Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[knightbvm]

That would be a fair assessment. Although, to be frank, I would have to do some additional research to determine the exact teachings involved.
It is obvious from your handle that you are a devote of our Blessed Mother. I respect that. Nor do I deny her unique place in our faith. But I look at it like this.
Would your mother want you fighting with your bothers and cousins over her? Wouldn’t she rather be just plain mom and loved by her family?

Peace
James

It isnt just Benedict XV who called Mary Co- Redemtrix. She has been called this throughout centuries by various Popes and theologians and saints. We also cant back away from truth because Protestants and other Christians may be offended. Also lets keep in mind the various ways the Church is infallible. A teaching can be infallible by the ordinary magisteium. This is the case when a teaching on faith and morals is taught over a constant period of time. example: the dogma of the Immacualte conception was already an infallible teaching before 1854. It was infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. It was solemnly defined by Pius IX in 1854. This was an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium. Sometimes it is hard to determine if a teaching is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, therefore, at times, we need the extraordinary magisterium to “step in” and remove all doubt. I would argue that the teaching of the Co- Redemtrix is already infallible because it has been taught by the Church over a constant period of time. I do, however ,acknowledge that there could be some prudential reasons for not solemnly defining it.

 

[VARC]

Its really quit simple:

co = cooperate / with redemption –

Mary said yes and that would be cooperation on her part so she was coredemptrix/ cooperated with redemption(it doesn’t mean that she was a redemer.

NO BIG MYSTERY or NO HERESY

Actually, it’s a little more complicated than this. As I understand it, Mary is called co-redemptrix because of her role in the subjective redemption of mankind.

This goes back to what someone said earlier about Pilate and Judas being co-redeemers because of thier role in the crucifixion. The crucifixion is the event of the general redemption of mankind. But that is not what the co-redemptrix dogma is talking about.

The general redemption of mankind (crucifixion of Christ) created the abundance of graces to save the whole of humanity. But the subjective redemption is the application of those graces to the elect. It is the subjective redemption that is the subject of the co-redemptrix dogma. It is Mary who distributes those graces to the souls of the elect granting them salvation. This is the true meaning of co-redemptrix according to Montfort

So you see that this idea will never be accepted by the protestants or the orthodox. It is completely absent from the Bible and the Tradition of the Fathers and is based entirely on the Marian teachings of the 18th century and fueled by apparitions.

 

[knightbvm]

Actually, it’s a little more complicated than this. As I understand it, Mary is called co-redemptrix because of her role in the subjective redemption of mankind.

This goes back to what someone said earlier about Pilate and Judas being co-redeemers because of thier role in the crucifixion. The crucifixion is the event of the general redemption of mankind. But that is not what the co-redemptrix dogma is talking about.

The general redemption of mankind (crucifixion of Christ) created the abundance of graces to save the whole of humanity. But the subjective redemption is the application of those graces to the elect. It is the subjective redemption that is the subject of the co-redemptrix dogma. It is Mary who distributes those graces to the souls of the elect granting them salvation. This is the true meaning of co-redemptrix according to Montfort

So you see that this idea will never be accepted by the protestants or the orthodox. It is completely absent from the Bible and the Tradition of the Fathers and is based entirely on the Marian teachings of the 18th century and fueled by apparitions.

again here is Benedict XV( by the way the Pope at the time) Pope Benedict XV, March 22, 1918, Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia, ≥As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. It is for this reason that all graces contained in the treasury of the Redemption are given to us through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.≤
The teaching goes back way before the 18th century-----I will get quotes for you-----

 

[knightbvm]

Actually, it’s a little more complicated than this. As I understand it, Mary is called co-redemptrix because of her role in the subjective redemption of mankind.

This goes back to what someone said earlier about Pilate and Judas being co-redeemers because of thier role in the crucifixion. The crucifixion is the event of the general redemption of mankind. But that is not what the co-redemptrix dogma is talking about.

The general redemption of mankind (crucifixion of Christ) created the abundance of graces to save the whole of humanity. But the subjective redemption is the application of those graces to the elect. It is the subjective redemption that is the subject of the co-redemptrix dogma. It is Mary who distributes those graces to the souls of the elect granting them salvation. This is the true meaning of co-redemptrix according to Montfort

So you see that this idea will never be accepted by the protestants or the orthodox. It is completely absent from the Bible and the Tradition of the Fathers and is based entirely on the Marian teachings of the 18th century and fueled by apparitions.

Here is a quote from Saint Ireanus way before the 18th century. Notice he talks about Mary bringing salvation to her and THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. Also he mentions Eve and compares her to Mary. A refernce to Gen 3:15—That, I believe also refutes your assertion that the teaching has no foundation in scripture. It at least has an implicit mention in scripture. Many of the early Church fathers interpreted Gen 3:15 this way—
St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:22:4 -]

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."439 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed,"440 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,441 and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race… And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (Source) Ill provide more quotes about Gen 3:15 if you would like.

 

[VARC]

Here is a quote from Saint Ireanus way before the 18th century. Notice he talks about Mary bringing salvation to her and THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. Also he mentions Eve and compares her to Mary. A refernce to Gen 3:15—That, I believe also refutes your assertion that the teaching has no foundation in scripture. It at least has an implicit mention in scripture. Many of the early Church fathers interpreted Gen 3:15 this way—
St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:22:4 -]

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."439 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed,"440 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,441 and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race… And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (Source) Ill provide more quotes about Gen 3:15 if you would like.

Irenaeus is describing Mary’s role in the general redemption (by yielding obediance). He is not describing her role as the despencer of all graces. That idea came much later with Montfort. No Father taught that she was the mediatrix of all graces.

An objective reader of scripture will not find that idea in scripture at all. The doctrine must be read into the scriptures because it can’t be read from the scriptures.

 

[knightbvm]

Irenaeus is describing Mary’s role in the general redemption (by yielding obediance). He is not describing her role as the despencer of all graces. That idea came much later with Montfort. No Father taught that she was the mediatrix of all graces.

An objective reader of scripture will not find that idea in scripture at all. The doctrine must be read into the scriptures because it can’t be read from the scriptures.

I THINK YOUR WRONG-----LOL—I’LL LET FATHER WILLIAM MOST EXPLAIN FOR ME

To begin, we can say without doubt that the title “Mediatrix” is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:

… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…"

We notice that Vatican II did not add the words “of all graces.” However, as many papal texts point out, Mary’s role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima.

Leo XIII, in the text referred to, spoke of her, as we saw above, as having “practically limitless power.” St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the “neck” connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said “Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.” These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible.

---

Excerpted and adapted from Theology 523: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion, by Father William G. Most.
Copyright (c) 1994 William G. Most

Electronic text (c) Copyright EWTN 1996. All rights reserved.

 

[knightbvm]

fATHER MOST GOES ON Objection

Protestants object to this , saying that there is only one mediator: 1 Tim 2:5. We agree that there are many ways in which Christ is the only mediator between God and man. 1) There is only one mediator who is such by very nature, being both true God and true man. 2) There is only one mediator whose whose work is necessary, without whom, in God’s plan, there could be no salvation. 3) There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary differs on all three counts. 1) Mary only a creature, but it was appropriate that God be freely choose her as Mediatrix because he had made her Mother of the God-man, the Redeemer–it was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God’s plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord. 2) Her role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore. 3) Her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son, and hence we are not contradicting Lumen gentium # 62 which says no creature can be ever counted together with Him.

Really, the Father did not need her at all, except that if He decreed the incarnation, He necessarily decreed a Mother: she was and is that Mother. But everything else in which He has employed her is not needed.

Yet, if we recall the economy of redemption, it is clear that the Father wants everything to be as rich as possible, so that He will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. Really, the incarnation in a palace, without death, would have been infinite in merit and satisfaction, as we have seen in the section on her cooperation in the redemption.

Further, the principle of St. Thomas helps here. In Summa Theologiae I. 19. 5. c., Thomas says that it pleases God to have one thing in place to serve as a title or reason for granting something further, even though that title does not move Him. It is His love of all goodness and good order that leads Him to act this way. Hence too, even though Calvary earned infinite forgiveness and graces, the Father wills to provide titles for giving out these, in the Mass. Even though He did not need even our Lady, yet He willed to employ her. Even though there is no need of any other saints, in objective or subjective redemption, yet He wills to add them–all to make everything, every title, as rich as possible.

Lumen gentium speaks of her as taking care of all her children. We are extremely numerous, but yet not infinite in number. Therefore, we are not too numerous for her to see and care for. For her capacity for that infinite vision of God is in proportion to her love on earth, so great that Pius IX, as we saw, said it was so great that “none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”

Is her mediation merely by intercession, prayer for us to her Son and to God the Father? Or does she also play a role in the distribution of graces from the Father through her Son to us? Many today, influenced by Protestant theology, tend to speak of grace merely as favor, and so say grace is not a thing given. But that would imply Pelagianism, the heresy that says that we can be saved by our own power. For if God merely sits there and smiles at me, and gives me nothing, that would mean that I had to do it by my own power.

So we answer, since Mary was associated with her Son in acquiring grace for us, she will also share with him in distributing that grace to us. This fits well with the words of the Popes, who call her the administra of grace, meaning that she administers or dispenses it. So Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, said:

“… when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : ‘Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.’”

---

Continue on to Teaching of the Popes and Vatican II on Mary’s Mediation.

 

[knightbvm]

So Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, said:

“… when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : ‘Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.’”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Irenaeus is describing Mary’s role in the general redemption (by yielding obediance). He is not describing her role as the despencer of all graces. That idea came much later with Montfort. No Father taught that she was the mediatrix of all graces.

An objective reader of scripture will not find that idea in scripture at all. The doctrine must be read into the scriptures because it can’t be read from the scriptures.

Read Saint John Damascene’s Three Sermon’s on the Dormition. Also Saint Germane of Constantinople, Saint Bernard of Clairvax, and many other Fathers speak of the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces (in fact, I believe that Saint John Damascene gave Mary the name Mediatrix of All Graces).

 

[VARC]

Your posts are very long so I only scanned through them. I know that popes have taught that Mary is the co-redemptrix and the mediatrix of all graces. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the Fathers of the church didn’t teach it and that the belief has to be read into the scriptures because it cannot be read from the scriptures.

 

[VARC]

Hello,

Read Saint John Damascene’s Three Sermon’s on the Dormition. Also Saint Germane of Constantinople, Saint Bernard of Clairvax, and many other Fathers speak of the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces (in fact, I believe that Saint John Damascene gave Mary the name Mediatrix of All Graces).

I’m not interested in Bernard as he is not a Father but if you can cite John Damascene or any other Father I would be most interested.

 

[knightbvm]

Your posts are very long so I only scanned through them. I know that popes have taught that Mary is the co-redemptrix and the mediatrix of all graces. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the Fathers of the church didn’t teach it and that the belief has to be read into the scriptures because it cannot be read from the scriptures.

Your just plain wrong—it is taught by the fathers====see the quotes above by me and others–ALSO—CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEVELOPS—we can definitley see this —the Popes I quoted above explicitly state Mary as Mediatrix—I quote Leo XIII again------
So Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, said:

“… when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : ‘Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.’”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I’m not interested in Bernard as he is not a Father but if you can cite John Damascene or any other Father I would be most interested.

Here’s a quick one, and that’s all for tonight (I’m starting to get blurry eyed):

O how does the source of life pass through death to life? O how can she obey the law of nature, who, in conceiving, surpasses the boundaries of nature? How is her spotless body made subject to death? In order to be clothed with immortality she must first put off mortality, since the Lord of nature did not reject the penalty of death. She dies according to the flesh, destroys death by death, and through corruption gains incorruption (fqora [164] thn afqarsin carizetai), and makes her death the source of resurrection. O how does Almighty God receive with His own hands the holy disembodied soul of our Lord’s Mother! He honours her truly, whom being His servant by nature, He made His Mother, in His inscrutable abyss of mercy, when He became incarnate in very truth. We may well believe that the angelic choirs waited to receive thy departing soul. O what a blessed departure this going to God of thine. If God vouchsafes it to all His servants–and we know that He does–what an immense difference there is between His servants and His Mother. What, then, shall we call this mystery of thine? Death? Thy blessed soul is naturally parted from thy blissful and undefiled body, and the body is delivered to the grave, yet it does not endure in death, nor is it the prey of corruption. The body of her, whose virginity remained unspotted in child-birth, was preserved in its incorruption, and was taken to a better, diviner place, where death is not, but eternal life. Just as the glorious sun may be hidden momentarily by the opaque moon, it shows still though covered, and its rays illumine the darkness [165] since light belongs to its essence. It has in itself a perpetual source of light, or rather it is the source of light as God created it. So art thou the perennial source of true light, the treasury of life itself, the richness of grace, the cause and medium of all our goods. And if for a time thou art hidden by the death of the body, without speaking, thou art our light, life-giving ambrosia, true happiness, a sea of grace, a fountain of healing and of perpetual blessing. Thou art as a fruitful tree in the forest, and thy fruit is sweet in the mouth of the faithful. Therefore I will not call thy sacred transformation death, but rest or going home, and it is more truly a going home. Putting off corporeal things, thou dwellest in a happier state. (Saint John Damascene, On the Dormition, Sermon I)

 

[knightbvm]

I’m not interested in Bernard as he is not a Father but if you can cite John Damascene or any other Father I would be most interested.

Apparently, the first use of the title Mediatrix as applying to Our Lady was used by St. Ephraem (373): “I call upon you, Mediatrix of the world; I invoke your prompt protection in my necessities.” In his fourth sermon on Our Lady, he calls her “dispensatrix of all gifts… Mediatrix of the whole world.” [4]

A Father of the Council of Ephesus, Antipater of Bostra, wrote, “Hail, you who acceptably intercede as a Mediatrix for mankind.” (In S. Joannem Bapt., PG, 1772C) [5] St. Andrew of Crete (660-740) referred to Mary as the "Mediatrix of the law and grace” and that “she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.”
[4] Sancti Ephraem Syri opera graece et latine,. ed. Assemani, Vol. 3 (Rome, 1746), p. 525 and pp. 528‑529.

[5] Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, (Santa Barbara, Queenship Publications, 1993), p. 36.

That should do and if you understand the teaching about how Doctrine develops this is a SLAM DUNK!!!

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I don’t think that anyone is being accused of worship Mary but the Monfortian formula is problematic for two resaons: 1) its SOUNDS blasphemous and 2) the Fathers never spoke of Mary in such a formula as to suggest that ALL graces come from GOD thru her

If the Fathers never wrote about this, then this will also broaden the gap with the Eastern and Oriental (for lack of better terms) Orthodox as well. They already are in an uproar because of Ineffabilis Deus and Pastor Aeternus contain Infallible Dogmata that they insist are not in the Fathers.

 

[TMC]

I have been reading more on this lately because it has been a topic here. I don’t think it will ever be declared, because it is confusing and even the way many Catholics intepret it is wrong, IMO. I think there are two ways to understand the title. One is that because Mary was a perfect and willing participant in bringing about the Incarnation, which is the source of grace, she has in that sense brought all grace into the world. We can ask for her intercession on any matter, and she will mediate for us - thus she is the mediator of all graces.

The other way to interpret the term is to say that all grace actually comes to humankind by flowing through Mary. As others have put it on this thread, that she “distributes” grace to mankind. I think this is wrong, and maybe heretical. This puts Mary between God and man. What does it mean to “distribute”? Does she have some say in what graces you receive and which I receive? That would make her divine, wouldn’t it? If she has no say, no role other than as a ‘pipeline’, what is the point? What does that even mean? Christ is in direct contact with all of us, there is no gap between us to be filled. What early Fathers taught anything like this?

I do not see this ever being declared dogmatically. Not only is there is simply no need to do so, I agree with those that say its misleading and confusing.

 

[VARC]

Hello,

Here’s a quick one, and that’s all for tonight (I’m starting to get blurry eyed):

O how does the source of life pass through death to life? O how can she obey the law of nature, who, in conceiving, surpasses the boundaries of nature? How is her spotless body made subject to death? In order to be clothed with immortality she must first put off mortality, since the Lord of nature did not reject the penalty of death. She dies according to the flesh, destroys death by death, and through corruption gains incorruption (fqora [164] thn afqarsin carizetai), and makes her death the source of resurrection. O how does Almighty God receive with His own hands the holy disembodied soul of our Lord’s Mother! He honours her truly, whom being His servant by nature, He made His Mother, in His inscrutable abyss of mercy, when He became incarnate in very truth. We may well believe that the angelic choirs waited to receive thy departing soul. O what a blessed departure this going to God of thine. If God vouchsafes it to all His servants–and we know that He does–what an immense difference there is between His servants and His Mother. What, then, shall we call this mystery of thine? Death? Thy blessed soul is naturally parted from thy blissful and undefiled body, and the body is delivered to the grave, yet it does not endure in death, nor is it the prey of corruption. The body of her, whose virginity remained unspotted in child-birth, was preserved in its incorruption, and was taken to a better, diviner place, where death is not, but eternal life. Just as the glorious sun may be hidden momentarily by the opaque moon, it shows still though covered, and its rays illumine the darkness [165] since light belongs to its essence. It has in itself a perpetual source of light, or rather it is the source of light as God created it. So art thou the perennial source of true light, the treasury of life itself, the richness of grace, the cause and medium of all our goods. And if for a time thou art hidden by the death of the body, without speaking, thou art our light, life-giving ambrosia, true happiness, a sea of grace, a fountain of healing and of perpetual blessing. Thou art as a fruitful tree in the forest, and thy fruit is sweet in the mouth of the faithful. Therefore I will not call thy sacred transformation death, but rest or going home, and it is more truly a going home. Putting off corporeal things, thou dwellest in a happier state. (Saint John Damascene, On the Dormition, Sermon I)

I don’t see this as proof that John Damascene believe that Mary was a co-redemptrix in the way that Montfort is describing. I do understand that Mary is described by the Fathers as a mediatrix in the sense that she participated in the general redemption by her fiat in the annunciation and in the sense that she is an interccessor for all mankind.

But Montfort is going way beyond that by saying the elect are saved because Mary applies the all graces of the crucifixion to the elect to whom she wills, when she wills, and in whatever manner she wills. That idea is never even suggested until the scholastic period at the earliest.

 

[TMC]

Having read some of the articles at the links, I cannot agree with most of them. Dr. Miravale asserts that the Holy Spirit can only work through Mary, somehow deriving this from John 19:26. But this contradicts John 14:16-17, which says the Spirit will live with us and in us, and does not mention any intermediary.

For those that favor this as a new dogma, do you believe that the Spirit cannot or does not choose to directly distribute grace? Do you believe Mary’s will plays any role in distributing grace?

 

[DustinsDad]

…For those that favor this as a new dogma, do you believe that the Spirit cannot or does not choose to directly distribute grace?

I think the Holy Spirit does directly distribute grace - but no grace is given that points anywhere but to the Son - that’s His job so to speak. Thus, there is nowhere the Holy Spirit wills to go that the Blessed Mother disagrees with. Her will is perfectly conformed to God’s and pefectly united to the mission of giving her Son to the world. As such, there is no contradiction in what the Holy Spirit decides or chooses to do and that which the Blessed Mother herself wills.

Further, by the fact that she consented to God to give the world it’s Redeemer, and the fact that she was given to us on the cross by Him as our mother further demonstrates that there is no conflict here. Is there anyone on the earth that the Blessed Mother does not want to win for her Son? Of course not. And all actual grace is given to - one way or another - point us to Him.

…Do you believe Mary’s will plays any role in distributing grace?

Of course!

Any authentic devotion to Our Lady is pleasing to God in such a way as to open the floodgates of His mercy on us.

We should strive to love the Blessed Mother as Jesus loves the Blessed Mother - so she in turn can show us how to love Jesus as she loves Jesus.

It’s an awesome thing.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[natsclem]

Using Dictionary.com I found this:

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: co-
Function: prefix
1 : **with : together : joint : jointly **
2 a : associated in an action with another : fellow b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy

So do you think that people who hear Co-Redemptrix are going to hear co-operate? I don’t think so.

yeah, i think the initial impression will be as you said–Mary together with Christ redeemed the world. its proclamation will be as controversial as her title Theotokos–Mother of God, which is misunderstood as Source of Divinity.

But, in the sense of the second meaning of “co”–Mary shared in Christ’s redemptive work–i think there is no problem.