Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Vetus Ordo on October 04, 2020, 07:07:04 PM

Title: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 04, 2020, 07:07:04 PM
An interesting debate on the fifth Marian dogma.

Quote
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)

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 04, 2020, 08:05:29 PM
The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: mikemac on October 04, 2020, 08:45:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 05, 2020, 05:30:17 AM
The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.

That's not an argument.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: FamilyRosary on October 05, 2020, 06:01:58 AM
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 (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?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 05, 2020, 07:05:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 05, 2020, 07:11:37 AM
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!)
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: John Lamb on October 05, 2020, 08:13:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 05, 2020, 08:30:15 AM
(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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 05, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
(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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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".
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 05, 2020, 09:29:37 AM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: awkwardcustomer on October 05, 2020, 09:34:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 05, 2020, 09:39:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 05, 2020, 10:01:08 AM
.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: paul14 on October 05, 2020, 12:40:33 PM
The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.

That's not an argument.

Yes it is!

(https://freethoughtblogs.com/stderr/files/2016/08/argument_clinic.jpg)

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 06, 2020, 12:12:46 AM
Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/pope-francis-considers-virgin%E2%80%99s-title-co-redemptrix-%E2%80%9Cfoolishness%E2%80%9D-53579

Do people on the forum know individual traditionalist priests who argue against the title Co-Redemptrix, and teach their flock to never use it?  Or is it mostly theologians and forums who argue about it these days?

Wikipedia notes
Quote
it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology.
   Is that supposed to prove something to us - being left out of Vatican II? /sarc

Protestants are wrong that Catholics worship Mary.  Or have Saints and Popes for years proven that they are right after all by using this title and other devotions that some here find excessive?

I'm inclined to believe in the title because of its long usage and support by Saints and Popes I most respect - following Catholic Traditionalism.

I don't have the theology or devotion deep in my head or heart, but I think there is mystery even in how WE are able to unite our suffering with that of Our Lord.
 
St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?




Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 06, 2020, 12:23:58 AM
Fr. Joseph Pohle, A Dogmatic Treatise On The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God, Imprimatur, 1919:

"… it would be wrong to call her [Mary] redemptrix, because this title obscures the important truth that she herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically term preredemption. Even the title coredemptrix had better be avoided as misleading. The titles redemptrix and coredemptrix were never applied to the Blessed Virgin before the sixteenth century; they are the invention of comparatively recent writers…"

St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?

The title of Co-Redemptrix does not mean that the Blessed Virgin is in a category along with the other saints cooperating with the work of redemption, being as it were a co-redeemer in the same way St. Paul teaches in Colossians 1:24 that you just quoted. Rather, the title of Co-Redemptrix is that the Blessed Virgin is in a unique category with Christ as the redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the title of Co-Redemptrix by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of redemption under the one sole redeemer of the human race, Jesus Christ. That’s fallacious.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 06, 2020, 05:25:17 AM
Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-even
St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?

This is clear-cut eisegesis. Where does Paul here connect this personal suffering with the actual redemptive work of Jesus death and resurrection? He doesn't. You're citing this passage in a sense that isn't expressed or implied by the text itself.

And another thing: it also presupposes a post-Anselmian doctrine of atonement, that Jesus' sufferings made satisfaction for a debt owed to God. There is no way this thing is "Apostolic tradition".
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Xavier on October 06, 2020, 09:04:29 AM
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: "The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our Co-Redemptress [or Co-Redemptrix] comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/leo-xiiis-iucunda-semper-expectatione-on-the-rosary-133

His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: " Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist"My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood." http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html

Reparatrix is another equivalent word for Co-Redemptrix. And Dispensatrix is likewise an equivalent word for Mediatrix. Mary is Dispensatrix/Mediatrix of All Graces. And She is this now in Heaven because, on Earth, at the foot of the Cross especially, by Her tears, labors, dolors and sorrows with the Crucified Christ, She was CoRedemptrix.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II: "Birgitta looked to Mary as her model and support in the various moments of her life. She spoke energetically about the divine privilege of Mary's Immaculate Conception. She contemplated her astonishing mission as Mother of the Saviour. She invoked her as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and Coredemptrix, exalting Mary's singular role in the history of salvation and the life of the Christian people. [60]" https://www.piercedhearts.org/heart...ry/mystery_coredemptrix_papal_magisterium.htm

Our Lady most certainly is Co-Redemptrix, and many Saints and Mystics have told us the Church will define this one day.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Heinrich on October 06, 2020, 10:09:53 AM
The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument.


Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 06, 2020, 10:47:16 AM
Our Lady most certainly is Co-Redemptrix, and many Saints and Mystics have told us the Church will define this one day.

Speaking of the prophecies of your mystics, tick ,tock ...

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24300.msg508131#msg508131 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24300.msg508131#msg508131)
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: mikemac on October 06, 2020, 01:54:15 PM
The title of this thread is "Mary is not the Co-Redeemer", which has been proven false a few different times in this thread so far.  Popes have recognized Mary as Coredemptrix.  Michael was correct in the first reply in this thread when he said "The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument."

And that should have been the end of the argument, other than defining the meaning of Coredemptrix.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 06, 2020, 02:05:13 PM
The title of this thread is "Mary is not the Co-Redeemer", which has been proven false a few different times in this thread so far.  Popes have recognized Mary as Coredemptrix.  Michael was correct in the first reply in this thread when he said "The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument."

And that should have been the end of the argument, other than defining the meaning of Coredemptrix.

This definition from Trent ought to have been the end of the argument:

This holy Council enjoins on all bishops and others who are charged with teaching, that they instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honor paid to relics, and the legitimate use of images. Let them teach that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers and aid in obtaining benefits from God, through his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our sole Redeemer and Saviour; and that those persons think impiously who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert that the saints do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry; or who declare that it is repugnant to the word of God, and opposed to the honor of the "one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus," or that it is foolish to supplicate, orally or mentally, those who reign in heaven.

Sole redeemer. There it is: sole.

But if you want to appeal to the use of terms by popes to declare Roma locuta est, then unless you're a Sedevacantist you ought rightly to shut up about the Novus Ordo liturgy and everything concerning Vatican II which has been used ad nauseam by five popes for the last 50-60 years. Or you can be a logically inconsistent hypocrite engaging in special pleading, but then the argument really is over, because people like that can't be reasoned with, having left reason at the door.

If Mary were ever dogmatically declared "Co-Redemptrix" in the usually-understood sense, it would have proved just one thing: that Rome could no longer pretend all her dogmas and doctrines are part of an "Apostolic tradition", because the Co-Redemptrix waffle is demonstrably, beyond any doubt, not Biblical, not Apostolic and not Patristic but a post-millennial Western innovation.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Heinrich on October 06, 2020, 02:19:59 PM
The title of this thread is "Mary is not the Co-Redeemer", which has been proven false a few different times in this thread so far.  Popes have recognized Mary as Coredemptrix.  Michael was correct in the first reply in this thread when he said "The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument."

And that should have been the end of the argument, other than defining the meaning of Coredemptrix.

It is a slam dunk. Why the discussion?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 06, 2020, 02:22:13 PM
The title of this thread is "Mary is not the Co-Redeemer", which has been proven false a few different times in this thread so far.  Popes have recognized Mary as Coredemptrix.  Michael was correct in the first reply in this thread when he said "The B.V.M. Is both the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; end of argument."

And that should have been the end of the argument, other than defining the meaning of Coredemptrix.

It is a slam dunk. Why the discussion?

Why discuss Vatican II's teachings and declarations then? How is citing Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I not a slam dunk by the same criterion?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: mikemac on October 06, 2020, 02:39:49 PM
Neither Pope Leo XIII or Pope St. Pius X were post VII popes but they both refereed to Mary as Coredemptrix.

Quote
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix.

The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[2] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix,[3] and the process for further theological clarification and eventual dogmatic definition is ongoing. Pope St. John Paul II was the most favorable of recent Popes.

I doubt Coredemptrix will ever become a dogma of the Church while characters like Mark Miravalle try to make the meaning more than it actually is.

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Gerard on October 06, 2020, 03:33:35 PM
Under the fourth commandment Mary still had authority over our Lord. 

In her grief theoretically she freely could have insisted that He put down the Cross and abandon His Passion and Crucifixion.  He would have been obliged to obey her.

She knew what and why He was going through in His Salvific act and still allowed Him to follow through with it against her human and parental instincts. 

There is an interesting dynamic at work concerning Jesus' Divine and human parentage in view of the Passion. 

Jesus doesn't want to be crucified or suffer (who would) He asks the Father to let the cup pass Him by.  The answer is "no."

Jesus' mother doesn't want Him to be crucified or suffer but she freely subordinates her will to His will just as He subordinates His will to the Father. 

She FREELY cooperates with the Holy Trinity with her fiat at the Annunciation.  At the Passion and Crucifixion, she does what Abraham was asked to do and was willing to do. 

Her fiat allowed Him to be born and her fiat allowed Him to give His life.  Simply put, she had the option to say "no" and put a stop to it, her participation is passive but real in His redemptive act.   

We can also add that simply because of who she is, she is actually the only one really worthy of saving.  We would be saved by Mercy and she would really be saved in Justice.   Now, everything sort of loops around at that point because she is who she is by the merit of Christ's passion in Eternity.  So He understands that His passion is necessary for her existence in the first place. 

That is the only acceptable meaning to Co-Redemptrix  I can think of that can be tolerated. 

With that stated, the level of catechesis and understanding in the world between all non-Catholics and far too many Catholics that have moved into idolization of the BVM.   It is not the time to give her a title like that.  Titles are supposed to clarify.  Nowadays this would only create or supplement confusion.

 
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: truly-a-philosofan on October 06, 2020, 03:39:09 PM
Has anyone already given the definition of Co-Redemptrix? If so, how does this reconcile with the passages from Trent and Florence on Christ being our sole Redeemer?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Miriam_M on October 06, 2020, 04:05:25 PM

St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting"

This is an often-misunderstood passage from Paul.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 06, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
Has anyone already given the definition of Co-Redemptrix? If so, how does this reconcile with the passages from Trent and Florence on Christ being our sole Redeemer?

Any statement can be reconciled with any other if you just give enough of a twist to the meanings of words.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: dellery on October 06, 2020, 09:47:58 PM
Outside of the realm of theologians only dorks, nerds, and geeks, care about this stuff.

Go learn how to weld or something. Or go make some babies.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 07, 2020, 02:35:03 AM
Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-even
St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?

This is clear-cut eisegesis. Where does Paul here connect this personal suffering with the actual redemptive work of Jesus death and resurrection? He doesn't. You're citing this passage in a sense that isn't expressed or implied by the text itself.

Does St. Paul have to explicitly note right here that Jesus work as the Redeemer is highly associated with His suffering? Why don't you argue with Vetus Ordo who thinks there is some kind of "as it were" co-redemption going on for Saints who suffer, although that is not what being a co-Redemptrix would mean for Our Lady:


The title of Co-Redemptrix does not mean that the Blessed Virgin is in a category along with the other saints cooperating with the work of redemption, being as it were a co-redeemer in the same way St. Paul teaches in Colossians 1:24 that you just quoted. Rather, the title of Co-Redemptrix is that the Blessed Virgin is in a unique category with Christ as the redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint.

Quote from: The Theosist
And another thing: it also presupposes a post-Anselmian doctrine of atonement, that Jesus' sufferings made satisfaction for a debt owed to God. There is no way this thing is "Apostolic tradition".

Maybe you should start another thread on true and false theories of Atonement.  I read Cur Deus Homo in college and would be interested.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 07, 2020, 02:59:35 AM
St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?

The title of Co-Redemptrix does not mean that the Blessed Virgin is in a category along with the other saints cooperating with the work of redemption, being as it were a co-redeemer in the same way St. Paul teaches in Colossians 1:24 that you just quoted. Rather, the title of Co-Redemptrix is that the Blessed Virgin is in a unique category with Christ as the redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the title of Co-Redemptrix by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of redemption under the one sole redeemer of the human race, Jesus Christ. That’s fallacious.

It's fallacious if I were aiming for an conclusive proof that the title Co-Redemptrix was necessarily right from this Scripture passage alone. But the fact that before considering the title Co-Redemptrix at all we knew that Mary was in a unique group with Christ, the Redeemer, as His Mother and the Mother of His Church, leads me to think that Her suffering (during the suffering of Her Son) might function in a more powerful way than St. Paul describes for other Saints, who you concede are "as it were" co-redeemers.

Of course she is in no way "Redeemer #2" and yes there is always some danger that people will misunderstand Co-Redemptrix.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 07, 2020, 04:49:51 AM
Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-even
St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

How much more can the sufferings of Christ's own Mother and Mother of the Church work together with, without diminishing, the infinite sufferings of Christ?

This is clear-cut eisegesis. Where does Paul here connect this personal suffering with the actual redemptive work of Jesus death and resurrection? He doesn't. You're citing this passage in a sense that isn't expressed or implied by the text itself.

Does St. Paul have to explicitly note right here that Jesus work as the Redeemer is highly associated with His suffering?

Stop side-stepping. The text says nothing about Paul's personal suffering or that of anyone else being connected with and forming a part of Jesus' redemptive act on Calvary as in the would-be doctrine of the "Co-Redemptrix''. It makes no such insinuations or associations of itself, and your note, even if its content were explicitly stated, is irrelevant to this. There is indeed no indication from the text that one ought to take this as anything more than Paul suffering to preach the Gospel and shepherd his flock, participating in the redemptive work by the application of what Jesus had accomplished, not mystically redeeming men of their sins through suffering along with Christ. How one takes this passage in context and draws from it the idea that Paul is teaching about personal sufferings being united to those of Jesus on the cross so as to along with him merit or pay for  our redemption is anyone's guess, but that's not what's really happening here; what's happening is that a text is being read under a preconceived doctrinal presupposition so as to make it say what one wants it to say. That's not evidence; it's begging the question.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: TheReturnofLive on October 07, 2020, 05:10:39 AM
Outside of the realm of theologians only dorks, nerds, and geeks, care about this stuff.

Go learn how to weld or something. Or go make some babies.

The proper term is "Be fruitful and multiply"

But I agree, it's not good for the laity to be engaged with unproductive theological debates rather than dealing with the problems in their own life. 
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Gerard on October 07, 2020, 12:16:08 PM
Outside of the realm of theologians only dorks, nerds, and geeks, care about this stuff.

Go learn how to weld or something. Or go make some babies.

The proper term is "Be fruitful and multiply"

But I agree, it's not good for the laity to be engaged with unproductive theological debates rather than dealing with the problems in their own life.

I think that ignoring different and conflicting ideas is how heresies arise. 

If you don't clarify, you'll be going to Churches with strange types of Crucifixes showing the BVM somehow on the Cross with Him. 

We had Scott Hahn a few years ago touting the "Feminine" Holy Ghost. 

Feminism is going to glom onto any unresolved topic and push it way out past where the original advocates intended. 

We've already got the phenomenon of pitting Mary against Jesus that goes pre-Vatican II and extends into traditional Catholic culture. 

I don't know how many people remember this awful maxim: "Whenever Jesus closes the door, Mary opens the Window." and other nonsense.

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 09, 2020, 05:04:04 PM
The only person to actually have attempted to use Catholic theology to argue against the title of "Co-Redemptrix" on this thread is V.O. (Thanks V.O.). Theosist does not identify himself as a Catholic; and his arguments are not based on Catholic theology. If one wants to ague with him based on his own religion; they can go to the "Theosist Forum" where I am sure there are tons of interesting discussions. Now For a Catholic the most salient question is:  "Is what does the Church teach on the subject? So a couple of posters have cited statements from the Popes using and supporting the title; that should have ended the argument. I can post more material on this topic, but I have already in the recent past on another thread, and it has had absolutely no effect. Some of you should really ask yourselves how seriously you take being a Catholic? Catholics are obliged to submit their beliefs to the Magisterium; if there is a question on a doctrine they are obliged to consult their local Ordinary or in the present case where most bishops have fallen into heresy or apostasy, consult a reliable pre-Vatican II Catechism or theological manual.
This whole thread is so upsetting to me because so many of you have manifestly lost the love and respect for Our Blessed Mother and the Magisterium, that Catholics are supposed to have.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 09, 2020, 05:36:27 PM
Love for the magisterium? The words of popes settle the matter?

HYPOCRISY writ large. You disregard this and do not do what you preach whenever YOU have decided something contradicts what you believe to be true Catholic doctrine.

I raise you Vatican II and last six popes.

You say Vatican II is not a council? That they aren’t popes? Because it is heretical and they are heretics according to past teaching?

I say Mary as Co-Redemptrix is heretical and anyone who teaches it a heretic according to past teaching.

Arguing using Catholic theology? I’ve done that. The Roman church has already taught definitively on the subject: Trent, rightly I might add, declared Jesus Christ our SOLE redeemer and saviour.

It doesn’t matter if I do or don’t identify as Catholic. Facts and arguments do not stand or fall by who states or makes them. I’m no less able than you to identify and argue for what established Catholic doctrine is. But unlike you I’m able to concede that Rome is not consistent and, far from beginning with Vatican II, her doctrines have repeatedly changed over the course of two millennia so as to accommodate novel ideas. The twists and turns of the reinterpretation of something like Cantate Domino, which stretch credulity, will no doubt we mirrored in whatever as hoc argument is used to dismiss the plain meaning of Trent’s “sole redeemer” so as to allow for this form of Mariolatry, which denigrates the Queen of Heaven by usurping the work of her son. Mary did not die for us; Mary did not descend into Hell for us; Mary did not conquer Satan and destroy death for us; Mary did not sanctify the waters of baptism and wash away our sins with her blood. Jesus did that. Jesus alone did that, and on his own.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 09, 2020, 08:51:14 PM
The interesting part about the teaching of Co-Redemptrix is its uniqueness. While the teaching does not postulate equality between the Blessed Virgin and her Son, it nevertheless denotes her "singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work of Redemption for the human family." (Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion)

How so? We read the following: "Mary uniquely participated in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity (theologically referred to as "objective redemption"). Mary offered her Son and her maternal rights in relation to her Son to the Heavenly Father in perfect obedience to God's will and in atonement for the sins of the world. Mary's offering of her own Son on Calvary, along with her own motherly compassion, rights and suffering, offered in union with her Son for the salvation of the human family, merited more graces than any other created person. As Pope Pius XII confirmed in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, Mary "offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam."

I fail to see how meriting more graces than any other saint qualifies as an act of co-redemption. There's only one true agent of redemption, Jesus Christ, unless one is prepared to believe that the Blessed Virgin's sufferings at Calvary were redemptive and atoned for sin which is blasphemous.

However, if it simply means a unique cooperation in Christ's redeeming death, however spiritual and intimate, then it's not really co-redemption. It's a confusion of terms. As Fr. Faber stated: "Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary, ... [although] in a degree to which no others approach, our Blessed Lady co-operated with Him in the redemption of the world." (The foot of the Cross; or, The sorrows of Mary)

The Blessed Virgin cannot be proclaimed co-redeemer when she was the one who was redeemed: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46-47)
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 10, 2020, 10:03:25 AM
Theosist,
you can argue anything you want, it doesn't matter to me; it simply isn't Catholicism that you are promoting here on this forum.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 10, 2020, 10:17:47 AM
V.O.
Quote
I fail to see how meriting more graces than any other saint qualifies as an act of co-redemption. There's only one true agent of redemption, Jesus Christ, unless one is prepared to believe that the Blessed Virgin's sufferings at Calvary were redemptive and atoned for sin which is blasphemous.

However, if it simply means a unique cooperation in Christ's redeeming death, however spiritual and intimate, then it's not really co-redemption. It's a confusion of terms. As Fr. Faber stated: "Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary, ... [although] in a degree to which no others approach, our Blessed Lady co-operated with Him in the redemption of the world." (The foot of the Cross; or, The sorrows of Mary)

The Blessed Virgin cannot be proclaimed co-redeemer when she was the one who was redeemed: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46-47)
Your failure to see is no argument against the doctrine; merely a humble admission of your ignorance; something all of us suffer from from some degree or other.
Fr. Faber does not say that Our Blessed Mother isn't the Co-Redemptrix; merely that she is not the Redeemer equally with her son. But he does state that she is did co-operate with her son to a degree which no others approach in the redemption of the world.
Here is Pius XI;
Quote
The Virgind participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption" (D-3370) The Virgin Mary by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress. "Miserentissimus Redemptor".
Our Lady's sufferings atoned for sins is blasphemous? How so? Indeed the Church teaches that all our our sufferings borne patiently and for the love of God serve to make reparation not only for our sins but for the conversion of others and the relief of the Poor souls. So to say that those of our Blessed Mother also atoned is totally in conformity with Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 10, 2020, 07:34:49 PM
Your failure to see is no argument against the doctrine; merely a humble admission of your ignorance; something all of us suffer from from some degree or other. Fr. Faber does not say that Our Blessed Mother isn't the Co-Redemptrix; merely that she is not the Redeemer equally with her son. But he does state that she is did co-operate with her son to a degree which no others approach in the redemption of the world.

Fr. Faber literally stated that "Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary." You can't have a sole redeemer of the world and then also a co-redeemer of the world. It's contradiction even if you qualify it by stating that the Virgin is not equal to Christ in the act of redemption. She is still redeeming the world alongside Him in Calvary contra Trent, Florence and Scripture.

Co-operation with a certain act is not the same thing as doing said act. All the graces of redemption flow through the saints and the Church, with the Blessed Virgin on top, but the saints, the Church and the Blessed Virgin are themselves fruits of redemption not causes of it.

Quote
Here is Pius XI;
Quote
The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption" (D-3370) The Virgin Mary by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress. "Miserentissimus Redemptor".

In Pope Pius IX’s ex cathedra Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, we read:

"By this divine prophecy [Gen 3:15], the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold; that His most blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the Evil One was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted out the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil Serpent, and most completely triumphed over him … Mary was eternally in complete and absolute opposition to Satan, for with and through her Son the Redeemer, the Woman was to intimately share in the complete redemptive triumph over Satan.”

The pope emphasizes the Blessed Virgin's unique role, her indissoluble bond with Christ and indicates that she shares in the redemptive triumph of the cross, yet he identifies Christ alone as "the merciful Redeemer of mankind." He continues:

"All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime."

The Blessed Virgin "was redeemed in a manner more sublime." She was not redeemed and preserved from the original taint by her own sufferings, that would be impossible, but by Christ's.

Quote
Our Lady's sufferings atoned for sins is blasphemous? How so? Indeed the Church teaches that all our our sufferings borne patiently and for the love of God serve to make reparation not only for our sins but for the conversion of others and the relief of the Poor souls. So to say that those of our Blessed Mother also atoned is totally in conformity with Catholic teaching.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Blessed Virgin's sufferings at Calvary somehow satisfied the justice of God the Father for our sins? Do you realize the monstrosity of such teaching? There's only one God and one savior of the human race, Jesus Christ. Our sufferings can be offered as a reparation for sins due to grace and the redemption won at Calvary by Christ. Yet, we are not all co-redeemers of the world, are we? Without Christ, we could suffer all we want and it wouldn't make a difference. We are redeemed by His blood alone. The belief that Jesus Christ alone is the savior (that's what redeemer means) is the heart of Christianity: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

By whose stripes are you healed, Michael? Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Acolyte on October 10, 2020, 09:32:09 PM
[ Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.

What was she saved from ?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 11, 2020, 05:54:26 AM
Theosist,
you can argue anything you want, it doesn't matter to me; it simply isn't Catholicism that you are promoting here on this forum.

Then stop addressing me if you have no argument. I'm not promoting anything on this forum. I'm making a sound argument as to what the Roman Catholic church has dogmatically defined regarding the sole redeemer of man. And you have shown yourself to be unable to refute it.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 11, 2020, 06:23:15 AM
Your failure to see is no argument against the doctrine; merely a humble admission of your ignorance; something all of us suffer from from some degree or other. Fr. Faber does not say that Our Blessed Mother isn't the Co-Redemptrix; merely that she is not the Redeemer equally with her son. But he does state that she is did co-operate with her son to a degree which no others approach in the redemption of the world.

You can't have a sole redeemer of the world and then also a co-redeemer of the world.

More to the point, you can't have a woman redeeming us by her own suffering with him.

And, I'll say it again, all of this presupposes a forensic atonement by satisfaction, that Jesus Christ  paid a price for sin to the Father to get us off the hook for its legal consequences, suffering so that by his suffering we might not suffer, or worse a substitutionary blood offering to a God who demands blood. Well, if anyone wants to take seriously such ideas, he should at least admit that his "God" is, by all standards by which we would judge a person, a devil and a madman.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 11, 2020, 08:01:11 AM
Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.

What was she saved from?

The curse of Adam.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 11, 2020, 08:02:32 AM
[ Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.

What was she saved from ?

She had to be saved from sin and hell, like everyone else. Salvation includes preservation. God preserved her from all sin.


Co-operation with a certain act is not the same thing as doing said act. All the graces of redemption flow through the saints and the Church, with the Blessed Virgin on top, but the saints, the Church and the Blessed Virgin are themselves fruits of redemption not causes of it.

But what about the historical aspect? I'd say she's a cause in at least some sense. Perhaps an instrumental cause. Because what do you suppose would have happened had Mary cursed out Gabriel and then proceeded to have an abortion or commit suicide? If such a thing were even metaphysically possible (probably not, granted Mary's impeccability), then how would God have redeemed us? Perhaps He'd have found some other woman to be His mother, but then that other woman would be the instrumental cause of our salvation.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Prayerful on October 11, 2020, 08:05:18 AM
Maria Co-Redemptrix is one of these phrases, which work out, as Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland said: 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Acolyte on October 11, 2020, 11:29:24 AM
Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.

What was she saved from?

The curse of Adam.

That is what I thought it was, but do we have a soul before we are conceived ?

If not, perhaps to say she was spared of the stain of original sin, rather than saved from something her soul was never threatened with.

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Acolyte on October 11, 2020, 11:31:14 AM
Double post
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 12:56:26 PM
Theosist,
you can argue anything you want, it doesn't matter to me; it simply isn't Catholicism that you are promoting here on this forum.

Then stop addressing me if you have no argument. I'm not promoting anything on this forum. I'm making a sound argument as to what the Roman Catholic church has dogmatically defined regarding the sole redeemer of man. And you have shown yourself to be unable to refute it.
Why don't you return to the sacraments and to the practice of the faith; that is more important than wasting your time on here. 
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 12:59:43 PM
Maria Co-Redemptrix is one of these phrases, which work out, as Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland said: 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Its not Alice in Wonderland; the arguments being used here against Mary's Co-Redemption are exactly the same ones that Protestants use against praying to the Saints viz. "Our Lord is the sole Mediator therefore to pray to the saints and to Our Blessed Mother is to take away from the Honor of Our Lord and to attribute to a creature the powers of Our Lord.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 01:20:01 PM
V.O. Stated:
Quote
Fr. Faber literally stated that "Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary.
Of Course is the sole Redeemer and Mediator with God, but that does not prevent him from associating Our Blessed Mother with the work of redemption:
Quote
Corredemptrix
Sacrae Theologiae Summa
Vol IIIA; pg. 445 ffdd:
The cooperation of Mary in the work of the redemption is affirmed constantly. And that is not only in the application of the redemption, but also in its accomplishment; for these two sometimes are expressly distinguished (Leo XIII, St. Pius X). This cooperation is also different from the divine maternity (Pius XII).
The root of that cooperation is located in the mystical union with Christ. This is not a mere joining together of the Mother with the Son; rather, it is had by a special divine will to admit and associate Her with Christ in the work of the redemption. Hence:
Theological note. That Mary cooperated in the work of redemption, At least mediately, is a matter of faith (de fide).
Further: ibid:
Quote

b) That she also cooperated immediately is a doctrine more in conformity with the quoted texts of the Holy Pontiffs. Indeed these texts, taken together as a whole, signify the constant teaching for a century of the Roman Pontiffs proposed to the whole Church more clearly with the passage of time. For they are not unaware of the disputes of theologians over this matter.
c) That the title of Corredemptrix is used rightly is certain; and it is not licit to doubt about its suitability.
Why the B.V.M. Is Co-Redemptrix:
Quote
Thesis 9. The B.V.M. participated with Christ in the work of the redemption and therefore she is rightly  called corredemptrix. 155. Definition of Terms: "The Work of redemption", that is the summary of the actions by which the human race was freed from the slavery of the devil.
"Participated With Christ": She was associated and united with Christ the Redeemer in order  to accomplish that work. But we understand this causality as immediate and moral (therefore distinct from the causality by which by which she became mother of Christ the Redeemer). However, as it is secondary (not necessary except on the supposition of the divine will) and subordinate (having its total efficacy from the primary and absolutely necessary causality of Christ the Redeemer). "Is Rightly Called Corredemptrix": That is, because she is truly redemptrix in the defined sense, this title can justly be applied to her. 
Comment: That would satisfy V.O.'s main objections viz. How Can the B.V.M. Be called "corredeptrix" when Our Lord is the sole Redeemer of the Human Race.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 01:44:54 PM
S.T. S. IIIA. pg.443.
Quote
156. Doctrine of the Church 1) Pius IX: "Just as Christ, the Mediator of God and men, having assumed a human nature. destroying the handwritten decree against us, in triumph nailed it to the cross, so also the Holy Virgin, joined to him by a close and unbreakable bond, together  with him and through Him exercising eternal enmity against the poisonous serpent, crushed his head with her Immaculate foot.("Ineffabilis Deus).
Note, the very same Encyclical which V.O. Cited earlier on the thread to attempt to argue against the coredemptrix, also teaches the same doctrine as other Popes on the same.
Quote

2)Leo XIII: "She took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world." (Iucundus semper). "To thee we lift our prayers, for thou art the Mediatrix, powerful at once and pitiful, of our salvation". (Iucundus Semper).  And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favor and a power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained, or ever can gain. (Semper Apostolatus).
3). St. Pius X.:"And from this communion of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and dispensatrix of all the gifts that our Savior purchased for us by his death and by his blood...Yet, since Mary carries jit over all in holiness and union with Christ and has been associated by Christ in the work of the redemption, she merits for us "de congruo"  (in a congruous manner), in the language of theologians, what Christ merits for us "de condigno" (in a codign manner). D-3370.
So this last quote from St. Pius X should satisfy V.O.'s Second main objection, viz: If Our Lord merited for us our eternal redemption; how can the B.V.M. Merit this for us in any way; and to say so is a blasphemy.
The Pope explains that Our Lord merited for us "de condigno'' i.e. In strict justice; but He willed to associate with His act of the redemption that of His most Holy Mother; and she merited also for us and in cooperation with her Son in a congruous or fitting matter.
I am certain that everyone here is aware that we Catholics can merit by our good works in union with Christ the conversion of sinners and the freeing of the souls in Purgatory; this is the Catholic doctrine of the "Communion of Saints"; But Our Blessed Mother is indeed the most holy and perfect creature and her actions done in union with her Son are so much more meritorious and pleasing than those of the angels, saints and faithful together.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 01:53:12 PM
Acolite,
on the "salvation of B.V.M."; Our Blessed Mother was preserved from the stain of Original Sin from the very first instant of her conception; by the foreseen merits of Our Lord's death on the Cross. Just as those born before the said redemption were able by these same foreseen merits, to have their sins forgiven and to save their souls. The issue of the Immaculate Conception was disputed in the Church for many centuries, because it was not clear how Our Lady could be redeemed by Our Lord, and at the same time conceived without sin. It wasn't until John Duns Scotus, a 14 C.Theologian was able to clearly reconcile both truths, that this doctrine was fully accepted and latter defined by Pope Pius IX.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 02:39:42 PM
“Adam-Christ; Eve-Mary”;
Quote

160. Proof From Tradition: “In the Fathers” already at the beginning the teaching appears about the association of Mary with Christ in his work under the comparison of Eve-Mary. The general formula for this can be: “Death through Eve, life through Mary,” (St. Jerome. Epist. 22, 105: ML. 22. 408); Thus St. Justin (R 141), St. Irenaeus (R 224). Tertullian (R 358). St. Augustine (R 1578). Similar statements are made by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Peter Chrysologus, St. John Damascene. (Ft. 21 various reference works).
This teaching which appeared in ancient times in the writings of the Fathers, is necessarily connected with revelation. For, it has its origin in the Gen  3: 15( St. Irenaeus, St. Justin the Bull Munificentissimus”). In Rev. 12 (St. Irenaeus), in the teaching of St. Paul about the second Adam (St. Irenaeus).
b) “In the Middle Ages” the same parallelism was taught by St. Bernard, Peter Blesensis, St. Bonaventure, and especially by Pseudo-Albert the Great. Here are some of his words on this: “Eve generated all to death, Mary to heaven…;the former is the principle of mortality, the latter the principle of regeneration…; the former was the occasion of loss to her husband, the latter help to her Son for redemption.” The same idea recurs often in Latin hymns. Worthy of special mention “Ave Maris Stella” (8 or 9 c.).
Elsewhere (I will have to look for it); I have seen it explained thusly: The Devil ruined the human race through the co-operation of a Man a woman and a tree; so it was fitting that God should undo this ruin also through a Man a woman and the tree of the Cross.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: abc123 on October 11, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
Maria Co-Redemptrix is one of these phrases, which work out, as Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland said: 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Its not Alice in Wonderland; the arguments being used here against Mary's Co-Redemption are exactly the same ones that Protestants use against praying to the Saints viz. "Our Lord is the sole Mediator therefore to pray to the saints and to Our Blessed Mother is to take away from the Honor of Our Lord and to attribute to a creature the powers of Our Lord.

I must disagree. These are two different arguments. The argument being made against Mary as being co-redeemer has to do with Christ's unique office of high priest and mediator of the New Covenant: our salvation. Christ, and Christ alone, accomplished our salvation.

The argument against praying to saints involves questions of temporal intercession and whether saints who have passed on can hear our prayers.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Miriam_M on October 11, 2020, 03:51:45 PM

I must disagree. These are two different arguments. The argument being made against Mary as being co-redeemer has to do with Christ's unique office of high priest and mediator of the New Covenant: our salvation. Christ, and Christ alone, accomplished our salvation.

The argument against praying to saints involves questions of temporal intercession and whether saints who have passed on can hear our prayers.

The latter may be an additional argument, familiar to you, but there are those of us who, growing up Catholic, heard the dominant objection:  That praying to saints was a form of idolatry contrary to the First Commandment.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Innocent Smith on October 11, 2020, 05:10:46 PM
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 (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?

I don't know, maybe because we participate in our own redemption as well.  Along with all the Saints in the Militant and Triumphant.  And no I don't mean Saints in the Protestant sense as I believe there are Saints among us doing works for the benefit of all and that are very pleasing to our Lord.

I probably agree with Michael Wilson in sentiment.  We just write about it from different angles.  As far as I'm concerned the Mother of God does not need the title as it may even be a drop in status as I see things.

Although I do see the point that Jesus as True Man and True God could have sinned as could His and our Mother.  So in that sense I see it.  But I don't think most think these things through even that far. 

This is heavy theological stuff for which I am not qualified in the slightest.  Although I don't have much trouble opining.  Should probably have to work on that a bit more. 

I don't find it particularly beneficial to try and pigeon hole the second most important person to me that ever walked this earth and intercedes on my behalf in heaven. 
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Acolyte on October 11, 2020, 06:31:58 PM
Well, my thought is this,

Our Father in Heaven willed the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It's not at all hard to accept that and believe it. Because Christ His Son was born of Mary. A woman born with original sin would not be a fitting mother of Him. A woman in need of Redemtion.

So Mary was never in need of redemption from original sin. It is because of this that it's possible she is Co-Redemptrix. And I believe she is.

Her cooperation with God's Will at the Annunciation fulfilled God's Ultimate Will for " the Word made flesh". The Redeemer now "Dwelt Among Us".

That said, is it heretical to say Mary was never in need of redemption of Original Sin ? Her soul never knew sin.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 07:37:29 PM
Acolite,
Mary was in need of redemption; she benefited from the redemption the same as the rest of the human race, but in a unique way; for her the merits of Christ's redemption were applied as a preventive medicine (in a way of speaking) i.e. She received a "vaccine" that prevented her from getting sick (Original sin); while for the rest of us, it was a "curative" medicine i.e. We received the spiritual Penicillin that cured us from the disease of Original Sin.
Also, it was indeed fitting that the Mother of the Redeemer should also be free from sin; in the curse that God put on the serpent, God states that the "enmities" between her and the devil are the very same ones that are between her Son and the devil:
Genesis 3:
Quote
[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 11, 2020, 07:44:34 PM
abc stated:
Quote
I must disagree. These are two different arguments. The argument being made against Mary as being co-redeemer has to do with Christ's unique office of high priest and mediator of the New Covenant: our salvation. Christ, and Christ alone, accomplished our salvation.

The argument against praying to saints involves questions of temporal intercession and whether saints who have passed on can hear our prayers.
Yes it is; Christ is not only our unique Redeemer, but as you stated above  our unique "mediator"; If there is no other Mediators associated with our unique mediator, then also there is no redeemers associated with our unique Redeemer. Exactly the same logic.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 11, 2020, 11:40:52 PM
Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

 If the atonement is not performed by the offender himself, but by another in his stead, it is vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria).

The Redemption objectively considered, was fulfilled through the teaching and directing activity of Christ. In a supreme degree, however, it was effected by the vicarious atonement and the merits of Christ in His sacrificial death on the Cross. Through the Atonement, the insult offered to God by sin was counterbalanced, and the injury to the honour of God repaired. Through the merits of Christ the supernatural riches of salvation were acquired which are to be dispensed in the subjective Redemption
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 12, 2020, 07:07:52 AM
Theosist,
you can argue anything you want, it doesn't matter to me; it simply isn't Catholicism that you are promoting here on this forum.

Then stop addressing me if you have no argument. I'm not promoting anything on this forum. I'm making a sound argument as to what the Roman Catholic church has dogmatically defined regarding the sole redeemer of man. And you have shown yourself to be unable to refute it.
Why don't you return to the sacraments and to the practice of the faith; that is more important than wasting your time on here.

I have the mysteries instituted by Jesus Christ and alone among “seven sacraments” spoken of as such by the early Christian sources: baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Innocent Smith on October 12, 2020, 07:19:36 AM
Well, my thought is this,

Our Father in Heaven willed the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It's not at all hard to accept that and believe it. Because Christ His Son was born of Mary. A woman born with original sin would not be a fitting mother of Him. A woman in need of Redemtion.

So Mary was never in need of redemption from original sin. It is because of this that it's possible she is Co-Redemptrix. And I believe she is.

Her cooperation with God's Will at the Annunciation fulfilled God's Ultimate Will for " the Word made flesh". The Redeemer now "Dwelt Among Us".

That said, is it heretical to say Mary was never in need of redemption of Original Sin ? Her soul never knew sin.

Yes.  It would be heretical.

She was given a special grace prior to her conception with the Crucifixion being the reason for that grace.  In this way she is like Eve.

The Hollywood film Back To The Future is kind of based on The Immaculate Conception come to think of it.  It's exactly like that.  A future event, known to God, is the reason for the grace given for Mary to be born without the stain of Original Sin. 

Should Eve be a Co-Remptrix?

How about us?  We participate, or should.  Don't we give our fiat every time we receive Holy Communion and say Amen? 



Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 12, 2020, 05:15:03 PM
Theosist,
I'm happy to hear this.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: King Wenceslas on October 12, 2020, 05:44:07 PM
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.

If Paul could fill up those things that are wanting in the suffering of Christ could the Virgin Mary do less?

Paul was a sinful man.

The most holy Virgin sinned not ONCE in her whole life. She is the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him and suffered with him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam. She can be nothing less than be co-redemptrix.

In the fulfillment of these latter days it is she who shall crush the head of satan as granted the power to her by her Son and then St. Michael will cast satan back into hell.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 12, 2020, 06:36:16 PM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Prayerful on October 12, 2020, 06:46:22 PM
Maria Co-Redemptrix is one of these phrases, which work out, as Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland said: 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Its not Alice in Wonderland; the arguments being used here against Mary's Co-Redemption are exactly the same ones that Protestants use against praying to the Saints viz. "Our Lord is the sole Mediator therefore to pray to the saints and to Our Blessed Mother is to take away from the Honor of Our Lord and to attribute to a creature the powers of Our Lord.

I take it to mean how Mary, Mother of God, has a share in Redemption through giving birth to our Lord and so much besides, including as Mediatrix of all Graces. People seem to take the phrase as somehow claiming that BVM is somehow playing the same role as our Saviour. When the matter will be wilfully misunderstood, when time is consumed explaining what it does not mean, I am cautious in discussing the matter.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 12, 2020, 09:49:40 PM
Quote
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.


The [proposed] title of Co-Redemptrix does not mean that the Blessed Virgin is in a category along with the other saints cooperating with the work of redemption, being as it were a co-redeemer in the same way St. Paul teaches in Colossians 1:24 that you just quoted. Rather, the title of Co-Redemptrix is that the Blessed Virgin is in a unique category with Christ as the redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the title of Co-Redemptrix by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of redemption under the one sole redeemer of the human race, Jesus Christ. That’s fallacious.

Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Vetus Ordo, do you completely agree with the first statement of The Theosist here?  Why did you go so far as to use the words "as it were a co-redeemer" about  the other Saints? I don't think The Theosist would allow for even "as it were". I know you both oppose the special title for Our Lady.

The Theosist, Jesus completed the end of His own SUFFERING when He died, not only the Redemption. Yet St. Paul speaks of a mysterious relationship between his suffering and Christ's, which was long past.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 12, 2020, 10:05:28 PM

St. Paul said of himself that
Quote from: Colossians I
][24] I...now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[24] comment "Wanting"

This is an often-misunderstood passage from Paul.

Miriam, can you provide a correct understanding from a more expert source?

Fisheaters (the main site) is obviously not an expert source, but is generally helpful.  It provides an explanation that does not mention Our Lady as such:

Quote
https://www.fisheaters.com/offeringitup.html
Redemptive Suffering:
"Offering it Up"
...


Our imitation of Him and our gifts to Him, though they are nothing without His Sacrifice, build up the Body of Christ if they are joined to His sufferings:

    I Corinthians 12:26
    And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

    Colossians 1:23b-24
    ...whereof I Paul am made a minister. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the church:

Now, is Paul saying that Christ's sufferings and Sacrifice weren't enough? Is he "taking away from Christ" by saying that we are to "fill up" those things that are "wanting" in His sufferings? No, of course not. He is saying, though, that we are One Body, that we co-operate with God in profound ways ( I Corinthians 3:9 "For we are God's coadjutors [co-workers, assistants]..."), and that, in an inscrutable way, our sufferings benefit one another. We actually help Jesus in His redemption of the world by giving to Him our sufferings to build up the Body of Christ.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 12, 2020, 10:19:11 PM
Unlike our suffering and St. Paul's Our Lady's occurred at the same time as Christ's suffering and during the Redemption, and directly on account of Christ's suffering and united with it.  If our suffering is even "as it were redemptive" what words do we use for Our Lady's suffering, and what value and power does Christ give to it?

I understand the difficulties of the word "Co-Redemptrix" but don't think it should be thrown out too quickly.

If only God can forgive sins, how can a priest forgive sins?  I'm not suggesting this is a good analogy with Mary being Co-Redemptrix (there's no Sacrament instituted by Christ) but just that words can trip us up.  If a good Pope were to more formally proclaim a doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix it would be carefully explained to in every way support Christ as the sole Redeemer, and Msgr Pohle would be (would have been) explaining it not questioning it.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Gerard on October 13, 2020, 02:43:37 AM
If a good Pope were to more formally proclaim a doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix it would be carefully explained to in every way support Christ as the sole Redeemer, and Msgr Pohle would be (would have been) explaining it not questioning it.

That didn't really work out too well with Vatican I and the dogma of Infallibiiity.  The Neo-Ultramontanists basically said, "thank you."  and then started to recast their Neo-Ultramontanism in new language.  It's my own personal belief that the crisis of the Church and Vatican II are punishment for the wholesale disregard for what actually was defined at Vatican I.  Papolatry right through the JPII era and only now being questioned was the result.

There's no reason to believe that too many Catholics affected by who knows what social conditions liberal or conservative wouldn't almost instantly try to Divinize the BVM if a definition or declaration were made.  And I would personally dread the result of what God would rain down on the Church if the BVM de facto became a source of idolatry in the Church.  Idolatry added to a sacrilege is probably an undreamt of offense. 
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 13, 2020, 05:14:34 AM
Quote
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Vetus Ordo, do you completely agree with the first statement of The Theosist here?  Why did you go so far as to use the words "as it were a co-redeemer" about  the other Saints? I don't think The Theosist would allow for even "as it were". I know you both oppose the special title for Our Lady.

The Theosist, Jesus completed the end of His own SUFFERING when He died, not only the Redemption. Yet St. Paul speaks of a mysterious relationship between his suffering and Christ's, which was long past.

Non Nobis, mine is the majority Patristic reading, and it knows nothing of this suffering in place of and with Christ being an act of vicarious atonement analogous or joined to Jesus' upon Calvary, which I will now show to you.

I'll begin with those Fathers who make explicit my reading. First, the Greeks:

Quote from: Severian of Gabala
If, he says, there is anything remaining to be suffered, then I fill up the
leftovers of the afflictions for Christ’s sake, and rejoice in suffering on
your behalf. Why for your sakes? Because he suffered in order to
proclaim [the good news] to you
. If Christ is the head of the body, the
church, then the afflictions that arise for the church through those who
rebel against the word of truth are quite naturally termed ‘afflictions of
Christ’, and whoever wrestles with a heart of praise in these afflictions
could say, not without good cause, I take my turn in filling up what
remains of the afflictions of Christ.


Quote from: Theodore of Mopsuestia
‘So’, he says, ‘I take pleasure even in suffering for you; and since Christ
had previously suffered for your wellbeing, to proclaim you his Body by
his resurrection, I fill up what is left of his afflictions for you.’ What was
left over? Your learning what things have been put right for you and
receiving the proclamation about them.
But this was never going to be
without labour and afflictions. These are why I suffer, going about
proclaiming all that has been accomplished, so that you might believe and
with willing hearts come to be appropriated by him
; for of these things I
was made a minister.


Quote from:  Theodoret of Cyrus
The Lord Jesus undertook death for the sake of the church, and the shame
of the cross, and the blows to the temples, and the scourging on his back,
and everything else he endured; and the godly apostle similarly bore the
various sufferings for her sake. For he knew about the life to be produced
by it. He describes himself ‘filling up in turn what was lacking in the
afflictions of Christ’, as filling up what was left over, and taking on the
accompanying sufferings. What was left over was the proclamation to the
Gentiles, and the display of salvation’s big-spending producer
.

The Latins:

He says tribulation gains life, but he connects the benefit of this work explicitly to the faith of believers and the preaching to the faithful:

Quote from: Ambrosiaster
He confesses to exulting in the tribulations which he was suffering,
because he sees benefit for himself in the faith of the believers. For
tribulation is not in vain when it gains for life the one for whom it suffers.
These sufferings, he says, concern Christ, whose teaching they certainly
persecute; [this he says] in order to burden the unbelievers with the
horror of their impiety and to preach to the faithful the love of God
,
whose Son still suffers injury for us.

Here again he connects it to the act of preaching the Gospel, the hearing of which is essential to our salvation:

Quote from: Ambrosiaster
There is no doubt that Christ is put to death in the martyrs, and that in
those who suffer for the faith – whether destruction or imprisonment or
floggings – it is Christ who suffers ... for their salvation they were
subjected to death; for in preaching to people they stir up hostility to
themselves, whether from Jews or from Gentiles, even to death.

This one is not explicit, but the suffering is connected specifically to the priestly ministry, and so the plain reading to me is to see the work of that suffering as the fruit of the priestly ministry, not a vicarious atonement:

Quote from: Ambrose of Milan
So the aim is ‘that I may fill up’, he says, ‘what is lacking of the
tribulations of Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the church,
of which I have been made a minister’. We can see what there is
for us to take on – we who have taken on the priestly ministry: that
not only for ourselves, but also for the Lord’s church, we ought
bravely to bear physical suffering.

The rest of the Latin Fathers, like Augustine, I find to be silent on the question at hand of whether this suffering is for vicarious atonement, though the former deals quite extensively with the passage in the context of the mystery of the Church's suffering being Christ's suffering.

To turn to other Greek references, the first is Origen's. He's not explicit here, but he does mention it in the context of witnesses:

Quote from: Origen
You, sacred Ambrose, have been honoured and welcomed by several
cities, yet now appear as in pomp, bearing the cross of Jesus and
following him as he leads you before magistrates and kings, so that
accompanying you he may grant to you both a mouth and wisdom; and to
you too, his fellow contestant Protoctetus, and to all you our fellow witnesses [συμμαρτυροῦσιν] who ‘fill up what is lacking in the sufferings
of Christ’

Hegemonius's commentary doesn't help, considering this suffering special to the Apostle or Apostles:

Quote
‘For those which were lacking of the tribulations of Christ, I fill up in my
flesh.’ And again in another place he declares that because he is a
minister of Christ above the rest, so after him there is absolutely no other
to be looked for; indeed he commands that not even an angel from heaven
is to be thus received. And how then are we to believe Manes, coming
from Persia and professing to be the Paraclete?

John Chrysostom has some extensive commentary on this passage, but he doesn't connect it anywhere to the idea of a vicarious atonement through personal suffering.

But, as I alluded to before, I wouldn't expect to find such an idea among the early Christians since they didn't even possess the idea that Christ's suffering brought vicarious atonement directly and in itself as payment of a debt of justice due to the Father for our sin. Christ's suffering to them is more a consequence of his redemptive work, the outpouring of a Satanic wrath upon him and his consequent death a necessary step in the accomplishment of his work in vanquishing Satan and destroying death. In suffering with him in the Church we become more Christ-like, working out the salvation already won for us by Jesus alone.

Less interesting perhaps to you as a Catholic but more for the Eastern Orthodox is the understanding of Photius:

Quote
It is not as if Christ did not bear what he ought to suffer – no way: he left
out nothing at all in that respect; on the contrary, his grace to us was
over-abundant. So which lacks is Paul filling up? They are those which
the Saviour, had he been still living at the time when Paul was preaching,
would have suffered as he taught and, by his presence, as he cared for the
creation
: those are what Paul now suffers, thereby ‘filling up in turn what
was left over of the afflictions of Christ’. This corresponds more closely
to the word. For he does not say simply ἀναπληρῶ, but ἀνταναπληρῶ, ie.
in place of [ἀντὶ] the Lord and Teacher I, the servant and disciple,
succeed to his ministry, and fill up in turn what is lacking of his
afflictions. The things he would have borne, had he not given me this
ministry, I of course – having taken it on – fill up in my body [σώματί
μου] what was lacking in his afflictions.




Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 13, 2020, 11:16:34 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 13, 2020, 11:40:44 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

What does this have to do with the verse from Colossians in question and my statement about it, which I just showed to be the Patristic reading?

Quote
No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

The Patristic doctrine of atonement is Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor, an ontological atonement in which Christ, ransoming himself to the powers of darkness, conquers Satan and death and, through the hypostatic union, restores humanity from Adam's failings and shares his glorified body and blood with us; it is not the Frankish innovation of Anselmian satisfaction theory, in which man is forensically saved from the wrath of a God who demands a blood sacrifice to pay back a debt due to himself, Christ's suffering and death serving as a substitutionary payment on our behalf.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 13, 2020, 01:47:24 PM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

What does this have to do with the verse from Colossians in question and my statement about it, which I just showed to be the Patristic reading?

Quote
No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

The Patristic doctrine of atonement is Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor, an ontological atonement in which Christ, ransoming himself to the powers of darkness, conquers Satan and death and, through the hypostatic union, restores humanity from Adam's failings and shares his glorified body and blood with us; it is not the Frankish innovation of Anselmian satisfaction theory, in which man is forensically saved from the wrath of a God who demands a blood sacrifice to pay back a debt due to himself, Christ's suffering and death serving as a substitutionary payment on our behalf.

Again you have no concept of Catholic Theology.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 05:01:24 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

What does this have to do with the verse from Colossians in question and my statement about it, which I just showed to be the Patristic reading?

Quote
No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

The Patristic doctrine of atonement is Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor, an ontological atonement in which Christ, ransoming himself to the powers of darkness, conquers Satan and death and, through the hypostatic union, restores humanity from Adam's failings and shares his glorified body and blood with us; it is not the Frankish innovation of Anselmian satisfaction theory, in which man is forensically saved from the wrath of a God who demands a blood sacrifice to pay back a debt due to himself, Christ's suffering and death serving as a substitutionary payment on our behalf.

Again you have no concept of Catholic Theology.


If you’re implying I don’t understand Anselmian satisfaction theory, it doesn’t matter if the suffering and death are to satisfy a debt of honour due to be repaid to God on behalf of lawbreakers, or if like with Calvin the suffering and death are the result of an outpouring of God’s wrath against lawbreakers upon a substitutionary victim, they are both forms of salvation from the wrath of a God who demands a blood sacrifice, one by averting that wrath through a payment of restitution whose value lies in the personal merit of the victim, the other by redirecting that wrath upon an adequate penal substitute, for in both cases in the absence of this blood sacrifice God pours out his wrath upon even the least sinner by deliberately casting him into Hell.

Both are ultimately forensic, based in concepts of law and justice to which God necessarily adheres like a presiding judge, even if there is an ontological effect of restoration that comes from God being forensically satisfied (Muh honour is restored/muh wrath has been satisfied by this perfect victim, so I’ll be nice to you now), and neither is Patristic.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Graham on October 14, 2020, 09:07:18 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

Is it even possible that a view of the Atonement (so-called ransom theory) that predominated until the Scholastic era is proximate to heresy?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 10:06:02 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

Is it even possible that a view of the Atonement (so-called ransom theory) that predominated until the Scholastic era is proximate to heresy?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the idea that Jesus made a payment to the Satan in exchange for our release. That is in fact just like Satisfaction or Penal Substitution with the recipient of the payment changed from God to the Devil.

In the context of Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor, ransomed from Satan just means Jesus redeemed us from the Devil and death, rather than from an angry deity, but not in exchange! He gave himself over to the Powers of Darkness, but not as a payment! Rather, through the hypostatic union, to conquer them by virtue of his divinity, on our behalf by virtue of his humanity. When we (or rather the priest as Christ) raise up his body and blood in sacrifice to the Father, it is not as a payment of debt! It is as the Passover Lamb, for the Father to pour out that life to us so that death will not touch us.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Graham on October 14, 2020, 10:32:22 AM
Paul never relates those words to vicarious atonement. Jesus crushed Satan's head when he died, descended into Hell, and rose again.

Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima*)

No mention of "descended into Hell, and rose again" Those words are what the NO use concerning the Mass. they say the mass celebrates Christ Resurrection.

Is it even possible that a view of the Atonement (so-called ransom theory) that predominated until the Scholastic era is proximate to heresy?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the idea that Jesus made a payment to the Satan in exchange for our release. That is in fact just like Satisfaction or Penal Substitution with the recipient of the payment changed from God to the Devil.

In the context of Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor, ransomed from Satan just means Jesus redeemed us from the Devil and death, rather than from an angry deity, but not in exchange! He gave himself over to the Powers of Darkness, but not as a payment! Rather, through the hypostatic union, to conquer them by virtue of his divinity, on our behalf by virtue of his humanity. When we raise up his body and blood in sacrifice to the Father, it is not as a payment of debt! It is as the Passover Lamb, for the Father to pour out that life to us so that death will not touch us.

I suppose that if you want to mesh this view - not to mention the other pre-Scholastic views - with the theological note (provided, I assume, from Ott), much depends on how atonement is defined. Your average secular dictionary defines it as reparation for a wrong, and under that definition I don't see how "vicarious atonement to God" can mean anything other than the Anselmian theory or its offshoots. Attwater's Catholic Dictionary (1958), however, defines the atonement as follows: "That act of reconciling (making at-one) man to God, which Jesus Christ as mediator effected by his death for the redemption of man."
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 10:43:34 AM
Etymology of atonement:

early 16th century (denoting unity or reconciliation, especially between God and man): from at one + -ment, influenced by medieval Latin adunamentum ‘unity’, and earlier onement from an obsolete verb one ‘to unite’.

I imagine the popular usage is informed by centuries of a Protestant understanding of Christ's atonement.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Graham on October 14, 2020, 10:57:37 AM
Something is still troubling me about it. The note states "vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man." The latter half suggests, if not forces, an Anselmian interpretation of atonement, no? So again, how could the dominant pre-Scholastic tradition, held by saints and fathers, actually be "proximate to heresy"? This is the kind of development of doctrine that sits very badly with me.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 14, 2020, 02:44:39 PM
§ 25. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration. (D e fide .)
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 02:56:36 PM
There can be no doubt about Ott's intentions by that statement: vicarious satisfaction.

Quote
§ 10. Christ's Vicarious Atonement
1. The Notion of Atonement
By atonement in general is understood the satisfaction of a demand. In the
narrower sense it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult: satisfactio nihil
aliud est quam injuriae alteri illatae compensatio (Cat. Rom. II 5, 59). This
occurs through a voluntary performance which outweighs the injustice done.
If such a performance through its intrinsic value completely cOWlterbalances the
grievousness of the guilt according to the delnands ofjustice, the atonement is
adequate or of full value (satisfaetio condigna, aequivalens sive ad aequalitatem
i ustitiae); if it is not commensurate \vith the grievousness of the offence and is
accepted as sufficient purely out of gracious consideration, it is inadequate or not
of complete value (satisfactio congruo sive ad benignitatem condonantis). 1£
the atonement is not performed by the offender himself, but by another in his
'tead. it is vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria).

2. Reality of Christ'. Vicariou8 Atonement
Christ. through His Suffering and Death rendered
vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent.
fidei proxima.)
The Council of Ephesus teaches with St. Cyril of Alexandria: "If anyone
says that He (Christ) offered the oblation for Himself, and not rather solely for
us, let him be excluded." D 12.2. The Council ofTrent says ofJesus Christus :
Qui sua sanctissinla passione in ligno crucis ... pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit.
D 799 (who by His most holy Passion on the Cross offered satisfaction for
us to God the Father). The Vaticm COWlcil intended to raise the teaching
of Christ's vicarious satisfaction to the status of a formal dogma (Coll. Lac.
vn 566). Holy Writ contains the teaching of the vicarious atonement, not
indeed explicitly but by implication. Isaias (53, 4 et seq.) foretells of the Servant
ofGod, that is, of the Messiah, that He, the Sinless One, for our sins and in our
stead, would suffer and die like an innocent lamb of sacrifice, to obtain for us
peace and justification. Christ expressed the idea of the vicarious atonement in
the words: "The Son of Man is come ... to give His life a redemption
for many" (Mt. 20, 28). "I lay down my life for my sheep" (John 10, IS).
The notion of the vicarious atonement appears distinctly in St. Paul also
2 Cor. 5, 21: "Him who knew no sin He hath made sin for us: that we
might be made the justice of God in Him (V7TEp 1)fLwv=avTL ~IJ-wv) " ;
Gal. 3, 13: "Christ hath redeenled us free from the curse of the law, being
made acurse for us." According to Rom. 3, 25 et seq., God's justice is revealed
in the denland for and the acceptance of Christ's vicarious atonementsacrifice, " to the shewing of His justice." C( 1 Peter 2, 24; 3, 18.
From the very beginning the Fathers were falniliar with the idea of Christ's
vicarious atonement. rrhe Apostles' disciple, St. Clement of RaDle, comments:
"For the sake of the love which He had fOf us OUf Lord Jesus Christ, according
to the will of the Father has given His bl,)od for us, His flesh for our flesh, and
His soul for our souls" (Cor. 49, 6). Cf. The Letter to Diognetus, 9, 2.
St. Anselm of Canterbury (t 1199) in his dialogue: ., Cur Deus Homo " has
speculatively penetrated and built up to a systeluatic theory of Redemption
the idea of the vicarious atonement of Christ which is based in Scripture and
tradition. While the Fathers, in the explanation of Christ's work of sanctification, proceed more from the contemplation of the consequences of the
Reden1ption, and therefore stress the negative side of the Redemption, namely,
the ransoming from the slavery of sin and of the devil, St. Anselm proceeds
from the contemplation of the guilt of Sill. This, as an in~ult offered to God, is
infinite, and theretore deluands an infinite expiation. Such expiation, however,
can be achie:ved by a Divine Person only. To be capable of thus representing
mankind, this person 11UlSt be, at the same time, man and God.

He also explicitly rejects Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor as "speculative", "inadequate" and "un-Biblical" and is an obvious Anselmian bootlicker.

Quote
3. Inadequate Patristic Theories of the Redemption
From the efforts to explain the dogma of the Redenlption speculatively, various
theories of the Redemption developed in Patristic times.
a) St. Irenaeus of Lyons (t about 2,02) initiated the so-called recapitulation
theory or mystic theory of Redemption, which, starting from Eph. I, 10
(avaKE'cPa"ac.woaa8ac.=recapitulare: Vulg.: instaurare) teaches that Christ as
the second Adam, saved and united with God the whole human race. In this
view salvation ofman had already taken place in principIe through the Incarnation
of the Son of God. Side by side with this theory which gave to the Passion
and Death of Christ a subordinate significance only, St. Irenaeus also expounds
the Pauline teaching of the ransoming and reconciling through Christ's death
on the Cross. Cf. Adv. haer. ill 16, 9; IV 5, 4; V I, I et seq.; 14, 2-5 ;
16, 3; 17, I.
b) Origen (t 254) changed the Pauline teaching of man's ransom from the
dominion of the devil to an unbiblical ransom-theory. He held that the devil
by Adam's sin, had acquired a formal dominion over mankind. In order to
liberate mankind from this tyranny Christ gave his life to the devil as ransom
price. But the devil was deceived, as he was not able to maintain for long his
dominion of death over Christ. Others e:Kplained that the devillost his do~nin.ion
over mankind by unjustly trying to extend this right to Christ also. Despite
the fact that this error was widespread, Patristic teaching held firmly to the
biblical teaching of man's reconciliation with God through Christ's death
on the Cross. The notion of a dominion of the devil over fallen nlankind was
energetically refuted by St. Anselm of Canterbury.

If we want to talk about something "un-Biblical", the obvious Biblical problem with all of this is that the Passover Lamb, with whom Jesus on Calvary is identified, is not a guilt offering as payment to God for offense caused to him. If one wants to come up with a rigorous theory of atonement, this fact, and considering the function of the Paschal Lamb, ought surely be a starting point!
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 03:02:46 PM
§ 25. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration. (D e fide .)

Yes, "Canon iii. If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice;[16] or, that it avails him only who receiveth; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."

And? Context? Are you saying this contradicts something?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Graham on October 14, 2020, 03:25:54 PM
§ 25. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration. (D e fide .)

Yes, "Canon iii. If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice;[16] or, that it avails him only who receiveth; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."

And? Context? Are you saying this contradicts something?

If I may, I think the inflection is on Ott's "expiation," corresponding to Trent's "propitiation." And the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the Cross being identical, dogma pertaining to or illuminating the character of the one will pertain equally to the other. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is the objection St. Justin intends, and assume also that these two words are truly synonyms. Propitiation is defined in Attwater as "prayer appealing for the mercy of God on us sinners and for mitigation of punishment justly incurred." Does this necessarily result in a theory of vicarious satisfaction?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 14, 2020, 04:02:01 PM
However you slice it Christ suffering and death on the cross ( not his Resurrection or anything else) was both a vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man and expiation and propitiatory sacrifice  and the Mass is the same thing and has the same affect.

This is the teaching of the Church. I really don't understand what the discussion is all about.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 15, 2020, 04:48:02 AM
(About the atonement)

I read St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo in college and was so impressed by God's unfathomable perfect justice and perfect mercy and amazing plan in allowing mankind in Christ to in a way himself pay the infinite debt that man owed God, because God who alone is infinitely good became man who alone can suffer, and suffered in his place.  It wasn't a matter of wrath and economics but of love and obedience and meekness (the lamb of God), while achieving perfect justice.

This may be worth reading (I have only scanned it):

https://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/competing-theories-of-christs-atonement-penal-substitution-economic-transaction-or-obediential-love/

It goes into St. Thomas Aquinas views building on (and it says improving on) St. Anselm's.  (I think my understanding of St. Anselm was affected by reading St. Thomas later). Here are some bits of it that seem good to me:

Quote

Many contemporary theologians are often hesitant to embrace the soteriology (the study of doctrines of salvation) of St. Thomas. It is considered to be part of a “monstrous version of redemption … (in which) Christ (is presented) as the penal substitute propitiating the divine anger.” 4 From this perspective “attributing redeeming value to the suffering of the Son seems to entail a rather problematic concept of God … evoking the specter of a cruel God whose divine anger had to be appeased by the death of his Son.” 5 However, this is to misread Aquinas, mistaking his personalist theory of the atonement for reductive caricatures of Christ’s act of redemption. I hope to demonstrate that Aquinas’ theory of the atonement is not the “penal substitution” model derived from Calvin, nor is it a theory of a merely external juridical or economic transaction. It is best understood as an interpersonal act of atonement which takes place in his Mystical Body, and is motivated by love. ... Finally, I will assess how, in the theology of St. Thomas, the mercy and justice of God are suitably reconciled in the Passion.

What is the essence of Aquinas’ theology of the atonement? Perhaps the most important point to consider is that his theory is profoundly personal. The Passion is understood as an act of a personal God atoning for the personal offense of sin. The personalist understanding of the atonement is deeply linked to the framework of the relationship between Christ and the members of his Mystical Body. In this area, Aquinas develops Anselm’s model, arguing for the “link between Christ’s redemptive activity, and our participation in it in much greater depth, by espousing the Pauline notion of the Body of Christ.” 6 This defends Aquinas’ theory from one of the major weaknesses of Anselm’s in which he “fails to clarify the connection between Christ’s satisfactory activity, and our participation in it, a feature which has given fuel to misunderstanding his teaching in (merely) transactional terms.” 7 St. Thomas teaches that “Christ by his Passion merited salvation, not only for himself, but likewise for all his members.” 8 To suffer justly in grace means that a man merits salvation for himself; to suffer justly in grace means that Christ merits salvation for his members. As will be explored further below, Christ’s act of love and obedience substitutes for our love and obedience through the union in his Mystical Body. “Christ’s satisfaction extends to all the faithful as to his members, because Christ and his Church form, as it were, one single mystical person.” 9

In order to understand properly Aquinas’ theory of the atonement, it is also helpful to consider his theory of sin. For Aquinas, sin is fundamentally a personal offense, “something that deeply affects the self of the human person, and the way she relates to herself, other people, and above all, God.” 10 It is essentially a disorder in the will, in which the creature turns away from God, and fails to love God as he ought to be loved. Sin is seen as “a spiritual illness, which results from a lack of order within the personality.” 11 Sin, considered as the creature’s personal failure to love, explains Aquinas’ emphasis on the interpersonal love involved in the act of atonement. It is for this reason that “salvation (is) seen as a restoration of the divine order in which the human will is once again turned toward its ultimate end, i.e., a loving relationship between humanity and God.” 12 Christ, in his Passion, reorients the disordered will of human nature from within. Thus “we should resist interpreting the notion of ‘restoration of divine order’ in merely judicial terms.” 13 Since both the sin and the atonement are interpersonal, they are difficult to quantify.  Any economic or judicial metaphors must be reread in a personalist way, or we risk reducing our concept of the Passion from the order of interpersonal friendship to the abstract order of justice.

Aquinas’ understanding of the Passion as atonement, or satisfaction, is not primarily understood as Christ’s substituting himself in suffering the demands of punishment for sin according to the rigors of divine justice, but with reference to the love and obedience Christ offered on our behalf. Aquinas teaches that “by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.” 14 Aquinas gives three reasons why Christ’s satisfaction for sin was superabundant. First and formally, the superabundant satisfaction was due to the “exceeding charity” with which his Sacred Heart suffered the Passion. 15 It is the love of Christ which repairs the aversion of the will of all members of the human race in sin’s lack of love. This is a profoundly Catholic interpretation of the merits of Christ, and guards against reductionist metaphors which see the Passion as merely satisfying divine justice, or as an economic exchange. “Christ’s death … atones because of the charity in which he bore it.” 16 Secondly, the infinite satisfaction offered by Christ has, as its foundation, the infinite dignity of his person. Although he suffered in his human nature, it was the suffering of a divine person and, therefore, of infinite merit. 17 Thus, it was enough to atone for the relative infinitude of sin’s offense against the divine dignity. Thirdly, the material superabundance of the satisfaction for sin is derived from “the greatness of the grief endured” in the Passion, which merited enough to atone for all punishment due to sin. 18 It is significant that Aquinas places the satisfactory sufferings of Christ third in his answer, after establishing the love with which the sacrifice was offered, and the dignity of the person offering it. The reductive caricatures of the atonement we have been considering would put a greater emphasis on the sufferings endured by Christ in order to appease divine justice. There is no trace in Aquinas’ explanation of the idea that the Father treats the Son as an object of wrath or vengeance. The obediential suffering of Christ manifests his love for the human race, which is satiated not only by forgiving our sins in mercy, but satisfying for them in justice.

The personalism in Aquinas’ account is far removed from either penal substitution, or transactional theory of the atonement, which imply more of an external material bargain than an act of interpersonal love. For Aquinas, the “satisfaction does not refer to a legalistic transaction,” rather it was an act of love: “the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity.” 19 Although, it is true that Aquinas uses the economic metaphor of redemption and price, which are helpful and necessary, he couches them in terms of the relationship between Christ and his members. “Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—himself—for us. And, therefore, Christ’s Passion is called our redemption.” 20 This is a legitimate metaphor only if it avoids reducing the Passion to a mere external, material exchange satisfying the abstract order of justice.

One of the most common reasons why Aquinas’ theory of the atonement is rejected is because it is seen as a manifestation of the sadistic penal substitution theory of atonement. In this view, God’s vengeance must be appeased. It is the “just vengeance (of the Father) which the Son of God transferred to himself.” 21 Jesus steps in to take the blow of the paternal wrath. This offers a misguided view of God’s paternity, and is a sad caricature of the redemption. As we have seen, this excessively juridical understanding of the atonement is foreign to Aquinas. The divine desire for vengeance does not need to be satiated, and the cross was not absolutely necessary to forgive sin without injustice. In addition, although we can say that Christ took on the punishment of our guilt in a metaphorical sense, for Aquinas, there is no sense in which Christ was actually guilty as there is for Calvin.  22 This would involve a disordered will, and would mean true sin in Christ; it is ontologically impossible for Christ to take on our malum culpae. Aquinas shows how far his theory is from penal substitution when, in describing the fittingness of the Passion in order to save the human race, he gives as the first reason that “man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love him in return.” 23 The penal substitution theory fails to account for this supremely personal and loving exchange between Christ and his members.

It is, thus, also evident that Aquinas’ theory of the atonement sheds profound light upon our understanding of the mercy, love, and justice of God. All three are united—indeed, for God, every act of justice is more deeply an act of mercy, and the act of the atonement embraces this truth as well. In restoring the will of man back to loving God, Christ not only re-establishes the order of divine justice, but offers an act of profound mercy. Christ gives to the Father his own inner justice as man in order to express a deeper order of love and justice, the metaphysical order of divine wisdom, of which human justice is but an analogy. The redemption of mankind was in keeping with the justice of God “because by his Passion, Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice.” 24 It was also in keeping with his mercy “for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature … God gave him his Son to satisfy for him.” 25 It expresses a more ultimate mercy to renew all things in Christ, and to atone for sin, not simply by an act of will (which certainly would have been possible for God), but through an act of merciful justice. Since all sin is a personal offense against God, he could forgive sin without any injustice apart from the cross. However, “this would have been less fitting, for in satisfying, we are allowed to put matters right with God.” 26 It was more merciful of God to allow us to participate in the justice of Christ. In this act, “mercy and truth have met each other, justice and peace have kissed.” 27 Although the cross was not necessary, it “came of more copious mercy than if (God) had forgiven sins without satisfaction.” 28 The justice of the Passion is the greater mercy. We also see, in conclusion, how far removed Aquinas’ union between the justice, love, and mercy of God is from a [I would add, merely or essentially] penal substitution, or extrinsic juridical theory of the atonement. God is not constrained by an abstract order of justice, rather, he himself lovingly communicates his justice and mercy to his creatures through the Passion of Christ.

Since this was written post Vatican II some might be concerned about the talk of a "personalist theory" of Aquinas - maybe this writer's understanding of St. Thomas is wrong.  But I don't know enough to say anything like that.

Of course God is justly angry at sinners: Divine Wrath is a reality. Punishment is Just for sin against an Infinitely Good God by perfectly free men who had no excuse. Christ's bearing of our sins does not mean God is wrathful at Him, but that He is lovingly taking the suffering due to the sins, so that God is no longer wrathful at sinners who ask for Christ's forgiveness. (Justice could have been achieved (and wrath alleviated) another way, but Christ's love (and the reality of God's infinite goodness) would not have been as clear.)

I think, Justin, that it is OK to discuss these things further since they have been discussed since the time of Christ.  We just can't deny what the Church has already taught.   Building on St. Thomas the Church has certainly approved (of course excluding what the Church has corrected).
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: The Theosist on October 15, 2020, 06:52:09 AM
I hope to demonstrate that Aquinas’ theory of the atonement is not the “penal substitution” model derived from Calvin, nor is it a theory of a merely external juridical or economic transaction. It is best understood as an interpersonal act of atonement which takes place in his Mystical Body, and is motivated by love.

I haven't suggested it's identical to penal substitution but that, "they are both forms of salvation from the wrath of a God who demands a blood sacrifice, one by averting that wrath through a payment of restitution whose value lies in the personal merit of the victim, the other by redirecting that wrath upon an adequate penal substitute, for in both cases in the absence of this blood sacrifice God pours out his wrath upon even the least sinner by deliberately casting him into Hell."

I don't see how it being "an interpersonal act of atonement which takes place in his Mystical Body, and is motivated by love" would change that.

Quote
What is the essence of Aquinas’ theology of the atonement? Perhaps the most important point to consider is that his theory is profoundly personal. The Passion is understood as an act of a personal God atoning for the personal offense of sin. The personalist understanding of the atonement is deeply linked to the framework of the relationship between Christ and the members of his Mystical Body. In this area, Aquinas develops Anselm’s model, arguing for the “link between Christ’s redemptive activity, and our participation in it in much greater depth, by espousing the Pauline notion of the Body of Christ.” 6 This defends Aquinas’ theory from one of the major weaknesses of Anselm’s in which he “fails to clarify the connection between Christ’s satisfactory activity, and our participation in it, a feature which has given fuel to misunderstanding his teaching in (merely) transactional terms.” 7 St. Thomas teaches that “Christ by his Passion merited salvation, not only for himself, but likewise for all his members.” 8 To suffer justly in grace means that a man merits salvation for himself; to suffer justly in grace means that Christ merits salvation for his members. As will be explored further below, Christ’s act of love and obedience substitutes for our love and obedience through the union in his Mystical Body. “Christ’s satisfaction extends to all the faithful as to his members, because Christ and his Church form, as it were, one single mystical person.” 9

In order to understand properly Aquinas’ theory of the atonement, it is also helpful to consider his theory of sin. For Aquinas, sin is fundamentally a personal offense, “something that deeply affects the self of the human person, and the way she relates to herself, other people, and above all, God.” 10 It is essentially a disorder in the will, in which the creature turns away from God, and fails to love God as he ought to be loved. Sin is seen as “a spiritual illness, which results from a lack of order within the personality.” 11 Sin, considered as the creature’s personal failure to love, explains Aquinas’ emphasis on the interpersonal love involved in the act of atonement. It is for this reason that “salvation (is) seen as a restoration of the divine order in which the human will is once again turned toward its ultimate end, i.e., a loving relationship between humanity and God.” 12 Christ, in his Passion, reorients the disordered will of human nature from within. Thus “we should resist interpreting the notion of ‘restoration of divine order’ in merely judicial terms.” 13 Since both the sin and the atonement are interpersonal, they are difficult to quantify.  Any economic or judicial metaphors must be reread in a personalist way, or we risk reducing our concept of the Passion from the order of interpersonal friendship to the abstract order of justice.

Yet Christ was not disordered in this way. If one takes out the notion of satisfaction, one is left wondering as to why this vicariously accomplished re-ordering had to happen through his suffering and death as a blood sacrifice and was not already accomplished in the hypostatic union.

Quote
Aquinas’ understanding of the Passion as atonement, or satisfaction, is not primarily understood as Christ’s substituting himself in suffering the demands of punishment for sin according to the rigors of divine justice, but with reference to the love and obedience Christ offered on our behalf.

Even if it were not primary, it is still a part, even an essential part. But with reference to my aforegoing comment, it's again not clear why the love and obedience had to take the form of suffering and dying on a cross. Why was the atonement was not accomplished the moment of Christ's first act of perfect and infinite love and obedience? Why only in his Passion?

Quote
Aquinas teaches that “by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.” 14 Aquinas gives three reasons why Christ’s satisfaction for sin was superabundant. First and formally, the superabundant satisfaction was due to the “exceeding charity” with which his Sacred Heart suffered the Passion. 15 It is the love of Christ which repairs the aversion of the will of all members of the human race in sin’s lack of love. This is a profoundly Catholic interpretation of the merits of Christ, and guards against reductionist metaphors which see the Passion as merely satisfying divine justice, or as an economic exchange. “Christ’s death … atones because of the charity in which he bore it.”

Further to that, Jesus Christ always had perfect and infinite charity, manifested in every act of his. Why should it require the Passion in order to become vicarious for us, in order to restore the members of his mystical body? The answer is that substitutionary payment to God in the form of blood sacrifice is the essential core of satisfaction theory, however much one tries to relegate it to a place of lesser importance.

Quote
16 Secondly, the infinite satisfaction offered by Christ has, as its foundation, the infinite dignity of his person. Although he suffered in his human nature, it was the suffering of a divine person and, therefore, of infinite merit.

This is a given, even in some form for Penal Substitution.

Quote
17 Thus, it was enough to atone for the relative infinitude of sin’s offense against the divine dignity. Thirdly, the material superabundance of the satisfaction for sin is derived from “the greatness of the grief endured” in the Passion, which merited enough to atone for all punishment due to sin. 18 It is significant that Aquinas places the satisfactory sufferings of Christ third in his answer, after establishing the love with which the sacrifice was offered, and the dignity of the person offering it. The reductive caricatures of the atonement we have been considering would put a greater emphasis on the sufferings endured by Christ in order to appease divine justice. There is no trace in Aquinas’ explanation of the idea that the Father treats the Son as an object of wrath or vengeance. The obediential suffering of Christ manifests his love for the human race, which is satiated not only by forgiving our sins in mercy, but satisfying for them in justice.[/b]

No, but if one digs one finds his suffering and death are nevertheless payment that avert that wrath and vengeance from us.

Quote
The personalism in Aquinas’ account is far removed from either penal substitution, or transactional theory of the atonement, which imply more of an external material bargain than an act of interpersonal love. For Aquinas, the “satisfaction does not refer to a legalistic transaction,” rather it was an act of love: “the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity.”

But why the Passion? Because there is a forensic essence to it, there is a juridical and economic transaction of appeasement somewhere in there, even if there is more to it than that. If there isn't, the form and place of the act of atonement ceases to make sense.

Quote
19 Although, it is true that Aquinas uses the economic metaphor of redemption and price, which are helpful and necessary, he couches them in terms of the relationship between Christ and his members. “Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—himself—for us. And, therefore, Christ’s Passion is called our redemption.” 20 This is a legitimate metaphor only if it avoids reducing the Passion to a mere external, material exchange satisfying the abstract order of justice.

Is the author putting too much of his own spin on Aquinas? This reads like it.

Quote
One of the most common reasons why Aquinas’ theory of the atonement is rejected is because it is seen as a manifestation of the sadistic penal substitution theory of atonement. In this view, God’s vengeance must be appeased. It is the “just vengeance (of the Father) which the Son of God transferred to himself.” 21 Jesus steps in to take the blow of the paternal wrath. This offers a misguided view of God’s paternity, and is a sad caricature of the redemption. As we have seen, this excessively juridical understanding of the atonement is foreign to Aquinas. The divine desire for vengeance does not need to be satiated, and the cross was not absolutely necessary to forgive sin without injustice.

I don't think the author established this.

Quote
In addition, although we can say that Christ took on the punishment of our guilt in a metaphorical sense, for Aquinas, there is no sense in which Christ was actually guilty as there is for Calvin.

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean, and this reads like a bit of a false dichotomy to me, i.e., a "non-metaphorical sense" implies "Christ was actually guilty". I'm also unsure that's not a straw man against Calvin.

Quote
22 This would involve a disordered will, and would mean true sin in Christ; it is ontologically impossible for Christ to take on our malum culpae.

If we're talking ontologically, and "punishment" is the essential separation from God and everlasting torment of Hell, that's impossible, but not if we are talking in a forensic sense in which Christ can at least be sentenced to be receive "the punishment of our guilt" even if he can never himself be affected by it as we would be.

Quote
Aquinas shows how far his theory is from penal substitution when, in describing the fittingness of the Passion in order to save the human race, he gives as the first reason that “man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love him in return.” 23 The penal substitution theory fails to account for this supremely personal and loving exchange between Christ and his members.

To the contrary, the Calvinist will point to how much God loves him that he bore all this for his sake.

Quote
25 It expresses a more ultimate mercy to renew all things in Christ, and to atone for sin, not simply by an act of will (which certainly would have been possible for God), but through an act of merciful justice. [/b]Since all sin is a personal offense against God, he could forgive sin without any injustice apart from the cross. However, “this would have been less fitting, for in satisfying, we are allowed to put matters right with God.” 26 It was more merciful of God to allow us to participate in the justice of Christ. In this act, “mercy and truth have met each other, justice and peace have kissed.” 27 Although the cross was not necessary, it “came of more copious mercy than if (God) had forgiven sins without satisfaction.” 28 The justice of the Passion is the greater mercy.

I think this is a weak argument to make sense of the horror that was the Passion, not to speak of reducing it to something unnecessary and incidental.

Anyway, thanks for your post. I think I'll leave it at that for this thread, as it's gone off-point. The point was that Mary Co-Redemptrix depends on Satisfaction Theory and stands or falls with it, and since the latter was only made explicit in the Middle Ages, where the predominant Patristic and prior view is in fact irreconcilable to it, it's tenuous to me to suggest Mary Co-Redemptrix forms part of an Apostolic tradition. But if it doesn't, surely it cannot be infallibly dogmatised!
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 15, 2020, 05:25:02 PM
Here is a note from the Haydock online commetary on the New Testament on Col. 1.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment192.shtml
Quote
Ver. 24. And fill up those things . . . in my flesh for his body, which is the church.[5] Nothing was wanting in the sufferings or merits of Christ, for a sufficient and superabundant redemption of mankind, and therefore he adds, for his body, which is the church, that his sufferings were wanting, and are to be endured by the example of Christ by the faithful, who are members of a crucified head. See S. Chrys. and S. Aug. Wi. — Wanting. There is no want in the sufferings of Christ himself as head; but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come in his body, the Church, and his members, the faithful. Ch. — S. Chrysostom here observes that Jesus Christ loves us so much, that he is not content merely to suffer in his own person, but he wishes also to suffer in his members; and thus we fill up what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ. S. Chrys. — The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, and after his example, they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law.


Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Prayerful on October 15, 2020, 08:09:40 PM
Somewhere in the Legion of Mary handbook, there should be something pertinent. I think I found something: 'Redemption is the joint gift of the Father and of Mary.' (Legion Handbook, 1937 edition, p. 256).
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Pete Vere on October 16, 2020, 12:16:34 AM
It's difficult to define because of a linguistic difference between East and West. Among Latins she is hailed as Co-Redemptrix, whereas in traditional Byzantine liturgy the Blessed Theotokos is venerated as Co-Redemptress.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Fleur-de-Lys on October 16, 2020, 12:36:00 AM
It's difficult to define because of a linguistic difference between East and West. Among Latins she is hailed as Co-Redemptrix, whereas in traditional Byzantine liturgy the Blessed Theotokos is venerated as Co-Redemptress.

Are you suggesting that there is some difference in meaning between the two terms? To my knowledge redemptrix and redemptress are both simply feminine forms of redeemer.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Fleur-de-Lys on October 16, 2020, 12:58:57 AM
Ah... you were joking, of course. Sorry, I deal with so much linguistic hair-splitting all day, it seemed entirely plausible.  :D

Welcome to the forum, Pete.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Pete Vere on October 16, 2020, 02:15:13 AM
Ah... you were joking, of course. Sorry, I deal with so much linguistic hair-splitting all day, it seemed entirely plausible.  :D

Welcome to the forum, Pete.

Thank-you for the warm welcome!

Sadly, I am only half-joking. In my experience there is a very strong aversion among Eastern traditionalists to the term "co-redemptrix" while use of the terms "co-redeemer" or "co-redemptress" appear within traditional Eastern prayers to the Blessed Theotokos. So sometimes it is better to leave terms specific to either Eastern or Western usage undefined when East and West use two similar (but distinct) terms to convey more-or-less the same belief. This is because the moment one sides moves to dogmatically define its particular term--thus binding the entire Church--the differences between the two terms will become "theologized" by the other side. 

It's not unlike the Filioque controversy ("and the Son" vs "through the Son").
Or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary vs The Dormition and Translation of the Holy Theotokos.

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 16, 2020, 07:42:47 AM
It's not unlike the Filioque controversy ("and the Son" vs "through the Son").
Or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary vs The Dormition and Translation of the Holy Theotokos.

Also, the West's use of "consubstantial" (one substance, three persons) versus the East's "homoousian" (one essence, three substances).
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: aquinas138 on October 16, 2020, 09:21:02 AM
Ah... you were joking, of course. Sorry, I deal with so much linguistic hair-splitting all day, it seemed entirely plausible.  :D

Welcome to the forum, Pete.

Thank-you for the warm welcome!

Sadly, I am only half-joking. In my experience there is a very strong aversion among Eastern traditionalists to the term "co-redemptrix" while use of the terms "co-redeemer" or "co-redemptress" appear within traditional Eastern prayers to the Blessed Theotokos. So sometimes it is better to leave terms specific to either Eastern or Western usage undefined when East and West use two similar (but distinct) terms to convey more-or-less the same belief. This is because the moment one sides moves to dogmatically define its particular term--thus binding the entire Church--the differences between the two terms will become "theologized" by the other side. 

It's not unlike the Filioque controversy ("and the Son" vs "through the Son").
Or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary vs The Dormition and Translation of the Holy Theotokos.

Do you have an example of "co-redemptress" in the Byzantine liturgy? I don't recall ever coming across it in the canons at Matins and Compline.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: christianchannel on October 16, 2020, 09:38:22 AM
Jesus Himself uses the term Co-Redeemer for her , i think i saw it in the book of Maria Valtorta
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: abc123 on October 16, 2020, 11:54:31 AM
Jesus Himself uses the term Co-Redeemer for her , i think i saw it in the book of Maria Valtorta

And is this book inspired Scripture with the authority to bind the conscience?
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: St.Justin on October 16, 2020, 11:59:29 AM
Jesus Himself uses the term Co-Redeemer for her , i think i saw it in the book of Maria Valtorta
So says Maria Valtorta~~~~~~~
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Pete Vere on October 16, 2020, 01:02:19 PM
Do you have an example of "co-redemptress" in the Byzantine liturgy? I don't recall ever coming across it in the canons at Matins and Compline.

You popped this question at a good time as I actually am in the middle of going through traditional Eastern liturgical prayers to the Blessed Theotokos for some of my Latin friends preparing Advent services.

As long as the moderators don't mind, I will cut-and-paste from an Orthodox version I found online. However, my Byzantine Catholic paper version uses very similar language:

From the Small Paraklesis to the Most Holy Theotokos:

Quote
It is truly fitting to call you blessed, the Theotokos, the ever-blessed and all-pure Theotokos. More honourable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, you who without corruption gave birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, you do we magnify.

The priest censes the Holy Table and the people, or the house where the Paraklesis is being chanted; and we chant the following Megalynaria:

You are higher than the heavens above, and you are much purer than the radiance of the sun; for you have redeemed us out of the curse that held us, O Mistress of creation, with hymns we honour you.

From the great abundance of all my sins, ill am I in body, ailing also am I in soul. I have you as refuge; help me, therefore, O hope of all the hopeless, for you are full of grace.

O Lady and Mother of Christ our God Who saves, receive supplication from us wretches who beg for your entreaty to the One born from you; O Mistress of creation, intercede for us.

Now we chant with eagerness to you with this ode most joyful, O all-hymned Theotokos; together with the Baptist and all the saintly choirs, beseech, O Theotokos, that we find clemency.

Speechless be the lips of the impious who refuse to reverence your revered icon which is known by the name Directress, and which has been depicted for us by the Apostle Luke the Evangelist.

Now obviously "co-" with and through Christ is implied whenever our Eastern tradition venerates the Blessed Theotokos for having redeemed us. But usually what I see translated is redeemer, co-redeemer, redemptress, or co-redemptress. I have never seen "redemptrix" or "co-redemptrix" within a traditional Eastern context, not even as a translation. Which is why I am not in favour of the Church defining this as a Marian dogma binding upon the entire Church.   

EDIT TO ADD:

From the dismissal of the same service quoted above:

Quote
As the faithful kiss the icon of the Theotokos, the following Troparia are chanted with prostrations:

You shelter, all those who in faith flee to you, with your mighty hand, O pure one, as you are good; no one else have we who sin as a perpetual intercession with our God in dangers and sorrows, we who have been burdened with our abundant sins, Theotokos in the highest. Therefore, we all fall down before you; rescue us, your servants from adversities.

You are the joy of all that sorrow, and of the oppressed a guardian, and nurture of all the poor, comfort to the estranged, a support you are to the blind, visitation of all the sick, a shelter and succour to those brought down by pain, helper of orphaned ones: you are Theotokos in the Highest, O spotless Maiden; hurry, we beg you, to redeem your slaves.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Non Nobis on October 16, 2020, 10:03:41 PM
Jesus Himself uses the term Co-Redeemer for her , i think i saw it in the book of Maria Valtorta

Here is evidence that the pre-Vatican II Church condemned this book, and the good reasons: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/false-visions-maria-valtorta.html

I listen to Popes such as Pope St. Pius X who praised the title "Co-Redemptrix", and don't need to read books that were condemned.

Quote
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/pope-francis-considers-virgin%E2%80%99s-title-co-redemptrix-%E2%80%9Cfoolishness%E2%80%9D-53579
...
Saint Pius X

This holy pope also evoked the doctrine of co-redemption in his famous encyclical Ad diem illum (1904), for the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: “And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.” The Holy Pope in turn highlighted the link between co-redemption and universal mediation.

During the pontificacy of this glorious pope, a decree from the Holy Office on June 26, 1913 praised “the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary.” The same congregation granted an indulgence for the recitation of the prayer in which Mary is called “co-redemptrix of the human race” on January 22, 1914.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Miriam_M on October 17, 2020, 02:49:26 AM
I think a lot of these discussions are good illustrations of the term "nuance."  Let's just say that some of these distinctions are difficult to put into words but might be easier to apprehend intuitively.

I think that a role can be quite nuanced, whereas a title is often more narrow, especially if it's an exclusive title.  Sorry to reduce this to a secular parallel, but I do so only for the analogy.  A co-chairman, for example does not necessarily share power and importance equally with a chairman.

Mary gets no power except by and from Her Son.  He willingly chooses to bestow a certain importance to her in the economy of salvation, even though she is not Our Savior or Our Redeemer in the literal sense.  Whatever role she has in our Redemption is one He has dispensed to her and exists only through Him.  For me, that's why the title does not disturb me, even though it's not something I meditate on or dwell on.  The title that I prefer for her is Mediatrix of all Graces because it is undeniable that she is exactly that -- but again, only by choice of Her Son.  He has bestowed that power and position on her because of her reliable submission to the Holy Ghost, as spouse. It's a power that is ultimately His at its source.

I don't know if that obscures or clarifies the debate.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: aquinas138 on October 17, 2020, 05:10:56 PM
Now obviously "co-" with and through Christ is implied whenever our Eastern tradition venerates the Blessed Theotokos for having redeemed us. But usually what I see translated is redeemer, co-redeemer, redemptress, or co-redemptress. I have never seen "redemptrix" or "co-redemptrix" within a traditional Eastern context, not even as a translation. Which is why I am not in favour of the Church defining this as a Marian dogma binding upon the entire Church.

Thank you for that; the Ruthenian/Carpatho-Russian tradition I'm most familiar with sings the stichera after Axion estin in a different order, and I just checked the version the Ruthenians use, and it translates that as "Let us praise, O faithful, the Queen of all creation, who has delivered us from our ancestral curse" — that's the only version I've ever attended, so that explains why I never heard "redeem." I wonder if that translation was a deliberate attempt to avoid controversy. For those interested, the Greek of this verse is:

Τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ καθαρωτέραν λαμπηδόνων ἡλιακῶν, //
τὴν λυτρωσαμένην ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς κατάρας, τὴν Δέσποιναν τοῦ κόσμου, ὕμνοις τιμήσωμεν.

Higher than the heavens, and more pure than the brilliance of the sun, //
who redeemed/ransomed us from the curse, the Mistress of the world, with hymns we honor you.


I don't know enough Slavonic to check it. I think the redemptress vs. redemptrix thing is just the influence of Latin on the latter. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic sources are not being translated from Latin, so they aren't inclined to take the Latin word; -tress is just the English form of -trix. In the canons of Matins and Compline, I consistently see "mediatress" in the ROCOR translation I usually use.

For years, I was uncomfortable with the whole "Co-Redemptrix" thing, but after years attending Byzantine rite services, I realize it's the "co-" that is my problem, not the "redemptrix." I have no problem saying "Most holy Theotokos, save us" multiple times a night during Compline, but I would be deeply uncomfortable calling her "Co-Savior" (or "Co-Salvatrix," if we want to be Latinate). And I understand that "co-" can mean something different in Latin than in English, and I understand the reasoning behind it, but in English, it has always struck me as wrong. It strikes me as a thoroughly unnecessary dogmatic definition, for sure.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Nazianzen on October 27, 2020, 08:44:13 AM
To the OP:  Yes, she is.

Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Daniel on October 28, 2020, 02:11:07 PM
Well I would say she's the Co-Redemptrix, not the Co-Redeemer. (Kind of splitting hairs, but I hate watching the English language further degenerate into "doublespeak".)

Though I still think the term "Co-Redemptrix" is too vague even for this thread. I have no problem accepting that Mary is Co-Redemptrix in the sense that she is the new Eve and the means by which Jesus came into the world to redeem us, but some are suggesting that Mary, through her suffering at the foot of the Cross, in some way "redeemed" us. As if to say that her suffering was essential or necessary for, or in some way added to, our redemption. But this isn't what the Church teaches as far as I know, and I don't think it's even true. Sounds pretty blasphemous, in that it attributes our redemption (at least partly) to somebody other than Jesus.
Title: Re: Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 28, 2020, 06:07:33 PM
Daniel,
I have posted the official Church teaching on this subject; nobody here is suggesting what you have stated above.
As for the difference in language between the Greeks and Latins: The Church allows both (G & L) to keep their own terminology as long as they mean the same thing;  the example of the language used in theology for the trinity is a prime example. So this should pose no problem or be a basis for objecting to the proclamation of the dogma.