Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |
Why Catholic teaching shows us that Mary is not to be considered Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer
Audio discussion why Our Lady is not Co-Redemptrix [37 min. audio] – This discussion answers objections on this point, including how the title could be contrary to Catholic teaching if it seems to have been used by a pope. A long time back we posted the dogmatic definitions from the Councils of Florence and Trent which constitute the chief reasons why Mary should not be called “Co-Redemptrix.” These are infallible definitions.
Here we see that Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer. Notice that this definition even mentions Mary. So, in the very context of mentioning the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the Council of Trent declares that Christ alone is the Redeemer. These should be sufficient for a believing Catholic to see that Mary should not be called Co-Redeemer or Co-Redemptrix. It’s interesting that the Catechism of the Council of Trent also teaches that Christ “alone” redeemed us and that Christ “alone” is the Redeemer. While the catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils. To maintain that Mary is “Co-Redemptrix” in light of the dogmatic definitions above, which infallibly declare that Jesus alone is our Redeemer, one would literally have to hold that there is no contradiction between these two statements:Joshua walked into the desert alone Joshua walked into the desert with Margaret
Is there a contradiction between these two statements? Of course there is a contradiction. They both cannot be true at the same time. Likewise, Jesus and Mary cannot be our Redeemers (Jesus in a greater way, Mary in a lesser way) if Jesus alone is our Redeemer. As a formal doctrinal title applied to Mary, “Co-Redemptrix” is clearly wrong. This is not in any way to diminish Mary’s unique role in our salvation and in the events leading up to the Redemption. It is simply to state the truth. Beware of phonies and false devotees of Our Lady who will agree with any statement which appears to praise her, even if it is not consistent with Catholic teaching. Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer. Only God – and God alone – could ransom us back and “destroy our sins.” These dogmatic definitions are definitive. Hence, they should prove the point to any Catholic, despite a handful of statements which seem to suggest the contrary but which don’t hold infallible authority. However, we’ve been disappointed by the fact that some people just aren’t satisfied with the dogmatic definitions. They insist on calling Mary Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer, even after seeing these dogmatic definitions. This is problematic. They are deviating from dogmatic truth.THAT CHRIST ALONE IS THE REDEEMER, AND THAT MARY IS NOT CO-REDEMPTRIX, IS ALSO SHOWN BY THE ORIGINAL SIN AND BY THE TYPOLOGY OF ADAM AND EVE
Here’s another way of showing why it’s incorrect to call Mary “Co-Redemptrix.” Most people who engage in Catholic apologetics agree that Jesus Christ is the second Adam. That’s made clear in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:45). Consistent with this typology of Jesus as the second Adam who reverses the curse of Adam, Mary is the new Eve. Jesus is the new Adam, and Mary is the new Eve. Just as Eve, the first woman, was intimately involved with the first man in the events which led up to the fall of mankind, there is a woman, Mary, who is intimately involved in the events leading up to the Redemption. Eve disobeyed God and sinned. Mary obeyed God and never sinned. Much more could obviously be said on this issue; but the point here is that while Eve’s role with Adam in the events leading up to the original sin was unique and crucial, it was nevertheless the sin of Adam alone which constituted the original sin and effectuated the downfall of mankind. That’s very clear in Catholic teaching.THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND ST. THOMAS CONFIRM THAT IT WAS ADAM’S SIN ALONE WHICH PLUNGED THE WORLD INTO DEATH; LIKEWISE, IT WAS CHRIST ALONE WHO REDEEMED THE WORLD
The idea that Mary is formally “Co-Redemptrix” would be consistent with the idea that the original sin was the sin of Adam and Eve. But that’s not Catholic teaching. In fact, in the following passage, St. Thomas dismisses such a notion. He says that it was not the sin of two that constituted the original sin and the downfall of mankind. Notice that St. Thomas rejects the idea that it was the sin of two which constituted the original sin. Moreover, the Council of Trent is quite clear that the original sin is the sin of Adam alone, not the sin of Adam and Eve. Eve certainly sinned; but Adam’s sin alone effectuated the downfall of mankind and brought death into the world. The Council of Trent says over and over that it was “the sin of Adam,” never once asserting that it was the sin of “Adam and Eve.” It even says that this sin was that of one man and “one in origin.” Therefore, even though Mary’s role was unique and integral to the events which led up to the Redemption, the Redemption itself was effectuated by Christ alone. That’s why Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer and only He should be called such.THE FALL OF MANKIND
Adam and Eve intimately involved in the events leading up to it Adam’s sin alone constituted the original sin and effectuated the fall “...this sin of Adam -- which in its origin is one…” (Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin)THE REDEMPTION
Jesus and Mary intimately involved in the events leading up to the Redemption Jesus Christ alone effectuated the Redemption “JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMERand Savior” (Trent, Sess. 25)REFUTING A COMMONLY MADE FALSE ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT – THE IDEA THAT MARY IS A SUB-REDEEMER UNDER THE ONE REDEEMER
Now I must refute a common response that is made by defenders of Mary as “Co-Redemptrix.” In trying to demonstrate that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, people will often argue that Mary is a lesser redeemer under the one redeemer, just as St. Paul and other saints are said to help carry out the work of Redemption. For instance, one Michael C. wrote to us and said: They argue that Mary is called Co-Redemptrix in the sense that holy figures and saints can be called redeemers who help carry out the work of Christ’s redemption, such as St. Paul says of himself. They also point out that Moses was, in a sense, called a redeemer because he delivered the people in the Old Testament. But all of these are specious arguments which are not consistent with their position. Allow me to illustrate how, in employing this argument, they have actually abandoned their position that Mary is formally Co-Redemptrix uniquely with Christ. Their argument has now turned into this:SPECIOUS ARGUMENT THEY TRY TO EMPLOY TO PROVE THE POINT, WHICH IS ILLOGICAL AND ABANDONS THEIR ACTUAL POSITION
ONE REDEEMER
Jesus Christ
LESSER REDEEMERS WITH/UNDER THE ONE REDEEMER
Mary – “Co-Redemptrix” St. Paul (Col. 1:24) The Saints Moses in a senseTHE ACTUAL POSITION OF MARY AS “CO-REDEMPTRIX,” WHICH IS ABANDONED AND CONTRADICTED WHEN THEY MAKE THE ABOVE ARGUMENT
TWO REDEEMERS
Jesus Christ
Mary as Co-Redemptrix
LESSER REDEEMERS UNDER THE TWO REDEEMERS
St. Paul (Col. 1:24) The other saints Moses in a senseSign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^