Is the Reformation to blame for Mariology abuse?

[charis en excelcis]

I've yet to see God called "co-redemptrix" so I reckon your post has either given God a title that holy scripture never does or your post is just wrong

The use of the co- in normal English would implied a shared title. Co-owner denoted ownership with another. co-redemptrix denotes the act of redemption in concert with another or others. Would you, if this goes through, call Jesus your redeemer and Mary your co-redemptrix? Does that lessen the problem? Not at all. You are still giving a role to Mary which can only be attributed to God.

 

[Alithis]

everything to do with the church ..the body of the lord Jesus and the lord Jesus himself ..is foretold through out scripture .

and can be clearly seen in the clear unambiguous scripture of the Holy Bible ( being 66 books )

no mater how many times you repeat teachings that are in obvious conflict with that scripture -it will not change the truth of the scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The use of the co- in normal English would implied a shared title. Co-owner denoted ownership with another. co-redemptrix denotes the act of redemption in concert with another or others. Would you, if this goes through, call Jesus your redeemer and Mary your co-redemptrix? Does that lessen the problem? Not at all. You are still giving a role to Mary which can only be attributed to God.

If I am in a court room where the tradition is to address the judge as "my lord" then I'd call the judge "my lord", if in a synagogue speaking with the rabbi I'd call him rabbi, if in a church with a pastor I'd call him pastor, if talking with my father I'd call him father (or maybe dad) these are all examples of titles that belong to God yet are used of men (and women) without implying anything that diminishes God or unreasonably elevates men (or women) so I am not too worried about calling Mary a redemptrix (feminine form or redeemer) because a title like that no more diminishes the Lord Jesus Christ than it elevates Blessed Mary unreasonably. Nobody thinks Mary is God or a Goddess except maybe a few odd folk who take their opposition to everything Catholic to bizarre extremes. And since saint Paul calls his own sufferings on behalf of the church something that completes what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ (Colossians 1:24) it seems to me that there is already biblical precedent for calling a human being's actions by a name that applies uniquely to Christ's saving action on the cross alone. Nobody thinks that saint Paul's sufferings somehow diminish the Lord's or unreasonably elevate saint Paul. The same applies to Blessed Mary. Her suffering on behalf of the church does not diminish Christ's nor does it unreasonably elevate Blessed Mary's sufferings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...scripture of the Holy Bible ( being 66 books ) ...

My bible has 73 books.

 

[seekingsolace]

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. Choosing the bible - presumably you meant that you choose a 66 book bible that was handed down to you from the traditions of your forefathers in your chosen denomination - so that it contains only the materials from which your tradition builds doctrine is sure to yield only the doctrines that your tradition wants to propagate.

That's a two sided coin there MC. The argument is just as apt for RCC doctrines being reliant on deuterocanonical books.

 

[seekingsolace]

If I am in a court room where the tradition is to address the judge as "my lord" then I'd call the judge "my lord", if in a synagogue speaking with the rabbi I'd call him rabbi, if in a church with a pastor I'd call him pastor, if talking with my father I'd call him father (or maybe dad) these are all examples of titles that belong to God yet are used of men (and women) without implying anything that diminishes God or unreasonably elevates men (or women) so I am not too worried about calling Mary a redemptrix (feminine form or redeemer) because a title like that no more diminishes the Lord Jesus Christ than it elevates Blessed Mary unreasonably. Nobody thinks Mary is God or a Goddess except maybe a few odd folk who take their opposition to everything Catholic to bizarre extremes.

That comparison doesn't adequately fit. If I were to speak of Satan as my saviour, would this be okay?

 

[Hammster]

I had heard this opinion before in that the Protestant Reformation was to blame for the oversteppings of Mariology.

She's blessed.

Move along. Nothing more to see.

 

[charis en excelcis]

If I am in a court room where the tradition is to address the judge as "my lord" then I'd call the judge "my lord", if in a synagogue speaking with the rabbi I'd call him rabbi, if in a church with a pastor I'd call him pastor, if talking with my father I'd call him father (or maybe dad) these are all examples of titles that belong to God yet are used of men (and women) without implying anything that diminishes God or unreasonably elevates men (or women) so I am not too worried about calling Mary a redemptrix (feminine form or redeemer) because a title like that no more diminishes the Lord Jesus Christ than it elevates Blessed Mary unreasonably. Nobody thinks Mary is God or a Goddess except maybe a few odd folk who take their opposition to everything Catholic to bizarre extremes. And since saint Paul calls his own sufferings on behalf of the church something that completes what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ (Colossians 1:24) it seems to me that there is already biblical precedent for calling a human being's actions by a name that applies uniquely to Christ's saving action on the cross alone. Nobody thinks that saint Paul's sufferings somehow diminish the Lord's or unreasonably elevate saint Paul. The same applies to Blessed Mary. Her suffering on behalf of the church does not diminish Christ's nor does it unreasonably elevate Blessed Mary's sufferings.

So, do you then believe that the actions of Mary filled up something that is lacking in he Redemptive work of Christ? Of course not. Your illustrations is not apples to apples. Now if we apply that principle, then can I call the one who led me into my faith, Savior? Can I call my mother, my Creator?
I am actually more disturbed that you do not see this. We live in a world in which one of our primary fears is identity theft. If someone starts calling themselves by my name and claiming my history, however flattering that may be to me, it is a grave concerned. The issue is not what you mean when you call Mary, co-redemptrix. The issue is what message you are sending. In an organization that encourages in particular prayers to Mary and gives her many very high titles, yet holds that salvation is only possible because of the actions of Jesus Christ the son of God, you ought to be aware of the message when you give Mary a superfluous title which is a Divine title.

 

[George]

That comparison doesn't adequately fit. If I were to speak of Satan as my saviour, would this be okay?

I think that's a bit much.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's a two sided coin there MC. The argument is just as apt for RCC doctrines being reliant on deuterocanonical books.

Yes, some Catholic teaching comes from the books that a 66 book bible lacks. That's no surprise. It's what (in part) led to the protestant revolt; when chaps who didn't like prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints they just threw away the parts of the bible that taught those things and ended up with a 'bible' that fitted their doctrine.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That comparison doesn't adequately fit. If I were to speak of Satan as my saviour, would this be okay?

You might speak that way, I will not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

She's blessed.

Move along. Nothing more to see.

Heh heh heh ... a religious take on "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

 

[Hammster]

Heh heh heh ... a religious take on "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

No. It's just that the bible says nothing about exalting Mary.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, do you then believe that the actions of Mary filled up something that is lacking in he Redemptive work of Christ?

Yes, that is what saint Paul said and I think it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary too. Her suffering made up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of the Church. Remember what saint Paul wrote? Colossians 1:24 KJV Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

...
I am actually more disturbed that you do not see this. ...

What disturbs you encourages me; it is an encouraging thought that the Blessed Virgin Mary prays for me, intercedes for me, and seeks blessings for me as she does for all the faithful who are her children because they are the body of her holy Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. It's just that the bible says nothing about exalting Mary.

Holy tradition does, and holy tradition builds its teaching on what holy scripture says so your statement in the above quote is incorrect.

 

[Hammster]

Holy tradition does, and holy tradition builds its teaching on what holy scripture says so your statement in the above quote is incorrect.

Nothing in scripture about exalting Mary. So your tradition is unfounded.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nothing in scripture about exalting Mary. So your tradition is unfounded.

Your statement in the above quote is incorrect.

 

[Hammster]

Your statement in the above quote is incorrect.

I reread it. It is correct.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, that is what saint Paul said and I think it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary too. Her suffering made up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of the Church. Remember what saint Paul wrote? Colossians 1:24 KJV Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:


What disturbs you encourages me; it is an encouraging thought that the Blessed Virgin Mary prays for me, intercedes for me, and seeks blessings for me as she does for all the faithful who are her children because they are the body of her holy Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have one Intercessor. It ain't Mary.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reread it. It is correct.

What you need to read is the gospel according to saint Luke. But I am sure you've probably done that before too and somehow missed the passages that exalt Blessed Mary.