På December 23, 2000, The New York Times ran a cover story in its “Arts and Ideas” section on the Vox populi Mariae Mediatrici movement, which seeks the papal definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix af alle nådegaver og Advocate. This article was in turn reprinted in a great number of U.S. major newspapers, thereby sparking renewed and high-spirited debate internationally over the concept of Our Lady as “Co-redemptrix,” both inside and outside Catholic circles of thought.
Although diverse in their formulation, most objections to Our Lady’s title of Co-redemptrix and her subsequent role in Coredemption fall into the same foundational categories (many of which were debated in recent publications in response to The New York Times piece). There is a critical need to articulate to the general public (let alone to the growing genus of uncatechized Catholic faithful), the basic doctrinal truths contained in the Catholic Church’s use of Co-redemptrix and its ongoing discussion pertinent to a possible papal definition.
The call of the Second Vatican Council to “bring Christ to the world,” with an evangelical focus not simply within the confines of the Church, but to the world, applies as well to the Christian truth regarding the Mother of Christ. This conciliar call to proclaim Christian truth to the world, inclusive of Christian truth about Mary, is at the same time an evangelical call that must be free from any doctrinal compromise in presenting the entire doctrinal truth about Mary as officially taught by the Catholic Church—a doctrinal truth which essentially includes Marian co-redemption.
What follows then is a synthesis of seven common objections to Mary Co-redemptrix and the doctrinal role of Marian co-redemption, taken principally from recent publications, både verdslige og Christian. A fundamental summary response will be offered to each objection, with a general mind for the Catholic and non-Catholic reader alike. In an effort to allow each response to stand independently of the other responses, some content is repeated within responses where appropriate.
Indsigelse 1. Kalde Mary en "Co-redemptrix" placerer hende på samme niveau med Jesus Kristus, Guds guddommelige søn, gøre hende noget som en fjerde person i treenigheden, en gudinde eller kvasi guddommelige gudinde, der er blasfemi for enhver sand kristen.
The Catholic Church’s use of the title, “Co-redemptrix” as applied to the Mother of Jesus in no sense places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer. There is an infinite difference between the divine person of Jesus Christ and the human person, Mary. Hellere, papal teaching has used the title, “Co-redemptrix” to refer to the unique participation of the Mother of Jesus with and under her divine son in the work of human redemption.
The term, “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with (Forløseren).” The prefix, “co,” comes from the Latin term, “cum,” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son, Jesus Christ in the redemption of the human family, manifesteret i Christian Skriften, som.
Med Marys frie og aktive "fiat" på opfordring af englen Gabriel til at blive mor til Jesus, "Være det gjort mig efter dine ord" (LK. 1:38), hun samarbejdet unikt med arbejdet i forløsning ved at give guddommelig forløser hans krop, som var det netop det instrument af menneskets forløsning. "Vi har været helliget ved udbud af Jesus Kristi legeme en gang for alle" (Heb. 10:10), og Jesus Kristi legeme gives til ham via det gratis, aktive, og unikke samarbejde af Jomfru Maria. I kraft af at give kødet til "Word lavet kød" (Jn.1:14), der indløser igen menneskeheden, Virgin Nazareth fortjener entydigt titlen Co-redemptrix. Med ordene fra den afdøde Moder Teresa fra Calcutta, “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix—she gave Jesus his body, og hans krop er hvad frelst os." (1)
Nytestamentlig profetien i Simeon i templet afslører også lidelser, Co-forløsende mission af Mary i direkte union med sin forløser søn i deres én samlet arbejde for forløsning: "Simeon velsignede dem, og sagde til Maria, hans mor, ' Se, dette barn er indstillet for den falde og stige af mange i Israel, og vil være et tegn på modsigelse, og et sværd skal gennembore via din egen sjæl, Too" (LK. 2:34-35).
Men højdepunktet af Marys rolle som Co-redemptrix under sin guddommelige søn finder sted ved foden af korset, hvor den samlede lidelser af moderens hjerte lydigt united for søns hjerte opfyldelsen af faderens plan om forløsning lidelser (CF. GAL 4:4). Som frugten af denne forløsende lidelse, Mary er givet ved den korsfæstede frelser som åndelige moder til alle folk, "Kvinde, Se din søn!' Så sagde han til disciplen, ' Se, din mor!” (Jn.19:27). Som beskrevet af pave Johannes Paul II, Mary var "åndeligt korsfæstet med sønnen korsfæstet" på Golgata, og "hendes rolle som Co-redemptrix længere ikke med forherligelse af hendes søn." (2) Selv efter udførelsen af erhvervelse af Gratierne Frelsens på Golgata, Mary's co-forløsende rolle fortsætter i fordelingen af disse besparelse Gratierne til hjerter af menneskeheden.
Den tidligste kristne skribenter og kirkefædrene forklarede Marian Co forløsning med stor dybde i enkelhed i den første teologiske model af Mary som den "nye Eva." Det væsentlige, de leddelte, som Eva, den første "mor levende" (Gen. 3:20) var direkte medvirkende med Adam, Faderen til den menneskelige race, tab af nåde for hele menneskeheden, så for Mary, den "nye Eva,"var direkte medvirkende med Jesus Kristus, Hvem St. Paul kalder den "ny Adam" (CF. 1 COR. 15:45-48), i restaurering af nåde til hele menneskeheden. Med ordene fra 2. århundrede kirken far, St. Irenæus: "Lige som Eva, kone af Adam, men stadig en jomfru, blev af hendes ulydighed dødsårsag for sig selv og hele menneskeheden, så Mary, også, statsgodkendte endnu en jomfru, blev af hendes lydighed årsag til frelse for sig selv og hele menneskeheden." (3)
I lyset af hendes unikke og direkte samarbejde med forløser i genoprettelsen af nåde for den menneskelige familie (CF. Gen. 3:15), Mary blev alment kendt i den tidlige kirke som den "nye mor af the Living,” and her instrumental co-redemption with Christ was well summed in the succinct expression of 4th century Church Father, St. Jerome: "Døden gennem Eve, liv gennem Mary". (4)
Eksplicitte henvisninger til Marian Co forløsning som Marys unikke deltagelse og under Jesus Kristus i indløsning eller "købe tilbage" menneskeheden fra slaveri af Satan og synd er til stede i hele Christian Tradition. For eksempel, den syvende århundrede kirken forfatter, Modestus af Jerusalem, hedder det gennem Mary, Vi er "forløst fra tyranni af Djævelen." (5) St John Damascene (8århundrede) hilser hende: "Hail du, gennem hvem er vi forløst fra forbandelsen." (6) St. Bernard af Clairvaux (12århundrede) preaches that, “through her, mand blev frelst." (7) Det store franciskaner læge, St. Bonaventure (13århundrede) rammende opsummerer Christian Tradition i denne undervisning: "At kvinde (nemlig Eve), kørte os ud af paradis og solgte os; men denne ene (Mary) bragte os tilbage igen og købte os." (8)
Selv om der var aldrig tale om den samlede og radikale afhængighed af Jomfru Marias deltagelse i forløsning ved den guddommelige arbejde og fordelene ved Jesus Kristus i hovederne af kirkefædre og læger, ikke desto mindre tidlige Christian Tradition ikke tøve med at lære og prædike uden sidestykke intime deltagelse af kvinden, Mary, i "Køb tilbage" eller indløsning af den menneskelige race fra slaveri af Satan. Som menneskeheden blev solgt af en mand og en kvinde, så det var Guds vil som menneskeheden ville blive købt tilbage af en mand og en kvinde.
Det er på dette rige kristne fundament at 1900-tallet paverne og helgener har brugt titel Co-redemptrix for Marys enestående rolle i menneskets forløsning, as exemplified in the contemporary use of Co-redemptrix for Mary by Pope John Paul II on at least six occasions during his present pontificate. (9) "Co-redemptrix" som brugt af paverne betyder ikke mere, at Mary er en gudinde lig med Jesus Kristus end St. Pauls identifikation af alle kristne som "Guds kolleger"(1 COR. 3:9) betyder, at kristne guder svarende til den ene Gud.
Alle kristne er med rette kaldet til at være co-arbejdere eller "co redeemers" med Jesus Kristus (CF. Col. 1:24) in the reception and cooperation with grace necessary for our own redemption and the redemption of others—personal subjective redemption made possible by the historic objective redemption or “buying back” accomplished by Jesus Christ, den "nye Adam,"Redemptor, og Mary, den "nye Eva,"Co-redemptrix.
Indsigelse 2: Calling the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Co-redemptrix” is against proper Christian ecumenism, da det fører til division mellem katolikker og andre kristne.
Velsagtens stillede mest almindeligt indsigelse mod brugen af Co-redemptrix (endsige nogen potentielle definition af doktrinen) er dens opfattede modstand mod kristne økumeni. Derfor skal vi begynde med en præcis definition af autentiske Christian økumeni og dens relevante tilsvarende aktivitet, som forstås af den katolske kirke.
In his papal document on ecumenism, UT Unum Sint, (“that they all may be one” Jn. 17:21), Pave John Paul II definerer autentiske Christian økumeni i bøn "som sjæl" og dialog "som legeme" arbejdet mod det endelige mål med sand og varig kristen enhed. (10) På samme tid, den katolske nødvendighed at arbejde og stræbe efter kristen enhed tillader ikke i nogen grad, nedsættelse eller fortynding af katolske doktrinære lære, som sådan vil både mangler katolsk integritet og samtidigt være vildledende i dialog med andre ikke - katolske kristne om, hvad den katolske kirke virkelig mener.
Som det andet Vatikankoncil klart lærer med hensyn til økumenisk dialog: "Det er, Selvfølgelig, vigtigt, at doktrinen fremlægges klart i sin helhed. Intet er så fremmed for ånd af økumeni som en falsk kompromisvenlige indstilling, som skader renheden af katolske doktrin og tilslører sin forsikrede ægte betydning." (11)
John Paul II yderligere forklarer:
With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, Rådet kræver, at hele kroppen af doktrin fremlægges klart. På samme tid, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters…Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. (12)
En præcis forståelse af økumeni fra katolske perspektiv er den kritiske kirke mandat til at bede, til dialog, og at arbejde sammen i velgørenhed og sandhed i søger sande kristne enhed blandt alle brødre og søstre i Kristus, men uden kompromis i præsentere fuld doktrinære lære af kirken. Den nuværende pave, så personligt dedikeret til autentisk kristen enhed, igen bekræfter: "Enhed villet af Gud kan nås kun ved tilslutning af alle indholdet af afslørede tro i sin helhed. I sager af tro, kompromiset er i modstrid med Gud, som er sandheden. I Kristi legeme, ' måde, sandheden, og livet " (Jn.14:6), der kunne overveje legitime en forsoning tilvejebragt på bekostning af sandheden?” (13)
Lad os nu anvende denne forståelse af økumeni spørgsmål af Mary Co-redemptrix. Co-redemptrix titel til Mary har været brugt i gentagne pavelige undervisning, og læren om Marian Co forløsning som Marys unikke deltagelse og under Jesus Kristus i frelse af menneskeheden udgør den gentagne doktrinære undervisning af det andet Vatikankoncil:
…She devoted herself totally, som tjenerinde Herrens, til den person og arbejde for hendes søn, under og med ham, servering mysteriet om indløsning, af den almægtige Guds nåde. Med rette, Derfor, Fædrene Se Mary ikke blot som passivt deltager af Gud, men så frit samarbejder i arbejdet med menneskets frelse gennem tro og lydighed. (14)
Således avancerede den hellige Jomfru i sin pilgrimsrejse troens, og troligt holdt ud i union med sin søn til korset, hvor hun stod, i overensstemmelse med den guddommelige plan, Enduring med sin enbårne søn intensiteten af hans lidelser, forbundet sig med sit offer i hendes mors hjerte, og kærligt samtykkende til immolation af dette offer, som blev født af hende. (15)
Hun tænkt, frembragte, og plejet Kristus, hun præsenterede ham til Faderen i templet, delte hendes søn lider da han døde på korset. Således, i en helt særegen måde samarbejdede hun af sin lydighed, tro, håber, og brændende velgørenhed i arbejde af Frelseren med at genoprette overnaturlige liv i sjæle. Derfor er hun mor til os i størrelsesordenen nåde. (16)
Derved, der er ingen tvivl, Marian Co forløsning udgør den doktrinære undervisning af den katolske kirke og som sådan skal blive præsenteret i enhver ægte artikulation af katolske lære, som kritisk omfatter domænet for sande økumenisk dialog.
Derfor er hævder, at Mary Co-redemptrix i titel og doktrin er på ingen måde i modstrid med den økumeniske mission af kirken fundamentalt at misforstå den økumeniske mission af selve kirken. Fuld katolske doktrin, herunder doktrin af Marian Co forløsning, skal medtages til enhver ægte dialog søger kristen enhed. Desuden, the purposeful absence of Mary Co-redemptrix in full ecumenical dialogue and in the overall ecumenical mission of the Church would lack integrity and justice for the Catholic ecumenist towards non-Catholic Christians who have presumably, fra deres side, bragt de fulde lærdomme af deres særlige Sacred body til tabellerne i dialog. At vende tilbage til den kristne formaning af Johannes Paul II: "I Kristi legeme, ' måde, sandheden, og livet " (Jn.14:6), der kunne overveje legitime en forsoning tilvejebragt på bekostning af sandheden?” (17)
Derfor opfordrer den hellige Jomfru Maria en "Co-redemptrix" i lyset af Christian skriften og Christian Tradition er på ingen måde i modstrid med økumeni, men snarere udgør et væsentligt element i Christian integritet efterspørges af sande økumeni, since Marian Co-redemption constitutes a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.
Faktisk, Hvis doktrinen om Co-redemptrix i øjeblikket udgør en kilde til forvirring for nogle kristne, connoting for nogle et billede af gudinden eller andre begreber af Marian udskejelser, så det synes meget mere hensigtsmæssigt at en tydelig artikulation af denne Marian doktrin gives til bror og søster kristne i økumenisk dialog. Der er også den potentielle fordel ved en formel pavelige definition giver den størst mulige klarhed fra den højeste mulige katolske myndighed. Med ordene fra den sene John Cardinal O'Connor af New York: "Klart, en formel pavelige definition ville være formuleret i sådanne præcise terminologi, andre kristne ville miste deres angst for, at vi ikke skelner tilstrækkeligt mellem Marys unikke association med Kristus og forløsende magt udøves af Kristus alene." (18)
En anden legitim økumenisk perspektiv på Marian Co forløsning og hendes efterfølgende åndelige moderskabet er som åndelige mor til alle folk, Mary kan være en vigtigste middel til kristen enhed blandt delt kristne brødre og søstre, snarere end at være dens vigtigste hindring. Lutheran pastor, Rev. Dr. Charles Dickson, calls on Protestant Christianity to re-examine the documented positive Marian defense and devotion of many of its own founders, manifesteret som, for eksempel, in the words of Martin Luther in his Kommentar til Magnificat: “May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers…May Christ grant us a right understanding…through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary….” (19) Luther fortsætter med at kalde Mary "workshop af Gud,"" Queen of heaven,"og stater: "Jomfru Maria betyder at sige simpelthen at hendes ros vil synges fra den ene generation til den anden, således at der aldrig vil være en tid, da hun ikke vil blive rost." (20)
Rollen som Mary's universal åndelige moderskab som et instrument af kristen enhed, Dr. Dickson kommentarer yderligere:
I vor tid, Vi står stadig over for de tragiske divisioner blandt verdens kristne. Endnu, stående på randen af en lyse nye økumeniske alder, Mary som model for katolicismen, eller universalitet, bliver endnu mere vigtigt. I løbet af mange århundreder fra begyndelsen af kirken, fra tidspunktet, Maria og apostlene, moderskabet i kirken var en. Denne grundlæggende moderskab forsvinde ikke, Selvom divisioner forekomme. Mary, gennem hendes moderskab, bevarer universelle i Kristi flok. Da den hele kristne samfund viser til hende, muligheden for en ny fødsel, en forsoning, øger. Så Mary, mor til kirken, er også en kilde til forsoning blandt hende spredt og inddelt børnene. (21)
Indsigelse 3: Calling the Mother of Jesus, “Co-redemptrix” or her subsequent role as “Mediatrix” implies a role of mediation by someone other than Jesus Christ, men Skriften tydeligt står i 1 Timothy 2:5 at "der er én Gud og én formidler mellem Gud og mænd, the man Christ Jesus,” and therefore no creature can rightly be a mediator.
The definition of “mediator”—in Greek, mesitis, or “go-between”—is a person who intervenes between two other persons or parties for the goal of uniting or reconciling the parties. Anvende dette begreb til Jesus Kristus, St. Paul står der faktisk at der er en mægler mellem parterne af Gud og menneskeheden, namely the ‘man Christ Jesus.” No one therefore reaches God the Father except through the one, perfekt mægling af Jesus Kristus.
Men spørgsmålet er stadig, giver en perfekt mægling af Jesus Kristus forhindre eller rettere for andre subordinately deltagelse i en mægling af Jesus Kristus? Med andre ord, den ene eksklusive mægling Kristi forhindrer enhver skabning deltager i denne en afgørende mægling? Eller tillader dens guddommelig og menneskelig perfektion andre dele i hans ene mægling i en underordnet og sekundær måde?
Christian Scripture tilbyder eksempler svarer til dette spørgsmål om mægling hvor kristne er forpligtet til at deltage i noget, der er også "en,"eksklusive, og helt afhængig af personen Jesus Kristus.
Den ene barnekår Jesus Kristus. There is only one true Son of God, Jesus Kristus, der var avlet fra Gud Fader (1 JN. 1-4). Men alle kristne er kaldet til at deltage i den ene sande barnekår af Jesus Kristus ved at blive "vedtaget sønner" i Kristus (CF. 2 COR. 5:17; 1 JN. 3:1; GAL. 2:20), as a true sharing in the one sonship of Christ through baptism which allows adopted sons and daughters to also share in the inheritance of the one Son, af evigt liv.
Bor i den ene Kristus. Alle kristne er kaldet til at dele i Jesus Kristus "et liv", for grace is to participate in the life and the love of Jesus Christ, og gennem ham i livet og kærligheden af treenigheden. Som St. Paul lærer, “it is not I, Men Kristus lever i mig" (GAL. 2:20) og 2 Peter 1:4 opkald kristne til at blive "delagtige i den guddommelige natur,"at leve i den ene Kristus, og dermed i livet i treenigheden.
Den ene præstedømme af Jesus Kristus. All Christians are also called to share in different degrees in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. Bogen af Hebræerbrevet identificerer Jesus Kristus som en "ypperstepræsten" (CF. Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:10) Hvem tilbyder de store åndelige offer af sig selv på Golgata. Og endnu Skriften kalder alle kristne, om end på forskellige niveauer af deltagelse, ministerielle (CF. Retsakter 14:22) eller royal (cf.1 Pet. 2:9), at deltage i den ene præstedømme af Jesus Kristus i at tilbyde "åndelige offer." Alle kristne er instrueret om at "tilbyde åndelige ofre acceptabelt for Gud" (1 Pet. 2:5, 2:9).
I alle disse tilfælde, the New Testament calls Christians to share in that which is one and unique of Jesus Christ, Alfa og Omega, i ægte selv helt underordnede niveauer af deltagelse. I reference, derefter, at Kristus en mægleren (1 Tim 2:5), we see the same Christian imperative for others to share or participate in the one mediation of Jesus Christ, men i en sekundær mægling helt afhængig af én perfekt mægling af Jesus Kristus.
Pivotal christological spørgsmål skal derefter blive bedt om: Sådan underordnet deling i en mægling Kristi må forvanske den ene mægling af Kristus, eller rettere det åbenbart herlighed af hans ene mægling? Dette besvares nemt ved at forestille sig en moderne verden uden "vedtaget sønner og døtre i Kristus,"uden kristne i dag deler i det ene liv af Jesus Kristus i nåde, eller uden nogen kristne tilbyder åndelig ofre i det kristne præstedømme. Sådan en mangel på menneskelige deltagelse vil kun medføre tilsløre den ene barnekår, den ene høje præstedømme, og selve livet af nåde i Jesus Kristus.
Samme princip er sandt med hensyn til deltagelse i en mægling af Jesus Kristus i en afhængige og underordnede måde: mere menneskelig deltagelse i den ene mægling af Kristus, den mere perfektion, magt, og herlighed af den unikke og nødvendige formidling af Jesus Kristus er manifesteret i verden.
Christian Scripture desuden tilbyder flere eksempler på Gud-nedsat menneskelige mæglere, der samarbejdede ved guddommelig initiativ i forener menneskeheden med Gud. Stor profeterne i det gamle testamente var Gud-ordineret mæglere mellem Jahve og Israels folk, oftentimes søger tilbage Israels folk til deres troskab til Jahve (CF. Er. 1; Jer. 1: EZ. 2). Gamle testamente patriarker, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, og Moses, etc., var på Guds initiativ menneskelige mediatorer af besparelse pagten mellem Jahve og Israels folk (CF. Gen 12:2; 15:18; Ex. 17:11). St. Paul identificerer Moses' mægling af loven for israelitterne: ” Why then the law? Det var ordineret af Gud gennem en mellemmand" (GAL 3:19-20). Og engle, med hundredvis af mægle handlinger der spænder over gamle og Ny Testamente, er Guds sendebud, der mægle for forsoning mellem Gud og den menneskelige familie, både før og efter Kristi komme, den ene mægler (CF. Gen. 3:24; LK. 1:26; LK. 1:19).
Now regarding Mary, Christian Scripture også tydeligt afslører sekundære og underordnede deltagelse af Jesu mor i den ene mægling af Jesus Kristus. På bebudelsen, Marys frie og aktive "ja" til invitation af englen medierer til verden Jesus Kristus, Forløser af verden og forfatter til alle Gratierne (CF. LK. 1:38). Til denne unikke deltagelse i give Forløseren hans krop og mægle kilde til alle Gratierne til verden, Mary kan med rette kaldes både "Co-redemptrix" og "Mediatrix af alle gratier" som en, der entydigt deler i den ene mægling af Jesus Kristus.
Denne unikke Marian deltagelse i Kristi mægling, specifikke til indløsning af Jesus Kristus, er climaxed på Golgata. På korset, hendes åndelige lidelse united til den forløsende ofring af sin søn, som den nye Eva med den nye Adam, fører til universel spirituel frugterne af erhvervelse af Gratierne Frelsens, som, igen, fører til åndelig moderskabet gave fra hjertet af den korsfæstede Kristus til alle menneskelige hjerte: “Behold your mother” (JN. 19:27). Den forløser gave af sin egen mor som åndelige mor til hele menneskeheden fører til den åndelige næring af mor til hendes børn i størrelsesordenen nåde. Dette udgør fordelingen af Gratierne Golgata af Mary til hendes åndelige børn som Mediatrix af alle Gratierne, som bestandig fortsætter med hendes unikke deling i den ene besparelse mægling af Jesus Kristus.
John Paul II forklarer den katolske forståelse af denne unikke Marian deltagelse i den ene mægling af Jesus Kristus:
Mary trådte, på en måde alle hendes egen, i den ene mægling "mellem Gud og mænd" som er mægling af manden Kristus Jesus.... Vi må sige, at gennem denne fylde af nåde og overnaturlige liv, she was especially pre-disposed to cooperation with Christ, den én formidler af menneskets frelse. Og et sådant samarbejde er netop denne mægling underordnes mægling af Kristus.
In Mary’s case, we have a special and exceptional mediation. (22)
Og i sin kommentar om 1 Timothy 2:5 og Marys moderens mægling, John Paul II yderligere stater:
Vi husker, at Marys mægling i det væsentlige defineres ved hendes guddommelige moderskab. Anerkendelse for hendes rolle som mediatrix er desuden implicit i udtrykket "vores mor,” which presents the doctrine of Marian mediation by putting the accent on her motherhood…In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (CF. 1 Tim 2:5-6), tekst af St. Pauls brev til Timotheus udelukker eventuelle andre parallelle mægling, men ikke underordnede mægling. Faktisk, før understreger den ene eksklusive mægling af Kristus, forfatteren opfordrer "at bønner, bønner, der foretages intercessions og thanksgivings for alle mænd" (2:1). Er ikke bønner en form for mægling? Faktisk, i henhold til St. Paul, den enestående formidling af Kristus er beregnet til at fremme andre afhængige, ministerial forms of mediation…In truth, Hvad er Marys maternel mægling, hvis ikke Faderens gave til menneskeheden? (23)
Vi kan derfor Se Marys deltagelse i den ene mægling af Jesus Kristus som unik og uovertruffen af nogen andre menneskelige eller engleagtige deltagelse, og alligevel helt underordnet og afhængige af den ene mægling af Jesus Kristus. Som sådan, Mary’s motherly mediation manifests the true glory and power of Christ’s mediation like no other. Marian titler og Co-redemptrix og Mediatrix af alle Gratierne roller (og advokat samt) ikke på nogen måde overtræde forbuddet i 1 Tim. 2:5 mod enhver parallel, autonome, eller rivaliserende mægling, men er en unik og enestående moderlig deltagelse i at man, perfekt, og gemme mægling af Jesus Kristus.
I ord af anglikanske Oxford scholar, Dr. John Macquarrie:
Sagen (af Marian mægling) ikke kan udlignes ved at pege på faren for overdrivelse og misbrug, eller ved at appellere til isolerede teksterne til skriften som vers, ovenfor citerede fra 1 Timothy 2…or by the desire not to say anything that might offend one’s partners in ecumenical dialogue. Tankeløse entusiaster kan have forhøjet Marys holdning til en virtuel lighed med Kristus, but this aberration is not a necessary consequence of recognizing that there may be a truth striving for expression in words like Mediatrix og Co-redemptrix.
Alle ansvarlige teologer er enig i, at Mary's co-forløsende rolle er underordnet og hjælpeansatte at Kristus centrale rolle. Men hvis hun har sådan en rolle, jo tydeligere forstår vi det, jo bedre. Og ligesom andre doktriner om Mary, det ikke kun siger noget om hende, men noget mere generelt om kirken som helhed, og endda menneskeheden som helhed. (24)
Indsigelse 4: To call Mary a co-redemptrix or to call Christians in general “co-redeemers” is to have a human being actively participate in redemption, which is a divine or, more specifically, a “theandric” activity, accomplished by Jesus Christ in his divine and human natures alone, and thus forbidden by Christianity. Such would only encourage paganism, since it places a human person, Mary, as part of a divine redemptive action which only Jesus Christ can accomplish.
In many ways, the response to this objection can be found in the same foundational evidence from Christian Scripture that responds to the previous objection to any subordinate or human participation in the one mediation of Jesus Christ (a mediation which includes redemption). But let us example the specific objection regarding Mary’s active participation in the divine act of Redemption.
The full objection to Mary’s active participation as Co-redemptrix in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ has been set out as follows. Theandric activity refers to an action by Jesus Christ that is accomplished through both of his natures, divine and human. Since the act of redemption by Jesus Christ was a theandric activity, and Mary was merely human, her actions were not theandric and therefore she cannot actively participate in redemption. Dermed, Mary cannot be properly called a “co-redemptrix,” a term which means she “bought back” humanity with the Redeemer. Nor should any Christians be called “co-redeemers” since no creature can participate in theandric activity.
To best address this objection, we must return to the essential etymological meaning of the term, “co-redemptrix.” The Latin prefix, cum, means “with,” and not “equal to.” The Latin verb, re(d)-emere midler, “to buy back,” and the suffix –trix, meaning “one who does something,” is feminine. In its complete form then, the term co-redemptrix refers to the “woman with the redeemer,” or more literally, “the woman who buys back with (the Redeemer).”
As used by the Catholic Church, the term co-redemptrix expresses Mary’s active and unique participation in the divine and human activity of redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ. Igen, radically dependent and subordinate to the theandric redemptive action of Jesus Christ, the very perfection of this divine and human redemption provides for, rather than prohibits, various levels of true and active human participation.
While it is legitimate to distinguish theandric actions from human actions, it runs contrary to Christian Scripture and Christian Tradition, both ancient and developed, to reject active human participation in the theandric activity of Jesus Christ.
To actively participate in a theandric action does not require that the participator also have a divine and human nature. Such is to misunderstand the distinction between “being” in possessing the essence and specific attribute as part of who you are, from “participation” in sharing in the essence and specific attribute as possessed by another. Således, Mary as a human creature can actively share in the theandric redemptive action of Jesus Christ without herself possessing the essence of divinity as a specific attribute. In a similar way, all Christians share in the divine nature of Jesus Christ (CF. 2 Pet 1:4), without being gods; participate in the sonship of Jesus Christ (CF. GAL 4:4) without being divinely begotten; share in the mediation of Christ (CF. GAL 3:19, 1 Tim 2:1) without being the one divine and human Mediator (1 Tim 2:5).
Endnu engang, Christian Scripture attests to Mary’s singular active participation in the Redemption of Jesus Christ. Med Marys frie og aktive "fiat" på opfordring af englen Gabriel til at blive mor til Jesus, "Være det gjort mig efter dine ord" (LK. 1:38), hun samarbejdet unikt med arbejdet i forløsning ved at give guddommelig forløser hans krop, som var det netop det instrument af menneskets forløsning. The prophecy of Simeon reveals the unparalleled co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption, “and a sword shall pierce your own soul, Too" (LK. 2:34-5). And the climax of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix with and under her divine Son takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the total suffering of the mother’s heart is obediently united to the suffering of the Son’s heart in fulfillment of God the Father’s plan of redemption: "Kvinde, Se din søn!' Så sagde han til disciplen, ' Se, din mor!” (JN. 19:27).
The earliest Christian writers and Fathers of the Church explained Marian participation with and under Christ in “buying back” the human family from the slavery of Satan and sin in the first theological model of Mary as the “New Eve.” These ancient writers attested to the unity of Redemption by Christ and co-redemption by Mary by articulating that as Eve, den første "mor levende"(Gen. 3:20) was an instrumental cause with Adam, the father of the human race in the loss of grace for all humanity, så for Mary, the “New Eve” was an instrumental cause with Jesus Christ, the “New Adam” (CF. 1 COR. 15: 45-48, 20-25), i restaurering af nåde til hele menneskeheden.
In the words of St. Irenæus: "Lige som Eva, kone af Adam, men stadig en jomfru, blev af hendes ulydighed dødsårsag for sig selv og hele menneskeheden, så Mary, også, statsgodkendte endnu en jomfru, Mary… became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” (25)
Explicit teachings of Mary’s active participation with Jesus Christ in redeeming or “buying back” humanity from the slavery of Satan and sin are present throughout early and later Christian Tradition, for eksempel:
Through Mary, Vi er "forløst fra tyranni af Djævelen." (Modestus af Jerusalem, 7århundrede); (26)
Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse (St John Damascene, 8århundrede)”; (27)
Through her, man was redeemed (St. Bernard af Clairvaux, 12århundrede); (28)
That woman (nemlig Eve), kørte os ud af paradis og solgte os; men denne ene (Mary) brought us back again and bought us; (29)
Just as they (Adam and Eve) were the destroyers of the human race, so these (Jesus Christ and Mary) were its repairers; (30)
Hun (Mary) also merited reconciliation for the entire human race; (31)
She paid the price (of redemption) as a woman brave and loving—namely when Christ suffered on the cross to pay that price in order to purge and wash and redeem us, the Blessed Virgin was present, accepting and agreeing with the divine will (St. Bonaventure, 13århundrede); (32)
To her alone was given this privilege, namely a communication in the Passion…and in order to make her a sharer in the benefit of Redemption, He willed that she be a sharer in the penalty of the Passion, in so far as she might become the mother of all through re-creation…(St. Albert stort (or Pseudo-Albert), 13århundrede); (33)
God accepted her oblation as a pleasing sacrifice for the utility and salvation of the whole human race…He foretold to thee (Mary) all thy passion whereby he would make thee a sharer of all of his merits and afflictions, and thou would co-operate with him in the restoration of men to salvation (John Tauler, 14århundrede); (34)
…as one suffering with the Redeemer, for the captive sinner,
Co-redemptrix would you be (14århundrede). (35)
The Christian teaching on Co-redemptrix continues consistently from the middle ages on into the modern period, (36) as evidenced in this representative selection of examples:
Saints and doctors have united in calling our Blessed Lady co-redemptrix of the world. There is no question of the lawfulness of using such language, because there is overwhelming authority for it… (Faber, 19århundrede); (37)
We think of all the other extraordinary merits, by which she shared with her Son Jesus in the redemption of mankind….She was not only present at the mysteries of the Redemption, but was also involved with them (Pave Leo XIII, 19århundrede); (38)
To such extent did she suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man’s salvation, and immolated Him—insofar as she could—in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ (Pave Benedict XV, 20århundrede); (39)
From the nature of his work the Redeemer ought to have associated his Mother with his work. Af denne grund, we invoke her under the title of Co-redemptrix (Pope Pius XI, 20århundrede); (40)
Således avancerede den hellige Jomfru i sin pilgrimsrejse troens, og troligt holdt ud i union med sin søn til korset, hvor hun stod, i overensstemmelse med den guddommelige plan, Enduring med sin enbårne søn intensiteten af hans lidelser, forbundet sig med sit offer i hendes mors hjerte, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her” (Andet Vatikankoncil); (41)
Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (CF. GAL. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God….her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son (Pave Johannes Paul II, 1985); (42)
The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread through prayer and sacrifice. Mary instead co-operated during the event itself and in the role as mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of mankind (Pave Johannes Paul II, 1997). (43)
The teaching of Christian Tradition upon Mary’s unique co-redemptive role continues into the third millennium with this recent papal teaching of John Paul II, where Mary’s intimate participation in the death of her Son at Calvary is compared with the Old Testament sacrificial offering made by Abraham (likewise of his own son, offered in an obedience of faith to God):
The summit of this earthly pilgrimage of faith is Golgotha where Mary intimately lives the paschal mystery of her Son: moved in a certain sense as a mother in the death of her Son, and opens herself to the “resurrection” with a new maternity in relation to the Church (CF. JN. 19:25-27). der, på Golgata, Mary experiences the night of faith, similar to that of Abraham on Mount Moriah …. (44)
Igen, without question of the total and radical dependency of Mary’s participation in redemption upon the divine work and merits of Jesus Christ, Church fathers and doctors, along with later and contemporary Christian Tradition, do not hesitate to teach the active participation of the woman, Mary with Jesus Christ in the theandric “buying back” or redeeming of humanity from the slavery of Satan and sin. This Marian sharing in redemption reflects the ancient Christian teaching that as humanity was lost or “sold” by a man and a woman, so it was God’s will that humanity would be redeemed or “bought back” by a Man and a woman.
In what way then does Mary’s participation as Co-redemptrix in human differ from the general call of Christians to participate in the redemption of Jesus Christ?
Indeed Christian Scripture calls all Christians to “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, som er Kirken " (Col. 1:24). This teaching of St. Paul is not speaking of a participation of all Christians in the historical and universal redemption on Calvary where Jesus Christ acquired the graces of Redemption by his passion and death (sometimes theologically referred to as objective redemption. If so, this would incorrectly infer that something was “lacking” in the historic redemptive sufferings and concurring saving merits of Jesus Christ, which were in itself infinite and inexhaustible.
Hellere, St. Paul’s teaching refers to the Christian imperative through free co-operation, bøn, and sacrifice to participate in the release and distribution of the infinite graces acquired by Jesus Christ on Calvary to the human family (theologically referred to as subjective redemption. Just as every human heart must actively respond in freedom to the saving grace of Jesus Christ for their own personal, subjective redemption, so too the Christian is called to actively participate in the release and distribution of the graces of redemption for others as well, og, in this way, to “make up” what St. Paul calls “lacking” in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of Christ’s body. In this regard, all Christians truly participate in subjective redemption, this saving distribution of grace as “God’s co-workers” (1COR. 3:9) or “co-redeemers” to use the expression of 20th century popes. (45)
Mary’s redemptive participation differs from this general Christian call to participate in the distribution of saving graces in individual and personal subjective redemption in so far as she alone also participated, once again subordinately and entirely dependent upon the Redeemer, in the objective, historical and universal redemption as well, som New Eve med og under den nye Adam. This is why the title Co-redemptrix in the first place refers exclusively to Mary. As once again articulated by John Paul II in an 1997 Address:
The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread through prayer and sacrifice. Mary instead co-operated during the event itself and in the role as mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of mankind. (46)
Derfor, the title and truth of Mary Co-redemptrix as seen in Christian Scripture and Christian Tradition underscores the legitimacy and spiritual fruitfulness for active human participation in the theandric redemptive action of Jesus Christ. For Mary Co-redemptrix, this participation in redemption constitutes a participation in both acquisition and distribution of redemptive graces; and for all other Christians a participation in the distribution of redemptive graces as co-redeemers in Christ. As summarized by Vatican theologian Jean Galot in the official Vatican publication, L'Osservatore Romano:
Titlen (Co-redemptrix) is criticized because it would suggest an equality between Mary and Christ. The criticism has no foundation…Co-redemption implies a subordination to the redemptive work of Christ, because it is only a cooperation and not an independent or parallel work. Hence any equality with Christ is excluded…The word “co-redemption,” which means “cooperation in redemption,” can be applied to every Christian and to the whole Church. St. Paul writes: ‘We are God’s co-workers’ (1 COR. 3:9). (47)
Indsigelse 5: The idea of Mary as Co-redemptrix and the teaching of Marian co-redemption is a pious belief held by some devotional Catholics, but is not a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It is found only in minor papal texts and is neither officially taught by the Magisterium, nor is doctrinally present in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
For a member of the Catholic faith, the question of whether a given theological position constitutes an authentic doctrinal teaching of the Church or not is essentially manifested by its presence (or lack thereof) in the teachings from recognized Church authority. The official teaching authority of the Catholic Church, or “Magisterium,” consists of the official teaching of the pope and bishops in union with the pope under the general guidance of the Holy Spirit. (48)
Although there exists a certain hierarchy amidst the expressions of official Catholic teaching authority, from the defined dogma of an ecumenical council or papal ex cathedra infallible statement, to general ecumenical council doctrinal teaching, to encyclical letters, to more general papal teachings contained in papal addresses, there at the same time remains the general directive for the Catholic faithful that is stated by the Second Vatican Council of the need for a religious assent of mind and heart to the manifest mind of the pope, even when he is not speaking infallibly. (49) And certainly all doctrinal teachings from ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals, or consistently repeated papal teachings would constitute authentic doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church.
Let us now apply this criteria for official Catholic doctrine to the question of the doctrinal status of Marian co-redemption.
From the basis of the doctrinal teachings of the Second Vatican Council alone, the certainty of the doctrinal status of Marian co-redemption is unquestionable. Vatican II repeatedly teaches Mary’s unique participation in the redemption of Jesus Christ:
…She devoted herself totally, som tjenerinde Herrens, til den person og arbejde for hendes søn, under og med ham, servering mysteriet om indløsning, af den almægtige Guds nåde. Med rette, Derfor, Fædrene Se Mary ikke blot som passivt deltager af Gud, men så frit samarbejder i arbejdet med menneskets frelse gennem tro og lydighed. (50)
Således avancerede den hellige Jomfru i sin pilgrimsrejse troens, og troligt holdt ud i union med sin søn til korset, hvor hun stod, i overensstemmelse med den guddommelige plan, Enduring med sin enbårne søn intensiteten af hans lidelser, forbundet sig med sit offer i hendes mors hjerte, og kærligt samtykkende til immolation af dette offer, som blev født af hende. (51)
And further by the Council:
Hun tænkt, frembragte, og plejet Kristus, hun præsenterede ham til Faderen i templet, delte hendes søn lider da han døde på korset. Således, i en helt særegen måde samarbejdede hun af sin lydighed, tro, håber, og brændende velgørenhed i arbejde af Frelseren med at genoprette overnaturlige liv i sjæle. Derfor er hun mor til os i størrelsesordenen nåde. (52)
Vatican theologian, Fr. Jean Galot, S.J., confirms the official doctrinal status of Marian co-redemption in light of Vatican II teaching:
Without using the term “co-redemptrix,” the Council clearly enunciated the doctrine: a cooperation of a unique kind, a maternal cooperation in the life and work of the Savior, which reaches its apex in the participation in the sacrifice of Calvary, and which is oriented towards the supernatural life of souls… (53)
And as articulated by Galot in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano: “The Second Vatican Council, which avoided employing this debated title (Co-redemptrix), nevertheless affirmed with vigor the doctrine it implies…” (54)
Beyond its certain doctrinal presence in Vatican II, Marian co-redemption, along with the explicit use of the title co-redemptrix, is a repeated papal teaching spanning the 19th to the 21st century, which again assures its authentic doctrinal status within the Church. Marian co-redemption is repeatedly taught in numerous papal encyclicals and general teachings, as reflected in the following representative citations of official papal teachings: (55)
Leo XIII: “”When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with Him the painful atonement on behalf of the human race. It is certain, Derfor, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Endelig, it was before the eyes of Mary that the Divine sacrifice for which she had born and nurtured the victim, was to be finished…we see that there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who in a miracle of charity, so that we might receive us as her sons, willingly offered Him up to divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, pierced with the sword of sorrow.” (56)
St. Pius X: “Owing to the union of suffering and purpose existing between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of all the favors which Jesus acquired for us by His death and His blood… and because she was chosen by Christ to be His partner in the work of salvation, she merits for us de congruo as they say, that which Christ merits for us de condigno…” (57)
Benedict XV: “The fact that she was with her Son, crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. To such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man’s salvation, and immolated Him—in so far as she could—in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ.” (58)
Pius XI: “O Mother of love and mercy who, when thy sweetest Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, did stand next to Him, suffering with Him as a Co-redemptrix…preserve in us, we beseech thee, and increase day by day the precious fruit of His Redemption and the compassion of His Mother.” (59)
Pius XII: “It was she who, always most intimately united with her Son, like a New Eve, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the sacrifice of her maternal rights and love, on behalf of all the children of Adam, shamed by the later’s shameful fall.” (60)
Johannes Paul II: "I hende, the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakable faith, but also a contribution to the redemption of all….It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view, but which were mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. Her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the cross together with the beloved disciple were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son.” (61)
Johannes Paul II: “Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (CF. GAL. 2:20), hun overvejede med heroiske kærlighed sin Guds død, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which she herself had brought forth”(Lumen Gentium, 58)”…In fact at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son which led to the foundation of the Church….In fact, Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” (62)
We see then both from the criteria of ecumenical council teaching and from repeated papal teaching through encyclical and general instruction, the teaching of Marian co-redemption without question constitutes an authentic doctrine within the authoritative teachings of the Magisterium.
It is sometimes objected that the specific title, Co-redemptrix only appears in papal teachings of lesser importance, and therefore does not represent Catholic doctrinal teachings. This would be to artificially separate the title, Co-redemptrix from the theological doctrine of co-redemption, with which the title is essentially linked and derived from. The title refers to the spiritual function which Mary performs in her unique cooperation in Redemption, and therefore to separate the title from the doctrine is to inappropriately and dangerously disconnect the title from its revealed and authoritatively taught doctrinal foundation. In sum, the doctrinal certainty of Marian co-redemption guarantees the doctrinal certainty of Mary Co-redemptrix.
Desuden, the repeated papal use of the Co-redemptrix title by the present pope on at least six separate occasions (63) should in itself, for the faithful Catholic, immediately remove any question of the doctrinal legitimacy of the title Co-redemptrix (whether personally or prudentially preferable to the individual Catholic or not). Lest, på den anden side, the Catholic is to conclude contrarily that Pope John Paul II has repeatedly used a Marian title which is in itself doctrinally erroneous, theologically unsound, or intrinsically without Christian doctrinal foundation. This appears foreign to the fullest sense of the religious assent of mind and will to be given the manifest mind of the pope to non- infallible papal teachings. (64)
In sum, in light of both conciliar and repeated papal teachings, Marian Co-redemption and it corresponding title, Mary Co-redemptrix, constitutes an official doctrinal teaching of the Church.
Indsigelse 6: On a more speculative theological level, it appears that Mary cannot participate in the acquisition of the graces of redemption—or “objective redemption”—as the Co-redemptrix when she herself needed to be redeemed. If she did cooperate in objective redemption, it is because without her, objective redemption has not been accomplished. But if objective redemption has indeed not been accomplished, then she herself cannot benefit from it personally. This would be to accept that at the same time objective redemption is in the act of being accomplished and has already been accomplished, which would be a contradiction.
This apparent contradiction is removed with the proper understanding of how Mary received what is called “preservative redemption” in light of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ on the cross.
It is true that Mary needed to be “redeemed” in order to actively participate in the process of Redemption as the sinless partner, the New Eve, with and under Jesus Christ, the New Adam. To have original sin or its effects would not allow Mary to be completely united with the Redeemer and in “enmity” or complete opposition from Satan and his seed of sin and its effects (CF. Gen. 3:15) in the redeeming process of “buying back” the human family from Satan and restoring grace to humanity. Any sin on Mary’s part would attribute to her a “double-agency,” in being in some part united both to the Redeemer and to Satan. Therefore Mary, as a daughter of Adam and Eve by virtue of her humanity, needed to be redeemed in the form of being preserved from sin and its effects in order to rightly perform the task of Co-redemptrix with the Redeemer in the process of universal objective redemption.
In the papal definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854, it states that Mary, from the first instant of her conception was freed from original sin and all its effects “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.” (65) This refers to the higher or “more sublime manner” in which Mary was redeemed, beyond all other children of Adam and Eve. In Mary’s redemption, she did not have to suffer the experience of original sin and its effects, but rather through the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ at Calvary, was preserved from any experience or effect of original sin, and is thereby redeemed in a more sublime manner (and consequently, for this reason, owes more to her saving Son’s redemption than any other redeemed creature).
How then specifically is Mary’s redemption in the higher form of preservation from sin enacted so as to allow her to historically participate in objective redemption? This more sublime manner of redemption takes place at Calvary in the fact that the first intention of the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ, (66) according to the providential plan of the Father, was to redeem his own mother, (accomplished in view of the redemption and co-redemption which would then ransom from Satan and sin the rest of the human family).
This first intention of the Redeemer to redeem Mary is in itself another manifestation of the higher and more sublime manner of Mary’s redemption. The graces of this first intention of the Redeemer are then applied to Mary at the moment of her Immaculate Conception, allowing her then to become the sinless Co-redemptrix, the historical New Eve, in the objective historic redemption of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Jesus Christ first redeemed his own mother (applied to her at the moment of her conception, preserving her from sin) and then with her active co-redemption the rest of humanity at Calvary.
Therefore there is no contradiction in the historic role of the Co-redemptrix in the objective redemption at Calvary and Mary’s own personal need and receipt of the graces of redemption. In virtue of her Immaculate Conception, (redemptive graces applied to her at conception in view of the future merits of Jesus Christ at Calvary), and as the first intention of Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, Mary was then able to uniquely participate in the historic redemption of the rest of humanity with her Redeemer Son. As Fr. Galot well summarizes:
The first intention of the redemptive sacrifice was concerned, according to the divine plan, with the ransom of Mary, accomplished in view of our ransom…Thus, while she was associated in the sacrifice of Calvary, Mary already benefited, in advance, from the fruits of the sacrifice and acted in the capacity of a ransomed creature. But she truly cooperated in the objective redemption, in the acquisition of the graces of salvation for all of mankind. Her redemption was purchased before that of other human beings. Mary was ransomed only by Christ, so that mankind could be ransomed with the collaboration of his mother…
Hence there is no contradiction: Marian co-redemption implies the foreseen redemption of Mary, but not the foreseen fulfillment of the redemption of mankind; it expresses the unique situation of the mother who, while having received a singular grace from her own Son, cooperates with Him in the attainment of salvation for all. (67)
Still other theological schools prefer to distinguish the general notion of redemption into the two categories of “preservation” and “ransoming.” Since Mary was never technically under the slavery of Satan’s bondage since she never experienced sin, then the term “ransom” is less accurate for her, as it infers returning someone from a previous slavery. Hence the term, “preservation” or preservative redemption may more accurately distinguish the uniqueness of Mary’s need to be redeemed by Christ first and as a daughter of Adam and Eve, but does not infer that she was ever under Satan’s slavery of sin, illustrative of her higher form of preservative redemption and her subsequent participation in the true “ransoming” of the rest of humanity. (68)
Does this primordial intention of Jesus Christ to redeem his mother and then, as subsequent intention, the rest of humanity violate the “one sacrifice” of Jesus Christ offered for all as discussed in Hebrews (cf Heb. 10:10)? It does not, as the redemption remains one, although its intentions and efficacious applications are twofold. The one redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary does not constitute “two redemptions,” but one sublime redemption with two saving applications: the first application effecting the Immaculate Conception of Mary and thus preparing her to be the Co-redemptrix in her cooperation in objective redemption; the second application effecting the redemption of the human family accomplished with the Co-redemptrix. (69)
In his homily on the Feast of Immaculate Conception in the cathedral in Krakow, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (the present pontiff) well summarized this Marian truth: “In order to be the Co-redemptrix, she was first the Immaculate Conception.” (70)
Indsigelse 7: While granting the legitimacy of Mary Co-redemptrix and its corresponding doctrine of co-redemption, there are no substantial reasons or fruits for its papal definition at this time, and in fact such a definition would cause serious division within the Church.
It must be stated from the outset that such a position regarding a potential papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix is certainly an acceptable position by a faithful member of the Catholic Church. Notwithstanding, let us explore, in a brief summary format, some of the numerous contemporary reasons presently being offered in support of the appropriateness and consequent positive fruits of a formal papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
1. Greater theological clarity to an area of present misunderstanding.
When Bl. Pius IX raised the Church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to the level of dogma in 1854, he stated that the fruits of such definition would be to “bring to perfection” the doctrine, adding greater clarity and light for the benefit of all:
The Church labors hard to polish the previous teachings, to bring to perfection their formulation in such a way that these older dogmas of the heavenly doctrine receive proof, light, distinction, while keeping their fullness, their integrity, their own character… (71)
In light of the substantial contemporary confusion concerning precisely what the Catholic Church means to convey in the doctrine of Marian co-redemption (as evidenced by the recent The New York Times piece and its reaction), it would seem most beneficial to have a precise statement, scripturally formulated in light of Christian Tradition, from the highest authority of the Catholic Church, ensuring its doctrinal precision and authenticity.
2. Ecumenical benefits in an authentic Catholic expression of doctrinal dialogue
Rather than its perception as being against the imperative of working for Christian unity, a precise formulation of what Catholics believe regarding Mary Co-redemptrix, and at the same time what they do not believe (dvs., equality with Jesus Christ, divinity of Mary, etc.) will only serve authentic ecumenical dialogue based on integrity and truth as to what is already a Catholic doctrinal teaching.
The late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York referred to this potential ecumenical fruit in his letter of endorsement for the papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix:
klart, a formal papal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology that other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately between Mary’s unique association with Christ and the redemptive power exercised by Christ alone. (72)
Such a definition would help avoid the dangerous tendency to present in ecumenical dialogue only those doctrinal elements Christians share together, rather than the difficult but necessary aspect of sharing those doctrinal elements Christians do not hold in common. Such integrity in ecumenical doctrinal exchange is critically necessary in eventually arriving at any true Christian unity.
3. Proper development of Marian doctrine
The existing four Marian Dogmas, the Motherhood of God (431), the Perpetual Virginity (649), Den ubesmittede undfangelse (1854), og den antagelse (1950), all deal with the attributes or qualities of Mary’s earthly life, but none directly refer to the Mother of Jesus in relation to the human family.
It is interesting to note historically that only one month following the papal definition of Mary’s Assumption in November 1950, the International Mariological Congress formally petitioned Pope Pius XII for the papal definition of Mary’s universal mediation as a logical progression following the definition of the Assumption. (73)
After the early life and attributes of Mary have received their respective “perfections of doctrine” in solemn dogmatic definitions, so too it would seem appropriate that Mary’s heavenly prerogative as spiritual mother of all peoples in the order of grace, inclusive of and founded upon her unique co-redemption, would also receive its doctrinal perfecting in the form of a dogmatic definition.
4. Affirmation of the dignity of the human person and human freedom
One of the world’s leading contemporary personalist philosophers (from the philosophical school focusing upon the dignity of the human person), Professor Dr. Josef Seifert, (74) argues that a dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix would constitute a supreme confirmation of the dignity and freedom the human person:
A dogma that declares Mary Co-redemptrix would give unique witness to the full freedom of the human person and to God’s respect for human freedom. This dogma would recognize in an ultimate way that a free decision of the human person of Mary, who was not even to become the Mother of God without her free fiat—a decision which was not exclusively caused by divine grace but was also the fruit of her own personal choice—was necessary for our salvation, or played an indispensable part in the concrete way of our redemption chosen by God.
In our age, in which a personalist philosophy was developed more deeply than ever before in the history of mankind, and in which at the same time terrible anti-personalist ideologies reign, such a dogma would rightfully be perceived as a supreme confirmation of the dignity of the human person.
In all of this I would see a crucial value and significance of this dogma being proclaimed in our time in which both a new awareness of personal dignity arose and in which the person has been more humiliated in action and denied in theory than ever before. (75)
5. Re-affirmation of the dignity of woman
In the contemporary discussion of feminism and the nature of woman, the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix would underscore what could properly identified as God’s radical love and respect for woman. According to Christian Scripture, the entire providential plan of God the Father to send his Son for the redemption of the world was contingent upon the free fiat of a woman (CF. LK 1:38; GAL 4:4). What “trust’ God the Father has in woman in the person of Mary that He would make the coming of the Redeemer of the entire human family conditional upon this woman’s free consent.
As Dr. Seifert again points out:
This new declaration of the Traditional doctrine would therefore show anew a perpetual truth about Mary and about woman, a truth which was always held by the Church but never clearly and indubitably stated: the greatest deed of God’s gracious love—the Redemption of mankind and our salvation—is in some real sense also the consequence of a free act of a woman and thus also the gift of a woman to humanity. (76)
This dogma would express the dignity of a woman’s action which exceeds in activeness, sublimity and effectiveness the deeds of all pure creatures and men: of all kings and politicians, thinkers, scientists, philosophers, artists and craftsmen from the beginning of the world to the end…. (77)
The fully defined revelation and role of Mary Co-redemptrix could thereby be offered as an exemplary foundation for better understanding the unique contribution of feminism to humanity and, as such, constitute a foundational anthropological basis for authentic Christian feminism.
6. Re-emphasis of the Christian need to cooperate with God’s grace for salvation
Anglican Oxford scholar, Dr. John Macquarrie, states that the role of Mary Co-redemptrix provides a concrete expression of the human necessity to freely and actively cooperate with God’s grace for salvation. He moreover sees the Christian truth of Mary Co-redemptrix as a corrective for theologies that remove such dignity to the person, and in consequence, put forth an undesirable image of Christianity itself. As synthesized by Dr. Macquarrie in this extended citation:
In some forms of teaching, it is even believed that human beings can be saved without even knowing that salvation is taking place. It has all taken place already through the once-for-all redeeming work of Christ. It is a fact, whether anyone recognizes it or not…For Barth, den (subjective) Redemption is a purely objective act, already finished ‘outside of us, without us, even against us…Redemption is not, in his view, to be considered as an ongoing process in which we have some part, but as the once-for-all act of God long before we were born…
Now if one conceded Barth’s point, then I think one would have to say that he is indeed treating human beings like sheep or cattle or even marionettes, not as unique beings that they are, spiritual beings made in the image of God and entrusted with a measure of freedom and responsibility…It is understandable that that Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and a whole galaxy of modern thinkers came to believe that Christianity alienates them from a genuine humanity…
Let us now come back to the consideration of Mary as Co-redemptrix. Perhaps we do have to acknowledge that Barth and others have been correct in believing that the place given to Mary in catholic theology is a threat to the doctrine of sola gratia (grace alone), but I think this is the case only when the doctrine of sola gratia is interpreted in its extreme form, when this doctrine itself becomes a threat to a genuinely personal and biblical view of the human being…a being still capable of responding to God in the work of building up creation. This hopeful view of the human race is personified and enshrined in Mary.
In the glimpses of Mary that we have in the gospels, her standing at the cross beside her Son, and her prayers and intercessions with the apostles, are particularly striking ways in which Mary shared and supported the work of Christ…it is Mary who has come to symbolize the perfect harmony between the divine will and the human response, so that it is she who gives meaning to the expression Co-redemptrix. (78)
Mary Co-redemptrix and its new proclamation would serve to protect human freedom, dignity, and the human imperative to freely cooperate with grace for salvation.
7. “Suffering is Redemptive” and the “Culture of Death”
A solemn definition of Mary Co-redemptrix would be a Christian proclamation to the world that “suffering is redemptive.” The Christian example of the Co-redemptrix manifests to the world that to accept the providentially permitted crosses of our human existence is not a valueless waste to be avoided at all costs, including intrinsic evils such as euthanasia and abortion. But rather that the patient endurance of all human hardships are of supernatural value when united with the sufferings of Jesus Christ, a participation in the distribution of the redemptive graces of Calvary, both for ourselves and for others (CF. Col. 1:24).
Even the example of Mary’s “yes” to unborn life, in circumstances which could foster undue judgement and ridicule from people surrounding her, is an example of a co-redemptive “yes” that all people should say in response to the event of unborn life, regardless the circumstance.
John Paul II describes the present “Culture of Death” as a “cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering to be the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all cost. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.” (79)
The concrete example of Mary Co-redemptrix offers to the Church and the world the positive Christian message that “suffering is redemptive” in all possible circumstances, from Christian persecution, to terminal cancer, to “unwanted” pregnancy, to the ordinary crosses of daily life.
8. Unity through papal charism within the Catholic Church
From a Catholic perspective, the charism (or gift of the Holy Spirit) that is given to St. Peter and his successors, the subsequent popes (CF. MT: 16:15-20), is a source of unity in doctrine and in life for the members of the Church. When the specific papal charism of infallibility is used in a preservation from error by the Holy Spirit on matters of faith and morals, such exercise of this papal charism safeguards and properly reinforces a Catholic unity in life based on a unity in faith, truth and doctrine. The same benefit of unity which comes with the exercise of the papal charism would also be given in the case of a solemn papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
It is sometimes objected that such a definition on Marian co-redemption would “cause division” within the Church. It is imperative to be clear on this point: Christian truth by its nature unites; it is only the rejection of Christian truth that divides. The same would hold true for a potential definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
In the first case, it is already a doctrinal teaching of the Church and thereby should already be accepted by the Catholic faithful with a religious assent of mind and will. (80) Secondly as was just stated, an exercise of the papal charism of infallibility in the service of Christian truth and as guided by the Holy Spirit in itself brings with it the grace of unity of hearts based on unity of truth and faith. But as was true for Jesus Christ, the “sign of contradiction” (CF. LK 2:35), so would be true of the rejection of the truth concerning the Mother of the “Sign of Contradiction.”
Therefore any division within the Church in response to a papal infallible definition of the Co-redemptrix doctrine would not constitute, nor accurately be perceived as, a true and valid component of the papal definition itself, but only its unfortunate rejection.
9. Modern saints and Co-redemptrix
One possible indication of the maturity of the Co-redemptrix doctrine and its potential definability is the modern testimony and teaching of this Marian truth by a great number of contemporary canonized saints and blesseds. The generous appreciation by recent saints and blesseds of Marian co-redemption indicates its spiritual ripeness in the hearts of heroic sanctity within the Body of Christ today.
Those particularly vocal in their appreciation of Marian co-redemption, both as a Marian doctrine and as a model of Christian spiritual life, include St. Therese of Liseux, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Pope Pius X, St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Leopold Mandic, St. Edith Stein, St. Jose Maria Escrivás, St. Padre Pio, med. Elizabeth of the Trinity, and numerous others. (81)
It also seems appropriate to quote Bl. Mother Teresa’s endorsement for the papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix: “The papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix af alle Gratierne, og Advocate vil bringe store nådegaver til Kirken. All for Jesus through Mary.” (82)
10. Initiation of the Fatima prophesied Triumph of the Immaculate Heart
A significant number of contemporary Marian authors and thinkers worldwide (83) also see in the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix, along with her subsequent spiritual roles as Mediatrix of all graces, og advokat, what has been referred to as the definitive “initiation” or beginning of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as prophesied in the 1917 Apparition of Mary at Fatima, Portugal.
The particular notion of the “Triumph of the Immaculate Heart” comes from the words of the Church approved apparitions of Mary at Fatima to the young Portuguese children seers, who after prophesying such upcoming events such as the rise of atheistic communism, persecutions for the Church and the Holy Father, a potential second world war, and the annihilation of various nations, then stated, "I sidste ende, my Immaculate Heart will triumph….” (84)
The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is hence foreseen as a dramatic influx of supernatural grace upon the world, mediated to the world by the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, og advokat, and leading to a period of spiritual peace for humanity.
The role of the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix in the prophesied Triumph of the Immaculate Heart would be seen by some Marian contemporaries as the official recognition by the pope, as the highest Church authority, exercising the required freedom on the part of humanity to allow the full mediational and intercessory power of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate to be released in the distribution of the redemptive graces of Calvary to the contemporary world.
God does not force his grace upon us, but awaits the free consent of humanity. With the official papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix by the highest human authority’s exercise of free will on behalf of humanity, this free act would “release” the Co-redemptrix to most fully distribute the graces of Calvary in a new outpouring of graces of the Holy Spirit for the world. As explained by former Vatican Ambassador Howard Dee of the Philippines:
Two thousand years ago, during the First Advent, the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and when the power of the Most High overshadowed her, she conceived Jesus, Son of God. Nu, during this New Advent, it is the Mother of All Peoples, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix af alle Gratierne, og advokat, who will accompany her Spouse to descend into our hearts and our souls and recreate in each of us—if we give our fiat—into the likeness of Jesus…The proclamation of the Fifth Dogma is no longer our prerogative; it is our duty. (85)
Som sådan, the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix would effect a historic release of spiritual grace upon the world by the full exercise of the spiritual mother of all peoples in her most generous exercise of her roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and Advocate. (86)
It is to be hoped that some light has been shed upon the principal questions concerning the present discussion of the issue of Mary Co-redemptrix in itself and, at least by way of introduction, in discussing the specific aspect of a potential papal definition of the Co-redemptrix doctrine.
In regards to any future potential definition of Co-redemptrix from a Catholic perspective, peace and trust in the guidance of the Church by the pontiff in matters of faith and morals should ultimately reign supreme in the Catholic faithful’s mind and heart, regardless of present legitimate personal opinions of diversity on the issue.
From the general Christian perspective regarding the doctrine of Mary Co-redemptrix and other doctrines which presently divide us, let us keep faith in the eventual fulfillment of the prayer of Jesus Christ for Christian unity at the Last Supper that, “… they may all be one, even as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me” (JN. 17:21). Apart from temporary historical advances or setbacks, Christians must have faith in an ultimate Christian unity of heart, which will blossom into a unity of mind, truth, and faith based on the one Jesus Christ, who is “the Way, the Truth, the Life” (JN. 14:6).
(1) Mother Teresa af Calcutta, Personlig samtale, Calcutta, August 14, 1993.
(2) Johannes Paul II, Pavelig Adresse, Jan. 31, 1985, Guayaquil, Ecuador, (AFSKÆRINGER, Marts 13, 1985).
(3) St. Irenæus af Lyon, Adversus haeresus, III, 22, vægt forfatterens.
(4) St. Jerome, Epist. 22, 21.
(5) Modestus af Jerusalem, Migne, PG 86; 3287.
(6) St. John Damascene, PG 86; 658.
(7) St. Bernard af Clairvaux, Ser. III, Super Salve.
(8) St. Bonaventure, De don., Sp. 6; 14., vægt forfatterens.
(9) CF. Calkins, "Pave Johannes Paul IIS undervisning på Marian Coredemption" som findes i Miravalle, ed., Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Teologiske grundlag II, p.113.
(10) CF. Johannes Paul II, UT Unum Sint, nn. 21, 28.
(11) Andet Vatikankoncil, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 11.
(12) Johannes Paul II, UT Unum Sint, n. 36.
(13) Johannes Paul II, UT Unum Sint, n. 18.
(14) Andet Vatikankoncil, Lumen Gentium, n. 56.
(15) Lumen Gentium, n. 58.
(16) Lumen Gentium, n. 61.
(17) Johannes Paul II, UT Unum Sint, 18.
(18) John kardinal O'Connor, Påtegning brev til pavens Definition af Mary, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Februar 14, 1994.
(19) Martin Luther, Kommentar til Magnificat, 1521, som citeret i Dr. Charles Dickson, En protestantisk præst ser på Mary, 1996, Vores søndag besøgende presse, PP. 41, 42.
(21) Dickson, En protestantisk præst ser på Mary, PP. 48-49.
(22) Johannes Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, nn. 21, 39.
(23) Johannes Paul II, Pavelig Adresse, Rom, Oktober 1, 1997, L'Osservatore Romano, 1997, n. 41.
(24) (J). Macquarrie, “Mary Co-redemptrix and Disputes over Justification and Grace” in Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Teologiske grundlag II, p. 246.
(25) St. Irenæus af Lyon, Adversus haeresus, III, 22, vægt forfatterens.
(26) Modestus af Jerusalem, Migne, PG 86; 3287.
(27) St. John Damascene, PG 86; 658.
(28) St. Bernard af Clairvaux, Ser. III, Super Salve.
(29) St. Bonaventure, De don., Sp. 6; 14, vægt forfatterens.
(30) St. Bonaventure, Sermo III de Assumptione, Opera Omnia, v. 9.
(31) St. Bonaventure, Sent. III.
(32) St. Bonaventure, Collatio de donis Spiritus Sancti 6, n. 16.
(33) St. Albert stort (or Pseudo-Albert) Mariale, Q. 150.
(34) John Tauler, Sermo pro festo Purificationis Beate Mariae Virginis.
(35) Oratione, St. Peters’s in Salzburg, i Analecta hymnica medii aevi, v. 46, p. 126.
(36) For a more comprehensive treatment of Co-redemptrix throughout Christian Tradition, CF. JENSEN. Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950, p. 125; G. Roschini, O.S.M., Maria Santissima Nella Storia Della Salvezza, 1969, v. (II), p.171.
(37) Fr. Fredrick Faber, At the Foot of the Cross (Sorrows of Mary), Reilly Co., 370.
(38) Pave Leo XIII, Parta humano generi.
(39) Pave Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918.
(40) Pope Pius XI, Allocution to Pilgrims of Vicenza, november. 30,1933.
(41) Andet Vatikankoncil, Lumen Gentium, n. 58
(42) Johannes Paul II, Papal Address at Guayaquil, Januar 31, 1985 (O.R.E., 876).
(43) Johannes Paul II, General Audience, April 9, 1997.
(44) Johannes Paul II, General Audience, Marts 21, 2001.
(45) For eksempel, CF. Pius XI, Papal Allocution at Vicenza, november. 30, 1933.
(46) Johannes Paul II, General Audience, April 9,1997.
(47) Galot, S.J., “Maria Corredentrice” in L’Osservatore Romano, September 15, 1997, Daily Italian Ed.
(48) CF. Andet Vatikankoncil, Guds ord, (II), nn. 9-10.
(49) CF. Andet Vatikankoncil, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
(50) Andet Vatikankoncil, Lumen Gentium, n. 56.
(51) Lumen Gentium, n. 58.
(52) Lumen Gentium, n. 61.
(53) Jean Galot, S.J., “Maria Corredentrice. Controversie e problemi dottrinali,” Civilta Cattolica, 1994, III, 213-225.
(54) “Maria Corredentrice,” L'Osservatore Romano, September 15, 1995, p. 4.
(55) For a more comprehensive treatment, CF. Schug and Miravalle, “Mary Co-redemptrix in the Documents of the Papal Magisterium” i Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Theological Foundations I, Queenship, 1995; Calkins, “Pope John Paul’s Teaching on Marian Co-redemption” in Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Teologiske grundlag II, pp.113-148.
(56) Pave Leo XIII, encyklika Jucunda Semper, 1884.
(57) Paven St. Pius X, encyklika Ad diem illum, 1904.
(58) Pave Benedict XV, Apostolsk Brev, Inter Sodalicia, 1918.
(59) Pope Pius XI, Prayer of the Solemn Closing of the Redemption Jubilee, April 28, 1933.
(60) Pave Pius XII, encyklika 'S Krop, 1943.
(61) Pave Johannes Paul II, Apostolsk Brev Salvifici Doloris, n.25.
(62) Johannes Paul II, Papal Address at Guayaquil, Ecuador, Jan. 31, 1985.
(63) CF. For six citations and commentary, CF. Calkins, “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium” in Miravalle, ed., Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues dag, Queenship, 2002, PP. 41ff.
(64) Igen, CF. Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
(65) med. Pave Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull, uudsigelige Gud, December 8, 1854.
(66) For an extended treatment, CF. (J). B. Carol, “Our Lady’s Co-redemption,"i Mariologi, Vol. (II), Bruce, 1958; Friethoff, A Complete Mariology, Blackfriars Pub., London, 1985, p.182; Galot, S.J., Maria: Mediatrice o Madre Universale?,” Civilta Cattolica, 1996, Jeg, 232-244.
(67) Galot, S.J., “Maria Corredentrice: Controversie e problemi dottrinali,” Civilta Cattolica, 1994, III, p. 218.
(68) CF. Friethoff, på. cit.
(69) CF. JENSEN. Carol, på. cit.
(70) Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Homily on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1973.
(71) med. Pius IX, uudsigelige Gud, December 8, 1854, DS 2802.
(72) John kardinal O'Connor, Påtegning brev til pavens Definition af Mary, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Februar 14, 1994.
(73) Alma Socia Christi, Proceedings of the Rome International Mariological Congress, 1950, p. 234.
(74) Dr. Josef Seifert is Rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein and member of the Pontifical Council For Life.
(75) Seifert, “Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces—Philosophical and Personalist Foundations of a Marian Doctrine,"i Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Teologiske grundlag II, p. 166.
(76) Seifert, ibid., p.168.
(78) (J). Macquarrie, “Mary Co-redemptrix and Disputes over Justification and Grace” in Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advokat, Teologiske grundlag II, PP. 248, 255.
(79) Johannes Paul II, 1995 encyklika, Evangelium Vitae, n. 15.
(80) Again cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
(81) For a more comprehensive treatment of modern hagiography on Marian Co-redemption, CF. Stefano Manelli, FFI, “Twentieth Century Hagiography on Marian Co-redemption” in Mary at the Foot of the Cross, Acts of the England Symposium on Marian Co-redemption, 1999.
(82) Mother Teresa af Calcutta, Endorsement Letter for the Fifth Marian Dogma, August 14, 1993.
(83) For a sample of such thought, CF. In Miravalle, ed., Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma, Theological Fonde III, Queenship, 2000, the following essays: Ambassador Howard Dee, “Our Lady’s Ambassador, Johannes Paul II, Fatima, and the Fifth Marian Dogma”; Dr. Bartholomew, “A Scientist Explores Mary, Co-redemptrix”; Calkins, “The Messages of the Lady of All Nations.”
(84) Memoirs of Sr. Lucia of Fatima, Juli 13, 1917.
(85) Ambassador Howard Dee, “Our Lady’s Ambassador, Johannes Paul II, Fatima, and the Fifth Marian Dogma,” in Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma, Queenship, 2000, PP. 12-13.
(86) For an extended treatment, CF. Miravalle, The Dogma and the Triumph, Queenship, 1998.
Oprindeligt fra: Moderen til alle folk (USA)