Is Mary the Co-redeemer?

[thenobes]

…if you show me how our works build the Church.

Show me where these rewards are attached to our salvation…

If you mean, do rewards come with our salvation, the answer is obviously yes.

So I am assuming you mean instead: show me where the merit I gained has earned me salvation.

And actually I can’t. Because our works only enable faith to continue to live in us. It does not cause God to give us faith. It helps us to receive and hold onto faith, but to make God give it to us, no.

Whether faith is given to us is totally up to God’s Mercy. But whether we hold and continue to hold onto that Grace of faith depends on our cooperation with the Graces God gives us to to enable us to hold on to it. (And even the cooperation is a gift.)

So our merits are dependent on God’s meriting for us, and the merits are really His (but as His gift to us they become really ours).

If you want to see how works build our souls to hold faith more strongly, any epistle will do. Just read your Bible.

peace
Steve

 

[LilyM]

So, all other Saints both old testament and new are also co-redeemers? Why is Mary the primary focus of prayer by RCs

God plan of salvation would not have been thwarted if Mary said no.

Christ and the other persons of the Blessed Trinity are ALWAYS our primary focus of prayer, even if we also ask for the intercession of Mary or other saints.

Mary is dear to our hearts, as the Mother of Our Lord, blessed above all other women, and rightfully so. Hers is a unique and uniquely honoured position.

And God’s plan for our eternal happiness was thwarted when Eve said no, unless you don’t believe that she had free will. In which case she wasn’t sinning and was punished unjustly.

So why would Mary not have free will - when asked to bear a child, of all the difficult and burdensome things to do! God isn’t a rapist, he doesn’t father a child by a lady without her full and free consent!

 

[jemfinch]

What in the world is so sound about it?
sounds like straight up blasphemy to me…

Why should I explain this to you when others here have already explained it and you’ve failed to read their explanations? You’re clearly not asking because you’re interested in the answer.

Jeremy

 

[Cari]

Again, does anyone know what would be gained by the Church declaring this as dogma? Not saying that they are/will, I’m just wondering what purpose this would serve (see my previous post for a more articulate expression of this question).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I thought that this would be a good debate among Catholics. It has been in debate now within the Church well over a century to what I know. I do not think she is our co-redeemer. I believe she participated in the plan for our salvation, but she is not our co-redeedmer. Here is a quote from the Council of Trent:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)

So what do you believe?

God speed.

Vigis

Thanks for quoting that - it needs saying.​

• The title “Co-redeemer” is often explained; & people typically say that it does not imply that Mary is a source of salvation in the sense in which her Divine Redeemer is. That being so, ISTM that the word should be avoided. IOW -
• • why call her by a title which describes her as something she is admitted not to be ?
• If Catholics are confused by the title, no wonder that many Christ-loving Evangelical Christians are
• Our Lady is already called “Mother of God”, & rightly so, for so she is: not for her glory & praise, but for His Who is her Son, her Creator, & her God. So why add this?
• There is already a lot of confusion & factionalism among Catholics already - how matters would be improved by defining something with such power to divide Christians, whether Catholic or not, I don’t see. I think it would makes matters worse.
• I think we would be making trouble for ourselves if this title were defined, & would be doing so needlessly.
• It is very difficult (to say the least) to fit the notion of Marian (or other creaturely) co-redemption into the Biblical notion of redemption.
• If Mary is co-redeemer, how was she redeemed ? This is the same problem as arises in calling her “Mediatrix of all graces” - if “all” means “all”, how did she mediate the grace of her own redemption ?
• It is far from clear how those ideas fit with the doctrine of St.Paul.
• If Mary was the co-redeemer of Mary, how is her redemption not in part derived from Mary instead of Christ ? Why should she need Christ at all, if her redemption comes from Mary ?
• I often get the impression that an idea is thought up first, & that the Bible is then scanned for some kind of justification for it: if this ever happens, the fact that an idea agrees with the Bible does not mean it has not been imposed on the Bible, rather than drawn from it.
• St.Paul speaks of his fellow-Christians as “co-workers” - but never as “co-redeemers”. Jesus Christ makes a great difference to the understanding of the OT; Biblical theology & its forms of thought included: it is not clear that the meaning of redemption has changed from what it meant in the OT so as be able to accommodate co-redemption: especially co-redemption by one who is herself redeemed. And this is (perhaps) the crucial issue
  I sometimes wonder if people favour this because they think it will make Mary more favourable to the Church - I do hope that does not describe anyone’s thinking, because it would imply that she had to be flattered with high-sounding titles. Which is absurd.

It may be that confusion about the exact meaning of the title “Co-redeemer” comes in part from failure to distinguish

• redemption in actu primo
  from
• redemption in actu secundo.
  IOW, for Mary to be a cause of salvation, redemption, etc., in a way that puts her activity on a par with Christ’s to make her a Redeemer in exactly the same sense as He is, is impossible - so, ***if ***she is a co-redeemer, her activity cannot be co-ordinate with His, but only “in, with, & under” His.

If, OTOH, her activity is “within” His, as a seed is in the flower from which it comes - that is something different; in fact, it seems to be how all Christian activity is related to His. But in that case, ISTM that to call her “Co-Redeemer” (or rather, “Co-redemptrix”) is meaningless; because it makes her no more & no less a co-redeemer than any other Christian. And it would still leave the notion of any creaturely co-redemption as an unBiblical idea.

It would help if the advocates of these two titles could explain what they mean by them more clearly than they have. I hope they will.

I haven’t voted - I would say “No”, but I may be misunderstanding the titles in some way What is intolerable, is that any Marian thing - or any other - should obscure the Glory of her Redeemer & Saviour. A doctrine which glorifies her, but not Him, cannot be true ##

 

[Randy_Carson]

What in the world is so sound about it?
sounds like straight up blasphemy to me…

Quick question: Is Mary rightly called the Mother of God?

Why or why not?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is very necessary to understand what the Church means by such doctrines and what it does not mean. First of all the Church recognizes Jesus as our only redeemer—plain and simple. Only God could make up for an offense against His divinity. When Jesus, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man, He used the services of several human beings. He used prophets, the last of whom was His cousin, John the Baptist. He used St. Joseph as His foster father to protect Him and be a father to Him in his formative years. Most of all, He used Mary as His mother who gave birth to Him, nursed Him, and nurtured Him as a child. All of these people co-operated with Him and His mission of salvation. He alone was the redeemer, but they co-operated with Him in His work of redemption. In varying degrees they all could be called co-redeemers because of such co-operation. But because of her unique role and the degree of her co-operation, Mary is singled out. In all of humanity, God singled her out for a truly sublime role. Nursing almighty God at her breast is beyond our ability to fully appreciate. Yet thousands of Christians since the Protestant reformation have completely ignored such sublimity.

What is said of co-redemptrix is also true of co-mediatrix. Because these terms can be highly mis-leading, the Church has not formalized them in any official doctrinal way. (See article: ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA2.HTM) Nevertheless, God is the one who singled Mary out for the unique role in salvation that she has. She did not seek out such distinction. It is important to remember the high praise Jesus lavished on St. John the Baptist. Yet his mission was not nearly so exalted as Mary’s. Jesus worked His first miracle at her request. All she needed to say was: “They have no wine.” He understood exactly what she wanted. He could have taken care of the matter on His own. But He chose to have His mother’s intercession be a part of the mix. The miracle wasn’t any less significant because of her part in it. On the contrary, she shows us how accessible He is to our needs. To truly appreciate Mary is to appreciate her Son all the more.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s all that the term implies.

It does not imply that Mary in any way redeemed us. It merely emphasises the importance of Mary’s fiat in bringing about our redemption.

If that is all there is to it - why does the Church have to use such misleading language ?​

That there is more to it, seems to be shown by the essays in two books which can be read here: voxpopuli.org/ - go to: voxpopuli.org/booktext.php

This essay really takes the biscuit, IMHO: voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

There is to be a third volume of essays - one of the contributor is to be Scott Hahn. More info here: voxpopuli.org/tflll.php

Radio about it here: voxpopuli.org/radio.php

 

[porthos11]

When understood using the lens of the “magisterium” of posters in this thread, the term wouldn’t be inappropriate; however, as another poster pointed out, the colloquial use of “co” implies equality in English. So, it almost seems like by deliberately using it, we are trying to pick a fight with our Protestant friends. Don’t we honor her enough without applying honorifics that need an apologist to explain correctly?

Agreed. Even though the underlying theology is okay, to declare these titles as dogma would be imprudent and unwise, and they certainly serve no useful purpose. The Marian Dogmas are all Christological in nature, i.e. they tell a truth about Christ. But there is little if any Christological value in these titles; they are mostly Marian.

It’s because of the lack of Christological truths that I’m against defining these titles as dogma. It would be better to understand the underlying theology and imitate it.

 

[porthos11]

So, all other Saints both old testament and new are also co-redeemers? Why is Mary the primary focus of prayer by RCs

In a manner of speaking, yes, all saints are co-redeemers, as you are when you pray for someone’s salvation.

Mary carries a special devotion because of her closeness to Jesus. After all, she was the one who in the best way cooperated to bring Christ into the world. She was the one who nursed him and mothered him growing up. This unique bond is something Catholics appreciate. We have no qualms asking the Lord’s Mother for help.

God plan of salvation would not have been thwarted if Mary said no.

But she said yes, didn’t she? And the Lord was born. We don’t stop honoring her because of what theoretically may not have happened. We honor her for what actually did happen.

 

[SORROWS]

In a manner of speaking, yes, all saints are co-redeemers, as you are when you pray for someone’s salvation.

Mary carries a special devotion because of her closeness to Jesus. After all, she was the one who in the best way cooperated to bring Christ into the world. She was the one who nursed him and mothered him growing up. This unique bond is something Catholics appreciate. We have no qualms asking the Lord’s Mother for help.

But she said yes, didn’t she? And the Lord was born. We don’t stop honoring her because of what theoretically may not have happened. We honor her for what actually did happen.

Beautiful response Porthos.

 

[jemfinch]

If that is all there is to it - why does the Church have to use such misleading language ?​

I don’t think it’s really that misleading, to be honest. It’s just a matter of whether the listener chooses to interpret it charitably or uncharitably. Often that decision is made long before the Church says anything at all.

Think of the term “co-redemptrix” just like you think of the term “co-pilot” when I say to you, “My wife drove here, I was her co-pilot.” Does that mean I did any driving at all? No. It means that I helped her drive, that’s all.

The charitable Protestant, the one who hasn’t decided from the outset that everything that the Church teaches must be as false as possible, will understand that if Catholics call Mary “co-redemptrix” that we only mean it in the way that we call the passenger on a long road trip the “co-pilot.” The uncharitable Protestant will instantly assume that we intend to blaspheme Jesus who would save us if only we’d have faith in Him, which we don’t, because we’re Catholic.

Like I said, sound theology but bad marketing. There are just too many people who are searching for ways to interpret the words of the Church uncharitably for us to give them such easy ammunition.

Jeremy

 

[levi86]

If that is all there is to it - why does the Church have to use such misleading language ?​

That there is more to it, seems to be shown by the essays in two books which can be read here: voxpopuli.org/ - go to: voxpopuli.org/booktext.php

This essay really takes the biscuit, IMHO: voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

There is to be a third volume of essays - one of the contributor is to be Scott Hahn. More info here: voxpopuli.org/tflll.php

Radio about it here: voxpopuli.org/radio.php

There are many resources on the sites you posted. Is there a particular section that you have taken issue with?

 

[levi86]

If that is all there is to it - why does the Church have to use such misleading language ?​

There is nothing misleading about the language. It is not the Church’s fault that some people have a limited understanding of the Queen’s English. Perhaps the Church should issue all its proclamations in improper and disjointed English just so uninformed protestants have a better chance of understanding it?

That there is more to it, seems to be shown by the essays in two books which can be read here: voxpopuli.org/ - go to: voxpopuli.org/booktext.php

This essay really takes the biscuit, IMHO: voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

There is to be a third volume of essays - one of the contributor is to be Scott Hahn. More info here: voxpopuli.org/tflll.php

Radio about it here: voxpopuli.org/radio.php

There are many resources on the sites you posted. Is there a particular section that you have taken issue with?

 

[mayra_hart]

In giving birth to Christ, Mary mediated God’s graces (Christ) to all humanity. From a strictly historical basis, it is hard to argue that Mary was not the mediatrix of all GOD’s grace. as a catholic when i pray to mary is like iam feeling christ. just like ST jude is my special patron. I promise, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, to always honor you as my special and powerful patron, and to gratefully encourage devotion to you by publishing this request. Amen

 

[Genesis315]

Mary as Co-Redemtrix is taught in the CCC without using the word phrase (my emphasis):

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”,454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457
Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458452 1 Tim 2:5.
453 GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2.
454 Mt 16:24.
455 I Pt 2:21.
456 Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24.
457 Cf. Lk 2:35.
458 St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668).

Mediatrix of all Grace is also taught by the Second Vatican Council (without using the exact terminology):

Lumen Gentium (my emphasis):

1. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until The eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)

(15) Cfr. Kleutgen, textus reformstus De mysterio Verbi incarnati, cap. IV: Mansi 53, 290. cfr. S. Andreas Cret., In nat. Mariac, sermo 4: PG 97, 865 A. - S. Germanus Constantinop., In annunt. Deiparae: PG 98, 321 BC. In dorm. Deiparae, III: col. 361 D. S. Io. Damascenus, In dorm. B. V. Mariae, Hom. 1, 8: PG 96, 712 BC-713 A.
(16) Cfr. Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Adiutricem populi, 5 sept. 1895: *** 15 (1895-96), p. 303. - S. Pius X, Litt. Encycl. Ad diem illum, 2 febr. 1904: Acta, I, p. 154- Denz. 1978 a (3370) . Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Miserentissimus, 8 maii 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 178. Pius XII, Nuntius Radioph., 13 maii 1946: AAS 38 (1946) p. 266.
(17) S. Ambrosius, Epist. 63: PL 16, 1218.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

Here are the references from footnote (16):

Leo XIII: Among her many other titles we find her hailed as “our Lady, our Mediatrix,”[3] “the Reparatrix of the whole world,”[4] “the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.”[5]

St. Pius X:

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).
3. These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that – as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits,-she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother!

Pius XI:
And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress. Trusting in her intercession with Christ, who whereas He is the “one mediator of God and men” (1 Timothy ii, 5), chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and mediatress of grace, as an earnest of heavenly gifts and as a token of Our paternal affection we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, and to all the flock committed to your care.

(can’t find the Pius XII one).

 

[Genesis315]

I also HIGHLY recommend, “Glories of Mary” by St. Alphonsus Liguori, a great Doctro of the Church. He’s great because his teaching is never his own, it is always a synthesis of previous teaching from Scripture, the Fathers, and other saints. Read that book and it will become apparent these teachings have been handed down since the beginning.

 

[FCG]

I know I was confused by this topic but this link helped me understand. Well co-redeemer is an absolute no, but co-redemptrix although confusing is understandable.

Please refer to the link

mariansolidarity.com/ladyofallnations/dopp01c.html

highlights of the link are as follows:

1)Mary, Co-redemptrix with Jesus our One Redeemer

Mary is our Co-redemptrix. We must be careful in the use of the word because of possible misinterpretation. In the English language, the prefix “Co” implies equality, as in the case of the words “co-pilot,” “co-author,” “co-captain.” The term Co-redemptrix comes from the Latin “cum,” meaning “with.” In Spanish, the word “con” means “with.”

Mary is not equal with the Redeemer – she is a finite creature, while Jesus is the infinite Creator. Rather, she suffered WITH the Redeemer in his act of saving us. She cooperated WITH the plan of redemption by consenting to become the Mother of the Redeemer. From his conception till his birth till his ministry till his death, Mary was WITH the Redeemer.

By the will of the Father, the Redeemer came to the world. For this, the Father chose Mary from the very beginning. She gave the Redeemer flesh and blood. As Mother of God and the Immaculate Conception, she was the handmaid of the Lord. She suffered with him for the redemption of humanity. She is Co-redemptrix.

2)Conclusion

Let us recap what we have discussed. Jesus Christ is our High Priest. Jesus prays for us, mediates with the Father for us, sacrifices himself for us. We are Christians, followers of Christ. We must pray for each other, mediate Christ for each other, makes sacrifices for each other, in union with the sacrifice of Christ.

Mary is the model follower of Christ. More than any Christian, she prays for us, she mediates Christ for us, she sacrifices and suffers with Christ, our Redeemer. She is our Advocate, Mediatrix, and Coredemptrix. These roles all flow from Jesus Christ and are all subordinate to him.

Through Church history, saints have spoken of these roles. So have past Popes. Our Holy Father indeed has called Mary our Advocate, Mediatrix, and Coredemptrix. May the whole Roman Catholic Church come to recognize and exalt these roles. May the whole world then enjoy the fruits of grace, redemption, and peace.

 

[Greg27]

While Mary has a high place in the church and tradition, especially because she was so honoured to be the person chosen to bear the Word incarnate, I think it is very wrong to say she co-redeems us with Christ. I am not against Marian piety or devotions, but to suggest she is saviour along with Christ severely undermines the purpose and understanding of the incarnation. Only a God-man could save and divinise humanity because only in Christ, and in Christ alone, was the divine and human nature perfectly united, and human nature raised up to the divine, and the divine ‘humbled’ to humanity. And only Christ is perfect and human in all ways, save without sin. Clearly there is also the dogma Mary was free from original sin and was assumed into the beatific vision, but it was not the case in Mary that the divine nature in the form of the word joined with her own human nature, so Mary can never be the saviour or risen Lord Christ was and is. Also Christ is one of the persons of the Trinity, the logos through who all things are made and brought into existence and subsist through him; he is the image of God’s glory, bearing the ‘stamp’ of divine nature as Hebrews puts it. Mary is only a human being; she is not ‘divine’ in any sense or in any mode or manner that Christ was. Christ is God by nature, while any other human being who takes part in the divinity, only does so entirely by grace, even if that grace is poured into them very abundantly (as is the case of Mary). And Mary in no way has the same majesty, infinity, glory or power that the one and Triune Godhead does in itself, by virtue of its own essence.

Only in Jesus did God become man so man might become God, but that cannot happen through anyone else no matter how graced they are, as in no-one else did the divine and human natures unite perfectly. Mary, amazingly graced as she is, is human, not divine, by nature. So there is in my view absolutely no way she can have by nature, the divinity, majesty and power or glory that belongs to God alone, in his Triune being. However, as the prayers of the church say, she is ‘full of grace’ and she prays along with the other saints before God, though all prayers which go to God the Father, who is at the heart of the Trinity, only come through his son, Jesus Christ, through whom God has made the universe and to whom God has handed all judgement.