thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [url="http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php"]http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 +J.M.J.+ (not at MIKolbe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissyP89 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Anything that falls under dogma--and therefore forces my belief under penalty of excommunication--tends to make me nervous, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792518' date='Feb 27 2009, 06:54 PM']I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792518' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:54 PM']I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.[/quote] What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) demand? I'm not demanding anything and I don't think Dr. Marivalle is either. A petition is not a demand. Don't sign it if you don't want to. The purpose of declaring a dogma is to clarify the misconceptions. The doctrine regarding co-redemptrix is clearly stated in ccc 970. I don't see the problem. 970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." Edited February 27, 2009 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) the CCC isn't scripture nor the language of the Fathers. you are missing the point. Edited February 27, 2009 by MIkolbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1792564' date='Feb 27 2009, 02:40 PM']the CCC isn't scripture nor the language of the Fathers. you are missing the point.[/quote] Neither was the Immmaculate Conception. No, I get your point. It's not a valid one. BTW I think IC came about in part by petition. Oh yes and where is the assumption in the father and in scripture directly? I know about the Ark of the Covenant/mary paralel. Edited February 27, 2009 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I would be interested to know if the IC came about in part of a petition like this. Dogma by petition seems odd to me. I stand my orginal post. It would lead to more confusion than it would resolve. Not a good idea.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I just don't know how anyone can believe that a petition could have any effect on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 When I first saw the title, I thought "Oh, someone advocating 'Mother of All Peoples'". Now I see there are a couple people wanting to get on board with the "Fifth Marian Dogma". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissyP89 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) The Assumption was brought about by popular demand, I believe. It was mentioned multiple times in the original 1950 declaration. Edited February 27, 2009 by MissyP89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 A petition would show a strong urging by the Church Militant for a clarification of the teaching, I believe. Would it effect the defining of a dogma? Not in a bad way, but instead show the support of the laity for it. I agree with MIkolbe, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 There are many more dogmas, doctrines and pious opinions/theological speculations concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary than merely five. Some people in that above movement think the so-called co-redemptrix dogma as the fifth and final Marian dogma. This is completely false and erroneous. Plus this movement has its roots in a false visionary named Ida Peerdman. Needless to say for most of you yet: Disregard and avoid this movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now