Why Mary is Co-Redemtrix

[adstrinity]

She didn’t stop the death of Her Son. She trusted God and loved God so much that She did not intervene in Her Son’s passion. She did not tell Him to runaway, She did not kidnap Him so that it couldn’t happen, AND, She didn’t sit at home passively, but rather she allowed Herself to be witness to it all. She voluntarily let Her Son die. She had such faith in God that She did not question this. Her own flesh, and She was watching every minute of it. The Baby who She brought into the world, nursed, comforted, and taught, and She was there with Him to the end. She fully was with God. She let God be God with His Will being done. She suffered AND ACCEPTED Her sufferings. She did not fight them.

Think about it, wont you?

 

[agnostic]

I can’t even being to image the hell her heart must have gone through. The turmoil and pain and anguish she must have felt watching her own Son, her own flesh and blood, being torn to pieces.

And today Her Heart is full of nothing but Love and Kindness for us

And all She wants to do is lead us, who inflicted such unspeakable suffering on her son, back to her Son, with the softness and gentleness that only a Mother can have for her children.

What kind of loving, forgiving heart must The Mother of God have

 

[JRKH]

She didn’t stop the death of Her Son. She trusted God and loved God so much that She did not intervene in Her Son’s passion. She did not tell Him to runaway, She did not kidnap Him so that it couldn’t happen, AND, She didn’t sit at home passively, but rather she allowed Herself to be witness to it all. She voluntarily let Her Son die. She had such faith in God that She did not question this. Her own flesh, and She was watching every minute of it. The Baby who She brought into the world, nursed, comforted, and taught, and She was there with Him to the end. She fully was with God. She let God be God with His Will being done. She suffered AND ACCEPTED Her sufferings. She did not fight them.

Think about it, wont you?

While I appreciate the beauty of this post, I must question why it is in the non-catholic forum. Since there has been no dogmatic declaration shouldn’t this be in the apolgetics section?
Just wondering.

Peace
James

 

[love4mary]

I completely believe that our Blessed Mother Mary is a Co-Redemtrix, but it took me quite along time explaining this to my cradle Catholic Husband that it did NOT mean that she is Co-Equal with God but only Co-Operates with His divine will.

I am Not smarter then the Pope, but do wonder if another wording could have been used to convey the exact same thing.

 

[Peter_J]

She didn’t stop the death of Her Son.

Think about it, wont you?

Well my first thought is that I didn’t stop the death of Her Son either. So does that make me “Co-Redemtrix” too (well, other than the fact that I’m male)?

This just isn’t making any sense to me. Are you arguing in favor of Mary being “Co-Redemtrix”, or what exactly?

 

[notsmart]

Are you speculating that Mary could have stopped the death of her son, but did not?
How strange…

 

[MDK]

Are you speculating that Mary could have stopped the death of her son, but did not?
How strange…

The wording used there is done with an understanding that one understands Mary’s role and position. Translation for you who do not have this understanding and background is:

Mary didn’t seek to stop her Son from death on the cross, by asking Him to stop this, or pleading with the Romans, or Jewish leaders.

 

[adstrinity]

While I appreciate the beauty of this post, I must question why it is in the non-catholic forum. Since there has been no dogmatic declaration shouldn’t this be in the apolgetics section?
Just wondering.

Peace
James

I think for two reasons:

1. I wanted to explain this concept to those who didn’t understand it.
2. I was already here in the NC folder.

Well my first thought is that I didn’t stop the death of Her Son either. So does that make me “Co-Redemtrix” too (well, other than the fact that I’m male)?

This just isn’t making any sense to me. Are you arguing in favor of Mary being “Co-Redemtrix”, or what exactly?

My arguing in favour or against it doesn’t change the fact that She is (for the reasons mentioned). I didn’t understand it before I either heard something or read something (I don’t remember, but, I think I heard this at a lecture on Monday…I THINK), but, now the term makes sense to me; it didn’t before; I wanted to share.

Perhaps I should have specified that She was there with Her Son every step of the way and She didn’t stop Him.

Are you speculating that Mary could have stopped the death of her son, but did not?
How strange…

I am saying that BECAUSE Mary did not object nor contest nor fight the Will of God even at the lowest time of Her life, She co-operated with God, who gave us life. She Co-Redeemed us by doing God’s Will throughout Her entire life. She not only said yes to God to come into the world through Her, She also said yes to God leaving the world before Her and without Her, with no doubt of God’s Will and with no pride on Her part. That was Her Son, but, She trusted God more than She trusted Herself, She loved God more than She loved Herself, and She wanted God’s will so much that when She learned that Jesus was going to die, She took the brunt of it. She followed Him to Calvary, She was there at the cross, and She emptied Herself fully to conform to God’s will to give all of us Her Son.

 

[JonNC]

With thanks to Peter J, who posted this on a recent thread:

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)

See rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/200…-of-grace.html)

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

With thanks to Peter J, who posted this on a recent thread:

See rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/200…-of-grace.html)

Jon

To be fair, adstrinity hasn’t gone so far as to say that “Co-Redemptrix” should be dogmatically defined (as many others have).

You’ll recall, of course, that Cardinal Newman, who strongly opposed dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility, nevertheless wrote a good deal in defense of it (that is, in defense of the truth of it).

 

[JonNC]

To be fair, adstrinity hasn’t gone so far as to say that “Co-Redemptrix” should be dogmatically defined (as many others have).

You’ll recall, of course, that Cardinal Newman, who strongly opposed dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility, nevertheless wrote a good deal in defense of it (that is, in defense of the truth of it).

Agreed, I didn’t mean to imply that adstrinity had. Sorry, adstrinity, if I gave the wrong impression. Just thought the quote was interesting in light of the conversation.

Jon

 

[adstrinity]

Agreed, I didn’t mean to imply that adstrinity had. Sorry, adstrinity, if I gave the wrong impression. Just thought the quote was interesting in light of the conversation.

Jon

No, it’s cool. I didn’t think you had. I welcome the quote.

 

[JRKH]

With thanks to Peter J, who posted this on a recent thread:

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 .

Thank you for this wonderful post. It provides so much clear reasoning.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for this wonderful post. It provides so much clear reasoning.

Peace
James

Your welcome, James. I stole it from Peter J.
But really, I think its pretty good words from the pope.

Jon

 

[Scientiphic]

Even if Mary wanted to interfere, she couldn’t.

Firstly, she didn’t know what’s coming. Even Peter didn’t know why Jesus had to die on the cross when he denied knowing Christ.

Secondly, even if she knew this mystery and is revealed to her (very unlikely because if Satan knew, he would put an immediate stop to it). Mary wouldn’t be able to.

In fact, Jesus will say the following again…John 2:4 “What has this concern of yours to do with Me, woman?” Jesus asked.

.

 

[adstrinity]

Your welcome, James. I stole it from Peter J.
But really, I think its pretty good words from the pope.

Jon

I have to interject here and correct this. It wasn’t the Pope who said this, it was Cardinal Ratzinger. Saying, “The Pope,” makes it sound official. Cardinal Ratzinger also said some non-commital things about the Harry Potter series. Cardinal Ratzinger said these things, not a Pope.

Even if Mary wanted to interfere, she couldn’t.

Firstly, she didn’t know what’s coming. Even Peter didn’t know why Jesus had to die on the cross when he denied knowing Christ.

Secondly, even if she knew this mystery and is revealed to her (very unlikely because if Satan knew, he would put an immediate stop to it). Mary wouldn’t be able to.

In fact, Jesus will say the following again…John 2:4 “What has this concern of yours to do with Me, woman?” Jesus asked.

.

Once She knew what was going on, She never intervened. She always accepted God’s Will. This argument isn’t claiming She had foreknowledge of the situation, but, when this was going on, after St. Peter had run away, after all but St. John had left Him, after Jesus was wrongly accused, His Mother accepted God’s Will. She did not go back to selfishly try to keep Her Son, She did not reason with those who sentenced Him, She did not try to reason with Her Son NOT to do this, but, instead, She trusted Her Lord and Her God and Her Son, and though it killed Her, as no doubt, a bit of Her died with Her Son on the cross (so much more intimately than you or I may ever have the prieveledge to experience), She went along with God’s plan and God’s Will. Despite Her not understanding, if it is indeed true that She did not know, which is not unreasonable, She Co-Redeemed by accepting God’s Will. Regardless that She might not have known, She gave us Her Son once in birth, once in death, and now she tries to give US to Him.

She truly is a Magnificent Creature.

 

[JonNC]

I have to interject here and correct this. It wasn’t the Pope who said this, it was Cardinal Ratzinger. Saying, “The Pope,” makes it sound official. Cardinal Ratzinger also said some non-commital things about the Harry Potter series. Cardinal Ratzinger said these things, not a Pope.

Agreed. I got lazy with a bit of shorthand. I understand the difference. Sorry.
Jon

 

[neweyes]

Mary cannot be a co-redemptrix. There is only One–Jesus Christ, who died for all to redeem us from sin. Mary was his earthly mother, and she died like any other human being. She was not sinless, but chosen. She was greatly blessed, and surely is in heaven.

 

[I_am_Me]

Well my first thought is that I didn’t stop the death of Her Son either. So does that make me “Co-Redemtrix” too (well, other than the fact that I’m male)?

This just isn’t making any sense to me. Are you arguing in favor of Mary being “Co-Redemtrix”, or what exactly?

How could have Mary stopped the Death of her son? Gods will was that he Hang on the cross to die for our sins. Who can stop Gods will? Deb

 

[JonNC]

Mary cannot be a co-redemptrix. There is only One–Jesus Christ, who died for all to redeem us from sin.

I think every Catholic here would agree that Christ is the one redeemer. By co-redemptrix, they do not mean that Mary is equal to Christ as a redeemer. My understanding (probably not entirely correct) is that what is meant by co-redemptrix is that she participated in Christ’s mission and life in a way no other human being could.

Jon