MARY as co-redemptix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill_Pick

Guest
let me be very clear about this: the title “co-redemptrix” DOES NOT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD…AND NO ONE ELSE!!! If we were to give Mary the title of “co-redemptrix” it would not mean that she and Jesus are EQUALS in the work of redemption. That would not be true!!! So, if anyone does use this title for Mary’s role…it would be a SECONDARY role, a SUBORDINATE role,alongside her Son, Jesus, as THE ONLY SAVIOR, THE ONLY REDEEMER, OF THE WORLD. , this title of Mary, namely, “co-redemptrix” is a very difficult one. There are theologians who believe that we should not use this title for Mary. Others think it is a legitimate title for Mary, because of her special place alongside Jesus in the His achieving our salvation, our redemption. These theologians would hold that, because Mary was the Mother of Jesus, because she was so close to him and important to him as he “grew in wisdom and age and grace before God and men”…and because she was there at the foot of the cross, and her heart was pierced, when Jesus was crucified… for all such reasons many theologians think it would be fitting for Mary to be called “co-redemptrix”…so long as we understand this as a SECONDARY AND SUBORDINATE ROLE. For Jesus is the one and only SAVIOR OF THE WORLD IN THE STRICT SENSE What do you think.
 
twosweetgirls said:
Works for me, Bill. 👍
Click to expand...
I,m still thinking about it. just because what non-cathloics will be saying. You do know they still can not see parying to Her to get to Jesus, Thank you for your answer and lets see what will be going on with this.Have a good day and God bless
 
BILL PICK said:
let me be very clear about this: the title “co-redemptrix” DOES NOT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD…AND NO ONE ELSE!!! If we were to give Mary the title of “co-redemptrix” it would not mean that she and Jesus are EQUALS in the work of redemption. That would not be true!!! So, if anyone does use this title for Mary’s role…it would be a SECONDARY role, a SUBORDINATE role,alongside her Son, Jesus, as THE ONLY SAVIOR, THE ONLY REDEEMER, OF THE WORLD. , this title of Mary, namely, “co-redemptrix” is a very difficult one. There are theologians who believe that we should not use this title for Mary. Others think it is a legitimate title for Mary, because of her special place alongside Jesus in the His achieving our salvation, our redemption. These theologians would hold that, because Mary was the Mother of Jesus, because she was so close to him and important to him as he “grew in wisdom and age and grace before God and men”…and because she was there at the foot of the cross, and her heart was pierced, when Jesus was crucified… for all such reasons many theologians think it would be fitting for Mary to be called “co-redemptrix”…so long as we understand this as a SECONDARY AND SUBORDINATE ROLE. For Jesus is the one and only SAVIOR OF THE WORLD IN THE STRICT SENSE What do you think.
Click to expand...
Bill I honestly believe the Vatican itself is split right down the middle on this one. I don’t see it happening because many would not understand it nor take the time to try to. Scholars will debate no scriptural reference as Mary being a mediator between us and Jesus etc. etc. I believe the last poll that was taken on this had those against as numbering around 60%. I cannot recall the source but if I find it I will post.

I personally don’t like giving anyone the title of co anything when it comes to Christ. HIS work alone at the cross is how we are redeemed. One could then argue where does Joseph fit.
 
Hey, Bill~~I can answer this one honestly, since I was a pretty strong (and ashamedly so) anti-Catholic before God, in His ultimate sense of wisdom and justice, made me Catholic. 😛

But I used to have the hugest thing with the whole co-Redemptrix idea, too. As a Protestant, I was greatly insulted, as I’m sure other Protestants who read this thread will be, too. The thing, though, to remember is how Protestants and Catholics differ in the term “prayer”, and once that’s realized, then it becomes easier to understand how Our Blessed Mother can bring one to–or closer to–Jesus, Our Saviour and Redeemer.

I’m living proof. 👍
 
NDfan said:
Bill I honestly believe the Vatican itself is split right down the middle on this one. I don’t see it happening because many would not understand it nor take the time to try to. Scholars will debate no scriptural reference as Mary being a mediator between us and Jesus etc. etc. I believe the last poll that was taken on this had those against as numbering around 60%. I cannot recall the source but if I find it I will post.

I personally don’t like giving anyone the title of co anything when it comes to Christ. HIS work alone at the cross is how we are redeemed. One could then argue where does Joseph fit.
Click to expand...
Well like I said in the post right B4 your I am still thinking about it because of the out cry of are non-cathloic friends.well thank for your (name removed by moderator)ut have a great day and may are Lord bless you
 
BILL PICK said:
So, if anyone does use this title for Mary’s role…it would be a SECONDARY role, a SUBORDINATE role,alongside her Son, Jesus, as THE ONLY SAVIOR, THE ONLY REDEEMER, OF THE WORLD. , this title of Mary, namely, “co-redemptrix” is a very difficult one.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are trying to explain in your first post, but I still feel it is necessary to point out the contradiction of this sentence.

The use of ONLY, as a description of our Saviour or Redeemer, would be incorrect if anyone else (such as Mary) also had a SECONDARY or SUBORDINATE role (alongside Jesus).
ONLY precludes all others as also having a role in the actual redeeming and saving of God’s elect.
That role is entirely Jesus’ role, which should never be diminished with even the suggestion that others also have or had a part in the redeeming and saving role.
 
Co-Redemptrix basically means Mary cooperated in (Co-) the Redemption of man (Redemp) as the Woman, the New Eve (-trix). Her role was subordinate to and completely dependant upon Jesus’ role, meaning she was the Lord’s handmaid (subordinate) and she needed to be redeemed (completely dependant on Jesus’ work). Her Immaculate Conception is a singular grace which Jesus won for her by His death, which is why she needed Jesus: Without Redemption, she could not be the Holy Mother of God. This is why the Catholic Church says when Jesus was pierced, Mary came from His Heart, just as Eve came from Adam’s rib.
 
Speaking as someone deeply devoted to the Most Holy Theotokos, I have problems with the idea of her being “co-redemtrix” at all.

The prefix “co-” in English implies someone who is equal. Compare this with what the Creed in Latin says about the Holy Spirit: “conglorificator” with the Father and Son.

Of course, the Holy Theotokos has played and still plays and (please God) will always play a role in my redemption.

My Baptist Sunday School teachers likewise did, but to a much lesser extent.

I suggest the role of the Theotokos is much greater in degree, and probably in quality–but she can add NOTHING to what Her Son has done.
 
BILL PICK said:
I,m still thinking about it. just because what non-cathloics will be saying. You do know they still can not see parying to Her to get to Jesus, Thank you for your answer and lets see what will be going on with this.Have a good day and God bless
Click to expand...
Bill,
First, I appreciate your sensitivity as to what noncatholic Christians - that would include Orthdoxy - would say. And Rome has been in the lead in developing better dialogue and compassionate relationships between Christians of various communions.
So, here is a curious suggestion: a truly ecumenical council, including Orthodox and willing protestant participants, to discuss not only this issue, but others that divide us.
Just a thought.
Jon

btw, your definition in the OP is understandable to me, and if Rome stated this outside of council, I would oppose it more on those grounds than any discussion of the Blessed Virgin’s participation with God. Yeah, I know, strange position for a Lutheran. 😊
 
The difficulty is the English prefix “co-”

It can denote an equal, as in a committee co-chairman, or

a cooperating subordinate, as in co-pilot.

Our Lady is the pre-eminent cooperating subordinate. I have no problem with her being venerated as such - how could I have? But is the term “co-redemptrix” an opportune one, which is to ask will it unequivocally communicate that message?

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
The difficulty is the English prefix “co-”

It can denote an equal, as in a committee co-chairman, or

a cooperating subordinate, as in co-pilot.

Our Lady is the pre-eminent cooperating subordinate. I have no problem with her being venerated as such - how could I have? But is the term “co-redemptrix” an opportune one, which is to ask will it unequivocally communicate that message?

Gerry
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion
 
I have the same sorts of problems with this as Cluny and Gerry have voiced. I do not see why this should become dogma, to the extent that I have never heard of any heresy against the Church that suggests that Mary did not cooperate in the salvation of mankind through her willing cooperation in the plan of Our Lord (even anti-Catholic Protestants do not suggest that she did anything else, even if they do not really understand the Virgin’s place in the Church). This is most uncontroversial. But, of course, once you put a term out there like “co-redemptrix”, it opens up the floodgates to all kinds of misinterpretations, because obviously non-Catholics will probably not understand the Church’s reasoning in the first place.

I would say in the absence of some incredibly compelling and urgent reason to do so, there is no reason to continue with this “co-redemptrix” title talk. I am more than willing to concede that I may be misunderstanding the issue, in which case I await clarification, but really…why define any more than we absolutely need to? Haven’t we done just fine in expressing our love of the Blessed Virgin for the past 2,000 years without adding what all sides agree is a very controversial title?
 
dzheremi said:
I have the same sorts of problems with this as Cluny and Gerry have voiced. I do not see why this should become dogma, to the extent that I have never heard of any heresy against the Church that suggests that Mary did not cooperate in the salvation of mankind through her willing cooperation in the plan of Our Lord (even anti-Catholic Protestants do not suggest that she did anything else, even if they do not really understand the Virgin’s place in the Church). This is most uncontroversial. But, of course, once you put a term out there like “co-redemptrix”, it opens up the floodgates to all kinds of misinterpretations, because obviously non-Catholics will probably not understand the Church’s reasoning in the first place.

I would say in the absence of some incredibly compelling and urgent reason to do so, there is no reason to continue with this “co-redemptrix” title talk. I am more than willing to concede that I may be misunderstanding the issue, in which case I await clarification, but really…why define any more than we absolutely need to? Haven’t we done just fine in expressing our love of the Blessed Virgin for the past 2,000 years without adding what all sides agree is a very controversial title?
Click to expand...
I agree but how many people in the world do you know that Jesus was taking orders from. smile
 
Indeed. In fact, she didn’t even have to give orders. She just pointed out to her son that there was no wine, and then told the servants to do whatever her son told them. Now THAT’s influence 😃

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
Indeed. In fact, she didn’t even have to give orders. She just pointed out to her son that there was no wine, and then told the servants to do whatever her son told them. Now THAT’s influence 😃

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
Good answer Gerry
 
BILL PICK said:
let me be very clear about this: the title “co-redemptrix” DOES NOT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD…AND NO ONE ELSE!!! If we were to give Mary the title of “co-redemptrix” it would not mean that she and Jesus are EQUALS in the work of redemption. That would not be true!!! So, if anyone does use this title for Mary’s role…it would be a SECONDARY role, a SUBORDINATE role,alongside her Son, Jesus, as THE ONLY SAVIOR, THE ONLY REDEEMER, OF THE WORLD. , this title of Mary, namely, “co-redemptrix” is a very difficult one. There are theologians who believe that we should not use this title for Mary. Others think it is a legitimate title for Mary, because of her special place alongside Jesus in the His achieving our salvation, our redemption. These theologians would hold that, because Mary was the Mother of Jesus, because she was so close to him and important to him as he “grew in wisdom and age and grace before God and men”…and because she was there at the foot of the cross, and her heart was pierced, when Jesus was crucified… for all such reasons many theologians think it would be fitting for Mary to be called “co-redemptrix”…so long as we understand this as a SECONDARY AND SUBORDINATE ROLE. For Jesus is the one and only SAVIOR OF THE WORLD IN THE STRICT SENSE What do you think.
Click to expand...
Jesus is God, Mary was a human being. Keep it in perspective or risk going off the cliff. Enough said.
 
BILL PICK said:
I agree but how many people in the world do you know that Jesus was taking orders from. smile
Click to expand...
St. Joseph, one supposes. Probably a number of uncles, aunts, and other older relatives. The legal authorities in most uncontroversial, day-to-day matters. The customers! (Guy was a carpenter, after all.) What can one say? Our Lord was a Servant among servants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top