Co-Redeemer?

[Benedicta00]

I don't understand what that means.
You believe that mary was co redeemer,
but it's not 'dogma'?

I don't know what you mean here.

sunlover

Okay. We have beliefs about Mary or other things that are piously believed, like the sinlessness of Mary.

The Church since the beginning always belived this about Mary but the IC was not a dogma until the 1800's

Up until then you could speculate and believe she was sinless becuase she was born with out sin, Martin Luther even believed this, but this was not a requiered belief that you had to accept as a artical of faith.

The IC was something that was debated with in the Church for some time. Then finally, the pope, speaking from the Chair of St. Peter, from his office, ex cathedra (which means from the seat) declared this to be a true artical of faith that we must believe. We always believed she was sinless, we speculated that was becuase she was born that way and now it's a artical of faith.

This is pretty much the same thing as co redemtrix and mediatrix. We all believe that Mary intercedes on our behalf and that she copperated with God's will perfectly through out her whole life for the sake of mankind and the Church has believed this since the beginning.

But defining this pious belief as Mediatrix, through her intersession all graces come from her and Co Redemtrix, with Christ she redemed mankind becuase of her fiat, is not anything you have to believe. It is not a dogma of the faith.

There is a movement who is hoping Co Redemtrix will be the 5th and final Marian dogma and it was thought that JP2 would do this, but he didn't.

As of now it is not a dogma and I don't know if it will ever be, I don't personally don't think it will be but if it ever is, I do understand how Co Redeemer is seen, and I wouldn't have a problem with it but I understand amny Catholics would. But this is not something that we have to worry about as of now.

A Catholic does not have to believe she is "Co Redeemer" but a Catholic is not free to reduce her down to nothing but a insignificant "womb for rent" where if she said no, God would have found someone else.



.

 

[IamAdopted]

Yes, that was my point. So why are you compartmentalizing Jesus's life? When you said...

Because we are told to remember His death and ressurection.. Not a whole lot about Him as a baby or being little. We see that as a baby He was still King as the Majai came to worship Him. But where God directs us to is His Ministry on earth and death and ressurection and coming again King..

 

[Benedicta00]

I understand that about Jesus being Human.. But Baby Jesus is not what it is all about.. Not little Jesus either.. It is when Christ became of age and started to preach the truth and laid down His life for us.. Putting focus on Mary the way it is takes away from Christ crucified and ressurected.. This is what is the Most and only True truth we all need to focus on...

No, you are just in error about this, it's all about the baby Jesus as it is all about the grown Jesus.

The baby Jesus and the grown Jesus are not two different Jesus' and you are sadly mistaken if you think the babay Jesus was powerless.

Jesus is LORD at his divine birth and I have NO IDEA where you get this notion from that we are NOT to pay and hommage to the baby Jesus- the babe in Mary arms, the Son of Mary.

The child Jesus was visited by the three wise men and they brought him gifts and bowed before him. The baby Jesus is our new born King.

And I also have no idea how it is you are able to put God in a box and trap him in time.

God is not a creature of time. The baby Jesus is not lost and forgotten in time and nither is the grown Jesus, he is the same Jesus now and forever in heaven.

He is God and God transends time and space and the baby Jesus who is our new born King is with us just as much as the risen Jesus is.

and you are yet to break it down and explain to me just how does Mary and in what way does she take anything away from Christ?

.

 

[Benedicta00]

Because we are told to remember His death and ressurection.. Not a whole lot about Him as a baby or being little. We see that as a baby He was still King as the Majai came to worship Him. But where God directs us to is His Ministry on earth and death and ressurection and coming again King..

It's plain irrational and a bit paranoid.. that we can not honor the baby Jesus. .

 

[IamAdopted]

It's plain irrational and a bit paranoid.. that we can not honor the baby Jesus. .

Irrational? He is not a baby any more.. He grew up.. Babies are only this way for a very short period of Life.. In these days I think Boys were considered adults at the age of either 12 or 14. The bible doesn't even speak of His life as a baby.. Only His birth and when the majai came to worship Him.. Very little about the baby stage..We see again when He was in the temple. He was young here.. IT was when He began His ministry and His death and ressurection that we see alot of because this is What God wants us to see so that we may believe and be saved..

 

[sunlover1]

Some do call her co-redemeer others don't. Personally I don't. IMO Mary being the Mother of God shows her unique role in the plan of salvation and cover the title "co-redemeer." Alhough not explicitly but implicitly. This is just my opinon.

Thank you Lionroar.

He does share HIs glory with all of His family. Otherwise we would not be inheritors of the kingdom.

I was thinking along the lines of:
Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the LORD:
that is my name:
and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images.

Jesus is both Spirit and flesh. When He ressurected He did so with His human body made of flesh, which has been cricifued three days before.

I was talking about this next verse, but
I do think we look at it differently.

I am referring to the difference between
Spiritual and carnal.
The difference between how God looks
at things and how we look at things.

While I am trying to explain myself, I don't
think I'm succeeding, and if anyone would
like to try that would be great.


So thanks for your helpful answer LR.

sunlover

Here's the verse, this is taken from the
NLV for simplicity.

2 Corinthians 5:16-18
16 So from now on we regard no one
from a worldly point of view.
Though we once regarded Christ in this way,
we do so no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ,
he is a new creation;
the old has gone,
the new has come!
18 All this is from God,
who reconciled us to himself through Christ
and gave us the ministry of reconciliation...


.

 

[sunlover1]

Irrational? He is not a baby any more.. He grew up.. Babies are only this way for a very short period of Life.. In these days I think Boys were considered adults at the age of either 12 or 14. The bible doesn't even speak of His life as a baby.. Only His birth and when the majai came to worship Him.. Very little about the baby stage..We see again when He was in the temple. He was young here.. IT was when He began His ministry and His death and ressurection that we see alot of because this is What God wants us to see so that we may believe and be saved..

I know some have a great problem with Jesus
being depicted as an infant in mary's arms.
The pictures can be quite disturbing to
some because Mary looks all queenly and
royal, and Jesus looks all helpless and
frail.

Yeah, I don't picture Him as an infant in
my head, I picture Him as the "Man" of
the red letters that we were shown.

Is this what you meant?
sunlover

 

[tulc]

I think part of our problem is culturally most evangelicals only picture Jesus as a baby at Christmas time and have very little teaching on His family apart from that. The RCC on the other hand has a reverence for Mary that is carried through out the year that we find a little...scary. We're afraid that there is somhow a...diminishing(?) of the respect and awe that should only be directed toward Christ and His work. I've learned over the years that the RCC isn't this hot bed of "Mary and Saint Worshipers" that I was taught by some well meaning but grossly misinformed people. :o
tulc(who has himself been subject some rather bizarre rumers over the years)

 

[Benedicta00]

Irrational? He is not a baby any more.. He grew up.. Babies are only this way for a very short period of Life.. In these days I think Boys were considered adults at the age of either 12 or 14. The bible doesn't even speak of His life as a baby.. Only His birth and when the majai came to worship Him.. Very little about the baby stage..We see again when He was in the temple. He was young here.. IT was when He began His ministry and His death and ressurection that we see alot of because this is What God wants us to see so that we may believe and be saved..

Honey.. you can't put God in a box. Jesus lives in heaven fully human and divine- everythig is before God in heaven NOW, there is no past, present, furture. All is present to him now and the baby Jesus is not a thing of the past.

You have an irrational fear based on, I don't even know what, of the incarnation.

For what ever reason you are afraid to give any attention to the any of the beautiful mysteries and things of God other than a 33 year old Jesus dying on the cross and rising 3 days later.

You simply go way over board and are off swimming in the deep end of the pool with all this "Jesus only" stuff.

There is no place AT ALL in the bible that says we have to focus only on the 33 year old Jesus dying on the cross, rising three days latter and that's it.

It's more then okay to focus and meditate on ALL of the mysteries of God and all of the mysteries of his life.

Which include but is not limted to, the incarnation and His mother.

It's more than okay to look at the baby in Mary's arm and know he is God... to ponder on that.

Becuase with out that- there would BE no 33 year old risen Jesus.

We are to have a relationship with Jesus and just like any relationship we take the time out to get to know the person.

I know you expect to know certain things about your spouses childhood becuase this is how we get to know ppl. I know you are expect to have some sort of relationship with your mother in law.

There is nothing at all wrong with us getting to know the chuld Jesus or getting to know his mother.

Any objection to this, is just plain irrational. .

 

[Benedicta00]

I think part of our problem is culturally most evangelicals only picture Jesus as a baby at Christmas time and have very little teaching on His family apart from that. The RCC on the other hand has a reverence for Mary that is carried through out the year that we find a little...scary. We're afraid that there is somhow a...diminishing(?) of the respect and awe that should only be directed toward Christ and His work. I've learned over the years that the RCC isn't this hot bed of "Mary and Saint Worshipers" that I was taught by some well meaning but grossly misinformed people. :o
tulc(who has himself been subject some rather bizarre rumers over the years)

tulc,

Can you explain to me why is this so scray? In what way are we taking anything away from Jesus by having a relationship with his mother?



.

 

[Benedicta00]

I know some have a great problem with Jesus
being depicted as an infant in mary's arms.
The pictures can be quite disturbing to
some because Mary looks all queenly and
royal, and Jesus looks all helpless and
frail.

Yeah, I don't picture Him as an infant in
my head, I picture Him as the "Man" of
the red letters that we were shown.

Is this what you meant?
sunlover

The images are taken from the OT, "Queen mother". And I am not aware of any icon or painting that depicts Christ as helpless.

Anyway, in the OT since the King would have umpteen wives, the mother was considerd the King's Queen and the ppl would make their requests to the King through his mother.

This is where we get all this stuff from, the bible.

.

 

[Benedicta00]

Because we are told to remember His death and ressurection..

Okay.. fair enough.. now where are we ever told NOT to also reflect on his birth? Where are we ever told that it is wrong for us to do this, that we shouldn't do this? Hmmm... ??

.

 

[sunlover1]

You simply go way over board and are off swimming in the deep end of the pool with all this "Jesus only" stuff.

There is no place AT ALL in the bible that says we have to focus only on the 33 year old Jesus dying on the cross, rising three days latter and that's it.

Jesus freaks.

 

[Benedicta00]

I was thinking along the lines of:
Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the LORD:
that is my name:
and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images.

Sunlover,

Again, you have created another contradiction. Comen with sola scripture.

Won't we all have a share of glory in heaven? Didn't Paul teach us this? Eyes have not seen, ears have not heard...

Yes, we will so we have to re think what Isaiah was really meaning here.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sunlover,

Again, you have created another contradiction. Comen with sola scripture.

Won't we all have a share of glory in heaven? Didn't Paul teach us this? Eyes have not seen, ears have not heard...

Yes, we will so we have to re think what Isaiah was really meaning here.

Sola scriptura is really your thorn, isn't it? a thread doesn't pass where you don't spit at it.

We will share in glory, yes. God's Glory? not a chance.

 

[Benedicta00]

Sola scriptura is really your thorn, isn't it? a thread doesn't pass where you don't spit at it.

We will share in glory, yes. God's Glory? not a chance.

is there some other glory other than God's that exsists i heaven that I am unaware of?

Prey, tell... (look I said "pray tell" , I must be worshipping you, lol)

Anyway mind telling me just who's glory we will have a share in, if not God's? .

 

[Uphill Battle]

is there some other glory other than God's that exsists i heaven that I am unaware of?

Prey, tell... (look I said "pray tell" , I must be worshipping you, lol)

Anyway mind telling me just who's glory we will have a share in, if not God's? .

whatever glory God provides us.

His perfect Eternal unchanging Glory is his own, and his alone.

 

[Rick Otto]

to believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven?
Not explicitly in one imperative sentence.
But if you have any regard for the title, you should see how the title is regarded in scripture.
Jeremiah doesn't seem to think it has a good reputation, but he is only one prophet, and his opinion is only written in scripture. Tradition would seem to discount him altogether

Jer 7:18 - The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jer 44:17 - But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
Jer 44:18 - But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
Jer 44:19 - And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men ?181?
Jer 44:25 - Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows

 

[Benedicta00]

whatever glory God provides us.

His perfect Eternal unchanging Glory is his own, and his alone.

Here we go again with the dichotomies.

If all glory is his, my dear man then, it's HIS glory that he gives us a share in. You have nothing to based this premise on, where God creates our very own glory.

This all goes back to God becoming a man in order that we can have share in his own divine life. We are partakers in the divine nature of God as Peter says so clearly.

This would aslo include his glory.

God is still God if he shares himeslf with us.

So we are back to square one, you can not have scripture contradict itself.

Re-think this since you reject any wisdom from the Church... grapple with it and re-think it on your own.


.

 

[Rick Otto]

just nonsense from the Magisterium.

Here we go again with your own vain presumptuousness, putting words in other people's mouths:
"...where God creates our very own glory"