Author Topic: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix (Read 271457 times)

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #15 on:** November 13, 2025, 04:44:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2025, 01:58:12 PM

While I see eye to eye with the Dimond Brothers probabably 90% of the time, I must disagree with their conclusion on this matter. But then I disagree with the opposite side also.

Unfortunately, they make the same mistake regarding the Council of Trent that the Prots do with the Bible, not making necessary distinctions ... when the Prots say stuff like, "Well, the Baable says all have sinned except Jesus." (against Immaculate Conception) or "Call no man 'Father'" (against priests being called Father).

Yes, Trent teaches there is one Redeemer, but Catholic scholastic theology recognizes different causes and differeent agents of cause, some primary, some secondary.

Yes, Our Lord is in fact the Redeemer Alone, in terms of Formal, Final, Efficient causes of Redemption ... but this does not preclude God, by His Will. extending a cooperation in that act of Redemption to His creatures, by His will and His delegation, where they can in fact become Instrumental Causes.

There's also a failure to consider what is meant by "Co-". Co- derives from the Latin word for "with", so it just means accompanyment, and does not imply equality or any kind of role similar to much less identical with His.

God gives grace, and we COoperate with His grace. Does that mean that we somehow actively confer grace, or are the the cause of grace? Of course not. But we must COoperate for that grace to be applied to our souls. So it's a passive role.

Now, Our Lady's role is more active, but it's still subordinate and instrumental.

Let's say there's a monarch, a sole absolute ruler. But he decides to delegate his rule to some co-regents, other people that in certain capacities or territories might as well be the monarch. We saw that in the Roman empire where you had four "Caesars" but one Emperor in charge of them (of course that started to fragment there). So if the monarch delegates to these co-regents, does it mean that he's no longer the SOLE monarch, and that now these monarchs are somehow co-monarchs? In a sense, yes, but in another sense no ... since these subordinates can serve only at the monarch's pleasure, and he can revoke that delegation anytime he wants. So that's where the distinctions come in. In a sense yes, and in another sense no. It's also how you refute the Prot crap about "all have sinned", etc. -- and I'm afraid it's also where the Dimond Brothers fell short here.

Let's say I'm a rich guy in charge of a large estate with many people who live and work there. I'm pretty busy, so I decided that I'm going to send someone out to go buy groceries for the household, plus I feel that these employees, servants, etc. should all contribute to their being fed. So I decree that, well, if this person doesn't go out and buy groceries, you're going to go hungry. Now this individual accepts. So I, the rich guy, give money to this servant, and he goes to the store, does the shopping, and then exchanges the money for the merchandise, and brings it home.

Before going farther, that's precisely what God did, where He required human cooperation by free will in their Redemption, as it was human will that resulted in the Fall, and thus Our Lady's "fiat" was required. God COULD have just created a human nature for His Son out of thin air, or "from those stones", as Our Lord said ... but He planned, in His perfect plan, to require human cooperation, and in that sense co-redemption, just like the servant above. Had Our Lady said "no", which, absit, God would not have unilaterally gone ahead with the Redemption (except possibly if He found someone else, etc.). Of course, she was so perfect that she would never have said no to His Will, but just hypothetically.

So, back to the metaphor. This guy exchanged money for the groceries and came back with them. Did he buy the groceries? Well, yes he did, in one sense. If you define buying as exchanging money for goods, then he actually made the transaction from the grocer, and as far as the grocer was concerned, that individual bought the groceries. But he did so as an instrumental cause, since in reality, I, the rich guy, made it possible, provided the funds, gave him the mission / delegation, and then have lawful ownership of the groceries purchased. So in one sense I the rich guy bought them. In ANOTHER SENSE, my agent bought them. Again ... distinctions, semantics, etc.

In God's amazing economy of salvation, He has willed that even we can participate in the redemption of others, in the sense of having the fruits of His Redemption applied to them. We have no merits of our own, but the merits of Our Lord living in our souls through the Sacrmaent of Baptism, we can kindof help "direct" some of God's merits. Perhaps one metaphor might be that we're like fire hoses that have a certain amount of autonomy. We are not the source of the water, but God allows us to help distribute it and direct it. If I pray for this person here, and make sacrifices for him, I'm a firehose that turns that water on the person. I could be a crummy firehose, with a narrow diameter, and only send a few drops, or, as some saints, they could drench the person, etc. In any case, the water comes from God's hydrant.

Yet, that speaks to a flaw that even many "conservatives" fall into, where, in doing apologetics against the Prot attacks, they fall into the trap of trying to say that Our Lady's role is identical in kind to ours, just in a greater degree, where her her role as Co-Redemptrix is just like ours, except that she exercises it to a remarkably greater degree, where it's just like ours, a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. While they think they're appeasing the Prots, and maybe they do shut them up a bit, that's actually false. Hers is a role different in kind also. So, when the Prots attack us for "praying to Mary", the apologists try to say it's just like if I asked Nacy or Marge down the street to pray for me, just that Our Lady's prayers are more efficacious in proportion to her greater holiness. False.

Our Lady has a unique role, different in kind from what we're able to exercise, since her cooperation of will was a necessary cause of Redemption, by God's Will ... whereas ours is not. Yet at the same time, her role is also different in kind from that of Our Lord, an overlap or blend of the two, and thus intercessory. In our participation in the Redemption, we could say no, but the Redemption would have gone on without us or without being applied to us. Not so with Our Lady. She was a necessary cause of the Redemption, albeit and instrumental cause, as she herself had been redeemed.

And this notion of there being different causes for the same action, or different degrees of participation in the outcome, so that the term "Co-" can be justified ... this is what is missed by the Dimond Brothers, where Our Lady's being a Co-Redemptrix (in one sense, as a certain type of cause) by no means contradicts the fact that Our Lord was the Sole Redeemer (in another sense, with different causes of the outcome). There's no need for Our Lord being the Sole Redeemer to be a binary, false dichotomy. It's just like the Monarch who select co-regents to help rule, by his own will ... without that changing the fact that he's the Sole Monarch.

So ...

1) I disagree with the Dimond Brothers, since Our Lady's role in the Redemption is different in Kind from that of Our Lord, and she was a differnt type of SUBORDINATE cause of the Redemption, and SUBORDINATE causes that themselves have been caused by the Primary Cause (as Our Lady herself had been Redeemed), they in no way derogate from the fact that Our Lord was the Sole Ultimate cause, with all secondary causes still deriving ultimately from Him. They make the same mistake that Prots do here. This chain of causality shows in St. Thomas' proof for the existence of God, where something that is a cause can itself be caused by something else, which is the Ultimate Cause. Our Lady is a secondary caused cause of Our Redemption, she herself having been Redeemed by Our Lord, and her role in the Redemption is subordinate to that of Our Lord.

2) I also disagree with those conservative apologists who try to reduce Our Lady’s role to being different in degree but not different in kind from our own.

Finally, I disagree with this being a direct point of attack against the apostates in Rome. If you read their docuмent, it just says that the title is not “helpful” because it requires too much misunderstanding, and can lead to confusion … the same type of confusion to which even the Dimond Brothers succuмbed, and that’s to say nothing of the average moronic Conciliar, 95% of whom could not pass a quiz on Baltimore Catechism No. 1. Conciliar Catechesis has been so abysmal that I don’t think they’re wrong that 99% of the morons would not understand the term and then become even more easy pickings for the Prots, who will say, “See, we TOLD you all along that the Catholics worship Mary. This proves it.” Now, the Conciliars are in fact culpable for this, and so culpable for not being able to affirm Our Lady’s title for regular use, due to their negligence (likely on purpose) of catechesis, but what they said is in fact technically true.

I used to go after the Conciliars about annulments, but then a wise Trad friend pointed out that the Conciliar marriage preparation is so horrifically woeful that the vast majority of them do go in thinking marriage is temporary and does not come with an obligation to be open to children (even if you end up not being able to for some unavoidable reason … e.g. health issues).

I know there’s a lot of emotion vested since this involves Our Blessed Mother, but … the Conciliars have done far worse … and they are not without blame for this debacle also. Unfortunately, there's also a fair amount of virtue signalling here, where people are vying to show themselves most devoted to Our Lady. So, no ... if you were to declare Our Lady the 4th Person of the Holy Trinity, you would not be showing devotion, since devotion and love require truth.

I think the Dimonds issue with the term stems from their translation of Co+Redemtrix being "Female redeemer with". I don't know Latin so I can't comment on the accuracy here.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 13, 2025, 09:10:47 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on November 13, 2025, 04:44:35 PM

I think the Dimonds issue with the term stems from their translation of Co+Redemtrix being "Female redeemer with". I don't know Latin so I can't comment on the accuracy here.

So, the "-trix" at the end is little more than a gender suffix, just as we might say actor and actress ... really the same thing per se, or in essence, just one happens to be a male and the other happens to be a female, but the suffix does not change the root of the word.

Certainly the "co-" can cause misunderstandings because in many English (and other modern languages) it can in fact connote a joint causality. I am the co-author of a book.

But in Latin, the "co-" or "con" can but usually does not have that sense.

So let's look at the word Redeemer. -er suffix refers to an actor or an agent, known in Aristotelian and scholastic terms as an efficient cause, a doer. So a Redeemer is the cause of Redemption.

But recall that in the same philosophical framework, causes can actually cause other things to cause. In other words, there's often a causal chain, with a Primary Cause and then a Secondary Cause, etc.

If I throw a baseball through a window, I was the sole cause, and am the responsible party. You can't blame the ball, since I'm one that caused it to become a cause of the broken window. I set the whole thing in motion, and the ball was itself a caused cause. That's related to St. Thomas' one proof for the existence of God as the Uncaused Cause. This secondary cause is also known as an instrumental cause, but St. Thomas et al. referred to secondary instrumental causes as "concausa" ... see that word "co-" and "con" again.

So, while in Latin the instrument cause is a CON-cause, in every real sense of the word, I was the sole cause of the window being broken, since I caused this secondary cause to do it.

See how in Latin, the co- or con can easily refer to a caused cause or secondary cause even if in English you often have this notion of equality.

Let's say I am the author of a book. I pick up a pen and write the book. In English, it would be stupid to say that the pen was a co-author of the book. Nobody would say that, but would agree that I wrote the book alone and had no co-author. That refers to the individual who was the primary cause of all its contents. But in Latin, you could actually say that the pen was a "concausa" of the book having been written. In fact, it was a necessary cause, a sine qua non, since without it I could not have written the book ... and so it made a very significant contribution to the effort.

Getting back to Redeemer, as the CAUSE of our Redemption (the agent or efficient cause). If Redeemer is a cause, a primary efficient cause, then a Co-Redemptrix would be a "concausa".

Redeemer = "causa efficiens Redemptionis"
then the con-"causa efficiens Redemptinis" would translate to a Co-Redemptrix, even though she's a secondary efficient cause, an instrumental cause, and a caused cause of our Redemption, herself having already been Redeemed by Christ, which enabled her to become that instrumental cause. It's Christ's Redemption of her that caused her to become an instrumental cause of our Redemption, just like I caused the baseball to smash the window, and being the Primary Cause and the Cause of all the Other Causes, I am the Sole Cause of ALL the effects that I caused, even if I happened to use an instrument to effect some of those Causes, by my choice.

So God can made other causes required, not because they're absolutely required, but ex suppositione finis, determining that it should go that way by His Will. God could have created a human nature for Christ from thin air or "from these stones", but He required that there be the cooperation (not co- again in a subordinate sense, our main English word with that connotation) from the free will of a human person, since the free will of a human person was involved in the Fall (note that Our Lord is a Divine Person). So God ordained that Our Lady be a necessary cause, a sine qua non, of our Redemption, and also for a greater perfection of His plan, ad perfectius agens.

So, St. Thomas and others all say that Adam was the principle cause of our Fall, but we all know that Eve contributed mightily to the situation and was a cause also, yet a secondary or instrumental cause, in this case instrumental for the devil, who then used her to cause the Fall of Adam. So the devil plotted (final cause) to use Eve (instrumental cause) to have Adam bring down the human race (primary efficient cause). God, then to reverse this planned (final cause) to use Our Lady (instrumental cause) to have Our Lord redeem the human race (primary efficient cause).

Recall that the word "redemption" comes from the Latin "to buy back" or "ransom", connoting a "purchase". So take the following situation. I am a rich man, lord of a manor. I tell one of the household that if he wants to go out to the store to buy gifts for everyone, I would give him the money and send him out. But, because I insist on their cooperation, I'm not going to go out on my own. If they're too lazy to help, then they don't deserve anything. This member of the household agrees, so I give himthe money and send him on the mission. He goes to the store and buys the stuff, and then he comes back.

So, who "bought" the merchandise? Well, in one sense I bought it, since I came up with the idea, formulated the plan, and provided the money. Yet, in another sense, is it wrong to say that this guy went to the store and bought the merchandise? No, since the definition of "bought" refers to exchanging the money for merchandise. Of coures, it was the master's money, but nevertheless, he put the plan into action, acting as his agent, as an instrumental efficient cause.

In Latin, then he was a "con-causa" of the purchase, and therefore a co-purchaser, even though I alone formally purchased it, and I'm the one that caused him to go purchase it. So I caused all of the effects in the end, even if in some cases I caused another cause to cause some of the effects.

But ... I do agree that in modern languages this term could cause confusion, especially those not particularly well versed in Aristotelian / scholastic philosophy, where they will cleary consider the term to refer to Our Lord and Our Lady being joint primary efficient causes, which is not correct.

So that's why I barely disagree with the Modernists on this, and the Dimonds cited pre-V2 theologians who said the same thing, that in practice it might be best to avoid the term lest it lead to misunderstandings.

Back to Our Lady. Just as God made Eve for Adam as a COM-panion, so too in another sense Our Lady was Our Lord's closest COM-panion during His Redemption of mankind, so that's another way in which one might undrstand the term Co-Redemptrix, as she was His Companion in the Redemption, closely accompanying Him (sorry for the Novus Ordite term there).

So the term absolutely can be legitimate, if properly defined and understood ... but it also cause problems, ESPECIALLY due to the abysmal catechesis of Novus Ordites, who would become even easier pickings for the Prots. "See, we've been telling you all along that Catholics put Mary on the same level as Jesus." Which Novus Ordite, 99% of whom couldn't pass a quiz based on Baltimore Catechism No. 1 is going to explain secondary efficient (or instrumental) causality. "Sorry, Mr. Protestant, but that term simply means that she was the caused cause, a secondary efficient, aka instrumental cause, of our Redemption, and the primary cause causes the secondary cause to cause the effect, so is ultimately the cause of all the effects even if using various instrumental causes to bring them about. In Latin, co- does not necessarily refer to equality or some share in the primary casuality." 90%+ of Novus Ordites still think the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2025, 09:39:50 PM »

So, the Brothers themselves say that Mediatrix is OK because there's a hierarchical structure, where she mediates between us and Christ, and then Christ between her and God the Father.

So, the causal chain is also hierarchical from top down, where Our Lord causes Our Lady to be a cause of Our Redemption.

Mediatrix is a bottom->top hierarchy.

Co-Redemptrix is a top->bottom hierarchy.

Secondary causes are caused by the primary (higher-level causes), and in Latin can therefore be called con-causes "concausa" (Thomistic term), even if they're themselves caused.

Udkme · « **Reply #18 on:** November 14, 2025, 07:44:21 PM »

I appreciate Lad as the most accomplished poster in the forum. But all this discussion and layering of arguments is fatiguing my simpler mind. It's a big idea at stake beyond the usual drama that's overtaken EVERYTHING everywhere. Can't we just say "Mary is not really the CO-REDEMPTRIX in the normal understanding of salvation economy" (BUT, what follows and what was already stated deserves some subtle distinction/comprehension/insight/speculation/theology/'splainin', etc) ???

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2025, 05:26:12 AM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on November 08, 2025, 03:17:12 PM

In Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission Bulletin this week there is published a Vatican News article reporting on the docuмent that addresses the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The commentary on the article offers an opinion why the Vatican wants to deny these titles that properly belong to the Mother of God. I think the commentary is worth passing along. The Bulletin also relates this to the recent inter-faith Nostra Aetate anniversary celebration at the Vatican but I will not address that.

Doctrinal Note on Marian titles: Mother of the faithful, not Co-redemptrix
The docuмent of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Leo XIV, offers clarifications on titles applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and calls for special attention to the use of the expression, “Mediatrix of all graces.”
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-11/doctrinal-note-mother-of-the-faithful-not-co-redemptrix.html

COMMENT: Amazing to hear these apostates chirping about the lack of "precise meaning" of theological terms while obscurity in definition is, and has been since Vatican II, the calling card of the Novus Ordo theologian and prelates. They like to muddle what is clear. Let's start with the title, "Mother of Believers" and "Mother of the Faithful." These are, in fact, worthy titles of the Mother of God and frequently occur in St. Mary of Agreda's City of God, yet the Novus Ordo clerics would never be found offering a precise definition and meaning for the term "faithful" and then identify exactly who the "faithful" are.

The term "faithful" has a precise Catholic definition. It refers to those who have been baptized into the Catholic Church and profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. By virtue of this incorporation by baptism they have become "children of God." They faithfully believe all the truths that God has revealed on the authority of God the Revealer. Only those who have become thus members of the Mystical Body of Christ share by participation in His divine nature and become brothers and sister of Jesus Christ and therefore, sons of His Mother. This definition excludes all heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, and any other form of idolaters. Novus Ordo clerics heretically teach that everyone is a child of God by virtue of the Incarnation. Everyone by nature is a creature of God created in His image and likeness with the spiritual soul with the powers of reason and free will, but every creature is born in original sin and cut off from the friendship of God. He is only a "child of God" in potentia. Without the sacrament of Baptism and the Catholic faith they can never become "children of God." This obscurity of definition as to who is a child of God and thus a child of the Blessed Virgin Mary ultimately obscures what is necessary as a necessity of means to obtain salvation.

The title Mediatrix of all grace is long established and of sound and precise theological understanding. Those that pretend otherwise are ignorant, proud, and deceitful. They have no excuse. 'The law of prayer determines the law of belief' is, as affirmed by St. Pius X in Pascendi, a canon of faith from the time of Celestine I, that is, a dogma of the Catholic Church. The immemorial Roman rite has a Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all grace celebrated on May 31 established by Pope Benedict XV. Regarding this feast, Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abby of St. Andrew teaches:

St. Mary of Agreda at the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, writes that Jesus Christ addressed the entire heavenly assembly of angels and saints saying:

Sanctifying grace is the created participation in the divine nature. The Blessed Virgin is the "Queen and Mistress of all that is created." In this Mass the Church prays:
Rev. Gregory Alastruey's theological work titles, The Blessed Virgin Mary, says that, "There are five principle titles and offices due Mary, the Mother of God, by reason of her cooperation in redemption: Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix, Mother of Christians, Patroness or Advocate, and Queen and Mistress of the universe. I would recommend those who deny this proper honor to the Mother of God obtain a copy of the book and have their stupidity erased. I do not say, ignorance erased because willful ignorance is stupidity. Fr. Alastruey affirms that "Mary is truly mediatrix of the human race and this doctrine pertains to the deposit of faith." He then draws from Scripture, the Fathers, and theologians in support of this truth. He proves from the Church Fathers that the word "mediatrix" was explicitly used by St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil of Seleucia, St. Andrew of Crete, St Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St Theodore, St. Antoninus and Denis the Carthusian. He draws richly from the divine liturgy from both Eastern and Roman traditions. The errors of the Protestant heretics are addressed and exposed which are curiously the same as expressed by the Novus Ordo popes.

Lastly, it is worth asking Why do the Novus Ordo popes hate these proper titles of the Mother of God? The answer is simple. The Blessed Virgin asked the three children at Fatima on June 13, 1917, "Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and of supplication for the conversion of sinners?" To which question all answered, "Yes, we are willing." The Mother of God said on July 13 after the children has seen a vision of Hell, "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." On August 19 the Mother of God continued saying, "Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them." The Blessed Virgin is asking the children to be co-redemptors and co-mediators of grace with her in union with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the conversion and salvation of sinners. If the title of Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of all Grace can be taken away from the Mother of God then no one is responsible to do penance for their own sins or the sins of others. This falls back to the Protestant heresy on the dogma of justification and the very nature of our incorporation into the divine nature in the Mystical Body of Christ. Leo/Provost, like his predecessor Francis/Bergoglio, believes that proselytism is "solemn nonsense." They attack the titles to excuse their own faithless sloth. They are working to obscure the very means of salvation. As Jesus Christ said: "But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter" (Matt 23:13).

Pope Leo is just another heretic who denies the Blessed Virgin Mary her just titles of Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemtrix. Only a few days ago, he celebrated with heretics, schismatics, Jews, Moslems, and a variety of idolaters a shared communion praying to their common god a united petition for peace in the world. He continues to ignore the peace plan offered by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all Grace, at Fatima. Pope Leo will soon learn that those who insult the Mother have made an enemy of the Son.

D. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission

I just corrected the date of the Apparition in August to the 19th.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2025, 02:25:52 PM »

Father Mateo Crawley-Boevey
Great Promoter of the Sacred Hearts Devotions.

Couvent de l'Adoration, Le Val Marie, Chambly - Canton, Quebec 1945
Imprimatur Nov 22, 1944, +Anastase Forget, Eveque de St.-Jean

V.C.J.S. Probably means Veni Christi Jesu Salvator

+ + + + +

Born in Chile Nov.8, 1875 -
Died May 4, 1960

https://www.seldelaterre.fr/auteurs/r.p.-mateo-crawley-boevey

"... In June 1907, received in private audience with Saint Pius X, Father Mateo Crawley-Boevey (1875-1969), asked him for permission to conquer the world with the Sacred Heart through the consecration of families.

After listening to him, the Holy Pope replied: “No, my son. I do not allow you to, I give you the order!: you will dedicate your life to this work of salvation.”
__________________________

Pope Benedict XV
To our beloved son Mateo Crawley-Boevey,

We have read your letter with interest and likewise the docuмents that accompanied it. From them We have learned of the diligence and zeal with which for many years you have devoted yourself to the work of consecrating families to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, in such a way that while His image is installed in the principal place in the home as on a throne, our Divine Savior Jesus Christ is seen to reign at each Catholic hearth.

Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of happy memory, had already consecrated the entire human race to the Divine Heart, and his noteworthy encyclical, Annum Sacrum, on this subject is well known. Notwithstanding that general and collective consecration, however, the devotion as applied to each family in particular is not without its purpose. On the contrary, it is perfectly in accord with the former, and can only contribute to the religious aim of that Pontiff. For what concerns each one in particular, affects us more deeply than the interests we share with others. Therefore we rejoice at the thought that your work has borne abundant fruit in this direction, and We exhort you to persevere with diligence in the apostolate which you have begun.

Nothing, as a matter of fact, is more suitable to the needs of the present day than your enterprise. To pervert, both in private and in public life, the concept of morality engendered and fostered by the Church, and, after having almost effaced the last vestige of Christian wisdom and decency, to lead human society back to the miserable institutions of paganism, such is the plan which too many are trying to realize today. Would that their efforts were fruitless! Moreover, the attacks of the wicked are directed primarily against the family. For, containing within itself as it does the principles and, as it were, the germ of all human society, they clearly see that the change, or rather, the corruption, which they are trying to bring about in human society, will necessarily follow, once the corruption of the family itself has been accomplished. Hence divorce laws are introduced to put an end to the stability of marriage; children are forced to follow an official teaching for the most part estranged from religion, thus eliminating the authority of parents in a matter of the highest importance; moreover, countenance is given to the spread of a shameful course of selfish indulgence which contravenes the laws of nature, and striking a blow at the human race at its very source, stains the sanctity of marriage with impure practices.

You do well, then, dear son, while taking up the cause of human society, to arouse and propagate above all things a Christian spirit in the home by setting up in each family the reign of the love of Jesus Christ. And in doing this you are but obeying our Divine Lord Himself, Who promised to shower His blessings upon the homes wherein an image of His Heart should be exposed and devoutly honored.

It is assuredly, therefore, a holy and salutary work to secure for our beloved Redeemer such worship and honor. But that is not everything. It is of the utmost importance to know Christ, to know His doctrine, His life, His Passion, His glory. For to follow Him does not consist in allowing ourselves to be swayed by a superficial religious sentiment that easily moves weak and tender hearts to tears, but leaves vices intact. To follow Christ is to be permeated with a lively and constant faith, which not only acts upon the mind and heart, but likewise governs and directs our conduct. Moreover, the real reason why Jesus is neglected by so many and but little loved by others, is to be found in the fact that He is almost entirely unknown to the former and not known sufficiently by the latter. Continue, therefore, beloved son, in your efforts to enkindle in Catholic homes the flames of love for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus: but likewise and before all else, and this is Our wish, endeavor to make this love result from a knowledge of Christ the Lord, and from a greater and deeper understanding of the truths and laws which He Himself has given us.

For Our part, in order to encourage the piety of the faithful in this matter, we extend to all families of the Catholic world that consecrate themselves to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, all those spiritual favors which Our predecessor, Pius X, of happy memory, granted with Pontifical liberality, in 1913, at the instance of the bishops of Chile to the families of that republic consecrated to the Sacred Heart.

As a pledge of divine favors and as a mark of Our paternal good will, We impart to you affectionately, beloved son, the Apostolic Blessing.

Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, this 27th day of April, 1915, in the first year of Our Pontificate.
_______________________________

Excerpt from Heure Sainte, by Fr. Mateo, published 1949

"...The apostolate par excellence, the most powerful, the most fruitful, best within the reach of souls of good will, is that of prayer and immolation in union with the agonizing Heart of Jesus. It is therefore not only to the splendid phalanx of active workers that I dedicate these Holy Hours. They are also specially intended to enkindle the innumerable army of unknown, paralyzed, mute, suffering apostles, who want the Social Kingdom of the Heart of Jesus, and preach it out of love and in the Cross!

* * *
Page 137 - 140
ALL: Entrust to us your Heart, O Jesus!

Oh! yes, King of love, entrust It to us without delay in the Name and for the Glory of the Heart of Mary!

— A Holy Hour should be a deep meditation of love that leads us to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, Who is its source. Now, what other path can lead us better than His holy Mother, the sweet Virgin Mary? Today we live in hours of thick darkness, hours of religious ignorance and brazen sin, so let us lend an attentive ear to the serious lessons of this gracious Sovereign... It is indeed She who can point out to us the treacherous traps of the worldly desert, She who knew how to cross it, carrying safely, in the ark of her arms and maternal Heart, the Son of her virginal womb. Let us listen to her with love:

Teachings of Mary.
"Children born of my love and my sufferings, listen to your Mother: there is in reality only one truly grave evil, an evil with eternal consequences: it is to lose Jesus, for His Heart is the inexhaustible source of all life, of all love. To possess this Heart is already to possess Paradise.

"I, His mother, know this from experience, for I lost Him for three days in Jerusalem and then endured an unspeakable agony... Jesus absent... to live without Him... no longer to see or taste Him, no longer to possess Him... what a dreadful torment after having enjoyed Him, having held Him close to my heart, having seen Him smile through His tears, having entrusted Him with all my soul in a thousand kisses of immense tenderness! There is even more... Come closer, my children, let me reveal to you what words cannot express: the tearing of my maternal soul, the ultimate farewells of the Mother and her Son, on the evening of Holy Thursday.

"Come closer to behold and share my unparalleled sorrow, when, at the first light of Good Friday, I had the dreadful vision of His scourging and the opprobrium with which He had been covered... Vision of blood and thorns, cries of blasphemy and hatred, cries of death... such was the heartbreaking spectacle that God the Father wished to place before the aching eyes of the saddest of Mothers.

"And now, you who truly love me, tell me, during this Holy Hour, if you have ever encountered a sorrow like my sorrow!... O my little children, may God grant that you may never taste the mortal bitterness of this chalice... that of crucifying, of losing through mortal sin, Jesus, this treasure of life that was once entrusted to you by my maternal Heart.

"Oh! you, a thousand times blessed, who have kept your baptismal innocence intact, spared the cruel blow of the lance that would mercilessly pierce the Side of your most beloved Jesus... Fear, my children, fear this first hour of proud revolt, of murderous pleasure taken against His divine Law. Turn away your lips, refuse to drink the first drop of the first mortal sin which, like a searing dart of fire, would pierce His tender Heart...

"But if, alas! you had already fallen, if you had already sullied the beauty of your soul, do not delay, I beseech you, to wash away with your tears the affront with which you have covered the adorable face of Jesus. "Oh! then, seek Him without delay, find, my children, the treasure of His Heart, run, run to His feet, kiss them lovingly, promise Him fidelity and confidence. Love Him, oh! love Him immensely!... If you knew how much He loves you!

"And you, mothers of a Christian home which must be the blessed sanctuary of the Lord, listen to this sorrowful Mother: Be vigilant and loving so that the husband and the children who have been entrusted to you never lose, through your negligence or your lukewarmness, the friendship of my Son, your King. Live in such a way that, through your fervor, He reigns over them all! Yes, that all may be His in the Christian family which adores Him: the father and the mother and the children, may they be eternally to Him and always. May He remain there in the hours of winter, in full anguish, may He remain there in the hours of joy, in full springtime!... And this, my children, depends only on you, cling with a divine passion of charity to Jesus-Christ... let yourself be taken by His arms and held close to His Heart. Stay there forever, He wants it, keep his Heart forever!...

*******************

Let's tell Him ourselves, Jesus-Eucharist is very near and listens to us.

The Souls. — We will be faithful to You, Jesus, in life and in death, under the care of Mary and supported by your grace... But, knowing our great fragility, we beg You, adorable Savior, to always hold us by the hand... and even more, to attach Yourself deeply to us through Your great mercy...

...Oh, do not allow us to abandon You, Jesus! Heart of Jesus, draw close to us when certain misfortunes distill despair into the soul, dry up its virtue, overwhelm it and make it sick, with a mortal illness... Do not abandon us then, Lord... Oh, do not allow us to abandon you, Jesus!

Heart of Jesus, draw closer to us in the hour of great desolation...

We beg Thee O Lord, through the love of the Virgin Mary, to remain beside us, to watch over us in this fragile barque of our heart, so frail at the hour of the tempest... Remember then the love we show today...
******

St. Sylvester, Pray for us.

SSPX has a similar Logo of the Sacred Hearts.

Simeon · « **Reply #21 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:08:38 PM »

Good thing this edict does not apply to the Roman Catholic Rite:

https://www.gloria.tv/post/VyCub4XSrY2G3YxjAccbtK2T6

https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/cardinal-fernandez-clarifies-co-redemptrix?r=ehiyj&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Quote

Tucho: From Now On, ‘Co-Redemptrix’ Not Allowed in Liturgy or Vatican Docuмents

Cardinal Tucho Fernández clarified his November 4 clarification Mater Populi Fidelis on the Marian title Co-Redemptrix. He was asked about it by DianeMontagna.Substack.com after Tuesday’s press conference.

Regarding his formulation that “it is always inappropriate” to use the title Co-Redemptrix, Tucho claimed now that it is "not meant to judge the past". However, "from now on" it will not be used "either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in the official docuмents of the Holy See", he believes.

"If you, together with your group of friends, believe you understand well the true meaning of this expression, have read the docuмent, and see that its positive aspects are also affirmed there, and you wish to express precisely that within your prayer group or among friends, you may use the title—but it will not be used officially, that is, either in liturgical texts or in official docuмents."

Tucho’s problem is "not its underlying doctrine", but the term itself that risks "pastoral misunderstanding" today.

Freind · « **Reply #22 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:21:09 PM »

I didn't read this whole thread. But I know the subject enough from the past that I can say this....

The term "co-redemptrix" can be used as a DESCRIPTIVE while accompanied always by textual context....

BUT.... it should NOT be used as an actual STAND-ALONE TITLE for Our Lady.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** **Today** at 01:03:32 PM »

So, both these theologians and the Dimond Brothers have valid points, but it's about semantics, nuances, etc. Yes, theologically, and in scholastic terms, the term can be justified, but in the nuances of modern vernacular languages, it can easily be misunderstood.

So, here's a point that, while it's created a lot of emotional backlash, due to people being devoted to Our Lady ... I feel that the Modernists have done much worse. Both in the original "note" and here with Tucho's explanation, it was clear they said that the title COULD be legitimate if properly explained, and we have Traditional Catholics, such as the Dimond Brothers, and some approved pre-Vatican II theologians who have said the same thing.

I believe that both sides do have a point, as the not of what "co-" means can have certain connotations or nuances in modern languages, even if in scholastic terms, it's quite legitimate to use even of a secondary efficient cause, a caused cause that only achieves its effect by virtue of (in the power of) the primary cause, and, as St. Thomas explains, these are often referred to as "concausae" (co-causes). So, if a Redeemer is the cause of Redemption, then a co-Redeemer is a co-cause of Redemption, or a concause, which is a subordinate/secondary term that does not have the connotation of putting the "co-" on the same order of causality as the primary cause.

So it's legitimate from a scholastic term, but in vernacular languages, it can easily lead to misunderstandings.

So, for instance, if I hurl a rock through a window, in scholastic terms, the rock itself can be a "concausa" of the destruction, but we know that any potency that the rock had to break the window was imparted to it by the primary efficient cause, namely myself, and it had no power on its own to break a window, nor would anyone consider it somehow responsible for the destruction. But in scholastic terms, it can be considered a co-cause.

Similarly, if I use a pen to write a book, in scholastic terms, it could be called a "concausa", a co-cause of the book being written, but of course in English nobody would therefore ever call the pen a "co-author" of the book, since the term "co-author" implies a contribution on the same order of causality as the principle efficient cause.

That's where we're at in terms of Co-Redemptrix. In English, the term strongly implies (similar to co-author in the example above) that Our Lady was a Redeemer on the same order of causality, and that would be false, even if it's perfectly acceptable to say that in scholastic/theological terms, and the term would have to be accompanied by explanation.

Now, while normally the reason the Conciliar Modernists have used to eschew the term might be legitimate on its own, there's every reason for skepticism regarding their true motives. Then, even if they are sincerely stating their motives, they are largely culpable anyway due to the fact that it's certainly the case that the abysmal catechesis (or, rather, lack thereof) by the Conciliar would make it nearly impossible to explain the term to the average Novus Ordite who could not pass a quiz based on Baltimore No 1. 80%+ of them undoubtedly still believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Our Lord rather than that of Our Lady.

But even then one might rightly be cynical of their motives of wanting to spare the faithful of "confusion". Bergoglio positively reveled in and bragged about causing chaos and "messes", and were they concerned about causing confusion with "Amoris Laetitia" and "Fiducia Supplicans". With the latter, Bergs provided explanations for the popesplainers to deploy in justifying it, so why couldn't they have done the same with this? Reminds me of when Ratzinger wanted to fix the bad vernacular translations of the NOM, where the US bishops pushed it back for a couple years due to the "confusion" it would cause ... to say "for you and for many" instead of "for you and for all" (great upheaval) ... but then didn't give two hoots to the mass confusion caused by the NOM in the first place, where millions left the Church as a result of that confusion.

Now, it is true that affirming the title would make the Conciliar laity even more prone to being picked off by Prots, who would jump all over it and say, "See, we TOLD you the Catholics worship Mary." At that point, most Novus Ordites would just say, "yeah, I guess you're right" ... and not "well, by the term co-Redemptrix, we're referring to a secondary co-causation, where the co-Redemptrix is a caused co-cause of the effect created by the primary cause, the Redeemer, having herself been redeemed." Yeah ... good luck with that.

Author Topic: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix (Read 271457 times)

AnthonyPadua

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Ladislaus

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Ladislaus

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Udkme

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Twice dyed

Pope St. Pius X MET with Fr. Matéo Crawley- Boevey, 1907 AD.

Simeon

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Freind

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix

Ladislaus

Re: BVM Co-Redemtrix, Co-Mediatrix