Author Topic: In defense of Mary Co-Redemptrix (Read 4845 times)

Nishant · « **on:** September 15, 2016, 10:26:43 AM »

On the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, some followers of Mr. Dimond continue to pierce Her Immaculate Heart by denying the doctrine repeatedly taught by the Popes, Saints and Doctors that She is truly Mediatrix of every grace and Co-Redemptrix with Christ. Pope Benedict XV teaches, "With Her suffering and dying Son She suffered and almost died, so did She surrender Her mother's rights over Her Son for the salvation of human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained to Her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that She together with Christ has redeemed the human race." (Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917)

And Pope St. Pius X explains further, "from this common sharing of sufferings and will, She merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and so the dispensatrix of all the gifts which were gained for us by the death and blood of Jesus. ... since She was ahead of all in holiness and union with Christ, and was taken up by Christ into the work of human salvation, She merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly, and is the chief minister of the dispensation of graces. (Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904)

Quote from: Even Seven

Trent taught that Jesus ALONE is the Redeemer

1. First, explain the words of the Popes cited above. And secondly, no, Trent is saying that Jesus alone made condign satisfaction (atonement in strict justice) for sins. Do you understand the meaning of these terms? Fr. Garrigou Lagrange explains them beautifully in his work, "The Sufferings of Mary as Co-Redemptrix". In Mystical City of God, Ven. Mary of Agreda, after explaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at a time when some were still in error about it, also states about our Blessed Mother, "Just as She cooperated with the Passion ... the same Lord made Her participant of the dignity of Redemptrix".

Pope Leo XIII further confirms the doctrine, "She was already then a sharer in the laborious expiation for the human race ... that divine sacrifice had to be completed with Her present and looking on, for which She had generously nourished the victim from Herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother ... of Her own accord She offered Her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in Her heart, transfixed with the sword of sorrow."

2. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange writes, “But did Her dolors overcome Her, did Her grief cast Her to the ground? Stabat iuxta crucem: She stood by the Cross. The sword pierced Her heart but did not take away Her strength of soul: Her constancy equals her affliction, and Her face is the face of one no less resigned than afflicted ... We may conclude this section by noting that Mary the Co-Redemptrix has given us birth at the foot of the Cross by the greatest act of faith, hope and love that was possible to Her on such an occasion. One may even say that Her act of faith was the greatest ever elicited, since Jesus had not the virtue of faith but the beatific vision. In that dark hour when the faith of the Apostles themselves seemed to waver, when Jesus seemed vanquished and His work annihilated, Mary did not cease for an instant to believe that Her Son was the Savior of mankind, and that in three days He would rise again as He had foretold.

When He uttered His last words “It is consummated” Mary understood in the fullness of Her faith that the work of salvation had been accomplished by His most painful immolation. The evening before, Jesus has instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Christian priesthood; she sees now something of the influence the sacrifice of the Cross will exercise. She knows that Jesus is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that He is the conqueror of sin and the demon, and that in three days He will conquer death, sin’s consequence. She sees the hand of God where even the most believing see only darkness and desolation. Hers was the greatest act of faith ever elicited by a creature, a faith higher than that of the angels when they were as yet in their period of trial. It was finally Her supreme act of charity: so to love God as to offer His only Son in the most painful agony: to love God above everything at the moment when He tried Her in the highest and deepest of Her loves, even in the object of Her adoration—and that because of our sins."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2016, 10:58:02 AM »

As long as one properly understands the term Co-Redemptrix, that it's participatory, then there's no issue with it. Dimonds appear to misunderstand that term.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:08:52 AM »

Rejection of the title Co-Redemptrix is reminiscent of how some of the early heretics refused to accept the title "Mother of God" because they didn't understand the appropriate distinctions and theological principles involved. I'm not saying with this that rejecting the title "Co-Redemptrix" is heretical, since it hasn't been defined with the appropriate degree of authority to make it dogmatic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:16:29 AM »

Despite accusations to the contrary, I am not a follower of the Dimonds. I do not hold that belief in BoD per se (without any other accompanying heresies ... such as Pelagianism or denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation) is heretical. Dimonds have written to me directly, ripping me for not agreeing with them on all points. I do not follow any personality, and I refuse to be categorized into a "camp"; I seek only the truth.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:30:27 AM »

I believe Mary is the mediatrix of all graces and have believed this since the early days of my conversion. A main influence on this belief of mine was reading "The Glories of Mary" by Saint Alphonsus. Do the Dimonds reject this?

I understand why some people do not like the title of Co-redemptrix because I believe it can be understood in a heretical way and because of this some people oppose the title.

nctradcath · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2016, 12:47:29 PM »

Those who blaspheme Our Lady go to hell. The Dimonds are definitely on ththe wrong path.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2016, 12:57:49 PM »

Quote from: nctradcath

Those who blaspheme Our Lady go to hell. The Dimonds are definitely on ththe wrong path.

Calling it blasphemy is a bit over the top. They reject the term for theological reasons ... even if mistaken ones.

Prayerful · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2016, 04:24:52 PM »

The meaning of the Co-Redemptrix might not be clear to many, and some Traditionalists might consider it liable to led some to heresy, even if they understand what's meant. She is a sharer in the making of amends for the sins of humanity not somehow an equal of Christ. OP explains it nicely. If we restore the Church, it will be possible again to educate people. An average Massgoer of the past would seem like a theologian in comparison to the typical Conciliar priest.

happenby · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2016, 04:36:10 PM »

The Dimonds are wrong on this (not to mention wrong on sedevacantism and geocentrism). No doubt because they haven't had a pope in 60+ years. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day, like their defense of Baptism which is next level thorough. Wonder if they can get it right a second time? Either way, gotta stay with the Church, boys.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2016, 06:21:21 PM »

Quote from: happenby

The Dimonds are wrong on this (not to mention wrong on sedevacantism and geocentrism). No doubt because they haven't had a pope in 60+ years. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day, like their defense of Baptism which is next level thorough. Wonder if they can get it right a second time? Either way, gotta stay with the Church, boys.

Perhaps this'll help dispel the myth that anyone who does not believe in BoD is a mindless Dimond robot.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2016, 07:05:03 PM »

I think there should be another term hat could describe the blessed Mother Mary's role in the redemption of Christ, but I don't think co-redeemer is the appropriate term...here we have Christ alone

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”

Catholictrue · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2016, 07:30:34 PM »

Actually, no, Nishant (an apostate who professes that Bergoglio has the true faith), Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith), etc. are wrong, and MHFM is correct that the term Co-Redemptix is not a title that is consistent with Catholic teaching. If you think you are correct, try defining the term ‘Co-Redemptrix’ in one sentence and specifically explain what it means in reference to the act of Redemption.

First, you contradict Trent’s dogmatic statement that Jesus Christ ALONE (solus) is the Redeemer. Note that this declaration is made in the context of the veneration of the Virgin Mother of God. It thus would have been a precise opportunity to connect the Blessed Mother to the title of ‘Redeemer’ or to the act of Redemption but Trent did not. In fact, it used the opportunity to declare that Jesus alone is the Redeemer.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984)

Second, Florence’s definition is even more to the point in refuting your false teaching on this matter. It solemnly defined that Jesus Christ ALONE (solus) laid low the enemy of the human race, destroyed man’s sins, and opened up the gates of Heaven. You profess that Jesus Christ did it with Mary. That is false. And note here that I’m citing dogmatic statements of the highest authority, not fallible statements.

LATIN: Firmiter credit, profitetur et docet, neminem unquam ex viro feminaque conceptum a diaboli dominatu fuisse liberatum, nisi per fidem mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi Domini nostri: qui sine peccato conceptus, natus et mortuus, humani generis hostem, peccata nostra delendo, solus sua morte prostravit, et regni caelestis introitum, quem primus homo peccato proprio cuм omni successione perdiderat, reseravit: quem aliquando venturum omnia Veteris Testamenti sacra sacrificia, sacramenta, ceremoniae praesignrunt.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)

The key portion for this discussion says: “qui… solus sua morte” (i.e. who... alone by His own death) laid low the enemy of the human race, opened Heaven, destroyed man sins, etc. That is what the Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and teaches: that Jesus Christ alone redeemed man. You profess that Jesus Christ did so with Mary. Your position is not consistent with this dogmatic definition, and this is the highest pronouncement of the Church. Everything is to be understood in light of this, not the other way around. Everything must be corrected to match this, not the other way around. Those who don't profess what the Church does on this (that Jesus Christ ALONE did these things) don't profess what the Catholic Church does.

It’s also interesting how heretics like Nishant, when they deal with the post-Vatican II sect, restrict papal infallibility to the most narrow conditions. They limit it essentially to ex cathedra statements. But when they try to find support in a pre-Vatican II statement for their false doctrines and positions, infallibility suddenly becomes very wide and broad. It's another example of dishonesty, demonic inconsistency, and a false position.

(By the way, in case you didn't know, Garrigou-Lagrange is not an authority in the Catholic Church. He was a raging modernist heretic who openly taught that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. can be saved, and that most Protestants and schismatics are saved. He had no faith whatsoever and no fidelity to Catholic truth. It was false teachers like him who paved the way for Vatican II.)

Also, any citations people bring forward on this matter, unless they reference the original Latin with a verifiable source, are not worth much, as there are numerous mistranslations circulated on this topic, and the precise wording and terminology is very important.

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2016, 07:37:34 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

(By the way, in case you didn't know, Garrigou-Lagrange is not an authority in the Catholic Church. He was a raging modernist heretic who openly taught that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. can be saved, and that most Protestants and schismatics are saved. He had no faith whatsoever and no fidelity to Catholic truth. It was false teachers like him who paved the way for Vatican II.)

Believing in Baptism of Desire is one thing, but can you show where he taught that "most Protestants and schismatics are saved"? If he really taught that, I cannot trust anything else he says. I mean, even if he said "most adult Catholics are saved" I wouldn't trust him. But "most Protestants and schismatics are saved"? That is as bad as anything I have read from Vatican II or any of the conciliar popes (or antipopes).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2016, 07:40:28 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith)

I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith. I do not believe that he does. What I'm saying is that my private judgment to that effect does not suffice to determine papal legitimacy, something which only the Church can discern. You appear to struggle with subtleties and tend to paint everything black or white as if no distinctions can ever be applied to any argument or any position. I consider Bergoglio's legitimacy to be in a state of doubt, and therefore he's incapable of formally exercising papal authority even while materially occupying the See.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2016, 12:20:27 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Catholictrue
Ladislaus (who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith)

I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith. I do not believe that he does. What I'm saying is that my private judgment to that effect does not suffice to determine papal legitimacy, something which only the Church can discern. You appear to struggle with subtleties and tend to paint everything black or white as if no distinctions can ever be applied to any argument or any position. I consider Bergoglio's legitimacy to be in a state of doubt, and therefore he's incapable of formally exercising papal authority even while materially occupying the See.

Actually no, you are the one who struggles with understanding, subtlety, and honesty. In fact, notice how you failed to properly represent what I said. I said: "Ladislaus who also doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching and holds that one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith."

You then complain that "I've never said that Bergoglio has the true faith." Clearly, you fail to follow the subtle distinction. Allow me to explain it to you: Even if you personally claim to hold that Bergoglio doesn't have the true faith (an empty claim), IT'S A FACT that you hold that others may consider him to be the pope without denying Catholic teaching, and therefore that "one may consider Bergoglio to have the true faith" and to profess the true faith (for to consider a man as the pope is, by definition, to declare that he professes the true faith). Thus, what I said about your position was absolutely true, and in attempt to justify your false position, you resort to falsely claiming that there is some subtlety that is not being captured, when that is not the case at all. In fact, as I showed, you are the one who failed to follow the distinction.

With regard to this issue: my previous post concerning the definition of Florence shows that you are totally wrong on the issue of the term 'Co-Redemptrix', which would be even more clear if you attempted to define the term in one sentence with regard to the act of Redemption.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the faith of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)

The key portion for this discussion says: “qui… solus sua morte” (i.e. who... alone by His own death) laid low the enemy of the human race, opened Heaven, destroyed man sins, etc. That is what the Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and teaches: that Jesus Christ alone redeemed man. To hold to the title ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is to profess that Jesus Christ did so with Mary. It is not consistent with this dogmatic definition, and this is the highest pronouncement of the Church. Everything is to be understood in light of this, not the other way around. Everything must be corrected to match this, not the other way around. Those who don't profess that Jesus Christ ALONE did these things don't profess what the Catholic Church does. You not only have the audacity to contradict this definition; you arrogantly and wrongly claim that strict adherence to it is akin to misunderstanding the term Mother of God. That's ridiculous and very bad.