Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[rschermer2]

Tom:

The title won’t make anyone love her any more than they do right now, it will only confuse many and drive a wedge between her children. I doubt very much she wants that. The implication is plain and incorrect, many will see this as the Church granting Mary the power of redemption, which is not correct, and is not what is meant by Co-Redemptrix. It’s a contradictory, inflammatory, unnecessary title. Why add fuel to a fire?

Tom,

The Church’s job is to teach the truth, if people refuse to believe it that is for them to work out. Jesus didn’t change or soften His teaching on the Eucharist even though many of His followers left Him at this time.

rschermer

 

[system]

Mary Co-redemptorix is not a matter of IF it’s gonna be a dogma. It’s WHEN it’s gonna be a dogma.

Mary Co-redemptorix has been the constant teaching of the Church taught by Bishops, Saints and doctor.

If you do not know about this, read more.

 

[pnewton]

beng3000:

Mary Co-redemptorix is not a matter of IF it’s gonna be a dogma. It’s WHEN it’s gonna be a dogma.
.

If one says that they know something will be dogmatic, isn’t that like the being promised to be engaged?

Perhaps by the time such a dogma is announced in council or ex-cathedra a more developed and less confusing term can be found.

 

[system]

pnewton:

If one says that they know something will be dogmatic, isn’t that like the being promised to be engaged?

No. it is not.

It’s like reading and understanding that Mary Co-redemptrix has been taught by bishops and it’s a constant teaching. Read Ludwig Ott.

Perhaps by the time such a dogma is announced in council or ex-cathedra a more developed and less confusing term can be found.

Yes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

beng3000:

No. it is not.

It’s like reading and understanding that Mary Co-redemptrix has been taught by bishops and it’s a constant teaching. Read Ludwig Ott.

Yes.

1. Ott was one theologian among hundreds - and no one theologian can sum up in his own person the entire Catholic tradition.​

Not even on a single topic such as this. Besides, Ott’s book is 50 years old. So in some respects it is out of date. IMO it is suicidal to limit one’s knowledge of Catholicism to books which are 50 years behind the times. It’s a good place to begin finding out what and why the Church believes - but, only a beginning. One of the dangers of relying on Ott, and ignoring everything later, is that if one operates on the assumption that a book written in the 1950s represents the Catholic faith in some uniquely perfect way, anything later may seem illegitimate, even when it is perfectly orthodox or perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Liturgy.

IOW, there is a danger of Catholic reliance on a 1950s theology manual becoming something like a Catholic equivalent of KJV-onlyism: as though anything in Catholic theology later than Ott must be less Catholic if it is not a repetition of Ott; just as any Bible later than God’s Own Inspired & Perfect Bible must be a “perversion” because it is “not the KJV”. For Catholic tradition is a living thing; it is dynamic, not static; and it does not canonise as uniquely authoritative & perfect any period in Church history later than the beginning. It can’t afford to; for that would imply that God is active only at Nicea or Lateran IV or Trent or Vatican I, but not now also.

1. Unless a proposed dogma is the common belief of all of the Catholic tradition - not just that of the Latin West, or of the Greek and Latin Fathers; unless it is to be found in all liturgical traditions;unless it not confined to any one theological method - I don’t think it can be called Catholic.

There must be no imposing of a purely Roman theology on other Rites - that would imply that the Roman Rite is in some sense superior to other Catholic Rites; which is not so. It might even look like Latinisation by the back door - something Rome has rejected.

Dogmas are not for creating doctrine but for manifesting it. Do Catholics of other Rites believe as Rome does on this matter ? ##

 

[James224]

Hi Father Ambrose,

You said: "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.”

My Comment: What needs to be understood is this: If this were to be formally pronounced as dogma, it would not be wrong because this has been the constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. It’s like the dogmas pronounced in the early councils - The dogmas about the Trinity. In these councils were not when these dogmas were first taught but were first made in solemn council. Certainly this teaching has developed in the sense of understanding and explanation but not in the sense of invention as Cardinal Newman described in his book entitled, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”

May God bless,

James224

 

[system]

## 1. Ott was one theologian among hundreds - and no one theologian can sum up in his own person the entire Catholic tradition.

Ott gives summary from ancient doctors, saints and popes all affirming Co-redemptrix.

Not even on a single topic such as this. Besides, Ott’s book is 50 years old. So in some respects it is out of date. IMO it is suicidal to limit one’s knowledge of Catholicism to books which are 50 years behind the times. It’s a good place to begin finding out what and why the Church believes - but, only a beginning. One of the dangers of relying on Ott, and ignoring everything later, is that if one operates on the assumption that a book written in the 1950s represents the Catholic faith in some uniquely perfect way, anything later may seem illegitimate, even when it is perfectly orthodox or perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Liturgy.

The Bible is 1,700 years old.

Apologia Pro Vita Sua is … more than 100 years old

Civitas Dei is 1,600 year old

Roman catechism is 500 years old

So on and so forth.

The beauty of the Catholic dogma is that it’s irreformable. Doesn’t matter how old the book is. And from the look of thing Co_redemptrix is getting clear more and more thanks to JP2.

IOW, there is a danger of Catholic reliance on a 1950s theology manual becoming something like a Catholic equivalent of KJV-onlyism: as though anything in Catholic theology later than Ott must be less Catholic if it is not a repetition of Ott; just as any Bible later than God’s Own Inspired & Perfect Bible must be a “perversion” because it is “not the KJV”. For Catholic tradition is a living thing; it is dynamic, not static; and it does not canonise as uniquely authoritative & perfect any period in Church history later than the beginning. It can’t afford to; for that would imply that God is active only at Nicea or Lateran IV or Trent or Vatican I, but not now also.

Do you have Ott? Ever read Ott?

1. Unless a proposed dogma is the common belief of all of the Catholic tradition - not just that of the Latin West, or of the Greek and Latin Fathers; unless it is to be found in all liturgical traditions;unless it not confined to any one theological method - I don’t think it can be called Catholic.

A pope can define any doctrine he wants doesn’t matter if it does not have historical record.

Since when is historicity a definitive test?

There must be no imposing of a purely Roman theology on other Rites - that would imply that the Roman Rite is in some sense superior to other Catholic Rites; which is not so. It might even look like Latinisation by the back door - something Rome has rejected.

Ummm, when a Pope defines a doctrine, that is it. It’s a dogma of the faith must held byb ALL Catholic who want to be saved.

It’s not imposing a doctrine, but imposing a truth safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

Dogmas are not for creating doctrine but for manifesting it. Do Catholics of other Rites believe as Rome does on this matter ? ##

Dunno. Maybe some of them do. It does not matter.

 

[DouglasJames]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

First time here, just saying hello. Also, getting started by saying a few words about Mary Co-Redemptrix?
The entire direction of the Old Testament message points toward the redemptive act of God toward His creation; culminating in the person of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior. I can find no direct, I repeat direct, mention or even a close assumption that the person or agent of God the Father’s work of redemption was to be more than a single individual. I believe our faith teaches us that the act of redemption visited upon lost mankind came from the very heart and existence of Almighty God Himself; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary herself was an object of the grace spawned in God’s Being, who, as scripture teaches, “…does all things after the counsel of His own will…” (Eph. 1:10). To suggest that Mary, a created being, was (and by consequence still is) contributing to the salvation of lost mankind, cheapens the grace of God flowing directly from His Triune Being. Unquestionable points of dogma must be firmly (historically/traditionally/scripturally) uniform and beyond question. That the catholic church has never completely and unquestionably promoted Mary’s Co-Redemptrix status should mean something. Where has there been universal, catholic acceptance of this? Also, what in God’s economy requires there be any kind of Co-anything v-i-v Christ Jesus life and mission?

 

[system]

DouglasJames:

That the catholic church has never completely and unquestionably promoted Mary’s Co-Redemptrix status should mean something.

You’re wrong on this

Where has there been universal, catholic acceptance of this?

Umm… now.

Also, what in God’s economy requires there be any kind of Co-anything v-i-v Christ Jesus life and mission?

**Colossians 1:24
**Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and **I fill **up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

1Cor 9:22
To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

 

[mayra_hart]

jesus was untouched by sin, both original and personal;mary too was preserved from original sin and remained sinless throughout her life. jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven; mary was raised from death and assumed into heaven. jesus is the redeemer;mary is the co-redemptrix. jesus,is the mediator between god and man;mary is the mediatrix of - graces. jesus is the word, the wisdom of god;mary is the seat of wisdom. jesus is the source of grace;mary is the throne of grace. and so on. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros… amen

 

[eddieh]

***The Extremely Brief History of the Doctrine ***
First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that all that I say to my catholic brothers and sisters, is said with the utmost love and respect within my heart. Our Holy Bible speaks of no such “co-redemptrix” doctrine. The church and previous Popes have declared these man-made false doctrines as truth. The church trusted their own human intellect and tried, through false doctrine, to defend Christ. They forgot that our Savior - or His Holy Word- needs no man to defend Him.

***The Reason for the Doctrine ***
The reason for this doctrine was to explain how our Lord could possibly be a “sinless” man if he were born of a “sinful” woman. ‘OOOPS! We better do something. I got it! We’ll say that Mary was immaculately conceived.’ The problem is, is that the scripture does not support this (anywhere). I do not, and will not, put my faith in a fallible man’s -any mans’-word, over my Lord’s perfect Holy Word. The apostle Paul states “Therefore, just as through **one man **sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”. (Romans 5:12 - NASB[word for word translation]).

The Real Reason Our Lord was Sinless
Our Lord was sinless because “men” (the cause of inherited sin) had played no part in the birth of Christ. It is through the “seed” of men that sin is transferred. Men are responsible for the sin issue we are confronted with today; because God holds men as the primary accountable party. We see this consistenly through scripture. Even from the beginning, in Genesis, it is Adam who God commands to “keep and cultivate” the garden. Eve was made for Adam as his “helper” but it was Adam that God held ultimately accountable.

***The Extremely Condensed Supporting Scriptural Reasons Against the Doctrine ***
On another note, If Mary was immaculately conceived why does she state in Luke 1:47 "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior". If Mary is sinless and part of an immaculate conception…why does she refer to Christ (or God) as her Savior? What does she need to be saved from? We definitley would be calling Paul a liar when he says “all” have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that redemption is through Our Lord Jesus Christ exclusively (Romans 3:23). We would be calling him (Paul) a liar again when,in 1Tim. 2:5, Paul exclaims "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." The doctrine itself starts to cause serious problems and imperfections in His Holy Word.

What Does Jesus Say?
Jesus Christ our Savior also makes it very clear in Luke 11:27 what His thoughts were about the differences between His mother and those whom obey Him. In the following passage He draws clear bright lines of dinstinction in the sand about His thoughts. Luke 11:27 (27)While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which You* nursed." (28)But He said,* “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” A woman in the crowd praises and lifts up the mother of Jesus publicly…Jesus makes it very clear what was to be praised. More blessed than his mother, are those who hear the word of God and obey it. Christ said it, not me.

With all Love,
Eddie

Please, if you have any comments e-mail me.

 

[system]

***The Extremely Brief History of the Doctrine ***
First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that all that I say to my catholic brothers and sisters, is said with the utmost love and respect within my heart. Our Holy Bible speaks of no such “co-redemptrix” doctrine. The church and previous Popes have declared these man-made false doctrines as truth. The church trusted their own human intellect and tried, through false doctrine, to defend Christ. They forgot that our Savior - or His Holy Word- needs no man to defend Him.

***The Reason for the Doctrine ***
The reason for this doctrine was to explain how our Lord could possibly be a “sinless” man if he were born of a “sinful” woman. ‘OOOPS! We better do something. I got it! We’ll say that Mary was immaculately conceived.’ The problem is, is that the scripture does not support this (anywhere). I do not, and will not, put my faith in a fallible man’s -any mans’-word, over my Lord’s perfect Holy Word. The apostle Paul states “Therefore, just as through **one man ** sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”. (Romans 5:12 - NASB[word for word translation]).

…

With all Love,
Eddie

Please, if you have any comments e-mail me.

Read before sharing your erroneous opinions. If you have at least you don’t have to put some strawmen and we have to explain this and that to you.

If you don’t even bother to read and immediately voice your opinion then probably your opinion doesn’t have any merit and shouldn’t even be consider.

 

[mayra_hart]

to eddieh: there is a lot of scripture on the bible that support the virgin mary, but there is not enough space in here to write it all. so iam going to make it easy on you. go to catholic educators resource center an read an article title mary holy holy mother by scott hahn. he was a fundamentalist too at one point on his life, but now he is catholic. maybe he can answer all of your questions??? bless you all. santa maria madre de dios…amen

 

[eddieh]

If you call scripture an opinion…then O.K. I use scripture to support my reasoning. What do you use besides your opinions to contradict what I have said?

 

[system]

eddieh:

If you call scripture an opinion…then O.K. I use scripture to support my reasoning. What do you use besides your opinions to contradict what I have said?

Read the posts. Did you even do that?

Why should we directly address your opinions? Cause you’rs so special?

 

[eddieh]

I came here hoping that someone could help me better understand…instead, I usually get insults hurled at me by “loving catholics”. I wrote what I believe scripture supports…not what you want to hear. Catholics who reply to me, usually give me their opinions, or what someone told them (a preist for example). They never support what they say with scripture…never! It honestly amazes me. Give me one, two, three verses; something. I was hoping someone could, with patience and reasoning, explain to me Mary’s “co-redemptrix” position scripturally; not with conjecture. I believe for us to better understand one another there must be a “baseline” of truth. My “baseline” is His Holy Word. (2Tim.3:16) All scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" If there is someone who can explain this to me (Mary’s co-redemptrix position), not because they grew up that way, or because someone told them so, I would really appreciate the dialogue. I am hoping for an individual who knows scripturally why they believe what they do and can share it with love and kindness.

God Bless,
Eddie

 

[system]

eddieh:

I came here hoping that someone could help me better understand…instead, I usually get insults hurled at me by “loving catholics”. I wrote what I believe scripture supports…not what you want to hear. Catholics who reply to me, usually give me their opinions, or what someone told them (a preist for example). They never support what they say with scripture…never! It honestly amazes me. Give me one, two, three verses; something. I was hoping someone could, with patience and reasoning, explain to me Mary’s “co-redemptrix” position scripturally; not with conjecture. I believe for us to better understand one another there must be a “baseline” of truth. My “baseline” is His Holy Word. (2Tim.3:16) All scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" If there is someone who can explain this to me (Mary’s co-redemptrix position), not because they grew up that way, or because someone told them so, I would really appreciate the dialogue. I am hoping for an individual who knows scripturally why they believe what they do and can share it with love and kindness.

God Bless,
Eddie

Have you read the posts?

 

[pnewton]

eddieh,

I apologize for the rudeness of some of the posters here. As to your questions about Mary, you must realize that as Catholics we believe that the Church has authority and do not feel compeled to restrict ourselves to scripture. It is our understanding of scripture that the Bible never claims it stands alone, but that is another subject.

While many of our doctrines (not just Marian ones) are not taught explicitly, they are found in th Bible. For example, you mentioned the immaculate conception. The angel Gabriel called her full of grace. We see Mary as completely filled with grace, and therefore empty of sin.

You mentioned that there is one Mediator. We agree that it is only through Jesus that we have our sins forgiven. But have you ever prayed for a lost friend or relative? Do you not expect that prayer to be answered? Surely God does hear our prayers for each other and, by His providence, allows us a share in the mediation of Christ. In the case of praying for someone and sharing the gospel, this even takes the role of helping them to come to redemption.

This is the sense in which Mary is Co-Redemtrix. Remember that “co” impies not equality, but assistance. Much of the theology behind the term is not in debate among Catholics, just the prudence of making the term dogmatic.

 

[mayra_hart]

luke writes that mary is full of grace, highly favored.LK 1:37:" for with god nothing will be impossible". she is the “woman” of gen 3:15 whose enmity with satan and sin is absolute. she is the ark of the covenant (ex 25:11-21) made to hold the living word of god: a holy tabernacle made not of the purest gold, but of purest flesh. st paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to jews and gentiles alike. babies have not sinned; adam and eve before the fall had not sinned; jesus never sinned. these are some exceptions that fall outside st paul condemnation. mary is another. again i suggest that whoever wants to know about mary go to catholic educator resource center. santa maria madre de dios… amen

 

[Grolsch]

I personally see no reason why any doctrine should be formed for Mary as Co-Redemtrix. What for? It is superfluous and can only lead to misunderstandings and trouble in the future. Mary is already highly honored as one of the greatest saints. No more is needed.