Christians are a redeemed people. In other words, Christians are a bought, purchased and paid-for people, hence the teachings of Paul when he said:
“For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:20)
So how are God’s people redeemed? Peter answered this when he said:
“knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-19)
God’s people have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (John 1:29) – simple enough to understand, that is until some try to teach that not only did the blood of the Lamb redeem God’s people, but so did the one whose womb bore the Lamb.
To the contrary of, or in addition to God’s word, whichever you prefer, the Catholic Church teaches, “As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.” (from Pope Benedict XV INTER SODALICIA)”
The Catholic Church attempts to share with Mary what belongs only to Jesus. Never can it be “justly” said that anyone is a co-redeemer of souls, for there is only one Redeemer of the lost; and salvation’s redeeming price was paid, not through His birth, but through His blood! To God be the glory, and to God alone for the price that has been paid:
“You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.” Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:9-12)
While the creeds of men may refer to Mary as a “co-redeemer,” the scriptures do not – not once! And for good reason! For the just price of redemption came at the cost of blood, by Jesus’ blood; and the price was paid by Jesus and Him alone. While Mary played a wonderful and amazing role in God’s plan, she could not redeem herself much less the human race (Luke 1:46-47).
May we all remember, or learn, that those who hear the word of God and keep it are as blessed as the woman who carried the world’s only Redeemer. EA
“And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!“
(Luke 11:27-28)
keltonburg preacher 
I agree 100%, and believe the worship of Mary to be close akin to idolatry. That having been said, do we, as Christians, throw out the baby with the bath water? I mean, there must have been something special about Mary that we should know since God chose her as the mother of Jesus. Not to worship her, or to accord her praise, but just to know what there was about her that God should choose her.
Absolutely there had to be something about Mary that led to her being chosen by God, and I also believe that her role may be taken for granted among many individuals because of an aversion to the undue “glorification” that the catholic church has given to her. The solution to the problem that the catholic church is burdened with can be found in not looking to humans to do that which is only accomplished by God.
Hi. I do hope you will not mind my replying, since this is the matter we were discussing before. I will not spend a lot of time in replying and I definitely am not interested in arguing with you, but I do hope you will read and consider my words.
I will again point out that the quote you are arguing against does not use the term “co-redeemer.” If you mean to argue with that term, you should find a quote that more directly addresses what you are arguing against. There are many times that term has been used, so it wouldn’t be very hard to find one.
The term “co-redeemer” does not imply — and the quote you are arguing against does not suggest — that the Blessed Virgin Mary had a role in salvation in any way similar, equal, or comparable to that of Christ. No one in the Catholic Church intends to share with Mary anything that is rightly Christ’s — rather, we think Christ’s glory is so bright that it illuminates everything around Him, including his mother. Any honor we give to Mary is just a greater way to greatly honor Him. Jesus loved His mother, and so we do, too. And she did — as you agreed with me before, and repeated above — cooperate with God’s plan of salvation.
Now, you have to remember that Pope Benedict XV and many other Catholics of the past were not speaking English — they were speaking Latin. And the Latin language has different rules and conventions than the English language. One major difference, as I mentioned before, is that the Latin brain likes to put prefixes on things. In many cases where an English speaker would use a preposition, a Latin speaker puts a prefix on a noun or verb. For example, the word “convene” comes from the Latin “cum + venio,” to “come together.” Rather than say “we come together” as an English speaker might, the Latin speaker would say, “convenimus.” The word “cooperate” is another apropos example. It comes from the same prefix — “cum + opero,” to “work together.”
In English we are used to the prefix “co-” meaning that people share in equal responsibilities in a job — “co-contributors,” “co-chairmen,” “co-instructors” are all people equally pitching into their jobs. But in Latin the prefix doesn’t imply that. It just means that people are doing the job “with” each other. To say that Mary cooperated (“worked together”) with salvation is quite a different proposition (in both English and Latin) than saying Mary “worked” salvation herself. Similarly to say that Mary is a “co-redemptrix,” as she is sometimes called in Latin, in no way implies that she is on the same level as Christ the Redeemer, is “another Redeemer,” or shares in His glory or responsibility. There is only one Redeemer, and that is Christ. To call Mary a “co-redemptrix” only means that she “worked together” — she “cooperated” — with redemption. Remember, she herself had to be redeemed, too!
(Because of this linguistic confusion, it’s not very common for people to use the term “co-redeemer” or “co-redemptrix” in English these days. You will mainly find that in older writings, especially those that were translated directly from Latin. You will not find that term in the present Catechism or in any other recent teaching of the Church.)
Rather than continuing to use that very old quote, here is a recent teaching of the Church on this very question, from the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium (§62) [which speaks at length about the Catholic Church’s beliefs about Mary and her role in salvation and relationship with the Church, if you would be interested in learning, at least to understand what you are criticizing]:
Now, you seem pretty bent on criticizing the faith of others. I’m not sure how that helps you in your own ministry of evangelization, but to me it seems a pretty negative approach. Peace to you, brother.
Hello Joseph,
Why should I find another quote when this one reveals what the catholic church means when it uses the word “co-redeemer” and its various forms? If you read and pay attention to what’s being said in the quote you will notice that the speaker isn’t trying to say that Mary “helped God or Jesus” but that she accomplished what could only be accomplished by them. The speaker is trying to equate her actions with their actions! Look at what’s being said:
“As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son…” – the speaker is trying to equate her experience with Jesus’.
“…so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could…” – the speaker again is trying to equate Mary’s actions with the actions of Deity.
“…so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.” – the speaker is saying God used her, the speaker is saying that she, along with Jesus has redeemed the human race through her actions! Joseph, there is verbal intent doing exactly what you said it isn’t doing: “similar, equal, or comparable to that of Christ”
Listen to the quote – it’s saying that Mary, with the help of Jesus, has redeemed the human race. The attention here is being given to Mary as a redeemer, but there is only one Redeemer. I don’t understand why you don’t understand this. Jesus didn’t need anyone’s help. He accomplished man’s redemption through His own actions. God accomplished man’s redemption through His own plans (Ephesians 2:8-9). There is no room in the gospel for saying anything close to what’s being quoted.
I know there are many other quotes that also show the catholic church’s perversion of Mary’s role, but rest assured, when it comes to this quote, that even if the original was in Latin, the quote was translated into English by the catholic church and the words that they wanted to be used were used. They could’ve used all of the other “explanations” that you provided, but they chose not to because the words chosen best described the intent of the words – that being that if it wasn’t for Mary the redemption of man wouldn’t had been possible! That logic could be applied to everyone from John the baptizer to Pilate to the people who spit in Jesus’ face. Yes, God used many, many people in His plan of redemption, but 100% of the “credit” goes to Jesus and Jesus alone, for redemption came by His blood and His blood alone. I understand well what I criticize that’s why I criticize it, and this is not something that the Bible looks down upon (1 Timothy 4:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:1-5).
Joseph, the whole conversation comes down to the fact that I consider God’s word to be the standard of faith and the catholic church considers the words of fickle, ebbing and flowing and uninspired men to be the standard of faith. Look at your reply, it’s “twice” the length of my post, and it’s full of the words of men that’s trying to teach things that the Bible doesn’t teach (1 Peter 4:11a). For example you quoted, “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.” None of that, not one single word or anything close to that is used in the Bible to describe Mary. I am aware of what the catholic church teaches concerning Mary, and I am aware of how catholics pray to/through her, and how they fall at the feet of graven images in her “fashion” to kiss it and “bless” it and call out to her. People don’t need “Mary’s maternal help,” they need to learn the word of God and then keep it as Jesus said (Luke 11:27-28).
You’ve read two or three posts that I’ve done and you think I’m pretty “bent” on criticizing others? Feel free to read all of my posts and I’m sure that you’ll find that the percentage of my posts that focus on Jesus and what He provides through His grace would be greater than what would be found on your site, because on your site you focus more on defending the words of men than promoting the word of God which is the way one learns about the salvation through mankind’s only Redeemer and not about the unsubstantiated roles of Mary that the catholic church falsely ascribes to her (Romans 1:16-17).
Take care Joseph, and I hope and pray that God’s word illuminates your heart toward the truth and away from error (2 Corinthians 4:1-7).
I apologize if the length of my previous response offended you: I was doing my best to be patient with you and attempt to explain things fully (I do tend to be a bit long-winded and say even simple things with a lot of words!). As I said, I’m not interested in arguing with you. But
briefly(okay, so I’m not so good at “briefly”): The Catholic Church agrees that there is only one Redeemer, and that is Christ. We have no dispute there. What you have a problem with is the language we use to honor the Virgin Mary.Mary said yes. She allowed herself to be used of God, humbly and selflessly and obediently. So did a lot of other people, too. God accomplished man’s redemption through His own plans — but He used humans as instruments for those plans in very many cases, from the Old Testament all the way to the present day. The ones who gladly offered themselves to serve the Lord and His plans, humbly and selflessly and obediently — like Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah and the many prophets, Joseph, and John the Baptist — are worthy of honor, too. You’ve shown above that you have no problem with giving Mary the honor that is rightly due to her — she did play “a wonderful and amazing role” — and on that we agree. What we are quibbling over is language. The supposed “falling at the feet of graven images,” “kissing,” etc., that you are upset about — I have never seen that happen. Catholics do not “worship” Mary in the way you seem to think, but rather have a great love for her and a lot of nice things to say about her, and I hope there is nothing wrong in that.
I hold the Bible to be the written Word of God, too; just as inspired and just as inerrant as you do — the only difference between us is that I believe it’s not all God had to say. Scripture itself urges us not to neglect “the traditions that were taught by us, either by spoken word or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Apostles, “in the presence of many witnesses, [entrusted their teachings] to faithful men who [would] be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). Those teachings were not lost, but were passed down through the generations of Christians. They were held without question by the Christian Church for 1,500 years, until the time of the Reformation. I see no reason to throw them out now.
There is nothing in Scripture that supports the idea that “Scripture alone” is to be our “rule of faith” for anything (I’ve already written about the passage in 2 Timothy 3) — let alone the idea that everything we believe and even the language we use to talk about those beliefs has to come directly from Scripture. If you reject all “words of men” (nothing in Scripture encourages that), with no edification or encouragement from any other person (not even your eminent Protestant brethren?), then I am saddened by how bleak and barren your faith must be. No Catholic belief contradicts Scripture; the only thing being contradicted is your rigid interpretation of it. The Scriptures you are citing here are not really relevant to your argument at all. I personally find a lot of graces in the fullness of faith of the Catholic Church.
I believe you are a good man who loves the Lord and I’m glad for that. I make no comment about the rest of your posts, but in the few posts of yours I have replied to, you have been determined (that’s what “bent” means) to lash out in misunderstanding against my faith. I’ve done my best to offer you patient replies. I’m glad you don’t make a habit of that criticism — there are far too many good things to focus on (Philippians 4:8) — but it still pains me that you think that is the best way you can serve the Lord. My blog is full of the Word of God, both in Scripture and Tradition — I delight in it and study it just as much as you do. I do my best to serve the Lord, too, above all my loving God with all I am and loving my neighbor. I do consider you a brother in faith, and I invite you to follow along and read a bit. I humbly hope and pray that my words, too, might lead people to Christ.
Good morning, Joseph,
1) I don’t know where you got the idea that the length of your reply ‘offended’ me. If you got that impression you missed the point that I was making. The point is that if it wasn’t for you listening to the doctrines and commandments of men we wouldn’t even be having this conversation because the quote that you keep defending can’t be substantiated or defended with scripture. Your entire reply revolved, not around the teachings of the Bible, but around the teachings, the false teachings of a manmade hierarchy.
2) The catholic language that “honors” Mary is not simply “honoring” Mary. The language being used is lifting her up to a status that says without her there couldn’t have been any redemption of man, and this is simply not true! The only single individual that man needs for redemption and the only one single individual that deserves any and all praise for redemption is Jesus. God could’ve chosen any individual to be the bearer of Jesus (remember when God told Moses that He would destroy Israel and raise up another nation to be His people???), and yes He chose Mary; but my friend there’s a difference between playing a wonderful and amazing role in the plan of God and God’s plan failing without her. When someone says, “…so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race” they are placing Mary before Jesus and there are equating what Mary did with what Jesus did – there is no comparison at all because redemption came solely through the blood of Jesus and absolutely no other human’s effort. John the baptizer didn’t cry out “behold the “Mother of God” who takes away the sins of the world.” John cried out, “behold the Lamb of God who takes away sins of the world.”
This “honoring” language continually leads people in the catholic religion to wrongly believe that Mary not only played a role in redemption but that she presently plays a role in Heaven! For example:
“It has always been the habit of Catholics in danger and in troublous times to fly for refuge to Mary, and to seek for peace in her aternal goodness; showing that the Catholic Church has always, and with justice, put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God.” (Pope Leo VIII – Supremi Apostolatus)
Show me where a person could get this idea from the Bible. You can’t, that’s why it must be taught with the doctrines and commandments of men.
“From our earliest years nothing has ever been closer to Our heart than devotion-filial, profound, and wholehearted-to the most blessed Virgin Mary. Always have We endeavored to do everything that would redound to the greater glory of the Blessed Virgin, promote her honor, and encourage devotion to her.” … “For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation” (Pope Pius – IX UBI PREMUM)
Nothing has been closer??? Through Mary every hope, grace and salvation is obtained??? Can’t you see the error of this? Can’t you see how this flies straight in the face of Luke 11:27-28??? Show me Joseph how you can defend this teaching with the Bible. I know that the Bible teaches that every hope, grace and salvation comes through Jesus, but never do I see God’s word apply these things to Mary.
“With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.(6) Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God!” (Pope Leo XIII – Octobri Mense)
Equal truth??? God’s design??? Show me Joseph where God, where Jesus, ever said a person has to go to Mary before they can come to Jesus. Why can’t you see how terrible this error is? This is not only contrary to the Gospel, it is blasphemous. It takes a human and says that people must come to a human before they can get to the individual that God freely sent to save the world (John 3:16).
“[T]he most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot”. (Pope Pius IX – Ineffabilis Deus)
Satan was crush by Mary’s immaculate foot??? I’m sorry, I thought the Bible taught something like that the seed (who is Jesus – Galatians 4:4) was going to crush Satan’s head by having His heel bruised!
Joseph, you are wrong if you think that the catholic church only intends to “honor” Mary. The catholic church intends to take honor that belongs only to God and His Son and then apply it to Mary. Again, Joseph, like the Jews of old who couldn’t see God or His Son because they were so bent on following the doctrines and commandments of men, the catholic church commands its followers to place its commandments above God’s commandments and hence requires individuals to find salvation through some path that goes through humanity and not through Divinity alone:
“O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Pope Leo XIII – ADIUTRICEM) Need I say more on that subject? I pray to God that I don’t and that you see the error of catholic doctrine.
What part of no graven image does the catholic church not understand? As if praying to Mary isn’t unscriptural enough, praying to a statue??? “Worshipping God” by including a statue??? Through a parade for a statue??? The catholic church needs to learn how to not think about people more highly than they ought and also what the definition of an idol is (1 Corinthians 4:6)…think something like “Carmelites of Mary” for a second or two.
3) The oral tradition of the church never contradicted the written tradition of the church. Paul taught all the churches the same thing so when the supposed (made up to defend error) oral traditions contradict the word of God you can rest assured that those traditions came from the catholic church and not the church of God (again 1 Corinthians 4:6 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – no oral tradition needed). What “oral traditions” contradict you ask? How about baptizing babies, praying to Mary and other “saints”, priestly celibacy and a “class” of priests, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the office of the pope, etc. None of these can be supported with the word of God and hence none of these were supported with the first century church’s oral tradition. You may be “saddened” by my faith in God through His Word, but I’ll stick with what God has used for millennia to lead His people (Psalm 119:106, Romans 1:16-17).
4) I know what “bent” means, Joseph, and just to let you know, I may be a lot more familia with the catholic church than what you realize if you know what I mean. I am glad that you don’t want to argue about this topic, so I would appreciate it if the conversation stopped here, for the popes have said enough to end the conversation; but if not, then it’s your choosing.
Take care, Joseph, and God bless as you study His word.
P.S. – I know how to be long-winded too :)
I have plenty of answers for you if you are interested in them, but you don’t much seem to be, and I don’t imagine you are willing to consider what I have to say. You are right that Sacred Tradition has never contradicted Sacred Scripture, but you are wrong that the limited few scriptural texts we have were ever intended to be a compendium of the whole Christian faith. If you are interested in what “God has used for millennia to lead His people,” it might be helpful for you to think about what and who God used for the first millennium and a half of the Christian faith, how exactly you got the Bible and the Scriptures that you swear by, and how you received the doctrines that you adhere to. As I said, I’m not interested in arguing and will respect your wishes if you wish this conversation to end. But if you intend to continue criticizing the Catholic Church, you can expect to continue to receive responses from me. Peace to you.
My friend, if you think the catholic church produced the Bible you’re wrong. It was the catholic church who murdered people for producing (printing) the Bible and making it available to people in their common tongue so they could see the error of the catholic church. The catholic church tried to chain up the Bible in archaic languages that only they could “read and rightly interpret”, but God’s providence made His word available to the true masses. God is the author of His word, not the catholic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17). You may be busy defending the words, creeds, catechisms, commandments and doctrines of men, but you are not defending the word of God. You listen to your popes and I’ll listen to what Peter said (1 Peter 4:11a). Thanks for commenting anyways, Joseph.
I won’t spend a lot of time in replying to the above, since this conversation is over, but will paste for you something I wrote for someone last night:
God’s church arms herself with the sword of the Spirit – the catholic church used the sword of man on untold thousands of innocent people. This is not something you can deny, Joseph. That was the way that your error was proliferated and remained in power. That’s why the era of catholic dominance was called the dark age, Joseph, and that’s why individuals paid with their life – for revealing the dark errors of the catholic church and her persecuting leadership with the light of God’s word. You can stick your head in the sands of history and ignore the ungodly policies of the catholic church but you will do so willingly and not ignorantly.
I thought you wanted this conversation to be over?
Who? Where? When? I can deny it, because it never happened.
That’s interesting. When do you suppose that happened? What “error” was proliferated, and when?
The supposed “Dark Ages” were so-called, in retrospect, by people of the Renaissance, because the light of knowledge associated ancient Rome had supposedly gone out from the world. But in fact it was the Church, in the monasteries and eventually the universities, that kept learning and knowledge alive and preserved the texts of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as preserving and transmitting the texts of the Bible. The Middle Ages produced many of the greatest Christian thinkers the world has ever known — so the “Dark” Ages were anything but “dark.” It was only Reformation Protestants who ever referred to “an era of Catholic dominance,” as you say, co-opting the term. (The linked article might be a helpful article for you to read. It’s balanced and fair and presents all the different uses of the term “Dark Age.”)
What “individuals”? I can think of several heretics who were suppressed over the ages, but most of them I don’t think you would want to be associate with. In the time of the Reformation, there was a lot of persecution on both sides, so you can’t very well be referring to that.
The “sands of history,” you say? “Ungodly policies”? So I won’t be so “ignorant,” why don’t you find some actual historical evidence for your charges rather than make bald accusations.
Never happened? Like the holocaust never happened I guess. The catholic church killed “heretics” much the same way that the Jews tried to kill off the new sect called Christianity through intimidation and violence. You see how blind your church makes you? My “bald” accusations have plenty of roots, Joseph. Try reading a book called “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” or read any Encyclopedia that covers the history of your corrupt and vile popes who said convert or die by the sword. And the conversation is over, Joseph. You can stay busy promoting Mary and the doctrines of men, and I’ll be busy trying to promote Jesus and the Bible.
“Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” (Matthew 15:14)
I should’ve listened.
“Co” does not mean “equal”, it means “with”, or “co-operate”. Mary “co-operated” by saying “yes” to Jesus–by becoming the deliverer of the Deliverer.
If you wish to rip on Catholicism, you should present her understanding of her own words instead of forcing your understanding on her words.
pax
Patrick,
This conversation has done been threshed out with Joseph who seems to be more than capable of defending catholic doctrine. He brought up the same exact point and so the response I gave to him I now give to you:
“If you read and pay attention to what’s being said in the quote you will notice that the speaker isn’t trying to say that Mary “helped God or Jesus” but that she accomplished what could only be accomplished by them. The speaker is trying to equate her actions with their actions! Look at what’s being said:
“As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son…” – the speaker is trying to equate her experience with Jesus’.
“…so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could…” – the speaker again is trying to equate Mary’s actions with the actions of Deity.
“…so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.” – the speaker is saying God used her, the speaker is saying that she, along with Jesus has redeemed the human race through her actions! Joseph, there is verbal intent doing exactly what you said it isn’t doing: “similar, equal, or comparable to that of Christ”
Listen to the quote – it’s saying that Mary, with the help of Jesus, has redeemed the human race. The attention here is being given to Mary as a redeemer, but there is only one Redeemer. I don’t understand why you don’t understand this. Jesus didn’t need anyone’s help. He accomplished man’s redemption through His own actions. God accomplished man’s redemption through His own plans (Ephesians 2:8-9). There is no room in the gospel for saying anything close to what’s being quoted.”
Learn to represent a word within a given context and then you’ll see what’s being taught. When it comes to redeeming the lost souls of mankind the prefix of “co-” means two while the word one means one. It’s as simple as that. The scriptures never call Mary a redeemer of any kind for good reason – because Jesus is the redeemer, no ifs, ands, buts or “co-‘s” about it my friend. Glory to God and to God alone.
If you could simply show with the scriptures where I am wrong the conversation would be over. Joseph failed to do this and I suspect that you will too so please for the sake of time and for the sake of getting somewhere in the conversation, if you don’t have any scripture to support what you’re trying to defend then do not reply (1 Peter 4:11). Thanks.
And by the way, as far as your “deliverer of the Deliverer” comment goes it’s a prime example of the error of catholic doctrine specifically when it comes to this matter. Mankind was not redeemed by the birth of the Lamb, but by the blood of the Lamb.
“knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-19)
If there was ever a time for the Bible to have involved Mary in the redemption process it would’ve been here. But Peter, who was very familiar with Mary, said nothing of Mary, but instead gave the credit of redemption to where the credit was solely due – the blood of Jesus and the blood of Jesus alone.
I tried to teach you something. Oh well.
Yeah I saw all of those scripture references that you tried to teach me with on this topic. Thanks.
Wow. Just wow.
Patrick, do you have any scripture that teaches Mary is a “co-redeemer” in addition to the blood of Jesus or not? The topic/conversation can be settled that easily.
Eugene,
1) The topic/conversation is not “settled” by sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is a lie and not biblical, so why would I rely on it to “settle” something.
2) That is not to say that Mary’s status is not biblical. I explained to you what the title means, and the theology of the title is overtly shown in scripture.
3) Heresy is not within the scripture, it is within the interpretation of scripture. Your “interpretation” shuns any overt reference to Mary’s title. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt her, Eugene, because I’m pretty sure that somewhere, in your brain, you can recall some stories about the annunciation and the Incarnation.
4) Do you know what a straw man is? She is not co-redeamer in that her blood washes our sins away. She is co-redeamer in the manner in which was explained. She is a participant and gate in which Jesus was born. So if you were honest to yourself, you would notice that my use of the word “deliverer” for Mary used a small “d”, and my use of “Deliverer” for Jesus used a capital “D”. You would also notice how the word prefix “co” is used for Mary, and the word “Redeamer” is used for Jesus. In other words, Jesus’ toes are not, and never will be, trampled by Catholic theology.
5) Reading your words is like looking at a picture of myself 15 years ago, brother! I can dance with the rest of the CofC–I too was in the sect and believed that throwing bible verses around somehow proved me right. I grew up. I learned that theology is the insertion of reason into religion, and the scriptures are meaningless if they are not handled correctly. Which begs some questions: Who do you think you are to think you’ve mastered another Faith’s holy book? Why do you think your interpretation is more accurate than the interpretation of the body that wrote it? (These are “advanced” questions, but I hope you move to them soon.) Point is, just because you’re some (metaphorical) dude waving the Bible overhead on a street corner does not make you the body (the Church) that was given the Spirit of truth that would be guided into all truth. The Spirit that “wrote” the Bible is the same Spirit that interprets it, and that Spirit is with his Church: the Holy Catholic Church. Scripture, logic, and history, all testify to that fact. And therefore, the Church’s title for Mary is not only accurate, it doesn’t threaten you in the least.
6) I encourage you to follow my blog. I’ll try to get a post up soon about Fundamentalist knee-jerk reactions to mariology–examples of how basic scriptural reasoning and language scares the pee out of y’all for no reason. Just some more learning opportunities for you.
pax.
So still no scripture? Why am I not surprised?
On the contrary, scripture saturated my comment.
Must have been typed in with invisible ink then. Oh well, can’t say I didn’t give you a chance. Like the conversation with Joseph you’re just going in circles chasing your tail saying you’ve given scripture but yet there are no quotes so let’s just end the conversation. Have fun defending the undefendable words and traditions of a manmade church, Patrick. Now you can go and beat me up on one of your scripture absent posts which seems to be your hobby far and above discussing anything close to the gospel and the freedom it provides through Jesus, but thanks for stopping by anyways.
Mature.
So calling people “retarded” is a mark of wisdom and real catholic maturity huh? If so then you can keep your version of it too. Run along now and go make fun of me and call me names too since you’re so good at it. Goodbye, Patrick.
It is not a sin to be retarded, Eugene. I believe Scott is mildly retarded–it is not an insult. It’s actually giving him the benefit of any doubt because willful ignorance is sin.
What led me to believe he is mildly retarded, as I explained, is his inability to answer basic questions and follow basic trains of thought. I hoped you were different.
You’re (yours, Scott’s, the CofC’s) closed mindedness and refusal to acknowledge truths, and refusal to be logical, is bizarre. Why are you so bent on attacking Catholics and misrepresenting the Catholic Church? Why are you and people like you so turned on by it?
My friend, read my blog and you’ll find one or maybe two posts that has a catholic “theme” but read your own and see how many times you reference the church of Christ. After you do that then you’ll see who has the real and warped obsession when it comes to writing about other churches. Even if the “pot were black” the “kettle” definitely is.
I was tempted to erase your comment but now everyone can see that I wasn’t making up the name calling accusation. Out of your own mouth you have revealed what true stubbornness and resorting to whatever takes the focus off the subject really looks like. Good job…and very mature I might add.