Just came across this, does Ad Caeli Reginam go so far as Co-Redeemer?

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... orknum=202

Thoughts anyone?

I am not up to plowing through Fr. Most at the moment, but it is fairly well settled that Mary is in some sense a co-redemptrix.

I see, thanks for the quick reply!

Popes have called Mary a 'co-redeemer' at least 5 times in the 20th century, the first time was by Pope Benedict XV, most recent was John Paul II, who used the term on several occasions.

here's a link with some great info and history of popes using the term

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2011/ ... l-nations/

Although obviously not in the same strength as our Blessed Mother, are we not all co-redeemers when we offer up our prayers and sacrifices for the Body of Christ on earth....the Church?

Mary as co-redemtrix is a little more complicated than that....

How so?

Mary's role is unique

Oh definitely her role is unique!!! Very much so. Thanks be to the Lord!

Has this been declared dogmatically?

Not as such, but the Magisterium (not to mention the teaching of the Fathers and theologians) is pretty consistent on the uniqueness of Mary's role in salvation history as New Eve and Mother of God.

There are some issues to be cleared up, such as how Mary participates in her own redemption. But the general concept is close to certain.

No, but there is a movement by Mark Miravalle to encourage such a definition. Even though he was sympathetic to the idea, John Paul II put the kibosh on the idea of a dogmatic definition back in the late 90's, with the CDF issuing a statement that a lot of theological development still had to be done with the idea before it could be dogmatized. John Paul II called Mary 'co-redemptrix' at least 5 times, all 5 occasions were informal speeches or sermons, usually given to audiences that he knew would not misinterpret him, he carefully avoided the word in his formal writings where he exercised his authority as Pope.

At Vatican II, there were some who called for a dogmatic definition, but the council instead used the less controversial title 'Mediatrix', this was the first major use of the term 'Mediatrix' by the Church, but the council stopped short of making a formal definition.

This isn't true. May 31 used to be the feast of Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces (before it became the feast of Our Lady's Queenship which was before it became the feast of Our Lady's Visitation).

The feast of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces was never on the universal calendar but was approved only in Belgium, and was approved there only because the Belgians specifically asked for it.

Edited to add: And at the same time that the optional, regional feast of Mary Mediatrix of all Graces was created, several alternative feasts for the same date were added, including the Feast of Mary Queen of All Saints, and The Feast of Mary Queen of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I really don't think it is valid to suggest that a creation of an optional, regional feast in honor of some titles is on quite the same level as a usage of a title by an ecumenical council.

I must admit Mary dogmatically defined as co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix would have been major stumbling blocks for me when I was converting.

Even now the idea makes me uneasy. However I yield to the Church in this matter (as I do all things)....

Maybe remembering "co" does not necessarily mean equal but only with would help. Co-pilot is an example. Certainly Mary's yes was an important part of the Incarnation.

"Co-producer" is another good example. The producer gets the big bucks. The co-producer helps the producer do his job.

Kinda like my co-mowing dude, or those who used to sing back-ups for me?