Cases of aberrant devotions to Mary in the Roman Church

Here is just one case, and I’m sure there’ll be others added over time:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22778.0

“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.”

Sole conscientious objector raises a concerned voice:

“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?”

and he’s informed of the larger traditions behind 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.”

The original poster adds this:

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)?

 

Marian veneration leads slowly but inexorably toward (in the direction of) heresy. I'm not surprised to see that some have crossed that line into heresy. The fact that most have not (yet) done so ill-justifies the practice. Better by far to steer clear of Marian piety altogether IMO.

 

I had heard about a push for the idea of Mary as Mediatrix to be declared a dogma. What the cardinals in question proposed was odd to say the least but what the posters in that thread were espousing was really over the top. Then again I shouldn't be surprised considering where it's coming from.

I have a pretty serious devotion to Mary myself but I'm more than willing to admit there has been some weird stuff developing out of Marian veneration throughout the years. It's crazy how in this current climate with the Vatican spreading heresy and even pagan worship that some in the traditional circles have decided this is the right time to jump on the crazy train. There's a good reason Mediatrix, Mary being present in the Eucharist, Mary as part of the trinity (in what world does that make sense?) etc are not dogma and have all been rejected by popes and numerous theologians. Why they think dredging up fringe devotions and heretical ideas is going to fix the Church is beyond me.

 

I don't know for a fact, but I read somewhere not long ago that over 1 million letters, requesting/advocating that Mary be proclaimed co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, have been received by the Vatican.

It's dangerous, spiritually speaking, when people start to believe that they receive salvation by anything other than God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It turns my stomach to read some of the error-ridden beliefs of the RCs in that thread.

 

This sentiment is itself heretical according to the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis of which Stalwart and I are fans, being the false doctrine of the Antidicomarianites. It was also the justification Nestorius used in attempting to impose Christotokos. The Antidicomarianites were one of two opposed heresies, the other being the Collyridians, who are like RC mariolaters. Both were wrong.

Today, we cannot allow either Collyridianism or Antidicomarianism, and the embrace of the latter by radical Reformed, non-denominational and Restorationist sects in response to the embrace of the former by Catholics causes those sects in many cases to also embrace the vile doctrine of Nestorius, which is repugnant to Anglican values and condemned by the Council of Ephesus.

Rather the Anglican and Eastern approach to the Theotokos is correct, which is to venerate her but not worship her, as she does not desire worship; the veneration of the Theotokos points to the Son. It should also be remembered that most Anglican cathedrals and many parishes have a Lady Chapel dedicated to the Theotokos, and the Rosary is a devotion used by some Anglo Catholics (although I prefer the Jesus Prayer myself). And there is a rosary-like devotion in Russian Orthodoxy, the Rule of St. Seraphim of Sarov.

 

1. That group consists of the followers of “Our Lady of Europe”, an apparition ruled false by the CDF, where a demon appeared to a poor Dutch lady, impersonated the Theotokos, made a fist gesture, and demanded the Church declare the Theotokos to be Co-Redemptrix, the so called “Fifth Dogma.” Mercifully, the Roman church has not done this, and we need to pray that they do not, because I do desire Roman church improvement and reform so as to facilitate ecumenical reconciliation and eventually the restoration of communion (with Anglican churches and Orthodox churches officially recognized as autocephalous and not subject to Papal jurisdiction). Remember though, Our Lady is not regarded as co-redemptrix by the Roman Catholic Church or the majority of Roman Catholics.

2. It can be profitable, I have found, when, for example, the actions of the Episcopalian bishops in the US become too much to bear and one feels sapped of the strength to even reply polemically, to back off and focus on working out one’s own salvation with fear and trembling.

 

Your devotion strikes me as well within the marks. The radical doctrines you describe are the heresies of the ancient Collyridian sect, and in modern times are being pushed by the Ida Peerdeman / Our Lady of Amsterdam/Our Lady of Europe people, as the “Fifth Dogma” and by the Medjugorje people, and these people are insane. And Cardinal Schonburn violated ancient canon law by leaving his diocese of Vienna and going to Medjugorje against the wishes of the local bishop, who has been fighting it for years. I really admire the Bishop of Mostar and his predeccessor, who was villainized in a pro-Medjugorje film made by Martin Sheen! A poor ethnic Croation bishop in Herzegovina, being singled out and targeted by Hollywood, because he rejected as false the claims of a group of pot-smoking teenagers some of whom claim to see Mary “on demand” exploited by a rogue Franciscan province in an effort to maintain control of a parish church they were supposed to hand over to the Diocesan clergy in the 1880s, when it was decided their province should be wound down as a regular diocese had been implemented following the the region being conquered by Austria-Hungary, ending the brutal Turkocratia which in the case of the Croatians had required the use of Fransiscan friars to minister to them, under the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda Fide). The Fransiscan “spiritual director” of the Medjugorje seers had the arrogance and temerity to attempt to directly present himself before Pope John Paul II and was later excommunicated if memory serves. And of the seers, in contrast to earlier apparitions the RCC regards as legitimate, even dubious ones I reject (and people should remember, approved apparitions remain optional beliefs for Roman Catholics, which helps; not much but it does help), such as Lourdes and Fatima, produced no vocations. And several of the seers have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar (presumably the kind that get you baked), in terms of, for example, one seer claiming the Virgin Mary desired the financing of a hotel to occur so construction could proceed, for the benefit of pilgrims. It turned out he had an undisclosed financial influence in the project.

I really admire the struggle of the Bishops of Mostar against that insidious sect. They make me feel like there are still some decent bishops left in the Roman church. I also like the Bishop of Marquette, and the Archbishop of San Francisco, a conservative traditionalist miraculously appointed to that city, where he has been cleaning up the homosexuality and restoring the traditional Tridentine liturgy, and also encouraging the Dominicans to celebrate their traditional Latin mass, and has made the parish St. Mary Star-Of-The-Sea an Oratory, like the celebrated Brompton Oratory adjacent to Holy Trinity Brompton in London (from whence hails Archbishop Justin Welby; I am not a huge fan of HTB).

 

The big problem here is what people mean by "veneration". Too often, veneration becomes worship, if there's even a distinction to be made, which I'm not clear that there is. Because of this grave concern, while we do have Lady Chapels, and we do have parishes named "St. Mary's" and the like, yet we never invoke her or any other saint in our prayers, for we direct all of our piety (venerations, worship, etc) to God alone.

 

A classic 'Marian' image. Can anyone see problems with this?

 

Yes!
Mary appears to be wearing a dress of the later medieval period or even tudor.
Jesus' cross wouldn't have been made of nicely dressed 6x4 timber.
Jesus' hair on what maybe St Veronica's hankie probably wouldn't have been long. (Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1 Corinthians 11:14)
The crown also looks early medieval.
I don't think there are any female angels.
The dice are ok they have been around since ancient Egyptian days.

 

I presume it's an image of Our Lady of Solitude depicting Mary's solitude on Holy Saturday. The image shows objects associated with the Passion and Crucifixion. The pillar and scourge, the stick with a sponge, crown of thorns, dice for casting lots for Jesus' cloak etc. etc.

I don't know who the artist is in this case but the picture has a strange arrangement. The layout has elements reminiscent of Masonic or esoteric symbolism. Mary is central... Mary as goddess, Mary as saviour even.

 

The angels kneel to Mary and appear to possibly be praying to her. Should mortals do likewise?

The circular image at Mary's feet is too small for me to make out who's in it. However, I note that Mary's heart, stabbed many times and burning with everlasting fire (of love? zeal?) is placed at the very top center of this entire panoply, elevated above even the cross. Mary is definitely the 'star' here, and Jesus is relegated to the lesser role.

 

You know reading this thread was enlightening. I heard about the push for Mary Advocate, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces a long time ago. The fifth Marian Dogma so-called.

after reading everything here I fall in line with Anglican Mariology completely. Yes, I pray the rosary, but these RCC excesses I abhor, and @Stalwart has made me examine my view of Marian apparitions more closely..

when I identify my religion I am reconciled with the RCC, I am a communicant, but I consider myself an Anglican Papalist. Thank you to the posters for this beautiful piece of apologetics. I’ll refer to it a few more times to correct wrong views I may harbor. This is most helpful

 

A few things could be said about Papalism. The RCC counts every bishop overseeing the area of early Rome as a "Pope." But no bishop of Rome called himself "Pope" for the first few hundred years of the church.

Nor were they chosen by a college of Cardinals, because no Cardinals then existed. A church region (whether Rome, Alexandria, or elsewhere) simply had a practice of choosing for itself a 'homegrown' successor from among the local presbytery. For example, Eleutherius became a deacon in Rome at the time when Anicetus was the bishop at Rome. Anicetus passed away and Soter was chosen to be the next bishop. When Soter passed away, Eleutherius was chosen. We don't know for certain who did the choosing (the local priests and deacon, or priests only, or the body of local believers) but we have no indication that it was a vote of bishope (distances, slow travel, and poor communication would have made this impossible), let alone some imaginary college of cardinals.

No papal decretals (decrees pertaining to canon law) exist prior to the reign of "Pope" Siricius, 384-398 A.D.

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, had a long-running controversy with “Pope” Calixtus I. Hippolytus’ writings (Refutation of Heresies, Bk. IX. Ch. vii) show that “the Bishop of Rome, in the commencement of the third century, had no recognized supremacy even over the suburbicarian sees; and though, not long before, Irenaeus had declared the Roman see to possess a ‘otieorem principalitatem’ in the church...his account of the debates between Polycarp and Pope Anicetus respecting the observance of Easter shows that this wa merely a primacy of honor, and not of authority.” (C.H. Lea LL.D., History of Confession and Absolution, 1896, P. 105)

Dionysius of Corinth addressed Soter of Rome as an equal, not as a superior.

Tertullian wrote about the bishop of Rome becoming authoritarian, and Tertullian maintained that this was an unfounded usurpation of authority.

In the Apostolic Canons (late 200s), “each province is directed to determine for itself which of its churches shall be deemed to hold the primacy... no reference being made to any power outside of his [the bishop’s] patriarchate.” The 2nd general council (in Constantinople, 381 AD), expressly forbade any prelate from interfering with the concerns of his brethren.

The Council of Nicea changed this. They assigned highest rank to Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch sees.

After Constantine made Christianity the official religion, the Church was under the dominion and control of the emperors. Popes of the 300s and 400s were often chosen by the emperor. Major papal decisions had to be ratified by the emperor. But as the Roman empire weakened, the Roman church gained strength and greater independence.

In the 700s and 800s, two factors combined to greatly expand papal power. One was the publication of the False Decretals (fake decrees allegedly made by the earliest bishops of Rome, starting with Clement) by certain parties. At least one of these decretals gave the pontiff expanded authority, and subsequently people accused of crimes would journey to Rome for a pardon which held the force of law in their home country. These decretals were ruled genuine by a pope, and they remained in that status for several hundred years.

The second factor was a forged donation from Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester I of the entire Western Empire and all its appurtenances; the document included “puerile directions as to the trappings and stage-properties of the pope and his spiritual court, crowns, white horse, linen garments, and felt shoes.” How do we know that Constantine did not make this donation in the 4th Century? We know because it actually was written around 776 A.D. in the style of an 8th Century notary! This phony grant was gradually used to force kings of Europe to be subservient to the Pope. This "gift from Constantine to the Church" became recognized as established fact for the next 500 years.

Nicholas I used both factors, in the case of Lothair and his wives, to cement the papacy as the judge of last resort for temporal matters as well as the ascendant power over the outlying provinces’ prelates. The main enforcement weapons wielded by the RCC in this case was withholding communion and exclusion from the Church (which implied salvation in jeopardy); thus the perceived powers of 'binding and loosing' were strengthened in the minds of the populace.
(primary source of this information: History of Confession and Absolution, C. H. Lea LL.D., 1896)

 

thank you @Rexlion, I can’t believe the education I’ve received in the past two or three days. I am grateful.

 

Just saw this over a celebration of July 4th:

 

She's an A-Mary-can patriot? I had no idea!

And positioned above the crucifix...

 

God help us!

 

I try to pray the rosary daily, and say the angelus once in a while, but that's about as far as I go. I completely agree that granting the Blessed Virgin Mary the titles of "Co-Redemptrix" or Mediatrix of Grace are Romish nonsense. Luckily my Metropolitan has spoken out against the use of these terms among Anglo-Catholics

 

You could also add that:
Mary appears to placed on a pedestool rather like an idol.
The image of Jesus is anything but representing the face of a Palastinian Jew
Mary herself is anything but the image of a Semite Maiden and, by that time, Mother.
The leftovers from open heart surgery undergoing further disection and incineration on a piece of wood.
.