Why Mary is Co-Redemtrix

[neweyes]

While I agree with that, the word Co-Redemptrix means something entirely different to the Catholic Church, doesn’t it?

I don’t think it means that Mary was simply Jesus’ mother and in that unique role gave her insight that no one else got to have…but then John, Peter and others also had unique roles and participated in His ministry. So what do you mean when you say that Mary was Co-Redemptrix?

 

[JonNC]

While I agree with that, the word Co-Redemptrix means something entirely different to the Catholic Church, doesn’t it?

I don’t think it means that Mary was simply Jesus’ mother and in that unique role gave her insight that no one else got to have…but then John, Peter and others also had unique roles and participated in His ministry. So what do you mean when you say that Mary was Co-Redemptrix?

I will defer to Peter J, adstrinity and the other Catholics on this thread to give a better explanation than I could give. There is an interesting explanation here:
voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

I just know that they don’t mean the BVM is equal to Chirst.
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

While I agree with that, the word Co-Redemptrix means something entirely different to the Catholic Church, doesn’t it?

I don’t think it means that Mary was simply Jesus’ mother and in that unique role gave her insight that no one else got to have…but then John, Peter and others also had unique roles and participated in His ministry. So what do you mean when you say that Mary was Co-Redemptrix?

I think one of the main issue here is the same issue we been discussing with “Papal Infallibility” and “Unam Sanctum”: namely, that at a glance it sounds like “Co-Redemptrix” is saying a lot (maybe too much), but if you interpret it a certain way then it turns out that it’s claiming very little. (See the discussion in the A trick question (papal infallibility) thread.)

 

[JRKH]

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.

That is a good point.
For the record I recognized that these comments were made by Cardinal Ratzinger, and not by Pope Benedict XVI.

Peace
James

 

[GailMac]

Temporally speaking, is she not the Church? And if your answer is yes, ta da! You’re over a big impediment. Then you can let the Church into your life to help you straighten out the rest of your impediments. If no, please pray this prayer: Lord, I do believe, heal my unbelief. Pray a Rosary and beg God to open your mind to His Truth. When your done having a good cry, thank God for it and head for the nearest parish in your vacinity.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Nickkname]

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?

Mary’s co-operation goes well beyond Calvary, however.

It began at the Annunciation, when she accepted the role of Ever-Virgin Mother of God, when she gave herself to Jesus and His messanic mission, i.e., the Redemption of man. She united herself to the Lord at all times in the communion of prayer, and, whenever possible, in a physical presence as well. She followed her Son to Calvary, and there beneath the Cross, shared in His Own sufferings and oblation, and when Jesus gave her to Saint John - and through him the whole Church - she became the Mother of men, a figure of the Church. Than even when Jesus was gone, she was still united to Him in prayer, and when she was taken up body and soul into Heaven, her co-operation with God was consummated and her communion with Him fully realized: she is now the Advocate and Mediatrix of all graces and is an eschtological sign of the Church.

This is what is meant by “Co-Redemptrix”.

 

[emeraldcoast]

" It began at the Annunciation, when she accepted the role of Ever-Virgin Mother of God,"

"

Please show me where in the Bible that Mary excepted the role of being “Ever-Virgin”. Thank you!
Nickkname;4305390:

" and when Jesus gave her to Saint John - and through him the whole Church - she became the Mother of men, a figure of the Church. Than even when Jesus was gone, she was still united to Him in prayer, and when she was taken up body and soul into Heaven, her co-operation with God was consummated and her communion with Him fully realized: she is now the Advocate and Mediatrix of all graces and is an eschtological sign of the Church.

This is what is meant by "Co-Redemptrix

"

With the above post, you have totally lost me.

God Bless!

 

[notsmart]

Please show me where in the Bible that Mary excepted the role of being “Ever-Virgin”. Thank you!

 

[emeraldcoast]

I can’t. Anymore than I can show you St. John the Baptist was ever virgin. Consecrated Virgins were not unknown at that time.
Devout Jews gave their very lives to God as a living sacrifice.

As we should. Romans 12:1 - “to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God”

Imagine offering up your very own body for nine months beforehand, nurturing this child, teaching him his prayers, loving him…till death- and He is God.

Boasting of your vows to God, or praying in public to recieve honor was always frowned upon.

Mary and Joseph were both devout Jews–I totally believe without a doubt. With this in mind, having their marriage be “holy and pleasing to God” would include sexual intamacy. Devout Jews as Mary and Joseph were would subscribed to this belief. Why would they not believe this truth? Sex within marriage is is holy and has God’s blessing. Do we not refer to Jesus, Mary and Joseph as the Holy Family? Why would anyone want to believe that the holy parents would not engage in a holy act?

God Bless!

 

[adstrinity]

Mary and Joseph were both devout Jews–I totally believe without a doubt. With this in mind, having their marriage be “holy and pleasing to God” would include sexual intamacy. Devout Jews as Mary and Joseph were would subscribed to this belief. Why would they not believe this truth? Sex within marriage is is holy and has God’s blessing. Do we not refer to Jesus, Mary and Joseph as the Holy Family? Why would anyone want to believe that the holy parents would not engage in a holy act?

God Bless!

Because, Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[sambos671]

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?

I’m trying to follow your logic her. So if I accept Gods call on my life and preach the Gospel whereby people are saved no matter what suffering I go through then I’m a Co-redemer or if female a Co-redemtrix? Just curious.

 

[SIA]

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?

You sound like her attorney.

 

[notsmart]

Mary and Joseph were both devout Jews–I totally believe without a doubt. With this in mind, having their marriage be “holy and pleasing to God” would include sexual intamacy. Devout Jews as Mary and Joseph were would subscribed to this belief. Why would they not believe this truth? Sex within marriage is is holy and has God’s blessing. Do we not refer to Jesus, Mary and Joseph as the Holy Family? Why would anyone want to believe that the holy parents would not engage in a holy act?

God Bless!

I would imagine that there are many reasons why Mary would be promised to Joseph at that time. One of them being to protect Mary from being a concubine or worse to a non Jew. They were after all, in some terrible conditions then. This would make some sense considering what life was like for the Jews then.

 

[JRKH]

Mary and Joseph were both devout Jews–I totally believe without a doubt. With this in mind, having their marriage be “holy and pleasing to God” would include sexual intamacy. Devout Jews as Mary and Joseph were would subscribed to this belief. Why would they not believe this truth? Sex within marriage is is holy and has God’s blessing. Do we not refer to Jesus, Mary and Joseph as the Holy Family? Why would anyone want to believe that the holy parents would not engage in a holy act?

God Bless!

I don’t mean to sound offensive to anyone but I find this whole issue to be silly.
Why does the idea of Mary being a perpetual Virgin bother people so much?
Would she be More Venerable if she were not a perpetual Virgin?
Would she be less Venerable if she had engaged in “normal” marital relations with Joseph after Jesus Birth?
How does this question, one way or another, effect the validity of Christ’s Virgin Birth and the Accomplishment of the Redemptive Mission?
How does this question, one way or another, effect how we should view Our Lady, as the Christ Bearer, and Mother of our Dear Lord.

What it does have to do with is Authority. The Authority of the Church to Bind and Loose and Christ’s Promise to Protect the Church from error.
The Church has declared, after much study and prayer, that Mary was and is a Perpetual Virgin. This official declaration alone makes it so because the Church has the Authority to Bind and Loose “Whatever” (Matthew 16:19).

And so now we are debating the issue of the term Co-Redemtrix. We may do so because the Church has made no dogmatic declaration on the matter. However, if the Church were to officially declare, either for or against the issue, that would be that because it would them be “Bound”.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t mean to sound offensive to anyone but I find this whole issue to be silly.
Why does the idea of Mary being a perpetual Virgin bother people so much?

Speaking for myself, I’m not “bothered” by the idea of Mary being a perpetual Virgin, but by the idea of Mary not being a perpetual Virgin – which I guess indicates that your question was directed towards others, and that I shouldn’t have answered it. But nevertheless, it strikes me as a very odd question, especially in view of what you said afterwards:

I don’t mean to sound offensive to anyone but I find this whole issue to be silly.
Why does the idea of Mary being a perpetual Virgin bother people so much?
Would she be More Venerable if she were not a perpetual Virgin?
Would she be less Venerable if she had engaged in “normal” marital relations with Joseph after Jesus Birth?
How does this question, one way or another, effect the validity of Christ’s Virgin Birth and the Accomplishment of the Redemptive Mission?
How does this question, one way or another, effect how we should view Our Lady, as the Christ Bearer, and Mother of our Dear Lord.

What it does have to do with is Authority. The Authority of the Church to Bind and Loose and Christ’s Promise to Protect the Church from error.
The Church has declared, after much study and prayer, that Mary was and is a Perpetual Virgin. This official declaration alone makes it so because the Church has the Authority to Bind and Loose “Whatever” (Matthew 16:19).

You make Trent sound like a reenactment of when God tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac (as if the Pope said to the Bishops “How can we determine who’s really loyal to us? I know, let’s command all Catholics to believe that Mary was perpetually a Virgin.”) I don’t see it that way.

 

[Yeshualuver]

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?

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…

Irrelevant, she couldn’t have stopped it or intervened in any way. So this point is groundless and useless. Miriyam (her name in Hebrew-she was a Hebrew woman after all) was nothing more than a flesh and bone Hebrew woman of the first century with virtually no say whatsoever in her culture. Even in Hebrew courts a woman’s testimony was useless.

Even the Apostle John, who was friends with the High Priest, couldn’t do anything to stop it, let alone a woman of that era. Therefore, any of the theoretical ideals posed by you (kidnapping, etc.) are absolutely laughable when one considers the facts of history.

 

[Yeshualuver]

And by the way, Miriyam was NOT a perpetual virgin. A clear reading of the Greek indicates that she wasn’t despite the lies and deceptions that have been perpetrated about her over the centuries. She didn’t need to be a perpetual virgin anyway. She only needed to be one until the birth of Jesus.

Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Mat 13:54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked.
Mat 13:55 ** “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”**Mat 13:57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Clearly in the context of Matthew when Jesus is teaching in Nazareth the people are basically asking who this guy thinks he is. They spoke of knowing his lineage: his mother, Mary and in context also speaking of his siblings: James (Jacob), Joseph, Simon and Judas and also of his sisters (plural). The Greek, in context clearly indicates that these are biological siblings, not spiritual brethren.

The context bears it out as well by mentioning his mother and then her offspring, as other siblings of this man who would presume to teach them.

Jesus in clearly calling for a distinction between his earthly relatives and spiritual relatives said:

Mat 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
(Again, in context with “his mother” this is speaking of biological siblings, not spiritual. Mother and her offspring.)

Mat 12:47 Someone told him, “**Your mother and brothers **are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
Mat 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
Mat 12:49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[JonNC]

And by the way, Miriyam was NOT a perpetual virgin. A clear reading of the Greek indicates that she wasn’t despite the lies and deceptions that have been perpetrated about her over the centuries. She didn’t need to be a perpetual virgin anyway. She only needed to be one until the birth of Jesus.

I take issue with the characterization that the belief that she was perpetually virgin is the result of “lies and deceptions”. If you choose to disagree with the belief, fine. State your belief in a positive way. But to characterize a belief held by the majority of Christians through the ages in this way is uncharitable at best.

Jon

 

[adstrinity]

Irrelevant, she couldn’t have stopped it or intervened in any way. So this point is groundless and useless. Miriyam (her name in Hebrew-she was a Hebrew woman after all) was nothing more than a flesh and bone Hebrew woman of the first century with virtually no say whatsoever in her culture. Even in Hebrew courts a woman’s testimony was useless.

Even the Apostle John, who was friends with the High Priest, couldn’t do anything to stop it, let alone a woman of that era. Therefore, any of the theoretical ideals posed by you (kidnapping, etc.) are absolutely laughable when one considers the facts of history.

It is relevant. It is very relevant! Despite you saying that She COULDN’T have stopped it or intervened in any way, She didn’t even try. I think if She wanted to stop it, Jesus may have listened to His Mother, Whom He loves, but, that is not the issue. The fact of the matter is, She did not go against God’s Will at all with this. She accepted the Will of God subserviantly, even to the point of Her Only Son dying. She never went against God’s Will, EVER. She helped in our salvation by giving Her Son’s life for us.

And by the way, Miriyam was NOT a perpetual virgin. A clear reading of the Greek indicates that she wasn’t despite the lies and deceptions that have been perpetrated about her over the centuries. She didn’t need to be a perpetual virgin anyway. She only needed to be one until the birth of Jesus.

No, you are wrong. All who knew Her, personally, knew She was a virgin after the birth of Christ. The Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics attest to Mary being forever virgin, and Jesus having no other half-siblings.

Please don’t lie about the state of Mary’s concecration; please do not hate Jesus and love the devil like that. PLEASE have humility and ask God to forgive your provocation and antagonism.

 

[Peter_J]

And by the way, Miriyam was NOT a perpetual virgin. A clear reading of the Greek indicates that she wasn’t despite the lies and deceptions that have been perpetrated about her over the centuries. She didn’t need to be a perpetual virgin anyway. She only needed to be one until the birth of Jesus.

Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Mat 13:54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked.
Mat 13:55 ** "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? **Where then did this man get all these things?"Mat 13:57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Clearly in the context of Matthew when Jesus is teaching in Nazareth the people are basically asking who this guy thinks he is. They spoke of knowing his lineage: his mother, Mary and in context also speaking of his siblings: James (Jacob), Joseph, Simon and Judas and also of his sisters (plural). The Greek, in context clearly indicates that these are biological siblings, not spiritual brethren.

You seem to be overlooking part of what you yourself quoted: they said “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” Are we then to conclude that Jesus’ father was Joseph the carpenter simply because the neighbors thought so?

I take issue with the characterization that the belief that she was perpetually virgin is the result of “lies and deceptions”.

I quite agree with JonNC. Consider: how is your accusing us of lying any better than adstrinity accusing you of lying?