Author Topic: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?  (Read 530 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9469
  • Reputation: +3044/-204
  • Gender: Male
  • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
« on: April 06, 2021, 10:02:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Mary Co-Redeemer?

    https://www.crisismagazine.com

    Recently, Pope Francis declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the one “to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as goddess, not as co-redeemer (non come dea, non come corredentrice): as Mother.” This comment generated much controversy in the Catholic world since one of Mary’s traditional titles is “Co-Redemptrix.”  
    So is Mary, the mother of our Lord, co-redeemer (aka co-redemptrix) with Christ?


    Straightforwardly, it seems to be a yes or no question: Yes, Mary is a co-redeemer with Christ. Or no, Mary is not a co-redeemer with Christ. That is to say, in basic logical terms, either the affirmative proposition, whereby the predicate “co-redeemer” is predicated of the subject “Mary,” is true. Or the negative proposition, whereby the predicate “co-redeemer” is denied of the Blessed Virgin, is true.
    So, which is it? The affirmative or the negative? Is she, or isn’t she?

    Well, it has to be one or the other, that’s just a matter of logic; but if we want to know which, then the first thing we have to know is what the propositions in question mean. And in order to know that, we have to know what the terms of the propositions mean. Now, the subject of the propositions is straightforwardly just Mary, the Blessed Virgin, Mother of our Lord. The real question is, does the predicate “co-redeemer” apply to her or not; and in order to decide that, indeed, in order to even intelligently pose the question, obviously we need to know what “co-redeemer” means. Obviously, it could mean a number of different things. So, what does it mean? It is a rather important question.


    Straightforwardly, it seems to be a yes or no question: Yes, Mary is a co-redeemer with Christ. Or no, Mary is not a co-redeemer with Christ. That is to say, in basic logical terms, either the affirmative proposition, whereby the predicate “co-redeemer” is predicated of the subject “Mary,” is true. Or the negative proposition, whereby the predicate “co-redeemer” is denied of the Blessed Virgin, is true.
    So, which is it? The affirmative or the negative? Is she, or isn’t she?

    Well, it has to be one or the other, that’s just a matter of logic; but if we want to know which, then the first thing we have to know is what the propositions in question mean. And in order to know that, we have to know what the terms of the propositions mean. Now, the subject of the propositions is straightforwardly just Mary, the Blessed Virgin, Mother of our Lord. The real question is, does the predicate “co-redeemer” apply to her or not; and in order to decide that, indeed, in order to even intelligently pose the question, obviously we need to know what “co-redeemer” means. Obviously, it could mean a number of different things. So, what does it mean? It is a rather important question.


    Pope Francis, presumably with awareness of the rich theological tradition asserting the affirmative proposition (that she is co-redemptrix), is apparently, in the face of that tradition, asserting the negative proposition: Mary is not a co-redeemer. And, of course, it also follows that Mary is certainly not the co-redeemer (co-redemptrix) par excellence, which in Catholic tradition she has both implicitly and explicitly long been claimed to be.
    As theologians Mark Miravalle and Robert Fastiggi write, in an article worth reading:
    Quote
    The doctrine of Marian coredemption, which refers to Mary’s subordinate though unique human role with Jesus in the historic work of Redemption, is deeply rooted in Scripture, the Fathers, the Liturgy, and Church doctors, and explicitly and consistently taught by the papal Magisterium for the last two centuries; and the Co-redemptrix title, which in a single term denotes Mary’s unique human role in the Redemption, has enjoyed an unbroken presence within the Church’s devotional and mystical Tradition since the 14th century.
    Interesting. So the question is, what does Francis mean by “co-redeemer” when he asserts that Mary is not co-redeemer? And what is his argument for the negative proposition, understood in accordance with his meaning of the term?
    Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
    It turns out, unsurprisingly, that in his published remarks Francis doesn’t actually define his terms or make a logically connected argument. He just makes a series of undefended, unexplained assertions, some of which seem to contradict the Catholic theological and magisterial tradition. So how should we understand those assertions?
    According to Fastiggi:
    Quote
    Understood properly, what the Holy Father says is correct. The beautiful things said about Mary—including recognizing her as co-redemptrix—subtract nothing from Christ as the only divine Redeemer. He is the God-man, the Redeemer of the human race, He, though, chose to redeem us with our cooperation and in a special way through the cooperation of his Mother, the New Eve. The Marian title “co-redemptrix” can never mean placing Mary on equal footing with Christ, the Redeemer, and it certainly can never make her into a goddess. I think it’s best to understand the March 24th General Audience of Pope Francis as a warning against these false understandings of Mary as co-redemptrix.
    So according to Fastiggi, understood properly, while the pope flat-out says that Mary is not (entrusted to us as) co-redeemer, he is actually correctly recognizing her as co-redeemer.


    In point of fact, however, the pope is obviously not doing that, and Fastiggi is “pope-splaining.” In reality, if it were true that Francis was only warning against false understandings of Marian doctrine, as opposed to actually misrepresenting that doctrine, then Fastiggi wouldn’t be in damage control mode, writing to explain what Francis “really meant.” Francis’s actual claim implies, rather, that the title “co-redemptrix” is in fact on a level with “goddess”—Mary is entrusted to us “not as goddess, not as co-redeemer”—and that both terms are inaccurate and misleading. Understood properly, then (that is, honestly), Francis’s actual claim is that just as Mary is not a goddess, likewise she is not a co-redeemer.
    But why would he say this? I think we can at best speculate—and only speculate, given that Francis chooses not to offer his remarks within a framework articulated by clear logical connectives that we could straightforwardly analyze—that his claim is based on the idea that the doctrine of co-redemption is false because it indeed does imply Mary’s divinity and/or her equality with Christ in the act of redemption.
    That idea obviously just ignores the actual Catholic doctrine of co-redemption. That doctrine is two-fold: First, that insofar as she was chosen to bring Christ the redeemer into the world, she has become (and she henceforth eternally is) the mother of Christ, and to this extent the uniquely chosen and honored channel of Christ’s perfect, objective redemption of all mankind, which, in accordance with the good pleasure of the divine will, He wrought through his human life, beginning with His incarnation in her blessed womb. This sense of co-redemption is theologically certain.
    Second, that, again in accordance with the good pleasure of the divine will, Mary has been given a unique and universal role in the dispensing, the mєdιαting of all subjective graces, whereby individual men come to really participate in Christ’s objectively accomplished act of redemption. This latter sense is theologically well-attested and considered probable though not certain. It is certainly not a theological opinion that is simply dismissible without argument.
    In any case, contrary to Fastiggi’s reading, what Francis actually claims in his published remarks is that some of the “beautiful things said about Mary” are pious exaggerations and, getting down to logical brass tacks, they are false. And specifically, although he declines to offer any clear argument, Francis does clearly enough indicate that the ideas of co-redemption and of Mary as co-redemptrix are beautiful, but false—notwithstanding that, in light of the actual traditional doctrine of co-redemption, some of the things he says would seem to imply that they are actually true after all. (Pope John Paul II sometimes emphasized the “Splendor of Truth”—Splendor veritatis. Pope Francis is perhaps more inclined to appreciate the beauty of falseness. In many ways, John Paul II was a man of his age. Francis is even more so a man of his.)
    Fastiggi would do better to take an honest approach. He should just point out the obvious puzzle and/or error in Francis’s comments, and/or he should request the pope to explain himself. However, given the pope’s well-established track record of hesitancy for those who request him to explain his sometimes-dubious theological statements, it might be just as well to rest content with pointing out the error.
    [Photo Credit: Vatican mєdια/CNA]


    By David McPike
    David McPike is a husband, father of six, and aspiring market gardener near Calgary, Alberta. In addition to an engineering degree, he earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Ottawa examining and defending Thomas Aquinas's account of transubstantiation in relation to the critique of another important thirteenth century Dominican master of theology, Dietrich of Freiberg. He blogs occasionally at davidmcpike.blogspot.com.










    Offline Prayerful

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 605
    • Reputation: +204/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #1 on: April 06, 2021, 05:07:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't think Francis is capable of the theological intricacy attributed to him by Mr Fastiggi in this article. Francis seems both confused on Maria Co-Redemptrix and is also eager to confuse people further. The author is whistling in the wind if he thinks Francis will ever explain himself in anything but an ill-willed way.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23633
    • Reputation: +13225/-3650
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #2 on: April 06, 2021, 10:12:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Xavier, what say you ... since you’ve been promoting the dogmatic definition of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix?

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2221
    • Reputation: +351/-580
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #3 on: April 07, 2021, 04:45:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good Article, RC. Ladislaus, I hold Mary Co-Redemptrix to be irreformable Church teaching. Pope Francis is mistaken here. Maybe he will change his mind later on when presented with the teaching of his predecessors; else, a future Pope will have to define it.

    "The Magisterium’s Use of the Co-redemptrix Title

    The first usages of the Co-redemptrix title in the official pronouncements of the Roman Congregations also take place under the Magisterium of St. Pius X. Co-redemptrix is used three times by the Holy See in the initiatives of three Congregations of the Curia, and is thus contained in the publication of their official acts, Acta Sanctae Sedis (later to become Acta Apostolicae Sedis).


    The first official use of Co-redemptrix comes on May 13, 1908, in a document by the Congregation of Rites. In positive response to a petition to raise the rank of the feast of the Seven Sorrows of Mary to a double rite of second class for the universal Church, the Congregation of Rites expresses its hope that “the devotion of the Sorrowful Mother may increase and the piety of the faithful and their gratitude toward the merciful Co-redemptrix of the human race may intensify.” (11)


    The Congregation of the Holy Office (currently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is the next congregation to use the term. On June 26, 1913, expressing the Congregation’s satisfaction in adding the name of Mary to the name of Jesus in the indulgenced greeting, “Praised be Jesus and Mary” which is then responded to, “Now and forever,” the official document signed by Cardinal Rampolla states: “There are those Christians whose devotion to the most favored among virgins is so tender as to be unable to recall the name of Jesus without the accompanying name of the Mother, our Co-redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary.” (12)

    Six months later, the same Holy Office grants a partial indulgence for the recitation of a prayer of reparation to the Blessed Virgin (Vergine benedetta). The prayers ends with the words: “I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-redemptrix of the human race.” (13)

    In these instances, the Holy Office which is commissioned by the Church as the guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy, freely uses the Co-redemptrix term in a complementary reference to the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, which manifests its sense of familiarity with and confidence in the term itself. The same Dicastery then grants indulgenced graces to a prayer that identifies the role of Mary, Co-redemptrix of the human race, as a privilege worthy of blessing. The use of the title by the Congregation of Rites (currently the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) also speaks to the appropriateness of the title as part of authentic Catholic devotion."


    From: https://www.motherofallpeoples.com/post/popes-of-the-marian-age-and-mary-co-redemptrix
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! Don't delay! You can Save Souls!

    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23633
    • Reputation: +13225/-3650
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #4 on: April 07, 2021, 08:32:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good Article, RC. Ladislaus, I hold Mary Co-Redemptrix to be irreformable Church teaching. Pope Francis is mistaken here. Maybe he will change his mind later on when presented with the teaching of his predecessors; else, a future Pope will have to define it.

    I think that this isn't a mistake, really, but part of a program since Vatican II to minimize the role of Our Lady in order not to offend the Protestants who despise her.  I hear it all the time from the EWTN "apologists", that Our Lady's role is basically the same as that of any other saint or even person who's presently alive whose prayers we request.  It's all done to make it more palatable to Protestants, and so they refuse to explain the UNIQUE role of Our Lady, reducing her to just one of the pre-eminent saints.

    That was the same intent behind the Novus Ordo Mass too, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.


    Online Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3661
    • Reputation: +1838/-1009
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #5 on: April 07, 2021, 01:25:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that this isn't a mistake, really, but part of a program since Vatican II to minimize the role of Our Lady in order not to offend the Protestants who despise her.  I hear it all the time from the EWTN "apologists", that Our Lady's role is basically the same as that of any other saint or even person who's presently alive whose prayers we request.  It's all done to make it more palatable to Protestants, and so they refuse to explain the UNIQUE role of Our Lady, reducing her to just one of the pre-eminent saints.

    That was the same intent behind the Novus Ordo Mass too, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.
    According to this article, there is evidence to support what you say.

    In the preparatory phase of Vatican II about 300–500 bishops asked for a definition or formal statement of Marian mєdιαtion and 54 asked for a definition of Mary as co-redemptrix. Pope St. John XXIII, however, made it clear that the Council would not be seeking to proclaim new dogmas.
    A draft prepared in advance for the Council spoke of Mary as co-redemptrix, but the fathers of Vatican II decided to omit the term from what would become chapter VIII of Lumen gentium. The term, however was not rejected because it was false. In the praenotanda or explanatory note that accompanied the first Marian schema of 1962, we are told that: “Certain terms and expressions used by Roman Pontiffs have been omitted, which, although most true in themselves (in se verissima), may be difficult for the separated brethren (as in the case of the Protestants) to understand. Among such words the following may be enumerated: ‘Coredemptrix of the human race’ [St. Pius X, Pius XI]; ‘Reparatrix of the whole world’ [Leo XIII] … etc.” (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani IIVolumen I, Periodus PrimaPars IV [Vatican City, 1971], p. 99).
    The title co-redemptrix, however, appears in two footnotes of the 1962 schema. Footnote 11 states that ‘the compassion of Mary has a connection with the redemption in such a way that she may rightly be called co-redemptrix’ (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Volumen I, Periodus Prima, Pars IV, 1971: 104). In the 1962 schema there was also a lengthy footnote explaining the meaning of terms such as Meditatrix and Coredemptrix as applied to Mary.
    The 1962 Marian schema formed the basis for chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, but the final conciliar text did not include the two footnotes on the title co-redemptrix. Even though the title co-redemptrix is not used, some theologians such as Jean Galot, S.J and Georges Cottier, O.P., believe that Lumen Gentium affirms the doctrine of Marian coredemption without using the title (see Galot in La Civilità Cattolica [1994] III: 236-237 and Cottier, in L’Osservatore Romano, June 4, 2002).
    https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-mary-co-redemptrix/

    We have had plenty of time since the Council to see how badly this strategy of  not offending Protestants works.  It is not reasonable to continue it.

    Offline Cera

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2949
    • Reputation: +1147/-702
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #6 on: April 07, 2021, 03:40:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • According to this article, there is evidence to support what you say.

    In the preparatory phase of Vatican II about 300–500 bishops asked for a definition or formal statement of Marian mєdιαtion and 54 asked for a definition of Mary as co-redemptrix. Pope St. John XXIII, however, made it clear that the Council would not be seeking to proclaim new dogmas.
    A draft prepared in advance for the Council spoke of Mary as co-redemptrix, but the fathers of Vatican II decided to omit the term from what would become chapter VIII of Lumen gentium. The term, however was not rejected because it was false. In the praenotanda or explanatory note that accompanied the first Marian schema of 1962, we are told that: “Certain terms and expressions used by Roman Pontiffs have been omitted, which, although most true in themselves (in se verissima), may be difficult for the separated brethren (as in the case of the Protestants) to understand. Among such words the following may be enumerated: ‘Coredemptrix of the human race’ [St. Pius X, Pius XI]; ‘Reparatrix of the whole world’ [Leo XIII] … etc.” (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Volumen I, Periodus Prima, Pars IV [Vatican City, 1971], p. 99).
    The title co-redemptrix, however, appears in two footnotes of the 1962 schema. Footnote 11 states that ‘the compassion of Mary has a connection with the redemption in such a way that she may rightly be called co-redemptrix’ (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Volumen I, Periodus Prima, Pars IV, 1971: 104). In the 1962 schema there was also a lengthy footnote explaining the meaning of terms such as Meditatrix and Coredemptrix as applied to Mary.
    The 1962 Marian schema formed the basis for chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, but the final conciliar text did not include the two footnotes on the title co-redemptrix. Even though the title co-redemptrix is not used, some theologians such as Jean Galot, S.J and Georges Cottier, O.P., believe that Lumen Gentium affirms the doctrine of Marian coredemption without using the title (see Galot in La Civilità Cattolica [1994] III: 236-237 and Cottier, in L’Osservatore Romano, June 4, 2002).
    https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-mary-co-redemptrix/

    We have had plenty of time since the Council to see how badly this strategy of  not offending Protestants works.  It is not reasonable to continue it.
    Missed you Jayne!
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 668
    • Reputation: +164/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #7 on: April 08, 2021, 07:34:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, Our Lady is not "co-redeemer." I agree with the Dimonds on this one:

    https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/


    Here's a quote from Msgr. Pohle in the article:


    Quote
    Fr. Joseph Pohle, A Dogmatic Treatise On The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God, Imprimatur, 1919: “… it would be wrong to call her [Mary] redemptrix, because this title obscures the important truth that she herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically term preredemption.  Even the title coredemptrix had better be avoided as misleading.  The titles redemptrix and coredemptrix were never applied to the Blessed Virgin before the sixteenth century; they are the invention of comparatively recent writers…”


    A 16th Century invention. That has a familiar ring to it, no?




    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 668
    • Reputation: +164/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #8 on: April 08, 2021, 07:40:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some very good perspective from the MHFM article:


    Quote
    Consistent with the typology of Jesus as the second Adam who reverses the curse of Adam, Mary is the new Eve.  Jesus is the new Adam, and Mary is the new Eve.  Just as Eve, the first woman, was intimately involved with the first man in the events which led up to the fall of mankind, there is a woman, Mary, who is intimately involved in the events leading up to the Redemption.  Eve disobeyed God and sinned.  Mary obeyed God and never sinned.  Much more could obviously be said on this issue; but the point here is that while Eve’s role with Adam in the events leading up to the original sin was unique and crucial, it was nevertheless the sin of Adam alone which constituted the original sin and effectuated the downfall of mankind.  That’s very clear in Catholic teaching.

    Quote
    Romans 5:12- “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death…”



    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23633
    • Reputation: +13225/-3650
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #9 on: April 08, 2021, 09:50:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that we see two extremes.

    Certainly the title of Co-Redemptrix COULD be misleading in suggesting potentially a parity between what Our Lady did and Our Lord's sacrifice.  As is clear, only the GOD-man could effect the Redemption of mankind ... going back to St. Anselm's brilliant Cur Deus Homo?  

    But then you have the neo-con-Catholic apologists (starting with Vatican II) explaining away Our Lady's unique role and making her just a pre-eminent example of how we ALL can help in the work of Redemption.  So to them she's just the best and most exalted example of our role in cooperating with Our Lord's redemption ... as per the teaching of St. Paul:  "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:" (Colossians I:24)

    Our Lady is clearly IN BETWEEN.  She has a unique role.  While she is not at the same level as Our Lord in the Redemption, she clearly cannot be reduced to just a pre-eminent example of the share in Our Lord's work of Redemption that any of the faithful can have.

    So what term would be fitting to describe that role?  When we look at our term "co-pilot", it's clearly understood that the co-pilot is in a SUBORDINATE role to the pilot.  Or the term "co-operator" suggests the existence of a primary operator.  So if the "co-" in Co-Redemptrix is clearly understood in that sense, then I see no issue with it.  While the TERM was perhaps coined in the 16th century, the concept of Our Lady's UNIQUE role in Redemption as Theotokos has ALWAYS been there.  So I think it's just a semantic battle as to what is the right terminology.

    Precisely because the Novus Ordo has reduced her role and blended it in with that of the rest of the faithful, in order to appease the Protestants, I think that a Magisterial treatment (whether dogmatic or not) would certainly be in order to undo that particular error since it has affected the thinking of many NO Catholics.  Whether the term Co-Redemptrix is apt or suitable is partly a question of prudence and partly of semantics.

    I think that all of those on either side of the issue agree on the CONCEPTS here, that Our Lady participated in a unique way in Our Lord's work of Redemption, but that she was not on a par with the Redemption and that only the God-man could accomplish the work.  We Traditional Catholics avoid the NO reductionist error and also the error of overstating her role to be on a par with that of Our Lord.

    Whenever the Church defines something, it's nearly always because some contrary error has crept in.  Certainly there's no such error among Traditional Catholics, but the NO has introduced this reductionism that must be condemned.  In terms of exaggerating Our Lady's role, if you take out the kook fringe groups, some of whom say that Our Lady is a member of the Holy Trinity or the Valtortan error of claiming that she was part of the hierarchy just below St. Peter, or some other fringe nutcase job, I don't see too much of the exaggeration taking place.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 25591
    • Reputation: +22192/-297
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #10 on: April 08, 2021, 12:10:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just wanted to chime in to say:

    I'm not chiming in. Not qualified, not enough Theology soaked up during meals or "Spiritual Conferences" during my Seminary years to have an informed opinion on this topic.

    In short, my contribution is:

    "..."

    or

    "Carry on..."
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.


    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1388
    • Reputation: +247/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #11 on: April 08, 2021, 09:12:08 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just finished reading the book, listed below. There was this portion covering this topic.

    Note the reiteration, Christ alone is our Redeemer, yet the special place Mary holds in the cooperation of the redemption of mankind.


    The Virtues of Mary, by L. Lazoni

    https://archive.org/details/TheVirtuesOfMary/page/n137/mode/2up

    Page 120:



    Quote
    (. . .)

    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).




    Page 133-134


    Quote
    (. . .)

    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.)



    I thought this was also apt:

    http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=udb2fjbh3tn7486s6cfpdfgaq0&topic=24594.msg514453#msg514453



    Quote
    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.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2221
    • Reputation: +351/-580
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: Is Mary Co-Redeemer?
    « Reply #12 on: Today at 06:14:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Archbishop Lefebvre, and some 500 Bishops, wanted the dogmatic definition of Mary Co-Redemptrix, and mєdιαtrix of All Graces, at Vatican II. One of the SSPX Seminaries, in La Reja, Argentina, is called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix. By asking and obtaining this dogmatic definition from the Magisterium of the Church in the future, we will be completing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and that of many traditional Fathers. Mary Co-Redemptrix also has the support of over 800 Bishops and 8 million Catholic Faithful, as documented in the link: "My reaction corresponds to a statement and an article published by Dr. Mark Miravalle, the President of Vox Populi Mariae mєdιαtrici, a group which has received support from 8 million Catholics—including 800 bishops—for a new dogma proclaiming Mary Co-redemptrix, mєdιαtrix of All Graces, and Advocate The key point made by Dr. Miravalle is that there is nothing in the Holy Father’s December 12 homily that forbids calling Mary co-redemptrix and there is nothing that rules out further study and theological development on Marian coredemption. Dr. Miravalle also notes that the Holy Father’s reference to Mary as “the Mother of all” (Madre de todos) affirms the Blessed Mother’s “direct and maternal relationship with humanity as our spiritual mother, and hence, one could argue, the theological appropriateness of a solemn definition or ‘dogma’ of Mary as the spiritual mother of all peoples.”

    I agree with trad123. From the Suscipe Domine link, "His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: "The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as mєdιαtrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our Co-Redemptress [or Co-Redemptrix] comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/leo-xiiis-iucunda-semper-expectatione-on-the-rosary-133

    His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: " Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist"My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood." http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html

    Reparatrix is another equivalent word for Co-Redemptrix. And Dispensatrix is likewise an equivalent word for mєdιαtrix. Mary is Dispensatrix/mєdιαtrix of All Graces. And She is this now in Heaven because, on Earth, at the foot of the Cross especially, by Her tears, labors, dolors and sorrows with the Crucified Christ, She was CoRedemptrix.

    His Holiness Pope John Paul II: "Birgitta looked to Mary as her model and support in the various moments of her life. She spoke energetically about the divine privilege of Mary's Immaculate Conception. She contemplated her astonishing mission as Mother of the Saviour. She invoked her as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and Coredemptrix, exalting Mary's singular role in the history of salvation and the life of the Christian people. [60]" https://www.piercedhearts.org/heart...ry/mystery_coredemptrix_papal_magisterium.htm

    The Dimonds are mistaken on the subject, as they are mistaken on many things. Our Lady truly is Co-Redemptrix and mєdιαtrix also.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! Don't delay! You can Save Souls!

    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16