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.

P.P.S. Was it only when the Holy Ghost arrived that Mary knew why Christ had to die the way He did, or did she know before?  Sometimes it's hard to tell when she was present, or how much of what He said and did she was privy to.  

Either way, His death was still incomprehensible, especially from a maternal standpoint.  Not only does your son die horribly but He's also your God and consubstantial with your heavenly Father...  If this is not literally incomprehensible in its bare outlines, it is incomprehensible in the vastness of its significance for anyone except God, I'd say.  Mary as the Queen of Heaven is probably now able to comprehend it more perfectly than anyone else -- but not to the extent He does.  

So let's say even for Mary, God's death from her own perspective, the perspective of the Mother of God, is relatively incomprehensible, since she cannot understand what she went through, or how heroic she was and is, as well as He can, so much higher is His love and understanding even than hers.  That's the beauty of it, that He is the source of love and we just accept, and what makes Mary Mary is her lack of questioning, her perfect acceptance of being chosen for this great honor, an honor so great and beyond what any mortal could possibly ask for or expect that it also is incomprehensible.

My mind is in a fevered condition.  I feel like all sorts of things are becoming clearer to me but undoubtedly tomorrow I'll wake up and wish I could delete this thread.  Maybe not.

My mind is in a fevered condition.  I feel like all sorts of things are becoming clearer to me but undoubtedly tomorrow I'll wake up and wish I could delete this thread.  Maybe not.

Some of what you say is good Mike, but you are confusing two terms:  Redemption and Intercession.  This is where you fail in your attempt to exonerate a Freemasonic heresy inculcating orthodoxy destroying wolf.

Redemption pertains to justice, insofar as it is ONLY made possible by the infinite and intrinsic nature of Christ's merit: only God could redeem.

Intercession pertains to God's mercy, insofar as He allows the benefit of redemption to be bestowed on His creatures through the participation of His creatures.  I may baptize a man, I may pray for him, I may scourge myself on is behalf, or take an ice cold shower, or whatever.  But the price of His redemption was paid once and for all by Jesus Christ - in doing these things I am simply interceding, asking God "Since Thou hast paid the infinite and irrevocable price, wilt Thou please throw this one into the shopping cart too?"

I do not co-redeem, I do not redeem at all.

The title "co-Redemptress" is what is not heretical, but the "theory", as you say, if it posits that Mary did any redeeming of souls IS heretical.  She did and does two main things:  Provided the flesh of the Redeemer (and this the way way in which she is co-Redemptress, ie; participator and subordinate in His work o f redeeming), and intercedes on our behalf, asking God to apply the price He alone paid to such and such a soul who recommends itself to her through devotion, etc.

And God is more inclined, in His mercy, to listen to her prayer than to anyone else because of the unique role she played and how deeply she shared in His sufferings.  For these reasons her de congruo merit is greater than any other creature (and probably greater than that of all other creatures combined).

he wasn't necessarily saying what you think he was saying -- that Mary herself actually redeems us along with Christ from sin and death.

it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.

 :rolleyes:

That Benedict XV may have been speaking in a deliberately vague way to create confusion is certainly possible.

Obviously.  And without qualification, he uttered a word for word contradiction against Trent (for the second time) and here you are fighting to exonerate him, despite that he was an obvious enemy of the Catholic Faith.

When did the term Co-Redemptrix come about?  

co-Redemptress

Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper.

Quote from: CM

Some of what you say is good Mike, but you are confusing two terms:  Redemption and Intercession.  

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.

Others do not redeem.  God redeems through others.  Others intercede.

As to your example of the punk, God redeemed him, and Grace brought him to the appreciation and actualization in his life of the benefits.

Redeem means to pay the price.  Nobody can pay that price but God.

   To me this is a very important topic, so I am putting in a reply in case I can't find the topic again.
    I've not had a chance to read all the info above so I ask some indulgence if I say something that has already been dealt with.
    As long as I can remember Our Lady has been described as "co redemptrix" in as much as that she has so completely co operated in the Redemption as to be essentially  inseperable from "It".
        We are all called to be "co redeemers" in that we are called to unite our sufferings with Our Lord to achieve the salvation of souls.

The encyclicals are kept from contradiction by this upper-case R.

Were you reading Latin or English? :cool:

The title "co-Redemptress" is what is not heretical, but the "theory", as you say, if it posits that Mary did any redeeming of souls IS heretical.

What theory posits such a thing?  None of which I am aware.

She had FULL rights over Her Son, and His Blood could NOT be shed without her consent.

Though it is the silver that pays the price to redeem my former slave from captivity, it is accomplished through my own renunciation of my right over the silver in my possession.

Jesus gave His life, but He would not have done so unless His Mother gave her assent.

'Tis a lofty concept, to be sure, but the importance of Our Lady's role cannot be overstated here, IMO -- nor does such take anything away from Her Son, Who longs to have His Mother held in the highest possible esteem.

Well said!

Jesus gave His life, but He would not have done so unless His Mother gave her assent.

And I'm sure that She knew ....even at the time of the Annunciation (if only because of Her exceptional wisdom and knowledge of scripture) that She was being asked to an exceptional level of sacrifice. What ordenary mother would give up her (even rat of a) son to the executioners?
----------------------------------------------------------
'Tis a lofty concept, to be sure, but the importance of Our Lady's role cannot be overstated here, IMO -- nor does such take anything away from Her Son, Who longs to have His Mother held in the highest possible esteem.
---------------------------------------------------------

Nothing more to be said!!!!!!!!!