Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

[Peter_J]

I will also state again that the 'Co-Redeemer//Co-Mediatrix crowd wants that ‘TYPE’ of equality and I pray that that view will be 'downplayed by the current Pope. What a field-day the enemies of our Church will have with that if it is ever made DOGMA. I state with all sincerity…GOD FORBID!

Hi Emil3,

First, I’m sorry to be nit-picky but it’s “co-redemptrix” and “mediatrix” (not “Co-Redeemer” or “Co-Mediatrix”).

Second, I agree with you that dogmatically defining “co-redemptrix” and/or “mediatrix” would be a bad idea. But at the same time, don’t you think you’re being just a wee bit dramatic? To put it in perspective, I also don’t think it was a good idea to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility, but the Catholic Church is still alive and thriving nevertheless.

 

[wanner47]

I wonder why any of the Apostles themselves, never practiced or encouraged or preached or taught - "you need to turn to Mary - because she’s the only one who got it right from start to finish - if this is what we as Christians are to be doing now.

Funnily enough, this devotion was practiced and encouraged by Jesus Himself. Is that good enough for you?

“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!’” (Jn 19:26-27).

 

[MarcoPolo]

A “…'FALSE DICHOTOMY”…???

–and stop ‘jibberjabbing’!

Please read all mine and Tantum Ergo’s, Peter J’s, ferdie’s, etc… posts in this thread at the least. If you don’t think it’s a false dichotomy, that’s fine. But we will continue to demonstrate our belief that it certainly is.

p.s. Mary as co-redemptrix is not a horror if one understands the actual meaning of “co-redemptrix” and the typology of the woman Eve.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For some of the skeptics, perhaps it would help to analyze a different angle of doing God’s will. Ask yourself, what would the apostles tell you is the best way to do God’s will:

a) be steadfast in prayer
b) forgive one another

Would the apostles argue that one of these is a better way to get to the single end of doing God’s will?

 

[Emil3]

Please read all mine and Tantum Ergo’s, Peter J’s, ferdie’s, etc… posts in this thread at the least. If you don’t think it’s a false dichotomy, that’s fine. But we will continue to demonstrate our belief that it certainly is.

p.s. Mary as co-redemptrix is not a horror if one understands the actual meaning of “co-redemptrix” and the typology of the woman Eve.

I thank the poster who corrected my terminology. I DID read all the posts to which you refer and I continue to state there is NO false dichotomy in reference to the original question posed and the inherent/implicit ‘sub-questions’ beneath it. Of course, when a group rushes to build up a ‘straw-man’ scenario–far removed from the ORIGINAL question–we can find your ‘false dichotomy’ in every post!

It is understandably a very loosing position to say anything that could be construed as ‘negative’ or downplaying the role of the Holy Mother and the Lord knows that that, of course, is not my intent, however, I do retain the right to put things ‘in perspective’ from my point of view.

Interestingly, as I do read some of the lengthy posts and rebuttals, I get the picture of a bunch of Medieval Bishops questioning the learning of some poor villager. My entire point is that many souls within & without our Church are that villager! For example, you speak of the ‘typology’ of the woman Eve, etc. Do you think that this arguement–appropriate for the erudite–would UNCONFUSE the average person who would like the QUESTION to be answered; not a re-framing of it as you would like it to be!

This reminds me of the ways of the Pharisees and their thinking processes in always trying to trap Christ or to pose a ‘gothcha’ question, etc. The answers of Christ were simple and direct!

Not to deviate myself, many Marion Traditions could be shown to have begun to develop from the earliest times but many developed much later and even rather recently. What about the Immaculate Conception which our Orthodox bretheren never subscribed to; what a stumbilg block that dogma will be to re-union! The Fatima & Lourdes apparitions and the devotions flowing from them are quite recent. There are so-many other examples as well.

I suggest that many who have written take up the ‘Co-redemptrix’–Mediatrix cause–if you have not already–and if it comes to pass as a solid part of the Ordinary Magisterium or even pronounced EX-Cathedra, you and I will support and lovingly accept it once pronounced. Perhaps because we have the ‘jesuitical’ thought process & learning to understand the subtleties. But what will it do for so many souls who DO NOT have that capacity and see it as a leap totally unacceptable—the Orthodox–(forget re-union), Protestants who are near to conversion or desire it–ETC-ETC!

Yes the Catholic Church will continue—but at what cost to our MAIN MISSION?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Um, the Immaculate Conception is not ‘new’. It was dogmatically defined recently (because so many Protestants had fallen into error and were teaching against it, even though Martin Luther, for example, believed it implicitly). . .but it is actually Scriptural. When St. Luke writes about the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, her immaculate conception is shown right there, in the Greek, ‘full of grace’.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The single most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is not the Catholic who follows his faith, the Orthodox following his faith, or the Protestant following his faith, even though each one’s faith ‘differs’ in some way from the others.

No, the most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is the well-meaning individual who tries to water down, reinterpret, or cobble together a false ecumenism by advising one group to ‘play down’ doctrine A, another group to ‘broaden’ doctrine B, and the third group to ‘accept as legitimate for the believers’ doctrines C through Z ‘so that we can all be one’.

Ironically, the well-meaning ecumenist is the biggest barrier to the unity he seeks, because he isn’t seeking Truth. Unity and Truth are not synonymous, and attempting to twist truth in order to get unity will result in having neither truth NOR unity.

 

[Emil3]

Um, the Immaculate Conception is not ‘new’. It was dogmatically defined recently (because so many Protestants had fallen into error and were teaching against it, even though Martin Luther, for example, believed it implicitly). . .but it is actually Scriptural. When St. Luke writes about the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, her immaculate conception is shown right there, in the Greek, ‘full of grace’.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The single most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is not the Catholic who follows his faith, the Orthodox following his faith, or the Protestant following his faith, even though each one’s faith ‘differs’ in some way from the others.

No, the most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is the well-meaning individual who tries to water down, reinterpret, or cobble together a false ecumenism by advising one group to ‘play down’ doctrine A, another group to ‘broaden’ doctrine B, and the third group to ‘accept as legitimate for the believers’ doctrines C through Z ‘so that we can all be one’.

Ironically, the well-meaning ecumenist is the biggest barrier to the unity he seeks, because he isn’t seeking Truth. Unity and Truth are not synonymous, and attempting to twist truth in order to get unity will result in having neither truth NOR unity.

OK–You win—you wore me down! I will not respond anymore on this thread–(no-wonder it was closed)–I get a kick out of how you ascribed to me so many things–(which a reading of MY POSTS would illustrate I am not). Interestingly, you employed, once again, the thinking of a true Pharisee to espouse your ‘straw-man’ cause by making very subtle ‘ad-hominem’ attacks; not very Christian.

I ask one final time—‘IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO ANSWER LEEANN’S ORIGINAL QUESTION’?

Perchance I should depart this thread as…‘the well meaning ecumenist who is not seeking Truth’

 

[rinnie]

Um, the Immaculate Conception is not ‘new’. It was dogmatically defined recently (because so many Protestants had fallen into error and were teaching against it, even though Martin Luther, for example, believed it implicitly). . .but it is actually Scriptural. When St. Luke writes about the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, her immaculate conception is shown right there, in the Greek, ‘full of grace’.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The single most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is not the Catholic who follows his faith, the Orthodox following his faith, or the Protestant following his faith, even though each one’s faith ‘differs’ in some way from the others.

No, the most divisive factor keeping Christians from unity is the well-meaning individual who tries to water down, reinterpret, or cobble together a false ecumenism by advising one group to ‘play down’ doctrine A, another group to ‘broaden’ doctrine B, and the third group to ‘accept as legitimate for the believers’ doctrines C through Z ‘so that we can all be one’.

Ironically, the well-meaning ecumenist is the biggest barrier to the unity he seeks, because he isn’t seeking Truth. Unity and Truth are not synonymous, and attempting to twist truth in order to get unity will result in having neither truth NOR unity.

Does that not blow your mind, how Luther himself believed it, And many protestants still do not:shrug:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With apologies, Emil, I did not realize that you would take the remark personally. We are all of us ‘well meaning ecumenalists’ at times–indeed, I should have been more particular and stated ‘false ecumenalism’ throughout as there is a true ecumenalism which is good. . .

You have made very few posts I have seen, and perhaps as such you are not aware that I participated most extensively (‘mindnumbingly often’ I believe was the phrase of some, LOL) on the other thread in which I encountered many posters who were far, far more ‘vigorous’ in their championship of 'let’s get rid of anything in our Catholic teaching which might confuse/offend others because after all, it’s Unity that counts" --so no, my words are not directed at you personally, I do not in any way accuse you personally of seeking unity at the expense of truth, nor do I disagree with every word you have said thus far! You are most welcome to continue here, as I think you have a lot to offer.

By my own words, the well-meaning (and I hereby correct myself) ‘False ecumenalist’ (as opposed to the true ecumenalist) is a barrier to unity when he seeks unity at the expense of truth.

 

[rinnie]

This thread was closed as it had gone over the 1,000 posting limit…near the end it got “de-railed” quite a bit and went off topic…so starting it up again to see if there are any more replies.

**Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him …Mary or Jesus? **

---

zenit.org/article-23987?l=english

Excerpt from this article:

The Pope’s leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.

“We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,” the text of the prayer reads.

With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: “If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.”

>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Question:

**In view of the Pope saying - “*we will not ****know to whom to turn”… *my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?

---

Peace and God Bless!

Okay forgive me, I need a better explanation of the question. The way I understand the Pope is saying without the Blessed Mother whom would we turn. I explained why if we are in sin we need someone without sin to pray for us. Now what I don’t understand is if the Apostles we standing beside The pope would make a difference. Please help me to undertand the question. Thanks

 

[catharina]

This thread was closed as it had gone over the 1,000 posting limit…near the end it got “de-railed” quite a bit and went off topic…so starting it up again to see if there are any more replies.

**Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him …Mary or Jesus? **

---

zenit.org/article-23987?l=english

Excerpt from this article:

The Pope’s leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.

“We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,” the text of the prayer reads.

With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: “If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.”

>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Question:

**In view of the Pope saying - “*we will not ****know to whom to turn”… *my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?

---

Peace and God Bless!

If the Holy Father was addressing Catholics - and it seems he was - then he is following Jesus’ Own direction that we turn to Mary. In giving Mary to the Apostle John, as He was dying on the cross, He gave Mary to all of us as our mother. There can be no doubt that Mary is in heaven. Why shouldn’t we follow the directive of Jesus and approach Mary as our mother? As for the Apostles and whether they did or didn’t lead others to Mary, it’s irrelevant. She was alive among them. For us, she is present and alive forever in heaven. If people want to disregard the action of Jesus Himself in this matter, then such people have other problems that are much too complicated for addressing here.

 

[Peter_J]

Interestingly, as I do read some of the lengthy posts and rebuttals, I get the picture of a bunch of Medieval Bishops questioning the learning of some poor villager. My entire point is that many souls within & without our Church are that villager!

Not unlike the point I made about Aquinas (here and here).

I suggest that many who have written take up the ‘Co-redemptrix’–Mediatrix cause–if you have not already–and if it comes to pass as a solid part of the Ordinary Magisterium or even pronounced EX-Cathedra, you and I will support and lovingly accept it once pronounced. Perhaps because we have the ‘jesuitical’ thought process & learning to understand the subtleties. But what will it do for so many souls who DO NOT have that capacity and see it as a leap totally unacceptable—the Orthodox–(forget re-union), Protestants who are near to conversion or desire it–ETC-ETC!

Yes the Catholic Church will continue—but at what cost to our MAIN MISSION?

I think I’m, more or less, on the same page with you there. For example, I certainly believe that the First Vatican Council had the authority to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility, but that doesn’t mean it was wise to do so.

 

[Peter_J]

I ask one final time—‘IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO ANSWER LEEANN’S ORIGINAL QUESTION’?

If I may say, I think that as you spend more time on the internet, you will learn to lower your expectations a bit. (That doesn’t sound condescending, I hope? )

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do hope that LeeAnn’s original question has been answered. . .but then, I thought it was well and truly answered, many times over, on the original first thread, now resurrected.

Now, it may be that the answer isn’t what LeeAnn or others might want to accept --but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. It just means the answer ‘isn’t accepted.’

 

[Emil3]

With apologies, Emil, I did not realize that you would take the remark personally. We are all of us ‘well meaning ecumenalists’ at times–indeed, I should have been more particular and stated ‘false ecumenalism’ throughout as there is a true ecumenalism which is good. . .

You have made very few posts I have seen, and perhaps as such you are not aware that I participated most extensively (‘mindnumbingly often’ I believe was the phrase of some, LOL) on the other thread in which I encountered many posters who were far, far more ‘vigorous’ in their championship of 'let’s get rid of anything in our Catholic teaching which might confuse/offend others because after all, it’s Unity that counts" --so no, my words are not directed at you personally, I do not in any way accuse you personally of seeking unity at the expense of truth, nor do I disagree with every word you have said thus far! You are most welcome to continue here, as I think you have a lot to offer.

By my own words, the well-meaning (and I hereby correct myself) ‘False ecumenalist’ (as opposed to the true ecumenalist) is a barrier to unity when he seeks unity at the expense of truth.

Thank you for your time & decency to respond to me. There are many on this entire forum who are really knowledgeable, not the least–you. I sincerely pray that whatever our church does, will not only–OF COURSE–be the right thing as guaranteed by Christ, but also will be done with true debate & ‘DUE-DILIGENCE’.

God bless all of you on this board and may even one soul be saved due to it’s existence. Frankly–especially as I age & prepare to meet ‘eternity’, I hold our Church most dear since without it–‘I WILL NOT KNOW WHERE TO TURN’!

 

[guanophore]

**If we could only understand that the Catholic Church’s teachings themselves, with regards to whom we should be turning too or going through in prayer, as is evident from to whom the Pope is turning too,…if these teachings were validated by what the Apostles or Jesus himself taught, **then there would be no need for what you believe to be a “false dichotomy” being posted.

Clearly you do not understand the Teachings, Leeann, nor do you appear to want to do so. Instead of accepting the Church’s teaching, you have analyzed the private prayers of the Pope and judged His spirituality according to your own limited views of what the communion of saints is about (or is not, since you don’t seem to believe it exists).

In fact, the communion of saints does exist, whether you choose to accept it or not, and Jesus listens to His mother, whether you object to that or not. What you have posted is a false dichotomy, because Mary, as the perfect Christian, always prays in the will of the father, and the Pope knows this, as does every Christian who understands what the glorification of the Saints actually accomplishes.

It is curious that this subject seems to bother you so much.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do hope that LeeAnn’s original question has been answered. . .but then, I thought it was well and truly answered, many times over, on the original first thread, now resurrected.

Now, it may be that the answer isn’t what LeeAnn or others might want to accept --but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. It just means the answer ‘isn’t accepted.’

It was answered, Tantum. Do not worry. It was answered well, thanks largely in part to your contribution.

 

[guanophore]

Hey!! Where did you find that:wink: copy of the “Book of the Complete Sermons of All the Apostles”??
I want one!! :yup: :yup:

I want one too! Does anyone know where the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Apostolic Prayer book is?

Acts 2:41-42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

How about the handbook for fellowship?

If anyone knows where to get Paul’s Tyrannus lectures, I would give my eye teeth for those!

Acts 19:8-10
9 When some stubbornly refused to believe and spoke evil of the Way before the congregation, he left them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord.

That Paul has more stamina than all the Apologists at CAF put together!

 

[Leeann]

Thanks for all the responses and postings!

Thread still open for any others who wish to contribute their thoughts…

 

[Peter_J]

Leeann et al.,

I think the biggest problem with the answers that have been given, my own included, is the lack of sources/references. I imagine their are papal statements, or statements from reputable Catholic theologians, elaborating on the “we wouldn’t know whom else to turn to” rhetoric, but I really wouldn’t know how to go about finding them.

(Perhaps that’s part of the reason that we tend to go off topic a little. It’s easier to e.g. post Aquinas’ explanation of “praying to the saints”, or to find a good commentary on “co-redemptrix”/“mediatrix”, than to find a good commentary on “we wouldn’t know whom else to turn to”. Perhaps.)

Have you considered submitting your question to e.g. EWTN’s Q&A?