the meaning of Mediatrix

[thirdn6]

I don’t disagree with any of the reasons stated behind that title. But I’d like to point out, though, that another proper name like that, which is not really unique, imo, would easily be derogated or used by wanna-be look-alikes or impostors. See what happened to the words “Madonna” or “church” or “catholic” for example… might be in the long run (when someone to explain it is scarce) it will only cause more confusion and divisions. Just now, it’s getting hard to know who’s a real catholic in faith if almost anyone you meet profess to be catholic although attending a different church. The need to capitalize or saying “in communion with Rome” or simply (Roman)-rite Catholic has almost become absolutely necessary.

So, to me, until it becomes a dogma, I’m happy with my devotion to our blessed Mother, as is.
I always love her and keep her in my heart.
I’ll continue encourage others to honor her and respect her, too.

God bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t disagree with any of the reasons stated behind that title. But I’d like to point out, though, that another proper name like that, which is not really unique, imo, would easily be derogated or used by wanna-be look-alikes or impostors. See what happened to the words “Madonna” or “church” or “catholic” for example… might be in the long run (when someone to explain it is scarce) it will only cause more confusion and divisions. Just now, it’s getting hard to know who’s a real catholic in faith if almost anyone you meet profess to be catholic although attending a different church. The need to capitalize or saying “in communion with Rome” or simply (Roman)-rite Catholic has almost become absolutely necessary.

So, to me, until it becomes a dogma, I’m happy with my devotion to our blessed Mother, as is.
I always love her and keep her in my heart.
I’ll continue encourage others to honor her and respect her, too.

God bless.

You make a good point. Mediatrix is nothing new under the sun; Israel of old believed in this theology from the understanding of “Woman”. The Apostles and the Early Church fathers continued this revelation of Mediatrix in the title Jesus dignified in Mary herself “Woman”.

Catholic history proves whenever she is pregnant with a revelation from God, it is not something new as others have mistakenly proposed here. But a message from eternity to a falling humanity from the body of Jesus Christ. Let me explain;

If and when Mediatrix becomes a dogma it will surely come under attack. Because the World conflicts with “Truth”. It is my hope, that if and when Mediatrix becomes doctrine it will reveal God’s Truth to societies, correct and uplift Marriage, define Love between God and humanity, support families by placing them on a firm foundation, It will bring Justice of why God destroyed “Sodom” and bring an understanding of “homesexuality”, why woman cannot be priests’ to name a few things that affect our societies.

If it is God’s will a dogma of Mediatrix will come about when God Speaks to his body in the Catholic Church, to reveal not a change in doctrine, but a cleaning house revelation (agent) without bringing down the wrath of God. This is an ancient Hebrew expression from the Old Testament of how God revealed himself to his bride.

Mediatrix will be new to an age of falling man and crumbling societies who will cry out to the rocks to fall on them. When all Mediatrix does is tell us, God Loves Us, this Mediatrix is nothing new under the sun, but to a people of a new age, it will seem like the Wrath of God, but in reality it is God saying “I LOVE YOU”. Only a Father who Loves his Son disciplines him.

This Mediatrix will confirm those who are “Truly of the Catholic church unchanged since the Apostles”. All the others will fall in line, or reject God’s Truth. The Servant of the Lord is cleaning house. It may become a small house, but it will be a loyal house to God.

Peace be with you

 

[thirdn6]

I can only pray for that good purpose or intentions…
May God bless you…

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
We might have had a thread like this already, I’m not sure … but if we haven’t, it would be interesting to have a thread specifically to hear from Catholics who believe that it would be a bad idea to dogmatically define “Mediatrix”, but that it was a good idea to dogmatically define the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

Hi thirdn6. I think sometimes it’s important to take a strong stance, even if it makes some people unhappy. In particular, these comments then-Cardinal Ratzinger made in 2000 may be of interest to this discussion (even though they talk about “co-redemptrix” rather than “mediatrix”):

Ratzinger said, “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings .

The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi thirdn6. I think sometimes it’s important to take a strong stance, even if it makes some people unhappy. In particular, these comments then-Cardinal Ratzinger made in 2000 may be of interest to this discussion (even though they talk about “co-redemptrix” rather than “mediatrix”):

Quote:
Ratzinger said, “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings .

The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)

Gabriel of 12;
I don’t think the then Cardinal Ratzinger was denouncing or rejecting Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix as it appears by your comment; IF anything he is suggesting the term “WITH” be used, with the explanation not to ever exclude Jesus.

My take from the Cardinal from this commentary deals with Covenant relationship, with the “Everything that is his becomes ours” etc. Cardinal Ratzinger is using caution as he does in all of his writings about the subject of Co-redemtrix. When discussing her covenant relationship between God and man, one must use caution never to exclude Jesus Christ from the title co-redemptrix, because it draws misunderstandings, rather than clarification made by the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith in other official titles of Mary that remain close to the early fathers and scripture.

Presently or “in the meantime” co-redemptrix will remain idle, “But” says the Cardinal “this with” is his term being used in defining the already termed co-redemptrix, which you missed. “This With” in particular Mary is everything she is through Jesus.

Mary being the prototype of the Church, meaning those God calls come to him through the Catholic Church which is the body of Jesus Christ, Just as Mary gives us her son as one example of the prototype of Mary. Now the “With” deals with her role as co-redemptrix in and through Jesus Christ, the Cardinal is not suggesting in anyway a rejection of the title, only in the meantime and foreseeable future will not be addressed.

The Cardinal did not see himself as Pope in the distant future here. Has the Cardinals foreseeable future come to pass?

In short, the Cardinal in his time did not think that co-redemptrix was going to be addressed as such because of the misunderstandings of its definition. Because the co-redemptrix “formula” “not title” will bring misunderstandings, and from these misunderstandings are not supported by scripture or sacred Tradition.

The Cardinal writes with the understanding that Mary’s titles are already held and believed by the reader, and by co-redemptrix in the meantime will not be addressed by the Congreation of the Doctrine of Faith of which Pope John Paul II placed in his care. Something for you to consider from the whole of the context.

Maybe rereading the commentary with out any bias, and what I revealed here may help you see the Cardinal has not rejected the title of co-redemptrix here but supports it with his term “With”.

 

[Doxiemom]

Actually gabriel 12, you have come the closest to helping me understand this particular idea.

But as the then cardinal said, it isn’t necessary for Mary to be given this title. He said it is too far a step away from Scripture. That, i believe, is the Holy Spirit speaking, telling him, "no, don’t do it. "

But i did appreciate how you tied in the true meaning of Jesus calling her “Woman” and the fact that God will have His bride also, a bride that is not us, the Church- chrsitians- but a separate group, personified in the “Woman” Mary.

unless I am wrong. It is easy to be wrong on this subject.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. Nice to see this thread again. I’d rather forgotten about it.

But as the then cardinal said, it isn’t necessary for Mary to be given this title. He said it is too far a step away from Scripture.

Not to split hairs, but I think there’s an important nuance here: " … while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings." (emphasis added)

(The last paragraph relates closely: “The word 'Co-redemptrix would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.”)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi all. Nice to see this thread again. I’d rather forgotten about it.

Not to split hairs, but I think there’s an important nuance here: " … while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings." (emphasis added)

(The last paragraph relates closely: “The word 'Co-redemptrix would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.”)

Gabriel of 12;
I believe you miss the point here; Cardinal Ratzinger has made the quote “Doctrine defines scripture” The then Cardinal is holding to his position in the “meantime”. For one co-redemptrix is not a doctrine at this time. He is not speaking from the authority of the Holy Spirit here, to close the matter.

The reason I am confident in this about the Cardinal because from his little book “The daughter of Zion” explains in great detail from biblical sources of the co-redemptive activity of “Woman” and " Mary in salvation history". The Typological scriptural references he uses to reference Mary as co-redemptrix are not explicit, But very implicit through typology. So his comment never conflicts with his writings. Again Cardinal Raztinger is dealing with the title co-redemptrix in his present time as not being addressed in the “meantime”. I would like to clarify here that the then Cardinal Ratzinger does not discredit the blessed virgin Mary’s role as co-redemtrix, only the title co-redemptrix as doctrine not being addressed in his present time.

It is wrong to think that Cardinal Ratzinger then oppossed the co-redemptive actions of Mary through Jesus from her fiat. It is the title being addressed as doctrine, not the belief of Mediatrix and or co-redemptrix. Both Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI firmly believe in Mary’s role as co-redemptrix, but not as doctrine in the meantime.

There is a difference between ones belief and devotion, and one who speaks from his office of doctrine. What is not doctrine, the Cardinal is clear not to force his personal devotions upon all believers.

So to use past writings from then Cardinal Ratzinger to refute his belief’s in the blessed Virgin Mary is making a character suicidal attempt on oneself. I would recommend reading some of the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s teachings on Mary, before making a far out conclusion to an excerpt of his writings.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Gabriel of 12. Thank you for your posts.

I’m sure some others are wondering the same thing I am wondering, namely which of my statements are you responding to? I’m sure that piece of information would be a very significant aid to understanding what your last two posts are about.

Peace be with you

Thank you. Peace be with you also.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Quote:
Ratzinger said, “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings .

The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)

Gabriel of 12;
I don’t think the then Cardinal Ratzinger was denouncing or rejecting Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix as it appears by your comment; IF anything he is suggesting the term “WITH” be used, with the explanation not to ever exclude Jesus.

…

Well, it could be argued that he has a certain importance ​

Is that not slightly the wrong way round ? The question is, not whether He is to be excluded, but whether she is to be included. She is not the main character in the NT - He is. What He is not, is a factor be accommodated somewhere in the machinery of salvation: like an upgrade on an computer which could conceivably be a fine thing to have, but can dispensed if found not to be of much use (like Mozilla Firefox, for example). He is not a “bolt-on”, to be uninstalled if the way He works gets in the way of the smooth functioning of whatever half-baked electronic addle-patedness AOL or Bill Gates see fit to inflict upon their clients. Unlike AOL (& Bill Gates, & the BVM), faith in Christ needs a Christ for faith in Him to be had; but the BVM ? No. She is not a “necessary being”, not even in salvation: as the non-necessity of the Incarnation shows. It’s necessary only contingently (unless one is a Calvinist on this point); & the BVM is necessary only within that contingent necessity. The same cannot be said of the Person of God the Word, who is absolutely necessary at every level.

There is all the difference imaginable between a BVM whose function does not exclude the Word, & a Word Whose function does not exclude a mere creature such as the BVM. Whoever heard of a creature taking priority over its Creator, & not excluding this Creator ?

 

[Peter_J]

Well, it could be argued that he has a certain importance ​

Is that not slightly the wrong way round ? The question is, not whether He is to be excluded, but whether she is to be included. She is not the main character in the NT - He is. What He is not, is a factor be accommodated somewhere in the machinery of salvation: like an upgrade on an computer which could conceivably be a fine thing to have, but can dispensed if found not to be of much use (like Mozilla Firefox, for example). He is not a “bolt-on”, to be uninstalled if the way He works gets in the way of the smooth functioning of whatever half-baked electronic addle-patedness AOL or Bill Gates see fit to inflict upon their clients. Unlike AOL (& Bill Gates, & the BVM), faith in Christ needs a Christ for faith in Him to be had; but the BVM ? No. She is not a “necessary being”, not even in salvation: as the non-necessity of the Incarnation shows. It’s necessary only contingently (unless one is a Calvinist on this point); & the BVM is necessary only within that contingent necessity. The same cannot be said of the Person of God the Word, who is absolutely necessary at every level.

There is all the difference imaginable between a BVM whose function does not exclude the Word, & a Word Whose function does not exclude a mere creature such as the BVM. Whoever heard of a creature taking priority over its Creator, & not excluding this Creator ?

Just as in my response to Doxiemom, once again I feel that there’s an important nuance here: the good Cardinal said “But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.”

He didn’t say “Mary must not lead us to forget Christ”. Not because that isn’t also true, but rather because it didn’t need to be said. In other words, there isn’t so much a danger that we would forget Christ outright, but rather that we might “forget the “first” of Christ”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel of 12. Thank you for your posts.

I’m sure some others are wondering the same thing I am wondering, namely which of my statements are you responding to? I’m sure that piece of information would be a very significant aid to understanding what your last two posts are about.

Thank you. Peace be with you also.

Hello Peter; The excerpt you provided gave an impression that the Cardinal was expressing a rejection of the ongoing Catholic Tradtional belief of Co-redepmtrix, Mediatrix belief. When the doctrinal issue was being expressed here only, not the Cardinal’s faith of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix.

I hoped to be clear in expressing the differences from the excerpt you provided.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, it could be argued that he has a certain importance ​

Gabriel of 12;
There is no other importance here as far as doctrine is concerned but Jesus. Mary’s co-redemptrix played a part on how salvatioin came to be for those seeking such mysteries of God, from which the Church already believes and enters these mysteries of the Divine.

The Catholic belief of co-redemptrix need not be made doctrine “at this time”, which is to place this belief among all her believers, which she does not at this time.

IMHO, this belief will not become doctrine until the world needs these mysteries revealed, or when a heresy comes to the for front of Catholic Teaching that denies “divine intervention” among humanity. Just as the “Immaculate Conception” becoming Docrtine defeated “Communism” in our age.

This pregnant believe co-redemptrix in the womb of the Church need not apply for all believers to believe as doctrine yet. She will give birth to this child (word of God) in an age when the world needs her children to give testimony and witness of God’s intervention upon humanity. In conclusion, co-redemptrix will not be a new (belief) doctrine if God wills it, but will be a revelation to a time and people who need to hear this saving divine act of God in co-redemptrix.

At least now, if and when God wills this doctrine for all beleivers, Protestants cannot argue that it was never believed by her members.

As far as your computer analogies, forgive my lack of computer terminology, so I will yeild to your analyses in the hope my comment above expresses my response.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

First, to clean up a little sloppiness on my part, when I posted the Ratizinger-quote …

Ratzinger said, “I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings .

The Cardinal continues: "What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

"But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

“The word ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Ratzinger went on to say, “would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000)

… I didn’t provide a link to the webpage that I cut-and-pasted from, namely the Rorate Caeli blog.

Regarding the idea that it “gave an impression”, well, it seemed to me that they presented Ratzinger’s statements well, allowing them to speak for themselves. I guess there’s always the possibility that they left out some statements, or changed the order of the statements. Quite honestly, though, I think this conversation has gone pretty far downhill, and to continue it in order to further engage in such speculations with regard to the aforemention Rorate Caeli blog would be pretty pointless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Perhaps, if it is repeated 1,000,000,000 times more, it will become fact. Until that time, the word one means less than 2 and more than zero.

One, it is said, is the loneliest number that you ever seen.
“we only have one Mediator between God and man and that is *the man *Christ”

LOL

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree 100% -The only Path to the Father is Through the Son, Chirst himself told us this. But do not be too quick to be a Mary basher. Mary, Mother of Jesus, was and is, as close to our dear Lord and Savior as any human being. So by following the Communion of Saints and asking Mary, as well as all other Saints, to please pray for us, we are not trying in anyway to go around Christ to get to the Father. The whole idea of that is absolutely stupid.

And, by the way, do not try to be so high and mighty. **By braking away **from the one true Catholic Church, what all other Christians churches are saying is that God made a mistake and that man knows better then God. Nice try, but I’ll stay with the Church that Christ founded Thank you very much.

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

Sounds like a Meineke or Brake Shop add in the paper? Isn’t it “breaking” lol Sorry, it’s the teacher in me!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not meaning to be rude or simplistic in my thinking, but you’re saying that we have/need a mediator for our mediator?

It does indeed come off sounding like a bureaucratical DMV office? lol

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

that quote that Gt8952b posted is awesome

St. Bernard:

“Coming to her, the Holy Spirit filled her with grace for herself; when the same Spirit pervaded her again, she became superabundant and overflowing with grace for us also.”

And yet what fascinates me is that St. Bernard did not believe in the Immaculate Conception? It’s interesting…

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I understand that all this is a fleshing out, a developing of doctrine that would have always been held to be true by the catholic church, much like Mary’s immaculate conception etc. Can someone point me to early writings of the church that would indicate this position.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First, to clean up a little sloppiness on my part, when I posted the Ratizinger-quote …

… I didn’t provide a link to the webpage that I cut-and-pasted from, namely the Rorate Caeli blog.

Regarding the idea that it “gave an impression”, well, it seemed to me that they presented Ratzinger’s statements well, allowing them to speak for themselves. I guess there’s always the possibility that they left out some statements, or changed the order of the statements. Quite honestly, though, I think this conversation has gone pretty far downhill, and to continue it in order to further engage in such speculations with regard to the aforemention Rorate Caeli blog would be pretty pointless.

Thanks for the blog site, it clarifies much and supports my position of what I stated. I agree it would be pointless to continue the blog quote as it has been clarified here. But I disagree that this conversation has gone downhill, because this conversation clarified much misunderstandings of co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of our blessed Mother Virgin Mary Mother of God.

Peace be with you