MARY, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE?
The Catholic Church hierarchy has vouched for exorcist priest Winston Cabading, saying he won’t be reprimanded or investigated despite the criminal case lodged against him by a former Sandiganbayan justice due to their dispute over the purported Marian apparitions in Lipa, Batangas province.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a certification dated May 31 stating that Cabading “is a Dominican priest of good standing and is not under any censure or investigation by [CBCP].”
Cabading, who was arrested on May 13 and released on bail on May 21, was supposed to be arraigned on Thursday, June 1, on the charge of “offending religious feelings” under the Revised Penal Code, but the Quezon City court moved the proceedings to August 1 to let the priest pursue his petition for review in the Department of Justice (DOJ).
…Former Justice Harriet Demetriou, a staunch Marian devotee, sued Cabading over the priest’s statements during an online program last year [4th National Conference on the Ministry of Spiritual Liberation and Exorcism] explaining the Vatican ruling that found the 1948 “apparition” of Our Lady[,] Mediatrix devoid of “any supernatural intervention.”
Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/?p=1778433#ixzz83QjWZmaR
Differences in religious doctrine abound. Are we then to jail someone for exercising their freedom of conscience and freedom of speech? Demetriou is Pharisaic and legalistic for pursuing charges on the basis of ubiquitous religious divergence that naturally offends the intolerant and those who fail to recognize and respect basic civil rights. Drop the obnoxious pretext of law abiding virtue.
The popular devotion to Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace is problematic for at least three reasons.
Its association with the Lipa Marian apparitions of 1948 casts in doubt the religious and spiritual legitimacy of the belief in the title “Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace” because of the negative judgment of Pius XII in 1951 affirming the judgment of the special Church commission formed in the same year to examine the alleged apparitions. The commission said that the evidence they had gathered excluded “any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings.” On the other hand, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not produced this Pius XII document.
Note: “Supernatural” indicates that the origin of extraordinary mystical events is from God. The term “preternatural” concludes a demonic origin. If the mystical phenomena are not declared to be “supernatural,” it follows that they are the result of natural or “preternatural” causes.
Curiously, the Lipa apparitions advance a Marian title that in 1951 was nowhere near becoming a dogma, in contrast with the case of the Lourdes apparitions, which confirmed a Marian dogma that had been recently promulgated by Pius IX. The Lipa apparitions involve a suspicious inversion. We know from past experience that the devil likes to invert the holy. For example, the devil, according to exorcists, likes to mock the Incarnation of our Lord by taking over the body of a human being in possession.
The following sources provide helpful background information about the Lipa apparitions:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/34064/the-curious-case-of-the-lipa-marian-apparitions
—Mary Farrow, “The curious case of the Lipa Marian apparitions,” Catholic News Agency, December 28, 2016
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1583689/new-inquiry-sought-into-1948-lipa-apparitions
—Lito B. Zulueta, “New inquiry sought into 1948 Lipa ‘apparitions,’” Inquirer.net, April 17, 2022
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1584101/show-us-proof-of-negative-judgment-on-lipa-apparitions
—Lito B. Zulueta, “Show us proof of ‘negative judgment’ on Lipa apparitions,” Inquirer.net, April 18, 2022
The title “Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace” has never been conferred by the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. It is not an infallible dogma. Some authoritative teachings of the Ordinary (ordinary but not universal) Magisterium lean toward the doctrine or even declare it outright. However, they are not infallible.
Distinctions between the three levels of the Magisterium—Sacred, Ordinary, and General—are given at this link:
https://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm
—Ronald L. Conte Jr., “The Three Levels of the Magisterium: Sacred, Ordinary, and General,” Catholic Planet, October 1, 2006
While Lumen Gentium, 61 describes Mary as “our Mother in the order of grace” and Lumen Gentium, 62 as “Mediatrix,” it does not describe her as the “Mediatrix of All Grace.”
Notably, no pope uses this title or explicitly teaches the doctrine. See:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/mediatrix-of-all-graces-143
—Father William G. Most, “Mediatrix of All Graces,” excerpted and adapted from “Theology 523: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion,” 1994, EWTN
At Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines, there is an elegant church recently built named “Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace.” See:
https://www.parishph.com/2022/06/mary-mediatrix-of-all-grace-parish-lipa-batangas.html?m=1
—“Mary Mediatrix of All Grace Parish - Antipolo del Norte, Lipa City, Batangas,” ParishPH, July 14, 2022
The church was so named upon the decision of the Archbishop of Lipa so that we can assume that the title has been approved by at least one and possibly more bishops—which is not enough to make the teaching indicated by the title a part of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. “Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace” is not an infallible dogma.
It is somewhat ill-advised for the Archbishop of Lipa to choose for the parish a Marian title that promotes what still remains a controversial, unsettled, and imprecise Marian doctrine.
Finally, we observe that although arguments have been advanced in favor of the doctrine, arguments against it have been propounded as well, with cogency being demonstrated on both sides. The sticking point appears to be the expression, “All Grace,” because in at least several important senses Mary does not mediate all grace.
Mary, for example, is a creature who exists in time. Therefore, she cannot be a mediator of the graces of those who existed before her in time.
In contrast, the grace of the Immaculate Conception is possible because it is given by God who is not bound by time. Mary was the recipient of the prevenient grace of the Immaculate Conception at the point at which she was conceived and before Jesus existed, Jesus through whom the grace of redemption and salvation is mediated and necessary for all humanity.
Possibly, it is because of the theological ambiguity of the title that during the 12th International Mariological Conference the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy concluded: “Even if the titles [Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, and Advocate] were assigned a content which could be accepted as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity, as such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still require further study in a renewed Trinitarian, ecclesiological and anthropological perspective.”
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/m/mediatrix-coredemptrix-and-advocate-declaration.php
—Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy “Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate Declaration,” University of Dayton
What disturbs me personally is that a controversial, unsettled, and ambiguous doctrine is being aggressively foisted upon the faithful by a voluble and sizeable faction in the Church.
This piece argues somewhat persuasively against the position that Mary’s mediation of graces is not universal:
“Mary’s inseparable union with Christ is the basis for the universality of her mediation for all others. As already explained, she is the spiritual Mother of the Body of Christ, i.e., of all those who are saved. This permanent association of Our Lady and Our Lord was prophesied by God’s punishment of the serpent in Genesis 3:15—‘the woman and her seed’ who, together, will be the enemies of the devil. Just as all people of all time are saved by Christ’s grace which flows from His obedient death and Resurrection, Mary has been Christ’s subordinate and dependent associate in His work of Redemption. Thus, just as Christ’s perfect, sufficient, primary, and independent mediation is a transcendent event that extends to all people and all types of grace, Mary’s subordinate and dependent mediation also extends to all graces for others.”
—Gloria Falcão Dodd, “Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces: A Theological Basis,” Missio Immaculatae, December 26, 2017
In other words, Mary’s mediation is universal because it participates in Christ’s universal mediation.
The most cogent exposition in support of the doctrine that I have found on the internet is in Catholic Culture. It cites the early Church, including Church Fathers. See:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=360
—Vox
Populi Mariae Mediatrici, 1998, “A New Marian Dogma? Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of
All Graces, Advocate,” Catholic Culture
Photo courtesy of Ramon FVelasquez
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mt.CarmelChurchjf1068_01.JPG
Gonzalinho
The doctrine of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace would stand a better chance of acceptance by the pope—a key player in advancing new dogmas—without the Lipa apparitions. As it stands, the whole affair looks suspiciously diabolic. I understand where Father Cabading is coming from. The Lipa apparitions reflect badly on the enthusiasm to create a new Marian dogma.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
A particular difficulty with this doctrine, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace is that there are many indeed who obtain graces from God by praying to Jesus only and without a thought about Mary. The title would make it appear that Mary’s intercession before our Lord and Savior is always necessary. It makes more sense to interpret her intercession as efficacious rather than indispensable.
ReplyDeleteJesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), not “No one comes to the Father except through me and my mother.”
Gonzalinho
All things considered, the doctrine does not sit well with me—because it would make Mary’s intercession indispensable for salvation—a belief hardly widespread in the Church for over two millennia, and as of this time we aren’t anywhere near commonplace acceptance.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
Some remarks concerning “Mediatrix of All Graces” by Fr. Armand J. Robichaud, excerpted from J.B. Carol (ed.), Mariology, Volume 2 (Bruce, 1957)—see Mother of All Peoples:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.motherofallpeoples.com/post/mediatrix-of-all-graces
“Mary…is a creature who exists in time. Therefore, she cannot be a mediator of the graces of those who existed before her in time.”
Robichaud: When we assert that Our Lady is the Dispensatrix of all graces we mean that she actually obtains them for us, through some true causality on her part, the nature of which will be discussed later. By “all graces” we mean sanctifying grace, the infused theological and moral virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all actual graces, the charismatic gifts, and even temporal favors having a bearing on our supernatural end. …Those who lived before Mary’s time received their graces in view of her future merits.
Response: The argument is a bit of a stretch. So, Mary is a Mediatrix before she even existed. Say, for example, the prophets receive their actual graces through Mary even though she is at the time non-existent.
“A particular difficulty with this doctrine, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace is that there are many indeed who obtain graces from God by praying to Jesus only and without a thought about Mary. The title would make it appear that Mary’s intercession before our Lord and Savior is always necessary. …
“Jesus said, ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6) and not ‘No one comes to the Father except through me and my mother.’”
Robichaud: …the doctrine does not mean that Our Lady’s intercession must be invoked as a prerequisite for the reception of graces. Whether we address our petitions to her, or directly to Christ or to some other saint, the favor will be granted in every instance through Mary’s causality.
Response: The argument is a bit of a stretch. If all graces are received through Mary’s universal mediation, it follows that her intercession should be universally acknowledged and therefore always invoked.
On the other hand, we observe that those who receive grace by praying directly to God don’t necessarily invoke the name of Jesus. However, because Jesus is God, they in this case invoke Jesus, even if implicitly.
Mary, on the other hand, is obviously not God, and moreover, many receive grace from God without invoking Mary’s intercession. Is her intercession really necessary and universal, as the title “Mediatrix of All Grace” implies?
Gonzalinho
DeleteUltimately, it’s the call of the Roman Catholic bishops or just the pope on his own regarding whether or not to make the doctrine of “Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace” a dogma.
However, it would appear that one would have to undertake acrobatic mental contortions to make it so.
Gonzalinho
I’d say that the biggest argument against the doctrine is that grace preexisted Mary in time. Not so for Jesus, who is God.
DeleteMary is a creature. Some of this doctrinal manufacturing almost wants to make her into God. It’s suspiciously unhealthy, spiritually. That’s how it looks to me.
Gonzalinho
Personally, I find that the endless doctrinal manufacturing leans towards extremism. I’m not very sympathetic, but it’s out of my hands so that my interest tends toward the academic.
DeleteI find the loud, intolerant advocacy of some quarters not only unpleasant but also, frankly, unchristian. We are well within our legitimate rights in the Roman Catholic Church not to subscribe to a doctrine that is not a dogma and to cite our own good reasons besides.
Gonzalinho
Before Mary was conceived, various individuals, such as the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, received actual graces. Therefore, grace—actual graces—preexisted Mary in time. How could Mary mediate graces that preexisted her? Mary is not God, so that, unlike the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, her existence is bounded in time.
DeleteGonzalinho
A NEGATIVE JUDGMENT
ReplyDelete…Archbishop Arguelles felt so passionately about the devotion that on Nov. 12, 2009, on the 61st anniversary of Mary’s alleged final appearance to Sister Teresita, he officially lifted the 1951 ban on public veneration of the image, and formed a new commission to re-examine the apparition and related phenomena.
Once again, about a year later, the Vatican shut it down.
“We, the undersigned Archbishops and bishops, constituting for the purpose a special Commission, having attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies collected in the course of repeated, long and careful investigations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings – including the shower of petals – at the Carmel of Lipa. This declaration is the official communication of the final decision on the matter, as approved by the Holy See,” the bishops said in a statement.
But Archbishop Arguelles’ personal faith in the devotion did not budge. After declaring in another homily his personal devotion and belief in the apparitions, he released an official statement of approval of the apparitions on Sept. 12, 2015 declaring “that the events and apparition of 1948 also known as the Marian phenomenon in Lipa and its aftermath even in recent times do exhibit supernatural character and is worthy of belief.”
Which brings the saga to this past Spring, when the archbishop once again had to revoke his statement of official approval of the supernatural nature of the apparitions.
…What makes the alleged apparitions and related phenomena – the rose petals – so contentious?
O’Neill said that while it is not known for sure, there are a few reasons that the Holy See may be hesitant to declare the apparitions as supernatural.
One of these reasons, he said, may be because Sr. Teresita’s first mystical experience was actually an encounter with the devil.
“There has always been the question of whether the devil was disguised in further apparitions,” he said.
…If the document surfaced that confirmed Pope Pius XII’s approval of the negative judgement in 1951, there would be no way to reopen the case. But such a document, if it does indeed exist in this case, would be in the archives of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which only releases documents to the public, with few exceptions, once they are more than 80 years old.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/34064/the-curious-case-of-the-lipa-marian-apparitions
—Mary Farrow, “The curious case of the Lipa Marian apparitions,” Catholic News Agency, December 28, 2016
Basically, the Lipa apparitions are largely—but not entirely—repudiated because of the adverse judgment of the pope, documentary evidence of which remains presently inaccessible because of the 80-year Vatican archives ban. Notably, despite longtime promotion of the doctrine of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace, Pius XII’s official disapproval regarding the apparitions inevitably casts the aspiring Marian dogma in a negative light. Significantly, suspicion of diabolical influence further exacerbates the Holy See’s negative judgment.
Gonzalinho
There is a long and venerable Church tradition of Mary as universal Mediatrix. I have no objections to the doctrine per se. However, it should not be held as a dogma when it isn’t.
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium.
***
The exercise of the ordinary Magisterium requires only “religious assent.”
CCC 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” [5] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
NOTES
1 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
2 DV 10 # 2.
3 LG 25 # 2.
4 Cf. LG 25.
5 LG 25.
ABBREVIATIONS
LG Lumen Gentium
DS Denzinger-Schönmetzer, eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum
DV Dei Verbum
See: http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=exercised
—The Catechism of the Catholic Church in Questions and Answers
“Religious assent” is the English translation of obsequium religiousum, which occurs in Lumen Gentium 25. Although the meaning of the term has been parsed in various ways across the Roman Catholic ideological spectrum, one fundamental point maintains: it is possible for the faithful to disagree.
Although the interpretation given below, for example, by Germain Grisez, a conservative theologian is constraining, he concedes that it is possible for a non-definitive teaching to be mistaken.
“In giving religious assent, something is accepted on the authority of the pope or of one’s bishop. Thus, one submits one’s judgment to his. In doing so, one agrees with him about the point he teaches even if one would think it untrue except for his teaching. In this sense one submits one’s mind and will to his. …
“Still, authoritative teachings can be known to be mistaken. Teachings which…would call for religious assent can, however, be known to be in error. The responsibility to give religious assent therefore is limited, and its limits vary with the diverse ways in which papal and episcopal teachings, although proposed as certainly true, can be mistaken.” [boldface mine]
http://twotlj.org/G-2-1-I.html
—Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Question 1
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2020/12/work-of-god-or-work-of-man.html
Gonzalinho
Maybe a good spiritual exercise is to list the signs that Mary is being treated as equal to God in community worship in the Church and in personal interior devotion—and how in practice to correct this theological error…
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
The doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, and even more questionable, the faithful as co-redeemers, are just as problematic as Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace.
ReplyDeleteIn Opus Dei we were taught that we, the members, were called to play the role of “co-redeemers,” and no distinctions were made concerning the status of the doctrine, an approach which is defining for many Opus Dei teachings. They were dispensed as if they were dogma and not subject to further inquiry or investigation. A plain, unmistakable, and egregious instance, in my view, of religious and spiritual abuse.
Gonzalinho
Reactions to articles received at the Marian Library show that there are strong feelings in favor of and against the dogmatization of Mary Co-redemptrix. Some letters qualify as heretics those who are not favorably inclined toward a new Marian dogma. Others threaten to leave the Church if the definition should become reality.
Delete…During the International Mariological Congress at Czestochowa, Poland, August 18-23, 1996, a meeting composed of representatives from the Marian theological faculties and the Mariological societies was held to consider the advisability of petitioning the Holy See for the dogmatic definition of the Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate. This meeting at the International Mariological Congress was held at the request of the Holy See.
…There was unanimous agreement at the meeting that the Holy See not make such a declaration at this time. There were two reasons for this decision: the first dealt with the theological clarifications which must first be made, and the second dealt with the ecumenical dialogue. 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” (Lumen Gentium 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 “co-redemptrix” did not appear in the magisterium until the pontificate of Pius XII.
…The second reason the theologians gave for recommending that the Holy See not define these Marian prerogatives dealt with the ecumenical dialogue. In the encyclical Ut unum sint, Pope John Paul II outlined a path for ecumenical dialogue among all the followers of Christ. …The theologians wished to follow the line of dialogue as outlined in the encyclical as the way to promote unity among all the churches.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
Continued
Delete…Addend from a Reader
The implication of a possible papal declaration of a dogma of co-redemption seems to mean that together Christ and Mary redeemed the world. Thus, on Calvary there were two redeemers and together they were co-offering His sacrifice to the Father. As co-offering, co-sacrificing co-redeemers, Christ and Mary were mediating the grace of redemption through which they were co-mediators co-mediating man's salvation.
However, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Furthermore, Lumen Gentium, in quoting the Council of Trent on the invocation of saints, says we can seek their assistance, humbly invoking them, and having recourse to their prayers, their aid and help in obtaining from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, our only Redeemer and Savior, the benefits we need (LG, 50, Denz. 984; emphasis added).
…In the Church, man is born again through water, the Holy Spirit and Mary's spiritual motherhood. As Mother of the Church, Mary “devoted herself totally as handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under and with Him, serving the mystery of redemption” (LG, 56). To the extent that Christ takes His flesh from Mary, she makes a material and consensual, but not an efficacious or efficient, contribution to the divine work of redemption, in which “the Son of God has taken human nature from her that He might in the mystery of His flesh free man from sin” (LG, 55; emphasis added).
Her cooperation in the mystery of God's providential plan is based not so much on the redemption, sanctification or salvation of the faithful, but on the primacy of her own sanctification, which is the focus and locus of where the “divine mystery of salvation is revealed to us” (LG, 52), and where she is endowed not with the power of being a co-redeemer, but “endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit” (LG, 53; emphasis added).
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/c/co-redemptrix-as-dogma.php
—Father Johann Roten, S.M., “Co-Redemptrix as Dogma?” University of Dayton
Many important theological nuances are lost when zealots pound the drum of their fanatical, partisan religious agenda.
Gonzalinho
Recently, Pope Francis declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the one “to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as goddess, not as co-redeemer (non come dea, non come corredentrice): as Mother.” This comment generated much controversy in the Catholic world since one of Mary’s traditional titles is “Co-Redemptrix.”
DeleteSo is Mary, the mother of our Lord, co-redeemer (aka co-redemptrix) with Christ?
…what does Francis mean by “co-redeemer” when he asserts that Mary is not co-redeemer?
…It turns out, unsurprisingly, that in his published remarks Francis doesn’t actually define his terms or make a logically connected argument. He just makes a series of undefended, unexplained assertions, some of which seem to contradict the Catholic theological and magisterial tradition. So how should we understand those assertions?
According to [theologian Robert] Fastiggi:
“Understood properly, what the Holy Father says is correct. The beautiful things said about Mary—including recognizing her as co-redemptrix—subtract nothing from Christ as the only divine Redeemer. He is the God-man, the Redeemer of the human race, He, though, chose to redeem us with our cooperation and in a special way through the cooperation of his Mother, the New Eve. The Marian title ‘co-redemptrix’ can never mean placing Mary on equal footing with Christ, the Redeemer, and it certainly can never make her into a goddess. I think it’s best to understand the March 24th General Audience of Pope Francis as a warning against these false understandings of Mary as co-redemptrix.”
So according to Fastiggi, understood properly, while the pope flat-out says that Mary is not (entrusted to us as) co-redeemer, he is actually correctly recognizing her as co-redeemer.
In point of fact, however, the pope is obviously not doing that, and Fastiggi is “pope-splaining.” In reality, if it were true that Francis was only warning against false understandings of Marian doctrine, as opposed to actually misrepresenting that doctrine, then Fastiggi wouldn’t be in damage control mode, writing to explain what Francis “really meant.” Francis’s actual claim implies, rather, that the title “co-redemptrix” is in fact on a level with “goddess”—Mary is entrusted to us “not as goddess, not as co-redeemer”—and that both terms are inaccurate and misleading. Understood properly, then (that is, honestly), Francis’s actual claim is that just as Mary is not a goddess, likewise she is not a co-redeemer.
…In any case, contrary to Fastiggi’s reading, what Francis actually claims in his published remarks…does clearly enough indicate that the ideas of co-redemption and of Mary as co-redemptrix are beautiful, but false—notwithstanding that, in light of the actual traditional doctrine of co-redemption, some of the things he says would seem to imply that they are actually true after all.
…Fastiggi would do better to take an honest approach. He should just point out the obvious puzzle and/or error in Francis’s comments, and/or he should request the pope to explain himself. However, given the pope’s well-established track record of hesitancy for those who request him to explain his sometimes-dubious theological statements, it might be just as well to rest content with pointing out the error.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/is-mary-co-redeemer
—David McPike, “Is Mary Co-Redeemer?” Crisis Magazine (April 6, 2021)
“Pope-splaining”—felicitous, indeed.
Gonzalinho
Although doctrine exists at different levels of authority and certainty, Opus Dei fails to acknowledge these defining nuances. Depending on the specific point of doctrine, different degrees of adherence is required. However, in this matter Opus Dei does not allow the members to exercise their proper freedom as Roman Catholic faithful.
Deletehttps://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2020/12/work-of-god-or-work-of-man.html
Gonzalinho
You shouldn’t teach as a Roman Catholic doctrine that which isn’t, or at least, you should teach the doctrine together with its status in the Church. Intellectual integrity or simply integrity requires as much.
DeleteGonzalinho
THE DEVIL’S WORK?
ReplyDelete“A private chapel in San Jose, Batangas, where this image of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace, is said to be exuding fragrant oil”
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=899396288889107&id=100064562324642&mibextid=oFDknk&rdid=I33faxPfEWvKVI0Q
Is it the devil’s work? Happenings of this sort call for preternatural experts to weigh in. Here is where I’d be interested to hear what Father Cabading, O.P. has to say. The bishop should also weigh in, at some point.
Gonzalinho
The actual graces of the Abrahamic covenant preceded Mary’s existence, so she didn’t mediate them.
ReplyDeleteBecause she is the Mother of the Church, I suppose you could argue that she is the Mediatrix of All Grace channeled through the Church, which was founded on Pentecost.
Enthusiasm and love for Mary is wonderful, surely, but it could tip over into extremism.
I don’t understand why it’s so important that she should be the Mediatrix of All Grace—it’s a crusade that satisfies an extremist sentiment, in my view.
Doesn't moderation belong to the very definition of virtue?
Gonzalinho