Wrong. It is prayer to created beings in Heaven that is the issue, as this is what is done toward Mary, and which cannot be extrapolated out of interactions btwn those in the same realm here. Only God is shown being able to hear the multitudinous prayers Heaven, while interchange btwn created beings was personal face to face so to speak, and required both to be in the same realm.
Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches there is only one heavenly intercessor, which is the Lord Jesus, whom souls are only told to come to Christ for heavenly intercession, and by Him believers have direct access into the holy of holies. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:15,16; 7:25; 1-:19)
Thus there is absolutely ZERO prayers by believers in Scripture to anyone in Heaven except to God, despite it being a basic common practice, for which the Holy Spirit inspired and recorded approx. 200!
Just admit PTDS comes from Cath tradition, not Scripture.
Christ performed His first miracle even before His time at the intercession of Mary. This
Wrong, that is not prayer to anyone in Heaven, nor was Mary even asked to do anything (and the Lord reminded her that He was under no necessary obligation to help her here (as examination of the phrase, "what have i to do with" evidences) but was only obligated to do the Father's will.
This is why one cannot separate the theology of salvation without recognizing Mary, comparable to that of a co-redemptrix in the salvific plan.
Wrong, as while in the technical sense then even Israel, of whom Christ came, (Rm. 9:5) as well the parents of Mary, can be said to instrumentally play a part in the redemption of mankind "co-redemptrix" is not the as co-worker, as being the redeemer of mankind signifies a unique function which only Christ could accomplish, while "co" infers, as with co-pilot and like terms, that one can and is doing the same thing. But despite what certain Mary devotees assert, she was not redeeming mankind due to her instrumental service, anyone more than blessed Rufus was who helped carried the Lord's cross for some time.
You are the one who evidences esteeming learned men as Ratzinger above that which Scripture affords them, (1Co. 4:6) and yet, as shown, you oppose Ratzinger's judgment on the title co-Redemptrix.
For when asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix†departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings†(53).
He went on to say that, “ Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix†would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language†(God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306)
Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that what you say contradicts not only the teachings of the Church for nearly 400 years before the Church authenticated the books in the Bible as the Word of God in AD 384, but contradicts every theologian from Augustine to Aquinas, and Newman to Benedict (called the “theological Einstein of or times”), to say nothing of prominent Lutheran and Episcopalian theologians who have converted to Catholicism.