Posted on 09/04/2008 3:24:18 PM PDT by annalex
The topic of co-redemptive role of Blessed Virgin Mary tends to be an occasion of sin for many opposed to the doctrine. For that reason, this is a caucus thread, but if you have questions, I am sure someone will be happy to answer. Caucus threads do not permit polemical comparisons between caucus and non-caucus belief systems.
Previously posted:
On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
The Great Heresies
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Hermits and Solitaries [Ecumenical]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT
A Well-Rounded Pope [Ecumenical]
A Monastery to Last 1,000 Years [Ecumenical]
Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspective [Ecumenical]
In the Crosshairs of the Canon [How We Got The Bible] [Ecumenical]
'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]
Christian Atheism
Vatican plea to uncover Virgin Mary and show her breast-feeding baby Jesus
Why do Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest instead of praying straight to God? [Ecu]
Our Times: The Age of Martyrs
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Morality: Life in Christ [Ecumenical]
Chosen In Him: The Catholic Teaching on Predestination [Ecumenical]
The Sacraments [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: A Strong Start in the Faith: The Catholic RCIA Stages [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The RCIA Inquiry Stage In the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Catholic Art
Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics
Beginning Catholic: The Creed Of The People Of God: The Essentials/Catholic Belief [Ecumenical]
An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian.
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Purgatory: What Does It Mean? [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The Kingdom of God — Taking The Center Of Christ's Teaching Into The Heart Of Your Faith
The Language of Love
Beginning Catholic: The Essentials: Basic Catholic Prayers [Ecumenical]
For your pinging pleasure.
i have read over these sites many times and never failed to impressed and happy that christ has blessed us with visions of his mother...
the apparitions appear to be real...what is the so-called ‘secular scientific’ view of all this?
God bless....
My opinion is that to proclaim the co-redemptrix dogma would alienate the Orthodox for another few centuries. It is fine as a theolegoumenon, but as a dogma it will be unnecessarily divisive.
Excellent find.
B16 has already said that he will not declare her Co-redemptrix so it’s a moot point.
would you clarify this statement?
“My opinion is that to proclaim the co-redemptrix dogma would alienate the Orthodox for another few centuries.”
That’s certainly true.
“It is fine as a theolegoumenon, but as a dogma it will be unnecessarily divisive.”
I don’t think it even makes the grade of theologoumenon. I suspect most Orthodox Christians would call it a Christological heresy. I am baffled that anyone would believe such a thing and wonder what possible reason there could be for such a belief.
I have seen many threads where people seem to feel it necessary to variously insult or bring down the Mother of God and people who venerate her and seek her protection. All that is sinful.
Miravalle: I believe a papal definition would have numerous positive effects for the Church. It would articulate this perennial doctrine of Our Lady's unique role, which is entirely dependent on Jesus Christ, divine and human redeemer of all, with the greatest possible scriptural and theological clarity. It's hard to think of a more a capable pontiff for such a definition than our own genial Pope-theologian, Pope Benedict, if he would so desire to make this proclamation.I also believe that this dogma would serve the ecumenical mission of the Church by assuring other Christian traditions that the Catholic Church does distinguish between Jesus Christ as the divine and human Redeemer upon whom all redemption depends, and the unique participation of his immaculate human mother in the history of salvation.
The dogma would also focus the people of God upon their Christian duty to participate in the salvation of others. Would this not be the antidote to the isolation and loneliness of so many? Is this not answering the call to the new evangelism, and the call of Our Lady of Fatima to pray and do penance for the conversion of sinners? It would in fact be a clear answer on the part of the Church for all those who fear that suffering is meaningless. On the contrary, for the Christian, human suffering is always supernaturally and eternally redemptive.
I understand what your saying but Mary was the mother of the man Jesus not the Mother of God. Since Jesus preExisted before Mary was ever born. So to say she is the mother of God is false.
“However, when Miravalle advocates for the putative dogma, he makes clear that Mary co—redemptive role is akin, albeit unique, to the redemptive suffering of all faithful, and is therefore doing nothing to orthodox christology:”
If the Roman Church wants to make heretics out of 350,000,000 Orthodox Christians there isn’t much we can do about it. But I think every Roman Catholic, whether laity, clergy or hierarch, should understand that this “dogma” will guarantee that there will likely never be any reunion, indeed that the promulgation will be an example, in Orthodox eyes, of the the sort of “unorthodox” ecclesiology and uncontrolled theology which even today threatens to contaminate Eastern Christianity on account of its dialogs with Rome. Finally, those who advocate for this dangerous innovation must accept that it will frankly bring joy to the large majority of Orthodox as they will see it as the final nail in the coffin of a sort of ecumenism with which they profoundly disagree. I will be one of those Orthodox.
The Council of Ephesus was held in 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus, Asia Minor. The council was called due to the contentious teachings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine, charging Nestorius with heresy. The Pope agreed and gave Cyril his authority to serve a notice to Nestorius to recant his views or else be excommunicated. Before the summons arrived, Nestorius convinced the Emperor Theodosius II, to hold a General council, a platform to argue their opposing views. Approximately 200 bishops were present. The proceedings were conducted in a heated atmosphere of confrontation and recriminations. It is counted as the Third Ecumenical Council, and was chiefly concerned with Nestorianism.Nestorianism emphasized the dual natures of Christ. Patriarch Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the "Christ-Bearer" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "God-Bearer." Cyril argued that Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. This was essentially a Christological controversy.
At the urging of its president, Cyril of Alexandria, the Council denounced Nestorius' teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate people: complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos because she bore and gave birth to God as a man. This council was originally disputed, however, because Cyril started the council prematurely, without all the legates and bishops present. This caused the Eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, to hold a competing council where they disputed Cyril's council. Over time, Cyril would eventually triumph. This did not resolve the debate over the union of the two natures of Christ, and related issues were debated at the Council of Chalcedon.
Wiki (links, footnotes at source)
Like I said, I don't think she does, but neither is noticing the redemptive role of Mary -- to whom the Orthodox, after all, pray "Theotokos, save us", -- heretical.
Yes Jesus is both man and God the bible say that the Holy Spirit conceived within Mary Jesus. Therefore Mary is but a vessel that carried the man God. It would be the same if you and your wife could not have children and you took an egg from her and a seed from you and placed it in a third person to carry the baby, that person gave birth to you and your wife’s egg and seed. The same is with Mary she was only a vessel.
But God did not do any such manipulation with Mary: she was actually pregnant with her own baby. You have just invented something not in the gospel. If God did not want Mary to play the role she played, He could have incarnated Jesus the way He made Adam from essentially nothing.
Further, Mary appears several times throughout the gospels, at pivotal points of Jesus’s ministry; this is not consistent with your “vessel” theory.
Matthew 00020 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 00024 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
If you will notice it says that the Holy Spirit conceived when speaking of Jesus but when speaking of John the word say that Elisabeth conceived.
As far as the pivotal time this is what Jesus had to say about her meddling,
2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 00054 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 00055 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 00056 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
If you will notice He did not even caller Mother but WOMAN.
The John 5:2:4 is a mistranslation the way you quote it.
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. (Douay)Legei aute o Iesous ti emoi kai soi gynai oupo ekei e ora mou (Greek Byzantine/Majority)
Jesus saith to her, `What -- to me and to thee, woman? not yet is mine hour come.' (Young's Literal Translation)
Unbound Bible (run your own search)
"Woman" may sound condescending to a modern ear, but the implication here is to remind us of the "woman" of Genesis 3:15.
Anyway, what makes you think that no one in 4c thought any of that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.