Jump to content

Talk:Co-Redemptrix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 12 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Saints}}, {{WikiProject Women}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Opponents

I requested a citation for Catholics who argue against this doctrine, as it would be interesting, and I think important, to know what kind of support this has in the Catholic Church. We know six million signed a petition for it; who's arguing against it? Of those, how many outright don't believe it, and how many are keeping it out of dogma on pragmatic grounds to appease Protestants and Orthodox Christians? --NZUlysses (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my statement about the blood of Mary not being redemptive because at no point in her divnine maturnity did she shed her blood as a normal mother would edited out? The statement is wholy within Catholic tradition. I am a doctoral candidate in historical theology at a Jesuit university and already have a degree in systamtic theology from a Jesuis pontifical seminary. The only points of view cited in this Wikidepia against this 'doctrine' are not theological, but practical, namely that it be politically correct in ecuementical relations with Protestants. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox theological opposition to this 'dogma' are cited. I cannot even find an actual theological explanation of this 'doctrine' What is it supposed to mean? It seems to be an additional title without actual theological content that some Catholics want to have formally applied to the Mother of God. I must protest that whoever is the final editer of this site has an undue persoanl bias for the formal propagation of a new Marian title and one without any clear theological content to justificy such an preopagation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.60.247 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well, it'd be helpful to distinguish the adherents into those who do so by adherance of the Amsterdam visions and those who don't, but follow a theology that may have developed within the first four decades of the 20th century.--84.154.86.97 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that Catholics over-emphasize the role of Mary? Declaring her to be Jesus' mother and venerating her as such is justifiable by tradition and practice, but to declare that ALL GRACES MUST be derived through her intercession is a bit blasphamous. God was around LONG before Mary, why would it be required for her to be involved when things functioned perfectly fine without her? Can not God do things without the Virgin being involved? Mary said she was the "Hand-Maiden of the Lord", His lowly servant, not His go between for humanity. Why, if God became incarnate, would we need to have a human female mediatrix, isn't having a God-Man enough? Mary is a human being, not the all powerful semi-divine demi-goddess virgin Catholicism has concocted. I personally believe that this idea, if pronounced Dogma, will be the death nell of Roman Catholicism, because no non-Catholic would ever buy it because it does deminish the role of Christ and the Crucifixion by giving some (although small) of the credit to Mary, something unheard of in the history of Christianity. Maybe this doctrine has more to do with dominating Italian mothers and the human mother-child relationship than it does with anything based in reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.60.247 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch and the BVM

I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. If this was the case, Enoch could almost be considered to be a Co-Redemptor too. [1] ADM (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although interesting, it is clearly original research and WP:OR disallows its use, even if it is 100% true. The missionsaintgermain site is not a reliable 3rd party type site either. But in any case, this is clearly a WP:OR situation. By the way, you posted this in 3 places. Usually it is best to post just in 1 place. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in Scripture

There are interesting quotes from Scripture that are used to argue in favour of this doctrine. These should probably be added. ADM (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that addition, but it is not clear how some of those relate to Co-Redemption, even from the ref site. Needs much more clarification please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur

> Any dogma would likely attempt to clarify Catholic teaching, that Mary's role is subordinate to and always dependent upon the essential and chief role of her Son.

Not exactly. Nowadays the strongest reasoning for Mary as Co-Redemptor is that original sin was taken on by man and woman (Adam and Eve) and thus cannot be removed but by man and woman acting together (Jesus and Mary).

Therefore Mary's role in redempting mankind is not inferior, just like the role of Eve in eating the apple of knowledge in the Garden of Eden was not inferior. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're redeemed by the Word Incarnate and his Passion and Resurrection, aren't we? Mary herself was redeemed by her Son with the specific grace of receiving the effect of redemption previously (at her very conception), wasn't she? How can you seriously say anyone including even the Blessed Virgin could anyhow be anything but inferior to the Word Incarnate in any respect to anything?? Further, you shouldn't be as quick to say "cannot". God can everything.

This also means that HE CAN do anything regardless of the Virgin. Hence no reason for her to be involved and certainly not for it to be considered dogma.

Btw I wouldn't be too sure to contribute to Adam and Eve equal parts in committing original sin. Paul attributes it to Adam without even mentioning Eve.--84.154.86.97 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC) And St. Thomas Aquinas says Eve sinned more in her person than Adam did, but Adam, and he alone, brought the sin physically to his descendants. Well we hopefully agree that Christ brought salvation to all mankind. But that shows that your parallel can't be drawn since if we believe from St. Thomas that the personal sin of Eve was bigger than Adam's, to state the reverse about the relation of Christ's (blessed be His Name) and His virgin mother's holiness would be an abomination. --217.189.254.116 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What exactly

is the unreliability of the source which I wanted to quote, being a partisan source and quoted as a partisan source, so that a reader might in a better way achieve to inform himself sufficiently? And, pardon me, even if the source is not the best, I should think a non-ideal source of this party is better than only sources of the other party. (Which is, in that case, the Diocesan Bishop of Harlem - "unsourced" in a technical sense but both well-known and, I should think, easy to source still via Internet. I also think, without checking, that the other internet pages which were in the article before November 3rd were almost all quite pro-dogmatisation and pro-Amsterdam. The respective IP's 217.189.254.116, 131.159.0.7, 84.154.83.72 have been myself.) If you want a personal standpoint, for clearness about what we are talking: I think that co-redemptrix is a pious and accurate title of the Blessed Virgin, that none of the papal teaching given by now was, though they were fallible, erroneous, and that this title suffers, instead of being fostered, by the dogmatisation proposal and the Amsterdam apparition. As seen in the previous form of the article. "if the Holy See approves of it" - the Holy See and a proposed Dogma and we speak of approving, just the same as the Holy See may approve of the English translation of the Roman Missal! What concerns this apparition, I can't personally help being convinced by the arguments given in the document I wanted to cite, and happily I'm no member of the Diocese of Harlem and, thus, not so strictly forced to take His Lordship their Bishop's saying as Church authority. What I would decide neither in the positive nor in the negative, is whether Bishop Punt's decision is, from a canonical standpoint, even so much as a decision, there apparently being a Roman decision declaring the matter closed. I can't help to speculate that maybe, besides the obvious reason of ecumenism, the apparition could have been another reason for Vatican II being silent on Coredemptrix and rather vague on Mediatrix. All that said in the sincere wish to obey to God, to the Church, especially but not restricted to the Holy See, and also to supernatural apparitions if indeed they are. [And if they command, by the way: I don't bind myself, herewith, to obey their counsels.] --77.4.91.211 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima century?

Possibly the Vatican may declare the Blessed Virgin Mary as official co-redemptrix, on the the occasion of Fatima's one hundredth anniversary of the visions in 2017-2018. 87.97.55.9 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Co-Redemptrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

As my Dutch is a bit rusty, I've no idea what term Ms. Peerdeman used, but I find reputable sources using the current term as translated. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Coredemptrix" is borrowed from the Latin language. The Latin root is "redemptio" with a "co" prefix and a "trix" suffix; these do not take hyphens in Latin. Sometimes in English it is stylistically rendered as "Co-redemptrix" or, less frequently, "Co-Redemptrix", in imitation of words like "co-pilot", but the original spelling is the unhyphenated form. In Italian, which is the closest modern descendant of Latin, the equivalent word is "Corredentrice". (Since you mentioned Dutch, the Dutch word is "Medeverlosseres".) Jdcompguy (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see some logic in the hyphenated form in English. As hyphenated words become more used in English, they lose the hyphen. Here, since the term has been rejected by the magisterium, it seems to me better to not sanction it as a usable title by removing the hyphen. Jzsj (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the presence or absence of a hyphen constitutes an endorsement or lack thereof. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, as terms become more accepted in English, they lose their hyphen (which is more typical of neologisms which people coin). Jzsj (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to lead trends in writing style. "Co-Redemptrix" is still the term used in the majority of publications today, as a simple Google search will show. So the hyphen should stay. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating, Jzsj. However, this isn't a case of a hyphen being removed; this is a case of a hyphen being added to what is originally a word constructed using ecclesial Latin. Since the word is Latin loaned to English, I think we should refrain from adding a hyphen in translation unless there's a pressing reason to do so. According to Google, "Coredemptrix" and "Co-Redemptrix" are used about an equal number of times. Because there is no clear winner among English renditions, the Wikipedia policy on loanword titles ("If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject") would seem to suggest that the Latin spelling should win out. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, Zenit, the National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, the Catholic News Agency, Kolbe's "Militia Immaculatae", the Paulist Fathers at "Busted Halo", The LA Times, Faber (1858) and the International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton all use Co-Redemptrix, as does Miravalle apparently [2]. As this is not the Latin wiki, the question is, how would a typical reader of English understand it. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, uses the unhyphenated form (source 1, source 2). Most of the sources you list, such as the National Catholic Reporter, Kolbe's Militia Immaculata, the LA Times, and the University of Dayton, use "Coredemptrix". My search through an academic journal database shows a clear preference for the unhyphenated form in academia (I'm not listing all the citations here, to conserve space, but I can if needed). The very subject of this article is about a title connected with the purported Lady of All Nations apparition, the official website for which spells it unhyphenated. I don't deny that there are sources out there that use the hyphenated form. But I'm saying that the original, "canonical" spelling is the unhyphenated one. Furthermore, as I and other contributors have pointed out, our use of the hyphenated form appears to be in violation of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA → Consistency (with Coadjutor bishop, a linguistically-similar Catholic term), WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:PRECISION (given problematic ambiguities with the hyphenated form), WP:UE ("follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject," which is Latin), and WP:LOWERCASE. Jdcompguy (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is nearly as much opposition as support for the move. Both titles are permissible and supported by some amount of evidence, so a stronger showing of consensus is required to change the status quo. bd2412 T 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Redemptrix → Coredemptrix – Cannot swap page with its redirect because redirect has two lines of edit history instead of one Jdcompguy (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Marian Research Institute at University of Dayton uses Co-Redemptrix, as does Catholic and secular media such as Zenit, National Catholic Reporter, and the LA Times. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources you list, such as the University of Dayton, the National Catholic Reporter, and the LA Times, use "Coredemptrix". Jdcompguy (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But see, Dayton [3], LA Times [4] and Miravalle himself [5]. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote... 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attempt to arrive at a consensus, including taking into account the views already expressed above. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and I am unsure how PluniaZ's comment aids in reaching such a consensus. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to specific, constructive criticism of the arguments I've put forward. Jdcompguy (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per the edit summary on the Main, "...used by Mariologist Dr. Mark Miravalle (who launched the contemporary petition for this title,". -but see, [6], -apparently his publisher doesn't. Mannanan51 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Among the web-accessible sources cited in the article, there are 4 sources that use "Coredemptrix," 2 that use "Co-Redemptrix," and 1 that uses "Co-redemptrix." There are multiple spellings in use, but our sources show a slight preference for the unhyphenated one. HotelAuditorium (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC). Addendum: I also went and checked the article body. The body mentions only one book on this topic, and it's entitled "Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate." The article body mentions one organization that has this title in its former name: "Congregation of the Mother Coredemptrix." We should be giving extra weight to books that are published with this word in the title, and organizations that have this word in their name. That's a total of 6 article-cited sources in favor of the proposed move vs. 2+1 against. As for the books cited in the references, I'm not able to check those. HotelAuditorium (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, as usual, web sources are less reliable than print ones. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of my observations was that the only book mentioned in the article that has this word in the title spells it "Coredemptrix". HotelAuditorium (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed the linked article, it is a very good point that a hyphen is only appropriate to add a prefix to an already-existing word (see what I did there?). Redemptrix is not a word (at least not in Catholic theology), ergo 'Co-Redemptrix' is at best misleading and at worst heretical. And since this is an article about Catholic theology, we should try to express that theology as accurately as possible.GrandMoffHoff (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
L'Osservatore Romano is in Italian, which doesn't hyphenate. Sources translated from Italian, often not supremely well, are somewhat weaker evidence than those by native English-speaking specialists. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an international newspaper with an English-language version. There's no reason to presume that a native English speaker would prefer the hyphen; I am a native English speaker, and "Co-Redemptrix" strikes me as a bad typo. (I don't mean that as an attack on anyone who uses it; it's just my native-speaker gut reaction. It's like seeing "co-erce" with a hyphen in it.) Jdcompguy (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Here is another example of the Vatican using the proposed spelling: vatican.va. Wikipedia is not meant to be a 'driving force' for change, it is an encyclopedia that strives for accuracy above all else. And as stated in my above response to NanoKahawa and the linked article by a Catholic Priest, Co-Redemptrix is a lazy Americanized rendering of the original Latin. Above all else, regardless of whether it is more or less accurate to the Latin source, it subtly implies that Jesus was a woman (Redemptrix), an implication which is diametrically at odds with all of Catholic theology.GrandMoffHoff (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME (see this ngram), also WP:LOWERCASE (since "Redemptrix" taken by itself isn't a proper noun in this context). Also cf. English Wiktionary: coredemption and coredemptrix. 217.156.208.226 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment current hits on google: "Co" 114,000 cf. "Core" 103,000. Since the entire controversy revolves around the prefix "Co", I wonder if some of the use of "Coredemptrix is less about grammar than a subtle approach of proponents to make it less "in your face". Mannanan51 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak to the motivations of all those who prefer one form over the other, but I can speak to my own. I'm a native English speaker with a passion for grammar. I was familiar with the concept of "Coredemptrix" but had only seen it spelled "Coredemptrix" or occasionally "Co-redemptrix." This Wikipedia article was the first time I had ever seen it spelled "Co-Redemptrix" with both the hyphen and the capital R. Since I happen to know Latin and the etymology behind "Coredemptrix," seeing this article spell it "Co-Redemptrix" was akin to seeing a Wikipedia article titled Co-Ercion, Co-Herence, or Co-Pious. (If I ever saw an error like that, I wouldn't hesitate to submit a technical move request -- as I did with this article, because I honestly thought the proposed move would be non-controversial.) All of these words, and many others like them, including Coredemptrix, are Latin-derived words, built with "co", that made their way into English. In all of these cases, "co" serves as an etymological component, not a functional prefix. As other contributors pointed out, using it as a prefix, as in "Co-Redemptrix," makes it look like there's a "Redemptrix" (i.e. female Jesus) -- just like changing a Latinate word like "coherence" to be spelled "Co-Herence" makes it look like there's something called a Herence. Thanks to our discussion here, I am now aware that there are a few reputable sources that actually spell it "Co-Redemptrix." But the reputable sources that spell it with both the hyphen and the capital R are in the minority compared to those that spell it "Coredemptrix" or "Co-redemptrix." And among scholarly sources, "Coredemptrix" seems to be a clear winner, probably because theological scholars are more likely to know Latin and understand etymology. Again, I can't speak to everyone's motivations, but my motivation is grammatical. This is the English Wikipedia, so we should be using good English. In the English language, we would use "Co-Redemptrix" only if there was a "Redemptrix," and in this case there's not. This is why I say: follow English-language conventions and spell it "Coredemptrix" just like all the other hundreds of English words which also have "co" in their etymologies, particularly other Catholic words like Coadjutor bishop and Concelebration. Jdcompguy (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jdcompguy, I would say you handled that ad-hominem remark very well. As for the cited google hits statistic, a 52.5-47.5% split hardly represents a significant majority, and in fact is so close to even that it perfectly demonstrates the need for this discussion in the first place. GrandMoffHoff (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Co-Redemptrix&oldid=1206727602"