Mary is not the Co-Redeemer

[dellery]

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.

[Non Nobis]

Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-even
St. Paul said of himself that

][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.

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.

[Non Nobis]

St. Paul said of himself that

][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.

[The Theosist]

Pope Francis vs. other Popes (and the SSPX incidentally) https://fsspx.news/en/news-even
St. Paul said of himself that

][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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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. 

[Gerard]

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.

[Michael Wilson]

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.

[The Theosist]

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.

[Vetus Ordo]

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)

[Michael Wilson]

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.

[Michael Wilson]

V.O.

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;

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.

[Vetus Ordo]

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.

Here is Pius XI;

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.

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.

[Acolyte]

[ Even the Blessed Virgin had to be saved and her heart rejoiced in it.

What was she saved from ?

[The Theosist]

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.

[The Theosist]

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.