"co-redemptrix"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patricius79

Guest
Hi I need some clarification. Is the document below a valid document. My understanding is that it is okay to see Mary as “co-redemptrix”. But how can that be squared with what is below? I’m getting grilled on this, so I need some help. Thanks.

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, as worthy of honour and veneration as she is, above all creation, did not redeem the human race at all. She participated in the redemption by providing the human flesh, which nature Christ took from her, but she did not redeem the human race with Him. Anything that she merits for us, or that we merit through her intercession, can only be merited because Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice was of infinite value, without which valuable sacrifice we and Mary could merit nothing.

Therefore it may not justly be said that Mary together with Christ has redeemed the human race, because according to justice, only God could do so, by the intrinsic and infinite merit of His actions."

Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918:
 
patricius79 said:
Hi I need some clarification. Is the document below a valid document. My understanding is that it is okay to see Mary as “co-redemptrix”. But how can that be squared with what is below? I’m getting grilled on this, so I need some help. Thanks.

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, as worthy of honour and veneration as she is, above all creation, did not redeem the human race at all. She participated in the redemption by providing the human flesh, which nature Christ took from her, but she did not redeem the human race with Him. Anything that she merits for us, or that we merit through her intercession, can only be merited because Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice was of infinite value, without which valuable sacrifice we and Mary could merit nothing.

Therefore it may not justly be said that Mary together with Christ has redeemed the human race, because according to justice, only God could do so, by the intrinsic and infinite merit of His actions."

Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918:
Click to expand...
I have held “co-redemptrix” to mean that she participated with Him all along, as the statement above claims, but not that she did any of the actual redeeming, as the statement above claims. I don’t see a problem here at all, in fact it’s a good quote to use when the term “co-redemptrix” is misunderstood. At least how I’m reading it.
 
Okay, BookGirl et al, now I found this quotation from the Letter at EWTN (I can’t find the whole text anywhere)
  1. Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182.
    … the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. But if for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin, everyone can see that a holy death should be expected from her, since it is precisely by this gift that the work of the Redemption is effectively and permanently completed in each one … further, there is a most constant belief among the faithful, proved by long experience, that as many as employ the same Virgin as Patron, will not at all perish forever.
“one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed th ehuman race” How does this recognize with the supposed quotation I quote in my start to this thread? (“Therefore it may not justly be said that Mary together with Christ has redeemed the human race”)

This is very confusing, though I trust in Christ and I’m sure there is an answer. Maybe the quotation given by my “opponent” is false.
 
patricius79 said:
Okay, BookGirl et al, now I found this quotation from the Letter at EWTN (I can’t find the whole text anywhere)
  1. Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182.
    … the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. But if for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin, everyone can see that a holy death should be expected from her, since it is precisely by this gift that the work of the Redemption is effectively and permanently completed in each one … further, there is a most constant belief among the faithful, proved by long experience, that as many as employ the same Virgin as Patron, will not at all perish forever.
“one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed th ehuman race” How does this recognize with the supposed quotation I quote in my start to this thread? (“Therefore it may not justly be said that Mary together with Christ has redeemed the human race”)

This is very confusing, though I trust in Christ and I’m sure there is an answer. Maybe the quotation given by my “opponent” is false.
Click to expand...
Wait, first of all, were you offered the above quote from an “opponent” or did you find it yourself? Did you copy both quotes from the same source off of EWTN? Sorry, just not following?
 
And secondly, this title has not been defined as dogma. So . . .
 
Cluny said:
I hope it never is because of the confusion it will undoubtedly cause.
Click to expand...
When you really get down to the logic behind it, I don’t think it’s all that confusing. But, lots of people won’t do that, they’ll just see the term and fly off the handle, so I tend to agree with you.

I’ve been trying to find the official text of this letter and I can’t. I found the section quoted from EWTN and nothing else. I’m not sure where the OP got the first quote?
 
Okay, I searched on the word for word quotation in the OP and it came up with this:
willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/search/label/Co-Redeemer
This is someone’s blog and it looks as if the quote in the first post is actually quoting the author of the blog and not Benedict XV.

None of this is a commentary on what I think of either the blog (which looks at first glance as if it is trying to official Church teaching?) or on Benedict XV. But the two quotes are not from the same person so . . . the mystery is solved, I guess?
 
Ahhhh, the more I look the more this is looking a little fishy. Why didn’t you mention who you quoted? Or didn’t you know?

This link is also on the blog:
thecatholicfaith.us/index.htm
When you go there you’ll see it is “The Case Against Antipope Benedict XV”
The info there is seeking to set up a case against this pope and then consequently against further popes:
So to you, Benedict XV, heretic, schismatic, and forerunner of all the 20th century antipopes, anathema to you. A thousand times anathema!
Click to expand...
If you read the rest of antipope Benedict XV’s writings, you will see that they are filled with the same evil doctrines as Vatican II, such as there being non-Catholic “christians”, the Church not possessing unity because of heretics and schismatics, etc. Logically this means that Benedict XV began the reign of antipopes lasting until the present day. Interestingly enough, the year 1914 was notorious for another reason. Not only was 1914 the year that antipope Benedict XV began his antipapal reign, but also this is the year that World War I broke out. A temporal sign from God that spiritually things are even worse off?
Click to expand...
Pius XI and Pius XII were also not valid popes because they subjected themselves to antipope Benedict XV and never abjured from their schisms to come back into Catholic communion. This means that The 1917 Code of Canon Law is not binding as it was never promulgated by a valid pope. This also means that Fatima is a false apparition.
Click to expand...
And we have here from the blog:
willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/04/crisis-counterfeit-catholic-church.html
a post titled “The Counterfeit Catholic Church”

You get the picture.

I’m curious as to who you were talking to?
 
Hi BookGirl et al,

I was talking with a non-Catholic Christian at a non-Catholic Christian forum. The first post I gave came through this person. The second quote I got from EWTN.

So judging by your research and my own suspicion, it SOUNDS like this first “quotation” from Benedict the 15th is bogus. To review it said:

“Therefore it may not justly be said that Mary together with Christ has redeemed the human race, because according to justice, only God could do so, by the intrinsic and infinite merit of His actions.”

But the true quotation, from EWTN said, “so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race.”
 
Well, again, it’s not a title that has been defined as dogma. But the premise of the title I think is still misunderstood by the person from the blog. Being “co-redemptrix” is still just a way of clarifying how she participated in our redemption. I think, after looking at the blog and getting some context on the original quote, that the blogger is missing that. I have not read the entire text of Benedict’s letter (can’t find it online) but I think it’s pretty likely that, being the pope (which the blogger is contesting), he’s not crediting Mary for Christ’s sacrifice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top