This began as a response to CM in another thread where he tried to prove that Benedict XV was a heretic. He provided the following quote and I wrote my response. I wonder what other people think about not only Benedict XV's quote but about the Co-Redemptrix theory.Benedict XV said:Quote:
And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.
You will undoubtedly think that I'm turning into Caminus and getting specious here, CM, but I have to give papal decrees the benefit of the doubt. And this stays narrowly out of heresy for me.
Did you notice the clause "as well as she could"? It is the key to the passage. This clause puts Christ's sacrifice well above Mary's participation in it, and says that He was really sacrificed by the Father, while she only partook in the sacrifice.
Therefore when it says that she "together with Christ has redeemed the human race" it does not put her on equal ground with him nor her redemption on equal ground with His, because she does not redeem in herself. Therefore "redemption" in the case of Mary becomes shorthand for "participation in THE Redemption."
If you think about it, it may justly be said that the angels and saints redeem the human race together with Christ, since they intercede for us with Him, but this isn't the same as being THE Redeemer. Two different senses of redemption are being expressed at the same time to describe the one and only Redemption: redemption in itself and redemption through. Christ redeems in Himself; others redeem through the original and only Redeemer who is Christ. You could express this by calling Mary, the angels and saints lower-case redeemers and Christ THE upper-case Redeemer.
Look at the language that carefully shows Mary's subsidiary role: "as well as she could," and "together with Christ." When the two phrases are read back-to-back, you see that though she redeemed us together with Christ, it was in a lesser way "As well as she could" means that as a mortal, no matter how blessed and chosen, she could not participate in this event in the same way that God the Father and God the Son did, but only imperfectly and on a lower level could she redeem together with Christ. Therefore it was not the same kind of redemption as Christ's redemption which justifies my splitting the definition of "redemption" into two, as arbitrary as it may seem.
This encyclical is really an early expression of the co-Redemptrix theory which I have read your thoughts on and agree with. You say that it is acceptable.
The subordinating "co" suffix of Co-Redemptrix reveals in its true light what I'm saying, as it makes the redemption of Mary a totally different kind of redemption than the Redemption of Christ. A co-Redemptrix is not THE Redeemer, she does not have the same function or purpose as THE Redeemer, just as a co-pilot has entirely different duties than the pilot, as an adjunct, as peripheral, yet still holding a special role.
It would be easier if we just called her a mediator, along with the angels and saints, but perhaps God wants for Mary in particular to have a more glorious title than Intercedrix or Mediatrix or Go-Betweenrix. Perhaps He wants her to share in the name "redeemer" even though she doesn't Redeem but only participated in a unique way in the Redemption, thereby lower-case redeeming or redeeming through.
Mary has an even more important role than the angels and saints as she doesn't just intercede for us. She actually took part in the original sacrifice in a way no one else did, through her sorrow, through giving up her Son, through being in a sense crucified, though not in a way that could save us. She was crucified along with Christ who did save the elect. Hence the past tense used in the encylical, "she together with Christ HAS redeemed the human race" -- but not in the same way. She helped redeem by participating in the Redemption, by not resisting God's command that her son must die horribly and brutally, by not letting human, maternal feelings get in the way of a supernatural event, by accepting the incomprehensible without complaint and with perfect grace -- all these things make her the Queen of Heaven, but the Redemption still completely belongs to Christ.
******
What also saves this passage is common sense. Do you really think Benedict XV was suggesting Mary's role was equal to Christ's? Not even Benedict XVI would say that. The very absurdity of not just a Pope, but anyone even trying to be remotely convincing as a Pope, saying what you suggest Benedict XV said lets us know that that is not what he was really saying. You couldn't get away with that in 2009, let alone at the time of this earlier Benedict.
The only possible way to read this, therefore, is inferring the two different meanings of "redemption" I gave above, redemption in itself and redemption through, which since this encyclical was published have been more clearly expressed in the term Co-Redemptrix.
The foregoing may seem like a lot of work, but it was easier than throwing out another Pope! There is no need to toss Benedict XV over this, there is just the need to clarify and expand on his cryptic statement.