Co-Redemptrix

[Gendou Ikari]

Does anybody here believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I ahppen to have deep theological problems with the designation 'co-redemptrix,' but I don't think you've given adequate poll choices.

 

[kwag_myers]

Personally, I think you guys spend way too much time on other things like saints and stuff, and not nearly enough time on God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. But that's just my opinion. As for your question, I don't really care and I really don't think it's worth voting on.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Well, I was feeling under the weather when I made the poll, so I should have given a couple more options. Although none is immediately aparent.

 

[McQuacks]

While I hold Mary in high regard (I'm Catholic), I do not believe that she is equal with Jesus, nor a co-redeemer.
-McQ 8-)

 

[CatholicXian]

The doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not put Mary on par with Christ Jesus (that's impossible). The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is Latin and translates to "woman with the Redeemer" (not "another" Redeemer--there is and can only be one Redeemer, the God-man, Jesus Christ). The doctrine states that through her role as mother, Mary participated WITH (and under Jesus) in our Redemption. Did she thus redeem us? No. We are redeemed through the merits of Christ crucified.

Mary merely participated in our Redemption in her role as mother of the Savior. She positively consented to His immolation on the Cross (i.e., she knew that He (and she) would have to suffer that God might fulfill His saving plan)-- we see this in the Scriptures through Simeon's prophecy in Luke 2:34-35.

 

[kwag_myers]

"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." 2 Kings 18:4

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

Does this Co-Redemptrix thing simplify our salvation through Christ, or does it bring complexity?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not put Mary on par with Christ Jesus (that's impossible). The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is Latin and translates to "woman with the Redeemer" (not "another" Redeemer--there is and can only be one Redeemer, the God-man, Jesus Christ). The doctrine states that through her role as mother, Mary participated WITH (and under Jesus) in our Redemption. Did she thus redeem us? No. We are redeemed through the merits of Christ crucified

Didn't Mary's parents also "participate" with Jesus in redemption, since they participated in the plan by producing Mary, who participated in the plan by giving birth to Jesus? Should we refer to them as the "Grand Co-Redemparents"?

(and let's not leave out their parents, who were responsible for them. Uh-oh, where does this end?)

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not put Mary on par with Christ Jesus (that's impossible). The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is Latin and translates to "woman with the Redeemer" (not "another" Redeemer--there is and can only be one Redeemer, the God-man, Jesus Christ). The doctrine states that through her role as mother, Mary participated WITH (and under Jesus) in our Redemption. Did she thus redeem us? No. We are redeemed through the merits of Christ crucified

Didn't Mary's parents also "participate" with Jesus in redemption, since they participated in the plan by producing Mary, who participated in the plan by giving birth to Jesus? Should we refer to them as the "Grand Co-Redemparents"?

(and let's not leave out their parents, who were responsible for them. Uh-oh, where does this end?)

It ends before it begins. Your argument is based upon the supposition that Mary is honored simply because of the biological function of giving birth. Mary was not a seed pod or a God-surrogate.

Mary's parents are highly honored in the Orthodox Church. They had much to do with raising a young woman of righteousness and faith. You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

 

[CatholicXian]

The doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not put Mary on par with Christ Jesus (that's impossible). The title 'Co-Redemptrix' is Latin and translates to "woman with the Redeemer" (not "another" Redeemer--there is and can only be one Redeemer, the God-man, Jesus Christ). The doctrine states that through her role as mother, Mary participated WITH (and under Jesus) in our Redemption. Did she thus redeem us? No. We are redeemed through the merits of Christ crucified

Didn't Mary's parents also "participate" with Jesus in redemption, since they participated in the plan by producing Mary, who participated in the plan by giving birth to Jesus? Should we refer to them as the "Grand Co-Redemparents"?

(and let's not leave out their parents, who were responsible for them. Uh-oh, where does this end?)

As Orthodox Christian mentioned above, Mary's parents are held in high regard with the rest of the Saints. But this is not some infinite regress because it was not merely the act of giving birth that we honor. We define 'motherhood' differently, so it seems.

Mary's motherhood is different, because her role as mother was greater. Her Son came into the world to die, thus, as Simeon prophesied when Christ was presented in the Temple, Mary suffered with Christ, her Son, who was crucified on the Cross for our sins.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

It ends before it begins. Your argument is based upon the supposition that Mary is honored simply because of the biological function of giving birth. Mary was not a seed pod or a God-surrogate

Mary was not a surrogate nor did she impart deity to Christ. Then what exactly did happen there that warrants Mary being the Mother of God? (Is this another simple contradiction dressed up as a "Divine Mystery"?)

Mary's parents are highly honored in the Orthodox Church. They had much to do with raising a young woman of righteousness and faith. You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

Then again, why are her parents not designated the "Grandparents of God" since you do accept the term "Mother of God" applied to Mary, and Mary was not just a surrogate mother of Christ?

Moreover, you agree with Catholics about Mary being the M.O.G. but have theological problems with the Catholic designation, "Co-Redemptrix". Even those who ascribe this elevated position/title to Mary cannot agree on the nature of the thing. It's all confusion, James. The only thing that makes sense of this (and a lot of other "Mysteries of the Faith") is to begin to entertain the possibility that people just made a lot of it up - because if that be the case, we would expect confusion and contradiction to abound.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

As Orthodox Christian mentioned above, Mary's parents are held in high regard with the rest of the Saints. But this is not some infinite regress because it was not merely the act of giving birth that we honor. We define 'motherhood' differently, so it seems.

Mary's motherhood is different, because her role as mother was greater. Her Son came into the world to die, thus, as Simeon prophesied when Christ was presented in the Temple, Mary suffered with Christ, her Son, who was crucified on the Cross for our sins.

I really can't see your emphasis here on the motherhood of Mary (to Jesus) accounting for the position your church attributes to her. I think your appeal here is a bit of a "dodge". When you say Mary is the Mother of God do you mean it in the same somewhat metaphorical sense that your church also believes she is the daughter of God (God the Father) and the wife of the Holy Spirit? I think it is more than that, is it not?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

It ends before it begins. Your argument is based upon the supposition that Mary is honored simply because of the biological function of giving birth. Mary was not a seed pod or a God-surrogate

Mary was not a surrogate nor did she impart deity to Christ. Then what exactly did happen there that warrants Mary being the Mother of God? (Is this another simple contradiction dressed up as a "Divine Mystery"?)

According to the belief of Christians, Mary gave birth to He who Is. She did so by means of faith, not just function. Her faith was placed in her by Godly parents, but it wasn't their faith or their obedience that bore fruit (or rather, THE fruit)- it was hers.

Even to this day, Protestant Evangelicals agree that one must have and place faith in God for Him to inhabit us. The reward according to them? Eternity with Him. They also accord a higher faith honor to their missionaries who are martyrs for the cause, as they should...for if, as it is written, Abraham believed God, and this was accredited to him as righteousness, how much more so those that believe with more than their lips and a few shallow overtures.

For the faithless, I am sure this is difficult to comprehend.

Mary's parents are highly honored in the Orthodox Church. They had much to do with raising a young woman of righteousness and faith. You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

Then again, why are her parents not designated the "Grandparents of God" since you do accept the term "Mother of God" applied to Mary, and Mary was not just a surrogate mother of Christ?

Her grandparents are designated "the Holy and Righteous Ancestors of the Lord, Joachim and Anna." The issue is faith and faithfulness, not sperm.

Moreover, you agree with Catholics about Mary being the M.O.G. but have theological problems with the Catholic designation, "Co-Redemptrix".

Yep

Even those who ascribe this elevated position/title to Mary cannot agree on the nature of the thing.

What do you mean by "not agree?" Using different words to describe the same concepts is not 'disagreement,' someitmes it's just semantics.

It's all confusion, James.

I understand that those outside the Church are confused, for they are standing in the window or the doorway or out in the alley arguing about what vows the Bride and Groom should say. I say come in and remember that you are guest.

The only thing that makes sense of this (and a lot of other "Mysteries of the Faith") is to begin to entertain the possibility that people just made a lot of it up - because if that be the case, we would expect confusion and contradiction to abound.

Or, one could simply read the history of the Church and see that many departed, yet continued to claim to be a part of it.

Things that do not submit to your partiular sense of 'rational' and 'logical' cannot be real, eh Brad? Have you ever read anything about quantum mechanics?
Here, check out this Q and A from the FermiLab site

2. Is the 'wave' nature of an electron the same as speaking of it's wave-function, in other words does an unmeasured electron exist everywhere in space as a purely mathematical probability? Does an unmeasured electron not have any physical meaning at all then?
Before answering this question let me make the following remark. In the case of a photon, it was kinda "easy" to accept that it could act as a particle. However in case of electrons, it was very tough to accept that they could act as waves and be described by a wave function (probability wave) similarly as in the case of photons!!!!

So the answer to your question about the electron is YES, any unmeasured electron has its own probability being anywhere in the world.

Source

Material nature itself is, according to your parameters, "made up," for it is indeed quite confusing to the layman.

 

[cj]

You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

Yes scripture sure does......... it clearly notes that these men and women were all fallen creatures, filled with sin deserving of the suffering of death.

These "ancestors" of our Lord's humanity all required His gift of salvation.



Tell me,...... was it by the Lord's humanity that He raised Himself from death, or was it by His divinity?

Is Jesus not the First-born in resurrection, something that Mary had absolutely nothing to do with?


The apostate lie so wants to please its father that it will contrive the most gross of doctrines to deceive men.


Just reject it saints, Mary is an honored believer, but just one of many that God prepared and kept and used for His purpose.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

Yes scripture sure does......... it clearly notes that these men and women were all fallen creatures, filled with sin deserving of the suffering of death.

These "ancestors" of our Lord's humanity all required His gift of salvation.



Tell me,...... was it by the Lord's humanity that He raised Himself from death, or was it by His divinity?

Is Jesus not the First-born in resurrection, something that Mary had absolutely nothing to do with?


The apostate lie so wants to please its father that it will contrive the most gross of doctrines to deceive men.


Just reject it saints, Mary is an honored believer, but just one of many that God prepared and kept and used for His purpose.


In love,
cj

I said nothing of the ancestors of the Lord not needing a Savior. You are completely off-topic and off-target, as usual, inserting your thoughts into my writing and then saying "don't buy into this, saints."

Don't buy the snake oil, saints, no matter how the Serpent packages it..

 

[cj]

I said nothing of the ancestors of the Lord not needing a Savior. You are completely off-topic and off-target, as usual, inserting your thoughts into my writing and then saying "don't buy into this, saints."

Don't buy the snake oil, saints, no matter how the Serpent packages it..

Sorry OC, but I read your post very carefully.... especially the opening part concerning where faith comes from.

So again I say,... saints, don't buy into the religious lie of the religionist.

Those who seek to please men, and be pleased by men.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I said nothing of the ancestors of the Lord not needing a Savior. You are completely off-topic and off-target, as usual, inserting your thoughts into my writing and then saying "don't buy into this, saints."

Don't buy the snake oil, saints, no matter how the Serpent packages it..

Sorry OC, but I read your post very carefully.... especially the opening part concerning where faith comes from.

So again I say,... saints, don't buy into the religious lie of the religionist.

Those who seek to please men, and be pleased by men.

In love,
cj

More gobbledy gook generalizations. Is this an example of a "scripturally supported counter-point?"

Of course not. If you specifically identify elements of my post that you disagree with, then you will have to face rebuttal. This would detract from time spent calling me names.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

It ends before it begins. Your argument is based upon the supposition that Mary is honored simply because of the biological function of giving birth. Mary was not a seed pod or a God-surrogate

Mary was not a surrogate nor did she impart deity to Christ. Then what exactly did happen there that warrants Mary being the Mother of God? (Is this another simple contradiction dressed up as a "Divine Mystery"?)

[quote:2c3c6]According to the belief of Christians, Mary gave birth to He who Is.
She did so by means of faith, not just function. Her faith was placed in her by Godly parents, but it wasn't their faith or their obedience that bore fruit (or rather, THE fruit)- it was hers.

Even to this day, Protestant Evangelicals agree that one must have and place faith in God for Him to inhabit us. The reward according to them? Eternity with Him. They also accord a higher faith honor to their missionaries who are martyrs for the cause, as they should...for if, as it is written, Abraham believed God, and this was accredited to him as righteousness, how much more so those that believe with more than their lips and a few shallow overtures.

For the faithless, I am sure this is difficult to comprehend

Thanks for the sermonette on faith - now back to our "regularly scheduled program"...

How was Mary NOT a "God Surrogate", if none of the deity of the "God fetus" originated from her?

Mary's parents are highly honored in the Orthodox Church. They had much to do with raising a young woman of righteousness and faith. You might note that scripture takes note of all of the ancestors of the Lord, back to Adam. That is where 'this ends.'

With Adam, God's "Great, great, great (etc) Grandfather"?

Her grandparents are designated "the Holy and Righteous Ancestors of the Lord, Joachim and Anna." The issue is faith and faithfulness, not sperm

[/quote:2c3c6]

Are you saying, then, that Mary's exaltation within the church has nothing to do with the God Fetus being conceived in her and being a physical part of her for 9 months, but rather, it is just her faith, which many other saints have possessed also? (Bracing myself now for the "flip-flop")

(to be continued...)

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Even those who ascribe this elevated position/title to Mary cannot agree on the nature of the thing.

What do you mean by "not agree?" Using different words to describe the same concepts is not 'disagreement,' someitmes it's just semantics

Now class :bday: James demonstrates the art of "speaking with forked tongue" for us. His first response to the title "Co-Redemptrix", was that he had "deep theological problems" with the expression. Now, to suit his point of the moment, it may just be "semantics" and his "deep theological problem" may not even represent a disagreement.

Hence, my previous statement, proven once again...

It's all confusion, James.

I understand that those outside the Church are confused, for they are standing in the window or the doorway or out in the alley arguing about what vows the Bride and Groom should say. I say come in and remember that you are guest

On the contrary, have you considered that those "on the inside" may not be as able to objectively evaluate the system they adhere to, and that those "looking in the window", so to speak, are apt to have a more unbiased viewpoint? For you to question the tenets of your adopted faith is, (or at least borders on), heresy. For me, to conclude through honest investigation that the claims of your faith are true or false has no personal ramifications. In short, I have nothing to lose or to sacrifice either way. Those on the "inside" do.

The only thing that makes sense of this (and a lot of other "Mysteries of the Faith") is to begin to entertain the possibility that people just made a lot of it up - because if that be the case, we would expect confusion and contradiction to abound.

Or, one could simply read the history of the Church and see that many departed, yet continued to claim to be a part of it.

Things that do not submit to your partiular sense of 'rational' and 'logical' cannot be real, eh Brad? Have you ever read anything about quantum mechanics?
Here, check out this Q and A from the FermiLab site
[quote:9c901]2. Is the 'wave' nature of an electron the same as speaking of it's wave-function, in other words does an unmeasured electron exist everywhere in space as a purely mathematical probability? Does an unmeasured electron not have any physical meaning at all then?
Before answering this question let me make the following remark. In the case of a photon, it was kinda "easy" to accept that it could act as a particle. However in case of electrons, it was very tough to accept that they could act as waves and be described by a wave function (probability wave) similarly as in the case of photons!!!!

So the answer to your question about the electron is YES, any unmeasured electron has its own probability being anywhere in the world.

Source

Material nature itself is, according to your parameters, "made up," for it is indeed quite confusing to the layman.[/quote:9c901]

I stand corrected and ashamed : Good grief - how did I miss the correlation between the evidence for or against Mary being an actual historical figure (and the Virgin Birth an actual event even if she was an actual historic figure) and the wave functions of an electron?

Here is a slightly :roll: better comparison...

George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

Fact or fiction?

 

[DivineNames]

Mary was not a surrogate nor did she impart deity to Christ. Then what exactly did happen there that warrants Mary being the Mother of God? (Is this another simple contradiction dressed up as a "Divine Mystery"?)

"Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm


She didn't impart deity as you say, I guess she was the mother of the human nature 'part' of Jesus however.