Mary Co-Redemptrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mperea75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Philthy:
This is the LAST thing you need to be discussing with Protestants!
Click to expand...
I think it should be one of the first things you talk about with protestants cause in salvific history Mary’s Co-operation with God is essential to our Salvation. Cause without her FIAT then salvation historty would have turned out quite a bit differently.
 
We are all co-redeemers with Christ!

Everytime we cooperate with Him in His salvific work, we are acting in the part of “A” redeemer, but not “THE” redeemer . .

Just as when we intercede for others we are acitning the part of “a” mediator, but not “THE” Mediator of the New Covenant . .

Mary, however, has a very unique and special place in God’s salvific plan . . and it starts in Gen 3:15
Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The pronouns in the second half are neuter, which accounts for the different renderings.

I think the Church has not yet plumbed the depth of the words :

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman . . . "

There is a personal relationship of enmity God has place Himself between “the woman” Mary, and “the serpent” the devil . . and it has to do with God’s salvific plan . .

The title Co-Redemtrix is very appropriate for Mary . . the custom of calling Mary “Co-Redemtrx” was praised by the Congregation of the Holy Office in the Decree Sunt Quo.

Yes, Mary should be so honored dogmatically with this title in the Church. . and I believe it is simply a matter of time before it happens. 🙂

When it does, I believe the depths of truth hidden in this one verse will start to be mined like never before …

Peace in Him!
 
Likewise, one should ponder how the Coredemption places the Blessed Virgin Mary, not between Christ and us—as happens with the Mediation of graces—but between God and us. By reason of the Coredemption, in fact, Mary is one with Christ the Redeemer who is found between God and us, just as Adam and Eve in the act of prevarication are found between God and us. The Redeemer and Coredemptrix are presented, then, as progenitors of our salvation, prefigured in Adam and Eve, progenitors of our ruin. These latter begot the death of sin separating us from God. The former have begotten the life of grace reconciling us with God.

It is the Mediation-distribution of graces, instead, which places Mary between Christ and us, as a true maternal Mediatrix who has access to the treasury of the Redemption and distributes from it to men for their spiritual rebirth and for their growth unto “full measure of the manhood of Christ” (Eph 4:13).🙂
 
mayra hart:
Likewise, one should ponder how the Coredemption places the Blessed Virgin Mary, not between Christ and us—as happens with the Mediation of graces—but between God and us. By reason of the Coredemption, in fact, Mary is one with Christ the Redeemer who is found between God and us, just as Adam and Eve in the act of prevarication are found between God and us. The Redeemer and Coredemptrix are presented, then, as progenitors of our salvation, prefigured in Adam and Eve, progenitors of our ruin. These latter begot the death of sin separating us from God. The former have begotten the life of grace reconciling us with God.

It is the Mediation-distribution of graces, instead, which places Mary between Christ and us, as a true maternal Mediatrix who has access to the treasury of the Redemption and distributes from it to men for their spiritual rebirth and for their growth unto “full measure of the manhood of Christ” (Eph 4:13).🙂
Click to expand...
“Mary is one with Christ the Redeemer”? So, is it your belief, that Christ and Mary are one? Wouldn’t this change our understanding of the Trinity to something akin to the quaternion? Or, are you saying they are together only in terms of our understanding of the mechanism of grace? Either way, it seems “co” in your understanding implies equality?
 
The one “Coredemptrix”

With the Coredemption Mary cooperated with Christ in our “regeneration,” as “Mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Before the Redemption, in fact, we were all dead by reason of the sin of our first parents. It is since the Redemption, including the Coredemption, by the will of God, that we have been reborn to the life of grace. In this sense the Coredemption and the spiritual Maternity imply each other reciprocally, that is, Mary Most Holy is our Mother because she is Coredemptrix, and is Coredemptrix because she is our Mother.

It suffices here to cite the clear text of Lumen Gentium, 61, where it is affirmed expressly that the divine Maternity of Mary was a redemptive Maternity, entirely aimed at “restoring supernatural life to souls,” for which the Virgin Mary is our “Mother in the order of grace,” viz., has begotten us to that true life—the life of grace—which makes us “living.”

From this it follows that properly speaking the Coredemption in fieri and in facto esse belongs to the Blessed Virgin Mary uniquely and exclusively, because historically, only she with her suffering immersed in that of her Son,—“under him and with him” says Lumen Gentium, n. 56—cooperated directly and immediately in the universal Redemption, that is, in the very acquisition of salvific grace for all creatures to be redeemed.

If the Coredemption, in fact, is directly linked to the Redemption in actu primo (or objectively), no one can properly be called “coredeemer or Coredemptrix,” except Mary Most Holy. Only in an improper sense, then, can one employ the terms coredeemer or Coredemptrix in place of the more accurate term, “mediator or Mediatrix,” in relation to the Redemption in actu secundo (or subjective), to which the Marian, maternal Mediation of grace is linked, viz., the application or distribution of all graces of salvation and sanctification. These are the graces already acquired by the Redeemer and Coredemptrix in actu primo. i hope this with help bless you all:)
 
mayra hart:
The one “Coredemptrix”

With the Coredemption Mary cooperated with Christ in our “regeneration,” as “Mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Before the Redemption, in fact, we were all dead by reason of the sin of our first parents. It is since the Redemption, including the Coredemption, by the will of God, that we have been reborn to the life of grace. In this sense the Coredemption and the spiritual Maternity imply each other reciprocally, that is, Mary Most Holy is our Mother because she is Coredemptrix, and is Coredemptrix because she is our Mother.

It suffices here to cite the clear text of Lumen Gentium, 61, where it is affirmed expressly that the divine Maternity of Mary was a redemptive Maternity, entirely aimed at “restoring supernatural life to souls,” for which the Virgin Mary is our “Mother in the order of grace,” viz., has begotten us to that true life—the life of grace—which makes us “living.”

From this it follows that properly speaking the Coredemption in fieri and in facto esse belongs to the Blessed Virgin Mary uniquely and exclusively, because historically, only she with her suffering immersed in that of her Son,—“under him and with him” says Lumen Gentium, n. 56—cooperated directly and immediately in the universal Redemption, that is, in the very acquisition of salvific grace for all creatures to be redeemed.

If the Coredemption, in fact, is directly linked to the Redemption in actu primo (or objectively), no one can properly be called “coredeemer or Coredemptrix,” except Mary Most Holy. Only in an improper sense, then, can one employ the terms coredeemer or Coredemptrix in place of the more accurate term, “mediator or Mediatrix,” in relation to the Redemption in actu secundo (or subjective), to which the Marian, maternal Mediation of grace is linked, viz., the application or distribution of all graces of salvation and sanctification. These are the graces already acquired by the Redeemer and Coredemptrix in actu primo. i hope this with help bless you all:)
Click to expand...
this is a wonderfully detailed answer, but I don’t think you addressed writer’s earlier question… It does seem that your response is affirming an equality between Christ and Mary, but I am sure you didn’t mean to make it sound this way. Can you make this clearer for him (and the rest of us)?
 
i don’t think they are one but mary played a very impotant part on the redemption part. the articles are comming from a website. the website is full of interesting articles about mary. It is Sacred Scripture itself which presents this grandiose vision of history linked to Christ and Mary, both in a fixed relation to each other the “alpha and omega” of the divine plan, initiated in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, chapter three, and concluded in the last book, the Apocalypse, chapter 12.

The “Woman” who with her Son crushes the head of the serpent (cf. Gen 3:15) and the “Woman” pregnant with Child, clothed with the sun and crowned by the stars: is always the Blessed Virgin Mary, unseparated and inseparable from her Son in the work of universal creation for the supreme glory of God, one and triune.

At this point we pass directly to the examination of the biblical texts of the Old and New Testaments which refer, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, to the truth of the maternal Mediation of the Virgin Mary—mediation coredemptive and distributive—as it has been described summarily in this introduction.

The first, and fundamental biblical text from the Old Testament which reveals the Virgin Mary prophetically to us is the verse of Genesis 3:15: “I will place enmity between you and the woman, between her Seed and your brood: she will crush your head.”

Immediately after the fall of our first parents, seduced and tricked by the serpent from hell (cf. Gen 3:1-7), these words, pronounced by God in judgment upon the serpent, constitute the greatest prophecy of hope given the human family and the entire visible and invisible creation. This is the hope in a Messiah linked to the appearance of a woman who is, precisely, the mother of the Savior Messiah.

This prophecy of Genesis is centered in fact on the woman and on her offspring (her seed) engaged in struggle against the enemy—the serpent and his brood—whose head is to be crushed with their total victory. One might also say that against the serpent who bragged about his victory over Eve and over Adam God poses another Eve and another Adam who, instead of capitulating, struggle and achieve definitive victory over the serpent by crushing his head.

Biblical exegesis of this prophecy of Genesis in professing its mariological and messianic content, viz., identifying the Blessed Virgin Mary with the woman and Jesus Christ with her offspring, sheds abundant light on the truth of Marian coredemption. the website :

Immaculate Mediatrix On-line
 
Writer said:
“Mary is one with Christ the Redeemer”? So, is it your belief, that Christ and Mary are one? Wouldn’t this change our understanding of the Trinity to something akin to the quaternion? Or, are you saying they are together only in terms of our understanding of the mechanism of grace? Either way, it seems “co” in your understanding implies equality?
Click to expand...

Mary and Christ are definitely one; they are perfectly united. That is why St John Eudes, praised the Heart of Jesus and Mary in the singular:

ewtn.com/devotionals/heart/salutation.htm
 
mayra hart:
i don’t think they are one but mary played a very impotant part on the redemption part. the articles are comming from a website. the website is full of interesting articles about mary. It is Sacred Scripture itself which presents this grandiose vision of history linked to Christ and Mary, both in a fixed relation to each other the “alpha and omega” of the divine plan, initiated in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, chapter three, and concluded in the last book, the Apocalypse, chapter 12.

The “Woman” who with her Son crushes the head of the serpent (cf. Gen 3:15) and the “Woman” pregnant with Child, clothed with the sun and crowned by the stars: is always the Blessed Virgin Mary, unseparated and inseparable from her Son in the work of universal creation for the supreme glory of God, one and triune.

At this point we pass directly to the examination of the biblical texts of the Old and New Testaments which refer, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, to the truth of the maternal Mediation of the Virgin Mary—mediation coredemptive and distributive—as it has been described summarily in this introduction.

The first, and fundamental biblical text from the Old Testament which reveals the Virgin Mary prophetically to us is the verse of Genesis 3:15: “I will place enmity between you and the woman, between her Seed and your brood: she will crush your head.”

Immediately after the fall of our first parents, seduced and tricked by the serpent from hell (cf. Gen 3:1-7), these words, pronounced by God in judgment upon the serpent, constitute the greatest prophecy of hope given the human family and the entire visible and invisible creation. This is the hope in a Messiah linked to the appearance of a woman who is, precisely, the mother of the Savior Messiah.

This prophecy of Genesis is centered in fact on the woman and on her offspring (her seed) engaged in struggle against the enemy—the serpent and his brood—whose head is to be crushed with their total victory. One might also say that against the serpent who bragged about his victory over Eve and over Adam God poses another Eve and another Adam who, instead of capitulating, struggle and achieve definitive victory over the serpent by crushing his head.

Biblical exegesis of this prophecy of Genesis in professing its mariological and messianic content, viz., identifying the Blessed Virgin Mary with the woman and Jesus Christ with her offspring, sheds abundant light on the truth of Marian coredemption. the website :

Immaculate Mediatrix On-line
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and wonderful post. Even if I don’t find myself in complete agreement (yet, anyway), it’s a pleasure to read!
 
Mary cannot and does not redeem us by herself. She only plays a lesser, non-essential role in the redemptive work of Christ. The Coredemptrix concept re-emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the Redeemer, for if He weren’t then Mary could not be the Coredemptrix.

Biblical Basis The following are verses commonly cited by proponents of the Coredemptrix concept as biblical support. Keep in mind that the Church has not yet defined this teaching.

Isaiah prophetically called the Messiah the “servant of the Lord”. At the Annunciation, Mary called herself the “haidmaid of the Lord”: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). “Handmaid” is the feminine equivalent of servant. If the Messiah is the Lord’s suffering Servant, then His Mother stands with Him as the Lord’s faithful Handmaid, with a subordinate role to play in the Redemption of mankind.

The aged prophet Simeon fortells both the rejection of Christ and the sufferings of His Mother: “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35). This was fulfilled at Calvary: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). Mary loved Jesus and must have suffered greatly at seeing Him so torn and humiliated. She prayerfully united her loving sufferings to those of her Son.

The Coredemptrix concept is rooted in the New Eve concept. If the first Eve played a role in the Fall, then the New Eve must play a role in the Redemption. St. Irenaeus wrote in 189 AD: Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. (Against Heresies, 4:22:2-4, emphasis mine.) Mary became the “cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race”! Now remember that Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the Apostle John himself! This shows that even the early Christians recognized that Mary played a part in the Redemption (howbeit subordinate to Christ).

“Hail Mary Theotokos, venerable treasure of the whole world…it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored,…through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom holy baptism has come to believers…through whom nations are brought to repentance…” (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. in Deiparam, PG 65, p.681; c. 431 AD).
 

  1. *]How could the suffering of God Incarnate be “lacking”?
    *]Jesus’ suffering was certainly sufficient to redeem all creation from the effects of sin. But that redemption has to be applied to each person individually and this is where our efforts and afflictions come in to play. It is often said that the blood of the martyrs waters the seeds of the gospel. St. Paul and all Christian martyrs before and after him contributed to the spread of the Good News not only by their labors, but by their sufferings! This is what is lacking in the suffering of Christ; not the winning of our redemption, but its application to individuals. Jesus intended that His physical Body would suffer to redeem us and His Mystical Body (the Church) would suffer to spread that redemption.
    *]This is what Mary did. As a member of His Mystical Body, her sufferings are not just her own, but Christ’s sufferings in her (Galatians 2:20). They are thus united the His Passion and efficacious toward spreading salvation to the entire world.
    *]In what way do you think Mary’s alleged role in the Redemption is subordinate to Jesus’?

    As Eve’s role in the Fall was subordinate to Adam’s. Though they both sinned, they did not sin equally. The Bible says “in Adam all die” (I Corinthians 15:22), not “in Adam and Eve all die”. It says “by one man sin entered into the world” (Romans 5:12), not “by one man and one woman”! Paul never even mentions Eve in any of the First Adam/Second Adam passages.

    Why not? Because Eve’s sin was not equal to that of Adam. It did not directly cause the Fall, but it was the first act of disobedience against God. So God chose to have another woman undo that first act of disobedience. As Eve believed the fallen angel, disobeyed God and became the indirect cause of Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3:6), so Mary believed the Angel Gabriel, obeyed God (Lk 1:38) and so became the indirect cause of our salvation by bringing the Savior into the world.

    Note that she is the indirect cause, not the direct cause (as Eve was the indirect, not direct, cause of the Fall). Jesus is the direct cause of our salvation, Who saves us by His Death and Resurrection.

    *]So Mary only participates in the Redemption by undoing the disobedience of Eve?

    Actually, Mary participates in three ways: she obeyed God and so brought the Redeemer into the world, she united her sufferings to His on the Cross, and she participates in the distribution of the graces of salvation.
      1. *]*Just because she gave birth to Jesus does not mean Mary participated in our salvation.* *]As we saw above, Irenaeus, a second century Christian, wrote that in consenting to bear the Savior, Mary became the cause of salvation to herself and the whole human race. Though she did not directly redeem us by this act, she did indirectly bring about our salvation, since she gave flesh to the Messiah, Who would one day offer that same flesh on the Cross for our salvation: *"We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"* (Heb.10:10). *]As Eve gave Adam the instrument of the Fall (the fruit - Genesis 3:6), so Mary gave Jesus the instrument of the Redemption (His physical Body). Thus she did play a part in bringing about our redemption, though it was entirely subordinate to and dependent upon Jesus' great work of salvation. Had He not sacrificed His Body on Calvary, her contribution of that Body would have profited *nothing*!
 
thank you writer for reading this i found another website where ther is more so from there iam quoting. santa maria madre de dios…🙂
 
Byzcath,

Sorry I haven’t responded to your PM, but I just got back from vacation.
40.png
ByzCath:
Dave holds to the idea that material dogmas require the same level of belief/assent as formal dogmas yet he hasn’t really shown proof of this requirement.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. On the contrary, I have asserted that doctrines (aka “material dogmas” by Dr. Ott and other Catholic sources) require “religious assent” while formal dogmas require “assent of faith.” And yes, I have provided proof of this requirement using multiple magisterial documents. See Lumen Gentium 25 and CCC 892 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/892.htm :
“To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”
Click to expand...
Dr Ott even goes so far as to say that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense and canon law says that assent of faith is not required for everything said by the pope/Church.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have not asserted otherwise. Dr. Ott likewise states:
The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. … Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Introduction).
Click to expand...
From the Code of Canon Law: “a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.” (Canon 752).

Can one be in accord with canon law and disagree or dissent with doctrines that are not yet formal dogmas? I don’t believe so.
 
Is Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s redemption a teaching of the authentic magisterium? After considering Fr. William Most’s compliation of magisterial support, it’s difficult to conclude otherwise.

See EWTN link here:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3a.htm

Thus, Mary as Mediatrix, to include her cooperation in Christ’s redemption is Catholic doctrine. Consequently, Catholics do indeed owe their religious submission of intellect and will to this doctrine, in accordance with *Lumen Gentium, *Catholic Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Fr. John Hardon’s explanation from his Pocket Catholic Dictionary is probably the most succinct explanation of this doctrine that I have found.
MEDIATRIX. A title of the Blessed Virgin as mediator of grace. There are two aspects of this mediation. It is certain in Catholic theology that, since Mary gave birth to the Redeemer, who is source of all grace, she is in this way the channel of all graces to mankind. But it is only probable, as a legitimate opinion, that since Mary’s Assumption into heaven no grace is received by humans without her actual intercessory co-operation.

On the first level of mediation, Mary freely co-operated with God in consenting to the Incarnation, giving birth to her Son and thus sharing with him in spirit the labors of his passion and death. Yet Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross. Mary gave him moral support in this action. She is therefore not entitled to the name “priest,” as several Roman documents legislate. As explained by the Council of Florence in 1441, Christ “conquered the enemy of the human race alone” (Denzinger, 1347). In the same way he alone acquired the grace of redemption for the whole human race, including Mary. Her part in the objective redemption, therefore, was indirect and remote, and derived from her voluntary devotion to the service of Christ. Under the Cross she suffered and sacrificed with him, but subordinate to him in such a way that all the efficacy of her oblation depended on that of her Son.

On the second stage of mediation, Mary co-operates by her maternal intercession in applying Christ’s redemptive grace to human beings, called the subjective redemption. This does not imply that the faithful must pray for all graces through Mary, nor that her intercession is inherently necessary for the distribution of divine blessing, but that, according to God’s special ordinance, the graces merited by Christ are conferred through the actual intercessory mediation of his mother. Recent popes and the Second Vatican Council have spoken in favor of this type of mediation, which finds support in patristic tradition.
Click to expand...
 
I am very torn on this because I agree with what everybody is saying, but I fear that any move this direction is only going to lead to derision and division of Roman Catholics from those who do not have such an “involved” Faith.

I do not wish to compromise the message, but I hope that all the wise heads and inspired hearts prevail - whatever decision is made.
 
40.png
GoodME:
I am very torn on this because I agree with what everybody is saying, but I fear that any move this direction is only going to lead to derision and division of Roman Catholics from those who do not have such an “involved” Faith.

I do not wish to compromise the message, but I hope that all the wise heads and inspired hearts prevail - whatever decision is made.
Click to expand...
Everytime a dogma is define there’s always pros and cons and some always chose to leave the Church. Been that way since Nicea I.
 
Pace Fr John Hardon, other Catholic theologians say that Mary’s cooperation was direct and immediate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top