Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

[JRKH]

This poll is prompted by another thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=212949

Please take a minute to look it over before voting or commenting.

As for myself, I feel it is unnecessary, confusing and will be an impediment to evangalization. Regardless of the definitions supplied by the promoters, most people would see this term and see Mary being elevated to parity with Jesus. It would simply become another source and tool for anti-catholics.

James

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

No. There is absolutely no reason to make such a pronouncement and doing it would possible even harm some poeple’s faith.

 

[mich2]

It is not a matter of whether she ought to be elevated or not. If she is dogmatically pronounced as Co-Redemptrix, the decision will have come from Heaven,not from men, and so if Heaven wills her to be pronounced as such, let it be done according to His will.

Andre

 

[JRKH]

It is not a matter of whether she ought to be elevated or not. If she is dogmatically pronounced as Co-Redemptrix, the decision will have come from Heaven,not from men, and so if Heaven wills her to be pronounced as such, let it be done according to His will.

Andre

This is precicely my problem. What exactly is she being “elevated” to. My understanding is that there really isn’t any “new revelation” in this. All the things put forth, her obedience to God, her bearing Jesus, her suffering at the cross, etc. are all things for which she is loved and venerated already.
Our Blessed Mother is already held in higher esteem than any saint, or angel. Higher in fact than anyone except God. So where can she be “elevated” to.
This is exactly where and why there will be problems with this.

In all honesty, I am a simple man who needs a simple faith. I am not a philosopher, or theologen who can split terms, and ideas six different ways and from my simple viewpoint I see this as being a very problematic term. I emphasize here the TITLE proposed. “Coredemptix” will be heard by many as the “The same as”. Pick a different term and perhaps the problem goes away.

Yours in Christ
James

 

[mich2]

This is precicely my problem. What exactly is she being “elevated” to. My understanding is that there really isn’t any “new revelation” in this. All the things put forth, her obedience to God, her bearing Jesus, her suffering at the cross, etc. are all things for which she is loved and venerated already.
Our Blessed Mother is already held in higher esteem than any saint, or angel. Higher in fact than anyone except God. So where can she be “elevated” to.
This is exactly where and why there will be problems with this.

One thing has not yet occured, James. The crushing of the head of the serpent. We believe it will be her role; therefore her role within the Church **might ** be elevated, not her nature.
Peter was elevated as an apostle, not as a person…so was Abram and Moses.

In all honesty, I am a simple man who needs a simple faith. I am not a philosopher, or theologen who can split terms, and ideas six different ways and from my simple viewpoint I see this as being a very problematic term. I emphasize here the TITLE proposed. “Coredemptix” will be heard by many as the “The same as”. Pick a different term and perhaps the problem goes away.

Yours in Christ
James

Your faith can remain as simple as you wish, James. We believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. However, it doesn’t mean that we have a clue as to what this truly means, do we?

Andre

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I emphasize here the TITLE proposed. “Coredemptix” will be heard by many as the “The same as”. Pick a different term and perhaps the problem goes away.

The problem is that there is no other term for what Mary is. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, Mary by any other title is still the co-redemptrix. Our Lord and Lady are the ones who put forth her titles, if they will she be called the Co-Redemptrix, Rome shall make it so.

 

[EphelDuath]

John the Baptist was necessary to fulfill prophecies of Isaiah, to make the paths straight for the coming of the Messiah. Is he also a Co-Redemptrix, of a lesser degree than Mary?

 

[jgmes2001]

No. Mary’s sorrow at losing her son did not in any way redeem us. What redeemed us was Jesus’ blood being spilt. Mary had nothing to do with this. Yes, she choose to be mother to Jesus, which was a holy act, but she did not know that she would need to suffer to fulfill this role, nor did she totally understand what would happen.

If we say she is co-redemptrix, why not say Pilate is to? Didn’t he order Jesus to die?

 

[JRKH]

No. Mary’s sorrow at losing her son did not in any way redeem us. What redeemed us was Jesus’ blood being spilt. Mary had nothing to do with this. Yes, she choose to be mother to Jesus, which was a holy act, but she did not know that she would need to suffer to fulfill this role, nor did she totally understand what would happen.

If we say she is co-redemptrix, why not say Pilate is to? Didn’t he order Jesus to die?

We were redeemed by the passion and resurrection.
Also I pointed out in the other thread, hear is what I found on Dictionary.com:

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law -
Main Entry: co-
Function: prefix
1 : **with : together : joint : jointly **
2 a : associated in an action with another : fellow
b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy

So what will people hearing c-redemptrix assume it means.

Peace
James

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

It is not a matter of whether she ought to be elevated or not.

I believe it is since it’s not a matter determining our salvation.

If she is dogmatically pronounced as Co-Redemptrix, the decision will have come from Heaven,not from men, and so if Heaven wills her to be pronounced as such, let it be done according to His will.

Yes, but the decision to first make that decision comes from the Church and not necessary God.

The Church can decide to never try make it into a dogma so even if it’s true no one will be bound to believe it. She may however decide and to look into it and if she proclaims it as dogma then it would be infallible and all would need to accept it.

 

[knightbvm]

Pope Benedict XV, March 22, 1918, Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia, ≥As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. It is for this reason that all graces contained in the treasury of the Redemption are given to us through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.≤
DRILL THIS INTO YOUR HEADS!

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Pope Benedict XV, March 22, 1918, Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia, ≥As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. It is for this reason that all graces contained in the treasury of the Redemption are given to us through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.≤
DRILL THIS INTO YOUR HEADS!

I do not deny that correct interpretation of the title in not heretical and I think many hold this position. This however still doesn’t mean that it should be dogmatically proclaimed because there is absolutely no reason to do it and doing it will only:

a) cause heretical teaching about Mary to spread because the title is in all honesty very ambiguous and must be properly explained to be understood
b) act as a stumbling blog for many people but at the same time it would become a requirement for salvation
c) make evangelization more difficult

Pax

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No. Mary’s sorrow at losing her son did not in any way redeem us. What redeemed us was Jesus’ blood being spilt. Mary had nothing to do with this.

Absolutely nothing. She is incapable of saving herself - let alone an entire world of sinners.​

Yes, she choose to be mother to Jesus, which was a holy act, but she did not know that she would need to suffer to fulfill this role, nor did she totally understand what would happen.

If we say she is co-redemptrix, why not say Pilate is to? Didn’t he order Jesus to die?

Exactly. The tendency of this blasphemous nonsense is to substitute the BVM for her Lord & her God & only Redeemer. At this rate, we will all be co-redeemers - with nobody to redeem. If that sounds mad - & it is, of course - all one need do is read the essays in the two volumes of “Theological Foundations”, where the notion that we are all co-redeemers is endorsed.​

This stuff is totally destructive of anything resembling Christianity - it is idolatry in every thing but the name. (When did idolaters ever admit they were idolaters ?)

 

[Goth_Catholic]

This stuff is totally destructive of anything resembling Christianity - it is idolatry in every thing but the name. (When did idolaters ever admit they were idolaters ?)

You’ve gone too far here.

catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

futher reading, although from site does not support the dogma
religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm
states that the insistution of the dogma would mean three things

-Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people’s redemption.
-Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces.
-Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God’s judgments.

These are things most of us belive in already, through the messages at Fatima and others. The message of the scapular from Mary is this: “To be clothed in the scapular means you are always thinking of me, and I, in turn, are always thinking of you, and helping you secure eternal life.”

 

[JRKH]

Pope Benedict XV, March 22, 1918, Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia, ≥As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. It is for this reason that all graces contained in the treasury of the Redemption are given to us through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.≤
DRILL THIS INTO YOUR HEADS!!!..

Look. I don’t like to be shouted at. So please chill.
You can quote things all day and it doesn’t make them infallible as of yet. Therefore the issue is still up for discussion.
No One is denying any of the things that the BV did or has done fror her God, son, or for us. My concern is, as I have repeatedly stated, the TERM. It will be divisive. It will cause problems both inside and outside the Church.
I wonder why Jesus and His mother would wish to drive another wedge between Catholics and their protestant bretheren.
If you cannot see that giving the TITLE of Coredemptrix to the BV is problematic I don’t know what to say.
Just look at how divisive it is right here.
Look at the poll results so far 3 times as many people think that it is a bad idea. Maybe it is the Holy Spirit trying to tell us that this isn’t a Good Idea…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You’ve gone too far here.

catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

futher reading, although from site does not support the dogma
religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm
states that the insistution of the dogma would mean three things

-Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people’s redemption.
-Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces.
-Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God’s judgments.

These are things most of us belive in already, through the messages at Fatima and others. The message of the scapular from Mary is this: “To be clothed in the scapular means you are always thinking of me, and I, in turn, are always thinking of you, and helping you secure eternal life.”

Perhaps Gottle did go a bit too far… but maybe that is what we need to be brought to our senses.
Respected people have proposed this thing, but respected people are also opposing it. Not because Mary doesn’t deserve our Love and veneration, but because of the turmoil it is causing and the even greater turmoil it will cause if it is purused.

Peace
James

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I couldn’t vote in the poll with the options provided because I agree with both of them.

On the one hand our Blessed Mother’s co-operation in our salvation was more profoundly personal and intimate than anyone else’s throughout salvation history; so I have no problem with our Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix; but on the other hand I don’t see how formalizing this as dogma would be or efficacious or even necessary at this time.

I understand that some of our protestant brothers and sisters are rethinking our Blessed Mother’s importance and role; let’s not toss ‘em another curve ball until they have the chance to catch up.

Enough swords have already pierced her heart…

 

[MH84]

Look. I don’t like to be shouted at. So please chill.
You can quote things all day and it doesn’t make them infallible as of yet. Therefore the issue is still up for discussion.
No One is denying any of the things that the BV did or has done fror her God, son, or for us. My concern is, as I have repeatedly stated, the TERM. It will be divisive. It will cause problems both inside and outside the Church.
I wonder why Jesus and His mother would wish to drive another wedge between Catholics and their protestant bretheren.
If you cannot see that giving the TITLE of Coredemptrix to the BV is problematic I don’t know what to say.
Just look at how divisive it is right here.
Look at the poll results so far 3 times as many people think that it is a bad idea. Maybe it is the Holy Spirit trying to tell us that this isn’t a Good Idea…

Peace
James

I know we shouldnt care what others think, but can you imagine the ammo the bible-only Christians will have against the Church. They will start accusing the Church of honouring Mary for 50% (so to speak) of the redemption of mankind. I think they will generally be driven further away from the Church. Maybe some will become anti-Catholic if they are not already.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I will most certainly abide by what Holy Mother Church teaches.

Truth is truth. While I am not an advocate for offensively chanting, “We’re right and you’re not”, or for name-calling “How can you be so stupid for believing X”. . .I ask how most of you who are ‘hesitant’ to go forward with this --or indeed any other Catholic dogmatic positions which are NOT held by our separated brethren or by non-Christians–will manage to avoid offending them, short of never expressing your faith outside of ‘your church’–IF even THAT will be permitted in the future.

IOW, while those who disagree with us seem to have no trouble whatsoever expecting US to meekly accept THEIR point on view on everything religious, to expect US to meekly acknowledge that hey, our beliefs are ‘only’ our ‘personal’ beliefs, THEY can ‘believe as they choose’ as though all beliefs are equal, indifferent, and relative. . .let a Catholic state that he or she ‘personally feels’ that the Real Presence exists, that abortion or homosexual actions are morally wrong, and the screams of "Bigot, hate monger, hypocrite etc’ resound from the people who expect us to acknowledge “You worship cookies”, “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” and “What is wrong with same-sex marriage” with APOLOGIES FOR OFFENDING THEM, who never listen to any REASONS we offer for our beliefs, etc. Mind you, even with that abuse I will still keep on responding in love and Christian charity without descending to name-calling or hate. . .but I’ll still be accused of bigotry and hatred and hypocricy.

We should be worrying about whether we offend GOD more than whether we ‘offend’ our neighbor, IF the ‘offense’ is in stating eternal and absolute truths in a spirit of charity. And yes, it IS charitable to let people know when they are in danger–spiritual danger. If I smile and let my neighbor put his soul in jeopardy because, “Gee, if I actually tell him the TRUTH he will HATE me and his ‘feelings’ will be hurt”. . .that isn’t ‘love and kindness’–it is moral cowardice and reflects that I care more about how I ‘look’ to another person than whether I am striving to follow Jesus and to help save souls.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I will most certainly abide by what Holy Mother Church teaches.

Yes, me too. If the Church would ever proclaim it to be a dogma I would defend. I don’t even think that when you properly define it then it’s a heresy. But I still find it problematic, unclear, and unnecessary.

Truth is truth.

True, but your salvation shouldn’t hang on believing every truth that ever existed. As we all know, denying one dogma separates you from the Church and so dogmatically defining something as co-redemprix would be, in my personal opinion, very silly. It would maybe make certain people happy, but that’s it. That’s a very selfish reason to make such a huge change.

I repeat, we are speaking about eternal salvation/damnation.

While I am not an advocate for offensively chanting, “We’re right and you’re not”, or for name-calling “How can you be so stupid for believing X”. . .I ask how most of you who are ‘hesitant’ to go forward with this --or indeed any other Catholic dogmatic positions which are NOT held by our separated brethren or by non-Christians–will manage to avoid offending them, short of never expressing your faith outside of ‘your church’–IF even THAT will be permitted in the future.

I don’t think that the problem here is that Catholics don’t want to offend non-catholics. That’s not the point. Our faith can potentially offend them quite a lot (after all we believe that they are outside of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation). The problem here is that this is a very ambiguous idea that is easily misunderstood and can act as another barrier - and an unnecessary barrier - in conversion of non-Christians to the One True Faith.

We should be worrying about whether we offend GOD more than whether we ‘offend’ our neighbor, IF the ‘offense’ is in stating eternal and absolute truths in a spirit of charity.

But as I said, it’s not about offending non-Catholics.

And yes, it IS charitable to let people know when they are in danger–spiritual danger. If I smile and let my neighbor put his soul in jeopardy because, “Gee, if I actually tell him the TRUTH he will HATE me and his ‘feelings’ will be hurt”. . .that isn’t ‘love and kindness’–it is moral cowardice and reflects that I care more about how I ‘look’ to another person than whether I am striving to follow Jesus and to help save souls.

I agree. Absolutely! But I don’t think this has anything to do with co-redemprix.