Mary Co-Redemptrix ... Pope says No and I am confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was taught that we are all in some ways co-redeemers when we offer penance and indulgences up for others and Mary is a co-redeemer in a special way because of her fiat.
 
steph03 said:
Pope Francis says having Mary as co-redemptrix is foolishness … any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The Pope is right.

Marian dogmas are declared to teach some truth about Christ, not for her own sake. She herself would probably be the first to point this out.

Second, apparitions, which do not bind anyone, most certainly do not bind the Holy Father. No apparition carries any authority over the Church, her pastors, or her faithful. If an apparition demands that the Pope do this or that thing that binds consciences (like defining a dogma), that’s a major red flag. A true apparition of our Lady would respect the order established by her Son, which makes the Pope and the Bishops the authority in the Church.

I can understand the description of co-redemptrix, but people should not tie themselves into knots over having it defined as dogma. It teaches no Christological truth.
 
I think the pope is right on this. The “Co-Redemptrix” title is much too easily misunderstood, especially by Protestants and even Orthodox Christians, and is also unnecessary in my opinion. What would be the point of declaring her “Co-Redemptrix”?
 
Last edited:
Hmm I would wait a while before believing what the media say about the Pope. Unless you were there, speak his language and heard it with your own ears I’d give some time for the truth to come out, I doubt he’d use words like foolishness even if he didn’t support it. Too likely to cause uproar.

As for whether Mary wants it, she wants what God wants so I expect she will except whatever title Our Lord wants to bestow on her. So as long as Our Lords’ body the church follows his will then there should be no problem. It doesn’t matter what we want only what He wants. Perhaps Mary has been so dishonoured by the world He would see her raised in order to make reparation for sins committed against her Immaculate heart? Maybe God would give us that chance at mercy? But that’s just my thoughts.
 
Which Mary? Maybe if you call her Mother of God you would understand that she cannot help without her Son and why the Pope broke no tradition by insisting again that she is not a co-redemptrix, she intermediate Redemption through God’s will to be born of her. Virgin Mary did not tell God to be born of her, God told Mary she will bear His Son. Co-redemptrix would mean that she can parallel the Eucharist which she cannot and the Church never taught otherwise. People by themselves in popular belief, which does not equal Church tradition, exaggerate the attributes of Mary. The Church allows personal devotion to Mary but every now and then needs to correct people on certain issues.
 
This is true and Scriptural. In a sense, we are all co-redeemers, but in a way that is completely dependent upon Christ’s perfect work of redemption.
 
Yes, very true. I understand that also.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
I can understand the description of co-redemptrix, but people should not tie themselves into knots over having it defined as dogma. It teaches no Christological truth.
Click to expand...
I have never been a fan of the movement to declare the title as dogma. But, seeing this, I’d like to play reverse advocate for a moment. The title could be understood in a primarily ecclesiological sense. Theologically we are called to participate in Christ as Christ participates in us. Ecclesiologically, through this, we can all be co-redeemers in Christ (by cooperation, synergistic). Mary, in addition to participating in a most excellent sense, is also through ancient use understood as an archetype for the Church. Thus, calling Mary Co-Redemptrix can have an ecclesiological and even theological/Christological meaning, even if not as direct/obvious as the title “Mother of God” is in its response to Nestorianism.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the Holy Father is not saying that the title is wrong. He is saying that declaring it as dogma would introduce confusion and that doing that would be foolish. Pope Benedict XVI also said the action would be misguided, and I believe Pope St. John Paul II said the same.
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
porthos11:
I can understand the description of co-redemptrix, but people should not tie themselves into knots over having it defined as dogma. It teaches no Christological truth.
Click to expand...
I have never been a fan of the movement to declare the title as dogma. But, seeing this, I’d like to play reverse advocate for a moment, the title could be understood in a primarily ecclesiological sense. Theologically we are called to participate in Christ as Christ participates in us. Ecclesiologically, through this, we can all be co-redeemers in Christ (by cooperation, synergistic). Mary, in addition to participating in a most excellent sense, is also through ancient use understood as an archetype for the Church. Thus, calling Mary Co-Redemptrix can have an ecclesiological and even theological/Christological meaning, even if not as direct/obvious as the title “Mother of God” is in its response to Nestorianism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. I find that line of reasoning a stretch at best. She is co-redeemer as we are all co-redeemers, and even par excellence, but to follow that reasoning to define a dogma where no heresy or Christological question is involved?

I don’t think so.
 
I am generally against using the term based on how it can be midunderstood as something erroneous as the Pope himself does here (rightfully rejecting the error). The orthodox understanding of it, however, conveys a basic dogma revealed directly in Scripture and consistently handed on by the Church, including the last ecumenical Council and all recent Pope’s (including Francis).

But the fact that so many people, including now a Pope, immediately get the wrong idea when hearing it, shows why it is not a helpful term (new terms should make the doctrine more immediately clear, not less).
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
porthos11:
I can understand the description of co-redemptrix, but people should not tie themselves into knots over having it defined as dogma. It teaches no Christological truth.
Click to expand...
I have never been a fan of the movement to declare the title as dogma. But, seeing this, I’d like to play reverse advocate for a moment, the title could be understood in a primarily ecclesiological sense. Theologically we are called to participate in Christ as Christ participates in us. Ecclesiologically, through this, we can all be co-redeemers in Christ (by cooperation, synergistic). Mary, in addition to participating in a most excellent sense, is also through ancient use understood as an archetype for the Church. Thus, calling Mary Co-Redemptrix can have an ecclesiological and even theological/Christological meaning, even if not as direct/obvious as the title “Mother of God” is in its response to Nestorianism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. I find that line of reasoning a stretch at best. She is co-redeemer as we are all co-redeemers, and even par excellence, but to follow that reasoning to define a dogma where no heresy or Christological question is involved?

I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
As I said, I’m not a fan of the movement to dogmatize it when there’s no apparent controversy, but I disagree that “there is no Christological truth” in it, which is the comment I was originally responding to. The reasoning is certainly not a “stretch”, either, given it’s all firmly based in regular teaching and is a simple corollary, it’s just more nuanced and indirect. But I do think dogmatizing the title would create confusion and is unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
My understanding is that the Holy Father is not saying that the title is wrong. He is saying that declaring it as dogma would introduce confusion and that doing that would be foolish. Pope Benedict XVI also said the action would be misguided, and I believe Pope St. John Paul II said the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely on this. Introducing it as dogma just seems pointless–as in, what would it accomplish? I guarantee that it would throw up a huge additional stumbling block in the path of conversations with Protestant and Orthodox Christians.
 
Edited calling the opinion foolish, although what is wrong with this book? It offers a simple explanation of co-Redemptrix which doesn’t leave one confused, even if the title may be confusing.
 
The whole conversation about “dogmatizing” this title is kind of nonsensical. First, dogmas are truths revealed by God. This revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. A proposition either was revealed by God then or it wasn’t it. It can’t be made so later. The Church is tasked with always teaching, handing on, defending, expounding upon, and confirming dogmas, not creating them. No true dogma should be passed over in silence or not confirmed, nor should a proposition be called a dogma that is not one.

Second, unless a title was explicitly in revelation, it doesn’t make sense for it to be the subject of dogmatic teaching. Clearly the title Co-Redemptrix is not revealed anywhere.

What is dogmatic and revealed in Scripture is Mary’s unique and integral role in our redemption. This is not controversial to anyone who has ever cracked open the first chapter of Luke. Just like Scripture is clear that the fall is the result of Adam’s sin, yet Eve’s sin was integrally connected, so too in our redemption is Mary the new Eve to Christ’s new Adam.

St. Vincent de Lerins, in his Comminitory, says of the Church (my emphasis):
She has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.
Click to expand...
Those who promote the “Co-Redemptrix” title are attempting to do the above, but IMO (and that of most others it seems), they fail at the “for better understanding” part.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top