https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/?s=co+redemtrix



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

Opinions?

I also disagree with them on this.  There can be a subordinate use of the term "co-", as in the expression "co-pilot" or when someone is a "co-operator" in something.  "co-" does not inherently entail equality.  This comes across a bit like a Protestant literally interpreting various phrases in Scripture like "call no man Father" or "all have sinned except Jesus".

On top of this, Saint Pius X granted an indulgence to a prayer where she is called the coredemptrix. Now if this title were blasphemous or evil, the Church would be rewarding sin which is impossible. (The Dimonds can't pull the "It's not a universal discipline" cope as this indulgence applies to all Catholics.)

So you're making an implied assertion that a Pope granting an indulgence for something is tantamount to a dogmatic declaration?

Yeah, and that last problem is why the Church has thus far not defined the title Co-Redemptrix ... because the average lay catholic in the pew is almost certainly going to misunderstand the title and not understand it "in the proper sense".

I personally agree about this. It would also just create another thing to have to produce apologetics to protestants over. Catholics have always believed what the title means but the title itself creates confusion. Defining it is not worth it.

I'm slightly mixed on this one. Mary gave birth to our Lord. Her acceptance of this virginal birth doesn't give her a "Co-" status in my opinion. I don't see how it can. We are saved through Jesus Christ dying on the Cross. Through Mary to our Lord. The great mystery is how us creations of God can not contemplate the amount of love God had for us to send his only begotten Son through Mary, to save us.. And then suffer greatly as man. It's actually quite mind boggling, when you think  about it.

Had Our Lady not given her "Fiat", the Redeemer would not have come into the world.  He did what He did through her and using her as an instrument.  "Co-" does not inherently require there to be a footing of equality.  Perhaps it's more an issue for English speakers.  But in Latin, the prefix "co-" or "con-" simply derives from "cuм", the Latin word for "with", and who can deny that Our Lady was with Him throughout the Redemption and mediating the Redemption to the entire world?  She is in fact the Mediatrix of all the graces from the Redemption, and as a result is a necessary cause, by God's will, of the application of the Redemption to souls, even if she isn't a sufficient cause.  That role suffices for her to be a "Co-Redemptrix", but, the Church has refrained from defining the term solemnly or formally precisely because it could easily be misunderstood ... and of course the Prots would have a field day attacking the Church over it.  Not that we care what Prots think per se, but stuff like that could present more obstacles for converting Prot heretics to the True Faith, since if even Catholics could misinterpret it, then you KNOW the Prots are going to misinterpret it.

One metaphor I use is the role of parents, who in a sense are co-creators for their children.  God uses their free will to bring souls into the world, and bring them into existence.  When a couple decide to have a child, then God creates a soul.  So there's a direct COOPERATION, by God's will, in that act of creation.  God could of course just create souls (and bodies) out of thin air, as He did with Adam, or, as Our Lord said, raise them up from stones, but He willed to allow parents to be involved in the co-creation of new human beings.  It's the same way with Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.  By God's will, she was necessary for the Redemption to take place.  God could have created Our Lord's human nature out of nothing, but made it contingent upon Our Lady's cooperation and her Fiat.

This also reminds of the dispute that the Nestorians had with Our Lady receiving the title "Mother of God."  How can a human being be the "Mother of God"?  Well, when the terms are rightly understood, the term is absolutely correct.  Same thing with Co-Redemptrix.  If it's rightly understood and defined, the term is theologically correct.

Another way to look at the expression is from the opposite angle ... Was Our Lady a cause of Our Redemption?  Yes, she was, an instrumental cause of Our Redemption.  That which is an instrumental cause of the Redemption, can be said in the sense of instrumental causality to be a Redeemer.  It was through her that the Redeemer can into the world, and by God's will, her cooperation became a necessary cause, a sine qua non for Our Redemption.

Or, were the Evangelists the authors of Sacred Scripture?  Yes, they were.  Now, the Holy Spirit was their Primary Author, but the Evangelists were instrumental-cause authors and could rightly be said to have been co-authors, even if their authorship was subordinate to that of the Holy Ghost.

Right, cause vs the instrument. Who is responsible for the cause, and who is the instrument.

Right, cause vs the instrument. Who is responsible for the cause, and who is the instrument.

But, you see, in scholastic terms, an instrument IS a cause, referred to as an instrumental cause.  We're just talking about two different causes.

It's like if I pick up a pen and write a letter.  I'm the formal cause of the contents of the letter, but the pen is the instrumental cause.  There could be no letter written if I did not have the pen.