The Term
‘Co-Redemptress’ for the
Blessed Virgin
Mary Is Neither Heretical
Nor Scandalous to
the Catholic Faith
A FORWARD:
Earlier this month a fellow Catholic
discussed with me very amicably & peaceably the term of ‘Co-Redemptress’. This
seems to contradict the infallible pronouncements of the Holy Catholic Church
at the Chalcedonian & Tridentine
Councils, said he, as well as, possibly, the Council of Florence. To wit, where
Pope St. Leo the Great in AD 451 taught:
“…knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty
way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and
silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or
spot.” [St. Leo I in Lectis dilectionis tuæ,
quoting 1 Peter 1:18, and dogmatically upheld at the Council of Chalcedon.]
And where Pope Eugene IV in AD 1441
taught:
“…no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of
the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between
God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born
and died, through his death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by
destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of
heaven…” [Pope Eugene IV in Cantate domino, which is part of the documents of the Council of
Florence.]
Too, where Pope Pius IV in AD 1563 taught:
“…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their
prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke
them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and help for obtaining
benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our
Redeemer and Saviour…” [Pope
Pius IV in On the Invocation, Veneration,
and Relics of Saints and on Sacred Images from Session 25 of the Council of
Doesn’t this rule out, asked he, a Catholic calling anyone
else by some variation of the word ‘redeemer’? Objectively
speaking, isn’t doing so a heresy? And as Catholics, isn’t this
clear because Christ is The Only One
Who can rightly bear the title of ‘Our
Redeemer’?
And the answers:
No, no, and no.
How so?
First, note that none of
the three quotes above explicitly forbids the term ‘Co-Redemptress’. They were not even addressing the issue
--- period. Therefore, those who imagine that Catholics ought not to call the
Blessed Virgin Mary our Co-Redemptress, based on
these quotes, go beyond what is actually said. Nor has the Roman
Catholic Church anywhere, to my knowledge, ever solemnly & explicitly
condemned the term ‘Co-Redemptress’.
Consequently, the title is, at the very least, conceivably permissible.
Second, the word “alone” (as found in the Florentian & Tridentine
quotes above) cannot logically exempt
all other uses of the terms “Redeemer and Saviour”
or the very real participation of others in defeating Satan in conjunction with
Jesus. Because just as saints can very obviously sub-mediate between God
& men without infringing on the fact that Jesus is the “one mediator
of God and men,” as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:15 (DRC), so, too, can
other creatures ‘sub-redeem’ and even ‘sub-save’,
as it were, without impinging on
Jesus’ Singular Act of Redemption & Salvation whereby alone men can
attain to the Kingdom of Heaven. Otherwise, what else is a mere man doing
when he preaches Christ’s Gospel and causes his listeners to enter
Jesus’ Body, the Catholic Church? And if by his sufferings &
mortifications he obtains the graces of God whereby their hearts are softened,
causing them to believe in the Catholic Faith, then what else is this if not a participation in Jesus
Christ’s redemption & salvation of their precious, immortal souls?
We see, then, that mere creatures do necessarily partake in
the fulfillment of Christ’s Mighty Redemption & Salvation which He
accomplished on the Cross by His Death, defeating the Devil. They do this by
operating in conjunction with Him at
a lower level of responsibility. Which only makes sense, for are not all Catholics members of His Body
--- having been “baptized in his death” and “buried together
with him by baptism into death” as St. Paul also says in Romans 6:3-4
(DRC) --- and thus participants
in His Crucifixion, who may hence declare with St. Paul, “…I… fill up those things that are wanting of
[lacking in] the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which
is the church…”? (Colossians 1:23d, 24b DRC, annotation &
emphases added)
This is why, then, a mere man --- whether priest or lowly layperson
--- can be said to defeat the Devil when he administers the Sacrament of
Baptism to a human being. Because in doing this he participates in the Triumph of Christ upon the Cross, administering
the graces won thereby to the one who receives the Sacrament of Baptism at his
hands, thereby also snatching the soul
from the certain clutches of the Evil One, who had claimed him as his
own up until that very moment! It is, too, why Catholics have known since the
beginning of the New Testament that Genesis 3:15, where it says “…she
shall crush thy head…” (DRC), refers prophetically to the Blessed
Ever-Virgin Mary defeating Satan decisively by Her Role in giving us Her Divine
Son!
Yet how can this be when the Council of Florence says of Jesus that
“…through his death alone [He] laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our
sins…”? How then can Mary be the One Who crushes the
Serpent’s Head, as Sacred Scripture shows us both in Genesis 3 and the
Apocalypse 12?
Very simple.
Because She participates in the
Triumph of Christ’s Sacrifice upon the Cross. And She does so in a way
that so far surpasses all other human creatures --- it being Her assent to God’s Message
through St. Gabriel that made the Incarnation of Jesus possible (“Behold
the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy
word…”), as told to us in Luke 1:38 (DRC), and it being Her Flesh & Blood which She
gave to the Son of God and clothed Him in our humanity and which in turn won
for us on the Cross such a Great & Mighty Redemption --- that She truly
does rightly & sensibly merit the
title of ‘Co-Redemptress’. For though
Jesus died on the Cross, redeeming penitent men from their sins, it was Her
Flesh & Blood which He gained from Her that fulfilled this Sacrifice,
and, consequently, God Himself in Church’s Sacred Writ rightly & sensibly says of Her in
relation to the Devil that it is “she”
Who shall crush his head.
Not ‘he’, as Protestants love
to insist.
Rather, She. We
repeat:
She!
This is proof positive, logically speaking, of the rightfulness of the title, ‘Co-Redemptress’. Not just that it is, at a bare minimum,
conceivably permissible to use it,
but that it is indeed logically right
to do so. And the fathers of these councils, as well as the popes who approved
them, knew this. They were not stupid or uninformed. Therefore, their
statements about Christ’s Death, Redemption & Salvation are not only not
explicit condemnations of the term ‘Co-Redemptress’,
but not even an implicit
disapproval of the same. Indeed, they are the opposite. For they do logically
and thus implicitly demand that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary be recognized for
Her very unique role in the Triumph of Christ’s Death, Redemption &
Salvation, a role so utterly unique compared to all other human beings that the
term ‘Co-Redemptress’ is practically the sole term that does Her
accomplishment justice!
So why can’t many who go by the name of Catholic see this?
Because they are blinded by a kind of
Catholic ‘fundamentalism’. And
just as Protestant fundamentalists pretend to interpret their bibles
‘literally’ and ‘correctly’ while massacring the real
meaning of Sacred Scripture left-and-right, so,
as well, do Catholic fundamentalists pretend to interpret the words of
Most of them may not mean to do this, their subjective intent being quite honorable. Notwithstanding, it is
what tangibly results from their objectively
bad attitudes & objectively bad
actions in this matter.
Which leads us to the final point in
this forward. For, third, realize that the term
‘Co-Redemptress’ is no recent innovation.
To the contrary, a famous theological textbook of the 20th century
states that it “…has been current since the fifteenth century, and… also appears in some
official Church documents under Pius X…” [Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma, page 212, as published by TAN Books & Publishers,
Inc., at Rockford IL in 1974, and as earlier published by The Mercier Press,
Limited, in 1955 in Cork, Ireland. All emphasis added. The original German
version was published by Verlag Herder in 1952 in
As a result, ‘Co-Redemptress’
has a long & illustrious history amongst Roman Catholics, a usage of at least 500 years.
And never --- I repeat, never! --- has the Magisterium
seen fit to explicitly condemn its
use by Catholics during that time. Contrarily, the Holy See itself
sanctioned its use by employing the term in documents issuing from the
Faced by these facts, my fellow Catholic relented somewhat. Alright
(he as much said), rightly understood the term can’t be heretical.
Nevertheless, the crime of scandal is committed by using the word since the
term is not understood rightly by so many in the Church, not to mention
people outside of the Church.
And why do they not rightly understand it, why is scandal given?
Because, said he, the prefix ‘co-‘ in
the term, ‘Co-Redemptress’, smacks of equality. That is to say, by calling Queen Mary a Co-Redemptress, a Catholic is recklessly equating Her with Her Son & His Accomplishments, however much
this Catholic may not intend to do
so. This scandalizes other Catholics, and brings Catholicism into disrepute
amongst those who are not Catholic, such as amongst those who are Protestant
heretics.
Consequently, the term should be avoided like the plague.
Unanswerable?
No. The short letter I composed for him goes into the reasons why
this concern is unfounded. And if you are racked by similar fears, my dear
reader, whether Catholic or not, then it
is your moral duty to read what I have posted below on this webpage. Because if not Catholic,
then this fear is impeding you from converting to your only hope of
Eternal Salvation. Whereas if
Catholic, then this fear is putting you in peril of maligning your Celestial
Mother & Heavenly Queen, not to mention angering Her Royal Son, Jesus
Christ, against your slander… and however unintentional that slander may
have been hitherto perusing this letter.
The text below is just as I sent it, with the sole exception of a
mention of one of the popes being changed to a less precise reference to the
Apostolic See, in general, in order to avoid a possible error. The original
letter had photocopies of pages from a Webster’s Dictionary appended to
it; readers of the version posted here can satisfy themselves of the accuracy
& relevance of my quotes by noting their citations and doing a little
sleuthing at a decent public library, or by looking closely in their own copy
of a Webster’s.
+
+ +
11 December 2009
Dear X,
I pray that the
Triune God of the Catholic Church blesses you according to His Mind in your
effort with Y…. and that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary watches over you
with Her prayers & powerful intercession. May Heaven’s Will be done. If you end up staying there while I’m
still here in
Listen, here is another point that I’ve studied since
our debate about the title, Co-Redemptress, being used for Queen Mary.
I’ve written it down because you’re leaving early this morning ---
with no time remaining to sit down and discuss it --- and because you’ll
have the leisure to mull it over carefully as you travel.
It would seem,
assuming I understand you correctly, that everything hinges on the prefix
‘co’ in ‘co-redemptress’ or
‘co-mediatrix’. In your thinking this
automatically means ‘equal’. However, and as I explained in some
detail in the Was Benedict XV an Antipope? book on The Epistemologic Works website, words are not
limited to just one meaning. Rather, due to the usage & history of a
particular word by millions of people across the generations, a single word can
often develop naturally two or more meanings, or shades of meaning. This is an
incontrovertible fact of our human existence.
Such is the case
with the term ‘co-’. And to prove this, I cite the dictionary to
which I constantly refer in my work: Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd
College Edition, as published by The World Publishing Company in New York NY
& Cleveland OH in 1972. Webster’s is, of course, a standard reference
work for the English language, something any English-speaking person who is
educated recognizes. It’s authority in matters of definition &
meaning of English words cannot be easily doubted. You will find the relevant
pages copied & attached to this brief letter.
To begin, please
look at the first photocopy from the dictionary. It is page 271. Near the upper
lefthand corner you’ll find the entry for
‘co-’. It is highlighted in yellow and circled by orange. Two broad
definitions are given, the first definition being subdivided into three finer
shades of meaning. I quote the first definition and its three meanings:
“1. a prefix shortened from COM-,
meaning a) together with [cooperation] b) joint [co-owner] c)
equally [coextensive]…”
As you can see,
only definition 1c has the meaning of ‘equal’. The first two merely
connote ‘togetherness’ or ‘jointness’.
It is these two that apply to ‘co-redemptress’
and ‘co-mediatrix’ when properly
understood. Note as well where the term ‘co-’ comes from. The start
of the entry tells us that it derives from ‘com-’. Please look at
the second photocopy from the dictionary near the lower lefthand
corner. It is page 282 in Webster’s Dictionary. Again, the entry is
highlighted in yellow and circled by orange. I quote: “…a prefix meaning with or together [combine]…” Hence, the
origin of the term ‘co-’ does not even include the meaning of
‘equality’ --- only ‘togetherness’ and ‘withness’.
This is
important because the dictionary lists the definitions in order of development
from the word’s original meaning. The sense of ‘equality’
only came recently, therefore, and is not the sole or primary definition
of the prefix ‘co-’. Furthermore, this suggests very strongly that
the Holy See’s use of the word ‘co-redemptress’ (leastwise, as it has been translated
into the English), since it had to have been in the Church’s language of
Latin, employed the Latin prefix ‘com-’ and would not have any sense at all of the idea of
‘equality’ being implied between the Blessed Virgin Mary and Her
Divine Son, Jesus, Who is the Sole Redeemer of the world in the biggest picture
of things.
The upshot?
The terms
‘co-redemptress’ and ‘co-mediatrix’ simply mean a spiritual work accomplished together
and jointly, not a thing that is done equally. That is to say, just because
Jesus & Mary accomplished the Redemption together and jointly mediate His
Graces does not mean, then,
that Mary is equal to Him in this work or that She is
superior to Him in the process.
Proof of this is
easy to see. Consider the third photocopy, which is page 315 in my
Webster’s Dictionary. The entry for ‘coreligionist’ is near
the bottom. It states for the definition: “…a person of the same
religion or religious denomination…” Now consider the Roman Catholic
Religion. Both lowliest layman and highest of the high, a pope, are coreligionists
in the Catholic Faith, being both of them joint members together with one
another in the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, a pope is obviously not ‘equal’ to a layman because of
this and is, in fact, far above the layman in the duties & functions of his
office, which is the visible head of the Body of Christ.
Likewise Queen Mary. As a mere creature, She
is far below Christ, Who is God. She cannot be ‘equal’ to Him in
this sense. She is, nevertheless, His ‘coreligionist’ in the
Catholic Faith, being together with
Him in its practice, and She is, like no other human being to exist --- due to
Her Motherhood and giving to Him of His Human Flesh & Blood --- His joint accomplice in fulfilling the
Redemption of Mankind, of those individuals in the Human Race who are baptized
in water and, if able to because of an adequate mind, who profess the One True
Faith of Jesus Christ whole & undefiled.
Or consider the
fourth photocopy. It is page 320 in the dictionary. You’ll see the
entries for ‘cosign’ and ‘cosignatory’ in the lower righthand corner. I quote the latter: “…signing
jointly… one of two or more joint signers…” Now consider a
parent cosigning a loan for his child, who is of age, but who hasn’t
established a credit history to make a bank want to loan him money and trust
for sure that he’ll pay it back. Is
the child equal to the parent?
Clearly not. The child is, normally, subject to his father
& mother. He must respect them and honor them. Nonetheless, in such a
situation, they sign jointly. No equality is necessarily implied. Merely
that the two sides are doing something together, in union with
each other. So it is with Jesus & Mary. The term
‘Co-Redemptress’ does not
demand that She be viewed as ‘equal’ in Her work with Jesus…
simply that She accomplishes it together with Him, unequalled by anyone else in
humanity.
-Paul
Doughton
Feast of St. Damasus,
2009
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve
come to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2009 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.