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

[pnewton]

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

Heck no, but then I said I (not the Pope) thought it was foolish, and I would not blame the Pope for wanting any part of titles that teach little, and confuse a lot.

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

We could always just follow St. Paul. " And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . .

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. “

I am not saying we “need it”.

In the context of titles of Mediatrix and Advocate Vatican II says . . . .

. . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. [16] . . .

. . . The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer. - Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 62)

. . . The same is probably true regarding invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of coredemptrix too.

 

[Michael16]

@Cathoholic

Your quotation of Lumen Gentium, I think; advocates cleaving to Our Lady under those titles in order to better adhere to Our Lord. Rather than directly stating Co Redemptrix.

Rather like to Jesus through Mary of Saint Louis de Montfort.

I’m not saying anything against Co Redemptrix; I’m just asking questions and seeking clarification.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . . .

Your quotation of Lumen Gentium, I think; advocates cleaving to Our Lady under those titles in order to better adhere to Our Lord. . . .

That’s the point. (Or at least part of it. Another part is to unpack the Christologic implications. If you want to see those, look at the CCC or times when Popes explicitly called our Blessed Mother by the title of coredemptrix.)

so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer. - Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 62)

 

[Michael16]

@Cathoholic

Okay. So I’m understanding you right. Good.

My next thought is:

Since we know Co Redemptrix is true, I’m thinking we should just be patient and let the sensus fidei to grow to where it needs to be. That and we do the necessary groundwork to take on the Protestants when they inevitably will try to attack Co Redemptrix.

They’ll charge us that we teach two Redeemers.

As for the Christological implications to unpack; what are those?

Under this title, the only Christology I see is that Our Lady cooperated with Jesus from the Annunciation all the way to Descent of the Holy Spirit.

That and Our Lady would show the way as example of how to add our sufferings to Jesus on the Cross.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . . .

Since we know Co Redemptrix is true, I’m thinking we should just be patient and let the sensus fidei to grow to where it needs to be.

I have no issue with that. And the Pope is the one to decide this.

I have already said, based upon what Pope Francis has said, he should not define it.

Here it is again . . .

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. "

.

.

That and we do the necessary groundwork to take on the Protestants when they inevitably will try to attack Co Redemptrix.

They’ll charge us that we teach two Redeemers.

Some anti-Catholics already charge this Michael16.

(I have an anti-Catholic video that misuses a Catholic female saint crucified, to imply this.)

Remember. The Popes have ALREADY taught The Blessed Virgin Mary as coredemptrix.

Saint Pope John Paul II the Great, used it several times. Other Popes have used this title too.

The Blessed Mother as coredemptrix would not be a new title. (Some of the examples of this I have already posted above.)

What would be new is defining it further to help DISPEL confusion.

 

[Michael16]

@Cathoholic

Again, I have no problem with Co Redemptrix. I understand and accept it.

As for Protestants: I’m not afraid of them. I’ll happily engage them in apologetics. I’d be like Master Yoda plowing through droid soldiers with a lightsaber. That lightsaber is the Word of God. After understanding the Catholic definition of justification by faith; I know that Scripture is OUR ground and they can’t reasonably stand against a well informed Catholic strong in his Faith who knows his Scripture and Catechism and employs common sense.

My next question is: How would defining it DISPEL confusion?

Protestants misunderstand so much of our Marian doctrine anyway. The other problem is that one can explain the truth until you’re blue in the face and they’ll still hold onto their views.

 

[Cathoholic]

How would defining it DISPEL confusion?

Presumably the same way other such definitions have helped (for those that want to take the time to read from original sources, pray and meditate on them, etc.). At least they have helped me.

I trust the Church, that the added precision would be of benefit if the Pope in the future defines this.

 

[Michael16]

@Cathoholic

I’m not trying to be a stubborn jerk. I’m still not seeing how the confusion would be dispelled.

You’re talking to a veteran of apologetics battles against a well trained LCMS apologist who’s studying for his tradition’s diaconate.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16 . . .

I’m not trying to be a stubborn jerk. I’m still not seeing how the confusion would be dispelled.

Nor am I. But I can’t possibly say how (the way I want) unless I have the definition.

But go back and look at the sources where it is already discussed and you can probably derive for yourself a good part of it.

Gotta go! Good visiting.

 

[Michael16]

Good visiting too, @Cathoholic. Night!

 

[EndTimes]

Shows a fundamental lack of knowledge re: What the GOSPEL is saying…

Which, has naught to do whether one believes it or not

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Ah, but you do know why you wouldn’t make it in the NBA.

So, knowing what redemption is and our role in our own redemption (and Mary’s role in the redemption of humanity) is merely a matter of “woulda coulda shoulda?”

Wouldn’t knowing what is necessary for redemption be akin to knowing what is necessary for making it into the NBA? Which apparently you do claim to know.

So, to be consistent you apparently also know the answer to what redemption is which permits you to move to “woulda coulda shoulda.”

The questions to you, then, are 1) What is redemption? 2) What does anyone need to do to be redeemed? and 3) How does anyone know with any degree of certainty whether or not they have been redeemed?

I suspect the “woulda coulda shoulda” only applies after those crucial answers have been spelled out, as in “Well, I woulda coulda shoulda been redeemed but… I am 6’ and can’t dribble (or fill in any more appropriate ‘but’ in the place of your original one.”

 

[Gorgias]

@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”)?

Here’s the thing: I don’t think that the answers to these questions establish “co-redemptrix”. Most of the Scriptural footnotes to this part of the CCC points to Apostolic sharing in suffering. If you’re gonna make the claim that this doctrinally establishes a “co-redemptrix” dogma, you’re gonna have two problems to explain away:

• are the Apostles, likewise, co-redeemers?
• if the Apostles aren’t co-redeemers, then is Mary’s suffering – which the CCC only distinguishes by degree and not by character – really distinct from the Apostles (or from ours)?

If you can’t answer these with sufficient force, then you must abandon your claim that this part of the CCC reflects a prior doctrine of “co-redemptrix”.

Since we know Co Redemptrix is true, I’m thinking we should just be patient and let the sensus fidei to grow to where it needs to be.

Oh… that’s a rather dangerous proposition, don’t you think? What you’re really saying is that a whole ton of doctrine is already established and true, and is only waiting for the body of Christ to catch up to it! So, by that notion, I can claim just about anything as doctrinal truth, and merely shrug and say “ya’ll just aren’t advanced enough to see it yet”. I think that this is beyond problematic…

Remember. The Popes have ALREADY taught The Blessed Virgin Mary as coredemptrix.

Not dogmatically, though. Are you willing to concede every utterance of every pope – that is, everything they’ve “taught” – as dogma? One hopes not.

 

[Michael16]

Ouch, @Gorgias.

I’m not saying or even implying what you said in response to me.

All I’m saying is: Based on my reading in a Mariological textbook’s definition of Co Redemptrix by leading Mariologists is that Co Redemptrix is Scripturally sound and I understand their basis for the doctrine.

Past that: What I’m advising is twofold.

1: We allow the sensus fidei, or mind of the Church; to build up to a point where dogmatic definition is advisable. Not: “ I’m smarter than all you blanks are and I’m waiting on you all to catch up to my rarefied level of understanding. “ Not at all. I may be a jerk, but I’m not THAT much of a Pharisee.

2: I feel we need to do some basic apologetics groundwork to lay out an apologetical basis to refute the inevitable Protestant attack before we dogmatically define Co Redemptrix.

 

[Gorgias]

Ouch, @Gorgias.

I’m not saying or even implying what you said in response to me.

OK.

That’s what it sounded like, though!

We allow the sensus fidei, or mind of the Church; to build up to a point where dogmatic definition is advisable.

Fair enough. It’s still dangerous, though: it means that we might assert that there’s a whole body of dogma – even greater than currently asserted – that’s just waiting for assent, right? That’s problematic, I think.

I feel we need to do some basic apologetics groundwork to lay out an apologetical basis to refute the inevitable Protestant attack before we dogmatically define Co Redemptrix.

This is where I entered the conversation, I think. I’m skeptical about this approach. We know that we have a really good apologetics groundwork that’s been laid out for existing dogma, and there are still those who (for polemic reasons) mischaracterize Catholic teaching, despite this groundwork. Are we really saying that we want to assert new dogma which will harm ecumenical evangelization? It will continue to remain as true as it is today, even while being unstated dogmatically, so there’s no harm there. Would Mary want people to fail to come to her son, because of something we say about her?

 

[twf]

No one has said otherwise. Only that she participated in her son’s work of redemption in a unique manner. All of us are called to participate in that same work of redemption.

 

[JohnR77]

Thank you Cathoholic for bring us closer to Jesus through Mary. You are a wonderful, knowledgeable, patient, and humble teacher. You are doing a great job.

. . . Pope St. John Paul II has used the term co-redemptrix on at least five occasions in the course of his papal teachings (see extensive documentation on this). .

Please use this URL instead to Download the PDF

 

[JohnR77]

Notice:

The Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy

Posted here

Makes it sound as though Vatican II, came down discouraging new titles for Mary :

Marian titles of Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate,

… It was also sought to enrich the study group by adding, as external members, some non-Catholic theologians who were present at the Congress. The commission arrived at a twofold conclusion

.

1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways. Furthermore, the theological direction taken by the Second Vatican Council, which did not wish to define any of these titles, should not be abandoned. The Second Vatican Council did not use the title “Coredemptrix”, and uses “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” in a very moderate way (cf. Lumen Gentium, 62). …
2. … Finally, the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.

In response I would like to submit the following.

These titles are very closely related, IMO. And they are important, IMO, because they help us understand Mary’s role and our need for her. We need to grow in our knowledge, love, respect, and devotion to her to receive all the help God wants to give to us through her. If we fail in this we will jeopardize our path to salvation.

Vatican II, L.G.,62 states:

It knows it through unfailing experience … that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.

Therefore, it is very important we know why Vatican 2 wrote what they did.

As for #1 , I propose we read what Fr. Most said for a better understanding of Vatican 2.

1. We notice Vatican II did not add the words “of all graces.”

First, they were not needed, since, as several of the papal texts point out, her role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces.

Second, the real reason for not adding it, and for putting the title Mediatrix in a list of other titles was the influence of Protestant observers, who had said in advance that if the Church calls her Mediatrix, dialogue on the topic would be ended

See Fr. Most

As for Ecumenism read Pope John Paul II.

Scroll down to

*** What effect will this Dogma have on ecumenism?**

For the repeated teaching on Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces, read more

by Father William Most.

In those links above, I had some problems in the formatting.

You can read his article here , but without what I added.

John

 

[Michael16]

Personally, Gorgias; I’m not worried about what the Protestants think. We should dogmatically define what needs to be defined because it’s the right thing to do.

Regardless of what they may say or feel about it.

Honestly, I feel that we don’t need to define Co Redemptrix. In fact, I can see danger and confusion in dogmatically defining it as the 5th Marian dogma.

1: Catholics may get confused on how redemption works and how to defend it against Protestants. Some well meaning Catholics may get funny ideas of Our Lady as Savior.

Not all Catholics have the apologetics skills and knowledge to hold their ground in the face of Protestant attack.

2: Next danger is that of Marian maximalism. We have to be prudent and go overboard in our hyperdulia to Our Lady.