Mary, co-redeemer and co-mediator

[justaccord]

Originally Posted by Doihavtasay
Justaccord and ScottH

The problem you are having here is you are hearing what is being said through Protestant ears. You have been trained to come to this with a preconceived idea of what they are saying and are LOOKING for anything that sounds that as though it will support your veiw rather then trying to move out of that box and HEAR WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. I had a hard time in the beginning, but it gets easier. It’s like learning a new language.

As for what John Paul II said, here is my take with out looking it up-Mary was His mother, she nursed Him, cared for Him , protected Him, realized He was God… how hard it must have been for her to watch them toture and kill Him having known Him so intimately. If I had been His mother, i would NOT have CO-opperated, I would have tried to kill those who took Him. I would have cried buckett snd railed against the world as He hung dying. But she instead, bore HER CROSS of being totally submissive and restrained herself from raising a hand to stop this. If that is not being CO-operative and being ‘cruixified’ spiritutally, I don’t what would be.
We are all asked to take up our crosses… you just don’t get the metaphors and language of the Bible.
They are being very kind and have gone out of their way to explain things, but you basically keel telling them they are lying about what they believe. I would have gotten condecending many posts ago…

If they honestly believed she was equal, won’t they be HAPPY to admit that??? Not admiting it would be disgracing to Mary and if they placed her as high as the Lord, why on earth would they do that???

Good news for me. I dont think I’ve ever heard anti-catholic rhetoric in my church. But I was imprisoned by catholicism for almost 20 years and God saved me in spite of it.

Everyone, including you, has told me that I am ignorant of catholic doctrine and in effect am therefore ill-equipped to discuss the matter. (I regard that as condescension, although I take no personal offense at your post). The problem is, frankly, although you all want to lecture me on my ignorance, you all contradict each other and often the actual doctrine and dogma that I find in places like the catholic catechism.

For example, I got a reply recently (on the other thread) that said this:

"Nowhere in our beliefs is it said that Mary is our redeemer. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or outright lying to you… . .The mediation of the Blessed Virgin is nothing more than the same intercession of saints that all Christians share and are enjoined by the Bible itself to do. "

I replied by quoting John Paul II:

"Here’s what your late pope said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L’Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58) … as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

I asked (granted, sarcastically)
Is the pope ignorant, or lying?

Here’s the point – who is in a better position to articulate catholic doctrine – you, or the pope?

I’m sure you agree it’s the pope, who says she (Mary) is a CO-REDEEMER with Christ.

And I go to Mexico, and can buy a cross with no Jesus but Mary on it. And I see a picture of a cross outside a catholic church with Jesus on one side and Mary on the other, back to back.

There is a problem with this picture. So no, I am not content to accept the patronizing statements of catholics whose staetments contradict the pope’s and the catholic catechism, where I have done my research.

I am sure that you all believe what you say, but that doesnt make it catholic doctrine.

So help me straighten this out, would you?

(I appreciate your tag line, by the way as the father of 5 and grandfather of 2)

sdg

 

[UnworthySoul]

I am Catholic, and I freely admit to having a hard time reconciling Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I say the Hail Mary, I honor her as the Mother of God, but I cannot bring myself to say she is Co-Redemptive. I just can’t do it. I’ve struggled with it for the longest time. Granted, there are others who are more qualified than I to say that she is or is not, but regardless, it is a bit of a difficulty for me. Redemption is attained through Christ. Mary is the perfect example of His Redemption, no doubt, and I often ask Mary to intercede for me, but I just cannot, in my heart of hearts, apply the Co-Redemptrix title to her. I am also more comfortable reciting the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy than I am the Rosary. The Rosary is beautiful, without question, but it just strikes me as odd that there are ten Hail Mary’s to each Our Father. That’s something I never understood.

I will just continue to pray for guidance on this. I will not gainsay anyone who does believe this, but for me, I just can’t get my mind, or spirit around it. To me, she is to be venerated as first among the Saints, and she among all of them can intercede, I believe, in a way others cannot, or to a degree they cannot. But I cannot say that I am redeemed by her. I just can’t.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

justaccord:

…John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L’Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58) … as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

I asked (granted, sarcastically)
Is the pope ignorant, or lying?..

No.

justaccord:

…Here’s the point – who is in a better position to articulate catholic doctrine – you, or the pope?

I’m sure you agree it’s the pope, who says she (Mary) is a CO-REDEEMER with Christ…

Definition: “co-”, prefix: means “with”, does not imply equality. See here: answers.com/topic/co-prefix&method=6 , definition 2-b.

A co-pilot on an airplane works with the pilot, but does not have authority or responsibility equal to the pilot.

A co-star in a movie performs with the star, but does not have as important a role as the star and does not get equal billing with the star.

A co-adjutor bishop works with the Ordinary Bishop, and may eventually succeed him in office, but does not presently have authority or responsibility equal to the Ordinary of the Diocese.

And Mary, as Co-redemptrix cooperates with Jesus in his role as Redeemer, just as all Christians are called to do, fully subordinate to Jesus.

justaccord:

…And I go to Mexico, and can buy a cross with no Jesus but Mary on it. And I see a picture of a cross outside a catholic church with Jesus on one side and Mary on the other, back to back…

Okay, I’ve never seen artwork like you describe, but let’s stipulate it exists. What is the point?

justaccord:

…There is a problem with this picture. So no, I am not content to accept the patronizing statements of catholics whose staetments contradict the pope’s and the catholic catechism, where I have done my research…

I would suggest that this research is deficient as it has not included the definition of the prefix “co-”

justaccord:

…I am sure that you all believe what you say, but that doesnt make it catholic doctrine.

So help me straighten this out, would you?

Sure, glad to have helped.

 

[JackmanUSC]

“Co” in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary “assisted” in our redemption and she assist 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. We are also 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 simple 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 baffle us if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of “co”.

 

[Tom]

Thank you for starting a new thread
When someone coins a name and tells you specifically what the name means it is not appropriate to insist on “your” personal interpretation of the name. Your meaning is not consistent with the Church’s’ meaning of “co-redemtrix”.
Now the problem here is a misunderstanding of the prefix “co”. It does NOT indicate, as you’ve tried to insist, an equal partnership. It implies cooperation with, in a special way. I doubt anyone would argue that Mary did indeed cooperate with God in a very special way. From her acceptance to Gods plan at the annunciation to her death and ascension into heaven she was unique in all of mankind. It is this special cooperation that is meant in her being called “co-redemtrix”. It does not imply Mary alone can redeem you, or that Mary replaces Jesus.

 

[LoneRanger]

Mary, Mother of God… no more,

but, certainly no less…!

http://www.ilianrachov.com/ikons/im...0cm.collection of mons.fabio attard.malta.jpg

 

[pnewton]

In the last thread I was asked how can Mary be “co” even in an unequal sense, when there is one mediator and one redeemer. Things went to pot before I could answer.

Co-Mediator - Any person of prayer can answer this. If you have ever prayed for a sick friend, a grieving family or a struggling soul, that is mediation. You are praying for one who would well go to Jesus dierctly. Yet you are asked to join this person in prayer, or even to prayer on their behalf in absence of their prayer. This is exactly the way we understand Mary, offering petitions for us and with us, to her son Jesus. Furthermore, I even pray directly to God the Father, (even though Jesus is the only Mediator) and to the Holy Spirit. (ditto)

Co-Redeemer - Sometimes our prayer may be for someone’s soul. A person may even go and speak to one, as an evangelist, and play a vital part in that person’s redemption. Mary agreed to all that God planned for her. Knowing for thirty-three years that a sword would pierce her heart, she still followed God’s will. Until the last minute of Jesus’s life she was with him. She never turned her back on her pain even when everyone else did. Ask any mother if they could imagine greater suffering than Mary at the foot of her crucified son.

If it had not been Mary could it have been someone else? This is a hypothetical question with no real answer, since Mary did say yes to God. In any case, such a person would have had a vital role in the bring about our redemption. It is not with out cause we call her, as the Bible foretold, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[1ke]

Redeemer and co-redeemer are not the same thing.

 

[Tom]

Justaccord, you aren’t alone in your confusion, perhaps some reading will calm your nerves:
www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211fea3.asp
www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea1.asp
www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901ltrs.asp
Just a few.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you

 

[Milliardo]

Just some thoughts, justaccord: when you hear the term “co-pilot”, does that mean he is equal with the pilot, or he works with the pilot? Or co-worker: is he the same worker, or works with his fellow workers? Some insights for you.

 

[geezerbob]

This was just posted by Fr. Serpa in the Ask an Apologist forum. I hope it helps define the term in question.

The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title

 

[DeFide]

Father Serpa just answered this quite succinctly in the* Ask an Apologist Forum*:

Dear Un,
The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title.

As for all the “Hail Marys” in the rosary, we are asking her to pray for us, but our thoughts are on the mysteries of her Son’s life. In repeating the words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you…,” we are only reiterating what the Father instructed the Angel Gabriel to say to her. They are God’s words.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Mickey]

justaccord:

But I was imprisoned by catholicism for almost 20 years and God saved me in spite of it.

Wow! So much bitterness. So much anger. May the Holy Trinity assist you in your pain.

 

[justaccord]

Mickey:

Wow! So much bitterness. So much anger. May the Holy Trinity assist you in your pain.

No bitterness, no anger, only gratitude that God saved me through His grace and His grace alone, which is sufficient for both eternal salvation and the certainty of it.

Praise God, He determines the timing of our salvation and the circumstances under which we are saved, although it is always through His Word (Rom. 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.)

I just feel badly for others who dont know what they’re missing.



sdg

 

[John_Henry]

justaccord:

I just feel badly for others who dont know what they’re missing.

Don’t you worry about us. As an ex-Protestant, I am well aware of what I am “missing” out on. Thanks for the concern, though.

 

[Salmon]

justaccord: Good news for me. I dont think I’ve ever heard anti-catholic rhetoric in my church.

Salmon: Oh really? How about this:

How about the tradition that suddenly invented the Blessed Assumption about 1800 years late? Or the tradition that has declared Mary a redeemer and mediator when Scripture says there is only one – Jesus Christ. Isn’t it blasphemy to claim that a human is Divine?

or:

Do you catholics regard it as strange that Jesus Christ, who condemned elevation of tradition, would found His church so that tradition would trump the Word of God?

oh wait………….those gems were posted by you. Perhaps you wouldn’t recognize anti-Catholic rhetoric if you tripped over it.

justaccord:

But I was imprisoned by catholicism for almost 20 years and God saved me in spite of it.

Salmon: Your lack of understanding of Church teachings makes one wonder what you were doing for 20 years. It certainly wasn’t seeking to understand what and why the Church teaches something. (Hint: the Church teaches that Mary was fully human, a creation like you and me, not “divine” as you wrongly claimed.

justaccord:

Everyone, including you, has told me that I am ignorant of catholic doctrine and in effect am therefore ill-equipped to discuss the matter.

Salmon: Many people have pointed you to sources that clarify Church teachings, but you have resisted, choosing to rely on your misunderstanding of the topics under consideration.

justaccord:

(I regard that as condescension, although I take no personal offense at your post). The problem is, frankly, although you all want to lecture me on my ignorance, you all contradict each other and often the actual doctrine and dogma that I find in places like the catholic catechism.

Salmon: When you have cited the Catechism, you have consistently chosen to claim that the Church teaches in accord with your misunderstandings, rather than researching cited footnotes that clearly show your distorted perceptions to be incorrect.

justaccord:

For example, I got a reply recently (on the other thread) that said this:

"Nowhere in our beliefs is it said that Mary is our redeemer. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or outright lying to you… . .The mediation of the Blessed Virgin is nothing more than the same intercession of saints that all Christians share and are enjoined by the Bible itself to do. "

Salmon: It was pointed out to you that the title of Co-Redemptrix has not been declared officially by the Catholic Church.

justaccord:

I replied by quoting John Paul II:

Salmon: Rather than trying to locate a Church teaching on the subject (very clever, as there is no official teaching to support your accusation).

justaccord:

"Here’s what your late pope said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L’Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58) … as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

I asked (granted, sarcastically)
Is the pope ignorant, or lying?

Salmon: So, what did Pope John Paul II mean by that expression? Did he mean what you claim, or did he mean something else? (I don’t expect an answer, because to find out what the Pope meant, you would actually have to research the subject to find the truth.)

justaccord: Here’s the point – who is in a better position to articulate catholic doctrine – you, or the pope?

Salmon: That’s a non-sequitor, as the Pope was not articulating doctrine/dogma in the talk you cite. Keep in mind, that Pope John Paul II refused to proclaim the 5th Marian dogma which would have granted Mary the official title “Co-Redemptrix”. Why did he refuse? He felt that it would not be understood by the unstable and ignorant.

justaccord: I’m sure you agree it’s the pope, who says she (Mary) is a CO-REDEEMER with Christ.

Salmon: What did he mean by that assertion? Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

justaccord: And I go to Mexico, and can buy a cross with no Jesus but Mary on it. And I see a picture of a cross outside a catholic church with Jesus on one side and Mary on the other, back to back.

Salmon: Again, that has nothing to do with Church teachings, not that it should be important to you.

(cont.)

 

[Mickey]

justaccord:

No bitterness, no anger, only gratitude that God saved me through His grace and His grace alone, which is sufficient for both eternal salvation and the certainty of it.

You spend so much time and effort attempting to discredit the unique role of the Mother of God. If a large group of people continually tried to discredit your mother, would you be offended? I pray that Jesus forgives you in your ignorance.

 

[Salmon]

(cont.)

justaccord: There is a problem with this picture.

Salmon: Yes, there is. An observer claims that only his perception is valid, refusing to recognize any other view is possible is destined to stumble in his pride. If someone wanted to understand the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, should he spend time researching those beliefs, or just charge in full-speed ahead recklessly addressing matters with which he has little expertise?

Justaccord: So no, I am not content to accept the patronizing statements of catholics whose staetments contradict the pope’s and the catholic catechism, where I have done my research.

Salmon: Research? You omitted the very footnote that showed your perception to be in error!
Please re-read:

Since the footnotes are included (and hyper-linked) in the various sites for the on-line Catechism, including:

K of C Online Catechism

one can’t help but be suspicious when the obvious intent of the passage is so twisted and distorted intentionally.

Located at: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=626750#post626750

justaccord: I am sure that you all believe what you say, but that doesn’t make it catholic doctrine.

Salmon: EXACTLY ! When you finally understand that your interpretation of statements is not Catholic doctrine either, then we will have made progress.

justaccord: So help me straighten this out, would you?

Salmon: Start by reflecting on:
1 Cor. 3:9

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

Laboring together with God? Imagine that. Knock yourself out, it’s only scripture.

Peace in Christ……………………Salmon

 

[deb1]

Think about it. What if Mary had refused to take on the task of being Christ’s mother? I don’t think that most people realize that she could have turned down God. She is a creature of free will after all. It was partially her choice that brought about the incarnation. So in that regard she deserves the title of coredeemer.

.

 

[UnworthySoul]

Fr. Serpa just answered my question on this in the “Ask an Apologist” forum. If anythung, I’m ashamed I was not able to figure it out on my own. My apprehension was for nothing. Again, my thanks to Fr. Serpa!

Viva il Papa!