Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Calling Mary coredemptrix is not saying she was not one of the redeemed.
First it would help if an agreement of what is meant by Co redeemer is met. Here is the explanation given by those who support the title of Coredemptrix. Keep in mind also that it is not official Catholic doctrine. And as such does not have to be believed by the faithful.
“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.”
“Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is “participation” in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title “Coredemptrix” never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary’s unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. “Coredemptrix” is a Latin word; the prefix “co” in the title, “Coredemptrix,” derives from the Latin word “cum,” which means “with,” not “equal to.” Mary’s sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will.”
Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers, no additional mediators! Clear enough?
“But what about our role in bringing people to Christ, preaching the Gospel, as teachers, pointing people to Christ .... and so on? We can be mediators in that fashion. Surely you do not disagree that faith comes from (by grace) from receiving the gospel message.”
The idea of Mary as Coredemptrix acknowledges her unique role in the plan of salvation. All Christians have a role. In preaching the Gospel it is to be hoped that sinners will hear and come to Christ. If you or I preach that Gospel and the grace of the Lord is answered by that sinner, which is given the greater Glory? Our preaching or the Gospel? I say the Gospel.
Personally I think that such a title should remain a personal and pious devotion and not become doctrine. However the Holy Spirit does not give me the charism of infallibility so should it become doctrine I will submit to Mother Church. Of whom Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Oh I admit at times they sure nuff do place holes in the defenses and at times even crumble parts of the fortress. But Christ is good and His promise is all.
In all seriousness, this argument we are having with many posters here is gender based. That is, it is men using a logical argument style while women are using the “feeling/perception” argument style.
Notice it feels a little like arguing with liberals. There is a reason for that.
There is also a reason the Christian paradigm is patriarchal.
I am not the one who used the word “all” to condemn another’s beliefs.
Your statement was nothing more than a Big Fat Claim, which is worse than meaningless when not accompanied with supporting evidence.
I came here for the full half hour argument.
A lot of people “uniquely” participated in the redemption.
Judas did, Pilate did too.
So did Joseph, and Simon of Cyrene.
That doesn’t make them co-redeemers, nor does what Mary did make her co-redeemer.
I stand corrected. It was the word for brother and used for close kin. The belief in the perpetual Virginity of Mary was also held by the reformers. I will argue that these reformers who found in Scripture evidence of Catholic abuses and adoption of non Scriptural practices surely would have rejected that doctrine if Biblical evidence plainly contradicted it. But here are their own words on the matter. Keep in mind they would not have hesitated to reject the teaching had they believed it oppossed in Scripture.
“Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)
John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639
None of these men ever minced words about what they believed was Catholic error. They had no reason to play nice or soften their opinon.
So I am curious why have so many modern day Protestants rejected this teaching? How one humble maid from Galilea be such a threat to them is beyond me.
Your choices are to make an effort to understand things you have a negative opinion about, or post slanders. So you choose to post slanders. Why not save even more of your valuable time and not post anything?
As I said I prefer it remain a personal devotion. Mainly because I think other Catholic Marian doctrines very cleary are evidence of God’s grace which are in time shared by all believers. We all will be made sinless, we all will one day be united body and soul with Him in heaven. As such proper belief in these doctrines gives Glory to Christ alone. But I think there is too much likelyhood for error and cultism developing from declaring Mary as coredemptrix official doctrine.
Mary did indeed cooperate with God’s plan for salvation and we should honor that. But it should not be elevated to where there is any possibility that it makes us forget that Jesus alone is savior and redeemer. Which I am afraid lacking firm teaching on the matter would too easily happen in a world too ignorant of Christ.
Shhh.
LOL! Yes, I cannot fully endorse my words either, but it is something I have thought about for some time. I think I agree, too!
Gads that NM April wind is fierce and cold today.
Forgot my wood glue.
uhhhh . . .
even the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature
is absolutely NO threat to Protty’s covered in the Blood of Jesus even if and when the imposter manifests as some sort of personage in league with the global government.
However, inordinate focus on the caricature is of significant hazard to some RC’s.
I am not “threatened” by Mary.
I think she must have been a wonderful person, to have been chosen by God for such a role. I am sure there are many things I can learn from her example, but no more so than any other person who obeyed the will of God at great personal cost.
God does not call perfect people to serve him, as there are NO perfect people. David was beloved of God and he did some truly vile things.
As I said above, I also refuse to believe that God rewarded her sacrifice by depriving her of other children, and forcing her and her husband to live a completely abnormal married life. The whole idea is completely contrary to the
character of God as He has revealed himself in Scripture.
But they are -- Joseph and James are called "brothers" at least questioningly in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, but they are identified as sons of Mary Cleopas in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56. Don't teach me Greek -- I know the language and the contemporary Greek culture, and I can tell you that when a group or relatives of the same generation is referred to, "adelphoi" is often used in lieu of more distant and formal "suggenoi", and certainly not very specific "anepsioi". Further, the conversation was most likely taking place in Aramaic, and in Hebrew we have a direct example of "brother" used instead of "cousin" in reference to Lot.
I post no slanders and I form a negative opinion about a thing only due to acquired knowledge. The more knowledge I have, the stronger the opinion.
I used to be a HUGE supporter of ethanol until I did some research. Regarding this issue, my wife was a STRONG bible reading Catholic for almost 50 years. We’ve discussed this issue at length with other catholic friends.
This thread was so goofy on it’s Mary infatuation that I thought it was beyond anything Catholic and involved some other fringe group. If this is what the Catholic rank and file actually believe, I would no longer consider Catholicism a Christian faith.
I can only assume, until further information presents itself, that this IS, in fact, fringe beliefs and not typical Catholic teaching and beliefs.
Forgive me my choice of words was meant as a general observation and not as a personal one. But still they were uncharitable.
Obviously we disagree about Mary’s perpetual Virginity. I pray we can agree on Salvation through Christ alone. And being united with one another through our faith in the Holy Trinity.
I don’t reject the teaching as much as I reject the preoccupation Catholics have with the teaching.
I don’t care if she remained a virgin or not. Any more than I care if the wood that made the Cross was oak or maple. I consider it of equal importance (or lack thereof).
My faith as a Christian is about my faith in Christ, not about what may or may not have happened to any one else. If she remained a virgin, great, if she had other children by Joseph, equally great. My faith is not threatened or affected in anyway by either scenario.
The fact that Catholicism requires me to tie my faith to believing that she remained a Virgin is what I object to, not the teaching itself.
Do you think her "free will" would have allowed her to say "no" and catch God by surprise.
If God says something will happen it will happen. God chose Mary to bear his son and sent an angel to tell her so. That is where her Blessedness among women came from not her "free will" choice.
“Christ died to take away our sins. He took away Mary’s sin ( in Catholic teaching) from the moment of her conception.”
In Catholic teaching is the ONLY place Mary was made sinless from her conception. Finally it’s in the light - the RCC made it up!
People are never sinless - we are cleansed from our sin by the blood of Christ and imbued with His righteousness. It’s Christ in the Christian that is without sin. As long as a human draws breath, he will sin. As did Mary, mother of Jesus, but NOT “Mother of God”.
Oh, Mommy, I didn’t realize you were lobbying for the Jr Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary role.
Guess what, Mommy, I’m over 18 . . . by about 43 years.
Maybe I could borrow some cheeky raspberries from some RC kiddies.
I have problems with two extremes views of Mary. One is the view that Mary was no more than a vessell an incubator or some kind of broody virgin. This view is usually not held even by Protestants who do not believe in her perpetual Virginity. The other view is of those who turn her into a pagan goddess and see in her the Great Mother or some kind of feminine aspect of the Godhead. Both insult her and God.
But of the two the latter is more dangerous because one usually only comes to believe this after rejecting the Truth of Christ and reducing him to some kind of demi god or ascended master or all around great bloke. You don’t reach heresy about Mary without first reaching heresy about Christ.
Most Protestants do see Mary between those extremes. They can not be accused of heresy in this regard and indeed have not fallen into error about Christ. They may be mistaken but not I think at cost to their souls. The labyrinth walking, solstice celebrating, raisin cake, Ishtar is Mary is Great Mother is Divine Feminine crowd well need some asbestos jump suits come judgement day.
True. True.
LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.