Posted on 11/04/2025 2:02:03 PM PST by ebb tide
The document Mater Populi Fidelis of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, specifically in numbers 17 and 18 gives a undeservedly over-simplified overview of this important doctrine of the Catholic Faith. The fact that Our Lady cooperated in the work of the Redemption, at least mediately, is a de fide teaching. To doubt it would incur theological censure.
For a clear and comprehensive overview of the main lines of this teaching and its historical development, I refer the reader to J. A. de Aldama, S.J., “De Corredemptione,” in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. 3, Madrid, BAC, 1961, pp. 413-443. (English translation by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., vol. IIIA, pp. 441-466.) A further and more detailed explanation can be found in J. Carol, O.F.M. “Our Lady’s Coredemption,” in Mariology, vol. 2, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1957, pp. 377-425.
The usage of the title of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix is one which has been historically ascertained as being theologically certain. de Aldama notes that “it is not licit to doubt about its suitability.” The opposite theological note to this would be an “error in theology.”
It is a sad consequence of the times in which we live that there exist voices which aim to subvert the traditional teachings of the Church by exploiting the lower-grades of theological certitude to attempt to discourage the use of theologically valid and sound arguments from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. In this specific instance, such opinions are aimed at Our Blessed Lady’s mediate and, furthermore, immediate cooperation in Our Lord’s work of redemption. Even the latter is asserted within the teachings of the Papal Magisterium dating back to Pius IX and Leo XIII, and even is found in the post-conciliar teachings of John Paul II. Mater Populi Fidelis grossly oversimplifies the theological reflection which has been expounded by the Pontiffs when it states: “some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning.” In the interests of brevity, a full catalogue of these papal teachings on co-redemption can be found in the reference cited above. One need only refer to the bull “Ineffabilis” of Pius IX; the encyclicals “Iucunda Semper” and “Supremi Apostolatus” of Leo XIII; the encyclical “Miserentissimus Redemptor” of Pius XI; as well as the encyclicals “Mystici Corporis” and “Ad cæli Reginam” of Pius XII and the bull “Munificentissimus Deus” of the same Pius XII.
In some circles, the ambiguities in this document have caused the sad effect of scandal, in turn causing the “little ones” to doubt that the teaching is no longer valid, and some even to rejoice that this so-called “unclear terminology” is being cast aside. “Severely affronted” best describes this teaching which is intrinsic to the Catholic Tradition. How painful it is to see some well-meaning Catholics appearing jubilant over this critical and magisterial teaching being classified (dismissed?) as “inappropriate” – a term which itself has no relevance to the theological tradition at stake. “Inappropriate” in this context seems to only imply that the term is not relevant to the ambiguous and unclear conciliar-synodal approach in vogue in the highest levels of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly, Juniper Carol even cites Protestant theologians such as Giovanni Miegge and Pierre Maury in defense of the teaching of Our Lady’s corredemption! Maury notes that “the Coredemption is not only one of the primary principles of Mariology; in the mind of the Popes and Catholic theologians, it is the very synthesis of the Marian tract.” (Carol, p. 377)
To assert, as Mater Populi Fidelis does in no. 22, that “when an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful.” A study of this question from approved theological authors does not bear out this reality. As Catholics, we must consider the entirety of teaching as found within the Magisterium and Tradition. The documents mentioned above are important data points in this theological reflection. To assert that the expression “requires many, repeated explanations” is mere theological lassitude. To simply say that this important title sanctioned by the Magisterial authority of the Church, is to be disregarded, causes the Tradition to be placed into doubt. A parallel argument can be made for post-conciliar liturgical legislation casting opprobrium upon the irrevocable and perpetual right conceded by Quo Primum by St. Pius V. The Petrine authority is to safeguard the Tradition and not to innovate, and to make it possible for theologians in universities, in concert with it, to explain and clarify teachings of the two-millennium-old Catholic experience stemming from the depositum fidei. This diachronic identity is completely essential for the Church to remain the Church. How easy it becomes now to find these sources of authentic teaching via archive.org or even via artificial intelligence, and how sad it is to see such over-simplifications being proffered by the very authorities in the Church who should safeguard, protect, and celebrate these teachings eodem sensu eademque sententia!
Any serious theological analysis of the truth of Our Lady’s co-redemption must contend with the clear theological data found in Catholic Tradition, emanating from the Scriptural grounding in the proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 as well as Magisterial teaching, the authority of the saints, and other landmarks of Catholic heritage such as hymnody and theological reasoning.
This author chooses to stand with the Sovereign Pontiffs on the matter and upon the centuries of the development of Our Lady’s co-redemption with Jesus Christ the Lord and Redeemer.
De Maria, numquam satis.
* Pen name of a priest friend of Rorate Caeli.
Ping
I am grief stricken about the slurs against the Most Holy and ever Vjdgin Mother delegating her to be an ordinary woman that I must vent at one of the drug fueled homosexual orggies at the Vatican in protest. What e.se. an one do?
While being crucified, Jesus said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son,” and to the disciple John, “Behold, your mother”. This was an instruction to John to take care of Mary, and from that moment, he took her into his home.
To his mother: “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26).
To the disciple: “Behold, your mother!” (John 19:27).
Scripture,Tradition and Magestireum.
.
No Slurs on Jesus’s Mother Mary.
Ever.
.
.
Is she your Co-Redemptrix?
“The Orthodox Church holds a profound and nuanced theology concerning Mary, the Theotokos (God-bearer), emphasizing her unique role in salvation history while maintaining a clear distinction between her and the divine. Her humanity is fully affirmed; she is seen as a human being, born of human parents, and subject to the same human conditions as all others, with the exception of sin in the sense of personal transgression. The Orthodox Church does not subscribe to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which posits that Mary was conceived without original sin. Instead, Orthodox theology teaches that Mary inherited the fallen human nature common to all humanity, but through her exceptional purity, obedience, and God's grace, she was prepared to become the vessel for the Incarnation of Christ.[1] Her "purity" is understood as a profound spiritual and moral state, not an absence of inherited fallenness.
Her relationship with Jesus is central to Orthodox Christology. Mary is revered as the Theotokos, a title formally affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, which means "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." This title is not meant to deify Mary, but rather to affirm the full divinity of her Son, Jesus Christ, from the moment of His conception.[2] The Orthodox Church believes that Jesus, being fully God and fully man, received His human nature from Mary. She is therefore seen as the bridge between divinity and humanity, the one through whom God entered into human history. Her "fiat" – "Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) – is considered a pivotal act of obedience and free will, essential for the Incarnation to occur.[3] She is honored as the first and most perfect disciple of Christ, a model of faith and humility for all believers.
Her relationship with the Church is understood in several ways. Mary is considered the archetype of the Church, representing the ideal Christian soul and the Church as a whole in its response to God's call.[4] Just as she bore Christ in her womb, the Church is called to bear Christ into the world through its sacraments, teachings, and the lives of its members. She is also seen as a powerful intercessor, whose prayers are highly efficacious before God. Orthodox Christians frequently invoke her intercession, believing that as the Mother of God, she has a special closeness to her Son and can advocate on behalf of humanity.[5] While she is venerated (honored), she is not worshipped; worship is reserved for God alone. The veneration of Mary is understood as honoring Christ through His Mother, recognizing her unique role in the divine economy of salvation. She is often referred to as "more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim," highlighting her exalted position among all creation due to her role as the Theotokos.[6]”
Sources
1. Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. [Penguin Random House]↩
2. Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. [St. Vladimir's Seminary Press]↩
3. Breck, John. The Power of the Word: In the Beginning Was the Word. [St. Vladimir's Seminary Press]↩
4. Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. [St. Vladimir's Seminary Press]↩
5. Pomazansky, Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. [St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood]↩
6. The Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos. [Orthodox Church in America]↩
Is She Yours?
.
Many would say Yes.
.
Our Holy God Will Not Share His Glory.
‘Theotokos’
God Bearer.
.
Interesting,
But “coredemptrex’?
And Scripture has ZERO to say on this issue of Mary being anything other than the mother of Christ.
There is only one Mediator....and that's Christ. That, Scripture is clear on.
Christians with MDS who have marginalized Mary and think of her as only a surrogate - will be in for a surprise.
Here is my heathen response, to something that should never be messed with:
“Balls!”
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I’m multilingual. My native language is Facetious and it does not always convey accurately.
I deal with my MDS with medications and meditation on the Word of God and not man or man-made denominations. If Mary was a superhuman being, I’ll be in for a surprise. The Apostles were plain and unlearned men. Average Joe’s. Mary was a sinner that needed a Savior just like everyone e.se.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception and whether there's any Scriptural support for the IC. Special attention should be paid to the comments on Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
*****
Modern translations approved for Romans do not render the passage in this manner; instead following other translations that more accurately render the passage as follows.
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Gen 3:15 NASB
Rome has built its marian dogmas on a flawed interpretation of Genesis 3:15 which has been acknowledged to be a wrong translation.
There is ZERO Scriptural support for what Rome claims regarding the IC and now this issue of the co-redemptrix.
To the contrary....it will be Roman Catholicism that has to worry in light of its dogmas and worship of Mary that violate inspired Scripture.
Absolutely Correct and Agreed 👍
.
Solar Scriptura is ignored and described as inadequate or Corrupt in some religions.
Yet How can one clearly define that which is Holy and what is false.
Trading or False teaching must be
Identified and debated.
.
Thanks
Solar Scriptura? You must have the new environmentally low carbon footprint version. If I can ever save enough money . . .
You Ask a question....
But Bipolar speaks volumes Amigo.
Debating Marian doctrine is fine. Conflating worship with veneration is wrong.
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.