CathInfo.com

(. . .)

86. Mary's magnanimity may be still better appreciated by recalling to mind  what has already been said of the boundless love she bore to the human race,  magnanimous love which made her our co-redemptrix. 2 Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer, but it was Mary who conceived Him of her own substance, carried Him in her womb and gave Him to the world. She nourished the Divine Infant at her breast, cherishing Him lovingly, guarding Him with a mother's care. Finally, she accompanied Him to Golgotha, and with heart-rending anguish but with firm resolve she offered Him to His Father as a ɧơƖơcαųst for peace and redemption. Therefore in very truth she co-operated in the redemption of mankind. Assuredly it was profound wisdom which ordained that Mary should emerge from the obscurity in which she had been concealed for nearly three years and should be seen on Calvary at the foot of the cross. All will readily admit that Mary had a kind of claim on that life of Jesus which she herself had given Him. It was therefore just that she should be present on the hill of Calvary to manifest in the sight of Heaven and earth her consent to her Son's sacrifice. This she did by her patient grief, uniting the heroism of the Mother to the heroism of the Son.


2 Adjutorium Redemptionis (Albertus Magnus super Missus est c. 53).

(. . .)

Furthermore we daily venture to accost Mary as our life, our sweetness and our hope. In truth, Jesus Christ is our life, 3 but it was from Mary that He first received His human life. He is our inexhaustible sweetness, but it was Mary who brought us this sweetness, as the honeycomb yields honey. Jesus Christ is our hope, 1 but Mary is the harbinger and pledge of our hope, for it accords well with the harmony of divine action that as our hopes began with the Mother of Jesus, so they should also be consummated in her and through her. Therefore sinners have recourse to Mary that they may be restored to the life of grace: the just find in her the sweetness of spiritual joy ; and all receive from her new vigorous hope of eternal happiness. Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.

3 "I am the way, the truth and the life." (St. John xiv. 6.)

1 "The hope of all the ends of the earth and in the sea afar off." (Ps. lxiv. 6.)

Under the fourth commandment Mary still had authority over our Lord.

In her grief theoretically she freely could have insisted that He put down the Cross and abandon His Passion and Crucifixion.  He would have been obliged to obey her.

She knew what and why He was going through in His Salvific act and still allowed Him to follow through with it against her human and parental instincts.

There is an interesting dynamic at work concerning Jesus' Divine and human parentage in view of the Passion.

Jesus doesn't want to be crucified or suffer (who would) He asks the Father to let the cup pass Him by.  The answer is "no."

Jesus' mother doesn't want Him to be crucified or suffer but she freely subordinates her will to His will just as He subordinates His will to the Father.

She FREELY cooperates with the Holy Trinity with her fiat at the Annunciation.  At the Passion and Crucifixion, she does what Abraham was asked to do and was willing to do.

Her fiat allowed Him to be born and her fiat allowed Him to give His life.  Simply put, she had the option to say "no" and put a stop to it, her participation is passive but real in His redemptive act.  

We can also add that simply because of who she is, she is actually the only one really worthy of saving.  We would be saved by Mercy and she would really be saved in Justice.   Now, everything sort of loops around at that point because she is who she is by the merit of Christ's passion in Eternity.  So He understands that His passion is necessary for her existence in the first place.

That is the only acceptable meaning to Co-Redemptrix  I can think of that can be tolerated.

With that stated, the level of catechesis and understanding in the world between all non-Catholics and far too many Catholics that have moved into idolization of the BVM.   It is not the time to give her a title like that.  Titles are supposed to clarify.  Nowadays this would only create or supplement confusion.

All Marian titles are capable of being misunderstood, even ancient and unquestionably orthodox ones like "Theotokos" and "Mother of God".  While I personally believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix in the sense that this has traditionally been taught by Catholics, I have no problem with those who do not want to see this made a dogma due to the potential for misunderstanding.  One of the characteristics of the current Crisis is poverty of catechesis such that many, possibly most, do not properly understand the dogmas which we already have.  I see it as legitimate to be concerned about adding a new dogma at this time.

But that was not the case against the title Francis made in his most recent comments on this topic.  

He continued: “It is true that Christian piety has always given her beautiful titles, as a child gives his or her mamma: how many beautiful things children say about their mamma whom they love so much! How many beautiful things.”  “But we need to be careful: the things the Church, the saints, say about her, beautiful things, about Mary, subtract nothing from Christ’s sole Redemption. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a child for his or her mamma — some are exaggerated. But love, as we know, always makes us exaggerate things, but out of love.”

He is not saying this title is true but might be misunderstood.  He is denying that it is true.  He dismisses all the past teaching on it as pious exaggerations.  Furthermore, he implies that this applies to all Marian titles.  Historically, heretics have falsely accused us of making Mary into a goddess by giving her the title "Mother of God". (Anyone who knows the history of this title knows how blatantly untrue the accusation is.) So when Francis said that Jesus entrusted Mary to us " as a Mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer"he was subtly supporting this accusation.  

There is a reasonable case to be made against creating a new dogma, but this is not what Francis was doing.  He was essentially attacking all Marian devotion as based on exaggeration rather than truth.  

I have no serious issues with defining it.  I just don't see it as urgent.  Those who are devoted to Our Lady certainly understand her UNIQUE role in the Redemption.  So it's not solidifying some new belief as much as coining or defining a term for it.  This has been believed and taught, in substance, universally from the beginnings of the Church.  Perhaps there's a need to correct some Conciliar thinking in terms of downplaying her role.  But I can think of about a dozen things that need to be defined and re-defined much more urgently.  Those who love Our Lady don't need this definition; those who don't, well no definition is going to sway them.  We need to re-define EENS without any wiggle room, re-define Catholic ecclesiology and condemn V2 ecclesiology, in fact, condemn all the V2 errors, re-condemn religious indifferentism, Religious Liberty, re-establish the doctrine of Christ the King, and re-assert Traditional Catholic liturgical principles and practice.