Co-Redemptrix
#41
(05-07-2012, 06:29 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That being said, it wouldn't have been the first time a newly introduced term, while intended to mean something orthodox,  led to some confusion requiring more in-depth explanation by Magisterium (e.g. Filioque)

How did the Filioque lead to confusion? It seems pretty clear to me.
Reply
#42
Resurrexi Wrote: How did the Filioque lead to confusion? It seems pretty clear to me.

It contributed to a major schism and required not one, but two ecumenical Councils to clarify what it really meant. A plain reading of it can reasonably lead one to think it is creating a double spiration or two principles. It's actually very ambiguous--you can't say one way or another just by looking at the phrase, which is why "and the Son" has often been clarified as "through the Son" not to mention the more in depth clarifications of those two Councils (Lyons II and Florence).

Of course, in this case it didn't help that it took the form of a change to an established formula defined and reiterated by multiple ecumenical Councils. When you change a time honored formula, it gives the impression you're changing the meaning. It wasn't intended to substantially change the meaning of course, but inserting a new, ambiguous term, into a traditional formula can be a recipe for problems (look at "subsistit in" for a contemporary example...).

My point is, "co-redemptrix" is ambiguous enough to lead to different readings quite easily.
Reply
#43
(05-07-2012, 03:44 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 10:26 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 04:05 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I consider her a mediator with all the saints, taking up our supplication to God, but will never hold her to be co-redemptrix.

So when She is dogmatically proclaimed Co-Redemptrix, you will leave the Church?

It seems unlikely that she will ever by dogmatically given that title since, "a 1996 Vatican appointed theological commission voted 23-0 against the proposed dogma" (Wiki) and since Benedict XVI doesn't support it.

So you are convinced that the modernists and the false ecumaniacs have won and the Church will never return to sanity? As was pointed out, it would probably have happened in the 60s had they not fought the move.
Reply
#44
(05-07-2012, 03:45 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-07-2012, 06:29 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That being said, it wouldn't have been the first time a newly introduced term, while intended to mean something orthodox,  led to some confusion requiring more in-depth explanation by Magisterium (e.g. Filioque)

How did the Filioque lead to confusion? It seems pretty clear to me.

Is this a serious question?  ???

Nothing about the Trinity is "perfectly clear."
Reply
#45
(05-07-2012, 03:53 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
Resurrexi Wrote: How did the Filioque lead to confusion? It seems pretty clear to me.

It contributed to a major schism and required not one, but two ecumenical Councils to clarify what it really meant. A plain reading of it can reasonably lead one to think it is creating a double spiration or two principles. It's actually very ambiguous--you can't say one way or another just by looking at the phrase, which is why "and the Son" has often been clarified as "through the Son" not to mention the more in depth clarifications of those two Councils (Lyons II and Florence).

Of course, in this case it didn't help that it took the form of a change to an established formula defined and reiterated by multiple ecumenical Councils. When you change a time honored formula, it gives the impression you're changing the meaning. It wasn't intended to substantially change the meaning of course, but inserting a new, ambiguous term, into a traditional formula can be a recipe for problems (look at "subsistit in" for a contemporary example...)

This is also true of homoousion or transubstantiation.  Both caused tremendous problems and needed major clarification and explication, and still people misunderstand them today.
Reply
#46
(05-07-2012, 03:05 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 12:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Is St. Joseph co-redeemer as well?

After all, if it weren't for Him both Christ and the Blessed Virgin would have perished in the hands of Herod, among other episodes.

By simple, Biblical Pauline logic, yes.  St. Joseph is a co-redeemer, an advocate for us in heaven, and a mediator of grace.  As are all saints.

So let's declare him co-redeemer, then!

You know, to foster devotion to him and give more credence to the relatively modern centrality of his cult.

Quote:The Blessed Virgin Mary is the saint par excellence.  She is worthy of hyperdulia, because of her hyper-co-redeemptive role, her hyper-advocating role, and her hyper-mediation role.

The Blessed Virgin is certainly a unique vessel of election. No other human being was known to physically carry the God-man inside. That being said, all those "hyper" adjectives run contrary to "Biblical Pauline logic", as you put it. So much so, that finally we've come to the point where you can't really go to heaven without having recourse to her intercession.
Reply
#47
(05-06-2012, 05:34 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 03:51 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 03:16 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: The doctrine of Co-Redemptrix in absolutely no way detracts from the centrality of Christ. Without Christ, there is no redemption. Without Mary, there is no Christ.
Well, there would be no incarnate Christ. The 2nd Person of the Trinity existed even before the Holy Spirit created Our Lady ex nihilo in St. Ann's womb.

And since it is the Sacrifice of the Incarnate Christ on the Cross that redeems us, my point still stands.
Mary is in no way needed for the existence of the divine substance of the 2nd Person of the Trinity because something uncreated cannot depend on a creature. That's what I meant.
Reply
#48
Vetus,

It is okay to have questions about and to discuss various aspects of our Faith. However, the tone of your posts sometimes worry me. Do you not think that theologians smarter, wiser, and more pious than you and I have not had the same thoughts, yet they maintain Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.

I have noticed in some of your posts (implicitly/in tone) that you question some things in the Church "post-Trent" as "exagerations." This troubles me.
Reply
#49
(05-07-2012, 04:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-07-2012, 03:05 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 12:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Is St. Joseph co-redeemer as well?

After all, if it weren't for Him both Christ and the Blessed Virgin would have perished in the hands of Herod, among other episodes.

By simple, Biblical Pauline logic, yes.  St. Joseph is a co-redeemer, an advocate for us in heaven, and a mediator of grace.  As are all saints.

So let's declare him co-redeemer, then!

You know, to foster devotion to him and give more credence to the relatively modern centrality of his cult.

Well, that is implied in saying that the Blessed Virgin is Co-Redemptrix.  It is a statement about the nature of the Communion of Saints (all of them), which is to say the Body of Christ, which is to say about Christ and our participation in Him.

Quote:
Quote:The Blessed Virgin Mary is the saint par excellence.  She is worthy of hyperdulia, because of her hyper-co-redeemptive role, her hyper-advocating role, and her hyper-mediation role.

The Blessed Virgin is certainly a unique vessel of election. No other human being was known to physically carry the God-man inside. That being said, all those "hyper" adjectives run contrary to "Biblical Pauline logic", as you put it. So much so, that finally we've come to the point where you can't really go to heaven without having recourse to her intercession.

*shrug*

I'm not really for declaring it as a Dogma, I think it would cause too many problems with people misunderstanding it.  But the simple fact is, St. Paul calls himself a co-redeemer, and the reason we venerate Saints at all is because of their participation in Christ's work, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church."  Either Saints participate in Christ or they do not.  If they do, then they are co-redeemers, and Mary is the Co-Redemptrix supreme.  If they don't, then we ought not to venerate them.
Reply
#50
Is it possible that some of our problems with devotion to the BVM are due in part to a change in context? In the past, it seems that devotion to the Virgin Mary was most intense amongst less educated peasants living in agrarian communities. The nobility and the better educated, on the other hand, always tended to be somewhat more reserved.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)