Is Mary a Co-Redeemer?

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Regarding statements that this has “not yet been made dogma”, it is either dogmatic or it is not. If it is in the deposit of faith it is Fides Divina dogma; If the Church has taught in her ordinary magisterium that it is in the deposit of faith, then it is a Fides Catholica dogma; If It is Fides Catholica and still a sufficient number obstinately reject it, it will be formally defined as being in the deposit of faith by the Churches extraordinary magisterium, and thus become De Fide Definita Dogma. A thing which is not dogma can never be made so, and a thing which is dogma cannot be revoked.

I have not studied the meaning of co-redemptrix sufficiently to give my opinion as to whether or not it is dogma, but if it isn’t it cannot be made so. Just thought I would clear up this common misunderstanding.

 

[TimothyH]

Mary is the co-redemtrix in so far as she was the perfect vocation partner for Christ.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Genesis 2:18)

Some translations call Eve the “Sutable helpmate” or “Suitable partner”. The idea that the first Eve was the perfect partner - bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh - for the first Adam points us to the New Eve, Mary, as being created by God as the perfect vocation partner for the New Adam, Jesus Christ. We can look at the holy women of the Old Testament to see how Mary is forshadowed.

Rebekkah secures the blessing for her son Jacob who later becomes Israel. Judith cuts the head off the commander of the enemy of Israel. Esther goes into the presence of the King, risking her own life for God’s people, and not only secures the death of Hayman,the enemy of the Jews, but secures an edict from the king that the Jews are to slaughter their enemies throughout the kingdom. We can expecially see a forshadowing of Mary’s role as the co-redemtrix in the person of the mother of the 7 brothers

Most admirable and worthy of everlasting remembrance was the mother who, seeing her seven sons perish in a single day, bore it courageously because of her hope in the Lord. Filled with a noble spirit that stirred her womanly reason with manly emotion, she exhorted each of them in the language of their ancestors with these words: “I do not know how you came to be in my womb; it was not I who gave you breath and life, nor was it I who arranged the elements you are made of. Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shaped the beginning of humankind and brought about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law.” (2 Maccabess 7:20-23)

This is a mother who, faced with the greusome torture and execution of her sons, encourages them to faithfulness. She encourages them to be faithful to the end, and acknowledges the ressurection of the dead.

People think Mary was standing passively at the foot of the cross, but anyone who knows Jewish mothers know that passivity is not one of their attributes. Jesus’ mother, when faced with the greusome tortue and death of her son, encouraged him to faithfulness, encouraged him to complete the mission for which he was sent.

Mary was given the singular privilege of starting Jesus public ministry.

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:3-5)

Things typically didn’t work out well for those who tried to force God’s hand or those who put God on a timetable. Even Jesus was not ready to start his public ministry, but Mary says, in effect, “You are ready son. You will start fullfilling your mission here and now.” Mary says, “Yes, your hour has come.”

This is a woman who encouraged her son in his mission to redeem mankind. She didn’t sit by and let her son dicated when his ministry would start and she did not sit passively at the foot of the cross. She shared in Christ’s vocation as the “Perfect helpmate”, and encouraged her son to faithfulness and victory, and in so doing, crused the head of the serpent.

***I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. *(Genesis 3:15 D-R)

That’s why she is the co-redemtrix.

-Tim-

 

[NeedImprovement]

Regarding statements that this has “not yet been made dogma”, it is either dogmatic or it is not. If it is in the deposit of faith it is Fides Divina dogma; If the Church has taught in her ordinary magisterium that it is in the deposit of faith, then it is a Fides Catholica dogma; If It is Fides Catholica and still a sufficient number obstinately reject it, it will be formally defined as being in the deposit of faith by the Churches extraordinary magisterium, and thus become De Fide Definita Dogma. A thing which is not dogma can never be made so, and a thing which is dogma cannot be revoked.

I have not studied the meaning of co-redemptrix sufficiently to give my opinion as to whether or not it is dogma, but if it isn’t it cannot be made so. Just thought I would clear up this common misunderstanding.

I think what possibly may have intended to be said might fall more more along the lines of “not yet declared dogma” .

When I want to look more in depth at a definition, I often begin by seeing what Father John Hardon S.J. had to say about it in his Modern Catholic Dictionary

CO-REDEMPTRIX. A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary’s mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race. As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man’s salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ’s merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.

---

Sometimes we can inadvertently underestimate just how intimately Jesus desires to share all of his gifts with us .

**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."

One of the 4 main effects of the sacrament of the Anointing if the Sick , is that the sufferings of the sick person who has received the anointing are united to the Passion of our Blessed Lord, thus taking on a redemptive value in this great exchange where their suffering benefits the whole Church while the Church intercedes for them.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

1522 An ecclesial grace. The sick who receive this sacrament, “by freely uniting themselves to the passion and death of Christ,” “contribute to the good of the People of God.” By celebrating this sacrament the Church, in the communion of saints, intercedes for the benefit of the sick person, and he, for his part, through the grace of this sacrament, contributes to the sanctification of the Church and to the good of all men for whom the Church suffers and offers herself through Christ to God the Father.

 

[Joe_5859]

Regarding statements that this has “not yet been made dogma”, it is either dogmatic or it is not. If it is in the deposit of faith it is Fides Divina dogma; If the Church has taught in her ordinary magisterium that it is in the deposit of faith, then it is a Fides Catholica dogma; If It is Fides Catholica and still a sufficient number obstinately reject it, it will be formally defined as being in the deposit of faith by the Churches extraordinary magisterium, and thus become De Fide Definita Dogma. A thing which is not dogma can never be made so, and a thing which is dogma cannot be revoked.

I have not studied the meaning of co-redemptrix sufficiently to give my opinion as to whether or not it is dogma, but if it isn’t it cannot be made so. Just thought I would clear up this common misunderstanding.

I don’t think that’s the best way to articulate it. It’s not improper to speak of certain doctrines being “raised to the level of dogma” at specific times in Church history. Yes, the Church doesn’t just pull teachings out of thin air. Either the doctrine behind the title “Co-Redemptrix” is true or not. But that doesn’t mean we should call it “dogma” before the Holy See has made that official declaration.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I don’t think that’s the best way to articulate it. It’s not improper to speak of certain doctrines being “raised to the level of dogma” at specific times in Church history. Yes, the Church doesn’t just pull teachings out of thin air. Either the doctrine behind the title “Co-Redemptrix” is true or not. But that doesn’t mean we should call it “dogma” before the Holy See has made that official declaration.

From Doctor Ludwig Ott
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita” (or simply De Fide).

A teaching is not raised to Dogma but rather to De Fide Dogma. This distinction is VERY important, because the difference between something that is not dogma and something which is dogma is a degree of theological certainty, whereas the distinction between the different degrees of dogma is one of explication.

 

[Newbie2]

I think that Mary’s role in redemption is fundamentally different from Jesus’ role, so the word co-redeemer might be misleading. She assists Jesus in His work of redemption. She is an assistant redeemer.

Much easier and clearer to understand than “co-redeemer”, methinks.

 

[R_C]

Much easier and clearer to understand than “co-redeemer”, methinks.

Yes, but try translating that to Latin and compare it to “coredemptrix” It perfectly conveyed the meaning back in the days.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yes, but try translating that to Latin and compare it to “coredemptrix” It perfectly conveyed the meaning** back in the days**.

Latina Resurbit!

(Did I do that right? Where is that soldier from Monty Python when you need him.)

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, but try translating that to Latin and compare it to “coredemptrix” It perfectly conveyed the meaning back in the days.

So does “consubstantial with”.