Mary Co-Redemptrix?

[Tom]

rschermer2:

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

As I said in an earlier post, I’m not against the theology; I’m against the name. To give an exaggerated example (and please, this is an exaggeration, I am not advocating it) using Scripture we could say Mary has become a part of God. So why don’t we just have a dogma now saying Mary is God? In a sense it’s true, well, not what other people will think when they hear the Catholic Church pronounce Mary as God, but that’s not what we meant! “co” anything is a poor term. It can and will be misconstrued.
The analogy of “co-pilot” is a great example of how it will be misconstrued. A “co-pilot” is a fully qualified pilot, he can fly the plane without the pilot, in fact in the United States he is the “pilot in command” while he is operating the aircraft controls. Is Mary fully qualified to bring our redemption? No, she cannot bring your redemption without her Son. It’s a terrible title.

 

[Tom]

"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.”

Hence, no such thing! The argument for me is NOT the theology or logic, it’s the term. There is no “co” anything in your reference! The term “co” is what’s misleading not the fact that “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." Absolutely we honor Mary but It’s wrong to call Mary “co” God.

 

[Writer]

beng:

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

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.

Because it’s the truth.

Yes, it is the truth.

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)

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

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.

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.

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

Thanks for taking the time to write, Beng… There is a lot one could comment on in your post, but I am going to focus in on one comment you made. You said that Protestants were not our brothers and sisters in Christ. If they are believers in Christ, however, what precisely are you basing this declaration upon? I find no support for this view in either the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

 

[beng]

Hesychios:

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.

Too bad.

Frankly, this whole issue has created new doubts.

 This is an excellent example of what I mean.

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

Mary is Virtue!

Ok

I am convinced that Mary would never have wanted all of this controversy.

Mary would wanted the Truth. If controversy arise it’s either from human weakness or the devil who always attack the truth.

She would never have sought any recognition for herself.

No. it is from God. What the Church teach is guided and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit is GOD.

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.

Thatb is not the criteria for approved apparitions.

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!

If you do not recognize that Co-redemptrix is a teaching of the Chruch ordinary magisterium then you’re not doing enough.

What more could these new honorifics possibly do but sow new doubts?

So, the teaching of the Church that is hold by ordinary magisterium is horrific?

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!”

Very Protestant.

Mary would not make a name for herself. God does it for her.

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

Because it’s teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

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.

God has inspired the Church to define a dogma.

Take the beef with God.

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.

Why should we care if they refuse to accept the truth? If they are guided by the Holy Spirit and sincere, they will pass the hurdle and return to the only ark of salvation.

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.

Ahh, what a Protestant attitude. Because I don’t agree with the Church I’ll change Church.

Orthodox are schizmatic and outside the Church.

They allow divorce and remarriage whcih go directly against Jesus’ order.

Have fun.

 

[beng]

Writer:

Thanks for taking the time to write, Beng… There is a lot one could comment on in your post, but I am going to focus in on one comment you made. You said that Protestants were not our brothers and sisters in Christ. If they are believers in Christ, however, what precisely are you basing this declaration upon? I find no support for this view in either the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

Lumen Gentium said “seperated brethren”

 

[Writer]

beng:

Lumen Gentium said “seperated brethren”

Seperated bretheren is not how you characterized them before. You made it clear that you shared no unity with them. Now, you appear to be splitting hairs to account for this attitude, which is neither Catholic in nature nor unifying in its application. Why the anger, Beng? I refer you to the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*, 817 Wounds to Unity.

…and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

---

It is that they are our brothers and sisters, then, that verses such as Romans 14:21 are important to consider in this discussion. If this doctrine keeps someone from accepting his place within the unity of the true Church, how would Mary herself see this? It seems that more harm is being done than good.

 

[michael_servant]

The reason there is so much to do about the title of co-redemptrix is that it has not been officially accepted and/or defined by the Church and therefore cannot be taught by the ordinary magisterium as anything except proposal. Beng, if you have documentation that the Church has, in fact, declared the Marion title of co-redemptrix to be valid and dogma, I would like to see it. And, if the Church has declared it as such I will relieve the Church of the burden of my being one of its members.

 

[beng]

Seperated bretheren is not how you characterized them before.

It is as how I characterized them before.

You made it clear that you shared no unity with them.

There is no unity with them.

Now, you appear to be splitting hairs to account for this attitude, which is neither Catholic in nature nor unifying in its application.

Saying that Protestant is brother is neither Catholic and wrong.

Why the anger, Beng?

Because I’m angry.

I refer you to the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*, 817 Wounds to Unity.

There’s no unity to begin with.

…and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

---

Separated brethren.

It is that they are our brothers and sisters, then, that verses such as Romans 14:21 are important to consider in this discussion.

Since they’re not brother and sister, thus Roman 14:21 doesn’t apply. And the fact is Romans 14:21 is not a prerequisite for deifning dogma.

If this doctrine keeps someone from accepting his place within the unity of the true Church, how would Mary herself see this?

Then they are not lead by the spirit of truth.

It seems that more harm is being done than good.

The truth can brings nothing but good. Good in term of absolute good not relitive good.

 

[beng]

michael servant:

The reason there is so much to do about the title of co-redemptrix is that it has not been officially accepted and/or defined by the Church and therefore cannot be taught by the ordinary magisterium as anything except proposal. Beng, if you have documentation that the Church has, in fact, declared the Marion title of co-redemptrix to be valid and dogma, I would like to see it. And, if the Church has declared it as such I will relieve the Church of the burden of my being one of its members.

It’s not define YET. This is what I’ve been saying. BUT it’s only a matter of WHEN, because it has been taught by the ordinary magisterium.

Just like how Immaculate Conception and bodily assumption are taught by the ordinary magisterium before they’re finallly defined

For more, read Ott 211-215. I can type so much.

 

[mayra_hart]

for we see mary’s spiritual journey had much in common with our own. the gospels portray her s someone who travelled a road that was often hard and shrouded in obscurity. the “sword of sorrow” foretold by simeon(lk2,35) did not pierce her heart only on calvary. by associating herself so closely with the saviour, she too suffered all the contradictions that he bound to cause. madre acogeme en tu regazo… amen

 

[Writer]

beng:

It is as how I characterized them before.

There is no unity with them.

Saying that Protestant is brother is neither Catholic and wrong.

Because I’m angry.

There’s no unity to begin with.

Separated brethren.

Since they’re not brother and sister, thus Roman 14:21 doesn’t apply. And the fact is Romans 14:21 is not a prerequisite for deifning dogma.

Then they are not lead by the spirit of truth.

The truth can brings nothing but good. Good in term of absolute good not relitive good.

Hmm… If you’re picking and choosing what you care to believe from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a work promulgated by Pope John Paul II and representing some of the best minds in our Church, what is the difference between you and a Protestant? One of the reasons we left the Episcopal tradition, for example, was that this denomination’s leadership engaged in “buffet style Christianity”. In other words, they would take a little from here and a little from there. If a divisive issue arose–such as homosexuality–they simply declared that the Holy Spirit had moved them to a belief contrary to the Bible and ancient church traditions. While the Holy Spirit can’t move against The Word–unless you believe in a polythiestic universe–this little problem was simply ignored in favor of political correctness, or worse. Likewise, you appear to be picking and choosing those beliefs you care to subscribe to and ignoring others, and I would say more important ones.

You say that there is no shared unity with the Protestants through Christ’s saving grace. Furthermore, you appear to have no interest in bringing them to the fullness of the Church and in closer relationship to Christ. Yous say Romans 14:21 does not apply, since they are not your brothers. I am not entirely sure where to begin to correct your misconceptions regarding your own faith. We are called to bring the world to Christ, not to angrily stand behind our church walls and thumb our noses at our neighbors as if to say,“I’m on the inside, but you can’t come in! You’re not invited!” We are to bring them home, because God loves them. Perhaps it’s time to spend some more time in the Bible? Romans 14:21 does matter because we also have Matthew chapter 28, which reminds us of the need to bring the unsaved to Christ. In fact, I would add that our pope has championed the cause of unity as outlined in a conversion experience I read from a Lutheran who attended an event where the pope called on all believers to return home. (Can’t find the website anymore, but it was very good.)

There seems to be a lot of anger in you towards Protestants, and I can’t even guess at the cause. In a sense I can begin to understand, though, becuase I used to be angry at some Catholics from bad experiences in my Catholic school days (while a Protestant). We need to look to the example of Christ, however, and rid ourselves of the anger and try to replace it with love. I wish you well in your spiritual journey!

 

[beng]

Writer:

Hmm… If you’re picking and choosing what you care to believe from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a work promulgated by Pope John Paul II and the representing some of the best minds in the Church, what is the difference between you and a Protestant?

I’m a Catholic, they are Protestant.

Do you deny the word “separated brethren” in the dogmatic constituion Lumen Gentium?

One of the reasons we left the Episcopal tradition, for example, was that this denomination’s leadership was engaging in “buffet style Christianity”. In other words, they would take a little from here and a little from there. If a divisive issue arises–such as homosexuality–they simply declare that the Holy Spirit has moved them to a belief contrary to the Bible and ancient church traditions. While the Holy Spirit can’t move against The Word–unless you believe in a polythiestic universe–this little problem was simply ignored. Likewise, you appear to be picking and choosing those beliefs you care to subscribe to and ignoring others, and I would say more important ones.

Separated brethren is in a council canon which is cited by CCC. They are of seperated ecclesial communities.

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

You say that there is no shared unity with the Protestants through Christ’s saving grace.

Correct.

Furthermore, you appear to have no interest in bringing them to the fullness of the Church and in closer relationship to Christ.

No. It is the opposite.

Yous say Romans 14:21 does not apply, since they are not your brothers.

Yes.

I am not entirely sure where to begin to correct your misconceptions regarding your own faith.

There’s no misconception to be corrected.

We are called to bring the world to Christ, not to angrily stand behind our church walls and thumb our noses at our neighbors as if to say,“I’m on the inside, but you can’t come in! You’re not invited!”

No, it’s more like.

“Hey you out there! Stop pestering us with your protest!! What we do inside does not concern you!”

Catholic faith is not dependent of a heretical ecclesial communities.

No work can be done if we keep clinging to people who are not in union with us and have different agenda.

We are to bring them home, because God loves them. Perhaps it’s time to spend some more time in the Bible? Romans 14:21 does matter because we also have Matthew chapter 28, which reminds us of the need to bring the unsaved to Christ.

Yes we do.

Not be demeaning our truth.

There seems to be a lot of anger in you towards Protestants, and I can’t even guess at the cause.

LOL, I get this alot. And because I’m so tired of it I’m just gonna say (so I’m not gonna be bother by it and even enjoy it a little)

YES I’M VERY ANGRY!

In a sense I can begin to understand, though, becuase I used to be angry at some Catholics from bad experiences in my Catholic school days (while a Protestant).

Yes, anger is sweet.

We need to look to the example of Christ, however, and rid ourselves of the anger and try to replace it with love. I wish you well in your spiritual journey!

evangelizing

That’s all find and good.

Yet giving the control of defining dogma to outside party is absurd.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Tom:

Hence, no such thing! The argument for me is NOT the theology or logic, it’s the term. There is no “co” anything in your reference! The term “co” is what’s misleading not the fact that “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." Absolutely we honor Mary but It’s wrong to call Mary “co” God.

Noone is trying to call her “‘co’ God”!
The point I was trying to make is precisely that “Co-redemptrix” mean “inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son” as mentioned in the Catechism!

 

[Tom]

When was the term “co-redemptrix” first used? In the ancient Church? In the 16th century, in the 20th century? I’m not referring to the doctrine of Mary’s role; I’m referring to the term. What date or year? And why “that” term, why not quarterback or guide or goddess?
The prefix for this term “co” is wrong because it can imply many different things. It can indeed imply equality. It can also imply cooperation. If the term can be misconstrued, (and this one certainly has been) form a better term, one that has only one meaning. The doctrine is the truth not the term. I don’t think many argue with the doctrine, but many disagree with the term.
And it’s not “too bad you disagree” with the truth. No one is arguing the truth, we’re arguing about the human words used to describe that truth. The term does not reflect the truth, it reflects division and confusion.

 

[pnewton]

This thread itself is a good arguement against the term (not the theology). Not just the anger, but the confusion over the term (not the theology). Consistently some one will make a remark about why the term should not be used and the response defends the theology.

beng,

When Protestants are refered to as our brother, the reason for that is to show that we have an obligation of charity toward them. The fact that they are serparated or not in union does not in any way lessen the charity due them. Most of us love our family just as much when when are separated, either physically or philosophically, as we so when we are together.

Love never confirms in sin, but then that is not what we are talking about. Love is patient, kind and courteous.

 

[michael_servant]

beng:

It’s not define YET. This is what I’ve been saying. BUT it’s only a matter of WHEN, because it has been taught by the ordinary magisterium.

Just like how Immaculate Conception and bodily assumption are taught by the ordinary magisterium before they’re finallly defined

For more, read Ott 211-215. I can type so much.

Beng: The ordinary magisterium does not teach things that have not been established as doctrine of the Church. You are confusing the issue by continuing to profess this proposed Marian title as a done deal when, in fact, the ordinary magisterium discusses it as a proposal for consideration not as a teaching of the Church. Tell me you agree that it is a title under consideration and not something that has been taught by the Church from the first century and we’ll be on the same page.

 

[beng]

pnewton:

beng,

When Protestants are refered to as our brother, the reason for that is to show that we have an obligation of charity toward them. The fact that they are serparated or not in union does not in any way lessen the charity due them. Most of us love our family just as much when when are separated, either physically or philosophically, as we so when we are together.

Love never confirms in sin, but then that is not what we are talking about. Love is patient, kind and courteous.

We do not want OUTSIDERS tell us how we define a doctrine. Why give the control to them?

 

[pnewton]

beng:

We do not want OUTSIDERS tell us how we define a doctrine. Why give the control to them?

I agree whole-heartedly, except I would use “non-Catholics” as opposed to “OUTSIDERS”

 

[Writer]

Tom:

When was the term “co-redemptrix” first used? In the ancient Church? In the 16th century, in the 20th century? I’m not referring to the doctrine of Mary’s role; I’m referring to the term. What date or year? And why “that” term, why not quarterback or guide or goddess?
The prefix for this term “co” is wrong because it can imply many different things. It can indeed imply equality. It can also imply cooperation. If the term can be misconstrued, (and this one certainly has been) form a better term, one that has only one meaning. The doctrine is the truth not the term. I don’t think many argue with the doctrine, but many disagree with the term.
And it’s not “too bad you disagree” with the truth. No one is arguing the truth, we’re arguing about the human words used to describe that truth. The term does not reflect the truth, it reflects division and confusion.

Amen!

 

[beng]

michael servant:

Beng: The ordinary magisterium does not teach things that have not been established as doctrine of the Church.

It’s a doctrine of the Church.

You are confusing the issue by continuing to profess this proposed Marian title as a done deal when, in fact, the ordinary magisterium discusses it as a proposal for consideration not as a teaching of the Church.

Are you talking about the title or the docctrine? The doctrine that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces is a done deal.

Tell me you agree that it is a title under consideration and not something that has been taught by the Church from the first century and we’ll be on the same page.

The doctrine that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces is a done deal. And it has been taught implicitly (like all other doctrine) by the early Church.