The Desperation of the Critics of the Roman Catholic Church

[James.]

So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?

And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.

Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried.  Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly.  Mary is totally cool.  I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt.  Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout!  How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this.  It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.

I think this is well said, extranos, and I think most here, if stepping back and breathing a second, would agree this far. Sometimes I think in the disagreements over Mariology people swing back too far on the ever-wild pendulum and forget that she is indeed worthy of much respect for her faith and courage.

[antiaging]

It is a wonder to me that those who are critical of the Roman Catholic Church go to such extremes of irrationality, illogic and hysterical conspiracy theories in their criticisms.  The dregs of the internet have been scraped deeply to uncover stuff that would be worthy of an X-files movie.

Such irrational and hysterical moves are sheer desperation on the part of the critics.

But why are they so desperate?  If most of the critics of the Roman Catholic Church on these boards are advocates of sola scriptura, why do they go to such extreme lengths to go outside of Scripture to attempt to tar and feather Roman Catholicism with such banal tripe?  Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, as thoroughly anti-Christian as these critics claim, that there would be no need to posit such questionable conspiracy theories or tenuous pagan connections, but all that need simply be done is to read and cite official Roman Catholic teaching (from the Catechism and other Catholic official documents) and make the comparisons to Scripture?

Why, it's so simple.  So, why are the critics so desparate?

I think there are two main reasons:

1) Critics of the Roman Catholic Church are, themselves, ignorant both of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as well as ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures. 

Most critics of the Roman Catholic Church don't even know what Rome actually teaches but rely on popular and populist bigoted propaganda.  They do not read the official Catholic documents--or, if they read them, they do not read them in full and in context, but only read the selective citations found in anti-Roman screeds--and so they really do not know that Rome doesn't actually teach many of the things they claim it does: for example, that we are to pray to Mary and the saints like we pray to God and instead of praying to God; that we cannot get to God except through Mary; that we must worship and pray to statues; and so on.

Also, most critics of the Roman Catholic Church are also ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures.  They have focused on Romans to the exclusion of the rest of the Epistles, and so not only misread Romans, but misread the rest of the New Testament.  Therefore they explain away Jesus' command to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect, St. Paul's admonition to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and the effective removal of the epistle of James from the New Testament canon.  We Eastern Orthodox have a humorous quip we often pull out in doctrinal disputes: "We believe the parts of the Bible you didn't underline."  So, when we point out that we are to become partakers of the divine nature (a la 2 Peter 1:3-4), most critics are stumped.  They don't even know what that means.  They don't know what to do with 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, since they are so used to explaining away chapter 11.  And so it goes.

2. The other reason that critics of the Roman Catholic Church are so desperate is that their twofold ignorance--of Catholic doctrine and of Scripture--causes their quick if never-acknowledged defeat in arguments over doctrinal matters.  At best, such critics can hold their own but cannot win the case--the arguments appear to end in a draw.  But at their worst, since they cannot win the hard work of argumentative proof, they settle for conspiracy theories, hallucinogenic connections to the Illuminati, paganism and the Masons, and other wacky stuff.

I've got my own criticisms of Rome on other matters--I'm Eastern Orthodox after all--but I deeply sympathize with my co-religionists because it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational.

I'm just glad few of these desperate critics have any idea what the Orthodox Church even is.

It is not desperation as you suppose. Real Christians, the ones that are saved, born again, and they know it, who use the bible, the inspired scriptures or Word of God, know that it is a warfare of God's truth versus Satan's deceptions. If people don't really get saved then they will burn in hell forever. [There is no purgatory; catholicism invented that to make money and aid in people obeying them.] Hell is eternal. So is heaven.
They are trying to pull as many people out of Satan's lies and deceptions, and get them saved as they possibly can. It is out of caring for what is going to happen to them if they don't really get saved that they go to lengths to pull people out of their errors.
[Note: According to the council of Trent, still in effect, a person is not allowed to believe he is saved; Catholicism thinks it is heresy if a person even believes he has assurance of salvation. See the anathemas in the council of Trent. Catholicism won't even allow a strict catholic to believe he is right with God.]
The apostle John would be called a heretic by the council of Trent.
John wrote this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 John 5:13   These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John the apostle had assurance of salvation and wrote to other Christians that they could have it.
I am using that as an example of how wrong and incorrect catholic doctrine can be.