Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, there's no co-redeemer.I still don't see where Mary is co-redeemer. She has redeemed no one really. She couldn't even redeem herself. Only Christ can redeem us and it is through the blood that anyone can redeemed so I guess I don't understand..
I laugh when "interpretation" comes up so often.... the vast majority of scripture is extremely straightforward.In light of the whole of Tradition which is what scripture is, Catholic Tradition, I say it is.
But how can we settle this? How can we know which one of us is reading the bible correctly (me, through the eyes of Tradition, you, through I dunno what eyes) and interpreting it correctly?
I laugh when "interpretation" comes up so often.... the vast majority of scripture is extremely straightforward.
Substituting the word "interpretation" for "Isogesis" seems to be the trendy thing to do.
But there is nothing that she can do
to ensure it, according to the Bible.
Christ alone.
I still don't see where Mary is co-redeemer. She has redeemed no one really. She couldn't even redeem herself. Only Christ can redeem us and it is through the blood that anyone can redeemed so I guess I don't understand..
ok, even if she does pray for us, it doesn't explain a co-redemptrix title.she can't pray for us? .
I have no idea.she can't pray for us? .
I have no idea.
The Bible is silent there.
Either way, it's not redemtion, that's
intercession.
Huge difference.
She cannot redeem.
Why would you even want
to argue that she can?
Let God be God,
Let mary be mary.
compared to what Christ did, it IS a small thing.I'm not arguing that she redeems us. I thought me and you already cleared this up?
Co Redeemer is said in the capacity as you or me being a "co redeemer" whe we help lead ppl to Christ.
A pastor in a church is a "Co Redeemer" when he has one of those alter call things where he invites who ever it is to come up and accept Christ formally and be prayerd over.
Look Sunlover, if you disgree with the title- go for it- disagree with the use of the term, but do not tell me that I think Mary redeemed us from sin.
We do not believe this or teach this.
We only believe ad teach that she copperated with God by giving her assent to his will. She bore Jesus and that is no samall thing one would give their assent to.
.
ok, even if she does pray for us, it doesn't explain a co-redemptrix title.
If, it as some have forwarded, that everyone is a Co-redeemer with Christ, because of what part they take, then attributing the title to Mary alone is problematic, it raises her above other "co-redeemers."
If, more appropriately, this is a term that we should not accept, knowing full well that what we do is nothing towards the redemptive process, then attributing the title to Mary is problematic, it assumes a far greater role than she actually has.
Either way, she should not be called so. there is ONE redeemer. Anything WE do, be it you, me, Mary, etc... is exactly nothing in the redemptive process.
He asserted that Paul, "stealthily and with sidling moves picks his way from covert to covert"(PL26.310).
Jerome can't allow the blunt words of Gal2:11-14 to BE straightforward because that would allow anyone "to brand Peter as erring and Paul as crowing over him, saying that we hold made-up doctrines and our church founders were at loggerheads"(310-11).
Jerome cannot efface disagreement so he imagines Peter & Paul to put on a false show, each to please opposing factions until they could come to a more advanced view of their relations:
"Peter's feigned observance of Jewish law (which was offensive to gentile believers) was countered by Paul's feigned rebuke, so that both camps would be kept safe - those favoring circumcision would follow Peter, and those resisting it would praise the liberty preached by Paul"(339)
Jerome calls it "profitable dissemblance" (utilis simulatio) by which "one dissembles for a time, in order to work out one's own & another's salvation."(340)
Augustine spent over ten years addressing Jerome's errors.
One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture.
If the title is less, as you say, then it is unneccessary, superfluous, and simply applied to Mary for the sake of adding titles to Mary.I agree and disgree.
No, none of us are "R" Redeemers is the strict sense.
We are however one in Christ, with Christ and through Christ we act as his ambassorders.
The only way a perosn may ever see Jesus is through me. This is something me and the Lord have been disscussing, how I represent Christianity but that another story.
So we, though many are one in the one body and as being one with him- what did he come to do if not to save?
I just see the title in a lesser sense then what you do. And I see how you all have blown it all way out of perspective.
.
I'm not arguing that she redeems us. I thought me and you already cleared this up?
Co Redeemer is said in the capacity as you or me being a "co redeemer" whe we help lead ppl to Christ.
I just see the title in a lesser sense then what you do. And I see how you all have blown it all way out of perspective.
If the title is less, as you say, then it is unneccessary, superfluous, and simply applied to Mary for the sake of adding titles to Mary.
There is no other way to view it, as the RCC does not attribute the title to any other, despite the assertion that we are "all co-redeemers."
Facts not in evidence.
name a title of Jesus that he is not.
Like adding titles to Jesus for the sake of adding titles to Jesus???
Peace
compared to what Christ did, it IS a small thing.
In fact, according to scripture, it would be considered an act of human righteousness, which is as filthy rags.
But you don't believe that about Mary's "yes" do you? That it was filthy rags?
Like I said,
"One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture. "
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?