First off, let me start by saying that I've been reading this forum for the last several months. I had gone to the local Catholic church a hand-full of times over the last couple years. I found this forum about the same time that I regularily started going to the local university parish last fall. I was baptised in a Southern Baptist church in high school, then unfortunately drifted away from church during college. Since being introduced to the Catholic church a few years ago, I casually read to learn about the church.

I've been doing much more serious investigations in the last few months.

Okay, sorry about the long background but I wanted you all to undertand that I am sincere in my question.

The issue that I have had the most trouble with is the Marian dogmas. My question pertains to Mary as co-Redemtrix. I have read about there being a movement within the Church to urge Pope John Paul II to declare this as the 5th Marian dogma. I think I would have more probably with this than any other single issue. How strong is this movement within the Catholic church? Is this a widely held belief among Catholics?

Your answers are appreciated.

-- Chris (nospam@dontsend.com), February 05, 2005

Answers

Yes this belief, properly understood, is generally held among Catholics - that is, the belief that Mary, by freely cooperating in God's plan of salvation, thereby indirectly made salvation possible by bringing the one and only Savior into the world. However, the title invites misinterpretation, since taken at face value it could suggest some sense of equality between Mary's role and Christ's role in making salvation available to us, which of course would be utterly false. Which is why the Pope has firmly resisted giving the title any official status.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 05, 2005.

Thanks Paul M. That does clarify a lot. It does bring the question to my mind then of why have an additional title? Doesn't "Mother of God" basically sum up the same thing? Not trying to draw you into some debate. Just putting in terms that make sense to me.

Also, I wanted to say that I appreciate your responses to several of the questions on this board. I've visited this site almost daily for three months. It's been a great source of information.....once I started figuring out which posters to read and which to "take with a grain of salt"

-- Chris (nospam@dontsend.com), February 06, 2005.

Doesn't "Mother of God" basically sum up the same thing?

yes, and thats precisely the reason why John Paul II has thus far not declared co-redemptrix to be an official title for mary. while the dogma is true, that mary's acceptance of the will of God is what facilitated the entrance of Jesus into the world, this title would bring too much in the field of misunderstanding by too many people who would not take the time to properly research what is meant by the title.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 06, 2005.

While we're on the subject, and both responses have been very helpful. Could you please describe the role of Mary as mediatrix?

I've had this conversation with catholic friends and did some reading on it. It's still a little unclear.

I don't want to sound trivial, as I said before the role of Mary in the catholic faith is probably my biggest stumbling block.

-- Chris (nospam@dontsend.com), February 06, 2005.

to my understanding, the term mediatrix is another non-approved title for mary which is roughly equivalent to the term co- redemptrix. again, as you already said, the title "Mother of God" already incorporates these aspects of mary's role.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 06, 2005.

Dear Chris, The way I see that the 5th Marian dogma is because Mary the Mother of God ( Jesus being the 2nd Person in the Holy Trinity) was the person that God our Father chose to be the vessel to carry Jesus from His conception and was alaways beside Him until He died on Calvery. Being His Mother she was also there beside Him with His plan to redeem mankind. Only I do not know how strong this movement is in the Catholic church. I can only say (in good faith so as not to offend them) that many Protestants believe that we catholics worshop Mary our Blessed Mother and that we place her above Our Lord. We do not worship her but we honour her as she is the Mother of God our beloved Mother whom Our Lord gave to us from the Cross. She is the humble maid who said yes to God's plan of redemption. I love her very much and she is the role modle for me. God bless, Ramanie

-- Ramanie Weerasinghe (lilanw@yahoo.com), February 06, 2005.

The role of Mary as Co-Redeemer includes the idea that without Mary's cooperation, salvation wouldn't have been possible. I object to this concept completely. While acknowledging that Mary's acceptance of God's plan assured her a major role in the Lord's plan, it would not have prevented God's salvation, He would simply have found another vessel. If being a cooperator in the plan of salvation is the qualification for the term co-redeemer, then we are ALL co- redeemers. Think about it. St Paul was key to opening the Gospel to the Gentiles, so he cooperated in God's plan of salvation to the Gentiles, so was he a coredeemer as well?

The role of Mary as Mediatrix includes the idea that ALL favors, grace, etc. that come through God, must come through Mary. This I object to because Jesus is, according to scripture, the only mediator between man and God. 1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" Thus, this concept of "mediatrix" is unscriptural and therefore false.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 06, 2005.

i suggest you go here: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CfPW

and that the RCC isn't the church of jesus

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

1/contraceptives=> evil!(so we all should get aids??? a very irresponsible teaching...)

2/if you are married you MUST have children if you can(who are they to tell how i have to organise my life?)

3/oral sex=>evil!(maybe because they never tried it??)

4/church and pope are infaillable(were they also infaillable during the time of indulgences,crusades,inquisitions,and when they red the bible in latin?)

5/anything that has to do with nudity,sex or anything in that way outside of marriage=>evil!

6/abortion of zygotes=>evil!(then every ejaculation is a genocide...)

JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THE RCC NOR DID HE ESTABLISH IT,HE NEVER TALKED ABOUT GIVING THEM FULL AUTHORITY TO TEACH THINGS BESIDE THE BIBLE,HE SAID THAT NOBODY DENY OR ADD ANYTHING TO THE BIBLE,HE NEVER SAID THAT YOU HAD TO BE PART OF THE RCC TO BE PART OF HIS CHURCH,HIS BODY OF BELIEVERS,I CAN TELL YOU TONS AND TONS OF THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH THE RCC BUT I CAN'T POST IT HERE BECAUSE IT WILL BE DELETED ANYWAY

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CfuV

and i also suggest you to check out this thread

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

Again we have sdqa; giving his/her private opinions more importance than Jesus Christ's teachings. The fact RCC doesn't even exist; there never has been a church by that name; escapes this child. Christ only founded ONE, the Catholic Church. He calls it MY Church. The Church has since been called Catholic because she is the ONLY one; the Church for all peoples at all times, the Christian Church in heaven and on earth-- Universal. Universal is what Catholic means, taken from the Greek. There is no RCC coming to us from Christ; but there is a Universal Church, His own.

There is no ''body of believers'' to be called the Church, as if the Catholic Church didn't embrace EVERY True Believer. Outside the true Church are many believers; but not in Christ's whole truth. Many don't believe a single thing taught by the Holy Catholic Church; not one thing! Nevertheless they THINK Christ and the Holy Spirit is with them simply because they read the Bible. If they reject Christ's Church, they reject HIM. It's that simple. They are NOT in a ''body of believers'' even if such a body were real outside His Church. Because they reject the truth. Truth cannot be taught side-by- side with error. Believers who have embraced false doctrines (outside the Church) are in another ''body''. It's called the body of LOST SHEEP; in the spiritual wilderness of error. One of these poor souls is spdqa the ignorant one posting here as if an authority. He/she is lost in every manner and type of error, yet comes here to sound off at Catholics, calling us the ''RCC'' as if we had to accept it.

The only thing greater than sdqa's ignorance is his/her boundless enthusiasm for sin. He/she is nuts about sins like depraved sex, abortion, and blasphemy. --Look who thinks he'she's in a ''body of believers'' Hahaha ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

look eugene,catholics claim that they church is the body of believers and this is not true,they claim that there is no salvation outside their church and that their church is the only right one...i think history has shown enough how their church really is,they also think that they can teach whatever they want and their excuse for this is that jesus established their church and have them the authority to teach whatever they want while jesus never talked about their church;......

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

Here's what you're asking for, spdq:

look eugene,catholics claim that they church is the body of believers AND THIS IS NOT TRUE,---Yes it is. --they claim that there is no salvation outside their church and that their church is the only right one. --That's CORRECT. --i think history has shown enough how their church really is, --Yes, that's also correct. -- they also think that they can teach WHATEVER THEY WANT Absolutely not. Catholics are only taught what the holy apostles were taught by Jesus Christ. We are the Church of the APOSTLES. --and their EXCUSE FOR THIS --Wrong; Catholics don't make up excuses for what they were taught by Christ's Holy Church. --is that Jesus ESTABLISHED --WRONG, He FOUNDED THEIR --HIS !!!!!! Church;

--and gave them authority to teach whatever they want, NO-- Only what God reveals to the Church. --while Jesus never talked about their church.-- Blah blah blah blah. It's not ''their Church,'' but HIS CHURCH. The Holy Catholic Church. Get it through your THICK SKULL. Oh, shucks! I'm being cruel to this poor, ignorant kid. Forgive me, Dear Lord!!!!!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

"i think history has shown enough how their church really is"

sdqa--Why would you want to try and shake anyone's faith? I understand that yours has been and you have been well fed the propaganda of the Anti-Religion crowd in the educational system.

However, What I DO Know is that so many things that you have been taught by your family, Church and what you have read on these forums WILL slam you on the side of your head like a 2x4 that you WILL no longer be able to deny the Truth.

I would venture to say that if you ask anyone if they have ever heard something which made no sense at that time to them, but yet years (and I do mean years in some case) later out of the blue those words/writing/sayings click and ALL of the pieces begin to come together for them. And I truely believe this will be your fate as well.

But at least in the mean time don't try to rattle anyone on their religious beliefs. Please extend the respect of beliefs to others that you would like them to do for you.

As far as your statement at the top, I ask that you compile a list of ALL of the good things that the Catholic Church has accomplished, kind of a Ben Franklin list of Pro's and Con's and see which side wins.

Remember when it comes to Love there is True Love and there is False Love, and the False Love tries it's best to convince you it is true.

Thank You

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 06, 2005.

As far as your statement at the top, I ask that you compile a list of ALL of the good things that the Catholic Church has accomplished, kind of a Ben Franklin list of Pro's and Con's and see which side wins.

The problem here is sdqa has problems seeing what is good and what is not. We see God's Church defending against abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc. etc... and he, being taught by the spirit not of God, sees this as a bad thing.

Stop fighting God's Graces sdqa and start accepting them.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 06, 2005.

"If being a cooperator in the plan of salvation is the qualification for the term co-redeemer, then we are ALL co-redeemers."

True. But Mary is more so than we could ever be.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 12, 2005.

> "While acknowledging that Mary's acceptance of God's plan assured her a major role in the Lord's plan, it would not have prevented God's salvation, He would simply have found another vessel."

A: Well of course He would have! In which case it would then be correct to say that THAT woman played a unique and essential role in God's plan of salvation. Maybe God would have asked another woman to be His mother the very next year. Or maybe 300 years later. Or maybe 3,000 years later, in which case we would all be either Jewish or pagan.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2005.

Fr. Paul, why do you think Mary is more than we ever could be? I mean apart from the fact that only one woman could have and was chosen to bear and raise Jesus. But your statement seems to imply that she had some special nature that was above the rest of mankind and unachievable. If that's your implication, then I disagree.

All Christians, are called to be perfect as God is perfect and we're called to be conformed to the image of Christ. That's the standard we shoot for, not Mary. Some early church fathers wrote about some of Mary's known weaknesses (Augustine wrote that she was subject to vanity amongst some other venial sins). I'm not trying to get into the "sinless" debate cause I realize that officially, Mary's "sinlessness" as defined was not an achievement in holiness but a grace that covered her sins rather than prevented her from entering into sin (at least I think I said that right). Anyway, the point being that she wasn't more than what we could achieve. Jesus 'yes', because he was sinless and perfect in every way.

Paul M., the reason I made that statement is because I've read multiple times that the reason Mary should be called Co-Redeemer is because without her acceptance, salvation was impossible, that Jesus would not have been able to save us if it were't for Mary. I assumed it was a major plank in the Co-Redeemer platform. Sounds like you would disagree with that assertion.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 12, 2005.

With all deference to Father Paul, David;

What you're saying about Mary is absolutely wrong. Her sins were not covered by grace. She was conceived totally free of all sin. Her entire life was free of any stain of sin.

Not even venial sin; or vanity at all. She herself said she was only the handmaid of the Lord, and one of His lowly ones. You and other non- catholics are well-adised never to express ANY opinion about the Mother of God. You just don't understand, since most of you are bibliolaters.

Nevertheless, she is not our Co-Redeemer (Co-redemptrix.) that is overly stating her holiness and grace. Mary doesn't need that. We only have, and we never needed, more than One Redeemer. No one will ever ADD to Christ's work of Redemption, though a million saints co- operated.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2005.

"Mary should be called Co-Redeemer because without her acceptance, salvation was impossible, and Jesus would not have been able to save us if it were't for Mary."

A: That would be somewhat overstating the case. A more accurate statement would be: "Mary could be called Co-Redeemer because without her acceptance, salvation according to God's eternal plan was impossible, and Jesus would not have been able to save us according to God's eternal plan if it were't for Mary." That doesn't negate the possibility that at some later point in history, God, His eternal plan having been thwarted by Mary's refusal, would likely put an alternate plan into effect, thereby ultimately making salvation available to all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2005.

Eugene, If I'm wrong in believing that Mary was not sinless, then at least I have the company of several early church fathers, and 2 major doctors of the church, Augustine and Aquinas, and at least 7 Popes that I've encountered in their writings.

Paul M, sorry, but the subtlety of the distinction you've made is lost on me. I can't see any way that the statement, "without her acceptance, salvation according to God's eternal plan was impossible" can be true.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 12, 2005.

Are you serious? YOU think the early fathers give you a boost somehow? David-- My respect for you was expressed here once or twice, and I still respect you.

But nobody takes non-catholics' word unconditionally around here. Except in some ordinary biblical areas (Christ was born in Bethlehem). I don't intend to curse your eyes about this.

But give the Virgin Mary double caution as a subject for your disputes here. You discuss it at the next Protestant Round Table meeting. There it's acceptable.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2005.

My point in mentioning the Catholic references was to simply say that my belief is one that should be perfectly acceptable to hold and to discuss without seeming to insult Mary, which is not my intention at all. Augustine and Aquinas would never be accused of insulting Mary, yet they said the exact same thing I did. Such views should not be considered anti-Mary. I'm not the typical Protestant who might cross the line minimizing Mary in order to be completely anti-Catholic. That's not me and I know you know that Eugene. I'm not trying to push my limits with my hosts with such provative posts. Just trying to establish an honest dialogue, or at the least express an opinion that isn't intended to be hurtful.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 12, 2005.

One more thought, in my discussions among Protestants, I wind up rebuking them for their views of Mary which does often cross over into insults. You might not believe this, but 9 times out of 10, I end up arguing FOR the Catholic positions on many issues when discussing with Protestants. And even where I disagree with a Catholic position such as this one, I still argue for the Protestant to take the time to understand the Catholic position rather than exaggerate or misrepresent it and to at least consider it because it's often not as bad as they've been conditioned to believe.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 12, 2005.

>"I can't see any way that the statement, "without her acceptance, salvation according to God's eternal plan was impossible" can be true."

A: God's eternal plan was that His Son would become man at that specific time and place, through the cooperation of a specific woman - Mary. Like any of us, Mary could have thwarted God's plan by refusing to submit to it and cooperate in it. Her cooperation was therefore essential in order for God's plan to be brought to fruition. If she had refused, God would have had to alter His eternal plan.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2005.

When we get to see the words of these doctors on the subject, it will still be open to argument; since the dogma (ITSELF) of the Immaculate Conception is a modern one. This article of faith had already stood the test of time, as the Church teaches. Mary's Immaculate Conception verified dogmatically was a foregone conclusion because it was commonly believed since ages past. I wouldn't attempt to give a firm time- line, but you can be sure the Church considered every objection. Any doubts entertained once by Church Fathers is irrelevant. Only the pope speaking ex cathedra is irrefutable.

I myself can name one true testimonial, only it's anecdotal. That would be the words of Our Lady in person. Speaking in 1858 to Bernadette Soubirous. Needless to say, they place our trust in this dogma in a totally different context; faith in Marian apparitions. Add the word of Mary to ex cathedral teaching, however; it becomes indisputable.

What's more, Mary's apparitions at Lourdes were impossible to dismiss. A large number of extraordinary miracles are documented there over many years. All sustain the testimony of Saint Bernadette; to whom the Virgin Mary confided: ''I am the Immaculate Conception.''

I'd like to stress though; that even without these firm grounds for belief, the dogma is undeniable anyway. Rome has spoken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2005.

"...Paul, why do you think Mary is more than we ever could be?"

I can think of a couple, David. As a for instance, I couldn't stand to watch people scourge my son so badly that his flesh is hanging off him, and, get this: still love and have good intent for those doing the scourging. Not being angry about this, iow. And my son isn't the perfect Son of God either.

Mary's response to the will of God, Luke Chapter 1. It encompassed an implicit acceptance of all what was to happen afterwards, to the flight into Egypt to the prophecy of Simeon to the death and burial of her Son. She chose to suffer with Him, but it wasn't in red blood, but blue blood, unspilled in the veins, as in that which is to be preserved, while He sacrificed Himself and she looked on.

The very nature of the Fiat itself precludes anything of the goddess which people might imagine us to believe about her. She is paradigmatic of the perfect response of the soul of the created being to the will of God, and this mode of response is to be immitated, in opposition to the failings of Eve.

Does that make any sense?

You may want to check up on the Eastern Rites... you'll find that they never doubted the Immaculate Conception, and that the idea that it was universally doubted in the Universal Church isn't as universal as some may imagine.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.

Emerald, what you said about Mary and how she felt is pure speculation. Neither Mary nor anyone close to her ever wrote about such things. Never-the-less, none of what you wrote places her in the "beyond what we ever could be" category either. Highly admirable indeed and worthy of honor, but not necessarily unique or "beyond" human capacity - that is reserved for Jesus alone.

And I am very aware of the writings of the early church, and I know from what is written that the "Immaculate Conception" is not something they conceived of, not for centuries. In fact, their writings directly oppose the doctrine. That is fact.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 13, 2005.

''And I am very aware of the writings of the early church, and I know from what is written that the "Immaculate Conception" is not something they conceived of, not for centuries. In fact, their writings directly oppose the doctrine. That is fact.''

It wasn't the last word in any way. The apostles believed everything we've been taught, David. You call this argument speculation. Well, the early Fathers also had arguments and speculated.

But The Holy Spirit had long since safe-guarded the truth of Mary's conception FREE from sin, and her subsequent sinless virtues. So that the truth wasn't lost. We have this on the word of Jesus, who sent His Church our Advocate who would never allow us to accept what wasn't truth. (John 16, :12 to :15 . . . John 17, :18 to :20) He is the indisputable bulwark of all the Church's dogma. Not the musings of one or two men 350 years after Mary's lifetime.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2005.