[b]Is Mary the 'Coredemptrix' of humanity?
[/b]by Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY -- When Pope Benedict XVI told a crowd in St. Peter's Square in April that the Virgin Mary "silently followed her son Jesus to Calvary, taking part with great suffering in his sacrifice, thus cooperating in the mystery of redemption and becoming mother of all believers," most listeners probably heard nothing remarkable in the statement.

After all, devotion to Mary is a pervasive element of the Catholic faith, and one of the features that most clearly distinguishes it from Protestantism.

Yet for one group of devotees, Benedict's statement was a milestone -- a sign that he had moved one step closer to granting their wish for a new dogma on Mary's contribution to human salvation.

Pastor AIO:

This movement to equate her to Jesus as redeemer is gathering strength in the Catholic folds.  Any opinions?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18162

Pastor AIO:

This movement to equate her to Jesus as redeemer is gathering strength in the Catholic folds. Any opinions?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18162

Carlosein:

i disagree with you debosky, the OP's original statement was
if you think that is not a 'clear' statement, then citing the article to buttress his point when there is no 'clear' statement in it
to buttress his claim is being mischievious to say the least.

then again debo, did [i]you read the link provided?
[/i]

In fact, the Church's magisterium (te[b]aching authority) has grown ever more convinced of the soundness of this insight of the Fathers and Doctors over the centuries and has come to see the Protoevangelium as a revelation of the indissoluble bond between Jesus and Mary in the work of our salvation[/b]. The Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, provides explicit corroboration of such an association by stating that Mary "i[b]s inseparably linked to her Son's saving work[/b]" (indissolubili nexu cum Filii sui opere salutari coniungitur) (#103) (5). This follows logically from a principle of capital importance enunciated by Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December 1854, namely that "God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom" (6).

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

This movement to equate her to Jesus as redeemer is gathering strength in the Catholic folds. Any opinions?

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind

ifele:

There is nothing in the New Testament that says we should bow down to or pray to images of saints.

Stay away from idolatry believers

~Lady~:


I don't mind people having an opposition to the Church, it will always be there, it was there even before the birth of the Church. What I cannot stand is when people cannot formulate a credible logical explanation for their stance. So I urge you to please be different and formulate a credible logical explanation for your stance against the Church.

Is the New Testament the only part of the Bible?

I get what is biting you catholic people. You've got a persecution complex. I'm not attacking anyone or in opposition to anyone, church or otherwise.

Me, I just found an interesting article that I thought was worth discussing. I realise now that anything of the sort will be impossible with you guys. I've been here before when I quoted a historical event from the early church councils and some catholics started foaming and cussing me. It was just an historical fact.

~Lady~:

So now the question is, did she not consent to give life to the redeemer? "Let it be done to me according to your word"

Did she not share in his life? As mother, as disciple?

Did she not suffer with him? What mother would watch her son die innocently and not feel suffering? Also as Simeon prophecies when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus to the temple, Mary's soul was to be pierced with a soul, that is referencing her own suffering.

Did she not sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind? Did she not idly watch by as her own Son was betrayed, ridiculued, insulted, scourged, and crucified?

I don't mind people having an opposition to the Church, it will always be there, it was there even before the birth of the Church. What I cannot stand is when people cannot formulate a credible logical explanation for their stance. So I urge you to please be different and formulate a credible logical explanation for your stance against the Church.

Pastor AIO:

I get what is biting you catholic people. You've got a persecution complex. I'm not attacking anyone or in opposition to anyone, church or otherwise.

I guess you've been bashed around so much by the pentecostals on this forum and the outside world that you imagine any attempt to discuss catholic doctrine to be an attack.

Me, I just found an interesting article that I thought was worth discussing. I realise now that anything of the sort will be impossible with you guys. I've been here before when I quoted a historical event from the early church councils and some catholics started foaming and cussing me. It was just an historical fact.

Anyway sha, yes I had read the article before posting it and I do know what a redemptrix is. I shouldn't have said equal to jesus as redeemer perhaps, but the basic point remains the same.

In any case, I have no more desire to discuss this subject with anyone, especially not a nairaland catholic.

debosky:

Maybe semantics is the problem here - he is alluding that the coredemptrix issue is a means to achieve a hidden goal. That is what is not 'clear'.

Whether I read the article or not is irrelevant - I am interpreting the casual linkage he has made between the coredemptrix matter and a perceived (by him) move to make Mary the redeemer alongside Jesus, nothing more.

Carlosein:

tell me you actually believe that!

debosky:

Believe it? What argument have I made regarding the contents of the article?

I have made no comments as to the article itself - it's contents do not prevent us discussing the validity of this coredemptrix idea. As you should have noted from my post, I do not support the coredemptrix principle, regardless of whether it equates to redeemer or not. I hope that is clear now.

Carlosein:

so all you are spoiling for is a baseless and senseless argument.

What 'consent'? She obeyed God, SIMPLE! If she didn't someone else would have been used, so Mary in herself is of LOW significance.

Yes she did, lots of mothers share their kids lives, it doesn't make them co-redemptrixes.

No one is denying her suffering, does the suffering make her integral to the process of redemption? NO

You speak as if she had a choice! Jesus lay down his life - she did not sacrifice ANYTHING since she had no choice in the matter. She COULD NOT stop it even if she wanted to, just as no one on earth could stop it. She experienced pain, but she did nothing 'on behalf of mankind'. Only Jesus did

We all have a role to play in Christianity, but no one, NO ONE has a higher role except Jesus - the rest of us are all followers, with no co-redemptrix status or any other inventions by the Catholics

~Lady~:

Isn't obedience a choice? Isn't a choice a consent? If she had the possiblity to disobey doesn't that mean she has the possiblity to obey as in give consent?

Or is it that you do not know what consent means?

Um yes it does, it most certainly does. I would advice you to actually learn what co-redemptrix means before you start flaring up against it and showing your ignorance.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

The views of Pope Leo XIII regarding Mary as Co-Redemptrix rely on Thomas Aquinas. From him he borrows the notion that Mary, in the hour of Annunciation, assumed the role of a helper in the mystery of redemption. Thus all Christians are born through Mary. [/b]With Jesus, Mary carried all in her womb.[b] Therefore all Christians are her children.

Would you mind showing how it does not?

She did have a choice, she could have prevented her heartache by saying no to God's will. By accepting his will she also accepted his suffering, also don't forget the prophecy by Simeon that she too would suffer.

No one says she did anything on behalf of mankind, see this is why I said you should find out what co-redemptrix mean, you just may find out that you're acting against what you're saying right now.

Did she not sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind?

Could you kindly explain how the co-redemptric title places Mary or anyone above Jesus?

Obedience is a choice - but she was A vessel, meaning others could be used. As such, she is not indispensable. Even if she disobeyed, it wouldn't prevent Jesus' birth

No it doesn't.

She was a vessel and nothing more . Why must everything have a fancy title in order to elevate people beyond what they aren't? Mary is NOT my mother and I am definitely not born through her. If the source of my opposition is not clear now, it never will be to you.

Let me give you a scenario - if she died at childbirth, would Jesus still not go on to complete the work of redemption? Yes he would, meaning her suffering played no role in the redemption. It is the death of Jesus that achieves redemption - HIS suffering and no one else.

She had a choice in whether SHE would suffer, but if she refused, someone else would have taken her place. She made NO choice as to whether Jesus would die or not. In fact, once he was born, she was powerless to do ANYTHING about the path that was set already.

you said this

Indicating she made a sacrifice FOR mankind, by your words. She did no such thing. The only 'choice' was in being a vessel by which Jesus came - beyond that, she did not do anything meriting of any other titles

I never said the title places Mary above Jesus, reread my comment. I said there is Jesus and then followers, no coredemptrixes, no 'Mother of God' 'Mother of All Christians' or any other inventions of the Catholic Church.

We all have a role to play in Christianity, but no one, NO ONE has a higher role except Jesus - the rest of us are all followers, with no co-redemptrix status or any other inventions by the Catholics

~Lady~:

And that automatically makes her irrelevant. It's funny first you say it wasn't a choice, now you say it's a choice. Pls make up your mind. So your mother would be irrelevant for choosing to give birth to you?

This is one of the biggest insult to motherhood and all women everywhere. We are not baby making factories.
Prove that it doesn't and pls make sure you explain it well.

So your mother is nothing more than a thing to bring you to earth?

Elevate who to what? God himself elevated her when he gave her a greeting fit for a queen. God himself Hailed her and you think you're bigger than God to reduce his own mother?

She is your mother, if Jesus is your brother, Mary is your mother, if she isn't, God the Father is not your Father because we are adopted sons and daughters of God through Christ (Galatians 4:4-5). Christ has a mother and father, if his father is your father, so is his mother. When a child is adopted, he is not adopted as the child of the mother and not the father or the father and not the mother.

So whether you deny it or not, if you are the brother of Christ, you are also the child of Mary. Not just that, Jesus gave Mary to us when he gave her to his beloved disciple at the foot of the cross, we are his beloved disciples, and John the beloved disciple was standing in place of us.

Yes because she suffered to bring the redeemer to the world, so either way she did suffer too and it would probably be even greater, because it would mean she gave her life to bring the redeemer to the world.
I think that in itself is suffering galore.
But in reality she didn't die at childbirth, she saw her only son die at the foot of the cross, and it was prophecied by simeon that she too would suffer, so i think that's enough to tell us that she suffered.

And so because she suffered she is irrelevant?
That makes it even more meritorious, knowing that she doesn't HAVE to suffer, but she CHOSE to suffer, she allowed herself pain in order for you and me to receive salvation, that is a BIG deal and infact an insult to her by you.

You know what you're right she did do something for mankind, she gave us our redemption, our salvation. You do know that Jesus is our redemption, our salvation and she gave us him.

you insinuated that the title gives her a higher role than Jesus. If you believe it doesn't, what's the fuss about?

Jesus is the only begotten son of God - that sonship did not begin when Mary gave birth to Jesus, it has always been so - Mary being a vessel to bring Jesus into the world did not initiate that sonship and as such is NOT a part of the sonship I get through the death (NOT birth) and resurrection of Jesus

Don't muddle things up - she had no choice as to Jesus' death. She did have a choice in allowing herself to be a vessel, so if she refused, ANOTHER vessel would have been chosen. In the bigger picture, whether Mary chose to birth the Saviour or not, it would have happened, so in that sense, her choice is secondary - I hope that is clear.

The above explains it - I have no grouse with her motherhood, but that's where it ends motherhood, no co-redemptrix, nothing more.

This isn't about my mother - Jesus' case was an extraordinary case and yes, Mary was simply a vessel in a higher aim. My relationship with my mother is completely different - I was not the King of Kings who was brought through my mother, so we are of a different relationship.

God's mother? When did God give her this title? He said she is blessed among women - where in the bible was she referred to as the mother of God? Show me. The greeting he gave her, did it include this 'mother of God' title?

That is a humanistic interpretation - My adoption is spiritual not physical, since God my Father is a Spirit. This twisted interpretation of yours does not apply to me. Christ's human father was Joseph, and he was not my father, so Mary is not my mother.

He did not give her to 'us' he gave her to the SPECIFIC person he was talking to - why the Catholics interprete this to mean 'us' is beyond me. If you think she was given to you, enjoy it, she wasn't given to me

She suffered, no doubt about it, but she is not a part of redemption by her suffering. Mary Magdalene suffered as well watching Jesus die, and she was arguably closer to Jesus given what she went through, I guess she's also a co-redemptrix by virtue of suffering too.

Again, she did no such thing - if she did not play the role, someone else would have done it. Meritorious yes, but that's where it ends. She 'allow herself' pain yes - once Jesus was born, that was the end of it. If she chose to allow or not, it would not stop the work of salvation

She did no such thing - she is as much a recipient of salvation as the rest of us - this warped thought process of yours is the problem. She was a sinner and had to be saved like everyone else, so how can someone who needs redemption give redemption? Once again, she was a vessel for the physical birth of the Saviour, nothing more.

I did no such thing. Again, if comprehension is the problem, let me rephrase. All believers are equal, no one believer has a HIGHER role compared to other believers. Mary is a believer, she received Jesus into her life and got her own redemption that way, just like the rest of us. Yes she had a meritorious role in physical birthing of the saviour, but that's where it ends