Co-Mediatrix?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Meanwhile God could have willed to save us without sending his Only-begotten Son by the virtue of Mary’s ‘Fiat’ (cf. Lk 1: 38). Our heavenly Father does not will that we be passive spectators in his plan of salvation brought to fulfillment strictly by the merits of Christ’s Precious Blood.

But we are passive - we can do nothing to be justified. If we could, Christ would be irrelevant. Christ, not Mary, is our Salvation, Justification & Righteousness. Mary was not crucified for us, nor did she become sin, nor accursed for us. Were she ten thousand times holier & purer than she is, she still could not be any of these things. But Jesus is all of them, & more. Give her a place by His side, & much of the OT typology of Him is falsified. If she is - in effect - our “Saviouress” , then there is no reason not to ordain women; for she cannot be Saviouress without being Priestess. One bad idea spawns another - to stop that, they must be destroyed at the root. BTW, the S-word has been used by a priest who favours defining more ideas about her.​

As for Luke 1.38, she could not have said that but for God’s grace. God uses creatures because they are useless - no way does He need any of them !

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:5, which should be taken as part of the entire passage (1-7), exegete Manuel Miguens has pointed out that this verse should be translated from the Greek to mean “There is one and the same God [for all]; there is also one and the same mediator [for all].” In other words, Christ served as a ransom for all of us. Paul does not mean to tell us that there is numerically one God and mediator,

So how many are there ? Christ does need help, it seems. A ransom =//= mediator; a different word is used. BTW - intercession =//= mediation.​

but rather the love and benevolence of God and our reconciliation with him by the redemptive merits of Christ’s Passion and death is for the entire human race: Jews and Gentiles. The Greek word for “one” used in this verse is ‘heis’ instead of ‘monos’. The latter signifies “only” in the sense of exclusiveness, whereas the former term means “one” in the sameness of function.
In his epistles Paul teaches us that there are three kinds of mediators:

No. This is a perversion of the NT. There is only One Mediator, & nothing can change that - & His Name is not Mary.​

These exaggerations don’t honour her - they make her His enemy; & that is awful

… Jesus wished to perform his first miracle and begin his mission through Mary’s solicitation - a meaningful gesture on our Lord’s part.

How does this not exalt her to a position not hers ? What happened to all those texts that do not exalt her, but correct her ? She is of no importance unless she does His Father’s Will - merely being the mother of Jesus is beside the point: as Augustine points out. Without faith, her child-bearing would have availed her nothing. That faith was not hers to obtain, but God’s alone to give.​

Jesus came to obey His Father - not to please a creature. It is post-Biblical eisegesis to make her the reason for His acts. She is not as important as that.

“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power…”
PAX

Again, that is the theory - but in reality …​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The theology is sound but the word choices are terrible IMO…However the prefixe co seems to mean that Mary and Jesus redeemed mankind together and that Jesus would’ve been powerless without Mary, which to me takes away Jesus Divinity, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The wors choice should be thought out better IMO.

But I’m not certain a fifth dogma is a good idea, however I’m not the Pope to decide these matters anyway.

The word choices show what is meant ​

 

[Joe_5859]

Not “with” ? So why the “co-” ? **In practice, Marian mediation is presented as something she does to save us from Jesus - the emphasis on Christ’s Mediation is invisible in de Montfort’s “True Devotion”. It still sells well - we’re not talking about a book that (unhappily) was a tad OTT but (happily) is no longer read; this is a book that still influences how Catholics think of the BVM & the Mediator. Ask anyone in the Legion of Mary. **​

I know you’re not dissing St. Louis de Montfort.

In John Paul II’s 42Redemptiris Mater he specifically singles out St. Louis de Montfort’s consecration to Jesus through Mary as “as an effective means for Christians to live faithfully their baptismal commitments.”

If the pope is mentioning St. Louis de Montfort’s Marian spirituality by name as one that is worthy of emulation (and, indeed, it is also the only example he mentions), why is it unfortunate that his thought still influences how we think about Mary?

(Incidentally, for the OP, Redemptoris Mater, Part III is all about Mary’s maternal mediation. It’s a good place to start for more info on this teaching.)

 

[Good_Fella]

But we are passive - we can do nothing to be justified. If we could, Christ would be irrelevant. Christ, not Mary, is our Salvation, Justification & Righteousness.

Give her a place by His side, & much of the OT typology of Him is falsified. If she is - in effect - our “Saviouress” , then there is no reason not to ordain women; for she cannot be Saviouress without being Priestess.

As for Luke 1.38, she could not have said that but for God’s grace. God uses creatures because they are useless - no way does He need any of them !

No. This is a perversion of the NT. There is only One Mediator, & nothing can change that - & His Name is not Mary.

How does this not exalt her to a position not hers ? What happened to all those texts that do not exalt her, but correct her ? She is of no importance unless she does His Father’s Will - merely being the mother of Jesus is beside the point: as Augustine points out. Without faith, her child-bearing would have availed her nothing. That faith was not hers to obtain, but God’s alone to give.

Jesus came to obey His Father - not to please a creature. It is post-Biblical eisegesis to make her the reason for His acts. She is not as important as that.

Again, that is the theory - but in reality…​

If you believe Jesus was “punished” in our stead and that his righteousness has been imputed to our account, and that we are not justified by faith and works cooperatively done in God’s grace but by faith alone and irresistible grace alone, our works being nothing but a demonstration of God’s decrees, without any regard for the part human merit has to play in our salvation, then your objections make sense. Unfortunately your unbiblical Protestant notions of justification and salvation prevent you from perceiving the significance of Mary’s intercessory role in God’s plan of salvation and her virtues. We are not passive: faith initially justifies us, but our justification is completed by charitable deeds done in God’s grace (cf. Jas 1:22-25; 2:17, 26; 2:22). Faith cannot be divorced from good works performed in cooperation with God’s sanctifying grace in our justification before God. There can be no such thing as a heavenly reward if human merit - the free faithful response to God’s will out of genuine love - is completely left out of the picture (cf. Heb 6:10; Gal 5:6).

Scripture assures us that Mary was no robot manufactured by God. She says, “Let it be done to me according to your word.” In faith and love she gave her free consent which God honoured and respected, having created her in his image and likeness and given her a free will. God’s almighty power will not contradict his infinite wisdom. The honour showed Mary by the Church is something she deserves, for she freely cooperated with God’s grace in true faith and love for the spiritual benefit of mankind. Her ‘Fiat’ expresses the type of mediatory role she has been blessed with. Mary has not actually saved the world, with or without Christ, she herself was in need of a saviour and divine intervention by her Immaculate Conception, but she has contributed to our salvation that was won and is offered to those who will accept it by Christ alone in his “atoning” act of redemption for all mankind. The Word became flesh by virtue of Mary’s unwavering faith and trust in God. God knew she would willingly conform to his will, and so he chose her to bring the Messiah into the world. Irenaeus (A.D 180) may have believed that if it were not for Mary’s ‘Fiat’, we would not have been “saved by a virgin”, for without our Blessed Mother’s consent the saviour would not have come into the world. Undeniably God wills that everyone be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4), so he chose Mary to be his “handmaid” (cf. Lk 1:38; 45; 11:28). God does not impose his salvation on us, but rather proposes it as an intiative of love. Prompted by love of God we choose to be saved, for we do not want to be separated from the One whom we love.

Thus on account of Mary’s unique righteousness before God in the economy of salvation, the Almighty hears her prayers in heaven. (cf. Jas 5:16). Since the Annunciation, Mary has faithfully served God as part of the royal (common) priesthood of all true believers - male and female - serving and worshipping God in Christ by continuing the priestly functions of his life, death, and resurrection (cf. 1 Pet 2:9). Finally, if we are completely passive in our salvation, then there is categorically no reason for us to work out our salvation “in fear and trembling” by the exercise of our free will - by our own “desire” - in God’s benevolent sanctifying grace (cf. Phil 2:12-13). We may as well infer that Adam and Eve were just as passive as baptized Christians are when they fell from God’s grace.

Jesus expects us to obey the Father by conforming our will to his, not to please ourselves. (cf. Mt. 5:48). If we freely choose to disobey God out of indifference or resentment, we will forfeit our salvation which has been offered by the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death. We will certainly be judged (rewarded or condemned) by the measure of our love of God and neighbour (cf. Mt 22:37-40). In this sense we are “the reason for his acts”. God can reward the unrighteous who fail to conform their will to his if he so pleases, but he won’t in his infinite wisdom.

PAX :harp:

 

[VociMike]

Questions of grammar aside, I also see no benefit, and much potential harm, in advancing these titles. The Church knows who Mary is and what she has done. That should be sufficient.