Infallibility: Co-Redemptrix/Mediatrix

[TMC]

No one is saying that Mary redeems in the same sense Christ did/does. That is why Pope Benedict XV said “in so far as she could she reeedemed the human race with Christ.” I dont know how you cant see that the Fathers taught this --I have given multiple quotes. I have given multiple quotes from Popes that teach this doctrine. I think you just don’t want to believe it. Also if you could quote that commission you are talking about that would be helpful. Eveyone keeps saying they disagree with this, that, and the other, but offer know quotes for me and others to respond to.

I thought I posted a link to the commision findings, but here it is:

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

The Benedict XV quote “In so far as she could” is a good example of a vague statement because it could mean zero - if that was all she could, or the same as Christ - if that was all she could. You give quotes and quotes and ignore the fact that the Church has considered the issue and decided against the declaration. The commision found that even if it were declared, no one knows what it means. At a minimum there needs to be more development of the meaning of the term, but I have not seen an explanation of the term that gives it more meaning than the other Marian titles without straying from Catholic teaching.

You say she does not redeem the way Christ does. What does that mean? How does she redeem? What role does she have in our salvation today, apart from the role she played in life and her role as Advocate?

 

[Taliesin]

It is totally blaspemous against your interpretation of scripture. You dont have an infallible authority that can definitively decide what scripture means. How do you know your interpretation is correct? YOU DONT!! That is why you have thousands of Protestant denominations all believing in the Bible, but interpreting it differently. I could go on and on about this–How you dont have a New Testament canon without the Catholic church. (an excellent book for you to read would be The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic church–by Henery Graham-convert from Protestanism) I hope you see the light before your judgment day.

How do you know your interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct? YOU DON’T!! You don’t eliminate the problem by positing an infallible church magisterium/pope. You just push it back a step. Catholics always go back to the red herring of “thousands” of Prot denominations, when true Prots agree about the main thing: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The “Catholic” church that canonized Scripture has major differences from the Roman Catholic Church today, and saints back then (e.g., Athanasius) would laugh or be horrified at all the Roman Catholic innovations dreamed up since then (monstrances, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, etc.). Even so, do you think the poor 1st and 2nd century believers were adrift without Scripture to cling to, since the “Catholic Church” hadn’t come up with the canon yet? Did they need a Canon in order for their faith to be so strong they’d face death for their faith.

The Holy Spirit generates and grows the Church, using His own power and God-breathed Scripture.

 

[knightbvm]

I thought I posted a link to the commision findings, but here it is:

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

The Benedict XV quote “In so far as she could” is a good example of a vague statement because it could mean zero - if that was all she could, or the same as Christ - if that was all she could. You give quotes and quotes and ignore the fact that the Church has considered the issue and decided against the declaration. The commision found that even if it were declared, no one knows what it means. At a minimum there needs to be more development of the meaning of the term, but I have not seen an explanation of the term that gives it more meaning than the other Marian titles without straying from Catholic teaching.

You say she does not redeem the way Christ does. What does that mean? How does she redeem? What role does she have in our salvation today, apart from the role she played in life and her role as Advocate?

I just finished reading the commission’s report that you linked–The commission is not at all the magisterium it is merely a commission that reported to the Pope–I actually think you are admitting you agree with the teaching—The teaching on Co- Redemptrix is (as Benedict XV says) that Mary redeemed mankind with Christ because she also suffered (again in so far as she could-because she is a mortal man not divine and is totally subservient to Christ) at the foot of the cross with her Son.(suffered like no one else could since she bore the Christ) It can be properly said that she is Co-Redemptrix because her role in salvation/ redemption is more unique than any other person in the history of mankind. Also she brought the redeemer into the world. This is also unique in our redemption. This is the teaching of the magisterium. From what I read from you you don’t disagree with this----again I agree a perfectly valid argument can be made that it is not prudent define this dogma–but it is very clear that the Church teaches it—I dont see how you can say it is unclear? The holy Father Benedict XV clearly says Mary redeemed the world with Christ. Obviously it is dependent upon God and could never be independent of Him. This is also consistent with Papal adresses and teaching of some of the fathers. If you want more clarification that is perfectly valid, but I don’t see how anyone can deny it is taught.

 

[knightbvm]

How do you know your interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct? YOU DON’T!! You don’t eliminate the problem by positing an infallible church magisterium/pope. You just push it back a step. Catholics always go back to the red herring of “thousands” of Prot denominations, when true Prots agree about the main thing: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The “Catholic” church that canonized Scripture has major differences from the Roman Catholic Church today, and saints back then (e.g., Athanasius) would laugh or be horrified at all the Roman Catholic innovations dreamed up since then (monstrances, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, etc.). Even so, do you think the poor 1st and 2nd century believers were adrift without Scripture to cling to, since the “Catholic Church” hadn’t come up with the canon yet? Did they need a Canon in order for their faith to be so strong they’d face death for their faith.

The Holy Spirit generates and grows the Church, using His own power and God-breathed Scripture.

Well when you ask “how do we know that our interpretation of the catechism is correct?” as if you are contrasting that to your situation as a Protestant is like comparing apples and oranges. We have a living magisterium and if there is a question about an interpretation of a particular doctrine we CAN ASK THEM!!! You cant!!! You dont have a living body that can interpret the Bible. Not to mention the two main beliefs in Protestanism sola scriptura/ fide were not taught until the 16 th century----you might as well become a Mormon–they believe that there was a complete apostacy and Joseph Smith restored it—you would have to argue almost the same way because your two main beliefs are not taught for roughly 1500 years–so where was the Church? That is why John Neuman said “the realization of history is the end of Protestanism.” Not mention there tons of other problems with Protestanism—TONS!!! I would rather talk to you over the phone if you want to discuss those because it gets to be a pain on here—here is my email adress catholictruth1@yahoo.com

 

[knightbvm]

I thought I posted a link to the commision findings, but here it is:

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

The Benedict XV quote “In so far as she could” is a good example of a vague statement because it could mean zero - if that was all she could, or the same as Christ - if that was all she could. You give quotes and quotes and ignore the fact that the Church has considered the issue and decided against the declaration. The commision found that even if it were declared, no one knows what it means. At a minimum there needs to be more development of the meaning of the term, but I have not seen an explanation of the term that gives it more meaning than the other Marian titles without straying from Catholic teaching.

You say she does not redeem the way Christ does. What does that mean? How does she redeem? What role does she have in our salvation today, apart from the role she played in life and her role as Advocate?

By the way I wanted to make something aslo very clear–just becase Pope John Paul II didnt define the doctrine doesnt mean the Church has “decided against it.” It only means that up until this point the Church has decided against it-- Just like Pius X decided not to define the Assumption. It didnt mean it wasnt infallible and it didnt mean that another Pope couldnt define it.

Here is a good explanation of the dogma and it is in perfect accordance with the Fathers I quote and the Papal teaching. QUESTIONS" Do you agree with this explanation? if not why?

“When the Church calls Mary the ‘Co-Redemptrix,’ she means that Mary uniquely participated in the Redemption of humanity with her Son Jesus Christ, although in a completely subordinate and dependent manner to that of her Son. Mary participated in Jesus’ reconciliation of the human family with God like no other created person…How did the Mother of Jesus do this? First of all, Mary participated in Redemption by accepting the invitation of the angel to become the Mother of God and by giving flesh to the Savior. Early Church Fathers saw the Incarnation and Redemption as one, unified, saving act…and Mary brought the world its Redeemer at the Incarnation…Since the very instrument for the Redemption, the body of Jesus, was given to Him by Mary, the Mother of Jesus clearly played an intimate part in the redeeming of the human race with her Son, far beyond that of any other creature.” (Dr. Mark Miravalle, An Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, page 68-69)

I definitley agree with his Statment about the Fathers equating the incarnation with our redemption. VERY IMPORTANT POINT!!!
YOU COULD AGREE WITH THIS IF THIS WAS EXPLAINED IN THE DEFINITION RIGHT?

 

[philipmarie]

How do you know your interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct? YOU DON’T!! You don’t eliminate the problem by positing an infallible church magisterium/pope. You just push it back a step. Catholics always go back to the red herring of “thousands” of Prot denominations, when true Prots agree about the main thing: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The “Catholic” church that canonized Scripture has major differences from the Roman Catholic Church today, and saints back then (e.g., Athanasius) would laugh or be horrified at all the Roman Catholic innovations dreamed up since then (monstrances, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, etc.). Even so, do you think the poor 1st and 2nd century believers were adrift without Scripture to cling to, since the “Catholic Church” hadn’t come up with the canon yet? Did they need a Canon in order for their faith to be so strong they’d face death for their faith.

The Holy Spirit generates and grows the Church, using His own power and God-breathed Scripture.

I’m sorry for calling you this but, you don’t need to ‘interpet’ the Cathecism, you silly person. The Cathecism is not like that, you don’;t interpet it the way which you interpret scripture.

 

[Taliesin]

I’m sorry for calling you this but, you don’t need to ‘interpet’ the Cathecism, you silly person. The Cathecism is not like that, you don’;t interpet it the way which you interpret scripture.

‘you silly person’? That’s your argument? Are you really sorry for calling me this?

Please explain the difference in hermeneutics between Scripture and the Catechism.

 

[philipmarie]

‘you silly person’? That’s your argument? Are you really sorry for calling me this?

Please explain the difference in hermeneutics between Scripture and the Catechism.

Simple: Scripture is interpreted by the Church according to Tradition while the Cathecism is a summary of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture (and of course Tradition).

Christ rested the Catholic faith in the Church’s hands through Scripture and Tradition. Of the two, Tradition is more important than the Bible itself, because the Bible is only a very small part of tradition and the faith, and were it not for tradition the Bible would never have existed (and here obviously, I am not talking of human traditions which Christ condemned but of the Word of God which was handed down by the Apostles).

The Canon of Scripture was drawn up by Pope Damasus at the Roman COuncil in 382 A.D, and from that time on, more and more Popes interpreted Scripture according to the Traditions of the Church.

This does not mean that that the Church or rather, it’s Bishops, force you to say this or that in regards Scripture. For example, when interpreting the mystery of the Annunciation, we cannot say that God forced himself upon Mary (as many Fundamentlaist bigots say. Woud that be nothing else but rape?) because it may make God seem more tough. It is a wrong interpretation becuase it removes free will and makes God look like aheartless monster, something which He is not. But if interpreted in the Catholic way, we have before our minds the doctrine of Free Will, the giving of preventive grace, the dogma that Mary is all holy so that She would consent to the Incarnation even more and many other things.

What about the Last Supper? Fundamentalists will say that when Christ said: “This is my body”, he was speaking in a figurative way. But the Catholic Church believes He was being literal, especially as the Apostles themselves gave the Eucharist as we know it. The Church also says that we cannot interpret Christ’s every phrase as being symbolic or figurative:

They object, thirdly, that the sentence, “This is my body” is just as figurative as other passages in the Scriptures, as for example, when Christ says : I am the true vine, I am the gate" or when it is said that he is “the Rock”. We reply that it is a matter of course that these propositions should be taken figuratively, for that Christ should be literally a vine, a door, or a rock is repugnant to common sense, and the words I am, therefore, are figurative. In the words of consecration, however, there is nothing repugnant to reason in joining the predicate with the subject, because, as we have remarked already, Christ did not say this bread is my body, but: “*This is my body *”
(Saint Alphonsus Maria Ligouri, History of Heresies, part II.)

So we have the Church with it’s truthful tradition interpreting Scripture, while we also have the Church writing it’s interpretations in the Catechism.

 

[tabbey48]

But if interpreted in the Catholic way, we have before our minds the doctrine of Free Will, the giving of preventive grace, the dogma that Mary is all holy so that She would consent to the Incarnation even more and many other things.

Do you mean “prevenient grace?”

 

[johnbres2]

I am a devout Catholic, but am very uncomfortable with the idea of Mary as “co-redeemer.” I really think this is blasphemous. There is one redeemer, Jesus, period. Mary “participated” in the redemption? OK, yes, she brought the redeemer into the world. Did the apostles all “participate” in the redemption too, since they were such a key part of spreading the Word? We shouldn’t use terms too broadly or too loosely. Mary is Mother of God and should be the object of our devotion. But co-redeemer is too much for me, as is the concept that all grace comes to us through Mary. It is one thing to rely on tradition, another thing for a tradition to be constructed out of thin air. Grace comes to us through Jesus Christ–it does not have to be sent through Mary to us. I am open to growth on this issue, but it just doesn’t strike me as Truth.

 

[TrueLight]

I am surprised that none of you have commented on my argument here-----

I made a vow to myself that I would avoid commenting on any more such threads.

Right now I need to focus on learning the basics of Catholicism and my focus is on Christ.

Isn’t there already a huge thread on this very topic?

 

[TrueLight]

I am a devout Catholic, but am very uncomfortable with the idea of Mary as “co-redeemer.” I really think this is blasphemous. There is one redeemer, Jesus, period. Mary “participated” in the redemption? OK, yes, she brought the redeemer into the world. Did the apostles all “participate” in the redemption too, since they were such a key part of spreading the Word? We shouldn’t use terms too broadly or too loosely. Mary is Mother of God and should be the object of our devotion. But co-redeemer is too much for me, as is the concept that all grace comes to us through Mary. It is one thing to rely on tradition, another thing for a tradition to be constructed out of thin air. Grace comes to us through Jesus Christ–it does not have to be sent through Mary to us. I am open to growth on this issue, but it just doesn’t strike me as Truth.

 

[Lovesa]

I am a devout Catholic, but am very uncomfortable with the idea of Mary as “co-redeemer.” I really think this is blasphemous. There is one redeemer, Jesus, period. Mary “participated” in the redemption? OK, yes, she brought the redeemer into the world. Did the apostles all “participate” in the redemption too, since they were such a key part of spreading the Word? We shouldn’t use terms too broadly or too loosely. Mary is Mother of God and should be the object of our devotion. But co-redeemer is too much for me, as is the concept that all grace comes to us through Mary. It is one thing to rely on tradition, another thing for a tradition to be constructed out of thin air. Grace comes to us through Jesus Christ–it does not have to be sent through Mary to us. I am open to growth on this issue, but it just doesn’t strike me as Truth.

I’d have to agree with this. If Mary participated, that is fine. However, cannot a term like “co-redeemer” or “co-redemptrix” be too easily misleading? Mediatrix also makes me uncomfortable, because the bible says there is one mediator–Christ. How does one reconcile that with these names for Mary? I’m open to changing my mind on the issue, but it doesn’t seem quite right. If Mary’s redeeming is subordinate to and dependent on Christ’s, how is it redeeming? Is not a different word better suited? The arguments in favor have logic in them, but the terms still feel squicky.

 

[Rogerteder]

Who cares about what you or anyone “feels?” If it is logical then believe it. The arguments presented for it here are sound. Believe it!!

 

[TrueLight]

I have a fear at the pit of my stomach. What if I convert and this becomes dogma? What am I going to do?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Was it by the Apostles fiat that the Word was Made Flesh? No!

Did the Apostles ever say that their soul MAGNIFIES THE LORD? No!

Did the Apostles also give their only son as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world? No!

Did the Apostles in a special way share in the sufferings of Christ’s Passion and Death so has to have a sword pierce their hearts? No!

Did Mary do all these things? Yes!

Please do not downplay Mary’s role in our redemption.

 

[pablope]

I’d have to agree with this. If Mary participated, that is fine. However, cannot a term like “co-redeemer” or “co-redemptrix” be too easily misleading? Mediatrix also makes me uncomfortable, because the bible says there is one mediator–Christ. How does one reconcile that with these names for Mary? I’m open to changing my mind on the issue, but it doesn’t seem quite right. If Mary’s redeeming is subordinate to and dependent on Christ’s, how is it redeeming? Is not a different word better suited? The arguments in favor have logic in them, but the terms still feel squicky.

Yes, it could be easily misunderstood.

I think this is based on a private revelation:

marypages.com/AmsterdamEng.htm

 

[pablope]

I have a fear at the pit of my stomach. What if I convert and this becomes dogma? What am I going to do?

Like everybody else, pray for enlightenment, as I will.

I think it will be similar to the declaration of the Assumption in 1954. There will be much debate, discernment, discussion and prayers and a lot of convincing for the Pope.

 

[Lovesa]

Yes, it could be easily misunderstood.

I think this is based on a private revelation:

marypages.com/AmsterdamEng.htm

That would make sense. However, I’m sure that is not the only thing, as, from what I’ve heard, dogma needs more than that to become dogma

As for Our Lady’s role in our redemption, I understand it was great, and unlike anyone else’s. However, I think the defense of these titles deserves more than a note that her redemption was “different and subordinate”. As for the title Mediatrix, it is just a feminine twist on mediator, which the Bible says there is only one of. I’m trying to understand how that verse could possibly be interpreted to allow for two mediators. After all, dogmas must never contradict scripture.

Anyway, I can’t speak for others, but I have no intention to downplay Mary’s role. However, the term Mediatrix I have real problems with, as it seems to contradict scripture, whatever one may say in argument about the Church’s interpretive authority. I don’t think people who are uncomfortable with it need to be told that what they feel doesn’t matter; I think more comprehensive arguments in favor of the title are needed, especially in areas not agreed on by all Catholics.

Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

I think this is difficult for some to understand. Is the term Mediatrix understood in a different way than Christ’s position as the one mediator? Why use the same term, then? It’s so easily misunderstood it seems odd.

As for co-redemptrix, I can get used to that. It’ll be work, but I hope to succeed.

 

[paddy22]

I have a fear at the pit of my stomach. What if I convert and this becomes dogma? What am I going to do?

Pretty simple really - if it becomes dogma you’ll accept. Or become a heretic. Same for everybody.