Francis denies Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix

[Jayne]

There are multiple articles on this, but I chose this one because it seems to quote the most actual words and to add the least editorializing: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/24/pope-francis-jesus-entrusted-mary-to-us-as-a-mother-not-as-co-redeemer/

Speaking at his general audience on March 24, the pope said that while Christians had always given Mary beautiful titles, it was important to remember that Christ is the only redeemer.

He was addressing a theological debate about whether the Church should issue a dogmatic definition declaring Mary "Co-Redemptrix," in honor of her role in humanity's salvation.

"Jesus extended Mary's maternity to the entire Church when He entrusted her to his beloved disciple shortly before dying on the cross," the pope noted.

"From that moment on, we have all been gathered under her mantle, as depicted in certain medieval frescoes or paintings. Even the first Latin antiphon — sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix: the Madonna who 'covers,' like a Mother, to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer: as Mother."

He continued: "It is true that Christian piety has always given her beautiful titles, as a child gives his or her mamma: how many beautiful things children say about their mamma whom they love so much! How many beautiful things."

"But we need to be careful: the things the Church, the saints, say about her, beautiful things, about Mary, subtract nothing from Christ's sole Redemption. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a child for his or her mamma — some are exaggerated. But love, as we know, always makes us exaggerate things, but out of love."

The pope gave his address, dedicated to prayer in communion with Mary, in the library of the Apostolic Palace due to coronavirus restrictions. The address was part of his cycle of catechesis on prayer, which he launched in May and resumed in October following nine addresses on healing the world after the pandemic.

Noting that he was speaking on the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Annunciation, which falls on March 25, he said: "Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father. He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence."

Christ's "one mediation," he said, sheds light on the role of Mary.

"She occupies a privileged place in the lives of Christians, and therefore, in their prayer as well, because she is the Mother of Jesus," he said.

Francis is clearly aware of the long history of the title "Co-Redemptrix"  (including its use by previous popes) and dismisses this as "exaggerations".

This is different from the position which acknowledges this title as expressing a truth but one that is too open to misunderstanding to be prudent to proclaim as dogma (a view expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.)  Francis, unless this article has somehow distorted his meaning,  is outright denying that it is true.

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

[Vetus Ordo]

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

This is a grain of sand compared to the issue of the death penalty. That was a complete reversal of a perennial teaching of Scripture approved by the Pope in his official capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, not just as a private teacher.

Granted, he didn't start it. The CCC under Wojtyla and Ratzinger had already muddied the waters but Bergoglio finished it off.

[Gardener]

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

This is a grain of sand compared to the issue of the death penalty. That was a complete reversal of a perennial teaching of Scripture approved by the Pope in his official capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, not just as a private teacher.

Granted, he didn't start it. The CCC under Wojtyla and Ratzinger had already muddied the waters but Bergoglio finished it off.

Which leaves us with two options: the Church is false and always has been, or, Bergoglio is simply not the Pope.

[Vetus Ordo]

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

This is a grain of sand compared to the issue of the death penalty. That was a complete reversal of a perennial teaching of Scripture approved by the Pope in his official capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, not just as a private teacher.

Granted, he didn't start it. The CCC under Wojtyla and Ratzinger had already muddied the waters but Bergoglio finished it off.

Which leaves us with two options: the Church is false and always has been, or, Bergoglio is simply not the Pope.

If you're going down that rabbit hole, you won't stop at Bergoglio.

[Philip G.]

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

This is a grain of sand compared to the issue of the death penalty. That was a complete reversal of a perennial teaching of Scripture approved by the Pope in his official capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, not just as a private teacher.

Granted, he didn't start it. The CCC under Wojtyla and Ratzinger had already muddied the waters but Bergoglio finished it off.

Which leaves us with two options: the Church is false and always has been, or, Bergoglio is simply not the Pope.

Since the church can be "two or more gathered" in Christ's name, I don't believe the church is false, ever has been, or ever will be.  Even until the end of the world, it is taught there will be "two witnesses".  But, popes can teach error, and have taught error, in my opinion for a long time now.  However, there is no papacy hate here(with me that is).  Christian philosophy is to pull the plank from our own eye, so that we can see clearly to we point out the splinter in our brothers(the pope for example) eye.  It is my opinion, which can be argued, not easily, that as a maxim, before the papacy was wrong, the papacy was right.  But, like everything pertaining to our religion, it does require faith.  It is not based on "reason alone". 

[King Wenceslas]

Since this was not declared a dogma, I don't think it qualifies as heresy, but it is a deeply disturbing display of distancing himself from the traditional teaching of the Church.  I realize that this is not new for him, and perhaps not the most theologically significant incident, but I'm finding it very upsetting.

This is a grain of sand compared to the issue of the death penalty. That was a complete reversal of a perennial teaching of Scripture approved by the Pope in his official capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, not just as a private teacher.

Granted, he didn't start it. The CCC under Wojtyla and Ratzinger had already muddied the waters but Bergoglio finished it off.

Which leaves us with two options: the Church is false and always has been, or, Bergoglio is simply not the Pope.

Since the church can be "two or more gathered" in Christ's name, I don't believe the church is false, ever has been, or ever will be.  Even until the end of the world, it is taught there will be "two witnesses".  But, popes can teach error, and have taught error, in my opinion for a long time now.  However, there is no papacy hate here(with me that is).  Christian philosophy is to pull the plank from our own eye, so that we can see clearly to we point out the splinter in our brothers(the pope for example) eye.  It is my opinion, which can be argued, not easily, that as a maxim, before the papacy was wrong, the papacy was right.  But, like everything pertaining to our religion, it does require faith.  It is not based on "reason alone".

Which leaves us with a possible third option:

The Church is based upon the Apostolic Faith handed to the Apostles by Christ himself and Sacred Scripture irrespective of the interpretation by the magisterium made up of men with the fallen nature of Adam. Most times the magisterium gets it right, sometimes they don't. Buyer beware!

Who watches over the watchers? The Holy Ghost is suppose too but if the hierarchy decides to go their own way contrary to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and the Apostolic Faith well the Holy Ghost has no way of stopping them. They have their free will as any man does.

[Innocent Smith]

This is different from the position which acknowledges this title as expressing a truth but one that is too open to misunderstanding to be prudent to proclaim as dogma (a view expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.)  Francis, unless this article has somehow distorted his meaning,  is outright denying that it is true.

Credit due to Francis for actually picking a side of the fence to sit on.  Too bad Ratzinger couldn't develop that skill.  It should hurt for him to sit on that fence with one leg on each side.  There is no good reason for a Pope or Pope Emeritus, yuk, to play the role of a German Professor. 

Notice that Ratzinger did not declare it a dogma.  He always did want to eat his cake and save it too.

[Maximilian]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Michael Wilson]

K.W.

Which leaves us with a possible third option:

The Church is based upon the Apostolic Faith handed to the Apostles by Christ himself and Sacred Scripture irrespective of the interpretation by the magisterium made up of men with the fallen nature of Adam. Most times the magisterium gets it right, sometimes they don't. Buyer beware!

Who watches over the watchers? The Holy Ghost is suppose too but if the hierarchy decides to go their own way contrary to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and the Apostolic Faith well the Holy Ghost has no way of stopping them. They have their free will as any man does.

Its the Magisterium that told us what books were inspired and which belonged in the collection of Sacred Scripture. Also, what is their true meaning. Look at the Protestant concept of "free examen"; it leads to doctrinal chaos. The same for Sacred Tradition; it was the Magisterium that determined which doctrines belonged to the deposit of the faith and which did not; which teachings were heretical and which were not.
Look at some of the people on this forum, who have decided to throw out the guidance of the magisterium and now espouse various errors condemned by the same Magisterium. The Holy Ghost protects the Pope from teaching error to the Church or leading the faithful into perdition; but the Conciliar Popes have done both; they lack the protection promised to the Popes by Our Lord Himself. Draw the necessary conclusions.

[Michael Wilson]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Mary's title and role as Co-Redmtrix is part of Catholic doctrine; I would be very weary of following the teaching of Francis Bergoglio even if he is only telling you what time of day it is.

[Aeternitus]

The Holy Ghost protects the Pope from teaching error to the Church or leading the faithful into perdition; but the Conciliar Popes have done both; they lack the protection promised to the Popes by Our Lord Himself. Draw the necessary conclusions.

Precisely!

[Xavier]

Pope Francis is wrong here. Co-Redemptrix is irreformable Church teaching already taught by a long line of Popes. See the below article:

"In his Apostolic Letter, Ineffabilis Deus, which defined the Immaculate Conception (1854), Blessed Pius IX makes reference to the Mother's Coredemption by recalling the early medieval declaration of her as the "Reparatrix of her first parents" and its scriptural origins in the Genesis 3:15 prophecy of her coredemptive battle with the Serpent: "Also did they declare that the most glorious Virgin was the Reparatrix of her first parents, the giver of life to posterity, that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for Himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the Serpent, 'I will put enmities between you and the woman'—an unmistakable evidence that she has crushed the poisonous head of the Serpent" (Bl. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,Dec. 8, 1854).


In his encyclical, Jucunda Semper, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) teaches that Mary shared with Jesus the painful atonement on behalf of the human race in the depths of her soul: "When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with Him the painful atonement on behalf of the human race... (at the foot of the cross) she willingly offered Him up to divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, pierced by the sword of sorrow." (6)


The "Rosary Pope" of the nineteenth century also began a series of successive papal teachings which identify the Mother of the Lord as a "cooperatrix" ("co-operare," to work with) in the distribution of the graces of Redemption as a direct result of her cooperation in the obtaining of the graces of Redemption: "She who had been the cooperatrix in the sacrament of man's Redemption, would be likewise the cooperatrix in the dispensation of graces deriving from it." (7) Again, Our Lady is Mediatrix of all graces because she is first the Co-redemptrix; there is acquisition of grace before its distribution. The "Mother suffering" becomes the "Mother nourishing."


St. Pius X (1903-1914) carries on the papal tribute to Marian Coredemption in his first Marian encyclical, Ad Diem Illum (1904). In this famous text, the Pope of the Eucharist gives papal authority to the many previous theological testimonies to Mary's share in the merits of Redemption in light of her joint suffering with the Redeemer:


Owing to the union of suffering and purpose existing between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of all the favors which Jesus acquired for us by His death and His blood.... Nevertheless, because she surpasses all in holiness and in union with Christ, and because she was chosen by Christ to be His partner in the work of human salvation, she merits for us de congruo, as they say, that which Christ merited for us de condigno, and she is the principal dispenser of the graces to be distributed. (" ...

The Magisterium's Use of the Co-redemptrix Title

The first usages of the Co-redemptrix title in the official pronouncements of the Roman Congregations also take place under the Magisterium of St. Pius X. Co-redemptrix is used three times by the Holy See in the initiatives of three Congregations of the Curia, and is thus contained in the publication of their official acts, Acta Sanctae Sedis (later to become Acta Apostolicae Sedis).

From: https://www.motherofallpeoples.com/post/popes-of-the-marian-age-and-mary-co-redemptrix

[lauermar]

The downplaying of Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix comes at an interesting time this year. The Vatican newspaper just published a pages long homage to Judas Iscariot's memory during Holy Week. I started a separate thread with a link about it. It went so far as to say, without Judas' betrayal of Jesus, we would not have had the crucifixion and our redemption. It's another way of saying that Judas is Co-Redemptor, but not Blessed Mother I guess.

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=25331.0

[Jayne]

The downplaying of Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix comes at an interesting time this year. The Vatican newspaper just published a pages long homage to Judas Iscariot's memory during Holy Week. I started a separate thread with a link about it. It went so far as to say, without Judas' betrayal of Jesus, we would not have had the crucifixion and our redemption. It's another way of saying that Judas is Co-Redemptor, but not Blessed Mother I guess.

The downplaying of Our Lady was done on the Feast of the Annunciation and the "upplaying" of the betrayal of Jesus was done on Holy Thursday.  It is like some sort of opposite Catholicism from Bizarro  World.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World

[Melkor]

The downplaying of Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix comes at an interesting time this year. The Vatican newspaper just published a pages long homage to Judas Iscariot's memory during Holy Week. I started a separate thread with a link about it. It went so far as to say, without Judas' betrayal of Jesus, we would not have had the crucifixion and our redemption. It's another way of saying that Judas is Co-Redemptor, but not Blessed Mother I guess.

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=25331.0

I remember reading somewhere that, had he gone to the Blessed Virgin after his betrayal, Judas would have been one of the greatest Saints. Instead he despaired.