I like that your article moves past mere sentimentality into a solid devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows based upon who Our Lady is and the graces Our Lord privileged her with. Reminds me of this talk by Fr Ripperger.
Thanks for sharing, will look. I have today learned that Fr Faber - whom I always thought of as the Prince of sentimentality - wrote a whole book about this topic from the same angle! It's called The Foot of the Cross. I may add some more in.
I also just want to say that even though I come to a different conclusion on the pope question I greatly value your work. The Father Coleridge reader has been super helpful in praying at Mass. keep up the great work and May God reward you!
Besides various popes & saints having called Mary co-Redemptrix, several approved mystics, e.g. St Bridget of Sweden & Ven. Maria of Agreda received the revelation that Mary asked God to be able to suffer in her soul all that Jesus suffered in His Body & it was granted, She being miraculously preserved from dying while suffering immeasurably.
Fatima prayer taught by the angel: "...and by the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus AND the Immaculate Heart of Mary [not just "through"], I beg the conversion of poor sinners."
I think that the two sides are merely arguing past one another, by making the elementary mistake of not even attempting to DEFINE THE TERMS. Consequently there's no "clash", in debate terms, between the two sides, since they're arguing about two different things, the one in the negative defining Co-Redemption as a active and sufficient cause of the activity, in which sense of course, all Catholics respond "nego", whereas the other side clearly means the term or phrase in a more "subordinate" term, where the Co-Redemptrix is in a subordinate, and instrumental capacity, not unlike the term "co-operator", where we "co-operate" with God's grace (by accepting it), which is a necessary but not sufficient cause of the operation of said grace. Nor would the Church ever propose the term for our use without defining it, since our intellects cannot assent to mere words and phrases, but rather to propositions. We need to know WHAT we are agreeing to.
So, the side in favor of the term tends to rely upon piety, and equate a denial of that term to impiety and as a dishonor to Our Lady, which is not true, but then the side against, also failing to define the term, accuse those in favor of rejecting the teaching of Trent that "Christ Alone" is our Redeemer.
Now, once we clarify the meaning of the term "Co-Redemptrix" as a subordinate and instrumental cause (by God's will) of Redemption, and in that sense God has also deigned in the mysterious Economy of Salvation which He established that we also can act as "co-Redeemers". So, then is Our Lady's role as "Co-Redemptrix" merely her engagement in an extraordinary degree in the same type of cooperation that any Christian can be involved in by prayers, sacrifices, and offering up sufferings, so differing mostly in degree from that type of Co-Redeeming activity, as she's the "Co-Redemptris" Par Excellence, as it were ... OR does her role as Co-Redemptrix differ qualitatively from our own, now that we have also clarified that her activity as Co-Redemptrix differs qualitatively from that of Our Lord.
I submit that hers was a qualitatively different participation in the Redemption than that which we are able to participate in, since her "fiat" was in fact, by God's design, a sine qua non, a necessary (if not sufficient) cause for Our Redemption. As we lost the supernatural life by the will of Adam (and Eve), so now we must be Redeemed, inversely, by a joint action of the New Eve and the New Adam, and their consent of their wills. God could have simiply created Our Lord's human nature from thin air, ex nihilo, or from "these rocks", as He told the Jews about descendants of Abraham, but He chose to involve the cooperation of human beings and their assent to the Redemption, since all salvation must by His design be from free will, and therefore willed that Our Lord's human nature be taken up only by conception from Our Blessed Mother. He she said No, which "absit!" ... God would not have unilaterally created Our Lord's human nature and effect our Redemption without her assent. Of course, then, Our Lady would not have been entirely perfect had she not (albeit freely) acquiesced to and done God's Will. As amentioned in some of the citations you make in this post, Our Lady did also have certain rights over her child, ones that any mother would have, and freely offered Him up, at His Birth, at the Presentation, and constantly to through and after His Passion ... but of course that's a slightly weaker argument since adults are no longer strictly required to be in obediece to their parents, even if they should honor them. Although, I need to mull that one over some more, since given the nature of Our Lord's Redemption, it's possible that God willed her cooperation and assent every step of the way, since it's something that goes far above any demands of justice.
But, Our Lady's "fiat", making her a necessary instrumental cause of Our Redemption (something which none of us could say about our roles), makes her activity as Co-Redemptrix qualitatively, and not just quantitatively different than our own, while at the same time being qualitatively different from that of Our Lord as well.
One thing I've noticed is that Catholics have fallen into this trap when engaging in apologetics against Prots who attack the prerogatives of Our Lady, to sliding back to this position where Our Lady's role entails merely a quantitative difference from ours, where asking her to pray for us is no different than asking Father Bob to pray for us. False. She has a qualitatively different role as Mediatrix, as Co-Redemptrix, as Intercessor. Prots falsely claim that we Catholics attribute to her a role that's qualitatively identical to that of Christ, but then we back down and claim that hers is qulitatively identical to ours (to say that it's not identical to that of God), conceding to a false dichotomy where there exists a "tertium quid" ... with 3 different qulitative states in all these states, and thus the invention of terms like "hyperdulia", where it's similar to the regular old "dulia" one might give to any saints or holy people, but it's at a level beyond that, and not simply a great deal of the same.
Deo gratias and thank you very much this beautiful contemplation! May God bless you richly for it!
Thank you, I need it!
I like that your article moves past mere sentimentality into a solid devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows based upon who Our Lady is and the graces Our Lord privileged her with. Reminds me of this talk by Fr Ripperger.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSsFn-JaXY&pp=ygUuRnIgcmlwcGVyZ2VyIGNvbmZlcmVuY2Ugb24gb3VyIGxhZHkgb2Ygc29ycm93cw%3D%3D
Thanks for sharing, will look. I have today learned that Fr Faber - whom I always thought of as the Prince of sentimentality - wrote a whole book about this topic from the same angle! It's called The Foot of the Cross. I may add some more in.
I also just want to say that even though I come to a different conclusion on the pope question I greatly value your work. The Father Coleridge reader has been super helpful in praying at Mass. keep up the great work and May God reward you!
Thank you for your kind words, that's great to hear!
Fr Faber, underrated and misunderstood (imho).
Besides various popes & saints having called Mary co-Redemptrix, several approved mystics, e.g. St Bridget of Sweden & Ven. Maria of Agreda received the revelation that Mary asked God to be able to suffer in her soul all that Jesus suffered in His Body & it was granted, She being miraculously preserved from dying while suffering immeasurably.
Fatima prayer taught by the angel: "...and by the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus AND the Immaculate Heart of Mary [not just "through"], I beg the conversion of poor sinners."
A really great article! Thank you!
Thanks Michael!. There is another to come in the same vein.
I think that the two sides are merely arguing past one another, by making the elementary mistake of not even attempting to DEFINE THE TERMS. Consequently there's no "clash", in debate terms, between the two sides, since they're arguing about two different things, the one in the negative defining Co-Redemption as a active and sufficient cause of the activity, in which sense of course, all Catholics respond "nego", whereas the other side clearly means the term or phrase in a more "subordinate" term, where the Co-Redemptrix is in a subordinate, and instrumental capacity, not unlike the term "co-operator", where we "co-operate" with God's grace (by accepting it), which is a necessary but not sufficient cause of the operation of said grace. Nor would the Church ever propose the term for our use without defining it, since our intellects cannot assent to mere words and phrases, but rather to propositions. We need to know WHAT we are agreeing to.
So, the side in favor of the term tends to rely upon piety, and equate a denial of that term to impiety and as a dishonor to Our Lady, which is not true, but then the side against, also failing to define the term, accuse those in favor of rejecting the teaching of Trent that "Christ Alone" is our Redeemer.
Now, once we clarify the meaning of the term "Co-Redemptrix" as a subordinate and instrumental cause (by God's will) of Redemption, and in that sense God has also deigned in the mysterious Economy of Salvation which He established that we also can act as "co-Redeemers". So, then is Our Lady's role as "Co-Redemptrix" merely her engagement in an extraordinary degree in the same type of cooperation that any Christian can be involved in by prayers, sacrifices, and offering up sufferings, so differing mostly in degree from that type of Co-Redeeming activity, as she's the "Co-Redemptris" Par Excellence, as it were ... OR does her role as Co-Redemptrix differ qualitatively from our own, now that we have also clarified that her activity as Co-Redemptrix differs qualitatively from that of Our Lord.
I submit that hers was a qualitatively different participation in the Redemption than that which we are able to participate in, since her "fiat" was in fact, by God's design, a sine qua non, a necessary (if not sufficient) cause for Our Redemption. As we lost the supernatural life by the will of Adam (and Eve), so now we must be Redeemed, inversely, by a joint action of the New Eve and the New Adam, and their consent of their wills. God could have simiply created Our Lord's human nature from thin air, ex nihilo, or from "these rocks", as He told the Jews about descendants of Abraham, but He chose to involve the cooperation of human beings and their assent to the Redemption, since all salvation must by His design be from free will, and therefore willed that Our Lord's human nature be taken up only by conception from Our Blessed Mother. He she said No, which "absit!" ... God would not have unilaterally created Our Lord's human nature and effect our Redemption without her assent. Of course, then, Our Lady would not have been entirely perfect had she not (albeit freely) acquiesced to and done God's Will. As amentioned in some of the citations you make in this post, Our Lady did also have certain rights over her child, ones that any mother would have, and freely offered Him up, at His Birth, at the Presentation, and constantly to through and after His Passion ... but of course that's a slightly weaker argument since adults are no longer strictly required to be in obediece to their parents, even if they should honor them. Although, I need to mull that one over some more, since given the nature of Our Lord's Redemption, it's possible that God willed her cooperation and assent every step of the way, since it's something that goes far above any demands of justice.
But, Our Lady's "fiat", making her a necessary instrumental cause of Our Redemption (something which none of us could say about our roles), makes her activity as Co-Redemptrix qualitatively, and not just quantitatively different than our own, while at the same time being qualitatively different from that of Our Lord as well.
One thing I've noticed is that Catholics have fallen into this trap when engaging in apologetics against Prots who attack the prerogatives of Our Lady, to sliding back to this position where Our Lady's role entails merely a quantitative difference from ours, where asking her to pray for us is no different than asking Father Bob to pray for us. False. She has a qualitatively different role as Mediatrix, as Co-Redemptrix, as Intercessor. Prots falsely claim that we Catholics attribute to her a role that's qualitatively identical to that of Christ, but then we back down and claim that hers is qulitatively identical to ours (to say that it's not identical to that of God), conceding to a false dichotomy where there exists a "tertium quid" ... with 3 different qulitative states in all these states, and thus the invention of terms like "hyperdulia", where it's similar to the regular old "dulia" one might give to any saints or holy people, but it's at a level beyond that, and not simply a great deal of the same.
Very POWERFUL Article, Thank You & God Bless!!
Thank you!