A
adstrinity
Guest
I accused somebody of lying? On this thread?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
#39I accused somebody of lying? On this thread?
Not sure if you meant he was lying, or if you wanted to prevent him from lying, but I think this is what was referred to by Peter J.Please don’t lie about the state of Mary’s concecration; please do not hate Jesus and love the devil like that. PLEASE have humility and ask God to forgive your provocation and antagonism.
Jon
S
sambos671
Guest
Any comment on my question about coredemptrix?
A
adstrinity
Guest
Any comment on my question about coredemptrix?
No. Only Mary is Co-Redemtrix. There is no Co-Redeemer. Nobody has given up for God as much as Mary, nobody has suffered as much as Mary, nobody knows God as intimately as Mary.I’m trying to follow your logic her. So if I accept Gods call on my life and preach the Gospel whereby people are saved no matter what suffering I go through then I’m a Co-redemer or if female a Co-redemtrix? Just curious.
S
sambos671
Guest
I hate to put it this way but prove it. I mean She knew Jesus personally as a mother does. So I can go with she has an intimate knowledge and perspective none of us have. However, how much did she really suffer. I mean many women through out the ages have lost their sons to senseless acts just check out 2 Macc. 7. The prophet told her that there would be pain a dagger to the heart but what mother who’s lost a child hasn’t suffered that. Mary was not on the Cross nor did she carry on her shoulders the weight of the sins of the world. She lived out her days in peace in the care of disciples. She moved away from Jerusalem before its fall in AD 70 to Turkey in relative peace. From there she either died or was assumed. I doubt very much, based on history, that Mary suffered more than anyone else. How then is she a Co-redemtrix? Her attribute was entire and unquestioning trust in the Almighty allowing him to use her for his glory. I don’t have a problem with calling her or likening her to the ark of the covenant but Co-redemtrix? I think you’ve gone too far trying to keep Theotokos (which I don’t have a problem with in its historical perspective). Show me.No. Only Mary is Co-Redemtrix. There is no Co-Redeemer. Nobody has given up for God as much as Mary, nobody has suffered as much as Mary, nobody knows God as intimately as Mary.
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you believe that she will always be spouse of the HS in eternity?Because, Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
J
justasking4
Guest
I’m confused here. Where in Scripture do we find Mary “giving Her Son’s life for us”?adstrinity;4311968]It is relevant. It is very relevant! Despite you saying that She COULDN’T have stopped it or intervened in any way, She didn’t even try. I think if She wanted to stop it, Jesus may have listened to His Mother, Whom He loves, but, that is not the issue. The fact of the matter is, She did not go against God’s Will at all with this. She accepted the Will of God subserviantly, even to the point of Her Only Son dying. She never went against God’s Will, EVER. She helped in our salvation by giving Her Son’s life for us.
Your not getting this from the Scriptures. There are just to many plain statements in the Scriptures that demonstrate that she did have children of her own.No, you are wrong. All who knew Her, personally, knew She was a virgin after the birth of Christ. The Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics attest to Mary being forever virgin, and Jesus having no other half-siblings.
Please don’t lie about the state of Mary’s concecration; please do not hate Jesus and love the devil like that. PLEASE have humility and ask God to forgive your provocation and antagonism.
S
sambos671
Guest
The idea of Mary being the spouce of the Holy Spirit also sounds a little too Valinintus from Ireaneus Against Heresies. It sounds gnostic rather than Christian.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
“Let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is co-redemptrix because of her assent to God’s will in giving life to the incarnite Word. She gave flesh to Jesus so that Jesus could give his life to the world(John 6). She co-operated with God in redeeming man, therefore co-redemptrix.I’m confused here. Where in Scripture do we find Mary “giving Her Son’s life for us”?
You’re getting your Mary’s mixed up:Your not getting this from the Scriptures. There are just to many plain statements in the Scriptures that demonstrate that she did have children of her own.
Matt 13:[55] Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? **And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? **
Matt 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not “looking from afar”. Mary, as we all know, was at the foot of the cross.
There was no Aramaic or Greek word for ‘cousin’. So whenever Jesus’ cousins were mentioned the word adelphoi-brother, literally “from the same womb”-appeared. These were Jesus’ cousins, not blood brothers. Your assertion is out of context.
R
ralphinal
Guest
One reason that I think so many people (Catholic and Non-Catholic) have an issue with Co-Redemptrix is that it implies, at least to most of us, that God could not have saved the world without Mary’s involvement.
Does anyone agree with that? Could God have saved the world had she said no?
Does anyone agree with that? Could God have saved the world had she said no?
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Of course he could, but He didn’t.
Along that line you could argue did God need to send His Son at all? Why didn’t God just say, “everyone’s saved?”
She was a part of His plan from the very beginning and was therefore necessary. I believe to deny this is to deny the Gospel.
Along that line you could argue did God need to send His Son at all? Why didn’t God just say, “everyone’s saved?”
She was a part of His plan from the very beginning and was therefore necessary. I believe to deny this is to deny the Gospel.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Sure He could of saved the world if Mary would of said “No”. Are you saying that He could not of asked another woman?One reason that I think so many people (Catholic and Non-Catholic) have an issue with Co-Redemptrix is that it implies, at least to most of us, that God could not have saved the world without Mary’s involvement.
Does anyone agree with that? Could God have saved the world had she said no?
God Bless!
R
ralphinal
Guest
I am not so sure that I agree 100%.Of course he could, but He didn’t.
Along that line you could argue did God need to send His Son at all? Why didn’t God just say, “everyone’s saved?”
She was a part of His plan from the very beginning and was therefore necessary. I believe to deny this is to deny the Gospel.
DO not get me wrong. I have a strong devotion to the BVM. I just think that sometimes we say things in a way that is incorrect. It is one thing, for example, to say that she never tried to talk him out of it. It is another, as some have said (though not on here I think), that she was so important in salvation that she would have nailed him to the Cross herself.
We need to make it clear that we, as Catholics, do not place her at 1a right alongside God at 1. It is not a matter of offending or being clear to non-Catholics, but to keep Catholics from running down the wrong road.
R
ralphinal
Guest
He could ahave wiped sin out after the flood, making Noah and his family pure and unable to defy him.Sure He could of saved the world if Mary would of said “No”. Are you saying that He could not of asked another woman?
God Bless!
Yes, he could have asked another.
There are infinite ways he could have done it. He Chose this one, and she said yes, but I am not sure Co-Redemptrix is the correct term.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
This is speculation. The fact is that God created Mary for this singular role. God revealed to Mary her role, and Mary said yes. This was his plan from the beginning.
R
ralphinal
Guest
But does that mean that SHE is the cause or aid in our salvation? Was she an active part or passive? Why is it not dogmatic that she be called Co-Redemptrix?This is speculation. The fact is that God created Mary for this singular role. God revealed to Mary her role, and Mary said yes. This was his plan from the beginning.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Anyone who goes the route of above that I highlighted should probably be retaught.I am not so sure that I agree 100%.
DO not get me wrong. I have a strong devotion to the BVM. I just think that sometimes we say things in a way that is incorrect. It is one thing, for example, to say that she never tried to talk him out of it. It is another, as some have said (though not on here I think), that she was so important in salvation that she would have nailed him to the Cross herself.
We need to make it clear that we, as Catholics, do not place her at 1a right alongside God at 1. It is not a matter of offending or being clear to non-Catholics, but to keep Catholics from running down the wrong road.
As far as her “place” I believe Christ has placed her where He plans to place all of us-at His right side. Jesus is the Davidic King, she is His Queen Mother. He is the New Adam, she is the new Eve.
Even a cursory reading of the scriptures, OT & NT show how this Kingdom would look. The Davidic King, His Queen Mother, His Prime Minister and Attendents, the people of God.
And to compromise on this truth in order to quell a few insults I believe does injury to the Gospel.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
The cause belongs to God, she aided by her obedience,But does that mean that SHE is the cause or aid in our salvation? Was she an active part or passive? Why is it not dogmatic that she be called Co-Redemptrix?
As to your second question, not everything needs to be dogmatically defined. To me at least its obvious that by her prayers and intercessions she then, and still does now, co-operates in the redemption of men.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
I attended a conference put on by the Friars of the Immaculata.
The title Co-Redemptrix, apparently, is a necessary step to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart. The union of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts is, purportedly, a necessary step in the life of the Church and to the Second Coming (eventually).
Our participation in this devotion will afford special, and powerful protection against the “gathering spiritual darkness” which is threatening the Church and her children. A person would have to be some sort of moron not to notice the gathering darkness on this planet.
Given the profound holiness and devotion of the FI to Christ and His Church, I am doing what I can to understand this devotion. These people are mystics.
I don’t know about you, but I need all the graces I can get. If I find my notes, I will try to share some of the excellent points they brought up.
The title Co-Redemptrix, apparently, is a necessary step to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart. The union of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts is, purportedly, a necessary step in the life of the Church and to the Second Coming (eventually).
Our participation in this devotion will afford special, and powerful protection against the “gathering spiritual darkness” which is threatening the Church and her children. A person would have to be some sort of moron not to notice the gathering darkness on this planet.
Given the profound holiness and devotion of the FI to Christ and His Church, I am doing what I can to understand this devotion. These people are mystics.
I don’t know about you, but I need all the graces I can get. If I find my notes, I will try to share some of the excellent points they brought up.
A
adstrinity
Guest
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3013Do you believe that she will always be spouse of the HS in eternity?
Yes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.