Pope Francis: Mary is not "co-redeemer" and Christ is the Mediator

[RI]

Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator.

...

Jesus extended Mary’s maternity to the entire Church when He entrusted her to his beloved disciple shortly before dying on the cross. From that moment on, we have all been gathered under her mantle, as depicted in certain medieval frescoes or paintings. Even the first Latin antiphon – sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix: the Madonna who ‘covers’, like a Mother, to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety has always given her beautiful titles, as a child gives his or her mamma: how many beautiful things children say about their mamma whom they love so much! How many beautiful things. But we need to be careful: the things the Church, the Saints, say about her, beautiful things, about Mary, subtract nothing from Christ’s sole Redemption. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a child for his or her mamma – some are exaggerated. But love, as we know, always makes us exaggerate things, but out of love.

Hopefully this clears up the ridiculous attempts to put Mary (nearly) on par with Christ by a minority in Catholic circles.

[DC Al Fine]

Good to hear. That minority is very loud and sounds like a Protestant polemic personified.

[KaiserDave]

Good to hear. That minority is very loud and sounds like a Protestant polemic personified.

Agreed with this, and hoping that it will end the mischaracterization of most Catholics on this issue.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I remember once seeing the sign at a Lutheran church near my high school read "YOU CAN'T LOVE MARY MORE THAN JESUS", and having it spiral me inwards into a very clouded space occluded with a strange mysticism of the whole notion of ritual purity and the relation of gender to divinity that clashed brilliantly with the grand internal crisis over my own gender identity and struggles to reconcile myself with my surroundings. As the aspect of the whole grand Abrahamic enterprise that most fascinates me as an outsider and cuts most deeply into my personal experience, I have before aired my dilettante meditations on the nature of Mary, and I remain perplexed by the paradox of veneration and pigeonholing that seems the center of such characterization. To me, it only seems natural that a figure afforded the gestation of the divine in the deeply sacred thing that is the womb would be granted a hand in the divine itself, as the female aspect of something that is otherwise very phallic, and in her own right as a sort of creator. Whether this qualifies as an equal hand in the works of Jesus is another matter.

At times, spurred on by impulses both internal and external, and both sincere and tongue-in-cheek, I have contemplated the relationship of Mary to my Great Mother in the maternal sense, although there are to me no prophets, let alone that specific one. I feel that more space should be made in the sphere of faith for honoring the feminine, the lunar, the rawness of physicality, which in some ways seem surgically removed from Mary in the characterizations that I've seen, whether by attributing them to the greater godhead or subsuming them into masculine desires.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I remember once seeing the sign at a Lutheran church near my high school read "YOU CAN'T LOVE MARY MORE THAN JESUS", and having it spiral me inwards into a very clouded space occluded with a strange mysticism of the whole notion of ritual purity and the relation of gender to divinity that clashed brilliantly with the grand internal crisis over my own gender identity and struggles to reconcile myself with my surroundings. As the aspect of the whole grand Abrahamic enterprise that most fascinates me as an outsider and cuts most deeply into my personal experience, I have before aired my dilettante meditations on the nature of Mary, and I remain perplexed by the paradox of veneration and pigeonholing that seems the center of such characterization. To me, it only seems natural that a figure afforded the gestation of the divine in the deeply sacred thing that is the womb would be granted a hand in the divine itself, as the female aspect of something that is otherwise very phallic, and in her own right as a sort of creator. Whether this qualifies as an equal hand in the works of Jesus is another matter.

At times, spurred on by impulses both internal and external, and both sincere and tongue-in-cheek, I have contemplated the relationship of Mary to my Great Mother in the maternal sense, although there are to me no prophets, let alone that specific one. I feel that more space should be made in the sphere of faith for honoring the feminine, the lunar, the rawness of physicality, which in some ways seem surgically removed from Mary in the characterizations that I've seen, whether by attributing them to the greater godhead or subsuming them into masculine desires.

Have you ever considered carving out a niche as a gonzo religious journalist? The first paragraph of this post is some of the best gonzo material I've read in years. I mean that as high praise.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I remember once seeing the sign at a Lutheran church near my high school read "YOU CAN'T LOVE MARY MORE THAN JESUS", and having it spiral me inwards into a very clouded space occluded with a strange mysticism of the whole notion of ritual purity and the relation of gender to divinity that clashed brilliantly with the grand internal crisis over my own gender identity and struggles to reconcile myself with my surroundings. As the aspect of the whole grand Abrahamic enterprise that most fascinates me as an outsider and cuts most deeply into my personal experience, I have before aired my dilettante meditations on the nature of Mary, and I remain perplexed by the paradox of veneration and pigeonholing that seems the center of such characterization. To me, it only seems natural that a figure afforded the gestation of the divine in the deeply sacred thing that is the womb would be granted a hand in the divine itself, as the female aspect of something that is otherwise very phallic, and in her own right as a sort of creator. Whether this qualifies as an equal hand in the works of Jesus is another matter.

At times, spurred on by impulses both internal and external, and both sincere and tongue-in-cheek, I have contemplated the relationship of Mary to my Great Mother in the maternal sense, although there are to me no prophets, let alone that specific one. I feel that more space should be made in the sphere of faith for honoring the feminine, the lunar, the rawness of physicality, which in some ways seem surgically removed from Mary in the characterizations that I've seen, whether by attributing them to the greater godhead or subsuming them into masculine desires.

Have you ever considered carving out a niche as a gonzo religious journalist? The first paragraph of this post is some of the best gonzo material I've read in years. I mean that as high praise.

I'm flattered. That never crossed my mind as a viable career option, and I might have to make a pretty late pivot in my education, but I've always loved writing about esoteric things, so I may need to find a platform. I made myself a Blogspot about a month ago with the hopes of airing my weirder impulses there, but I have yet to make use of it.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I remember once seeing the sign at a Lutheran church near my high school read "YOU CAN'T LOVE MARY MORE THAN JESUS", and having it spiral me inwards into a very clouded space occluded with a strange mysticism of the whole notion of ritual purity and the relation of gender to divinity that clashed brilliantly with the grand internal crisis over my own gender identity and struggles to reconcile myself with my surroundings. As the aspect of the whole grand Abrahamic enterprise that most fascinates me as an outsider and cuts most deeply into my personal experience, I have before aired my dilettante meditations on the nature of Mary, and I remain perplexed by the paradox of veneration and pigeonholing that seems the center of such characterization. To me, it only seems natural that a figure afforded the gestation of the divine in the deeply sacred thing that is the womb would be granted a hand in the divine itself, as the female aspect of something that is otherwise very phallic, and in her own right as a sort of creator. Whether this qualifies as an equal hand in the works of Jesus is another matter.

At times, spurred on by impulses both internal and external, and both sincere and tongue-in-cheek, I have contemplated the relationship of Mary to my Great Mother in the maternal sense, although there are to me no prophets, let alone that specific one. I feel that more space should be made in the sphere of faith for honoring the feminine, the lunar, the rawness of physicality, which in some ways seem surgically removed from Mary in the characterizations that I've seen, whether by attributing them to the greater godhead or subsuming them into masculine desires.

Have you ever considered carving out a niche as a gonzo religious journalist? The first paragraph of this post is some of the best gonzo material I've read in years. I mean that as high praise.

I'm flattered. That never crossed my mind as a viable career option, and I might have to make a pretty late pivot in my education, but I've always loved writing about esoteric things, so I may need to find a platform. I made myself a Blogspot about a month ago with the hopes of airing my weirder impulses there, but I have yet to make use of it.

I’d certainly be interested in following it if you ever do, at least.