Marian Dogma frustration

[_L]

Hello all, before I begin my post I’d just like to say that I have been Catholic all my life, and I am now struggling with doubts concerning the faith, and I ask that no one take offense at anything I might say, I am genuinely seeking answers and the Truth, and I know full well I may receive some flak for what I have to say here. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with dogmas 1, 2, and 4. Those being (Mary as the Mother of God, her perpetual virginity, and assumption) It is in the potential 5th (coredemtrix) where I have concerns. I have concerns about the 3rd (immaculate conception) but I will leave that for another thread.

The potential 5th Marian Dogma titles Mary as coredemtrix, mediatrix, and advocate. (the following is from frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm)

Co-Remptrix: ‘Co’ is from the Latin ‘cum’ which means with. 'Co-Redemptrix means Our Lady is ‘one with the Redeemer.’ It refers to Our Lady’s co-operation in our redemption. She co-operated with God at the Annunciation to give a body to Jesus. She suffered with Jesus at the foot of the cross. This title of Our Lady shows that suffering has supernatural value, that there is a value in accepting the cross.

Mediatrix of all Graces: This means that all the graces from the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit flow to us through Mary.

Advocate: As Advocate our petitions flow back to the Trinity through Mary. She is our human connection to the Trinity.

There has been a push in recent years to have a 5th Marian dogma declared where she is named Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians. Now I completely understand what Coredemptrix means in this instance, that the co does not mean “equal to” but rather “with.” But regardless I still have anxieties about this because I have heard it said and echoed throughout the Church that any and all Marian related practices and teachings are supposed to magnify the greatness of Christ. However, in this case I see just the opposite. We do not need a dogma to tell us that Mary had a special role in God’s plan for salvation, that is blatantly obvious from the mere fact that she was His mother. Pronouncement of a dogma such as this will only add further fuel to those who wish to slander the Church by calling it a mary worshipping cult. And from what I quoted above, it seemed to suggest that not only Christ’s suffering redeemed us, but Mary’s suffering was also part of that redemption, and I find this to be pure blasphemy. It is one thing to say Mary had a special role as Mother of Christ in the plan of salvation, it is a completely different thing to suggest that her suffering in conjunction with Christ’s was efficacious for the redemption of man. The suffering of God incarnate, and God incarnate alone redeemed man. Christ’s suffering for the redemption of mankind needs no supplement in the form of the suffering of His mother.

In regards to Mediatrix of all Graces, the site I listed quotes Lumen Gentium:

“This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.”
(Lumen Gentium Vatican II §62)

I am conflicted over the parts I highlighted in red. This refers to Mary having a “saving office” but are we not saved by Christ alone? And it also says she brings us the gifts of eternal salvation, but are not the gifts of eternal salvation given to us by Christ through His death and resurrection? And I realize the second highlighted portions SAYS that it so understood that it neither takes away or adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one mediator, but by the very presence of the AND Mary along with Christ does that not…at least appear to dilute the efficacy of Christ’s sufferings? And when it says that by mediatrix it means that all graces from God by necessity flow through Mary, does that mean that the efficacy of Christ’s suffering and death necessarily had to flow through Mary for man to be redeemed? and if that is the case, does that not basically de facto equate Mary to a savior of man kind by not allowing Christ’s sacrifice to be efficacious without her?

Now, in regards to Advocate, the site I quoted earlier says:

Advocate: As Advocate our petitions flow back to the Trinity through Mary. She is our human connection to the Trinity.

Is not Christ our human connection to the Trinity? By becoming man Christ provides that connection between God and humanity, so how is it necessary that we have a buffer between us and God? If Christ reconciled us to the Father can it not be solely God and the individual interacting rather than the individual going through Mary to reach God?

And last but not least, when we talk about consecrating ourselves to Mary or consecrating a country such as russia in the case of fatima, I find this to be extremely unsettling because consecration is something that is done to dedicate a person or object etc to a DEITY. and in my opinion it seems the only thing we should be consecrating ourselves to is God Himself and not a created human being even one as renown as the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[_L]

CONTINUED:

Now to be honest here, I try my very best to remain faithful to both my conscience and to God via the teachings of the Church, but on issues such as these it seems my conscience and these ideas are at opposite ends of the spectrum. My love for Christ makes me wily and watchful for any mere appearance of an attempt to lessen His merits or status. And I have heard it said that all teachings related to Mary are at their core vehicles to magnify Christ, but from the way things are presented and practiced in the faith it seems that they do not glorify Christ but instead glorify Mary, and I think this is something that the Blessed Mother herself would frown upon. After all it was she who said “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” she had the humility to refer to herself has a handmaid, and yet people now want to title her coredemtrix!? This has driven me into extreme spiritual unrest, and for myself and for many I find the potential pronunciation of this dogma to be more of a stumbling block than something to be celebrated, because I feel that if I had echoed this potential dogma to St. Paul himself He would have denounced me as anathema, Not only this, but the very fact that this dogma is being championed by those who are motivated by private revelation (ie Fatima, and the Marian Apparitions to Ida Peerdeman in Amsterdam ) which is not to be part of the deposit of faith and this unsettles me even more. But above all else I find the basis of this doctrine to not be found in scripture, to not be found among the Church fathers, and I really can’t even find the roots of where this potential dogma came from, and perhaps this is why JPII and B XVI have resisted in declaring it dogma in spite of all the pressure of people wanting this dogma to be pronounced.

 

[RHannosh619]

I totally do agree with you. I do NOT think that it is the most wise thing to add this 5th dogma. I LOVE the Blessed Mother, and her intercession is absolutely wonderful, but I only see more slander and persecution of the Catholic Church if this dogma becomes official.

I don’t think it is anything that is absolutely necessary.

But I DO understand why the Vatican might be highly pushing for this, well, regardless, whether this 5th dogma is put into place or not, No protestant will consider Catholicism if they can’t accept the Marian doctrines, and this one, i highly doubt, would be the “deciding factor” for a potential convert.

I think that if they’re willing to accept any Mary Dogma, they will accept the 5th too. So looking at it from that point of view, it doesn’t sound that bad.

 

[Shin]

Are we not all mediators in Christ?

Just like ‘call no man father?’

One can think of it this way…

There is the King… there is the Queen…
There is the Mediator… there is the Mediatrix…

Is not the Church a mediatrix?

The Queen has everything from the King…

People understand this.

Do priests not have saving offices? Do Christians all not have saving offices?

The Holy Family… is a family… their hearts are connected. Christ chose Mary and prepared her with perfect humility.

There is no salvation outside of the Church, there is no salvation outside of Christ…

Why is the former true? Consider the spiritual reasons. God can do things many ways, but He chooses to do things certain ways.

One thing I think is best, is to simply -be- Catholic, and not think in a Protestant fashion, to not think of what nitpicks them… Because these are flawed approaches and viewpoints… We cannot let these things limit our spiritual life as Catholics… and our understanding of the Church… that mentality… that entire approach, has to go.

 

[Monica4316]

“Co Redemprix” is translated as “woman with the Redeemer”, not “co-redeemer”.

It means that Mary participated in Christ’s one work of redemption… He is still the Redeemer and Mediator, but she participated by:

• being His Mother. If Jesus was not born, He could not have died for our salvation.
• being near Him as He was on the Cross - praying, interceding for us

Christ is still the one Redeemer… but we can participate in His work in various ways, as St Paul says, - his sufferings “make up for what is lacking in Christ’s sacrifice”. What is lacking? only our cooperation, it seems. Mary’s cooperation was greatest, that is why she is given this particular title.

Pope Benedict said that there’s nothing wrong with the theology of this, but that perhaps another title would be more suitable, since this one tends to confuse people (for one, most people don’t realize it doesn’t translate to “co-redeemer”)

God bless

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[_L]

Are we not all mediators in Christ?

We all share in Christ’s mediation who is the only link for us back to the Father, but as I said above the specificity of giving Mary the title Mediatrix leaves the door open for people to claim that it says

Is not the Church a mediatrix?

The Church is a mediatrix in the sense that it is the mystical body of Christ, and it is intimately bound to the mediation of Christ because they are inseparable.

Do priests not have saving offices? Do Christians all not have saving offices?

Any salvific nature of any office by necessity flows from Christ Himself.

One thing I think is best, is to simply -be- Catholic, and not think in a Protestant fashion, to not think of what nitpicks them… Because these are flawed approaches and viewpoints… We cannot let these things limit our spiritual life as Catholics… and our understanding of the Church… that mentality… that entire approach, has to go.

I appreciate your insight, but as a disclaimer I assure you I am not thinking in a protestant fashion; having looked into their disputes with the Church and studying the fathers of the Church, its self evident that their claims really have no basis so I don’t really put much stock into the protestant opinion on things related to the Church. But I certainly don’t consider careful examination of Church doctrine or in this case *prospective *doctrine to be nitpicking. And I don’t think we should sweep the things we don’t understand under the rug, because in this case, although it seems that the potential 5th maria dogma when explained correctly does not sound as outrageous as the titles suggest, I personally feel that it will only be an unnecessary obstacle for those who are considering conversion. I don’t believe the principles of the potential 5th dogma need to be pronounced dogmatically, because the basic premise is already made clear by the Church’s understanding of Mary as the greatest intercessor for our behalf among the Saints, and there doesn’t appear to be any further edification for the faithful to come out of it. But if the Church decides to go ahead with this, then I really think that it would be best to modify the terminology to more accurately portray its meaning to both those inside and outside the Church, because admittedly for myself the latin terminology is misleading when looking through the lens of english language.

“Co Redemprix” is translated as “woman with the Redeemer”, not “co-redeemer”.

It means that Mary participated in Christ’s one work of redemption… He is still the Redeemer and Mediator, but she participated by:

• being His Mother. If Jesus was not born, He could not have died for our salvation.

Okay, this makes perfect sense, but I find this to be incredibly redundant since it is plainly obvious that Mary has a special role in the plan of salvation by being the Mother of the Lord, and I really do not understand why anyone would feel that it is necessary to state this again in doctrine.

• being near Him as He was on the Cross - praying, interceding for us

This however is confusing and quite cryptic, how does being near Jesus on the cross, and praying/interceding for us equate to being a special cooperator with Christ in the redemption of man? Does this not also make St. John a special cooperator? Afterall he was there at Calvary with Jesus and His mother, and more than likely echoing Christ’s prayer of “Father forgive them they know not what they do” but then again that is speculative.

Christ is still the one Redeemer… but we can participate in His work in various ways, as St Paul says, - his sufferings “make up for what is lacking in Christ’s sacrifice”. What is lacking? only our cooperation, it seems. Mary’s cooperation was greatest, that is why she is given this particular title.

In Colossians 1:24 that which is lacking in Christ’s suffering does not refer to anything that was lacking in His redemption of man, but rather what is lacking in individuals within the Church who use suffering as a means of conforming themselves to Christ which is wholly separate from thinking the suffering of anyone besides Christ redeemed mankind. Saying that the suffering of Saints including Mary must be added to Christ’s suffering for the redemption of man is heretical. And I understand the doctrine would be explicit in stating that Christ’s suffering alone was totally sufficient for the redemption. But the potential doctrine seemed to imply that Mary had some of her own suffering thrown into the mix in the redemption of man in a “cherry on top” mentality if I could use that rough analogy. And even though this would not lessen Christ’s sacrifice I don’t see how it can be justified in any capacity. You won’t find it among the Church fathers, you certainly will not find it in scripture, and you won’t even find it in councils or encyclicals.

Pope Benedict said that there’s nothing wrong with the theology of this, but that perhaps another title would be more suitable, since this one tends to confuse people (for one, most people don’t realize it doesn’t translate to “co-redeemer”)

God bless

I agree, but I think it is entirely unnecessary because of its redundancy, and it will only become yet another barrier between East and West, and Protestant and Catholic.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I totally do agree with you. I do NOT think that it is the most wise thing to add this 5th dogma. I LOVE the Blessed Mother, and her intercession is absolutely wonderful, but I only see more slander and persecution of the Catholic Church if this dogma becomes official.

I don’t think it is anything that is absolutely necessary.

But I DO understand why the Vatican might be highly pushing for this, well, regardless, whether this 5th dogma is put into place or not, No protestant will consider Catholicism if they can’t accept the Marian doctrines, and this one, i highly doubt, would be the “deciding factor” for a potential convert.

I think that if they’re willing to accept any Mary Dogma, they will accept the 5th too. So looking at it from that point of view, it doesn’t sound that bad.

Not to worry. The Vatican, in fact, is not pushing it, let alone “highly pushing it”. With all the issues of public relations and explanation that such would require “the Vatican” i.e., the Pope, is unlikely to bring this up in our life times. With all the uses of “co” easily understood in our society, e.g., co-star = not the headliner but an important figure, co-pilot = not the pilot but the pilot’s helper, etc. one would think it easy to understand that the word “co” simply means with. And that it was through the co-operation of the Blessed Mother that we were Redemed. I just don’t see what’s so tough about that concept, no offense. But I know that an Evangelical Protestant would have apoplexy over it. And to avoid such the Pope is quite aware of the need to tread softly.

The main issue with the P.R. for co-redemtrix is the fact that Protestantism has influenced Catholic thinking to the extent that many Catholics find the Blessed Mother to be a simple “earthen vessel” easily forgotten in the whole of salvation history and that had she said “No” the angel Gabriel could have gone next door and asked Nancy or Susie or anybody until he hit on a surrogate within whom no preparation was needed. And that is simply flawed theology.

Anyhow, don’t sweat it, this is not a cause for concern now.

 

[RHannosh619]

simply -be- Catholic, and not think in a Protestant fashion,

Very great way to think about it! You’re right, we must just live out OUR Faith, regardless of what the protestants think, considering that’s just “the way it is” with them, they will never cease to come up with things against us.(hopefully this isn’t true)

Protestantism has influenced Catholic thinking to the extent that many Catholics find the Blessed Mother to be a simple “earthen vessel”

I somewhat do agree with that very much. Before I got into Apologetics, I used to really have a great devotion to Mary. I do still try to pray the rosary daily, but I definitely know there was a time in my life, where I didn’t give enough credit to Mary. And before the protestant disagrees with that OOHH you better believe it, Mary Deserves a LOT of credit!

 

[Monica4316]

Okay, this makes perfect sense, but I find this to be incredibly redundant since it is plainly obvious that Mary has a special role in the plan of salvation by being the Mother of the Lord, and I really do not understand why anyone would feel that it is necessary to state this again in doctrine.

It is redundant, that is why Pope Benedict said that the idea expressed by “Co-Redemptrix” is better expressed by other titles that we already have of Mary (because they are less confusing). So yes this idea is already present in the Church.

This however is confusing and quite cryptic, how does being near Jesus on the cross, and praying/interceding for us equate to being a special cooperator with Christ in the redemption of man? Does this not also make St. John a special cooperator? Afterall he was there at Calvary with Jesus and His mother, and more than likely echoing Christ’s prayer of “Father forgive them they know not what they do” but then again that is speculative.

Good question, I don’t think I explained that well enough… maybe this can help: catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

also there is this:
voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

and this:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/coredemedadv.htm

remember the prophesy that was given to Mary: “a sword shall pierce your own heart too”. She shared in Christ’s suffering more than anyone, so her participation there is greater. How does this affect our redemption? well it is Jesus who redeemed us, but Mary’s participation did obtain graces for us, as our present sufferings that are united with the Cross can obtain graces. But all these graces come from the Cross and from Jesus, initially.

In Colossians 1:24 that which is lacking in Christ’s suffering does not refer to anything that was lacking in His redemption of man, but rather what is lacking in individuals within the Church who use suffering as a means of conforming themselves to Christ which is wholly separate from thinking the suffering of anyone besides Christ redeemed mankind. Saying that the suffering of Saints including Mary must be added to Christ’s suffering for the redemption of man is heretical. And I understand the doctrine would be explicit in stating that Christ’s suffering alone was totally sufficient for the redemption. But the potential doctrine seemed to imply that Mary had some of her own suffering thrown into the mix in the redemption of man in a “cherry on top” mentality if I could use that rough analogy. And even though this would not lessen Christ’s sacrifice I don’t see how it can be justified in any capacity. You won’t find it among the Church fathers, you certainly will not find it in scripture, and you won’t even find it in councils or encyclicals.

Catholic teaching definitely does say that Christ’s work of redemption is complete and in my understanding, Co Redemptrix does not mean that Mary’s suffering was added to Christ’s in order for redemption to be effective or complete for us. Rather, she did sort of what St Paul did when he talked about his suffering, only in a much greater way. She also participated as His Mother. I hope the link I gave above is helpful…

the way I understood it, Christ’s suffering is complete, but Mary participated and cooperated with it in a greater way than anyone else

"Existing Catholic teaching of Mary as a Co*redemptrix refers to the unique participation of Mary, Mother of Jesus, in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, the divine Redeemer." voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

I agree, but I think it is entirely unnecessary because of its redundancy, and it will only become yet another barrier between East and West, and Protestant and Catholic.

maybe that is what Pope Benedict meant too when he said that he doesn’t see the need of making it another title for Mary…

 

[Monica4316]

I think all this is related to the idea of redemptive suffering in general…

redemptive suffering is any suffering that is united to the Cross and so God can use it to help other souls. The important point is that it MUST be united to the Cross because that is where graces comes, and where our redemption was accomplished.

In Mary’s case, it is like Mary became a “co redemptrix” “in” Christ, within HIS work of redemption… sorry this is really difficult to explain. But the point is that her work is never something separate from His, but is with His, in His… she just added her sufferings to His, and so they acquired merit.

Here’s an example…

let’s say a person is sick and in pain… if they unite it with Jesus’ sufferings on the Cross, then God can use their suffering to help a sinner convert, or help a soul in Purgatory, etc… that is commonly what we mean by “offer it up”. But Mary did this more fully than anyone else, because of her love for God, her role as Mother, etc.

Another difference, which Pope John Paul II mentions, is that our cooperation or sharing in Jesus’ suffering is always after the Crucifixion… but Mary’s cooperation was during it. So she was collaborating in what He did. The work of redemption is His, and His suffering is what was necessarily to redeem us… but His suffering also obtained for us the grace of being able to add our sufferings to His, and of sanctifying them, making them have merit before God - because of Him… in that way, Mary’s participation in the Passion only has merit because the Passion is what is redemptive. I hope that makes sense… here’s an explanation: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm48.htm

Another point is that Mary became our Mother when Jesus was on the Cross… and that she is the new Eve. Why did this happen specifically at that time? I remember reading an answer in one of the (accepted) private revelations that I thought was quite profound… I’ll try to find it. I know our faith is not based on private revelation, but it seemed to go very well with general revelation

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I remember when I was a Protestant, I had an “either or” mentality… maybe that is common in Protestantism?

In Catholicism, it’s sort of like: “all things one in Christ”.

In Him…

• our suffering acquires merit
• we are all united by the Holy Spirit
• we can ask the Saints to pray for us
• etc.

Mary’s participation in redemption is also “in Christ”, and is effective only because of what He did. The redemptive suffering that I mentioned earlier, which many Catholics here do, perhaps - Mary did that to the full.

So when we say that Jesus is our only Saviour and Redeemer, that is true, because only He could save us, and without Him nothing we do would ever work. His suffering on the Cross is what redeemed us. But we can participate, like Mary, though in a lesser way, in His one and only work of redemption. it is still His work though.

God bless