Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question to Catholic Caucus (Re: St. Max Kolbe and Mary)
Militia Immaculata ^ | 5/14/2003 | Pyro7480

Posted on 05/14/2003 7:00:12 AM PDT by Pyro7480

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Pyro7480; american colleen; sinkspur; livius; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; ...
Is it doctrinally-correct to say that Mary is "so wholly divine?"

The following is from Coredemptrix On-line Publication web site.

THIS GLORIOUS TITLE of Co-Redemptress, and that of Mediatrix of all graces, which it implies, have been given Mary by the latest popes. On February 2nd, 1904, Pius X wrote in the encyclical Ad diem:

“In virtue of the communion of sorrows and of will which attached her to Christ, Mary wanted to become the worthy Reparatrix of the fallen world, and in consequence the Dispenser of all the graces Jesus acquired for us by His bloody death . . . Because she surpasses all other creatures by her sanctity and by her union with Christ, and because she was called by Christ to participate in the work of our salvation, she merits for us de congruo, as the expression is, what Christ has merited for us de condigno, and she is the first steward in the dispensing of graces.”

Benedict XV wrote similarly, March 22nd, 1918: “When her Son suffered and died, she so to say suffered and died with Him, renouncing for the salvation of men and the appeasement of the justice of God her maternal rights over her Son—and immolating her Son, as much as in her lay, so that we are entitled to say that she, with Christ, has redeemed the human race.”

And Pius XI writes, February 2nd, 1923: “The Virgin of Sorrows participated with Christ in the work of the Redemption.” The actual word Co-Redemptrix appears in two decrees of the Holy Office, dated June 26th, 1913, and January 22nd, 1914.

The consent Our Lady gave to the mystery of the Cross was already contained in the Fiat she had uttered to the angel.

Speaking of this totally free acceptance Leo XIII quotes the great sentence of St. Thomas Aquinas according to which at the instant of the Annunciation, God waited for the Virgin to utter the consent of the human race in its entirety; and he adds that in consequence none of that immense treasure of grace and truth which the Lord has brought us is communicated to us apart from Mary. He calls her our Mediatrix with the Mediator.

As we may see, the mystery of the Redemption stands in the Church like a great tree of doctrine which never ceases to flower.



The above article was taken from the book: "The Mary Book".

21 posted on 05/14/2003 10:22:49 AM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Also .............

"Why It is the Right Time for a Dogma on Mary as Coredemptrix?"

by Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, STD




Q: In a recent interview Father Stefano De Fiores spoke against the opportuneness of a definition about Mary as Coredemptrix, stating that our separated brethren should be consulted about such a definition and implying that some kind of consensus would have to be reached with them before a definition would be possible. What do you think?

Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins: My first comment is that genuine Catholic ecumenism should never be seen as a simple matter of consensus or compromise even though that impression often seems to be given today. While we Catholics should have genuine Christian love for our separated brethren and respect for their positions, we must have no less love and respect for “the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles”. Hence I do not believe that we must allow either our separated brethren or political correctness to dictate Catholic doctrine or when it is opportune to proclaim it.

Q: But doesn’t it seem unnecessary and even counter-productive to promote a definition of Mary as Coredemptrix when the question raises objections inside and outside of the Church and when so many other issues seem so much more important?

Msgr. Calkins: If Mary’s coredemptive role raises objections inside the Church, I believe it is because that there has often been an unconscious tendency on the part of Catholics in recent times to accept the fundamental Lutheran dogma of Christus solus without recognizing that Catholic doctrine has always maintained the absolute centrality and primacy of Christ but without denying the necessity of man’s collaborating with him in the work of salvation. Further, Catholic teaching from the time of the post-Apostolic Fathers has clearly upheld that no one has collaborated as fully as Mary, the “New Eve”, in the work of our salvation. This is a “saving truth” that says a great deal about Mary’s role in the economy of salvation and in our lives, about us, about the nature of salvation and the value of salvific suffering. If other questions seem more important than these, I’m afraid it is because we have lost our philosophical and theological bases and become “political” pragmatists.

Q: Father De Fiores says that “the title Coredemptrix has not been used since Pius XII and the Pontiffs do not mention it precisely so as not to cause a misunderstanding with the Protestants”. How do you respond to that?

Msgr. Calkins: The first draft of the document that would eventually become chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the term Coredemptrix as applied to Our Lady, but refrained from using it so as not to cause undue problems with our Protestant brothers and sisters. I believe that we are free to debate the wisdom of such an approach. The fact is that chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium (especially 57-58 and 60-62) gave more attention to Mary’s altogether unique collaboration in the work of our redemption than all of the other ecumenical councils combined, even though the word Coredemptrix was not used!

But a further clarification is also in order: Pope John Paul II has spoken of Our Lady as Coredemptrix or of her coredemptive role at least six times. I have most recently documented these in my article, “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium” in Mark Miravalle (ed.), Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2002) and have analyzed the weightiest of these texts, the Pope’s homily in Guayaquil, Ecuador of 31 January 1985, in my article “Pope John Paul II’s Ordinary Magisterium on Marian Coredemption: Consistent Teaching and More Recent Perspectives” in Mary at the Foot of the Cross – II (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2002). Although there are some mariologists who want to label all of these usages as “marginal therefore devoid of doctrinal weight”, I beg to differ with them and find their judgment strangely out of harmony with the declaration of Lumen Gentium 25 on the Pope’s ordinary magisterium.

Q: Why do you favor a definition of Mary as Coredemptrix?

Msgr. Calkins: I favor such a definition because I believe that this is a “saving truth” which the Church of our time especially needs to hear and assimilate. It is not a “new” truth, but it is one which the Holy Spirit has brought to the fore with ever more precision in the course of the past millennium (cf. the Pope’s general audience addresses of 25 October 1995 and of 9 April 1997). It was obviously a topic of interest at the Second Vatican Council and, as in the case of so many other conciliar themes, we are only now beginning to grasp the richness of what was said, especially with the help of Pope John Paul II’s teaching. Of course the ground needs to be prepared for such a definition and in recent years there have been excellent studies which have been devoted to this topic, especially in English and Italian. Dr. Mark Miravalle has already published four volumes of studies (cf. www.queenship.org) as have the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Frigento along with numerous monographs, while the American Friars of the Immaculate have published two volumes of scholarly studies with a third on the way (cf. http://www.marymediatrix.com). Studies of Mary’s collaboration in the work of redemption have also begun to appear in other places such as in the theological faculty of Lugano, Switzerland.


Q: What do you think would be the benefits of such a definition?

Msgr. Calkins: If it is true that God has given Mary a unique role in the work of our redemption, we need to recognize it, to celebrate it and to benefit from it. The first four Marian dogmas (divine maternity, perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption) have to do with her person and have unfolded in a providential way. Now, I believe, is the time to underscore her role as the principal human collaborator in the work of our redemption, her role as the Mediatrix whose unique mediation derives totally from his (cf. Lumen Gentium #60), her role as Advocate (after Christ and the Holy Spirit) who never ceases to intercede for her children until the last of them are led into their heavenly home (cf. Lumen Gentium 62). The more we avert to her role, the more we can be enriched by it. I believe that the benefits with regard to clarification of Catholic doctrine alone would be incalculable.


Curriculum Vitæ of Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins:

Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins is a native of Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. and was ordained a priest on 7 May 1970 for the Archdiocese of New Orleans where he served in various parishes as parochial vicar and was involved in other pastoral activities. He has a master\'s degree in theology from the Catholic University of America, a licentiate in sacred theology with specialization in Mariology from the International Marian Research Institute in Dayton and a doctorate which he earned summa cum laude in the same field from the Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure (the Seraphicum) in Rome. His doctoral study, Totus Tuus: John Paul II\'s Program of Marian Consecration and Entrustment (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate Studies and Texts, No. 1), has gone into three printings. His articles on Mariology and spirituality have appeared in both popular and scholarly publications as well as in the acts of congresses and symposia. The list of his publications may be found at http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/calkinsbib.html. He was named a corresponding member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy in 1985 and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy in 1995. He has been an official of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei since 1991 and was named a Chaplain of His Holiness with the title of Monsignor in 1997.



The above text is an interview with Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, Member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, conducted by KATH.NET staff.



22 posted on 05/14/2003 10:24:03 AM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
St. Maximilian wrote in Polish, so this may be poorly translated.

Elsewhere St. Maximilian compared Our Lady to a pane of glass and Our Lord to the sun - that while she is a mere creature completely distinct from God (as a pane of glass is distinct from the sun that shines through it) she is so receptive to God's grace that it suffuses her entire being.

This is comparable to the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis or the divinization of every saint.

It is also the message of St. Paul that "It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me."

23 posted on 05/14/2003 10:30:56 AM PDT by wideawake (Support our troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
I realize the rationale, but in so extrapolating have you distorted the truth and introduced confusion at best. My problem with theotokos is that the term while true in one sense lends itself to many wrong conclusions and deductions.

'tis no more dangerous to the ill-educated, in fact much less so, than proclaiming that salvation is by "faith alone."

SD

24 posted on 05/14/2003 10:36:33 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
***I don't construe ... the phrase wholly divine as denoting that Mary is a divine person.***

Why not?
25 posted on 05/14/2003 10:43:06 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
***'tis no more dangerous to the ill-educated, in fact much less so, than proclaiming that salvation is by "faith alone."***

That will cost you a Cradinal's hat in the Pope Piel papacy.
26 posted on 05/14/2003 10:45:13 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Heresy often arises out of such speculation beyond the bounds of Scripture.

Yeah, speculations like "Sola scriptura" or "Trinity" for that matter, huh? Speculation and interpretation of scripture is baaaaad. Let's only go with the plain, literal sense of scripture (with the obvous exception of John 6).

27 posted on 05/14/2003 10:48:15 AM PDT by Polycarp (Fellow Catholic Kooks and Cranks of America (CKCA'ers), UNITE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Why not?

Because as a Catholic, I know what the Church teaches. I live in a part of the country that is overwhelmingly Catholic and I have never, ever met any Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary or thinks/believes she is equal to the Trinity. Far from it.

28 posted on 05/14/2003 10:48:22 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; Pyro7480
"This doesn't bother you too? It ascribes the role of the Holy Spirit to Mary. Might as well make her divine."

First of all it is important to keep in mind this is a translation.

Don't you think Mary was saturated with the Holy Spirit? Could she have done what she was called to do without being so saturated?

The latin divinus has application as god-like but also as heavenly. Also keep in mind she is called Queen of the Universe.
29 posted on 05/14/2003 10:48:22 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Bump to all this. Very well explained.
30 posted on 05/14/2003 10:52:02 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
The adjective divine does not necessarily and exclusively denote a divine person, any more than the adjective human necessarily and exclusively denotes a human person. For example, Jesus is one person -- a divine person -- not two persons -- a divine person and a human person, yet we still say that he was human.
31 posted on 05/14/2003 10:52:37 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Thanks! When one reads in English, you sometimes forget that sometimes things are translated. But I also like eastsider's explanation in post #16.
32 posted on 05/14/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
Thanks for your explanation! We've been getting some good answers on this thread. :-)
33 posted on 05/14/2003 10:54:42 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Eastsider's explanation is excellent. It's just that something which sounds completely unexceptionable in a foreign tongue can often sound "off" or off-putting when more or less literally translated.

I remember reading a story in German class in which someone went into a Fleischerei (literally "fleshery") - which I assumed was a house of ill repute - and learned that it was German for a butcher shop.

34 posted on 05/14/2003 11:04:25 AM PDT by wideawake (Support our troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
***I don't construe ... the phrase wholly divine as denoting that Mary is a divine person.***

Why not?

Because:
#1, The word "divine," as shown has more than one meaning. It need not mean a person who is a god, it can indicate one who is in service to a diety. When we say that a piece of cheesecake is "divine" we don't mean it is god, we mean it is good enough, worthy enough to serve to God.

#2, Because that interpretation is outside of all of the teaching of Catholicism. One needs a certain measure of paranoia in order to believe that the rest of Catholic teaching is a mere "cover" for the true teaching that Mary is divine, carefully hidden in this one obscure place. And we would have gotten away with it to, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

SD

35 posted on 05/14/2003 11:07:01 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; wideawake; drstevej
As we can see from the discussion on this thread, a significant part of this issue is language and making assumptions. If one sees a word such as "divine" or "Mediatrix," one can jump to conclusions. However if one has the proper background in what the Catholic Church teaches and how they explain the teaching, the issue is largely cleared up. Some may stil disagree with the teaching, but they can't say it's not based in faith and/or reason.
36 posted on 05/14/2003 11:13:30 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I ascribe the phrase "wholly divine" to poetic hyperbole. This is somewhat justifiable since Mary never sinned, and is the holiest human being who ever lived. This kind of hyperbole rankles a lot of people, especially non-Catholics. It's the theological equivalent of "my love, my light, my reason for being, my sugar-bunny..." For obvious prudential reasons, this kind of rhetoric should be avoided in apologetics.
37 posted on 05/14/2003 11:21:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Thanks. :-) See posts #16 and #35.
38 posted on 05/14/2003 11:25:14 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
"So at first glance, it seems wrong to call her "so wholly divine." What do you think?"

In a sense it is right to call every Christian divine, because through the sacraments God bestows His very own divine life on us and in us. The sacraments are "the great and precious promises" by which we are made partakers of the divine nature (Sacramentum in Latin literally means oath or promise (str.)):

2 Peter 1:3 "As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue.
4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these YOU MAY BE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world."

The goal of our lives as Catholics is to be transformed more and more into likenesses of Christ by yielding to that divine nature abiding in us. In other words being forever bathed in that justifying and sanctifying grace which transforms us into sons and daughters of God.

Because Mary is without sin, and so put no obstacle in the way of that divine nature, it is quite acceptable to describe her as "wholly divine". Her theosis or divinisation is fully complete. She was and is the perfect spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her motherhood of all believers is a divine motherhood.

As St. Athanasius once said "God became man in order that men might become gods."
39 posted on 05/14/2003 12:32:59 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Thanks so much! Your post is a really good answer. :-)
40 posted on 05/14/2003 12:46:34 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson