Mary Co-Redemptrix

[serenity]

The term "co-redemptrix" is massively misunderstood. It isn't meant to imply that Mary is equal to God in terms of the redemption of men (or in any other way); only that she cooperated by God's plan in distribution of grace

The above was a quote from Dave Armstrong and I felt a great explanation on a term (Co-Redemptrix) often misunderstood by seekers like myself.

Now, I would just like a bit more understanding of her role of distributing grace?  Do you mean her role of having brought forth the Savior of the world? If so, I understand!  Or was there more meant by the latter part of the above sentence?

[Dave Armstrong]

Hi serenity,

I'm glad it was helpful to you.

You are correct, part of mediatrix and co-redemptrix is being the Mother of God and directly participating in the Incarnation: literally making it possible by her cooperation. Another aspect is her offering of Jesus at the cross to the Father, just as we also do at every Mass.

The third aspect is her key role in the distribution of graces, according to the will of God. God chose her for this tremendous responsibility and privilege. Theologians have called Mary the "neck" of the Body of Christ insofar as we believe that grace comes from God and flows through her, as the preeminent intercessor and channel of grace.

Recently I put together a transcript for an audio talk, about this topic. Here is a portion of that, to expand upon the latter role, and to give biblical support for it:

Mary is a Mediatrix in that way, but she also participates objectively in the redemption of humanity just as we participate objectively in our own individual salvation, through our free will (though it is all ultimately caused by God and His grace), as we see in Acts 2:40-41 (“save yourselves”) and Philippians 2:12 (“work out your own salvation”). We must willingly follow Jesus and keep His commandments, remain faithful and vigilant.

God clearly uses human beings as mediators. We pray for each other. Moses interceded and "atoned" for the Jews, and God decided not to destroy them, etc. We do good works of charity and are (hopefully) vessels of God's love and the gospel, helping others to see the light that we carry as believers indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It all comes down to free will, and bearing God's image within us. There is an abundance of biblical data (especially from St. Paul) that proves the notion of human beings playing a role in distributing or spreading God’s grace, as vessels; even the salvation that comes about by God’s grace alone:

Romans 11:13-14 . . . I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

Ephesians 3:2 . . .  you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you . . .

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.

Furthermore, the Bible explicitly states that Christians in general are God's "helpers" or "fellow workers" (Greek, synergos):

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers . . .

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Why then, is it unthinkable for Mary to be a "fellow worker" with Jesus (albeit in a much more extraordinary fashion)? No one claims that the above verses teach our equality with God, simply because we work with Him, and are His fellow workers. Likewise, the Blessed Virgin is in no wise equal to God in function if we believe that she is a Mediatrix.

All this being the case, it is nothing so unbelievable or extraordinary that God would or could choose to involve Mary in the redemption of mankind and the distribution of graces: just as He used Paul, and potentially all of us, as seen in the above passages. God can do whatever He wants! It is said in the Psalms and Prophets that God could raise up a rock or a tree to sing His praises, if stubborn men refuse to do so. God used Balaam’s donkey to speak and express His will. He can use babies, or infants, and the most "unlikely," unexpected human beings. He appeared in a burning bush and in a cloud.

Why should anything He does or chooses to do surprise us?? The ending of Job makes this clear enough. We should never lose the sense of wonder and initial shock when it comes to God, and presume to judge what He "shouldn't" or "wouldn't" do. His thoughts are as far above ours as the stars are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What we assert in the notion of Mary Mediatrix is that God chose Mary to play a unique role in salvation history and the application and distribution of what God alone produces, wins for us on the cross, etc. God is the Redeemer. Mary is simply a helper or chosen vessel, just as Moses or John the Baptist or Elijah or Paul or Peter or John or anyone else was. In no way does this impinge upon God's sole prerogatives because He is simply using one of His creatures for His divine purposes.

The above reasoning is an argument from analogy: not that Mary "must" be a steward, but that it is not implausible or immediately unbiblical for her to be one, given the examples from Paul. In other words, "Mary Mediatrix" is a notion that is harmonious with biblical thought. That is not claiming that biblical proofs in and of themselves are compelling or even explicit. It is also a cumulative argument of plausibility, taking into account many different strains of Pauline thought. No one verse is conclusive, but many together form a pretty good case, like strands of a rope that come together to make a very strong rope.

Catholics believe that God chooses to distribute all of God’s graces through Mary. She is our Advocate and Supreme Intercessor, because she is so holy, and is the Mother of God. How is that in any way unbiblical? It’s not! If Moses could successfully intercede on behalf of an entire sinful and disobedient group (the Jews in the wilderness); if Abraham's prayer could spare his nephew Lot (and Sodom and Gomorrah also, if enough righteous men had been found there) why is it so remarkable that God would choose to involve Mary in intercession and distribution of graces to an entire sinful and disobedient group (mankind)? If one thing can occur, so can the other.

It is said that this doctrine contradicts the notion of Christ as the sole mediator. It does not at all. Mary can be a conduit or vessel for the graces won by Christ alone, by His work on the cross and His divine power alone, to be distributed or applied to men. This is what we believe. We see no conflict between that role and Christ's role, because they are fundamentally different.
 
To use a crude analogy, when I go to a gas station, I don't produce the gasoline, yet in order for it to be effective in my car, I have to stand there and be a "mediator" between the pump and my gas tank. All the gas flows "through" me as the one connecting the pump with my vehicle.

Likewise, we believe that God uses Mary in that fashion, to distribute graces not produced by herself but by God. She isn't the source of the grace anymore than I am the source of the gasoline. This is a biblical notion (generally speaking): Paul and angels are described in similar fashion, as we have already seen.

As another analogy, there is procreation. We don't think that parents (and parents alone) create their children. Rather, they cooperate with God in a "mini-creation," so to speak, where God creates the soul supernaturally and the parents produce the "raw material" for the body. There is still an element of the supernatural in every conception, just as there was to a much greater extent in the conception of Jesus. Parents don't "create" in the sense of absolute bringing-into-being, but they play a key and crucial role in the entire process. God involves them. Likewise, mediatrix, as applied to Mary is a similar concept. She doesn't produce the grace that she distributes by God's decree, but God chooses to involve her for that purpose.

[serenity]

Mary is simply a helper or chosen vessel, just as Moses or John the Baptist or Elijah or Paul or Peter or John or anyone else was. In no way does this impinge upon God's sole prerogatives because He is simply using one of His creatures for His divine purposes.

Sooooooooo awesome!!
 
And I just LOVED your gasoline station example--

To use a crude analogy, when I go to a gas station, I don't produce the gasoline, yet in order for it to be effective in my car, I have to stand there and be a "mediator" between the pump and my gas tank. All the gas flows "through" me as the one connecting the pump with my vehicle.

This is something that any normal person can relate to, regarding the discussion at hand.  It is an excellent application and I am always looking for such things, Dave.  Brings it home (as they say)

[Dave Armstrong]

Thanks for your kind words. I love arguments by analogy (they are just about my favorite, in doing apologetics), and a lot of Mariology works (or is, or can be explained) that way. It has to be understood in relation to other things that all Christians accept; that Protestants also accept. Then the doctrines of Mary do not seem so "foreign" as they previously did.

[serenity]

I love arguments by analogy (they are just about my favorite, in doing apologetics),

Go for it Dave--I can't be the only one who finds your method rewarding.

[kingsvine]

Catholics believe that God chooses to distribute all of God’s graces through Mary.

Why do you believe that?  How did Catholics come to that conclusion?

She is our Advocate and Supreme Intercessor, because she is so holy,

who decided that?  why do you think that is true?  Where is the evidence of this?

How is that in any way unbiblical? It’s not! If Moses could successfully intercede on behalf of an entire sinful and disobedient group (the Jews in the wilderness); if Abraham's prayer could spare his nephew Lot (and Sodom and Gomorrah also, if enough righteous men had been found there) why is it so remarkable that God would choose to involve Mary in intercession and distribution of graces to an entire sinful and disobedient group (mankind)? If one thing can occur, so can the other.

  Cant anyone intercede?  And as an intercessor, dont we all in some measure distribute God's graces?  Why and how is Mary chosen for such exalted status beyond what the scripture states?  Who decided that?  When was that decided?

[Dave Armstrong]

ME: "Catholics believe that God chooses to distribute all of God’s graces through Mary."

Why do you believe that?  

Because the Catholic Church teaches it.

How did Catholics come to that conclusion?

By centuries of reflection on what it means to be the Mother of God and Mother of the Church, just like it took many centuries to fully develop the Trinity, Christology, original sin, and other doctrines. The deepest things of the faith are like that.

ME: "She is our Advocate and Supreme Intercessor, because she is so holy,"

who decided that?  

The Church.

why do you think that is true?  

Apart from the Church declaring it, and the Church having the authority, delegated by God, to do so, I personally think it is true because it makes perfect sense and is not contrary to anything in Scripture (see, e.g., my biblical reasoning above, in this thread). God uses His creatures. So if He wanted to use one of them most of all, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the son, is an obvious choice, because of her role and sinlessness.

Where is the evidence of this?

It is not an explicit biblical doctrine. It is deduced from other biblical data. But since the Bible does not teach sola Scriptura, this poses no problem. Things can also be reflected upon for centuries and passed down as Sacred Tradition.

ME: "How is that in any way unbiblical? It’s not! If Moses could successfully intercede on behalf of an entire sinful and disobedient group (the Jews in the wilderness); if Abraham's prayer could spare his nephew Lot (and Sodom and Gomorrah also, if enough righteous men had been found there) why is it so remarkable that God would choose to involve Mary in intercession and distribution of graces to an entire sinful and disobedient group (mankind)? If one thing can occur, so can the other."

Can't anyone intercede?  

Yes, of course.

And as an intercessor, dont we all in some measure distribute God's graces?  

Yes, as I showed, I think, in the example of Paul and all of his acts. Prayer is of the same nature.

Why and how is Mary chosen for such exalted status beyond what the scripture states?  Who decided that?  When was that decided?

It has been a firm belief of Catholics for many centuries:

St. Augustine (354-430) wrote:

Plainly she is

[in spirit] Mother of us who are His members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that Head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is Mother of that very Head.[/list]

(Holy Virginity, A.D. 401, 6, 6)

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) taught that Mary is the only virgin chosen to be the instrument of our salvation {Sermo III} and called her the "dispensatrix of all goods."

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (which both Orthodox and Anglicans accept), prayed: " Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved." (sozetai).

St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 634 - c. 733)

No one is saved except through you, O Theotokos; no one secured a gift of mercy, save through you . . . in you all peoples of the earth have obtained a blessing.

St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the "Mediatrix of the law and grace" and also stated that "she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh."

(Nativ. Mariae, Serm. 1 and Serm. 4, PG 97, 808, 865)

St. John of Damascus (c. 675 - c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the "office of Mediatrix."

(Hom. S. Mariae in Zonam, PG 98, 377)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153)

God wished us to have nothing that would not pass through the hands of Mary.

(Sermon on the Vigil of Christmas; PL 183,100)

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)

III. THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE CHURCH

§60. In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: "for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But 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 originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It 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. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it.

§61. The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God was associated with the incarnation of the divine word: in the designs of divine Providence she was the gracious mother of the divine Redeemer here on earth, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son's sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.

§62. This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. 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.[15] By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.[16] This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.[17]

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.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.

Pope John Paul II also wrote quite a bit about the Blessed Virgin and her role as Mediatrix. For much more on this, see my papers:

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

Does Mary's Role as Mediatrix Contradict Jesus Christ  as the Sole Mediator? / Response to a Catholic Critic

Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix (vs. Robert Bowman)

Clarifications of the Positions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI Regarding the Mediatrix / "Coredemptrix" Mariological Matter

An Explanation and Defense of the Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Mary Mediatrix

Mary as Mediatrix: Dialogues and Explanations

Mary as Mediatrix: The Patristic, Medieval, and Early Orthodox Evidence

Reflections on the Perpetual Virginity, Spiritual Motherhood and Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[kingsvine]

"The Church" may have decided, but how?  When?  What was the process?  I want to understand where it came from. 
It's not enough to say I believe because the Church tells me to, that what cults do.  People get emotionally attached and then they must by loyal and believe because that's what the "family", or the group, or that particular "church" tells them.  But Truth always makes sense, and bears examination.

[Pani Rose]

She was defined as 'Theotokos - Mother of God' at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Translating the word Theotokos While some languages used by various Orthodox churches often have a single native word for Theotokos, it gets translated into English in a number of ways. The most common is Mother of God, though God-bearer  and Birth-giver to God are also fairly common. There are difficulties with all these translations, however. The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close. Theophoros (??) is the Greek term usually and more correctly translated as God-bearer, so using God-bearer for Theotokos in some sense "orphans" Theophoros when it comes time to translate that term (for St. Ignatius of Antioch, for instance). The main difficulties with both these translations for Theotokos is that they are a bit awkward and difficult to sing.

The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: ?? ? (Meter Theou), usually in the standard iconographic abbreviation of ?? ??. Additionally, a number of hymns employ both Theotokos and Meter Theou—translating both as Mother of God can yield some rather nonsensical language, and it destroys the distinction that the hymnographer intended.

The usage that seems to be dominant in English-speaking Orthodox churches in North America is to adopt the original term itself into English (something English speakers have traditionally done with foreign words almost since the earliest known history of the language), transliterating it simply as Theotokos. British usage gives preference to translating Theotokos as Mother of God.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

Here is an interesting responce I found by Scott Hahn on a blog.  The person is sharing his search of the same question

As we pray the Hail Mary, we echo one of the most ancient titles Christians have given to Mary: Mother of God (in Greek, Theotokos, literally “God-bearer”). As early as the third century (and probably earlier), the Church in Egypt prayed: “We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God…” Early Fathers such as Saint Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Saint Alexander called upon Mary as “Mother of God” or its equivalent, “Mother of the Lord.” This prayer of Christians follows Elizabeth’s inspired greeting of Mary, her kinswoman: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

With such scriptural precedent, the title “Mother of God” went uncontested in the first centuries of the Church. ..

The traditional use of “Mother of God” depended upon a theological principle called the communication of idioms. According to this principle, whatever one says about either of Christ’s natures can be said truly of Christ Himself; for the two natures, divine and human, were united in Him, in one person. ..

In the fifth century, however, some theologians began to raise scruples about the title “Mother of God”, worrying that it implied Mary was somehow the “originator” of God. ..They further argued against the unity of Christ’s natures, saying that the Virgin gave birth to Christ’s human nature but not His divine nature.

The Church disagreed, and Mary’s title was vigorously defended by Pope Celestine I...Cyril pointed out that a mother does not give birth to a nature; she gives birth to a person. Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, Who was and is a divine person. Though Mary did not originate God, she most certainly bore Him. She “mothered” Him.

To us the dispute might seem abstract and academic, ... History tells us that when Pope Celestine convoked the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) in order to settle the “Mother of God” controversy, Christians thronged the city... When the bishops read the council’s proclamation that Mary was indeed the Mother of God, the people gave way to their joy and celebrated by carrying the bishops (all two hundred of them!) aloft through the streets in a torchlit procession...

When we call Mary “Mother of God”, we share that long-ago joy. For bound up in that phrase is the astonishing fact that we are children of God. We are brothers and sisters of Mary’s Son — the God-man — and not just His human nature!

http://journeytorome.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/marian-doctrine-and-the-council-of-ephesus/

I've tried to condense that above quote down

[Dave Armstrong]

"The Church" may have decided, but how?  When?  What was the process?  I want to understand where it came from.

Then if all my papers above (most quite long and detailed) do not provide that for you, you'll have to read a book about it, because the subject is very involved. I have given you the outlines and the basic rationale.

It's not enough to say I believe because the Church tells me to, that what cults do.  

It's not just cults. The Apostle Paul spoke with great authority. He said he was delivering truth and tradition, and expected his followers to accept it without question. There is no hint that he thought otherwise. Sure, he explained things (so do I) but his authority was unquestioned. So was the authority of the Church, which is why they had a council in Jerusalem and then Paul went out proclaiming what was decided (Acts 16:4). That's authority. If you describe that as "cult-like" then you have a problem with the apostolic Church: actions recorded right in the Bible.

But you asked me why I believed it, and I told you: first of all because the Church tells me and I trust Holy Mother Church as specially guided by the Holy Spirit: therefore preserved from theological error (and I can give you reasons for that too). I also believe it for the biblical reasons I have provided above. It's a stereotype that Catholics believe things with blind faith. But like I said, it can't be resolved by Scripture Alone. Nor should it be, because that is an unbiblical notion anyway.

People get emotionally attached and then they must by loyal and believe because that's what the "family", or the group, or that particular "church" tells them.

 

I've never been in a cult. I have fought them through witnessing and research since 1981. My extensive paper about Jehovah's Witnesses was written in 1984. I was on the largest Protestant radio station in metro Detroit talking about the JW's' errors in 1989. So this analysis doesn't apply to me. Perhaps you have had that history. If someone has been in a cult, then often they think they see some similarities between strong Catholic biblical, apostolic authority, and arbitrary cultic abusive authority. But that is the history of a particular person, not the experience of your average Catholic.

Way too much is made of this analogy, in my opinion. It's a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" reasoning: "cults abuse strong central authority; therefore all such authority is cultic and bad and abusive and unbiblical." Catholics have faith in the Church precisely because this is an aspect of faith in God: that He can guide His Church. It all goes back to God. And faith is not mere reason. It is far beyond and different from that. It should be a reasonable faith: not opposed to reason at all, but it is still faith, which is not reducible to reason.

But Truth always makes sense, and bears examination.

It sure does, which is why I have provided plenty of reasons. You have hardly interacted with those yet, and simply keep asking questions. I can attempt to answer questions all week long, but at some point you have to grapple with the answers provided, too, if the discussion is to progress forward. If you want Catholics to provide reasons for why they believe what they do, then you also have a responsibility to interact a bit with those. And that is not done by asking 20 more questions before the first set of questions is properly discussed, right?

If you feel uncomfortable with some of the Marian doctrines, that is okay and to be expected. It often takes years for such teachings to "register" in Protestants considering Catholicism. Many have come into the Church with remaining nagging questions about Mariology, but they came to a place where they could trust the Church in this area, because it has proven to be right in so many other areas.

[Free]

Quote from Kingsvine
"Why and how is Mary chosen for such exalted status beyond what the scripture states?  Who decided that?  When was that decided?"


Kingsvine, I wonder if you have not noticed some of the scripture passages that speak of Mary's exalted status?  I know I missed seeing them during most of my years as a Protestant.

Have you noticed how Catholics call her Blessed Mary, and Protestants never use the word "blessed" in referring to her?  To call her "blessed" comes straight from the scripture passage in Luke 1: 48b-49.  In that passage Mary herself declares that all generations will call her blessed.  When I first "saw" that passage, after having read it innumerable times before, it pierced me; it "convicted me;" because when had I ever called the Mother of Jesus "blessed?"  Here is was, in the inerrant Scriptures, and I had never called her "blessed," nor had I been instructed by the Presbyterian church to call her "blessed."

To call her "blessed is also confirmed in Luke 1:42 when Mary meets Elizabeth.  We are told that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke these words in a loud voice to Mary: "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the child you will bear."  In this way God affirms for us that Mary truly is blessed, or exalted, to have been chosen by him as the womb-bearer of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Again, it is plainly in the Scriptures.  It is front and center in the Gospel of Luke, yet no Protestant that I'd ever heard preach had ever called Mary "blessed."

Catholics exalt Mary's blessedness in many prayers, and especially when they pray the "Hail Mary." We say "blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of they womb." 

The Bible clearly teaches that Mary was blessed by God and that we are to call her blessed.  To use your word "exalted", the Bible teaches that Mary was exalted by God to bear in her womb the Savior of the World, and that we are instructed to exalt her, too.  The Scriptures themselves reveal to us that it is right and proper to exalt her in this way.

She is exalted in another way as well, which is also straight from the Scriptures.  Mary can truly be counted as the first "believer" among all humans who have ever and will ever walk the earth.  The Bible tells us this in Luke 1:35.  When the angel Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her and she will conceive, and that the one to be born will be the Son of God, Mary believes.  She believes in Jesus, the Son of God, before anyone else in the world is challenged in that way.  And she believes without doubt, and with full trust in the goodness of God.  Certainly, as Christian believers, we can see Mary as worthy of exaltation for leading the way for us in faith and belief in Christ Jesus as the Son of God.

In addition, Mary was a faithful follower of Christ.  There were very few of his followers who stood beneath the cross while he died, but the Blessed Mary was there. (John 19:26).  And she was there in the midst of the other followers when the Holy Spirit first empowered the Church to go forth and preach the truth about Jesus, the Son of God.  Her dear son had been crucified, died, buried, risen from the dead and had ascended into heaven, yet his faithful follower, the first believer, and the blessed one of God is praying with the other believers as Jesus had instructed them to do.  When the Holy Spirit comes and empowers the Church, Blessed Mary is at the center of that newborn Church.

She is still at the center of the Catholic Church, still blessed and exalted, yet not looking at herself, but turning her eyes of mercy always on those of her children who are still in the earth, and against whom the evil one is constantly warring. (Rev. 12:17).  Even those who don't call her blessed, as the Bible instructs us to do, are of concern to her.  In fact, all those "who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus" are her offspring, the Bible tells us. (Rev. 12:17)

Hail, Mary, full of grace.  Blessed art thou and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.  Amen.

[Proverb16:7]

One more passage that for me supports her roll, is at the wedding feast at Canna, when after Jesus asks her
John2:4-5 "Woman, What is this to Me?   His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

(note) "What is that to me"... These words of our Saviour, spoken to his mother, have been understood by some commentators as harsh, they not considering the next following verse: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye, which plainly shews that his mother knew of the miracle that he was to perform, and that it was at her request he wrought it; besides the manner of speaking the words as to the tone, and the countenance shewn at the same time, which could only be known to those who were present, or from what had followed: for words indicating anger in one tone of voice, would be understood quite the reverse in another. (Douay-Rheims )

Mary Was fully co-operating with her free will and with full knowledge that She would set her son on the path to calvary with this request.

What better start than a wedding feast to begin! 

[kingsvine]

wading through all the links!  It may take awhile!

[Candlemass]

"The Church" may have decided, but how?  When?  What was the process?  I want to understand where it came from.

It's not just cults. The Apostle Paul spoke with great authority. He said he was delivering truth and tradition, and expected his followers to accept it without question. There is no hint that he thought otherwise. Sure, he explained things (so do I) but his authority was unquestioned..

If his athority went unquestioned it would seem the Bereans would not have searched the scriptures daily to see if what he said was true. Far from being rebuked for such a thing, they were commended.

[Dave Armstrong]

Paul's authority was unquestioned. No one denies that (including Protestants). The only question was whether Scripture Alone was the only infallible authority. Paul didn't think so, since he never taught that, and proclaimed the infallible teachings of the Council of Jerusalem in his missionary journeys (Acts 16:4).

Nor does the example of the Bereans disprove Catholic authority or suggest sola Scriptura at all. See Catholic apologist Steve Ray's excellent article on that.