Mary is not the Co-Redeemer

[Vetus Ordo]

An interesting debate on the fifth Marian dogma.

Mary is not the Co-Redeemer

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, "On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images," ex cathedra: "...the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior...And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept...But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema." (Denz. 984)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that no-one conceived of man and woman was ever freed from the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost..." (Denz. 711)

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ElRD83_3jw[/yt]

[Michael Wilson]

The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.

[mikemac]

Yes, popes have used the term Coredemptrix.

The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium
https://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mystery_coredemptrix_papal_magisterium.htm

It's just not the best term in describing what they are trying to say.  A term that better describes Mary's cooperation in the redemption would be more useful.

[The Theosist]

The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.

That's not an argument.

[FamilyRosary]

According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, the prefix "co" has five possible definitions:

Definition of co- (Entry 5 of 5)

1: with : together : joint : jointly
coexist
coheir

2: in or to the same degree
coextensive

3a: one that is associated in an action with another : fellow : partner
coauthor
coworker
b: having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy
copilot

4: of, relating to, or constituting the complement of an angle
cosine

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/co#:~:text=3%20corrections%20officer-,co-,with%20another%20%3A%20fellow%20co-conspirator

It seems that Mary's role in our redemption fits definitions 1, 3a and 3b, especially 3a and 3b. I really don't see what the objection is to defining Mary as Co-Redemptrix. If I call someone a copilot, it takes nothing away from the pilot. If I label someone a coworker, it does not negate the existence of the other workers, or dictate their order of importance.

Either Mary participates in our redemption or she doesn't. If she has and she does, then why not give her the title she deserves?

[The Theosist]

Either Mary participates in our redemption or she doesn't. If she has and she does, then why not give her the title she deserves?

Because she didn't participate in any way in the actual act of redemption, which is at Calvary, an act performed by Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection as a divine person. It's like saying Newton's mother was a co-inventor of Newton's 2nd law. Or even his tutors. That's nonsense. Mary participated in the circumstances that brought Jesus to Calvary; she did not participate in the redemptive act, which belongs to the agent and to nobody else but the agent. Mary did not redeem me, and she didn't co-redeem me.

[The Theosist]

If I call someone a copilot, it takes nothing away from the pilot. If I label someone a coworker, it does not negate the existence of the other workers, or dictate their order of importance.

A co-pilot is actually participating in the act of flying a plane. One doesn't call the factory workers, the engineers, or the executives of Boeing "co-pilots". Mary was not a co-agent in the act of our redemption, the atonement, the giving of his sacred blood, the resurrection of himself by himself, the conquering of Satan and destruction of death. That was Jesus' act and his alone, accomplishable by him alone and without possibility of anything added to it by another. That was the act that saved us.


(And let's be clear about what the vocal "co-Redemptrix" advocates really mean: that Mary, in her suffering alongside Jesus at Calvary, through her merit participated in and won our redemption. Sick!)

[John Lamb]

I don't know much about Buddhist soteriology, but I think co-redemption would fit in very well there. Even if it's thought that Buddha is in some sense a primary redeemer, there's also the sense that everyone must come to enlightenment themselves, and participate in the same enlightenment which Buddha participates in.

I only bring up Buddhism for the sake of contrast.

I think there's a kind of Gordian knot in Christian soteriology, where we have a zero sum game: either it's my merits added to Jesus' merits, or it's Jesus' merits alone. The first seems to lead to pelagianism, and the second to quietism. Buddhist soteriology seems to cut that Gordian knot quite well by saying (to put it in our own terms) Jesus' merits and my merits are one and the same, since I am in Jesus and Jesus is in me. So in a mystical sense, when I repent and am saved, it's Jesus who's repenting and being saved in and through me.

[Daniel]

(And let's be clear about what the vocal "co-Redemptrix" advocates really mean: that Mary, in her suffering alongside Jesus at Calvary, through her merit participated in and won our redemption. Sick!)

I don't think anyone here is asserting that.

Mary participated in the redemption in more or less the same way that Eve participated in the fall. The redemption hypothetically could have happened without her, just as the fall hypothetically could have happened without Eve, but it didn't actually happen without her, just as the fall didn't actually happen without Eve. And Mary's "cooperation" consists in more than just the fact that she is Jesus's biological mother, so your Newton analogy doesn't work.

[The Theosist]

(And let's be clear about what the vocal "co-Redemptrix" advocates really mean: that Mary, in her suffering alongside Jesus at Calvary, through her merit participated in and won our redemption. Sick!)

I don't think anyone here is asserting that.

Mary participated in the redemption in more or less the same way that Eve participated in the fall. The redemption hypothetically could have happened without her, just as the fall hypothetically could have happened without Eve, but it didn't actually happen without her, just as the fall didn't actually happen without Eve.

Whether or not anyone here believes that, that's what is being asserted by the proposed dogma and its idea of "immediate cooperation", and your assertion doesn't contradict it.

Ven. Allegra expounds the truth of the term Co-redemptrix
and its theological significance in terms of a balanced and secure
Marian soteriology: that is, the term Co-redemptrix signifies
the dependent participation, nonetheless direct and immediate, of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the work of the universal
Redemption: "Mary's cooperation in our Redemption," writes the
Venerable, "is such that Mary merited the title Co-redemptrix,"203
above all because "she intimately united herself to her dying Son on
the Cross as our Co-redemptrix,"204 and thus she was united with
Him by means of that maternal compassion which "intimately
unites us to the dying Christ... The Compassion constitutes the Coredemption."205 And again: to be the Co-redemptrix means to be a
"partaker of all the mysteries of the Son on earth," explains Fr.
Murabito, "a partaker of the definitive battle and eschatological
triumph of Jesus,"206 according to Ven. Allegra.
He structures the Marian Coredemption, therefore, entirely
in terms of the intimate and total union between the divine
Son and Mother, between Jesus the Redeemer and Mary the
Co-redemptrix. It is in the union of both their sorrows offered
together that the universal Redemption is effected.

Leaving the offense to my ears aside, to claim that this is remotely Biblical, Apostolic or Patristic is loony. And the inevitable Protestant argument from silence is an exceptionally good one here. That Paul would not even mention Mary in his soteriology if this were true is unthinkable without special pleading.

And Mary's "cooperation" consists in more than just the fact that she is Jesus's biological mother, so your Newton analogy doesn't work.

That's exactly the sense of cooperation, "remote cooperation", that I'm addressing by the analogy, so it does "work". "Co-redemption" by "remote cooperation" is a ridiculous and contra-Biblical use of the idea of the "redeemer"; that leaves only "immediate cooperation".

[The Theosist]

I think there's a kind of Gordian knot in Christian soteriology, where we have a zero sum game: either it's my merits added to Jesus' merits, or it's Jesus' merits alone. The first seems to lead to pelagianism, and the second to quietism.

It is Jesus' alone who redeemed me and threw open the gates to Heaven. Its up to me to walk the path he'll help me down without fail. There's no dichotomy here.

So in a mystical sense, when I repent and am saved, it's Jesus who's repenting and being saved in and through me.

Ummm ... no.

[awkwardcustomer]

It is Jesus' alone who redeemed me and threw open the gates to Heaven. Its up to me to walk the path he'll help me down without fail.

Yes.

[Daniel]

That's exactly the sense of cooperation, "remote cooperation", that I'm addressing by the analogy, so it does "work". "Co-redemption" by "remote cooperation" is a ridiculous and contra-Biblical use of the idea of the "redeemer"; that leaves only "immediate cooperation".

It's remote but not too remote.

[Daniel]

.

[paul14]

The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.

That's not an argument.

Yes it is!