# Responding to Co-Redemptrix claims



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

When Catholics speak of the mediation of Mary, we rightly and immediately point out that there is only one Mediator, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2.5). I recently read one response that puzzled me (this also deals with the question of praying to/by the saints). 

They asked, "Do you ask friends to pray for you?" 
Protestant: Well, yes of course. 
Catholic: Are they not, too, some kind of mediator, but not on the same level of Christ?


----------



## BrianLanier (Oct 24, 2007)

If that is their argument, then why single Mary out in the first place? Plus, 'co-' connotes a type of equality. I don not call my employees 'co-owners' just because they share in certain functions of my business. And so, I would not call myself, or any other saint (including Mary) a 'co-'mediator/redemptix, etc. with Christ simply because I/we share in some function with Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

Right, so their "co" claim undercuts the rest of their argument for mediation. In other words, the second half of their arguments (e.g., friends mediate for you by praying for you) is undercut by claiming Mary does the same thing.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 24, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Right, so their "co" claim undercuts the rest of their argument for mediation. In other words, the second half of their arguments (e.g., friends mediate for you by praying for you) is undercut by claiming Mary does the same thing.



That argument of the intercession of the saints is used by EO too. Scripture nevers tells us to ask departed saints to pray for us though. We have no contact with the departed saints until we join them in glory. Seeking contact with the dead is clearly forbidden.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Right, so their "co" claim undercuts the rest of their argument for mediation. In other words, the second half of their arguments (e.g., friends mediate for you by praying for you) is undercut by claiming Mary does the same thing.
> ...



Hmm...okay, good. I can use that. Funny thing, I remember talking to an EO--no, actually I was watching a discussion between an EO (I hate blog wars, so I held my peace) and a protestant (think mainline evangelical arminian baptist). The EO nailed him on this one and at the time I thought it a clever argument.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 24, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> When Catholics speak of the mediation of Mary, we rightly and immediately point out that there is only one Mediator, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2.5). I recently read one response that puzzled me (this also deals with the question of praying to/by the saints).
> 
> They asked, "Do you ask friends to pray for you?"
> Protestant: Well, yes of course.
> Catholic: Are they not, too, some kind of mediator, but not on the same level of Christ?



First point out to them that you NEVER ask departed "friends" to pray for you. The bible nowhere speaks of such.

the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 969:
Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.

Not only is she claimed to be co equal with Christ, but all 3 of the Godhead. 

Intercessory prayer does not make a person a mediator of salvation. All the prayers of every single saint does not effect ones standing in Christ one iota. Just as much as all the curses of satan and his minions caanot influence ones standing.

So the plain and simple biblical answer is no. There is a big difference between being an intercessor and mediator.


----------



## BrianLanier (Oct 24, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> We have no contact with the departed saints until we join them in glory.



Normally, yes. (1 Samuel 28)


----------



## Theogenes (Oct 24, 2007)

Check out Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chap. 20,paragraphs 19-27. Calvin addresses these Romish ideas.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 24, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> When Catholics speak of the mediation of Mary, we rightly and immediately point out that there is only one Mediator, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2.5). I recently read one response that puzzled me (this also deals with the question of praying to/by the saints).
> 
> They asked, "Do you ask friends to pray for you?"
> Protestant: Well, yes of course.
> Catholic: Are they not, too, some kind of mediator, but not on the same level of Christ?



I usually use what I like to call the "Bones" response.

"Why not? She's DEAD, Jim."


----------



## larryjf (Oct 24, 2007)

The co-redemptrix of Mary and the intercession of the saints are quite separate Catholic dogmas, and should not be considered in the same vein.

Their teaching on Mary revolves around her being a part of the redemption plan in birthing the Messiah and being the "mother of God" (theotokos). So they look at her in participating in the redemption process in a special way because of this.

The intercession of the saints has more to do with asking our Christian brothers and sisters to pray for us (except that they are not dead). 

They would probably point out that the saints in Heaven are not disconnected to our lives via Heb 12:1, and therefore it is not a problem asking for their help.

Upon the cry of necromancy they may point to Jn 11:25-26 in order to try and show saints do not die.

The real problem is with their interpretation of certain texts as those above, and their holding to apocryphal books as well as tradition. The apocryphal books have instances of praying to the dead which convinces them even more that they are correct in their interpretation of the NT texts.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 25, 2007)

There is a difference:

who is the object of our prayers? I don't pray to my friends to intercede for me with God. I ask them to pray to their own Mediator for a request. In both cases, they and I are asking the Lord for an answer to prayer. In the RC and EO example, I would be praying to people for an answer to a request.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 25, 2007)

A friend of mine made the same objection (repeating an EO justification of this practice) but if prayers to the saints are on the same level as asking our friends to pray for us, then why the 'degrees' of holiness in the whole system of sainthood: why are some saints holier than others, and so have more merit, Mary being the holiest of all? As Brian said, why single her out? -Because it's a system of the individual's merit to intercede and she's at the top of it. But these saints are saved on the merits of Christ alone just as we are. That is the only approach they have to God, and we have the same full access. If any confusion exists in our minds about our friends' prayers being more 'meritorious' than ours with God then we are seeking to them for mediation that is the office of Christ alone. The same with dead saints. It is very different to fulfill the law of love by bearing one another's burdens, and to seek for mediation with God based on another's merit.

Also if you read some of the prayer-book prayers to Mary or the saints either in the EO or the Roman Catholic church, it is obvious that they actually pray to these saints for blessings and benefits that the saints have to bestow, not just to intercede for, out of their own merits. They ask Mary to bless them: they don't just ask Mary to ask God to bless them. They ask these saints and Mary for actual grace. So they are praying to the saints not only looking for mediation but for the blessing and favor and grace that is the prerogative of God alone.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> There is a difference:
> 
> who is the object of our prayers? I don't pray to my friends to intercede for me with God. I ask them to pray to their own Mediator for a request. In both cases, they and I are asking the Lord for an answer to prayer. In the RC and EO example, I would be praying to people for an answer to a request.




Fred: Could you please clarify this? Do they have a different mediator than you? I do not believe you mean this, but for some reason the wording is confusing me.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> A friend of mine made the same objection (repeating an EO justification of this practice) but if prayers to the saints are on the same level as asking our friends to pray for us, then why the 'degrees' of holiness in the whole system of sainthood: why are some saints holier than others, and so have more merit, Mary being the holiest of all? As Brian said, why single her out? -Because it's a system of the individual's merit to intercede and she's at the top of it. But these saints are saved on the merits of Christ alone just as we are. That is the only approach they have to God, and we have the same full access. If any confusion exists in our minds about our friends' prayers being more 'meritorious' than ours with God then we are seeking to them for mediation that is the office of Christ alone. The same with dead saints. It is very different to fulfill the law of love by bearing one another's burdens, and to seek for mediation with God based on another's merit.
> 
> Also if you read some of the prayer-book prayers to Mary or the saints either in the EO or the Roman Catholic church, it is obvious that they actually pray to these saints for blessings and benefits that the saints have to bestow, not just to intercede for, out of their own merits. They ask Mary to bless them: they don't just ask Mary to ask God to bless them. They ask these saints and Mary for actual grace. So they are praying to the saints not only looking for mediation but for the blessing and favor and grace that is the prerogative of God alone.




Heidi hit the perverbial nail on the head. The rc/eo believe others besides God dispense grace. This is the perversion they hold that goes beyond intercession. 

Now we must caution ourselves and not try to be on the opposite extreme of this thought becasue their dogma of the intercession of the saints is laced with truth. Having people pray for you is one thing, having people pray for you and expecting them to bestow some grace is altogether another thing. Also, there are scriptural examples of people "blessing" others. The OT is loaded with them. I have not studied the issue of 'man blessing man' much, so I will reserve any further opinion. But I would be interested to know what it portrayed.

ie Isaac blessing Jacob..etc etc


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 25, 2007)

Nicholas, I don't know all the ins and outs of blessing in the OT or in the New. But it does seem that it isn't based on the merit of the person doing the blessing -- Balaam's blessing was as efficacious as Jacob's? If it is based on the person's merits, then we are looking to the person not only to be an appointed means of God's blessings (as with asking for prayer: the prayers of others are an appointed means to bring about His will), but to bless us out of their own store of goodness. That seems to constitute a significant difference in the blessing in Scripture and the blessing the EO/Rome teach us to look for from the saints and Mary.

The most saddening thing to me is that in confusing the clear line between God as the fount of goodness and grace with the human agency through which he chooses to work, people are inevitably instilled with an idea that Mary and the saints not only have more merit with God than they do, but than Christ Himself does. I talked to a Roman Catholic lady at one of my temp jobs who mentioned almost enviously that we Protestants could just pray at any time: just anywhere, we would suddenly pop into the presence of God. (This was actually the 'biggest difference' she had noted between us as a lay-person.) I explained how that is rooted in our ability to approach Christ as a sufficient mediator: how we didn't need anyone to get us favor with Him because no one else could be more graciously disposed to us than He is: He died for us. Her face changed and she 'got it'; and it was really exciting to see someone who had obviously had misgivings over her own ability to approach God see Christ as sufficient for that. But this is the inevitable result of having a whole system of people to pray to who have more merit than you do, and so can either give you something themselves without God having to be involved in the transaction, or get you something with God without you having to deal directly with Him.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 25, 2007)

BrianLanier said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > We have no contact with the departed saints until we join them in glory.
> ...



Which was clearly a sinful case, even if it was the real Samuel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 25, 2007)

Like so many other debates with RC's, the particular argument over whether or not we ask friends to pray for us and comparing that to dead Saints is such a worthless tactical battle given that larger issues underlying the dogma.

IF everything else was OK with RC theology was OK and prayer to Mary and the Saints was the only issue then that would be one thing but this is one brick at the top of a huge edifice of idolatry. I frankly wouldn't even bother arguing the specific point with an RC or an EO simply because the foundational differences are too profound. It's like arguing over evidence with a naturalist.

The issue of Mary as co-Redemptrix is much more than the idea of her intercession. It also has to do with their belief that she was immaculately conceived (without sin) and that she never sinned. Her submission to God's will that she be the bearer of the Savior is actually seen in their theology as a fiat - that she commanded the angel "So let it be" and that her consent was key to the plan of redemption.

As Jesus' mother she is also seen as having special access to Him and that He listens to her. Thus, one of many profound problems with this theology is the notion that Christ is aloof and distant and we need Mary (or perhaps for their area of specialty a patron Saint of something) to take our prayers to Jesus because, after all, He'll pay attention if she asks Him.

One point you could make is that this notion makes Mary and the Saints omnipresent and ascribes to them a Divine nature.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> Nicholas, I don't know all the ins and outs of blessing in the OT or in the New. But it does seem that it isn't based on the merit of the person doing the blessing -- Balaam's blessing was as efficacious as Jacob's? If it is based on the person's merits, then we are looking to the person not only to be an appointed means of God's blessings (as with asking for prayer: the prayers of others are an appointed means to bring about His will), but to bless us out of their own store of goodness. That seems to constitute a significant difference in the blessing in Scripture and the blessing the EO/Rome teach us to look for from the saints and Mary.



AMH(A mere housewife): I never looked at it, so I am just asking the question. I quickly looked at scripture and the same word (barak)(hebrew) is used when God *blesses* Jacob as when Jacob *blesses* Joseph, or Isaac blesses Jacob. This would probably be another thread so i do not want to derail this discussion.


----------



## etexas (Oct 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Like so many other debates with RC's, the particular argument over whether or not we ask friends to pray for us and comparing that to dead Saints is such a worthless tactical battle given that larger issues underlying the dogma.
> 
> IF everything else was OK with RC theology was OK and prayer to Mary and the Saints was the only issue then that would be one thing but this is one brick at the top of a huge edifice of idolatry. I frankly wouldn't even bother arguing the specific point with an RC or an EO simply because the foundational differences are too profound. It's like arguing over evidence with a naturalist.
> 
> ...


..........I had part of my education within a Roman Catholic School....Rich is correct....Roman Dogmatic belief on this issue shuts down any rational discourse.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

I am most bothered by the quirky cliche' rc's use that says "Jesus locks the front door, and Mary let's them in the back door" or "Mom, (spoken by Christ to Mary), Why do you keep letting people in that I shut out"

This is as heretical as it comes...


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 25, 2007)

Hey Nicholas, don't want to derail the thread either -- just quickly respond that I don't know that the word being the same is relevant: OT blessing wasn't efficacious based on the merit of the person doing the blessing as per the examples we are given, whereas the RCC and EO scheme is. There's a difference between a divinely appointed means of dispensing God's blessing, and seeking His blessing from some other source, such as the merit of the agent. I think its the same difference between seeing the Lord's Supper as a means God makes efficacious for our spiritual benefit, and seeing it as efficacious in itself.

The EO and RCC can't claim that the saints' merits are not sought to as efficacious of themselves, because that is belied by the whole system of how some saints are better for some things than others, and some have greater access to God. Indeed why pray to the dead at all unless the dead have some special merit the living don't possess? & Rich's point about the omnipresence involved in asking dead saints for blessing or prayer seems a pretty definitive argument. (I don't know Jacob's situation but praying to Mary or someone besides Christ does seem significant in dealing with some people, because it is a way they pretty regularly and practically rob Christ of His uniqueness; and if they are saved, rob themselves of the comfort of Christ's love for them and His efficacy for their standing with God.)


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 25, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference:
> ...



Sorry for the lack of clarity - it was late. 

What I mean is that I pray through a Mediator (Jesus). When I ask my friends to pray for me, they are not acting as a mediator (as RCs and EOs would have it), but rather to their own Mediator as well (who is Jesus). The point is that Jesus is my Mediator, and their Mediator - the only Mediator, in both instances.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> Hey Nicholas, don't want to derail the thread either -- just quickly respond that I don't know that the word being the same is relevant: OT blessing wasn't efficacious based on the merit of the person doing the blessing as per the examples we are given, whereas the RCC and EO scheme is. There's a difference between a divinely appointed means of dispensing God's blessing, and seeking His blessing from some other source, such as the merit of the agent. I think its the same difference between seeing the Lord's Supper as a means God makes efficacious for our spiritual benefit, and seeing it as efficacious in itself.
> 
> The EO and RCC can't claim that the saints' merits are not sought to as efficacious of themselves, because that is belied by the whole system of how some saints are better for some things than others, and some have greater access to God. Indeed why pray to the dead at all unless the dead have some special merit the living don't possess? & Rich's point about the omnipresence involved in asking dead saints for blessing or prayer seems a pretty definitive argument. (I don't know Jacob's situation but praying to Mary or someone besides Christ does seem significant in dealing with some people, because it is a way they pretty regularly and practically rob Christ of His uniqueness; and if they are saved, rob themselves of the comfort of Christ's love for them and His efficacy for their standing with God.)



AMH: I am not even going to the point of being efficacious. I am just trying to understand what the word means!!! LOL. BARAK, is used for both instances. What does it mean to bless someone, ie Isaac blessing jacob. Vs God blessing Isaac or jacob. The hebrew word barak is used both times and all strongs tells me is it means to bless. What does that mean, I do not know... Is blessing love, grace of some sort, favor? I do not know....

As far as speakign to an rc, I try not to stress the saints are dead. Becasue they are most assuredly alive. I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.... So we must be careful not to stress the fact they are buried in the ground and not resurrected.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Ok, thank you Fred. Was not being picky, just wanted to clarify!!!


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 25, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> AMH: I am not even going to the point of being efficacious. I am just trying to understand what the word means!!! LOL. BARAK, is used for both instances. What does it mean to bless someone, ie Isaac blessing jacob. Vs God blessing Isaac or jacob. The hebrew word barak is used both times and all strongs tells me is it means to bless. What does that mean, I do not know... Is blessing love, grace of some sort, favor? I do not know....
> 
> As far as speakign to an rc, I try not to stress the saints are dead. Because they are most assuredly alive. I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.... So we must be careful not to stress the fact they are buried in the ground and not resurrected.



Nicholas, as regards Strong's use of the English word "bless", the American Heritage Dictionary says this:
*bless* 
tr.v. *blessed* or *blest* (blěst), *bless·ing*, *bless·es* 

To make holy by religious rite; sanctify.
To make the sign of the cross over so as to sanctify.
To invoke divine favor upon.
To honor as holy; glorify: _Bless the Lord._
To confer well-being or prosperity on.
To endow, as with talent.
I think probably 3 and 5 are more in view, given the language of the blessings in the OT?

You're right of course, about the saints not being dead, speaking of death and life absolutely. I have been using 'dead' more as a common description that they have died, they are on the other side of death, in a different realm: inaccessible to us in a way people living in the same city are not. But you're right that we shouldn't downplay our communion with them, and that we should emphasize more that our union with Christ forms the connection we have to them, not _vice versa_: He is the one who always hears us when we call, who is closer than breathing.


----------



## BrianLanier (Oct 25, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



Ha, I knew what you meant! Your statement was just descriptive--"we have no contact", but your next statement was normative. I clearly should have put one of those cool smiley faces after my post.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 25, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > AMH: I am not even going to the point of being efficacious. I am just trying to understand what the word means!!! LOL. BARAK, is used for both instances. What does it mean to bless someone, ie Isaac blessing jacob. Vs God blessing Isaac or jacob. The hebrew word barak is used both times and all strongs tells me is it means to bless. What does that mean, I do not know... Is blessing love, grace of some sort, favor? I do not know....
> ...



Thank you AMH, I must have been looking in the wrong place. All 5 seem to be interchangable, which is "wierd to me". number 1 fits with God, but also we are told men were sanctified(set apart) ie sampson. Thank you for your help AMH

There is just no example of one invoking the name of those who have past looking for their prayers. This is the issue.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 27, 2007)

I read a rather funny (true) story relevant to this recently in _Down and Out in Paris and London_. A atheist had been without food for several days, and was lying in bed too weak to move and saw a picture he supposed to be a picture of some female saint (I don't remember exactly which one) and started praying to it for food. Shortly one of the other boarders in the house entered his room, was shocked by his condition, and found something of his he had overlooked that could be pawned for food. She went off and did that and brought the food back with some change. He had promised the saint that he would give her a certain amount of the change: but if he did that he wouldn't have enough money to buy a cigarette. The other boarder was urging to let her get him a cigarette, so finally he confessed what he'd done. She burst out laughing: the picture he'd prayed to was of a famous prostitute of the quarter. He figured that since it wasn't the saint he had been praying to, he didn't owe the saint anything, and got the cigarette.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 27, 2007)

That story would be funnier if it was not representative of the superstition attached to praying to pictures that characterizes so many. I was mowing my lawn once and reached out for something and my ring flew off my hand into the grass and disappeared. I stopped the lawnmover and crouched to look for it with little avail even though I knew the general vicinity.

Two women walked up and started looking with me. One of them found it within a minute. I thanked her and she said: "Well, I just said a prayer to Saint Anthony...."

Prayer to Saints is like wearing a talisman. It "works" so they do it.


----------

