AmericanPapist Comments
Until a better English expression for this theological proposition can be developed, we should steer clear of it. "Coredemptrix" and "Coredemption", while they may be easily explicable in the Romance languages, inevitably reinforce every Marian nightmare of the Protestants when translated into Englin. "Co-" in English primarily suggests a position of perfect equality, thus "co-owners", "co-captains", etc. This, of course, is not at all what this theological proposition intends to convey. "Privileged Cooperator in the Redemption", while clumsy, at least approaches the correct idea. The implications in English are so unbalanced that they led Time Magazine to inform its readers, blandly, some years ago, that JP II (TG) was considering declaring Mary the "fourth Person of the Trinity". Semantics? Certainly, but language matters!
Yes, you have an excellent point. That's for bringing it up.
So co-workers are equal? Your boss is your co-worker you know.
The teaching is theologically correct, but there is no reason for it to be dogmatically established. JPII knew this, and I think BXVI knows this too.
It is bad to try to pressure the Pope in this way (as they did last time); I mean, it will give those desiring women priests an excuse!
When Pope Pius XII declared ex cathedra that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, part of the argument against it was that 1) it would offend Protestants, and 2) it would offend the Eastern Orthodox (having the pope define beliefs, even though they believed in the Assuption).
He declared it anyway because it was the truth.
H.W. Crocker III states in Triumph (one of the texts we used for my Church History I and II classes at Christendom) Pope Pius XII's attitude:
"The pope, properly, cared not a fig for their protests. When the Church felt that it should define the truth, it defined it: The Church was the Church, c'est tout."
The Church needs to declare dogmatically that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces because it is the truth, and these are very important doctrines.
We also should get back to the attitude of Pius XII: If Protestants misconstrue it, who cares?
As a Catholic, I would not like Mary being named "co-redemptrix". Until someone tells me that she was the Divine as Jesus is, I will only have one Redeemer.
I agree with John M. that the term should be different for the English language. I believe and agree with the concept itself, the name just needs to be changed.
A=B, B=C, then A=C, right?
Jesus Christ is Redemption.
Mary brought Jesus Christ to the world.
Mary brought Redemption to the world.
But Mary is NOT the Savior.
Is this the correct way of looking at it?
Mary- This is a perfect reason why it needs to be defined as a dogma, along with Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces. You have a misunderstanding about what Co-Redemptrix means. It doesn't mean she was the Redeemer.
These are doctrines that have been taught for hundreds of years and are part of Sacred Tradition.
Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma explains well the reasoning behind the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces doctrines.
And A Non-
Your analogy doesn't make sense. There is no possibility women could ever become priests, so liberals can petition all they want; it will never change. The Church does not even have that authority.
On the other hand, the Church does have the authority to define dogma.
As Our Lady said at Fatima, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."
And the day will come when the long taught doctrine of Mary, Advocate, Mediatrix and Coredemptrix will be promulgated as the 5th Marian Dogma.
None of this is a new idea--One can read St. Bernard to see that he espoused all this a millenia ago. The Holy Father, John Paul II, called Our Lady the coredemptrix a number of times.
I am not a bit confused: I know that Jesus Christ is my Savior! But I know Our Lady cooperated in such a way that no other creature ever has or ever will. And we are all called to cooperate, but only ONE was created Immaculate and could cooperate in a most singular and unique manner.
Ave Maria!
Gabe!
You use Harry Crocker's TRIUMPH in class? That's outstanding. I love that book. Rock solid history that fights back with the truth.
Ave Maria!
The prefix co- only sometimes has a conotaionof equal. If I say there are two co-captains then I imply equality. But, if I say there is a Pilot and Co-pilot in the cockpit then I am impying a hierarchical structure where the Pilot is clearly superior in both rights and responsibilty as to what happens on the plane. So to with with coredeemer. We are not saying that Mary and Jesus are two coredeemers but Jesus is the Redeemer and Mary is teh Coredeemer. So even in English it is clear who is the superior. In th more Latin languages it is all the more clear due to the lack of the connotation of eqaulity.
Ave Maria!
One more thought.
Inherent in the process of defining dogma is the defining and incorporating of terms into the common technical terminology of the theological community. As such the process by nature clarifies the terms and sets them apart as having a specific meaning when used in a theological context.
It is similar to any onther feild of knowledge that requires precision in terms such as engineering and medicine. The words strain, stress, hardness and twist all have meaning in common English but when incorporated into the technical lexicon of engineering they take on a much more precise meaning than the relatively ambiguous meanings they have in common usage. And any engineer must know these meanings inside and out if he does not want his bridge to fall down, because the precision of the science depends on this special meaning (Yes, I used to be an engineer)
So too with Theology, which is amazingly precise, in my eyes, as compared with what is commonly said about it by outsiders. As an engineer I see that almost the theological confusion of the post conciliar world is due to a refusal to use the technical terms as they have been commonly used for centuries by the precise theological community prior to the council. (I must say I see many welcome signs of a return to the needed precision recently)
So the incoporation of the term Co-redeemer into technical theological language through a dogmatic definition will add even more precision to this term.
And, again I stress that far too much is made of the rather minor ambiguities of the term in English. See my previous comment.
Ave Maria!
Ave Maria!
The need for precision in terms is no small point. The entirety of Christian Trinitarian and
Christological theology is dependent on the distinction between the terms Person and Nature.
Amazingly enough, in Greek (the language in which they debated and defined these terms) the word
for nature "Ousia" was at the time more frequently used actually to conote "person" rather than
nature! and this dual meaning was at least implied in the council of Nicea I. And on top ogf this
the ones that proposed the use of the word Ousia to mean only nature as opposed to meaning person
where heretical semi-arians. Talking about confusion!!!! And yet a single council (Constantinople
II in 554) removed the confusion by baptizing the usage of these terms ousia for nature and
hypostasis for person. (de Margerie, St. Bede's, Petersham, MA, p106ff) And if a magesterial definition can remove this kind of monumental confusion of terminology and build the monumentally unconfused doctrine of the Trinity and Christology on top of it then it would be a piece of cake for a dogmatic declaration to resolve the almost nonexistenet confusion that exists in the term coredeamer, which is only confusing in the one language, English.
So you can say the terms could be used in any number of different ways in common language, but make it clear in your mind, make it clear in your mind, I say again, make it clear in your mind, once this term and title is defined dogmatically the semantic confusion is over!!! And anyone who tries to reintroduce the confusion can be easily taken to task.
Ave Maria!
Thomas- In the Church History I and II classes I took this semester and last one of the required texts for both semesters was Triumph. That was a great book, very inspiring. Crocker does an amazing job describing the essence of the Catholic Church.
Some of the other required books were Hilaire Belloc's Europe and the Faith, The Great Heresies, and How the Reformation Happened. Notre Dame Graduate School at Christendom College is very orthodox and an excellent place to study theology. That is one of the real pluses for me about living in the Washington area.
Triumph is not a good, scholarly work, and it is pathetic to think someone uses it for "graduate studies."
Triumph is not a good, scholarly work, and it is pathetic to think someone uses it for "graduate studies."
A Non | 05.19.07 - 4:05 am | #
Translation: A Non is a liberal whose religion is global warming and socialism, and he was offended by the material. Therefore it was not "scholarly."
Triumph is an excellent work. In only about 400 pages, it gives you the truth of what exactly the Catholic Church is.
Ave Maria!
Correction on the last post of mine. It was not the ousia (essence or nature) that was used to mean person at times but rather hypostasis (person) that was used to mean nature. I did get this from de Margerie but I quoted from memory. Different schools of theology at the time would use hypostasis either as meaning nature or person. So it is amazing that such semantic confusion could be elimated by magesterial stroke of a pen. So too could it be with co-redemption.
Ave Maria!
There is quite a debate concering this post on Free Republic . There are now almost 2000 views and over 200 replies and these are from Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Further, there are also some threads going on at Catholic blogs:
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
And on Mark Shea's site there is an older thread that I just discovered
Ave Maria!
Gabe and Friar Roderic, it's great to see people defending Our Lady and her privileges! You guys said everything I would have.
For those who object to Mary being called Co-redemptrix, read these 7 responses by Dr. Miravalle:
http://motherofallpeoples.com/in...d=834&
Itemid=83
Also, keep in mind that the title of Co-redemptrix for Mary is already an official doctrine of the Church and to say that it shouldn't be one of her titles is to go against many saints and popes.
Danny- I like the title of your blog! How do you like Franciscan University? I'm also working on an M.A. in Theology but at Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.
I like how you mention that Mary as Coredemptrix is already doctrine, which means Catholics cannot lightly dismiss it and really have no excuse for not believing it. It is part of Sacred Tradition.
Therefore, it would be wise for the Holy Father to go ahead and make it a dogma, along with Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate.
Gabe,
Franciscan is great! The professors here are amazing.
Yes, as you mentioned above, declaring the fifth Dogma will clarify what each of the three aspects mean and will lead to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Fatima, Akita, and Our Lady of All Nations at Amsterdam (which has been approved by the local bishop) all very strong themes of co-redemption and in the Amsterdam apparitions, Our Lady even calls herself Co-redemptrix several times and stresses the importance of the fifth Dogma.
Commenting by HaloScan
