Why Mary is Co-Redemtrix

[ralphinal]

So your justification for dogmatically defining those doctrines is that “other people say that we should not teach them as they are an incumbrance to unity”?

Again, you are reading something there that I did not intend. We should not run from them for unity;s sake. They should be defined when it is crucial for the faith that they are, lest we slip into heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

They should be defined when it is crucial for the faith that they are, lest we slip into heresy.

Well then, clearly at least the three that were dogmatically defined in the 19th century (the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction) shouldn’t have been, and Co-Redemptrix should not be dogmatically defined. Or do you believe that those is the early Church who did not believe those 4 doctrines were really heretics?

 

[ralphinal]

Well then, clearly at least the three that were dogmatically defined in the 19th century (the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction) shouldn’t have been, and Co-Redemptrix should not be dogmatically defined. Or do you believe that those is the early Church who did not believe those 4 doctrines were really heretics?

Honestly, I have not cared one way or another to call anyone a heretic. It is not my job.

Now, for the Immaculate Conception, there were those who opposed the concept because the science of the day said that a soul was not in place from conception. Would they be heretics? No. There were those who did not have the same understanding of Original Sin. Would they be heretics? Maybe, it depends on where they are wrong. In fact, I would bet that most of them are heretical for other reasons than those.

The other two are issues that are huge in scope and beyond this thread. We have discussed them many times. Some who opposed them were heretical. Some were not. It all depends.

Either way, I see nothing that can be gained from defining the Co-Redemptrix as Dogma.