Posted on 07/19/2014 3:22:50 PM PDT by markomalley
I think that is precisely why the RCC hasn't pronounced this dogma....yet. Because it would elevate Mary to an equal position of Christ. Give it time, a little more "tradition" and it will happen.
It's like 21st century Americans, who don't know jack chick about royal custom, assume that Mary being Queen means she is a monarch, a power-player, a dictator along the lines of Queen Elizabeth I.
Not at all. Jesus is King, she is Queen Mother: by relationship, not by, as it were, individual achievement. Not because she is wears a robe and a starry crown (although she DOES in the Great Sign of Revelation 12)(!) but because He, the Ultimate King, is her Son. And that's what you call the mother, when she is the mother of the king.
Everyone --- not just Mary --- needs to be a cooperator in Redemption, a cooperation which is totally subordinate to God, which is expressed very well by Paul:
Philippians 2:12-13 "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
You have totally taken this out of context to attempt to justify a point.
"Co-Redemptrix" (which is not a dogma of the Church) is a term which, if it came into use, could have two different, even opposite senses: a true orthodox one, and a false heretical one.
It means the heretical one....it's why they said it goes beyond the text. At least they got that right.
The Orthodox one (like any Marian title, like "Blessed" -- or like the title the Angel Gabriel gave her, "Kecharitomene" ---)
You presume these are titles when they are not. The RCC has made them into titles.
Blessed is no where in caps in Luke except in Luke 1:42 where it is the first word in Elizabeth's greeting to Mary. It is in caps here because it's the first word in the sentence. No where else in the chapter is blessed in caps.
The base greek word is eulogeo which means to speak well of, I bless, pass, I am blessed. It is used 43 times in the NT in various ways. It is not a title.
Regarding "kecharitomene". In the text, unlike your post, this is not in caps. The base greek word, charitoo, means I favor, bestow freely on.
It is used twice in the NT. Here in Luke and in Ephesians 1:6. In both cases it is used to show God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
In the Greek it properly reads as "Greetings, you favored with grace."
The Greek for greetings is chairo. It means I rejoice, am glad, also a salutation: Hail.
would be a strictly subordinate and derivative meaning: Jesus is the unique and only Redeemer, being our incarnate Lord who died for us; Mary cooperated in His Incarnation; therefore she cooperated in the Redemption.
This is a huge leap of reading something into the text that isn't there. It sounds nice and pretty, but it isn't a concept found in the Bible. Mary's role in the birth of Christ and being His mom is well documented and agreed upon by all. But beyond that she plays no other role in our salvation or prayer life. There is nothing in the Bible about this. It is all made-up by the RCC.
His title means He is the Redeemer; hers means only that she played a role, she was a companion from beginning to end, she was a cooperator. ("Your own heart" said Simeon the Prophet, "A sword shall pierce.")
The role she played is clearly outlined in Luke. There are no false titles like Queen of Heaven, etc, given to Mary by Luke.
Quite the opposite would be a presumptuous assertion that she was or is Jesus' equal. She is not co-equal. Not Deity or Goddess or anything of the sort.
Just a creature, a handmaid really, who depends of God as her Savior.
This you actually got right. She was a sinner in need of salvation like the rest of us.
I think it's because of this likelihood of confusion between a true meaning and a false meaning --- that the Church has steered clear of attributing such a title.
No....they know exactly what they are saying. It would elevate Mary to an equal role of Christ. That's why they're not going there.....yet.
Maybe if Heaven were Great Britain this might apply.
The attempt to link the titles of king and queen into Heaven just is not in the New Testament account or meaning....anywhere.
When John was given a glimpse into Heaven he saw the Throne and the One sitted upon it and the One standing by the throne. He saw elders and saints, etc, but no Mary standing by Christ which is where one would assume the "queen" to be.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
theBuckwheat:
I understand you came to your own conclusion by reading the scriptures. That is fine and dandy. However, have you ever asked yourself the question, what if my conclusion is wrong? There are tons of theologians who read the same scriptures you read, and read them a heck of long time ago before either of us read them, and were instrumental in determining what the Church would recognize as the NT canon [guided by the Holy Spirit]. As for Sabbath changed to Sunday, or you Jewish? or Christian, Jesus, Christ, the 2nd person of the Most Holy Trinity, eternally begotten of God Father, True God and True man, who was incarnate of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, suffered died under Pontius Pilate, rose again from the dead on Sunday [The first day of the Week, which is accounted for in the Gospels]. The Acts of the Apostles, in several places, clearly indicates that the early Christian community celebrated Christ Resurrection ad the day when they gathered to break bread [celebrate the eucharist, Acts 2:20, Acts 20:7].
LOL. What should be more important is who the Ark bearers were praying to?
Are they spiritual leaders? If not, it might be helpful if you remember that Jesus said his kingdom is not part of this world.
In order for your assertion that Catholics worship Mary and the saints, and statues of Mary and the saints, the following would have to be true:
All the Fathers of the Church would have to be liars, publicly condemning idolatry, while secretly practicing and promoting it.
EVERY Papal and Vatican document ever published on the subject about veneration of Mary and the saints would have to be 100% lies—publicly condemning idolatry, while the secret approval of idolatry would have to be spread throughout the Church through some sort of secret channels—spread to every practicing Catholic, yet totally lost to history.
EVERY—EVERY—EVERY catechism and instructional book ever published in the Catholic Church, those used for the teaching of children, adults, converts, etc.—ALL of which explain the sin of idolatry and condemn it—would have to be lies, while the “real” teaching of the Church would have to be spread SECRETLY to a billion people, teaching them to commit idolatry. And these billion people would all have to be in on the “secret” AND these billion people would have to keep this “secret,” AND these billion people would have to be 100% committed to lying about this “secret” teaching to all the other people of the earth.
Catholics are “defensive” about their adoration of Mary and the saints?
Protestants kidnap and eat Catholic babies. Whenever I bring this up to Protestants, they get very defensive about it.
bkmk
LOL
It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception) and remained sinless throughout her life.
She was the only human born of two human parents in history to be entirely sinless.
The OT presents a comprehensive set of prophecies and prefigurings of Jesus, all through the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus Himself said (Luke 24:17) that these things refer to Him. If the books of Moses, the Psalms and all the Prophets refer to Him, they refer also to the people and events around Him.
Mary is explicitly presented as Queen in Revelation 12. It is she who is clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, wearing a crown of 12 stars. (You had some other Biblical Queen in mind?) She is portrayed as giving birth to a son who will "rule the nations" (you had some other King in mind?) and she is also portrayed as being concerned for all her offspring, "those who keep the commandments, and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus": that would be us --- including you and me ---assuming we keep the commandments and have faith in Christ.
So you not only have Jesus as your personal savior, you have Mary as your personal mother.
And where would you assume a Queen to be? You're Biblically correct about the "right hand" part:
Psalm 45:9
daughters of kings are among Your ladies of honour; at Your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
and...
1 Kings 2:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.
The Biblical commandment says that we are to honor our father and our mother. Solomon demonstrated how a good King's mother is to be treated. Do you think that Jesus would fall short of the standards of His predecessors, or would show less honor to His own Mother?
It is demeaning to Jesus to suppose that He would fulfill the commandments or courtesies less regally than Solomon did.
Yes, it does. Blatant idolatry at its worst!
You know what's even more hideous?
The so-called "Queen of England" is accepting that worship! It's BLASPHEMY!!!!
She was the only human born of two human parents in history to be entirely sinless.
If Mary was sinless why does she need a Savior? She is now in par with Jesus in this regard.
Second, her dad was not earthly.
I never said she didn’t need a Savior.
But, now that you bring it up, perhaps having been judged worthy to be the mother of Jesus, and sinless, she in fact did not need a Savior.
And, why do you say her father, Saint Joachim, was not earthly?
Mary is explicitly presented as Queen in Revelation 12. It is she who is clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, wearing a crown of 12 stars. (You had some other Biblical Queen in mind?) She is portrayed as giving birth to a son who will "rule the nations" (you had some other King in mind?) and she is also portrayed as being concerned for all her offspring, "those who keep the commandments, and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus": that would be us --- including you and me ---assuming we keep the commandments and have faith in Christ.
There are others who interprest this chapter in revelation that the woman represents Israel. Notice in verse 5 it specifically mentions her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. No mention of the woman being snatched up.
We also have the time period times, times and a half which is suggestive of the first half of the tribulation.
No where in this text is "Mary" portrayed as caring for "all her offspring" if you are meaning that phrase to be Christians.
It is clear that this passage is about Jesus. Again, the woman is most likely Israel due to the 12 stars representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
So you not only have Jesus as your personal savior, you have Mary as your personal mother.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible showing Mary to be our personal mother. This sounds nice and thoughtful, but is not Biblical and could be considered hertical.
A personal Savior is very sufficient for all of our needs. It amazes me that catholics do not consider the death, burial, resurrection of Christ to be all sufficent for their needs. Ya'll somehow have to have somebody else in Heaven interceding for you when the Bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are doing this for us already.
And where would you assume a Queen to be? You're Biblically correct about the "right hand" part:
Psalm 45:9 daughters of kings are among Your ladies of honour; at Your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
and...
1 Kings 2:19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.
The Biblical commandment says that we are to honor our father and our mother. Solomon demonstrated how a good King's mother is to be treated. Do you think that Jesus would fall short of the standards of His predecessors, or would show less honor to His own Mother?
It is demeaning to Jesus to suppose that He would fulfill the commandments or courtesies less regally than Solomon did.
Now you are practicing eisegesis....reading something into the text that isn't there. It is attempting to use allegory to support something that is not in the text. This is the most dangerous of all types of interpretation as it leads to false doctrines....like we're discussing today.
If you are sinless, why do you need a Savior??
But, now that you bring it up, perhaps having been judged worthy to be the mother of Jesus, and sinless, she in fact did not need a Savior.
She was not sinless. That would be a contradiction of Romans 3:23. The RCC claims their "sacred tradition" doesn't contradict Scripture. Someone is in error. Either the Bible or the RCC. I'm saying the RCC is in error.
And, why do you say her father, Saint Joachim, was not earthly?
My error...I was thinking of Christ.
But now that you bring this up....not sure why you are calling Joachim Saint....afterall, we are all saints if we are followers of Christ. This is another made-up title to separate people by the RCC. The Bible clearly teaches all who follow Christ are saints.
This is another made-up title to separate people by the RCC.
You're reading too much into the issue, this one at least between Catholics and non-Catholics should be a nonstarter. The word "saint" is merely the English rendition of the word Santa which means Holy. Holy Cross, St. (aka Holy) Saviour, Holy Father, Holy Ghost, The Holy People of God (that's supposed to be us btw)... The saints in Heaven are merely the holy ones in Heaven, it's a matter of convenience to refer to those in Heaven as saints, it's not a Catholic conspiracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.