Posted on 12/12/2008 10:02:26 AM PST by Joiseydude
Playboy has got into the Christmas spirit — by putting the Virgin Mary nude on its Mexican cover.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
“Mary was not required; what was required was a virgin from a line of the tribe of David which was not cursed.”
Don’t be semantical. Obviously Mary is from the line of David and is a virgin.
94 posted on December 12, 2008 1:55:45 PM MST by TCH
How incredibly ignorant ! You may have Encyclicals in your "bible", but I'm sure most everyone else does not. Yah'shua (Jesus) taught from the Torah, The Tanakh is the Bible used in Judaism and thus the only Bible used by Yah'shua. Mary had free will, she could have said no. The Holy Spirit would have found another suitable virgin from the tribe of David. I pray that you seek the face of G-d in His Word and ask for forgiveness and seek His salvation The Bible is a COLLECTION of books and letters, taken from both the Old Testament, the Gospel of Christ, and the encyclicals and Acts of the Apostles.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
the Prophets and the Writings(the Tanakh),
which existed many centuries before the Third Century CE.
If there was one person without sin, man or woman,then Christ was unnecessary and so was His atoning death. God could just do it by fiat as you claim he did for Mary. Christs conception was immaculate and without sin, Mary’s was not. I dont think either of us will change the other’s mind, the important thing is Christ and His redemption He provided for all of us. But for this act of redemtpion He needed noone else, He did it all.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“Playboy isn’t a porn mag.”
Yes it is.
Declaring Mary co-redemtrix raises her to the level of a deity.No it doesn't. She is NOT part of the Triune Godhead, She is the essential channel that God used to bring His Son into the world. Her cooperation with the Will of God is an active part of our Redemption through Her Son.
Yes, you are right about Pope John Paul. I remember him taking a trip to Mexico.
>>then by that action Mary is co-redemtrix.<<
I love your zeal here but no, she is not co-redemtrix.
Not per the Vatican. And yes, I am Catholic.
>>Declaring Mary co-redemtrix raises her to the level of a deity<<
Please understand, that is not Roman Catholic dogma either.
Terrible blasphemy that will get Mexico a hefty chastisement for this alone
Ah carumba?
The term co-redemptrix is Latin meaning the woman with the Redeemer. The prefix "co" stems from the Latin "cum" meaning with, not equal to. The title in no way raises her to the level of a deity. Claiming that it does is indicative of the ignorance of the person making the accusation.
Time for you to do some reading.
Yep, I suspect God in his righteous anger will turn Mexico into a Third-World cesspool...oh wait, too late.
Then you deny her solely uniqe role in the salvation of mankind. Even the paranoid, schizophrenic, alcoholic who was unable to control his libido, Luther, knew the truth about the Blessed Virgin Mary.
God could have chosen another and his plan would not have been altered in the slightest.
But He didn't. God could have made Christ but He didn't. He chose her and only her as His handmaid and bride for the Word to become flesh. One would need a parallel universe to see if your claim would be correct. But we don't need a parallel universe to know the truth of what did occur.
THANKS.
Will check it out.
INDEED.
You might read what Pope John Paul II had to say about that issue. It is his term, not my own. My understanding is that Mary is also “Meditrix of all graces”... that should drive the Protestants absolutely over a cliff.
Sorry... mis-spelled term... Should be Mediatrix. Here is further discussion on the topic:
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm
Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces
by Father William G. Most
Closely related to the Catholic teaching on Mary’s cooperation in the redemption is the teaching that, with through and under her Son, she is Mediatrix of all graces. What exactly does this mean?
The term Mediatrix in itself could refer to either the objective redemption (the once-for-all earning a title to grace for all men), to the subjective redemption (the distribution of this grace to individual men), or to both. It is most usual to use it to refer only to subjective redemption, i.e. , the process of giving out the fruits of the objective redemption, throughout all centuries. We must consider whether or not the term Mediatrix applies to all graces or only to some. We will ask also about the nature of the mediation: is it only by way of intercession, that is, does Mary simply pray to her Son that he may give us grace, or does God also use her as an instrument in distributing grace.
To begin, we can say without doubt that the title “Mediatrix” is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.
The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:
... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.
This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer....”
We notice that Vatican II did not add the words “of all graces.” However, as many papal texts point out, Mary’s role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima.
Leo XIII, in the text referred to, spoke of her, as we saw above, as having “practically limitless power.” St. Pius X said she was the “dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the “neck” connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said “Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.” These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible.
Objection
Protestants object to this , saying that there is only one mediator: 1 Tim 2:5. We agree that there are many ways in which Christ is the only mediator between God and man. 1) There is only one mediator who is such by very nature, being both true God and true man. 2) There is only one mediator whose whose work is necessary, without whom, in God’s plan, there could be no salvation. 3) There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.
Mary differs on all three counts. 1) Mary only a creature, but it was appropriate that God freely choose her as Mediatrix because he had made her Mother of the God-man, the Redeemer—it was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God’s plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord. 2) Her role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore. 3) Her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son, and hence we are not contradicting Lumen gentium # 62 which says no creature can be ever counted together with Him.
Really, the Father did not need her at all, except that if He decreed the incarnation, He necessarily decreed a Mother: she was and is that Mother. But everything else in which He has employed her is not needed.
Yet, if we recall the economy of redemption, it is clear that the Father wants everything to be as rich as possible, so that He will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. Really, the incarnation in a palace, without death, would have been infinite in merit and satisfaction, as we have seen in the section on her cooperation in the redemption.
Further, the principle of St. Thomas helps here. In Summa Theologiae I. 19. 5. c., Thomas says that it pleases God to have one thing in place to serve as a title or reason for granting something further, even though that title does not move Him. It is His love of all goodness and good order that leads Him to act this way. Hence too, even though Calvary earned infinite forgiveness and graces, the Father wills to provide titles for giving out these, in the Mass. Even though He did not need even our Lady, yet He willed to employ her. Even though there is no need of any other saints, in objective or subjective redemption, yet He wills to add them—all to make everything, every title, as rich as possible.
Lumen gentium speaks of her as taking care of all her children. We are extremely numerous, but yet not infinite in number. Therefore, we are not too numerous for her to see and care for. For her capacity for that infinite vision of God is in proportion to her love on earth, so great that Pius IX, as we saw, said it was so great that “none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”
Is her mediation merely by intercession, prayer for us to her Son and to God the Father? Or does she also play a role in the distribution of graces from the Father through her Son to us? Many today, influenced by Protestant theology, tend to speak of grace merely as favor, and so say grace is not a thing given. But that would imply Pelagianism, the heresy that says that we can be saved by our own power. For if God merely sits there and smiles at me, and gives me nothing, that would mean that I had to do it by my own power.
So we answer, since Mary was associated with her Son in acquiring grace for us, she will also share with him in distributing that grace to us. This fits well with the words of the Popes, who call her the administra of grace, meaning that she administers or dispenses it. So Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, said:
“... when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : ‘Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.’”
Continue on to Teaching of the Popes and Vatican II on Mary’s Mediation:
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4a.htm
Excerpted and adapted from Theology 523: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion, by Father William G. Most.
Copyright (c) 1994 William G. Most
Mary’s Immaculate Conception
by Father William G. Most
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm
In teaching that Mary was conceived immaculate, the Catholic Church teaches that from the very moment of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from all stain of original sin. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God’s own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall.
History of the Doctrine
There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church Fathers already spoke: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, # 55).
If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception.
We can also reason from the text of Lk 1:28, in which the angel calls her “full of grace”. If we can validate the translation—we can, and will do so, shortly—then in this verse we can see even more strongly the complete enmity with the serpent—for God’s grace is complete opposed to Satan’s reign. But if Mary was “full of grace,” it seems that she must have been conceived immaculate.
We turn to the early Fathers of the Church. First, many, not all of them, make sweeping statements about her holiness. That could imply an Immaculate Conception. Secondly, very many of them speak of her as the New Eve. They could have reasoned: the first Eve had an immaculate start in life—no sin was yet committed. So the New Eve, who was to share in undoing the harm of original sin, should have also an immaculate start. However, none of the Fathers actually followed this line of reasoning. (A few Fathers even tried to find sins she had committed, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 21. PG 59. 130ff).
During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine. At this time, the data from Scripture and the Fathers was still not clear. In addition, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been—it was often thought of as having a positive element, instead of merely being an original lack of the grace to which God calls us. This positive element was thought to be transmitted from parents to children through the marital act (which was itself thought to be somehow sinful, though pardoned by God), and so it was hard to see how there could be an immaculate conception. This conception had been found in some, though by no means all, of the Fathers. Now of course we know it to be false. Finally, it was not generally seen at this time how an Immaculate conception of Mary would not take away from the universality of redemption through Christ.
After a while, however, the theological tide began to turn, and the objections which had long obscured the content of divine revelation began to be overcome. This was due especially to the work of the Franciscan, Venerable John Duns Scotus. He showed that for God to preserve Mary from original sin was a greater redemption than to allow her to fall into it and then rescue her. Scotus wrote (cited from J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368): “Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so.”
We also note again that behind most of the objections was the rather positive notion of original sin. If we jump ahead several centuries to the clearer understanding of original sin we have now, we can remove this objection. Pope John Paul II epressed this understanding in a General Audience on Oct 1, 1986: “In context it is evident that original sin in Adam’s descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a ‘sin of nature’ only analogically comparable to ‘personal sin’”. In other words: It is only the lack, or privation, of that which God wanted us to have, which we should have inherited from our first parents.”
Now back to our history. After that this change in theological tide had gone far towards removing objections, the Popes began to make statements of varying clarity. Sixtus IV in 1477 (DS 1400) praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. The same Pope added further support in 1483 (DS 1425-26), condemning those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception. The Council of Trent explicitly declared in its decree on original sin (DS 1516): “... it is not its intention to include in this decree ... the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Rather, the Constitutions of Sixtus [IV] of happy memory are to be observed.”
After Trent, the attacks on the Immaculate Conception were greatly moderated. Then Pope St. Pius V, in 1567 (DS 1973) condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. And in 1568 the same Pope put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Alexander VII in 1661 explained the doctrine much as Pius IX did later: DB 1100. Pope Clement XI in 1708 made December 8 a holyday of obligation. Further, the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in the U. S. in 1846 declared Mary Immaculate to be Patroness of the United States, and Pius IX on Feb. 7, 1847 confirmed this dedication.
The result was that about a century and a half before the definition of 1854, the whole Church believed the Immaculate Conception. Finally, in Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ. This is not strange, for to the eye of God, all time is present.
Now the Church continues to elucidate the scriptural basis of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pius XII, in Fulgens corona, 1953 wrote: “... the foundation of this doctrine is seen in the very Sacred Scripture itself, in which God ... after the wretched fall of Adam, addressed the ... serpent in these words... ‘I will put enmity....’ But if at any time, the Blessed Virgin Mary, defiled in her conception with the hereditary stain of sin, had been devoid of divine grace, then at least, even though for a very brief moment of time, there would not have been that eternal enmity between her and the serpent ... but instead there would have been a certain subjection.”
Preventive redemption
We have said that Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. Nor did she have an “obligation” to contract it, as some have foolishly said: there can be no obligation to any sin. We can merely say she would have been in original sin in the sense just explained, i.e. , she would have been born without grace, were it not for the preventive redemption. The word “preventive” means anticipatory: the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation (Latin praevenire) of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace.
The nature of Mary’s grace at the Immaculate Conception
In Lk 1:28 the archangel hails her as, “full of grace”. Most versions today do not use that rendering, but greatly weaken it. Yet it is the correct translation as we can see from the Magisterium (Pius XII, Fulgens Corona, AAS 45, 579, and constant use of the Church) and also from philology.
For the Greek word in the Gospel is kecharitomene. It is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. A perfect passive participle is very strong. In addition, charitoo belongs to a group of verbs ending in omicron omega. They have in common that they mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root. Thus leukos means white, so leukoo means to make white. Then charitoo should mean to put into charis. That word charis can mean either favor or grace. But if we translate by favor, we must keep firmly in mind that favor must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything. That would be Pelagian: salvation possible without grace. So for certain, God does give something, and that something is grace, are share in His own life. So charitoo means to put into grace. But then too, kecharitomene is used in place of the name “Mary”. This is like our English usage in which we say, for example, someone is Mr. Tennis. That means he is the ultimate in tennis. So then kecharitomene should mean “Miss Grace”, the ultimate in grace. Hence we could reason that fullness of grace implies an Immaculate Conception.
Overflowing grace: Pius IX, in the document, Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854 wrote: “He [God] attended her with such great love, more than all other creatures, that in her alone He took singular pleasure. Wherefore He so wonderfully filled her, more than all angelic spirits and all the Saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts taken from the treasury of the divinity, that she, always free from absolutely every stain of sin, and completely beautiful and perfect, presented such a fullness of innocence and holiness that none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”
What about the words of Jesus in Lk 11:27-28 (cf. Mt. 12:46-50 and Mk 3:35)? A woman in the crowd exclaimed: “Blessed is the womb that bore you....” He replied: “Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”
The dignity of being Mother of God is a quasi infinite dignity, as we just saw from the words of Pius XI. Yet here, our Lord is teaching us that the holiness coming from hearing the word of God and keeping it is something greater still. Her holiness must indeed be great—so great that “none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”
Even though Mary was full of grace at the start of her life, yet she could still grow, for, as it were, her capacity for grace could increase.
In general, a soul will grow in proportion to these things: (1) The greater the dignity of the person, the greater the merit In her case, the dignity of Mother of God is the highest possible for a creature. (2) The greater the work, the greater the merit: her cooperation in the redemption was the greatest work possible to a creature. (3) The greater the love, the greater the merit. Love of God means the attachment of our will to His. Her will adhered supremely, with no obstacle at all, so that even ordinary household duties, which she saw as the will of the Father for her, were supremely valuable.
Excerpted and adapted from Theology 523: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion, by Father William G. Most.
Copyright (c) 1994 William G. Most.
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.