Vatican stops use of titles for Mary

[Fervent]

Quoting an article from the Vatican is not complaining. It is quoting an article.

It's how you've framed it, and pressed the issue in this thread.

 

[Clare73]

Where in the Bible does it say Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

Are you challenging that statement?
So where in the Bible do you find the word "Trinity"? . . .or "sovereign," for that matter?
Biblical truth is not necessariy presented in one simple statement.
So, you might start with sorting out what Jesus said:

The Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

If you can rectify Jesus' above revelation of the Trinity with Jesus being anything but the second person of the Trinity, feel free to show us how.

 

[concretecamper]

Are you challenging that statement?
So where in the Bible do you find the word "Trinity"? . . .or "sovereign," for that matter?
Biblical truth is not necessariy presented in one simple statement.
So, you might start with sorting out what Jesus said:

The Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

If you can rectify Jesus' above revelation of the Trinity with Jesus being anything but the second person of the Trinity, feel free to show us how.

See post #82

 

[Clare73]

See post #82

Agreed. . .which was Biblically refuted. . .which refutation (post #86) you cannot address.

And that's a good thing. . .because your assertion would be heresy.

 

[concretecamper]

Agreed. . .which was Biblically refuted. . .which refutation (post #86) you cannot address.

And that's a good thing. . .because your assertion would be heresy.

See post #72

 

[Clare73]

See post #72

Feel free to address its refutation in post #86, following:

Are you challenging the statement that Jesus is the "second person" of the Trinity" because it is not stated in the NT?
So where in the Bible do you find the word "Trinity"? . . .or "sovereign," for that matter?
Biblical truth is not necessariy presented in one simple statement.
So, you might start with sorting out what Jesus said:

The Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

If you can rectify Jesus' above revelation of the Trinity with Jesus being anything but the second person of the Trinity, feel free to show us how.

 

[RileyG]

Jesus is NOT the "2nd person" of the Trinity. All three Members of the Godhead are co-equal. You are not reading the right scholars.

That language has always been used to describe the Holy Trinity. No one said they were not co-equal.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It's how you've framed it, and pressed the issue in this thread.

I'm sorry that you took offense when offense was never offered. Care to add to the topic?

 

[Fervent]

I'm sorry that you took offense when offense was never offered. Care to add to the topic?

Offense? Hardly. I think I've added to the topic by rebutting your false presentation of what other people believe and the phrases they use.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

So what do YOU make of it?

step in the right direction

 

[Jermayn]

MOD HAT

This thread.....is clean

Please be sure to address one another respectfully and stay on topic.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wonder if the catechism has been updated.

Does the Catechism - whichever one you have in mind - mention the title "co-redempterix"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a step in the right direction.

The statement ought to end the matter, some within the Catholic Church wanted the title "Co_Redemptrix" they were never a majority, now they have clear guidance to steer them away from their mistake.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Reading between the lines:

Mary is the first and foremost collaborator in the work of redemption and grace.

But let's be eccumenical to the ill informed protestants.

We can be gracious to our "separated brethren" (brothers and sisters in Christ).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh the apparition movement and such. Thanks.

I asked Co-Pilot: tell me about Ida Peerdeman and the claimed apparition?

It gave this as its reply:

---

Ida Peerdeman (1905–1996) was a Dutch woman who claimed to receive 56 Marian apparitions between 1945 and 1959 in Amsterdam, known as the “Lady of All Nations” apparitions. The figure she described identified herself as the Mother of God and called for devotion under the title “Lady of All Nations,” with messages emphasising prayer, peace, and the proposed dogma of Mary as Co‑Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

Background​

• First vision: 25 March 1945, during the final months of World War II, Peerdeman reported seeing a luminous woman who introduced herself as “The Lady” and “Mother.”
• Series of apparitions: From 1945 to 1959, she claimed 56 visions, often accompanied by symbolic imagery and prophetic statements about global events.
• Messages: The Lady urged the faithful to pray a specific prayer for peace and unity, and requested recognition of Mary’s universal role in salvation history.

The Image and Prayer​

• The apparitions included a description of Mary standing on a globe before a cross, with rays streaming from her hands. This image was later painted and widely circulated.
• The prayer given to Peerdeman asked Christ to send the Holy Spirit to renew the earth, invoking Mary as “the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary.”

Church Response​

• 1974 ruling: The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared the apparitions “not of supernatural origin,” effectively discouraging promotion of the devotion.
• Local developments: In 1996, the Bishop of Haarlem‑Amsterdam permitted public devotion to the Lady of All Nations prayer and image, but without affirming the supernatural character of the apparitions.
• Recent clarification: In 2020 and 2021, the Vatican reiterated that while the prayer may be used (with a corrected wording), the apparitions themselves remain unapproved as supernatural.

Legacy​

Despite the lack of official recognition, the devotion spread internationally, especially in Europe and Asia, with pilgrimages to Amsterdam and widespread circulation of the prayer card. Peerdeman herself lived quietly as a secretary and died in 1996 at age 90.

In summary: Ida Peerdeman’s claimed apparitions gave rise to the “Lady of All Nations” devotion, which remains popular among some Catholics but is not officially recognised as supernatural by the Church. The prayer and image are permitted for devotional use, but the messages themselves are treated with caution.

---

Clearly Copilot is not yet up to date with the most recent statement mentioned in the Original message in this thread.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because some people here think because I am not Roman Catholic, it automatically makes me ignorant.

Do you mean that some people state those things?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sole means - only.

I am not inclined to believe that because "sole" is a translation into English of what the Vatican penned in another language and because even in English sole means a number of things.

I asked Co-pilot: give a definition of the English word "sole" as it is used in Catholic theological documents of 2025.

Copilot replied:

---

In Catholic theological documents of 2025, the word “sole” is used to mean exclusive, unique, and without partner or co‑agent, particularly in reference to Jesus Christ as the sole redeemer and sole saviour of humanity. It excludes any notion of shared or co‑equal participation in the act of salvation.

Detailed Explanation​

• Context of 2025 Vatican Decrees
  In November 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis, approved by Pope Leo XIV. This document explicitly rejected titles such as co‑redemptrix for the Virgin Mary, clarifying that while Mary cooperates in salvation history through her maternal role and discipleship, she does not share in the redemptive act itself.
• Definition of “sole” in this usage
  • Exclusive agency: “Sole” indicates that Jesus Christ alone performs the salvific work.
  • Doctrinal precision: It rules out theological ambiguity by affirming that redemption is not a joint enterprise between Christ and Mary.
  • Unique mediation: Christ is the sole mediator between God and humanity, echoing 1 Timothy 2:5 (“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”).
  • Contrastive emphasis: The term is deliberately employed to counter centuries of debate about Marian titles, ensuring doctrinal clarity.
• Examples from 2025 documents
  • “Jesus Christ is the sole redeemer of humanity, and no other figure may be accorded this title.”
  • “Ultimate salvation belongs solely to Jesus, though Mary’s maternal cooperation remains significant in the economy of grace.”
• Theological Implications
  • Safeguarding Christ’s primacy: The word sole underscores that salvation is not divisible or shared.
  • Respecting Marian devotion: While devotion to Mary continues, her role is described as maternal, intercessory, and exemplary—not redemptive.
  • Doctrinal closure: The 2025 decree resolved a centuries‑old debate by definitively excluding the title co‑redemptrix.

Summary Table​

Term	Meaning in 2025 Catholic Usage	Excluded Concepts
Sole Redeemer	Jesus Christ alone accomplishes salvation	Mary as co‑redeemer
Sole Mediator	Christ uniquely mediates between God and humanity	Shared mediation
Sole Savior	Salvation is exclusively Christ’s work	Any parallel salvific agency

In short, “sole” in Catholic theology of 2025 is a doctrinally sharpened term meaning exclusive, unique, and unshared, applied to Christ’s redemptive and mediatory role. It functions as a safeguard against theological confusion, ensuring that Catholic teaching remains Christocentric while still honouring Mary’s maternal cooperation.

Would you like me to trace how the meaning of sole evolved from earlier magisterial documents (e.g., Vatican II, John Paul II’s Marian writings) to this 2025 clarification? That would show the linguistic and doctrinal trajectory leading to its sharpened definition.

---

After asking: does the word exclude the intercession of the saints and Christians living upon the Earth?

Copilot replied:

---

In Catholic theology of 2025, the word “sole”—as applied to Christ’s role as sole redeemer and sole mediator—does not exclude the legitimate intercession of the saints in heaven or of Christians on earth. It excludes only the idea that anyone else shares Christ’s redemptive agency.
... extra material that anyone asking the same questions can see.

---

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Vatican nixes use of 'Co-Redemptrix' as title for Mary

What does that mean?

It means that a single title (not titles) was disallowed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was asking in refence to the title of the thread - they mean the same thing.

Title and titles do not mean the same thing. The OP gave the thread's name with the word titles in it.

 

[Servus]

The statement ought to end the matter, some within the Catholic Church wanted the title "Co_Redemptrix" they were never a majority, now they have clear guidance to steer them awat from their mistake.

Less Mary, More Jesus.