BY JOHN MARTIGNONI
Q: “I was a little surprised that you decided to make a defense of the Co-Redemptrix Marian title this past week...For one, I think it isn’t theologically correct. Secondly, even if it were, it’s not something the Church should promote.
On the theological correctness issue, the prefix ‘co’ doesn’t necessarily mean subordinate as it is used in your example of a co-pilot. A co-chair usually means two persons acting equally as chairmen of a board or organization. Further, I also disagree that just because Mary cooperated with God to bear a son that it means she plays a unique role in our redemption. Should Judas’ mother be titled as co-betrayer? Or Hitler’s mother as co-mass murderer? Lastly, even if we use your preferred analogy of co-pilot, a co-pilot is fully capable of piloting the plane and landing it if the pilot is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable. Is Mary fully capable of redeeming us if Jesus isn’t available? If your answer is that she is somehow capable of redeeming us, then according to the Council of Trent, I’m afraid you might be anathema. To put the co-pilot argument to bed, Mary requires and received Christ’s redemption, while the co-pilot does not require the pilot to fly the plane.
Besides the theological correctness or incorrectness, I also think we as Catholics need to take into consideration whether we should be developing theologies and teachings that don’t contribute to people’s better understanding of Christology.”
A: Okay, a few things to note here:
First, I was not defending the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix.” I was merely explaining what it means so that the person who originally wrote in could make a reasonable response to his fallen-away brother on that issue. I do not advocate for the use of the title, but neither do I oppose it. However, the use of the title, as I explained it, is not outside the bounds of Church teaching, so it is indeed theologically correct in that regard. And, if the Church should ever declare it to be dogmatically so, then I’m sure it will have sufficient reason and justification to do so and I would back the Church’s decision 100%, as I would hope all Catholics would.
Second, the prefix, “co,” does indeed mean “with,” and the title “Co-Redemptrix,” as used by those who advocate for that title, simply means that Mary cooperated with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unique way to bring about the redemption of mankind. Your disagreement on that point baffles me. Did someone else bear the Christ child? Can it be said of anyone else in human history that they are daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Spirit? Was anyone else there at the moment of His birth, the beginning of His ministry, and the moment of His death? Did someone else love Him and care for Him and nurture Him in His childhood? It is a fact that she played a unique role in our redemption.
Also, your analogy about Mary and the mothers of Judas and Hitler misses the mark by a good bit. God did not ask Judas’ mom nor Hitler’s mom if they wanted to bear a son who would be known as the “son of perdition” or an “evil monster,” respectively, and would be responsible for the death of God or the death of millions. So, those mothers had no formal cooperation in what their sons did in that respect. So, no, they cannot rightly be called “co-betrayer” or “co-mass murderer.” Mary, however, was different. God saw fit to ask her. God asked for her cooperation in what He was about to do. So, again, she did formally cooperate in the redemption of men in a way no one else ever will.
To be continued...
Q: “I was a little surprised that you decided to make a defense of the Co-Redemptrix Marian title this past week...For one, I think it isn’t theologically correct. Secondly, even if it were, it’s not something the Church should promote.
On the theological correctness issue, the prefix ‘co’ doesn’t necessarily mean subordinate as it is used in your example of a co-pilot. A co-chair usually means two persons acting equally as chairmen of a board or organization. Further, I also disagree that just because Mary cooperated with God to bear a son that it means she plays a unique role in our redemption. Should Judas’ mother be titled as co-betrayer? Or Hitler’s mother as co-mass murderer? Lastly, even if we use your preferred analogy of co-pilot, a co-pilot is fully capable of piloting the plane and landing it if the pilot is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable. Is Mary fully capable of redeeming us if Jesus isn’t available? If your answer is that she is somehow capable of redeeming us, then according to the Council of Trent, I’m afraid you might be anathema. To put the co-pilot argument to bed, Mary requires and received Christ’s redemption, while the co-pilot does not require the pilot to fly the plane.
Besides the theological correctness or incorrectness, I also think we as Catholics need to take into consideration whether we should be developing theologies and teachings that don’t contribute to people’s better understanding of Christology.”
A: Okay, a few things to note here:
First, I was not defending the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix.” I was merely explaining what it means so that the person who originally wrote in could make a reasonable response to his fallen-away brother on that issue. I do not advocate for the use of the title, but neither do I oppose it. However, the use of the title, as I explained it, is not outside the bounds of Church teaching, so it is indeed theologically correct in that regard. And, if the Church should ever declare it to be dogmatically so, then I’m sure it will have sufficient reason and justification to do so and I would back the Church’s decision 100%, as I would hope all Catholics would.
Second, the prefix, “co,” does indeed mean “with,” and the title “Co-Redemptrix,” as used by those who advocate for that title, simply means that Mary cooperated with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unique way to bring about the redemption of mankind. Your disagreement on that point baffles me. Did someone else bear the Christ child? Can it be said of anyone else in human history that they are daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Spirit? Was anyone else there at the moment of His birth, the beginning of His ministry, and the moment of His death? Did someone else love Him and care for Him and nurture Him in His childhood? It is a fact that she played a unique role in our redemption.
Also, your analogy about Mary and the mothers of Judas and Hitler misses the mark by a good bit. God did not ask Judas’ mom nor Hitler’s mom if they wanted to bear a son who would be known as the “son of perdition” or an “evil monster,” respectively, and would be responsible for the death of God or the death of millions. So, those mothers had no formal cooperation in what their sons did in that respect. So, no, they cannot rightly be called “co-betrayer” or “co-mass murderer.” Mary, however, was different. God saw fit to ask her. God asked for her cooperation in what He was about to do. So, again, she did formally cooperate in the redemption of men in a way no one else ever will.
To be continued...
 | About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice. If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org. And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment