Is Mary the Co-redeemer?

[kbharbert]

I think you quoted the wrong person.

Jeremy

**yes i did and i offer my apologies. **

 

[jemfinch]

o.k., prove it! Use some clear scripture to prove it.

Paul was a co-redeemer:

“To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”

If Paul can truly be considered a co-redeemer, even going so far as to ascribe to himself the act of “saving” someone, how much can Mary, the mother of our Lord and the means by which He entered into history be considered a co-redeemer by her cooperation with Him in our redemption?

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

So was God lying when he inspired Paul to write:

2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

More to the point, was God forgetful when He didn’t inspire Paul to write that Scripture was the only thing profitable for such things?

Furthermore, Paul told Timothy that Scripture is profitable so as to make “the man of God” complete. He didn’t say that Scripture was what turned “a man” into “a man of God.” He had just previously told Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it…” Timothy was not at all being told to rely only on the Scriptures; he was being told to rely on the Scriptures in addition to the teaching he’d received from the Apostles and the example he had seen in Paul.

Goes pretty well with Ephesians 4, wouldn’t you say? “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” 2 Timothy 3 doesn’t “cut out the middleman”–it doesn’t at all tell us to abandon our leaders and the oral apostolic Tradition. On the contrary, it reinforces the two sources of divine revelation, Scripture and Tradition, and encourages Timothy to rely on both.

Jeremy

 

[JoeyWarren]

Paul was a co-redeemer:

“To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”

If Paul can truly be considered a co-redeemer, even going so far as to ascribe to himself the act of “saving” someone, how much can Mary, the mother of our Lord and the means by which He entered into history be considered a co-redeemer by her cooperation with Him in our redemption?

Jeremy

shame shame jemfinch! You must give book-chapter and verse otherwise memphis will be searching all day for that verse.

Here Memphis!

1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And Memphis try this on too.

Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

 

[jemfinch]

shame shame jemfinch! You must give book-chapter and verse otherwise memphis will be searching all day for that verse.

I honestly do that on purpose. If they recognize the verse, bravo! If they don’t, so much for the self-attestation of Scripture It’s a fun game to play, especially with 1 Timothy 3:15

Jeremy

 

[JoeyWarren]

I honestly do that on purpose. If they recognize the verse, bravo! If they don’t, so much for the self-attestation of Scripture It’s a fun game to play, especially with 1 Timothy 3:15

Jeremy

It will be interesting to see how Memphis responds…doing a search on his posts, they are all on Mary. I wonder why he hates Jesus mother so much…

 

[kaycee]

More to the point, was God forgetful when He didn’t inspire Paul to write that Scripture was the only thing profitable for such things?

So after the Lord changed the bread and wine into his body and blood, but did not say “only” the bread and blood were changed, we can assume that the other foods at the table can also be His body and blood?

Furthermore, Paul told Timothy that Scripture is profitable so as to make “the man of God” complete. He didn’t say that Scripture was what turned “a man” into “a man of God.” He had just previously told Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it…” Timothy was not at all being told to rely only on the Scriptures; he was being told to rely on the Scriptures in addition to the teaching he’d received from the Apostles and the example he had seen in Paul.

The scripture is not somehow absorbed. It must be learned. More straw men.

The teaching of the Apostles WOULD BE scripture, which IS what we have today! The same doctines are found in MANY places in scripture. Paul was repetitive in his writing to the churches. God inspired scripture with repetion so as to allow scripture to interpret scripture. The principle is still valid. We are missing nothing from scripture that is necessary for belief.

Goes pretty well with Ephesians 4, wouldn’t you say? “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” 2 Timothy 3 doesn’t “cut out the middleman”–it doesn’t at all tell us to abandon our leaders and the oral apostolic Tradition. On the contrary, it reinforces the two sources of divine revelation, Scripture and Tradition, and encourages Timothy to rely on both.

**More straw. Those verses say nothing about Oral tradition. There is one deposit of Faith not one written and one kept oral.

Sola Scriptura says nothing about not needing teachers! Scripture is the sole infallible source. **

Since Paul and the Lord Jesus moved Paul to write about the same major doctrines many times, tell us what “important” oral tradition we are missing.

 

[HenryV]

Where is this quote found in the scriptures?

Last time I looked the Catholic Church believed in Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture.

We don’t believe in “sola scriptura” a protestant doctrine that btw is not found in the bible.

Hail Mary, you alone have destroyed all heresies.
You have crushed the head of Satan.
Immaculate Mary pray for us.

 

[jemfinch]

So after the Lord changed the bread and wine into his body and blood, but did not say “only” the bread and blood were changed, we can assume that the other foods at the table can also be His body and blood?

You’ve got to be kidding me, kaycee.

The scripture is not somehow absorbed. It must be learned. More straw men.

I’m not sure you know what the term “straw man” means.

The teaching of the Apostles WOULD BE scripture, which IS what we have today!

You have no biblical or historical justification for your claim that the entirety of the deposit of faith was committed to Scripture.

The same doctines are found in MANY places in scripture. Paul was repetitive in his writing to the churches.

And yet, ironically, we never see a description of the liturgy in Scripture, despite the fact that every single ancient Church worships corporately in fundamentally the same pattern.

God inspired scripture with repetion so as to allow scripture to interpret scripture.

As the results of the Protestant Reformation has shown, Scripture still cannot interpret Scripture. Perhaps what you really mean is that your interpretation of certain Scriptures gives you the foundation to produce an interpretation of the other Scriptures, but, of course, neither you nor I have any reason to accept your initial, arbitrary interpretation of the initial Scriptures through which you interpret the rest of the Bible.

The principle is still valid.

It was never valid in the first place.

We are missing nothing from scripture that is necessary for belief.

The Thessalonians were, and I don’t recall Paul retracting his command to them to hold to both oral and written Traditions.

More straw. Those verses say nothing about Oral tradition.

What those verses say is that God gave us leaders within the Church to keep us from being “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” People are God’s chosen method for guarding us from heresy; not just Scripture. You say that Scripture is all we need, but Ephesians 4 says something else: it says that we were given apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists to do very needful things, things that we cannot do apart from them.

There is one deposit of Faith not one written and one kept oral.

You’re right, there is only one deposit of faith, and it was taught the Church in full by the verbal teachings of the Apostles. It was not later reconstructed ex nihilo from the New Testament Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura says nothing about not needing teachers! Scripture is the sole infallible source.

No, it isn’t. The Apostle’s teachings, whether written in Scripture or spoken verbally, were all infallible. The Apostles not only wrote down the words of God, but they spoke it as well: and as you well know, God’s words will not pass away.

Since Paul and the Lord Jesus moved Paul to write about the same major doctrines many times, tell us what “important” oral tradition we are missing.

Nowhere in the Bible is it ever indicated that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is only symbolic, and several places indicate that it’s more than just symbolic, and yet by denying the binding oral Tradition of the Apostles, Protestants have denied this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, preserved by every ancient Church that trace its existence to the Apostles themselves.

That is, of course, just one example, but historically and biblical, it’s a doozy.

Jeremy

 

[theAuthor]

I was taught that Tradition is supposed to be determined by what is already in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. The Church is said to **draw out **what is already there. So for any Doctrines, there should be at least some implicit foundation in Scripture to support it. Being a convert I made sure of it…but you need to ask around and find people smart enough to answer your questions or who have asked them themselves.

 

[HenryV]

I was taught that Tradition is supposed to be determined by what is already in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. The Church is said to **draw out **what is already there. So for any Doctrines, there should be at least some implicit foundation in Scripture to support it. Being a convert I made sure of it…but you need to ask around and find people smart enough to answer your questions or who have asked them themselves.

Have a look at this
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort."

 

[theAuthor]

I absolutely agree with you.

The question is can Tradition contradict Scripture, and if so does Tradition/Magesterium have more authority than Scripture? I don’t believe so, but rather that all three are meant to “function” in harmony.

I accept many Church teachings which are extra-Biblical: her assumption, that Mary had no other children (the “mother and brothers are waiting outside” thing), I pray the Rosary including the second half which is not Biblical and refers to Mary as the Mother of God. Others too that I can’t think of. I love Mary and take comfort in her prayers for me.

Is “co-redeemer” a necessary article of faith for a Catholic?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Is “co-redeemer” a necessary article of faith for a Catholic?

No.

 

[HenryV]

I absolutely agree with you.

The question is can Tradition contradict Scripture, and if so does Tradition/Magesterium have more authority than Scripture? I don’t believe so, but rather that all three are meant to “function” in harmony.

I accept many Church teachings which are extra-Biblical: her assumption, that Mary had no other children (the “mother and brothers are waiting outside” thing), I pray the Rosary including the second half which is not Biblical and refers to Mary as the Mother of God. Others too that I can’t think of. I love Mary and take comfort in her prayers for me.

Is “co-redeemer” a necessary article of faith for a Catholic?

I would say yes since it has been repeatedly taught by the ordinary Magisterium.

The Church comes prior to bible, and all are as you say to be harmonious, they are never in contradiction. It is the Magisterium that with authority interprets Scripture and Tradition.

 

[kaycee]

I absolutely agree with you.

The question is can Tradition contradict Scripture, and if so does Tradition/Magesterium have more authority than Scripture? I don’t believe so, but rather that all three are meant to “function” in harmony.

I accept many Church teachings which are extra-Biblical: her assumption, that Mary had no other children (the “mother and brothers are waiting outside” thing), I pray the Rosary including the second half which is not Biblical and refers to Mary as the Mother of God. Others too that I can’t think of. I love Mary and take comfort in her prayers for me.

Is “co-redeemer” a necessary article of faith for a Catholic?

Clearly the Magesterium has the final say over the “interpretation” of tradition and scripture. The magesterium controls everything. Equality of the 3 legs is fiction.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Clearly the Magesterium has the final say over the “interpretation” of tradition and scripture. The magesterium controls everything. Equality of the 3 legs is fiction.

Magisterium doesn’t control everything. It only has authority on Church Law, and more importantly moral and faith issues.

 

[b2memphis]

I have no idea what that even means other than another way for the catholic church to control their blinded sheep.
I’m pretty sure there’s no mention of any magisterium in the Bible though.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I thought that this would be a good debate among Catholics. It has been in debate now within the Church well over a century to what I know. I do not think she is our co-redeemer. I believe she participated in the plan for our salvation, but she is not our co-redeedmer. Here is a quote from the Council of Trent:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)

So what do you believe?

God speed.

Vigis

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino”, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that …He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, THROUGH HIS DEATH ALONE LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession…” (Denz. 711)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, sess. XI, 1442: It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that …our lord Jesus Christ …who was conceived without sin, was born and died. He alone by his death overthrew the enemy of the human race, cancelling our sins, and unlocked the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, which the first man by his sin had locked against himself and all his posterity. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman P. Tanner)

 

[LilyM]

I have no idea what that even means other than another way for the catholic church to control their blinded sheep.
I’m pretty sure there’s no mention of any magisterium in the Bible though.

Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church - Jesus said to the Apostles ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’ … and more explicitly one of the Epistles commands us to make our brothers listen to THE CHURCH and if they won’t listen to THE CHURCH then to disown them!

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I have no idea what that even means other than another way for the catholic church to control their blinded sheep.
I’m pretty sure there’s no mention of any magisterium in the Bible though.

I’m pretty sure there’s no mention of Bible alone in the Bible either:

As also in all his [St. Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. " - St. Augustine of Hippo

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.