Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on August 13, 2024, 08:28:06 AM

Title: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: AnthonyPadua on August 13, 2024, 08:28:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5QGtuPxOV0

This was an interesting video. I would like to hear others thoughts on this.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: AnthonyPadua on August 13, 2024, 08:47:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5QGtuPxOV0

This was an interesting video. I would like to hear others thoughts on this.
I think the video was quite strong showing why the title Co-redemptrix is not compatible with Catholic teaching. I also liked how they clearly distinguish between material and pertinacious heresy.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2024, 09:00:29 AM
What is the main argument against?  Beware of false prophets or those who would argue against (or forget to study) the saints:  I think Our Lady being co-redemptrix is consistent with catholic Tradition, especially those "saints of Mary" who explain thus:

--
“Together they [Christ and Mary] accomplished the task of man’s redemption…both offered up one and the same sacrifice to God; she in the blood of her heart, he in the blood of the flesh…so that, together with Christ, she obtained a common effect in the salvation of the world.” –Abbot Arnold of Chartres (1144-56), friend and disciple of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux – Doctor of the Church

--

So also St. Augustine says: Mary having merited to give flesh to the Divine "Word, and by that to furnish the price of the divine redemption, that we might be delivered from eternal death; therefore is she, says the same doctor, more powerful than any other to help us and obtain for us eternal salvation. Hence St. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the time of St. Jerome, thus wrote: The Son is pleased to be entreated by his mother, because he wishes to grant for her sake all that he does grant; aud thus to recompense the favor he has received from her when she gave him flesh. Hence St. John Damascene addresses the Virgin in these words: Thou, then, oh Mary, being mother of God, canst save all men by thy prayers, which are enforced by a mother's authority.
- St Alphonsus, "The Glories of Mary"

--

The title Corredemptrix=Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church docuмents under Pius X (cf. D 1978 a), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. 2, 5).  As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of herself merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) 

Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and, under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him.  As Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (1943), she “offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the h0Ɩ0cαųst of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam” (D 2291).  As “The New Eve” she is, as the same Pope declares, in the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissiumus Deus” (1950) “the sublime associate of our Redeemer” (alma Redemptoris nostri social [cf. Gn. 3, 12]).  Cf. D. 3031: generoso Divini Redemptoris socia.

Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action.  Thus Mary is not entitled to the title “Priest” (sacerdos).  Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” (D 711); in the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary.  The words of Luke I, 38: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” imply Mary’s mediate, remote co-operation in the Redemption.  Saint Ambrose expressly teaches: “Christ’s Passion did not require any support” (De inst. Virg. 7).  In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ.  In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.
The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical “Ad diem illum” (1904):  (Beata Virgo) de congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de condigno promeruit (D 1978 a) (The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno) is, as the present tense ‘promeret” shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.


--

CHRIST THE SAVIOR

Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa

Seventh Article: The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Universal Mediation

The holy Mother of the Redeemer is often called by the Fathers “the new Eve” or the spiritual mother of all men. Afterward, more and more explicitly her universal mediation was affirmed in the liturgy and in the works of theologians. In the Middle Ages St. Bernard says: “Mary is the procurer of grace, the mediator of salvation, the restorer of the ages,” St. Albert the Great calls Mary “the coadjutor and associate of Christ,” Finally, in most recent times, the Supreme Pontiffs expressly affirm that she is the Mediatrix of all graces.

Leo XIII says: “It is God’s will that nothing be bestowed on us except through Mary; so that, as nobody can reach the supreme Father except through the Son, so that almost nobody can approach Christ except through Mary.” Leo XIII also says: “She is the one from whom Jesus was born, His true Mother, and for this reason the worthy and most accepted Mediatrix to the Mediator.”

Pius X more explicitly declared: “But from the communion of griefs and purpose between Mary and Christ she merited, as Eadmer says, to become most worthily the reparatrix of a lost world, and therefore the dispenser of all the gifts which Jesus procured for us by His death and the shedding of His blood…. Since she excelled all others in sanctity and in her union with Christ and was summoned by Him in the human work of salvation, it was congruous, as they say, that she should merit for us what Christ condignly merited for us; and she is the principal minister in the dispensation of graces.”

Benedict XV likewise says: “As she suffered with her Son in His passion and, so to speak, shared in His death, so she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men and, as far as it was in her power, sacrificed her Son for the appeasement of divine justice, so that it can truly be said, that along with Christ she redeemed the human race.”

Pius XI said in equivalent words: “The most sorrowful Mother participated in the work of redemption with Jesus Christ.”

Finally, a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office praises the custom of attaching the name of Jesus to that of Mary: “His Mother, our co-Redemptress, the blessed Mary.”

Therefore the title “Co-Redemptress of the human race” is approved.

Theological proof. It shows the genuineness of this title, for in the strict sense this title of co-Redemptress and universal Mediatrix befits the Mother of the Redeemer, if she is associated with Christ in the work of the redemption of the human race by way of merit and satisfaction. But she was truly so associated with Him by a perfect communion of will and suffering, inasmuch as she gave her consent to the mystery of the Incarnation. Thus she gave us the Redeemer, and afterward, especially on Calvary, along with Christ congruously merited and satisfied for all of us; now finally in heaven she intercedes with Christ for us and distributes all graces we receive. Therefore the aforesaid title strictly befits her.

But this association with Christ the Redeemer is properly understood when we exclude what it is not. Certainly the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the principal and perfective cause of our redemption, for she could not condignly redeem us in justice. For this, Christ’s theandric act of infinite value, as the head of the human race, was necessary. The Mother of the Savior could not elicit a theandric act of reparation, nor was she constituted the head of the human race. But, subordinated to Christ, she is really the secondary and dispositive cause of our redemption.
It is said “subordinated to Christ” not only in this sense, that she is inferior to Him, but that she concurs in our salvation, by the grace which comes from Christ’s merits. Thus she operated in Him and through Him. Hence Christ is the supreme mediator of all, and the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by Him by a most perfect redemption, not by being freed from sin, but by being preserved from it.

She is also the dispositive cause of our redemption, inasmuch as she disposes us to receive Christ’s influence who, as the author of salvation, perfects the work of our redemption.
Some have raised the objection, that the principle of merit does not come under merit. But the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by the sacrifice of the cross. Therefore she could not even congruously merit the attainment of graces for us.

Reply. I concede the major and minor, but the conclusion does not follow. All that follows is that she could not even congruously merit the attainment of all these graces for herself, this I concede. But she could merit these for us.

Christ merited condignly all the effects of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s predestination, except the divine motherhood, because in such a case He would have merited the Incarnation and therefore Himself. Hence Christ merited the first grace and final perseverance for the Blessed Virgin Mary. But the Blessed Virgin Mary did not even congruously merit for herself either the first grace or final perseverance, because the principle of merit does not come under merit. But the Blessed Virgin Mary merited for us congruously what Christ merited for us condignly, namely, all the graces we receive, even the first grace and final perseverance. In this there is no contradiction, but great harmony.

Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary was indeed redeemed by Christ through the sacrifice of the cross in the preservative sense, and so she was immaculate; but as a consequence of this, she merited congruously with Christ for us, not only the distribution or application of graces, but the attainment of graces that flow from the sacrifice of the cross; for in the strict sense together with Christ she offered this sacrifice. Thus she merited with Him redemption in the objective sense, namely, our liberation from sin and our reinstatement in grace.

But I insist. The Blessed Virgin Mary merited congruously for us what, for example, St. Monica congruously merited and obtained for St. Augustine, namely, the grace of conversion. Therefore there is only a difference of degree between her and other saints who intercede for us, and it must not be said that she is the Co-Redemptrix in the strict sense, but only in an improper sense, as the apostles are said to have labored for the salvation of souls.

Reply. The difference is that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave us the Redeemer, and with Him offered the sacrifice of the cross by meriting and satisfying. St. Monica and other saints, on the contrary, did not offer with Christ the sacrifice of the cross, and therefore did not merit congruously the attainment of graces that flow from this sacrifice but only the application of these, and therefore cannot be called co-redeemers. They can be said only to labor in the salvation of souls. They did not merit congruously our redemption in the objective sense.
Hence St. Albert the Great could say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not assumed into the ministry of our Lord, but as a consort and help, in accordance with the saying: “Let us make him a help like unto himself, ” (Gen. 2:18). In this the Blessed Virgin is above the apostles and she alone can be properly called the Mediatrix and co-redemptrix of the human race.

Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on August 13, 2024, 09:40:23 AM
Typical. Wall of text instead of watching and replying to the video.

It's clear to anyone of good will who watched the video that there is no excuse for calling Mary co-redemptrix.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on August 13, 2024, 10:00:31 AM
Jesus Christ is the truth and the way to God our Father.  
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2024, 10:09:43 AM

Quote
It's clear to anyone of good will who watched the video that there is no excuse for calling Mary co-redemptrix.
:facepalm:  Numerous saints and popes disagree with you.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2024, 10:10:17 AM
Quote
Jesus Christ is the truth and the way to God our Father.
And Our Lady is the way to Her Son, Jesus.

You sound like a protestant.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2024, 10:16:40 AM
Brother Diamond's definition of "co-redemptrix" in the first 2 minutes is an autisticly stupid and anti-catholic strawman.  No saint or pope has ever defined "co-redemptrix" in the way he did.  His entire video is flawed from the get-go.  What a complete disaster.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: RobertS on August 13, 2024, 12:36:53 PM
Yes. Mother Mary is the Co-Redemptrix. The Dimonds are wrong. Go with St. Padre Pio, St. Mother Theresa, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Alphonsus and St. Bernard on this, rather than the Dimonds. Excellent quotes from Pax. Numerous Popes have taught it too, so we know for certainty the doctrine is at least infallibly safe and cannot be heretical. It is not yet defined, though it should probably become the Fifth Marian Dogma, along with Mother Mary being recognized as Advocate and Mediatrix of All Graces. Here is a Petition:
https://marianapostolate.com/petition-for-the-papal-definition-of-mary-coredemptrix-mediatrix-and-advocate/
Quote
"Your Holiness:
In a spirit of filial love and obedience, we, as members of the People of God, wish to humbly bring before you our petition and prayer for the solemn papal definition of the revealed role of Mary most holy as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples under its three principal aspects as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.
We firmly believe, Holy Father, that the solemn papal declaration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity in her roles which God has given her as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church and the world by an explicit solemn recognition of her maternal role on the part of the Church, and thus allowing her to exercise fully the motherly gift which Jesus Christ gave to humanity from the cross: “Woman, behold, your son!… Behold, your mother!” (Jn. 19:26-27). We believe that this dogmatic proclamation will also further the authentic ecuмenical mission of the Church by proclaiming the revealed truth about Mary, who collaborated in an altogether unique way in the work of our redemption in a manner that was completely subordinate to and dependent upon Jesus Christ, the one divine Redeemer of the human race.
In view of the many serious crises presently facing the entire human family, including war, terrorism, moral decline, and natural disaster, we humbly request that you solemnly declare the dogma of Mary as the Spiritual Mother all peoples, specifying that she is the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, and thus to provide for the full actuality of her motherly roles of intercession for humanity, which we believe will effect a profound historic and continuing grace for the Church and for the world.


Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: OABrownson1876 on August 13, 2024, 01:37:45 PM
Before Mary's Fiat Jesus did not exist; after Mary's Fiat Jesus did exist.  If this does not give her a right to the title Co-Redemptrix, then we are mightily confused about the situation.  Mary is the actual Mother of Jesus; she is the Mystical Mother of the Church, because she was the first baptized.  The Mother always precedes the children, so Mary must have sacramentally/ontologically preceded all other entrants into the Church.  It would not be theologically incorrect to say that "All salvation is through Mary," because, as we must know, "all salvation is through the Church" because the Church is Jesus living mystically on earth.  And Mary is the Mother of the Church just as much as she is Mother of Jesus.  All of the apostles knew that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and they all knew that she was the first to be baptized.  

I think that Bro. Dimond is reaching here.  We use the terms co-ordinate, co-operate, co-habit, etc.  These words can have have varying meanings depending on the distinctions made.  
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Stubborn on August 13, 2024, 02:08:47 PM
Typical. Wall of text instead of watching and replying to the video.

It's clear to anyone of good will who watched the video that there is no excuse for calling Mary co-redemptrix.
Don't listen to the Dimonds, they will screw you up.

The Church has always attributed the below (and many other) Scripture to Our Blessed Mother:

"In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue."
And
"They that explain me shall have life everlasting."

Read The Glories of Mary (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72411/pg72411-images.html) by St. Alphonsus, and you will NEVER say what you said above ever again - no matter what.


Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on August 13, 2024, 06:15:30 PM
Jesus Christ is the truth and the way to God our Father. 
Read the douay rheims bible.  Father, son and Holy Ghost.  
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2024, 06:36:20 PM

Quote
Jesus Christ is the truth and the way to God our Father. 
We all know this.  And saying that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix does not minimize Our Lord or the Trinity.  Or do you think it does?
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Emile on August 13, 2024, 06:54:43 PM
I think Fr. Carol is well worth a few minutes of reading in this matter:

"Co-Redemptrix" - Catholic Living in the Modern World - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/'co-redemptrix'/msg812055/#msg812055)
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on August 14, 2024, 12:54:53 PM
:facepalm:  Numerous saints and popes disagree with you.
The fact that you don't see why your statement is wrong even assuming Mary redeemed us and redeemed herself along with Christ, as you assert, shows it's pointless to discuss further.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on August 14, 2024, 12:58:00 PM
Don't listen to the Dimonds, they will screw you up.

The Church has always attributed the below (and many other) Scripture to Our Blessed Mother:

"In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue."
And
"They that explain me shall have life everlasting."

Read The Glories of Mary (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72411/pg72411-images.html) by St. Alphonsus, and you will NEVER say what you said above ever again - no matter what.
I actually already read the Glories of Mary and am reading them again in another language currently. It's ironic you mention this beautiful book because it tends to disprove the very argument you want it to make.

I don't care to explain because it will fall on deaf ears, enough has been said in the great video by the Brothers.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 14, 2024, 01:37:13 PM

Quote
enough has been said in the great video by the Brothers.
:facepalm:  The Diamond's first 2 minutes defined 'co-redemptrix' using a common english definition, and then proceeded to show why this definition is wrong.  :facepalm:  This is the very meaning of the term 'straw man'. 


No saint or pope who has spoken on the topic defines 'co-redemptrix' in the way the Diamonds did.  It's like a protestant objecting to Our Lady because they have a false notion that we "worship" Her.  The Diamonds objections to a false/heretical notion of 'co-redemptrix' will obviously lead to a conclusion of error. 

Let them use the correct, catholic definition of 'co-redemptrix' and then let them attempt to explain why so many saints and popes (even St Pius X) said that such a title for Our Lady is accurate and appropriate.

:facepalm:  I think these guys are autistic or something.  They're missing the forest for the trees.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: CatholicChris on August 14, 2024, 01:48:07 PM
I watched the video and the Diamond brothers made a solid argument against the title. I have personally never used the title and have always been off put by it intuitively for the same reasons the brothers listed. I have listened to some of the reasons as to why the title could he considered orthodox and while I do believe the defense made may be "okay" I won't use the title myself. There seems to be no reasonable need to use the title at all.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 14, 2024, 02:21:38 PM
Quote
I watched the video and the Diamond brothers made a solid argument against the title.
Right, because their definition of the title isn't catholic and is flawed.  It's easy to argue against a faulty definition.

Quote
I have listened to some of the reasons as to why the title could he considered orthodox
Start with the quotes I posted, which presume a proper, catholic definition of what 'co-redemptrix' means.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Hewkonian on August 14, 2024, 02:40:38 PM
Before Mary's Fiat Jesus did not exist; after Mary's Fiat Jesus did exist.  If this does not give her a right to the title Co-Redemptrix, then we are mightily confused about the situation.  Mary is the actual Mother of Jesus; she is the Mystical Mother of the Church, because she was the first baptized.  The Mother always precedes the children, so Mary must have sacramentally/ontologically preceded all other entrants into the Church.  It would not be theologically incorrect to say that "All salvation is through Mary," because, as we must know, "all salvation is through the Church" because the Church is Jesus living mystically on earth.  And Mary is the Mother of the Church just as much as she is Mother of Jesus.  All of the apostles knew that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and they all knew that she was the first to be baptized. 

I think that Bro. Dimond is reaching here.  We use the terms co-ordinate, co-operate, co-habit, etc.  These words can have have varying meanings depending on the distinctions made. 

This alone is sufficient for those of good will and is enough to demonstrate that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix. 

Denying the title of Co-Redemptrix to Our Lady is akin to denying the co-equality and co-eternity of the Holy Trinity. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but united in their divine essence, so too is Mary's role in the economy of salvation distinct yet inseparable from Christ's redemptive work.

The Trinity’s nature teaches us that the three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are distinct yet co-equal and co-eternal, fully participating in the divine nature. Similarly, Mary’s unique cooperation in Christ's redemption does not place her on an equal footing with Christ as Redeemer but acknowledges her indispensable role, as affirmed by her title as Co-Redemptrix.

To deny Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix is to misunderstand the complementary and cooperative nature of God’s work in salvation, much like denying the co-equality and co-eternity of the Trinity would undermine the foundational truth of God’s nature. Both errors fail to recognize the fullness of the divine plan as revealed through Scripture and Tradition.

If I were a worthier man I would suggest denying Our Lady this title is heresy.

Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 14, 2024, 02:45:46 PM

Quote
If I were a worthier man I would suggest denying Our Lady this title is heresy.
Indeed.  It’s at least gross stupidity/negligence on the Diamond Bros.  How do you attack something which you don’t even understand?  It’s shameful and embarrassing.  
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Hewkonian on August 14, 2024, 02:51:57 PM
Indeed.  It’s at least gross stupidity/negligence on the Diamond Bros.  How do you attack something which you don’t even understand?  It’s shameful and embarrassing. 
Scales form on the eyes when intellectuals become overly absorbed in combating error; this was evident with the Donatists. When reasoning takes precedence over virtue, spiritual pride begins to form, blinding the intellect. This pride leads to the neglect of other essential virtues such as charity, obedience, and humility.

"Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth.  2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.  3 But if any man love God, the same is known by him.  4 But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one." -
(1 Cor. 8:1-4 Douay-Rheims)

Though I cannot see their interior, I believe we should pray for them. To their credit, they, like us, are also lost without a traditional visible leader.

Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Stubborn on August 14, 2024, 02:56:53 PM
I actually already read the Glories of Mary and am reading them again in another language currently. It's ironic you mention this beautiful book because it tends to disprove the very argument you want it to make.

I don't care to explain because it will fall on deaf ears, enough has been said in the great video by the Brothers.
Amazing, I don't know how anyone could read that and say what you said.

From this blog: (https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-mary-co-redemptrix/)

From the mid-1700s to the mid-1900s, the Catholic Magisterium began to provide increasing support for Marian coredemption and her mediation of grace.

 The Holy Office in 1747, however, rejected an Italian bishop’s request to add “Blessed Virgin Coredemptrix of the Entire Human Race” to the prayers for the Stations of the Cross.

 In the early 20th century, however, this attitude changed. During the pontificate of Pius X (r. 1903–1914) the Marian title, co-redemptrix, received official magisterial approval thus reversing the 1747 decision of the Holy Office. In 1908 the Sacred Congregation for Rites referred to Mary as “the merciful Co-redemptrix of the human race” (Acta Sanctae Sedis [ASS] 41 [1908], p. 409). In 1913, the Holy Office approved a prayer invoking Mary as “our Co-redemptrix” (AAS 5 [1913], p. 364). In 1914 the same Holy Office gave approval to a prayer appealing to Mary as “the Co-redemptrix of the human race” (AAS 6 [1914], p. 108). Pope Pius XI publicly referred to Mary as co-redemptrix on three separate occasions and John Paul II used the title at least six times. Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins provides a good overview of these papal references to Mary as co-redemptrix here (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/pontmag1.htm).
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Emile on August 14, 2024, 10:08:19 PM
Brother Diamond's definition of "co-redemptrix" in the first 2 minutes is an autisticly stupid and anti-Catholic strawman.  No saint or Pope has ever defined "co-redemptrix" in the way he did.  His entire video is flawed from the get-go.  What a complete disaster.  :facepalm:
Nailed it, Pax! 

Whatever the intention Bro. Peter Dimond had, objectively this is an attack on the Church's understanding of the unique role of Mary. And done near to a major Marian feast-day no less. A public retraction of the error is definitely called for. Prayers of reparation also.

I've never paid much attention to the Brothers Dimond, are they typically this lacking?


Before Mary's Fiat Jesus did not exist; after Mary's Fiat Jesus did exist.  If this does not give her a right to the title Co-Redemptrix, then we are mightily confused about the situation.  Mary is the actual Mother of Jesus; she is the Mystical Mother of the Church, because she was the first baptized.  The Mother always precedes the children, so Mary must have sacramentally/ontologically preceded all other entrants into the Church.  It would not be theologically incorrect to say that "All salvation is through Mary," because, as we must know, "all salvation is through the Church" because the Church is Jesus living mystically on earth.  And Mary is the Mother of the Church just as much as she is Mother of Jesus.  All of the apostles knew that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and they all knew that she was the first to be baptized. 

I think that Bro. Dimond is reaching here.  We use the terms co-ordinate, co-operate, co-habit, etc.  These words can have varying meanings depending on the distinctions made. 
One of the most beautifully stated concise explanations of the subject that I have ever read. Thank you, OAB.
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: josh987654321 on August 15, 2024, 08:54:22 AM
I haven't watched the video yet, but I've thought about this a lot and read a lot of stuff.

I've got many arguments but little time right now.

In it's most simplest form... Adam and Eve... what was Eve in relation to the fall? Co-something anyway, we didn't fall until Adam ate the fruit but couldn't have happened without Eve... vice versa, if the New Adam is our Redeemer (Christ) then how can the New Eve (Mary) not be Co-Redemptrix?

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless
Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 15, 2024, 09:36:08 AM
I'm on the fence about this issue.  While the Dimond Brothers make a compelling case ... and seem to debunk the instances of alleged papal approbation typically cited ... I think this can reduce to a semantics issue, i.e. based on how one defines "co-".

If understood in a subordinate role and in terms related to her being the Dispensor and Mediator of the graces obtained by Our Lord's Redemption, it could be acceptable.

Nevertheless, I agree with those pre-V2 theologians cited by the Dimonds that it can be misleading and provide yet more ammunition against the faith from Prots who would most certainly warp the term.

Let's say that Our Lord is likened to a wealthy man who sees a bunch of captive slaves held on a plantation.  He gets the money together to purchase their freedom, but then sends a servant out there to perform each individual transaction with the slave owner.  Who "bought back" (aka redeemed) those slaves?  While it was primarily the wealthy man (Our Lord), he also used agents to do the material transaction.  So the agent served as an instrumental cause of the redemption, i.e. the application of the fruits of the redemption.

Or, to simplify, if I take $20 out of my wallet and send my son to the store to buy some food, who bought the food?  Well, in different senses, i.e. semantics, we both bought the food.  I bought it because I provided the primary causes for it (the intention to buy it, the means to buy it, i.e. the formal, final, and some material causes), whereas my son also in a sense "bought" the food, because he went out there and transacted the actual purchase, serving as an instrumental and partial material cause.  So I was the buyer, whereas my son was a (subordinate) co-buyer?

I think it boils down to three distinctions:

1) distinction between obtaining the objective Redemption and the application of the Redemption to souls.  We know that all men have been Redeemed by Our Lord, but the fruits of the Redemption are not applied to all.  Consequently, the term Redemption could be used in either sense.

2) the distinction between different types of "causes", whereas while Our Lord was the formal cause of the Redemption, Our Lady could serve as a material and instrumental cause.

3) sufficient vs. necessary cause.  As we know, even a drop of Our Lord's blood sufficed to Redeem all of mankind, but He engaged in a superabundance of Redemption, which are nevertheless properly part of the Redemption, and Our Lady could in fact be part of this extension of the Redemption.

Our Lady was in fact a necessary cause of the Redemption, since without her "Fiat", Our Lord would never have entered into the world and therefore could not have Redeemed mankind ... so that's another aspect in which she could be understood as a participant in the Redemption (albeit in a subordinate role and not as the formal cause thereof).

So all these distinctions would need to be explored, even though in the end, I'd be against defining the term due to it easily being misleading and being misunderstood.

Also, let's not confuse believing this term inappropriate with somehow diminishing the honor owed to Our Lady, any more that it would diminish her honor to reject the thesis of those who claim she's a 4th Person of the Holy Trinity.  I know there can be a knee-jerk reaction because the Modernists like to withhold titles from Our Lady for Ecuмenical purposes (not to "offend" Prots who often hate Our Lady), but it's important to separate this from that kind of motivation.

Title: Re: Is Mary The “Co-Redemptrix”? – A Catholic Analysis (MHFM)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 15, 2024, 09:42:08 AM
:facepalm:  The Diamond's first 2 minutes defined 'co-redemptrix' using a common english definition, and then proceeded to show why this definition is wrong.  :facepalm:  This is the very meaning of the term 'straw man'. 

To be fair, in the first two minutes, they were citing (and debunking) definitions offered by OTHERS in an attempt to justify the term Co-Redemptrix.  They're clearly rejecting those definitions to which you object.