Mary Co-Redemptrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mperea75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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?
Click to expand...
A time wasted on truth is not a time wasted at all.

And Mary seems to be pretty fond when Pius IX define the Immaculate Conception altho for “some Catholics” this would only jeopardy the relation with Protestant.

As a Catholic I shall not let some outsider define what the Church ought to dogmatized.
 
**Pope John Paul II

Mary, Mother of the Redemption, was prepared in advance so that she could fulfill perfectly her God-given mission with her Son in the redemptive liberation. Advancing Pope Paul VI’s teaching that “Most holy bonds bound and still bind the Virgin Mary to the Holy Spirit in the work of human redemption,” producing fruits “ever more advantageous,” John Paul II reminds us at a General Audience in 1983 that it is Mary filled with grace that allowed for and gave “maximum value” to her participation in the work of redemption: “The fullness of grace allowed [Mary] to fulfill perfectly her mission of collaboration with the work of salvation; it gave the maximum value to her cooperation in the sacrifice.” It is the Holy Spirit present at every moment of Mary’s life who gives the greatest possible value to her salvific work with the Redeemer. The foundation of Mary’s coredemptive activity is her fullness of grace. She is the “Coredemptrix” because she was first the “Immaculate Conception.”

Coredemption reached a profound, personal kenosis for Mary at Calvary. It was there that she offered both herself and her Son to divine justice, freely uniting herself to his Sacrifice for the salvation of the human family. Thus the coredeeming Mother constitutes an active, not passive, part in the redemptive Sacrifice of Calvary. The Holy Father makes this clear in a 1983 Angelus address:

In that one Sacrifice [of the Cross], Mary, the first redeemed, the Mother of the Church, had an active part. She stood near the Crucified, suffering deeply with her Firstborn; with a motherly heart she associated herself with his Sacrifice; with love she consented to his immolation (cf. “Lumen Gentium,” 58; “Marialis Cultus,” 20); she offered him and she offered herself to the Father.

This active participation in suffering with the Redeemer reached its culmination at Calvary. In his 1984 apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, John Paul points our gaze to the foot of the Cross, the climax in the work of redemption where Mary’s ascent of Calvary with her redeeming Son reached “an intensity” beyond human comprehension, bearing fruit for the salvation of the world:

It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view…which was mysterious and supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world. Her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the Cross together with the Beloved Disciple were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son [pg. 6, no. 25].

Hence Mary not only had an *active *participation in the redemptive victory but it was fruitful as well, in light of her “special sort of sharing” in the suffering and death of her redeeming Son. And as a gift for this sacrificial act of great love with the Redeemer, the coredeeming Mother received from her dying Son the providential gift of a “new kind of motherhood.” Mary, “Mother of the human race,” continues to bring the graces of redemption to the human family: 🙂

**
 
40.png
beng:
And Mary seems to be pretty fond when Pius IX define the Immaculate Conception altho for “some Catholics” this would only jeopardy the relation with Protestant.

As a Catholic I shall not let some outsider define what the Church ought to dogmatized.
Click to expand...
Great minds think alike 😃
 
40.png
beng:
A time wasted on truth is not a time wasted at all.

And Mary seems to be pretty fond when Pius IX define the Immaculate Conception altho for “some Catholics” this would only jeopardy the relation with Protestant.

As a Catholic I shall not let some outsider define what the Church ought to dogmatized.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation, Benny… I didn’t realize Father Serpa was an outsider. It looks like Screwtape has done a good job on this issue, since there seems more concern with titles than the “culture of death” as described by Pope John Paul II in 1995, or so.
 
40.png
Writer:
Interesting observation, Benny… I didn’t realize Father Serpa was an outsider. It looks like Screwtape has done a good job on this issue, since there seems more concern with titles than the “culture of death” as described by Pope John Paul II in 1995, or so.
Click to expand...
And why is Fr Serpa concern about it? Is it because of the… “outsiders”? Well, that is also the case with “some Catholics” when Pius IX issued Ineffabilis Deus.

Screwtape has been working the same way as he did during the issuance of Ineffabilis Deus.
 
40.png
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).
Click to expand...
I like the term Redemptrix better than Coredemptrix. Hopefully when this dogma is defined the term Redemptrix will be used.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
I like the term Redemptrix better than Coredemptrix. Hopefully when this dogma is defined the term Redemptrix will be used.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with either, as long as our Blessed Mother’s cooperation is properly understood.
 
40.png
mtr01:
Originally Posted by 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?*
…
Click to expand...
I do not get it how can you compare the killing of the unjust and the horrible thing that it is to something as a title as “co-redemtrix” they are totally two different issues and where as one is as horrible as the holocust was in Auschwitz. The other is a title that is rightliy given to Mary as Mother of Our Lord.

How many times do we see our Earthly mother suffering for some reason and you know in your heart of hearts that she is suffering for you, hoping by some chance that the everything will work out for the best for you.
 
40.png
Mperea75:
I do not get it how can you compare the killing of the unjust and the horrible thing that it is to something as a title as “co-redemtrix” they are totally two different issues and where as one is as horrible as the holocust was in Auschwitz. The other is a title that is rightliy given to Mary as Mother of Our Lord.

How many times do we see our Earthly mother suffering for some reason and you know in your heart of hearts that she is suffering for you, hoping by some chance that the everything will work out for the best for you.
Click to expand...
I was waiting for someone to say this, but now I am out of time! As a Catholic scholar named Joseph Pearce commented in one of his most recent books Evangelicals are some of our best allies on moral issues of the day. With Co-Redemptrix we are building walls–instead of clearing barriers to our working together on what matters. Furthermore, it is an issue of priorities. What takes up most of our time, our focus? Gotta go, but perhaps more later.
 
40.png
Writer:
I was waiting for someone to say this, but now I am out of time! As a Catholic scholar named Joseph Pearce commented in one of his most recent books Evangelicals are some of our best allies on moral issues of the day. With Co-Redemptrix we are building walls–instead of clearing barriers to our working together on what matters. Furthermore, it is an issue of priorities. What takes up most of our time, our focus? Gotta go, but perhaps more later.
Click to expand...
Heh? Compromise for political power? Too Kerry for me.
 
40.png
beng:
Heh? Compromise for political power? Too Kerry for me.
Click to expand...
Hey, let’s keep that name out of this! Just a personal observation, but I can understand a bit of the other side, as well. Where does one draw the line, for example, concerning widespread implementation of a concept seen as true yet divisive? Should people (on both sides) of issues such as this bend for the “common good”–i.e. to improve opportunities to work together to combat things such as abortion?
 
**Mary Coredemptrix Good for Ecumenism, Rooted in Truth

What Does the Church Really Teach?

As to the first issue, while it is certainly true that no creature, including Mary, can be placed on the same level of Jesus in his redemptive work, it is also true that Mary holds an exalted place—the highest place after Christ, according to Catholic teaching Chapter eight of the Vatican II document *Lumen Gentium, *sets forth the teaching on Mary in relation to the Church. While acknowledging that Jesus is the “one Mediator of God and men” (1 Tim 2:5, 6), it recognizes that “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold *cooperation *which is but a *sharing *in this one source” (nos. 60, 62) (emphasis added); and that this holds true in a special way regarding Mary.

In no. 61 of *Lumen Gentium, *the Church teaches that not only is Mary the Mother of the Redeemer, but that “in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the [redeeming] work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. *For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace” *(emphasis added). Continuing on this point, no. 62 teaches, "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation, and which she sustained without wavering beneath the Cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to Heaven she did not lay aside this saving office: but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation[emphasis added]…

Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.

In these words the Church teaches that because Mary is our heavenly Mother in the order of grace, she rightfully bears the titles of “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” understood in the “cooperative” sense— that she cooperated while on earth, and continues to cooperate now in Heaven, in a totally unique and singular way in God’s plan of salvation and in the order of grace. In modern papal teaching, this same reasoning has been applied to Mary with the term Coredemptrix, understood, again, in the sense that Mary *cooperated *in a unique manner with the redeeming act of Christ on the Cross.

Perhaps because the term Coredemptrix is more open to misunderstanding, especially by non-Catholics (some of whom already accuse Catholics of “worshipping” Mary), popes have avoided its use in recent years; and the Second Vatican Council, desirous of promoting ecumenism, refrained from using this term. However, Catholics should have no problem with the term; for by reason of our Baptism and as members of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, and in the Communion of the Saints, we *all *are called to be coredeemers with Christ, to cooperate Andy share in his work of redemption. As en idence of this, St. Paul says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of His Body, which is the Church” (Col 1:24).

**
 
Testimony of the Saints

This doctrine was expressed implicitly, in its “seed” form, by a number of the early Church Fathers, such as St. **Jerome **(4th/5th century), in the Eve-Mary comparison: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” St. **Germanus I of Constantinople **(d. 732), who is called the “Doctor of Mary’s Universal Mediation,” said: “O most holy one, no one obtains salvation except through thee… There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given, except through thee.” St. **Bernard of Clairvaux **(d. 1153) called Mary the “aqueduct” or “channel” through which all the grace of Christ comes to us; and he said, “This is the will of God who willed that we should have all things through Mary. If then, we possess any hope or grace or gift of salvation, let us acknowledge that it comes to us through her.”

St. **Louis de Montfort (d. **1716), in his classic work, Rue Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, says that "God the Son . . . applies his merits to his members and through [Mary] he distributes his graces. **She is his mystic channel, his aqueduct … God the Holy Spirit chose Mary as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. Such indeed is the will of God, who has decreed that we should receive all things through Mary" (nos. 24, 25).

In giving an explanation for his teaching, St. Louis says, “The Holy Spirit formed Jesus only through Mary, and he forms the members of the Mystical Body and dispenses his gifts and favors through her” (no. 140). :blessyou:
 
40.png
Writer:
Where does one draw the line, for example, concerning widespread implementation of a concept seen as true yet divisive?
Click to expand...
Any 'seemingly" negative byproduct of the truth is the work of the devil or human weakness.
 
**Jesus stands alone **

(a) Nowhere in the Bible is it said Mary was taken up in heaven. This Catholic doctrine is called “the Assumption of Mary”. Upon a sinner’s death, they are returned to dust.

“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” -Gen. 3:19

(b) There is no such things as the “gifts of eternal
salvation.” Eternal Salvation is a GIFT, not gifts.

“For by grace are ye SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God.” -Eph. 2:8

See Romans 5:15-18 and 6:23; II Corinthians 9:15; Ephesians 2:9; Hebrews 6:4.

(c) Salvation is not a process, it’s a one time gift
given only once upon your acceptance of Jesus
Christ. You are then considered a child of God.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” -John 1:12

(Aside-- Mary is more like the rest of us than she is like Jesus. Mary herself acknowledges her need for a savior and admits to being a sinner… Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
 
MARY’S ASSUMPTION Biblical Basis

This dogma is rooted in the biblical depiction of Mary as the New Eve (See the first article for the biblical basis of the New Eve). Death is the result of the Fall. If Mary is the New Eve, who shares in the New Adam’s victory over sin, they she should also share in His victory over death and physical decay. It was also not fitting that the body which was sanctified to bear God Incarnate should see corruption. So God took His New Ark into heaven. In Revelations 12:1, right after his vision of the ark of the covenant in heaven (11:19), St. John sees a great Woman: the New Eve, the Virgin Mary, Image and Model of the Church. This verse strongly insinuates the Assumption of Mary.

Objections

  1. *]Catholics consider Jesus and Mary equal because they believe that both of them ascended into heaven.

    Mary did not ascend into heaven; she was assumed into heaven. Jesus ascended by His own power, Mary was taken up into heaven by God. The Assumption is essentially the same as what Evangelicals call the “rapture”; we could even say that Mary was “raptured” into heaven at the end of her life.

    *]But the Bible does not say that she was raptured into heaven.

    The Bible is also silent on how the lives of most of Jesus’ disciples ended. Many Evangelicals accept the witness of Church history that Saint Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, that Paul was beheaded, etc., even though Scripture does not record these events. Why then do they refuse to believe, as the early Christians did, that Jesus raptured Mary into heaven at the end of her life on earth?

    *]But Mary is dead.

    Where does the Bible say that? Nowhere. That’s an unbiblical assertion.

    *]Do Catholics believe that Mary died?

    Some do, some don’t. Scripture is silent on how Mary’s life ended, and the Church has never declared whether she died and was raised or was raptured up without ever dying. So Catholics are free to believe either one.

    *]Doesn’t I Corinthians 15:23 disprove the Assumption? Not necessarily. First of all, it refers to those who have died in Christ. If Mary did not die, then this verse would not apply to her. Second, there is a chance that Mary was still alive when Saint Paul wrote this epistle (some say she lived to the age of seventy-two!). So Paul may not have known of God’s plan to rapture her up early, and since Mary herself surely did not know, it would not have been appropriate to reveal it in the Epistle.

    *]Why would God take Mary into heaven like that? Why not? He took Enoch and Elijah into heaven without them ever tasting death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5); he raised many righteous Jews from the dead at Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:52-53), and He has promised to rapture up both living and dead believers at the end of time (1 Thess 4:16-17). Why wouldn’t Jesus do the same for His Mother, the woman whom He is bound to honor by His own Law? As we have seen, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Why would God allow this sacred Ark to rot in the grave? It is not fitting that the body which was sanctified to bear God Incarnate should see corruption. So God took the New Ark into heaven, where we see her in Revelations 11:19-12:1.
 
MARY’S SINLESS LIFE

As God preserved Mary from acquiring original sin, so He preserved her by His grace from ever committing a sin during her life. This teaching essentially follows from the last.

How This Teaching Exalts Christ

As with the Immaculate Conception, this teaching shows that Jesus’ holiness demanded that He be born of a holy woman, and that He can save to the uttermost.

Biblical Basis

Essentially the same as with the Immaculate Conception. Had Mary ever committed a sin during her life, she would not have been an enemy of the devil or a holy vessel; thus her Immaculate Conception would have been in vain! Her fullness of grace would have helped prevent her from committing sin.

Early Christian Witness

The quotes in the last article indicate that Mary was completely removed from sin, both original and actual. So they apply here as well. Objections Didn’t Mary lose her faith in Jesus during His ministry (Mk 3:21, 31)?

The text does not say that, and the very notion is absurd. Here is why:

Mary had seen an angel from heaven, who told her that she would bear a Son without having relations with a man. She knew such a thing was naturally impossible (Luke 1:34), yet she believed and it happened to her! This was clearly a miracle of God, which she experienced in her own body!

Based solely on the angel’s message, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth. There she found that Elizabeth was pregnant, as the angel had said - a confirmation of his words. Then Elizabeth suddenly prophesied, displaying knowledge of Mary’s pregnancy and the identity of her Child which she could not have known except by divine revelation. Another clear miracle! Mary praised God for this wonder (Luke 1:46-53), in words which are full of faith in Him.

Mary’s betrothed, Joseph, then had this miraculous dream revealing to him the divine nature of her pregnancy - yet another confirmation from God for Mary! She heard the shepherds tell of how they saw myrads of angels singing praises at Jesus’ birth. She marvelled at Simeon’s prophecy of Jesus’ future. She never forgot any of these wonders; the Bible clearly states that she “treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Lk 2:17; 51).

She saw the Wise Men come from a distant land to adore her Son, drawn by a mysterious star. She witnessed firsthand the fulfillment of every Messianic prophecy in her Son. She lived with God Incarnate for thirty years; prayed with Him daily and talked with Him of heavenly things for three whole decades!!! She even instigated His first miracle at Cana, and witnessed Him change common water into the finest wineWas Mary free from temptation as well?

That is highly doubtful. If Jesus Christ, the God-Man, had to endure temptation, surely Mary, a mere creature, was not spared. Surely the Devil, who tempted the first Eve, tried the New Eve as well. Yet unlike her foremother, Mary always relied on God’s grace to resist, so she never gave in. This is not impossible (I Co 10:13). Adam and Eve did not have to disobey God; they could have resisted, but did not. Mary, by her reliance on God, triumphed where her forebears had failed. As mentioned above, Mary most likely did not know that she was sinless. She may have experienced periods of spiritual dryness as we all do, and feared that she had somehow offended God (when in reality God was simply testing her faithfulness). She loved God with all her heart, soul, mind and strength, so she greatly feared offending Him. Therefore her sinlessness does not necessarily rule out temptation and spiritual struggle.
 
MARY IMMACULATE*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:blessyou: *
 
joehar said:
**Jesus stands alone **

(a) Nowhere in the Bible is it said Mary was taken up in heaven. This Catholic doctrine is called “the Assumption of Mary”. Upon a sinner’s death, they are returned to dust.

“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” -Gen. 3:19

(b) There is no such things as the “gifts of eternal
salvation.” Eternal Salvation is a GIFT, not gifts.

“For by grace are ye SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God.” -Eph. 2:8

See Romans 5:15-18 and 6:23; II Corinthians 9:15; Ephesians 2:9; Hebrews 6:4.

(c) Salvation is not a process, it’s a one time gift
given only once upon your acceptance of Jesus
Christ. You are then considered a child of God.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” -John 1:12

(Aside-- Mary is more like the rest of us than she is like Jesus. Mary herself acknowledges her need for a savior and admits to being a sinner… Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Click to expand...

Dear joehar!

No one stands alone! We all belong to Gods big family (if we want to)!

If you by “Jesus stands alone” mean that he is our Savior and that there is no other savior, we can agree. He did the job on the cross!

Mary is the mother of God (the Son, one of the three persons in th trinity). In that way she points to Him. In the first miracle Jesus does, she POINTS to Him and says: ‘They have no wine.’ (John 2:3).
Jesus asks what she has to do with Him (John 2:4). Do you understand what she says next?

Do you really understand? 👋

She says: "DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU". (John 2:5) :yup: :yup: :yup:

You quoted the Bible: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE CATHOLICS BELIEVE!

Read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:

cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

Mary is NOT an extra God, she is Christ’s **MOTHER ** whom He gave to us. " ‘Woman, here is your son.’ 27Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ **And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. **

that’s what we have to do, to take her to our heart (home) and ask for her prayers. She will always POINT to JESUS CHRIST!

God bless you, joehar!

G.G.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top