Co-redemptrix

[CompSciGuy]

I went to a Maronite divine liturgy on Wednesday since it was the feast of St. Augustine. After liturgy on Wednesdays they say the litany to the Blessed Mother. I noticed that the line “co-redemptrix of all graces” was whited out. I was wondering if anyone here knows why that might be. Is it because this is a latin term? Is it because the Maronites take issue with this title?

 

[MorEphrem]

I don’t think it was because Maronites take issue with Latin practice unless you attended the Austin parish. It’s strange that it should be whited out - although I could see as to why one who is properly versed in Syriac theology could have…hesitation to employ such a title.

 

[R_C]

The Litaniae Lauretanae never had the title “co-redemptrix of all graces” within it, so I wouldn’t imagine why would the Maronite litany include it…I found what may be the text here and it is in fact a different litany and that title is not present.

I understand, however, that they do believe in Our Lady’s cooperation in Christ’s work of redemption. In fact, one such wonderful example is the Maronite Qolo for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary:

Mary is and Mary Did | Jesus is and Jesus Did

O Mother, who gave life to us | the Son who appeared from you .

God was nourished by you and rested on your breast | God feeds all creatures

Mary is a new ship sustaining the One who is mighty | The One who sustains and rules all creation

Mary bore Him | yet He bears all creation.

She nourished Him with her milk | He nourishes all living creatures.

He dwelt, like an infant, in her womb | He is the Maker of all infants

As for us, we have the witness of the Church Fathers and Doctors:

Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race (Iraeneus)

Death through Eve, life through Mary (Jerome)

Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse. (John Damascene)

Through her, man was redeemed (Bernard of Clarivaux)

That woman (namely Eve), drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one (Mary) brought us back again and bought us. (Bonaventure)

Also, St. Pius X teaches us in Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum about the “uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother” so that “she merited to become the most worthy repairer of the lost world and dispenser of all gifts that the Lord purchased for us”.

He adds:

"It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man.

Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son.

The source, then, is Jesus Christ “of whose fullness we have all received”, “from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity”. But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel; or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head–We mean the neck.

Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man’s salvation, she merited for us de congruo, as they say, what Christ merited de condigno, and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed.

 

[cmodrmac]

Assuming the Blessed Virgin died in the 30 years post the Crucifixion why is there no mention of the Assumption in the early Christian Literature-Our Church honors Mary (we call her St. Mary as well as the Theotokos)

Such a monumental event would be of great significance no?

God’s Peace

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I definitely think it was an astoundingly bad idea to use prayer materials with one part whited out. If you don’t want to use the title fine, but don’t create a scandal by visibly censoring something many Catholics feel strongly about just to save a buck on liturgical materials.

 

[ScottEH]

Assuming the Blessed Virgin died in the 30 years post the Crucifixion why is there no mention of the Assumption in the early Christian Literature-Our Church honors Mary (we call her St. Mary as well as the Theotokos)

Such a monumental event would be of great significance no?

God’s Peace

You’re way off topic.

 

[Genesis315]

I can see why some don’t like the phrase “Co-Redemptrix,” but the truth it is intended to convey seems pretty universally believed and it seems to often be expressed in the praises the Saints have given to Mary.

Here are couple prayers from St. Ephrem:

O Immaculate and wholly-pure Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the world, hope of those who are in despair: You are the joy of the saints; you are the peacemaker between sinners and God; you are the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of the world; you are the consolation of the world, the ransom of slaves, the comfortress of the afflicted. O great Queen, we take refuge in your protection. After God, you are all my hope. We bear the name of your servants; allow not the enemy to drag us to hell. I salute you, O great mediatress of peace between men and God, Mother of Jesus our Lord, who is the love of all men and of God, to whom be honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

O Virgin, most pure, wholly unspotted, O Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the universe, you are above all the saints, the hope of the elect and the joy of all the blessed. It is you who have reconciled us with God. You are the only refuge of sinners and the safe harbor of those who are shipwrecked. You are the consolation of the world, the ransom of captives, the health of the weak, the joy of the afflicted, and the salvation of all. We have recourse to you, and we beseech you to have pity on us. Amen.

Also, St. John Damascene:

Today, the root of Jesse has produced its shoot: she will bring forth a Divine flower for the world. Today, the Creator of all things, God the Word, composes a new book: a book issuing from the heart of his Father and written by the Holy Spirit, Who is the tongue to God. O daughter of King David and Mother of God, the universal King; O Divine and living object whose beauty has charmed God the Creator; your whole soul is completely open to God’s action and attentive to God alone. All your desires are centered only on what merits to be sought and what is worthy of love. You harbor anger only for sin and its author. You will have a life superior to nature - but not for your own sake. For it has not been created for you but has been entirely consecrated to God, who has introduced you into the world to help bring about our salvation in fulfillment of his plan - the Incarnation of his Son and the Divinization of the human race. Your heart will find nourishment in the words of God, like the tree planted near the living waters of the Spirit, like the tree of life that has yielded its fruit in due time - the incarnate God who is the life of all things. Your ears will be ever attentive to the Divine words and the sounds of the harp of the Spirit, through whom the Word has come to take on our flesh. Your nostrils will inhale the fragrance of the Bridegroom, the Divine fragrance with which he scented his humanity. Your lips will savor the words of God and will rejoice in their Divine sweetness. Your most pure heart, free from all stain, will ever see the God of all purity and will experience ardent desire for Him. Your womb will be the abode of the one whom no place can contain. Your milk will provide nourishment for God, in the little Infant Jesus. Your hands will carry God, and your knees will serve as a throne for Him that is more noble than the throne of the Cherubim. Your feet, led by the light of the Divine Law, will follow him along an undeviating course and guide you to the possession of the Beloved.
You are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the city of the living God, made joyous by abundant flowers, the sacred flowers of divine grace. You are all-beautiful and very close to God, above the Cherubim and higher than the Seraphim, right near God Himself!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Assuming the Blessed Virgin died in the 30 years post the Crucifixion why is there no mention of the Assumption in the early Christian Literature-Our Church honors Mary (we call her St. Mary as well as the Theotokos)

Such a monumental event would be of great significance no?

God’s Peace

This is a good question but rather off topic, is it not?

 

[Peter_J]

I went to a Maronite divine liturgy on Wednesday since it was the feast of St. Augustine. After liturgy on Wednesdays they say the litany to the Blessed Mother. I noticed that the line “co-redemptrix of all graces” was whited out. I was wondering if anyone here knows why that might be. Is it because this is a latin term? Is it because the Maronites take issue with this title?

I think this is the first time I’ve heard of that line being in the litany. I checked
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/devotionals/litanies/litany-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary.cfm
and it doesn’t have that line.

 

[TimothyH]

I went to a Maronite divine liturgy on Wednesday since it was the feast of St. Augustine. After liturgy on Wednesdays they say the litany to the Blessed Mother. I noticed that the line “co-redemptrix of all graces” was whited out. I was wondering if anyone here knows why that might be. Is it because this is a latin term? Is it because the Maronites take issue with this title?

Are you sure it said, “co-redemtrix of graces?”

I ask because the title phrase “Co-redemtrix of Graces” doesn’t make sense. Mary can’t be a redemtrix or co-redmentrix of graces because graces are not redeemed, they are mediated. Mankind is redeemed.

You can be a redeemer or co-redemtrix of mankind; Mary is often given the title of Co-redemtrix. You can be a mediator of graces; Mary is often given the title of Mediator of (all) Graces. But you cannot be a redeemer of graces. That doesn’t make sense because graces are not redeemed.

Unless there is something I don’t understand about Maronite theology or spirituality, if that was in the litany then they were right to strike it out.

-Tim-

 

[malphono]

I don’t think it was because Maronites take issue with Latin practice unless you attended the Austin parish. It’s strange that it should be whited out - although I could see as to why one who is properly versed in Syriac theology could have…hesitation to employ such a title.

I’m not sure about the reference to one particular parish, but see below:

The Litaniae Lauretanae never had the title “co-redemptrix of all graces” within it, so I wouldn’t imagine why would the Maronite litany include it… /
R_C;11152067:

I found what may be the text here

and it is in fact a different litany and that title is not present.

Yes, the author (whose positions are generally to tradition, but in this case is more-or-less correct) gives several “litanies” to the Holy Virgin. The original versions, even as he quotes them, do not contain any reference to “co-Redemptrix” since this is a strictly Latin concept, and one not of particularly ancient origin.

I understand, however, that they do believe in Our Lady’s cooperation in Christ’s work of redemption.

Yes, of course we do. This is a recurrent theme in the Syriac Churches. But it’s quite similar in the Alexandrene and Constantinopolitan Churches, too.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think it was because Maronites take issue with Latin practice unless you attended the Austin parish. It’s strange that it should be whited out - although I could see as to why one who is properly versed in Syriac theology could have…hesitation to employ such a title.

I’m not sure about the reference to one particular parish, but see below:

The Litaniae Lauretanae never had the title “co-redemptrix of all graces” within it, so I wouldn’t imagine why would the Maronite litany include it…

There is a “Maronitized” version of it, but just as in the standard Latin version, the subject appellation has never been part of it.

I found what may be the text here and it is in fact a different litany and that title is not present.

Yes, the author (whose positions are generally to tradition, but in this case is more-or-less correct) gives several “litanies” to the Holy Virgin. The original versions, even as he quotes them, do not contain any reference to “co-Redemptrix” since this is a strictly Latin concept, and one not of particularly ancient origin.

There is, however and most unfortunately, a version in English to which this appellation has been added. And as far as I’m concerned, whiting that out was the correct thing to do. It’s not traditional in the least. It’s nothing more than yet another example of creeping neo-latinization.

I understand, however, that they do believe in Our Lady’s cooperation in Christ’s work of redemption.

Of course we do! And it’s not only us. This is a recurrent theme in all of the Syriac Churches. And in fact, it’s quite similar in the Alexandrene and Constantinopolitan Churches, too.

 

[nschmitz10]

Doesn’t Co-redemptrix just mean she is with the Redeemer? Not that she herself is.

 

[malphono]

Doesn’t Co-redemptrix just mean she is with the Redeemer? Not that she herself is.

It seems to me that’s one of the problems with the appellation. the prefix “co-” can mean “subordinate” or “involved with” but it can also mean “mutually” or “jointly” etc.

For example, organizations sometimes have “co-presidents” or “co-chairpeople” for various reasons. This usually means that they alternate: one is president one week and the other the next week, or whatever. Both have “presidential authority” (whatever that means in the particular context). That’s certainly not the case at hand.

But the Holy Virgin is always subordinate to the Redeemer. It’s rather more like Queen Mother: she is a Queen and she is the mother of the King, no question, but she does not reign jointly with Him. Admittedly this probably isn’t the perfect analogy, but it’s the best I could come up with on the spot.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you sure it said, “co-redemtrix of graces?”

I would guess that CompSciGuy meant either “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of all graces”.

Oddly enough, most of the posts on this thread would be valid responses in either case.

 

[CaptFun]

The Redeemer decided to have a co-redemptrix.

She was a bit surprised by that.

But said " … let it be done unto me according to your word …"

and later … " the Lord has done great things for me."

She called (still calls?) herself the Handmaid of the Lord. (She will do the job her master gives her). And He did give her a job. Which continues to this day.

Jesus is the vine. We are the branches. We could do nothing without him. Yet it pleases the vine to HAVE branches that go forth from Him co-participating in His work of redemption.

Mary was His unique creation (each individual is unique … but Mary’s uniqueness in relation to the Trinity is breathtaking and mysterious … but ordained by GOD not somehow achieved by Mary outside of that).

God the Father send an Angel with HIS message that the REDEEMER was finally coming to Earth as was long promised to humankind.

The WORD of God was to become the Son of God and Son of Man … in the womb of this
co-operator in His plan. Who assents to it with her free will.

It’s vain to speculate about the “but God couldda … and God didn’t needta … and she’s not God …” arguments in light of what the Lord DID. He did it HIS way. And HIS way was not to redeem mankind alone. Mankind would participate in His plan individually via covenants God offered and some people would agree and keep the covenants.

As Jesus is the font of all graces (all graces come forth from Him) and He Himself choose to also come forth through Mary … she IS His co-redemptrix and would be even if the Church never bothered to get around to declaring it.

Co- as a prefix in this case does not indicated “equal to” as in co-Champions; but more like co-starring as in … not the star … but an important player that deserves special recognition for playing a critical part.

John 14:12 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.

13 And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Will do. Certainly and faithfully one would think. Greater ones (per His plan)! One of his works was the Redemption of Mankind. Does NO ONE else do that work that He did? The Church does … and He willed it that way. Is not going forth and “baptizing the nations” a form of co-redeeming? Yes it is. Did God need Noah to build an ark to be able to save him and his family? No. But that was His will. Noah kept the covenant. God kept His promise.

I suppose if someone’s faith is so weak that they couldn’t consider Mary at all without at the same time deserting the Trinity … or equating her as the fourth member of it instead of “just” being the first Christian, the first to “accept Jesus into her life as Lord and Saviour”, and “blessed among women” – they might be excused from having a Marian devotion. Such is not mandated by the Church nor stated in the creed.

But they ought not teach contrary to the Church according to their own hazy understanding of a profound teaching – and oppose themselves to the Church Jesus deputized to teach and rule unto His return.

Rest easy. Note that the “Our Father” addresses the first person of the Trinity in a prayer composed by the second person of the Trinity.

The “Hail Mary,” while a prayer of petition asking for INTERCESSION with God through the prayer of the “saint par excellence” was written by the Father (who sent the angel that declared “Hail … FULL of GRACE, the Lord is with thee …), and the Holy Spirit (who spoke through Elizabeth in Luke 1 " … blessed art thou among women … and blessed is the fruit of thy womb …” The next word of the prayer, punctuated by a bow of the head, is the Holy Name of “Jesus.” Son of God but also Son of Man (and Mary!).

“Holy Mary” is not presumptuous but a reiteration of God the Father’s “full of grace” declaration. “Mother of God” is not presumptuous nor fanciful as the Holy Spirit-filled Elizabeth calls Mary " … the mother of My Lord!" “Pray for us, sinners” - indicates Mary’s humanity (and not a claim of deity) but recalls her intercession with her son - who, as can be seen above makes a promise to those who ask things in His name. Elsewhere He teaches about what two believers together will ask He will do. Mary is happy to be
a prayer partner to those who humbly seek her son.

I don’t pretend to know all the aspects of what Mary’s office of co-Redemptrix entails. But the true Church teaches the doctrine. And from the first, when the Lord warns Satan in the garden that the game wasn’t over … In the same moment He promised a redeemer, He promised a “woman” as part of the plan.

Genesis 3:14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and **hers; **He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

WHY does the Lord mention a woman at all? Well he does. The woman’s offspring was Jesus. It was HE that would strike at Satan’s head. But “the woman” co-stars in the verse as part of the God ordained story. Be not troubled.

In fact, with Our Blessed Mother, may we too praise the Lord in what He has done.

Luke 1:"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

 

[TimothyH]

I would guess that CompSciGuy meant either “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of all graces”.

Oddly enough, most of the posts on this thread would be valid responses in either case.

It was a mixture of both.

“Co-redemtrix of graces” doesn’t make sense. Graces aren’t redeemed. I would use whit-out too.

-Tim-

 

[CompSciGuy]

I don’t think it was because Maronites take issue with Latin practice unless you attended the Austin parish. It’s strange that it should be whited out - although I could see as to why one who is properly versed in Syriac theology could have…hesitation to employ such a title.

Yes it was the Austin parish. I attend that one very often.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Are you sure it said, “co-redemtrix of graces?”

I ask because the title phrase “Co-redemtrix of Graces” doesn’t make sense. Mary can’t be a redemtrix or co-redmentrix of graces because graces are not redeemed, they are mediated. Mankind is redeemed.

You can be a redeemer or co-redemtrix of mankind; Mary is often given the title of Co-redemtrix. You can be a mediator of graces; Mary is often given the title of Mediator of (all) Graces. But you cannot be a redeemer of graces. That doesn’t make sense because graces are not redeemed.

Unless there is something I don’t understand about Maronite theology or spirituality, if that was in the litany then they were right to strike it out.

-Tim-

Actually I think it said “Co-redemptrix of the human race.” That occurred to me after the post. I think I had it mixed up with “fountain of all graces” or “mother of all graces” but what I remember is that the line had co-redemptrix in it.

 

[jimmy]

I’m not sure about the reference to one particular parish, but see below:

There is a “Maronitized” version of it, but just as in the standard Latin version, the subject appellation has never been part of it.

Yes, the author (whose positions are generally to tradition, but in this case is more-or-less correct) gives several “litanies” to the Holy Virgin. The original versions, even as he quotes them, do not contain any reference to “co-Redemptrix” since this is a strictly Latin concept, and one not of particularly ancient origin.

There is, however and most unfortunately, a version in English to which this appellation has been added. And as far as I’m concerned, whiting that out was the correct thing to do. It’s not traditional in the least. It’s nothing more than yet another example of creeping neo-latinization. o

Of course we do! And it’s not only us. This is a recurrent theme in all of the Syriac Churches. And in fact, it’s quite similar in the Alexandrene and Constantinopolitan Churches, too.

I would caution though that Maronite texts are often poetic, and to reduce passages like the one RC quoted to a doctrinal statement is to distort the intent and consequently the meaning. Mary is important in Syriac Christianity, but it would be a mistake to make the above statement about a specific doctrine.