Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

[Memaw]

Even though I have devotions to various degrees to St. Joseph, O.L. of Guadalupe, and most to the Divine Mercy, you can’t really use apparitions for apologetics if you are trying to make a point with any non-catholics or even a lot of catholic, (ie myself re: Majugorie or however you spell it) None of us are required to believe in apparitions, even if popes or whoever backs them…after all, without apparitions, how the heck do we know Mary is gonna save the world with scapulars and rosarys, I am not saying she might not, if that’s Gods plan I’ll take my salvation however He wills it, just save me! But I agree in my opinion, folks get a bit carried away.

Mary is not going to “save the world” with scapulars and rosaries. More misunderstandings of Mary’s roll in our lives. but she is encouraging us to pray, stay close to her Divine Son, and the APPROVED apparitions are leading us in that direction. If Jesus sends His Mother to us with a message to help us, then I think its really foolish to ignore it. Unapproved apparitions can be very dangerous to our faith. The Lady of All Nations one has recently been excommunicated by the church. I read about it in Zenith. If the Church approves an apparition, that means it has studied everything about it to make sure there is nothing there to harm our faith. The Church has approved very few apparitions over the centuries as most are not true apparitions. The Church has the Authority to decide such things, and yes, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but guided by the HOLY SPIRIT as Jesus promised.
As for the Rosary, if it is understood properly is really about the life of Jesus, meditating on the mysteries of His life while asking His Mother to pray for us. If we would just stop telling Jesus how to run His Church and let Him teach us, we would all be a whole lot better off. Learn your faith more every day. There are many really wonderful sources to do just that, like Catholic Answers!!!. & EWTN Catholic Cable Network. God Bless,

 

[aaronlgates]

Our faith can potentially offend them quite a lot (after all we believe that they are outside of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation).

Please forgive the tangent… but Vatican II critics state that the infallibility of the Church was lost with Vatican II. Vatican II did away with the infallible teaching of the Church that those outside the Church have no salvation. In the ecumenical teaching of Vatican II there is also a statement/concession that the Church erred in the past regarding its teachings…Where does that leave us in terms of infallibility of dogma?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

aaronlgates:

Please forgive the tangent… but Vatican II critics state that the infallibility of the Church was lost with Vatican II.

You mean the sedevacantict lot? Well, they make many other claims. I advice you to ignore them because they only lead people away from the Church and Christ.

Vatican II did away with the infallible teaching of the Church that those outside the Church have no salvation.

No, it never did. Vatican II was a pastoral council - it changed and added nothing to the Faith. Now, Vatican II does acknowledge the possibility of salvation of those people who are not formal members of the Church but this falls under the understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus. This has been taught long before Vatican II.

Those who are invincible ignorance are excused from the sin of not joining the Church but that alone in no way saves a person. There is still however a chance for them. If they are saved then they will be saved because they were in an extraordinary way united with the Church.

In the ecumenical teaching of Vatican II there is also a statement/concession that the Church erred in the past regarding its teachings

Where? Dogmas are always (and always will be) infallible and all the ecumenical councils were infallible as well.

Where does that leave us in terms of infallibility of dogma?

In the same place as we were before the council.

 

[aaronlgates]

I feel a bit better now… but the ‘pastoral council’ thing… explain how that came about? Have there been prior ‘pastoral councils’ and do they announce that they are pastoral in nature or are they deemed pastoral much later?

What does it mean to deem it pastoral? Does it restrict it in any way… does it tell us to treat it in a different way?

Also, at which point can one point and say that such and such teaching of such and such council or by such and such church father or pope… at which point can one say that the teaching is an infallible teaching of the Church? I am still learning… I’m a lost philosopher and constant theologian of protestant upbringing and heritage… but my 5 children and wife are joining on Easter Vigil. I need to have a handle on the infallible teaching piece. Help me out brutha.

Aaron

 

[Memaw]

You mean the sedevacantict lot? Well, they make many other claims. I advice you to ignore them because they only lead people away from the Church and Christ.

No, it never did. Vatican II was a pastoral council - it changed and added nothing to the Faith. Now, Vatican II does acknowledge the possibility of salvation of those people who are not formal members of the Church but this falls under the understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus. This has been taught long before Vatican II.

Those who are invincible ignorance are excused from the sin of not joining the Church but that alone in no way saves a person. There is still however a chance for them. If they are saved then they will be saved because they were in an extraordinary way united with the Church.

Where? Dogmas are always (and always will be) infallible and all the ecumenical councils were infallible as well.

In the same place as we were before the council.

The Catholic Church has NEVER infallibly said there was no salvation outside the Church. It does teach and has always taught that the FULLNESS of the faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Church and if you willfully choose to turn you back on the TRUTH, you risk loosing your soul. The Church has NEVER taught to judge the salvation of others. While there may have been some within the church that proposed that, the church has never agreed with them.
You really need to learn what Infallibility means and how it is used within the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Memaw]

Those are good points. Plus if we use just the logic that Christ was the operator of salvation and Mary was the co-operator of salvation, what’s to prevent people from saying that Judas or Pontius Pilate was a co-redeemer. Maybe some things are better left unsaid.

Get a life, Pontius Pilate & Judas were not the least bit interested in co-operating with God to bring about our Salvation. And you are right, some really dumb things are better left unsaid.

 

[aaronlgates]

The Catholic Church has NEVER infallibly said there was no salvation outside the Church. It does teach and has always taught that the FULLNESS of the faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Church and if you willfully choose to turn you back on the TRUTH, you risk loosing your soul. The Church has NEVER taught to judge the salvation of others. While there may have been some within the church that proposed that, the church has never agreed with them.
You really need to learn what Infallibility means and how it is used within the Holy Catholic Church.

I know that there are several Popes and Church Fathers are quoted in very explicit terms that there is no salvation outside the RCC… but I am confused with the VII’s ecumenical council. Are the teachings of the prior ecumenical councils included in the infallible teachings of the Church? How is teaching deemed infallible? What’s the process?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I know that there are several Popes and Church Fathers are quoted in very explicit terms that there is no salvation outside the RCC… but I am confused with the VII’s ecumenical council. Are the teachings of the prior ecumenical councils included in the infallible teachings of the Church? How is teaching deemed infallible? What’s the process?

Your answer, sir can be found in the Catechism:

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

2040 Thus a true filial spirit toward the Church can develop among Christians. It is the normal flowering of the baptismal grace which has begotten us in the womb of the Church and made us members of the Body of Christ. In her motherly care, the Church grants us the mercy of God which prevails over all our sins and is especially at work in the sacrament of reconciliation. With a mother’s foresight, she also lavishes on us day after day in her liturgy the nourishment of the Word and Eucharist of the Lord.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#2051

 

[pprimeau1976]

Get a life, Pontius Pilate & Judas were not the least bit interested in co-operating with God to bring about our Salvation. And you are right, some really dumb things are better left unsaid.

It doesn’t matter if they were “interested” the fact is they did unwillingly co-operate.

And I will make sure I will go and get a life! Do you have a spare one I can borrow? Can I buy it off of you on ebay? Or do you think I am too “dumb” to use ebay?

Really, you should be a little bit more charitable with your words.

 

[JRKH]

Get a life, Pontius Pilate & Judas were not the least bit interested in co-operating with God to bring about our Salvation. And you are right, some really dumb things are better left unsaid.

Such attitiudes are not appropriate to this forum and are highly unchristian.

Please stop making derogatory comments about another poster.

Peace
James

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I feel a bit better now… but the ‘pastoral council’ thing… explain how that came about? Have there been prior ‘pastoral councils’ and do they announce that they are pastoral in nature or are they deemed pastoral much later?

Vatican II did not define any new teachings, all it did was to say what was already declared by the Church. So in case you are not sure what the Church is saying it’s nothing else but else that what it was already taught before the council. Some people (liberals and “über-traditionalists”) try to interpreted the rather vague language according to their own understanding but they are wrong.

Vatican II today stands in a twilight. For a long time it has been regarded by the so-called progressive wing as completely surpassed and, consequently, as a thing of the past, no longer relevant to the present. By the opposite side, the ‘conservative’ wing, it is, conversely, viewed as the cause of the present decadence of the Catholic Church and even judged as an apostasy from Vatican I and from the Council of Trent. Consequently demands have been made for its retraction or for a revision that would be tantamount to a retraction.

Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points **(tr. Thesen zum Thema 'Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, in The Ratzinger Report, p. 28).
**
It is impossible to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time, accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous Councils. … It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two Councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms. … Every partisan choice destroys the whole which can exist only as an indivisible unity (op. cit., pp. 28-29).

What does it mean to deem it pastoral? Does it restrict it in any way… does it tell us to treat it in a different way?

It means that you shouldn’t search for it for any new teaching. It did not give us any. No new anathemas. Nothing. It’s pastoral because it speaks about things that have already been laid down.

Of course this doesn’t mean that it can be rejected. As an ecumenical council it retained it’s (negative) infallible charisma.

Also, at which point can one point and say that such and such teaching of such and such council or by such and such church father or pope… at which point can one say that the teaching is an infallible teaching of the Church?

I’m not very good at answering this question. Basically you can be certainly only when Church declares it as such. Most of the times it’s pretty easy because the for example the Council of Trend is very obvious about it: “if anyone says…let him be anathema”. Of course in some cases are a bit less clear. I would let someone else answer this question.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The Catholic Church has NEVER infallibly said there was no salvation outside the Church. It does teach and has always taught that the FULLNESS of the faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Church and if you willfully choose to turn you back on the TRUTH, you risk loosing your soul.

Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noe, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed. … We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

**Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: **“With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved” (Denzinger 792).

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God.

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors: [The following are prescribed errors:] "16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), Encyclical Humani Generis: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

There are many and many more. I listed only few examples.

The Church has NEVER taught to judge the salvation of others. While there may have been some within the church that proposed that, the church has never agreed with them.

All just personal opinions? And the Council was not “Church” - in fact it erred?

You really need to learn what Infallibility means and how it is used within the Holy Catholic Church.

I do not deny that but so far I’m not persuaded by your argument. Maybe you can shine a bit more light on the topic.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

There have been several threads on EENS lately. I don’t know why they are so popular. Anyways,** I apologize **because this topic is about Co-Redemptrix. I forgot about that. Please, if a Mod is reading this, can you please separate the posts?

 

[Writer]

It doesn’t matter if they were “interested” the fact is they did unwillingly co-operate.

And I will make sure I will go and get a life! Do you have a spare one I can borrow? Can I buy it off of you on ebay? Or do you think I am too “dumb” to use ebay?

Really, you should be a little bit more charitable with your words.

I also like your point and have used it in the past… If we look at the Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, each of those persons were cooperator’s with God in one sense–some much more “cooperatively” than others. This reminds us of God’s ability to bring good out of evil–e.g. the sins of King David, etc. Of course, voluntary cooperation of Mary (with knowledge of what’s really at stake) is infinitely more meaningful than what we might call involuntary cooperation, but both types represent valid points.

 

[aaronlgates]

I have satiated my thirst for information on infallible teachings for now, so I won’t throw any hi-jacking comments out on this thread again… sorry about that again…But I guess I have a comment or two on this poll of Our Mother.

I am a protestant with deep protestant roots… family in ministry… christened by my mother’s father… a minister and president of large private christian university… schooled at two private protestant colleges(in addition to 6 other non affiliated private and public universities)… wife’s a ‘pk’(preacher’s kid)… but I’m a pharmacist and stand against ‘contraception’… it’s abortifacient in mechanism… and now we are near completion in our RCIA class and will be coming into the Church on the Easter Vigil.

Anyway, I give background to say that I am a through and through protestant in background… and I will speak to the protestant’s dilemma with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

To even SAY ‘Blessed Virgin Mary’ is suspect in protestant circles. You NEVER hear ANY sort of elevation of Mary… in fact Mary isn’t even spoken of… and the rare times that she is, it is only to say that she was no different than any other woman.

The doctrines of the Church are quite difficult for the protestant to accept… to ‘come around to’… but the teachings on Mary are by far the most difficult for a protestant to handle…

I don’t know what it is… it is still a stumbling block for me, but I am earnestly seeking to understand and embrace the Church’s teachings on all matters. If the WHOLE teachings are not able to be accepted, then NONE are to be accepted.

There is a fundamental difference in the way that protestants and catholics see worship for one. Adoration and prayer are things that are seen as things reserved for the Lord alone. Adoration in prayer to Mary is seen as very grave sin to protestants.

So should the Catholic Church dogmatically state that Mary is indeed CoRedemptrix? I am not sure. I say that if it’s true, then make it known from the rooftops. We should never be afraid of proclaiming that which is true… and whether people may have problems with it… perhaps it may even drive them so far that way that they end up on the other side!

 

[Joe_5859]

I haven’t had time to read all the posts, but I’m commenting anyway.

Mary’s role as co-redemptrix is rooted in the patristic notion of Mary as the New Eve. It’s not formally defined dogma yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of the traditional teaching of the Church (anymore than the Assumption was “invented” in 1950 or the Immaculate Conception was “invented” in 1854.) Several of the recent popes have used the term.

For more info on this than you probably ever wanted to know, try “Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today”.

I voted Yes. I think it can only help to clarify the teachings of the Church. However, it isn’t up to me (thankfully!), so I trust that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to do what is best in the matter.

It is possible that such a definition might alienate some people, but I think in the long term it will help us to convey more accurately what the Church teaches about Mary. Realistically, a great number of Protestants already accuse us of “Mary worship”. It’s not as though the declaration of Mary as Co-redemptrix would lead someone to believe something they don’t already believe. If anything, I think such a declaration might serve as a touchpoint to be able to properly explain what the title means and how it does not mean we worship Mary or put her on equal footing with Jesus. But perhaps I’m an idealist.

 

[Paul_the_seaker]

I have read many of the posts on this forum, especially those of individuals who are attempting to enter the Catholic Church. Herein lies a great problem. The Catholic Church sees herself as an extension of Christ through time. He is the Head and she is his body. As his body she believes that she has been given the whole “of the Good New” by Christ. In addition, she believes that the Holy Spirit has been sent by Christ upon her to help her not only recall all that Christ has said, but to develop its fuller meaning as the centuries go on.

This “Good News” is the mystery that has been hidden from the beginning of the world. It is the Truth that makes us free and which enables us to glorify God in all his works. Thus, when a dogma is defined, the Church glorifies God because she is proclaiming and understandidng more deeply the salvific works of God.

Thus it is with many when it comes to role of the Virgin Mary. For many years, those outside the Church saw Mary primarily as a (not the) woman who was overshadowed by Holy Spirit in order to bring about the presence of Christ in her womb. That was her task and that she did.

However, over two thousand years, the Church which includes both the Eastern and Western branches have meditates and pondered the sacred words of the Bible - the whole Bible, both the Old and New Testaments and have found passages which like those of the prophets, which when brought together give a much more precise and deeper understanding of the Gospels.

Jesus did this Himself when he pointed that when He was lifted up (like the serpent of Moses in the desert) he would draw all men to Himself. He did it again when he pictured Himself as the sign of Jonah.

Mary is likewise seen prefigured in the “woman” mentioned in the third chapter of Genesis, the Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin conceiving, and as the woman in chapter 12 the book of Revelations. It is important to know that Jesus Himself hints at this when at the wedding feast of Cana, he calls His mother “woman.” He again uses the same word when He is dying on the cross and cries out “Woman behold your son.”

So, I think that to make sense of the place of Mary in Salvation, one needs to look at the whole of revelation. Of course Mary is not God, but she is the first of the those redeemed by Christ. He redeemed her before He was born. This is what the Church calls the Immaculate Conception.

Having through much of these things myself, I can only counsel patience, pray and openess to the action of the Spirit. Try to be free of the past, and listen to the Spirit now.

Our brothers and sisters in the faith in God, the Jews, do not believe in Jesus despite all the prophets and the inner meaning of the Law. So, the problem is not new.

I shall be praying for all who are trying to understand and enter the fullness of Truth.

God bless

 

[Angellife]

Just a few issues. Aaron says in the protestant circles, it is a sin to give adoration to Mary. The same is true in the Catholic Church. That’s why Catholic Theology distinguishes between Mariology and Mariolatry. Adoration, the church is very clear is due to God alone. For Mary at most it is honour, called ‘hyperdulia.’ The Honour given to Mary by the Catholic is far short in degree compared to the honor God gives. To be chosen to a Mother to the only one begotten Son is unprecedented and unrepeatable. I do not feel guilty when i honor Mary for I know God himself is crazy about that lady. She is the first of Christians whose eternal rewards Paul says; No eye has seen, nor ear has heard. it means the rewards God has for those who obey his will by far outclass our wildest imaginations.

On the issue on this thread, I do not think the Church will add the title Co-Redemptrix because the Church has always been very cautious. When it sanctioned the use of the terms Helper, Supporter, Advocate, the Church at Vatican II clearly spelt out that these titles do not take Mary anywhere close to Christ, for ‘No creature could ever be considered to be at parity with the Incarnate Word’.

The faithful remain very clear on the position of Mary in the Catholic Church.

 

[geekborj]

Hi, i’m quite new here but i would like to share a related thought on declaration stuff.

Why are we anxious about what non-Catholics will say about having a particular part of Truth be formally declared? Shouldn’t we be more worried of not ever pronouncing the Truth and nothing but the Truth?

I would like to vote to a confident Yes – it adds more meaning, and a deeper one, to the beauty (though already infinite beauty) of God’s Salvific Plan for the humankind. Be this an added problem for the understanding of some, if God wills it to be declared, so be it that His Will be done.

And so we keep praying for his Wisdom!

 

[aaronlgates]

That’s why Catholic Theology distinguishes between Mariology and Mariolatry. Adoration, the church is very clear is due to God alone. For Mary at most it is honour, called ‘hyperdulia.’ The Honour given to Mary by the Catholic is far short in degree compared to the honor God gives. To be chosen to a Mother to the only one begotten Son is unprecedented and unrepeatable.

Yes. I do hear that there are a lot of Catholics that go too far with their adoration of Mary… to the point of worship/Mariolatry… and perhaps this is one reason why the Church may want to refrain from adding to her titles. I know that there are a lot of Catholic sects that integrate witchcraft and idolatry into their worship, and Mary is often part of this worship.

Still, I need to learn to be comfortable with honoring her more… the protestant bias against Mary is so pronounced… it is such a part of their message… and this is strange because Luther actually held to her perpetual virginity, etc. to his deathbed. Why do they not even mention Mary except near Christmas time… and only in passing… it seems pathological. She is the most blessed among women. Why do they neglect her so?

Obviously it is a spiritual battle sort of thing that’s going on.