Amsterdam Apparition and Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Writer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MargaretClare said:
" … the apparitions of Amsterdam consist of a supernatural origin. This recognition of authenticity was imparted by the Bishop in an official declaration, dated May 31, 2002. In the declaration itself and the accompanying pastoral letter, he makes the following notes: …"

[de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__Position_of_the_Church261.htm](http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__Position_of_the_Church261.htm)
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Church strongly opposed the apparition for nearly 50-years before this particular proponent took it upon himself to declare it as such. This, combined with the false and dangerous theology of the apparition, make it pretty clear that it won’t likely remain in its present status for too long.
 
Hmm… Something strange may be happening to this thread. Itsjustdave posted the comments below, but I can’t see the post listed anymore.

Here is the message that has just been posted:
*Writer,

Can you provide a link to Fr. Serpa’s answer? The only “Ask an Apologist” thread I could find was by Peggy Fry here: Mary as Co-Redemptrix ([forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2725&highlight=mediatrix](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2725&highlight=mediatrix))

I wholeheartedly agree with Peggy Fry’s answer above. And yes, we are never bound to call Mary “co-Redemptrix.” That wasn’t my point. My point was that such is the terminology used by the Holy Father, and we are bound to give our religiosum obsequium (religious submission) to all the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, formally and authoritatively proposed even in an exercise of his ordinary magisterium.

If you read Peggy Fry’s answer above, I is seems clear that the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix is at least an authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and according to Fr. William Most, it is a teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible.

However you interpret “religious submission of intellect and will”, it seems clear to me that explicit dissent is contrary to religious submission.
First of all, here is the link below which you were looking for.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19122

Secondly, I don’t have any major problems with a quick read of Peggy’s answer. I see it emphasizing the term less and the theology behind the term more. While I think there are some interesting theological arguments which I made in my online essay, the greatest barrier to the term is the term itself. Here is a quote from my essay, for example, which concerns the issue of language.

*First, the term “Co-Redemptrix” is confusing and poorly reflects its own intended purpose or meaning. The language is wrong. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary cites an early use of “Co-Redemptress” in 1865 by Dr. Pusey. As he was opposing its use, however, it is only logical to assume that the term has been in existence for some time prior to the 1860s. I was recently made aware that the best translation of “Co-Redemptrix” from the Latin would actually be as “woman with the redeemer”. The same student of Latin also noted that one of the problems with the prefix “co” in English is that it no longer implies a lesser or inferior meaning. Take, for example, co-star. The co-star is assumed to be less important than the star. While some supporters of the Co-Redemptrix title do appear to actually believe in an equality of sorts between Mary and Jesus, most certainly do not. They assert that the prefix “co” implies only cooperation with, as opposed to equality with. The truth of the matter is that in debating this topic online with fellow Catholics, this distinction is frequently misunderstood. Why should we be surprised at this, however? The “co” prefix can imply equality in words such as coextensive, coeducation, or co-worker. This confusion may represent sufficient grounds on which to nix the Co-Redemptrix term. If it were our intent to simply confuse and obfuscate the true nature of Mary and her son, we would have succeeded here beyond our wildest dreams. Why would we want to adopt a new title for Mary which serves only to confuse those who hear it proclaimed? This is one of the simplest reasons opposing the new title, but also one of the strongest.
*

If interested in more, the essay (a work-in-progress) is available at the link below.

home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/writer/id16.html
 
40.png
Writer:
Yes, but the Church strongly opposed the apparition for nearly 50-years before this particular proponent took it upon himself to declare it as such.
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

I will note, for the third time in this thread, that the same was the case for the private revelations given to Sister (now “Saint”) Faustina. And today they are approved at the highest level – the Holy Father John Paul II even “obeyed” the request of Jesus in the private revelations to have the Second Sunday of Easter be named officially as Divine Mercy Sunday.

So what you say has little bearing – not no bearing, but little bearing – since, in a manner similar to the situation with Sister Faustina, the apparition in question has been determined to be of supernatural origin, which in Church terminology means effectively “it came from God” or according to His express will through some other supernatural agent or instrument like a “non-fallen” angel or an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

If you can comment directly on this specific rebuttal, by all means please do so – I have not seen you do so previously.
This, combined with the false and dangerous theology of the apparition, make it pretty clear that it won’t likely remain in its present status for too long.
Click to expand...
False and dangerous according to . . . you? another individual lay person or cleric, or a group of Catholics? Why exactly is it dangerous . . . no wait, why EXACTLY is it dangerous? Have you analyzed the reasons why the bishop in question does not think so, or other experts like Colin Donovan of EWTN?

You will wish to note that the revelation to St. Faustina was condemned by the Holy Office PRECISELY because it was considered to promote ideas, expressions, theories, etc. that are false according to Catholic teaching. Yet – and this wasn’t cleared up for many years – this initial judgement was based on a number of misunderstandings and even mistranslations of Sister Faustina’s written statements.

Look, I don’t even follow, and far from actively promote, the “Our Lady of All Nations” apparition. BUT, you do yourself and other forum readers a disservice by stating the same highly speculative and mostly indefensible positions again and again. Repition does not equal “proof,” nor make an unsound argument sound, nor make an illogical argument logical.

I have benefited highly from this discussion, as I hope all of the participants and readers have. But come on, you are really starting to spin your wheels.

If this is eating at you, please let us know how you would like us to pray for you. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about this topic that elicits such a visceral reaction from you?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
Whosebob,

Okay…If I can get my “spinning wheels” to stop for a second, I’ll try to respond quickly to these latest comments.

First, I think my personal reaction is founded in several things: skepticism of apparitions in general, skepticism of those who place feelings and emotions above reason (which seems to be a common thread among those who fervently appear to support every apparition they may hear about), but (most importantly) this particular apparition does not have the trademarks, as I understand it, of something from God. The teaching is found to be in conflict with Biblical beliefs and traditions–e.g. the argument for moral relativism and possibly adoption of women into the priesthood.

Having said the above, I am in a bit of a quandry in one regard. I find it logical to oppose those doctrines promoted by something later determined to be a false apparition. On the other hand, it might be argued, then, that the devil could manipulate Catholics by presenting an obviously fake apparition which appears to be supporting valid doctrine. Do you follow me, or are you off the trail? In other words, perhaps I could concede that false apparitions should have no possitive or negative bearing or affect upon those doctrines they appear to support or oppose. On the other hand (again), it could probably be argued that the “success” of the Lady of Nations makes this particular argument a fairly unlikely scenario. Be that as it may be, I continue to mull the issue over, and I also have really appreciated the comments everyone has offered on the matter.

Below is an excerpt on the apparition in particular from my essay. While its applicability to “Co-Redemptrix” may be up for debate, I think the points covered address some of the main concerns regarding the validity of the apparition itself.

By the way, whosebob, thank you for the reference to Saint Faustina. Yes, the Church can certainly change its mind. It certainly creates, however, a negative impression which must be addressed and overcome. It means the associated apparition must really rise to the occasion and remove doubt as to the nature of its origin. The apparition we’re discussing appears to do the opposite; the more we read the account, the more the discerning reader may see that something does not seem right about it and decide that the Church was right for the previous 50-years instead.
…A particularly troubling phrase from the apparition’s prayer is found in “who once was Mary”. We believe that Mary was assumed into heaven (either before or after a natural death, as I understand it). This prayer implies that Mary is no more…that she has been replaced by something more powerful, something which rivals the redemptive power of Christ for our allegiance and attention. This implied change is more significant than simply raising her to a new level; it infers a new person. This would mean that, when we die and arrive in heaven, “we” are no longer present within ourselves. This would require us to believe a rather frightening scenario of heaven. Namely, we would be compelled to believe that those representations of us in the afterlife are not truly us at all, but something completely different in every way. While I agree that we will be changed “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”, I believe that the Bible clearly suggests we retain our identity in the afterlife. We are “new and improved”, but we are the same people. To accept “who once was Mary” is to accept a lie.*
**
…In one of the appearances of the apparition, Ida Peerdeman records having had the opportunity to “even feel with my hands the contours of Her figure, from head to foot,” as noted in Richard Salbato’s essay. This injects sexuality is into this discussion of Mary in a completely inappropriate manner. This speech serves simply as a foreshadowing of the sexual revolution to come. It also attempts to encourage moral relativism in such immoral behavior as homosexuality. Salbato also raises a good point that one dark purpose of the apparition might be to encourage the Church to drop its opposition to female priests. This is a dangerous path to embark upon as C.S. Lewis strongly warned the Anglican Church in his essay “Priestesses in the Church?”.
*

*…As an aside, it is also interesting to note that many of the apparition’s prophecies failed to materialize—such as the terrible meteor storm it predicted. Matthew 7:16 warns us that “we will know them (false prophets) by their fruits”. How could our Lord make this error?..
 
40.png
Writer:
Yes, but the Church strongly opposed the apparition for nearly 50-years before this particular proponent took it upon himself to declare it as such. This, combined with the false and dangerous theology of the apparition, make it pretty clear that it won’t likely remain in its present status for too long.
Click to expand...
Sorry… in reading this again, it comes across pretty poorly. While I don’t disagree with the content, the tone of this post is not good. That’s what happens, I guess, when I try to write comments in “work mode”…
 
40.png
whosebob:
… the same was the case for the private revelations given to Sister (now “Saint”) Faustina. And today they are approved…
Click to expand...
However, just because St. Faustina’s particular case took 50 years to be approved after much doubt, it does not mean that any other issue surround by questions for a long time would have the same outcome. This is asrgument is a non sequitur.

In spiritual matters, there’s no room for the benefit of the doubt. Yes, there may have been translation problems, but time will tell. Until then, there’s no loss if this supposed apparition is left aside.

Jesus is with us always through the Church.
 
40.png
Augustine:
. . . it does not mean that any other issue surround by questions for a long time would have the same outcome. This is asrgument is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

Well, no, it’s not a non sequitur. It would have been so if in the case of Amsterdam we were talking about an apparition that was still suppressed or even unapproved. But the Amsterdam apparitions have been judged by the local bishop to be of “supernatural origin.” So there is a strong and direct comparison which can be made between the revelations to St. Faustina and “Our Lady of All Nations.”
Yes, there may have been translation problems, but time will tell. Until then, there’s no loss if this supposed apparition is left aside.
Click to expand...
You are correct that “time will tell” as regards the long-term and large-scale impact of this apparition. But, again, I note that it has already been judged by the competent local authority, i.e. the local bishop, to be of “supernatural origin.”
 
whosebob said:

JMJ + OBT​

Well, no, it’s not a non sequitur. It would have been so if in the case of Amsterdam we were talking about an apparition that was still suppressed or even unapproved. But the Amsterdam apparitions have been judged by the local bishop to be of “supernatural origin.” So there is a strong and direct comparison which can be made between the revelations to St. Faustina and “Our Lady of All Nations.”

You are correct that “time will tell” as regards the long-term and large-scale impact of this apparition. But, again, I note that it has already been judged by the competent local authority, i.e. the local bishop, to be of “supernatural origin.”
Click to expand...

I think Augustine has raised some good points. Whosebob, you never did address any of the areas of concern I raised concerning the validity of this specific apparition. If it were indeed true, why did it, and I do mean “it” here, encourage moral relatavism, and why was it unable to get its prophecies straight? By their fruits you will know them…sounds like a case of false prophet to me.

Furthermore, as far as that bishop is concerned, I would suggest you read up on some of the other activities he’s involved in. He doesn’t appear to be the kind of person who inspires one to believe in his causes–unless one is desperate to believe in apparitions of questionable origin.
 
whosebob said:

JMJ + OBT​

Well, no, it’s not a non sequitur. It would have been so if in the case of Amsterdam we were talking about an apparition that was still suppressed or even unapproved. But the Amsterdam apparitions have been judged by the local bishop to be of “supernatural origin.”
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to continue trying to predict future events based on past events, you should know that decisions made by local bishops have been reversed before. Thus, it’s not a guarantee at all to continue that line of thinking.

God bless you.
 
40.png
Augustine:
Well, if you want to continue trying to predict future events based on past events, you should know that decisions made by local bishops have been reversed before. Thus, it’s not a guarantee at all to continue that line of thinking.
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

I agree with you 100% – but the point I was making, and I apologize that I obviously did not do so clearly, was that a past judgment against an apparition cannot be held against it in such a way that one assumes it would prevent it from receiving even the highest levels of approbation from the highest Church authorities.

Whether that will happen with the Amsterdam apparitions, well I think you had it right in your previous post, we will have to “wait and see.”

Perhaps my previous posts suggested too strongly that a direct comparison with Faustina’s revelations and their reception over time should lead one to think that the Amsterdam apparitions will rise to the same level. If that was the impression, it was unintended, and I wish to state clearly that I don’t wish to promote such a conclusion.

May God bless you too!

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
Writer,
Hmm… Something strange may be happening to this thread. Itsjustdave posted the comments below, but I can’t see the post listed anymore.
Click to expand...
I thought I was just going bonkers. I thought I posted that, then it went away.
 
40.png
Writer:
. . . Whosebob, you never did address any of the areas of concern I raised concerning the validity of this specific apparition.
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

I promise to try to do so. I apologize that I’ve been inconsistent in following-up with some of my statements, claims and arguments . . . it’s been a pretty intense month living with my grandmother and assisting her with daily needs and chores as she recovers from her accident.
If it were indeed true, why did it, and I do mean “it” here, encourage moral relatavism, and why was it unable to get its prophecies straight? By their fruits you will know them…sounds like a case of false prophet to me.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s what I’m not clear on from your side. I don’t see how it does or did, but I’m not that well versed in the specifics of the apparition. Apparently, I’m going to have to become more so in order to have an authentic dialogue concerning the apparition as opposed to the doctrine of “Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.”

Don’t respond to this just yet, I will try and work through some of the issues as you’ve presented them in your previous post, including the quotes from your essay, which as I indicated earlier, I have read in its entirety twice.
Furthermore, as far as that bishop is concerned, I would suggest you read up on some of the other activities he’s involved in . . .
Click to expand...
In order to save me some time, could you please provide one or two specific examples with links to sources?

Thanks.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
whosebob said:

JMJ + OBT​

I promise to try to do so. I apologize that I’ve been inconsistent in following-up with some of my statements, claims and arguments . . . it’s been a pretty intense month living with my grandmother and assisting her with daily needs and chores as she recovers from her accident.

Well, that’s what I’m not clear on from your side. I don’t see how it does or did, but I’m not that well versed in the specifics of the apparition. Apparently, I’m going to have to become more so in order to have an authentic dialogue concerning the apparition as opposed to the doctrine of “Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.”

Don’t respond to this just yet, I will try and work through some of the issues as you’ve presented them in your previous post, including the quotes from your essay, which as I indicated earlier, I have read in its entirety twice.

In order to save me some time, could you please provide one or two specific examples with links to sources?

Thanks.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
Click to expand...

I am happy to provide what I have in the way of resources, but some look to have been lost between Oregon and Texas. (Most of the essay was written on vacation in Texas.) By the way, several revisions have been made to the essay since it was first posted. Nothing too major perhaps, but I have fine-tuned some arguments and discarded others for various reasons. A good Google search should help fill in the gaps.

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

unitypublishing.com/jan1_99.html

bisdomhaarlem.nl/nieuws/2002/briefeng.gif
 
Code: 
        "As we approach the third millennium, I believe that God wants to use Mary to bring a deep grace of conversion to all Christendom, not only Protestant and Orthodox, but Catholic as well.  This fits with the Holy Father’s call for authentic ecumenism to be based on a “**dialogue of conversion.**”  More than commitees, this requires saints; instead of mere compromises, the courage of our convictions.            Perhaps our best model is Mother Theresa, who was universally beloved as a saint – now mourned and missed – by all peoples.

        More than any other woman of our century, she exemplified the grace of Marian devotion and service.

        Not inconsistently, she was also an indefatigable supporter of the proposed Marian dogma,
“Mary is our Co-redemptrix with Jesus,” she wrote. “She gave Jesus his body and suffered with him at the cross. Mary is the Mediatrix of all grace. She gave Jesus to us, and as our Mother she obtains for us all his graces. The papal definition of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church.”
**from the article: **
"She Gave the Word Flesh"
**on this site - **
"Proposed Last (5th) Marian Dogma"
Papers and Links
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/5thdogmalinks.htm
 
“I believe the third book that every Fatima devotee should have close at hand is the new book of Sister Lucia which has been recently released in English, ***Calls From the Message of Fatima … ***It is for this reason that I would like to isolate one of the foundational pearls of Sister Lucia’s great work for its deserved appreciation, namely her predominant mariological theme of Our Lady as the “Co-redemptrix of the human race.” Second only to the Marian title of “The Immaculate Heart of Mary,” Mary Co-redemptrix is the most often cited and principal Marian theme presented by Sister Lucia throughout the book.”

-from another article on this site

Sister Lucia and Mary Co-redemptrix

(christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/5thdogmalinks.htm)
 
40.png
Writer:
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!
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion, but I think that it is naivety to put any trust in what Sabalto has to say. Did not Jesus and John the Baptist call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers”?

What you think is well researched is often of very doubtful value. There are times when the writer actually goes over the line with comments that are published. Some of the material that I have seen from this source are without a doubt meant to cause harm to others. The mere fact that he and his offsiders have produced the petition to overturn what has been accepted by the Church is yet another reason to doubt their sincerity. The grounds that they produced for their petition are full of unverifiable facts, and I might add that there is evidence of slander in the petition.

I prefer to ignore such an infamous source of information and where necessary to make up my own mind on the issues that they feature so often in Unity Publishing. I have no time for Sabalto, E. Michael Jones or any of their cohorts. I keep wondering what is their angle, and I can see that they are afraid at any attempts to unite Christendom so that we are one again.
Maggie
 
I recognize that this issue seems to be contentious but I do think that some who feel that they cannot accept as a possible dogma Mary as Mediatrix Co-Redemtrix and Advocate need to do some further reading in the Scriptures to try and understand the nature of Mary’s role in relation to Jesus Christ as to how she fulfills each of these roles without taking anything away from Jesus but insteads points us again to Her Son.

At the same time, I suggest that those who object to the title “Our Lady of All Nations” might also do some further reading within the Scriptures to see exactly what God intended in the way of Salvation.

As a start I suggest that you read from the Book of Isaiah and then take a closer look at St. John’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Then I believe some serious and hard answers need to be answered in an honest fashion:
  1. Did God intend that there would be a separation of nations from the Chosen People?
  2. Is it possible that God was disappointed because the Chosen People did not set a proper example for people within the other nations that would lead them to Him and to reject paganism?
  3. Did Jesus come just to save a few?
  4. What is the one role that Mary has held since the Wedding Feast of Cana?
As I see it, the title “Our Lady of All Nations”, should serve as an indication of God’s Will that all who live on this earth should come to Him and worship Him alone. All too often we think in selfish terminology and the debate that has been raging about this possible fifth Marian dogma is evidence of the selfishness in which we exist. I am speaking about Catholic, Protestant, Fundamentalist, Orthodox, Evangalical and all the others. Each have their own petty selfish ideas about what should or should not be doctrine. Those ideas are on the whole in error. Most are not even willing to read the Scripture and follow the Will of God, according to His Plan of Salvation.

The Apostles were commanded to go out and spread the message of the Gospel to all the nations. This has not happened because of the persecution of Christians in Middle Eastern lands and in Asia where Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism have a stranglehold. There is a continuing need to go and reach the people of these nations and to bring them the Good News of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The early Christians set such a good example that they won many conversions. Our current Christians have earned themselves a lot of hatred.
(to be continued)
 
(cont)

Modern Christians fail in their duty to set a good example. Their failure is such that we have Christians who are willing to convert to a religion of death (Islam) claiming that it is a religion of peace, and that it is the true way. If we had been doing the Will of God, we should be seeing conversions from Islam, not the other way around!!

“Let all the nations muster and assemble with every race…You yourselves are my witnesses - it is Yahweh who speaks - my servants whom I have chosen, that men may know and believe me.” (Is 43:9-10)

“Pay attention to me, you peoples, listen to me you nations, for from me comes the Law and my justice shall be the light of the peoples, I will establish my integrity speedily…” (Is 51:4)

The above verses are just two examples indicating that God willed that the nations would come to me, yet this has not happened. Why? Because of our failure to do the will of God. Because of our stubbornness in believing that he could send some (not all by any stretch of the imagination) messengers to us in this time of heartbreak and sorrow. Because, we in our countries fail to see the whole picture of God’s Plan of Salvation.

With regard to the phrase that disturbs so many “Who once was Mary”, perhaps you need to look beyond the earthly understanding of Mary and seek a spiritual enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. Mary is the name of the Woman who lived on this earth and who bore Jesus, the Messiah. She is the mother of Jesus, but as God is the Father of all nations then Mary is the one who is chosen to lead all to her Son. Please pray on it.

Maggie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top