Fact or Fiction; Scripture or Tradition?
The following is an examination of fifteen of the most often used arguments by Roman Catholic adherents in their defense of their near deification of Mary, (along with a brief response to each argument). Each of the pictures in this post can be clicked on to enlarge.
Argument 1). Mary was blessed among women: FACT
Mary was blessed, however, so is every Believer. To make the leap that because Mary was blessed she should receive the adoration/veneration/worship that she’s given is not Scripturally logical. In fact, Scripture records the way Jesus handled the first attempt to elevate Mary’s status. In Luke 11:27-28 a woman in the crowd tried to draw attention away from Christ and to Mary (what the RCC has perfected) but Jesus corrected her saying, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it. “ (Luke 11:27-28). Also, Mary wasn’t/isn’t the only person blessed. See the Sermon on the Mount for a list of others who are “blessed” (Matthew 5:3-11).
Argument 2). Mary is worthy of/deserves our adoration and veneration: FICTION
No human is worthy of any amount of veneration or worship because we are all sinners (Psalm 14:3, Romans 3:23); we are to worship God and serve Him only (Matthew 4:10); and God will not give His Glory to another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).
Argument 3). It is permissible and acceptable to pray to Mary: FICTION
Mary was a human being and suffered the wages of sin–death (Romans 6:23) like everyone else. Scripture prohibits contacting, seeking out, consulting, and/or praying to the dead (Deuteronomy 18:11). It is called necromancy and it detestable to God (Deuteronomy 18:9, 12). Additionally, spiritists, sorcerers, and mediums (who seek to contact the dead) are also condemned by God
Argument 4). By bowing down and praying to Mary, Catholics are not worshipping her, just venerating her. In fact it is also permissible to make statues of her and bow down to them too: FICTION
The “veneration” and bowing down to statues is forbidden. It does not matter what you want to call something to make it more palatable, what matters is what God calls it. We can trivialize sin all day long (humans do it all the time) but God has made His commands very clear. I urge you to review all the pictures in this post (click on them to enlarge) and compare what you see—not with what you think and feel—but with what has been revealed in God’s eternal Word. I recommend starting with the 1st and 2nd Commandments found in Exodus 20:4-5.
Argument 5). Mary pleads our case to Jesus who would listen to His mother above us: FICTION
This same Jesus that supposedly obeys Mary’s petitions is the same Jesus who when told by Mary that “they have no wine” replied, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (John 2:3-4). She then tells the servants to do whatever Jesus commands.
The Scriptures paint an entirely different picture of the Jesus that supposedly can’t understand us mere humans, thus requiring Mary’s petitions. Hebrews 2:17-18 shows us of a merciful Christ who—being made like man—is able to the come to our aid because He too experienced the same temptations we do. Furthermore, it is Jesus who is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2), not Mary.
Argument 6). Mary is our Mediatrix, our co-redeemer with Jesus: FICTION
This RCC concept didn’t even emerge until the proclamation from Pope Benedict XV in 1922. But the date of its introduction matters little in contrast to how utterly blasphemous it is to even suggest this, let alone teach as if it’s the truth of God. This idea is in direct violation of God’s Word; Jesus is our advocate (1 John 2:1-2) and “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .” (1 Timothy 2:5) not Mary.
Argument 7). Mary was conceived without sin: FICTION
The idea of the “Immaculate Conception” proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 has absolutely no foundation in the Scriptures. Even King David (a man after God’s own heart) proclaimed that He was conceived in sin and he was brought forth with iniquity (Psalm 51:5) just like every person ever born.
Argument 8). Mary remained sinless her entire life: FICTION
Those who say they have no sin are liars (1 John 1:8); no one does good, not even one (Psalm 14:3); each of us has turned to our own way (Isaiah 53:6); all have sinned (Romans 3:23). This includes Mary. There’s nothing found in Scripture to suggest otherwise. Anyone who claims Mary was sinless is basing this off of their opinion grounded in the purely mythical tradition of man.
Mary proved she was like everyone else (a sinner) when she brought her offering to the temple (Luke 2:24). This was a sin offering that Mary would not have been required to bring had she been sinless (Leviticus 5:11, 12:8). Mary also acknowledged that God was her Savior (Luke 1:47). A sinless person does not need a savior.
Argument 9). Mary remained a virgin her whole life (perpetual virginity): FICTION
This is not only beyond reason, but it is contradictory to the revealed Word of God, the holy Scriptures. Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born (Matthew 1:24-25). This means that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph no longer kept Mary a virgin. Mary and Joseph had other children, the half-brothers and half-sisters of the Messiah. This can be seen in Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 13:55-57, Mark 6:3-4, John 2:12, John 7:3, 5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19. (Before you say, “This was brothers and sisters in the Lord” I suggest you read the context of these passages.)
Additionally, Mary withholding sex from Joseph would have not been in accordance with God’s plans for mankind: “Be fruitful and multiply . . .” (Genesis 1:28); “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5).
Argument 10). Mary ascended into Heaven: FICTION
The assumption of Mary into Heaven wasn’t even introduced into the RCC until 1950 by then Pope Pius XII, and there is absolutely no Scriptural support for this, not even a hint of it in Scripture.
Argument 11). Mary was the greatest among all born evidenced by the fact that she was “chosen” by God to birth the Messiah: FICTION
If anyone was the greatest ever born it would have been John the Baptist, not Mary. Why? Because Jesus said so. Jesus declared of John the Baptist that of those born among women there is no one greater than John (Luke 7:28). Following the logic of the RCC which drives their adoration/veneration/worship of Mary, one would expect that their devotion to Mary would only be eclipsed by their devotion to John the Baptist, however, this is not the case.
Furthermore, the emphasis put on Mary by the RCC is grossly out of proportion to the emphasis she receives from the Bible. Mary–the earthly mother of Jesus– is never mentioned again in the Bible after Acts 1:14. This means that of the 27 books of the New Testament, only five of them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts) contain any reference to Mary. Not what one would expect when one looks at the current deification of her by the RCC. Even when one would expect to find her name among those mentioned in Hebrews 11, (commonly known as the great Hall of Faith), Mary and any reference to her is strangely absent.
Argument 12). Mary is the Queen of Heaven: FICTION
There is no Queen of Heaven. In fact, the only mention in Scripture of a “Queen of Heaven” (a false god) is in Jeremiah 7:18 in which those who are making cakes to her (and those pouring out drink offerings to other gods) will have the wrath of God poured out on them (Jeremiah 7:20).
Argument 13). Marian Apparitions are genuine and legitimate: FICTION
Again, no such teaching, example or precedent for this is found in the Scriptures. However, we are told “Marvel not, for even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).
Argument 14). Marian apparition messages are true and from God: FICTION
“You will never be alone. My immaculate heart will be your refuge and the way which will lead you to God.” – Mary Apparition in Fatima
“I alone am able to save you from the calamities that approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.” – Mary Apparition in Akita
“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my immaculate heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.” – Mary Apparition in Fatima
“. . . I call upon you to open yourselves completely to me so that through each of you I may be enabled to convert and save the world . . .” – Mary Apparition in Medjugorje
The messages of this entity claiming to be Mary ultimately lead people’s attention away from Christ and to herself (itself), not Christ. The Apostle Paul sought to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul warned us that if anyone, even an angel from Heaven, preached a gospel contrary to what was already preached, he/she/it is to be cursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
Argument 15). Roman Catholic Church (RCC) tradition has provided us the doctrines on Mary: FACT
This is true. The RCC consisting of sinful, fallible, fallen human beings has given the world these traditions of men, but the holy revealed Word of God—given to the prophets by inspiration and by which will never pass away—does not support these legends, myths, and downright heretical false doctrines.
Conclusion:
As noted above, Mary is never spoken of in the history of the Church or the letters (Epistles) to the Church (except in Acts 1:14 where a brief mention of her is made). Nowhere in all the instruction of conduct, examples of operation, and direction given to the early church for its operation and function is Mary ever mentioned, yet today you couldn’t walk into a Roman Catholic Church without bumping into something to do with Mary, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a member of the RCC that would deny Mary as being a pivotal or important part of their life in the mother church. This devotion and near-deification of Mary is something you cannot find anywhere in the early Church. The silence of the Scriptures alone speaks volumes against the RCC’s current obsession with Mary.
“For there is one God, and one mediator also
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .”
1 Timothy 2:5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See the following related posts:
Conversations with a nun in the unlikeliest of places
Mary-Virgin, Virtuous, not to be Vaulted above her position
Was the Apostle Peter the first pope?
The written Word of God and Roman Catholicism
Unmasking the pope and the Roman Catholic system
Great post, Pilgrim!
I’ve often commented, in the form of a question, is there any difference between this form of idolatry & the idolatry of laying offerings of food & incense before a statue of Buddha? Of course not!!! Idolatry is idolatry, no matter how you try & package it.
I like how you put this together! Well done.
Kudos Pilgrim!
How dare you trample on 5,000 years of Catholic tradition with your facts and your Scripture!!
(/sarc)
Yeah, I pretty much have given up on Ricky on that other thread. No matter how clear I tried to make it to Ricky, he just wouldn’t accept the fact that Tom was indeed offering up prayers to Mary, thus elevating her to the position that only Jesus deserves.
And as far as Jesus giving mary a throne to sit on, what was it He said? Matthew 20:23–”but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” So does
The Whore of BabylonRome believe that God the Father gave Mary a throne to sit on, to sit and cajole her boy into doing a better job of interceding?It is interesting how the RCC has built this whole story around Mary. A while back I was driving through the little community of Christmas, Florida with some RC relatives from out of town. I always get a kick at pointing out the cross streets; Blitzen, Cupid, Matthew, etc. We passed St Anne Street and I said “I don’t know who Saint Anne is or why she’s in Christmas, half sarcastically. My cousin snapped at me in the most harsh tone, “St Anne was Mary’s mother”. Well, surely I’d missed that one in Sunday school. As soon as we got home I went through all four gospels – - of course Mary’s mother’s name is not mentioned. St. Anne is yet another invention-legend of the RCC.
Great post!!!
A resounding Amen!!!!
Your “facts” leave a lot to be desired.
Argument 5 is not a belief of the church, neither is argument 6. Neither is argument 10 (only Jesus ascended under his own power, Mary was assumed, and this is one of the oldest beliefs in both the eastern and western churches, it was hardly “introduced” in 1950.)
The facts are that you did not honestly state Catholic positions, merely set up strawmen.
Dear Kenneth:
All right, to avoid any further hair splitting, allow me to be more clear regarding number 10:
Mary assumed/ascended/was raptured/ caught up/whisked away/taken up . . . etc.
Dictionary.com even defines “assumed” as: To take up or receive into heaven. Either way, the belief is that Mary did not die. Now I know that not all Catholics believe she didn’t die (or was “assumed” into Heaven) but there are many many who do. What do you believe about it?
Regarding numbers 5 and 6, you must keep in mind that although it may not be an official RCC teaching, there are many, many Catholics who whole heartedly believe in numbers 5 and 6. The RCC’s quiet stance equals, at the very least, their acceptance. If these two beliefs that are held by millions of Catholics worldwide are wrong/incorrect/erroneous/heretical to the RCC, then please provide me info where the RCC has denounced them.
I posted 15 of the most common arguments by Catholics for the near deification of Mary. You selected one in order to split hairs on the meaning of a word, and then took two others that millions of Catholics around the world hold dear as truth and claimed they’re not a belief of the RCC. This still leaves 12 arguments untouched.
Kenneth, I encourage you to again read the first paragraph to this post:
“The following is an examination of fifteen of the most often used arguments by Roman Catholic adherents in their defense of their near deification of Mary, (along with a brief response to each argument).”
This post is not alleging that the RCC is teaching every one of these arguments as an “official position.” However, not only has the RCC accepted (not rejected) these beliefs, but countless millions of Catholics around the globe do believe them.
If you still disagree I challenge you to go to one of these locations where a “Mary” apparition/visitation/appearance/sighting occurs. Then stand up on a box and tell the huge sea of idolaters that Mary does not plead their case to Jesus and that Mary is not the co-redeemer. You may not make it out alive.
Marian Apparition Quotes
Quote: I stand here as the Co-Redemptrix and Advocate. Everything should be concentrated on that. Repeat this after Me: The new dogma will be the “dogma of the Co-Redemptrix.
Apparition: Lady of all Nations
Status: Bishop approved. These are apparitions in which the local Bishop (Ordinary) has investigated the apparition and its message and given his seal of approval (Imprimatur). This means Catholics can (but are not required) to visit the apparition site and listen and obey the messages.
Source: Kunzli, p. 49. Message given to Ida Peerdeman on April 29, 1951.
Thank you for your comment.
Sincerely,
- The Pilgrim
Pilgrim,
To take your comment that “Regarding numbers 5 and 6, you must keep in mind that although it may not be an official RCC teaching, there are many, many Catholics who whole heartedly believe in numbers 5 and 6. The RCC’s quiet stance equals, at the very least, their acceptance. If these two beliefs that are held by millions of Catholics worldwide are wrong/incorrect/erroneous/heretical to the RCC, then please provide me info where the RCC has denounced them” a step further, and to their true end, this is one of the favorite tactics of the Romish church. Here’s what they do:
A doctrine begins to be developed within a certain faction of the church. It begins to grow in favor and popularity with the people and spreads. It is a doctrine that the Magisterium likes, but they don’t want to come right out and endorse it as official doctrine, so they will let it fester and grow and spread–all the while claiming they do not endorse the doctrine. After a long enough period of time elapses, and enough of the faithful have adopted the position, it is declared to be “Tradition.” And we all know Rome’s stance on “Tradition.”
(Kinda like how many Mormon teachings get their wings)
See, doing it this way gives them a good head start in finding some Scripture they can twist and finagle to their liking and build up arguments in favor of this false “Tradition,” and against what the Bible really says.
After all, we’re just a bunch of idiots that cannot understand what the Bible really means. We need a bunch of men in funny collars to tell us so they can bind us neck-and-heel to Rome.
Dear 4Pointer:
I also noticed in Kenneth’s comment that he used quotation marks around the word “facts.” He also called them “my facts” and said they left a lot to be desired.
His use of quotation marks around “facts” was an obvious attempt to convey to readers that he doesn’t believe they’re really truth.
These were not “my” facts at all, but quoted Scripture. And the most disturbing thing about his comment was his contention with Scripture! His use of “facts” as some form of defense for the RCC (against Scripture itself) reveals his contempt for the revealed word of God and the ingrained commonality of most Catholics who oppose Sola Scriptura. I wish it weren’t so, but sadly far too many Catholics oppose that. For it was the pure unadulterated reading of the word of God that brought me out of the word of faith background and set fire to my lukewarm Christianity.
- The Pilgrim
Perhaps Kenneth would like to discuss his beliefs with Richard Bennett over at Berean Beacon. I know just how Kenneth feels as I myself was a former Catholic who lived in bondage under the the mind power of that religion. It wasn’t until I took their teaching and compared it to the Truth of Scripture that I was finally able to have those chains fall off of my heart and soul and mind and find peace that passeth all understanding from God above. Please look into the Word of God, Kenneth. You will not find purgatory, limbo, mortal or venial sin, nor will you find Mary glorified. Let go of your pride. You only have eternal life to gain from studying the Bible. You can’t do anything to save your soul. Only God can save you. Seek and you will find the Truth,the Way,and the Life.
Also contending/defending. Visit us, pls, and comment.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
I believe that Mary either died or certainly gave the appearance of having died. We don’t know for sure, that is why the Catholic church has no real position on it and the Orthodox refer to it as merely her “dormition” (falling asleep). Regardless it was hardly “introduced in 1950″.
As for my ” around “facts”. You claim these are the most often used defenses of Mary by Catholics. But most of them I have never seen used.
The church does not have to denounce #5 because it is not a belief of the Church, the church has stated its belief, and people who believe otherwise are in contrary to the church. Also, the current Pope, while he was a Cardinal DID denounce the view of Mary as “Co-redemptrix”. That people may believe these is irrelevant as they are contrary to Catholic teaching.
If you want me to address the other 12, fine, give me some time and I will post a response on my blog.
Also, my use of quotes around “facts” does not in any way mean that I hold the Word of God in contempt. I love his sacred word and I read it daily. I DO, however, disagree with YOUR interpretation of it. And, by “your facts” I meant your 15 arguments and never the word of God.
Nurse Julie, thank you for your words, but rest assured I do read the Bible. I am not under any “mind control” any more than a Baptist or a Presbyterian is. I merely disagree with you.
The church does not have to denounce #5 because it is not a belief of the Church, the church has stated its belief, and people who believe otherwise are in contrary to the church. Also, the current Pope, while he was a Cardinal DID denounce the view of Mary as “Co-redemptrix”. That people may believe these is irrelevant as they are contrary to Catholic teaching.
You do know, of course, that if JPII had his way, you would be celebrating Mary as your Co-Redemptrix, don’t you? That his personal motto was “Totus Tuus ego sum Maria” (I am totally yours, MARY), and he had a large “M” carved on his casket as a memorial to this one he worshipped more highly than he did Christ?
Kenneth, do you pray the Rosary? Then I’m sure you’ve said the folloswing as the fifth “Glorious Mystery”:
1. As Mary enters heaven, the entire court of heaven greets with joy this masterpiece of God’s creation.
2. Mary is crowned by her divine Son as Queen of Heaven and Earth.
3. More than we can ever know the Hearts of Jesus and Mary overflow with joy at this reunion.
4. Only in heaven will we know the great majesty of that coronation, and the joy it gave to the angels and saints.
5. Even the angels, who by nature are greater than humans, hail Mary as their Queen.
6. Mary shares so fully in the glory of Christ because she shared so fully in his suffering.
7. From her throne, Our Mother dispenses love and peace to men.
8.The angels and saints longed for the coming of her whose heel crushes the head of the serpent.
9. Mary pleads our cause as a most powerful Queen and a most merciful and loving Mother.
10. A great sign appeared in heaven; A woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Did you notice #9?
I thought Popes always got their way? No, JPII never endorsed the notion of Mary as co-redeemer. As for the Popes motto? Read what it meant to him in his own words:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/POPE/HopeBook/chap32.html
I do say the Rosary, but not in that way. As a matter of fact, very few Catholics say it that way. You also left out the glorious mysteries having to do with Christ.
Also, I see #9. It does not say Mary pleads our case to the Father.
No, JPII never endorsed the notion of Mary as co-redeemer.
Are you sure about that?
(1) “As she was in a special way close to the cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”–Pope John Paul II, 1/31/1985 in Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Of course, he wasn’t the only one. (link)
Pope Pius XI:
(2) O Mother of love and mercy, when your sweet Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, you stood next to Him, suffering with Him as a Coredemptrix (Radio Message to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, L’Osservatore Romano (April 29-30 1935):l.)
Pius XII:
(3) We may also state that Our Lady was the beloved mother of Christ so that she might effectively become a participant [consors] in the redemption of the human race. (Ad Caeli Reginam, Oct. 11, 1954, AAS 46 (1954):634-635.)
John Paull II:
(4) The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception…finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her Son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; and there her Son entrusts her to us as our Mother….Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)…At Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church. (Address at Alborada, Guayaquil, Ecuador, January 31, 1985, ORE no. 876 (March 11, 1985).)
(5) May Mary our Protectress, the Co-redemptrix [la Corredentrice], to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer. (Palm Sunday Angelus address, March 31, 1985, ORE no. 880 (April 9, 1985)12: no. 2.).
So now you can see what these (and other) popes thought about Mary: she played as big a part inour redemption as did Jesus Christ. They can go on all day long about how this heresy “does not diminish the role of Christ” and they are dead wrong. ANYONE that tries to share in the act of redemption with Christ takes away from Christ, because HE IS THE ONE WHO DID IT ALL.
No one “helped Him” or “gave their consent” or anything like that. Jesus knew, from before the foundation of the world, that He was going to be slain for our sins. He did not need anybody to give their permission. HE LAID DOWN HIS OWN LIFE (John 10:18). No one shared in His redemption. And if Mary was crucified with Him, and this somehow made her a Co-Redemptrix (see JPII’s use of Galatians 2:20 in quote (5) above), then I am a Co-Mediator, because I too was “crucified with Christ.”
Kenneth, I am afraid you are wrong. The Catholic church DOES teach that Mary was a Co-Redemptrix! However, what they have disagreed on was whether she should also be called “Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate!”
JP2 made it very clear in his false teachings what he thought about Mary and her role as a co-redeemer of the souls of mankind.
For further info on Catholic teaching, you can find this at this site http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php of which there are 3 parts.
Very interesting reading, but still false teaching and therefore heresy and therefore once again to follow the dictates of Scripture – “Whoever preaches any other gospel than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
Serving the True God – NOT Mary,
The Desert Pastor
From a Catholic website endorsed by the Vatican – http://www.catholic.org – we read the following from the current pope –
“The Rosary is especially needed today, because it “helps us to place Christ at the center, as did the Virgin who meditated upon everything that was said about her Son and upon what He Himself did and said. When we recite the Rosary we relive important monuments of the history of salvation, we again go over the various stages of Christ’s mission. With Mary we turn our hearts to the mystery of Jesus.”
“The Holy Father called on the Blessed Mother to help us “welcome within ourselves the grace that emanates from these mysteries, so that through us this grace can ‘irrigate’ society, starting with our everyday relationships, purifying it from many negative forces and opening it to the novelty of God.”
“The Pontiff added that the Marian prayer can bring healing to the world. “The Rosary, when it is prayed in an authentic manner – not mechanically and superficially, but profoundly – brings peace and reconciliation. It contains the healing power of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, invoked with faith and love at the heart of each Hail Mary.”
All of this is very clear – sounds like worship TO Mary, prayers TO Mary, veneration TO Mary – all of which is blasphemy and takes away from the Lord Jesus Christ what belongs to HIM ALONE!
The Desert Pastor
Point 6 – “Mary shares so fully in the glory of Christ because she shared so fully in his suffering.”
What further proof do you need for the teaching of heresy by the man-made religion that heralds from the 7 hills of Rome?
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. His purpose was not to come in order to “love” everybody the way they were. He came to be the Sin-bearer of all who place their faith in Him alone, by grace through faith!
Sola Gracia, Sola Fide are doctrines the Catholic church denies and has killed, maimed and tortured thousands of true believers through the centuries for believing.
Mary could NEVER become any part of the Sin-bearer, nor could she even atone for her own sins and the totally depraved nature which resided in her as a child of the first Adam!
She too needed a Saviour, and suffice it to say that if she had never chosen to place her faith in the Only Begotten Son of God for her eternal life, then she like billions around this world who die without Christ would have spent eternity in hell!
Praying for all those blinded by heresy!
The Desert Pastor
Desert Pastor, I am afraid you are wrong, the Church does NOT teach that Mary is “Co-redemptrix”:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oXPjwTtWaJwC&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=ratzinger+%22co-redemptrix%22&source=web&ots=oY9fa9zIKW&sig=gedSHlrVL6M_Oh1Hg372XfcAZVc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
VOX POPULI MARIAE MEDIATRICI is not an “official Catholic organization”. They are in fact borderline heretics. Search around and you will find numerous criticisms of this group.
Also, you would do well to read that entire article, yes, it mentions Mary, but how she leads us TO Jesus.
Are you a parent? When your child hurts do you not hurt as well? You don’t think Mary suffered to watch her own son suffer and die a horrific death?
BTW, I don’t know the source of that list, I never even heard of it before today, but it is not official Catholic teaching.
No, JPII never endorsed the notion of Mary as co-redeemer.
Are you sure about that?
(1) “As she was in a special way close to the cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” (1/31/1985 speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador)
Here are some more quotes from other Popes through the years (link). Pius VII:
(2) We repose all our hope in the most Blessed Virgin…who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world;…in her,…the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her, who with her only-begotten Son is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world….Having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race….Appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth…she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains (Ineffabilis Deus, pp. 21-23.).
Pope Leo XIII:
(3) [Through the Rosary] we recall Mary’s exceptional merits by which she became a participant [facta est particeps] with her Son Jesus in the Redemption of mankind….She was not only present [non adfuit tantum] in the mysteries of our Redemption, but she played a part in them [interfuit]. In this way the all-powerful Virgin Mother, who once cooperated lovingly in the birth of the faithful in the Church, is also the means [media] and the agent [sequestra] of our salvation to the extent of bringing us back to Jesus Christ, “who is able to save forever all who come to God through Him” (Parta humano generi, September 8, 1901, ASS 34 (1901-1902): 194-195.)
Pius XI:
(4) O Mother of love and mercy, when your sweet Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, you stood next to Him, suffering with Him as a Coredemptrix….Day by day preserve and increase in us, we beg you, the precious fruit of His redemption and your compassion as His Mother. (Radio Message to Lourdes, April 28, 1935, L’Osservatore Romano (April 29-30 1935):l.)
John Paul II:
(5) The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception…finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her Son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; and there her Son entrusts her to us as our Mother….Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)…At Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church (Address at Alborada, Guayaquil, Ecuador, January 31, 1985, ORE no. 876 (March 11, 1985).).
(6) May Mary our Protectress, the Co-redemptrix [la Corredentrice], to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer. (Palm Sunday Angelus address, March 31, 1985, ORE no. 880 (April 9, 1985)12: no. 2.)
These men can say how their adoration of Mary and their inclusion of her in the redemption doesn’t take away from Christ’s work all they want. Fact of the matter is, it does. Because any doctrine that says that anyone besides Christ had anything to do with our salvation takes away from Christ’s work because HE DID IT ALL!
And if Mary was somehow a “Co-Redemptrix” because she “shared in His death” (see JPII’s quote (5) above)—a quite twisted reading of Galatians 2:20 if I ever saw one—then I am also a Co-Mediator because I too was “crucified with Christ.”
He knew before the foundation of the world that He would go up that hill. No one needed Mary’s permission to do anything. All those things that happened that brought about Christ’s crucifixion were the will of God, not the consent of Mary. He did not need anyone’s permission. No one had to give their assent. HE GAVE HIMSELF FOR US (John 10:15-18).
John Paul II devoted his life to Mary, worshipping her to the same extent he “worshipped” Christ. No two ways about it.
We’re saved by the BLOOD of Christ, not the suffering of His mother.
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 1, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Father Georges Cottier, theologian of the Papal Household, delivered this address during a world videoconference on “Mariology from Vatican Council II Until Today,” held Wednesday by the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy (www.clerus.org).
Quote from that address –
The Council´s text, which we have quoted, strongly emphasizes this: Beneath the cross, Mary suffers deeply with her only born Son, she joins in his sacrifice with maternal love; lovingly consenting the immolation of the victim generated by her: What could these words mean if not that Mary plays an active role in the mystery of the Passion and the work of the Redemption?
The Council itself clarifies this: The divine Redemptor´s mother was “above all others and in a singular way the generous associate. … She … was united with him by compassion as he died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace” (No. 61). “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.” For this reason “the Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix” (No. 62).”
*************
“she joins in his sacrifice with maternal love; lovingly consenting the immolation of the victim…..”
For the reader this is directly from someone who is part of the papal household!
And yet more quotes from Catholic websites!!!
“By the titles of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, the Roman Catholic Church means that salvation for everyone would be obtained through Mary, and not directly from Jesus Christ. While this is in fact already taught by the Catholic Church, and has been for many years, it is not yet formally defined as binding dogma, though some Catholics feel it has already achieved that status. Here are examples of this teaching, the first two are papal encyclicals:
5. If in all this series of Mysteries, Venerable Brethren, are developed the counsels of God in regard to us — “counsels of wisdom and of tenderness” (St. Bernard) — not less apparent is the greatness of the benefits for which we are debtors to the Virgin Mother. No man can meditate upon these without feeling a new awakening in his heart of confidence that he will certainly obtain through Mary the fullness of the mercies of God. And to this end vocal prayer chimes well with the Mysteries. First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord’s Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”
By pope Pius XII –
“our souls were redeemed by the blood and sorrows of the Redeemer and by those of His Virgin Mother”, − “… anime redente dal sangue e dai dolori del Redentore e della sua Vergine Madre.”
Source: American Ecclesiastical Review, volume CXXI, number 5, Nov. 1949, 360.
One more for now – pope JP2 in an encyclical from March 1987 stated –
Mary’s work was to be our co-redemptress, and to mediate for us together with Christ, but of course in subordination to Him. He is the one principle Mediator to whom we owe all. Do not be disturbed by this association of Mary with the redemptive work of Christ. If all Christians are members of Christ, and are called upon, as St. Paul says, to fill up what is wanting to the suffering of Christ, then you can be sure that as Mary, His Mother, was more closely associated with Christ than we are, so she is more closely associated with His redemptive work. By a special title, therefore, we call her co-redemptress. We call her “Our life, or sweetness, and our hope.” For, in bringing forth Christ she brought forth us to life, she is the model of every virtue, and above all should be the glory of all women; and she is our hope as Eve was our despair. All this tells us what she is for. She is our spiritual Mother in heaven, and she fulfills the duties of a Mother, winning for us by her intercession that grace of Christ which is life to our souls and which, please God, will mean eternal life in the end.”
************
It is hard to argue with the facts of a religion that has its true foundation in the mother/child religion begun by Nimrod and his mother/wife Seramis! The similarities are not coincidental, and knowledge is damning to those who remain trapped in the idolatry of Rome!
Kenneth, I am sorry that you feel you must defend the church to which you belong. These quotes and comments are not meant as a personal attack against you, but against a religion that has been the degradation of millions and is not a true provider of hope that is only found in and through Jesus Christ ALONE, by grace through faith, apart from any sacraments OR works!
The Desert Pastor
High-five Desert Pastor.
Kenneth, I really hope that you will at least consider correspondance with Richard Bennett at Berean Beacon. He was a Catholic Priest for 22yrs. He will tell you the truth about the history of the Catholic Church. You will hear it straight “from the horse’s mouth” (Sorry, Richard, no offense intended). I can’t think of anyone more qualified to share with you than this former Catholic Priest. I hope all of the info thrown at you does not harden your heart. I will pray for you to be tender hearted and become consumed with His holy Word.
This is far more than I could ever respond to, so I will just lay out some simple facts:
1. Catholics do NOT worship Mary
2. Catholics do NOT believe Mary is any way equal to and especially not superior to Jesus.
3. Mary is not now, nor will she ever be considered a “co-redeemer” with Jesus.
4. Catholicism has nothing to do with ancient babylonian, egyptian, Greek or Roman religions.
Nurse Julie, I have no doubt you are sincere. But rest assured, I am consumed with His Holy Word. But, I am not interested in Mr. Bennetts version of the truth. I have read the items at his website and am not impressed.
http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html
If you go to the link Bill has provided it will take you to a page that is filled with what are supposedly proof-texts that Luther and Calvin and Zwingli were Mariolaters.
However, if you want some schaolarly discussion on what these men were actually saying, you can check out the following links:
Luther and the assumption of Mary
More on Luther and Mary
John Calvin’s supposed Mariolatry
Did Luther pray to Mary?
A quiz on Luther for Catholics
What many in the Romish system neglect to tell you, when quoting Luther, is when he said certain things. Did he say them while still in this system? Was it as he was coming out of her? If you had talked to me 20 years ago, I would have told you that a woman has every right to an abortion, and what is growing inside her is not a child. Back in the 90’s I grew a brain and realized that abortion is murder. So, if someone wanted to try hard enough, they could bring up something I said before I changed positions to make it look like I support abortion. That is what Catholics like to do with Luther.
Very well thought out! Also, very Scripturally sound! well done!
Very well done Pilgrim! said in a John Wayne type voice.
Kenneth,
I feel for you, my friend and Brother in Christ. Pilgrim, I also feel for you my friend and Brother in Christ. Instead of trying to explain and defend the Catholic position regarding Mary, I would like to instead share an article written by a Catholic Convert on how to explain the Catholic position regarding Mary.
I hope that you have a chance to read it.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea3.asp
I apologize for posting this same long letter again (you will find it on another post on Romanism from earlier today), but I found it to be a very good reminder of the foundation on which Catholics stand. In my opinion, the foundation of the allegorists is one of sinking sand, and such foundations are sure to create a “language barrier”:
Roman Catholic Allegorism
It is true to say that, for the most part, Scriptural interpretation of the Middle Ages was allegorical. The Roman Catholic Church has maintained the validity of the allegorical method, though there is evidence that later on, some of their scholars saw the excesses that resulted from this Patristic theology, and were prepared to admit the importance of the literal meaning of Scripture. Roman Catholics accept the Latin Vulgate translation if Jerome as the authentic version for public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions. This church thus puts itself into the awkward position of basing its doctrines on a translation instead of the original languages of Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. This is a great weakness, for no one translation, however good, can adequately set forth the truth of the original.
Moreover the Roman Catholic expositor is forced to accept obediently whatever the church specifically decrees on the authorship of the books of the Bible, and some twenty verses have been officially interpreted and may not be deviated from. Actually the number is more than this, because many of the official documents require definite interpretation of certain verses. Roman Catholic exegesis became summed up during the Middle Ages in three rules:
1) A passage may have an allegorical or mystical meaning.
2) It may have an anagogical or eschatological meaning, that is, it may prefigure or anticipate the church in glory.
3) It may have a tropological meaning, that is, teach a way of life, or in other words, convey the moral significance of the passage.
With its often excessive usage of types, the Roman Catholic diverges from the Protestant. Thus the manna in the wilderness, the Passover, the bread and wine of Melchizedec are made types of the Eucharist, this ignoring the controlling guide of N.T. usage. Such expositions can never be accepted by the honest searcher for truth. It is reading into Scripture what is not there, and is the fruit of the allegorical method of interpretation, which is used to bolster up this sacramental and sacerdotal approach to the Bible. Further, the Roman Catholic believes that to his church alone has been entrusted the Deposit of Truth in a two-fold form, 1) the oral form (tradition) and 2) the written form (the Scriptures), and the written form, the Bible, is obscure and needs an official interpreter, which must be the Church of Rome, to whom alone, he believes, it has been given by God. To him the oral tradition is of equal authority with the Word of God because he believes that both have come from God, and are complimentary.
Furthermore, no passage of Scripture can be interpreted to conflict with the Roman Catholic doctrine. It is therefore obvious that the Protestant expositor is always at a disadvantage when disputing on doctrinal matters with a Roman Catholic. Whereas the former will take his stand solely on God’s Word, the latter can always retreat and bring in his oral tradition, which he believes to be as much God’s truth as the Bible. The more one studies the Roman Catholic position, the more one is thankful for the great liberating effect of the Reformation. Believers today have largely forgotten what they owe God for this great movement: freedom of conscience, and approach to Him through the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and no through any human sacerdotal system with its inevitable bondage.
-The Interpretation of Scripture – Stuart Allen, London 1967
Sola Scriptura!!