Co-redemptrix

[R_C]

While the word “Coredemptrix” did appear in the original schema of the Marian document prepared in advance for the II Vatican Council, the Prænotanda to the first conciliar draft document or schema on Our Lady contained these words:

Certain expressions and words used by Supreme Pontiffs have been omitted, which, in themselves are absolutely true, but which may only be understood with difficulty by separated brethren (in this case Protestants). Among such words may be numbered the following: “Coredemptrix of the human race” [Pius X, Pius XI]

Pope John Paul II said in general audience of 13 December 1995:

During the Council sessions, many Fathers wished further to enrich Marian doctrine with other statements on Mary’s role in the work of salvation. The particular context in which Vatican II’s Mariological debate took place did not allow these wishes …] the Council asserts her cooperation “in a wholly singular way” in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls.

In Lumen Gentium, he wrote:

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

In several audiences he used the title. Ex:

8 September 1982

Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be Coredemptrix of humanity.

in his Angelus address on the Feast of St. Charles Borromeo in 1984

To Our Lady – the Coredemptrix – St. Charles turned with singularly revealing accents.

On 31 January 1985, in an address at the Marian shrine in Guayaquil, Ecuador

There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; … Crucified spiritually with her crucified son …] Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.

In commemorating the sixth centenary of the canonization of St. Bridget of Sweden on 6 October 1991 he said:

Birgitta looked to Mary as her model and support…She contemplated her astonishing mission as Mother of the Saviour. She invoked her as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and Coredemptrix

On February 11 2008, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Cardinal Lozano Barragán, the prefect for the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care who presided at the Mass of the World Day of the Sick, gave his homily on Marian coredemption and specifically called her the “Co-redemptrix with the Savior.”

On May 24, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI wrote the following for the world day of prayer for China:

When you obediently said ‘yes’ in the house of Nazareth, you allowed God’s eternal Son to take flesh in your virginal womb and thus to begin in history the work of our redemption.

You willingly and generously co-operated in that work

So please, let us not talk about “attributes that do not exist”.

 

[kentuckyliz]

In 1996, the 19th Congress of the Pontifical Mariological Academy voted unanimously against pursuing the promulgation of the dogmatic definition of Co-Redemptrix at this time. It goes beyond what the most recent ecumenical council could have decided to include in its dogmatic constitution on the church but discerned not to. Read Lumen Gentium Ch. 8 on Mary and you will see what the Church did discern. Let’s plumb those depths first.

There is no unanimity among Latin Rite Catholics, much less the Catholics in the Eastern Rites, much less apostolic Christians, much less all Christians.

For those who feverishly support the promulgation of the dogma, why insist that it be defined as dogma? Why anathematize good faith Catholics who disagree?

The impetus comes from a private revelation in Amsterdam. The content of any private revelation is not to be believed in with the same level of faith as the actual defined dogmas of the Church. It is mere human opinion and open to error. I find the Amsterdam visions faulty because the messages resemble humanist-socialist European perspectives and are not universal. The gravest error that needed Vatican correction was referring to “The Lady who once was Mary.” She is still Mary!

Here is a good analytical article on this issue that discusses the 1996 Academy decision.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/ormaria2.htm

I love Mary as much as anyone and I do not agree with promulgating the Fifth Marian Dogma.

 

[R_C]

I do not agree with promulgating the Fifth Marian Dogma.

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

…] A commission was established, composed of fifteen theologians …] It was also sought to enrich the study group by adding, as external members, some non-Catholic theologians …]

…] the definition of these titles…in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity, as such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still require further study in a renewed Trinitarian, ecclesiological and anthropological perspective.

Finally, the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.

In short: further study is required for a possible future definition of the title co-redemptrix as a dogma, and also protestants have an issue with it (“you don’t say??”) and we don’t want “ecumenical difficulties” nowadays, right?

But the bottom line is: I don’t see a need for that definition either. She is *already *honored with that title, among many others. The Magisterium has used it consitently. There are even indulgenced prayers using that title! And only a poor understanding of the role of Our Lady can lead to misunderstanding that title.

Please note: this discussion was not originally about the usage of this title, or whether we need a dogmatic definition. We are still in “Eastern Catholicism” forum

 

[malphono]

You just randomly decided to look for blue text?

No … that’s what the link went to first.

 

[malphono]

So please, let us not talk about “attributes that do not exist”.

Perhaps it would have been more apropos to have taken my earlier comment in context rather than out of it. Quotes from Popes, Councils, etc, are lovely, but still don’t do much to address the very real possibility of misunderstanding. At least Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Raztinger) tried to help in that regard.

In any case, from an Oriental perspective, the additional appellation is unnecessary at best. That’s as much as I’m going to say. It’s probably all I should have said in the first place.

But now, as I exit this thread, let me add one thing:

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.

Thank you, Jimmy. I wish I had posted that.