thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 [url="http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php"]http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php[/url]
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.
MissyP89 Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Anything that falls under dogma--and therefore forces my belief under penalty of excommunication--tends to make me nervous, frankly.
Archaeology cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792518' date='Feb 27 2009, 06:54 PM']I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.[/quote]
KnightofChrist Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792518' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:54 PM']I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.[/quote] What he said.
thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) demand? I'm not demanding anything and I don't think Dr. Marivalle is either. A petition is not a demand. Don't sign it if you don't want to. The purpose of declaring a dogma is to clarify the misconceptions. The doctrine regarding co-redemptrix is clearly stated in ccc 970. I don't see the problem. 970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." Edited February 27, 2009 by thessalonian
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) the CCC isn't scripture nor the language of the Fathers. you are missing the point. Edited February 27, 2009 by MIkolbe
thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792564' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:40 PM']the CCC isn't scripture nor the language of the Fathers. you are missing the point.[/quote] Neither was the Immmaculate Conception. No, I get your point. It's not a valid one. BTW I think IC came about in part by petition. Oh yes and where is the assumption in the father and in scripture directly? I know about the Ark of the Covenant/mary paralel. Edited February 27, 2009 by thessalonian
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I would be interested to know if the IC came about in part of a petition like this. Dogma by petition seems odd to me. I stand my orginal post. It would lead to more confusion than it would resolve. Not a good idea..
Noel's angel Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I just don't know how anyone can believe that a petition could have any effect on this matter.
jeffpugh Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 When I first saw the title, I thought "Oh, someone advocating 'Mother of All Peoples'". Now I see there are a couple people wanting to get on board with the "Fifth Marian Dogma".
MissyP89 Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) The Assumption was brought about by popular demand, I believe. It was mentioned multiple times in the original 1950 declaration. Edited February 27, 2009 by MissyP89
CatholicCid Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 A petition would show a strong urging by the Church Militant for a clarification of the teaching, I believe. Would it effect the defining of a dogma? Not in a bad way, but instead show the support of the laity for it. I agree with MIkolbe, though.
kafka Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 There are many more dogmas, doctrines and pious opinions/theological speculations concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary than merely five. Some people in that above movement think the so-called co-redemptrix dogma as the fifth and final Marian dogma. This is completely false and erroneous. Plus this movement has its roots in a false visionary named Ida Peerdman. Needless to say for most of you yet: Disregard and avoid this movement.
StColette Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792571' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:48 PM']I would be interested to know if the IC came about in part of a petition like this. Dogma by petition seems odd to me. I stand my orginal post. It would lead to more confusion than it would resolve. Not a good idea..[/quote] Jason to the following article by Pope John Paul II the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was petitioned for. 1. Down the centuries, the conviction that Mary was preserved from every stain of sin from her conception, so that she is to be called all holy, gradually gained ground in the liturgy and theology. At the start of the 19th century,[b] this development led to a petition drive for a dogmatic definition of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception[/b]. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm[/url] I remember Dr. Miravalle teaching us this in Mariology 1 and Mariology 2
KnightofChrist Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Honestly though how many times must this be rejected by the Holy See?
StColette Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1792588' date='Feb 27 2009, 03:02 PM']There are many more dogmas, doctrines and pious opinions/theological speculations concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary than merely five. Some people in that above movement think the so-called co-redemptrix dogma as the fifth and final Marian dogma. This is completely false and erroneous. Plus this movement has its roots in a false visionary named Ida Peerdman. Needless to say for most of you yet: Disregard and avoid this movement.[/quote] According to the Church her [b]role[/b] as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate is a doctrine of the Church. I bolded the "role" part to make it more as to what I mean. Her roles as the three above is a doctrine of the faith. However, her role as Co-Redemptrix has not been made dogma under that title. Does that make sense?
Brother Adam Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Thessalonian and StColette are both correct. There is really more confusion about this role of Mary which are already doctrine (and may not be rejected by the Catholic faithful) than if it were truly declared dogma - and therefore eliminating all ambiguities. Sure the fundamentalists will go nuts, but since when is this new? The only question is not "if" but "when" will this become dogma. I personally do not believe now is the right time, however the "sense of the faithful" may cause the Holy See to make such a declaration within the next 50 to 100 years.
StColette Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 In addition, if I remember correctly there was also a petition signed by millions for the Dogma of the Assumption.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now