Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[natsclem]

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

the issue is how do we understand the term CO_REDEMPTRIX. i remember in my thesis writing…before presenting the body of the paper, the author needs to present a list of terminologies with their corresponding OPERATIONAL DEFINITION as used in the study/paper/thesis.
let’s wait on its definition by the Holy See, then we can react with much gusto. for now let’s have peace. i hope the moderator closes this thread because all possible arguments in favor and against were already that much. now it is up to the Holy See to decide.

 

[TMC]

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?

No, I think you are right. They are not saying its wrong, but they are saying that this is not the consistent teaching of hte Church. They go on to say that the terms are not really defined, so that the Church would be in the position of declaring something and then having theologians try to figure out what the declaration meant. Here is the full report, its very short:

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

 

[Joe_5859]

No, I think you are right. They are not saying its wrong, but they are saying that this is not the consistent teaching of hte Church. They go on to say that the terms are not really defined, so that the Church would be in the position of declaring something and then having theologians try to figure out what the declaration meant. Here is the full report, its very short:

Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

Thanks. I just found the same link in the Co-redemptrix poll thread. I hadn’t been aware of that Commission. It certainly makes sense that the Church would want to make sure the terms have a certain theological clarity before making them dogma. Since that commission met over 11 years ago, I wonder if the situation now is any different. Perhaps by the time they are ready to declare the dogma, more people will be in agreement over what it means exactly. The Church moves slowly in such things, and that’s not a bad thing!

 

[Seeker12]

JMJ Coder has quoted a text that is proof of the corruption of the church by Pagan mythology. As for my previous post, I meant the letter of James re: works. I have nothing more to say. This is getting ridiculous…

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello knight,

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 think you are overreacting and possibly being a tad judgmental.

If it has actually been sufficiently taught by the church, no proclamation should be necessary. It would in fact be redundant. But I really take issue with your claim.

In the first place, this Holy Faith has been saving souls since Christ walked the Earth, and the first Christians knew nothing of this theology, yet many were saved. They believed in Christ, and actuated their lives accordingly. The liturgy, sacraments and prayer were sufficient for those believers.

It is really not how much detail we know or think we know about the supernatural that saves us, the gnostics thought that and they were wrong. So these exercises in logic that tell us “it is only fitting that…” cannot be used to bar the gates of heaven.

Knowledge of, and belief in the Christ of the Gospels is important, and living out that belief, in thoughts and deeds, is necessary. But developing new constructs and new ways to praise the saints is not. It is at best secondary, and not a condition for salvation.

The early Christians never needed to argue about this issue, and they were often too confused about Christ to debate the merits of His mother, or her particualar role and titles.

In fact, many of them could walk right over to Mary and say “hello, how ya doing today?” and she could say, “Oh, fine I guess, but I am really still so sad about what happened back in Jerusalem. And my arthritis is acting up again…”

“You know what they say, the worst thing about arthritis is that it doesn’t kill you” [chuckles among the visitors in the background]

Then someone gets up to leave and says, “pray for me Mary” and Mary says “Of course, please pray for me too!” and “have a nice day!”

“You bet!” they say, as out the door they go…

I guees some of you really dont stand with Christ. That is sad–

The titles and honors being discussed here are not Apostolic teaching. It cannot be demonstrated that the church taught these things from the beginning. So any of us who think this way are only expressing opinions, and we cannot bind them upon others.

The danger of misinterpreting these ideas is very great indeed, and the vagueries of it all might mislead some into areas of thought which they should not really go, and do not really need to go.

Theologoumena can not be imposed upon people as a condition for salvation. We can not use something like this as a litmus test for who may pass the Pearly Gates. A lesser detail like this, never before necessary and too vague for certainty, should not be a new condition imposed upon others who don’t otherwise deserve to be condemned.

And that is in fact, what you are trying to do, whether you realize it or not.

I would not lock the gates on “someone who doesn’t get it”. I really doubt Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would wish such a thing either.

http://www.kaldu.org/images/adulterous woman.jpg

In Christ,
Michael, that sinner

 

[JARVET]

As the Lord has told us, so abundantly clear, through His Apostle Paul -

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

1 Timothy 4

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

7But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

i think that it is really Ridiculous and sad how many of you think that because you say something blasphemous and than try to explain it away with a diffferent meaning that somehow you’ve made a valid or true point. There are no scriptural facts given to us to support any of this, in fact we can say that there are many scriptures that rebuke this type of Hypocrisy.

Don’t you think of all things, Christ would have told us such a thing if it were at all true?

Evertime that Mary was brought up to Him in the Scriptures He has re-direct the focus back to where it belongs, TO THE LORD, after all:

John 14 :

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(NOTE
Luke 11:

27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.​

If you add to or change this fact of faith given to us by our Lord, than you would be lieing, wether you are a parishoner or a preist holding any office. In other words, if anyone adds to or takes away from what scriptures say and try to pass it off as truth and Gods Word, they are lieing, and we know who the father of all lies is…

My prayers are for the Church teachers and those who think that they have any given right to add to or change scriptures in any way, that they would see their sin for what it is and repent to God for the offense…

James 4 :

7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

Trust in God, believe in His Eternal Word, believe in Christ Jesus our Lord whom He has sent to make a propitiation for us, …

John 5:

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

 

[TMC]

Theologoumena can not be imposed upon people as a condition for salvation. We can not use something like this as a litmus test for who may pass the Pearly Gates. A lesser detail like this, never before necessary and too vague for certainty, should not be a new condition imposed upon others who don’t otherwise deserve to be condemned.

I agree, but would extend that and say that no theology is a condition of salvation. Life is not a theology exam. Lot’s of people know Christ with absolutely no understanding of Christology. Faith in Christ and adherence to his commandments should be (but isn’t always) enhanced by good theology. But its not required.

 

[Hesychios]

I agree, but would extend that and say that no theology is a condition of salvation. Life is not a theology exam. Lot’s of people know Christ with absolutely no understanding of Christology. Faith in Christ and adherence to his commandments should be (but isn’t always) enhanced by good theology. But its not required.

Your point has some merit.

One can “know” Christ without complete understanding. What has been revealed is sufficient. A lot of religion is more experiential than intellectual.

There were martyrs who were so inspired by the example of others (here I am thinking about some Roman soldiers, and other observers of persecutions) that they converted right then and there. No catechesis possible, no sacraments available before they were killed themselves!

They believed, and they saw that here was Truth, and they died for it. No one would argue that they are not in heaven right now., that is why Christians had to develop the theory of a “baptism of blood” and a “baptism of fire” to explain it. I think that no explanation is really necessary.

Some of these martyrs and sufferers did not know who Saint Mary would have been, and concepts like co-redemption would have been beyond them, but they put on Christ just the same.

It would be nice to see them in the next life, if we make it.

 

[TMC]

Your point has some merit.

One can “know” Christ without complete understanding. What has been revealed is sufficient. A lot of religion is more experiential than intellectual.

There were martyrs who were so inspired by the example of others (here I am thinking about some Roman soldiers, and other observers of persecutions) that they converted right then and there. No catechesis possible, no sacraments available before they were killed themselves!

They believed, and they saw that here was Truth, and they died for it. No one would argue that they are not in heaven right now., that is why Christians had to develop the theory of a “baptism of blood” and a “baptism of fire” to explain it. I think that no explanation is really necessary.

Some of these martyrs and sufferers did not know who Saint Mary would have been, and concepts like co-redemption would have been beyond them, but they put on Christ just the same.

It would be nice to see them in the next life, if we make it.

I think that religion should be entirely (or almost entirely) experiential. The requirement that religion be intellectualized is a human requirement, I think, and it is a failing, not a virtue.

Is this not what Christ meant when He said that we should believe like little children? Its often said that He meant we should be reflexively obedient to and dependant on our Mother Church. That does not describe the children I know. I think it means something slightly different. That our belief should be lived, it should be experienced and acted on, not mulled and stewed over. The little child runs up to Christ in joy and acceptance, without pausing to intellectualize the moment, to ponder the nature of Christ, to worry that he may have somehow offended, or is unworthy. The child knows Jesus loves him and runs to Him. That is all that is needed.

 

[Hesychios]

Is this not what Christ meant when He said that we should believe like little children?

Bingo.

 

[JARVET]

How is this at all off of topic?

If it is off of topic, would ya tell me what the topic would be?

Everything that I wrote below is part of what my reply was to this perverse thought of a Co-Redemptrix in any way!

As the Lord has told us, so abundantly clear, through His Apostle Paul -

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

1 Timothy 4

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

7But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

i think that it is really Ridiculous and sad how many of you think that because you say something blasphemous and than try to explain it away with a diffferent meaning that somehow you’ve made a valid or true point. There are no scriptural facts given to us to support any of this, in fact we can say that there are many scriptures that rebuke this type of Hypocrisy.

Don’t you think of all things, Christ would have told us such a thing if it were at all true?

Evertime that Mary was brought up to Him in the Scriptures He has re-direct the focus back to where it belongs, TO THE LORD, after all:

John 14 :

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(NOTE
Luke 11:

27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.​

If you add to or change this fact of faith given to us by our Lord, than you would be lieing, wether you are a parishoner or a preist holding any office. In other words, if anyone adds to or takes away from what scriptures say and try to pass it off as truth and Gods Word, they are lieing, and we know who the father of all lies is…

My prayers are for the Church teachers and those who think that they have any given right to add to or change scriptures in any way, that they would see their sin for what it is and repent to God for the offense…

James 4 :

7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

Trust in God, believe in His Eternal Word, believe in Christ Jesus our Lord whom He has sent to make a propitiation for us, …

John 5:

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

 

[Joe_5859]

How is this at all off of topic?

There’s no need to repost everything you said before. It’s still up there.

This thread is about the title co-redemptrix and whether it should be declared dogma. Those who reject the authority of the Catholic Church and believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith also tend to reject the prior four marian dogmas (Mary as Mother of God, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption into heaven). Thus, this would not be the best starting point of discussion. If this is where you are at, there are many other threads on Mary and Scripture that are more specific to your concerns.

Of course, no one has the right to add or subtract from Scripture. But the Catholic Church is always meditating on the Scriptures and fleshing out their meaning. That’s where this proposed dogma comes from. It is the fruit of centuries of reflection on Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church. Of course, as you can see above, not all Catholics are in agreement about that.

Many teachings are not explicit in Scripture, but they are there in seed form and do not contradict it. No where in Scripture do you find the word “Trinity” or “Incarnation”, either.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

If you add to or change this fact of faith given to us by our Lord, than you would be lieing, wether you are a parishoner or a preist holding any office. In other words, if anyone adds to or takes away from what scriptures say and try to pass it off as truth and Gods Word, they are lieing, and we know who the father of all lies is…

Why don’t you take your own advice.

 

[JARVET]

Why don’t you take your own advice.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, “TAKE MY OWN ADVICE?”

 

[Goth_Catholic]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, “TAKE MY OWN ADVICE?”

no need to yell

If you add to or change this fact of faith given to us by our Lord, than you would be lieing, wether you are a parishoner or a preist holding any office. In other words, if anyone adds to or ****takes away from what scriptures say ****and try to pass it off as truth and Gods Word, they are lieing, and we know who the father of all lies is…

 

[JARVET]

no need to yell

Hey there Goth
Are you trying to tell me that I have in some way distorted the Holy Scriptures?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Hey there Goth
Are you trying to tell me that I have in some way distorted the Holy Scriptures?

Yup.

 

[JARVET]

Yup.

What are you talking about?
How about you tell me how I “distorted” our Lord’s Word in any way.

I would really like to know what I said in my post that you took as me “distorting” anything.

I quoted scripture, as the Lord taughts us to do when we speak about the gift of faith that He has Blessed us with.

What exactly are you making the accusation that I have distorted?

May God Bless you and keep you.

John 5

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Amen

 

[Goth_Catholic]

What are you talking about?
How about you tell me how I “distorted” our Lord’s Word in any way.

I would really like to know what I said in my post that you took as me “distorting” anything.

I quoted scripture, as the Lord taughts us to do when we speak about the gift of faith that He has Blessed us with.

What exactly are you making the accusation that I have distorted?

May God Bless you and keep you.

John 5

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Amen

In the Davidic kingdom, it was the mother of the king who ruled as queen, not the king’s wife. She shared in the king’s rule over the kingdom and was, in fact, one of the most powerful persons in the kingdom.

-Jesus is a Davidic king
-Mary is Jesus’s mother, therefore Mary is the co-redemeptrix

 

[JARVET]

In the Davidic kingdom, it was the mother of the king who ruled as queen, not the king’s wife. She shared in the king’s rule over the kingdom and was, in fact, one of the most powerful persons in the kingdom.

-Jesus is a Davidic king
-Mary is Jesus’s mother, therefore Mary is the co-redemeptrix

ok,…well… you still did not answer my question, there Goth. How are you telling me that I have “distorted” the scriptures in any way?!?

Don’t make a claim of such a thing and not have anything to back it up.

And to comment on your retort,… are you telling me that in your head, Mary in some way rules equal with Christ in the Kingdom of God, and : that the kingdom of Heaven is in any way the same as Kingdoms here on earth? , and that Mary has something to do with Christs being who He is, (God) and our Redeemer?

I’ve heard such a comment that Catholic’s try to pass off that Mary was a “temple virgin.” Meaning that she had taken a vow, when she was a child, to remain a virgin for the rest of her life and not to marry? Is this what you (Catholic Church) holds to be true in any way? If so, how about looking at Luke 1:27, and telling me where you can say the whole previous theory without changing or adding to the Good Lords Word?!?

Also, if Mary was “without sin” then why did she do the following, in Our Lords Word, Luke 2:22-24, 39.

May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you, and may He Bless us with His Understanding and His Truth alone.

Amen