Pennypacker11 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Would their be a different way of translating the latin into english so that it doesn't almost uniformly get misunderstood by Protestants and many Catholics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 21 2005, 11:24 AM'] Would their be a different way of translating the latin into english so that it doesn't almost uniformly get misunderstood by Protestants and many Catholics? [/quote] Yes... "woman with the Redeemer" Saying "Mary is the co-redemptrix" is the same as saying "Mary is the woman with the redeemer" God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 21 2005, 09:47 AM'] Yes... "woman with the Redeemer" Saying "Mary is the co-redemptrix" is the same as saying "Mary is the woman with the redeemer" God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] JMJ 1/22 - St. Vincent Let's get a Latin dork dorkier than I in here to settle this - I'm not convinced of this reply at all, as it seems like a bad translation from Latin (the noun "redemptrix" mysteriously describing a man). On another note - must we forget that, in one sense, we are all co-Redeemers with Christ? That we all participate in the work of Redemption, in order to "make up for what lacks in the sufferings of Christ"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 That is probably the best description of all. Mary does this more than us because of her Immaculate Conception, but we all participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I posted this in another thread some time ago, but it touches upon the doctrine of coredemption: [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 22 2004, 09:04 PM']The doctrine of coredemption is a good example of the 'development of doctrine' over time, because the term used to describe it, which only came into vogue about 500 years ago, describes a reality that is antecedent to the use of the term itself. The mysteries of the faith do not change, and in fact they cannot change, but the way in which we describe them can change, so long as the doctrinal formulation does not effect or alter the substance of the mystery which it is meant to convey. Now it is true that this doctrine has not been declared a dogma of divine and catholic faith by the Extraordinary Magisterium, but it has been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as a truth that is at least proxima fidei, which means that it belongs to revelation at least implicitly and thus is true beyond any doubt. In addition, a good argument can also be made that the doctrine of Mary's coredemption is already sententia definitive tenenda, in which case to deny the doctrine would be to fall into theological error, because it has already been infallibly taught through a non-defining act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In any case, it is clear that from the earliest centuries Mary has been seen as participating in the redemption through her response to the angel Gabriel, and so, by her act of obedience to the will of God, Mary, the new Eve, untied the knot of the first Eve's disobedience, and in this way she began, as a true but secondary and dependent cause, the work of man's redemption. This being said, whether it is a doctrine proxima fidei or a doctrine de fide tenenda, to deny the doctrine of Mary's coredemption is clearly rash and dangerous, and may even be the denial of a truth of Catholic doctrine, which would exclude one from full communion with the Catholic Church. Doctrinal development should not be thought of as an evolutionary process through which one thing becomes something totally different; instead, it should be thought of as analogous to the natural growth of a single living organism. As an example, a baby as it grows through the different stages of its life does not become a totally different being, but is in fact one and the same being as when it was born, the only difference is that it has matured over time. In other words, the latent potencies within its being have developed and grown so that it has reached its full potential. The same holds when we look at the mysteries of the faith, because as the Church meditates upon the truths of the faith, she gains an ever deeper understanding of the realities involved, and this maturation brings greater and greater doctrinal clarity over time.[/quote] Taken from: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16322&view=findpost&p=276204"]Doctrinal Development Speculation[/url] God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 JMJ 1/23 - Third Sunday Apotheoun, Could you provide a reference for the doctrine being taught as a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium? I'm sure I'll need it for reference's sake sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jan 23 2005, 05:00 AM'] JMJ 1/23 - Third Sunday Apotheoun, Could you provide a reference for the doctrine being taught as a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium? I'm sure I'll need it for reference's sake sooner or later. [/quote] There is an excellent anthology of essays in two volumes entitled "Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theolological Foundations," edited by Dr. Mark Miravalle. The contributors include Bertrand de Margerie, John Galot, William Most, Ignace de la Potterie, et al. On the web there are some good articles as well, some of the best I've seen are on the Christendom-Awake website (a few of the articles are from the two volume book I mentioned above). Click below to read that article: [url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/misc/archives.html"]Christendom-Awake Archive[/url] God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 23 2005, 07:54 AM'] There is an excellent anthology of essays in two volumes entitled "Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theolological Foundations," edited by Dr. Mark Miravalle. The contributors include Bertrand de Margerie, John Galot, William Most, Ignace de la Potterie, et al. On the web there are some good articles as well, some of the best I've seen are on the Christendom-Awake website (a few of the articles are from the two volume book I mentioned above). Click below to read that article: [url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/misc/archives.html"]Christendom-Awake Archive[/url] God bless, Todd [/quote] JMJ 1/23 - Third Sunday Apoutheon, Thanks for the reference site. It'll come in handy, I'm sure. What about from the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium, though? That would be real bullets for my gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jan 23 2005, 01:46 PM'] JMJ 1/23 - Third Sunday Apoutheon, Thanks for the reference site. It'll come in handy, I'm sure. What about from the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium, though? That would be real bullets for my gun. [/quote] [url="http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php"]Link[/url] Ironmonk asked me to give you this link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I have a book called "Mary Mother of the Church" that is nothing but quotes from Popes teaching that Mary is Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and all that. It is definitely a teaching of the ordinary magisterium and is therefore a definitive doctrine that cannot be denied (without being against the Church anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Jan 24 2005, 05:45 PM'] [url="http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php"]Link[/url] Ironmonk asked me to give you this link. [/quote] JMJ 1/25 - Conversion of St. Paul Mrs. Bro. Adam, Thanks for the link - however, it doesn't address my criticism of ironmonk's translation of "co-Redemptrix" (notice, I'm not criticizing the thing itself, just the translation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 24 2005, 09:27 PM'] I have a book called "Mary Mother of the Church" that is nothing but quotes from Popes teaching that Mary is Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and all that. It is definitely a teaching of the ordinary magisterium and is therefore a definitive doctrine that cannot be denied (without being against the Church anyway). [/quote] JMJ 1/25 - Conversion of St. Paul Awesome - can you list some of the references for me (not the text itself, I can find that on my own, just the references)? Here's what I'm thinking, people - (1) If the statements of the ordinary and Universal Magesterium are infallible, and if the ordinary and Universal Magesterium has endorsed belief in Mary as co-Redemptrix, then it has been infallibly taught that Mary is the co-Redemptrix. (2) Statements of the ordinary and Universal Magesterium are infallible (cf. CCC 750). (3) The ordinary and Universal Magesterium has endorsed belief in Mary as co-Redemptrix ([b]this is what I'm trying to establish[/b]). (4) Therefore, it has been infallibly taught that Mary is the co-Redemptrix. If (4) is true, then why are there still movements to have this "proclaimed" as dogma? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jan 25 2005, 01:07 AM'] If (4) is true, then why are there still movements to have this "proclaimed" as dogma? Seems pretty straightforward to me. [/quote] yea, that's what i'm wondering........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 JMJ 1/27 - St. Angela Merici Does anyone have anything that proves the veracity of (3)? People are going to ask me about this as a priest in the future, and I'd be much obliged if you armed me with the right arguments concerning it now. I need quotes from documents of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 (edited) To make a long article short "There are 17 official documents, given above, teaching Our Lady's immediate cooperation in the objective redemption. Repetition on the ordinary level makes a teaching infallible. Seventeen repetitions is far more than enough." [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/COOPRED.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/COOPRED.TXT[/url] by Fr. William Most It gives quotes from the encyclicals that teach this. Edited January 28, 2005 by StColette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now