Reply to Corey Tucholski Part II on the Theotokos

Corey responded to my reply on the 18th. One of his points on the title of co-redemtrix was this.

Corey wrote, "Once again, a broken record. He repeats exactly what he said in the initial article but fails to clarify it. “Co-” does mean “with,” and implies (at least to me) an equal share in the action. Cooperate. Coworker. Both terms imply an equal share of action, and this is what is so reprehensible about the title.

Mary participated in God’s plan, but not in an equal share. Remember that the term “Co-” implies equal participation."

This shows everyone that Corey will go to any lengths to justify his opposition to God's salvific plan of salvation. Where on earth does the definition of co have to mean an equal share? This is absolute nonsense. Does the co-pilot share equal responsibility or action with the actual pilot? Co means with, not necessarily equal to. If you look in the dictionary you will see it defined just as commonly as, "Subordinate or assistant: copilot". You can see that Corey has a one track mind to degrade God's chosen plan to actualize the incarnation of Christ. No one has ever said that Mary has an equal share in God's salvific plan. In fact the Church has over and over stated this, yet those who oppose Christ and His will reject the Gospel for their own preferred version. You can see this apparent personal pride here by the mere fact that Corey stated, "(at least to me)" in referring to the definition of the prefix co. It doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means, or in the context that the Church uses it in. Its all about Corey and what he thinks. He ignores what the Church has to say about it. The Catechism gives an excellent overview of this teaching.

969 "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 fulfillment 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 .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

970 "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 . . . 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."511 "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."512

Corey also asked this question, "Why does Mary get special consideration and her own title? She, too, is a cog like us." I have to really shake my head in disbelief when I see a question like this. The reason is because it degrades our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His incarnation. You see, when someone cannot get that Mary was special by merely the fact that God was in her womb, then you can't expect them to honor Jesus either, which they do not, despite their religious rhetoric. Mary was special because God chose her to come into the world incarnate, thats why she gets special consideration. This is just common sense. She was part of God's salvific plan, and she was the only one in the history of mankind to have this unique bond of motherhood to God himself. But Corey would have his readers think that this was just no big deal, she is just a cog. That is equal to degrading our Lord's incarnation as if it were just no big deal.

Corey then ends his post by taunting me on Mr White's behalf I guess, to engage him in some sort of dialog. If Mr. White wants to respond by a video that is fine with me. I will also be willing to engage in a video dialog. As far as going on White's radio show, he never allows his opponent to get in a word edgewise, so why bother? If he agrees to a timed response on his radio show where we can exchange some timed responses (Like 2 minute responses), then I would be willing to engage him on his radio show, but not in an open unregulated dialog.