the meaning of Mediatrix

[Eucharisted]

It’s not the same thing.

Eastern apparitions as a general rule do not give messages.

As a tradition going back to the desert Fathers we do not listen to apparitions.

Even your own church will not bind you to believe in an apparition. Why? Because there is really no way of knowing it is true. Therefore, apparitions should not be the basis of new doctrine.

Very dangerous.

Apparitions aren’t the basis of new doctrine, and there is no new doctrine. The Church is led by God, the Holy Spirit, into all truths. It is not development of doctrine but understanding of the truth. Developement of doctrine would be things like what Mormons do, where revelation is ongoing. Private revelations, however, do not give new revelations; they merely repeat the message of the gospel. Humans need reminders now and again. It’s why God sent prophets to Israel and why sometimes He sends us private revelations. But like you said, private revelation isn’t binding; only Public Revelation is binding. Even though God speaks to men through angels and saints in private revelations, they aren’t binding.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

"We see the genesis of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and the traditional role of Mary as Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix in the early Church. Here are references to Mary by other early church fathers:

Mary, you are the vessel and tabernacle containing all mysteries. You know what the Patriarchs never knew; you have experienced what was never revealed to the Angels; you have heard what the Prophets never heard. In a word, all that was hidden from preceding generations was made known to you; even more, most of these wonders depended on you. (270 A.D., St. Gregory Thaumaturgus),

Blessed Virgin, immaculate and pure you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the universe. You are holy and inviolate, the hope of the hopeless and sinful; we sing your praises. We praise you as full of every grace, for you bore the God-Man. We all venerate you; we invoke you and implore your aid…Holy and immaculate Virgin…be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment…you are holy in the sight of God, to Whom be honor and glory, majesty, and power forever (373 AD, St. Ephem of Edessa)

It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called ‘full of Grace’…" (373 St. Athanasius)

Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanksgiving for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent? …accept then such poor thanks as we have to offer, unequal though they be to your merits. Receive our gratitude and obtain by your prayers the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to bring about our peace with God…Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you, feel now your help and protection. …Make it your continual care to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns for ever. (St Augustine in 430 A.D. )

One of the important thing to notice in all these quotes is the clear references to God/Jesus as the Saviour and Mary’s role of interceding. Mary is a helper. There is no sin in asking someone for help. Most of us at one point or another have asked our pastor or friend to pray for us. That is what these early Church Fathers are doing."

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_early_church.htm

What is fascinating about these text is that each saint makes their petition to Mary in the present tense long after she was assumed body and soul into heaven crowned as Queen of heaven and earth.

Her Royalty from her blood line from KIng David is from the Kingdom God promised King David one that will never end. Jesus comes on the scene in the fulfillment of time to continue in the line of King David, that was never without a Queen Mother, so it is with Jesus our King and Savior who always has an ear to his Queen Mother Just as all the other Kings from KIng David’s blood line, who ruled with their Mother as Queen not their wives.

 

[Monica4316]

Well, that’s a problem, don’t you see?

Right now, if a Christian believes the notion it is just a pious opinion. Perhaps it’s “nice” to know…

It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. It doesn’t matter if one believes it or not, " it’s not necessary for salvation". Yet people are saved every day, and even at this moment because of the Gospel Truth and Our Lord’s Sacraments.

But once you make this distinct new thing a dogma, everything changes. EVERYONE is bound to it, every single person. If any Latin Catholic denies this new teaching, it will excommunicate them latae sententiae.

Do you realize what that means?

It is already known to be something " …not necessary for salvation, but just for the sake of knowing the truth". But should it be defined as a dogma by your Pope it can damn people.

THIS IS NOT KNOWLEDGE WHICH SAVES, IT CAN ONLY DAMN PEOPLE

Very inopportune, wouldn’t you think? It is literally an attack upon the believers, the Body of Christ, like an autoimmune disease. The system meant to save people pushes them into hell instead.

All because it would be “nice”.

I disagree… and I don’t see why you would say that except to attack the Church.

If a Catholic is against a dogma, their main problem is disobedience, and that comes from pride. So it’s not the knowledge that damns them, it’s their own disobedience.

the reason some things are proclaimed as dogma is to further instruct the faithful so that they know what to believe, usually because there is opposition to the dogma from outside the Church. The reason they’re bound to believe it is so that they wouldn’t lead astray by the opposition and the heresies. Another reason why dogmas are defined is because it is God’s will for them to be known by ALL the faithful, not just a few.

I can say what you said about the early Church too… “so it wasn’t necessary to believe in the Trinity, and now it is, and all the people who don’t believe in it are excommunicated” …would you agree? do you think that is wrong? wasn’t the Trinity defined to fight heresy, and anyone who disagrees with it are simply being disobedient? I don’t see how that is different from what happens in the Church today.

Oh boy, here we go…

if it’s God’s will, it would be defined.

The Age of Revelation is closed.

there’s public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation has ended. But private revelation still happens, and Catholics are free to believe in any that has been accepted by the Church, although they don’t have to. The reason they don’t have to is not because there’s no way of knowing if it’s “really true” or not, but because it doesn’t add anything *necessary for salvation *to public revelation or Church dogma/teaching.

It’s not the same thing.

Eastern apparitions as a general rule do not give messages.

As a tradition going back to the desert Fathers we do not listen to apparitions.

Even your own church will not bind you to believe in an apparition. Why? Because there is really no way of knowing it is true. Therefore, apparitions should not be the basis of new doctrine.

Very dangerous.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic view. (I don’t know enough about the Eastern view)

as I said, the reason the Church doesn’t bind us to apparitions is because they’re not necessary for salvation, not because there’s no way of knowing if it’s true. The Church tests every apparition VERY carefully, and examines the people who saw it.

Also, apparitions in the Catholic Church are NEVER the basis of new doctrine. I dont know where you get that from. In some cases they spoke about doctrine, but they weren’t the basi**s for it. The basis is Scripture, Tradition, ECFs, and all other official Church teaching (councils, etc)

 

[Monica4316]

Apparitions aren’t the basis of new doctrine, and there is no new doctrine. The Church is led by God, the Holy Spirit, into all truths. It is not development of doctrine but understanding of the truth. Developement of doctrine would be things like what Mormons do, where revelation is ongoing. Private revelations, however, do not give new revelations; they merely repeat the message of the gospel. Humans need reminders now and again. It’s why God sent prophets to Israel and why sometimes He sends us private revelations. But like you said, private revelation isn’t binding; only Public Revelation is binding. Even though God speaks to men through angels and saints in private revelations, they aren’t binding.

What is fascinating about these text is that each saint makes their petition to Mary in the present tense long after she was assumed body and soul into heaven crowned as Queen of heaven and earth.

Her Royalty from her blood line from KIng David is from the Kingdom God promised King David one that will never end. Jesus comes on the scene in the fulfillment of time to continue in the line of King David, that was never without a Queen Mother, so it is with Jesus our King and Savior who always has an ear to his Queen Mother Just as all the other Kings from KIng David’s blood line, who ruled with their Mother as Queen not their wives.

 

[Hesychios]

I disagree… and I don’t see why you would say that except to attack the Church.

Your first response is to suspect my motivation.

Very telling, it would be helpful if you just consider what I have to say and not worry about the ‘why’ of it. After all, you started this thread, if I wanted to attack the church I would not have waited for you to start a thread.

And this you can check for yourself: I don’t start that kind of thread.

If a Catholic is against a dogma, their main problem is disobedience, and that comes from pride. So it’s not the knowledge that damns them, it’s their own disobedience.

Well, there you go.

Even though the church is full of life saving sacraments, teaching people their moral compass and all of the essential knowledge to overcome the terrible effects of First Sin to one day, hopefully rest in the hands of the Lord… you want to bind them in a trap that could send them to hell on a technicality.

You suggest people who might know better than to believe this strange new idea of pride. When in fact there is another type of pride here, pride in the institution that has been set up, contrary to traditional church practice, a novelty that can be swayed by internal politics and ‘petitions’. It is hubris. It is an achilles heel for your church.

Obedience to the Truth in Christ is essential, but obedience to assenting to something that Jesus never taught the Apostles to teach us, that is not essential for salvation, would only be something nice to know and might not even be true is pure selfishness on the part of some few wrapped in legalism. These people are willing to put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of sincere Christians, and condemn them by demanding obedience.

The western church seems to have become like a machine that exists for it’s own purposes alone, not specifically for the purpose of saving the souls of the innocent and giving them Christ.

**“But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.****” **Matthew 23:13

…And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. …And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Mark 9:36-37,42

the reason some things are proclaimed as dogma is to further instruct the faithful so that they know what to believe, usually because there is opposition to the dogma from outside the Church. The reason they’re bound to believe it is so that they wouldn’t lead astray by the opposition and the heresies. Another reason why dogmas are defined is because it is God’s will for them to be known by ALL the faithful, not just a few.

Now you are on to something, because this is the only reason the church ever had to define the basic “essential” Truths.

But these new inventions about Mary are just distracting us. By your own admission they are not essential to salvation, thus it is of no concern to us. The church has no right to bind it’s people in this way.

if it’s God’s will, it would be defined.

God help us if the Latin Catholic church ever takes a step like that again. There is too much at stake than to let your church drive another wedge between us.

there’s public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation has ended. But private revelation still happens, and Catholics are free to believe in any that has been accepted by the Church, although they don’t have to.

And that is the way it should remain.

Also, apparitions in the Catholic Church are NEVER the basis of new doctrine. I dont know where you get that from. In some cases they spoke about doctrine, but they weren’t the basi**s for it. The basis is Scripture, Tradition, ECFs, and all other official Church teaching (councils, etc)

Mostly, it comes from the over-active imaginations of men like Saint Louis de Montfort. That is the type of private revelation which is most dangerous because people mistake it for received knowledge. What it is is derivative theology.

I can tell you this for certain: if these concepts are strange to Holy Orthodoxy, they are not Received Teaching. They are manufactured goods.

 

[Hesychios]

I disagree… and I don’t see why you would say that except to attack the Church.

Your first response is to suspect my motivation.

Very telling, it would be helpful if you just consider what I have to say and not worry about the ‘why’ of it. After all, you started this thread, if I wanted to attack the church I would not have waited for you to start a thread.

And this you can check for yourself: I don’t start that kind of thread.

If a Catholic is against a dogma, their main problem is disobedience, and that comes from pride. So it’s not the knowledge that damns them, it’s their own disobedience.

Well, there you go.

Even though the church is full of life saving sacraments, teaching people their moral compass and all of the essential knowledge to overcome the terrible effects of First Sin to one day, hopefully rest in the hands of the Lord… you want to bind them in a trap that could send them to hell on a technicality.

You suggest people, who might know better than to believe this strange new idea, of pride. When in fact there is another type of pride here, pride in the institution that has been set up, contrary to traditional church practice, a novelty that can be swayed by internal politics and ‘petitions’. It is hubris. It is an achilles heel for your church.

Obedience to the Truth in Christ is essential, but obedience to assenting to something that Jesus never taught the Apostles to teach us, that is not essential for salvation, would only be something nice to know and might not even be true is pure selfishness on the part of some few wrapped in legalism. These people are willing to put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of sincere Christians, and condemn them by demanding obedience.

The western church seems to have become like a machine that exists for it’s own purposes alone, not specifically for the purpose of saving the souls of the innocent and giving them Christ.

**“But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.****” **Matthew 23:13

…And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. …And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Mark 9:36-37,42

the reason some things are proclaimed as dogma is to further instruct the faithful so that they know what to believe, usually because there is opposition to the dogma from outside the Church. The reason they’re bound to believe it is so that they wouldn’t lead astray by the opposition and the heresies. Another reason why dogmas are defined is because it is God’s will for them to be known by ALL the faithful, not just a few.

Now you are on to something, because this is the only reason the church ever had to define the basic “essential” Truths.

But these new inventions about Mary are just distracting us. By your own admission they are not essential to salvation, thus it is of no concern to us. The church has no right to bind it’s people in this way.

if it’s God’s will, it would be defined.

God help us if the Latin Catholic church ever takes a step like that again. There is too much at stake than to let your church drive another wedge between us.

there’s public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation has ended. But private revelation still happens, and Catholics are free to believe in any that has been accepted by the Church, although they don’t have to.

And that is the way it should remain.

Also, apparitions in the Catholic Church are NEVER the basis of new doctrine. I dont know where you get that from. In some cases they spoke about doctrine, but they weren’t the basi**s for it. The basis is Scripture, Tradition, ECFs, and all other official Church teaching (councils, etc)

Mostly, it comes from the over-active imaginations of men like Saint Louis de Montfort. That is the type of private revelation which is most dangerous because people mistake it for received knowledge. What it is is derivative theology.

I can tell you this for certain: if these concepts are strange to Holy Orthodoxy, they are not Received Teaching. They are manufactured goods.

 

[Peter_J]

We might have had a thread like this already, I’m not sure … but if we haven’t, it would be interesting to have a thread specifically to hear from Catholics who believe that it would be a bad idea to dogmatically define “Mediatrix”, but that it was a good idea to dogmatically define the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

 

[Monica4316]

Your first response is to suspect my motivation.

Very telling, it would be helpful if you just consider what I have to say and not worry about the ‘why’ of it. After all, you started this thread, if I wanted to attack the church I would not have waited for you to start a thread.

And this you can check for yourself: I don’t start that kind of thread.

oki…I’m sorry, it just seems like you are blaming the Church for a lot in your posts. I don’t know why.

Well, there you go.

Even though the church is full of life saving sacraments, teaching people their moral compass and all of the essential knowledge to overcome the terrible effects of First Sin to one day, hopefully rest in the hands of the Lord… you want to bind them in a trap that could send them to hell on a technicality.

technicality? no… I was talking about pride. It is always humble to submit to the Church. It is the one thing the devil can’t counterfeit.

You suggest people, who might know better than to believe this strange new idea, of pride.

it is not new… none of the Church’s dogmas are ‘new’. They just use new terminology sometimes. What about…
“After the mediator, the mediatrix of the whole world” (Ephrem the Syrian, 306-373) that was said in the 4th century. Hardly new. I posted this link with the ECFs before:
cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary.htm

none of it is ‘new’.

the ECFs spoke very highly about Mary!

now if the Church declares this as dogma, it WOULD be humble to obey the Church. That is because as Catholics, we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and can not teach error. So if someone goes against a dogma, they’re also going against the idea that the Church is infallible. Essentially they set themselves up as the Pope. So there are bigger issues here than someone disagreeing with a dogma on theological ground. Now if a Catholic really has a problem with it, there are many resources and ways to help them understand the dogma.

I’m speaking as a person who once disagreed with pretty much everything the Church teaches and I thought my own understanding was the right one.

When in fact there is another type of pride here, pride in the institution that has been set up, contrary to traditional church practice, a novelty that can be swayed by internal politics and ‘petitions’. It is hubris. It is an achilles heel for your church.

faith in the Church is not pride, it is humility.

And the Pope himself, doesn’t take pride in his position, in fact Pope Benedict spoke of himself as a servant to the Tradition that came before him… to all the councils and ECFs and Scripture and all the Church history. How is that pride?

it’s not pride in an institution, it’s faith in something that Christ Himself made.

He said, “you are Peter and upon this rock I will built My Church”. Peter means rock. davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

I’m sorry that what is to some people simple faith and obedience, looks like pride to you.

Obedience to the Truth in Christ is essential, but obedience to assenting to something that Jesus never taught the Apostles to teach us, that is not essential for salvation, would only be something nice to know and might not even be true is pure selfishness on the part of some few wrapped in legalism. These people are willing to put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of sincere Christians, and condemn them by demanding obedience.

Jesus said, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. He gave the Apostles the truth through public revelation, but we are still coming to a full understanding of it.

Do you think the full understanding was there from day 1? If so, why did the Bible, and teachings such as the Holy Trinity, only come after? and these are teachings that we all accept. They came after the Apostles, in the same way as dogmas get formulated today.

Jesus is still teaching the Church… right now… He is teaching the faithful through the Magisterium, He is working through the priests and the Bishops and the Pope to bring the truth to us. He is also working in our hearts to help us respond to this truth.

You say the Church tries to “bind” people… if a Catholic really has a problem with a dogma, the best thing to do is to be open to God and pray with an open mind, and a humble heart, and He will help and give understanding.

 

[Monica4316]

The western church seems to have become like a machine that exists for it’s own purposes alone, not specifically for the purpose of saving the souls of the innocent and giving them Christ.

If you have already decided that the motives of the Church CAN’T be good, then nothing it does would seem good to you.

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

so now you are saying the Church is full of pharisees? have any evidence for that? do you know people’s hearts?

…And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. …And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Mark 9:36-37,42

well it is good then that the Church is teaching many children the truth of Christ.

Now you are on to something, because this is the only reason the church ever had to define the basic “essential” Truths.

But these new inventions about Mary are just distracting us.

no they are not. They are leading many to a closer relationship with Christ. I am one of those people btw.

and they are not inventions. The ECFs spoke of Mary along those lines too, and with similar language.

it is now time for the Church to come to a fuller understanding of the truth about Our Lady, for the reign of her Immaculate Heart and of Jesus Christ through her.

By your own admission they are not essential to salvation, thus it is of no concern to us.

very FEW things are essential to salvation. So should we not teach anything else?

The church has no right to bind it’s people in this way.

As I said, there’s nothing wrong with simple obedience to the Church.

God help us if the Latin Catholic church ever takes a step like that again. There is too much at stake than to let your church drive another wedge between us. And that is the way it should remain.

are you saying that the Church should simply avoid anything that people might disagree with, for the sake of unity? but that is false unity. True unity is when all people submit to the teaching of the Church.

Mostly, it comes from the over-active imaginations of men like Saint Louis de Montfort. That is the type of private revelation which is most dangerous because people mistake it for received knowledge. What it is is derivative theology.

St Louis de Montfort was lead by the Holy Spirit. Ever read about his life? do you think the devil physically attacked him because he had an “overactive imagination”?

I can tell you this for certain: if these concepts are strange to Holy Orthodoxy, they are not Received Teaching. They are manufactured goods.

so was Ephrem the Syrian not “orthodox” enough when he called Mary,
“After the mediator, the mediatrix of the whole world”

?

 

[Hesychios]

and they are not inventions. The ECF’s spoke of Mary along those lines too, and with similar language.

Not THE, but some. When speaking of the ECF’'s and their position one must look for a consensus. If that were the case such a dogma would have been proclaimed long before now.

Poetic license and hyperbole are often the stuff of praise. Pious opinion is not the same as dogma, and as you can see there are no dogmas to that effect even nearly two thousand years after Pentecost.

it is now time for the Church to come to a fuller understanding of the truth about Our Lady, for the reign of her Immaculate Heart and of Jesus Christ through her.

What can possibly make you think such a thing?

very FEW things are essential to salvation. So should we not teach anything else?

Should you damn people for no good reason? When it comes to human understanding of the Divine, less is more.

The church in the past only reluctantly defined anything, and that only to combat the inventiveness of heretics. To get the mind of the church on this matter you need to study how apophatic reasoning works.

As I said, there’s nothing wrong with simple obedience to the Church.

This is not a case of simple obedience. You are seeking to impose your personal opinion upon others by promoting it for dogmatization.

And while this is not even dogma of the church, you are presenting it here as if you represent the “Catholic” position, but you don’t. You are promoting a factional opinion. Almost certainly a minority opinion within your own church.

It does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon, to wit:
**“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” **

are you saying that the Church should simply avoid anything that people might disagree with, for the sake of unity? but that is false unity. True unity is when all people submit to the teaching of the Church.

Orthodox do, and have consistently done so, neither adding nor subtracting from the received tradition of Faith.

St Louis de Montfort was lead by the Holy Spirit. Ever read about his life? do you think the devil physically attacked him because he had an “overactive imagination”?

I have already stated what I think of Saint Louis de Montfort’s writings, I need not repeat myself.

so was Ephrem the Syrian not “orthodox” enough when he called Mary,
“After the mediator, the mediatrix of the whole world”

Do you maintain that he meant what you mean today? Because he never read Montfort.

Pious opinion doth not a dogma make.

The Seven Councils never addressed this, it was totally unnecessary.

 

[Monica4316]

Not THE, but some. When speaking of the ECF’'s and their position one must look for a consensus. If that were the case such a dogma would have been proclaimed long before now.

if the ECFs didn’t have the “full understanding”, which comes to the Church with time. But they all did speak of Mary very highly.

Poetic license and hyperbole are often the stuff of praise. Pious opinion is not the same as dogma, and as you can see there are no dogmas to that effect even nearly two thousand years after Pentecost.
What can possibly make you think such a thing?
Should you damn people for no good reason? When it comes to human understanding of the Divine, less is more.

The church in the past only reluctantly defined anything, and that only to combat the inventiveness of heretics. To get the mind of the church on this matter you need to study how apophatic reasoning works.
This is not a case of simple obedience. You are seeking to impose your personal opinion upon others by promoting it for dogmatization.

this thread is not about making Mediatrix into a dogma, but about clarifying what the term means.

btw, today the Church STILL only reluctantly defines dogmas, and only when there are heresies.

And while this is not even dogma of the church, you are presenting it here as if you represent the “Catholic” position, but you don’t. You are promoting a factional opinion. Almost certainly a minority opinion within your own church.

many Saints would agree with Mediatrix though.

It does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon, to wit:
**“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” **

that is why dogma is proclaimed, so that all would believe and know.

Orthodox do, and have consistently done so, neither adding nor subtracting from the received tradition of Faith.

actually have they have subtracted some things.

I have already stated what I think of Saint Louis de Montfort’s writings, I need not repeat myself. Do you maintain that he meant what you mean today? Because he never read Montfort.

Pious opinion doth not a dogma make.

The Seven Councils never addressed this, it was totally unnecessary.

I’m sorry I can’t debate anymore. I’ve said all that I wanted to say.

I do agree with what De Montfort wrote.

God bless.

 

[gt8952b]

It’s obvious there are very strong feelings on both sides of this debate, as demonstrated by this thread. I think there is a very subtle point that needs to be made here in the midst of such a hostile debate:

The CC has the responsibility to investigate the ‘cults’ (for lack of better word) that develop within the members of the Catholic Church. Whether it be the Arians, or the Montanists (remember Turtullian converted to Montanism), or the supporters of Mary as Mediatrix, the church must evaluate the claims of it’s members to either approve claims or avoid heresy. It is very possible that the Church could find this teaching invalid, that the title of Mediatrix is unfounded and dangerous, (despite the evidence that has been posted on this thread).

Now this OP was not about whether the title of Mary as Mediatrix should be made dogma, and I don’t get the feeling that anyone was promoting that stance in this thread, only that there is evidence for the claim. And when it’s said that the only time dogma is pronounced is in the case of defending against heresy, it should be noted that this is a potentail case for that. If the Church decides that this promulgation would be dangerous, then Catholics would face schism if they still supported it. I for one would submit immediately to the Church if such a prouncement was made.

Those that love Mary and want to see titles given to her are only doing so because she has had such a dramatic influence on thier lives and they want to share her with others. It is a shame that there is so much misunderstanding. I for one believe that Mary is an important piece of the salvific life and death of our Lord. I hope you do to even if we don’t agree on titles.

 

[Hesychios]

if the ECFs didn’t have the “full understanding”, which comes to the Church with time. But they all did speak of Mary very highly.

We cannot claim to have a fuller understanding than those Apostles who left us the Faith.

We need to stay with the Faith once handed to the Apostles. It will help keep us out of trouble.

this thread is not about making Mediatrix into a dogma, but about clarifying what the term means.

Sorry, I couldn’t tell the difference. Clearly my mistake.

btw, today the Church STILL only reluctantly defines dogmas, and only when there are heresies.

If you were referring to the Orthodox Faith I would say that is true. It appears that you and I are talking past one another.

many Saints would agree with Mediatrix though.

Not in the way Latin Catholics have in recent centuries.

**“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere, always, and by all.” **

You just said above that the church “only reluctantly defines dogmas, and only when there are heresies”. Heretics proclaim new things to believe and know, by their own authority.

Anyway, saint Vincent’s words were not meant to encourage new definitions, but to help assure that the Faithful adhere only to Truth as known from the first.

Michael:

Orthodox do, and have consistently done so, neither adding nor subtracting from the received tradition of Faith.

actually have they have subtracted some things.

If you only knew how completely wrong that statement is.

You always have the right to show us where and when you think that has happened in Holy Orthodoxy. I invite you to look for it when you have some time.

I’m sorry I can’t debate anymore. I’ve said all that I wanted to say.

Me too.

I do agree with what De Montfort wrote.

Actually, although I don’t, I encourage anyone who may be curious to read him if they really want to know what he said.

God bless.

God bless you too, and good luck…

 

[Monica4316]

It’s obvious there are very strong feelings on both sides of this debate, as demonstrated by this thread. I think there is a very subtle point that needs to be made here in the midst of such a hostile debate:

The CC has the responsibility to investigate the ‘cults’ (for lack of better word) that develop within the members of the Catholic Church. Whether it be the Arians, or the Montanists (remember Turtullian converted to Montanism), or the supporters of Mary as Mediatrix, the church must evaluate the claims of it’s members to either approve claims or avoid heresy. It is very possible that the Church could find this teaching invalid, that the title of Mediatrix is unfounded and dangerous, (despite the evidence that has been posted on this thread).

I personally think what is likely to happen, is the Church would let Catholics think of Mary as Mediatrix if it helps them, but it would be optional. So it not be dogma, but still allowed. But this is just a guess.

Now this OP was not about whether the title of Mary as Mediatrix should be made dogma, and I don’t get the feeling that anyone was promoting that stance in this thread, only that there is evidence for the claim. And when it’s said that the only time dogma is pronounced is in the case of defending against heresy, it should be noted that this is a potentail case for that. If the Church decides that this promulgation would be dangerous, then Catholics would face schism if they still supported it. I for one would submit immediately to the Church if such a prouncement was made.

I agree, I would submit too, whatever the Church says - either if it makes it a dogma, or says it’s wrong.

Those that love Mary and want to see titles given to her are only doing so because she has had such a dramatic influence on thier lives and they want to share her with others. It is a shame that there is so much misunderstanding. I for one believe that Mary is an important piece of the salvific life and death of our Lord. I hope you do to even if we don’t agree on titles.

 

[Monica4316]

We cannot claim to have a fuller understanding than those Apostles who left us the Faith.

I’m kind of puzzled by this, cause didn’t Jesus say the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth? The concept of the Trinity, etc, only came afterwards…

now maybe the Apostles knew it all
and maybe they passed on the ideas. But they didn’t have names for them. The names were given later, when dogmas were pronounced.

In any case, of course the Apostles knew much more than anyone else.

But you can’t really prove that the Apostles did NOT see Mary as Mediatrix, though. Maybe they did.

We need to stay with the Faith once handed to the Apostles. It will help keep us out of trouble.

this is what the Church does

Sorry, I couldn’t tell the difference.

no prob…

If you were referring to the Orthodox Faith I would say that is true. It appears that you and I are talking past one another.

no I am talking about the Catholic faith. Dogmas have only been defined during times of opposition.

 

[Monica4316]

Not in the way Latin Catholics have in recent centuries. You just said above that the church “only reluctantly defines dogmas, and only when there are heresies”. Heretics proclaim new things to believe and know, by their own authority.

oki…well the difference is that they proclaim new things, and by their own authority.

Anyway, saint Vincent’s words were not meant to encourage new definitions, but to help assure that the Faithful adhere only to Truth as known from the first.

in that case, we should not have the concept of the Trinity! cause it wasn’t defined there from the very first. Why was it alright to make new definitions in the early Church but it’s not alright now?

If you only knew how completely wrong that statement is.

well yes, they have though… they subtracted the idea of the Papacy, and also some moral teachings like divorce and in some cases contraception.

You always have the right to show us where and when you think that has happened in Holy Orthodoxy. I invite you to look for it when you have some time.

I have looked into it, when I was discerning if I should be Catholic or Orthodox… I found that many of the ECFs talked about the Pope, and Peter being the rock, yet the EO don’t believe in the Papacy.

Me too.

Actually, although I don’t, I encourage anyone who may be curious to read him if they really want to know what he said.

I advise this too, especially True Devotion.

God bless you too, and good luck…

 

[BRB1]

Why is she above all other creatures? In what sense is she above all other creatures?

Next, is her participation in helping spread His grace any different than yours or mine, your priest or my pastor? IOW, am I, in the same sense as you explain above, a mediator of His Grace, in that I participate in His making His grace available to others?

Jon

Firstly, Mary was the Numero Uno Christian … in time. Chosen by God for her role. Protected from all sin. She never doubted Christ, was always his truest disciple.

That alone puts her #1 over all the rest of us. Christ taught in SS he had one mother, but many brothers/sisters. Additional support for unique role of Mary.

The Church is a living, eternal organism. Rooted in Christ [if viewed as a growing tree] … or headed by Christ if viewed in bodily form ]. Thus, as the first Christian, Mary is either the first rings of the tree trunk or the neck of the Church body.

Graces originate from Christ … and flow out us today thru the eons of subsequent generations of Christian converts. First to Mary, then to the Apostles, and all subsequent priestly Church leadership, and finally to the laity, and hopefully thru you/I to other laity. We all hold a positional place in the tree of life / Church body.

Learn you place in the Church. Don’t try to sidestep/bypass the Church and ignore the saints and Mary. Graces of Christ are mediated to us thru them … even if you don’t yet recognize it as reality.

 

[thirdn6]

We might have had a thread like this already, I’m not sure … but if we haven’t, it would be interesting to have a thread specifically to hear from Catholics who believe that it would be a bad idea to dogmatically define “Mediatrix”, but that it was a good idea to dogmatically define the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

Like I have said in my previous post… “it just doesn’t sound right.”
If a poll is started now I’d be one more guy to say IT IS A BAD IDEA.
The word connotes parallelism to Mediator" esp if capitalized as a title.
That means average people like me would think twice before even knowing how it came to be that mother Mary is given such title.
How much more with non-catholics who wish to come back to the Church? Will it really help or discourage them?

I love our blessed Mother since I was younger and I haven’t had issues with any of her titles… except that.

:nope: Sorry…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Meaning of Mediatrix;

To arrive at a understanding of this, one must take in the whole of what it stands for;

First of all, it is known that “Woman” was not created from dust and water, Woman was divinely created from man.

We know of the “chosen” of Israel yet Israel hoped for the messiah who will reveal all things. So we come to the conclusion of the election and revelation. Both of these are one. When, How and Who revealed God in time? This topic brings me to the next point; Daughter Zion.

Without going into too much theology, I will begin to summarize here;

Woman has always played a particular role in salvation since the beginning. Grant it that with Eve came the fall, but without her, we her offspring would not exist today. The bible also interprets other Woman-saviors such as "Esther, Judith, the judge Deborah. The bible also interprets Mother savoirs from Patristic history; Sarah-hagar, Rachel-Leah and Hannah-Penina. With these the divine promise stand out from these mothers. In the old Testament the fertile is the blessing, infertility is a curse. We learn in the new testament as from Sarah in the old testament, that the infertile one truly becomes the blessed one.

Lastly what I would like to mention God’s first creature; She is “Mediatrix” between creation and salvation history, you want a hint? She is God’s lover… “Wisdom”. I must summarize even more here, because there is much to reveal here. So I will close my commentary from scripture that reveals the bride of God from the prophets, which has settled all of this Roman Catholics doubt that Mary is truly “Mediatrix” as the Church believes today but has not made this “Revelation from God” a dogma, because just as the Early church fathers were thinking and relating all these revelations to the Blessed Virgin Mary of which they had high regard for; Knew of what Graces and revelations of God came to be through a “Woman” Mediatrix.

So I will leave you with some scripture and reflection for those who truly seek truth, that convinced me of Mary’s Mediatrix by taking in the Whole of biblical revealtion;

Isaiah 54: 5 For he who has become your husband is your Maker; his name is the LORD of hosts; Your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, called God of all the earth.
Isaiah 62: 5 As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Hosea 2: 21 I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; 22 I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD.

Song of Songs 2: 1 I am a flower of Sharon, a lily of the valley. 2 As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among women. 3 As an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my lover among men. I delight to rest in his shadow, and his fruit is sweet to my mouth. 4 He brings me into the banquet hall and his emblem over me is love.

Psalm 45: 18 I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever

Luke 1: 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

Isaiah 9: 5 For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. 6 His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David’s throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children. 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,

May God be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How much more with non-catholics who wish to come back to the Church? Will it really help or discourage them?

I love our blessed Mother since I was younger and I haven’t had issues with any of her titles… except that.

:nope: Sorry…

Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI who is cleaning house for True Catholics who are not moved by every wind of doctrine, and for those who are building their house on “Rock”. Those who truly love Jesus will give up home and family for him, including ones dignity and pride. Coming to the understanding of Mary from the 2000 year old Christian teachings will reveal a misunderstanding from Late Evangelical and non catholic circles. These do not teach the correct understanding that Catholics have about Mary since the first Christians theology of “Woman” which does not contradict with Mary as Mediatrix.

Truth is period. Opinions do not dictate “Truth”.