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
How can we ever have a conversation if you bring your residual anger to a post?
I anm sorry that these things have happened to you. I understand your frustration. It was not right.
>>How can we ever have a conversation if you bring your residual anger to a post? <<
You are absolutely right!
Martin Luther on Mary:
Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary
by Dave Armstrong
Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism toward many ancient Catholic "distinctives," such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather conservative in some of his doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.
Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther’s own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther’s position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him… "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says…"Mary’s Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn’t explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied—although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith…It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ…She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace…Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ…Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
Luther goes even further, and gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians, much the same as in Catholic piety:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522) Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees…If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often "threw out the baby with the bath water," when it came to criticizing erroprevalent in his time—falsely equating them with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the "Hail Mary" prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, as the following two citations make clear:
Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).
Our prayer should include the Mother of God…What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor…We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her…He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is notable in light of his aversion to so many other "Papist" or "Romish" doctrines, as he was wont to describe them. His major departure occurs with regard to the intercession and invocation of the saints, which he denied, in accord with the earliest systematic Lutheran creed, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (Article 21).
His views of Mary as Mother of God in Catholicism, and his opinions on the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s "Spiritual Motherhood" and the use of the "Hail Mary" were substantially the same. He didn’t deny the Assumption (he certainly didn’t hesitate to rail against doctrines he opposed!), and venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety. Therefore, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther’s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism. To the extent that this fact is dealt with at all by Protestants, it is usually explained as a "holdover" from the early Luther’s late medieval Augustinian Catholic views ("everyone has their blind spots," etc.). But this will not do for those who are serious about consulting Luther in order to arrive at the true "Reformation heritage" and the roots of an authentic Protestantism. For if Luther’s views here can be so easily rationalized away, how can the Protestant know whether he is trustworthy relative to his other innovative doctrines such as extrinsic justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura?
It appears, once again, that the truth about important historical figures is almost invariably more complex than the "legends" and overly-simplistic generalizations which men often at the remove of centuries—create and accept uncritically. Reprinted by permission from Dave Armstrong’s Internet Website: Biblical Defense of Catholicism at http://ic.net/~erasmus/
But there is no need for "prayer partners" of this sort. God allows us to pray directly to him, through his Son, Jesus. Why go some indirect route when you can take the express?
But he replied, "I tell you the truth, I don't know you."
See, I can quote isolated scriptures, too.
I know you are going to hate me for this, but I have to tell you. Mary was a sinner just like you and me. She was saved through the work of her son, Jesus, but she is no more important to salvation and redemption than you or I. She can't save, she can't hear your prayers, she can't interceed for you to God the Father. That right is reserved for Jesus alone. Only Jesus saves, only Jesus redeems, only Jesus sits at the right hand of God the Father. Praying to saints, praying to Mary, praying to anything but God the Father is sinful and blasphemous.
The whole praying to anything or anyone is a sin. When God gives you a direct line to him through his Son, why hang up and dial another number?
As for my being a follower of Luther, I am not. However, his book called "Bondage of the Will" gave me great insight as to the situation and belief in free will. All I did was recommend the book to someone and now I am branded a "Lutherite". One even accused me of choosing between Luther and Jesus. I also read books by Calvin, Boice, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc. All it makes me is well read.
As to what Luther believed, he was a Catholic, he always believed that he was a Catholic, and he felt that the Catholic church was in error. He tried to fix it. He never wanted to leave it. So, of course he would espouse all the things that the church was teaching.
Can one be saved and not be a member of the Catholic church?
Or is faith in Jesus enough to be saved?
There is no need for a "prayer partner" who is already dead. Sorry, he can't help.
I didn't avoid Satan's free will, he doesn't have any. None at all. He can only do what God allows him to do.
Beware the man of one book.
Go ahead, be wary of me. I believe in what the Bible says. If you don't, if you follow any other writtings, any other traditions that are contrary to the Bible, I feel sorry for you.
***You are correct though there are no instances of the Apostles praying or honoring those in Heaven***
If it were ok to pray to the saints, wouldn't Peter, or Paul, or any of them have done it? Even after Peter was dead, no one prayed to him. Once again, to pray to the saints or to Mary for intervention is like calling the fire department in Hawaii when your house is burning in Iowa. Call direct and talk to the Father himself.
***you can't pretend to know the mind of God.***
I never said I know the mind of God. You said it was irelevant whether God knew what was going to happen. I consider it very relevant the it is God's plan and it will go forth as he has planned it and nobody or nothing will change it.
***As Solomon had his Mother in the Throne room, so is the Mother of Christ.***
This is totally unprovable. There is nothing in scripture that tells you this.
***Show me a act of the Pope, that proclaims he is not a Saint? ***
This came out about 5 years ago. Don't have any proof text or anything like that. Call it an inconclusive claim on my part.
Yes, if several conditions are met. First, he must be truly ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. Secondly, he must serve the truth (who is Jesus) to the best of his ability. Thirdly, he must truly repent of his sins.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
Nevertheless, such people, if saved, are saved through the Church, since salvific grace flows through the Church and Its sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, which is a re-presentation of Christ's redeeming death on the Cross.
Or is faith in Jesus enough to be saved?
Actually "faith alone" is not enough, since even the demons believe, as Scripture tells us. If by "faith" you mean what Catholics would refer to as "formed faith," or faith informed by works, then yes, if the previously mentioned conditions were met.
Some of our prayers to go to the Father "horizontally," through the Body of Christ, as well as "vertically," to the Father. In Revelation we see the saints in heaven presenting the prayers of the saints on earth to the Father:
Revelation 5:8Praying to the SaintsAnd when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
The last line of the St.Christopher prayer is:
"St. Christopher, holy patron of travelers, protect me, and lead me safely to my destiny."
This would be praying TO a saint, not THROUGH a saint. hmmmm
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.