to the protestant reformation. This is also why the devotion of the exposition and worship of the blessed sacrament is prominent (or at least used to be until Vatican II) in the west and not in the east. It is in reaction to protestantism.

When the protestants attacked the fundamental role that Mary played in our salvation and when they attacked the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, the Church responded by exalting Mary and the Eucharist as much as possible. One can see this especially in Catholic baroque art. I am not criticizing this. I support it. It was a historical necessity. That being the case, there is no doubt that with every legitimate spiritual concern, there is the potential for distortion. Personally, I find some versions of western Marian spirituality a little too overblown for my taste. I prefer a more subdued Mariology that never mentions the blessed Virgin without referring her to her vocation as Mother of God. But that’s just me. Consequently, I confess that private apparitions and revelations play little part in my spirituality. I just don’t see how they can give us anything that isn’t already in the liturgy itself. Personally, I think that there needs to be a true revival of the Roman rite in the west. I see the number one spiritual problem in the west as consisting of having a mundane, spiritually castrated liturgy. If, in accordance with Vatican II, the western Church wants the laity to find their spirituality primarily in the public liturgy, then the western Church has to give them a liturgy that they will love and want to participate in. That’s just my two cents.

 

[DreadVandal]

levi86:

First of all, I don’t mean any disrespect, but you seem to have a very complex understanding of the operations and the hierarchy within heaven. Where does this knowledge come from? isn’t it just speculation?

Secondly, perhaps my understanding of “grace” itself is not complete, but does Mary only distribute grace. What I mean is, does all the power of the Holy Ghost pass through Mary, or just those powers specific to applying grace. Does the Holy Ghost do anything without using Mary?

I think you make good points. Dogmatically, the only way I can see of understanding Mary as the mediatrix of all graces is in her role as the Mother of the redeemer. I do not believe that the Church fathers intended to teach that Mary was collecting everyone’s prayers and deciding which ones Jesus should answer and which ones He shouldn’t.

Also, I would suggest that we need to keep in mind that Mary is also given to us as the model disciple. To say that all graces are distributed through Mary is also a way of saying that, as the model disciple, she symbolizes what it means to cooperate with God’s grace, and that no grace is efficacious unless we cooperate with it. God bless.

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

DreadVandal:

Here’s a thought or two that I have (and I apologize that I only read through 20 or so of the 100 posts) on this subject.

I believe, as others have pointed out, that mediatrix is a patristic term. In the Byzantine liturgy, there are some feasts where the blessed Mother of God is referred to as Mediatrix. The term Co-Redemptrix is modern in origin (at least I think). As a Byzantine Catholic, here is my perspective:

Personally, I see no reason to proclaim a new Marian Dogma. But the eastern Church tends to be more reserved in proclaiming Dogma. While I believe in the Immaculate Conception because the Church teaches it, I must confess that I don’t see the necessity of making it Dogma either. But that is another story.

What I have found is that there is a significant difference between eastern and western Marian piety. In authentic eastern iconography, you will never see any depiction of Mary by herself without the Christ child. Also, in the liturgy, Mary is always venerated for her role in bringing forth the Christ child. That is why the principle title of the blessed Virgin in the eastern Church is Theotokos (God-bearer).

In the west, it seems that a private devotion to Mary, separated from her role as bearer of Christ has sprung up. That is why Marian apparitians seem to be more common in the west. It is also why this phenomenon of private revelations and messages from the Virgin happens in the west and not, so much, in the east. In eastern Christianity, devotion is always directed toward the public liturgy and is explicitly Christocentric in a way that I think is obscured occasionally in Western Christianity. Now I have a theory as to why this is the case. I believe that the grandiose exaltation of Mary in the west in isolation of Christ is due in large part to the protestant reformation. This is also why the devotion of the exposition and worship of the blessed sacrament is prominent (or at least used to be until Vatican II) in the west and not in the east. It is in reaction to protestantism.

When the protestants attacked the fundamental role that Mary played in our salvation and when they attacked the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, the Church responded by exalting Mary and the Eucharist as much as possible. One can see this especially in Catholic baroque art. I am not criticizing this. I support it. It was a historical necessity. That being the case, there is no doubt that with every legitimate spiritual concern, there is the potential for distortion. Personally, I find some versions of western Marian spirituality a little too overblown for my taste. I prefer a more subdued Mariology that never mentions the blessed Virgin without referring her to her vocation as Mother of God. But that’s just me. Consequently, I confess that private apparitions and revelations play little part in my spirituality. I just don’t see how they can give us anything that isn’t already in the liturgy itself. Personally, I think that there needs to be a true revival of the Roman rite in the west. I see the number one spiritual problem in the west as consisting of having a mundane, spiritually castrated liturgy. If, in accordance with Vatican II, the western Church wants the laity to find their spirituality primarily in the public liturgy, then the western Church has to give them a liturgy that they will love and want to participate in. That’s just my two cents.

Wow! What an awesome post!
I tip my Hat to you! DreadVandal

 

[DreadVandal]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

Wow! What an awesome post!
I tip my Hat to you! DreadVandal

Hey, thanks I’m thinking of starting a post that discusses what, I believe, the eastern and western lungs of the Church have to contribute to one another. I won’t say too much here since it will bring us off topic, except to say, in brief, that the western Church could learn a lot about liturgy from the east and the eastern church could learn a lot about good, scholastic theology from the west. I speak as a Byzantine Thomist (Vladimir Lossky is rolling over in his grave now )

Seriously though, I do see great wisdom in the eastern tradition of depicting the Virgin with Christ (and not without Christ).

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

DreadVandal:

Hey, thanks I’m thinking of starting a post that discusses what, I believe, the eastern and western lungs of the Church have to contribute to one another. I won’t say too much here since it will bring us off topic, except to say, in brief, that the western Church could learn a lot about liturgy from the east and the eastern church could learn a lot about good, scholastic theology from the west. I speak as a Byzantine Thomist (Vladimir Lossky is rolling over in his grave now )

Seriously though, I do see great wisdom in the eastern tradition of depicting the Virgin with Christ (and not without Christ).

I agree With you wholeheartedly,
I look forward to the thread
God Bless

 

[AJV]

DreadVandal:

Here’s a thought or two that I have (and I apologize that I only read through 20 or so of the 100 posts) on this subject.

I believe, as others have pointed out, that mediatrix is a patristic term. In the Byzantine liturgy, there are some feasts where the blessed Mother of God is referred to as Mediatrix. The term Co-Redemptrix is modern in origin (at least I think). As a Byzantine Catholic, here is my perspective:

Personally, I see no reason to proclaim a new Marian Dogma. But the eastern Church tends to be more reserved in proclaiming Dogma. While I believe in the Immaculate Conception because the Church teaches it, I must confess that I don’t see the necessity of making it Dogma either. But that is another story.

What I have found is that there is a significant difference between eastern and western Marian piety. In authentic eastern iconography, you will never see any depiction of Mary by herself without the Christ child. Also, in the liturgy, Mary is always venerated for her role in bringing forth the Christ child. That is why the principle title of the blessed Virgin in the eastern Church is Theotokos (God-bearer).

In the west, it seems that a private devotion to Mary, separated from her role as bearer of Christ has sprung up. That is why Marian apparitians seem to be more common in the west. It is also why this phenomenon of private revelations and messages from the Virgin happens in the west and not, so much, in the east. In eastern Christianity, devotion is always directed toward the public liturgy and is explicitly Christocentric in a way that I think is obscured occasionally in Western Christianity. Now I have a theory as to why this is the case. I believe that the grandiose exaltation of Mary in the west in isolation of Christ is due in large part to the protestant reformation. This is also why the devotion of the exposition and worship of the blessed sacrament is prominent (or at least used to be until Vatican II) in the west and not in the east. It is in reaction to protestantism.
arily in the public liturgy, then the western Church has to give them a liturgy that they will love and want to participate in. That’s just my two cents.

Dear DreadVandal,
I really should be called nitpicker. But NOT ALL the icons have the Most holy Theotokos depicted with the Christ child as Hodogetria, as you probably know. The Protection of the Mother of God, The Theotokos Joy of all who sorrow, the Most Holy Theotokos of Athos are just the 3 examples that I could think of. But your right, most of Eastern art of the Virgin has the Cristocentric (not to say that Western and other expressions aren’t ultimately) aspect that I find so appealing. Thanks a ot for the wonderful paragraph.

 

[AJV]

hurst:

Yes.

In general, we can ask God, Mary, the angels, or saints for help. The saints ask God, Mary, or the angels. The angels ask God or Mary. Mary asks God.

In the same way, Mary dispenses to the angels, saints, or us. The angels dispense to the saints or us. The saints dispense to us. We dispense to each other via good works.

This is just a general way to view it.

hurst

OK. so lets say St. Chrysostom decides to ask God, not Mary. How does grace then flow through her?

Also could you give an example of grace being dispensed via good works?

 

[hurst]

levi86:

Originally Posted by hurst
Yes.

In general, we can ask God, Mary, the angels, or saints for help. The saints ask God, Mary, or the angels. The angels ask God or Mary. Mary asks God.

In the same way, Mary dispenses to the angels, saints, or us. The angels dispense to the saints or us. The saints dispense to us. We dispense to each other via good works.

This is just a general way to view it.

First of all, I don’t mean any disrespect, but you seem to have a very complex understanding of the operations and the hierarchy within heaven. Where does this knowledge come from? isn’t it just speculation?

Complex? I thought I was simplifying it

It is not speculation; it has to do with the Communion of Saints and the Role of Mary.

God:

1. 
   *] The world was created for the Glorification of God (De fide)
   *] The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation (De fide)
   *] God keeps all created things in existence (De fide)
   *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures (Sent. communis)
   *] God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created (De fide)
   
   Christ:
   1. 
      *] Sanctifying Grace overflows from Christ, the Head, to the Members of His Mystical Body (Sent. communis)
      *] Christ merited all supernatural graces received by fallen mankind (Sent. certa)
      
      Mary:
      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)
         *] Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven (De fide)
         *] Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation (Sent. pia et probabilis)
         *] Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia (Sent. certa)
         
         Angels:
         1. 
            *] In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing (De fide)
            *] The nature of the angels is spiritual (De fide)
            *] God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of god, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end (Sent. certa)
            *] The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God (Sent. certa)
            *] The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation (De fide)
            *] Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism (Sent. certa)
            
            Saints:
            1. 
               *] It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession (De fide)
               *] The members of the Kingdom of God on earth and in the other world sanctified by the redeeming grace of Christ are united in a common supernatural life with the Head of the Church and with one another (Sent. certa)
               
               Us:
               1. 
                  *] By intercessory prayer the Faithful on earth can procure gifts from God for one another (Sent. certa)
                  *] By good works performed in the state of grace the Faithful on earth can merit de congruo gifts from God (Sent. probabilis)
                  *] The Faithful on earth can, by their good works performed in the state of grace, render atonement for one another (Sent. certa)
                  
                  hurst

 

[hurst]

levi86:

Secondly, perhaps my understanding of “grace” itself is not complete,

Let’s look into this…

Grace has various meanings.

• subjectively, it signifies a disposition of benevolence
• objectively, it signifies an unmerited gift
• it may mean pleasing charm
• it may mean thanks for favours received

Grace has several classifications

1. 
   *] Uncreated Grace vs. Created Grace
   *] Grace of the Creator vs. Grace of the Redeemer
   *] External Grace vs. Internal Grace
   *] Grace for Others vs. Grace for Oneself
   *] Habitual Grace vs. Actual Grace
   *] Actual
   1. 
      *] Grace of Enlightenment vs. of Inspiration
      *] Preceding Grace vs. Succeeding Grace
      *] Sufficient Grace vs. Efficacious Grace
      
      Concerning the distribution of grace
      1. 
         *] Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de conguo (De fide)
         *] Grace cannot be obtained by petitions deriving from purely natural prayer (Sent. certa)
         *] Man of himself cannot acquire any positive disposition for grace (Sent. certa)
         etc.
         
         The nature of grace
         1. 
            *] Sanctifying Grace is a created supernatural gift really distinct from God (Sent. fidei proxima)
            *] Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural state of being which is infused by God, and which permanently inheres in the soul (Sent. certa)
            *] Sanctifying Grace is not a substance, but a real “accident”, which inheres in the soul-substance (Sent. certa)
            *] Sanctifying grace is really distinct from charity (Sent. communior)
            *] Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature (Sent. certa)
            *] The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just (De fide)
            *] Grace can be increased by good works (De fide)
            *] By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God (De fide)
            *] A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory (De fide)
            
            
            levi86:
            

            but does Mary only distribute grace. What I mean is, does all the power of the Holy Ghost pass through Mary, or just those powers specific to applying grace. Does the Holy Ghost do anything without using Mary?

            I think I mentioned it before, that God does not use Mary for implementing all power whatsoever. For example, Mary is not used to keep all creatures in existence. Mary is not grace itself, nor is she the power of God itself, nor anything substantially God. She is specifically in the role of distributing the graces merited for us by Christ.
            
            Think of Mary as a light bulb. Christ as the filament. The Holy Ghost as the light emanating therefrom.
            
            It still has to be God Himself making it all happen. He just wonderfully makes us all a part of His glorious life!
            
            hurst

 

[hurst]

AJV:

OK. so lets say St. Chrysostom decides to ask God, not Mary. How does grace then flow through her?

Here is how I would envision it:
God decides to grant His request and the merits of Christ are then made to flow through Mary to the angels to St. Chrysostom who then aids you directly, and you experience it by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It could also be that the Saint does not aid you himself as such. It might be that angels are sent to help you. Or it might even be that Mary herself comes. People on earth might be given grace to assist you. It depends on what you are asking for, too.

The way I am describing it, the Saint in heaven is connected both directly to God and directly to Mary, as well as others in the Communion of Saints, including the angels. They are all ordered beautifully somehow. Those with more merit are closer to God and serve as a secondary source to those below them.

AJV:

Also could you give an example of grace being dispensed via good works?

Having Masses said for deceased relatives is a perfect example. We can also “offer up” our sufferings in this life for them, or for others still alive. I myself have experienced this.

1. By intercessory prayer the Faithful on earth can procure gifts from God for one another (Sent. certa)
2. By good works performed in the state of grace the Faithful on earth can merit de congruo gifts from God (Sent. probabilis)
3. The Faithful on earth can, by their good works performed in the state of grace, render atonement for one another (Sent. certa)

hurst

 

[AJV]

hurst:

Here is how I would envision it:
God decides to grant His request and the merits of Christ are then made to flow through Mary to the angels to St. Chrysostom who then aids you directly, and you experience it by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It could also be that the Saint does not aid you himself as such. It might be that angels are sent to help you. Or it might even be that Mary herself comes. People on earth might be given grace to assist you. It depends on what you are asking for, too. hurst

So essentially one cannot approach God except through Mary and no grace can flow from God except through Mary?

Can you give some support for this heavenly heirachy from the Fathers?

 

[searchingsoul]

hurst:

Complex? I thought I was simplifying it

*] Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation (Sent. pia et probabilis)
*] Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia (Sent. certa)

hurst

Hi, as a Protestant who has great interest and respect for the Catholic Church, what you have written really troubles me. How on earth can we say that no grace is conferred on man without Mary’s intercession. This is preposterous, and thoroughly unbiblical. If this genuinely is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, any thought I had of conversion is blown out of the water.

And what is ‘Hyperdulia’?

I believe most Catholics when they say that their devotion to Mary doesn’t diminish their devotion to Jesus, but I think that this teaching crosses the line.

SS

 

[hurst]

AJV:

So essentially one cannot approach God except through Mary

One cannot approach God except through His Son and Our Lord Jesus Christ, by virtue of His Blood.

We are not obliged to beg for all graces through Mary (Ott, p. 213). But it makes sense to, since God gives them all through her at some point along the way. Only Christ is above Mary, but why go directly to Christ when we are less pleasing to Him than she is? I prefer to ask her and please Jesus by her presentation of my requests.

AJV:

and no grace can flow from God except through Mary?

I wouldn’t state it that way.

It is not that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically “necessary” for the application of the grace, but that according to God’s positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is not conferred on anyone without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.
(Ott, p. 213)

So, it would be more appropriate to say that “no grace does flow from God except through Mary”.

AJV:

Can you give some support for this heavenly heirachy from the Fathers?

The Fathers called Mary the “Go-between” (mediatrix). A prayer ascribed to St. Ephrem says of her: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast) (Ott, p.211)

The Fathers from ancient times honored her as the Patroness, Lady, Queen, Queen of creation (John of Damascus), Queen of Men (Andrew of Crete). (Ott, p.211)

St. Augustine teaches: “The saints are clothed with justice, the one more, the other less” (Ep. 167,3,13) (Ott, p.262)

Tertullian comments: “Why are there many dwellings in the Father’s mansion (John 14:2), if not on account of the variety of the merits?” (Scorp. 6). Jovinian’s teaching of the equality of the heavenly glory for all the blessed was rejected by St. Jerome (Adv. Jov. II 32-34) (Ott, p.268)

Origen teaches that “with him who properly prays not only the High Priest (Jesus Christ), but also the angels and the souls of the pious who sleep pray.” (Ott, p.319)

That angels looked up to Mary is evident in the Annunciation “Hail, Full of Grace”. They don’t hail any of the prophets or kings, etc.

But let me reiterate that much of the details of the hierarchy in heaven are provided by mystics via private revelation (Emmerich, Agreda), and are not binding in faith.

hurst

 

[hurst]

searchingsoul:

How on earth can we say that no grace is conferred on man without Mary’s intercession. This is preposterous, and thoroughly unbiblical.

Would you agree that no grace is conferred on man without it coming from Christ?

Would you agree that Christ was not given to the world without Mary’s “Yes”?

Would you agree that Christ took flesh directly from Mary?

Would you agree that Mary prayed for our salvation even before we were born?

Would you agree that Mary’s will for our salvation did not end with the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Our Lord?

Now, the Church teaches de fide that Mary was taken up to heaven body and soul. She remains solicitous for us in her will, which is united to that of God’s in the first place.

It is not preposterous, really.

searchingsoul:

If this genuinely is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, any thought I had of conversion is blown out of the water.

Well, you will have to be converted before you can accept it. How can you convert if you don’t change anything regarding your beliefs?

Do you belief the dogmas about Mary? Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, Immaculate Conception, Assumption in Heaven?

Do you believe the dogma concerning the Holy Eucharist, that it should be worshiped as God (latria)?

searchingsoul:

And what is ‘Hyperdulia’?

In view of her dignity as the Mother of God and her fullness of grace, a special veneration is due to Mary. This is substantially less than the cultus latriae (=adoration) which is due to God alone, but it is higher than the cultus duliae (=veneration) due to the angels and to the other saints. The special veneration thus given to Mary is called cultus hyperduliae.

The Scriptural source of the special veneration due to the Mother of God is to be found in Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee”, in the praise of Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:42) “Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb”, in the prophetic words of the Mother of god (Luke 1:48) “For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed”, in the words of the woman in the multitude (Luke 11:27) “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck”.
…

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma p.215
Ludwig Ott

searchingsoul:

I believe most Catholics when they say that their devotion to Mary doesn’t diminish their devotion to Jesus, but I think that this teaching crosses the line.

Well, how about this: my devotion to Mary magnifies my devotion to Jesus.

I can understand why you might think it crosses a line, since Protestants generally fear the honor of Mary will turn into divine worship of her. But instead, it makes it more likely that her Son will be given higher honor. For whatever is given to Mary, that much more is rendered to her divine Son, who is also the source of her grace.

Let us not diminish Christ by shirking to honor His own mother.

hurst

 

[AJV]

OK, first off, it just occurred to me that I probably don’t have the correct idea of what it means for grace to flow THROUGH a person. So how does it happen with reference to (a) any person (b) Mary.

hurst:

One cannot approach God except through His Son and Our Lord Jesus Christ, by virtue of His Blood.

We are not obliged to beg for all graces through Mary (Ott, p. 213). But it makes sense to, since God gives them all through her at some point along the way. Only Christ is above Mary, but why go directly to Christ when we are less pleasing to Him than she is? I prefer to ask her and please Jesus by her presentation of my requests.

Actually although this may seem off topic, I would like a brief primer on this doctrine (the one highlighted in bold) as it seems to be wound up in Mary being the mediatrix of all graces.

hurst:

I wouldn’t state it that way.

The Fathers called Mary the “Go-between” (mediatrix). A prayer ascribed to St. Ephrem says of her: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast) (Ott, p.211)

Forgive my thickheadness but was this refering to her distributing graces day-by-day?

The Fathers from ancient times honored her as the Patroness, Lady, Queen, Queen of creation (John of Damascus), Queen of Men (Andrew of Crete). (Ott, p.211)

St. Augustine teaches: “The saints are clothed with justice, the one more, the other less” (Ep. 167,3,13) (Ott, p.262)

Tertullian comments: “Why are there many dwellings in the Father’s mansion (John 14:2), if not on account of the variety of the merits?” (Scorp. 6). Jovinian’s teaching of the equality of the heavenly glory for all the blessed was rejected by St. Jerome (Adv. Jov. II 32-34) (Ott, p.268)

Origen teaches that “with him who properly prays not only the High Priest (Jesus Christ), but also the angels and the souls of the pious who sleep pray.” (Ott, p.319)

That angels looked up to Mary is evident in the Annunciation “Hail, Full of Grace”. They don’t hail any of the prophets or kings, etc.

But let me reiterate that much of the details of the hierarchy in heaven are provided by mystics via private revelation (Emmerich, Agreda), and are not binding in faith.

My mistake, I shoud have stated my question clearer. When I asked about the heirachy I meant the heirachy of requests as in saint–>angel–>Mary not the extence of saints, angels or Mary whopse intercession I accept . Anyway, the quotes from St. Augustine, Tertullian and St. Jerome were helpful, thanks But here’s another question- does a greater ‘amount’ (sorry terminology difficulty) of the “Beatific Vision” make a person’s requests more acceptable to God?

Finally with regard to the mystics, how can one believe everything even though they may be Blesseds or everything may not be directly contradicting what the Church teaches? And wasn’t Agreda’s book placed on the Index?

Anyhow, thanks for the help. You certainly chose the right path when you became a Dominican!

 

[AJV]

hurst:

Complex? I thought I was simplifying it

It is not speculation; it has to do with the Communion of Saints and the Role of Mary.

God:

1. 
   *] The world was created for the Glorification of God (De fide)
   *] The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation (De fide)
   *] God keeps all created things in existence (De fide)
   *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures (Sent. communis)
   *] God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created (De fide)
   
   Christ:
   1. 
      *] Sanctifying Grace overflows from Christ, the Head, to the Members of His Mystical Body (Sent. communis)
      *] Christ merited all supernatural graces received by fallen mankind (Sent. certa)
      
      Mary:
      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)
         *] Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven (De fide)
         *] Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation (Sent. pia et probabilis)
         *] Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia (Sent. certa)
         
         hurst

1. 1. 1. 
         By this are you referring to a definition similar to Millardio’s
         

         Let’s step back for a moment and understand what the title, “Mediatrix of All Graces”, means. Now, from what I understand about this, Mary mediated in bringing about Jesus into the world, who is indeed All Graces. So from that understanding, there should be no objection about the title itself, since it’s only saying that Mary bore Jesus in her womb, and so she is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

This is from an article in the current Homiletic and Pastoral Review by Fr. Dwight Campbell : Mary’s unique relationship with the Eucharist also flows from her presence on Calvary, when she united the suffering in her Heart with her Son’s suffering. This was a fulfillment of Simeon’s prophecy at the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple: that her Heart would be pierced by a sword of sorrow (d. Luke 2:35).6 In fact, on Calvary the suffering in Mary’s Heart was united with the suffering in the Heart of her Son, the latter of which was symbolized by the piercing of Christ’s side and Heart with the soldier’s lance, with the blood and water flowing forth (John 19:34), showing that Jesus gave of himself totally in order to merit for us the grace for our salvation. In regard to Mary’s activity on Calvary, Pope John Paul speaks of her “co-suffering” with Jesus, inlove, which makes her a unique co-redeemer, or Co-Redemptrix, with Jesus.

Some object to giving Mary the title, “Co-Redemptrix”; however, there should be no objection to this title once it is understood that all of us, by reason of our Baptism, become co-redeemers; i.e., through Baptism we share in the priestly office of Christ, and through this universal priesthood we are called to offer all that we do and all that we suffer with Christ crucified; see Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), nos. 1141 and 1546. Mary, because she is the All-Pure Mother of God, “enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart” (CCC, no. 964), is the co-redeemer par excellence who cooperated in a unique way with her Son’s redemptive Sacrifice. Hence, many Popes, most recently John Paul II, have given Mary the title, “Co-Redemptirix.” Mark Miravalle, in ch. 13 of his book, "With Jesus: The Story of Mary CoRedemptrix (Goleta, Ca.: Queenship Publishing, 2003),189-194, cites no less than six occasions in which Pope John Paul uses the term “Co-Redemptrix” to describe Mary’s singular role of uniting herself and her Heart with Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary and thus collaborating in our redemption…

Ave Maria!!!