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

[otjm]

This petition is not exactly something new, and Pope Francis is not the first Pope to say that we are not going there.

In part it is the sue of the Latin prefix “Co”, meaning “with”, and certainly Mary cooperated with God. Thaat has been known for the last 2,000 years.

However, making a declaration of Mary being co-redemptrix opens a can of worms further - we already are accused repeatedly of worshiping Mary. Throwing gasoline on that fire accomplishes - exactly what? Since any Catholic reasonably catechized already should know that Mary cooperated with God, what is added other than a title? And given that the Church has acknowledged Mary’s cooperation, without the title, what does the title add?

I would submit, nothing. Not that I am in any way the deciding factor, but given that Pope Francis is not the first to say “Nope”, maybe some people who seem to have nothing better to do should pay attention to what Rome says - repeatedly and repeatedly, ad nauseum.

The term came up during the reign of Pope Pius XII, and every Pope since then (with the exception of John Paul 1, assuming he wasn’t around long enough to deal with the issue) has come to the same decision, which in the shorthand is “Nope”. and it is not like it is brand new; the Franciscans in the middle ages were for it and the Dominicans opposed it.

The history is long; this isn’t something new that people can add to their list of grievances against Pope Francis.

 

[annad347]

It just felt like something I said really upset. That’s why it feels like an attack

 

[Cathoholic]

porthos11 . . .

why the push from some quarters to make this a dogma?

I am not arguing for this as dogma (here on this thread, yet).

Where are you getting this question from (in the context of replying to me)?

So far I have only given catechetical and Scriptural information.

(Here it is again. Footnote 457 in CCC 618 refers to Luke 2:35).

porthos11 . . .

That is not Christology.

From Wiki . . .

Christology, translated literally from Greek as “the word of Christ”, is the study of the nature and work of Jesus Christ.

It relates to the work of Jesus Christ and His work of redemption.

It teaches how Jesus works in humanity and through humanity. And His pre-eminent work in and through the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Not only that, but in taking His flesh from Her flesh, Jesus shows us yet another layer of “the work of Jesus Christ”.

If you want I can put up the posts of that element too (from Vatican II).

It’s Christology. (I am not denying a soteriological dimension in making this assertion).

 

[Leferdion]

At times, I wonder…what exactly is expected from people of Pope Francis. It seems whatever he says or does is criticised or seen as insufficient. You call him irresponsible for not ‘‘clarifying’’ what co-redemptrix means, yet you totally ignore that he immediately after turns our focus to how we should see Mary…that is as disciple, woman and mother. Is that not in itself a clarification to the issue or do we have now so much bad faith in Pope Francis that whatever he says is wrong to us? I am sure if he had spoken in any other way on the issue of Mary being coredemtrix, either positively or negatively, the great majority of people on this forum would still have criticised him and called him irresponsible…

 

[Cathoholic]

From another post of mine:

Jesus is “our only Redeemer and Saviour” as Lumen Gentium 50 mentions.

Yet humanity can have a participation in that redemptive work of Christ. This is especially true concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Mary, consenting to the word of God, became the Mother of Jesus. Committing herself wholeheartedly and impeded by no sin to God’s saving will, she devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption, by the grace of Almighty God. – Lumen Gentium 56

.

VATICAN II – By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer . . . . – Lumen Gentium 63

The cultivation of the appropriate honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary is “right” (“rightly”).

VATICAN II Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honoured by a special cult in the Church. – Lumen Gentium 66

.

CCC 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

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458

.

Now let’s go to the Cross. . . .

JOHN 19:32-34 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

.

From CCC 618 above: “ This (redemption) 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”

Parenthetical addition mine for context.

Footnote 457 in CCC 618 is Luke 2:35.

Here is the context of Luke 2:35 . . .
.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was united to Jesus in a special way at Calvary.

LUKE 2:34-35 34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

.

Bold above Vatican II, CCC and Scripture mine.

 

[HarryStotle]

At times, I wonder…what exactly is expected from people of Pope Francis. It seems whatever he says or does is criticised or seen as insufficient. You call him irresponsible for not ‘‘clarifying’’ what co-redemptrix means, yet you totally ignore that he immediately after turns our focus to how we should see Mary…that is as disciple, woman and mother. Is that not in itself a clarification to the issue or do we have now so much bad faith in Pope Francis that whatever he says is wrong to us? I am sure if he had spoken in any other way on the issue of Mary being coredemtrix, either positively or negatively, the great majority of people on this forum would still have criticised him and called him irresponsible…

What is “expected” from Pope Francis is that he not describe the thoughts and words of holy men and women who have gone before him as “foolishness.”

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.”

He could have simply done as you say – not “immediately after,” but without at all disparaging others – “and turn[ed]… our focus to how we should see Mary…that is as disciple, woman and mother.”

Why preface his comments with such strong criticism of others when he could have completely avoided the controversy and made himself less an instigator and more a teacher by going to the teaching part without the strong castigation of others?

He calls the criticism on himself when he could completely avoid it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Welcome Ginia to Catholic Answers Forums!

 

[Cathoholic]

Here is the homily.

http://www.vatican.va/content/franc...papa-francesco_20191212_omelia-guadalupe.html

It is not yet posted (officially. Yes Crux has their own translation) in english on the Vatican website.

Here’s where I will expect to find it soon.

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2019.index.html#homilies

 

[Cathoholic]

For any lurkers that may be here.

This is not new among Marian teachings.
What would be new is the defining it with more precision.

Popes of the Marian Age and Mary Co-redemptrix​

Building upon the Scriptural and Traditional bedrock of over eighteen centuries of the story of the Co-redemptrix, the Vicars of Christ become the main impetuses for the complete development of this doctrine. The nineteenth and twentieth century papal pronouncements bring the doctrine, and eventually the title, to the ranks of the ordinary teaching of the Church’s Magisterium—guided by the Holy Spirit and exercising the Petrine authority they alone possess.

So great is the Church’s love of the Mother of God, so forthright is its articulation of the truth about her during this period, that it has been universally designated as the “Age of Mary.” . . . this remarkable period of Church history has seen the declaration of two Marian dogmas, an explosion of Marian life, literature, art, and devotion, and has experienced exponentially more ecclesiastically approved Marian apparitions than at any other period in the Church’s history. It should not be surprising, therefore, to observe the remarkable Mariological development of doctrine and devotion to their Co-redemptive Mother taught by the Holy Fathers of the Marian Age.

This brings us to the question of what, precisely, constitutes the papal teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, the Church’s authoritative teaching office?

The Second Vatican Council instructs us that a “loyal submission of will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra (1) This supreme teaching authority is “made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain document is proposed, or by the manner in which a certain document is formulated” (Lumen Gentium, 25).

As we shall see, the “character” of the papal documents which articulate the doctrine of Mary Co-redemptrix include encyclical letters, the official channel of communication for the ordinary Magisterium, as well as other forms of papal teachings such as apostolic letters, exhortations and general addresses (as well as the later ecumenical conciliar teachings of the Second Vatican Council). The truth of Mary Co-redemptrix has also been confirmed by the “frequency” of papal teaching of the Coredemption doctrine (2) and a repeated papal use of the Co-redemptrix title. (3) In fact, all the conciliar criteria . . .

. . . It is of little wonder, therefore, that during this Marian Age, the Holy Fathers would bring greater precision and authoritative status to the story of Mary Co-redemptrix through their unprecedented papal testimony. (5) Building upon the scriptural, apostolic, patristic, and medieval theological foundations, they have validated its most prominent elements with a pneumatological guidance and protection possessed by no other teaching office on earth. . . .

Popes of the Marian Age and Mary Co-redemptrix

Building upon the Scriptural and Traditional bedrock of over eighteen centuries of the story of the Co-redemptrix, the Vicars of Christ become the main impetuses for the complete development of this doctrine. The nineteenth and twentieth century papal pronouncements bring the doctrine, and...

www.motherofallpeoples.com

 

[HarryStotle]

At times, I wonder…what exactly is expected from people of Pope Francis.

One more point…

St. Cyril of Alexandria (376 - 444) and St. Ephraem the Syrian (306 - 373) are both named Doctors of the Church. There are only 33 individuals who have been so named. The Doctors of the Church are particularly known for the depth of understanding, the orthodoxy of their theological teachings, and their significant contributions to the formulation of Christian teaching.

Here is what each of them have said about Mary…

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

Hail, Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the whole world . . . it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored . . . through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom nations are brought to repentance.

St. Ephraem the Syrian:

“With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world.”

They were not alone. The Church Fathers generally thought of Mary as the Mediator of All Grace.

Again what is expected of Pope Francis is that he recognize and acknowledge that the received doctrines and dogmas of the Church are not his to change at will or to speak about off the cuff so as to confuse his listeners.

 

[Leferdion]

You are the one intentionally taking the word ‘‘foolishness’’ said by the pope out of context!!! He speaks in spanish, it was translated to english…before you take the liberty of accusing the Pope of calling his predecessors foolish, get the opinion of someone who at least understands the original spanish and context of what he said. Thats why I get upset by some of these comments. Alot of cherry picking of his words…alot of lack of charity in the way we read others, a lack of willingness to understand…yet we call ourselves christians in commiuinion with the one true church…God have mercy!

 

[annad347]

Can someone tell me, why is it so important?

Why is it so important for Mary to officially have a title of co Redemptrix, or any title for that matter?

Would it make her different if she was simply, woman who is full of grace… would any title given to her change who she is, who she was, what she did, how people see her?

 

[fide]

Porthos:

“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?”

A Christological matter is involved. Christ is Son of God, and hence Mary is “Mother of God”. Christ is “Son of Man”, the new/second Adam, and hence Mary is “the new Eve.” Those born from above - born again - are made new creations in Him, new in “the Body of Christ.” Those in Him are called, are indeed made to be, participants in His redemptive Cross:

Col 1:24 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,…

Sons of the first Adam (of Man) are fallen. Sons of the second Adam - the Christ - are “sons of man” as He is the Son of Man - the new humanity, the new creation in Christ. This reveals the meanings of Son of Man, and of Body of Christ (the Church). Thus we in Christ all are co-redeemers, as the Catechism teaches:

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice
618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.<1 Tim 2:5> 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.<GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2> He calls his disciples to “take up cross and follow “,<Mt 16:24> for “Christ also suffered for , leaving an example so that should follow in his steps.”<I Pt 2:21> In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.<Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24> 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.<Cf. Lk 2:35>

 

[TULIPed]

This is well written and presented information @fide. Well done.

I know (thanks to your post - and many others here) that the Catholic expression of this suffix is “with” vs. “equal”. In any case, as an American (Protestant) I wanted to take a stab at illustrating where some of the confusion His Holiness seems to be concerned about might arise.

The classic use of the suffix “co” in an American English context at least is the idea of a “Co-Captain” of a sports team. To use your illustration, there’s no question the rest of the team participates and cooperates with the Co-Captains of the team. However - there’s no question that the rest of the team is subordinate to the Co-Captains. The Captains of the team have authority to lead the team on the field.

Co-Captains thus have equal and ultimate authority. They share leadership of the team on the field. In business there are “Co-Heads” of a division. Here again, the suffix is descriptive (mostly) of shared and equal authority.

Having said all that, here’s an interesting Protestant take on the suffix that I’ll throw in. Have a look at Romans 8:17 (where else would a Calvinist go after all ) in the (pretty much Protestant only) NIV:

“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

The ESV that those of us with a Reformed bent tend to use translate the “co-heirs” as “fellow heirs”. In any case, it would seem that the Greek translation of that suffix is closer to the Latin.

 

[stpurl]

All Marian titles are solely and simply because of Jesus, her son.
This is not about Mary and ‘her titles’ but about Jesus, who HE is. IF a title is given to Mary it is given to Jesus first.

So if a title is deemed necessary by the Church it isn’t about Mary’s ‘status’, it is because the Holy Spirit has deemed it necessary as a part and result of who JESUS is.

I repeat, any and all Marian doctrines, dogmas, titles etc have nothing to do with Mary, but everything to do with Jesus.

So their importance reflects that Jesus is the important one here.

Naming Mary “Mother of God” is not to puff her up, for example.
Naming her Queen of Heaven isn’t some flukey thing for a 'simple woman".

She is named Mother of God because she IS the Mother of God in Jesus the Christ. She is not the mother of ‘the human part of Jesus’.

She is the Queen of Heaven because Jesus is the King, and Jewish sacred tradition assigns the role of Queen not to the wife of a King but to the King’s Mother. Since Jesus is King, NOT titling Mary as Queen is disrespectful to Jesus and denigrates HIS title.

IF the title of Co redemptrix is ever given, it will again have nothing to do with Mary and everything with Jesus.

He came to us through Mary, after all.

 

[porthos11]

Leferdion:

At times, I wonder…what exactly is expected from people of Pope Francis.

One more point…

St. Cyril of Alexandria (376 - 444) and St. Ephraem the Syrian (306 - 373) are both named Doctors of the Church. There are only 33 individuals who have been so named. The Doctors of the Church are particularly known for the depth of understanding, the orthodoxy of their theological teachings, and their significant contributions to the formulation of Christian teaching.

Here is what each of them have said about Mary…

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

Hail, Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the whole world . . . it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored . . . through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom nations are brought to repentance.

St. Ephraem the Syrian:

“With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world.”

They were not alone. The Church Fathers generally thought of Mary as the Mediator of All Grace.

Again what is expected of Pope Francis is that he recognize and acknowledge that the received doctrines and dogmas of the Church are not his to change at will or to speak about off the cuff so as to confuse his listeners.

Which is the thing. “Mediatrix” is in fact more qualified for definition into dogma than “co-redemptrix.” Co-redemptrix is a relatively new title, is not used by the Magisterium, and has no ancient roots. “Mediatrix” is Magisterially accepted.

I’ve made it known that I’m no fan of Pope Francis, but this is one refreshing instance on clarity on his end: the answer is no.

 

[godisgood77]

an someone tell me, why is it so important?

Why is it so important for Mary to officially have a title of co Redemptrix, or any title for that matter?

Would it make her different if she was simply, woman who is full of grace… would any title given to her change who she is, who she was, what she did, how people see her?

I fully agree… I do not understand the obsession or the need to insist that others uses these poetic devotional titles.

I often look to St John Henry Newman’s words on Marian devotion for inspiration… In particular, he said that doctrine is the same in all places, all times. Devotion is differs from place to place and time to time. These titles are a question of devotion, not doctrine.

Personally, I don’t use these titles… I simply ask for her to pray for me like the Mass calls for.

 

[godisgood77]

He came to us through Mary, after all.

Yes. He came to us from God through Mary… Mary was not the cause, but the bearer.

 

[porthos11]

stpurl:

He came to us through Mary, after all.

Yes. He came to us from God through Mary… Mary was not the cause, but the bearer.

And this is in fact a facet of the teaching of her as Mediatrix, not co-redemptrix.

 

[godisgood77]

I find it somewhat humiliating to describe Her as “bearer” only. She was so much more than that!

I’m sorry you feel that way… let me give you some context in how I use the term. Hopefully, this will dispel and offense.

Theotokos is on of the most ancient titles for Mary and was at the heart of the Nestorious controversy. It means Theotokos means “Birth-giver to God”, “God-bearer” or “Mother of God”. I just personally like God-bearer. I consider the title very high praise.