Even "mother" Teresa Pushing for Mary to be Considered "co-redemptrix"?

[Albion]

I'm not a Catholic or any root from it, but it seems to me they enough problems without serving this up on the table.

Well, you know how in politics a diversion often succeeds and can also serve to "excite" the base. Imagine all the ceremonies that would follow the declaration of such a new dogma. Many parishioners would surely see all of that as wonderful and, as well, unique to their denomination.

A hundred and fifty years ago when the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was made official, it came about as a way to fight back against the steady loss of influence in public affairs that the Vatican was experiencing. That was the age when democracy, nationalism, independence movements, Socialism, and etc. were fast eroding the ability of the Pope to 'make and break' kings as once it was able to do, and all of them rivalled the church when it came to the allegiance of the people.

Voila, a new dogma claiming that the Pope was infallible was adopted. That didn't change secular politics at all, but it did seem--to the church's faithful--to boost the importance of the Pope.

 

[tz620q]

Well, you know how in politics a diversion often succeeds and can also serve to "excite" the base. Imagine all the ceremonies that would follow the declaration of such a new dogma. Many parishioners would surely see all of that as wonderful and, as well, unique to their denomination.

A hundred and fifty years ago when the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was made official, it came about as a way to fight back against the steady loss of influence in public affairs that the Vatican was experiencing. That was the age when democracy, nationalism, independence movements, Socialism, and etc. were fast eroding the ability of the Pope to 'make and break' kings as once it was able to do, and all of them rivalled the church when it came to the allegiance of the people.

Voila, a new dogma claiming that the Pope was infallible was adopted. That didn't change secular politics at all, but it did seem--to the church's faithful--to boost the importance of the Pope.

I think the best rebuttal of what you stated is to post from the NYT article on the Vatican response to Mr. Miravalle's petition,

"Responding by e-mail in Italian, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for the Vatican, said, ''There is no proclamation of a new dogma on the Madonna under study either by the Holy Father or by the International Theological Commission.'' His statement repeated one issued by the Vatican in 1997."

and
"In 1997 23 of the world's leading Mary scholars, Catholic and Protestant, met in Poland and voted unanimously against the proposed change in dogma. An underlying reason, again, was concern that it would be construed as making Mary equal to Jesus. ''The titles are ambiguous and could be understood in very different ways,'' the panel of experts said in a brief report, adding that it would worsen ''ecumenical difficulties.''

So it seems that there is little to fear, since this petition was sent to JPII in 2000 and nothing happened. Then Popes Benedict XVI and Francis I declared against the proclamation. So it seems that the Vatican has been very forthright in their stance on this and it does not seem to warrant saying that they are creating some sort of diversion to slip this proclamation in. The article states that the petition had received 6 million signatures. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics that means 0.5% signed the petition.

 

[Albion]

I think the best rebuttal of what you stated is to post from the NYT article on the Vatican response to Mr. Miravalle's petition,

"Responding by e-mail in Italian, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for the Vatican, said, ''There is no proclamation of a new dogma on the Madonna under study either by the Holy Father or by the International Theological Commission.'' His statement repeated one issued by the Vatican in 1997."

Your "rebuttal" is misplaced.

I was replying to Charlie who suggested that the church would have nothing to gain by making this new dogma. In fact, there potentially WOULD BE something to gain--as I explained.

But that doesn't mean the idea is under active consideration by the Papacy at this time. That's a completely different issue.

 

[tz620q]

Your "rebuttal" is misplaced.

I was replying to Charlie who suggested that the church would have nothing to gain by making this new dogma. In fact, there potentially WOULD BE something to gain--as I explained.

But that doesn't mean the idea is under active consideration by the Papacy at this time. That's a completely different issue.

Albion, I am sure you reserve the right to comment on posts that mischaracterize the Anglican faith. Likewise when you post on here the following, you shouldn't be surprised when a Catholic tries to correct it.

The Roman Catholic Church would accept this. The idea is popular already among the clergy and lay people of the church and it was the Pope who declared the two earlier "Marian" doctrines--the Assumption of Mary (bodily into heaven) and the Immaculate Conception--both of which are now "must believe" dogmas. I can't see why this one would be any different.

My post spoke directly to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church would not accept this. Both the Vatican, most bishops, and most laymen are against it. If you disagree with me, then I kindly ask that you please reference your source for your data.

 

[SwordmanJr]

The Roman Catholic Church would accept this. The idea is popular already among the clergy and lay people of the church and it was the Pope who declared the two earlier "Marian" doctrines--the Assumption of Mary (bodily into heaven) and the Immaculate Conception--both of which are now "must believe" dogmas. I can't see why this one would be any different.

Well, I wouldn't say all catholics "must believe" such things. I know some catholic men here in the West who refuse to bend their knee to those dogmas, and they remain in good standing with their religion. They refuse to believe Mary was taken up into Heaven by any special means apart from all others, and they believe she was a sinner like all others, and therefore in need of a Savior like all others. So, their lack in following the Mariolotry of the vatican and the cardinals is of no governing consequence in their belief system. They still tithe faithfully, and go to the masses regularly, although they don't do the repetitious mumblings with rosaries or otherwise. They're content to believe and practice what they wish, and none of their religious leadership has confronted them about anything contrary to what they openly admit they believe, and how they practice their faith in the mass.

Jr

 

[Albion]

Albion, I am sure you reserve the right to comment on posts that mischaracterize the Anglican faith. Likewise when you post on here the following, you shouldn't be surprised when a Catholic tries to correct it.

I'm not surprised at them replying. I am surprised, I have to say, at how many Catholics do not actually know what their own church teaches.

My post spoke directly to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church would not accept this. Both the Vatican, most bishops, and most laymen are against it. If you disagree with me, then I kindly ask that you please reference your source for your data.

My entire post was saying that it is POSSIBLE, and that there might be a benefit to the church if it did choose to go ahead. That's it.

Do not twist that into something about it being in the works, very likely, or anything else in that vein. And I explicitly stated that I was not claiming that the idea is under active consideration by the Vatican.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I think the best rebuttal of what you stated is to post from the NYT article on the Vatican response to Mr. Miravalle's petition,

"Responding by e-mail in Italian, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for the Vatican, said, ''There is no proclamation of a new dogma on the Madonna under study either by the Holy Father or by the International Theological Commission.'' His statement repeated one issued by the Vatican in 1997."

and
"In 1997 23 of the world's leading Mary scholars, Catholic and Protestant, met in Poland and voted unanimously against the proposed change in dogma. An underlying reason, again, was concern that it would be construed as making Mary equal to Jesus. ''The titles are ambiguous and could be understood in very different ways,'' the panel of experts said in a brief report, adding that it would worsen ''ecumenical difficulties.''

So it seems that there is little to fear, since this petition was sent to JPII in 2000 and nothing happened. Then Popes Benedict XVI and Francis I declared against the proclamation. So it seems that the Vatican has been very forthright in their stance on this and it does not seem to warrant saying that they are creating some sort of diversion to slip this proclamation in. The article states that the petition had received 6 million signatures. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics that means 0.5% signed the petition.

I'm wondering if you're catching the underlying currents of intrigue in all that. Suppose the tables had been turned, and John Paul decided he was being directed by his god to go ahead and declare Mary a co-redemptrix, ex-cathedra. Why have any discussion at all about it, or votes, or anything else if the pope hears directly from his god to go ahead? What weight would anything the cardinals and bishops believed have in the whole scheme of that doctrine?

This is interesting.

Jr

 

[Albion]

Well, I wouldn't say all catholics "must believe" such things.

Yes. That's what it means to dogmatize something in the RCC.

I know some catholic men here in the West who refuse to bend their knee to those dogmas, and they remain in good standing with their religion.

That's right, but that doesn't mean that they are not considered by their church to be under an obligation TO accept the teaching in question as true.

They refuse to believe Mary was taken up into Heaven by any special means apart from all others, and they believe she was a sinner like all others, and therefore in need of a Savior like all others. So, their lack in following the Mariolotry of the vatican and the cardinals is of no governing consequence in their belief system.

Well, you are talking here about the practical effects, of whether or not the prescribed consequences are being applied. Not what the church's regulations authorize.

It's just like the many actions that the church says will result in excommunication but the church leaders know the people who deserve it and yet no action it taken against them. That's not a lot different from secular law, is it? There are plenty of laws that prohibit something or other, and the police know that you or I are doing it anyway, but they don't arrest us. It's still a violation of the law, however.

 

[tz620q]

I'm wondering if you're catching the underlying currents of intrigue in all that. Suppose the tables had been turned, and John Paul decided he was being directed by his god to go ahead and declare Mary a co-redemptrix, ex-cathedra. Why have any discussion at all about it, or votes, or anything else if the pope hears directly from his god to go ahead? What weight would anything the cardinals and bishops believed have in the whole scheme of that doctrine?

This is interesting.

Jr

To me it is interesting that Lord Acton's quote that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." was meant for both King and Pope; however in the 150 years since Vatican I, the papal power to promulgate dogma via papal decree has been used only once and that was riding on a wave of great popular support by both laymen and clergy. With that thought, I don't give the co-redemptrix title much possibility of going anywhere. Our Popes have been wise enough to see themselves as the head of the Catholic Magisterium and working within that body, not against it.

 

[SwordmanJr]

To me it is interesting that Lord Acton's quote that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." was meant for both King and Pope; however in the 150 years since Vatican I, the papal power to promulgate dogma via papal decree has been used only once and that was riding on a wave of great popular support by both laymen and clergy. With that thought, I don't give the co-redemptrix title much possibility of going anywhere. Our Popes have been wise enough to see themselves as the head of the Catholic Magisterium and working within that body, not against it.

Yes, but that petition drive in and of itself is telling. The idea that there would ever be petitions at all, much less votes cast about any doctrinal establishment, is striking if the pope's representation of god is indeed a reality to catholics. I'm not talking about the possibilities of the co-redemptrix still having a chance right now, but that it would indeed have a chance and would likely become an established doctrine if enough of the bishops and cardinals were behind it.

Jr

 

[bbbbbbb]

To me it is interesting that Lord Acton's quote that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." was meant for both King and Pope; however in the 150 years since Vatican I, the papal power to promulgate dogma via papal decree has been used only once and that was riding on a wave of great popular support by both laymen and clergy. With that thought, I don't give the co-redemptrix title much possibility of going anywhere. Our Popes have been wise enough to see themselves as the head of the Catholic Magisterium and working within that body, not against it.

I suppose if one uses the ace up one's sleeve in Poker and doesn't have any more cards up the sleeve, then it could prove problematic. As long as the co-redemptrix carrot is dangling in the Catholic Church then it can be used to encourage the faithful in their efforts pro or con, and thus create greater enthusiasm and loyalty. Once that doctrine is put to rest (as, for example, Limbo has been) then it serves no practical purpose.

 

[NW82]

My thoughts are that Mary is the Blessed Theotokos, that she is a saint, and that she lives and reigns with Christ. We pray for her intercession and the intercession of all the saints.

Hebrews 7:25

 

[HTacianas]

Hebrews 7:25

I do not doubt that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not doubt that.

That being the case, do Christians need any other intercessors with God?

 

[HTacianas]

That being the case, do Christians need any other intercessors with God?

They certainly do not hurt.

 

[prodromos]

That being the case, do Christians need any other intercessors with God?

It is the primary way we demonstrate love for one another, something which God desires for us and blesses abundantly

 

[NW82]

I do not doubt that.

I didn't expect you would. But do you find this in reference to anyone else? I don't.

 

[HTacianas]

I didn't expect you would. But do you find this in reference to anyone else? I don't.

Christ intercedes for us, that is certainly true. But that Christ intercedes for us does not mean that others do not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Christ intercedes for us, that is certainly true. But that Christ intercedes for us does not mean that others do not.

That is precisely the syncretistic answer I hear frequently in the Far East. If Jesus intercedes for someone that is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the ancestors won't or can't or that the Buddha or any of the bodhisattvas won't or can't.

 

[HTacianas]

That is precisely the syncretistic answer I hear frequently in the Far East. If Jesus intercedes for someone that is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the ancestors won't or can't or that the Buddha or any of the bodhisattvas won't or can't.

I don't much care for Buddhas or bodhisattvas, but the saints and martyrs live and reign with Christ. And that's close enough.