Co redemptrix dogmatically defined?

[Abu]

PilgrimToChrist
An Ecumenical Council very much can speak fallibly when it is not defining a 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.

A teaching is dogmatic or doctrinal. This teaching is not a dogma. 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]

Since even a non-infallible doctrine requires the “loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, no dissent may be allowed. However Fr William G Most affirms: “These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible.” [See post #18 and http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm ]. This infallibility would fall under the universality of the present.

 

[RobbyS]

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…

Great answer.

 

[AJV]

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?

I was not speaking of worship but rather of the description of her functions of mediation which eminent Mariologists even before the Council admitted needed theological explanation and to be seen in the light of the whole saints theology otherwise they would be at face-value borderline heretical.

Among authors, I would suggests the Marian works of the following if you can get hold of them - some are available in Latin on Google books either in independent volumes or in the Patrologia (usually the most common titles to search for either in text or in the book search are “De laudibus…”, or “Homilia/Sermones super/de…” or “Mariale”) . Dionysius the Carthusian, Arnold of Bonneval, Bernardine da Sienna, Bernadine di Busti, the English Marians particularly Eadmer and Anselm of Canterbury, Lawerence of Brindisi, and milder Anthony of Padua. The famous Marian doctors Barnard of Clairvaux and Bonaventure. More reserved but nonetheless clear are St. Albert. Most late mediaevel books titled Mariale will contain an exposition on it in some form

An English series which contains many useful items is the Cistercian Fathers series which has translations of the homilies of St. Bernard as well as other ‘Marian’ Cistercians like Amadeus of Lausanne.

If you want a complete bibliography with titles in various languages I would look in English at Miraville’s Co-Redemptrix commentary. The Marian Studies journal also had an article relatively recently with an extensive bibliography - I will try and dig that one out the next time I go to the library. Less useful because quite a bit of the time the citations are not very accurate (or randomly attributed to some Saint) is St. Alphonsus’ popular Glories of Mary which cites many of the authors as he goes through various aspects of Marian devotion. However, it covers a lot of themes of mediaevel writing - for example, the popular image of “two altars”, first popularized by Arnold of Bonneval. In French the book “Maria: études sur la Sainte Vierge” also has a good multilingual bibliography on the subject for works of the Fathers

 

[AJV]

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?

I did not say to downplay the earlier Saints or Fathers but the early Fathers “of the Middle Ages” whose Marian writings can go into devotional excess. If one were not to read them with theological care and keeping in mind the language of devotion and the overall theology of the saints, it would be very difficult.

Popes don’t go about parsing every Saint’s work - that is impossible. They leave that to toher theologians who comment on the Mariology of various authors. For an idea of what I spoke about, I think this quote from Gambero summarizes it

“…some statements could not be submitted to careful analysis without facing the suspicion of heresy…but they can be salvaged by going beyond the limits imposed by strictly theological language…to find a language capable of expressing the ardent love for the Mother of God…”

 

[StrawberryJam]

The very simple answer to your question is no.
I am amazed at how many verbose replies came about to this simple question.
If you had asked why some worry over this matter, that would be far more interesting.
I see no reason for any christian to have a problem with this if it ever were to become dogma.
I do wonder why it never was to begin with.

 

[GraceDK]

In the realm of religious language no one should be called redeemer or anything sounding like it except God himself.
We have problems enough with poetic expressions of devotion to the Virgin Mary that sounds like worship to anyone who is not Catholic, and even causes scandal to many people within the church.
There is one Redeemer, one Mediator between man and God, and ONE person who points to Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit, we need no appeaser between God and man except Christ… Christ has become one of us in all things except sin, and we need no one to be our advocate infront of Him because He is Compassion in person.
He is God, omnipotent, omnipresent… no one understands us like He does.

I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church about Mary, but the devotional language has gone into extremes precisely because its used in the religious realm for a non-divine creature. This can only bring confusion.

I’ll give an example:
“Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our Life our Sweetness and our Hope”.
No one but God is our Life and Hope. There are many such prayers which alienate non-catholics and Catholics alike, or lead people astray because they start to rely more on a creature than on God… thinking they need someone else than Christ to advocate for them or that Jesus cannot sufficiently understand us in our humanity and weakness. Yet HE alone is the one who bore each one of our sins in love up on the cross.

Also, the saying: “Mary lead me to Jesus”, cannot be right. Its the Holy Spirit that reveals Jesus - I think people overlook the Holy Spirit and give His attributes to Mary, which is wrong - and only in Jesus is Mary’s identity revealed anyway.

So please, may we be freed from more confused sayings about Mary. I don’t think she would like it either.

 

[Iotaunum]

I was not speaking of worship but rather of the description of her functions of mediation which eminent Mariologists even before the Council admitted needed theological explanation and to be seen in the light of the whole saints theology otherwise they would be at face-value borderline heretical.

Among authors, I would suggests the Marian works of the following if you can get hold of them - some are available in Latin on Google books either in independent volumes or in the Patrologia (usually the most common titles to search for either in text or in the book search are “De laudibus…”, or “Homilia/Sermones super/de…” or “Mariale”) . Dionysius the Carthusian, Arnold of Bonneval, Bernardine da Sienna, Bernadine di Busti, the English Marians particularly Eadmer and Anselm of Canterbury, Lawerence of Brindisi, and milder Anthony of Padua. The famous Marian doctors Barnard of Clairvaux and Bonaventure. More reserved but nonetheless clear are St. Albert. Most late mediaevel books titled Mariale will contain an exposition on it in some form

An English series which contains many useful items is the Cistercian Fathers series which has translations of the homilies of St. Bernard as well as other ‘Marian’ Cistercians like Amadeus of Lausanne.

If you want a complete bibliography with titles in various languages I would look in English at Miraville’s Co-Redemptrix commentary. The Marian Studies journal also had an article relatively recently with an extensive bibliography - I will try and dig that one out the next time I go to the library. Less useful because quite a bit of the time the citations are not very accurate (or randomly attributed to some Saint) is St. Alphonsus’ popular Glories of Mary which cites many of the authors as he goes through various aspects of Marian devotion. However, it covers a lot of themes of mediaevel writing - for example, the popular image of “two altars”, first popularized by Arnold of Bonneval. In French the book “Maria: études sur la Sainte Vierge” also has a good multilingual bibliography on the subject for works of the Fathers

Thanks for all the recommendations. I will look out for hard copies of some of the books you mention. One I will stay clear of however is Mark Miravalle and his works. I have written to him many times and his replies are enough to make me avoid his material. Besides, I tend to avoid self proclaimed mariologists who know so little about discernment so as to be following numerous false apparitions and messages which are blatantly heretical. It amazes me that someone who purports to be a theologian, let alone mariologist, would be unable to spot a false apparition a mile away. When errors of such a blatant nature are made, I tend to stay clear of the entire work. I won’t go into specifics, but I pray for him. One of the reasons which I asked for references before the 1800’s was so that I could be sure the doctrine was not the idea of the liberals, as they seem to be the ones pushing hardest for it to be made a dogma today. That doesn’t mean its wrong, but when liberals demand something it was usually condemned previously and is against the faith. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Personally I do not think that it is worth petitioning and campaigning so hard for a dogmatic definition, when we are already aware of the importance of our Lad’y role in salvation.

 

[Iotaunum]

The very simple answer to your question is no.
I am amazed at how many verbose replies came about to this simple question.
If you had asked why some worry over this matter, that would be far more interesting.
I see no reason for any christian to have a problem with this if it ever were to become dogma.
I do wonder why it never was to begin with.

I was not asking if it was dogmaticaally defined. As I stated: “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.”

As an aside; You say that you wonder “why it was never to begin with”. I would like to know what your idea of dogma is, given that you describe yourself as “agnostic w/ catholic leanings”. To a Catholic, dogma is of vital importance, as are the dogmatic declarations themselves. Thus many feel that this title should/shouldn’t be dogmatically defined for various reasons. Some due to difficulties and confusion which may be caused as a result think that a dogmatic definition would not be helpful. In saying that others feel that it is a legitimate title and a dogmatic defintion would clear up any confusion. Therefore, I don’t mind more extensive answers since the topic itself has so many divided from both the traditional and liberal persuations.

 

[Iotaunum]

In the realm of religious language no one should be called redeemer or anything sounding like it except God himself.
We have problems enough with poetic expressions of devotion to the Virgin Mary that sounds like worship to anyone who is not Catholic, and even causes scandal to many people within the church.
There is one Redeemer, one Mediator between man and God, and ONE person who points to Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit, we need no appeaser between God and man except Christ… Christ has become one of us in all things except sin, and we need no one to be our advocate infront of Him because He is Compassion in person.
He is God, omnipotent, omnipresent… no one understands us like He does.

I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church about Mary, but the devotional language has gone into extremes precisely because its used in the religious realm for a non-divine creature. This can only bring confusion.

I’ll give an example:
“Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our Life our Sweetness and our Hope”.
No one but God is our Life and Hope. There are many such prayers which alienate non-catholics and Catholics alike, or lead people astray because they start to rely more on a creature than on God… thinking they need someone else than Christ to advocate for them or that Jesus cannot sufficiently understand us in our humanity and weakness. Yet HE alone is the one who bore each one of our sins in love up on the cross.

Also, the saying: “Mary lead me to Jesus”, cannot be right. Its the Holy Spirit that reveals Jesus - I think people overlook the Holy Spirit and give His attributes to Mary, which is wrong - and only in Jesus is Mary’s identity revealed anyway.

So please, may we be freed from more confused sayings about Mary. I don’t think she would like it either.

I’m sorry to say it but you sound like a protestant in places. The Salve Regina was said by many hundreds if not thousands of Popes, Docotors and Saints since it was written. It contains no error and only a misinterpretation would lead to a false belief. Pope Leo XIII orded this prayer to be said after every low Mass in the Latin rite, which still continues in the traditional mass to this day. You confuse the meaning when you interpret this prayer as being in error. St. Alphonsus explains this prayer in “The Glories of Mary” and refutes the attack of the Jansenists. You can read online here:

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm

You do have a valid point when you say: “There is one Redeemer, one Mediator between man and God, and ONE person who points to Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit, we need no appeaser between God and man except Christ” This is biblical, and since Catholicism is the only truly biblical faith, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. There is a perfectly correct and orthodox interpretation of “co redemptrix”, just as there are a thousand ways to misinterpret it and make Mary into some sort of fourth person in the blessed Trinity. Also, we should not be preoccupied with what non catholics will intepret this to mean. We already know from history that they readily misinterpret the Scriptures and Papal encyclicals so much so that they reject the True faith in place of a man made faith. I am not saying I am for a Dogmatic definition, but advocates would hope that it would only clear up the matter and wipe out some of the confusion and misinterpretation bordering on heresy.

 

[Abu]

GraceDK
Also, the saying: “Mary lead me to Jesus”, cannot be right.

How strange – the above prayer is very Scriptural: “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2:5). She has always led anyone who will listen to Jesus. We mediate when we pray for others, and we are counselled to pray to the Saints – why not when the mediator is the Immaculate Mother of God?
The Church teaches infallibly on the Blessed Virgin as Mediatrix of all graces. (See posts #18 and 21).

 

[Ignatius]

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.

My understanding is that the Vatican is actively discouraging the use of this title. Unfortunately in the last 100 years or so English has become the lingua franca of the world. In English the term has heritical connotations. Hopefully soon, this misleading title will be supressed.

 

[GraceDK]

How strange – the above prayer is very Scriptural: “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2:5). She has always led anyone who will listen to Jesus. We mediate when we pray for others, and we are counselled to pray to the Saints – why not when the mediator is the Immaculate Mother of God?
The Church teaches infallibly on the Blessed Virgin as Mediatrix of all graces. (See posts #18 and 21).

How does “do whatever He tells you” ever add up to " Mary led me to Jesus"?
No way can you get away with linking those two statements.
It is only if and when you have faith in Christ already that Mary makes any sense as a secondary person of importance.
Again Scripture is clear; its the Holy Spirit that reveals Christ to us.

As for the second part of your post. I have nothing against the rosary and occasionally asking a saint to pray for me, but there are certain prayers I will not take into my mouth because they - poetically? - use religious language of divine attributes about Mary.
I think this causes both scandal and confusion.

To the above poster. You don’t have to say that you are sorry I sound like a Protestant when it comes to my feelings about this. The funny thing is I used to pray these prayers without problem until one day I was challenged about what I was actually saying.
For me “Protestant” is not a bad word.

 

[dje101]

Coming from a protestant background, I had a hard time with this title when I first heard it on Catholic Radio.

But here is how the host described it:

JESUS ALONE is our one true redeemer. The bible makes that clear and that is EXACTLY what the church teaches.

There is NO ONE like him, and NO ONE can come near what he is nor what he has done for us.

HOWEVER, he could not have done what he did if the Virgin Mary did not agree with the plan of the Lord and allow Jesus to be conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary.

Therefore, though Mary is NOT a/the/any redeemer, she played a significant role in the plan of redemption.

Therefore, she is a Co Redemptrix only because she was willing to be the way for Christ to come into the world to fulfill the Lord’s plan of salvation, which in and of itself is a significant role to play.

Sound right?

 

[Abu]

GraceDK
How does “do whatever He tells you” ever add up to “Mary led me to Jesus"?

If “do whatever He tells you” is not an example of being led by the Blessed Virgin to do what Jesus commands, then language means nothing. Has the Blessed Virgin EVER said or done anything except to lead us to follow her Son?

Dissent is “public opposition to the Magisterium.” The Magisterium has declared the Blessed Virgin as Mediatrix of all graces.

 

[GraceDK]

If “do whatever He tells you” is not an example of being led by the Blessed Virgin to do what Jesus commands, then language means nothing. Has the Blessed Virgin EVER said or done anything except to lead us to follow her Son?

Dissent is “public opposition to the Magisterium.” The Magisterium has declared the Blessed Virgin as Mediatrix of all graces.

Mary doesn’t lead anyone to Jesus/faith in Jesus. The Holy Spirit does. The Word of God is clear on that. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”—John 14:26.

In the Bible we no where read that Mary was the agent cause of giving the grace to someone to believe in the Messiah.
The grace to come to Jesus comes from God and is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.
Without first faith in Jesus nothing will matter … you can believe all you will in creatures but they won’t create you nor save you.

You can say that everyone in the family tree of Jesus had a role in bringing about the possibility of His coming, however, the redeemer language should be reserved for Him alone.

 

[thirddec]

I have read the many wonderfully thought out arguements and discussions in this thread but was dissappointed by only one comment ( in an otherwise well thought out response which i could agree with ). The comment was I think you are a protestant. I see no reason for labeling anyone anything ; it doesn’t add to the discussion and any discussion should be informed by the arguements and evidence cited rather than the source.

Just an additional thought not scriptural or traditional ; just a personal observation.
Christ is in heaven until Judgement day and Mary has no limitations so could Jesus be using Mary as a mediator between him and the world in order to continue to try and help us through the crises present and coming in a way the Holy Spirit could not. This then would make sense out of the Marian Apparitions authenticated.

Plz don’t bite my head off on this one

 

[Iotaunum]

I have read the many wonderfully thought out arguements and discussions in this thread but was dissappointed by only one comment ( in an otherwise well thought out response which i could agree with ). The comment was I think you are a protestant. I see no reason for labeling anyone anything ; it doesn’t add to the discussion and any discussion should be informed by the arguements and evidence cited rather than the source.

Since it is important to be accurate, I must correct you. I never said: “I think you are a protestant.” - What I actually said was: " I’m sorry to say it but you sound like a protestant in places.". The difference is obvious. I never called anyone a protestant, but I merely said said that in some places, such as strong objections about the words of one of the most well known Catholic prayers, recommended and said by popes and saints for centuries, on a scriptural basis, sounds like protestant apologetics. This is all I said, so I think you have misinterpreted. I never intended to label or judge anyone. I merely commented on what was written about the Hail Holy Queen.

 

[Iotaunum]

My understanding is that. Unfortunately in the last 100 years or so English has become the lingua franca of the world. In English the term has heritical connotations. Hopefully soon, this misleading title will be supressed.

It is interesting that you say *“the Vatican is actively discouraging the use of this title”. *Do you have any references for this? Thanks

 

[TrueLight]

In the realm of religious language no one should be called redeemer or anything sounding like it except God himself.
We have problems enough with poetic expressions of devotion to the Virgin Mary that sounds like worship to anyone who is not Catholic, and even causes scandal to many people within the church.
There is one Redeemer, one Mediator between man and God, and ONE person who points to Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit, we need no appeaser between God and man except Christ… Christ has become one of us in all things except sin, and we need no one to be our advocate infront of Him because He is Compassion in person.
He is God, omnipotent, omnipresent… no one understands us like He does.

I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church about Mary, but the devotional language has gone into extremes precisely because its used in the religious realm for a non-divine creature. This can only bring confusion.

I’ll give an example:
“Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our Life our Sweetness and our Hope”.
No one but God is our Life and Hope. There are many such prayers which alienate non-catholics and Catholics alike, or lead people astray because they start to rely more on a creature than on God… thinking they need someone else than Christ to advocate for them or that Jesus cannot sufficiently understand us in our humanity and weakness. Yet HE alone is the one who bore each one of our sins in love up on the cross.

Also, the saying: “Mary lead me to Jesus”, cannot be right. Its the Holy Spirit that reveals Jesus - I think people overlook the Holy Spirit and give His attributes to Mary, which is wrong - and only in Jesus is Mary’s identity revealed anyway.

So please, may we be freed from more confused sayings about Mary. I don’t think she would like it either.

Amen and Amen!

For someone considering conversion, this thread is alarming.

No way will I stand in front of Jesus one day and explain why I put Mary, a human being, on par with God himself.

What is also alarming is that I may join a church under one set of beliefs and then a dogma can be developed, which I totally don’t agree with and then what do I do?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Mary doesn’t lead anyone to Jesus/faith in Jesus. The Holy Spirit does. The Word of God is clear on that. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”—John 14:26.

In the Bible we no where read that Mary was the agent cause of giving the grace to someone to believe in the Messiah.
**The grace to come to Jesus **comes from God and is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.
Without first faith in Jesus nothing will matter … you can believe all you will in creatures but they won’t create you nor save you.

You can say that everyone in the family tree of Jesus had a role in bringing about the possibility of His coming, however, the redeemer language should be reserved for Him alone.

I have a question about this, if you don’t mind me asking you.

The grace to come to Jesus.

What do you mean by this? Do you believe Jesus is God?