Posted on 07/24/2004 8:27:07 PM PDT by narses
An Explanation of the Coredemptrix of Mary Title
Compiled by Martin Beckman
The following is a compilation of several articles by other authors, and discussions I have had with Protestants and Catholics on this issue. Much of the information in this compilation is copied from other authors and therefore I make no claims of authorship of this information in it's entirety.This article is intended to give a brief explanation.
Newsweek ran an article in it's August 25th, 1997 issue about a movement within the Catholic Church. Millions of Catholics signed and submitted a petition to Pope John Paul II in an effort to name Mary, the Mother of our Lord, as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians. This would be the fifth and final Marian dogma. Members of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici ("The Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix") spearheaded the effort.
Supporters include Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the late Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, OP, papal theologian emeritus; Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manila, the Philippines; Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses; over 480 bishops including 40 cardinals; prominent lay leaders and ordinary faithful from all parts of the world. Hardly a fringe group!
Here's a short description from the petition submitted to the Pope:
When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
Mary's role was unique. If she had said 'no' to Gabriel ... to God, would we have a Savior, would we have our true Redeemer ... our Lord .... the Messiah? Mary played a definite role in our salvation. But back to the original statement ... that role is entirely dependent and subordinate on Jesus.
Mary is called to give her free and full consent to conceive this child. She is not merely a passive recipient of the message, but she was given an active role, and heaven awaited her free choice. It is precisely by her free consent to collaborate in God's saving plan that she becomes the Coredemptrix. The prophecy of Simeon to Mary, "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:25), affirms Mary's unique participation in the work of redemption, as it warns her that she will undergo an unspeakable pain that will pierce her soul, for the salvation of mankind. John 19:25 tells us of Jesus' Mother at the very foot of the cross, persevering with her Son in his worst hour of agony, and therein suffering the death of her Son.
Thus in her own suffering too, the Mother of the Redeemer participates in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.
St. Paul tells us we are to make up what is lacking in the sacrifice of Jesus (Col 1:24): "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,"
Paul is making a very similar statement here also. By his sufferings he is completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the church and us. This is a role we all can partake .... but this role is dependent on Christ and subordinate to Christ.
That is all that statement about Mary is saying. Mary had a role, a contribution in filling what was lacking in us, the Church. It's a very biblical statement.
Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is "participation" in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title "Coredemptrix" never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary's unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. "Coredemptrix" is a Latin word; the prefix "co" in the title, "Coredemptrix," derives from the Latin word "cum," which means "with," not "equal to." Mary's sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will. Similarly, as Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not "rival" Christ's mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite "reservoir" of all grace, which is distributed to us through Mary .... as she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators.
Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers, no additional mediators! Clear enough?
But what about our role in bringing people to Christ, preaching the Gospel, as teachers, pointing people to Christ .... and so on? We can be mediators in that fashion. Surely you do not disagree that faith comes from (by grace) from receiving the gospel message.
This is not saying we are mediators between Jesus and God for mankind ... but we can have a subordinate & dependent role.
This isn't adding to Jesus' mediatorship, not a seperate channel, not an end-run, or anything that takes away from His role.
Return to Catholicsource Main Page
My problem with the Assumption is the absence of biblical teaching of the doctrine.
***Mary is a symbol of the Church.***
That is another "assumption." We know Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven because the Bible tells us they were. The assumption of Mary from my perspective is speculation. Catholics accept it because they "assume" tradition to be as authoritative as Scripture. That is what Protestants consider an Inaccurate Assumption.
Now if the Bible taught she assended into heaven, it would be okie dokey with me. As to the perpetual virginity of Mary, I reject it because the Bible seems to indicate otherwise, were it not for those indications, that too would be okie dokie.
I personally have far bigger problems with the immaculate conception dogma and the role of Mary as intecessor. These two doctrines are not incidental facts but instead undercut the gospel and the unique role of Jesus.
I have debated this before and don't intend to do so here, rather I am giving some perspective in answer to your question.
Any implications inherent in the term was not my point. The fact that the prefix “co” does NOT imply equality is all that has to be stressed. Simply put Protestants who are ignorant enough to accuse Catholics of implying Mary's role as redemtrix as equal to her son's in Catholic theology are creating a circular argument. In actuality the prefix “co”, ONLY connects her act with Jesus' redemptive act. But, the Protestants, in truth probably already believe Catholics worship Mary and nothing we say will change their minds. Coredemtrix in and of itself does NOT imply equality and unless you want to be as uncharitable as certain Protestants we must assume that the theology places her in a subordinate position, otherwise you're assuming a contradiction in Catholic theology to begin with. Suffice it to say, educated Catholics should not take into consideration ignorant Protestants in defining their theology. The answers are easy to find if they are willing to look it up. As for ignorant Catholics, I'm half as likely to believe that they are not serious in their faith in the legitimacy of the Church anyway. But, in all fairness they should just be getting better Catechism and we shouldn't run from legitimate titles just because we might be forced to explain and thus catechize them.
Glad to help.
We are the ecumanics
We've got pay to pray contracts
Embracing pagans and their acts
And watching traddiess blow their stacks
(Shameless rip off of the Animanics cartoon)
Eagerly awaiting your take off on "Pinky and the Brain."
This doctrine would be very hard to explain, even for the best catechist. You can't even get it right:
The fact that the prefix “co” does NOT imply equality is all that has to be stressed.
Of course it does. You're the only one on this thread who seems not to get that. Ask the next fifteen people you meet what the prefix "co" means when attached to something like "co-president" and see what they tell you.
And, here's another one:
Coredemtrix in and of itself does NOT imply equality and unless you want to be as uncharitable as certain Protestants we must assume that the theology places her in a subordinate position, otherwise you're assuming a contradiction in Catholic theology to begin with.
"Co" means "equality", and "assuming" the theology places her in a subordinate position is contrary to the meaning of the term "co." If we have to redefine terms and twist ourselves into knots to explain a doctrine, perhaps we ought to reconsider.
Marian doctrines, frankly, don't have much meaning for most Catholics, and this one would further isolate the Blessed Mother from her humanity by raising her to an almost super-nova status as a quasi Co-Redeemer.
Confusing for Catholics, to say nothing of our separated brethren.
You won't see this definition by JPII.
There are many theologians who are dead against this "Co-Redemptrix" definition as well, since it is not obviously scriptural and the teaching of Mediatrix already encompasses the idea of Mary as a special intercessor with Her Son.
Its very hard to explain when the individual you are trying to explain it to refuses to act charitably and take you at your word.
Here is the quote from the original article:
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum.
Here is the definition of the Latin word "cum":with, along, among, under.
Does "with" always mean equality? If the lieutenant is "with" his general does that mean he is equal to his general in rank? If the prefix "co" is not always used properly in modern English, what is that to the Church? A better example might be co-worker in common parlance, "my co-worker" could be my supervisor. Even better yet, co-pilot!
"Co" is a collective prefix it does NOT have to mean equal, although "equality" is probably one of the definitions in the modern dictionary, but it is most certainly not the main one. In any case, you do not have to interpret a word based on all of its possible meanings, that's just playing with semantics. This insistence on defining the word in such a way as to create a contradiction in Catholic theology shows a lack of Charity on your part as you are doing it just to argue and indeed a willfulness to give Protestants an argument over what should be a non-issue, even if it is just to placate them, it's false ecumenism.
Marian doctrines, frankly, don't have much meaning for most Catholics...
. And this is where you show yourself for what you really are, you paint with a broad brush and say "most Catholics," on what authority do you decide that Marian doctrines propagated by the Magisterium don't have much meaning for most Catholics?
Confusing for Catholics, to say nothing of our separated brethren
Not confusing for me, but I guess that just demonstrates the difference in our relative educations. You keep insisting that "co" means equal and to justify this you appeal to the uneducated and the heretics. Try making a valid argument. Your know the Arians didn't get it either, does that mean St. Athanasius was wasting his time trying to explain complex theology? The difference between you and me is that I have greater faith in the ability of lay Catholics and Protestants to "get it" if you explain it patiently. Its very simple, did God "force" Himself on Mary or did he ask for her assistance?
How many lay Catholics do you know? I know hundreds.
You and I are simply not going to agree on this issue, and we've reached the verge of disagreeability.
Rather than go any further, I will wish you good night.
Did you take a poll of their position on this issue?
You and I are simply not going to agree on this issue, and we've reached the verge of disagreeability.
Oh, I think we reached that a long time ago, last week anyway.
Rather than go any further, I will wish you good night.
Wait, you just asked me a question and know you want to leave? Coward :p
P.S. To answer to your question, it isn't how many lay Catholics I know but how many I would be willing to explain the "doctrine" to.
Until then, it is pointless to argue over it, wouldn't you agree?
And, you continue to insist on "co" to mean "subordinate." That is not the commonly accepted meaning, and you know it.
Not necessarily. Take co-worker for example. Though it can imply workers of the same status, it generally means a group of people working together to accomplish a specific goal. A great example is that Priests are co-workers of their Bishops. Priests are not Bishops, but are subordinate to them, yet both Bishops and Priests are working together, shoulder to shoulder to accomplish the same goal.
Defining this doctrine will elevate Mary to a "co-equal" status with Her Son in the minds of the Catholics, and all Protestants.
No. Defining this doctrine will "put Mary in her place" so to speak. The purpose of defining anything is to give it specific meaning.
Catholics will understand the doctrine with proper catechesis. It will take however, (this is not a personal slam against you, but a general comment) clergy who are willing to teach that "co" means "cooperate with" rather that "equal to".
It has been my experience with many Protestants that when a doctrine is explained to them, they come away with a better sense of what it means. They may still not agree with it, but they have a better understanding. Again, there has got to be better catechesis of the Catholic faithful so that this doctrine, (and many others) can be properly explained.
"Co-Redemptrix" is simply not going to work. We'll have to come up with some other English description for this doctrine.
Actually, "Co-Redemptrix" is perfect. What is often forgotten in these discussions is that the suffix "trix" implies subordination. (Yes, it's the feminine ending and must be used since Mary is feminine, but it still implies subordination.) The suffix actually defines the prefix. If "Co" meant "co-equal" then we would have a subordinate who is equal to the superior. This of course makes no sense. Thus, "Co" must mean "cooperates with" as a subordinate can "cooperate with" a superior. (Very much like the example of co-worker above)
Also, due to the above, "Co-Redemptrix" is a much better title, than the strictly literal English translation of "Co-Reedemer", which is sometimes used. That word does imply equal status and should never be used. However, "Co-Redemptrix" is the perfect word because it does express the doctrine perfectly. But again, it will take proper catechesis, including the nuances of the title, for a correct understanding of the doctrine.
That's precisely the reason JPII won't define it, and I'd be surprised if if this step is ever taken.
Diva is not saying (unless I missed that part) that "co" always means subordinate, but that "co" does not always mean equal. You seem to be saying that "co" is always synonymous equal, and that is the only accepted meaning.
Do you mean to tell us that the co-pilot is the same rank as the pilot? (yeah, that's a rhetorical question)
Or, when a mother tells her 4 year old to cooperate (or co-operate) with her while she is grocery shopping, if that means the mother and the child are equal partners in the shopping endeavor?
Perhaps you will tell us that the co-counsel in a court proceeding is of the same rank as the counsel for the defendant (hint: they aren't equals).
Perhaps you could tell us why oklahoma city bombing co-conspirator only got a life sentence, while Timothy McVeigh was put to death, if they were equally guilty of the crime (hint: they weren't equals).
Or- maybe just the definition will suffice:
co- pref. 1. Together; joint; jointly; mutually: coeducation. 2. a. Partner or associate in an activity: co-author; co-founder. B) Subordinate or assistant: co-pilot. (www.dictionary.com)
Check 2B- "subordinate or assistant".
I don't mean to say that it never means equals, but that it doesn't always mean equals. I do not see that co-redemptrix implies Mary as Jesus' equal at all, nor should that be a hindrance to this being defined.
I'm tired of going around this tree.
Thanks for the explanation, but I continue to disagree.
The terminology itself is, IMO, part of the problem with the definition.
I have only insisted that "co-" in this "instance" implies cooperation. A position that is supported by the nature of the prefix "co-" as it can indeed indicate a "supportive" or a "cooperative" relationship. You, on the other hand have, despite the reasoned and logical arguments given you, impudently insisted "co-" can only mean "equals," at least to the masses. This foolish appeal to the dubious authority of "the masses" is illogical considering the numerious occasions in which "co-" is used in modern English whithout denoting "equality." This fallacious argument of yours, which by now you must see as totally unjustifiable, has led me to believe you must have some philosophical objection to the Marian doctrines that you are unwilling to reveal; especially considering the value you place on the Marian doctrines as they pertain to the Faith of "Most Catholics" as you put it earler.
Thanks for the explanation, but I continue to disagree.
Ah yes, the parting shots of the intellectually lazy. :)
The fact that Co-Redemptrix has not been defined ought to indicate to you the difficulty the Church has with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.