Big Blue Wave's Comments
The difficulties are overstated. The Anglicans are a confederation ranging from Protestant to those more Catholic than the Pope! Clearly, it is the latter end of the spectrum that is looking for union with Rome. They believe that they have the apostolic succession and their doctrinal beliefs are the same - the difference is their fidelity to the Queen rather than the Pope. As a former Anglican, I greatly look forward to this union, especially to a better quality of homily and liturgical music than we seem to get.
Dave
How would the average "Trad" Anglican feel about the pope defining a new Marian dogma, such as Mary Co-Redemptrix?
I do feel some trepidation about that.
(And I like Anglican liturgy better, too!)
I wonder if we are opening the door to more dissident or fence-sitting Catholics too but if we don't take chances sometimes, how do we exorcise faith?
I miss our Anglican brothers and sisters and remember going to their Churches when I was young.
Y'know, there is something to be said for a basic working knowledge of the English language, Ken.
Not to pick nits, or anything, but you just expressed a need to get rid of your faith.
"...how do we exorcise faith?"
An instant classic, Ken!
I would have a big problem with a new Marian dogma. Huge...
When I did RCIA, our moderator had this to say, which I can accept. in a nutshell, Some catholics make far too much of mary, while some protestants make too little.
But to elevate her to co-redemptrix? Doesn't wash. I find NOTHING in scripture to support that.
Nitpicking on spelling is so annoying.
Neal: you would accept it based on the authority of the Church, right?
That's the bottom line of being Catholic. You don't accept necessarily on what you think, but on the belief that the Catholic Church is the authoritative interpreter of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
I do believe the gist of the doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix is contained in para. 618 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457
There are dogmas that have little in the way of biblical support: for example, the Immaculate Conception is by no means obvious; so much so that St. Thomas Aquinas denied it (although he accepted that Mary was purified in the womb).
The big Marian doctors of the Church are St. Alphonsus Ligouri and St. Louis de Montfort.
When you read their "basic texts" you get why Mary is Co-Redemptrix.
Sometimes dogams are implicit in faith, not necessarily evidently taught.
"I would have a big problem with a new Marian dogma"
I had a problem with it for years too but came to realize that the dogma's don't say anything against our Lord. Do you think that glorifying Christs Mother would offend her son?
"Nitpicking on spelling is so annoying."
It's not just the spelling. The two words are diametrically opposite. Suppose someone who didn't know it was a mistake took him at his misspelled word? And quoted him?
You wouldn't think it was merely annoying, then, would you?
I am a Catholic and embrace all that our Holy Mother Church proclaims, teaches and believes. I also believe that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The salvation of souls is directly or indirectly tied to the Catholic Church. She daily prays at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not only for her children but for all of humanity.
I love our Blessed Mother who is the Mother of God. She stood at the foot of the Cross of her dying Son. Jesus gave His own Mother to us at that moment when He said, "Son behold thy Mother and Mother behold thy Son. She is our Mother. Our Blessed Mother is the Mother of the Church. She is Queen of Heaven and earth.
Our Blessed Mother is the Mediatrix of all graces. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ performed His first miracle at her request to change water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. She mediates with her Son on our behalf.
To send His Only Begotten Son to redeem the world; in His mysterious design, God required Our Blessed Mother's "Fiat" which Mary, being born without original sin, willingly and lovingly gave. At that moment she said, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." She moved by the Holy Spirit recognizes and acknowledges "her Saviour"
However, calling our Blessed Mother Co-Redemptrix is very dangerous.
As much as she did play an important role in salvation history, suffered, was deeply united to Jesus her Son;
SHE DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS.
SHE DID NOT SHED HER BLOOD.
IT IS NOT HER BODY AND BLOOD THAT WILL GIVE LIFE TO THE WORLD.
It is written in Holy Scripture: For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Timothy 2:5
And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. John 4 :14
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20 :28
But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. John 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Ephesians 1:7
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. John 6:54
Our Blessed Mother would never want a title that belongs to God alone; REDEEMER, SAVIOUR.
Celine,
Thank you for posting this... you saved me alot of typing, and expressed what I am thinking far better than I ever could have!
I especially like your last line: "Our Blessed Mother would never want a title that belongs to God alone; REDEEMER, SAVIOUR."
It seems very obvious to me that the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix borders on blasphemy, in that not only does it ascribe to Mary attributes and powers that are not hers, but God's alone, it also opens things up to WORSHIP of Mary, and detracts from Jesus Himself who ALONE is worthy of worship, and stands at the centre of our lives and faith.
To make her co-redemptrix would, IMHO be a heresy, no matter WHO brings it in. I will never accept it.
Neal. Can I ask you a question.
Have you ever read any St. Louis de Montfort or any St. Alphonsus of Ligouri?
To make her co-redemptrix would, IMHO be a heresy, no matter WHO brings it in. I will never accept it.
Neal, the gist of it is in paragraph 618 of the Catechism. It's practically part of Catholic teaching as is.
I don't get it. You accept the authority of the Church until it comes to a doctrine you wouldn't like.
What's Catholic Faith if you only accept those doctrines that you personally like or have proven to oneself are true?
If I had heard any of this Mary as co-redemptrix nonsense during RCIA, I never would have signed on.
There are some things that are clearly wrong, and you just shouldn't go there.
But Neal, do you trust the Church?
I'm just wondering. It's not a matter of personal judgement. It's a matter of whether you trust the Church to be truly infalilble.
And I will repeat:
Have you ever read any St. Louis de Montfort or any St. Alphonsus of Ligouri?
I would have my doubts when after preaching for millenia that Jesus Christ is THE way, THE truth and THE life, to come and suddenly make Mary, who is NOT God, and whose blood could NOT have paid for the sins of the world as co-redemptrix.
When churhmen of the past, including Popes have tried to insert heretical teachings, people have stood up to them.
I could not accept such a teaching, and I don't think I'm being presumptuous in agreeing with Celine that mary herself would be horrified.
I'm reading Neal's answer as a firm, "No." He apparently doesn't trust the church to be "truly infallible."
And quite rightly, too, because it's not.
See, Suzanne? All Cathlics do not agree on what all Catholics have to believe.
Janus,
If something stems from and can be backed up by scripture, I support it, but nonsense cooked up by so called church doctors that is unscriptural, i have a big problem with it.
Pro-life, profamily values are consistent with scripture, but nowhere in either the new or old testaments do I find even the slightest hint that Mary should be elevated to the point of near or actual worship.
None of Paul's, Peter's (and he was the first pope, James or jude's letters or even the writer of Hebrews suggest even a whiff of Marianism, nor do any of the Gospels. In fact the Gospel according to Luke was likely partly corroborated by interviews with Mary herself, and i see no indication there that she either wated or expected veneration or worship.
Nor do I find anything in the law or old testament prophecy suggesting that the Messiah would have any female co-redemptrix.
It's all pretty Jesus-centric in my view. The scriptures are also pretty clear about praying to anyone but God (and we all agree, as Christians that Jesus was God incarnate).
Also in Revelation, nobody but The Lamb himself was found worthy to open the scroll of judgement with the seven seals. And last time I checked, the lamb was not Mary...Nor do I recall seeing Mary on the throne of judgement. She had a special role in bringing Jesus into the world, knowing the sorrow it would bring directly to her, and this co-incides with what was written in CCC 618 where we are all called to carry our crosses, with Mary in the special role as His mother being the first human who really did have to take the cross upon herself in a special way. As his disciples, and his children by adoption, we too are expected to do the same, by following the example set by her, and indeed, say "yes" to the Lord as she did. But anything beyond that tends toward Mariolotry. I don't believe she would want anything, least of all herself, to be standing in the way of her Son.
All this to say, CCC618 does not justify the idea of mary as Co-redemptrix.
If you follow that line of reasoning, One could easily argue, that since she too descended from the line of David, that all those before her in the line, should be worthy of veneration as well since without them, Jesus could not have been born either.
"All Cathlics do not agree on what all Catholics have to believe"
All Catholics don't have to believe anything, in fact, many Catholics probably don't even know what or why they are Catholic. True Catholics don't have a problem with Catholic truth and take the trouble to find out about their faith.
Some people of all faiths pick and choose what they want to believe.
Neal
Just curious; do you accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
If you read the writings of St. Louis de Montfort and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, the line of reasoning you get from these venerable doctors is that the veneration of Mary is what God wants.
Of course Mary would never elevate herself. But God elevated her. And he so loves her far above anyone else and made her far holier than anyone else that he wants the highest praises said of her.
That's why he's never jealous of the affection that Mary receives.
I really don't see the Immaculate conception and assumption doctrines as that relevant or important, if you want me to put it bluntly.I can accept them, but rarely give it a moment's thought. Co-redemptrix is a completely different kettle of fish, one which alters the faith beyond recognition.
You'd think that Paul, Peter James, Matthew, John Mark & John as Jesus' contemporarieswould have put a strong emphasis on Marian doctrine if they thought it pertinent.
Immaculate conception and assumption strike me as peripheral, neither harmful nor critical to the faith.
It seems to me as if alot of these doctors got caught up in too much esotericism, instead of sticking to the truths taught in scripture and practiced by the first generation of believers instead of keeping it as simple as possible so that everyone could feely partake instead of relying on an elite that supposedly knows better, and who keep moving the goalposts.
Ken, I do believe that's exactly what I said. I just used fewer words.
But thank you for your input.
I have found this whole mary co-redemptrix thing extremely disturbing. Someone else referred me to this Louis de montfort stuff as well.
here is what I found, and my comments follow each point:
Top Ten Reasons
Why We Should Consecrate Our Lives
To Jesus Through Mary
1. To emulate the sanctity of our previous Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, who selected the de Montfort Consecration (True Devotion) for his own Marian Spirituality.
-As much as i admire Pope JPII for what he did, not only as Pope but throughout his exemplary life , just because he chose to follow a certain devotion does not mean we have to. Insofar as i am aware he never made an ex cathedra statement of infallibility on this, either. I am sorry to say, that as well intentioned as he was, he was, in my view wrong on this, in that devotion to anyone else but Jesus detracts from Jesus.
2. To provide the easiest, safest, fastest, most secure, and surest path to Jesus and to our own salvation
-The only safe and sure way to salvation is to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour, emulate HIS life insofar as possible, and have the Holy Spirit working through you for good works in Christ. In fact, if one does not consecrate oneself to Jesus, directly through Jesus, one is placing one's own salvation in danger. Just because you knew his mother does not mean you know Him, or more importantly, He knows you...
3. To obtain Our Lady's help in bringing us from our own unworthiness to the level of conversion, holiness, and perfection in our lives needed to enable us to become saintly
-We recognize our own unworthiness in light of the Law which we can never measure up to, and then in the knowledge that Jesus went to the cross for us and died a horrible, since HE was the only one sacrifice worthy and able to pay our sin debt. Mary probably would have, like any other parent been more than willing to take the place of her Son on the cross, but no doubt realized that she, even though entrusted with the task of giving her Fiat, and then carrying Jesus to term, was fully human, and noit at the same time flly God, and thus COULD NOT have fulfilled the task n the cross.
4. To turn our lives over completely and without reservation in service to Jesus through Mary to reflect our love and our trust in them now and for all eternity
-I can go along with this except the"through Mary" part. We don't trust in THEM , we trust in HIM. She does not have the power to forgive sins, nor would the sacrifice of her on the cross (Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, David or whatever pious people existed in the past) have been sufficient to pay our sin debt.
5. To obtain special graces and protection under Our Lady's sheltering mantle
-Again, why not go directly to the Master Himself? he made the way!
6. To help bring others to Jesus through Mary for their conversion, holiness, and perfection through this to
Neal
Here's the problem.
You're putting up your interpretation against the interpretation of Church Tradition, as articulated through the voice of St. Louis de Montfort and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.
It all comes down to a question of authority.
Do you truly trust that God's will and revelation is known through Sacred Tradition and the Development of Doctrine in the Church?
This discussion underscores a little what I'm talking about in the post.
When you have a Catholic Faith, it is not only *belief in* the Catholic presentation of the facts, so to speak; you have a faith that nothing that comes from the Church that is doctrinal in nature will ever be in error.
If no one mentioned that to you, you were sold a false bill of goods.
A catholic faith is not just a belief in doctrine as is; it's an acceptance of Catholic doctrine as it will be (and therefore, is in development).
I think you're missing the boat on Marian devotion. Downplaying Marian devotion is not authentically Catholic. I say this with the utmost respect for you.
Mary is extremely important to Catholic doctrine. She's not just some sideshow. She's central. And not because Jesus is less important; but because Jesus loves her so much, he wants to make her role in Salvation role to be vital. When the devil is defeated, and she squishes his little head with her foot, Jesus wants credit to go to her because he loves her. This will is not the invention of overly zealous marian devotees. This is divine revelation.
I'm afraid that there are many in the Church who cringe at this for whatever reason. Don't be one of them. To be the most effective pro-life activist that you can be, mark my words: you need the Blessed Mother. There are no graces that pass to earth that do not go through the hands of the Blessed Mother. Jesus does nothing without her involvement.
Well, it would seem I was not given the whole kit and kaboodle... Who in their right mind could ever sign onto something that tells you you must accept whatever comes out of the magisterium in the FUTURE...
At that point, were I properly informed a) about marianism and b) that I would be expected to write the Bishops a blank cheque, I'd have said "thanks, but no deal."
I don't take it personally as an insult from you at all, but to say something like without Mary one can never be an effective pro-lifer. the message that sends out is that if you are not Catholic, you are, at best a second class citizen in the pro-life movement. All that serve to accomplish is what happened at our Life Chain this year: The turnout was almost exclusively catholic.
A statement like that, while it reflects your deeply held convictions, which I respect, only serves to alienate allies which the movement cannot do without, and effectively weakens us.
Well, it would seem I was not given the whole kit and kaboodle... Who in their right mind could ever sign onto something that tells you you must accept whatever comes out of the magisterium in the FUTURE...
At that point, were I properly informed a) about marianism and b) that I would be expected to write the Bishops a blank cheque, I'd have said "thanks, but no deal."
I don't take it personally as an insult from you at all, but to say something like without Mary one can never be an effective pro-lifer. the message that sends out is that if you are not Catholic, you are, at best a second class citizen in the pro-life movement. All that serve to accomplish is what happened at our Life Chain this year: The turnout was almost exclusively catholic.
A statement like that, while it reflects your deeply held convictions, which I respect, only serves to alienate allies which the movement cannot do without, and effectively weakens us.
Well, it would seem I was not given the whole kit and kaboodle... Who in their right mind could ever sign onto something that tells you you must accept whatever comes out of the magisterium in the FUTURE...
That's the nature of the Holy Spirit, Neal. You promise to listen to it forever, just like marriage is forever. You don't know what marriage brings and you won't know what the Holy Spirit brings, either.
I don't take it personally as an insult from you at all, but to say something like without Mary one can never be an effective pro-lifer.
It's not that you can't be effective. It's the difference between being effective and being more effective.
All that serve to accomplish is what happened at our Life Chain this year: The turnout was almost exclusively catholic.
Neal, I don't know what you're so defensive. I am simply pointing out what makes one even more effective: the graces that Marian devotion can effectuate.
A statement like that, while it reflects your deeply held convictions, which I respect, only serves to alienate allies which the movement cannot do without, and effectively weakens us.
But the more people devote themselves to Mary, the stronger the movement is. I've always been welcoming of all kinds of people in the movement. But theologically speaking, the most effective way to end abortion is to call upon the Blessed Mother. Why do you suppose it's always the Rosary-pray-ers who show up at clinics?
I think your defensiveness is getting the better of you. Your reactions strike me as a little knee-jerk.
Perhaps because those who don't pray the Rosary see themselves as outsiders?
Or that , as i pointed out that it comes across as condescending to say that people involved with marianism are more effective pro-lifers, thus resulting in them preferring to work independently.
Focus on the Family, for one among many, have been very effective members of the pro-life movement and have saved countless lives.
Anyhow, I just popped in to say that I will be disappearing from the Internet outside of work related matters and personal correspondence via e-mail (or at least I intend to) as it is clear that I need a period of discernment to get a few things sorted out.
This thread did prove,-and i think very effectively- your point that the Anglicans had better be crystal clear and fully informed about what they're getting into, and also my point that if the RCC goes to far into marianism (ie makes co-redemptrix official dogma) that there is very likely going to be another schism.
Perhaps because those who don't pray the Rosary see themselves as outsiders?
Or that , as i pointed out that it comes across as condescending to say that people involved with marianism are more effective pro-lifers, thus resulting in them preferring to work independently.
Focus on the Family, for one among many, have been very effective members of the pro-life movement and have saved countless lives.
Anyhow, I just popped in to say that I will be disappearing from the Internet outside of work related matters and personal correspondence via e-mail (or at least I intend to) as it is clear that I need a period of discernment to get a few things sorted out.
This thread did prove,-and i think very effectively- your point that the Anglicans had better be crystal clear and fully informed about what they're getting into, and also my point that if the RCC goes to far into marianism (ie makes co-redemptrix official dogma) that there is very likely going to be another schism.
Neal, I just wish you would take some time and actually read about this instead of being defensive. I'm not so mad that you don't believe; but I'm a little dismayed that someone who has been in the Church doesn't seem even willing to learn about what is being promulgated.
Anyhow, I still like you Neal.
Commenting by HaloScan
