Will "The Passion" bring some evangelicals to better respect Mary?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

An interesting article in Christianity Today



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 22, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 22, 2004.

Faith:
Nothing new to see in this your latest anxiety. You still don't know what you're talking about. We will favor somebody else with our replies if they bring up any question on this subject. Persuading somebody like you is impossible. Your poor little mind comes here made up already. Go back where you came from.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2004.

An interesting article: 'Seeing through the other's eyes'>

An interesting article: 'The Passion' & the Talmud



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 22, 2004.


Faith, you insist on denigrating our faith and our Holy Mother, the Church. Our requests for you to curb your anti-catholic rhetoric has gone unheeded. Please leave the forum Faith, goodbye.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 22, 2004.

Dear Bill;

Your question implies evangelical lack of respect for Mary (Mother of Jesus). While evangelicals and Protestants in general do not follow Catholic doctrine regarding Mary (intercessor, Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Conception, assumption, (potentially) co-redemtrix, etc.) it is not out of disrespect of Mary but simply a resistance to what appears to us as hyperextensions of Biblical and early church teachings by the Catholic Church.

The qualities of Mary are always lifted up within the Protestant communities; Chosen by God, Blessed by God, Loving mother of Jesus, faithful wife of Joseph, and an apostle (believer and witness of Christ after the resurrection). Protestants agree with early church identification of Mary, the Mother of God – not as a heavenly title of her glory, but an affirmation of the Incarnation of Jesus as fully God and fully human. We believe she stands with (not over) the Communion of the Saints glorifying God in heaven.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), February 23, 2004.



Maybe I ought to allow Bill to answer you first, Bob. However, on first glance I detect an oversight in your post, with regards to the Blessed Virgin Mary. There may be more, but this was a stick-out.

You say most (actually every one) protestant/evangelicals fail to allow Catholics' belief in Mary as-- (a list of differences); since they're ''hyperextensions'' of biblical and early church teachings.

Your very first objection is to Mary as intercessor. (She isn't seen as an intercessor with Christ and the Church?)

The gospel of John, chapter 2, v.1- 11 contradicts you emphatically. Mary is seen in this chapter as very able and willing to intercede with Jesus on behalf of the faithful. We could ask for no clearer proof. Why do non-Catholics doubt it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.


Intercession is defined as asking God to act on someone else's behalf. Mary clearly did so for the sake of the wedding couple, just as she does for us.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2004.

Hi Hope,

You said, But is that verse enough to prove a doctrine that says she is seated at the throne of God--interceeding for us?

No, and Catholics don't claim that it does. It is but an example of her interceding with Christ and one piece of evidence that the idea does not contradict Scripture.

You said, In this life, don't we all interceed for each other in prayer?

Yes! And we don't expect that to end after we pass from this world into Heaven.

You said, What does the Bible say about it?

Are you talking about us interceding for each other through prayer, or Mary interceding for us with Christ or something else specifically?

You said, I can only find that Jesus is the mediator between God and man.

Yes. The question is, but how does that fit in with use interceding for each other through prayer. Because I imagine Mary and the saints' intercession for us with Christ to be very similar. I think the answer is that we all intercede and pray for each other through Christ who is the one mediator to God. We are all united in Christ as His Body and as the vine and the branches. It is all through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ that our prayers for each other have any effect.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.


You keep thinking in terms of Mary instead of Jesus. In that sense you are right, BUT think in terms of Mary within Jesus, Mary under Jesus, Mary for Jesus, Mary to Jesus. Take her off the stage opposite Jesus and put her on the stage of Jesus.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 24, 2004.


Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 24, 2004.


Hi Hope,

You said, I just remember a verse that says something like, "There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved." So I wonder how necessary it is to call on anyone else?

Correct! By the way, no Catholic makes the claim that Mary "saves" us as Jesus does. That is heresy. We do not call on anyone else than Jesus to be "saved." Though it is strictly not necessary to ask Mary and the saints to pray for us, just as it isn't strictly necessary to ask you to pray for me, why not ask for others to pray for us? That is certainly Scriptural. We ask Mary to pray for us through Jesus just as I might ask you to pray for me. I'm not calling on you to save me as Jesus does, but through your prayers, God will save me. I guess in that sense, I could say that you saved me.

By the way, Dano has good advice. It's not Mary instead of Jesus. You also may want to check the archives because a lot of your arguments have already been hashed out there.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.


Let me make a couple clarifications to my last post. It is only by Christ that we are saved from sin. However, I do not want to downplay the unique role that the Blessed Virgin Mary played (and continues to play) in salvation history as the Mother of God. Thanks.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.

Hope,

Catholics don't claim to follow Sola Scriptura, so everything we understand about Mary may not explicitly in the Bible. A fairer question might be whether any doctrine about Mary contradicts Scripture.

Even so, I think you'll find in Scripture that Mary played an important role in Jesus' life and in the Church's beginnings at Pentecost where she joined His disciples in prayer. She was with Him even when most of His disciples deserted Him at Calvary.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.


Has all this been discussed in the archives already? I don't mean to hog these posts. Sorry Bill, Eugene, and Pastor Fretz.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.

Hope,

Are you faith that is banned?

-- Krimpets (nothing@tastes.tastyKake), February 24, 2004.



It was asked if there is a Biblical conflict with the idea of Mary (and saints, I suppose) interceding for us in heaven. While we are commended to intercede (through Christ) for one another while we are living (as the old hymn sings, “We share our mutual woes, Our mutual burdens bear, And often for each other flows, The sympathizing tear.” Gal. 6:2) it is intended to strengthen our bond as brothers and sisters in Christ. However, after death is something altogether different.

Death is the great divide. It seems God intended to keep it that way. There are the Levitical prohibitions of conjuring or communicating with spirits of the dead. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 states, “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.” The dead are no longer in linear time (an item of creation) but in the eternal present with God. Only God and his angels move between the two (Heb. 1:14, Ps. 91:11, Ps. 34:7) St. Paul’s implication is that those who are dead (“those who sleep in the Lord”) become aware of us comes as we enter that eternal present with them (I Thessalonians 4:13-18).

This is one reason we can firmly reject the claims of spiritualists like John Edwards - “Crossing Over” fame. It just doesn’t happen.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), February 24, 2004.


I think we will all agree that John Edwards is a yahoo.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 24, 2004.


This is incorrect, not Catholic doctrine.--

''Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.
-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum)

Salvation comes from Jesus Christ altogether and completely. Mary is His holy mother. She saves no one; she only loves us as her own, and intercedes by her prayers and petitions. Her favor in Jesus Christ's eyes is above ALL God's creation. Nonetheless, Mary does not dispense anyone's salvation, even from Jesus' hands. The most she can do herself is pray for our salvation at the feet of Our Lord. (She does NOT have a throne next to Christ. No one does; except Our Almighty Father.) --This is the implied and accepted doctrine taught us by the Church. It is absolutely true and beyond human reproach. The mystery is that any person would dispute it. It's just common sense.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.


Dear Robert Fretz:
You have a terribly faulty understanding of the Communion of Saints (It's in the Apostles' Creed.)

Praying to saints who have gone with God in glory is NOT conjuring, or spiritualism. That is what is forbidden us.

Prayer is communication and communion. The same as what you call ''fellowship''. Paul called the believers living around him saints. Those ascended in spirit to God are also saints, and have living Communion with the saints in this life.

They are observant of every possible detail taking place in the Church Militant (Ourselves in this life); because they share in what is called the Beatific Vision. God's own awareness (to a lesser degree). That's why they hear our prayers.

It may disturb you as a biblical scholar, to hear it here from one faithful Catholic; --as anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless true:

COUNTLESS MANY of our prayers here on earth, to Mary and to the angels and saints in glory-- RECEIVE ANSWERS. There can be NO doubt. The testimony for these answered prayers is more than plentiful; from the early days of the Church even up to the present day. YOU CAN'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP, BOB!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.


Dear Mr. Fretz,

While I agree most heartly with the last line of your post, concerning so-called "spiritualists", you have some seriously skewed ideas concerning the nature and place of Christian intercession.

You state "we are commended to intercede (through Christ) for one another while we are living". That is exactly right! And if you believe that, then you must believe that the saints in heaven continue their work of intercession, since Jesus Himself stated "everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die." (John 11:26) Since followers of Christ will never die, it necessarily follows that they remain among the living, even after passing from this earth. Therefore, your statement "we are commended to intercede (through Christ) for one another while we are living" obviously applies to them just as it applies to us, since they are still living. This work of intercession by those in heaven is described in Revelation 5:8 ... "and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints". What are those before the throne of God doing? They are presenting to God the prayers of the Saints - the Saints who are still alive on earth, and in need of intercession.

Physical death is NOT the great divide. Spiritual death is! The passages you quote concerning "the dead" do not refer to the saved, who will never die. They refer to the lost, those forever removed from the Body of Christ, from the Communion of Saints - those in Hell. The great divide is clearly described in the Bible ... "between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us." (Luke 16:26) This passage describes the divide between the spiritually dead in Hell, and the spiritually alive in the Body of Christ. It does NOT refer to any separation between the Body of Christ in heaven and the Body of Christ on earth. For these, physical death is merely a change of address, not a barrier to full participation in the Body of Christ.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2004.


Excellent post, Paul.
Mr. Fretz is a sincerely receptive Christian, IMHO. But with all his life's indoctrination as a protestant, we could never expect him to readily understand something like this as a Catholic does. Especially when no doctrine is a true doctrine to some earnest folks unless the Bible spells it out in detail.

The scriptures signal no opposition to Catholic doctrine at all. But unfortunately, evangelicals and protestants have had it drilled into them ad nauseam; Catholics worship Mary! If the big lie is repeated to you as an unrelenting ''truth'' for most of your life, you'll recoil instinctively from counter- arguments. The Catholic counter-argument above all.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.


Eugene,

Salvation comes from Jesus Christ altogether and completely. Mary is His holy mother. She saves no one; she only loves us as her own, and intercedes by her prayers and petitions. Her favor in Jesus Christ's eyes is above ALL God's creation. Nonetheless, Mary does not dispense anyone's salvation, even from Jesus' hands. The most she can do herself is pray for our salvation at the feet of Our Lord.

"When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10)."

"And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the 'Coredemptrix.'"

"It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man."

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

This is incorrect, not Catholic doctrine.-- ''Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation. -- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum)

"Mary is invoked in the Church under the title Mediatrix of all grace. All the graces which flow from the redemption of Jesus Christ are granted to the human family through the motherly intercession of Mary. Mary mediated Jesus Christ, the Author of all graces, to the world when she agreed to be the human mother of God made man (cf. Lk 1:38). And from the cross at Calvary (Jn 19:26) and as the final gift to humanity, Jesus gives Mary as a spiritual mother to us all: "Son, behold your mother" (cf. Jn 19:26). For this reason, Vatican II refers to Mary as a "mother to us in the order of grace " (Lumen Gentium, n. 62) and several twentieth century popes have officially taught the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, quoting the words of St Bernard: "It is the will of God that we obtain all favours through Mary." The Mediatrix performs this task in intimate union with the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, with whom she began the drama of our Lord's Redemption at the Annunciation (cf. Lk. 1:35)."

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

(She does NOT have a throne next to Christ. No one does; except Our Almighty Father.) --This is the implied and accepted doctrine taught us by the Church. It is absolutely true and beyond human reproach. The mystery is that any person would dispute it. It's just common sense.

"Mary is our Advocate for people of God, in that she takes the petitions of her earthly children, especially in times of difficulties, and brings them through her maternal intercession before her Son and our Lord Jesus."

"In the Old Testament, the Queen Mother brought the petitioned needs of the people of Israel to the throne of her son the king (cf. 1 Kings 2:19). Now Mary is the new Queen Mother and Advocate in the new Kingdom of her Son, who brings the petitioned needs of the people of God to the throne of her glorious Son, Christ the King, particularly in our present difficult times."

"The universal mediation of the Mother of Jesus as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate for the people of God is already contained in the official and authoritative teachings of the Church's Magisterium. Now, at the summit of the Marian era, what remains is the final proclamation by the Church of this final Marian doctrine as Christian dogma revealed by God."

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

"Dr. Mark Miravalle, Associate Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, has written the book, MARY: COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE. This work theologically expounds these roles of Mary in Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the teachings of the Church's Magisterium, and humbly calls for our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, to proclaim and define the universal mediation of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate as "Christian dogma revealed by God, in rightful veneration of the Mother of Jesus, and for the good of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ". Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, O.P., who served as Papal Theologian for every pope from Pius XII to John Paul II, has written the foreword in strong endorsement of this work, and himself asserts, quoting the call for papal definition of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, 'I share the hope of Dr. Mark Miravalle'."

"Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix) is an international lay organization that seeks to work for the papal definition of our Lady as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate by gathering petitions from the faithful throughout the world in humble support of our Holy Father for this final Marian dogma. Vox Populi is distributing Professor Miravalle's work throughout the world in nine languages, and has already received nearly 7 million petitions. Vox Populi has also received the endorsements of 43 cardinals and over 550 bishops worldwide from the Universal Church. The two previous popes who defined Marian Dogma, Pius IX and Pius XII, both referred to the international petitions of the faithful as one of the criteria that led to the final acts of papally defining the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption."

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

Furthermore, Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Logically, in order for us to get to the Covenant, we have to go through the Ark (somehow, even unknowingly); and in order for the Covenant to get to us, He has to go through the Ark.

God bless you.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 24, 2004.


Robert,

Nietszche proclaimed, "God is dead. God remains dead."

(some) Protestants proclaim, "Mary is dead. Mary remains dead."

Both proclamations are lies.

Both Nietszche and (some) Protestants are liars.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 24, 2004.


Eugene said, The scriptures signal no opposition to Catholic doctrine at all. But unfortunately, evangelicals and protestants have had it drilled into them ad nauseam; Catholics worship Mary! If the big lie is repeated to you as an unrelenting ''truth'' for most of your life, you'll recoil instinctively from counter- arguments. The Catholic counter-argument above all.

The sad truth is, this happens with some nominal or lapsed Catholics too, who soon become former Catholics, and then become fervent anti- Catholics. A lot of these people may have even been "Catholic" most of their lives, but never heard or believed the truth about what Catholicism really teaches.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.


That's why it's also very important for Catholics to study the Word of God! It is, after all one of the three pillars of our Faith, including Sacred Tradition and the official teachings of the Magesterium.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 24, 2004.

Dear Pro-Mary: Everybody in our forum of Catholic faith is ''Pro-Mary''. We treasure the Mother of our Redeemer as the Jewel in Christ's own crown.

I was offering my insight into what you claimed was Catholic doctrine in order that anti-Catholic observers would understand the facts.

Co-Mediatrix as the term is used now does not refer to Mary in any way as proper to our salvation. That is not her office. She is referred to as Co-Mediatrix of All Graces; and it's not so extravagant a title. Yet, graces are not salvation. We come to salvation at its only source; the Saviour of Mankind. There is no Other. Grace can be attained in any of the Catholic Church's sacraments. Ultimately we receive it out of Christ's infinite merits. Grace is what Mary can help us to attain from Jesus, not our actual salvation. Christ has His most Sacred Heart set on pleasing His Holy Mother and we should always ask for her intercession. But she cannot save a soul by prayer or intercession. She can only plead for that soul. We are saved by Jesus Christ and only Jesus. That is certainly Mary's hope and intent; but only the Son of God can save souls. It was Jesus alone who paid for all men the price of their salvation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.


Eugene,

"Yet, graces are not salvation."

Salvation/Justification IS Grace:

CCC 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the GRACE OF SALVATION is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless GRACE OF BECOMING A CHILD OF GOD were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

CCC 1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."

CCC 987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).

Mediatrix of all grace:

"As Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not "rival" Christ’s mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite "reservoir" of all grace, which is destributed to us through Mary. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators. In Pope John Paul II’s Wednesday audience of October 1, 1997, the Pope addressed this very issue:

"Mary’s maternal mediation does not obscure the unique and perfect mediation of Christ. Indeed, after calling Mary ‘Mediatrix’, the Council is careful to explain that this ‘neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator’ (Lumen gentium, n.62)....In addition, the Council states that ‘Mary’s function as Mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power’ (Lumen gentium, n.60).

"Therefore, far from being an obstacle to the exercise of Christ’s unique mediation, Mary instead highlights its fruitfulness and efficacy....In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5-6), the text of St. Paul’s Letter to Timothy excludes any other parallel mediation, but not subordinate mediation. In fact, before emphasizing the one exclusive mediation of Christ, the author urges ‘that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men’ (2:1). Are not prayers a form of mediation? Indeed, according to St. Paul, the unique mediation of Christ is meant to encourage other dependent, ministerial forms of mediation. By proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation, the Apostle intends only to exclude any autonomous or rival mediation, and not other forms compatible with the infinite value of the Saviour’s work.

"In fact, ‘just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold co-operation which is but a sharing in this one source’ (Lumen gentium, n.62)....In truth, what is Mary’s maternal mediation if not the Father’s gift to humanity?" (Pope John Paul II, 1 Oct. 1997)."

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 25, 2004.


anon, please stick to the subject, which is the movie The Passion of The Christ

thanks, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.


Dear Paul;

That is a good response. But, Ecclesiastes is talking about both the righteous and the sinners. In Revelation, there is no designation as to what kind of prayers are being offered. From the context of the passage, I would be inclined to see them as prayers of praise and thanksgiving.

I may have said this before, but a very good book on John’s Revelation is “The First Christian Drama” by John Wick Bowman. It is out of print, but you can find copies on Amazon used books.

Finally, we need to remember that time is finite a creation of God (Genesis 1 - Day 1, Day 2, etc.). God is not part or encompassed by His creation. Thus, God exists in the “Eternal Present” of heaven. The saints that have died “in Time” to be with God in heaven, then they too are out side of this “finite” creation.

I would suggest to you that scripture indicates that only God (and his appointed angels) have the ability to leave that “Eternal Present” of heaven and enter this finite creation of space and time. We experience that divine condescension through God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways such as guidance, inspiration, sacraments, worship, and prayer.

The Saints (including Mary) on the other hand are finite creatures that have been brought into the “Eternal Present” of heaven. While they are transformed like Jesus in the Resurrection there is no indication that they have been given the divine power of condescension. Their experience is the completeness of heaven. This would include all its inhabitants – those saints of our past and those of our future. (And the saints in this conversation.)

In the final analysis, I suppose that if the saints do hear our prayers – when we “arrive” in heaven, we will be hearing our own prayers among all the others who have prayed to the saints for we too will experience the completeness of the “Eternal Present – the alpha and omega – of God”

For now (getting back to the conversation), I honor Mary as the mother of our Lord and a saint of the church, and I am satisfied that when I pray to God, through Jesus Christ – it is sufficient and complete.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), February 25, 2004.


To ''Pro-Mary''---
Here's a copy of your words: ''Jesus is also in Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.''

That last part is NOT Catholic teaching. Mary definitely cannot save us. We love and honor the Mother of God. But we are only saved by Jesus Christ; and the grace of our salvation is NOT from Mary. We acknowledge the great importance of the most Blessed Virgin Mary and the way her Fiat co-operates with God toward man's salvation. As good Catholics, however, Mary's children in this world cannot change what God has revealed. Jesus Christ is Our Holy Saviour. A Co- Mediatrix ''mediates''. There are NO Co-Saviours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.


Just to set the record straight, the Roman Catholic church has made some official writings that clearly say the opposite of what most of them are saying on this board.

Pertaining to "salvation":

* Pope Leo XIII: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order, for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it decends to us"

Every grace, would include salvation.

* Pope Leo XIII: "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee."

* St. John Damascene: "Pure and immaculate Virgin, save me, and deliver me from eternal damnation."

* St. Germanus: "No one is saved but through Mary"

* St. Antonius: "Whoever asks and expects to obtain graces without the intercession of Mary, endeavors to fly without wings."

* Blessed Raymond Jordan: "Our salvation is in her hands"

* Cassian: "The salvation of all depends on their being favored and protected by Mary"

* St. Bonaventure: "He that neglects her will die in his sins"

* John Damascene: "If I put my confidence in you O Mary, I shall be saved. If I am under your protection, I have nothing to fear, for to be devoted to you is to have certain arms of salvation which God gives only to those whose salvation He wills in a special manner."

* "Just as there is no salvation outside of belinging to the Catholic Church, which is the immaculate Bride of Christ, there is no communication of divine grace without the intercession of the Virgin Mary , who acts in the channel of God's gifts."

* The Secret Of Mary (Pg 38) "God has entrusted Mary with the keeping, the administration and distribution of all His graces, so that all His graces and gifts pass through her hands; and (according to the power that she has received over them), as St. Bernadine teaches, "Mary gives to whom she wills, the way she wills, when she wills and as much as she wills, the graces of the Eternal Father, the virtues of Jesus Christ and the gifts of the Holy Ghost."

Sounds like Mary is in full control ! She must be, to be called the Queen of the Universe, Earth, and Heaven !

page 39 "We must do all our actions for Mary. This means that as slaves of this August Princess, we must work only for her, for her interest and her glory. "

Source: The Secret of Mary, by St. Louis Marie de Montfort, (Bearing Imprimi potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church)

Ann

-- Ann Nonimous (thetruth@aol.com), February 25, 2004.


Thank you Ann.
Our Blessed Mother i n t e r c e d e s on our behalf; Jesus gives the grace. No grace is Mary's to give us. She simply has a role as co- mediatrix, not Saviour.

We acknowledge her supreme intercessory role as God has willed it. Nevertheless, we must always be very careful about attributing divine power to her, or any other one. Jesus Christ is the sole source of all salvation. He hears Mary's pleas on behalf of the Church, but without Him and His cross there is NO salvation. Mary will be the first one to caution us about this distinction. She herself is saved through the infinite merits of One Saviour, her Son. In a unique manner; the Immaculate Conception. But saved nevertheless.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.


Hi Ann,

I know you already understand this, but lest anyone reading these posts get the wrong idea, True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis DeMontfort states: "Jesus Christ our Savior, true God and true Man, ought to be the last end of all our devotions, else they are false and delusive. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, of all things..."

In para. 62 it also says, "If, then, we establish solid devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is only to establish more perfectly devotion to Jesus Christ...If devotion to Our Lady removed us from Jesus Christ, we should have to reject it as an illusion of the devil..."

I think it's important to remember that true devotions are not superstitious and do not lead us away from Jesus. Protestants might contend that all devotions are superstitous and lead us away from Christ, but they shouldn't. For example, one would not say the Rosary instead of going to Mass. Saying the Rosary properly should make us want to attend Mass more often. Or one would not ignore their responsibilities as a parent to attend a pilgrimage. This all goes without saying, of course. Thought I should state the obvious since you never know the mind of people reading these posts. Thanks for your patience. Am I getting off topic again?

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 25, 2004.


Closing italics

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 25, 2004.

Eugene: "the grace of our salvation is NOT from Mary."

The grace of salvation is from God. As Mediatrix of ALL Grace, Mary is the "channel" or "aqueduct" of the grace of salvation -- between God and the rest of humankind.

Eugene: "Jesus Christ is Our Holy Saviour."

No doubt about that. Mary is not the Saviour. Mary is Coredemptrix.

Eugene: "There are NO Co-Saviours."

The Catholic Church uses the term Coredemptrix not Co-Saviour.

Mary is a Coredemptrix.

"Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is "participation" in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title "Coredemptrix" never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary’s unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. "Coredemptrix" is a Latin word; the prefix "co" in the title, "Coredemptrix," derives from the Latin word "cum," which means "with," not "equal to." Mary’s sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will." -- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

As I posted earlier, "When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10)." -- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici.

Again, "redemption ... by Jesus Christ." Again, "Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family."

You misunderstood my statement, "O yes, including salvation." You thought that I was saying -- Mary is the Saviour. I am NOT saying that she is the Saviour. Jesus is the Saviour. Mary is Coredemptrix.

Since Mary is also the Mediatrix of ALL Grace, I said, "All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation." In other words, the grace of salvation which comes from God has to pass through Mary before reaching us :(Ann's post agrees) Pope Leo XIII: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order, for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it decends to us." (Ann continues) Every grace, would include salvation.

Mary is a "channel" or an "aqueduct" for the grace of Salvation. As Mediatrix of ALL Graces, Salvation from Jesus has to pass through Mary in order to reach us : * St. Germanus: "No one is saved but THROUGH Mary")

All of Ann's quotes support the fact that Mary is Mediatrix of ALL Grace including the grace of salvation.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 25, 2004.


The grace of salvation, Sir/Madam, is a misnomer as you are using the word. Salvation stands as an accomplishment; something carried out. We are saved by God's grace; proceeding from the blood of Our Saviour on the Cross of Calvary. The grace of Jesus Christ is wholly a merit He earned for us by His passion, death and resurrection; NO one else died on the cross to bring us that grace. Mary stood by Jesus at the foot of the cross; and from there is a co-mediatrix. If you choose to dispute this, it might be better for somebody else to act instead of me. I understand salvation very well; but so far have had no effect on your conception of the word. It is not merely a ''grace''; that's all I care to say. I won't answer any more of your posts.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

Eugene: The grace of salvation, Sir/Madam, is a misnomer as you are using the word.

You have misunderstood my conception of the grace of salvation.
I have a Catholic understanding of the grace of salvation:

CCC 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:

CCC 1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

CCC 1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.

Eugene: The grace of Jesus Christ is wholly a merit He earned for us by His passion, death and resurrection; NO one else died on the cross to bring us that grace.

Nevertheless, the Blood of Jesus Christ shed on the Cross came from the Immaculate blood of Mary, His Mother -- therefore, she is Coredemptrix.

Peace be with you.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 25, 2004.


I think most Catholics fairly clearly understand the role that Mary played in the events leading up to her son's death, resurrection and salvation of the world. But the hairs being split as this thread meanderes away from the original question,... with words tossed around like "coredemtrix," honestly, are enough to make Protestants think we "Worship" Mary. I'm sure there must be simpler, more "everyday" language that would be more descriptive, more "available" and frankly (for me) less weird sounding. If I didn't already understand the Catholic relationship with Mary, I would be more confused and put off by the wanderings of this thread than ever.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 25, 2004.

Dear Jim: It's really BECAUSE we know the true place of Our Blessed Mother, and will not allow the cluster of glorious titles she has been offered by the faithful to mislead the likes of you into false premises about the Church--

--That my efforts to cool off this extravagant Catholic have reached such extremes. There are always fanatics in our midst who care little for the Church and her mission; but mainly for lavish devotional excess.

When good Catholics understand doctrine correctly they don't fall into fanaticism. Yet, every kind of fish was gathered once into Peter's net; I believe 153 of the species? It's to be expected. Pro-Mary just wants to be heard and appreciated. We're his/her brethren here, and we are capable of keeping him/her orthodox. It's a spiritual work of mercy. Please observe, and learn something new.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.


Jim,

Too late. Protestants ALREADY think that we worship Mary.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 25, 2004.


Eugene,

You should blame the extravagance, fanaticism, and lavish devotional excess -- on Pope John Paul II, the 43 Cardinals, the 550 Bishops worldwide, the Saints, and the Popes -- who endorse that Mary is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate; you shouldn't blame me.

As usual, your perennial arrogance and enormous pride overpowered you -- you started blurting out false accusations. Nothing seems to cool you off; not even lent -- and you proudly consider yourself a good Catholic.

Contrary to what you think, vainglory means nothing to me; I know that vainglory is your goal -- a weakness of yours -- proven by the archives of this forum. I am only interested in the Truth.

The Catholic Church -- Pope John Paul II, 43 Cardinals, 550 Bishops -- is about to define the 5th Marian dogma -- and you are in opposition -- calling it extravagance, fanaticism, and lavish devotional excess; therefore, you are not as orthodox as you might think. Maybe you might still learn something new.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 26, 2004.


Ann,

Open your eyes. The unbiblical tradition of Sola Scriptura is largely responsible for the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting, contradicting sects, each claiming to have the truth as a result of Sola Scriptura. Obviously, a large portion of what they teach is false, for truth cannot be in conflict with truth. Jesus said the TRUTH would set us free. He also said "by their fruit shall ye know them". The fruit of genuine Biblical Christianity, looking to the Church as the infallible pillar and foundation of truth, is 2,000 years of doctrinal unity. The fruit of the manmade tradition of Sola Scriptura is 450 years of division and disintegration. Jesus prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE, just as You Father and I are ONE". Which of these histories sounds closer to the prayer of Jesus? The constant, unchanging Rock of Catholic truth? Or the shifting, eroding sands of Protestant private interpretation and traditionalism?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 26, 2004.


I think Jim has a good point about this whole discussion. Also, it doesn't seem to fit under the original title by Bill anymore. Is it worth starting a new thread to discuss what is meant by co-Redemptrix and what real devotion to Mary is all about? I'm kind of struggling with all this myself and I think an open discussion among Catholics would be worthwile to put it all in "laymen's" terms.

Eugene's posts in this forum all seem orthodox to me. I think that Eugene and Pro-Mary aren't that far off from each other, if we can get to a common understanding of terms.

Misunderstandings about Mary seem to be one of the reasons some Catholics leave the Church and act as stumbling blocks for some Protestants to come into the Church. This might be a good discussion.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 26, 2004.


Thanks, Andy. And--Thanks, Pro-Mary. You've put your finger exactly where I would: ''Saints, and the Popes -- who endorse that Mary is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate; you shouldn't blame me.'' --With some alterations. no one yet believes or teaches that Mary was a ''co- redemptrist''. The other two titles are apropos, I have no quarrel with you about them.

Mary simply hasn't ''redeemed'' us-- She bore the Holy Redeemer. She doesn't save anyone as salvation is defined. She gave us a Saviour, by the grace of God. Therefore, ''co- saviour'' is what you could be calling her here; and that's NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

No Pope, no saint, no book nor revelation in the Catholic Church has ever said Mary saves souls.

Mary intercedes for the faithful. She IS a channel of graces; but the grace can only come from Jesus Christ. Salvation is ours because JESUS died for us and rose again. Mary didn't even die; or if she died, her death was not a cause of your salvation or mine.

This is pure, clear Catholic doctrine. Do you accept it, or don't you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2004.


Anon,
Stay on topic please...

don't be a troll...

Catholics on this list: please don't respond to trolls

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.


Eugene said, "No one yet believes or teaches that Mary was a 'co- redemptrist.'"

"Through this decree...may devotion to the merciful CO-REDEMPTRIX increase."
-- Pope Pius X, Congregation of Rites, May 13, 1908

"There are some people whose love for our Most Blessed Virgin inclines them never to pray to Jesus without mentioning the name of His mother, Blessed Mary, our CO-REDEMPTRIX. This laudable custom expands the invocation, or the Christian salutation: "Praised be Jesus Christ," concerning which this Congregation issued a decree on March 27, 1913."
-– Pope Pius X, Holy Office, June 26, 1913

"An indulgence granted to the following prayer for reparation addressed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the instrument of reparation: 'Blessed be your prerogative...of CO-REDEMPTRIX of the human race.'"
-- Pope Pius X, Holy Office, January 22, 1914

"In the very nature of things, the Redeemer could not help but associate His Mother in His work; and therefore we invoke her under the title of CO-REDEMPTRIX. She has given us the Savior; she raised Him for the work of Redemption unto the cross, sharing in the suffering and death by which Jesus accomplished the Redemption of all men. And it was upon the cross, in the last moments of His life, that the Redeemer proclaimed her Our Mother and the Mother of all. 'Ecce filius tuus', He said of St. John, who represented all of us; and those other words, spoken to the Apostle were addressed to us too: 'Ecce Mater tua.'"
-– Pope Pius XI, Papal Audience, November 30,1933

"By these words the Pope meant that [the pilgrims] had come to celebrate with the Vicar of Christ not only the nineteenth centenary of the Divine Redemption but also the nineteenth centenary of her role as CO-REDEMPTRIX and of her universal motherhood. These young [pilgrims] must follow the thoughts and wishes of Mary most holy, who is our Mother and CO-REDEMPTRIX. They too must make every effort to be co-redeemers and apostles."
-– Pope Pius XI, Papal Audience, March 24,1934

"O Mother of love and mercy, when your sweet Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, you stood next to Him, suffering with Him as a CO-REDEMPTRIX....Day by day preserve and increase in us, we beg you, the precious fruit of His redemption and your compassion as His Mother. Significantly, the occasion of this radio message was the solemn closing of the jubilee year of our Redemption. We may legitimately understand the word 'compassion' in its etymological sense. Thus our 'Redemption' by Christ and the 'compassion' of Mary become one in producing the single 'fruit' for which the Pope prays. Hence 'compassion' and 'CO- REDEMPTION' are synonymous, in referring to the selfsame meritorious role of the new Eve with the new Adam in the redemptive victory."
-– Pope Pius XI, Radio Message to Lourdes, April 28,1935

"As she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of His Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as CO-REDEMPTRIX did not cease with the glorification of her Son."
-– Pope John Paul II, Guayaquil, Ecuador, March 31, 1985

"May Mary our Protectress, the CO-REDEMPTRIX, to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer."
-– Pope John Paul II, Palm Sunday Angelus, 1985

"[St. Birgitta]...invoked [Mary] as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and CO-REDEMPTRIX."
-– Pope John Paul II, Angelus, October 6, 1991

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 26, 2004.


"Mary's work was to be our CO-REDEMPTRESS, and to mediate for us together with Christ, but of course in subordination to Him. He is the one principle Mediator to whom we owe all. Do not be disturbed by this association of Mary with the redemptive work of Christ. If all Christians are members of Christ, and are called upon, as St. Paul says, to fill up what is wanting to the suffering of Christ, then you can be sure that as Mary, His Mother, was more closely associated with Christ than we are, so she is more closely associated with His redemptive work. By a special title, therefore, we call her CO-REDEMPTRESS. We call her "Our life, or sweetness, and our hope." For, in bringing forth Christ she brought forth us to life, she is the model of every virtue, and above all should be the glory of all women; and she is our hope as Eve was our despair. All this tells us what she is for. She is our spiritual Mother in heaven, and she fulfills the duties of a Mother, winning for us by her intercession that grace of Christ which is life to our souls and which, please God, will mean eternal life in the end."
-- Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty, Radio Replies, Second Volume, 1940

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 26, 2004.

Thank you, Pro-Mary;
I am in agreement with fathers Rumble & Carty; whose books I had already read in the 1970's. You

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2004.

You quote from some of our past Holy Fathers and they call Mary our co-redemprtess. I'm sure this gives you satisfaction.

It gives great satisfaction, we can be sure, to the odd few who enter here for the purpose of upstaging whenever possible the faith of Catholics. They want desperately to prove we worship the most Blessed Virgin Mary.

Be that as it may be: The words about the Mother of Our Lord most holy and correct were spoken by her archangel: ''Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with thee.'' No others will ever surpass them because God said them through Gabriel.

I believe Our Blessed Mother is Queen of Angels, Queen of heaven and earth; Mother of the Church, Holy Virgin and Mother, the Holy and Immaculate Conception, and every name in the Litanies.

I do NOT believe we should adore or worship Mary; but we love her, and plead for her prayers and holy intercession. No one here on earth, nor in heaven except God, can exalt her like He did, giving her Jesus for her own Son.

To say it simply, once more: Mary hasn't ''redeemed'' us-- She bore Our Holy Redeemer. She doesn't save anyone as salvation is defined. She gave us a Saviour, by the grace of God. Therefore, ''co- saviour'' is what you could be calling her here; and that's NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

Going to such lengths to express what a Catholic should is necessary just this time. Because, in your great zeal for Mary's glory, you exceed altogether the care we need to have here, in open forum. We cannot give impressions of adoration or worship for Mary in the presence of any opponents of the Catholic faith. You have every right to post. But I'm hoping somehow to defuse the great harm you can cause. Protestants already claim we place Mary on the same level as God. Many have accused us in this very site, of being ''Mariolaters''. This we can't allow, and if you continue pasting up more and more of these pages, I feel compelled to come back after each one and repeat the words above.

We love the most Blessed Virgin Mary with great devotion-- But she is not a goddess, nor has she any right to be worshipped. (Just so anti-Catholics understand, Thank you.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2004.


Eugene,

Good post. Makes complete sense. Your discourse clarifies the Catholic viewpoint as I understand it, and always have.

I just find the "co-Redemtrix" lingo off-putting. For example, today I received an unsolisited e-mail from Jay Gentile ( i think it was him, ) recommending that I get out of the "Roman cult." and "The Cult of Mary". I'm sure he dropped in on this thread and saw my discomfort with the way it was going and thought I was a good target. I also think his intentions were good... he thinks he's helping. Protestants like Jay love this stuff. It confirms their erroneous contentions about the Catholic relationship with Mary. Co-Redemtrix sounds like or can be mistaken as "co-savior." We all know this is not a part of our teaching.

Am I wrong in simplifying the idea that as a Catholic we love, honor, and place importance on Mary as the mother of our Savior Jesus Christ? We honor her as we honor our own father and mother as defined by the Commandments. Am I leaving something out?

Its just that I believe there is an easier, a more understrandable way of explaining the Catholic devotion to Mary. I think we need to simplify our verbage. Otherwise others will misunderstand, and to them, we do a disservice.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 26, 2004.


Jim,
Pro-Mary is motivated by love of Mary. For this no one would see reason to object. I love the Holy Virgin as much as human beings can love, and I believe she is loved above every other creature by God Almighty through Jesus Christ.

Does she deserve the appalling indifference she receives from non-Catholics as a whole? Never. And that's very easy to explain. She is Satan's unwavering enemy. He rules countless sinners in this world, and they respond to his evil suggestions. He hates Mary. The world will hate her as well, even unintentionally. Jay Gentile is the world, Jim.

Mary has our fidelity forever; those of us who love her divine Son. --Pro-Mary has nothing to apologise for. We understand why he/she feels the way he does. He simply rips his clothes off too boldly in public. It likely even embarrasses the Mother of God herself. (Pardon me for saying, P-M.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2004.


Eugene,

I agree with your statement, “I do NOT believe we should adore or worship Mary; but we love her, and plead for her prayers and holy intercession.”

Anybody who worships Mary is simply NOT Catholic; no ifs, ands, or buts. Catholics ONLY honor and venerate Mary. Catholics are NOT Mariolaters.

Worship and Adoration are reserved by Catholics ONLY for the Most Holy Trinity: Father, Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit; no ifs, ands, or buts.

The Catholic Church calls Jesus Christ as the Redeemer/ the Saviour.

The Catholic Church calls Mary as Co-Redemptrix/Co-Redemptress.

Technically, the Catholic Church is not using the term, “Co-Saviour” but Co-Redemptrix.

As you said, “Mary hasn't 'redeemed' us.” I agree. Jesus redeemed us. He is the Redeemer. However, the Catholic Church asserts by calling Mary as Co-Redemptrix that she has co-redeemed us. This is ALREADY A CATHOLIC TRUTH and we already have theological proofs. The Immaculate Conception has been a CATHOLIC TRUTH since the early centuries but was only defined as dogma in the 19th Century. Mary as Co-Redemptrix is ALREADY A CATHOLIC TRUTH and about to be defined as the 5th Marian dogma by the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II, 43 Cardinals, and 550 Bishops, Saints, and Popes already endorse this CATHOLIC TRUTH.

In addition to Mary’s rightful titles as the Mother of God, Ever- Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and Queen of Heaven and Earth, the Popes have begun to call her as Co-Redemptrix as well.

Truth is subversive. But since when did Catholics recoil from the subversiveness of Truth? I’m sure that when Mary was dogmatically given the title Immaculate Conception the protestants went on strike. Catholics should not want the least amount of rightful titles for her just to appease the protestants. Protestants will go on protesting, who knows, ‘til the end of time –- protesting is what they do best. They already have a bad impression about us and they will continue to have a bad impression about us regardless of the Truth.

I am in union with the Popes in calling Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I will not deny her that rightful title. And I will not deny her that rightful title just because it doesn’t sound familiar to the faint- hearted.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 27, 2004.


Eugene, Thanks for your last post :-)

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 27, 2004.

Jim said, Its just that I believe there is an easier, a more understrandable way of explaining the Catholic devotion to Mary. I think we need to simplify our verbage. Otherwise others will misunderstand, and to them, we do a disservice.

Just wanted to add that Jim has a great point here and sound advice for witnessing to non-Catholics.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 27, 2004.


Andy & Jim,

If the Popes, in the span of a century, could further simplify the title, Co-Redemptrix, I would think they would have done so. After all, they were speaking to general audiences which were comprised of the whole strata of societies from different parts of the world. They must have a valid reason for using Co-Redemptrix instead of another term.

For the English-speakers, Father Rumble (an ex-Protestant, an Australian) and Father Carty (an American) give us a simplified version of the title, Co-Redemptrix. They call Mary, CO-REDEMPTRESS, in their book Radio Replies which bears an Imprimatur.

Anyway, if the general public can learn computer lingo: email, website, download, modem, domain, CD, RAM, USB, hard drive, etc., we can surely learn Catholic and Marian terms which affect our faith and eternal destiny.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 27, 2004.


Nothing affects my faith. You may feel more faithful because you regard yourself proud in support of Mary; I am humble as Mary was; with regard to grandiosity for grandiosity's sake. --As I already stated (with all confidence), --men can exalt Our Blessed Mother extravagantly. All mankind, and infallibly so; but not higher than Our Father in heaven has already exalted her.

Furthermore, with all humility I can assure you, Pro-Mary: One painting by Raphael gives more glory to the Blessed Virgin than any title we wish to offer her. It's my opinion; you don't have to believe it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2004.


I hear ya Pro-Mary. Point well taken. I'll have to look at the entirety of the Pope's addresses and get Radio Replies. Maybe the simple definitions of co-Redemptrix I'm looking for are in there. You and Eugene have already done a good job of doing that and pointing me (and others) in the right direction. I just need to check it out myself. You know, take a little personal responsibility for my faith. Thanks.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 27, 2004.

Eugene,

You can’t help it -- you keep on attacking me and blurting out false accusations -- sure, you are as humble as Mary was, as you said. Then, pray for me. Please, have a glass of wine or take a tablet of Valium before answering ANY post on the Catholic forum -- for OTHER readers’ sake.

I do NOT feel more faithful than you are. You are most likely more faithful than I am. I’m sure I am a worse sinner than you are. Also, I’m sure I am way less proud than you are.

I am just following in the footsteps of the Popes in calling Mary, Co- Redemptress, and steam is coming out of your ears. You don’t have to call her, Co-Redemptress, even though that is her rightful title. Nobody is forcing you. However, when the Catholic Church makes that title dogma, pronounced ex-cathedra, then you don’t have a choice but to call Mary -- Co-Redemptress -- in order for you to remain a faithful Catholic.

I like Raphael’s paintings, too. However, which one is mightier, the pen or the brush???

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 27, 2004.


Don't be so sensitive, P-M,
You aren't being attacked. I wanted to correct you in th beginning. You refuse to be corrected. You furnished us with a copy of your reasons for refusing. I said what I frankly thought-- that whatever we say, God has said better; and her titles are great for showing enthusiasm, but even better for arming anti-Catholics with ''proof'' you and I worship Mary.

My own feelings are, DOCTRINE has no reason except devotion, for rendering titles like co- redemptrix. God gave Our Blessed Mother infinitely higher exaltation than titles. But say whatever you please.

You INSIST it is Catholic doctrine; because saints and popes want it so. The fact is, we have NOT beenn taught these things dogmatically, nor ex cathedra. They are purely devotional at their sources . Doctrine is always what the holy apostles taught because God reveals it. NOTHING BUT THAT. Everything God revealed is dogma NOW, and the things you hope to see are but icing on the cake.

I made it plain to anybody who reads English: my love for the Blessed Virigin Mary is exceeded by NOBODY else's. This regrettable controversy is entirely of your making. What prompted me to contradict you is the fact we are in open forum. We often have opponents of the Church in here eager to prove we WORSHIP the Mother of God. It doesn't seem to matter to you how you encourage that misunderstanding with your preaching.

If I've acted crusty with you in my tactics, I beg your pardon. Offer your hurt feelings up for Lent. I realise you're a good Catholic and your enthusiasm is motivated by that same love for the Holy Virgin we ALL share here. I'll pray for you and beg Our Blessed Mother to console you. --Unfortunately, I don't have your name. But, she'll see who you are, I'm sure.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2004.


It's been many years since I owned the 3 volume series ''Radio Replies'', by Frs. Rumble and Carty. Somehow I lost them. They date back before Vatican II, as you'd expect; and are surely prized by some Catholics who dislike Vatican II. They were excellent teaching material, I still believe.

If you'd care to, Pro; maybe you can quote from these books a rationale of pre-Vatican II teachings on ''Co-Redemptrix of All Graces,'' for this forum. If nothing else, a quote might be helpful to non-Catholics who consider the title too provocative to accept. I hope I haven't disillusioned you too greatly, and I want to offer you my hand in friendship; for the Holy Virgin's sake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2004.


Eugene,

You sound more relaxed my friend. Whatever you’re doing, it’s working.

If I were too sensitive, I wouldn’t be here right now but I actually find you amusing and faithful. I know that your devotion to Our Blessed Mother is true. You’ve given her honor and devotion much longer than I have. Thanks in advance for your prayers. Mary will surely hear them and grant them, coming from you.

If John Paul II, a living Saint, the most ecumenical of all the popes, more ecumenical than any of us, chose to honor Mary as Co- Redemptrix, why can’t we? You are saying that honoring her as such could possibly increase discord and misunderstanding; but our Shepherd, the Vicar of Christ on earth sees no problem at all. Must we sacrifice greater honor and devotion to Mary just because protestants have a propensity for misunderstanding us? Pope John Paul II must have deliberated on this issue before calling Mary, Co-Redemptress, three times, on three different occasions, in a span of six years; they were definitely not impromptu acts.

Another Saint, Blessed Mother Teresa wrote, "THE PAPAL DEFINITION OF MARY AS COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX AND ADVOCATE WILL BRING GREAT GRACES TO THE CHURCH." She’s another person who fostered ecumenism and avoided misunderstanding but even she supported the use of the title Co-Redemptrix. Well, she’s more devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary than we are, no doubt. Blessed Mother Teresa saw a HIGHER PURPOSE for calling Mary, Co-Redemptrix -- an INCREASE IN GRACES FOR THE CHURCH. Should we prevent this from happening by not giving Mary her rightful title? I choose to cooperate with Blessed Mother Teresa.

As far as I am concerned, there is no controversy. The Popes and Saints gave us an EXAMPLE in extending honor and devotion to Mary. I don’t see anything wrong with what they did at all. Besides, who am I to argue with them? They know Truths I don’t even have a clue.

You are right, this is not yet an ex-cathedra pronouncement, so you are free to do as you please. However, those Catholics who wish to further honor and devotion to Mary as Co-Redemptrix are, IMHO, doing nothing wrong whatsoever; they are just following in the footsteps of the Popes and Saints.

Fathers Rumble and Carty said :

“In what way did Mary take her part in the redemptive work of mankind, which was accomplished by Christ alone?”

“Christ was the principal Author of our redemption, but there were many secondary cooperators in the work. We even find St. Paul saying that we are to fill up what is wanting to the sufferings of Christ. The explanation of this, however, would demand a treatise on the mystical body of Christ as comprising all the members of the Church, and I can scarcely do justice to it now. All I can say is that Mary cooperated in the redemptive work in a way quite special to herself.

“As Jesus is the second Adam, so Mary is the second Eve. As our first Mother Eve brought us forth to misery and suffering, so our second Mother Mary, in bringing forth our Savior, brought us forth to happiness and salvation. Mary's consent was asked by God when the time for the Incarnation was at hand; she consented to the full work of Christ from the cave of Bethlehem to the Cross of Cavalry. She provided the very blood that was shed for us. In union with Christ she had her own passion, and Simeon rightly predicted to her, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, "Thy own soul a sword shall pierce." With, in, and through the work of Christ her sufferings also contributed secondarily towards our redemption. And she was given to us from the Cross as a mother for a mother's work. To all of us Christ said, in the person of St. John, "Son, behold thy Mother." We Catholics, therefore, regard Mary as our spiritual Mother, entertaining towards her the love and devotion of children. Every Christian woman, above all, should regard Mary, the Mother of Christ, as the glory of her sex.”

“What is her place in the Christian religion?”

“Mary's place in the Christian religion should be obvious. She is the morning star preceding the Light of the World, Christ. The only difference is that all her light is derived from the Son she heralds. By God's eternal decree Mary has been associated with the highest mysteries of the Christian religion, being the very instrument of the Incarnation of the Eternal Son of God, and, therefore, of our redemption. We have devotion to her both because of our admiration of her, and because of her interest in our eternal welfare. When we honor Mary, of course, we are but honoring Christ in her. Without Him, she would be nothing, and she would be the first to admit it. And the honor we show her cannot displease Christ. He was the best Son who ever lived, and would rather be displeased were His Mother ignored or slighted. Remember the bootblack's answer to the parson. While having his boots polished, the parson saw a medal of the Virgin Mary hanging from the boy's neck on a string. "Sonny," he said, "why do you wear that?" "She is the Mother of Christ," said the boy. "But," objected the parson, "she's no different from your own mother." "No," replied the boy, "but there's a hell of a difference between the sons." We owe love and devotion to the Mother of Christ.”

“The glory does not rest with her but with God.”

“Mary herself said that. She gave the glory to God, saying, "He that is mighty has done great things to me." But she did not deny that great things had been done to her which had not been done to others. And those who receive the greater gifts from God deserve the greater honor from us.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 28, 2004.


I'm as anxious as you to bring new and greater honor to Christ through Mary. Whatever her grace from God accomplished ultimately redounds to Our Lord. In that regard, Frs Rumble/Carty express exactly what we all feel. Yet even in this short quotation, they clearly indicate Christ redeemed the world HIMSELF. All the Mystical Body and His glorious mother as well, are in co-operation with the redemptive work.

You and I have little to disagree about. My main concern is clarifying for others the doctrine of Divine Redemption. It is entirely the offering of Jesus Christ for us on the Cross. He alone redeems.

Our Blessed Mother may have honors from Christ and the Church as a Virgin and Mother; yet sacred doctrine is clear: Christ is Redeemer. He relied on nobody else to accomplish the deed itself.

We can easily see; it is REVEALED in the Word of God; --that Mary is special to us; an indispensable cog in the mechanism of Redemption (an awful metaphor, but apropos). If any pope or saint were called upon to clarify or qualify their approval of the title; it is absolutely CERTAIN, each one would immediately confess Jesus needed nothing else but His Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection to bring us complete redemption. No others need apply.

Even so, we preserve in our hearts the enormous contribution Our Blessed Mother was asked to make. She most certainly served the Will of god with all her might. Mary undoubtedly deserves all our love and devotion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.


I had a history professor in College. He was brilliant, with total and complete undertanding of his course material, (along with just about everything else.) But his lecturing style and vocabulary was so complicated, that many of his students found it difficult to understand and follow what he was trying to teach us. They often missed the point.

A few who were motivated got dictionaries and reference books, and learned some things we otherwise might not have,... others just wandered away scratching their heads.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 28, 2004.


Jim,

The UNIVERSAL Catechism encourages ALL Catholics to know concepts and terms like :

acedia, anamnesis, anaphora, ascesis, charism, chrism, concupiscence, diaconate, decalogue, doxology, divine economy, ecumenism, epiclesis, eschatology, euthanasia, expiation, filioque, hypostatic union, incarnation, justification, magisterium, MEDIATRIX, mystagogy, parousia, pasch, pentateuch, presumption, proto-evangelium, sacramentals, schism, sensus fidei, septuagint, synod, theophany, transubstantiation, viaticum, etc.

The Catholic Church never treated her members as stupid persons but rather as intelligent persons. It’s been the Catholic way. Hence, when the Popes spoke to general audiences, they had no reservations about using the term, Co-Redemptrix.

Anyway, if you have a gripe about the Latin suffix –trix, just replace it with the English suffix –tress. There will come a day when “Co-Redemptress” will be as commonly understood as “Immaculate Conception.”

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 29, 2004.


Eugene,

Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, Chaplain of His Holiness said :

“THE FACT IS THAT THE (VATICAN II) COUNCIL DID DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF MARY AS COREDEMPTRIX WITHOUT USING THE TITLE. Here are some texts: “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life” (Lumen Gentium #56). “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death” (Lumen Gentium #57). “The Blessed Virgin … faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her” (Lumen Gentium #58). “

“My first comment is that genuine Catholic ecumenism should never be seen as a simple matter of consensus or compromise even though that impression often seems to be given today. While we Catholics should have genuine Christian love for our separated brethren and respect for their positions, we must have no less love and respect for “the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles”. Hence I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE MUST ALLOW EITHER OUR SEPARATED BRETHREN OR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TO DICTATE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OR WHEN IT IS OPPORTUNE TO PROCLAIM IT.”

“If Mary’s coredemptive role raises objections inside the Church, I believe it is because that there has often been AN UNCONSCIOUS TENDENCY ON THE PART OF CATHOLICS IN RECENT TIMES TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL LUTHERAN DOGMA OF CHRISTUS SOLUS WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THAT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE HAS ALWAYS MAINTAINED THE ABSOLUTE CENTRALITY AND PRIMACY OF CHRIST BUT WITHOUT DENYING THE NECESSITY OF MAN’S COLLABORATING WITH HIM IN THE WORK OF SALVATION. FURTHER, CATHOLIC TEACHING FROM THE TIME OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC FATHERS HAS CLEARLY UPHELD THAT NO ONE HAS COLLABORATED AS FULLY AS MARY, THE “NEW EVE”, IN THE WORK OF OUR SALVATION. THIS IS A “SAVING TRUTH” THAT SAYS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MARY’S ROLE IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION AND IN OUR LIVES, ABOUT US, ABOUT THE NATURE OF SALVATION AND THE VALUE OF SALVIFIC SUFFERING. If other questions seem more important than these, I’m afraid it is because WE HAVE LOST OUR PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL BASES AND BECOME “POLITICAL” PRAGMATISTS.”

Fr. Peter Damian M. Fehlner, FI, STD said :

“Extensive research, in the past and currently, has amply demonstrated that the doctrine now known in theology as the coredemption is no mere theological opinion, whose content at least has been explicitly asserted by the Magisterium, on occasion with the use of this title as with Pope Pius XI and Pope John Paul II. Hence THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF ITS TRUTH, only of the opportuneness of a definition, either because of insufficiently precise articulation, and/or because the best moment for such a definition to be maximally beneficial for the Church and the salvation of souls has not arrived.”

“… the objection will claim that affirming the coredemption detracts from the unique, distinctive role of Jesus as Redeemer. The simplest, most telling exposure of what is wrong with the argument is to retort it: if this is so, then the title Mother of God is even more a detraction. The fact is the affirmation of the divine, virginal Maternity affirms and reveals the distinct divine person of the Child of Mary. THE AFFIRMATION OF THE MATERNAL COREDEMPTION AFFIRMS AND REVEALS THE DISTINCT CHARACTER OF HER CHILD’S REDEMPTIVE WORK.”

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), February 29, 2004.


Pro-Mary,

Thank you for the above; I appreciate your taking the time to clarify the terms with your posts. I really have no personal gripe about the language, (although as I re-read my posts it certainly sounds like it...I guess I do prefer tress to trix) I have a tendency, perhaps a shortcoming that causes me to worry and fixate on what "others" will think. In this case, people who don't understand or don't want to understand our Catholic relationship with Mary. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe. Check almost any thread where Catholics explain the teaching about Mary. The detractors don't even seem to respond to the explanation. They just go on, picking up somewhere else, perhaps this verse or another, and basically restate the very same accusation.

Again, no gripes here, and thanks for your explanations.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 29, 2004.


Dear Jim and fellow deluded bunch,

It is no surprise that you have "no gripes", because you are under "strong delusion", and are once again, as the Jews did in Egypt, "baking cakes, and offering drink offerings to the queen of heaven".

God judged them then, and will again judge the "woman" in the end. Until then, you are commanded (if you are in Christ) to "come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her plagues"

The abomination of this "creature" worship is human nature, and will be destroyed along with all other anti-christ(s).

Until then, these false dogmas will only grow, as the "creature is worshipped and served more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen"

Jean Pool

-- Jean Pool (Jean@aol.com), February 29, 2004.


Pro-Mary ought to have a long look at this non-Catholic verdict on Mary within our Church; coming from an opponent.

I am in no way anxious what men and women of some free-lance Christian sect may disapprove; as you judge me, P-M. Of course we of the true faith must not cover for the bad faith of others; HOWEVER:

Keep in mind that throughout our discussion, I maintained perfectly every truth about Mary. I have never said we must temper that love we feel for her because we'll be called idolaters. I stated only the fact YOUR extravagance in support of a mere TITLE, was counter-productive when anti-Catholic reasoning is challenged HERE in THIS FORUM.

You insist on preaching to Catholics who do not require your wisdom to know all there is to know about the most Blessed Virgin. Did you fancy yourself the only one who loves her?

You have every right to expound on it without provoking those outside the Church. But you're doing something foolish. Look at what this bigotted anti-Catholic says with regard to our love for the Mother of God. It's a direct result of your meddling. If anyone here had disputed with you over the actual GRACE of Mary; or about her STATUS within the Catholic faith, you would be justified. But no one has. You come back for personal satisfaction; not to give glory to God.

Intransigent vanities like yours produce scandal, not love. Neither real love for Mary, nor love for your neighbor. You only come to us as a DIVIDER; not for Mary's sake. You speak without any proof of dogmas or conditions necessary for our salvation here AT ALL. You keep barking up the wrong tree. No DOCTRINE of the Catholic faith has been upset here by anything I've said to you. I for only ONE, have expressed JUST AS MUCH LOVE for the Blessed Virgin as you have.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.


Jean Pool --
Your gene pool is Catholic in its DNA, for your information. All your own ancestors who were not Jews were Catholics. Ironically, you're calling all your own family tree idolaters, and yourself a Christian, when the reverse can easily be shown.

Nevertheless, if what you express here were TRUE; if Catholics actually worshipped Mary or ''creatures'', we would stand condemned. It isn't even remotely so, Thank God. Your post here is merely the crude expression of man's false gospel. You were taught by heretics and wolves in sheeps clothing. We'll continue to pray for your return to the holy Church of the apostles as well as your own ancestors. Goodbye; God bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.


Mr. Pool,

I dont know if you have seen "The Passion" yet, but if you have not, i would recommend that you do.

If you HAVE seen it, and your heart does not melt with sympathy, love and respect for the mother of God, then you indeed have no heart. Go and see the movie, you will understand.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 29, 2004.


Hey Gene, if Pro-Mary wants to talk about Mary, then let Pro-Mary do it.

If you don't think Pro-Mary needs to expound on the glories of the Mother of God, in the same vein I'm wondering... who needs you to police it?

Keep it up, Pro-Mary; I'm sure Jesus and Mary don't mind. After all, it's not like everyone hears it every Sunday at your local parish. Bastions of the Holy Faith that they are.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 29, 2004.


Dear Emerald: You misjudge me-- AGAIN.

''Gene, if Pro-Mary wants to talk about Mary, then let Pro-Mary do it. If you don't think Pro-Mary needs to expound on the glories of the Mother of God, in the same vein I'm wondering... who needs you to police it?'' Keep it up, Pro-Mary!

Now-- did I say let's not praise or love Mary? Was I ''policing'' any Catholic who honors her, believes in her sanctity, reveres her as our role-model, prays to her? Did I tell Pro-M not to ''talk about Mary''--?

No; I only said we do not have an obligation to call her ''co-remdemptrix'', and she has NOT ''redeemed'' anybody. These fixations of fanatical nature are counter- productive. THEY ARE TANTAMOUNT TO WORSHIP.

Mary gains NOTHING; and our Church gains NOTHING she didn't already have from Mary OR from God. Who needs tall stories which turn away converts to the Church of the apostles, Emerald!?!!?

Do YOU? And, please-- Don't police ME, either.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.


If the police need policing, please, allow me. See, to me, it's just suppression. Why.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 29, 2004.

"These fixations of fanatical nature are counter- productive. THEY ARE TANTAMOUNT TO WORSHIP."

iyao, imho. That just simply isn't the case; that's your take on the matter.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 29, 2004.


In my view they can be interpreted so; and you can't deny it. We say one thing, and show others something else. Probably you say, Too bad; they're wrong.

I KNOW we have never worshipped Mary. Or made her the equal of Christ. But there are many who believe this of Catholics. By working up hypothetical doctrine, we support their bias. I only think: Stick to true doctrines and serve God faithfully. Help us be united in Christ, and convert our brethren. Mary will pray for that end, you can be sure.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.


Well heck, if you want a hypothetical doctrine, I'm sure I could dig one up for you. But first I'd have to ask myself if such an animal even exists. Are there such things as imaginary truths?

Forget that, though; let's just get to the point. You care what people think... don't want to look bad; scare people away. The problem is though, guess what: the Catholic Church believes this about Mary. And if that's the case, and we're ashamed of it, who exactly is it that we are ashamed of, and who's her Son?

I doubt Holy Ghost gives a rip about walking on pins and needles where the truth is concerned. He doesn't need anyone's help adding a spoonfuls of sugar to reality, and if He did I'm sure He would probably delegate that task to none other than the Mother of God.

You know, we all get a lot further along just telling the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 29, 2004.


Why not just say this?

Hey Protestants! lol. Mary is not a goddess. We do not worship Mary; in fact, it is in virtue of the complete opposite of the false charge of goddess worship that we honor the Mother of God, which is simply this:

She counted herself as nothing, and her only desire was to be the handmaiden of the Lord. She considered herself lowly, and put all others before her; she saw herself as servant and servant alone. Because of this complete submission to the will of Almighty God, her lowliness made her fertile grounds to become the Mother of Salvation, mother of the Word made flesh, the Son of God, the savior Jesus Christ. Even though she was without sin, she carried a heavy, heavy burden in her role as mother of the salvation of mankind; like her Son, she was innocent victim and willing sufferer.

Now if she were to stand in front of anyone today, she would say "I am nothing without God"; I'm certain of this.

Does that help or does that just make things less palatable? Should I tone it down a bit maybe?

The way I see it, Mel Gibson ignored everyone and just protrayed the Truth as best he could, and it's working. Take a clue... ha! Take a hint. You'd be surprise at what people will actually listen to, and what sorts of things people actually won't reject.

It's us, in our limited discernment, that think that in hiding the incredible truths we will get further, but that seems like just interest on top of unpaid principle. That can't be the way of the Holy Ghost imho, to be telling less rather than telling more.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 29, 2004.


God try, Em:
But you side-step the issue here. No one says; least of all I--

That the Catholic Church should NOT honor and love the Mother of God, and uphold all the truth. Nor can you claim I pussy-foot around the truth about her.

I've merely said what's true: She is Mother of Mercy, Queen of heaven and earth; Queen of Angels, and of every Litany, all of one cloth! But she isn't a Redeemer; and the co-redemptrix name some give her is not Catholic doctrine revealed by God. We are blessed in all her REAL roles as Virgin and Mother, Immaculate Heart and Holy Intercessor with her glorious Son. There would be no added love in calling her something she is not; such as co-redeemer.

By itself, this is just an extravagant gesture, as I've tried to explain. But when we considered this extravagance goes far to alienate those who should LOVE Mary, respond to her TRUE GRACE & holiness, and come back into the Church-- It lends an appearance of scandal-- (They think we're blooming idolaters!) --What could be more penny-wise and pound-foolish? Christ needed no Co- Redeemers! It isn't what the apostles taught the Church! That is not Catholic doctrine. I'm not reducing any Catholic truth to suit outsiders; I'm cautioning us all against reliance on false doctrines for the sake of fanatical piety.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.


But I think sometimes you're too worried about this phantom thing you call fanatical piety. God save us all from piety, huh? Well, for what it's worth, it's not fanantical, and it may not even be piety for that matter.

Let's say it actually is this fanatical piety, which it's not, but let's say it is then.

So what?

What use is there in suppressing this thing that Pro-Mary exhibits here? I suppose because it's determined to be counter-productive to some, I don't know, more presentable form of Catholic expression. By whose standards? Who is the judge of these things?

I don't see the point in gagging Pro-Mary's enthusiasm.

Coredemptrix is in fact the understanding of the Church. This is somewhat similar to the situation at the time of the revelations of St. Bridget, 14th century, a time in which some theologians were hashing it out over the then-not-defined doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary to St. Bridget:

"And it is a truth that I was conceived without original sin, and not in sin; because, as my Son and I never sinned, so no marriage was more holy than that from which I was born. A golden hour was my conception, for then began the principle of the salvation of all, and darkness hastened to light. God wished to do in His work something singular and hidden from the world, as He did in the dry rod blooming. But know that my conception was not known to all, because God wished that as the natural law and the voluntary election of good and bad preceded by the written law, and the written law followed, restraining all inordinate notions, so it pleased God, that His friends should piously doubt of my conception, and that each should show his zeal till the truth became clear in its preordained time."

Those were the words of Mary in St. Bridget's revelation. Believe them, don't believe them, whatever. But that last line? Pro-Mary seems to be doing exactly that.

Look, it ain't evil; it's not even harmful. In fact, it's encouraging. What's up with the piety extinguisher? lol. Put out dem spot fire's O' holiness n' piety! Light a backfire, hurry. Can't have too many dem pious type people running around... bad for bidness.

See you next Sunday, O level-headed one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 01, 2004.


A moral question: if you're hunting for enemies of the faith, and something moves in the brush, and you think it might be pious, but you're not sure, can you shoot at it? haha!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 01, 2004.

I find your foolish replies about as constructive as the contrived doctrinal theology I was deploring. Precisely because I AM level-headed. Devotion to Mary does not require fanatical piety. If she were truly a co-Redeemer, it would make me and all the faithful no more pious to admit it. It would just be a reality I accepted with great joy.

You love the joy without need for any reality, and call that doctrine. So much so that you'll defend an arguable idea vehemently as if it was real!

When I tell you so, you clown about how silly I am worrying about other people's ''harmless'' fanatical notions. I wonder what your actual faith consists of at basis? To you, NOTHING is demonstrable, so, faith in anything is defensible because none of it has any reality anyway. You haven't real faith at all, you judge everything as true just for good form. --As long as it's emotional. And tomorrow you'll play the clown again, unconcerned. I feel sorry for you, Emerald.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2004.


"I feel sorry for you, Emerald."

I've always wanted one of those, but if you can't swing that, Say one for me.

"And tomorrow you'll play the clown again, unconcerned."

Just doing my best to make sure your prophecy does not go unfulfilled. But see, I shouldn't be in here right now; later.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 01, 2004.


Shoot, forgot the link:

Say one of these if you feel sorry for me; that way we both win.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 01, 2004.


Emerald said to Eugene, “If the police need policing, please, allow me.”

Eugene was begging for a baton.

Emerald said, “the Catholic Church believes this about Mary.” “Coredemptrix is in fact the understanding of the Church.”

True. The Catholic Church believed that Mary was the Co-Redemptress since Saint Justin and Saint Irenaeus and Saint Jerome of the early centuries :

“Mary’s coredemptive role with our Lord in the work of redemption emerges as an important theme in the early Church, beginning with Sts. Justin and Irenaeus in the second century. They used the image of the "New Adam" (Jesus) and the "New Eve" (Mary): The life of grace that the first Adam and the first Eve had jointly lost for mankind, was jointly restored by the New Adam and the New Eve. The virgin Eve, through her disobedience to the Father, interiorly cooperated with Adam in the sin that lost the life of grace for the human family (cf. Gen 3:6); the Virgin Mary, in her obedience to the Father (cf. Lk 1:38), interiorly cooperated with Jesus Christ, the New Adam, in the salvation of the human family through his redemption.”

“Mary’s unequaled participation in the redemption of the human race as the New Eve was the universal Christian teaching in the early Church. In fact, the great Patristic scholar, John Henry Newman, said that "by the time of St. Jerome (331-420), the contrast between Eve and Mary had almost passed into a proverb." St. Jerome had remarked: "Per Evam mors, per Mariam vita" ("Death through Eve, Life through Mary").”

-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

Emerald said, “I doubt Holy Ghost gives a rip about walking on pins and needles where the truth is concerned. He doesn't need anyone's help adding a spoonfuls of sugar to reality”

I agree. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. John Paul II has the Holy Spirit. Blessed Mother Teresa has the Holy Spirit. The proclamation of John Paul II and Blessed Mother Teresa that Mary is the Co-Redemptress is the work of none other than the Holy Spirit.

Emerald said, “we all get a lot further along just telling the truth.”

Protestants aren’t stupid. They can see through us. They know that Mary’s Co-redemption is an essential Catholic Truth even if some catholics try to coat it or burry it. Furthermore, those (some) sly protestants will use (some) catholic apprehension and fear to their greatest advantage by preventing the inauguration of the dogma of Co-Redemption in the guise of ecumenism and political correctness. The goal of protestants is to propagate Lutheran dogmas. They hate Marian dogmas. Catholics love Marian dogmas.

Emerald said, “the Mother of Salvation, mother of the Word made flesh, the Son of God, the savior Jesus Christ …her role as mother of the salvation of mankind; like her Son, she was innocent victim and willing sufferer.”

Well said, Emerald.

Emerald said, “Mel Gibson ignored everyone and just protrayed the Truth as best he could, and it's working.”

Yes, Gibson’s portrayal of Mary is IMHO, accurate, exceptional, and moving … a tough act to follow.

Emerald said, “hiding the incredible truths … That can't be the way of the Holy Ghost imho, to be telling less rather than telling more.”

I agree. The Holy Ghost already revealed to us yet another Catholic Truth -- Mary is our Co-Redemptress. We are so blessed as Catholics. We own priceless Truths. We need to treasure them; we need to let them shine for the light of the world; not burry them out of “political pragmatism” and “facile agreement.”

Emerald said, “it's not fanantical”

Thanks Emerald. I am an ORDINARY Catholic believing in what Pope John Paul II, Blessed Mother Teresa, the Popes, and the Saints believe. If I am fanatical, THEY are fanatical.

Emerald said, “Look, it ain't evil; it's not even harmful.”

Co-Redemption has been a Catholic Truth, is a Catholic Truth, and will be a Catholic Truth for all Eternity. All Catholic Truths are neither evil nor harmful.

Emerald said, “I don't see the point in gagging Pro-Mary's enthusiasm.” “Pro-Mary seems to be doing exactly that….In fact, it's encouraging.”

Thanks Emerald for your support. All for Jesus and Mary.

Emerald said, “Mary to St. Bridget: A golden hour was my conception, for then began the principle of the salvation of all”

Mother of Salvation and Co-Redemptress, indeed.

“bad for bidness.”

LOL.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 02, 2004.


______________________________


Pope John Paul II said to Eugene, “BE NOT AFRAID.”


Pope John Paul II said to All Catholics, “MARY, CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN, HAS PARTICIPATED IN AN ADMIRABLE WAY IN THE SUFFERINGS OF HER DIVINE SON TO BE COREDEMPTRIX OF HUMANITY.” -- September 8, 1982


______________________________


Eugene said, “the contrived doctrinal theology I was deploring,” “… an arguable idea,” “…it's emotional,” “…fixations of fanatical nature”


"WHY DO YOU PROTEST AGAINST OUR LADY BEING CALLED CO-REDEMPTRIX WHEN YOU ARE READY TO ACCEPT THE IMMEASURABLY MORE GLORIOUS TITLES ASCRIBED TO HER BY THE FATHERS: MOTHER OF GOD, SECOND EVE, MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING, MOTHER OF LIFE, MORNING STAR, MYSTICAL NEW HEAVEN, CENTER OF ORTHODOXY, THE ALL-UNDEFILED MOTHER OF HOLINESS, AND THE LIKE?"


-- Venerable Cardinal Newman


______________________________


Eugene said, “By itself, this is just an extravagant gesture,” “… fanatical notions” “…tantamount to worship.”


“TO OBJECT TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE TITLE OF CO-REDEMPTRIX IS IMPLICITLY TO CRITICIZE JOHN PAUL II, WHO, ONCE AGAIN, HAS REPEATEDLY USED THE TITLE OF CO-REDEMPTRIX.”


-- Dr. Mark Miravalle, Associate Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville


______________________________


Eugene said, “I stated only the fact YOUR extravagance in support of a mere TITLE,” “Mary gains NOTHING; and our Church gains NOTHING she didn't already have from Mary OR from God.” “There would be no added love in calling her something she is not; such as co- redeemer.”


“MARY IS OUR CO-REDEMPTRIX WITH JESUS. SHE GAVE JESUS HIS BODY AND SUFFERED WITH HIM AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS.


MARY IS THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE. SHE GAVE JESUS TO US, AND AS OUR MOTHER SHE OBTAINS FOR US ALL HIS GRACES.


MARY IS OUR ADVOCATE WHO PRAYS TO JESUS FOR US. IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE HEART OF MARY THAT WE COME TO THE EUCHARISTIC HEART OF JESUS.


THE PAPAL DEFINITION OF MARY AS CO-REDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, AND ADVOCATE WILL BRING GREAT GRACES TO THE CHURCH.


ALL FOR JESUS THROUGH MARY.”


-- Blessed Mother Teresa, August 14, 1993


______________________________


Eugene said, “Intransigent vanities like yours produce scandal, not love. Neither real love for Mary, nor love for your neighbor. You only come to us as a DIVIDER; not for Mary's sake. You speak without any proof of dogmas or conditions necessary for our salvation here AT ALL.”


“SANCTITY BEARS STRONG WITNESS TO THE TITLE OF MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX. ST. PIO OF PIETRELCINA, ST. JOSEMARÍA ESCRIVÁ, ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS -- EDITH STEIN, ST. LEOPOLD MANDIC, BLESSED BARTOLO LONGO AND NUMEROUS OTHER RECENTLY CANONIZED SAINTS AND BLESSEDS HAVE USED THE TITLE, ALONG WITH ST. MAXIMILIAN KOLBE.


MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA WAS IN A REAL SENSE ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THE CAUSE FOR A DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES. SISTER LUCIA, THE FATIMA VISIONARY, HAS ALSO UNDERSCORED THE ROLE OF MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX IN HER LATEST BOOK, "CALLS FROM THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA," EXPOUNDING UPON MARY CO-REDEMPTRIX IN SIX DIFFERENT SECTIONS.”


-- Dr. Mark Miravalle, Associate Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville


______________________________


Eugene said, “and the co-redemptrix name some give her is not Catholic doctrine revealed by God,” “…hypothetical doctrine,” “…tall stories”


“The [Vatican II] Council’s text, which we have quoted, strongly emphasises this: BENEATH THE CROSS, MARY SUFFERS DEEPLY WITH HER ONLY BORN SON, SHE JOINS IN HIS SACRIFICE WITH MATERNAL LOVE; LOVINGLY CONSENTING THE IMMOLATION OF THE VICTIM GENERATED BY HER: WHAT COULD THESE WORDS MEAN IF NOT THAT MARY PLAYS AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THE MYSTERY OF THE PASSION AND THE WORK OF THE REDEMPTION? The Council itself clarifies this: the divine Redemptor’s mother was «and above all others and in a singular way the GENEROUS ASSOCIATE»: «(...) was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she CO-OPERATED by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace» (Lumen Gentium n.61). «Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this SALVIFIC DUTY, but BY HER CONSTANT INTERCESSION CONTINUED TO BRING US THE GIFTS OF ETERNAL SALVATION.» For this reason «the Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix» (n. 62).”


“CAN WE ADD TO THE TITLE MEDIATRIX THAT OF CO-REDEMPTRIX? IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE ANSWER IS AFFIRMATIVE. IN FACT THE COUNCIL ITSELF, SO AS TO AVOID ANY FALSE INTERPRETATION, ADDS THAT THE USE OF THESE TITLES IS LEGITIMATE. But it must be understood «that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator» (ibid.).”


“You will notice that this title of co-redemptrix does not appear in the Council’s texts. One might envisage that this intentional absence was the answer to a ecumenical reason. The use of this term needed further development. It is true that, if the word co-redeemer was to evoke a juxtaposition and an addition to the Savior’s redeeming work, it should have been strongly rejected. IT IS AS PREDESTINED, PROVOKED, CONTAINED BY CHRIST’S REDEEMING SACRIFICE, IN A SUBORDINATED MANNER, PARTICIPATED, TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON HIM, THAT MARY’S CO-REDEMPTION BENEATH THE CROSS IS MEANT, just as it is fully permeated by the intercession of the Son in glory, His mediation in interceding with heaven. The Council enunciated the principle that, translating an intuition of faith, regulates theological meditation in this field: «For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ» (n. 60). In the light of this principle, we understand in which sense MARY, AND ONLY HER, IS THE CO-REDEEMER, AND HOW PROPORTIONALLY THE CHURCH IS ALSO THE CO-REDEEMER. We also understand in which sense, the vocation of all who are baptised for sanctity leads them to participate in the mystery of Redemption. Each of these participations is like an epiphany of the fruitfulness of the cross of Jesus.”


-- Father Georges Cottier, O.P., Theologian of the Papal Househod


______________________________


Eugene said, “…false doctrines…”


“Permeating Scripture is God’s revelation that his plan of redemption will involve, first and foremost, the collaboration of two persons: one divine and one human, the "woman" and her "seed." This is first revealed in the book of Genesis: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head..." (Gen. 3:15). This passage of Scripture prophetically foreshadows Mary with her divine Son in the promise of victory over the serpent. It reveals God’s will that the "woman" share in the same "enmity" (absolute opposition) between herself and the serpent as does her "seed," Jesus Christ. This great struggle and victory over the serpent foreshadows the divine work of redemption by Jesus Christ, with the Mother of the Redeemer’s intimate collaboration in his saving work.


THIS "COLLABORATION" OR "CO-OPERATION" OR "PARTICIPATION" OF THE MOTHER OF JESUS WITH HER SON IN THE REDEMPTIVE WORK OF SALVATION IS REFERRED TO IN THE CHURCH AS "MARIAN COREDEMPTION," OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, MARY IS REFERRED TO AS "THE COREDEMPTRIX WITH THE REDEEMER." IT ALWAYS REMAINS A SECONDARY AND SUBORDINATE PARTICIPATION, AND NEVER PUTS HER ON A LEVEL OF EQUALITY WITH THE ONE REDEEMER, JESUS CHRIST, AND TAKES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AWAY FROM HER SON’S GLORY. GOD CHOOSES TO GIVE MAN A SHARE IN HIS ATTRIBUTES AND HIS WORKS. SINCE GOD IS INFINITE, HIS SHARING OF HIMSELF DOES NOT REDUCE HIS GLORY, BUT RATHER LETS IT SHINE FORTH MORE RESPLEDENTLY.


The Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38) announces the great work of salvation, and it also discloses the involvement of two persons: the Redeemer and the Mother of the Redeemer. THE VIRGIN IS CALLED TO GIVE HER FREE AND FULL CONSENT TO CONCEIVE THIS CHILD. SHE IS NOT MERELY A PASSIVE RECIPIENT OF THE MESSAGE, BUT SHE WAS GIVEN AN ACTIVE ROLE, AND HEAVEN AWAITED HER FREE CHOICE. IT IS PRECISELY BY HER FREE CONSENT TO COLLABORATE IN GOD’S SAVING PLAN THAT SHE BECOMES THE COREDEMPTRIX.


The prophecy of Simeon to Mary, "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:25), affirms Mary’s unique participation in the work of redemption, as it warns her that she will undergo an unspeakable pain that will pierce her soul, for the salvation of mankind.


John 19:25 tells us of Jesus’ Mother at the very foot of the cross, persevering with her Son in his worst hour of agony, and therein suffering the death of her Son. THUS IN HER OWN SUFFERING TOO, THE MOTHER OF THE REDEEMER PARTICIPATES IN THE REDEMPTIVE MISSION OF JESUS CHRIST. THAT IS "MARIAN COREDEMPTION," MOST PERFECTLY EMBODIED IN THE TERM "COREDEMPTRIX."


In God’s mysterious and merciful providence, he willed not only that man would be redeemed by the Blood of Christ, but that man would also be given a share in Jesus’ redemptive mission. As our "goodness" does not make God less good, neither does Mary’s share in God’s redemptive plan take away from Jesus’ unique role as Redeemer.


WE CALL MARY THE COREDEMPTRIX BECAUSE HER WHOLE LIFE WAS A SHARING IN THE REDEMPTIVE MISSION OF HER SON, WHICH REACHED ITS CLIMAX AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS AT CALVARY. TRULY AT CALVARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS BECOMES, THROUGH HER SUFFERING WITH THE REDEEMER, THE MOTHER OF ALL PEOPLES.”


-- Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici


______________________________


Eugene said, “we support their [protestant] bias,” “…turn away converts”


“In the 1950s, Protestant theologians Miegge and Maury identified Marian co-redemption as the fundamental issue of 20th-century Mariology. More recently, the Dombes ecumenical treatment on Mary noted that the omission of the titles of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces at Vatican II for reasons of not offending Protestant Christians was not effective, since the doctrine of co-redemption and mediation remained a fundamental teaching of the council.


It is time to be more straightforward with other Christian ecclesial bodies about Catholic doctrine on Marian co-redemption and mediation, and to articulate this truth with the greatest possible theological integrity and precision, while at the same time manifesting great sensitivity to those who do not share our Catholic vision. This would be the significant ecumenical benefit of a definition of Mary Co- redemptrix.


THE LATE CARDINAL O'CONNOR OF NEW YORK STATED THAT A DEFINITION WOULD GREATLY ASSIST ECUMENISM BECAUSE ITS PRECISE ARTICULATION WOULD ASSURE OTHER CHRISTIANS THAT WE DO DISTINGUISH ADEQUATELY BETWEEN MARY'S UNIQUE ASSOCIATION WITH CHRIST AND THE REDEMPTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY CHRIST ALONE.


IN "UT UNUM SINT," THE HOLY FATHER STATES THAT THE CHRISTIAN UNITY WILLED BY GOD CAN ONLY BE ATTAINED BY AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE FULL CONTENT OF REVEALED TRUTH, AND PROHIBITS ANY COMPROMISE OF TRUTH OR DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SAKE OF "FACILE AGREEMENT."


This is why the person of John Paul II offers a particular rationale for the present opportuneness of a papal definition of Mary Co- redemptrix. THIS POPE POSSESSES THE TRUE GIFT OF BEING AT THE SAME TIME "FULLY ECUMENICAL" AND "FULLY MARIAN." WHO BETTER THAN JOHN PAUL II TO STRIKE THE DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN FULL DOGMATIC INTEGRITY AND GENUINE ECUMENICAL SENSITIVITY REGARDING THE FORMULATION OF A NEW MARIAN DOGMA? Does he not brilliantly portray this careful balance in "Rosarium Virginis Mariae"?


AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 1987 MARIAN YEAR, THE HOLY FATHER ENCOURAGED THE PREPARATORY COMMISSION TO HAVE MORE "TRUST IN MARY FOR THE MISSION OF ECUMENISM." THE SAME WISDOM APPLIES REGARDING A POSSIBLE MARIAN DOGMA. The spiritual Mother of all peoples remains the Mother of Christian unity, not its obstacle.


In regards to the Orthodox, our sister Churches, their generous liturgical celebration of the role of the Mother of God in our salvation is something for the Western Church to emulate and rediscover. Their common liturgical entreaty, "O Mother of God, save us," captures the heart of Mary's unique role in the salvific mission of her Son. In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew issued a 1998 Lenten encyclical on the role of the Mother of God in salvation, which went almost completely unnoticed in the West.


The fact remains that the Orthodox Churches, as do Protestant ecclesial bodies, do not accept the office of papacy, and thereby could never logically be in favor of the exercise of a papal charism of infallibility from an office that they a priori reject. This is why TO HOLD THAT UNTIL WE RECEIVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF ORTHODOX AND PROTESTANT AUTHORITIES FOR A DOGMA, MARIAN OR OTHERWISE, THE POPE SHOULD NOT DECLARE A DOGMA, IS PHILOSOPHICALLY AND PRACTICALLY TO ELIMINATE ENTIRELY THE CHARISM OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.”


-- Dr. Mark Miravalle, Associate Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville


______________________________


Eugene said, “…counter- productive”


”Let us note the ADVANTAGES [of the definition of Co-Redemption] for each of the members of the [Church] Body and those that will be reflected on the entire [Church] Body.


ALL BAPTIZED PERSONS WOULD BE SPURRED ON IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL MOTHERHOOD, unique as each person is, but not privileged (as only Mary's motherhood is). This will mean that each member of the Church could, on the occasion of this definition, become more conscious of its divine vocation in the practice of spiritual motherhood, identical to a coredemptive mission, for the triumph of the only Redeemer, in dependence upon Mary and by sharing her privileged mission in the Church and in the world. THE DEFINITION WOULD HELP EACH BAPTIZED PERSON TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT MARY IS, IN A UNIQUE WAY, THE MOTHER BY WHOM EACH BAPTIZED PERSON EXERCISES HIS/HER OWN SPIRITUAL MOTHERHOOD, mainly through the apostolate of prayer. … this divine vocation of each baptized person to become the cooperator with God the creator, redeemer and sanctifier of all men and contribute to the salvation of the entire world (cf. Apostolicam actuositatem, n.16).


The Church - each particular Church as well as the universal Church - would find in this definition A POWERFUL HELP FOR A BETTER CONTEMPLATION OF THE MYSTERY OF MARY AND FOR A BETTER PRACTICE OF HER OWN SPIRITUAL MATERNITY, BY AN INCREASE IN THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES, MAINLY THAT OF HOPE. The Spouse of Christ would thus always share better, in the image and in dependence to Mary, in the transcendent and redemptive activity, in the spiritual fatherhood of the new Adam, Jesus of Nazareth.


This definition would even seem to be, FOR THE POPE AND FOR THE CHURCH, A SPIRITUAL RECOURSE, in light of the present difficulties, and in so doing fulfill better the plea of Vatican II in regards to A PERMANENT REFORM OF THE CHURCH: Ecclesia semper reformanda. Indeed Mary reforms the Church constantly, since by her powerful intercession, she obtains for her, ceaselessly, to always conform itself to its original form, Christ, and to allow itself continually to be transformed by Him and in Him, present and acting in the Eucharist. Mary's spiritual motherhood is, in fact, constantly reforming the Church. In this regard, THE DEFINITION OF THIS MOTHERHOOD COULD BE SEEN AS AN ELEMENT OF REFORM IN THE CHURCH.


THIS DEFINITION WOULD EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD THE VERY HOLY VIRGIN FOR HER UNIQUE AND PRIVILEGED COLLABORATION IN THE MYSTERY OF HER REDEMPTION BY CHRIST, THE SAVIOR OF HIS BODY (EPHESIANS 5:23) AND OF HER SORROWFUL COMPASSION, AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS. THE CHURCH WOULD THUS SHOW THAT SHE DOES NOT FORGET THE SUFFERING OF ITS MOTHER (CF. SIRACH 7:26).


Such a definition would also be a logical consequence of the consecration of the Church to the Mother of God, to her pierced and Immaculate Heart. IT WOULD BE A SIGN OF THE CHURCH'S WILL TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THE INSULTS OF SO MANY BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS WHO FORGET, DISREGARD OR DENY THE PRIVILEGED ROLE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THEIR OWN SALVATION.


What we are saying is that SUCH A DEFINITION WOULD BRING ENLIGHTENMENT AND DEVOTION INTO OUR LIVES, INCREASE OUR DESIRE TO MAKE REPARATION AND CONTINUE TO SEEK REFORM AND HOLINESS. The Church, if His Holiness would deem it favorable - and he alone is the charismatic judge of such an opportunity -by way of such a definition would ADVANCE IN THE KNOWLEDGE AND LOVE OF MARY AND OF HER OWN MYSTERY, IN THE CONSECRATION TO MARY, IN THE REPARATION TOWARDS HER, IN THE CONFORMITY (REFORMING AND SANCTIFYING) TO HER. IN A WORD, BY MEANS OF THIS DEFINITION, THE CHURCH WOULD BE AND BECOME MORE HER REAL SELF.”


-- Rev. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., Member of the French and American Societies of Marian Studies, the International Society of Patristic Studies and the Pontifical Roman Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas at Rome., Translated by Salwa Hamati, Ph.D.


______________________________




-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 02, 2004.


Pro:
Do you realise that in reproducing vast amounts of selected rebuttals to my admonitions, you only prolong what's been discussed already, ad infinitum?

In no way was I in the least denial of all the blessings we owe; all human beings, since she is the New Eve; --we owe to Our Blessed Mother. How much clearer can I say: BLESSED MOTHER-- ? ? ? How much more can I uphold all the belief of the saints you're quoting, and the massive reading you're forcing on us? We aren't that far apart! We both believe Mary is essential to the very Incarnation.

My words are altogether precautionary-- where ever this belief relates to converting non-Catholics. To make clear what you yourself quoted above: ''WITH HER SON IN THE REDEMPTIVE WORK OF SALVATION (But without equivocation,) IT ALWAYS REMAINS A SECONDARY AND SUBORDINATE PARTICIPATION, AND NEVER PUTS HER ON A LEVEL OF EQUALITY WITH THE ONE REDEEMER, JESUS CHRIST,''

Why does this clearly state, ''The ONE REDEEMER, Jesus Christ?'' You are saying we DO have two redeemers! PLEASE, relax your fanatical militancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2004.


______________________________


Eugene said, “You are saying we do have two redeemers!”


______________________________


ANSWER:


“OF COURSE THERE IS ONE REDEEMER, NOT TWO, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH OTHERWISE. We know who the one Savior is: …Jesus…”


“…what the Catholic Church really teaches on the "Co-Redemptrix." The Church does not claim to place "another redeemer" or "second redeemer" or a "second mediator" (1 Tim 2:5) to be equal with the Lord Jesus Christ. …”


“Mary as the Catholic Church defines her indeed has a "subordinate role to Christ" in the salvation and redemption of humanity
, just as we all have our subordinate roles to play in salvation as co- workers with God, through prayer and loving one's neighbor as part of the communion of saints! We bring people to salvation with God's help, by our cooperation with God's grace, through prayer and preaching and living the Christian gospel in our daily lives. … the idea of co-workers in salvation, reconciliation, redemption in the one body of Christ, even subordinate "co-mediators" (1 Tim 2:1-7) is very biblical (1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1; 1 Cor 12:12ff; Eph 4:4ff; John 15:1-8; etc). The Bible shows us quite clearly we are to share in Christ's own redemption and sufferings (Rom 8:17-18; Col 1:24; 1 Peter 1:6-9; 4:1; etc).”


-- Phil Vaz, “ANSWER TO ANTI-CATHOLIC JAMES G. MCCARTHY ON CO- REDEMPTRIX”


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 03, 2004.


Be that as it may, Pro-- You can't say I'm an anti- Catholic, nor have I prompted anything but love for the Virgin Mary.

I also have much concern for the ones who will fail to understand you, and hit a dead end on their way to conversion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2004.


______________________________


Eugene said, “…fanatical militancy”


______________________________


ANSWER:


“… MARY, COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE.”


“…ALL IN CONFORMITY WITH DIVINE REVELATION, IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, IN THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES, AND IN THE SOLEMN AND ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, UP TO AND INCLUDING POPE JOHN PAUL II IN HIS ENCYCLICAL, REDEMPTORIS MATER.”


“THE DOCTRINE OF ST. ALBERT THE GREAT (NOW THOUGHT TO BE PSEUDO-ALBERT) AND OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ABOUT THE MATERNAL PARTICIPATION OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER IN THE REDEMPTION AS COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, AND ADVOCATE HAD A GREAT INFLUENCE IN THE CHURCH.”


-- Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, O.P.
Papal Theologian Emeritus
for Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II


---------------------------------------------


“WITH FILIAL LOVE, WE THE FAITHFUL WISH TO HUMBLY PETITION YOU, THE VICAR OF CHRIST, TO SOLEMNLY DEFINE AS CHRISTIAN DOGMA THE CHURCH'S CONSTANT TEACHING ON MARY'S CO- REDEMPTIVE ROLE WITH CHRIST THE REDEEMER OF HUMANITY.”


“IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT SUCH DEFINITION WILL BRING TO LIGHT THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT MARY, DAUGHTER OF THE FATHER, MOTHER OF THE SON, SPOUSE OF THE SPIRIT AND MOTHER OF THE CHURCH.”


“THEEFORE, IT IS OURPRAYER THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU, HOLY FATHER, TO DEFINE AND PROCLAIM THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AS COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES AND ADVOCATE FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD.”


-- Blessed Mother Teresa


---------------------------------------------


“Newsweek ran an article in it's August 25th, 1997 issue about a movement within the Catholic Church. MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS signed and submitted a PETITION to Pope John Paul II in an effort to name Mary, the Mother of our Lord, as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians.”


“SUPPORTERS INCLUDE CARDINAL JOHN O'CONNOR OF NEW YORK, THE LATE MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA; THE LATE CARDINAL LUIGI CIAPPI, OP, PAPAL THEOLOGIAN EMERITUS; CARDINAL JAIME SIN OF MANILA, THE PHILIPPINES; CARDINAL EDOUARD GAGNON, PRESIDENT OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESSES; OVER 480 BISHOPS INCLUDING 40 CARDINALS; PROMINENT LAY LEADERS AND ORDINARY FAITHFUL FROM ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD. HARDLY A FRINGE GROUP!


-- Martin Beckman, “An Explanation of the Coredemptrix of Mary Title”


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 04, 2004.


How long are you going to keep this up? You're not talking to anti-Catholics. Yes--You ARE fanatical. (It's true.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2004.

______________________________


Eugene, who is an Anti-Coredemptrix, indirectly insulted Blessed Mother Teresa for leading the movement of the faithful in proclaiming the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.


Blessed Mother Teresa is frowning at Eugene, right now.


______________________________




-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 05, 2004.


If you think so you are in heaven already. I would reserve judgment till the word is made dogma. Mother Theresa, God keep her, was a simple soul. Her word is admirable enough. Not for theology, however. About as trustworthy in theology as you & I are. Yet I don't frown at Mother Theresa. I love her.

You mean well. Let's allow you to think as you please?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.


"Mother Theresa, God keep her, was a simple soul. Her word is admirable enough. Not for theology, however. About as trustworthy in theology as you & I are."

In other words, since she is Blessed and if she does eventually become sainted by the authority of the Catholic Church, then she would truly have became a member of the Heavenly Court via traditional ways and means.

By your admition then, Blessed Mother Theresa is no rubber stamp on the Conciliar Church so much as just a simple soul in service of God. If she was no theologian, then it can be said that she was in service of the Catholicism that always was and not anything new which has been proposed to us for our consumption.

See, that's what I always thought about her, Gene. I always felt like people have been wanting to use her simplicity for an agenda; to commandeer her love and service and try to make her a spokeswoman for something new she didn't understand.

That's interesting. Thank you for that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 05, 2004.


______________________________


Eugene’s perennial arrogance and enormous pride is manifest. He is equating his knowledge of theology with that of Blessed Mother Teresa’s. The Nerve!


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 05, 2004.


______________________________


“The Saints are the Best Interpreters of Scripture; better than Bible scholars.”


-- Father Thomas Dubay, S.M.


______________________________


Emerald,


After her many conversations with Mary and Pope John Paul II, do you think Blessed Mother Teresa was simply used? Do you think she did not fully understand the truth of Mary as Coredemptrix?

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 05, 2004.


We aren't ''interpreting scripture'' Emerald. That's a non sequitur. The subject in question is WHO redeemed us? The subject is letting hyperbolic devotions insult the intelligence of everyday faithful Catholics. By hyperbole, I mean assigning roles to Our Blessed Mother she was never assigned in any proper way. I can call you a co- redeemer; but you haven't accomplished anybody's redemption. If I call you, or Pro-Mary an intercessor, that's much more sensible.

My love and respect for all saints and all pontiffs is just as deep as yours. But I love Our Holy Redeemer without danger or possibility of any hyperbole. He deserves our adoration. Saints can't be included in that category with Jesus Christ. The Church has never taught us that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.


"Emerald, After her many conversations with Mary and Pope John Paul II, do you think Blessed Mother Teresa was simply used?"

I meant something very specific regarding something somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. I think Gene knows exactly what I mean, but I didn't quite understand his response though, at least at face value.

"Do you think she did not fully understand the truth of Mary as Coredemptrix?"

Mary's attribute of co-redemptrix is actually one of those real cases of a need to consent to a non-yet-defined, not-yet- infallibly declared teaching of the Catholic Church belonging to it's ordinary magisterium. It's roots are deep, persistent and go all the way back to the beginning; it's the truth. It's Catholic Truth.

So I figure she would have understood it, even if her understanding came for prayer and work instead of any sort of rigorous theological education; I don't know how she got it. There are many ways of knowing, and sometimes the simplest ways reach the deepest.

Basically, I have no idea what she thought except what you have quoted above, which is consistent with everything else that came before her; it seems that she understands it just fine.

You know what's missing with most these conversations? A good philosophical base in understanding matter and form. Without this, everything seems so... Lutheran.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 05, 2004.


Emerald:
be honest. There are NOT ''many ways of knowing.'' We know exactly everything that was revealed to the holy apostles and upheld in the Holy Spirit. If you mean Mother Theresa was somehow or sometimes inspired by the Holy Spirit, say so. And don't bring obfuscations on matter and form to the argument. We aren't intent on proving something sacramental. Give Jesus Christ His place in glory; and His mother & the saints another place. leave Mother Theresa's faith out of the matter. She had no revelations. She just loved Our Lady, as all Catholics love her. Mother Theresa's pious opinions don't count as another theological authority. We have the Pope.

You act as if Our Lady were being relegated out of God's plan of salvation. We all realise her matchless holiness and her prominence in the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.


"...be honest. There are NOT ''many ways of knowing.''"

Sure there are.

"If you mean Mother Theresa was somehow or sometimes inspired by the Holy Spirit, say so."

I would assume so; lots of people are. If someone comes to understand something about the Catholic Faith, I would figure the Holy Ghost had a hand in it somehow; that's a part of our Faith too, you know. That's part of what He does; it's common. So if Mother Theresa understood this co-redemptrix attribute, the Holy Ghost was involved in that recognition, but again it's nothing unique or new. It's not like He descended and blaired it into her ear with a megaphone during the course of an apparition; I mean just a quiet understanding, that's all.

"And don't bring obfuscations on matter and form to the argument. We aren't intent on proving something sacramental."

It has a lot to do with matter and form, and what's related to the sacraments; this involves the Word made flesh, the Incarnation. God involved Himself in material existence through the Blessed Virgin; a consideration of matter and form makes complete sense here: Emmanuel.

"Give Jesus Christ His place in glory; and His mother & the saints another place."

But see, there's that protestant-style disconnect in the Mystical Body. Why do this? Genuine Catholic thinking doesn't do this; it incorporates into One. The Mystical Body of Christ is one body. That's why the Church is called the Bride of Christ; sort of one flesh like a marriage. There's no this particular place where Christ is, and then all these other places where the saints and His mother are. Holy Communion is something opposite that, Gene.

"...leave Mother Theresa's faith out of the matter. She had no revelations."

I never said she did, nor meant to imply that, nor call her faith into the question. I merely meant that she understood what the Church has always understood, judging from what Pro-Mary posted above; nothing of more significance was intended.

"She just loved Our Lady, as all Catholics love her. Mother Theresa's pious opinions don't count as another theological authority. We have the Pope."

That's fine; there's pope quotes provided by your friend above too. I have no sentiment one way or the other regarding Mother Theresa.

"You act as if Our Lady were being relegated out of God's plan of salvation. We all realise her matchless holiness and her prominence in the Church."

It's actually simpler than that; I'm just saying that Mary is co- redemptrix, and that the Church has always understood this, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


"Eugene’s perennial arrogance and enormous pride is manifest. He is equating his knowledge of theology with that of Blessed Mother Teresa’s. The Nerve!"

It is true that Mother Theresa isn't known for being a theologian but for helping the poorest of the poor.

As for Eugene, I don't really think he's arrogant.

He's perennial, though.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


Pietaphobia: the fear of piety.

Pietafauxbia: the unwarranted fear of piety.

Three in a row and it ain't even Sunday yet. Dude, I'm weak.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


There are NOT ''many ways of knowing.''
''Sure there are.''

No points, Pal. In morals and faith only the Church can reveal the complete truth. You're just tap-dancing again.

You continue: ''. . .simpler than that; I'm just saying that Mary is co- redemptrix, and that the Church has always understood this, that's all.'' The Church does not teach this for dogma. It is a call to devotion owing to Mary's peerless place in the Church. It is hyperbole, and we don't acquire anything by it from God Almighty. He knows WHO our Redeemer is; and who the most Blessed Virgin Mary is. God has no need of fanatical theology gone amok.

On Feb 27th Pro-Mary admitted: ''Mary hasn't 'redeemed' us, I agree. Jesus redeemed us. He is the Redeemer. However, the Catholic Church asserts by calling Mary Co- Redemptrix that she has co-redeemed us.'' This is called PARSING your words.

Jesus is our ONE Redeemer. You gain brownie points again for your knightly service to Our Lady. She acknowledges the good intentions of her children-- NO SARCASM INTENDED. The Church does not command anyone to believe something that is contrary to the real DOCTRINE of Redemption, which is: Christ redeemed the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2004.


Excellent Post Eugene!

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 06, 2004.


Let's see? Do we now call Anne and Joachim (Mary's parents - Jesus' grandparents) Grand-Co-redemptors? They played a part in redeeming salvation by bringing Mary into the world. And what of their parents (Jesus' great grandparents)? Do we now call them Great Grand-Co-redemptors? Weren't they all participants in redemption? No! Not if redemption means "deliverance after payment of a ransom". There was only one being who made deliverance possible after payment of a ransom.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 06, 2004.

______________________________


Eugene indirectly accused Saint Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church of “hyperbole.”


______________________________


"O MARY, MARY, BEARER OF THE FIRE OF LOVE, AND DISPENSER OF MERCY! MARY, CO-REDEMPTRIX OF THE HUMAN RACE, WHEN YOU CLOTHED THE WORD WITH YOUR FLESH, THE WORLD WAS REDEEMED. CHRIST PAID ITS RANSOM WITH HIS PASSION, AND YOU PAID IT WITH THE SORROWS OF YOUR BODY AND SOUL."


-- SAINT CATHERINE OF SIENA, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (declared October 4, 1970 by Pope Paul VI)


______________________________


Saint Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, Virgin (A.D. 1347- 1380)


“…Saint Catherine started having mystical experiences when she was only 6, seeing guardian angels as clearly as the people they protected. … SAINT CATHERINE WAS ONE OF THE MOST BRILLIANT THEOLOGICAL MINDS OF HER DAY, ALTHOUGH SHE NEVER HAD ANY FORMAL EDUCATION. She persuaded the Pope to go back to Rome from Avignon in 1377…. In 1375 Our Lord gave her the Stigmata…. SAINT CATHERINE’S LETTERS … ARE CONSIDERED AMONG THE MOST BRILLIANT WRITINGS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. … her body was found incorrupt in 1430.”


-- Catholic Online Saints


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 06, 2004.


No one has to tell me about her; I am a great devotee of three Catherines, St Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine Laboure, and Venerable Ann Catherine Emmerich. If you think Saint Catherine of Siena, a great saint-- spoke ex cathedra; You're mistaken. Yes; she admonished the Pope; she did great things in the Church. But she never created nor defined any doctrine. Her prayers were hyperbolic, and what about it? Many statements of the saints are hyperbolic; they still don't rise to the level of infallible teaching. Nor was it the Holy Spirit who raised them to inspired infallibilty, any more than He inspired Mother Theresa. The Church alone fulfills that responsibility.

Even so-- you are entitled in innocent faith to follow their example. It isn't a sin. But don't try to define a theological truth. You have no license to teach.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2004.


I mean this only respectfully, and do not wish to throw gas on the fire. But ... even if this term is accepted as correct and fully supported by holy and important people from within our Church, doesn't the divisiveness reflected by the responses coming from good Catholics in this thread offer some insight into the effect of its adoption as a widely used title? Who will really benefit here? Will it make any of us better Catholics? Will it help to bring more people to the Catholic Church?

I'm not saying we have to run away from difficult concepts or positions, but is this particular disagreement worth all of the "angst" it seems to be causing fellow Catholics?

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 06, 2004.


It's not causing me any angst, Jim, really. It's just so interesting how some things, not even dogma, not even demanding of assent are rammed down people's throats for the last 40 years such that if you don't accept them people want to say you're not Catholic, or a dissenter or a divider.

But take something like this attribute of co-redemptrix, so deeply rooted through all time in the Church, and among the greatest saints and theologians, expounded upon by Pontiffs, etc. etc. and...

...people don't want to lend their assent to it.

Wierd. You know what? That's just completely bizarre. In fact, it's hypocritical.

I just find this interesting to watch, that's all. I'll add it to the list of accusations best levied against the accusers themselves. It's just dissent, that's all.

But yeah, I think it would help people to have it declared from the chair. It doesn't cause me any pain, this discussion though. Anymore, I just shrug my shoulders and mumble whatever, man. Whatever floats your Ark I guess.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


What about you, Sara. Do you deny that Mary is co-redemptrix?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.

Frankly, Emerald: If your Ark were of theological value, the Holy Spirit would be moving all sincere souls on that course. I wonder if you really think I'm not sincere. Who has moved me to dispute the doctrine of Redemption with you? Was it a devil? My consent to every known honor and deference to the Virgin Mary is on record. Do you somehow think the devil works against her through my poor, benighted soul? Am I Mary's enemy on earth? Spit it out, Trad.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2004.

"Frankly, Emerald: If your Ark were of theological value, the Holy Spirit would be moving all sincere souls on that course."

Personally I think He is. But you're giving me the Ark. It's your Ark too; hang on to it. It's anybody's Ark who wants on board for that matter. Your wording seeks to make it appear that these things are my own idea, but they aren't; it's just Catholicism, that's all.

"I wonder if you really think I'm not sincere. Who has moved me to dispute the doctrine of Redemption with you? Was it a devil?"

I don't know. Retirement?

Actually, I think you're just afraid of scaring away the Protestants, that's all. All's I'm thinking is that a soul motivated towards home and God can handle hearing these things without being put off. The rest wouldn't listen anyways.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


Catechism of the Catholic Church (they say it best)

she is our Mother in the order of grace

By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)510 of the Church. Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

"Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

In response to the comment of whether or not Mary’s parents and grandparents were grand co-redeemers etc. one would have to consider this:

The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

I understand that Ed was simply trying to point out what he thought was absurd, but as Catholics we must not forget Mary’s uniqueness in the grand scheme. I only mentioned it because it seemed a tad disrespectful. (IMHO)

-- (ubuibme@nomail.com), March 07, 2004.


Ubuibme, I meant no slight to Our Blessed Mother. It’s too bad some will read what I have written this way. My point in mentioning Jesus’ human lineage was to emphasize that His lineage has nothing to do with the actual act of redemption.

What you have quoted from the Catechism here is all very well and good, but it mentions not one word about her being our redeemer. Yes, Mary adhered to the Father’s will; yes, she adhered to her Son’s redemptive work; yes, she is the model of faith and charity; yes, she fully cooperated with the Redeemer; yes, she is loyal to her Son; yes, she never wavered at the Cross; yes, her intercessions assists with salvation; yes, she was a perfect fit for the redeemer; yes, she is uniquely holy; yes, she is redeemed in a more exalted fashion through the merits of her Son; yes, the Father blessed Mary more than any other person; yes, the Father chose her to be holy and blameless before him in love; but, what does any of this have to do with Mary being the redeemer of mankind? Given my definition of redemption, what ransom has Mary paid? What deliverance has she facilitated?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.


'What about you, Sara. Do you deny that Mary is co-redemptrix?'

Yes Emerald I do deny that.

Our Lady is the Blessed Mother of the only Redeemer, The Mother of God. She co-operated with God in his plan for redemption.

However, Jesus Christ alone is our Holy Redeemer.

Ark of the Covenant,

pray for us.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 07, 2004.


______________________________


One wonders if Saint Pio of Pietrelcina also qualifies as just another Saintly “Hyperbolic” “Fanatic” in Eugene’s “Hypocritical” Book of “Dissent.”


______________________________


"YES, NOW I UNDERSTAND, OH JESUS, WHY IN ADMIRING YOU YOUR MOTHER DID NOT WEEP BENEATH THE CROSS …BY THE EXCESS OF SORROW, SHE REMAINED PETRIFIED BEFORE HER CRUCIFIED SON.”


"NOW I SEEM TO BE PENETRATING WHAT WAS THE MARTYRDOM OF OUR MOST BELOVED MOTHER … OH, IF ALL PEOPLE WOULD BUT PENETRATE THIS MARTYRDOM! WHO COULD SUCCEED IN SUFFERING WITH THIS, YES, OUR DEAR CO-REDEMPTRIX? WHO WOULD REFUSE HER THE GOOD TITLE OF QUEEN OF MARTYRS?"


-- Saint Pio of Pietrelcina


______________________________


Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968)


Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, “a humble Capuchin Priest from San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, was blessed by God in many wonderful and mysterious ways. The most dramatic was the Stigmata.” SAINT PIO OF PIETRELCINA “BORE THE WOUNDS OF CHRIST FOR FIFTY YEARS!


Among his other gifts were perfume, bilocation, prophecy, conversion, reading of souls, and miraculous cures. People are still being cured through his intercession in ways that cannot be explained by medicine or science.”


-- Padre Pio Foundation of America


______________________________


Besides being an incontestable imperial theological authority on the Three Catherines, surely Eugene is an incontestable imperial theological authority on Saint Pio of Pietrelcina as well. (barf)


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 07, 2004.


So then, Sara, if someone holds Mary to be in some manner "co- redemptrix", then they would necessarily be in heresy, correct?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 07, 2004.

Emerald,

Don't be surprised if Sara denounces the entire gamut of Popes and Saints as heretics. lol

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 07, 2004.


Emerald, the Catholic Church has declared one Redeemer in the person of Jesus Christ. If a member of the Church declares someone else to be a redeemer, what do you think the answer to your question is?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.

Pro-Mary, you might want to try being a little more charitable in your comments to others. No saints or popes have ever declared that humanity owes their salvation to a second redeemer.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.

Ed, My point was not made, I apologize for being unclear. I am not arguing for either side instead introducing possiblity that both may be correct. Mary has contributed in our redemption, the part she plays in that salvation is crucial for she delivered us the Redeemer. I do not believe she herself can be exulted to the same level as our Lord Jesus and Redeemer by any level, but a portion of our salvation/redemption is shared with her. But she did not redeem us, for she did not die for us! Yet, at the same time without her our redemption could not have occurred. Therefore she is co-redeemer yet she is not The Redeemer. I would liken it to the phrase “guilty by association.” It’s a conundrum.

(I apologize in advance for the circular logic, I hope your eyes don't cross reading as much as mine did trying to put it in my own words.)

-- (ubuibme@nomail.com), March 07, 2004.


Ubu, well, I am arguing that only one side of this issue is correct; however, I can see how you have come to accept the notion that both sides could be. You see, those who would put Mary up on the Cross with Jesus at Calvary would have you believe that the word “redemption” implies many other things other than “deliverance upon payment of ransom”. They would have you believe the “redeemer” also means, facilitator, co-operator, mediator, intercessor. They would have you believe that Mary’s qualities of piety, holiness, loyalty and blamelessness qualify her to be regarded as a co-“redeemer”. This simply isn’t the case. Further, it is only a matter of time that once the term gains official acceptance, it will be distorted and twisted to a meaning beyond recognition, a meaning that was never intended in the first place.

Ubu, your argument that Mary played a crucial role in our redemption in that, without her, there would have been no redemption and therefore, she should be honored with the term “Co-Redemptrix” doesn’t seem logical to me. If this is found to be the case, you still haven’t addressed my question about what we call Jesus’ grandparents and great grandparents, etc. Are they all to be acknowledged as “Co-Redeemers” as well by virtue of their bloodline that flows through the Savior? Of course not. That is tantamount to saying the parents of a murderer should be named “Co-Murders” since they facilitated the birth of their child, who in turn, murdered someone. Christ as man, was given a free will. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus as man, had doubts. He knew what He was about to endure would be difficult. He asked the Father to let the cup pass from His lips, but in the end He chose freely to die for us. Not Mary, nor any of the apostles, nor any of the saints, nor you or I assisted Him with that fateful decision on Holy Thursday night. Jesus made it of His own volition.

We all share in the salvation of others by joining our sufferings to others, including Mary’s, on the Cross with Jesus. But to suggest that we are in some way “Co-Redeemers” in that salvific moment in history on Calvary is to deny the teachings of our faith and to trivialize the sacrifice our Savior made for us.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.


This is a thread that has reached absurd lengths, all owing to one militant and hidebound person; calling him/her self ''Pro-Mary''. Long postings back, I said that I myself am Pro-Mary. He/she never acknowledges that. It means nothing to him. A great pity; and why? Because this is not his crusade for Mary's rightful honors. It's the Pro's grandiose battle of wills. That's a shameful way to honor the Mother of God. He/she has rallied the entire universe of saints, the pontiffs, Steubenville, and Emerald The Flippant all to his cause. In fact I was beginning to think he WAS Emerald, for a time. But it can't be. Emerald hasn't the depth of seriousness shown by adamant ''Pro''. I believe the anonymous Pro is another so-called Trad; here to sow discord masked in ultra-traditionalist love of Mary. This is certain.

Well-- I believe we have matched them love for love. We all hold the Blessed Virgin dear and unspeakably HOLY. Mary definitely knows it. BTW, Pro-- Not only was your humble servant well-acquainted with the saints you cited and ''the Catherines''-- but also with Fathers Rumble & Carty, brilliant radio heroes of our faith. (Don't leave them off the list.) Not a single quote you've dredged up speaks for the ''title'' ex cathedra or in any authoritative role. All we see is hearts who love Mary. Here in this forum you've located MORE of us who love her. Deny it if you can. We dare to stand up and be counted; yes. As well as to defend against blasphemers the Holy Liturgy of Novus Ordo and the Eucharist from all who defame it; here or anywhere. We love Mary but do not worship her in any manner. We count OURSELVES among her faithful children, and all of us feel very appropriately, in this argument, those words of Pope John Paul II: BE NOT AFRAID.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2004.


Thanks, Ed--
For a concise and logical treatment of this question. Your excellent post came in just ahead of mine; and now for any subsequent readers, I recommend they return to it, up above.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2004.

Eugene, great post. I agree that it may be time to call a spade a spade. Pro-Mary is indeed adamant and militant in his/her position. That in and of itself however, is not the problem. We can handle someone who is passionate about their beliefs even if they differ from ours. We allow free speech here. But, when he/she as our guest in OUR CATHOLIC FORUM, calls upon all the saints in heaven and twists and manipulates their words in a way that would make us appear heretical and scoffs and ridicules us for defending the orthodox Catholic position, then he/she is quickly wearing out his/her welcome. When he/she would have everyone believe that we don’t love Our Blessed Mother passionately, maybe its time for him/her to move on and find another audience who is willing to listen. (This is not a demand, this is merely my own personal observation.)

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION WITH HIM AND DEPENDENT ON HIM, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143

Ed, I wholly agree with your concern. If the idea of Mary's role is confused it may gain a momentum of misunderstanding which would be difficult to reverse. I simply state that Mary's role is with and dependent on Our Lord, his role is by no means with and dependent on her. Therefore, it is He who can hold the title of Redeemer. This question is still debated by theologians a great deal more qualified than myself. (The Pontifical International Marian Academy for example) I did not capitalize co-redeemer in my last post with a purpose, I have a hard time using the term but it was the term being used and I simply wanted to point out how and why some could come to that conclusion.

As to the bloodline of Jesus, it is a mute point since Mary was redeemed from the moment of her conception, making her quite different from her ancestors. They were born with the stain of sin which she was not. (I had answered the question in my previous posts)

Eugene, I agree that if nothing else this thread has proven a great love for Our Blessed Mother. Anyone hoping to suggest otherwise has been proven incorrect.

-- (ubuibme@nomail.com), March 07, 2004.


So then, Sara, if someone holds Mary to be in some manner "co- redemptrix", then they would necessarily be in heresy, correct?

Heresy is denying a Dogma of the Church. There isn't a defined Dogma that specifically says she isn't co-redemptrix, just as there isn't one that says she is. Therefore, it stands to reason that either way you can't be in heresy for opposing something that's not a dogma.

That said, I'm not qualified to judge anyone as being heretical anyway. Only the magisterium is. God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara-catholic-forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 07, 2004.


Ed and other participants of this thread, I'd like to thank you, you've inspired me to knock the dust off my catechism. It has been too long since I cracked it open.

-- (ubuibme@nomail.com), March 07, 2004.

This is all now being reduced to a question of semantics Ubu. I won't belabor the point further except to say there was only one person on the Cross. There was only one death that has facilitated my salvation. There is only one Redeemer the Catholic Church has recognized - Jesus Christ, Lord of all.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.

Reduced to semantics intresting....aren't most debates on religon quibbling over semantics? How the language and symbolism is interpreted? Isn't everyone including yourslef guilty of that? The basics are all common, semantics are the bread and butter of this forum and those like it.

-- (ubuibme@nomail.com), March 07, 2004.

“...aren't most debates on religion quibbling over semantics?” My point exactly Ubu. That is why I mentioned the Church. I have Her to filter through the language and symbolism for me and tell me what is Truth. Otherwise, you would have as many different definitions of the word “Co-Redeemer” as you would have participants in the debate. Come to think of it, isn't that why Jesus left us in Her care?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 07, 2004.

Ed,

You have greatly misunderstood me.

Catholic Truth is Charitable.

I am an ORDINARY Orthodox Catholic, in communion with Pope John Paul II, who believes this Catholic Truth:

Jesus is the Redemptor.
Mary is the Co-Redemptrix.

None of my posts ever said that there are two Redemptors; none of my posts ever said that there is a second Redemptor. I have never twisted or manipulated the words of the Popes and the Saints. I rely on Orthodox Catholic Sources; and I rely not on my own humble opinion but rather on the Authoritative Interpretation by Catholic Theologians, Popes, and Saints.

The Popes and Saints and Catholic Theologians are saying this Catholic Truth:

Jesus is the Redemptor.
Mary is the Co-Redemptrix.

I believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church … cover to cover … inside and out.

You have greatly misunderstood me.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 07, 2004.


"There isn't a defined Dogma that specifically says she isn't co- redemptrix, just as there isn't one that says she is. Therefore, it stands to reason that either way you can't be in heresy for opposing something that's not a dogma."

True, but as everyone is quick to remind everyone else of, the things requiring assent of the will and intellect by the Faithful are not limited to what has been defined from the chair. This thing co- redemptrix is demonstrable as something always held and understood by the Universal Church.

The reason I asked the question about heresy is that you said you denied Mary's attribute of co-redemptrix, but then posited this:

"Our Lady is the Blessed Mother of the only Redeemer, The Mother of God. She co-operated with God in his plan for redemption. However, Jesus Christ alone is our Holy Redeemer."

...which is all true. If the denial is surplanted by the above truthful phrase, then the understanding of the term co- redemptrix has got to be equivocated upon in some sense. So I'm pretty sure you actually do hold that she is co-redemptrix but think that others are attaching another meaning to the word you don't agree with.

If they are attaching another meaning, then it may well be heresy. That's why I asked, because if the answer is that it was heresy, then I would want to know exactly what the deviant understanding of the word co-redemptrix is that you feel might be in circulation. Nobody has laid out any deviant or heretical twisting of the term co-redemptrix, though; not that I've seen. I think people are trigger happy over nothings. I think deviance is imagined to be there when it isn't.

However, I do in fact believe that there is more to understand about the title of co-redemptrix that people are resistant to. Nobody has brought up anything like that yet, though.

So when ubuibeme says this:

"I am not arguing for either side instead introducing possiblity that both may be correct."

That makes some sense to me. In this particular situation, so does this:

"Reduced to semantics intresting....aren't most debates on religon quibbling over semantics?"

I think to some degree this topic here is subject to problems with equivocation, but I don't think though, that most debates on religion are over semantics. Instead, the consist merely of the fact that some people deny certain truths of the Catholic Faith. I think that's what most disagreements consist of.

In this conversation, besides a little harmless equivocation though, I think there is some degree of denial of Catholic truth. People are resisting in some cases, under one guise or another, something that is expressed by the Church. These expressions are well documented.

Gene:

"In fact I was beginning to think he [Pro-Mary] WAS Emerald, for a time."

I knew that when I saw you use the P-M nick you used to address Pro- Mary way, way upthread. These things aren't lost on me, you know. That's half the reason I got involved in this in the first place. Basically, you assume lots of stuff. That's where this comes from imho:

"I believe the anonymous Pro [poster Pro-Mary]is another so-called Trad; here to sow discord masked in ultra-traditionalist love of Mary. This is certain."

It's not certain at all. In fact, I didn't think Pro-Mary was a Trad at all from the very beginning of this thread. This is almost like conspiracy theory or something, Gene. Add conspiracy theory to the list of reversable accusations as well, I suppose. Trads aren't Communists, and I can tell you true from experience: there certainly isn't one under every rock.

It should be clear enough from the resources that Pro-Mary used. That being said, the resources, whether post conciliar or not, spoke the Catholic Truth in this matter.

At any rate, stop assuming stuff. Eventually you'll find out that all the assumptions are all just wrong.

Ed says:

"We all share in the salvation of others by joining our sufferings to others, including Mary’s, on the Cross with Jesus. But to suggest that we are in some way “Co-Redeemers” in that salvific moment in history on Calvary is to deny the teachings of our faith and to trivialize the sacrifice our Savior made for us."

Ed, I'm positive about the first sentence; I am unsure about your second sentence. Consider that it may be a matter of finding out more about the same thing as opposed to being derailed from the right path.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 07, 2004.


Emerald:
Nobody can stuff more words into a banal argument than you can. For myself let me say; One of the last things I said to Pro here was, Go ahead and believe anything that comforts you. It isn't a sin. Just don't pontificate on it; because you have no authority. Don't teach people who haven't asked your help. I say it again to you. You are not the only faithful Catholics in this board.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2004.

So what now, I'm supposed to believe you, and adopt your take on things?

What happens if I don't?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 07, 2004.


Emmie:
If I start writing and re-writing doctrine here, feel free to pile on me. Almost all my contributions are marked personal opinion, or are commentaries on well-accepted doctrines. I don't push the envelope at all, much less in 500 word screeds. When I'm caught in a mis- statement, I ask pardon. I believe what the Church teaches us only, and rarely stick my neck out.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2004.

Seems like the Church, both pre-conciliar and post-conciliar, is saying that the title co-redemptrix is predicable of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and in fact, is a teaching of the Church. Not infallibly defined, true, but it is the teaching of the Church.

Pro-Mary uses largely post-conciliar sources, and hammers the point home quite well, imho.

Want some pre-conciliar sources? lol! I didn't think so. It would be an Apostolic Screed pretty much saying the same thing.

Why not just believe it? I do. Credo etc. etc. etc.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 07, 2004.


Cutting to the point, sparing a couple hundred words, Gene; our salvation depends upon us responding to God's call and His will in imitation of the example set by the Mother of our Savior Jesus Christ:

O God, whose only begotten Son, by his life, death and resurrection has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech you, that while meditating of the mysteries of the most holy rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Salvation is a rescue operation; the world is dying. God sends His Son as the only able rescuer. He comes via a preserved, untainted vessel, a New Eve of all the attributes described in the Litany of Lorreto. This vessel, Theotokos, is archetype of the universal Ark of salvation, the Church. Christ sacrifices Himself for the preservation of the woman and her children.

Or something like that. Right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 08, 2004.


What did I ever say for you to suppose I needed that message? My sainted grandmother gathered her various grandkids around her in the evenings to say the holy Rosary with her. We brought fresh flowers to offer our Nana Virgen. It's all in our genes. Behind me I have the most orthodox upbringing you could imagine. This together with every Catholic author I could find. All of this tells me: We have the same Redeemer, Holy Mary and I. --You too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2004.

______________________________


Instead of listening to contentious Eugene pontificate from his plush chair at home the error that Mary is not the Co-Redemptrix,


a Faithful Catholic ought to listen to … Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius VII, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II … Pontificate from Their Holy Chair in Rome the Catholic Truth that Mary Is The Co-Redemptrix.


______________________________


Not only am I in union with “the entire universe of saints, the pontiffs, Steubenville,” Faithful Emerald, “…the Catherines, …Fathers Rumble & Carty,” and Catholic Theologians but also with OUR Good John F. Gecik.


Please allow me to quote OUR Faithful Catholic John F. Gecik from a 3 year old thread in the Catholic Forum :


“Good morning, folks …


… I can't resist responding to some other things David wrote : ‘If you were to tell the Apostle Peter or the Apostle John that you were considering elevating Mary to the position of co-Redeemer and co- Mediatrix ... they would flip.’


Funny that David chose those two gents. My patron saint, John, would not ‘flip,’ but would probably support the cause, using evidence gleaned from living with his beloved ‘adopted mother’ Mary. And St. Peter would say, ‘Great!’ after having been informed that the pope, his successor, had promulgated the doctrine.”


-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 16, 2001


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 08, 2004.


Jmj

Hello, Pro-Mary.
It was brought to my attention that you had quoted from a message that I wrote at the forum more than three years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I can give only "qualififed support" to your position, and I have to explain that you have misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying in the passage that you quoted. Please let me explain at length ...

Notice that, back in January of 2001, (ex-Catholic) David [Bowerman] was referring to an action that a pope might take some day. He wrote, "If you were to tell the Apostle Peter or the Apostle John that you [a pope] were considering elevating Mary to the position of co-Redeemer and co- Mediatrix ... they would flip."

Now notice how I responded to David B: "Funny that [you] chose those two gents. My patron saint, John, would not ‘flip,’ but would probably support the cause, using evidence gleaned from living with his beloved ‘adopted mother’ Mary. And St. Peter would say, ‘Great!’ after having been informed that the pope, his successor, had promulgated the doctrine."

What I am trying to say today is that my words were then intended only to support any action that a pope might some day take with regard to proclaiming dogmas or bestowing titles on Our Lady. I believe that you mistakenly interpreted the words you quoted from me as supporting the movement to use the title, "Co-Redeemer" or "Co-Redemptrix." The truth is that I do not support that movement (which was much in the news in 2001, but seems to have become dormant or extinct now).

Pro-Mary, you would have known about my lack of support for the movement, if the forum's archives still retained a thread entitled, "Simple question. Is Mary co-redemer" [sic] (begun by Chris Fox on 01/15/2001). That thread, like about 1,100 others, was deleted, about a year ago, by an enraged ex-moderator, who decided to delete all forum threads to which he had ever contributed. However, I have a copy of that 2001 thread, and I will quote a bit from it, so that you will understand where I really stand on this subject. Ironically, what I will quote are messages posted in the very same week during which I posted the words you quoted above, from a thread that escaped deletion, because the ex-moderator never contributed to it.

In the old, deleted thread, after Chris Fox opened the conversation, Ed Lauzon asked, "Could you please show me where the Church has decreed that Mary is 'Co-Redeemer?'"

I responded as follows, on January 15, 2001:

I seem to remember reading quite a while ago that, from time to time in Church history, Our Lady was referred to as Co-Redemptrix, not in a definitive way, but as one of many informal titles. I think that the term may have appeared in the works of some saints and/or popes.

But the surest sign that the Church has never formally given Mary the title "Co-Redeemer" or "Co-Redemptrix" is what we see in the Second Vatican Council and in the Catechism (CCC). The CCC directly quotes the final section of the Council's most authoritative document ("Lumen Gentium" [LG] -- a "dogmatic constitution") as follows:
"969. 'This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.' [LG 62.]"

Now, what was meant by this title when members of the Church have used it? A dependable answer comes from a reference work by the brilliant and holy Jesuit, Fr. John Hardon (who died, in his 80s, a couple of weeks ago). He wrote:
"Co-Redemptrix. ... A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary's mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race. As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man's salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ's merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.

I think that the above makes it clear that there is nothing new, revolutionary, or dangerous/heretical intended by the title. It appears to me simply to pertain to her past assent to God's plans and her present advocacy for us -- not to any directly redemptive "labors, sufferings, or death" for our salvation.

Next come the questions: Should the pope formally give Our Lady the title Co-Redemptrix -- and will he do so? I am probably going to take some heat for this, but I don't mind. I know that I won't be sinning by speaking up, so that's all that matters. I also know that I love Our Blessed Mother, that I ask for her intercession in the very first prayer I say each day, and I pray the rosary almost every day. No one can rightly call me anti-Marian, modernist, or dissenter.

To answer the first question (Should the title, Co-Redemptrix, be made formal?) ... I have had an eye on this controversy for several years now. It is not something new, though it has only gotten into the public eye recently. (And thus it comes to us in questions from David Bowerman and Chris Fox.) As I just said, I find nothing wrong with the intended meaning of the title. The meaning is already believed by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants. The problem, in my opinion, is the title itself.

I think that the title, Co-Redemptrix, is too easily misunderstood, and we already have too much misunderstanding within Christianity today -- especially between Catholics and our "separated brethren." In English, we have several words that start with the prefix "co-". When we use "co-," we often mean a high degree of activity than is not intended by the term, "co-redemptrix." For example, people are accustomed to using the terms co-pilot, co-signor, co-author, and co-star. The frequent use of these terms has a strong psychological effect. First, a co-pilot and a co-signor are people who are deputies or substitutes -- folks who must step in if the primary agent fails. But she who has been called "co-redemptrix" was not capable of stepping in for Jesus in carrying out a saving death and resurrection. Even more significant is the fact that a co-author and a co-star directly share with others in writing and acting. But she who has been called "co-redemptrix" did not and could not directly share in the dying and rising that redeemed us.

And so, though I will use the title if the pope (much wiser than I) asks the Church to use it, I would recommend against the use of "Co-Redemptrix." Do I have (or does anyone else have) an alternative title that would not be confusing? I do not have one, and I have not heard one. [Though he did not intend it as a substitute, Fr. Hardon provided the term "co-operator" ...] This leads to yet another issue ... why should any new title be used? I have not yet heard a truly good reason for the proclamation of a new dogma conferring a new title.

To answer the second question (Will the pope make the title "Co-Redemptrix" formal?) ... A few years ago I saw three or four uses of the title in quotations attributed to Pope John Paul II. Assuming that the statements were genuine, I found it telling that the last one was delivered in 1989. He has not used the title since then. This is just a hunch on my part -- and perhaps "wishful thinking" that reflects my own preference -- but I believe that his avoidance of the title indicates that there was a negative reaction to his using it, perhaps from within the Vatican Curia, and that the pope has decided that it would be better so set the old title aside, perhaps permanently. He may have been advised that the term is confusing, and he may have agreed with the reasoning he was given. Though it is said that several million people have petitioned for the use of the term -- and that there is a movement in its favor, led by a permanent deacon (Mr. Miravalle) -- the pope realizes that the petitioners represent less than 1% of all Catholics, and he may have received many opposing petitions from laity, clergy, and bishops. We just don't know. Finally, he (like me) may not yet have heard of any truly good reason for the proclamation of a new dogma.

After responses were received from Eugene, Ed, and Enrique Ortiz (who recommended the reading of http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ36.HTM), I added the following:

Maybe it's not 100%, Ed, but I think that you and I are pretty much in agreement. Just a couple of clarifications:
-- Though the word, "operate" (as you point out) has a bunch of very "active" meanings, the word "co-operate" has its own more-or-less unrelated (and "non-threatening") meaning -- one that indicates something much more passive in nature. It does not seem to imply "doing the work alongside of," the way "co-redeem" seems to imply to speakers of English.
-- I did not mean to say that I suspected that the pope, in not using the title "Co-Remptrix" since 1989, was swayed sheerly by the number or intensity of complaints -- and that he tends to proclaim doctrine "by majority vote." I really meant to say that I suspected that he heard and came to agree with certain respected voices of reason who knew the modern non-Slavic languages (including English) better than he does. These advisors may have explained the confusion that the title can cause.

Enrique, ... I noticed two things [at the site you recommended] that were helpful to me:
-- The extensive quotation from Pope John Paul II ("Mater Redemptoris" of 1987, I think) did not contain the title, "Co-R." And Dave Armstrong (owner of the site) provided the following reflections:
"... Pope John Paul II ... may not use the term 'Co-redemptrix' often ... because it is highly (and unfortunately) prone to misunderstanding, but he certainly teaches the concept it entails. The actual teachings are more important than the particular descriptive term chosen. One might, e.g., use the terms Holy Bible and Sacred Scripture interchangeably. Either one is sufficient and it isn't necessary to use both or to never use one or the other. Likewise, John Paul II could conceivably define ex cathedra the doctrines in question, but not include the title Co-Redemptrix in his definition."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 09, 2004.

I was tempted to answer Pro-Mary on your behalf John, for I knew your position on this question, but I could never have matched the response you've provided here. Excellent post!

John, consider yourself in good company. Pro-Mary has now included you into the mix of Saints and Popes, whom she has falsely given others the impression, has endorsed the title of "Co-Redemptrix" in the way she would like it to mean.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 09, 2004.


Great post John! You took the words right out of my mouth. :-0

God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 09, 2004.


I can't believe the marksmanship you demonstrate here, John. If we could receive all your contributions on religion in this refined a manner, no one could EVER misunderstand you, much less criticize. Bravo, My Friend. (Between Thee & Me; --Don't expect Pro-Mary to give a FIG; know what I mean?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2004.

Thanks very much for your response, good and faithful John.

You said, “…there is nothing new, revolutionary, or dangerous/heretical intended by the title.” “I find nothing wrong with the intended meaning of the title. The meaning is already believed by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants.”

Even though you have linguistic reservations (mainly regarding proneness to misinterpretation), you already have made an assent to the Concept and “intended meaning” of Co-Redemptrix; and you give “qualified support.” You are not denying the intended Catholic Truth of the title. In other words, you are saying that the “intended meaning” of Co-Redemptrix is Not an error but rather the Truth. Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

The Church’s “intended meaning” for the title, Mother of God, is the only legitimate meaning. This applies as well to the old Marian title, though not yet ex-cathedra, Co-Redemptrix, nevertheless, a repeated Catholic Truth, more likely at this point, “pre-Infallible.” The Popes, Saints, Catholic Theologians, and Priests are united in their “intended meaning” for the title, Co-Redemptrix.

You said, “Should the pope formally give Our Lady the title Co- Redemptrix -- and will he do so? I am probably going to take some heat for this, but I don't mind.”

Why should any Catholic mind? Why should Truth be thwarted? Our Martyrs died for the Truth. However, in the event he does formally proclaim it dogma … the title will surely be misunderstood by generations and generations to come. The 1500 year old Marian title, Mother of God, is a prime example. Just like any Marian title, adequate catechesis is required for its proper use.

You said, “Funny that David chose those two gents. My patron saint, John, would not ‘flip,’ but would probably support the cause, using evidence gleaned from living with his beloved ‘adopted mother’ Mary. And St. Peter would say, ‘Great!’ after having been informed that the pope, his successor, had promulgated the doctrine.”

So basically, you will support a pope in the event that he ascribes a new title to Mary. Have you ever heard of a pope misusing a Marian title – formal or informal? If your answer is Yes, then we have legitimate reason to doubt the use of the Marian title, Co-Redemptrix, by the present and previous popes. If your answer is No, then we have no reason to doubt the credibility and Truth of the Marian title, Co-Redemptrix. Surely, the Holy Spirit plays a major role in the usage of Marian titles, especially by popes. And whatever new Marian title is added by a pope, you asserted that Saint John and Saint Peter will be much delighted.

It’s unfortunate that many of your posts were victimized by “an enraged ex-moderator.” As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Our Living Saint, Pope John Paul II, did decide to use again the title, Co-Redemptrix, after 1989, even after all the supposed opposition … he used it again in 1991. He used the title, so far, at least six times. I’ve furnished OUR CATHOLIC FORUM four quotes from Pope John Paul II. I don’t have the other two remaining quotes, so I don’t know whether they are before or after 1991. According to Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, the Holy See also Corrected the errors of a Protestant and Catholic Anti-Coredemptrix coalition in 1997.

“THE FACT IS THAT THE (VATICAN II) COUNCIL DID DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF MARY AS COREDEMPTRIX WITHOUT USING THE TITLE. Here are some texts: “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life” (Lumen Gentium #56). “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death” (Lumen Gentium #57). “The Blessed Virgin … faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her” (Lumen Gentium #58).” -- Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, Chaplain of His Holiness

Regarding Co-Redemptrix’s, proneness to misinterpretation, IMHO, the title, Mother of God, is much worse. The protestant blurts out, “Yeah right, God had a mother.” Nevertheless, the Church attached a TITLE, Mother of God, to the theological CONCEPT, Mother of God. Even after 1500 years as dogma, it’s still frequently misunderstood. Knowledge of the “intended meaning of the title” and proper catechesis are absolutely necessary. Protestants are still in an uproar.

The title, Immaculate Conception, is no better. Some Catholics are confused about the title; even more, the concept. Only Catholics who are adequately catechised use the title with knowledge and confidence. No need to explain that Protestants also hate this Marian title. Mary gets more exaltation from our Correct usage of this title.

Protestants go ballistic when Catholics use the Marian title, Queen of Heaven and Earth. For Protestants, Mary is dead and horribly rotten by now; she’s among those who are waiting for Christ’s Second Coming. This title proved to Protestants that Catholics “worshiped” Mary.

Which protestant understands the Marian title, Mother of the Church? As far as they are concerned, Mary has nothing to do with the Church. It’s all about Jesus for them. Period. “Forget about Mary.”

Mary, Ever-Virgin … are you kidding? “She bore other children according to the Bible, see such and such chapter and verse,” the protestant blurts out.

Mother of the Eucharist … well that’s more suitable … “She’s mother of a piece of bread,” the protestant ridicules.

Dughter of God … you mean “God had a Son AND a Daughter? Those Catholics are really heretics!”

Sinless Mother … “Mary had original sin,” the protestants declare.

IMHO, the following two Marian titles are even more threatening to protestants :

(Pope John XXIII) …Mother of Salvation … “You must be out of your mind!” the protestant contends.

(Litany of Loreto)… Gate of Heaven … “You mean I have to go through Mary to get to Heaven?” asks the protestant.

What “harm” will the title, Co-redemptrix, do that the other titles have not yet done? Any Marian title is an “insult” to the protestants.

But for us Catholics, we will gain something Good. The TITLE, Co- Redemptrix, will focus our attention on the intended CONCEPT, Co- Redemptrix, which the Popes, Saints, theologians, and Vatican II have already explained. The intended concept needs a title … just like the intended concept, Mother of God, needed the title, Mother of God. The title makes the intended concept more accessible. The title, Mother of God, brings an instant glory to Mary, instead of using many words to describe the intended concept, Mother of God.

Co-redemptrix’s proneness to misinterpretation did not stop the Popes, Saints, Priests, and Theologians – who are holier and wiser than us -- from correctly using it.

Furthermore, Latin transcended the vernacular throughout the milleniums. Latin never became inferior to the vernacular. Latin is still the Church’s Universal language for the highest Church functions and documents … and will remain so ‘til the end of time. Catholics know that Latin is a mysterious and glorious language … most suitable for the Mystery and Glory of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nevertheless, Fathers Rumble & Carty paved the way for the more accessible English version of Co- Redemptrix; they called her Co-Redemptress.

Blessed Mother Teresa, the leader of the Co-Redemptrix movement, thinks that now is the opportune moment for the title to be defined. She said that it will bring us more Grace. Should we postpone Grace? However, the ex-cathedra pronouncement of this much repeated Catholic Truth is in the hands of a pope.

God bless you, too.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 09, 2004.


Not a fig. Same old over-reaching as before with no thought process.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2004.

Gene. What are you talking about?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 09, 2004.

Talking about Pro-Mary's post. I hope you don't object.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2004.

What's wrong with the post?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.

"Pro-Mary has now included you into the mix of Saints and Popes, whom she has falsely given others the impression, has endorsed the title of "Co-Redemptrix" in the way she would like it to mean."

Of course, here is where you are going to insert a clear explanation of the bolded part, right? =)

I would like to see it.

We have a handful of assumptions upthread that have clearly failed to pan out. I would hate to see more assumptions.

So, what exactly IS the deviant understanding that Pro-Mary is putting forth?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.


We see your concern, Emmer. All I have been able to do is play the cards I was dealt. I say to JFG, you're spot on; yet don't think Pro-Mary will shut up.

Any idea why I said that? Any way to shut you and/or Pro up? With some magic Catholic bullet? We all love and honor the most Blessed Virgin Mary. But that's not enough. All of us worship Jesus Christ, our Holy Redeemer. Not enough. We all believe what the apostles taught, and the Creed. Not enough. We all pray. Not enough. All of us are dependent on faith hope, charity and the seven sacraments; as Christ commanded. I certainly am.

Not enough. You will never like us enough. Like me enough, or the Church enough. You have urgent needs for to ADD longer Megillah and fancier pants and a poke in the eye. A better choice of words for the Mother of God-- and LOOK! Mother Theresa thinks so too!

I already said to you, and Pro-Mary: ''Do whatever you please. Have a ball! --Great!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2004.


No, that's not enough. I want this:

What exactly IS the deviant understanding that Pro-Mary is supposedly putting forth?

Simple question.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.


Emerald, you’ve asked a “simple question” and you deserve a “simple” answer. You asked, “What exactly IS the deviant understanding that Pro-Mary is supposedly putting forth?” I decided to start at the beginning of this thread to find an answer for you. I needed to look no further than Pro-Mary’s first post which read as follows:

“Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.”

Jesus is in Mary? As in, all God’s graces have to pass through her? Excuse me? I don’t think so! Is Mary now a fourth person of the Trinity? Does Jesus need Mary to distribute all grace? This is exactly what many proponents of this “new” dogma want the Church to declare. They want Mary elevated to Jesus’ status. This can never happen.

To qualify her point further, to make sure there is no misunderstanding in what she is conveying here, Pro-Mary adds the caveat - she states plainly, “O yes, including salvation.”

We all know as Catholics that grace is the source of salvation. It’s the sole source of salvation. It sanctifies the soul, it purifies the soul. You can’t get to heaven without grace. Mary IS NOT the source of salvific grace. Mary IS NOT the source of my salvation. All of God’s graces DO NOT pass through Mary in a way that Pro-Mary would have us believe - to facilitate our salvation. Mary compliments the salvific work of Jesus on the Cross, oh yes, - she assists, she intercedes, she advocates, she councils, she mediates, but she does not save. SHE DOES NOT REDEEM!

God is the SOLE source of all grace. God is the sole source of salvific grace - not Mary. Mary is a Mediatrix - a female mediator. She brings some people who have been alienated from God to Him. That’s what a mediator does - reconciles two differing sides. She dispenses grace - yes; but this grace doesn’t originate from her. It originates from God. Mary is not a source for grace, she merely doles God’s grace out on His behalf. She is not the only channel for grace, but one of many. If she were the only channel or conduit for grace, it would make her indispensable to God. He would then be dependent on her to provide grace to mankind for their salvation. To be dependent on someone else would make God less than perfect. To believe this is heresy. In addtion, as I have said before, it would trivialize the Crucifixion, making Jesus' death on the Cross meaningless without Mary.

In claiming, as Pro-Mary did, that “Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.", goes against the teachings of our Faith. To claim such a doctrine is heresy. That’s what upsets many Catholics about all of this.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 10, 2004.


"Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation."

To pass through is not at all the same as to originate from as a source; but in order to make the claim that Pro-Mary is stating heresy you would have to use the words equivocably, or interchangably without distinction. Pro-Mary clearly hasn't done this here, and has stated properly that the action of grace passes through Mary as opposed to orginating from her as source. By failing the distinction on your end, you charge this person with saying something she has not said. But she it correctly.

Here is a similar situation, from our own Creed:

...et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

Certainly we would not charge our own Creed with heresy. This is a word problem Ed, and people are trigger happy.

Regarding the use of the word IN in Pro-Mary's statement, I was curious in what sense Pro-Mary used this as well, but I'm not assuming anything negative since there are in fact ways in which this could be true if understood properly, and an improper meaning doesn't rush out at me from Pro-Mary's statement. After all, when Mary met Elizabeth, Jesus was certainly IN Mary in a particular respect; plus there are other proper predications as well.

Ask Pro-Mary what she means by this instead of assuming.

In total, in the reading of Pro-Mary's posts, I see absolutely nothing of a deviancy from true Catholic understanding; not even anything implied or alluded to. I've seen Pro-Mary say nothing that jumped out at me as being heretical or even deviant in a small degree; I'll defend anyone that speaks the truth or promotes something of immense value such as my adoptive mother, and being a Trad is not a pre-qualifier.

Why am I jumping on Gene's head about this? Imho, for fear of misrepresenting something to nonCatholic observers, silence or reduced discussion seems to be the stratem. This reduction doesn't comfort Mary's enemies, but it does serve to preclude Mary's friends from learning more to their advantage, imho. We're talking strategy here mind you, not doctrine.

Much is lost in not perceiving the role of the Mother of God. The possible flipside pitfall here is that by toning down discussion characterizing the role of the Mother of God, on the Catholic side of the equation, seeing somebody like Pro-Mary condemned by assumption may lead someone to believe that certain Catholic truths concerning Mary are not truths but errors.

In the above scenario, valuable understanding is lost; not just for the nonCatholics, but for even more importantly for lukewarm or growing Catholics as well. One of the most important ways in which we can help to promote and strenghthen the Faith imho is to help strengthen those who are already in it: I hate country music, but to make for a lousy analogy to introspection, We need to strengthen our own understanding as Catholics and not be pushed away from discussion based on fear of being misinterpreted. How can we promote the Gospel by shutting up?

Regarding nonCatholics, what happens in real life is this: people don't slip into twisted ideas about our Catholic doctrines concerning Mary because people like Pro-Mary are supposedly pushing the envelope of description. Instead, they are simply deciding beforehand that they don't like the doctrine and are twisting what Catholics believe to make it all fit to their liking. Honest truthseekers don't run away at the drop of a hat when faced with difficult or potentially confusing discussions... only people do who are looking for minimum levels of understanding necessary to justify their own personal ideas, preferences and choices.

In conclusion, we need to talk more, not less, about the Mother of God. More dialogue is what is needed when it comes to the Blessed Virgin Mary... and that's coming from an anti-ecumenist. Of course, I believe that ecumenism is also equivocated upon, but that's another story.

So I think you all's trigger-happy, and I think you're wrong about Pro-Mary being promoting heresy here, Ed. Other than that, you are doing a fantastic job of moderating, and I while don't envy you for the job, I do envy your willingness to do it and do it well, and I think you are. Keep up the good work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.


lol. I forgot to insert the stupid country music song analogy. Here it is:

I see what beautiful is about
When I'm looking in
Not when I'm looking out

I was forced to listen to it, and I thought the whole thing made for a good analogy as to how I view the Catholic Church. I have to be careful with my anologies though; people don't always get the drift.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.

Good Emerald,

You said, “I would hate to see more assumptions.”

Me, too. But we see MORE.

Jesus is also IN Mary :

Simply,

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. (-- Litany of Loreto / Apostolic Penitentiary)
Mary is the Ark. Jesus is the Covenant.

Mary is the Mother of Christ. (-- Litany of Loreto / Apostolic Penitentiary)
Mary is the Mother. Jesus is the Christ.

Mary is the Mother of Salvation. ( -- Pope John XXIII)
Mary is the Mother. Jesus is the Salvation.

Mary is the Mother of the Church. (-- Litany of Loreto / Apostolic Penitentiary)
Mary is the Mother. Jesus is IN the Church.

Mary is the Cause of our Joy. (-- Litany of Loreto / Apostolic Penitentiary)
Mary is the Cause. Jesus is our Joy.

Thanks very much, Faithful Emerald.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 10, 2004.


I dun got impersonated, the post above yours, Pro.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.

"I dun got impersonated, the post above yours, Pro."

Apparently, the impersonator doesn't know that you gave up posting for Lent. So he couldn't fool anybody! ;-)

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 10, 2004.


Hey, well you have to admit I've cut it back... significantly. Or something like that. It's progress, man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.

Huh?!

Hey, Emerald, here's another one ...

Jesus is also IN Mary :

Canticle of Canticles, Jesus is the Bridegroom, Mary is the Bride.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 10, 2004.


Hard to believe.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2004.

"Hey, well you have to admit I've cut it back... significantly. Or something like that. It's progress, man."

I know, I was just kidding. Seriously though, cutting back on web- time is pretty tough, I've found.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 10, 2004.


It IS tough.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 10, 2004.

Emerald, you said, “To pass through is not at all the same as to originate from as a source; but in order to make the claim that Pro- Mary is stating heresy you would have to use the words equivocally, or interchangeably without distinction. Pro-Mary clearly hasn't done this here, and has stated properly that the action of grace passes through Mary as opposed to originating from her as source. By failing the distinction on your end, you charge this person with saying something she has not said. But she it correctly.”

Emerald, you haven’t realized that in saying “passing through” Pro-Mary had discounted all other possibilities such as the grace that “passes around” Mary. Who has said all grace must pass “through” Mary? The Church certainly never has said this. Emerald, what about grace derived from good works? What about grace derived from prayer? What about grace derived from the sacraments? What about grace derived from pain and suffering when offered up for others? The grace that flows from these other sources as well as the grace that flows through Mary was all bought not by anything Mary did, but by the Blood of the Lamb that was ransomed on the Cross. This grace flows directly from Jesus. If ALL grace flows “through” Mary, then to rationalize these other graces I’ve mentioned, you’ve got to come up with a whole new dogma concerning Mary and her “Co-Redemptrix” title. If ALL grace flows THROUGH Mary, then she really is the Redeemer and I am wrong.

Emerald, I don’t have to ask Pro-Mary what she meant when she said, “Jesus is also IN Mary.” for in the same short paragraph, (a paragraph consists of one or more sentences, and typically deals with a single thought or topic) she extrapolates on what the definition of “IN” is in her opening sentence by saying, “All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.” Unless she misspoke (she hasn’t yet advised us of this), it’s clear what she means. All graces are found “IN” Jesus, who in turn is found “IN” Mary; ergo, all graces are found in Mary. This statement elevates her to the status of sole provider of salvation for it says, without her there is no grace for salvation, that grace cannot be obtained any other possible way but THROUGH her from Jesus. This statement of course, is completely absurd and untrue and contrary to Catholic teaching.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 10, 2004.


I think the sticking point is contained roughly in this sentence:

"If ALL grace flows THROUGH Mary, then she really is the Redeemer and I am wrong."

What I'm trying to get at is that that's an invalid conclusion, and it's the source of what makes Pro-Mary's statements appear to some to be invalid. Not that you are solely responsible for causing that in this thread, no; that's not what I mean, but that it's a common jump to a wrong conclusion for a lot of people to whom the subject is presented to. It's jumping to gun, or let's say, tends to make it appear that those who expound on a Pro-Mary expounds upon here, are loading in useless and dangerous extra baggage on top of a legitimate understanding of the role of the Mother of God. I don't think she's doing this at all (assuming Pro is a she). In other words, it does not follow that if all grace is mediated by the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the BVM is the sole principle source of Redemption. If someone rests here and procedes no further based upon a fear of error, valuable understanding is lost.

All your questions or concerns I think are completely healthy and normal though... a person just can't rest there though. I call this into question:

"Who has said all grace must pass “through” Mary? The Church certainly never has said this."

But it has, though. It's in everything I've ever read... but, to compile evidence, as you might imagine, is another matter. Pro-Mary has done some compiling above-thread, but there's so much more to be had on this. Most of what I've picked up on hasn't been the result of a focused study specifically regarding the Mother of God, but bits and pieces that have come together from just reading; the writings of the Saints in particular. The saints, because of their sanctity, were tapped in so to speak; you grab a willing soul such as the saints were, and generally you find that because of their willingness to know and serve, God almost seems open a lid on the top of their heads and just pour in understanding. J. Paul Getty said "If you want to get rich, just find someone making lots of money and do what he's doing." Now of course, that's shallow, but it's still true. What's a greater and more useful truth would be this: "If you want to go to Heaven, just find someone who made it there and do/believe what he did/believed". What Pro-Mary is generally talking about, that's the belief and understanding that I recognize as being derived from reading the works of the saints.

That's not the whole of it though; ecclesiastical documents are saying the same things; the same understanding is coming through the hierarchy of the Church as well. Plus, there's the prayers; the ancient prayers of the Church contain an immense amount of doctrinal understanding, and that has also been a major source of picking up on doctrine for me personally.

So basically, what Pro-Mary is talking about, I recognize it mainly from those sources. To compile it to any degree would take a lot of work for sure, but I think it's all well worth the effort. Probably the main challenge would be knowing when to quit, because the resources in support of what Pro-Mary is trying to get across are staggering; there's so much evidence and support.

It's a fruitful inquiry; imho, it's the Mother of God that will be principle in gathering all the faithful together in unity as sons of one Mother, as brothers in Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 11, 2004.


Clarification which may be needed to keep the purity of relationship intact:

Mary: archetype of the Universal Church
The Church: Bride of Christ
The Holy Ghost: Spouse of the Virgin Mary
Us: Brothers/sisters in Christ, sons/daughters of the Church and also Mary
Holy Mother Church
Holy Mary, Mother of God

Plus lots more, obviously.

To deduce an improper relationship is possible and should be avoided, but such improper deductions are not an automatic consequences of positing of proper relationships.

Sure, diligence is necessary in order to keep a proper view. But to stop short of greater understanding for fear of error is not necessary.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 11, 2004.

______________________________


“All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation.”


Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces :


“Let them pray to Him [Jesus], interposing likewise the powerful patronage of THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church…”


- Pope Pius XI, Caritate Christi Compulsi, May 3, 1932


______________________________


JESUS IS THE HEAD.


MARY IS THE “NECK” . -- Saint Pope Pius X (1903- 1914)


CATHOLICS ARE THE BODY.


______________________________


“…and from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary SHE MERITED TO BECOME MOST WORTHILY THE REPARATRIX OF THE LOST WORLD AND DISPENSATRIX OF ALL THE GIFTS THAT OUR SAVIOR PURCHASED FOR US BY HIS DEATH AND BY HIS BLOOD.”


“... Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE AUGUST VIRGIN TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL MEDIATRIX AND ADVOCATE OF THE WHOLE WORLD WITH HER DIVINE SON (Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis). ...”


“We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace--a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us "de congruo," in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us "de condigno," and SHE IS THE SUPREME MINISTER OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF GRACES. ...”


“... THOSE, ALAS! FURNISH US BY THEIR CONDUCT WITH A PEREMPTORY PROOF OF IT, WHO SEDUCED BY THE WILES OF THE DEMON OR DECEIVED BY FALSE DOCTRINES THINK THEY CAN DO WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE VIRGIN. HAPLESS ARE THEY WHO NEGLECT MARY UNDER PRETEXT OF THE HONOR TO BE PAID TO JESUS CHRIST! ...”


Saint Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, Laetissimum, February 2, 1904


______________________________


"GOD HAS WILLED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING THAT DID NOT PASS THROUGH THE HANDS OF MARY."


-- Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (Cistercian Monk, 1090-1153)


______________________________


“With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. THUS AS NO MAN GOETH TO THE FATHER BUT BY THE SON, SO NO MAN GOETH TO CHRIST BUT BY HIS MOTHER.”


Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense, September 22, 1891


______________________________


“…ALL GRACES CONTAINED IN THE TREASURY OF THE REDEMPTION ARE GIVEN TO US THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE SAME SORROWFUL VIRGIN [MARY].”


-- Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 11, 2004.


Mary: ''Archetype of the Universal Church'' --A dubious enough assumption. (She has the real Assumption, however.)
The Church: Bride of Christ --Correct so far.

The Holy Ghost: Spouse of the Virgin Mary (Applied by the Church? Again, dubious). I wonder why God the Father isn't Our Lord's Abba? The Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father & Son, as the Creed has it. Why would the Spirit be Progenitor?

Us: Brothers/sisters in Christ, sons/daughters of the Church and also Mary, --For Catholics, certainly.
Holy Mother Church-- True
Holy Mary, Mother of God, --Yes; much more? Some more; when apropos.,p. You maintain: ''The saints, because of their sanctity, were tapped in so to speak; you grab a willing soul such as the saints were, and generally you find that because of their willingness to know and serve, etc.,'' --This may even be so. But the notion has some bad stitches showing. You could argue Saint Paul was rapt up to the ninth heaven or the likes. He assimilated the Gospel by divine illumination in one swoop? Why was he slow to understand too, that there's a ''co-remptrix'' in the Church? Or at least foresee what you presume; that God would ''grab'' others later on, so we could pick their brains? Why not say that, as with Holy Scripture, God spoke once, and the Book was closed? First by His holy prophets, and lastly, through His Divine Son, all truth was imparted to the world. --

Adding extravagantly to her titles neither enhances Mary's elevated place in God's Creation, nor clarifies much more her dignity & grace. All of that is a fait accompli in Bethlehem.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2004.


______________________________


Mary is the Prototype of the Church or The Church in Person :


“MARY is the PROTOTYPE OF THE CHURCH as such and is, so to say, THE CHURCH IN PERSON.”


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Dean of the College of Cardinals


______________________________


Mary is the Bride of Jesus :


“… the BRIDE responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom." MARY goes before us all in the holiness … as "the BRIDE without spot or wrinkle."


Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 773


______________________________


Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit :


“You know well the intimate and wonderful relations existing between her [Mary] and the Holy Spirit, so that SHE [Mary] IS JUSTLY CALLED HIS SPOUSE.”


-- Pope Leo XIII, Divinum, May 9,1897


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 11, 2004.


Dear Pro:,
Mary cannot be the bride of Jesus. Don't be ridiculous.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2004.

First, about Pro-Mary's latest resources: bulletproof. It's all right there; look and see. The Church teaches these things.

"He assimilated the Gospel by divine illumination in one swoop?"

It's probable.

"Why was he slow to understand too, that there's a ''co-remptrix'' in the Church?"

Was he? He wasn't; he knew it... really. The Church, likewise, has always known it. It's there for anyone to see who wishes to look.

"Or at least foresee what you presume; that God would ''grab'' others later on, so we could pick their brains?"

But see, this charge is best levied against the modernists; this is exactly what an improper and modernistic form of doctrinal development does. That's it right there; your statement is the essence of it, and I sure am glad to see you don't like the idea. lol! I can say without a doubt that I don't hold the future-brain- picking angle, but hold something more like this:

"Why not say that, as with Holy Scripture, God spoke once, and the Book was closed? First by His holy prophets, and lastly, through His Divine Son, all truth was imparted to the world."

Perhaps I would qualify it by saying "all truth necessary to lead one to salvation". Maybe I would qualify other things about the statement as well, but the gist of it is: that when the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles at Pentacost, they understood all this stuff, and the Universal Church has known it ever since. The job has been to keep these understandings concerning reality from being lost.

This obliquely involves that other issue that I bore you to tears with, which is how it is that the Holy Ghost guides His Church: it's not by downloading new information into the Church, to provide gain, increase or chart new waters, but a preservative/defensive role to maintain what was sealed in the Deposit of the Faith and to protect it throughout 2,000 years from being lost. That's the miracle, right there; that's how the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church might be crushed and reduced to seed status, but it'll always retain the blueprint of understanding from which to bloom anew.

What appears to some to be brand new understanding, man-made development, and new territory is often merely just an old seed beginning to bloom when it's almost Spring and after a bad Winter.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 11, 2004.


"Mary is the Bride of Jesus"

The possibility does exist for an overlapping between analogical predications; that's why I posted the short list a types above, because somebody could see this coming. This is perhaps where the analogy, even one called The Divine Analogy, falls down.

If Pro-Mary steps offtrack here, it does not at all pull the plug on the truth and accuracy of her major thesis. It's not a prerequisite for Pro-Mary to be infallible in order to preserve the body and integrity of the thesis she proposes.

That one might be off the beaten path imho, Pro-Mary, but all in all you're doing a near flawless defense of the role of the Mother of God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 11, 2004.


Jmj

Hello, Pro-Mary.
After quoting part of my previous post, you wrote a little interpretation of it, and you then asked me to let you know if you had misunderstood me.

No, you understood me correctly. But your subsequent argumentation left me just as far away as I previously was from agreeing to recommend the use of the title that you advocate ("Co-Redeemer"). In the future, Pro-Mary, if you want to quote anything I've written on this subject, please feel free to do so, but without mentioning my name -- for I don't want anyone to think that I fully support your position.

I want to make you aware of a significant error of fact in your argumentation -- i.e., the claim that the pope used the title "co-redemptrix" in 1991 "even after all the supposed opposition" had reached him. You are thereby implying that the pope was rebuking the "opposition." I believe that you are mistaken. I believe that (1) the highly vocal advocacy of the proclamation of a new "co-redemtrix" dogma -- and (2) the strong opposition to it -- did not begin, and could not have reached the pope's attention, until later in the '90s. Moreover, if the pope had been rebuking those opposed by using the title in 1991, he would have continued using it to this very day. He has not done so.

Pro-Mary, I am not your enemy. I don't think that you are doing a terrible thing. I just think that what you are doing is neither necessary nor helpful nor wise. A few weeks ago, I attended Mass with a dear friend of mine at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Sitting just a few pews behind us was Dr. Mark Miravalle -- without whose "pro-Co-Redemtrix" efforts of the 1990s we would not even be having this conversation. I know that he was there because he passed within a few feet of me on returning from Communion, and I have seen him several times on EWTN. I have to say that, when I saw him, I was overcome with a strong feeling of pity, because he, like you, was doing what seemed "neither necessary nor helpful nor wise."


Pro-Mary, since my last post, you were quoted as having written, "Jesus is also IN Mary. All God's Graces have to pass through her. O yes, including salvation." You -- and especially others -- then engaged in a debate (1) whether it was right for you to use the phrase "IN Mary" and (2) whether you were heretically calling Our Lady the source of grace and therefore a sort of fourth Person of the Godhead. I did not find myself agreeing with the others folks' specific criticisms of your quoted words -- but I did see one error in your words that the others did not mention.

You wrote, "All God's graces have to pass through her." No, they do not have to pass through her. When you use the words, "have to," they are synonymous (in the minds of most readers) with "must" or "are required to." Surely there is no requirement that God bestow his graces through Mary, just as his Son did not "have to pass through her" to have become our Redeemer. [He could have come into the world in some other way.] Instead, God freely chose that Jesus would come to us through Mary, and he freely chooses to dispense his graces to us through Mary.

Therefore, I would recommend replacing your words ("All God's graces have to pass through her") with something like ... "God wills to grant His graces through her mediation."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004.


First: ''about Pro-Mary's latest resources: bulletproof,''

Absolutely not. You cannot prove his/her claims just because of a few cherry-picked paste-ups. Nothing in them can be correctly seen in context. Naturally, since he's 'trad'' (or something) you have to go in lock-step. Nobody else has to. We are truly in the Church's Tradition. And then:
''. . .how it is that the Holy Ghost guides His Church: it's not by downloading new information into the Church, to provide gain, increase or chart new waters, but a preservative/defensive role to maintain what was sealed in the deposit of faith and to protect it throughout 2,000 years from being lost.

(Nobody here needs your elaborate gee-whizzing at the Holy Spirit.) ''That's the miracle, right there.'' (The miracle by which you & a few others make Mary a co-redeemer?) The Holy Spirit can hardly be to blame for an over-reach. Truth doesn't rely on miracles. It's based on God's revelations. The Church hasn't ''known' something infallibly for 2,000 years only to ''develop'' it now. At least, not something this esoteric. We knew all along Mary was foreordained and holy since the days of the apostles. We learned indeed to from Tradition in the light of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere was ''co-redemptrix'' posited; whereas all her other roles were. They don't keep spreading like ripples in a stream. Except in your delirium. Such as the latest howler: Mary is the ''Bride'' of Jesus. An unfathomed mystery like THAT; waiting until now to surface? Ma-Donna!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2004.


Another crock: Emerald: ''you might be off the beaten path imho, Pro-Mary, but all in all you're doing a near flawless defense of the role of the Mother of God.''

What has flawless got to do with this ridiculous argument? Has somebody attacked Mary the Blessed Virgin here, that she needed Pro- Mar's ''flawless defense''--? ? ?

All in all both of you should go back to Catechism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2004.


______________________________


Thanks, Emerald.


YOU are doing a great job in defending Catholic Truth.


You said, “… it's the Mother of God that will be principle in gathering all the faithful together in unity as sons of one Mother, as brothers in Christ.”


I agree.


______________________________


"God wills to grant His graces through her [Mary’s] mediation."


Mary is the Mediatrix of ALL Graces :


______________________________


"It is a great thing in any saint to have GRACE sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have ENOUGH TO SUFFICE FOR THE SALVATION OF EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD is the greatest of all; and this is found in CHRIST AND IN THE BLESSED VIRGIN."


-- Saint Thomas Aquinas ( 1225 -1274 )


______________________________


"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; NONE, O MOTHER OF GOD, ATTAINS SALVATION EXCEPT THROUGH THEE; NONE RECEIVES A GIFT FROM THE THRONE OF MERCY EXCEPT THROUGH THEE."


-- Saint Germanus of Constantinople ( ~642 - 732)


______________________________


SHE DISPENSES GRACE with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother of God. By the FULLNESS OF GRACE which confers on her the most illustrious of her many titles, THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS INFINITELY SUPERIOR TO ALL THE HIERARCHIES OF MEN AND ANGELS, THE ONE CREATURE WHO IS CLOSEST OF ALL TO CHRIST.”


-- Pope Leo XIII, Magnae Dei Matris, September 8, 1892


______________________________


“…the Blessed Virgin's SALUTARY INFLUENCE ON MEN ... flows FROM the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power FROM it."


-- Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, November 21, 1964, n. 60


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 11, 2004.


Again, a flood of quotations from a handy book someone else wrote; with which none of us disagree.

In Emerald's last, and Pro-Mary's present posting, the insinuation is they both are ''defending'' Our Lady.

This can't offend me personally. I haven't attacked Mary, I haven't in any way promoted disrespect for Mary. Only fanaticism. And, as if by obligation, Pro-M again serves up a large helping of Catholic devotions; all of which I'm very happy with. They are NOT fanaticism, but praise and devotion.

Giving Our Lady the devotion she truly deserves is a Catholic's joy. I believe in the holy Rosary, scapulars, prayer to Our Lady Intercessor, Virgin and Mother of the Church.

And not because I'll be guilty of fanaticism. Only sincere devotion. I truly love Our Blessed Mother. But ascribing to her a rank only proper to Jesus Christ? And insisting it is FACT; because devotion demands it? Returning with nothing but added insistence, against ''the opposition to Mary,''-- When I only oppose fanatical titles? You prove my point yourselves.

Even so, right from the start I also said you may believe as you please. The only reason for my replies being: you shouldn't assume a post of authority. It is not commanded of us by the Church to believe Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, --NOT an article of faith. Not even a devotion in the acepted manner. Just your own opinions.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2004.


Gene says:

"Another crock: Emerald: ''you might be off the beaten path imho, Pro-Mary, but all in all you're doing a near flawless defense of the role of the Mother of God.'"

It's a crock alright, because that's not what I said. I said this:

"That one might be off the beaten path imho, Pro-Mary, but all in all you're doing a near flawless defense of the role of the Mother of God."

...in specific reference to this one:

"Mary is the Bride of Jesus"

Not in reference to all of what Pro-Mary is saying, because what Pro- Mary is talking about is in fact ON the beaten path, beaten by Holy Mother Church herself. It's in the words of Pontiffs, and doctors of the Church, and saints... tons of words, throughout all the ages. Some of which Pro-Mary provides upthread. Clear statements from the ordinary magisterium.

That's what you are up against.

I'm just up against you twisting my words, that's all; no biggie I guess.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 11, 2004.


"When good Catholics understand doctrine correctly they don't fall into fanaticism. Yet, every kind of fish was gathered once into Peter's net; I believe 153 of the species? It's to be expected. Pro- Mary just wants to be heard and appreciated. We're his/her brethren here, and we are capable of keeping him/her orthodox. It's a spiritual work of mercy. Please observe, and learn something new."

Learning anything yet?

Geez.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 12, 2004.


Good and faithful John,

I’m very glad you agree that the concept, Co-Redemptrix, is not an error. Surely, Dr. Miravalle and Blessed Mother Teresa acted only on good intentions. Maybe, its dogmatic definition is still in the future … according to God’s perfect timing … through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When I mentioned, "even after all the supposed opposition," it was only in reference to your “hunch” … “This is just a hunch on my part - - and perhaps ‘wishful thinking’ that reflects my own preference -- but I believe that his avoidance of the title indicates that there was a negative reaction to his using it, perhaps from within the Vatican Curia, and that the pope has decided that it would be better so set the old title aside, perhaps permanently. He may have been advised that the term is confusing, and he may have agreed with the reasoning he was given.”

Yes, "God wills to grant His graces through her mediation," is clearer than my original statement.

Thanks and God Bless.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 12, 2004.


Dear Pr Mary:
I believe the most Blessed Virgin Mary is ''Mediatrix of All Graces''. The Church is our mother, Mary is the same mother; we receive of them all grace merited by Jesus Christ. In the gospel narrative we are taught the same. Blood and water gushed from the pierced heart of our Redeemer hanging dead on the Cross. The word mediatrix means she at the foot of the Cross receives directly from the source, His Sacred Heart; His love and grace for every true believer. Believers means the Church. That does not prefigure co-redemption. --Christ alone saves. He alone redeems; and she receives from Him the graces for His Church. His merits alone redeem us; she mediates for the Church. Nothing is achieved for us by anyone's else's power except Christ's. Redemption is not a grace, but a divine Work. This truth does NOT belittle or dismiss Mary. She is holy and set apart in another role. Your presumption that in time the Holy Virgin's vocation during salvation history will be recognized as co-redemption is not realistic. A title like this is a misnomer. Her work isn't, it continues in the world and it's glorious.

Co-redeemer is a misnomer. It makes no sense whether in Latin or in the vernacular. It's been done, once and forever; there is no cause for Mary to mediate for it. She can interceed, in order that souls may come to their Redeemer and be saved. She wins souls for Our Lord. But the death and resurrection of Jesus have already redeemed the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2004.


I'm still wondering why you intentionally changed my words, Gene, in order to substantially alter the meaning of the sentence I had written.

That's just plain dishonesty.

This while claiming that your intention is to make sure us Catholics are not misunderstood, and that our doctrines are not misunderstood by nonCatholics.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 12, 2004.


Jmj

Pro-Mary, you wrote to me: "I’m very glad you agree that the concept, Co-Redemptrix, is not an error."

But because of the controversy related to the word, "co-redemptrix" -- which could mean different things to different people -- I think that a slightly different formulation of your sentence needs to be said. I would have been more comfortable if you had written, "I'm very glad that you agree that there is no error in the definition of 'co-redemptrix' that Pope John Paul II had in mind when he was using that word." Because of the apparent confusion, I cannot simply say that I "agree that the concept, Co-Redemptrix, is not an error" -- without mentioning some "reference point" for the correct meaning of the word.

You also wrote: "Maybe, its dogmatic definition is still in the future … according to God’s perfect timing". I'm glad that you used the word "maybe," because it shows that you recognize the possibility that a "dogmatic definition" may never occur before the end of the world. That may turn out to be "according to God's perfect" will. We cannot read his mind.

In closing, I want to emphasize what I wrote in 2001: "I find nothing wrong with the intended meaning of the title [-- i.e., the meaning 'intended' by popes who called Our Lady "co-redemptrix"]. The [correct] meaning is already believed by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants. The problem, in my opinion, is [in the use of] the title itself."

God bless you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.


Dear Emerald:
''wondering why you intentionally changed my words, Gene, in order to substantially alter the meaning of the sentence.''

This is the TRUTH: I am unaware of which words, if I intentionally altered anything; I changed. Would you let me know now, and maybe allow me to pay better attention to what you truly said? I intentionally changed nothing. I may have done so inadvertently; so let me see, please.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2004.


John, That is precisely what I meant when I used the word, "concept" to mean "intended meaning" instead of the word, "title" which I clarified (concept vs. title) at length in my first reply to you. Cheers.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 12, 2004.

______________________________


Emerald said, “… the resources … are staggering; there's so much evidence and support.”


FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELT !


Jesus is also IN Mary. "God wills to grant His graces through her mediation." O yes, including salvation :


______________________________


“If people fail to say the Hail Mary, it is a sign that they will probably -- and indeed, shortly -- be condemned to eternal punishment.”


-- Blessed Alan de la Roche (1428-1475)


______________________________


“The salvation of each individual is attached to the Hail Mary.”


-- Saint John Capistrano (1386-1456)


______________________________


“Mary is called ‘the Gate of Heaven’ because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.”


“The way of salvation is open to no one except through Mary.”


“The salvation of those who are not protected by Mary is impossible.”


-- Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori (1696-1787)


______________________________


“No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.”


“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors . . . He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins . . . He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven . . . Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance, not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation . . . No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.”


-- Saint Bonaventure (1221-1274 )


______________________________


“All the Saints have a great devotion to Our Lady: no grace comes from Heaven without passing through her hands. We cannot go into a house without speaking to the doorkeeper. Well, the Holy Virgin is the doorkeeper of Heaven.”


-- Saint John Mary Vianney (1786-1859)


______________________________


“If our life were not under the protection of Mary, we might tremble for our perseverance and salvation . . . In her hands Jesus has placed His almighty power in the order of salvation. He has confided to her all the means of salvation. All the graces of salvation, both natural and spiritual, will be given to us by Mary. She is rich with the riches of God Himself.”


-- Saint Peter Julian Eymard (1811-1868)


______________________________


“It is impossible for persons who are not loved by the Mother of Christ to have any part with Him. Conversely, it is impossible for anyone to perish upon whom she looks with favor.”


-- Saint John Eudes (1601-1670)


______________________________


“O Mary, Virgin Most Powerful, you alone have destroyed every heresy in the whole world!”


-- Saint John Bosco (1815-1888)


______________________________


“Thousands of souls perish because Mary is withheld from them.”


-- Saint Louis De Montfort (1673-1716)


______________________________


"EVERY GRACE granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, FROM CHRIST IT PASSES TO THE VIRGIN, AND FROM THE VIRGIN IT DESCENDS TO US."


-- Saint Bernardine of Siena (1381-1444)


______________________________


“Hail [Mary], through whom creation is renewed ...
Hail [Mary], through whom and in whom the Creator is adored ...
Hail [Mary], HEAVENLY LADDER, through whom God has descended ...
Hail [Mary], BRIDGE leading those on earth to heaven.”


-- Akathistos Hymn, 6th Century


______________________________


“For thereafter, by the divine plan, she so began to watch over the Church, so to be present to us and to favor us as Mother, that SHE WHO HAD BEEN THE MINISTER OF ACCOMPLISHING THE MYSTERY OF HUMAN REDEMPTION, WOULD BE LIKEWISE THE MINISTER OF THE DISPENSATION OF THAT GRACE, PRACTICALLY LIMITLESS POWER BEING GIVEN TO HER.”


--Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, Sept. 5, 1895


______________________________


“God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, EVERY GRACE, AND ALL SALVATION. FOR THIS IS HIS WILL, THAT WE OBTAIN EVERYTHING THROUGH MARY.”


-- Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 12, 2004.


Emerald said, “… the resources … are staggering; there's so much evidence and support.” / FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELT !

Evidence yes; of what we all have received in truth about Mary;

Not so much for the idea you misrepresented staggering us under the weight of ponderous fanaticism. But we forgive you. We love Our Lady too, in case you've forgotten.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2004.


Emerald,

Eugene doesn't get it.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 12, 2004.


No, Dear Pro: I don't agree with it. not as you promote it. That's a vast difference.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2004.

(anon@anon.com), you must be a Sola Scripturist. The words of Popes, Saints, Catholic Theologians, Priests, and Deacons do not count for anything. If you were a faithful Catholic then their words would be more than sufficient.

When did Catholics have a good rap ???

Interesting how a protestant found an ally in Eugene’s watered down version of Catholicism … politically pragmatic … easily agreeable… very contemporary …

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 12, 2004.


Go ahead, Pro-- You're just being a sore loser. If you have to bait me with remarks like, my ''watered down version'' of faith, --the cause is clear. Your own faith is fanatical. You admit it, since you see me write: . . . the most Blessed Virgin Mary is ''Mediatrix of All Graces''. The Church is our mother, Mary is the same mother; we receive of them all grace merited by Jesus Christ . . . But that's too watered down for you.

I told you I stand by the Creed, every true apostolic teaching, the Sacred Tradition of the Church. I love Mary, her Rosary, I need her intercession, I never spoke a word against her. She KNOWS it. I only have ONE strike against me, in your eyes: I'm not a Mariolater.

I keep all my worship and adoration to God alone. In this I emulate every saint and every Pope. I think I emulate even Frs Rumble and Carty and Mother Theresa. But for you, this is ''watered down'' and means that I'm an ally of protestants. Very well; you must be a superior Catholic.

I told you I believed rebuking your fanaticism is a spiritual work of mercy. Though I'm only a sinner, I truly feel I've set a good example here in this thread for YOU and for others who will read. Take my example, then, Pro. Do not prove the anti-Catholics right; worship God only. This is His First Commandment.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2004.


______________________________


Funny how Eugene mistakenly thought he won something.

He managed to prove himself flippant. A moment ago he just said, “Pro- M again serves up a large helping of Catholic devotions; all of which I'm very happy with. They are NOT fanaticism, but praise and devotion.” Notice how he emphasized the word NOT.

He proudly said, “I think I emulate even Frs Rumble and Carty and Mother Theresa.,” yet he denied … the much repeated Catholic Truth of the “intended meaning” of the old title, Co-Redemptrix … which Fathers Rumble and Carty and Blessed Mother Teresa faithfully professed.

For him, to rebuke Saint Catherine of Siena’s prayers as “hyperbolic” and Blessed Mother Teresa as having “no revelations” counts as a spiritual work of mercy.


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


I agreed with every praise given Mary by you as well as these saints & popes; except to call Our Lady a Redeemer. You haven't ''introduced'' me to Marian devotion. You are promoting quasi-adoration of the Blessed Virgin. --Something which gives aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ's Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.

Pro-Mary, Eugene’s “...watered down version of Catholicism …… politically pragmatic …… easily agreeable…… very contemporary ……” is my version of Catholicism; is this forum’s version of Catholicism. As a guest of this forum I would be careful how you address and/or treat the host. You’ve done nothing but mock and ridicule those who have opposed your line of thinking. Please be more courteous in the future.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 13, 2004.

With all due respect, Ed, step back and look at Eugene's approach, assumptions and accusations.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 13, 2004.

"...watered down version of Catholicism … politically pragmatic … easily agreeable… very contemporary …"

I had written up a post earlier which I didn't submit. In that post, though, I had actually characterized Gene's approach as political. Guess I'm not alone in that recognition.

Ed, instead of focusing on the topic of a discussion, Gene instead likes to focus on the posters themselves, and tries to characterize posters in a certain unfavorable light to their discredit. This is the essence of ad hominem. It's always about the portraying the poster negatively as opposed to addressing the topic at hand on it's own merits.

What's more, he gets it miserably wrong 98.6% of the time. Embarrassing wrong.

There are people out there who care more about truth than they do about human respect. As if someone should get all shame-faced by non-substantive mischaracterizations of their motive and endless psychoanalysis. That's weak. Who even cares.

I suppose I could try the same thing; it wouldn't be outdone, but I can guarantee it would be deleted. It won't though because it's a matter of choice, of a decision, and I'll choose against if and won't be sucked into that game.

Step away from the fanaticism angle, Gene; it has nothing to do with the topic of this conversation whatsoever. What's attempted via this approach is to engender to idea that something is being said here by Pro-Mary which is contrary to the understanding of the Church, not by just coming out with it, but by blindly insinuating it via the mischaracterization of the spiritual and intellectual maturity of the poster named Pro-Mary.

Step away from it, and step away from the attempt to win the minds of others using human respect as a tool. People who pursue the truths of Catholicism ought not be coming to their conclusions based upon the pressures of human respect forced on them by others. St. Don Bosco states that paying homage to human respect is one of the most common pitfalls that drags people down. But human respect is what's being catered to here strategically. Twofold: one, in regards to fearing what Protestants might think of us, and secondly it's the tool used in an attempt to silence those who wish to discuss deeper Catholic truths. Strategy it is; political it is. Intellectual, theological, philosophical, it's not. Mere rhetoric.

In fact it's a violation of Christian charity. It's also an approach to the things of the Catholic Faith originating in skepticism. You may believe you have the right stance, you may argue for that stance, but leave Pro-Mary's personal spritual maturity out of it. Quit calling her a fanatic. As for me, as you well know, pay one comment, get two back free. The offer is good in perpetuam.

Pro-Mary has largely provided quotation from saints and pontiffs. My charge is that when you mischaracterize Pro-Mary's personal spiritual maturity, understanding and intentions, then some of that bleeds over into a similar judgment against popes and saints.

You insist on insinuating that Pro-Mary states something contrary to the mind of the Church. There has been no evidence provided whatsoever in support of this except your obstinacy.

Come out and say what's contrary in Pro-Mary's posts to the mind of the Church... not what you are afraid people will think she's saying. See that she's quoting the mind of the Church, for heaven's sake. Don't say it's that Pro-Mary calls Mary the originating source of redemption at Jesus's expense, because that was never stated and it was in fact denied. Don't say it's about Jesus being the spouse of Mary, because that was tangential to the main topic anyways. If it's an incorrect relation to posit, it is insulated from the main body of the thesis and does Pro-Mary's main thesis no damage.

Try something new; try learning something. Learn about the Mother of God.

Winning, losing. Victory. Garbage.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 13, 2004.


"I agreed with every praise given Mary by you as well as these saints & popes; except to call Our Lady a Redeemer."

As did Pro-Mary. Nor did she call Mary a redeemer. You claim she did. She didn't. She said co-redemptrix. So did the popes and the saints. You didn't agree with that part of it.

"You are promoting quasi-adoration of the Blessed Virgin."

Well, you're wrong. It's just what you think, but that's not what's happening.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 13, 2004.


Emerald:
Apparently neither you nor Pro-Mary are willing to admit that in practically ALL of is/her posts only ONE item was disputed. (There are a few that reek of idlatry, yet I didn't confront him.) I said very willingly that we're in agreement with just about all the ''saints popes and resources'' he/she cited. Except when the context is distorted to suggest they believed Mary is a true co- redemptrix. Therefore, please do not say I've discarded all he/she wrote. I didn't. I went to pains showing how orthodox my faith is. You disregard that. I've said the argument is an outbreak of fanaticism because --1.) There is no end to it. There is never any concession to reason. 2.) The imposition of a non-dogmatic belief should not be called a TRUTH. The jury is still out. Why should we concede that Pro-Mary is offering us a truth?

3.) as to your complaint: You insist on insinuating that Pro-Mary states something contrary to the mind of the Church. There has been no evidence provided whatsoever in support of this except your obstinacy.--

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on YOU and ''Pro-Mary''-- Show us the necessity of moving heaven and earth for this unfounded title: Co-Redemptrix? It is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church, not by a long shot. It encroaches very seriously upon the Divine. This isn't a difficult problem, Emmie. We KNOW who Our Holy Redeemer is. There is NO doubt about who He is.

You are giving scandal. Neither of you have any authority from our Church to proclaim something unfounded and/or dubious as TRUTH. Neither you nor Pro- Mary!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.


Who needs non-Catholics making damaging comments to the Church when we have people like 'Pro Mary'? It's utterly scandalous. I truly believe Our Blessed Mother would also be scandalised. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that Mary is a co-redeemer. Arguments saying co-redemptrix doesn't mean co-redeemer don't hold water! The ordinary man in the street would say it meant that. That's what the implication is, and it's playing with words. I'ts an out and out disgrace to imply by the use of this phrase, whether intentional or not, that Our Blessed Mother is a co-redeemer. It's fanatacism at its worst. Anyone who disagrees with that opinion is being treated like they have no respect nor love for the Blessed Mother. That's simply untrue and grossly unfair. I honour Our Lady, I ask for her intercession. I also know that my ONLY hope of salvation is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Eugene's done an outstanding job in this thread and deserves recognition of that fact.

Well done Eugene.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 13, 2004.


"The burden of proof is not on me. It's on YOU and ''Pro-Mary''-- "

Look, I can't help it if you don't just read the texts provided above, from the magisterium of the Catholic Church, by Pro- Mary. Evidence has been provided. Failure to read and perceive is your own problem.

"Show us the necessity of moving heaven and earth for this unfounded title: Co-Redemptrix?"

It isn't the necessity of moving heaven and earth to prove a title. It's the truth of the title itself that's not unfounded. It's founded on words issuing from The Rock.

"It is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church, not by a long shot."

Yes it is, Gene. This is real dissent here.

"It encroaches very seriously upon the Divine."

Why don't you just go ahead and conclude that the Incarnation is an encroachment upon the Divine instead of God's will to partake in humanity, O paragon of wisdom, Genie. The topic has nothing to do with my will or Pro-Mary's personal will, but the will of God and what He wished to bestow on his most favored daughter. It's His idea, as was the Incarnation and the Passion.

"This isn't a difficult problem, Emmie. We KNOW who Our Holy Redeemer is. There is NO doubt about who He is."

It's not difficult for me; it is for you. Bag the projection. You deny what you don't understand, and you make abolutely NO effort to understand the mind of the Church here. Only to mischaracterize it for the sake of avoiding... mischaracterization. Brilliant.

"You are giving scandal."

I am NOT. That's your own opinion, and it's a wrong opinion, and what's more sure than anything else on this thread is this:

You have absolutely no support whatsoever from the magisterium of the Church for this opinion of yours. It belongs to you and it is foreign to Holy Mother Church.

"Neither of you have any authority from our Church to proclaim something unfounded and/or dubious as TRUTH. Neither you nor Pro- Mary!"

That's why she is using the words of the Church instead of her own to support what she saying. Duh, Gene. This is flat out denial. The times that you have equated people's heartfelt love for Holy Mother Church with being pharisaical? It's only just an fitting that you should rend your own garments here in this thread. I'm tempted to call it dissent, but I refuse to partake in the same errors as others; the Others that do to others what they would not want done to themselves. Rend away.

Sarah says:

"Who needs non-Catholics making damaging comments to the Church when we have people like 'Pro Mary'? It's utterly scandalous."

Nice personal opinion, Sara. Except it's opposite what's been clearly laid out by Holy Mother Church herself.

"I truly believe Our Blessed Mother would also be scandalised."

Please don't speak for her.

"The Catholic Church does NOT teach that Mary is a co- redeemer."

Another mere positing of an antithesis to what's been clearly shown upthread to be the mind of the Church, in the words of the Church.

"Arguments saying co-redemptrix doesn't mean co-redeemer don't hold water!"

Another mere positing of an antithesis to what's been clearly shown upthread to be the mind of the Church, in the words of the Church.

"The ordinary man in the street would say it meant that."

Would it be a platitude to mention here that the ordinary man in the street isn't a Catholic?

"That's what the implication is, and it's playing with words."

If you feel this way, and feel that the average nonCatholic man-on- the-street's reaction to deep theological reality is more important than the reality itself, then you truly are more concerned about human respect than the truth.

This is exactly like what happened when Christ told the disciples He would give them His flesh to eat. They said it was a hard teaching. They didn't understand it. Some walked away.

If someone calls our Holy Eucharist cannibalism, and some Protestants in fact do, do we step away from our upholding and reverence for this doctrine to please them?

Maybe I should provide the answer before Laity Marketing, Inc. gets hold of it... Answer:

NO.

"I'ts an out and out disgrace to imply by the use of this phrase, whether intentional or not, that Our Blessed Mother is a co-redeemer. It's fanatacism at its worst."

No, it's your own abject failure to understand the meaning of a word. That's your fault, not Pro-Mary's. You misrepresent the word.

"Anyone who disagrees with that opinion is being treated like they have no respect nor love for the Blessed Mother. That's simply untrue and grossly unfair."

What goes around comes around. And I don't even know who Pro-Mary is, and have no experience or knowledge of this poster except what I have seen in this thread. It's about time someone from your side of the equation called your own side of the equation onto the carpet for their dissent, disobedience and rank skepticism. It wasn't unfair before, but now that it hits your own theological pocketbook, suddenly it is. Rend rend rend, etc. QED.

"I honour Our Lady, I ask for her intercession. I also know that my ONLY hope of salvation is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross."

Well then, Welcome to Mel Gibson's kind of Catholicism, which is my own as well. Title of this thread: go look.

"Eugene's done an outstanding job in this thread and deserves recognition of that fact."

Whatever, Sara. Let me just be blunt. It stinks.

Pro-Mary, thanks in particular for this one:

"... those, alas! Furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under the pretext of honor to be paid to Jesus Christ!" --Saint Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, Laetissimum, February 2, 1904

Obviously, I'll double check the context of that text further Pro- Mary, but I get the drift of it.

Gene, Sara, the only thing you have for an argument is the delete- button of the moderator if he ever gets one-sided and unfair enough to use. That's up to him, but I would ask him to say a Hail Mary over it first before acting. The Church is against your obstinate refusal to understand and your over-willingness to falsely accuse another person, misconstruing their words to lend support to fit your own personal, pansy fear of what other people think when it comes to Catholic truth and reality.

Read the texts provided by the Church above. You are ranged against the Church on this one. Ranged against Holy Mother Church; submit. Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 13, 2004.


“With all due respect, Ed, step back and look at Eugene's approach, assumptions and accusations.”

Catholic Truth is Charitable and Courteous.

Forum Tenure is Not the Plumb-Line of Courtesy.



-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


______________________________


Thanks very much, Good and Faithful Emerald.

You have done an Outstanding job in Defending Catholic Truth – patiently correcting numerous vile accusations, erroneous assumptions, and noisome rhetoric. You are not only a Defender of the Faith but also a Defender of the Faithful. Your version of Catholicism is Potent, Pure, and Undiluted. This forum is blessed by your brilliance.

The following Saint is of your calibre : Saint Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) – a Philosopher Saint who knows matter and form. ( I hope I am not putting her in too great of a risk … but we are more concerned about Catholic Truth rather than “human respect” … anyway, she is already in heavenly bliss. )


______________________________


“Mary leaves the natural order and is placed as CO-REDEMPTRIX ALONGSIDE THE REDEEMER.”

“[Mary is the] COLLABORATRIX OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER."

"Under the Cross the Virgin of virgins became the MOTHER OF GRACE."

-- Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), Martyr, Virgin, Philosopher (1891 - 1942)

Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, pray for us.


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


I have to admit that my latest post presses the envelope of charity.

But I'm sick and tired of people approaching the Mother of Divine Wisdom with skepticism.

I also cannot respect people who play to an audience, nor people who falsely accuse others and twist their words to justify their own devotional apathy. If there is devotion there and not apathy, then what's there is looked upon as something shameful.

It is a hinderance to the progress of souls; it stands in the way of spiritual understanding and awareness. It's humanistic.

I'm getting pretty hot under the collar over this one, so I'll leave it up to you from here on out, Pro-Mary, and I'm going back to paying attention to what season it is.

Keep up the good work; keep repeating the words of our saints and our pontiffs.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 13, 2004.


The sainted Edith Stein was not an authority; she was mistaken on this abstract matter. Anyone can overstep. Only by the Holy Spirit are we assured of an absolute truth. You may object:

''Read the texts provided by the Church above. You are ranged against the Church on this one. Ranged against Holy Mother Church; submit-- ''

That's NOT so. You make an assumption based on ignorance because you desire it your way. That's not truth.

I myself can devoutly pray, Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.''-- without crossing the bounds of adoration. You've crossed them by surrendering to an ungodly impulse. You are giving scandal here. I'm sorry; but I'm convinced.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.


The great enthusiasm of my pal Emerald has nothing but good intentions behind it; but he tramples on the truth to carry it to me. For instance: ''. . . deceived by ___false doctrines___ think they can ''do without the help of the Virgin.'' --Hapless are they who ___neglect Mary___ under the pretext of honor to be paid to Jesus Christ!" -- Saint Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, Laetissimum, February 2, 1904

One would naturally think you array these charges against me. (? ? ? ) It is a far reach to say I'm ''deceived by false doctrine'', since I venerate and honor the Blessed Virgin Mary as much as anyone here. Do Emmie and Pro-M accuse us of ''doing without the help of Mary,'' or do they say we ''have no reason to ask it? Oh, no; Emerald pauses; ''But I get the drift of it.'' Wow. Thanks, Pal! ''Evidence has been provided. Failure to read and perceive is your own problem.'' Is that so? Perecive that all of us are Mary's beloved children? I do. Perecive she is a co- Mediatrix? I perceive that. Or that Mary stands in Creation above all other holy angels and saints? I agree. That her love and the holy Fiat gave glory to the Will of God, and gave us the Holy Incarnation? I perceive it better than you do! By filling this thread with your endless tapestry of quotations all meant to exalt her and inspire devotion to Mary; you have done something good but unnecessary. All you were asked to provide was qualified and authoritative proof that THE CHURCH teaches us Mary is Co- Redemptrix. But you can't. You provide only the writings of individuals. Catholics, to be sure; but not reliant upon either scriptures or dogmas. All of your paste- ups refer to Mary's OTHER graces. Not REDEMPTION. Not even Sacred Tradition is capable of making Mary more than Virgin Mother of Our Redeemer. And for me, that's MAGNIFICANT! I would not subtract one Ave from the long list of praises you & Pro Mary quoted here. They are ALL true! Except one.

Mary was less than our Redeemer. The deed was done entirely by her Divine Son. No one else COULD redeem the world. Mary could not; she isn't divine. It took the passion, death and resurrection of a Divine Man to accomplish the Redemption. Isn't it you who can't ''perceive'' this truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.


______________________________


Emerald, I agree with you … ‘tis the season to focus on the sufferings of Jesus and the sorrows of Mary … time to pray more for me as well … contrary to several opinions, we have venerated and honored and defended our Blessed Mother …it’s been great, Emerald. God bless you.


______________________________


Eugene is NOT an authority at all.

Saint Edith Stein, filled with the Holy Spirit, is an Authority of the Holy Catholic Church.


______________________________


The Holy Catholic Church says, “Jesus is the Redemptor.”
The Holy Catholic Church says, “Mary is the Co-Redemptrix.”

Politically-Incorrect Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori says, “THE WAY OF SALVATION IS OPEN TO NO ONE EXCEPT THROUGH MARY.”

“St. Bonaventure says that he had never heard of a Saint without devotion to Mary or a Great Saint without Great, viz., Maximal, Devotion to the Virgin Mother.” -- Fr. Peter Damian M. Fehlner, FI, STD

“OF MARY ONE CAN NEVER SAY ENOUGH!”

All for Jesus and Mary.

Mother of Salvation, pray for us.


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


P-M: Though you proclaim, ''contrary to several opinions, we have venerated and honored and defended our Blessed Mother.''

The final words can have no valid point. Because no one attacked the Virgin Mary, so that you should have to ''defend'' her. And; yur quasi-worshipping of Our lady would have appalled her, above all. She doesn't come to us for our worship, but rather to help us come to her Divine Son. Theologically, you cannot dispute this. You have defended yourselves, not Our Blessed Mother. She is the beloved Mother of this forum, we would never take anything away from her.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.


______________________________


“God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, EVERY GRACE, AND ALL SALVATION . FOR THIS IS HIS WILL, THAT WE OBTAIN EVERYTHING THROUGH MARY. ” -- Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849


Mary, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of ALL Graces, Advocate, pray for us.


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


Looks like Jesus came here and died for nothing, as you see it. Yes; your case is open and shut. A fanatic with only one thing on your mind.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.

______________________________


Politically-Incorrect Saint Bernardine of Siena said, “[Mary,] O Lady, since thou art the Dispenser of ALL Graces, and since THE GRACE OF SALVATION CAN COME ONLY THROUGH THY HANDS, our Salvation depends on thee.”


Mary, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of ALL Graces, Advocate, pray for us.


______________________________

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.


To any lurkers who may not have enough knowledge of Catholicism to know better:

The Catholic Church is Christocentric.

All salvation is attained through Christ. ONLY Christ has the power of salvation. Anyone who says otherwise is blasphemous and in heresy.

Mary is the Mother of God, the Blessed, honoured and holy mother of the Christ. Christ is our Holy Redeemer.

Redemption comes through Christ.

That is our faith. That is what we believe.

-- Christ the Redeemer (christ@savedmankind.com), March 13, 2004.


Pro-Mary, you seem determined to repeat statements that are not in keeping with orthodox Catholic teaching. We’ve been patient and courteous to you. In return, we have received little more than ridicule, sarcasm, insult and spam. Clearly you have taken quotes from Catholics, both present and past, saints and popes and twisted them to suit your own agenda. We have given you ample opportunity to express your views. Everyone is very clear on what your position on Mary as Co-Redemptrix is. Your persistence to annunciate that which the Church does not teach, in the name of all Catholics, is now affecting the opinion of anyone who might visit here, toward Catholics, in a derogatory way. It has come to the point where anyone who visits this forum will indeed get the impression that all Catholics worship Mary as you do which is clearly not the case, nor can this be found anywhere in Church teaching.

Anyone who insists on monopolizing threads, especially with anti- Catholic rhetoric as you do, is always going to draw the attention of those who try to maintain order and conformity to Catholic teaching, in the forum. Invariably those, like you, who do draw our attention, after having been warned, find it difficult to control their comments based on the depth of their conviction, Usually, the result unfortunately for them, is expulsion. I think the time has now come to put an end to your abuse of Catholic teaching in this, an orthodox Catholic forum. You are welcome to remain here, but I will now ask you to cease and desist from posting anymore “Co-Redemptrix” theology. If you insist on ignoring my instructions in this regard, I will have no alternative but to expel you from the forum. I would suggest that if you feel as strongly about your position on Mary as I think you do, that you open a Marian forum of your own and invite everyone to listen to what you have to say.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 13, 2004.


One correction, Ed; I worship The Most Holy Trinity. I venerate Mary.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.

Ed, I am Pro-Catholic and Pro-Orthodoxy. Peace be with you.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.

Thank You, Ed; because we realise it gives you no pleasure to take Pro-Mary down. It gives no one pleasure to confront a Catholic in the interest of conformed theology and truth. But Pro-Mary hasn't relaxed from the very start; slanting every approved Marian doctrine towards no other outcome but his/her own.

If we had seen at least SOME deference to our side's fear of offending God; a simple precaution in speech; it would be tolerable. But the issue is black vs. white; ''My way or the highway,'' for this hardened Catholic heart.

The overbearing posts will continue as if to glorify Our Holy Mother in heaven. Pro-M fancies this a ''defense'' of Our Blessed Mother, with everyone else an enemy. It smacks of Paranoia, God forgive me. Fanatics can't be happy EVER; let's face it. let us pray for their souls, realising how much Satan loves to divide the people of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.


Eugene, May God help you. Peace be with you.

-- (Pro-Mary@catholic.forum), March 13, 2004.

"If you insist on ignoring my instructions in this regard, I will have no alternative but to expel you from the forum."

Pro-Mary is free to do what she wishes.

As for me, I hereby ignore you. Ban me. After reading the dishonesty in your post above, I don't want anything to do with your forum whatsoever anymore. It's lying, and I don't want anything to do with it.

Get it over with. Here's your opportunity; take it

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 14, 2004.


Emerald, Pro-Mary is not free to do as she wishes, at least not in this forum. Her Marian theology is not in keeping with the Church’s teachings and she/he will not be permitted to continue to advocate falsehoods under the premise it is orthodox Catholic teaching. This discussion is closed. I see no need to ban you Emerald, since apparently, by your own admission, you’ve decided you will have nothing further to do with this forum anyway.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.

Dear Ed, Pro-M, et al:
I sincerely wish to invite all to examine the postings I wrote into the present thread; inspect them scrupulously for fairness, and if you castigate me for any number of these, I will accept it.

I don't enter our forum to commit murder. I've no wish to get away with it. Yes; there are instances where I may attack a messenger indirectly. Just as I would necessarily attack Luther, Calvin, the Kings of England, heretics and hypocrites. I've referred to a few folks here as Pharisees; others as elitists; but not for personal reasons. Only for that evidence they give of these faults publicly--HERE. Once or twice, my posts have been quietly deleted by a Moderator. I'm likely the ONLY man in here who has NOT complained for being deleted. Once only, I voluntarily left the forum because of an unfair deletion. But not so as to ''get away with murder''. I offered that particular moderator a chance to apologise, which he turned down. I declared yesterday it gives me no pleasure to confront anybody, much less a faithful Catholic. I go to bed later with a heavy heart. I ask God to forgive me, if He is offended. In my heart I believe I'm serving God. Yesterday I called my offerings within this thread my spiritual work of mercy; to Pro-Mary. If others here see me for a character assassin or an uncharitable Catholic, please tell me so.

I never wanted to wound Pro-Mary. And as for Emerald, who is sick of me, he's often realised I do not return such a feeling. I tangle with him for his pretensions and sophisms, arguing our faith. Not with the messenger. (I suppose it's a close call.)

Pro-Mary has also been shamelessly pretentious; yet my argument has been solely with his/her ''doctrinal truth,'' --Not with the messenger. I did NOT request a ban on him/her; I only ask that he STOP presenting his view of the ''Co- Redemptrix'' as a doctrine of faith. I also said that view is fanatical. I do not retract this.

Please help me see if I'm wrong. God bless the forum and our faithful Catholics. Most Glorious and Sacred Heart of Jesus; we all adore thee.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2004.


eugene,

understood on my part. even the application of the term "co redemtrix" was misused by pro M, so your frustration is understandable.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 14, 2004.


Again read what Paul has to say about our mediator, Jesus Christ. Do not be blind.

-- rj (thaclipse77@yahoo.com), March 20, 2004.

rj,

I just thought of something regarding protestants/catholics.

To me, the protestants believe in the nuclear family. They believe in the nuclear family here on earth and in the hereafter. Families are typically small thanks to birth control issues and they see Christianity centered and only involving God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Catholics (practicing ones) have large extended families. They welcome each child as a gift from God and do not resist having large families. Likewise they have an extended spiritual family of not only the Trinity but the saints as well.

What a joy its been to learn about Mary and the Saints. Remember love is not with limits but is boundless. Loving God has allowed my wife and I to love one another even more. Loving the Saints and Mary likewise does not subtract from my love for God but instead magnifies it. My love for Mary or a Saint or my wife for that matter does not take away from God.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), March 20, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ