Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[knightbvm]

ok,…well… you still did not answer my question, there Goth. How are you telling me that I have “distorted” the scriptures in any way?!?

Don’t make a claim of such a thing and not have anything to back it up.

And to comment on your retort,… are you telling me that in your head, Mary in some way rules equal with Christ in the Kingdom of God, and : that the kingdom of Heaven is in any way the same as Kingdoms here on earth? , and that Mary has something to do with Christs being who He is, (God) and our Redeemer?

I’ve heard such a comment that Catholic’s try to pass off that Mary was a “temple virgin.” Meaning that she had taken a vow, when she was a child, to remain a virgin for the rest of her life and not to marry? Is this what you (Catholic Church) holds to be true in any way? If so, how about looking at Luke 1:27, and telling me where you can say the whole previous theory without changing or adding to the Good Lords Word?!?

Also, if Mary was “without sin” then why did she do the following, in Our Lords Word, Luke 2:22-24, 39.

May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you, and may He Bless us with His Understanding and His Truth alone.

Amen

are you a Protestant or a Catholic?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

are you a Protestant or a Catholic?

The man is Presbyterian.

I don’t know why he would post in the Traditional Catholicism forum, in a discussion about the Blessed Virgin. Clearly he would hold opposing views, and would not even share the same paradigm as Catholics. Such a debate, about a subject on which we have no common ground with him, is doomed to be fruitless.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Also, if Mary was “without sin” then why did she do the following, in Our Lords Word, Luke 2:22-24, 39.

“The presentation of Jesus in the temple depicts the parents of Jesus as devout Jews, faithful observers of the law of the Lord, i.e. the law of Moses.”

“As the firstborn son, Jesus was consevrated to the Lord as the law required.”

Explanations are taken from the notes in the New American Bible. Hope they help, though I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re actually confused and seeking the answer. If you’re just going to yell and bash us over the head with what you obstinately hold, then this will not be helpful for you.

 

[Author_Jerry]

Can I add to this fascinating discussion? =)

I believe it would do the Church wonders to properly and formally define the truth of Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix. This way, many Catholics will finally be introduced to the vast wonders and beauty of Mary’s special role for our redemption.

Sure, knowing this isn’t required for entering into heaven; but understanding the depths of this mystery can bring us closer to Christ, for Mary knows Christ more than we can comprehend. Through her help, we can better understand and love Jesus Christ, which brings us closer to Him. Obviously, this means we’ll gain more graces from being closer to Christ.

In short, the more fully we understand our faith, the better we can live it out and the more graces we’ll earn. By these graces, we’ll achieve more happiness in heaven and on earth.

Otherwise, what good would it do us to know the complexities and depth of our faith? We are always encouraged to read the Bible and the Catechism, for the more deeply we understand our faith, the more we can appreciate and love Jesus.

It’s unfortunate that if this would be formally defined as dogma, many Catholics who aren’t so versed in the faith might get confused. It is the duty of those who do understand to educate the less informed on these matters.

We shouldn’t hide from the truth. We should embrace it. Through pray and education, all of us can achieve a better understanding and love for Jesus.

 

[TMC]

Sure, knowing this isn’t required for entering into heaven; but understanding the depths of this mystery can bring us closer to Christ, for Mary knows Christ more than we can comprehend. Through her help, we can better understand and love Jesus Christ, which brings us closer to Him. Obviously, this means we’ll gain more graces from being closer to Christ.

In short, the more fully we understand our faith, the better we can live it out and the more graces we’ll earn. By these graces, we’ll achieve more happiness in heaven and on earth.

Jerry, I agree that this is a fascinating topic, thanks for adding to it. Your post brings up an idea I have heard a number of times - that declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix would bring additional graces. Here is what I read on that topic on Catholic Cultures, although the document may originally be from Vox Populi:

Many believe this Marian Dogma will initiate the Triumph of our Blessed Mother over Satan, as foretold in Genesis and at Fatima. It is the key that unlocks the graces of the Triumph. Her titles are her works, her titles are her functions, and the solemn proclamation of our Mother’s titles will lead to the full release of her most powerful sanctifying functions of grace and peace for the many crises experienced in the contemporary Church and world. It will allow her to intercede with the fullest possible mediation given to her by God for this Triumph, for the Church and for humanity.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=360

This is a little different from Jerry’s point, but this idea of unlocking or releasing graces is troubling to me. I believe that our faith can effect our own acceptance of grace. But how does our faith change God, or even Mary? Jerry says that better understanding leads to more closeness, which can lead to more grace for individuals. I agree that can (but does not always) happen.

But some turn this into the idea that a statement by the Church will unlock additional Marian functions like some divine video game cheat code. That is certainly not consistent with my understanding of the interplay between faith and grace, or between the faithful and God.

 

[Author_Jerry]

Jerry, I agree that this is a fascinating topic, thanks for adding to it. Your post brings up an idea I have heard a number of times - that declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix would bring additional graces. Here is what I read on that topic on Catholic Cultures, although the document may originally be from Vox Populi:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=360

This is a little different from Jerry’s point, but this idea of unlocking or releasing graces is troubling to me. I believe that our faith can effect our own acceptance of grace. But how does our faith change God, or even Mary? Jerry says that better understanding leads to more closeness, which can lead to more grace for individuals. I agree that can (but does not always) happen.

But some turn this into the idea that a statement by the Church will unlock additional Marian functions like some divine video game cheat code. That is certainly not consistent with my understanding of the interplay between faith and grace, or between the faithful and God.

Thank you for replying, TMC. Here’s a way to come to an understanding on what I highlighted:

The Church doesn’t create truths, for all truth is already in existence. Truth can be discovered, but never created. Since we already know that grace can be obtained through the acknowledgment of these Marian titles and functions, the Church declaring Mary as Co-Redemptrix as a formally define dogma would put a spotlight on this truth. Thus, more people will be able to receive the grace from a personal acknowledgment of this.

Now, to be clear, I’m not saying the declaration itself will bring additional graces. I’m not entirely sure if there’s cogency to support this claim. How I currently see it: Since the truth that Mary’s titles and functions give out grace already exists, the formal declaration wouldn’t add to it.

If I am wrong in my assessment, someone please correct me. Am I right to assume that we obtain grace for believing in the truth the Catholic Church proclaims? If so, does this grace extend to the acknowledgment of Catholic knowledge concerning Marian titles and functions? In other words, would simply believing in these Marian titles and functions give us grace? After all, the Church is consistent in proclaiming the truths of these Marian titles and functions, as people have scrupulously noted above.

I just don’t wish to be so utterly wrong in such an important matter as this.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Jerry,
I would like to add some comments, as an Orthodox Christian who has an abiding and deep love for the Theotokos.

I hope that you do not take offense, but I have a major difference of opinion with your posts.

Sure, knowing this isn’t required for entering into heaven; but understanding the depths of this mystery can bring us closer to Christ,

It has not been demonstrated that this is so.

First, deconstructing mystery is not the path to salvation, it just turns religion into a scientific exercise.

Second, Christ was very clear in the Gospel message what He was all about, all we will get at this point is a product of our imaginations. The reason we hear the New Testament in liturgy is to know this, and the homily should help clarify.

…for Mary knows Christ more than we can comprehend.

That may be true, but it does not follow your argument.

Otherwise, what good would it do us to know the complexities and depth of our faith? We are always encouraged to read the Bible and the Catechism, for the more deeply we understand our faith, the more we can appreciate and love Jesus.

Use those resources. Learn that Faith.

The Church doesn’t create truths, for all truth is already in existence.

Yes, absolutely correct.

Truth can be discovered,

I disagree with this.

but never created.

All that is necessary has been revealed. Truth can no longer be discovered, but supposed truths, and products of creaturely imagination, may indeed be created and spread by those with enough hubris to believe it is possible to peel back the layers of mystery and discover something new.

It is the job of the church to pass Apostolic Truth on to us unadulterated and complete, not to seek out new Truths to add to what the Apostles were taught. This is a path to error and many have fallen this way.

Since we already know that grace can be obtained through the acknowledgment of these Marian titles and functions,

If the Roman Catholic church actually teaches this, it is at odds with all other Apostolic churches. What is necessary is to acknowledge that Mary is the MOTHER OF GOD, for Jesus Christ is indeed Our Lord and God and Saviour.

Now, to be clear, I’m not saying the declaration itself will bring additional graces. I’m not entirely sure if there’s cogency to support this claim. How I currently see it: Since the truth that Mary’s titles and functions give out grace already exists, the formal declaration wouldn’t add to it.

I am sorry Jerry, but as I read this you seem to be contradicting yourself.

If I am wrong in my assessment, someone please correct me. Am I right to assume that we obtain grace for believing in the truth the Catholic Church proclaims?

I am sorry to state that I believe you are wrong.

Is it your position that the Catholic church should proclaim more and more and more so that we can obtain all these new and extra graces?

It seems like McChurch adding to the menu! (sorry ) The path to grace is to put on Christ.

Saint James did say:
*
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble*.

and…
*
** For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.*
*
*It’s not really about how much we know, or believe that we know. That was a mistake early heretics made in abundance. It’s much more about how we live out our lives with what we have been given.

The church already possesses the Received Faith, all that is necessary has been revealed by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. We have only to act upon it as one who believes.

http://www.istok.net/images/D/d-25068-1547.jpeg

Have a blessed and fruitful Lenten season.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

ok,…well… you still did not answer my question, there Goth. How are you telling me that I have “distorted” the scriptures in any way?!?
A better question would be “How have I not distorted the scriptures?”
Don’t make a claim of such a thing and not have anything to back it up.

Oh I have plenty to back it up. 2000 years worth, in fact.
And to comment on your retort,… are you telling me that in your head, Mary in some way rules equal with Christ in the Kingdom of God, and : that the kingdom of Heaven is in any way the same as Kingdoms here on earth? , and that Mary has something to do with Christs being who He is, (God) and our Redeemer?
Not equal, but side by side never the less. Christ is a davidic king, actually he is thee davidic king. The last and ever-reigning. And yes, Mary does have something to do with who Christ is. Flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone.
I’ve heard such a comment that Catholic’s try to pass off that Mary was a “temple virgin.” Meaning that she had taken a vow, when she was a child, to remain a virgin for the rest of her life and not to marry? Is this what you (Catholic Church) holds to be true in any way? If so, how about looking at Luke 1:27, and telling me where you can say the whole previous theory without changing or adding to the Good Lords Word?!?
Temple virgins often had an elder man as their protector. They were “married” in name so that it would be lawful for them to live together.But they would not be married since they would lived chased. The Church does not rule one way or another about wether or not Mary was a temple virgin, only that she remained a virgin her entire life.
Also, if Mary was “without sin” then why did she do the following, in Our Lords Word, Luke 2:22-24, 39.

Mary did according to the law. Simlar to Jesus being baptisted. "John tried to prevent him saying "I need to be baptisted by you, and yet you are coming to me? Jesus said to him “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” Matthew 3:14-15
May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you, and may He Bless us with His Understanding and His Truth alone.
May he grant you understanding and less confusion so that you may find salvation in the rock.
Amen

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Joe,

Of course, no one has the right to add or subtract from Scripture. But the Catholic Church is always meditating on the Scriptures and fleshing out their meaning. That’s where this proposed dogma comes from…

I hate to have to say this, but your claim here is so strikingly similar to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, with it’s New Light, that it disturbs.

Michael

 

[Author_Jerry]

What really bothers me about this discussion is, EWTN, many Saints, Popes, and Theologians have talked and written about Mary being Co-Redemptrix. If they are all wrong, wouldn’t the Church have condemned this a long time ago?

Mr. Miravalle has taught this Marian title extensively. Miravalle isn’t an obscure figure in the Catholic Church. He is a professor at one of the best Catholic universities in the U.S.: Franciscan University. Wouldn’t you think someone in the Church, if they thought what he’s teaching is contradictory to the Catholic Church’s doctrine, wouldn’t we have heard about such a condemnation?

As I noted above, Miravalle isn’t the only one. Past Popes haven’t used this term. Can all these people possibly be wrong to use this term?

I think the controversy is what this term means. I know I’d like to know the true meaning, so I hope, some day, that the Church formally defines it.

 

[TMC]

I think the controversy is what this term means. I know I’d like to know the true meaning, so I hope, some day, that the Church formally defines it.

I agree to a certain degree. I think part of the problem is that most of those that advocate for the term have a fairly extreme view. As for Miravelle et.al., I think the Church is more tolerant of this kind of thing than most people give it credit for. Miravelle argues that it ought to be dogma, and that he believes it is a consistent (and therefore infallible) teaching, but he is careful, I think, not to misrepresent doctrine. As long as he does that the Church will let him continue, this is how theology develops.

 

[Author_Jerry]

I hope that you do not take offense, but I have a major difference of opinion with your posts.
It has not been demonstrated that this is so.

No, I’m not offended. I’m just trying to understand the many complexities of the Catholic faith. This discussion is certainly helping. =)

First, deconstructing mystery is not the path to salvation, it just turns religion into a scientific exercise.

I have already stated that in an earlier post:

“Sure, knowing this isn’t required for entering into heaven; but understanding the depths of this mystery can bring us closer to Christ.”

That is why Jesus Christ has revealed so much to us through the Church, which passes on this truth through the Bible and Catechism–and is the sole authority when interpreting these texts. Why else would the Church encourage us to learn more about our faith? All knowledge about the faith isn’t necessary for salvation, but it doesn’t hinder our progress to salvation either–unless it’s false knowledge. Am I right?

It is the job of the church to pass Apostolic Truth on to us unadulterated and complete, not to seek out new Truths to add to what the Apostles were taught. This is a path to error and many have fallen this way. If the Roman Catholic church actually teaches this, it is at odds with all other Apostolic churches. What is necessary is to acknowledge that Mary is the MOTHER OF GOD, for Jesus Christ is indeed Our Lord and God and Saviour.

Are you saying that the analysis of past saints on a wide variety of subjects would be “adding to the Truth”? I understand that they’re fallible. I’m not saying everything they wrote is the unadulterated Truth. But it almost seems like you imply that all texts other than the Bible and Catechism, Catholic or not, should be instantly discredited. I find that greatly distressing. I can’t even put any trust in what the saints have written? =(

I am sorry Jerry, but as I read this you seem to be contradicting yourself.

With all due respect, I think you didn’t quite understand what I said. Let me put it into the proper context:

" . . . the Church declaring Mary as Co-Redemptrix as a formally define dogma would put a spotlight on this truth. Thus, more people will be able to receive the grace from a personal acknowledgment of this.

Now, to be clear, I’m not saying the declaration itself will bring additional graces. How I currently see it: Since the truth that Mary’s titles and functions give out grace already exists, the formal declaration wouldn’t add to it."

I thought I was being succinct. =| Let me put it another way: Since a truth–if it is truth–already exists, how can the act of declaring this truth bring about more grace? I’m saying by formally declaring this as dogma, it would put a spotlight on this truth, so more people can obtain grace from it by believing it.

Now, I’m still not sure if simply believing something the Church proclaims brings you grace. I thought greater faith brought you more grace. Can someone verify this for me? =)

Is it your position that the Catholic church should proclaim more and more and more so that we can obtain all these new and extra graces?

It seems like McChurch adding to the menu! (sorry ) The path to grace is to put on Christ.

Who said the Church is “adding to the menu”? As I stated before, all truth already exists. However, we, as humans, have a limit to what we can comprehend. Even though all truth already exists, that doesn’t mean it has all been revealed to us. The Church–please correct me if I’m wrong!–proclaims all the necessary truth for salvation has been revealed. There is still so much we don’t know. On earth, only through the Church can we learn more.

I hope that has cleared some things up. =)

 

[Author_Jerry]

I agree to a certain degree. I think part of the problem is that most of those that advocate for the term have a fairly extreme view. As for Miravelle et.al., I think the Church is more tolerant of this kind of thing than most people give it credit for. Miravelle argues that it ought to be dogma, and that he believes it is a consistent (and therefore infallible) teaching, but he is careful, I think, not to misrepresent doctrine. As long as he does that the Church will let him continue, this is how theology develops.

Thank you for that insight, TMC. =) Since the Church has yet to formally define the Marian title Co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Mediatrix, et al., we must be careful on defining them ourselves–we are fallible, after all.

I believe Miravalle, like you’ve said, has been very careful in defining it. From his rationalizations, I admit what he says makes a lot of sense. Nevertheless, since the Church has already admitted to ambiguity to the definitions of these terms, there isn’t a need for us believe the speculations of theologians. That doesn’t mean this speculation has no merit.

I hope, in my lifetime, God reveals the deeper truths of Mary’s role in our redemption through His Church. If this isn’t His Will, we’ll have to accept that. =)

 

[rtconstant]

The church already possesses the Received Faith, all that is necessary has been revealed by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. We have only to act upon it as one who believes.

I think this is wisdom. Something I have observed is that there is always a risk when one defines something. First, focus tends to move to the description and not the belief itself, so we humans then begin zoom in on how it is instead of what it is. Second, the description can potentially even put limits on the original idea.

In definition we are attempting to use our limited vocabulary and intellect to define something that is infinite and divine. Now sometimes it has been necessary for the Church to define (Council of Nicea) but we should very careful about it.

 

[TMC]

I think this is wisdom. Something I have observed is that there is always a risk when one defines something. First, focus tends to move to the description and not the belief itself, so we humans then begin zoom in on how it is instead of what it is. Second, the description can potentially even put limits on the original idea.

In definition we are attempting to use our limited vocabulary and intellect to define something that is infinite and divine. Now sometimes it has been necessary for the Church to define (Council of Nicea) but we should very careful about it.

Well put. I was reading 2 Timothy yesterday and something in there reminded me of this thread. Your post captures Paul’s instruction well:

This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.
2 Timothy 11-14

 

[Seeker12]

Unfortunately if you can’t accept this than you must leave the church(when it is forced on catholics). You will be much in the same category as the Orthodox when the “filioque” was pushed on them and the Old Roman catholics when papal infallibility when forced on them. Rome has a pattern of dividing the church over ideas that christians were previously at liberty to disagree with.

I like the funny icon. The ideas are good too.

 

[JARVET]

Goth_Catholic:
I will comment more later on your post, however, I must say something now pertaining to one of the things you had to say.

I have recieved salvation in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and savour. I have never made an accusation to you that you were not born again or had not accepted God’s free Grace and redemption through Christ, so why did you have to take this whole things to a different level?

Do you really think that salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church alone? Do think that the Roman Pontiff owns the rights to salvation of the faithful?

Yes, I am very passionate about the gift of Faith that God has given to me through Christ and the Holy Spirit. If any of this is not what you ment to say or imply than maybe you should be more prayerful and careful about the words that you choose to use.

I feel that I have done nothing to you out of anything other than the Love and scriptures that the Lord guides us to be towards one another. I have expressed and shared prayers of mine that have been for all Gods Children, this includes myself; not implying at all that anyone was not! Why would you act in such a way toward me that you have? What right have you been given to act in any other way but out of Love toward one another? You have accused me time and time again of distorting scriptures when all I have ever done was merely quote them. You may not realize the weight of your actions right now, but it is a serious charge and offense to say someone is distorting scripture when all they have done is quote it as it is written, according to the Lord, the author and finisher of our faith.

I ask again, what exactly did I say that distorted scriptures? I would like for you to give me the exact quote that I have done so in.

If you refuse to act out of Christian / Christ like love toward me then there is nothing further that I can do. If this is the way that you choose to be (acussitory and so on) than I will just continue to Pray for you that He may touch your heart and remove that anger and hostility that you have for other brothers and sisters that you have outside of the Roman church.

May we all allow His Love and the Holy Spirit, alone, aside from all things of this world, to guide and direct our path according to our Lords Will. Amen…

 

[JARVET]

…

Goth_Catholic:

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I will comment more later on your post, however, I must say something now pertaining to one of the things you had to say.

I have recieved salvation in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and savour. I have never made an accusation to you that you were not born again or had not accepted God’s free Grace and redemption through Christ, so why did you have to take this whole things to a different level?
You can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Do you really think that salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church alone? Do think that the Roman Pontiff owns the rights to salvation of the faithful?
Catholic Church “Roman Catholic Church” only refers to the Latin rite. But yes, salvation is through the Catholic Church alone. The Pope does not own the rights of salvation, but the Church does, because the Church is of Christ. There is but one Church, one Bread, one Body, one Ladder, one way to salvation
Yes, I am very passionate about the gift of Faith that God has given to me through Christ and the Holy Spirit. If any of this is not what you ment to say or imply than maybe you should be more prayerful and careful about the words that you choose to use.
Not to take anything away from you, you may have Faith but you do not have Truth

I feel that I have done nothing to you out of anything other than the Love and scriptures that the Lord guides us to be towards one another. I have expressed and shared prayers of mine that have been for all Gods Children, this includes myself; not implying at all that anyone was not! Why would you act in such a way toward me that you have? What right have you been given to act in any other way but out of Love toward one another? You have accused me time and time again of distorting scriptures when** all I have ever done was merely quote them.**

No, you have interupted them in error and thus distorted them. You do not read the bible as it is ment to read. If you did you would Catholic (or Orthodex).

You may not realize the weight of your actions right now, but it is a serious charge and offense to say someone is distorting scripture when all they have done is quote it as it is written, according to the Lord, the author and finisher of our faith.
You accused the Church of the distorting scripture.
I ask again, what exactly did I say that distorted scriptures? I would like for you to give me the exact quote that I have done so in.

i think that it is really Ridiculous and sad how many of you think that because you say something blasphemous and than try to explain it away with a diffferent meaning that somehow you’ve made a valid or true point.

Pray not for me but for yourself.

 

[knightbvm]

What really bothers me about this discussion is, EWTN, many Saints, Popes, and Theologians have talked and written about Mary being Co-Redemptrix. If they are all wrong, wouldn’t the Church have condemned this a long time ago?

Mr. Miravalle has taught this Marian title extensively. Miravalle isn’t an obscure figure in the Catholic Church. He is a professor at one of the best Catholic universities in the U.S.: Franciscan University. Wouldn’t you think someone in the Church, if they thought what he’s teaching is contradictory to the Catholic Church’s doctrine, wouldn’t we have heard about such a condemnation?

As I noted above, Miravalle isn’t the only one. Past Popes haven’t used this term. Can all these people possibly be wrong to use this term?

I think the controversy is what this term means. I know I’d like to know the true meaning, so I hope, some day, that the Church formally defines it.

AWESOME POINT!!!—absolutley–if this was wrong someone would “step up” and condemn it