G
Genesis315
Guest
Co- means with, not equal to
. (All men died in Adam and were redeemed in Christ–but it was Eve’s disobedience that led to Adam’s sin and it was Mary’s obedience that led to our redemption).
- Status
. (All men died in Adam and were redeemed in Christ–but it was Eve’s disobedience that led to Adam’s sin and it was Mary’s obedience that led to our redemption).
G
Genesis315
Guest
Through God we all crush the serpent:
St. Paul says:
“may the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily.” (Rom. 16:20)
The Vulgate for Gen. 3:15 says “ipsa” or she. The sense is the same. By the power of Christ she crushes the serpent. Mary is a precursor–she expereinces things before the rest of the Church–(she was sanctified first–Immaculate Conception–she had her body brought into Heaven–the Assumption–and she now reigns with Christ, as we all will). She is also a microcosm of the Church.
Here is a great article about the crushing issue. The Hebrew and the typology of the rest of the OT and NT suggest “she” is appropriate:
lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=47
M
Mike_D30
Guest
The prefix Co- implies with as in it couldn’t have been done without the other person, or it was a shared venture. Jesus is the Word he is God, he doesn’t need any human to be compliant to redeem us. I am trying I want to believe the Church I really am, but this stuff I can not get my arms around.Co- means with, not equal to
J
J.J
Guest
She doesn’t “reign”, she is there, but only Almighty God, in the presence of Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Reigns. To elevate her to “reign” level puts her on equal level (as in “co”) with God; that is heresy no matter how you color it, reword it, rephrase it, or otherwise would like it to be. It cannot be. Ecumenical Councils have decided this question; no move of modern “relevance” or “feel good” theology can change that.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It was though. We don’t know what would have happened had she said no. She said yes and agreed to bear God incarnate. I really can’t recommend that little book enough. I know exactly where you are coming from and it helped me a lot.
It might help for you to see how we all share in it by reading this about how we all participate in Christ’s Redemption of us:
John Paul II
Salvifici Doloris (The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering) February 11, 1984 [Apostolic Letter]
G
Genesis315
Guest
Another good read is the part on Mary from Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution of the Church from the Second Vatican Council:
Scroll down to chapter VIII
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm
Scroll down to chapter VIII
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm
J
JB
Guest
No, it doesn’t. It implies that Mary did cooperate in her Son’s salvific work. This is not the same thing as implying that Christ could not have accomplished His salvific work without Mary’s cooperation.
A more mundane comparison might be made by thinking about a small child not capable of washing the dishes by herself, helping her mother wash the dishes. The child, by rinsing and drying small items really is making a contribution toward getting the job done, not just getting in her mother’s way. So we might call this child a co-dishwasher, helping her mother. This does not imply that the child’s contribution to the job was equal to her mother’s, or that the child could have done the job herself without her mother. Neither does it imply that the mother could not have washed the dishes herself, without the child’s help.
M
Mike_D30
Guest
JB.:
There is one redeemer and one alone, and that is Jesus Christ.
Like I said I don’t liek the title co-redemptrix. Where did this originate? because I don’t find it in line with Catholic teaching, or maybe I’m just ignorant to what is officially taught. Thanks
God Bless
It’s just bad logic, I mean, Christ attoned for our sins on the Cross, Christ suffered physical death, not anyone else to redeem us, that is the redemption, not Christ being born. Without Pontius Pilate we may not know what would’ve happened to Christ. Does this make Pontius Pilate a co-redeener? How about the Roman soldier who nailed Christ to the Cross, is he a co-redeemer?
There is one redeemer and one alone, and that is Jesus Christ.
Like I said I don’t liek the title co-redemptrix. Where did this originate? because I don’t find it in line with Catholic teaching, or maybe I’m just ignorant to what is officially taught. Thanks
God Bless
J
JB
Guest
No anology is perfect. I wouldn’t discount the Incarnation as part of Christ’s Redemption, though. It’s all part of Christ’s work of Salvation, and arguably a necesary prerequisite without which His Passion, Death and Resurrection would not have been possible.
No, I don’t think we can consider Pilate or the soldier to be co-redemptors in the same sense as Mary. They did indeed play necessary roles in Christ’s Passion and death, but the distinction is that Mary freely and fully conformed her will to Christ and cooperated with Him. Pilate and the soldier were trying to end Christ’s work, not cooperate with Him.
Z
ZeProf
Guest
I personally like the analogy of “co-pilot” so as to differentiate between one who assists and one who is equal. If determined to be dogma, there would need to be a lot of catechisis. That, in itself, will be a problem based on our experience over the last 40 years.
My main question, though, was how to determine the status of specific private revelations. I understand I am free to believe (or not) those that the local ordinary or the Holy See have not expressed disapproval but I know of no way to ascertain whether or not such a pronouncement has been made.
I used the instant case as just an example. The reporter made a claim referring to a CDF action I cannot locate, even on vatican.va. The faithful would not be wise to take only his word for it, but it does suggest research might be prudent before one takes up that devotion. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
So, any suggestions on the general case of: Given a revelation, find the latest church pronouncement on it. Must be the mathematician coming out in me.
Thanks.
My main question, though, was how to determine the status of specific private revelations. I understand I am free to believe (or not) those that the local ordinary or the Holy See have not expressed disapproval but I know of no way to ascertain whether or not such a pronouncement has been made.
I used the instant case as just an example. The reporter made a claim referring to a CDF action I cannot locate, even on vatican.va. The faithful would not be wise to take only his word for it, but it does suggest research might be prudent before one takes up that devotion. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
So, any suggestions on the general case of: Given a revelation, find the latest church pronouncement on it. Must be the mathematician coming out in me.
Thanks.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Thats the problem. Even this analogy doesn’t work fully as a “co-pilot” is fully a pilot and capable of taking over for the main pilot if necessary.
The prefix “co” just doesn’t work well in the English language.
You are correct, there will need to be a hugh amount of catechisis for this and that is the problem. The state of catechisis within the Church today is horrid. There are many Catholics out there who do not even know the basics let along something this advanced.
Also the prefix “co” has come to mean equal in our modern vocabulary. My “co-workers” are my fellow employees. I would never call my boss a “co-worker”.
As for this apparition. It just doesn’t ring right to me. This whole “once was Mary” bit just seems very odd. After Jesus was resurrected and he appeared to the disciples he did not say that he “once was Jesus”.
So even if this apparition ever gets any sort of approval I think this is just one that I will not believe in. After all, no apparition is binding upon the faithful.
We must remember, that public revelation is closed, no private revelation can ever be dogma nor be used to prove dogma.
Z
ZeProf
Guest
Excellent point!
Don’t worry too much.
Think of it this way. There is indeed only one Redeemer, and that is Christ; that is the truth.
But When you get to know about Christ, and recognize the grace he offers from the cross, do you automatically receive it? Of course not; you need to make a willful act to receive that grace. Jesus always offers his grace but never forces it on us. To receive it worthily, we must cooperate with that grace. This includes the sanctifying grace of salvation. Because we cooperate in the work of our redemption, we are our own co-redeemers.
Now when we pray and sacrifice for the conversion of hardened sinners, much like what St. Monica did for St. Augustine, we are cooperating in the redemption of that person. Every time you pray for a person’s conversion or salvation, you are that person’s co-redeemer.
Mary is all that for all of us, but par excellence, because by first of all saying Yes, and then by raising him, and then finally by being there on Calvary, she participated in the life of the Redeemer. By her intercession even now, she asks for the salvation of men. She is everyone’s co-redeemer.
Now I know the term co-redemptrix is disturbing for many, and the Church should exercise great prudence in its use. But the theology is sound and Biblical.
J
John_Henry
Guest
J. J.:
Yes, that would be what I had meant. And I love the Eastern Churches. Keep your traditions. Us Latins seem to be doing a horrible job of maintaining ours.
J
John_Henry
Guest
Free Grace!:
Fair enough. But all anyone (not you!) is showing when they condemn the teaching as heresy is to display that they have no idea what the teaching means. In which case, the first step should be to learn, and not to throw stones.
J
John_Henry
Guest
It’s worse than you think, then. Catholics are called to “fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions on behalf of his body, the Church” (Col. 1:24). We are to pick up our crosses, and in enduring the sufferings of this life, to participate in the redemption of the world. That is the Catholic meaning of suffering. Now, granted, we only do this in an analogous fashion, as all of our merits are Christ’s merits. But nevertheless, Christ our older brother wishes to associate his younger siblings with his work. That is the tremendous dignity to which we have been called. It is in this framework that the doctrine of the co-redemption makes sense. Mary is just like us, “filling up what is lacking.” However, being the Immaculate One, she simply fills it up a little more. Hence she gets a title and we don’t. Rather than boning up on Mary, I encourage you to bone up on suffering. Mary’s role in redemption will make much more sense in that light.
J
John_Henry
Guest
From here:
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (St. Irenaeus *Against Heresies *3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
In a nutshell, that is the doctrine of the co-redemption of Mary. And the popes of recent years have been using the term to mean exactly this, as well as the fact that she continues to intercede for us in heaven, dispensing the graces of redemption through her prayers.
- Status