From Beggars All, a band of Reformed bloggers. This is for all those who want to walk around with blinders on, and claim that JPII had nothing to do with the movement to proclaim Mary as our Co-Redemptrix:
“‘Be not afraid!’ Christ said to the apostles (cf. Lk 24:36) and to the women (cf. Mt 28:10) after the Resurrection. According to the Gospels, these words were not addressed to Mary. Strong in her faith, she had no fear. Mary’s participation in the victory of Christ became clear to me above all from the experience of my people. Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski told me that his predecessor, Cardinal August Hlond, had spoken these prophetic words as he was dying: ‘The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary.’ During my pastoral ministry in Poland, I saw for myself how those words were coming true.
After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her, because He wants the Church’s victories now and in the future to be linked to her.
I held this conviction even though I did not yet know very much about Fátima. I could see, however, that there was a certain continuity among La Salette, Lourdes, and Fátima-and, in the distant past, our Polish Jasna Góra.
And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter’s Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children at Fátima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem to be close to their fulfillment.”
-Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope
Christ Alone Wyoming 
wishful thinking for a man who is now a permanent resident of hell.
LikeLike
It should be noted that the sentence “The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary.” in context, is not a reference to the eschatological victory of Christ, but of the Polish people’s victory over the Communist occupation of their country.
The past few centuries have demonstrated that, in general, the arguments against Catholic theology about Mary, need to be better formulated. Also, it is generally not very well understood that the real theological issue is rooted in justification. To put it briefly, in Catholic theology, justification effects a change in the persons nature in which the justified sinner becomes a “partaker of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1-3&4; et. al.). Not that what is human becomes God, but that human nature is elevated. Luther and the Reformation rejected this idea saying that the sinner is only declared righteous, but not made so—forensic justification. But whatever forensic justification may mean, it does not preclude the transformation of the sinner in sanctification by means of the Holy Spirit.
That being said, in Catholic theology, Mary is essentially the “proto-type”, so to speak, Christian. No Evangelical would deny that Christ really and truly frees us from sin, but rejects the claim that Mary is an example of that actually happening in history. And so the issue is less about theology as one may think, and more about history. In Catholic theology, then, what Christ will fulfill in all Christians (i.e. freedom from sin, bodily resurrection, etc.) is prefigured in Mary. These considerations were not missing from early Christian thought, nor were they foreign to the thought of Calvin and Luther.
These considerations may help to understanding some of the nuances of the issue to better formulate the correct responses to it.
LikeLike
Tom,
How was Mary going to win their fight against the Communists? See, this is another example of Rome elevating Mary to a position equal to (or sometimes greater than) Christ. There is nothing Mary can do for us–at all. She can’t even pray for us. So to say that the sentence “The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary,” in context, is not a reference to the eschatological victory of Christ, but of the Polish people’s victory over the Communist occupation of their country is to say that Mary has some sort of power on earth, which she doesn’t.
LikeLike
Also, note what JPII says in that second paragraph:
After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her, because He wants the Church’s victories now and in the future to be linked to her.
This clarifies things even further, and shows us that yes, he was saying that all of our victories are through Mary.
LikeLike
Tom,
You said that humans don’t become gods. I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this quote from the Catholic Catechism:
“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” Catholic Catechism 460
Thanks,
Bill
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
In 460, the Catholic Catechism is quoting Athanasius and Thomas Aquinas respectively. Recall that Athanasius was the champion of orthodoxy (small “o”) against Arianism, and Christianity is deeply indebted to him for what history holds to be the orthodox (small “o”) doctrine of the Trinity.
Athanasius also wrote:
“To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.”
“There be one Son by nature…we too become sons, not as
He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that
calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called
gods, not as the True God or His Word….We are sons, not as
the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. ” (Orat 3.19-20;
Robertson 404-405).
The Catholic Catechism, in reference to our adoption by God, says in paragraph 654:
“We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace”
Catholic theology teaches that Christ assumed a human nature for all eternity. Would Catholics also teach that God took our nature for himself, but will destroy in us?
What do you understand 2 Peter 1:4 to mean?
Thanks,
Tom
LikeLike
Fourpointer:
I’m sure you agree that scripture teaches that Christians are “branches of the vine [Christ]”, and members of the body of Christ. Where does scripture teach that bodily death causes the branches to separate? Why would God want Christians to pray for each other, when each can pray directly to God?
At the Transfiguration (Luke 9, et. al), why would Jesus talk to Moses and Elijah about his “departure”? How could they know of any such thing? And, being creatures, what does it mean that they appeared “in glory” (verse 31)?
Rev. 5:8, and Rev. 8:3-5, says that 24 elders presented bowls of incense before the throne of God, that are the prayers of the saints (i.e. Christians on earth). Why are they involved?
LikeLike
Tom,
No, death does not separate us from the Vine. In fact, Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2nd Corinthians 5:8). But it does end our years of ministry. Once we die, we look forward to an eternity of worshiping God.
As far as Moses and Elijah: they were sent to testify to John, James and Peter that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah). They appeared in their glorified bodies, the ones we receive when we enter into Paradise. They were talking with Jesus about His “departure” because they prophesied about it (John 5:46, cf. Malachi 4:5). And don’t forget, “Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). Jesus was spoken of all throughout the Old Testament, and was the one to whom all the Law pointed us.
That said, even after we die, we will have ome sense of what’s happening here on earth. The martyrs under the altar of God knew that those who had martyred them had not yet been dealt with (Revelation 9:6). But there is nothing we can do, after we die, to affect anything that happens on earth.
As far as the passages in Revelation: Notice it does not say the elders, the beasts, or the angel are actually doing the praying. They are offering up incense, “which is the prayers of the saints,” an allusion to Psalm 141:2–“Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense.” They were sending to God the prayers of the saints–they were not, however, offering up prayers of their own.
And why no mention of Mary on a throne? We see many references to “Him who sits un the throne, and the Lamb” (Revelation 5:13, 6:16, 7:9-10, 22:1-3). No mention of Mary.
We see in Revelation 22 that the Father and the Son are the temple. No mention of Mary.
We see in Revelation 5, “blessing and honor and glory…unto the Lamb.” No mention of Mary.
Here’s the dilemma: The Roman system believes that Mary was assumed to Heaven somewhere between 3 and 15 years after Christ ascended. So, she should have been on the throne that Rome claims Jesus gave her. Yet John, writing some 60 years after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, makes no mention of this woman.
The ideas that Rome has foisted upon us about Mary were not based on any kind of interpretation of Scripture, but were the inventions of man.
LikeLike
Tom,
I’ve had some long drawn-out conversations with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses about their polytheism, and the things you say are eerily similar to the things they say. I’ve tried to explain to them that the Bible teaches there is only one God. Before Him there were no gods formed, nor will there be after Him (Isaiah 43:10). It’ so clear.
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at, but we are not little gods, nor will we ever be.
I think oftentimes people give the church fathers too much credibility. In 2000 years, if archaeologists unearthed a Christian bookstore from 2008, and discovered books like “Good Morning Holy Spirit” by Benny Hinn, right next to a John MacArthur book, it would be hard to figure out what Christians believed. There was just as wide an array of beliefs in the early church. Even Paul was constantly fighting heresies that would creep in. The Bible is the only source of inspired truth from God–not the church fathers, not even the good ones.
Thanks,
Bill
LikeLike
I love II Peter 1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
People who are born again into the family of God inherit – in a very real way – that part of God’s divine nature which holds the potential for purity, holiness, tenderness, and love. Only by becoming a partaker of God’s divine nature by a new spiritual birth can sinful men and women love righteousness and hate wickedness.
This verse has nothing to do with men becoming gods.
During his later years, Simon Peter, the disciple and apostle of Jesus Christ, was a shining example of a Spirit-filled Christian. However, this was not always the case. Like many of us, Peter started off his Christian life sometimes acting like a tantrum-throwing toddler or a moody teen-aged child. (Peter would detest being thought of as the “first pope.”) We’re talking about a man who went from refusing to allow Jesus to wash his feet in one breath, to demanding that He wash his whole body, in the next! (John 13:6-10)
What caused the change from this Peter to the man we see in the epistles I and II Peter: the spiritually mature believer? The answer is that he grew in grace and knowledge. “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” (II Peter 3:18)
Nature teaches that the keys to physical and mental growth are a healthy diet, exercise, and caring companionship. These are good illustrations for the balance needed for spiritual growth also – growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus. Believers must partake of spiritual food: the bread of life, which is the Word of God. Also, they must be active in obedience and good works: Christian love, or “charity.” Finally, they must learn to fellowship with other believers in caring for, and being helped by, the Church (the Body of Christ – not the heretical false Roman Catholic abomination which calls itself the “church.”)
Christians who swing violently from one extreme to the other in spiritual matters are demonstrating spiritual immaturity. Those who are growing are marked by consistent Bible-study and obedience, active service in sharing the love of Christ, and in regular church attendance and ministry to the living saints.
LikeLike
Hi Fourpointer,
It was my intention to point out, as you did, that the 24 Elders were offering prayers not their own. God certainly doesn’t need anything from us, but he allows us to pray for each other/“intercede” for each other. I would think, for the purpose of allowing us to image Him. I don’t know why glorified Christains in heaven would be prohibited from praying for us.
Mary in John’s vision in Revelation . . . I would think that that would be Rev. 12. But, in any case, I think the Roman system is just making the point that Mary is a glorified Christian. She does not have a Divine nature, and she is not equal to God, but as God rewards faithful Christians by his grace, wouldn’t he pour his love on one who was so faithful to consent to the Incarnation as she did. And Luke’s gospel tells us that “He has looked with favor on His lowly servant”, and “My soul proclaims the glory of the Lord” (Luke 1:46-56).
Ministry addict,
That men do not become gods was the point of my last post. Bill apparently thought otherwise.
To quote you:
“People who are born again into the family of God inherit – in a very real way – that part of God’s divine nature which holds the potential for purity, holiness, tenderness, and love.”
The point in discussion was what does it mean to “inherit – in a very real way – that part of God’s divine nature. . .” I would think that we all (including Athanasius, based on the quote from him in my previous post) agree that whatever it means, it does not mean that we lose our human nature and assume a divine one, but rather, human nature is somehow elevated and takes on divine attributes (e.g. made in the image of God, etc.)
Anyway, I think it gets back to my very first post where I said that the root issue is what is justification and grace. The Reformers and their progeny vehemently insist that justification and grace are “forensic” declarations that do not inwardly change the believer. However, I could never see how this wasn’t an argument about terminology with Rome because Protestants also say that the sinner is inwardly changed by the sanctification that happens simultaneously with justification. Rome simply said that justification changes the believer inwardly.
To me it does not matter what term you choose to use, both sides agree that at the point at which the unjustified person becomes justified, he is changed inwardly. If he isn’t, he would have to do sanctification by his own power, which is impossible.
LikeLike
Tom
You all miss the point of the line, the victory coming through Mary. This is a private revelation and does mean the Churches universal victory, just as Pope John Paul 2 stated. This prophecy is coming true within the Church and as Pope John Paul 2 states there is a link with Mary along the ages.
Apart from its universal meaning, what some people also fail to realise the actual significance of the language used. i.e. if it comes at all, the operative word being IF meaning that the victory is not set in stone. Just like so many private and public prophecies there is always the role of sin and evil, which even in this case on the actual triumph of the Church, prophecies don’t always ‘come true’ And we all know what St Augustine said bout pre-destination AND free will.
Let’s just hope evil doesn’t win and the Church’s victory, through Mary, will indeed come for the Church and the World. Amen!!
LikeLike