The Catholic Message Board

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 5:34 pm There are two notes in which he is quoted: One is from the interview, but another is his notes after the CDF meeting.

Okay but neither of them were official but he is being quoted as if they were. I get it is just a “doctrinal note” which has little weight, but I think these kinds of documents should only quote magestrial documents, including the Denzinger number if one exists

It even quotes an off the cuff comment by Pope Francis, really grasping to justify the negative judgment

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 4:24 pm It even quotes an off-the-cuff comment by Pope Francis, really grasping to justify the negative judgment

This was a leftover from Francis, but I think Leo ordered it to be rewritten because it is not really a negative judgment at all, it spends 90% of the time developing an incredibly high Mariology, and even mentions that the term "Co-Redemptrix" has been used by Popes, it mentions John Paul II used it 7 times and cites one of the instances.

It gives a history of the term and its development, saying it mostly goes back to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and his reflections on Simeon's prophecy of the "sword" piercing Our Lady's heart to show that Mary suffered but consented to the crucifixion.

It cites several Church Fathers, including Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Origen, to show that the theology behind the title goes back a long way.

Then, it concludes that the titles "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all graces" can be interpreted in an orthodox way, but they shouldn't be used in such a way as to suggest that Christ is not our SOLE redeemer and SOLE mediator, it provides some explanation of the terms but concludes that they can be misleading so it best not to use them in contexts where they might cause scandal, and that the theology of these titles needs to be better developed.

This is a really mild statement; it affirms the theology but cautions against using terms that are prone to misunderstanding if used in the wrong context.

I have heard some evangelicals call this a "win" for them, but it isn't, though. There is a ton in it that few modern Protestants would accept (although Protestants from the 16th-18th centuries did), any Protestant thinking this is a win hasn't read it.

In my part of the world, media simply carried the headline "Mary is not the co-redeemer, says the Catholic Church".

Social media comments boxes had the usual unintelligent comments, mostly by Protestants and Muslims. "Finally, the Pope started reading the Bible", someone sent. Someone else commented whether the large Marian shrines are going to be closed down.

In real life, an old church lady went to ask a priest if she's still allowed to say the rosary. He calmly reassured her

Jack3 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:32 am In my part of the world, media simply carried the headline "Mary is not the co-redeemer, says the Catholic Church".

Social media comments boxes had the usual unintelligent comments, mostly by Protestants and Muslims. "Finally, the Pope started reading the Bible", someone sent. Someone else commented whether the large Marian shrines are going to be closed down.

In real life, an old church lady went to ask a priest if she's still allowed to say the rosary. He calmly reassured her

This points out the fact that the Pope is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". If the 'terms can be misleading' and it is 'better not to use them because they might cause scandal'. then not giving a better, more complete, definition of the terminology is equally 'misleading', and can cause 'scandal', simply because people, by and large, are truly "asleep at the wheel", and don't bother to find out the truth. They'd rather be spoonfed.

Jack3 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:32 am In my part of the world, media simply carried the headline "Mary is not the co-redeemer, says the Catholic Church".

Social media comments boxes had the usual unintelligent comments, mostly by Protestants and Muslims. "Finally, the Pope started reading the Bible", someone sent. Someone else commented whether the large Marian shrines are going to be closed down.

In real life, an old church lady went to ask a priest if she's still allowed to say the rosary. He calmly reassured her

The document doesn't say Mary is not a co-redemptrix, in fact it confirms that she is, there is nothing in this a Protestant can agree with, although their predecessors did and they should.

It is possible to find Protestant works written in France, Switzerland as late as 1673 affirming Mary’s sinlessness and her assumption

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:51 am This points out the fact that the Pope is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". If the 'terms can be misleading' and it is 'better not to use them because they might cause scandal'. then not giving a better, more complete, definition of the terminology is equally 'misleading', and can cause 'scandal', simply because people, by and large, are truly "asleep at the wheel", and don't bother to find out the truth. They'd rather be spoonfed.

No, actually the DDF could have said nothing in this case and left well enough alone.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:36 pm

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:51 am This points out the fact that the Pope is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". If the 'terms can be misleading' and it is 'better not to use them because they might cause scandal'. then not giving a better, more complete, definition of the terminology is equally 'misleading', and can cause 'scandal', simply because people, by and large, are truly "asleep at the wheel", and don't bother to find out the truth. They'd rather be spoonfed.

No, actually the DDF could have said nothing in this case and left well enough alone.

Have you read it? It doesn't sound like you have. It completely explains why it is being issued. For 30 years now, the Vatican has been receiving petitions from the faithful asking that the doctrines of Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces be dogmatically defined. After all this time and attention, some kind of public response to these petitions, which continue to flow in, is warranted.

John Paul II once made a vague statement that it was not the time for a dogmatic definition, while Benedict XVI and Francis were less favorable. Still, these were unofficial statements in the sense that they were either in response to questions during interviews or statements in speeches given during a public audience or another unofficial form of communication. But no official response has ever been given. An official response in the form of a "Doctrinal Note" is entirely appropriate and is, frankly, long overdue.

The answer to the petition is both "Yes and No", that is, "No, this dogma is not going to be proclaimed any time soon, because further theological development is required.

But it also a qualified yes, "Yes, you can use these titles provided that by them you mean.....several pages of explanation....and provided you don't use them in a context or in an audience that is not likely to be offended, confused or scandalized by them", so while it is probably not a good ideaa to use these titles in a liturgy intended for the general public, but in, say, the classroom in a class in theology at a Catholic university, sure, go ahead.

The titles are not banned, but a course of prudence is encouraged, and the theology underlying these titles is by and large endorsed.

People who favor these doctrines should regard this as a modest win, and not a loss.

further theological development is required.

Well, whose responsibility is this? If not the Pope and/or the CDC, then who? If a theologian were to write a thorough explanation, then the Vatican would have to weigh in on that. So, why not just do it yourself in the first place?! That's like saying, 'well I need to teach something, but I'm not going to do it'. Then just go in a corner, and zip it up. We don't want to hear from you.

anawim wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:44 am

further theological development is required.

Well, whose responsibility is this?

Generations of theologians, perhaps over the several centuries.

Was the doctrine of the Trinity defined in the year 200? Did only one person contribute to it?

anawim wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 3:44 am

further theological development is required.

Well, whose responsibility is this? If not the Pope and/or the CDC, then who?

It is definitely not the Pope's responsibility or the DDF's to "develop" anything.

Doom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:17 pm The titles are not banned, but a course of prudence is encouraged, and the theology underlying these titles is by and large endorsed.

Come now, I don't see how you can say "it doesn't seem like you've read it" and then say this - a lot more than prudence is encouraged around the title of Coredemptrix:

it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation

Now I don't think that's a "ban", but only because I don't think the DDF has the authority to ban a title used by several Popes.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 1:50 pm

Doom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:17 pm The titles are not banned, but a course of prudence is encouraged, and the theology underlying these titles is by and large endorsed.

Come now, I don't see how you can say "it doesn't seem like you've read it" and then say this - a lot more than prudence is encouraged around the title of Coredemptrix:

it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation

Now I don't think that's a "ban", but only because I don't think the DDF has the authority to ban a title used by several Popes.

The document literally says that the title can be used

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 7:04 pm

peregrinator wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 1:50 pm

Doom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:17 pm The titles are not banned, but a course of prudence is encouraged, and the theology underlying these titles is by and large endorsed.

Come now, I don't see how you can say "it doesn't seem like you've read it" and then say this - a lot more than prudence is encouraged around the title of Coredemptrix:

it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation

Now I don't think that's a "ban", but only because I don't think the DDF has the authority to ban a title used by several Popes.

The document literally says that the title can be used

Where?

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:51 am

Jack3 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:32 am In my part of the world, media simply carried the headline "Mary is not the co-redeemer, says the Catholic Church".

Social media comments boxes had the usual unintelligent comments, mostly by Protestants and Muslims. "Finally, the Pope started reading the Bible", someone sent. Someone else commented whether the large Marian shrines are going to be closed down.

In real life, an old church lady went to ask a priest if she's still allowed to say the rosary. He calmly reassured her

This points out the fact that the Pope is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". If the 'terms can be misleading' and it is 'better not to use them because they might cause scandal'. then not giving a better, more complete, definition of the terminology is equally 'misleading', and can cause 'scandal', simply because people, by and large, are truly "asleep at the wheel", and don't bother to find out the truth. They'd rather be spoonfed.

The document could have turned down the request, noted the issues, and asked for great caution and sensitivity to the use of the title without labelling it "always inappropriate".

Jack3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 7:24 am

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:51 am

Jack3 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:32 am In my part of the world, media simply carried the headline "Mary is not the co-redeemer, says the Catholic Church".

Social media comments boxes had the usual unintelligent comments, mostly by Protestants and Muslims. "Finally, the Pope started reading the Bible", someone sent. Someone else commented whether the large Marian shrines are going to be closed down.

In real life, an old church lady went to ask a priest if she's still allowed to say the rosary. He calmly reassured her

This points out the fact that the Pope is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". If the 'terms can be misleading' and it is 'better not to use them because they might cause scandal'. then not giving a better, more complete, definition of the terminology is equally 'misleading', and can cause 'scandal', simply because people, by and large, are truly "asleep at the wheel", and don't bother to find out the truth. They'd rather be spoonfed.

The document could have turned down the request, noted the issues, and asked for great caution and sensitivity to the use of the title without labelling it "always inappropriate".

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 7:04 pmThe document literally says that the title can be used

It doesn't.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:03 pm

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 7:04 pmThe document literally says that the title can be used

It doesn't.

It says it can be said when there is no possibility of misunderstanding. The Church cannot say that the title cannot be used without condemning multiple canonized saints as heretics.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 6:24 pm It says it can be said when there is no possibility of misunderstanding. The Church cannot say that the title cannot be used without condemning multiple canonized saints as heretics.

Quote the passage where it says what you've attributed to it.

It explicitly says that canonized saints have used the term, then mentions that Popes used it, and says that Saint John Paul II used it 7 times. How is this not approbation?

The bigger question is "Where does it say you can't use it"?