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?

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?**

When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8--- > But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification): > 18. If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. Can we (from a Catholic perspective) justly conclude that the matter in question is either a matter of faith or morals, and therefore, cannot be rescinded by the Catholic Church?

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

*De Fide* is the highest [Theological Note](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church#Theological_certainties) used by the Catholic theologians prior to the mid-20th Century. Of the sentences proposed for belief, there is that which comes directly from God (*de Fide Divina*) and that which comes from the Church (*de Fide Ecclesiastica*) and if a truth has been infallibly defined by a Pope or Ecumenical Council, it is *de Fide Definita*. [traditionalcatholic.net](http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Dogmas_of_the_Church.html) lists All the *sententiae* that Ludwig Ott labels *De Fide*. My question is: **Which of those dogmas are NOT infallibly defined?**

I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra: > “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches > that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only > pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share > in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was > prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are > joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this > ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can > profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone > can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, > their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian > soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, > even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, > unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic > Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate > Domino, 1441.) So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct? Here is another one from 700 years ago: > “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, > holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and > simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor > remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim > to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation > are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam > Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302) Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it? There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists . This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven . To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism. So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains 1. How *Ex Cathedra* statements seem to be disregarded 2. How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite

Most people think that Papal Apostolic Constitutions (which have higher level of authority than most other types of papal documents) are infallible, but in fact only Papal *ex cathedra* statements having 4 characteristics are infallible (see the *Necessary Conditions* section [here](https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-229/)) : 1. Exercising role as the supreme teacher, not simply as private theologian 1. On a matter of faith or morals, not on practical or disciplinary matters 1. Makes an explicit declaration of his intention to define a doctrine Catholics are obligated to assent 1. Makes clear that ALL Catholics, including in all future ages are bound in conscience to this teaching and there have been only [2 instances of this faculty being used](https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/) , namely for the dogmas of the: 1. Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854, [*Ineffabilis Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm) by Pope Bl. Pius IX) 1. Assumption of Mary (1950, [*Munificentissimus Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12munif.htm) by Pope Pius XII) which were defined and taught through an *ex cathedra* [Apostolic Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution) . **Why the two Popes found it expedient to declare the 2 dogmas of Mary using the rare facility of infallible pronouncements (i.e. *ex cathedra*)?** I'm primarily interested in the **historical situations** which must have contributed to the (first?) use of this facility for a Pope to *personally* teach infallibly. Why wouldn't the two Popes use a less authoritative vehicle (such as a *regular* Apostolic Constitution or through a canon of an ecumenical council)? Was there an urgent "heresy" to be dealt with, as it was during the early days of the Protestant Reformation by the Council of Trent? Even if it was urgent, surely a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement wouldn't be less dogmatic for Catholics? Also, given debate in previous centuries regarding the Immaculate Conception, wouldn't a council be a more appropriate venue for the dogma to be clarified by the whole Church? ----- #### P.S. Impact on ecumenism Now that Vatican II is almost 60 years behind us, the issue of the infallibility of the Pope and these 2 infallible Marian dogmas remained the top reasons why Protestants are hesitant to convert because they would like to see that all that are **necessary** to be believed need to have an *explicit* Biblical basis like every proposition in the Apostle's Creed, for instance. (Just to clarify, *sola scriptura* does NOT say Tradition does NOT have a role, only that Scripture has to NORM Tradition. So as a Protestant who is *not* a Biblicist / proponent of "naked scripture" I can also say that although the 2 dogmas don't have *explicit* support, they are not inherently condemned by Scripture either. For example, even Elijah had his assumption to heaven, and Jesus was immaculately conceived. So I acknowledge that the reasons that most Protestants adduced are largely irrelevant to Catholic way of constructing dogmas, which look to both Scripture and Tradition, with her own hermeneutical principle to interpret Scripture. But STILL, I agree with the Protestant principle that doctrines that do *not* have explicit support should be **optional**, such as baptismal regeneration or the nature of the Eucharist, which Protestants regard as *less* essential than the Trinity, which has become the basis for ecumenism among Protestants.) But history has shown in the past 150 years or so, that both Papal infallibility and Marian dogmas has remained THE single most persistent barrier of entry for **MOST** Protestants to "come back" to the Catholic fold (now *more* than justification by faith alone, for a hint see [2017 Pew Research Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/08/31/u-s-protestants-are-not-defined-by-reformation-era-controversies-500-years-later/) , 7% and 9% respectively). Because Catholicism elevates them to the status of "**required**" *on the same level of the Trinity*! So it seems **less prudent** (ecumenically) in the age of ecumenism especially since Vatican II that embrace adherents of other religions with its inclusive language regarding the fate of non-Catholic adherents (*cf* *Lumen Gentium*) and designate Protestants as "ecclesial communities" rather than heretics who are anathema, to clarify the 2 Marian teachings as two infallible dogmas using the *ex cathedra* personal pronouncements by the two Popes. To Protestants, it's a **"double whammy"**. Surely both Popes realized this? Why incur the unnecessary ecumenical cost when a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement PLUS a council document would have sufficed to clarify the matters for Catholics? Yes, the historical **time** is opportune to clarify the Marian dogmas (as Ken Graham pointed out in his answer), but what historical **situation** made it expedient to clarify the dogmas *using* the *ex-cathedra* facility? It's not as though there was an intra-controversy within the Catholic church that risk rupturing the church like the Arian / Donatist controversies, for instance. Or the situation leading to Council of Ephesus declaring that Mary is *theotokos* which Protestants **DO** affirm and consider it as an important support (against heresies) for proper understanding of the Incarnation (see [Gavin Ortlund's arguing for it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgHGsODNDw)) . Was it necessary for Catholics to have the matters clarified *ex cathedra*?

If Original Sin is Adam's sin, did Eve have Original Sin? If so, then how did she "catch" it from Adam? Or is her (and women's) punishment in Gen. 3:16 only due to her actual sin of pride, and not to her having Original Sin? cf. "Did Original Sin derive solely from Adam or from both Adam and Eve? "

The answers and comments to this question have made it clear that transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic Dogma. Of Dogma the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: > The Church's Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. Every Roman Catholic is obligated to irrevocably adhere to Dogma in order to remain 'in the faith': > If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy [...], and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication". - Ott, Ludwig (n.d.) [195X]. "INTRODUCTION — §4. Concept and Classification of Dogma – 1.". In Bastible, James (ed.). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Lynch, Patrick This 2019 Pew Research Center survey indicates that only 1/3 of self described Roman Catholics in the United States agree with the Catholic Dogma of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The survey goes on to say that 69% of those surveyed personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”. Availability and reception of accurate teaching does play a significant role but it is not solely explanatory: Of that 69% who hold memorialist views, 43% do not know or understand the Church's teaching on the matter. Of the 31% who do believe in transubstantiation, 28% know the Church's teaching. However, of the 69% that hold memorialist views of the Eucharist, *one-in-five Catholics (22%) reject the idea of transubstantiation, even though they know about the church’s teaching*. It is this last category, **the 22% of self declared Roman Catholics in the United States who know about the Catholic Dogma of transubstantiation and yet reject it in favor of a memorialist view**, that I ask about: According to the Roman Catholic definition of heresy and the Pew Research survey, are 22% of Roman Catholics in the United States heretics and automatically subject to excommunication?

I've seen [many posts here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=mary+spouse+spirit) from Catholics describing Mary as the spouse or wife of the Holy Spirit. [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-the-holy-spirit-called-marys-spouse) calls it a "pious custom". Is this official Catholic dogma? If so, when was it formally defined? If it isn't, then how widely supported is it? Where along the path to dogma described by [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/68502/6071) is this belief?

My understanding is that God revealed everything He wanted to reveal in the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus then commanded the apostles to proclaim those teachings to the world, but He didn't give them authority to add anything to His teachings. If Jesus did not mention a topic in His life and teachings, the apostles were not given authority to speak on that topic--only to pass on what they had seen and heard. If we cannot find evidence that Jesus taught or acted on a given topic, that topic cannot become part of the Deposit of Faith--is that a correct assumption?

The First Vatican Council, *Dei Filius* (1870) Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith defined the following: > If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the light of human reason: let him be anathema. (Item #1 of **2. On revelation** set of canons ) From what I understand, this pronouncement was motivated at the time by those who were denying *natural theology*. Can someone elaborate on some of the specifics regarding those who were denying "natural theology" at the time that Pope Bl. Pius IX made this (*de fide*) declaration?

Trinitarians, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, will describe the doctrine of the Trinity as being a "mystery", meaning that in some way it is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. What is the biblical basis that we cannot entirely understand at least some theological truths?

Based, in part, on some rather passionate comments regarding theologians made by user Geremia in the post "Who Said: 'God Did Not Become Man in Order for Man to Become a Theologian'? ", I have been enticed to look a little further into Catholic theology. After thumbing through some of the section that Geremia alludes to in Ralph McInerny's *What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained* p. 96 , I have decided, for purposes of this post, to take as my starting point Dr. Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* . Therein (§ 6. "Catholic Truths", pp. 8-9), I have extracted (eliminating the Latin and adding some bold) the following: >Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths or Ecclesiastical Teachings to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation. These are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching doctrines of faith or morals. > >To these Catholic truths belong : > >1. **Theological Conclusions** properly so-called. By these are understood religious truths. which are derived from two premises, of which one is an immediately revealed truth, and the other a truth of natural reason. > >2. **Dogmatic Facts.** By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. > >3. **Truths of Reason**, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with a revealed truth, e.g., those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of will), or philosophic concepts, in terms of which dogma is promulgated (person, substance, transubstantiation, etc.). Can someone clarify for me, in a little less technical language, what Catholic theology means by "Catholic Truths"; and especially, "Truths of Reason"—which I find the most difficult to understand in the above list.

From the Wikipedia article [Trial of Joan of Arc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joan_of_Arc) : > Several questions of a theological nature followed, including this one: > >Question: Do you know whether or not you are in God's grace? > >Joan: If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace. > >The question was a deliberate attempt to entrap her, **since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace**; and yet answering 'no' could also be used against her because the judge could claim she had admitted to being in a state of sin. QUESTION: Specifically, in reference to *since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace*, where may I actually find the Catholic Church officially having promulgated the doctrine referred to here? Was it promulgated by a particular Pope? Council? Is it part of official Catholic Dogma? *de Fide*? something lesser? I am looking for an official declaration of doctrine. Thank you.

I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (*ex cathedra*), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in *ex cathedra* mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why *ex cathedra* statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible? If none, many, or all of Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of *many*, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.

The website of the University of Dayton has a page dedicated to the dogmatic status and meaning of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. In it we find means by which the Church may have assurance of the infallibility of certain teachings: > There are other norms by which the Church may have assurance that a teaching has been infallibly revealed by God: **consensus fidelium** (i.e. general agreement among the entire body of believers "from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" [Lumen Gentium #12]); and "**universal ordinary magisterium**" (i.e. frequent authoritative teachings affirming one perspective on a topic given by the Pope alone, or by the episcopate in general). Later on in the article we see this applied to the teaching of Mary's Perpetual Virginity: > On the topic of Mary's perpetual virginity, we have **double assurance** that the teaching may be considered as infallibly revealed in light of the statement of the fifth Ecumenical Council and **by virtue of its constant use in the life of the Church afterwards** (i.e. consensus of the faithful and universal ordinary magisterium). So, one of the means by which the Church may be assured that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an infallible teaching is *by virtue of it's constant use in the Church* following it's statement in the 5th Ecumenical Council. However there are anathema's associated with denying the perpetual virginity of Mary which were announced, not only at that council, but in councils which followed. The official acts of the 5th council contain an anathema condemning those who deny "that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her.". The Lateran Council of 649, convened by Pope Martin I contained this condemnation associated with denying the Perpetual Virginity: > If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that **holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate**, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and **gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned**. A teaching is given to the Church, if you deny the teaching you are condemned, and then all the believers in the teaching are pointed to as proof of the infallibility of the teaching! What choice did they have when the only ones who get to stay in the Church are those who accept the teaching? * It has been clarified to me elsewhere that a denier of a doctrine has separated themselves from the church rather than having been expelled but there appears to be no practical distinction as regards this question as they are, in either case, recognized by the Church as separated and their opinion is excluded from 'consensus fidelium'. My question is, How can the universal acceptance of a teaching within the Roman Catholic Church stand as assurance of that teaching's infallibility when the teaching itself assigns condemnation to deniers of it and considers them to be separated from the Church and, therefore, removed from consensus fidelium?

> No one who knowingly and deliberately rejects the truth will be saved. It doesn’t matter how good of a Muslim, Jew, Baptist, or anything else he may be. If anyone rejects the truth of Christ and his Church—**even one definitive teaching**—they will be lost. - Catholic Answers This is summary point #1 in a Roman Catholic article explaining *extra ecclesiam nulla salus* which is an infallible statement meaning 'outside the Church there is no salvation'. The article talks, in part, about 'invincible ignorance ' regarding not just commission of material sins but also of salvific truth: > “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16). *Note: The article uses the terms 'Catholic Church' and 'Catholic Faith' frequently and reading it one assumes 'Roman Catholic' is intended rather than the older definition of catholic as 'universal'. Likewise, when 'Church' is used the assumption is that Roman Catholic Church is intended. If I am wrong in this assumption and Roman Catholic Church is not intended, please correct me in comments as it will drastically change and perhaps even invalidate this question. The article lays out that anyone who is knowledgeable of and in rejection of "even one definitive teaching" of Christ's Church will be lost. They will not be saved unless they repent and accept that teaching that they have previously rejected. I have always understood the 4 Marian Dogmas to be necessarily believed in order to be a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church: > Through the authority of His Church on earth, God has revealed to us four essential truths about Mary’s identity, otherwise known as “the Marian dogmas.” To be in full communion with Christ—the Church reminds us—we must believe in each of these dogmas. In other words, they aren’t optional beliefs. - Good Catholic But now, knowing that these Marian Dogmas are definitive, infallible teachings of the RCC and putting them in combination with the first quote (above), it appears that anyone who knowingly and deliberately rejects even one Marian Dogma will be lost. In other words, any member of any Protestant denomination or Church whatsoever who has what the RCC considers to be valid baptism and marriage sacraments are still completely and hopelessly lost if they knowingly and deliberately reject say, the 'Perpetual Virginity of Mary' for example. A Roman Catholic answer to a a previous question clearly stated that the perpetual virginity of Mary bestows no salvific benefit: > Even without the perpetual virginity of Mary, our salvation in Christ not lessened! Christ would still be Our Redeemer and Mary would still be the Mother of Jesus, the Church founded by Christ, and all mankind. However, it would be seen through the eyes of the Church in a totally different perspective! Perhaps for a Roman Catholic the perpetual virginity of Mary adds a depth of understanding to the entire plan of salvation, the nature of God, etc., and that is fine, but it seems a contradiction to declare that a person will be lost unless they believe a doctrine that has no salvific benefit. My question is: If salvation in Christ is not lessened without the perpetual virginity of Mary why must one believe the Dogma or be lost?

According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin. > "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ... Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089 In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example, > Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. Munificentissimus Deus #45 Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation?