Customer Reviews


6 Reviews
5 star:
 (3)
4 star:    (0)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (3)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


5.0 out of 5 stars Mariolatry Exposed
This is an excellent book that shows the unbiblical nature of Mariolatry as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church.

If you are unfamiliar with just what the RCC teaches about Mary then this is the book for you.
Published 7 months ago by Amazon Customer

versus
3 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Eva-Ave
Oh dear. Like a river out of Eden, James R. White's "Mary-Another Redeemer?" brims with blunders. My remarks, however, mostly explore not the misstatements but rather the gaping omissions in his treatment of the Virgin Mary's role in the New Covenant. I preface my comments with this long excerpt from John Henry (later Cardinal) Newman's "Letter to the...
Published on 1 Mar. 2000


Most Helpful First | Newest First

5.0 out of 5 stars Mariolatry Exposed, 5 Aug. 2014
This is an excellent book that shows the unbiblical nature of Mariolatry as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church.

If you are unfamiliar with just what the RCC teaches about Mary then this is the book for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A book focussed on one particular issue, 20 Aug. 1999
By A Customer
Relax, Joe Crivelli. Laying aside your hyper-dulia of Mary, as well as your enmity against James White, we must allow all potential readers of the book to understand one thing: this book deals with one issue, namely a growing movement to name Mary as co-Redeemer along with Christ. Many Catholics are opposed to such a doctrine, even with their own Marian dulia. Therefore, Joe, you are not the standard-setter. It looks like you have crossed the line over to latria. If that be the case, it is no small wonder that you would hate this book.
White does not hate Mary. As a Protestant, White reveres Mary as the Blessed mother of the Lord. White reveres Mary as "she who is blessed among women." White does not, however, honor Mary as co-Redeemer, nor Mediatrix, nor any other honor that makes her a virtual co-Lord. <== It is this aspect that White's book investigates.
Mary, in heaven, weeps over your vicious heart, Joe. If I claim to you that she appeared to me nightly for a month and told me so, could you prove me wrong? Or would you just make a pilgrimmage to my bedside?
For the potential reader, if you are curious about the history of the movement, and some of the politics behind it, you might find this book of value and interest. If you disagree with White, he is willing to debate. Contact him instead of venting on Amazon.com.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Documents the facts about Catholic beliefs extremely well., 5 Nov. 1998
By A Customer
This book actually shocked me. Having been a Catholic at one time I didn't realize the full extent of the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning Marian beliefs. For those of you who are Protestant, there is some material in here that you may find offensive (as the author warns), but it is worth the risk to truly understand the issues.
All of the explanations about Catholic beliefs are taken directly from Papal pronouncements and Church endorsed writing by various authors. At least 40% of this book is comprised of lengthy quoted materials.
For anyone, Catholic or not, who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, this book is an excellent resource. It will open your eyes and really make you think.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Eva-Ave, 1 Mar. 2000
By A Customer
Oh dear. Like a river out of Eden, James R. White's "Mary-Another Redeemer?" brims with blunders. My remarks, however, mostly explore not the misstatements but rather the gaping omissions in his treatment of the Virgin Mary's role in the New Covenant. I preface my comments with this long excerpt from John Henry (later Cardinal) Newman's "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" (in "Mary-The Second Eve: from the Writings of John Henry Newman," Sister Eileen Breen, editor, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1982, p. 2):
-"Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father....In those primeval events, Eve had an integral share. 'The woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.' She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband, and he ate of it. She co-operated, not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin; she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a 'sine-qua-non,' a positive, active cause of it. And she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognized as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly. In that awful transaction there were three parties concerned - the serpent, the woman and the man; and at the time of their sentence, an event was announced for the future, in which the three same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman and the man; but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam: 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.' The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to me undeniable; but at all events, (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration." So wrote Cardinal Newman.
In "Mary-Another Redeemer?," however, Mr. White portrays the Virgin Mary as the blessed but otherwise little more than biological receptacle for the zygotic-embryonic-fetal Christ (Fortunately, we may forgive Mr. White who, in addition to "Bible," majored in biology at Grand Canyon College; unfortunately for theology, Mr. White did not fall into the Grand Canyon). Mr. White omits (at least I do not find it - the book lacks an index) discussion of Eve-Mary parallels. If that huge hole (grand canyon?) were not enough, his negligence of the Ark of the Covenant-Mary connections and the Church-Mary connections eviscerates much of what remains from his gutted depiction of Catholic teaching regarding the Virgin Mary's role in the scheme of things. Another review already briefly cited some of the Biblical parallelisms between the Virgin Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Here I will only note some of the Biblical evidence of Eve and the Virgin Mary as type and anti-type of each other:
-The beginning book of the Bible, Genesis, features a man, a woman and a serpent; the ending book of the Bible, Revelation, features a child (man), a woman, and a dragon (serpent) (Many, perhaps all, of those parties have multivalent symbolism. The woman in Revelation 12, for example, might signify not only Mary but also Eve, the new Israel, and the Church).
-Eve is associated with fruit in Genesis 3; St. Elizabeth, greeting Mary, declared "blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Lk 1:42).
-At the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:4), Jesus addressed his mother as "Woman," echoing Genesis 3:15, placing "Mary as the new Eve at the beginning of the new creation" by producing his first miracle ("Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary," Fr. Michael O'Carroll, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982, p. 96).
-After Cain killed Abel, God appointed another son, Seth, to Eve (Gn 4:25); as Jesus was killed on the cross, he appointed another son, St. John, to Mary, again addressing her as "Woman" (Jn 19:26), again reverberating Genesis 3:15.
-Adam and Eve were associated with a tree in a garden (Gn 3); Jesus and Mary on Calvary were associated with a tree (the cross) and a garden - "At the place where he had been crucified there was a garden..." (Jn 19:41).
Eve disbelieved and disobeyed God, whereas Mary believed and obeyed God. Cardinal Newman juxtaposed Adam, Eve and Mary so well: Mary "was a child of Adam and Eve as if they had never fallen..."("Meditations and Devotions of the Late Cardinal Newman" in "Mary-The Second Eve: from the writings of John Henry Newman," Sister Eileen Breen, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1982, p. 15). Rather than purifying Mary of original sin, her Savior preserved her from it with a more blessed redemption, a preventive redemption - the Immaculate Conception.
"Ave" reverses "Eva:" we do well to ponder that mnemonic to better understand what uncreated God has done for us through the cooperation of Mary, his finest creature. Mr. White scowls at what he alleges is the Catholic exaltation of the Virgin to a divine status or at least to an orbit that eclipses God (Perhaps Mr. White was confused by the image of the "woman robed with the sun, standing on the moon" in Revelation 12:1 and mistook Mary for an astronomical object). Yet it is Mr. White who does not see Mary's significance as much more than a passive instrument (though he misses very much in that regard, too). Oh dear.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Exactly 1,000 words on James R. White's straw woman argument, 3 Nov. 1999
By A Customer
Subtle is the Lord. James R. White's Mary-Another Redeemer? betrays an either-or mindset too clumsy to articulate not only the subtleties but even many broad features of the title Co-Redeemer. Mr. White frames his complaints about various Catholic teachings, not just the doctrine of Co-Redemption, in an either-or box, forcing a dichotomy. For example, according to Mr. White, applying Co-Redeemer to the Virgin Mary equates Mary with Jesus or makes her an alternate to him. Mr. White faintly acknowledges that Co- in Co-Redeemer means with rather than equal or alternative. He dismisses this difference, however, asserting here or arguing there that Catholics fail to maintain distinctions such as this. He includes Another in the book's title precisely to indicate that the Catholic Church, in assigning Co-Redeemer to Mary, sets Mary as an equal or alternative to Jesus. What rot. Then Mr . White sets fire to the straw woman of his own making - the false charges that he attributes to orthodox Catholic teaching or actual Catholic practice. Mr. White is a consuming fire absent from the Bible and from the early Church.... Oh? A splendid passage loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies AD 180-199). Many taught very clearly that only Christ was [immaculately] conceived.... Oh? on account of the honor of the Lord I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins... (Nature and Grace AD 415). Scholars agree that St. Augustine certainly believed in Mary=92s exemption from personal sin. Some also see in this famous passage his belief in Mary's exemption from original sin. Theirs may be a minority opinion among Augustinian scholars, but it would make St. Augustine a forerunner of God's Immaculate Conception of Mary. Anyway, he did not teach very clearly against the Immaculate Conception. And did St. Augustine overlook the immaculate conceptions of Adam and Eve, as does Mr. White?
-Mr. White identifies (pp. 40-42) [St.] Thomas Aquinas among many theologians who disbelieved in the Immaculate Conception. He neglects that Aquinas believed that original sin touched Mary only an instant, placing him extremely close to the belief, and that Aquinas believed in her personal sinlessness. Aquinas accepted Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on the close parallelism between the woman of Revelation 12. Mr. White omits that Aquinas believed in her Assumption, a belief that is particularly striking because it is frequently a consequence of belief In the Immaculate Conception.
-Mr. White writes idea that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. Oh? Aquinas preached on the on the Hail Mary AD 1273).
-Are parents not co-creators with God?
Mr. White decries Mediatrix, another title Catholics and Orthodox, but only few of the multitude of Protestant sects, give Mary. His protests cite Christ's parallel mediation. But those complaints either ignore, or acknowledge and strain to dismiss, the existence of subordinate mediation. Those complaints Jesus, not instead of Jesus. They fail to recognize the role of the Woman mediator subordinate to Jesus, the New Adam, the blessed fruit of her womb, as Jesus gives the first of his signs. They fail to recognize that St. John presents Mary always in connection with the disciples. This either-or treatment slithers under these truths without sensing their weight.
The reader seeking the extensive Biblical roots of Catholic teaching about Mary would do wondrously better with Fr. Rene Laurentin's meticulous A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary. If reading 391 pages daunts you, consider reading just the first 49 pages. There, Fr. Laurentin discusses Mary merely in the period of the revelation committed to Sacred Scripture. Those are the fundamental data to which nothing substantially new will be added Fr. Laurentin begins. Later he traces the development of the Church=92s understanding of those data. I recommend two other works that marvelously unearth the Biblical roots and trace the development of the Church's understanding of them. One is Fr. Luigi Gambero=92s Mary and the Fathers of William A. Jurgens=92 The Faith of the Early Fathers, a magnificent three-volume set with an immensely valuable doctrinal index to locate texts pertinent to particular doctrinal points.
Mary-Another Redeemer? was published too late to make the Index of Prohibited Books. To compensate, Mr. White and Bethany House Publishers declined to provide an index, hoping to appear in Books of Prohibited Indexes. Seriously, Mary-Another Redeemer? is a pathetic survey, with gross errors in research and logic, of "Marian" teaching . I urge reading, with a Bible handy, any of the three works recommended above as a ripost to Mr. White's straw. Mr. White should stick his pitchfork in another haystack.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Invincible Ignorance�or �enmity� of The Woman?, 12 April 1999
By A Customer
One can only hope that the utter hatred James White displays in his diatribe against the Blessed Virgin Mary is a result of invincible ignorance. But all to often as I read this book, it occurred to me that James is doing the bidding of the serpent in manifesting the enmity of Her promised in Genesis 3:15. His hatred of the Mother of God is so complete that he compares the honor given to her to Old Testament Ba'al worship. Unbelievable.
In building his case, James engages in intellectual dishonesty too many times to mention them all, but I will give a few examples:
- On page 34 he warns against using the Early Church Fathers to build a doctrinal case. Six pages later, on page 40... he uses the Early Church Fathers to build a doctrinal case.
- On page 39, in his exegesis of Luke 1:42, he states that "it is never explained how Elizabeth could know that Mary was sinless". What he does not mention, however, is that one verse earlier, in Luke 1:41, Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit. Maybe I am wrong, I don't have a Ph.D., but I am guessing that the author of Luke 1:42 also intended us to read Luke 1:41.
- On page 28, after examining the Marian texts of the Sacred Scriptures, he states that "entire dogmas sit precariously on the verses we have examined". What he fails to mention is that the entire doctrine of Sola Scriptura (and the resultant 25,000+ flavors of Protestantism) sit precariously on exactly one verse (2 Timothy 3:15) that says absolutely nothing about scripture being "sola"! Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. It is nowhere taught in Scripture. In fact, St. Paul command us to "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we handed down to you, whether by word of mouth or in writing." (2 Thess 2:15).
While on the cross, Jesus entrusts the care of Mary to "the disciple whom he loved":
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John 19:25-27, NIV)
Do we not all strive to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? Does it not follow that Mary's care is entrusted to us, that Jesus has given her to us as our mother? Are we not to "honor" her, then, in obedience to the Fourth Commandment?
If you are a Protestant who wants to know what Catholics really believe, I would give a much higher recommendation to David Currie's book "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" or to Scott and Kimberly Hahn's magnificent "Rome Sweet Home". Both of these books are written by former Evangelical Protestants who found unity, truth, and historical Christianity ("early church worship") in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. God Bless You on your journey.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Mary--Another Redeemer?
Mary--Another Redeemer? by James R. White
£6.91
Add to wishlist See buying options
Only search this product's reviews