Is this is a legitimate way to understand the title "Co-Redemptrix"?

[thecolorsblend]

Yes it is.

Yes I am.

This is one of those times when either properly quoting my post or else writing a complete sentence would have done a lot to help me understand what you're trying to say.

NO it can not be found.

Sure it can.

If it was you would already have quoted it.

No I wouldn't.

ALL includes every single human being.

Citation needed.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is NO Biblical support whatsoever for this RCC doctrine.

Of course there is.

Please understand that even if Mary had died on Calvary, her death would not have redeemed anyone.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Mary was NOT a perfect God in the flesh as was Jesus.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Mary herself was a sinner just as we are.

Eh. No, that isn't really what the Church teaches.

 

[Major1]

Of course there is.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Eh. No, that isn't really what the Church teaches.

If it is therefore in the Bible...…...What is the book, chapter and verse?

 

[Major1]

This is one of those times when either properly quoting my post or else writing a complete sentence would have done a lot to help me understand what you're trying to say.

Sure it can.

No I wouldn't.

Citation needed.

We are not doing any growth or teaching in this conversation so I see no reason to respond any further.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If it is therefore in the Bible...…...What is the book, chapter and verse?

Not sure what you’re asking chapter and verse for here.

 

[Major1]

I see.

Why did you respond then?

Easy...…….
2 Timothy 2:24...……..
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth".

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Major1]

Not sure what you’re asking chapter and verse for here.

Comment #22:

Major1 said: ↑
There is NO Biblical support whatsoever for this RCC doctrine.

YOU then said...…….
Of course there is.


So then...……...what are they??????

 

[Major1]

The Co-Redemptrix teaching makes it clear that:
1. Mary was herself redeemed by Christ, in her Immaculate Conception,
2. Christ is the sole Redeemer of the whole world, and
3. Mary's contribution in the mystery of Redemption was entirely by the power of Christ, and then subordinate and finite compared to Christ, and lastly
4. Mary's contribution to Redemption was not because of some divine obligation, but entirely because God willed it. Christ alone was enough to save mankind, but God still wanted to include Mary's sorrow in this work of Redemption.

This is not explicitly explained in the Bible, true, (and as Catholics, we are not bound to Scripture alone, but that's another topic for another day). It is based on understanding Christ and Mary as the "new Adam and Eve", undoing the mistakes of the first Adam and Eve, in the divine drama, an idea with Biblical roots, cf. Romans 5:17-21, compared to Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 22.

You stated correctly that.....……..
"This is not explicitly explained in the Bible, true, (and as Catholics, we are not bound to Scripture alone, but that's another topic for another day)"

AND right there my dear friend is the rub that separates the Protestant faith from the Catholic.

The Bible says in Mark 7:8...….
"Having neglected the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

As a protestant believer I accept the Word of God as the Bible and you are bound by the traditions of men.

You are of course free to believe as you wish and I have no reason to change your thinking. All I can do is quote the Scriptures and believe them as they are written.

The scriptures hold warnings against any traditions, customs, precepts, or laws that are in opposition to, contradictory to, that nullify (or do away with) God's commands as written in the scriptural record. These customs, rituals, practices are inventions and traditions of men -- alone, apart from God. We must be cautious of the emptiness of the traditions of men passed down through time ... even those from our own forefathers or elders.

1 Peter 1:18-19...….
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"

Colossians 2:8 ...….
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I do believe in the entire word of God, once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), both that which is written down in sacred Scripture (consisting of 73 books entire and in all their parts), and that which has been handed down orally from the Apostles with authority from Christ himself.

I would call Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) a "tradition of men", but then we would just be calling eachother names at that point. Mariological debates on this forum have a tendency to turn into debates over Sola Scriptura.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Major1]

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Yes, it's definitely in there.

Well then just post its location!

Saying...….."Yes, its definitely there" does not make it a true statement.

 

[Major1]

I do believe in the entire word of God, once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), both that which is written down in sacred Scripture (consisting of 73 books entire and in all their parts), and that which has been handed down orally from the Apostles with authority from Christ himself.

I would call Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) a "tradition of men", but then we would just be calling eachother names at that point. Mariological debates on this forum have a tendency to turn into debates over Sola Scriptura.

You are correct.

All I would say is that I do not believe in 73 books making up the Bible as that would include the Apocrapha. There are many reasons why the Apocrypha is NOT included in the canon of Scriptures and the most glaring of those is that not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Also, Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

But I guess all of that is for another thread. BUT, the validity of the Apocrypha is one of the major causes for debate among believers over doctrine.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well then just post its location!

Saying...….."Yes, its definitely there" does not make it a true statement.

Sure it does.

 

[Mark_Sam]

The Biblical basis for this doctrine is the divine drama of Adam and Eve, which Paul alludes to in Romans 5. The first Eve listened to the fallen angel (Satan, the serpent), ate from the tree, gave the fruit to Adam, and by sinning, as the head of mankind, he damned mankind (Genesis 3). At the onset of this age of grace, the second Eve (Mary) listened to the angel of the Lord (Gabriel; Luke 1:26-38), and led the new Adam (Christ) to the new tree (the Cross), and he himself being the Tree of Life and the Fruit of the tree, and the new Head of mankind, by sacrificing himself, restored mankind to the Edenic state, thereby undoing the sins of our first parents. Whilst beholding Christ on the Cross, a sword pierced Mary's soul (Luke 2:35). And also on the Cross, Christ gave Mary to us as mother (John 19:27; the beloved disciple - unnamed - representing all of Christ's disciples).

 

[Major1]

The Biblical basis for this doctrine is the divine drama of Adam and Eve, which Paul alludes to in Romans 5. The first Eve listened to the fallen angel (Satan, the serpent), ate from the tree, gave the fruit to Adam, and by sinning, as the head of mankind, he damned mankind (Genesis 3). At the onset of this age of grace, the second Eve (Mary) listened to the angel of the Lord (Gabriel; Luke 1:26-38), and led the new Adam (Christ) to the new tree (the Cross), and he himself being the Tree of Life and the Fruit of the tree, and the new Head of mankind, by sacrificing himself, restored mankind to the Edenic state, thereby undoing the sins of our first parents. Whilst beholding Christ on the Cross, a sword pierced Mary's soul (Luke 2:35). And also on the Cross, Christ gave Mary to us as mother (John 19:27; the beloved disciple - unnamed - representing all of Christ's disciples).

Now that may be the Catholic position but my dear friend, it is not Bible truth and it certainly is not Bible teaching.

Adam and Eve in Romans 5 is of course the fall of man.

The 1st Sin of Adam brought death throughout the universe upon all his offspring on the basis that ALL have sinned. YOU and ME and MARY are all sinnersin 4 different ways...…
1. We are all sinners because we commit acts of sin.
2. We are sinners by nature.
3. WE are in the state of sin.
4. We are ALL sinners by imputation from Adam.

#4 is called "Federal Headship of Adam.

For these reasons Jesus the God-Man died to pay for the sin debt of ALL Sinners.

Luke 2:35 has absolutely nothing to do with the divinity of Mary.

Mary stood at the foot of the cross and saw her Son die and with that she of course had a broken heart as would any other mother watching her son die. But that in no way has any imputation of divinity towards her.

Her suffering had nothing to do with your salvation and in fact it had nothing to do with her salvation. Mary was saved by the suffering, death and resurrection of her Son the Lord Jesus Christ Just as you are.

Please notice John 19:26 when from the cross Jesus said to Mary...………..
"WOMAN, behold thy son"!

 

[Mark_Sam]

The 1st Sin of Adam brought death throughout the universe upon all his offspring on the basis that ALL have sinned. YOU and ME and MARY are all sinnersin 4 different ways...…
1. We are all sinners because we commit acts of sin.
2. We are sinners by nature.
3. WE are in the state of sin.
4. We are ALL sinners by imputation from Adam.

Yes, but depends on what you mean by "sinner by nature". We are all naturally sinful, I agree, but sinfulness is an accident of human nature (if you permit some philosophical lingo), meaning that sinfulness is not an essential part of being human. It is possible to be human and not be sinful - just as Christ (and Mary) proved. This is, of course, impossible to achieve without the grace of God. But stripping away Original Sin in no way makes Mary "less human" or "more divine". She's still human - no more, no less.

#4 is called "Federal Headship of Adam.

For these reasons Jesus the God-Man died to pay for the sin debt of ALL Sinners.

Agreed.

Luke 2:35 has absolutely nothing to do with the divinity of Mary.

Mary stood at the foot of the cross and saw her Son die and with that she of course had a broken heart as would any other mother watching her son die. But that in no way has any imputation of divinity towards her.

The Catholic Church has never attributed divinity to Mary, and neither have I. She was a human woman, born of a mother and father, saved by the grace of God. The fact that she was sinless or by the will of God contributed a small, finite part to the grand drama of salvation (mainly in the Incarnation by giving him his flesh, but also at the foot of the Cross, as it is the topic at hand) has nothing to do with divinity.

Mary was saved by the suffering, death and resurrection of her Son the Lord Jesus Christ Just as you are.

Agreed, and I have never stated otherwise. The merits of the suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord are so infinite that they saved Mary completely at her Immaculate Conception, through time and space, even before they happened in time. The fact that she had a part in the drama of salvation does not change the fact that she herself was saved by Christ.

Please notice John 19:26 when from the cross Jesus said to Mary...………..
"WOMAN, behold thy son"!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but addressing a woman as "woman" in that culture at that time was not necessarily derogatory. I would in fact argue that this points to Mary being "the woman" whose Seed would crush the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

 

[Major1]

Yes, but depends on what you mean by "sinner by nature". We are all naturally sinful, I agree, but sinfulness is an accident of human nature (if you permit some philosophical lingo), meaning that sinfulness is not an essential part of being human. It is possible to be human and not be sinful - just as Christ (and Mary) proved. This is, of course, impossible to achieve without the grace of God. But stripping away Original Sin in no way makes Mary "less human" or "more divine". She's still human - no more, no less.


Agreed.


The Catholic Church has never attributed divinity to Mary, and neither have I. She was a human woman, born of a mother and father, saved by the grace of God. The fact that she was sinless or by the will of God contributed a small, finite part to the grand drama of salvation (mainly in the Incarnation by giving him his flesh, but also at the foot of the Cross, as it is the topic at hand) has nothing to do with divinity.


Agreed, and I have never stated otherwise. The merits of the suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord are so infinite that they saved Mary completely at her Immaculate Conception, through time and space, even before they happened in time. The fact that she had a part in the drama of salvation does not change the fact that she herself was saved by Christ.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but addressing a woman as "woman" in that culture at that time was not necessarily derogatory. I would in fact argue that this points to Mary being "the woman" whose Seed would crush the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

You said...……..
"but sinfulness is an accident of human nature (if you permit some philosophical lingo), meaning that sinfulness is not an essential part of being human. It is possible to be human and not be sinful - just as Christ (and Mary) proved. This is, of course, impossible to achieve without the grace of God. But stripping away Original Sin in no way makes Mary "less human" or "more divine". She's still human - no more, no less."

NOT TRUE.

Sin was imputed from Adam. That is called "Federal Headship". What he CHOOSE to do was then passed down to all of his offspring.

Romans 5:12 tells us clearly that...…
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned".

I understand that as a Catholic you are not bound to the Scriptures but as a Bible teacher and believer I am.

It is NOT possible to be a human being and not be a sinner. Jesus was not only a man, He was God in the flesh and as such HE DID NOT HAVE A SIN NATURE.

IF....IF Mary was sinless, please post the Bible Scriptures that verify such a claim.
Untill YOU do so then I will accept the Bible over your opinion as it says in Romans 3:23...……….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Mary was a sinner just like you and me and needed a Saviour to be saved just like you and me.

Then you said...……….
"The Catholic Church has never attributed divinity to Mary, and neither have I".

Really????

"All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world," (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

I always thought that it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ that brought salvation to the world. If this statement is NOT one of divinity for Mary, then what is it my friend?

"Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son" (Vatican Council II, p. 421).

"so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother," (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914).

She was "Preserved free from all stain of original sin," (CCC, par. 966).

"The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix," (CCC par. 969).

"...Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her divine son for men, made atonement for the sins of man and (de congruon) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she cooperates in the subjective redemption of mankind." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, page 213).

Why does the Roman Catholic Church attribute things to Mary that belong to God including atonement of sins, sinlessness, crushing the head of the serpent, delivering us from death, our mediator?

Then you said...…………….
"The merits of the suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord are so infinite that they saved Mary completely at her Immaculate Conception, through time and space, even before they happened in time. "

NOT TRUE.

You are only repeating Catholic teachings as taught to you. Mary was saved just like you were saved......by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:1...…….
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ".

Where in the Scriptures can we find and read about Mary's Immaculate Conception.

If you are going to have a discussion with a BIBLE believer, you are going to have to use BIBLE Scriptures instead of Catholic doctrine to make any progress.

 

[Mark_Sam]

It is NOT possible to be a human being and not be a sinner. Jesus was not only a man, He was God in the flesh and as such HE DID NOT HAVE A SIN NATURE.

But if sin is an essential part of the human being (philosophically speaking), and Christ was sinless, does that mean that Christ wasn't truly human? The Lutheran theologian Matthias Flacius (1520-1575), in his day, claimed that "humanity = sin", and he was therefore rightly accused of denying the Incarnation and true humanity of our Lord. Of course, Flacius never intended it, but that was the consequences of his faulty theology. If it's not possible to be human and not be a sinner, then pre-Fall Adam wasn't human, and Christ could never have truly been human. And after Judgement Day the Saints will no longer be human, since they will be without sin. Is that really the case?

I'm not denying Original Sin. All I'm saying is that it is problematic to claim that sin is an essential, irremovable part of what defines us as human beings. Humans existed before Original Sin, and will continue to exist long after it's gone in the New Heaven and New Earth. So claiming that Mary was sinless in no way implies divinity.

"All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world," (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

I always thought that it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ that brought salvation to the world. If this statement is NOT one of divinity for Mary, then what is it my friend?

Christ and his death and resurrection is the salvation of the world. And the quote from Ineffabilis Deus is talking about her subordinate role in salvation history. She gave birth to Christ. Christ took on his human nature from Mary. Mary literally brought Christ to the world. Christ didn't descend from Heaven, but was born of a mother. That simply cannot be denied. And this is what Pius IX is affirming. It is not a language which excludes Christ. Rather, it is language which points us to Christ, the Seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15).

"...Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her divine son for men, made atonement for the sins of man and (de congruon) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she cooperates in the subjective redemption of mankind." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, page 213).

Why does the Roman Catholic Church attribute things to Mary that belong to God including atonement of sins, sinlessness, crushing the head of the serpent, delivering us from death, our mediator?

Sinlessness is not exclusive to God: the angels are sinless, the Saints in heaven are sinless. Atonement is not also exclusive to God, as the high priests made sacrifices to atone for the people's sins (de congruo, I presume). And mediatorship not also not exclusive to God, as many times in the Bible, God uses angels and prophets to communicate with mankind and bless mankind through them.

It is true that only Christ' atonement is infinite in value and was merited de condigno ("true merit", he actually earned it by his own power). And Christ is the best Mediator, and the only Redeemer. There doesn't need to be a contradiction here, unless you force it.

Where in the Scriptures can we find and read about Mary's Immaculate Conception.

If you are going to have a discussion with a BIBLE believer, you are going to have to use BIBLE Scriptures instead of Catholic doctrine to make any progress.

The Immaculate Conception is not mentioned in the Bible as the Bible never talks about Mary's childhood. It also never talks about the Assumption, as the Bible never talks about Mary's death.

As for the Co-Redemptrix doctrine, I have provided the Biblical basis for this teaching by pointing to the divine drama where Christ is the New Adam, restoring what the old Adam destroyed, with the help of the New Eve, who was faithful where the old Eve was disobedient. This is a hermeneutic going back to Irenaeus, a disciple of a disciple of John the Apostle. The Biblical motif of Mary as a "new Eve" and a new "mother of all living" in Christ is really where this begins.