T
- Status
K
Ken_S
Guest
joe 5859
I don’t see it as you do.
Gen3:15 “and her seed” ( Jesus) not Her.
Luk1:38 “I am the handmaid of the Lord”, not I am co-Lord
Luke 2:25 Sorry Joe I’m lost me on that one.
John 19:25-27 Jesus is asking his beloved disciple to care for her now that He was leaving.
Let’s both continue to pray openly on this one Joe. As for me, I’ll be reading this thread from time to time, but am most likely moving on.
May God bless you and keep you Joe and make His face to shine upon you. No one will ever be able to declare you to be “lukewarm” for our religion !!
I don’t see it as you do.
Gen3:15 “and her seed” ( Jesus) not Her.
Luk1:38 “I am the handmaid of the Lord”, not I am co-Lord
Luke 2:25 Sorry Joe I’m lost me on that one.
John 19:25-27 Jesus is asking his beloved disciple to care for her now that He was leaving.
Let’s both continue to pray openly on this one Joe. As for me, I’ll be reading this thread from time to time, but am most likely moving on.
May God bless you and keep you Joe and make His face to shine upon you. No one will ever be able to declare you to be “lukewarm” for our religion !!
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Jesus said He was the truth. Should He have caved in like a coward because some refused to accept the truth? Did He? The answer is no. If you’re content believing a lie, so be it. Jesus did not come to please people but to lead us to Heaven, and we don’t get there simply because we want to.
People CHOOSE to accept or reject the TRUTH, people CHOOSE to sin or not to sin, people CHOOSE, more often than not, what is more CONVENIENT. This is not and has never been the Christian way. If you have a problem with the Catholic Church standing by her Spouse, take it up with the Lord, because that’s who you’re real problem is with.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Jesus said He was the truth. Should He have caved in like a coward because some refused to accept the truth? Did He? The answer is no. If you’re content believing a lie, so be it. Jesus did not come to please people but to lead us to Heaven, and we don’t get there simply because we want to.
People CHOOSE to accept or reject the TRUTH, people CHOOSE to sin or not to sin, people CHOOSE, more often than not, what is more CONVENIENT. This is not and has never been the Christian way. If you have a problem with the Catholic Church standing by her Spouse, take it up with the Lord, because He is the one you have a problem is with.
N
natsclem
Guest
The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 – old no. 1680).
According to the definition promulgated in 1870 by the First Vatican Council the pope exercises an infallible teaching office only when:
Code:
* (1) he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as pastor and teacher;
* (2) he speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire church to acceptance; and
* (3) the matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine revelation handed down from apostolic times.
Code:
* (1) the entire body of bishops in union with the pope, the bishop of Rome, when it teaches with moral unanimity;
* (2) an ecumenical council that receives papal approval; and
* (3) under certain conditions, the pope alone.Ordinary magisterium emanating from the pope himself or councils or bishops is deemed infallible when it is merely re-stating or expounding what has already been dogmatically defined as divinely revealed bounding all Christians to accept.
T
TMC
Guest
I have tried to explain that I am disagreeing with what I think is being put forth, but its hard to quote exact quotes because its a little hard to understand exactly what is proposed. I can tell you I disagree with Dr. Miravalle and Msgr. Calkins, for example, but maybe you are suggesting something other than what they say. Between them they wrote much of what EWTN puts up on the topic, but most of what they write is apologetic, not explanatory.
That said, Mirvalle says that the doctrine means that Mary has an active role in salvation. I object to this statement. Mary had an active role in salvation through her role in the Incarnation. She now advocates for salvation. She has no active role in the salvation of individuals.
Similarly, I object to the statement that Mary “with Christ redeemed mankind.” I realize that Benedict XV said this, but I disagree. Christ redeemed mankind, not Christ and Mary. Mary assisted by cooperating with God’s plan. All of us have a duty to do the same, none of us will do so as well or in as important a way. But that cooperation is not redeeming mankind. Only Christ did that.
I object to the statement (by Calkins and others) that Mary distributes the grace that flows from the Redemption. Christ made clear, as did John, Paul and the evangelists, that grace comes to man directly from God. Its not even really accurate to say it “flows” although that is the common word used. The Spirit dwells within us, and causes God’s grace to well up within us. There is no intermediary distributing graces.
There are more objections, some of which I have already noted. But, I would point out that John Paul II, who was deeply devoted to Mary, ask a Pontifical Commission to look at precisely this issue in 1996. That commission found the meaning of both Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix to be ambiguous, and that references to similar titles by past Popes were not significant or definitive. The commission noted that this had been looked at three times by commissions and that each has rejected declaring the titles. They also noted that because the titles are not well defined, if they were declared now theologians would have to figure out what that meant after the fact, and that in the meantime the confusion would be damaging to ecumenism. All of these points have been made on this thread.
Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Yes, but it was HER seed. She plays a role. Plus, if you look at the history of that verse, some translations, like the Vulgate, actually use the pronoun “she” (as in “she will crush the head of the serpent”). That’s why many images of Mary show her crushing a serpent.
Again, the prefix “co” does not mean “equal to”. It means “with” in a subordinate sense.
Of course, I was only trying to give a snapshot of it, so I’m not surprised I didn’t make total sense.
One would really have to do more in depth reading on the subject to more easily see the connection, and I’n not sure I’m best qualified to give any sort of comprehensive explanation. Of course, if it’s never defined dogma, none of us has to worry. But, if it ever is, you can look at the books I recommended above for a good explanation. Yes, let us both pray and be open to wherever the Holy Spirit leads the Church!
L
lukewarm
Guest
Did the Pope really say that? Mary had no power to redeem mankind. She gave birth to Christ but that isn’t redeeming mankind, only Christ God’s Son was able to do that.
If it walks like a duck right, that sounds like out and out heresy to me. Hopefully a council or future Pope will put a stop to this nonsense and stop trying to elevate Mary to Jesus or a part of the Godhead.
“Mary with Christ” come on now, using Mary’s name first then saying “with Christ” like He’s an after thought. That is simply a terrible way to phrase something.
K
knightbvm
Guest
Benedict XV is not saying anything new—
In ancient times: St. Antonius (circa 250 - 350): “All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.”
St. Bernard (1090 - 1153): “[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.”
St. Bonaventure (1221 - 1274): “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice.” 1
1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast.
Tons of other Popes have done this as well Pius X Pius XII JOhn Paul II Leo XIII------I could go on and on—your arrogant if you think you can disagree with God’d church
In ancient times: St. Antonius (circa 250 - 350): “All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.”
St. Bernard (1090 - 1153): “[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.”
St. Bonaventure (1221 - 1274): “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice.” 1
1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast.
Tons of other Popes have done this as well Pius X Pius XII JOhn Paul II Leo XIII------I could go on and on—your arrogant if you think you can disagree with God’d church
L
lukewarm
Guest
I don’t believe any of those Saints you quoted are infallible. I mean Saints have spoken on the fact that unbaptized babies burn in hell, so have Popes. Until it’s Dogma I CAN speak against it, becuase it is heretical. At one point our Church was well on its way towards Arianism. This heresy will be defeated in time, maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Yes, the pope really said that (or at least something similar.) Note, it was Pope Benedict XV, not our current pope.
It is important to look at such quotes in context. He was writing this letter specifically on Mary. If he was writing about Jesus and then said that “together with Christ she has redeemed the human race”, that would indeed be strange. But if you think of the fact that he was writing a document on Mary, it makes more sense that he would phrase this in relation to Mary. It’s really a linguistic issue, not a doctrinal one.
I couldn’t find the full text of the encyclical, but here’s part of it (it’s quote #11):
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya4a.htm
Also, remember, no one is trying to elevate Mary to the same level of God. That’s not at all what this doctrine is about.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think the Church teaches this at all. This is what the catechism says:
I take this to mean that Mary’s role in the redemption is like ours in kind, but more perfect. That I believe. I know everyone insists that Co-Redemptrix does mean that Mary is divine, but it certainly seems to make her more than merely human. I believe that her role is of the same kind and type as ours, but larger and more perfect.
The Co-Redemptrix title says that Mary is more than just a perfect example of how we should be; it says she has a role that is like God’s. We can all aspire to be more perfect, to cooperate perfectly, submit perfectly, and thus be more like Mary. If Mary is the co-redeemer, she is not like us at all.
K
knightbvm
Guest
Incorrect–not the whole picture—the ordinary magisterium can be infallible when the teaching on faith and morals is proclaimed over a constant period of time. -----This is the case with this doctrine----It was also the case with the Immaculate Conception Assumption etc–think about it–if this isnt true then we could doubt all sorts of Dogma/doctrines–we would be free to deny thos doctrines that were not solemnly defined.–It is common sense—
VARC you are dishonest and irresponsible----you said that I dont care if it leads to schism—and that i want the Holy Father to define the doctrine—I have repeatedley said that one can argue that it is (name removed by moderator)rudent to to define this solemnly—go back and read and stop making slanderous untrue statements----I mean really–it is uncalled for—
J
JARVET
Guest
Tell Me Please, Where Does It Say In The Lords Word, (THE HOLY BIBLE) That Anyone Should Pray To Mary Or That Mary Was Born Without Sin Or That She Remained A Virgin Forever or that she is in any way our co-redemptress?
PLEASE PRESENT SCRIPTURE THAT WILL TRUTHFULLY JUSTIFY ANY ANSWER GIVEN
PLEASE PRESENT SCRIPTURE THAT WILL TRUTHFULLY JUSTIFY ANY ANSWER GIVEN
K
knightbvm
Guest
scripture doesnt explicitly teach any of those doctrines
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
Where in the Bible does it say that we must adhere to sola scriptura?
K
knightbvm
Guest
the Bible doesnt teach that–That is why I am a Catholic----
N
natsclem
Guest
oh come on, knightbvm, not all that the popes or saints’ uttered are infallible. pls review the dogma on infallibility. until it is dogmatically defined, pls dont bind anyone to it.
as of now, to understand the title as that Mary’s role in redemption is equal to Christ is simply not acceptable and even blasphemous. But to understand it in such a way that the title means sharer, collaborator, or cooperator in a very unique and intimate way in Christ’s redemptive work is fine; it is acceptable.
Mary is the gate of heaven in the sense that the Savior, the King of heaven came to earth thru her (so she is like a gate) so that we can enter heaven.
All graces–if we mean of Jesus as the personification of All Graces, St.Antonius is right.
To say that all graces that God gives to all humankind comes only thru Mary or that she alone dispenses to whomever she wishes cannot be proven in scriptures and dogmatic definitions but only thru the sayings of fallible individuals.
The analogy of St.Bonaventure does not exclude the sun rays that comes to earth directly from the sun. it means that probably he is cognizant of God’s graces poured to humankind external to the mediation of Mary.
- Status