Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Victory Through Mary

This quote from JPII is interesting in the light of the movement towards declaring Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate. I hope to cover this topic a bit more in the future, but for now I will just leave you to ponder this supposed victory of Mary:

"'Be not afraid!' Christ said to the apostles (cf. Lk 24:36) and to the women (cf. Mt 28:10) after the Resurrection. According to the Gospels, these words were not addressed to Mary. Strong in her faith, she had no fear. Mary's participation in the victory of Christ became clear to me above all from the experience of my people. Cardinal Stefan Wyszy´nski told me that his predecessor, Cardinal August Hlond, had spoken these prophetic words as he was dying: 'The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary.' During my pastoral ministry in Poland, I saw for myself how those words were coming true.

After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her, because He wants the Church's victories now and in the future to be linked to her.

I held this conviction even though I did not yet know very much about Fátima. I could see, however, that there was a certain continuity among La Salette, Lourdes, and Fátima-and, in the distant past, our Polish Jasna Góra.

And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter's Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children at Fátima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem to be close to their fulfillment."

-Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope

32 comments:

Matthew Bellisario said...

The Blessed Mother is awesome! Here are some of my favorite titles for her! Ark of the New Covenant, Ever Virgin, Panagia, Theotokos, Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemtrix. Hail Mary, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death.

Four* Pointer said...

Matthew,

And all of those titles are wrong. These are titles that were bestowed upon her by the Romish system. There is nothing in the Bible that gives any kind of hint that she deserves these titles.

Was she blessed? Yes. Was she a worthy servant? Of course. Does she deserve to be respected because of her obedience to the Lord? Absolutely. But she does not deserve to be honored in the ways that Rome says she should be. She does not answer our prayers, she does not have any kind of power over Christ to make Him answer our prayers the way we want Him to. She is no co-mediatrix or co-redeemptrix.

bkaycee said...

Very Sad, very scary.

Co-Redemptrix???

Acts 4:12
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

BillyHW said...

Carrie, I would be interested to know if you've by any chance read about the life of the Fatima visionary Sister Lucia. Do you think she's a liar or a lunatic? What should I believe about her?

EA said...

"'Be not afraid!' Christ said to the apostles (cf. Lk 24:36) and to the women (cf. Mt 28:10) after the Resurrection. According to the Gospels, these words were not addressed to Mary. Strong in her faith, she had no fear."

Oh I see. Since Mary was strong in her faith she had no need to be reassured by Christ. Which is explained by the Gospels not mentioning her by name.

Does that logic extend to all of the rest of Jesus' followers alive at the time of the resurrection that the gospels also do not mention by name?

This is nothing more than argument by silence.

Jugulum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jugulum said...

"According to the Gospels, these words were not addressed to Mary. Strong in her faith, she had no fear."

I cannot begin to comprehend the rationale behind that.

kmerian said...

Matthew and Carrie, Mary will not now, hor will she ever be declared "co-redemptrix". Our current Pope has said this:
"...because the formula co-redemptrix" departs to great an extent from the language of scripture and of the fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings"
http://books.google.com/books?id=oXPjwTtWaJwC&pg=PA306&dq=co-redemptrix+ratzinger&ei=mkB-SJXuKZ30iwHSzpztDw&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U3d56BruWssBtfcBU5bWXa8tUwI2g

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Carrie, Piling on here . . . For that matter, how about St. Bernadette, liar or lunatic? Or St. Gregory Thamaturgus, liar or lunatic for believing not only that Mary visited him, but St. John the Evangelist who helped him write the creed upon which the Nicene Creed is based?

Or do you believe that Marian visions and the miracles associated with same are demonic? If so, how do you square your view with Christ's when he says, "And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Luke 11:18 Mary in all of these apparations only preaches messages of hope, a call to penance and prayer, and faith in her Son, Christ Jesus.

You intimate that Pope John Paul II is in error because he quoted a cardinal saying, "The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary." Note what he did not say~"The victory, if it comes, will come because of something that Mary does." If it weren't for Mary's yes, Our Savior, Lord Jesus would not have entered the world. So in that sense, as opposed to any superstitions or prejudice one may have about Catholics believe, it is not only a statement of fact but one fully supported by Scripture.

Here is an excerpt from a prayer composed by St. Anselm, whose writings some Reformed Protestants like:

"There is no reconciliation, O Mary, except that which thou didst conceive in thy virginity, no justification save that which thou didst nurture inviolately in thy womb, no salvation but that which thou didst immaculately bear. Therefore, O Lady, thou art the mother of justification and of the justified, thou art the begetter of reconciliation and of the reconciled, the Mother of salvation and of the saved. O blessed assurance, O refuge without fear! The Mother of God is our mother, too! The mother of Him in Whom alone we hope, Whom alone we fear, is our mother. We have for our mother the mother of Him Who alone can save us, Who alone will be our judge!"

Here are a couple of Church fathers:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (whose remains were desecrated and thrown into the river by crazed Calvinists):

For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it (human race) rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. (Against Heresies XIX:1)

St. Ephrem the Syrian:

“Those two innocent, those two simple ones, had been equal to one to the other; but afterwards, one (Eve) became the cause of our death, the other (BV Mary) of our life." Op. Syr., Tom. ii, p. 327)

St. Augustine:

"For Mary also is on this account the Mother of Christ in a way more full of praise and blessing, according to His sentence mentioned above. Whosoever does the will of my Father Who is in heaven, that one is to Me brother, and sister, and mother. All these degrees of nearness of kin to Himself, He shows forth in a spiritual manner, in the People whom He has redeemed: as brothers and sisters He has holy men and holy women, forasmuch as they all are co-heirs in the heavenly inheritance. His mother (Mary) is the whole Church, because she herself (Mary) assuredly gives birth to His members, that is, His faithful ones. Also His mother (Mary) is every pious soul, doing the will of His Father with most fruitful charity, in them of whom it travails, until Himself be formed in them. Mary, therefore, doing the will of God, after the flesh, is only the mother of Christ, but after the Spirit she is both His sister and mother." (De Virginitate 5)

From one of the ancient liturgies:

"Seeing Our Lord made incarnate from thee, O chaste Virgin, we confess thee to be in very deed the Mother of God who didst become-----we do not hesitate to proclaim it-----the cause of the regeneration of all things! . . . Hail, Cause of our Union with God! Hail, Destroyer of the Curse! Hail, O thou who didst call from their exile the children of this earth!

From the Greek Menaea, Octave of Christmas (A Menaion was one of a number of monthly books of prayers for the feasts of the Church calendar kept by the Byzantine Church and as I understand it was written over a thousand years ago)

I could give you several dozen similar quotes from the fathers in support of what Pope John Paul II wrote. He was not innovating, but a reiterating what the Church has always taught. You may not like it, you may disagree with the likes of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Methodius, Cosmas, Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem, Ambrose, Augustine, Germanus of Constantinople, John Damscene, Peter Chrysologus, Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Ephesus, not to mention Origen and Tertullian, but unfortunately for purposes of your post, they all taught Marian doctrines which you do not ascribe to here.

In one sense, by you blogging here, you are being a co-redemptrix and mediatrix and advocate for those who are not Christians to find Christ as a result of your efforts. We all are called upon to be co-redeemers, mediators and advocates through our cooperation with God's grace and the evangelizing to the world the Gospel of Christ~not to the degree that Mary has, but nevertheless, it is an uncontrovertible fact.

God bless!

bkaycee said...

I believe Jesus, not the traditions of men, no matter how ancient.

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Matthew Bellisario said...

Four pointer, your ignorance is glaring in your comments. No the "Romish" system did not come up with all the titles. Do some historical research before commenting. Also, anyone who would deny that she did not participate in God's plan of salvation is not too bright, and is in opposition to Sacred Scripture as well.. I will not waste my time on any more comments on this topic. In fact I have written an essay on the subject posted on my web page. I don't have the time to rehash things here. Hail Mary, full of grace...

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi BKaycee, I like the citation~ pretty nifty use of that passage. Of course, you have the problem explaining why Jesus was tellng people that John the Baptist was greater than Himself. After all, was not Jesus born of woman as well?

By ripping the passage out of context to attack Mary, you attack (unintentionally I am sure) her Son's humanity and divinity, just like the heretics of old. Of course, the Church disposed of this facile argument made by Arians, Nestorians, Monothelites, and Monophysites long ago.

Here is a passage from one commentary showing how the Church understands Matt. 11:11:

"Verily I say unto you, &c. Luke adds the word prophet (vii. 27): There hath not arisen a greater prophet. Whence Toletus from SS. Ambrose and Hilary observes that Jesus does not use the word greater of John absolutely, but as restricted by the word prophet. For the Apostles were greater, or certainly in every, way the equals of John. But, on the contrary, I should say that by the expression Prophet, Christ leaves it to be understood that there had been no person who was greater than John, for the prophets were accounted in the olden time, and really were, the most holy of men. So that as none of the prophets were greater than John, it may be gathered that there was no one else who was greater.

Christ therefore tacitly here calls John the greatest of all men, for otherwise He would not conclude from thence that he was more than a propbhet, which He proceeds to prove. This must be understood of the worthies of the Old Testament—that is to say, of all time prior to Christ. John, therefore, is not here compared with Christ Himself, or the Blessed Virgin, or the Apostles, who followed Christ and who (by reason of their Apostolic dignity) were not less than John, but rather indeed greater than he."

From the Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide.

Jesus was talking about John's role as an Old Testament prophet at the time which is made clear once you put the passage back into the text. The Church has always regarded Mary as the Eve of the New Testament so your argument is not applicable to Mary, the apostles, saints, martyrs, and the other holy men and women who occupy heaven after hearing Jesus' saving Gospel.

An while John was a great saint, to be sure, look at his status in the NT. Compare Matt. 11:11 with Acts 19:1-5:

And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Whose baptism was more efficacious for believers? John's or Paul's?

Your misappropriation of Scripture here proves WHY the Church had to define Marian dogmas far better than my feeble defense of her status. Thank you and God bless!

Alexander Greco said...

Could any of you (as Martin Luther would say) "Blockheads" point me to anywhere the Church teaches that Mary's acts, and grace giving intercession, are derived from her own power, and not ultimately from her God? Your feeble-minded arguments are derived from hateful, ignorant bias...nothing more. I find no rational, logical basis behind them. Peace-out!

EA said...

"Mary's participation in the victory of Christ became clear to me above all from the experience of my people. Cardinal Stefan Wyszy´nski told me that his predecessor, Cardinal August Hlond, had spoken these prophetic words as he was dying: 'The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary.'"

Exactly what sort of prophecy is this? A conditional third-hand one? Someone told me that someone else said that "IF the victory comes it will come through Mary"

What is that?

"During my pastoral ministry in Poland, I saw for myself how those words were coming true."

Oh, okay. If you say so.

GeneMBridges said...

The Church has always regarded Mary as the Eve of the New Testament so your argument is not applicable to Mary, the apostles, saints, martyrs, and the other holy men and women who occupy heaven after hearing Jesus' saving Gospel.

Of course, the Church recognizes Mary as "the Eve of the NT" on the basis of good old fashioned allegorical exegesis, not anything derived from the actual text of Scripture.

But the argument for John the Baptist as the greatest prophet is not derived from such loose thinking. It's derived directly from Scripture's own statement.

Here is a passage from one commentary showing how the Church understands Matt. 11:11

That's funny, is that one of the infallibly exegeted texts? If so, we need to make note of it.

GeneMBridges said...

Or do you believe that Marian visions and the miracles associated with same are demonic? If so, how do you square your view with Christ's when he says, "And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Luke 11:18 Mary in all of these apparations only preaches messages of hope, a call to penance and prayer, and faith in her Son, Christ Jesus.

This is too easy. The problem the religious leaders had then was not that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but that they rejected the obvious evidences before their own eyes and the statements of Scripture, prophecies that they knew full well were true. That's what made their sin so great. Their problem was the rejection of a messenger and message that were congruent with Scripture.

The Bible distinguishes between true and false miracles. In the Bible, miracles confirm the message, but the Bible also expressly forbids communion with the dead.

Ever notice that these Marian apparitions always seem to conform to some sort of late Medieval idea of what Mary must look and sound like? But how is the percipient in a position to know such a thing? How might we confirm she is who she says she is? Scripture says nothing about such matters. So, all we have is somebody's word for it that it's Mary.

Yes, she encourages prayer, penance, and faith in Christ - and that faith is obviously divided in Romanism between the merits of Christ, that of others, and one's own congruent merit. So, she's promoting a gospel that Scripture denies and faith in a false, apostate communion. Sorry, but I'll take Scripture's Gospel over the words of a Marian apparition any day.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. Bridges, You said:

"Ever notice that these Marian apparitions always seem to conform to some sort of late Medieval idea of what Mary must look and sound like? But how is the recipient in a position to know such a thing."

I do not know if that is the case or not. Without citing any evidence in support of your supposition, you are expecting me to accept your claim on your say-so. How am I,the recipient of your claim, in a position to know such a thing? If you are accurate in your claim that people only see some sort of late medieval idea of what Mary looked like, please explain the apparation of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus? He lived from 217-270 AD. I do not believe that would count as being in the late Medieval period. (Of course, fashion trends may not have changed all that much over that period of time) In my parish church, our statue of Mary portrays her in first century AD garb of a Jewish peasant. How do you believe the people of the late medieval times portrayed her? Not all of our statues depict Mary as some sort of queen or royal figure (although admittedly there are some out there that do perhaps to emphasize that she is the queen mother for Jesus the King!). I am also aware that in Buffalo, NY, there is a Marian shrine which shows Mary as a young teenage girl wearing 1950's style garb. (Whether the latter is truly a valid visitation, I do not know)
In light of these arguments, I humbly suggest that the premise of your argument here is flawed and needs some re-working.

One other point that you seem to neglect is the fact that since these occurrences happen outside of scripture, Catholics are not required to accept these private revelations as fact. Marian apparations are not an article of faith. What the Church does is examine whether there are impediments to Christians believing in them. If no impediments are found, then the Church permits individuals to believe in them, but does not require us to do so. So as a faithful Catholic, I could reject the apparations at Lourdes, Fatima, etc. and it would have no bearing on my standing in the Church.

As far as your claim that Scripture prevents all communication with the dead, we know that is not the case for we see Jesus at the Transfiguration communicating with Moses and Elijah (both dead) as well as John communicating with the holy ones in heaven (presumably all dead)in Revelation. We also see Jesus and the apostles praying for the dead to bring them back to life. (Oops, different topic) Unfortunately, it is now you who are imposing a medieval view of what necromancy is as opposed to what is contained in Scripture.

Scripture condemns the practice of summoning the spirits of the dead who were consulted in order to learn the future (Deuteronomy 18:10-11; 1 Samuel 28:8), and gave their answers through certain persons in whom they resided (Leviticus 20:27; 1 Samuel 28:7). Scripture also precludes persons from foretelling events under the guidance of these divining spirits (Leviticus 20:6; 1 Samuel 28:3, 9; Isaiah 19:3). The Mosaic Law forbids necromancy (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6) and declares that to seek oracles from the dead is abhorred by God (Deuteronomy 18:11- 12), and even makes it punishable by death (Leviticus 20:27; 1 Samuel 28:9). If you are going to pretend to practice sola scriptura, then you should stay within the four corners of the text. Your view should fit the text, rather than making the text fit an opinion you already held prior to consulting it.

Your last comments suggest that the visions must not be of Mary since her statements confirm Romanism. Of course, if "Romanism" is true, then I guess you wouldn't have a problem with them as I take it from your statements here that that if her utterances supported your personal view of Scripture, then you would accept them as real. That is an interesting worldview. I am surprised that a Protestant would not reject Marian apparations regardless of what message she preached. Very interesting...

Thank you and God bless!

bkaycee said...

2 Pet 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

The Word of God is more sure than visions and certainly not recommended by Peter.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Mr. Bridges, one of my friends reminded me of another "non-medieval" apparation of Mary-Our Lady of Guadalupe who is the Patroness of the Americas. I do not believe that a young woman wearing a native America tilma is a medieval conception by any stretch of the imagination.

Hi BKaycee: I appreciate your thoughts as well. Your quote reminded me that Mary was given another title by the ECF's, "The Morningstar." Perhaps that who Peter was referring to there, no?

bkaycee said...

Hi BKaycee: I appreciate your thoughts as well. Your quote reminded me that Mary was given another title by the ECF's, "The Morningstar." Perhaps that who Peter was referring to there, no?

Ah, no. That one is already taken.

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

A great example of error in the early church, robbing Jesus/God to deify man(Mary).

Paul Hoffer said...

mnlbbHi Bkaycee, Perhaps you are right there...I will remind St. John Damascene of that the next time I see him.

He was probably thinking of her as the Morning Star that precedes the "Sun of Justice." cf. Mal. 4:3 or that we are to imitate Christ. If Christ calls himself "Morning Star," would it be permitted to hold Mary up as an example of one who imitated Christ so well that she too can be called "Morning Star"?

BTW, What do you think John Newton had in mind when he wrote this in the song, "Amazing Grace": "When we have been there, ten thousand years, bright shining like the sun... "? J/W...

I pray that we all strive to imitate Our Lord so that someday we may be worthy as His mother, Mary, to be surnamed "Morning Star". Amen,

Augustinian Successor said...

Mary is only the ever-Blessed Virgin and the Mother of God. That's all there is to it. Even Mary's perpetual virginity has not been officially defined by Pope as dogma. Appeal therefore has to be made to the Council of Lateran (649) in which Pope Martin I elucidated the three-fold virginity of Mary: ante-partum, partum and post-partum. But that council is not recognised as being ecumenical, nor was Pope Martin I claiming to speak ex cathedra.

The idea of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix is absent from the early and even medieval liturgies except Mary's prominent intercession in heaven with the Church Triumphant. It's funny that she should be considered as co-redemptrix AFTER her role as co-mediatrix. It should be the other round considering that she bore Jesus in her womb, thus making Mary a subordinate instrumental cause of the salvation of the world.

Be that as it may, the idea of co-redemption is embodied in the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein the Church as the Body of Christ participates in the Self-Offering of Jesus on the Cross. The role of Mary at the Eucharist has yet to be satisfactorily clarified. Moreso, when Mary being a Woman cannot enter into high priesthood of Melchizedek and hence share in Christ's role as mediator.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello A.S., I was interested to read your comments. The copy of the English version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that I have in my library says:

"Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God."

My copy of the Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil says under The Commemoration Of The Saints:

PRIEST: "As this, O Lord, is the command of your Only-Begotten Son, that we share in the commemoration of your saints, graciously accord, O Lord, to remember all the saints who have pleased you since the beginning: our holy fathers the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, the preachers, the evangelists, the martyrs, the confessors and all the spirits of the righteous who were consummated in the faith. Most of all, the pure, full of glory, ever-virgin, holy Theotokos, Saint Mary, who in truth, gave birth to God the Logos. And Saint John the forerunner, Baptist and martyr; Saint Stephen the archdeacon, the protomartyr; the beholder-of-God Saint Mark, the evangelist the apostle and martyr; the patriarch Saint Severus; our teacher Dioscorus; Saint Athanasius the Apostolic; Saint Peter the priest-martyr and the high priest; Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Theodosuius, Saint Theophilus, Saint Demetrius, Saint Cyril, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory the theologian, Saint Gregory the wonder-worker, Saint Gregory the Armenian; the three hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicea, the one hundred at Ephesus; our righteous father great Abba Antony, the righteous Abba Paul, the three saints Abba Macarii, and all their children the cross-bearers, our father Abba John the hegomen; our father Abba Pishoi the righteous perfect man, the beloved of our good Saviour; our father Abba Paul of Tammoh and Ezekiel his disciple; my masters the Roman fathers Saints Maximus and Domitius; the forty nine martyrs the elders of Shiheet; the strong Saint Abba Moses; John Kame the priest; our father Abba Daniel the hegomen; our father Abba Isidore the priest; our father Abba Pachom, of the Koinonia, and Theodore his disciple; our father Abba Shenoute the archimandrite and Abba Wissa his disciple. And all choir of your saints, through whose prayers and supplications, have mercy on us all and save us, for the sake of your holy name, which is called upon us."

Throughout the liturgy of St. James written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem has references to Mary as the Every-Virgin throughout.

Example: "Let us call to mind our most holy, pure, most glorious and blessed Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, of the holy, glorious Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John, of the holy, godlike and all-praised Apostles, of the glorious Prophets and victorious Martyrs and all the holy and just, that by their prayers and intercessions we may all find mercy." The book I have uses the Greek word "aeiparthenos." I am not very much past the infant stage of learning Greek, but aei-parthenos seems to mean "ever virgin." Am I incorrect here?

I was aware that Lateran I was not an ecumenical council, but Constantinople II, which was one and did occur earlier (553 AD), did say this in its anathemas:

"If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema."

And

"If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema."

And finally,

"If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, but alleges that he was only a man born to her, whom it describes as a temple, as if God the Word was one and the man someone quite different; which condemns holy Cyril as if he were a heretic, when he gives the true teaching of Christians, and accuses holy Cyril of writing opinions like those of the heretical Apollinarius ;which rebukes the first holy synod of Ephesus, alleging that it condemned Nestorius without going into the matter by a formal examination; which claims that the twelve chapters of holy Cyril are heretical and opposed to the true faith; and which defends Theodore and Nestorius and their heretical teachings and books. If anyone defends the said letter and does not anathematize it and all those who offer a defence for it and allege that it or a part of it is correct, or if anyone defends those who have written or shall write in support of it or the heresies contained in it, or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema."

Baed on the language of the Council, it would suggest that the Church must have reached a consensus on Mary's status as ever-virgin, because the Anathemas of Constantinople II refers to her status as such at least three different times and and the title appears in in the above liturgies all of which I understand predate the Council.

As for the titles Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, I do understand where you are coming from. If the Church does ever declare such things to be dogma, they are going to have to spell things out very precisely so as to avoid confusion and misunderstanding for the reasons that you point out. Perhaps that is why Benedict XVI has not define them despite of popular support among many Catholics to do so.

Like Pope Benedict XVI, I pray for the Anglican Communion not to fall into schism. While the Catholic Church would love to have you all join us, it should be on terms that we agree upon and not because someone feels they "had to" because of a dispute over doctrine.

God bless!

Augustinian Successor said...

Paul, you're reading too much into the liturgies. They do not say nor can we deduce that Mary is a co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix. She is an intercessor no doubt but not in a class of her own but more appropriately as a/the prominent member of the Church Triumphant. There is no hint that her intercession stands apart from the Church Triumphant and sui generis. So, you quotes prove nothing.

Augustinian Successor said...

Paul, I'll never join the Roman Church because she is Babylon, the Harlot Church. I am a true Catholic, and you're not. The Roman Church is not a Catholic Church; on the contrary she is an enemy of the Catholic Faith.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello, A.S., I offered those liturgies and the citations to the Anathemas of the Second Ecumentical Council of Constantinople as a response to your evidential claim that the early Church had not accepted the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity as dogma. Further, as I understand both the notions of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix, the idea that Mary's mediation and role in the economy of redemption is purely secondary, that is to the extent that a creature could. The Catholic Church is not about to make the Holy Trinity, a quartet.

As far as your diatribe against the Church of Rome, am I to understand that you also burn Guy Fawkes in effigy and wear the orange on appropriate holidays or was that rant just thrown in to impress folks? Yawn...

And I praise God, whom we both love and serve, who saves harlots, even the Roman variety. I will still pray for you and the Anglican Communion.

God bless!

Augustinian Successor said...

Paul, you don't seem to understand between doctrine and dogma. Doctrine is an established teaching of the Church which many not necessarily enjoy dogmatic status, i.e. infallible, certain, definitive status within the hierarchy of truths. The faith which is required of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not de fide, i.e. the same as the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility. Roman theologians may express private or public doubt about the plausibility of the perpetual virginity and still remain firmly orthodox. And you call yourself Roman, Roman with an Orange laple!

For your information, I am against the Orange Order as much as I am against Freemasonry. As for the burning of Guy Fawkes, he was burned not as a heretic but as a traitor for involved in a conspiracy to blow up Parliament. Of course, he was a Romanist. But Romanism consists of religious and political too. It is the political side of the coin which provoked political reaction against Romanism. You must understand this.

Augustinian Successor said...

Paul, don't bother praying for the Anglican Communion. By now you should know that I no more recognise the lot of you than I do with the so-called Anglo-Catholics who are not true Anglicans. Listen here, the Church of England is Protestant and Catholic. Not either or, but both and. She became Protestant precisely in order to return to true Catholicism. What is Catholicism?

Catholicism is unity in essentials and charity in non-essentials. What is the essential? Not the pope. But the Gospel. It is enough (satis est) to have agreement on the Gospel as it is orally and sacramentally proclaimed. To bind Christians to additional so-called essentials is bondage not freedom.

The Gospel sets free, the Law keeps you in bondage. Romanism is about the latter; Protestantism (historic, classical) is about the former.

Augustinian Successor said...

The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) with about 400000 members in hteir irrefragable movement towards Rome is heading deeper into apostasy. John Henry Newman made the biggest mistake in his entire life by perverting to Rome. Foolish man who would submit his conscience to an institution rather than to the Word of God. Newman was no Catholic. The Church of England with its 39 Articles, Prayer-book and the Ordinal is a true Catholic communion.

Augustinian Successor said...

In Baptism, Protestant Christians are killed and raised up again in newness of life, as per St. Paul. We have died in our Baptism, just as we were crucified to our deaths at the Cross in Jesus Christ. Baptism is the justified life. The whole of the Christian life is embodied in Baptism - repentance and faith. I have been baptised, therefore I am justified. Roman teaching on Baptism contradicts St. Paul because it is defectible and capable of being "shipwrecked". St. Paul never said that!

I receive the true Body and Blood of Our Saviour, Christ Jesus who died for me and the sins of the Church on the Cross. This (i.e. referring to the bread) is My Body, etc. ... Not this Body is My Body. Was that how the Apostles understood Jesus? The Lord's Supper is a Testament, not a Covenant. It goes into effect by the death of Testator. The Church is the Beneficiary. The inheritance is pure gift, none other than Our Lord Himself. At the Lord's Supper therefore, Jesus gives of Himself to the Church.he immediately distributes His Body and Blood to be partaken by the Church. The Sacrifice of the Mass reverses the order and sequence. Thus, the text of Scripture is distorted, perverted to mean something else. A testament completely excludes the role of the beneficiaries. They are recipients. They don't earn, merit, however that is qualified or "glossed over"; they simply just receive. Which is why the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrifice but Gift.

Augustinian Successor said...

Paul, whilst I hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary, I hold it as a lesser status to her Divine Maternity. Refusing to confess the perpetual virginity of Mary does not make one less Catholic. The Second Ecumentical Council of Constantinople was not directly addressing the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity but of more immediately concerned with safeguarding her virginal parturition which is an integral portion of the catholic confession of the Apostle's Creed. In other words, whilst one may "deduce" or imply perpetual virginity, it is not so clearly defined there, and its denial in no way affect the Incarnation.

Janus said...

This is MARIOLATRY!!!!