Mary

Check out link for full article.


Co-Redemptrix and Sola Fide: The Ecumenical Fortunes of Two Theological Controversies
by Philip Blosser


Three years after the ground-breaking initiative, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” or “ECT” (1994), another evangelical-Catholic joint statement, “The Gift of Salvation,” appeared in print for the first time last fall in Christianity Today (12/8/97). This happened within weeks of the hullabaloo sparked by Newsweek’s irresponsible feature speculating that the Pope was preparing to infallibly declare Mary co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces. The near coincidence of these two events got me thinking about the ecumenical concerns at issue in each of them. Both involve matters of intense sensitivity and concern to evangelical Protestants and Catholics, issues that evoke tenacious loyalties and have proven historically divisive—questions which ecumenically-minded members of both traditions are eager to see settled in interest of Christian unity. Both the question of justification and the question of Mary pose similar challenges and rewards to ecumenical progress and mutual understanding—and fates that could turn out to be as much alike as their concerns are different. “The Gift of Salvation” was seen as a necessary follow-up to ECT after it was determined (two years later in 1996) that further evangelical-Catholic rapprochement depended upon a firm agreement on the meaning of salvation, and especially justification. In many ways the statement is a remarkably ambitious undertaking, which aims to cut through to the basic essentials and resolve in a few short paragraphs the theological conflicts of several centuries. A key passage is one in which the authors define faith as “not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” This is immediately followed by the assertion: “We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).” The document quite naturally garners Protestant support, not only by its notable affirmation (for Catholics) of “sola fide,” but by clearly and repeatedly affirming the basic Reformation principle that justification, like salvation itself, is from first to last a work of God’s grace—an affirmation, by the way, that should surprise no one who recalls the Council of Trent’s own statement that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (session 6, ch. 8). Furthermore, the document recalls an observation made in the “Common Statement” that emerged from the joint Lutheran/Catholic dialogues on justification by faith (1978-83): “The Tridentine decree on justification, with its own way of insisting on the primacy of grace . . . is not necessarily incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, even though Trent excluded this phrase” (§ 56).

...

In short, a major problem with these Marian titles is that they scandalize most Protestants. Calling Mary “co-redemptrix” sounds as if Mary is being put on equal footing with Christ, usurping his exclusive title as Redeemer. Calling her “advocate” or “mediatrix” looks like a direct contradiction of the scripture that declares: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), or the one that says: “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 John 2:1). Never mind that no such confusion is intended by the Marian titles. Never mind that Jesus is never envisioned as a “co-redeemer” alongside Mary, since he alone is the Redeemer (and her Redeemer!), whereas she merely participates in his work to the extent that God allows his whole plan of redemption to hinge upon her willing cooperation. Never mind that none of these titles signifies more than a highly elevated sense of such cooperation as we, too, may exercise by participating in Christ’s redemptive work, by sharing in his ministry of healing, reconciliation, evangelism, and intercessory prayer, by leading others to Christ, by praying for them, serving as mediators of God’s grace in their lives as God’s “co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9). Despite all of this, the problem is that the Marian language remains confusing for the vast majority of Protestants. It simply sounds wrong to them, or at least confusing. And in light of the ecumenical progress made on various other fronts since the Second Vatican Council, the prospect of a dogmatic definition of the titles seems, as Fr. Neuhaus says, borrowing Cardinal Newman’s term, “inopportune.” By way of summary, the following may be noted. On the one hand, despite opposition, reputable Church leaders and groups of lay proponents have rallied in support of the proposed definition of Marian titles, often with considerable fervor. Even Catholic theologians who are opposed to it admit that a theological case can be made for the appropriateness of the titles. On the other hand, the proposal has provoked the opposition, not only of Protestants, but of Catholics, because of alleged ambiguities, possible confusions, and especially the “great ecumenical dismay” that the titles would engender because of their prima facie offensiveness to Protestants. With these observations in view, it will be instructive to revisit the question of justification, focusing particularly on the language of “faith alone” (sola fide) agreed upon in “The Gift of Salvation.”