I have repeatedly commented that I find the term RC offensive. That you continue to use it speaks much of your Christian good will and beatitude.
I do not speak for Catholic apologists, either Pope or peasant. There is diversity of thought within the Church so your theory about Catholics being "brainwashed robots" is contradicted by your own argument. Each must examine his own conscience and provide his own reasons. I can only comment on the what has been decided upon by the Magesterium or declared ex Cathedra.
The position of the Church is as follows. Any future misrepresentation of these facts by you a liar because you will have known better and have chosen to willfully distort it for some unholy:
When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
Mary's grief, contributed NOTHING to our Redemption.
Christ alone paid the penalty for sin.
But you said, and most emphatically...
NL: Neither has any Pope ever declared Mary a co-redeemer...
So it's not quite "diversity of thought" in the RCC, it's an error on your part in knowing what your church believes and teaches.
Is that an example of being "poorly catechised?" Maybe it's just the RCC talking out of both sides of its mouth again and never being consistent about much of anything.
It's interesting that you chose NOT to put the bulk of your comment in quotation marks. Apparently you should have since you seem to have lifted almost the entire comment from other peoples' work found here (and other places) which was NOT written by you...
MARY AS CO-REDEMPTRIX: AN EXPLANATION
Even though you didn't write that blather, it is still (and poorly) trying to defend the anti-Scriptural elevation of a sinner to the status of divinity. A big no-no from the very beginning. God is not amused by that kind of idolatry. Where He once may have winked, He know condemns.
Regardless, it's very bad form to make it appear that whole paragraphs are your own writing when someone else actually wrote them. If you can't think of what to say or you feel inept writing something, just link to the page. We'll be sure to read it, and that way we'll know who actually wrote the work.
There is diversity of thought within the Church so your theory about Catholics being "brainwashed robots" is contradicted by your own argument. Each must examine his own conscience and provide his own reasons. I can only comment on the what has been decided upon by the Magesterium or declared ex Cathedra.
lol. Well, which is it? Do RCs agree on their theology and rely on "what has been decided upon by the magisterium" or do they "examine their own conscience and provide his own reasons?"
Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?
"Brain-washed robots" seldom do. (Not sure who originally wrote that nifty phrase, but since you put it in quotation marks, I figured I'd better, too. Just to be safe.)
(I'm also hoping you noticed the use of the quotation marks throughout my comment. Using them means someone other than me made those statements. Try it. You'll get the hang of it.)
Any future misrepresentation of these facts by you a liar because you will have known better and have chosen to willfully distort it for some unholy:
Did you drop a verb in that sentence? Regardless, it's against the rules of the FR FR to call someone "a liar."
God willing, your apology will be forthcoming.
I have repeatedly commented that I find the term RC offensive.
No, you haven't. Not in a long, long time.
Are two people posting under the name "Natural Law?"
Regardless here, too, the shorthand of "RC" and "RCC" has not been declared "offensive" by your magisterium, and therefore my conscience will continue to permit me to use the terms.
(Note the quotation marks.)