I'm still absorbing this strange document. But on a second reading I was quite struck by the repeated description of Mary's motherhood as merely "passive" and "biological" -- and less important than her "spiritual" motherhood.
As a traditional religious artist, I can say with confidence that this is not a Catholic view of Mary's motherhood. It's completely alien to the worldview that inspired ancient Marian titles like "Theotokos" and "Seat of Wisdom." And it's equally alien to the worldview expresed in the countless medieval paintings of Mary nursing Baby Jesus.
This DDF document repeatedly presents Mary's "spiritual motherhood" of the church and her "active participation in salvation" as more worthy of reverence than literally bearing, birthing, nursing, feeding, and raising Jesus. That's a strangely tone-deaf way for Catholic prelates to talk about any woman's motherhood, let alone the motherhood of Jesus's mother. It replaces the uniquely FEMALE glory of motherhood with a disembodied and anemic concept of "discipleship" that can be shared in by all people who "love according to the love of Jesus."
There are almost shades of Docetism here. Or, perhaps more to the point, Gender Ideology. Is it overreacting to see this document as a cautious step toward creating a Marian theology that would make it easier to soften Church teachings on abortion, contraception, IVF, and LGBTQ issues?
I agree with everything you've written here, except the very end, which seems exaggerated to me. You can't actually get from this document to that endpoint, and what's more damning, Tucho and his kind are already more than willing to question those teachings, without the need for an elaborate theological framework. Instead, I see this document as a typical modernist watering-down of the traditional understanding of theologians in favor of a more anodyne, neutral, ecumenical, modern-friendly understanding.
Making Marian devotion more anodyne, neutral, ecumenical and modern-friendly in understanding is very likely to lead to lead to a softening of Catholic teaching on abortion, contraception, IVF and LGBTQ issues as practically every mainline Protestant church is all for that agenda. They don’t say so in so many words but their silence speaks volumes. As does the silence of the overwhelming majority of Catholic Bishops too.
Methinks the liberals doth protest too much. If this were a case of an actual defense of Christ's nature and prerogatives, I'd be inclined to say "way to go, Tucho." But the same Christ he/they claim to want to defend by shutting down exuberant Marian devotion is the same Christ never ever mentioned in ecumenical encounters.
Newman of course points out (Letter to Pusey) that in Catholic countries where the Virgin Mary is exalted, her Son is exalted even more, while in Protestant countries where the Virgin was downplayed, even devotion to her Son eventually failed.
Besides, St. Louis de Montfort warns in True Devotion against those who want to "moderate" Marian devotion by dialing it down.
I was interested to read Christopher Rufo (yesterday, I believe) on that Fuentes fellow. "Both sides fail to understand the Nick Fuentes phenomenon. They take his statements seriously and engage with them in good faith. But Fuentes’s stated beliefs, while abhorrent, are not best parried by taking them at face value. Instead, the Right should consider him an actor in what postmodern theorist Jean Baudrillard called “hyperreality”: a system in which the simulation of reality comes to replace reality itself." I myself would nod good morning and walk on, but I reckon you folks who do work in public venues/social media have to pay him a bit more notice.
One way to take Fuentes on would be for the real history of WWII and the holocaust to be clearly re-stated in a way that is attractive to younger people. I grew up in the 1960’s and read widely as a youth about the rise of nazism in Germany. The evil and criminal intent of Hitler and his cronies. The meticulous planning that went into the ‘final solution’ and the unspeakable suffering that was unleashed on, not just the Jews, but everyone who was deemed expendable, because of who they were, or for their words and actions.
Another aspect of teaching that is urgently needed is the history of the shockingly cruel rise of Islam in the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. A veritable torrent of blood accompanied every Islamic conquest.
As well, a strong reminder is due to all those young right wingers who hate Isreal and all Jews too, that none of them would be here except for the victory of Jean De Vallette at the Siege of Malta, and the victory of Don John of Austria at the Battle of Lepanto.
Finally what about the Armenian Genocide? Now just out of living memory. It’s clear proof that for radical Islamists, nothing has changed.
It seems to me on the document about Mary as Co-Redemptrix. That it was a tempest in a teapot. It’s not that common a term for the Virgin Mary or I just haven’t heard it used much if at all. Maybe it was a dig at Tradition. Or a sop to Protestants (again and again it seems) or Cdl. Fernandez has an axe to grind or has an issue with Mary or women (his strange book(s) he has written leads me in that direction). Why that issue and why now? I’m sure this didn’t come out of thin air but was planned. There is always an agenda or motive behind these pronouncements no matter how couched in beautiful language it is there is a deeper purpose. Thank you! Dr. K.
The logic of this statement seems irrefutable to me: ‘Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation.’ - Mater Populi Fidelis, 22.
The title was never a settled matter as some of its defenders are now claiming. The clarification has been long overdue.
No, that just shows your name and password. But there are places, as for Compline, e.g. where it says “not available here “, so I’m assuming we need to pay in some way?
I've mentioned this before but I know it can be confusing.
If you download the app via Apple and Google, here's the deal:
Pelican+ is committed, as a Catholic entity, to standing against big tech tyranny and their exorbitant fees. Apple and Google demand 30% of all subscription revenue processed through their app stores. We refuse to fund platforms that oppose our values.
Because of this principled stance, you cannot subscribe through the native mobile apps. Instead, you must complete your subscription signup through the web version of Pelican+. Once you’ve subscribed via the website, you can then download and use the mobile apps to freely access all content.
If you download the app before subscribing and try to access premium content, you’ll see an “unavailable” button rather than an “upgrade” prompt. This is intentional. Simply go to the website link above to complete your subscription first. Yes, it’s an inconvenience, but it’s the result of refusing to compromise our principles.
Mary couldn’t possibly be the “Mediatrix of All Graces” because that would include the initial grace given to her by God through the Angel Gabriel. Why use a title that has a clear counter example?
That's no more decisive than saying Mary could not have been redeemed ahead of time, and thus immaculately conceived, because of the merits of the death of Christ, since it had not yet occurred. In reality, God conceived Mary immaculately in His mind and willed that all creation should exist in a sense for her and through her. St. Maximilian Kolbe and Charles De Koninck both speak of this well, as do many other Mariologists.
I’m not sure how that analogy works. Mary being born without original sin and redeemed ahead of time doesn’t have the same logical problems that “Mediatrix of All Graces” has. How could she have mediated the graces given to her prior to her existence? Secondly, could Mary initiate the graces given to her through self-mediation?
Thanks. I will take a look at it, but it is clear to me that “No human person — not even the Apostles or the Blessed Virgin — can act as a universal dispenser of grace. Only God can bestow grace, and he does so through the humanity of Christ” - Mater Populi Fidelis
Thank you so much for featuring my piece, Dr. Kwasniewski!
I'm still absorbing this strange document. But on a second reading I was quite struck by the repeated description of Mary's motherhood as merely "passive" and "biological" -- and less important than her "spiritual" motherhood.
As a traditional religious artist, I can say with confidence that this is not a Catholic view of Mary's motherhood. It's completely alien to the worldview that inspired ancient Marian titles like "Theotokos" and "Seat of Wisdom." And it's equally alien to the worldview expresed in the countless medieval paintings of Mary nursing Baby Jesus.
This DDF document repeatedly presents Mary's "spiritual motherhood" of the church and her "active participation in salvation" as more worthy of reverence than literally bearing, birthing, nursing, feeding, and raising Jesus. That's a strangely tone-deaf way for Catholic prelates to talk about any woman's motherhood, let alone the motherhood of Jesus's mother. It replaces the uniquely FEMALE glory of motherhood with a disembodied and anemic concept of "discipleship" that can be shared in by all people who "love according to the love of Jesus."
There are almost shades of Docetism here. Or, perhaps more to the point, Gender Ideology. Is it overreacting to see this document as a cautious step toward creating a Marian theology that would make it easier to soften Church teachings on abortion, contraception, IVF, and LGBTQ issues?
I agree with everything you've written here, except the very end, which seems exaggerated to me. You can't actually get from this document to that endpoint, and what's more damning, Tucho and his kind are already more than willing to question those teachings, without the need for an elaborate theological framework. Instead, I see this document as a typical modernist watering-down of the traditional understanding of theologians in favor of a more anodyne, neutral, ecumenical, modern-friendly understanding.
Yes, totally agree on that point. "The modernism is strong with this one!"
Making Marian devotion more anodyne, neutral, ecumenical and modern-friendly in understanding is very likely to lead to lead to a softening of Catholic teaching on abortion, contraception, IVF and LGBTQ issues as practically every mainline Protestant church is all for that agenda. They don’t say so in so many words but their silence speaks volumes. As does the silence of the overwhelming majority of Catholic Bishops too.
Methinks the liberals doth protest too much. If this were a case of an actual defense of Christ's nature and prerogatives, I'd be inclined to say "way to go, Tucho." But the same Christ he/they claim to want to defend by shutting down exuberant Marian devotion is the same Christ never ever mentioned in ecumenical encounters.
Newman of course points out (Letter to Pusey) that in Catholic countries where the Virgin Mary is exalted, her Son is exalted even more, while in Protestant countries where the Virgin was downplayed, even devotion to her Son eventually failed.
Besides, St. Louis de Montfort warns in True Devotion against those who want to "moderate" Marian devotion by dialing it down.
I was interested to read Christopher Rufo (yesterday, I believe) on that Fuentes fellow. "Both sides fail to understand the Nick Fuentes phenomenon. They take his statements seriously and engage with them in good faith. But Fuentes’s stated beliefs, while abhorrent, are not best parried by taking them at face value. Instead, the Right should consider him an actor in what postmodern theorist Jean Baudrillard called “hyperreality”: a system in which the simulation of reality comes to replace reality itself." I myself would nod good morning and walk on, but I reckon you folks who do work in public venues/social media have to pay him a bit more notice.
Well, if Kingsnorth is to be believed, hyperreality is a disease, and therefore the popularity of Fuentes is a sign of that sickness.
One way to take Fuentes on would be for the real history of WWII and the holocaust to be clearly re-stated in a way that is attractive to younger people. I grew up in the 1960’s and read widely as a youth about the rise of nazism in Germany. The evil and criminal intent of Hitler and his cronies. The meticulous planning that went into the ‘final solution’ and the unspeakable suffering that was unleashed on, not just the Jews, but everyone who was deemed expendable, because of who they were, or for their words and actions.
Another aspect of teaching that is urgently needed is the history of the shockingly cruel rise of Islam in the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. A veritable torrent of blood accompanied every Islamic conquest.
As well, a strong reminder is due to all those young right wingers who hate Isreal and all Jews too, that none of them would be here except for the victory of Jean De Vallette at the Siege of Malta, and the victory of Don John of Austria at the Battle of Lepanto.
Finally what about the Armenian Genocide? Now just out of living memory. It’s clear proof that for radical Islamists, nothing has changed.
Well said!
Peter you are so amazing. I am proud of you. God bless.
Dan, this means a lot to me, coming from an old friend.
It seems to me on the document about Mary as Co-Redemptrix. That it was a tempest in a teapot. It’s not that common a term for the Virgin Mary or I just haven’t heard it used much if at all. Maybe it was a dig at Tradition. Or a sop to Protestants (again and again it seems) or Cdl. Fernandez has an axe to grind or has an issue with Mary or women (his strange book(s) he has written leads me in that direction). Why that issue and why now? I’m sure this didn’t come out of thin air but was planned. There is always an agenda or motive behind these pronouncements no matter how couched in beautiful language it is there is a deeper purpose. Thank you! Dr. K.
I doubt every word that Tucho ("Besame mucho") Fernandez writes, including "and" and "but." He may be speaking as a mouthpiece of the Church.
But I doubt it.
Thank you, Dorothy Parker! Perfect!
We are all beatified through polyphony.
Thanks for mentioning my article about the symbolism of the Solemn Pontifical Mass!
Thank you for continuing to comment on the loss of the TLM in Diocese of Knoxville.
The logic of this statement seems irrefutable to me: ‘Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation.’ - Mater Populi Fidelis, 22.
The title was never a settled matter as some of its defenders are now claiming. The clarification has been long overdue.
How do we subscribe to Pelican+? I can’t find how to in the app.
I assume you'd just go to "Account" in the upper right corner.
Let me know if that gets you where you need to go.
No, that just shows your name and password. But there are places, as for Compline, e.g. where it says “not available here “, so I’m assuming we need to pay in some way?
Stephen below gave the link:
https://app.pelicanplus.com/menu/checkout
Ah, I think I know what's going on now.
I've mentioned this before but I know it can be confusing.
If you download the app via Apple and Google, here's the deal:
Pelican+ is committed, as a Catholic entity, to standing against big tech tyranny and their exorbitant fees. Apple and Google demand 30% of all subscription revenue processed through their app stores. We refuse to fund platforms that oppose our values.
Because of this principled stance, you cannot subscribe through the native mobile apps. Instead, you must complete your subscription signup through the web version of Pelican+. Once you’ve subscribed via the website, you can then download and use the mobile apps to freely access all content.
If you download the app before subscribing and try to access premium content, you’ll see an “unavailable” button rather than an “upgrade” prompt. This is intentional. Simply go to the website link above to complete your subscription first. Yes, it’s an inconvenience, but it’s the result of refusing to compromise our principles.
Mary couldn’t possibly be the “Mediatrix of All Graces” because that would include the initial grace given to her by God through the Angel Gabriel. Why use a title that has a clear counter example?
That's no more decisive than saying Mary could not have been redeemed ahead of time, and thus immaculately conceived, because of the merits of the death of Christ, since it had not yet occurred. In reality, God conceived Mary immaculately in His mind and willed that all creation should exist in a sense for her and through her. St. Maximilian Kolbe and Charles De Koninck both speak of this well, as do many other Mariologists.
I’m not sure how that analogy works. Mary being born without original sin and redeemed ahead of time doesn’t have the same logical problems that “Mediatrix of All Graces” has. How could she have mediated the graces given to her prior to her existence? Secondly, could Mary initiate the graces given to her through self-mediation?
I suggest you read an essay by Fr Louis Maximilian M Smith FI entitled:
The Immaculate: Mediatrix of Divine Love.
I don’t have the link, sorry. It’s a longish essay but I believe it will help you
Thanks. I will take a look at it, but it is clear to me that “No human person — not even the Apostles or the Blessed Virgin — can act as a universal dispenser of grace. Only God can bestow grace, and he does so through the humanity of Christ” - Mater Populi Fidelis
The magisterium doesn’t see it either and that’s all that truly matters.