"Co-redemptrix"?

[Peter_J]

As many of you probably know, there was a time when Roman Catholics used the English word “worship” to mean dulia. This resulted in some English statements that sound strange to us in the 21th century – statements about “worshiping Mary”.

At some point (middle of the 20th century, I believe; if someone knows when exactly, please fill me in) the translation policy was changed. Now, we only use “worship” to mean latria, and translate dulia with words like “venerate”. Thus we now say that we do not “worship” Mary.

I’m wondering if a change like this is called for today …

As you may or may not know, one of the current controversies concerning Mary is Catholics calling her “co-redemptrix”. But one thing I find highly interesting in this controversy is that many of the Catholics who advocate this title – including many who support the idea of dogmatically defining it, such as Dr. Mark Miravalle – have said that what they mean by “co-redemptrix” is “woman with the redeemer”.

If these people are correct, then wouldn’t it make a lot of sense for us all (or Catholics at least) to agree to simply drop the term “co-redemptrix” and use “woman with the redeemer” instead, which is what we meant all along anyways?

 

[marchoi]

My understanding of “co-redemptrix” is that Mary made the Redemption possible through her “Fiat”. She cooperates perfectly (or as perfectly as humanly possible) with the Redeemer and the Redemption, much more than we could imagine of being. I think the “woman with the redeemer” version seems to water down who Mary is and her importance… a LOT. She isn’t just some “woman with the redeemer.” Think about the fact that she is the Mother of God. She cooperated with God’s will perfectly while on Earth and continues to do so in Heaven. And obviously God wills us to be redeemed, so I would say that if anyone deserved the title of “Co-redemptrix,” it would be Mary.

 

[reen12]

I listened to Dr. Miravalle, on EWTN, one evening, years ago.
Since John Paul II, called the ‘Marian pope,’ did not see fit
to raise Mary to the title of “Co-redemptorix,” one doubts that
this title will ever be bestowed.

In point of fact, if Rome ever titles Mary “Co-redemptorix,”
I rather doubt that the Christian churches will ever come together.
The parousia is more likely to happen first. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

I’m not ‘entitled’ to an opinion, and yet even I’m shocked -
at the suggestion that the mother of Jesus might be endowed with such a title.
I have to note that, reading Saul of Tarsus - how one could
even come up, with such a title, astounds.
I can surely understand why Orthodoxy split off, over the filioque.
And reading of this wish to have Mary so titled, sheds light, as well,
on the further break-up of Christendom, over the last half-millenia.

reen12

 

[Peter_J]

My understanding of “co-redemptrix” is that Mary made the Redemption possible through her “Fiat”. She cooperates perfectly (or as perfectly as humanly possible) with the Redeemer and the Redemption, much more than we could imagine of being. I think the “woman with the redeemer” version seems to water down who Mary is and her importance… a LOT. She isn’t just some “woman with the redeemer.” Think about the fact that she is the Mother of God. She cooperated with God’s will perfectly while on Earth and continues to do so in Heaven. And obviously God wills us to be redeemed, so I would say that if anyone deserved the title of “Co-redemptrix,” it would be Mary.

I’m afraid your post has revealed a little flaw in my thinking. (Thanks a lot. )

In the OP I was kind of lumping together all those Catholics who want to see “Co-redemptrix” defined as a dogma – regardless of whether or not they understand the term to mean “Woman with the Redeemer” or something else. But on closer inspection, these seem to be two very different camps. In fact, let’s say 3 Catholics are talking …

Catholic A says that the term “Co-redemptrix” is interchangeable with “Woman with the redeemer”, and should be dogmatically defined.

Catholic B agrees that “Co-redemptrix” should be dogmatically defined, but adds that “Woman with the redeemer” is a watering down of “Co-redemptrix”.

Catholic C says that “Co-redemptrix” should not be dogmatically defined, and doesn’t think that “Woman with the redeemer” and “Co-redemptrix” are interchangeable.

So, on the surface, Catholic C disagreed with both of Catholic A’s statements, whereas Catholic B disagree with one of Catholic A’s statements.

But on a deeper level, Catholic A and Catholic C are not really that far apart. Catholic C hasn’t said anything in opposition to dogmatically defining the title “Woman with the Redeemer”, which is in fact the substance of what Catholic A wants (but not the substance of what Catholic B wants).

 

[East_and_West]

I’m afraid your post has revealed a little flaw in my thinking. (Thanks a lot. )

In the OP I was kind of lumping together all those Catholics who want to see “Co-redemptrix” defined as a dogma – regardless of whether or not they understand the term to mean “Woman with the Redeemer” or something else. But on closer inspection, these seem to be two very different camps. In fact, let’s say 3 Catholics are talking …

Catholic A says that the term “Co-redemptrix” is interchangeable with “Woman with the redeemer”, and should be dogmatically defined.

Catholic B agrees that “Co-redemptrix” should be dogmatically defined, but adds that “Woman with the redeemer” is a watering down of “Co-redemptrix”.

Catholic C says that “Co-redemptrix” should not be dogmatically defined, and doesn’t think that “Woman with the redeemer” and “Co-redemptrix” are interchangeable.

So, on the surface, Catholic C disagreed with both of Catholic A’s statements, whereas Catholic B disagree with one of Catholic A’s statements.

But on a deeper level, Catholic A and Catholic C are not really that far apart. Catholic C hasn’t said anything in opposition to dogmatically defining the title “Woman with the Redeemer”, which is in fact the substance of what Catholic A wants (but not the substance of what Catholic B wants).

I think that the greatest problem with the dogma is not so much the substance itself or the title but the effect the title will have on the faithful. Most Catholics around the world will not be educated enough understand that it means “woman with the redeemer” and, thus, some will fall into a heresy with some extreme marian devotion, believing that is was mary (in a way equal to christ) that affected our redeption. Others who misunderstand the dogma will think that Mary has been elevated to level near that of Christ and will leave the Church. Maybe its just best that we leave this one alone for now. Why not stick with the titles already given her? I don’t think we are in any danger, right now, of losing our devotion to Mary.

 

[emeraldcoast]

As a non-Catholic, I do get uneasy when I hear the words Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix brought up in regards to Mary.

God Bless!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

While I can understand the reasoning behind the worry, I don’t really accept the reasoning.

Think about this.

Suppose that we were talking about Jesus dying on the cross. (Which He did). Now, suppose that we were meeting with some pagans. These pagans were really cross-phobic. I mean, to them, a cross was so taboo that even the idea of a ‘good person’ (let alone a god) dying on a cross would have been unbelievable to them.

Now. . .do you try to pussyfoot around Jesus’ dying on the cross? Do you try to call the cross a ‘tree’, or even flat out deny there was a cross, all in order to ‘save’ the people by making Jesus ‘accessible’ to them because you are so sure that they ‘can’t handle’ the cross due to their specific cultural conditioning?

Do you distort or ‘hide’ the ‘truth’ so that it can be ‘handled’?

Or do you insist on giving (very lovingly, of course) the ‘unbelievable’ truth, even if you wound up being ostracized or killed for it? Do you assume that because you (or the people around you in a given year, say this year 2008) are not ‘making headway’ with the truth NOW, that this means people will NEVER accept it, so you’d better ‘tailor things down’ and trust that once you’ve got them to accept the ‘truncated’ version, you can then ‘work out’ the details (because after all, is it really so ‘important’ that Christ died on a cross?)

 

[Peter_J]

East and West,

I guess we think a bit alike – I recently started a thread called “Is this heretical?” to talk about how so many Catholics misrepresent the Church’s teaching on Papal Infallibility.

I think that the greatest problem with the dogma is not so much the substance itself or the title but the effect the title will have on the faithful. Most Catholics around the world will not be educated enough understand that it means “woman with the redeemer” and, thus, some will fall into a heresy with some extreme marian devotion, believing that is was mary (in a way equal to christ) that affected our redeption. Others who misunderstand the dogma will think that Mary has been elevated to level near that of Christ and will leave the Church.

I agree – assuming that it is even correct to say the “Co-redemptrix” means “Woman with the Redeemer”, which I’m not 100% convinced of.

Maybe its just best that we leave this one alone for now. Why not stick with the titles already given her? I don’t think we are in any danger, right now, of losing our devotion to Mary.

Makes sense.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’m wondering if a change like this is called for today …

… wouldn’t it make a lot of sense for us all (or Catholics at least) to agree to simply drop the term “co-redemptrix” and use “woman with the redeemer” instead, which is what we meant all along anyways?

Hello Peter;

First, I’m not positive but isn’t it true that this title has not been made a matter of doctrine.

Second, I’m not sure if it would make sense to ban the use of the term because I think a lot would be lost with regard to contemplating the real position of Mary. Of course, she is not adored, and of course she is not divine. But the title (rightly understood as I believe it was intended) acknowledges her unique and singular position in salvation history. To the contrary, any christian woman may be called a “woman with the redeemer” in a certain sense. But only Mary - by her fiat, life, and example - truly participated in a historic way with the plan of salvation in a way no other human being ever will.

Perhaps it would be better if the Church moved forward to specifically address the term instead of retreating from it. Perhaps the Church should explain in greater detail what Catholic theologians intended the term to mean, and what it does not (indeed cannot) mean. I like the language of Lumen Gentium on this point:

III. On the Blessed Virgin and the Church:

1. There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, “for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all”.(298) The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.

1. Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was in this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. she presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.

1. 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.(15*) 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.(16*) 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.(17*)

For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. It knows it through unfailing experience of it and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.

Having this discussion reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once… “If God is your co-pilot… CHANGE SEATS!”

I would add the following to the jest: “Better yet… get of of His mother’s chair and go serve the passengers.”

Peace,
-Robert

 

[imroc]

While I haven’t contemplated this discussion much at all, I just want to say thanks to your guy’s (name removed by moderator)ut and discussion. This is a great thread and I wish to see more deep thought and talk put into it.

Btw, is it me or is the general comments that seem to repeat 1000 times over a bit distractive in alot of threads. I mean no offense to anybody, but in a discussion like this, there’s a certain level of thought and enlightenment put into posts. The general comments with no substance are really a distraction and often pull people into a sort of debate that either gets off subject or becomes some crash course apologetics session with no real fruit.

I dunno, maybe I’m a bit tired from work!? lol

Thanks though, and I will continue to visit this thread.

God Bless

 

[imroc]

BTW, please don’t answer my questions in this thread…please. I don’t want it off subject because of me… dang! I think I already did?.. oops

 

[Peter_J]

Okay, a little follow-up, for the record. There are several websites (including motherofallpeoples.com, fifthmariandogma.com, and voxpopuli.org) that say that “Co-redemptrix literally means ‘woman with the Redeemer’.”

However, I also found a direct quote from Dr. Miravalle, and what he actually said was (after giving a little Latin 101 lesson):

"The etymological meaning of Co- Redemptrix therefore refers to the ‘woman with the Redeemer,’ or more literally: ‘the woman who buys back with.’ "

(Note: That does still raise a couple questions:

• Isn’t that a little like saying “The Spanish word perro means ‘cat’, or more literally ‘dog’.”?
• How much effort have Dr. Miravalle and his associates made to correct those people who are going around saying “Co-redemptrix literally means ‘woman with the Redeemer’.”?)

 

[Claire_from_DE]

As many of you probably know, there was a time when Roman Catholics used the English word “worship” to mean dulia. This resulted in some English statements that sound strange to us in the 21th century – statements about “worshiping Mary”.

At some point (middle of the 20th century, I believe; if someone knows when exactly, please fill me in) the translation policy was changed. Now, we only use “worship” to mean latria, and translate dulia with words like “venerate”. Thus we now say that we do not “worship” Mary.

I’m wondering if a change like this is called for today …

As you may or may not know, one of the current controversies concerning Mary is Catholics calling her “co-redemptrix”. But one thing I find highly interesting in this controversy is that many of the Catholics who advocate this title – including many who support the idea of dogmatically defining it, such as Dr. Mark Miravalle – have said that what they mean by “co-redemptrix” is “woman with the redeemer”.

If these people are correct, then wouldn’t it make a lot of sense for us all (or Catholics at least) to agree to simply drop the term “co-redemptrix” and use “woman with the redeemer” instead, which is what we meant all along anyways?

Your point is a valid one. Today, at least in America, there are co-chairmen of committees, co-pilots of planes, co-ownerships of real estate, etc. So we tend to think the prefix indicates a type of equality.

‘Co-redemptrix’ doesn’t imply equality, however, since those who are not Catholic will perceive that it does, it would be wise for the church not to put a stumbling block in their way.

I don’t think ‘woman with the redeemer’ is at all a satisfactory alternative title.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Peter or Claire (or both):

Would you look at post 7 and tell me your answer in that scenario? It does have a bearing on this topic.

And I’ll give another.

If I say that the word ‘pray’ historically means to ask, and that most Christian writings and teachings and documents (including the Bible) use the word ‘pray’ in that sense (which is true). . .but in the last 50-100 years or so certain groups (mostly Protestant) have used the word pray with the specific connotation that it means 'communication with God alone" and they are ‘confused’ so that when they are reading those documents of the past (including the Bible) and keep insisting that all those usages THEN of ‘pray’ mean not ‘to ask’ as we have taught, but “communication with God alone” which is a relatively new and MAN-MADE CHANGE. . .

Are we obligated to 'stop using the word pray as though it meant ‘to ask’ and are we obligated to ‘give in’ and say, "OK, from now on, we Catholics will use the word ‘pray’ as though it was ‘communication with God alone’, so that we don’t IMPEDE our protestant brethren?

I would say emphatically NO.
The original use of pray as’to ask’ is the correct one. Those who ‘changed it’ are the ones who are obligated to stop using the incorrect use and return to the correct one. IOW, it is THEIR responsibility to adapt to correct teachings, and not OUR responsibility to agree to INCORRECT teachings, as Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

And I’ll give another.

If I say that the word ‘pray’ historically means to ask, and that most Christian writings and teachings and documents (including the Bible) use the word ‘pray’ in that sense (which is true). . .

I think you hit on an important point here: the English word “pray” was once used to mean “ask”. Hence not only would people use “pray” in reference to God, Mary, and other Saints, but also in reference to our fellow man in general (“I pray you bear me henceforth from the noise and rumour of the field, where I may think the remnant of my thoughts in peace, and part of this body and my soul with contemplation and devout desires.” - William Shakespeare. And also “Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you – tripping on the tongue”)

It seems clear that if the usage of “pray” were the same now as it was then, the idea of “praying to Mary” would be less of an issue.

 

[marchoi]

Your point is a valid one. Today, at least in America, there are co-chairmen of committees, co-pilots of planes, co-ownerships of real estate, etc. So we tend to think the prefix indicates a type of equality.

‘Co-redemptrix’ doesn’t imply equality, however, since those who are not Catholic will perceive that it does, it would be wise for the church not to put a stumbling block in their way.

I don’t think ‘woman with the redeemer’ is at all a satisfactory alternative title.

Firstly, I would agree that “woman with the redeemer” is not at all a satisfactory title. That Latin etymology thing… is less than satisfactory. It’s like saying “co-pilot” is “man with the pilot.” Really? “Co-redemptrix” means “woman who plays a role in (who participates in) the redemption alongside another (being Christ).” And I would agree that we tend to think the prefix implies equality.

If we agree, however, that 1) “co-redemptrix” does not put Mary at the level of Christ in terms of Christ being the Redeemer and that 2) Mary certainly played an essential (and necessary) role in the Redemption, I think it is not helpful for the Church to back away from the use of the title simply out of fear of misperceptions.

Specifically, I disagree with: “however, since those who are not Catholic will perceive that it does, it would be wise for the church not to put a stumbling block in their way.” It would not be a stumbling block unless “they” chose to make it one by not trying to figure out what the Church meant by “co-redemptrix.” After all, a lot of Church teachings about Mary can become stumbling blocks - stumbling blocks that might not exist if one were to study what those teachings exactly meant. Remember, the truth cannot change.

PS - Since Redeemer is capitalized, should Co-Redemptrix be capitalized as well…? Or does Co-redemptrix suffice? English majors, anyone?

 

[Nickkname]

As many of you probably know, there was a time when Roman Catholics used the English word “worship” to mean dulia. This resulted in some English statements that sound strange to us in the 21th century – statements about “worshiping Mary”.

At some point (middle of the 20th century, I believe; if someone knows when exactly, please fill me in) the translation policy was changed. Now, we only use “worship” to mean latria, and translate dulia with words like “venerate”. Thus we now say that we do not “worship” Mary.

I’m wondering if a change like this is called for today …

As you may or may not know, one of the current controversies concerning Mary is Catholics calling her “co-redemptrix”. But one thing I find highly interesting in this controversy is that many of the Catholics who advocate this title – including many who support the idea of dogmatically defining it, such as Dr. Mark Miravalle – have said that what they mean by “co-redemptrix” is “woman with the redeemer”.

If these people are correct, then wouldn’t it make a lot of sense for us all (or Catholics at least) to agree to simply drop the term “co-redemptrix” and use “woman with the redeemer” instead, which is what we meant all along anyways?

Co-Redemptrix means Woman with the Redeeemer and Mediatrix means Woman with the Mediator. Now, are we going to drop Mediatrix in favor of Woman with the Mediator? No. So than why drop the title Co-Redemptrix?

 

[marchoi]

Co-Redemptrix means Woman with the Redeeemer and Mediatrix means Woman with the Mediator. Now, are we going to drop Mediatrix in favor of Woman with the Mediator? No. So than why drop the title Co-Redemptrix?

Eh? So “aviatrix” would be “woman with the aviator” and not “female aviator”? I’m confused now… Doesn’t the “-trix” ending usually serve as the feminine ending (for a masculine “tor” ending) with no other twists in meaning?

 

[Peter_J]

Eh? So “aviatrix” would be “woman with the aviator” and not “female aviator”?

 

[Peter_J]

marchoi et al,

To be honest, I’m starting to think that the whole “CR = WWTR” thing is just the product of some Catholic(s) who were a bit over-eager to convince people that a new dogma would be a good idea. (I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying that.)

I guess a more interesting question is what Tantum Ergo brought up, i.e. whether to keep using the language of “praying to” Mary and the Saints, versus switching to … something else.

BTW does anyone happen to know anything about the Latin equivalent of “praying to”? Also, are all the usages of “pray” that we see in English translations of the Bible all translations the same Greek word, or what?