The Quadrinity

[Juxtaposer]

I was at an Orthodox liturgy today, and some Orthodox friends of mine told me that there is a sect of Catholics who want Mary to be named the fourth member of the Trinity. Is there any truth to this whatsoever? Judging by how mainstream Catholics view Mary (i.e. Mediatrix of All Graces) I’d say this day may not be too far off.

 

[Antonio_B]

Juxtaposer:

I was at an Orthodox liturgy today, and some Orthodox friends of mine told me that there is a sect of Catholics who want Mary to be named the fourth member of the Trinity. Is there any truth to this whatsoever? Judging by how mainstream Catholics view Mary (i.e. Mediatrix of All Graces) I’d say this day may not be too far off.

First time I hear of such non-sense and I read plenty of Catholic periodicals and consider myself a well-informed Catholic!

Antonio

 

[jimmy]

Juxtaposer:

I was at an Orthodox liturgy today, and some Orthodox friends of mine told me that there is a sect of Catholics who want Mary to be named the fourth member of the Trinity. Is there any truth to this whatsoever? Judging by how mainstream Catholics view Mary (i.e. Mediatrix of All Graces) I’d say this day may not be too far off.

I can’t believe that is true. Maybe he is refering to the group that want the Pope to declare Mary to be mediatrix of all graces as a dogma. That would not be making her a fourth person of the trinity though.

 

[Bulldog]

Juxtaposer:

I was at an Orthodox liturgy today, and some Orthodox friends of mine told me that there is a sect of Catholics who want Mary to be named the fourth member of the Trinity. Is there any truth to this whatsoever? Judging by how mainstream Catholics view Mary (i.e. Mediatrix of All Graces) I’d say this day may not be too far off.

Its sounds like people misunderstand the role of Mary in salvation history. This is bad they are in serious error this sect. There was, is and will be only Most Holy Trinity-- One God in Three Persons… Father, Son and Holy Spirit!!! AMEN!

 

[Antonio_B]

jimmy:

I can’t believe that is true. Maybe he is refering to the group that want the Pope to declare Mary to be mediatrix of all graces as a dogma. That would not be making her a fourth person of the trinity though.

I agree. I also believe ignorance is rampant in our Church but I have yet to meet a Catholic, in my 55 years of being one, that has ever told me he or she believes Mary, a creature, should be a member of the Blessed Trinity.

Antonio

 

[Vincent]

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught that,
"[T]he Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

"For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…

“The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.”

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 64)
As others have indicated, “Mediatrix” does not, in itself, imply that Mary is a divine person. The Church already professes that Mary’s role is subordinated, but there is no subordination in the Trinity. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any concern that Mary’s going to be added to the Godhead.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Juxtaposer:

I was at an Orthodox liturgy today, and some Orthodox friends of mine told me that there is a sect of Catholics who want Mary to be named the fourth member of the Trinity. Is there any truth to this whatsoever? Judging by how mainstream Catholics view Mary (i.e. Mediatrix of All Graces) I’d say this day may not be too far off.

There is no such thing as a “sect” of Catholics, and it would be good to ask your friends to be more specific about what they were talking about, that is, what groups were they referring to? And I haven’t heard of any orthodox Catholic movement that are proposing something to that effect: to declare Mary as the “fourth” person of the Trinity, which would then be called the Quadrinity, if that were true.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

It is extremely doubtful that any Catholic group would seriously make such a proposition, to declare a doctrine of the Quadrinity, since it is utterly unscriptural and has no basis in Catholic tradition, and therefore grossly heretical.

Gerry

 

[jimmy]

Antonio B:

I agree. I also believe ignorance is rampant in our Church but I have yet to meet a Catholic, in my 55 years of being one, that has ever told me he or she believes Mary, a creature, should be a member of the Blessed Trinity.

Antonio

I have never heard anyone say that either. People hear something they don’t understand and they completely misunderstand the meaning.

 

[Contarini]

I’m pretty sure they were speaking of the “coredemptrix/Mediatrix” stuff. Even Catholics (Catholics who don’t agree with it, I hasten to add) sometimes misinterpret it as making Mary divine. But of course in the view of those who promote these dogmas, they are doing no such thing. It’s like the whole “worshipping statues” business. Of course to some Protestants, what Catholics do is worshipping statues. But equally obviously, Catholics don’t see it that way. Same here. Many Protestants (and maybe some Orthodox, though I really don’t think they have much ground to stand on given their own Marian piety) would argue that using coredemptrix/mediatrix language about Mary inappropriately gives her divine honors simply because only God can be spoken of in this way, however you try to nuance it. But of course that is very different from saying that Catholics are explicitly trying to get Mary declared a fourth member of the Trinity. No Catholic w/ith an ounce of doctrinal understanding will ever try to do anything of the sort, and any non-Catholic who thinks that such an attempt is likely is both ignorant and bigoted.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Juxtaposer]

Contarini:

No Catholic w/ith an ounce of doctrinal understanding will ever try to do anything of the sort, and any non-Catholic who thinks that such an attempt is likely is both ignorant and bigoted.

Be careful, Contarini.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=137184&postcount=36

 

[porthos11]

I’m going to get a lot of flak for this post.

I’m a loyal and orthodox Catholic, and I love God, the Pope, and our Lady. However, i’m not in favor of raising Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix to a dogma.

Why? Because dogmas are articles to be believed about God. All four of the Marian dogmas share this common trait: They defend truths about Christ. Christ is fully God and fully man, hence Mary=Mother of God. Christ is God, and worthy of a pure vessel, hence Mary=Immaculate Conception. Jesus is King, therefore, Mary=Queen Mother=Assumption (Immaculately Conceived to, see above, therefore not subject to corruption). Where God enters, no one else will. Therefore Mary=Ever Virgin.

Now about Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix? These are truths about Mary, but what truth about God and Christ do these titles define? Okay, I can relax somewhat with the Mediatrix part (Christ=all grace), but the Co-redemptrix? Advocate? These are valid titles when understood correctly of our Lady. But what truth do they speak of God? What Christological fact do they teach? This is how previous Marian dogmas were defined. Always in terms of God and Christ.

I have no problem with the proper understanding of all these titles. But they tell more of her (SHE participated in a special way in Redemption; SHE intercedes for us; SHE bore Christ into the world) rather than of Christ (CHRIST is THEREFORE, Mary is . IMHO, let the teachings stand as they are until they are precisely defined as the previous four dogmas are.

 

[jcrawf]

porthos11:

Now about Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix? These are truths about Mary, but what truth about God and Christ do these titles define? Okay, I can relax somewhat with the Mediatrix part (Christ=all grace), but the Co-redemptrix? Advocate? These are valid titles when understood correctly of our Lady. But what truth do they speak of God? What Christological fact do they teach? This is how previous Marian dogmas were defined. Always in terms of God and Christ.

I have no problem with the proper understanding of all these titles. But they tell more of her (SHE participated in a special way in Redemption; SHE intercedes for us; SHE bore Christ into the world) rather than of Christ (CHRIST is THEREFORE, Mary is . IMHO, let the teachings stand as they are until they are precisely defined as the previous four dogmas are.

I pretty much agree with you. One thing though, is that the Holy Spirit is the advocate. So, sometimes I’m not sure what to think when Mary is considered the advocate. Maybe in respect that Mary, being the mother in relation to the church as in some special relation with the Holy Spirit, which is also said to pour out of the Church. This is just a thought. I’d really like some (name removed by moderator)ut on this view. As a former Protestant who used to question Marian doctrine, I have come close to Mary and find that she does play a great supporting role in the Church as the mother to all Christians.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[jimmy]

porthos11:

I’m going to get a lot of flak for this post.

I’m a loyal and orthodox Catholic, and I love God, the Pope, and our Lady. However, i’m not in favor of raising Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix to a dogma.

Why? Because dogmas are articles to be believed about God. All four of the Marian dogmas share this common trait: They defend truths about Christ. Christ is fully God and fully man, hence Mary=Mother of God. Christ is God, and worthy of a pure vessel, hence Mary=Immaculate Conception. Jesus is King, therefore, Mary=Queen Mother=Assumption (Immaculately Conceived to, see above, therefore not subject to corruption). Where God enters, no one else will. Therefore Mary=Ever Virgin.

Now about Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix? These are truths about Mary, but what truth about God and Christ do these titles define? Okay, I can relax somewhat with the Mediatrix part (Christ=all grace), but the Co-redemptrix? Advocate? These are valid titles when understood correctly of our Lady. But what truth do they speak of God? What Christological fact do they teach? This is how previous Marian dogmas were defined. Always in terms of God and Christ.

I have no problem with the proper understanding of all these titles. But they tell more of her (SHE participated in a special way in Redemption; SHE intercedes for us; SHE bore Christ into the world) rather than of Christ (CHRIST is THEREFORE, Mary is . IMHO, let the teachings stand as they are until they are precisely defined as the previous four dogmas are.

I agree, they should not raise it to a dogma. It would only cause some peoples faith to be tested.

 

[Juxtaposer]

porthos11:

I’m going to get a lot of flak for this post.

I’m a loyal and orthodox Catholic, and I love God, the Pope, and our Lady. However, i’m not in favor of raising Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix to a dogma.

Why? Because dogmas are articles to be believed about God. All four of the Marian dogmas share this common trait: They defend truths about Christ. Christ is fully God and fully man, hence Mary=Mother of God. Christ is God, and worthy of a pure vessel, hence Mary=Immaculate Conception. Jesus is King, therefore, Mary=Queen Mother=Assumption (Immaculately Conceived to, see above, therefore not subject to corruption). Where God enters, no one else will. Therefore Mary=Ever Virgin.

Now about Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix? These are truths about Mary, but what truth about God and Christ do these titles define? Okay, I can relax somewhat with the Mediatrix part (Christ=all grace), but the Co-redemptrix? Advocate? These are valid titles when understood correctly of our Lady. But what truth do they speak of God? What Christological fact do they teach? This is how previous Marian dogmas were defined. Always in terms of God and Christ.

I have no problem with the proper understanding of all these titles. But they tell more of her (SHE participated in a special way in Redemption; SHE intercedes for us; SHE bore Christ into the world) rather than of Christ (CHRIST is THEREFORE, Mary is . IMHO, let the teachings stand as they are until they are precisely defined as the previous four dogmas are.

Needless to say, I totally agree with you. That is, except the last sentence. Only the core essentials of the Faith should be dogmatized, and these things about Mary are not core essentials, if even true. I’m not saying that they’re not true, just that they may not be. You as Catholics should have no problem with me saying that since they haven’t been declared ex cathedra.

 

[Todd_Easton]

jcrawf:

One thing though, is that the Holy Spirit is the advocate. So, sometimes I’m not sure what to think when Mary is considered the advocate.

St. Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 189, said:
That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,–was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chap. 19)

 

[Fidelis]

Hi Jux

I did a cursory Google with “quadrinity mary” and the only hits I got were sites that were anti-Catholic in nature. Most of them were using it to attack Mary’s title as Mother of God, but a few of them used it in relation to the Mediatrix discussion. Most of these sites were dedicated to distorting what the Church teaches about Mary and other “Catholic” issues, mixing official statements with isolated quotes from popular level books and quotes from individual Catholics that do not speak for the Church, to put the issue in the worst possible light. Since the term and most of the surrounding discussion comes from from an anti-Catholic origin, I suspect the context from which you heard it was as well, whether is was wittingly or unwittingly on their part.

Remember that only the Church speaks for the Church and, as has been discussed many times on these boards, no matter what you hear or see from the misinformed but well-intentioned (Catholic and non-Catholic alike), when we are talking about Catholic doctrine, only official Church teaching matters.

 

[Cosmo]

porthos11:

Christ is fully God and fully man, hence Mary=Mother of God. Christ is God…

If he’s fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man, doesn’t that make him a 200% person? How’s that possible?

Wouldn’t 50% man and 50% God make more sense?

 

[Juxtaposer]

Cosmo:

If he’s fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man, doesn’t that make him a 200% person? How’s that possible?

Wouldn’t 50% man and 50% God make more sense?

Are you 100% human and 100% mortal? It’s not as though the summation of the percentages of one’s attributes has to be 100. If you say 50% man and 50% God, questions arise such as, “Did Christ’s natures conflict with each other?” Anyway, this is way off topic. I suggest starting a new thread.

 

[Cosmo]

Juxtaposer:

Are you 100% human and 100% mortal? It’s not as though the summation of the percentages of one’s attributes has to be 100. If you say 50% man and 50% God, questions arise such as, “Did Christ’s natures conflict with each other?” Anyway, this is way off topic. I suggest starting a new thread.

Well, I’m not sure your example holds. Humans are, by definiton, mortal - so it doesn’t make sense to be 100% human and 100% mortal - humanity implies mortality.

Now, man and God - those are two very different things. I suppose it might be possible for them to conflict.