The 5th Marian doctrine is heresy

[Zahmir]

As a faithful Catholic, one who is often struggling with his sinfulness, I find this Marian teaching, needless to say, threatening.

I am not going to leave the Church over this as I admit my ignorance in things of this matter; however, I do wish to express my contribution to this discussion.

On one hand, Marian doctrine seems threatening, raising up Mary to a level equal with God; though a creature can never be equal to God, it really seems to me like the minds and hearts of devout and well-intentioned Catholics have made her so. God is the source of all graces, His Son is my Mediator from whom the source is always the Father (eternally begotten of the Father). He became man so that I might be raised up and exalted and brought into the fullness of God’s love. Mary, in her part, did not participate in this except for her bringing of Jesus Christ into the world.

On the other hand, Mary was conceived without original sin (though God specially saved her). Her special place in the history of humanity, given to her by God, does raise her up above all other humans. In effect, she was the first human who lived up to her humanity. She was the first true human. Through her, Christ was born into the world. Assumed into heaven, she has a special place at the forefront of all humanity. She has received salvation which we will only receive at the end of time. She is the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of graces.

And… I don’t know what to believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m a convert to the Church, and to Christianity for that matter and am set to join the church this year, so please bare with me. I recently started a thread “How powerful is Mary?” I started to hear for the first time some things that disturbed me, that all graces comes come through (not from) Mary.

I began to look into the issue and discovered that this almost universally held by the church, and that a fifth Marian dogma is being considered “Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate”.

I accept perfectly the “co-redemtrix” part, as I acknowledge her role in salvation. However the second and third parts really scare me.

“Mediatrix of All Graces” is meant to indicate that ALL the Graces of God flow through her compliments of the holy spirit eg. Father/Son-Holy Ghost-Mary. To associate such power with Mary puts her on par with the trinity, which frightens me beyond belief.

With respect to “advocate”, this is meant to indicate that Mary is our human advocate to God and someone who can be used as an intermediary because of her human nature. My present image of Mary praying to God on our behalf has now been blown out of the water.

This new dogma contradicts the perfection of the incarnation. Because God became man he is now our advocate with a human nature. To acknowledge that Mary is needed to be this human link between us and God takes away from the Majesty and perfection of the incarnation.

I’ve been able to swallow all the other Marian Dogma to this point, even though most are non existent in the bible and are not mentioned by the Church Fathers until the 4th century, I have trusted the Church and have not questioned. this doctrine however is OVER THE TOP.

If I don’t reconcile this issue with myself I am most definitely going to leave the Church!!

Two immediate thoughts before I continue reading the rest of this thread:

1. Don’t be hasty.
2. Understand that not every response you receive to your question will be correct or offered in good will.

Pray and Read. God is not anxious about these things and will explain them to you.

+++

Oops - now I see this thread was started a long time ago…I wonder what the OP decided to do about joining the Church.

 

[jemfinch]

There’s a really simple mathematical explanation for this: “throughness” is transitive. If all graces come through Christ, and Christ came through Mary, then all graces, by the transitive property of “throughness,” come through Mary.

Seems simple enough to me.

Jeremy

 

[Zahmir]

There’s a really simple mathematical explanation for this: “throughness” is transitive. If all graces come through Christ, and Christ came through Mary, then all graces, by the transitive property of “throughness,” come through Mary.

Seems simple enough to me.

Jeremy

I think the problem here is that Christ came through Mary only once in history (his conception and birth) while Christ is consistently and primarily the mediator of all graces. Mary’s role, though important, doesn’t seem to constitute the title “Mediatrix.”

This rings similar with “Mother of God” debates. Of course, we don’t mean to say that Mary is the actual MOTHER of GOD in a cosmic sense, but in an earthly temporal sense. It makes perfect and logical sense to call Mary the Mother of God, for this is an emphasis on the Son’s full union with humanity.

I don’t see how the title which everyone wishes to give to Mary is… meaningful for anything and especially God’s place in our humanity. For example, all other Marian doctrine isn’t like… “Hey, Mary was this really cool person.” but more like… “because Jesus is God, Mary HAS to be this (perpetually virgin, conceived without original sin, etc).”

 

[jimmy]

Her place as “mediatrix” is simply a statement that since she bore Christ in the flesh that she is indirectly the conduit of all the graces that we recieve from Our lord.

I think this is false. I think it is far more. It is the declaration that All Grace proceeds through Mary even in heaven. Not as the bearer and mother of God, but as an intermediary in heaven. I think it is heresy for more than just the idea that it would turn Mary into a fourth person. I think it turns the Third person of the Trinity into some inanimate object. Uncreated Grace is nothing other than The Holy Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the hands of Mary in all cases is a step beyond rational thinking.

 

[jimmy]

It is in that sense that there is nothing stopping it from becoming a dogma, and is a “Sent. certa” teaching of the Church.

It is not dogma, but is piously believed to be the case that she somehow actually cooperates, even if someone doesn’t directly ask for her help.

hurst

I find the more extreme version to be blasphemous to the Trinity since it implies that the Holy Spirit is an inanimate object that can not work on souls as it wills. It implies that the Holy Spirit needs Mary to help apply Himself to the soul. It also implies that Mary can affect your soul. Mary can not live within you as the Holy Spirit or the Son of God can. It seems heretical to me for these two reasons.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I think the problem that a lot of people considering Catholicism have with Marian doctrines tends to be cumulative, rather than a matter of one single point. Many of the people on this thread have given admirably thought-out answers … but after a while, things just begin to pile up:

“Well, it’s not worship,really, it’s ‘hyperdulia,’”
“Well, the ‘co-’ in ‘co-redemptrix’ doesn’t mean what you think.”
“Well, not all humans suffer from original sin…”
“Well, she’s the spouse of the Holy Spirit, but she’s called that in the following senses…”
“Well, all God’s graces do pass through her, and Jesus does as she says, but if you’ll do the homework, you’ll see that doesn’t make her a goddess, exactly.”

Forgive me if I lower the scholarly tenor of this thread a bit, but permit me to offer what my gut is screaming at me: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, wears a little T-shirt saying “Kiss Me, I’m a Duck,” is carrying a hot-pink placard sign saying “DUCK” in 300-pt type, and holds a D.cK. degree in Advanced Puddle Splashing from the University of Duckburg …
It. Might. Just. Be. A. Duck.

I accept that most Catholics would not say that they consider Mary a Deity in any technical sense. I cannot, though, escape the impression that that’s what she is for many Catholics in any practical sense, and there’s only one Being I’m interested in treating as God, or as something even in His ballpark. That’s one reason I backed out of RCIA the other week; hope & pray He understands if I’m wrong.

 

[LilyM]

I find the more extreme version to be blasphemous to the Trinity since it implies that the Holy Spirit is an inanimate object that can not work on souls as it wills. It implies that the Holy Spirit needs Mary to help apply Himself to the soul. It also implies that Mary can affect your soul. Mary can not live within you as the Holy Spirit or the Son of God can. It seems heretical to me for these two reasons.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to work through Mary - any more than God needed to create the world, or create it the precise way he did, or to require the cooperation of two parents in order to make a child, or to become Man at all, or to pick the time place and person he did for his Incarnation, or for Jesus to die in order for us to be saved.

He chose to do these things. He chose them for his own, largely unfathomable, reasons. So the Holy Spirit can choose (I’m not saying does choose) to work exclusively through Mary, just as Jesus chose to take his human body exclusively from hers.

 

[jimmy]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to work through Mary - any more than God needed to create the world, or create it the precise way he did, or to require the cooperation of two parents in order to make a child, or to become Man at all, or to pick the time place and person he did for his Incarnation, or for Jesus to die in order for us to be saved.

He chose to do these things. He chose them for his own, largely unfathomable, reasons. So the Holy Spirit can choose (I’m not saying does choose) to work exclusively through Mary, just as Jesus chose to take his human body exclusively from hers.

It destroys the nature of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is turned into some inanimate object that Mary takes with her hands(according to the terminology by some who support this doctrine) and applies it to the soul(another possible heresy that it could imply, that Mary is the architect of the soul and can act on the soul). I hate this doctrine and it sounds like blasphemy to me.

 

[tequilamac]

It destroys the nature of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is turned into some inanimate object that Mary takes with her hands(according to the terminology by some who support this doctrine) and applies it to the soul(another possible heresy that it could imply, that Mary is the architect of the soul and can act on the soul). I hate this doctrine and it sounds like blasphemy to me.

The intercession of Mary is one of the oldest held beliefs in Christianity. It predates the formulation of the Canon of the Bible. It occurs immediately after the actual writing of the last Gospel while some of the Marian art begins during the Gospel writing period.
In approx 340 AD., before we had a recognised Canon, we had St. Gregory Nazianzen’s (325-395(?)sermon on the martyr St. Cyprian in which we have an account of the maiden Justina, who invoked the Blessed Virgin to preserve her virginity. And the prayer was immediately answered.

Another example of her as an intercessor occurs with
St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and who in 429 preached a sermon in that city, at which Nestorius was present, beginning with the words “The Virgin’s festival (parthenike panegyris) incites our tongue today to herald her praise.”
He describes Mary as

“handmaid and Mother, Virgin and heaven, the only bridge of God to men, the awful loom of the Incarnation, in which by some unspeakable way the garment of that union was woven, whereof the weaver is the Holy Ghost; and the spinner the overshadowing from on high; the wool the ancient fleece of Adam; the woof the undefiled flesh from the virgin, the weaver’s shuttle the immense grace of Him who brought it about; the artificer the Word gliding through the hearing”

 

[Zooey]

She had a choice just as we all have a choice. It only sounds to you like she didn’t because God already knew that she would say yes, so He didn’t have to frame the matter as a question.

I think that this is the right way to look at this…
I know that there is a tension that exists between God’s foreknowledge, & our free will. The fact that God “knows our end & our beginning” is a hard concept to get our heads around. There are even those among Calvinist Christians who will argue that there is no such thing as free will at all. That God simply “chooses” a finite number of people to save, & that the rest of us are out of luck…
I can’t buy into that. It goes against the Scriptures. God’s love is so outrageously spendthrift that He chose to die on the cross to save us. (That’s God’s free will, if you like!)

So Mary had a choice. She had the same choice as Adam & Eve…That’s the heart of the Gospel message, that God came to earth not just in the form of a human, but as a human Himself.
Now if you go back to the story of Adam & Eve in the garden, & compare it to the Gospel story from the annunciation right on through to the ascension, there are some really really interesting parallels…
There was no original sin then, remember; Eve was created sinless. OK, so Mary is the new beginning. If Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary has to, of her own volition, cooperate with God’s plan of redemption. Because it was the free act of Eve that prompted the fall of man.
If Mary didn’t have a choice as to whether or not to become the Mother of God, there is no plan of salvation. She has to be free, free in a radical sense unlike any woman since Eve. She has to be able to say “no”, ans then–if she had–then yes, she would be thwarting God’s plan. Just as Eve did in the garden.
Now, she doesn’t look free to us, because we know how the story plays itself out. But she was NOT pregnant when the angel appeared; she became pregnant when she said “yes”, as freely as ever Eve said no to God & yes to the serpent.
Otherwise, we would have a whole other story. I don’t know, & you all don’t know, what that story might have looked like. Maybe the whole world would have been destroyed & God would have started over. (We have hints of this is several parts of Genesis).

It is in this sense that Mary’s free cooperation was absolutely essential. It is a prefiguring of “the redemption of the sons of God”…which we still, with the rest of creation, await.
And yet, you see, we have the foretaste of it, as the fruits of our walk with Him Who died that we might be set free…

 

[GoldenArrow]

I apologize for my laziness. I’ve not yet read the other responses.

From my perspective, I must inform Catholics that some (not all) of the hype over of the Fifth Marian Dogma has roots in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta and the Divine Will Movement.

Before I elaborate, know “Living in the Divine Will” is heresy and the “Kingdom of the Divine Will” is heresy. Not only heresy — Divine Will is a whole new religion.

The people promoting the 5th Marian Dogma, like Father Gobbi, Medjugorianites, Garabandelians, are also promoting “Divine Will.”

Also know, the Fifth Marian Dogma has not been declared as a dogma. There is no “Fifth Marian Dogma” presently.

I’m going to tell you how this Fifth Marian Dogma is connected to “Divine Will.”

Luisa Piccarreta says that Adam and Eve before the fall, herself, and Jesus and Mary “lived in the Divine Will.” Luisa defines this in the Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will in a prayer to the Virgin Mary, "And I, transforming my acts and all of myself into Divine Will according to your teachings, each day, will bring You, onto your lap, all my acts changed into suns.” This is not an isolated quote. There are TONS of such statements repeated in her writings. This is a combination of the heresies of Monothelitism and Monophysitism.

If one is “living in the Divine Will,” one no longer possesses a human will. Also, if one possesses only the Divine Will, one possesses power over all Creation and over God Himself.

So, if you’re a Gobbian, a Medjugorian or a Garabandelian and you read Luisa Piccarreta, and you’ve heard rumors of the “Fifth Marian Dogma” you might think that the “truth” behind this dogma lies in the teachings of Luisa Piccarreta.

Luisa also teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven of her own power because the Divine Will was the primary cause of her resurrection and Assumption. This, too, is a horrible heresy.

Some of the people promoting the Fifth Marian Dogma are doing so on the foundation of what Luisa teaches about the Virgin Mary in her writings. Be aware of this fact!

Personally — I think Mary is “co-redemptrix” only in light of her sorrow upon seeing Jesus crucified. She was crucified in her heart. “A sword will pierce your heart.” Here we have a truly innocent creature undergoing suffering. Since suffering was brought about by sin, and Mary never sinned, thrusting suffering upon her would make her suffering even more meritorious in the eyes of God.

We could use the term “co-redemptrix,” keeping in mind that Mary did not have a Divine Will, and that in comparison to her Son, Mary is like the Moon, while Jesus is the like Sun. What is the moon compared to the Sun? There exists an infinite difference between them.

We also need to keep in mind that if we use the term “co-redemptrix,” it’s only because of the suffering of Jesus Christ. If Christ didn’t suffer, then Mary could not unite with His sufferings.

We also need to keep in mind that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was a singular privilege of the Mother of God, and that she could only obtain this privilege through the foreseen merits of her Son. In using this term, we must aways point to CHRIST as the primary source of all the good that is said of the Blessed Mother.

And be very wary of what you read out there, for some of it is based on the highly heretical “new revelations” of Luisa Piccarreta, one example being the “Mary is God” Movement.

God Bless!

 

[marci]

The following was taken from Our Sunday Visitors Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine.

The CCC considers this doctrine under several headings. The first (CCC964-965) – “Wholly united with her son…” —concentrates upon the fact that Mary’s maternal role in the Church is inseparable and directly derived from her union with the Word incarnate. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to His Death” (Lumen Gentium, 57). It is most manifest ate the hour of his Passion, when Mary experienced com-passion — “suffering with” —at its fullest and he gave her to his beloved disciple (cf. Lumen Gentium, 58).

This to me is the most important aspect of Mary as a perfect example of the virtues christians should aspire to. As a mother, I feel a conection with her on a human level as well as a spiritual one. For a mother to watch her only child suffer in such a way is unthinkable. The suffering she must have gone through is unimaginable.

The second heading; “also in her Assumption,” which is said to be a “singular participlation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (CCC 966)

The third heading; “…she is our Mother in the order of grace,” contains the most extensive treatment in the Catechism of Mary’s motherhood of the Church (CCC 967-970)
…Mary’s cooperation through obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the redemptive activity of her Son, sole Savior of the human race from the beginning to the end of time, is indeed “wholly singular” as Vatican II points out (Lumen Gentium, 61).

Consenting, uniquely and wholeheartedly, to her calling to be the “God-bearer,” and filled with grace from the first instant of her Immaculate Conception so as to be the worthy Mother of God, Mary was, as it were, the necessary condition willed by the Father to make his Son and hers the one Mediator of redemption to the whole world. No other person among the redeemed in salvation history has been given the role as she in making our redemption possible.

This passage obviously speaks to free will.

How fitting it therefore is that Mary continue her motherly role in heaven **by continuous intercession and by mediating her Son’s saving graces…**Vatican II does not hesitate to call her “Mediatrix” as well as our “Advocate,” “Helper,” and “Benefactress” (Lumen Gentium, 62).
Nevertheless, the Council did not see fit to encourage invoking her by the name or title of Co-Redemptrix, since that is too easily misinterpreted as making her a fellow redeemer with Christ.

Here VII deals with what we are discussing right now. Notice the bold intercession and by mediating her Son’s saving graces

…the first passage emphasizes the complete dependence of her salutary influences upon Christ’s unique mediation, so that her mediation of his graces only serves to enhance his heavenly role (cf. Lumen Gentium, 60). The second appeals to the analogy of creation…Mary’s motherly mediation must be properly understood as in no way adding to or taking away from her Son’s unique mediation as the risen Lord in glory; her true glory is ever to be entirely transparent to His.

The church has quite clearly stated that Mary is not placed on the same level as Christ as Redeemer.

There is no conflict with Marian devotion and the Trinity.

 

[Nita]

I’m very late arriving on this thread and most of the good thoughts have already been given. I just have a couple simple ones I would add.

First:
As a wife and mother (stay at home), I find Mary’s role as Mediatrix of Grace easy to understand. It was my husband who earned all the income to support our family. But, he placed it’s dispensation almost entirely (not quite all ) in my hands. He left it up to me to dispense that income for food to keep us alive, clothes to keep us warm, writing the checks to make the house payment, etc. He didn’t have to do it that way, but he chose to. I’m going to assume you can all see this as an analogy to Our Lord’s meriting the grace but placing it’s dispensation in Mary’s care. And of course we all know that the only way Mary would dispense it is in the exact way that Jesus desires it to be dispensed. I’m sure she consults with Jesus!!!

Second:
I think the parable in Matthew 25:14-30 has application here. It is the parable of the talents, and it is in reference to our judgement by Our Lord after death. Now, to those who did well, God says “…you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” He increases their domain or area to be in charge of. Can you imagine what that might mean in regards to Mary? She had charge of rearing Our Lord here on earth.

God bless,
Nita

 

[tequilamac]

It destroys the nature of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is turned into some inanimate object that Mary takes with her hands(according to the terminology by some who support this doctrine) and applies it to the soul(another possible heresy that it could imply, that Mary is the architect of the soul and can act on the soul). I hate this doctrine and it sounds like blasphemy to me.

If you believe this that you just stated, then necessarily you must deny the existence and efficacy of angels.
For instance:

“I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (106, 3; 110, 1), the order of Divine Providence has so disposed not only among the angels, but also in the whole universe, that inferior things are administered by the superior. But the Divine dispensation, however, this order is sometimes departed from as regards corporeal things, for the sake of a higher order, that is, according as it is suitable for the manifestation of grace. That the man born blind was enlightened, that Lazarus was raised from the dead, was accomplished immediately by God without the action of the heavenly bodies. Moreover both good and bad angels can work some effect in these bodies independently of the heavenly bodies, by the condensation of the clouds to rain, and by producing some such effects. Nor can anyone doubt that God can immediately reveal things to men without the help of the angels, and the superior angels without the inferior. From this standpoint some have said that according to the general law the superior angels are not sent, but only the inferior; yet that sometimes, by Divine dispensation, the superior angels also are sent.”

To insist that God can only work directly otherwise the Holy Spirit becomes an inanimate object is simply to deny the existence of angels.
We see Mary and her intercession and for that matter the intercession of any saints as part and parcel of the order of superior to inferior. While God* can* act directly, there is no reason to assume He will act directly. He is quite capable of acting in an heirarchial fashion without causing a re definition of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Genesis315]

Great post marci,

It also bears pointing out that the Co-Redemptrix doctrine is taught in the current catechism just without using the term:

**618 **The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”,454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458

452 1 Tim 2:5.
453 GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2.
454 Mt 16:24.
455 I Pt 2:21.
456 Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24.
457 Cf. Lk 2:35.
458 St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668).

 

[jimmy]

The intercession of Mary is one of the oldest held beliefs in Christianity. It predates the formulation of the Canon of the Bible. It occurs immediately after the actual writing of the last Gospel while some of the Marian art begins during the Gospel writing period.
In approx 340 AD., before we had a recognised Canon, we had St. Gregory Nazianzen’s (325-395(?)sermon on the martyr St. Cyprian in which we have an account of the maiden Justina, who invoked the Blessed Virgin to preserve her virginity. And the prayer was immediately answered.

Another example of her as an intercessor occurs with
St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and who in 429 preached a sermon in that city, at which Nestorius was present, beginning with the words “The Virgin’s festival (parthenike panegyris) incites our tongue today to herald her praise.”
He describes Mary as

“handmaid and Mother, Virgin and heaven, the only bridge of God to men, the awful loom of the Incarnation, in which by some unspeakable way the garment of that union was woven, whereof the weaver is the Holy Ghost; and the spinner the overshadowing from on high; the wool the ancient fleece of Adam; the woof the undefiled flesh from the virgin, the weaver’s shuttle the immense grace of Him who brought it about; the artificer the Word gliding through the hearing”

I don’t deny that Mary is an intercessor and that God acts through Mary. What I deny is that Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces. It sounds heretical to me. Your other post(#152 or something) is interesting though. I will have to think about that one.

 

[jimmy]

If you believe this that you just stated, then necessarily you must deny the existence and efficacy of angels.
For instance:

“I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (106, 3; 110, 1), the order of Divine Providence has so disposed not only among the angels, but also in the whole universe, that inferior things are administered by the superior. But the Divine dispensation, however, this order is sometimes departed from as regards corporeal things, for the sake of a higher order, that is, according as it is suitable for the manifestation of grace. That the man born blind was enlightened, that Lazarus was raised from the dead, was accomplished immediately by God without the action of the heavenly bodies. Moreover both good and bad angels can work some effect in these bodies independently of the heavenly bodies, by the condensation of the clouds to rain, and by producing some such effects. Nor can anyone doubt that God can immediately reveal things to men without the help of the angels, and the superior angels without the inferior. From this standpoint some have said that according to the general law the superior angels are not sent, but only the inferior; yet that sometimes, by Divine dispensation, the superior angels also are sent.”

To insist that God can only work directly otherwise the Holy Spirit becomes an inanimate object is simply to deny the existence of angels.
We see Mary and her intercession and for that matter the intercession of any saints as part and parcel of the order of superior to inferior. While God* can* act directly, there is no reason to assume He will act directly. He is quite capable of acting in an heirarchial fashion without causing a re definition of the Holy Ghost.

I am not saying that God can only act directly. After all, there are many instances in scripture where God does not act directly. But what I am saying is that Uncreated Grace(the Holy Spirit) can not be said to pass through a person, except the Son of God. The uncreated Grace acts directly from God. It is not something to take in your hands and apply to the soul. I think it is fundamentally different than an instance of healing. A healing is not quite the same thing as the uncreated Grace of God. I really don’t know how to put this into an arguement, I only know that it makes sense in my mind. I will try to think about the logic of it.

 

[onenow1]

Exodus 4: 21, And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miricles which I have put in [your power];

In this verse it appears to me the Lord certainly gave moses the power to intercede for him. It is I believe, just a matter of trusting the Church that Jesus left us with and not our own pride, which so often gets in the way of the church’s teaching which is guided by the Holy Spirit. My thoughts.

Peace
OneNow1

 

[tequilamac]

I am not saying that God can only act directly. After all, there are many instances in scripture where God does not act directly. But what I am saying is that Uncreated Grace(the Holy Spirit) can not be said to pass through a person, except the Son of God. The uncreated Grace acts directly from God. It is not something to take in your hands and apply to the soul. I think it is fundamentally different than an instance of healing. A healing is not quite the same thing as the uncreated Grace of God. I really don’t know how to put this into an arguement, I only know that it makes sense in my mind. I will try to think about the logic of it.

Again this makes no sense. If uncreated Holy Spirit or uncreated Love or uncreated Word cannot pass through Mary, can you explain how the uncreated Son of God passed through Mary? If you claim that it cannot pass through Mary, then you would also have to deny the Incarnation it would seem to me.
As to the rest of your argument you are discussing procession which Aquinas argues:

"On the contrary, Our Lord says, “From God I proceeded” (John 8:42).

I answer that, Divine Scripture uses, in relation to God, names which signify procession. This procession has been differently understood. Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true God: **and this is contrary to what is said of the Son, “That . . . we may be in His true Son. This is true God” (1 John 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, “Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?” (1 Corinthians 6:19). Now, to have a temple is God’s prerogative. **Others take this procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it, or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood by Sabellius, who said that God the Father is called Son in assuming flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, “The Son cannot of Himself do anything” (John 5:19); while many other passages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms procession as existing in God Himself; whereas, since procession always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us, which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice.

As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God."