Petition The Holy Father For The 5th Marian Dogma

[StColette]

[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]

Honestly though how many times must this be rejected by the Holy See?

[StColette]

[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]

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]

In addition, if I remember correctly there was also a petition signed by millions for the Dogma of the Assumption.

[scardella]

BTW, this petition is ONLY about elevating the ALREADY EXISTING doctrine to the level of dogma.

[StColette]

[quote name='scardella' post='1792635' date='Feb 27 2009, 04:41 PM']BTW, this petition is ONLY about elevating the ALREADY EXISTING doctrine to the level of dogma.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1792573' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:49 PM']I just don't know how anyone can believe that a petition could have any effect on this matter.[/quote]

Probably because the petitions for the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception as well as for the Assumption were largely supported by the Catholic laity of the world and had an influence on the actions of the Magisterium.

[kafka]

[quote name='StColette' post='1792616' date='Feb 27 2009, 03:45 PM']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?[/quote]That is why I said 'so-called co-Redemptrix as the fifth and final Marian dogma.' I know it is a doctrine, and it should stay that way for a while for many reasons.

The point I was making is that Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix (not of all graces see below) and Advocatrix (not Advocate, for only Christ is the Advocate between us and the Father) if it were to be defined infallibly by the Magisterium would not the Fifth nor is it the final Marian dogma. That is the error I was pointing out. There are currently more than five Marian teachings infallibly taught by the Church. In other words there are more than a mere five Marian dogmas

Anyhow just a little clarification for everyone. First off Mary is not the Mediatrix of all graces. A better title would simply be Mediatrix, or Mediatrix of Graces, not Mediatrix of all graces. She is not Mediatrix of the graces that flows from Christ's Divine nature to His human nature; there is no mediation within the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures of Christ. She is not the Mediatrix of the graces that she herself receives from Christ. In all other cases she is the Mediatrix of grace. This is an important distinction people need to realize.



The Magisterium should delay an sort of a definition of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatrix, since these doctrines are entangled with Dr. Miravalle, Vox Populi and the false visionary Ida Peerdman.
There are some serious theological errors Dr. Mirvalle's theology. Also in the movement called Vox Populi which has an enormous claim on this 'proposed dogma'. Also the false private revelations of Ida Peerdman are all entangled with these Marian teachings. These influences need to be purged and the doctrine still needs to develop and be clarified by the Faithful before the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix should be defined as a dogma. I suspect that someday it will be defined by an Ecumenical council (in reaction to errors being spread), and not by Pope ex Cathedra.

Edited February 27, 2009 by kafka

[StColette]

[quote name='kafka' post='1792684' date='Feb 27 2009, 06:08 PM']That is why I said 'so-called co-Redemptrix as the fifth and final Marian dogma.' I know it is a doctrine, and it should stay that way for a while for many reasons.

The point I was making is that Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix (not of all graces see below) and Advocatrix (not Advocate, for only Christ is the Advocate between us and the Father) if it were to be defined infallibly by the Magisterium would not the Fifth nor is it the final Marian dogma. That is the error I was pointing out. There are currently more than five Marian teachings infallibly taught by the Church. In other words there are more than a mere five Marian dogmas

Anyhow just a little clarification for everyone. First off Mary is not the Mediatrix of all graces. A better title would simply be Mediatrix, or Mediatrix of Graces, not Mediatrix of all graces. She is not Mediatrix of the graces that flows from Christ's Divine nature to His human nature; there is no mediation within the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures of Christ. She is not the Mediatrix of the graces that she herself receives from Christ. In all other cases she is the Mediatrix of grace. This is an important distinction people need to realize.



The Magisterium should delay an sort of a definition of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatrix, since these doctrines are entangled with Dr. Miravalle, Vox Populi and the false visionary Ida Peerdman.
There are some serious theological errors Dr. Mirvalle's theology. Also in the movement called Vox Populi which has an enormous claim on this 'proposed dogma'. Also the false private revelations of Ida Peerdman are all entangled with these Marian teachings. These influences need to be purged and the doctrine still needs to develop and be clarified by the Faithful before the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix should be defined as a dogma. I suspect that someday it will be defined by an Ecumenical council (in reaction to errors being spread), and not by Pope ex Cathedra.[/quote]
Please give evidence for all of your stances above because much of what you have stated above is false. Please give sufficent proof and sitations.

[kafka]

[quote name='StColette' post='1792902' date='Feb 27 2009, 09:29 PM']Please give evidence for all of your stances above because much of what you have stated above is false. Please give sufficent proof and sitations.[/quote]
point out what in particular you think is false or what you have a complaint about or what needs more proof. I did make some general statements, but that is only for people to get a seed of another viewpoint and perhaps lead them to discover more on their own. I guess I could go in depth if I think it will benefit people here (or you), but in general I have other things to do. So I'll wait for your response and decide from there.

[Slappo]

[quote name='kafka' post='1792684' date='Feb 27 2009, 03:08 PM']That is why I said 'so-called co-Redemptrix as the fifth and final Marian dogma.' I know it is a doctrine, and it should stay that way for a while for many reasons.

The point I was making is that Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix (not of all graces see below) and Advocatrix (not Advocate, for only Christ is the Advocate between us and the Father) if it were to be defined infallibly by the Magisterium would not the Fifth nor is it the final Marian dogma. That is the error I was pointing out. There are currently more than five Marian teachings infallibly taught by the Church. In other words there are more than a mere five Marian dogmas

Anyhow just a little clarification for everyone. First off Mary is not the Mediatrix of all graces. A better title would simply be Mediatrix, or Mediatrix of Graces, not Mediatrix of all graces. She is not Mediatrix of the graces that flows from Christ's Divine nature to His human nature; there is no mediation within the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures of Christ. She is not the Mediatrix of the graces that she herself receives from Christ. In all other cases she is the Mediatrix of grace. This is an important distinction people need to realize.



The Magisterium should delay an sort of a definition of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatrix, since these doctrines are entangled with Dr. Miravalle, Vox Populi and the false visionary Ida Peerdman.
There are some serious theological errors Dr. Mirvalle's theology. Also in the movement called Vox Populi which has an enormous claim on this 'proposed dogma'. Also the false private revelations of Ida Peerdman are all entangled with these Marian teachings. These influences need to be purged and the doctrine still needs to develop and be clarified by the Faithful before the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix should be defined as a dogma. I suspect that someday it will be defined by an Ecumenical council (in reaction to errors being spread), and not by Pope ex Cathedra.[/quote]


Kafka,
All of your attempts at showing the error of the proclamation fail as soon as you say that there are more then five Marian [b]Dogma's[/b]. Not everything that must be held as infallible by Catholics is a [b]dogma[/b]. There are three levels of authority within the Catholic Church on teachings: Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline.

There are currently only four [b]Marian dogmas[/b]:
Assumption into heaven
Perpetual Virginity
Immaculate Conception
Mother of God

Also, I'm 95% sure that the supposed apparitions claimed by Ida Peerdman have not been formally affirmed or condemned by the Church and therefore to call her revelations false is a private opinion and not that held by the Church or binding on Catholics. Please correct me if I am wrong [b]with a source[/b]. Just because JPII didn't proclaim the Dogma does not make the revelation false as one could easily argue that the revelation fell under God's conditional will and not His ordained will.

Mary's role as advocate isn't between Man and the Father so your statement means absolutely nothing. Mary's role as advocate is between Man and [b]Christ[/b]. Christ is then the Advocate between Man and the Father.

Christ is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother, or the Gebirah (this isn't Mirivalle's theology, this is biblical theology). Solomon had Bathseba (sp?) as his queen, and of course Bathseba was his [b]mother[/b]. The main role of the queen in Judaic tradition is to advocate between the people of the kingdom, and the king. Mary is then to advocate between the people of the kingdom (Christians) and the king (Christ - see feast of Christ the King).

[KnightofChrist]

Kafka will likely argue, that believing that there are now only four Marian dogmas is a narrow vision of what constitutes a Dogma.

[kafka]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1792993' date='Feb 27 2009, 10:17 PM']Kafka,
All of your attempts at showing the error of the proclamation fail as soon as you say that there are more then five Marian [b]Dogma's[/b]. Not everything that must be held as infallible by Catholics is a [b]dogma[/b]. There are three levels of authority within the Catholic Church on teachings: Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline.

There are currently only four [b]Marian dogmas[/b]:
Assumption into heaven
Perpetual Virginity
Immaculate Conception
Mother of God

Also, I'm 95% sure that the supposed apparitions claimed by Ida Peerdman have not been formally affirmed or condemned by the Church and therefore to call her revelations false is a private opinion and not that held by the Church or binding on Catholics. Please correct me if I am wrong [b]with a source[/b]. Just because JPII didn't proclaim the Dogma does not make the revelation false as one could easily argue that the revelation fell under God's conditional will and not His ordained will.

Mary's role as advocate isn't between Man and the Father so your statement means absolutely nothing. Mary's role as advocate is between Man and [b]Christ[/b]. Christ is then the Advocate between Man and the Father.

Christ is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother, or the Gebirah (this isn't Mirivalle's theology, this is biblical theology). Solomon had Bathseba (sp?) as his queen, and of course Bathseba was his [b]mother[/b]. The main role of the queen in Judaic tradition is to advocate between the people of the kingdom, and the king. Mary is then to advocate between the people of the kingdom (Christians) and the king (Christ - see feast of Christ the King).[/quote]
There are more than five Marian dogmas. I will demonstrate that tommorrow, for I am busy with other things tonight. The idea that there are only four Marian dogmas is a theological opinion, which I dissent from for very good reasons.

There are two levels of authority of the Magisterium. Spiritual and temporal. I will go into this further tommorrow.

I'm not sure if Ida Peerdman's private revelations have been judged by the temporal authority of the Magisterium, I will find if they are or not tommorrow yet in any case they contain serious errors therefore based on this the Faithful may judge them as false without an official ruling from the Magisterium.

My very brief statement about Mary's role as Advocatrix does mean something. First off the term Advocate is theologically deficient for Mary since she is a woman and not a man. I guess I could go into her role as Advocatrix more tommorrow (if I see it fitting).

I like the analogy and statements of your last paragraph.

[Slappo]

[quote name='kafka' post='1793045' date='Feb 27 2009, 08:44 PM']There are more than five Marian dogmas. I will demonstrate that tommorrow, for I am busy with other things tonight. The idea that there are only four Marian dogmas is a theological opinion, which I dissent from for very good reasons.[/quote]

I think this nullifies any point to arguing for or against it being the 5th Marian dogma... not to fall into relativism, but I think for purposes of arguing against the proclamation it is pretty pointless. The pope wouldn't declare "Mary as co-redemptrix etc is the 5th Marian Dogma," so as to whether it would be the 5th or the 297th it doesn't really matter for purposes of this thread. I think we're looking more at whether such a definition would be fruitful and what problems it may pose.

[quote name='kafka' post='1793045' date='Feb 27 2009, 08:44 PM']I'm not sure if Ida Peerdman's private revelations have been judged by the temporal authority of the Magisterium, I will find if they are or not tommorrow yet in any case they contain serious errors therefore based on this the Faithful may judge them as false without an official ruling from the Magisterium.[/quote]
If there are "serious errors" and the Church has not proclaimed them false, I'd love to know what the errors are. I think if such serious errors were present, the Church wouldn't hesitate since the apparitions (as far as I know) have been over for many years.

[quote name='kafka' post='1793045' date='Feb 27 2009, 08:44 PM']My very brief statement about Mary's role as Advocatrix does mean something. First off the term Advocate is theologically deficient for Mary since she is a woman and not a man. I guess I could go into her role as Advocatrix more tommorrow (if I see it fitting).[/quote]
I'd like to know what is unfitting about Advocate in reference to Mary. I don't understand what is gender specific about the word.

Advocate:
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French avocat, from Latin advocatus, past participle (used as a noun) of advocare ‘call (to one's aid),’ from ad- ‘to’ + vocare ‘to call.’
It is a masculine word in Latin, but by no means does that limit it to being in reference to a male. Patron comes from patronus which is masculine but we don't hesitate to call female saints patrons of different things (St. Therese patron of Alaska for instance ).

If you are arguing from this perspective and say that because it is a title you can't use a masculine word for the title of a female... well... English no longer carries masculine and feminine therefore "Advocate" isn't a masculine title. Both "advocata" and "advocatus" feminine and masculine respectively would roughly translate advocate. I'm sure I'm on the wrong track though .

[quote name='kafka' post='1793045' date='Feb 27 2009, 08:44 PM']I like the analogy and statements of your last paragraph.[/quote]
Thanks