The difference between Mary as Mediatrix and Mary as Advocate?

[nohself]

I don’t really understand the difference between her roles as Mediatrix and as Advocate. Is advocacy for the Church and for individual persons an *aspect *of Christ’s mediation which she shares?

In other words, Mary shares in Christ’s mediation between man and God. She helps to bring God and man together essentially. So is advocacy, that is, primarily petitionary prayer, a *part *of her overall role as Mediatrix?

Anyone fairly informed about these roles of Mary?

Thanks,
Jamie

 

[Nate]

nohself:

In other words, Mary shares in Christ’s mediation between man and God. She helps to bring God and man together essentially. So is advocacy, that is, primarily petitionary prayer, a *part *of her overall role as Mediatrix?

Hi Jamie,

I don’t think there is any diffence between mediation and advocacy and I wouldn’t put it as you have as a sharing of the mediation between God and man (though in a sense that is true). Christ is the essential mediator between God and man, and while there is only one mediator between God and man, there are many mediators between man and man. Since Christ is also a man, Mary’s mediation is really between Christ and men, as is our own. That is, all mediation flows through Christ. Since Mary has a special relationship to Jesus as a man, her advocacy is especially unique.

 

[nohself]

Nate:

Hi Jamie,

I don’t think there is any diffence between mediation and advocacy and I wouldn’t put it as you have as a sharing of the mediation between God and man (though in a sense that is true). Christ is the essential mediator between God and man, and while there is only one mediator between God and man, there are many mediators between man and man. Since Christ is also a man, Mary’s mediation is really between Christ and men, as is our own. That is, all mediation flows through Christ. Since Mary has a special relationship to Jesus as a man, her advocacy is especially unique.

Thanks for your reply, Nate. I would have to clarify.

I do not mean that Mary is a mediator between the person of the Father and man. There is only one mediator between the Father and man and that is Christ. However (bear with me ), you say that Christ is a man, which is true, but it’s a litle misleading in this sense. Christ is not a human person. He has a human *nature *and a divine nature. But he is not a human person. Christ is ultimately a divine person. So when Mary, or anybody, mediates between Christ and man, she is mediating between *God and man. *We can rightfully say this. And we can rightfully say that *priests *are mediators between God and man inasmuch as they–in a mysterious fashon–share in Christ’s role as mediator.

Jamie

 

[trevor]

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His Only Son, our Lord,
Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and became MAN

Jesus is true God and true Man.

ybiC,
Trevor

 

[nohself]

trevor:

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His Only Son, our Lord,
Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and became MAN

Jesus is true God and true Man.

ybiC,
Trevor

Trevor,

I see the confusion. Let me try to clarify my point. Jesus is true God and true man. Yes. But what does this mean? Does it mean that Jesus is two persons: Jesus the God and Jesus the Man? No, it does not mean that Jesus is two persons. It means that Jesus is two natures: the divine nature and the human nature, united mysteriously in one person.

Now, is this one person divine or human? Let’s consider the Trinity: we believe that God is one substance in three divine persons–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is a divine person. Therefore, Jesus the Son is a divine person, with two natures–divine and human.

Jamie

 

[trevor]

Hi Jamie,

If you look in your Catechism, you will find in Chapter 2, Article III, No. III.,;

464 “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falisified it.”

465 “The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity.”

This is what the Church says on the matter and I thought it would be good to have this base line in an effort to avoid word play.

Thanks so much.

ybiC,
Trevor

 

[nohself]

trevor:

Hi Jamie,

If you look in your Catechism, you will find in Chapter 2, Article III, No. III.,;

464 “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falisified it.”

465 “The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity.”

This is what the Church says on the matter and I thought it would be good to have this base line in an effort to avoid word play.

Thanks so much.

ybiC,
Trevor

Trevor,

Yeah, the problem here really is semantics. That’s why it’s amazing how carefully conceived and worded are the Church’s statements, leaving as little room for confusion as possible.

When I say that Christ has two natures, divine and human, I do not mean that he is somehow part divine and part human. His nature is–in a mysterious way–fully divine and *fully human. *And yet he is the second divine person of the Trinity.

Fulton Sheen said, “One who and two whats.” Christ is one divine person, with fully divine and fully human natures. The Church avoids wording it as I have, especially back then, because of the confusion that could be brought about, namely, that Christ is somehow not fully human. I suppose the politically correct version does not label His personhood: “Christ is one person, fully human and fully divine.”

Jmiae

 

[trevor]

nohself:

Trevor,

Yeah, the problem here really is semantics. That’s why it’s amazing how carefully conceived and worded are the Church’s statements, leaving as little room for confusion as possible.

When I say that Christ has two natures, divine and human, I do not mean that he is somehow part divine and part human. His nature is–in a mysterious way–fully divine and *fully human. *And yet he is the second divine person of the Trinity.

Fulton Sheen said, “One who and two whats.” Christ is one divine person, with fully divine and fully human natures. The Church avoids wording it as I have, especially back then, because of the confusion that could be brought about, namely, that Christ is somehow not fully human. I suppose the politically correct version does not label His personhood: “Christ is one person, fully human and fully divine.”

Jmiae

Hello Jamie,

Forget politically correct. And yes, you were confusing me. When confused I always consult the Catechism. I find that when I use too many of my words, things get mixed up.

Peace,
Trevor

 

[John_Henry]

trevor:

Hello Jamie,

Forget politically correct. And yes, you were confusing me. When confused I always consult the Catechism. I find that when I use too many of my words, things get mixed up.

The catechism also says:

"Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.“94” (CCC 468)

Jesus Christ is a divine person with both a human and divine nature. I may, though, have misunderstood the nature of the debate.

 

[mtr01]

nohself:

I don’t really understand the difference between her roles as Mediatrix and as Advocate. Is advocacy for the Church and for individual persons an *aspect *of Christ’s mediation which she shares?

In other words, Mary shares in Christ’s mediation between man and God. She helps to bring God and man together essentially. So is advocacy, that is, primarily petitionary prayer, a *part *of her overall role as Mediatrix?

Anyone fairly informed about these roles of Mary?

Thanks,
Jamie

To answer this specific question, I always considered her role as advocate as her intercessory role. In other words, she pleads for us to God.

Her mediatrix role, I’ve always understood as something distinct…more in line with “Mediatrix of all Graces”. To me, this role is distinct from Christ’s sole mediator-ship between God and Man.

 

[Nate]

nohself:

Thanks for your reply, Nate. I would have to clarify.

I do not mean that Mary is a mediator between the person of the Father and man. There is only one mediator between the Father and man and that is Christ. However (bear with me ), you say that Christ is a man, which is true, but it’s a litle misleading in this sense. Christ is not a human person. He has a human *nature *and a divine nature. But he is not a human person. Christ is ultimately a divine person. So when Mary, or anybody, mediates between Christ and man, she is mediating between *God and man. *We can rightfully say this. And we can rightfully say that *priests *are mediators between God and man inasmuch as they–in a mysterious fashon–share in Christ’s role as mediator.

The problem is that my understanding of what a human person is, is a person with a human nature (by definition). Just as a divine person is a person with a divine nature. So I would say that Jesus is both a human and divine person in one being. Which is what makes him the ONLY real mediator between God and man. Mary’s relationship with Jesus can only be a human one, because she is only human. God has no body except through the human nature of Jesus, and a priest, or anyone else can only mediate as a member of the Body of Christ, which is associated completely with His humanity. That is why our prayers end “through Christ our Lord.”

1 Pet 2:5 " you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

This at least is my lowly understanding of it, and how I reply to bible thumpers who throw out the “one mediator line.”

 

[Evan]

mtr01:

Her mediatrix role, I’ve always understood as something distinct…more in line with “Mediatrix of all Graces”. To me, this role is distinct from Christ’s sole mediator-ship between God and Man.

As graces all flow from God to Man, perhaps her role is mediatrix is directed toward man, and Chirst’s roll the the unique mediator is bidirectional, both From God and To God.

 

[nohself]

Nate:

The problem is that my understanding of what a human person is, is a person with a human nature (by definition). Just as a divine person is a person with a divine nature. So I would say that Jesus is both a human and divine person in one being. Which is what makes him the ONLY real mediator between God and man. Mary’s relationship with Jesus can only be a human one, because she is only human. God has no body except through the human nature of Jesus, and a priest, or anyone else can only mediate as a member of the Body of Christ, which is associated completely with His humanity. That is why our prayers end “through Christ our Lord.”

1 Pet 2:5 " you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

This at least is my lowly understanding of it, and how I reply to bible thumpers who throw out the “one mediator line.”

Nate,

Neither of us will ever come close to exhausting or understanding this tremendous mystery. We can do our best to describe it using human words, of course, but we’re probably always more wrong than correct.

You said that “Jesus is both a human and divine person in one being.” That is incorrect. The doctrine is definitely confusing but this is not right. For Jesus to be both a human and a divine person would mean that he is two persons, which is not the case. The theologians said that everything Jesus did was a divine act because he is a divine person. There is actually a latin phrase to describe this…I wish I had Fulton Sheen’s book The Priest is Not His Own because he briefly describes this.

What you seem to be doing is equating personhood and nature, which may be how secular philosophers do it, but it’s not how Catholic theologians look at it (although I’m not so sure even secular philosophers fuse the two). I’m sure Aquinas has a great explanation of the difference between personhood and nature somewhere in his writings.

This is not to impugn Jesus’ humanity. Jesus is true man.

Jamie

 

[Nate]

nohself:

Nate,
Neither of us will ever come close to exhausting or understanding this tremendous mystery.

Well I can agree with that.

You said that “Jesus is both a human and divine person in one being.” That is incorrect. The doctrine is definitely confusing but this is not right. For Jesus to be both a human and a divine person would mean that he is two persons, which is not the case.

I also agree that Jesus is one person and did not say that he was two persons. That is a conclusion that you erroneously drew. I said He had two natures so can be called a man (a human person) or God (a divine person) . The kinds of person that He is are not contradictory and though distinguishable in the abstract are not distinguishable as they subsist in the one person of Jesus.

A poor analogy might be that one person might be a president and a father, and you could properly say he was either without excluding the other, or implying some duality of being.

The theologians said that everything Jesus did was a divine act because he is a divine person. There is actually a latin phrase to describe this…I wish I had Fulton Sheen’s book The Priest is Not His Own because he briefly describes this.

What you seem to be doing is equating personhood and nature, which may be how secular philosophers do it, but it’s not how Catholic theologians look at it (although I’m not so sure even secular philosophers fuse the two). I’m sure Aquinas has a great explanation of the difference between personhood and nature somewhere in his writings.

This is not to impugn Jesus’ humanity. Jesus is true man.

Jamie

 

[Nate]

nohself:

Nate,
Neither of us will ever come close to exhausting or understanding this tremendous mystery.

Well I can agree with that.

You said that “Jesus is both a human and divine person in one being.” That is incorrect. The doctrine is definitely confusing but this is not right. For Jesus to be both a human and a divine person would mean that he is two persons, which is not the case.

I also agree that Jesus is one person and did not say that he was two persons. That is a conclusion that you erroneously drew. I said He had two natures so can be called a man (a human person) or God (a divine person) . The kinds of person that He is are not contradictory and though distinguishable in the abstract are not distinguishable as they subsist in the one person of Jesus.

A poor analogy might be that one person might be a president and a father, and you could properly say he was either without excluding the other, or implying some duality of being or identity.