Tradition without the Immaculate is not tradition

[JamesCaruso]

What isn’t being discussed much is that not everyone does well with Marian devotion. I tried to have that strong devotion the saints had, because they say it leads to Jesus. It failed. The way I know it failed is because I fell away from the purity I had managed to maintain for years. Let’s just say that any closeness with an unrelated woman (Mary is our mother by adoption, and I converted at 26) is a problem for me (please take my word for it, I’d rather not talk about my sinful past). I thought Mary would be the exception. I was wrong.

I still have a devotion to her. I honor her, I believe all the dogmas, and I pray the Rosary every day. But I don’t buy into the “no one comes to Jesus except through Mary” bit, because nothing in the Bible or Church teaching says I’ll be damned for not relaying everything through Mary like some saints preached.

She is not leading you away. It is your weakness [whatever it is and I don’t need to know] with regard to women that is leading you away. If the thought of God brought to mind some sin of mine and resulted in my falling into that sin should I therefore not think of God because he had become an occasion of sin. As St. Paul might say, “Perish the thought!” That is not to say that I should continue to think of God and so sin, if that makes any sense. You need to find some way to approach Mary that does not lead to the sin that seems to have enslaved you. It is not Mary but the thought of woman in general that ensnares you and you may need psychological help to overcome this if it is so embedded in your psyche. I am not one who holds that the solution to every need is in the spiritual realm. Psychologists and psychiatrists have their place in helping us with our mental and emotional health. If I am off the mark, please disregard-- I am only trying to be helpful and to follow what I perceive as the leading of God. It wouldn’t be the first time I was off the mark. You are in my prayers. Have faith that there is help for your problem, Never despair.

It is still true that no one comes to Jesus except through Mary, whether you believe it or not, just as it is true that no one comes to salvation except through Jesus, even if they don’t know Jesus. Mary is there leading us to Jesus and it is by her dispensing of graces given entirely to her that we come to know Our Lord. Jesus came to us through Mary and we go to him through her, even if we don’t recognize it as such. That we are adopted into the Holy Family is not just a nice metaphor, it is a reality. We cannot properly take our place in the family if we deny Our Mother and only recognize our Brother, Jesus. Somehow, we must come to relate to her as Jesus does. If events of our past make it impossible for us to enter into such a relationship we clearly need help. I pray that you get the help you need. **Meanwhile, keep doing what works for you. One thing we know for sure-- Jesus understands. **

 

[godisgood77]

I think it’s important to remind everyone of the weight of the various Vatican teaching documents… in descending order of authority: Apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter and message. Lumen Gentium, and Apostolic Constitution, holds a higher place than the Apostolic Letter and Encyclicals mentioned previously in this thread as justification as the “…all graces” title.

With that established, we need to talk about what Lumen Gentium said… This Apostolic Constitution very purposefully stopped short of declaring Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces when it stated “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be understood that they neither take away from nor add to the dignity of Christ the one Mediator.”

It is clear that intention of this statement excluded “Mediatrix of All Graces” when you understand how the teaching was formed at the Council. At the Council, Archbishop Corrado Mingo of Monreale, Italy argued that the title “Mediatrix” should be amplified to “Mediatrix of All Graces” and represented one school of thought, yet it was omitted from Lumen Gentium. Several other Council Fathers made that argument as well, still it was not included. It is a well documented fact that it was considered a compromise among divided Council fathers to included the title “Mediatrix”, let alone “of All Graces” as the idea is still very much debated among the most respected theologians and Church leaders.

Also, at the Council, Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France said that the title “Mediatrix” was given in the Constitution, but at the same time it was given no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study as the topic is still heavily debated among theologians. “Perhaps the title “Mediatrix” might be listed with the other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one” he said.

To further reinforce the point that doctrine was not fully formed in the Constitution… during the Council, Cardinal Alfrink of the Netherlands said “the title ‘Mediatrix’ should not be insisted upon, since it generates such great difficulties.” There was a clear division between the Council Fathers on whether or not to even include ‘Mediatrix’, let alone define it… and there is not mention of 'Mediatrix of All Graces."

Pope John Paul, a true Marian devotee, when talking on the subject insisted that Monfort must be read in light of the Council. He thought so much of the of the topic that he brought together a commission to study the topic and determine if it should be solemnly declared and, unanimously, it was decided that it should not be…here is the link miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/societies/PAMI/12/index.html and an excerpt…

*In accord with the precedent set at Vatican II, the participants agreed that a doctrinal declaration should not “settle questions which have not yet been fully clarified by the work of theologians” (LG 54); they noted that Vatican II had already stated that the “Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (LG 62). Although these titles are in common use, they are subject to ambiguous and different interpretations. The word “coredemptrix” did not appear in the magisterium until the pontificate of Pius XII. Earlier in the twentieth century, Pius XI had formed national commissions to study the possibility of a dogmatic definition of Mary as mediatrix. The pneumatological consequences of calling Mary “advocate” must also be carefully studied. *

An Apostolic Constitution holds the Church’s highest teaching authority. Lumen Gentium and the Council Fathers did not declare Mary ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’ and purposefully omitted from the Constitution for good reason. The Church has yet to define a teaching on Mary as ‘Mediatrix’ and the last formal action on the subject ended with a decision not to pursue a definition.

Please understand that my intention is not to “bristle” at the thought of people venerating Mary in this way. I readily admit that it makes me uncomfortable and that is why I have studied the topic and enter in to discussion about it. It is clear that some people, not a majority, but some people (including some Saints and Popes) hold this belief. Neither the idea that you can only go to Christ through Mary nor the idea of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces is contained in the Catechism … a big gap when talking about Church teaching.

As always, I’m open to be shown otherwise, but from what I can tell, and I’ve provided my rationale above, this piece of Marian devotion falls in to the category of personal devotion. The Church may one day declare Mary to be ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’, but it does not teach that today.

 

[TimothyH]

I think it’s important to remind everyone of the weight of the various Vatican teaching documents… in descending order of authority: Apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter and message. Lumen Gentium, and Apostolic Constitution, holds a higher place than the Apostolic Letter and Encyclicals mentioned previously in this thread as justification as the “…all graces” title.

With that established, we need to talk about what Lumen Gentium said… This Apostolic Constitution very purposefully stopped short of declaring Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces when it stated “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be understood that they neither take away from nor add to the dignity of Christ the one Mediator.”

It is clear that intention of this statement excluded “Mediatrix of All Graces” when you understand how the teaching was formed at the Council. At the Council, Archbishop Corrado Mingo of Monreale, Italy argued that the title “Mediatrix” should be amplified to “Mediatrix of All Graces” and represented one school of thought, yet it was omitted from Lumen Gentium. Several other Council Fathers made that argument as well, still it was not included. It is a well documented fact that it was considered a compromise among divided Council fathers to included the title “Mediatrix”, let alone “of All Graces” as the idea is still very much debated among the most respected theologians and Church leaders.

Also, at the Council, Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France said that the title “Mediatrix” was given in the Constitution, but at the same time it was given no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study as the topic is still heavily debated among theologians. “Perhaps the title “Mediatrix” might be listed with the other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one” he said.

To further reinforce the point that doctrine was not fully formed in the Constitution… during the Council, Cardinal Alfrink of the Netherlands said “the title ‘Mediatrix’ should not be insisted upon, since it generates such great difficulties.” There was a clear division between the Council Fathers on whether or not to even include ‘Mediatrix’, let alone define it… and there is not mention of 'Mediatrix of All Graces."

Pope John Paul, a true Marian devotee, when talking on the subject insisted that Monfort must be read in light of the Council. He thought so much of the of the topic that he brought together a commission to study the topic and determine if it should be solemnly declared and, unanimously, it was decided that it should not be…here is the link miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/societies/PAMI/12/index.html and an excerpt…

*In accord with the precedent set at Vatican II, the participants agreed that a doctrinal declaration should not “settle questions which have not yet been fully clarified by the work of theologians” (LG 54); they noted that Vatican II had already stated that the “Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (LG 62). Although these titles are in common use, they are subject to ambiguous and different interpretations. The word “coredemptrix” did not appear in the magisterium until the pontificate of Pius XII. Earlier in the twentieth century, Pius XI had formed national commissions to study the possibility of a dogmatic definition of Mary as mediatrix. The pneumatological consequences of calling Mary “advocate” must also be carefully studied. *

An Apostolic Constitution holds the Church’s highest teaching authority. Lumen Gentium and the Council Fathers did not declare Mary ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’ and purposefully omitted from the Constitution for good reason. The Church has yet to define a teaching on Mary as ‘Mediatrix’ and the last formal action on the subject ended with a decision not to pursue a definition.

Please understand that my intention is not to “bristle” at the thought of people venerating Mary in this way. I readily admit that it makes me uncomfortable and that is why I have studied the topic and enter in to discussion about it. It is clear that some people, not a majority, but some people (including some Saints and Popes) hold this belief. Neither the idea that you can only go to Christ through Mary nor the idea of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces is contained in the Catechism … a big gap when talking about Church teaching.

As always, I’m open to be shown otherwise, but from what I can tell, and I’ve provided my rationale above, this piece of Marian devotion falls in to the category of personal devotion. The Church may one day declare Mary to be ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’, but it does not teach that today.

The Church is reluctant to use the word all because God cannot be constrained by man.

It is clear that God can and sometimes does work independently of humans. God’s ordinary way to do things however, is through humans. God prefers to work through people. Moses was told to stretch out his staff at the parting of the red sea. The Levites were told to stand in the Jordan river before God stopped the flow. Salvation came through the man, Christ Jesus. The sacraments are administered by men.

God is not limited. He can and does distribute grace independently of Mary. Mary however, is the normal and ordinary means by which it happens. Grace is an action of the Holy Spirit. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mary is in a unique position to initiate that action, just as she initiated the action of Jesus at the Cana wedding. That is Mary’s role.

Pope John Paul II was consecrated to Mary according to the method of St. Louis de Montfort.

-Tim-

 

[JamesCaruso]

…He … does distribute grace independently of Mary. Mary however, is the normal and ordinary means by which it happens.

Do you know this authoritatively, or do you just think it sounds logical to you?

 

[TimothyH]

Do you know this authoritatively, or do you just think it sounds logical to you?

This is not just my opinion.

-Tim-

 

[JamesCaruso]

This is not just my opinion.

-Tim-

I am sure it’s shared by others, but I don’t think the Church has addressed this one way or the other. It would not surprise me that God would make it that “all” graces flow through Mary and are given to her discretion to dispense of them. It’s been speculated that Lucifer fell because of the planned prominence given to not just a human, but to a woman, and that God planned that even the angels, including his brightness himself (Lucifer, that is (I’m being sarcastic)) would have to bow to her Queenship and serve her. Hence, the woman with her foot on his neck. I can just see God doing such a thing if for no other reason than to demonstrate his love of humility and his willingness to put even Himself in full dependence on the Woman (as in His nativity). But these are conjectures and not facts. Until the Church decides, there will be at least two points of view on this matter. Peace.

 

[TimothyH]

I am sure it’s shared by others, but I don’t think the Church has addressed this one way or the other. It would not surprise me that God would make it that “all” graces flow through Mary and are given to her discretion to dispense of them. It’s been speculated that Lucifer fell because of the planned prominence given to not just a human, but to a woman, and that God planned that even the angels, including his brightness himself (Lucifer, that is (I’m being sarcastic)) would have to bow to her Queenship and serve her. Hence, the woman with her foot on his neck. I can just see God doing such a thing if for no other reason than to demonstrate his love of humility and his willingness to put even Himself in full dependence on the Woman (as in His nativity). But these are conjectures and not facts. Until the Church decides, there will be at least two points of view on this matter. Peace.

It is not speculation.

Mary as Mediatrix has been addressed in encyclicals by many Popes including Leo XII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Benedict XV and John XIII. Reference ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4a.htm. It has been written about by Saints including St. Thomas Aquinas.

*Third, with respect to [grace’s] distribution to all men. For it is a great thing in any saint that he has so much grace that it suffices for the salvation of many, but when enough is had for the salvation of all the men in the world, this is the greatest, and so it is with Christ and with the Blessed Virgin. For in any peril you can obtain salvation from this glorious Virgin.
Reference ewtn.com/library/mary/sttomhmy.htm

It is necessary that whosoever desires to obtain favors with God, should approach this mediatrix, approach her with a most devout heart because, since she is the Queen of Mercy, possessing everything in the kingdom of God’s justice, she cannot refuse your petition.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Meditations, 411*

Mary Mediatrix of Grace is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the Second Vatican Council. The feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces has been approved by the Holy See and was on the Church calendar in some parts of the world from 1921 through 1961.

This is not conjecture. There are only really two points of view to the extent that some might not fully understand what the Church actually teaches.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

It is not speculation.

Mary as Mediatrix has been addressed in encyclicals by many Popes including Leo XII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Benedict XV and John XIII. Reference ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4a.htm.

It has been written about by Saints including St. Thomas Aquinas.

Third, with respect to [grace’s] distribution to all men. For it is a great thing in any saint that he has so much grace that it suffices for the salvation of many, but when enough is had for the salvation of all the men in the world, this is the greatest, and so it is with Christ and with the Blessed Virgin. For in any peril you can obtain salvation from this glorious Virgin.
Reference ewtn.com/library/mary/sttomhmy.htm

It is necessary that whosoever desires to obtain favors with God, should approach this mediatrix, approach her with a most devout heart because, since she is the Queen of Mercy, possessing everything in the kingdom of God’s justice, she cannot refuse your petition.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Meditations, 411

Mary Mediatrix of Grace is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the Second Vatican Council.

The feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces has been approved by the Holy See and was on the Church calendar in some parts of the world from 1921 through 1961.

This is not conjecture. The Church teaches it very clearly.

-Tim-

It’s like you didn’t even read my post…

 

[TimothyH]

It’s like you didn’t even read my post…

I’m sorry. I was not responding to you. I was responding to JamesCaruso.

My response to James shows that the Church teaches that Mary is Mediatrix of Grace. All the writings and teachings I have documented show that it is a matter of doctrine, not personal devotion.

Many debated the title Mediatrix at the council. Many spoke out against it after the council. This is true for many things debated at the council, not just this title for Mary. Quite frankly, at the end of the day, those at the council who advocated against the title Mediatrix were outvoted and thus the Holy Spirit spoke.

-Tim-

 

[Fevronia]

I think it’s important to remind everyone of the weight of the various Vatican teaching documents… in descending order of authority: Apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter and message. Lumen Gentium, and Apostolic Constitution, holds a higher place than the Apostolic Letter and Encyclicals mentioned previously in this thread as justification as the “…all graces” title.

With that established, we need to talk about what Lumen Gentium said… This Apostolic Constitution very purposefully stopped short of declaring Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces when it stated “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be understood that they neither take away from nor add to the dignity of Christ the one Mediator.”

Look, there is no RULE that says Lumen Gentium should have been a full concise document of all Church doctrine. That is a bit absurd.

Secondly, the Lumen Gentium does cite the documents that do pronounce Mary as Mediatrix as documents it is basing some of its own claims. That further verifies the authority of these documents.

So here is the short version of the argument for Mary Mediatrix

1. Authoritative documents in the Church has repeatedly taught that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces
2. We have a simple way of knowing these documents as authoritaive because they are cited in Lumen Gentium as well
3. Therefore, Mary is Mediatrix of all Grace is Church Doctrine i.e. INFALLIBLE.

You can keep going around in circles but as long as the above is true, the matter is settled.

 

[godisgood77]

Look, there is no RULE that says Lumen Gentium should have been a full concise document of all Church doctrine. That is a bit absurd.

Secondly, the Lumen Gentium does cite the documents that do pronounce Mary as Mediatrix as documents it is basing some of its own claims. That further verifies the authority of these documents.

So here is the short version of the argument for Mary Mediatrix

1. Authoritative documents in the Church has repeatedly taught that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces
2. We have a simple way of knowing these documents as authoritaive because they are cited in Lumen Gentium as well
3. Therefore, Mary is Mediatrix of all Grace is Church Doctrine i.e. INFALLIBLE.

You can keep going around in circles but as long as the above is true, the matter is settled.

I actually think you are going around in circles. I have provided a rationale that deals with the footnotes you are basing your claim on. If it was settled, why would JPII say they Montfort needs to be interpreted in light of the Council and why would he form a commission to explore the topic and determine whether or not the doctrine should be declared? Answers to these questions will provide us with an answer to the broader question…

I am in no way saying that LG has to include all nuances and tidbits or Marian teaching. That would be absurd, but you are the one reading in to it that way. By the way, this topic is not a small matter… So it should be included. You are ignoring the facts of the how Lumen Gentium was formed and the discussion and debate and thought that went in to it…to use a tired euphemism, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

As I stated, my brother, I’m open, but please help me understand why isn’t it in the Catechism or where the flaws are in what I’ve outlined.

In Jesus , Mary and Joseph,
Dan

 

[Fevronia]

I actually think you are going around in circles. I have provided a rationale that deals with the footnotes you are basing your claim on. If it was settled, why would JPII say they Montfort needs to be interpreted in light of the Council and why would he form a commission to explore the topic and determine whether or not the doctrine should be declared? Answers to these questions will provide us with an answer to the broader question…

I am in no way saying that LG has to include all nuances and tidbits or Marian teaching. That would be absurd, but you are the one reading in to it that way. By the way, this topic is not a small matter… So it should be included. You are ignoring the facts of the how Lumen Gentium was formed and the discussion and debate and thought that went in to it…to use a tired euphemism, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

As I stated, my brother, I’m open, but please help me understand why isn’t it in the Catechism or where the flaws are in what I’ve outlined.

In Jesus , Mary and Joseph,
Dan

The footnotes in the Council are NOT to Montfort. JP II also cannot invalidate prior documents.

All I am saying is that the Church has repeatedly taught that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. The matter is closed because then it is infallible teaching of the Church i.e. DOCTRINE.

On what grounds do you want to object? That these documents are NOT authoritative? That fails because LG itself quotes them. Do you see the problem? Your argument against the definition cannot hinge on anything other than “I would like to reinterpret it in light VII”. Since you cannot change existing teaching, that is really not an option. VII cannot lead to a contrary understanding of what was already taught.

EDIT: The commission was on whether to declare it DOGMA. Dogma is different from Doctrine in that the Church claims the truth to be directly revealed in revelation. That is something that the Church can decide to wait on or even conclude as not being the case while the Doctrine is still true.

Is it possible that perhaps you are confusing what it means to declare something as Dogma?

 

[godisgood77]

The footnotes in the Council are NOT to Montfort. JP II also cannot invalidate prior documents.

All I am saying is that the Church has repeatedly taught that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. The matter is closed because then it is infallible teaching of the Church i.e. DOCTRINE.

On what grounds do you want to object? That these documents are NOT authoritative? That fails because LG itself quotes them. Do you see the problem? Your argument against the definition cannot hinge on anything other than “I would like to reinterpret it in light VII”. Since you cannot change existing teaching, that is really not an option. VII cannot lead to a contrary understanding of what was already taught.

EDIT: The commission was on whether to declare it DOGMA. Dogma is different from Doctrine in that the Church claims the truth to be directly revealed in revelation. That is something that the Church can decide to wait on or even conclude as not being the case while the Doctrine is still true.

Is it possible that perhaps you are confusing what it means to declare something as Dogma?

This has nothing to do with how i interpret this or reinterpret anything. My point is that the doctrine is not fully formed, defined orsolemnly declared. It clearly hasn’t. Just because it was said or written more than once doesn’t make it infallible. I’m glad you believe this and acknowledge your right to believe it in your private devotion… Just don’t say that everyone has to because the Church doesn’t.

Also, it is absolutely possible that I’m confusing something on this topic… easily confused over here

 

[Fevronia]

This has nothing to do with how i interpret this or reinterpret anything. My point is that the doctrine is not fully formed, defined orsolemnly declared. It clearly hasn’t. Just because it was said or written more than once doesn’t make it infallible. I’m glad you believe this and acknowledge your right to believe it in your private devotion… Just don’t say that everyone has to because the Church doesn’t.

Look, I am not sure you are aware of this but something that has been repeatedly taught is Doctrine. We cannot argue about it. The fact that it has not been solemnly declared does not make it optional or private devotion. (According to LG, if something was taught even once by a Pope in the declarative sense in an encyclical, the matter must be assented to)

You also seem to confuse what it means to declare something solemnly as Dogma. To do that is to declare something as directly part of revelation.

So something may be decided on as “we are not going to declare it dogma” but it will still be binding on the faithful. Your mistake is that you have some how made a distinction between Dogma and Doctrine as Dogma is all I need to follow. That is an error.

If you were to follow LG, its passages on Papal authority itself will force you to assent to the claims in the Encyclicals by prior Popes that declare Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces.

 

[godisgood77]

Look, I am not sure you are aware of this but something that has been repeatedly taught is Doctrine. We cannot argue about it. The fact that it has not been solemnly declared does not make it optional or private devotion. (According to LG, if something was taught even once by a Pope in the declarative sense in an encyclical, the matter must be assented to)

You also seem to confuse what it means to declare something solemnly as Dogma. To do that is to declare something as directly part of revelation.

So something may be decided on as “we are not going to declare it dogma” but it will still be binding on the faithful. Your mistake is that you have some how made a distinction between Dogma and Doctrine as Dogma is all I need to follow. That is an error.

If you were to follow LG, its passages on Papal authority itself will force you to assent to the claims in the Encyclicals by prior Popes that declare Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces.

I’ll point you back to my earlier post on how LG was formed. Over half the Fathers disputed the title. Leave the fact that it hasn’t been defined aside for the time being… Over HALF voted not to declare it and, very purposefully, not to include it in the most authoritative statement the Church makes…the teaching is not fully formed and is still very much up for debate

 

[Fevronia]

I’ll point you back to my earlier post on how LG was formed. Over half the Fathers disputed the title. Leave the fact that it hasn’t been defined aside for the time being… Over HALF voted not to declare it and, very purposefully, not to include it in the most authoritative statement the Church makes…the teaching is not fully formed and is still very much up for debate.

The interesting thing about the Church my friend is that the origin story of doctrine is irrelevant. Only what made it in to the document matters. So for LG to really nullify the idea of Mary Mediatrix of all Graces, it actually has to pronounce against it (since it has already been taught). The fact that they debated against putting it in is not important for us.

Why you ask?

Because LG itself, if you read the part about the Papacy, makes all the past statements on Mary as Mediatrix of Graces binding. Also, it makes it doctrine due to it being repeatedly taught.

So you are looking at the wrong stuff here. The Council fathers may have been complete sinners or dumb people. But we can only talk about what made it to the documents. Not the debates they had. Since there is no requirement for the title of Mary to make it in to the document (as you yourself agree), the fact that it did not make it due to debate is not important.

What is important is what made it in and one of them is the Papal authority. That makes it clear how the past teachings were authoritative and therefore we have a case of repeated teaching on this issue. Thus it is doctrine.

Does that help clarify?

EDIT: Also, why do you keep saying LG is the most authoritative document the Church ever produced? LG is actually no more authoritative in its weight than any other document containing Church teachings from other Councils.

 

[godisgood77]

The interesting thing about the Church my friend is that the origin story of doctrine is irrelevant. Only what made it in to the document matters. So for LG to really nullify the idea of Mary Mediatrix of all Graces, it actually has to pronounce against it (since it has already been taught). The fact that they debated against putting it in is not important for us.

Why you ask?

Because LG itself, if you read the part about the Papacy, makes all the past statements on Mary as Mediatrix of Graces binding. Also, it makes it doctrine due to it being repeatedly taught.

So you are looking at the wrong stuff here. The Council fathers may have been complete sinners or dumb people. But we can only talk about what made it to the documents. Not the debates they had. Since there is no requirement for the title of Mary to make it in to the document (as you yourself agree), the fact that it did not make it due to debate is not important.

What is important is what made it in and one of them is the Papal authority. That makes it clear how the past teachings were authoritative and therefore we have a case of repeated teaching on this issue. Thus it is doctrine.

Does that help clarify?

Appreciate the conversation…i’m not there, but appreciate it.

 

[Fevronia]

Appreciate the conversation…i’m not there, but appreciate it.

I think the easier way to go about this to probably concentrate on the Papal authority part in LG.

The teaching in LG on that topic gives the Pope a level of authority when teaching that is beyond ex-cathedra statements. So once you master that section, it may well be good to revisit the Encyclicals and other documents by past Popes on this Doctrine itself. Then you can better make up your mind on the matter.

Keep in mind, as you do this, the axiom that repeated teaching by the Ordinary Magesterium of the Church = Doctrine = Infallible.

 

[Richca]

I did a little research on the footnote in Lumen Gentium 62.

Pope Leo XIII encyclical on the Rosary, 1895:Among her many other titles we find her hailed as “our Lady, our Mediatrix,” “the Reparatrix of the whole world,” “the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.”
“O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.”

St Pius X encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, 1904:
"it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis)…But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel; or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head – We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, “she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts” …and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces…as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits…

Pope Pius XI encyclical on Reparation to the Sacred Heart, 1928"by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress…chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and mediatress of grace"

Pius XII radio message, 1946:
“having been associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is always associated, with a practically measureless power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from the Redemption… And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.”

 

[Richca]

Pope John Paul II was consecrated to Mary according to the method of St. Louis de Montfort. -Tim-

This is a good point. Blessed Pope John Paul II also quotes St Louis de Montfort in his encyclical on the Rosary.

I don’t think we should see Vatican II as taking a step backwards in mariology, far from it. It did give Mary the titles of Mediatrix and Advocate and offers us the footnote in Lumen Gentium 62 which I just noted in a previous post.
The CCC calls Mary our Mother in the order of divine grace.

Pope Paul VI, who presided at the close of Vatican II, beatified St Maximilian Kolbe in 1971, 6 years after the close of the council. In his beatification homily, he says: “And Kolbe, in accord with the whole of Catholic doctrine, the whole liturgy and the entire theology of the interior life, sees Mary included in God’s plan of salvation…Mary is the one through whose intercession men reach Jesus and the one through whom Jesus reaches men.”

Pope John Paull II canonized St Maximilian Kolbe in 1982. The Church beatifies and canonizes people that we may imitate them.

In the official act of consecration to Mary of the Knights of the Immaculata which is taken from St Maximilian Kolbe it says “For wherever you enter you obtain the grace of conversion and growth in holiness, since it is through your hands that all graces come to us from the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.”

I think another point of interest is that the close of Vatican II occured on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1965. St Maximilian had a fascination with Mary’s Immaculate Conception and spent much of his life theologizing about it. Truly, his thought on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her relationship to each person in the Trinity, is in some respects quite original. He’s a great saint!