Return To Tradition points to Cardinal Victor Fernández, who no longer wants CoRedemptrix as one of the Marian titles. RTT considers this an insult to Our Lady. I consider that over-emotive. But we can look at the semantics around the title.
A paper can have one main author and several co-authors; usually this can be seen if the main author is out of alphabetic order. But it also can just have a gaggle of co-authors. OnePeterFive were earlier punting on the argument; now seem to be bringing past authorities.
In the Catholic (and, more so perhaps, the Orthodox) perception, we don't say that Jesus was a CoRedemptor. The focus remains upon Christ. As to why bring up Mary here: that's because she shared some of Christ's suffering.
... on the other hand, Judas wept too, in Matthew's Gospel. As did Peter, excepting in the Johannine tradition. Maybe the women who prepared his body for burial.
1 Peter argued, yes, for Christian grief and mourning to be taken on par with Christ's suffering. I have long promoted 1 Peter as essential for our canon (as opposed to, say, 2 Peter); I have prayed the Stations. But I do not see where any Apostolic text would extend that to Christ's death - and resurrection. Am I a co-redeemer for praying the Stations? subhânalmasîkh
And Saint Paul, that great apostle of the Resurrection, quoter of that hymn on the Incarnation for the Philippians, author of the "born of woman" creed - didn't bother with Mary's postpartum role.
Fernández sucks for several other reasons, some of which go to Mary's One Job as a woman. But once Mary had done that job, she became as any other female saint - or, really, as a male one, like Joseph.
Coredemptrix she is not. Fernández deserves credit for laying down the obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment