Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :  Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore : it is not official Church Teaching. : Where do you find it written that the Catechism is infallible? God’s : Gift of Infallibility resides in His Popes, not in Catechisms. : Catechisms are intended for instruction in the Faith, not for settling : disputes. When there is a dispute, recourse must be had to the living : Magisterium. That is why I remain obedient to the Pope as regards : Co-Redemptrix, as well as many, many other things. He honors her as : such. You should follow his example. Has the Pope made any ex cathedra statement on Mary’s alleged title of "co-redemtrix?"  I don’t think so. Not to my knowledge.<

Is this because he is undecided on this matter? brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. This certainly causes some confusion.  However the example of co-pilot shows that co- is not necessarily equal.   But I think this is largely irrelevant.  Simply making it clear that Mary is not being made equal to Christ isn’t going to be enough to make this idea acceptable.  Here is what well-informed Protestants are afraid Catholics mean:  The doctrine, essentially, is that as a special privilege and reward  for her perfection, all Graces that Jesus, as the one Mediator between  the Father and Man, obtains for us, are dispensed by and through the  Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven.  [Paul McLachlan, http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/mediatrix.asp]

I disagree with Paul McLachlan — the Coredemption was not a reward for Our Blessed Mother’s perfection. Her very being, she herself acknowledges, is unmerited favor. She is experiencing the reward of perfection now, for all eternity. But the Coredemption was untold suffering for her, and God willed it so. The very same God the Father Who sacrificed His Son, sacrificed Mary along with Him. She is the Mediatrix of all graces. It is very clear that in this Mary is inferior to Christ.  But that’s not enough.  It very much looks like this doctrine makes her into a second mediator.  Even if this mediator is inferior to Christ, Christianity asserts that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).  An additional mediator, even if inferior, is still a problem. No longer is Christ the mediator between God and man.  He’s now the mediator between God and Mary, and Mary is then the mediator between Christ and man.  It’s this that needs to be disclaimed, more than equality between Christ and Mary.

Well, who is claiming that? The relationship of each individual to his Creator is one-on-one. Christ is Who created us. When we receive Holy Communion, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not Mary. It is the fact of the Eucharist that makes it impossible to become confused about any of this. I believe many of us are also concerned about the concept that her suffering in the crucifixion together with Christ’s merited our redemption.

God is pleased to allow creaturely participation in His work. It glorifies Him even more to do so. WIthout the Redmption wrought by Our Saviour, Mary would not have suffered what she suffered. God’s Justice — His own design — required a spotless Lamb. Our Lord is the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world. But Our Blessed Mother, also, qualified as a spotless lamb, and she did in fact suffer in her compassion for her Son. To deny the Coredemption is tantamount to saying her suffering had no value. If it had value, if it had merit — where would that merit be applied, if not to us? She, already pure, did not require suffering to purify her. It was to purify us.  Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182 :  With her suffering and dying Son she suffered and almost died, so did  she surrender her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of  human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained  to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that  she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. [from http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=14949] The problem is not with her suffering per se, but that it was part of the atonement (which seems to be what "to appease the justice of God" means).

As above, if it was not part of the Atonement, then how else was its value applied? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The following is also worrisome, as it seems to place her on the same level as Christ:  12. Pius XII, Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, Oct. 11, 1954. AAS 46.  634-35:  "In accomplishing this work of the redemption, the Most Blessed  Virgin Mary was certainly closely joined with Christ. . . was  associated with Jesus Christ, the very principle of salvation, by  divine plan, and indeed in a way similar to that in which Eve was  associated with Adam, the principle of death, so that we can say that  the work of our salvation was accomplished according to a certain  recapitulation. . . and if she was joined with her Son, even on  Golgotha, [and] she offered Him, together with the holocaust of her  Mother’s rights and love, like a New Eve, for all the sons of Adam,  defiled by his wretched fall, as a result, beyond doubt, it is right  to conclude that just as Christ, the New Adam should be called King  not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our  Redeemer, so by a certain analogy, the most Blessed Virgin is Queen,  not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because as the  New Eve she was associated with the New Adam" My most serious concern is that in all of the papal statements I’ve looked at, I see no interest in setting limits.

Not in any of the Saints. The very concept of limiting one’s devotion *is* diabolic. And note, I am not calling *you* diabolic. I am saying they are the source of the idea of limitation on love of any kind.  I don’t doubt that it would be possible to define a role for Mary that as Protestant I might reject as superstition, but which I would acknowledge as still within the bounds of Christianity.  But I see no interest in defining a point beyond which speculation should not go.

Is that what you think this is about? Specualtion? As if Christianity were some sort of a philosophy, to be perfected by science? The science of theology is based on, and flows from, revelation, not speculation. Either the Coredemption is a dogma divinely revealed, or it isn’t. If it is, no one can stop the whole Catholic world from believing it. If it is a dogma of faith, it will certainly manifest in just that way. At the moment I tentatively regard this doctrine as non-Christian, and the people who hold it as non-Christians, although I realize that Christ may well choose to ignore their theological errors and redeem them anyway.

That’s arrogance on your part. The situation is not helped by calling Mary Queen of Heaven, and heavenly Mother.

Queen of Heaven and Earth, and Our Blessed Mother. While technically she is certainly not being made part of the Trinity, the title certainly suggests it.  There’s something to be said for choosing modest language.

And there’s something more to be said about "All generations shall call me Blessed." There’s something to be said about God’s Will, in choosing, in this time, to exalt she who always humbled herself. He said, "whoever humbles himself shall be exalted…" and now, that is what is happening to her.

Response:

Hello Scout Lady,    Look, have you followed the course of this thread?  The word, "diabolical," was used by Mr. Geloso previously, in describing anyone who points out that, "Co-Redemptrix" is not part of Roman Catholic Church teaching.  That is the truth no matter how it is sliced, diced, or processed in the food processor.

Read what I wrote, and stop putting your own spin on it. I accurately pointed out that the source of opposition to Our Blessed Mother is in fact diabolical. I did not paint any human being as diabolical. That would be absurd. Read what I wrote. You have called me a liar. Yet, you yourself have said, Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.

I simply point out to you that it is not just "someone," it is the Pope. And he did not "just mention" the term, he specifically used the term to describe the role of Mary. That indicates, if nothing else, that he considers her to be such. I agree with him. You are technically within Catholicism if you deny this doctrine, just as anyone prior to 1950 could deny the Assumption, and still be considered a Catholic. But the truth is the truth, and it will all come to be believed in its entirety, throughout the Earth. That is prophecy, and you may take it with as many grains of salt as you like — but take it to the Pope, because he is the only one who has the answer for you.

Response:

Thank you, Cathy. Thank you so much. Below, you write: I believe there is a balance to be reached but we can never honor Mary too much.

That is totally right on! The Pope’s own motto is "Totus Tuus." I think it means "All for you" — someone please correct me if I am wrong. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Yes I have been following this thread. I have nothing but respect for Joseph and Scott. I provided number from the CCC (494) which in part states "Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person AND to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of REDEMPTION with him AND dependent on him, by God’s grace. Note, the teaching is she served the mystery of Redemption WITH him and dependent on Him. That is a nutshell is what the term co-redemptrix is all about. I say co-redemptrix with a little "r" rather than a capital "R" as Mary would be unable to serve without the grace of God. As for the Marian phenomena, I honor the Blessed Mother and I do pray the Rosary every day. I believe in the Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe apparitions, as well as a few others. I don’t believe all of them.  I believe with all my heart that Jesus wishes us to honor His Mother. It was a struggle for me to get to this point, I was a former member of Calvary Chapel, a denomination that teaches that Mary is unimportant and of no interest to Christians. I admit I was thrown out for disagreeing about this and John 6, they would not concede to calling her Blessed, and I would not back down. For a group so into Scripture, it seemed wrong when the Bible said all generations would call her Blessed to deny she is. I believe there is a balance to be reached but we can never honor Mary too much. As for my comment on your attitude, it was chiefly in response to what you said to Joseph. Joseph is as sincere as one gets. He believes what he says and he loves God and the Church. His motives are pure and there is no lying in him. He did not make up this co-redemptrix stuff, it has been around a long time. Many Catholics believe she is the co-redemptrix, and since our Popes have referred to her as such, there is nothing incorrect about believing it. Peace

Response:

:  Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore : it is not official Church Teaching. : Where do you find it written that the Catechism is infallible? God’s : Gift of Infallibility resides in His Popes, not in Catechisms. : Catechisms are intended for instruction in the Faith, not for settling : disputes. When there is a dispute, recourse must be had to the living : Magisterium. That is why I remain obedient to the Pope as regards : Co-Redemptrix, as well as many, many other things. He honors her as : such. You should follow his example. Has the Pope made any ex cathedra statement on Mary’s alleged title of "co-redemtrix?"  I don’t think so.

Not to my knowledge. Without that, he can say what he believes about Mary as much as he likes, and we don’t have to believe it.

But, we *can*! And we may be justified in that. He would have to make an official statement on the doctrine for it to be binding.

There are many things that will fall into place at once, regarding the Papacy and its relation to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It hinges on George and John Mark — I do not expect that the Pope will make any ex cathedra statements about the Coredemption before he issues discernment of George and John Mark. But then, everything will fall into place. If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, please see my website, http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/ and please ask the Pope yourself for discernment. Even if he did so, "co-redemptrix" would most likely refer to her willingness to participate in God’s plan of redemption.  

Well, I would say that it refers to her actual participation in it. Her willingness to participate, of course, came from God also — everything about her came from God. Without Mary’s participation, the Incarnation would not have happened (but she was chosen by God before time to carry out the part of the Plan of Salvation that hinged on a human woman giving birth to the Savior.)  It would hinge totally on Christ, not her.

Jesus, as God, is the Author of our salvation. He is the beginning of it, and He is the end also — He Himself is our reward if we are fortunate enough to persevere. Our Blessed Mother’s decision was made with entirely free will — much freer than our wills, because hers was not affected by concupiscence. She consented, and contained in her consent was her participation in our redemption. God did the rest. For example, her title "co-mediatrix" refers back to the one mediation

Actually, the usual term is "Mediatrix" — Mediatrix of Grace. that does Christ does on our behalf.  Without Christ’s sole mediation to the Father, she couldn’t mediate for us with Christ to the Father. However, in as sense we are *all* co-mediators!  We all have access to the Father through Christ, so Mary is the model for prayer to the Father through Christ.  Just as my friend can ask me to pray for him to the Father through Christ, so I can ask Mary to pray for me through Christ. He "co-mediatrix" title is simply the archetype for the mediation for others that we all have.  It all hinges on Christ.  No Christ, no mediation period.  With Christ, we all have access to the Father.

It is also true that we, to whatever extent God wills, participate in the Redemption. Saint Paul talks about this also, where he says, "I rejoice to make up in my own body for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ…" So *if* the Pope or Church were ever to make an official statment on a title of "co-redemptrix" for Mary, it would have to hinge on Christ, and simply officialy specify her role as the Mother of the Savior, and the very important part she played in the drama of salvation.

Well — of course you are right. But if what you say is true, no Catholic should have any objection to the doctrine at all. But, what you say *is* true — yet still there are people who want to discourage invoking her in this way. That is why this thread. However, since nothing official to my knowledge has been said on this issue, this arguement isn’t like flogging a dead horse, it’s flogging an empty space where one *thinks* a horse is lying, but it isn’t. Dan

My purpose in writing is to spread devotion to Mary under her various titles. The title of Coredemptrix has become a sticking point for some, as they think that takes Marian devotion just too far. My contention is that they never had that much devotion to her in the first place. I would like to see one writing by any Saint warning against "excessive" devotion to Mary. I don’t think any of these folks can produce such a writing. God’s Saints were exactly the opposite of that.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a post made earlier in this NG. b. Hello, what do you think the first post was in reference to? If you were paying attention, every week Richard posts the article. Most weeks Joseph disagrees with it. Your attempt at causing further discord among Catholics is noted and it is sad that you felt the need to try to stir the pot. This may be a bit of mischievous stirring. On the other hand, it may be of value to realise that the organisation that prizes its own unity, and readily accuses Protestants of division, is not above calling its own members ‘diabolic’.

I didn’t call anyone that. I said the opposition is diabolic. Human beings sometimes participate in diabolic schemes — sometimes without even realizing it.

Response:

This is a post made earlier in this NG. b. Hello, what do you think the first post was in reference to? If you were paying attention, every week Richard posts the article. Most weeks Joseph disagrees with it. Your attempt at causing further discord among Catholics is noted and it is sad that you felt the need to try to stir the pot.

This may be a bit of mischievous stirring. On the other hand, it may be of value to realise that the organisation that prizes its own unity, and readily accuses Protestants of division, is not above calling its own members ‘diabolic’. brachypodium

Response:

This may be a bit of mischievous stirring. On the other hand, it may be of value to realise that the organisation that prizes its own unity, and readily accuses Protestants of division, is not above calling its own members ‘diabolic’. brachypodium Did the Church call him diabolic or did Joseph? In case you didn’t realize it, Joseph is a MEMBER of the Church, he is not THE CHURCH.<

I did realise that, and it makes no difference at all to my position. If you think Catholics are all in unity you must not be reading too many posts here.<

I am aware that Catholics are by no means in unity. I am no defender of Protestant denominations as you probably know, but I think it is quite possible that there is no more disagreement between Protestants (perhaps excluding the so-called charismatic movement) than there is in the RCC. We have been told repeatedly that the RCC has the advantage over all others in having central authority to provide unity, but that authority does not seem to confer as much actual unity as might be expected. I might add that in my view that is not necessarily a bad thing for any church. Protestants have a great deal of common theological ground without the exercise of central authority. brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello Scout Lady,     Look, have you followed the course of this thread?  The word, "diabolical," was used by Mr. Geloso previously, in describing anyone who points out that, "Co-Redemptrix" is not part of Roman Catholic Church teaching.  That is the truth no matter how it is sliced, diced, or processed in the food processor.  If you are such the, "pit bull" for the truth, you would admit this, too.  If Mr. Geloso, or Scott Gentile, or yourself, or anyone else for that matter, speaks as if to define what being a good Catholic is all about, I would like to be assured that what they say, is the God’s honest Truth.  It would seem to me, that anyone who throws words out there into the ether, claiming that it is all about being a good Catholic, should ensure that they are adhering to the official Church stand.  It is my contention that Joseph Geloso is not sticking to what the Church says it is about. Joseph Geloso is picking and choosing from other’s words, and making up his own theology, and passing it off as Catholic.  When a Catholic makes Catholics look bad, I will stand up and say something, Lord willing. When a Christian makes Christ look bad, I will stand up and say something, Lord willing.  I am human.  I will have my failings.  Of this I am not afraid. It comes with the territory.  You don’t like the tone and tenor of my words directed at Joseph Geloso, I see that they are harsh, I admit that.  You say that I have a poor attitude.  I would ask that you could elucidate on this for me?  I always hope to improve my attitude.  We are all human, and prone to failure.  I see from other of your posts, Scout Lady, that you appear to be into the whole Marian phenomena, as well as Mr. Geloso.  You might not have the ability to stand back and give an unbiased view on this. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Scout Lady. Yes I have been following this thread. I have nothing but respect for Joseph and Scott. I provided number from the CCC (494) which in part states "Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person AND to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of REDEMPTION with him AND dependent on him, by God’s grace. Note, the teaching is she served the mystery of Redemption WITH him and dependent on Him. That is a nutshell is what the term co-redemptrix is all about. I say co-redemptrix with a little "r" rather than a capital "R" as Mary would be unable to serve without the grace of God. As for the Marian phenomena, I honor the Blessed Mother and I do pray the Rosary every day. I believe in the Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe apparitions, as well as a few others. I don’t believe all of them.  I believe with all my heart that Jesus wishes us to honor His Mother. It was a struggle for me to get to this point, I was a former member of Calvary Chapel, a denomination that teaches that Mary is unimportant and of no interest to Christians. I admit I was thrown out for disagreeing about this and John 6, they would not concede to calling her Blessed, and I would not back down. For a group so into Scripture, it seemed wrong when the Bible said all generations would call her Blessed to deny she is. I believe there is a balance to be reached but we can never honor Mary too much. As for my comment on your attitude, it was chiefly in response to what you said to Joseph. Joseph is as sincere as one gets. He believes what he says and he loves God and the Church. His motives are pure and there is no lying in him. He did not make up this co-redemptrix stuff, it has been around a long time. Many Catholics believe she is the co-redemptrix, and since our Popes have referred to her as such, there is nothing incorrect about believing it. Peace<

This is a post made earlier in this NG. b. ******* 7-JUL-2000 (Last rev. 29-MAY-2001) MARY: "CO-REDEMPTRIX"? – WHAT’S THAT? Sometimes people will question the various titles that are attributed to Mary, and some people will ask, "why do Catholics call Mary ‘Co-Redemptrix,’ or ‘Co-Redeemer’? Doesn’t that make her equal with Jesus as redeemer?" It would be a very understandable question, if that was a title that Catholics used to describe Mary, but what puzzles me is that people ask the question at all. Personally I don’t know of any current Church teaching that attributes this title to Mary. As evidence of this I turn to the most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Usually the absence of evidence is not considered evidence. However when one is consulting an authoritative and comprehensive summation of Roman Catholic teaching, the omission of this particular title is significant. The most recent catechism of the Roman Catholic Church was called for, by pope John Paul II in 1985. A first edition was issued in 1992, and revised over the next five years. In his Apostolic Letter, "Laetamur Magnopere," the introduction to the Latin text of the second edition of the Catechism, pope John Paul II states that this catechism is:       …a full, complete exposition of       Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone       to know what the Church professes,       celebrates, lives and prays in her       daily life.       p. xiv, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). Further on, paragraph 11, of the 904 page catechism, defines itself as a compendium of all Catholic teaching.       This catechism aims at presenting an organic       synthesis of the essential and fundamental       contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards       both faith and morals, in light of the       second Vatican Council and the whole       of Church tradition.       p. 9, paragraph 11, "CCC" If you turn to page 823 of the catechism, you will find a list of titles that the Church uses for Mary. The titles "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Redemptrix" are not among them. Given that this catechism was written over a period of seven years and its revision took an additional five years, and considering that it looks to recall "the whole" of Catholic Tradition, the lack of these titles would confirm that the titles "Co-Redemptrix," and "co-redeemer," are neither an essential nor a fundamental part of Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, the current catechism was written "in the light of" Vatican II, and when we look to that council for guidance in this matter, we find that the Fathers of the council also expressed some concerns about this title. A concern that has been affirmed and codified by the title’s omission from the current Catechism:       …the (Vatican II) Council did not see fit to       encourage invoking (Mary) by the name or title       Co-Redemptrix, since that is too easily       misinterpreted as making her a fellow redeemer       with Christ.       p. 427, "Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine,"       Russell Shaw, (ed.), Our Sunday Visitor       Publishing, (1997). And here again, the documents of the council pertaining to Mary received such vast consideration over several years that the absence of the title is extremely significant. In addition to this, the Encyclopedia itself goes on to explicitly warn people away from using this particular title:       …it is safer not to invoke [Mary]       as Co-Redemptrix…       p. 427, "Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine." According to p. iv, of the "Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine," this statement is free from all doctrinal error. The fact that certain individuals, liturgies and popes have used the term "Co-Redemptrix" or "co-redeemer," in the past, would not necessarily contradict the fact that the Church does not teach this term today. In fact the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" acknowledges that these statements have been taken into account. The Catechism states that it is a summation and examination of "the whole of Church tradition," stating that it uses the following sources:       …Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy,       and the Church’s Magisterium.       P. 9, paragraph 11, "CCC" So, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has reviewed all references made in the past to this title and has not found those references compelling enough to warrant the title’s inclusion in an authoritative and comprehensive summation of Catholic teachings. This also underscores the fact that this title’s omission from the Catechism means that it is neither "essential" nor "fundamental" to the faith. Nor did the solemn council of Vatican II, find these quotes made by various sources, compelling enough to cause them to include this title in their writings on Mary’s role in the Life of the Church. The fact that previous statements have been made concerning this title would underscore rather than undermine the fact that the Church does not teach this title today, since the statements were made and yet they were not found compelling. In addition to the very distinct omission of the solemn council, and the omission of this title from the most recent catechism, there is additional evidence that this title is not taught by the Church. In 1854, a compendium of Church councils and papal pronouncements, was compiled. This is called the "Enchiridion Symbolorum." It is also known variously as "Denzinger," "Denzinger-Schonmetzer" or simply "DS." With its collection of Latin and Greek theological and historical texts, "DS" is used by the Church in its … read more »

Response:

Hello Scout Lady,     Look, have you followed the course of this thread?  The word, "diabolical," was used by Mr. Geloso previously, in describing anyone who points out that, "Co-Redemptrix" is not part of Roman Catholic Church teaching.  That is the truth no matter how it is sliced, diced, or processed in the food processor.  If you are such the, "pit bull" for the truth, you would admit this, too.  If Mr. Geloso, or Scott Gentile, or yourself, or anyone else for that matter, speaks as if to define what being a good Catholic is all about, I would like to be assured that what they say, is the God’s honest Truth.  It would seem to me, that anyone who throws words out there into the ether, claiming that it is all about being a good Catholic, should ensure that they are adhering to the official Church stand.  It is my contention that Joseph Geloso is not sticking to what the Church says it is about. Joseph Geloso is picking and choosing from other’s words, and making up his own theology, and passing it off as Catholic.  When a Catholic makes Catholics look bad, I will stand up and say something, Lord willing.  When a Christian makes Christ look bad, I will stand up and say something, Lord willing.  I am human.  I will have my failings.  Of this I am not afraid. It comes with the territory.  You don’t like the tone and tenor of my words directed at Joseph Geloso, I see that they are harsh, I admit that.  You say that I have a poor attitude.  I would ask that you could elucidate on this for me?  I always hope to improve my attitude.  We are all human, and prone to failure.  I see from other of your posts, Scout Lady, that you appear to be into the whole Marian phenomena, as well as Mr. Geloso.  You might not have the ability to stand back and give an unbiased view on this. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Scout Lady.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To Scott and Joseph,     The only thing that is diabolical in this thread, is your misuse of the head that God gave you.  Use it for something other than a hat rack, will you? — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. God loves you. And God loves you to despite your poor attitude.

Response:

The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. This certainly causes some confusion.

I do not know what you mean by that; it seems crystal clear to me. Would you explain, please? However the example of co-pilot shows that co- is not necessarily equal.<

If it confuses, then of course you may leave it out. But a co-pilot may actually be senior to a pilot if he is a relief pilot. Does that help? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But I think this is largely irrelevant.  Simply making it clear that Mary is not being made equal to Christ isn’t going to be enough to make this idea acceptable.  Here is what well-informed Protestants are afraid Catholics mean:   The doctrine, essentially, is that as a special privilege and reward   for her perfection, all Graces that Jesus, as the one Mediator between   the Father and Man, obtains for us, are dispensed by and through the   Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven.   [Paul McLachlan, http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/mediatrix.asp] It is very clear that in this Mary is inferior to Christ.  But that’s not enough.  It very much looks like this doctrine makes her into a second mediator.  Even if this mediator is inferior to Christ, Christianity asserts that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).  An additional mediator, even if inferior, is still a problem. No longer is Christ the mediator between God and man.  He’s now the mediator between God and Mary, and Mary is then the mediator between Christ and man.  It’s this that needs to be disclaimed, more than equality between Christ and Mary. I believe many of us are also concerned about the concept that her suffering in the crucifixion together with Christ’s merited our redemption.<

Mary’s suffering was soon over, and was anyway no more than that of any bereaved mother. Many others have suffered far more than that, including martyrs. As far as we know, Mary was not persecuted for her faith. It is by no means certain that she had any, which may be the attraction for Catholics. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182 :   With her suffering and dying Son she suffered and almost died, so did   she surrender her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of   human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained   to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that   she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. [from http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=14949] The problem is not with her suffering per se, but that it was part of the atonement (which seems to be what "to appease the justice of God" means). The following is also worrisome, as it seems to place her on the same level as Christ:   12. Pius XII, Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, Oct. 11, 1954. AAS 46.   634-35:   "In accomplishing this work of the redemption, the Most Blessed   Virgin Mary was certainly closely joined with Christ. . . was   associated with Jesus Christ, the very principle of salvation, by   divine plan, and indeed in a way similar to that in which Eve was   associated with Adam, the principle of death, so that we can say that   the work of our salvation was accomplished according to a certain   recapitulation. . . and if she was joined with her Son, even on   Golgotha, [and] she offered Him, together with the holocaust of her   Mother’s rights and love, like a New Eve, for all the sons of Adam,   defiled by his wretched fall, as a result, beyond doubt, it is right   to conclude that just as Christ, the New Adam should be called King   not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our   Redeemer, so by a certain analogy, the most Blessed Virgin is Queen,   not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because as the   New Eve she was associated with the New Adam"<

Probably the commonest Catholic visual image is that of a crowned Queen holding a helpless Jesus, before which the Catholic kneels. No matter what the rhetoric and reationalisation, that is the perceived reality for the average practising Catholic. My most serious concern is that in all of the papal statements I’ve looked at, I see no interest in setting limits.  I don’t doubt that it would be possible to define a role for Mary that as Protestant I might reject as superstition, but which I would acknowledge as still within the bounds of Christianity.  But I see no interest in defining a point beyond which speculation should not go.  At the moment I tentatively regard this doctrine as non-Christian, and the people who hold it as non-Christians, although I realize that Christ may well choose to ignore their theological errors and redeem them anyway.<

He cannot redeem anyone who comes to Him uncovered by the blood of His Son. We have one Advocate with the Father. If we have Him, we need no-one and nothing else whatever. To add anything at all to that blood is to remove it entirely. The situation is not helped by calling Mary Queen of Heaven, and heavenly Mother.  While technically she is certainly not being made part of the Trinity, the title certainly suggests it.  There’s something to be said for choosing modest language.<

No Christian would even suggest it; he might as well send himself to hell. There is no middle way. brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< Joseph, I think the following must have gone astray in the post; it seems to be for you and/or Scott. brachypodium ***** There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you. CCC#494 "At the announcement that she would give birth to ‘the Son of the Most High’ without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, MARY responded with the obedience of faith, certain that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’: ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’[Lk 1:28-38 ; cf. Rom 1:5 .]<

Romans 1: 5 has no mention of Mary, and indeed Paul never mentions Mary anywhere, even though she was presumably in Jerusalem when he visited. Thus, giving her consent to God’s word,<

It appears that you have not noticed the recent correspondence in this NG on this very subject. It is entitled ‘Gabriel vs. Mary?’, and started on the 2nd of this month. If you are unable to locate this thread please let me know, and I will e-mail it to you in its entirety in a single convenient post.  MARY becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person AND to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of REDEMPTION with him AND dependent on him, by God’s grace:[Cf. LG 56.]" http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html#MARY<

This quote and site propagate views antithetical to and confuted by Scripture, and the site also translates Scripture incorrectly. I have not checked minutely, but I do not think it contains any ‘argument’ that has not been despatched in this NG recently. brachypodium

Response:

The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger.

This certainly causes some confusion.  However the example of co-pilot shows that co- is not necessarily equal.   But I think this is largely irrelevant.  Simply making it clear that Mary is not being made equal to Christ isn’t going to be enough to make this idea acceptable.  Here is what well-informed Protestants are afraid Catholics mean:   The doctrine, essentially, is that as a special privilege and reward   for her perfection, all Graces that Jesus, as the one Mediator between   the Father and Man, obtains for us, are dispensed by and through the   Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven.   [Paul McLachlan, http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/mediatrix.asp] It is very clear that in this Mary is inferior to Christ.  But that’s not enough.  It very much looks like this doctrine makes her into a second mediator.  Even if this mediator is inferior to Christ, Christianity asserts that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).  An additional mediator, even if inferior, is still a problem. No longer is Christ the mediator between God and man.  He’s now the mediator between God and Mary, and Mary is then the mediator between Christ and man.  It’s this that needs to be disclaimed, more than equality between Christ and Mary. I believe many of us are also concerned about the concept that her suffering in the crucifixion together with Christ’s merited our redemption.   Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182 :   With her suffering and dying Son she suffered and almost died, so did   she surrender her mother’s rights over her Son for the salvation of   human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained   to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that   she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. [from http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=14949] The problem is not with her suffering per se, but that it was part of the atonement (which seems to be what "to appease the justice of God" means). The following is also worrisome, as it seems to place her on the same level as Christ:   12. Pius XII, Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, Oct. 11, 1954. AAS 46.   634-35:   "In accomplishing this work of the redemption, the Most Blessed   Virgin Mary was certainly closely joined with Christ. . . was   associated with Jesus Christ, the very principle of salvation, by   divine plan, and indeed in a way similar to that in which Eve was   associated with Adam, the principle of death, so that we can say that   the work of our salvation was accomplished according to a certain   recapitulation. . . and if she was joined with her Son, even on   Golgotha, [and] she offered Him, together with the holocaust of her   Mother’s rights and love, like a New Eve, for all the sons of Adam,   defiled by his wretched fall, as a result, beyond doubt, it is right   to conclude that just as Christ, the New Adam should be called King   not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our   Redeemer, so by a certain analogy, the most Blessed Virgin is Queen,   not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because as the   New Eve she was associated with the New Adam" My most serious concern is that in all of the papal statements I’ve looked at, I see no interest in setting limits.  I don’t doubt that it would be possible to define a role for Mary that as Protestant I might reject as superstition, but which I would acknowledge as still within the bounds of Christianity.  But I see no interest in defining a point beyond which speculation should not go.  At the moment I tentatively regard this doctrine as non-Christian, and the people who hold it as non-Christians, although I realize that Christ may well choose to ignore their theological errors and redeem them anyway. The situation is not helped by calling Mary Queen of Heaven, and heavenly Mother.  While technically she is certainly not being made part of the Trinity, the title certainly suggests it.  There’s something to be said for choosing modest language.

Response:

 Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore it is not official Church Teaching.

Where do you find it written that the Catechism is infallible? God’s Gift of Infallibility resides in His Popes, not in Catechisms. Catechisms are intended for instruction in the Faith, not for settling disputes. When there is a dispute, recourse must be had to the living Magisterium. That is why I remain obedient to the Pope as regards Co-Redemptrix, as well as many, many other things. He honors her as such. You should follow his example.

Response:

:  Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore : it is not official Church Teaching. : Where do you find it written that the Catechism is infallible? God’s : Gift of Infallibility resides in His Popes, not in Catechisms. : Catechisms are intended for instruction in the Faith, not for settling : disputes. When there is a dispute, recourse must be had to the living : Magisterium. That is why I remain obedient to the Pope as regards : Co-Redemptrix, as well as many, many other things. He honors her as : such. You should follow his example. Has the Pope made any ex cathedra statement on Mary’s alleged title of "co-redemtrix?"  I don’t think so.  Without that, he can say what he believes about Mary as much as he likes, and we don’t have to believe it. He would have to make an official statement on the doctrine for it to be binding. Even if he did so, "co-redemptrix" would most likely refer to her willingness to participate in God’s plan of redemption.  Without Mary’s participation, the Incarnation would not have happened (but she was chosen by God before time to carry out the part of the Plan of Salvation that hinged on a human woman giving birth to the Savior.)  It would hinge totally on Christ, not her. For example, her title "co-mediatrix" refers back to the one mediation that does Christ does on our behalf.  Without Christ’s sole mediation to the Father, she couldn’t mediate for us with Christ to the Father. However, in as sense we are *all* co-mediators!  We all have access to the Father through Christ, so Mary is the model for prayer to the Father through Christ.  Just as my friend can ask me to pray for him to the Father through Christ, so I can ask Mary to pray for me through Christ. He "co-mediatrix" title is simply the archetype for the mediation for others that we all have.  It all hinges on Christ.  No Christ, no mediation period.  With Christ, we all have access to the Father. So *if* the Pope or Church were ever to make an official statment on a title of "co-redemptrix" for Mary, it would have to hinge on Christ, and simply officialy specify her role as the Mother of the Savior, and the very important part she played in the drama of salvation.  However, since nothing official to my knowledge has been said on this issue, this arguement isn’t like flogging a dead horse, it’s flogging an empty space where one *thinks* a horse is lying, but it isn’t. Dan

Response:

To Scott and Joseph,     The only thing that is diabolical in this thread, is your misuse of the head that God gave you.  Use it for something other than a hat rack, will you? — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. God loves you.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello brachypodium,     Yes, I see the error in my earlier posting.  My words were not directed at you.  Only those who lie about Church Teaching.  Joseph Geloso and Scott Gentile seem to be particularly adept at it.  As I pointed out, just because a person, and let’s take for example, the Pope, were to mention something, like say for example, if he were to say that red were his favorite color, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  Joseph and Scott, you need to get your heads out of the sand now.  Wake up and smell reality.  You do not help in the plan of Salvation, by spreading lies about the Church. Figure it out, will you?  Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore it is not official Church Teaching.  Give up your lies, and speak the Truth, for once.  Witness that. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. May Jesus be with you. Thanks for your remarks, Robert. I think you must have posted it incorrectly, however error, so I have taken the liberty of sending it to the appropriate correspondent. b.     There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching. If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you. Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix,< That means, in precise terms, that she is indeed redemptrix, though not exclusively so. It also means that at least one other person must also be co-redemptor/co-redemptrix, in this case, Christ. The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply.< On the contrary, they show a proper understanding of English as it should be applied. We cannot proceed on private interpretation of the meaning of a word or phrase. If some RCC members are unable to articulate precise meaning it is unsurprising if their seniors are wary of embracing their views wholeheartedly. If the present definition is inadequate, as your comment implies, then more work will be needed to reach an accurate one, unless of course there is deliberate intention to mislead. brachypodium ~SLG Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

Hello brachypodium,     Yes, I see the error in my earlier posting.  My words were not directed at you.  Only those who lie about Church Teaching.  Joseph Geloso and Scott Gentile seem to be particularly adept at it.  As I pointed out, just because a person, and let’s take for example, the Pope, were to mention something, like say for example, if he were to say that red were his favorite color, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  Joseph and Scott, you need to get your heads out of the sand now.  Wake up and smell reality.  You do not help in the plan of Salvation, by spreading lies about the Church. Figure it out, will you?  Co-Redemptrix is not in the Catechism, therefore it is not official Church Teaching.  Give up your lies, and speak the Truth, for once.  Witness that. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. May Jesus be with you.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for your remarks, Robert. I think you must have posted it incorrectly, however error, so I have taken the liberty of sending it to the appropriate correspondent. b.     There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you. Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix,< That means, in precise terms, that she is indeed redemptrix, though not exclusively so. It also means that at least one other person must also be co-redemptor/co-redemptrix, in this case, Christ. The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply.< On the contrary, they show a proper understanding of English as it should be applied. We cannot proceed on private interpretation of the meaning of a word or phrase. If some RCC members are unable to articulate precise meaning it is unsurprising if their seniors are wary of embracing their views wholeheartedly. If the present definition is inadequate, as your comment implies, then more work will be needed to reach an accurate one, unless of course there is deliberate intention to mislead. brachypodium ~SLG Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

   There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  

That is correct. And Mary is associated with His Redemption in an especial and singular way. That is why she is called "Co-Redemptrix." There are many proofs of this, and much can be found at http://www.marymediatrix.com . Pope John Paul II has referred to her under this title several times, and previous popes as well. So, if you have a problem with it, please take it up with the Pope, since he is the one with whom you have an argument, not me. I am simply faithful to the Catholic Faith the way the Pope teaches it. That’s simple. Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother.

… which diabolic opposition you are participating in.

Response:

Thanks for your remarks, Robert. I think you must have posted it incorrectly, however error, so I have taken the liberty of sending it to the appropriate correspondent. b.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you. Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix,< That means, in precise terms, that she is indeed redemptrix, though not exclusively so. It also means that at least one other person must also be co-redemptor/co-redemptrix, in this case, Christ. The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply.< On the contrary, they show a proper understanding of English as it should be applied. We cannot proceed on private interpretation of the meaning of a word or phrase. If some RCC members are unable to articulate precise meaning it is unsurprising if their seniors are wary of embracing their views wholeheartedly. If the present definition is inadequate, as your comment implies, then more work will be needed to reach an accurate one, unless of course there is deliberate intention to mislead. brachypodium ~SLG Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.<

Joseph, I think the following must have gone astray in the post; it seems to be for you and/or Scott. brachypodium ***** There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace.  Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you.

Response:

    There is one Redeemer, Jesus.  There is one Savior, Jesus.  God did not send two Saviors.  Jesus died on the Cross, not Mary.  The Blood of Jesus was shed on the Cross to forgive us our sin, not Mary’s.  Mary had a human father.  Jesus’ blood Father, is God.  The Catechism does not call Mary, Co-Redemptrix, for a reason.  Because, Jesus is the one and only, Redeemer. Anyone who calls Mary a Co-Redemptrix, and acts like that is official Church Teaching is either lost in a fantasy realm of their own creation, or they have made themselves part and parcel to spreading lies about the Church. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.  It is the Truth.  I will stand with that.  If you try to stand, saying that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that part of you will be burned away, because it is not God’s Truth.  And it is not Church Teaching.  Are you a liar?  Speak now or forever hold your peace.  Be careful of your word.  Choose wisely.  Just because someone mentions the term, Co-Redemptrix, that does not make it official Church Teaching.  If it were dogmatic, then it would be in the Catechism.  It is not in the Catechism.  So, stop spreading your lies and confusion.  You, who are trying to throw the term, "Co-Redemptrix" around as if it were Catholic dogma, are being identified as having more in relation with the father of lies, than with the Father of Jesus.  Consider yourself  "called out" on your lies. — Sincerely, Robert G. Wolfert P.S. Peace of Jesus be with you.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix,< That means, in precise terms, that she is indeed redemptrix, though not exclusively so. It also means that at least one other person must also be co-redemptor/co-redemptrix, in this case, Christ. The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply.< On the contrary, they show a proper understanding of English as it should be applied. We cannot proceed on private interpretation of the meaning of a word or phrase. If some RCC members are unable to articulate precise meaning it is unsurprising if their seniors are wary of embracing their views wholeheartedly. If the present definition is inadequate, as your comment implies, then more work will be needed to reach an accurate one, unless of course there is deliberate intention to mislead. brachypodium ~SLG Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix,<

That means, in precise terms, that she is indeed redemptrix, though not exclusively so. It also means that at least one other person must also be co-redemptor/co-redemptrix, in this case, Christ. The prefix ‘co-’ means ‘together’, ‘joint’ or even ‘equal’ (see Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Religious usage bears this out, as in ‘co-eternal’. Normal usage bears it out also. A co-worker is a worker, as is at least one one other; a co-owner of a property is not a non-owner. No-one expects a co-pilot to be not a pilot, but a passenger. and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply.<

On the contrary, they show a proper understanding of English as it should be applied. We cannot proceed on private interpretation of the meaning of a word or phrase. If some RCC members are unable to articulate precise meaning it is unsurprising if their seniors are wary of embracing their views wholeheartedly. If the present definition is inadequate, as your comment implies, then more work will be needed to reach an accurate one, unless of course there is deliberate intention to mislead. brachypodium – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ~SLG Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

Mary is not Redemptrix:  She is Co-Redemptrix, and such questions as yours show a lack of understanding for what the name is really meant to imply. ~SLG

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.< How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.<

How can Mary be ‘redemptrix’ if she needed to be redeemed herself? brachypodium

Response:

Our Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix of the human race. She redeemed the human race together with her Divine Son. No one disputes this; yet, there are those who, while acknowledging this Catholic doctrine, refuse to invoke Our Blessed Mother under her title of Co-Redemptrix, and even go so far as to assert that the hierarchy of the Church herself, "warns" people against using this title. Such is the diabolic opposition to Our Blessed Mother. The reasons given for the refusal to acknowledge her Co-Redemption of the world vary from, "the Church does not acknowledge her as such," to "it would be too confusing for converts." But these "reasons" do not stand the light of day. The Church, through her various Popes over the years, and through many of her Saints and Beati, very definitely does acknowledge Our Blessed Mother’s Co-Redemption of the world. It has been explicitly stated several times. Those who desire a bare minmum of faith in general, are those who will not acknowledge he in this way. They look for the absolute minimum of what they *must* believe as Catholics. They are the kind of people who need a dogmatic pronouncement, ex cathedra, before they will believe anything. It is for the sake of such people that God will issue dogmatic pronouncements on any number of things. But there is another kind of Catholic, who acknowledges with Saint Paul that "love believes all things…" — who are not afraid to believe anything, and test all things to see whether they be good, and retain that which is good. And good is defined as that which brings us closer to God. These are the people who have been petitioning the Holy Father for a dogmatic pronouncement — precisely the ones who do not need such a pronouncement, but for the sake of those others who do. As to confusion caused by the title of "Co-Redemptrix" — that some may interpret this as placing Our Blessed Mother on an equal plane with her Divine Son: I do not see how that would come about. This "reason" for rejecting the title seems little more than a smokescreen for a more general disavowal of Our Blessed Mother’s unique and essential role in our salvation. The very title is self-explanitory: "Co-Redemptrix." It means, one who redeems together with another. It is not "Redemptrix," the way Our Lord is Redeemer. He has not ever been called "Co-Redeemer," as if His role was somehow subordinate to hers; rather, the reverse, her roile as subordinate to His, is manifest in the twin titles of Redeemer and Co-Redemptrix. Again, she is not "Co-Divine" — that would be heresy. She shares in the Divinity of her Son in the same manner that we do — she receives Him in Holy Communion. She is not by nature Divine — He is by nature Divine. Thus, the title, "Co-Redemptrix," is entirely fitting and 100% accurate.

Response: