www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Mary as co-redemptrix

I'm Catholic. This teaching of the Catholic church (including Popes) that Mary is the co-redemptrix really scares me... makes me think I perhaps I should be EO since they don't teach this.

Since you folks are Eastern but Catholic I'm interested in your perspective on this title used more and more by Popes.

What is it that makes you think that the east does not have a tradition of the Theotokos as co-redemtrix? Or all of us for that matter having a share in the redemptive act of the Savior?

Eli

I contacted the HQ of one of the main EO jurisdictions here in the US and got the following answer. I didn't get permission to quote them so I'm going to refrain from saying exactly who sent it to me. It was a priest at their HQ.

The Catholic understanding of this doctrine comes very close to asserting that Mary offered up her sufferings with the Lord's and by so doing helped atone/earn our salvation. In fact, there are Catholic theologians who directly assert this.

And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest." (Matthew 9:35-38)

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8)

There is a huge disparity between what some in the Latin Church were considering as a possible theology and the common perception of this theology.

From the Church�s viewpoint the idea is that Mary � and all Christians � are �co-laborers� or �co-redeemers� with Christ. We labor in the vineyard as branches.

This idea in no way raises Mary (or anyone else) to be an equal of Christ. It simply acknowledged that each of is called to work along with Christ to redeem the world. �Co-redemptrix� in this context means sort of �along with and working under�. [Consider the way the branches work together with the vine to produce fruit.] This theology � correctly understood - does not imply equality (the branches are not the vine). Mary�s sufferings in no way bring about our salvation. The correct method of looking at her sufferings is as an example placed before us (look what can be accomplished by saying �yes� to God).

Pope John Paul the Great made clear a number of years ago that this theology was not and would not be considered as something that would be made formal (probably because it is very confusing to some). Yet it seems to still be popular on some websites among those who do not accept the Church�s ruling on the matter.

One of those websites cites this from JP2 as proof that the Church teaches that Mary's sufferings helped pay for our sins:

Believe me, I'm hoping the Catholic Church doesn't teach that her sufferings paid for my sins. But do you have a response to the above? This sort of stuff scares me.

Also, do you have a reference to where JP2 said that co-redemptrix would never be formally defined? Just curious.

Thanks!

Eric

Understand this in the context of the first part of section 25:

�The witnesses of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ have handed on to the Church and to mankind a specific Gospel of suffering. The Redeemer himself wrote this Gospel, above all by his own suffering accepted in love, so that man "should not perish but have eternal life"(80). This suffering, together with the living word of his teaching, became a rich source for all those who shared in Jesus' sufferings among the first generation of his disciples and confessors and among those who have come after them down the centuries.

It is especially consoling to note�and also accurate in accordance with the Gospel and history�that at the side of Christ, in the first and most exalted place, there is always his Mother through the exemplary testimony that she bears by her whole life to this particular Gospel of suffering. In her, the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakeable faith but also a contribution to the redemption of all. In reality, from the time of her secret conversation with the angel, she began to see in her mission as a mother her "destiny" to share, in a singular and unrepeatable way, in the very mission of her Son. And she very soon received a confirmation of this in the events that accompanied the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and in the solemn words of the aged Simeon, when he spoke of a sharp sword that would pierce her heart. Yet a further confirmation was in the anxieties and privations of the hurried flight into Egypt, caused by the cruel decision of Herod.�

From the words of Pope John Paul the Great we can see that Mary�s role in being a co-laborer or co-redeemer is one of unshakeable faith, a faith that allowed her to participate intimately in the life of Christ. She is a witness unto all generations.

Read �Salvifici Doloris� [vatican.va] for itself. Don�t rely on commentaries that may or may not have agendas.

I don�t have a reference to the Holy Father�s statement on this, but somewhere he or a Vatican official explained the proper understanding of the term �Co-Redemtrix� (something we should not be afraid of).

Don�t expect the Church to issue a lot of statements about what she is definitively not going to issue as formal theology in the future. The Church just doesn�t work that way.

Also, look to the Church itself for official teachings. Commentaries by well-intentioned but biased sources simply cannot be relied upon.

We are all co-redemptors to a lesser extent. That's how it was explained to me years ago when I first started looking into Catholicism (and pretty much the last time I heard anyone bring up the Virgin as Co-Redemptrix).

Logos Teen

Dear Eric,

Don't pay attention to those who tell you what the Orthodox Church teaches. They sometimes have a habit of 'swaying with the wind'. It's better to go to the source. I have written some quotes from probably our greatest Orthodox saint and theologian. This way you can form your own conclusion.

The following is from the book, Saint Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite, by Metropolitan Hierotheos:

"...the Panagia, (Mary), according to St. Gregory Palamas, is in heaven with her body. Indeed the saint writes: 'Therefore the body which gave birth is justifiably glorified with a glory worthy of God, along with that which was born and, in accordance with the prophetic song, is raised together...' Just as her Son, who assumed flesh from her, could not remain in the earth and was resurrected and taken up, the same should be the case with the Panagia. 'Therefore she was taken up directly from the tomb to the supracelestial place...'

Thus by her assumption she united the things above with those below. And the Theotokos, who had room in her for him who fills all things, must have been above all things and transcended all things with her virtues. The fact that she is above all things and higher than the saints and the angels is seen from the taking up of her body into heaven. That is to say, it is seen from the fact that she was made immortal after her death and she alone with her body dwells in the heaven with the Son and God, and from there she also pours out abundantly the richest grace to those worthy of it...

The worth of the Theotokos is in the fact that she became the Mother of Christ, that she gave her flesh in order for Christ to be born and to save the human race. The fruit of her womb is her chief greatness and glory.

'...standing between God and the whole human race, she made God a son of man, and men sons of God. She alone showed herself to be supranaturally the mother of God by nature and through her ineffable childbirth became queen of every earthly and heavenly creature.'

Since the divine united with human nature in her womb, she is the atonement of the whole human race: ...the common reconciliation of the whole race of men.

It was through the Thotokos that the renewal of the human race came about, since it was through her that the gates of heaven were opened.

For she performed a miracle of miracles on earth and a public benefit greater than any in history...

...on the one hand she united God with man, and on the other hand she preserved the method which we must use in order to reach participation in God.

In reality, she was the tent of the Logos not made with hands, the spiritual and living ark which contained the jar of manna, the book of life.

Zenovia

Good luck trying to understand what is meant by co-redemptrix. I have had several priests with PhD's try to explain it to me, but I am still just as confused.

The only thing I understand is there is some significance to the adjective "co". It apparently does not mean equal to, but through. It also has something to do with her saying yes to the Archangel Gabriel during the Annunciation.

So, I suggest not to worry about the theology and just accept the fact that Mary is our Mother and she loves us very much. In return, we should love Mary as our Mother, but not as God of course.

JP

It is my understanding that it is not a Dogma yet and you are free to beleive in it if you want to or not.

Yes we are all co redeemers with through and in Christ! Mary has a special place because of her election by God and His grace to become the Mother of God, the Mother of the Redeemer, the one through whom the salvation of the whole human race comes.
Stephanos I
Thus she can rightly have the titles of Co Redemptix, Advocate and Mediatrix of All Grace.
Not that she is the principle cause but by her "fiat" she has brought these things about.
There are senses in which these terms if applied to Mary, are heretical. In NO way does the Church espouse these ideas.

I am of the opinion that there is no need to do anything here, as it is so open to misinterpretation and confusion by most laity. I must admit I had not heard much on this for so many years it was a surprise to see it brought up at all. As JPII did not act on the advice of those who want this definition, I can only assume he did not think it a good idea and in teh best interest of the Church. If anyone was going to do anything around the Mother of God it would have been him.

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel,
I have a question for you.
There is much in the Christian Mysteries of faith, that is open to misunderstanding and confussion.
The Trinity and the Unity of God. The Eucharist and on and on. Should the Church refrain and abstain from its God given mission and duty, to teach all the nations?
Stephanos I

Certainly not! However, anything that has the potential to confuses the roles in the act of Salavation does not help. We know the Mother of God had a major role to play. To uses terms that suggest to some she is up there with with the Trinty would not be helpful.

ICXC
NIKA

"Be not afraid", Eric! If you're going to be scared, I can give you plenty of other things to be scared of.

Like ... terrorists with suitcase nukes in major U.S. cities.

And ... the fact that "The Simpsons" movie won't be released till July of 2007, so we'll have to watch the promos for the next 18 months. Brrrr ...

But ... adding another title to the Theotokos' already long list of titles? Piece o' cake.