Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -46 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

Breaking News All | United Prayer | SA Center | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  7/26/2021
Choice News MONDAY, JAN 8, 2001  |  24 comments
Mary: Mother ... and savior?

The Virgin Mary as depicted by Michelangelo's Pieta

"The world of today is in desperate need of a mother," whispered Prof. Mark Miravalle as he sat behind his desk at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, carefully fingering a string of rosary beads.

Half a world away, inside the Vatican, yet another enormous box arrived filled with petitions asking Pope John Paul II to exercise his absolute power to proclaim a new and highly debated dogma: that the Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus and cooperates fully with her son in the redemption of mankind.

Miravalle, 41, began the petition drive four years ago from his obscure position as a professor of Mariology -- the study of Mary -- at one of the most conservative Catholic universities in the nation. Since then the pope has received more than 6 million signatures from 148 countries asking him to give the Virgin Mary the ultimate promotion.

In addition to ordinary Catholics, Miravalle has ...

CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
COMMENTS  locked  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 24 user comment(s)
News ItemSystem Notice
This forum thread has been closed by SermonAudio.
No further comments are permitted for this news item.

News Item9/30/03 5:37 PM
Tom  Contact via email
ok ok ok
it seems as though people here are misunderstanding the term COREDEMPTRIX....
in English, the term "co" and be meant to mean equal, but in LATIN (the official language of the church) it means something different.... "co" in latin does not mean equal, but one who helps while at the same time BEING SUBSERVANT TO.... therefore when Mary is called "coredemptrix" it does not mean she is equal with Christ... it simply means that she participates more fully in the redemption than any other human being, but she is still below Jesus..... as a side note, the Pope reffered to Mary as CoRedemptix twioce in his recent encyclical on the Holy Rosary

News Item5/8/03 12:05 AM
Lance Eccles | Sydney, Australia  Contact via email
Dear Ben, I don't think we're going to agree on this one at all. You take a Calvinist view (yes, I know, this is a Calvinist website), and I don't. I think that, just as God gave Adam and Eve a choice on behalf of all mankind (and they turned it down), he also gave Mary a choice (and she accepted). Naturally, God knew beforehand that Adam and Eve would reject and that Mary would accept, but that is all part of the mystery of predestination.

News Item5/7/03 9:28 PM
Ben Meng | Indianapolis, IN  Contact via email
Lance your argument is dead in the water. Your logic is flawed. The thrice holy God, creator of heavens and earth and all that is in them, is not bound by the decisions of humans. His eternal decree cannot be dictated by a human woman, that would make her God. You have made Mary God by claiming that her decision dictates the possibility of salvation. God is not nor was he ever dependent on Mary to provide salvation. My friend, the true God makes no mistakes nor is hindered in any decision that he chooses, by any one or anything. Your claim steals glory from Christ and gives it to Mary.
The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

News Item5/7/03 5:37 AM
Lance Eccles | Sydney, Australia  Contact via email
No matter what we may think of the idea of Mary as "coredemptrix" (and the RC Church doesn't seem at all keen on this title), we owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. She would have been quite within her rights to say "no" to the angel. In that case the Son of God would not have become man, and the redemption would not have taken place. We would have lost any chance of being saved.

News Item5/5/03 11:49 PM
Christopher Din | Michigan  
First of all I heard that the church did not approve the doctrine of Mary as co-redmptrix. They said because it came from alledge apparitions of Mary. Basicly Mary hardly is every reffered to in that was however they call her Mediatrix of All Grace as in she is the person who leads us to Jesus and is a great intercessor with God. Since Vatican II the church has maintained that devotion should not be made in a superstious matter so as not to take her away from Christ. Also when Our Lord said "behold thy son" he meant that he gave Mary not just to John but to all of us. Also Mary is that woman in Revelation with the 12 stars. Also Mary is represented in the woman to crush the head of the serpent so Mary does have a place in Christianity and Catholics are not the only ones who honor her. Orthodox Christians and some Muslims honor her too!

News Item1/9/02 8:10 AM
Samuel | Belfast  Contact via email
How can Mary be a co-saviour? "I am the way, the truth, and the life no man comes to the father except through me" not me and the virgin mother over there! Oh by the way when did Mary die, the Catholic Church think she was of pure birth conceived by the divine power, if this is true then her mother and hers would have to be conceived in the same way! So if she is pure and perfect then she cannot die, her heart, lungs and all parts of her are flawless, absolutely flawless. But in the 80’s the catholic church said she died, when , was she really perfect?
check out "" for info on the religions of the world

News Item1/3/02 5:38 PM
Randall | Flemington, NJ  
As an ex-Catholic, I feel qualified to comment on this sad blasphemy against Christ, which, just like the "Jesus-plus-works" approach to salvation, implies that Jesus alone is not sufficient (in contradiction to Paul's writings), which in turn implies that He is not God, the Almighty. I heard an incredibly bad Catholic radio program recently in which one of the presenters of "proof" Mary's divinity referred to his own past as "my darkest days as a Protestant." (I have never heard an Evangelical Christian "Protestant" broadcast be that openly judgmental against Catholicism--maybe what is in order is a little more love and sensitivity and a little less "factoids".) Evidently, his recitation of the "Hail Mary" is so mechanical that he has never considered the words within it, "Hail Mary, full of GRACE..." Grace is UNDESERVED FORGIVENESS. Why would a perfect, divine being require forgiveness? The true gospel of Christ says that God cannot tolerate sin (imperfection) in His presence. (Adam and Eve could attest to that.) Hence, we ALL need a Savior, and Mary was no exception. God granted her cleansing GRACE so that He could inhabit her womb. Even SHE acknowledged him as her Savior.

News Item1/3/02 7:18 AM  Protected NameContact via emailFind all comments by
Hope the following can shed some light on the subject. is opposed to the official doctrines of the Catholic Church and is unapologetically a Protestant site.

160. What worship does the Church of Rome teach should be given to the mother of our Lord?

Prayers are addressed to her and she is honoured with hyperdulia: this is a word coined by the Church to indicate the highest kind of worship which, according to her, may be given to a created being. A careful review of Rome's books of devotion affords the fullest proof that among Romanists Mary divides the honours of Divine Worship and even Divinity with the Supreme Being.

163. Is this doctrine taught in the New Testament or was it known in the early church?

The whole Word of God teaches the contrary, even as Paul declares that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Mary's own language confirms that she acknowledged she was a sinner and needed salvation when she exclaimed: "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." The teaching was unknown to the apostolic church, and in the writing of the fathers of the first five centuries it was never once mentioned. Not one great name can be quoted for it during the first eleven centuries. On the contrary, no fewer than fourteen Popes oppose it.

170. What are the three names which Rome uses which more than any others exalt Mary?

She is called the Daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. Such names most plainly imply that Mary is honoured as the fourth person of the Godhead, for more exalted names could not be given to the Divine Being.

173. Does Rome make Mary a partner mediator with Christ in the work of redemption?

Yes. She declares it to be absolutely necessary to the salvation of the sinner. Her words are: "Because men fear Jesus Christ, that Divine Person who is destined one day to judge them, it has been necessary to give them a Mediator with the Mediator, and none was so fit for this office as Mary His mother." Accordingly she teaches that "no grace, no pardon emanates from the Throne of the King of kings without passing through the hands of Mary [...]; no one enters Heaven without passing through her."

You can read the entire article at

67. What is the correct interpretation of the words: 'This is my Body and this is my Blood'?

These words of Jesus must be interpreted spiritually. The bread and wine are symbols of His Body and His Blood. As Jesus was present in person at the Last Supper when He said: 'This is my body', and His whole Body was present, these words must have been symbolical. At the same time Jesus' Blood had not been shed, therefore the words 'This is my blood' must also have been symbolical.

When debating Tom Corbishley, the head of the Jesuit Order, I put to him the question which he was never able to answer. Did he believe, when Jesus said: 'I am the door', that Jesus was a literal door with four panels, a handle and a keyhole? - and when Jesus said: 'I am the true vine',did he believe that Jesus Christ was the literal trunk of a vine tree?

Figurative language such as this is used every day. For instance, a portrait of a person is painted and one describing it says: 'This is Mr. So and so.' Now he does not mean that it is literally the person who is portrayed: he means rather that it is a representation of the person who is portrayed.

'This is My Body' - that is the divinely appointed representation of My Body.

'This is my Blood' - that is the divinely appointed representation of My Blood.

Christ emphasised that His Feast was to be a remembrance one. 'This do in remembrance of Me.' You can only remember a person when he is not literally and bodily present with you. If Christ is literally and bodily on the altar, as Rome proclaims, then the Feast ceases to be one of remembrance, and that destroys the very foundation of the Lord's Supper.

68. What is the correct interpretation of John 6:54: 'Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day'?

This passage can have no direct reference to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper because the evident fact is that two Passovers (the Passover was a yearly feast) elapsed between the delivery of these words and the institution of the Sacrament (compare John 6:4 with John 12:1); but Christ uses the present tense: 'Except ye eat.' It was their duty right away to eat of that spiritual food, even at the very time when He was delivering His discourse; therefore the words cannot refer to a Sacrament not even then instituted. Even Rome herself does not receive the absolute literacy of these words, for it says here that the Blood must be drunk; yet for centuries Rome refused the wine to her communicants.

If the words 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life in you' referred to the Sacrament and were to be understood literally, this would prove that all who do not receive the Sacrament must perish, yet baptised infants who have not received the Sacrament, according to Rome, are saved. Moreover, if it is received literally then it proves that all communicants are saved. Rome herself will not admit that that is the case. Then what does it mean?

The Scriptures are the best interpreters of themselves. It says in verse 58: 'He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.' Compare that with John 3:36: 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.' There are not two ways of salvation, one by the Sacrament and the other by faith. Eating the bread is a representation of what happens when a person believes, he partakes of everlasting life through the Son of God. Verse 35 of the chapter gives the key to the interpretation: 'He that cometh to me shall never hunger' - that is, eating Christ's flesh. How do we eat Christ's flesh? By coming to Him.

'And he that believeth on me shall never thirst.' How do we drink Christ's Blood? By believing on Him. We feed on Christ by coming to him. We drink His Blood by believing on Him. Salvation is by faith alone.

In verses 62-63 the Saviour explains His meaning clearly. He says: 'What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (mark the words) profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.'

What was Christ saying? He was saying: 'Do you think that I am speaking of My literal flesh? But my literal flesh shall ascend to heaven, far beyond the reach of being eaten by man. The flesh profiteth nothing. Even though you were to partake of My body, it would not save your souls. The words that I speak unto you, they are the spirit, and they are the life. They have a spiritual signification and they show that you must feed on Me by faith, for he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. Jesus constantly used figurative language in order to enforce the truths which He taught. Instances of such figurative language are found also in Isaiah 55:1-3; John 7:37-39; Matthew 16:5-11.

69. What other Scriptural facts prove the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is a lie?

ONE: The Lord's Supper was commemorative as was the Passover. The Passover Lamb commemorated the Passover, when the Lord said 'this Passover' He meant this commemoration of the Passover. Likewise when He said: 'This is my body,' He spoke of the Supper as a commemorative feast to be observed in remembrance of Him.

TWO: The apostolic reception of Christ's words. The apostles, it is evident, understood our Lord as we do. They were accustomed to figurative language in which the Saviour constantly spoke and which was the current language of the day. There was no argument at the Table concerning these words: 'This is my body', 'This is my blood', for the disciples knew He was speaking in figurative language.

THREE: The Feast is commemorative from Christ's own words: 'Do this in remembrance of me' and from the apostolic declaration: 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.' (I Corinthians 11:26.) How could it be done in remembrance of Him if He were literally present in Body, Blood, Soul and Deity?

FOUR: The words themselves refute Transubstantiation; the apostolic account is destructive of this dogma. It says in I Corinthians 11:23-26 that the cup is the New Testament: here is a double figure of speech. Firstly the cup is put for the wine and secondly the cup is called the New Testament.We ask: Was the cup literally transubstantiated into the New Testament? Notice the apostle used the word: 'After the same manner He took the cup' - that is, the manner in which He took the bread. It therefore cannot and does not mean that the bread was literally Christ's Body or the wine literally Christ's Blood, or the cup literally the New Testament.

You can read the entire article at


News Item1/3/02 12:37 AM
Walt Brubaker | Henderson, NV  Contact via email
RVH has brought up some more points of misunderstanding on Catholic doctrine, and I'll address them one by one. For those of you just joining us, we're all commenting on an article about how some people want the Catholic Church to change it's doctrine on Mary, and laber her as "Co-Redemptrix". I've taken the position that the CC has not, and will not change its doctrine to this. RVH has taken the position that the CC considers Mary above Jesus.

Your Point #1: "Catholic Church ... claims to be the only true church"

Response to #1: Twice I have asked for you to refrain from stating Catholic positions unless you can back it up by citing an official source. It's easy to construct a "straw man" argument by misstating an opponent's position, then attacking it. But let me say that elsewhere in this website is an article labelled "Heaven open to all, says Pope", with many comments attached to it.

Your Point #2: "Mary is not my blessed mother."

Response to #2: The Bible says she is your blessed mother. "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48 RSV). "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luke 1:42 RSV). "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Luke 1:45 RSV). "...he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" (John 19:26-27 RSV).

Your Point #3: "She was the first redeemed human?? Please! (Chapter? Verse? "

Response to Point #3: I claim she was the first redeemed human, you say she was not. We're going to have to work this out with a little logic and Holy Scripture. First question: Did Mary go to Hell? If you say 'no', then she must have been redeemed. And we both agree that Jesus Christ is the only redeemer. Can we agree she was 'human'? If so, then we agree that she was a 'redeemed human', and our only disagreement was when, not whether, she was redeemed.

My position is that Mary was redeemed prior to Christ being born, so that he could come to Earth via a pure vessel. My scriptural evidence is: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee" (Luke 1:28). This is what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years. Here's a quote from St. Paul about the wisdom of the Church: "that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 3:10).

Ask yourself this question. What church was Paul talking about? The Lutheran Church, founded by Martin Luther in 1520? The Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley in 1620? Calvary Chapel, founded by Chuck Smith in 1965? the Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Salvation Army churches founded in the 1800's? None of these are possible. The only Christian Church that existed when St. Paul wrote those words is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D., and with an unbroken, documented leadership and structure since then.

Your Point #4: "tradition of men?"

Response to point #4:
No indeed, for that would violate Mark 7:8. But instead: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2). The Catholic Church keeps the traditions that the Apostles handed on, including the traditions of the Lord's Supper, laying on of hands, anointing the sick, no divorce allowed, no abortions, no homosexual marriages. With so many Protestant churches "taking a vote" and deciding to abandon these treasured doctrines, it's no wonder that many people are now converting to Catholicism, which has held the same theology for 2000 years.

Your Point #6: "...I sure wouldn't want a bunch of people eating my son and drinking his blood every Sunday morning"

Response to Point #6:
Jesus is quite clear on this doctrine in the Bible: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51). "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:53-54).

He said it three times; we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But where do we get this bread of life? The answer is in Matthew 26:26-28; "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

There it is, solid scriptural evidence for participating in the Christian ceremony known as "The Lord's Supper". The earliest Christians made this the centerpiece of their worship, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

I would like to encourage every Christian, regardless of denomination, to follow this mandate from the Bible, and participate in the Lord's supper.

I'm grateful for this opportunity to share my faith, and appreciate the lively discussion of doctrine with my Christian brothers. Peace be to you in the new year.


News Item1/1/02 11:36 PM
Funny how the Catholic Church, since it claims to be the only true church is so misunderstood. Jesus Christ didn't come down from His Throne to this wicked, sin-filled and defiled earth and shed His Blood to be overshadowed by anyone or by any system. Mary is not my blessed mother. She was a sinner as ALL, (Rom. 3:23) are. She was the first redeemed human?? Please! (Chapter? Verse? Man made tradition??? The only perfect sinless model for anything I want to follow is Jesus Christ Himself. (Eph. 5:1) AMEN, she is NOT the Redeemer, there is just ONE, and HE is the way, the truth and the life... NO ONE goes to the Father but by HIM. You're right, the catholic church and her current leader do not put her on par with Jesus, in fact the church has elevated her above HIS NAME. Why would you even mention a possible change of policy, I thought the Roman Catholic Church is the church that NEVER changes. I must have misunderstood that too.

Your points about context are mute when you consider what your church has done with the four or five Biblical verses it bases it's whole system on. In each case, the RCC takes Jesus out of context. I certainly can't speak for Mary, but I sure wouldn't want a bunch of people eating my son and drinking his blood every Sunday morning and whenever else. As a good Jewish woman as I am sure she was, she would know that went against every law before, during and after Christ's life/death/resurrection on earth.

The only bridge that any sinner needs built is to get them from an eternal life blinded and in flames to a Glorious Life with a Perfect, Holy, Sinless and All-knowing, loving God the Father. That bridge my friend is Jesus Christ. Move over Mary and anyone else, I care for Jesus only. Is His shed Blood good enough for the RCC?? Naaa... certainly they in all of their wisdom can do Him one, two... many better. Trust Jesus only. He can take care of everything else.

I too welcome any continued discussion on anything concerning the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Jesus is Lord!! Don't you think? He says that HE is. I trust He is right.


News Item1/1/02 7:06 PM
Walt Brubaker | Henderson, NV  Contact via email
Thank you RVH, for your comments on the Virgin Mary, and her role in our salvation. I especially appreciate your citing from "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (TCOTCC), as that is official teaching, and not some rumor or innuendo. There is a lot of misunderstanding on Marian doctrine and I'm grateful that we together can discuss and hopefully, shed some light on it.

We Catholics do NOT worship Mary, nor do we believe she saves us. But let me respond to your paragraphs, one by one:

1) This quote from TCOTCC does not claim redemptive powers for Mary, but says that she continues to help bring us to salvation. I believe that many Christians will say: "my pastor helped bring me to salvation", or "my brother helped bring me to Christ". We all acknowledge the kindly souls on earth who share their salvation with us by bringing us to Christ. Catholics also acknowledge the assistance and encouragement we get from saints "on the other side" who lead us to the Lord, without being the Lord himself.

This doctrine is made quite clear from the paragraph from TCOTCC (#970) which you left off after your excerpt (#969):

"Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes from this unique mediation of Christ but rather shows its power. ... 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 by his ministers and the faithful..." (TCOTCC, #970).

2) Your quote from TCOTCC #1172 is appropriate, but incomplete. Your goal is to show that the church considers her to be inseparable and co-equal to Christ, but the quote is taken from context. Continuing the next sentences makes the intent clear:

"In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be" (TCOTCC #1172).

In other words, Mary was a perfect example of redemption by Christ, and an example for all of us, NOT a redeemer herself.

3) Quoting TCOTCC #2030 is appropriate and once again out of context. Your apparent point is that we believe the holiness comes from Mary, as its "source". Taken alone, this sentence might indicate this, but this chapter ("The Church, Mother and Teacher") involves how we learn to live a holy life. The point they are making is that Mary was the first human to live a fully holy life. We learn from her example. The meaning of "model and source" is not that divine holiness comes from her, but that the example of holy human living starts with her.

4) Quote from Revelation 15:4. No argument here. Only God is himself holy. But God can manifest his holiness through man. Mary's holiness came from God.
"And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (Luke 1:46-49 RSV).

Mary was a very special instrument of the Lord: "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you". (Luke 1:28 RSV).

5) Your quote from Isaiah. Agreed. Only the Lord is our savior.

6) Your quote from Hosea. Agreed. Only the Lord is our savior.

Now for a few points of my own.

1) My original point that the Catholic Church's position of Mary as NOT co-redemptrix stands. The original article is about how some people are trying to get the Church to change its doctrine to this false, "co-redemptrix" position. John Paul II has made it clear he will not do so. If you need more proof, allow me to quote from "The Catholic Dictionary, page 94", a book which gained imprimatur from the Bishop of New York:

"...she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and was in fact redeemed by her son. He alone merited man's salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ's merits to those whom the Savior objectively redeemed". (Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J., page 96).

In other words, just like the Christian friend who helped you repent from sin and led you to Christ, Mary helps lead us to Christ, and serves as a prime example of a Christian life, lived according to the will of God, not our own sinful nature.

2) Mary is blessed, and we must acknowledge that fact. "All generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Mary is our mother. When Jesus said: "Behold your mother" (John 19:27 RSV) he wasn't just arranging living quarters for her. Everything Jesus said (especially on the Cross) was heavy with symbolism and instruction to men of all ages.

Here is a summary of my points:
1) Mary is our "Blessed Mother".
2) She was the first redeemed human.
3) She was a model for our own behavior in doing the will of the Lord.
4) She is not the Redeemer.
5) The Catholic Church does not teach that she is the Redeemer.
6) The Catholic Church does not place her on a par with Jesus.
7) The Church has refused to change this policy and will do so in the future.

I welcome all your continued discussion on this topic. Let's build some bridges between us, and eliminate misunderstanding.


News Item12/31/01 12:01 AM
"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) 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." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #969)

"She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1172)

"From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary;" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2030)

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee..." (Revelation 15:4)

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

"Yet I am the LORD thy God... there is no saviour beside me." (Hosea 13:4)


News Item12/26/01 5:07 PM
Walt Brubaker | Henderson, NV  Contact via email
Read the article carefully, friends. It does not say that the Catholic Church considers Mary a co-redeemer, only that some Catholics are petitioning for a change in doctrine to do so. Such petitions have been steadily rejected in the past.

A "straw-man" argument is one in which you mis-state your opponents position, then attack the false position as if he made it. In this case, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary redeemed us. Worshiping Mary is specifically prohibited as a violation of the First Commandment. Jesus is our only redeemer. This is Theology 101 stuff, guys.

I grant you that some Catholics mistakenly worship Mary. This no more invalidates Catholicism than Jimmy Swaggart's infidelity invalidates Protestantism. What matters is what the Church teaches and promotes, officially.

If you wish to debate official Catholic teaching, then please reference the officially-sanctioned document: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". This book lays out exactly what the Church officially teaches, backed up by scriptural reference and 2000 years of theological analysis and tradition.

I left the Presbyterian Church because they began marrying homosexuals, and found myself a rock to put my feet on; the solid foundation of a 2000-year-old church, founded by Jesus Christ himself through an unbroken chain of leaders, starting with St. Peter.

Peace be with you, all my Christian brothers. I pray for increased understanding and brotherhood between us.


News Item10/20/01 7:07 PM
Brian Lally | Scotland  Contact via email
I WAS a papist until the Lord Jesus
Christ touched me and saved me 24 years
ago! He loved me and gave HIMSELF
for me! and He is GOD Himself;
the second person in the Godhead;
an equal with my HEAVENLY FATHER
and an equal with the HOLY GHOST.
I only see fabsolute foolishness in
believing that anyone else or
anything else could possibly
add to the complete efficacy of
for SIN on that Cross in order
to get them into Heaven!
If you are still a Roman Catholic
FLEE the system by turning to CHRIST
and FLEE GOD's WRATH on your LIFE
for ROME makes
a mockery of that CROSS!
All appearances of 'Mary' have been
the cunning work and power of satan.
She is NOT GOD neither
the mother of God but only the
mother of the humanity of our Lord!

News Item6/30/01 1:41 PM
Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell | Kingston, Ontario, Canada  Contact via email
Hi everyone! Well, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I must admit to you protestant folks out there that I am as shocked and outraged as you are. To make Mary a co-redemtrix with Christ is truly obscene. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me" is what He said, not "through me and my mother"...

I, for one, will watch and see where these developments go closely. I believe that Pope John Paul himself has *no* intention of acceding to such a demand, but then, what happens when he dies and a new pope takes his place?

I'm a *Christian* first though, and will follow where my Lord leads, wherever that may be. If my future is not within the RC church, then so be it. And this kind of stuff would definitely precipitate my exit.


News Item6/29/01 11:16 PM
Ray Kane | New Jersey  Contact via email
Dear bible believing brothers and sisters in Christ: what we must not forget is that the catholic jesus is not the real Jesus. The catholic jesus is incapable of saving souls without help. Not only that, the catholic jesus is a wafer, a mere cracker, a bizarre idol that is sold to dear lost catholics with a lot of slick salesmanship by priests and apoligists who themselves don't realize the signficance of what Paul said in Acts 19:26 "they be no gods, which are made with hands". Seeing how the Catholic church manufactures its own christ in cracker factories, should it surprise us that they have manufactured a co-redeemer for their wafer god?

News Item4/18/01 3:31 PM
James Pearce | Perth, Australia  Contact via email
Personally, Im amazed at how catholics get so much doctrine on Mary out of the first chapter of Luke/Mt. I mean all I find is the story of a well favoured virgin being blessed with giving birth to the King of Israel. Co-Redemptor? Now thats some Exegesis!

News Item4/13/01 4:21 PM
Eddie Hogg | Auckland ,New Zealand  Contact via email
Rob's comment is the well defined Cathlic response to the protestant's rejection of Mariolity, that is the virtual worship of Jesus physical mother. I say virtual because Catholic bible scholars could in no way affirm such a doctrine from the scriptures without much padding out with unscripural glosses to the texts.Although Rob magnifies the saving work of the Lord Jesus, What deeply concerns me is his apparent unwillingness to rest in that work ALONE; this is the manifest difference between our two expressions of the way of salvation

News Item4/11/01 10:26 AM
Rob Robinson | New York  
I can appreciate the kind of confusion that this topic generates. I have been a Catholic for nearly 40 years, and have observed that the misconceptions of mankind, borne on the brevity of true and meaningful dialog that would better us to understand the events that have caused people to feel such actions are laudable, are everywhere. I am Saved as well, but have never seen reason to believe that this in any way has placed me in some diametric opposition to my Catholic faith. It is without question that only Jesus through the way of the Cross could truly be our Savior. But also recall that the bond of Mother and Son existed throughout Christ's earthly life. It would be prudent to believe, that although it is not spoken of in scripture, Mary loved her Son and our Heavenly Father to the degree that she desired to see the success in her Son’s mission. Would it be imprudent to believe that, since we ascribe to the belief in a Heavenly reward for our Christian labors on earth, that the Mother of our Savior could not desire to see the Salvation of all mankind to such a degree that she would not seek to use even the rewards granted to her in Heaven for that very purpose? I can say assuredly that nothing would break the heart of a Mother more than to see such a gift of Love from her Son and her Savior disregarded as unimportant and meaningless, as mankind has done for the most part. Mary had a difficult task in life. How easy a role do you believe it would have been to be the Mother of the Savior, keeping in mind that she knew this was the case at the moment of the Visitation? We have a hard enough time raising ordinary children! She was called to believe in the Deity of her Son from even before the moment of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. She was called to be a Christian before anyone else on earth and to believe in her Son as the Savior of mankind. Keep in mind that God has the power to do as he wills in this universe of his creation, and his ways are above our ways. It may well be possible that Mary seeks even in heaven to see the Salvation purchased at the price of the life of the child she bore to be accepted by ALL mankind, and that while Salvation is alone wrought through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, her love for her Son would be to do whatever she could that ALL might know and love him. A thought to ponder is that if you knew you were to be an honored guest at the banquet of an earthly queen, would you not seek to avail yourself in such a way that gave respect? How quickly we toss Mary aside when she was clearly the most honorable woman that walked the face of the earth! Are we so callous to believe that our daily lives give greater honor to God than the life of this woman? It’s a sad commentary on a world that honors sports figures and rock stars, but gives little respect to the Mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you were standing in his presence at this moment, and she were standing at his side, how would you act toward the Mother of Our Savior while in his very presence?

News Item1/23/01 8:28 PM
Pastor Buddy Sheriff | Picayune Mississippi  Contact via email
I was raised in a Catholic family outside of Pittsburgh, PA. While Catholics may argue that they do not worship Mary, the names on the petition say otherwise. I remember building a May altar for Mary as a child. Where did I learn about this? In the Catholic school I attended. Mary was a chosen vessel of the Lord. However, she is not diety nor co-mediatrix of our redemption. I thank God for setting me free in 1983 when I heard the Gospel in Gulfport Mississippi. As a pastor I refute the eroneous Catholic claims with the solid truth of God's Word in love.
There are a total of 24 user comments displayedSubscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 | last

Bill Parker
The Manner of True Prayer (5)

The Manner of True Prayer
Sunday Service
Eager Avenue Grace Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Community Demographic Report ($175)

Gain val­uable ins­ights to help your Church serve the comm­un­ity God has placed you in.

Leading a Post-COVID Church

Free eBook by Thom Rainer - A Past­or's Guide to Min­istry Chall­enges & Opp­ort­un­it­ies

How Deep Can You Go?

SPONSOR | 4,600+


SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader

Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos

Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Podcasting New!
Listen Line New!
Events | Notices
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
Embed Codes
Logos | e-Sword | BLB

Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Privacy Policy

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.