If Co-Redemptrix is never made dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4EverHis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4

4EverHis

Guest
…can it be still said that the Church teaches that Our Lady participated in God’s plan of redemption and salvation by giving us Jesus in the Incarnation and suffering by Him at the Cross?? essentially that’s what the term means, anyway, but is the theology behind it explicitly taught by the Church? I know there’s support for it in the writings of the Saints etc… also, is it the Church teaching that God’s graces come to us through Mary and her intercession, and role as Mother?
Just wanted to check…

Thanks 🙂
 
It is doctrine that Mary cooperated with God in the Redemption of man.

But this doctrine is not yet dogmatically defined. Dogmas are only defined when a certain truth is no longer believed by a majority of Catholics. They’re kind of like reminders of the Faith.
 
I don’t expect this will ever be made dogma, since the term confuses so many.

This quote, which I have not been able to track the then Cardinal Ratzinger says:
“I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this 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.”
Click to expand...
Ludwig Ott explains Coredemtrix:
Code: 
 "The title Corredemptrix =Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (Dzgr 1978,) must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. II:5) As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of her self merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 213)
Click to expand...
In fact the Council of Trent refers to “Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Savior”
If Co-Redemptrix is never made dogma
Click to expand...
Probably best its not
 
This is a bizarre Marianist perennial potato.

Co = Two who are equal. (as in co-chairman, etc).

So do we have two Redeemers? Do we then have two Children of God the Father? Could Mary have redeemed the world?

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, Son of the Living God. Surely that is enough for any believer.

By making her a Co- (i.e. a Goddess) you are way way off-track. In all her apparitions Mary has never claimed such an absurd title, so what is the point of this persistence? One can only assume it is diabolically inspired to de-throne Jesus of his rightful place as the One and Only Saviour of Mankind and all creation.

(The facilitator is never equal to the chairman and never claims to be.)
 
tobbias88 said:
This is a bizarre Marianist perennial potato.

Co = Two who are equal. (as in co-chairman, etc).

So do we have two Redeemers? Do we then have two Children of God the Father? Could Mary have redeemed the world?

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, Son of the Living God. Surely that is enough for any believer.

By making her a Co- (i.e. a Goddess) you are way way off-track. In all her apparitions Mary has never claimed such an absurd title, so what is the point of this persistence? One can only assume it is diabolically inspired to de-throne Jesus of his rightful place as the One and Only Saviour of Mankind and all creation.

(The facilitator is never equal to the chairman and never claims to be.)
Click to expand...
Co-Redemptrix simply means Mary co-operated with God in the Redemption of man as the Mother of God.
 
“I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this 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.”
Click to expand...
it seems that Cardinal Ratzinger had more of a problem with the term itself (the language) rather than the idea…

thanks for the quote 🙂
 
tobbias88 said:
This is a bizarre Marianist perennial potato.

Co = Two who are equal. (as in co-chairman, etc).

So do we have two Redeemers? Do we then have two Children of God the Father? Could Mary have redeemed the world?
Click to expand...
Co-Redemptrix is not English but Latin. It means something different in Latin… it doesn’t mean “Co-Redeemer” 🙂

Co comes from “cum” that means “with”. Translated properly, it’s not “equal to” but “with”… so ‘woman with the Redeemer’ would be more correct.

It doesn’t imply equality at all, but rather says that Mary participated in Christ’s one work of Redemption, in a subordinate way.

hope that makes sense 🙂

God bless
 
As Eucharisted has correctly pointed out, “co” can also mean with. And that gives the title a whole different meaning.

Obviously God and Mary are not equal. God is Divine; Mary is human. God is Creator; Mary is creature. Human is not equal to Divine, yet Mary can stand before The Father and refer to Jesus ‘as Your Son and mine’ because of her co-operation, her Fiat.
 
4EverHis said:
…also, is it the Church teaching that God’s graces come to us through Mary and her intercession, and role as Mother?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this concept is one of the things open to misunderstanding (as then-Cardinal Ratzinger warned). It is true that Mary intercedes for us, and that her intercession can be effective. In this way all graces can come to us through her intercession. It is not correct to say that all graces always flow through Mary. In other words, Mary’s intercession is always helpful, but is not required.

Catholics believe that many can approach God on our behalf, and of those many Mary is the most effective intercessor. But Catholics also believe that we can and should approach Christ ourselves.

It is a difficult thing to describe. No one should denigrate or undervalue Mary and her role as Theotokos and intercessor, but we must also be careful not to suggest Mary is herself divine. Many theologians, including the current Pontiff, think that the term Co-Redemptrix is at least unclear on that point.
 
It is not correct to say that all graces always flow through Mary.
Click to expand...
but is this not doctrine? (Mediatrix of Graces)… I think one of the Popes (JPII?) wrote about it… can someone confirm? :confused:
 
<<can it be still said that the Church teaches that Our Lady participated in God’s plan of redemption and salvation by giving us Jesus in the Incarnation and suffering by Him at the Cross??>>

It would be more precise to say that the Theotokos cooperated with God’s plan of salvation by her “fiat”, by which the Logos became incarnate.

However, there is only ONE suffering that is salvific.

Remember that all the Apostles but St.John died as martyrs, some after horrible tortures. They, too, suffered for Christ, and with Christ–but their suffering does not save us.
 
Chatter163 said:
What???:eek:
Click to expand...
It’s true. Dogmas are usually formally defined to combat rampant heresy in the Church. Heresy which usually takes the form of challenging or taking for granted what the Church teaches. It’s sort of like a reminder or an official re-affirmation of exactly what the Church believes re: certain doctrine.
 
tobbias88 said:
This is a bizarre Marianist perennial potato.

Co = Two who are equal. (as in co-chairman, etc).

So do we have two Redeemers? …

(The facilitator is never equal to the chairman and never claims to be.)
Click to expand...
oy! :rolleyes:

So the co-pilot is the equal pilot, flying the plane in a separate and equal way from the pilot, the co-star equal in stardom to the star of the show? Is the mailroom guy equal to his co-worker the CEO? By that logic, the co-ness would create two separate planes, two separate shows, creating an unthinkable and paradoxical dichotomy.

Co- means with/together. Period. Only with the rights movements of the 20th century has co- come to become more linked with the idea of equality.

But as you see, co-, even in English, does not always mean equal. Especially in Latin, it does not have this context.
 
I thought I would share this with you.

zenit.org/article-21749?l=english
ROME, FEB. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Five cardinals have sent a letter inviting prelates worldwide to join them in petitioning Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma they said would “proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary.”
Click to expand...
The text, released last week, includes the petition that asks the Pope to proclaim Mary as “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
Click to expand...
The signatories of the letter are five of the six cardinal co-sponsors of the 2005 International Symposium on Marian Coredemption, held in Fatima: Cardinal Telesphore Toppo, archbishop of Ranchi, India; Cardinal Luis Aponte Martínez, retired archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico; Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil, major archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India; Cardinal Riccardo Vidal, archbishop of Cebu, Philippines; and Cardinal Ernesto Corripio y Ahumada, retired archbishop of Mexico City.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Eucharisted
Dogmas are only defined when a certain truth is no longer believed by a majority of Catholics.
Click to expand...
Chatter163 said:
What???:eek:
Click to expand...
I’d say that dogmas are defined when they’re being opposed, but the opposition doesn’t have to be IN the Church… it can be opposed by heretics… and the Church defines dogmas to point the faithful in the right way 🙂 so they know what the Church teaching is.
sweetchuck said:
oy! :rolleyes:

So the co-pilot is the equal pilot, flying the plane in a separate and equal way from the pilot, the co-star equal in stardom to the star of the show? Is the mailroom guy equal to his co-worker the CEO? By that logic, the co-ness would create two separate planes, two separate shows, creating an unthinkable and paradoxical dichotomy.

Co- means with/together. Period. Only with the rights movements of the 20th century has co- come to become more linked with the idea of equality.

But as you see, co-, even in English, does not always mean equal. Especially in Latin, it does not have this context.
Click to expand...
I think it’s important to remember that Co-Redemptrix is Latin, not English 🙂 it means something else when translated from Latin… not “Co-Redeemer”
 
4EverHis said:
I’d say that dogmas are defined when they’re being opposed, but the opposition doesn’t have to be IN the Church… it can be opposed by heretics… and the Church defines dogmas to point the faithful in the right way 🙂 so they know what the Church teaching is.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and this is a very different thing from saying that the dogma is not believed by a majority of Catholics, which is what the earlier poster and a minion claimed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top