To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; ...
Please note the date of this article -- 1866.
Seems that very little has changed in over a century.
In fact, I was stunned to realize that "Mary as co-redeemer" is not a recent fiction, but has been around quite awhile, as the article states.
2 posted on
05/14/2008 10:22:17 PM PDT by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
***Please note the date of this article — 1866.***
I didn’t know Free Republic was around then :>)
9 posted on
05/14/2008 10:36:12 PM PDT by
irishtenor
(Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Quite disingenuous of you to fail to note that the term used to refer to the Blessed Mother, co-redemptrix, is Latin which when translated to English means the woman with the Redeemer. It in no way elevates the Blessed Mother to a "status" equivalent to that of Christ. Perhaps your anti-Catholic MO prevents you from learning Latin. Perhaps you have no desire to be honest. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with bearing false witness against the Catholic Church.
Any viable reason why you refuse to refer to the Blessed Mother as Blessed, since that is what Scripture instructs you to do?
"Because He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Luke 1:48
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Seems that very little has changed in over a century.Indeed. People of your ilk have been making a fetish of misrepresenting Catholicism for well over a hundred years.
53 posted on
05/15/2008 5:32:02 AM PDT by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Not a single source, yet you cling to it so fervently. Yes, Catholic Marian doctrines have existed since the first century, Dr. Eck, and they have been distorted and exaggerated since the 16th.
67 posted on
05/15/2008 5:57:30 AM PDT by
dangus
To: Dr. Eckleburg
please note the date of this article -- 1866. Seems that very little has changed in over a century.
In fact, I was stunned to realize that "Mary as co-redeemer" is not a recent fiction, but has been around quite awhile, as the article states.
Great find !
baruch HaShem Yah'shua
117 posted on
05/15/2008 7:24:51 AM PDT by
Uri’el-2012
(you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thanks for the post, this is going to be good and I haven’t even started reading it yet. 1866 even!
127 posted on
05/15/2008 8:07:05 AM PDT by
DungeonMaster
(Obamafeld, "A CAMPAIGN ABOUT NOTHING".)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
However, the magicsterical has not fully ratified every last nth degree of such . . . such as the Co-Redemptrix aspect???
I’m often confused by all the gyrations, perumtations, fantasmagoricalifications
of all the Maryolatry, Maryology, etc.
It must take a whole Convent just to keep track of all the threads getting tacked on over the centuries.
169 posted on
05/15/2008 9:41:57 AM PDT by
Quix
(GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for this excellent post!
May God bless you richly~
268 posted on
05/15/2008 12:01:02 PM PDT by
keeper53
("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." -John 1:1)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Please note the date of this article -- 1866.
Seems that very little has changed in over a century. I agree. 
425 posted on
05/15/2008 5:41:44 PM PDT by
TradicalRC
("...just not yet.")
To: verdugo
VErdugo — what you do think of this?
1,013 posted on
03/29/2011 6:25:24 AM PDT by
Cronos
(Palin: 2012)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson