I recently discovered and fell enamored with St. Hildegard von Bingen's hymns which led to looking up if she is pre or post schism and a source online (Western Rite FB Group) says that she and Francis of Assisi are two prominent figures that were at least not opposed from the Orthodox Church and that, up to 1200, well past the 1054 schism...a few saints from Catholicism were accepted and even venerated in some of the Orthodox jurisdictions. I am looking for more info on this topic as both her and St. Francis are I feel worthy of the title in Orthodoxy. Same with Gregorian Chant... Clearly, it was established and practiced way before the schism yet most traditional Eastern Orthodox churches avoid it while a few in the Western Rite embrace and frequently use it. A few others not under the WR but here in America use GC for special occasions. Thanks in Advance!! 💗🕊💗

Is the Blessed Virgin's universal mediation of all graces definable as dogma? Can she be called "Mediatrix of All Graces"?

Is the Blessed Virgin's title of "Co-Redemptrix" definable as dogma? Can she be called a co-redeemer with Christ?

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "**Mary Queen of the Universe**" (Link) . It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church. How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary. Where did they come up with this title? Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching? Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

My research has thus far turned up only one (seemingly small) detail: The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches believe that **Mary died a regular, albeit peaceful earthly death** and shortly thereafter her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. This is the Dormition of Mary; she died and was taken up. Roman Catholicism emphasizes that Mary was taken bodily into heaven **without definitively saying whether she died first** and Roman Catholics are free to believe either that she died or did not. This is the Assumption of Mary; she may or may not have died prior to being taken up. Both traditions are based upon extra biblical writings and tradition with no direct basis in Scripture, both traditions held to the Dormition view until late in the middle ages, and both still ultimately affirm that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Is this really the only difference between the two; that the East insists that Mary died and that the West is unsure whether she died? What are the theological and (if any) practical implications of this difference?

Satan and God have a conversation in which Satan says he wants to bring harm to Job’s family and then God provides Satan with permission to do so. And then Satan kills Job’s children. That appears to be a clear example of conspiracy to commit murder. Is God conspiring to commit murder with Satan the correct interpretation?

Do souls in hell have any hope for the forgiveness of their sins? According to Catholic teachings, once a person died, there are 3 places where a soul can be placed: hell, purgatory and heaven. At the time of death, if a soul will be judged and damned to hell, is it possible to be in friendship or be reconciled with God again? What about the Final Judgement where there could be repentance and prayers for these souls in hell?

In the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109124/pope-leo-i-and-worshiping-towards-the-east-how-can-he-say-all-this-and-still-w , the OP makes reference to Sermon 27 of Pope St. Leo the Great. It links to the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia). The translator of sermons from Pope Leo I on that site is Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian. After spending a considerable amount of time trying to locate online an English translation of Pope St. Leo's sermons (or even a sub-collection of them) by a Catholic translator and editor, I have come up empty-handed. So I ask--- QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may find a freely available English online collection of sermons by Pope St. Leo the Great by a Catholic translator? Thank you.

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

According to Catholicism is the separation of certain Marian titles a possible manner of procuring a theological definition in favour of the title Mary Mediatrix of all Graces? I have never been in favour of using the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix, but I can still see a glimmer of hope that the title of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could one day be defined. The title of Mary Co-Redemptrix does have more theological entanglements to get defined, whereas the option of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could possibly be defined theologically in the future, though not without nuance and theological interpretation. We all know that these titles have been out here for a long time and some popes have favoured some such Marian devotional titles. However, modern popes are not always in favour of them. Notably the Holy See has just come out with the document [***Mater Populi Fidelis***](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html) which discourages the usage of certain Marian titles. Both titles od Mary Co-Redemptrix and Mary Mediatrix of All Graces are mentioned. However the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix is more strongly worded not to be used. If the title Mediatrix of all graces could be disassociated from other modern Marian titles, could the possibility of a future dogma be reached? One interesting note that makes this possibility more real is that the Catholic Church has historically permitted a mass to be said in honour of Mary under the title of Mediatrix of All Graces. > In Belgium eight years later, Redemptorist priest François Xavier Godts wrote a book, De definibilitate mediationis universalis Deiparae (“On the definability of the universal mediation of the Mother of God”), proposing precisely that it be defined that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces. In April 1921, Désiré-Joseph Mercier, Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen, Belgium wrote to his brother bishops in support of this. > > In response to petitions from Belgium, including one signed by all its bishops, the Holy See approved in 1921 an annual celebration in that country of a feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces. In printings of the Roman Missal from that date until 1961, the Mass of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces was found in the appendix *Missae pro aliquibus locis* (Masses for Some Places), but not in the General Roman Calendar for use wherever the Roman Rite is celebrated. Other Masses authorized for celebration in different places on the same day 31 May were those of the Blessed Virgin Mary Queen of All Saints and Mother of Fair Love and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Belgian celebration has now been replaced by an optional memorial on 31 August of The Virgin Mary Mediatrix. - [Mediatrix of all graces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix_of_all_graces) To my knowledge this mass has not been abrogated. I am not aware of any mass ever being allowed for Mary Co-Redemptrix. Perhaps someone can enlighten me? Thus I ask the question: **Have any Catholic theologians favoured the possibility of defining Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, while keeping the titles of Mary Co-Redemptrix a practical impossibity, due to its more complex misunderstandings and confusion?**

The Church has the authority over marriage (Council of Trent , sess. 24, can. 4 ), and Canon Law has established the diriment impediment : >Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. But can, in addition to this, the Church say that the difference in ages between the man and woman marrying must not be more than, for example, 10 years? Have canonists deliberated on the question of marital age disparity? Is there a reason the Church does not (at least currently) have a law prohibiting marriages with large age disparities?

I was doing some research and even though could find different resources on devotion to Mary, Mary as the mother of God, I couldn't find anything useful about Mary as mediatrix / "to Jesus through Mary". What did the early church fathers have to say about it?

A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience *must* overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2 on [*Gaudium et spes*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes) , specifically its [Article 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html) . I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics. > For [Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman) , conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. *Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.* This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that *genuine* ecclesiastical obedience *does* accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above. So: **What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?** I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts. 1. [Video and transcript here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no) ; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is **emphatically not**; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from *Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare* (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

From the website Catholic.Org comes this explanation of what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix as applied to Mary, the Mother of Jesus: > In his helpful Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term. > "The title, "Co-redemptix," refers to Mary's unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus **never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ**, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's Redemption. Rather, **it denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work** of Redemption for the human family. The **Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work** of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle states: > "Mary uniquely **participated in the sacrifice of Jesus** on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity And Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, confirmed that: > **Mary offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father**, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam. The apostle Paul, deeply concerned that the Corinthians were being deceived away from undiluted devotion to Christ, wrote: > I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. **But I am afraid that** as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, **your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ**. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 "Sincere and pure devotion to Christ" here in the ESV is sometimes rendered "simplicity towards Christ" (ASV), "simplicity that is in the Christ" (YLT) or "sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ" (NABRE). **Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate both contain "simplicity that is in Christ".** While some take the meaning to refer to an uncomplicated presentation of the Gospel message and some decry doctrinal teaching as muddying the "simple Gospel" the idea actually appears to refer not to some quality in Christ (although He exemplified simplicity as explained below towards the Father) or in the Gospel message itself but to us: > It is not simplicity *in* Christ, but *towards* Christ of which the Apostle is speaking; not a quality in *Him*, but a quality in *us towards Him*. - MacLaren's Expositions This seems well in keeping with the apostles concern that anything (in the immediate context, the teachings of the Judiezers) be received as an admixture to what Christ has done in redemption. MacLaren goes on further to describe the word picture intended in the Greek haplotēs (ἁπλότης): > To be ‘without a fold,’ which is the meaning of the Greek word and of its equivalent ‘simplicity,’ is, in one aspect, to be transparently honest and true, and in another to be out and out of a piece. There is no underside of the cloth, doubled up beneath the upper which shows, and running in the opposite direction; but all tends in one way. A man with no under-currents, no by-ends, who is down to the very roots what he looks, and all whose being is knit together and hurled in one direction, without reservation or back-drawing, that is the ‘simple’ man whom the Apostle means. Catholicism currently holds 4 Marian dogmas (from Wikipedia ): 1) Mother of God - 1st magisterial definition, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD 2) Perpetual Virginity - wikipedia has the 1st magisterial definition as (one of the?) Synod of Milan (345, 355, 389, 451, 860), but the University of Dayton lists the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 3) Immaculate Conception - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius IX, 1854 4) Assumption in Heaven - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius XII, 1950 Of the four dogmas the latter two are relatively recent, at least in terms of their formal definition and acquisition of dogmatic status. An article in the National Catholic Register on Pope Francis' spontaneous remarks regarding the Marian title "co-redemptix" during a Dec. 12 2019 Vatican Mass explains the evolution of these latter two dogmatic statements as being the results of massive "people of God petition drives". This appears in the context of a current, worldwide, and century old "people of God petition drive" to introduce a fifth Marian Dogma, namely Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of All People: > The century-old international movement for a proposed fifth Marian dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood (**which necessarily includes her foundational roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces**) was started by the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Désiré Mercier, in 1915, and by 1918, Pope Benedict XV has received hundreds of other cardinal and bishop petitions for the solemn papal definition or “dogma” of Mary’s relationship with humanity as a “mother to us in the order of grace” as delineated by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 61).But over the course of the last 100 years, it has especially been the holy People of God who, as an expression of the sensus fidelium, the common consensus of the faithful, have prayed and petitioned the various popes for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. Over the past 25 years, the People of God from over 170 countries have sent over 8 million petitions to the Holy See for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. This contemporary movement of the Christian faithful has constituted a massive worldwide “People of God petition drive” to recent pontiffs, which follows the Church precedent of the past petition drives from the laity that successfully led to the last two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The following is from CRUX: Taking the Catholic Pulse : > ROME — Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.” > > “She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis > said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix. No. Disciple,” > he said, **meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus**. > > Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole for herself anything that was of > her son,” instead “serving him. Because she is mother. She gives > life.” > > “When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making > that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” > he said. How does the petitioning for a new Dogmatic definition, which necessarily includes the naming of Mary as "co-redemptix", to the highest levels of Roman Catholic authority, "grass-roots" style from the laity, exemplify and encourage simplicity and purity of commitment towards Christ (sole-mediator between God and man), especially when the current Pope appears to reject the notion, calling her a disciple?

In Catholicism is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there (see 925), that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects (see 257), or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

Wikipedia explains the etymology of the word Pope as follows: > The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας > (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later > referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use > of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope > Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his > successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman > presbyter: > > τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. > > Which translates into: > > I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas. > > From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all > bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used > in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it > was applied to Pope Marcellinus. Eventually the term Pope/Papa was limited to the Bishop of Rome alone and now, in the Roman Catholic church, the term 'Father' is usually used to address priests: > In the early church, members of the clergy generally did not have standard titles. However, an accepted way to address bishops was “papa” or “pappa,” which referred to the role of the bishops as father figures. This name eventually became associated solely with the Bishop of Rome. The highest title in the Catholic Church, that of “Pope,” is derived from those early titles. By the late Middle Ages, priests belonging to various religious orders were called father. This practice has persisted to modern times, as priests are customarily called father today. - Mercy Home Regardless of whether papa/father is used to refer to the Pope or Bishops or local Priests the idea underneath seems to be a reference to spiritual and familial paternity based ultimately upon the notion that Adam was created to be both High Priest and Father of all humanity: > Adam is the father of the human race, as well as the high priest of humanity. Thus, there is an intimate link between priesthood and fatherhood. The priesthood leading up to Aaron and the Levites is a familial priesthood. What is important to understand during this period of salvation history is that the father of the family is a priest, and the prominence of the first-born son in the family. - Catholic News Agency In Matthew chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and the disciples and He is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say the religious teachers and leaders. What he tells everyone is: > But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. - Matthew 23:8-10 1) Don't allow anyone to call you teacher/guide or Master because Christ is in that role and you are all brothers/equal under Him. 2) Don't call anyone on earth your Father because only God fills that role The prohibition appears to be twofold: One is against accepting the designations of teacher or master over another and the second is against assigning the designation of Father to anyone. It should be obvious that these prohibitions are expected to be understood 'spiritually' both from the immediate context and the Bible as a whole (since Jesus has made clear that, spiritually, there are only two fatherhoods : God or the Devil) as well as from common sense ... we all have natural fathers as well as secular teachers, mentors, and bosses. Taking the Matthew passage at face value there is no clear prohibition against a priest, for example, accepting the designation (spiritual) 'Father' but there is clear prohibition against anyone actually assigning that designation to 'any man on earth'. A highly voted answer to this strongly related question indicates a Catholic view that Jesus was prohibiting the term 'Father' being applied to those who are undeserving of the term: > Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. With this understanding in mind coupled with the fact that priests in the Catholic Church seem to be called 'Father' by custom rather than according to whether they deserve the title (that is to say, a priest who does not have the heart of a shepherd nor the well-being of his flock as priority will still, by custom, be called 'Father'), how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 23:9 so as to normalize priests being called Father irregardless of their performance?