Another title sometimes used to honor Mary is "Co-Redemptrix." It's not an "official title." It's just an expression of piety among some Catholics. And it affords a fairly typical example of the way in which the Church mulls things over for long time (usually centuries) before it makes any hard and fast decisions. At present, the Church doesn't condemn the title, but it doesn't encourage it either. A few years ago, Pope Benedict XVI (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) was asked about the many petitions Rome has received asking that Mary be formally declared "Co-Redemptrix." He replied:
I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.
So does this mean the Church condemns those who honor her by this title? No. It just means that Pope Benedict is (rightly) worried non-Catholics will not understand the "correct intention" behind the title. So the title remains, for the foreseeable future, something Catholics may use if it matters to them (providing they rightly understand what it means) but it's not something one finds in the Church's liturgy or dogma.
That said, it's worth asking what "correct intention" lies behind the title. And when we do ask, we discover a truth similar to that behind the similarly unofficial honorific "co-Mediatrix." For while Mary did not die for our sins, it's also true that her sufferings were joined to those of Jesus, for the good of the Church. That's not because she's a goddess. That's because the innocent sufferings of every Christian in the world are joined to Jesus' sufferings for the good of the Church. That's solidly biblical teaching. It's why Paul could write "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" (Colossians 1:24). And it's why the Catholic faith offers such profound consolation for those who suffer innocently. For since Jesus has joined himself to us in our pain, our pains are joined with his. Our suffering is not simply meaningless garbage that happens to no purpose and does no one any good. Rather, our pain, joined with Jesus on the Cross, has value for his Body, the Church and makes us participants in the redemption of the world.
This is supremely seen in Mary's endurance of her suffering. For, of course, there are two kinds of agony: the agony we feel for ourselves and the agony we feel for another. Jesus felt all the terror of mortal flesh when he contemplated the fate that was snaking toward him as the little trail of torches wended its way across the Kidron Valley and up the slope of the Mount of Olives on Holy Thursday evening. He sweated blood and begged to be spared. Three times he pleaded with his Father to let the cup pass from him. But it could not pass. In that hour, his disciples slept and he was completely alone.
Except for one kindred spirit. We do not know where Mary was at this time. The Gospels are silent. But we know ordinary human experience. We know the anguish of a mother who begs God that her baby be spared the ravages of cancer and that she suffer in her child's place. We know of parents who drown in the attempt to save their children. We know of parents who push their children out of the way of oncoming cars and are killed or crippled to save them. We know the agonies of parents bereft of their sons and daughters by drunk drivers, or school violence, or the thousand idiot havocs the world wreaks on our lives. We know how powerfully their hearts cry out like David's and say, "Would that I had died instead of you!" And because of this we know that Mary could not have contemplated the terrible agonies Jesus was about to face without wishing with all her heart that she could take the blows rather than him. Jesus' cup was to endure hanging upon the Cross. Mary's cup was to endure not hanging upon the Cross.
Comments
Post a Comment
Beautiful article! Thanks Mark for always helping us to understand these truths!
Good explanation of Mary’s suffering and complete obedience to God’s
will. Not to mention her incomparable humility.
Why are you so afraid of my response that you would not allow it to be shown? And why are you so obsessed with rejecting the title Co-Redemptrex?
If Mary is “co-Mediatrix” then so is every other Christian in the world.
What would you say Erik if Jesus’ last words to Mary before his passion were Let Us do this for the Father, and for the salvation of men?
Bob,
The last words to Mary were “woman, behold your son”. John 19:26. Jesus never said to Mary-“Let Us do this for the Father, and for the salvation of men” or anything like this.
Be careful Erik. Equating Mary with other human’s is heresy. Jesus condemns those who malign His Mother.
Erik: I said the last words before his passion. These words do indeed appear in a document approved by the church
Bob,
Mary is just like us. She was conceived in the same way we were and inherited Adam’s sin.
Where did Jesus say to Mary-“Let Us do this for the Father, and for the salvation of men”?
What document are you talking about?
Bob:
I have no idea what you are talking about. If something fails to post consider the possibility of a glitch before accusing somebody of censoring you. Noting something the Pope has said does not constitute “obsession”. And since the piece is basically written to defend the title while explaining why it is not (yet) defined as a dogma, it would be good if you could learn to read.
Erik: Yes. Precisely. If Mary is co-mediatrix then so, in a sense, are we all. Every Marian title is a comment on who Jesus and on who we are are. All the baptized mediate grace to the world. Mary mediated *all* grace to the world because Jesus *is* all grace. It’s why Paul calls us co-laborers with Christ.
Erik, Bob is referring to a book of private revelation. A visionary account that was approved by the Church, but is not required belief.
Erik: The statement appears in The Mystical City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda that is reputed to be an autobiography of the Holy Fsmily that is verified by an approbation that states that is in accord with the Scriptures, the Fathers , and the councils of the Church. You don’t have to believe it,of course, but you miss a lot if you don’t. Through God’s intervention, Mary was miraculously conceived by a barren woman Anne. She was not affected by the sin of Adam, and was not subject to death, but when Jesus gave her the option to go straight to heaven, she chose to die because He died. I think it was Emerson that correctly referred to Mary as Humanity’s solitary boast.
Sorry Mark, It seemed you went to great length to clarify Co-Redemptrix before you could think about the agony in the garden. I did indeed miss the part about a correct intention being used in the wrong way in the Pope’s comment. I promise to do better in the future. I have no intention of creating what seems like enmity between us. The source I mention clearly indicates that God does not distribute any graces to man that do not pass through the hands of Mary, That seems like a favor only granted to her. What people do with those graces is of course up to them.
It all comes back to the Cross, Our Lord’s Passion, beginning with His Agony - like a perpetual Light on a Hill. Not limited by the sands of time. His Passion that we all have a share in—Good or bad.
Our Lord died for our sins. He must have been witness to every one of them during His Agony in the Garden. Should He have seen all of our sins, is it not possible He was also shown (or knew of) the good that people would do well into the future, in His Name - those not even born yet. And, if that be the case, cannot we go to Mass or Adoration or Confession tomorrow and thank Him for remaining in the that garden, knowing what it was that was coming for Him - for His Ultimate Scarifice. And, might it not be possible that He heard this future pray of thanksgiving in the midst of His suffering in the Garden 2,000 plus years ago? It is never too late to turn to Him—to change our ways—it could be the very reason why He did not ask the Father a fourth time to let the cup pass.
Bob: No hard feelings. Just don’t assume a glitch is censorship.
Jared,
Since “The Mystical City of God by Ven” is said to be a private revelation must mean that it is true what is written in it since the church approves of it. Correct? Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to it being true.
Erik,
What you’ve written is partially correct; my opinion has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the book. However, the Church’s stance is that it is “worthy of belief”, which basically means that it’s optional. I’ve never read it, so I don’t actually have an opinion on “The Mystical City of God”.
My main purpose for ever mentioning The Mystical City of God is to encourage people to read it and become familiar with it. There are four volumes of about 2700 pages. To read it is not a simple undertaking, but if you want to learn more about the Holy Family,it is an indispensable source.
Jared,
Since your church approves it, that means what that book says is true otherwise it would not approved it. It would mean that this is a true historical source about Mary and Jesus that includes things not mentioned in the Scriptures. Agreed?
Erik,
I get the feeling your fishing for a “gotcha!” here. You won’t find one. Like it or not, you do not get to decide what is required Catholic belief.
No, Erik. That’s not what it means. Please go read up on the distinction between public and private revelation. Google “private revelation” and read the Catholic enyclopedia article. When the Church says, “You can use this if you like in your devotions” it is not saying “Every word of this is a fact.” It’s practicing lenience,not enforcing a doctrine.
You have very bad habit of *telling* Catholics what they believe instead of listening and attempting to find out what they believe. Then you tell them they are wrong for believing something they don’t believe and congratulate yourself for refuting a straw man. It may feel nice, but it is not actually engaging much that the Church teache.
Mark-Jared,
When your church approves something that means that they believe it to be true. They would never approve something that they thought was a lie would they?
*Gasp!*
You’re right! And here I was thinking the Church knew what the Church teaches. Why, I can’t believe I’ve been silly enough to rely on the Magistereum when Protestants could have guided me to the true Catholic doctrine. Thank you, Erik, thank you.
Erik
Really. Go and learn about how the Church treats claims of private revelation. The world is not divisible into neat categories of true and false. When your kid comes to you and says, “I had a dream in which it seemed God told me to study hard at school and become a jet pilot” you don’t declare your kid a liar, but you also don’t say “It’s a fact that God spoke to my kid”. You say, “Could be. Doesn’t seem harmful to pay attention to the dream. Let’s see what happens. At any rate, there’s nothing wrong with studying hard.” That’s how claims like this private revelation are treated. They don’t seem harmful. They inspire devotion to God, so if they are helpful, you can listen to them if you like. But we don’t teach that you have to believe them. Really, try to learn what the Church teaches instead of *telling* Catholics what they believe.
Mark,
I am not telling you what to believe. I asked a simple question and you and Jared avoided it. What Bob claimed is claiming via The Mystical City of God by Ven is that Jesus said to Mary—“Let Us do this for the Father, and for the salvation of men”. He has put his faith in this book that he believes is telling him the truth. I could give you other examples such the promise of the Brown Scapular which promise’ that “whoever wears the scapular until death, will be preserved from hell”.
Is this true or not that a person who wears this scapular will be preserved from hell?
While you are at Eric, look up Approbation as well. By the way Venerable is the first stage of Canonization not a name. The brown Scapula of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel is fully approved by the Church. Just wearing it is not enough. A person must be enrolled and observe chastity according to one’s state in life and say the “Little office of the Blessed Virgin” every day or they can pray five decades of the Rosary every day instead. This Sabbatine Privilege specifies: “Those who die wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire. If they have not atoned for all punishment due to forgiven sins, they are guaranteed to go to Purgatory. I figured your blanket statement needed a bit more clarification. Every priest has the faculty, and I was granted the faculty when heavily involved for over two decades with the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, now the World Apostolate of Fatima (which by the way is a private revelation witnessed by 70,000 at the Miracle of the sun in 1917 to prove our Lady’s six appearances there). It makes you truly want to believe in private revelation. I strongly recommend that the world pay attention to the message of Fatima. The Blue Army was my source for obtaining The Mystical City of God and they promote it heavily. Mary appeared at Fatima as Our Lsdy of Mount Carmel after the miracle was over
accept privaterevelation.
Belay the last line. It was apparently caused by adding other data and not scrolling all the way down. Sorry about that.
[I strongly recommend that the world pay attention to the message of Fatima.]
Yes, Bob… I agree!
Jesus did not come from our womb that is one of the differences one reason why we are not on the same level as mommy dearest and it is” mediatrix of GRACE” dont argue help each other understand the truth and the truth isthe truth and the truth never changes
Bob,
The Sabbatine Privilege is a denial of the gospel of Christ.
Take that up with God, Erik if you dare. God dispenses all his graces through the hands of Mary.
To enlighten us and God, please explain why you think it s denial of the gospels. Millions of people obviously dispute that.
Bob,
It is a false statement to claim any grace comes through Mary. There is not one verse in Scripture that supports this claim. Grace comes only through the Lord Jesus. John 1:17
“Those who die wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.” Only the death of Christ for the sins of men and His resurrection from the dead save men from hell. Wearing a scapular does not save anyone from anything. It denies the gospel that only the Lord Jesus paid the price in full for our sins. To trust in some scapular denies gospel. To deny the gospel is to condemn yourself.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.