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

[patricius79]

I have no idea what adhere means in your context.

“Adhere” is a word used by Vatican II, which says that we must “sincerely adhere” to the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, as I quoted in my last post.

We are weak and need the help of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, who gave us His Mother from the Cross to help us to deny ourselves and place our trust in Him.

 

[commenter]

if a Pope taught something–and I’m referring to the ordinary magisterium–which one knows to be definitely in contradiction to previous Magisterial teaching; or, of course, in contradiction to dogma.

As a practical matter, our authoritative guide to interpreting Tradition is the current pope and bishops. So it’s hard for me to conceive of putting my interpretation of the past teaching over that of the pope, if he was exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. Theoretically there is also the bishops in Council but there is no council now.

 

[patricius79]

Okay. Maybe you’re right. It’s just, I asked my priest about these issues once. I asked if a current Pope said, for example, that it’s okay to intentionally practice contraception, would we still have to assent to that teaching. He said he didn’t think that would happen, but that we would not be obliged to assent to such a departure.

But I also don’t know how to reconcile what he said with what Vatican II said.

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t it take an act of will to do so rather than merely accede — according to a kind of intellectual inertia

You misunderstand me. The Catechism is clear that it is the well-formed conscience that must be followed, so there should never be any inertia to overcome, as one who does not understand a teaching enough to consent, or know there is a dogma that must be believed, still has the responsibility of always trying to understand the mind of the Church, and if there is an issue of obedience, to obey.

He said he didn’t think that would happen, but that we would not be obliged to assent to such a departure.

In practice, I have no idea what “assent” means. There is no oath of allegiance, no check list, and it is not something we ever say “amen” to. The vast majority of people would have no chance to assent in any meaningful manner. And even if such a thing became allowed in certain situations, though I think the priest is right in that this will never happen, it is not like it would be mandated, and one could still abstain.

That is why these terms for Mary do not bother me too much. There never a situation where one is required to show any devotion to these terms, teach them, or even read about them. We have our profession of faith and our baptismal promises to which we must give assent. We have also the Body of Christ that we are to give assent to upon reception.

 

[patricius79]

In practice, I have no idea what “assent” means…

That is why these terms for Mary do not bother me too much. There never a situation where one is required to show any devotion to these terms, teach them, or even read about them. We have our profession of faith and our baptismal promises to which we must give assent. We have also the Body of Christ that we are to give assent to upon reception.

Are we Catholics not obligated to submit our minds and wills to what is taught by the Second Vatican Council in regard to our Blessed Mother?

Here is just one of the beautiful paragraphs from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

"61. Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was on this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[C.Longinus]

ANd I trust that the Holy Spirit hasn’t guided the other popes who haven’t made this school of thought binding,

 

[C.Longinus]

True devotion always leads one to her Son, as you’ve stated. Now let me ask you a question: how is saying dogmatic Mary is CoRedemptrix, when Jesus died on the Cross (even though Mary participated with her yes, and we all do in the same way when we say yes), then castigating Pope Francis for acknowledging the pitfalls with this line of thinking?

 

[stpurl]

Your ‘piling up of titles’ which ‘do no one any good’ seemed a tad over-the-top. Pray, which of Mary’s titles beyond co-redemptrix, which has NOT been given and which had you taken the time to check my previous posts I have stated repeatedly that I do not claim for her or pronounce on it in any way–do you think the Church has ‘piled up’ on her? Which of her titles “do no one any good?”

 

[pnewton]

Are we Catholics not obligated to submit our minds and wills to what is taught by the Second Vatican Council in regard to our Blessed Mother?

I would note two things. The Second Vatican Council did not make this term dogma, so to be clear, I am not speaking of what VII said, but what has been believed, and taught, beyond that, as doctrine, but doctrine that might need further refinement. Second, I still have no idea, other than to study and try and understand, how to submit one’s mind, unless you are speaking of blind obedience, without any understanding. From my own experience, faith that is blind, is too easily lost. Faith that is learned through wisdom and understanding seems to last.

 

[commenter]

The Second Vatican Council did not make this term dogma,

The Council and pope could have defined it as such. They didn’t.

If Pope Francis or a future Pope defines it as dogma, that would be compatible with Vatican 2, but if they choose not to define it (like the Popes since the Council) that also is compatible with the Council.

The dominant, more dangerous error of our times is to oppose all dogmas. But that doesn’t mean we should jump to the opposite error.

 

[patricius79]

Second, I still have no idea, other than to study and try and understand, how to submit one’s mind, unless you are speaking of blind obedience, without any understanding.

Maybe that, along with prayer for the graces we need to see the truth, is all that one can do in many cases.

I wish I had a better understanding of the levels of Catholic teaching and of other issues involved.

I think that the higher the level of teaching–and especially with dogma–the more one is required to practice the obedience of faith.

“Lumen Gentium” is Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”.

But I’m not clear on the authority level of this document, though it has to be very high, since it is called “Dogmatic” and is from an Ecumenical Council.

Maybe someone can explain.

 

[patricius79]

Who is castigating Pope Francis?

 

[pnewton]

I think that the higher the level of teaching–and especially with dogma–the more one is required to practice the obedience of faith.

That is my understanding as well, though, like I said, I do not know how it has much practical meaning for most of us. Doctrine that has not been dogmatically proclaimed is still vital as a standard of teaching. There are times when we are called to obedience, of course, like in following the Catholic doctrine of marriage.

The way I understand dogma is that these proclamations are intrinsic in to the authority of the Church. To disbelieve on of those is to disbelieve that the Church has the authority of the Church, and that the Pope is the successor of Christ. In order for one to deny dogma, one must deny the Church. However, since doctrine is subject to further development and understanding, there is a little more leeway, though as I always like to say, one still has the responsibility to continue to give deference to the Church and try to understand why one does not agree, with a humility that recognizes in such situations the fault probably is with oneself.

Is this an assent, with dissent? I do not know how to say such things. I only know my own approach. I struggled with understanding John Paul II on capital punishment for a decade over one point of disagreement. I still disagree with one of his judgments, but have achieved an intellectual work around to understand and assent to the Church on this subject.

 

[patricius79]

I can relate to some extent in the context of this thread, which is about a Papal homily regarding the term “Co-Redemptrix”.

I acknowledge the Pope’s supreme magisterium. And I don’t have a problem with the Pope disapproving of this title, though other Popes have approved the term “Co-Redemptrix”.

But I don’t understand some of the things he says.

For example, he says that Mary never introduced herself as “Co-Redemptrix”. I assume he means in the Sacred Scriptures. But I don’t know who is claiming that she did, or why she would have had to introduce herself by a certain term in order for the term to be accurate.

For example, Vatican II says that the Church invokes Mary as “Advocate”, which is a very profound term, especially since it is a term used for her Divine Spouse, the Holy Spirit.

But I don’t know that she ever introduced herself by this title.

I don’t think it is Mary’s role to praise herself. I think it’s our role as her children to praise her and try to understand her greatness as Mother of God, including by the use of titles.

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

 

[patricius79]

My understanding is that when Pope Leo XIII wrote his encyclical (“Iucunda Semper”) which called Mary “Co-Redemptrix”, that would mean that it is Catholic doctrine that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. This is because encyclicals are very weighty magisterial documents. Is my thinking right?

What level of teaching would it be when Pope Francis disapproved the term “Co-Redemptrix” in a homily?

Do Pope Francis’s reported comments nullify what previously was Catholic doctrine?

 

[C.Longinus]

The title “co-redemptrix” leads to this, so while my statement was hyperbole, it is not without cause.

 

[commenter]

My understanding is that when Pope Leo XIII wrote his encyclical (“Iucunda Semper”) which called Mary “Co-Redemptrix”, that would mean that it is Catholic doctrine that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. This is because encyclicals are very weighty magisterial documents. Is my thinking right?

What level of teaching would it be when Pope Francis disapproved the term “Co-Redemptrix” in a homily?

Do Pope Francis’s reported comments nullify what previously was Catholic doctrine?

I lack the level of knowledge to give your good question the answer it deserves.

 

[stpurl]

Claiming a justification for hyperbole (not acknowledged at the time, or for some time thereafter) based on your personal opinion that ‘piles of titles’ for Mary ‘do nobody any good’. . . is pretty weak.

 

[patricius79]

The underlying issue–or at least one of the main ones–seems to be the conflict between Marian “minimalism” and Marian “maximalism”.

This article, quoted by a poster above, talks about this tension (not that I’m necessarily agreeing with everything the article says)

In Defense of Marian Maximalism - Crisis Magazine

Marian maximalism–or the focus on Mary’s unique relationship with her Divine Son-- seems to be reflected in the doctrine of the Church; in Vatican II and in the Papal Encyclicals about Mary; as well as in what I’ve been able to read from the saints, including Doctors of the Church like St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Bonaventure.

The key to Marian maximalism is contemplation of the mystery of the divine maternity of Mary.

For example, Pope Pius XI wrote this in his Encyclical, Lux Veritatis, quoting the greatest doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas:

1. From this dogma of the divine maternity, as from the outpouring of a hidden spring, flow forth the singular grace of Mary and her dignity, which is the highest after God. Nay more, as Aquinas says admirably: “The Blessed Virgin, from this that she is the Mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity, from the infinite good which is God.” (Summ. Theo., III. a.6.) Cornelius a Lapide unfolds this and explains it more fully, in these words: “The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God; therefore she is far more excellent than all the Angels, even the Seraphim and Cherubim. She is the Mother of God; therefore she is most pure and most holy, so that under God no greater purity can be imagined. She is the Mother of God; therefore whatever privilege (in the order of sanctifying grace) has been granted to any one of the Saints, she obtains it more than all” (In Matt. i. 6).
   Lux Veritatis - Papal Encyclicals

 

[pnewton]

Do Pope Francis’s reported comments nullify what previously was Catholic doctrine?

As only one is now pope, I always go with him, and consider that maybe my own understanding of what doctrine is might not be absolute.

In reference to the conflict between minimalism and maximalism, there are many parts of Catholic spirituality that allow for a range of belief and devotion. Why not simply let each to their own path? I do not doubt that Heaven will be filled with liberals and traditionalists, Molinists and Thomists, Marian minimalists and maximalists.