Tradition without the Immaculate is not tradition

[JamesCaruso]

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-

If you read my post and the posts to which it was addressed, you will find that the word “speculate” was used to address a theory about Lucifer, and not the phrase “Mediatrix of All Graces.”

As for what the Church has or has not addressed, we were discussing the use and meaning of the word “all.” The point being discussed was whether God has the power to act without Mary in dispensing graces to men if He so chooses. The term “all”, if you accept literally the meaning of “Mediatrix of All Graces,” would seem to preclude God acting except through Mary, but it could be argued to mean in a general sense, but not excluding God from acting independently. We were not discussing whether the Church had addressed Mediatrix of All Graces, but only the “All” portion. Previously, the thread discussed whether the entire phrase “Mediatrix of All Graces” had been declared dogmatically, with some saying not expressly as a dogma and some saying it was taught enough that it has taken on the character of dogma. On the subject of “All” we were discussing whether God can act independently of the Virgin with regard to granting graces to mankind. I don’t think your quotes were precisely on point, but they do touch on the issue if only indirectly.

Would you like to discuss whether God can grant graces to mankind without going through Mary? If so, I’d be happy to listen to what you have to say on the matter. Personally, I do believe God may have deliberately and literally allowed Mary to be the sole decider and dispenser of all graces, and I was trying to give some insight into that being the case. I don’t know of any specific teaching of the Church which addresses Mary being the dispenser of all graces to the exclusion of God, even though the title given Mary seems to say so. Not being a theologian I am trying to tread lightly in this area. I am not an expert on dogmatic teaching, nor on interpretation of what the Church teaches.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

It would seem to me that if the title were accepted dogma in the Church that the Fathers would have been advised that no disputation would be entertained. The fact that dispute was permitted tells me that it is still not generally taught to the point of extinguishing all doubt and that continued discussion and argumentation are acceptable. I personally believe it should become dogma, and hope the Church will do so along with providing a clear discussion of how it is to be understood by the faithful.

 

[TimothyH]

If you read my post and the posts to which it was addressed, you will find that the word “speculate” was used to address a theory about Lucifer, and not the phrase “Mediatrix of All Graces.”

As for what the Church has or has not addressed, we were discussing the use and meaning of the word “all.” The point being discussed was whether God has the power to act without Mary in dispensing graces to men if He so chooses. The term “all”, if you accept literally the meaning of “Mediatrix of All Graces,” would seem to preclude God acting except through Mary, but it could be argued to mean in a general sense, but not excluding God from acting independently. We were not discussing whether the Church had addressed Mediatrix of All Graces, but only the “All” portion. Previously, the thread discussed whether the entire phrase “Mediatrix of All Graces” had been declared dogmatically, with some saying not expressly as a dogma and some saying it was taught enough that it has taken on the character of dogma. On the subject of “All” we were discussing whether God can act independently of the Virgin with regard to granting graces to mankind. I don’t think your quotes were precisely on point, but they do touch on the issue if only indirectly.

Would you like to discuss whether God can grant graces to mankind without going through Mary? If so, I’d be happy to listen to what you have to say on the matter. Personally, I do believe God may have deliberately and literally allowed Mary to be the sole decider and dispenser of all graces, and I was trying to give some insight into that being the case. I don’t know of any specific teaching of the Church which addresses Mary being the dispenser of all graces to the exclusion of God, even though the title given Mary seems to say so. Not being a theologian I am trying to tread lightly in this area. I am not an expert on dogmatic teaching, nor on interpretation of what the Church teaches.

If you had read post number 127 then you would have read where I said exactly:

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.

and

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.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

It would seem to me that if the title were accepted dogma in the Church that the Fathers would have been advised that no disputation would be entertained. The fact that dispute was permitted tells me that it is still not generally taught to the point of extinguishing all doubt and that continued discussion and argumentation are acceptable. I personally believe it should become dogma, and hope the Church will do so along with providing a clear discussion of how it is to be understood by the faithful.

Amen and thank-you James.

 

[godisgood77]

If you had read post number 127 then you would have read where I said exactly:

and

-Tim-

Amen and thank-you Tim.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If you had read post number 127 then you would have read where I said exactly:

and

-Tim-

I read your post. So what does that have to do with your reply to my post in question? Please don’t quote me if the reply is about something else. It causes confusion Thanks. Peace.

 

[asd72]

It would seem to me that if the title were accepted dogma in the Church that the Fathers would have been advised that no disputation would be entertained. The fact that dispute was permitted tells me that it is still not generally taught to the point of extinguishing all doubt and that continued discussion and argumentation are acceptable. I personally believe it should become dogma, and hope the Church will do so along with providing a clear discussion of how it is to be understood by the faithful.

I don’t think it’s declared dogma just when it is without doubt. They also decide if it is an “opportune time” to declare it. It does seem to be an accepted doctrine from what I’ve been looking at.

I am having trouble understanding it though. I can understand the title co-redemptrix as frank sheed explains it well in theology and sanity, but I can’t seem to find a similar explanation of
Mediatrix of grace in there. I guess I will have to keep reading.

 

[godisgood77]

Today’s reading is timely considering our discussion…

1 Tm 2:1-8
Beloved:
First of all, I ask that supplications, prayers,
petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
for kings and for all in authority,
that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life
in all devotion and dignity.
This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
who wills everyone to be saved
and to come to knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself as ransom for all.
This was the testimony at the proper time.
For this I was appointed preacher and apostle
— I am speaking the truth, I am not lying —,
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray,
lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If MOAG is dogma, as I am persuaded that it is, I am hoping they will make it formally so, for then, I should think they would delve more into the layers of meaning it brings with it, as well as the areas to which it does not mean to speak.

I feel the dispute is not primarily over MOAG in general, but what it means in specific detail. Is the Church still not ready to make this leap?

One post mentioned God not tying his hands. I believe that God does tie his hands in some instances at his own pleasure, for example, taking on the form of a slave, as the Gospel teaches, or giving the authority to bind and loose to his Church for another. The question in my mind is, "Is this another such case?

Does God mean to preclude himself from dispensing of graces in all cases except through Mary and as she wishes?" My intuition is to say, “Yes.” I believe that her will is so submitted to the will of God that the two are one and the same.

In fact, (and this may sound contrary) she may bring a greater wideness to God’s mercy in her being a woman than God would already have in his infinite mercy, and of which fact God himself is the engineer, if this is not heretical, as I am sure some may believe it is. But I put it out there, not as an original thought, but one that I have heard from another source, and feel it worthy of discussion.

Peace.

 

[simple_soul]

If MOAG is dogma, as I am persuaded that it is, I am hoping they will make it formally so, for then, I should think they would delve more into the layers of meaning it brings with it, as well as the areas to which it does not mean to speak.

I feel the dispute is not primarily over MOAG in general, but what it means in specific detail. Is the Church still not ready to make this leap?

One post mentioned God not tying his hands. I believe that God does tie his hands in some instances at his own pleasure, for example, taking on the form of a slave, as the Gospel teaches, or giving the authority to bind and loose to his Church for another. The question in my mind is, "Is this another such case?

Does God mean to preclude himself from dispensing of graces in all cases except through Mary and as she wishes?" My intuition is to say, “Yes.” I believe that her will is so submitted to the will of God that the two are one and the same.

In fact, (and this may sound contrary) she may bring a greater wideness to God’s mercy in her being a woman than God would already have in his infinite mercy, and of which fact God himself is the engineer, if this is not heretical, as I am sure some may believe it is. But I put it out there, not as an original thought, but one that I have heard from another source, and feel it worthy of discussion.

Peace.

Personally I do not believe Our Blessed Mother would ever dispense any Graces as she wishes…I believes she would only dispense them as God wishes.

Just a quick clarification here., is her title Mediatrix of All Grace or Mediatrix of All Graces or both? I have not been able to keep up with the thread so please forgive me if this was already clarified.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Personally I do not believe Our Blessed Mother would ever dispense any Graces as she wishes…I believes she would only dispense them as God wishes.

Just a quick clarification here., is her title Mediatrix of All Grace or Mediatrix of All Graces or both? I have not been able to keep up with the thread so please forgive me if this was already clarified.

Believe it. But the catch is that she only wishes to dispense graces as God wishes, so “as she wishes” expresses God’s great trust in her. Of course, being now in heaven, I think it is a bit different than when she was on earth. On earth there is the temptation to do as one wishes even if it is not what God wishes, yet even on earth she always did as God wished. But she is in heaven, and so far as I know, we are no longer tempted to do anything contrary to what God wants because when we are in heaven we so love God that we only want to please him. I don’t know if this meets the theological test, but it’s my layman’s understanding.

I have always heard her title as Mediatrix of All Graces, plural. It may be a distinction without a difference.

 

[TimothyH]

I read your post. So what does that have to do with your reply to my post in question? Please don’t quote me if the reply is about something else. It causes confusion Thanks. Peace.

This is senseless. We are arguing about the argument, about who did and didn’t reply to what and when they did or didn’t reply.

Listen. I am not going to convince you. I understand that. I’m sure you are a very nice person and I too wish you peace.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

I still believe this title to be under consideration by the Church and it certainly hasn’t been defined…

Until a time when it is, I’ll stick with St Paul (1 TIM 2:1-8), more than half of the Council fathers and the Marian council formed by PJPII.

 

[simple_soul]

Believe it. But the catch is that she only wishes to dispense graces as God wishes, so “as she wishes” expresses God’s great trust in her. Of course, being now in heaven, I think it is a bit different than when she was on earth. On earth there is the temptation to do as one wishes even if it is not what God wishes, yet even on earth she always did as God wished. But she is in heaven, and so far as I know, we are no longer tempted to do anything contrary to what God wants because when we are in heaven we so love God that we only want to please him. I don’t know if this meets the theological test, but it’s my layman’s understanding.

Honestly I do not believer there is any “catch” about it. She only does as God wishes. This is one of the ways she points us to God! No?
When we say Our Blessed Mother dispenses Gracs to us of her own free will and that God trusts her it would seem to imply that she is doing things for her own glory and not for God’s Glory! No? Why do we not just say she does God’s will by dispensing His Graces as He sees fit? Would this not more accurately describe he relationship between God and the Blessed Virgin? Would she not be the first to say “Not my will but Thine” be done to God?

I have always heard her title as Mediatrix of All Graces, plural. It may be a distinction without a difference.

From whom have you heard this from?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Honestly I do not believer there is any “catch” about it. She only does as God wishes. This is one of the ways she points us to God! No?
When we say Our Blessed Mother dispenses Gracs to us of her own free will and that God trusts her it would seem to imply that she is doing things for her own glory and not for God’s Glory! No? Why do we not just say she does God’s will by dispensing His Graces as He sees fit? Would this not more accurately describe he relationship between God and the Blessed Virgin? Would she not be the first to say “Not my will but Thine” be done to God?

From whom have you heard this from?

Your second question first-- I have heard it so, so to speak, in all the documents of Popes and other Church Fathers I have read who addressed this issue. I can’t remember ever seeing it in the singular.

Regarding your first paragraph–Of course Mary would be the first to say, “Not my will but Thine,” and we know this because we have observed that she always did God’s Will during her lifetime, but she did so of her own free will-- there was no coercion-- she could have refused. Likewise, if God gives Mary the power to dispense of his graces as she sees fit, it is of her own free will that she does so. There is no implication of her own glory. She dispenses of God’s graces as he gave her the power to do, and if she does so in accordance with God’s will, it is of her own free will. The relationship between Mary and God is like our own, she is free to do God’s Will, or to ignore God’s Will, just as we are. There can be no love where there is no free will. There can be no love where there is coercion. The relationship between God and the Blessed Virgin is one of love.

 

[JamesCaruso]

This is senseless. We are arguing about the argument, about who did and didn’t reply to what and when they did or didn’t reply.

Listen. I am not going to convince you. I understand that. I’m sure you are a very nice person and I too wish you peace.

-Tim-

Arguing? I did not think you were being responsive to what I posted. Since you think you were, perhaps, my post was poorly written and unclear. I’m sorry if I offended you.

I went back and reread your posts. Could you point me to where it is written that all graces do not flow through Mary, although that is the normal and usual way? I think that is what you are trying to convince me of. I am open to that idea, but I don’t remember reading it in Church documents.

 

[Richca]

Personally I do not believe Our Blessed Mother would ever dispense any Graces as she wishes…I believes she would only dispense them as God wishes.

Just a quick clarification here., is her title Mediatrix of All Grace or Mediatrix of All Graces or both? I have not been able to keep up with the thread so please forgive me if this was already clarified.

Hi simple soul,
You make a good point. I think whether we say that Mary dispenses graces as she wishes or whether we say that Mary dispenses graces as God wishes is one and the same thing. Since sanctity and holiness consists in the union of our will with the will of God and our Blessed Mother is the holiest of creatures, her will is one with God. Mary does nothing contrary to God’s will. St Maximilian Kolbe says that Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit, her Spouse, is inexpressible.
When we consider our Blessed Lady as Mediatrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, I think it is in the context as being the handmaid of the Lord, the servant of the Lord and His instrument. Our Lady lovingly accepted the role of being our Mother when she freely consented to the incarnation of the Son of God and cooperated with her Divine Son in the redemption of the human race. I think we can apply the words of Jesus to Mary when He said that He came not to be served but to serve.
Our Blessed Mother, however, is not a mechanical Mediatrix. She is a creature with a mother’s heart, a free will (though her will is one with God’s) and intellect. Maybe this is why the saints and popes say that Mary is the minister and dispensatrix of all the graces and gifts that Jesus merited for us.
This is what St Maximilian Kolbe has to say about our Blessed Mother:
“The Holy Spirit does not confer any grace, the Father does not give supernatural life to any soul by the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless these gifts are bestowed through the Mediatrix of All Graces, the Immaculata, who cooperates in the giving, and distributes them as she wills. She obtains from God all the treasures of grace, as belonging to her, and she distributes them to whomsoever she wills, as she wills.”

 

[Richca]

Your second question first-- I have heard it so, so to speak, in all the documents of Popes and other Church Fathers I have read who addressed this issue. I can’t remember ever seeing it in the singular.

Regarding your first paragraph–Of course Mary would be the first to say, “Not my will but Thine,” and we know this because we have observed that she always did God’s Will during her lifetime, but she did so of her own free will-- there was no coercion-- she could have refused. Likewise, if God gives Mary the power to dispense of his graces as she sees fit, it is of her own free will that she does so. There is no implication of her own glory. She dispenses of God’s graces as he gave her the power to do, and if she does so in accordance with God’s will, it is of her own free will. The relationship between Mary and God is like our own, she is free to do God’s Will, or to ignore God’s Will, just as we are. There can be no love where there is no free will. There can be no love where there is coercion. The relationship between God and the Blessed Virgin is one of love.

Hello James…good post, nice thoughts

 

[simple_soul]

Your second question first-- I have heard it so, so to speak, in all the documents of Popes and other Church Fathers I have read who addressed this issue. I can’t remember ever seeing it in the singular.

Regarding your first paragraph–Of course Mary would be the first to say, “Not my will but Thine,” and we know this because we have observed that she always did God’s Will during her lifetime, but she did so of her own free will-- there was no coercion-- she could have refused. Likewise, if God gives Mary the power to dispense of his graces as she sees fit, it is of her own free will that she does so. There is no implication of her own glory. She dispenses of God’s graces as he gave her the power to do, and if she does so in accordance with God’s will, it is of her own free will. The relationship between Mary and God is like our own, she is free to do God’s Will, or to ignore God’s Will, just as we are. There can be no love where there is no free will. There can be no love where there is coercion. The relationship between God and the Blessed Virgin is one of love.

Of coarse there is no coercion!
Do you really beleive there are some people who beleive that it is by coercion?

What I am getting from what you are writing and having a hard time trying to wrap my brain around is that you seem to be saying she works independently of God. Even though she is doing His Will she does so independently of Him.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[godisgood77]

Of coarse there is no coercion!
Do you really beleive there are some people who beleive that it is by coercion?

What I am getting from what you are writing and having a hard time trying to wrap my brain around is that you seem to be saying she works independently of God. Even though she is doing His Will she does so independently of Him.

Is this what you are saying?

Completely agree…this is what I’m seeing as well - deification of Mary.