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

[commenter]

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.

The problem with this video, and this scholar in general, is the partial reliance on private revelations to build an argument for defining a dogma, referring to public revelation.

The purpose of private revelation is to aid in one’s personal devotional life. It adds nothing to our certain knowledge of God, or of Mary.

 

[steph03]

steph03:

Not accurate…

Are you saying the way to The Father is not thru Jesus?

I saw your video and there is a difference in participating with helping someone and knowing what you need… Mary helps, she isnt a need.

Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father.

I’m wondering if you understand what I mean… and why I said some people here are one Pope away from saying Mary is your Redeemer, your Savior.

I’m just saying… becareful you dont cross line from honoring and worshiping.

Let’s be clear, if Mary is so special it is precisely because of Christ. without Christ we have nothing and are hopelessly lost. Honoring and venerating Mary is awesome, worshiping Mary is not. Mary is not divine. But she is the greatest of God’s creatures.

And because of Christ, Mary is indeed special and worthy of the titles given to her. The fact remain that Mary was.the conduit that gave Jesus his body and blood that were sacrificed for our salvation.

 

[commenter]

Infallibility of a Pope doesn’t pretain to everything he says. It pretains to when he says something from the seat of Peter. Which has only been used like 4 or 5 times in Church

The Ordinary Magisterium has been a factor in the reign of all the Popes. It’s not something “used like 4 or 5 times”.

We don’t know how many times popes were leaning towards defining some dogma, but were held back from doing so.

Perhaps St JP2 was considering making this dogma…but he didn’t.
Perhaps Pope Pius 11 was considering making something else dogma…but he was prevented from doing so.

There may well be a dozen or two Wannabe dogmas, that some group declared at the time to be totally essential for definition, that never got to be dogmas, and are now mostly forgotten. Those incidents are examples of infallibility “working”.

 

[Michael16]

Okay, guys.

I’ve gone over the section in “ Mariology: A guide for priests, deacons, seminarians and consecrated persons. “ concerning Mary, Co Redemptrix.

Essentially, this book says that the doctrine began all the way back with Saint Irenaeus.

The basic doctrine is that Our Lady cooperated with the Redemption Our Lord affected with the Incarnation, His Life ( Private and Public ) and cosuffering with Him on the Cross.

With that in mind, we see the basis for the doctrine and it’s history all the way back to Saint Irenaeus and then all the way to V2.

I have no problem at all with Co Redemptrix. I think it makes sense and is an appropriate title for Our Lady.

However: I can see why neither V2 or the Holy Fathers following V2 never defined it as dogma. The book stated that the Council of V2 refrained from making it dogma is because of ecumenical sensitivity regarding Protestants. They misunderstand so much Marian doctrine already and we don’t need to add to it.

As for ecumenical dialogue with Protestants: My suggestion for my fellow Catholics is that we start with Mother of God, Mother of the Church and, this one really helped me out explaining Marian intercession with my Lutheran family; “ Mom, can you talk to Dad for us? “ as a basis for helping them understand us. These two Marian concepts and the simplification of prayer to Our Lady could work beautifully to lay out a foundation to explain to them the rest of our dogmas and doctrine regarding Our Lady.

The other reason I can see why it’s never been dogmatically defined is because that we already have it as doctrine.

My subsequent question would be: Why does it need to be made dogma?

 

[Cathoholic]

From Dr. Robert Fastiggi in La Stampa . . .

. . . The six prelates believe the new dogma will help to complete the Church’s teaching about Mary, which is already expressed by the four dogmas of her perpetual virginity, her dignity as the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, and her glorious Assumption body and soul into heaven. What is needed is a solemn affirmation of the Virgin Mary’s “human but crucial role in God’s plan of salvation, as the New Eve next to the New Adam, as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity.”

The petition of the six bishops to define Mary’s coredemptive role is not the first time this has been proposed. During Vatican I (1869–1870), the French bishop, Jean Laurent, requested a dogmatic definition of Mary as Coredemptrix. The Council, though, did not believe the theology of Marian coredemption was sufficiently mature to make a formal statement. . . .

. . . John XXIII, however, did not want any new definitions made at the Council. The Blessed Mother is not referred to as Coredemptrix in chapter eight of Lumen gentium (which is on Mary). She is, however, referred to as Mediatrix in Lumen gentium, 62, but not Mediatrix of all graces. The 1962 draft on Mary (which formed the basis for Lumen gentium, chapter eight of 1964) referred to Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces, and it referred to her as “Coredemptrix” in two footnotes. Because of ecumenical concerns, however, the footnotes to Mary as Coredemptrix were dropped, and the title, Mediatrix of all graces was changed to simply “Mediatrix.”

Although Vatican II chose not to refer to Mary as Coredemptrix, some theologians, such as Jean Galot, S.J and Georges Cottier, O.P., have argued that Lumen gentium affirms the doctrine of Marian coredemption without using the title, Coredemptrix (see Galot in La Civilità Cattolica [1994] III: 236-237 and Cottier, in L’Osservatore Romano, June 4, 2002). Pius XI (r. 1922–1939) was the first Pope to refer publicly to Mary as Coredemptrix, and John Paul II publicly called Mary “Coredemptrix” at least six times, and he called Mary “Mediatrix of all graces” at least seven times. Benedict XVI also referred to Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces” in his January 10, 2012 letter to Archbishop Zimowski, who was representing the Holy See for the World Day of the Sick . . . .

. . . . Some Catholics, however, have reservations about the wisdom of such a dogmatic proclamation. In August 1996, during the twelfth International Mariological Congress held at Częstochowa (Poland), a group of 23 theologians—including three Orthodox, one Anglican, and one Lutheran—met briefly and issued a statement advising against the dogmatic proclamation. In addition to ecumenical concerns, they said Marian titles such as “Coredemptrix’ were ‘ambiguous’ and in need of greater study and clarification (L’Osservatore Romano June 4, 1997).

This non-magisterial judgment of an ad hoc group of theologians has not stopped those favoring the dogmatic proclamation. . . .

Two Cardinals and Four Other Bishops Ask Pope Francis to Proclaim New Marian Dogma - La Stampa.

 

[Cathoholic]

And Dave Armstrong citing Dr. Fastiggi (from a correspondence) as well . . .

. . . Pope Francis also makes numerous references to the “intercession” of Mary.

My friend, systematic theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, has expressed himself in correspondence regarding this controversy. He has written articles about Marian coredemption, and was president of the Mariological Society of America from 2014-2016. Dr. Fastiggi gave me permission to cite his words:

Pope Francis was not forbidding the Marian title of co-redemptrix, and he was not closing the door to further theological development. . . .

The headline [of the Crux article] is misleading. The Holy Father does not use the term “co-redemptrix” in the paragraph in which he speaks of “foolishness” (toneteras). That comes six paragraphs later. . . .

Here is the paragraph in which Pope Francis speaks of foolishness:

Cuando nos vengan con historias de que había que declararla esto, o hacer este otro dogma o esto, no nos perdamos en tonteras: María es mujer, es Nuestra Señora, María es Madre de su Hijo y de la Santa Madre Iglesia jerárquica y María es mestiza, mujer de nuestros pueblos, pero que mestizó a Dios.

When they come to us with stories about having to declare this, or make this or that other dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness. Mary is woman, she is Our Lady, Mary is the Mother of her Son and of the Holy Mother hierarchical Church and Mary is mestiza , the woman of our peoples, but also mestizó to God.” (my translation).

Pope Francis does not say declaring Mary to be co-redemptrix is foolishness. It seems that [he] wants us to approach Mary first as our Mother and not get lost in requests for dogmas. In this he’s like St. John XXIII who received many petitions to define Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces” at Vatican II but made it clear he did not want any new dogmas proclaimed at the council.

It would be foolishness to get so lost in requests for dogmas that we become distracted from loving Mary as our Mother, Our Lady, and the Mother of the Church. This in itself, though, does not preclude further theological development in Marian doctrines by Pope Francis or future popes. It also does not preclude a proper use of the term, co-redemptrix in reference to Mary (a term used publicly by Pius XI and St. John Paul II).

Bold mine.

Pope Francis Vs. The Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? | Dave Armstrong

 

[Michael16]

I see your point, @Cathoholic.

The Holy Father essentially says: “ Hey, slow down your roll, guys. Let’s not go crazy here. “

I heartily agree with the Holy Father.

That, and I remember that other posters have said that each Holy Father approached for a dogmatic definition has said: Not yet. Not no.

Patience, young Padawans.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . .

The Holy Father essentially says: “ Hey, slow down your roll, guys. Let’s not go crazy here. “

I heartily agree with the Holy Father.

If the Holy Father asked me (he wouldn’t but if he did), I would suggest to him . . . .

"Holy Father. Do NOT define anything unless your heart is in it.

Just by virtue of you thinking this should not be defined at this time,
tells me you are correct Holy Father.

This sublime definition should NOT be put forth under your pontificate, at least at this time."

 

[Michael16]

I agree, @Cathoholic.

I would also add: “ Holy Father, I would respectfully add that you should allow the sensus fidei to build to an appropriate level. “

 

[Cathoholic]

Good point @Michael16.

There is an element from the clergy,
and an element from the laity
in putting forth such dogmatic definitions.

 

[pnewton]

I have always believe such a declaration would be foolish before, so I have no issue with him stating what I see as obvious. I sure don’t blame him for not wanting any part of moving more titles to Mary, titles that add nothing to her, teach little, and confuse a lot.

 

[commenter]

Good point @Michael16.

There is an element from the clergy,
and an element from the laity
in putting forth such dogmatic definitions.

In the age of the internet, it is much easier to create a “buzz” or bandwagon effect than ever before.

Every bandwagon feels that this bandwagon is from the Holy Spirit, as compared to others, which are just peed pressure, or “What’s Trending Now”.

Every bandwagon feels the job of the assigned administrator (pastor, bishop, pope) is to merely to rubber-stamp this trend. If the administrator fails to rubber-stamp it they feel this veto cannot possibly be the work of the Spirit.

Every bandwagon assumes its momentum cannot possibly come from anything other than the sensus fidei.

 

[Cathoholic]

commenter . . . .

In the age of the internet, it is much easier to create a “buzz” or bandwagon effect than ever before.

You understand though,
that the call from bishops AND the laity to
solemnly define Our Lady’s role
as Coredemtrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate
began BEFORE “the age of the internet” right?

 

[commenter]

I know that, and it’s a valid point.

But of the various issues that have a long pre-internet history, there can be a temptation to (suddenly) bump up one issue, and not some others.

Do you think LSN would be headlining the Co Redemptrix topic if this pope had said it should be a dogma, or if then Pope Benedict had said it shouldn’t be a dogma?

Who knew LSN had such a long standing interest in this topic?

 

[Cathoholic]

commenter . . . .

In the age of the internet, it is much easier to create a “buzz” or bandwagon effect than ever before.

Cathoholic . . .

You understand though,
that the call from bishops AND the laity to
solemnly define Our Lady’s role
as Coredemtrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate
began BEFORE “the age of the internet” right?

commenter . . .

Do you think LSN would be headlining . . .

I don’t think LifeSiteNews has even been mentioned on this thread has it?

We are 225 posts into a thread here and you are going to drag LifeSiteNews into this??

It is irrelevant what LSN posts concerning the veracity of this doctrine.

Why move the goalposts?

You asked about the possibility of a “bandwagon” effect from the Internet. (Not about LSN.)

I (correctly) pointed out that this movement to solemnly define the Blessed Virgin Mary (as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate) has been around for a long time.

I showed the prophet Simeon in Scripture (and the CCC footnoting this prophecy in the context of coredemption – most especially as it pertains to the Blessed Virgin Mary).

I showed where it was discussed BEFORE Vatican ONE.

I showed the Church discussing it in the early 1900’s.

I quoted sources BEFORE the Internet (and for that matter before LifeSiteNews came into existence).

I showed Vatican II refer EXPLICITLY to the Blessed Mother as “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” and the CCC matter-of-factly discuss the Blessed Virgin Mary and how Jesus associates Her with His REDEMPTION (which implies Coredemptrix) in the CCC.

And now you want to debate about the motives of LifeSiteNews??

Really?

.

Addendum: I did a thread search for
LSN,
LifeSiteNews,
LifeSite,
and “Life Site”,
and found absolutely NO MENTION of any of them on this thead up until the last two posts (and my mention was in response to the penultimate or past post here so far).

 

[Lysander]

The idea that everything a Pope says is infallible is not Church teaching and gives Catholics and non-Catholics the wrong idea.

Here is a look on the difinition;

When Does the Pope Speak Infallibly? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[Gorgias]

Parenthetical addition mine.

Agreed. You’ve added to the teaching, here.

Do you think Jesus wants to associate His redemptive sacrifice on Calvary with ANY of humanity?

And if yes, do you affirm this is preeminently true (“supremely”) concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary exactly as CCC 618 states and that it was “achieved”?

And if yes, would this be a grace consistent with the Divine will (“Jesus desires”)?

None of this is “co-redemptrix”, though.

Good point @Michael16.

There is an element from the clergy ,
and an element from the laity
in putting forth such dogmatic definitions .

I would just remind ya’ll that there were clergy and laity who wished dogmatic definitions that Jesus wasn’t really God, back in the day. Just sayin’…

 

[Cathoholic]

@Gorgias. You still not have answered the questions.

Here they are again.

Do you think Jesus wants to associate His redemptive sacrifice on Calvary with ANY of humanity?

And if yes, do you affirm this is preeminently true (“supremely”) concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary exactly as CCC 618 states and that it was “achieved”?

And if yes, would this be a grace consistent with the Divine will (“Jesus desires”)?

.

For everybody else, here is exactly what the CCC says again (with bold mine) . . . .

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

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . . .

I have always believe such a declaration would be foolish before, so I have no issue with him stating what I see as obvious. I sure don’t blame him for not wanting any part of moving more titles to Mary, titles that add nothing to her, teach little, and confuse a lot.

pnewton. Did you read the full thread before you posted this?

From Dr. Fastiggi (here) . . .

The headline [of the Crux article] is misleading. The Holy Father does not use the term “co-redemptrix” in the paragraph in which he speaks of “foolishness” (toneteras). That comes six paragraphs later . . . .

Here is the paragraph in which Pope Francis speaks of foolishness:

Cuando nos vengan con historias de que había que declararla esto, o hacer este otro dogma o esto, no nos perdamos en tonteras: María es mujer, es Nuestra Señora, María es Madre de su Hijo y de la Santa Madre Iglesia jerárquica y María es mestiza, mujer de nuestros pueblos, pero que mestizó a Dios.

When they come to us with stories about having to declare this, or make this or that other dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness. Mary is woman, she is Our Lady, Mary is the Mother of her Son and of the Holy Mother hierarchical Church and Mary is mestiza , the woman of our peoples, but also mestizó to God.” (my translation).

Pope Francis does not say declaring Mary to be co-redemptrix is foolishness.

Bold mine.

 

[Michael16]

I’m not sure where the argument is here, guys. I keep seeing a lot of repeating the same points and @Cathoholic is driving the point home hard for a dogmatic definition.

No one, I feel; has answered my question: Why do we need to dogmatically define Co Redemptrix?

As for an earlier poster saying something to the effect of: “ If we define it as dogma; it maximizes Our Lady’s intercession. “

My answer to that is: Since it’s already true, it doesn’t maximize anything to dogmatically define it.