What does 'the Church has not infallibly proclaimed them' mean?

[gabjus]

I was trying to find out about Co-remptrix and mediatrix,
this article written by Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P. said that “because these terms can be highly misleading, the Church has not infallibly proclaimed them.”

What does ‘not infallibly proclaimed them’ mean?

Sry if the question sounds v basic, I am honestly unsure.

Blessings,
Gabjus

 

[DavidFilmer]

What does ‘not infallibly proclaimed them’ mean?

It means that the Church has not offered an “official” definition or understanding of either term in accordance with the usual understanding of “infallible” teaching. From CCC 891-892:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Fr. Serpa affirms that neither title has received such recognition.

That does not mean that the application of the titles is false, but only that one cannot claim that the Church (currently) recognizes (or defines) either title in any manner which the Faithful are expected to give any form of assent.

 

[gabjus]

That does not mean that the application of the titles is false, but only that one cannot claim that the Church (currently) recognizes (or defines) either title in any manner which the Faithful are expected to give any form of assent.

Does the Roman Catholic Church unofficially teach them then? Would it be wrong for a Catholic not to believe in them?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Does the Roman Catholic Church unofficially teach them then? Would it be wrong for a Catholic not to believe in them?

Various theologians have been advocates for the Church to formally accept and define these titles. While some of these theologians are under Holy Orders, their positions are theirs alone, and do not represent the position of the Church. Even Bishops (and even Popes) are also entitled to act in the capacity of a private theologian, and speculate on matters of the Faith apart from their official Office. Thus, we see that many Popes have promoted teachings (such as Limbo) which have never been officially recognized by the Church.

The Faithful are not ever expected to accept any such speculation, and are free to dismiss it without even giving the matter consideration (ie, we are free to be obstinate in our refusal to accept such ideas - which is not the case for ideas or teachings which have received official recognition).

 

[gabjus]

Various theologians have been advocates for the Church to formally accept and define these titles. While some of these theologians are under Holy Orders, their positions are theirs alone, and do not represent the position of the Church. Even Bishops (and even Popes) are also entitled to act in the capacity of a private theologian, and speculate on matters of the Faith apart from their official Office. Thus, we see that many Popes have promoted teachings (such as Limbo) which have never been officially recognized by the Church.

The Faithful are not ever expected to accept any such speculation, and are free to dismiss it without even giving the matter consideration (ie, we are free to be obstinate in our refusal to accept such ideas - which is not the case for ideas or teachings which have received official recognition).

Cool. thanks that was clear

 

[nordskoven]

The background for co-redemptrix, mediatrix & advocate being urged as Marian dogma came from a condemned “seer” Ida Peerdeman; and the subsequent revival of her works as printed by Queenship Publishing. The official title given to “Mary” via this condemned apparition is: The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate. Professor Mark Miravalle has lobbied the Vatican through Queenship Publishing and his group, VOX POPULI, “voice of the people.” Though having sent millions of signatures in petition to adopt the “Final Dogma” as Peerdeman called it, the Vatican has found this teaching flawed as confusing instead of clarifying the Virgin Mary’s role. One may note that Marian dogma is reflexive upon Christ, defining His nature. This does not meet that standard. There are hundreds of poetic titles given to the Virgin Mary. These have not been found worthy of solidifying into dogma.

 

[Waiting]

I was trying to find out about Co-remptrix and mediatrix,
this article written by Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P. said that “because these terms can be highly misleading, the Church has not infallibly proclaimed them.”

What does ‘not infallibly proclaimed them’ mean?

Sry if the question sounds v basic, I am honestly unsure.

Blessings,
Gabjus

We needn’t make more of this than we can sensibly reason to. God chose to redeem the world through human birth. Mary was His chosen Mother. Because of her fiat, Jesus was able to complete the work of redemption. Mary cooperated in that work. Therefore, she is said to be a co-redemptrix. Not hard to understand or believe, is it? As for mediatrix, consider that Jesus did not deny His mother any request when she was alive, as shown by the wedding at Cana. Would He refuse her any request when she lives with Him in heaven? I can’t believe He would. Therefore, I go to Mary for a difficult request, because I know that she will take it to her Son, and He won’t refuse His mother’s request. That makes her a mediatrix. No one has to believe Mary’s role in salvation, but is it really so illogical? We know that Mary doesn’t share equally in the work of redemption, but her part was vital.

 

[TimothyH]

The background for co-redemptrix, mediatrix & advocate being urged as Marian dogma came from a condemned “seer” Ida Peerdeman; and the subsequent revival of her works as printed by Queenship Publishing. The official title given to “Mary” via this condemned apparition is: The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate. Professor Mark Miravalle has lobbied the Vatican through Queenship Publishing and his group, VOX POPULI, “voice of the people.” Though having sent millions of signatures in petition to adopt the “Final Dogma” as Peerdeman called it, the Vatican has found this teaching flawed as confusing instead of clarifying the Virgin Mary’s role. One may note that Marian dogma is reflexive upon Christ, defining His nature. This does not meet that standard. There are hundreds of poetic titles given to the Virgin Mary. These have not been found worthy of solidifying into dogma.

There is more to the doctrine than the visions of Ida Peerdeman and the work of Queenship Publications. The doctrine goes back way before the 1900’s, to the earliest writings of the Church.

Many, including popes, saints, and doctors of the Church well prior to Ida Peerdeman have wrote about the mediation of Mary in the order of grace. Mary is expicitly mentioned under the titles Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix of Grace in Lumen gentium # 61-62 from the Second Vatican Council.

There is way more to it than what Ida Peerdeman or anyone related to her has stated.

-Tim-

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

We needn’t make more of this than we can sensibly reason to. God chose to redeem the world through human birth. Mary was His chosen Mother. Because of her fiat, Jesus was able to complete the work of redemption. Mary cooperated in that work. Therefore, she is said to be a co-redemptrix. Not hard to understand or believe, is it? As for mediatrix, consider that Jesus did not deny His mother any request when she was alive, as shown by the wedding at Cana. Would He refuse her any request when she lives with Him in heaven? I can’t believe He would. Therefore, I go to Mary for a difficult request, because I know that she will take it to her Son, and He won’t refuse His mother’s request. That makes her a mediatrix. No one has to believe Mary’s role in salvation, but is it really so illogical? We know that Mary doesn’t share equally in the work of redemption, but her part was vital.

While I understand what you are saying, I think there is a lot more to it. The complication for me is not in understanding how she cooperated with God’s salvation plan. I get it. But believe me, when someone tells me that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL graces, I have a problem. Mediatrix of ALL grace can only be narrowly understood to mean that “All Grace” comes through Mary because Jesus came through Mary. To me, it is just to complicated to give a title like “Co-Redemptrix” or “Co-Mediatrix” and then have to give a big long justification as to why.

We are all “co” redeemers and “co” mediators when we help bring people to Christ. “Co” in this context simply means means “with” and so it is easy to say we are all working with Christ for the salvation of souls without diminishing His role in salvation. James 5:19 says “My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way **will save his soul from death **and will cover a multitude of sins.” This does not mean we are the Savior, but as you can see from this scripture we can “save” a soul when we bring it back from error. Likewise, we are all “co” mediators when we pray for our brethren. None of us has as significant of a role as Mary, who said yes to God and brought forth our Savior. Her “co” role is clearly greater than any of ours. YET, I think the proposed 5th Marian dogma goes too far in elevating Our Lady, particularly when it says she is mediatrix of all graces. Personally, I do not believe it is a title she would seek because it places a lot of attention on her and not Her Son, and because it divides the Church.

Lumen Gentium did say “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) 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.” However, those titles are not the same as “Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix” which if taken out of context could imply that we believe that Mary’s role is equal with the role of her Son. I think it is important to remember paragraph 67 as well:

1. This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed.(22*) But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God.(23*) Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety.* Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church.* Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.

 

[snarflemike]

Though having sent millions of signatures in petition to adopt the “Final Dogma”…

This is such a strange concept, sending in petitions to adopt a Dogma. If false, a trillion signatures wouldn’t be enough. If true, 1 signature would be too many.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

This is such a strange concept, sending in petitions to adopt a Dogma. If false, a trillion signatures wouldn’t be enough. If true, 1 signature would be too many.

AMEN!

 

[Mintaka]

Well, it’s not necessarily wrong. The old saying is “Vox populi, vox Dei,” (the voice of the people is the voice of God) because faithful Catholics without theological training are often able to tell what is orthodox doctrine and what is hinky. There’s other names for this, like “sensus fidelium” (the mind of the faithful), and sometimes it does come into play.

For example, at the Council of Ephesus, ordinary Catholics were enraged by the Nestorian idea that Mary wasn’t the Theotokos, but only the “bearer of Christ.” So there were marches and demonstrations and loud singing of Marian hymns in the streets of the city; and that was their voice at the Council. Many important doctrinal emphases have started at the level of the people and worked their way up, like the Rosary, the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi, and the institution of Divine Mercy Sunday. Our pope took the shouts of “santo subito” seriously, and we know for a fact that he doesn’t like expedited saintings. So yeah, sometimes it’s a case of “vox populi, vox Dei”, and the “vox Dei” is giving His Church an order.

But the reason we have a hierarchy is to be able to keep everybody from doing anything that comes into their heads with doctrine. So sometimes they judge that the “vox Dei” really is speaking through the people, and sometimes they judge that it’s the voice of a fad, instead. Obviously they were not impressed by the petitions in that particular case.

 

[Waiting]

While I understand what you are saying, I think there is a lot more to it. The complication for me is not in understanding how she cooperated with God’s salvation plan. I get it. But believe me, when someone tells me that Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL graces, I have a problem. Mediatrix of ALL grace can only be narrowly understood to mean that “All Grace” comes through Mary because Jesus came through Mary. To me, it is just to complicated to give a title like “Co-Redemptrix” or “Co-Mediatrix” and then have to give a big long justification as to why.

We are all “co” redeemers and “co” mediators when we help bring people to Christ. “Co” in this context simply means means “with” and so it is easy to say we are all working with Christ for the salvation of souls without diminishing His role in salvation. James 5:19 says “My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way **will save his soul from death **and will cover a multitude of sins.” This does not mean we are the Savior, but as you can see from this scripture we can “save” a soul when we bring it back from error. Likewise, we are all “co” mediators when we pray for our brethren. None of us has as significant of a role as Mary, who said yes to God and brought forth our Savior. Her “co” role is clearly greater than any of ours. YET, I think the proposed 5th Marian dogma goes too far in elevating Our Lady, particularly when it says she is mediatrix of all graces. Personally, I do not believe it is a title she would seek because it places a lot of attention on her and not Her Son, and because it divides the Church.

Lumen Gentium did say “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) 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.” However, those titles are not the same as “Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix” which if taken out of context could imply that we believe that Mary’s role is equal with the role of her Son. I think it is important to remember paragraph 67 as well:

I think that if we just always remember that Mary has no interest in bringing attention to herself, but only to her Son, we wouldn’t struggle so hard with technicalities. Don’t worry how others choose to deal with Mary, or her various titles, she is indisputably the Mother of God. As such I bring my petitions to her, knowing how powerful her requests are in her Son’s eyes. She is our mother, too, and will deal with us as her children. I’m happy to leave it at that.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I think that if we just always remember that Mary has no interest in bringing attention to herself, but only to her Son, we wouldn’t struggle so hard with technicalities. Don’t worry how others choose to deal with Mary, or her various titles, she is indisputably the Mother of God. As such I bring my petitions to her, knowing how powerful her requests are in her Son’s eyes. She is our mother, too, and will deal with us as her children. I’m happy to leave it at that.

I agree, for the most part. However, as someone who deals a lot in apologetics and evangelization,I feel it is important to help others come to know our Lady as she is revealed in the teaching of the Church. Like all of us, Mary is who she is in Christ Jesus. She is no more, she is no less. My concern in the matter is in the sense that she is a stumbling block for many to come to the fullness of the Catholic faith. Or rather, *Catholic teaching *about her is a stumbling block. I do not feel as if she should be hidden away, only that we give her the proper veneration without gross exaggeration (as Lumen Gentium cautions us). Regarding apologetics or evangelization, I feel we are obliged to speak what we know to be dogmatically true regarding the Blessed Mother. If the Church has honored her with a particular title, such as “Mother of God”, or has deemed that a particular event happened (i.e., Immaculate Conception, Assumption) then we ought to be well-versed in Marian teaching so that we can explain it. That being said, I do not think people should be campaigning to have a particular dogma proclaimed. Snarflemike has a great point, if it is true that Mary is Co-redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix and Mediator of all graces as some would suggest, then we can just let God handle it. It will be proclaimed by the Church and that will be that. I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide our Church in this matter as He has guided her for 2000 years. But the thought of even one non-Catholic Christian being turned off to the Church because of a faulty or speculative teaching about Mary does disturb me.

 

[Waiting]

I agree, for the most part. However, as someone who deals a lot in apologetics and evangelization,I feel it is important to help others come to know our Lady as she is revealed in the teaching of the Church. Like all of us, Mary is who she is in Christ Jesus. She is no more, she is no less. My concern in the matter is in the sense that she is a stumbling block for many to come to the fullness of the Catholic faith. Or rather, *Catholic teaching *about her is a stumbling block. I do not feel as if she should be hidden away, only that we give her the proper veneration without gross exaggeration (as Lumen Gentium cautions us). Regarding apologetics or evangelization, I feel we are obliged to speak what we know to be dogmatically true regarding the Blessed Mother. If the Church has honored her with a particular title, such as “Mother of God”, or has deemed that a particular event happened (i.e., Immaculate Conception, Assumption) then we ought to be well-versed in Marian teaching so that we can explain it. That being said, I do not think people should be campaigning to have a particular dogma proclaimed. Snarflemike has a great point, if it is true that Mary is Co-redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix and Mediator of all graces as some would suggest, then we can just let God handle it. It will be proclaimed by the Church and that will be that. I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide our Church in this matter as He has guided her for 2000 years. But the thought of even one non-Catholic Christian being turned off to the Church because of a faulty or speculative teaching about Mary does disturb me.

You’re right that people shouldn’t be out there campaigning for certain dogmas to be proclaimed, but people being people, it will be that way to the end of time. Mary might be a stumbling block for some non-Catholics to enter the Church, but she, herself, has been the force behind bringing many in. I like your idea of simply letting God handle things. We should just offer our services to God. He’ll tell us in His own way how we can help.

 

[De_Montfort]

Cardinal Vithayathil: I foresee many fruits for the Church and the world as a result of the solemn definition of this dogma. It will bring more peace built on justice in the world. It will give a new spurt to evangelization. It will bring about greater devotion to Mary and confidence in her intercessory power.

It will make Catholics realize that just as Mary, through the merits of Jesus Christ, has become co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate for the whole human race, we too share in Mary’s threefold roles for the salvation of humankind.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/z5dogmant.htm

I don’t feel these titles in anyway take away from the one meditation of Christ. The only things these titles proclaim is Mary’s special union with the Holy Trinity. Her union with Christ and His mission stood alone in degree and kind. Yes some may have a problem with it, but a solem definiton would clear things up.

As in pasts dogmas it was the peoples voices that inspired the Popes to proclaim past dogmas. There is nothing wrong in wanting the Mother of God to be defined more clearly and understanding Her complete union with God.

 

[TimothyH]

ewtn.com/library/MARY/z5dogmant.htm

I don’t feel these titles in anyway take away from the one meditation of Christ. The only things these titles proclaim is Mary’s special union with the Holy Trinity. Her union with Christ and His mission stood alone in degree and kind. Yes some may have a problem with it, but a solem definiton would clear things up.

As in pasts dogmas it was the peoples voices that inspired the Popes to proclaim past dogmas. There is nothing wrong in wanting the Mother of God to be defined more clearly and understanding Her complete union with God.

I pray that I might live to see the fifth dogma.

-Tim-

 

[De_Montfort]

I pray that I might live to see the fifth dogma.

-Tim-

I hope I can live to see it as well. We might be closer than we think I found this on ewtn

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=102394

On the following day, the great May 13 Fatima anniversary, Benedict XVI offered a succinct but profound teaching on Christian co-redemption, which peaked by focusing on the Spiritual Motherhood of Mary at the foot of the cross. As the Holy Father was about to process with our Eucharistic Jesus amidst the sick and suffering, he identified those who would unite their sufferings to that of Christ as “redeemers with the Redeemer” and reminded them that at the cross stands the mother of Jesus, who is also our mother: “Dear friends who are sick …] entrust to [Jesus] every setback and pain that you face, so that they may become – according to his design – a means of redemption for the whole world.** You will be redeemers with the Redeemer. …] At the cross …] stands the mother of Jesus, our mother” (May 13, 2010).**
Preparing the way

Here the Vicar of Christ illustrates not only that we are all called to be “redeemers” by uniting our sufferings with the sufferings of the one divine Redeemer, but also directs our gaze to the woman-mother who suffered with her crucified Son as a co-redeemer. As one Catholic journalist commented, "This can only support and set the stage for a deeper understanding of Mary as co-redemptrix and a potential papal definition. What else could it mean, that we, as members of Christ’s faithful are all redeemers with the Redeemer in our sufferings, but Mary alone is not a co-redeemer? No, on the contrary, the Pope’s words are a theological preparation."

Most recently, during Benedict XVI’s ecumenical journey in Cyprus (June 4-6), the Holy Father again preached Mary’s unique coredemptive role with Jesus: "God had chosen her, his lowly handmaid, to cooperate with him in his saving work. How we rejoice at the generosity of her response! …] Some 30 years later, as Mary stood weeping at the foot of the cross, it must have been hard to keep that hope alive. The forces of darkness seemed to have gained the upper hand. And yet, deep down, she would have remembered the angel’s words.

“The Pope’s words are theological preperation.” He said all are called to be “Co-redeemers” but Mary had a special role in Christ’s redemption as Co-redemptrix. To me this is great hope my friend! I hope we will both see it come to fruition

 

[thistle]

ewtn.com/library/MARY/z5dogmant.htm

I don’t feel these titles in anyway take away from the one meditation of Christ. The only things these titles proclaim is Mary’s special union with the Holy Trinity. Her union with Christ and His mission stood alone in degree and kind.** Yes some may have a problem with it, but a solem definiton would clear things up.**

As in pasts dogmas it was the peoples voices that inspired the Popes to proclaim past dogmas. There is nothing wrong in wanting the Mother of God to be defined more clearly and understanding Her complete union with God.

How are Catholics deficient at present without a 5th dogma? We have all we need for our salvation. There is nothing that needs to be cleared up.