Brother Adam Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 Wow. I just found out from a fellow Catholic PM'er that this doctrine is a heresy. I'm glad to find this out since the more i read about it the more it scared me. Don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for Mary, but to declare that she suffered for the sins of the world with Christ is WAY wrong. When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10). And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix." It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
BLAZEr Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 This doctrine is not a heresy. It's not even a doctrine. But its still not a heresy.
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 Don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for Mary, but to declare that she suffered for the sins of the world with Christ is WAY wrong. Agreed completely... Mary should be respected, honored, and revered... And, while her role was vital for God's plan to unfold, she is not the means through which we are given salvation... It is through Christ...
Dave Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) Agreed completely... Mary should be respected, honored, and revered... And, while her role was vital for God's plan to unfold, she is not the means through which we are given salvation... It is through Christ... But it doesn't mean that she's the means of salvation rather than Christ. BTW, I sense a debate coming on. Moderators, you know what you need to do! Edited February 8, 2004 by Dave
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 But it doesn't mean that she's the means of salvation rather than Christ. BTW, I sense a debate coming on. Moderators, you know what you need to do! REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION of "Co-Redemptrix" I suppose I misunderstood what the term means... She is definitely NOT "Co-Redeemer"... I thought that's what it meant...shame on this cradle Catholic! :blink:
willguy Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 The idea of Mary being equal to Christ in his salvific work is heresy. However, the idea of Co-Redemptrix does not usually mean this. The prefix "co-" is not meant to imply equality, but simply "worked with." Obviously Mary's work contributed to our salvation, much the same way that if you witness to your friend you are contributing to their salvation. We all can assist in the redemption of another, the same way Mary participated in ours (well, not the exact same way, as we won't be giving birth to Christ, but you get what I mean). Edited by willguy because I made a blunder and said something very wrong.
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 We are all, in a sense, Co-Redeemers. Ummmm.... I REALLY gotta disagree with this statement, bro....
Dave Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION of "Co-Redemptrix" I suppose I misunderstood what the term means... She is definitely NOT "Co-Redeemer"... I thought that's what it meant...shame on this cradle Catholic! 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you, inDEED! :P
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 The idea of Mary being equal to Christ in his salvific work is heresy. However, the idea of Co-Redemptrix does not usually mean this. The prefix "co-" is not meant to imply equality, but simply "worked with." I agree with this! :D
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you, inDEED! :lol:
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) I just found out from a fellow Catholic PM'er that this doctrine is a heresy. Actually this doctrine is not heresy but is an official teaching of the Catholic Church. If it's heresy you could point to where this doctrine was condemned. You cannot do this. And it can be shown that this doctrine has been taught by the ordinary magisterium in a definitive way. Here is my post from a couple weeks ago on this doctrine: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6422&hl= Also note that this teaching will be proclaimed dogma at some point. The sooner the better. Also if any of you really think this doctrine is heresy (first I would say you probably don't understand the doctrine), be aware that you would be calling some pretty interesting people heretics. Pope Leo XIII, St. Pope Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul II, etc.. Not to mention countless saints and some of the greatest theologians ever. And there are hundreds of cardinals and bishops in the Church today who promote the proclaimation of this doctrine as a dogma. It's only a matter of time. Edited February 8, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum
willguy Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 inDEED, I was using the word Co-Redeemer incorrectly. Let me say that we all, in a sense, can work with Christ in the salvation of another, the same way Mary, as Co-Redemptrix, assisted in our salvation. I'll edit my original post to say that.
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) We are all, in a sense, Co-Redeemers. Ummmm.... I REALLY gotta disagree with this statement, bro.... It's part of catholic doctrine. That's what redemptive suffering is all about. It's co-redemptive suffering if you want to get technical. This is the basis of offering things up. This is the basis of making reparation, of victim souls, etc. This is also the basis of Catholics being able to say that suffering has meaning. It's a biblical concept and it's what the Church teaches. You may not like it, but it's at the heart of the Catholic Faith. We are not simply saved through imputed righeousness or something, we are associated with the paschal mystery and have become sharers or cooperators in Christ's work of salvation. Edited February 8, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum
inDEED Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 Laudate_Dominum: You're right...I COMPLETELY misunderstood what the term "Co-Redemptrix" means...as I suppose Brother Adam did as well. My apologies! willguy: I feel what you were sayin' bro...no harm!
Brother Adam Posted February 8, 2004 Author Posted February 8, 2004 Wow. As it stands there is no way I can accept that teaching....
Norseman82 Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 Brother Adam, paragraphs 967-970 of the Catechism should be of help in understanding what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary's role in our salvation (it all boils down to/stems from the fact because she said "Yes" to God, Jesus came into the world).
BLAZEr Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 Think about St. Paul here, Bro Adam. Think here Colossian 1:24 . . . what is Paul saying? That Christ didn't suffer enough? That it wasn't his sacrifice alone, but his along with Paul's that reconciled the Colossians from sin? No, Paul is saying here that he cooperates with Christ's saving act, in a particular way through his love and work for the Colossians. All of us, in a way, can be co-redeemers with Christ (co does not mean equal). All of us can participate in that one saving act of Christ in different ways. Some of us can be missionaries who will take Christ to people who have never met him. Some of us will care for the sick, poor, and needy in a way that helps them to know Christ. And one of us, in a singular and extraordinary way, said yes to God before knowing Christ but said yes in a such a full and complete way that in her womb, her barren and hopeless womb, there came forth life. Her "yes" was necessary for our salvation. Her yes made his saving act possible. It's scandalous to think that God would allow salvation to depend on a mere human, but that's exactly what happened. And it continues to happen today. Salvation depends on mere humans spreading the Good News of the Gospel. But there would be no Gospel if not for that one human we call Mary. And we believe that Mary was so united with her son's heart that she suffere with him through his passion, (cum (with) passione (suffering) . . . compassionate). Mary is the model of compassion becasue she was of one heart with her son, whom she followed to the Cross. Her sorrow and her letting him go to his death is for us the primary way to understand how to love Jesus on the Cross. So mary is our primary teacher in understanding the Passion. This whole thing might make more sense after watching Mel Gibson's movie. I hear he does a good job of demonstrating this compassion. Anyway . . . let's keep dialoguing about it . . . let's make sure we both understand this idea of "co-redemptrix" better and correctly . . . in its truth . . .
M.SIGGA Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 where does it officially say that co-redemptorix is an official teaching? I was taught it was a belief by some, but nothing official. I heard Mother Angelica say that she encourages it be made an official teaching. I also heard the the eastern orthodox hope catholics don't make it official because it could damage relations or something like that. I also remember a petition being passed around in my parish to make it an official teaching. I like Mary's role just where it always has been - like don't make it dogma or anything.
BLAZEr Posted February 8, 2004 Posted February 8, 2004 The question isn't whether this is believed or not in traditional catholic theolgoy, M.Sigga (it is) the question is whether this should be combined into a 5th marian Dogma . . . which is saying that it must be believed definitively in a particular way by all Christians (obviously non-catholics don't have to believe it, they disbelieve plenty of other stuff). That's a big step and I'm not sure I think its a good step.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now