Current status of Mary [Re: Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee Approval of “Co-redemptrix”]

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.

Two additional dogmas about Mary were infallibly proclaimed by two popes during the 19^th and 20^th centuries:

In addition, various popes and church councils have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate:

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:

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

Most of the time I just read what others are saying. In fact the only time I've posted is when I've found someone in some kind of leadership role being less than honest.

In posts 200,250,255,290, and 415 you both are discussing the character of Scott Hahn.

I was away from the Church for many years. When I told a friend I began attending Church again she was thrilled until she found out it was not a Catholic Church. This began a debate that lasted for some time, and included her giving me a tape named "Scott Hahn conversion tape".

The following is a portion of my response to my friend, pertaining to some of what Scott said on this tape:

One last point, but this is a very important point because it speaks of Scott Hahn’s character. I believe it is more important for Scott to have people convinced of his point of view than to tell the truth. I am very much interested in the truth and will go where it leads me. I have a big problem with people who try to manipulate or fool people into their point of view.

Let me explain. Here I am not arguing for or against the Catholic Church’s viewpoint of Mary. However, what Scott presents here I consider intellectual dishonesty because he is deliberately trying to trick people. He says on the tape:

I’ll give you two points, and if you can answer them, I’ll give it to you (referring to the Catholic viewpoint of Mary, talking to a Protestant friend).
Point 1. Christ obeyed the law perfectly right? Of course.
The Ten Commandments sum up that law, right? Of course.
The first command that deals with our fellow relations is “Honor your Father and Mother”. When Christ fulfilled the law, He fulfills that command “Honor your Father and Mother”. The Hebrew word for honor, ‘Kabad’, means glorify. So Christ honors, He bestows honor, He glorifies, He bestows glory upon His Mom, right?
What’s point 2?
We imitate Christ. The Catholic Church isn’t exalting Mary, Jesus beat her to it. We’re just echoing and imitating our Lord. All we’re doing is what Christ has been doing, as a perfectly faithful obedient loving Son.

Scott Hahn indicates he is a scholar and has taught in seminary. He talks about his study of Scripture. He knows about taking Scripture out of context because even in this tape he accuses others of doing just that (pertaining to the Body and Blood of Christ).

So let’s look at the context of this Scripture. The law is being given to the Jewish people. Do not murder. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must not murder.
Do not commit adultery. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must not commit adultery.
Honor your Father and Mother. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must honor, bestow glory, and exalt their Father and Mother?
Is that right? The average Jewish person is to bestow glory and show exaltation to his Father and Mother? I don’t think so.
Here is the thing…..In Hebrew there is more than one meaning for the word ‘Kabad’. One is to honor, to bestow glory and reverence, and other is to respect. So let’s fix this one.

Honor your Father and Mother. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must honor, by showing respect for, their Father and Mother.

Now that this is in the proper context, Jesus fulfills this commandment by respecting his Father and Mother.

Catholic Church members receive most of their religious information from the Church leaders, Catholic Catechisms as children, and people like Scott Hahn, rather than going themselves to the Scriptures. I believe that it’s a fair statement to say that most Catholic Church members do not read the Bible, and of those that do a large percentage do little more than dabble at reading Scripture. The Catholic Church, in general, doesn’t do much to encourage individuals to read the Bible (I freely admit that most of the time I didn’t pay attention, that I was ‘dead wood’, in the Catholic Church. However, I believe I’m correct about this. If you disagree then let’s discuss it).
Scott used a trick to try to convince people who do not know much about Scripture into believing that this specific Scripture indicates Mary should be bestowed glory and that she should be exalted. This Scripture does not indicate that Mary should be glorified or exalted. If you look closely at what he said, “The first command that deals with our fellow relations”. Fellow relations means human relations. And besides, it makes absolutely no sense to tell the Jewish people to glorify, bestow glory, and exalt their Dad and Mom.

This is my opinion. I believe, because of his stated background and experience, that Scott didn’t make a mistake. I believe he is purposely being deceptive in order to convince people of his point of view. I’m on a quest for the truth, and tricks like this disturb me greatly. Please be very careful with what you believe from this man.

There is no way he would attempt this in a debate format with one of the reformed Church debaters. But then again, it is his speech and his audience.

***History shows an unbroken line of papal successors.**

There were times there were two popes correct..and even a tale of a woman pope correct?? It is like a kid who's mom slept around. The one he calls PaPa may not be.. (not meant with disrespect)

From a quick web search

While Catholics may object to the charge that recent Popes have failed to meet the requirements of 1 Timothy 3, they can't object to that charge being made against dozens of Roman bishops and Popes of previous centuries. Some excerpts from a recent book by the **Roman Catholic author Eamon Duffy ***illustrate this. As you read the following, ask yourself whether the Catholic Church can claim an unbroken succession of legitimate bishops by the standards of 1 Timothy 3. And ask yourself whether Jesus and the apostles ever taught this sort of "apostolic succession". When men become bishops by means of bribery or murder, or they're appointed by prostitutes or political leaders, do they have apostolic authority just because they claim a lineage from the apostles? What about when numerous people claim that lineage at once, and the people claiming the lineage teach error and contradict one another?** Duffy writes in Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997):**

By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him....

In the misery of exile, surrounded by imperial clergy and far from home, Liberius [bishop of Rome] weakened. He agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius [a bishop who defended the deity of Christ], and signed a formula which, while it did not actually repudiate the Nicene Creed, weakened it with the meaningless claim that the Logos [Jesus Christ] was 'like the father in being' and in all things. In 358 he was finally allowed to return to Rome.

He found the city deeply divided. On Liberius' exile in 355, the Emperor had installed a new pope, Liberius' former archdeacon Felix. Consecrated by Arian bishops in the imperial palace in Milan, Felix was an obvious fellow traveller, but imperial patronage was a powerful persuader, and many of the Roman clergy had rallied to him. Constantius was now unwilling simply to repudiate Felix, and commanded that Liberius and he should function as joint bishops....

Liberius' successor Damasus (366-84), who had served as deacon under both Liberius and Felix, would inherit some of the consequences of his predecessor's exile. His election in 366 was contested, and he was confronted by a rival pope, Ursinus, whom he only got rid of with the help of the city police and a murderous rabble....

Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place.

The key figure in both John X's appointment and his deposition was the notorious Theophylact matron, Marozia.*** She ***also appointed Leo VI (928) and Stephen VII (928-31), and she had been the mistress of Pope Sergius III, by whom she bore an illegitimate son whom she eventually appointed as Pope John XI (931-6)....

Its [the declining papacy's] symbol is the macabre 'cadaver synod' staged by Stephen VI in January 897, when he put on trial the mummified corpse of his hated predecessor but one, Pope Formosus. The corpse, dressed in pontifical vestments and propped up on a throne, was found guilty of perjury and other crimes, was mutilated by having the fingers used in blessings hacked off, and was then tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was subsequently deposed by the disgusted Roman crowd, and strangled in prison....

Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside.

The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter. The Ottonian era had led to a temporary improvement in the characters of the popes, but by the second quarter of the eleventh century standards had crumbled once more. Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Rome. Hewas evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian....

The spread of nepotism and of venal appointments to the cardinalate, in return for money or favours, made the outcome of elections towards the end of the century even less likely to reflect a simple search for 'God's candidate'. In the 1484 conclave which elected Innocent VIII (1484-92) there were a record twenty-five cardinals present, many of them scandalously secular men. Proceedings were stage-managed by Giuliano della Rovere, nephew of the dead Pope. When it became clear that he himself was unelectable, he saw to it that a manageable nonentity was chosen. The successful candidate, Cardinal Cibo, bribed electors by countersigning petitions for promotion brought to him in his cell the night before the decisive vote.

Roderigo Borgia's election as Alexander VI in 1492 was accompanied by even more naked bribery....Yet, for all his ability, Roderigo was a worldly and ruthless man, and at the time of his election was already the father of eight children, by at least three women....

Before the Great Schism, the papacy had derived much of its funding from the vigorous exercise of its spiritual office - payments from suppliants at the papal court, revenues derived from papal provisions, annates on benefices, Peter's Pence. The erosion of papal prerogatives during the schism and Conciliar era, however, drastically reduced such payments, and the papacy was increasingly thrown back on the secular revenues derived from the Papal States - a fact which accounts for the papal wars in defence of those States....

Nevertheless, the mounting cost of papal wars, and the lavish building programmes of successive popes, made the search for new sources of revenue unending. The most notorious of these was the sale of indulgences, especially the indulgence for the rebuilding of St Peter's. More significant still, however, was the growing dependence of the popes on the sale of office....

In the same year in which Erasmus published Julius Exclusus, in which the Lateran Council ended, and in which Pope Leo packed the College of Cardinals with thirty-one new creations, an unknown theology professor in Wittenberg, an obscure new German university, proposed an academic debate on the subject of indulgences. His name was Martin Luther, and he was reacting against the indulgence which Pope Julius and after him Pope Leo had issued to help fund the rebuilding of St Peter's. Raising donations for Church projects by dispensing spiritual blessings was a long-established practice, and few people questioned it....

Devout minds everywhere were revolted by this sort of stuff [Johann Tetzel's means of selling indulgences], and there had been many protests before about such abuse of indulgences. But Luther was not protesting about the abuse of indulgences: he was protesting about indulgences themselves. Luther was a pious and scrupulous monk, who had recently passed through a profound spiritual crisis. Overwhelmed by a sense of his own sinfulness, he had found the idea of God's justice terrifying, and the Church's remedies through confession and acts of penance powerless to calm his fears. Release had come from a phrase in St Paul: 'The righteous shall live by faith.' For Luther, this one phrase turned the whole medieval system of salvation on its head. The saint was not, as the Church taught, a man or woman who no longer sinned: the saint was a sinner who put all his or her trust in God. Good works, penance, indulgences, contributed nothing to salvation. Faith, a childlike dependence on God, was everything. There was a place for good works in the Christian life, but as a thankful response for salvation achieved, not as a means of earning it. (pp. 14, 25, 82-83, 87, 149, 153-154)

This is a chain of mystery and mistakes ...no way a clear unbroken chain..
I have no problem with a chain of leadership. I happen to believe in the idea of accountability..but I do not believe the church can hold its claim to a clear succession nor to infalibility or holding any keys Aquinasfan...

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.

	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.

	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

	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.

Petition drive to promote an infallible statement: