Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[mayra_hart]

1. 
   *]So if we are all “coredeemers” with Christ, why give Mary the special title “Coredemptrix”?
   
   Since Mary is the preeminent member of Christ’s Mystical Body, He performs His “coredemptive” work through her in a preeminent manner. Sinless, she offers not the slightest resistance to God’s Will, but is always moved by the Holy Spirit. Her loving, selfless suffering at the foot of the Cross was deeper and purer than that of any martyr in history. Her prayers for our salvation are highly efficacious because of her holiness and complete submission to the Will of God.
   
   She also plays a special role in our Redemption as the New Eve, as we saw above. As Eve indirectly contributed to the Fall of Man, so Mary indirectly contributes to our Redemption. As Eve gave Adam the instrument of the Fall (the forbidden fruit) so Mary gave Jesus the instrument of the Redemption (His Body). The same cannot be said of any other member of the Mystical Body!
   
   These are among the reasons why many believe she in particular can be called “Coredemptrix”, or Woman with the Redeemer.
   • 1. *]*How does Mary " participate in the distribution of the graces of salvation"?* *]As our spiritual Mother, she prays for our salvation. As [Mediatrix of grace](http://members.tripod.com/~maryimmaculate/marian11.html), she distributes the graces of salvation to us. When pray for the lost and preach the Gospel, we are actually helping people toward salvation! Every member of the Mystical Body of Christ helps redeem the human race by leading people to Jesus, and so in that sense is a "coredemptor" (worker with the Redeemer). Though we do not personally "redeem" these people, we still play a part in bringing them to salvation. *]The Church, the Mystical Bride of Christ, is a kind-of "co-redemptrix", a feminine associate of the Redeemer. She is our Mother who imparts spiritual life to us in Baptism. She clearly plays a part in dispensing to us the salvation Christ won on the Cross. Mary, the image and Model of the Church, does this to an even greater degree. And as members of the Church, we also play a part in God's plan of salvation. We are are all co-laborers with Christ and in Him. *]Evangelicals sometimes fast and pray for sinners to accept Jesus. But why fast? If Jesus did it all, why do we have to go hungry, suffering and denying ourselves in order to bring about someone's conversion to Christ? Evidently, our fasting makes up something "lacking" in the afflictions of Christ. The merits of His Death are sufficient to redeem the whole world, but He asks the members of His Body to participate in making His saving merits available to others.
        *You are all fair, O Mary,
        and the original stain is not in you.
        You are the glory of Jerusalem,
        You are the joy of Israel,
        You are the honor of our people,
        You are the Advocate of sinners!
        O Mary, Mary,
        Virgin most pure,
        Mother most merciful;
        Pray for us,
        Intercede for us with Our Lord Jesus Christ. *

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dave,

Please explain to us what “religous assent” is and how that differs from “assent of faith”.

I take it, by what you have said, that we can not speak out against “material dogmas” (a Latin thing there is no such thing in the Byzantine Tradition).

At one point the Immaculate Conception was a “material dogma” before it was formally proclaimed. So by what I have gotten so far, one could not be against it nor speak out against it. Yet a Saint and Doctor of the Church did just that, St Thomas Aquinas

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath:

Dave,

Please explain to us what “religous assent” is and how that differs from “assent of faith”.

I have explained it. See my post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=219767&highlight=assent+faith+religious#post219767

Better yet, William E. May is a professor of theology at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family. I recommend you read the following article authored by him (specifically par. #2 and #5):

Teaching Authority in the Church, Morality, and Dissent
by William E. May
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html

I take it, by what you have said, that we can not speak out against “material dogmas” (a Latin thing there is no such thing in the Byzantine Tradition).

If you are Catholic, then Lumen Gentium still applies to you, whether you are Byzantine or Latin (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). According to the Vatican’s English translation of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem, your Eastern canon 599 is worded exactly as my Latin canon 752 (cf. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=219775&postcount=29) Furthermore, Pius XII’s insistence upon submission to what is expounded in papal encyclicals applies to you just as equally as it applies to me (*Humani Generis, *20).

The magisterium (both Byzantine and Latin) assert that we owe our religious submission of intellect and will to all teachings of the authentic magisterium, whether they are formal dogmas or not. It matters very little whether you describe the doctrinal teachings of the ordinary magisterium as material dogmas or not. What matters is that you submit your will an intellect to the teachings of the magisterium, to include the certain Catholic teaching of Mary as Mediatrix. The catechesis regarding Mary presented by Pope John Paul II (see here: ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2BVM70.HTM ) is just as much intended for Byzantine Catholics as it is for Latin Catholics.

At one point the Immaculate Conception was a “material dogma” before it was formally proclaimed.

It certianly was. However, as I’ve state before, dogma develops. The material aspect of dogma (aka general revelation) developed from the time of Adam to its complete revelation in Christ Jesus and the tradition handed on to the apostles. In other words, the material “stuff” of general revelation ended with the death of the apostles at the close of the 1st century. Yet, the formal “stuff” of revelation continues to develop and still does so even today. In other words, what was only implicitly believed in the past is later explicitly believed and expressed by the Church, as the Church increases its understanding of the material “stuff” of revelation. No new dogmas, just new understandings and new expressions of the deposit of faith once for all handed on in the first century.

So by what I have gotten so far, one could not be against it nor speak out against it. Yet a Saint and Doctor of the Church did just that, St Thomas Aquinas

We can discuss what St. Thomas did or did not teach regarding the Immaculate Conception if you like. However, I don’t find it helpful to imply past Catholics were bound to current canon law. Lumen Gentium and current canon law did not apply to St. Thomas Aquinas. It does, however, apply to all Catholics today.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dave, I just see a disconnect between your statement, “owe our religious submission of intellect and will” and the canons which state that we are not required to have “assent of faith”.

Now the canon says,

Canon 599

A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.

Now if we are not required to give assent of faith, how can we be bound as you say we are.

The issue is one of Tradition and Theology as I have never heard of “material” dogmas in the Byzantine Tradition.

And you seem to ignore my questions on St Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception.

I think I will leave it here though as I have grown tired of this discussion.

You know where I stand and I have not been swayed by anything posted yet.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave, I just see a disconnect between your statement, “owe our religious submission of intellect and will” and the canons which state that we are not required to have “assent of faith”.

I is not my statement, but that of Pope John Paul II. Observe,

Pope John Paul lI, Apostolic Letter *Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem, *par 2 vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html:

The third paragraph states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.(9)

If you cannot understand the distinction perhaps you should speak to your pastor.

Dogmas require “assent of faith” and doctrines require “religious submission.” I’ve given you many resources to enable you to discern what the difference is between the two. I can’t do your homework for you, however.

I for one have not found one resource that remotely suggests the Latin word *obsequium *is compatible with disagreement or dissent. In fact, according to the Vatican’s English translation of the same Apostolic Letter from Pope John Paul II, canon 599 of the Eastern canon law states: “**Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” **

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And you seem to ignore my questions on St Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception.

No, I haven’t. As I stated above, I find it ridiculous to hold St. Thomas accountable to Lumen Gentium when that Constitution was not yet written in his day. Please explain to me why today’s canon law need be binding upon any Catholic of the 13th century.

The earliest teaching I can find which declares that non-infallible doctrines and ecclesiastical disciplines demand our consent and obedience are dated after Aquinas’ day:

Observe,

Pope Pius IX (1864):

**we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. **(Quanta Cura, Denzinger 1698)

Pope Pius XII (1950):

**Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” **(Humani Generis, 20, vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html)

If you were living in the 13th century, it is likely that you could disagree with the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix without violating canon law. Since neither you nor I live under canon law of the 13th century, the matter is irrelevant.

 

[mayra_hart]

20) Vatican II, Lumen gentium ## 61-62.

… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace. This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…

 

[michael_servant]

**Mary’s suffering did not contribute to our salvation. She did not suffer with Him, as His suffering was specifically salvific (sp?) in nature. He became sin for us, she did not. And, although she holds a unique place in salvation history, she suffered as any mother suffers at the loss of her son. She was not created to suffer, die and rise from the dead for our sins. That was Christ’s job and His alone. Her “…fiat” was an example of a willing servant to be obedient to the will of God and because she was not deity she could not, “… restore supernatural life to souls”. The title needs to be revised to present her as a willing disciple and not as a co-redeemer. **

 

[mayra_hart]

Pope Pius VII

A half century later, in 1806, Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) refers to the concept of our salvation having been accomplished in Mary by calling her the “Dispensatrix of all graces.” We get further development under the Papacy of Pius IX (1846-1878) as he brings to light an “indissoluble” association of Mary with her Son in both His labor and His redemptive victory. Drawing from Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers, the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus depicts Mary as the “secondary restorer” (“Reparatrix”) of our first parents, intimately sharing with her seed the same enmity and victory over Satan (cf. Gen. 3:15), and thus having a unique and intrinsic cooperation with her Son in the saving work of redemption:

Just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

The most Blessed Virgin…by a God-given power utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one…The Fathers…declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity, that she was…foretold by God when he said to the serpent, “I will put enmities between you and the woman”-unmistakable evidence that she has crushed the poisonous head of the serpent.

The entire encyclical is studded with references to Mary’s role in our Redemption, which led the Pope to attribute to her the specific titles of Reparatrix (cited above), and Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the following statement:

We repose all our hope in the most Blessed Virgin…who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world;…in her,…the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her, who with her only-begotten Son is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world…Having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race…Appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth…she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains.

 

[michael_servant]

You really got my interest up so I went and found the material in the Catholic Encyclopedia where you got your quotations and found a couple of interesting things. In your quotations is seems you have added words that lead the reader to your assumed conclusion. In the first paragraph you state “…and, thus having a unique and intrinsic cooperation with her Son in the saving work of redemption”. And, in the last paragraph, “Having in her care the work of our salvation,”. Neither of these is in the works from which you are supposedly quoting. If you’re going to quote something go right ahead and do so but if you want to express your own opinions please make sure you are not leading us to believe that the resource material you are using contains that support. You also stated that the “…entire encyclical is studded with references to Mary’s role in our redemption”. It should read ‘…in support of Christ’s redeeming work’. Also, you used the word “intrinsic” when it should have been extrinsic. Originating from outside, not inclusive with the Saviour. This is going to be my last involvement with this subject as I am convinced that those of you professing Mary as co-redemptrix will not be satisfied until Mary has been officially deified by the skewing of facts.

 

[mayra_hart]

MARY AS MEDIATRIX****Father William Saunders ****Why is Mary referred to as the “mediatrix?”—A reader in Lorton The Second Vatican Council dedicated the eighth chapter of the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” to our Blessed Mother. Since our Lord continues His work and saving mission through His body, the Church, the council fathers, particularly under the guidance of Pope Paul VI, decided that it was most appropriate to address the role of our Blessed Mother here because “she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and is…the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit” (No. 53). The whole Church honors Mary as a pre-eminent and wholly unique member of the Church, and as a model in faith, hope and charity.

Given this basis, Vatican II here again repeated the titles of Mary as Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix" (No. 62). In its basic definition, a mediator is one who serves as an intermediary between two other parties. Oftentimes, the mediator assists in reconciling differences and bringing the parties to an understanding.

Examining the references to our Blessed Mother in the sacred Scripture, we find this role of “mediator.” Mary, recognized by Archangel Gabriel as full of grace, one with the Lord and blessed among all women, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and bore Jesus Christ; through her “mediation” Jesus entered this world—true God becoming also true man.

 

[mayra_hart]

Therefore we could look at Mary as the Mediatrix in three senses. First, as mother of the Redeemer, she was the intermediary through which the Son of God entered this world to save us from sin.

Second, by the witness of her own faith and thereby of presenting Christ to others, she aided in reconciling sinners to her Son. Mary, sinless yet knowing the suffering caused by sin, continues to call sinners to her Son. Through her example, she inspires all of us to the faith, hope and love that our Lord would want all of us to have.

Finally, because of her assumption and role as mother for all of us, she prays for us, interceding on our behalf just as she did at Cana, asking the Lord to bestow graces to us as He wills.

This title and role of Mediatrix, however, in no way is meant to distract the faithful from Christ or erode His role as the one Mediator (No. 62). Christ’s mediation is primary, self-sufficient and absolutely necessary for our salvation, whereas the mediation of our Blessed Mother is secondary and dependent upon Christ. Vatican II stated, “In the words of the Apostle (St. Paul), there is but one mediator: ‘for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a redemption for all’ (1 Tim 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it” (No. 60)

 

[mrS4ntA]

wow… since I first followed this thread, the poll above is always 50%-50% (since 74-74 to now 84-84).

anyway, read here; an interesting article on the proposed dogma.

oh, and also, here.

some excerpt:

Perhaps a statement by Dr. Seifert, in a letter to the members of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, sets the stage for any new dogma by asserting that it “would have to exclude any blurring of the distinction between Christ’s redemptive deed and Mary’s purely human way of participating in redemption and of becoming coredemptrix.” Given such careful attention to wording, there should be no valid reason for Protestant objections. Such a statement could have two major positive effects on world Christian dialogue. First, it would set the record straight in terms of Catholic teaching, i.e. the Catholic maintains the centrality of Christ and His redemptive act for human salvation. Secondly, it would bring into focus the often overlooked importance of the Mother of our Lord, who in becoming the willing human bearer of the Incarnate God, participates in her Son’s act for human salvation.

 

[kepha1]

I have no problem with the theology of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I think the problem is one of language, because “co” does not mean “subordinate to” in our language in our culture, like "co-pilot it, means “equal to” like co-operators, or co-conspirators, or co-habitators.

How about “Sub-Redemptrix”??

kepha1

 

[mtr01]

kepha1:

I have no problem with the theology of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I think the problem is one of language, because “co” does not mean “subordinate to” in our language in our culture, like "co-pilot it, means “equal to” like co-operators, or co-conspirators, or co-habitators.

How about “Sub-Redemptrix”??

kepha1

Actually, what I find more interesting is that “Co-Redemptrix” is a relatively recent term, gaining favor only in the 1800’s. Before then, Mary was referred to as “The Redemtrix”, a title explicity mentioned (for the first time?) as far back as the tenth century. A litany of saints contained in a French Psalter includes “Holy Redemptrix of the world, pray for us.”

Probably the most important “breakthrough” concerning the co-redemption, historically speaking was made by John the Geometer (a Byzantine Monk) in the 10th century, in his Life of Mary. He even goes so far as to call her the “Redemption of the captivity.”

The use of “Redemptrix” is seen throughout the 1700’s, most notably by St. Alphonse Liguori, stating that “by the great merit that she acquired in this great sacrifice [Calvary], she is called redemptrix” (In his The Glories of Mary).

It wasn’t until the 18th century, however, the co-redemtrix began to supplant redemtrix as the preferred title, being used 24 times to to 16. In the 19th century, the use of “redemtrix” is rare, while co-redemprix is used a “countless number” of times according to the work of R. Laurentin (Le Titre de Coredemptrice).

 

[Writer]

mtr01:

Actually, what I find more interesting is that “Co-Redemptrix” is a relatively recent term, gaining favor only in the 1800’s. Before then, Mary was referred to as “The Redemtrix”, a title explicity mentioned (for the first time?) as far back as the tenth century. A litany of saints contained in a French Psalter includes “Holy Redemptrix of the world, pray for us.”

Probably the most important “breakthrough” concerning the co-redemption, historically speaking was made by John the Geometer (a Byzantine Monk) in the 10th century, in his Life of Mary. He even goes so far as to call her the “Redemption of the captivity.”

The use of “Redemptrix” is seen throughout the 1700’s, most notably by St. Alphonse Liguori, stating that “by the great merit that she acquired in this great sacrifice [Calvary], she is called redemptrix” (In his The Glories of Mary).

It wasn’t until the 18th century, however, the co-redemtrix began to supplant redemtrix as the preferred title, being used 24 times to to 16. In the 19th century, the use of “redemtrix” is rare, while co-redemprix is used a “countless number” of times according to the work of R. Laurentin (Le Titre de Coredemptrice).

Interesting point… While I agree with the previous posters who note the elements of good theology being obfuscated by the strange sounding term “Co-Redemptrix”, I think the division among Catholics (and Protestants) is a good indication of this title’s questionable overall value to the Church. That it also seems to lead in some, at least, to a general lack of Christian charity also seems to strenthen the position against. Our homily today focused on the wonderful virtue of humility. For all I have read on Mary, I can’t see her as being comfortable with this title herself. I appreciated Father Serpa’s recent answer on this issue (copied below).

Re: Is Mary our Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Writer,

When one understands that “Co-Redemptrix” does NOT mean “Co-Equal” there is no problem. You have a good hold on what Mary’s very real cooperation in our salvation is. This is all the Church means by the term. But the term is SO easily misunderstood. As a result, it really does Our Lady more of a disservice than an honor because of the confusion it causes—in my opinion. This is also why the Church has not pushed the term in a formal way.

I will say a Hail Mary that you get through this. I know that Our Lady wants you to.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Writer]

(Delete.)

 

[Writer]

One last parting observation before signing-off… I started a thread elsewhere today entitled “Margaret Sanger’s Legacy: Abortion”. It concerns new information I came across while writing an article for a Catholic publication on the affect the Culture of Death has had upon our country’s demographics and its very future. Read some of what I wrote below…

According to the Allan Guttmacher Institute, 1.31 million abortions are taking place each year. (The peak was in 1980, and it has been slowly dropping since.) This number corresponds to one quarter of all pregnancies ending in abortion within this country. This figure is sickening

Here’s my two cents… I could be wrong, but my guess is that the devil laughs with glee at us arguing among ourselves over such issues as “Co-Redemptrix”. Are we doing as much as we could to combat the culture of death at every turn, or are we instead focusing on esoteric terms such as this? My guess is that Mary would much rather we invest our energies less on campaigning for her new title and more on the saving of lives of the unborn. Where is our focus, our attention?

 

[mtr01]

Writer:

Interesting point… While I agree with the previous posters who note the elements of good theology being obfuscated by the strange sounding term “Co-Redemptrix”, I think the division among Catholics (and Protestants) is a good indication of this title’s questionable overall value to the Church. That it also seems to lead in some, at least, to a general lack of Christian charity also seems to strenthen the position against. Our homily today focused on the wonderful virtue of humility. For all I have read on Mary, I can’t see her as being comfortable with this title herself. I appreciated Father Serpa’s recent answer on this issue (copied below).

I agree with the point about it being an issue in Catholic-Protestant relations. As I understand it, that’s why VII taught Mary as Co-Redemptrix, without formally stating it as dogma, or even using the term itself. From what I understand, there was a feeling that it would be a hindrance to ecumenism.

Re: Is Mary our Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Writer,

When one understands that “Co-Redemptrix” does NOT mean “Co-Equal” there is no problem. You have a good hold on what Mary’s very real cooperation in our salvation is. This is all the Church means by the term. But the term is SO easily misunderstood. As a result, it really does Our Lady more of a disservice than an honor because of the confusion it causes—in my opinion. This is also why the Church has not pushed the term in a formal way.

I will say a Hail Mary that you get through this. I know that Our Lady wants you to.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

This is also an interesting point. I’m not sure if I completely agree, though. I think it’s somewhat akin to the Immaculate Conception. Did the Church do Our Mother a disservice in defining that dogma? I don’t think so, even though many Protestants are intent on trying to disprove it. Considering Our Lady’s apparitions to St. Bridget (where she states that “my Son and I redeemed the world”), or Our Lord Jesus’ apparition to her where he states “My Mother and I saved man as with one Heart only, I by suffering in My Heart and My Flesh, she by the sorrow and love of her Heart”, I don’t think she’d have too much of an issue with being formally declared “Co-Redemptrix”. Granted, private revelation is not binding, but the idea is pretty clear.

In my humble opinion, if Our Mother is distressed over the title, perhaps it’s because we are too worried over what others may think. For my part, I think that we’ll see a formal promulgation of this as dogma before then end of our Holy Father’s pontificate.

 

[mtr01]

Writer:

Here’s my two cents… I could be wrong, but my guess is that the devil laughs with glee at us arguing among ourselves over such issues as “Co-Redemptrix”. Are we doing as much as we could to combat the culture of death at every turn, or are we instead focusing on esoteric terms such as this? My guess is that Mary would much rather we invest our energies less on campaigning for her new title and more on the saving of lives of the unborn. Where is our focus, our attention?

Point well taken…