Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant on September 15, 2016, 10:26:43 AM
-
On the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, some followers of Mr. Dimond continue to pierce Her Immaculate Heart by denying the doctrine repeatedly taught by the Popes, Saints and Doctors that She is truly Mediatrix of every grace and Co-Redemptrix with Christ. Pope Benedict XV teaches, "With Her suffering and dying Son She suffered and almost died, so did She surrender Her mother's rights over Her Son for the salvation of human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained to Her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that She together with Christ has redeemed the human race." (Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917)
And Pope St. Pius X explains further, "from this common sharing of sufferings and will, She merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and so the dispensatrix of all the gifts which were gained for us by the death and blood of Jesus. ... since She was ahead of all in holiness and union with Christ, and was taken up by Christ into the work of human salvation, She merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly, and is the chief minister of the dispensation of graces. (Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904)
Trent taught that Jesus ALONE is the Redeemer
1. First, explain the words of the Popes cited above. And secondly, no, Trent is saying that Jesus alone made condign satisfaction (atonement in strict justice) for sins. Do you understand the meaning of these terms? Fr. Garrigou Lagrange explains them beautifully in his work, "The Sufferings of Mary as Co-Redemptrix". In Mystical City of God, Ven. Mary of Agreda, after explaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at a time when some were still in error about it, also states about our Blessed Mother, "Just as She cooperated with the Passion ... the same Lord made Her participant of the dignity of Redemptrix".
Pope Leo XIII further confirms the doctrine, "She was already then a sharer in the laborious expiation for the human race ... that divine sacrifice had to be completed with Her present and looking on, for which She had generously nourished the victim from Herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother ... of Her own accord She offered Her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in Her heart, transfixed with the sword of sorrow."
2. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange writes, “But did Her dolors overcome Her, did Her grief cast Her to the ground? Stabat iuxta crucem: She stood by the Cross. The sword pierced Her heart but did not take away Her strength of soul: Her constancy equals her affliction, and Her face is the face of one no less resigned than afflicted ... We may conclude this section by noting that Mary the Co-Redemptrix has given us birth at the foot of the Cross by the greatest act of faith, hope and love that was possible to Her on such an occasion. One may even say that Her act of faith was the greatest ever elicited, since Jesus had not the virtue of faith but the beatific vision. In that dark hour when the faith of the Apostles themselves seemed to waver, when Jesus seemed vanquished and His work annihilated, Mary did not cease for an instant to believe that Her Son was the Savior of mankind, and that in three days He would rise again as He had foretold.
When He uttered His last words “It is consummated” Mary understood in the fullness of Her faith that the work of salvation had been accomplished by His most painful immolation. The evening before, Jesus has instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Christian priesthood; she sees now something of the influence the sacrifice of the Cross will exercise. She knows that Jesus is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that He is the conqueror of sin and the demon, and that in three days He will conquer death, sin’s consequence. She sees the hand of God where even the most believing see only darkness and desolation. Hers was the greatest act of faith ever elicited by a creature, a faith higher than that of the angels when they were as yet in their period of trial. It was finally Her supreme act of charity: so to love God as to offer His only Son in the most painful agony: to love God above everything at the moment when He tried Her in the highest and deepest of Her loves, even in the object of Her adoration—and that because of our sins."
-
As long as one properly understands the term Co-Redemptrix, that it's participatory, then there's no issue with it. Dimonds appear to misunderstand that term.
-
Rejection of the title Co-Redemptrix is reminiscent of how some of the early heretics refused to accept the title "Mother of God" because they didn't understand the appropriate distinctions and theological principles involved. I'm not saying with this that rejecting the title "Co-Redemptrix" is heretical, since it hasn't been defined with the appropriate degree of authority to make it dogmatic.
-
Despite accusations to the contrary, I am not a follower of the Dimonds. I do not hold that belief in BoD per se (without any other accompanying heresies ... such as Pelagianism or denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation) is heretical. Dimonds have written to me directly, ripping me for not agreeing with them on all points. I do not follow any personality, and I refuse to be categorized into a "camp"; I seek only the truth.
-
I believe Mary is the mediatrix of all graces and have believed this since the early days of my conversion. A main influence on this belief of mine was reading "The Glories of Mary" by Saint Alphonsus. Do the Dimonds reject this?
I understand why some people do not like the title of Co-redemptrix because I believe it can be understood in a heretical way and because of this some people oppose the title.
-
Those who blaspheme Our Lady go to hell. The Dimonds are definitely on ththe wrong path.
-
Those who blaspheme Our Lady go to hell. The Dimonds are definitely on ththe wrong path.
Calling it blasphemy is a bit over the top. They reject the term for theological reasons ... even if mistaken ones.
-
The meaning of the Co-Redemptrix might not be clear to many, and some Traditionalists might consider it liable to led some to heresy, even if they understand what's meant. She is a sharer in the making of amends for the sins of humanity not somehow an equal of Christ. OP explains it nicely. If we restore the Church, it will be possible again to educate people. An average Massgoer of the past would seem like a theologian in comparison to the typical Conciliar priest.
-
The Dimonds are wrong on this (not to mention wrong on sedevacantism and geocentrism). No doubt because they haven't had a pope in 60+ years. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day, like their defense of Baptism which is next level thorough. Wonder if they can get it right a second time? Either way, gotta stay with the Church, boys.
-
The Dimonds are wrong on this (not to mention wrong on sedevacantism and geocentrism). No doubt because they haven't had a pope in 60+ years. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day, like their defense of Baptism which is next level thorough. Wonder if they can get it right a second time? Either way, gotta stay with the Church, boys.
Perhaps this'll help dispel the myth that anyone who does not believe in BoD is a mindless Dimond robot.
-
I think there should be another term hat could describe the blessed Mother Mary's role in the redemption of Christ, but I don't think co-redeemer is the appropriate term...here we have Christ alone
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”
-
Actually, no, Nishant (an apostate who professes that Bergoglio has the true faith), Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith), etc. are wrong, and MHFM is correct that the term Co-Redemptix is not a title that is consistent with Catholic teaching. If you think you are correct, try defining the term ‘Co-Redemptrix’ in one sentence and specifically explain what it means in reference to the act of Redemption.
First, you contradict Trent’s dogmatic statement that Jesus Christ ALONE (solus) is the Redeemer. Note that this declaration is made in the context of the veneration of the Virgin Mother of God. It thus would have been a precise opportunity to connect the Blessed Mother to the title of ‘Redeemer’ or to the act of Redemption but Trent did not. In fact, it used the opportunity to declare that Jesus alone is the Redeemer.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984)
Second, Florence’s definition is even more to the point in refuting your false teaching on this matter. It solemnly defined that Jesus Christ ALONE (solus) laid low the enemy of the human race, destroyed man’s sins, and opened up the gates of Heaven. You profess that Jesus Christ did it with Mary. That is false. And note here that I’m citing dogmatic statements of the highest authority, not fallible statements.
LATIN: Firmiter credit, profitetur et docet, neminem unquam ex viro feminaque conceptum a diaboli dominatu fuisse liberatum, nisi per fidem mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi Domini nostri: qui sine peccato conceptus, natus et mortuus, humani generis hostem, peccata nostra delendo, solus sua morte prostravit, et regni caelestis introitum, quem primus homo peccato proprio cuм omni successione perdiderat, reseravit: quem aliquando venturum omnia Veteris Testamenti sacra sacrificia, sacramenta, ceremoniae praesignrunt.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)
The key portion for this discussion says: “qui… solus sua morte” (i.e. who... alone by His own death) laid low the enemy of the human race, opened Heaven, destroyed man sins, etc. That is what the Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and teaches: that Jesus Christ alone redeemed man. You profess that Jesus Christ did so with Mary. Your position is not consistent with this dogmatic definition, and this is the highest pronouncement of the Church. Everything is to be understood in light of this, not the other way around. Everything must be corrected to match this, not the other way around. Those who don't profess what the Church does on this (that Jesus Christ ALONE did these things) don't profess what the Catholic Church does.
It’s also interesting how heretics like Nishant, when they deal with the post-Vatican II sect, restrict papal infallibility to the most narrow conditions. They limit it essentially to ex cathedra statements. But when they try to find support in a pre-Vatican II statement for their false doctrines and positions, infallibility suddenly becomes very wide and broad. It's another example of dishonesty, demonic inconsistency, and a false position.
(By the way, in case you didn't know, Garrigou-Lagrange is not an authority in the Catholic Church. He was a raging modernist heretic who openly taught that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved, and that most Protestants and schismatics are saved. He had no faith whatsoever and no fidelity to Catholic truth. It was false teachers like him who paved the way for Vatican II.)
Also, any citations people bring forward on this matter, unless they reference the original Latin with a verifiable source, are not worth much, as there are numerous mistranslations circulated on this topic, and the precise wording and terminology is very important.
-
(By the way, in case you didn't know, Garrigou-Lagrange is not an authority in the Catholic Church. He was a raging modernist heretic who openly taught that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved, and that most Protestants and schismatics are saved. He had no faith whatsoever and no fidelity to Catholic truth. It was false teachers like him who paved the way for Vatican II.)
Believing in Baptism of Desire is one thing, but can you show where he taught that "most Protestants and schismatics are saved"? If he really taught that, I cannot trust anything else he says. I mean, even if he said "most adult Catholics are saved" I wouldn't trust him. But "most Protestants and schismatics are saved"? That is as bad as anything I have read from Vatican II or any of the conciliar popes (or antipopes).
-
Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith)
I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith. I do not believe that he does. What I'm saying is that my private judgment to that effect does not suffice to determine papal legitimacy, something which only the Church can discern. You appear to struggle with subtleties and tend to paint everything black or white as if no distinctions can ever be applied to any argument or any position. I consider Bergoglio's legitimacy to be in a state of doubt, and therefore he's incapable of formally exercising papal authority even while materially occupying the See.
-
Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith)
I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith. I do not believe that he does. What I'm saying is that my private judgment to that effect does not suffice to determine papal legitimacy, something which only the Church can discern. You appear to struggle with subtleties and tend to paint everything black or white as if no distinctions can ever be applied to any argument or any position. I consider Bergoglio's legitimacy to be in a state of doubt, and therefore he's incapable of formally exercising papal authority even while materially occupying the See.
Actually no, you are the one who struggles with understanding, subtlety, and honesty. In fact, notice how you failed to properly represent what I said. I said: "Ladislaus who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith."
You then complain that "I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith." Clearly, you fail to follow the subtle distinction. Allow me to explain it to you: Even if you personally claim to hold that Bergoglio doesn't have the true faith (an empty claim), IT'S A FACT that you hold that others may consider him to be the pope without denying Catholic teaching, and therefore that "one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith" and to profess the true faith (for to consider a man as the pope is, by definition, to declare that he professes the true faith). Thus, what I said about your position was absolutely true, and in attempt to justify your false position, you resort to falsely claiming that there is some subtlety that is not being captured, when that is not the case at all. In fact, as I showed, you are the one who failed to follow the distinction.
With regard to this issue: my previous post concerning the definition of Florence shows that you are totally wrong on the issue of the term 'Co-Redemptrix', which would be even more clear if you attempted to define the term in one sentence with regard to the act of Redemption.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the faith of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)
The key portion for this discussion says: “qui… solus sua morte” (i.e. who... alone by His own death) laid low the enemy of the human race, opened Heaven, destroyed man sins, etc. That is what the Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and teaches: that Jesus Christ alone redeemed man. To hold to the title ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is to profess that Jesus Christ did so with Mary. It is not consistent with this dogmatic definition, and this is the highest pronouncement of the Church. Everything is to be understood in light of this, not the other way around. Everything must be corrected to match this, not the other way around. Those who don't profess that Jesus Christ ALONE did these things don't profess what the Catholic Church does. You not only have the audacity to contradict this definition; you arrogantly and wrongly claim that strict adherence to it is akin to misunderstanding the term Mother of God. That's ridiculous and very bad.
-
Despite accusations to the contrary, I am not a follower of the Dimonds. I do not hold that belief in BoD per se (without any other accompanying heresies ... such as Pelagianism or denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation) is heretical. Dimonds have written to me directly, ripping me for not agreeing with them on all points. I do not follow any personality, and I refuse to be categorized into a "camp"; I seek only the truth.
Did they message you on these boards or did you have an outside personal correspondence? I'd be amazed if they ever had an account here!
-
Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith)
I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith. I do not believe that he does. What I'm saying is that my private judgment to that effect does not suffice to determine papal legitimacy, something which only the Church can discern. You appear to struggle with subtleties and tend to paint everything black or white as if no distinctions can ever be applied to any argument or any position. I consider Bergoglio's legitimacy to be in a state of doubt, and therefore he's incapable of formally exercising papal authority even while materially occupying the See.
Actually no, you are the one who struggles with understanding, subtlety, and honesty. In fact, notice how you failed to properly represent what I said. I said: "Ladislaus who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith."
You then complain that "I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith." Clearly, you fail to follow the subtle distinction. Allow me to explain it to you: Even if you personally claim to hold that Bergoglio doesn't have the true faith (an empty claim), IT'S A FACT that you hold that others may consider him to be the pope without denying Catholic teaching, and therefore that "one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith" and to profess the true faith (for to consider a man as the pope is, by definition, to declare that he professes the true faith).
Please note that I distinguish between whether or not Bergoglio has the true faith and whether or not Bergoglio is legitimate. MANY reputable theologians hold that even a heretic would remain pope (at least materially) until declared deposed or else deposed "ministerially" (or materially) by the Church. In addition, many people hold that while Bergoglio has uttered heretical statements there's a burden of proof to demonstrate FORMAL heresy. Now, argue all you want that these positions are misguided or wrong, but for you to claim that someone is not Catholic because he holds one or another of these theological opinions regarding the relationship between papal legitimacy and heresy (formal vs. material) and the Church's role in the whole matter (vs. whether someone can decide papal legitimacy based on private judgment) ... that's preposterous. That's where you guys lose credibility. You can argue all you want that their positions, when drawn to their logical conclusions, lead to heresy, but that doesn't make the people who hold these positions heretics. That's where you slide into a schismatic mentality, and it's this schismatic mentality that embitters your souls. I tell you this in all charity, and I send you my prayers.
-
Despite accusations to the contrary, I am not a follower of the Dimonds. I do not hold that belief in BoD per se (without any other accompanying heresies ... such as Pelagianism or denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation) is heretical. Dimonds have written to me directly, ripping me for not agreeing with them on all points. I do not follow any personality, and I refuse to be categorized into a "camp"; I seek only the truth.
Did they message you on these boards or did you have an outside personal correspondence? I'd be amazed if they ever had an account here!
I wrote to them personally to an e-mail address listed on their website, and they were somehow able to tie me to the Ladislaus account here on Cathinfo. I can't remember if I told them or it they put two and two together themselves.
-
So let me enumerate the principles I hold.
1) It is certain that Bergoglio is at least a material heretic; no reasonable Catholic who holds the true faith (and is not himself at least a material heretic) can deny this.
2) It seems very probable that Bergoglio is also a formal heretic. Based on the sheer number of objectively heretical utterances and his cavalier attitude about them, it would seem that his mind has been so badly polluted that he's no longer being influenced by the formal motive of faith, the Church's authority.
3) Catholics could argue, without being heretics themselves, that until formal heresy is established with the certainty of faith by the authority of the Church, Bergoglio remains pope, or else that he remains pope materially while being formally suspended from being able to exercise those aspects of the office which require formal papal authority.
4) It is impossible that the amount of error and the complete pollution of the Magisterium with error and heresy could have come from a pope exercising formal papal authority (whether any individual statement has the notes of infallibility or not). Consequently, it is not possible that Beroglio formally holds the office of the papacy. Now, whether this is due to his being a formal heretic or due to illegitimacy of election (I find the Siri thesis quite credible), I know not. But, according to credible theologians, even a well-founded doubt regarding legitimacy renders Bergoglio incapable of formally exercising papal authority (including Magisterium). If one refuses obedience to and rejects the Magisterium of Bergoglio under the auspices of said doubt, one would not be formally schismatic.
5) And this is the key point. 1-4 are conclusions I have arrived at by applying my private judgment to the current situation in the Church, and these conclusions are held only on the level of private judgment. Without the authority of the Church, I cannot hold any of these things with the certainty of faith, and I await the judgment of the Church on this matter. These doubts, however, being extremely well founded, suffice for me to suspend obedience to Bergoglio's authority and adherence to his Magisterium ... pending resolution by the Church.
-
Look back on how the Church Fathers called her the Second Eve. You can see how she is the co-Redemptrix from this analogy, in that just as Eve co-operated with Adam in our Fall, so did Mary co-operate with Jesus in our Redemption. She was not the efficient cause of our Redemption (that is Jesus), but she is a necessary condition for and the greatest of secondary causes in our Redemption, because without her total obedience to God we could not have been redeemed.
-
I hope Catholictrue sees my post and shows us evidence he has for his accusation against Garrigou-Lagrange. It is a serious accusation of heresy and I would like to see the proof because the man accused has a good reputation among traditionalists.
-
I think there should be another term hat could describe the blessed Mother Mary's role in the redemption of Christ, but I don't think co-redeemer is the appropriate term...here we have Christ alone
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”
Christ alone has merited redemption for us, but He has done so through Mary as His chosen instrument. True, He does this also through the apostles, saints, and martyrs, but pre-eminently through Mary, because it was Mary's "Fiat", her consenting to be the Mother of God and Our Lady of Sorrows, more than any other secondary cause, that made our redemption through Christ possible. It is the body and blood of Christ offered to God on our behalf that redeems us, and she played the most intimate role in bringing the body and blood of Christ into the world for our Redemption.
Mary is not the primary or equal cause of our Redemption, she could do nothing at all for our Redemption without the grace of God. In that sense you could object to the term co-Redemptrix because it implies a kind of equality with the redemptive action of Christ. I think I remember hearing though, that in Latin the term co-Redemptrix clearly does not imply an equality, so it easier to avoid that misunderstanding.
It's bold to say that Mary cannot be co-Redemptrix on the grounds that the Church has stated that Christ alone is our Redeemer, because then you would have to say that she cannot be the Mediatrix either, on the grounds that the Church has stated that Christ alone is our Mediator. However, that is bold because saints such as St. Bernard (Doctor of the Church) have clearly held to the title Mediatrix, and were never reproved or condemned by the Church for it. Protestants use the biblical sentence that Christ alone is our Mediator to deny the priesthood.
Actually, no, Nishant (an apostate who professes that Bergoglio has the true faith), Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith), etc. are wrong, and MHFM is correct that the term Co-Redemptix is not a title that is consistent with Catholic teaching. If you think you are correct, try defining the term ‘Co-Redemptrix’ in one sentence and specifically explain what it means in reference to the act of Redemption.
Co-Redemptrix: that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the foremost co-operator with Christ in the work of our Redemption; that of all God's creatures she played the most intimate role in preparing for, in praying for, and in working for our Redemption, and that of all the saints she co-operated most perfectly with the redemptive sufferings of Jesus Christ.
-
Christ alone has merited redemption for us, but He has done so through Mary
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u1XNp7iuUQk/TvcItl6zGRI/AAAAAAAAB5E/OU2hsLxSLbs/s1600/facepalm+cat.jpg)
-
1. Mr. Dimond, I could overlook you being a Jansenist heretic who takes a devilish pleasure in the damnation of others; a pure Protestant who denies the Apostolicity of the Church even exists today; but by your last post opposing a doctrine so clearly and repeatedly taught by so many Popes (Pope Benedict XV is sufficiently explicit, "Together with Him, She redeemed the human race", you word-for-word deny this), you prove once more that you are a hopeless God-forsaken heretic and a faithless reprobate.
You are also a deliberately blind man. The works I cited can be read in Latin and English anywhere, if you just know where to look, for example on Papal Encyclicals dot net or even the Vatican website (what exactly are your credentials in Latin since you speak of it, may we ask? And who sent you? Do you have a mission from the Church, for your teaching authority, can you or those who sent you trace Apostolic succession back to St. Peter and the Apostles. Or are you just a self-sent Protestant fundamentalist who answers to no superior? But we already know the answer to that). Here is Pope Leo XIII's http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08091894_iucunda-semper-expectatione.html "It is certain, therefore, that She suffered in the very depths of Her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which She had borne and brought up the Victim. As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that She might receive us as Her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice Her own Son, and died in Her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow." Do you believe this doctrine?
2. It has also been taught so repeatedly by so many Saints and Doctors and is moreover a doctrine so greatly honoring the inexpressible sufferings of the Virgin Mother and Her co-operation in the work of Redemption; by opposing it, you prove once more that you are a son of the devil who wants to continue to pierce Her Immaculate Heart. You've never experienced even a millionth of the pain She - a spotless and innocent Virgin, our sinless and Immaculate Mother - knew at the foot of the Cross. And Mary Immaculate was so humble and holy in suffering everything for our sake that God Almighty reprobates with extreme severity, as Mary of Agreda teaches, a heretic who opposes Her increased veneration by the faithful. St. Montfort, who like countless other Saints and Doctors, taught that every possible grace and created perfection exists in the Holy Virgin who is full of grace, would denounce you as a heretic whose father is the devil, as indeed you are. St. Alphonsus teaches, "Indeed -says St. Arnold de Chartres- in the death of Jesus, Mary joined Her will in a such a way to that of Her Son, so that both agreed on the offering of one and same sacrifice, as the Son and Mother, cooperated at the same time for human redemption, obtaining man’s salvation: Jesus satisfying for our sins and Mary obtaining that such satisfaction should applied to us. So also Dionysius Cartujano assures us that the Mother of God may be named ‘Co-Saviour’ of the world" (Co-operatrix on the Redemption, The Glories of Mary. Volume I Chap. 5). You deny this explanation too, don't you, faithless heretic, thinking your are wiser and holier than most pious and devout Doctors of the Church, whose doctrines the Popes approve and explicitly repeat.
-
Christ alone has merited redemption for us, but He has done so through Mary
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Care to explain the problem? Christ could not have redeemed us if He had not first come into this world through Mary.
-
3. Prove to me that you even understand these words of Pope St. Pius X, "She merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly". http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html Why should I explain them to a devil like you? You tell us the difference between congruous and condign satisfaction and merit, since you know more than the Popes and the Holy Ghost Himself. Do you even believe, you son of the devil, the Catholic doctrine about the expiatory character of willingly accepted suffering? Do you know the Church honors the holy Virgin Mary as a white martyr in spirit and Queen of Martyrs? Have you never considered, fallen and faithless heretic, how much She merited who was sinless and Immaculate, if even we weak and fallen men, through Christ and Her, can merit and obtain some graces for ourselves and others?
She is now in heaven the Mediatrix of every grace because at the foot of the Cross She suffered and died in spirit with Christ, as St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine, St. Alphonsus etc and the Popes especially from Pius IX to Pius XII teach more and more explicitly. Jesus made condign satisfaction for sin, atonement in strict justice, while Mary made congrous satisfaction for our sins, making a most becoming offering of Herself together with Her Son that God was most pleased to accept, and that is the reason She is now Mediatrix of all grace and most worthy of veneration and honor as Co-Redemptrix with Christ. It is because She was Co-Redemptrix at the foot of the Cross that She is our true Mother in the order of grace who gave us birth by the sufferings She endured there. Each and every gift of grace we receive, from the first to the last day of our lives, Mary our loving Mother merited for us in tears and in sorrow by a secondary de congruo satifaction, by expiation and pain in voluntarily accepted suffering, just as Christ atoned for them in strict justice, which sacred theology calls condign satisfaction.
4. If you do not repent, Jansenist, Protestant and Mary-opposing heretic, you will soon be crushed along with your father the devil under Her Immaculate Feet. You are a false Prophet who has stated for many decades that AntiChrist has already come and - never humbling yourself and repenting of folly and temerity, and of falsely invoking the name of God in a failed prophecy (worthy of death in the ancient law, and a terrible mortal sin), just like some Protestants - not satisfied with that, attack and reject the God-sent prophecies of the Queen of Prophets, Our Lady at Fatima and Quito, whose word we have seen fulfilled to the letter, and who promised a complete restoration in the Church before the end of time.
I will answer the absurd heresy you openly promote in your books and articles, a purely Protestant Ecclesia-Vacantism that denies the dogma of the Aposotolicity of the Church as taught in the First Vatican Council, in a separate thread later.
-
I hope Catholictrue sees my post and shows us evidence he has for his accusation against Garrigou-Lagrange. It is a serious accusation of heresy and I would like to see the proof because the man accused has a good reputation among traditionalists.
Matto, here is a link to his book: Life Everlasting (https://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/LIFE_EV.TXT)
I bolded certain parts but then I removed the bolding - the whole thing basically can be made bold.
Garrigou-Lagrange is another one of those well respected 20th Century theologians I mentioned in the past.
Part 5: Heaven
Chapter 32: The Number of the elect
“Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.”
-
Thanks, Stubborn. It is bad, but not as bad as I thought it would be. I must say after reading this that I disagree with him and would not trust him, but I will not call him a heretic.
-
I will not read the whole book you linked but thanks anyway.
-
I will not read the whole book you linked but thanks anyway.
I just linked it for reference is all, credit to Bowler since it was his post I got it from.
But I would not read any of it either. He is one of those well respected 20th century theologians who helped pave the way for the current crisis.
-
Part 5: Heaven
Chapter 32: The Number of the elect
“Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.”
I want to know which theologians say that the greater number are saved. I get the impression that the great fathers and doctors generally thought that few were saved. Plus, the idea that there are elect Jews, Mohammadans, and pagans: I really want to know how he reconciles that with EENS, and the statement of so many saints to the contrary.
-
1. Mr. Dimond, I could overlook you being a Jansenist heretic who takes a devilish pleasure in the damnation of others; a pure Protestant who denies the Apostolicity of the Church even exists today; but by your last post opposing a doctrine so clearly and repeatedly taught by so many Popes (Pope Benedict XV is sufficiently explicit, "Together with Him, She redeemed the human race", you word-for-word deny this), you prove once more that you are a hopeless God-forsaken heretic and a faithless reprobate.
You are also a deliberately blind man. The works I cited can be read in Latin and English anywhere, if you just know where to look, for example on Papal Encyclicals dot net or even the Vatican website (what exactly are your credentials in Latin since you speak of it, may we ask? And who sent you? Do you have a mission from the Church, for your teaching authority, can you or those who sent you trace Apostolic succession back to St. Peter and the Apostles. Or are you just a self-sent Protestant fundamentalist who answers to no superior? But we already know the answer to that). Here is Pope Leo XIII's http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08091894_iucunda-semper-expectatione.html "It is certain, therefore, that She suffered in the very depths of Her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which She had borne and brought up the Victim. As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that She might receive us as Her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice Her own Son, and died in Her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow." Do you believe this doctrine?
2. It has also been taught so repeatedly by so many Saints and Doctors and is moreover a doctrine so greatly honoring the inexpressible sufferings of the Virgin Mother and Her co-operation in the work of Redemption; by opposing it, you prove once more that you are a son of the devil who wants to continue to pierce Her Immaculate Heart. You've never experienced even a millionth of the pain She - a spotless and innocent Virgin, our sinless and Immaculate Mother - knew at the foot of the Cross. And Mary Immaculate was so humble and holy in suffering everything for our sake that God Almighty reprobates with extreme severity, as Mary of Agreda teaches, a heretic who opposes Her increased veneration by the faithful. St. Montfort, who like countless other Saints and Doctors, taught that every possible grace and created perfection exists in the Holy Virgin who is full of grace, would denounce you as a heretic whose father is the devil, as indeed you are. St. Alphonsus teaches, "Indeed -says St. Arnold de Chartres- in the death of Jesus, Mary joined Her will in a such a way to that of Her Son, so that both agreed on the offering of one and same sacrifice, as the Son and Mother, cooperated at the same time for human redemption, obtaining man’s salvation: Jesus satisfying for our sins and Mary obtaining that such satisfaction should applied to us. So also Dionysius Cartujano assures us that the Mother of God may be named ‘Co-Saviour’ of the world" (Co-operatrix on the Redemption, The Glories of Mary. Volume I Chap. 5). You deny this explanation too, don't you, faithless heretic, thinking your are wiser and holier than most pious and devout Doctors of the Church, whose doctrines the Popes approve and explicitly repeat.
Did you recently get bit by a dog? You should check if you have rabies, as you sound like a rabid lunatic...
Saying that mary is not the co redemptrix is not heretical. Just because a few popes mentioned it (about 4 times in total) does not make it a doctrine or dogma.
"Jesus Christ alone is our redeemer" - that is a dogma. By calling someone a heretic for this makes you a calumniator and you are in sin.
I believe Mary played a very important role in the redemption and she should be made a different title but co redemptrix does not work. Jesus is the only redeemer, Mary can't also be one. It just doesn't work, and no weak justifications from a few random theologians changes the Infallible word of the Holy Ghost, "Jesus christ alone is our redeemer".
-
Thanks, Stubborn. It is bad, but not as bad as I thought it would be. I must say after reading this that I disagree with him and would not trust him, but I will not call him a heretic.
I would. He states outright that Protestants and schismatics can be saved provided they make an act of contrition for their sins. It's defined dogma that Protestants and schismatics cannot be saved (along with the infidels he lists). Fr. G-L doesn't think the fact that they are heretics even factors in ... so long as they are contrite for their fornication and whatnot. Now, if they are contrite over their heresy or schism, that means they've converted.
-
Thanks, Stubborn. It is bad, but not as bad as I thought it would be. I must say after reading this that I disagree with him and would not trust him, but I will not call him a heretic.
I would. He states outright that Protestants and schismatics can be saved provided they make an act of contrition for their sins. It's defined dogma that Protestants and schismatics cannot be saved (along with the infidels he lists). Fr. G-L doesn't think the fact that they are heretics even factors in ... so long as they are contrite for their fornication and whatnot. Now, if they are contrite over their heresy or schism, that means they've converted.
One reason I would not call him a heretic is because if I did I would have to call nearly every single traditional Catholic priest a heretic because nearly all of them believe this. And they can all point to quotes from saints, theologians and even Popes which seem to support their ideas. So I believe many of them are sincere and really believe that the Church teaches what they believe. So even though I think they are horribly wrong, I don't call them heretics.
-
Part 5: Heaven
Chapter 32: The Number of the elect
“Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.”
I want to know which theologians say that the greater number are saved. I get the impression that the great fathers and doctors generally thought that few were saved. Plus, the idea that there are elect Jews, Mohammadans, and pagans: I really want to know how he reconciles that with EENS, and the statement of so many saints to the contrary.
You can look to other well respected 20th century theologians - or respected Church authorities who say the same thing. People like Fr. Feneton, +Cushing, Fr. Francis J. Connell, Fr. Matthew Smith, +Sheen and etc. ad nausem.
-
One reason I would not call him a heretic is because if I did I would have to call nearly every single traditional Catholic priest a heretic because nearly all of them believe this. And they can all point to quotes from saints, theologians and even Popes which seem to support their ideas. So I believe many of them are sincere and really believe that the Church teaches what they believe. So even though I think they are horribly wrong, I don't call them heretics.
Most of them are likely just material heretics (due to confusion on this point), but the position is objectively heretical. I mean, how much more directly can someone contradict the EENS definitions? Church teaches that heretics, schismatics, infidels CANNOT be saved. Here you have Fr. G-L teaching the exact opposite, that they CAN be saved. If there happen to be any among these who are only MATERIALLY heretical or schismatic, then they are in point of fact actually Catholics. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to EENS. As for infidels, there's no such thing as a material infidel; they lack the minimum material requirements for formally having faith.
-
The title "Co-Redemptrix" may be misleading (I personally do not like it, the term itself, that is). However, the theological foundation for the doctrine, as properly understood, is strong, as it comes from the correct biblical reading of Genesis 3:15. But it does not mean what most think it means nowadays.
From the Douay-Rheims:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel
The meaning of this passage from Holy Scripture is that it is Our Lady who at then end crushes the head of the serpent by the power of Our Lord. That is her role in the redemption of the human race. She is, of course, subordinate to Christ and derives all her power from the merits of the Son. Mary Most Holy then, redeems the Church from the power of Satan. This Redemption begins with Jesus Christ and His Cross and passes through Mary to the Church.
Protestants detest this teaching in their diabolical contempt for Our Lady. Protestantized Catholics also do not like it.
-
The annotation for the aforementioned verse Genesis 3:15 (theological foundation of the doctrine, title of this thread), from the original Douay Rheims of Anno Domini 1610:
"15. Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius"
15. She shall bruise: Protestants will not admit this reading, ipsa conteret, she shall bruise, lest our Blessed Lady should be said any way to bruise the serpents head. And Kemnisius amongst others saith, that all ancient Father's read, ipsum, not ipsa. But he is convinced of lying by Claudius Marius Victor... And many others, who read ipsa as the Latin text now hath.
But whether we read, she shall bruise or her seed, that is her son Christ, shall bruise the serpent, we attribute no more, nor no less to Christ, nor to our Lady by the one reading, then by the other: for by the text, I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed, and her seed. It is clear, that this enmity and battle pertained to the woman and her seed on the one party, and to this Devil, that spake by the serpent, and all the wicked, on the other party, and that the victory should happen to mankind. Which being captive by Adams sin, ocassioned by a woman, should be redeemed, both sexes, though in far different sort, concurring thereto. And so it is most true, that Christ by his own power, and his blessed Mother by her most immediate cooperating to his Incarnation (and consequently to other Mysteries) did bruise the serpent's head, break and vanquish his power.
As many ancient Fathers do excellently discourse: namely St. Bernard, writing upon these words in the Apocalypse, cap 12. A great sign appeares in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun. Albeit (saith he) by one man and one woman we were greatly damaged, yet God (be thanked) by one man and one woman all losses are repaired, and that not without great increase of graces. For the benefit doth far exceed the loss. Our merciful Father giving us for a terrestrial Adam Christ our Redeemer, & for old Eve God's own mother. Moreover as the same St. Bernard showeth, this blessed Virgin in singular sort bruised the serpent's head, in that she quite vanquished all manner suggestions of the wicked serpent, never yielding to, nor taking delight in any evil moved by him.
-
On the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, some followers of Mr. Dimond continue to pierce Her Immaculate Heart by denying the doctrine repeatedly taught by the Popes, Saints and Doctors that She is truly Mediatrix of every grace and Co-Redemptrix with Christ. Pope Benedict XV teaches, "With Her suffering and dying Son She suffered and almost died, so did She surrender Her mother's rights over Her Son for the salvation of human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained to Her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that She together with Christ has redeemed the human race." (Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917)
And Pope St. Pius X explains further, "from this common sharing of sufferings and will, She merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and so the dispensatrix of all the gifts which were gained for us by the death and blood of Jesus. ... since She was ahead of all in holiness and union with Christ, and was taken up by Christ into the work of human salvation, She merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly, and is the chief minister of the dispensation of graces. (Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904)
Again, just like with BoD - if you claim that the above quotations from Papal encyclicals are authoritative and make a dogmatic teaching, to the degree that those who do not accept Co-Redemptrix title are, as you wrote in your later post, "hopeless God-forsaken heretics and faithless reprobates", you have no choice but to accept Vatican II's teaching on religoious libery, ecuмenism and ecclesiology. These are teachings of an Ecuмenical Council promulgated by Paul VI with invocation of Apostolic authority, thus a much higher authority than Papal encyclical - you cannot reject those while simultaneously maintaining that two quotes from Papal encyclicals make a dogma.
Too often Traditionalists support the doctrien which were not dogmatically taught by the Church with fallible sources and demanding others to accept them, while explaining away and rejecting much higher authority of Vatican II as "non-infallible". BoD and Co-Redeptrix are perfect examples.
Be consistent - either BoD, Co-Redemptrix, religious liberty and V2's ecuмenism are all binding, or none of these are binding. You can't have the former two binding without latter ones.
-
True heirs of Congar and his mates at Vatican II. This [Co Redeemer title] was one of the big subjects, and therefore big controversies. The traditionalists (i.e. the orthodox men) desired strongly to define that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces and also they wanted her title as Co-Redemptrix at least mentioned. Congar said in his diary that he was fighting this "as much as I can" and most of the usual suspects were on his side (e.g. Bea, Frings, Alfrink). The heretics won and the title "Mediatrix" was mentioned, but not defined, and the explanatory "of all graces" was carefully not added, thus emptying the title of its true meaning. Also, it was placed subsequent to "Mother of the Church," a favourite of Paul VI, an ambiguous title which was favoured by the heretics because it suggests their thesis that Our Lady is really the first member of the Church, rather than focussing on her particular unity with Christ which places her essentially above the Church.
So, the Dimonds in this case are on the side of Congar et al., and against the likes of Carli, Sigaud, Siri, Lefebvre, Ruffini, and co. If they had realised this, they would probably have been reluctant to make such geese of themselves, so I suggest that this illustrates their ignorance of pretty basic factual data.
-
Despite accusations to the contrary, I am not a follower of the Dimonds. I do not hold that belief in BoD per se (without any other accompanying heresies ... such as Pelagianism or denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation) is heretical. Dimonds have written to me directly, ripping me for not agreeing with them on all points. I do not follow any personality, and I refuse to be categorized into a "camp"; I seek only the truth.
Did they message you on these boards or did you have an outside personal correspondence? I'd be amazed if they ever had an account here!
Haven't you realised yet that "catholictrue" is Bob Dimond himself?
-
I think this explains Our Blessed Mother's roll in our redemption well enough.
...'All,' says Simon of Cascia, 'who then saw this Mother silent, and not uttering a complaint in the midst of such great suffering, were filled with astonishment." But if Mary's lips were silent, her heart was not so, for she incessantly offered the life of her Son to the Divine Justice for our salvation. Therefore, we know that by the merits of her Dolours she cooperated in our birth to the life of grace; and hence we are the children of her sorrows. Christ,' says Lanspergius, 'was pleased that she, the co-operatress in our redemption, and whom He had determined to give us for our Mother, should be there present; for it was at the foot of the cross that she was to bring us, her children, forth. If any consolation entered that sea of bitterness, the heart of Mary, the only one was this, that she knew that by her sorrows she was leading us to eternal salvation, as Jesus Himself revealed
to Saint Bridget.......
-
I just wanted to point something out. People always say that the Dimonds act uncharitably because they condemn people with strong language say they are evil and bad willed, etc. But then they act the same way when they condemn the Dimonds. So if the Dimonds are really uncharitable for acting that way, their critics are just as uncharitable as the Dimonds are.
-
I just wanted to point something out. People always say that the Dimonds act uncharitably because they condemn people with strong language say they are evil and bad willed, etc. But then they act the same way when they condemn the Dimonds. So if the Dimonds are really uncharitable for acting that way, their critics are just as uncharitable as the Dimonds are.
Indeed. People also have a lot of extreme venom against Father Feeney.
-
Co means mutually and indicates an equality.
There's no equality between a copilot and a pilot.
-
mindless Dimond robot
:tinfoil:
-
Our holy Mother was granted ALL the graces from God, our Father, which means she is the dispenser of ALL graces granted to Her by and from God. Redemption is a grace, albeit a special, holy and magnificent grace, but a grace, nonetheless. Our Lady is a dispenser of ALL graces. Your salvation, and mine, depends on Our Holy Mother's dispension of Our Lord and Saviour's grace of salvation. Co-Redemptorix? No problem here at all.
-
Co means mutually and indicates an equality.
There's no equality between a copilot and a pilot.
Jesus didn't have a co-pilot in the act of Redemption. He did it alone. That's a dogma. So, your analogy is actually heretical. Do you know what 'alone' means? It's remarkable how many people are displaying on this thread that they reject a solemn definition and don't profess the Catholic faith.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the faith of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ[/b]; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)
The key portion for this discussion says: “qui… solus sua morte” (i.e. who... alone by His own death) laid low the enemy of the human race, opened Heaven, destroyed man sins, etc. That is what the Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and teaches: that Jesus Christ alone redeemed man.
So, did Jesus lay low the enemy of the human race alone or with Mary? The answer is He did it alone. This passage from Florence really crushes any argument. You also contradict the Catechism of Trent, which taught the same thing.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone [/i]has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”
Those who have a problem with the fact that Jesus did it alone (and not with Mary or anyone else) don't have a problem with me but with Catholic teaching. And those who include Mary where the Church does not, and where she herself does not, are false devotees whom she and God reject. These points, of course, are in reference to the act of Redemption itself. They do not diminish Mary's unique role in the overall plan of salvation.
-
1. For the precise title, Pope Pius XI calls the Blessed Virgin "Our Mother and Co-Redemptrix". When St. Padre Pio was deeply experiencing being crucified with Christ, a fraction of those mystical sufferings of Mary Co-Redemptrix, said
"Oh, if all people would but penetrate this martyrdom! Who could succeed in suffering with this, yes, our dear Coredemptrix? Who would refuse her the good title of Queen of Martyrs?"
I beg to differ with those who think demons who are openly professing Protestant Ecclesia Vacantists should be freely regarded as Catholics while they continue to pierce our Mother's Immaculate Heart, who suffered and suffers even more than holy Padre Pio did, weeping tears of blood as Her Heart is pierced by mankind's sins, as Mary of Agreda and other mystics teach; and as amply confirmed by Heaven itself in countless other apparitions since then. That Mary Immaculate is Mediatrix of all graces is a dogma already taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Let the Dimonds profess they at least acknowledge the Blessed Mother as Mediatrix of all graces won by Christ's sufferings and then I shall not call them demons.
2. The Dimonds have but one prooftext, which they don't understand because they don't understand the difference between condign and congrous satisfaction that Pope St. Pius X teaches. Jesus alone made condign satisfaction for us, atonement in strict justice. Mary made congruous satisfaction for all the sins that Jesus made condign atonement for, because She offered a most fitting offering of Herself and Her suffering together with Him to God the Father; thus He is Mediator (obtaining it from God the Father in strict justice) of all the graces that Mary is Mediatrix (obtaining from Her Divine Son that these graces should be applied to us) of for us Her children. St. Alphonsus explains that Mary obtained that "this satisfaction (won by Christ) should be "applied to us". Mary's prerogative now exercised in heaven being a reward of Her Co-redemptive sufferings at the foot of the Cross is also expressly taught by St. Catherine, St. Bernard and countless other Saints, which Pope Leo XIII among other Popes cite and repeat. Mary is Mediatrix in heaven because by Her sufferings together with Christ, She was Co-Redemptrix at the Cross. Does Dimond the heretic believe She is Mediatrix of all graces, "Catholictrue"?
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange explains the terms Pope St. Pius X uses of which the heretic Dimond is culpably ignorant, "When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus (alone) satisfied for us in strict justice."
3. With regard to the Dimonds, Matto, they do it invariably to everyone then their disciples cry when someone gives them a slight dose of their own medicine, like a typical schoolyard bully. I'm more than ready to take the hits and downrates that come my way for it for defending the Immaculate Mother's prerogatives and privileges against the demons; as to why they are professing Protestants - its very simple, as proven on the other thread "Catholictrue" would not dare to touch, the Dimonds are Ecclesia-Vacantists who word-for-word deny the dogma of Apostolicity; they manifestly don't believe in an Apostolic Church, therefore they don't believe in the Catholic Church; therefore they are not Catholics but canonically Protestants and can be freely regarded as heretics.
Now with regard to any actual Catholic who personally holds that Co-Redemptrix is not a dogma, but will acknowledge it if the Church defines it as one, of course he is free to do so until the Church defines it ex cathedra.
-
Agree, that same "kind of" logic appears to be in full motion on these forum in regards to "material heresy". Without mentioning any names, I have read many posts that accuse certain CathInfo members as full blown heretics, i.e. those who support BoD in the "modern" sense, salvation outside the Church (not conversion) for the invincible ignorant......But the clergy that teaches them these things are only material heretics (possibly)?
Another words, how can we give a possible free pass to men like Francis, Fr. G-L et al., but not to the individuals that promote what they teach? I agree with St Alphonsus about parents; they will be punished more severely for their children's apostasy, heresy than the children. The same applies to the clergy promoting false doctrines in my books.
I highly doubt whether most of Traditionalist clergy who teach salvation for invincibly ignorant and without faith in Christ were ever confronted with truth about their errors. Sure, they probably know the Athanasian Creed or Cantate Domino, but they also probably think that these infallible definitions and their belief in salvation for invincibly ignorant can be reconciled and that the Church really teaches that souls can be saved withouth explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. Having said that, it is of course possible that some of the clergy are indeed formal heretics and in full knowledge reject EENS (one of the sedevacantist priests said that is it "inconceivable" to him that all who died as non-Catholics were not of good faith and he "refuses to believe that hell is their eternal destiny").
Now, regarding Cathinfo members - we would have to talk about different cases, but you have people like saintbosco13, who obstinately promoted possibility of salvation without faith in Christ, even though he was confronted with the Athanasian Creed numerous times (I am yet to see a Cushingite explaining how salvation of invincibly ignorant can be reconciled with the Athanasian Creed), each time refusing to address it (finally he demanded that I stop quoting the Athanasian Creed because "it does not help the discussion"!). Obviouly, I can't judge his soul, but such behavior is quite clear indicator of bad will and heresy.
-
I think this explains Our Blessed Mother's roll in our redemption well enough.
...'All,' says Simon of Cascia, 'who then saw this Mother silent, and not uttering a complaint in the midst of such great suffering, were filled with astonishment." But if Mary's lips were silent, her heart was not so, for she incessantly offered the life of her Son to the Divine Justice for our salvation. Therefore, we know that by the merits of her Dolours she cooperated in our birth to the life of grace; and hence we are the children of her sorrows. Christ,' says Lanspergius, 'was pleased that she, the co-operatress in our redemption, and whom He had determined to give us for our Mother, should be there present; for it was at the foot of the cross that she was to bring us, her children, forth. If any consolation entered that sea of bitterness, the heart of Mary, the only one was this, that she knew that by her sorrows she was leading us to eternal salvation, as Jesus Himself revealed
to Saint Bridget.......
the co-operatress in our redemption....sounds good