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

Dear Eric,
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your response to my entry above. Can a Pan-Orthodox Council be held? The answer is yes. The last Pan Orthodox Council was called in the 1920's and was to address the changing needs of the Orthodox Church. Several areas were addressed including changes to the Typika of the Great Church, Constantinople. Was the Conference a success, the answer is No. The reason for the failure was the disarray of the Russian Orthodox Church---under Bolshevik domination and their restriction at being able to attend. One of the changes authorized by the council was the changing of the calendar from Julian (Old Style) to Gregorian (new Style)to those national churches who wished to do so---all were to continue to use the Julian Date for the determination of Pascha, so all Orthodox Churches could observe it on the same date and maintain mutual communion.

This change , more than any other change has brought the gravest challenges to Orthodox unity by the splitting of several national churches into Old Calendar and New Calendar rival churches (Greece, Bulgaria, etc are good examples of this problem). Oddly enough, when a Local Church has chosen one or another and has not had the splitting it has remained relatively healthy and strong. The US is a poor example of this because it has no Local (national) Church but is a group of mission and diaspora churches not yet allowed to merge into a strong National Orthodox Church.

Issues that have been proposed for the Pan Orthodox Council include the restoration of the Cathedral (read that Parish) Rite, the canons on fasting, and the ever present problem of the Old Vs. New Calendar. It is odd that many New Calendarists are willing to reestablish the old Calendar as the Church Calendar to bring about reunion---however many of the Old Calendarists are so virulent in their claims of Apostacy and the sin of "Ecumenism" that it is likelihood for a reunion is as distant as reunion between the Roman Catholic Church (under Pope John Paul II) and the Roman Catholic "Traditionalist" groups who reject the current Pope(SSPX etc).

To the " canononical" Orthodox, to be canonical is to be in communion with the other Patriarchates of Orthodoxy. To not be in this communion is to be in non-canonical Orthodoxy. The non-canonical and the canonical orthodox speak to each other but disagree about the level of fervour and accuracy of their practices much like the Roman Catholic Church and its dissenting Traditional groups who do not recocognize the current Pope do.

Does canonical orthodoxy wish reunion with the lost sheep, of course it does--- the question is does the noncanonical orthodox want to re-enter the continuous union of canonical orthodoxy or continue on their path of seperation and loss of communion?

As we have seen in the problems the Roman Catholic Church has with the Traditionalist who state that "the seat of Peter is vacant" just having a Pope does not unity make but rather the putting aside of pride and the great desire to be in communion with the historic church. I believe that there will come a day in which the Canonical Orthodox Churches enter into communion with their sister churches under Rome, but I doubt seriously that any of the the non-canonical orthodox groups or the Vacantis will be part of that reunion---they have chosen another way.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

I never meant to imply that Eastern Christians were Calvinists in any sense of the word; that's theologically impossible since Calvinism's thrust in soteriology is antithetical to Byzantine theology. The stict disciple of John Calvin could not grasp divinization since, according to them, humanity is so depraved that only the elect could see God. No matter how hard people tried to seek union with the Creator, it would be fruitless, according to the Calvinists.

I'm not defending the terms. I'm defending those Latins who feel that the terms do not glorify the Holy Virgin at the expense of the All Holy Trinity. Both those who support the terms, and those who do not, make equally valid points.

I think it is natural for Latins to discuss with Eastern Christians about the role of the Mother of God, just as it is natural for Latins to discuss with Eastern Christians about the Holy Mysteries. These unite us.

God Bless
Bill

Sorry, Billy, but I must disagree.

You write: "I'm not defending the terms. I'm defending those Latins who feel that the terms do not glorify the Holy Virgin at the expense of the All Holy Trinity. Both those who support the terms, and those who do not, make equally valid points."

This cannot be. Christ is the Redeemer, period. The Theotokos has her role, period. To propose something that muddies the waters is, in my perspective, an invitation to quasi-heresy ('co-redeemer').

"I think it is natural for Latins to discuss with Eastern Christians about the role of the Mother of God, just as it is natural for Latins to discuss with Eastern Christians about the Holy Mysteries. These unite us."

Not when the Latin proposals apparently lead to heresy. Interaction: fine. Propostions that are anti-thetical to the Scriptures and Creeds: NO!

Unless and until there is a coherent theolgy of 'co-redeemer', we Easterns have NO obligation to even address the issue. And unless and until our good bishops propose that we address it, then the answer is: "Thanks for the idea, but no thanks." and close the door behind you when you leave.

Have a good life.

Blessings!

Dr John,

I started this particular thread. Let me say, as far as this thread goes, you are being paranoid.

The reason I posted this is to learn what the Byzantine/Orthodox point of view on this topic is. I don't know if you are aware of my past but it is kind of messed up and I am in the process of learning about my Byzantine roots.


Your little brother in Christ,
David

Sorry, David, for my paranoia. I admit that perhaps I'm being oversensitive on the 'orthodoxy' of the Byzantine Church. It's just that in times past, ideas have come from some of the Western communities, which while good in themselves, represent a sort of apposition to our general practices. We are now in the process of trying to rediscover what our true tradition is. (While it seems strange, there are still some Byzantine Catholic churches that don't want an iconostas because it seems too 'Orthodox' and not 'Catholic'.) So, when a current debate comes from other than Byzantine or Orthodox sources, I get defensive that we might have yet another issue to deal with that is not in harmony with our inheritance and that will deflect us from rediscovering our inheritance as the Church has told us to do.

Blessings!

The heresy continues. The Canonical Orthodox Churches under Rome? I hope this was a blunder or else I am going to ask you "what have you been smoking lately?" This is indeed not an Orthodox perspective. Basically what you are inferring is that Rome is superior and the Orthodox are to be under. This is a bad theological expression. With this type of mindset it's better to have no union.

I'd like to give a rather different perspective on the question of our Lady as co-redemptrix. I would especially like to deal in a general way with the papal quotations posted by Eric.
In order to understand them better we should first try to obtain a better understanding of what redemption is. I would maintain that if we see redemption solely in juridical terms we will have difficulty understanding what co-redemption could mean. Anyone coming from a Protestant background tends to see the act of redemption in terms of penal substitution, i.e., Christ appeased the wrath of God by taking it upon Himself. God punishes Christ in our place so that we can escape punishment. Now if we understood Mary as co-redeemer under this scheme, she would somehow share in taking on the punishment for our sins. But it's hard to see how this kind of thing could be shared. However, penal substitution is not the Catholic understanding of redemption. Even when Catholic theology speaks of "appeasing the justice of God" it does not understand this in terms of God having to punish mankind and punishing his Son instead. Rather, man offends God's justice by sin because by sinning he refuses to give God the honour that is His due. There is the great injustice. This can only be repaired by One Who is at once human and divine and Who renders perfect honour and worship to God the Father. Hence, in the Catholic view "appeasing the justice of God" is a liturgical act. It is the act of offering perfect worship to the Father. Only Christ could do that. And he does so on our behalf, not merely in our place. Why do I say that? Because, we as Christians are called not merely to imitate Christ, but to become Christ. His life is to be recapitulated in us. Hence, we are reborn and saved, not by a mere imputation of righteousness, but by literally sharing in the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord. And this brings us to another very important aspect of our redemption. When Christ died on the cross, He did so as the New Adam. What does this mean? Just as the old Adam gave birth to a race of sinners bound for corruption and death; so the New Adam, by his obedience, gave birth to a new race of righteous individuals, bound for sanctification and life. Here is where Mary comes in. Her role at the foot of the cross was to fulfill her motherhood. She had said her "fiat" at the Incarnation and had become the "theotokos." Just as the mystery of the incarnation already contains that of the redemption; so the mystery of Mary becoming the God-bearer already contains the mystery of the fulfillment of her mission when she would become the "mother of all the living." This happened through a very difficult labour at the foot of the cross. Here is how Mary shared in a unique way in the redemption of the human race. Through, with, and in Christ, she gave birth to the new race. Just as Christ Himself has a Divine Father and a human mother, so did God will that all those who would be reborn in Christ would have a Divine Father and a human mother. How did Mary become our Mother? Primarily, by saying "yes" at the Incarnation. But this "yes" had to be fleshed out in her life. At the foot of the cross, she offered her Son to God. She united herself to his act of worship and offered herself to God in that very act. God took that offering and gave her a great reward: The one who was a virgin, through her faith became the mother of a multitude; the poor one became rich. There is no question here of Mary's act being on the same level as that of Christ. We are talking here about God's economy of salvation. God willed to save us through our own human flesh. Both Catholic and Orthodox are convinced, I believe, that we cannot take Christ as our Saviour without also taking the Church as our Mother. Mary, the type of the Church, is also our Mother who constantly cares and intercedes for us.

Note here that Mary's role is unique. It is a role in the act of redemption. It is so because God willed the redemption to be familial, i.e., involving rebirth. Hence, the redemption involves motherhood. But Mary's role is wholly subordinate to Christ. She is also redeemed in a very special way precisely so that she can cooperate in the work of God. Little wonder that both Orthodox and Catholic praise the unique holiness of the Mother of God.

Ed

P.S.: Let me say that I am not in favour of any "definition" of a co-redemptrix doctrine, both because such a definition is unnecessary and because the term "co-redemptrix" is open to misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have stated above helps to clarify things a bit.

>> The heresy continues. The Canonical Orthodox Churches under Rome? I hope this was a blunder or else I am going to ask you "what have you been smoking lately?" This is indeed not an Orthodox perspective. Basically what you are inferring is that Rome is superior and the Orthodox are to be under. This is a bad theological expression. With this type of mindset it's better to have no union.>>

Dear Robert,
I believe that you have misinterpreted Thomas' post. The phrase "under Rome" was meant to modify "sister Churches." He was simply saying that hopefully one day the canonical Orthodox Churches would unite with those churches which are now under Rome. He was not saying that the union as such would be "under Rome." At least, that is how I understood his words.

Ed

Dear Robert,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As I am an Orthodox Christian I am always praying for the resolution of the sorrowful schism that divides any Christians from the historic Church. Your interpretation of what I wrote was incorrect, Edward was correct. I was referring to reunion through communion of all the churches not saying that the union as such would be "under Rome."

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

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

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

Well, you're not really disagreeing with me. I have stated before that at the very least, this is an inopportune time to be making declarations concerning Our Lady in regards to titles such as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. I'm not even sure that a declaration in the future would be correct. In your zeal, I think you have been less than charitable towards me. I have tried to be diplomatic; tried to present both sides. When I meant, "running away" from Holy Mary should be shunned, I did not mean that one has to have a strong veneration for her. I meant that one cannot fall into the possible pit of polemics that many Evangelicals use to describe Marian devotion. That's an extreme case, but planned ignoring of Mary could happen as a result. (It certainly has in many Latin rite churches.)
If you don't want me around, then so be it. But I don't think I have done anything that warrants excommunication from this board.

Hi Thomas & Ed,
Thanks for making the issue clearer. Maybe I ought to stop drinking English tea because I saw another side(LOL). I am going back to green tea. Peace be to all.

Nosing around Borders yesterday afternoon, I came across the following, rather disturbing, tome: "Mary : Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate : Theological Foundations II : Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical", published by our wonderful broadminded friends at Queenship Publishing. According to this book (which clearly represents the attitude of the right-wing of RCism, consistent with other Queenship titles), the book is presented to enlighten the faithful about the "coming dogmatic declarations" relating to Mary. Now, Queenship can't declare anything to be a dogma ... but the book is a good indication of the strength (financially, at least) of the Latin Catholic "lobby" for this particular matter at the present time.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for bringing that matter forward.

(Your Catholic past comes in handy at times, no? ).

But even if RCism declares these doctrines, would not the same dogmatic paradigm apply as in the case with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

I mean that thes doctrines are ways in which RCism expresses its devotion to Mary, but are different from how we of the East express our devotion.

Somehow, I just don't think these doctrines will be defined, no matter how powerful that lobby is.

Alex

I just wanted to apologize for being haughty. I just love the Holy Virgin so much that I always fight for her whenever I can. God bless you Dr. John and all on this board.
Bill

Dear Billy,

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said that "we will be very happy at the Last Judgement when the only thing Our Lord has to say against us is that we loved His Mother 'too much.'"

Alex