The Church Courtyard > The Sacred Sciences

Woman, behold they son, and the Co-Redemptrix

(1/16) > >>

Philip G.:
John 19:26-27 "When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son.  After that, he saith to the disciple, behold thy mother.  And, from that hour, the disciple took her to his own." 

When I read this passage, I see an event that has implications in the singular.   Meaning, when I read these passages, I don't read it as saying Mary is the mother of all believers, and so on unto the modern hyper emphasized devotion to Mary, which would be a plural implication. 

When I read this, by the reference at the end of "the disciple took her to his own".  I see a singular unique relational emphasis between Mary and the beloved disciple John. 

However, I understand that this passage is often referenced to imply the opposite, that by these words of Jesus, Mary is the mother of all believers, and we are all her sons.  There has to be some other scriptural passage to imply that, because I really don't see it in this passage.  And, it is interpretations such as the above that lead to concepts and titles like co redemptrix in my opinion, that I can honestly interpret in this case as implying the opposite. 

For, example, if Jesus is implying a strict singular relational interpretation of these words, then that would in a sense reduce Mary's significance and role in what immediately follows, which is Christ's death, and resurrection.  And, if that is the case, then the co redemptrix really doesn't have the relevance as at the very least the title and its devotees suggest.   Because, Christ's passion, death, and resurrection is the most important aspect of redemption.  There is no redemption without it.  The wages of sin is death.  It would make sense that if Christ were to clearly set himself apart as the sole redeemer, so that there is to be no mistaking his singular redemptive act, it would be at the moment before his death.  And, well something did occur there.  Jesus gave his mother a companion consistent with her vocation in life, and john likewise.     

Scripture says that God will give us a "sign", which was mother with Child.  And, this is true, and it is significant.  But, just as the old testament is only a prefigurement of the new, so this "sign" is distinct a not to be conflated with the redemption/salvation solely attributed to the new.  For, Christ's ministry began with the wedding feast at Cana.  If there is any mysterious overlap between Mary's unique role, and Jesus' role as redeemer, it occurred at the wedding feast of Cana.  And, well, weddings are not associated with death to say the least. 

Do we even have the names of the two spouses that were married at the wedding feast?  We do have the names of all the characters associated with christ's passion.  We have pontius pilate, ceasar, herod, annas and ciaphas, and the list goes on and on. 

Christ was led to the slaughter like a lamb, and opened not up his mouth.  Contrast that with mary and her fiat, and the vows that are exchanged at weddings.  When baby Jesus was born, it was announced by angels.  There are parallels, but in abstact and opposite senses.  With that said, I really don't see the word redemtrix, which is so very proximate to redeemer, as being something fitting for anyone quite frankly.  I see the accumulation of the fiat materializing in the wedding feast of cana.  And, I see the birth of our lord materializing in his passion, death, and resurrection.  In fact, I have always said that I believe Christ's birth was a real carnal birth, miraculous in the sense that it was without the punishment that eve and all women experience, but not like "light passing through a window". If the parallels of the fiat and wedding vows is consistent, then the parallel of Christs carnal passion suggests a carnal birth.

The only "co' I can see mary being a co- redemptrix of is the "co"mpany of spouses.  But, that is not at all what the marian devotees are referring to in the slightest.  They, sadly in my opinion see it as a vehicle to replace worship of Jesus with veneration of Mary.   And, the fact that Jesus says in the end times people will be marrying, suggest that marriage is not a sufficient vehicle to hold back the wrath of God inseparable from Christ's return at the end of the world. 





Jayne:

--- Quote from: Philip G. on April 02, 2021, 11:24:38 PM ---John 19:26-27 "When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son.  After that, he saith to the disciple, behold thy mother.  And, from that hour, the disciple took her to his own." 

When I read this passage, I see an event that has implications in the singular.   Meaning, when I read these passages, I don't read it as saying Mary is the mother of all believers, and so on unto the modern hyper emphasized devotion to Mary, which would be a plural implication. 

--- End quote ---

The Fourth Session Council of Trent decreed that:
--- Quote ---no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold.

--- End quote ---

It is our goal as Catholics to read Scripture in conformity with the understanding of the Church.  It is wrong read a passage contrary to the interpretation of the Church.

Catholics do not read the passage quoted by Philip in the way that he does above.  We understand it as saying that Mary is the mother of all believers and we have read it this way since the Patristic period. This is not some sort of modern theological novelty at all.

Nor does it make sense to refer to a "modern hyper emphasized devotion to Mary".  It is a characteristic of the post-Conciliar period that there has been a huge loss of devotion to Mary in society.  Only a remnant preserve this devotion which is the long-standing tradition of the Church.  The modern idea is the one adopted by Philip, that there has been too much emphasis on devotion to Mary.

Xavier:
Hi Philip. Wish everyone here a Blessed Holy Saturday. Our Lady certainly is Co-Redemptrix and Mother of all believers imo. See Rev 12:17.

I like the way it is explained even in the New Catechism. Unfortunately, for Ecumenical reasons, they do not go far enough as they should imo.

"Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503

I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

From: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

Jayne:
I see two main questions on the issue of "Co-Redemptrix".  The first is the theological question, whether Our Lady actually has a part in the redemptive work of Christ.  The answer to this is obviously yes.

The more debatable question is the pastoral one.  Does the potential for confusion and misunderstanding of this title mean that we ought to avoid using it?  Historically, the Franciscans were promoters of the term while Dominicans were avoiders.  I think this shows that both approaches may be legitimate.

Speaking of history, the Wikipedia article on this topic gives an overview than might be useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

Daniel:

--- Quote from: Jayne on April 03, 2021, 07:40:41 AM ---we have read it this way since the Patristic period

--- End quote ---

Got any proof? (Not trying to be contrary, but to me it does seem like a novelty. The interpretation of John 19:27, anyway.)

edit - I'll add, "since the Patristic period" is not enough. It's gotta go back to the Apostolic period.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version