Author Topic: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer  (Read 2756 times)

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 6487 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2020, 07:37:29 PM »
Acolite,
Mary was in need of redemption; she benefited from the redemption the same as the rest of the human race, but in a unique way; for her the merits of Christ's redemption were applied as a preventive medicine (in a way of speaking) i.e. She received a "vaccine" that prevented her from getting sick (Original sin); while for the rest of us, it was a "curative" medicine i.e. We received the spiritual Penicillin that cured us from the disease of Original Sin.
Also, it was indeed fitting that the Mother of the Redeemer should also be free from sin; in the curse that God put on the serpent, God states that the "enmities" between her and the devil are the very same ones that are between her Son and the devil:
Genesis 3:
Quote
[15] 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 World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Acolyte

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 6487 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2020, 07:44:34 PM »
abc stated:
Quote
I must disagree. These are two different arguments. The argument being made against Mary as being co-redeemer has to do with Christ's unique office of high priest and mediator of the New Covenant: our salvation. Christ, and Christ alone, accomplished our salvation.

The argument against praying to saints involves questions of temporal intercession and whether saints who have passed on can hear our prayers.
Yes it is; Christ is not only our unique Redeemer, but as you stated above  our unique "mediator"; If there is no other Mediators associated with our unique mediator, then also there is no redeemers associated with our unique Redeemer. Exactly the same logic.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Acolyte

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2715
  • Thanked: 1173 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2020, 11:40:52 PM »
Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

 If the atonement is not performed by the offender himself, but by another in his stead, it is vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria).

The Redemption objectively considered, was fulfilled through the teaching and directing activity of Christ. In a supreme degree, however, it was effected by the vicarious atonement and the merits of Christ in His sacrificial death on the Cross. Through the Atonement, the insult offered to God by sin was counterbalanced, and the injury to the honour of God repaired. Through the merits of Christ the supernatural riches of salvation were acquired which are to be dispensed in the subjective Redemption
 
The following users thanked this post: Acolyte, Michael Wilson

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2020, 07:07:52 AM »
Theosist,
you can argue anything you want, it doesn't matter to me; it simply isn't Catholicism that you are promoting here on this forum.

Then stop addressing me if you have no argument. I'm not promoting anything on this forum. I'm making a sound argument as to what the Roman Catholic church has dogmatically defined regarding the sole redeemer of man. And you have shown yourself to be unable to refute it.
Why don't you return to the sacraments and to the practice of the faith; that is more important than wasting your time on here.

I have the mysteries instituted by Jesus Christ and alone among “seven sacraments” spoken of as such by the early Christian sources: baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 07:14:12 AM by The Theosist »
 

Offline Innocent Smith

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1191
  • Thanked: 673 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2020, 07:19:36 AM »
Well, my thought is this,

Our Father in Heaven willed the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It's not at all hard to accept that and believe it. Because Christ His Son was born of Mary. A woman born with original sin would not be a fitting mother of Him. A woman in need of Redemtion.

So Mary was never in need of redemption from original sin. It is because of this that it's possible she is Co-Redemptrix. And I believe she is.

Her cooperation with God's Will at the Annunciation fulfilled God's Ultimate Will for " the Word made flesh". The Redeemer now "Dwelt Among Us".

That said, is it heretical to say Mary was never in need of redemption of Original Sin ? Her soul never knew sin.

Yes.  It would be heretical.

She was given a special grace prior to her conception with the Crucifixion being the reason for that grace.  In this way she is like Eve.

The Hollywood film Back To The Future is kind of based on The Immaculate Conception come to think of it.  It's exactly like that.  A future event, known to God, is the reason for the grace given for Mary to be born without the stain of Original Sin. 

Should Eve be a Co-Remptrix?

How about us?  We participate, or should.  Don't we give our fiat every time we receive Holy Communion and say Amen? 



I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the modern man. But I shall not use it to kill him, only to bring him to life.
 
The following users thanked this post: Acolyte

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 6487 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2020, 05:15:03 PM »
Theosist,
I'm happy to hear this.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, The Theosist

Offline King Wenceslas

  • Fidelity to yesterday's truth consists precisely in abandoning it in assuming it into today's truth - BXVI
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1787
  • Thanked: 867 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2020, 05:44:07 PM »
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.

If Paul could fill up those things that are wanting in the suffering of Christ could the Virgin Mary do less?

Paul was a sinful man.

The most holy Virgin sinned not ONCE in her whole life. She is the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him and suffered with him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam. She can be nothing less than be co-redemptrix.

In the fulfillment of these latter days it is she who shall crush the head of satan as granted the power to her by her Son and then St. Michael will cast satan back into hell.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 05:54:05 PM by King Wenceslas »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2020, 06:36:16 PM »
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.
 

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7056
  • Thanked: 3253 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #68 on: October 12, 2020, 06:46:22 PM »
Maria Co-Redemptrix is one of these phrases, which work out, as Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland said: 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Its not Alice in Wonderland; the arguments being used here against Mary's Co-Redemption are exactly the same ones that Protestants use against praying to the Saints viz. "Our Lord is the sole Mediator therefore to pray to the saints and to Our Blessed Mother is to take away from the Honor of Our Lord and to attribute to a creature the powers of Our Lord.

I take it to mean how Mary, Mother of God, has a share in Redemption through giving birth to our Lord and so much besides, including as Mediatrix of all Graces. People seem to take the phrase as somehow claiming that BVM is somehow playing the same role as our Saviour. When the matter will be wilfully misunderstood, when time is consumed explaining what it does not mean, I am cautious in discussing the matter.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5010
  • Thanked: 3804 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #69 on: October 12, 2020, 09:49:40 PM »
Quote
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.


The [proposed] title of Co-Redemptrix does not mean that the Blessed Virgin is in a category along with the other saints cooperating with the work of redemption, being as it were a co-redeemer in the same way St. Paul teaches in Colossians 1:24 that you just quoted. Rather, the title of Co-Redemptrix is that the Blessed Virgin is in a unique category with Christ as the redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the title of Co-Redemptrix by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of redemption under the one sole redeemer of the human race, Jesus Christ. That’s fallacious.

Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Vetus Ordo, do you completely agree with the first statement of The Theosist here?  Why did you go so far as to use the words "as it were a co-redeemer" about  the other Saints? I don't think The Theosist would allow for even "as it were". I know you both oppose the special title for Our Lady.

The Theosist, Jesus completed the end of His own SUFFERING when He died, not only the Redemption. Yet St. Paul speaks of a mysterious relationship between his suffering and Christ's, which was long past.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!
 

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5010
  • Thanked: 3804 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2020, 10:05:28 PM »

St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting"

This is an often-misunderstood passage from Paul.

Miriam, can you provide a correct understanding from a more expert source?

Fisheaters (the main site) is obviously not an expert source, but is generally helpful.  It provides an explanation that does not mention Our Lady as such:

Quote
https://www.fisheaters.com/offeringitup.html
Redemptive Suffering:
"Offering it Up"
...


Our imitation of Him and our gifts to Him, though they are nothing without His Sacrifice, build up the Body of Christ if they are joined to His sufferings:

    I Corinthians 12:26
    And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

    Colossians 1:23b-24
    ...whereof I Paul am made a minister. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the church:

Now, is Paul saying that Christ's sufferings and Sacrifice weren't enough? Is he "taking away from Christ" by saying that we are to "fill up" those things that are "wanting" in His sufferings? No, of course not. He is saying, though, that we are One Body, that we co-operate with God in profound ways ( I Corinthians 3:9 "For we are God's coadjutors [co-workers, assistants]..."), and that, in an inscrutable way, our sufferings benefit one another. We actually help Jesus in His redemption of the world by giving to Him our sufferings to build up the Body of Christ.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!
 

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5010
  • Thanked: 3804 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2020, 10:19:11 PM »
Unlike our suffering and St. Paul's Our Lady's occurred at the same time as Christ's suffering and during the Redemption, and directly on account of Christ's suffering and united with it.  If our suffering is even "as it were redemptive" what words do we use for Our Lady's suffering, and what value and power does Christ give to it?

I understand the difficulties of the word "Co-Redemptrix" but don't think it should be thrown out too quickly.

If only God can forgive sins, how can a priest forgive sins?  I'm not suggesting this is a good analogy with Mary being Co-Redemptrix (there's no Sacrament instituted by Christ) but just that words can trip us up.  If a good Pope were to more formally proclaim a doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix it would be carefully explained to in every way support Christ as the sole Redeemer, and Msgr Pohle would be (would have been) explaining it not questioning it.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 10:39:24 PM by Non Nobis »
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3989
  • Thanked: 1673 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2020, 02:43:37 AM »
If a good Pope were to more formally proclaim a doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix it would be carefully explained to in every way support Christ as the sole Redeemer, and Msgr Pohle would be (would have been) explaining it not questioning it.

That didn't really work out too well with Vatican I and the dogma of Infallibiiity.  The Neo-Ultramontanists basically said, "thank you."  and then started to recast their Neo-Ultramontanism in new language.  It's my own personal belief that the crisis of the Church and Vatican II are punishment for the wholesale disregard for what actually was defined at Vatican I.  Papolatry right through the JPII era and only now being questioned was the result.

There's no reason to believe that too many Catholics affected by who knows what social conditions liberal or conservative wouldn't almost instantly try to Divinize the BVM if a definition or declaration were made.  And I would personally dread the result of what God would rain down on the Church if the BVM de facto became a source of idolatry in the Church.  Idolatry added to a sacrilege is probably an undreamt of offense. 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 01:26:29 PM by Gerard »
 
The following users thanked this post: Graham, The Theosist

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2020, 05:14:34 AM »
Quote
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Vetus Ordo, do you completely agree with the first statement of The Theosist here?  Why did you go so far as to use the words "as it were a co-redeemer" about  the other Saints? I don't think The Theosist would allow for even "as it were". I know you both oppose the special title for Our Lady.

The Theosist, Jesus completed the end of His own SUFFERING when He died, not only the Redemption. Yet St. Paul speaks of a mysterious relationship between his suffering and Christ's, which was long past.

Non Nobis, mine is the majority Patristic reading, and it knows nothing of this suffering in place of and with Christ being an act of vicarious atonement analogous or joined to Jesus' upon Calvary, which I will now show to you.

I'll begin with those Fathers who make explicit my reading. First, the Greeks:

Quote from: Severian of Gabala
If, he says, there is anything remaining to be suffered, then I fill up the
leftovers of the afflictions for Christ’s sake, and rejoice in suffering on
your behalf. Why for your sakes? Because he suffered in order to
proclaim [the good news] to you
. If Christ is the head of the body, the
church, then the afflictions that arise for the church through those who
rebel against the word of truth are quite naturally termed ‘afflictions of
Christ’, and whoever wrestles with a heart of praise in these afflictions
could say, not without good cause, I take my turn in filling up what
remains of the afflictions of Christ.


Quote from: Theodore of Mopsuestia
‘So’, he says, ‘I take pleasure even in suffering for you; and since Christ
had previously suffered for your wellbeing, to proclaim you his Body by
his resurrection, I fill up what is left of his afflictions for you.’ What was
left over? Your learning what things have been put right for you and
receiving the proclamation about them.
But this was never going to be
without labour and afflictions. These are why I suffer, going about
proclaiming all that has been accomplished, so that you might believe and
with willing hearts come to be appropriated by him
; for of these things I
was made a minister.


Quote from:  Theodoret of Cyrus
The Lord Jesus undertook death for the sake of the church, and the shame
of the cross, and the blows to the temples, and the scourging on his back,
and everything else he endured; and the godly apostle similarly bore the
various sufferings for her sake. For he knew about the life to be produced
by it. He describes himself ‘filling up in turn what was lacking in the
afflictions of Christ’, as filling up what was left over, and taking on the
accompanying sufferings. What was left over was the proclamation to the
Gentiles, and the display of salvation’s big-spending producer
.

The Latins:

He says tribulation gains life, but he connects the benefit of this work explicitly to the faith of believers and the preaching to the faithful:

Quote from: Ambrosiaster
He confesses to exulting in the tribulations which he was suffering,
because he sees benefit for himself in the faith of the believers. For
tribulation is not in vain when it gains for life the one for whom it suffers.
These sufferings, he says, concern Christ, whose teaching they certainly
persecute; [this he says] in order to burden the unbelievers with the
horror of their impiety and to preach to the faithful the love of God
,
whose Son still suffers injury for us.

Here again he connects it to the act of preaching the Gospel, the hearing of which is essential to our salvation:

Quote from: Ambrosiaster
There is no doubt that Christ is put to death in the martyrs, and that in
those who suffer for the faith – whether destruction or imprisonment or
floggings – it is Christ who suffers ... for their salvation they were
subjected to death; for in preaching to people they stir up hostility to
themselves, whether from Jews or from Gentiles, even to death.

This one is not explicit, but the suffering is connected specifically to the priestly ministry, and so the plain reading to me is to see the work of that suffering as the fruit of the priestly ministry, not a vicarious atonement:

Quote from: Ambrose of Milan
So the aim is ‘that I may fill up’, he says, ‘what is lacking of the
tribulations of Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the church,
of which I have been made a minister’. We can see what there is
for us to take on – we who have taken on the priestly ministry: that
not only for ourselves, but also for the Lord’s church, we ought
bravely to bear physical suffering.

The rest of the Latin Fathers, like Augustine, I find to be silent on the question at hand of whether this suffering is for vicarious atonement, though the former deals quite extensively with the passage in the context of the mystery of the Church's suffering being Christ's suffering.

To turn to other Greek references, the first is Origen's. He's not explicit here, but he does mention it in the context of witnesses:

Quote from: Origen
You, sacred Ambrose, have been honoured and welcomed by several
cities, yet now appear as in pomp, bearing the cross of Jesus and
following him as he leads you before magistrates and kings, so that
accompanying you he may grant to you both a mouth and wisdom; and to
you too, his fellow contestant Protoctetus, and to all you our fellow witnesses [συμμαρτυροῦσιν] who ‘fill up what is lacking in the sufferings
of Christ’

Hegemonius's commentary doesn't help, considering this suffering special to the Apostle or Apostles:

Quote
‘For those which were lacking of the tribulations of Christ, I fill up in my
flesh.’ And again in another place he declares that because he is a
minister of Christ above the rest, so after him there is absolutely no other
to be looked for; indeed he commands that not even an angel from heaven
is to be thus received. And how then are we to believe Manes, coming
from Persia and professing to be the Paraclete?

John Chrysostom has some extensive commentary on this passage, but he doesn't connect it anywhere to the idea of a vicarious atonement through personal suffering.

But, as I alluded to before, I wouldn't expect to find such an idea among the early Christians since they didn't even possess the idea that Christ's suffering brought vicarious atonement directly and in itself as payment of a debt of justice due to the Father for our sin. Christ's suffering to them is more a consequence of his redemptive work, the outpouring of a Satanic wrath upon him and his consequent death a necessary step in the accomplishment of his work in vanquishing Satan and destroying death. In suffering with him in the Church we become more Christ-like, working out the salvation already won for us by Jesus alone.

Less interesting perhaps to you as a Catholic but more for the Eastern Orthodox is the understanding of Photius:

Quote
It is not as if Christ did not bear what he ought to suffer – no way: he left
out nothing at all in that respect; on the contrary, his grace to us was
over-abundant. So which lacks is Paul filling up? They are those which
the Saviour, had he been still living at the time when Paul was preaching,
would have suffered as he taught and, by his presence, as he cared for the
creation
: those are what Paul now suffers, thereby ‘filling up in turn what
was left over of the afflictions of Christ’. This corresponds more closely
to the word. For he does not say simply ἀναπληρῶ, but ἀνταναπληρῶ, ie.
in place of [ἀντὶ] the Lord and Teacher I, the servant and disciple,
succeed to his ministry, and fill up in turn what is lacking of his
afflictions. The things he would have borne, had he not given me this
ministry, I of course – having taken it on – fill up in my body [σώματί
μου] what was lacking in his afflictions.




« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 07:04:22 AM by The Theosist »
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2715
  • Thanked: 1173 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2020, 11:16:34 AM »
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.