Mary as Co-Redeemer

  • Thread starter Thread starter t68ware
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

t68ware

Guest
I have read and heard from various Catholics that there is a movement to name Mary as C-Redeemer. Is this true? Where in the world is the justification of this doctrine? The implications of this doctrinal change would be immense!
 
Catholic teaching is that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. It means she co-operates with Jesus. It does not mean she is equal.
 
Yes, it doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. Personally I think it would be a bad idea.

Protestant: See you really do worship Mary and think she’s equal to our Lord!

Catholic: No thats not what that means!

Protestant: Yes, it does your covering it up!

Anyway, heres the logic for it.
When the Church invokes Mary under the title, “Coredemptrix”, she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.10:10).
Click to expand...
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary’s intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, “also a contribution to the Redemption of us all” (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the “Coredemptrix.”
Click to expand...
It is important to note that the prefix “co” in the title Coredemptrix does not mean “equal to” but rather “with”, coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary’s unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
Click to expand...
catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
 
It’s a semantical issue - In point of fact, anyone can be a “co-redeemer” in the sense that they “co-operate” with God…but it’s poor, imprecise language.

Mary’s co-operation with God is absolutely unique in salvation history, and the Church has always recognized this fact. So, there is nothing new being proposed here, in fact, only new terms.

If certain terms are helpful and help people understand the theology, great, use them. However, I personally think it has been amply demonstrated that the term is not increasing understanding, since it has to be specially and ponderously explained to everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
 
It seems beyond dispute that, properly understood, Mary is a Co-Redemptrix.

We are all co-redeemers. We do not redeem ourselves, but we have the honor and privilege of joining our suffering to Jesus’.

Mary was unique in her role as Co-Redemptrix in that she was able to cooperate in ways that we could not. In a sense, she initiated Jesus’ mission at the wedding. Jesus could not deny her. I can’t help but believe that she had at least some vague sense of the loss and pain that awaited her (Simeon certainly gave her a warning). If, at Jesus’ scourging and crucifixion, she had called upon her Son to stop it, surely scripture would have recorded it. But she did not. Rather, she undoubtedly willingly suffered tremendous anguish. I think that meditation on the Sorrowful Mysteries can sometimes evoke a profound sense of Mary’s suffering as well as Jesus’.

Would a formal doctrinal declaration of something that is not actually in dispute in the Church, serve to aid people in understanding our own roles in the redemptive value of suffering? Would it only serve to sow confusion? Unique as was her role, Mary also needed to be redeemed. Her conception without sin was obtained by Jesus’ future sacrifice. Will this point be understood or lost in a formal declaration? Has the Holy Spirit been moving the Church to declare this? Have APPROVED apparitions truly suggested that this doctrine should be advanced?

I don’t know that we ought to care what protestants will think. There is much to be admired about the vigor of many protestants, but they are laboring under much error. If they don’t embrace their mother, given to them by Jesus from the cross, that is not a reason for us to be reticent about our embrace of our mother. But if the doctrine, which ideally should serve to bring clarification to important issues, actually creates confusion, criticism for the Church’s COMMUNICATION of the doctrine (not its soundness) would be well-founded.

I am not fully formed in my opinion on this yet, but I found this “pro” Fifth Marian Doctrine writing easy to read and helpful.

voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
 
I am with Super Grover!

The doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix is very old. In fact I am reading a book now on Ven. Mother Mariana of Quito-whose prophecies of 400 years ago have come to pass-and it is mentined several times in the book about Mary as co-redemptrix.

Yes, I know that our modern ecumenical minds would have trouble with this!

But I would like to see this doctrine become DOGMA. I am sure there was opposition to all the other Marian Dogmas too, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. God will make His Will known in this matter and perhaps we will live to see this
5th dogma promulgated. I believe it would bring many graces and a move forward toward that day when her Immaculate Heart will triumph as she predicted at Fatima.
 
Hello there! I hope this might help your understanding of the title of our Lady as Co-Redemptrix. "When the Church invokes Mary under the title, “Coredemptrix”, she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.10:10).

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary’s intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, “also a contribution to the Redemption of us all” (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the “Coredemptrix.”

It is important to note that the prefix “co” in the title Coredemptrix does not mean “equal to” but rather “with”, coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary’s unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

I got the info from an EWTN Library document. If you fish around you can find more stuff.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/MEDIATRI.HTM

Peace,

Gail
 
Is there any different title that has been suggested? Half of the energy spent on explaining the dogma will be spent on explaining what is ISN’T. We’ll find ourselves on these forums typing “The term ‘Co-’ doesn’t mean equal to Jesus” so many times, we may as well just make it a macro command.
 
Woah nelly.

My understanding is that Co-redemptrix is NOT one of the Marian doctrines Catholics are required to believe - that only Mother of God, Perpetually Virgin, Immaculate Conception and Assumption are, although people have agitated in the past to make Co-redemptrix one.

Can someone point me to where the Church gives binding teaching that she must be called Co-redemptrix?

Not that the title is wrong, properly understood, but I’m not going to pre-empt the Church on this one and believe that which may never become teaching - especially one that is such a huge potential minefield.
 
"The term ‘Co-’ doesn’t mean equal to Jesus" so many times, we may as well just make it a macro command.

The unfortunate thing is that (at least in English) “co” does mean “equal”.
 
bpbasilphx said:
"The term ‘Co-’ doesn’t mean equal to Jesus" so many times, we may as well just make it a macro command.

The unfortunate thing is that (at least in English) “co” does mean “equal”.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no it doesn’t. A co-pilot is NOT the equal of a pilot, and a book can have two co-authors even if one only wrote one sentence and the other wrote the rest of the darn thing.
 
OOOOOOPS! I got the same article but from a different source. Excuse my redundancy! 😊

Peace,

Gail
 
t68ware said:
I have read and heard from various Catholics that there is a movement to name Mary as C-Redeemer. Is this true? Where in the world is the justification of this doctrine? The implications of this doctrinal change would be immense!
Click to expand...
What’s interesting is that a lot of Catholics have forgotten that the fifth Marian dogma was prophesized by Jesus a hundred years ago, and requested by Mary herself only a couple of years ago. 🙂 (You can find Jesus’ prophecies on the inside of the front cover of the book Secret of the Rosary by Saint Louis de Montfort).

I await the day when Mary is dogmatically proclaimed Co-Redemptrix.
 
LilyM said:
Woah nelly.

My understanding is that Co-redemptrix is NOT one of the Marian doctrines Catholics are required to believe - that only Mother of God, Perpetually Virgin, Immaculate Conception and Assumption are, although people have agitated in the past to make Co-redemptrix one.

Can someone point me to where the Church gives binding teaching that she must be called Co-redemptrix?

Not that the title is wrong, properly understood, but I’m not going to pre-empt the Church on this one and believe that which may never become teaching - especially one that is such a huge potential minefield.
Click to expand...
It has not been formally defined as a dogma. But what about Mary as co-redemptrix can one really disbelieve? Properly understood, it seems about as controversial as saying that water is wet. No, the Church has never formally declared that water is wet, but we all naturally accept that when you go out in the rain or jump in a pool you get wet. The Church has not formally declared Mary as Co-Redemptrix, but we Catholics naturally accept that she had a unique role through her fiat, through carrying Jesus, through her suffering presence at her Son’s crucifixion.

I don’t know that anyone is getting ahead of him or herself here. We all know that this could be a minefield if formally declared. Or it might be of tremendous benefit. I don’t know, and I do wonder where the Holy Spirit will lead the Church on this.
 
Nickkname said:
What’s interesting is that a lot of Catholics have forgotten that the fifth Marian dogma was requested by Mary herself. 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry, we are not required to believe or act on the words of any apparition whatsoever, not even the approved ones or the ones to Saints such as Louis de Montfort. If God needs it done He will act through Magisterial teaching and not private revelation.
 
Nickkname said:
What’s interesting is that a lot of Catholics have forgotten that the fifth Marian dogma was prophesized by Jesus a hundred years ago, and requested by Mary herself only a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to an approved apparition?
 
LilyM said:
Sorry, we are not required to believe or act on the words of any apparition whatsoever, not even the approved ones or the ones to Saints such as Louis de Montfort. If God needs it done He will act through Magisterial teaching and not private revelation.
Click to expand...
The Immaculate Conception was helped along by private revelation. When ask who she was, Our Lady of Lourdes used that title before it was dogma.
 
LJN21 said:
The Immaculate Conception was helped along by private revelation. When ask who she was, Our Lady of Lourdes used that title before it was dogma.
Click to expand...
The Lourdes apparitions occurred some years AFTER the dogma was declared. I take your point on the apparitions to St Catherine Laboure though.

Point is, it’s not like the apparitions are cited in Ineffabilis Deus as reasons to believe in the dogma, nor as reasons why it was proclaimed - there’s plenty of solid scriptural, historical and theological reasoning that WAS, though. The dogma stands on its own independent of the apparitions and was declared because it made sense, not because of any apparitions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top