Co-Redemptrix

Co-Redemptrix is both a title used by some Roman Catholics of Mary, the mother of Jesus and a theological concept, which refers to Mary's role in the redemption of man. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church. The term "Co-redemptrix" refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer his sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind. Related to this belief is the concept of Mediatrix which is a separate concept but regularly included by faithful who use the title of co-redemptrix.

The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted by many in the Franciscan Order, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[1] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix,[2] but recent high-level comments in the Church have not encouraged these hopes.

Teaching

The concept of Co-redemption is not new. Even before the year 200, the Church Father Irenaeus referred to Mary as "causa salutis" (cause of our salvation) given her "fiat"[3] It is a concept which was the subject of considerable theological debate, reaching a peak in the 15th century,[4] but attempts to have it declared a dogma were not successful. In general it was supported and promoted by medieval Franciscans and opposed by Dominicans.

A number of theologians have discussed the concept over the years, from the 19th century Father Frederick William Faber, to the 20th century Mariologist Father Gabriel Roschini.[5] In his 1946 publication Compendium Mariologiae, Roschini explained that Mary did not only participate in the birth of the physical Jesus, but, with conception, she entered with him into a spiritual union. The divine salvation plan, being not only material, includes a permanent spiritual unity with Christ. Most Mariologists agree with this position.[6] Mary suffered willingly under the cross[7] and, in a sense, offered His sacrifice to the Eternal Father.[8]

The concept of Mary offering Christ's sufferings is theologically complex. Christ offered Himself alone; “the Passion of Christ did not need any assistance.”[9] It is according to the spirit of the offertory within the Holy Mass, in which those assisting in the Sacrifice bring their particular offerings, personal hardships, etc., and offer them to the Lord to be included in His Sacrifice, inasmuch as they belong to His mystical body; just the same, they also offer the Lord's own Sacrifice, acknowledging the littleness of their own offerings and the fact that not even the greatest effort, of itself and apart from Christ, can be of God's use. A priest is, in a sense, able to participate in the Sacrifice in a sacramental manner. The Holy Office has forbidden reference to Mary as a priestess.

The Blessed Virgin “merits for us de congruo”, that is, by way of a fitting reward without any self-binding on God's side, “what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno”, that is, God binding himself to give the reward.[10] It is uncertain whether St. Pius means with “us” all mankind except Christ's human nature and Mary, or only those living after Mary's merits, since the former would without necessity break the general rule that the effect comes after the cause. What concerns post-Assumption graces, it is a pious opinion that the entirety of them is effected not without an intercession of Mary,[11]

The Roman Catholic view of Co-Redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer.[12] Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process.[13] Also if the Blessed Virgin intercedes for all graces that are given, this is not because God needed her intercession in any way to give them; rather, it “is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”.[14]

Pius XII has thus in Munificentissimus Deus, the bull defining the Assumption dogma, used the alternative expression "the revered Mother of God, [...] joined [...] with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination [...] as the noble associate of the divine Redeemer".[15]

Quotes from Scripture

The Sacred Scriptures are commonly cited in favour of this teaching:

Proposed dogmatic definition

There have been efforts to propose a formal dogmatisation, which has had both popular and ecclesiastical support. It was brought up at Vatican II by Italian, Spanish and Polish bishops but not dealt with on the council floor.[16] Subsequently, Popes, while perhaps sympathetic to requests from the faithful and bishops, pointedly did not include such language in their encyclicals.[17]

The proposal is the first-ever case that an alleged apparition, in Amsterdam, has supposedly proposed, or rather, demanded a dogma from the Church. Up to then, apparitions confirmed existing dogmas rather than demanding new ones. Since 2002, the Amsterdam apparitions have had approval of the diocesan bishop, Monsignor Jos Punt. However, given the fact that a non-approving decision from Rome in the 1970s seems to have had some degree of finality, it brings the subsequent jurisdiction of Msgr Punt into question.

In the early 1990s Professor Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville and author of the book Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate launched a popular petition to urge Pope John Paul II to use Papal infallibility to declare Mary as Co-Redemptrix. More than six million signatures were gathered from 148 countries, including those of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, and other cardinals and bishops.

Salvatore Perrella O.S.M. of the Pontifical Theological Faculty of the "Marianum" in Rome, thought that this indicated "...a certain 'under-appreciation' of the Council's teaching, which is perhaps believed to be not completely adequate to illustrate comprehensively Mary's co-operation in Christ's work of Redemption.[17]

Arguments in opposition

Arguments opposed are that such a dogma might limit, in popular understanding, the redemptive role of Jesus Christ.

Faber says,

Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary. ...in a degree to which no others approach, our Blessed Lady co-operated with Him in the redemption of the world.[18]

He also explains that, "Thus, so far as the literal meaning of the word is concerned, it would appear that the term co-redemptress is not theologically true, or at least does not express the truth it certainly contains with theological accuracy."[19] Faber recognized that the term "co-redemptrix" usually requires some explanation in modern English because so often the prefix "co" tends imply complete equality.

This concern is shared by Perrella.

The semantic weight of this expression would require a good many other qualifications and clarifications, especially in the case under examination, where she who is wished to be proclaimed coredeemer is, in the first place, one who is redeemed, albeit in a singular manner, and who participates in Redemption primarily as something she herself receives. Thus we see the inadequacy of the above-mentioned term for expressing a doctrine which requires, even from the lexical standpoint, the proper nuances and distinctions of levels.[17]

Another argument, though by no means the only one, is that it would also complicate ecumenical efforts for a better understanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the salvation mystery of Jesus Christ.[3]

In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.[20][21]

By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission".[21] A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable".[22] Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration",[23] his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ."[22] When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,

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...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. [24]

Pope Benedict XVI further explained his notable opposition of a dogmatisation, concluding that the title is sufficiently included in other better expressions of Catholic Marian teaching. For example, the Scriptural account is unsatisfactory, and above all, we are talking most of the time of a merit de congruo which would seem, by the very definition of de congruo, not fit into the exact clearness needed for dogmatic definitions.

See also

References

Notes

  1. ↑ “Therefore, one can say, she [that is, the Blessed Virgin] redeemed with Christ the human race.” Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, AAS 1918, 181. There has not been a retraction so far, nor any equivalent statements since.
  2. ↑ News Report on the Mediatrix Petition to the Pope
  3. 1 2 "Why It's Not the Right Time for a Dogma on Mary as Co-redemptrix", Zenit, October 21, 2002
  4. ↑ Ott 256
  5. ↑ Gabriel Roschini, Compendium Mariologiae, Roma 1946.
  6. ↑ Schmaus, Mariologie, München, 1955, 328
  7. ↑ “As the Blessed Virgin Mary does not seem to participate in the public life of Jesus Christ, and then, suddenly appears at the stations of his cross, she is not there without divine intention. She suffers with her suffering and dying son, almost as if she would have died herself. For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her son.” Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica.
  8. ↑ “and sacrificed him for the reconciliation of divine justice, as far as she was permitted to do.” Benedict XV, ibidem. – “It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall.” Pope Ven. Pius XII, encyclical Mystici corporis.
  9. ↑ St. Ambrose, De inst. virg. 7, cited from Ott, Dogmatics.
  10. ↑ Pope St. Pius X, encyclical Ad diem illum 14
  11. ↑ “Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.” Leo XIII, encyclical Octobri mense 4. Ott, Dogmatics, Mariology § 7 even thinks that, in spite of uncertain evidence in the Sources of Faith, a dogmatic definition does not seem impossible.
  12. ↑ 1Tim 2,5
  13. ↑ Ott Dogmatics 256
  14. ↑ Second Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium 62, citing St. Ambrose, Epist. 63: PL 16, 1218.
  15. ↑ Munificentissimus Deus 40
  16. ↑ Otto Hermann Pesch Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Echter, 1993, 194.
  17. 1 2 3 Perrella O.S.M., Salvatore M., "Mary's Cooperation in Work of Redemption: Present State of Question", L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 2 July 1997, p. 9
  18. ↑ Frederick William. The foot of the Cross; or, The sorrows of Mary, p.449, Thomas Richardson and Son, 1858
  19. ↑ Faber p.448.
  20. ↑ L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 25 June 1997, page 10
  21. 1 2 Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Catholic Herald, 1997-08-22, p.7.
  22. 1 2 Father Salvatore Perrella, The Message, 1997-09-05, p.5.
  23. ↑ L'Osservatore Romano, January 1996
  24. ↑ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversion with Peter Seewald. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002, p. 306

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, November 23, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.