Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve read carefully much of what has been said about our Lady in this thread. Some of it appears angrily self-righteous, while others are dogmatic. Much of the discussion deals with the issue of redemption. Some think that Christ is the only redeemer, and others think that the title Co-Redemptrix deals with somehow taking this away from Christ. It also appears that to be a redeemer, it is thought that one must be divine.

Let me state from the onset, there is only one God. He alone is divine. There is only one mediator between God and Man, that is, Jesus the Christ. However, with regard to redeeming one must make a distinction. The distinct lies in that redemption itself was made posible by Christ, who in his infinite wisdom and love gave all of us the opportunity to participate in his act of redemption through grace. When Christ told his Church to go out into all the world and to baptize everyone in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit, he was laying down the basic structure for our participation in his redemption. This is why the Church is missionary at her very heart.

No doubt, Had he so wished, Jesus could have redeemed the entire human race in one moment, but he chose otherwise.

Mary being the best disciple of Christ is naturally involved in that work of redeeming - as a co-worker, working within the structure Christ established. When dying on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary to the Church as Mother, who is to be involved in spreading the Truth. She is helping to redeem with the power which Christ has given her (and us too). So, let us stop accusing others of making Mary divine if she should be given the title of Co-Redeemer…

I know that some will find this a hard saying, so let me quote a piece of scripture to make the point. I turn to Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, where he proclaims the mystery of Christ in us, (!:24ff) "Even now I find my joy in the suffering I endure for you. In my own flesh I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the church. I became a minister of this church through the commission God gave me to preach among you his word in its fullness, that mystery hiddden from ages and generations past but now revealed to his holy ones. God has willed to make known to them the glory beyond price which this mystery brings to the Gentiles - the mystery of Christ in you, your hope of glory. "

Perhaps, I don’t understand but it seems that Paul is saying that he is participating in sharing the redemption wrought in Christ with others. He is, in effect, a co-redeemer, by God’s will. So, I don’t understand all the controversy. It seems clear enough to me.

Peace
 
A good source that I learned about this topic is:The journal of the Secretary of the Jesus king of All Nations Devotion, it comes with Nihil Obstat. The other resource is: The Lady of all Nations, by Peter Klos,S.S.S. A prayer in the Pieta prayer book, page 49 middle of page refers to Our Lady as Co Redemptrix, And as I have read I just don’t see where these terms add to what She did,or lessen what Jesus continues to do for us. They have only clarified what really is to me.
 
Randy_Fitzpatri said:
A good source that I learned about this topic is:The journal of the Secretary of the Jesus king of All Nations Devotion, it comes with Nihil Obstat. The other resource is: The Lady of all Nations, by Peter Klos,S.S.S. A prayer in the Pieta prayer book, page 49 middle of page refers to Our Lady as Co Redemptrix, And as I have read I just don’t see where these terms add to what She did,or lessen what Jesus continues to do for us. They have only clarified what really is to me.
Click to expand...
All fine and good I’m sure.
However does that mean she would mean more if this same thing were dogmatically declared?
Of course not! Therefore, since it would make no difference to teaching, or to those who feel as you do about the BVM, shy muddy the evangelical waters by creating a new dogma?

James
 
Randy, you’re right to say that this whole issue is nothing new. So, it is obvious that we are not trying to create something, but explain something that evidently is not clearly understood by many in the household of faith. For four hundred years Mary was believed to be the Mother of God, but it took a council to declare it as a dogma. In so doing, the Church clarifies and defines the limits and terms so that everyone is on the same page. As is obvious from the discussion on this forum, this issue is anything but clear. The terms and definitions are confused and as a result, we do not see how much God has loved us. Thus, with the declaration of this dogma, the Church will clarify the whole thing - as it has done for the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

It is not to add anything to Mary, but to clarify what is already revealed and not universally understood in a clear manner that pushes me to vote for this declaration.

Peace
 
I kind of am voting for both answers. I believe the title is fitting, but that to the average person it doesn’t give the fitting meaning it is intended to give–and that unintended meaning is not only unnecessary, but false.

The CCC’s approach is the best–teach the doctrine, but don’t use the confusing word:

**618 **The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”,454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457
 
Paul_the_seaker said:
Randy, you’re right to say that this whole issue is nothing new. So, it is obvious that we are not trying to create something, but explain something that evidently is not clearly understood by many in the household of faith. For four hundred years Mary was believed to be the Mother of God, but it took a council to declare it as a dogma. In so doing, the Church clarifies and defines the limits and terms so that everyone is on the same page. As is obvious from the discussion on this forum, this issue is anything but clear. The terms and definitions are confused and as a result, we do not see how much God has loved us.** Thus, with the declaration of this dogma, the Church will clarify the whole thing -** as it has done for the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

It is not to add anything to Mary, but to clarify what is already revealed and not universally understood in a clear manner that pushes me to vote for this declaration.

Peace
Click to expand...
And why - pray tell - does something need to be dogmatic before it is “clarified”?

Why, if it adds nothing to Mary should it be dogma?
If it does not effect Jesus being our Sole and perfect Savior, why does it need to be dogma?

Our faith is compicated enough as it is, when it should be a simple and clear one. Jesus came and redeemed us - period.

I beg those who are pushing for this thing to be dogmatically declared to look hard at their reasons. Is it for the winning of souls? Is it for the Glory of God? Is it to further the Kingdom?

The more I read and hear about this the more concerned I am that there is a segment in the church that is too dedicated to our Holy Mother. I hate to say this, but it is true. Please be careful my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Peace
James
 
I’m a convert to Catholicism and I must say, it was those practicing Maryolatry that put me off the faith. Anything that perpetuates elevating Mary (even an ambiguous term like co-redemptrix) or any other Saint, to higher than the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not good for the Church, and is not good Christianity.

Mary is “blessed among women,” and will always be the one human who participated in a way that cannot be done again. I thank and praise Mary for being the mother of my savior, Lord Jesus Christ, but she does not intercede for me.

My Lord Jesus Christ is my intercessor, **He **died for our sins. **He reigns in heaven with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. He **takes my prayers to God the Father. Where does it say that someone else must first take my prayers to Him? No where.

There are many Christians out there who do not understand the Catholic faith because there are many Catholics who perpetuate misunderstandings.
 
EphelDuath said:
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?
Click to expand...
I made a similar point in an article a couple years ago. All Christians can be said to be “co-workers” with Christ. Those are Saint Paul’s words, I believe. Given issues of language (“co” can imply equal in English), reasons of evangelization, and other issues, I don’t hope for a dogmatic statement concerning “Co-Redemptrix”. Still, it’s important for Catholics to understand much of the theology behind “Co-Redeemer” as valid. Great articles recently in TR regarding this topic.

PS. Anyone worrying about Mary’s role in the Catholic Church need only read the words in the Catehcism which remind us that Mary “was redeemed at the moment of her conception”. Redeemed by her Son.
 
Goth_Catholic said:
This is the kind of ignorance that fueled the reformation and fuels protestantism today.

Did you not read the thread? Or do you just not understand that Mary does all things through Jesus? People have turned to Our Lady for help in attaining salvation since before Our Lady brought forth the Scapular. Her message of which is that all those who wear it are forever thinking of her, and she in her is always thinking of them and helping them secure eternal life. She told St. Simon Stock that one day through the rosary and the scapular she would save the world. The dogma did not come out of thin air, Mary alluded to it in the apparitions.
Click to expand...
Even though I have devotions to various degrees to St. Joseph, O.L. of Guadalupe, and most to the Divine Mercy, you can’t really use apparitions for apologetics if you are trying to make a point with any non-catholics or even a lot of catholic, (ie myself re: Majugorie or however you spell it) None of us are required to believe in apparitions, even if popes or whoever backs them…after all, without apparitions, how the heck do we know Mary is gonna save the world with scapulars and rosarys, I am not saying she might not, if that’s Gods plan I’ll take my salvation however He wills it, just save me! But I agree in my opinion, folks get a bit carried away.
 
Paul_the_seaker said:
Randy, you’re right to say that this whole issue is nothing new. So, it is obvious that we are not trying to create something, but explain something that evidently is not clearly understood by many in the household of faith. For four hundred years Mary was believed to be the Mother of God, but it took a council to declare it as a dogma. In so doing, the Church clarifies and defines the limits and terms so that everyone is on the same page. As is obvious from the discussion on this forum, this issue is anything but clear. The terms and definitions are confused and as a result, we do not see how much God has loved us. Thus, with the declaration of this dogma, the Church will clarify the whole thing - as it has done for the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

It is not to add anything to Mary, but to clarify what is already revealed and not universally understood in a clear manner that pushes me to vote for this declaration.

Peace
Click to expand...
When the Church declared her the Mother of God, it was mainly to get it through people’s heads that Jesus was both God and man. What makes me wonder is why the Church should declare her to be the Co-Redemptrix? I am still trying to figure out the motivation behind the other Marian dogmas.
 
Writer said:
I made a similar point in an article a couple years ago. All Christians can be said to be “co-workers” with Christ. Those are Saint Paul’s words, I believe. Given issues of language (“co” can imply equal in English), reasons of evangelization, and other issues, I don’t hope for a dogmatic statement concerning “Co-Redemptrix”. Still, it’s important for Catholics to understand much of the theology behind “Co-Redeemer” as valid. Great articles recently in TR regarding this topic.

PS. Anyone worrying about Mary’s role in the Catholic Church need only read the words in the Catehcism which remind us that Mary “was redeemed at the moment of her conception”. Redeemed by her Son.
Click to expand...
If Mary had not Co-operated in the Birth of Our Savior, which ultimately led to our redemption, where would we all be today. Why argue over something that is fact. NO one else ever did for us what she did in bringing Our Lord to this earth, Lets give her a little credit and a LOT of love and appreciation.EVERYTHING she did was the WILL of GOD. The Catholic Church has NEVER put Mary equal to or above her SON. But we do honor her and love her and Thank God for her.
 
Memaw said:
If Mary had not Co-operated in the Birth of Our Savior, which ultimately led to our redemption, where would we all be today.
Click to expand...
Simple - God would have made other arrangements and we would never have heard of this Mary.
Why argue over something that is fact. NO one else ever did for us what she did in bringing Our Lord to this earth, Lets give her a little credit and a LOT of love and appreciation.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing these things. This discussion should be about whether it is right and proper that the BV should be DOGMATICALLY proclaimed “Co-redemptix”. The consensus seems to be that she should not. For the simple reason that it is 1) unnecessary and 2) counterproductive.
EVERYTHING she did was the WILL of GOD. The Catholic Church has NEVER put Mary equal to or above her SON. But we do honor her and love her and Thank God for her.
Click to expand...
And she should be honored for her great and unique service to our redemption.
The specific question relates to the Title Proposed by some and whether it should be DOGMATICALLY declared.

Peace
James
 
Beloved in Christ

I am a new member of the forum. And I must admit, it is very stimulating and provocative. I think it’s alright for the sake of growth in faith.

Mary is our beloved Mother and the Catholic Church has been exceptional in giving her due honor. If you think of your mother right now, and decide on a way of showing your affection for her, you would hardly pause to observe if you are not becoming too lavish and excessive in your display of affection.

And yet the Church has been very careful in defining the role of Mary for the Church, without impeding the instinctive maternal flow of affection.

It is my view that the issue of Mary being a Co-redemptrix has already excited the attention of the Church Fathers and Vatican II has exhaustively dealt with the subject. We must be prepared to accept the teaching of the Church without feeling an offence at our love for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Traditionally the Church has always attributed to Mary certain titles: advocate, supporter, mediator, mediatrix, co-redemptrix among many others. It is the last two which raised dust at the Vatican II Council and the council resolved to carefully avoid these titles so as to safeguard them from possible misinterpretation.

The council expressed the remaining titles, excluding mediatrix and co-redemprix, in the following context,

“This, however to be understood that it neither takes away from, nor adds anything to, the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ, the One Mediator. For no creature could ever be counted equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and the faithful and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to his creatures. So also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. It knows it through unfailing experience of it, and by this maternal help, they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.”

By this definition, the Church Fathers sort to contain Mariology within the framework of the theology of the Divine Son. This was in total harmony with the existing teaching of the Church as defined at the Council of Trend where the Fathers emphatically affirmed Christ to be the “Sole Redeemer” of mankind.

In the same manner that we pray for our brothers, we take nothing from Christ the Mediator. Our cooperation with Christ’s saving mission is worth merit, but our little sufferings and sacrifices are nothing apart from Christ. Mary received a greater share in Christ’s suffering as foretold by the prophet that her heart would be pierced by a sword. She knew what was happening for the Holy Spirit was giving her insights. That explains why she treasured every moment and remained close to her Son. We thank her for being exemplary in being open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and sticking to the Son. But all these sacrifices and virtuous acts are nothing is they are not united to the Redeemer, just as our own sacrifices remain senseless until Christ sanctifies them.

Thus Our Lady, as she admits, owes everything to her Son. The Church had made it clear, “no creature could ever be counted equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer”.

Has she done nothing? Was she just an envelope of grace? No!!! She was cooperative to God’s saving grace. The Holy Spirit is no kidnapper of souls. Mary’s choice of Christ was heroic and historic, maternally embracing all of us to watch and learn from her, who the Lord chose to be ‘Son’ to.

In my opinion, the Church was right is avoiding terms that seemed to cause misinterpretation and I also try to avoid such, without taking anything away from Our Lady, in this era of evangelization.

After Vatican II, there were several Marian groups who were offended by the definition made by the Church. They felt it was disrespectful of our Lady. And as such, the avoided titles were smuggled back into Marian Devotion. The Church did not seem to worry as long as the faithful remain guided by the existing definitions and do not slip from genuine Marian Devotion to Mariolatry.

God is much wiser that all of us and may he continue to guide us. Jesus told St. Faustina that God is not offended when we mistrust some of the messages we receive for fear of offending him. Those who may find particular devotions to Mary offensive for fear of displeasing God, I believe they are sincere in their affection for Christ.

May Our Lady teach us true devotion to her and keep us bound together by the truth. She the Virgin and chaste Lady is the image of the Church in perpetual virginity, a sympol of unending fidelity to Christ the Groom who sanctifies her bride.

Angellife
 
Memaw said:
If Mary had not Co-operated in the Birth of Our Savior, which ultimately led to our redemption, where would we all be today. Why argue over something that is fact. NO one else ever did for us what she did in bringing Our Lord to this earth, Lets give her a little credit and a LOT of love and appreciation.EVERYTHING she did was the WILL of GOD. The Catholic Church has NEVER put Mary equal to or above her SON. But we do honor her and love her and Thank God for her.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there are many in the Church, laity and priests, who *do *put Mary equal to, and/or above the Trinity, through actions and inaction. Many priests turn a blind eye to Mariolatry even though our Holy See said we should not do it. Non-Catholics ask me if I’m Christian; and I myself wondered who Catholics worshiped before I learned more about the Church.

Mary is the blessed Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and she played an enormous role in our redemption. **Because **it was the will of our Heavenly Father, who knew her while she was still in the womb and knew what her answer would be. But is was Jesus Christ who died for our salvation, who sits at the right hand of the Father and receives our prayers.
 
There us one redeemer and he needs to co-producer. Or there is not one redeemer. I have reasonable respect for the mother of God.

Reference Pope Paul VI and Vatican II regarding “popular” devotion to the Holy Mother.
 
The Importance is this to me. The very act of the Church declaring this Dogma will usher in the Reign of Jesus as King of All Nations,thus bringing many to a greater understanding of what, who,why, Jesus is . And this will bring many to Salvation. Yes I understand He has been King of All Nations since He Became Flesh, the problem is that we do not or will not recognize Him as King.

What a Thread!! Shalom Really, This is a heated subject,but one that must be discussed in the Body, from laity to the Pope.
 
while i believe that dogmatically defining our lady to be a co-redemptrix (sp?) would be harmful to evangelization, confusing, etc., if the church were to dgmtcally define her as such then I would accept it, and defend it. As someone pointed out earlier, it really doesnt matter what we think, if heaven tells us it is so, it is so.
 
Thanks Faithfulrock for your post.
I too will certainly accept it if is defined. However, I think that one might actually say that Mary as Co-Redemptrix is common teaching and we should believe it. I know some Protestants will baulk at the pronouncement, or claim that it is too difficult to understand. My answer is much as yours, the Church has said it, thus it is. Yet, if I look behind the proclaimation, I look for the development of doctrine which reveals the fullness of God’s love. As far as understanding the mystery of it all, how many of us can say that we understand Transubstantiation? or the hypostatic union of God and man, or the Trinity for that matter. Yet, revealed these to capture the fullness of grace which has offered us. So, I would certainly vote for the dogma because it is time to acclaim the full meaning of Mary.
God bless and keep the faith.
Paul the Seaker
 
Paul_the_seaker said:
Thanks Faithfulrock for your post.
I too will certainly accept it if is defined. However, I think that one might actually say that Mary as Co-Redemptrix is common teaching and we should believe it. I know some Protestants will baulk at the pronouncement, or claim that it is too difficult to understand. My answer is much as yours, the Church has said it, thus it is. Yet, if I look behind the proclaimation, I look for the development of doctrine which reveals the fullness of God’s love. As far as understanding the mystery of it all, how many of us can say that we understand Transubstantiation? or the hypostatic union of God and man, or the Trinity for that matter. Yet, revealed these to capture the fullness of grace which has offered us. So, I would certainly vote for the dogma because it is time to acclaim the full meaning of Mary.
God bless and keep the faith.
Paul the Seaker
Click to expand...
While I see your point about the fact that many doctrines can be hard to understand there is a difference. The Trinity while hard to grasp in human terms still leads to a clearer understanding of Christ and His role. The same thing goes with the Eucharist. The same thing went for the Mother of God. Proclaiming Mary as Co-redemptrix however does not.

As a convert to Catholicism let me assure you that this dogma will cause catastrophic confusion. Protestants and unbelievers already think we worship Mary if this dogma hits we will lose almost all credibility. Linguistically the term itself can be just as legitimately understood to mean equal participation. This taken with the other misconceptions will play right into anti-Catholic hands.

While these would be false understandings I can assure you that they will stick. After all for those raised to distrust the Church it just fits in so well with what anti-Catholics have been saying all along. Declaring this dogma would be like a birthday gift to Hagee and Chick.

The Blessed Virgin Mary has already been honored more than any other mortal and she received that honor from God. Any laurels we cast her way are tokens in comparison. She doesn’t need us to find new ways to honor her. She prays for us to find new ways to honor, love and serve her divine Son.

Let us throw more crowns at the feet of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Blessed Mary Ever Virgin will be most pleased and honored.
 
rtconstant said:
While I see your point about the fact that many doctrines can be hard to understand there is a difference. The Trinity while hard to grasp in human terms still leads to a clearer understanding of Christ and His role. The same thing goes with the Eucharist. The same thing went for the Mother of God. Proclaiming Mary as Co-redemptrix however does not.

As a convert to Catholicism let me assure you that this dogma will cause catastrophic confusion. Protestants and unbelievers already think we worship Mary if this dogma hits we will lose almost all credibility. Linguistically the term itself can be just as legitimately understood to mean equal participation. This taken with the other misconceptions will play right into anti-Catholic hands.

While these would be false understandings I can assure you that they will stick. After all for those raised to distrust the Church it just fits in so well with what anti-Catholics have been saying all along. Declaring this dogma would be like a birthday gift to Hagee and Chick.

The Blessed Virgin Mary has already been honored more than any other mortal and she received that honor from God. Any laurels we cast her way are tokens in comparison. She doesn’t need us to find new ways to honor her. She prays for us to find new ways to honor, love and serve her divine Son.

Let us throw more crowns at the feet of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Blessed Mary Ever Virgin will be most pleased and honored.
Click to expand...
Those are good points. Plus if we use just the logic that Christ was the operator of salvation and Mary was the co-operator of salvation, what’s to prevent people from saying that Judas or Pontius Pilate was a co-redeemer. Maybe some things are better left unsaid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top