Amsterdam Apparition and Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix"

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

I had trouble finding it earlier this morning, but MAKE SURE you take a look at this great article which helps, like Fr. Most’s essay on the “four levels,” to categorize the different levels of teaching which come to use from the Church:

Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio Fidei

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

Hmmm . . . “co-redemptrix” is a term deriving from the Latin language so maybe you should take that into consideration.

IC XC NIKA

Just a quick note that this is my point. The term may work in Latin, but it’s a failure for a couple main reasons in English. I’ll try to explain why once I get that essay posted. Thanks again for the comments and suggestions!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey, aren’t you supposed to be watching our airspace?!

Ooooops … oh yeah.

Whew! No missile attack.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Writer,

I would be curious as to the authenticity of the translation, though.

Hmmmm… this is from a tenth-century English manuscript now at Salisbury. It seems the term “redemptrix” is at least that old. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

“Sancta Regina Mundi, ora pro nobis; Sancta Salvatrix Mundi, ora pro nobis; Sancta Redemptrix Mundi, ora pro nobis.” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)

How would you translate it?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Writer,

Even if, on occasion, he has used the term, though, I am not sure what it actually demonstrates.

I thought he was pretty clear about what he meant, that is, her cooperation in the redemptive act of Christ throughout her life, and even after her death.

From Pope John Paul II’s homily at a Marian sanctuary in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on January 31, 1985:
Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the “yes” of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; . . . Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58) . . . .

In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ “to gather into one all the dispersed children of God” (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity . . . .

The Gospels do not tell us of an appearance of the risen Christ to Mary. Nevertheless, as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.
The Pope’s homily seems to assert the common Catholic teaching on Mary as Mediatrix, which includes her role in the redemption.

Fr. John Hardon’s explanation from his Pocket Catholic Dictionary is probably the most succinct explanation of this doctrine that I have found.

MEDIATRIX**.** A title of the Blessed Virgin as mediator of grace. There are two aspects of this mediation. It is certain in Catholic theology that, since Mary gave birth to the Redeemer, who is source of all grace, she is in this way the channel of all graces to mankind. But it is only probable, as a legitimate opinion, that **since Mary’s Assumption into heaven no grace is received by humans without her actual intercessory co-operation.
**
On the first level of mediation, Mary freely co-operated with God in consenting to the Incarnation, giving birth to her Son and thus sharing with him in spirit the labors of his passion and death. Yet Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross. Mary gave him moral support in this action. She is therefore not entitled to the name “priest,” as several Roman documents legislate. As explained by the Council of Florence in 1441, Christ “conquered the enemy of the human race alone” (Denzinger, 1347). In the same way he alone acquired the grace of redemption for the whole human race, including Mary. Her part in the objective redemption, therefore, was indirect and remote, and derived from her voluntary devotion to the service of Christ. Under the Cross she suffered and sacrificed with him, but subordinate to him in such a way that all the efficacy of her oblation depended on that of her Son.

On the second stage of mediation, Mary co-operates by her maternal intercession in applying Christ’s redemptive grace to human beings, called the subjective redemption. This does not imply that the faithful must pray for all graces through Mary, nor that her intercession is inherently necessary for the distribution of divine blessing, but that, according to God’s special ordinance, the graces merited by Christ are conferred through the actual intercessory mediation of his mother. Recent popes and the Second Vatican Council have spoken in favor of this type of mediation, which finds support in patristic tradition.

This summary is similar to that of Dr. Ludwig Ott in his *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. *Fr. William Most goes further to state that Mary’s redemption was more than just indirect and remote. He makes a good argument, however, one is safe in understanding that Mary’s role is *at least *that which Pope John Paul II says that it is.

For a more detailed understanding, Pope John Paul II gives a series of catechetical discussions on Mary here:

GENERAL AUDIENCES: TEACHING OF POPE JOHN PAUL II ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2BVM70.HTM

 

[itsjustdave1988]

he has not declared the “Fifth Dogma” as you would perhaps wish him to do

Oh no … you presume too much.

I don’t care if the Church ever makes it *de fide definita. *As a student of dogmatic theology, I already understand that it is a *sententia certa *(certain teaching) of the Catholic Church. As such, it is doctrinal and no longer belongs to the field of free theological opinion. According to Catholic ecclesiology, I am bound to give my religious assent to all doctrines proposed by the magisterium (cf. CCC 892). As such, I don’t need it to be *de fide definita *to give religious submission of will and intellect to this authentic teaching of the magisterium. (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25, Code of Canon Law, canon 752, Humani Generis, 20). Law abiding Catholics are not allowed to dissent from Catholic doctrine, *de fide *or not.

For more on what religious assent means, see this article by William E. May, a professor of theology at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family (specifically par. #2 and #5):

Teaching Authority in the Church, Morality, and Dissent
by William E. May
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html%between%

 

[Writer]

Well, I am not quite as happy with this “finished” essay as I hoped to be, and it is nearly 7-pages in length. One particular paragraph may be on the chopping block (can you venture a guess?). The tone also may not be precisely right all the way through. All in all, someone else could certainly have done much better at this task. As this is about the most time I can presently devote to this little personal project, I have decided to post it in its present form. If you decide to take a look, keep in mind that one of the reasons for the opening paragraphs is to assist me in my own understanding of what I hold true about Mary and why. It also demonstrates, in the end, that we’re all in closer agreement on the fundamentals than we are in any kind of disagreement.

home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/writer/id16.html

By the way, ItsjustDave, I must have accessed the wrong link earlier because what I was reading was certainly not from the tenth century. Thanks for all the supplemental information. I plan to go back and read your posts a second time to ensure everything made it to the ol’ brain.

 

[mtr01]

Writer:

Just a quick note that this is my point. The term may work in Latin, but it’s a failure for a couple main reasons in English. I’ll try to explain why once I get that essay posted. Thanks again for the comments and suggestions!

FWIW, a strict definition of the term from the Latin would be rendered as “woman with the Redeemer”.

Furthermore, the prefix “co-” should denote a secondary status (which it has pretty much lost in current English). Think in terms of “co-star” or “co-pilot”. Both of these positions denote a status that is secondary to the star or the pilot.

 

[Writer]

mtr01:

FWIW, a strict definition of the term from the Latin would be rendered as “woman with the Redeemer”.

Furthermore, the prefix “co-” should denote a secondary status (which it has pretty much lost in current English). Think in terms of “co-star” or “co-pilot”. Both of these positions denote a status that is secondary to the star or the pilot.

Thank you. Those are great points…

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Writer,

Thank you for posting the link to your essay, and thank you for taking the time to write it. I read it twice just to make sure I was clear on your arguments and the points you raise.

When I have time, I will respond to it here in these forums.

By the way, have you carefully and thoroughly read the following?

Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections

The author seems to directly address nearly all of your concerns.

May God bless you.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Writer]

Thanks for the last post. I will take a look at the 7 Objections article you mentioned. I have also decided I dislike a couple sections of my essay and am going to do a bit more “trimming” this evening, which will perhaps make the real arguments a little easier to spot, as well.

 

[Writer]

itsjustdave1988:

Oh no … you presume too much.

I don’t care if the Church ever makes it *de fide definita. *As a student of dogmatic theology, I already understand that it is a *sententia certa *(certain teaching) of the Catholic Church. As such, it is doctrinal and no longer belongs to the field of free theological opinion. According to Catholic ecclesiology, I am bound to give my religious assent to all doctrines proposed by the magisterium (cf. CCC 892). As such, I don’t need it to be *de fide definita *to give religious submission of will and intellect to this authentic teaching of the magisterium. (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25, Code of Canon Law, canon 752, Humani Generis, 20). Law abiding Catholics are not allowed to dissent from Catholic doctrine, *de fide *or not.

For more on what religious assent means, see this article by William E. May, a professor of theology at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family (specifically par. #2 and #5):

Teaching Authority in the Church, Morality, and Dissent
by William E. May
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html

The passage you quoted here is good. My only potential problem is (again) the title itself. The theology as discussed here, for the most part, I would agree with. I do take exception with all graces passing through Mary as a kind of heavenly spigot. I understand the reasoning, but I don’t subscribe to quite that view.

The only other quick point I might make is that, while I understand what you’re writing concerning the *sententia certa, *I approach the issue obviously a bit differently. Not having as deep a grasp yet on this facet of the Catholic Church, I am bound to base my understandings on my own knowledge of the Scriptures, *The Catechism of the Catholic Church *(a wonderful work) and the writings of the saints and other strong theological minds–from C. S. Lewis to G.K. Chesterton–and discussions with members and leaders of the Church. All I can say is that I belong to a very conservative parish, and that no one has ever implied that the Co-Redemptrix teachings are required. In fact, the opposite has been true when I have had deep discussions on the issue with a religious brother, two priests, and a Catholic educator. (I believe a relative of mine in another part of the country also received a similar response when he discussed the issue with a bishop–perhaps only slightly more possitive than what I had been told.) I am happy to debate these topics in order to gain greater insight into the issues, but I don’t see exactly how it facilitates discussion to say in essence “my way or the highway” on controversial issues such as this. As a matter of fact, it seems to betray a kind of arrogance or superiority, which unfortunately seems all too common in some Catholic circles. Not to digress too much, but in Catholic grade school I recall having to sit down and explain to one of my Catholic friends (as a Protestant) that we worship the Son and not the sun. He was a pretty confused guy…still is, as a matter of fact. My point is that heresy on that magnitude warrants a swift kick, but I can’t see how invoking *sententia certa *creates an environment which encourages the discussion of these (lesser) elements of our faith. Just my two cents for the day…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am happy to debate these topics in order to gain greater insight into the issues, but I don’t see exactly how it facilitates discussion to say in essence “my way or the highway” on controversial issues such as this

Firstly, I don’t consider it controversial from the point of view of the teaching Church. The doubts within the taught Church are something altogether different. Such is the case with other teachings, such as contraception and abortion. Yet, from the teaching Church’s perspective, it is Catholic doctrine.

Secondly, it was not my intent to say “my way or the highway.” I’m a catechist. I am merely sharing with you what the magisterium has taught and continues to teach. It is up to each individual to follow their own informed conscience.

Futhermore, I also wanted to point out a common error in Catholic thinking, which is “I only have to believe *de fide *dogmas, the rest is free opinion.” This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church, your informal survey of priests notwithstanding. Lumen Gentium, Humani Generis, Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church par 892 is quite clearly to the contrary.

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

I understand that you cannot be held to a belief that you have not been taught. One must always obey their own conscience in such matters. Yet, one ought to also *inform *one’s conscience. Discussions like this help to inform our consciences.

So, since CCC 892, etc., states that as a Catholic, I am bound to give my religious assent to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, whether such teachings are infallibly defined or not, then it seems prudent for me to educate myself on the teachings of the ordinary magisterium.

As I understand it, the ordinary magisterium is…

MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY. The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible. (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary)
Is the teaching that Mary is the channel of all graces a part of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium? How about her role in the redemption? How about her title Mediatrix and Redemptrix, understood in the sense intended by the magisterium? These are the questions pertinent to the Catholic faithful.

It really ought not to matter to me if in my private and fallible opinion, I believe the magisterium should not have taught something or another as sententia certa of the Catholic Church. If I’m a Bible-believing Christian, Heb 13:17 requires my assent, and it tells me to obey my leaders. I ought to realize that I’m among the governed, the taught Church, and I ought to have the humility to accept the judgement and teaching of the teaching Church.

So, instead of evaluating the merits of the teaching against my own theological perspective based upon little more than my own private lights, I ought to simply evaluate whether or not this teaching has been formally and universally promulgated by the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops in union with him. Then I ought to give my religious assent to such a teaching, attempting to understand it as best I can as promulgated by the authentic magisterium.

 

[Writer]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Writer,

Thank you for posting the link to your essay, and thank you for taking the time to write it. I read it twice just to make sure I was clear on your arguments and the points you raise.

When I have time, I will respond to it here in these forums.

By the way, have you carefully and thoroughly read the following?

Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections

The author seems to directly address nearly all of your concerns.

May God bless you.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

You’re right…that’s a very well written piece. While I agree in large part with the arguments themselves, I disagree with their conclusion. In other words, the foundation the author built for the arguments seems good, I just don’t care for the building he set atop (i.e. the titles themselves). While it is a bit more than the titles themslves which reprsent the obstacle to me (as you can read in my essay online), the greatest part of my concern is less the theology used to support the Marian titles, then it is the use or need for the titles in the first place.

One way to “brutaly simplify” the debate (and, in so doing, pushing lesser arguments to the side for the moment) might be take the position that your perspective pre-supposes the best in the way of understanding, comprehension, and clarity of reason of everyone involved–both Catholics and Protestants. My position sees things in their more realistic nature. The way I see it is that people will declare an equality between Mary and Christ (and I have witnessed this heresy) because of their own poor understanding and the confusing nature of the terms themselves (see item 1 in my essay for more).

While I believe the Catholic Church is The Church on earth, it doesn’t mean that its leaders have not made errors in judgement. A recent example of poor judgement would be seen in the fact that the Church took the advice of pyschologists and those in the mental health field an tried to give “pedophile priests” a fresh start by moving them to new churches where the abuse of the young simply resumed again after a pause. My point is that the adoption of titles in a formal sense as the Fifth Dogma (apparently not necessary the first two-thousand years) can be viewed as a kind of wager. What is the expected outcome? Does the potential adoption of the titles present something so important that its adoption is worth the risk it poses to uneducated Catholics (of which I have met many) and judgemental Protestants? Remember…we’re not talking about entry into a football game here; we’re talking about everlasting life. Why would we want to risk so badly confusing everyone over titles which don’t even make sense to most English speakers? I will also add that the article doesn’t describe the fight before us. One quarter of all US pregnancies end in abortion. We need the assistance of every Christian on the planet to work with us to combat the Culture of Death. I believe that the adoption would lead to spiritual confusion and ecumenical harm, which would then jeopardize our ability to work together.

Good night!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Writer,

You make a good argument. I believe this was exactly the same argument many Catholics made prior to the decree on papal infallibility. Of course, the Church pressed on with their decree just the same, and the so-called ‘Old Catholics’ and others like Hans Kung continue to reject papal infallibility.

However, right now, this teaching about Mary is already Catholic doctrine, even if it is not de fide definita. Those contary to Catholicism know that it is doctrine. As such, it is already a source of misunderstanding and a stumbling block for those eager to place such true doctrine in the way of them assenting to all that the Catholic Church teaches, which is the oath converts are asked to make.

Many Catholic apologists erroneously answer these critics by saying “it isn’t dogma, so you don’t have to believe it.” This is nothing more than compounding error upon error in order to prosyletize, which leads to a convert making the oath to “assent to all the Catholic Church teaches (with some caveats).” Specifically, making exception for any doctrine that is not *de fide definita. *This is “Charles Curran Catholicism” and we really don’t need anymore of this within our Holy Church.

The truth is what sets us free, and since this teaching is *sententia certa, *every Catholic should be properly catechized and prepared to defend this doctrine because it is certain truth. If in making a defense for the Church, I end up denying that which the pope himself teaches, my Protestant friends and family would simply reject the credibility of my opinion on the matter, accepting instead the very words of the pope himself. Instead, while I don’t really give a hoot about it becoming a de fide definita, I suggest it is prudent for Catholics to put all the Catholic cards on the table, and explain the doctrine in precisely the same way that the pope himself does. In that way, the convert will know what he is getting in to when vowing to assent to **all **that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[rubycanoe]

I totally agree with everything writer is saying. I have been a Catholic all my life and I know I do not have to believe these teachings about co-redeemer and mediatrix. I am a true Roman Catholic, and have been told you do not have to say a single Hail Mary to be a very good Catholic all your life, let alone believe in things taught in Marian apparitions. You do not have to believe them at all , they are private. Read the Catechism and the Bible and go to Mass and you will know and God will show you , and your faith will deepen. Jesus is the truth the light and the way, He will show you.
My mom and dad have been Catholic all their life and now my dad believes in Holy Love (which is not from God) and my mom believes in the Divinci code. So people who even have been in the church all there life and go to mass, confession,say the rosary etc… can be very misled by some of the untrue apparitions, so people should NOT be ### promoting #### them. Why promote them? It seems like somebody wants your money, and it isnt God.

 

[Writer]

rubycanoe:

I totally agree with everything writer is saying. I have been a Catholic all my life and I know I do not have to believe these teachings about co-redeemer and mediatrix. I am a true Roman Catholic, and have been told you do not have to say a single Hail Mary to be a very good Catholic all your life, let alone believe in things taught in Marian apparitions. You do not have to believe them at all , they are private. Read the Catechism and the Bible and go to Mass and you will know and God will show you , and your faith will deepen. Jesus is the truth the light and the way, He will show you.
My mom and dad have been Catholic all their life and now my dad believes in Holy Love (which is not from God) and my mom believes in the Divinci code. So people who even have been in the church all there life and go to mass, confession,say the rosary etc… can be very misled by some of the untrue apparitions, so people should NOT be ### promoting #### them. Why promote them? It seems like somebody wants your money, and it isnt God.

Thank you very much, Rubycanoe, for your kind words. I also asked Father Serpa (Ask an Apologist) regarding the Co-Redemptrix issue at an earlier point, and he replied that there was indeed no requirement to refer to Mary in this way. While I am confident in my own grasp of this particular aspect of Marian doctrines, I am interested in hearing an apologist or theologian, with greater expertise than what I bring to the table, briefly discuss the issue Itsjustdave raised concerning sententia certa.

Bottom line, though, I think you and I remain good Catholics whether, or not, we are comfortable with “Co-Redemptrix” or even Hail Mary, which I have no problem with, but I personally am not ready to engage in. One fundamental issue not replied to much on this thread yet is found in the problems “Co-Redemptrix” poses in the English language. The term doesn’t work. Acceptance of it would also imply a belief that most Catholics are remarkably well educated concerning the Scriptures, but I think all too often there is a lot of confusion regarding what they actually believe. (See item one in my online essay.)

• home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/writer/id16.html*

 

[rubycanoe]

hello,
I still agree with what I said about co-Redeemer. But I decided to take my own advice and look in The Bible(The New American Bible) The New Catholic translation, couldnt find anything. I then went to the Catechism of the Catholic Church second edition. I will quote from it page 887 "Mediator/Mediatrix: One who links or reconciles separate or opposing parties. Thus Jesus is the “one mediator between God and the human race” (1 Tm 2:5) Through his sacrificial offering he has become high priest and unique mediator who has gained for us access to God’s saving grace for humanity. Moreover,Mary too is sometimes called Mediatrix in virtue of her cooperation in the saving mission of Christ, who alone is unique mediator between God and humanity. (618,1544,970)

So I stand corrected and apologize on the issue of Mediatrix, this is in the catechism. Also on page 252 … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate,Helper ,Benefactress, and Mediatrix.
She is also called Advocate here. So it seems the Catholic church does approve of Advocate and Mediatrix and I understand better what is being said.
It does NOT say she is co-redeemer anywhere or mediatrix of All graces . Also look under veneration of the saints page 902 Veneration must be clearly distinquished from adoration and worship which are due to God alone.
I still do not believe in this Appariton and believe it is not from God and nowhere could I find anything in the Bible or Catechism about this. A priest did tell me I could go my whole life without ever saying a Hail Mary and be a good Catholic and go straight to Heaven when I die. The main reason I question all these apparitions is because of people in my family who pray the rosary daily, but also pray to medjugore ,course in miracles, new age things, believe in astrology etc… I think some Catholics go too overboard on Mary and do put her above God. This hurts the true Catholics who love Mary and are devoted her but dont worship her as God.
This thread is about CO-Redeemer and the Amsterdam Appartions which have not been approved by the Church. I know there is evil and I think people should be very very careful about who they pray too. I think if you are Catholic for your own safety you should only pray to church approved appartions such as Lourdes and Fatima. What if the church does condemn Medjugore and Amsterdam, think of all the people who have been praying to an evil spirit for years and years!! Better be safe than sorry!!
Just my two cents, and no I am not a theologian by a long shot. I will try and study more on the mediatrix and advocate as these are true Catholic teachings according to the Catechism.

 

[Augustine]

A priest did tell me I could go my whole life without ever saying a Hail Mary and be a good Catholic and go straight to Heaven when I die.

Very true. Yet, we’re better off having as advocate His mother herself, the Virgin Mary, now and at the hour of our death.
This thread is about CO-Redeemer and the Amsterdam Appartions which have not been approved by the Church.
This alone is enough for me to keep distance from it. Plus, some things which have been quoted here don’t pass the smell test…
I think if you are Catholic for your own safety you should only pray to church approved appartions such as Lourdes and Fatima.
Well, nobody prays to an apparition. An approved apparition is just deemed as true, yet even then its revelations are not considered part of the Magisterium.
Just my two cents, and no I am not a theologian by a long shot. I will try and study more on the mediatrix and advocate as these are true Catholic teachings according to the Catechism.
These are more than beautiful teachings, they are wonderful gifts of God, having given us for our spiritual mother His own mother. In return of His love, Mary always leads those who honor her to her Son, Our Lord, and she does this out of love for us, not our merit. Indeed, when she echoes our prayers to her Son, He shower us with Grace.

God bless you.

 

[puzzleannie]

sherilo:

Hello all,

Does anyone have a figure for the total times that Rome has actually approved or sanctioned Marian apparitions compared to the number of times that people have claimed to have seen her?

Thanks,
Sheri

Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima.