Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb of God at the crucifixion, which was the central act of Redemption. No onlooker could fully participate in this act because only the God-man could qualify for this fulfillment. Anyone else would be subordinate.
One problem that I have noticed over the years is: because Mary allowed herself to be fully transformed by grace, this is used for directing attention to Mary instead of directly to God. We should emulate her example of humility toward God instead of removing our attention from Him and directing it to Mary. I suspect that this results from misunderstandings related to the title of mediatrix of all graces.
Our own nearness to Christ should not be underestimated when we have the Spirit of Christ within us. This is a proximity to Him that is no different than Mary’s, except that the level of walking in the Spirit would probably be the major difference, if any.
Does the Magisterium have authority over our personal consciences? This debated issue directly impacts any assent that the Magisterium may require. Vatican II speaks of psychological freedom and non-coercion. This may need some further clarification.
Catholic tradition holds that Mary's proximity to Christ is greater than ours, though. And this is what enables her to have a greater cooperation in the redemptive act. Not that we don't. But our participation and our state of Grace is not equal to Mary's. This lies in her relationship to Christ. There is no greater singular grace given to mankind (outside of redemption, perhaps) than that of the Divine Maternity. This is the most intimate relationship to Christ that a human can have.
As to the conscience question... You pose a very important one, and one I must distinguish. The Catholic is not free to hold a contrary view to things that are De Fide, for example, without pain of sin. So in that way, yes, through definition on faith and morals, the magisterium binds the conscience of the believer. But, all people have the psychological freedom to decide whether they are going to believe or not, and whether they will dissent or not. No one can be forced to embrace the faith. But once the faith has been embraced, they are beholden to the Magisterium and are bound to obedience on pain of sin.
I agree, both titles are confusing and misleading. I also have an issue with the term conceived without sin. The Scriptures proclaim that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The only title conferred on Mary was that 'all nations will call you Blessed'. Much of Mariology developed during the Middle Ages. Isn't it possible that the term 'woman' used in Genesis refers to the Church?
Mariology as a whole develops gradually over time, but it certainly begins in the Patristic period. Within the first two centuries, we see Mary referred to as an intercessor and the Panhagia (All Holy).
Second, the conceived without sin is a direct reference to Luke 1:28. The Angel calls Mary "Full of Grace." The English is not the best, as the Greek, Kecharitomene, means that she is perfectly filled at every moment of her existence, with Grace. This means that there is not a time when she is ever tainted by sin, which includes original sin. This is why she is told to Chaire! That is, Rejoice! We translate that as Hail but it has its connection to the Old Testament phrase Rejoice! O Daughter Zion!
The language of Genesis lends itself to it being a woman who conquers alongside her seed. Christ conquers but is not the seed of the Church. So the logical conclusion is Mary.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that she was preserved immune from the stain (or guilt as stated in Vatican II) of original faults. Does this mean that Mary was immune from the consequences of the original faults such as death and human weakness that we all have to deal with? Paul calls this the law of sin. The language of the dogma seems to leave this as an open question.
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
The stain of sin refers to two things:
The guilt of original sin
The effects of original sin
This means that she would have been exempt from human weakness and death and the like. This is probably why Pius XII does not specifically speak of her death in the definition of the Assumption, although the majority opinion, according to the Fathers and Theologians, is that she chose to undergo a bodily death to be united to her son. I would argue the language of the Dogma settles this.
I think that the dogma clearly states that Mary was immune from the guilt of original sin. It doesn’t speak of the effects. Maybe this is why the dogma of the assumption doesn’t address whether Mary died or not before the assumption, or whether she even had a choice.
This is why the whole document is important. The rest of the document gives the context to which we need to understand “stain of sin”
“And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.”
It explicitly states that she is free from every corruption of body, soul, and mind. This includes the effects of original sin: weakness, death, concupiscence, etc.
Thank you so much!
I hope it was informative. Thanks for reading.
Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb of God at the crucifixion, which was the central act of Redemption. No onlooker could fully participate in this act because only the God-man could qualify for this fulfillment. Anyone else would be subordinate.
One problem that I have noticed over the years is: because Mary allowed herself to be fully transformed by grace, this is used for directing attention to Mary instead of directly to God. We should emulate her example of humility toward God instead of removing our attention from Him and directing it to Mary. I suspect that this results from misunderstandings related to the title of mediatrix of all graces.
Our own nearness to Christ should not be underestimated when we have the Spirit of Christ within us. This is a proximity to Him that is no different than Mary’s, except that the level of walking in the Spirit would probably be the major difference, if any.
Does the Magisterium have authority over our personal consciences? This debated issue directly impacts any assent that the Magisterium may require. Vatican II speaks of psychological freedom and non-coercion. This may need some further clarification.
Catholic tradition holds that Mary's proximity to Christ is greater than ours, though. And this is what enables her to have a greater cooperation in the redemptive act. Not that we don't. But our participation and our state of Grace is not equal to Mary's. This lies in her relationship to Christ. There is no greater singular grace given to mankind (outside of redemption, perhaps) than that of the Divine Maternity. This is the most intimate relationship to Christ that a human can have.
As to the conscience question... You pose a very important one, and one I must distinguish. The Catholic is not free to hold a contrary view to things that are De Fide, for example, without pain of sin. So in that way, yes, through definition on faith and morals, the magisterium binds the conscience of the believer. But, all people have the psychological freedom to decide whether they are going to believe or not, and whether they will dissent or not. No one can be forced to embrace the faith. But once the faith has been embraced, they are beholden to the Magisterium and are bound to obedience on pain of sin.
I agree, both titles are confusing and misleading. I also have an issue with the term conceived without sin. The Scriptures proclaim that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The only title conferred on Mary was that 'all nations will call you Blessed'. Much of Mariology developed during the Middle Ages. Isn't it possible that the term 'woman' used in Genesis refers to the Church?
So a couple of things:
Mariology as a whole develops gradually over time, but it certainly begins in the Patristic period. Within the first two centuries, we see Mary referred to as an intercessor and the Panhagia (All Holy).
Second, the conceived without sin is a direct reference to Luke 1:28. The Angel calls Mary "Full of Grace." The English is not the best, as the Greek, Kecharitomene, means that she is perfectly filled at every moment of her existence, with Grace. This means that there is not a time when she is ever tainted by sin, which includes original sin. This is why she is told to Chaire! That is, Rejoice! We translate that as Hail but it has its connection to the Old Testament phrase Rejoice! O Daughter Zion!
The language of Genesis lends itself to it being a woman who conquers alongside her seed. Christ conquers but is not the seed of the Church. So the logical conclusion is Mary.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that she was preserved immune from the stain (or guilt as stated in Vatican II) of original faults. Does this mean that Mary was immune from the consequences of the original faults such as death and human weakness that we all have to deal with? Paul calls this the law of sin. The language of the dogma seems to leave this as an open question.
Here is the relevant passage:
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
The stain of sin refers to two things:
The guilt of original sin
The effects of original sin
This means that she would have been exempt from human weakness and death and the like. This is probably why Pius XII does not specifically speak of her death in the definition of the Assumption, although the majority opinion, according to the Fathers and Theologians, is that she chose to undergo a bodily death to be united to her son. I would argue the language of the Dogma settles this.
I think that the dogma clearly states that Mary was immune from the guilt of original sin. It doesn’t speak of the effects. Maybe this is why the dogma of the assumption doesn’t address whether Mary died or not before the assumption, or whether she even had a choice.
This is why the whole document is important. The rest of the document gives the context to which we need to understand “stain of sin”
“And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.”
It explicitly states that she is free from every corruption of body, soul, and mind. This includes the effects of original sin: weakness, death, concupiscence, etc.