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

[MagdalenaRita]

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

I guarantee that it would throw up a huge additional stumbling block in the path of conversations with Protestant

From what I understand the Vatican II documents describe her as co-Redemptrix without ever giving her that title because that was the concern at that time, that it would confuse non-Catholics.

IMHO I think it would be better to explain her role outright and giving her the title would bring about a need for more explanations of her role.

 

[steph03]

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.

…

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe in the Assumption and Immaculate conception ? or am I misreading…

 

[Genesis315]

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe in the Assumption and Immaculate conception ? or am I misreading…

I do believe them. You may either be misreading me or thinking those were “new dogmas.” The Church’s dogmatic definitions are definitive judgments that some proposition was and is part of the original revelation. They are intended to confirm this, not add or subtract from it. As the First Vatican Council said:

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

In fact, when the Popes confirmed those two dogmas, they went through great lengths to show how they were always part of that original Tradition, not something new.

I am all for the Church making definitive judgments about the deposit of faith–that is a necessary element of its role as teacher. Such a judgment should not imply a new dogma, but the confirmation of an existing one.

 

[Wesrock]

steph03:

Pope Francis says having Mary as co-redemptrix is foolishness … any thoughts?

This actually seems like a theologically sound response to me.

If one denies that Christians are moved by grace in a syngergistic manner to participate in Christ and Christ in us, perhaps.

 

[annad347]

I only listen to the first 10min, but it sounds like they are saying she should have be given the title of co-Redemptrix? Wouldn’t that mean that Catholic’s are saying Mary can help save us from sin, I’m confused… that’s not what Catholic’s believe right?

 

[ioannes_pius]

From what I understand, the Pope does not think that the title of co-redepmtrix per se is foolish. Rather, he believes he idea of defining it as dogma is foolish.

 

[steph03]

I only listen to the first 10min, but it sounds like they are saying she should have be given the title of co-Redemptrix? Wouldn’t that mean that Catholic’s are saying Mary can help save us from sin, I’m confused… that’s not what Catholic’s believe right?

Actually this debate has been somewhat going on since the 2nd century with Iraneus (his famous quote against heresies; " And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith".

And no Catholic would believe we are saved by Mary (salvations comes through Christ), but that she did play an integral and fundamental part in our salvation. We are saved by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross where he gave his body and blood for us as a living sacrifice. Now the question, where do you think Christ got his body and blood? God did not create this ex-nihilo (from nothing) but it came from Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

porthos11 . . .

It teaches no Christological truth.

Sure it does.

The Church teaches the PARTICIPATION in the life, death, and Resurrection of our Lord as willed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This doctrine highlights that fact.

A subordinate participation to be sure.

But a participation.

CCC 618 b 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

 

[ioannes_pius]

I’d like to add, if I may, that sometimes defining dogma specifically involves making explicit what was implicit in Divine Revelation. This is often mistaken for creating new dogma.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11 . . .

It teaches no Christological truth.

That is not Christology. The argument could be made that it that is soteriology, but is not Christology.

And again, this is not in dispute, so why the push from some quarters to make this a dogma?

 

[HarryStotle]

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).

Isn’t it, precisely, the role of the Pope and the Magisterium to clarify doctrine rather than to leave it in a confused or confusing state?

What is the “basic dogma revealed directly in Scripture and consistently handed on by the Church, including the last ecumenical Council and all recent Popes” that needs to be understood and what needs to be removed as “confusion?”

Seems to me that by avoiding that responsibility Pope Francis is being unhelpful and possibly irresponsible in that he criticizes the misunderstanding but doesn’t raise a finger to clarify what the true understanding ought to be.

Wouldn’t it be better for him to leave the subject alone if he personally feels incapable of properly and fully addressing it?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When Mother Angelica was still alive and doing her show, she explained Co-Redemptrix merely meant that the Blessed Mother, cooperated with God’s plan of salvation.

However, there were people who kept trying to take it beyond that and have the Church declare Co-Redemptrix to mean that God without Mary, could not save mankind. This is false and I believe what Pope Francis is responding to.

 

[HarryStotle]

When Mother Angelica was still alive and doing her show, she explained Co-Redemptrix merely meant that the Blessed Mother, cooperated with God’s plan of salvation.

However, there were people who kept trying to take it beyond that and have the Church declare Co-Redemptrix to mean that God without Mary, could not save mankind. This is false and I believe what Pope Francis is responding to.

This is the part that seems to be the crux of the issue.

By saying God could “save mankind without Mary” the question would then come down to what extent could God save any individual human being without their cooperation?

I mean, “on paper” God would seem to have the power to save us without our cooperation, but could he? If he could, then why doesn’t he just save everyone right off? If God could not do so, not because of any limitations on his part but because our own cooperation is necessary, then to what extent was Mary’s unique cooperation required?

It is easy to assume that God did not need Mary to save humanity, but at an individual and particular level DOES God need each of us to save us, individually? Perhaps he does, since our willing cooperation with grace is required. If that is the case, then perhaps God needed Mary to save humanity precisely because he needed her to cooperate to the degree required to incarnate as a human being – just as he requires our cooperation to save us individually.

I wouldn’t give this idea so quick and simple a rejection.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I don’t really think this title is necessary. Personally, it wouldn’t do anything different for me in how I see Mary.

There comes a point, I think, where we tend to “over-title” the Blessed Mother. As if she’s earning merit badges with all the different names we’ve applied to her over the centuries.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But the point of Mary is that she agreed to become the mother of the Redeemer despite not having been with a man. She would then have to explain herself to her fiance St Joseph and of course her family and community. Remember, under the law she could’ve been stoned to death for having sex with someone other than her betrothed. In other words, her “yes,” to God required a level of faith beyond most of us.

Also, she would also have to raise Jesus in a sinless way, which people who are not full of grace as she was, lack the ability to do so.

 

[HarryStotle]

I don’t really think this title is necessary. Personally, it wouldn’t do anything different for me in how I see Mary.

There comes a point, I think, where we tend to “over-title” the Blessed Mother. As if she’s earning merit badges with all the different names we’ve applied to her over the centuries.

I suppose that would depend entirely upon where the impetus is for those titles. If the Holy Spirit, then there might be good reasons for such titles since they might inform the rest of us concerning what exactly the salvation/redemption of humankind implies and requires. What is the nature of redemption? Do we truly understand what it means to be redeemed or to have fallen in the first place?

How is redemption accomplished? Are we merely to trust that something unspecified happened or happens but we have no need to concern ourselves with it since it doesn’t concern us? That would be a peculiar notion, no?

Yet if redemption requires our cooperation, shouldn’t we become more aware of what redemption means for us and how we can best cooperate?

 

[steve-b]

“Co-Redemptrix”

If it hasn’t been posted already

Fr Serpa writes the following (all emphasis mine)

It will help if you understand what the Church means by such doctrines and what it does not mean. First, the Church recognizes that Jesus in the ultimate sense is our only redeemer—plain and simple. Only God could make up for an offense against his divinity. When Jesus, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man, he used the services of several human beings. He used prophets, the last of whom was his cousin, John the Baptist. He used St. Joseph as his foster father to protect him and to be a father to him in his formative years. Most of all, he used Mary as his mother who gave birth to him, nursed him, and nurtured him as a child. All of these people cooperated with him and his mission of salvation. He alone was the redeemer in the ultimate sense, but they cooperated with him in his work of redemption. In varying degrees they all could be called co-redeemers because of such cooperation. But because of her unique role and the degree of her cooperation, Mary is singled out. In all of humanity, God singled her out for a truly sublime role. Nursing Almighty God at her breast is beyond our ability to fully appreciate.Yet thousands of Christians since the Protestant reformation have completely ignored such sublimity. What is said of co-redemptrix is also true of mediatrix. Because these terms can be highly misleading, the Church has not infallibly proclaimed them. Nevertheless, God is the one who singled Mary out for the unique role in salvation that she has. She did not seek out such distinction. It is important to remember the high praise Jesus lavished on St. John the Baptist. Yet his mission was not nearly as exalted as Mary’s. Jesus worked his first miracle at her request. All she needed to say was: “They have no wine.” He understood exactly what she wanted. He could have taken care of the matter on his own. But he chose to have his mother’s intercession be a part of the mix. The miracle wasn’t any less significant because of her part in it. On the contrary, she shows us how accessible he is to our needs. To truly appreciate Mary is to appreciate her Son all the more. -Fr Vincent Serpa

 

[LateranBasilica]

That is, to my reading, what the Holy Father is saying.

 

[Hodos]

If one denies that Christians are moved by grace in a syngergistic manner to participate in Christ and Christ in us, perhaps.

I have no idea what you are talking about. While I am no sycophant of Pope Francis, I agree with the reasoning that he gave for why one should not create a dogma declaring Mary as co-redemptrix. He made a solid case saying that no apostle preached this, such dogma would go beyond what scripture says about Mary, and it would introduce confusion and unnecessary disagreement both within the Roman Catholic Church and in the wider Christian community as a whole. All of those seem to me to be solid reasons not to declare another de fide dogma that isn’t Christocentric.

 

[C.Longinus]

Hodos:

steph03:

Pope Francis says having Mary as co-redemptrix is foolishness … any thoughts?

This actually seems like a theologically sound response to me.

If one denies that Christians are moved by grace in a syngergistic manner to participate in Christ and Christ in us, perhaps.

The Orthodox are also confused by it, and they preach synergy.