Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[knightbvm]

I have gone back and read your posts, and I don’t think that you have provided any evidence that the ECF held a belief anything like the Co-Redemtrix belief that is being advocated today. The “neck” analogy is from Pius X in the 20th Century. Your other citations, even if it is assumed they support this doctrine, are also from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Saint Irenaenus quote is the only ECF quote, but it refers to the general idea that salvation came through Mary in that Mary bore Christ, not that Mary has a post-resurrection role in grace or salvation.

There are a number of things that trouble me here, but one of them is the relationship between this doctrine and 1 John. We know that Mary lived with John between the Passion and her death. It is likely that John was closer to her than any other Apostle. In 1 John, John gives us a clear statement of the faith, and a clear, of the path to salvation, and of the relationship between Christ, the Holy Spirt, and the faithful. Mary is not mentioned anywhere. John tells us that the Spirit dwells within us, and that the Spirit brings the love of God to perfection within us. Why did John not understand Mary’s role?

I think that the intention is to further glorify and revere Mary, and I have no problem with giving Mary her due. But this doctrine appears to also put distance between us and God. There is no distance between us and God. God dwells within us. He speaks directly to us. Why put Mary between God and man? There is no need for a ‘conduit’ for the flow of Grace from God to man. What is the basis for thinking such a thing would be required?

I dont understand what you mean when you say the “the doctrine that is being advocated today?” what is the difference in the doctrine (the quotes i quoted from the Fathers) and that which you say “is being advocated today?”—I dont find anything in the recent POpes teaching(Benedict XV Leo XIII, John Paul II) that is any different from what the fathers taught— pleae explain

 

[knightbvm]

Just to reiterate I quoted recent Popes -Leo XII who said that "every grace comes from the Father to the Son through Mary. (Luncunda Semper quoting St. Bernard) and Benedict XV who said Mary reedemed the world with her son.----I dont see anything in these wuotes that differ from what the Fathers taught.—ok now explai-- thanks

 

[TMC]

Just to reiterate I quoted recent Popes -Leo XII who said that "every grace comes from the Father to the Son through Mary. (Luncunda Semper quoting St. Bernard) and Benedict XV who said Mary reedemed the world with her son.----I dont see anything in these wuotes that differ from what the Fathers taught.—ok now explai-- thanks

It just that I have never seen anything from the early Church that suggests that grace flows to the faithful only through Mary. In what I have seen, Saint Irananeus and others talked about the fact that through Mary’s obedience, she bore Christ into the world. Because Christ is the source of all grace, Mary thus played a role in bringing grace to the world. This is how she is the new Eve - her obedience brought about the untying of the knot tied by Eve’s disobedience. Just as Eve’s sin played a role in the Fall of us all, Mary’s sinlessness assisted in the salvation of all by obediently playing her role in the Incarnation.

I have not seen anything suggesting that Mary’s role after the Resurrection was more than as an advocate and as a helpful, but not strictly necessary, mediator. Similarly, one might figuratively say that Eve played a role in all sin, but no one would (I think) say that each time a person sins Eve is somehow actively involved in that sin, or that she is the one that takes away any grace destroyed by that sin.

The doctrine advocated today, as I understand it, is that after her death and assumption Mary became a part of the mechanism by which grace is delivered to humanity. That although Christ’s sacrifice allowed the grace of God to flow to men’s hearts, it passes in some way through Mary on its way. That Mary has an ongoing role not only in advocating for grace, but in then ‘deliverying’ grace. (All of which raises the question of how it worked while she was still alive.)

I have not seen where the early Church believed in a post-Incarnation role for Mary in salvation, but only that she is a role model, an advocate and a mediator with the Mediator, Christ.

I agree that doctrines can develop and I understand that Christ told us that we would not understand everything right away, but that the Paraclete would guide us. But this seems at odds with what we already know about salvation.

I certainly acknowledge that there may be things from the early church on this topic that I don’t know about. I might also be misunderstanding the doctrine. But if I have framed it wrongly, I’d like to know where. Also, I think most on this thread have read it the same way, so if we are misreading it then it needs to be reworked so that the larger audience will also understand it.

 

[Joe_5859]

If anyone is really interested in the doctrinal foundations for this proposed Marian dogma, I would recommend starting with:

• Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today

If you’re really hardcore, you can wade your way through:

• Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations: Towards a Papal Definition?
• [Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations II: Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumencial](Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations)
• Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma: Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations III

This should provide anyone who is interested with all the theological background they would ever need on the subject, along with all the quotes from popes, councils and ECF’s that provide the basis for this doctrine.

 

[latinmasslover]

I think that the intention is to further glorify and revere Mary, and I have no problem with giving Mary her due. But this doctrine appears to also put distance between us and God. There is no distance between us and God. God dwells within us. He speaks directly to us. Why put Mary between God and man? There is no need for a ‘conduit’ for the flow of Grace from God to man. What is the basis for thinking such a thing would be required?

How does it put a distance between us and God? One could easily argue “Why put the priest, or the Church, between us and God?” Mary always leads to Jesus. If one feels distanced from God by focusing on Mary than he/she is likely ignoring God 100%. The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary cannot ever be separated. He made her the Queen of Heaven, and to say we don’t need her is a rather presumptuous statement. Jesus Christ chose to come to us through her. In imitation of The Way, we should return to Him through her. (FYI to all: this post isn’t meant to spark a fresh fight)

 

[knightbvm]

It just that I have never seen anything from the early Church that suggests that grace flows to the faithful only through Mary. In what I have seen, Saint Irananeus and others talked about the fact that through Mary’s obedience, she bore Christ into the world. Because Christ is the source of all grace, Mary thus played a role in bringing grace to the world. This is how she is the new Eve - her obedience brought about the untying of the knot tied by Eve’s disobedience. Just as Eve’s sin played a role in the Fall of us all, Mary’s sinlessness assisted in the salvation of all by obediently playing her role in the Incarnation.

I have not seen anything suggesting that Mary’s role after the Resurrection was more than as an advocate and as a helpful, but not strictly necessary, mediator. Similarly, one might figuratively say that Eve played a role in all sin, but no one would (I think) say that each time a person sins Eve is somehow actively involved in that sin, or that she is the one that takes away any grace destroyed by that sin.

The doctrine advocated today, as I understand it, is that after her death and assumption Mary became a part of the mechanism by which grace is delivered to humanity. That although Christ’s sacrifice allowed the grace of God to flow to men’s hearts, it passes in some way through Mary on its way. That Mary has an ongoing role not only in advocating for grace, but in then ‘deliverying’ grace. (All of which raises the question of how it worked while she was still alive.)

I have not seen where the early Church believed in a post-Incarnation role for Mary in salvation, but only that she is a role model, an advocate and a mediator with the Mediator, Christ.

I agree that doctrines can develop and I understand that Christ told us that we would not understand everything right away, but that the Paraclete would guide us. But this seems at odds with what we already know about salvation.

I certainly acknowledge that there may be things from the early church on this topic that I don’t know about. I might also be misunderstanding the doctrine. But if I have framed it wrongly, I’d like to know where. Also, I think most on this thread have read it the same way, so if we are misreading it then it needs to be reworked so that the larger audience will also understand it.

You just keep saying that YOU UNDERSTAND THE DOCTEINE THIS WAY–I have repeatedly asked you for a quote that you disagree with–please get specific—I have quoted Popes, Fathers, etc—yOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH–saying “as I understand it” doesnt cut it–please quote something directly you disagree with

 

[lukewarm]

I find this heresy. And if its true the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching hersey, Mary will never be so declared.

It would be an abmoniation IMO to do so.

I agree and I find the fact that the biggest proponoent of this idea Pope John Paul II declined to Dogmatize this with an infallible statement speaks greatly for the idea that the Holy Ghost will protect the Church from teaching heresy. If Pope JPII wouldn’t declare this Dogma I don’t see anyone doing it.

The mental gymnastics needed to explain this doctrine are not worth it, by the time you get to the point of it not being heretical it is about a completely pointless doctrine anyway. It boils down to “we’re all co-redeemers in Christ” or some other thing. It offers nothing for our salvation and would just be the death blow for any hope of reconciliation with the East.

 

[pauliztarza]

my understanding of the teaching is this: Mary carried Christ in her womb and brought Him forth. He is our redemption, so Mary, in a way, helped to bring forth our redemption. Her grief and suffering during His Crucifixtion is/was greater than any other suffering, so that contributes to our redemption as well (Catholics believe suffering and pain to be redemptive, in case you didn’t know, and that our pain and suffering can complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. We can all help contribute, and Mary did so during His Passion.)

It’s a title that encompasses that idea.

Assuming I’m correct. Which I probably am not.

“Her grief and suffering during His Crucifixtion is/was greater than any other suffering, so that contributes to our redemption as well”

Did anything else but the blood of lamb contribute towards Jews being excluded from firstborn slaughter in Egypt ?

 

[pauliztarza]

In summary it means that every grace that comes from God goes through the virgin. She is the distributer of all graces. She gives them to whom she wills, when she wills, and in whatever manner she wills. That’s paraphrasing Montfort. So you can see why many people inside and outside the church are uneasy with the idea.

" it means that every grace that comes from God goes through the virgin"

You said “every grace” What other grace are you talking about - in specific ?

 

[VARC]

It offers nothing for our salvation and would just be the death blow for any hope of reconciliation with the East.

The co-redemptrix doctrine can’t kill what’s already dead. Papal infallibility was the death blow to reunification. The orthodox will NEVER accept it. So go ahead and dogmatize it because the pope lost all credibility in the east when he declared himself infallible

 

[pauliztarza]

Mary is a human being, created by God. We don’t worship Mary. She is not equal to God. We worship Him alone.

However:
Simeon prophesied in the Sacred Scripture:

“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.” Luke 2:35

A sword will pierce our own hearts also, because we are One in Christ. We lift up our hearts, when we stand at the foot of the Cross, during the Sacrifice of the Mass. When we worship at the Sacrifice of the Mass, we are uniting ourselves with His one and only Sacrifice of the Cross at Calvary on Good Friday. We offer ourselves, along with Jesus Christ as He offers Himself in His Sacrifice to the Father. This is how St. Paul says we share in His Sacrifice:

“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” 1Corinthians 10:16

Mary offered herself with Jesus’ Sacrifice. She said “Be it done unto me according to your Word.” And a sword pierced her soul, too, according to prophecy. We all have a co-redeeming role, but the Blessed Mother’s role is greater than ours, but not greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ. “Co” here means “with”. It’s a participation. It is as St. Paul says a partaking or sharing in His one perfect Sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross.

“We all have a co-redeeming role, but the Blessed Mother’s role is greater than ours, but not greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ.”

This means that God trusted you personally with redeeming role. What can you redeem for my sinful friend ? (I am witnessing to an unbeliever.)

 

[lukewarm]

The co-redemptrix doctrine can’t kill what’s already dead. Papal infallibility was the death blow to reunification. The orthodox will NEVER accept it. So go ahead and dogmatize it because the pope lost all credibility in the east when he declared himself infallible

You’re right of course, but still I see nothing positive out of dogmatizing something that sounds like an abomination, and when whittled down to a “sound doctrine” it offers essentially nothing beneficial for the faithful. “*'We’re all co-redeemers Mary is just better than us”… *Great this helps me get to Heaven how? And has far as Mary being distributor of all Graces this is not found in scripture or Sacred Tradition so it should not be made a dogma.

 

[VARC]

Pauliztarza, I already summed up the idea earlier

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

.

 

[VARC]

You’re right of course, but still I see nothing positive out of dogmatizing something that sounds like an abomination, and when whittled down to a “sound doctrine” it offers essentially nothing beneficial for the faithful. “*'We’re all co-redeemers Mary is just better than us”… *Great this helps me get to Heaven how? And has far as Mary being distributor of all Graces this is not found in scripture or Sacred Tradition so it should not be made a dogma.

I agree. It would do more harm than good. But many catholics, like knightbvm, simply don’t care because it’s the “truth”. And if the “truth” causes a schism and causes the church to fracture and send souls to hell then so be it.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree. It would do more harm than good. But many catholics, like knightbvm, simply don’t care because it’s the “truth”. And if the “truth” causes a schism and causes the church to fracture and send souls to hell then so be it.

It seems like two different issues are being discussed in this thread simultaneously. It might be wise to separate the two:

1. The doctrine that Mary is Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix of all Graces/Advocate [CMA] is true VS. this CMA doctrine is heresy and is not true
2. The doctrine that Mary is CMA is true AND it should be declared dogma right now VS. this CMA doctrine is true BUT, it should not be declared dogma at the present time or anytime in the foreseeable future

The former has to do with truth, the latter has to do with pastoral sensitivities.

Perhaps there should be two threads? It seems that some people are only arguing that it is true, while those arguing against are (for the most part) just arguing that it is not prudent to declare it as dogma at the present time. Thus, there seems to be a lot of talking past each other as they are really two separate issues.

In regards to the first point, I would argue that the doctrine is true. In regards to the second, I’m not sure whether or not it is prudent to declare it as dogma at this time. I can certainly understand the argument that it would be better not to define it for pastoral reasons. The Church moves slowly on such things, so there won’t be any snap decisions. Hence why it hasn’t been declared dogma yet.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I agree and I find the fact that the biggest proponoent of this idea Pope John Paul II declined to Dogmatize this with an infallible statement speaks greatly for the idea that the Holy Ghost will protect the Church from teaching heresy. If Pope JPII wouldn’t declare this Dogma I don’t see anyone doing it.

You don’t know if the Holy Spirit prevented him or if John Paul II prevented *himself *from doing this. He may have thought that something this controversial should be ironed out via an ecumenical council. Not every dogmatic statement has to come from the pope himself.

Remember also, that there is a difference between the truth of a dogmatic definition and the prudence of the Pope in making it. The pope could exercise poor judgement when he makes a dogmatic definition, even though it is true.

 

[JRKH]

Jesus came to redeem us.
He took human form and substance.
He taught, advised, corrected, was followed and revered.
He was tempted, ridiculed, taunted, ignored, tortured and killed.
He did all this for us. Not Mary.

Jesus even denied his mother:
Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12: 47-50

He also told us to “Hate our fathers and mothers”:
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26

How does one reconcile Jesus own attitude on the subject of His mother with the Idea of her being Co-redemptrix?

What God did for us, he did through Jesus Christ. JC is our savior and mediator. Mary’s co-operation in, and acceptance of, God’s will is just that. It is something we should aspire to in our spiritual life, but that is all.
As for the dispensation of Grace. That occurs through the Holy Spirit.

As far as any of these other philisophical and theological machinations, they are little more than mental toys for the philosophers and meaningless in our efforts to live as Christ wishes.

Peace
James

 

[Ken_S]

joe 5859

Sorry Joe I do not consider these titles to be eligable as dogma.

I am basing that on Scripture. Heres two quick ones.

1Tim:2-5 There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human

Jn3-34For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift

I could be missing something here but when the Apostles & Disciples never mentioned the Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix issue I assumed they knew what they were talking about.

How about a few Scripture quotes that show Mary is Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix

 

[lukewarm]

joe 5859

Sorry Joe I do not consider these titles to be eligable as dogma.

I am basing that on Scripture. Heres two quick ones.

1Tim:2-5 There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human

Jn3-34For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift

I could be missing something here but when the Apostles & Disciples never mentioned the Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix issue I assumed they knew what they were talking about.
How about a few Scripture quotes that show Mary is Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix

I agree it is not Apostolic at all, there is nothing in Sacred Tradition or scripture to show Mary is the co-redeemer or that she and only she dispenses all Grace. To dogmatize would be a wildly bizarre move.

Certainly something as important as Mary being the dispenser of all Grace and co-redeemer with Christ wouldn’t have gone 1,000’s of years without being taught by the Apostles. There is nothing in the writings of scripture or even the ECF’s that state this about Mary.

I agree it is philosophical musings run amock.

 

[Joe_5859]

joe 5859

Sorry Joe I do not consider these titles to be eligable as dogma.

I am basing that on Scripture. Heres two quick ones.

1Tim:2-5 There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human

Jn3-34For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift

I could be missing something here but when the Apostles & Disciples never mentioned the Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix issue I assumed they knew what they were talking about.

How about a few Scripture quotes that show Mary is Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix

Okay, there’s no less explicit scriptural support for Mary as Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix than there is for the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. So, if you are rejecting Mary as CMA (Co-redemptrix/Mediatrix/Advocate), you must also reject the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption on the same grounds (along with many other Catholic doctines that are not explicitly spelled out in Scripture, like Purgatory, Indulgences, praying to saints, etc., etc.). Part of being a Catholic is recognizing the development of doctrine. Not everything is spelled out explicitly in Scripture.

The fact that Mary is Mediatrix is already part of Church teaching. The Church calls her as much in 62Lumen Gentium and again in the Catechism (CCC 969).

There is scriptural support for this doctrine, just as there is for Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption (and all Catholic doctrine). In fact, much of the scriptural support for the CMA doctrine is the same as these two previous dogmas. The reason for this is because it is the natural progression from these other two declared dogmas.

One key verse is Genesis 3:15, which indicates the cooperative role that the new Eve (Mary) will have in the redemption of man in contrast to the role that the first Eve had in the Fall.

Then there is Luke 1:38, where Mary’s fiat begins her lifetime of cooperating with God’s saving plan.

Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:25 ff. also confirms Mary’s role of suffering with the Redeemer.

And of course John 19:25-27, where Mary is given to John as his mother (and through John, given to us all).

If I had the time, I could go more in depth, but I recommend taking a look at the books I recommended in my previous post 102. These books go in depth into the theological foundations (form Scripture, the doctors of the Church, and magisterial documents) of this doctrine. Other previous posters have posted many quotes in this regard.