Mary: Co Redeemer

[cargau]

A number of years ago, I asked about this topic in another thread. Many of you responded be clarifying the term “co”; as in co-pilot or co-star.

I have recently heard a number of spots on Catholic radio asking for the Pope to clearly define this dogmatically.

I ask, why? What is the point? Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

 

[Carlan]

A number of years ago, I asked about this topic in another thread. Many of you responded be clarifying the term “co”; as in co-pilot or co-star.

I have recently heard a number of spots on Catholic radio asking for the Pope to clearly define this dogmatically.

I ask, why? What is the point? Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

SOME SAY MARY IS CO-REDEEMER BUT THAT IS NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE
: Is Mary A Co-Redeemer
Remember, Scripture is only ‘part’ of the teachings of Christ. Sacred tradition–the oral teachings of which St. Paul writes–the teachings which existed alongside Scripture from t the start–and revealed dogma–the fact, for example, that we can speak of Father, Son and Spirit as three Divine Persons in One God–something which is NOT explicitly taught in those words in Scripture–do not contradict Scripture.

Revelation has a lot to say. So indeed does Luke. Since God never stopped being Christ’s Father, I think you can equally say Mary never stopped being His mother. (Our parents, even when they die, don’t suddenly stop being our parents).

Christ came to us through Mary; He continues to come to us through her. He didn’t come through Mary for 9 months and then suddenly, once He was born, ‘stop’ coming from her and come instead through somebody else.
So Scripture itself is in fact supporting the teaching that Christ comes to us through Mary.

She thus remains a legitimate avenue --indeed a gate–both for Him to come to us and us to come to Him.
This still in no way makes her a semi-goddess or equal to Him in any way.

The dawn is not the full morning; the moon reflects the sun’s light, not its own, the gate to a walled garden is not the garden itself. . .
but we don’t have a full morning until we have had a dawn.

We don’t get into a garden unless we go through the gate, we don’t have the moon’s light until we’ve had it first from the sun. . .

---

IS NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE.
The above comes from my notes about Mary the mother of God.
Sorry I do not have the original source,
Pax, Carlan

 

[stbruderklaus]

I think, to speak charitably as a non-Roman catholic, it has to do with several tensions that have been in play for quite some time.

– The Roman Catholic Church, as measured by her totality, is not of one mind on this matter. Some of those with particularly strong inclinations toward Marian piety want the tension resolved their way… others want it resolved in a different fashion. Usually the calls to formally define the dogma of Co-Redemptrix / Co-Redeemer are coming (from what I’ve experienced) from those who want the dogma established by papal fiat so that it can never be questioned again, even within the Roman communion… i.e., trying to use “papal infallibility” as their nuclear weapon of choice to blast all others into submission. Not a terribly Christian motivation, if you ask me.

– There are Roman Catholics within the Church that hold pro and con opinions on this potential dogma (and numerous shades in between the poles) that would rather not have this defined dogmatically via papal decree for other reasons… not least of which are ecumenical. If Rome does this, it will impact nearly every ecumenical relationship on the planet, and potentially imperil the fragile work toward unity already done with Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others. From this standpoint, it might be argued that leaving this concept up to pious speculation (a freedom of conscience, if you will, among the faithful) is a much better path toward healing Christian unity, than Rome declaring yet another new dogma that will put barriers between the world’s Christians. Frankly, to do so would be very un-catholic, since the majority of the world’s Christians and Christian communions, do not make such statements about the Blessed Virgin, and would not follow Rome’s lead in doing so in a heavy-handed, imperial decree.

That’s the best of my understanding, albeit from an outsider to Rome. I hope they don’t use the pope as a bully pulpit to foist a new dogma on the Romans, and push Lutherans and others further away from them. I honor and regard the Blessed Virgin Mary as the greatest of all the saints, the Theotokos… and I’ve even been able to embrace ideas about her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and sinlessness (just as Luther did,) but I don’t think the rest of the Christian world will follow Rome into making this new dogma a moral mandate upon the faithful. If they do, it would be a sectarian act, and beneath the dignity of the Petrine office.

Them’s me thoughts, anyway. Grace and peace to you.

A number of years ago, I asked about this topic in another thread. Many of you responded be clarifying the term “co”; as in co-pilot or co-star.

I have recently heard a number of spots on Catholic radio asking for the Pope to clearly define this dogmatically.

I ask, why? What is the point? Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Two thoughts:

A. If this is indeed a revealed truth (which has been given through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to whatever understanding is indeed truth), then it will ‘go through’ whether people ‘buy it’ or not. Because if it is indeed what the Holy Spirit guides us to as all truth, then it ‘needs’ to be heard. If it is not revealed truth, there is no need to worry. No matter how much yelling and huffing and no matter how many would ‘embrace’ it, it will NEVER be taught as authentic Catholic teaching. God will not permit His Church to teach error when it comes to faith and morals. So ‘be not afraid.’

B. If it IS a revealed truth, one possible reason for it to be set forth is (as all Marian dogmas are) to set forth Christ more clearly. IF it is a revealed truth, then Mary’s ‘cooperation’ will somehow serve as a clarification of Christ’s salvific action and His ultimate role as our Redeemer. IF it is a revealed truth, one possible reason to perceive Mary as ‘cooperator’ would be to counteract the ‘recent’ (that is, last 3 centuries or so) push on the part of some (NOT ALL) Protestants to portray Mary --the Mother of God–as being nothing but a ‘vessel’, who did not give birth to Christ but only to some human ‘shell’, who was ‘sinful’, ‘of no account’, etc. Such teachings are an insult to Jesus and it is possible that in making sure that people know (through the Holy Spirit) that Mary’s ‘cooperation’ was ‘essential’ to Jesus being able to redeem us would hopefully’ correct’ those false teachings and thus, of course, ultimately gain us a greater and more CORRECT understanding of Jesus Christ. . .because of course, He is the only one that ‘it’s all about’.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Well said, as a perspective within the Roman communion. Naturally, as a Lutheran, with my understanding of the history of the Church, I can’t share your confidence Rome’s protection from error.

I do think, however, that if the Successor of Peter is to fulfill his role as a center of Christian unity, he must be willing to consider matters from more than just his own perspective. If he’s really every Christian’s bishop, the Servant of the Servants of God as they used to say, he has to be mindful of the growing yet fragile unity that his last couple successors and even he himself have helped foster.

But as always, whether we appreciate the utterances more or less, the whole of the Christian world will watch and weigh what comes from Rome. And most of us will remain hopeful for what we will hear.

Cheers.

Two thoughts:

A. If this is indeed a revealed truth (which has been given through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to whatever understanding is indeed truth), then it will ‘go through’ whether people ‘buy it’ or not. Because if it is indeed what the Holy Spirit guides us to as all truth, then it ‘needs’ to be heard. If it is not revealed truth, there is no need to worry. No matter how much yelling and huffing and no matter how many would ‘embrace’ it, it will NEVER be taught as authentic Catholic teaching. God will not permit His Church to teach error when it comes to faith and morals. So ‘be not afraid.’

B. If it IS a revealed truth, one possible reason for it to be set forth is (as all Marian dogmas are) to set forth Christ more clearly. IF it is a revealed truth, then Mary’s ‘cooperation’ will somehow serve as a clarification of Christ’s salvific action and His ultimate role as our Redeemer. IF it is a revealed truth, one possible reason to perceive Mary as ‘cooperator’ would be to counteract the ‘recent’ (that is, last 3 centuries or so) push on the part of some (NOT ALL) Protestants to portray Mary --the Mother of God–as being nothing but a ‘vessel’, who did not give birth to Christ but only to some human ‘shell’, who was ‘sinful’, ‘of no account’, etc. Such teachings are an insult to Jesus and it is possible that in making sure that people know (through the Holy Spirit) that Mary’s ‘cooperation’ was ‘essential’ to Jesus being able to redeem us would hopefully’ correct’ those false teachings and thus, of course, ultimately gain us a greater and more CORRECT understanding of Jesus Christ. . .because of course, He is the only one that ‘it’s all about’.

 

[vera_dicere]

In a short and sweet response, as I understand it, Mary is not a co-redeemer, but instead one who brings a soul to her Son.

She brings people to Christ, she’s like a minister or a missionary.

 

[Carlan]

In a short and sweet response, as I understand it, Mary is not a co-redeemer, but instead one who brings a soul to her Son.

She brings people to Christ, she’s like a minister or a missionary.

Yes Vera, and we love her and thank God for her yes to Him.God bless you! Carlan

 

[didymus]

I ask, why? What is the point? Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

I’ve heard Jimmy Akin address this repeatedly on CA Radio and he makes the same point that we all have to cooperate in our own redemption and we can even cooperate in the redemption of others (praying for their conversion, return to the Faith) and so we are all in some sense co-redeemers, but Mary is co-Redemptrix in a special sense.

Okay. Even granted all that I think the biggest reason not to declare it as a dogma is that it will put an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of our Protestant brethren who might otherwise be open to the Faith.

I’m afraid I don’t do much apologetics but when I have gotten into discussions I find they may accept the idea that the “brothers of the Lord” were not literal brothers and the Immaculate Conception (usually a balking point) until it’s fully explained – or at least they might think more about it.

But “Co-Redemptrix” will just blow their mind. Would Mary really want another title more than she wants souls brought to her Son?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, it might ‘blow their mind’ but if–and ONLY if-- it is authentic doctrine, it NEEDS to be out there.

I mean, look at the Real Presence. That is a HUGE stumbling block for many Protestants but we’re not suggesting that we try to diddle it around lest it scandalize them.

As I said earlier, one possible reason (emphasis on ‘possible’) for the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix to BE authentic (and again we have to be very careful to understand that the ‘co-’ prefix in no way makes her position ‘equal’ to that of Christ in any possible way) is that for some (not all) Protestants, their treatment of Mary has become so very disrespectful and wrong that the ‘correction’ of that error has become necessary, NOT because it’s about “Mary” but because that error seriously interferes with and undermines the basic truth about CHRIST.

Because it is always, always and only Christ.

Mary doesn’t ‘want’ titles and she isn’t ‘given’ them because of some ‘want’ on her part or some ‘heresy’ on ours --any authentic titles Mary has, she has because they are from Christ. If He is King (and He is), then she is Queen, not because she has ‘asked’ or because we ‘give’ it (we don’t GIVE the Kingship to Christ, either–it belongs to Him, it is not ours to give), but because it FOLLOWS FROM Christ. His Kingship ‘makes’ her Queen for she is Mother and He is Son, and that is the nature of His Sonship and her motherhood.

 

[centurionguard]

I see nothing wrong with the Blessed Virgin Mary being called Co-Redemptrix.

See: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

CHAPTER VIII
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD
IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[stbruderklaus]

Right… but recent developments among Roman Catholics regarding definitions about the Blessed Virgin are a long way removed from the ancient understandings of the Eucharist. While Lutherans and Roman Catholics rely on the same Scriptures and the same Fathers to understand the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we don’t have any kind of common deep history to support this new potential declaration. Ostensibly, I’d have to side with our Eastern Orthodox brethren, and say that the best way for such a thing to be promulgated to the whole Christian world, is through a truly Ecumenical Council that includes the bishops of the whole world.

That’s why I think a papal declaration would be a bad idea, whether the idea was right or wrong in itself. The Eastern Churches would take it as an affront to the ancient concilliar tradition, to declare dogma outside a free and ecumenical council (keep in mind the schism that resulted from making an alteration to the Nicene Creed outside a full council, a thousand years of trouble that could have been averted with more concilliar charity.) Protestants would take it as another reason to distance themselves from what they see as Roman doctrinal caprice. And Lutherans, who stand in the grey zone between Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with the Anglicans, I would think) would have one more stumbling block foisted upon them as they try to reconcile between warring factions.

Them’s me two cents, anyway. While I know that Rome has declared itself above ecumencial councils, I think the best way to heal Christian divisions over doctrinal issues is not by monarchical fiat, but by a return to the oldest of reconcilliation traditions-- the ecumenical council. Let new doctrinal definitions or clarifications come from there, and we’ll all be a lot better off.

Grace and peace.

Well, it might ‘blow their mind’ but if–and ONLY if-- it is authentic doctrine, it NEEDS to be out there.

I mean, look at the Real Presence. That is a HUGE stumbling block for many Protestants but we’re not suggesting that we try to diddle it around lest it scandalize them.

As I said earlier, one possible reason (emphasis on ‘possible’) for the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix to BE authentic (and again we have to be very careful to understand that the ‘co-’ prefix in no way makes her position ‘equal’ to that of Christ in any possible way) is that for some (not all) Protestants, their treatment of Mary has become so very disrespectful and wrong that the ‘correction’ of that error has become necessary, NOT because it’s about “Mary” but because that error seriously interferes with and undermines the basic truth about CHRIST.

Because it is always, always and only Christ.

Mary doesn’t ‘want’ titles and she isn’t ‘given’ them because of some ‘want’ on her part or some ‘heresy’ on ours --any authentic titles Mary has, she has because they are from Christ. If He is King (and He is), then she is Queen, not because she has ‘asked’ or because we ‘give’ it (we don’t GIVE the Kingship to Christ, either–it belongs to Him, it is not ours to give), but because it FOLLOWS FROM Christ. His Kingship ‘makes’ her Queen for she is Mother and He is Son, and that is the nature of His Sonship and her motherhood.

 

[Della]

Right… but recent developments among Roman Catholics regarding definitions about the Blessed Virgin are a long way removed from the ancient understandings of the Eucharist. While Lutherans and Roman Catholics rely on the same Scriptures and the same Fathers to understand the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we don’t have any kind of common deep history to support this new potential declaration. Ostensibly, I’d have to side with our Eastern Orthodox brethren, and say that the best way for such a thing to be promulgated to the whole Christian world, is through a truly Ecumenical Council that includes the bishops of the whole world.

That’s why I think a papal declaration would be a bad idea, whether the idea was right or wrong in itself. The Eastern Churches would take it as an affront to the ancient concilliar tradition, to declare dogma outside a free and ecumenical council (keep in mind the schism that resulted from making an alteration to the Nicene Creed outside a full council, a thousand years of trouble that could have been averted with more concilliar charity.) Protestants would take it as another reason to distance themselves from what they see as Roman doctrinal caprice. And Lutherans, who stand in the grey zone between Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with the Anglicans, I would think) would have one more stumbling block foisted upon them as they try to reconcile between warring factions.

Them’s me two cents, anyway. While I know that Rome has declared itself above ecumencial councils, I think the best way to heal Christian divisions over doctrinal issues is not by monarchical fiat, but by a return to the oldest of reconcilliation traditions-- the ecumenical council. Let new doctrinal definitions or clarifications come from there, and we’ll all be a lot better off.

Grace and peace.

I can understand how you would feel/think the way you do, but (and I say this merely as a matter of fact and not in a snarky way) the Church can and does do what it sees best with or without anyone else’s approval/understanding. Jesus never said to go out and make friends with those who disagree, after all. If the Church declares Mary Co-Redemptrix as confirmed doctrine no doubt it will be after much reflection, prayer, and consultation with the whole Christian community.

The Church stands as Christ’s witness in the world. It cannot be overly influenced by those who have declared they are not, and need not, be in union with it. The Church must answer to Christ above all others no matter if others agree with it or not. The Church will make the right determination in this matter, if it rules on it, as the organ through which Christ makes his will known to mankind.

As I see it there is no immediate need for this concept to be declared doctrine. I could be wrong about that, though. If the Church should declare it I will accept it knowing that the Holy Spirit wanted this to be declared at this point in history for a reason. We cannot always see why any doctrine needs clarification at any one time, but as the years go by we can see the wisdom of God in it if we are open to seeing it. I say this as a Catholic and to myself, more than to anyone else.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I appreciate your perspective, and your gentility in your response. Thanks for that.

I would offer, though, that a Roman dogma I agree with, is that all Christians who have received the grace of Trinitarian Baptism, are in fact in some kind of unity with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (whether one recognizes that peculiarly with Rome, or otherwise.) I think this is why the Pope, and specifically our Archbishop out here in the Seattle Archdiocese, speaks of ecumenism with other Christians as an imperative rather than an option. Our linkage to each other, whether we be Lutheran, Roman, Anglican, Syrian, Coptic, etc., is via our linkage to Christ Himself. That linkage, as it appears in visible marks of communion between our camps may be more or less robust, but our Baptism and faith in Christ as Savior and Son of God, unites us in a very fundamental way that transcends our divisions.

This is why I find the concilliar tradition so appealing and promising-- it works from our common foundation as Christians united first in Christ, and seeks to repair the dis-unity that emerges afterward.

Anyway, an interesting and charitable discussion. Thank you.

I can understand how you would feel/think the way you do, but (and I say this merely as a matter of fact and not in a snarky way) the Church can and does do what it sees best with or without anyone else’s approval/understanding. Jesus never said to go out and make friends with those who disagree, after all. If the Church declares Mary Co-Redemptrix as confirmed doctrine no doubt it will be after much reflection, prayer, and consultation with the whole Christian community.

The Church stands as Christ’s witness in the world. It cannot be overly influenced by those who have declared they are not, and need not, be in union with it. The Church must answer to Christ above all others no matter if others agree with it or not. The Church will make the right determination in this matter, if it rules on it, as the organ through which Christ makes his will known to mankind.

As I see it there is no immediate need for this concept to be declared doctrine. I could be wrong about that, though. If the Church should declare it I will accept it knowing that the Holy Spirit wanted this to be declared at this point in history for a reason. We cannot always see why any doctrine needs clarification at any one time, but as the years go by we can see the wisdom of God in it if we are open to seeing it. I say this as a Catholic and to myself, more than to anyone else.

 

[Della]

I appreciate your perspective, and your gentility in your response. Thanks for that.

I would offer, though, that a Roman dogma I agree with, is that all Christians who have received the grace of Trinitarian Baptism, are in fact in some kind of unity with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (whether one recognizes that peculiarly with Rome, or otherwise.) I think this is why the Pope, and specifically our Archbishop out here in the Seattle Archdiocese, speaks of ecumenism with other Christians as an imperative rather than an option. Our linkage to each other, whether we be Lutheran, Roman, Anglican, Syrian, Coptic, etc., is via our linkage to Christ Himself. That linkage, as it appears in visible marks of communion between our camps may be more or less robust, but our Baptism and faith in Christ as Savior and Son of God, unites us in a very fundamental way that transcends our divisions.

This is why I find the concilliar tradition so appealing and promising-- it works from our common foundation as Christians united first in Christ, and seeks to repair the dis-unity that emerges afterward.

Anyway, an interesting and charitable discussion. Thank you.

By all means possible, let us have unity. Amen to that!

And while I agree a council meeting would make many feel happy, it is not absolutely necessary, nor always feasible on every issue. Getting so many people together to make every decision sounds good on paper but the reality is much more difficult.

Let’s take contraception as an example. Here’s a topic most Christians, Catholic and Protestant, urged the Holy Father to go with the flow on. Well, he didn’t. He explained it quite thoroughly and his predictions as to the consequences were spot on. Still, people will not have his decision as final. If a council had been held the results would have been the same. The Church would have upheld it’s position and people would still disagree with it. Councils don’t equal agreement/obedience/unity, unfortunately. Either Christ gave the charism of infallibility to his Church or he didn’t. If he didn’t then no teaching matters whatsoever, councils or no councils.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Naturally, from a Lutheran perspective, I’d have a hard time concurring with the idea of the Church having received any particular charism of infallibility; my reading of ecclesiastical history just doesn’t allow my conscience to conclude that point.

However, if I were to be persuaded that the Church had such a charism, it would most likely be in ecumenical council… along the lines of the Eastern Churches’ perspective. It’s been a very long time since representatives of all the world’s Christians sat together at one table to debate and find consensus on doctrinal matters… and the romantic in me still hopes I may see such a thing in my lifetime.

But if I do not see it here, I know I will see it on the other side of eternity. As I often admonish my Protestant friends who feel Christianity is theirs to re-invent on an individual level-- there will be no denominational nor individual schism in Heaven. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ is perfectly unified on the other side of this veil of tears, even if it is lacerated and torn on this side. As a Lutheran, my best imagination of Purgatory, is finally collapsed at the feet of my Savior, as He not only examines the failures of my life, but also the failures of my understanding. That will be a hard day of purgation for us all.

But back to the potential of this dogmatic proclamation on the Blessed Theotokos-- I have found that she has been something of a surprise unifyer amongst the world’s Christians to date (some of the more radical Protestants excepted.) I’d hate to see her made into a scandal for anyone, by a proclamation the world of Christianity is not ready to receive.

Peace to you.

By all means possible, let us have unity. Amen to that!

And while I agree a council meeting would make many feel happy, it is not absolutely necessary, nor always feasible on every issue. Getting so many people together to make every decision sounds good on paper but the reality is much more difficult.

Let’s take contraception as an example. Here’s a topic most Christians, Catholic and Protestant, urged the Holy Father to go with the flow on. Well, he didn’t. He explained it quite thoroughly and his predictions as to the consequences were spot on. Still, people will not have his decision as final. If a council had been held the results would have been the same. The Church would have upheld it’s position and people would still disagree with it. Councils don’t equal agreement/obedience/unity, unfortunately. Either Christ gave the charism of infallibility to his Church or he didn’t. If he didn’t then no teaching matters whatsoever, councils or no councils.

 

[Della]

Naturally, from a Lutheran perspective, I’d have a hard time concurring with the idea of the Church having received any particular charism of infallibility; my reading of ecclesiastical history just doesn’t allow my conscience to conclude that point.

However, if I were to be persuaded that the Church had such a charism, it would most likely be in ecumenical council… along the lines of the Eastern Churches’ perspective. It’s been a very long time since representatives of all the world’s Christians sat together at one table to debate and find consensus on doctrinal matters… and the romantic in me still hopes I may see such a thing in my lifetime.

Of course, you’re seeing this as if all Christian ecclesial bodies are on equal footing. I don’t and I’m a convert not someone who has just taken the Church as the Church from childhood on. There is plenty of evidence for the Church’s authority in history if one looks at it from the stand point that there was one Church founded by Christ and all those who are not in complete union with it left of their own accord for their own reasons. That is the history I saw when I examined it with no preconceptions as to how it should have been.

But if I do not see it here, I know I will see it on the other side of eternity. As I often admonish my Protestant friends who feel Christianity is theirs to re-invent on an individual level-- there will be no denominational nor individual schism in Heaven. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ is perfectly unified on the other side of this veil of tears, even if it is lacerated and torn on this side. As a Lutheran, my best imagination of Purgatory, is finally collapsed at the feet of my Savior, as He not only examines the failures of my life, but also the failures of my understanding. That will be a hard day of purgation for us all.

I’m sure we all have faulty understandings of a great many things that we’ll be surprised to learn, but the unity and authority of the Church isn’t my own idea that I need correction on. It’s the Church’s claim that is either true or false. There are some black and white issues and this is one of them. I am convinced of the truth of the Church’s claims, not because I’m so bright or anything but because of Christ’s promise given to the Apostles. They certainly never envisioned a divided Church. Various charisms, perhaps, but one Church, not many each declaring different doctrines/dogmas. The word catholic should tell us as much–how can there be a universal Church that teaches one thing here and something different there? It’s not logical nor what Christ intended.

But back to the potential of this dogmatic proclamation on the Blessed Theotokos-- I have found that she has been something of a surprise unifyer amongst the world’s Christians to date (some of the more radical Protestants excepted.) I’d hate to see her made into a scandal for anyone, by a proclamation the world of Christianity is not ready to receive.

Peace to you.

Yes, Mary and the Incarnation are the beginning of our faith. If Mary isn’t the Theotokos, we are all idolaters. Why some Protestants can’t get that is beyond me. Just getting some people to that point is certainly hard enough, I agree. I have to say, once again, though, that that can’t be the deciding factor. There are always going to be people who will disagree. The Church has fought off one kind of denial after another regarding Christ’s divinity and humanity, and Mary is the key. If the teaching that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix will aid the Church in warding off yet another attempt to deny Christ in his fullness, then it will say so by declaring this title as necessary. Right now the Church does not see it as necessary, but it’s certainly all right to think of Mary in this way, as the Church defines it.

The impetus for declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix comes from many who follow the spirituality of St. Louis Marie de Montfort. They believe this title would help save souls by strengthening our faith regarding the truths about Christ. There’s nothing wrong in that intention. But, it is up to the Church to decide if it is truly necessary.

I have also found, as I noted in my last post, that even if the Church fully explains its decisions, there are always people who will not accept it no matter what. We have to remember we are dealing with human free will here. People aren’t always convinced by facts or even good explanations when they simply don’t want to believe. No one but the Holy Spirit can do anything about that.

God’s peace to you and yours!

 

[steve_b]

A number of years ago, I asked about this topic in another thread. Many of you responded be clarifying the term “co”; as in co-pilot or co-star.

“co” = with in Latin. “co” doesn’t mean equal to.
c:

I have recently heard a number of spots on Catholic radio asking for the Pope to clearly define this dogmatically.

I ask, why? What is the point? Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

• I don’t know of any Catholic who deifies her.
• Of course anyone who cooperates with Jesus is in a fashion, a coredeemer (male) coredemtrix (fem) with Jesus. We just wouldn’t nor couldn’t be even close to the level of cooperation that Mary was.
• who would argue that Mary is NOT with (co) her son the redeemer in the closest way a human could be? God’s plan from all eternity was not to come to us directly. His plan was to come to us and redeem us through Mary [Gen 3:15]. Jesus took 100% of His flesh, 100% of His human nature from Mary. No other human was involved. Mary for 9 months gave Jesus protection and sustenance in her womb. That flesh He took to the cross. As bishop Sheen said, Mary could stand at the cross and also say, this is my flesh, this is my blood.

 

[steve_b]

A number of years ago, I asked about this topic in another thread. Many of you responded be clarifying the term “co”; as in co-pilot or co-star.

“co” = with in Latin. BTW, “co” doesn’t mean equal to.
c:

I have recently heard a number of spots on Catholic radio asking for the Pope to clearly define this dogmatically.

Of course, Mary is a very special person. She is indespensible in the history of salvation. But, only God could pay the ransom of Adam’s sin. Only God could destroy death and restore life. Only God can redeem.

All true.
c:

To say that someone cooperates does not make them a redeemer or even a co-redeemer. St Peter cooperated. St Paul cooperated. My pastor cooperates. Even I cooperate because I teach my children about the faith. Yet, it doesn’t merit being raised to a dogma.

Catholics often misunderstand Mary’s role, even to the point of deifying her. Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

• I don’t know of any Catholic who deifies her.
• Since God selected Mary for all history for this singular unique role in salvation history to bring the redeemer into the world, her role is unlike any other person in all of salvation history. She said yes to God, to bring Jesus, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, our redeemer, into the world.
• God’s plan from all eternity was to come to us and redeem us through Mary [Gen 3:15]. Jesus took 100% of His flesh, 100% of His human nature from Mary. No other human was involved. Mary for 9 months gave Jesus protection and sustenance in her womb. She raised Him. That flesh He took from her to the cross. As bishop Sheen said, Mary could stand at the foot of the cross and also say, this is my flesh, this is my blood. She is for all eternity His mother.

I obviously have no problem if the title is ever defined and made official

 

[stbruderklaus]

Of course, you’re seeing this as if all Christian ecclesial bodies are on equal footing.

Actually, no-- I don’t see all Christian bodies on equal footing. I think, however, our point of reference as to divergence is different. I tend to see church bodies as closer to, or further from, Apostolic truth, measured by their proximity to Holy Scripture within the broad context of historic tradition. I think a similar concept is inferred by certain Roman statements, that find greater affinity with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Protestant bodies… and within Protestant bodies, more affinity with those that are more sacramental and catholic in their confession than those which are not. While I’m not ready to concede that Rome is the center from which all things are measured, I will confess that there is a center to the Church that we all must draw closer to. While you may suggest that center is the Chair of Peter, I suggest it is found amongst the bishops all gathered together around the Holy Scriptures. There was a time, when the Apostolic See of Rome sat equally with his brother Patriarchs and bishops from Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and others, making joint decisions and pronouncements based on the witness of the Scriptures and an Apostolic tradition that lent perspective to the pages. Perhaps we will see that day again.

I’ve said it before in other places, but I think it bears repeating: if the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East ever manage to draw together, I think it will usher in the end of the Reformation. Perhaps this is why recent popes and patriarchs have worked so hard to accomplish it… and many among the sacramental protestants have worked along side them toward the same ends. And perhaps, it is the risk of jeopardizing this path of reconcilliation that causes me concern, when I hear the potential of a controversial new dogma to be proclaimed on papal decree rather than by a council.

Peace to you.

 

[crazzeto]

Interesting, I understand many are quite taken with the Mary Co-Redeemer theology which I was first exposed to while reading a (questionable) book on the end times which draws heavily from private revelation.

I won’t personally detract it based upon my bad introduction to it, but I will say I’m not sure if I’m personally 100% comfortable with it. Perhaps my lack of comfort come with some who try to exaggerate Mary’s role in the economy of salvaiton, I’ve heard some explanations which do make perfect sense, and some evangalization of the proposed doctrine which is downright off the wall.

Anyway, certainly I’ll accept the teachings of the Chruch when they are made official. For now, I’m content to sit on the side lines of this Co-redeemer debate…