Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => General Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 08:04:05 AM

Title: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 08:04:05 AM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2019, 08:23:52 AM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?
Yes, this is totally unorthodox; but what was his source for this?
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?
Yes, this is totally unorthodox; but what was his source for this?

There’s a very strong movement within Catholicism for it, and it’s spurred on by some 19th century Papal Quotes and Marian apparitions.

See “Marian Movement of Priests.”

In 2008, there was also a letter sent by 5 cardinals to have Benedict confirm it as a dogma, which he never did.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 08:51:55 AM
With no disrespect to Xavier’s subjective relationship to God, because I’m sure he’s zealous, I am kind of baffled by this opinion and how people want it defined. Do people who have actually studied Church History, objectively, really believe that the Apostolic Church believed that Mary suffered and merited our Salvation? And why do people think it’s wise or expedient to force dogmatic definitions on people not based on answering a controversy, but because Fr. Andrew down the street had the Virgin tell him to ask the Pope to do so?

In my “Weird Vagante groups” section, I noticed how the Palmarian Catholic Church dogmatized doctrine that was revealed by apparitions, and I noted how it seemed like a parody of Catholic declarations made by Protestants - how the Virgin Mary is in the Eucharist, or how St. Joseph was immaculately conceived.

But this, the idea that the Virgin Mary merited our Salvation by her suffering...

Why do people think it’s wise or expedient to define dogmas revealed from apparitions?
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 08:53:01 AM
Honestly, I'm not trying to scandalize with this one. All sorts of heterodoxies and contentious opinions abound here, and I'm guilty myself, but I'm seriously shocked by that statement.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 11, 2019, 09:15:40 AM
Running away, are we? When you said, "I really don't care what Alphonsus Liguori had to say. His "Glories of Mary" is a work of blasphemous idolatry.", you showed how ridiculous and anti-Catholic is your thinking. You exalt yourself above such a holy Doctor with great temerity and false accusations against him.

Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces, and She made congruous (not condign) satisfaction for all sins, like Pope St. Pius X teaches us. I proved that there from Popes, Doctors and Saints already, when you began rejecting them all. I'm not going to do that again here. Better humble yourself and read St. Alphonsus again with docility, if you love Jesus Christ and His Only True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Pope St. Pius X: "11. If then the most Blessed Virgin is the Mother at once of God and men, who can doubt that she will work with all diligence to procure that Christ, Head of the Body of the Church (Coloss. i., 18), may transfuse His gifts into us, His members, and above all that of knowing Him and living through Him (I John iv., 9)?

12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist"My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html Going to reject this also, aren't you? The Popes have fully endorsed the teaching of the Fathers, Scriptures, Saints, Prophets and Apostles on Mary as Queen of Martyrs.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 09:25:47 AM
Running away, are we?

Err, no.


Quote
When you said, "I really don't care what Alphonsus Liguori had to say. His "Glories of Mary" is a work of blasphemous idolatry.", you showed how ridiculous and anti-Catholic is your thinking. You exalt yourself above such a holy Doctor with great temerity and false accusations against him.

This is your "holy Doctor", quoting the Hellenizer Bonaventure:

If my Redeemer rejects me on
account of my sins, and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast
myself at those of His beloved Mother Mary, and there I will remain
prostrate until she has obtained my forgiveness ; for this Mother of
Mercy knows not, and has never known, how to do otherwise than
compassionate the miserable, and comply with the desires of the most
destitute who fly to her for succour; and therefore if not by duty, at
least by compassion, she will engage her Son to pardon me.


This is blasphemy and a wretched misconception of the Christian God.


Quote
Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces, and She made congruous (not condign) satisfaction for all sins, like Pope St. Pius X teaches us. I proved that there from Popes, Doctors and Saints already,

No, you didn't. Your proved that 19th+ century popes and some second millennium saints held and taught that. You may as well - and if you were logically consistent you would - quote the Vatican II "saints" and popes on modernist doctrines.


Quote
when you began rejecting them all. I'm not going to do that again here. Better humble yourself and read St. Alphonsus again with docility, if you love Jesus Christ and His Only True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

I don't read idolaters with docility.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 09:34:57 AM
Unboudtedly 2,000 years lie between this and the faith of the Apostles, and it's nowhere as apparent as the Roman church, whether it's Mary cults, Ultramontanism, Modernism, LGBT-ism or whatever. With the Amzon synod and pagan rituals being held in the Vatican before the Bishop of Rome, those schismatic Eastern Orthodox are looking more and more Apostolic by the hour. Rome is become a pagan madhouse. That the Prots got it wrong doesn't mean Rome had it right.

I don't say this with any kind of glee. It's very upsetting to me.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: aquinas138 on October 11, 2019, 10:09:10 AM
Even if "co-redemptrix" is a title admitting of an orthodox understanding, that understanding certainly isn't that the Virgin merited all graces for us and made satisfaction for our sins. The whole Roman logic of satisfaction is that the infinite debt of our offenses against the Infinite God cannot be paid by finite beings, which no matter how exalted she is, the Virgin is definitely a finite being.

Honestly, this stuff seems like it is designed purely to be provocative to Protestants and relies on peculiar understandings of words to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. Whatever good is thought to come from such a definition, I can't see how it isn't outweighed by the almost certain heretical misconceptions that would arise.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 11, 2019, 10:15:14 AM
Quote
This is your "holy Doctor", quoting the Hellenizer Bonaventure:

Hellenizer? Does your depravity know no bounds?

Quote from: St. Alphonsus
If my Redeemer rejects me on account of my sins, and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast myself at those of His beloved Mother Mary, and there I will remain prostrate until she has obtained my forgiveness ; for this Mother of Mercy knows not, and has never known, how to do otherwise than compassionate the miserable, and comply with the desires of the most destitute who fly to her for succour; and therefore if not by duty, at least by compassion, she will engage her Son to pardon me.

Amen.

Quote
This is blasphemy

You just committed mortal sin by accusing a holy Doctor of "blasphemy", "blasphemous idolatry", and "hellenizing". You should repent of those mortal sins and confess them at earliest opportunity. But given your vehement opposition to the Saints, it is unsuprising you don't shrink from accusing such manifestly holy and pious men of "blasphemy", yourself thereby blaspheming God in His Saints.

Quote
Your proved that 19th+ century popes and some second millennium saints held and taught that

And that's a sufficient proof. You also apply a false hermeneutic to second and first millenium Saints. If one of the latter agrees with the doctrine, as when Saint Irenaeus says "Mary became the cause of salvation to Herself and the whole human race", you try to interpret that in a twisted way, while not attacking the Saint. If Saint Bonaventure or Saint Alphonsus says the same, you attack the Saint.

Elsewhere, I proved the Filioque Dogma is true, and Photian Monopatrism is a heresy invented in the 9th century. St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril, St. Leo and countless Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes rejected that heresy and taught the Filioque Dogma; yet, you want to run away to a group that will make you renounce the dogma and profess that heresy.

Quote
I don't read idolaters with docility.

How utterly shameless to call St. Alphonsus an idolater. St. Alphonsus was so holy that his worst enemies had nothing bad to say about him, and his foulest critic could not assail his indisputably great learning and fidelity to Scripture and Tradition.

I weep for you. That's all I can say. Pray more. Love Jesus and Mary. Strive to be holy. You will never find peace or salvation outside the Catholic Church. I hope you learn that the easy way by never leaving the Catholic Faith in the first place, rather than the hard way.

You've been threatening to apostatize for a while now from the Roman Catholic Church, and insulting or rejecting many of the Saints.

True devotion to Mary is very necessary to gain the grace of final perseverance from Christ. That's why we pray the Rosary, wear the Scapular, frequent the Sacraments, confess our sins and assist at Holy Mass in union with Christ Crucified. You can easily save your soul as a good Catholic, as even most non-Catholics admit. You cannot save your soul by deserting Mary and abandoning the Church, which is deserting and abandoning Christ.

"St. Montfort from Catholic Tradition: "All the true children of God, the predestinate, have God for their Father and Mary for their Mother. He who has not Mary for his Mother has not God for his Father. This is the reason that reprobates such as heretics, schismatics, and others, who hate Our Blessed Lady or who regard her with contempt and indifference, do not have God for their Father, however much they boast of it, simply because they do not have Mary for their Mother . . . The most infallible and indisputable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady... The reprobate care next-to-nothing for devotion to Our Blessed Lady, the Mother of the predestinate . . . They do not consider devotion to her necessary for salvation." http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary18d.htm ...
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: bigbadtrad on October 11, 2019, 10:16:03 AM
Xavier: quotes a Sainted Pope and doctors of the Church
Kreuz: considers Doctors/Popes blasphemers & idolators

Let me think who's side to be on. Hmmm...
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Bernadette on October 11, 2019, 10:19:22 AM
I love our Blessed Mother, and I love reading The Glories of Mary, but I can't see how she merited all of the graces we receive. She contributed , more than any other human person, to the treasury of merit in the Church which is applied to us in Indulgences, but that's quite a different thing from personally meriting all of the graces we receive. I can understand how Christ wills that we receive all grace through the hands of Our Blessed Lady, but again, that's a different thing.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:01:38 AM
Quote
This is your "holy Doctor", quoting the Hellenizer Bonaventure:

Hellenizer? Does your depravity know no bounds?

Yes, a Scholastic Hellenizer who perverted the Christian faith with his Greek philosophical religion, the doctrines of Greek pederasts like Aristotle who are burning in Hell.

Quote
Quote from: St. Alphonsus
If my Redeemer rejects me on account of my sins, and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast myself at those of His beloved Mother Mary, and there I will remain prostrate until she has obtained my forgiveness ; for this Mother of Mercy knows not, and has never known, how to do otherwise than compassionate the miserable, and comply with the desires of the most destitute who fly to her for succour; and therefore if not by duty, at least by compassion, she will engage her Son to pardon me.

Amen.

Figures. The god of your heart wears a dress.

Quote
Quote
This is blasphemy

You just committed mortal sin by accusing a holy Doctor of "blasphemy", "blasphemous idolatry", and "hellenizing".

No, I didn't. The quotation above is repugnant to the Gospel. Further, the Scholastics were demonstrably Hellenizers.

Quote
You should repent of those mortal sins and confess them at earliest opportunity. But given your vehement opposition to the Saints, it is unsuprising you don't shrink from accusing such manifestly holy and pious men of "blasphemy", yourself thereby blaspheming God in His Saints.

I'm not the one who's blaspheming God by painting a grotesque picture of Jesus, who alone suffered and died on the cross for every one of us, rejecting repentant sinners and Christians having to grovel before Mary to receive mercy. And as if Mary were more merciful than God! How dare you.

Quote
Quote
Your proved that 19th+ century popes and some second millennium saints held and taught that

And that's a sufficient proof.

No, it's not without your Ultramontanist presuppositions.

Quote
You also apply a false hermeneutic to second and first millenium Saints. If one of the latter agrees with the doctrine, as when Saint Irenaeus says "Mary became the cause of salvation to Herself and the whole human race", you try to interpret that in a twisted way, while not attacking the Saint. If Saint Bonaventure or Saint Alphonsus says the same, you attack the Saint.

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm taking the plain meaning of the text in a context that is explicitly given by numerous Fathers: Mary was instrumental in our redemption through her agreement to bear Jesus, the God-man. You're the one foisting another meaning onto that, a meaning that is not mentioned by a single Father.

Quote
Elsewhere, I proved the Filioque Dogma is true, and Photian Monopatrism is a heresy invented in the 9th century. St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril, St. Leo and countless Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes rejected that heresy and taught the Filioque Dogma; yet, you want to run away to a group that will make you renounce the dogma and profess that heresy.

You have a very liberal conception of what a "proof" is.

Quote
Quote
I don't read idolaters with docility.

How utterly shameless to call St. Alphonsus an idolater. St. Alphonsus was so holy that his worst enemies had nothing bad to say about him, and his foulest critic could not assail his indisputably great learning and fidelity to Scripture and Tradition.

The Glories of Mary is a work of Mariolatry. It crosses the line of hyperdulia into a wretched goddess worship that I can barely read a page of without feeling ill.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:04:10 AM
Xavier: quotes a Sainted Pope and doctors of the Church

Kreuz: considers Doctors/Popes blasphemers & idolators

Let me think who's side to be on. Hmmm...

If you think this statement is alright

Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

and you think these are words worthy of a Doctor of the Church

Quote
If my Redeemer rejects me on
account of my sins, and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast
myself at those of His beloved Mother Mary, and there I will remain
prostrate until she has obtained my forgiveness ; for this Mother of
Mercy knows not, and has never known, how to do otherwise than
compassionate the miserable, and comply with the desires of the most
destitute who fly to her for succour; and therefore if not by duty, at
least by compassion, she will engage her Son to pardon me.

Then you're clearly not on my side.

But yeah, go after me for defending the Gospel and the dogma of the Council of Trent on the ONE REDEEMER because of non-infallible statements.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: bigbadtrad on October 11, 2019, 11:10:14 AM
Let me be clear I'm on the Catholic side. By extension that means Xavier.

If you think you're right become a theologian and give us the correct doctrine or realize there is no one a lone wolf dissenter can ever rally the troops around their dissent. What you want to accomplish is impossible.

You cannot just write dissent against the Church without having the means to unify people. At that point you would just want to descend people into chaos.

You cannot place yourself ahead of saints and popes without realizing there is no one way anyone could follow your thoughts cohesively. It would just be another false religion started today.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: revival2029 on October 11, 2019, 11:11:00 AM
She is the Queen of Heaven
Is a superior conjointly in Heaven with Jesus
Is the greatest among the created
and is the Mystical City of God

But to be saved one must have Jesus Christ as King of their Soul and he enters explicitly through the Eucharist and essentially through Baptism by water.  Period.  End of Story.

If we come to find out that the Eucharist also contains Mary body and blood I will change my tune.

The truth is precise and can err either way, and I honestly do not think we have quite grasped this complex doctrine completely yet.

It was Jesus through the microchimerism that entered her body permanently, so she literally had the tissue of Jesus in her body after birth.
It was Jesus that became King of her soul through the Eucharist.
It was Jesus that enveloped her soul completely, inside and out.
Which is why praying to Mary is praying to Jesus.

Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:15:28 AM
Quote
You've been threatening to apostatize for a while now from the Roman Catholic Church

The "visible" Roman church has itself apostatised, with the Bishop of Rome leading the charge. And if that can happen, which it undoubtedly has, then it's totally unclear when it went off the rails. With Bergoglio? With Vatican II? With Vatican I? With the Scholastics? With the Eastern Schism?

Quote
, and insulting or rejecting many of the Saints.

Most people here reject saints like JPII etc. The only difference between me and them is I have no reason to set a limit at a date of 1960-something.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 11, 2019, 11:16:50 AM
Hi Bernadette. This is Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, "For the same reason, all that Christ merited for us on the Cross in strict justice, Mary merited for us by congruous merit, based on the charity that united her to God. Christ alone, as head of the human race, could strictly merit to transmit Divine life to us. But Pius X sanctioned the teaching of theologians when he wrote: "Mary, united to Christ in the work of salvation, merited de congruo for us what Christ merited for us de condigno." [18]

This common teaching of theologians, thus sanctioned by the sovereign pontiffs, has for its principal traditional basis the fact that Mary is called in all Greek and Latin tradition the new Eve, Mother of all men in regard to the life of the soul, as Eve was in regard to the life of the body. It stands to reason that the spiritual mother of all men ought to give them spiritual life, not as the principal physical cause (for God alone can be the principal physical cause of Divine grace), but as the moral cause by merit de congruo, merit de condigno being reserved to Christ. [Essentially Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange refers to the theological concept of strict or full merit, owed directly because of the equality between the one rendering the service and the service itself,(justice) versus proportionate merit [charity, love.---The Web Master.]

The Office and Mass proper to Mary Mediatrix assemble the principal testimonies of Tradition on this point with their scriptural foundations, in particular the clear-cut statements of St. Ephrem, the glory of the Syriac Church, of St. Germanus of Constantinople, of St. Bernard, and of St. Bernardine of Siena. Even as early as the second and third centuries, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian insisted on the parallel between Eve and Mary, and showed that if the first concurred in our fall, the second collaborated in our redemption. [19]" http://www.catholictradition.org/Christ/mediatrix.htm

I hope it is clear that I meant secondary and subordinate merit by congruous merit. That is the way Pope St. Pius X and Fr. G-L explain it here. Mary merited by congruous merit, they teach, all that Christ alone merited for us condignly, i.e. in strict justice.

Right, BigBadTrad. It's one thing for Catholics even to say, "I highly respect the Doctors of the Church, but I have some slight doubts/questions/reservations about Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces or Co-Redemptrix with Christ. I would accept it if the Church defines it infallibly, but I question it until then". That would be legitimate. Unfortunately, attacking Saints and Doctors as idolaters isn't.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:19:19 AM
Let me be clear I'm on the Catholic side. By extension that means Xavier.

If you think you're right become a theologian and give us the correct doctrine or realize there is no one a lone wolf dissenter can ever rally the troops around their dissent. What you want to accomplish is impossible.

The lone wolf opinion here is this one:

Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.


If you agree with it, you're heterodox.

Quote
You cannot just write dissent against the Church without having the means to unify people. At that point you would just want to descend people into chaos.

You cannot place yourself ahead of saints and popes without realizing there is no one way anyone could follow your thoughts cohesively. It would just be another false religion started today.

Affirm Amoris Laetitia and the Amazon Synod then.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:21:55 AM
Quote
This common teaching of theologians

Accept the Novus Ordo cult then. Accept Bergoglio's teachings. They are the common teaching of today's theologians and explicitly endorsed by the Pope, opposed only by conservative minorities and trad outliers.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 11, 2019, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter
Yes, a Scholastic Hellenizer...

Shameless rubbish. The Seraphic Doctor was esteemed and venerated highly for his learning and sanctity even in his lifetime. When St. Thomas heard that St. Bonaventure was writing the biography of Saint Francis, St. Thomas said, "Let us leave a Saint to write of another Saint." St. Bonaventure admirably defended the Catholic Doctrine against the errors of the Greek Church that you seem so infatuated with. St. Thomas had written an excellent work on the subject, after a very detailed study of Scripture and Tradition. St. Bonaventure defended it at Lyons II. Thanks to that, so many Greek Christians became Catholic for a while. After Florence, the same happened temporarily.

St. Bonaventure was a very holy Doctor who lived his life and wrote his works only for the glory of God and the honor of His Mother.

Quote
Figures. The god of your heart wears a dress.

Figures that I receive the teachings and prayers of the Doctors of the Church with docility, as every Catholic should? The God of my heart is Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Who became Flesh of His Virgin Mother, and Whose Sacred Heart is One with Her Immaculate Heart in all things by Love and Grace. He associated Her with Him in all His work from His Infancy to Her Assumption.

Quote
The Glories of Mary is a work of Mariolatry.

Treason and Blasphemy against God and His Church. It is a work of the highest orthodoxy, the purest devotion that rightly venerates Mary with Hyperdulia. It was written by a Saint and Doctor and has been approved and commended by other Popes and Saints highly.

Quote
I can barely read a page of without feeling ill.

That is a sad testament of your current spiritual state in and of itself. But blaming the Doctor and the Popes who praised the work for that is like blaming the thermometer for showing you have an otherwise easily remediable fever. The right thing to do would be to admit something must be wrong, spend time receiving the healing grace of the Sacraments, and to say your Rosaries and other prayers for healing and illumination from God. God has enlightened His Church through the Doctors He has raised up in every age since the Apostles. We are not going to throw out 2000 years of Catholic Tradition that has ever produced the highest fruits when it's adhered to.

As for today's modern crisis, it is like the Arian one that will be cleared up in good time by those whom God will raise up. He raised up St. Athanasius, and Arianism that had sprung up for a short while even after the Council of Nicaea died. He many times condemned Modernism and denial of His doctrines through His holy Vicar Pope St. Pius X. Today's dissenters openly admit they reject many doctrines of the Church. We're not going to fight them by rejecting all or thousands of years of Tradition and denying dogmas like Filioque. Not at all. We're going to fight them by prayer, holiness, firmly adhering to all the dogmas of the Church. God will do the rest.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter
Yes, a Scholastic Hellenizer...

Shameless rubbish. The Seraphic Doctor was esteemed and venerated highly for his learning and sanctity even in his lifetime. When St. Thomas heard that St. Bonaventure was writing the biography of Saint Francis, St. Thomas said, "Let us leave a Saint to write of another Saint." St. Bonaventure admirably defended the Catholic Doctrine against the errors of the Greek Church that you seem so infatuated with. St. Thomas had written an excellent work on the subject, after a very detailed study of Scripture and Tradition. St. Bonaventure defended it at Lyons II. Thanks to that, so many Greek Christians became Catholic for a while. After Florence, the same happened temporarily.

Nothing you've written there has anything to do with the issue of Hellenization through Greek pagan philosophy. Aquinas was another Hellenizer.



Quote
Quote
Figures. The god of your heart wears a dress.

Figures that I receive the teachings and prayers of the Doctors of the Church with docility, as every Catholic should?

Figure that you would think Jesus Christ would reject a repentant sinner, requiring us to run to his more merciful mother.


Quote
Quote
The Glories of Mary is a work of Mariolatry.

Heresy, Treason and Blasphemy.

Keep shaking your skinny little fists at me. Heresy is a denial of defined dogma and blasphemy is only possible against God. As for "treason", I never signed up for the religion expressed in that book.

Quote
We are not going to throw out 2000 years of Catholic Tradition that has ever produced the highest fruits when it's adhered to.

The contents of The Glories of Mary being "2000 years of Catholic Tradition" ... you're insane.

Quote
As for today's modern crisis, it is like the Arian one that will be cleared up in good time by those whom God will raise up. He raised up St. Athanasius, and Arianism that had sprung up for a short while even after the Council of Nicaea died. He many times condemned Modernism and denial of His doctrines through His holy Vicar Pope St. Pius X. Today's dissenters openly admit they reject many doctrines of the Church. We're not going to fight them by rejecting all or thousands of years of Tradition and denying dogmas like Filioque. Not at all. We're going to fight them by prayer, holiness, firmly adhering to all the dogmas of the Church. God will do the rest.

Cognitive dissonance. Vatican I is falsified. Game over.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 11, 2019, 12:03:09 PM
Quote
Aquinas was another Hellenizer.

St. Thomas was another great Saint whom you contemptuously insult. You've already sided with the heterodox Greeks 99.99%. You should know the Greek Orthodox themselves once highly esteemed St. Thomas, like the Patriarch who said "O most excellent Thomas! Why did Heaven give you birth in the West". St. Thomas was a man who loved Christ Crucified, the Holy Eucharist, the Mother of God.

Quote
Figure that you would think Jesus Christ would reject a repentant sinner, requiring us to run to his more merciful mother.

More rubbish. Jesus Christ has given us His Mother as our Mother and as an intercessor; that's why He first said His time had not yet come at Cana, but then worked the miracle after Her intercession. I suppose you must believe Moses and Abraham are "more merciful than God", since He Himself raised them up to intercede before Him. No, His Mercy appoints intercessors for us, which you ignore.

Quote
blasphemy is only possible against God

Figures from your Protestant thinking that you would think this, but it's not true: "BLASPHEMY Definition: Speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner. Included under blasphemy are offenses committed by thought, word, or action. Serious contemptuous ridicule of the saints, sacred objects, or of persons consecrated to God is also blasphemous because God is indirectly attacked." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32193 and "Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by Bacon when in his "Advancement of Learning" he speaks of "blasphemy against learning". St. Paul tells of being blasphemed (1 Corinthians 4:13) and the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (2 Samuel 21:21; 1 Chronicles 20:7) or against individuals (1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus 3:2)" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

Quote
The Glories of Mary being "2000 years of Catholic Tradition

Yes, of course it is. Through and through. It would hardly be possible to document in a short post how many and how great are the numerous, holy and highly learned ancient authorities from whom St. Alphonsus proves what he teaches there in admirable depth.

Someone who hasn't read it before can read it for themselves and see that it is: http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

See also: "Fr. Miller says that St. Alphonsus Liguori, as a published author, has no competitors: «The most popular author, who ever lived, was St. Alphonsus Liguori, and he never wrote a novel. No other writer, sacred or profane (we are not speaking of the Holy Bible, which is a class by itself), ancient or modern, has had so many different editions of his works published as St. Alphonsus.»” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623-624)" https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html

And "(Way of the Cross & Visits to the Bl. Sacrament) “St. Alphonsus’ Way of the Cross and Visits to the Blessed Sacrament give familiar testimony to his devotion to the sacred humanity of Christ. These are his works most published in English, and in fact all languages. According to a count made in 1933, the Way of the Cross had at that time been published 63 times in English and 890 times in all; the Visits had been published 54 times in English and 2,009 times in all.” (Source: Thirthy-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 616)

(Pius IX) “One can in fact assert that there has not been one error even in our times which Alphonsus, at least in great measure, did not fight against ... (Immaculate Conception and St. Alphonsus) «Due to the effort of this popular Mariologist [St. Alphonsus], -the most influential in the history of modern Catholicism- the way was made easy for the ultimate triumph of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.» (Albert Hauck in ‘Realencyclopedie’, Vol. XII, p. 326, quoted in ‘Irish Ecclesiastical Record’ 82:391). St. Alphonsus entered the lists against Louis Muratori, Father of Italian History, who denied the Immaculate Conception, and defended it vigorously.” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 618)

(Immaculate Conception and St. Alphonsus) “Pope Pius IX asks: «Are not the things we have solemnly approved concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother of God and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff when teaching ex cathedra … found and most clearly explained, and demonstrated with the strongest arguments, in the works of St. Alphonsus?» (Decree conferring the title of Doctor of the Church).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 618)” (Source: Qui Ecclesiae Suae, Apostolic Letter, Pius IX, Rome, 1871)"

Quote
Game over.

It was game over for the schismatic Orthodox 1000 years ago, when they denied the Filioque Dogma after it was clearly proved. Vatican I speaks of ex cathedra doctrinal infallibility, and the only cognitive dissonance is yours if you think that has been falsified. The only ex cathedra infallible declaration of doctrine in recent times was made by Pope John Paul II on ordaining only men, but that has been rejected by those who don't believe in infallibility.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: bigbadtrad on October 11, 2019, 12:14:08 PM
Xavier ignore him.

You can't have a meaningful discussion without a starting point. If saints and holy popes are idolators and blasphemers there is no common point.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 12:23:32 PM
Feminists, New Atheists, Mormons, Marxists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, Xavier ... you're all the same, and you all employ the same apologetic methods. Everyone on the outside can see how trite your pseudo-arguments are and what a ridiculous pose you strike.

Quote
Quote
Aquinas was another Hellenizer.

St. Thomas was another great Saint whom you contemptuously insult.


And a Hellenizer who moulded Christian clay into the structure of Aristotelian ideology, the doctrine of a boy-buggering pederast.

Quote
Quote
Figure that you would think Jesus Christ would reject a repentant sinner, requiring us to run to his more merciful mother.

More rubbish. Jesus Christ has given us His Mother as our Mother and as an intercessor; that's why He first said His time had not yet come at Cana, but then worked the miracle after Her intercession.

This has nothing to do with my point. Jesus Christ does not turn away any repentant sinner. Ever. Nothing, nothing at all, can separate us from hsi love and mercy when we sincerely cry out to him. And to say otherwise is to deny the Sacrament of Penance.

Quote
I suppose you must believe Moses and Abraham are "more merciful than God", since He Himself raised them up to intercede before Him. No, His Mercy appoints intercessors for us, which you ignore.

You are incredibly stupid if you think that's why I called Mary "more merciful" as implied by Bonaventure's disgraceful words.

Quote
Quote
blasphemy is only possible against God

Figures from your Protestant thinking that you would think this, but it's not true: "BLASPHEMY Definition: Speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner. Included under blasphemy are offenses committed by thought, word, or action. Serious contemptuous ridicule of the saints, sacred objects, or of persons consecrated to God is also blasphemous because God is indirectly attacked."

I don't accept your definition of a word, and there is no such thing as a true definition.


Quote
Quote
The Glories of Mary being "2000 years of Catholic Tradition

Yes, of course it is. Through and through.

DE-LUSIONAL.

Quote
It would hardly be possible to document in a short post how many and how great are the numerous, holy and highly learned ancient authorities from whom St. Alphonsus proves what he teaches there

Yeah ... we've already established what you regard to be "proof".

Quote
in admirable depth.

Could you just once try speaking like a human being instead of with this affected hyperbole.

Quote
See also: "Fr. Miller says that St. Alphonsus Liguori, as a published author, has no competitors: «The most popular author, who ever lived, was St. Alphonsus Liguori, and he never wrote a novel. No other writer, sacred or profane (we are not speaking of the Holy Bible, which is a class by itself), ancient or modern, has had so many different editions of his works published as St. Alphonsus.»” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623-624)" https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html

Shakespeare.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote
And "(Way of the Cross & Visits to the Bl. Sacrament) “St. Alphonsus’ Way of the Cross and Visits to the Blessed Sacrament give familiar testimony to his devotion to the sacred humanity of Christ. These are his works most published in English, and in fact all languages. According to a count made in 1933, the Way of the Cross had at that time been published 63 times in English and 890 times in all; the Visits had been published 54 times in English and 2,009 times in all.” (Source: Thirthy-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 616)

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote
(Pius IX) “One can in fact assert that there has not been one error even in our times which Alphonsus, at least in great measure, did not fight against ... (Immaculate Conception and St. Alphonsus) «Due to the effort of this popular Mariologist [St. Alphonsus], -the most influential in the history of modern Catholicism- the way was made easy for the ultimate triumph of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.» (Albert Hauck in ‘Realencyclopedie’, Vol. XII, p. 326, quoted in ‘Irish Ecclesiastical Record’ 82:391). St. Alphonsus entered the lists against Louis Muratori, Father of Italian History, who denied the Immaculate Conception, and defended it vigorously.” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 618)

(Immaculate Conception and St. Alphonsus) “Pope Pius IX asks: «Are not the things we have solemnly approved concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother of God and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff when teaching ex cathedra … found and most clearly explained, and demonstrated with the strongest arguments, in the works of St. Alphonsus?» (Decree conferring the title of Doctor of the Church).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 618)” (Source: Qui Ecclesiae Suae, Apostolic Letter, Pius IX, Rome, 1871)"

What does this have to do with anything? Particularly, The Glories of Mary representing a 2,000-year-old tradition?!?

Quote
Quote
Game over.

It was game over for the schismatic Orthodox 1000 years ago, when they denied the Filioque Dogma after it was clearly proved. Vatican I speaks of ex cathedra doctrinal infallibility, and the only cognitive dissonance is yours if you think that has been falsified. The only ex cathedra infallible declaration of doctrine in recent times was made by Pope John Paul II on ordaining only men, but that has been rejected by those who don't believe in infallibility.

That's not all Vatican I teaches.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 12:25:18 PM
Xavier ignore him.

You can't have a meaningful discussion without a starting point. If saints and holy popes are idolators and blasphemers there is no common point.

So you agree with Xavier that

Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

?

Funny, because every person besides you who has contributed to this thread has agreed with me that it is false.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Miriam_M on October 11, 2019, 12:42:27 PM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?

I did not happen to see that statement by Xavier, but the Church's dogma is that Jesus Christ alone was in a position to make satisfaction for our sins and did in fact do so.  It belongs to divine justice alone.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Prayerful on October 11, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
Xavier ignore him.

You can't have a meaningful discussion without a starting point. If saints and holy popes are idolators and blasphemers there is no common point.

So you agree with Xavier that

Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

?

Funny, because every person besides you who has contributed to this thread has agreed with me that it is false.

It certainly seems to be error. Christ died for our sin.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 11, 2019, 01:49:32 PM
Mary is infinite in a negative sense (infinite nothingness), just as God is infinite in a positive sense (infinite being). Mary's nothingness is based on (i) the fact that she's a creature, and therefore stands in the same relationship of nothingness as all creatures do before the infinite Being of Almighty God, and (ii) the fact that in her will she abased herself so entirely before God through humility, that she became so receptive to divine grace as to be able to receive infinitely boundless grace without resistance.

In the first sense she's the same as all creatures. In the second sense she is utterly unique among all creatures, since no other creature has so perfectly conformed and united themselves to their Creator, revealing her to be the ultimate creature, the creature of creatures, the summit of all created beings. Therefore this creature, Mary, shares a unique relationship with the Creator, since she is the archetype and perfection of all God's creation and is therefore its supreme representative and advocate. In a sense, there is God, there is Mary, and there is everything else, since Mary stands in a category of her own in between God and creatures; she is the prototype of all creatures and alone the most perfect one.

Therefore, mystically speaking, we can see the world as being the romance between God and His Spouse, Mary. However, this mystical analogy is best applied to the Church the bride of Christ; that said, Mary is still the greatest living figure of the Church, so it applies to her more than any other single person.

All that being said Xavier is right. Since Mary is God's shadow, filling up in a negative sense everything that God does in a positive sense, she accomplishes everything that God accomplishes and is involved in the creation of the world and every event in human history, especially the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ through which the world is redeemed. Is this patristic? Sure it is. The Church fathers say that the Sophia/Wisdom said in the Bible to have existed from eternity and loved by God refers to Mary herself. Everything I've said above is contained in that one patristic reflection on Mary.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 11, 2019, 01:57:51 PM
The waters over which the Spirit of God broods in the opening chapter of Genesis, at the creation of the world, is a figure of the waters of Mary's womb in which the new creation, Jesus Christ, is conceived. What's inside Mary's womb exceeds the bounds of the entire created universe, which is to say that Mary herself is greater than the entire created universe, in all places and throughout all ages.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 02:05:47 PM
All that being said Xavier is right. Since Mary is God's shadow, filling up in a negative sense everything that God does in a positive sense, she accomplishes everything that God accomplishes and is involved in the creation of the world and every event in human history, especially the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ through which the world is redeemed. Is this patristic? Sure it is. The Church fathers say that the Sophia/Wisdom said in the Bible to have existed from eternity and loved by God refers to Mary herself. Everything I've said above is contained in that one patristic reflection on Mary.

What frightful and literal blasphemy. It’s actually disgusting to read these words. You are violating the first commandment, which says “I the Lord am your God. You shall have no others besides me.”

If the Virgin Mary were truly eternal, she would have to be uncreated, and therefore, either be another Hypostasis of the Trinity, or would have to be another deity all together who co-existed with God since the beginning.

This whole nonsense showed up in the Early Church under the heresy of Collyrydianism, and resurfaced under Bulgakov in the Russian Orthodox Church, and both times it was rightly condemned as a clear paganization of Christianity.

No doubt could Holy Wisdom be seen as a type of the Virgin Mary, but it being a type is not the same as being.

Show me one Church Father that demonstrates that the Virgin Mary is eternal and existed from God from the beginning. You won’t.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:15:23 PM
Mary is infinite in a negative sense (infinite nothingness)

That's a nonsensical string of words. And if she is, she is certainly not nothingness. But I will accept that she is as nothing next to God and this (ii) the fact that in her will she abased herself so entirely before God through humility, that she became so receptive to divine grace as to be able to receive infinitely boundless grace without resistance.

Quote
All that being said Xavier is right. Since Mary is God's shadow, filling up in a negative sense everything that God does in a positive sense, she accomplishes everything that God accomplishes and is involved in the creation of the world and every event in human history, especially the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ through which the world is redeemed.

You're going to have to explain how that follows. Firstly, filling up in a negative sense everything that God does in a positive sense doesn't at all follow from (ii), and it's not clear how you imagine Xavier's claim follows even from that. In any case, even if she is filled with an energy that mirrors or shadows God's acts, or even with the divine essence itself, Mary is not the person who merited all the graces we receive and she is not the person who made satisfaction for our sins.

Quote
Is this patristic? Sure it is. The Church fathers say that the Sophia/Wisdom said in the Bible to have existed from eternity and loved by God refers to Mary herself. Everything I've said above is contained in that one patristic reflection on Mary.

No offence John, but the appearance goddess worship deepens.

Firstly, you've established no connection between this claim and the one that Mary merited all our graces and made satisfaction for our sins. Secondly, that claim that Mary existed from eternity would appear to be heretical, flying in the face of the condemnation of the doctrine of pre-existence of souls. If you have an example of a Father actually teaching that the human person who is Mary existed from eternity, go ahead an provide it.


Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Xavier: quotes a Sainted Pope and doctors of the Church
Kreuz: considers Doctors/Popes blasphemers & idolators

Let me think who's side to be on. Hmmm...

Because, as we all know, Church Fathers can’t be wrong or make mistakes, even serious ones, like (from a Roman Catholic perspective) St. Cyprian bickering with the Pope about the invalidity of the Baptism of heretics, or St. John Chrysostom claiming that all infants are without sin, or St. Gregory of Nyssa’s very clear Origenistic ideas, or even St John of Damascus's ideas of the distinction between the Essence and Uncreated Energies of God. Also, no non-heretical Church Council can be wrong either, like how impious it is to paint on the walls of Churches in the Council of Elvira.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:19:09 PM
Xavier: quotes a Sainted Pope and doctors of the Church
Kreuz: considers Doctors/Popes blasphemers & idolators

Let me think who's side to be on. Hmmm...

Because, as we all know, Church Fathers can’t be wrong or make mistakes, even serious ones, like St. Cyprus bickering with the Pope about the invalidity of the Baptism of heretics, or St. John Chrysostom claiming that all infants are innocent, or St. Gregory of Nyssa’s very clear Origenistic ideas.

Let it be noted I called the particular work of one 18th century Roman saint idolatrous. And I don't think I'm alone in regarding some of its passages as crossing the line. There's a reason that book is able to be used truthfully to shock Protestants.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
The waters over which the Spirit of God broods in the opening chapter of Genesis, at the creation of the world, is a figure of the waters of Mary's womb in which the new creation, Jesus Christ, is conceived. What's inside Mary's womb exceeds the bounds of the entire created universe, which is to say that Mary herself is greater than the entire created universe, in all places and throughout all ages.

That makes no sense. Jesus as man was no less contained in the universe, so how does Jesus as baby being contained in Mary's womb make Mary greater than the entire created universe? Moreover, Mary is but part of and contained in this universe!  This is hyperbolic babble.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 02:31:33 PM
The waters over which the Spirit of God broods in the opening chapter of Genesis, at the creation of the world, is a figure of the waters of Mary's womb in which the new creation, Jesus Christ, is conceived. What's inside Mary's womb exceeds the bounds of the entire created universe, which is to say that Mary herself is greater than the entire created universe, in all places and throughout all ages.

That makes no sense. Jesus as man was no less contained in the universe, so how does Jesus as baby being contained in Mary's womb make Mary greater than the entire created universe? Moreover, Mary is but part of and contained in this universe!  This is hyperbolic babble.


John Lamb is completely right about this quote, because you cannot separate Christ's Divinity from Christ's humanity after the Incarnation; they remain distinct, of course; they don't get compromised, but the two are permanently unified. There's only One Jesus Christ, who has both natures. While the Virgin Mary did not give birth to the Divinity of Christ, she still gave birth to God (in terms of the properties of His human nature), who in His very nature (in terms of the properties of His Divine nature) is infinite. Hence the term "Mother of God" or Theotokos. This whole question is what led to the Nestorian controversy and the subsequent Chalcedonian controversy.

The Byzantine Rite has this famous hymn:
"He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:37:32 PM
The waters over which the Spirit of God broods in the opening chapter of Genesis, at the creation of the world, is a figure of the waters of Mary's womb in which the new creation, Jesus Christ, is conceived. What's inside Mary's womb exceeds the bounds of the entire created universe, which is to say that Mary herself is greater than the entire created universe, in all places and throughout all ages.

That makes no sense. Jesus as man was no less contained in the universe, so how does Jesus as baby being contained in Mary's womb make Mary greater than the entire created universe? Moreover, Mary is but part of and contained in this universe!  This is hyperbolic babble.


John Lamb is completely right about this quote, because you cannot separate Christ's Divinity from Christ's humanity after the Incarnation; there's only One Jesus Christ, who has both natures. While the Virgin Mary did not give birth to the Divinity of Christ, she still gave birth to God, who in His very nature (His Divine nature, not the Logos's human nature) is infinite.

The Byzantine Rite has this famous hymn:
"He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."

I know. But he who was contained in the womb of Mary was also contained in the world. He was contained in the world while in her womb that is contained in the world, and he was contained in the world after being born. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to say, on that basis, that Mary is "greater than the entire created universe"; and that claim is in itself incoherent, if Mary is a creation and part of "the entire created universe", though it appears John may believe she isn't but is some kind of eternal being.

The mystery and miracle isn't just Mary's womb; it's the hypostatic union and incarnation itself.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 11, 2019, 02:38:25 PM
While I find the last phrase of the Virgin Mary being greater than all of the created universe to be a bit uncomfortable, she is still the highest creation and the greatest Saint.

If you say that she isn't a created being, but rather was eternal or uncreated, that is blasphemy.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:45:55 PM
While I find the last phrase of the Virgin Mary being greater than all of the created universe to be a bit uncomfortable, she is still the highest creation and the greatest Saint.

True, though not a higher creation than Jesus' human nature. Mary is not the greatest human being to have ever lived; her son is. The fact of that nature being part of the created universe is also a problem for the claim.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 11, 2019, 02:53:45 PM
All that being said Xavier is right. Since Mary is God's shadow, filling up in a negative sense everything that God does in a positive sense, she accomplishes everything that God accomplishes and is involved in the creation of the world and every event in human history, especially the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ through which the world is redeemed. Is this patristic? Sure it is. The Church fathers say that the Sophia/Wisdom said in the Bible to have existed from eternity and loved by God refers to Mary herself. Everything I've said above is contained in that one patristic reflection on Mary.

What frightful and literal blasphemy. It’s actually disgusting to read these words. You are violating the first commandment, which says “I the Lord am your God. You shall have no others besides me.”

If the Virgin Mary were truly eternal, she would have to be uncreated, and therefore, either be another Hypostasis of the Trinity, or would have to be another deity all together who co-existed with God since the beginning.

This whole nonsense showed up in the Early Church under the heresy of Collyrydianism, and resurfaced under Bulgakov in the Russian Orthodox Church, and both times it was rightly condemned as a clear paganization of Christianity.

No doubt could Holy Wisdom be seen as a type of the Virgin Mary, but it being a type is not the same as being.

Show me one Church Father that demonstrates that the Virgin Mary is eternal and existed from God from the beginning. You won’t.

I don't mean to say that Mary is actually eternal. Of course she is not eternal or divine. However, since as you say Mary is the type of the Divine Wisdom, which is itself eternal: she is "eternal" in a mystical and analogical sense, which is to say that everything that is accomplished by the Divine Wisdom is in a sense accomplished by Mary who is Wisdom. Therefore she was present at the creation of the world, and assisted in the creation of the world; not in a material way, but in a moral way: God had her perpetually in Mind throughout every moment of history even from the beginning.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 02:58:07 PM
Quote
God had her perpetually in Mind throughout every moment of history even from the beginning.

This is true of every single human being and even of Satan.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 11, 2019, 02:59:25 PM
While I find the last phrase of the Virgin Mary being greater than all of the created universe to be a bit uncomfortable, she is still the highest creation and the greatest Saint.

True, though not a higher creation than Jesus' human nature. Mary is not the greatest human being to have ever lived; her son is. The fact of that nature being part of the created universe is also a problem for the claim.

Jesus is not a human being or a creature. He is a divine & uncreated being who has taken a human nature unto himself. So Mary is the greatest human being and the greatest creature; though admittedly Jesus' created human nature is greater than hers and is the greatest created thing: the subject of Christ's human nature is the second divine Person, whereas the subject of Mary's nature is a human person.

edit: "Mary is . . . the greatest creature". I should say the greatest created person. Christ's Humanity is the greatest creature; it's just that this creature (Christ's Humanity) is not its own being separate from the divine Being, but is united to It. Mary is the greatest creature that is not hypostatically One with the Godhead.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 11, 2019, 03:05:26 PM
Quote
God had her perpetually in Mind throughout every moment of history even from the beginning.

This is true of every single human being and even of Satan.

Yes, but Mary is used instrumentally in every moment of history, unlike all other creatures (Satan included) who are used only in certain times & places (e.g. Satan was not used in the Incarnation). Even the angels and demons have their particular ministries. Mary is the universal minister to all creation. Since before she was actually born in the world, everything that God was doing in the world was for her and in a sense by her. She has always been present in every part of the world in a virtual way, just as God is present in every part of the world in an actual way. Put in another way, the world exists in God (actually), and the world exists in Mary (morally/virtually), since Mary is the archetype for all creatures.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 03:11:36 PM
While I find the last phrase of the Virgin Mary being greater than all of the created universe to be a bit uncomfortable, she is still the highest creation and the greatest Saint.

True, though not a higher creation than Jesus' human nature. Mary is not the greatest human being to have ever lived; her son is. The fact of that nature being part of the created universe is also a problem for the claim.

Jesus is not a human being or a creature. He is a divine & uncreated being who has taken a human nature unto himself.

Jesus' human nature is created. His human soul and body are created. He is God and man; as man, what is human of him is created, and yes, that makes Jesus a "human being" in common parlance, just  "a human" or "a man" if you prefer, if still one divine existential subject.

In any case, Mary is a part of creation and therefore cannot be greater than all of creation, even if she is one of the greatest parts.



Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 03:26:28 PM
Quote
God had her perpetually in Mind throughout every moment of history even from the beginning.

This is true of every single human being and even of Satan.

Yes, but Mary is used instrumentally in every moment of history, unlike all other creatures (Satan included) who are used only in certain times & places (e.g. Satan was not used in the Incarnation).

Satan necessitated the Incarnation for our salvation. Every moment of history, and every creature in it, is inextricably entwined with every other and "instrumental" for the whole being what it is.

Quote
Even the angels and demons have their particular ministries. Mary is the universal minister to all creation. Since before she was actually born in the world, everything that God was doing in the world was for her

Here they are again replacing Jesus with Mary. The Alpha and Omega, the efficient and final cause of creation, is Jesus Christ, not Mary. And that office of minister belongs to him. The love of God for Mary is right up there, but it doesn't exceed that of Father for Son.

Quote
and in a sense by her.

"In a sense" .. yeah, every and any string of words is true "in a sense".

Quote
She has always been present in every part of the world in a virtual way,

These are just words.

Quote
just as God is present in every part of the world in an actual way. Put in another way, the world exists in God (actually), and the world exists in Mary (morally/virtually), since Mary is the archetype for all creatures.

Man is made in the image of God, not in the image of Mary. Not that I think the words "exists morally in" make any sense.

Still some of what you say is interesting and not far from my heart, in a sense.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: orate on October 11, 2019, 03:32:37 PM
 :hide:

This topic is WAY above my pay grade.  I will leave it to the theologians to discuss and the Pope to define!
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2019, 05:39:40 PM
That the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, is a Catholic doctrine not yet solemnly defined. The original phrase of Xavier can be understood in a heterodox sense unless the word "De Congruo" is added to qualify "merited". Secondly, the B.V.M. Is the depositrix and distributrix of all of the merits gained for us by Our Lord's Passion and death. We already had a thread on this subjec and its pretty much an open and shut case.
Xavier, sorry about the initial post; I should have known better.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 11, 2019, 06:02:32 PM
Kreuzritter is finally realizing what the Catholic model entails.

Better late than never.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: dellery on October 11, 2019, 06:13:19 PM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?

Hehehe. You seriuosly started a thread to to exclaim how astounded you are at something Xavier wrote??

How effeminate. You should be embarrased.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Non Nobis on October 11, 2019, 06:28:51 PM
:hide:

This topic is WAY above my pay grade.  I will leave it to the theologians to discuss and the Pope to define!

It is way above my pay grade to be certain I know the truth on this topic, since it has been debated for so long by theologians and not defined by Popes.  But I don't think it is wrong to humbly ponder about such things, considering what some Saints and Popes (and some theologians) have said. Of course it is not necessary to do so (since it is not defined), and there may be other considerations that that are more helpful to our lives. And it may just be wrong for some people whose duty of state does not allow for spending much time on it, or who might be spiritually hurt by something that is over their head, or by coming to think they are an expert when that is not the truth.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Non Nobis on October 11, 2019, 06:46:00 PM
That the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, is a Catholic doctrine not yet solemnly defined. The original phrase of Xavier can be understood in a heterodox sense unless the word "De Congruo" is added to qualify "merited". Secondly, the B.V.M. Is the depositrix and distributrix of all of the merits gained for us by Our Lord's Passion and death. We already had a thread on this subjec and its pretty much an open and shut case.
Xavier, sorry about the initial post; I should have known better.

Thank you for your clarification.  I had about the same thoughts about your first post - that it wasn't complete enough.  I think it is important to recognize phrases that are heterodox when taken "as is" but express truth when implied but unstated words are added. Sometimes people (even Saints, or even Xavier) don't say say exactly what they mean, but people usually realize that a Saint (or Xavier) would not mean that Mary almost literally takes the place of Jesus.  (You know the theology of this issue better than I do).
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: mikemac on October 11, 2019, 07:20:02 PM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13is.htm

Quote
Iucunda Semper Expectatione

On the Rosary
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
September 8, 1894
...
2. The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips. First come the Joyful Mysteries. The Eternal Son of God stoops to mankind, putting on its nature; but with the assent of Mary, who conceives Him by the Holy Ghost. Then St. John the Baptist, by a singular privilege, is sanctified in his mother's womb and favored with special graces that he might prepare the way of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary who had been inspired to visit her cousin. At last the expected of nations comes to light, Christ the Savior. The Virgin bears Him. And when the Shepherds and the wise men, first-fruits of the Christian faith, come with longing to His cradle, they find there the young Child, with Mary, His Mother. Then, that He might before men offer Himself as a victim to His Heavenly Father, He desires to be taken to the Temple; and by the hands of Mary He is there presented to the Lord. It is Mary who, in the mysterious losing of her Son, seeks Him sorrowing, and finds Him again with joy. And the same truth is told again in the sorrowful mysteries.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: mikemac on October 11, 2019, 07:32:46 PM
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11cc.htm

Quote
Caritate Christi Compulsi

Encyclical on the Sacred Heart
His Holiness Pope Pius XI
Promulgated on May 3, 1932
...
31. Let, therefore, this year the Feast of the Sacred Heart be for the whole Church one of holy rivalry of reparation and supplication. Let the faithful hasten in large numbers to the eucharistic board, hasten to the foot of the altar to adore the Redeemer of the world, under the veils of the Sacrament, that you, Venerable Brethren, will have solemnly exposed that day in all churches, let them pour out to that Merciful Heart that has known all the griefs of the human heart, the fullness of their sorrow, the steadfastness of their faith, the trust of their hope, the ardor of their charity. Let them pray to Him, interposing likewise the powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church; let them pray to Him for the Vicar of Christ on earth and for all the other Pastors, who share with him the dread burden of the spiritual government of souls; let them pray for their brethren who believe, for their brethren who err, for unbelievers, for infidels, even for the enemies of God and the Church, that they may be converted, and let them pray for the whole of poor mankind.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: mikemac on October 11, 2019, 07:57:33 PM
And in light of Mary, our Lady of Fatima being called the Mediatrix of peace by Pope Pius XII on October 11, 1954 it is kind of sad that this attack on Mary comes 65 years to the day of him giving Mary this title, Mediatrix of peace.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12ac.htm

Quote
Ad Caeli Reginam
His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical on Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary
Promulgated October 11, 1954
...
4. It is well known that we have taken advantage of every opportunity--through personal audiences and radio broadcasts--to exhort Our children in Christ to a strong and tender love, as becomes children, for Our most gracious and exalted Mother. On this point it is particularly fitting to call to mind the radio message which We addressed to the people of Portugal, when the miraculous image of the Virgin Mary which is venerated at Fatima was being crowned with a golden diadem.[3] We Ourselves called this the heralding of the "sovereignty" of Mary.[4]

5. And now, that We may bring the Year of Mary to a happy and beneficial conclusion, and in response to petitions which have come to Us from all over the world, We have decided to institute the liturgical feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen. This will afford a climax, as it were, to the manifold demonstrations of Our devotion to Mary, which the Christian people have supported with such enthusiasm.

6. In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary's queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.

7. It is Our pleasure to recall these things in the present encyclical letter, that We may renew the praises of Our heavenly Mother, and enkindle a more fervent devotion towards her, to the spiritual benefit of all mankind.

8. From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He "will reign in the house of Jacob forever,"[5] "the Prince of Peace,"[6] the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords."[7] And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.
...
51. By this Encyclical Letter We are instituting a feast so that all may recognize more clearly and venerate more devoutly the merciful and maternal sway of the Mother of God. We are convinced that this feast will help to preserve, strengthen and prolong that peace among nations which daily is almost destroyed by recurring crises. Is she not a rainbow in the clouds reaching towards God, the pledge of a covenant of peace?[62] "Look upon the rainbow, and bless Him that made it; surely it is beautiful in its brightness. It encompasses the heaven about with the circle of its glory, the hands of the Most High have displayed it."[63] Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth--and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul--let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.

52. Earnestly desiring that the Queen and Mother of Christendom may hear these Our prayers, and by her peace make happy a world shaken by hate, and may, after this exile show unto us all Jesus, Who will be our eternal peace and joy, to you, Venerable Brothers, and to your flocks, as a promise of God's divine help and a pledge of Our love, from Our heart We impart the Apostolic Benediction.

53. Given at Rome, from St. Peter's, on the feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the eleventh day of October, 1954, in the sixteenth year of our Pontificate.
   
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 08:48:45 PM
That the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, is a Catholic doctrine not yet solemnly defined. The original phrase of Xavier can be understood in a heterodox sense unless the word "De Congruo" is added to qualify "merited". Secondly, the B.V.M. Is the depositrix and distributrix of all of the merits gained for us by Our Lord's Passion and death. We already had a thread on this subjec and its pretty much an open and shut case.
Xavier, sorry about the initial post; I should have known better.

She didn't merit all the graces we receive de congruo and, even if you insist on that, she definitely did not make satisfaction for our sins, which is impossible.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 11, 2019, 08:52:21 PM
Kreuzritter is finally realizing what the Catholic model entails.

Better late than never.

If by "Catholic" you mean the Hellenized religion invented by Scholastics and merged with Ultramontane ideology, yes. I reject it totally. It's quite apparent to me now that I was duped by the Fathers, the liturgy, the sacraments, the smells and bells, the actual Apostolic core of doctrine, and even the Catechism of Trent and Ludwig Ott's manual into a farce that had already lost its way and mutated into a lie before Modernism and Vatican II.

Maybe we can all hold hands and prostrate ourselves before a tree in a Vatican garden like the infallible and indefectible Holy See did this week.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2019, 09:43:39 PM
Kreuritter stated:
Quote
She didn't merit all the graces we receive de congruo and, even if you insist on that, she definitely did not make satisfaction for our sins, which is impossible.
Keuzritter,
It is a teaching of the Church that a person in the state of grace can merit for others (because of the Communion of Saints); both the grace of conversion and the grace of salvation. They can also make reparation for the sins of others including the souls in Purgatory, through prayer, penance and good works. But Our Blessed Mother's close association and relationship with her Divine Son, as well as her own excellent degree of grace and sanctity, means that her works of satisfaction are supremely pleasing to her Son and to the Blessed Trinity; more so than that of all the other creatures put together. Therefore she is able to obtain from Her son all that she asks from Him for our conversion and salvation.
Ott states the following on the title of Co-Redemptrix:
Quote
St. Ambrose expressly teaches: "Christ's Passion did not require any support"(De inst. virg. 7).
In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritually entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo)) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.
The Statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical "Ad Diem Illum" (1904): ....The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno is as the present tense "promeret" shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2019, 09:45:57 PM
Kreuzritter is finally realizing what the Catholic model entails.

Better late than never.

If by "Catholic" you mean the Hellenized religion invented by Scholastics and merged with Ultramontane ideology, yes. I reject it totally. It's quite apparent to me now that I was duped by the Fathers, the liturgy, the sacraments, the smells and bells, the actual Apostolic core of doctrine, and even the Catechism of Trent and Ludwig Ott's manual into a farce that had already lost its way and mutated into a lie before Modernism and Vatican II.

Maybe we can all hold hands and prostrate ourselves before a tree in a Vatican garden like the infallible and indefectible Holy See did this week.
Kreutz,
 I see that you are very distressed by the present situation of the Church; don't give up hope or faith in the Church.
My prayers and sympathies.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Graham on October 11, 2019, 11:11:22 PM
I dont agree with everything Kreutz has posted here but if anyone wants to know which of his arguments were killshots just look for the ones Xavier et al have studiously avoided confronting
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 11, 2019, 11:11:31 PM
If by "Catholic" you mean the Hellenized religion invented by Scholastics and merged with Ultramontane ideology, yes. I reject it totally. It's quite apparent to me now that I was duped by the Fathers, the liturgy, the sacraments, the smells and bells, the actual Apostolic core of doctrine, and even the Catechism of Trent and Ludwig Ott's manual into a farce that had already lost its way and mutated into a lie before Modernism and Vatican II.

Fair enough. However, as you know, that runs contrary to established Catholic doctrine and authority. And there's no Catholicism without authority.

Quote
Maybe we can all hold hands and prostrate ourselves before a tree in a Vatican garden like the infallible and indefectible Holy See did this week.

Either do that or abandon any pretense of Catholicism altogether.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 11, 2019, 11:33:38 PM
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Non Nobis on October 11, 2019, 11:57:12 PM
Kreuzritter is finally realizing what the Catholic model entails.

Better late than never.
If by "Catholic" you mean the Hellenized religion invented by Scholastics and merged with Ultramontane ideology, yes. I reject it totally. It's quite apparent to me now that I was duped by the Fathers, the liturgy, the sacraments, the smells and bells, the actual Apostolic core of doctrine, and even the Catechism of Trent and Ludwig Ott's manual into a farce that had already lost its way and mutated into a lie before Modernism and Vatican II.

Even the Fathers and the Apostolic core of doctrine duped you? Or do you mean these things as seen through the eyes of the false "Hellenized religion" that you think you see?

You still list your religion as "Roman Catholic". Are you becoming Orthodox, faux-Eastern Catholic who rejects the Western Church, or sinking into your own Church with only doctrine that suits your oh so clever mind? What happened to docility to Christ, and the Church He founded? Can't you manage to have a little more intellectual humility? Is it really not possible that much of your view of the whole picture is just plain wrong?

The modern church facade is a barrier to remembering that Christ did found the Church and did not abandon it.  It is impossible for us to understand this now, but we must have faith and not ourselves abandon the reality behind the barrier.  Vatican II and the following novelties were monstrous distortions of the Church; to say therefore that maybe the Church has been distorting its true self for centuries is plain nonsense, and I think is insulting to Christ.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Non Nobis on October 12, 2019, 01:05:59 AM
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

I agree that Xavier's quote as it stands alone here is not Catholic. ARE there many Catholics who are going around making statements like this?  Some Protestants are probably also going around taking true things (or things that may be speculated on by Catholics) out of context.  What was Xavier's  context? 

Xavier, would you agree that your original statement verbatim, taken all by itself (no more words, not even from you) would not be Catholic? I'm guessing you were a little careless and should have added necessary clarifying words, as Michael Wilson explained. Or maybe in your full context it was clear that you WERE talking about congruous merit.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 12, 2019, 02:37:51 AM
Non, here is the thread: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22737.msg483623#new

If Kreuzritter had posted even the next two sentences, the meaning may have been plain: "Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins. She did this in the highest degree possible to creatures, and subordinate only to Her Divine Son. That is how She is like Her Divine Son." Subsequently, "Jesus made Condign Satisfaction for our sins. Mary made Congruous Satisfaction for them, the only one possible to a Creature. If Her sub-ordinate co-operation was not present, many souls who now are saved would not be, many graces now dispensed would not be."

I gave the example of St. Paul, Apostle and Martyr: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:"[Col 1:24]. From St. Ildephonsus, cited by St. Alphonsus, that "Saint Ildephonsus did not hesitate to assert, "to say that Mary's sorrows were greater than all the torments of the martyrs united, was to say too little.", I said "St. Paul's spiritual sufferings won graces for his flock; therefore, he co-operated in their redemption. Every shepherd is called to do this. Mary did it pre-eminently among creatures for all Her children. That is why God made Her our Mother."

Do you disagree, Non Nobis? For all of us who received regeneration in Christ in Baptism, Mary becomes our true Mother. She co-operates in the dispensing of all the graces from first justification to final perseverance in the state of grace. Thus, She is Mediatrix of All Graces. I cited St. Louis there, but as was discussed earlier, Mediatrix has been taught by countless other Saints, like St. Ephrem, St. Damascene, St. Germanus, St. Bernard, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus, St. Maximillian Kolbe, Pope St. Pius X, St. Padre Pio etc etc etc.

The purpose of this doctrine, as Fr. G-L says, is only to increase devotion, love, gratitude to Jesus and Mary in us, and compunction and contrition for all our sins that cost their suffering: Fr. G-L: "Mary is the Eve of the New Testament and the Mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of Her First-born. United to the Eternal Father She must offer His Son and Hers to death. It is for that purpose that Providence has brought her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate Her Son that men may have life . . . She becomes Mother of Christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief ..." We should never forget what we have cost Mary. The thought will lead to true contrition for our sins. The regeneration of our souls has cost Jesus and Mary more than we can ever think." Your thoughts, Non?

That the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, is a Catholic doctrine not yet solemnly defined. The original phrase of Xavier can be understood in a heterodox sense unless the word "De Congruo" is added to qualify "merited". Secondly, the B.V.M. Is the depositrix and distributrix of all of the merits gained for us by Our Lord's Passion and death. We already had a thread on this subjec and its pretty much an open and shut case.
Xavier, sorry about the initial post; I should have known better.

Thanks, Michael, for the explanation and, no worries. Sorry myself if I expressed something poorly regarding condign and congruous merit and satisfaction, Mea Culpa for that. I meant only to say what Pope St. Pius X and Fr. G-L, and now St. Ambrose and Dr. Ott per your citations, have taught. I hope that was fairly clear in the full context. Of course I meant congruous merit and satisfaction only.

Quote from: Mikemac, citing the Popes
H.H. Pope Leo XIII: "2. The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips"

H.H. Pope Pius XI: Let them pray to Him, interposing likewise the powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church; let them pray to Him for the Vicar of Christ on earth and for all the other Pastors, who share with him the dread burden of the spiritual government of souls; let them pray for their brethren who believe, for their brethren who err, for unbelievers, for infidels, even for the enemies of God and the Church, that they may be converted, and let them pray for the whole of poor mankind.

H.H. Pope Pius XII: Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth--and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul--let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.

Thanks, Mike. Says it all.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 12, 2019, 03:12:48 AM
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard. That Catholic devotion to and theological insight into Mary has increased over the centuries is by the ordinance of God and figures into His divine plan. Personally it astounds me how Protestants and even Catholics become tense and nervous over Catholic devotion to Mary and the praise of her honours. I don't know what it is. It seems like those who think they have a solid grasp on Christian doctrine are the most likely to be repulsed by it; they tend to think of redemption solely in terms of Christ's blood and sacrifice and refuse to accept any kind of addition to or deeper clarification of the mystery. I think it takes a higher degree of theological faith and humility to accept the mysteries concerning Mary because in a sense these are the mysteries which are the most supernatural, since it's more easy to understand how God Incarnate could accomplish the redemption of mankind than to understand how a mere creature, with supernatural grace, could accomplish it as well. Why set yourself up an intellectual roadblock against the devotion of the saints like St. Alphonsus, St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Bosco, and St. Maximilian Kolbe who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"? Why shriek about it as though you had a greater understanding of the mysteries of the Catholic faith than these saints? We shouldn't downplay Mary's glory simply to appease Protestants and scrupulous Catholics who lack understanding.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: awkwardcustomer on October 12, 2019, 03:27:38 AM
Vatican II and the following novelties were monstrous distortions of the Church; to say therefore that maybe the Church has been distorting its true self for centuries is plain nonsense, and I think is insulting to Christ.

The Vatican II distortions didn't suddenly come out of nowhere, though.

Where did they come from?  They must have already existed, just waiting to be used to best effect at the Council.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: awkwardcustomer on October 12, 2019, 03:33:31 AM
Quote
Mary, being Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of all Martyrs, merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins.

Is there even one among you, even the most zealous devotee of Mary, who will stand behind this assertion and not see it for the pagan denigration of Jesus and inversion of the Gospel that it is?

Or perhaps it's a sneaky feminist denigration of Jesus. 

Modern Marianism = feminism by the back door? 
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Miriam_M on October 12, 2019, 03:35:32 AM
There's nothing wrong with understanding the Mother of God as a channel of salvific grace.  That's not the same thing as meriting our salvation.  Again, it is de fide dogma that Jesus Christ merited our salvation.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 12, 2019, 04:37:05 AM
The waters over which the Spirit of God broods in the opening chapter of Genesis, at the creation of the world, is a figure of the waters of Mary's womb in which the new creation, Jesus Christ, is conceived. What's inside Mary's womb exceeds the bounds of the entire created universe, which is to say that Mary herself is greater than the entire created universe, in all places and throughout all ages.

That makes no sense. Jesus as man was no less contained in the universe, so how does Jesus as baby being contained in Mary's womb make Mary greater than the entire created universe? Moreover, Mary is but part of and contained in this universe!  This is hyperbolic babble.


John Lamb is completely right about this quote, because you cannot separate Christ's Divinity from Christ's humanity after the Incarnation; they remain distinct, of course; they don't get compromised, but the two are permanently unified. There's only One Jesus Christ, who has both natures. While the Virgin Mary did not give birth to the Divinity of Christ, she still gave birth to God (in terms of the properties of His human nature), who in His very nature (in terms of the properties of His Divine nature) is infinite. Hence the term "Mother of God" or Theotokos. This whole question is what led to the Nestorian controversy and the subsequent Chalcedonian controversy.

The Byzantine Rite has this famous hymn:
"He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."

I. Yes, Live. Also, if I recall right, it goes, "It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos we magnify you!" and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great has this, "All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace, the ranks of Angels and the human race; hallowed Temple and spiritual Paradise, glory of Virgins; from you God was incarnate, and He, who is our God before the ages, became a little child. for He made your body a throne and made your womb more spacious than the heavens. All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace; glory to you!" Source (https://churchmotherofgod.org/text-of-prayers-of-the-church/53-hymn-to-the-theotokos.html) Hyperdulia means even if all other creatures had all their members turned into tongues, we could never praise and venerate this All-Holy, Immaculate, Co-Redeeming Creature enough, St. Alphonsus cites St. Augustine at the very beginning of his work, the Glories of Mary, to this effect, from the source already given earlier, "So that St. Augustine says: All the tongues of men, even if all their members were changed to tongues, would not be sufficient to praise her as she deserves." And St. John Damascene, who in 3 Homilies on Her Dormition or Assumption can never seem to praise Her enough, teaches us the same doctrine, "THERE is no one in existence who is able to praise worthily the holy death of God's Mother, even if he should have a thousand tongues and a thousand mouths. Not if all the most eloquent tongues could be united would their praises be sufficient. She is greater than all praise. Since, however, God is pleased with the efforts of a loving zeal, and the Mother of God with what concerns the service of her Son, suffer me now to revert again to her praises." Source (http://www.malankaraworld.com/Library/shunoyo/shunoyo-Homily-st-John-Dmascus-2.htm[/url).

II. Right, John. In fact, the word used for Sea in Gen 1 is Maria in the Vulgate. St. Montfort also calls Her the earthly paradise of the New Adam, where the true Tree of Life sprung forth, "The Garden Enclosed" of which the Holy Spirit speaks in the Canticle, the "vast and divine world of God", and "the City of God" that St. John mentions in the Apocalypse, as also King David in the Psalms, Jeremiah and the Prophets etc: "6. I declare with the saints: Mary is the earthly paradise of Jesus Christ the new Adam, where he became man by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to accomplish in her wonders beyond our understanding. She is the vast and divine world of God where unutterable marvels and beauties are to be found. She is the magnificence of the Almighty where he hid his only Son, as in his own bosom, and with him everything that is most excellent and precious. What great and hidden things the all-powerful God has done for this wonderful creature, as she herself had to confess in spite of her great humility, "The Almighty has done great things for me." The world does not know these things because it is incapable and unworthy of knowing them.

7. The saints have said wonderful things of Mary, the holy City of God, and, as they themselves admit, they were never more eloquent and more pleased than when they spoke of her. And yet they maintain that the height of her merits rising up to the throne of the Godhead cannot be perceived; the breadth of her love which is wider than the earth cannot be measured; the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived; and the depths of her profound humility and all her virtues and graces cannot be sounded. What incomprehensible height! What indescribable breadth! What immeasurable greatness! What an impenetrable abyss!"
Source (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/treatise-on-true-devotion-to-the-blessed-virgin-6064)

III. St. Alphonsus calls Her Co-Operatress in our Redemption, or Co-Redemptress, proving it from Saints of all ages abundantly; a small excerpt for us to renew our devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows, Queen of Martyrs and to Our Lord Jesus Christ Her Son, King of Martyrs: "Listen to the words in which Mary revealed to Saint Bridget the sorrowful state in which she saw her dying Son on the cross: "My dear Jesus was breathless, exhausted, and in His last agony on the cross; His eyes were sunk, half-closed, and lifeless; His lips hanging, and His mouth open; His cheeks hollow and drawn in; His face elongated; His nose sharp; His countenance sad: His head had fallen on His breast, His hair was black with blood, His stomach collapsed, His arms and legs stiff, and His whole body covered with wounds and blood." All these sufferings of Jesus were also those of Mary: "Every torture inflicted on the body of Jesus," says Saint Jerome, "was a wound in the heart of the Mother." "Whoever then was present on the Mount of Calvary," says Saint John Chrysostom, "might see two altars, on which two great sacrifices were consummated; the one in the body of Jesus, the other in the heart of Mary." ...

Ah, most afflicted of all Mothers! O Mary, thou hast to witness the agony of the dying Jesus; but thou canst administer Him no relief. Mary heard her Son exclaim, "I thirst," but she could not even give Him a drop of water to refresh Him in that great thirst. She could only say, as Saint Vincent Ferrer remarks, "My Son, I have only the water of tears." She saw that on that bed of torture her Son, suspended by three nails, could find no repose; she would have clasped Him in her arms to give Him relief, or that at least He might there have expired; but she could not. "In vain," says Saint Bernard, "did she extend her arms; they sank back empty on her breast." She beheld that poor Son, who in His sea of grief sought consolation ... Even on the cross He was taunted and blasphemed on all sides: "and they that passed by, blasphemed Him, wagging their heads." Some said in His face, "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Others, "He saved others, Himself He cannot save." Again, "If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross." Our Blessed Lady herself said to St. Bridget, "I heard some say that my Son was a thief; others, that He was an impostor; others, that no one deserved death more than He did; and every word was a new sword of grief to my heart." ...

So that the afflicted Mother saw her Jesus suffering on every side; she desired to comfort Him, but could not. And that which grieved her the most was to see that she herself, by her presence and sorrow, increased the sufferings of her Son. "The grief," says Saint Bernard, "which filled Mary's heart, as a torrent flowed into and embittered the heart of Jesus." "So much so," says the same Saint, "that Jesus on the cross suffered more from compassion for His Mother than from His own torments." He thus speaks in the name of our Blessed Lady: "I stood with my eyes fixed on Him, and His on me, and He grieved more for me than for Himself." And then, speaking of Mary beside her dying Son, he says, "that she lived dying without being able to die:" "Near the cross of Christ His Mother stood half-dead; she spoke not; dying she lived, and living she died; nor could she die, for death was her very life." Passino writes that Jesus Christ Himself one day, speaking to blessed Baptista Varani of Camerino, assured her that when on the cross, so great was His affliction at seeing His Mother at His feet in such bitter anguish, that compassion for her caused Him to die without consolation; so much so, that the blessed Baptista, being supernaturally enlightened as to the greatness of this suffering of Jesus, exclaimed, "O Lord, tell me no more of this Thy sorrow, for I can no longer bear it." "All," says Simon of Cassia, "who then saw this Mother silent, and not uttering a complaint in the midst of such great suffering, were filled with astonishment."

But if Mary's lips were silent, her heart was not so, for she incessantly offered the life of her Son to the Divine Justice for our salvation. Therefore we know that by the merits of her dolours she cooperated in our birth to the life of grace; and hence we are the children of her sorrows. "Christ," says Lanspergius, "was pleased that she, the cooperatress in our redemption, and whom He had determined to give us for our Mother, should be there present; for it was at the foot of the cross that she was to bring us, her children, forth." If any consolation entered that sea of bitterness, the heart of Mary, the only one was this, that she knew that by her sorrows she was leading us to eternal salvation, as Jesus Himself revealed to Saint Bridget: "My Mother Mary, on account of her compassion and love, was made the Mother of all in heaven and on earth." And indeed these were the last words with which Jesus bid her farewell before His death: this was His last recommendation, leaving us to her for her children in the person of Saint John: "Woman, behold thy son." From that time Mary began to perform this good office of a Mother for us; for Saint Peter Damian attests, "that by the prayers of Mary, who stood between the cross of the good thief and that of her Son, the thief was converted and saved, and thereby she repaid a former service. For, as other authors also relate, this thief had been kind to Jesus and Mary on their journey to Egypt; and this same office the Blessed Virgin has ever continued, and still continues, to perform.

Example.

A young man in Perugia promised the devil, that if he would enable him to attain a sinful object he had in view, he would give him his soul; and he gave him a written contract to this effect, signed in his own blood. When the crime had been committed, the devil demanded the performance of the promise; and for this purpose led him to the brink of a well, at the same time threatening, that if he did not throw himself in, he would drag him, body and soul, to hell. The wretched youth, thinking that it would be impossible to escape from his hands, got on the little parapet to cast himself in; but terrified at the idea of death, he told the devil that he had not courage to take the leap, but that if he was determined on his death, he must push him in. The young man wore a scapular of the Dolours of Mary; the devil therefore said, "Take off that scapular, and then I will push thee in." But the youth, discovering in the scapular the protection still vouchsafed to him by the Divine Mother, refused to do so, and at length, after much altercation, the devil, filled with confusion, departed; and the sinner, grateful to the sorrowful Mother, went to thank her, and, penitent for his sins, presented as a votive offering to her altar, in the church of Santa Maria la Nuova in Perugia, a picture of what had taken place.

Prayer.

Ah, Mother the most sorrowful of all mothers, thy Son is, then, dead; that Son so amiable, and who loved thee so much! Weep, then, for thou hast reason to weep. Who can ever console thee? The thought alone, that Jesus by His death conquered hell, opened heaven until then closed to men, and gained so many souls, can console thee. From that throne of the cross He will reign in so many hearts, which, conquered by His love, will serve Him with love. Disdain not, in the meantime, O my Mother, to keep me near thee, to weep with thee, since I have so much reason to weep for the crimes by which I have offended Him. Ah, Mother of Mercy, I hope, first, through the death of my Redeemer, and then through thy sorrows, to obtain pardon and eternal salvation."
Source: From the Glories of Mary, On the Dolours of Mary: the Fifth Dolor (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/of-the-dolours-of-mary-5159)
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 12, 2019, 07:27:24 AM

Even the Fathers and the Apostolic core of doctrine duped you?

What I mean is I was possibly duped into thinking they pointed to the Roman religion because it has the elements of these, which Protestantism does not. But something monstrous has been built around it. It's like a beautiful ancient church clogged with grime, choked with weeds and bits and pieces of crumbled stone hewn out to construct some new edifice in its place.

Quote
You still list your religion as "Roman Catholic". Are you becoming Orthodox, faux-Eastern Catholic who rejects the Western Church, or sinking into your own Church with only doctrine that suits your oh so clever mind? What happened to docility to Christ, and the Church He founded? Can't you manage to have a little more intellectual humility? Is it really not possible that much of your view of the whole picture is just plain wrong?

Like the one the Scholastics, in their cleverness, sunk into? I am docile to Jesus. I doubt that the Roman church is identical with the Church he founded. The grounds for Rome being the "true Church" and resting upon this Papal primacy of universal jurisdiction and infallible judgment are themselves historical and textual arguments, appeals to the intellect. I don't see how simply accepting them, in the face of everything else, is "intellectual humility"; submitting to them because faith in the Church Christ founded, that is just begging the question.

Quote
The modern church facade is a barrier to remembering that Christ did found the Church and did not abandon it.  It is impossible for us to understand this now, but we must have faith and not ourselves abandon the reality behind the barrier.  Vatican II and the following novelties were monstrous distortions of the Church; to say therefore that maybe the Church has been distorting its true self for centuries is plain nonsense, and I think is insulting to Christ.

To me this is special pleading. If the Roman church can have been distorted with Vatican II and its subsequent "Bishops of Rome", 60 plus years and counting, then it is not "plain nonsense" to say the problem might be far older. "The gates of Hell will not prevail", indeed, but the Orthodox will say the same thing and point to themselves.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 12, 2019, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: John Lamb
who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?

Do I need to say anything more? She's "virtually" eternal, she's the reason for creation, she's the "archetype" of creatures, she's an "infinite nothingness" in whom all of God's actions from eternity have been mirrored, and now a "quasi-incarnation" of the Holy Spirit. These terms are mostly babble, but the intention behind getting to use a word like "eternal" and "incarnation of the Holy Spirit" while dodging the accusation of heresy by changing their sense with words like "virtual" and "quasi" is clear: glorification and worship of Mary as a "virtual" and "quasi" goddess.

"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard. That Catholic devotion to and theological insight into Mary has increased over the centuries is by the ordinance of God and figures into His divine plan.

Looking at the course of the Roman church over the last 100 years, that so-called "Marian" devotion begins to take on and presage a familiar image.

(http://ldolphin.org/harlot.jpg)
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 12, 2019, 08:21:50 AM
One has to reject practically all of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, if one wants to continually and obstinately reject Mary as the Mother of Divine Grace, Spouse of the Holy Spirit and divinely-appointed Mediatrix of All Graces. Every grace comes from God One and Triune to the Virgin Mother, and then through Her to us. Thus, as God is our Father in the order of Grace, Mary is our Mother in that order. As discussed earlier here, https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22065.0

From: http://www.rosarychurch.net/english/mediatrix.html Mother Church applies these words of Ecclesiasticus "In Me is all Grace of the way and of the truth, in Me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to Me, all ye that desire Me, and be filled with My fruits." (Sir 24:25,26) to Mary, singing in the Gradual "Alleluia, alleluia. Hail Mother of mercy, Mother of hope and grace, O Mary, alleluia." And such praises of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, abound in the Wisdom and Sapiental Books.

OTHER SAINTS ON MARY, MEDIATRIX From: https://www.tldm.org/news5/mediatrix1.htm

St. Cyril of Alexandria: "Hail Mary Theotokos, venerable treasure of the whole world, light unextinguished, crown of virginity, sceptre of orthodoxy, indestructible temple, which contains the uncontainable... it is through you that the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored, through you, the precious cross is venerated and adored throughout the whole world, through you that heaven is in gladness, that angels and archangels rejoice that demons are put to flight, through you that the tempter, the devil is cast from heaven, through you that the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through you that all creation, once imprisoned in idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, that the faithful obtain baptism and the oil of joy, churches have been founded in the whole world, that peoples are led to conversion." [7]

St. Gregory Palamas:  “No divine gift can reach either angels or men, save through her mediation. As one cannot enjoy the light of a lamp … save through the medium of this lamp, so every movement towards God, every impulse towards good coming from Him is unrealizable save through the mediation of the Virgin. She does not cease to spread benefits on all creatures….” [15]

St. Louis De Montfort: "To Mary, His faithful spouse, God the Holy Ghost has communicated His unspeakable gifts; and He has chosen her to be the dispensatrix of all He possesses, in such sort that she distributes to whom she wills, as much as she wills, as she wills and when she wills, all His gifts and graces. The Holy Ghost gives no heavenly gift to men which does not pass through her virginal hands." [17]

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "God, who gave us Jesus Christ, wills that all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men to the end of the world through the merits of Jesus Christ, should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary." (The Glories of Mary, Ch. 5).  Against the contention that this doctrine is "a pious exaggeration," St. Alphonsus replied, "I consider it as indubitably true that all graces are dispensed by Mary.” [18]

THE EASTERN LITURGIES

In one of the tropars of the Coptic liturgy we read that our salvation is insured "because every help come to the faithful through Mary, the Mother of God.” [26]  A prayer in the Syriac liturgy read, "How can I praise thee duly, O most chaste Virgin? For thou alone among men art all‑holy; and thou givest to all the help and grace they need.” [27] The Armenian liturgy has the following prayer: “Rejoice, 0 Mother of God, throne of salvation and hope of the human race, Mediatrix of law and grace.” [28] And the Chaldean liturgy has this beautiful prayer: “O Queen of queens, all rich, enrich thy servants with benefits, O Mother of the Most High. For He has made thee the dispensatrix of His treasures and the universal Queen. It is in thy bosom that He has placed His treasures, and in thee He has gathered graces as in a sea, and He has made thee the source of life for mortals…” [29]
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 12, 2019, 09:03:47 AM
Quote
One has to reject practically all of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, if one wants to continually and obstinately reject Mary as the Mother of Divine Grace, Spouse of the Holy Spirit and divinely-appointed Mediatrix of All Graces.

Nobody here is rejecting any of these. Your implication is a lie, and your method, by which you associate rejection of your quasi-goddess worship and its doctrien of co-redemption with rejection of the orthodox sense of these titles is dishonest.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 12, 2019, 09:06:57 AM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 12, 2019, 09:35:58 AM
Vatican II and the following novelties were monstrous distortions of the Church; to say therefore that maybe the Church has been distorting its true self for centuries is plain nonsense, and I think is insulting to Christ.

The Vatican II distortions didn't suddenly come out of nowhere, though.

Where did they come from?  They must have already existed, just waiting to be used to best effect at the Council.
Yes, if you study the history of heresies in the Church, you will see that there are always heretics and heresies in and around the Church; the difference is that when the hierarchy of the Church is doing its job; or not impeded from doing its job by outside forces; the Church suppresses and condemns heresies; when they fail to do so, is when heresies spread and cause destruction in the Church. This has been the case since the beginning of the Church. Just read St. Alphonsus' "The History of Heresies and their Refutation". 
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: dellery on October 12, 2019, 09:48:50 AM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

You're not a Catholic, this clear.
You came here as a troll, and Xavier, quite innocently triggered you so hard that you're now emotionally unable to continue your schtick.

More and more your rantings reveal the simple-minded heresies a gassed up and uncontrollable ego leads a person to.

Hatred of Mary often comes across as petty jealousy.
God has offended the envious one's supposed virtue in not selecting them to mediate His graces.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: awkwardcustomer on October 12, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
Quote from: John Lamb
who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?

Do I need to say anything more? She's "virtually" eternal, she's the reason for creation, she's the "archetype" of creatures, she's an "infinite nothingness" in whom all of God's actions from eternity have been mirrored, and now a "quasi-incarnation" of the Holy Spirit. These terms are mostly babble, but the intention behind getting to use a word like "eternal" and "incarnation of the Holy Spirit" while dodging the accusation of heresy by changing their sense with words like "virtual" and "quasi" is clear: glorification and worship of Mary as a "virtual" and "quasi" goddess.

Exactly.  You've hit the nail right on the head.

And it's not just the terms above.  Modern Marianism as a whole does this, practically deifying Our Lady and rendering Our Lord almost subservient to her..

Isis and Horus?


Quote
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard. That Catholic devotion to and theological insight into Mary has increased over the centuries is by the ordinance of God and figures into His divine plan.

Looking at the course of the Roman church over the last 100 years, that so-called "Marian" devotion begins to take on and presage a familiar image.

(http://ldolphin.org/harlot.jpg)

Oh my goodness, you have just said something I've been thinking for some time but haven't had the nerve to post.  Or maybe I hinted at it.

Signs and lying wonders, eh?
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: mikemac on October 12, 2019, 10:44:34 AM
Quote
3. Why is it necessary to consecrate Russia in particular?

A: Because God wills it. As Our Lady told Sister Lucy at Fatima: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation ...”

And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.” Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner.

Source (https://archive.fatima.org/apostolate/faqconse.asp)


(https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/2370/pictures/2018/11/sacred_and_immaculate_heart_0.jpg)

Images like the above were very popular among Catholics in the 1950s and early 1960s.  I remember a priest hand delivering a similar image and my parents hung it on the wall so anyone coming through the front door could see it.


Paraphrasing Saint Louis de Montfort said "the only way to the Father is through the Son and the only way to the Son is through Mary". 
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: dellery on October 12, 2019, 10:48:02 AM
Quote from: John Lamb
who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?

Do I need to say anything more? She's "virtually" eternal, she's the reason for creation, she's the "archetype" of creatures, she's an "infinite nothingness" in whom all of God's actions from eternity have been mirrored, and now a "quasi-incarnation" of the Holy Spirit. These terms are mostly babble, but the intention behind getting to use a word like "eternal" and "incarnation of the Holy Spirit" while dodging the accusation of heresy by changing their sense with words like "virtual" and "quasi" is clear: glorification and worship of Mary as a "virtual" and "quasi" goddess.

Exactly.  You've hit the nail right on the head.

And not just these terms but Modern Marianism as a whole does this - almost deifies Our Lady and renders Our Lord almost subservient to her..

Isis and Horus?


Quote
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard. That Catholic devotion to and theological insight into Mary has increased over the centuries is by the ordinance of God and figures into His divine plan.

Looking at the course of the Roman church over the last 100 years, that so-called "Marian" devotion begins to take on and presage a familiar image.

(http://ldolphin.org/harlot.jpg)

Oh my goodness, you have just said something I've been thinking for some time but haven't had the nerve to post.  Or maybe I hinted at it.

Signs and lying wonders, eh?

The fact that you find an argument comprised solely on written/visual imagery and loose correlations convincing, and then support it, could be cited as an example of this forum's irresponsibly feminist policy of allowing females to freely read and post their opinions.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 11:11:36 AM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

You're not a Catholic, this clear.
You came here as a troll, and Xavier, quite innocently triggered you so hard that you're now emotionally unable to continue your schtick.

More and more your rantings reveal the simple-minded heresies a gassed up and uncontrollable ego leads a person to.

Hatred of Mary often comes across as petty jealousy.
God has offended the envious one's supposed virtue in not selecting them to mediate His graces.

If being Catholic believes that Mary directly merited our redemption by her suffering, and that someone outside of Jesus Christ could merit our redemption, then Catholicism is an obviously false religion that has nothing to do with what the Apostles taught, and we will all laugh about how Jack Chick got something right despite being a dumbass most of the time.

I know, however, that rejecting this theological opinion does not cause one to "hate Mary" or "reject Rome," (ignoring the irony of disobedience to the post-Vatican II magisterium), because Pope Benedict XVI, to whom many trads cling to as the One True Pope, explicitly rejected it himself due to the possibility that such a title implies what I've written above.

And you have to be a pretty petty individual to assume that Kreuzritter has the intent to "hate Mary" or "be envious of her," because what he said not only does not suggest that (nobody should believe that Mary is "eternal" or a "quasi-incarnation"), but even if he said something which would suggest that, you cannot read into his own mind, heart, and soul.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 11:17:58 AM
Either do that or abandon any pretense of Catholicism altogether.

Vetus, while I think you have a valid question as to whether Catholicism can be consistent with disobedience to the Magisterium, and the coherence of the "R&R" and "Sedevacantist" movement, the Magisterium does not extend to the actions, let alone every action, of Popes...unless such Popes are Saints and their actions are consistent with the Magisterium, and the logic of this argument is ridiculous.

Should we have a video camera on Pope Francis and be required to mimic every single action that he does because he's the infallible source of epistemological certainty on faith and morality? Should we all put on a white cassock with a white zucchetto and do our best to find a balcony to preach his message during the Angelus? If the Pope decides to have a bastard child, should we, in turn, have a bastard child?

No Catholic, even the most ultramontante types of Pius IX or Cardinal Manning (who said that turning to Tradition instead of the Pope is a treason and a heresy, because it rejects the Divine Voice of the Holy Spirit at the Church's present hour), would extend Papal infallibility that far.

If it did, the Catholic Church wouldn't have canonized St. Catherine of Sienna, who bickered with the Pope all the time.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 11:21:03 AM
Quote from: John Lamb
who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?

Do I need to say anything more? She's "virtually" eternal, she's the reason for creation, she's the "archetype" of creatures, she's an "infinite nothingness" in whom all of God's actions from eternity have been mirrored, and now a "quasi-incarnation" of the Holy Spirit. These terms are mostly babble, but the intention behind getting to use a word like "eternal" and "incarnation of the Holy Spirit" while dodging the accusation of heresy by changing their sense with words like "virtual" and "quasi" is clear: glorification and worship of Mary as a "virtual" and "quasi" goddess.

Exactly.  You've hit the nail right on the head.

And not just these terms but Modern Marianism as a whole does this - almost deifies Our Lady and renders Our Lord almost subservient to her..

Isis and Horus?


Quote
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard. That Catholic devotion to and theological insight into Mary has increased over the centuries is by the ordinance of God and figures into His divine plan.

Looking at the course of the Roman church over the last 100 years, that so-called "Marian" devotion begins to take on and presage a familiar image.

(http://ldolphin.org/harlot.jpg)

Oh my goodness, you have just said something I've been thinking for some time but haven't had the nerve to post.  Or maybe I hinted at it.

Signs and lying wonders, eh?

The fact that you find an argument comprised solely on written/visual imagery and loose correlations convincing, and then support it, could be cited as an example of this forum's irresponsibly feminist policy of allowing females to freely read and post their opinions.

Like such feminists as St. Catherine of Siena, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of the Little Flower, St. Joan of Arc, etc.?

Why don't you go back into your perfect little office corner where you cry about how the world can't be as perfect as you.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: dellery on October 12, 2019, 11:35:18 AM

Like such feminists as St. Catherine of Siena, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of the Little Flower, St. Joan of Arc, etc.?

Why don't you go back into your perfect little office corner where you cry about how the world can't be as perfect as you.

You argue like a crybaby. I was making a rhetorical point.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 11:40:39 AM
"merited for us all the graces we receive and made satisfaction for our sins"

I know of no Catholic teaching that asserts this. Even what Michael posted doesn't say this. No wonder prots have a hard time with what Catholics believe about the Blessed Mother if they are going around making statements like this.

Personally it astounds me how Protestants and even Catholics become tense and nervous over Catholic devotion to Mary and the praise of her honours. I don't know what it is. It seems like those who think they have a solid grasp on Christian doctrine are the most likely to be repulsed by it; they tend to think of redemption solely in terms of Christ's blood and sacrifice and refuse to accept any kind of addition to or deeper clarification of the mystery. I think it takes a higher degree of theological faith and humility to accept the mysteries concerning Mary because in a sense these are the mysteries which are the most supernatural, since it's more easy to understand how God Incarnate could accomplish the redemption of mankind than to understand how a mere creature, with supernatural grace, could accomplish it as well. Why set yourself up an intellectual roadblock against the devotion of the saints like St. Alphonsus, St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Bosco, and St. Maximilian Kolbe who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"? Why shriek about it as though you had a greater understanding of the mysteries of the Catholic faith than these saints? We shouldn't downplay Mary's glory simply to appease Protestants and scrupulous Catholics who lack understanding.

Quote
Catholic prophets like St. Louis de Montfort and St. John Bosco make it clear that the next age of the world will be typified by its devotion to Mary. All the Protestants and overly scrupulous Catholics are going to be put to shame in this regard.

Even though there's so much dang "prophecy" that hasn't happened at all according to when it should have happened, and thus probably won't happen (The spooky "Three Days of Darkness" or the "Chastisement of Fire from Heaven" from Akita or the "Destruction of Nations" in Fatima or the "Fire ball from Heaven" from Bayside), it would be cool if there was more devotion to Mary. I'm all for it.

And while I am not fond of viewing the relationship of God and the Theotokos as one where she is "holding back His Wrath barely like a thread and God just wants to wipe out most of humanity" as it is ignoring of God's Infinite Mercy, nonetheless I think that the Theotokos does intercede on our behalf for help and guidance to her Son.

Something very clear even in EOrthodoxy:

https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/theotokos-icon-of-unexpected-joy/

However, there is a very clear line that must be drawn where Mary veneration and exaltation becomes idolatry. And believing she redeemed us by her suffering is clearly way past that line.

Quote
I think it takes a higher degree of theological faith and humility to accept the mysteries concerning Mary because in a sense these are the mysteries which are the most supernatural, since it's more easy to understand how God Incarnate could accomplish the redemption of mankind than to understand how a mere creature, with supernatural grace, could accomplish it as well. Why set yourself up an intellectual roadblock against the devotion of the saints like St. Alphonsus, St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Bosco, and St. Maximilian Kolbe who even called her the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit"? Why shriek about it as though you had a greater understanding of the mysteries of the Catholic faith than these saints?

It takes naivety to accept new dogma from apparitions and writers without a second thought, not humility. Why don't you find the blue-eyed image of Medjugorje and kiss its feet? If you don't, I guess you aren't humble enough.

The faith should be vigilantly watched to prevent compromise.

Jude 1:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and Galatians 1:8 (Galatians 1:8 especially, noting the "Angel from Heaven" part)


Quote
We shouldn't downplay Mary's glory simply to appease Protestants and scrupulous Catholics who lack understanding.

Nor should we needlessly obfuscate theology in a world where most people don't even know Eucharistic theology, let alone the idea that the Faith is supposed to be pure and non-contradictory, by introducing some terminology that clearly implies heresy, unless someone decides to explain it in a way that goes counter to what the name implies itself. "Yeah, she's a Co-Redemptrix, but she didn't actually co-redeem us with Christ because this and this reasons."
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 11:42:27 AM

Like such feminists as St. Catherine of Siena, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of the Little Flower, St. Joan of Arc, etc.?

Why don't you go back into your perfect little office corner where you cry about how the world can't be as perfect as you.

You argue like a crybaby. I was making a rhetorical point.

Rhetorical points would be on-topic and persuasive. Your off-beat comment, that has nothing to do with this conversation, was neither, and was frankly disrespectful to the moderation of this site.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Heinrich on October 12, 2019, 11:59:14 AM
My favorite place. Wie findest du die, künstlicher Kruezritter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Frauenkirche
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: lauermar on October 12, 2019, 12:01:24 PM
@Kreuz, do not pay attention to the writings of people not vetted by the historical traditional Catholic church. All you need to know about proper Marian devotion comes from St. Louis De Montfort. Scratch out all the other crap and pay no attention to it. Don't give it another thought.

21 Things St. Louis de Montfort Said About the Rosary and Marian Devotion

Joseph Pronechen

April 28 marks the 300th anniversary of the death of St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort, one of the most important promoters of Marian devotion, the Rosary, and consecration to Our Lady as a sure means of growing in grace and in love for Jesus her Son and our Lord.

It was de Montfort’s method of consecration to Our Lady that St. John Paul II made and led to his motto: Totus Tuus.

In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, St. John Paul II wrote, “Thanks to St. Louis de Montfort, I came to understand that true devotion to the Mother of God is actually Christocentric, indeed, it is very profoundly rooted in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption."

On this tercentenary of St. Louis de Montfort, his writings and teachings remain ever fresh and inspiring. Let’s look at 21 of them from his works Treatise of True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, The Secret of the Rosary, and The Love of Eternal Wisdom.

(1) “It is through the most Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus Christ came into the world, and it is also through her that he will reign in the world.”

(2) “Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ. Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ.”

(3) “It would hardly be possible for me to put into words how much Our Lady thinks of the Holy Rosary and of how she vastly prefers it to all other devotions. Neither can I sufficiently express how highly she rewards those who work to preach the devotion, to establish it and spread it, nor on the other hand how firmly she punishes those who work against it.”

(4) “If priests and religious have an obligation to meditate on the great truths of our holy religion in order to live up to their vocation worthily, the same obligation, then, is just as much incumbent upon the laity — because of the fact that every day they meet with spiritual dangers which might make them lose their souls. Therefore they should arm themselves with the frequent meditation on the life, virtues and sufferings of Our Blessed Lord — which are so beautifully contained in the 15 mysteries of the Holy Rosary.”


(5) “If I were asked by someone seeking to honor our Lady, ‘What does genuine devotion to her involve?’ I would answer briefly that it consists in a full appreciation of the privileges and dignity of our Lady; in expressing our gratitude for her goodness to us; in zealously promoting devotion to her; in constantly appealing for her help; in being completely dependent on her; and in placing firm reliance and loving confidence in her motherly goodness.”

(6) “The Rosary is the most powerful weapon to touch the Heart of Jesus, Our Redeemer, who loves His Mother.”

(7) “If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory. Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practice black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and will save your soul, if — and mark well what I say — if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins.”

8. “If then we are establishing sound devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is only in order to establish devotion to our Lord more perfectly, by providing a smooth but certain way of reaching Jesus Christ.”

(9) “As she was the way by which Jesus first came to us, she will again be the way by which he will come to us the second time though not in the same manner.”

(10) “Since she is the sure means, the direct and immaculate way to Jesus and the perfect guide to him, it is through her that souls who are to shine forth in sanctity must find him. He who finds Mary finds life, that is, Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life…Mary then must be better known than ever for the deeper understanding and the greater glory of the Blessed Trinity.”

(11) “In these latter times Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, power and grace; in mercy, to bring back and welcome lovingly the poor sinners and wanderers who are to be converted and return to the Catholic Church; in power, to combat the enemies of God who will rise up menacingly to seduce and crush by promises and threats all those who oppose them; finally, she must shine forth in grace to inspire and support the valiant soldiers and loyal servants of Jesus Christ who are fighting for his cause.”

(12) “Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time—even less now than ever—to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.”

(13) “Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic or be led astray by the devil.”

(14) “Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day be led astray. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood.”

(15) “When the Holy Rosary is said well, it gives Jesus and Mary more glory and is more meritorious than any other prayer.”

(16) “[True devotion to Our Lady] is trustful, that is to say, it fills us with confidence in the Blessed Virgin, the confidence that a child has for its loving Mother. It prompts us to go to her in every need of body and soul with great simplicity, trust and affection. We implore our Mother's help always, everywhere, and for everything. We pray to her to be enlightened in our doubts, to be put back on the right path when we go astray, to be protected when we are tempted, to be strengthened when we are weakening, to be lifted up when we fall into sin, to be encouraged when we are losing heart, to be rid of our scruples, to be consoled in the trials, crosses and disappointments of life. Finally, in all our afflictions of body and soul, we naturally turn to Mary for help, with never a fear of importuning her or displeasing our Lord.”

(17) “As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God's creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus.|

(18) “That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.”

(19) “By this devotion we give to Jesus all we can possibly give him, and in the most perfect manner, that is, through Mary's hands.

(20) “The Blessed Virgin, mother of gentleness and mercy, never allows herself to be surpassed in love and generosity. When she sees someone giving himself entirely to her in order to honor and serve her, and depriving himself of what he prizes most in order to adorn her, she gives herself completely in a wondrous manner to him. She engulfs him in the ocean of her graces, adorns him with her merits, supports him with her power, enlightens him with her light, and fills him with her love. She shares her virtues with him — her humility, faith, purity, etc. She makes up for his failings and becomes his representative with Jesus. Just as one who is consecrated belongs entirely to Mary, so Mary belongs entirely to him.”

(21) “St. Thomas assures us that, following the order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true devotion to her.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/joseph-pronechen/on-his-300th-anniveresary-21-things-louis-de-montfort-said-about-the-r1
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 12, 2019, 12:03:45 PM
Either do that or abandon any pretense of Catholicism altogether.

Vetus, while I think you have a valid question as to whether Catholicism can be consistent with disobedience to the Magisterium (...)

You should've stopped here.

Should we have a video camera on Pope Francis and be required to mimic every single action that he does because he's the infallible source of epistemological certainty on faith and morality? Should we all put on a white cassock with a white zucchetto and do our best to find a balcony to preach his message during the Angelus? If the Pope decides to have a bastard child, should we, in turn, have a bastard child?

Épouvantail.

The argument is not that one should mimic the pope in every action but that, according to the Catholic model upon which the whole edifice of faith rests, one can't ignore or reject his actual magisterium (encyclicals, allocutions, bulls, official changes to the catechism, etc.) and juridical actions.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: lauermar on October 12, 2019, 12:08:33 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 12, 2019, 12:17:54 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: awkwardcustomer on October 12, 2019, 12:39:26 PM
The fact that you find an argument comprised solely on written/visual imagery and loose correlations convincing, and then support it, could be cited as an example of this forum's irresponsibly feminist policy of allowing females to freely read and post their opinions.

Here's my thinking.

Vatican II is the 'revolt' warned about by St Paul in 2Thess 2, the revolt that would signal the coming of the Antichrist.

The one who 'witholdeth' is the Pope, and he has been 'taken out of the way', ergo Sedevacante.  This is another condition fulfilled according to 2Thess 2.

Which leaves the 'signs and lying wonders' that St Paul warned would accompany the above.  Well, the Marianist Apparitions since the beginning of the 20th century have attempted to deify Our Lady and sideline Christ as Kreuzritter rightly pointed out.  They are filled with error, they point to the Conciliar apostates being true Popes, and they claim that a restoration is possible if only Catholics would stay passive and make lots of reparation.   I'm sure there will be plenty more 'signs and lying wonders' to come but so far, there seem to be hundreds of them judging by Xavier's posts, and that's not including the famous ones.

It fits what's going on. 
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 12, 2019, 02:08:07 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.
Except if he fall into heresy; per Innocent III:
"Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he mani-festly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged. [Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.]"
One can either deny that Francis is a heretic despite all the evidence to the contrary, including open appeals from Cardinals, bishops and theologians or one can conform one's beliefs to his errors. But it is clear to most people who still retain the faith of the pre-Vatican II Church; Francis is not and has not been a Catholic for a long time.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Philip G. on October 12, 2019, 02:39:17 PM
@Kreuz, do not pay attention to the writings of people not vetted by the historical traditional Catholic church. All you need to know about proper Marian devotion comes from St. Louis De Montfort. Scratch out all the other crap and pay no attention to it.

At least Alphonsus Ligouri doesn't typify the Mother of God as a murderous slave owner, exempt from molestation(Justice) by the law, spouse of antichrist, queen of the one world government.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 12, 2019, 02:57:47 PM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

The Church does worship Mary with the worship of hyperdulia. Mary is the most divine being in existence after God; not that she is divine by nature (no mere creature is whatsoever), but by supernatural participation in the life of grace which she has most abundantly. Christ calls us all gods. Mary is the most godlike being in existence after God. Yes we should worship her. The only mistake we could make in worshipping Mary is by offering her liturgical-ritual sacrifice, which would be the worship of latria that belongs to God alone. Everything besides that is permissable and praiseworthy.

Edit: Mary's priesthood is not a public or liturgical priesthood so there's no grounds for women priestesses on that account. She offers the spiritual sacrifice of her intellect and will, and the praise of her Immaculate Heart.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Heinrich on October 12, 2019, 04:00:43 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 12, 2019, 05:09:42 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.

Yes.

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."

And it's evident that what Kreutz said is true, because Pope John Paul II abolished the 1917 Code of Canon Law for the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And even the SSPX doesn't know which one to follow.

The Pope is not above dogma, however. The irony is that the Pope is supposed to "Saintly safeguard" the dogma, and dogma cannot change, and it's obvious that the Popes haven't been doing that. Pope Paul VI really fricken didn't do it well and was clearly malicious in doing so - anybody who looks at his speeches will figure that out, Pope John Paul II accentuated Pope Paul VI's auto demolition, Benedict....eh, he tried to stay within the realms of the auto demolition but reverse the auto demolition, and Pope Francis actively and visibly wants to change dogma in a way that makes Paul VI look tame.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 12, 2019, 05:13:28 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Heinrich on October 12, 2019, 05:43:02 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Oh.

ETA: Dogma. That's what I was understanding the statement to be.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Gardener on October 12, 2019, 06:05:20 PM
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Gerard on October 12, 2019, 11:37:13 PM
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


I don't think that holds.  There is nothing to stop a Pope from changing, overriding, ignoring or abolishing Canon Law.  Remember we have 2 codes of Canon Law neither or which binds the universal Church and we've never really had a canon of laws until the 20th century.  The Pope isn't really bound by red tape.  It would simply be a courtesy of the Pope to follow the rules he's laid down for everyone else, but that's about it.  It can't really bind him because he can abolish it at will.  It only has binding power because it is tied to the papacy. 
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 13, 2019, 12:45:44 PM
The Canon Law of the Latin Church is considered universal; and while the Church has always had Canon laws, they were gathered in separate collections, leading to the repetition and overlapping of many laws; so in the 20th C. Pope Pius X ordered the gathering of all the collections into a single volume, plus the harmonization of the laws; the elimination of laws that had fallen into disuse etc. That is the 1917 Code.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 13, 2019, 12:53:25 PM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

The Church does worship Mary with the worship of hyperdulia. Mary is the most divine being in existence after God; not that she is divine by nature (no mere creature is whatsoever), but by supernatural participation in the life of grace which she has most abundantly. Christ calls us all gods. Mary is the most godlike being in existence after God. Yes we should worship her. The only mistake we could make in worshipping Mary is by offering her liturgical-ritual sacrifice, which would be the worship of latria that belongs to God alone. Everything besides that is permissable and praiseworthy.

Aka, quasi-goddess. And did you hear that? So long as you don't offer "liturgical-ritual sacrifice", you can worship, serve and adore her. There's not even a pretence here of caring about the words of the Ten Commandments.


Quote
Edit: Mary's priesthood is not a public or liturgical priesthood so there's no grounds for women priestesses on that account. She offers the spiritual sacrifice of her intellect and will, and the praise of her Immaculate Heart.

Is said quasi-sacraments and quasi-priestess. Funny how you you want to ditch the adjectival word games when it comes to something you don't want.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Kreuzritter on October 13, 2019, 12:56:41 PM
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

You're not a Catholic, this clear.
You came here as a troll, and Xavier, quite innocently triggered you so hard that you're now emotionally unable to continue your schtick.

More and more your rantings reveal the simple-minded heresies a gassed up and uncontrollable ego leads a person to.

Hatred of Mary often comes across as petty jealousy.
God has offended the envious one's supposed virtue in not selecting them to mediate His graces.

If being "Catholic" means godess-worship and saying Mary paid our debts and won our salvation, then no, I'm not "Catholic", but neather is the Apostolic Church.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Gardener on October 13, 2019, 12:56:57 PM
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


I don't think that holds.  There is nothing to stop a Pope from changing, overriding, ignoring or abolishing Canon Law.  Remember we have 2 codes of Canon Law neither or which binds the universal Church and we've never really had a canon of laws until the 20th century.  The Pope isn't really bound by red tape.  It would simply be a courtesy of the Pope to follow the rules he's laid down for everyone else, but that's about it.  It can't really bind him because he can abolish it at will.  It only has binding power because it is tied to the papacy.

You're describing tyranny and hypocrisy as a tenet of the papal power? lol. Please.

He can change the law, but is bound by said law until it's changed; there is a distinct difference between power to change and power to violate (the latter of which is not possessed by a Pope) -- dispensation, which he has power to do as well, is also a distinction which must be made. But, dispensation is not violation. Further, for those laws which touch on divine law, he has no power to change them.

Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Gardener on October 13, 2019, 01:03:27 PM
KR, I think you might need to brush up on the CE articles on Dulia and Adoration:

Quote
(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

From Adoration:
Quote
The Blessed Virgin, as manifesting in a sublimer manner than any other creature the goodness of God, deserves from us a higher recognition and deeper veneration than any other of the saints; and this peculiar cultus due to her because of her unique position in the Divine economy, is designated in theology hyperdulia, that is dulia in an eminent degree. It is unfortunate that neither our own language nor the Latin possesses in its terminology the precision of the Greek. The word latria is never applied in any other sense than that of the incommunicable adoration which is due to God alone. But in English the words adore and worship are still sometimes used, and in the past were commonly so used, to mean also inferior species of religious veneration and even to express admiration or affection for persons living upon the earth. So David "adored" Jonathan. In like manner Miphiboseth "fell on his face and worshipped" David (2 Samuel 9:6). Tennyson says that Enid in her true heart, adored the queen. Those who perforce adopted these modes of expression understood perfectly well what was meant by them and were in no danger of thereby encroaching upon the rights of the Divinity. It is hardly needful to remark that Catholics, too, even the most unlearned, are in no peril of confounding the adoration due to God with the religious honour given to any finite creature even when the word worship, owing to the poverty of our language, is applied to both.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 13, 2019, 02:27:00 PM
From Adoration:
Quote
The Blessed Virgin, as manifesting in a sublimer manner than any other creature the goodness of God, deserves from us a higher recognition and deeper veneration than any other of the saints; and this peculiar cultus due to her because of her unique position in the Divine economy, is designated in theology hyperdulia, that is dulia in an eminent degree. It is unfortunate that neither our own language nor the Latin possesses in its terminology the precision of the Greek. The word latria is never applied in any other sense than that of the incommunicable adoration which is due to God alone. But in English the words adore and worship are still sometimes used, and in the past were commonly so used, to mean also inferior species of religious veneration and even to express admiration or affection for persons living upon the earth. So David "adored" Jonathan. In like manner Miphiboseth "fell on his face and worshipped" David (2 Samuel 9:6). Tennyson says that Enid in her true heart, adored the queen. Those who perforce adopted these modes of expression understood perfectly well what was meant by them and were in no danger of thereby encroaching upon the rights of the Divinity. It is hardly needful to remark that Catholics, too, even the most unlearned, are in no peril of confounding the adoration due to God with the religious honour given to any finite creature even when the word worship, owing to the poverty of our language, is applied to both.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

Yeah, Greek seems the best language for coming up with very specific words for very specific concepts. We know what we mean. The "adoration" (latria) that is given to God is an absolute and total prostration without any form of limit or restraint whatsoever, a complete self-abasement before the Divinity. When we worship the saints we do humble ourselves before them and acknowledge their superior power and virtue; but we don't utterly prostrate ourselves in this way.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 13, 2019, 02:57:29 PM
Kreuritter stated:
Quote
She didn't merit all the graces we receive de congruo and, even if you insist on that, she definitely did not make satisfaction for our sins, which is impossible.
Keuzritter,
It is a teaching of the Church that a person in the state of grace can merit for others (because of the Communion of Saints); both the grace of conversion and the grace of salvation. They can also make reparation for the sins of others including the souls in Purgatory, through prayer, penance and good works. But Our Blessed Mother's close association and relationship with her Divine Son, as well as her own excellent degree of grace and sanctity, means that her works of satisfaction are supremely pleasing to her Son and to the Blessed Trinity; more so than that of all the other creatures put together. Therefore she is able to obtain from Her son all that she asks from Him for our conversion and salvation.
Ott states the following on the title of Co-Redemptrix:
Quote
St. Ambrose expressly teaches: "Christ's Passion did not require any support"(De inst. virg. 7).
In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritually entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo)) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.
The Statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical "Ad Diem Illum" (1904): ....The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno is as the present tense "promeret" shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.
That is not the same thing as "made satisfaction for our sins"
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 13, 2019, 03:01:00 PM
The Canon Law of the Latin Church is considered universal; and while the Church has always had Canon laws, they were gathered in separate collections, leading to the repetition and overlapping of many laws; so in the 20th C. Pope Pius X ordered the gathering of all the collections into a single volume, plus the harmonization of the laws; the elimination of laws that had fallen into disuse etc. That is the 1917 Code.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
I am thinking by "2 codes of Canon Law" he was referring to the the Eastern Rites and the Roman Rite.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 13, 2019, 03:30:44 PM
The Canon Law of the Latin Church is considered universal; and while the Church has always had Canon laws, they were gathered in separate collections, leading to the repetition and overlapping of many laws; so in the 20th C. Pope Pius X ordered the gathering of all the collections into a single volume, plus the harmonization of the laws; the elimination of laws that had fallen into disuse etc. That is the 1917 Code.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
I am thinking by "2 codes of Canon Law" he was referring to the the Eastern Rites and the Roman Rite.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I was addressing the fact that a code of Canon law that is meant for the Church in general is a "universal law", as opposed to a law that would only be for a restricted part or province.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: mikemac on October 13, 2019, 06:24:02 PM
At Mass today this word de congruo meaning merited came to mind during the Invocation of the Saints.

Quote
In communion with and honoring the memory, first of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ: as also of blessed Joseph, her Spouse, and of Thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John ... Cosmos and Damian, and of all Thy saints: by whose merits and prayers grant that we may in all things be defended by the aid of Thy protection.  Through the same Christ our Lord.  Amen.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 13, 2019, 07:55:24 PM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Oh.

ETA: Dogma. That's what I was understanding the statement to be.
Just to be clear What Vetus posted is correct. The Pope has Supreme Ordinary Jurisdiction.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Xavier on October 14, 2019, 03:00:13 AM
I. If Mary dispenses all graces which originate in Christ, then as Christ merited those graces in strict justice which He now dispenses as from a Source, it necessarily follows that Mary must have merited those graces by a secondary and sub-ordinate merit, which She now dispenses as through a Channel. Christ is the Source of Grace, Mary is the Channel of Grace. Christ merited every grace in strict Justice, Mary merited them congruously by a secondary merit based on friendship and charity, by Her very many extraordinary good works throughout Her Holy, Blameless, Immaculate and Perfect life without the slightest sin, fault or imperfection. The text from the infancy Gospel of St. Matthew that Tradition has handed down was cited elsewhere, and from it we can all appreciate easily how the Blessed Virgin was already the Saint of Saints and Living Saint at age 3 in the Temple,

""And Mary was held in admiration by all the people of Israel; and when She was Three Years Old, She walked with a step so mature, She spoke so perfectly, and spent Her time so assiduously in the praises of God, that all were astonished at Her, and wondered; and She was not reckoned a young Infant, but, as it were, a grown-up person of Thirty years old. She was so constant in prayer, and Her appearance was so beautiful and glorious, that scarcely any one could look into Her face.

And She occupied herself constantly with Her wool-work, so that She in Her tender years could do all that old women were not able to do. And this was the order that She had set for Herself: From the morning to the Third hour She remained in prayer; from the Third to the Ninth She was occupied with Her weaving; and from the Ninth She again applied Herself to prayer. She did not retire from praying until there appeared to Her the angel of the Lord, from whose hand She used to receive food; and thus She became more and more perfect in the work of God. Then, when the older virgins rested from the praises of God, She did not rest at all; so that in the praises and vigils of God none were found before Her, no one more learned in the wisdom of the law of God, more lowly in humility, more elegant in singing, more perfect in all virtue. She was indeed steadfast, immoveable, unchangeable, and daily advancing to perfection. No one saw Her angry, nor heard Her speaking evil.

All Her speech was so Full of Grace, that Her God was acknowledged to be in Her tongue. She was always engaged in prayer and in searching the law, and She was anxious lest by any word of Hers She should sin with regard to Her companions. Then She was afraid lest in Her laughter, or the sound of Her beautiful voice, She should commit any fault, or lest, being elated, She should display any wrong-doing or haughtiness to one of Her equals. She blessed God without intermission; and lest perchance, even in Her salutation, She might cease from praising God; if any one saluted Her, She used to answer by way of salutation: Thanks be to God. And from Her the custom first began of men saying, Thanks be to God, when they saluted each other. She refreshed Herself only with the food which She daily received from the hand of the angel; but the food which She obtained from the priests She divided among the poor. The angels of God were often seen speaking with Her, and they most diligently obeyed Her. If any one who was unwell touched Her, the same hour he went home cured."

II. From H.H. Pope St. Pius X, we read: "from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood." Now, if Mary merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix (equivalent word of Co-Redemptrix) of the lost world, and the Dispensatrix of all the gifts that our Savior purchased for us, it clearly follows that (1) Mary merited, in union with Christ and sub-ordinate to Him, all the gifts He purchased for us, and (2) She now dispenses those gifts to us.

III. Further, and as a Third Proof, (for Catholic Christians, I'm not speaking to heretics, schismatics, apostates, the faithless, the heterodox, and non-professing-Catholics here), from what Fr. G-L writes, "Christ alone, as head of the human race, could strictly merit to transmit Divine life to us. But Pius X sanctioned the teaching of theologians when he wrote: "Mary, united to Christ in the work of salvation, merited de congruo for us what Christ merited for us de condigno." [18] is proven both that (1) Christ alone merited and could merit in strict justice the transmission of graces to us (2) Mary merited, by a secondary merit based more on the friendship of charity that united to Her to God, all the graces that Christ merited, Her Immaculate Heart being at every moment in Perfect Union with His Sacred Heart.

If we poor, fallen, sinful and ever-sinning creatures can still merit, will any Catholic Christian ever dare say Mary Immaculate would not merit super-abundantly? Most certainly, She would and would did merit more than all creatures put together, but under Christ, and only by the merciful merit that is called congruous merit; not the strict merit of perfect justice that is called condign merit; and now She dispenses those merits to us according to God's will, and each person's own efforts in co-operation with God's Grace and Hers.

An article from Catholic Culture on Mary Mediatrix of All Graces. Btw, as St. Alphonsus' beautiful sublime work, the Glories of Mary, was of indispensable help, as we learn from His Holiness Pope Bl. Pius IX in the Glorious Triumph of the Immaculate Conception Dogma, it also has been and most certainly will be instrumental in the Triumph of the Catholic Doctrine that Mary merited and dispenses all graces: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10176

Quote
Pius VII called her “Dispensatrix of all graces.”[15] Pius IX tells us “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation.”[16] Does everyone know? Obviously not yet. Leo XIII writes “nothing at all of that great grace which the Lord brought us…is imparted to us except through Mary.” The same pontiff quotes St Bernadine of Siena who teaches “Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.” St. Pius X, in his encyclical Ad Diem Illium which he wrote after study of the writings of St Louis de Montfort taught Mary is the “Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His death. Several years later this Saint Pope called Mary the “treasurer of all graces”[17].

Benedict XV says “together with Christ she has redeemed the human race . . . for this reason every kind of grace that we receive from the treasury of the Redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.”[18] In one of the miracles for St. Joan of Arc’s canonization, objection was that since the miracle took place at Lourdes it was Mary’s intercession and not Joan’s. Benedict XV declared “in every miracle we must recognize the mediation of Mary, through whom, according to God’s will, every grace and blessing comes to us . . . Mary must never be excluded.”[19]

Pius XI also called Mary “treasurer of all graces” at least three times in his pontificate[20]. Pius XII taught “nothing is excluded from her dominion”[21] and “it is the will of God that we obtain all favors from Mary.”[22] John XXIII rhetorically asks “Did not the Lord will that we have everything through Mary” and more directly instructs us that “from her hands hope for all graces.”[23] In a letter to the Legion of Mary this pope said that “the Legion of Mary present the true face of the Catholic Church”[24]. The Legion, founded by Frank Duff, takes it entire spirituality from St. Louis de Montfort. So, in effect, Pope John XXIII is telling us that St. Louis de Montfort’s work presents the true face of the Catholic Church. How can anyone who embraces the Catholic Church, upon hearing this, be a critical and/or scrupulous devotee (which will be discussed later)? ...

In the Glories of Mary St Alphonsus goes to great length and research quoting many past saints in teaching us about Mary. Chapter 5 is dedicated to Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces and included in the cited edition of the book, is also a severe refutation to those who claimed his work was intentionally exaggerated and not to be taken literally. As he begins to build his case for Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces St. Alphonsus quotes St Ephrem (d. 373 A.D.) as praying to Mary “after God we have no hope but in thee.” He also quotes St Andrew of Crete (d. 740 A.D.) who identifies Mary with the Mercy-Seat in Exodus and attributing its importance to Mary.[37] He teaches Mary as the Ark of Noah and none were saved except those in the Ark.[38]

St Alphonsus explains that Mary is necessary to our salvation not absolutely but morally, by the will of God and that all the graces God dispenses come through her hands. Doctor Alphonsus tells us that St Germanus, St Anselm, St John Damascene, St Bonaventure, Saint Anoninus, and St Bernadine of Siena all asserted the intercession of Mary was necessary to our salvation and Alphonsus assures us this is not a hyperbolic and exaggerated claim.[39]. Alphonsus and popes cite at length St Bernadine of Siena (patron saint of this author’s studies at the University of Steubenville on whose feast day the application for admittance was written by the way), who teaches that “all graces of the spiritual life that descend from Christ their head, to the faithful, who are His mystical body, are transmitted by Mary” and the reason is because “that as God was pleased to dwell in the womb of this holy Virgin, she acquired a kind of jurisdiction over all graces.”[40]

St. Alphonsus refers to St Ildephonsus (d. 667 A.D.) along with one of our other Doctors, St Bernard, as teaching that God has determined that no grace shall be granted otherwise than by the hands of Mary.[41] And yet another Doctor, St Bonaventure (d. 1274) is cited regarding the Isaiah’s “rod out of the root of Jesse” who teaches “whoever desires the grace of the Holy Spirit let him seek for the flower of the Holy Ghost in the rod, that is Jesus in Mary, for by the rod we find the flower and by the flower God so if you desire to possess the flower bend down the rod which bears the flower by prayer.”[42]

St Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, tells us “the Church believes with St Bernard that God has determined that no grace shall be granted otherwise than by the hand of Mary.” “God wills it” says St Bernard[43]. Can we as good Catholics really trust in ourselves so much as to not embrace this and to think otherwise? As to St Bernard, this doctor of the Church and his teaching that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces absolutely permeated and influenced Marian teaching. Mary is the aqueduct from which all graces are distributed.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: Gardener on October 14, 2019, 08:59:33 AM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Oh.

ETA: Dogma. That's what I was understanding the statement to be.
Just to be clear What Vetus posted is correct. The Pope has Supreme Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Which is a red herring since to become Pope a man must be subject to Canon Law: Catholic. And Canon Law does not make provision for certain categories of persons to become Pope.

Further, and beyond the red herring, that the Pope can dispense himself from Canon Law is indicative that he is, in fact, in some way, subject to it -- otherwise he wouldn't need to dispense himself.

Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: St.Justin on October 14, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Oh.

ETA: Dogma. That's what I was understanding the statement to be.
Just to be clear What Vetus posted is correct. The Pope has Supreme Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Which is a red herring since to become Pope a man must be subject to Canon Law: Catholic. And Canon Law does not make provision for certain categories of persons to become Pope.

Further, and beyond the red herring, that the Pope can dispense himself from Canon Law is indicative that he is, in fact, in some way, subject to it -- otherwise he wouldn't need to dispense himself.

    "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
    "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).

The Pope receives his authority From God who is above the Law.

SECTION I: THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 330 - 367)
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: John Lamb on October 14, 2019, 11:37:30 AM
From my parish hall, a print of a late medieval painting showing that the magnification of Our Lady is not a modern innovation. My friend and I joked when we saw it how much Protestants would be shocked at how large Our Lady is in the image compared to Our Lord on the Cross.

(https://i.postimg.cc/mrtshwBz/IMG-20191014-125808.jpg)
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2019, 02:29:43 PM
Quote
"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword; and shall be led away captives into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles; till the times of the nations be fulfilled."

Well, whatever "the times of the nations be fulfilled" should mean, we are in it.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2019, 02:33:24 PM
Quote
The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

If you mean that a Pope can be deposed via the Canon Law, then you are correct.  If you mean that a non Catholic can be Pope, you are in error.

St. Robert wrote about this.  If the claimant is an heretic, he is not the Pope because he is not Catholic.  Furthermore, there is no trial.  It's just a statement of fact.

Bergoglio has been accused of heresy umpteen times now.  He has not recanted.  He's an heretic, so he is not the Pope.  Probably Benedict is still Pope, or maybe there is no Pope.
Title: Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2019, 02:35:01 PM
Quote
   "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
    "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).

The Pope receives his authority From God who is above the Law.
Non sequitur.  Bergolio is not the Pope.