Is Mary A Co-Redeemer

  • Thread starter Thread starter RuthErickson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does the catholic church even feel the need to go down this route?

As I read this thread last night, I spoke to as many catholics today that I know and asked them right out, do they consider this issue, do they think all graces come from God through Mary, do they feel this belief is important to the salvation of their soul, and do they commit their soul to Mary for keeping or to Jesus?

Not one single catholic friend answered in the affirmative.

It’s just a complete non-issue for their day to day practicing of their faith.

Some have little or no devotion to Mary as a specific practice of their faith - in the sense they do not believe in any of the apparitions, dont do pilgrimages, dont pray the rosary, and dont recite any prayers to Mary other than when they come up at Mass, or other church events they are attending.

Now I know thats just the people I spoke to today and it is not a representative sample or scientific study - but it did make me wonder even more why the catholic church as a body is tying itself in knots over this issue.

There must be a reason for some of the finest theological minds to apply themselves to it?
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Why does the catholic church even feel the need to go down this route?

As I read this thread last night, I spoke to as many catholics today that I know and asked them right out, do they consider this issue, do they think all graces come from God through Mary, do they feel this belief is important to the salvation of their soul, and do they commit their soul to Mary for keeping or to Jesus?

Not one single catholic friend answered in the affirmative.

It’s just a complete non-issue for their day to day practicing of their faith.

Some have little or no devotion to Mary as a specific practice of their faith - in the sense they do not believe in any of the apparitions, dont do pilgrimages, dont pray the rosary, and dont recite any prayers to Mary other than when they come up at Mass, or other church events they are attending.

Now I know thats just the people I spoke to today and it is not a representative sample or scientific study - but it did make me wonder even more why the catholic church as a body is tying itself in knots over this issue.

There must be a reason for some of the finest theological minds to apply themselves to it?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, most in the Roman Church did NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception. It was over several decades and centuries of petitioning Rome to make it de fide. Movements of the faithful can be powerful. If I’m not mistaken (although I’m sure Catholics will say I am) the same happened with Papal Infallibility.

There is an obsession in Western Christianity to try to rationalize and define every detail of the faith, whether it’s necessary or not. A Catholic might not know what transubstantiation means, but they would know that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. I am much more comfortable in Orthodoxy because there is no need to define everything. It’s not that there is an irreverence towards scholasticism in Orthodoxy, we just don’t feel it is necessary. “Leave it be” is sort of the motto. 😛

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Tantum_ergo said:
But it isn’t a question of giving oneself to Mary INSTEAD of to Jesus. In giving ourselves to Jesus in Mary we are actually giving ourselves more completely to Jesus. More, not less.

The whole idea that consecration to Mary is in LIEU of consecration to Jesus completely misunderstands the purpose. It is not. The consecration is specifically for, and only for, Jesus. . .the way in which one becomes closest to Him is approaching Him through Mary. THROUGH Mary. Not stopping AT Mary and not going all the way to Jesus.
Click to expand...
I respect your right to believe that but understand that there is no biblical support for that position at all. I don’t recall one of Paul’s Epistles where he instructs people to go through Mary to Jesus…Or Peter’s Epistles…or John’s…or Jude’s Epistle. Nor do I recall Jesus telling anyone to go through Mary either. Respectfully, before you try it, where Jesus says to the apostle, “behold your mother” is as you say cherry picking a verse and squeezing it to fit. If it meant what Catholics assume it would be mentioned elsewhere by the apostles in the Epistles to converts and it is not. I would be glad if you could show me this doctrine in the Epistles or Gospels.

If it is a bullet train to Jesus it is quite important to salvation so show me where Paul discusses it (Book of Romans has been called the Magna Carta of Christendom) or Peter…or???

Ps The bullet train to Jesus IS Jesus.
 
RevDrNorth said:
I respect your right to believe that but understand that there is no biblical support for that position at all. I don’t recall one of Paul’s Epistles where he instructs people to go through Mary to Jesus…Or Peter’s Epistles…or John’s…or Jude’s Epistle. Nor do I recall Jesus telling anyone to go through Mary either. Respectfully, before you try it, where Jesus says to the apostle, “behold your mother” is as you say cherry picking a verse and squeezing it to fit. If it meant what Catholics assume it would be mentioned elsewhere by the apostles in the Epistles to converts and it is not. I would be glad if you could show me this doctrine in the Epistles or Gospels.

If it is a bullet train to Jesus it is quite important to salvation so show me where Paul discusses it (Book of Romans has been called the Magna Carta of Christendom) or Peter…or???

Ps The bullet train to Jesus IS Jesus.
Click to expand...
“The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”

Do you believe that saints in heaven are more righteous than sinners on earth?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
“The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”

Do you believe that saints in heaven are more righteous than sinners on earth?
Click to expand...
I see where you are going so show me where Paul, Peter, James, or Jude says to go through a Saint to get to Jesus. That certainly must be an important doctrine related to salvation.

PS I have not problem with your asking deceased people to pray for you (Communion of Saints) but this is FAR different from Mary Co Redeemer or Mary Co Remdeptrix or Mary “bullet train to Jesus” (to quote the one poster) or saying going through Mary is going directly to Jesus. Where is that scripturally supported? Where is the epistles is that key method of expediting getting to Jesus mentioned by Paul (apostle to the Gentiles).
 
RevDrNorth said:
I see where you are going so show me where Paul, Peter, James, or Jude says to go through a Saint to get to Jesus. That certainly must be an important doctrine related to salvation.

PS I have not problem with your asking deceased people to pray for you (Communion of Saints) but this is FAR different from Mary Co Redeemer or Mary Co Remdeptrix or Mary “bullet train to Jesus” (to quote the one poster) or saying going through Mary is going directly to Jesus. Where is that scripturally supported? Where is the epistles is that key method of expediting getting to Jesus mentioned by Paul (apostle to the Gentiles).
Click to expand...
This is partially a semantics argument.

We believe that Mary is the most righteous human ever to live. We believe that her role as the mother of Jesus makes her a powerful prayer partner.

Keep in mind, when Mary was born, Jesus was already inside her.

She is the Ark of the new Covenant. She carried the Word of God.
 
Thank you for respecting me. I also respect your right to believe that according to you, all teachings must be found explicit in Scripture and only in Scripture, even though I myself do not believe that Scripture itself says any such thing. . .

Remember, Scripture is only ‘part’ of the teachings of Christ. Sacred tradition–the oral teachings of which St. Paul writes–the teachings which existed alongside Scripture from t the start–and revealed dogma–the fact, for example, that we can speak of Father, Son and Spirit as three Divine Persons in One God–something which is NOT explicitly taught in those words in Scripture–do not contradict Scripture.

Revelation has a lot to say. So indeed does Luke. Since God never stopped being Christ’s Father, I think you can equally say Mary never stopped being His mother. (Our parents, even when they die, don’t suddenly stop being our parents). Christ came to us through Mary; He continues to come to us through her. He didn’t come through Mary for 9 months and then suddenly, once He was born, ‘stop’ coming from her and come instead through somebody else. So Scripture itself is in fact supporting the teaching that Christ comes to us through Mary. She thus remains a legitimate avenue --indeed a gate–both for Him to come to us and us to come to Him. This still in no way makes her a semi-goddess or equal to Him in any way. The dawn is not the full morning; the moon reflects the sun’s light, not its own, the gate to a walled garden is not the garden itself. . .but we don’t have a full morning until we have had a dawn. We don’t get into a garden unless we go through the gate, we don’t have the moon’s light until we’ve had it first from the sun. . .
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
This is partially a semantics argument.

We believe that Mary is the most righteous human ever to live. We believe that her role as the mother of Jesus makes her a powerful prayer partner.

Keep in mind, when Mary was born, Jesus was already inside her.

She is the Ark of the new Covenant. She carried the Word of God.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that none of that justifies the premise that she is the bullet train to Jesus. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit NOT his mother back to guide us to him. This is probably why Paul and others never mentioned it. The bullet train to Jesus is Jesus.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Thank you for respecting me. I also respect your right to believe that according to you, all teachings must be found explicit in Scripture and only in Scripture, even though I myself do not believe that Scripture itself says any such thing. . .

Remember, Scripture is only ‘part’ of the teachings of Christ. Sacred tradition–the oral teachings of which St. Paul writes–the teachings which existed alongside Scripture from t the start–and revealed dogma–the fact, for example, that we can speak of Father, Son and Spirit as three Divine Persons in One God–something which is NOT explicitly taught in those words in Scripture–do not contradict Scripture.

Revelation has a lot to say. So indeed does Luke. Since God never stopped being Christ’s Father, I think you can equally say Mary never stopped being His mother. (Our parents, even when they die, don’t suddenly stop being our parents). Christ came to us through Mary; He continues to come to us through her. He didn’t come through Mary for 9 months and then suddenly, once He was born, ‘stop’ coming from her and come instead through somebody else. So Scripture itself is in fact supporting the teaching that Christ comes to us through Mary. She thus remains a legitimate avenue --indeed a gate–both for Him to come to us and us to come to Him. This still in no way makes her a semi-goddess or equal to Him in any way. The dawn is not the full morning; the moon reflects the sun’s light, not its own, the gate to a walled garden is not the garden itself. . .but we don’t have a full morning until we have had a dawn. We don’t get into a garden unless we go through the gate, we don’t have the moon’s light until we’ve had it first from the sun. . .
Click to expand...
I love the way you write and I enjoy reading your posts.

But surely when Jesus was born, it was indeed a one time event.

Through the process He became flesh, came into the world, and carried out His mission to mankind.

I fully get the catholic position of the Bible and sacred tradition.

So, is there any writings form the time of the first fathers that support the position that all graces come from Mary because of the fact Jesus came to us through Mary’s fiat?
 
RevDrNorth said:
I am afraid that none of that justifies the premise that she is the bullet train to Jesus. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit NOT his mother back to guide us to him. This is probably why Paul and others never mentioned it. The bullet train to Jesus is Jesus.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with the bullet train reference.

I believe Mary’s faith and obedience played an important role in the salvation story.

I believe that Mary can hear our prayers and that she is the mother of all who follow Jesus.
 
But God doesn’t work in one time ways, does He?

The fall was a one time event. . .BUT. . .we still feel its effects today, don’t we?

The cross was a ‘one time event’ . . BUT. . we still feel its effects today, don’t we?

Christ’s BIRTH was a ‘one time event’. . >BUT we still feel its effects today, don’t we?

All those events took place ‘in’ time but all of them are also ‘existing’ as we speak in the eternal ‘now’ of heaven. We aren’t just limited to this little ball in space or four dimensions. We are creatures made for eternity.

We are one-time creatures but we will live forever. That ‘one time’ never stops for each of us.

Mary is Christ’s mother. . .not just at the moment of His birth and for the following 33 years. . but now and forever. Christ is coming to us from her in the same way that He is still on the cross today, still rising from the dead today. Not ‘over and over’ but that very same birth, that very same cross, that very same moment of rising from the dead.
 
The minute any Pope proclaims Mary as “co-redemptrix”, assuming the understanding as has been expressed by certain people in this thread who are advocating the correctness of this position, is the minute I swim the Bosphorus.

Once again: Even if you CAN make an argument for giving her this title, why is it therefore NECESSARY to do so? I can’t imagine assenting to this craziness with the idea of the believer’s salvation being at stake. The Orthodox and some Catholics have it absolutely right in this instance: Leave it alone! There’s no need for it!
 
Ceil-1 said:
John, please explain how the dogmatic decree would be a rejection of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
What I’m saying is that some of the biggest cheerleaders of this doctrine belong to assorted groups of people who actually do reject Vatican II. There are a couple of webpages belonging to the Feeneyites of Richmond Hill (who have no canonical status in the Church), and the SSPX actually runs a seminary by that name. It would be wrong to confuse the two groups, but my experience is that many of the hard-core element promoting this lie within that realm.
 
Harpazo said:
If I remember correctly, most in the Roman Church did NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception. It was over several decades and centuries of petitioning Rome to make it de fide. Movements of the faithful can be powerful. If I’m not mistaken (although I’m sure Catholics will say I am) the same happened with Papal Infallibility.

There is an obsession in Western Christianity to try to rationalize and define every detail of the faith, whether it’s necessary or not. A Catholic might not know what transubstantiation means, but they would know that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. I am much more comfortable in Orthodoxy because there is no need to define everything. It’s not that there is an irreverence towards scholasticism in Orthodoxy, we just don’t feel it is necessary. “Leave it be” is sort of the motto. 😛

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
A traditional doctrine of the Church doesn’t become an infallible teaching by defining it. And rationalizing can create schisms… 😉

Pax Christu :harp:
 
John_Larocque said:
What I’m saying is that some of the biggest cheerleaders of this doctrine belong to assorted groups of people who actually do reject Vatican II. There are a couple of webpages belonging to the Feeneyites of Richmond Hill (who have no canonical status in the Church), and the SSPX actually runs a seminary by that name. It would be wrong to confuse the two groups, but my experience is that many of the hard-core element promoting this lie within that realm.
Click to expand...
What are you saying? That because a schismatic group happens to include this devotion it is automatically wrong by association? The devotion existed before they did. Several legitimate orders and groups 100% in line with the pope adhere to it. And you have the nerve to call it a lie? That is an arrogant statement. I think the Feeneyites have met their match in you, John Larocque, in that department.

The difference in attitudes between those who reject this devotion,and those who do not is interesting to note.

Harpazo, that is what our local, beloved Byzantine priest says, but I do not believe that is the origin of this devotion. There is Biblical precedence for the “need to know” basis God keeps us on. If He has decided to unveil His plan in this matter these late days, it is not the first time He has done so. The only obsession this devotion has is begging continuously for mercy. This is in line with ancient theology. It’s just a little more, let’s see, perhaps the word would be, “incorporated”.
 
Ah… I never said anything was a “lie”. I said that some of the the hard-core elements … were… within that realm. Not quite the same thing.
 
John_Larocque said:
Ah… I never said anything was a “lie”. I said that some of the the hard-core elements … were… within that realm. Not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...
One important benefit of defining a traditional doctrine of the Church is clarification, so that all Catholics will commonly understand its true and full meaning as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Pax Christu :harp:
 
I glanced upon this earlier. It’s not a refutation of the co-redemptrix concept, however it is a refutation of some co-redemptrix advocates, and narrows down what it should and should not mean, according to the author.

catholicplanet.com/CMA/contra-vox-populi.htm

There’s a couple more essays here, but my favourite is the one entitled “13 reasons to delay” where he takes aim at Vox Populi, Mark Miravelle and a questionable apparition.
catholicplanet.com/CMA/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top