Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[itsjustdave1988]

QuicumqueVult,

Thanks, but I think the discussion has run its course. I’m gladdened by your assent to this doctrine which seems to give many Protestants great consternation (and some Catholics, appearantly).

 

[Marines]

Personnaly, I think Mary should be thought of as “Co-Redemptrix”. Two people I’ve heard call her by this title: JP2 and Mel Gibson.

 

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted from david currie book born fundamentalist born again catholic : “if mary shares in the work of our redemption,then it seemed only logical to my evangelical mind that this puts her on an equal footing with christ. but i had not bothered to find out what catholics themselves means by this title. i discovered that even i serve as a “co-redeemer” with christ whenever i help in the spiritual pilgrimage of another person.” santa maria madre de dios…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

The Orthodox bishop of Oxford, UK, Bishop Kallistos Ware, has written an small article on this topic. He has called it “No New Dogmas Please.”

It was written for “The Tablet” in London and can be accessed on their website at
thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_index.cgi/tablet-category-Ecclesiology

If you find it difficult to access that site, there is an alternative
cs.ust.hk/faculty/dimitris/metro/aug01/AUG01.html

Just scroll down until you come upon the article

I thought this sounded rather odd, to say the least:​

• From apostolic times, Christ’s birth, death and resurrection were openly made known in the Church’s public preaching, proclaimed from the housetops for all the world to hear. But the mystery of his Mother forms part of the Church’s inner, secret tradition, that is revealed only through prayer and doxology to those inside the Church.

That last sentence sounds very much as if the Orthodox Church has a “secret doctrine”, available only to the fortunate few; as though there were one Gospel for outside, public comsumption, and the real Gospel, for those who are within.

It awkens unpleasant echoes of Bulgakov’s notion of Mary as Sophia - and this in turn is reminiscent of Gnostic fantasies about hundreds of Aeons and emanations between the ordinary Christian, and the “Father of Greatness”.

I can’t believe this is what the bishop intended. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Again, this was your term, not mine.

My terminology was that used by professors of dogmatic theology, such as Dr. Ludwig Ott, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “dogma.” That is, “material dogmas” and “formal dogmas.”

While “material dogmas” are not “dogmas in the strict sense of the word,” it is a term used by theologians to describe the development of dogma.

The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dogma describes “material dogma” as that which is revealed but not yet defined, while “formal dogma” is both revealed and defined.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his introduction to his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma describes “material dogma” and “formal dogma” similarly. Theologians use “material dogma” to describe how the material aspect of dogma developed over time, but that material development ended with the revelation of Christ. However, while the development of the material aspect of dogma (i.e., general revelation) has concluded, the formal aspect of dogma still continues to develop in the life of the Church.

From Dr. Ott:
trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

IMO, it is at least doubtful whether this method of grouping doctrines according to the their degree of doctrinal certainty is compatible with a non-Roman, non-Thomist, non-Scholastic, theological method. It’s of 16th century Latin Scholastic origin - I tnhink it was Melchior Cano O.P. who came up with it.​

So I really wonder whether the theology of our Eastern Brethren will fit into this sort of mould. They are not scholastic in method, for a start. ##

 

[mayra_hart]

most protestants are shocked to learn that although the founders of protestantism rejected many catholic doctrines, they insisted on honoring mary as mother of god and ever virgin. john calvin: " it cannot be denied that god inchoosing and destining mary to be the mother of his son, granted her the highest honor… elizabeth calls mary mother of the lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of mary was at the same time the eternal god." madre querida acogeme en tu regazo…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

## IMO, it is at least doubtful whether this method of grouping doctrines according to the their degree of doctrinal certainty is compatible with a non-Roman, non-Thomist, non-Scholastic, theological method. It’s of 16th century Latin Scholastic origin - I tnhink it was Melchior Cano O.P. who came up with it.

So I really wonder whether the theology of our Eastern Brethren will fit into this sort of mould. They are not scholastic in method, for a start. ##

Nice catch here.

This really does have to do with this. The theological tradtion.

By saying that we must follow the Latin Theological Thought in this this instance, the arguement is that the Latin Tradtion is superior to all others.

Now no one has provided any proof that these things as pur forward by these theologians is anyway dogmatic teachings. It is a way of thought.

While references have been made to professors of dogmatic theology, such as Dr. Ludwig Ott, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, these things are not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Yes they may have, as suggested by Dave, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Church (I would change this though as the Church does not grant these, bishops do) that does not make them offical teachings.

An Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat just mean that the work is not in error regarding the Faith. It does not rule that this is the Church Teaching on the matter.

 

[mrS4ntA]

mayra hart:

most protestants are shocked to learn that although the founders of protestantism rejected many catholic doctrines, they insisted on honoring mary as mother of god and ever virgin. john calvin: " it cannot be denied that god inchoosing and destining mary to be the mother of his son, granted her the highest honor… elizabeth calls mary mother of the lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of mary was at the same time the eternal god." madre querida acogeme en tu regazo…

just shows how degenrating and self-defeating a spiral the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is. We are starting to see Protestants who don’t believe in the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and the re-surfacing of some ancient heresies

 

[mayra_hart]

we should ask protestants to honor mary as much as the founders of their own protestant tradition did. zwingli: " i firmly believe that mary according to the words of the gospel as a pure virgin forth for us the son of god and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact virgin" santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros…amen

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The problem with the title is that we use “Co-” in two senses.

The first sense is found in cases such as companies or organizations where two separate bodies, like union and management, make common cause on such things as workplace health and safety. There will be both a union and a management “Co-Chairman” of the committee, each equally a Chairman.

The second sense applies to such cases as the flight deck of an airplane. There is a pilot, who commands the aircraft, and a co-pilot, who assists in flying the plane. Each is a fully qualified pilot, but the co-pilot cooperates with the pilot, to whom he is subordinate, in the task of flying. They are by no means equals.

Mary is Co-Redeemer in the second sense, but most certainly not the first. The problem with declaring that as doctrine would arise in making sure that this point was absolutely clear to all.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gerry Hunter:

The problem with the title is that we use “Co-” in two senses.

The first sense is found in cases such as companies or organizations where two separate bodies, like union and management, make common cause on such things as workplace health and safety. There will be both a union and a management “Co-Chairman” of the committee, each equally a Chairman.

The second sense applies to such cases as the flight deck of an airplane. There is a pilot, who commands the aircraft, and a co-pilot, who assists in flying the plane. Each is a fully qualified pilot, but the co-pilot cooperates with the pilot, to whom he is subordinate, in the task of flying. They are by no means equals.

Mary is Co-Redeemer in the second sense, but most certainly not the first. The problem with declaring that as doctrine would arise in making sure that this point was absolutely clear to all.

Blessings,

Gerry

The idea that Mary is like a “co-pilot” is dangerous if this implies that she is at hand just in case Jesus is unable to “do the job” - the implication being that Jesus may not be able to function, but: never fear, Mary’s here.​

I find that gross This whole idea makes me thankful I was a Protestant. At least it’s impossible to doubt that Evangelical Christology gaves the primacy to Christ - just as the NT says. Catholic Christology seems decidedly ambiguous on the subject ##

 

[mrS4ntA]

Mary is co-redemptrix for her participation in Christ’s work redeeming us, that’s all. No complication there.

She delivered the Christ to us. God saved us and came to this world through her as a worthy vessel. Therefore she is His co-redemptrix. And Mary’s work doesn’t stop there, just as Christ’s work perpertrates eternity.

It only follows that since God chose her as a vessel to send the Author of Graces into the world, she is now God’s means to distribute graces. Hence, “Mediatrix of All graces.” Therefore, Mary is an advocate for us.

She draws all this power, and graces, from God and her Son’s work and sacrifice on the Cross. Nothing else. Nothing more. pure and simple. We never say she is worthy of her own accord. Like St Louis de Montfort said, “I attest with the whole Church that Mary … being but a creature … is like an atom, or rather, nothing at all, compared to the glory of the Almighty.”

I’m all for the dogmatic constitution of “Mary: co-redemptrix, advocate and mediatrix of all graces”

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

## The idea that Mary is like a “co-pilot” is dangerous if this implies that she is at hand just in case Jesus is unable to “do the job” - the implication being that Jesus may not be able to function, but: never fear, Mary’s here.

Then you can relax, because it doesn’t. And you do appear to stretch the analogy to suit your predisposition.
Gottle of Geer:

I find that gross This whole idea makes me thankful I was a Protestant. At least it’s impossible to doubt that Evangelical Christology gaves the primacy to Christ - just as the NT says. Catholic Christology seems decidedly ambiguous on the subject ##

Well, if you find it gross, why did you stretch it in the first place ?

And there is no confusion about the primacy of Jesus Christ among Catholics, or in Catholic Christology. If it “seems” that way, best to look at it more closely, and that will be clear.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted " it is in very much sense that catholics use the final title that bothered me-“mediatrix of all grace”. let us start at the beginning. evangelicals also agree that christ is the son’s mission of all god’s grace. evangelicals also agree that the son’s mission was possible only after he was incarnated. what they sometimes fail to remember is that incarnation was possible only when mary agreed to it. it is inconceivable that god the holyspirit would force himself on mary to enable god the son to become human. mary did say yes to gabriel, and it was then that the incarnation became a reality. of course, god knew she would say yes, but that is beside the point. in giving birth to christ, mary mediated god’s grace( christ) to all humanity.from a strictly historical basis, it is hard to argue that mary was not the mediatrix of all god’s grace." thank you mr currie:bowdown: madre querida acogeme en tu regazo…amen

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gerry Hunter:

Then you can relax, because it doesn’t. And you do appear to stretch the analogy to suit your predisposition.

Well, if you find it gross, why did you stretch it in the first place ?

I was thinking of something I had seen on this site, discussing this title. No “stretching” was needed - merely the spelling out of what “co-redemptrix” could be taken to mean; however foreign this might be to the intentions of the magisterium​

And there is no confusion about the primacy of Jesus Christ among Catholics, or in Catholic Christology. If it “seems” that way, best to look at it more closely, and that will be clear.

Blessings,

Gerry

Thanks - but I’m going by what I’ve heard and read. ##

 

[mayra_hart]

ask protestants why they think it is so wrong to honor the mother of our savior. we should remind them that god honored her above all creatures by making her the mother of his son. mary’s special privileges were given to her by god, not men. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros… amen

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know I said I was done but some things came to mind recently.

Dave holds to the idea that material dogmas require the same level of belief/assent as formal dogmas yet he hasn’t really shown proof of this requirement. Dr Ott even goes so far as to say that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense and canon law says that assent of faith is not required for everything said by the pope/Church.

Now if the Mediatrix is considered a material dogma but not a formal dogma, does it require the same belief as a formal dogma?

I would say no, as I said, there seems to be no proof that it does as well as the fact that in the past it doesn’t seem that this was so.

Before the formal proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, I guess it (the IC) would have been a material dogma.

Now a Saint and Doctor of the Church did not believe in the Immaculate Conception (before it became a formal dogma) so much so that he was public with it. That would be St Thomas Aquinas. Now if a material dogma requires the same belief/assent as a formal dogma, then how does one explain this?

 

[michael_servant]

To use the metaphor of Mary as a co-pilot is to suggest that there might be circumstances under which Christ might not be able to function as an omnipotent God. Poor example! We must also remember that when using examples of Mary’s rolls we must never attribute salvation to her but to magnify her willingness to be the handmaid of the Lord. She is the willing vehicle that allowed Christ to fulfill what what was needed for our redemption. The term co-redemptix is not only misleading it is misrepresentative.

 

[gmein]

My hope is the the following will contribute to the discussion… I’m proposing looking at this in a different way.

A dogma proclaiming Mary as Co-Redemptrix is legitimate for the following reason.

No one disputes that the redemption of the world rests solely upon the self-giving act of Jesus, His death upon the cross. That we are redeemed by Jesus is a given. However, Jesus could have saved us by any other act of will; it was not “required” that he be born of a woman, assume our nature, and die on the cross to achieve our redemption. That He chose this way over any other has meaning. That he chose to be born of Mary, taking on our nature to lift it up on the cross, redeeming it through His perfect offering to the Father has meaning. Why this way and not another?

It may be said that to sacrifice is to give up, offer, something of value for the good of another or for one’s self. It is always a personal act. A sacrificial offering requires an individual to perform the act. It requires something to offer. Also intrinsic to the sacrifice is an individual(s) for whom the action is offered. It is possible that the person offering the sacrifice can also be the person for whom it is offered. This is at the option of the individual making (willing) the sacrifice.

The Old Testament is full of descriptions of sacrificial offerings made to atone for the sins of the Jewish people. These sacrifices were not efficacious because of the imperfection of the person performing the act and the imperfection of that which was offered. The imperfect participation of those “who draw near” is also of importance. These sacrifices were types of the offering to be made by Jesus.

While Christ Jesus could have done otherwise, He chose to make a perfect offering to the Father to atone for our sins by making Himself the perfect offerer. He chose to be the perfect offering and He willed that His mother be present at the foot of the cross to be the perfectly participating representative of the human race for which the offering was made.

Jesus, before He died, before He completed His perfect sacrifice, gave Mary to John as our Mother, and John to Mary as her son. The Church has always seen in this action Jesus’ willing Mary to all mankind as Mother. All are the Father’s children through Baptism. All are brothers and sisters of Jesus, the Father’s son, Mary’s son. We are her children?. From all eternity He saw Mary’s perfect participation.

Jesus willed that Mary be our true Mother and from this, in our stead, with her perfect human nature, her participation with perfection in His sacrifice, in His redemption of us because we could not do so ourselves. What good mother does not help her children? Mary, conceived without sin, is the only person capable of participating in the redemptive act that the Father willed to accomplish our redemption. That willed act “required” an individual capable of perfect participation.

For this reason we call Mary Co-Redemptrix. She participated with Christ in completing the action willed for our redemption.

GLYMKY… a great discussion you folks are having.

 

[dessy]

I think the Magisterum should formally aprove it as a dorgma

Mary Co-Redemptrix