Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[JRKH]

This comes from the sister thread with the poll at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213012&page=9

I thought is was worth posting here as well.

“Co” in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary “assisted” in our redemption and she assists in our mediation with Christ.

This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.

In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.
In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God’s will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.
The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. “co” just simply does NOT mean “equal to”.
As for Judas, no he was NOT co-redeemer. Jesus could have been crucified without Judas’ help. Jesus could have been arrested at any time whenever he was in public. In fact, Jesus mentions this in the Garden when he was arrested. Judas happened to be the instrument of Jesus’ arrest, but was not necessary for Jesus’ arrest. This is different than with Mary…
Mary’s role was not incidental but REQUIRED. Jesus, to be incarnated, HAD to be born of a woman, otherwise he would not be human and thus could not be the redeemer.
Mary’s collaboration was required; Judas’ participation was not, but was incidental.
At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of “co”.

The problem is the redefining of terms. “Religion” is another term that has been redefined by tv evangelists as something negative. “Co” dos not mean “equal to” and if the language has changed, then the Church will probably take that into consideration.

I must disagree with you on your definition of “Co”. It has been posted a couple of times that “co” can also be read as equal.
For instance:
A Co-defendant is also a defendant in his/her own right.
A Co-pilot is also a pilot in his/her own right.
A Co-council is also a councilor (lawyer) in his/her own right.
To Co-operate is to operate together with someone.
While it is true that in some of these examples the Co-operator has less authority than the other, that is generally based on the experience level of the individuals and not on their capabilities.

Mary has no capability to redeem anyone herself. Regardless of the Love we have for her and she for us, she can only intercede for us, not redeem us. She does not have that capacity and never will. Therefore the term Co-redemptix as a Title is inappropriate.

This thread has certainly covered the ground thoroughly, but in so doing it becomes obvious that dogmatically declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix would be devisive and counterproductive.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

but it certainly seems to make her more than merely human.

More than human?!? Oh my!

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think the Church teaches this at all. This is what the catechism says:

Yes, and the Catechism also says:

CCC 969: “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

I know this doesn’t use the title “co-redemptrix”, but a lot of people seem to be quoting the “one Mediator” Scripture passage as though that ipso facto eliminates the possibility that Mary is Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix. If we don’t believe that other people cooperate in Christ’s one mediation, then the whole practice of praying to the saints crumbles to the ground.

We call Mary the Queen of Heaven and a host of other things. Just look at the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We call her “Cause of our joy”, “Singular Vessel of Devotion”, “Gate of Heaven.” These titles could lead (and probably already have led) many people to believe (falsely) that Catholics put Mary on par with Jesus. Should we abandon them as well?

And, yes, it would be heresy to say that Mary’s role in our redemption is the same or equal to Christ’s. Again, this is not what it means, and no one is making this claim! Look up the definition of the suffix “co”. One of the meanings is “subordinate”. This is the sense in which it is used.

Yes, I understand that many people will not interpret it in that sense and it could be divisive. Again, whether it is prudent to define it at this time is a separate issue that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the doctrine is true. Perhaps there should be a separate thread to discuss the prudential aspect?

Personally, I think that the Church formally defining this dogma would enable us to finally be able to point to something and say: “This is what Catholics believe about the role Mary plays in our life”. We could finally put to rest the accusations that Catholics worship Mary. Is this idealistic? Perhaps.

Either way, I trust the Church to define it if and when it is appropriate to do so.

 

[TMC]

Did you mean to write "DOES NOTabove?

OOOOPS. Pretty important word to leave out, of course I meant “does not”.

 

[mschrank]

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

Yeah, aren’t we all co-redeemers with Christ through our sacrifices (since we are all ‘lay priests’ according to teachings)?

 

[mangy_dog]

All this commotion over the real possibility of co-redemtrix being declared dogma - I wonder what will happen when the entire dogma is declared?

Co-redemtrix; Co-mediatrix and Advocate. That my dear fellow catholics (and other christians) is the entire dogma which will some day be declared.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[TMC]

Yes, and the Catechism also says:

CCC 969: “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

Yes, Mary continues to play a role “by her manifold intercession.” Mary continues to be involved in petitioning God on our behalf. Mary is a role model and leader of Christians, helping us with her example. Beyond that, her current role in salvation is oriented towards God, by her prayers and intercession with Him; including prayers that mediate on our behalf. This is the same role that the Saints have, but we believe that Mary performs this role for all mankind, and that her prayers are particularly effective. This is why she is the Mediatrix, because while she is a human mediator (and not The Mediator) she is the best of the human mediators, and mediates for all. The title of Co-Redemptrix gives her another role in salvation that is oriented towards mankind, as the distributer of divine grace. This is a role that is unlike any other person’s, and unattainable by any other person.

I think my basic issue boils down to what I said in post 124. Mary is the perfect example of what humans can be, perfect in obedience, cooperation, and in sinlessness. This is an ideal that all humans can strive for. However unlikely, it is possible that through the grace of God other humans can attain, at least for some time, that same level of perfect cooperation (although our past sins and faults mean we can never be truly perfect). Her example is that this is possible, and that we should try to attain it.

But Co-Redemptrix makes Mary more than merely a perfect example of mankind. It give her a role in the functioning of the divine that is not attainable by humans, and, in my opinion, suggests that she is more than merely human. Not only does this contradict what John and Paul teach us about the nature of grace, it changes the nature of who Mary is.

Mary’s role in cooperating with God to accomplish salvation is the most perfect and important example of the same kind of role we are called to play. To the extent that Co-Redemptrix means that Mary’s role in salvation is different in kind and nature than ours, I believe it is wrong.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, Mary continues to play a role “by her manifold intercession.” Mary continues to be involved in petitioning God on our behalf. Mary is a role model and leader of Christians, helping us with her example. Beyond that, her current role in salvation is oriented towards God, by her prayers and intercession with Him; including prayers that mediate on our behalf. This is the same role that the Saints have, but we believe that Mary performs this role for all mankind, and that her prayers are particularly effective. This is why she is the Mediatrix, because while she is a human mediator (and not The Mediator) she is the best of the human mediators, and mediates for all. The title of Co-Redemptrix gives her another role in salvation that is oriented towards mankind, as the distributer of divine grace. This is a role that is unlike any other person’s, and unattainable by any other person.

I agree with most of your post, but just a clarification. In regards to this proposed dogma, Mary’s function as distributor of divine grace is part of her role as Mediatrix (of all graces), not Co-redemptrix. At least, everything that I have read on the subject (from the books I linked to in previous posts) define it in that way.

I think my basic issue boils down to what I said in post 124. Mary is the perfect example of what humans can be, perfect in obedience, cooperation, and in sinlessness. This is an ideal that all humans can strive for. However unlikely, it is possible that through the grace of God other humans can attain, at least for some time, that same level of perfect cooperation (although our past sins and faults mean we can never be truly perfect). Her example is that this is possible, and that we should try to attain it.

But Co-Redemptrix makes Mary more than merely a perfect example of mankind. It give her a role in the functioning of the divine that is not attainable by humans, and, in my opinion, suggests that she is more than merely human. Not only does this contradict what John and Paul teach us about the nature of grace, it changes the nature of who Mary is.

Mary’s role in cooperating with God to accomplish salvation is the most perfect and important example of the same kind of role we are called to play. To the extent that Co-Redemptrix means that Mary’s role in salvation is different in kind and nature than ours, I believe it is wrong.

I think that this (the bolded part above) is the crux of the issue. Is Mary’s role different than our own? Would I be correct in saying that you believe Mary’s role, while not different in kind or in nature, is different in degree? After all, she gave birth to Jesus, whcih no one else did. She was given to us to be the mother of all, and no one else was. She was conceived without original sin, and no one else was. So it is obvious that there are differences, but what does that mean? I’m not sure I could answer that. I’d probably have to study up more on the distinction between “kind”, “nature”, and “degree.”

I would probably say that her role is different in nature and kind to our own role. But that’s just my inkling. I’d have to look into it more to really know for sure.

 

[TMC]

I agree with most of your post, but just a clarification. In regards to this proposed dogma, Mary’s function as distributor of divine grace is part of her role as Mediatrix (of all graces), not Co-redemptrix. At least, everything that I have read on the subject (from the books I linked to in previous posts) define it in that way.

I think that this (the bolded part above) is the crux of the issue. Is Mary’s role different than our own? Would I be correct in saying that you believe Mary’s role, while not different in kind or in nature, is different in degree? After all, she gave birth to Jesus, whcih no one else did. She was given to us to be the mother of all, and no one else was. She was conceived without original sin, and no one else was. So it is obvious that there are differences, but what does that mean? I’m not sure I could answer that. I’d probably have to study up more on the distinction between “kind”, “nature”, and “degree.”

I would probably say that her role is different in nature and kind to our own role. But that’s just my inkling. I’d have to look into it more to really know for sure.

Yes. My point is that Mary is the perfect example of what we should try to be like. That her role in salvation was of a different degree than ours. She had a more important task, she obeyed more perfectly. But we are also called to carry out our earthly tasks as best we can, to cooperate with God’s call, and so forth. Our role is the same in kind - to cooperate with God’s divine plan by living our lives in accord with His will. It is not the same in importance. Co-Redemptrix can be defined in a way that is consistent with that, but when it is defined the way Miravalle and some others do its different in nature, I think. It gives Mary a role in salvation that goes beyond her own loving obedience, and requires believing she is involved in acts normally reserved to the divine.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes. My point is that Mary is the perfect example of what we should try to be like. That her role in salvation was of a different degree than ours. She had a more important task, she obeyed more perfectly. But we are also called to carry out our earthly tasks as best we can, to cooperate with God’s call, and so forth. Our role is the same in kind - to cooperate with God’s divine plan by living our lives in accord with His will. It is not the same in importance. Co-Redemptrix can be defined in a way that is consistent with that, but when it is defined the way Miravalle and some others do its different in nature, I think. It gives Mary a role in salvation that goes beyond her own loving obedience, and requires believing she is involved in acts normally reserved to the divine.

Thank you for giving me something to think about, TMC. That’s a good question to reflect on! Basically, the whole thing comes down to: What exactly is Mary’s role in salvation history (besides being the mother of Jesus, of course) and how does it differ from our own? That’s what the Co-redemptrix title attempts to answer, and you disagree with the way some people formulate it. I can respect that. It’s been a while since I’ve studied the issue. Now I want to go back and review my notes! At least now I have a better idea of why some people have a problem with it beyond the superficial “It just doesn’t sound right.” Thanks!

 

[Hesychios]

All this commotion over the real possibility of co-redemtrix being declared dogma - I wonder what will happen when the entire dogma is declared?

If.

Co-redemtrix; Co-mediatrix and Advocate. That my dear fellow catholics (and other christians) is the entire dogma which will some day be declared.

No one knows what you claim to know.

No one, not even a Pope, can say that a future dogma will be proclaimed. Even a Pope who intends to make such a proclamation cannot say “soon, I will proclaim such and such”. God could call him home that very minute.

By making up your own dogma and following it, you are putting yourself in the place of the Pope and Councils of the church. You supercede the Magisterium.

That is a Protestant way of thinking, very dangerous. I don’t recommend it.

Michael

 

[BonnieBj]

I can see that this thread that I started is an important issue not only for myself but for many other Catholics, so I odn’t feel so alone. Why can’t the Church just leave it alone and not officially dogmastize it, just leave it as it is. My gut feeling is that dogmatizing it will cause more trouble than not. Since we have a decided lack of good catechesis in the Church I feel the majority of Catholics may never really understand this concept and would choose to leave the Church, thereby apostatizing themselves like I did 20+ years ago. I am so glad to be safely back in the arms of Holy Mother Church. As it stands now Church members and prospective members are not at risk by not believing in this so they are safe. The concept may indeed be true, as are so many other things have have not yet been dogmatized, and we can choose to believe or not. If one does believe then there would be more and special graces.

Personally I cannot yet make an informed decision about it. I have now read the first 2 pages of the thread and am doing so carefully and prayerfully and thoughtfully. Hubby and I are having various discussions about it.

 

[knightbvm]

I really dont understand what else more I can do for you people. I really believe that some of you are in grave danger. YES IT IS THAT SERIOUS!!! YES!! I’M TALKING SIN!!! SIN OF THE SPIIRIT!!! YOU (SOME OF YOU)ARE DENYING A TRUTH THAT HAS AND IS TAIUGHT BY THE CHURCH!!! VERY SERIOUS!!!

I have shown that the Fathers of the Church taught that Mary is the Co- Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. I have shown that many POpes taught this–including Leo XIII, Pius XII, Pius X, Benedict XV,JOhn Paul II —I have started a new thread about the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium being infallible. I have also stated that not one Father, not one Pope has denied or condemned this teaching—NOT ONE!!! SURELY IF IT WAS WRONG OR HERSEY SOMEONE WOULD DENY IT!!! YET SOME OF YOU STILL REJECT OR QUESTION IT. (like I have said before --you can absolutley argue that it is imprudent to solemnly define this-I am asserting that you cannot deny the doctrine though))
I dont know what else more I can do? I guees some of you really dont stand with Christ. That is sad–

 

[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.’”
NOTICE HE SAYS EVERY GRACE----------

 

[knightbvm]

This comes from the sister thread with the poll at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213012&page=9

I thought is was worth posting here as well.

I must disagree with you on your definition of “Co”. It has been posted a couple of times that “co” can also be read as equal.
For instance:
A Co-defendant is also a defendant in his/her own right.
A Co-pilot is also a pilot in his/her own right.
A Co-council is also a councilor (lawyer) in his/her own right.
To Co-operate is to operate together with someone.
While it is true that in some of these examples the Co-operator has less authority than the other, that is generally based on the experience level of the individuals and not on their capabilities.

Mary has no capability to redeem anyone herself. Regardless of the Love we have for her and she for us, she can only intercede for us, not redeem us. She does not have that capacity and never will. Therefore the term Co-redemptix as a Title is inappropriate.

This thread has certainly covered the ground thoroughly, but in so doing it becomes obvious that dogmatically declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix would be devisive and counterproductive.

Peace
James

LOL HAHA YOU ARE FUNNY–THE CO—TITLE IS INNAPROPRIATE-----SORRY FOR YOU Pope Leo XIII , Pope Benedict XV, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII–disagree (tons of saints, Fathers etc as well) with you-----I think Ill go with the Vicars of Christ!!!

 

[JRKH]

LOL HAHA YOU ARE FUNNY–THE CO—TITLE IS INNAPROPRIATE-----SORRY FOR YOU Pope Leo XIII , Pope Benedict XV, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII–disagree (tons of saints, Fathers etc as well) with you-----I think Ill go with the Vicars of Christ!!!

Have a nice ride.

Peace
James

 

[Seeker12]

The truth is that the Church has NOT proclaimed the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix. The idea of co-redemptrix is very similar, and I would be very suspicious of the idea on the face of it.
Has everyone forgotten that our salvation is due to grace, and not any merit of our own? St. Paul had much to say about this. The letter of St. Joh about works refers to corporeal works of mercy, and complements Paul but does not invalidate him.
Similarly, John Paul II was against the death penalty, and yet I find that I am listening to a radio program right now that says the church defends the death penalty. I know what the Catechism says about it, and it is meant to be a last resort. No-one is a supermax prison needs to die to be removed from possible threat to society.
I find the lack of intellectual integrity among those on the air and radio very disappointing. Let it be known that Flannery O’Connor had the same caveats about the church, according to an article in AMERICA magainze-and she was Catholic to the max. A staunch defender of the Eucharist.
What is clear is that many will be intimidated by the authoritarian stance presented by EWTN, and related ministries, and miss a chance to get to know Jesus personally. The Church did not morph into a perfect institution by some magical process.
What is clear is that Catholic fundamentalism is very much alive in today’s church. I speak as a believer, but a thinking beliver. I live a life uncomplicated by sexual issues, marriage, and divorce. I am glad for the chance to serve God as a single Christian. I offer this information only to make it clear that there can be other issues that challenge the conscience than the usual pelvic policies.
For example: how many presenters on th air really know what St. John meant in his letter where he addresses the isue of faith without works? You say you know what he meant, and proceed to do the very thing he said illustrated a dead faith. I leave it to you to find out what that is or why I say this. I have alluded to the reason in this informal epistle I am writing from my retreat within, the castle in my mind, where I consult with the spirits of the righteous and seek ways to defend the sinner from the predations of false religion.
I do not seek to defend the sinner’s sin-but I know when the sinner is being stoned, metaphorically, and I, in my imagination, am defending one from the unmerited condemnation that is associated with legalism.
I can say this: if you sacrifice your God-given ability to think, you do no service either to God or the Church, or anyone else, for that matter. I realize is can be unsettling to have to consider the possibilty that the Church is not perfect, but it has survived, even given this fact, for this long. I think it can survive thinking Catholics listening for the voice of the Spirit and new ways to realize the Kingdom of God in our midst, in today’s world. It is happening right now.
“Behold, I do a new thing in the earth, and who can bear it?”
Or, do you really believe that you will earn your salvation by making every holy day of obligation, and Sunday mass? Or has real heresy gained the higher ground for you?
“There are many who are first, who shall be last, and last, who shall be first.” This Scripture has found its way into a song by Bruce Springsteen: THE GHOST OF TOM JOAD. “Waiting for the last shall be fist, and the first shall be last, in a cardboard box 'neath the underpass”.
The Gospels are for real people in real situations, any time, past or present, not just phrases to keep on display in a liturgical museum.
Get a life, guys.

 

[TMC]

I really dont understand what else more I can do for you people. I really believe that some of you are in grave danger. YES IT IS THAT SERIOUS!!! YES!! I’M TALKING SIN!!! SIN OF THE SPIIRIT!!! YOU (SOME OF YOU)ARE DENYING A TRUTH THAT HAS AND IS TAIUGHT BY THE CHURCH!!! VERY SERIOUS!!!

I have shown that the Fathers of the Church taught that Mary is the Co- Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. I have shown that many POpes taught this–including Leo XIII, Pius XII, Pius X, Benedict XV,JOhn Paul II —I have started a new thread about the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium being infallible. I have also stated that not one Father, not one Pope has denied or condemned this teaching—NOT ONE!!! SURELY IF IT WAS WRONG OR HERSEY SOMEONE WOULD DENY IT!!! YET SOME OF YOU STILL REJECT OR QUESTION IT. (like I have said before --you can absolutley argue that it is imprudent to solemnly define this-I am asserting that you cannot deny the doctrine though))
I dont know what else more I can do? I guees some of you really dont stand with Christ. That is sad–

As I posted before, the Pope instituted a commission to study this exact issue in 1997. This is what the commission found:

       1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways. Furthermore, the theological direction taken by the Second Vatican Council, which did not wish to define any of these titles, should not be abandoned. The Second Vatican Council did not use the title "Coredemptrix", and uses "Mediatrix" and "Advocate" in a very moderate way (cf. Lumen gentium, n.62). In fact, from the time of Pope Pius XII, the term "Coredemptrix" has not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents. There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided using it. With respect to the title "Mediatrix", the history of the question should not be forgotten: in the first decades of this century the Holy See entrusted the study of the possibility of its definition to three different commissions, the result of which was that the Holy See decided to set the question aside.

So if the Church has not denied this doctrine, it certainly can’t be said that it has consistently taught it. I know you think it has, but the Pope’s theologians say it has not. So I’m going with them.

 

[Joe_5859]

As I posted before, the Pope instituted a commission to study this exact issue in 1997. This is what the commission found:

So if the Church has not denied this doctrine, it certainly can’t be said that it has consistently taught it. I know you think it has, but the Pope’s theologians say it has not. So I’m going with them.

The way I read the quote, the comission wasn’t denying the titles, they just recommended putting the issue on hold (“setting the question aside”). In other words, it seemed to them pastorally prudent to not address this topic at this time. Am I misreading it?

 

[knightbvm]

As I posted before, the Pope instituted a commission to study this exact issue in 1997. This is what the commission found:

So if the Church has not denied this doctrine, it certainly can’t be said that it has consistently taught it. I know you think it has, but the Pope’s theologians say it has not. So I’m going with them.

The Church has absolutley been consistent in teaching this doctrine (Mary as Co-Redemptrix Meditrix of All graces) . I have quoted fathers and Popes who have taught this Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius X, PIus XII etc
Now you amy claim that the Post Vatican II Popes havent used the terms Co _Redemptrix, Mediatrix, but the teaching is certainly there-----look at these Pope John Paul II quotes–
]
“In her (Mary), the many and the intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that thewy were not only a proff of her unshakable faith, but also a contribution to the Redemption of all…unshakable faith, but also a contribution to the Redemption of all…It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jeseus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view, but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the cross together with the beloved disciple were a perfect sort of sharing in the redeming death of her Son.” (Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris n.
There are so many more I could quote—it is unbeleivable how you people hold what you hold–