Have any of you ever heard Mary referred to as "The Co-Redemptress with Christ?" I'm going over my Mother's Day sermon and ran into this title for her.

Never heard that before but did a little research. For what it's worth. LINK

Nada.

Yes, I remember that from the time I went to membership-type classes with my soon-to-be wife. We were married in the Catholic Church and the priest recommended we attend these together even if I didn't intend to become Catholic. Later my wife left Catholicism. Catholic Mariology had a lot to do with her leaving the Roman Catholic Church

 

Here's a summary from catholicplanet.com/CMA:

 

Second Vatican Council: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from, nor adds anything to, the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 62.)

 

Pope Leo XIII: “The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips.” (Iucunda Semper Expectatione, n. 2)

 

Sorry, I guess i am not qualified to answer this thread because you asked for Catholic responders.

I have not.

As a Catholic, I can speak up. This has a simple explanation:

 

Mary’s title of mediatrix arises from her cooperation in the Incarnation and in the Redemption of mankind. Through her "yes" (Lk 1:38), she became the Theotokos (God-bearer), and, as the "New Eve," she is "the Mother of all living."

 

God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s "yes." Had there been no "yes" from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Somehow just saw this thread. Fascinating stuff.

 

I'd heard of the title before, but usually in a derisive way from theologians responding to it. Personally, I'm not a fan of "Co-Redemptrix" as a title as even without altering Church teaching, it's just confusing. It lends an air of equality between the redeeming sacrifice of Christ and that of Mary which is simply not found in any part of Catholic teaching. This talk of "necessary but subordinate" just seems pointless when we can avoid the title altogether.

 

The later middle ages were rife with excesses of all kinds. The Scholastics began to disappear up their own backsides as devotion to Thomism and Aristotelian philosophy turned those writings into virtual scripture for its adherents; it took until the late 19th century for Thomism to be properly rehabilitated. The radical Dolcinians took Christian poverty to extremes and murdered wealthy priests and bishops in the name of restoring simple poverty to the Church.

 

And the Franciscans who showed great devotion to Mary as an example of Christian virtue and humility to be imitated by all occasionally went a little far in that devotion. It's easy to get bogged down in Mariology and not see it for what it is. She is mediatrix and mother to the Redeemer, she did not redeem. The Church's history would be very different without Mary; but without Mary, Christ's mission is nonetheless unchanged.

It is unfortunate how poor of a job the church does in explaining Mary's role. Numerous Catholics ignorantly worship Mary rather than honor her, adore her rather than venerate her.

At the time of Jesus' Assension to Heaven, Jesus told the Apostles to wait 10 days for the Holy Spirit to empower them and guide them to go out and spread the good news. The Apostles went to a locked room. The sent for Mary to be with them and pray with them. Why? Because they knew that Jesus honored his Mother, had listened to her---and She Him.

They prayed together and waited. Their prayer was "Come Holy Spirit". 10 days later, the Holy Spirit did come--Pentecost--the Birthday of the Catholic Church.

 

This is also why Catholic's pray Novenas. We pray with patience and perseverance, and we ask Mary to pray with us. We honor Her and ask that She intervene on our behalf. (Except maybe someone else can explain the 10 days that the Apostles prayed and the 9 day Novena?)

I know some Catholics believe that Mary never actually died. That she was transferred to heaven like Elijah and Enoch.

I know some Catholics believe that Mary never actually died. That she was transferred to heaven like Elijah and Enoch.

 

True enough. The Assumption (the notion that Mary was assumed -- body and soul -- into heaven at the end of her life) is dogmatically defined as a truth in the catechism of the Church, but it has never been (and in my opinion will never be) fully defined as to whether this occurred before or after physical death.

One of the biggest "shaking my head" moments came concerning Mary.

 

We had just gotten done praying the rosary at the school which I am employed. The woman leading the service, who is very involved in the church, told the entire student body that the assumption of Mary was in the bible. The weird part was that she said it with such authority; Like she absolutely knew it was there.

 

It made me realize that there seems to be some ambiguity about what Some Catholics believe about Mary.

 

Is she the Mother of God? Yes. Was she assumed into heaven? The bible doesn't say, but Catholic Dogma says yes.

 

Who is to say? Not me.

Is she the Mother of God? Yes. Was she assumed into heaven? The bible doesn't say, but Catholic Dogma says yes.

 

Who is to say? Not me.

 

Protestants would say the Bible over Dogma. But I know protestants that believe in their own church's tradition even though it may not be in the Bible.

Protestants would say the Bible over Dogma. But I know protestants that believe in their own church's tradition even though it may not be in the Bible.

 

The Catholic Church's actual position is that there are places in the Bible that point toward the dogma of the Assumption but that other sources are required to fully support it. In the Church, sacred scripture is but one of the three sources of revealed truth, the other two being sacred tradition and magisterial teaching. Each of the three is derived from the others and dependent upon the others to be fully understood.

Protestants would say the Bible over Dogma. But I know protestants that believe in their own church's tradition even though it may not be in the Bible.

 

There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Catholic books of apologetics...so many that wading through which are the useful or accessible ones is virtually impossible. There's one extremely short and straightforward book that touches on most all of the core Catholic teachings, though. It's called, simply, Where Is That In The Bible? You can pick it up used on Amazon for about $3. It would give you a pretty easy and basic look at some of the Catholic teachings you may not understand completely, if you're interested.

 

The author, Patrick Madrid, also wrote a book called 150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know that is a very good read. It has even been touted by Boston's Archbiship, Cardinal Sean O'Malley.