Mary Co-Redemptrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mperea75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath,

Do you reject the teaching that Mary merits congrously what Christ merits condignly, yes or no?
 
Byzcath,
What I find disconcerting is that some would suggest that there are such things as undefined dogmas that we must adhere to.
Then you must find the Apostolic Constitution on the Church disconcerting …
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]
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
ByzCath,

Do you reject the teaching that Mary merits congrously what Christ merits condignly, yes or no?
Dave,
I am unable to answer this question due to the words which I have bolded in your question.

Now if you mean congruously which is defined as…

1 a : being in agreement, harmony, or correspondence b : conforming to the circumstances or requirements of a situation : APPROPRIATE
2 : marked or enhanced by harmonious agreement among constituent elements

and condignly as defined as…

: DESERVED, APPROPRIATE

I still can not reply as both of these words seem to be the same thing.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Byzcath,

Then you must find the Apostolic Constitution on the Church disconcerting …
But I dont, as I am not too sure that I read into the documents what you are reading into them…

I do not see the Co-Redemptrix/Mediatrix, as it is put forward by those wanting the new dogma, stated.

The “Co” idea seems to have many issues with raising Mary to be equal to Christ. The Mediatrix of All Graces seems to say that all Graces come though Mary. I do not see this taught anywhere in the Church’s Teachings.

Now I do admit that I may have missed them or not seen them, but I do know that they are not defined dogmas like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
 
I meant congruous merit and condign merit.

See Catholic Encyclopedia article on ‘merit’
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. …

The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum).
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I meant congruous merit and condign merit.
I guess I can buy that. I need to learn more about it.

I just have issues with those who say that we can only come to Christ though Mary.

Now I think I have posted enough here and am going to drop out of the public discussion. If you want to continue with me on this send me a private message.
 
The Mediatrix of All Graces seems to say that all Graces come though Mary. I do not see this taught anywhere in the Church’s Teachings.
I suggest that it is because you have failed to look …

Pope Leo XIII, *Supremi apostolatus *(1883):
"With equal truth can it be affirmed that, by the will of God, nothing of the immense treasure of every grace which the Lord has accumulated, comes to us except through Mary… How great are the wisdom and mercy revealed in this design of God… Mary is our glory intermediary; she is the powerful Mother of the omnipotent God… This design of such dear mercy realized by God in Mary and confirmed by the testament of Christ (Jn. 19:26‑27), was understood from the beginning and accepted with the utmost joy by the holy Apostles and the earliest believers. It was also the belief and teaching of the venerable Fathers of the Church. All the Christian peoples of every age accepted it unanimously… There is no other reason for this than a divine faith."
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I suggest that it is because you have failed to look …

Pope Leo XIII, *Supremi apostolatus *(1883):
"With equal truth can it be affirmed that, by the will of God, nothing
of the immense treasure of every grace which the Lord has accumulated, comes to us except through Mary… How great are the wisdom and mercy revealed in this design of God… Mary is our glory intermediary; she is the powerful Mother of the omnipotent God… This design of such dear mercy realized by God in Mary and confirmed by the testament of Christ (Jn. 19:26‑27), was understood from the beginning and accepted with the utmost joy by the holy Apostles and the earliest believers. It was also the belief and teaching of the venerable Fathers of the Church. All the Christian peoples of every age accepted it unanimously… There is no other reason for this than a divine faith."
Well now Dave,
I see that this Encyclical is entitled, again for those of us who lack skills in latin, *Devotion of the Rosary. *

I have gone to the Vatican’s web site and I must say, I can not find any of this in that document.

Please, when posting excerpts from Vatican documents reference the paragraphs they are taken from and do not cut things out. Context matters. I would also request that you use the full name of the documents, in this case Supremi Apostolatus Officio, and I would also request the english name for those of us that are latin challenged.

By your use of multiple … I assume that you cut parts out.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
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.
Good points!
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I have gone to the Vatican’s web site and I must say, I can not find any of this in that document.
Oooops … sorry, that was his Octobri mense (1891), par. 4.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_22091891_octobri-mense_en.html

Also, from an eastern father …

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

You can read more on another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13702&highlight=mediate+Graces
 
The ellipses are used for space considerations, however, here’s the entire paragraph from that encyclical, if the context is questionable…
  1. But since the salvation of our race was accomplished by the mystery of the Cross, and since the Church, dispenser of that salvation after the triumph of Christ, was founded upon earth and instituted, Providence established a new order for a new people. The consideration of the Divine counsels is united to the great sentiment of religion. The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.(5) With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.(6) Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God! What a correspondence with the frailty of man! We believe in the infinite goodness of the Most High, and we rejoice in it; we believe also in His justice and we fear it. We adore the beloved Saviour, lavish of His blood and of His life; we dread the inexorable Judge. Thus do those whose actions have disturbed their consciences need an intercessor mighty in favour with God, merciful enough not to reject the cause of the desperate, merciful enough to lift up again towards hope in the divine mercy the afflicted and the broken down. Mary is this glorious intermediary; she is the mighty Mother of the Almighty; but-what is still sweeter-she is gentle, extreme in tenderness, of a limitless loving-kindness. As such God gave her to us. Having chosen her for the Mother of His only begotten Son, He taught her all a mother’s feeling that breathes nothing but pardon and love. Such Christ desired she should be, for He consented to be subject to Mary and to obey her as a son a mother. Such He proclaimed her from the cross when he entrusted to her care and love the whole of the race of man in the person of His disciple John. Such, finally, she proves herself by her courage in gathering in the heritage of the enormous labours of her Son, and in accepting the charge of her maternal duties towards us all.
The other except was from another source, complete with the ellipses. I don’t see this source asserting anything different, however.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Again, the document is On The Rosary, and your quote of it is suspect as it is edited and you say it is from paragraph 4 but your translation is off.

For example, you quoted…
With equal truth can it be affirmed that, by the will of God, nothing of the immense treasure of every grace which the Lord has accumulated, comes to us except through Mary
But the document says…
With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.
I would add that this document is On the Rosary so I think it applies to the Rosary, does it not?
Also, from an eastern father …

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

You can read more on another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13702&highlight=mediate+Graces
He may have said that, but again context.
 
Oh C’mon ByzCath, you’re quibbling.

I used a translation from another source. Big deal!

Read any translation you like. The one posted at the Vatican.va site says this:
With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.(6) Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.
Where as you said this:

The Mediatrix of All Graces seems to say that all Graces come though Mary. I do not see this taught anywhere in the Church’s Teachings.
 
Byzcath,

Pope Pius X calls Mary: “the dispenser of all gifts, which Jesus has acquired for us by his death and His blood” (Denzinger 1978 a)

If you want context, I suggest you buy the *Sources of Catholic Dogma *by Denzinger as I have.

It seems to me that you are in denial of Catholic teaching, no matter how many popes assert it, no matter the context.
 
Pope Benedict XV declared “All gifts which the Author of all good (God) has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin” (AAS 9, 1917, 266).
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
It seems to me that you are in denial of Catholic teaching, no matter how many popes assert it, no matter the context.
Now this is my last word on this as you are getting nasty.

I have not denied any thing, I said I have trouble with it and doubt that it is dogma.

There are many Catholic Teachings that are not dogma.
 
ByzCath,

I apologize for sounding nasty. I just don’t get your “There are many Catholic Teachings that are not dogma” position. What does this position imply? That we don’t have to assent to teachings that are not formal dogmas. I believe this is tragically erroneous. My prayer is that after you’ve had sufficient time to reflect upon this, you will realize how contrary to Catholicism such a view is.

Per the Apostolic Consititution of the Church, *Lumen Gentium, *Catholics are bound to to submit to all teachings of the magisterium, not just formal dogmas.
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. (LG, 25)
This is not a new requirement, but exactly what Pope Pius XII asserted in 1950, in his *Humani Generis, *to refute those that would erroneously conclude that teachings promulgated by papal encyclicals do not require our religious assent of intellect and will.

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.” …

My tone is a consequence of astonishment more than anything else.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
ByzCath,

I apologize for sounding nasty. I just don’t get your “There are many Catholic Teachings that are not dogma” position. What does this position imply? That we don’t have to assent to teachings that are not formal dogmas. I believe this is tragically erroneous. My prayer is that after you’ve had sufficient time to reflect upon this, you will realize how contrary to Catholicism such a view is.
As a Byzantine Catholic there is a lot of Roman Catholic Teachings that I do not assent to.

The Just War doctrine for example. Another example, which is even expressed in the Catechism, is appartitions. The Church may approve them but I am not bound to even believe in them. Another is devotions.

I would also say that when one reads a document of the Church one must look at the title to find what it is addressing. A document titled On the Rosary is just that, on the Rosary.
Per the Apostolic Consititution of the Church, *Lumen Gentium, *Catholics are bound to to submit to all teachings of the magisterium, not just formal dogmas.
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. (LG, 25)

I disagree with your interpretation of what you quoted here.

Submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way, I do submit.

I freely admit that I do not know a lot on this and I do not agree with what I have heard from others on this subject but I do know that it is not dogma.

I believe that it was St Augustine who disagreed with the Immaculate Conception even though there is evidence that it was taught then.

If you have issues with me on this I would ask that you do one of two things. Either keep them to yourself or send me a private message on it.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Do you reject the teaching that Mary merits congrously what Christ merits condignly, yes or no?
This is a good example of what is wrong with this whole idea.

Does this question sound clear to you? To most people it will make no sense at all.

There is so much emphasis on the hair-splitting technical mumbo-jumbo that the average person couldn’t possibly know what the supposed doctrine really represents. From disputes about what Co- really means to what is precisely meant by condignly, you lose the average believer.

The intellectualising of the Faith kills it.

The supposed dogmas bring only confusion and grief to the church, they are superfluous. The church is losing it’s young people by the millions and others are arguing about some obscure point of Mary’s precise role in Salvation history. An argument that has absolutely no merit aside what some people would like to believe and others would not.

Assenting to the doctrines or not will make absolutely no difference in how I live my life as a Christian, even total ignorance of these doctrines will make no difference at all to a Christian seeking salvation. The supposed dogmas are unnecessary.

As far as I am concerned, the times these recent Popes have spoken on the subject, they were expressing an opinion only. An opinion that they shared with their contemporaries of the late 19th century and early 20th century. A unique episode in history.

You are welcome to share the opinion of these recent Popes if you must, but don’t present it to the general public as dogma. It is not.
 
Does this question sound clear to you?
Yes. I taken the effort to study my faith. I took a whopping 30 minutes it took to read the article on “merit” as described in the Catholic Encyclopedia. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Merit
To most people it will make no sense at all.
To many people, neither do the Epistles of St. Paul. Likewise, have you studied the doctrine regarding the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine will and human will? Do you understand how Jesus can be “begotten” by the Father, but at the same time be said to have existed “eternally?” Sorry if theology is hard to understand, but the Church is still bound to teach the truth regarding even things that are difficult.

By canon law (Latin canon 752, Eastern canon 599), Catholics are bound to a religious submission of intellect and will to any doctrine proposed by the Roman Pontiff. To dissent is to disobey canon law, which is binding upon all Catholics.

Simply saying, “I don’t understand” is fine. But to oppose a doctrine as being incorrect is not religiosum obsequium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top