Do You Agree With The Proposed Dogma of Mary as Co-Redemptrix?


#1

Personally, I hope this dogma is not authoritatively defined because it doesn’t need to be. Things should only be defined when there is confusion and if it is edifying to the faithful.

We all know that the Blessed Mother helped Christ in his redemptive work by agreeing at the Annuciation, and by commanding his disciples to “do whatever he tells you” during the wedding at Cana. We also know that Our Lady has helped convert many sinners to Christ.

However, the dogma of “Co-Redemptrix” will only add to the confustion about Mary amongst Protestants and many faithful. Nothing will change if this dogma is defined; although I do think it will cause many people stress, particularly those within the Eastern rites who have had to deal with many latinizations over the years.

The reasoning behind this title is sound theologically, but I don’t see the need to declare this theological opinion as necessary for belief.

Furthermore, I do not see how this can be seen as an Apostolic belief. I know that the Eastern Orthodox would most certainly disagree with this dogma.


#2

This idea has been floating around for years. Either as co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix. I don’t see either one being put forth as dogma… :shrug:


#3

I totally disagree.

Please read this

motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1413&Itemid=40


#4

What don’t you agree with? That she should be named such? I’m against the idea, personally. But if the Church makes it dogma, I will follow along like a very chastened child. :blush:


#5

So we should “dumb down” the truth so the simple minded can understand?


#6

No we don’t need to dumb down the faith, but neither do we need to put forth teachings that are both hard and unnecessary, and which will only be a stumbling block both to most of the faithful and those of other faiths.


#7

The doctrine is already infallible because the ordinary magisterium has taught it over a constant period of time. Just like the Assumption, and the immaculateConception were already infallible prior to Piux IX and Pius XII defining the dogmas extraordinarily.
The question is whether the Pope should extaordinarily declare it infallible??? That is a matter for prudential debate. There are good reasons on both sides— However, CATHOLICS ARE NOT FREE TO REJECT THE CO-REDMEPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX, BECUASE THE MAGISTERIUM DOES TEACH THEM BOTH…GO TO CONFESSION BEFORE COMMUNION IF YOU HAVE REJECTED THEM–DONT SAY YOU WERENT WARNED!!! :eek:


#8

Completely DISAGREE.

Annie


#9

(Edited)

Catholics are free to do whatever they believe is right - just like everyone else. If the Catholic Church tells me that I MUST believe this, then I want nothing to do with it…NOBODY can even come close to Jesus in the way that some seem to think Mary does…It would be a disgrace to put Mary on such a pedistal:(

ANnie


#10

(Edited)

If one was unaware of the authoritative nature of this teaching, no sin was committed in rejecting it, and there is no need for confession.

(Although confession’s always a good idea :stuck_out_tongue: )


#11

Your statements demonstrate a total misunderstanding of what the titles actually mean.

That having been said, I do not think that this should be declared a dogma. There is no necessity and it would be a stumbling block for some.


#12

I agree with you, and I have given similar positions myself in the past on this topic. Part of the problem is language. Below are a couple paragraphs from a paper I wrote on this topic a couple of years ago–if interested.

"…the term Co-Redemptrix is confusing and poorly reflects its own intended purpose or meaning. The language is wrong. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary cites an early use of “Co-Redemptress” in 1865 by Dr. Pusey. As he was opposing its use, however, it is only logical to assume that the term has been in existence for some time prior to the 1860s. I was recently made aware that the best translation of Co-Redemptrix from the Latin would actually be as “woman with the redeemer”. The same student of Latin also noted that one of the problems with the prefix “co” in English is that it no longer always implies a lesser or inferior meaning. While some supporters of the Co-Redemptrix title do appear to actually believe in an equality of sorts between Mary and Jesus, most certainly do not. They assert that the prefix “co” implies only cooperation with, as opposed to equality with.

The truth of the matter is that in discussing this topic online with fellow Catholics, this distinction is frequently misunderstood. Why should we be surprised at this, however? The “co” prefix can imply equality in words such as coextensive, coeducation, or co-worker. This confusion may represent sufficient grounds on which to nix the Co-Redemptrix term. If it were our intent to simply confuse and obfuscate the true nature of Mary and her Son, we would have succeeded here beyond our wildest dreams. Why would we want to adopt a new title for Mary which serves only to confuse those who hear it proclaimed? This is one of the simplest reasons opposing the new title, but also one of the strongest…"

Having said this, I do suggest a great article in This Rock which concerned the important role that Mary does play in the Church. While there have probably been many articles meeting that description, one of the best was around December of 2006. I also appreciated Scott Hahn’s book entitled Hail, Holy Queen.


#13

I understand this dogma, but I disagree with the title Co-Redemptrix" because the title will be misleading and confusing to many people.

In modern English, the prefix “co” implies that Mary is equal with Christ as the Redeemer. I am aware of the Latin meaning, but we must realise that we speak English.

Also, a lot of the faithful in Latin America practice “folk” Catholicism, and many practically worship Mary. The 5th Marian Dogma will only add to this problem.


#14

The Church has already infallibly defined Mary’s cooperation and participation in the redemptive process. I think that most Catholics understand that. To add this title to the seemingly endless other titles already given to Mary, I would have to agree,would confuse.


#15

You seemed to have Hijacked my Thread. Simnply by giving it a slightly different title.

I did answer you in my Thread.

It seems to me that just talking about the Co-redemptrix, is already clearing up some confusion. First your knowledge of the english language, is about to be cleared up

Here is a definition of the prefix “co”, from the english language.
pref.
Together; joint; jointly; mutually: coeducation.
Partner or associate in an activity: coauthor; cofounder.
Subordinate or assistant: copilot.
To the same extent or degree: coextensive.
Complement of an angle: cotangent.
[Middle English, from Latin, variant of com-, com-.]

Once again you overlook the function of the “New Pentecost”. The New Pentecost will/can be an illumination of the conscious. This would help clear up this kind of thing. Not add to it.

Also you seem to be more interested in “People’s feelings”, rather than the Truth.


#16

Which magisterial documents already contain this dogma?


#17

You seemed to have Hijacked my Thread. Simnply by giving it a slightly different title.

The purpose of your thread was to encourage people to sign the petition to have this title dogmatically defined and proclaimed. This thread is a discussion of whether the Catholics on this forum agree or disagree with this title, and whether they think it needs to be proclaimed.

Once again you overlook the function of the “New Pentecost”. The New Pentecost will/can be an illumination of the conscious. This would help clear up this kind of thing. Not add to it.

Please explain this “New Pentecost.” How is it biblical? How is it supported by Tradition? Is it a part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith? Does it lead us to Jesus etc?

Feel free to post a link, but I’d be more interested in reading your explanation. It doesn’t have to be long, just a few paragraphs.

Also you seem to be more interested in “People’s feelings”, rather than the Truth.

This doctine is theologically sound, and I would state that I believe in it. However, I disagree with the title “Co-Redemptrix” because it is misleading. I believe an alternative title could express the same truth without being potentially confusing.

I have a devotion to Our Blessed Mother, but I think declarations should only be made to remove doubt and increase our understanding of a certain issue. There is no doubt that Mary helped in our Redemption and there is no confusion.

However, if you can convince me that this dogma needs to be defined, I will gladly sign any and all petitions. We can never venerate the Blessed Mother too much.


#18

The result of this would be confusion, which would aid the Adversary. So I say no.

Would Mary herself wish to be elevated to the same status as her Son? Has she given any indication she wants this, in an apparition approved by the Church i.e. not Medjugorje, Bayside, Amsterdam etc.?


#19

I really doubt that Mary would want the titles discussed here. She was, and is, a humble person who was chosen to give birth to our redeemer. That makes her the mother of God, not a “co” anything. While she plays a part in the salvation story, it doesn’t mean she is equal to her Son in the story. I think she might even be embarrassed by all this hoop-la.


#20

I really doubt that Mary would want the titles discussed here. She was, and is, a humble person who was chosen to give birth to our redeemer. That makes her the mother of God, not a “co” anything. While she plays a part in the salvation story, it doesn’t mean she is equal to her Son in the story. I think she might even be embarrassed by all this hoop-la.

Things of this importance need to be discussed. I don’t think the Blessed Mother would mind because she would want us to know the truth, especially if it increased our understanding of her beloved Son.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.