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.

I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

I’m very curious to hear the Protestant view of Fatima, considering that it involves the Virgin Mary appearing before witnesses, many of whom were skeptics.

Bishop Josephus Meile (†1957) claims in *Die jungfräulichen Seelen in der Welt* (*The Virgin Souls in the World* ) p. 28 that >At the time of the *wedding at Cana*, as the Fathers of the Church testify, Mary was married as the new Eve to Christ as the New Adam. The new wine of Cana symbolizes the love that unites the King and the Queen.
Bei der *Hochzeit zu Kana*, so bezeugen uns die Kirchenväter, ist Maria als neue Eva mit Christus als neuem Adam vermählt worden. Durch den neuen Wein von Kana wird die Liebe versinnbildet, welche den König und die Königin verbindet. Which "Fathers of the Church" say the **wedding at Cana** was that of the **New Eve marrying the New Adam?**

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?

The Catholic Church always has taught that Our Lord Alone redeemed mankind; and so, only through Him are salvation and Grace obtained. The term *mediator* means a "go-between." Thus, and in a sense, we are *mediators* when we pray to God on behalf of another person. Over the centuries, many Christians have believed the Blessed Virgin is the dispenser of all of the Graces which God deigns to grant; for example, St. Peter Damian: "In thy hands are all the Treasures of Divine Mercies." St. Bernardine of Sienna: "Thou art the dispenser of all Graces; our salvation rests in thy hands." And also, says St. Alphonsus Liguori, "was the doctrine of St. John Damascene, of St. Germanus, of St. Anselm, of St. Antonine, of Idiota, and of so many other learned authors..." Furthermore, although The Church has never solemnly defined this as dogma, the term "Mediatrix of All Graces" seems to have been used for centuries in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. As far as I can tell, the title dates back at least the fifth century, when Bishop Basil of Selucia made use of it. Prior to that, Church Father, St. Ephrem of Syria (4th century) writes: *"after the mediator, you (Mary) are the mediatrix of the whole world."* However, I'm not sure this means "mediatrix of all graces." QUESTION: When might the title, "Mediatrix of All Graces," first have been applied to the Blessed Mother; and, did any of the Church Fathers definitely make use of it (or something equivalent to it) to describe the Mother of God? Thank you.

I have heard a story about Mary being the "Ever Virgin" and it started out with her parents presenting her at the temple as a virgin and she stayed a virgin for the rest of her life, even after giving birth to Christ. My question: **Did the Herodian Temple have virgins similar to temple dedicated to some of the Greek gods and goddesses?**

It is my understanding that in Catholic Theology the immaculate conception relates to the fact that Mary was born without the blemish of original sin. It is also my understanding that Mary was, through the grace of God, kept from ever committing any personal sin as well. As a Protestant, I have a hard time understanding how these dogmas do not completely negate the need for a savior for not only Mary but every human. If God can save one person from original sin and personal sin without the death of Jesus Christ why not everyone? How does the Catholic atonement theology address this?

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*?

I know that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that? Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?

Reading chats and posts and such here with our BU friends I've noticed a thread that seems similar to the way Catholics view The Blessed Virgin Mary and Unitarians view Jesus. It seems like in both theologies they're asymptotically approaching God/Divinity. Could someone help me compare and contrast the relations between the two? Basically, what is the difference between Unitarian Christology and Catholic Mariology?

Jesuit theologian [Fr. Kenneth Baker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Baker_(Jesuit)) states that Mary was not only free from sin but was "unable" to sin: > Two special factors rendered Mary impeccable or unable to sin. The > first was her constant awareness of God, living always in His > presence, and the second was her reception of special and > extraordinary graces. These special graces made it possible for Mary > to maintain a perfect harmony in her mind, will and emotions and to > recognize always what was the right thing to do and then to do it. > (Baker, Kenneth (2016). Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. 2. Ignatius > Press. ISBN 978-1-68149-732-7.) The Catholic Encyclopedia on "The Blessed Virgin Mary" seems to confirm this when it says that her sinlessness was due to "divine privilege" and that she never experienced temptation: > Theologians assert that Mary was > impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a > special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the > fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin > never experienced the motions of concupiscence. Does the Catholic Church teach simply that Mary did not sin, or that she was unable to sin?

The Old Roman Symbol was a forerunner of the Apostles Creed. The structure seems to imply a dual maternity. I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh (the life everlasting) Notice what could be understood as a dual maternity: "born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary". It seems if the Holy Spirit is the Eternal Matriarch of the Eternal Father then the dual-nature of the Son (Son of God; Son of Man) would be easily understood. Is their any evidence in church history that the Holy Spirit was understood as Eternal Matriarch? When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born again of the Holy Spirit, which could be understood then that God's children are born of the Holy Spirit?

I was just thinking, that's a strange greeting. Didn't people back then usually say "hail" in the context of "Hail Caesar"? And apparently Mary thought that was a strange greeting too, even stranger than the fact that it was an Angel who greeted her thus. So, according to the Catholic Church, does Hail (or Ave) in the sense that Gabriel uses it in Luke, actually have anything to do with addressing royalty? Has it ever been posited that the Archangel Gabriel would use that terminology only in reference to the Holy Mother of God?

I tried this question earlier and it was closed due to so many other similar questions but, having looked through I didn't find an answer. What, if any, is the **salvific benefit** of the perpetual virginity of Mary? In other words, having been born of a virgin according to prophesy and all other parts of the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coming again of Christ remaining the same, is our salvation in Christ lessened in some way if Mary has moral and lawful intercourse with her husband?

What are the oldest known writings that state that Mary was without sin?

In my experience, overcoming my fear of Mary (or my disinterest) was the single biggest boost to my relationship with Christ. And it continues to be. How do Protestants answer Catholics who believe that honoring Mary would actually bring one closer to Jesus? How exactly is honoring Mary distracting us from Jesus? Answers can discuss things including: - Why would loving Mary distract from loving God (loving one parent doesn't distract you from loving the other!) - Mary knowing Jesus more than anyone - Mary being our example - Mary's title of "Queen of Heaven" - Mary's title of "Mother of God"

The concept of Mediatrix has Virgin Mary in a role of a mediator in the salvation process—at least that's what Wikipedia says: > Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process. From my admittedly biased point of view, this seems to clash with Paul's writing about Jesus being the only mediator between man and God. > [**1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1tim%202:5-6&version=ESV) > 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. > What is the Catholic teaching about the Mediatrix concept? How is this passage interpreted? Do all Mariologists take this passage into account?

The earliest known prayer to St. Mary is called Beneath Thy Protection (Sub tuum praesidium), and it is commonly dated around mid third century (~250 AD), or as late as fourth century. From the Wikipedia link are four translations. This is the one taken from the Greek: > Beneath your compassion, > We take refuge, O Theotokos [God-bearer]: > do not despise our petitions in time of trouble: > but rescue us from dangers, > only pure, only blessed one. What do Protestant Churches make of this fact? How do they explain the early apparition of the prayer?

**My Question:** Which Church Fathers thought of Mary as a Queen? The Church Fathers can be both early and late (max 500AD).