Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

[MaryJohnZ]

And the point would be to the discussion of this title?

AHA I think you’ve nailed here. If we become one with Christ, Christ can work through us to redeem souls. But by becoming one with Christ, there is no longer a me involved. Only christ and His will and desire. Therefore Christ is still the redeemer, and I nothing.
**No…not true. I said that Christ is developed in the individual according to their gifts and identity.The fullness of Christ is not
ever completed in a person, although I would say Mary would be the nearest one to being ‘another Christ’. So she 'magnifies" what God does when he is united with a person. There is a story about St. Teresa of Avila who took the name “Teresa of Jesus”. The story illustrates this point. One day she saw a little boy in the hallway and the little boy asked her “Who are you?”
She said, “I am Teresa of Jesus”.

and then she asked the little boy His name. He answeredf,
“I am the Jesus of Teresa”
That is the beautiful thing…Jesus is formed in each person in a unique and singular way so the Jesus of James (you) is going to be different then the Jesus in me…because our personality and gifts are different.Our misssions would be different, our trials different, our role in the Body of Christ would be different.

But if each person in the Church is a member of the 'mystical Body of Christ" then it must be true that Christ is formed in each of us so that we, together, form the total mustical Presence of Christ. This disunity is tearing that presence apart.**

Or maybe it makes women too suseptable to this idea. As a mother, how would you feel if you were in the middle of an argument among your children that was so vehement?

*I woulod feel sad. maybe that is why Mary’s statues are crying and maybe that is why Jesus asked for the five first Saturdays to make amends for insults against His Mother. *

I honestly find all of this arguing back and forth most distracting. If anything it is driving a wedge into my relationship with Our Blessed Mother and not helping. I should have unsubscribed to this thread days ago, but since I started it I felt an obligation.

I will say that I think both sides have already said more than enough in defense or opposition, and the poll speaks for itself.
It is my intent to ask the moderators to close this thread once the poll closes on the 19th.

Well, what I notice is there is a growing number of people for the title… This is foretold in scripture in the book of Revelations when St. John talks about the 'Woman, Clothed with the sun"…
who do you think that is?

 

[Memaw]

Great question, Yes the Church should proclaim the Truth About Our Lady as Co Redemptrix, Adovate, and Mediatrix. when I became a new Catholic I had to learn right away that just because I may not understand a part of our teaching, that it didn’t make the Church wrong.Instead, It challenged me to study to show myself approved.
Thanks.RandyF.

Thanks Randy, you said it better than most of us ever did. God Bless and AMEN to that.

 

[Memaw]

Simple - God would have made other arrangements and we would never have heard of this Mary.

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.

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

How do you know God would have made other arrangements. That may have been our one and only chance!! He only gave Adam and Eve one chance.

 

[Adhemar]

God, knowing many would misunderstand the title, "Theotokos, (God-bearer) did not prevent the Council of Ephesus, 431, from making it an official of the Church. It means Mother of GOD. The Church doesn’t do this to upset the non-catholics, but to clarify and increase the faith of Catholics and to bring the truth to all man-kind.

Amen.

 

[Adhemar]

Please refer to post number 131 on this thread for some clarificaton on a concern here. Yes “Co-” can mean “in a subordinate role” but in each case subordinate person carries the same “ability” on there own. i.e. a co-pilot is also a pilot.
So the general idea of someone being a Co-Redeemer, even in a subordinate role, still carries with it the idea that this “person” could redeem on their own. (like the co-pilot can fly a plane.)

Again and again I say, it isn’t a question of Mary’s role, it is a question of 1) a troublesome term being dogmatically procaimed and 2) is it necessary to salvation.

James,

From reading comment 131 it is clear you do raise the question of Mary’s role.

The doctrine of the Coredemption has been argued since the 13th century, though the term is of relatively late origin. The notion that Our Lady’s participation in the “first act” of redemption, namely, the historical sacrifice, was both objective and active is contained not only in the term, but also in the traditional doctrine.

The statements of the magisterium (see e.g., comment 113) and the teaching of the saints bear witness to this.

“Mary cannot redeem on Her own.”

She cannot do anything on Her own. She cannot be immaculately conceived on Her own. Yet She is preredeemed from the Cross at which She stands. It was said in the time of Scotus that the Immaculate Conception took away from the unique dignity of Christ. Scotus argued successfully that, on the contrary, Mary’s perfect redemption glorified the the One Savior of All. So it is argued now–I think quite logically–that far from taking away from the unique dignity of Christ, the Coredemption glorifies it most perfectly. Just as the Redemption of Christ is capable of preserving from sin by virtue of its foreseen merits, so it is capable of making one worthy–in this case the Mother of God–of sharing in the objective redemption.

There is nothing in this statement that is inconsistent with the best of Catholic theology.

Protestants will definitely be confused. That’s why it needs to be explained.

As for its necessity for salvation: I would rather ask, “Is it true?” If it is true and this is a unique privilege of Our Lady, why should She not be thus honored? Why are we not better off proclaiming the truth?

 

[Taliesin]

Free will is spiritual, it does come from God. That is the greatest gift God created us with, even thou we can misuse it. No one ever said Jesus got His Divinity from Mary. But His Divinity did come to us thru Mary.

And through her mother and father, and their mothers and fathers, and so on. Where does it end? Why wouldn’t God shield Mary’s mother from original sin?

He did get HIS human nature from her because she co-operated with God by her free will. Read the First Chapter of John, In the beginning…God chose to require Mary’s co-operation in bringing our Savior to us. He prepared her for that by her Immaculate Conception. Satan had NO control over her.

I’ve read it many times. Each time I read it, Mary is not mentioned. But John the Baptist is mentioned quite a bit, and there are a couple of verses about those born of God. You’d think John of all people would put her in here of all places. In fact, Scripture is quite reticent about the mother of Jesus.

 

[Taliesin]

“Mother of God” is a term that can easily be misunderstood and, in fact, is misunderstood by many Protestants. Every theological term needs to be explained. To coredeem is “to redeem with.” Co- may mean either with in an equal way or with in a subordinate way. That part needs to be explained. The “with” in this case is subordinate.

The whole process is doomed from the start, since you’re giving praise and glory to a mere mortal. I understand that there are places in Scripture where humans are glorified in a subordinate sense (“a sword for the Lord and for Gideon”), and I understand that all generations will call Mary blessed. She was. Just like Peter was blessed with being the first to preach the Gospel to the Jews, and then also the first to the Gentiles. Just like Paul was blessed with writing or influencing the writing of 2/3rds of the NT. But when you then go and bind on people’s consciences and dogmatize about it and make titles you’ve gone too far. You come up with a shocking offensive title (“Mediatrix”, “Co-redemptrix”, “Mother of God”, Queen of the Universe", what have you) and then you backpedal and say "well, you need to *understand *it. If indeed these “Co-” titles are supposed to glorify Christ, you’ll do a better job by just forgetting them altogether and going straight to Christ, and contemplating Him, Who He is and what He did and does. Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[Memaw]

And through her mother and father, and their mothers and fathers, and so on. Where does it end? Why wouldn’t God shield Mary’s mother from original sin?

I’ve read it many times. Each time I read it, Mary is not mentioned. But John the Baptist is mentioned quite a bit, and there are a couple of verses about those born of God. You’d think John of all people would put her in here of all places. In fact, Scripture is quite reticent about the mother of Jesus.

You know, your just gonna have to take this up with God when you meet Him, HE did it.
The point I was making with John 1 was, In the beginnng was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus the title, Mother of God.

 

[CradleCath]

For one thing most of the clergy I know hardly mention Mary out of some notion that mentioning her will take away from Jesus or, just like many of the Protestants I see posting here I feel they think Marian devotion is equal to any other devotion, so there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the 'Universal Motherhood" concept.

Many Catholic Churches in our area do not crown her anymore…or do so in a limited way. I believe she should be crowned in every home and that would bring so much healing to families!

Marian Apparitions are not talked about as if they don’t really matter at all (I mean Chruch approved ones), Rosary groups are dwindling in our area. I get a sense that Priests are not truly tied to Mary, loving her like Jesus did. And I feel that maybe why the Priesthood is in such trouble.

Notice how Satan attacked the feminibe figure in the garden inorder to get at the more obvious target of Adam…well, the same thing still happens. Separate the faithful from mary and you have separated then from the Son.

The layity similarily is split…there are always hard core Marian devotees, but many ssem to see devotion to Mary as optional.
Many Marian Dogmas previously taught are not totally believed in by layity…or not understood.

I think the Church here in America has really fallen short in showing her honor which, to me, shows that the there is a separation from Jesus as well. If Jesus is in the church there would be more love for the Mother.The two go hand in hand or Heart in Heart might be a better way of saying it…

I agree with you about the Church in the US. downplaying devotion to Mary. I believe that this has to do with the ecumenism
(that hasn’t worked) so touted by Vatican II. While this is so wrong…altering our beliefs in order to make them palatable to non-Catholics…I still do not believe that the term “Co-remptrix” fits. Mary was the Mother of the Redeemer, our own spiritual Mother, our mediatrix to Christ…but she did not redeem us. Christ did that.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

There are so many private devotions in the traditions of the Church - Marian are just some of them.

There are many things we need to do, increasing only one kind of private devotion should not be too high on the list.

 

[CradleCath]

A personal devotion to Mary is not required of Catholics and not having one is not going to make you more likely to be influenced by Satan.

No one has to believe in any apparitions - not even approved ones.

No one HAS to believe, it’s true, but it’s quite foolish imo., to place Mary in the “she’s just another good person, just like many of the saints” position. She is the Mother of Christ, chosen by the Trinity to represent all of womanhood as an antithesis to Eve, who led mankind astray in the garden. I believe that Christ loves her tremendously & that she is set apart & above the Saints as a mediator between mankind & heaven. I believe that devotion to her WILL reduce the influence Satan has on my life & upon all of mankind. Your attitude is minimalist to say the least & it’s offensive to Christ & His Mother & to many here who have great devotion to Mary.

While I don’t think that the phrase “Co-Redemptrix” is totally accurate, Mary was immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven body & soul & God’s own actions toward her prove that she deserves special honor within the Church & the world.

We pray “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…now & at the hour of our death.” It is my own hope that she will be with me at that hour. How about you?

 

[CradleCath]

Where does the Catechism tell us someone has to believe in private revelation?

Let’s go to the basics and stop the twisting and turning to look at it in in different lights –

Where does the Catechism tell us that someone who opts to ignore private revelation is doing anything negative (missing out, losing, sinning)?

What pope has ever insisted/mandated that some private revelation had to be believed in by all Catholics when it was approved???

I don’t think you have a clue what “private revelation” is.

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but** private revelation has continued**.

"Throughout the ages, there have been private revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. The fact that they do not belong to the deposit of faith which was complete with the last Apostle died, does not mean that the Catholic Church is “iffy” about their role to help us live more fully in a certain period of history. At Fatima, the Holy Mother fortold of the horrible atheistic Communism to come & it’s struggle against the Church and against Christians. She described the terrible sufferings of the victims of the faith in the twentieth century. She prophesied about the assassination attempt on our Holy Father. No, you don’t HAVE to believe in these appartitions, but what kind of fools would we be is we discounted them after so many have come true & have borne fruit. The cures at Lourdes should be evidence enough.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

The state the world is in is the most obvious reason to proclaim this Dogma.

There is so much hatred for women and false feminism that puts women in the position of trying to be more like men rather than finding their own identity in God.

abortion…the lack of respect for life in the womb

the way women are treated in the Arab world

the way women are abused and used in the media

the way young children are sexualized at an early age

the broken relationships in marriages

the manner in which women are medically abused by unnecessary birth control hormone treatments

All because Satan has managed to hide the importance and role of Mary. I believe Satan lashes out at women knowing that through a woman Christ came into the world.

I still feel this Dogma is a spiritual gift and a medicine for our sick Church and world.and pray that it comes soon. Understanding the role God bestows on Mary raises the dignity of all women.

 

[Paul_the_seaker]

I read the give and take of this thread and I don’t understand how supposedly Christian individuals can make such statements,- or at least imply them- such as Marian devotion is a private devotion. How can devotion to Mary be private when there are liturgical services, Churches, hospitals, and schools that bare witness to this devotion?. There are even theological studies focused on the meaning and extent of her participation in the mysteries of God becoming man. And, such things as these are not of modern vintage, the Church of Mary Major in Rome dates from about the 4th century. These are not “private” devotions. Tthey’re part of Catholic Dogma. If we cannot agree on that, then we must look at our beliefs and thoughts and examine them for heresy.

 

[Adhemar]

A personal devotion to Mary is not required of Catholics and not having one is not going to make you more likely to be influenced by Satan.

No one has to believe in any apparitions - not even approved ones.

In reference to your assertion that devotion to Mary is optional for Catholics:

Would you then suggest that Jesus needed to have no regard for His Mother who, in fact, gave Him His human nature? No one honored Our Lady more than Our Lord. Actually, devotion to Mary is imitation of Christ.

Hyperdulia is that special form of reverence due to Our Lady. It is a mean between latria, which is due to God alone, and dulia, which is due to the saints. Latria, dulia and hyperdulia are virtues (ST IIa IIae, 103). Virtues are not optional.

Devotion is a virtue of the will by which we are eager to give that which is due. Devotion to God is an eagerness to adore Him (latria). Devotion to Our Lady is an eagerness to give Her that honor which is due to Her (hyperdulia). A lack of true devotion to Our Lady is contrary to virtue.

 

[CradleCath]

Only if you are implying that such approval by the Church means one must believe that apparition.

Where do you get the authority and the backup to say that approval of an apparition puts any obligation on any Catholic?
I have seen nothing about that in the CCC.

Well, this is totally off-topic, the subject of this thread being whether or not the Church dogmatically recognizes Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” of mankind. I am not sure which apparition you are talking about, or are you speaking of apparitions in genera? If so the CCC. says the following:

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation,** but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.** Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith** cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment**t, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”

IOW’s we are not to accept “revelations” that provide information that contradicts or** adds to** those in the Bible. Joseph Smith claimed a private revelation told him that Peter, James, and John, still possessed the keys of the kingdom, and were giving them to him. This private revelation contradicts & the teachings of the Bible, “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of Kingdom”. This He said to Peter AS the first Pope of the Holy, Catholic Church.

Another supposedly private “revelation” was made to Muhammad. The Angel Gabriel came to him to tell him that he would be the “Messenger”. There was no mention of a “Messenger” in the revelation of Scripture completed at the time of the deaths of the Evangelists & Apostles.

On the other hand, the Virgin appeared to the children at Fatima to tell them how to apply the teachings of Christ to the times to come, when Communism would attempt to spread atheism by force. It reinforced the dogma of the Trinity, telling us to believe, to perservere. It revealed nothing that contradicted Scripture but defined & made those teachings stronger & more pronounced.

I really believe that you should seek to learn more about BOTH public & private revelation before you comment farther. I have read your posts both on this thread & others & they speak of baiting people. I sure hope that isn’t the case.

 

[CradleCath]

Understood. I agree it is a term that needs to be understood; but my fear is not how Catholics may see the term. Generally, arguments that any kind of subordinate mediation supplants or prejudices the one mediation of Christ are Protestant arguments. In fact, I have not seen arguments from Catholic tradition that undermine either the doctrine or nomenclature of Coredemption.

“Mother of God” is a term that can easily be misunderstood and, in fact, is misunderstood by many Protestants. Every theological term needs to be explained. To coredeem is “to redeem with.” Co- may mean either with in an equal way **or with in a subordinate way. ** That part needs to be explained. The “with” in this case is subordinate.

Good point. One of the definitions of the prefix “co” is:
: having a usually **lesser share **in duty or responsibility :
example: co-pilot.
You’ve given me something to think about. Thank you.

 

[CradleCath]

I read the give and take of this thread and I don’t understand how supposedly Christian individuals can make such statements,- or at least imply them- such as Marian devotion is a private devotion. How can devotion to Mary be private when there are liturgical services, Churches, hospitals, and schools that bare witness to this devotion?. There are even theological studies focused on the meaning and extent of her participation in the mysteries of God becoming man. And, such things as these are not of modern vintage, the Church of Mary Major in Rome dates from about the 4th century. These are not “private” devotions. Tthey’re part of Catholic Dogma. If we cannot agree on that, then we must look at our beliefs and thoughts and examine them for heresy.

I don’t know if you’re speaking of my posts here. If so, I was speaking of private REVELATION, (Fatima & Lourdes) not private DEVOTIONS… such as Novenas & the Rosary. Sorry if I did not make this clear.

 

[BOBKAT]

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.

I think you are correct, I also believe that we can participate in the redemption of others by our own sacrafices. I think Jesus wants us to do just that and I don’t think that it will be us that saves this person rather Jesus through us,so Mary would be the Co-Redeemer while we would be co-redeemer’SI have a SIL who when I told her to offer her sufferings up for the poor souls she just looked at me funny and said that she couldn’t do nothing for them that Jesus took care of everything. I think adding this will make things all the more confusing to people like her, however truth is truth and we need to proclaim it.

I could not have said what you said better.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[Memaw]

Sorry–let me clarify: what *divine *organs did she use? None. Jesus’s divinity did not have its source in Mary.

Come on Buddy, you know better than that. You seem to think you know sooo much about the Catholic Church, so you should KNOW it has NEVER taught that Jesus’ divinity had its source in Mary, I think your making up stuff as you go along. And that harms you more than it does me, except for the fact that I hurt when you insult my Faith. Maybe you need to spend a lot more time in prayer and give the Holy Spirit a chance to touch your heart. IF at first you hear HIS voice, harden not your hearts. And keep in mind the 8th Commandment.