W
Writer
Guest
I am a new Catholic, but a Christian since a very young age. One of the few issues which created an obstacle for my family in the conversion process from the Episcopal tradition was the concept of Mary as the “Co-Redemptrix”. After communicating with many informed Catholics (including a few through these forums), I have decided that I am not comfortable with this title, and that my view does not in any way prevent me from being a good Catholic.
There have been various forum discussions on the “Co-Redemptrix” in the past few months, and they usually become less than effective at creating a source for real dialogue. Instead of focusing on the larger issue of Mary as the “Co-Redemptrix”, I wanted to focus on what the Amsterdam apparition might teach us (indirectly) about the validity of this title.
Recently, another forum member brought this particular apparition to our attention, claiming that it served as evidence for support of this title of glorification for Mary. In doing some research on this particular apparition, some serious issues of concern arose with the way this apparition presented itself and what it declared to be the truth.
For instance, Richard Paul Salbato brings up seven points concerning this apparition which are either in stark opposition to the Christian faith, or, at the very least, serve as serious warning bells to the beiever. For example, Richard points out that it is incorrect to view Mary as the “Lady of all Nations”. She can be viewed as the mother of all Catholics or Christians, but to extend it beyond that scope makes her into something which is not supported by the Scriptures. It also asserts that all are saved–with apparently no distinction as to their particular level of faith, or lack thereof. This would cast uncertainty upon the Last Judgement. Another example centers on the apparition’s declaration of the “Co-Redemptrix” title as dogma–before any such declaration has been made by the Church. Another one of his points which caught my attention centered on the assertion by the apparition that things had gotten “so out of hand” that they had to call in Mary. Christ apparently was not sufficient, and the whole gist of the appearances is to move the focus from the pure redemptive power of Jesus Christ to some undefined and vague notion of Mary as the real redeemer.
Since I am still somewhat new at this, I may have made some errors on the paragraphs above. The bottom line is this. If the Amsterdam Apparition was not Mary, then who was it? It seems to me that the answer would have to be the devil. If the devil did indeed cause a false apparition to demand the title of the “Co-Redemptrix”, shouldn’t this give the rest of us some serious concern regarding the use of this title? I don’t know about the rest of you, but the account of this apparition seems quite different than the more widely-accepted apparitions with which we are familiar. It seems more like an attempt by the enemy to mislead the Church, and the Mary of this particular apparition comes across more as a spoiled queen than any kind of blessed figure. What are your thoughts?
There have been various forum discussions on the “Co-Redemptrix” in the past few months, and they usually become less than effective at creating a source for real dialogue. Instead of focusing on the larger issue of Mary as the “Co-Redemptrix”, I wanted to focus on what the Amsterdam apparition might teach us (indirectly) about the validity of this title.
Recently, another forum member brought this particular apparition to our attention, claiming that it served as evidence for support of this title of glorification for Mary. In doing some research on this particular apparition, some serious issues of concern arose with the way this apparition presented itself and what it declared to be the truth.
For instance, Richard Paul Salbato brings up seven points concerning this apparition which are either in stark opposition to the Christian faith, or, at the very least, serve as serious warning bells to the beiever. For example, Richard points out that it is incorrect to view Mary as the “Lady of all Nations”. She can be viewed as the mother of all Catholics or Christians, but to extend it beyond that scope makes her into something which is not supported by the Scriptures. It also asserts that all are saved–with apparently no distinction as to their particular level of faith, or lack thereof. This would cast uncertainty upon the Last Judgement. Another example centers on the apparition’s declaration of the “Co-Redemptrix” title as dogma–before any such declaration has been made by the Church. Another one of his points which caught my attention centered on the assertion by the apparition that things had gotten “so out of hand” that they had to call in Mary. Christ apparently was not sufficient, and the whole gist of the appearances is to move the focus from the pure redemptive power of Jesus Christ to some undefined and vague notion of Mary as the real redeemer.
Since I am still somewhat new at this, I may have made some errors on the paragraphs above. The bottom line is this. If the Amsterdam Apparition was not Mary, then who was it? It seems to me that the answer would have to be the devil. If the devil did indeed cause a false apparition to demand the title of the “Co-Redemptrix”, shouldn’t this give the rest of us some serious concern regarding the use of this title? I don’t know about the rest of you, but the account of this apparition seems quite different than the more widely-accepted apparitions with which we are familiar. It seems more like an attempt by the enemy to mislead the Church, and the Mary of this particular apparition comes across more as a spoiled queen than any kind of blessed figure. What are your thoughts?
==