Amsterdam Apparition and Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix"

[nordskoven]

The pilgrimage trade is lucrative, and hard to give up even when the Church has spoken again and again and again. The Holy Office, forerunner to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave the first condemnation of Amsterdam and Ida Peerdeman’s writings and her phony fist-shaking “Mary” in the fifties, and the condemnation has been oft repeated as disobedience continued. The condemnation is final. Nobody can undo Vatican condemnation but the Vatican.

Under the onslaught of millions of petitions from VOX POPULI, run by Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University (former promoter of Medjugorje), the Church appointed a committee to separately consider the “Final Dogma,” which it denounced. The committee included Fr. Rene Laurentin, who never met a Marian apparition he didn’t like. Further, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said it was never going to be adopted. NEVER! CoMA is confusing and, as one theologian put it, “a waste of all that infallibility.”

Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate, the “Final Dogma” of Amsterdamned, is stupid. It’s stupid to slam three poetic titles together and call that one dogma when it is inherently confusing. It’s stupid to adopt Marian dogma that doesn’t define Jesus’ nature reflexively. It’s stupid to adopt something as Marian dogma that does not apply uniquely to Mary. All believers are called to cooperate with Christ’s redemption, and to mediate and advocate with Christ.

Why reinvent the wheel? Do you know why it is so hard to find the writings of Ida Peerdeman online? She’s not just a heretic, she’s a goofball. Peerdeman called another Church-condemned French-Canadienne “seer” the reincarnation of Mary. That doesn’t even touch the anti-Jewish passages, or “Mary’s” communist demands, or “Mary’s” fist-shaking rant while she counsels the laity to fight the Church. Even the provisional bishop’s illegal permission for pilgrims stated that Peerdeman was a goofball. Whether influenced by the world, the flesh or the devil, this is not of God. The term is “preternatural,” the word for false miracles not of God.

CoMA is condemned. Pray for the ultimate miracle. Pray for Mark Miravalle to repent and undo all the damage to those millions of souls propagandized by VOX POPULI’s error, not the least of which is through Miravalle’s Queenship Publishing arm, which spreads Ida Peerdeman’s condemned writings.

Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN

 

[Joe_Kelley]

nordskoven - Can you give us some sources to support you claims. The sources I can find say it is still under investigation.

Note that Mark Miraville is a professor of theology at Steubenville. One should provide some evidence beyond personal attack to condemn him.

I have found Apparitions to be generally dependable in these matters.

 

[Writer]

nordskoven:

The pilgrimage trade is lucrative, and hard to give up even when the Church has spoken again and again and again. The Holy Office, forerunner to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave the first condemnation of Amsterdam and Ida Peerdeman’s writings and her phony fist-shaking “Mary” in the fifties, and the condemnation has been oft repeated as disobedience continued. The condemnation is final. Nobody can undo Vatican condemnation but the Vatican.

Under the onslaught of millions of petitions from VOX POPULI, run by Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University (former promoter of Medjugorje), the Church appointed a committee to separately consider the “Final Dogma,” which it denounced. The committee included Fr. Rene Laurentin, who never met a Marian apparition he didn’t like. Further, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said it was never going to be adopted. NEVER! CoMA is confusing and, as one theologian put it, “a waste of all that infallibility.”

Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate, the “Final Dogma” of Amsterdamned, is stupid. It’s stupid to slam three poetic titles together and call that one dogma when it is inherently confusing. It’s stupid to adopt Marian dogma that doesn’t define Jesus’ nature reflexively. It’s stupid to adopt something as Marian dogma that does not apply uniquely to Mary. All believers are called to cooperate with Christ’s redemption, and to mediate and advocate with Christ.

Why reinvent the wheel? Do you know why it is so hard to find the writings of Ida Peerdeman online? She’s not just a heretic, she’s a goofball. Peerdeman called another Church-condemned French-Canadienne “seer” the reincarnation of Mary. That doesn’t even touch the anti-Jewish passages, or “Mary’s” communist demands, or “Mary’s” fist-shaking rant while she counsels the laity to fight the Church. Even the provisional bishop’s illegal permission for pilgrims stated that Peerdeman was a goofball. Whether influenced by the world, the flesh or the devil, this is not of God. The term is “preternatural,” the word for false miracles not of God.

CoMA is condemned. Pray for the ultimate miracle. Pray for Mark Miravalle to repent and undo all the damage to those millions of souls propagandized by VOX POPULI’s error, not the least of which is through Miravalle’s Queenship Publishing arm, which spreads Ida Peerdeman’s condemned writings.

Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN

Thank you for your great post… I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[whosebob]

nordskoven:

. . . The condemnation is final. Nobody can undo Vatican condemnation but the Vatican . . .

JMJ + OBT​

I don’t know enough about the private revelations in question to get into specifics – in fact, I’ve posted in this thread primarily to support the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptix – but we need to judge such things in light of the history of other instances of private revelation from God. For example, St. Faustina’s revelations were once specifically condemned, but Cardinal Wojtyla worked hard to turn this around, and now Divine Mercy Sunday and the Divine Mercy Chaplet and St. Faustina’s diary, etc. are all approved at the highest level!

nordskoven:

. . . the Church appointed a committee to separately consider the “Final Dogma,” which it denounced . . . said it was never going to be adopted. NEVER! CoMA is confusing and, as one theologian put it, “a waste of all that infallibility.” Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate, the “Final Dogma” of Amsterdamned, is stupid . . .It’s stupid to adopt something as Marian dogma that does not apply uniquely to Mary. All believers are called to cooperate with Christ’s redemption, and to mediate and advocate with Christ.

I will directly and charitably challenge you on this matter: why is it stupid? I need a response in context of the following from a reputable theologian and scripture scholar:

Cooperation in Redemption

Our Lady’s Cooperation in the Redemption

Co-redemption and Queenship in Ad Caeli Reginam.

Specifically, as Fr. Most so clearly articulates, Scripture and historical Catholic teaching make a huge case that Mary enjoyed a role unique from that of all other co-operator’s in the Redemption: immediate co-operation in the objective redemption. No other human person has, does or will ever enjoy such a role in salvation history.

It is that same role of Mary’s specifically which has a proper title – co-redemptrix – and this pope or one in the future could very well give the Church an infallible dogmatic definition of the same.

And by the way, in Lumen Gentium paragraph #62 the Second Vatican Council teaches us:

By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.

It is known by students of Catholic dogmatic theology that the titles of Mediatrix and Advocate (and related titles) have received comparatively little exposition from the ordinary and extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church. So, in fact, having the Pope pull them together into a clear dogmatic summary-definition does in fact make a lot of sense.

nordskoven:

CoMA is condemned. Pray for the ultimate miracle. Pray for Mark Miravalle to repent and undo all the damage to those millions of souls propagandized by VOX POPULI’s error.

Unless you, or another forums member, can come up with a detailed analysis on the level of Fr. Most’s treatment and what I’ve outlined that tears apart the same, I think you owe us all a big apology for such ridiculous statements.

Now, I’m not at all defending the private revelation stuff – I know very little about Peerdeman, etc. But CoMA, as a matter of Catholic beliefs and theology, is not necessarily linked to them. Your personal distaste for Peerdeman may well be leading you to slam God’s own mother!

It should also be noted the Pope John Paul II’s hesitancy on this matter was/is rooted in concern that present gross misunderstanding about the term “co-redemptrix” and Mary in general among our separated brethren, despite clear wording and teaching in a dogmatic definition, would cause the definition to have a negative (even destructive) lightning-rod effect in non-Catholic, not to mention anti-Catholic, circles. That concern is far, far from a condemnation.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Writer]

I am presently working on an essay on the larger issue described in the last post, but it is not completed. I’ll try to share it once it’s done. As a way of a cursory answer to your objections, if it can be determined that the Amsterdam Apparition was indeed false, we are left with several options as to their explanation. First, the person receiving these “visions” is insane and dellusional. Second, the apparitions are coming from a source neither of God nor of Satan–a natural event of some kind, or perhaps little green men. Third, the apparitions are the work of Satan. The second option seems to make the least sense, so what about the remaining two? Well, it looks like she was very likely of questionable control over her mental faculties, but I recall that there were other witnesses to some of these events and certainly many persons who were quickly ensnared by her accounts of seeing Mary. Therefore, we are left with an apparition which appears to be from Satan which demands high titles for itself. “Me! Me! Look at me!” it seems to cry out to the world. If, then, something of the devil calls for the title of “Co-Redemptrix”, does it require a graduate degree from a Catholic university to conclude that…hey, this might be a problem folks? Common sense and logic lead the believer to question anything which is conveyed to us by the enemy.

 

[whosebob]

Writer:

I am presently working on an essay on the larger issue described in the last post, but it is not completed. I’ll try to share it once it’s done. As a way of a cursory answer to your objections, if it can be determined that the Amsterdam Apparition was indeed false, we are left with several options as to their explanation . . .

JMJ + OBT​

Actually, whether or not the Amsterdam apparition is ultimately judged by the Holy See as authentic or demonic (or whatever), it will have no bearing on whether I or John Smith or Pope John Paul II believe “co-redemptrix” is a fitting title for Mary – it is a matter of Catholic theology and doctrine, the private revelations are a very secondary matter.

Writer:

. . . Therefore, we are left with an apparition which appears to be from Satan which demands high titles for itself. “Me! Me! Look at me!” it seems to cry out to the world. If, then, something of the devil calls for the title of “Co-Redemptrix”, does it require a graduate degree from a Catholic university to conclude that…hey, this might be a problem folks?

Now, I pointed out in a previous post that this type of situation has happened before, specifically with the private revelation to St. Catherine Laboure – where Mary seemed to be asking for a title, “Mary conceived without sin.” And that apparition is fully approved, and the same title is a dogma of Catholic Faith, infallibly defined by Pope Pius IX!

Writer:

Common sense and logic lead the believer to question anything which is conveyed to us by the enemy.

Writer, I think it’s great you’ve got such fire under you to seek out the truth and defend the Faith and all . . . but I think you’ve already convinced yourself of the “truth” in this situation and won’t be able to deal with it objectively until you step back a bit and lay down some of your preconceptions and misconceptions.

What if the Holy See in the next few years actually approves the apparition? Will that be a trick of the devil too? What if the next Pope gifts the Church with the “5th Marian Dogma” – will that be the ultimate deception of the anti-Christ or something?

I definitely don’t wish to attack you. But I think a much more constructive analysis is possible than what you’ve outlined as your “thorough” research into this matter.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

The forums database was doing something strange, and so did give notice about my previous post in reply to Writer.

See my previous post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=371559#post371559.

Thanks.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Here is another important article by the late Fr. William Most which I should have linked to earlier; it lays out in ascending date order the Magisterial texts that directly support the teaching that Mary enjoyed an “immediate cooperation in the objective redemption,” i.e. that she is the Co-Redemptrix:

Ordinary Magisterium on Mary’s Immediate Cooperation in the Objective Redemption.

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

I definitely don’t wish to attack you. But I think a much more constructive analysis is possible than what you’ve outlined as your “thorough” research into this matter.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Thanks for your thoughts, whosebob. Just a couple quick comments for tonight. First, I hope I never characterized my research on this Marian apparition as “thorough”. That actually is one of my pet peeves… Even on topics on which I may have read a great deal on for years, I am not inclined to characterize the research as “thorough”. This word infers that someone knows all there is to know on a particular topic, and that further consideration is not necessary. I am the first to admit that I am always open to correction, if warranted.

As far as what I would do if the “Co-Redemptrix” was formed into a church dogma, I don’t know for certain. I suppose, however, that I might consider returning to the Episcopal or Anglican traditions, but I try not to spend too much time on “what if” scenarios.

I have had the privledge this past year of doing more work connected to the sciences, and it’s possible I have less tolerance for poor logic lately. It seems fairly clear to me that, if something were found to have been demonic in its origin, we would be less inclined to support what it asked us to do for it. Part of what intrigues me on this particular topic, is the enemy’s strategy. If indeed a false apparition supporting a false title, then this issue has been introduced quite masterfuly to cause divisions between church members. You feel you must support the claim of validity because you think it is right, and, likewise, I believe that it is clearly wrong for several primary reasons–one of which, at least, has been alluded to earlier–and I am compelled to invest a little extra of my personal time on this issue because I care for the Church. We both hae good motives, but one of us is wrong.

 

[whosebob]

Writer:

. . .As far as what I would do if the “Co-Redemptrix” was formed into a church dogma, I don’t know for certain. I suppose, however, that I might consider returning to the Episcopal or Anglican traditions . . .

JMJ + OBT​

If the title “co-redemptrix” was dogmatically defined by a Pope ex cathedra or was proclaimed by an ecumenical council, do you believe that such a proclamation would be protected from being an error or in error according to the promises of Christ and the Catholic beliefs regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium?

It would be one thing if in the question I just asked, “title ‘co-redemptrix’” was replaced with “teaching that Christ wasn’t really God” because the latter is an impossibility given the Deposit of Faith handed down since the Apostles. But why, according to you, is “co-redemptrix” likewise impossible or why exactly is it incompatible with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

I think in the past there were certainly Catholic faithful that made similar statements to yours quoted above, except “co-redemptrix” was replaced with “papal infallibility” or “immaculate conception” or “assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Was their attitude at the time justified? If so, why? If not, then how is yours?

Writer:

It seems fairly clear to me that, if something were found to have been demonic in its origin, we would be less inclined to support what it asked us to do for it. Part of what intrigues me on this particular topic, is the enemy’s strategy. If indeed a false apparition supporting a false title, then this issue has been introduced quite masterfuly to cause divisions between church members.

You’re making a good point. And again, I’m not a fan or supporter of this apparition per se. I do think it is important to keep in mind that the local Bishop has ruled positively that the apparition is “of a supernatural origin.” See this article.

Honestly, I spend most of my spiritual reading and study time with the Holy Bible, the Breviary and Missal (the public prayers of the Church), and the Catechism, Council and Papal documents, etc. I choose not to spend much time reading about private revelations, though I do have my favorite PRs, e.g. the Diary of St. Faustina, the apparitions at Fatima, Portugal and the apparitions at Lourdes, France.

Writer:

You feel you must support the claim of validity because you think it is right, and, likewise, I believe that it is clearly wrong for several primary reasons–one of which, at least, has been alluded to earlier–and I am compelled to invest a little extra of my personal time on this issue because I care for the Church.

I definitely don’t feel I must or need to support the validity of the apparition in question. And my support of the title “co-redemptrix” is based on my belief in the truth of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; it is not rooted in a particular private revelation.

Writer:

We both hae good motives, but one of us is wrong.

I guess, but I don’t think the issues in our posts or in general regarding these matters is that black and white.

May God bless you.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

If the title “co-redemptrix” was dogmatically defined by a Pope ex cathedra or was proclaimed by an ecumenical council, do you believe that such a proclamation would be protected from being an error or in error according to the promises of Christ and the Catholic beliefs regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium?

IC XC NIKA

Not much time this morning to reply, so I’ll just focus on your first observation. The big answer is I don’t know. I can’t remember whether it was C.S. Lewis or Toliken who wrote something I liked regarding hypothetical questions of this nature, but it just comes down to the fact that I don’t believe it will be made into the 5th dogma. If it were, I’d have to consider with great care what to do. The distinction for me, however, is that yes there are theological arguements which can appear to support the “Co-Redemptrix” title on the surface. If we move out of the “vacuum”, however, and look at the inter-connected nature of the other arguements opposing it, I believe the opposition’s position is much stronger. That’s the essay I am slowly writing…

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

Unless you, or another forums member, can come up with a detailed analysis on the level of Fr. Most’s treatment and what I’ve outlined that tears apart the same, I think you owe us all a big apology for such ridiculous statements.

Now, I’m not at all defending the private revelation stuff – I know very little about Peerdeman, etc. But CoMA, as a matter of Catholic beliefs and theology, is not necessarily linked to them. Your personal distaste for Peerdeman may well be leading you to slam God’s own mother!

It should also be noted the Pope John Paul II’s hesitancy on this matter was/is rooted in concern that present gross misunderstanding about the term “co-redemptrix” and Mary in general among our separated brethren, despite clear wording and teaching in a dogmatic definition, would cause the definition to have a negative (even destructive) lightning-rod effect in non-Catholic, not to mention anti-Catholic, circles. That concern is far, far from a condemnation.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

I wanted to pass on a link which actually has a copy of one of the letters from Rome (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) opposing this particular apparition. It’s a pretty good resource, and I hope to post a link to my own essay on this general topic within a week.

theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/amsterda/amsterda.html

 

[whosebob]

Writer:

I wanted to pass on a link which actually has a copy of one of the letters from Rome (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) opposing this particular apparition . . .

JMJ + OBT​

Okay, I read the materials to which you posted a link, but no “alarm bells” are going off in my mind.

I do look forward to reading your essay, as I don’t see anything so far in the materials and arguments presented that can’t at least be “matched” pro for con in the case for “Mary Co-redemptrix” begin dogmatically defined. Nota Bene, one does not have to support the Amsterdam apparition in order to believe the “5th Marian Dogma” is true and should be defined by a council and/or the Pope.

One statement I found particularly disturbing on the page you linked to is the following:

Similarly, the statement that he Mgr. Punt, the present bishop of Haarlem ] finds no theological or psychological impediments in this case is rather strange given phrases such as, “Who once was Mary,” to take only the most obvious example.

I think such a statement is a bit insulting. Why?

Here is the explanation that EWTN’s in-house theologian Colin Donovan, STL gives of the same expression:

The Expression “Who Once Was Mary”

In the approved prayer, the Blessed Virgin is referred to as Our Lady of All Nations “who once was Mary”. It is explained by the promoters of the devotion in the following manner:

This refers to the fact that Mary is no longer just Mary but rather The Lady, The Woman at the foot of the Cross. These words refer to her Eternal Motherhood over all of us, for she is Mother Whom Jesus gave to us from the Cross with the words: Woman behold thy Son!

I might add that the Motherhood of Mary is eternal in the sense that it was foreseen by God, along with the Incarnation of the Word, from all eternity. Similarly, the Church speaks of Mary as the Mother of God, not because she herself is eternal or Mother of the divine nature, but because He of whom she is Mother in the order of human nature is God, the Eternal Word.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t perceive that dementia or a twisted sense of the Catholic Faith is necessary in order to take Mr. Donovan’s statement seriously. In fact, I think it lines up perfectly well with the teachings given in the universal Catechism. (And the writings of Fr. Most, for that matter.)

EWTN staff must think it makes a good deal of sense too, because about once or twice a day (maybe more often) they broadcast a spoken prayer which includes the title “Lady of All Nations” and the expression “who once was Mary.” You may disagree, but I think EWTN has its head screwed on pretty straight when it comes to Catholic doctrine and dogma.

Please let me remind you again that other approved apparitions and private revelations have gone “through the fire,” even for long periods of time. Take a look at the following historical timeline for the Divine Mercy devotion: you will want to note that between March 6, 1959 and April 15, 1978 (almost two decades!) this devotion and message were banned outright by the Holy Office.

I do look forward to reading your essay and discussing it with you. Good luck and may Our Lord bless you in your search and in your defense of the Catholic Faith.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

Okay, I read the materials to which you posted a link, but no “alarm bells” are going off in my mind.

I do look forward to reading your essay, as I don’t see anything so far in the materials and arguments presented that can’t at least be “matched” pro for con in the case for “Mary Co-redemptrix” begin dogmatically defined. Nota Bene, one does not have to support the Amsterdam apparition in order to believe the “5th Marian Dogma” is true and should be defined by a council and/or the Pope.

One statement I found particularly disturbing on the page you linked to is the following:

I think such a statement is a bit insulting. Why?

Here is the explanation that EWTN’s in-house theologian Colin Donovan, STL gives of the same expression:

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t perceive that dementia or a twisted sense of the Catholic Faith is necessary in order to take Mr. Donovan’s statement seriously. In fact, I think it lines up perfectly well with the teachings given in the universal Catechism. (And the writings of Fr. Most, for that matter.)

EWTN staff must think it makes a good deal of sense too, because about once or twice a day (maybe more often) they broadcast a spoken prayer which includes the title “Lady of All Nations” and the expression “who once was Mary.” You may disagree, but I think EWTN has its head screwed on pretty straight when it comes to Catholic doctrine and dogma.

Please let me remind you again that other approved apparitions and private revelations have gone “through the fire,” even for long periods of time. Take a look at the following historical timeline for the Divine Mercy devotion: you will want to note that between March 6, 1959 and July 12, 1979 this devotion and message was banned outright by the Holy Office.

I do look forward to reading your essay and discussing it with you. Good luck and may Our Lord bless you in your search and in your defense of the Catholic Faith.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Thanks… Yes, I also have only heard good things about EWTN. As I said before, it is not a single argument which makes as convincing a case as five argumments, which is what I am currently working on. I understand that your not focused on the apparition, but the title itself, but I would mention in passing that this apparition made mention of something like the approaching red tide which the church needs to welcome. It really sounds to me, given the historical context, as an attempt to promote communism–emphasis on secular communities and not the religious communities. In case anyone at EWTN is interested, perhaps I’ll pass my essay on to them when it’s done. Thanks again for your observations!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is the usage of “co-redemptrix” by Pope John Paul II in describing St. Mary the work of the devil as well?

see here: cin.org/JPIICoRedm.html

 

[Writer]

itsjustdave1988:

Is the usage of “co-redemptrix” by Pope John Paul II in describing St. Mary the work of the devil as well?

see here:

Hey, aren’t you supposed to be watching our airspace?! No, thank you, Itsjustdave, for your observations. I would be curious as to the authenticity of the translation, though. I have seen all too often on thse boards where translations are altered just a little to fit one person’s argument a bit better. Even if, on occasion, he has used the term, though, I am not sure what it actually demonstrates. There are a number of intertwined reasons opposing the term, and some of the most interesting to me (as an English major, I guess) hinge upon issues of the English language. While it would be presumptious of me to suppose I know better than the pope, the fact of the matter is that he has not declared the “Fifth Dogma” as you would perhaps wish him to do. Also, there is no demand that we take every utterance of the pope as infallible–unless he’s speaking ex cathedra, of course. There is sometimes room for differences of opinion, but seeing as “The Fifth Dogma” remains undeclared in an official capacity, I am not sure what you can hope to gain my references like these. The way I look at it, I suppose, is to look at the pope’s call for Christian unity as it relates to this topic, but more on that angle later.

I am taking a break from writing this evening, but I hope to finish a little essay on this toipic on Sunday night, or so. Someone else could certainly do a lot better, but maybe it will be food for thought. Unfortunately, it is a bit longer than was my aim.

 

[MaggieOH]

== I’m afraid I have no idea - I just searched on Mr. Salbato’s name ==

Try Unity Publishing. As far as I am concerned I would not give credence to anything that comes from this man. He seems to be full of venom in his writing.

MaggieOH

 

[Writer]

MaggieOH:

Try Unity Publishing. As far as I am concerned I would not give credence to anything that comes from this man. He seems to be full of venom in his writing.

MaggieOH

Venom is a dangerous label sometimes. I was pretty angry as an Episcopalian when Bishop Robinson, a practicing homosexual, was ordained. I said and wrote a lot–from letters to the Bishop himself to letters published in ChristianityToday. I was angry, but I never crossed the line (as it sometimes seems David Virtue gets close to doing with the Anglican Communion). When I realized it was hopeless, I left and came home to the Catholic Church. Take National Reveiew as another example. Its founder, as I recall is a conservative Catholic, but the magazine sometimes seems a bit harsh. The only reason I cite these examples, is sometimes folks get a little to emotionaly-invested perhaps in issues they care a lot about–say politics or religion. It doesn’t mean they might not have something valuable to say, but sometimes you do have to show some discernment in determining for yourself whether there is value there. I have not read a great deal else by Salbato, but I can say that what I have read seems pretty well researched and his arguments are persuasive. Furthermore, when I had a comment/question on a particular issue, he was quick with a courteous reply. Sorry I rambled, but I would suggest you don’t write a person off simply because they seem emotional from time to time. After all, I am sure John the Baptist wasn’t the easiest fellow to sit down at the table with either!

 

[MaggieOH]

Writer:

I am presently working on an essay on the larger issue described in the last post, but it is not completed. I’ll try to share it once it’s done. As a way of a cursory answer to your objections, if it can be determined that the Amsterdam Apparition was indeed false, we are left with several options as to their explanation. First, the person receiving these “visions” is insane and dellusional. Second, the apparitions are coming from a source neither of God nor of Satan–a natural event of some kind, or perhaps little green men. Third, the apparitions are the work of Satan. The second option seems to make the least sense, so what about the remaining two? Well, it looks like she was very likely of questionable control over her mental faculties, but I recall that there were other witnesses to some of these events and certainly many persons who were quickly ensnared by her accounts of seeing Mary. Therefore, we are left with an apparition which appears to be from Satan which demands high titles for itself. “Me! Me! Look at me!” it seems to cry out to the world. If, then, something of the devil calls for the title of “Co-Redemptrix”, does it require a graduate degree from a Catholic university to conclude that…hey, this might be a problem folks? Common sense and logic lead the believer to question anything which is conveyed to us by the enemy.

Please keep in mind that the present Bishop has in fact affirmed that there is no impediment in believing that the apparitions are of supernatural origin.

The subject of present day apparitions is a very heated one and in this case the heat is coming from people who seem to be suspicious about every apparition that has alleged to have occurred. One needs to have a very healthy ability to discern that which is false and that which is true. It is of course necessary to accept a condemnation when it is given, such as the case of the Little Pebble (which is blatantly false).

What is disappointing is that the people who have condemned Ida Peedeman have also impugned her character, and for most of us we have no way of finding corroborating evidence either for or against what has been stated.

Since the Church teaches that there is no need for us to believe in an apparition, there should not be the amount of heat and “confusion” that is created by people who have limited knowledge about such issues. Many rely upon the same resource and thus they spread rumours that are nothing more than slander.

Would I believe anything written by a staff member of Unity Publishing? NO

MaggieOH

 

[whosebob]

Writer:

. . . There are a number of intertwined reasons opposing the term, and some of the most interesting to me (as an English major, I guess) hinge upon issues of the English language.

JMJ + OBT​

Hmmm . . . “co-redemptrix” is a term deriving from the Latin language so maybe you should take that into consideration.

Writer:

. . . Also, there is no demand that we take every utterance of the pope as infallible–unless he’s speaking ex cathedra, of course.

Well, yes and no. When evaluating the teachings of this or any Pope or the teaching of the universal Magisterium, there is not a binary condition between “non-infallible opinion” and “infallible ex cathedra declaration.” From Fr. Most’s essay Ordinary Magisterium on Mary’s Immediate Cooperation in the Objective Redemption:

Any doctrine proposed repeatedly by the Ordinary Magisterium is rated as infallible. In fact, Pius XII added (Humani generis, Dec. 28, 1950. DS 3885):“Nor should one think that the things proposed in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves call for assent on the plea that in them the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, to which this also applies: He who “hears you hears me.”… But if the Popes in their acta deliberately pass judgment on a matter controverted up to then, it is clear to all that according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, the question can no longer be considered open to free discussion among theologians.” But: If a doctrine comes under the promise of Christ “He who hears you hears me” that doctrine cannot be in error.

And if you haven’t come across it already, make sure to read Fr. Most’s essay,

Hierarchy of Truths and Four Levels of Teaching.

And here is a relevant quote from one of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (Lumen gentium, see paragraph #25)

Writer:

I am taking a break from writing this evening, but I hope to finish a little essay on this toipic on Sunday night, or so.

I look forward to reading it and discussing it with you and the other forums members.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA