Our Lady, Co-Redemptorix, Mediatrix and Advocate
#1
On this feast day of Our Lady of Sorrows, what are the thoughts of my fellow Fishies on the proposed dogma declaring Our Lady to be Co-Redemptorix, Mediatrix and Advocate?

I'm on the fence about a formal declaration, leaning negative.  I think we Catholics need to emulate the Orthodox in this regard and leave this in mystery.
Reply
#2
The way it is proposed--as a series of titles--doesn't make much sense as a formulation of a definitive dogma.  But let's look at the underlying truths:

Mary is certainly an advocate--this is essentially just an element of the dogma of the communion of Saints and her special advocacy is revealed directly in Scripture (e.g. wedding at Cana) not to mention being an obvious element of Tradition. As such, I think the Church already holds Mary's advocacy as a dogma (a revealed truth) and see no need for an extraordinary definition--but such a definition does not seem like it would be controversial either.

Likewise, Mary's special role in our redemption is revealed explicitly in Scripture (e.g. at the Annunciation , the presentation, and the Crucifixion) and is also an obvious element of Tradition.  I think the term "Co-Redemptrix" is often misunderstood and therefore may not be opportune to use, but the underlying truth appears to already be held by the Church as a dogma (a revealed truth)--if it is doubted, a definition might be necessary, but either way, I don't see how the truth could be considered controversial in East or West.

Finally, there is the idea of her being the Mediatrix of all Graces--the idea that she distributes or dispenses the graces won by her Son or at least that all graces flow through her like a channel or neck.  While this doctrine has certainly  been taught by Popes and an ecumenical Council, whether it can truly be called a revealed truth (rather than some lesser doctrinal category) I think is debatable.  I think an argument for it can be drawn from Scripture (looking at the Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, and Pentecost, especially), but it is not as clear as the others.  Looking at the Fathers and Magisterium, an argument can also be made from Tradition, but it is also not as clear as the other two points above.  As such, it could be appropriate for the Church's Magisterium to definitively decide whether it is indeed a revealed truth or not by an extraordinary judgment.
Reply
#3
I"m with you on this 100% Clare, there's no good reason to formally declare a new Marian dogma of " Co- Redemptrix". If anything it would further isolate the Orthodox and pretty much every other Christian group out there.

After having taken up an Eastern Prayer style again  after a hiatus, it's apparent to me once again that the East holds our Lady in at least the same level of esteem as Roman Catholics. It's just that in the East Marian piety is so tightly knit into the prayers and Divine services with such beauty that there's no reason to have to dogmatize something to remind people.

As for the dogma itself, I can't help but think it sounds blasphemous, and even if it isn't and in some way could be said to be fully orthodox it's name lends itself to misunderstanding. I think it's best left a mystery. We know she is the Theotokos which is already about as exalted as it gets.

I pray to God papal declarations and proclamations of dogma cease for awhile, especially in the ecclesiastical and sociological climate of today.
Reply
#4
I wasn't aware of any proposals for this ???

Anyway, here's a good reason we might want to do it: for love of truth and the correction of error.
Of course, I'm not saying these things are true, but if they are, there should be no harm in defining a dogma.

In the end we can't really look for schismatics and full on heretics for guidance in such issues. But as it stands this sounds like a rather speculative question. Sounds like there are more pressing issues we should be praying not to happen :P
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)