St. Cyprian on church unity

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/#

 St. Cyprian, the third century bishop of Carthage taught that the Church’s visible unity cannot be divided:

This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ’s garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, “But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be.” (John 19:23-24) That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. On the other hand, again, when at Solomon’s death his kingdom and people were divided, Abijah the prophet, meeting Jeroboam the king in the field, divided his garment into twelve sections, saying, “Take you ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten sceptres unto you; and two sceptres shall be unto him for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to place my name there.” (1 Kings 11:31) As the twelve tribes of Israel were divided, the prophet Abijah rent his garment. But because Christ’s people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church. (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 7)

Justin Martyr on Baptism and the Eucharist

 St. Justin Martyr (d. AD 165) explained that before receiving the Eucharist, a person not only needed to be baptized, but also had to assent to the Catholic teaching. He writes:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. …

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. ( First Apology, 65, 66)

I found this at Called to Communion  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/

Biblical Catholic view of Salvation

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/salvation-justification-faith-alone.html    Dave Armstrong has many links here on this including kindle book

An interesting verse: 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Mary's seven sorrows/not calling her co-redemdrix

"The seven sorrows of Mary are, 1. The Prophecy of Simeon  2. The Flight into Egypt 3. Losing the boy Jesus in the Temple 4. The Way of the Cross 5. The Death of Christ 6. The Deposition of Christ’s body from the cross 7. Laying him in the tomb. These seven mysteries are an outgrowth of the old man Simeon’s prophecy that a ”A sword will pierce your own heart also.” (Lk. 2:35) This key verse is prophetic–not just revealing that Mary will suffer along with her son, but that this suffering will have an important and meaningful part to play in the whole redemption story." Dr. Longenecker  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/sorrowful-mother-and-co-redeemer

in the comment section:Actually, the Church does not call the Blessed Mother “co-redemptrix.” Such a title is not necessary, and the implications of such a title can lead us close to heresy. Here is the official Vatican position on such a title, from when Cardinal Ratzinger ruled on it:

“Ratzinger finds that the expression “co-redemptrix” would obscure this absolute origin in Christ, and departs to “too great extent from the language of Scripture and Fathers.” The continuity of language with Scripture and Fathers is essential for matters of faith. It would be improper, according to Ratzinger, to “simply manipulate language.” He sees in the movement promoting Mary’s co-redemption a “correct intention” being expressed in the wrong way. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds that “what is signified by [the title] is already better expressed in other titles of Mary.” And so his answer to the request is summarized in the following sentence: “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future.” (Seewald, 306).” (fromhttp://campus.udayton.edu/mary/benedictmary.html).

I think that this is pretty clear: we shouldn’t be using this title of Mary. I am a huge devotee of the Blessed Mother, but even I get the willies when someone begins to use this title. Yes, I understand what they are saying, but the potential to cause serious error and misunderstanding is huge when applying this title to Mary, and that is why the CDF chose not to define it as doctrine.

Here is another one commenting on the co-redemptrix
http://menofstjoseph.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-mediatrix-and-co-redemptrix.html

This one has quotes from Pope John Paul: http://menofstjoseph.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-mediatrix-and-co-redemptrix.html

quote by Longenecker on the church

Quote from Dr. Longenecker "And this is where it gets more interesting, for walking to my office from the church this morning I was also convinced that if this world is to be saved, then the Catholic faith is the only chance we have. Someone once said, “The most practical thing you can do is pray.” The same applies to the Catholic faith. Saying Mass may seem silly when there are hungry children to feed. Building a big beautiful church may seem vain when there are hospitals and clinics and schools to build.  But all of these practical people are utilitarians, and I have no more use for utilitarians than unitarians. Both make my blood run cold with their pragmatism, their efficiency and their eye on the bottom line. These are the ones who would save the world, but lose their soul."  read the rest here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/05/i-wannabe-a-superhero.html

this is my body discussion of the Greek

http://www.totustuus.com/ThisIsMyBody.pdf  Read the whole thing--here is just a little bit:


Matthew (Mt 26:26), Mark (14:22) and Luke (22:19) use exactly the same Greek words
for “This is my body”.    
Touto      estin      to      soma      mou
This          is        the      body      of me
                        neuter     neuter  
When the text is examined in relationship to Greek grammar employed in the passage,
the meaning becomes very clear.  Touto (this) is a neuter demonstrative adjective.  It
can’t modify or refer to bread, which is a masculine noun.  Instead, it clearly refers to
soma (body), which is a nominative neuter noun.  Therefore the only possible translation
in English is: “This [substance in my hands] is my body.”

one true church from scripture

 also from comment 83 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-47418

 but you think that this organised body, having produced the New Testament, signed off on any further (earthly) authority, leaving you with the New Testament itself and your own understanding to interpret it. Catholics do not think the Church did, in fact, thus cease to possess its (highest earthly) authority. “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him Who sent Me.” We think that ‘you’ continues. We think God intended that so that we would not have to hope that we have understood the Scriptures correctly.

St Gaudentius of Brescia (late 300's) on the Eucharist

From a treatise by Saint Gaudentius of Brescia, bishop (lived in the late 300's)
The eucharist is the Lord’s passover

One man has died for all, and now in every church in the mystery of bread and wine he heals those for whom he is offered in sacrifice, giving life to those who believe and holiness to those who consecrate the offering. This is the flesh of the Lamb; this is his blood. The bread that came down from heaven declared:The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. It is significant, too, that his blood should be given to us in the form of wine, for his own words in the gospel, I am the true vine, imply clearly enough that whenever wine is offered as a representation of Christ’s passion, it is offered as his blood. This means that it was of Christ that the blessed patriarch Jacob prophesied when he said: He will wash his tunic in wine and his cloak in the blood of the grape.The tunic was our flesh, which Christ was to put on like a garment and which he was to wash in his own blood.

Creator and Lord of all things, whatever their nature, he brought forth bread from the earth and changed it into his own body. Not only had he the power to do this, but he had promised it; and, as he had changed water into wine, he also changed wine into his own blood. It is the Lord’s passover, Scripture tells us, that is, the Lord’s passing. We are no longer to look upon the bread and wine as earthly substances. They have become heavenly, because Christ has passed into them and changed them into his body and blood. What you receive is the body of him who is the heavenly bread, and the blood of him who is the sacred vine; for when he offered his disciples the consecrated bread and wine, he said: This is my body, this is my blood. We have put our trust in him. I urge you to have faith in him; truth can never deceive.

When Christ told the crowds that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they were horrified and began to murmur among themselves: This teaching is too hard; who can be expected to listen to it? As I have already told you, thoughts such as these must be banished. The Lord himself used heavenly fire to drive them away by going on to declare: It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

about Augustine’s De libero arbitrio, books 1-3

I found this summary on an online chart:http://pk.b5z.net/i/u/2167316/i/Chart_on_Augustine_s_Free_Will.cwk.pdf

A.  HOW TO OBTAIN HAPPINESS:

Morality is the path to Happiness:

Everything culminates in morality, in clarifying for humanity
the sure road to happiness, which is the goal of human
behavior.

Happiness is found in God:
Whereas Aristotle believed happiness to be achieved when a
person fulfills natural functions through a well-balanced life
(eudaimonia:  “human flourishing” or “successful living”),
Augustine held that happiness required that a person go
beyond the natural to the supernatural: “Our hearts are restless
until they find rest in Thee.”

We are Designed to Love:

a.  We bear God’s signature:
Why? Because God made us; thus we bear the mark of His
creation. Some of the marks include permanent relations, actual
and possible, between us & God. It is not by accident that we
even seek happiness. It is a consequence of our
incompleteness, our finitude.

b.  We inevitably love:
 To love is to go beyond oneself & to
fasten one’s affection upon an object of love. What makes it
inevitable that people will love is, again, incompleteness.

c.  Wide range of objects we can choose to love, reflecting the
variety of ways in which we are incomplete:
(1) physical objects; (2) other persons, or (3) even oneself.
From those we can derive satisfaction for some desires &
passions.  Why?  All things in the world are good because all
things come from God, who is goodness itself. Consequently,
all things are legitimate objects of love. Everything that people
love will provide them with some measure of satisfaction and
happiness.

Our moral problem is attachment & expectations to
Disorderd Love:

Our moral problem consists not so much in loving or in the
objects we love as in the manner in which we attach themselves
to these objects of love & in our expectations regarding the
outcome of this love.

 We expect to achieve happiness &
fulfillment from love, yet we are miserable, unhappy, & restless.
Why? He places blame on “disordered” love. Disordered love
consists in expecting more from an object of love than it is
capable of providing. Disordered love produces all forms of
pathology in human behavior. For example, the essence of
pride is the assumption of self-sufficiency.
Only God can Satisfy our Need for Love:
Our basic need for human affections can’t be satisfied by things
made to love God. Because only God, who is infinite,
can satisfy that peculiar need in us.



B.  THE CAPACITY OF
OUR WILL

Predicament is both our free will
& the presence of alternatives

1.  The cause of evil is not
ignorance; Our predicament is
that they stand in the presence of
alternatives. We are free to turn
toward God or way from God.
But whichever way a person
chooses, it is with the hope of
finding happiness.  Said
differently, we are capable of
directing our affections
exclusively toward finite things,
persons, ourselves, & away from
God.

“This turning away and this
turning to are not forced but
voluntary acts.”

Evil is the product of a free will:
It is not ignorance, nor the work
of the principle of darkness
permeating the body as the
Manicheans said. In spite of
original sin, all humanity
possesses the freedom of the will.

Freedom of the will is not true
liberty:

 True spiritual liberty is no
longer possible in its fullness in
this life in view of original sin.

Freedom to do good requires
God’s grace:

We use free will to choose
wrongly, but even when we
choose rightly, they do not
possess the spiritual power to do
the good we have chosen; we

Virtue is the product of God’s
grace not act of free will whereas
evil is caused by an act of free
will.

Moral Law:
 The moral law tells us what we
must do, but in the end it really
shows us what we can’t do.


FIRST BOOK:
Where does evil come from?
Problem: how can these affirmations be reconciled?
(1) God is good; (2) God is the creator of all things; (3) There is
evil in the world
God does not cause any moral evil; he does however cause the
evil of punishment (but that does not contradict his goodness)
(1.1, p. 1).
. Can moral evil be traced to God, so that he is indirectly the cause
of evil, mediated by evil creatures? What is it to do evil? (1.3, p.
4) To act against the eternal law (1.5.6, pp. 8.11).
.
What does the eternal law command? That all things be perfectly
ordered (1.6, p. 11)
. What does it mean for a human being to be perfectly ordered?
. That reason rules the irrational part of the soul (1.8, p. 14)
. Thus, when the mind or reason doesn’t rule the irrational part,
this is sin; when inordinate desire enslaves the mind, this is sin
(e.g. adultery).
. How is it possible that inordinate desire may enslave the mind?
(cf. 1.10) What makes the mind subject to inordinate desire? (What
makes a good person do evil?) Is inordinate desire more
powerful than the mind. No, because the weaker does not
control the stronger; The mind must be more powerful
than cupidity precisely because it is right & just for the mind to
rule over cupidity; Every virtue is superior to every vice (1.10, p.
16).
.
Is an evil spirit [ex. the devil, or a wicked person who tempts
others to sin] more powerful than the mind? No: since virtue is
superior to vice & stronger than vice, vicious spirit can’t defeat
spirit armed with virtue (1.10, p. 16).

 Is a material object more powerful than the mind? (e.g., delicious
cake, money, the beauty of a woman. No, because a spirit is better
& more powerful than any material object (1.10, p. 16).  Can a just
spirit subject another mind to inordinate desire? (1.10, p. 16.17).
No, because:  a just spirit possesses excellence,
& it would become vicious and thus weaker than the mind (1.10,
p. 17).

Answer (1.11, p. 17):
The conclusions that we have reached thus far indicate that a
mind that is in control, one that possesses virtue, cannot be
made slave to inordinate desire by anything equal or superior to
it, because such a thing would be just, or by anything inferior to
it, because such a thing would be too weak.[O]nly its own will &
free choice can make the mind a companion of cupidity. Would
it have been better if God had not given man free will?
(If yes, then God must be blamed for the moral evil committed
by man after all.) If we had not received a free will, we could not
have done moral evil, but we could not do any moral good
either. (2.1, p. 3


  SECOND BOOK:
How do we know we derive our origin from God?

A structured argument for God’s existence.
Augustine wants to change Evodius, from the
position of a simple believer who accepts the existence
of God as a believer from one of mere belief to one of
knowledge (2.1.5).

Augustine’s strategy is to build up a hierarchy of
beings of different kinds:  We can divide things in the
world into 3 classes:

(1) Lifeless things that merely exist (e.g., stones);
 (2) Living
things that have sensation & not intelligence (e.g., dumb
animals);
 (3) Things that have existence, life, & intelligence
(e.g., rational humans).
We share with animals the 5 senses & we share with
them also an inner sense. By this sense animals are
aware of the operation of other senses & by it they feel
pleasure & pain. But the highest thing in us is a “kind
of head or eye of our soul [software]”

We grade these different faculties in a hierarchy:
a. Inner sense is superior to outer senses; b. Reason is superior
to inner sense. c. But if we find something outside ourselves
superior to reason [hardware], then Augustine asks, shall we
call that God? (2.6.14).

Among highest things in human mind are knowledge
of numbers & judgments of value. Math is
unchangeable, unlike fragile human bodies, & they are
common to all educated people, unlike the private
objects of sensation. 7+3=10 makes ten forever & for
everyone.

Like math, there are ethical truths that are common
property to all people. Wisdom is knowledge about
supreme good: everyone wishes to be happy, & so
everyone wishes to be wise, since that is
indispensable for happiness. Though people may
disagree about nature of the supreme good, they all
agree on such judgments as that we ought to live
justly, that the worse should be
subject to the better, and that each man should be
given his due (2.10.28).

These rules and guiding lights of virtue are true,
unchangeable, & available for the common contemplation of
every mind & reason.

The truth is not the property of any one person; it is
shareable to everyone.  Now is this truth superior, to
or equal to, or inferior to our minds?
(a). If it were inferior to our minds, we would pass judgments
about it, as we may judge that a wall is not as white as it
should be, or that a box is not as
square as it should be.  (b). If it were equal to our minds, we
would likewise pass judgment on it: we say, for instance, that
we understand less than we ought: But we do not pass
judgment on the rules of virtue or the rules of arithmetic. We
say that the eternal is superior to the temporal and that seven
and tree are ten. We do not say these things ought to be so.
(c). So, the immutable truth is not eternal to our minds or
equal to them: it is superior to them and sets the standard by
which we judge them (2.12.34). (d). If there is something
more excellent than truth, then that is God; if not,then truth
itself is God. Whether there is or is not such a higher thing,
we must agree that God exists (2.15.39).







I.  Contextual Information:
In sum, Augustine’s De libero arbitrio, books 1-3 offers a comprehensive view of our in relation to God.  The dialogue begins with Evodus, friend &
future bishop of Uzalis, but the dialogue is soon replaced by a continuous discourse.


Third Book:  a. Returns to the movement by which the will turns away from God and asks how it is that we do not sin necessarily if God foreknows what we will do. b. He claims: God’s foreknowledge of our free acts
guarantees our freedom rather than destroys it. c. He then attempts to show God is not to be blamed for evil in the world. d. The tenor changes in 3.18.50 with the introduction of the penal conditions of ignorance and the
difficulty under which we now labor as a result of Adam’s sin. e. In 3.19.54 Augustine distinguishes the nature with which we are now born from the nature in which Adam was created.

reflections on man's will and divine providence

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/05/without-me-you-can-do-nothing-what.html

Read the comments to this too

and here at comment   113 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/do-you-want-to-go-to-heaven/#comment-47512

 First, if God could not create free-willed beings, then there would be only one will acting in the universe, which you are precariously close to saying in the suggestion that the divine will acts “through us.” If that is the case, then the fact that sin exists would mean that God was sinning, thereby contradicting His own nature, which is absurd. Consequently, it cannot be denied that God is capable of creating free-willed beings with whom the divine will concurs without acting through them as instruments without impugning His sovereignty. Nor can it be the case that God is responsible for His failure to force someone to comply, as you suggest to be the case if Christ to some extent left you in the hands of your own will...........

Instead, you need to accept that God can work through concurrence with free wills without harming His sovereignty. Now, if free wills could disrupt God’s will without His consent, that would definitely be a problem, and that is the sort of concern that the passages cited above are intended to alleviate: creaturely monergism. But divine monergism, which these passages do not specifically address, is equally problematic. Based on the Scriptural witness and essential metaphysical considerations, it is necessary to affirm synergism, not to suggest that the divine will needs creaturely agency to operate but that God can choose to do so.

and from comment 131:

The fact that God would ever need to “trump” our free will is ridiculous; it puts human will on the same plane as God. To put it another way, even given 2000 years of Western philosophical background, you’ve still managed to anthropomorphize God. Without God’s concurrence, free wills wouldn’t even exist, so there’s no reason to assume that acting *through* free wills means He has to destroy them in the process. Moreover, you’re suggesting God allows free will to exist to sin, but then trumps (i.e.,destroys) that same will in order to save people. There’s simply no reason to believe any of this; it certainly doesn’t come from the Bible.

Romans 9 simply explains that there is no injustice for God granting salvation to particular Gentiles and refusing it to particular Jews, just as there is no injustice in God granting or denying certain blessings after He has given others. Like Romans 4 and 11, Romans 9 gives examples of people with one type of blessing who are then denied another. Thus, Abraham received God’s blessing apart from the Law, so likewise, it does not deprive Jews of anything to give it to Gentiles. Esau was blessed by being the elder, but God nonetheless gave Esau’s blessing to the younger. Pharaoh was made a great ruler, but God did not save him from destruction; on the contrary, he allowed Pharaoh’s downfall. None of these have anything to do with God “trumping” free will or using people as instruments. They simply say that people who have received some kind of blessing are not thereby entitled to demand from God other blessings out of God’s grace. Again, you’re talking about something that the passage does not address, simply because of reading your philosophical beliefs into the Bible.

from 54 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/signs-of-predestination-a-catholic-discusses-election/

Why can’t I just turn this around and say something like, “It cannot be said truly in the Catholic doctrine that God works all things out according to the counsel of his own will, or that he has his way among those in heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can say his hand or ask him, ‘What doest thou?’”? In the same way that our view seems to you to destroy God’s desire to save all men, it seems to us that yours destroys God’s ability to accomplish his will, both of which are equally Scriptural ideas. So unless your position can account for both, it does no good highlighting our problem texts as if that proves anything.

God does work all things out according to the counsel of His will, and He has His way among those in heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and no one can stay His hand or call Him to account. But, God’s will is not that no other being exercise its will, or that He decide for each free creature what it will choose, and then let it live out this pre-determined program as if that creature had free choice. He is so much more generous. He has willed that there be real creatures truly endowed with free will, and that these free creatures truly and freely exercise their free will. This is precisely why there is a difference between God’s antecedent will and God’s consequent will, not because God is of two minds, but because His consequent will takes into consideration the free choices of His creatures. We know, for example, that God’s antecedent will is that all men always keep the Ten Commandments. But obviously, not all men keep the Ten Commandments. That does not “destroy God’s ability to accomplish His will.” He Himself has generously willed that we be given the power to freely choose contrary to His antecedent will. And yet even when we will what is contrary to God’s antecedent will, God is able to bring about through our choices the end He has willed, an end which takes into consideration our free choices.

The Calvinist position makes God either likewise impotent (since He can’t seem to prevent people from going against His will specified in the Ten Commandments), or insincere in implying that it is His will that we obey the Ten Commandments, if whatever is His will He necessarily accomplishes. Instead of attributing schizophrenia, impotence or insincerity to God, we explain the distinction between His antecedent will and consequent will as a distinction based on His generosity in giving to rational creatures genuine free choice, even the power to choose contrary to His antecedent will, as Lucifer did, and Adam and Eve as well. If you say that they sinned because God willed them to sin, you make God the author of evil. But if you say that they sinned because God willed them to have free will, and because they freely willed to sin, then you do not make God the author of evil, nor do you make Him weak. Rather, you affirm the generosity of His gift of rationality to creatures, and locate the blame for man’s sin on man himself.

some prayers of St. Augustine

Here are some of his prayers: http://www.piercedhearts.org/theology_heart/wisdom_heart/augustine_prayers.htm

and here is one quoted in one of Montfort's works


Prayer of Saint Augustine
     O Jesus Christ, you are my Father, my merciful God, my great King, my good Shepherd, my only Master, my best helper, my beloved friend of overwhelming beauty, my living Bread, my eternal priest. You are my guide to my heavenly home, my one true light, my holy joy, my true way, my shining wisdom, my unfeigned simplicity, the peace and harmony of my soul, my perfect safeguard, my bounteous inheritance,
my everlasting salvation.

  My loving Lord, Jesus Christ, why have I ever loved or desired anything else in my life but you, my God? Where was I when I was not in communion with you? From now on, I direct all my desires to be inspired by you and centred on you. I direct them to press forward for they have tarried long enough, to hasten towards their goal, to seek the one they yearn for.

 O Jesus, let him who does not love you be accursed, and filled with bitterness. O gentle Jesus, let
every worthy feeling of mine show you love, take delight in you and admire you. O God of my heart and my inheritance, Christ Jesus, may my heart mellow before the influence of your spirit and may you live in me. May the flame of your love burn in my soul. May it burn incessantly on the altar of my heart. May it glow in my innermost being. May it spread its heat into the hidden recesses of my soul and on the day of my consummation may I appear before you consumed in your love. Amen

on the rosary

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/why-a-former-evangelical-loves-the-rosary

As the Pope reminds us, ‘To recite the rosary is nothing other than to contemplate with Mary the face of Christ.’

see also: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/08/ad-jesum-per-mariam/

and from a comment 12 on this link

I can sympathize with your bafflement regarding the coronation of Mary. I struggled with the same question (among others) before I entered the Catholic Church over 3 years ago.

I wish first to underscore the point made in the article that the Rosary is a Christocentric prayer. Even though the majority of the words spoken during the Rosary are asking for Mary’s intercession, the majority of one’s “mental energy” during the Rosary is meant to be directed to meditating on the mysteries, of which all save the last two glorious mysteries are explicitly focused on Christ (these last mysteries are also Christocentric, as I will explain shortly). I have found that, after I got the “mechanics” of it down, the Hail Marys become just a sort of background noise and that my primary focus is on some aspect of the current mystery. As an example, during the first joyful mystery, the Annunciation, I may be led to focus on Gabriel’s encouragement, “Nothing is impossible with God,” and reflect on the areas or problems in my life which I am not fully entrusting to God. At other times, I might instead focus on Mary’s response, “I am the handmaid of the Lord,” and to what degree I am making that statement my own; or on the fundamental mystery of the Incarnation itself; or on any number of other things. In other words, my mind and my heart is primarily engaged with Christ and with Scripture, more so than with Mary.

I say all that just to attempt to convince you that the focus of the Rosary truly is on Christ, although this is not readily apparent to outside observers because this focus is happening internally while externally it seems to be mostly about Mary. That Christocentric focus extends even to the final two glorious mysteries, the Assumption and Coronation of Mary. I understand why you see these as problematic: not only are they not explicitly found in the Bible, they also seem to be about Mary more than about Christ. I don’t think that is actually true.

First off, who is the one assuming and crowning Mary? The answer, in both cases, is Christ, so he is not actually absent from these mysteries. The real key to understanding these mysteries, I think, is to recognize that Mary is the first, the ideal, and the prototypical Christian. She is the Christian disciplepar excellance. Therefore, because we too are (trying to be) disciples of Christ, everything that happens to Mary, we hope will also happen to us. Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven; we too will have glorified, resurrected bodies in heaven. Mary was crowned queen of heaven and earth; we too hope to receive a “crown of righteousness”, as Jonathan pointed out. I should also mention that I at least interpret Mary’s queenship as more of a “queen mother” role: Mary is the queen only because she is the mother of the King. And since we also are “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” then we are princes and princesses who hope to be similarly crowned and rewarded with treasure laid up in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroy.

Mary is unique in that she experienced these things first (just as she is unique in being the only woman chosen to bear the Son of God in her womb), but everything that happened to Mary we hope will happen to us. The Assumption and Coronation should thus strengthen the virtue of hope in us. They remind us of the inheritance that lies in store for us and the promises that God means to fulfill for us.