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 Marys 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 Christs 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 Gods 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
Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God's judgments.
Would you please give me your intreprations of these two parts of the petition. I ask because they were intreprated yesterday for me by another catholic on a different thread, and I would be interested if other catholics saw it the same way. Thanks.
Becky
Was there a particular doctrine that John meant, when refering to the doctrine of Christ?
IMO, it would be that salvation is thru Jesus Christ only.
Becky
Why not just say that??????
<> Because they do not believe that. Steve does not think his congregation comeptent to enter into disagreement with his interpretation of the Bible and Rnmom is not competent to disagree with her Pope, the_doc.
Sola Scriptura is a bunch of hooey. Each lil' denomination/church/assembly/community; whatever you call it, is led by some man who has usurped the Divinely-Constituted authority and they weild that power with absolute authority. Disagree with the minister of Thomas Rd Baptist Church and you are history DESPITE Sola Scriptura. Falwell is Pope for his church just as drstevej is Pope for his church and the_doc is Pope for Rnmom.
Sola Scriptura is a myth. Were it rue, it would be found in the Bible AND folks would act on it. As it is, folks find some church - there are zillions of 'em - that agrees with what the individual already believes and then they join that church. They find a church to fit their beliefs....
IF Sola Scriptura were true, one would never have to have it explained to them and one would never have conflicting doctrine..it is just so stupid to say that sola scriptura actually exists - but, protestants take that as Gospel on the oral tradition of their protestant masters; who disagree with one another proving, I guess, that sola scriptura is true.<>
At least someone appreciated it ;-)
Were this any other endeavor, it would be palpably insane. Imagine a group of scholars gathering to oppose what a living author of a text attests his writngs mean? Most folks would say, "Look, you are CRAZY. The living auuthor of that text says the opposite of what you claim he says. Who are you to oppose what the author says?"
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and 16 CEBTURIES later some guys come along and go "Whoa, wait a second. Everything is a lie. The living author (The Catholic Church)didn't mean what she has said for 16 CENTURIES. Nope, she was lying but we great and humble men have discovered the REAL meaning of scripture and now you must follow us."
Totally insane. The living author of the New Testament is a liar and those opposed to the living author of the New Testament are the only ones to be trusted.
"Wait, just a second," you say, "Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit upon the Catholic Church He established to teach it all truth and yet you want me to think Jesus lied." And the revolters say, "Well, in so many words, yes."
"Wait, just a second," you say,"Jesus said He would be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of Hell would not prevail." And the revolters says, "Jesus was kidding. He REALLY meant He would be with US."
All it takes is the willingness to think of Jesus as a liar to accept sola scriptura and opposition to 16 CENTURIES of unchanging doctrine. <>
Not all of us do:)
I think the problem with so many different denominations comes from what you stated earlier. Not many people actually know what the bible really says.
New denominations are formed, IMO, because someone will come up against something in a church that they don't like regardless of wha the bible says so they go start a new one to uphold what they want the bible to say. You can pretty much make it say what ever you want. Look at the thread right now about Divorce and spousal abuse. Look at all the different intrerprations of those few verses where Jesus talked about divorce.
But if people would read it following the critiria that was meant to be used I think you would alot less differences. Literal, grammatical, historical.
Becky
After all, that is what the Faith is all about. YOU. :)<>
<> Thanks for, again, proving my point. You claim to know better than me what I REALLY think.
You not only think that Calvin is God. You think you are.<>
<> You have done that REPEATEDLY. And not just to me. You think you perfectly explicate the Calvinism your Pope the_doc taught you and you claim those that refuse to embrace that "truth" are unregenerarte.
Sorry, Lady. Them's your words, repeatedly.<>
<> YES, go back and read it. It WAS a speech delivered to Catholics.
>
Salvation is bought with a price...the blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the cross. You must ask what we are saved FROM. We are saved from the just penalty of our sinfulness. The atoning sacrifice of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, satisfies the just requirements of the absolute righteousness God demands. In one sense, salvation occurred at Christ's death, and in another it will be fully realized at judgement. My point is that this sacrificial atonement is avoidable given the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because God could simply suspend original sin in His elect (regardless of definition) and eliminate the need for atonement. If, as your church maintains, Mary was completely sinless, she didn't need a savior. She was righteous and could stand before God.
And who, exactly, are the "elect"? Everyone is invited. That would mean that all people are the elect. Whether or not any one person partakes is a matter of free will, not God's.
That's a whole other debate, Des. Suffice it to say at this time that the language and context when the term "elect" is used seems to clearly indicate that it is a group separated from the whole, not a term applied to the whole.
And I guess I don't understand why, when God sent His only Son to us, he would have chosen just anyone to be the vessel of passage.
I guess I don't understand then why God would choose a Pharisee who persecuted His Son's followers to become an Apostle to the Gentiles. His ways are not our ways.
<>His "Doctrine" comes from Satan. The scorpion's egg of "You shall be like Gods" was implanted in his intellect. Calvin's Will fertislised it and the bastard child was brought forth- Calvin's Dark Doctrines - and those with itching ears, anxious for new doctrine sallied forth to worship the Mother of errors and His child.<> ~ Catholicguy |
<> LMAO I get all tingly and whatnot when I am called a "reprobate." To REALLY please me, tell me I will spend eternity in Hell. :) Oh, that's right. Reprobate means I AM predetermined for Hell. That being the case, why waste your time on one like me?<>
You need to rethink your Catholic doctrine that you have been fed and get out of your Maryology and Popeology and Catholicology. Calvinism is the doctrine of the Bible; it is the doctrine that the Lord Himself taught. In this way, Jesus is a Calvinist. And you despise His teaching. This does not look good for you. Reprobation is a real thing and the Lord's wrath will reside upon all of them. You need to repent of all your idolatries from the Catholic church.
Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made all things for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that if a man will not glorify his Creator and bring forth those fruits (John 15:8) then such a man has use to God only in his destruction. God will gain His glory over him and he will fulfill the use to which he was created even passively by being burned in the furnace of His judgment. Our Maker will not be thwarted in His purpose for man. God endures with much longsuffering these vessels of wrath by allowing them to enjoy the things He has given him dominion over. He permits him to enjoy the warm sun and the beauty of the moon and stars and the rain and all that the earth yields. Yet, he does not glorify His Maker. So, God in His longsuffering will not forever strive with him, but will eventually gather them all together to gain the purpose for which they were created in their destruction. Why should they be permitted to enjoy the goodness of God forever when they will not bring forth any fruit? Like the Parable of the fig tree, God has given the worthless all the benefits of life on this earth and yet, he bears no fruit. Why should all creation groan under the burden of such men?
He does tell us that "He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Yet, it is perfectly just and righteous that God should not endure with longsuffering forever their uselessness and let them frustrate Him. So, what fault will you attribute to the Vinedresser for bundling them up and gaining use of them in their destruction? As Jonathan Edwards does point out, it would be well to consider exactly how JUST it is that all men share in the same end as the wicked. So, I am moved to praise God for even offering grace to a single man.
When the saints go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against [God] shall we not be moved to a greater sense of awareness of just how wonderful the unmerited grace of God really is? Shall the saints not rejoice to know that we are not the objects of God fierce wrath? Shall the saints not fall down and give God glory through praise and worship? Shall we not feel awe and wonder to simply know that the only difference between the saints and the reprobate is the free grace of God that He has in His sovereignty bestowed? Will the saints not tell the angels of the wonders of God's grace and will the angels not look with wonder at the redeemed for the shedding of their Maker's blood which He poured out for the saints?
Sin is not the issue.."there is none righteous no not one" ..the issue is that "unbroken chain" that you say proves that the "Keys" still reside in Rome..no keys no infallibility
So then is the ark Israel...the Church and Mary?
Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
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.