...anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.” +Maximos the Confessor
Yes, I agree with this! The question, though, is whether this is really a new doctrine? Again, we are simply saying that Mary participates in a unique way in the redemption. This is in a greater degree than any other creature but not equal to God. No blasphemy here. Nothing too radical. Maybe a development of old doctrine, but not "another Gospel."
And an innovation, a particularly strange one at that, it is.
and from and earlier post
Just as a matter of curiosity, what heresy or problem would a “Coredemptrix” dogma address? If none, what is the point of such a dogma?
Again, I am not the theologian but this is such an important question and I am always willing to boldly tread where angels stop in dread. So I will add my two cents : )
Certainly we seem to agree that Marian Doctrines have effectively addressed heresies in the past e.g. Theotokos, the God bearer as others have already commented. This effectively squashed the Nestorian heresy because if she bore a divine person then Jesus is one person and that person is divine, as opposed to the Nestorian concept that said he was two persons, a divine person somehow attached to a human person and only the human person was born by Mary.
Similarly, the Immaculate Conception effectively addressed both the Protestants who despaired of ever being able to receive actual grace and the Humanists who were rather complacent in this regard. The Immaculate Conception Dogma restored hope to the Protestants (and the Protestant leaning Jansensist in the Catholic Church) because it says human nature is not necessarily fallen, at least not in this one case, and so it is at least possible for a pure creature to actually be elevated by grace after the fall and be actually sanctified instead of merely being declared innocent, a la Luther. And in regard to the humanists it said, yes, it is possible to conquer fallen nature, but only one pure creature was conceived immaculately. The rest of us have to work at it!!
And finally, the dogma of the Coredemption addresses the issue of the importance of suffering, its redeeming value. That we are all called to be coredeemers with Christ and with Mary as the pure creature who is our exemplar. And just as she won the role by having her heart pierced (Prophecy of Simeon Luke 2) suffering in union with Christ at the crucifixion so we must participate by offering up our suffering in union with Christ's suffering.
What good does this do for the Church today? Well, what is the chief heresy in the world today? Hedonism with all its vices, contraception, abortion, euthenasia... The only sin in the modern mind is to suffer and suffering is the worst of all scandals. Thus the root of all of our moral problems in the modern world (and, no doubt, most of our physical problems) is this headlong rush away from suffering. If anyone can remedy this massive problem it is Our Lady the Coredeemer.
I must say though that all these reasonings are pretty much my own speculation, simply the fruit of meditation. I simply do not read enough to have any kind of certainty about them. I leave it up to others to correct me. But as you can see I love talking about them. : )
Ave Maria!!
This is quite true but not, I think, in dispute. Being not a point of argument, the cost of elevating a theological observation to the status of dogma -- one that can be easily misunderstood, at that -- seems unacceptably high.
The role of all saints has ever been to orient us to Jesus: our Lady is most highly honored among the saints because by both quality and quantity she excels all others in this respect. The point of the Chaldedonian definition is to advance our understanding of Who Jesus is. How would the definition of Mary as co-redemptrix accomplish this?