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

[godisgood77]

No they don’t.

As has been posted already… Here’s Ratzinger on the subject " , “…the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings. …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. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.” VERY CLEAR

And Francis was more clear on the topic, saying that calling Mary co-redemptrix is foolishness.

Saying that it is not NO, but no to definition at this time is a bit like when my children don’t get the answer they want so they try again a few hours later. Both Ratzinger and Francis were crystal clear. They definitely don’t say pick it up again later…

The idea of co-redemptrix is not doctrine today as it has not definition. It is instead a poetic, loving devotion. Devotions are private and are meant for times and places, they are not doctrinal in nature. This idea falls in to the category of devotion… not doctrine.

 

[goout]

Hypotheticals fail to satisfy at any level beyond intellectual stimulation.
Asking what God could have done avoids the reality: God did what God did, and will do what God does. It serves no point to ask if Mary is necessary in God’s will. That reduces her to a utility. God chose Mary, and God chooses each one of us according to our own gifts. Mary’s gift is unique, as is everyone else’s, each in our way by God’s grace.
The only adequate response is gratitude and praise for what God did and does, not asking what if and why or woulda coulda shoulda.
If I were 7 foot tall I would be in the NBA, but I am 6’ and can’t dribble, praise God.

 

[goout]

And none of this detracts from Mary.
In fact, praise and honor respects the person as they are, not caricatures of them.
If your praise is to be authentic, it must know the person as they are. Going beyond ventures into flattery.
And that is not authentic respect and honor.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I have nothing to add the this excellent theological discussion, which seems to mostly support Pope Francis and clarify the issue, but I just want to remark on the Pope’s choice of words:

“When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras ],”

That is bright, forceful language, which has been one of the marks of this pontificate, and it’s a refreshing change.

 

[po18guy]

. . . . Mary has many titles already and each entirely appropriate. There is no higher praise to be given her than our Lord chose her to be His mother. Assigning or affixing “Co-redemptrix” strikes me as something which she does not desire.

IMO, it places the focus on her, when her focus is 100% on Christ.

 

[PenguinBeak]

According to this video, the reason why it would be beneficial to institute a fifth Marian Dogma is so that Mary can maximise her intercession.

 

[Cathoholic]

Godisgood77 . . . .

the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

Yes but “misunderstandings” can be overcome with a refined definition.

 

[Cathoholic]

godisgood77 . . .

The idea of co-redemptrix is not doctrine today

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, who WAS ASSOCIATED more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his REDEMPTIVE suffering. 457

godisgood77. Do you affirm
Jesus desires to associate His redeeming sacrifice with ANYBODY?

godisgood77. Do you affirm
His mother, the Vlessed Virgin Mary was more intimately associated with His redemptive suffering than anyone else?

godisgood77. Do you affirm a sword pirced the Blessed Virgin Mary’s soul too?

 

[Cathoholic]

po18guy . . .

I will draw some hate for this, but the Fatimanaics are also fringies.

WHO here has appealed to Fatima??

What are you talking about? (I did a word search on Fatima on this thread. The ONLY ONE to show up here who has even mentioned it?

YOU.)

.

Assigning or affixing “Co-redemptrix” strikes me as something which she does not desire.

Well that settles it. Your feelings rule the day here.

Forget about the Church teaching us that as least the doctrine (admitedly not necessarily the title) is desired by . . . . Jesus!

Here it is again . . .

CCC 618 excerpt In fact Jesus DESIRES to ASSOCIATE with his REDEEMING sacrifice** . . .

.

IMO, it places the focus on her, when her focus is 100% on Christ.

Not if it is properly defined.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I will draw some hate for this, but the Fatimanaics are also fringies. Go ahead and believe in the apparition - it is approved. But the level of devotion in some quarters borders on obsession. That cannot be healthy, in the spiritual sense.

As with so many exploited causes, just follow the money. Fatima has been co-opted by the Tradition, Family, Property “Corporation” (??? Needs Fatima) as a cash cow. Last year I discovered that they had gotten so much money sending appeals to my elderly mother with early dementia, I was livid. I have taken over handling my mothers finances now and all those money grubbing letters go straight in the bin. And our devotion to Our Lady of Fatima remains strong without paying those guys.

 

[Michael16]

Now, I deeply love our Blessed Mother. Devotion to her as the Mother of God and our spiritual mother in heaven was a huge draw in my journey home to the Church. I love the Blessed Virgin Mary and always will.

I think we should NEVER accommodate the Protestants by downplaying Our Lady.

But, in my Mariological reading; I’ve come across the ends of the Mariological spectrum: Maximalism and Minimalism. I agree that we need a via media in our Mariology.

My basic question here is: What exactly is the doctrine of the Co Redemptrix?

If I’m not mistaken, isn’t the essence of this doctrine the Our Lady offered up her Son at the Cross and thus co redeemed us with Christ?

 

[Nicene]

Actually this has nothing to do with placating protestants but with protecting authentic Catholic teaching with regard to Marian theology. Authentic understanding of co redemptrix (as in coredeemers which is shared by all the church i.e. the catechism) would be as the body of Christ (not the non catholic understanding of metaphor) as we participate in the suffering on the cross Col 1:24, offer our sufferings, and evangelization. Mary is our Model in this as the church states. She is also a typus of the Church. The 4 dogmas of Mary are our understanding of that model. When the overenthusiastic come to understand this and not use them to further our mother as the way to salvation, as a mediatrix (not “of all graces” which is added by those groups : read the dogma) or that “Our Lord ordained that no one shall obtain salvation except through her intercession.” (which is false) maybe people wouldn’t object as much.

Its the twisting of Marian doctrine which upsets people. Stop doing this and you would find more in your corner.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[po18guy]

. . . .

What benefit is there from “co-mediatrix”?

None.

Pope Benedict XVI saw no pressing need for it, and IIRC, did not think it entirely appropriate.

So, why the angst over a non-issue?

 

[po18guy]

YouTube has gone nuts with Fatima this and Fatima that. I think that Mother Mary is horrified with all of this.

 

[po18guy]

Sounds fishy. “Maximize her intercession”? AYKM?

She is the most perfect human ever created, sitting at her Son’s right hand, in the presence of God almighty.

And “We” want to maximize her intercession?

I thought that was called “prayer.” ???

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . .

What exactly is the doctrine of the Co Redemptrix?

It is where by grace Jesus desires to associate Himself in a very complete way to His sacrifice and redemptive work which culminated on Calvary.

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, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. 457

The Blessed Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, reflects that Jesus’s will in this was "achieved supremely in the case of his mother,".

A definitive definition would recognize that work of Jesus, and fulfill that desire of Jesus (assuming this definition is His desire) to recognize that acheivement of Jesus.

 

[Cathoholic]

po18guy . . .

What benefit is there from “co-mediatrix”?

Probably the same (in principle, not substance) as the Glorious Assumption. Or the Coronation. Or the Perpetual Virginity.

Probing truth deeper fulfills God’s desire. And grace flows from these means.

I won’t pretend to know the specifics.

That is part of what I defer to the Church.

And I defer on the definition too. For reasons that I have already outlined.

By the way. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a living type (“typus”) of the Church. So in expounding Marian doctrine, ecclesiology is being unpacked as well.

 

[Nicene]

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

I am going to assume you are quoting this out of zeal for your position and not out of subversion of church teaching or personal interpretation as that is the non catholic understanding of those v erses. The following verses and Jn 14:

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

is as scripture intended and God intended referring to the apostles and their successors as indicated in the plural of you and your to those present. But onto your verses

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.

Now the Church the successors have understood these verses as referring to the hierarchical nature of the church: Lumen Gentium: Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, (11*) presiding in place of God over the flock,(12*) whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.(13*) And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.

“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.”

So this is in error and private revelation because (see next post)

15 Cf. Jn. 16:13.

cont.

 

[Nicene]

And in Vatican 1 and 2 with regard to Papal Infallibility which is referenced here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html (scroll to bottom references 27-31)

Of course they could be wrong, which means they are fallibly teaching. Again I assume this is out of zeal and ignorance, not subversion. If you read that same document it states at the top regarding the people in section 2:

God, who is absolutely infallible, thus deigned to bestow upon His new people, which is the Church, a certain shared infallibility, which is restricted to matters of faith and morals, which is present when the whole People of God unhesitatingly holds a point of doctrine pertaining to these matters, and finally which always depends upon the wise providence and anointing of the grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth until the glorious coming of her Lord.(14) Concerning this infallibility of the People of God the Second Vatican Council speaks as follows: “The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural instinct of faith which characterizes the people as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, ‘from the bishops down to the last member of the laity’ (St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. , 14, 27), it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”(15)

Now it is clear that the whole Church does not believe this and hasn’t from its inception when the Dominicans opposed the Franciscans. A vocal minority is pushing for it again and can be evidenced in this thread. The whole church and even Bishops are divided on it. Ergo, not united, not always believed, ergo not dogma nor will it be as this has always had the same problem.

Again I assume you are not going to reinterpret these verses but rather did it out of zeal.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[stpurl]

I’m doing nothing except asking that people respect our blessed Mother. I have been extremely careful to state over and over that I am not commenting at all upon the specific statements of "co-Redemptrix’, so I’d appreciate not getting a finger wag to ‘stop doing’ something I’m not doing in the first place, thanks.