Problem with "Co-Redemptrix"

[StTommyMore]

Why would He? Isn’t she a woman?

Um, she was his Mother, so that is what he would have called her. (Edited)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Wasn’t she? Why not? Israel wasn’t much of a friend with Pharaoh but yet Pharaoh was enslaving Israel. Israel was Pharaoh’s slave, and they weren’t too friendly, in my opinion. Pharaoh was in enmity towards Israel. Do you understand what I am saying?

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 15:9-14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 19:11-19[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[sweetchuck]

Yeah, as I said, I find the content usually given to it completely unproblematic. My question is: What’s the point in pushing for the term when the content is already taught?

At face value the term could mean many things to many people. So why is it so important to canonize it, when everything it claims to be about has been taught already?

See, it’s hardly being taught at all. The Pope is currently teaching it (albeit without using the term Co-redemptrix). But ask your average run-of-the-mill Catholic how Mary participates in redemption and he or she would probably say something like, “I guess about the same way you and I do,” or (if they have been well-catechized by contemporary Protestant thought) “I don’t think she does,” or “Who is Mary?”

The first two are incorrect answers, but in all three cases, the term “Co-redemptrix” would help.

 

[JRKH]

See, it’s hardly being taught at all. The Pope is currently teaching it (albeit without using the term Co-redemptrix). But ask your average run-of-the-mill Catholic how Mary participates in redemption and he or she would probably say something like, “I guess about the same way you and I do,” or (if they have been well-catechized by contemporary Protestant thought) “I don’t think she does,” or “Who is Mary?”

The first two are incorrect answers, but in all three cases, the term “Co-redemptrix” would help.

How would the term Co-redemtrix help if the person I am speaking to misunderstands it? Then I have to explain the teaching anyway and I’ve complicated the issue by using a term that the person I am talking to understood differently.
For Clarity’s sake, I would choose to avoid using such a term in any explanation of Marian Doctrine.

I mean think about it - in American English usage, is Co-used to indicate a subordinant Co-operation? Or is it used more to indicate Co-equal in ability and co-operating together?
A Co-defendant in a trial is just as innocent or guilty as the defendant.
A Co-pilot is just as well trained (though less experienced) than the pilot.
Is a person who shows into the attorney’s office, a Co-Lawyer?
Is a person who assists a professor, Co-professor?
Is a Co-founder of a company or institution less than the Founder?

I don’t mean this to be snide, I am just pointing out how the prefix “Co-” is generally understood in America, so the idea of just being able to answer the question you pose above by saying She is “Co-redemptix” just won’t work, and for many people it would be even more confusing than just about any other answer.

Peace
James

 

[sweetchuck]

How would the term Co-redemtrix help if the person I am speaking to misunderstands it? Then I have to explain the teaching anyway and I’ve complicated the issue by using a term that the person I am talking to understood differently.
For Clarity’s sake, I would choose to avoid using such a term in any explanation of Marian Doctrine.

I mean think about it - in American English usage, is Co-used to indicate a subordinant Co-operation? Or is it used more to indicate Co-equal in ability and co-operating together?
A Co-pilot is just as well trained (though less experienced) than the pilot.

Straight from Websters:

Copilot - a qualified pilot who assists or relieves the pilot but is not in command. (my emphasis)

Co-star would be another example of one who is important, but subordinate.

Nonetheless, the argument that the English language does not yield to a proper understanding of Co-redemptrix is a specious one. That argument would be logical if we were the Church of England. However, please remember that we are a universal Church. The shortcomings of the English language or English speakers to appropriate Latin words into our shared vocabulary have no bearing upon whether or not a dogma should be defined (and it is also an unfortunate underestimation of English speakers).

Consider the witness of the many saints who, throughout the centuries in both the East and the West, have testified to the truth of Mary’s participation in the work of redemption: St. Justin Martyr, St. Ephraem, St. Augustine, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman, and more.**

St. Irenaeus** in the second century said, “Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”**

St. Francis Xavier Cabrini**, the first American to be canonized, stated that on Calvary Mary “merited to become our most worthy Co-redemptrix.”**

St. Edith Stein**: “Mary leaves the natural order and is placed as Co-redemptrix alongside the Redeemer.”**

St. Maximilian Kolbe**, who along with Belgian Cardinal Mercier strongly advocated for the proclamation of the dogma of Marian coredemption and mediation of all graces, said, “Mary, as Mother of Jesus the Savior, becomes Coredemptrix, while as Spouse of the Holy Spirit she takes part in the distribution of all graces.”**

St. Josemaria Escrivà**, founder of Opus Dei, wrote, “The Supreme Pontiffs have rightly called Mary ‘Co-redemptrix.’ At that point, together with her Son who was suffering and dying, she suffered and almost died; at that point she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of humanity and immolated Him, insofar as she was able, in order to placate the justice of God; thus one can rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”**

St. Padre Pio** wrote, “Now I seem to be penetrating what was the martyrdom of our most beloved Mother. … Oh if all people would but penetrate this martyrdom! Who could succeed in suffering with this, yes, our dear Co-redemptrix?”**

John Paul II** called Mary Co-redemptrix at least six times during his papacy. He said, “Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be Co-redemptrix of humanity.”**

Mother Teresa of Calcutta** stated: “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix. She gave Jesus his body, and the body of Jesus is what saved us.”

 

[Scaun]

Mark 15:9-14 John 19:11-19

And what you are trying to say is …?

 

[StTommyMore]

At this juncture, Israel was not at enmity with Satan, but was at enmity with God.

 

[Scaun]

At this juncture, Israel was not at enmity with Satan, but was at enmity with God.

But how was the Passover lamb going to be sacrificed? And don’t we make peace with God trough Jesus’ sacrifice instead of enmity?

 

[pnewton]

Nonetheless, the argument that the English language does not yield to a proper understanding of Co-redemptrix is a specious one. That argument would be logical if we were the Church of England. However, please remember that we are a universal Church. The shortcomings of the English language or English speakers to appropriate Latin words into our shared vocabulary have no bearing upon whether or not a dogma should be defined (and it is also an unfortunate underestimation of English speakers).

And I consider that to be a specious argument, as long as this term is translated in English, which it does not have to be. We already have a wealth of Latin terms which are used in English. I would bet half a pay check that any survey would reveal that the term, in English, would leave most English-speakers to think that Mary and Jesus were being considered equal. If so,then the idea of clarifying her role in redemption is moot.

Then the question would remain, “Why?”

I do not think this will ever be beyond an academic issue. The Catholic Church has not chosen to adopt and define this term. I doubt it will in the foreseeable future.

 

[StTommyMore]

But how was the Passover lamb going to be sacrificed? And don’t we make peace with God trough Jesus’ sacrifice instead of enmity?

The point is that Jesus, God Incarnate, was killed. God brought good out of this, the most evil act ever perpetrated. It is not a friend of God that perpetrates unspeakable evil.

 

[Cat_Herder]

But how was the Passover lamb going to be sacrificed?

Do you think satan knew that killing Jesus would bring about his own ruin? Jesus didn’t think so.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 11:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 11:8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Just to butt in here a bit…

I think it should be understood that the OP is not disagreeing with the theology that underlies the idea that Mary co-operated in in redemption in a unique and singular way and that she co-operates with Her son Jesus.

The problem is not contained within the theology, but in the term which, unless the theology is thoroughly understood, can be confusing.
I’ll go even further and say that, not only can it be confused, but that it WILL be confused by some, even many, outside of the Church.

So - What reason is there to make such a dogmatic declaration when it;
a) Adds nothing to the theology and understandings of Marion Doctrine, and
b) Be misunderstood by many outside the Church leading to greater confusion and
c) Will invariably be used by anti-catholics to further said confusion

Personally, I don’t see any advantage.

Peace
James

I would have to agree.

Another point: Right now we’re closer than ever before to reunion with our “other lung”, the Orthodox Church.

One of their main problems, from what I’ve heard, with the Catholic Church is that she has turned the Marian teachings, specifically of the assumption and immaculate conception, into dogma. They MUST be believed. However, most admit that they have no issues with the teachings themselves.

So why would we hurt our great strides toward reconciliation by defining ANOTHER Marian dogma unnecessarily? After all, the Church already has these teachings.

 

[Cat_Herder]

One of their main problems, from what I’ve heard, with the Catholic Church is that she has turned the Marian teachings, specifically of the assumption and immaculate conception, into dogma. They MUST be believed. However, most admit that they have no issues with the teachings themselves.

“The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 – the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God.” Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.

The part that says that without original sin “she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity” is a non sequitur because Jesus is human without being a sinner.

 

[JRKH]

I would have to agree.

Another point: Right now we’re closer than ever before to reunion with our “other lung”, the Orthodox Church.

One of their main problems, from what I’ve heard, with the Catholic Church is that she has turned the Marian teachings, specifically of the assumption and immaculate conception, into dogma. They MUST be believed. However, most admit that they have no issues with the teachings themselves.

So why would we hurt our great strides toward reconciliation by defining ANOTHER Marian dogma unnecessarily? After all, the Church already has these teachings.

Good point.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Straight from Websters:

Copilot - a qualified pilot who assists or relieves the pilot but is not in command. (my emphasis)

Co-star would be another example of one who is important, but subordinate.

Please note that the definition of Co-Pilot agrees with me that he/she is a “Qualified Pilot”, that is - the same as the pilot.
As for Co-Star - I’ve seen many movies where no one person is billed as the star, but rather two (or more) are listed as "Co-staring, and thus are of equal importance.

Be that as it may, I think we’ve both shown good points in the arena of definition of the prefix “Co-” common English usage.

Nonetheless, the argument that the English language does not yield to a proper understanding of Co-redemptrix is a specious one. That argument would be logical if we were the Church of England. However, please remember that we are a universal Church. The shortcomings of the English language or English speakers to appropriate Latin words into our shared vocabulary have no bearing upon whether or not a dogma should be defined (and it is also an unfortunate underestimation of English speakers).

I have no concern about the Church properly defining and explaining any such declaration - within The Church. I also have no doubt that others, who hate The Church, would take such a declaration, focusing on such a term and misrepresent it to the detriment of many souls. And it is this, the potential loss of souls from such misunderstandings that concerns me.

Now - having said all of that, if the Church, in her wisdom chooses to make such a declaration I would accept it in obedience.

Peace
James

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Just to butt in here a bit…

I think it should be understood that the OP is not disagreeing with the theology that underlies the idea that Mary co-operated in in redemption in a unique and singular way and that she co-operates with Her son Jesus.

The problem is not contained within the theology, but in the term which, unless the theology is thoroughly understood, can be confusing.
I’ll go even further and say that, not only can it be confused, but that it WILL be confused by some, even many, outside of the Church.

So - What reason is there to make such a dogmatic declaration when it;
a) Adds nothing to the theology and understandings of Marion Doctrine, and
b) Be misunderstood by many outside the Church leading to greater confusion and
c) Will invariably be used by anti-catholics to further said confusion

Personally, I don’t see any advantage.

Peace
James

Exactly my point. Plus I find it odd that since the theology is already taught at the highest levels, the push of the Co-Redemptorix crowd is for nothing more than to have a term canonized. Why???

 

[Scaun]

The point is that Jesus, God Incarnate, was killed. God brought good out of this, the most evil act ever perpetrated. It is not a friend of God that perpetrates unspeakable evil.

But was it not God who provided the sacrificial ‘lamb’? Was it not actually God’s plan for Jesus to be sacrificed this way?

 

[StTommyMore]

But was it not God who provided the sacrificial ‘lamb’? Was it not actually God’s plan for Jesus to be sacrificed this way?

Yes it was God’s plan, but that does not mean that those involved in the deicide did not have a free will.