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

[Mishakel]

Protestants are spot on when we are accused of idolatry when things like this are promulgated. She did not redeem us (co-redemptrix) And there is a reason the church in her wisdom never adopted such.

I am really curious if some of the most famous Catholic debaters will now change their stance on the title co-redemptrix. It doesn’t change anything for me as I am a Protestant but it is very interesting. I can’t help but think this Pope has a lot of Catholic debaters scratching their heads with a lot of his comments. This just being the latest one.

 

[steph03]

fide:

Mary having co-operated in our redemption with so much glory to God and so much love for us, Our Lord ordained that no one shall obtain salvation except through her intercession.’
–St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

This is actually a problem. When did Jesus ever say no one gets to heaven except through Mary? We get to heaven through Jesus sacrifice on the cross and no other way.

Protestants are spot on when we are accused of idolatry when things like this are promulgated …

Of course that is not even close to being accurate. Protestant with a zero-sum theology (similar to Islam) cannot comprehend the theology corectly.

Maybe we should revise what is actually the theology that is being talked about (rather than interpreting ourselves what we think is being talked about)

Are You Afraid Of Mary "Co-redemptrix"?

By Dr. Mark Miravalle Professor of Theology and Mariology What is your first response when you hear someone refer to the mother of Jesus Christ as the

www.patheos.com

 

[njlisa]

@fide

While heading the Congregation for the Doctrine or the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated:

“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him,” Ratzinger said. “The word ‘co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin."

You can find the link to this quote in @steph03’s original post.

+++++++++++++++++

@stpurl: I would never downplay the Blessed Mother. She is my Mother. She is Our Mother, I love her. She is essential to salvation history. I was raised a Protestant and received into the R.C. Church. The Blessed Mother embraced me. And she has never stopped.

 

[stpurl]

As one who is consecrated to our Lady (De Montfort) I will certainly defend her. I am not weighing in on the Coredemptrix title itself because again that is up to a final definition by the Church, 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. These are often the same who either downplay Jesus “Just a good man you know” or Christianity itself “Intolerant batards who took a pure simple message of a good man and twisted it into a satanic organization”. These are the people who on the one hand hold up “GOD ONLY” and “Me and Jesus” as the only way, yet at the same time are quick to either Calvinistically make ‘all men dung heaps’, ‘all women tainted’, or else in an excess of Universalism make all people ‘godly’. No NEED for Jesus to save us, we save ourselves because God will take us just as we are’, no need for the ‘incubator’ of ‘the human nature’ that Jesus just ‘dropped’ when He returned to Heaven, etc, etc.

We do not give Jesus enough honor and glory because we don’t give His mother enough honor and glory (not to mention His Foster Father, who is either ignored or considered to have just ‘gone on with a normal life’ i.e. sex and half-brothers/half-sisters before conveniently dying off camera), etc. No wonder our human families are fracturing. No longer do we hold up the Holy Family for anything other than sneering speculation regarding how ‘different’ they were from ‘tradition’, or to complain that they are simply ‘too different’ from ‘reality’. (The fact that the two positions directly contradict each other doesn’t matter, only the quarrelsome and ‘they aren’t relevant’ attitude matters).

It’s a sad story when on Catholic Forums, and with intelligent Catholics as contributors, that we still keep getting the message about how ‘nothing really matters, especially ‘petty things’ about Mary’. When people are so quick to say what they think Mary says or does (so coincidentally it is what THEY THEMSELVES think or do) or to demand that everybody just ‘shut up’. . .

Well, I’ll continue to give Mary and Jesus the honor and glory they deserve, whether people think it is offensive to non-Catholics (or offensive to them as Catholics) or whatever. Not to be quarrelsome but to be the witness that I’m called to be. Mary is Queen, Christ is King. God wills it.

 

[TMC]

I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not… but to be clear, no one even hinted at praying the Hail Mary being a foolish thing. Pope Francis’ devotion to Mary has been on full display since day 1 of his pontificate.

In this statement he is showing that inflated and confusing titles is not a good thing. This is inline with Pope Emeritus Benedict on the topic.

It is inline with the Church’s consistent teaching. I believe the question has been expressly put in front of the last four Popes (maybe more), and each has given the same response.

 

[Mishakel]

Of course that is not even close to being accurate. Protestant with a zero-sum theology (similar to Islam) cannot comprehend the theology corectly.

Are you saying any Protestant is unable to comprehend all the theologies surrounding Mary?

 

[Cathoholic]

Mishakel . . . .

I am really curious if some of the most famous Catholic debaters will now change their stance on the title co-redemptrix.

Why should they?

Just because the Pope does not think right now is appropriate to solemnly put a definition to what we ALREADY HAVE as doctrine, would not change their view on the title.

They can continue to ask for it, delay, or stop asking, for this more precise definition and offical title. (Off topic so I won’t develop it on this thread, but solemn proclamations such as this will open the Church to more graces).

But since the doctrine never changes, I doubt these Catholic debaters will “change their stance”.

I suppose they could (on the title), but not the doctrine (at least as we already have it laid out in Christianity, albeit in a largely undeveloped form).

.

It doesn’t change anything for me as I am a Protestant . . .

Yeah. It doesn’t change anything for me either with me being a Catholic Christian.

 

[otjm]

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.

The Vatican 2 drafts of the schema did not describe Mary as Co-Redemptrix. There was a booklet dated October 4, 1963 which was circulated by the Servites (Order of the Servants of Mary) suggesting that if the reference to the titles of Mary were to be included in the schema, than an additional title of Co-Redemptrix be included. I have no information as to how widely the booklet was circulated. However, the title Mediatrix Of All Graces was under tremendous discussion as to whether it would be included, and if so, what discussion might be included as to its meaning and extent.

Other than the booklet (which was not a part of any version of the schema), the term was not used in any versions of the schema.

Cardinal Silva Henriquez of Santiago de Chile, in addressing the Council and speaking on behalf of 44 Latin American bishops said that the devotion to the Virgin Mary in those countries at times went beyond the bounds of Christian devotion.

The whole approach to how the Council would address Mary not only included discussion of her titles, but also whether or not the Council would make the discussion of Mary into a separate document or make it part of the document on the Church. But the title of Co-Redemptrix, while discussed outside of the sessions at the various meetings of groups of bishops, was not included in the schemas - in other words, not in depth. The depth appears to have been around the title of Mediatrix Of All Graces, part of the original schema.

One of the points made against Mediatrix Of All Graces was how the Virgin could be the Mediatrix of the sacramental graces flowing from the very nature of the sacraments themselves. In other words, rather than be a benefit, it would result in much confusion. In the final document, “of all graces” was removed.

In the document the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 62 sets out her titles (with a footnote to documents and speeches of Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII) in Vatican Council II vol. 1 revised. She is referred to as “Mediatrix”.

As to whether it was a concern about confusing non-Catholics, or both they and Catholics could be debated, sourcing any materials from the numerous bishops’ conferences and floor discussions at the Council. I suspect that there was concern for all, Catholics and non-Catholics as the issue “of all graces” can illustrate.

 

[Cathoholic]

Very informative post otjm. Thank you for all that information.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

As an Orthodox Christian I have no problem with the title. St. Irenaeus puts great emphasis on Mary’s role in salvation. But as far as I’m aware isn’t co-redemptrix a theologoumenon in the RCC?

 

[Mishakel]

Why should they?

So you’re saying it’s ok as a Catholic to disagree with the Pope concerning the titles that should be or not be bestowed upon Mary? Isn’t the Pope’s so called infallibility coming into play when speaking about dogmas? Isn’t the Pope saying that this title of co-redemptrix not be a dogma? It’s going to be really confusing if you take the stance the Pope isn’t speaking ex cathedra when this title pertains to a belief espoused to Mary.

Just because the Pope does not think right now is appropriate to solemnly put a definition to what we ALREADY HAVE as doctrine, would not change their view on the title.

I’m not sure why you bolded the words but co-redemptrix isn’t a dogma of the Catholic church. Mother of God, assumption into Heaven, perpetual virginity, and the immaculate conception are the 4 dogmas regarding Mary. Which is always fascinating because up until 1950 a member of the Catholic church could not believe in the assumption to Heaven and still be in good standing. Now they must believe or be anathema.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Which is always fascinating because up until 1950 a member of the Catholic church could not believe in the assumption to Heaven and still be in good standing

Not true at all; they could certainly believe it it. It just wasn’t required to believe in it (i.e., it wasn’t a dogma). But belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption or Dormition has been part of the Christian tradition for a very long time. It just wasn’t defined as a dogma in the Catholic Church until 1950.

Or were you saying that one could still be in good standing even if he did not believe in the Assumption, up until 1950? That would be true, technically, although as mentioned above, belief in the Assumption or Dormition was far from a new idea in 1950.

 

[Mishakel]

Or were you saying that one could still be in good standing even if he did not believe in the Assumption, up until 1950?

That’s what I meant

 

[MagdalenaRita]

the term was not used in any versions of the schema.

But the title of Co-Redemptrix, while discussed outside of the sessions at the various meetings of groups of bishops, was not included in the schemas - in other words, not in depth.

Yes, I probably didn’t word my post well but that is pretty much was I meant.

 

[steph03]

steph03:

Of course that is not even close to being accurate. Protestant with a zero-sum theology (similar to Islam) cannot comprehend the theology corectly.

Are you saying any Protestant is unable to comprehend all the theologies surrounding Mary?

Like I said… Protestants with a Zero-sum theology Would probably not be able to understand it. I know it was my case when I was in the Protestant faith for 40 years… including as deacon and elder…

Some Protestants with a more apostolic participation theology would probably figure it out.

 

[fide]

“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him,” Ratzinger said. “The word ‘co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin ."

Many would say that parables “obscure” the Truth of Christ and the Gospel - and scriptures such as Joseph “knew her not untill she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” obscure Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and so on. Much truth is hidden from those who do not seek Truth.

 

[fide]

This is actually a problem. When did Jesus ever say no one gets to heaven except through Mary? We get to heaven through Jesus sacrifice on the cross and no other way.

If you are seeking Scriptural “proof”, I suggest you listen long and hard to this promise of Jesus to His Church:

Jn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Jn 16:8 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Jn 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Jn 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more;
Jn 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Jn 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Jn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Jn 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus did not reveal ALL - the Spirit would have His own part in the Gospel…
The Spirit reveals spiritual things to some who are spiritual - who can hear and receive sublime truths intended for the whole Church.

 

[EndTimes]

Who here said the Blessed Virgin Mary was “on an Equal Footing with Jesus with regard to Redemption”?

Don’t matter - I’m making sure that any who think that - and some do - know Catholic Teachings…

 

[Cathoholic]

Mishakel . . .

Isn’t the Pope’s so called infallibility coming into play when speaking about dogmas?

First of all Mishakel, I am not saying if I “agree” or “disagree” with the Pope here. OK?

The Pope can speak with the charism of infallibility to be sure.

But the Church teaches those are under very specific circumstances.

And when doing this, he has to make his manifest will (that he is speaking in such a manner) known.

Somebody MIGHT agree with this Pope NOT doing the definition, but still, for example having another Pope define this.

Others might agree, the world needs more catechesis, THEN it should be defined at THAT time.

Others might think CATHOLICS need more catechesis, THEN define it.

Pope Francis gave his prudential provisional reasons.
This closes the door on nothing (except what he is or is not going to do right now).

I have already shown you this is Christian doctrine. Not as well-developed as some other Christian doctrines perhaps, but doctrine it is.

Pope Francis never disputes that either.

.

It’s going to be really confusing if you take the stance the Pope isn’t speaking ex cathedra when this title pertains to a belief espoused to Mary.

Well hopefully you or others will be less confused now.

If you want, begin a thread on Papal infallibility and I might join in and dig up the quotes again (I’ve done some of it before, but this was prior to changing the CAF format so searches are tougher. If you want see Vatican I and Vatican II docs.).

 

[Cathoholic]

Mishakel . . .

I’m not sure why you bolded the words but co-redemptrix isn’t a dogma of the Catholic church.

But I didn’t say it was a “dogma”.

I said it was a “doctrine”.

And I posted the doctrinal teachings from Church documents.

Here is some of that post again.

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.

.

Which is always fascinating because up until 1950 a member of the Catholic church could not believe in the assumption to Heaven and still be in good standing. Now they must believe or be anathema.

To whom much is given, much is required.

When development of doctrine gets authoritatively defined in a clearer manner, we are expected to assent to that.