Talk:Co-Redemptrix

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opponents

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Enoch and the BVM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quotes in Scripture

message: > 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non sequitur 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What exactly 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fatima century? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Co-Redemptrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630022939/http://www.blessedvirginmary.oneholycatholicchurch.com:80/DoctrinesoftheCatholicFaith/coredepmtrix/coredemptrix.html to http://www.blessedvirginmary.oneholycatholicchurch.com/DoctrinesoftheCatholicFaith/coredepmtrix/coredemptrix.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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 . 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposed move