."..One may and, indeed, must certainly criticize many of the attempts to exaggerate Mary’s status..."
It's all there folks, from the Mouth of Luther himself.
The once Holy office remains in the grip of rebellious protestant minimalism of all that is Holy. The new iconoclastic vandalism of the Saints, of Our Lady, continues unabated.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you so much for featuring my piece, Dr. Kwasniewski!
From Kasper's book Mercy:
."..One may and, indeed, must certainly criticize many of the attempts to exaggerate Mary’s status..."
It's all there folks, from the Mouth of Luther himself.
The once Holy office remains in the grip of rebellious protestant minimalism of all that is Holy. The new iconoclastic vandalism of the Saints, of Our Lady, continues unabated.
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.
Peter you are so amazing. I am proud of you. God bless.
Dan, this means a lot to me, coming from an old friend.
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.
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.
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.
We are all beatified through polyphony.
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.
https://app.pelicanplus.com/menu/checkout
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?