Mary, co-redeemer and co-mediator

[Writer]

Axion:

Moses body was traditionally taken into heaven. This is alluded to in Jude 9, which talks of the angel disputing with the Devil for Moses body. This story, quoted as factual, comes from the non-scriptural writing, the Assumption of Moses. Also Moses returns from heaven with the assumed Elijah at the Transfiguration.

I remembered the Transfiguration, but forgot the Jude 9 reference. Thanks!

 

[bjcros]

Axion:

Moses body was traditionally taken into heaven. This is alluded to in Jude 9, which talks of the angel disputing with the Devil for Moses body. This story, quoted as factual, comes from the non-scriptural writing, the Assumption of Moses. Also Moses returns from heaven with the assumed Elijah at the Transfiguration.

Firstly, if Moses didn’t die, but rather ascended into heaven, then the devil wouldn’t need to argue about his body. I have no doubt that Moses’ body was taken into heaven. The thing that I contest is that he didn’t die. I think that is what writer was contesting too. Moses did die.

 

[bjcros]

Axion:

If you discount free will, God is reduced to playing a game of chess with the devil and we’re all simply pawns awaiting our fate. For my money, that sounds more like a bad science fiction plot than theology.

If you accept completely free will then God is a master chess player. God counters the moves that we make. That is known as openness theology. I and most protestants reject that thinking. If you discount free will then it doesn’t matter what we do. It is fatalistic. I think that there is some balancer but I just don’t know what that is.

 

[Writer]

bjcros:

Firstly, if Moses didn’t die, but rather ascended into heaven, then the devil wouldn’t need to argue about his body. I have no doubt that Moses’ body was taken into heaven. The thing that I contest is that he didn’t die. I think that is what writer was contesting too. Moses did die.

Right… I don’t see anything in either of the two passages which indicate Moses did not actually die. On the contrary, the passage from Chapter 34 seems to make it pretty clear.

 

[bjcros]

Church Militant:

4. This is just straight up offensive. You tell me that we are idolizing something, when you idolize that edited and abridged book that you call the Bible. Things not important? Who are you to attempt to tell others what is and is not important in Christianity? How would you know anyway…are you infallible in your understanding of matters of faith and morals? I think not. I’ve already shown that you follow the new winds of doctrines of men.

Lets start with this. No other church except the Catholic Church claims infallibility. Which is very wise of them. because the recognize that they are not. The Pope and the Catholic Church are fallible and err. Even though they claim not to.
Just because somebody claims to something doesn’t make it so. I can claim to be the Prime Minister of Britain. That doesn’t make me that. Alright in all seriousness though. The Pope isn’t infallible. I have heard many of you tell me that I am wrong that the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn me to hell, right now. I am outside of Salvation according the Catholic Church. I wasn’t wrong and some of you realize it. How is it then that you can say that the church didn’t err. You just put in the back of your minds and say that it is a misinterpretation.
It is in the Council of Trent the church went through almost every protestant belief, many of which I believe and see as scriptural beliefs, and declared those who believe them anathemas. Anathema means “one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority.” They did this despite those accepting them relying on Christ for their Salvation. If you say that the church wasn’t wrong then you and the church are both wrong and go against Scripture. and if you say the church was wrong then you admit that the church has erred. So it is a lose-lose situation.
So I am cursed by the Catholic Church.
I ask you this who is wrong. The Catholic Church or Scripture? They say different things. Scripture doesn’t say that I am going to hell and doesn’t curse me. However, the Catholic Church still claims that(unless they admitted their error).

 

[bjcros]

bjcros:

Lets start with this. No other church except the Catholic Church claims infallibility. Which is very wise of them. because the recognize that they are not. The Pope and the Catholic Church are fallible and err. Even though they claim not to.
Just because somebody claims to something doesn’t make it so. I can claim to be the Prime Minister of Britain. That doesn’t make me that. Alright in all seriousness though. The Pope isn’t infallible. I have heard many of you tell me that I am wrong that the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn me to hell, right now. I am outside of Salvation according the Catholic Church. I wasn’t wrong and some of you realize it. How is it then that you can say that the church didn’t err. You just put in the back of your minds and say that it is a misinterpretation.
It is in the Council of Trent the church went through almost every protestant belief, many of which I believe and see as scriptural beliefs, and declared those who believe them anathemas. Anathema means “one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority.” They did this despite those accepting them relying on Christ for their Salvation. If you say that the church wasn’t wrong then you and the church are both wrong and go against Scripture. and if you say the church was wrong then you admit that the church has erred. So it is a lose-lose situation.
So I am cursed by the Catholic Church.
I ask you this who is wrong. The Catholic Church or Scripture? They say different things. Scripture doesn’t say that I am going to hell and doesn’t curse me. However, the Catholic Church still claims that(unless they admitted their error).

I apologize to anyone that I offended in this last post. I was not very diplomatic.
I was appauled when I read the doctrines that came about in the Council of Trent and I guess I was blowing off stem. I know it is not an excuse. I will bring my issues up in a more diplomatic way another time and probably in a new thread.

 

[Mickey]

It may be objected: ‘Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.’ But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men."

Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[Rogpodge]

Writer:

Rogpodge:

Yikes! There are so many reasoning errors up there, I don’t know where to start first. The point is that God did select Mary, and Mary was given a chance to object twice: first at the Annunciation and second at the wedding feast, where Jesus performed His first miracle. If you discount free will, God is reduced to playing a game of chess with the devil and we’re all simply pawns awaiting our fate. For my money, that sounds more like a bad science fiction plot than theology.

Unlike Eve, Mary chose correctly. Of course, it still doesn’t make her the “Co-Redemptrix”, but it does demonstrate a cooperation with God to bring Christ into the world.

Didn’t you see where I stated that Mary was a free moral agent. If you did then why are you trying to twist my words to say she was not?

Rogpodge

 

[Writer]

Rogpodge:

Writer:

Didn’t you see where I stated that Mary was a free moral agent. If you did then why are you trying to twist my words to say she was not?

Rogpodge

Hmmm… You may have a point there. I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the inference that God did not need Mary, but something else seems off on my reply, I admit. Since you’re not opposing Mary’s free will, I am not all that sure why I replied with that—unless I was eyeing another post, but replied to yours. Been sick with a fever and wonderful antibiotic allergy all this week, and I think someone should bar me from writing when my brain is in a fog. I’ll try to keep future criticisms actually directed at what you write next time! Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[didymus]

Joseph Bilodeau:

Please explain how this can possibly be used to misinterpret Marian devotion as mariolatry?

Some people do attempt to use definition 2 in this manner, all we can do is explain what what the word means as we are doing in this forum. If they are honest, they will listen to us and understand what we mean by this term, even if they don’t subscribe to that belief themselves. But I don’t think we should be afraid to use a term properly just because someone else might obstinately insist that we really mean something different by that term.

You’re right, I meant definition 2 “To the same extent or degree: *coextensive.”

*First, even granting your definition, I would question the appropriatenss of calling Mary Co-Redemptrix since Jesus is uniquely THE Redeemer of mankind.

Second, a term that you have to carefully define every time you use it doesn’t seem like a very good idea, especially a title that can be very eaily misunderstood, perhaps deliberately misunderstood by some. I think we should stick with what has been long established, that as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven Mary has a special role as Mediatrix which is totally unecxeptionable.

As for “Mariolatry”, I am NOT knocking Marian devotions. But we have to admit that devotion to saints CAN cross the line into idolatry. I know some people very intensely devoted to Mary and I can’t judge another’s heart but I have to wonder sometimes.

Of course, I should qualify all this by admitting that I’m a “lapsed” Catholic who just returned to the Church this past Lent after an absence of several years, so maybe I shouldn’t talk.

 

[Rogpodge]

Writer:

Rogpodge:

Hmmm… You may have a point there. I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the inference that God did not need Mary, but something else seems off on my reply, I admit. Since you’re not opposing Mary’s free will, I am not all that sure why I replied with that—unless I was eyeing another post, but replied to yours. Been sick with a fever and wonderful antibiotic allergy all this week, and I think someone should bar me from writing when my brain is in a fog. I’ll try to keep future criticisms actually directed at what you write next time! Thanks for the heads-up!

need

could cover a lot of territory. Acts 17:25 God is"neither worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things". When we talk about people as to their needs we think in terms of food and water and a healthy ebvironment to thrive in. Man needs those things to exist God does not need anything else to exist. He does not need me or Mary or anyone else. If need is in reference to that is the way God planned it, any item that is integral to a plan has to be there or it is not the same plan any more. To say God could not have used another plan to bring a saviour into the world is trying to limit the power of God.

Rogpodge

 

[Writer]

Rogpodge:

Writer:

Rogpodge:

Hmmm… You may have a point there. I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the inference that God did not need Mary, but something else seems off on my reply, I admit. Since you’re not opposing Mary’s free will, I am not all that sure why I replied with that—unless I was eyeing another post, but replied to yours. Been sick with a fever and wonderful antibiotic allergy all this week, and I think someone should bar me from writing when my brain is in a fog. I’ll try to keep future criticisms actually directed at what you write next time! Thanks for the heads-up!

need could cover a lot of territory. Acts 17:25 God is"neither worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things". When we talk about people as to their needs we think in terms of food and water and a healthy ebvironment to thrive in. Man needs those things to exist God does not need anything else to exist. He does not need me or Mary or anyone else. If need is in reference to that is the way God planned it, any item that is integral to a plan has to be there or it is not the same plan any more. To say God could not have used another plan to bring a saviour into the world is trying to limit the power of God.

Rogpodge

No, I did not say that God could only have chosen Mary. On the other hand, isn’t the point of this line of thinking a little silly? I mean God did select Mary, after all. We can try to expore “what ifs” until the cows come home, but it does not really address the fundamental issues. In fact, I address your point in the seond paragraph of my essay on Mary’s place in the Church. Here is an excerpt…

**While some might argue that God could have chosen any number of other methods to send His Son into the world, the fact of the matter is that He selected Mary. Most serious Christians would agree that she deserves a special place of respect and honor. After all, if through Christ we become like His adopted brothers, then it only stands to reason that we should reserve a special honor for the “spiritual mother” we share. The question, however, is when has the believer gone too far in his devotion to Mary, the mother of God? (The “mother of God” may cause the typical Protestant to cringe, but this simply acknowledges the triune nature of God. We can’t simply say Mary is only the mother of Jesus, unless we conclude that Christ and God are not one. This title simply reflects a logical understanding of the true and mysterious nature of God, but it definitely does not mean to imply that Mary either pre-existed God the father, or is equal in glory to God.) This essay seeks to briefly explore the meaning of Mary to the Catholic believer, then explain why the titles Co-Redemptrix or “Co-Redeemer” disrespect her so egregiously when their proponents’ misguided intent is only to pay her greater honor.
**

 

[Rogpodge]

Writer:

Rogpodge:

Writer:

No, I did not say that God could only have chosen Mary. On the other hand, isn’t the point of this line of thinking a little silly? I mean God did select Mary, after all. We can try to expore “what ifs” until the cows come home, but it does not really address the fundamental issues. In fact, I address your point in the seond paragraph of my essay on Mary’s place in the Church. Here is an excerpt…

While some might argue that God could have chosen any number of other methods to send His Son into the world, the fact of the matter is that He selected Mary. Most serious Christians would agree that she deserves a special place of respect and honor. After all, if through Christ we become like His adopted brothers, then it only stands to reason that we should reserve a special honor for the “spiritual mother” we share. The question, however, is when has the believer gone too far in his devotion to Mary, the mother of God? (The “mother of God” may cause the typical Protestant to cringe, but this simply acknowledges the triune nature of God. We can’t simply say Mary is only the mother of Jesus, unless we conclude that Christ and God are not one. This title simply reflects a logical understanding of the true and mysterious nature of God, but it definitely does not mean to imply that Mary either pre-existed God the father, or is equal in glory to God.) This essay seeks to briefly explore the meaning of Mary to the Catholic believer, then explain why the titles Co-Redemptrix or “Co-Redeemer” disrespect her so egregiously when their proponents’ misguided intent is only to pay her greater honor.

[/QUOTEI don’t mean any disrespect to Mary. I think she was blessed to bring God’s Son into the world. You seem to think because the scripture says she was blessed that she ought to wear that like a title. There are other people in the Bible that are described as being blessed and you don’t place that same title on them.Nowhere in the scipture does it authorize any titles other than Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus being the Christ and Jesus being the Saviour. Mary was not Jesus’s parent in the same sense that God was Jesus’s Parent. Mary or Joesph were not Jesus’s parent in the same sense that all other children have parents. Jesus was a special case When anyone tries to ascribe more to Mary than being just another person God used to bring about his purpose then that is more than the scriptue authorizes.

Rogpodge]

 

[Mickey]

Rogpodge:

I don’t mean any disrespect to Mary. I think she was blessed to bring God’s Son into the world. You seem to think because the scripture says she was blessed that she ought to wear that like a title. There are other people in the Bible that are described as being blessed and you don’t place that same title on them.Nowhere in the scipture does it authorize any titles other than Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus being the Christ and Jesus being the Saviour. Mary was not Jesus’s parent in the same sense that God was Jesus’s Parent. Mary or Joesph were not Jesus’s parent in the same sense that all other children have parents. Jesus was a special case When anyone tries to ascribe more to Mary than being just another person God used to bring about his purpose then that is more than the scriptue authorizes.

She is called “Blessed among women”. Yes, she deserves that title. She is the mother of God.She is declared "full of grace". Jesus took His flesh from her. Is she special? You bet!

You should pray about this.
God Bless

 

[Kangasaur]

Justaccord,
No one is saying that Mary died on the cross, or saves anyone.
Even the Catholic Church, and people in it will tell you or anyone that some people take Marian devotion too far.
You can’t blame the Church for that. Some Prots get pretty wacked out in some of their teachings and practices, too, as you know.
You are well aware of the necessity of Mary in the Incarnation. This was by God’s design that she be in the mix.
But focus for a moment on her role at the cross.
No, she was not up there being crucified, true. But, who can possibly calculate the immense role her presence and support of her Son had on the event, on not only Jesus, but God Himself!
This may be some of what the pope was talking about when he referred to her as a “co-redeemer.”
No matter what word you use, if it isn’t in the Bible, someone will choke on it and complain.
Kangasaur

 

[Peace-bwu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justaccord
…And I go to Mexico, and can buy a cross with no Jesus but Mary on it. And I see a picture of a cross outside a catholic church with Jesus on one side and Mary on the other, back to back…

What on EARTH???

Mary on a cross? Like, crucified? Are you serious?

If you are talking about a cross with Mary beside it or under it, that is not so unusual, you can find alot of religious art throughout history with a cross beside a saint, so to see one with Mary is not so odd and does not imply that she is equal to Jesus.

And you actually saw a Catholic Church with a cross that has Mary crucifiied on one side and Jesus on the othe back to back? If this is for real, and it was an actual Catholic Church and not some kind of Marion cult or something, then my only thought is that maybe it was supposted to look like a medal? On alot of Catholic medals you have two sides, perhaps a cross or crucifix on one side and a saint such as Mary on the other, but this doesn’t sound like what you are talking about. A cross with Mary crucified on it would be blasphemous, and not in accord with Catholic doctrine.

The theology regarding the title Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix is very new and I would say most lay-Catholics do not understand it yet or are not even familiar with it. When I first heard it, I was taken aback, I was relieved to find that it doesn’t put Mary on the same level as Jesus teh sole redemer, but that it means by CO-operating with his sacrifice and the Will of God, that her cooperating obedience allowed Gods son to be begotten and her love and guidence brought Jesus into man hood, and her CO-operating with God’s divine plan for Christ’s death and resurrection. Her “Yes” brought us into the new covenant, our redemption.

Noah’s “yes” brought us into a new covenant
Moses’s “yes” brought us into a new covenant.
Mary’s “yes” brought us into the new convenant of our salvation.

Her “yes” nixed Eve’s “no”

I’m not saying you have to believe the theology of CO-Redemtrix, but just make sure you understand what it means before you bash us for it, and be patient if all the other lay-Catholics do not yet understand or even know anything about this theology.

There are Catholic families I know who have had their homes “enthroned” a special blessing which makes Mary and Jesus King and Queen of the home. It is a dedication to the sacred hearts of both Mary and Jesus. (I haven’t done this, but am interested in my home being dedicated to the Holy family) The point I want to make is that I know these people very well and know that they do not worship Mary or put her on teh same plane as Jesus, They do not call her the redeemer, though I am sure they understand the theology behind the title "co-redemtrix.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

didymus:

…a term that you have to carefully define every time you use it doesn’t seem like a very good idea, especially a title that can be very eaily misunderstood, perhaps deliberately misunderstood by some. I think we should stick with what has been long established, that as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven Mary has a special role as Mediatrix which is totally unecxeptionable…

The world is full of precise terms that can be easily misunderstood, but scrapping them in favor of less precise terms to appease those who refuse to accept that a term means what it means even after it has been explained to them seems like even less of a good idea to me. Would you have medical schools stop using precise medical terms when teaching physicians just because some patients of those doctors might misunderstand biological terms or obstinately insist that appendicitis doesn’t really mean an inflamation of the appendix?

 

[Writer]

Joseph Bilodeau:

The world is full of precise terms that can be easily misunderstood, but scrapping them in favor of less precise terms to appease those who refuse to accept that a term means what it means even after it has been explained to them seems like even less of a good idea to me. Would you have medical schools stop using precise medical terms when teaching physicians just because some patients of those doctors might misunderstand biological terms or obstinately insist that appendicitis doesn’t really mean an inflamation of the appendix?

I disagree… Words do mean things, and the propenents have of “Co-Redemptrix” often don’t understand the correct theology themselves. If many supporters can’t even inteligently articulate it, what does this say about the term? They often seem to be supporting it more on an emotional or cultural plain than a rational one. Here is what I wrote concerning language and the term–as found at the link below.

home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/writer/id16.html

First, the term Co-Redemptrix is confusing and poorly reflects its own intended purpose or meaning. The language is wrong. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary cites an early use of “Co-Redemptress” in 1865 by Dr. Pusey. As he was opposing its use, however, it is only logical to assume that the term has been in existence for some time prior to the 1860s. I was recently made aware that the best translation of Co-Redemptrix from the Latin would actually be as “woman with the redeemer”. The same student of Latin also noted that one of the problems with the prefix “co” in English is that it no longer implies a lesser or inferior meaning. Take, for example, co-star. The co-star is assumed to be less important than the star. While some supporters of the Co-Redemptrix title do appear to actually believe in an equality of sorts between Mary and Jesus, most certainly do not. They assert that the prefix “co” implies only cooperation with, as opposed to equality with. The truth of the matter is that in debating this topic online with fellow Catholics, this distinction is frequently misunderstood. Why should we be surprised at this, however? The “co” prefix can imply equality in words such as coextensive, coeducation, or co-worker. This confusion may represent sufficient grounds on which to nix the Co-Redemptrix term. If it were our intent to simply confuse and obfuscate the true nature of Mary and her Son, we would have succeeded here beyond our wildest dreams. Why would we want to adopt a new title for Mary which serves only to confuse those who hear it proclaimed? This is one of the simplest reasons opposing the new title, but also one of the strongest.

 

[JOHNYJ]

First,my personal opinion. These titles are, HERETICAL !!!
You can include meadiatrix of all graces,in that.
Now,the Official Opinion of the Sacred Congregations. They are, A SCANDAL TO THE FAITHFUL AND NOT APPROVED !!!
Clear !

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

As we begin to approach the holy season of Lent, it is also the time of year when many people make or remake their Marian consecration. Some use the 33 day formula of St. Lousi de Montfort or it could be as St. Maximilian formulated. In thinking of this for myself, I read these thoughts on Marian consecration from St. Maximilian and from the de Montfort fathers and wished to share them with you too.
Ave Maria!

---

Catechism on Marian Consecration
48. WHAT EXACTLY DOES “CONSECRATE” MEAN?
When something or someone is said to be consecrated, this means it is set apart by God for his exclusive use; it becomes holy. The word comes from the Latin consecrare: con-together + secrare-sacred.

We were all consecrated at Baptism when the priest poured holy water on our heads and baptized us “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” That is, we were “set apart” for the Holy Trinity. We are changed forever and pledged to the exclusive service of God, by God.

However, baptismal consecration represents only the germ of consecration. God has chosen us to a lifetime of Christian holiness, and “his call is irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). But God does not do anything in us or to us without our cooperation. We must continually give ourselves to God, to ask for, and to seek, holiness on a daily basis, until it becomes a natural habit that lasts a lifetime.

1. WHY SHOULD WE CONSECRATE OURSELVES TO MARY? God willed that Mary would have a special role in our Christian life when he gave her to us as our spiritual mother at the foot of the Cross (In 19:27). It is a universal role assigned to her by God: All Christians of every age are to “take her into his home”-into our hearts, minds and every aspect of our lives. This is why we pray to her and through her, asking for her assistance.

In perfect union with her Son and subordinate to him, Mary is called by the Second Vatican Council “our mother in the order of grace” (Lumen Gentium, no. 61). Mary became the prototype of total consecration when, at the beginning of the New Testament, she said “yes” to becoming the Mother of God (Lk 1 :37). She was chosen to help us in our consecration through her maternal intercession as Mediatrix of All Graces, thus disposing us to develop the gifts of God that we received in Baptism. As such, Mary will enlighten your mind, guide your will, empower your efforts and intercede for you in a special way before the throne of the Father.

Finally, in her perfect spiritual sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration as the Immaculate Conception and “Spouse of the Spirit,” she is the “Daughter of the Father” - his creaturely masterpiece prepared by him for all eternity to be the tabernacle of the Living God. By linking our lives to the Immaculata’s through total consecration, taught Maximilian, we too become channels of grace and “spouses” of the Holy Spirit, “overshadowed by the power of the Most High” (Lk 1:35). Like Mary, we become intimately united to the Ttinity and powerful co-redeemers with Jesus in bringing about the salvation of the world.

1. DOES MARIAN CONSECRATION TAKE AWAY FROM MY RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS? On the contrary, consecration to Mary heightens the depth of our commitment to Christ. It is a way to express explic*itly that our ultimate goal and end is God.

St. Maximilian made it very clear that Marian consecration does not stop at Mary: "In reality, we are entirely, completely and exclusively consecrated to the Immaculata; in her and through her entirely, completely and exclusively to the Lord Jesus; in him, finally and through him entirely, completely and exclusively to our Father in heaven." And also, “Devotion to Mary is a direct means to this end. We pass with Mary to the Other.”

By consecrating ourselves to Mary, she will always point us to the heart of Jesus, for "her will is so perfect that in nothing does it differ from God’s." Marian consecration thus becomes the ideal way to fulfill our baptismal promises, which we renewed at our Confirmation. Maximilian summarized our Christian mission in the beautiful expression: “To win the world for the Immaculata, and as soon as possible.”

As Vatican II teaches, calling upon Mary’s intercession “does nor hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ, but on the contrary fosters it.” (Lumen Gentium, no. 60). Therefore, coming “to Jesus through Mary” through our Marian consecration is not an extraordinary way of worshipping God and bringing about our final sanctifica*tion - it is the best way!