Posted on 10/07/2002 1:03:41 PM PDT by Polycarp
So co redeemer means that Jesus saved with Mary? He does not do it alone?
Without Mary, there would be no Jesus. I believe that Mary is honored in Heaven. Catholics don't worship Mary, we never have. I will agree that SOME Catholics go a little too far and their honor might seem to others as worship, but the Catholic Church does not teach that we worship anyone but God.
Mary is the Mother of God. She made a free choice. She could have said no -- God forces no one to do anything. She should be respected and honored for her contribution, and I believe that she does bring people to her Son.
Many Protestants (though not Martin Luther who had a healthy and deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin) I believe are trying so hard to distance themselves from Catholics that they are insulting to Mary and possibly offend Jesus. He respected and took care of His mother; we should do the same.
God bless.
"Co-Redemptrix" will be added to her list of titles just as soon as they think they can convince enough people to *swallow* that leavened bread and not choke on it. LOL
For example, here are the titles she already has (excerpted from Vatican 2 Marian Dogma): "...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.."
Now this is reeeeeeeeeeally funny, because THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY Dogma originated with Heretics and was Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
This is hilarious! At one time Catholics were condemned to hell for believing something -- but now are condemned to hell if they don't believe it! LOL. It's a good thing for the pope that most of the "laity" are gullible and ignorant about this stuff:
"An early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it." ~~
And what's funny is the fact that their whole foundation for papal infallibility is based on forgeries!!: "In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy.
The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution.
As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West.
It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. The Decretals are a complete fabrication of Church history.
They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils.
Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority. But it was not until the 11th century with Pope Gregory VII that the these decretals were used in a significant way to alter the government of the Western Church.
It was at this time that the Decretals were combined with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis, along with other falsified writings, and codified into a system of Church law which elevated Gregory and all his successors as absolute monarchs over the Church in the West.
These writings were then utilized by Gratian in composing his Decretum. The Decretum, which was first published in 1151 A.D., was intended as a collection of everything that Gratian could find which could give historical precedent to the teaching of papal primacy, and therefore the authority of tradition, which could then carry the force of law in the Church. It had such success that it became the standard work of the law of the Roman Church and thus the basis of all canon law and Scholastic theology." ~~
"Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it.
This is well illustrated by the actions of the 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D. This Council is well known in Church history for its official condemnation of a number of leading Eastern Bishops as well as a Bishop of Rome for embracing and promoting heretical teachings.
The particular Pope who was posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic was Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. ..."
"Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. ..."
"This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy the existence of one will in Christ (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 33).
The definition of what the Roman Catholic Church refers to as ex cathedra teaching was not enunciated and defined until 1870. One needs to keep this in mind when applying this test to the case of Honorius and the judgment of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
In the mind of this "infallible" Council the pope was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts.
An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction.
If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council.
The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible.
No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example."
The Son existed before the foundation of the world as did the plan of salvation (check your bible for that)
So Jesus did not need Mary to exist He prexisted her as the Word of God the second person in the trinity...She was his earthly mother..a wonderful lady..but if it was not her it would have been another woman. She was selected because she loved God and was submissive to His will...all of this was planned from before the foundation of the world..
It was Gods plan
Go how is Worship different than adoration? What makes one different than another in the heart and in practice?
As a non-Catholic, could someone please explain the reasoning behind this?
The Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that through a singular Grace given by God, Mary was preserved from all stain of Original sin at the first moment of her existence at her conception in the womb of her mother, St. Anne.
The Virgin Birth refers to the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit with Mary's consent at the Annunciation and His subsequent Birth at Christmas.
Some people confuse these two events of Salvation History.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary was a miracle worked by God being necessary for the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity to become Man. From Eternity, God created, chose, and prepared Mary to be the Mother of His Divine Son, and through Him, of all people redeemed by His Cross. It was fitting that she who was to be His Mother, should be free of the stain of all sin, or from the other side of the coin, "full of Grace". This Grace, as are all Graces, is a result of Christ's Passion, and not separate from it.
This teaching has always been believed by the Church, in both the East and West, and it's feast day celebrated from the earliest times. It was not "invented" by the Pope, but rather proclaimed as dogma to clarify correct belief, as the Church's belief continually develops to deeper understanding. Indeed, theologians had been arguing about it's nuances for Centuries (which is their job), triggering the Pope's proclamation (which is his job).
Hope this short synopsis helps!
Was it now? Any documentation on this. Oh, I see, the ex-Catholic...
It boggles the imagination, the historical ignorance of this response. Tell me, do people actually choose to believe this tripe?
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.