Posted on 10/07/2002 1:03:41 PM PDT by Polycarp
This is a decent summary from a non-Catholic source:
Current status of Mary:
Although the virgin Mary is rarely mentioned in the Bible, and although Protestant churches consider her to be a relatively minor biblical character, the Roman Catholic Church has long assigned her an elevated status.
The Roman Catholic Church has historically taught two basic dogmas about Mary:
|
1. Mary is the Mother of God. |
|
2. Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin when Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived; this state continued throughout her life. |
Two additional dogmas about Mary were infallibly proclaimed by two popes during the 19th and 20th centuries:
|
3. Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary on 1854-DEC-8. Many Roman Catholics believe that this refers to Jesus' conception circa 5 to 7 BCE. In fact, it means that Mary herself was conceived free of sin before her birth circa 20 BCE. |
|
4. Assumption of Mary: Pope Pius XII, in his Munificentissimus Deus (1950-NOV-1), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven." That is, she was "taken up body and soul into heaven," at the time of her death. She is there "exalted as Queen of the Universe." 1 |
In addition, various popes and church councils have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate:
|
In ancient times:
|
||||||
|
1750: Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, canonized as Saint Alphonsus in 1839, wrote a book "The Glories of Mary." It continues to be published today, under various church imprimaturs. Various chapters in the book are titled: "Mary our Help," "Mary our Mediatress," "Mary our Advocate," etc. 1 | ||||||
|
1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast. 1 | ||||||
|
Circa 1965: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II states, in part:
|
||||||
|
1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." 4 | ||||||
|
1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II "referred to Mary as 'Mediatrix' three times, and as 'Advocate' twice." 1 | ||||||
|
1997-APR-9: During an audience Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: "Mary … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity...In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’ (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs." 1 |
Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.
Professor Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH, initiated a formal petition drive in 1993 during a Marian conference at that university. It asks the Pope to make infallible statement that would officially elevate Mary, the mother of Jesus, to the status of co-redeemer. More than six million signatures from 148 countries have reached the Vatican as of the end of the year 2000, asking that Pope John Paul II infallibly declare a new dogma: "That the Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus and co-operates fully with her son in the redemption of humanity." If this were done, "she would be a vastly more powerful figure, something close to the fourth member of the Holy Trinity and the primary female face through which Christians experience the divine." 3 Miravalle's petition has received support from Mother Theresa, 550 bishops, Cardinal John O'Connor and 41 other cardinals (including at least 12 cardinals in Rome). If the dogma is declared infallibly, it would pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." It would require all Roman Catholics to believe that:
|
Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people's redemption. |
|
Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces. |
|
Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God's judgments. |
If the dogma is infallibly declared, many feel that, in the words of Father Rene Laurentin, it would be the equivalent of launching "bombs" at Protestants. Father Laurentin is a French monk and the world's leading Mary scholar. He believes that: "Mary is the model of our faith but she is not divine. There is no mediation or co-redemption except in Christ. He alone is God." Raising the status of Mary would further acerbate the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Ecumenical activity would be negatively affected. There is speculation that a schism might develop over the issue within the Roman Catholic church. There may be a renewed debate over the role of the pope's power in the church. 5,6
<> Interesting perspective. Think of that from another angle. Adam was created from an uncursed Earth. Ought he have been accorded a higher priviledge than Jesus? To me, it makes sense that Jesus, the Second Adam, would be born of an uncursed Virgin. Nice symmetry, no?<>
Greek and Roman mythology tell of Gods coming down and having sex with humans, and essentially that's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception puts forth.
<> Essentially, that is ignorance masquerading as scholarship. The Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to how Jesus took on Human Nature.<>
<>
I have every respect for Mary as a saint and a good example of submission to the will of God. It's the Roman Marian doctrines to which I am hostile.
<> The Catholic Church teaches with the authority of Christ. Reject the Teachings of the Pillar and Ground of Truth and you reject Jesus.<>
Why this work will be done in no time! remarked Rabbi Woody.
Rabbi Jesse disagreed. Once we're done,he said, we have to start over again and again until we or the oxen fall over dead.
But these oxen will never die! Rabbi Woody said.
You are learning, Rabbi Jesse said. Now, there's only 41 more fields to plow.
Why not Jesus' other brothers and sisters (us?)
Why not Jesus' grandparents?
Where back the line do you decide the Son isn't impressed with his ancestors?
Your scripture speaks to that at some point in that ancestral lineage...."clean coming out of an unclean."
So, DrJ, the Bible is silent with rebuttal, is it?
If by silence, then you mean to ignore what is convincing other people, then I (for me) don't like that argument about silence before silence.
Hahn admits in his book that there is no scripture about the immaculate conception. The only scripture he finds about the assumption is the Rev passage about the woman caught up to God's throne.
Despite the paucity of evidence and the paucity of argument from our perspective, if others like the evidence, then what is your rebuttal?
I agree! But I'm disapponted, Jesse, that you forgot to mention sandyeggo's "other person" (Adam) in the garden, and "me" --- Polycarp's "Jacka$$". LOL
To Matchett-PI:
"Your other person in the garden should have had some B*lls."
302 posted on 10/4/02 by sandyeggo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/761987/posts?page=302#302
To Matchett-PI:
"I was pinged to this thread multiple times, Jacka$$."
419 posted on 10/4/02 by Polycarp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/761987/posts?page=419#419
Not fair, JeShu....Rabbi X would've said, "YOU SCHLEPP, your contractor calvin...ditto..."
Certainly. And for you, I'll even be caddy. ("Your HolyPolyPopeNess, what club here?" "Ahh, astute question, my son. We would recommend the Council of Trent 9 Iron Club.")
(And since I'll obviously never be PopePolyCarp, this really isn't a sacriligious attempt at humor. But it is a poor attempt. Hit 'em straight and long.)
now you've gotta read Rn & Fru's good comments. you've got a degree, dude...put that noggin to work.
Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Jesus took 100% of his humanity from his mother. It would seem only fitting that Mary would be sinless to pass on her genetic code to her son.
In addition, I believe we are in agreement that Mary is the second Eve (as forementioned in Genesis) and Eve was created sinless. It is logical that Mary was also created sinless.
To me, Immaculate Conception is not a difficult concept considering that God chose Mary to carry His humanity, Jesus Christ, who was fully God AND fully Man. And Mary, of her free will, said YES to God (which, He of course knew she was going to do).
God bless!
No, they're just unchristian!
That's a good argument, imho, because the immaculate conception is based purely on "filial affection" and on no scripture according to Hahn.
In the absence of scripture on the "ic" side, then scripture about the sin nature must be allowable on the Marian Sin side.
All Catholic prayers are sent to God. We ask Mary, the angels and saints to pray FOR us. In the Hail Mary, for example, we say, "Hail Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US SINNERS." We are asking for her intercession, because we know she is in Heaven and closer to God. When we pray to the saints in heaven, we are not asking THEM to grant us grace or mercy or forgiveness or anything, we are asking them to PRAY TO GOD FOR US, because we believe they are closer to God.
Catholics pray directly to God. Catholics ask others to pray for them, to God. There is no difference in asking a saint to pray for us than asking our best friend to pray for us -- except that the saint is in heaven.
God bless.
<> Scott Hahn is a brilliant man. You have "proved" no such thing. The only thing you prove, on a daily basis, is that you are among the most UnChristian individuals on these theads.
Now, Scott is, I guess, "unregenerate," and who would know with more accuracy than Rnmom who reads the intent of others and routinely tells others they are going to Hell.
This is a learned and highly intelligent man and when he gives of himself to share his love of Scripture with others, I am not surprised to see Rnmom claim his real intent is to "get attention," and he is a mere "token convert," instead of giivng him his just due.
Scott says his conversion is genuine, that it cost him MANY friendships, a good paying job etc etc. IMMATERIAL, the Calvinists tell me otherwise. Who am I to listen to the one who actually went through that conversion process and writes and speaks about it with such passion and conviction when I have my handy-dandy Calvinist Interpreter, Rnmom, who will tell all and sundry what Scott REALLY experienced and intended?
If they were not so evil, your actions would be funny. I guess this is just more proof you have been predetermined for Heaven and those that disagree with you are predetermind for Hell.<>
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.
