• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Vatican expert: Co-Redemptrix title of Mary not absolutely prohibited

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
187,497
69,581
Woods
✟6,319,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Monsignor Maurizio Gronchi, an expert consultant for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, clarified that the measure established last month regarding the use of the titles “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix” for the Virgin Mary is “not an absolute prohibition” and that these titles can still be used in popular piety, provided their meaning is understood.

“It’s not an absolute prohibition, but it will no longer be used in official documents or in the liturgy. But if used in popular devotion, understanding its meaning, no one will be reprimanded for it,” the expert said in an interview with “EWTN Noticias,” the Spanish-language broadcast edition of EWTN News.

The interview took place after the Nov. 4 publication of the doctrinal note “ Mother of the Faithful People” in which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal Víctor Fernández, stated that the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix” is “always inappropriate” and encourages “special prudence” regarding the title “Mediatrix of All Graces.” The text has sparked controversy among the faithful, especially among those who use these terms within the Catholic Church.

Continued below.
 

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Monsignor Maurizio Gronchi, an expert consultant for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, clarified that the measure established last month regarding the use of the titles “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix” for the Virgin Mary is “not an absolute prohibition” and that these titles can still be used in popular piety, provided their meaning is understood.

“It’s not an absolute prohibition, but it will no longer be used in official documents or in the liturgy. But if used in popular devotion, understanding its meaning, no one will be reprimanded for it,” the expert said in an interview with “EWTN Noticias,” the Spanish-language broadcast edition of EWTN News.

The interview took place after the Nov. 4 publication of the doctrinal note “ Mother of the Faithful People” in which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal Víctor Fernández, stated that the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix” is “always inappropriate” and encourages “special prudence” regarding the title “Mediatrix of All Graces.” The text has sparked controversy among the faithful, especially among those who use these terms within the Catholic Church.

Continued below.
So, what Tucho said is essentially meaningless opinion, and it doesn’t actually control anything. Good to know. Now to discard the rest of Tucho/Francis the same way.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
22,002
6,682
65
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟383,711.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
(sigh) This comes up every so often; I see it has raised from the depths once again.

So, for the benefit of the un-Latinized amongst us, I shall translate:

Protestants (and Catholics who have been protected by modernists who view Latin as a mortal sin) see the title "Co-Redemptrix" and go ballistic, because they attach the common English meaning to the prefix. In English, we have "co-founder", "co-worker", "co-owner", etc., which means "another, equal partner". So naturally, "Co-Redemptrix" has to mean "another, equal redeemer", which is, of course, idolatry, right?

Wrong. The title is Latin, not English; and in Latin, the prefix "co-" is derived from the Latin word "c-u-m" (I hyphenate to outwit the automatic censor which sees the unhyphenated word as naughty, naughty!) which means "with"; "alongside"; "accompanying". So, calling Mary "Co-Redemptrix" doesn't mean "Mary is Another Redeemer"; it means "Mary Is With the Redeemer", or more accurately, "Mary Accompanies the Redeemer."

Christ is the only Redeemer. His mother helped Him, travelled with Him, cared for Him, and helps us through her intercessory prayers---ergo, she is alongside the Redeemer. Not as an equal, but as a Helper. As a Companion. As an Intercessor. She helps Christ, works with Him and for Him.

All clear now? Good. Next?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
  • Like
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are a few of the background parts of that document that are worth reading. Tucho's conclusion is not one of those parts.
What specifically are you referring to as his conclusion that are not worth reading?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
What specifically are you referring to as his conclusion that are not worth reading?
Specifically in the words he bans and then later admits that if we want to use those words we can.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Specifically in the words he bans and then later admits that if we want to use those words we can.


I am only a few pages in to it so far.
Thanks for the heads up.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Fernandez only summarized earlier sources. Ratzinger/Benedict was a key voice.

Co-redemptrix

17. The title “Co-redemptrix” first appeared in the fifteenth century as a correction to the invocation “Redemptrix” (as an abbreviated form of the title, “Mother of the Redeemer”), which had been attributed to Mary since the tenth century. Saint Bernard assigned Mary a role at the foot of the Cross that gave rise to the title “Co-redemptrix,” which first appears in an anonymous fifteenth-century hymn from Salzburg. Although the designation “Redemptrix” persisted throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it disappeared entirely in the eighteenth century, having been replaced by the title “Co-redemptrix.” Theological research on Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s Redemption in the first half of the twentieth century led to a deeper understanding of what the title “Co-redemptrix” signifies.

18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as “Co-redemptrix” on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross.

19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of All Graces” was acceptable. In his personal votum, he replied: “Negative. The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. However, it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.” Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.” While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.”

20. The then Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where the vocabulary and the theological dynamism of the hymns present the unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate Son in such a way as to leave no room to add any other form of mediation — for, “every spiritual blessing” is bestowed upon us “in Christ” (Eph 1:3); we are adopted as sons and daughters through him (cf. Eph 1:5); in him we have been graced (cf. Eph 1:6); “we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7); and his grace has been “lavished on us” (Eph 1:8). “In him, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (Eph 1:11). In him “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19) and for him and through him, God willed “to reconcile all things” (Col 1:20). Such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.

21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a co-Savior. No, a disciple.”. Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions.

22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Fernandez only summarized earlier sources. Ratzinger/Benedict was a key voice.
He did quite a bit more than merely to summarize. He made an official ruling on the allowability of some words. Then later on in an interview he retracted his ruling.
Co-redemptrix

17. The title “Co-redemptrix” first appeared in the fifteenth century as a correction to the invocation “Redemptrix” (as an abbreviated form of the title, “Mother of the Redeemer”), which had been attributed to Mary since the tenth century. Saint Bernard assigned Mary a role at the foot of the Cross that gave rise to the title “Co-redemptrix,” which first appears in an anonymous fifteenth-century hymn from Salzburg. Although the designation “Redemptrix” persisted throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it disappeared entirely in the eighteenth century, having been replaced by the title “Co-redemptrix.” Theological research on Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s Redemption in the first half of the twentieth century led to a deeper understanding of what the title “Co-redemptrix” signifies.
Yes, the terminology is evolving to have greater precision. Perhaps it can mature. This document throws that slow maturation into chaos.
18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as “Co-redemptrix” on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross.

19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of All Graces” was acceptable. In his personal votum, he replied: “Negative. The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. However, it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.” Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.” While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.”
What Ratzinger is saying here, and I agree with him on this, is that the terms are not yet mature and so it cannot yet be officially adopted. Cardinal Fernandez went way farther in trying to ban the terms. And then later he backtracked on it. See Diane Montagna about that where she asked him and he backtracked.
20. The then Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where the vocabulary and the theological dynamism of the hymns present the unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate Son in such a way as to leave no room to add any other form of mediation — for, “every spiritual blessing” is bestowed upon us “in Christ” (Eph 1:3); we are adopted as sons and daughters through him (cf. Eph 1:5); in him we have been graced (cf. Eph 1:6); “we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7); and his grace has been “lavished on us” (Eph 1:8). “In him, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (Eph 1:11). In him “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19) and for him and through him, God willed “to reconcile all things” (Col 1:20). Such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.
Cardinal Ratzinger knew of the minefield of the inability of many Protestants to distinguish between Jesus as the true redeemer and mediator and our derivative work to mediate for our neighbors and to assist in their salvation. We can be co-mediators and co-redeemers but that causes blown fuses in the heads of many Protestants. While we do not want to blow their fuses, how much of the Faith do we need to bury for the sake of not blowing their fuses? I think the approach of Cardinal Ratzinger was to wait and see if things could develop more. Cardinal Fernandez bluntly said 'no'. But then there's what he said to Diane Montagna. His 'no' does not really mean 'no'.
21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a co-Savior. No, a disciple.”. Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions.
Pope Francis was not a qualified theologian. At very best he rises to be a mediocre theologian. So too cardinal Fernandez, especially for quoting pope Francis like this. Sorry to say so.
22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).
He said 'always inappropriate'. He couldn't make himself say 'wrong' or 'heretical' but only 'unhelpful'. He could have said, like cardinal Ratzinger, that officially recognizing the terms as not yet ripe, Instead he just bans the terms. And it backfired on him. Two relatively sleepy terms not on the minds of many Catholics are now all the rage. What a mess.

My own position is that referring to Mary as co-redeemer needs a whole lot of explaining before it can be adopted officially. I think cardinal Fernandez made a mess of the whole thing. He should very quickly be retired. But he is now going to be the point man in negotiations with the SSPX over new SSPX bishops. I suspect that will backfire badly too. Too bad, because that blowing up is not really necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My own position is that referring to Mary as co-redeemer needs a whole lot of explaining before it can be adopted officially. I think cardinal Fernandez made a mess of the whol
Is the point of that explaining or “maturing” only to justify the use of a title that is obviously misleading?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Is the point of that explaining or “maturing” only to justify the use of a title that is obviously misleading?
No. I think there is a basic truth there that we all are co-mediators and even to a degree co-redeemers. but that doesn't fly with soundbite fundamentalists. I think we need a good clear explanation of the truth and the limits of these things that even the block-headed should be able to understand. Cardinal Fernandez had that chance but he wasn't up to the challenge.

If you want to come up with some better terminology that would be cool too. How I see it is that Fernandez decided it was best to dummy down Catholic theology rather than figure out how to enrich it. He could have just said that the timing was nor yet opportune, which would have been quite true. Instead he goes for the ban. And later has to admit that the ban isn't really a ban. Have you read his interview with Diane Monagna yet?
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No. I think there is a basic truth there that we all are co-mediators and even to a degree co-redeemers. but that doesn't fly with soundbite fundamentalists. I think we need a good clear explanation of the truth and the limits of these things that even the block-headed should be able to understand. Cardinal Fernandez had that chance but he wasn't up to the challenge.

If you want to come up with some better terminology that would be cool too. How I see it is that Fernandez decided it was best to dummy down Catholic theology rather than figure out how to enrich it. He could have just said that the timing was nor yet opportune, which would have been quite true. Instead he goes for the ban. And later has to admit that the ban isn't really a ban. Have you read his interview with Diane Monagna yet?
No I have not. I was surprised when I read Salvifici Dolores giving us that share in redemptive suffering also through Christ. I have asked many protestants about their suffering. I have heard some just call it meaningless or part of the fallen world. The possibility of its share in redemption off the table.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
No I have not. I was surprised when I read Salvifici Dolores giving us that share in redemptive suffering also through Christ. I have asked many protestants about their suffering. I have heard some just call it meaningless or part of the fallen world. The possibility of its share in redemption off the table.
Ah, yes, that we make up for the suffering, which seems enigmatic, but turns out to be 'redemptive suffering' as we 'offer it up'. That just CAN'T fit into a lot of Protestant's theologies. We have two options. We can throw all of the 'offering it up' theology away so as not to antagonize our Protestant brethren OR figure out how to better explain things to them. The latter may be impossible as some of them will NEVER budge, but I don't think we should say it's 'never appropriate' on the other hand to keep with things they can't comprehend. As to co-redemptrix, I think we should not back away from it just because some Protestants can't and won't ever comprehend it. We should hone in on what's true about it and try to perfect it. THAT'S what I think is flawed in cardinal Fernandez' approach. Which of course he backed off from in the interview with Diane Montagna. He blew up his own position. Which means he shouldn't have written the document as he wrote it in the first place. Which is why I take a very dim view of his theological skills. (But that isn't the first failure of a document he has authored.)
 
Upvote 0

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
4,175
2,630
71
Logan City
✟1,032,964.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As an ex-Protestant who hopes the churches will one day reunify, I'm not particularly fond of the term. Wolsley might have accurately explained the term "co" in the Latin sense, but if the Catholic Church ever hopes to bring the Protestants under her umbrella, areas of potential confusion need to be dealth with.

In my opinion, the term "co-redemptrix" is one of them.

That's not to say that I don't think she's important. My old Protestant pastor said to me once about Marian apparitions "There's been a lot of them!"

Then he added "I think they're a judgement on a divided church".

God has been sending Mary with mesages, and a lot of Christians haven't been taking any notice.

She points to Christ viz. as at the wedding at Cana "Do whatever He tells you".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolseley
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,980
7,781
71
Midwest
✟404,909.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As an ex-Protestant who hopes the churches will one day reunify, I'm not particularly fond of the term. Wolsley might have accurately explained the term "co" in the Latin sense, but if the Catholic Church ever hopes to bring the Protestants under her umbrella, areas of potential confusion need to be dealth with.
It seems to me that at the heart of it is the concept of the Church, the entire body of Christi, the ecclesia, personified as Mary, having a share in the redemptive suffing of Jesus the Christ. I don't think most Protestants accept that. Rather, we are all just unworthy scum in need of redemption from a savior external to us and above us. Not within us.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,390
20,305
Flyoverland
✟1,438,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
As an ex-Protestant who hopes the churches will one day reunify, I'm not particularly fond of the term. Wolsley might have accurately explained the term "co" in the Latin sense, but if the Catholic Church ever hopes to bring the Protestants under her umbrella, areas of potential confusion need to be dealth with.
Exactly. With as much precision and good will as possible. And yet I don’t see that all Protestants will ever in a million years be willing to consider such things even perfectly explained. They think they know so much better. Humility is in short supply.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0