Is Mary the Co-redeemer?

[VociMike]

I am struck here by the fact that (some) Protestants are incredibly concerned with the marital/sexual state of Catholic priests, but I’ve never met a Catholic who was particularly concerned with the marital/sexual state of Protestant pastors.

I think it’s just a particular case of the intense, sometimes bordering on the morbid, fascination that some Protestants have with everything Catholic.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Joey,
I respectfully disagree with you, but I gotta admit you have guts and fortitude. The Lord appreciates that! God Bless! Joe

Paul would agree with me.

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

---

Should I mention the Pastor that has a wife, children, and has work a full time job outside the church?

This type of Pastor has an even lessor ability to properly tend to to he sheep under his pastorage. 8 hours sleep, 8 hours work of work, maybe 3 hours of traveling and prep before after work. At least 1 hour for the wife and at least 1 hour for the child. 21 hours. At leaves 3 hours for the members of flock if you don’t take into account time for dinner and personal relaxation time. It leaves very little room for visiting the imprisoned, visiting the sick, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Steelhart]

Paul would agree with me.

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

---

Should I mention the Pastor that has a wife, children, and has work a full time job outside the church?

This type of Pastor has an even lessor ability to properly tend to to he sheep under his pastorage. 8 hours sleep, 8 hours work of work, maybe 3 hours of traveling and prep before after work. At least 1 hour for the wife and at least 1 hour for the child. 21 hours. At leaves 3 hours for the members of flock if you don’t take into account time for dinner and personal relaxation time. It leaves very little room for visiting the imprisoned, visiting the sick, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks for that passage. I’ll note that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Stephen, wipe off your glasses and look at the IITim 3 verses again.

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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, COMPLETE (what does this mean Stevie?) UNTO ALL GOOD WORK!

Now, now, put it into proper context and understanding.

That the man of God MAY be perfect, furnished to every good work.

**G5600 **ὦ o *o
Including the oblique forms, as well as *ἦς ēs ace; ἦ ē ay, etc.; the subjunctive of G1510; (may, might, can, could, would, must, etc.; also with G1487 and its compounds, as well as with other particles) be: - + appear, are, (may, might, should) be, X have, is, + pass the flower of her age, should stand, were.

Do you know what** subjunctive** means?

sub·junc·tive http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (səb-jŭngk’tĭv) Pronunciation Key
adj. Of, relating to, or being a mood of a verb used in some languages for contingent or hypothetical action, action viewed subjectively, or grammatically subordinate statements.

That the man of God **MAY(**It’s not a guarantee ) be perfect, furnished to every good work.

is very much different then

That the man of God **are(is) made **perfect, furnished to every good work.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Thanks for that passage. I’ll note that.

Your welcome, The reason I know this one well is that I’ve read it as a Lector.

 

[porthos11]

I am struck here by the fact that (some) Protestants are incredibly concerned with the marital/sexual state of Catholic priests, but I’ve never met a Catholic who was particularly concerned with the marital/sexual state of Protestant pastors.

I think it’s just a particular case of the intense, sometimes bordering on the morbid, fascination that some Protestants have with everything Catholic.

And in their ignorance fail to point out that Eastern-rite Catholic priests can be ordained even if they are already married.

 

[porthos11]

o.k. so in 430 a.d. a group of men, uninspired men I must add, decided to call Mary the “Mother of God”. This proves nothing other than you guys are determined to go well beyond what is written in the scriptures.

So you deny that Mary is Mother of God.

That makes you an Arian or Nestorian. Do you admit to being an Arian or Nestorian? Do you even know what those are?

Man, when will you just turn to Christ and the inspired Word and drop the teachings of uninspired men?

Such as yours?

By declaring Mary as Mother of God, we are declaring a truth about Christ, not about Mary.

Again, are you an Arian? Nestorian? Wasn’t Jesus God? You tell me.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me (who has the authority? Christ has the authority) in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

I’d say this scripture pretty well describes the catholic church, how about you?

Yes, I think it does.


Amazing how a properly placed /quote tag can work wonders.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
1Ti 4:2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
1Ti 4:3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Forbidding to marry? Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. If anything, the Church exalts marriage!

I’d say that just about nails the catholic church. You forbid priests to marry, what a problem thats been

Problem only for those who cannot control their passions and for Protestants who do not really stand to gain or lose anything from the discipline of celibacy.

Paul was unmarried, and he clearly recommended celibacy for those in the ministry. But no one is forbidden to marry. Those to enter the priesthood of the Roman Church know exactly what they’re going into and they voluntarily surrender their right to marry. That’s not forbidding at all.

And of course, if you only read more, you’d know about the Eastern Catholic Churches who ordain married men.

you have special days where you must abstain from certain foods … how much more do you need?

So? We abstain as a matter of discipline, and as you said, only on certain days, as acts of self-denial. Nowhere does this mean that certain foods are unclean or we forbid certain foods altogether. Moreover, the disciplines can be changed as needed, to prayer or charity.

Jesus himself cited the importance of fasting and self-denial.

You’re sorely wrong in your context. Paul is referring here to cults who said that marriage was evil and of the flesh, and people should avoid it if they were to live “spiritual” lives, something the Church has always condemned. He was also talking of those, including the Judaizers, who wished to retain the dietary laws of Moses as well as other cultic influences who still classified food according to religious cleanliness, something the Church doesn’t do.

Clearly you didn’t read enough on the surrounding history of the culture in which Paul was writing.

As usual, the same old out-of-context arguments used to attack something that doesn’t apply.

You need to read your Bible and chunk your “tradition” before its too late!

Why should we? The Bible tells us to hold fast to Tradition. To chuck Tradition would be unbiblical.

 

[Salamander]

Well, I guess that’s it then. There is no turning back for you? The first 100 years, for those of you who have forgotten, the New Testament, except for a few books, had already been established as the “accepted” scriptures. The men who knew the apostles or had studied under men who knew them, had already said we should not part from the scriptures which were written. And by this time, all the apostles were dead. This all happened way before the “catholic church” began to break up into bishopries (sp?) and diocese. (a little history for ya) Mary was the mother (no caps) of Jesus, not “The Mother of God”. To put her into a position above Jesus or equal to Jesus is blasphemy!

 

[porthos11]

Well, I guess that’s it then. There is no turning back for you? The first 100 years, for those of you who have forgotten, the New Testament, except for a few books, had already been established as the “accepted” scriptures.

And still there were claimants to the New Testament that were ultimately rejected, while there were books contested that were ultimately accepted, even well into the 2nd century.

The men who knew the apostles or had studied under men who knew them, had already said we should not part from the scriptures which were written.

Nowhere does one say that the oral teaching is to be abandoned. This is an extra-biblical idea attested nowhere in Scripture. Paul said hold fast to both written and oral tradition. He didn’t say, for as long as I and my gang are alive.

And by this time, all the apostles were dead. This all happened way before the “catholic church” began to break up into bishopries (sp?) and diocese.

Bishopries? Like Jerusalem? and Corinth? and Ephesus? And Colossae? and Thessalonica? Philippi?

Clearly, they were local churches. The term diocese or eparchy may not have been used then, but the ideas are there.

(a little history for ya) Mary was the mother (no caps) of Jesus, not “The Mother of God”. To put her into a position above Jesus or equal to Jesus is blasphemy!

Ah, so Jesus is not God?

 

[LilyM]

To put her into a position above Jesus or equal to Jesus is blasphemy!

So to call Elizabeth II of England’s mother Queen Mother - which title EVERY mother of a British monarch has officially borne for centuries - means that the dear old late Queen Mum was in a position above or equal to Elizabeth II’s?

Stop the presses! Somebody call Buckingham Palace!!!

Fact is Elizabeth II’s position from the moment of her birth was ALWAYS above that of her mother, since Elizabeth was in direct line to the throne whereas her mother never was. This was true even when her mother was called ‘Queen’ (Queen Consort) and Elizabeth was merely called ‘Princess of Wales’.

People, please, if you’re gonna acknowledge Christ as your King then LEARN HOW A MONARCHY WORKS!!! There is ALWAYS a Queen Mother and she is ALWAYS an important person in the kingdom!

So will our Queen Mother, Mary, be in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Paul-Joseph]

It amazes me how little this subject is understood. To believe that Mary’s role in redemption ceased with the Annunciation and the Birth of Christ is a very Protestant view.

I think the reason for this misunderstanding is a loss of our understanding of the Catholic view of Redemptive Suffering. This is why St Paul says that he fills up in his own flesh the things that are lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Col 1:24).

The concept of Mary as Coredemptrix simply means that she played a unique role in **Christ’s ** redemption of humanity. One way that she did this is during the crucifixion. While Jesus was suffering and dying on the cross for our redemption He could not suffer the sense of helplessness and pain we feel when we see someone we love suffering and can’t do anything to alleviate it. Christ could not experience that at that moment, but Mary could. Then she joined her suffering to the suffering of Christ. Human suffering has no redemptive power of its own, but joined to the suffering of Christ joins in His redemption of humanity.

To take this a step further, we are all called to be coredeemers with Christ. Each of us has a unique role to play in **Jesus’ **redemption of humanity. Jesus is the One and Only Sole Redeemer; but He allows us to share in a small measure with Him. Think about the people that you and only you can affect with your witness of Christ. For them you are able to play a unique role in their coming to the grace of Christ’s redemption.

 

[kaycee]

So to call Elizabeth II of England’s mother Queen Mother - which title EVERY mother of a British monarch has officially borne for centuries - means that the dear old late Queen Mum was in a position above or equal to Elizabeth II’s?

Stop the presses! Somebody call Buckingham Palace!!!

Fact is Elizabeth II’s position from the moment of her birth was ALWAYS above that of her mother, since Elizabeth was in direct line to the throne whereas her mother never was. This was true even when her mother was called ‘Queen’ (Queen Consort) and Elizabeth was merely called ‘Princess of Wales’.

People, please, if you’re gonna acknowledge Christ as your King then LEARN HOW A MONARCHY WORKS!!! There is ALWAYS a Queen Mother and she is ALWAYS an important person in the kingdom!

So will our Queen Mother, Mary, be in the Kingdom of Heaven.

What was King Saul’s mothers name, and how important in scripture was she?

Please list for me all the Israeli Kings and their mothers and all their moms accomplishments.

 

[Church_Militant]

What was King Saul’s mothers name, and how important in scripture was she?

Please list for me all the Israeli Kings and their mothers and all their moms accomplishments.

Do it yourself…you have a Strong’s…

 

[kaycee]

Do it yourself…you have a Strong’s…

No need, I think we all know the answer to that question.

Apparently the “queen mothers” of all the Israeli Kings play no roles in ruling Israel.

Veering off from the grammatical, historical method into typology, analogy, rationalized and mythical theology has caused grevious error to be enshrined as dogma.

 

[Salamander]

www.bible.ca (I only use this because it follows scripture and it takes less time for me to make the point)

Concerning Mary being a Virgin after giving birth to Jesus and not having sons and daughters later; we all have to remember that she was a “vessel”, a “human being”, blessed, yes, but still flesh and blood. She did not even understand what was happening totally because if she did, then she would have been His equal, such as your question suggested, “co-redeemers”. Jesus was flesh and blood but God in the flesh. She was not a “goddess”.
"Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3

Cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word. John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother.

The Catholic Catechism says of these verses: “The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500).

The Catholic church teaches that the Mary in these passages is the mother of Jesus, but Jesus brothers and sisters are children of another woman also named Mary. The children are so clearly the offspring of the “Mary” of this passage, that the Pope has come to the conclusion is must be a different Mary! Incredible!

Now read it for yourself from the scripture and see if you agree with the Catholic church that the Mary of these passages is both the mother of Jesus and the mother of James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

Oh, did I mention, I took 3 religion courses and a philosophy course at a catholic university? So you see, I do have some knowledge about some of this information besides just this website. I still made “A’s” in the courses The instructor was a minister. He almost wanted me to teach the course. I believe “The Synoptic Gospels” was one of the books we used. Very interesting read into borrowing scriptures from this or that to make another book or 2 or 3.

 

[Mannyfit75]

www.bible.ca (I only use this because it follows scripture and it takes less time for me to make the point)

Concerning Mary being a Virgin after giving birth to Jesus and not having sons and daughters later; we all have to remember that she was a “vessel”, a “human being”, blessed, yes, but still flesh and blood. She did not even understand what was happening totally because if she did, then she would have been His equal, such as your question suggested, “co-redeemers”. Jesus was flesh and blood but God in the flesh. She was not a “goddess”.
"Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3

Cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word. John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother.

The Catholic Catechism says of these verses: “The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500).

The Catholic church teaches that the Mary in these passages is the mother of Jesus, but Jesus brothers and sisters are children of another woman also named Mary. The children are so clearly the offspring of the “Mary” of this passage, that the Pope has come to the conclusion is must be a different Mary! Incredible!

Now read it for yourself from the scripture and see if you agree with the Catholic church that the Mary of these passages is both the mother of Jesus and the mother of James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

Oh, did I mention, I took 3 religion courses and a philosophy course at a catholic university? So you see, I do have some knowledge about some of this information besides just this website. I still made “A’s” in the courses The instructor was a minister. He almost wanted me to teach the course. I believe “The Synoptic Gospels” was one of the books we used. Very interesting read into borrowing scriptures from this or that to make another book or 2 or 3.

Those aren’t his brothers and sisters. They are his cousins. There is no Hebrew word for cousins or in Aramaic, therefore the Greek translation of the Gospels used brothers and sisters.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” Who is this “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?” Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the “mother of Jesus,” as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as “mother of Jesus.” Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the “brothers” of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins.

theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm#Perpetual%20Virginity

 

[LilyM]

What was King Saul’s mothers name, and how important in scripture was she?

Please list for me all the Israeli Kings and their mothers and all their moms accomplishments.

:banghead: Elizabeth II’s mother wasn’t in Scripture, neither were any of her accomplishments listed there. She was an important lady nonetheless. Neither is Saul’s, but that proves nothing.

As for the Queen Mothers of Israel, most of 'em are listed right alongside their sons, starting with Bathsheba and Solomon. 1 Kings 2:13 - Bathsheba pleads for Adonijah. Ahaziah’s mother is named in 2 Kings 8:26 - she is Athaliah. 2 Kings Chapter 11 - she took over as regent of Israel after his death!

2 Kings 12:1 - Joash’s mother is named Zibiah. 2 Kings 14:1 - Amaziah’s mother is named Jehoaddin. 2 Kings 15:1 - Azariah’s mother’s name is Jecholiah.

And it goes on in 2 Kings. How is it that you claim your faith is Scripture-based and you don’t know any of this?

 

[Mannyfit75]

:banghead: Elizabeth II’s mother wasn’t in Scripture, neither were any of her accomplishments listed there. She was an important lady nonetheless. Neither is Saul’s, but that proves nothing. Your myopia is incredible.

As for the Queen Mothers of Israel, most of 'em are listed right alongside their sons, starting with Bathsheba and Solomon. 1 Kings 2:13 - she pleads for Adonijah.

Ahaziah’s mother is named in 2 Kings 8:26 - Athaliah. 2 Kings Chapter 11 - she took over as regent of Israel after his death! 2 Kings 12:1 - Joash’s mother is Zibiah. 2 Kings 14:1 - Amaziah’s mother is Jehoaddin. 2 Kings 15:1 - Azariah’s mother’s name is Jecholiah.

And it goes on and on and on in 2 Kings. How is it that you claim your faith is so Bible-based and yet you don’t know any of this???

Most Ex-Catholics are Anti-Catholic Extremist. Of course he wouldn’t know. That how much ignorant he is.

 

[kaycee]

:banghead: Elizabeth II’s mother wasn’t in Scripture, neither were any of her accomplishments listed there. She was an important lady nonetheless. Neither is Saul’s, but that proves nothing.

As for the Queen Mothers of Israel, most of 'em are listed right alongside their sons, starting with Bathsheba and Solomon. 1 Kings 2:13 - Bathsheba pleads for Adonijah. Ahaziah’s mother is named in 2 Kings 8:26 - she is Athaliah. 2 Kings Chapter 11 - she took over as regent of Israel after his death!

2 Kings 12:1 - Joash’s mother is named Zibiah. 2 Kings 14:1 - Amaziah’s mother is named Jehoaddin. 2 Kings 15:1 - Azariah’s mother’s name is Jecholiah.

And it goes on in 2 Kings. How is it that you claim your faith is Scripture-based and you don’t know any of this?

I did not say the Israeli Kings had NO Queen mothers. I only show that the claim of “queen mothers” having significant roles is NOT supported by Scripture for the Israeli kingdom.

Clearly 1 or 2 queen mothers is the Exeption NOT the Rule.

The application to the kingdom of heaven is totaly without merit. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, Mary is not mentioned.

 

[LilyM]

I did not say the Israeli Kings had NO Queen mothers. I only show that the claim of “queen mothers” having significant roles is NOT supported by Scripture for the Israeli kingdom. Clearly 1 or 2 queen mothers is the Exeption NOT the Rule.

As I said, the mothers of Kings always have and always have had influence in EVERY kingdom in EVERY age - it’s a matter of basic understanding of psychology and basic knowledge of history, forget scripture!

If you lived in a monarchy and/or had any sort of education in history you’d know that!!!