the meaning of Mediatrix

[Brendan]

Perhaps, if it is repeated 1,000,000,000 times more, it will become fact. Until that time, the word one means less than 2 and more than zero.

One, it is said, is the loneliest number that you ever seen.

“we only have one Mediator between God and man and that is *the man *Christ”

Actually, Scripture says that Christ is the only mediator to the FATHER.

There can be many mediators to Christ. Mary was one example given in Scripture ( wedding at Cana)

 

[Monica4316]

Actually, Scripture says that Christ is the only mediator to the FATHER.

There can be many mediators to Christ. Mary was one example given in Scripture ( wedding at Cana)

 

[Stouts989]

the idea that Mary was given graces to pass on to us is a Church teaching.

 

[Stouts989]

Cause the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from officially (dogmatically) teaching error.

(I mean the Catholic Church)

Where Can I find this promise from God that the Holy Spirit does this?

 

[Stouts989]

there are many things we all believe that are not stated explicitly in Scripture, such as the Trinity.

The Trinity is found all over both the Old and New Testament…why its such an essential belief in Christianity. Some of the beliefs held about Marry aren’t found anywhere in the Bible…why I have so many questions

 

[Hesychios]

                            Cause the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from officially (dogmatically) teaching error.

This is a serious problem for the Roman Catholic church, because it is so convinced of it’s own invincibility it has been letting it’s guard down.

No really Apostolic church (until recent centuries, this church) has had a mechanism for introducing new theology, when the RC began to think of the Papacy as an infallible oracle it only became necessary to convince one Pope or another of some popular notion it becomes a kind of pride in one’s invincibility, like a religious jingoism.

Like children who ask for some special treat from one parent then another, then the grandparents until either all the options are exhausted (or they finally get the answer they are looking for), certain factions among the church will petition one Pope after another until they get their way. The difference here is that the number of Popes is not so easily exhausted, we have only four grandparents at most, but these people will persist until they get their own way. This process can and does sometimes take centuries. Rarely does this satisfy the Vincentian Canon, but no matter.

That is why it is a commonplace for them to say “such-and-such is **not yet **a dogma”, they have no concept that a cause persistently promoted can be definitively rejected. In fact, some Popes play this out by **not **being definite, sometimes they encourage the Faithful in their extremes, but often they table any potential controversial final decision and let their successors deal with it.

So the rank and file Latin Catholic goes on in this hope of having their pet project approved by some Pope, knowing that if and when it happens, all of their efforts would have been justified. :juggle: So the process is self-validating, something like circular logic.

Now why does this happen, exactly? Where does the impetus for this come from? Some subjects are like sacred cows, they cannot be argued against nor criticized and any argument for the cause tolerates an incredible amount of hyperbole, as if no poetic twist of phrase, no exaggeration is too much. We can call it hypertrophy. Eventually the people can become numb to it and not realize how far they have gone. Marian claims and Papal claims seem to be two such categories certain types of people can always get excited about:dancing:

A good example is the writings of Saint Louis de Montfort. Some eager Latin Catholics push this stuff on new potential converts without realizing what a negative impact it can have. They could be totally blind to the apparent blasphemy of the terminology. Other Latin Catholics shudder at this, cautioning that it might be too much for a new Catholic to handle, it could scare them away so don’t promote it to new people!

Anyway, this type of poetic hyperbole influences people, and instead of thinking of these turns of phrase as sheer romantic praise literature they think of these things as real qualities of the subject.

 

[Monica4316]

Monica4316;5389100:

but where did the church get this teaching if it isn’t found in scripture?

well in the Bible, it says that we should hold on to the teachings that were passed on through word OR letter. so some things were written down in the Bible, and others the Apostles passed on to their successors (the bishops). this is where we get Tradition from.

The earliest quote I read that was given was from the 4th century. That’s a big time gap in church history about what would be a very essential teaching about the function of God’s grace. As was mentioned in an earlier post. Even ECF differed on some interpetations and beliefs. Even Peter and Paul had a confrontation in establishing doctrine. How do we know who’s right who’s wrong if there’s nothing in scripture to support it? And we can’t go my majority rule.

in the case of the ECFs, I think we can go by majority rule, cause that reflects the official Church teaching. If a teaching (like this one) seems to emerge later on, then probably it just took a while for the Church to come to the full understanding of it. If you look at the very early apostolic Church, they didn’t have the Bible, the concept of the Trinity, etc. But later on, they did. So it might be similar with this.

I think with Mary it’s special because she lived such a humble life and was basically only known to God. So it took a while for the Holy Spirit to teach the Church about her. It was when she was already in Heaven, and when the Church was reading for this teaching.

Thanks for the link. I"ll read through when I find some more time and I’m sure I’ll have some questions…lol. Thanks agian!

That seems like a pretty essential part of how we can grow in our relationship with Jesus as His disciples. But yet is omitted in the teachings of Jesus and all the Apostles.

a person can still be saved without explicitly knowing it though. That is perhaps why it wasn’t mentioned from the start. I’m sorry for all the “maybes” and “perhaps”, but this Mediatrix concept is just a part of faith for me, and I’ve never really attempted to explain it ot anyone before.

As for why Jesus didn’t talk so much about His Mother… St Louis de Montfort says it’s because she was so humble, that during her life she was only known to God, even the angels asked, “who is she?”. Her glory was only revealed afterwards, in Heaven. As it says, he who humbles himself will be exalted… and Mary is exalted… she’s the woman prophesied (in the OT) to “crush the head of the serpent”, and she’s the woman in Revelation 11-12.

Matthew 28:19 Jesus lays out the Trinity pretty clearly…all in one verse. But I understand your point. The doctrine of the Trinity is a systematic doctrine. I’ll look at the link of Bible quotes on Mary and see if I can better understand some of the teaches of Mary from a Bible perspective.

yea I think with Mary it’s systematic too…

Where Can I find this promise from God that the Holy Spirit does this?

“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Catholic theologians say that since all lies are from the enemy, God will prevent the Church from formally teaching lies, cause if it did that would mean the “gates of hell prevailed”.

The Trinity is found all over both the Old and New Testament…why its such an essential belief in Christianity. Some of the beliefs held about Marry aren’t found anywhere in the Bible…why I have so many questions

I understand

I had the same questions and I used to be a Protestant. I think with Mary, it just helps to put all the Bible verses together.

God bless.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m not sure if this has been asked yet, but what reason could there possibly be for this to be defined? What bearing would it have on someone’s salvation? :confused

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Monica4316]

This is a serious problem for the Roman Catholic church, because it is so convinced of it’s own invincibility it has been letting it’s guard down.

well Christ DID say, the gates of hell will not prevail. The Church and the Holy Spirit are linked… it makes sense for the Church to be guarded by God from error. I don’t think the Catholic Church has been ‘letting its guard down’. If you read any of the encyclicals or the Catechism, the dogmas are backed up with Scripture and Tradition and ECFs.

No really Apostolic church (until recent centuries, this church) has had a mechanism for introducing new theology, when the RC began to think of the Papacy as an infallible oracle it only became necessary to convince one Pope or another of some popular notion it becomes a kind of pride in one’s invincibility, like a religious jingoism.

it’s not NEW. As I tried to explain before, dogmas are just old ideas that are given new terminology to help guide the faithful. If you look at the ECFs, they talk about Peter as the rock and refer to the Pope as his successor.

Like children who ask for some special treat from one parent then another, then the grandparents until either all the options are exhausted (or they finally get the answer they are looking for), certain factions among the church will petition one Pope after another until they get their way. The difference here is that the number of Popes is not so easily exhausted, we have only four grandparents at most, but these people will persist until they get their own way. This process can and does sometimes take centuries. Rarely does this satisfy the Vincentian Canon, but no matter.

I don’t see much evidence for this sorry…

That is why it is a commonplace for them to say “such-and-such is **not yet **a dogma”, they have no concept that a cause persistently promoted can be definitively rejected. In fact, some Popes play this out by **not **being definite, sometimes they encourage the Faithful in their extremes, but often they table any potential controversial final decision and let their successors deal with it.

So the rank and file Latin Catholic goes on in this hope of having their pet project approved by some Pope, knowing that if and when it happens, all of their efforts would have been justified. :juggle: So the process is self-validating, something like circular logic.

Now why does this happen, exactly? Where does the impetus for this come from? Some subjects are like sacred cows, they cannot be argued against nor criticized and any argument for the cause tolerates an incredible amount of hyperbole, as if no poetic twist of phrase, no exaggeration is too much. We can call it hypertrophy. Eventually the people can become numb to it and not realize how far they have gone. Marian claims and Papal claims seem to be two such categories certain types of people can always get excited about:dancing:

I don’t really see what you are saying…

A good example is the writings of Saint Louis de Montfort. Some eager Latin Catholics push this stuff on new potential converts without realizing what a negative impact it can have. They could be totally blind to the apparent blasphemy of the terminology. Other Latin Catholics shudder at this, cautioning that it might be too much for a new Catholic to handle, it could scare them away so don’t promote it to new people!

I’m sorry what is wrong with St Louis de Montfort.

Anyway, this type of poetic hyperbole influences people, and instead of thinking of these turns of phrase as sheer romantic praise literature they think of these things as real qualities of the subject.

the Saints didn’t consider it mere poetry.

I’m not sure if this has been asked yet, but what reason could there possibly be for this to be defined? What bearing would it have on someone’s salvation? :confused

In Christ,
Andrew

it’s not necessary for salvation, but just for the sake of knowing the truth

Mediatrix is not dogma, however. It has not been defined, at least not yet.

God bless

 

[Harpazo]

it’s not necessary for salvation, but just for the sake of knowing the truth

Mediatrix is not dogma, however. It has not been defined, at least not yet.

God bless

Hello,

Yes, I am aware that it is not dogma. I think you are speaking out of two sides of your mouth without realizing it. You say “it’s not necessary for salvation” and it “is not dogma, however. It has not been defined, at least not yet.” But, if it is made dogma, then it becomes necessary for salvation. I do not see why it could or would be necessary for salvation (i.e. why it would have to become a dogma). Also, what is the obsession with things needing to be defined?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Peter_J]

the meaning of Mediatrix

I guess I don’t really see a point to arguing about it. If some Catholics want to use that title, I won’t try to stop them; but neither will I go around promoting it.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure if this has been asked yet, but what reason could there possibly be for this to be defined? What bearing would it have on someone’s salvation? :confused

In Christ,
Andrew

People asked that same question in 1854, about defining the Immaculate Conception. (That may or may not be a good response to your question, but that is the typical response in my experience.)

 

[Stouts989]

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-I

This link covers a lot and in short I wasn’t impressed with the author’s reasoning. The first section seems to cover most of what is being discussed in this thread so I’ll use it as an example and keep my questions focused.

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

God is dealing with Adam and Eve and cursing them for their rebellion. I know the RCC teaches that Marry and Jesus are the new Adam and Eve, but this verse in context is only dealing with Adam and Eve and what God is doing because of what they did. I don’t see how Marry and Jesus are being substituted in these verses.

Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.

Rev. 12:1-2

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

If Immaculate conception is true (Marry being withheld from original sin) Rev. 12:1-2 can’t be referring to Marry. The women being described here has labor pains. Labor pains is a curse to all women as a stain of original sin. If Marry was protected from the curse of original sin then we wouldn’t be having labor pains. No?

Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Not sure why this point is in here…

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Unfortunately this is bad information and very misleading. Kecharitomene(Charitoo) is only found in this verse and is translated as favored one. The notion of full of grace is taking from the Latin translation and not the original Greek. In the Greek full of grace is “plaras karitos” which is found in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8. For Luke 1:28 to be translated as full of grace is not being honest with the Greek. If Luke 1:28 said full of grace it would have used the same words found in John 1:14.

Luke 1:42 - “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The phrase “blessed are you among women” really means “you are most blessed of all women.” A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

The blessed part makes sense to me, but the whole explanation about Elizabeth is a big stretch and not honoring the context of the passage.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Good example of what I meant above about not being impressed by the authors reasoning.

Luke 1:44 - Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Really? Please try again…

Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

This seems to be common with a lot of the articles I’ve been reading on this forum and also this link I’ve been commenting on. Authors tend to add to the text. Luke 1:46 says nothing about Marry being an intercessor of prayers. Marry is simply praising God in Luke 1:46…context, context, context.

I’ll stop there…

I really appreciate the articles on this forum that lay out what the RCC teaches and also the additional link provided by other people through discussion. Generally I’ve been finding the articles to be rather weak arguments that seem to ignore a lot of scripture. I’ve used this one as an example and some of the objections and questions I have. Maybe some point I’ll use an article from this forum in hopes to clarify what isn’t being said in the article.

 

[Monica4316]

Hello,

Yes, I am aware that it is not dogma. I think you are speaking out of two sides of your mouth without realizing it. You say “it’s not necessary for salvation” and it “is not dogma, however. It has not been defined, at least not yet.” But, if it is made dogma, then it becomes necessary for salvation. I do not see why it could or would be necessary for salvation (i.e. why it would have to become a dogma). Also, what is the obsession with things needing to be defined?

In Christ,
Andrew

I don’t think something being dogma means it’s necessary for salvation. It just means that all Catholics must believe in it, for the sake of unity in the Church. A person can be saved with very little knowledge of doctrine however, it depends more on their response to grace

 

[Monica4316]

Stouts, I’ll try to respond to some of your points, but I have to say that with the Catholic teaching on Mary, prayer helps more than anything

Quote:
I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

Gen. 3:15

God is dealing with Adam and Eve and cursing them for their rebellion. I know the RCC teaches that Marry and Jesus are the new Adam and Eve, but this verse in context is only dealing with Adam and Eve and what God is doing because of what they did. I don’t see how Marry and Jesus are being substituted in these verses.

well the reason the Catholic Church says it’s referring to Christ and Mary and not Adam and Eve, is because Adam and Eve are not the ones who triumphed over the enemy. It says, God will put enmity between the ‘descendants’ of the serpent (the children of the devil, ie: everyone who serves him?) and “her seed” - meaning Christ, the Son of the “woman”.

the reason this whole passage is interesting is because God is speaking about the “woman”, not about Adam! Why a woman? Catholics refer this to Mary cause she is the ‘special’ woman in salvation history. (not Eve, who did not bring about our salvation)

Quote:
Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1

Rev. 12:1-2

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

If Immaculate conception is true (Marry being withheld from original sin) Rev. 12:1-2 can’t be referring to Marry. The women being described here has labor pains. Labor pains is a curse to all women as a stain of original sin. If Marry was protected from the curse of original sin then we wouldn’t be having labor pains. No?

hmm I think you are being too technical here… don’t take it literally. I mean, it’s not like she actually has a crown of 12 stars the stars are symbolic as well.

Look at the part* just *before this:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

the end of Rev 11 talks about the ark of the new covenant, and then Rev 12 talks about the ‘woman’. If you put them together, it makes sense that it is Mary and she is the new ‘ark’.

Now some people say Rev 12 is talking about the Church, however, the Church did not give birth to Christ… yet it says:

She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.

Quote:
Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Not sure why this point is in here…

it shows the close relationship between Jesus and Mary. Cause Luke didn’t have to refer to His Mother at all here, but he did. Why? the author is trying to give an explanation. As we know, every word in Scripture is there for a reason.

Quote:
Luke 1:28

Unfortunately this is bad information and very misleading. Kecharitomene(Charitoo) is only found in this verse and is translated as favored one. The notion of full of grace is taking from the Latin translation and not the original Greek. In the Greek full of grace is “plaras karitos” which is found in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8. For Luke 1:28 to be translated as full of grace is not being honest with the Greek. If Luke 1:28 said full of grace it would have used the same words found in John 1:14.

there’s some argument about this, it seems… bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

Quote:
Luke 1:42

The blessed part makes sense to me, but the whole explanation about Elizabeth is a big stretch and not honoring the context of the passage.

I dunno it might be, but it might not be. It’s there for a reason…

Quote:
Luke 1:43

Good example of what I meant above about not being impressed by the authors reasoning.

what do you mean? the entire early Church called Mary “Mother of God”…

Quote:
Luke 1:44

Really? Please try again…

well when Mary was speaking to Elizabeth, the child (John the Baptist) “leapt for joy” in her womb. Yes this was because of Christ, but he heard Mary’s voice - he got to know about Christ through Mary. He was sanctified at this moment. This might have symbolic significance.

Quote:
Luke 1:46

This seems to be common with a lot of the articles I’ve been reading on this forum and also this link I’ve been commenting on. Authors tend to add to the text. Luke 1:46 says nothing about Marry being an intercessor of prayers. Marry is simply praising God in Luke 1:46…context, context, context.

I agree that authors add their own faith to their commentary, but to be fair, Protestant authors do so too maybe it’s just a part of human nature lol.

When I read “My soul magnifies the Lord”, I do think of Mary’s special role though, cause it reminds me that through her, we can see God more clearly, like think of magnifying glasses lol!

I’ll stop there…

I really appreciate the articles on this forum that lay out what the RCC teaches and also the additional link provided by other people through discussion. Generally I’ve been finding the articles to be rather weak arguments that seem to ignore a lot of scripture. I’ve used this one as an example and some of the objections and questions I have. Maybe some point I’ll use an article from this forum in hopes to clarify what isn’t being said in the article.

I think it really just depends on the angle from which you interpret Scripture… I think Catholics and Protestants tend to come to it from different perspectives.

God bless

 

[Hesychios]

it’s not necessary for salvation, but just for the sake of knowing the truth

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”.

Mediatrix is not dogma, however. It has not been defined, at least not yet.

Oh boy, here we go…

 

[Hesychios]

…but two key pieces of evidence to me that Mary deserves reverence and perhaps the title of Mediatrix are: 1) Fatima and 2) the devotion of Padre Pio to Mary.

The Age of Revelation is closed.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Age of Revelation is closed.

Public Revelation, yes, but not private revelation. Rememeber Our Lady in Egypt? I don’t hear any Orthodox patriarches speaking out against her. In fact, the patriarch where she appeared approved of the apparition as being authentic. And even after he did, the Orthodox Church has not condemned him for accepting an apparition.

 

[Hesychios]

Public Revelation, yes, but not private revelation. Rememeber Our Lady in Egypt? I don’t hear any Orthodox patriarches speaking out against her. In fact, the patriarch where she appeared approved of the apparition as being authentic. And even after he did, the Orthodox Church has not condemned him for accepting an apparition.

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.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Looks like another example of ‘Development of Doctrine’ to me.

What’s needed is a test.​

The reasoning that justifies development could be tested, by taking something totally unchristian, then showing how it satisfies the reasoning & logic of development.