All Graces

[badsede]

I'm sure that many of you have heard the news that 5 cardinals have petitioned the Pope to make an ex cathedra pronouncement declaring a fifth Marian dogma, that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces.

annabellissima and I spent yestserday evening doing a bunch of web-reading on the subject. We're both ok with the title of Co-Redemptrix when

Comments

[kishiriadgr]

This is being recycled from 2000 or so. John Paul II turned to a panel of theologians, who all urged him not to do it. I think that Ratzinger, who is a theologian himself, will probably follow suit.

I think, speaking as a mariologist, that this proposed dogma is a terrible idea for all the reasons you cite in the last paragraph. The petition is largely EWTN-driven, adding more to my intense dislike of that organization.

[jade_sabre_301]

Indeed.

I took a class on Mariology last semester and it was my first real encounter with this doctrine. The professor was a very big supporter of it and was downright shocked when his simple questions on the reading led to a heated discussion on the subject, as if it wasn't something universally accepted. I was a little frustrated, to say the least.

The ecumenical problems inherent in this are my biggest pet peeve (aside from the idea that we should mostly only pray to Mary because only she can make our prayers perfect--oh, St. Louis de Montfort)--as if proclaiming the Assumption wasn't enough to set back the Orthodox/Roman ecumenical process by decades. *shakes her head*

Anyway, I hadn't heard the news, but I'm with tepintzin on this one that Pope Benedict will continue with his "respectful silence" on the issue.

[martiancyclist]

We believe in the Assumption, but our objection to the dogma, when we do, is usually due to a misunderstanding that Catholics say she didn't die, which we insist she did do. Provided that clarification is made, we have no inherent problem with the teaching, though we don't dogmatize it.

The Immaculate Conception, though, we do have a problem with, since it presupposes a view of Original Sin which we do not teach.

[jade_sabre_301]

My understanding was that the main problem with it was that it was dogmatized--that the Orthodox churches only dogmatize Trinitarian and Christological teachings, not Mariological ones. The actual document Munificentissimus Deus leaves the question of Mary's demise unanswered, and generally speaking it makes more theological sense for her to have died--at least, the arguments I've seen asserting her death are much stronger than those saying she did not die.

May I ask what view of Original Sin you're referring to?

[fearful_angel]

I'm the kinda guy who doesn't really question these things, but now that you've mentioned the reasons relevant to the question, then my question really is, why is Mary the only Mediatrix of all Graces then, since as you said Christ's journey thru this earth was aided by so many.

I mean to me, I only took the Mediatrix of All graces because she was the vessel that Christ entered the world by. That's it. Christ was the Mediator of all that Grace that God intended for us, and she was the vessel of the Mediator.

Can any really clarify why Mary's the Mediatrix of all Graces? Is there an official explanation?

[badsede]

then my question really is, why is Mary the only Mediatrix of all Graces then, since as you said Christ's journey thru this earth was aided by so many.

That applies to co-Redemptrix, but not really Mediatrix. Mary played a direct, not just ancillary role in the Incarnation, and no one else really did. Her intercession is also seen as universal, which others' are not. Co-Redemptor/ix *could* be applied to many people because of their role in redemption, but "mediation" is something different.

Can any really clarify why Mary's the Mediatrix of all Graces? Is there an official explanation?

There is none. It isn't dogma, not authoritative teaching, so there is nothing really "official." Leo XII (I think I got the right Leo) wrote about it in a couple of Encyclicals, but that doesn't make it official or dogmatic either.

[brotherskeeper1]

Eight or ten years ago that I showed a passage in a prayer book to my priest. The passage precisely stated that Mary is co-Redemptrix. My priest said this is heresy and I agree -- since we know Jesus was the one who paid the price for our sins, not Mary. Mary's role was to bring Christ the Messiah into the world. She had to suffer terribly when her son was crucified, but she did not co-redeem our sins. That would necessitate that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was insufficient of itself

[cheyinka]

"That would necessitate that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was insufficient of itself."

Paul said to the Colossians, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church," not because Christ's sacrifice wasn't good enough, but because God allows all of us to suffer, to a greater or lesser degree, for others. Mary's sufferings no doubt benefitted and will benefit many souls, and Mary's choice to become the mother of God made Christ's sacrifice for us possible. That's how it's possible to say that she can do anything redemptive for us.

I do not recall hearing any group, ever, suggesting that Mary be named as the third Person of the Trinity, aside from Muslims who say that this is what the Trinity already is and the Collyridians who worshipped Mary as a goddess. That would definitely be heretical, you're absolutely right, but this is not the same as that, just like saying "Jesus is our brother" does not mean that our

[brotherskeeper1]

Let me quote the same passage to you as it is worded in the Liturgy of the Hours, Sunday, Evening Prayer I of Week III. The heading over it is Psalm-Prayer. "Father, precious in your sight is the death of the saints, but precious above all is the love with which Christ suffered to redeem us. In this life we fill up in our flesh what is still lacking in the sufferings of Christ; accept this as our sacrifice of praise, and we shall even now taste the joy of the new Jerusalem.

I think that we're saying the same thing, i.e., is useful when united to the sufferings of Christ; it helps others as well as benefiting us. This passage in the Hours bothered me until it was explained by my spiritual director. It's very good to have a director for instances like now.

In honesty That's how it's possible to say that she can do anything redemptive for us. I cannot see Mary doing anything redemptive. For me, when someone talks about redemption or salvation, that comes from Christ so I truly in my heart cannot accept this

[brotherskeeper1]

That piece of scripture that you're quote by St. Paul is basically the same in Sunday, Week III, Evening Prayer I in The Liturgy of the Hours, 4 volume set. It's a Psalm-prayer which reads "Father, precious in your sight is the death of the saints, but precious above all is the love with which Christ suffered to redeem us. In this life we fill up in our own flesh what is still lacking in the sufferings of Christ; accept this as our sacrifice of praise, and we shall even now taste the joy of the new Jerusalem."

It seems that we agree but in different terminology. That's how it's possible to say that she can do anything redemptive for us.I can't accept this. I've been in classes and spiritual direction when this was discussed and each time I've been told/taught that

[_nota_bene]

I am annoyed to hear that this is being brought up again. If people find these titles, defined correctly, helpful in their private prayer lives, so be it. If they want to petition Rome that these titles be added to the long list of Marian titles in the Litany of Loretto, that might be appropriate. What I do not see is a reason to ask for an ex cathedra pronouncement, since the titles, taken at face value, are extremely confusing and, even when rightly understood, tell us nothing that we do not already know

[kishiriadgr]

"I remember listening to a speech by a 'Fatima Expert'..."

Ah, Nicky Gruner, bringing the batshit as always.

[_nota_bene]

It wasn't Mr. Gruner. Fatima has brought out the nut in a lot of people. Perhaps a shrine to St. Dymphna at the Cova de Ira would be appropriate :)

[kishiriadgr]

I'd contribute a few bags of concrete to that project.

[napoleonofnerds]

I guess I see the following issues:

If Mary is co-Redemptrix, then we also would have to say that John the Baptist, Peter, and possibly even Judas Iscariot were also co-redeemers. Especially given the fact that it will be wildly misinterpreted by everyone as soon as it's pronounced and the danger of cheapening the sacrifice of the Cross, this seems like dangerous water for the Church to tread as a whole. If individuals will go there, it's probably okay, but it deserves only magisterial silence.

Mediatrix of All Grace seems heretical to me. It doesn't really tell us anything we should know or which is helpful to our spiritual lives, and it seems to elevate Mary unnaturally. Even if she happens to mediate graces, she does so subordinate to Christ and it's Christ that we should keep in mind, and not his mom, cool a lady as she is.

[brotherskeeper1]

Totally!

[napoleonofnerds]

I've always thought that Mary's perpetual virginity tells us several things:

1. That when Christ entered the world, he did so without destruction or pain.
2. (potentially) That Mary and Joseph were transformed by the events of their lives such that they didn't want to have sex.
3. (My preferred explanation) Joseph was old and Mary wasn't - this means Jesus' brothers were older half-brothers and that Jesus wasn't a terrible kid for not getting married and supporting his family the way older brothers were bound by Jewish law and custom to do.