I have heard that in the Roman Catholic Church, there is a movement to elevate Mary, mother of Jesus, to God(dess) status. Any truth to this?



“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

Not ment to be a troll! just something I heard on TV & find puzzling! Now that the posts can be moved, should it get inapropriate for this forum, it can be moved or deleted!

No, it’s not true. Whoever said this was talking directly out of his ass.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

Or out his troll-like sphincter.

Who knows? There’s an awful lot of Catholics out there. Who’s to say that a few of them aren’t just heritical enough to suggest such a thing.

Make no mistake, Rome would be quick to stamp any such movement as heresy and would disassociate itself with it. Read the 10 Commandments and you’ll see why.

More than likely this story is the work of the same people that stick leaflets on your car that read “The Pope is the Antichrist!”

Gentlemen, please. Just because Carl asked a potentially inflamatory question containing the words “Roman Catholic Church” does not make him or the question a troll.

Perhaps we’d be better off giving the questioner the benefit of a doubt before throwing around that dreaded word. Let’s view this as a legitimate question.

Carl, perhaps you could be more forthcoming with what it was, exactly, what you heard.
Your statement is definitely vague.


Thanks Nickrz, Unfortunatly, I don’t remember the program, but it was A&E,PBS or Discovery. The statement was that a faction within the Church has proposed that Mary be raised in stature to that of being equal,or nearly equal to that of her son. Supposedly, the faction was told that “the time is not right”. I hope that I am not the only one who heard it! I don’t normally hear “voices”!

IIRC, the goal of this movement is to have Mary declared a co-redeemer along with Christ, not a “goddess.”

I can guarantee you that the RCC regards calling the BVM “goddess” as absolutely, 100% heretical. Such things have turned up before, (cf. the Collyridian heresy.

Now, as to “nearly equal”, that’s another question. It is unquestionably orthodox (not just RC) to call Mary “The Mother of God”; Coptic, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Protestant (except for some of the more woo-woo varieties) agree on that. And most non-Protestant churches accord her a pre-eminent place among the saints.

I would guess that the issue at hand is one of the occasionally-broached ones (well over a hundred years old now) to have her declared “Mediatrix of all graces” or “Co-redemptrix”. As far as I know, these titles have never been approved or disapproved within the RCC. Both terms are somewhat ambiguous, and could admit of interpretations both not particularly different from current doctrine, and, on the other hand, difficult to distinguish from outright heresy. I suspect that that is why the Holy See has, for generations, responded to both suggestions with a very loud silence.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

Carl Berry posted:

I didn’t catch the show, but I do know what they’re talking about – co-redemptrix as has already been mentioned in this thread.

The background: In Medieval to Romantic times, Marian devotion peaked, and, the official Church readily admits, went overboard at times.

One of the favorite pastimes of these boosters of Mary (known as Marian Maximalists in theological circles) was to come up with new and increasingly more exalted honorific titles for Mary. For example:

Mary, Queen of Men; Mary, Queen of Angels; Mary, the Morningstar; Mary, Queen of Peace; Mary, Mother of God (that’s an ancient, one); Mary, source of all Graces; Mary, Mother of the Church; Mary, co-redemptrix.

Then comes along Vatican II (VII) and reigns in the abuses. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (aka Lumen Gentium said:

However, some modern-day Mary Maximalists are not happy with the situation. The title ‘co-redemptrix’ was studiously avoided by VII (in fact, it was mentioned in the original working schema, but the bishops of the world rejected it). They want that term to be declared by the Pope as a valid title for Mary.

But the Pope knows better. As sympathetic as he may be to these ultra-conservatives, he knows he’d have a schism on his hands. The term, if defined by its plain meaning, is simply heretical. Whenever test balloons were sent up (leaks to the press that the term is being considered), they were shot down rather vehemently by most bishops and almost all theologians. So, the Pope tells these fanatics, to mollify them, “The time is not right.”

So, you may be wondering: “How come this group is into such a heretical concept?” Actually, they’re not heretical.

Because when you ask these people, “Are you making Mary equal with Christ, like when we say ‘co-chair’, we have two equal-in-power chairs?” They say, “No.” They ‘redefine’ co-redemptrix to simply mean ‘one who cooperates with Christ in the work of redemption.’ (In fact, that’s official Church teaching on Mary, “She’s a worthy Associate of the Redeemer”.)

But then when you say to them, “Well, that makes anyone who works with Christ a co-redeemer (and co-redemptrix).” They then mutter a bit, change the subject, and attack you. Worse than taking a bone from a dog.


moriah has it right. The most recent peak of the “co-redemptrix” movement was in the mid-1950’s. Pius XII wouldn’t have anything to do with them. When John XXIII called for the Council, a few of the proponents tried an end run by getting their proposal onto the agenda and were summarily booted off.

It is simply not RCC doctrine to make Mary the “equal” to Jesus.


See gang! There is something to it! My thanks to thoes who answered my post as I intended it! I appreciate your input…& a pox upon thoes of you who scoffed! BTW, I was born & raised in the RCC.

Someone wanted to call her Maria Lucifer?

Note that “Mother of God” is something of a different case. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is the classic formula of Nestorianism, which has most definitely been classified as a heresy since the fourth century. (The Nestorian heresy holds that God the Son and Jesus the Man are, although united in some mystical sense or other, two distinct persons; orthodoxy maintains that they are two beings [although unsatisfactory, it’s the best non-technical word available] in one person. It is disputed from time to time just how much Nestorius and the tiny, still surviving Nestorian Church are actually guilty of the Nestorian heresy and how much of it is just 1600 years of fighting over words; I myself am not competent to debate the issue.)

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

Ahh… Thank you, St. Jude, for favors granted…



Lucifer means ‘Light bearer’ just as Christopher means ‘Christ bearer’ and conifer means ‘cone bearer.’ :wink:

JWK: Yes, Nestor was much maligned and misrepresented by his opponents. On the other hand, he was an uneducated monk who arrogantly pushed his personal piety on others and didn’t know when to back down when he should have.


Sadly, we don’t see too many heresies about Astarte nowadays.

Nickrz -

Are you saying we’re a hopeless cause? :wink:


You could also try ‘rains in’, but I think you mean ‘reins in’. :wink:

And ‘Jennifer’, I suppose, means ‘bearing a female ass’? :wink:

Ray (all that patience will bear)