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

[EndTimes]

No, that word does not necessarily mean equal. However, the fact it is used so often of equals is a good argument that it it confusing.

And anything with leads to confusion (of Catholics and non-Catholics - must be Avoided…

Which is maybe in part why it is said that Francis and Benedict give Co-Redemptrix a no

St. Pope John Paul II refers to Mary as: The Mother of the Redeemer

JOANNES PAULUS PP. II REDEMPTORIS MATER
On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church

NoWhere within this long Encylical is Mary suggested as being Co-Redemptrix

A petition in the early 1990s urging Pope John Paul II to infallibly declare the Blessed Mother co-redemptrix garnered more than six million signatures, including Bd. Teresa of Calcutta and Cdl. John O’Connor of New York - did not bring it about…

 

[Cathoholic]

EndTimes . . . .

JOANNES PAULUS PP. II REDEMPTORIS MATER
On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church

NoWhere within this long Encylical is Mary suggested as being Co-Redemptrix

If I showed you elsewhere, where Pope John Paul II used this Coredemptrix terminology would it matter to you?

 

[EndTimes]

If I showed you elsewhere, where Pope John Paul II used this Coredemptrix terminology would it matter to you?

What matters more to me is what really matters to you?

 

[Cathoholic]

EndTimes . . .

What matters more to me is what really matters to you?

I’ll take that as a “no” it doesn’t matter to you if Saint Pope John Paul II DID refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly and implicitly as coredemptrix several times.

Then my only question remains, WHY did you bring it up?

 

[EndTimes]

You really didn’t answer my question… beyond repeating what JPII said…

I take it that perhaps you take what he said as Magisterial?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I suppose because he is making a definitive claim – he called the idea of declaring Mary co-redemptrix ‘foolishness’. How is he certain of that? Holy men and women in the past have made virtually the same claim about Mary.

But did any of these holy men and women speak ex cathedra? What most proponents want is the infallible declaration of this title, which as the Holy Father has said, will lead to more harm than good.

Was Pope Francis speaking Ex Cathedra when he said that?

And most people don’t necessarily want an infallible declaration of the title.

What most reasonable people want is a proper and open theological discussion on the topic without that discussion being called “foolishness” before it even occurs.

Emotional reactions and precognitive bias ought not restrict discussion and speculation merely because some people might take it the wrong way or be offended.

Some people are still offended by Jesus saying, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will not have life within you.”

Should the Church walk that back because in the modern age most Catholics no longer believe that and to continue teaching it to moderns, the Church ought to be concerned that it “will lead to more harm than good?”

How is the harm or the good determined? By current human standards/sensibilities or by eternal standards based upon God’s revealed truth?

 

[HarryStotle]

Isn’t that saying she is equal to Jesus? Co-Presidents are 50/50. You are saying Mary/Jesus are 50/50? God could have sent His son to earth without a human birth I would assume (since God is all powerful) but the human birth shows humility. So Mary wasn’t needed yes?

I am not clear that these questions don’t echo a pattern regarding theology that the Church has had to deal with throughout its history.

Jesus was God and yet he was human. Does that mean he was 50% God and 50% human? Much of the history of the Church has dealt with this exact problem, and gnosticism remains a prevailing heresy. The Council of Nicaea, in 325, had to deal with it because gnosticism ran rampant throughout the Roman Empire and was even worse after the Council. The litany of other heresies surrounding the nature of Jesus is long and some are still being debated – modalism, adoptionism, docetism, Nestorianism, monophysitism, monothelitism, and more.

Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of Jesus | Cold Case Christianity

Should the Church back away from defining dogma on the grounds that some might not accept it, be offended or be misinformed about what is or is not being claimed?

Isn’t the best antidote to confusion, formulating a clear statement?

What if Nicaea just backed away from the entire debate with a shrug and a casual, “People will be confused or get angry, so let’s leave the question alone.”

 

[Cathoholic]

EndTimes.

You told @pnewton that nowhere in Redemptoris Mater, was it suggested of Mother Mary’s role as Coredemptrix.

OK.

Would you at least say regarding the Motherhood of Mary, that She became "an associate who "cooperated in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls?

(I would say and affirm that The Blessed Mother was/is an ASSOCIATE in restoring supernatural life to souls. Her “association” with Redemption was by GRACE though or “in the order of grace”.)

This is from Redemptoris Mater section 22 . . .

This motherhood in the order of grace flows from her divine motherhood. Because she was, by the design of divine Providence, the mother who nourished the divine Redeemer, Mary became "an associate . . . who “cooperated . . . in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls.” . . .

.

Would you say that the Blessed Mother became "an associate who "cooperated in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls?

Would you take this as “Magisterial”?

 

[Cathoholic]

Redemptoris Mater 38 excerpt . . .

The Church knows and teaches
that "all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on mankind
originate…from the divine pleasure. They flow forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rest on his mediation, depend entirely on it, and draw all their power from it. In no way do they impede the immediate union of the faithful with Christ. Rather, they foster this union."95 This saving influence is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who, just as he overshadowed the Virgin Mary when he began in her the divine motherhood, in a similar way constantly sustains her solicitude for the brothers and sisters of her Son.

In effect, Mary’s mediation is intimately linked with her motherhood. It possesses a specifically maternal character, which distinguishes it from the mediation of the other creatures who in various and always subordinate ways share in the one mediation of Christ, although her own mediation is also a shared mediation.96 In fact, while it is true that “no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer,” at the same time “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise among creatures to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this unique source.” And thus "the one goodness of God is in reality communicated diversely to his creatures."97 . . .

. . . "The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that, encouraged by this maternal help, they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer."98 This role is at the same time special and extraordinary. It flows from her divine motherhood and can be understood and lived in faith only on the basis of the full truth of this motherhood. Since by virtue of divine election Mary is the earthly Mother of the Father’s consubstantial Son and his “generous companion” in the work of redemption "she is a mother to us in the order of grace."99 This role constitutes a real dimension of her presence in the saving mystery of Christ and the Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Redemptoris Mater 39 excerpt . . . .

. . . . Along the path of this collaboration with the work of her Son, the Redeemer, Mary’s motherhood itself underwent a singular transformation, becoming ever more imbued with “burning charity” towards all those to whom Christ’s mission was directed. Through this “burning charity,” which sought to achieve, in union with Christ, the restoration of "supernatural life to souls,"102 Mary entered, in a way all her own, into the one mediation “between God and men” which is the mediation of the man Christ Jesus. . . .

Section 40 excerpt . . . .

After her Son’s departure, her motherhood remains in the Church as maternal mediation: interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world. In fact the Council teaches that the “motherhood of Mary in the order of grace…will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect.”

Elsewhere from Redemptoris Mater . . . . .

And above all, in the Incarnation she (The Church) encounters Christ and Mary indissolubly joined: he who is the Church’s Lord and Head and she who, uttering the first fiat of the New Covenant, prefigures the Church’s condition as spouse and mother.

Parenthetical addition mine for context.

Her (Mary’s) presence in the midst of Israel-a presence so discreet as to pass almost unnoticed by the eyes of her contemporaries-shone very clearly before the Eternal One (Jesus), who had associated this hidden “daughter of Sion” . . . with the plan of salvation . . . .

Parenthetical mine for context.

. . . from the moment of the conception and birth of her Son. From that time she was “the one who believed.” But as the messianic mission of her Son grew clearer to her eyes and spirit, she herself as a mother became ever more open to that new dimension of motherhood which was to constitute her “part” beside her Son. . . .

(Notice the Blessed Mother has a “part” in Her Son’s Messianic mission.)

 

[Pai_Nosso]

What most reasonable people want is a proper and open theological discussion on the topic without that discussion being called “foolishness” before it even occurs.

We are talking about infallibility declaring dogma, forcing everyone to conform. Not a theological discussion that people vote on or a devotion that some people can choose to undertake.

The pope decides upon the Churches teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore it is God that has called this discussion “foolishness”
So I question the motive of people going against God’s will on this matter.

 

[Cathoholic]

@Pai_Nosso . . .

Therefore it is God that has called this discussion “foolishness”

This is not correct Pai_Nosso.

That is not a Catholic Christian thought
to say/think every time the Pope speaks, it is God who is speaking.

That would be new revelation. The heresy of the Montanists belived in new revelation.

The view you seem to be offering up here,
seems to me at least to be some type of ultramontanism. Where everything the Pope says is from God.

This can’t be correct. I must be misreading you. (?)

You conclusion seems to imply this though.

Is that what you think??

.

It also seems as if you are confused about what Pope Francis said and did not say.

Here is a brief review on the dimension of foolishness.

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 . . . .

. . . 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. . . .

.

The pope decides upon the Churches teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The teachings from some of the Popes on the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix are ALREADY taught.

The issue is, when and how shall this be further defined? Or if it should be further defined at all?

And if so, by WHOM?

I have already said I don’t think it should be Pope Francis to try to clarify this doctrine. (Because as he himself intimates, his heart wouldn’t be into it. Fair enough.)

 

[HarryStotle]

The pope decides upon the Churches teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore it is God that has called this discussion “foolishness”
So I question the motive of people going against God’s will on this matter.

Seems just a little bit disconnected in logic. The Pope isn’t ALWAYS under the guidance of the Holy Spirit whenever he speaks. There are very specific restrictions on when and how the Pope makes infallible declarations.

If Pope Francis calling the discussion “foolishness” amounts to “God’s will on the matter,” then every word uttered by a pope is, ipso facto, God’s will because it is “through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

Unfortunately, that isn’t even Church teaching. Only dogma declared ex cathedra is infallibly determined. A pope stating an opinion on this or that is not what determines God’s will on the matter.

Otherwise, we have the actions or words of individuals such as Pope Stephen VI condemning and dishonouring the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus amounting to God’s will under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. The “Cadaver Synod.”)

Ah, no.

 

[C.Longinus]

Some people are still offended by Jesus saying, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will not have life within you.”

The necessity of Jesus’s sacrifice I’m the Eucharist i on the same level of a title gven to His mother? I don’t think so @HarryStotle.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Some people are still offended by Jesus saying, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will not have life within you.”

The necessity of Jesus’s sacrifice I’m the Eucharist i on the same level of a title gven to His mother? I don’t think so @HarryStotle.

My point doesn’t depend on them being “on the same level.” The point is that the grounds for making determinations about the truth of things is not on how human beings will receive the determination.

The truth does not depend upon its acceptability to human beings. The truth is the truth. We are to seek it, not decide upon its acceptability to us, based upon our own predilections.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

That is not a Catholic Christian thought
to say/think every time the Pope speaks, it is God who is speaking.

The Pope isn’t ALWAYS under the guidance of the Holy Spirit whenever he speaks.

Hang on that isn’t what I said. That is actually what I used to think when people would say “the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

Someone defined it more accurately for me. The Churches teachings is guided by the Holy Spirit. I can point out a lot of wrong committed by the Church over the years but I cannot find a teaching which I can prove to be wrong.

I said “The Pope decides upon the Churches teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
Is this not a decisions about the teaching of the Church?
If we shouldn’t bring into doubt the decisions to make dogmas then we also shouldn’t bring into doubt the decisions to reject dogmas. They are made and not made through God’s will, right?

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Only dogma declared ex cathedra is infallibly determined.

And so a proposed dogma that is rejected is also guided by the Holy Spirit, right?

A pope stating an opinion on this or that is not what determines God’s will on the matter.

He made a decision about making a new dogma

The teachings from some of the Popes on the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix are ALREADY taught.
The issue is, when and how shall this be further defined? Or if it should be further defined at all?
And if so, by WHOM?

Yes as I understand a Catholic can choose to go to Mary for many things including co-redemptrix and many do. There are also many that don’t. What needs further defining? Making it dogma will only force people to try and believe something that they really don’t.

None of the Popes before Francis felt the need to push this dogma through. The Holy Spirit has never guided any of our Holy Fathers to declare this dogma.

I’m not stopping anyone’s devotion to Mary, why then should I be forced to devoted to her?

 

[Cathoholic]

Pai_Nosso . . .

I said “The Pope decides upon the Churches teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

The problem with that is . . .

. . . The Popes have ALREADY taught about the Blessed Virgin Mary’s role as Coredemptrix. . . .And . . .

. . . And Pope Francis never said the Church should NOT teach on this doctrine.

So you have yourself ignoring what prior Popes say (in order to be “faithful” to the Pope I suppose you would say) . . .

. . . And saying something THIS Pope never said.

So I am still unsure why you would put forth even this?

.

None of the Popes before Francis felt the need to push this dogma through.

Yes but so what?

None of the Popes before Pope Pius IX felt the need to push the dogma of the Immaculate Conception through.

None of the Popes before Pope Pius XII felt the need to push the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary through.

.

The Holy Spirit has never guided any of our Holy Fathers to declare this dogma.

Yes and before 1854 The Holy Spirit has never guided any of our Holy Fathers to declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Yes and before 1950 The Holy Spirit has never guided any of our Holy Fathers to declare the dogma of the Glorious Assumption.

But so what? Those doctrines were likewise taught BEFORE their solemn definitions too.

.

These doctrines are all taught in Sacred Scripture.

I just don’t see an issue with anything you have brought up.

.

 

[twf]

Until you stop seeing competition between Our Lord and His Blessed another, you will not be able to progress in your understanding of Mariology. There is no competition. There cannot be competition.

 

[Cathoholic]

Pai_Nosso . . .

Making it dogma will only force people to try and believe something that they really don’t.

Based upon what?
Earthly “reasoning” because of an instilled attitude of false competition?

Mothers unite their children.

And teachings on the Blessed Mother also help us recognize that work of Jesus (“it foster(s) the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.”)

All the members ought to be molded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them.(62) For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him.(63) On earth, still as pilgrims in a strange land, tracing in trial and in oppression the paths He trod, we are made one with His sufferings like the body is one with the Head, suffering with Him, that with Him we may be glorified.(64)

From Him “the whole body, supplied . . . attains a growth that is of God”.(65) He continually distributes in His body, that is, in the Church, gifts of ministries in which, by His own power, we serve each other unto salvation so that, carrying out the truth in love, we might through all things grow unto Him who is our Head.(66)

In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him,(67) He has shared with us His Spirit who, existing as one and the same being in the Head and in the members, gives life to, unifies and moves through the whole body. This He does in such a way that His work could be compared by the holy Fathers with the function which the principle of life, that is, the soul, fulfills in the human body.(8*)

Christ loves the Church as His bride, having become the model of a man loving his wife as his body;(68) the Church, indeed, is subject to its Head.(69) “Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”,(70) He fills the Church, which is His body and His fullness, with His divine gifts (71) so that it may expand and reach all the fullness of God.(72)

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) . . . – Vatican II. Lumen Gentium 8

Let’s look at Lumen Gentium section 60 for a moment.

For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates . . .

Notice first, that there is
“salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin Mary upon men”.

St. Paul matter-of-factly assumes this for even himself!

1st CORINTHIANS 9:22 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Does St. Paul “SAVE” anybody?

Yes he does in some sense.

Does He “save” anybody on HIS OWN?

No he does not.