Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tantum,
I commend you on your excelant post (as usual) but let me put forward a question.
If the BVM’s role is already acknowledged in teaching and preaching; if she is already venerated for being the Mother of God; how would dogmatically naming her “Coredemptrix” advance God’s Kingdom on earth. Isn’t “Mother of God” sufficient?

How about:
Holy Mary, – Pray for us. (repeat at end of each phrase.)
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother most admirable,
Mother of good counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Savior,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of Heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians,
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Virgins,
Queen of all Saints,
Queen conceived without Original Sin,
Queen assumed into Heaven,
Queen of the most holy rosary,
Queen of Peace.

wf-f.org/LitanyBVM.html

Sorry about being a bit sarcastic but does she really need another title? It appears most here don’t think so.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Tantum,
I commend you on your excelant post (as usual) but let me put forward a question.
If the BVM’s role is already acknowledged in teaching and preaching; if she is already venerated for being the Mother of God; how would dogmatically naming her “Coredemptrix” advance God’s Kingdom on earth. Isn’t “Mother of God” sufficient?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I would also like to point out that the Third Ecumenical Council did not anathematize those who rejected the term Theotokos because certain people thought that it would be nice (the term was actually used since at least the 3rd century) but because it was an action against Nestorian heretics, who attacked the truth about Jesus. They rejected the name because they claimed that the two natures of Christ are completely separate and thus Mary is only ‘Mother of Christ’ (Christotokos).

Are we fighting some kind of heresy that requires us to use the term co-redemprix to ensure that the truth about Christ is understood properly? Or is there any other reason to make such proclamation? No, there isn’t any.
 
Greetings, Gandalf and JRKH:

Regarding the title, absolutely I see your point. IF this is made a dogma, it will be divisive to Protestants and also to an extent for Catholics. Not having been around for either 1854 or 1950 (barely for the latter, LOL) I don’t know how much uproar they caused (considering the former time period lacked contemporary mass communication and the latter occurred in a postwar ‘halcyon’ civilization often considered as the ‘apex’ or ‘acme’ of participatory Catholicism.)

However, since it would then be a truth which must be believed. . . there must be a ‘reason’ for it which surpasses our current and limited understanding.

Thus I argue that it is not ‘how this appears to others’ or even if ‘we’ think it a prudent decision that matters. . .only whether it is true.

If it is true, then it will be proclaimed, and its proclamation WILL be necessary even if we don’t see how. Looking back 2000 years, most non-Christians (and even some Christians) STILL don’t see how Jesus’ death and resurrection were ‘necessary’ (how divisive an event was THAT, after all?) but we know it was even if we don’t fully understand.

Personally as one consecrated to Jesus in Mary through the DeMontfort consecration, I feel (and this is purely my own opinion) that it is precisely what is needed. The split in Christianity we have today cannot be healed until our non-Catholic brothers and sisters fully know Jesus, AND this will not occur until we fully know Mary. Not because she is ‘as’ important as Jesus. Not because ‘she’ saves us. These twistings and misunderstandings have polarized Christianity because they are both the cause and the result of “protesting” Catholicism–the Church which Christ instituted.

While the ‘founders’ may have been genuinely convinced of the righteousness of their actions (just as those who care about today’s divisions are genuinely, and rightly, concerned for others), they were diabolically tricked. What better way to sow division than to convince people (wrongly) that Christ was being ignored in favor of 'some woman?" What better way today to sow division than to convince some people (wrongly) that Christ is STILL being ‘ignored’ in favor of ‘some woman?’ Casting the MOTHER of Jesus as this ‘uppity’ woman is the typical touch of Satan, father of lies.

So I say. . .Wait.

IF this becomes a legitimate church teaching to which we are bound, then it is good, and it’s no more useful to murmur about whether it is POLITIC than it is to murmur about why on EARTH Pope Paul VI ever talked about contraception when he should have KNOWN most people would ignore it, or why on EARTH Pope John Paul II ever pronounced, “We have no authority to ordain women” when he should have KNOWN most people would find that hopelessly sexist, etc.

Truth is truth; it is not ‘majority opinion’ as dear Pope Benedict XVI reminds us!

God bless you.
 
Tantum,
I wish I could write this well…😉
I think you have summarized the argument very balanced and clear. I will make just a couple of comments on portions of you post.
Tantum_ergo said:
Greetings, Gandalf and JRKH:

However, since it would then be a truth which must be believed. . . there must be a ‘reason’ for it which surpasses our current and limited understanding.
Thus I argue that it is not ‘how this appears to others’ or even if ‘we’ think it a prudent decision that matters. . .only whether it is true.
If it is true, then it will be proclaimed, and its proclamation WILL be necessary even if we don’t see how. Looking back 2000 years, most non-Christians (and even some Christians) STILL don’t see how Jesus’ death and resurrection were ‘necessary’ (how divisive an event was THAT, after all?) but we know it was even if we don’t fully understand.
Click to expand...
But it begs the question, just because it is true, must it be dogmatically proclaimed so? Is every accepted teaching in the Church dogmatically proclaimed? Yet every teaching is held as truth is it not?
Personally as one consecrated to Jesus in Mary through the DeMontfort consecration, I feel (and this is purely my own opinion) that it is precisely what is needed. The split in Christianity we have today cannot be healed until our non-Catholic brothers and sisters fully know Jesus, AND this will not occur until we fully know Mary. Not because she is ‘as’ important as Jesus. Not because ‘she’ saves us. These twistings and misunderstandings have polarized Christianity because they are both the cause and the result of “protesting” Catholicism–the Church which Christ instituted.
Click to expand...
Well we must disagree here. When it comes to reaching out to our seperated bretheren, the simpler the faith, the better. If this was an issue of some new truth being revealed I might have a different perspective, but everything I am able to discern is that this is simply a new title based on already known and acknowledged factors.
While the ‘founders’ may have been genuinely convinced of the righteousness of their actions (just as those who care about today’s divisions are genuinely, and rightly, concerned for others), they were diabolically tricked. What better way to sow division than to convince people (wrongly) that Christ was being ignored in favor of 'some woman?" What better way today to sow division than to convince some people (wrongly) that Christ is STILL being ‘ignored’ in favor of ‘some woman?’ Casting the MOTHER of Jesus as this ‘uppity’ woman is the typical touch of Satan, father of lies.
Click to expand...
So I say. . .Wait.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
IF this becomes a legitimate church teaching to which we are bound, then it is good, and it’s no more useful to murmur about whether it is POLITIC than it is to murmur about why on EARTH Pope Paul VI ever talked about contraception when he should have KNOWN most people would ignore it, or why on EARTH Pope John Paul II ever pronounced, “We have no authority to ordain women” when he should have KNOWN most people would find that hopelessly sexist, etc.
Click to expand...
Truth is truth; it is not ‘majority opinion’ as dear Pope Benedict XVI reminds us!
Click to expand...
God bless you.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the title is bestowed, and carefully explained then we will deal with it.

One last comment on “murmurring”. The Church sometimes relies on debate such as this to help discern the Spirit’s true wishes. It also helps the church discern when and how these things can best be brought about.

Yours in Christ
James
 
I think Mary as Co-Redemptrix should definitly not be declared as dogma, I agree with the earlier posts saying the council declaring her to be “Mother of God” was putting to rest the related debate of Christ’s nature, as well as dogmatically defining the title as Truth, and one that honors the blessed mother above all other humans…I am a convert to Catholicism from agnostic, raised “non-demoninational” in some weird urban commune house church thing for the most part, and as such, I don’t get too into the various devotions to the saints outside of asking St. Joseph for help to be the father God wants me to be, and honoring the blessed mother as Our Lady of Guadalupe (who I believe God used to change my heart towards her Son) with a beautiful framed image in our living room and the occasional Hail Mary or Rosary, or simple petition to pray for me.
I think a lot of catholics get too carried away with the blessed mother, I think she would tell us to listen to her son, as indicated by the scriptures, and while I love her and feel she is co-redemptrix in the exact meaning of the word, to dogmatically define it as an article of christian faith to be accepted by all, etc…would be unneccessary and I would only imagine despite what various “seers” or whatever say or believe she told them, holy Mary, the Mother of God, probably is fine without the 50,000th honorary title being declared as a dogma of the church…
I don’t think the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into the declaration of Mary as Co-Redemptrix…but like the others said if it happens it happens, but, if papal infallibity and the immaculate conception had not been declared as dogmas, perhaps the eastern Orthodox and us could have made a lot more progress towards re-unification, and Christ did want his followers to be one, right?
Obviously not at the expense of the Truth, but maybe certain more recently defined dogmas could have remained truths without being dogmatically defined, leaving open minds and hearts to discourse towards Christian unity, but it’s too late now, I hope the Holy Spirit enlightens us all and we can come to the Lord at the same table and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church can really be One. :gopray2:
 
Well considering the kind of threads and conversations I’ve had just over the title Mother of God I would say this title would effectively mean we might as well just close down shop here as Evangelicals will never listen to or trust what we say ever again.

Mother of God is a completely logical and easy to defend you don’t even need to quote scripture or ECF’s as long as you grasp simple 1 + 1 = 2 arithmetic then you’re good to go.

Jesus = God
Mary = mother of Jesus
Therefore:
Mary = Mother of God

Yet how much argument has this simple and self-explanatory title caused? If we drop a bomb like Co-Redemptrix its over with our separated brothers. This is a title that would have come with a great deal of explaining and even then it’s not going to sound good. Heck I’m Catholic and I’ve gotten uncomfortable around some of the descriptions I’ve heard and I know what the title is ultimately trying to convey! Where is the wisdom in arbitrarily creating a title that we must immediately start explaining doesn’t mean “what sounds like” while demanding adherence to it as necessary for salvation?

Also, as others have stated there is no need for this dogma. There is no heresy that this will help to correct. If fact this dogma would have the opposite affect of all previous dogmas. This one will cause confusion not lessen it.

Finally, since dogma is necessary for salvation this would be (to my knowledge) the only dogma that really only indirectly relates to Christ. In other words while other dogmas clarified Christ’s nature, position and purpose, Co-Redemptrix would be pointing toward qualities of Mary. I understand that those qualities are because of her Son yet we are still describing her qualities. There is nothing that elevates or more clearly defines Christ in this. While I love the Blessed Virgin Mary salvation rests in Christ alone. Yes she was the conduit for Christ but Christ alone saves. So why would dogma relating to someone other than Christ be necessary for salvation?
 
JRKH said:
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
Click to expand...
Amen, James –
As an Eastern Catholic, (Ruthenian Byzantine) this subject and the mere suggestion seems to border on heresy.
As we pray in The Divine Liturgy -
“It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.”

We don’t “worship” her, or recognize her as “co-redeemer”; she is held in esteem as the “Theotokos” - Christ bearer.
The “Redeemer”, and savior of man is God only in the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. *SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!

*j. j. **
 
absolutely not! mary is the mother of jesus christ, the redeemer, the second person of the blessed trinity and god, himself. mary is not god and is not a redeemer. she is venerated and honored, not worshipped and adored. the holy mother should in no way be compared to our lord and his life, death and resurrection which alone merited for us our salvation. i think people confuse mary as mediatrix and use the term redemptrix when referring to her. and then to justify and to soften what “redemptrix” implies, use the term “co-redemptrix”. this concept is not theologically correct and is very misleading.
 
Heck, the title confuses *me *and I’m a pretty good Catholic!

Imagine what it would do to a protestant!
 
markinia said:
absolutely not! mary is the mother of jesus christ, the redeemer, the second person of the blessed trinity and god, himself. mary is not god and is not a redeemer. she is venerated and honored, not worshipped and adored. the holy mother should in no way be compared to our lord and his life, death and resurrection which alone merited for us our salvation. i think people confuse mary as mediatrix and use the term redemptrix when referring to her. and then to justify and to soften what “redemptrix” implies, use the term “co-redemptrix”. this concept is not theologically correct and is very misleading.
Click to expand...
Thank You, Markinia – This subject seems to keep cropping up periodically; as in the “upwellings of heresy” we are continuously warned about in homilies and exhortations by The Fathers of The Church. Amazing how easily some (many Latins) run “off the rails” so easily concerning doctrine, and yet seem to have very little problem buying into false ideas.

*SLAVA VO VIKY!

J. J.*
 
The ONLY redemer is Jesus Christ. Redemption can only come through faith in Jesus who died on the cross, was burried, and who rose again. Mary was simply a willing vessel that God used for Jesus to come to us as man. She can’t do anything else for us.
 
Terminology and titles cannot be dogmatically defined.

An infallible teaching (dogma) must teach a truth of faith or morals found within Tradition and Scripture. So a Pope or, more likely, a Council, would have to give a definition of Mary’s role in redemption. They could not merely pronounce a title.
 
I believe that it is not contrary to the Catholic faith to call her the Co-Redemptrix. St. Paul said that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Therefore, it would be right to call oursleves co-redeemers on an individual or micro level and to call Mary a Co-Redeemer on a macro level.

I would hope that if the Church dogmatically declares her the Co-Redemptrix, I hope that this would be done via an ecumenical council so that both lungs of the Church would recognize it.
 
Let’s stay on topic people. This is not an opportunity to evangelize for other faiths.
MF
 
In the beginning God said in Gen. 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers”, what I can see here is that the woman(BVM) will always be linked and participation on the salvation of men. Holy against the unholy. The good against the bad. The title Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer must be simply be defined as the woman who participated with Christ on the salvation of men. Just we are also called by Christ to be hand on hand with Him to be His followers and be offered as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). I think God knew in the very beginning the results that the moment Jesus(God the Son) be born of BVM she will be called the Mother of Most Holy One. And titles due unto Mary are not contradicting and not confusing because God knew the results and that Christ’s Church has the power to declare because of the power Holy Spirit(God) that works in the teachings of the Church.
Peace.:blessyou:
 
Unfortunately, Co-Redemptrix theory is universally misconstrued by Evangelicals, and by :o :o most Catholics as well. Let’s not rock the bark of Peter just as some Evangelicals are stepping aboard.

Besides, at the root of the Co-Redemptrix movement can be radical Feminist theology–the woman is to play an equal role in the redemption with the man, even the God-Man. Some Feminist theologians refuse to accept a male Redeemer, so having a Co-REDEMPTRIX would presumably make Catholicism more palatable to them. Alas, I fear that declaring Mary Co-Redemptrix will not bring radicals back and will only put off Evangelicals.
 
Proper terminology is important, almost as important as the substance of a dogma. If we are to look towards ecumenical dialogue, it is best to focus on the substance of the dogma without raising questions about the terminology of the dogmatic declaration.

Let me explain. St. Paul was not shy about describing Christians as co-workers and co-heirs of Christ, but he is certainly not therefore stating that we are in any equal footing in Christ’s works nor in Christ’s inheritance. I think it is logical to say that our Lady has a share in Christ’s redemptive and mediating work, but again, not on an equal footing.

If the dogma should be given, then perhaps the substance should explain those important nuances while avoiding titles that would send ecumenical partners packing. If the titles “co-redemptrix” and “mediatrix” are retained, however, then it would still be alright as long as the substance of the dogma clarifies the nuances as described above, but it would be a much tougher sell, something which I do not think is worth the ecumenical setbacks.

I wouldn’t even know if titles are necessary if the dogma is instituted. Perhaps the dogma would simply be called “The Extraordinary Role of the Queen Mother in Christ’s Work as Redeemer and Mediator”, and then set out to explain, in substance, our Lady’s exalted role in humanity in this regard, and then describe how this is a prototype for all Christians who are called to be co-workers in Christ’s mission.
 
“Divisive”. That is a term that the progressives have been using for the last 30 years whenever anyone suggested that we follow the magisterium, or throw out the new catechisms, or stop the liturgical abuses. Lets not use that term. OK? Its divisive.

I voted for the declaration of the Co-Redemtrix, but after reading many of the comments, I don’t know why I did it. The doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church are not decided by majority vote. The Church is not a democracy. Catholics accept the dogmatic declarations of the Magesterium, or they are not Catholics. If it is declared and some can’t stand it, or are turned away from becoming Catholics, so be it. The Church survived many other dogmatic declarations and it will survive this one. Those who stood with the Pope and Magisterium are still Catholics. Those who did not, are not. According to Pope John Paul, you cannot be a “Cafeteria Catholic”, picking and choosing what you will believe.

We can do something, though. We can pray for our Church Leaders that they will always be faithful to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is how we can influence them, not by voting.
 
John the Baptist once said when talking about himself as compared to Jesus "I must decrease, He must increase. Has things changes that much that we now say. He, Jesus, must decrease. Some people, and the devil I am sure, would gladly do away with Our Lord Jesus in favour of BVM. If this Dogma were to be proclaimed it will be the end of Jesus as our one and only saviour. Why would we need ‘Him’ if we had Mary to turn to?
If this Pope proclaims this dogma, it will be to try to kill Jesus all over again, but they know that they cannot do that, so the next best thing would be to kill His Church. This would not be possible as Jesus said; He would be with His Church to the end of time. So why would the devil want such a dogma? To make souls turn to BVM for salvation, which as we all know is not possible, so they lose their souls out of love for Our Lady. The devil is the master of lies, there is no love in him, what a victory it would be for him to steal millions of souls through an act of false love. I love our Lady, but my Saviour is Jesus. God sent His Son to pay the price for our sins, not Mary. I for one will not be surprised if this Pope proclaims this dogma.
Wake up people before it is too late. This Dogma is a plot of the Devil. If it had been a good thing then JP 11 would have seen to it before his death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top