Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[Writer]

itsjustdave1988:

My point is, if it is true, proclaim it. Don’t be afraid to proclaim the truth. Christ wasn’t. Why should we?

Furthermore, it is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium. The Pope uses the term in his catechesis on Mary. He’s the supreme teaching authority of Christianity. I’m not one that can so easily disregard his catechesis.
See also…

TEACHING OF POPE JOHN PAUL II ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2BVM70.HTM

I have to admit I keep getting pulled off track on this. My central problem is the term itself. While I personally am suspicious of elements of the theology, or, more importantly, motivation for subscribing to it, the term itself is the stumbling block for the reasons outlined in earlier comments.

In the link you provided above (#40), Mary is described as a “co-worker” for salvation. I would be much more willing to support this, than the alternative…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is not dogma is it?

Yes. It is dogma. It is not *de fide definita, *but neither was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary prior to it’s definition.

It is not an “infallible teaching”

Whether something is infallible or not depends upon the constant and common consent of the ordinary magisterium or definitions of the solemn magisterium. It may be infallible based upon the former, but not the latter. Nonetheless, whether it is infallible or not is more of a concern for dogmatic theologians (and Protestants, it seems). Catholics are bound to assent to both infallible and non-infallible teachings of the magisterium.

and should not become one.

That’s a matter for the magisterium, the Teaching Church, to decide. It really has nothing to do with the assent or dissent of the Taught Church.

It is not necessary for our faith and salvation.

Then why has the magisterium proclaimed it as Catholic teaching? I’d have to disagree with you here. If it is ordinary universal teaching of the magisterium, then it is a matter of our faith. Once that is understood, then every Catholic ought to learn the doctrine, believe it, and proclaim it, teaching it as the magisterium does, without making excuses to anybody by saying, “well, it isn’t defined infallibly” as if to suggest that we do not, as Catholics, owe our assent of will and intellect to this doctrine.

Are Catholics not bound to assent to non-infallibly defined magisterial doctrines? Or is Catholic assent of will and intellect merely limited to what is de fide definita? The Immaculate Conception of Mary prior to it becoming *de fide definita *was certainly dogma which was theologically certain, even if understood by some at that time as having less than infallible certainty.

Prior to formally defining the eternal Sonship of Christ as from the same substance of the Father, many claimed that using a non-scriptural word, such as *homoousion, *would create confusion, and was unScriptural, or railed against it as simply false, not necessary for proclaiming the Gospel, etc. etc.

Yet, the concern then, as it ought to be now is: is it true? If it is true than proclaim it. Too many Catholics presume that ONLY the dogmas proclaimed as de fide definita require our assent of will and intellect. That’s simply not in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree with the theology, just not the term “Coredemptrix”

I understand. However, I’m more inclined to put all the Catholic cards on the table than to hold them close. The term has been used and is being used authentically by the magisterium. I say teach it up front in the way the magisterium does. Sooner or later, they ought to be thoroughly familiar with this doctrine as Catholics. The real use of this term will be brought up by Jack Chick and his disciples or anybody else who desires to create a strawman against Catholic teaching. Every Catholic ought to know it is used by popes of the past, as well as the current pope, and be able to teach what it truly means.

 

[pnewton]

Why is it necessary to boil the doctrine of Mary’s role in redemption down to a single phrase? Why not just teach the doctrine. It seems almost like we want a Madison Avenue style slogan. I notice that no one is questioning the doctrine involved, just the phrase.

 

[QuicumqueVult]

I voted yes. I am not alone among Anglicans who think that way. John Macquarrie is an Oxford don who concurs, for one.

The way to get at this is understanding two Latin distinctions.

Christ’s redemption is effected de condigno, with the sole dignity of being the unique and particular Redeemer of humanity. Only God the Son incarnate as a perfect human being can effect the atonement for sin and elevate man to partake of the divine energies.

Mary’s redemption is de congruo, congruent with Christ’s Redemption, but not of the same class or species of grace. Her role as co- or cor-redemptrix is derived from the sole dignity of Christ. The prefix “cor” is used by some to denote her place in the hearts of the faithful as theotokos, mother of God, and the new Eve, as Irenaeus avers in his Contra Haeresies.

Many of you noted that we all share in the Redemption. We thus share in it, like her, in the order of de congruo redemptive action. But Mary is a sui generis, one of a kind, because she is also immaculate, most pure, unlike any of us. Thus she is Corredemptix par excellence.

The logic of Mediatrix proceeds along similar lines…

I actually wrote a rather extensive paper on the subject. It was quite rewarding.

 

[mayra_hart]

the church is very clear that mary’s role depends on the basis of christ and his position: “this title is so understood,that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of christ the one mediator. mary’s role of mediatrix thus depend on christ’s mediatorship”. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros.

 

[mercygate]

QuicumqueVult:

I actually wrote a rather extensive paper on the subject. It was quite rewarding.

I held off crossing the Tiber for 15 years, partly because I felt I was a stronger apologist for the Catholic faith when I wasn’t attached to the Catholic Church. Many Anglicans find themselves doing Catholic Apologetics to Catholics – especially on the doctrines concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I would be very interested in seeing your paper. Can you make it available?

 

[Writer]

I held off crossing the Tiber for 15 years, partly because I felt I was a stronger apologist for the Catholic faith when I wasn’t attached to the Catholic Church. Many Anglicans find themselves doing Catholic Apologetics to Catholics – especially on the doctrines concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I would be very interested in seeing your paper. Can you make it available?

Ditto… I also would be interested in reading this paper. Once again, however, this discussion is focusing more with the doctrine itself–as opposed to the troubling term. I vote for “co-worker”, as was referred to earlier.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Writer:

Ditto… I also would be interested in reading this paper. Once again, however, this discussion is focusing more with the doctrine itself–as opposed to the troubling term. I vote for “co-worker”, as was referred to earlier.

This is one of the issues I have. If Co-Redemptrix means co-worker then I believe that is in error.

When we look up the word coworker in the Webster dictonary we find the following…

Main Entry: co-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from *com-; *akin to Old English *ge-, *perfective and collective prefix, Old Irish *com- *with
1 : with : together : joint : jointly <coexist> <coheir>
2 : in or to the same degree <coextensive>
3 a : one that is associated in an action with another : fellow : partner <coauthor> <coworker> b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy <copilot>
4 : of, relating to, or constituting the complement of an angle <cosine> <codeclination>

Now, the first definintion is the most common followed by the next most common one.

We find that the first two definitions do not work. It is not until 3b that we find something acceptable. This is bad. co-worker will casue just as many issues as Co-Redemptrix.

As for this being part of the Ordinary Magisterium, the Holy Father using the term in a few documents does not make it so. To be part of the Ordinary Magisterium it has to be taught by all the bishops not just one.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for this being part of the Ordinary Magisterium, the Holy Father using the term in a few documents does not make it so. To be part of the Ordinary Magisterium it has to be taught by all the bishops not just one.

I disagree with your theory on what constitutes an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. The pope is vested with magisterial authority over the entire Church. When he exercises this authority, he can exercise it alone, either solemnly or ordinarily.

From Lumen Gentium:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. *Lumen gentium *25]

See also Fr. William Most’s article …

Ordinary Magisterium on Mary’s Immediate Cooperation in the Objective Redemption by Fr. William Most
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/COOPRED.TXT

Here’s an excerpt:

Pius XII … (Humani generis, Dec.28, 1950. DS 3885):

“Nor should one think that the things proposed in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves call for assent on the plea that in them the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, to which this also applies: He who “hears you hears me.”. . . But if the Popes in their acta deliberately pass judgment on a matter controverted up to then, it is clear to all that according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, the question can no longer be considered open to free discussion among theologians.” …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now is the doctrine of Mary as coredemptix taught by an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium? Certainly, even if the term “co-redemptrix” is not specifically used, although is specifically found in other kinds of papal addresses.

Observe,

St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, AAS 36.
453-55:

Hence that never disassociated manner of life and labors. . . . But when the final hour of her Son came, His Mother stood by the cross of Jesus, not just occupied in seeing the dread spectacle, but actually rejoicing that her Only-Begotten was being offered for the salvation of the human race. . . . from this common sharing of sufferings and will, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and so the dispensatrix of all the gifts which were gained for us by the death and blood of Jesus. . … . She. . . since she was ahead of all in holiness and union with Christ, and was taken up by Christ into the work of human salvation, she merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly, and is the chief minister of the dispensation of graces. …

Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182

"… so far as pertained to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race." …

Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Explorata res est. Feb. 2, 1923. AAS
15. 104:

**. . . the sorrowful Virgin shared in the work of redemption with Jesus Christ. . . . **

---

Pius XI, Radiomessage to Lourdes, April 28, 1935. Osservatore
Romano, April 29, 1935:

**O Mother of piety and mercy, who as Coredemptrix stood by your most sweet Son suffering with Him when He consummated the redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross. . . preserve in us, we beg, day by day, the precious fruits of the Redemption and of your compassion. **

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of
Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7:

“**Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58). . . as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”
**

 

[mayra_hart]

“mary’s function…in no way obscure or diminished this unique mediation of christ but rather shows its power…[it] flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of christ,rests on his mediation,depends entirely on it,and draws all its power from it. no creature[mary] could ever counted along with the incarnated word and redeemer” (ccc970).pues solo con el y por el eres bendita y glorificada por toda criatura… amen

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Here is an excerpt from my paper, “Our Tainted Nature’s Solitary Boast: A Reflection on Mary as Corredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.”

I found Laurentin quite instructive:

**Quench not the Spirit. **

Roman Catholic Mariologist René Laurentin also reconstructs the often-ignored pneumatological aspect of Mary’s role in God’s redemption. The Holy Spirit is co-Redeemer condignly (de condigno), and Mary is co-Redeemer congruently (de congruo) through co-operation with both the Son and Holy Spirit in the work of redemption.

Less recognition has been given to the complementary truth that [Mary] is also entirely relative to the Holy Spirit. She acts in dependence on him. The title of “coredemptrix” which was coined for her … would fit the Holy Spirit in the primary and strictest sense of the term *; for he is the Spirit of Christ, and by his anointing and breath the whole saving work of the Redeemer is animated. The title “co-Redeemer” would aptly describe him, according to the divine equality that would give full force to the prefix “co-”. Mary owes the fact that she was able to communicate in this sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, who not only cooperated in the essential work of the anointing, but also divinely stirred up the cooperation of the first of the redeemed. With him who is “co-Redeemer” she contracts this new bond at the time of the essential sacrifice. The Spirit had urged her on the Calvary so that she might stand there as the firstfuits of the cooperating Church, at the first hour when the sign of the Church was to appear from the pierced side of the Savior. As type of the Church on Calvary, then, Mary acquires a new claim to be mother of men. While Christ effectively becomes their head in meriting the Redemption, she effectively becomes their mother in being associated with this universal merit. It is the your when Jesus declared her motherhood: “Mother, this is you son” (Cf. Jn 19:26). *

René Laurentin, A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary. Trans. by Charles Neumann (Washington, NJ: AMI Press, 1991), pp. 242-243.

 

[Terry_from_Ypsi]

I think although it is an appropriate title, it goes to far.

I think that I preferr just believing that she is the Mother of the Son of God who is the most important total human being in Heaven.

I also preferr looking at her as the “sorrowful Mother.”

As soon as the dogma is defined then as true Roman Catholics, “we must believe and accept all that the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches.”

I do not think this dogma is necessary and I prefer to have a person grow into this knowledge.

It could be a bigger stumbling block for others considering the Roman Catholic Church becuase of the over-emphasis that we can at times place on Mary and the Saints.

It is not needed right now. But in general I believe in the title.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree with your theory on what constitutes an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. The pope is vested with magisterial authority over the entire Church. When he exercises this authority, he can exercise it alone, either solemnly or ordinarily.

Dave,
I can see your point but we must also remember that not everything the pope says is done so as pope. Some of what he says is as bishop of Rome, other things he says as patriarch of the West.

One must look at the audience of his comments to determine which “hate” (bishop, patriarch, pope) he is wearing.

Not everything he says is meant for the whole Church.

Here is what the Catechism says about the ordinary Magisterium

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. 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.

**2034 **The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.” The *ordinary *and universal *Magisterium *of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

Now with my reading of 892, it says that the ordianry Magisterium exercises it power when the bishops teach in communion with the pope when the pope has not issued the teaching by way of an infallible definition.

So I do believe that the Catechism supports my view.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BythCath,

I understand your point with regard to different hats the pope wears, however, if an encyclical such as Ad diem illum is published in the Acta Apostolicae *Sedis *(Acts of the Apostlic See), addressed to “the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See”, then I’m pretty sure it’s an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium which requires my religious assent of intellect and will.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

BythCath,

I understand your point with regard to different hats the pope wears, however, if an encyclical such as Ad diem illum is published in the Acta Apostolicae *Sedis *(Acts of the Apostlic See), addressed to “the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See”, then I’m pretty sure it’s an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium which requires my religious assent of intellect and will.

And your point being?

Ad Diem Illum Laetissiumum, or for those of us who do not know latin On the Immaculate Conception, does not use the term Co-redemptrix.

Now it does have the term mediatrix but it does not use it in such a way as to raise that to dogma. Otherwise there was not be a movement to make it such.

Where it uses it, it is different than the idea that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. That they only come though her.

Here is what it says…

1. It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis).

This in no way expresses what I have been told by those pushing for this new dogma.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now with my reading of 892, it says that the ordianry Magisterium exercises it power when the bishops teach in communion with the pope when the pope has not issued the teaching by way of an infallible definition.

With my reading, divine assistance is given to each individual bishop who teaches in communion with the pope. It then says “and, in a particular way,” divine assistance is given to the pope as pastor of the entire Church. It is not just divine assistance to the episcopal body as a whole, but to each member of that body when teaching in communion with the pope, and to the pope alone when teaching as pastor of the entire Church.

Any bishop can teach with ordinary magisterial authority. “Ordinary” is an ecclesiastical term used to distinguish that authority given by ordinance (i.e. by law) as opposed to that authority which is delegated.

Such ordinary teaching within the diocese of Boise, for example, is not binding for me, as I live in the Diocese of Colorado Springs. However, the pope, when he teaches as universal pastor, he teaches with Ordinary Magisterial authority which is binding upon me.

Ordinary Magisteriuam is distinct from Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY. The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible. (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, “Magisterium, Ordinary”)
There’s three types of magisterial authority:

1. Solemn or Extradordinary. (infallible)
2. Ordinary and Universal. (infallible)
3. Ordinary. (not infallible)

Every bishop in communion with the pope is vested with type 3).

The College of Bishops in communion with the pope is vested with type 2), insofar as their teaching taught with type 3) is also taught “everywhere and always.”

For type 1):

**MAGISTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY. **The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible." (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, “Magisterium, Extraordinary”)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BythCath,

The term coredemtrix is not used in that encyclical, yet the doctrine is taught. Our Anglican brother, QuicumqueVult, correctly asserts and summarized the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix as Mary congruously meriting what Christ condignly merited for us.

Furthermore, Dr. Ludwig Ott quotes from Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical in his section of *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. *In that section, he describes Mary as the mediatrix of all grace as a *sententia certa *(certain teaching) of the Catholic Church. Within his same section, he discusses Mary’s role in the redemption and her title as coredemptrix. Her role in the redemption is part of the sententia certa of Mary’s role as mediatrix.

From Pope St. Pius X, par 14 of his Encyclical *Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, *(1904):

"Mary … has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno"

Do you disagree with Pope St. Pius X regarding Mary being associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption? Do you disagree that she merited for us (while on earth) de congruo what Jesus Christ merited for us *de condigno? *If you do disagree, do you also disagree with Pius XII in his *Humani Generis *(1950) that what is taught in papal encyclicals is an exercise of the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium to which this applies “he who hears you, hears me?” Do you disagree with Pius XII that such teaching is no longer open to free opinion?

As far as dogma, it depend upon your meaning of the term. It is a material dogma, but not a formal dogma, in Ludwig Ott’s terminology. However, because it is not yet formal dogma does not mean that this doctrine is in the field of free opinion for Catholcs, which is why Dr. Ott describes it as a sententia certa. The development of dogma, according to Ludwig Ott, includes raising material dogmas to the status of formal dogmas.

I don’t really care whether this material dogma is raised to the status of formal dogma, because as I understand it, I owe my religious assent to this teaching whether it is formal dogma or not, as I do all teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

What I do find disconcerting it that some would suggest that since this is still material dogma and not yet formal, we can disagree with it. That’s incorrect.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

What I do find disconcerting it that some would suggest that since this is still material dogma and not yet formal, we can disagree with it. That’s incorrect.

What I find disconcerting is that some would suggest that there are such things as undefined dogmas that we must adhere to.

The Co-Redepmptrix/Mediatrix is not dogma.

I would go further to say that those who wish for these dogmas are going further than what is stated. As proof of this is the title Mediatrix of All Graces.