It’s still a devotion that makes an image of “Mary” something false. They claim her, without actually knowing her.
What do you mean?
She’s not co redemptrix
When people hear these titles do they believe:
And would it make a difference if they were interchanged?
Well, you were talking of a family member and Padre Pio, not Mary.
But let’s take, for example, Protestants. They have made an image of Jesus which at its core, for most, makes Him ‘false’; they deny the Real Presence and thus they deny the reality of Jesus Himself. Does that make their devotion to Jesus false, or is it incomplete?
A person who makes Mary into ‘more generous than God’ and truly thinks that Mary can do something God cannot certainly does not know Mary–or God–truly. But if that same person loves, honors, and obeys God to the best of his or her ability, believes in the ‘other teachings’ of the Church, and just has a mistaken understanding of one aspect of teaching–is that person wrapped up in a false devotion, or is that person misunderstanding devotion in one area but OK in others?
If we believe that Protestants have a true but incomplete knowledge of Christian teachings, and we don’t call their devotion to God ‘false’ but rather incomplete, or 'misguided in an area or two", then why do we take Marian devotion and insist on that being held to a completely different standard whereby an incomplete knowledge or misunderstanding in one thing leads to calling the entire devotion itself questionable, dangerous, ‘going too far’?
It just seems to me that in this one mostly anecdotal area of “do Catholics go too far in devotion to Mary”, we get as much misunderstanding leading to people actually advising people not to even ‘get involved’ in anything other than occasionally saying, “Yes, I call Mary blessed” but insisting that 'you don’t need to say Rosaries or think of her as your mother or even consider her at all, if it detracts from Jesus". . . We are so ‘tender’ of the ‘feelings’ of non-Catholic Christians that we try to downplay our own practices, and instead of that leading to better understanding, we’re just reinforcing those non-Catholic Christian beliefs because, “Look at all the threads which prove that plenty of Catholics go way too far with this Mary stuff. All these people trying to justify it just shows they have a guilty conscience, and they won’t even listen to the more enlightened Catholics who have seen the Protestant light and are telling them to back away from these heresies”. . .
They said the same thing about her Immaculate Conception…
Look. Co-Redemptrix is NOT dogma at the moment. But it is not condemned as a false teaching. It is a possibility.
To me it suggests equality - like a co worker. If that was made dogma I’m afraid I’d have to seriously rethink my conversion
Well, what the church teaches & what believers practice, is different. Some humans feel intimidated by God. They feel they can communicate w a Saint b/c they were human. It’s like praying for healing through a Saint. God heals, not a Saint or Mary. Eventually, they must be corrected.
Just follow the churches prayer guidelines.
Co is a derivative of the prefix Com:
a prefix meaning “with,” “together,” “in association,” and (with intensive force) “completely,” occurring in loanwords from Latin ( commit ): used in the formation of compound words before b, p, m: combine; compare; commingle.
The problem is the meaning of the prefix Co- has changed over time to mean equal, it’s original meaning was with or together. It hits the ear of a convert much like the word pray, which went from meaning to request or ask to an act of worship.
I suspect that if the term were accepted as dogma, it would be accepted with plenty of qualification of exactly what is meant by it.
Well, yes, but, we can provide all the qualifications in the world, but it won’t mean they are absorbed.
Think how often the term ‘Immaculate Conception’ is used by comedians and others to mean a ‘virgin birth’.
That term ‘Immaculate Conception’ was defined well over a hundred years ago but its proper meaning hasn’t sunk in yet, it seems.
True, but at some point the Church isn’t responsible for other people’s misunderstandings of her doctrines. It’s not your fault that people think you worship Mary and earn salvation by works.
Why use a term that can be so easily misunderstood?
I dunno, I’m not in favor of it for the same reason others have said. I’m just saying that I think if the Church officially adopted that term, it would strive to clarify that it’s not putting Mary on an equal footing with God. It would be a prudential, not a doctrinal, mistake, imo.
Exactly! We should not put obstacles in anyone’s way, as Don Ruggero pointed out in post .87.
St Paul says “For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:9). Does this mean that he thought he was God’s or Christ’s equal?
That’s a world away from ‘co-redeemer’
I’m sure if you ask ten people you’ll get 11 different answers.
I think devotion to a Saint means you become his disciple. You actively learn to live as (s)he did.
I would urge you to have confidence in the Magisterium and in the theological community.
I can assure that when the theological commission in the 1990s that was reviewing the issues regarding this title, Co-Redemptrix, relative to a dogmatic definition, one of the matters most strongly analysed and written upon was that the language was inappropriate and just for the very reason that you cite – as well as for the inappropriate and incorrect concepts that the language conveyed.
Think of the Church as your mother. Think of Mary as your mother. Think of Mary as the Church. Not the body of Christ, which is the Church (as well) but as the mother of the body of Christ.
Salvation is through the Church & through the Church alone by the grace of the Almighty. So is His will & His pleasure.
& if Mary is the mother of the Body of Christ, which she is, & we are the body of Christ, which we are, how marvelous a thing that is?
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my savior.