The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[stfassisi]

Harley,

God gives us Grace to follow His will, but we are free to accept that Grace and follow His will for us. We are also free to reject Grace and follow our own will against what God wants us to do

Saint Paul is an example of freely not following the will of God when as Saul he approved of the stoning of Saint Stephan and than later followed the will of God freely when he followed the Catholic Church and Pope Saint Peter;)

[HarleyD]

God gives us Grace to follow His will, but we are free to accept that Grace and follow His will for us. We are also free to reject Grace and follow our own will against what God wants us to do

God has laid out a perfect plan for our lives (Jer 29:11). It is our nature to constantly want to reject God's perfect plan because we are rebellious. God graciously prods us back on course with either His rod (harshly) or His staff (softly) every time we start to stray simply so He can protect His good name (Psalm 23). How far God will allow us to stray is understood only by Him.

We no more will follow God's commands than a two-year old would listen to us telling him not to touch a bit of candy in a candy store. It is like God giving us manna from heaven. We take the food of the angels and grind it, boil it, fry it and pervert it in every way imaginable. We just simply cannot take what God has given us, thank Him that He was kind enough to provide such a feast and be satisfied. Instead we grumble for the quail of earth when He has given us the bread of heaven. We are never satisfied. And if any of us Christians think we freely will follow God, all we need to do is ask ourselves how many times have we really wanted that quail instead of accepting what God has graciously provided.

Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

We HAVE to be led by the Holy Spirit, otherwise we would never do the things of God.

I believe we would agree that Paul was not a Christian when stoning Stephan. He wasn't given much choice when on the Damascus Road in his conversion. And as far as following Pope Peter, it seems like it was almost the other way around or at the very least they were coequal. Paul stood up to Peter (Gal) and felt his mission was to the Gentiles while Peter was to the Jews.

[stfassisi]

And if any of us Christians think we freely will follow God

Harley , God provides us with the Grace to follow His will,it is our will coming into line with His will when we freely accept this Grace and it is our Will being self serving if we decide not follow the Will of God.

I believe we would agree that Paul was not a Christian when stoning Stephan. He wasn't given much choice when on the Damascus Road in his conversion

Saul(Paul) obviously was given a choice when Christ said to him in the form of a question... "Saul,Saul, why do you persecute me?(Acts 9) "

Saul(Paul) was given Grace to see his error,but still had a choice to go into the city to follow Christ's will.

For all we know someone like Nero might have been given the same CHOICE as Saul(Paul) and chose to continue to kill Christians

Harley, this denial of free will is nothing more than Gnostic determinism or fatalism that is Manichean teaching that was condemned throughout Christian history and was revived with a fervor with the gnostic John Calvin .

From the words of Saint Irenaues....

“Forasmuch as all men are of the same nature, having power to hold and to do that which is good, and having power again to lose it, and not to do what is right; before men of sense, (and how much more before God!) some… are justly accused, and receive condign punishment, because they refuse what is just and right.” Saint Irenaeus

You're now free use your free will to believe whatever you want,dear brother!

This topic has been discussed at nauseum here of FR

[HarleyD]

Harley, this denial of free will is nothing more than Gnostic determinism or fatalism that is Manichean teaching that was condemned throughout Christian history and was revived with a fervor with the gnostic John Calvin.

I wouldn't say that. IMO, to deny the sovereignty of God over our lives is far worst then to deny the free will of man. One has scriptural support.

This topic has been discussed at nauseum here of FR

That is very true. That is simply because from this error springs a host of other errors.

[stfassisi]

to deny the sovereignty of God over our lives is far worst then to deny the free will of man

Catholicism does not deny God's sovereignty

Calvin, and seemingly your idea of God's sovereignty is within man's concept of time, while the correct sovereignty of God is God knowing everything in one NOW-all at once.

Calvin made the grave mistake of not understanding God is beyond our concept of time and applied everything to his heretical beliefs of denial of free will- in doing so he applied human concept of time to God

[HarleyD]

It is, in fact, a denial of the sovereignty of God when one states that God does not have control over every aspect of one’s life-including the decisions one makes. It is of great comfort to know that whatever decision I may make, I cannot goof up my life simply because God will correct it. Not because He loves me (although that's true enough). But since I represent God, He will make sure that I don't besmearch His glorious name or dishonor His Son's name. God leads me in the path of righteousness for His name sake. (Ps 23) And, you know, in all honesty that is far more important to me then God's love for me.

You keep insisting on the “denial of free will”. There is only man's will and there is God's will. Man's human will is simply out of step with God's will-otherwise we would ALWAYS be doing God's will. One has to ask themselves that if they are free to do what they want, why in heaven's name don't they do God's will all the time. I certainly wished I could. But I'm corrupted and I make those choices to be like this. That is not free will. That is giving in to my will. Even as a Christian I'm rebellious and wicked. I don't do the things that I want to do and the very things that I don't want to do is what I do. (Romans) This is our dilemma. And it is Christ who paid the price for the sins of my rebelliousness so that God the Father can look past all of my folly and see the perfection of Christ.

It isn't that Calvin couldn't understand the time-space continuum. It's that Calvin understood the nature of man-man does not want to do the things of God. All one has to do is look inside their heart to understand this problem.

[stfassisi]

It is, in fact, a denial of the sovereignty of God when one states that God does not have control over every aspect of one’s life-including the decisions one makes.

Nonsense, Harley. It is the denial of the sovereignty of God not to realize that he allows free will decisions that does not effect His sovereignty while still being in control.

Here is a good explanation from a protestant AW Tozer

“An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of Sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and Sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other.” -A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 111)

[HarleyD]

With all due respect to A.W. Tozer, he's simply wrong. Where his analogy breaks down is people are not set adrift to some destination with no control over what they will do. There is no sovereignty in that. (While heading for NY will God protect you on the shuffleboard course?)

And this is NOT what Psalms 23 states. The Lord is my shepherd. He make me lie down... He leads me besides still waters... He restores me... He leads me into righteousness... Honestly, I wonder if people really think about what Psalms 23 actually means. Do people think they just board a cruise ship and off they go? This isn't the Love Boat.

Here is a better example not from Tozer but from God:

Jon 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
GOD'S WILL FOR JONAH-Jon 1:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me."
JONAH'S "FREE" WILL-Jon 1:3 But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish. So he paid the fare and went on board, to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the LORD.
Jon 1:4 But the LORD hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up.
...
SAILORS "FREE WILL" CHOICE FOR JONAH-Jon 1:13 Nevertheless, the men rowed hard to get back to dry land, but they could not, for the sea grew more and more tempestuous against them.
OOPS-CHANGE THEIR MINDS-SAILORS' "FREE" WILL CHOICE FOR GOD-Jon 1:14 Therefore they called out to the LORD, "O LORD, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not on us innocent blood, for you, O LORD, have done as it pleased you."
Jon 1:15 So they picked up Jonah and hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging.
...
GOD'S CHOICE FOR THE FISH-Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
...
OOPS-JONAH HAS A CHANGE OF HEART- Jon 2:10 And the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah out upon the dry land.
...
GOD'S CHOICE FOR JONAH (STILL THE SAME)- Jon 3:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying,
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you."
JONAH'S DECIDES (GRUDGINGLY) TO DO GOD'S WILL- Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.

Under the "free will" paradigm this story would make no sense. Once Jonah decided to go to Tarshish that would be that. Jonah's activities most assuredly were determine by decree and not only did Jonah know it but so did the people who threw him overboard.

We know Jonah's "choice" and God's "choice". God has a way of convincing His people to do what He wants done. Our choice is how do we want to smell after we get there.

And this is a recurring theme of scripture...

Dan 4:34-25 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

But, as Nebuchadnezzar points out, one only understands this when their reason returns. ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Another brilliant Bible lesson, Harley.

Thank you for God’s Scriptural truth and Christ’s abiding promises.

[stfassisi]

Harley,

The whole story of Jonah builds up God giving the stubborn Jonah many free choices to follow His will and Jonah did not. Finally the stubborn Jonah went into Nineveh when he decided to freely follow God’s will.

Mary on the other hand freely followed the Will of God perfectly!

[HarleyD]

Perhaps our definition of "free" is different. In my mind "free" will is NOT free if a giant fish swallows you and vomits you up on the shore of where you're suppose to go. It's not exactly like God telling Jonah, "Hey, want to rethink your decision? Please?"

As far as Mary goes the scriptures tells us that she submitted to God.

Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant [fn] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Mary's "choice" was to submit to the will of God regardless of the consequenses. But even Catholic doctrine is goofy and inconsistent. If God kept Mary absolutely pure, then of course her choice would be to choose the will of God rather than her own will. That is the definition of purity. There is no free choice. You either do your will or God's will.

And, btw, this was not an easy decision for Mary. The whole situation "troubled" her but she was willing to submit to God's will in this instance. And as she exclaim, from this one act of obedience she will be blessed forever.

But to say that Mary followed the Will of God perfectly in every instance and every aspect of her life is simply not so.

Luk 2:48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress."
Luk 2:49 And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
Luk 2:50 And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.
Luk 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.

Mary could not see the will of God here otherwise she would have known Christ to be in God's house. Like all of us, she simply did not understand God's will. We have to be led to do His will.

Not to minimize the great feats of people like Moses, Abraham, Mary and others, but it makes it a bit easier if an angel pops in and tells you what is God's will for your life. When you don't have these anchor points it is far more difficult to trust that your path is controlled by God and it is the very best for your life. Trust me-I know.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[stfassisi]

Mary's "choice" was to submit to the will of God regardless of the consequenses.

So far so good,dear brother. It was a choice and not forced.

If God kept Mary absolutely pure, then of course her choice would be to choose the will of God rather than her own will. That is the definition of purity. There is no free choice

The Blessed Mother always CHOOSE the will of God freely-that is free will, Harley. What part about the word choice don't you understand? Choice is a free decision to choose one thing or another,good or bad, love or hate etc...

But to say that Mary followed the Will of God perfectly in every instance and every aspect of her life is simply not so Than you went on to quote Luke 2:48-51

The following illustrates Catholic teaching on these verses by Tim Staples

First verse is Luke 2:48-51: "And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart." In this passage, Jesus was already beginning to show his glory wasn't he?. He was preaching to the teachers in the temple, and they all were amazed. A twelve year old stumping these learned teachers of the Law. And by Jesus' remark " Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?", you would think that He was indeed planning on showing his glory. But what happens? Mary basically says: "It's not time yet, son, let's go home." Jesus obeyed and "And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart."( Luke 2:51).

Hope this helps you understand the Catholic teaching?

[HarleyD]

The Blessed Mother always CHOOSE the will of God freely-that is free will, Harley. ...The Blessed Mother always CHOOSE the will of God freely-that is free will, Harley.

According to Augustine's logic this was not the case.

And, pray, by what preceding merits of its own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him procure for itself that it should be this? Let this have an answer, I beg. That man, whence did He deserve this,—to be assumed by the Word co-eternal with the Father into unity of person, and be the only-begotten Son of God? Was it because any kind of goodness in Him preceded? What did He do before? What did He believe? What did He ask, that He should attain to this unspeakable excellence? Was it not by the act and the assumption of the Word that that man, from the time He began to be, began to be the only Son of God? Did not that woman, full of grace, conceive the only Son of God? Was He not born the only Son of God, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,—not of the lust of the flesh, but by God's peculiar gift? Was it to be feared that as age matured this man, He would sin of free will? Or was the will in Him not free on that account? and was it not so much the more free in proportion to the greater impossibility of His becoming the servant of sin? Certainly, in Him human nature—that is to say, our nature—specially received all those specially admirable gifts, and any others that may most truly be said to be peculiar to Him, by virtue of no preceding merits of its own. Let a man here answer to God if he dare, and say, Why was it not I also? And if he should hear, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom. 9.10.]

Augustine-A Trestise on the Predestination of the Saints

According to the teachings of Augustine our Lord Jesus was unique in his ability to freely choose not to sin.

Now, if you would like to lay claim to say that Augustine was wrong and that Mary had the same unique property, then what you are saying is that Mary is Co-Redemptix with Christ. That is, they are on the same level and equal in every sense of the word.

If you make this claim, then as Augustine's points out, Mary's will was not free. As Christ's will was free but bounded to do the will of the Father-to redeem the earth, so Mary's will would have been bounded.

So there is the dilemma and the arguments.

1) Mary's will was bounded like Christ to do the Fathers will (and Augustine is wrong in suggesting that Christ was unique). Mary, like Christ, gave up her will and is equal in every sense of the word as Christ as Savior. Just like Christ said, "Not my will but Thine." so it would be for Mary.

2) Christ's will is unique in that He alone gave up His will to be subject to the Father's will. Mary never gave up her will but (let's say for sake of argument) that she "freely" submitted herself to every will of the Father throughout her life. This would not make her Co-Redemptrix-just someone who lived a perfect life. This means that she was not tainted by the curse of original sin, Paul would have been wrong to say that "All have sinned and fall short...", and Mary would not be in need of a Savior contrary to her own words in Luke. Thus anyone could live a perfect life without Christ. There is no such thing as original sin as Mary is clearly a child of Adam and she lived a perfect life.

So do you believe Mary to be Co-Redemptrix and agreeing that her will would not be free; or do you believe there is no such thing as original sin? Those are the choices of your argument.

BTW-Please note the numerous heresies. This is why I constantly discuss "free will". From this one concept springs just about every heresy imaginable.

[stfassisi]

“”According to the teachings of Augustine our Lord Jesus was unique in his ability to freely choose not to sin.””

Perhaps you should stop reading Augustine through calvanist websites and realize that Augustine made retractions on things and also wrote that Mary CHOSE as is illustrated in his own words from his writings on Holy Virginity

Saint Augustine On Holy Virginity
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

“that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, NOT OF COMMAND; THROUGH LOVE OF CHOOSING, not through necessity of doing service.” Saint Augustine

“”then what you are saying is that Mary is Co-Redemptix with Christ. That is, they are on the same level and equal in every sense of the word.””

Co-Redemptrix does not mean equal , Harley

Here is good article from Monsignor Calkins that illustrates this

http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=833&Itemid=40

God included Mary in His plan for our salvation, including her sorrows with and under Christ for the sake of His Church during the actual event of our Redemption on Calvary. A dogma on Mary’s spiritual motherhood as Mediatrix of Grace and Coredemptrix would clarify that she is not equal to Christ in her role, yet would uphold her unique participation in the work of our salvation and her unique role in dispensing God’s grace to her children.

Harley, even you can participate with Christ when you bring others to him,as Saint Paul said “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” Col 1:24 - We do participate in the Redemption

Perhaps you should say a few Hail Mary’s yourself and your eyes might be opened to the Love Our Blessed Mother has for you too. She brings every prayer through her to her Son and it always glorifies Christ.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.