Josiah Concept Ministries

Matthew Bellisario replied to this post with a lengthy diatribe found here. In his reply, Mr. Bellisario goes to great lengths to prove that “co-” doesn’t imply an equal share. I said:

“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.

He replies:

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.

The prefix “co-” doesn’t have to imply an equal share, as in Mr. Bellisario’s example of a copilot. But in many cases it does imply equal share. I restate my two examples of cooperate and coworker. My old job title at Wendy’s was co-manager, and I was expected to operate the store as the actual head manager would, and I functioned as an acting store manager on several occasions. The copilot would do the same thing: function as pilot with full and equal responsibility in the absence of a pilot.

I will concede the point that with doesn’t have to imply equal to, but I think that in the expectations of the real world, it usually does. Would you want your copilot to say, “That’s not my job, that’s what they pay the pilot for,” when some emergency happens during the pilot’s break? Or would you want him to rally the crew together to fix the problem, just as the pilot would, without skipping a beat? Someone with “co-” in front of their title may not be the actual leader of a team, but the expectation is that they function in place of the real leader–in other words, they have to take some share of the responsibility.

Bellisario will undoubtedly counter with the broken-record approach here, and simply quote all of the above paragraphs and add, “See? It’s all about Cory and what he thinks. Nevermind the actual definition or what the Church teaches, it’s all about Cory.” But this isn’t true. I think that I’ve built a good case for “co-” implying that the person with that title shares the responsibility with the titular leader. It may not always be the case, as I’ve conceded above, but I think that it usually is.

Next, Bellisario quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Mary’s role in the plan of salvation, which indeed says that she is not equal to Christ. Good. But the redemptive work on the Cross was done by God alone, and no one worked “with” him in that. Even in answering the objection that Mary isn’t elevated to deity status, the good folks of Vox Populi (the organization trying to get the Fifth Marian Dogma into official Church teaching) say the following:

The New Testament prophecy of Simeon in the temple also reveals the suffering, co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption:

“Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary, his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and will be a sign of contradiction, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul, too” (Lk. 2:34-35). (source, emphasis added)

Notice the boldfaced words. This is a unified work between the two of them. The book of Hebrews disagrees that this is unified work of redemption; it says that one man offered the sacrifice for sins:

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:12-14)

Redemption isn’t a unified work according to the Bible, redemption is a single act accomplished by Christ. No help required. That’s why Christ is our unique High Priest, the Author and Perfecter of our faith. He requires no help from anyone.

Then, Mr. Bellisario accuses me of shrugging off the Incarnation:

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.

I get the fact that Mary was special, but I don’t think that she is special enough to warrant all of the attention Catholics give her. I would like Mr. Bellisario to prove that this view degrades the Incarnation, because I think that the Catholic view degrades the Incarnation. Instead of merely asserting the point without evidence, as Mr. Bellisario does, I will provide an argument in my next post.