Can someone explain Catholicism to me ?!?!?!

[jason]

Ok the thread title is a little misleading but I need some help figuring something out in regards to RC's and the range of beliefs. Perhaps my confusion stems from the fact that I am a protestant and we have a more homogenous church body, but anyway.

I am confused because I get such conflicting messages about the nature of Catholicism, and I just don't get it.

For example, I listen to George Pell (Local Aussie Cardinal, might be the next Pope) or Raymond Burke (is that the Cardinal ?) and they seem like resonably orthodox Christians. I listen to someone like Peter Kreeft (Catholic Theologian who was originall a Protestant) and he doesn't sound that different to a Protestant in terms of theology. JP2 i'm not so sure because of the Mary thing, but again seems reasonably orthodox even if I don't entirely agree with him.

But then I here stories like the following from a missionary I know in Slovenia. Note, he might be mistaken about what he is reporting, but he would not lie about it so nobody accuse him of that please (Hopefully I never needed to say that).

He has a picture of Mary standing over a tomb with bars in front of it with a dead Jesus inside. The story he reported went on to say that apparently the explanation behind the statue was that salvation was acheived when mary's heart broke watching her son on the Cross. What ?!!?!? :huh:

Now he might be mistaken, but it is certianly a weird statue and I do trust him to report accurately the story he was told.

Also you hear stories about mary being Co-Redemptrix and so on, which might be a misunderstanding of terms but sound pretty much like outright heresy to me.

Can someone explain to me what is the deal with all this sort of thing ? As I just don't get it. Some RC's seems like orthodox Christians and some seem like heretical loonies that make the Gnostics look entirely orthodox.

I just don't get it ?

Note I would like to apologise to anyone who is offeneded by anything I said. If you are offended then I ask your forgiveness, chalk it up to an error on the part of a poor confuse Protestant.

Jason

[Jawa Man]

Mary participates in our salvation by praying for us, and most importantly, by bearing the Son of God. If she didn't give birth to Him, Christ would not be man. She was really a cog in the wheel.

[jason]

Mary participates in our salvation by praying for us, and most importantly, by bearing the Son of God. If she didn't give birth to Him, Christ would not be man. She was really a cog in the wheel.
But this does not explain the whole Slovenian statue.

I can agree with that assessment of Mary, no problem there, but the rest is out to lunch.

What is the go with things like that ?

Jason

[spl_cadet]

That Slovenian statue thing sounds nuts to me. Certainly would be heretical if that story is true. Peter Kreeft, incidentally, would be someone to avoid for orthodox theology. He's got some screwy notions.

[Paul]

For example, I listen to George Pell (Local Aussie Cardinal, might be the next Pope) or Raymond Burke (is that the Cardinal ?) and they seem like resonably orthodox Christians.

Raymond Burke is not a Cardinal. Cardinal is not a real, sacramental title, but essentially an honourary one which carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. One does need to be a cleric to be a Cardinal and ordinarily one would need to be a bishop to be a Cardinal.


I listen to someone like Peter Kreeft (Catholic Theologian who was originall a Protestant) and he doesn't sound that different to a Protestant in terms of theology. JP2 i'm not so sure because of the Mary thing, but again seems reasonably orthodox even if I don't entirely agree with him.

I wouldn't say that Peter Kreeft is less devoted to Mary than JP2 was. Peter Kreeft for instance has written of how it was not only Jesus' blood but also Mary's blood that was shed on the Cross. IIRC, his reasoning was that Jesus blood was also Mary's blood since they are related by blood. Also in the same sense it was the blood of the human race since we are all through Adam and Eve related to Mary, whose blood as Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross.


He has a picture of Mary standing over a tomb with bars in front of it with a dead Jesus inside. The story he reported went on to say that apparently the explanation behind the statue was that salvation was acheived when mary's heart broke watching her son on the Cross. What ?!!?!? :huh:

This would be the Coredemption which I will explain more fully and accurately below. You can read about it here:

www.voxpopuli.org (http://www.voxpopuli.org/)

and also at:

www.marymediatrix.com (http://www.marymediatrix.com/)

A collection of quotations from the magisterium on the coredemption can be found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3a.htm

But one ought to examine the 1st or 2nd link to get a fuller idea.

When speaking of the Coredemption it is important to have our terminology well defined and understood. We can speak of redemption in two senses: objective and subjective.

Subjective redemption is the economy of salvation by which grace is poured into men's hearts and men are brought to their final end with God in heaven and the world to come. All the angels and saints in heaven and also saints on earth co-operate in one way or another, to one extent or another, in this subjective redemption. In terms of the subjective redemption, Mary's role differs from ours only in the means by which she co-operates and the extent to which she co-operates. As our spiritual mother per scripture, she co-operates with every grace that God gives to us. Thus she is the Mediatrix of all graces in that sense.

Objective redemption OTOH is the actually "buying back" of the human race from the curse of sin and dominion of the devil. Unlike the subjective redemption, this is something that only Mary participated in, together with Jesus. God since He is absolutely sovereign and absolutely free could have chosen to forgive the debt of honor that the human race owed to Him without any Cross or any other suffering. He is God. He could have wiped away our debt by a sheer act of His will. However, in his Wisdom, He chose to involve members of the human race in the objective redemption. As both a man and a woman were involved in the fall of the human race, it was only fitting to involve both a man and a woman in the redemption of the human race. He could have done it with just the God-man Jesus Christ. But in His Wisdom, He chose to also involve a woman. Involving a woman far from taking away from the glory of God, instead shows forth His generosity and inscrutable wisdom.

The precise way in which God involved a woman in the objective redemption has not been solemnly defined by the Church. Some theologians -- including a Saint and Pope -- have said that Mary merited de congruo what Jesus merited de condigno:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye5.htm

The meaning of "de congruo" versus "de condigno" is explained at the bottom of the link above.

Other theologians on the other hand have claimed that both Jesus and Mary merited de condigno as a single redemptive personality in an alliance of the two Hearts. I happen to believe in this claim very strongly. A great exposition of this can be read here:

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

Still other theologians have suggested that a new kind of merit called de digno which would be in between de condigno and de congruo be used to describe the way in which Mary, together with Christ, merited our redemption.

So until there is a solemn definition, theologians may disagree with each other as to the precise way in which Mary participated in the objective redemption.

[Jude3b]

Ok the thread title is a little misleading but I need some help figuring something out in regards to RC's and the range of beliefs. Perhaps my confusion stems from the fact that I am a protestant and we have a more homogenous church body, but anyway.

I am confused because I get such conflicting messages about the nature of Catholicism, and I just don't get it.

For example, I listen to George Pell (Local Aussie Cardinal, might be the next Pope) or Raymond Burke (is that the Cardinal ?) and they seem like resonably orthodox Christians. I listen to someone like Peter Kreeft (Catholic Theologian who was originall a Protestant) and he doesn't sound that different to a Protestant in terms of theology. JP2 i'm not so sure because of the Mary thing, but again seems reasonably orthodox even if I don't entirely agree with him.

But then I here stories like the following from a missionary I know in Slovenia. Note, he might be mistaken about what he is reporting, but he would not lie about it so nobody accuse him of that please (Hopefully I never needed to say that).

He has a picture of Mary standing over a tomb with bars in front of it with a dead Jesus inside. The story he reported went on to say that apparently the explanation behind the statue was that salvation was acheived when mary's heart broke watching her son on the Cross. What ?!!?!? :huh:

Now he might be mistaken, but it is certianly a weird statue and I do trust him to report accurately the story he was told.

Also you hear stories about mary being Co-Redemptrix and so on, which might be a misunderstanding of terms but sound pretty much like outright heresy to me.

Can someone explain to me what is the deal with all this sort of thing ? As I just don't get it. Some RC's seems like orthodox Christians and some seem like heretical loonies that make the Gnostics look entirely orthodox.

I just don't get it ?

Note I would like to apologise to anyone who is offeneded by anything I said. If you are offended then I ask your forgiveness, chalk it up to an error on the part of a poor confuse Protestant.

Jason

Dear Jason:

If you are a truly saved born-again child of God (i.e. Christian) - you will only be able to understand the cultic practices of Roman Catholicism, if you consider the fact that it is Satanic in origin. It is not a "Christian" faith - but an apostate religious organization - which pretends to be "Christian."

Harsh words I know. Please allow this ex-Roman Catholic of 27 years to explain.

You know Jason, the New Testament sets forth the truth respecting the church as clearly as it does any other subject. The introduction to this subject is found in the words of Jesus, "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (matt. 16:18).

Did Christ build His church? Yes, He did. Throughout the New Testament we read about it - "Unto the church of God at..." etc., etc. Christ built His church and this church came into fullness on the day of Pentecost. It is the very church of God - the body of Christ. This church, the one true church is made up of every true Christian that has ever lived and is alive now or yet to be born. It is the body of Christ - God's church.

The apostolic body of Christ - God's church was persecuted from the day it began. Satan used religious leaders and the Roman government to attack and kill Christians by the thousands and thousands. Every time Satan would have a Christian killed - God would get a bunch more saved and the church grew daily (see Acts 2:47). This obviously was quite frustrating to old Satan. Eventually he found out that he could not destroy the church of God - the body of Christ - by killing off its membership. SO, HE DECIDED TO JOIN THE CHURCH.

Satan created "religion" way back in the Garden of Eden and he knew that this was his number one way to deceive people. So, He infiltrated the church of God - the body of Christ and helped Christianity to become a religion. That religion is Roman Catholicism. When you look at the abberant doctrines and cultic practices of this religion - you must look at them with the knowledge that most of them are Satanic in origin - in order to understand how come Romanism and Paganism could form itself into on relgion known as Roman Catholicism.

That is the only way to ever understand why Romanism teaches that Salvation is through their church, plus religious good works (sacramentalism).
That is the only way to understand their worship of "another Jesus" the WAFER god of Romanism during the so-called "Mass" - transubstantiation. That is the only way you can comprehend salvation in Mary (Maryolatry) and her being a "perpetual virgin, the Eucharist preserving one from Sin and goofy doctrines like purgatory, praying to saints (statues), etc.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Raymond Burke is not a Cardinal. Cardinal is not a real, sacramental title, but essentially an honourary one which carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. One does need to be a cleric to be a Cardinal and ordinarily one would need to be a bishop to be a Cardinal.



I wouldn't say that Peter Kreeft is less devoted to Mary than JP2 was. Peter Kreeft for instance has written of how it was not only Jesus' blood but also Mary's blood that was shed on the Cross. IIRC, his reasoning was that Jesus blood was also Mary's blood since they are related by blood. Also in the same sense it was the blood of the human race since we are all through Adam and Eve related to Mary, whose blood as Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross.



This would be the Coredemption which I will explain more fully and accurately below. You can read about it here:

www.voxpopuli.org (http://www.voxpopuli.org/)

and also at:

www.marymediatrix.com (http://www.marymediatrix.com/)

A collection of quotations from the magisterium on the coredemption can be found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3a.htm

But one ought to examine the 1st or 2nd link to get a fuller idea.

When speaking of the Coredemption it is important to have our terminology well defined and understood. We can speak of redemption in two senses: objective and subjective.

Subjective redemption is the economy of salvation by which grace is poured into men's hearts and men are brought to their final end with God in heaven and the world to come. All the angels and saints in heaven and also saints on earth co-operate in one way or another, to one extent or another, in this subjective redemption. In terms of the subjective redemption, Mary's role differs from ours only in the means by which she co-operates and the extent to which she co-operates. As our spiritual mother per scripture, she co-operates with every grace that God gives to us. Thus she is the Mediatrix of all graces in that sense.

Objective redemption OTOH is the actually "buying back" of the human race from the curse of sin and dominion of the devil. Unlike the subjective redemption, this is something that only Mary participated in, together with Jesus. God since He is absolutely sovereign and absolutely free could have chosen to forgive the debt of honor that the human race owed to Him without any Cross or any other suffering. He is God. He could have wiped away our debt by a sheer act of His will. However, in his Wisdom, He chose to involve members of the human race in the objective redemption. As both a man and a woman were involved in the fall of the human race, it was only fitting to involve both a man and a woman in the redemption of the human race. He could have done it with just the God-man Jesus Christ. But in His Wisdom, He chose to also involve a woman. Involving a woman far from taking away from the glory of God, instead shows forth His generosity and inscrutable wisdom.

The precise way in which God involved a woman in the objective redemption has not been solemnly defined by the Church. Some theologians -- including a Saint and Pope -- have said that Mary merited de congruo what Jesus merited de condigno:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye5.htm

The meaning of "de congruo" versus "de condigno" is explained at the bottom of the link above.

Other theologians on the other hand have claimed that both Jesus and Mary merited de condigno as a single redemptive personality in an alliance of the two Hearts. I happen to believe in this claim very strongly. A great exposition of this can be read here:

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

Still other theologians have suggested that a new kind of merit called de digno which would be in between de condigno and de congruo be used to describe the way in which Mary, together with Christ, merited our redemption.

So until there is a solemn definition, theologians may disagree with each other as to the precise way in which Mary participated in the objective redemption.


I am sorry but this is very disturbing and not taught anywhere in the Bible.

There is one mediator between God and man. That cannot be shared.

[spl_cadet]

There is one mediator between God and man. That cannot be shared.

Subject to the understanding that individuals can intercede for one another through prayer, I and the Church agree with you. We can offer up our sufferings in union with Christ however (though they are not efficiacious for anyone's salvation). Because Mary did this so much more than us, she is called the co-redemptrix (co meaning nothing more than fellow worker, as the mailman and CEO are co-workers but not equals).

Those who assert that Mary actually merited the salvation of others or that her sufferings helped redeem the human race anymore than a prayer of mine helps to save another are guilty of crack-induced theology imho.

[Paul]

I am sorry but this is very disturbing and not taught anywhere in the Bible.

There is one mediator between God and man. That cannot be shared.

Let me quote from the paper I linked to by Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI. First the nature of the objection:

Those who minimize or indeed deny outright the revealed status of the truth of the Coredemption almost always do so by citing St. Paul in his first letter to Timothy:

Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator (mesites) Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui dedit redemptionem (antilutron) semet ipsum pro omnibus...

This text clearly defines mediation in reference to the central act by which it is accomplished, viz., the redemption, or Christ's self-giving (self-sacrifice) to save us from sin and so take us to heaven from this earthly exile and imprisonment, as one pays a ransom to purchase another (cf. I Pet 3,18) and so free him from slavery.

The adversaries assume that if our Lady is to merit the title Mediatrix and to enjoy an active, direct role in the redemptive work as Coredemptrix, then it must be shown how such mediation does not detract from the unicity and sufficiency of the one Mediator's work.

The central objection has a positive and negative formulation, but the conclusion is always the same: the redemption is only possible if Christ alone, to the exclusion of all others, including Mary, is Mediator-Redeemer. The positive formulation argues from the divine perfection of Christ: any co-redeemer would detract from the sufficiency of His work. The negative formulation argues from the infinite offense of sin: only a divine Redeemer is capable of satisfaction for sin. Both formulations have been utilized to bolster the classical Protestant (and in Catholic circles Jansenist and/or modernist inspired) soteriology of Christus solus. . . .

And here is one approach to meet the objection, with explanation as to why the objection is based on a flawed understanding of Christ as the one Mediator.


Two approaches in modern times have been adopted to meet the objection: if Mary is Coredemptrix, what in fact does she actively contribute to the redemptive sacrifice at the moment of its historic consummation; what, indeed, can she, if that supreme priestly act is to remain uniquely Christ's and thereby all sufficient?

a. The first approach concedes the assumption of the critics and minimalizers, viz., that the contribution of Mary is somehow alongside the work of satisfaction of Christ, but without detracting from its unicity and sufficiency, because not coordinated with it, but subordinated to it. More frequently, theologians distinguish the merit of the Coredemptrix from that of the Redeemer by describing the latter as "de condigno," and the former as "de congruo," although some Scotists would develop the Bonaventurian concept of merit "de digno" as a subordinate form of condign rather than congruent merit: relative, however, rather than absolute.

Recently, Fr. Galot has remarked how pointless it is to affirm that Christ merited all grace for us condignly and then affirm that Mary does the same congruently. This is to define the coredemption simply as a duplicate, a "carbon-copy," of the redemption, or better to conceive of both as numerical instances of a single genus: mediation. Fr. Galot's point is well taken and helps us to perceive the difficulty of so many who cannot grasp why the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ's mediation does not eo ipso exclude various degrees of participation in that work. It is the difficulty of those who think that the distinction of divine persons compromises the unity and infinity of God, or that the second procession of the Holy Spirit implies the insufficiency of that of the Son.

In fact, the "one Mediator" is not the most perfect as the highest in a series of numerical instances. As the incomparably perfect and sufficient Mediator, he is the primary source of all grace. For that reason his mediation admits of degrees of participation, the highest of which is based on "preservative redemption," whose characteristic features are exemption from all taint of original sin from the first moment of conception and the fullest active cooperation in the work of redemption from the conception of the Savior to his exaltation on the cross and his glorification in his body, the Church. . . .

The foundations of another, better approach:


And so, it is still worthwhile to consider the point of departure associated with the names of Msgr. Lebon of Louvain and Fr. Charles Balic, and in a particular way with St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, viz., to consider our Lady, as that Saint put it, included within the one redemptive work of Christ, rather than as one alongside him, in some way a potential threat to the unicity of his mediation. Curiously, notwithstanding a certain thrust of his article in this very direction, Fr. Galot considers this approach very dubious, because it seems to obscure the position of Christ as one Mediator, and to make of our Lady a redemptress on a par with the Redeemer.

Now this is to fail to take account of a very important observation of Fr. Balic and an even profounder insight of St. Maximilian. Admittedly, the exposition of Msgr. Lebon lends itself to such criticism, for it appears to define or at least does not state clearly why one should not use the con-causal model to define the relation of Christ and Mary in the one work of redemption.

But the Louvain theologian's exposition is neither complete, nor as is commonly thought original. It was a kind of relaunching of a tradition overlooked for the most part in the discussion of this central theme of mariological study in our day, viz., the Franciscan tradition as developed and expounded by such great Franciscan Scotists as Angelo Vulpes in the 17th and Carlos del Moral in the 18th centuries. It is an exposition which stresses the absolute predestination of Christ and Mary in one and the same decree and which, with Bl. John Duns Scotus, finds in the absolute primacy of Christ and Mary the reason for calling this way of redeeming and saving us the most perfect of all divine options, one in which Mary, preserved from all taint of original sin in virtue of the foreseen merits of her Son and Savior, is the perfect fruit of a perfect redemption by a perfect Redeemer.

Thereby, in a felicitous comment of St. Maximilian on the Marian antiphon for the office of the Passion composed by St. Francis, Mary becomes, not merely by sanctifying grace, but by the grace of the Immaculate Conception, firstborn daughter of the Father, Mother of his Son and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her preservative redemption is the means of our liberation, because thereby she can be the Mother of the Redeemer at the Incarnation and our Mother as Coredemptrix, because our liberation from sin on Calvary is effected by her preservation, which there means coredemption. In a word: the one mediation of I Tim 2.5-6 includes both Redeemer and Coredemptrix of Jn 19,25-27, and is so reflected in the address of Jesus when he calls his Mother "Woman," viz., the Woman of Gen 3,15 or Coredemptrix and identifies her, therefore, to John as Mother. The spiritual maternity is rooted in the coredemption as the distinctive feature of a perfect Redemption by a perfect Redeemer, viz., the Incarnate Son of God via the virginal maternity.

This is but to elaborate the well-known axiom of St. Bonaventure: the mode of the Incarnation is Marian, not only in its first moment, but in every moment, above all the last. That is why our actual redemption is the most perfect one possible in any possible world.

If Mary pertains intrinsically to the order of the hypostatic union, it is only logical to suggest with del Moral that she pertains intrinsically, as does no other person, to the order of his headship. The appropriateness of Del Moral's term "co-headship" (with Christ over the Church) may be argued, for according to some it implies an erroneous coordination of Mary with Christ. But whether this term or some other is employed, his essential point is valid: with Christ and under Christ Mary forms, in virtue of their joint predestination, a single redemptive personality. Hence, like him, she is a public person, viz., one capable of meriting not only for herself, but for others "de condigno." And if that merit is redemptive, she is Coredemptrix.We want to stress: Mary pertains in this unique way to the redemptive order in such wise as to merit condignly for others, because she pertains as no other to the order of the hypostatic union.

The present Holy Father [John Paul II] has given a certain impetus to the development of the theology and devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, which articulates the mystery of this joint predestination, under the title: Alliance of the two Hearts. Plainly there is here a reflection of the mystery to which the Ven. Pius IX refers in Ineffabilis Deus speaking of that "one and the same decree," whereby the Son of God is predestined to be Incarnate King and the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and Queen of angels and men. . . .

The two approaches reflect two different ways of assessing the coredemption in relation to the redemption. When the coredemption is considered merely as distinct from the redemption, then it cannot but appear as secondary and accidental in comparison with the infinite value of the redemptive work of a divine person. But when it is situated within the divine plan of salvation willed by the Father, then it clearly appears what the sources of Revelation show it to be: by God's mercy an essential, though subordinate aspect of the objective redemption, without which the most perfect possible redemption could not be achieved in facto esse.

Plainly with the first approach it is more difficult to give a final, apodictic defense of the coredemption, and pressed exclusively it becomes indistinguishable from the protestant principle of Christus solus. That is why it ought not to be the primary point of departure, but rather the second approach, or that of joint predestination as the foundation of the concept of perfect redemption admitted by all.

So when understanding scripture in this light, the objection evaporates.

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hardly. It only gets more disturbing. Nowhere is any of this mentioned at all in Scripture, and extreme convolutions are made to get out what is explicitly said (any verse can be gotten out of if one tortures it enough). The significance of Mary in this manner is only striking in the NT by its absence. This is moving into idolatry.

[spl_cadet]

Paul, would you please shut up and stick to what has actually been defined rather than highly speculative and almost certainly heretical Mariology?

DDW, all that the Church says about the title of co-redemptrix is that, like all of us, she participated in effecting the Redemption of mankind, but she did so on a level greater than any of us.

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

[Jezz]

This is the sort of speculative theology that the Roman Church is renowned for and the Orthodox object to. It is the same sort of scholasticism that we had in the early 2nd millenium - trying to neatly and exhaustively categorise everything to the most intricate detail. Of course, we have such gems as purgatory, merit, indulgences, the filioque, the immaculate conception of St Mary, etc be thankful for as the fruits of such endless speculation.

You say: "So until there is a solemn definition, theologians may disagree with each other as to the precise way in which Mary participated in the objective redemption." My question (and the Orthodox question) is: why does there need to be a solemn definition? What heresy has arisen that makes it necessary to define this more precisely? In short, who cares? Why are people inquiring into the mystery of God beyond what God has revealed to us?

spl_cadet, I admire the fact that you have chastised Paul for such speculation. But you do of course realise that it is he who is following the Roman way of speculative, scholastic theology, and that you in your refusal to participate in such speculation makes you more Orthodox than it does Roman? :wink:

[spl_cadet]

I disagree entirely Jezz. None of those were speculative but rather came from the apostolic deposit. Heck, scholasticism didn't even appear until the 13th century, and we certainly believed all of those thing before then.



Why are people inquiring into the mystery of God beyond what God has revealed to us?

Curiousity. And the Western mindset is different from the Eastern. We like knowing why things are the way they are. The Great Schism really was a great tragedy, things would be much better with a proper balance maintained between the Eastern and Western approaches.



spl_cadet, I admire the fact that you have chastised Paul for such speculation. But you do of course realise that it is he who is following the Roman way of speculative, scholastic theology, and that you in your refusal to participate in such speculation makes you more Orthodox than it does Roman?

Hah, would just make me more Eastern Catholic than Roman. Especially if you consider that I really want to attend the Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Catholic church near the college I'm transferring to. :tongue:

[spl_cadet]

It seems also that we are using speculation in different ways. I'm using it to refer to positing about things that we do not know about at all, as Paul is doing (and doing so in a manner that smacks of heresy it seems to me). But what you refer to as being the historical practice is what we'd think of as nailing down the finer points of dogma. Ie, "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"

[Paul]

This is the sort of speculative theology that the Roman Church is renowned for and the Orthodox object to. It is the same sort of scholasticism that we had in the early 2nd millenium - trying to neatly and exhaustively categorise everything to the most intricate detail. Of course, we have such gems as purgatory, merit, indulgences, the filioque, the immaculate conception of St Mary, etc be thankful for as the fruits of such endless speculation.

You say: "So until there is a solemn definition, theologians may disagree with each other as to the precise way in which Mary participated in the objective redemption." My question (and the Orthodox question) is: why does there need to be a solemn definition? What heresy has arisen that makes it necessary to define this more precisely? In short, who cares? Why are people inquiring into the mystery of God beyond what God has revealed to us?

1. It's not beyond what God has revealed to us: "But when it is situated within the divine plan of salvation willed by the Father, then it clearly appears what the sources of Revelation show it to be: by God's mercy an essential, though subordinate aspect of the objective redemption, without which the most perfect possible redemption could not be achieved in facto esse."

2. The question cannot just be dismissed as academic: "The present Holy Father has given a certain impetus to the development of the theology and devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, which articulates the mystery of this joint predestination, under the title: Alliance of the two Hearts. Plainly there is here a reflection of the mystery to which the Ven. Pius IX refers in Ineffabilis Deus speaking of that "one and the same decree," whereby the Son of God is predestined to be Incarnate King and the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and Queen of angels and men. Surely this confirms the importance of not lightly dismissing as purely academic and non-devotional the discussion of the predestination of Jesus and Mary at the very center of the divine counsels of salvation."

3. So in short, one cares because of a desire to delve deeper into the mysteries and treasures that God Himself has revealed and one cares not just out of a purely academic motive cast aside as "non-devotional" but because of one's love for God. When one loves someone, one wants to learn everything about him and his relation to you. When God paints, he does not waste a single drop of paint. The whole order or economy of salvation that God has "painted" with supreme artistry is such that no part of the painting is insignificant but rather such that everything in it exists to praise the living God and give glory to Him.

4. In contrast to Catholic theology, Eastern Orthodox theology has stagnated.

5. If you don't talk about things precisely it is easy to express heresy (for example in matters such as the hypostatic union or the Trinity) and thus cloud one's vision of God and what God has revealed for the sake of our salvation (i.e our health and well being)

Quotations above from the same paper by Fr Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.F.I.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

On the question of what the magisterium requires of Catholics to be believed regarding the coredemption, Monsignor Arthur Burton Calkins writes:

"3. Applying to the Pope's teaching on Marian coredemption the three criteria supplied by Lumen Gentium #25 for ascertaining the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff: (1) the character of the documents in which the teaching occurs [sive indole documentoruum], (2) the frequent repetition of the same doctrine [sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinæ] and (3) the manner of speaking [sive ex dicendi ratione], especially because of the frequency and consistency with which the Pope proposes this doctrine, I believe that it must be recognized as constituting a significant component of his ordinary magisterium. Specifically, it does not seem to me that at this point a Catholic is free to deny that Mary has collaborated intimately in the work of the redemption wrought by her Son or that she has made an altogether unique contribution to that work."

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_5.php

[grmarsh]

jason--i hope the confusion you had with your original post regarding catholicism has been cleared up. i live in st. louis where raymond burke is our great bishop.

gil

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well Cadet I would still object to the sense you are using it, but not object to the level of condemnation. I think it misplaced to assign that title to anyone, but I understand what you are saying. What Paul has articulated, to me, moves beyond Christianity. No offense to Paul, he is a great guy, but that quite frankly is Mary-worship. I am not saying this is his motivation, but in some areas where people get too engrossed with Mary it seems like a pagan return to the need for an earth-mother. Father isn't enough for us.

[Jezz]

I disagree entirely Jezz.
Now that comes as a shock. :wink:


None of those were speculative but rather came from the apostolic deposit.
The filioque did not come from the apostolic deposit. It came from Augustinian speculation, based on a Platonistic concept of divine simplicity. The same is true for the other false doctrines of the Roman church.


Heck, scholasticism didn't even appear until the 13th century, and we certainly believed all of those thing before then.
I certainly agree that scholasticism reached its peak in the 13th century, but it has roots much earlier. St Augustine did a fair bit.


Curiousity. And the Western mindset is different from the Eastern. We like knowing why things are the way they are.
It's one thing to be curious. It's another thing to think that we mere human beings can work out details that God has never revealed to us.

The Greeks were curious. They were simply humble enough to admit that there were limits to what they could know about God, and that there were some things that they couldn't possibly know, and which God in His wisdom has chosen not to reveal to us. They didn't see a need to fill in the gaps which God had left. Reverence and awe for the mysteries of God.


The Great Schism really was a great tragedy, things would be much better with a proper balance maintained between the Eastern and Western approaches.
It seems we have from you an admission that the Roman view is unbalanced without the Orthodox approach. With that, I can certainly agree, but this creates a couple of problems for you as a Roman Catholic:

-The true body of Christ cannot be unbalanced, because Christ is not unbalanced.
-Saying that the Roman church is unbalanced without the balancing effect of the Orthodox Church is saying that it lacks the balancing effect of the Orthodox Church. But "catholic" means "lacking nothing". If the Roman church lacks something, then it is not catholic.

Hey, I agree with you, spl_cadet. The Roman church certainly is unbalanced when it is not united to the body of Christ. The Orthodox have been saying this for nearly a millenium now. :smile:

The Orthodox simply deny the converse - ie, that their Church (ie, the Church) is unbalanced, nor could it ever be. They are the body of Christ, and they don't need any other church to balance them. They are the pillar and ground of truth, they have Christ as their head, and they have the Spirit to guide them into all truth - and that's all the balancing power they need. They don't need the Roman church to complete something that they are lacking.


Hah, would just make me more Eastern Catholic than Roman. Especially if you consider that I really want to attend the Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Catholic church near the college I'm transferring to. :tongue:
Perhaps. But then there are other examples of your behaviour that are more like Orthodox than they are like Roman...

When it comes down to it (as I am sure you'll agree), the Schism happened because Pope Nicholas denied that the Eastern Churches had the right to question his authority in matters of doctrine. And to this day this remains the main thing that differentiates Orthodox churches from those Eastern churches that are in communion with Rome. This is the same right that you assume for yourself when you condemn Vatican II. According to Roman ecclesiology, you as a layman do not have the right to speak out in this manner - your job is to obey the infallible Magisterium. Either you have to deny that you have the right to disagree with Vatican II, or you have to admit that your views on Vatican II are more like the Orthodox than a loyal subject of Rome... :smile:


It seems also that we are using speculation in different ways. I'm using it to refer to positing about things that we do not know about at all, as Paul is doing (and doing so in a manner that smacks of heresy it seems to me). But what you refer to as being the historical practice is what we'd think of as nailing down the finer points of dogma. Ie, "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"
The same method was used to arrive at those "finer points of dogma" as was used to derive the "coredemptrix" theory. Example: trying to nail down the finer points of the answer to the question "How did Christ's atonement on the cross accomplish our redemption?" led to the whole question of merit and penal substitution theory. It was Augustine trying to nail down the finer implications of the doctrine of "divine simplicity" that led him to propose the filioque.

They only seem different to you because this "working out of the finer points" is being accomplished in your lifetime in the case of the role of the theotokos, and you can see the work in progress. For the other theories, you only see the finished work - but the process that went into generating them was the same. If you tried to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who was there at the time, it would look the same. Or suppose that in a decade's time, the co-redemptrix theory is declared dogma ex cathedra. In 150 years' time, devout Roman Catholics will be accepting it as dogma unquestioningly - just as you now (as a devout Roman Catholic) accept the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (declared ~150 years ago) as dogma without question.

Your resistance to this dogmatic development in the Roman church parallels the Orthodox resistance to dogmatic development in the Roman church, and which caused the schism. Again, I point out that your resistance is more characteristic of the Orthodox than the Romans... :teeth:

Hmm - you're against dogmatic speculation, you think that the Roman church is lacking, and you think that you have the right to question the decisions of your pope and one of his councils. You're looking more and more Orthodox all the time! :smile:

God Bless, spl_cadet.

[Paul]

Here is an interesting paper by an Eastern Orthodox theologian from the same book I've quoted:

Mary in the Mystery of the Church: The Orthodox Search for Unity

by Vladimir Zelinsky

Professor Zelinsky is an esteemed Orthodox theologian and author of several books and articles specializing in the Orthodox Tradition and contemporary ecclesiological topics. He has engaged in ecumenical dialogue, lectured at universities worldwide, and has written extensively on the Blessed Virgin Mary and Church related subjects.

A brief, but enlightening, excerpt:

If Orthodoxy sees dogmatic knowledge as secure custodian against the deviation from the "correct faith," Catholicism perceives, in the same knowledge, an element of praise as well.

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_7.php

Jezz and other Orthodox or Orthodox-to-be may especially be interested in reading it.

And, here is an excerpt from an article by Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos of Australia which I think relates to our discussion: (emphasis in the original text)

In other words, the deepest relationship that exists between the humilty of the Virgin Mary and the self-emptying of Christ is exalted.

This substantial relationship could not possible be overlooked. On the contrary, it had to be a constant point of reference for all faithful, since in both cases the 'driving force' is obedience to the will of the Father.

The indissoluble union between the divine and the human in the Person of God who became man, would not have occurred without the intercession and 'intervention' of the most holy Virgin Mother. For this reason, just as Christ is the "only mediator between God and humankind" (1 Tim. 2:5), the Virgin Mary is the only mediator between her divine-human Son and all who wish to be saved.

http://www.voiceoforthodoxy.com/newsletters/200303.pdf

And here is a very interesting article by the same Orthodox Archbishop with an excerpt below (emphasis mine)

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Mystery.html

The leading theologian of the 14th century. St Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, in admiring the unsearchable "mystery" which the Virgin Mary silently crystallised at the centre of the Divine Economy, even goes as far as to say that Mary the Mother of God is "the cause of all those who have gone before her, and the guardian of all those who come after her". No matter how strange this description may seem for a creature of God -even if this is the Virgin Mary- we shall see below that this is not an enthusiastic exaggeration of love, nor a rhetorical device which is called "poetic licence". On the contrary, this statement is a most precise and profound theological definition, worthy of the great Teacher of Orthodoxy.

If theosis i.e. deification of the human person was the '"pre-eternal will" of God, which looked towards the Incarnation, it is clear that the "giving" of human nature by the Virgin Mary to the Son and Word of God was the highest goal of the entire Creation. For this reason "all that was before her" are justifiably considered as being directed towards the Virgin Mary, as the "final cause". And precisely because she has such a crucial relationship with all who went before her, she is then the protector "of all who came after her". In this way, the Mother of God is presented as the "key" of all Creation.

Having the supreme and central soteriological event of incarnation as a foundation, we can easily verify various other corresponding features of the Virgin Mary, which give a more detailed account of her incomparable personal mystery and grandeur.

[spl_cadet]

Well Cadet I would still object to the sense you are using it, but not object to the level of condemnation. I think it misplaced to assign that title to anyone, but I understand what you are saying. What Paul has articulated, to me, moves beyond Christianity. No offense to Paul, he is a great guy, but that quite frankly is Mary-worship. I am not saying this is his motivation, but in some areas where people get too engrossed with Mary it seems like a pagan return to the need for an earth-mother. Father isn't enough for us.

I'd like to also point out that it was this same type of Mariological speculation that got Paul banned from Steve Ray's Catholic Converts board.



The filioque did not come from the apostolic deposit. It came from Augustinian speculation, based on a Platonistic concept of divine simplicity. The same is true for the other false doctrines of the Roman church.

So why does the Filioque appear in St. Athanasius' creed? :tongue:

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.



It's one thing to be curious. It's another thing to think that we mere human beings can work out details that God has never revealed to us.


You're assuming of course that those details weren't revealed through the larger things.



It seems we have from you an admission that the Roman view is unbalanced without the Orthodox approach.

Not unbalanced so to speak, and I would also say that the Orthodox suffer from the same flaw. However, we already have the Orthodox approach in the so-called "Uniates" who stayed faithful. You don't have the Western apprach at all, so you'd be the only ones unbalanced :tongue:



When it comes down to it (as I am sure you'll agree), the Schism happened because Pope Nicholas denied that the Eastern Churches had the right to question his authority in matters of doctrine.

No, the Great Schism, as with the Photian Schism, was because the Patriarch of Constantinople was an ass. Shutting down all the Latin churches in Constantinople and desecrating the Blessed Sacrament because it was made with unleavened bread (as has always been the Latin custom) is not acceptable, to put it mildly.



This is the same right that you assume for yourself when you condemn Vatican II. According to Roman ecclesiology, you as a layman do not have the right to speak out in this manner - your job is to obey the infallible Magisterium. Either you have to deny that you have the right to disagree with Vatican II, or you have to admit that your views on Vatican II are more like the Orthodox than a loyal subject of Rome...

All that I condemn is the timing, ambigious nature of many of the documents, and sheer pointlessness of it. I don't condemn the Council itself.

[spiritmech]

I actually agree with Paul on this one. <shrug>
sm

[The Barbarian]

"But Luther also honored Mary and her "unique place in all of [humankind]." He insisted "the festivals of the Purification and Annunciation of Mary may be continued, and for the time being her Assumption and Nativity." He could even imagine her as a heavenly intercessor.

In an introductory letter to the Commentary on the Magnificat (Mary's song of praise to God, Luke 1:46-55), Luther wrote: "May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers."

At the commentary's close, he added, "May Christ grant us [a right understanding of Mary's song] through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary!"

Luther noted Mary's humility: "So the wondrous pure spirit of Mary is worthy of even greater praise, because having such overwhelming honors heaped upon her head, she does not let them tempt her [to pride]. ... [In] truth she thrusts [pride and honor] from her and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace."
http://www.thelutheran.org/9712/page18.html

There are two primary heresies associated with Mary. The first holds that she is equal to Jesus. The second holds that she is not unique in her role as intercessor with God.

The former is more common among Roman Catholics. The latter is more common among Protestants.

[Jawa Man]

Me thinketh that Mary would be like the Holy of Holies. Yes, she is the most honored of all Christians, and she was entrusted with the highest job, to give birth to and raise God. Without her we would not have Christ to save us. In this sense, I believe, she is our mediator to Christ. However Mary cannot save, she only became the way through which we are saved. On the same token, as someone else kind of said, Judas was even a way through which we are saved. However what he did deserves no recognition or honor. What Mary did, becoming the Holy of Holies, does however.

I think to go beyond this might become pretty much heretical.

[Rusty T]

However, we already have the Orthodox approach in the so-called "Uniates" who stayed faithful.

I just want to point out before this become lost in the melee that the 'Uniates' did not 'stay faithful' - as if they were always faithful to the Roman See. Rather they were a creation made of politics and deception. It is an history that is sad to read and is still a VERY sore spot on the way to potential unity between East and West. I think the best way to deal with the so-called Eastern Rite Catholics is to be honest about what and how they came to be.

Saying this, I would like to say that I've enjoyed the discussion.

rusty

[spl_cadet]

The Maronites stayed faithful all the time. The rest came to their senses :tongue:

[Jezz]

So why does the Filioque appear in St. Athanasius' creed? :tongue:
Because the creed that bears St Athanasius' name was not in fact written by him, as just about every scholar (Protestant, Roman, Orthodox) will testify. From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm):

* firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and
* secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin.


21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
I'd be interested in seeing this in its original Greek to see what the exact wording is of the Holy Spirit's procession. But then, I suspect that there is no original Greek - that it was composed and disseminated in Latin. :teeth:


You're assuming of course that those details weren't revealed through the larger things.
Of course. If I tell you that I work as a software engineer, that doesn't tell you what language I program in or what sort of software I write. If I tell you that there is a building, that doesn't tell you how many doors or how many windows it has. Revealing larger things doesn't tell us the details. You could speculate about the details, but it remains speculation.


Not unbalanced so to speak...
Make up your mind, cadet. Is the Western approach unbalanced or not? Does it need the Eastern approach for balance or not?


...and I would also say that the Orthodox suffer from the same flaw.
Of course you would - because if you didn't, you'd be admitting that the Roman Church is flawed but the Orthodox Church is not...

Of course, as I have already noted, the Orthodox do not believe that the body of Christ could be flawed in such a fundamental way. Is Christ not in control of His Church? Is the Spirit not guiding Christ's Church?


However, we already have the Orthodox approach in the so-called "Uniates" who stayed faithful.
As Tizzi already pointed out, the uniates did not "stay" faithful. They were enticed to leave Orthodoxy and join Rome later after the Schism, under political and oftentimes military pressure. This is also a distinguishing feature of the Western approach - conversion by the sword. Saxony and South America are two other examples. The Orthodox may have some similar examples of "conversion by the sword", but I honestly don't know of any (perhaps you can enlighten us?)


You don't have the Western apprach at all, so you'd be the only ones unbalanced :tongue:
But this again assumes that the Western approach is needed for balance - an assumption that the Orthodox simply don't agree with. Their approach is already balanced.


No, the Great Schism, as with the Photian Schism, was because the Patriarch of Constantinople was an ass.
No, the Great Schism was, as with the Nicholian schism (and with just about every major schism in the Western church since), because the pope tried to meddle in the affairs beyond the borders of his own see.

Perhaps we could start a new thread about the schism between Nicholas and Photius - it might be interesting.


Shutting down all the Latin churches in Constantinople and desecrating the Blessed Sacrament because it was made with unleavened bread (as has always been the Latin custom) is not acceptable, to put it mildly.
As I have pointed out, the shutting down of the Latin churches was only done in response to the Pope shutting down the Greek churches.


All that I condemn is the timing, ambigious nature of many of the documents, and sheer pointlessness of it. I don't condemn the Council itself.
Doesn't matter. One way or the other, you're still condemning the wisdom of the Magisterium. As a Roman layman, it is not your place to question the wisdom of the Magisterium (especially the Pope). It is your place to obey.

Do you believe that you have the right to criticise the Magisterium or not?

[Paul]

Since the issue of the filioque has come up a few times in this thread, I invite Jezz and anyone else interested to read this:

THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

I've tried to post an excerpt but the Greek characters seem to be screwing it up.

[Jezz]

1. It's not beyond what God has revealed to us: "But when it is situated within the divine plan of salvation willed by the Father, then it clearly appears[/v] what the sources of Revelation show it to be: by God's mercy an essential, though subordinate aspect of the objective redemption, without which the most perfect possible redemption could not be achieved in facto esse."
(Bold emphasis added.)

"It clearly appears" is a codeword for "in my opinion" when one wants to sound more objective. It is typically used when people want to pass off their speculation as God's truth.


2. The question cannot just be dismissed as academic:
It can be. I just did. The Orthodox do. If it was anything more than academic question - if it was so important to address - it would have been addressed centuries ago.

St Mary is the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. She bore the Word of God (Who was incarnate by the Holy Spirit) in her womb. She was assumed into heaven after her death. She is more honourable than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim. This much has been revealed to us through the apostolic tradition. Any more is speculation.


"The present Holy Father has given a certain impetus to the development of the theology and devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, which articulates the mystery of this joint predestination, under the title: Alliance of the two Hearts.
The fascination with the body parts of Christ and His mother is really quite disturbing. How long will it be before Roman Catholics devise some convoluted line of reasoning to found an order dedicated to Christ's colon? :ahem: This is more of the same speculation.


[b]Plainly there is here a reflection of the mystery to which the Ven. Pius IX refers in Ineffabilis Deus speaking of that "one and the same decree," whereby the Son of God is predestined to be Incarnate King and the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and Queen of angels and men. Surely this confirms the importance of not lightly dismissing as purely academic and non-devotional the discussion of the predestination of Jesus and Mary at the very center of the divine counsels of salvation."
"Plainly". "Surely". Again, codewords for "in my opinion". It is not plain or sure at all.


3. So in short, one cares because of a desire to delve deeper into the mysteries and treasures that God Himself has revealed and one cares not just out of a purely academic motive cast aside as "non-devotional" but because of one's love for God. When one loves someone, one wants to learn everything about him and his relation to you. When God paints, he does not waste a single drop of paint. The whole order or economy of salvation that God has "painted" with supreme artistry is such that no part of the painting is insignificant but rather such that everything in it exists to praise the living God and give glory to Him.
I certainly agree that the economy of salvation is a painting - a divine masterpiece. God does not waste any paint. Which is precisely why I question the wisdom of trying to "improve" upon the painting by adding a few brushstrokes here and there.

It was only yesterday that I was reading an Orthodox POV on the Orthodox v Roman v Protestant view of theology. The Orthodox see God's plan as a beautiful painting. The Romans thought that they could improve upon the painting and added some of their own brushstrokes. The Protestants, upon sensing that the painting they knew was not the original masterpiece but had the handiwork of humans in it, tried to remove the extra brushstrokes to get at the underlying original - but ended up with a marring the original in the process (which was pretty much unavoidable).

"When one loves someone, one wants to learn everything about him and his relation to you."

Here's where you've got theology back-to-front. When you love someone, you don't want to know about them. You want to know them - to experience them, to have communion with them. If they choose to reveal some information about themselves to you in the process... well, that's up to them. But if you love someone, that shouldn't be your focus.


4. In contrast to Catholic theology, Eastern Orthodox theology has stagnated.
Thank God for that!

Yes, that's precisely what the Orthodox have always argued. Only thing is, what you call "stagnanation" is actually "contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3b, emph. added). It does not say that the faith will be delivered part now, part later - it says that the faith was delivered once and for all.

It is precisely because of this "stagnation" that the Orthodox Faith is the Apostolic Faith, and their Church is the Apostolic Church. If "stagnation" is the price that must be paid for faithfulness to the "faith once for all entrusted", then the Orthodox will gladly thank God for preserving them in their state of "stagnation".

And this was supposed to be an argument for theological speculation?


5. If you don't talk about things precisely it is easy to express heresy (for example in matters such as the hypostatic union or the Trinity) and thus cloud one's vision of God and what God has revealed for the sake of our salvation (i.e our health and well being)
1. Matters such as the hypostatic union and the Trinity pertain to the nature of God Himself. Do you really think that dogma about St Mary is anywhere near on the same level? Even the argument about the title "theotokos" was a thoroughly Christological dispute.
2. I certainly agree that if you don't talk about things precisely it is easy to express heresy. One sure remedy against this is not to talk about them at all. In other words, stop speculating! You'll be guaranteed not to express heresy if you express nothing on the topic. I recall reading somewhere that Arius was warned to stop speculating as to the nature of Christ. We all know how that ended.
3. Closely related to 2: you're right in that it is sometimes necessary to define things precisely in order to avoid heresy. But this is only necessary when heresy arises. The Church only makes dogmatic decisions in response to heresy - it does not make speculative, "preemptive strikes" against phantom heresies that do not exist. More often that not, speculative theology is the cause of heresy - not the antidote.


Quotations above from the same paper by Fr Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.F.I.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

On the question of what the magisterium requires of Catholics to be believed regarding the coredemption, Monsignor Arthur Burton Calkins writes:

"3. Applying to the Pope's teaching on Marian coredemption the three criteria supplied by Lumen Gentium #25 for ascertaining the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff: (1) the character of the documents in which the teaching occurs [sive indole documentoruum], (2) the frequent repetition of the same doctrine [sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinæ] and (3) the manner of speaking [sive ex dicendi ratione], especially because of the frequency and consistency with which the Pope proposes this doctrine, I believe that it must be recognized as constituting a significant component of his ordinary magisterium. Specifically, it does not seem to me that at this point a Catholic is free to deny that Mary has collaborated intimately in the work of the redemption wrought by her Son or that she has made an altogether unique contribution to that work."

http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_5.php
"I believe", "it does not seem to me"... more codewords for speculation...

The problem with theological speculation is that it is never ending. Will we next speculate on the role of St Joseph in the divine economy of salvation? Let's give it a go, shall we?


Were it not for St Joseph, the Mother of God probably would have been stoned to death by the community before our Saviour was even born, thus thwarting the plan of redemption! Marriage is an intimate relationship, thus it clearly appears that St Joseph was an intimate part of the plan of salvation. I mean, how many people in history can say that they were the husband of the Mother of God??!! Surely, God would not have chosen just anyone for that purpose. Plainly, St Joseph must have been an exeedingly pious and holy man. Given that St Mary was so pure and holy, it does not seem to me that St Joseph could have been any less pure and holy, otherwise he would not have been a worthy husband for the Mother of God. Thus, I believe that Joseph should be awarded the title co-coredemptrix. To refuse this would potentially allow heresy to creep in.

There you have it - "proof" that St Joseph is co-coredemptrix, complete with all the relevant speculation codewords.

This is fun. We could end up with all sorts of cool dogmas if we go down this path... :teeth:

[Rusty T]

There you have it - "proof" that St Joseph is co-coredemptrix, complete with all the relevant speculation codewords.

Great post, Jezz. Interestingly enough, St. Joseph is my patron saint. I will take the name Joseph when I'm received into the Church. Though he is no 'co-coredemptrix' in the sense that you mean it, I am exceedingly amazed at his life and continually ask for his intercession. Continue the good fight. You have far more knowledge and patience than I.

rusty

[Paul]

It can be. I just did. The Orthodox do. If it was anything more than academic question - if it was so important to address - it would have been addressed centuries ago.

Well this paper cites and quotes Church Fathers, both Western and Eastern, in overwhelming support of the Coredemption. The view of this paper differs slightly from the paper by Fr Fehlner, in that it proposes that the merit is not de condigno ("in justice") nor de congruo ("congruous") but rather de digno ("meritum digni") which would be in between the two.

Mary's sacrifice has value only in passing through the hands of Christ. She cannot merit in justice, on her own, the salvation of humanity. But it would be too little to say that she merits their salvation by congruous merit, she merits it as her dignity (of Mother of God) demands, by a title of excellence: meritum digni.

CORREDEMPTRIX, DEI REDEMPTORIS MATER ET MINISTRA: Mary Coredemptrix In the Light of Patristics by Rev. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J. Translated by Salwa Hamati, Ph.D.Fr.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_1_2.php
the website seems to be inaccessible at the moment in which case you can read the paper here:
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/cor_jf3.htm

BTW, this book (the first of two partially online) has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

NIHIL OBSTAT
Father James Dunfee
Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR
Most Reverend Gilbert Sheldon
Bishop of Steubenville
March 7, 1995

The second book (from which the paper by Fr Fehlner came) also has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

NIHIL OBSTAT
Father James Dunfee
Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR
Most Reverend Gilbert Sheldon
Bishop of Steubenville
January 1, 1997


The fascination with the body parts of Christ and His mother is really quite disturbing. How long will it be before Roman Catholics devise some convoluted line of reasoning to found an order dedicated to Christ's colon? :ahem: This is more of the same speculation.

Well the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is not merely to His physical organ, but also to His heart in the sense that is meant in scripture when it speaks of loving God with all your heart and being "pure in heart." All of Jesus is deserving of worship, both His divinity, and His humanity, and within His humanity, both His body and soul -- all united in one divine Person.


I certainly agree that the economy of salvation is a painting - a divine masterpiece. God does not waste any paint. Which is precisely why I question the wisdom of trying to "improve" upon the painting by adding a few brushstrokes here and there.

Surely, you realize that this divine masterpiece surpasses our present understanding?


Here's where you've got theology back-to-front. When you love someone, you don't want to know about them. You want to know them - to experience them, to have communion with them.

Loving someone consists precisely in knowing him. You cannot love someone without knowing him and you cannot truly know someone without loving him. There was once some debate -- a debate that I am not too familiar with -- of whether the essence of heaven consists in the vision of God or in the activity of loving God. I personally would be inclined to say that these two things are numerically identical. This is why it seems to me -- as is traditionally held -- that the omnipotence of God is able to be proved from His omniscience and vice versa. Knowledge and love are essentially one and the same thing.

Now, when you love and know someone, you do want to know all you can about them, because that facilitates your loving him and knowing him on a greater level. We can see this in human relationships. When a friend or lover tells you about her hometown, you do not brush aside this info by saying that you do not want to know about her but rather know her, but rather see that in knowing about her, you come to know her more and in so knowing able to love her more. The same is true of our relationship with God.


If they choose to reveal some information about themselves to you in the process... well, that's up to them. But if you love someone, that shouldn't be your focus.

I wasn't speaking of knowing about someone divorced from one's relationship with him. Thus you were attacking a straw man.


Yes, that's precisely what the Orthodox have always argued. Only thing is, what you call "stagnanation" is actually "contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3b, emph. added). It does not say that the faith will be delivered part now, part later - it says that the faith was delivered once and for all.

Right, but I think you fail to see how great a treasure this faith delivered once and all to the saints is. It is like in the parable where it grows over time -- that is, upon reflecting on the inestimable treasure entrusted to us, we come to understand it more and more.


1. Matters such as the hypostatic union and the Trinity pertain to the nature of God Himself.

Those were just examples I used. I could have used others that didn't pertain directly to the "nature of God Himself."


Do you really think that dogma about St Mary is anywhere near on the same level?

Well in the "hierachy of truths" the Trinity is the most central dogma of the Catholic faith. The Incarnation is also a central dogma, though not as central as the Trinity as the Incarnation is a contingent fact whereas the Trinity exists before all worlds. Keeping that in mind, according to Ineffabilis Deus and reiterated in Munificentissimus Deus, the orign of Mary and the Incarnation of the Son were established by God in one and the same decree. Ineffabilis Deus:
http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm
And hence the very words with which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set forth his eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom.

Munificentissimus Deus:http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination


3. Closely related to 2: you're right in that it is sometimes necessary to define things precisely in order to avoid heresy. But this is only necessary when heresy arises. The Church only makes dogmatic decisions in response to heresy

This is an oft-repeated statement but it isn't quite true. The definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption contained in the Apostolic Constitutions I cited above were made not in response to any contemporary heresy, but out of a popular desire of piety that the dogma be defined. These sentiments of piety are expressed in the prelude to the definitions themselves. For example in Ineffabilis Deus it says:

And thus, we can satisfy the most holy desire of the Catholic world as well as our own devotion toward the most holy Virgin, and at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother—since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son.

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion,


Will we next speculate on the role of St Joseph in the divine economy of salvation? Let's give it a go, shall we?

But there are some logical flaws in your mock argument. But you should know that some Catholic theologians hold that St Joseph deserves the cult of what is termed protodulia or proto-dulia which would be below hyperdulia reserved for the Virgin but above ordinary dulia. This reality is reflected in the teaching of Pope Leo XIII:

From these sources have sprung his dignity, his holiness, his glory. In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life's companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity. And Joseph shines among all mankind by the most august dignity, since by divine will, he was the guardian of the Son of God and reputed as His father among men.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15081889_quamquam-pluries_en.html

Incidentally, Pope Benedict XVI was not in favor of the definition of the Coredemption as Cardinal even though his partial namesake Pope Benedict XV clearly taught it:

Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3a.htm
With her suffering and dying Son she suffered and almost died, so did she surrender her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.

Benedict XVI as Cardinal opined that the truth is already better expressed without the title. But perhaps Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, who once studied under him, will be able to convince him otherwise as Cardinal Schonborn is in favor of the definition. He is also mentioned as a possible candidate to fill the post of Prefect of the CDF. More likely though, at least from a human perspective, is that if the definition is to happen, it will happen with a future Pope, perhaps even with a new Ecumenical Council, perhaps even the great Council not only prophesied in Catholic tradition but also presented as an exegesis of Scripture by Suarez, Church Doctor St Robert Bellarmine, among others (the exegesis is based on the Apocalypse)

[Joe Gofish]

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

this is what all catholics believe