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

[Gorgias]

You can continue running around essentially saying Jesus associating His Redeeming with (“cum”, “co”) the Blessed Mother isn’t associating His redeeming with the Blessed Mother.

Except that this isn’t what is said in the catechism: it’s not an associating of his redeeming… it’s an associating of the mystery. And, in terms of the other sentence in CCC 618 which you cite, the Scriptural referent is one of suffering, on the part of Apostles. The doctrine of co-redeeming isn’t there, no matter how much you want it to be. A sharing in the suffering is, but that sharing in the suffering doesn’t affect redemption.

 

[Michael16]

Cathoholic,

I’m not understanding why you’re pushing this so hard.

No one’s doubting the Catechism or how Our Lady suffered with Our Lord.

The basic question I think everyone is posing is: Why for the love of God are you pushing so hard for it to be dogmatically defined?

There’s two problems I see with such a definition:

1: Some well meaning Catholics who will go overboard in their hyperdulia for Our Lady could get heretical ideas on this doctrine.

2: The Protestants would go crazy. Possibly snatching up Catholics falling away from the Faith misunderstanding Co Redemptrix. As well as giving them more ammunition to come at us hard.

I speak as a veteran of hard fought apologetics battles with Protestants. I know them well enough.

 

[Cathoholic]

Gorgias (still affirming only PART of CCC 618) . . .

Except that this isn’t what is said in the catechism: it’s not an associating of his redeeming … it’s an associating of the mystery

Well I am glad you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary is associated supremely with
(literally in the Latin, “co”) the Paschal Mystery
Gorgias (and presumably with (“co”) the Church too). (That is the context of that “mystery” you are alluding to here.)

Now if you could only get to the point where you can see the mystery of His redemptive suffering flowing out of that same Paschal Mystery you will be all the way there.

For everyone else, here, yet again, is the salient portion of CCC 618 . . . .

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 .

.

And here is CCC 618 in its entirety. . . .

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

.

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.”

 

[Gorgias]

Well I am glad you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary is associated supremely with
(literally in the Latin, “co” ) the Paschal Mystery

sigh.

That’s not what it says. It says that she’s associated with the mystery of His suffering. If you’re going to insist on misinterpreting the Catechism to fit your personal eisegesis, then I suspect that this conversation is over.

 

[Cathoholic]

Gorgias . . .

It says that she’s associated with the mystery of His suffering. If you’re going to insist on misinterpreting the Catechism to fit your personal eisegesis, then I suspect that this conversation is over.

Here is the “Mystery” portions of CCC 618 for readers here.

CCC 618 (salient exceprts) . . . 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”. . . . 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. . .

(The Blessed Mother is associated with Jesus’ “Redemptive” suffering.
Hint: Redemptive has to do with coredemptrix.
– the “trix” suffix just denotes a female - which is what you would expect for Mother Mary.)

.

Is being “made partners in His Pachal Mystery”, NOT being associated with His Pachal Mystery Gorgias?

.

To the readers here look at the posts. Read them.
See what the Popes have had to say.

Then come back and read the posts again and see if I am “misinterpreting” the Catechism.

Gorgias just keeps denying based on his own word, and I have posted actual sources.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Bill6]

Thank you for expanding. I always knew that Mary is more of a Redeemer than we can ever be, but thank you for explaining it.
God bless

 

[Cathoholic]

. . . Christ’s definitive victory over death, which came into the world because of Adam’s sin, shines out in Mary, assumed into Heaven at the end of her earthly life. It was Christ, the “new” Adam, who conquered death, offering himself as a sacrifice on Calvary in loving obedience to the Father. In this way he redeemed us from the slavery of sin and evil. In the Virgin’s triumph, the Church contemplates her whom the Father chose as the true Mother of his Only-begotten Son,
closely ASSOCIATING her WITH the salvific plan of the REDEMPTION. --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great

Emphasis mine.

 

[Cathoholic]

. . . This blessing reaches its full meaning when Mary stands beneath the Cross of her Son (cf. Jn. 19:25). The Council says that this happened “not without a divine plan”: by “suffering deeply WITH her only-begotten Son and joining herself with her maternal spirit to his sacrifice, lovingly consenting to the immolation of the victim to whom she had given birth,” in this way Mary “faithfully preserved her union with her Son even to the Cross.”[38] It is a union through faith–the same faith with which she had received the angel’s revelation at the Annunciation. . . .

. . . Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying. . . .

. . . This is perhaps the deepest “kenosis” of faith in human history. Through faith
the Mother SHARES in the death of her Son, in his REDEEMING death;
but in contrast with the faith of the disciples who fled, hers was far more enlightened. On Golgotha, Jesus through the Cross definitively confirmed that he was the “sign of contradiction” foretold by Simeon. At the same time, there were also fulfilled on Golgotha the words which Simeon had addressed to Mary: “and a sword will pierce through your own soul also.”[40] . . . --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great

.

Quoted from Dave Armstrong . . .

Commemoration of the sixth centenary of the canonization of St. Bridget of Sweden on 6 October 1991:

Birgitta looked to Mary as her model and support in the various moments of her life. She spoke energetically about the divine privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. She contemplated her astonishing mission as Mother of the Saviour. She invoked her as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and COREDEMPTRIX, exalting Mary’s singular role in the history of salvation and the life of the Christian people. --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great

Emphasis above mine.

 

[Cathoholic]

Gorgias (giving a partial truth here) . . .

The doctrine of co- redeeming isn’t there, no matter how much you want it to be. A sharing in the suffering is , but that sharing in the suffering doesn’t affect redemption.

.

Saint Pope John Paul II the Great on the other hand has this to say . . . .

Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, PARTICIPATED in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be COREDEMPTRIX of humanity. --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great.

.

In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity . . . In fact, Mary’s role as COREDEMPTRIX did not cease with the glorification of her Son. --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great.

The Blessed Virgin Mary CONTINUES to intercede on our behalf
when our requests are made to Her, the Queen Mother.

.

At the Angelus hour on this Palm Sunday, which the Liturgy calls also the Sunday of the Lord’s Passion, our thoughts run to Mary, immersed in the mystery of an immeasurable sorrow. Mary accompanied her divine Son in the most discreet concealment pondering everything in the depths of her heart. On Calvary, at the foot of the Cross, in the vastness and in the depth of her maternal sacrifice, she had John, the youngest Apostle, beside her . . . May, Mary our Protectress,
THE COREDEMPTRIX, to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Gorgias]

(The Blessed Mother is associated with Jesus’ “Redemptive” suffering.
Hint: Redemptive has to do with co redempt rix.

Hint: the text is talking about Jesus’ redemptive suffering. Not anyone else’s – Jesus’. Mary and the apostles suffered, too… but that suffering didn’t redeem you. It was their way to unite themselves with Christ; but it didn’t redeem you.

Is being “made partners in His Pachal Mystery”, NOT being associated with His Pachal Mystery Gorgias?

Not in the way you’re attempting to spin it. In that sentence, the catechism is talking about something all people have a share in. You’re trying to use it to prove something different – something that’s not in the sentences you’re torturing!

Gorgias just keeps denying based on his own word, and I have posted actual sources.

Actually, I’m denying your interpretation of the sources you quote.

Emphasis mine.

You realize that you’re quoting a homily there, and not a source of doctrinal teaching… right?

Quoted [from] Dave Armstrong . . .

And when he quotes a magisterial document, does that document talk about “redemption”? Nope. It talks about mediation, which is something completely different.

Emphasis mine.

Yes. It’s yours. Personally. Noted.

(Edited to add: I think we’re just going around in circles at this point. This will be my last post on the matter. Good evening!)

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know that the term will ever be dogma. We may have missed the window where that language can be used without seeming to make Mary equal to God. It seems rather useless to stick with a title that requires root words and Latin definitions instead of switching to something more accurate to the common Christian.

I would not want to do anything that would cause people to lose sight of Mary as having more in common with humanity that God. The difference between her and her son is infinite, as God is infinite goodness.

 

[commenter]

I’m not understanding why you’re pushing this so hard.

No one’s doubting the Catechism or how Our Lady suffered with Our Lord.

The basic question I think everyone is posing is: Why for the love of God are you pushing so hard for it to be dogmatically defined?

I can’t speak for that other poster, who I don’t know. But I recall the tremendous, spiritually productive outpouring of devotion to Mary in my childhood. To a large extent this was shamefully discarded in the late 1960s, by some pastors, bishops, and especially, by most sisters and Religious educators.

Some who are quite rightly angry about that might tend to vociferously support any proposal to elevate Mary in some way now. This is no evidence against Coredemptorist, of course.

 

[Mishakel]

The Trinity is taught all through scripture. It’s true the actual word isn’t used but the concept is very plainly taught. I can give example after example that make the teaching extremely clear.

If someone who had never been around religion picked up a bible and read it perhaps they wouldn’t know the word trinity but they would certainly walk away with the understanding.

If the same person reads the bible and someone says to them did you know that Mary was the sinless Queen of Heaven, who was bodily assumed into Heaven, conceived without the stain of original sin, and never had other children? There would be great confusion from that person because none of that is in scripture.

The link that you gave provided parallelism on quite a few passages. Has Catholicism dogmatically interpreted the passages cited in the article?

It would be hijacking the thread for us to start debating every title given to Mary by Catholicism.

 

[steph03]

That is likely what you would get from a Bible alone standpoint with no continuity from the original believers. Which again creates the question, who approved today’s Canon of Scripture and under what authority.

 

[Mishakel]

That is likely what you would get from a Bible alone standpoint with no continuity from the original believers. Which again creates the question, who approved today’s Canon of Scripture and under what authority.

If this is truly what you believe can you provide source material from the 1st 3 centuries explaining every Marian dogma that exists today?

As far as what authority gives us cannon, perhaps you believe it is your church that provides it, but make no mistake God himself is responsible for giving us his Word. It would be like crediting the prophets for giving us scripture. They are merely the tool in which God used for the words of scripture are indeed theópneustos. The prophets clearly wrote down words but the words themselves came from God and this is clearly defined in scripture.

 

[commenter]

If someone who had never been around religion picked up a bible and read it perhaps they wouldn’t know the word trinity but they would certainly walk away with the understanding.

Not necessarily. The Doctrine of the Trinity is compatible with Scripture but other interpretations are also. From ancient times till now Countless Christians have examined the Bible and come to wildly different conclusions about the Godhead.

You might say well those millions of people aren’t REAL Christians, so they don’t count. But then the reason you don’t classify them as real Christians is they do Sola Scriptura different from you.

The Catholic understanding is based on the Magisterium interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Mishakel]

The Catholic understanding is based on the Magisterium interpretation of Scripture.

I would love to debate this with you but we are hijacking the thread. PM me all the scripture that Catholicism has dogmatically defined and we will go from there.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

The Catholic understanding is based on the Magisterium interpretation of Scripture AND SACRED TRADITION.

I would love to debate this with you but we are hijacking the thread. PM me all the scripture that Catholicism has dogmatically defined and we will go from there.

I added 3 words in caps to the part of my post quoted. This is related to Doctrine about the Trinity, or Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

Gorgias (wrongly) implying that I have been advocating
away from Jesus as our one unique Redeemer . . .

the text is talking about Jesus’ redemptive suffering. Not anyone else’s – Jesus’. Mary and the apostles suffered, too… but that suffering didn’t redeem you. It was their way to unite themselves with Christ; but it didn’t redeem you.

I have made that clear several times that these are ASSOCIATIONS with Christ’s redeption and they are by grace.

• Jesus is our one redeemer by nature.
• The Blessed Vigin Mary above all creatures is by Jesus’ grace is co-redeeming or redeeming WITH (“co” or “cum”) Jesus. since She is female, the suffix, “trix” is often added thus The Blessed Mother will often be discussed in Her role as coredemptrix.
• Others are associated by grace with Jesus in redemption, to a lesser degree.

Here it is again from me earlier (this one from me in post 72) . . . .

Jesus is “ our only Redeemer and Saviour ” as Lumen Gentium 50 mentions.

Yet humanity can have a participation in that redemptive work of Christ. This is especially true concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

.

Gorgias (giving a partial truth here) . . .

The doctrine of co- redeeming isn’t there, no matter how much you want it to be. A sharing in the suffering is , but that sharing in the suffering doesn’t affect redemption.

.

Saint Pope John Paul II the Great on the other hand has this to say . . . .

Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, PARTICIPATED in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be COREDEMPTRIX of humanity. --Saint Pope John Paul II the Great.

.

Gorgias . . .

It says that she’s associated with the mystery of His suffering. If you’re going to insist on misinterpreting the Catechism to fit your personal eisegesis, then I suspect that this conversation is over.

Here is the “Mystery” portions of CCC 618 for readers here.

CCC 618 (salient exceprts) . . . 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 ”. . . . 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 . . .

(The Blessed Mother is associated with Jesus’ “Redemptive” suffering.
Hint: Redemptive has to do with co redempt rix.
– the “trix” suffix just denotes a female - which is what you would expect for Mother Mary.)

.

Is being “made partners in His Pachal Mystery”, NOT being associated with His Pachal Mystery Gorgias?

 

[JohnR77]

Has Catholicism dogmatically interpreted the passages cited in the article?

I was told by a priest that the Catholic Church has only dogmatically defined a small handful of scripture versus. It was the council of
Trent ( or at least mostly there. My conversation with him was 10 years ago ) concerning the sacraments and the papacy.

It would be unwise to place the bar of proof higher than what is appropriate.

John