Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[beng]

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.

Ummm, because it’s the truth.

Superflous? No doctrine is superflous.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Grolsch:

…
. Mary is already highly honored as one of the greatest saints. …

She **is ** the greatest saint, not one of the greatest saints.

It is precisely her to whom the Church looks upon when canonising a saint – as a perfect model of sainthood.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

I voted “no”. The reason being that the title is alread so very misunderstood. Anti-Catholics use it as “proof” that we believe something about Mary that we don’t. I think it will do more harm than good.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michael_servant]

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.

You continue to use the term participation. Mary was part of the preparation for Christ’s salvific sacrifice. She did not take part in the salvific act itself. She was an observer who felt the deep excruciating pain of a mother watching her son crucified. Remember, the true scarifice was not only the physical suffering of Jesus but that fact that God became man in order to do it.

 

[beng]

Catholic4aReasn:

I voted “no”. The reason being that the title is alread so very misunderstood. Anti-Catholics use it as “proof” that we believe something about Mary that we don’t. I think it will do more harm than good.

In Christ,
Nancy

Since when do we need their approval?

Maybe we should also pass a “global test” before we could form a dogma. LOL

 

[michael_servant]

Dogmas are not formed…they exist because it’s been believed since the first century Church. This title for Mary is not and never has been an accurate declaration. She participated in the preparation for Christ’s redeemptive sacrifice not in the sacrifice itself. Is what she did sacrificial? Yes! But, not redeemtive.

 

[mrS4ntA]

pnewton:

So it is dogma, just not formal dogma? Isn’t that the same thing without the tux?

it is already a doctrine, but not yet formally defined infallibly as a formal dogma. so yes…

 

[milimac]

eddieh:

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.

Catholics do not see this as a denial of the compliment given to Jesus’ mother, but more of a “I’ll see your compliment and do you one better”. Mary heard the word of God and observed it – “Let it be done according to your will”. She is most definitely included.

From cin.org:

These words proclaim and praise the Blessed Virgin’s basic
attitude of soul. As the Second Vatican Council explains: “In the
course of her Son’s preaching she [Mary] received the words whereby, in
extolling a Kingdom beyond the concerns and ties of flesh and blood, He
declared blessed those who heard and kept the word of God (cf. Mark
3:35; Luke 11:27-28) as she was faithfully doing (cf. Luke 2:19_51)”
(“Lumen Gentium”, 58). Therefore, by replying in this way Jesus is not
rejecting the warm praise this good lady renders His Mother; He accepts
it and goes further, explaining that Mary is blessed particularly
because she has been good and faithful in putting the word of God into
practice. “It was a complement to His Mother on her “fiat”, `be it
done’ (Luke 1:38). She lived it sincerely, unstintingly, fulfilling
its every consequence, but never amid fanfare, rather in the hidden and
silent sacrifice of each day” ([St] J. Escriva, “Christ Is Passing By”,
177).

 

[Mperea75]

┼JMJ

People have said that if it is not said in the Fathers of the Chruch then it should not be proclaimed a De fide Dogma. If it is already (name removed by moderator)lied by her title as Theotokes then why should it be a issue just to give the title to Mary C0-Redmtrix?

 

[beng]

┼JMJ

People have said that if it is not said in the Fathers of the Chruch then it should not be proclaimed a De fide Dogma.

It is implied by Church Fathers.

If it is already (name removed by moderator)lied by her title as Theotokes then why should it be a issue just to give the title to Mary C0-Redmtrix?

Because it’s the truth.

 

[michael_servant]

beng:

It is implied by Church Fathers.

Because it’s the truth.

Implication and innuendo do not make truth. Just because you love the Mother of God does not make her a co-redemptrix any more than my love for my daughter makes her a brain surgeon. As soon as the devotees of Maryology start dealing with facts and not with some emotionally driven fantasy this entire thing will come to a close. It’s interesting that the majority of those with extreme dedication to Mary are usually associated with Catholics of conservative bent and those in the liberal camp are the ones making irrational assumptions and distorting the Church’s truths. The position of those demanding the title for Mary of co-redemptrix appear to be falling in with that other irrational, specious lot. Mary, mother of God, pray for us.

 

[mrS4ntA]

“In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.”

-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1172.​

see bold. Hence, “co-redemptrix.”

“De Maria, numquam satis” – “Of Mary, there is never enough.”

 

[beng]

michael servant:

Implication and innuendo do not make truth.

Yes it is if it’s back by the continue teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Just because you love the Mother of God does not make her a co-redemptrix any more than my love for my daughter makes her a brain surgeon.

It has nothing to do with my love for Mary, but the fact that this has been the Church continue teachings, which you didn’t know.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ludwig Ott

The idea of the spiritual Motherhood of Mary is** part of the Ancienct Christian tradition**, independently of the interpretation of John 19:26 et seq. According to Origen the perfect Christ had Mary as mother: “Every perfect person no longer lives (of himself) but Christ lives in him; and because Christ lives in him, it is said of him to Mary: Behold thy son Christ” (Com. in loan. 14,23). St. Ephipanius derives Mary spiritual Motherhood from the Eve-Mary parallel; "She (Mary) is she of whom Eve is the prototype, who, as such receive the appellation ‘mother of the living’ … as to externals the whole human race on Earth stemmed from that Eve. Thus in truth, through Mary, the very love of the world was borne, so that she bore the Living One, and became the Mother of the Living. Thus in prototype Mary was called ‘Mother of the living’ " (Haer. 78,18). St. Augustine bases Mary’s spiritual Motherhood on the mystical unity if the faithful Christ. As the bodily Mother of God, she is, in a spiritual fashion, also the mother of those who are articulated with Christ. Cf. De s. virginitate 6,6.

Express testimonies, thorugh few in number, to Mary’s position as Mediatrix of grace are found since the eight century. They became more numerous during the peak period of the Middle Ages. St. Germanus of Constantinopel (died 733) says: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Chaste One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast). St. Bernard of Clairvaux (died 1153) says of Mary “(God wishes that we have nothing except by the hands of Mary” (In Vig. Nativit. Domini Serm. 3,10). Ps.-Albert the Great calls Mary; “The universal dispenser of all riches” (omnium bonitatum universaliter distributiva; Super Missus est q. 29(. In modern times the doctrine that Mary is the universal Mediatrix of Grace was advocated by St. Peter Canisius, Suarez, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Scheeben, and it is supported by the opinion of numerous theologians at the present days.

As soon as the devotees of Maryology start dealing with facts and not with some emotionally driven fantasy this entire thing will come to a close.

What facts? Do you know the facts that support mediatrix as I have pointed out from Ott?

It’s interesting that the majority of those with extreme dedication to Mary are usually associated with Catholics of conservative bent and those in the liberal camp are the ones making irrational assumptions and distorting the Church’s truths. The position of those demanding the title for Mary of co-redemptrix appear to be falling in with that other irrational, specious lot. Mary, mother of God, pray for us.

Nice ad hominem. Do you want fries to go with that?

 

[michael_servant]

As the Catechism says, His saving, redemptive work. Not hers. She was the willing handmaid and instrument of the Lord not the co-redemptrix.

 

[beng]

michael servant:

As the Catechism says, His saving, redemptive work. Not hers. She was the willing handmaid and instrument of the Lord not the co-redemptrix.

Nice comeback.

You have sucessfully killed my argument with strawman.

Hip Hip HOOORAY!

 

[mrS4ntA]

michael servant:

As the Catechism says, His saving, redemptive work. Not hers. She was the willing handmaid and instrument of the Lord not the co-redemptrix.

EXACTLY! No one is saying the the title “co-redemptrix” for her means that we believe she is the redemptrix, let alone by her own merit!
“My soul rejoices in God my saviour!”
It’s to be understood as the Catechism understands it, in the quote I provided before…

“a willing handmaid and instrument of Our Lord” to bring about His redemptive work – this is exactly how we mean her as “co-redemtrix”!!

 

[Writer]

beng:

Yes it is if it’s back by the continue teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

It has nothing to do with my love for Mary, but the fact that this has been the Church continue teachings, which you didn’t know.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ludwig Ott

The idea of the spiritual Motherhood of Mary is** part of the Ancienct Christian tradition**, independently of the interpretation of John 19:26 et seq. According to Origen the perfect Christ had Mary as mother: “Every perfect person no longer lives (of himself) but Christ lives in him; and because Christ lives in him, it is said of him to Mary: Behold thy son Christ” (Com. in loan. 14,23). St. Ephipanius derives Mary spiritual Motherhood from the Eve-Mary parallel; "She (Mary) is she of whom Eve is the prototype, who, as such receive the appellation ‘mother of the living’ … as to externals the whole human race on Earth stemmed from that Eve. Thus in truth, through Mary, the very love of the world was borne, so that she bore the Living One, and became the Mother of the Living. Thus in prototype Mary was called ‘Mother of the living’ " (Haer. 78,18). St. Augustine bases Mary’s spiritual Motherhood on the mystical unity if the faithful Christ. As the bodily Mother of God, she is, in a spiritual fashion, also the mother of those who are articulated with Christ. Cf. De s. virginitate 6,6.

Express testimonies, thorugh few in number, to Mary’s position as Mediatrix of grace are found since the eight century. They became more numerous during the peak period of the Middle Ages. St. Germanus of Constantinopel (died 733) says: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Chaste One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast). St. Bernard of Clairvaux (died 1153) says of Mary “(God wishes that we have nothing except by the hands of Mary” (In Vig. Nativit. Domini Serm. 3,10). Ps.-Albert the Great calls Mary; “The universal dispenser of all riches” (omnium bonitatum universaliter distributiva; Super Missus est q. 29(. In modern times the doctrine that Mary is the universal Mediatrix of Grace was advocated by St. Peter Canisius, Suarez, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Scheeben, and it is supported by the opinion of numerous theologians at the present days.

What facts? Do you know the facts that support mediatrix as I have pointed out from Ott?

Nice ad hominem. Do you want fries to go with that?

Just an observation from a new Catholic who also has a problem with Co-Redemptrix concept… The passage above has an unusual number of grammatical errors and seems to lack flow or continuity in the text. What online source was this taken from, and is it available elsewhere?

To approach this matter from a slightly different vantage point, how important is the concept of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix to your Christian faith as a whole? It seems like something which could be argued valiantly, but then one has to ask what’s really the point of supporting this? Do you believe it will have a possitive affect upon your salvation? How do you accept something so divisive (and unnecessary) which proves a huge barrier to our Protestant brothers and sisters in understanding the Church? How do you reconcile this divisive concept with verses such as Romans 14:21? If one person loses salvation because this belief poses a hurdle or a stumbling block (the key is an unnecessary stumbling block as opposed to the Trinity, for example), doesn’t the concept do more potential harm than good?

Also, given Mary’s supreme humility, how would she feel about being referred to as Co-Redemptrix? Wouldn’t she likely say to instead turn our eyes upon the Christ?

 

[beng]

Writer:

Just an observation from a new Catholic who also has a problem with Co-Redemptrix concept… The passage above has an unusual number of grammatical errors and seems to lack flow or continuity in the text. What online source was this taken from, and is it available elsewhere?

I typed it and I was very tired adn English is my third language.

To approach this matter from a slightly different vantage point, how important is the concept of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix to your Christian faith as a whole?

Th truth matter very much to my Catholic faith because the truth is Jesus. And doctrine of the Church especially the one taught constantly by ordinary magisterium is the truth.

It seems like something which could be argued valiantly, but then one has to ask what’s really the point of supporting this?

Because it’s the truth.

Do you believe it will have a possitive affect upon your salvation?

Yes, it is the truth.

How do you accept something so divisive (and unnecessary) which proves a huge barrier to our Protestant brothers and sisters in understanding the Church?

Who care about what they think?

Should we also pass a “global test” in order to proclaim a dogma? (you have watched the first presidential debate between Keery and Bush right? If you haven’t read the transcript so you’d understand the “global test” reference)

How do you reconcile this divisive concept with verses such as Romans 14:21?

Protestant are not brothers (in union) and we don’t need their approval.

If one person loses salvation because this belief poses a hurdle or a stumbling block (the key is an unnecessary stumbling block as opposed to the Trinity, for example), doesn’t the concept do more potential harm than good?

If the truth becomes a stumbling block then the person is still filled by the world spirit and his conversion is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

If his conversion is guided by the Holy Spirit, the light shall shine his way.

Also, given Mary’s supreme humility, how would she feel about being referred to as Co-Redemptrix?

Who knows that again she will appear and re-affirm the truth of the faith like when she call herself “the immaculate” on Fatima.

And since it’s the truth than she would not mind at all.

Wouldn’t she likely say to instead turn our eyes upon the Christ?

She would agree to the doctrine AND said to always worship Christ. Which is what she did in Fatima, Lourdes etc.

 

[mayra_hart]

this is a mary we can all related to. fully a woman,she too had to suffer. her life was not a pathed with roses. at times it was very difficult. she knew joy, but also suffered greatly. she had to live by faith, and at times(like us) she wondered what god was up to, what he was doing with, her life. we too are like that. we have our joys and our sorrows. at times we feel god is very close to us and we are confident that we know what he is asking of us. but at other times he seems very remote. things happen to us which don’t seem to fit the original plan (as we understood it), and which are hard to reconcile with his abiding love to us. there are times of pain, darkness and anguish. we are thrown back in faith alone. all other comforts and support are taken away. it is in times like these we need someone like mary,who went through what we are suffering and who knows what it is like. we need a woman of faith. santa maria madre de dios…amen

 

[Hesychios]

Writer:

To approach this matter from a slightly different vantage point, how important is the concept of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix to your Christian faith as a whole? It seems like something which could be argued valiantly, but then one has to ask what’s really the point of supporting this? Do you believe it will have a possitive affect upon your salvation? How do you accept something so divisive (and unnecessary) which proves a huge barrier to our Protestant brothers and sisters in understanding the Church? How do you reconcile this divisive concept with verses such as Romans 14:21? If one person loses salvation because this belief poses a hurdle or a stumbling block (the key is an unnecessary stumbling block as opposed to the Trinity, for example), doesn’t the concept do more potential harm than good?

As a returned Catholic (now some many years ago) the concept as Mary as Co-Redemptrix and/or Mediatrix of ALL Graces never entered into the discussion. Was never a consideration. In fact, if apologists had insisted upon it at the time I might not be Catholic today.

Frankly, this whole issue has created new doubts.

Also, given Mary’s supreme humility, how would she feel about being referred to as Co-Redemptrix? Wouldn’t she likely say to instead turn our eyes upon the Christ?

This is an excellent example of what I mean.

Mary is Peace, Mary is Humility, Mary is Modesty.

Mary is Virtue!

I am convinced that Mary would never have wanted all of this controversy. She would never have sought any recognition for herself. Any post-Apostolic revelations and apparitions of Mary that may imply that she seeks new titles or recognition for her role in Salvation are highly suspect.

The church praises her abundantly already, I can’t believe we don’t recognize her enough since we have been doing it this way for many hundreds of years! What more could these new honorifics possibly do but sow new doubts?

As a good mother she would have pointed to her son and said, “see what a good boy He is!, forget about me, I am nothing!”

I really perceive that this is a grand case of mass sycophantism. I don’t know how people get this attitude.

Our only focus should be on the Triune God, and Jesus Christ Our Lord. Anything that distracts us from our attention to Our God is extraneous. Multiple new titles for Mary are totally unnecessary.

Now given that we could all probably agree that the general state of catechesis in the church is down in the soil pipe. I can say that of all of the many people I know who are former Catholics (Protestants, mostly unchurched and a few athiests) most are discouraged from returning to the church when learning about devotions that emphasize Mary in this way. It is also a great tool for mocking the church, and everyone joins in, especially former Catholics.

These proposed new doctrines, and the vocal Catholics who promote them are one of the principal reasons I am now looking into Orthodoxy, which understands how to honor Mary and yet keep her devotions in perspective.