Mary: Co Redeemer

[Mickey]

Theologically speaking, I don’t get it…

Me neither.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

The doctrine of Our Lady as co-redemptrix is not something new. Even St. Bernard (+1153) composed a prayer to her under that title. This has been a very old teaching of the Church in regards to Mary’s most singular and unique role of cooperation in salvation history.

In the communion of saints, we are each called on to aid others in their heavenly journey. There were saints who only suffered and were not much known in their lives but whose intercession in heaven is incredibly powerful. One example is St. Therese of Lisieux. She knew hardly anyone and died at the age of only 24 but it a phenomenal intercessor. Our Lady is not just another saint (as though they were ordinary). Her role as intercessor is in a class by itself. To her we give the respect of hyperdulia, the greater honor, while to saints we give dulia. To God alone is latria, or worship.

The Church acts prudently and takes her time. The Marian Dogmas have unfolded through the centuries. Mary as Mother of God , the Theotokos, was promulgated at the Council of Ephesus to counter the heresies that had developed concerning her role. And really it was not only her role, but the underlying heresy was Arian that denied the divinity of Christ and hence denied the role of Mary as Mother of God. And then her virginity was attacked and that also had to be clarified by Dogma.

When the Church and the Holy Father, guided by the Holy Spirit, deem the time is right for the
5th Marian Dogma–that of Advocate, Mediatrix, and Coredemptrix–to be promulgated, I will welcome it with great joy.

These titles have long been given to Our Lady. It is only the elevation of them to Dogma that will be different as they are doctrine already.

As to compromise ahd false ecumenism—it will never work. The truth must be proclaimed and it cannot be watered down. It cannot change. Whether it is widely accepted or not…well when Our Lord Himself said that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood and almost all walked away, He did not change His teaching nor compromise nor say it was symbolic or anything like that; he let the people go their own way. And souls are still going their own way. There are over 30,000 protestant churches, each with their own slant and view. The Holy Spirit certainly is not guiding in 30,000 different ways!

The Roman Catholic Church MUST preach the truth. It is being fiercely attacked now because the teachings of faith and morals are not being changed to suit the desires of the secular world. The scandal is that some who represent the Church do themselves not live the teachings. No one is saying that it is going to ever be safe and comfy to live the Catholic faith. It is getting rockier by the year. But the grace of God sustains us. Our Lady helps us too.

Here is a website that might be of help from Deacon Mark Miravalle:
markmiravalle.com/uncategorized/09/mary-co-redemptrix-a-dogmatic-crowning-for-the-queen/

 

[crazzeto]

@Ave Maria!

I can appriciate your position, my main issue is this

1. It’s not doctrin, certainly not yet
2. As such, there are no clear bounds to define it
3. As such, many individuals are pre-disposed to over emphisies Mary’s already extrodenary position in the economy of salvation. Taking her from perfect creation (isn’t that as good as it gets?) and trying to almost elevate her to Christ status. That’s not good.
4. As such, until there is a dogma I will play it safe on this one. I love my holy mother, I dont’ want to offend her by going over board with her position.

 

[Della]

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.

Thank you for this clarification–my bad! However, I can’t agree that the Holy Father’s position was only that of a fellow bishop. He has always been the supreme bishop from Peter’s time on down. There’s plenty of evidence for this in the Fathers.

As to Mary as Co-Redemptrix being a “controversial new dogma”, many are jumping the gun as well as mischaracterizing it within non-Catholic circles. It is an ancient popular belief that the Church has never said is wrong. It probably won’t be elevated to the level of dogma simply because it isn’t necessary. There are many basic beliefs that don’t have that distinction that we all hold, such as the very existence of God. So, all the hubbub over it is so much stage fire–all flash and no substance. I wish our Protestant brethren wouldn’t be so jumpy every time some title for Mary is proposed. Geez, you’d think we were going to declare her the fourth member of the Godhead instead of merely make formal what we Catholics already believe.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Fair enough, my friend.

I think non-Roman Catholics get jumpy regarding doctrinal promulgations from Rome, because only Rome sees herself as able to do such things. The Churches of the East, and the Protestants of various sorts, don’t understand things that way. If 1.1 billion Roman Catholics in the world see the Pope as capable of declaring binding dogma ex cathedra, there are roughly a billion Christians in the world who don’t (around 500-600 million Orthodox, and several hundred million Protestants.) While some may be pleased to toss around the straw horse of “30,000 different Protestant” groups, the reality is that there’s only about five major categories of Protestants out there, defined by various theological traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.)

I suppose there are also different qualities to other Christians’ jumpiness. Some are just ardent anti-catholics, who think the pope is going to try to take over the world again, and exercise a political control that corresponds to his ecclesiastical title (a la pre-Reformation Europe.) I’m not one of those.

The jumpiness I represent is one that fears a fragile and growing unity may be jeopardized by short-sighted polemicists… and I think we’ve all seen or heard those. I have Lutheran brothers and sisters that are just as vitriolic as any Roman apologist, and frankly, I think these folks just live off the conflict they can fan into flame, as if it were an opiate. None of us are well off, when these folks tend to take power in our respective communions.

I’m of the opinion, that there are things that should be doctrine which binds the conscience, and there are things that should be left in the liberal category of “pious opinion.” As I’ve mentioned before, I think the best way to sort that out is via ecumenical council based on Holy Writ and Apostolic Tradition… otherwise, what develops outside those means cannot be binding on the conciences of Christians. But there, I suppose we shall continue to differ.

Grace and peace be with you, friend.

Thank you for this clarification–my bad! However, I can’t agree that the Holy Father’s position was only that of a fellow bishop. He has always been the supreme bishop from Peter’s time on down. There’s plenty of evidence for this in the Fathers.

As to Mary as Co-Redemptrix being a “controversial new dogma”, many are jumping the gun as well as mischaracterizing it within non-Catholic circles. It is an ancient popular belief that the Church has never said is wrong. It probably won’t be elevated to the level of dogma simply because it isn’t necessary. There are many basic beliefs that don’t have that distinction that we all hold, such as the very existence of God. So, all the hubbub over it is so much stage fire–all flash and no substance. I wish our Protestant brethren wouldn’t be so jumpy every time some title for Mary is proposed. Geez, you’d think we were going to declare her the fourth member of the Godhead instead of merely make formal what we Catholics already believe.

 

[Della]

Fair enough, my friend.

I think non-Roman Catholics get jumpy regarding doctrinal promulgations from Rome, because only Rome sees herself as able to do such things. The Churches of the East, and the Protestants of various sorts, don’t understand things that way. If 1.1 billion Roman Catholics in the world see the Pope as capable of declaring binding dogma ex cathedra, there are roughly a billion Christians in the world who don’t (around 500-600 million Orthodox, and several hundred million Protestants.) While some may be pleased to toss around the straw horse of “30,000 different Protestant” groups, the reality is that there’s only about five major categories of Protestants out there, defined by various theological traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.)

From an ecumenical point of view I can understand the feelings of non-Catholic Christians. Rome understands it too. And it’s one of the concerns it has when definitively declaring any popular belief doctrine/dogma. The Marian titles seem to be the last sticking points for many, but I truly believe it’s because many non-Catholics mistrust or misunderstand the mind of the Church regarding Mary and her place in our salvation. Not saying you are among these, but even among those who are supposed to be educated there is this sense that Rome is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. I’ve talked with enough people on this very forum to know that. It’s sad. Rome has always been quite open and plain as to why it defines any teaching, be it Marian or not. I chalk it up to “camp fever” in most cases and in some outright dislike of the idea that Rome could be right about anything since the Reformation.

I suppose there are also different qualities to other Christians’ jumpiness. Some are just ardent anti-catholics, who think the pope is going to try to take over the world again, and exercise a political control that corresponds to his ecclesiastical title (a la pre-Reformation Europe.) I’m not one of those.

I once was one of those, believe it or not. I have to laugh now when I think back on how paranoid I was, but then I was taught to be paranoid. It was spoon-fed to me as a Pentecostal on a near daily basis, especially at the Bible college I attended. I know all too well about that.

The jumpiness I represent is one that fears a fragile and growing unity may be jeopardized by short-sighted polemicists… and I think we’ve all seen or heard those. I have Lutheran brothers and sisters that are just as vitriolic as any Roman apologist, and frankly, I think these folks just live off the conflict they can fan into flame, as if it were an opiate. None of us are well off, when these folks tend to take power in our respective communions.

Yes, there is this problem, as well. As I said, “camp fever”. I am not one of those Catholics who thinks the leadership in Rome has never messed up or been wrong about anything. However, I am one of those Catholics who believes firmly in the charism of infallibility. The reason I do is not because of the problems of other ecclesial bodies (God knows we Catholics have plenty of our own), but because it’s logical and right. The revelation of Christ demands it because the Church is his witness in the world. It sounds simple, I know, but like any bedrock truth it stands on its own and doesn’t need me to believe or disbelieve to make it true.

I’m of the opinion, that there are things that should be doctrine which binds the conscience, and there are things that should be left in the liberal category of “pious opinion.” As I’ve mentioned before, I think the best way to sort that out is via ecumenical council based on Holy Writ and Apostolic Tradition… otherwise, what develops outside those means cannot be binding on the conciences of Christians. But there, I suppose we shall continue to differ.

Grace and peace be with you, friend.

There are many things that the Church has made no decisions on that we are free to believe or not. Indeed, there are only a few things it has said we must believe. I don’t find that in any way restrictive to my conscience or my good sense. And as I said before, and have to say again, councils are fine and good, but even councils don’t equal obedience or acceptance of those who will not/cannot see it/believe it.

I believe you are trying to get the Church to conform to a formula that even Christ didn’t impose. I understand fully why, but I think you are mistaken in your thinking here. Show me where Christ declared that a Church council had to be held by all those dissenting and assenting before the Church can declare a teaching valid/invalid? Where is it in the early constitutions/Church documents? Your preference for this form of decision making really has nothing to do with the validity of the Church’s authority to decide matters of faith and morals–it is, in the end, just your preference.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I believe you are trying to get the Church to conform to a formula that even Christ didn’t impose. I understand fully why, but I think you are mistaken in your thinking here. Show me where Christ declared that a Church council had to be held by all those dissenting and assenting before the Church can declare a teaching valid/invalid? Where is it in the early constitutions/Church documents? Your preference for this form of decision making really has nothing to do with the validity of the Church’s authority to decide matters of faith and morals–it is, in the end, just your preference.

It is possible that I’m just promulgating a personal opinion, but I think I’m in company with most of the early Fathers regarding the role of the ecumenical councils (and frankly, it’s what Luther sought, too.) When dissention broke out between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Acts, the first council of Jerusalem was convoked, and a decision made with all leaders together. St. Peter, who seemed obviously in favor of retaining certain Jewish laws and imposing them on Gentiles, was eventually rebuked and corrected by St. Paul (pointed out by Paul in his letters) and the mind of the council was made known, and both dissenters and subscribers chose to walk together in those decisions.

When the next few councils were convoked to settle controversies with Arians, Marcionites, Docetists, and so forth, those who agreed and those who dissented were all together in the council debate. I’m particularly fond of the story of one of my patron saints, Nicholas, who marched across the floor and slugged Arius in the kisser for his blashemy against the Son of God at the first council of Nicea… but it means they were both there for the debate (an act for which he was initially censured, and then reinstated upon miraculous intervention of Our Lady.) When the council closed, the mind of the council fathers were decreed, and everyone either had to choose to walk together or be excommunicated.

What saddens me, is that since the Great Schism of 1054 between the Patriarch of Rome, and the other four historic Patriarchs, there hasn’t been another truly ecumenical council to settle the debates that fractured the Church in that era. Eventually, popes decreed that they could not be held under the authority of anyone, not even a council, which is among the reasons why the Eastern Patriarchs were neither invited nor desired to attend another western council.

As the bitterness of bygone centuries dissipates in our times, it might be good for the Patriarch of Rome to invite his brother Patriarchs to the same ecumenical table that hasn’t been set for over a millenium. The Bishop of Rome, according to his patriarchal place over the west, could determine which bishops were invited to attend with him, as could the other patriarchs. While that certainly wouldn’t settle all the Reformation debates that have raged in the West for roughly 500 years, it just might settle the 1000 year rift between the historic Patriarchs. Were that to be done, the Reformation, I think, would find itself on the outside looking in, and would quickly come to terms of settlement with their Patriarch.

Grace and peace.

 

[Della]

It is possible that I’m just promulgating a personal opinion, but I think I’m in company with most of the early Fathers regarding the role of the ecumenical councils (and frankly, it’s what Luther sought, too.) When dissention broke out between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Acts, the first council of Jerusalem was convoked, and a decision made with all leaders together. St. Peter, who seemed obviously in favor of retaining certain Jewish laws and imposing them on Gentiles, was eventually rebuked and corrected by St. Paul (pointed out by Paul in his letters) and the mind of the council was made known, and both dissenters and subscribers chose to walk together in those decisions.

When the next few councils were convoked to settle controversies with Arians, Marcionites, Docetists, and so forth, those who agreed and those who dissented were all together in the council debate. I’m particularly fond of the story of one of my patron saints, Nicholas, who marched across the floor and slugged Arius in the kisser for his blashemy against the Son of God at the first council of Nicea… but it means they were both there for the debate (an act for which he was initially censured, and then reinstated upon miraculous intervention of Our Lady.) When the council closed, the mind of the council fathers were decreed, and everyone either had to choose to walk together or be excommunicated.

What saddens me, is that since the Great Schism of 1054 between the Patriarch of Rome, and the other four historic Patriarchs, there hasn’t been another truly ecumenical council to settle the debates that fractured the Church in that era. Eventually, popes decreed that they could not be held under the authority of anyone, not even a council, which is among the reasons why the Eastern Patriarchs were neither invited nor desired to attend another western council.

As the bitterness of bygone centuries dissipates in our times, it might be good for the Patriarch of Rome to invite his brother Patriarchs to the same ecumenical table that hasn’t been set for over a millenium. The Bishop of Rome, according to his patriarchal place over the west, could determine which bishops were invited to attend with him, as could the other patriarchs. While that certainly wouldn’t settle all the Reformation debates that have raged in the West for roughly 500 years, it just might settle the 1000 year rift between the historic Patriarchs. Were that to be done, the Reformation, I think, would find itself on the outside looking in, and would quickly come to terms of settlement with their Patriarch.

Grace and peace.

Of course, the clarification of the pope’s authority didn’t come out of thin air. It’s based in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition, but let us not quibble. Benedict has taken steps and is attempting to do what you suggest. He’s said he doesn’t want the title Patriarch of the West, for instance. Still, meeting with the Eastern Patriarchs won’t change Church teaching. Nor should it. There’s certainly nothing bad in consulting them on vital doctrinal issues nor in having councils. My only point being councils aren’t necessary in all cases nor even wanted by all who might attend. And any decision made, whether in formal council or without is the same thing and has the same result, as history has shown.