Co-redemptrix

[malphono]

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.

Yes, of course. I know that full well. Now, whether that quote was intended as a doctrinal statement about the appellation in the thread title I really don’t know, but I do know that I did not take it as such.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew it couldn’t be right.

Part of the belief in Mary as the co-redemtrix is the reality of who she was vs what I call the greeting-card view of Mary.

Mary is often portrayed as demure, even sheepish, helplessly sobbing under the cross while her son dies. The masterpiece sculpture Pieta by Micheelangelo is a perfect example. While it is a masterpiece and has moved me to tears, it is not the whole picture of Mary.

Mary is a Jewish mother. Anyone who knows Jewish mothers know that they are anything but docile and helpless. They are fierce women, and they are absolutely inseperable from their sons.

Read the story of the mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Her sons were being tortured and killed in front of her eyes one by one for not eating pork. Instead of crying helplessly, she encourages them to remain faithful to God’s law, to accept death rather than break God’s law, confident that they will be raised from the dead If they do so.

But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers." (1 Macabees 7:27-29)

This is the perfect image of a Jewish mother. This is the perfect image of Mary!!!

Mary was with her son through his entire ministry. Mary encourages him to stay faithhful to his mission as he cries for Lazarus, as he is accused by the authorities, as he is condemned to die, scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and dies. Mary is there the whole time, encouraging her son to be faithful to his mission.

Mary was at the foot of the cross but she wasn’t sobbing. She was encouraging her son to accept death, just like the mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7, confident that she would get him back again.

The encouragement she gave her son to stay faithful to the Father through her own anguish is why we call her the co-redemtrix. She shared in his mission, encouraging him, and even daring to tell him that he is to start his ministry (do whatever he tells you) at the wedding at Cana when he is reluctant and says that his time has not yet come.

She is not a pitiful and helpless peasant girl but a fiercly proud mother and sharer in her sons success. That is why Mary is the Co-redemtrix.

-Tim-

 

[CaptFun]

Thanks for the clarification. I knew it couldn’t be right.

Part of the belief in Mary as the co-redemtrix is the reality of who she was vs what I call the greeting-card view of Mary.

Mary is often portrayed as demure, even sheepish, helplessly sobbing under the cross while her son dies. The masterpiece sculpture Pieta by Micheelangelo is a perfect example. While it is a masterpiece and has moved me to tears, it is not the whole picture of Mary.

Mary is a Jewish mother. Anyone who knows Jewish mothers know that they are anything but docile and helpless. They are fierce women, and they are absolutely inseperable from their sons.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aoxvhOU2Auk/TP71iEi5CZI/AAAAAAAAAos/ar_FliYHJuY/s400/MaryonSerpent3.JPG

Read the story of the mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Her sons were being tortured and killed in front of her eyes one by one for not eating pork. Instead of crying helplessly, she encourages them to remain faithful to God’s law, to accept death rather than break God’s law, confident that they will be raised from the dead If they do so.

But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers." (1 Macabees 7:27-29)

This is the perfect image of a Jewish mother. This is the perfect image of Mary!!!

Mary was with her son through his entire ministry. Mary encourages him to stay faithhful to his mission as he cries for Lazarus, as he is accused by the authorities, as he is condemned to die, scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and dies. Mary is there the whole time, encouraging her son to be faithful to his mission.

Mary was at the foot of the cross but she wasn’t sobbing. She was encouraging her son to accept death, just like the mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7, confident that she would get him back again.

The encouragement she gave her son to stay faithful to the Father through her own anguish is why we call her the co-redemtrix. She shared in his mission, encouraging him, and even daring to tell him that he is to start his ministry (do whatever he tells you) at the wedding at Cana when he is reluctant and says that his time has not yet come.

She is not a pitiful and helpless peasant girl but a fiercly proud mother and sharer in her sons success. That is why Mary is the Co-redemtrix.

-Tim-

Thanks VERY much Tim.

http://www.testimoniesofheavenandhe...dern-Baby-Jesus-Smiling-Picture-With-Mary.jpg

I do like greeting card Mary too though. But you are right. She was not just about rejoicing and being passive. She is seen taking journeys, helping people, looking out for people, speaking awesome words of soaring praise for God’s mercy and gifts, but also of His justice and judgement. That reading from Maccabees is awesome. When applied to Mary at the foot of the cross, it is as if she seconds her son’s motion … opening not her mouth … but joining in the sacrifice of offering her son back to the Father in union with Jesus (with an interior martyrdom of her own fulfilling the prophecy of Simeon … ‘and a sword shall pierce you also’).

http://www.tropicales.net/images/photoalbum/album_25/maia_morgenstern_como_maria.png

This JUST misses the moment I wanted. Where Mary turns her eyes directly toward the audience in a strong silence. It is as if Jesus is offered by her to her other children.
THIS was for YOU. Do you care? Will you follow Him? It was for YOUR sins He did this.
Decide if He is your Lord.

Those were my feelings at that moment.

 

[JillianRose]

Hello!

Just my 2 cents. As I was told a few weeks ago, the Co-redeemer title is

1. Doctrine not Dogma
2. Remember when Catholic believed in “limbo” that was Doctrine not Dogma and we have done a way with it.

Only time will tell if the Church clarifies it. Just because Pope, Priest, Catholics Scholars show great reverence regarding our Blessed mother, until it is declared during “ex-cathedra”, It is not dogma.

Pease Jill.

 

[JillianRose]

Thanks VERY much Tim.

http://www.testimoniesofheavenandhe...dern-Baby-Jesus-Smiling-Picture-With-Mary.jpg

I do like greeting card Mary too though. But you are right. She was not just about rejoicing and being passive. She is seen taking journeys, helping people, looking out for people, speaking awesome words of soaring praise for God’s mercy and gifts, but also of His justice and judgement. That reading from Maccabees is awesome. When applied to Mary at the foot of the cross, it is as if she seconds her son’s motion … opening not her mouth … but joining in the sacrifice of offering her son back to the Father in union with Jesus (with an interior martyrdom of her own fulfilling the prophecy of Simeon … ‘and a sword shall pierce you also’).

http://www.tropicales.net/images/photoalbum/album_25/maia_morgenstern_como_maria.png

This JUST misses the moment I wanted. Where Mary turns her eyes directly toward the audience in a strong silence. It is as if Jesus is offered by her to her other children.
THIS was for YOU. Do you care? Will you follow Him? It was for YOUR sins He did this.
Decide if He is your Lord.

Those were my feelings at that moment.

Good insight. It says, more to me, Look what your sins have done to my Son. -Jill

 

[R_C]

Hello!

Just my 2 cents. As I was told a few weeks ago, the Co-redeemer title is

1. Doctrine not Dogma
2. Remember when Catholic believed in “limbo” that was Doctrine not Dogma and we have done a way with it.

Only time will tell if the Church clarifies it. Just because Pope, Priest, Catholics Scholars show great reverence regarding our Blessed mother, until it is declared during “ex-cathedra”, It is not dogma.

Pease Jill.

We have not done away with limbo. Not at all. We have simply adopted a greater spiritual hope. And we still hold that there was a limbo of the patriarchs.

The title of co-redeemer is not a dogma because there has been no need to define a new dogma. Our Eastern brothers will be able to cast more light on this, as we seem to have the idea that everything needs to be defined by a Pope as a dogma - which bothers our Eastern brethren quite a lot, and also some of us in the Latin church. We know from Scripture and Tradition that Our Lady is co-redemptrix, and this title - as Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote - is under the protection of papal teaching. End of story.

 

[Peter_J]

**

We have not done away with limbo. Not at all. We have simply adopted a greater spiritual hope. And we still hold that there was a limbo of the patriarchs.

The title of co-redeemer is not a dogma because there has been no need

** to define a new dogma. Our Eastern brothers will be able to cast more light on this, as we seem to have the idea that everything needs to be defined by a Pope as a dogma - which bothers our Eastern brethren quite a lot, and also some of us in the Latin church. We know from Scripture and Tradition that Our Lady is co-redemptrix, and this title - as Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote - is under the protection of papal teaching. End of story.

JMJ / MMM 090523 Saturday
Hello Br. Alphonsus AND ALL OTHERS –
My posting right above 20 May 2009 is in need of strong revision. I wish to do that by copying a section of Theological Highlights of Vatican II by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, our present Pope Benedict XVI. I quote >>>

"Part Three … the Third Session – In the text, which replaced an earlier draft, the old systematic Mariology, was to a considerable extent (though not completely) supplanted by a positive and scriptural Mariology. Speculation was replaced by inquiry about the events of salvation history and these have been interpreted in the light of faith. The idea of Mary as ‘co-redemptrix’ is gone now, as is the idea of Mary as ‘mediatrix of all graces.’ The text still retains a vestige of the latter title when it says that the custom has developed in the Church of addressing Mary of mediatrix as well as with other titles, but this is undoubtedly very different from saying that she is mediatrix of all graces.
"All this must be kept in mind if we want to assess correctly the discussion of this topic in the Council on September 16-18, 1964. … But we must not forget the fact that voices were heard which for decades we had waited in vain to hear. For example there was the significant address of Cardinal Leger who attacked the use of Marian superlatives and opposed the title ‘mediatrix,’ even in its deluted form. He said that even if the title was not without theological merit, it was nonetheless bound to lead, in daily usage and apart from its Christic context, to misunderstandings. Further, he demanded that the text offer clear safeguards against abuses in Marian piety. Another example is the speech by Cardinal Bea, who likewise argued emphatically against the title of mediatrix, even though he himself had strong associations with Marian devotion. He also called in question the exegesis of a number of hitherto undisputed passages of scripture which had been used uncritically by very highly placed personages in support of Mariology. Above all there was the important address of Cardinal Alfrink, who exposed the incongruousness of the usual contrast between Marian ‘maximalists’ and ‘minimalists.’ He demonstrated the theological defectiveness of these long-undisputed categories. This pointed to the difference between the spheres of devotion and doctrine, which implied a decided criticism of the title ‘mediatrix.’
“There should be no misunderstanding. The Council did not aim slowly but surely dismatle Marian devotion, and through this to gradually adjust to Protestanism. The aim did however have to take cognizance of the appeal made by separated Christians that the Church move away from a speculative theology that was unmindful of scripture. It had to take a somber and definite stand on the basic of biblical testimony. To see the importance of these proceedings we must remember how accepted such titles as mediatrix and co-redemptrix had already become in theology. Such titles were under the protection of papal teaching, and all contradictory positions were pretty well silenced. The debate, which had been feared by ecumenically minded theologians, can in retrospect be judged a debate which, despite its weaknesses, was salutary and necessary. Only thus could such voices as that of Cardinal Silva Henriquez of Santiago, Chile, be heard – voices which ushered in a new approach to Mariology. This may turn out to be extremely significant. Anyone aware of the prior theological situation, who knows, who knows the seriously of the questions involved, will look back at this sometimes dreary debate, and be grateful.” Taken from pages 93-95 of paperback edition.
​

 

[Peter_J]

I wasn’t familiar with the Ratzinger statement, that “Such titles were under the protection of papal teaching, and all contradictory positions were pretty well silenced.” So I did a search and found it here:
catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?32311-What-does-Mary-mean-to-you&p=273277#post273277
Good read for anyone interested in this topic.

 

[malphono]

I wasn’t familiar with the Ratzinger statement, that “Such titles were under the protection of papal teaching, and all contradictory positions were pretty well silenced.” So I did a search and found it here:
catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?32311-What-does-Mary-mean-to-you&p=273277#post273277
Good read for anyone interested in this topic.

I don’t have, nor have I read, the book cited below, but I ran across this:

” I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand…what is signified by this [title] is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him.

The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” –Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World.

 

[R_C]

I don’t have, nor have I read, the book cited below, but I ran across this:

Yes, both are his, and they don’t contradict one another

 

[malphono]

Yes, both are his, and they don’t contradict one another

Perhaps so, but the second is very specific about the appellation and its wording, and it seems to me that it plays more to the point of this thread. As I alluded to in my earlier posts, one must always be careful not to ascribe attributes that just don’t exist.

There’s not much argument from the Eastern/Oriental side about the unique role of the Holy Virgin, but language is important. It can, as Benedict XVI says, be misleading, and that is a serious problem.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps so, but the second is very specific about the appellation and its wording, and it seems to me that it plays more to the point of this thread.

You’re probably right about that; but I would nevertheless recommend visiting the link to see the context of the other statement.

In particular, although he says that “Such titles were under the protection of papal teaching, and all contradictory positions were pretty well silenced” he also makes it clear, I think, that that changed at Vatican II.

 

[malphono]

You’re probably right about that; but I would nevertheless recommend visiting the link to see the context of the other statement.

Albeit that it’s not the easiest forum to navigate, I did.

 

[Peter_J]

Albeit that it’s not the easiest forum to navigate, I did.

I wasn’t familiar with the Ratzinger statement, that “Such titles were under the protection of papal teaching, and all contradictory positions were pretty well silenced.” So I did a search and found it here:
catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?32311-What-does-Mary-mean-to-you&p=273277#post273277
Good read for anyone interested in this topic.

I should have added “Look for the blue text.”

 

[malphono]

I should have added “Look for the blue text.”

I did. First time around. And I even found it.

 

[rfournier103]

I can see why many take issue with this title for Mary. It can be very confusing for Catholics, and cetianly riles up alot of non-Catholics.

If we look at it in the context of Mary bringing Jesus into our world, then yes, she has a hand in our redemption.

With all respect and love to the Blessed Mother, the title “co-redemptrix” seems to put Mary on an equal footing with Jesus, and if one does not look at this relationship between the two critically, one could misunderstand BOTH roles.

I wish there were a better way of defining Mary’s role in our Redemption without making the title such a lightning rod…

 

[jimmy]

I can see why many take issue with this title for Mary. It can be very confusing for Catholics, and cetianly riles up alot of non-Catholics.

If we look at it in the context of Mary bringing Jesus into our world, then yes, she has a hand in our redemption.

With all respect and love to the Blessed Mother, the title “co-redemptrix” seems to put Mary on an equal footing with Jesus, and if one does not look at this relationship between the two critically, one could misunderstand BOTH roles.

I wish there were a better way of defining Mary’s role in our Redemption without making the title such a lightning rod…

Maybe the best way is to leave it undefined. Let people live the Christian life as it is and always has been. We don’t need new dogmas and definitions. Definitions often obscure the truth they are trying to convey.

 

[Peter_J]

I should have added “Look for the blue text.”

I did. First time around. And I even found it.

You just randomly decided to look for blue text?

 

[Peter_J]

I can see why many take issue with this title for Mary. It can be very confusing for Catholics, and cetianly riles up alot of non-Catholics.

If we look at it in the context of Mary bringing Jesus into our world, then yes, she has a hand in our redemption.

Well I don’t think anyone (even Protestants) denies that … just like they wouldn’t deny that Joachim and Anne (along with other ancestors, e.g. David, Judah, etc.) had a hand in our redemption.

 

[R_C]

one must always be careful not to ascribe attributes that just don’t exist.

One must be even more careful to deny a God-given honor present in the Magisterium of the Church.

In general audience address of 25 October 1995, Pope John Paul II taught as follows:

the Council draws attention to the link between Mary’s motherhood and Redemption.

After becoming aware of the maternal role of Mary, who was venerated in the teaching and worship of the first centuries as the virginal Mother of Jesus Christ and therefore as the Mother of God, in the Middle Ages the Church’s piety and theological reflection brought to light her cooperation in the Saviour’s work.

This delay is explained by the fact that the efforts of the Church Fathers and of the early Ecumenical Councils, focused as they were on Christ’s identity, necessarily left other aspects of dogma aside.

At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, already pointed out Mary’s contribution to the work of salvation. He understood the value of Mary’s consent at the time of the Annunciation, recognizing in the Virgin of Nazareth’s obedience to and faith in the angel’s message the perfect antithesis of Eve’s disobedience and disbelief, with a beneficial effect on humanity’s destiny. In fact, just as Eve caused death, so Mary, with her “yes”, became “a cause of salvation” for herself and for all mankind…

But this affirmation was not developed in a consistent and systematic way by the other Fathers of the Church. Instead, this doctrine was systematically worked out for the first time at the end of the 10th century in the Life of Mary by a Byzantine monk, John the Geometer. Here Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God’s plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation.

In the West St. Bernard, who died in 1153, turns to Mary and comments on the presentation of Jesus in the temple: “Offer your Son, sacrosanct Virgin, and present the fruit of your womb to the Lord. For our reconciliation with all, offer the heavenly victim pleasing to God”

A disciple and friend of St. Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary’s offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross “two altars: one in Mary’s heart, the other in Christ’s body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul”. Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world’s salvation: “What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants”

From this age on other authors explain the doctrine of Mary’s special cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice.

The word “Coredemptrix” makes its preliminary appearance on the magisterial level by means of official pronouncements of Roman Congregations during the reign of Pope St. Pius X.

The term first occurs in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis in a response to a request made by Father Giuseppe M. Lucchesi, Prior General of the Servites. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in acceding to the request, expressed the desire that

the cultus of the Sorrowful Mother may increase and the piety of the faithful and their gratitude toward the merciful Coredemptrix of the human race may intensify

Five years later the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in a decree signed by Cardinal Mariano Rampolla expressed its satisfaction with the practice of adding to the name of Jesus that of Mary in the greeting “Praised be Jesus and Mary”:

There are Christians who have such a tender devotion toward her who is the most blessed among virgins as to be unable to recall the name of Jesus without accompanying it with the glorious name of the Mother, our Coredemptrix

Barely six months after this declaration, on 22 January 1914, the same Congregation granted a partial indulgence of 100 days for the recitation of a prayer of reparation to Our Lady:

…] I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Coredemptrix of the human race. …]

In an allocution by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) to pilgrims from Vicenza on 30 November 1933:

From the nature of His work the Redeemer ought to have associated His Mother with His work. For this reason We invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix.

On 23 March 1934, the Lenten commemoration of Our Lady of Sorrows, Pius XI received two groups of Spanish pilgrims:

not only the nineteenth centenary of the divine Redemption, but also the nineteenth centenary of Mary, the centenary of her Coredemption, of her universal maternity. …] follow the way of thinking and the desire of Mary most holy, who is our Mother and our Coredemptrix

On 28 April 1935 in a Radio Message for the closing of the Holy Year at Lourdes, Pope Pius XI said:

Mother most faithful and most merciful, who as Coredemptrix and partaker of thy dear Son’s sorrows didst assist Him as He offered the sacrifice of our Redemption on the altar of the Cross … preserve in us and increase each day, we beseech thee, the precious fruits of our Redemption and thy compassion.

Pius XII, in his great Sacred Heart encyclical of 15 May 1956, Haurietis Aquas, wrote:

By the will of God, the most Blessed Virgin Mary was inseparably joined with Christ in accomplishing the work of man’s redemption, so that our salvation flows from the love of Jesus Christ and His sufferings intimately united with the love and sorrows of His Mother.