- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
You are welcome Frances. Just defending Mom.
T
Tomster
Guest
Not so!
The Mother of God holds a SINGULAR position in the economy of the Redemption, and consequently exercises an important function in our religious life. As Mother of Christ she is also our Mother for we are members of the Mystical Body of Christ. God had, in a measure, conditioned the work of our redemption on her consent and willingness to be the Mother of the one who was to be despised by men and to die on the cross. She gave her consent (Luke 1:38). Thus she became coadjutrix in the work of Redemption, the Deaconess of Christ’s great sacrifice, by having borne Him and co-offered Him upon the cross. She became our Mother by bringing us forth in sorrow at the foot of the cross. This also forms the basis for the views of recent popes that Mary is intercessory mediatrix and stewardess of all graces. We emphasize the word “intercessory” for Christ will always remain the sole Mediator between God and man. But Mary, as Mother of Christ and our Mother, beseeches Christ to bring us into union with Him and from this motherly solicitude of Mary no one is excluded.
You really need to review, in a serious way, just exactly what the Church is. Understanding it from the position of St. Paul down through the constant teachings, ordinary and extraordinary, of the same Church, you will get a better understanding of just who this person, Our Most Blessed Mother, really is.
T
Tomster
Guest
Amazing!
Please, carefully read what you just said.
If Catholics are not barred from using the title Co-Redemptrix, wouldn’t that mean that the magisterium has no objections to it? I am sure that if the magisterium of the Church had objections to it something would have been said years ago regarding it. However, as Abu has convincingly shown and stated, even popes and formal catechetical statements teach it.
There is an old statement, we do not hear it much anymore but it still applies, which goes something like this:
“. . . . The Holy Catholic Church, which can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
It’s time for you to get on board.
T
thirddec
Guest
BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS FOR THEY SHALL SEE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN least i hope I quoted correct 
Lets take it as read; that both sides made good valid points and its not about winning or loosing a debate. Lets move the discussion forward.
What would you do and why?
Remember its not whether Co-redemtrix is right or wrong but how to progress?
Lets take it as read; that both sides made good valid points and its not about winning or loosing a debate. Lets move the discussion forward.
- there is plenty of evidence that a church doctrine regarding Mary’s special role in
salvation/redemtion. - trying to raise this doctrine to a Dogma ( as it is not at moment ) has caused considerable contraversy and appears to be something the Vatican and the Pope are in no hurry to do at moment.
- Everyone involed in the discussion is aware of the risks involved in declaring it a dogma using the co-redemtrix title or anything that suggests this for leading the less well learned or well intentioned into error. And for use by opponents by misrepresentation .
What would you do and why?
Remember its not whether Co-redemtrix is right or wrong but how to progress?
T
Tomster
Guest
Your last question has already been answered by the Church. Mary, as Co-Redemptrix, is a teaching of the Church.BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS FOR THEY SHALL SEE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN least i hope I quoted correct
Lets take it as read; that both sides made good valid points and its not about winning or loosing a debate. Lets move the discussion forward.
NOW PRETEND you are the POPE and you have the decision to make as to where you should go from here on this issue knowing that you have the fates of the church, the people in the church and the souls of people that may be comming to our church in hand.
- there is plenty of evidence that a church doctrine regarding Mary’s special role in
salvation/redemtion.- trying to raise this doctrine to a Dogma ( as it is not at moment ) has caused considerable contraversy and appears to be something the Vatican and the Pope are in no hurry to do at moment.
- Everyone involed in the discussion is aware of the risks involved in declaring it a dogma using the co-redemtrix title or anything that suggests this for leading the less well learned or well intentioned into error. And for use by opponents by misrepresentation .
What would you do and why?
Remember its not whether Co-redemtrix is right or wrong but how to progress?
Now, whether to define it infallibly, I leave that part to the Holy Spirit.
T
TMC
Guest
The attacks on my faith are getting a little tiresome. Can you have a discourse without resorting to such attacks?
There are things that the Church does not object to which are nonetheless not doctrine. For example, a Catholic is free to believe that God created the Earth in a literal six day period a few thousand years ago, but that is not Catholic doctrine. The fact that the Church does not condemn the title Co-Redemtrix does not make it a doctrinal teaching.
T
Tomster
Guest
T
TMC
Guest
OK, I and others have pointed to statements from the Pontifical Commission and the CDF that show that this title is not Catholic doctrine, but its obvious you are just going to keep pointing to your cherry-picked quotes to insist that it is, which I suspect you know it is not true. I can’t continue this conversation on those terms.
A
Abu
Guest
“My” faith? What one prejudicially chooses assent to is the problem.
Not Catholic “doctrine”? That’s the problem.
Every quoted statement debating a dogma, has shown a debate about whether to make the doctrine a dogma, not about the doctrine. Such prudence is welcome.
St Paul teaches that we are all co-redeemers on a lesser level:
that “supplication, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men (1 Tim 2:1)…for (because) there is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5). “In other words, Christ wants all of us doing our part with Him in the redeeming activity that must go on. We are all called to be coredeemers. To give that title, as the Church occasionally has, to His Mother, is not to make her level with Him, but to see her as the holiest of all those He has redeemed.” [Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, p 108].
Pope Benedict XV’s doctrinal confirmation in an Encyclical Letter:
“Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18
See Fr William G Most at voxpopuli.org/b1_ch5.php
Mary Coredemptrix in Scripture: Cooperation in Redemption
“A doctrine with such support from Scripture and repeated Ordinary Magisterium - the repetition shows clearly the intent to make the teaching definitive - should be recognized as already infallible.”
There is no need for prejudice to cloud what is the mind of the Church.
T
thirddec
Guest
A doctrine should be seen as infallible when it is stated as infallible by the pope otherwise why give the pope this power if it can be achieved without his say so, it now becomes evident that there are people in this discussion that appear to take the infallibilty of our faith away from the pope ?
T
Tomster
Guest
marysway.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_10=39
Could that be Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI blessing the icon?
What further proof do we need?
T
Tomster
Guest
marysway.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=39
Could that be Pope John Paul II giving his approval to the Miraculous Icon “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces”?
Wow! And 13 Archbishops, 42 Cardinals and 23 Priests agreeing with them.
With nearly 1,000 Bishops, Archbishops, Priests, Monsignors and Cardinals from all over the world individually blessing the icon. . . .
Quite a “commission” don’t you think?
A
Abu
Guest
A doctrine may be infallible or non-infallible – the latter requiring intellectual assent – nothing less (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25). No infallible definition by a Pope uses the word “infallible”.
Fr William G Most and Fr Robert Levis (EWTN), both learned faithful Catholic scholars, think that the doctrine should be recognised as infallible (definitive) because of the Scriptural support and of the repeated support from the Ordinary Magisterium – from which I have quoted.
This argument was used by Pope Pius XII in proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption – that the doctrine had been expressed by “the Universal Church…many times over the course of centuries…”
However, what is at issue is the fact that some project their prejudices against the quoted facts of the support for the doctrine by Scripture, numerous great saints and doctors of the early Church, and Popes, to try to claim that it is not doctrinal.
Nothing factual has been produced to cast any doubt on these facts.
I
Ignatius
Guest
As amply shown many times on this thread, there is no Doctrine of The Catholic Church of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. You can continue to make this false claim from now until doomsday, but that will not change the fact that there is not such Doctrine of The Catholic Church.
I think it is important to continue to refute this false claim. God bless you and thanks to TMC, thirddec, and all of you who help expose the falsehood of this claim. Please continue to come here so that others are not duped into following this specious argument to the detriment of themselves and The Church.
Let’s keep it up until there is an end to this. Mary pray for an end to this specious claim that so damages The Church that your Son founded. Amen.
A
Abu
Guest
campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/internationalmarianacademy.htm
The above link to a Papal Commission is clearly titled: “Request for the definition of the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate”
The text says: “as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity, as such titles and **the doctrines inherent in them **still require further study.”
How strange that even after all the clarity supplied already, and the affirmation above of the doctrines inherent (implicit in, inbuilt, unquestioning) in the titles used, that there is still such a prejudicial antagonism to the fact of the support for the doctrine by Scripture, numerous great saints and doctors of the early Church, and Popes, to try to claim that it is not doctrinal, even despite Pope Benedict XV’s doctrinal affirmation in an Encyclical Letter:
“Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18
The Second Vatican Council declared, “in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls” (*Lumen Gentium *61-62).
“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority [Magisterium] of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either (1) by the character of the documents in question, or (2) by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or (3) by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.” (Lumen Gentium, 25).
Mary cooperated in the Redemption through the Incarnation of Christ, – Mary “with Christ redeemed mankind” (John 1:1,14; 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-14). The Adam-Christ (Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 15:20ff) and Eve-Mary parallel is found throughout the early Fathers of the Church, from St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) forward showing us the entire history of Christianity believed that “Mary with Christ redeemed” the human race. This important early belief is stated explicitly by St. Irenaeus.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Hello Abu,
Can you help me understand what the above means?
What else are you to do as the mom of a Jew being crucified by much more powerful occupiers – the Romans?
You either scream hysterically or cry silently and pray for the suffering to end soon. All his true followers who watched him be crucified suffered with him as he died on the cross. I’m sure John suffered miserably as well.
A
Abu
Guest
Congratulations and God’s speed on your anticipatory excitement towards RCIA.
Lumen Gentium is at: tinyurl.com/3dflsrn
Fr William Most comments thus: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3.htm
'This same doctrine is found in every Pope from Leo XIII up to and including John Paul II.
‘So Vatican II was merely restating a repeated teaching. But the way it expressed it is very helpful. It said her role on Calvary was one of obedience. Earlier, in # 56, it had pointed out that obedience twice, in citing St. Irenaeus (late second century): “By obeying, she became a cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Then (we first recall the comparison St. Irenaeus made of all sin to a complex knot, in which the Saint said that to untie a knot, one must take the end of the rope backwards through every turn taken in tying it) it added, from St. Irenaeus: “Thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary.”
‘At first sight this teaching seems to have no basis in Scripture. But if we look more closely, we will see something quite obvious. First, at the Annunciation, she was asked to consent, in faith, to be the Mother of the Messiah. She knew this perfectly clearly, for as soon as the Archangel said, “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,” she knew that only the Messiah could reign forever. So she knew it was the Messiah. Then there would begin to crowd into her thoughts all the ancient prophecies of the Messiah, especially Isaiah 53, of His dreadful sufferings and death. She was asked to consent to be the Mother of such a Messiah.
‘She did consent, as St. Luke tells us, saying: "Be it done to me according to your word. "She gave her fiat, her obedience to the will of God, as the angel told her of His will. Did she later retract this acceptance of God’s will? Of course not. Any soul either falls back or goes ahead in holiness. Holiness really consists in the alignment of our wills, through grace, with the will of God–for the free will is the only thing free we have. So Mary faithfully stood by Him, keeping in the background when the crowds gave Him praise, but moving out into the dark blackness that hung over Calvary. There she stood.
‘What was her reaction? Of course, she grieved, as any Mother would, seeing her Son suffering so horribly. And she saw that suffering as our crucifixes do not generally let us see it–they contain no trace at all of the horrid scourging, leaving Him bloody all over.
‘But now we can begin to realize something tremendous. As we said, spiritual perfection consists in the alignment of our will with the will of the Father. Further, when we know what He positively wills, it is not enough for us to say, as it were: “Let it go”. No, we are called on to positively will what He wills. But what did He will in that dread hour? She knew from Isaiah 53:10: “It was the will of the Lord to crush Him with pain.” So the Father willed that His Son should die, die then, die so horribly. So did the Son will it. So she was then called upon to will what the Father willed, what her Son willed, in other words, she was called on to will positively that He die, die then, die horribly.’
T
TrueLight
Guest
Okay, thanks for delving into this deeper.
I don’t know what to say. I understand this is Mother Church’s position. As a very awesome person on this forum explained to me, it all boils down to whether I believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium.
If not, this is nothing but flowery language and suppositions about Mary, with very few lines of scripture that actually backs up those theories.
For example, the tons of writing based on a simple sentence, “Let it be done to me.”
A
Abu
Guest
Exactly.
And with the fact that Jesus gave His authority to Peter and his successors to bind and loose in His name, have you any doubts about Jesus and His mandate to Peter and His Church?
- Status