If Co-Redemptrix is never made dogma

[ac_claire]

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.

It’s not really that crazy of a concept. For instance, think how many Catholics past and present who don’t truly believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. There are polls done about this all the time. Or Catholics who believe that it’s perfectly ok for them to miss Mass on a Sunday; God *doesn’t really care *about that kind of thing, etc., etc. It does happen, unfortunately and to varying degrees.

The co-redemptrix issue doesn’t qualify however, in my opinion. It’s not a timeless truth that’s believed or rejected by a majority of Catholics. Clear as I can tell, it’s a manufactured concept born of mis-applied piety and tortured logic.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

The Vincentian Canon:

“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].”

The new Marian dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

If a belief has not been held from the beginning by all Christians, one should not be surprised that Christians oppose it when learning of it for the first time.

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”

It would then probably help if the proper English translation were always used in these discussions, if the hope is for a general acceptance of this idea in the Anglophone world.

 

[RyanML]

The Vincentian Canon:

“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].”

The new Marian dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

If a belief has not been held from the beginning by all Christians, one should not be surprised that Christians oppose it when learning of it for the first time.
It would then probably help if the proper English translation were always used in these discussions, if the hope is for a general acceptance of this idea in the Anglophone world.

It is my understanding that, while not using the term “Co-redemptrix”, the early Church believed that Mary, the New Eve, cooperated in a unique way in the work of redemption. In a nutshell, this is the meaning of Mary’s co-redemption.

 

[livnlern]

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

Maybe “SubRedemptrix” would be a more accurate title?

 

[TMC]

It is not correct to say that all graces always flow through Mary.

but is this not doctrine? (Mediatrix of Graces)… I think one of the Popes (JPII?) wrote about it… can someone confirm?

As I understand doctrine, Mary can intervene on our behalf for all intentions, and hence all graces, but it is not accurate to say that the Church teaches that all graces come to us only through Mary.

 

[ac_claire]

It is my understanding that, while not using the term “Co-redemptrix”, the early Church believed that Mary, the New Eve, cooperated in a unique way in the work of redemption. In a nutshell, this is the meaning of Mary’s co-redemption.

Yes, but the Church has never formally believed that the Blessed Mother is c-redemptrix What has been dogmatically proclaimed is that we have one Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

And even in this thread and in what you just stated, it isn’t really clear. It’s sort of a vague principle (eg: she cooperated in a “unique way”) that encompasses several different beliefs about Our Lady. There’s not enough dogmatic “meat” there-- that is, there’s not enough that’s been known truth from the beginning-- to formally make a dogma out of it.

 

[Chatter163]

It’s not really that crazy of a concept. For instance, think how many Catholics past and present who don’t truly believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

None have ever shown that. Most show 65-70% believing. Sad, but certainly not a majority of disbelief.

 

[ac_claire]

None have ever shown that. Most show 65-70% believing. Sad, but certainly not a majority of disbelief.

I have seen some polls that do show a majority unbelieving. Granted, polls are a mixed bag and you never know how accurate and on the up&up the results are. Also whoever releases the poll usually has some kind of bias and/or agenda which should be taken into account.

Having said all that though…even 65-70% of polled Catholics not believing in the RP is beyond sad, it’s incomprehensible.

 

[nordskoven]

“The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate” is from the writings of the seer Ida Peerdeman, condemned since Pius XII, reprinted and popularized by Franciscan University professor Mark Miravalle. The petitioned adoption of this as the “Final Dogma” was rejected under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s director, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

 

[ac_claire]

“The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate” is from the writings of the seer Ida Peerdeman, condemned since Pius XII, reprinted and popularized by Franciscan University professor Mark Miravalle. The petitioned adoption of this as the “Final Dogma” was rejected under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s director, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

What part of that exactly was petioned to be the “Final Dogma” and then condemned? The Lady of all Nations, who once was Mary bit from the alleged apparition, or the Coredemptrix and mediatrix bit?

Also, do you have any documentation for this? (I’m not at all challenging what you’ve said, btw. This citation would just be very helpful to me, for my own studies.)

 

[Hesychios]

It is my understanding that, while not using the term “Co-redemptrix”, the early Church believed that Mary, the New Eve, cooperated in a unique way in the work of redemption. In a nutshell, this is the meaning of Mary’s co-redemption.

In the early church, Mary was still alive after Jesus Christ had resurrected.

She was available for a time, greeting visitors, telling stories and most likely… praying for people at their request. Being a good Jewish mother I would guess that her chicken soup was excellent!

No one knows how long she lived, but it could have been twenty years after Pentecost before she was taken from us. I am sure she was most beloved by the people around her, and she herself was the source of the Gospel accounts we have about Jesus’ own childhood and her conception story.

Of course the early church thought of her as cooperating with Jesus’ mission in a unique way, just as many others also cooperated in unique ways.

It is a given.

We do not need some formal declaration about her ministry, any more than we need a formal declaration of Saint John (the beloved disciple’s) ministry, or John the baptizer’s ministry. They are already part of our tradition.

I think that Mary’s role as co-redeemer is shared by many, she is not alone. Not only is her story unique, they are all unique in their own way.

The church existed for nearly 2000 years without such a declaration, by any one. No church Council and no prior Pope or bishop anywhere has ever found it necessary to add to what the church already knows on this subject. And we all know they had plenty to say about many things in all of these years (perhaps more than 80 generations of people… perhaps hundreds of millions… saved through Christ).

Let’s leave it alone, it contributes nothing new to salvation, yet it may become a stumbling block to many.

 

[Hesychios]

Maybe “SubRedemptrix” would be a more accurate title?

Perhaps.

But we already know that, don’t we?

 

[rinnie]

I guess it also comes down to what you heart tells you and a little common sense.

God choose Mary at the moment of her conception. She was the perfect example of a Saint. She like Jesus was without sin but suffered greatly by mans sin.

In the RCC we never have to have it made dogma it is believed and always will be. Who are we to question it? How could anyone who believes in God find it hard to believe anyway?

The bible is full of nothing but great things about our Blessed Mother. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

That right there puts her and Jesus above all of us. Above all of the Apostles.

Holy Mary Mother of God. She came into this world Holy and went out the same way.

 

[hansard]

*[QUOTED]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.”

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.”

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…etc]*

As a Christian and a Catholic, I am sick of the guesswork and wishful thinking that passes for “theology” these days. Drag out the old “Whatever you bind on earth…in heaven…” and everything is covered.

I’ll bet the signatories above did not invite anyone with an Anti-Marian bent.

This will be shouted down, but anyway: if you put Mary on the same level with Jesus Christ in the redeeming of mankind (i.e. as co-redeemer), then you are elevating her to the status of God, and you are in error.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

*[QUOTED]
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.”

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.”

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…etc]*

As a Christian and a Catholic, I am sick of the guesswork and wishful thinking that passes for “theology” these days. Drag out the old “Whatever you bind on earth…in heaven…” and everything is covered.

I’ll bet the signatories above did not invite anyone with an Anti-Marian bent.

This will be shouted down, but anyway: [SIGN]if you put Mary on the same level with Jesus Christ in the redeeming of mankind (i.e. as co-redeemer), then you are elevating her to the status of God, and you are in error.

[/SIGN]

Who ever said making her co-redeemer would even begin to blur the vision of Jesus Christ as our Savior and comparing her to God.

Mary needed to be saved by God just like everyone else. Jesus did not. So how could you ever say we are saying that is equal. THe church has never taught this, nor ever will.

The RCC has always acknowled that Mary needed to be saved just like us.

 

[4EverHis]

This will be shouted down, but anyway: if you put Mary on the same level with Jesus Christ in the redeeming of mankind (i.e. as co-redeemer), then you are elevating her to the status of God, and you are in error.

but co-redemptrix doesn’t mean co-redeemer… it’s Latin, not English and translates as “woman with the Redeemer”…it’s not making Mary equal to Christ at all

“The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate” is from the writings of the seer Ida Peerdeman, condemned since Pius XII, reprinted and popularized by Franciscan University professor Mark Miravalle. The petitioned adoption of this as the “Final Dogma” was rejected under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s director, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

“the Lady of all Nations” apparitions have been condemned… but the title “co-redemptrix” didn’t originate with these apparitions, from my understanding… ?

Pope Benedict said why he didn’t accept the “fifth dogma”, and his reason was that the terminology could be misleading for some, not that he disagrees with the theology. In fact, he said that the theology is correct… but that it could be explained better through Mary’s other titles. (I think he’s right because so many people that Co-Redemptrix means “Co-Redeemer”, when it doesn’t.)

 

[ac_claire]

Pope Benedict said why he didn’t accept the “fifth dogma”, and his reason was that the terminology could be misleading for some, not that he disagrees with the theology. In fact, he said that the theology is correct… but that it could be explained better through Mary’s other titles. (I think he’s right because so many people that Co-Redemptrix means “Co-Redeemer”, when it doesn’t.)

This is basically my understanding of the whole thing as well, and why I feel the way I do about the “Co-Redemptrix Dogma”. Any properly catechized Catholic knows (ok, should know) the Blessed Mother’s role in Salvation history.

In fact I had an argument with my fiance just the other day about this issue. And my defense was that it’s just too darned confusing and the truth is already there in the BVM’s other dogmas and titles.

 

[Unitas]

12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist"My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.

1. 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 (Pius IX. Ineffabilis). The source, then, is Jesus Christ “of whose fullness we have all received” (John i., 16), “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” (Ephesians iv., 16). But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel (Serm. de temp on the Nativ. B. V. De Aquaeductu n. 4); 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. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, “she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts” (Quadrag. de Evangel. aetern. Serm. x., a. 3, c. iii.).
2. We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace - a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus “sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high” (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son - a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (Pius IX. in Bull Ineffabilis).

 

[Eucharisted]

“the Lady of all Nations” apparitions have been condemned…

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/PUNTOLAN.HTM

 

[Eucharisted]

Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son

Here is a bible professor’s understanding of this: thesacredpage.com/2009/10/request-of-james-and-john-and-ransom.html