Mary ascended bodily?

This is a classic illustration in the "differences" in approach between the two groups. 3AngelsMom gives a list of scritpures to show that Christ is the Redeemer and He alone is our Savior. Her argument is based entirely from the text of scripture.

Instead of formulating a response to any one point in 3AngelsMom's post - Carson chooses to post "a web link" to a site that gives RC reasons for selecting Mary as our sinless, co-redemptrix, mediator, intercessor etc. And on that site only the first section deals with "Evidence from the Bible". So it is easy to see the comparison.

====================================

The Redemption

The salvation of humanity was accomplished by God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The

This does not "appear" to make the case for Mary as Co-Redeemer. So the RCC points out "yes but Mary is Jesus' Mother so she becomes CO-- anything that Jesus does because she is His mother".

Passion and Death of Christ, our sole Redeemer, was ..superabundant... But God willed that this work of salvation be accomplished through the collaboration of a woman, while always respecting her free will. "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).

Again - they only prove "Jesus was born. And that means he had a mother" - they do not show from scripture that the NT authors consider this as making "his mother Co-Redeemer".


Coredemptrix in Scripture

Permeating Scripture is God’s revelation that his plan of redemption will involve, first and foremost, the collaboration of two persons: one divine and one human, the "woman" and her "seed." This is first revealed in the book of Genesis: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head..." (Gen. 3:15). This passage of Scripture prophetically foreshadows Mary with her divine Son in the promise of victory over the serpent. It reveals God’s will that the "woman" share in the same "enmity" (absolute opposition) between herself and the serpent as does her "seed," Jesus Christ. This great struggle and victory over the serpent foreshadows the divine work of redemption by Jesus Christ, with the Mother of the Redeemer’s intimate collaboration in his saving work.

The Genesis 3 text tells us that hatred exists between humanity and the devil. It does not tell us "humanity will defeat the devil" nor does it say "humanity will HELP defeat the devil" which is the "salient" point that the RC position "NEEDS" to make its case for Mary as "CO-Redeemer" not just "another person at odds with Satan".

Specifically it is not Mary's part in "biological BIRTH" but Mary's part in the WORK of Redemption. Christ's work in bearing the sins of mankind - his substitutionary atoning sacrifice - His "redemptive" actions.

Mary does not ALSO empty herself and become a human as did Christ (Philipians 2).

Mary does not ALSO die a substitutionary atoning death for the sins of mankind as did Christ (2Cor 5).

So "lacking" any such statement - they make it up.


This "collaboration" or "co-operation" or "participation" of the Mother of Jesus with her Son in the redemptive work of salvation is referred to in the Church as "Marian coredemption," or more specifically, Mary is referred to as "the Coredemptrix with the Redeemer."

Thank you Carson for that quote. Though clear and explicit - it is anot a quote of scripture, just of what the RCC had "hoped" to find in scripture.

======================


The Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38) announces the great work of salvation, and it also discloses the involvement of two persons: the Redeemer and the Mother of the Redeemer.

Notice it says "He shall save HIS people from their sins" it does not say "THEY(Mary and Jesus) shall save HIS people". It does not say "HE shall save His people by the act of Being Born and Mary is chosen to help in that saving act".

It is Christ's suffering for the sins of mankind that is identified as saving us - and Mary is never said to "Take our sins upon her" or to "suffer in our place". Never do we find "THEY who knew no sin BECAME sin in our place" rather it is "HE who knew no sin BECAME sin for us that WE might become the righteousness of God IN HIM" not "IN THEM".

Never do we see "his Saving Birth" mentioned as the "redemptive work of Christ".


The Virgin is called to give her free and full consent to conceive this child. She is not merely a passive recipient of the message, but she was given an active role, and heaven awaited her free choice. It is precisely by her free consent to collaborate in God’s saving plan that she becomes the Coredemptrix.

And it is PRECISELY that "co-Redemptrix" "Saving Birth" language that is NOT found in use by the NT authors BY CONTRAST to that which we find the RCC doing.

It is Christ's suffering IN our place - taking OUR sins upon Himself that is the Redemptive act. Being born is never called in scripture "A redemptive act" or substitutionary redeeming action.


The prophecy of Simeon to Mary, "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:25), affirms Mary’s unique participation in the work of redemption, as it warns her that she will undergo an unspeakable pain that will pierce her soul, for the salvation of mankind.


Again - Simeon does not say "you mary will suffer for the sins of mankind. You with Christ will save your people from their sins. You will suffer pain placed uponn you as a substitute for guilty man". In truth the Disciples suffer also at Christ's cross but none of that suffering is called "Co-redemptive Suffering".

The pain of Christ's relatives and friends - in no way constitutes a co-redemptive substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind along "with Christ".

And yet - there are those who would construe it as such..


John 19:25 tells us of Jesus’ Mother at the very foot of the cross, persevering with her Son in his worst hour of agony, and therein suffering the death of her Son. Thus in her own suffering too, the Mother of the Redeemer participates in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ. That is "Marian coredemption," most perfectly embodied in the term "Coredemptrix."

The RC argument seeks to make man HIS OWN redeemer hoping that "While we give Christ all the credit due him - mankind also gets credit for redeeming mankind" Notice


In God’s mysterious and merciful providence, he willed not only that man would be redeemed by the Blood of Christ, but that man would also be given a share in Jesus’ redemptive mission. As our "goodness" does not make God less good, neither does Mary’s share in God’s redemptive plan take away from Jesus’ unique role as Redeemer.

===========================

In a 1985 address at the Marian shrine in Guayaquil, Ecuador, Pope John Paul II said:

"Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption....Crucified spiritually with her crucified son


Here we see one of the most bold claims possible for any human to make in the face of Christ's work for mankind.


Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity....In fact, Mary's role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son" (Inseg VIII/1 (1985) 318-319 [ORE 876:7]).

The Catholic church knows full well that simply claiming Mary as His mother falls far short of the massively bold claim of "CoRedemptrix". They know that to claim to share in the work of Redemption one must not simply participate in birth - but in the ACTUAL redemptive acts of Christ's life and death.


We call Mary the Coredemptrix because her whole life was a sharing in the redemptive mission of her Son, which reached its climax at the foot of the Cross at Calvary. Truly at Calvary, the Mother of Jesus becomes, through her suffering with the Redeemer, the Mother of all peoples.


Mediatrix in Scripture

For most non-Catholic Christians GOD is viewed as the one who causes God the Son to be incarnate - to be given HUMAN nature.

But in the Catholic mind - MARY is the being with that power and virtue of that power - becomes Mediatrix - Mediator for mankind along with Christ..


The title "Mediatrix of all Graces" is appropriate for Mary simply by the fact that she gave Jesus his human nature. In accepting the invitation to be his Mother


She, alone, freely chooses whether she will or will not give flesh to the second person of the Trinity.

It is the sovereign Mary to whom they call upon as Mediatrix.

And rather than the Power of God the Holy Spirit causing the response of John the Baptist to Mary - it becomes (in Catholic mythology) the power of Mary to do so.


"Mediatrix of all graces" is also a fitting title for the Blessed Virgin in light of Luke 1:41, where the physical presence of Mary mediates grace to the unborn John the Baptist, by bringing to John the presence of the unborn Redeemer, resulting in the sanctification of the Baptist.


==================

At the Wedding feast - Mary does not ask Christ for anything she simply tells the servants to go DIRECTLY to Christ and do whatever HE says.

The RC position is to stand this on it's head - AS if the servants come to Mary and then she goes to Christ and pleads with Him on THEIR behalf to kindly have mercy on them and given them what they want.


At the Wedding of Cana (cf. John 2:1-11), we again see Mary’s mediation, and, most significantly, we see the effects of her mediation: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him" (John 2:11).


And so INSTEAD of this being the benefit of servants going to Christ and doing what HE tells them -- it "becomes" Mary going to Christ and getting a favor on their behalf.

These examples are classic models of using scripture as a "pretex" rather than evaluating the context and letting it speak for itself. It stands the meaning of the texts on their head seeking it's own inserted meaning.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thesalonian,

Given the way you react to evidence, I don't think it would really matter.

**** Ditto ****

The Assumption isn't about evidence for you as an RC anyway. If the RCC teaches it, right or wrong, you believe it.

*** Well I could easily say the same about you. Regardless of the evidence we provide you will say yes when we say no. It is a major excercies in pearl casting****

The stuff about evidence is just smoke. I give you good evidence from your own scholars that show that the Assumption is based on apocryphal literature declared heretical by 2 Popes, and what do you do? How do you react?

*** Scholars like Ludwig Ott. You put him in your corner as against the Assumption as Dogma. I answered this a page or two back. Ott makes you a liar. It is also riduclous to say that because a doctrine is expounded in a heretical work and cannot be found in a document before that, then it's origin is from that document. Further, that a doctrine in in a document that has been declared heretical does not neccessarily make the doctrine heretical. Origen and tertullian prove that point. ****

Further
Silence.

It's deafening.

**** First of all I answered your objections. So sorry you didn't see my post. Your bravado is noted. Secondly if you think I have time to be on this thing all day waiting for Prima Latreia to post so I can immediately rebut, then you have a problem with ego.

Blessings****

 

Bob Ryan,

I saw your so called smoking gun quote. It is quite clear in that quote that Pius XII attributes all that Mary can accomplish for us to the Grace of God won for us by her son Jesus Christ on the Cross. There is much praise of Mary. I am sorry you find that offensive. You must not like Rev 12 which speaks of a woman clothed with the Sun and the Moon and the stars at her feet too well either. This is not written about God and yet it is quite complimentary to this woman John sees in heaven, regardless of who you take her to be. By your definition it would be worship.

There is nothing in your posts that indicate or prove that any altars in the Catholic Church have been built to Mary. Thus I must stand by my accusations that have been pointed in your direction to date, in spite of your riducule. You are a liar Bob. There are no Catholic Altars to Mary.

I could go in to much more detail in speaking of the dear deceased Pope's words but it would be a major excercise in pearl casting so I think I will let you have your fun. I am sure there will be much more bravdo and claim of victory over my saying this. Go ahead have your glory. In the end it won't mean much anyway.

Blessings Bob.

 

Revelation 12:1-6
12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

When did Mary flee to the wilderness for three and a half years? The rest of the chapter has some interesting things to say about this woman that could clearly never refer to Mary.
Who brought forth a man child?
Jesus told us himself.
He said: "Salvation is of the Jews."
DHK

 

"When did Mary flee to the wilderness for three and a half years? "

Where are the creatures who look like locusts? Hmmm, everything is literal in the BofR. That's going to cuase you lots of problems in understanding it. Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt to protect them. That is one possible explanation. There are others.

"The rest of the chapter has some interesting things to say about this woman that could clearly never refer to Mary. "

It doesn't all have to refer to Mary because the woman can also be seen as the Church. Mary is a type of the Church. She is not the Church so there are things about the Church that will not be reflected in Mary.

"Who brought forth a man child?
Jesus told us himself.
He said: "Salvation is of the Jews.""

So you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin or something? Get real. One difficulty you Protestants have is your tunnel vision. I have actually had Prots tell me Jesus is the foundation and disagree that Prophets and Apostles were also the foundation. Who is the light of the world. One place says Jesus, one place says that Christians are. Salvatoin is of the Jews, true statemetn. That does not mean that Mary didn't bring forth a man child. And in fact it would take a fool to think she didn't.

I hope I answered soon enough for you so that the silence wasn't too deafening.

 

Hi BobRyan,

You wrote, "Christ is the Redeemer and He alone is our Savior."

Which is exactly what the doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate acknowledges. Notice: Mary is our Co-redemptrix, not our Redemptrix.

I do appreciate you posting the voxpopuli.org information on this website. I didn't want to inundate everyone by flooding them with a huge copy/paste.

For a more indepth review of one side of the Biblical perspective (Eve/New Eve), I suggest reading the post that began this thread where I presented my term paper for the class online:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001230

In this paper, I clarify exactly how Mary is the Coredemptrix, which will cure many of the objections that you gave in your post - because it demonstrates that Coredemptrix is substantially different from Redemptrix by way of merit. It is impossible for Mary to merit as Jesus did.

I'll repeat myself: It is impossible for Mary to merit as Jesus did.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 29, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Thessalonians:
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

And when did this episode happen to Mary. 1,2,60 days is the exact time as time, and times and half a time (vs.14), which is also the exact time period of 42 months given in ch. 13:5. They all refer to a time period of 3 and a half years. When was Mary for three and a half years in the wilderness? And in verse 14, specifically hiding from Satan (the serpent) for three and a half years? When did Satan make war with the remnant of Mary’s seed? I thought Mary (according to RC theology) was a virgin continuously? What other seed did Mary have? What is the remnant of Mary’s seed?

It is obvious that the woman is Israel, of whom Christ came. Christ was a Jew. In the end times Satan will come up and try to destroy the Jews. It is called the Battle of Armageddon. There will be a “remnant” of Jews left at that time, that God has preserved for His own. The Tribulation Period is a period of time that lasts for 7 years divided into two halves of three and a half years each. Everything in the Book of Revelation is not as symbolic as you think. And when you don’t understand something you just can’t use the excuse: it is allegorical or symbolical therefore it doesn’t mean what you are saying. That is a lame excuse for poor study!
DHK

 

DHK

DHK has spoken - no symbols in the book of R. Well then I guess the Eucharist is true and Jesus' flesh is true food and his blood true drink. There have been so many false claims about the BofR from Protestants, it is hard to count them all. Starting with Mr. Miller's preditions of the day he was going to come. Turn on TBN any day and you hear something different. The book The Late Great Planet Earth sold 35 million copies. What a bunch of suckers. You can get a copy today as a throw in with about 10 other books for a nickel. Protestants are not to be believed when it comes to the Book of R. I will take back my statement about the woman being taken in to the desert being about Joseph taking the Holy Family to Egypt. Oh man, someone actually admitting they made a mistake about scripture. No protestant ever will even though they contradict eachother.

"What other seed did Mary have? What is the remnant of Mary’s seed? "

What translation are you looking at because I don't know of any that speak of Mary's seed in the Bible in Rev 12. Now the versions I have seen do speak of her offspring. These are spiritual offspring as Mary and we are offspring of the Church as well is our spiritual mother, Jesus being our spiritual brother. Apparently you don't know Catholic theology that well.

All I have time for DHK. Sorry to dissapoint you.

[ January 29, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

For the sake of not being accused of bringing the charge of "false accusations" on someone please use the quote button on the top of the page. They are very useful.

Here is what I said:

I never once said that there are no symbols in the Book of Revelation. Please learn how to read.
DHK

 

Thessalonian,

"Ditto"?

You have no grounds for that. You have presented no evidence. I have. I stand ON the evidence. For you to say evidence does not matter to me is utterly without foundation.

As to Ludwig Ott, I did not say that he was opposed to the dogma of the Assumption. I said he admitted that it was based on the Transitus, a document declared hertical by two Popes. And he is an RC scholar. So if you think the argument is bogus take it up with your own scholar. The reality is that the dogma has no legitmate basis. The only basis is this hertical document. For you to asert that ther could be another basis is irrational. Provide that basis. If there is no evidene what are we to say? I suppose exactly what I did say, that your belief is in what he RCC teaches, not the evidence, for inthis case there is no evidence to support your belief, and much that contracits it. You have done nothing but try to find reasons to ignore the evidence, not deal with it.

As to what you think I did not see, I fear you are in error. I responded to that. I fear it is you who missed MY response.

BTW, "Waiting all day?" The last post I made responding was nearly THREE DAYS ago. Please. If you have no defense then say so. Don't attempt such transparant tactics to excuse your silence as being my issue.

 

Post deleted by Brother Curtis

[ January 30, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

Hi everyone,

Here is what Ott writes, "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours (d. 594). Early sermons on the Feast of Mary's entry into heaven are those of Ps.-Modestus of Jerusalem (about 700), Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733), Andrew of Crete (d. 740), St. John Damascene (d. 749) and Theodore of Studion (d. 826)." (italics added)

"In the East, at least since the sixth century, and at Rome, at any rate, since the end of the seventh century (Sergius I, 687-701) the Church celebrated the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio). The object of the Feast was originally the death of Mary, but very soon the thought appeared of the incorruptibility of her body and of its assumption into Heaven. The original title Dormitio (Sleeping) was changed into assumptio (Sacramentarium Gregorianum). In the Liturgical and Patristic texts of the eighth and ninth centuries, the idea of the bodily assumption is clearly attested. Under the influence of Ps.-Hieronymus, there was uncertainty for a long time as to whether or not the assumption of the body was signified by the Feast. Since the peak period of the Middle Ages, the affirmative view has gained presence, and has now been dominant for a long time."

Before all of this, Ott writes, "the speculative grounds on which the Fathers of the closing Patristic era, and the theologians of the scholastic movement, led by Ps.-Augustine (ninth century) base the incorruptibility and the transfiguration of the body of Mary, are also based upon Revelation: These are:

"a)Freedem from sin. As the dissolution of the body is a punishment consequent on sin, and as Mary, the immaculately conceived and sinless one was exempt from the general curse of sin, it was fitting that her body should be excepted from the general law of dissolution and immediately assumed into the glory of Heaven, in accordance with God's original plan for mankind.

"b) Motherhood of God. As the body of Christ originated form the body of Mary (caro Jesu caro est Mariae: Ps.-Augustine) it was fitting that Mary's body, should share the lot of the body of Christ. As a physico-spiritual relationship the Motherhood of Mary demands a likeness to her Divine Son in body and soul.

"c) Perpetual virginity. As Mary's body was preserved unimpaired in virginal integrity, it was fitting that it should not be subject to destruction after death.

"Participation in the work of Christ. As Mary, in her capacity of Mother of the Redeemer, took a most intimate share in the redemptive work of her Son it was fitting that, on the completion of her earthly life, she should attain to the full fruit of the Redemption, which consists in the glorification of soul and body."

that's in p. 209-210 of the TAN publication in 1974 of Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 30, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

No scripture, words by fallen men, no Biblical support for any of it, Carson.

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "No scripture, words by fallen men, no Biblical support for any of it, Carson."

Considering the fact that Scripture is written by fallen men... we can say that they were given the charism of inspiration by the Holy Spirit so that they may be used by Him for His purpose.

So, enough with the use of "fallen men", as if this was even an argument.

And, the Biblical foundations are given before these quotations that I provided. I wouldn't be so quick to the draw.

God bless,

Carson

 

2 Timothy 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

Hi Brother Curtis,

You quoted one of my favorite verses, "2 Timothy 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Amen!

God bless you,

Carson

 

It was my response to the illusion you put forth that God didn't write the Bible.

'tis a good verse.....

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "It was my response to the illusion you put forth that God didn't write the Bible."

Where did I say this, which you accuse me of?

Scripture says:

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand" (1 Cor 16:21).

"See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand" (Gal 6:11).

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my fetters. Grace be with you" (Col 4:18).

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write" (2 Thess 3:17).

"I, Paul, write this with my own hand, I will repay it -- to say nothing of your owing me even your own self" (Phlm 1:19).

Paul was a fallen man, and I wrote, "Considering the fact that Scripture is written by fallen men, we can say that they were given the charism of inspiration by the Holy Spirit so that they may be used by Him for His purpose."

How, in any way, does what I wrote translate to, "God didn't write the Bible"? Do you believe that your accusation is ethical as a moderator of this forum?

God bless,

Carson

Exodus 20:16, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

[ January 30, 2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson, I don't know what a charism is, so forgive me, but your sentence starts out saying scripture was written by fallen man, does it not ?

When you write purposefully confusing posts, you will confuse people.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.