MARY as co-redemptix

[Bellus]

The arguments that I’ve read about co-remeptrix is that Mary suffered when Jesus suffered, that He would have done as any son might - go to His mother for support. But all of this is based on assumption. We assume that He did these things. Church tradition may teach that He did this, but God’s Word does not. The focus is entirely on Christ. Why would we need another redeemer? Why isn’t one enough? And why would the Savior of the entire World, a man who was sinless, who took on our sins, yet never sinned himself, why oh why would He need anyone to help him? God appointed Jesus to this place and no one else. We don’t need to pray to His mother in order for Mary to convince Jesus to answer our prayers. We pray to God the Father through Christ Jesus the Son and Savior. Christ takes our requests directly to His father. The bible expressly tells us that He is seated at the right hand of the Father. It says nothing of the sort about Mary. If we assume that she too is seated with them, we’ve just added to God’s word that which He did not tell us to add.

 

[Hesychios]

We are all the body of Christ. We are all icons of Christ.

We are all instruments of God’s Will, whether willingly and knowingly or not.

We are all mediators of God’s Grace with each other in one way or another. We are called to be a blessing upon this earth, of course whether we live up to this calling is up to us.

As an Eastern Christian I am well aware of the heroic contribution of the Holy Theotokos to the fulfillment of God’s plan, far beyond anything I could ever do, and I exalt her daily for it. But I also know that she is only human, and she does not monopolize the role as intercessor for us with God. Along with Jesus Our Lord Himself there is an entire community of Saints and angels. To us a numberless body of holy creatures, and to their ranks more come each day, although most of whom we can not know by name.

View attachment 5322

Anything whatsoever that tends to confuse Saint Mary of Nazareth’s role with the Savior’s in even one innocent person’s mind is a scandal, and should be avoided as a simple sensible practice. Therefore it does not matter that advocates protest that it does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the One Savior. That is just not the message being sent. One more confusing unnecessary claim.

The church has never before in nearly 2000 years granted any creature of God such a title as co-redeemer. It has never before needed to. That means the persons advocating for a formal acknowledgment of such a title are on the outside stream of historic Christianity, a faction of the church pushing an agenda.

Roman Catholic apologists are not in a position to represent this dogma as official church teaching to non-Roman Catholics. It is actually an expression of Cafeteria Catholicism, in other words a choice to believe, not received teaching.

Perhaps most importantly a dogma of this type cannot save souls, it can only damn souls. The reason should be obvious. It is quite selfish of some to try and impose their own theories upon other devout and faithful Christians. Those who have never before been taught such a dogma, and those who quite innocently in themselves cannot bring themselves to accept it will be anathematized by a church that is supposed to be committed to saving them.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter…" Matthew 23:13

 

[JonNC]

We are all the body of Christ. We are all icons of Christ.

We are all instruments of God’s Will, whether willingly and knowingly or not.

We are all in some way mediators of God’s Grace with each other in one way or another. We are called to be a blessing upon this earth, whether we live up to this calling is up to us.

As an Eastern Christian I am well aware of the heroic contribution of the Holy Theotokos to the fulfillment of God’s plan, far beyond anything I could ever do, and I exalt her daily for it. But I also know that she is only human, and she does not monopolize the role as intercessor for us with God. Along with Jesus Our Lord Himself there is an entire community of Saints and angels. To us a numberless body of holy creatures, and to their ranks more come each day, although most of whom we can not know by name.

View attachment 5322

Anything whatsoever that tends to confuse Saint Mary of Nazareth’s role with the Savior’s in even one innocent person’s mind is a scandal, and should be avoided as a simple sensible practice. Therefore it does not matter that advocates protest that it does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the One Savior. That is just not the message being sent. One more confusing unnecessary claim.

The church has never before in nearly 2000 years granted any creature of God such a title as co-redeemer. It has never before needed to. That means the persons advocating for a formal acknowledgment of such a title are on the outside stream of historic Christianity, a faction of the church pushing an agenda.

Roman Catholic apologists are not in a position to represent this dogma as official church teaching to non-Roman Catholics. It is actually an expression of Cafeteria Catholicism, in other words a choice to believe, not received teaching.

Perhaps most importantly a dogma of this type cannot save souls, it can only damn souls. The reason should be obvious. It is quite selfish of some to try and impose their own theories upon other devout and faithful Christians. Those who have never before been taught such a dogma, and those who quite innocently in themselves cannot bring themselves to accept it will be anathematized by a church that is supposed to be committed to saving them.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter…" Matthew 23:13

Wow, my friend, just wow!

Jon

 

[dzheremi]

Therefore it does not matter that advocates protest that it does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the One Savior. That is just not the message being sent. One more confusing unnecessary claim.

The church has never before in nearly 2000 years granted any creature of God such a title as co-redeemer. It has never before needed to. That means the persons advocating for a formal acknowledgment of such a title are on the outside stream of historic Christianity, a faction of the church pushing an agenda.

Roman Catholic apologists are not in a position to represent this dogma as official church teaching to non-Roman Catholics. It is actually an expression of Cafeteria Catholicism, in other words a choice to believe, not received teaching.

Very well said, Hesychios. This was more or less the point I was trying to make in my reply a few days ago. I don’t understand why this must be defined as dogma and really, in the absence of evidence that it must be defined (so as to combat some form of heresy or something of that magnitude), it seems ruinous to me to start suggesting, as some seem to be doing in this thread, that the fact that an argument can be made for X, Y, or Z, then X, Y, or Z should therefore be dogma. I really, really hope this does not happen. This cannot be how the Church works!

 

[mardukm]

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.

Fine, let some laypeople give her the title. But why make it a dogma? I accept the two latest Marian dogmas based on their Christological focus (the IC with a view to the perfection of Christ; the Assumption with a view to the promise made by Christ to His Church)

Dogmatizing “Co-Redemptrix” does not seem to me to have any Christological focus at all.

Why is this in the Non-Catholics Forum, btw. Was this a freudian slip (so to speak?)

Blessings,
Marduk