I have been talking on a Catholic forum with a Orthodox priest about how we can share in the Redmptive work of Chist. He says the Church is wrong. Could you have a look at his last few posts and let me know what you think, please? http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40686

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005

Answers

Sorry I was trying to put a link in I will try again,

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40686

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.

"... about how we can share in the Redemptive work of Chist..."

the redemption-work is done. surely?

Jesus and Mary did that.

ours is to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

just a viewpoint.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Is Mary being co-redemptrix an official teaching of the Catholic church? I thought it wasn't.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 21, 2005.

I think that the meaning of the word Co-redemptrix is what we believe Mary to be today, except the title hasn't been officially applied perhaps out of some misunderstandings it would cause.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 21, 2005.

Oliver, the Catholic Church teaches that there is only one Redeemer, Jesus Christ the Lord.

Please don't let the controversy over words and prefixes mislead you.

-- Fin (in@the.end), February 21, 2005.

Go to the Catechism's search page (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm), and make it look for the word "redeemer". You'll see that every reference pertains to God or Jesus. Then make it look for "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix". It will come up empty.

-- Fin (in@the.end), February 21, 2005.

Mary is our Blessed Mother, but no one is Co-Redeemer of the human race, assisting Jesus Christ. Our fallen race was redeemed by Jesus' Passion, Death and Resurrection.

With all due love and respect for the most Blessed Virgin Mary, her role was not ''co- redemptrix'' in fact.

She suffered grievously. But she hasn't offered her LIFE dying on the cross, to God our Almighty Father for the salvation of humankind. THAT divine offering ONLY --redeems humanity.

Supposing she HAD died on the cross for us; Mary is not divine. Her offering would not have redeemed us. -- Her Divine Son's death alone redeemed humankind. She assisted closely, but cannot be called, justly, Co- Redemptrix. It would only be an unfortunate misnomer. The Church realises this truth. Mary herself realises it. The Holy Spirit would not permit her to be falsely credited. The distinction is Christ's exclusively.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

I personally don't think it's prudent to refer to Mary as "co-redeemer/co-redemptrix." The main defense of the term is the following:

* "The Redeemer" is Jesus Christ

* "Co" means "with."

* Mary is "with the Redeemer." Mary is "co-Redeemer."

I could accept this meaning of the term. On the other hand, I think that the terms (co-redeemer or co-redemptrix) are not precise and can easily be misinterpreted.

-- ale (a@lurk.er), February 21, 2005.

Eugene, your post brings a huge smile to my face and relief to my heart. That's very strong truth you are proclaiming.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 21, 2005.

At the Incarnation; If Mary says NO, salvation's no go. I think that you have to go back 33 years to understand co-redeemer.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 21, 2005.

i personally dont see any need for the title co-redemptrix, i think that having the honor of being Mother of God bears more than any other title a mere human could ever attain through any other title.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 22, 2005.

At the very minute of our redemption, the Redeemer was Our Lord on the cross. Only.

In many other truly indispensable ways the Blessed Virgin Mary helped every one of us by becoming Mother of God. We needed Jesus; and her holy word -- Fiat, is how He came to us.

Redemption is altogether distinct because it's an exchange. Christ freely becoming the EXCHANGE for man's forgiveness and life everlasting. No one but He could pay the full price, Divinity offered up as Our Lamb.

And Our Blessed Mother would hardly expect Christ's Church to name her out of filial love ''Co-Lamb'' of God. There is only one Lamb of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

Pete

perhaps we really need to go back thousands of years to understand Mary's role.

the early Church Fathers were very adept at comparing Mary with Eve. Eve played that crucial role in our Fall. Mary, our new Mother, reversed it. she died spiritually on that Cross, as per the prophesy many years before. should we deny the Mother of God all due honour?

i hope there is a definition forthcoming. The Holy Father's parting gift to the faithful?!?! he is a very serious Marian devotee.

anyways, that's not the point.

i have visited Padraig's link and am at a loss to understand the question being asked here. perhaps someone else will have more luck. or maybe Padraig might paste some stuff in here. the discussion looks really interesting, btw.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

I am sorry that I misstated the question, I will try again.

I was talking with Father Ambrose and orthodox monk about Mystical Theology East/West. We were discussing the Dark Night of the soul. Father Ambrose says that in the east they do not have such a concept. I said that for our mystical theologians there is Purgative suffering , in which we are cleansed of our own sinfulness and redemptive in which we contirbute to the salvation of others. Father Ambrose said that co-redempive suffering is theologically incorrect and quoted the fathers of the church (eastern) in support. We as Catholics talk of say Victim Souls I believe in sharing Christs cross. I know a good bit of Mystical Theology but this is moving across into a more mainstram issue.

I quote here part of Fr Ambrose's response:

Originally Posted by padraig We would talk of Darknesses a Purgative darkness, in which are own souls are cleansed

Ambrose: The Orthodox would have trouble with the notion of a God who withdraws from a soul in order to bring about a purgative way. Only sin separates us from God and prevents us "feeling" His divine presence. He Himself does not withdraw to leave us in a "dark night of the soul" and so the Orthodox would find it a bot abnormal to suggest that and a spiritual father or mother would look for the cause within the person rather than with God.

Quote Padraig: and a Redmptive darkness in which we hang on the cross to heal others.

Ambrose: The notion of sharing in Christ's pain and the delight in the thought of being worthy to suffer with Christ, to somehow atone, as He did, for the sins of which they are innocent is a Roman Catholic notion. Is it founded in the Roman Catholic "satisfaction theory" - unknown to the Orthodox Church?

This discussion is on Catholic Answers Forum on the Spirituality section: father Ambrose goes on to say: The Fathers distinguish between blameworthy and unblameworthy human passions. St. John of Damascus says that in assuming human nature, the Logos also freely assumed what St. John calls the "unblameworthy passions," such as "hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, tears, decay, shrinking from death, fear, agony with the bloody sweat, succor at the hands of Angels because of the weakness of nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man."

Let us see what some of the Fathers have said about our Lord's cry from the Cross.

(1) "And that the words Why hast Thou forsaken Me? are His...(though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, Who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at Whom the gatekeepers of Hades shuddered and set open Hades, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people"

St. Athanasios the Great, "Discourses against the Arians," III.29, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. IV [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 424

(2) "Yet, I suppose, you [Arians who argued that the Logos was not coeternal with the Father, on the ground He displayed signs of weakness] will arm yourselves also for your godless contention with these words of the Lord, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Perhaps you think that after the disgrace of the Cross, the favour of His Fathers help departed from Him, and hence His cry that He was left alone in His weakness. But if you regard the contempt, the weakness, the cross of Christ as a disgrace, you should remember His words, Verily I say unto you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven"

St. Hilary of Poitiers, "On the Trinity," X.31, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. IX [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 190

(3) "And thus, He Who subjects presents to God that which He has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?). But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ"

St. Gregory the Theologian, "Fourth Theological Oration," 30.5, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. XXXVI, col. 109A

(4) "He saith, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that unto His last breath they might see that He honors His Father, and is no adversary of God. Wherefore also He uttered a certain cry from the Prophet, even to His last hour bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a cry from the Prophet, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things, He shows how He is of one mind with Him that begat Him"

St. John Chrysostomos, "Homilies on St. Matthew," 88.1, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LVIII, col. 776

(5) "The cry My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? is the utterance of Adam, who trampled on the commandment given to him and disregarded Gods Law; thus did God abandon human nature, which had become accursed. When the Only-begotten Word of God came to restore fallen man, the abandonment entailed by that curse and corruption had to come to an end. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? is the voice of Him Who destroyed our forsakenness, as if He were imploring the Father to be gracious to mankind. When, as man, He asks for something, it is for us; as God, He was in need of nothing"

St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Second Oration to the Empresses on the True Faith," 18, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LXXVI, col. 1357A

and further Fr Ambrose says: Elsewhere, St. Cyril interprets this verse as proof that Christ was truly man ("Thesaurus Concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity," 24, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LXXV, col. 397D) and portrays Christ as the Second Adam, Who cleansed human nature of the corruption to which it became subject through Adams fall into disobedience and Who restored it to its pristine purity and dignity ("That Christ Is One," Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LXXV, cols. 1325C- 1328A).

(6) "Christs cry of Forsaken on the Cross was to teach us the insufficiency of the human nature without the Divine. Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the Cross, uttered that cry which He had once uttered in the Psalm, O God, My God, look upon Me; why hast Thou forsaken Me? That cry, dearly-beloved, is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one Person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of us, trembling and weak ones, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard"

Pope St. Leo the Great, "Homily," 67.7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XII [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 179

(7) "Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His Divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers"

St. John of Damascus, "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," III.24, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. XCIV, col. 1093A

From these citations it is quite clear that the Fathers all view Christs apparent despair as an example of the oikonomia that characterizes the entire Incarnation. That is to say, Christ quoted this verse from Psalm 21 for our benefit, to show that He was truly man, that it was none other than He about Whom the Prophets had spoken, and to demonstrate His genuine solidarity with the wretched plight of fallen humanity. There is not even a hint in any of these sources that Christ, as God, experienced the loss of God. At best, Bishop Kallistos is simply being careless when he claims that, "Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God," and that, "for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God." If one is to make bold statements of this kind, it is better to say, as did St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, that, "so as to feel the full weight of the consequences of sin, the Son of God would voluntarily allow His human nature to feel even the horror of separation from God" ("What Did Christ Pray About in the Garden of Gethsemane?" Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XV, No. 3 [May-June 1993], p. 6

Taken from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_tow.aspx

and again Fathre Ambrose: Elsewhere, St. Cyril interprets this verse as proof that Christ was truly man ("Thesaurus Concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity," 24, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LXXV, col. 397D) and portrays Christ as the Second Adam, Who cleansed human nature of the corruption to which it became subject through Adams fall into disobedience and Who restored it to its pristine purity and dignity ("That Christ Is One," Patrologia Grćca, Vol. LXXV, cols. 1325C- 1328A).

(6) "Christs cry of Forsaken on the Cross was to teach us the insufficiency of the human nature without the Divine. Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the Cross, uttered that cry which He had once uttered in the Psalm, O God, My God, look upon Me; why hast Thou forsaken Me? That cry, dearly-beloved, is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one Person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of us, trembling and weak ones, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard"

Pope St. Leo the Great, "Homily," 67.7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XII [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 179

(7) "Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His Divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers"

St. John of Damascus, "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," III.24, Patrologia Grćca, Vol. XCIV, col. 1093A

From these citations it is quite clear that the Fathers all view Christs apparent despair as an example of the oikonomia that characterizes the entire Incarnation. That is to say, Christ quoted this verse from Psalm 21 for our benefit, to show that He was truly man, that it was none other than He about Whom the Prophets had spoken, and to demonstrate His genuine solidarity with the wretched plight of fallen humanity. There is not even a hint in any of these sources that Christ, as God, experienced the loss of God. At best, Bishop Kallistos is simply being careless when he claims that, "Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God," and that, "for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God." If one is to make bold statements of this kind, it is better to say, as did St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, that, "so as to feel the full weight of the consequences of sin, the Son of God would voluntarily allow His human nature to feel even the horror of separation from God" ("What Did Christ Pray About in the Garden of Gethsemane?" Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XV, No. 3 [May-June 1993], p. 6

Taken from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_tow.aspx

and finally (whew):

He does not then say this to exalt himself, but through a desire to show that Christ is even yet caring for them. And he shows what he says to be credible, by adding, "for His Body's sake." For that so it is, and that there is no unlikelihood in it, is plain from these things being done for His body's sake. Look how He hath knitted us unto Himself. Why then introduce Angels between? "Whereof I was made," he saith, "a minister." Why introduce Angels besides? "I am a minister." Then he shows that he had himself done nothing, albeit he is a minister. "Of which I was made," saith he, "a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me to you ward, to fulfill the word of God." "The dispensation." Either he means, He so willed that after His own departure we should succeed to the dispensation, in order that ye might not feel as deserted, (for it is Himself that suffers, Himself that is ambassador; ) or he means this, namely, me who was more than all a persecutor, for this end He permitted to persecute, that in my preaching I might gain belief; or by "dispensation" he means, that He required not deeds, nor actions, nor good works, but faith and baptism. For ye would not otherwise have received the word. "For you," he saith, "to fulfill the word of God." He speaks of the Gentiles, showing that they were yet wavering, by the expression, "fulfill." For that the cast-away Gentiles should have been able to receive such lofty doctrines was not of Paul, but of the dispensation of God; "for I never could have had the power," he saith. Having shown that which is greater, that his sufferings are Christ's, he next subjoins what is more evident, that this also is of God, "to fulfill His word in you." And he shows here covertly, that this too is of dispensation, that it is spoken to you now, when ye are able to hear it, and cometh not of neglect, but to the end ye may receive it. For God doeth not all things on a sudden, but useth condescension because of His plenteous love toward man. And this is the reason why Christ came at this time, and not of old. And He shows in the Gospel, that for this reason He sent the servants first, that they might not proceed to kill the Son. For if they did not reverence the Son, even when He came after the servants, much less would they had He come sooner; if they gave no heed to the lesser commandments, how would they to the greater? What then, doth one object? Are there not Jews even now, and Greeks who are in a very imperfect condition? This, however, is an excess of listlessness. For after so long a time, after such great instructions, still to continue imperfect, is a proof of great stupidity. __________________

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

By the way if any of you feel Spirit led to join in the discussion on the Forum I would be delighted if you did, I am a bit out of my depth there!!!!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

Padraig

i am lost. this is very complicated.

aren't we ALL already redeemed? there is no more redemption to be done. we cannot, therefore, perform any redemptive acts ourselves.

isn't Purgatory about temporal punishment, pure and simple?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

As a Catholic with serious issues about the Marian doctrines and beliefs, naming her Co-Redeemer would be a serious stumbling block for me, and for non-Catholic Christians everywhere. Although proponents of this proclamation attempt to explain the whole "Co" means with, not equal to, in English it is used more often to mean "equal to." It was heartening to find strong Catholics, like I perceive Eugene to be, from his previous posts, stating such a balanced opinion on this matter.

Incidentally, I just stumbled across this forum when researching Sr. Lucia after her death, and have been amazed by the scholarship so often presented here. I have read back-postings to about 2002, and it is interesting to see the ebb and flow of ideas and convictions, as well as personalities.

God's blessings to you all!

Lori

-- lori (I@dontthinkso.com), February 22, 2005.

I sincerely hope that whoever in the Church likes the title co- redemptrix keeps it in whatever scholarly room they keep it in and never bring it out into the general public. Talk about ASKING for trouble. Christ is our redeemer. When Mary said "Yes" to God, she made this possible, but it was Christ doing the Redeeming.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.

Welcome, Lori.

I have long believed that your misgivings, shared by me, are shared by most English-speaking bishops around the world. Most likely, they have told the Holy See that it would be disastrous for the Church to begin using the title co-redeemer/co-redemptrix, because of the misinterpretation of its meaning. Fortunately, if the bishops have so spoken, the pope has agreed with them.

Yes, "co-redeemer" can be understood as "with the redeemer." But if that is what it means, then no title is needed and no dogma is justified. Every Christian from toddlerhood on up knows that Mary was "with the redeemer." Thus, a title and a dogma are superfluous.

-- Fin (in@the.end), February 22, 2005.

> "As a Catholic with serious issues about the Marian doctrines and beliefs, naming her Co-Redeemer would be a serious stumbling block for me, and for non-Catholic Christians everywhere. Although proponents of this proclamation attempt to explain the whole "Co" means with, not equal to, in English it is used more often to mean "equal to."

A: I agree that approving the title "co-redemtrix" would be problematic. Vastly more important, the Pope agrees, which is why he has flatly refused to approve it, in spite of a persistent though small movement who continue to attempt to influence him on the matter. The prefix "co-" however does not necessarily imply equality. The co-pilot assists the pilot, but authority rests solely with the pilot.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2005.

I believe that Mary's role in salvation, and our role would be better discribed at a co-workers, and god is the manager. We help salvation for others in small ways like evangelizing, Mary's part was bigger for she gave birth to jesus, but co-redemer/redemptrix is making it out to be that Mary possibly under the supervison of Jesus can chose our salvation, or even yet they are equals, this is just not true. I don't even see a point for anyone to say the word coredemer because there is not such thing

-- kat (riesoracle@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.

Although the title "Coredemptrix" has not been formally defined or raised to the status of a dogma, it has been used repeatedly by Pope John Paul II in various Homilies and General Audiences. In so doing, the current Pope has developed Magisterial teaching on Co- redemption. For example:

"Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the “yes” of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; . . . Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58) . . . . In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ “to gather into one all the dispersed children of God” (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity . . . . The Gospels do not tell us of an appearance of the risen Christ to Mary. Nevertheless, 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 Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." (Pope John Paul II, Homily at a Marian sanctuary in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on January 31, 1985)

For a more complete list of documents in which Pope John Paul II used the title Coredemptrix, please consult the following link:

http://www.cin.org/JPIICoRedm.html

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), February 24, 2005.

I'm gathering you believe in a Co-Redemptrix Virgin Mary, Father?

I want to see the dogma as ''ex cathedra and that's final'' Then I'll know the Holy Spirit has spoken. Until that time the Pope's extravagant and derivative language isn't a teaching. He expresses deep LOVE for the Mother of God. Love we ALL share.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.

In as much as each of us cooperates with God's plan of Salvation for the world, we are all co-redeemers, yet not to the extent and perfection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Compare it to Jesus' own words concerning who is His mother, brother, etc. It is all who hear God's Word and keep it.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

Fr Paul thinks we are **all** co-redeemers.

Eugene doubts that even the Blessed Mother is ours Co-redemptrix.

Fr Donahue posts some stuff here that strongly suggests that the Pope believes that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.

i had thought that the redemption was a done deal. over. finished. we are ALL redeemed already. by Jesus and Mary as Co- Redemptrix. i consider this orthodox.

.....then para 67, Lumen Gentium states: "Let them [Catholic theologians and preachers] assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead **separated brethren** or any other into error regarding the true [Marian] doctrine of the Church."

i though that **separated brethren** was Vat-II code for protestants.......but if we Catholics are all this confused, is someone in breach of Vat II?

chaos?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Chaos is your ordinary state, Ian.

First of all: i had thought that the redemption was a done deal. over. finished. we are ALL redeemed already.-------- ''by Jesus and Mary as Co- Redemptrix. i consider this orthodox.'' Gee, thanks, Archangel Gabriel.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Gene,

if that's heterodox, pls show how.

please also read LG 67 -- and tell me where it all went wrong.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

We can read till the cows come home. Is Mary now Christ's Co-Lamb of God? Are we eating her body and drinking her blood? --Go check through LG for a smarter brief, Counselor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

"Is Mary now Christ's Co-Lamb of God? "

yes. you've got it.

"We can read till the cows come home."

a farmyard theme. how quaint.

"Are we eating her body and drinking her blood?"

in a way, most definitely.

"Go check through LG for a smarter brief, Counselor."

have you read LG? can we discuss it? the bit about Mary, maybe?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Although the title "Coredemptrix" has not been formally defined or raised to the status of a dogma, it has been used repeatedly by Pope John Paul II in various Homilies and General Audiences. In so doing, the current Pope has developed Magisterial teaching on Co- redemption. ... For a more complete list of documents in which Pope John Paul II used the title Coredemptrix, please consult the following link: http://www.cin.org/JPIICoRedm.html

Dear Fr. Donahue,

this forum was once before presented with the same list of quotations. At that time, it was pointed out that Pope John Paul II conspicuously stopped using the term "co-redemptrix" almost FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. As you should have realized, things like that don't just happen without a reason. Clearly the pope, perhaps after having heard from the world's English-speaking bishops about the dangers of people misunderstanding the controversial word in question, has chosen to avoid using it.

Not only that, but in the 1990s, the pope spoke more than once to the author of the linked page (Dr. M.M., the foremost promoter of the call for the unnecessary title and dogma), and he clearly rejected the man's appeals. I shall do likewise. You should too.

-- (Think@Think.Think), March 03, 2005.

Something that a Pope mentions in a homily or an address or private conversation or private correspondence does not thereby qualify as "Magisterial teaching". In order for a doctrine to become "Magisterial teaching" it must be formally promulgated as binding on the universal Church, not just "mentioned" or referred to in passing.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 03, 2005.

Correct, the last two commentaries.

Ian says:"Is Mary now Christ's Co-Lamb of God? " ''yes. you've got it.''

And with that part of his ''orthodox'' claptrap, he blasphemes against the 2nd Person of the Trinity; the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The most Blessed Virgin Mary wouldn't appreciate that. But, after all-- Yancy is invincibly & incorrigibly ignorant.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Paul M:

"In order for a doctrine to become "Magisterial teaching" it must be formally promulgated as binding on the universal Church, not just "mentioned" or referred to in passing."

#########pls explain. esp, what is meant by "formally promulgated"? or "binding on the universal Church"?

what about everything that has been "promulgated" since the time of Pius IX [with the exception of Munificentissimus Deus and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis]?

can we ignore all that, too?

Eugene:

"...he blasphemes against the 2nd Person of the Trinity; the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The most Blessed Virgin Mary wouldn't appreciate that..."

wy is Jesus "the Lamb of God"? why is He the "Redeemer"? are these expressions unrelated in the heretical "Church of Sheen"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Who is the Church of Sheen? Mine is the Church of the holy apostles. Are you one of her bishops?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Gene:

1 why is Jesus "the Lamb of God"?

2 why is He the "Redeemer"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

“The prefix "co-" however does not necessarily imply equality. The co-pilot assists the pilot, but authority rests solely with the pilot.”

The person designated “pilot” has the final say on decisions, but the co-pilot is not just a subordinate assistant. Almost always, the co- pilot and the pilot have the same qualifications and take turns being in charge of the controls of the plane. My dictionary defines “co- pilot” as simply “a second pilot in an airplane”. Maybe our resident linguists can explain the meaning of the prefix “co-“ in other languages, but although it is derived ultimately from the Latin cum (‘with”), when placed before a noun in English describing a person or group of people, “co-“means “joint, mutual, common”, NOT just a relatively minor helper. E.g. co-author, co-belligerent, co- conspirator, co-defendant, co-dependent, co-driver, collocutor, co- respondent, co-signatory, co-star, co-writer. To describe Our Lady as “co-redemptrix” in English would be extremely misleading if not downright false. No doubt the Pope realises this, hence his long avoidance of using the term, even when not speaking in English.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 03, 2005.

Steve

that's just swell, but pretty pointless if no-one here can agree upon the Catholic meaning of "redemption".

to your mind, have we already been redeemed? or are there further redemptive acts?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Who told you we don't agree on the meaning of Redemption? It means what we all think it means. There is only One Holy Redeemer. Nobody else was called to suffer the Passion and die on the Cross for our redemption. Our Blessed Mother didn't redeem anyone. She isn't divine.

To be the Holy Redeemer the Lamb of God had to be GOD. He would be the true Son of Mary, but God nevertheless. She could be Mother of the Redeemer, but not GOD. Her death wouldn't have redeemed us. Only God's could; the Divine exchange for man's redemption. There is no added price. It would be insufficient anyway; even coming from the Blessed Virgin. CHRIST paid it ALL HIMSELF.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

OK Eugene. are we redeemed? this is a simple question. is the work done? or are there further redemptive acts?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Eugene:

i know that you probably consider the question as having been asnwered when you said:

"Who told you we don't agree on the meaning of Redemption? It means what we all think it means. There is only One Holy Redeemer. Nobody else was called to suffer the Passion and die on the Cross for our redemption."

however, by that same token, you are duty bound, if you believe what you say, to censure the heresy of Fr Paul when he says:

"In as much as each of us cooperates with God's plan of Salvation for the world, we are all co-redeemers, yet not to the extent and perfection of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

***to make it completely clear, if WE can co-operate in the redemption, then its work-in-progress.

...but it's not WIP. it's a done deal.

now, if you are intellectually honest, but at the same time a priest worshipper, then you must be drawn to Fr Donahue. and the Pope, who is also a priest.

that means that you accept that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.

but you must stop worshipping Fr Paul.

...all of which takes us back to the point you made, that just begs these questions:

#1 why is Jesus "the Lamb of God"?

#2 why is He the "Redeemer"?

........and, if we take this forward a tiny little bit, what is really in that funny little wafer that you munch upon each Sunday? it's tangible; it's real. what is it? might it possess a trace of Mary, per chance? what do you think?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

We have all been redeemed and that is why we call Jesus Christ Our Holy Redeemer.

Every pagan is already redeemed and all he requires is faith, with the correspondent holy works and then repentence and final perseverance.

We are the Communion of Saints because God accepted the sacrifice of his Divine Son, a Redeemer he has infinite LOVE for. He is eternally pleased with his Holy Son, who has redeemed the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

OK Eugene. agreed. clear as day. etc.

now, are you going to tell that to Fr Paul?

if not [as i suspect], why not?

is Fr Paul a heretic? your honest answer, please.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Ask Father yourself. You can't hide behind me, I'm not a Pharisee.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Following Ian's line of thought, would that mean then that there are "traces" of every person in Mary's bloodline in Holy Eucharist???

-- Lori (I@dontthinkso.com), March 04, 2005.

You might think that is a participation in the Redemption. It's an abstract view and irrelevent.

God accepted the Passion, Death & Resurrection of only Jesus for the prize of our redemption. His Person is Man and God at once, but doesn't make his relatives divine. A Divine Person paid for us. He is Holy past all our comprehension. Mary is Blessed but on the human level.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Lori

it was a thought, but the human Jesus would have had DNA and only 1 human parent....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.

That has nothing to do with redemption of all the human race, Lori.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

tell that to the Pope, Gene, or are there issues of national security at play here?!?!?!

can't have it both ways, Cardinal. get in line!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.

Give yourself plenty of rope; start the separate thread to accuse me in. I'll see that you hang yourself, Yancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

"I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, did he fire six shots or only five?

Well to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement.

But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky?

Well do ya, punk?"

my knees are trembling Gene! i am so terrified of your sword of truth.

go read some good books, old boy. it's never too late.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.

Gee, Yancy-- I never called you a punk. I let you know directly how we don't NEED you around here to keep score for the Pope. You crave an opportunity, don't deny it.

Just do your best, it won't hurt me. But look; you'll hang on your own rope. I didn't challenge you. You're challenging me (every day, it seems).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

repeat:

go read some good books, old boy. it's never too late.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.

I read constantly, old joke. I've been reading the life of St Marie-Jean Baptiste Vianney, Cure of Ars these days. Could you tell me what you're reading all the time? OH, pardon. You read Church Council literature.

Keep reading there, and stop trying to teach. Let the Church teach us. I only learn from her and from the Holy Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Eugene, you were the one who brought up the issue of whether or not we were eating Mary's body and drinking Mary's blood in Communion, so I don't quite get your dismissive post about "that has nothing to do with the redemption of the human race."

Especially since I assume you asked that question rhetorically and ironically, not seriously, of Ian? And since I was responding to Ian's answer to your question...in support of you?

-- Lori (I@dontthinkso.com), March 04, 2005.

Excuse me, Lori.
Have I ever dismissed you? I made a comment. You're free to say more. If Mary is the subject, let me say first that she'll always have my undying love. But I do not receive her in Holy Communion. I never heard a priest saying, ''This is Mary's body, or Mary's blood. We all realise Christ assumed flesh from his Virgin Mother. But it's not grounds for making her equal to Him. Not as sound theology.

Although there have been some incredibly fanatical ideas floated about her by many crazy Catholics. This is always a mystery to me; but it happens. God help them.

God bless YOU, Lori; and make you very happy today. I'm sorry I made such a negative impression on you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Your comment did seem a bit dismissive, Eugene, and I was concerned that my question led you to believe that I agreed with Ian, when in fact, I was agreeing with you. I realize that the thread was beginning to wander from the original theme, but again, you brought it up! :-)

God bless you, too, and may He grant us all many happy days discussing His wondrous deeds!

-- Lori (I@dontthinkso.com), March 04, 2005.

This is from Vat II. isn't the Church already teaching Mary as Co- redemptrix? what's missing from this and the other stuff in LUMEN GENTIUM concerning Mary?

"Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and **with** Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. ***For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."*** .........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.."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

a straightforward question.

what is it -- that has not already been said by the Church -- that stands in the way?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

The Holy Spirit who guards our Church from all error, no matter how well-intentioned. This is one of those, obviously.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

Eugene

i quoted you from Vat II.

you say the Holy Spirit is the obstacle?

-- Ian (ib@vertifo.com), March 07, 2005.

He is. There has not been and won't ever be a dogatic declaration to make such a belief undeniable among the faithful. That would make it a sin not to believe Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix of humanity. The Holy Spirit is not in favor of such a belief, or it would be declared ex cathedra.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

"There has not been and won't ever be a dogatic declaration to make such a belief undeniable among the faithful."

how do you know? how can you say that?

"That would make it a sin not to believe Our Lady is the Co- Redemptrix of humanity."

i showed you Vat II. that last sentence - "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" - could actually amount to a declaration that Mary is co-Saviour.

are you saying that Vat II is wrong?

"The Holy Spirit is not in favor of such a belief, or it would be declared ex cathedra."

why did He teach it at Vat II, or are you saying that the Holy Spirit wasn't at Vat II?!?!

read this qgain -- "Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and **with** Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption."

that's what co-redemptrix means -- "with" Jesus yet "under" Him. it's already there in Vat II. are you "loyal to the Magisterium", as you chaps like to say, or what?

as a faithful Catholic, i accept Mary as my co-redemptrix, as it's in Vat II, but i recognise the need for a Dogmatic definition to remove any doubt amongst the faithful.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

["with" Jesus yet "under" Him. it's already there in Vat II. are you "loyal to the Magisterium", as you chaps like to say, or what?

as a faithful Catholic, i accept Mary as my co-redemptrix, as it's in Vat II, but i recognise the need for a Dogmatic definition to remove any doubt amongst the faithful.]

I'm a bit curious of this conversation. You see, my husband does many things at his work, but he doesn't have an exact title to describe the many things that he does. No one at his job needs to know his titles because they already know what he does. For simplicity's sake, he does carry a title for certain purposes, but not one for every single thing he does.

Now, I'm not comparing my husband to Mary, I'm trying to draw a parallel to ask this question... why is it necessary to bestow more titles upon Mary, since we all know who she is and what she did? Is there really more to be "uncovered" about her? Everything that's known about her is enough isn't it?

-- Rina (emailmarina@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Rina

to recognise her rle in our redemption, rather than sweep it under the carpet -- for NO GOOD reason.

hyperdulia?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Ian:
Who says Mary had no ROLE in our redemption? We just don't have more than One Redeemer. A title won't mean anything.

You cannot bring in more than Christ after the fact, Sir!

In answer to ''how do you know? how can you say that?''---this is definitive: the Holy Spirit will never make a mistake about WHO Our Redeemer is.

For people who squawk so much about ''development of dogma'' you seem to think it's worth developing Mary at the slightest excuse. I make that statement with the GREATEST scruples; hoping never to offend the Most Blessed Virgin-- but after all; isn't she Queen of Heaven even as we speak? Now you wish she were Co-Lamb of God ? ? ? Merely to be contrary in this forum?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

W"ho says Mary had no ROLE in our redemption? We just don't have more than One Redeemer. A title won't mean anything."

right. have it your way. from now on, no more Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Blessed Virgin: just plain Mary?

is that what you want?

what is hyperdulia?

"You cannot bring in more than Christ after the fact, Sir!"

Vat II does this. i have shown you. i am loyal to the teaching of Vat II. are you?

"In answer to ''how do you know? how can you say that?''---this is definitive: the Holy Spirit will never make a mistake about WHO Our Redeemer is."

..because you speak infallibly?!?!?!

"For people who squawk so much about ''development of dogma'' you seem to think it's worth developing Mary at the slightest excuse."

if there is a solemn definition, it will confirm that the Dogma belongs to the Deposit of Faith that was sealed at the death of the last Apostle. just as plenty of people may have been dissappointed by the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, many people might be disappointed again.

if there is something is Sacred Scripture or the Tradition that rules out this definition, which will be for the Pope to decide in making the solemn definition, then we will see.

are you aware of anything?

"I make that statement with the GREATEST scruples; hoping never to offend the Most Blessed Virgin-- but after all; isn't she Queen of Heaven even as we speak? Now you wish she were Co-Lamb of God ? ? ?"

"Co-Lamb of God" is the same as "Co-Redemptrix", if "Lamb of God" is the same as "Redeemer". would you not agree?

"Merely to be contrary in this forum?""

contrary to whom? to you? this enjoys wide support in the Church. it honours Mary.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

...and,to show you why this solemn definition might never be forthcoming, here is something from Lumen Gentium:

"But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God....Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church."

no more titles for Mary because it might upset the protestants. that's the truth of it.

would not such "policy considerations" have impeded the previous Marian Dogma?!?!

where's yr Church going, dude?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

But I dishonor Mary? You would love that! Hahaha!

Vatican II does NOT place a superfluous title on the Mother of God. The Holy Spirit guards us against error. Therefore, the deposit of faith has NOT made Mary a Co-Redemptrix and that dogma will never come to pass. But try not to worry. Our Blessed Mother will not complain.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

it described Her as the co-redeemer and the co-SAVIOUR, as the term "co-" is understood.

i have already shown you that.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

You didn't show us anything.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Ian: ''no more titles for Mary because it might upset the protestants. that's the truth of it.''

I figure ''no false titles'' that would upset believers in GOD.

A title making Our Lady equal to God is a false title, Yancy. That's the truth of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

"A title making Our Lady equal to God is a false title, Yancy. That's the truth of it."

was the Holy Father preaching heresy then when he made those speeches?

he called the Virgin the Co-Redemptrix, you will recall.

in doing so, he was true to Vat II, as i have shown you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Maybe he confessed it afterward; realizing you or some other alert schismatic would catch it. I hope so.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

you have me in stitches, dude.

what is this? make him laugh 'til it hurts, then he'll go away?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

.buti still think this is already in Vat II, just to be totally clear.

that's why i think it is perfectly OK for those wonderful Marian devotees, of which the Pope is one btw, to press for a definition.

you realise that the prayer most said in the world is probably the Hail Mary? mainly on account of the Rosary, but i bet that that's true.

it's certainly by far the prayer i would most say. it's the first one i taught my kid.

the Catholic perspective is really very pro-Mary. i think the Christian non-Catholic perspective is disgracefully indifferent to Mary.

wouldn't you agree with that?

She's not Divine but She's divine, if you will.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

CORRECTIONS

"for those wonderful Marian devotees, of which the Pope is one btw, to press for a definition." NOT saying that the Pope is pressing, just thathe's a very serious Marian devotee

"it's the first one i taught my kid." kidS. only the 1 1/2 doesn't yet know it. i bet, again, many Catholic kids learn this as their first prayer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Yancy, what does all that have to do with this myth you gave us on February 21?

''the redemption-work is done. surely? --Jesus and Mary did that.''

There is no Catholic doctrine saying the Blessed Virgin Mary redeemed even ONE soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

She did as Co-Redemptrix.

go back to Vat II as posted. I am loyal to Vat II. you?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Vatican II has not made ANY declaration. Passing mentions don't count, since they usually reflect a fad or temporary misunderstanding. In order for the Pope to make it dogma, the Vatican would have a thorough examination of the cause. It would point to nulla dogma; since God sent his Holy Son to redeem us. The Holy Virgin did not die on the cross. Jesus was a DIVINE Being on the cross; and she's not divine. The Holy Virgin did not die on the cross. Without His divinity even Our Redeemer could not have accomplished the Redemption. Nobody is Co-Divine; so Mary whould consider this all blasphemous.

What's more, the Pope knows it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Lest anyone try to get away with inaccurate claims about what "Lumen Gentium" says about Our Lady, here is its pertinent chapter, with some items highlighted. (One will note that there was a very logical place for a term like co-redeemer/co-redemptrix to have appeared, if it had been acceptable to the Council Fathers, but it does not appear.) TTT

CHAPTER VIII: THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

52. Wishing in His supreme goodness and wisdom to effect the redemption of the world, "when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, ..that we might receive the adoption of sons". "He for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary." This divine mystery of salvation is revealed to us and continued in the Church, which the Lord established as His body. Joined to Christ the Head and in the unity of fellowship with all His saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory "of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ".

53. The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is "the mother of the members of Christ ... having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head." Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

54. Wherefore this Holy Synod, in expounding the doctrine on the Church, in which the divine Redeemer works salvation, intends to describe with diligence both the role of the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of the Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body, and the duties of redeemed mankind toward the Mother of God, who is mother of Christ and mother of men, particularly of the faithful. It does not, however, have it in mind to give a complete doctrine on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified. Those opinions therefore may be lawfully retained which are propounded in Catholic schools concerning her, who occupies a place in the Church which is the highest after Christ and yet very close to us.

55. The Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, as well as ancient Tradition show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation in an ever clearer light and draw attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. When it is looked at in this way, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin. Likewise she is the Virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel. She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.

56. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature. Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God's command, by an angel messenger as "full of grace", and to the heavenly messenger she replies: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word". Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living," and still more often they say: "death through Eve, life through Mary."

57. 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 it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother. This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it, when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed. When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart.

58. In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant appearances. This is so even at the very beginning, when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah. In the course of her Son's preaching she received the words whereby in extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds of flesh and blood, He declared blessed those who heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully doing. After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: "Woman, behold thy son".

59. But since it has pleased God not to manifest solemnly the mystery cf the salvation of the human race before He would pour forth the Spirit promised by Christ, we see the apostles before the day of Pentecost "persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren", and Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation. Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully confimed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death.

60. There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all". The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. 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.

61. Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was in this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. she presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated 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.

62. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until The eternal fulfillment of all the elect. 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. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to 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.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. It knows it through unfailing experience of it and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.

63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God's messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.

64. The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father's will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity. 65. But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men.

66. Placed by the grace of God, as God's Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities.( Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: "All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me". This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.

67. This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed. But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God. Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church's magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.

68. In the interim just as the Mother of Jesus, glorified in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected is the world to come, so too does she shine forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, as a sign of sure hope and solace to the people of God during its sojourn on earth.

69. It gives great joy and comfort to this holy and general Synod that even among the separated brethren there are some who give due honor to the Mother of our Lord and Saviour, especially among the Orientals, who with devout mind and fervent impulse give honor to the Mother of God, ever virgin. The entire body of the faithful pours forth instant supplications to the Mother of God and Mother of men that she, who aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers, may now, exalted as she is above all the angels and saints, intercede before her Son in the fellowship of all the saints, until all families of people, whether they are honored with the title of Christian or whether they still do not know the Saviour, may be happily gathered together in peace and harmony into one people of God, for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

-- (Think@Think.Think), March 08, 2005.

If Yancy would read this carefully (don't count on it) here is the Church's word in the matter of Our Lady. There's the HOLY word of the Church and her faithful, not a flight of Marian fancy, as became so popular with wimpy Catholics after 1960 and is found (subsists) in some worthless magazines to this day. Many good Catholics are worked up into a morbid hysteria by Catholic zealots who are little better than Jehovah's Witnesses in the long run.

It seems we have one here. The Widow Ian de Litterbox. Bravo, Think-John-Think!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"...not a flight of Marian fancy, as became so popular with wimpy Catholics after 1960..."

Ah, come ON, Gene. Blaming the Council for the decline of Marian devotion into a wimpy flight of Marian fancy? That so post hoc ergo propter hoc. What up?

I'm just kidding, of course.

But what you said upthread:

"Mary is our Blessed Mother, but no one is Co-Redeemer of the human race, assisting Jesus Christ."

Wrong.

"With all due love and respect for the most Blessed Virgin Mary, her role was not ''co- redemptrix'' in fact."

Yeah it was. That's the teaching of the Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

Like hell it is. There is but ONE Holy Redeemer.

Your mistake is thinking the race of men needed more than ONE. All we should do is pray to Mary, and all of us do that. You and the wimps can't change a fact.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Eugene

i've already extracted certain parts from Lumen Gentium. they are in think tank's post but he has chosen not to highlight them and you have chosen not to read them.

here are a few of them:

"...she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, **under Him and with Him**, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption."

"Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God **not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation** through faith and obedience."

"For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, **became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race**."

"Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living," and still more often they say: "death through Eve, **life through Mary**."

"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.."

i have already said, therefore, that Vat II could also support the title of Co-Saviour as the terms "Co" is understood.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.

Keep spinning your wheels. We are redeemed by Jesus Christ. If a dogma were formulated to support you, I would be in sin for denying Our Blessed Mother is my co- redemptrix. As it now is, neither the saints nor Lumen Gentium forbid me under penalty of sin.

You're not in sin for believing a popular fable like that, but you are in invincible ignorance, seemingly. Nothing new about Ian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"As it now is, neither the saints nor Lumen Gentium forbid me under penalty of sin."

you deny the teachings of Vat II???

this is what you keep accusing me of doing.

yet i quote you from Vat II and show my allegiance.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.

You didn't quote anything resembling Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Co-Redemptrix. I leave that to Ian's conscience.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

you DO deny the teachings of Vat II???

LoL!!!

just don't be OBSTINATE! that's heresy?? is it??

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.

I deny a mistake you keep pushing as if it were infallibly declared. Take what you like from that; I'm not in sin for any divergence. I do not dissent. I diverge from settling on faith in popular theological speculations.

It even seemed as if Father Terry Donahue was upholding it; but-- it's not a sin to disagree. I'll ask another priest in confession, OK? Maybe he'll deny me absolution if I don't fall in line behind you wimps! Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

i've already extracted certain parts from Lumen Gentium. they are in think tank's post but he has chosen not to highlight them and you have chosen not to read them.

Don't fib, sir. I highlighted one of them. Of is it that, when one falls into heresy like you, sir, it is tough not to fib?

Isn't it amazing that the very men who WROTE the sentences that you quoted nevertheless lacked your monumental wisdom, since they clearly did not put "Co-Redeemer" in the list of Marian titles that I highlighted? My goodness, sir, you must be one of the most brilliant people who ever lived, since you know more than the 3,000 Catholic bishops of 1963!

It is obvious to people who have their heads screwed on tightly that the term "Co-Redeemer/Co-Redemptrix" would be misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike -- i.e., misunderstood as meaning that Mary's activity/power/influence is equal, rather than subordinate, to that of her Son (as mentioned in the text above). Just as you appear to misinterpret the sentences that you quoted, so would many of the faithful misinterpret a title of "Co-Redeemer." And so the Holy See, guided by the Holy Spirit, has wisely chosen not only to avoid using the title in a dogma but also to stop using it in less formal documents and addresses.

-- (Think@Think.Think), March 09, 2005.

I said That's the teaching of the Church to which you responded:

"Like hell it is."

Yes, that's correct. Hell is also a teaching of the Church.

"There is but ONE Holy Redeemer."

Right.

Mary is comediatrix and coredemptrix.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

I said hell as the mot juste, Emmie. No need to indoctrinate me. No need either to raise Mary to divinity rank. You can't gild the Lily after God has exalted her. Mary is already the holiest woman ever to live and our Heavenly Queen. Yours is just faint praise compared to God's. Don't clamor for more than God revealed.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"Isn't it amazing that the very men who WROTE the sentences that you quoted nevertheless lacked your monumental wisdom, since they clearly did not put "Co-Redeemer" in the list of Marian titles that I highlighted?"

isn't it amazing that you immediately descend into this kind of emotional argument?!?!?!

just read the stuff i posted. it's all there in Vat II.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

isn't it amazing that you immediately descend into this kind of emotional argument?!?!?!

My argument was entirely intellectual and not "emotional." Yours, out of the frustration of being exposed as wrong, was wholly emotional, as evidenced by your punctuation: "?!?!?!".

We Catholics are praying for you, Ian, to be released from your confusion, since we think that you are not yet possessed by "dark influences" (as are some here, like "E").

-- (Think@Think.Think), March 10, 2005.

In the year 1208, the Mother of God came to St. Dominic. She taught him how to say the rosary. With the rosary, he defeated the Albigensian heresy.

Mary the Mother of God, the Theotokos (God-bearer), the crusher of heresy. Our Lady of Guadalupe: "Guadalupe" is the spanish sound- alike equivalent of the Nuahtl word which means "Crusher of the Stone Serpent".

"I will put emnity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed, and she will crush your head..."

That some cringe at devotion to the Mother of God, or to pretend that there's some heresy in it, or something deviant from the Faith in it... no wonder. It's their very undoing.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

A patently false premise for declaring her equal to Christ on the cross. We share all traditional devotion to the Blessed virgin including those which trace to genuine apparitions. We revere her name and her holiness.

Your charge that we ''cringe'' at devotion to the Mother of God is insulting and false.

Here's a ''trad'' who will lie unscrupulously as if God isn't watching. What a traditionalist! BUT-- That's good-- we want him to show his true colors. His father was a liar from the beginning, as Jesus said to the Pharisees. And all along I've called him on his pharisaism. Now he exposed it in this flagrant lie.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.