www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix ?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Erik,
I admire your interest in determining which is the True Church.

You wrote "My difficulties with Orthodoxy would be that they have no central unity, can't seem to hold an ecumenical council, have no universal teaching on things like organ donation, and has nobody that *really* speaks for Orthodoxy."

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not as legalistic as the Latin Church is and therefore the need to heavily define theology through dogmas promulgated to meet local challenges to the church are not handled by ecumenical councils but rather by local councils. The dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which are generally seen as Christological and Trinitarian in basis, were devloped during the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

The Theology of the West and the Theology of the East, although in the family, have not developed together and thus there are differences between the two. The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary Theotokos is one of these areas. To the Orthodox East, our sacred hymns, Kontakia, Tropars, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers are clear and have not had to be supplemented by additional dogams beyond the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Modern Latin Church scholars have noted that at times new teachings and dogmas have complicated the pristine nature of the dogmas of the universal church. For this reason, I see little reason that the Orthodox Churches of the East will endorse further unnecessary dogmas pertaining to the Role of the Theotokos as Co-Redemptress and Mediatrix.

You are correct on the point that the Orthodox East has not yet developed the common response to issues like organ donation or other "modern" social issues. These issues are not universal in nature and not necessary to one's salvation and so would be seen as local (national) issues.

When new issues (social or doctrinally)confront the Orthodox East the following is a pattern followed by canonical orthodoxy that I have seen used over the past century to some avail:
1)A study of the Church Fathers are made to determine if there is a doctrinal response according to the Fathers, Holy Tradition, or Scripture. If not then...
2) The Synod of Bishops for the Local (National) Church makes a determination on the stand of the Orthodox Church on the issue... If the issue is seen as a greater issue, of Doctrinal (read that as necessary to the Salvation of humankind)nature impacting the universal church then...
3) The Ecumenical Patriarch in conjunction with the other Patriarchs calls a Pan-Orthodox Council (this has been done once in the 20th Century and has been proposed but not agreed to for this Century yet)---this council deals with issues facing the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. It is a counciliar council where all Bishops and Patriarchs sit as equals as they did in the
days of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Emperor.

You are right there is no single person who speaks for the Orthodox Church, rather it is the Holy Spirit who inspires the Bishops of the Church through His Holy influence to speak as one at these councils and in their synods.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited 07-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited 07-03-2001).]

As quoted above:

"The invocation "Most Holy Theotokos save us" is the gem of Byzantine Church devotion to our Lady. Of course, we ask Her to save us with Her intercession."

But the intercession is not primarily for our universal salvation, but in many ways rather for salvation in the context of our daily troubles. We know, firmly and without question, that Christ redeemed us in the perspective of our relation to God, the Father. But when the craziness envelops us, we call upon the Mother-of-God to help us out.

Further: "But she alone among the saints is addressed this way and it is probably closest to what the Western Co-Redemptrix proposal contains."

Not sure about this. The Mother-of-God is there as a fellow human being who has the power to both intercede with her Son and through her own powers to help rectify the aberrations of our human life.

When one truly understands the idea of 'communion of saints [=holy ones]' as the structure of the Church, then we are not in danger of putting the Theotokos in an uncalled-for status. But we are more than legitimized in praying: "Most Holy Mother of God: SAVE US!" While we KNOW for a certainty that Christ has given us salvation, the holy Mother-of-God can save us from the craziness that besets us in our pilgrimage to the Father.

And, to make a parallel to her role as Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, we both should and must call upon her as our helper.

She's not "co-redemptrix", paralleling the work of Christ; rather, she's the instrument for us to overcome the lunacy of our day to day life. And we would be loathe to reject her presence as the facilitator of our salvation. But this is her role. None other.

Blessings!



[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 07-03-2001).]

Thomas,

Your post was very well written. I was unaware that the Orthodox have even actually had a pan-Orthodox council. I know it may sound like I am hostile to the Orthodox, but that is not the case. I would prefer to be Orthodox but more than that want to follow the truth.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not as legalistic as the Latin Church is and therefore the need to heavily define theology through dogmas promulgated to meet local challenges to the church are not handled by ecumenical councils but rather by local councils. The dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which are generally seen as Christological and Trinitarian in basis, were devloped during the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I understand that the West wants/needs more precision than the East. And I know that Orthodox can & do hold local councils to handle local issues. Let me elaborate on my point, though.
1. Many, many, many Orthodox priests, clergy, and laity have told me that frankly they do not think that the Orthodox church could hold another Ecumenical Council no matter what the problem was - even if universal & seriously impacting people's salvation. And as I see no vehicle for such a council to happen then I tend to agree with them. Because they lack unity they don't even have a clear way of knowing who *is* Orthodox. The term "canonical" is very unclear - who gets to judge whether any Orthodox group is "canonical"? In the CAtholic church that would be the Pope - but in the Orthodox? There is no such person.

2. Teaching universally: let me give you a practical example. Before the 1960s the entire Orthodox church taught that contraception was a sin - they, as all christian churches did before the 1930s, banned it wholesale. Additionally there are quotes from the Fathers to this effect and none (to my knowledge) to the contrary. Yet in Orthodox writings in the 60s - 90s there is a very obvious and evident creep to what is the predominant position among the "canonical" (whatever that means exactly) groups: contraception is allowed for a married couple with the permission of their priest, if not done for selfish reasons, and is not abortifacient. According to past teaching this was a grave sin - now it's not a sin at all. If I were to become Orthodox it is a very real issue for me to know if I am sinning or not by contracepting with my wife! Yet because Orthodoxy has no (and can have none apart from an ecumenical council which they don't think they can hold...) universal teaching authority I would not be able to get such an answer - and 2 Orthodox priests have told me so.

To the Orthodox East, our sacred hymns, Kontakia, Tropars, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers are clear and have not had to be supplemented by additional dogams beyond the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Could they hold another council? Most of the Orthodox that I know don't think so. If not why not? This doesn't sound like the church in Acts 15 to me which met and declared the truth on the doctrinal issue at hand. Also, the Orthodox think that they can't know whether an ecumenical council is ecumenical until it's "generally received" by the whole church (including laity) which takes decades if not hundreds of years. So even if they did manage to get together to hold an ecumenical council to solve a serious problem then it's decrees would not be binding for hundreds of years because that's how long it would take for it to be "generally received". This is most odd.

Modern Latin Church scholars have noted that at times new teachings and dogmas have complicated the pristine nature of the dogmas of the universal church.

In general I totally agree.

You are correct on the point that the Orthodox East has not yet developed the common response to issues like organ donation or other "modern" social issues. These issues are not universal in nature and not necessary to one's salvation and so would be seen as local (national) issues.

Even if they were universal issues how would the Orthodox church deal with them? How could they hold an ecumenical council? Who's authorized to call one? Since they lack central unity and admit they don't really know for sure who which groups are actually Orthodox (this has been admitted to me any number of times by priests and laity) then who would they invite? And how would the council's decisions be of any effect regarding the problem at hand since it would take generations for it to be "generally received"?

When new issues (social or doctrinally)confront the Orthodox East the following is a pattern followed by canonical orthodoxy that I have seen used over the past century to some avail:
1)A study of the Church Fathers are made to determine if there is a doctrinal response according to the Fathers, Holy Tradition, or Scripture. If not then...
2) The Synod of Bishops for the Local (National) Church makes a determination on the stand of the Orthodox Church on the issue... If the issue is seen as a greater issue, of Doctrinal (read that as necessary to the Salvation of humankind)nature impacting the universal church then...
3) The Ecumenical Patriarch in conjunction with the other Patriarchs calls a Pan-Orthodox Council (this has been done once in the 20th Century and has been proposed but not agreed to for this Century yet)---this council deals with issues facing the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. It is a counciliar council where all Bishops and Patriarchs sit as equals as they did in the days of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Emperor.

You are right there is no single person who speaks for the Orthodox Church, rather it is the Holy Spirit who inspires the Bishops of the Church through His Holy influence to speak as one at these councils and in their synods.

Yes, but could they hold an *ecumenical* council? Who would they invite? How do they know who which groups/bishops are actually Orthodox and should attend? The Orthodox priests, clergy, and laity with whom I have dialogued openly admit they don't know.

[This message has been edited by Eric, the Inquirer (edited 07-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Eric, the Inquirer (edited 07-04-2001).]

Dr. John,

Thanks for your reply. But I'm not convinced, yet, that what you're saying is the Catholic position. I wish that it were, but things point to the opposite.

For instance, the whole idea of redemptive suffering in the sense that one can offer their suffering up to the Jesus. I thought the Catholic teaching on this was that Jesus will combine one's sufferings with those of His on the cross (which were atoning for people's sins) and thus you are literally helping to atone for the sins of the world.
This is what is meant by "offering up your suffering for the salvation of the world".

I have read Catholic literature that said that since Mary was at the cross with Jesus... and because her heart was "united" in a "perfect" way with His then she suffered greatly, too which makes her sufferings offered up for the world (and working with Jesus' right there on the cross) much greater than the rest of our sufferings... which is how she gets labeled co-redeemer in the sense of being like a co-pay for medicines (much less than the full payment).

All this talk of her heart being "perfectly united with His"... therefore she suffered, too... sounds like a back-door way for her to have somehow atoned for my sin by her own suffering being redemptive!

I have no problem with the idea that Mary is the co-redeemer or mediatrix of all graces in a general way - but the Catholic church seems to be claiming more particular things like I mentioned above.

Ref. mediatrix of all graces: respectfully I have seen/read enough Catholic literature to think the Catholic church is literally claiming that every bit of grace that may come to me today will be channelled through Mary first - though she is not in a position control that flow - she is just a conduit.

Mediatrix of all graces in the sense that all grace is funnelled through Mary even at the very minute: Let me offer an example of why I am saying the Catholic church teaches this. The following are excerpts taken from an article at EWTN
[http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/MARYA4.HTM] - an outfit that (IMHO) is an excellent Catholic outfit that seeks to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic church. The article is by Fr. William G. Most who was a noted Catholic apologist that was (I think) very well known and respected.

I apologize in advance for the length of the post, but I felt that I needed to provide the Papal quotes as evidence for what I'm saying - that the Catholic church teaches that every bit of grace comes through Mary even today) before it gets to me. That God will not send *any* grace to me without it being funnelled through Mary. And that people cannot come to Jesus without going through Mary.

This is NOT an attack - I am seeking... and open to correction or other opinion.
*********

The term Mediatrix in itself could refer to either the objective redemption (the once-for-all earning a title to grace for all men), to the subjective redemption (the distribution of this grace to individual men), or to both. It is most usual to use it to refer only to subjective redemption, i.e. , the process of giving out the fruits of the objective redemption, throughout all centuries. We must consider whether or not the term Mediatrix applies to all graces or only to some. We will ask also about the nature of the mediation: is it only by way of intercession, that is, does Mary simply pray to her Son that he may give us grace, or does God also use her as an instrument in distributing grace.

To begin, we can say without doubt that the title "Mediatrix" is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said: " ... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace...For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix."

We notice that Vatican II did not add the words "of all graces." However, as many papal texts point out, Mary's role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima.

Leo XIII, in the text referred to, spoke of her, as we saw above, as having "practically limitless power." St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the "neck" connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said "Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion." These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible. {Eric's note: that would be the general magisterium of the church he's appealing to.}

Protestants object to this , saying that there is only one mediator: 1 Tim 2:5. We agree that there are many ways in which Christ is the only mediator between God and man. 1) There is only one mediator who is such by very nature, being both true God and true man. 2) There is only one mediator whose whose work is necessary, without whom, in God's plan, there could be no salvation. 3) There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary differs on all three counts. 1) Mary only a creature, but it was appropriate that God be freely choose her as Mediatrix because he had made her Mother of the God-man, the Redeemer--it was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God's plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord. 2) Her role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore. 3) Her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son, and hence we are not contradicting Lumen gentium # 62 which says no creature can be ever counted together with Him.

Really, the Father did not need her at all,� Yet, if we recall the economy of redemption, it is clear that the Father wants everything to be as rich as possible, so that He will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done.

So we answer, since Mary was associated with her Son in acquiring grace for us, she will also share with him in distributing that grace to us. This fits well with the words of the Popes, who call her the administra of grace, meaning that she administers or dispenses it. So Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, said:

"... when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : 'Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.'"

Church Teaching on Mary as Mediatrix of (All) Graces
Compiled by Fr. William G. Most

1) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Supremi Apostolatus officio. Sept 1, 1883. ASS 16, 1883. 1113.

We judge nothing more powerful and better for this purpose than by religion and devotion to deserve well of the great Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, who is the treasurer [sequestra] of our peace with God, and the mediatrix [administra] of graces....

2) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Superiore anno, August 30, 1884. ASS 17, 1884. 49.

... may He hear the prayers of those who beseech through her, whom He Himself willed to be the mediatrix [administram] of graces.

3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.

... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' [Jn 1.17]--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.
[Eric: Mary is a new mediator?]


5) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Adiutricem populi, Sept 5, 1895, ASS 28, 1895, 130.

For thereupon, by divine plan, she so began to watch over the Church, so to be near and to favor us as a Mother, that she who had been the minister [administra] of the mystery of human redemption, was equally the minister [administra] of the grace to be given from it for all time, practically immeasurable power being given to her.

9) St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, AAS 36, 1904. 453-54.

Hence that never dissociated manner of life and labors of the Mother and the Son... . there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, not merely occupied in looking at the dreadful sight, but even rejoicing that 'her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so did she suffer, with Him, that if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent' [St. Bonaventure I. Sent. d, 48, ad Litt. dub. 4]. Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she 'merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world' [Eadmer, De Excellentia Virginis Mariae, 9] and therefore Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His Death and by His Blood.... But Mary as St. Bernard fittingly remarks [De Aquaeductu 4] is the 'channel' or, even, the neck, through which the body is joined to the head, and likewise through which the head exerts its power and strength on the body. 'For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body.' [St. Bernardine of Siena, Quadrag. De Evangelio aeterno, Sermo X, a. 3. c. 3.]

10) St. Pius X, Litterae Apostolicae, August 27, 1910, AAS 2, 1910, 901.

We, to whom nothing is dearer than that the devotion of the faithful towards the Virgin of Lourdes, the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces, be more and more increased, think we should gladly assent to these wishes.

11) Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182.

... the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother's rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. [Eric:!!!] But if for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin, everyone can see that a holy death should be expected from her, since it is precisely by this gift that the work of the Redemption is effectively and permanently completed in each one ... further, there is a most constant belief among the faithful, proved by long experience, that as many as employ the same Virgin as Patron, will not at all perish forever.


13) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14, 1922 186.

She, the Virgin Mother, [is] the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.

14) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Exstat in civitate, Feb. 1, 1924, AAS 16 1924, 152.

It is clear that many Roman Pontiffs ... have stirred up devotion among the nations to the most clement Mother, the Virgin Mary, the Consoler of the afflicted, and the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.

15) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Cognitum sane, Jan 14, 1926, AAS 18, 1926, 213.

We, to whom nothing is dearer than that the devotion of the Christian people be aroused more and more towards the Virgin who is the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God, think we should grant these wishes.

16) Pius XI, Encyclical, Ingravescentibus malis, Sept 29, 1937, AAS 29, 1927, 380.

... we know also that all things are imparted to us from God the Greatest and Best, through the hands of the Mother of God.




[This message has been edited by Eric, the Inquirer (edited 07-04-2001).]

Dear Dr. John,

I understand and appreciate your teaching and your elucidation of Church teaching on this subject.

I don't know what the difference between "universal salvation" and the salvation for "daily troubles" is, although I have an idea.

Our Byzantine liturgy, especially our Horological tradition, celebrates the Mother of God Incarnate in direct relation to the salvific work of Christ - and how can it be otherwise?

She prays for the Body of Christ and has a direct relation to that Body which is the Church, just as She does to Christ Himself as His Mother. That I'm taking directly from John Meyendorff.

Of course, she prays for the universal salvation of all Christians!

And she protects us from the craziness of our daily troubles, as does Christ as well.

Neither am I suggesting that what is entailed in the "Co-Redemptrix" proposed doctrine is exactly contained in Byzantine theology - that would be a stretch.

But we are all called to be mirrors of Christ and to minister His salvation to others (Alter Christus).

That does not take away from the Salvation of Christ or from His Priesthood. It is His Will that we participate in both and mediate His love and His message to the world.

Isn't that what you do each time you post here?

Are you not yourself exercising your Royal Priesthood in your work, your sacrifices and your teaching?

Alex

Dear Eric,

Thank you for sharing your wealth of study on this important subject.

Traditional Orthodox theology on the Most Holy Mother of God and its horological tradition agree with what you have said and with the quotes from the theologians and popes you have presented.

All this flows as a natural extension from the theology of the Incarnation of Christ our God.

It doesn't obfuscate the role of Christ in our Salvation, but clarifies it and our own call to deep holiness through union with Christ through His Mother.

Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Alex

Mary as co-redemptrix: from an article at EWTN by Fr. Most[http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/teachframes.htm]. Fr. Most shows how the Catholic church started with an understanding of Mary having a role in salvation history by her "yes" to God at the annunciation to a cooperation with God at Calvary (of what salvific effect is this?) then expanded that to her becoming a co-redeemer by offering her Son as a sacrifice and offering her own sufferings.

This is lengthy for which I apologize in advance. But I needed to give substantiation for what I am saying: I think the Catholic church is teaching that Mary is *really* a co-redeemer - that she did a work at the cross that earned salvation. Please read the text below and comment specifically. Fr. Most is not an isolated individual along these lines - other church documents and quotes could readily be given. So many as to show this understanding of Mary is official church teaching vis-a-vis the general magisterium?
************

First, we want to notice that in the very earliest Fathers of the Church, such as St. Justin Martyr (c. 145-150), we find the New Eve doctrine, i.e., that just as the first Eve really contributed to the damage of original sin, so Mary, the New Eve, really contributed to removing it. They had in mind her obedient acceptance, in faith, to be the Mother of the Messiah. [Eric: sounds orthodox to me.]

But today the Church has considerably developed that early teaching. We quote a very official text, the Constitution on the Church of Vatican II, P61: "... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls." This same doctrine is found in every Pope from Leo XIII up to and including John Paul II.
So Vatican II was merely restating a repeated teaching.

St. Irenaeus (late 2nd century): "By obeying, she became a cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."..."Thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary." [Eric: this could be understood in an orthodox way though we seem to be building steam towards going in a different direction...]

...at the Annunciation, she was asked to consent, in faith, to be the Mother of the Messiah. What was her reaction [at Calvary]? Of course, she grieved, as any Mother would, seeing her Son suffering so horribly... But now we can begin to realize something tremendous. [Eric: here comes the move towards her "work" at the cross, etc...] ...She knew from Isaiah 53:10: "It was the will of the Lord to crush Him with pain." So the Father willed that His Son should die, die then, die so horribly. So did the Son will it. So she was then called upon to will what the Father willed, what her Son willed, in other words, she was called on to will positively that He die, die then, die horribly. [Eric: of course her willing His death is of no salvific effect but that is the case he's making!]
...So the New Covenant would have again as its essential condition obedience [which he's claiming Mary performed for us? sounds spooky to me], which Jeremiah expressed by speaking of a law written on hearts...What did that law of the Father, written on her heart call for? It called for what we have just said: That she positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. In that, she was joining in the fulfillment of the Covenant condition. He, in Gethsemani, had said: "If it be possible, let this chalice pass ... but nonetheless, not what I will, but what you will." In other words, He obeyed....So it was obedience that was the covenant condition, it was that which gave the value to His death. [Eric: and because Mary obeyed she is somehow doing a work at the cross, too?]

To look at the same reality from a different perspective, His death was a sacrifice... Jesus did offer His sacrifice in obedience. So just as obedience is the covenant condition, so too, it is that without which His sacrifice would be as worthless as those of which God complained through Isaiah.

From a third perspective, the redemption was an act of reparation to make up for sin. Since sin is disobedience of God's will, it was, once again, Christ's obedience which gave his death value to make up for sin. But we return to Our Lady. At the annunciation, she obeyed, she said her fiat. She knew too much for comfort even then, of what that entailed, as we explained above. But now in the blackness of Calvary, she was called on to continue to obey the will of the Father. That she did. But then, she knew that will of the Father, knew it all too well. It was that He should die then, die horribly. So what she had to do...was to will what He willed, to will the terrible death of her Son. ...at the start, she obeyed in saying her fiat, as St. Luke tells us. At the Cross, as any soul that loves the will of the Father must do, she had to continue her fiat, to continue to obey. Isaiah 53 had said that, "by His stripes we are healed", that, "it was the will of the Lord to crush Him in pain." Even the Targum knew Isaiah spoke of the Messiah, although in the stiff-necks of many, the message was even inverted. But she was not such, she understood, and yet she did not take back her fiat, she obeyed the will of the Lord. That obedience of hers was a joining in the essential condition of the New Covenant, it was a joining in the necessary interior of His sacrifice.
Her love of Him would multiply the difficulty. It was the love of the best of Mothers for the best of Sons, a Son whom she understood as no other person could. We cannot really calculate the terrible difficulty of her obedience, going counter to such love.
Would the Father accept her obedience as part of the covenant obedience? In the old covenant, He accepted the obedience of even very ordinary, sinful people--how much more hers! He put her in such straits, call on her to obey when it was so incredibly hard, and then not accept her obedience as part of the covenant condition even as He had accepted the obedience of very ordinary, sinful people, as we said, in the old covenant.
He could have redeemed us with something immeasurably less painful--the mere fact of the incarnation, even without so much as a short prayer added, would have been superabundant. Yet in His love of all goodness, in His love of us, He would not stop short when there was any way to make it all richer. It was in that attitude that He called for the death of His Son, that He called for her immeasurably difficult obedience.
So, Vatican II in its teaching, merely unfolded, by pondering in hearts, what the Scripture contains, and what the Church over the course of the centuries has gradually come to understand: "In suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior"--in the essential requirement of the New Covenant, in the essential interior of the Great Sacrifice--"by obedience, faith, hope and burning love."

Objection
Now about the objection that since she had to be redeemed, she could not cooperate in the redemption, which would include her own redemption, we have two replies:
1) the Magisterium has taught repeatedly, so often as to constitute an infallible teaching, that she did so cooperate. We see in the collection of papal teachings how precise and clear this teaching is. It cannot be taken as something merely loose or vague, especially since LG ## 56, 61 had said three times that she shared by obedience, the covenant condition, and that which gave its value even to His sacrifice. Pius XII, in the constitution solemnly defining the assumption, had even gone so far as to speak of her role on Calvary as a work "in common" with Him. 2) We have said that one major aspect of the redemption is that it is a new covenant. Two comments on that:
c) "Vult hoc esse propter hoc, sed non propter hoc vult hoc. That is: God in His love of good order, of all that is right, loves to have one thing in place to serve as a reason or title for giving the second thing, even though that title does not at all move Him. Again, we must not forget that He cannot be moved, and needed not to be moved to love us.
When we finally grasp this perspective, when we realize that even the merits of His Son did not move the Father, who did not need to be moved, who could not be moved, but who made a setup suited to His own purpose--we already saw that that purpose entailed two things: His desire to fully satisfy everything that was right, i.e. , to rebalance the scales of the objective order, and, secondly to provide a means of giving to us, of making us open to receive.
Within, then, such a framework, with such an attitude on the part of Our Father, if He, the supreme master who makes the covenant, wants to set whatever condition it pleases Him to set, then if any human, even if it were a mere, an ordinary human [i.e., Mary], if that human fulfills the covenant condition [what?!], then the human is providing the Father with a reason for giving [so God wanted Mary to give Him a reason for giving the redemption? considerable development indeed...], which the Father did not need, but yet willed for the two reasons just reviewed. So if Our Lady joins in the condition set by the Father, there is no problem at all: she is meeting the condition which His excessive generosity liked to set, as a means of giving us abundant life.

Now that all graces have been earned, once for all (cf. Hebrews 9:29), is there further role for Our Lady? The mere fact that she shared in earning all graces [Eric: this is my point! Catholic church means co-redeemer in that she is co-atoning or co-earning our forgiveness!] --for Calvary did not earn just some graces, but all graces--would all by itself warrant our calling her the Mediatrix of all graces. Most.

Church Teaching on Mary's Cooperation in the Redemption of Mankind
Compiled by Fr. William Most

1. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Iucunda Semper, Sept 8, 1884. ASS 27. 178.
For when she presented herself to God as a handmaid for the role of Mother, or when she totally dedicated herself with her Son in the temple, from each of these she was already then a sharer in the laborious expiation for the human race. Hence we cannot doubt that she greatly grieved in soul in the most harsh anguishes and torments of her Son. Further, that divine sacrifice had to be completed with her present and looking on [Eric: had to be?! Seems to be making a lot of her role at Calvary], for which she had generously nourished the victim from herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother ... of her own accord she offered her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, [Eric: here it is again! She did a work at Calvary that helped earn salvation. Sounds like a little mini-saviour to me!] transfixed with the sword of sorrow.

2. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Adiutricem populi, Sept. 5, 1895. ASS 28. 130-31.
For thereafter, by the divine plan, she so began to watch over the Church, so to be present to us and to favor us as Mother, that she who had been the minister of accomplishing the mystery of human redemption, would be likewise the minister of the dispensation of that grace, [Eric: i.e., mediatrix of all graces - graces pass through her directly even today when they come to us] practically limitless power being given to her.

3. St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, ASS 36. 453-55.
Hence that never disassociated manner of life and labors [Eric: do you see how they build their case for this?].... But when the final hour of her Son came, His Mother stood by the cross of Jesus, not just occupied in seeing the dread spectacle, but actually rejoicing that her Only-Begotten was being offered for the salvation of the human race. ... from this common sharing of sufferings and will, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and so the dispensatrix of all the gifts which were gained for us by the death and blood of Jesus. ... She ... since she was ahead of all in holiness and union with Christ, and was taken up by Christ into the work of human salvation, she merited congruously, as they say, what Christ merited condignly, and is the chief minister of the dispensation of graces.

4. Benedict XV, Epistle, Admodum probatur, June 20, 1917. AAS 10. 182.
With her suffering and dying Son she suffered and almost died, so did she surrender her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of human beings, and to appease the justice of God, so far as pertained to her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be rightly said, that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race. [Eric: BINGO! That's what I'm saying. By co-redemptrix they mean EXACTLY that!]

5. Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Explorata res est. Feb. 2, 1923. AAS 15. 104.
... the sorrowful Virgin shared in the work of redemption with Jesus Christ....

6. Pius XI, Encyclical, Miserentissimus Redemptor, May 8, 1928. AAS 20. 178.
May the kindly Virgin Mother of God be present and smile on these our prayers and undertakings, who, since she brought forth Jesus the Redeemer, fed Him, offered Him as a victim at the cross, by her hidden union with Christ [Eric: what union other than a mother and child?], and an altogether singular grace from Him, was likewise the Reparatrix, and is devoutly called that.
[Eric: sounds like she's being made into some sort of high priestess?]

8. Pius XII, Encyclical, On the Mystical Body, June 29, 1943. AAS 35. 247.
She it was who, as the New Eve, free from every stain of original or personal sin, always most closely joined with her Son, offered Him to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her motherly rights and motherly love [Eric: so? does that save?], for all the sons of Adam, defiled by his miserable fall.

9. Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima, May13, 1946, AAS 38. 266.
Jesus is King of the Eternal Ages by nature and by right of conquest; through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest [Eric: what conquest?!], and by singular choice [of the Father].
COMMENT: The same title by right of conquest, is given for both Jesus and Mary.

10. Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov. 1, 1950. AAS 42. 768.
We must especially remember this, that starting in the second century, the Virgin Mary is presented by the holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although subject to the New Adam, was most closely joined with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy , which, as was foretold in the Protoevangelium, was to come to the most full victory over sin and death, which are always joined together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hence, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so that struggle of the Blessed Virgin in common with her Son [Eric: yep, there's co-redeemer. With Jesus she saved the world?], had to be closed by the glorification of her virginal body."

11. Pius XII, Encyclical, Fulgens corona, Sept. 8, 1953. AAS 45. 583.
... she was joined with her Only-begotten Son in the struggle against the most wicked infernal serpent.

12. Pius XII, Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, Oct. 11, 1954. AAS 46. 634-35.
In accomplishing this work of the redemption, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was certainly closely joined with Christ ... was associated with Jesus Christ, the very principle of salvation, by divine plan, and indeed in a way similar to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the principle of death, so that we can say that the work of our salvation was accomplished according to a certain recapitulation ... and if she was joined with her Son, even on Golgotha, [and] she offered Him, together with the holocaust of her Mother's rights and love, like a New Eve, for all the sons of Adam, defiled by his wretched fall, as a result, beyond doubt, it is right to conclude that just as Christ, the New Adam should be called King not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so by a certain analogy, the most Blessed Virgin is Queen, not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because as the New Eve she was associated with the New Adam

13. John XXIII, Radiomessage to Eucharistic Congress of Italy at Catana, Sept. 13, 1959. AAS 51. 714.
We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus, our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the divine Victim....

15. Vatican II, Constitution on the Church, #58, #61.
So also the Blessed Virgin advance in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully bore with her union with her Son even to the cross, where, in accord with the divine plan, she stood, vehemently grieved with her Only-Begotten, and joined herself to His Sacrifice with a motherly heart, lovingly consenting to the immolation of the victim born of her.
In conceiving Christ, in giving birth to Him, in feeding Him, in presenting Him to the Father in the Temple, in suffering with Him, as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls.

16. John Paul II. Encyclical, Redemptoris Mater, March 25, 1987. AAS 79. 382. 83. Vatican Press Translation.
How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God's 'unsearchable judgments'! How completely she 'abandons herself to God without reserve, 'offering the full assent of the intellect and the will' to him whose 'ways are inscrutable.... Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self- emptying.... At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the shocking mystery of this self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest 'kenosis'of faith in human history. Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death.... as a sharing in the sacrifice of Christ--the new Adam--it becomes in a certain sense the counterpoise to the disobedience and disbelief embodied in the sin of our first parents. Thus teach the Fathers of the Church and especially St. Irenaeus, quoted by the Constitution Lumen gentium: 'The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.'

17. John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L'Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L'Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.
Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son [Eric: !!!!!] (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she 'lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth' (Lumen gentium #58) ... as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.




[This message has been edited by Eric, the Inquirer (edited 07-04-2001).]

A key consideration is the fact that theologies (or 'schools of theology') have come and gone throughout Christian history. Each school has usually focused on one or other aspect of salvation history. For example, the late medievals focused on the passion and death of Christ and generated a lot of penitential practices and those gory and bloody paintings of which the Germans and Spaniards were so fond.

The late 18th and especially the nineteenth centuries birthed theological schemas which focused on Mary. At the beginning of the 19th century, there were reports of all sorts of apparitions and miracles attributable to the Mother of God. Whole volumes of theology were written on the theological role of Mary. For Western Catholics, the devotion to Mary was a breastplate of honor which distinguished Catholics from the Protestants.

One must remember, however, that the Christian faith is built upon the Scriptures and on the Creeds. They are the rock upon which theological theories must be based.

It is tempting, for theologians and others, to construct a series of postulates, each of which flows logically from the others, until one has a whole scaffolding framework which is complete and internally self-consistent. This is what a good theology does.

But one must remember: the scaffolding framework, though complete, able to stand on its own, and internally coherent and consistent, is NOT the same thing as faith. It's 'mere' theology.

While many of the quotes from the above post may well seem to be consistent in buttressing the idea of Mary as Co-Redeemer, the fact is that they do not constitute a coherent whole as I read them. They are simply statements, taken out of one or another context.

The critical issue is this: does the proposal of Mary as Co-Redeemer have a clear and unequivocal grounding in Scripture and in the Creeds? And is it consistent with these faith statements?

If yes, then a valid theology can be developed. If not, then it is personal devotion which an individual baptized Christian can embrace or reject (as long as it does not lead to the denial of something necessary for the faith, i.e., heresy.)

Theologizing can be fun; and it can also be very dangerous. Witness Peter Waldo and his followers. They reasoned that since baptism absolutely cleansed the soul of all sin, they delayed baptizing folks until they reached a certain age or had a serious illness. Then they baptized the individual and then immediately gave the 'consolamentum', i.e., a pillow over the face leading to death. Poof! Instant heaven. Good valid theology? Ostensibly. In conformity with the Scriptures and the Creeds. No. They forgot about the taking of a human life aspect.

For Eastern Christians, this proposal of Mary as Co-Redeemer does not easily fit into our Systematic Theology (such as it is) nor into our Liturgical Theology. And perhaps most telling of all: we have more 'official liturgical' devotion to the Mother of God than the Western Church, e.g. the Akathists, the "It is truly proper..." with incensation at every liturgy, and even a two-week fast in preparation for the Dormition. Presenting this Co-Redeemer proposal to the Eastern churches would be like buying roller skates for your dog. A nice thought, but truly inapropos.

Blessings!

Dear Father in Christ, Dr. John,

Yes, that IS the point really.

Our Eastern liturgical devotion to the Most Holy Theotokos is so rich and so great that we already have a theologically balanced and developed theology of Her Role.

We don't need any new "definitions" including that of Co-Redemptrix or of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption for that matter.

We have ALWAYS honoured those truths.

In addition, our Byzantine tradition views Marian devotion as part of our Church's inner liturgical life, and never as part of the Gospel proclamation of Christ's salvation to the world.

Like Her, we too keep these things in our hearts and ponder them.

Am I getting better at this, do you think?

Alex

The critical issue is this: does the proposal of Mary as Co-Redeemer have a clear and unequivocal grounding in Scripture and in the Creeds? And is it consistent with these faith statements?

This sounds more Orthodox than Catholic. I didn't know that the Catholic church was limited to just the Creeds and scripture but could build on *all* of tradition which included the teachings of Popes and others, too as long as their idea had been generally accepted by the church as a whole.

Do you when the co-redemptrix (as I outlined it) began to be taught? All the Popes listed seem to be of later times.

Also, do you folks accept the ex cathedra statements of Popes like the Immaculate Conception?

Here's my 20 mills...

I've met at least one person whose devotion to our Blessed Mother makes me wonder if they leave anything for Christ.

This stuff about declaring Mary as co-redemptrix is, in my opinion, utterly unnecessary and can only be a stumbling block.

As stated before in this thread, the East has a rich liturgical tradition of honoring Mary. Moreover, the West has a rich paraliturgical and devotional tradition of honoring Mary. Anything that places or seems to place Mary at or above the level of her Son is to be shunned completely.

It's not a matter of "dissing" Mary. Its about remembering Who occupies first place in the Catholic Church.

--NDHoosier

Hi everyone.
The key is catechetics. Just as we should not force titles like "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" down everyone's throats, I believe the opposite must also be shunned. That is, "running away" from true devotion to Our Lady, because we fear that this will "take something away" from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is very much a Calvinist notion of belief, a sort of religious mathematics where additional belief in the Saints corresponds to a subtraction in adoration of the One True God. It defies the teachings of the Church Fathers and other Doctors of the Church.

Pius XII (as well as Paul VI, and John Paul II) said it best. Devotion to Our Lady "redounds" back to her Son. Enlightened, informed devotion to, primarily the Holy Mother of God, and secondarily to the other Saints, only glorifies God Who is "wonderful in His Saints."
Pax Vobiscum. Slava Isusu Christu.

I agree that the answer is catechetics. And the fact is that the Scriptures and the Creeds are 'de fide', i.e., necessary for the faith.

Billy talks about: "running away" from true devotion to Our Lady, because we fear that this will "take something away" from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

The logic behind this is based upon a false premise. Veneration of the Mother-of-God cannot 'take something away' from our worship of God. Veneration is one thing; worship is another.

The crux lies in the fact that we are being asked to accept "co-redemptrix" and "mediatrix of all graces" in order to show true devotion to the Mother of God. And there is a subtle hint that if we do NOT do this, then we're showing less than full honor due.

My suspicion is that it's another form of inter-necine warfare being waged in the Latin church. And that it is being brought here to the Byzantine forum either to find support among fellow strong devotees of the Mother of God, or, less charitably, to missionize among the Easterns.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid or minimally: 'suspicious', but it seems that we've had a substantial number of new registrants lately who, sooner or later in their inquiries, gravitate to this issue. And I'm beginning to feel 'beset' in having to address this issue again and again as a Byzantine Christian. Are others feeling this too?

As noted above: "This is very much a Calvinist notion of belief, a sort of religious mathematics where additional belief in the Saints corresponds to a subtraction in adoration of the One True God. It defies the teachings of the Church Fathers and other Doctors of the Church."

Byzantines are not Calvinists. We don't do the mathematics thing in theology. And we certainly are a lot more bound to the Church Fathers and other -- to use the Latin term -- Doctors of the Church than any other Christian community.

Blessings on your journey.

Columcille,
yes I would suggest there is a misunderstanding in terminology.
We are all "necessary" for each others salvtion. We pray and support one another in the Body of Christ. We are not any spiritual "lone rangers."

Even the Orthodox know this as can be seen in their liturgies. "Through the prayers of the Mother of God, through the prayers of the saints... O Savior save our souls!"

Christ has won salvation, the Church mediates his salvation to the world through prayer and the sacraments.

Stephanos

PS When understood in the whole context of theological belief there is no conflict that Christ is the Savior and that Mary or for that matter you or I share in His salvific role.