Co redemptrix dogmatically defined?

[TrueLight]

Exactly.
And with the fact that Jesus gave His authority to Peter and his successors to bind and loose in His name, have you any doubts about Jesus and His mandate to Peter and His Church?

Mandate to Peter, no doubts. The infallibility of all Church teachings… well I’m working on that. Pray for me.

The good news is I’m a lot closer to accepting that than I was a week ago.

Ironically, I sing with a choir at a reformed church and on Good Friday we are singing

Stabat Mater Dolorosa by Poulenc

Stabat mater dolorosa
juxta Crucem lacrimosa,
dum pendebat Filius.

At the Cross her station keeping,
stood the mournful Mother weeping,
close to her son to the last.

So when I sing this, I really feel her agony, but I guess it doesn’t become a “holy” agony in my eyes?

 

[Eric_Peter]

So what really is the church teaching about Co-redemptrix?

Should I really take some trouble to ask my bishop about it?
Because from the Internet research, the answer seems to only come from one source, that is from Dr. Mark Miravalle. Dt. Mark Miravalle is not even a bishop and the followings are the reasons I don’t want to rely on his opinion;

He claimed that it’s already a fifth and final dogma - What authority does he has to claim these? It’s just his personal opinions. Morever, he claimed that “It’s already a dogma, only lack from Papal approval which will be sooner or later”.

He quoted from CCC 488, 489, 494, 502, 511, 964, 967, 968, 969, 970, 973 and say that’s the doctrine of “co-redemptrix” while no where in CCC itself is saying those paragraphs are related to this title.

Petitioning Vatican II to approve this “dogma” via signatures? Magisterium has its own authority and does not take pressure from “petition”. Magisterium is not even a “democracy organization”. Claimed to have signature of over 500 bishops. I personally think this claim alone has done a very great damage to the image of Catholics from non-Catholics, that it is so hard to explain Magisterium does not approve or elevate a doctrine to dogma based on this method.

Also it’s hard to explain to non-Catholics that the church does not take teachings from Dr Mark if the only thing you can find on Internet about “co-redemptrix” is the teaching from him, and no matter whose website or blog you visit, the teaching can be traced back to Dr Mark, quoting from some Bible verse and some official quotes from Vatican II, Popes, here and there and mix it together and say "see, they are talking co-redemptrix.

To add to my own personal confusion, they say:
This was predicted by “Our Lady of All Nations”, the visionary Ida Peerdeman. I know this apparition is approved on 2002, I received a free “bookmark” from my archdiocese’ cathedral, talking about the prayer “who was once Mary”. But, further research from Internet about “co-redemptrix” leads me back to the same visionary, which some also claim that Mary told her that her apparition is the last apparition of the world, and that the lady herself has explained the title “co-redemptrix” and say it will be fifth and final dogma. Is that true? Or is it just a “rumor”?

 

[Eric_Peter]

---

 

[Tomster]

As amply shown many times on this thread, there is no Doctrine of The Catholic Church of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. You can continue to make this false claim from now until doomsday, but that will not change the fact that there is not such Doctrine of The Catholic Church.

I think it is important to continue to refute this false claim. God bless you and thanks to TMC, thirddec, and all of you who help expose the falsehood of this claim. Please continue to come here so that others are not duped into following this specious argument to the detriment of themselves and The Church.

Let’s keep it up until there is an end to this. Mary pray for an end to this specious claim that so damages The Church that your Son founded. Amen.

Fire away Iggy. Abu and others have shown that the Tradition of the Church has always taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces and Co-Redemptrix.

All we have received from you is one denial after another with nothing to back up your claim. Seems like you are just whistling in the dark.

Please shown us from Tradition where the Church has denied these titles of The Blessed Mother. If you can, we might start taking your rants a little more seriously.

Tell me if I am wrong, but it also seems that your quest for ecumenism at all cost has gotten a bit out of line.

 

[Abu]

TrueLight
The infallibility of all Church teachings… well I’m working on that. Pray for me.

You have our prayers.
Not ALL doctrine (teaching of the ordinary Magisterium) is infallible.
From post # 21:
A teaching is dogmatic or doctrinal. There are three categories of teaching:
From Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, Vatican I and Vatican II and the CCC:
The three levels of teaching are:

1. Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2. Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3. Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
   tinyurl.com/2qon2

 

[Abu]

Eric Peter
So what really is the church teaching about Co-redemptrix?

As given by Pope Benedcit XV: “Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” (Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18).

Your confusion and pre-occupation with requests for a dogma might be channeled to the realization that while no dogma has been recommended by a Papal Commission at this time, that Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces are firmly part of Catholic doctrine.

“The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God was associated with the incarnation of the divine word…She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ…shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls…” Again, the meaning of Co-Redemptrix/Mediatrix is tied primarily to the fact of the Incarnation of Christ, that Mary cooperated in bringing the Savior into the world. To deny that is to deny the Bible. (Lumen Gentium, 61).

 

[Ignatius]

There have been ample links, you simply choose to ignore them and cite requests for the declaring as Dogma the title of co-Redemptrix.

The Vatican has formally considered adopting the title “Co-Redemptrix” as doctrine at least twice, and declined both times.

Also Here, once again, is a link to the findings of the Pontifical International Marian Academy:

campus.udayton.edu/mary//reso…ianacademy.htm

As I have stated before, There have been ample links, you simply choose to ignore them.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

*As amply shown many times on this thread, there is no Doctrine of The Catholic Church of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. You can continue to make this false claim from now until doomsday, but that will not change the fact that there is not such Doctrine of The Catholic Church.

I think it is important to continue to refute this false claim. God bless you and thanks to TMC, thirddec, and all of you who help expose the falsehood of this claim. Please continue to come here so that others are not duped into following this specious argument to the detriment of themselves and The Church.

Let’s keep it up until there is an end to this. Mary pray for an end to this specious claim that so damages The Church that your Son founded. Amen.*

All we have received from you is one denial after another with nothing to back up your claim.

Once again you make a false accusation, as anyone who reads back through the posts can see. There have been multiple links posted as to the Official stance Church of The Magisterium of The Catholic Church which rejects the title Co-Redemptrix.

Here, is of the link. campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/internationalmarianacademy.htm.
Hopefully this will clarify the Authentic Teaching of The Catholic Church:

In brief, it says that The twelfth International Mariological Congress, was asked by the Holy See to study the possibility and the opportuneness of a definition of the Marian title of Coredemptrix The commission arrived at the conclusion that The title is ambiguous, The Second Vatican Council did not use the title “Coredemptrix”. In fact, going back to the time of Pope Pius XII, the term “Coredemptrix” has not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents. There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided using it.

It should be clear to everyone, the title of “Co-Redemptrix” cannot be accepted as belonging to the Deposite of Faith.

Mary most Holy,interceded for an end to this specious title which has been rejected repeatedly as unacceptable by The Magisterium of The Catholic Church. Amen
**

 

[Abu]

Ignatius
asked by the Holy See to study the possibility and the opportuneness of a definition of the Marian title of Coredemptrix The commission arrived at the conclusion that The title is ambiguous…It should be clear to everyone, the title of “Co-Redemptrix” cannot be accepted as belonging to the Deposite of Faith.

Such myopia is a deadly affliction, unable to see the wood for the trees.

We have seen in post #173 that the Commission is clearly titled: “Request for the definition of the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate”
The text says: “as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity, as such titles **and the doctrines inherent in them **still require further study.”

How strange that even after all the clarity supplied already, and the affirmation above of the doctrines inherent (implicit in, inbuilt, unquestioning) in the titles used, that there is still such a prejudicial antagonism to the fact of the support for the doctrine by Scripture, numerous great saints and doctors of the early Church, and Popes, to try to claim that it is not doctrinal, even despite Pope Benedict XV’s doctrinal affirmation in an Encyclical Letter:
“Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18

As Fr William G Most affirms, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, 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]

The confusion over dogma as against doctrine seems endless among some.

 

[Ignatius]

Such myopia is a deadly affliction, unable to see the wood for the trees.

How strange that even after all the clarity supplied already, and the affirmation above of the doctrines inherent (implicit in, inbuilt, unquestioning) in the titles used, that there is still such a prejudicial antagonism to the fact of the support for the doctrine by Scripture, numerous great saints and doctors of the early Church, and Popes, to try to claim that it is not doctrinal

Idiological insistance on the title officially declined by The Magisterium of The Catholic Church would seem to be the myopic vision. Where you say there is clarity, but I see specious reasoning to try to justify the ‘Co-Redemptrix’ title that has been rejected.
As anyone who reads back through the posts can see, There have been multiple links posted as to the Official stance Church of The Magisterium of The Catholic Church which rejects the title Co-Redemptrix.

The Authentic Teaching of The Catholic Church from The twelfth International Mariological Congress, is the conclusion that The title is ambiguous, The Second Vatican Council did not use the title “Coredemptrix”. In fact, going back to the time of Pope Pius XII, the term “Co-redemptrix” has in fact not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents dispite your insistance that it has. There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided using it.

It should be clear to everyone, the title of “Co-Redemptrix” cannot be accepted as belonging to the Deposite of Faith. I feel obliged to continue to stand up for the Authentic Teaching of The Catholic Church against this problematic title, to expose the falsehood fo the claims for it, and to pray for an end to it.

May God bless you and watch over you, my brother.

Blessed Mary, most Holy Mother of God, we pray interceded for an end to this false title which has been rejected repeatedly as unacceptable by The Magisterium of The Catholic Church. Amen

 

[Joab_Anias]

I wrote to Rome about this years ago and got a letter back saying it will not be defined as currently understood.

The reply from Rome also referred to an article on the subject in Observatori Romano that should be findable for the position of the Holy See.

Dr. Mark Merivale is a good source as well. My apologies if this is redundant info. Haven’t read the thread.

 

[Ignatius]

I wrote to Rome about this years ago and got a letter back saying it will not be defined as currently understood.

The reply from Rome also referred to an article on the subject in Observatori Romano that should be findable for the position of the Holy See.

Dr. Mark Merivale is a good source as well.

It seems that there are those that will not accept the fact that the title ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is not only not a doctrine of The Church, but has actually been determined to be ambiguous and problematic. No matter how much evidence is presented, they will simply not accept it and choose to post again and again the false notion that it is actually a doctrine of The Church. I this the best course of action is to simply state that truth that it is not a doctrine, but has actually been determined to be ambiguous and problematic.

Please continue to post the truth here in the hope that it will keep some from being lead astray by the false claims of it’s proponents.

 

[Abu]

cephasministry.com/catholic_controversy_flares_over_marian_doctrine.html
“On June 4, 1997, L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, published a brief statement from a theological commission which had studied proposals to define the dogma of the Virgin Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, and Advocate. The commission, which included both Catholic and non-Catholic theologians, recommended against a papal or magisterial definition of the dogmas at this time.”

The Papal Commission looked at all three doctrines together and stated: “such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still require further study.” The study refers to the Request for definition of the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate”

As Fr William G Most affirms, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, 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]

On the doctrine of Co-redemptrix an unassailable papal declaration is: “Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” Pope Benedict XV, **Apostolic Letter **Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18.

There can only be confusion when some are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. It unfortunately results in deception over the three doctrines which are inherent in the titles.
The doctrines are not yet dogmas. Simple.

 

[Joab_Anias]

This is the work done by Dr. Miravalle toward the promulgation of the 5th Marian dogma: MARY Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate

As close as I could find, at the moment, to the answer I received to my petition:

A NEW MARIAN DOGMA?

At the most recent Mariological Congress held at Czestochowa, 18-24 August 1996, a commission was established in response to a request, by the Holy See, which had asked to know the opinion of the scholars present at the Congress on the possibility and the opportuneness of defining a new dogma of faith regarding Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. In recent years, the Holy Father and various dicasteries of the Holy See have received petitions requesting such a definition.

The response of the commission, deliberately brief, was unanimous and precise: it is not opportune to abandon the path marked out by the Second Vatican Council and proceed to the definition of a new dogma, …

On the specific content

The request for a dogmatic definition concentrates on three titles of the Blessed Virgin: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

The Declaration of Czestochowa correctly observes that while each of these titles can be given a content in conformity with the deposit of the faith, nevertheless such “titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways”. This is a serious observation, for, in a doctrinal pronouncement of such weight as a dogmatic definition, it is necessary that the terms should not lend themselves to ambiguous interpretations and that they be understood in a substantially univocal way. For example, the title of Mediatrix has been understood throughout the centuries and is presently understood in notably different ways. It is enough to check recent books on Mariology - from 1987 to the present some 20 manuals have been published - to note that the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is treated by theologians in contrasting ways - in terms of its doctrinal evaluation, the determination of the area in which it is exercised and in comparison with the mediation of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Prescinding from any other consideration, in the case of the mediation of Mary, with respect to many of its aspects one finds oneself before a quaestio disputata, far from that substantial theological unanimity which, in relation to every doctrinal question, is the necessary prelude for proceeding to a dogmatic definition…

I looked through many of the links in this post for the specific language and the Zenit article referred to from the reply which I received to the petition I sent several years ago, but didn’t notice it and don’t have the actual answer handy, as its filed in a safe and out of reach at the moment, or I would quote it for you verbatim.

Perhaps I can reiterate it for all concerned at a later time when I can get into the safe.

To paraphrase and summarize from memory, the reply basically said the terms of the proposed 5th dogma are ambiguous in such a way that it would not be understandable ecumenically.

Thats not to say the proposed dogma is not theologically sound, but simply that its promulgation is not considered prudent by the Holy See at this time.

Here is a list of other pertinent links from: EWTN

 

[Tomster]

As given by Pope Benedcit XV: “Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” (Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 18).

Your confusion and pre-occupation with requests for a dogma might be channeled to the realization that while no dogma has been recommended by a Papal Commission at this time, that Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces are firmly part of Catholic doctrine.

“The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God was associated with the incarnation of the divine word…She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ…shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls…” Again, the meaning of Co-Redemptrix/Mediatrix is tied primarily to the fact of the Incarnation of Christ, that Mary cooperated in bringing the Savior into the world. To deny that is to deny the Bible. (Lumen Gentium, 61).

A simple examination of Denzinger will also go a long way in proving our point.

 

[Tomster]

A simple examination of Denzinger will also go a long way in proving our point.

In additon to this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#Proposed_dogmatic_definition

And, if anyone would like to take the time to scroll up and read the second paragraph, they will see that the title Co-Redemptrix has been approved by the Magisterium of the Church.

Point, set, match, game!

It’s approved!

Roma locuta est!

 

[Tomster]

A simple examination of Denzinger will also go a long way in proving our point.

And, just to nail it down once and for all:

en.wikipedia.org/wikiCo-Redemptrix#Proposed_dogmatic_definition

Scroll all the way to external links and read the answers to seven common objections to the title.

Over and out!

 

[Tomster]

It seems that there are those that will not accept the fact that the title ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is not only not a doctrine of The Church, but has actually been determined to be ambiguous and problematic. No matter how much evidence is presented, they will simply not accept it and choose to post again and again the false notion that it is actually a doctrine of The Church. I this the best course of action is to simply state that truth that it is not a doctrine, but has actually been determined to be ambiguous and problematic.

Please continue to post the truth here in the hope that it will keep some from being lead astray by the false claims of it’s proponents.

This one is especially for you Iggy.

voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

Please read all seven objections and responses.

Your job will be to refute the seven response.

Take your best shot! :knight2:

 

[FCEGM]

I haven’t read very far back in this thread, so forgive me if this has already been posted. In regard to Mary as Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix, the Holy Father in his General Audience on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 had this to say within the context of a longer talk on the wisdom and spirituality of St. Alphonsus Liguori:

Alphonsian spirituality is in fact eminently Christological, centred on Christ and on his Gospel. Meditation on the mystery of the Incarnation and on the Lord’s Passion were often the subject of St Alphonsus’ preaching. In these events, in fact, Redemption is offered to all human beings “in abundance”. And precisely because it is Christological, Alphonsian piety is also exquisitely Marian. Deeply devoted to Mary he illustrates her role in the history of salvation: an associate in the Redemption and Mediatrix of grace, Mother, Advocate and Queen.

In addition, St Alphonsus states that devotion to Mary will be of great comfort to us at the moment of our death. He was convinced that meditation on our eternal destiny, on our call to participate for ever in the beatitude of God, as well as on the tragic possibility of damnation, contributes to living with serenity and dedication and to facing the reality of death, ever preserving full trust in God’s goodness.

 

[Ignatius]

This one is especially for you Iggy.

voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

Take your best shot! :knight2:

The source of doctrine of The Catholic Church is The Magisterium, not the voice of the people. The New York Times is not known for it’s truthfulness and is certainly not a source one should use when trying to determine the Truth of a matter except perhaps as a counter example. You may not have noticed, but the New York times has been know to take partial quotes and twist them to present a position opposite of that of the original people being quoted and so cannot be trusted.

Without an official declaration from The Magisterium (not the NY Times), those arguments are void. As pointed out by others here, The Authentic Teaching of The Catholic Church is the conclusion that The title is ambiguous, this is a serious observation for, in a doctrinal pronouncement, it is necessary that the terms should not lend themselves to ambiguous interpretations and that they be understood in a substantially univocal way. Since

The Second Vatican Council did not use the title “Coredemptrix”. In fact, going back to the time of Pope Pius XII, the term “Co-redemptrix” has in fact not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents dispite your insistance that it has. There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided using it.

It should be clear to everyone, the title of “Co-Redemptrix” cannot be accepted as belonging to the Deposite of Faith. It is essential to continue to stand up for the Authentic Teaching of The Catholic Church against this problematic title, to expose the falsehood fo the claims for it, and to pray for an end to it.

God bless you and watch over you, my brother.

Regina caeli
Regina caeli, laetare, alleluia.
Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia.
Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia.
Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.
Gaude et laetare, Virgo Maria, alleluia.
Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia.
Oremus. Deus, qui per resurrectionem Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi, mundum laetificare dignatus es: praesta, quaesumus; ut per eius Genetricem Virginem Mariam, perpetuae capiamus gaudia vitae. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.