Her Station Keeping: Immaculate Conception to CoRedemptrix

The recent history of Mariology has not always been told and so the recent reinvigoration of the movement for a 5th Marian Dogma by the group of five Cardinals remains a curiosity to some.  Others believe the movement should be dropped since Cardinal Ratzinger in the year 2000 mentioned in an interview with Peter Seewald that he was not in favor of the title "CoRedemptrix".  The interview caused a stir in the English-speaking world when it was published two years later in God and the World and has been used ever since to question those who speak of the need for the official promulgation of the title.  However, we should make the distinction that Cardinal Ratzinger was not Pope at that time, and he was not speaking in an official capacity.  In fact, a careful examination of Joseph Ratzinger's writings reveals he has a deep Mariology and understanding of all the issues necessary for such a title; he even provides foundations that were missing in previous attempts to clarify the need for the title "CoRedemptrix".

The intention of this article is to demonstrate that promulgation of the title and dogma "CoRedemptrix" is not a luxury but much rather a necessity.  John Paul the Great did much to heal misunderstandings in Mariology since Vatican II, but Joseph Ratzinger's own words still ring true from the time he made this statement concerning Lumen Gentium: "[T]he immediate outcome of the victory of ecclesiocentric Mariology was the collapse of Mariology altogether" (Mary: The Church at the Source, p.24).  This "collapse" was an outcome that not even Paul VI's "introduction of the title 'Mother of the Church'" could prevent (p.24).  What allowed false interpretations that led to the collapse?  What is the needed healing for the Church and the world?  The five Cardinals are on the right track.  The title "Co-Redemptrix" is not a luxury, it is a necessity.  It will help make sense of the titles "Mediatrix" and "Advocate" which Lumen Gentium did bestow on Mary.  More importantly, it will restore the Mariology our religious orders and our "domestic churches" (family homes) need to flourish.

Lourdes 150 Years Later

"I am the Immaculate Conception" was the response to Saint Bernadette's question, "What is your name?"  It is a response the Church has meditated upon for the past 150 years since the Virgin's apparitions in Lourdes in February 1858.  Of course, we know this is the same person who was the Mother of Jesus and that, even before this interesting "new name" (cf. Rev 2:17) declared at the Lourdes apparition site, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had already been proclaimed.  Almost 2000 years earlier, the Angel Gabriel himself had already greeted Mary by just as fascinating a "new" name: "Full of Grace" (Lk 1:28).  Names from God reveal callings or missions.  Those who receive grace are to be sources of grace for others as Saint Basil the Great tells us in his treatise on the Holy Spirit.

Some of Pope Benedict's earlier writings on Mary (from 1979-1980) are contained in a more recent book called Mary: The Church at the Source.  He follows an insightful observation to penetrate the mystery of Mary's mysterious calling.  He alludes to the mystery of personhood when discussing that John the Evangelist never uses Mary's name in his gospel, but only calls her the "Mother of Jesus".  Ratzinger continues: "it is as if she had handed over her personal dimension, in order to be solely at [Jesus'] disposal, and precisely thereby had become a person" (p.16).

 The most important moment that Mary is identified as the Mother of Jesus is when John the evangelist is preparing us to understand that Mary is now the New Eve.  This moment is at the foot of the Cross when Jesus looks down and says to her, "Woman, behold your son" (Jn 19:20).  What then is the mystery of human personhood which we are called to contemplate concerning the one revealed as: "Full of Grace", "Immaculate Conception", "Mother of Jesus", and "Woman"?  Can we as beloved disciples understand it better if we will stand with her, "At the Cross Her Station Keeping"?  How is Mary's calling as "Immaculate Conception" further revealed at the Cross?

Orientale Lumen and Human Personhood

In his Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen, we catch John Paul the Great's deep appreciation for the East's theology of the person: "The East helps us to express the Christian meaning of the human person with a wealth of elements.  It is centered on the Incarnation, from which creation itself draws light.  In Christ, true God and true man, the fullness of the human vocation is revealed.  In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity" (#15.2).  It is the same theology which guides his theology of the body, inspired by the mysticism of Saint John of the Cross whose writings are immersed in the tradition of the Greek fathers.

In Orientale lumen, John Paul the Great basically reiterated the great Doctor of the East and West, Saint Athanasius: "God became Man, that man might become God" (CCC #460).  It is the very source of Saint Louis De Montfort's True Devotion proclamation that "what God is by nature, the Virgin is by grace".  Pope John Paul the Great wants the West to recover this aspect of the catechetical tradition which the East preserved more consistently: "we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ's Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it" (cf. OL #1.4).

In several previous articles on Catholic Exchange I have discussed deification through Christ's grace…the patrisitic understanding of how man "becomes God" without loss to man's personal identity (See: The Spirit and the Assumption: Deification and Vatican II; “Is Man to Become God?”; Deification and the New Evangelization).  These have not always emphasized that where this takes place is in man's self-emptying (cf. Phil 2:7 "kenosis")…where Christ makes it possible for human love to become divine.  The basis of John Paul the Great's theology of the body is the development of Vatican II's Christology when it proclaims that "Jesus fully reveals man to himself" (Gaudium et Spes #22) and so "man can fully discover his own self only in a sincere giving of himself" (Gaudium et Spes #24).  Jesus had already explained the process of deification: "Whoever loses himself (becomes a gift) for my sake will be found [become a true person]" (cf. Mt 10:39 & Lk 9:24); and: "Man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his beloved" (Jn 15:13).  If we are to "become God"…Who is the model of true Personhood, then we must become Love by God's power working within us "to desire and to work" (Phil 2:13).  The Fathers tells us that we are made in the image of God to become the likeness of God…real persons.

Vatican II: Her Station Keeping?

Ratzinger's comment becomes more revealing.  It is Mary who loses herself for Jesus' sake: "it is as if she had handed over her personal dimension, in order to be solely at [Jesus'] disposal, and precisely thereby had become a person" (Mary: The Church at the Source, p.16).  In her self-emptying at the foot of the Cross, something greater is occurring in her than in any other human redeemed by Christ.  As the Immaculate Conception she is already the Church (the Spouse) in person and an actual part of Jesus' Redemption by her special share in the Spirit prior to all others.  Jesus' Spirit is at work in her at the Cross to suffer in faith with the Redeemer.  The fuller meaning of the Immaculate Conception is being revealed.  The "mournful mother weeping" is the Woman, "wailing aloud in pain as she labored to give birth" (Rev 12:2).  Jesus then proclaims: "Woman, behold your son!" (Jn 19:26).  At the Cross, her calling as the Immaculate Conception was further revealed…she was now the new Eve.  Jesus could now say to all disciples: "Behold your Mother!" (Jn 19:27).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us: "Mary became the Woman, the new Eve" (CCC #726).  Though she was the Immaculate Conception from the beginning, the fuller meaning of this grace was not revealed in her without her always making a gift of herself in the service of her Son.  Whenever the Spirit applies Christ's redemption to us, we now always find Mary "again in travail until Christ be formed in you" (cf. Gal 4:19).  We never experience the Spirit apart from Mary, the Woman.  She is truly our Mother here and now whenever we are touched by grace and participate in Jesus.  She is redeemed by Christ's coming into this world for us men and our salvation, but the Church has been clear she is redeemed in a unique manner: "Mary belongs more to Christ than to Adam" (Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 304).  Her work as the Immaculate Conception remains a work of Christ in her.

When Vatican II placed the Virgin within the framework of the Church by including chapters on Mary within the document Lumen Gentium, a shift in emphasis was made to correct false exaggerations (even tendencies) that seemed to make Mary an alternate to Christ.  Lumen Gentium's structure was a reaffirmation that she too is redeemed by Christ and was dependent upon the Word's Incarnation for the grace in which she shared.  Sadly, this shift of emphasis was misinterpreted by many.  Some people began to think that talk of Mary as "model" and "exemplar" meant that her motherhood was an analogy only.  She became, for many, more of a model than a mother.

Restoring Her Station

Ratzinger wrote that the immediate effect of this shift, known as the victory of ecclesiocentric Mariology, "was the collapse of Mariology altogether" (Mary: The Church at the Source, p.24).  Paul VI tried to prevent such misunderstandings by officially bestowing the title "Mother of the Church" upon Mary with the promulgation of Lumen Gentium.  This title was supposed to "express the fact that Mariology goes beyond the framework of ecclesiology and at the same time is correlative to it" (cf. Ratzinger, p.29).  In other words, it was supposed to affirm her real motherhood without being a source for false exaggerations that make her parallel to Christ.

What is ironic is that the Church recognized the need to bestow a title on Mary after this shift at Vatican II in order to prevent a breakdown in Mariology.  Did Paul VI's particular title prevent the breakdown?  The obvious answer according to Ratzinger is "No."  More ironically, and having spoken against the title "Co-Redemptrix" while Prefect for the Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict is now being asked by several Cardinals to reconsider the views he held on the title's fittingness before becoming Pope.  In the case of the Arian crisis, it took the term "homoousios" to restore real orthodoxy to Christology.  Can the title "Co-Redemptrix" do the same for Mariology and give greater glory to Christ?

Lumen Gentium used the actual titles of "Advocate" and "Mediatrix" for Mary (see: LG #62).  Without "Co-Redemptrix" these titles are open to misinterpretation and we are left with the idea that Mary is more a model for us as to how we are each an advocate or a mediatrix.  The Greek word perichoresis describes how some terms help to explain one another and give a better picture of the whole through their interplay.  For a true perichoresis to occur with "Advocate" and "Mediatrix", the title "Co-Redemptrix" is necessary for orthodoxy.  "Co-Redemptrix" affirms that Mary is in Christ in the Spirit during the Redemption (cf. Paul VI, Credo of the People of God #14-15).  It is a reaffirmation of her calling as the Immaculate Conception.  "Mediatrix" can then explain why Mary is present in our receiving the Redemption because of her priority as "Co-Redemptrix"; thus grace is not received apart from her.  Grace (the indwelling of the Spirit) is still directly from Jesus as communicated by the Spirit, but inseparable from Mary's role in the Spirit.  "Advocate" sheds more light on Mary's continued office of obtaining the Spirit for us and Mary's constant prayers that Jesus send the Spirit for us.

The five Cardinals who recently relaunched the effort to restore Marian orthodoxy amongst Roman Catholics through the official promulgation of the title "CoRedemptrix" have joined with John the Evangelist to comfort Mary "at her station keeping".  They have wrapped their arms around religious orders in order to lend them support.  They have stood with every "domestic church" to reinvigorate each with renewed Marian devotion.  The greatest hope is that, united with Mary, each of us will better learn to give himself and herself to God at the foot of the Cross — at every Liturgy of the Eucharist — and become a real person through the grace of sanctification (which is our deification).

"Hail, O perfect purity, immaculate bridal-chamber of the Word, cause of the deification of us all, sweet sounding echo of the voice of the prophets!  Hail, O glory of the apostles!…  O most holy Mother of God, save us!" ("Acathist Hymn", Sixth Ode, Byzantine Daily Prayer, p.964).

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    I am not sure "CoRedemptrix" is an appropriate term. Mary's role in the economy of salvation has already been well established, but I don't think even she would approve of the use of "CoRedemptrix" as it could lead to too many Catholics and most Protestants interpreting the Dogma as the Church's attempt to raise Mary's role to an equal level with God as the redeemer of the world. We should not in any way deny or play down the importance of Mary's place in the history of the Church and the World, but we must be careful not to further the confusion of her place lest we lead each other and the world into believing that the Church is establishing her as the fourth person of a "Quadrinity" raising her to an equal and divine status with Jesus and the Holy Spirit as a person of God. I am afraid that some who believe it is ok to play around with the language of the Trinitarian formula would begin attempting to change it to a "Quadrinitarian" formula baptizing in the name of the "Father, and the Mother, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." This I think we all know would be a sacrilege at the very least and most probably idolatry at its very root.

    I agree that Mary needs a less confusing title that fully explains her Motherhood and role in the economy of salvation, but "CoRedemptrix" I don't believe is the one that should be chosen because of its implications by the title's own definition which is, "Equal Redeemer". If I am misunderstanding the proper definition and interpretation of this title, then I would happily stand corrected and join the cause at least in my prayers as far as I am able. For now however, I believe that there needs to be a more fitting title with fewer semantic problems than this. Of course if our Holy Father sees fit to change his position, which I doubt, I will humbly accept the final result as far as obedience to the teaching of his Holiness and the Church.

    Humbly submitted with all due respect to the 5 Cardinals for this cause and Matthew Tsakanikas.


    Grace and Peace in Christ,


  • Guest

    Very good, thought-provoking article.  It presents a fifth Marian dogma in a way that makes very good sense to me. I'm sure the issue is a topic that many will have a difficult time coming to terms with. I have found that many Catholics in the USA are woefully ignorant of the Church's teachings on Jesus, so the dogmas on Mary are even less known and understood to many of us.

    Maybe the Cardinals' letter here would be a good place to go first.

    jw, My understanding is that the prefix "co" is not usually defined as "equal" although it does indicate a singularly distinct status. For example, a costar of a movie or TV show is not equal to the star of the show; a copilot of an aircraft is not equal to the pilot.  

  • Guest

    Sister Lucia was on good terms with the mind of Jesus and Mary.  In her book, Calls From the Message of Fatima, a book the Vatican allowed her to release around 2001, she repeatedly calls the Virgin Mary the "Co-redemptrix".  Notice the term is NOT co-redeemer.  The 'ptrix' on the end of 'redemptrix' is to show the Virgin's mediation is a mediation in Christ and is subject to the one Redeemer…Jesus.

    It is hoped people will continue to share the mind of the Church instead of constantly sharing how those who reject the Church might misrepresent the issue…Our job…speak the truth in love.

  • Guest

    Mathew, regarding your continuous use of "John Paul the Great"…I am not aware of any Vatican pronouncements regarding this title.  I believe that it is presumptuous and misleading on your part.  He was a good Pope in some ways but personally, I don't believe that Pope John Paul warrants that title.  If higher authority does promulgate that distinction, I will certainly abide by it..but until then…let's wait and let the Holy Spirit provide direction.   AMDG

  • Guest

    There are some wonderful linkages to eastern rites of the Church in this article. 

    Although I could be wrong, I am pretty confident Mr. Tsakanikas did not intend to bind his readers to his generous use of the characterization "the Great" when referring to Pope John Paul II of happy memory.

    In charity, it should be noted that even in the absence of a (what would be a radical) Vatican pronouncment, many people refer to the late Pope as "John Paul the Great." Google it.

    Time will tell. But if the use of the term distracts you from a thoughtful reflection about the possible fifth Marian dogma, then perhaps it would have been better if he avoided using it. 

  • Guest

    "The Great" is not a title bestowed by the Vatican — it is bestowed by history and popular proclamation.  The only titles the Vatican (that is to say, the Church) bestows (besides ecclesiastical ones) are "Blessed," "Saint" and "Doctor of the Church." So Matthew isn't jumping the gun on the Church by saying that. For example, the pope of the early middle ages is according to the Church, "Pope Saint Gregory." He is called "Gregory the Great" in history. Alexander the Great did not get his appellation from the Church either.

  • Guest

    Does Mariology do justice to the Incarnation?

  • Guest

    I agree with the underlying thrust of the essay, but feel the Universal Church needs to tread delicately in proceding to expand a mariology which will include the title Co-Redemptrix.  Not that the teaching is falible, but because it would simply not be received in the world with proper understanding.  When an estimated fifty percent of "active" Catholics do not adaquaely understand the real presence in the Eucharist, it would be problematic to introduce a concept that would be roundly criticized by the meda and competing faiths. Thus making evangelism in the modern world that much more difficult. 

    Faithful, well catechized people, such as those who read these articles, understand the finer points of our faith and agree that our Blessed Mother always points us to Jesus as His Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.

    Mary's role as  Mother of the Church is truth, yet only properly understood after one responds positively to the fundametal option for God, the Good News of Salvation, and accepts the Church as body of Christ on Earth.

    Unfortunately, we as a body have largely failed the world in spreading  the good news as we  were commanded.  For now  I suggest we leave the finer points of Mariology for theological discussion until we can collectively look ourselves in the mirror regarding our commandment from Christ to evangelize. 


  • Guest

    Everything we believe about the Blessed Virgin Mary, and every reason we honor her has something to do with affirming the truth of the Gospel and defeating heretics.

    The Virgin Birth testifies to the Divinity of Jesus.

    "Mother of God" testifies to the unity of Jesus' Person as fully God and Fully Man.

    The Assumption and Immaculate Conception testify to Mary as the fulfillment of the Ark of Covenant, underlining Jesus as the Word of God.

    That said, I'm uncertain about "Co-redemptorix" as a title because in my mind it doesn't add anything to the deposit of faith, and it's a cause for misunderstanding among Christians, and by that I mean all of us.

    "Co" comes from the Latin "cum" meaning "with"…so the title Co-Redemptorix literally means "with the Redeemer."   This we already know from Sacred Scripture, she was with Him the entire time from conception to resurrection.


  • Guest

    If we could add to mickeyaddison's comments, the title Immaculate Conception is tied to Mary as the new Eve and the Assumption testifies that Mary continues that office as new Eve now in Heaven.  Co-Redemptrix testifies to where the Virgin took us beloved disciples to be her children and that was at the foot of the cross. It testifies that her motherhood is not remote but flows from within the Spirit and all thanks to the Incarnation.

  • Guest

    All of this simply understates what the Incarnation is, it is foolish to think the Incarnation is just Mariology.

  • Guest

    I would understand "Co-Redemptrix"  to mean "Saving WITH Christ", Co-, meaning by Christ's side as an instrument of salvation with Him.  In that sense we are all saving with Christ when we offer up our sufferings for the salvation of others.  This does not make us equal, but participating WITH Christ.  Just as in the prayer that is prayed at Mass before the Great Amen:  "THROUGH Him, WITH Him and IN Him, in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, all Glory and Honor is Yours Almighty Father, Forever and Ever."  Through the Grace given by the Almighty Father and by His will, the Blessed Mother was chosen from all eternity to participate in the work of redemption by the merits of Jesus Christ.  Through her we received Jesus, the Redeemer of the world. Through her intercession we receive salvation.  She is the treasurer of graces, which are ours for the asking!  Does this grace not lead to our ultimate good and salvation? The title seems only natural to me!

    Jesus is the human face of God and the Divine face of man. John Paul II

  • Guest

    Ave Maria!

    I think the promulgation of the 5th Marian Dogma, while it may be misunderstood by some, would unleash many great graces.  We are all called to offer our sufferings in union with Christ (Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and to fill up those things that are wanting in the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for his body which is the church)  Mary , being sinless, did this offering perfectly and in total union with the will of God.


    I will welcome the Dogma. 


  • Guest

    I would like to thank everyone who offered many different ways of explaining the meaning of "Co-Redemptrix" in response to my post. With a better understanding of the meaning and purpose of the title, “Co-Redemptrix”, I can more easily accept its use, but my reservations for promulgating the Dogma stand firm for the following reasons. There are many people in this world who call themselves "Christian" that hate the Catholic Church at the risk of their own salvation because of what they "think" the Church teaches. * Unfortunately, they think this because poorly catechized cradle and converted Catholics affirm their suspicions because they also do not understand their own Church’s teachings. So the Indulgence system is considered "Works Righteousness"; Mariology and praying to the saints becomes "Idolatry", etc.. Because of this, Apologetics and Evangelism for the Church is not just to bring souls Home to God only, but also for damage control to repair almost 2000 years of misunderstandings about the Church that I have come to love more than life itself. This of course is not a good reason to abandon the cause for another Dogma about our Blessed Virgin Mother, but I think that even she might offer a word of caution (and she just might some day) if there is a slim chance that yet another Dogma might produce another or even bigger road block for those seeking passage on the road to salvation in Christ. If this however is what God wants, then I pray that the cause is successful and the Dogma is promulgated. But if it is not God's will then it will be proven redundant to attempt what has already been accomplished in the four previous Dogmas. Whatever the case may be, my support will be for God's wisdom to prevail. 

    *Of course, keep in mind that the churches our disconnected brothers and sisters attend have also historically been negligent in educating their members in the history and traditions of their own faith.


    This is not intended to be a slam against non-Catholic Christians, it is a statement of fact that I became aware of as an “ordained deacon” in my former church before I converted in 2001. So as many may have noticed by my postings here, I am still learning and probably won’t stop learning until the time comes for me to take my place in Heaven at least after a hopefully brief time in Purgatory.

    Peace, JWBowen

  • Guest

    Indeed, the Latin roots of the title Co-redemptrix means "Woman with the redeemer." No equal status to Jesus implied. However, our English language is tricky, and sometimes this word leads to misunderstanding of this title.   

    Jesus is the One True Mediator between God and man, indeed, (See 1 Tim. 2:5) but by the merits of His grace, we, as well as the Blessed Virgin are able to be mediators by participation. (Be sure to read the previous verses in 1 Tim 2 which outline "prayers, supplications," etc. –all of which are "mediations.")

    Mary is supremely suited by God to have a truly unique role is salvation history both ontologically (in the order of being due to her sinless nature, via the Immaculate Conception) and in the order of grace, as it applies to the sanctification and redemption of humanity, recalling of course that it is a sharing in Christ's role and power.

    In CCC 964, one finds the definition of Coredemptrix, even though the title is absent:

    “[At the Cross,] she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.” [John 19:26-27.]


    Again, Coredemptrix is implied in CCC 968:  “she cooperated… in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls.  For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”  Both of these texts from the CCC echo teaching given in Vatican's II's Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 58 and 61 regarding Our Lady's role in salvation history. 


    Mary's roles as Coremptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ- rather it shows its power. Her role flows from the superabundance of the merits of Christ.


    The beauty of the promulgation of a Fifth Marian Dogma would be that the Church would present an exact definition so that there would be no ambiguity about Our Lady's status. 

  • Guest

    I just wanted to make a few points:

    -"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;" – Lumen Gentium 24

    -JP2 spoke on the CoRedemptrix several times

     -As some people have already pointed out, Co- means "with" not equal. Think 'cooperate' here.

    -One of the very reasons for a dogma is to clarify an issue of faith, not make it more confusing.

    -We are all called to be coredeemers with Christ – (Col 1:24) Its funny how this verse gets forgotten 🙂 –
              -Mary participates in a unique and special way as the Mother of God on Calvary

    But more importantly I just wanted to direct anyone interested in this issue to a place where you can get some concrete answers: Enjoy and may God bless you all!



  • Guest

    Another thing: the number of saints, blesseds, and holy people of God that support Mary as Coredemptrix is enormous. In this past century alone; JP2, Mother Theresa, St. Padre Pio, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Pius X, St. Maximillian Kolbe…and then my memory fails. But it is definitely worth looking into.

  • Guest

    JWBowen I heartily agree with your evaluation. I might add that with regard to the articles proposition regarding the "Arian crisis" heresy as a comparison there is no compelling reason to make such a confusing decision with regard to this issue.

  • Guest

    I too agree with JWBowen summation.  As beautiful and well intentioned the proclamation might be, I do not see it as needed at this time in our salvation history. Mother Mary's status and position are well documented. New dogmas and titles as such seem to only fuel an already mis-understood teaching.  I hope these efforts are not being pushed by fringe groups.  But, whatever happens …. I can trust that it was God's will.

  • Guest

    The new Dogma would be, for the benefit of all, a catalyst for discussion of the real and true meaning of Our Blessed Mother's role in salvation history for those who struggle with it. Discussion of the Church's devotion to the Mother of God and the rightful place she holds with Christ would be a powerful conduit for conversion.  Many converts struggle and overcome this supposed obstacle, as in the case with Dr. Scott Hahn.  Once they wrestle with it and come to that wonderful "aha, now I see it" , they can't keep their mouths quiet about her, and that, I feel is just what the Almighty had in mind all along! 

    Jesus is the human face of God and the Divine face of man. -John Paul II

  • Guest

    Commenting after mickeyaddison and theophilos, I also don't see what Co-Redemptrix implies that is not already implied by the title Mediatrix. The article says <blockquote>"Mediatrix" can then explain why Mary is present in our receiving the Redemption because of her priority as "Co-Redemptrix"; thus grace is not received apart from her.</blockquote> but then it seems that Co-Redemptrix is merely a clarification of the meanings of Mediatrix and Advocate.

    I actually see that as an argument against a "5th Marian Dogma", if it would be redundant with what is clearly taught already.

  • Guest

    Theophilos holds that "Co-Redemptrix" is necessary otherwise Mediatrix is not understood as Mediatrix of ALL Graces.  Theophilos would not want to be held as in agreement wit East of Nowhere.

  • Guest

    dwcrago refers to fringe groups.  He can rest assured it is not pushed by fringe groups…

    In 2000 Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned that millions of people actually support the movement in God and the World even though the Cardinal was not in favor.  More recently the Cardinal (Lozano) giving the homily at the Vatican Basilica on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes this February also called the Virgin the 'CoRedemptrix':

    "In order to respond to the full love of the cross," said Cardinal Lozano, we must pronounce "an unreserved 'yes' to the mysterious plan of the Redeemer, a 'yes' that means fullness of Love. This complete 'yes' of love is the Immaculate Conception of our dear Mother, Mary," who participated "on Calvary as the co-redemptrix with the Saviour. … Christ on the cross suffered all the pains that his Most Holy Mother suffered. And she in Christ suffers all our pains, she assumes them and knows how to commiserate with us. Out suffering is also her suffering."

    see for more: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1245&Itemid=40



  • Guest

    Mr Bowen,

    You are awesome.  Your honesty is awesome.  Your love for the Church is awesome.  Keep praying that God's will be done and we will all be sanctified by your devotion to Christ.  Praised be Jesus Christ! (for readers skimming these comments: This means I am glad to see you don't find the title as upsetting as you had originally.)


  • Guest

    Mediatrix of ALL Graces. Does this imply, a change in the Consecration?

    Instead of the Holt Spirit, is it Mary that comes upon the bread and wine.

    Is this what Marology wants?

    Was it not by grace that Mary conceived and is it not by grace we receive the Eucharist?

    Just curious.

  • Guest



    “All” graces is in reference to the mystery of our receiving the Spirit in union with Mary our true mother who was already “Full of Grace” through the foreseen merits of Christ; making all graces still dependent on Jesus.  Our relationship with Christ includes our relationship with all who are members of his mystical body.  “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, etc…”  Your posting repeatedly equivocates between the meanings of grace. You misrepresent grace and you misrepresent mariology. It is unfair to take the title out of its proper context; a context that the Catholic Faith establishes.  First you sarcastically tease (even mock) a centuries old popular title of Our Lady by asking if Mary now comes upon the bread and wine at the consecration.  No Don, she does not cause transubstantiation.  Mediatrix of All Graces is about humans receiving a share in the mystical body and benefiting from the prayers of the Virgin, not about transubstantiation which makes Christ substantially present. But you can rest assured that apart from Mary’s prayers at Pentecost, and apart from her yes at the Incarnation, there would be no Spirit sent; the same Spirit needed for the consecration. You mention you are ‘just curious’ at the end of all your statements, but this is hard to believe if you took the title in its Catholic context…thus, it is sarcasm. Next, you ask, was it not by grace that Mary conceived but then ask ‘is it not by grace we receive communion’.  This is where there is too much equivocation concerning meanings of ‘grace’ so I will focus on the point that it was by grace that Mary conceived.  Of course it was by grace, and in this case grace again means “the Holy Spirit”. Your point?  This does not affect what popular devotion has meant for centuries by Mediatrix of All Graces.  Also, the Holy Spirit was already at work in Mary’s faith at the time of the Incarnation.  Saint Gabriel testified: “Hail, Full of Grace!” This is the whole point, that there is a great mystery of Mary’s union with Christ as the Immaculate Conception.  Mediatrix of all Graces wishes to stress her real motherhood  IN CHRIST.  Part of the reason First Saturday devotions were established was because Christ wished to comfort Mary’s Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart from those who denied Mary’s true Motherhood over every human as the New Eve since Christ is our New Adam (cf. 1 Cor 15:45, etc…).

  • Guest

    I think I’m with Mickey on this (though I’m willing to be convinced). What does this proposed dogma say about Christ? It’s always been my understanding that the Marian dogmas all speak in some way about the Christ’s Nature. Doesn’t Mary always point to her Son?

    Why not leave Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix as doctrine?

    In Christ,

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  • Guest

    Theophilos, thank you – though I'm still cautious your points make me feel better.  But at the core, I worry that even though "co" need not equate to equal — it sets in motion problems that I question the church needs.  Blessed Mary, as we all know, required the saving grace of Christ just as we all do. Granted, she coooperated by sayng yes!   Something we are all called to do I believe. Though her cooperative "yes" was supreme.  It seems to be a bit like our distinction of sainits with a small "s" and Saints with a capital "S". 

  • Guest

    Dear Theophilos,

    I thank you for the explanation. For some of us the word all means just that all and not some or in community with others. The term all graces means to me, that there is no other source of grace.

    Saying that, nothing that is not completly full of grace will enter the kingdom of heaven, hence purgatory.