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.
My question was the point I was making. I know there’s very few passages that Catholicism has dogmatically defined. The evidence provided concerning all the parallels are refuted. Anyone can come up parallelism within scripture. It doesn’t make it absolute truth.

I would propose that if indeed Catholicism wants to adhere to all these parallels, why not give it a dogmatic definition?

As far as placing the bar higher, I don’t know what you mean. We have access to the original Greek. All discussion flows from there.
 
Whatever one thinks of defining a new Marian dogma, I hope that all Catholics will agree with the Second Vatican Council, which stated that there is a union of Mary with Jesus in the work of our salvation, such that she is our Mother in the order of grace (Lumen Gentium 57, 61)
 
stpurl said:
but I will protest against the all-too-prevalent Protestantization of many Catholics with regard to Mary.

I wish to say STOP! Please stop, in your effort to placate Protestants and other nonCatholics and nonChristians by downplaying Mary.
Click to expand...
A huge Amen to that!!!
 
Last edited:
I already quoted Col. 1:24. As Scripture teaches, we are to unite our sufferings to the cross and, without adding merit to Christ’s perfect sacrifice, we are given the privilege of participating in the work of redemption.
 
His perfect sacrifice is complete, yes, but it must be mediated in time and space. If that was not needed, everyone would already be redeemed…we are called to participate in that work, as Scripture plainly teaches.
 
I had thought of that earlief,and wonder why St. Paul has not been labelled as co-redeemer, based on his own words in scripture.
 
twf said:
His perfect sacrifice is complete, yes, but it must be mediated in time and space. If that was not needed, everyone would already be redeemed…we are called to participate in that work, as Scripture plainly teaches.
Click to expand...
Redemption has occurred with the Atonement of the Sacrificial Lamb on the Cross…

It is ManKind which b/c of the Fall required Redemption via the God/Man
who has been Redeemed back to God via The Redeemer - Son of God, Jesus.

That said, that doesn’t mean that we can not also take His Yoke upon our back.

_
 
Multiple Popes have said explicitly, in Encyclicals, that every grace is given through our mother, the Mother of God. These include Blessed Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Leo XIII.

Here, for example, is Pope St. Pius X:
12…And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae , c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html
Click to expand...
The Magisterium has never retracted this doctrine, but has chosen not to dogmatically state it.

The Second Vatican Council stated:
  1. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)
    Lumen gentium
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Of all the nonsense going on with the Church today…and this is what he wishes to call “foolishness”.
 
SteelArchangel said:
Of all the nonsense going on with the Church today…and this is what he wishes to call “foolishness”.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. Nonsense from Rome, nonsense from many dioceses and orders, nonsense from the Secular world. Maybe that’s a good reason for not defining dogma at this moment.

The dogma of the Assumption, and probably the Immaculate Conception, were defined at times of little turmoil in the Church. There’s a good reason for this.

Just the fact that there is so much antagonism on both sides over this current discussion on the non-definition, suggests this is not the time.

Let’s pray for a time of clarity and unity soon. Then a decision can be made.
 
“ROME - Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.””

Amen Pope Francis!! Thank God we have such a faithfull Pope.
 
stpurl said:
I will protest against the all-too-prevalent Protestantization of many Catholics with regard to Mary.

I wish to say STOP! Please stop, in your effort to placate Protestants and other nonCatholics and nonChristians by downplaying Mary.
Click to expand...
This isn’t “downplaying Mary”. It’s loving Mary in a way that doesn’t scandalize and harden the hearts of our separated brethren. I’m guessing that Mary wouldn’t be pleased by us stomping on our brothers and sisters in our zeal to lift her up.
 
I was not referring to the specific title; I was referring to the many ways in which quite a few Catholics today downplay the Virgin Mary out of a fear of alienating Protestants.

We are oh-so-quick to proclaim that we don’t ‘worship’ Mary, but ignore the fact that the very word "worship’ derives from "Worthship’ or the quality of someone’s worthiness. (That’s one reason judges in Britain are referred to as “Your Worship” and why the Anglican marriage service stated, "with your body I thee worship’. No, today’s Catholics, instead of insisting that the definition of ‘worship’ be maintained as it has been for centuries, have kowtowed to a modern, narrow, "Protestant’ definition of “that offered to God alone”. Protestants ‘hear’ us say we do not worship Mary, understand "worship’ by their modern ‘narrow’ sense, and read Christian literature from the past and "see’ practices like May crowning, and complain, “Yes you DO worship Mary! You treat her like God, you bow before her, you offer her things”. . .

The whole problem would have been nipped in the BUD if Catholics instead of insisting on faux ecumenism (and that’s what Mary REALLY weeps about, friend) had gently but firmly admonished our Protestant friends,
"Your modern redefinition of worship is too narrow. Since you try to reduce everything to “God alone” and ignore the second commandment of loving your neighbor (i.e. Mary and the saints) as yourself, you are giving God too little. You refuse to allow proper recognition and respect of God’s people, from His apostles on down to you and me, and call us all Calvinistic dung heaps. True, we are sinners, but through Christ in us (and we do have Him in us, in the Eucharist) and through our saying “yes’ like Mary to His gift of salvation, we cooperate and, like St. Paul, “make up in our flesh what is lacking”. If you gave others that proper ‘worthship’ they have in Christ, you would be able to offer them that ‘worthship’ and you could offer to God MORE. . .as we do.”
 
COLOSSIANS 1:24 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church . . .
Click to expand...
pnewton (here presumably alluding to Colossians 1:24) . . . .
I had thought of that earlief,and wonder why St. Paul has not been labelled as co-redeemer, based on his own words in scripture.
Click to expand...
The Church has done this, but only implicitly.

From CCC 618 . . .
CCC 618b 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 . . .
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

Footnote 456 refers us to (among other verses), Colossians 1:24.
COLOSSIANS 1:24 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church . . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) stpurl:
I will protest against the all-too-prevalent Protestantization of many Catholics with regard to Mary.

I wish to say STOP! Please stop, in your effort to placate Protestants and other nonCatholics and nonChristians by downplaying Mary.
Click to expand...
As I’ve tried to follow this conversation, this seems to be a key point. No doubt the Catholic Church should always proclaim the truth no matter what our protestant brothers and sisters think. However, if “co-Redemptrix” is just another title to perhaps better (or not better) clarify what we already believe, this is something else. It’s not about proclaiming the truth. I have no idea what its about.

The thing is “co-Redemptrix” will be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and will be used by some to further the divide between our protestant brothers and sisters. It’s fine if there is a divide because of the truth, but why create further division because of another title?
Click to expand...
 
stpurl said:
We are oh-so-quick to proclaim that we don’t ‘worship’ Mary, but ignore the fact that the very word "worship’ derives from "Worthship’ or the quality of someone’s worthiness.
Click to expand...
Etymology =/= current usage. When someone says “worship” in modern English, they aren’t saying “worthiness”.
stpurl said:
No, today’s Catholics, instead of insisting that the definition of ‘worship’ be maintained as it has been for centuries, have kowtowed to a modern, narrow, "Protestant’ definition of “that offered to God alone”.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We need to continue to distinguish between what is offered only to God and what we mean with respect to humans (in particular, with respect to saints, including Mary).
stpurl said:
The whole problem would have been nipped in the BUD if Catholics instead of insisting on faux ecumenism (and that’s what Mary REALLY weeps about, friend)
Click to expand...
I’m fascinated that you claim to have insight into what Mary ‘really’ weeps about. 🤔 😉
 
I tried to catch up on this thread but kind of stopped at post 240… so if this was askee &/or answered please just point me to the post.

Does Mary stand between you and Jesus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top