Problem with "Co-Redemptrix"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fr_of_Jazz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fr_of_Jazz

Guest
I’m wrestling with the question of whether the Church should define Mary as “Co-Redemptrix.”

I have read Dr. Miravalle’s response to common objections, but my concern is still the following.

The content (the set of interrelated truths about Mary’s role in our redemption) that is usually given to the proposed definition has already been expressed in church teaching at the highest levels. It is found in Lumen Gentium, Marialis Cultus, Redemptoris Mater, etc.

So what exactly would be defined? It seems that the movement to define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, reduces to an effort to have a certain term, “Co-Redemptrix,” canonized. The content of the proposed dogma has already been taught and re-taught officially by the Church and is thoroughly unproblematic. Does it really need to be re-taught officially again?

The question then arises: why the push to canonize this ambiguous and problematic term?
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
I’m wrestling with the question of whether the Church should define Mary as “Co-Redemptrix.”

I have read Dr. Miravalle’s response to common objections, but my concern is still the following.

The content (the set of interrelated truths about Mary’s role in our redemption) that is usually given to the proposed definition has already been expressed in church teaching at the highest levels. It is found in Lumen Gentium, Marialis Cultus, Redemptoris Mater, etc.

So what exactly would be defined? It seems that the movement to define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, reduces to an effort to have a certain term, “Co-Redemptrix,” canonized. The content of the proposed dogma has already been taught and re-taught officially by the Church and is thoroughly unproblematic. Does it really need to be re-taught officially again?

The question then arises: why the push to canonize this ambiguous and problematic term?
Click to expand...
I think it is easy to make the distinction. Co-Redmptrix means she cooperates with her Son.
 
buffalo said:
I think it is easy to make the distinction. Co-Redmptrix means she cooperates with her Son.
Click to expand...
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?
 
When God was addressing the serpent in Eden, God said:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

“thee” == the serpent, satan
“her seed” == Jesus
“woman” == the Mother of “her seed,” therefore this is Mary

Note that the pronouns “she” and “her” are now more commonly translated as “he” and “his.” The pronouns in the original Hebrew were ambiguous.

The heel part is understood to refer to the Crucifixion of Christ, while the head part refers to the defeat of the devil at Calvary. (Crushing someone’s head will result in serious injury, while striking at someone’s heel only hurts a bit.)

What one must also note is that both the Woman and her Seed are at enmity with the devil. Enmity, or hatred, is the opposite of cooperation with the serpent, which is sin. Hatred of the serpent means freedom from sin. Hence, this verse proves up the Immaculate Conception and shows cooperation between Jesus and Mary to put an end to the devil and death.
 
Cat_Herder said:
When God was addressing the serpent in Eden, God said:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

“thee” == the serpent, satan
“her seed” == Jesus
“woman” == the Mother of “her seed,” therefore this is Mary

Note that the pronouns “she” and “her” are now more commonly translated as “he” and “his.” The pronouns in the original Hebrew were ambiguous.

The heel part is understood to refer to the Crucifixion of Christ, while the head part refers to the defeat of the devil at Calvary. (Crushing someone’s head will result in serious injury, while striking at someone’s heel only hurts a bit.)

What one must also note is that both the Woman and her Seed are at enmity with the devil. Enmity, or hatred, is the opposite of cooperation with the serpent, which is sin. Hatred of the serpent means freedom from sin. Hence, this verse proves up the Immaculate Conception and shows cooperation between Jesus and Mary to put an end to the devil and death.
Click to expand...
Right, as I said, I agree completely with the content; in this case this interpretation of Gen 3:15. But read my post again. You’ll see my point is different.
 
The question then arises: why the push to canonize this ambiguous and problematic term?
Click to expand...
What so problematic about the term?

As stated by:
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo
I think it is easy to make the distinction. Co-Redmptrix means she cooperates with her Son.
Click to expand...
What do you not agree with when the term Co-Redemptrix is assigned to our Blessed Mother?

Care to expand a little?
 
buffalo said:
I think it is easy to make the distinction. Co-Redmptrix means she cooperates with her Son.
Click to expand...
In English, “Co-” has two meanings. One is of cooperation, the other of equality. Here is from a dictionary
answers.com/topic/co-prefix
  • Together; joint; jointly; mutually: coeducation.
    1. Partner or associate in an activity: coauthor; cofounder.
    2. Subordinate or assistant: copilot.
    3. To the same extent or degree: coextensive.
    Note that in this usage there is only one case where the subordinant role is involved. In fact, other than “copilot” nothing else pops to mind with this usage. I doubt I am alone in thinking of equals first when I hear co-chairmans, co-captains and co-workers.

    This is why it is confusing, at least in English.
 
Patrick_Joshua said:
What so problematic about the term?
Click to expand...
then-Cardinal Ratzinger gives his opinion as to the problems with the term in:
God and the World, p. 306 (which can be read at Amazon.com with the Search Inside feature).

Also, the Church can teach infallibly, but She cannot infallibly declare a title without defining its meaning. So the Pope cannot infallibly declare that Mary is ‘[whatever title]’ – he would have to define the theological meaning of the title. We should not assume, as many proponents do, that the definition will be the same as the explanation of the term given by Miravalle, or by others.

So, for example, when Trent defined transubstantiation, the Council defined the dogma, and then subsequently stated that the Church fittingly calls this dogma transubstantiation.
 
Cat_Herder said:
“woman” == the Mother of “her seed,” therefore this is Mary
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It can also refer to God’s people, which had many names before: sons of God, Israel and now they are most often called the “Church”. Many times they have been represented as a woman in the Bible, so this ‘woman’, in Genesis, could really just as well be referring to God’s people, Mary included, and not Mary specifically.
 
Cat_Herder said:
“woman” == the Mother of “her seed,” therefore this is Mary
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It can also refer to God’s people, which had many names before: sons of God, Israel, etc. but now they are most often called the “Church”. Many times they have been represented as a woman in the Bible. Therefore this ‘woman’, in Genesis, could really just as well be referring to God’s people, Mary included, and not Mary specifically, in my humble opinion.
 
הוּא is masculine

Ipsa is feminine

Catholic Encyclopedia says “The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically”(newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Don’t misinterpret Gen 3:15 please, it cannot be used as “proof” 👍
 
Patrick_Joshua said:
What so problematic about the term?

What do you not agree with when the term Co-Redemptrix is assigned to our Blessed Mother?

Care to expand a little?
Click to expand...
Sure.
  1. So in line with my IP you agree, then, that the push is about canonizing the expression “Co-Redemptrix,” not about the defining content generally given to it by its advocates? The content has already been taught at the highest levels in the church and is completely unproblematic. Why re-teach it yet again?
  2. In direct answer to your question:
    (a) Given #1 and my IP, what is the point in pushing to canonize merely the expression “Co-Redemptrix”? No one has answered this yet.
(b) At face value “Co-Redemptrix” can mean many things. Certainly one can assign a highly nuanced definition in line with the content usually given to it. But that’s no guarantee that it will make the desired impact on the public at large, especially Orthodox and Prots. Since the content is already taught and there for all to see (including EOs and Prots) in honest ecumenical discussion, what is to be gained by adding a term that at face value is open to misunderstanding and polemical misrepresentation and is inflammatory to them by suggesting an equality with Christ in redemption.

(c) Etymological defenses centering around the Latin cum strike me as a little disingenuous. They usually go like this: “Co-” does not mean “equal.” “Co-” comes from the Latin cum which just means “with” giving “the woman with the Redeemer.”
(i) in English, the language in which the public at large will hear “Co-Redemptrix,” “co-” is at best ambiguous.
Webster: 1 : with : together : joint : jointly <coexist> <coheir>
2 : in or to the same degree <coextensive>
3a : one that is associated in an action with another : fellow : partner <coauthor> <coworker>
b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy <copilot>
Take conspire or better co-conspirators. Does either just mean “together/with” without any note of equality? I don’t think so.

(ii) Latin words with prefixes deriving from cum can mean or suggest equality, most famously of late consubstantialis, “one in being.”

As I said in my IP I am wrestling with this question. Let’s keep the conversation going.
 
Scaun said:
Not necessarily. It can also refer to God’s people, which had many names before: sons of God, Israel, etc. but now they are most often called the “Church”. Many times they have been represented as a woman in the Bible. Therefore this ‘woman’, in Genesis, could really just as well be referring to God’s people, Mary included, and not Mary specifically, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
This is a reference to Mary. This is precisely why Jesus calls her “Woman”
 
Patrick_Joshua said:
What so problematic about the term?

What do you not agree with when the term Co-Redemptrix is assigned to our Blessed Mother?

Care to expand a little?
Click to expand...
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
 
Scaun said:
Not necessarily. It can also refer to God’s people, which had many names before: sons of God, Israel, etc. but now they are most often called the “Church”. Many times they have been represented as a woman in the Bible. Therefore this ‘woman’, in Genesis, could really just as well be referring to God’s people, Mary included, and not Mary specifically, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
For your analysis to be correct, Israel would have had to have been at enmity with the devil. Were that the case, there would be no need for a Redeemer.
 
StTommyMore said:
This is a reference to Mary. This is precisely why Jesus calls her “Woman”
Click to expand...
Or it could be that she was a woman and that is the reason He called her woman. Jesus calling her woman is not much of a convincing argument.
 
Scaun said:
Or it could be that she was a woman and that is the reason He called her woman. Jesus calling her woman is not much of a convincing argument.
Click to expand...
If it not a typological reference, why didn’t He call her “Mother”?
 
Cat_Herder said:
For your analysis to be correct, Israel would have had to have been at enmity with the devil. Were that the case, there would be no need for a Redeemer.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top