Why Mary is Co-Redemtrix

[ralphinal]

Anyone who goes the route of above that I highlighted should probably be retaught.

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.

I do not disagree. My point is that we should be careful not so much about insults but about changing the message. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[ralphinal]

The cause belongs to God, she aided by her obedience,

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.

No issue.

 

[Ceil-1]

The objections:

She is being made a fourth person of the Trinity.

1Cor. 3:9 (We are all called to be co-workers with God)

Co means with.

At the climax of the Sacrifice, Jesus said: Ecce Mater Tuua
(Behold your mother)

It is not based on Scripture.

Genesis: 1st reference of redeemer and mother.

Luke: 1:39 She gave the body to Jesus. He gives this body to us.

Luke 2:35 The Presentation: “your heart will be pierced, too”.

Her role did not cease with the glorification of her Son. Mary was spiritually crucified. (I think we are supposed to be, as well.)

It is impossible for a human to have a part in redemption because it is a divine act.

Redemption was divine, but humans are invited to participate.
1 Timothy 2:1 We are called to interceed for one another. This is an act of redemption. We are coredeemers with Christ, when we offer things up, it releases graces. Leading others to faith in Christ is also a cooperation.

It is against the ecumenical mission.

In matters of faith, compromise is against God.
An essential teaching is Our Lady’s role.

It is purported that this dogma will bring forth peace.

 

[Ceil-1]

Mary is the center of the repose of the Trinity.

Our minds are incapable of fathoming this because of our unworthiness and concupiscience. (For sure)

Supplication before the throne of God is so powerful, it is incomprehensible.

The world was not worthy to receive Him, but she was specially graced to do so.

Eve was of Adam’s flesh, Jesus of Mary’s

The supplications of Esther, an advocate of the Jews, was a prefigurement of Mary.

She is mother of the Mystical Body.

God will produce fruit in a soul where he finds Mary (HS is there)…

 

[sambos671]

I’m sorry for me this whole thread is sounding entirely wrong. From the Discussions of Co-redemtrix, Mary married to the Holy Spirit, was not really married to Joseph because she would be cheating on God that she has suffered more than any other human. Sounds like this stuff to me.

[QUOTEThis passion, they say, consisted in a desire to search into the nature of the Father; for she wished, according to them, to comprehend his greatness. When she could not attain her end, inasmuch as she aimed at an impossibility, and thus became involved in an extreme agony of mind, while both on account of the vast profundity as well as the unsearchable nature of the Father, and on account of the love she bore him, she was ever stretching herself forward]

When, however, she in some measure made the attempt, strength failed her, and she became a suppliant of the Father. The other Æons, Nous in particular, presented their supplications along with her. And hence they declare material substance2672

And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos…After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the Æons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the Æons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the Æons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their conjunction, and taught them that those who possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves

I can accept Theotokos. I have a **big problem **with all the other things.

 

[sambos671]

And what about this assertion?

Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.

 

[justasking4]

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3013

Yes.

Have you ever read and studied all that the NT says about Mary?

 

[Peter_J]

Does anyone agree with that? Could God have saved the world had she said no?

What comes to my mind, Ralphinal, is that Zechariah did say “No” to Gabriel, but John the Baptist was born of Elizabeth nevertheless.

Of course, a counter-argument could be made, that Zechariah didn’t really say “No”, but rather his statement (“How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” – or, more literally “According to whom …”) was somewhere in-between “Yes” and “No”.

 

[Peter_J]

Ceil-1,

Let me ask you this: Do you think that dogmatically defining the Immaculate Conception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870) and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction (1870) improved the general situation or worsened it? (Don’t answer if you feel the question is too off-topic.)

 

[Ceil-1]

Whether or not they improved or worsened the condition would not be the criteria under which I would make a judgement on them.

If these declarations came by inspiration of the Holy Spirit; the
pope had the authority to declare them. We can not possibly discern the reasoning behind it, nor its impact.

I have noticed that spiritual matters are almost always paradoxical. That is, the less wise in a worldly sense, the wiser in the spiritual sense. For instance, poverty as a sign of God’s favor. As the Scriptures say, the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

[Peter_J]

I have noticed that spiritual matters are almost always paradoxical. That is, the less wise in a worldly sense, the wiser in the spiritual sense. For instance, poverty as a sign of God’s favor. As the Scriptures say, the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.

Very true. Another example is Matthew 20:25-27: 'But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.” ’

 

[notsmart]

What comes to my mind, Ralphinal, is that Zechariah did say “No” to Gabriel, but John the Baptist was born of Elizabeth nevertheless.

Of course, a counter-argument could be made, that Zechariah didn’t really say “No”, but rather his statement (“How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” – or, more literally “According to whom …”) was somewhere in-between “Yes” and “No”.

I always wondered about this Somewhere in-between and others like it in the bible.
I never wondered this about Mary.

 

[ralphinal]

What comes to my mind, Ralphinal, is that Zechariah did say “No” to Gabriel, but John the Baptist was born of Elizabeth nevertheless.

Of course, a counter-argument could be made, that Zechariah didn’t really say “No”, but rather his statement (“How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” – or, more literally “According to whom …”) was somewhere in-between “Yes” and “No”.

I always saw Zachariah as a type of Abraham. The answers are almost identical: how can this be as I am old and Sarah is barren."

Abraham became the father of the people to whom the Old Covenant was given, Zachariah was the father of the last Old Covenant Prophet.

Now, to your other question, defining dogmas has not always helped in some ways, and in others it has. The Church cannot care about ecuminicalism whne it comes to the Truth. The bigger issue to me is that we have had such poor teaching within the Church that these dogmas are not taught properly, leading to more problems then were there before.

FOr example, prior to defining Papal Infallability, did anyone in the Church really doubt it? Nope. Did anyone outside the Church doubt it? Yep. Where are we now? I would say that there are Catholics who, because they do not understand or know the teaching doubt it, and we gained no ground outside the Church.

 

[sambos671]

Is it in the Magisterium that Mary is Co-redemtrix?

 

[Peter_J]

FOr example, prior to defining Papal Infallability, did anyone in the Church really doubt it? Nope.

I’m trying to figure out what you mean here.

If no one in the Church doubted Papal Infallibility until 1870, then why e.g. was the First Council of Nicea called to deal with Arianism? Why didn’t they all just ask the Pope?

Or do you mean something else when you say that they didn’t really doubt Papal Infallibility, like there wasn’t really anything there to “doubt” until it was dogmatically defined?

I’m just going to stop there because it seems like I’m entering into some labyrinth of semantics and/or historical revision.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m trying to figure out what you mean here.

If no one in the Church doubted Papal Infallibility until 1870, then why e.g. was the First Council of Nicea called to deal with Arianism? Why didn’t they all just ask the Pope?

Or do you mean something else when you say that they didn’t really doubt Papal Infallibility, like there wasn’t really anything there to “doubt” until it was dogmatically defined?

I’m just going to stop there because it seems like I’m entering into some labyrinth of semantics and/or historical revision.

I think the latter more than the former. It was just taken for granted that the pope was teaching correctly. COuncils were used, in my opinion, more because of their universality and force of rule. You can ignore one voice. You cannot ignore them all.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S.

The Church cannot care about ecumenicalism when it comes to the Truth.

What exactly do you mean by, “when it comes to the Truth”? As opposed to when? Are there times when the Truth takes a vacation – e.g. when you were claiming that no one in the Church doubted Papal Infallibility until 1870 – giving you license to say whatever you want as though it were true?

 

[JRKH]

Is it in the Magisterium that Mary is Co-redemtrix?

I believe the term may have been used at various times in certain documents, but there is no dogmatic teaching from the magisterium that Mary is Co-Redemptix. Further, I see no reason to think that such a declaration is forthcoming in the forseeable future.

I would refer you to Post number nine of this thread where there are several quotes from the, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict), head of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. These comments seem to sum up the issue quite well.

Peace
James

 

[ralphinal]

P.S.

What exactly do you mean by, “when it comes to the Truth”? As opposed to when? Are there times when the Truth takes a vacation – e.g. when you were claiming that no one in the Church doubted Papal Infallibility until 1870 – giving you license to say whatever you want as though it were true?

I think that you read too much into my “no one doubted it.” I just don’t think that it was a topic of much conversation. If someone said that the pope taught heresy, they were probably ignored. It is only when you say that he cannot do it that people look to prove that he had. I just don;t think that anyone thought one way or another about it. Did the Orthodox raise the issue before it was defined? Or was the talk about the Primacy of Rome?

A more relevant example is that Mary was a virgin until her death. There are Catholics and non-Catholics who say that we should not teach this as it is an incumbrance to unity. Or the Assumption. Or the Real Presance. Or Closed Communion.

 

[Peter_J]

A more relevant example is that Mary was a virgin until her death. There are Catholics and non-Catholics who say that we should not teach this as it is an incumbrance to unity. Or the Assumption. Or the Real Presance. Or Closed Communion.

So your justification for dogmatically defining those doctrines is that “other people say that we should not teach them as they are an incumbrance to unity”?