Co redemptrix dogmatically defined?

[Iotaunum]

Firstly I want to make it clear that I am not asking whether or not it is a dogma that Our Lady is Co redemptrix: I know that it is not yet dogmatically defined. However, there is much speculation that it will eventually be, and there are also an abundance of errors regarding the title and its meaning.

Numerous liberals and conservatives / traditionalists promote the dogmatic definition of the title. On the one hand, which concerns me, the liberals make this title mean something which is entirely incorrect, and even heresy - namely; that Mary is also a redeemer with Christ, that Mary is equal to Christ etc. If they do not admit this they teach it at least implicitly. This is clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, but more and more mainstream Catholics have mentioned the title “co-redemptrix” to me recently and when I asked them what it meant, they give erroneous answers, like the above, and even told me that their priests and people who lead Bible study groups in the chapel taught them this. I would look at this as a one off liberal priest /instructor only more and more people seem to be thinking this way, which is dangerous. It leads people to believe in heretical doctrines which Our Lady would not want, and for protestants to see justification in their accusations that we Catholics put Mary on the same level as Christ, which we know is absurd.

But no, the Church teaches infallibly that there is one mediator, and one redeemer: Jesus Christ. Our Lady’s role is one of intercession and co-operation. Thus if the title is legitimate it would have to be understood along these lines. That our Lady co-operates in the work of redemption and that many have been saved due to her intercession, there can be no question.

I have done considerable research and study on Catholic teachings and dogmas, but I admit that I haven’t studied the appropriateness of this particular title and its meaning that much. Does anyone know of any Papal allocutions or even addresses etc which support the use of this title before the 1800’s , or the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church in this regard.? I think that whatever happens, this will have to be defined soon, simply because there is so much error circulating which leads people to the wrong conclusion at both ends of the spectrum.

 

[centurionguard]

Firstly I want to make it clear that I am not asking whether or not it is a dogma that Our Lady is Co redemptrix: I know that it is not yet dogmatically defined. However, there is much speculation that it will eventually be, and there are also an abundance of errors regarding the title and its meaning.

Numerous liberals and conservatives / traditionalists promote the dogmatic definition of the title. On the one hand, which concerns me, the liberals make this title mean something which is entirely incorrect, and even heresy - namely; that Mary is also a redeemer with Christ, that Mary is equal to Christ etc. If they do not admit this they teach it at least implicitly. This is clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, but more and more mainstream Catholics have mentioned the title “co-redemptrix” to me recently and when I asked them what it meant, they give erroneous answers, like the above, and even told me that their priests and people who lead Bible study groups in the chapel taught them this. I would look at this as a one off liberal priest /instructor only more and more people seem to be thinking this way, which is dangerous. It leads people to believe in heretical doctrines which Our Lady would not want, and for protestants to see justification in their accusations that we Catholics put Mary on the same level as Christ, which we know is absurd.

But no, the Church teaches infallibly that there is one mediator, and one redeemer: Jesus Christ. Our Lady’s role is one of intercession and co-operation. Thus if the title is legitimate it would have to be understood along these lines. That our Lady co-operates in the work of redemption and that many have been saved due to her intercession, there can be no question.

I have done considerable research and study on Catholic teachings and dogmas, but I admit that I haven’t studied the appropriateness of this particular title and its meaning that much. Does anyone know of any Papal allocutions or even addresses etc which support the use of this title before the 1800’s , or the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church in this regard.? I think that whatever happens, this will have to be defined soon, simply because there is so much error circulating which leads people to the wrong conclusion at both ends of the spectrum.

No Pope has officially made an infallible declaration from the Church stating that the Blessed Virgin Mary IS Co Redemptrix.

However; this not to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary doesn’t hold the spiritual profound qualities as: CO-REDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX AND ADVOCATE!

At best the very least we can do is sustain the teachings of all the Popes and Saints in what they have taught and given to us in dogma on our Blessed Holy Mother of God.

Personally; I see no problem of her being a Co-Redemptrix. She does live, reign, a works directly along side her Son Jesus in the profound mystery of the Holy Trinity.

religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm

Peace
Chris

 

[AJV]

Firstly I want to make it clear that I am not asking whether or not it is a dogma that Our Lady is Co redemptrix: I know that it is not yet dogmatically defined. However, there is much speculation that it will eventually be, and there are also an abundance of errors regarding the title and its meaning.

Numerous liberals and conservatives / traditionalists promote the dogmatic definition of the title. On the one hand, which concerns me, the liberals make this title mean something which is entirely incorrect, and even heresy - namely; that Mary is also a redeemer with Christ, that Mary is equal to Christ etc. If they do not admit this they teach it at least implicitly. This is clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, but more and more mainstream Catholics have mentioned the title “co-redemptrix” to me recently and when I asked them what it meant, they give erroneous answers, like the above, and even told me that their priests and people who lead Bible study groups in the chapel taught them this. I would look at this as a one off liberal priest /instructor only more and more people seem to be thinking this way, which is dangerous. It leads people to believe in heretical doctrines which Our Lady would not want, and for protestants to see justification in their accusations that we Catholics put Mary on the same level as Christ, which we know is absurd.

But no, the Church teaches infallibly that there is one mediator, and one redeemer: Jesus Christ. Our Lady’s role is one of intercession and co-operation. Thus if the title is legitimate it would have to be understood along these lines. That our Lady co-operates in the work of redemption and that many have been saved due to her intercession, there can be no question.

I have done considerable research and study on Catholic teachings and dogmas, but I admit that I haven’t studied the appropriateness of this particular title and its meaning that much. Does anyone know of any Papal allocutions or even addresses etc which support the use of this title before the 1800’s , or the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church in this regard.? I think that whatever happens, this will have to be defined soon, simply because there is so much error circulating which leads people to the wrong conclusion at both ends of the spectrum.

Regarding the saints, I would be careful since there is a tendency among some of the earlier saints and fathers of the High Middle Ages to amplify the Mary mediation such that instead of a subordinate (however unique) mediation under Christ, it can appear as if the two are almost equal.

Do you read Latin or are you only looking at translated texts?

 

[centurionguard]

Regarding the saints, I would be careful since there is a tendency among some of the earlier saints and fathers of the High Middle Ages to amplify the Mary mediation such that instead of a subordinate (however unique) mediation under Christ, it can appear as if the two are almost equal.

Do you read Latin or are you only looking at translated texts?

In reference to your statement of downplaying earlier Saints and fathers of the Church on their views on the Virgin Mary.

Has any Pope ever officially criticized the Saints and Early Fathers views about the Blessed Virgin Mary?

What your stating here could be seen as over generalizing to the point of discrediting what the early Saints and Fathers of the Church were speaking about.

We humans after all are little children when it comes to trying to understand the great mystery of Faith about God Himself.

Very little is written about the Virgin Mary other than mostly what was passed down by the apostles and saints.

Saint Bernard de Clairvaux said that the better part of the Virgin Mary whom herself asked Jesus to keep the identity of her Mystery hidden in God the Father.

That part will always remain in eternity. But there leaves little doubt to me in her Immaculate being she is a very powerful force and Advocate on behalf of her Son Jesus.

Everything she does in impeccable humility and love is for her Son Jesus only.

Peace
Chris

 

[TMC]

Firstly I want to make it clear that I am not asking whether or not it is a dogma that Our Lady is Co redemptrix: I know that it is not yet dogmatically defined. However, there is much speculation that it will eventually be, and there are also an abundance of errors regarding the title and its meaning.

Numerous liberals and conservatives / traditionalists promote the dogmatic definition of the title. On the one hand, which concerns me, the liberals make this title mean something which is entirely incorrect, and even heresy - namely; that Mary is also a redeemer with Christ, that Mary is equal to Christ etc. If they do not admit this they teach it at least implicitly. This is clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, but more and more mainstream Catholics have mentioned the title “co-redemptrix” to me recently and when I asked them what it meant, they give erroneous answers, like the above, and even told me that their priests and people who lead Bible study groups in the chapel taught them this. I would look at this as a one off liberal priest /instructor only more and more people seem to be thinking this way, which is dangerous. It leads people to believe in heretical doctrines which Our Lady would not want, and for protestants to see justification in their accusations that we Catholics put Mary on the same level as Christ, which we know is absurd.

But no, the Church teaches infallibly that there is one mediator, and one redeemer: Jesus Christ. Our Lady’s role is one of intercession and co-operation. Thus if the title is legitimate it would have to be understood along these lines. That our Lady co-operates in the work of redemption and that many have been saved due to her intercession, there can be no question.

I have done considerable research and study on Catholic teachings and dogmas, but I admit that I haven’t studied the appropriateness of this particular title and its meaning that much. Does anyone know of any Papal allocutions or even addresses etc which support the use of this title before the 1800’s , or the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church in this regard.? I think that whatever happens, this will have to be defined soon, simply because there is so much error circulating which leads people to the wrong conclusion at both ends of the spectrum.

The Vatican has formally taken up the issue twice, and twice declined to approve the title. The Vatican cited the same concerns that you do - that the title is too easily misinterpreted and therefore leads too many into error.

 

[thirddec]

it is a dangerous and un needed doctrine that is so easy to become heretical. Yes she is an important example to us all . Just as Mary had to submit her will and accept to become Gods handmaid we have to accept him to. If we make her a co-redemtrix that places her on par with Christ - how would that tear at the heart of the True Virgin. And next thing we would soon be elevated to co-redemtrix of our own souls as of course we have a choice to accept or reject God. We are redeemed to God through Christ and its through Gods graces we are saved. Anything else is heretical and an abomination.

The Virgin kneels at the foot of the cross and calls us to the true redeemer.

Love and Respect

 

[Iotaunum]

Regarding the saints, I would be careful since there is a tendency among some of the earlier saints and fathers of the High Middle Ages to amplify the Mary mediation such that instead of a subordinate (however unique) mediation under Christ, it can appear as if the two are almost equal.

Do you read Latin or are you only looking at translated texts?

I know that the saints and doctors of the Church are not infallible, and some can be misunderstood. Many refer to the “worship” of Mary, when in fact at that time used in the correct context they meant veneration, but this could easily be mistaken today. Yes I read Latin, what texts did you have in mind?

 

[Iotaunum]

The Vatican has formally taken up the issue twice, and twice declined to approve the title. The Vatican cited the same concerns that you do - that the title is too easily misinterpreted and therefore leads too many into error.

Do you have any references? I would be interested in investigating this further. Was the issue taken up by a commission in secret, or was it formally proposed? If it is the case that it was rejected then I think it was a prudent decision given how easily it can be misinterpreted. Most in the traditional movement do not use the title in my personal experience, but it is becoming more prevelant in traditional circles as well, which is why I wanted to find out more about the historical background or viability of a possible definition.

 

[TMC]

Do you have any references? I would be interested in investigating this further. Was the issue taken up by a commission in secret, or was it formally proposed? If it is the case that it was rejected then I think it was a prudent decision given how easily it can be misinterpreted. Most in the traditional movement do not use the title in my personal experience, but it is becoming more prevelant in traditional circles as well, which is why I wanted to find out more about the historical background or viability of a possible definition.

Here is a link to the statement from the 1996 pontifical commissionl:

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/internationalmarianacademy.htm

If you use the forum search function and serach on “redemptrix” you will find a couple of threads with a little more information (along with a lot of arguments).

 

[Monica4316]

I read that the title “co-redemptrix” is Latin, not English, and when you translate it to English it does not mean “co-redeemer”, but rather “woman with the Redeemer” it only sounds questionable if you read it as if it was in English

Pope Benedict actually commented on this title… he said that there is nothing theologically wrong with it, but that since the title is misleading (as in the example given above ) - it might not be the best idea to make it a dogma. (because many people would think that it means something other than what it actually means). Pope Benedict said, other titles of Mary describe the SAME concept but better, so it’s a good idea to just stay with those.

Mary’s cooperation in our redemption lies in that she is Jesus’ Mother and was with Him when He was on the Cross…

 

[MarkThompson]

I read that the title “co-redemptrix” is Latin, not English, and when you translate it to English it does not mean “co-redeemer”, but rather “woman with the Redeemer” it only sounds questionable if you read it as if it was in English

That doesn’t seem right to me. The root redemp- followed by the feminine suffix of agency -trix definitely implies that a woman herself is engaged in the act of redeeming, just like an executrix is a woman who executes (i.e. a female executor of an estate), or an aviatrix is a woman who “aviates” (i.e. a female aviator). -trix words are always the feminine equivalents of -tor, so “redemptrix” is the feminine equivalent of “redemptor,” which in English we have as “redeemer.” “Redemptrix” means “a (female) redeemer.” And the prefix co- from (cum) certainly implies that she does it “with” somebody," but only in the same sense that a “co-author” writes with somebody, or a “co-worker” works with somebody. We don’t call someone a co-author who never wrote a word, but just helped the real author get his book published.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

If it is dogmatically defined, then the dogmatic definition should be clear so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Of course, that won’t stop most people. How many people use the phrase “Immaculate Conception” to refer to the birth of Christ or any supposed conception without coition rather than Mary being preserved from Original Sin.

Mary is clearly Co-Redemptrix. Scripture is pretty clear about that. But, on the other hand, it certainly does put off Protestants and Orthodox. I support the promulgation of the Fifth Marian Dogma but I also trust the Church’s prudential judgment on this. People were also worried about the Assumption and they still defined that.

 

[thirddec]

Can anyone please post the list of the last ten actually Vatican Approved Marian apparitions and a link to a trusted impartial site where I can check as it can be difficult to be sure given the new pressure group politics that seems to be emerging and the often deceptive propaganda that on investigation turns out to be just so.

 

[sweetchuck]

The Vatican has formally taken up the issue twice, and twice declined to approve the title. The Vatican cited the same concerns that you do - that the title is too easily misinterpreted and therefore leads too many into error.

When you say “the Vatican,” you must mean the International Pontifical Marian Academy (PAMI), a commission comprised of many theologians, not all of whom are Catholic.

We should not use the term “the Vatican” so loosely, as though some Apostolic weight were given to such pronouncements. “The Vatican” has in no wise spoken thusly; in fact, when Peter has spoken, he has done so in favor of such language.

 

[TMC]

When you say “the Vatican,” you must mean the International Pontifical Marian Academy (PAMI), a commission comprised of many theologians, not all of whom are Catholic.

We should not use the term “the Vatican” so loosely, as though some Apostolic weight were given to such pronouncements. “The Vatican” has in no wise spoken thusly; in fact, when Peter has spoken, he has done so in favor of such language.

This was the Pope’s commission (hence the term “Pontifical”) and the Church took its advice. So I think it fair to say it the Vatican has decided against officially adopting this title for Mary.

 

[Iotaunum]

Thanks to all for the responses so far. There are people on both sides of the issue , whether liberal or traditional. The issue, as far as I can recall, was brought up at Vatican II and even a few bishops petitioned for a dogmatic declaration. I don’t think the issue got to the coucil floor however.

It seems to me after more research that the Church will use this as a devotional title, but may not use it as part of a dogmatic definition because such definitions tend to use the clearest language, and this may be misinterpreted readily. The church has emphasised our Lady’s role in salvation, so it is not as though we need a dogmatic definition, but I do think we need some clarification or condemnation of errors for those who misinterpret and border on heresy.

 

[seess]

I know that the saints and doctors of the Church are not infallible, and some can be misunderstood. Many refer to ther4 “worship” of Mary, when in fact at that time used in the correct context they meant veneration, but this could easily be mistaken today. Yes I read Latin, what texts did you have in mind?

Yes, You are right. I have similar opinion. I am working on it.

 

[Abu]

There is no dogma on Mary as co-redemptrix, but as Fr William G Most affirms, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium (LG) 62 (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) taught that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces by the footnote which gave the teaching of Leo XIII, St Pius X, and Pius XII, all of whom so taught. The Council would (and could) not have so done if this was merely the expression of personal opinions by these Popes. The Council teaches that she was eternally united with Jesus in the decree for the Incarnation, and thus from eternity before time began and through all eternity (59). There are twelve Papal Texts speaking of Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces. [See *Our Father’s Plan, 1988, Trinity Communications, p 92-93. ]

Lumen Gentium (62) teaches that the maternity of Mary in the order of Grace lasts until the eternal fulfilment of ALL the elect; (69) until ALL families of people, whether Christian or whether they still do not know the Saviour, become one People of God. Every Grace, therefore, comes to us from Christ through Mary as an essentially secondary and subordinate channel of His redemptive power – as His design for our salvation. This does not mean that we HAVE to ask Mary to intercede for us. Just as the pagan may be saved WITHOUT knowing Christ and His teaching or His Church specifically.

Vatican II has, more than any other Ecumenical Council, shown Mary’s indissoluble bond with Christ and His Church, Pope Paul VI himself asking that the Church, henceforth, use frequently Mary’s title of “Mother of the Church”. At the same time the Council alerted us to an exaggeration of Marian devotion that can occur if private Marian revelations are interpreted apart from the Church, if devotion becomes superstition, or if Mary is separated from Christ. It can be justly called the Marian Council.

In *Redemptoris Mater *(Mother of the Redeemer), 1987. John Paul II teaches that Jesus prepared His Mother to become for ALL people their "Mother in the order of Grace (39); this is because “Mary is united by a close and indissoluble bond” to Christ. (41). Thus Mary embraces each and every one in the Church, and embraces each and every one through the Church (47). This is from the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Council would (and could) not have so done if this was merely the expression of personal opinions by these Popes.

I just want to clarify something. Although I firmly believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces and that this should be dogmatically defined, this is not infallibly stated by the Second Vatican Council. An Ecumenical Council very much can speak fallibly when it is not defining a dogma (and the fact that the English title of “Lumen Gentium” is “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” doesn’t make the entire document one giant dogmatic definition, it simply means that it is commenting on dogma). You are suggesting that “Mediatrix” is an infallibly proclaimed title of Our Lady because it was used by the Second Vatican Council, this is false. We still need the Fifth Marian Dogma to be dogmatically defined and proclaimed. Your statement is correct as long as the parenthetical remark “and could” is removed.
Lumen Gentium:

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

 

[sweetchuck]

This was the Pope’s commission (hence the term “Pontifical”) and the Church took its advice. So I think it fair to say it the Vatican has decided against officially adopting this title for Mary.

Au contraire, that is a conclusion to which one may not jump. In fact, usually when a pontifical academy reaches a conclusion to which the Pope may elect to yield magisterial weight, he will do so in a post-synodal pronouncement. I challenge you to find such a statement from John Paul II after that council affirming those conclusions from the academy.

“The Vatican” has not decided on this, and one may not take such theological liberties as to project this non-magisterial document onto the lips of the Pope himself.