www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Co-Redemptrix

Friends,

In the crazy ways of the Roman Church there continues to be a push to dogmatize Mary as the Co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix or some such. :rolleyes: There's a new poll about this on the Catholic convert board.

What would you all do if the Roman's declared this a new dogma?

Dan Lauffer

Two or three years ago Pope John Paul II indicated that he was not about to speak officially on this topic.

Even if some future pope does, one should be clear about the title "co-redemptrix". It does not imply equality with Christ but that Mary is a redeemer with Christ in the same way all Christians are called to be co-redeemers alongside of Christ. The Church is clear about this and the various articles by Catholic scholars all affirm: "Since there is only one God, there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, who is a man, and gave himself as a ransom for them all." (1 Timothy 2:5-6) The co-redeemer or co-laborer is like that of Paul: �Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.� (Colossians 1:24) Mary, the Mother of God, is simply the co-redeemer (first alongside Christ or first laborer with Him in His garden) par excellence because of her outstanding holiness.

Yes, there are those groups who misunderstand and believe it to be more but we must always keep a good understanding about what the Church teaches and not some of these groups.

Admin,

Thanks for the input. However, I just believe it would be hard to explain that to the rest of the world.

John and Johan,

I lean toward the Orthodox position on further definitions of "dogmas" that don't really need to be defined, to wit: "Every thing that needed to be defined was done in the first seven ecumenical councils."

Too much defining takes the focus off of worship and places it upon man clever disputations. Frankly, if one compares the typical mass, at least a typical American mass, with the Divine Liturgy whether Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, I think you will find quite a difference when it comes to reverence. It's one reason we converted to Eastern Catholicism and not to Roman Catholicism. The endless penchant for defining is a good way to increase confusion.

Dan Lauffer

I agree with the substance of Dan's comments; this definition is not necessary. Still, although the Protestants would never understand it, the term coredemptrix does not seem a problem doctrinally if it means something like "cooperator with the redemption". The term that bothers me more is "mediatrix of all graces". It seems to me that the term could be acceptable if it means only that the Theotokos mediates the Son of God to the world through His incarnation, but advocates of the definition espouse the theory of St. Bernardine of Siena: "This is the process of divine graces: from God they flow to Christ, from Christ to his Mother, and from her to the Church...I do not hesitate to way that she has received a certain jurisdiction over all graces...They are administered through her hands." It would be difficult for me to reconcile this theory with my understanding of Christianity.

"I agree with the substance of Dan's comments; this definition is not necessary. Still, although the Protestants would never understand it..."

Nor would the Orthodox.

Axios,

You and I are on the same page on this one.

Dan L

Dan,
I agree with you.
I don't see any reason for this dogma 2000 years into Christianity.

Living down here in the South, I just know all the Protestants/Evangelicals would be questioning this.

I don't think many lay Catholics would be able to explain it correctly to their non-Catholics friends. Why have a dogma that is too difficult to comprehend, to explain. It's just not needed. We already esteem Mary, the Theotokos. How can we give her more honor than we already have for hundreds of years?
denise

There's far too much chance of confusion with the distinction between "co-" as equal and as "cum" or with. For that reason alone, because it may be subject to significant theological confusion and misunderstanding, I believe it is not prudent to promulgate doctrine in this regard.

Unfortunately there are those in the Roman church that feel that additional theological "clarifications" are necessary when in fact they can add to the confusion as well as alienate substantial portions of the Church.

We have an abundance of liturgical texts in the Byzantine tradition regarding the place of honor of the Most Holy Theotokos. And the Fathers have spoken also on this issue. Why not leave well enough alone and stick with the winning formula of St. Prosper of Aquitane of lex orandi, lex credendi?

I can see no great deficiency in the Marian thought of the Eastern or Western Catholic Churches which would precitipate such a major dogmatic statement as this.

Diak,

"Why not leave well enough alone and stick with the winning formula of St. Prosper of Aquitane of lex orandi, lex credendi?"

I couldn't agree more. All this nonsense about "defining" the indefinable which is a Western preoccupation makes one wonder if the Orthodox not in communion with Rome have a point. The true icon of the Church is a bishop with his people not separate off in Rome. But then I remember that Pope JPII is opposed to this proposed dogma.

Dan Lauffer

I agree with all of the above!

Michael, sinner

Lex orandi:

Dan, Michael and other brothers
Mary has a unique role in the salvation of the world!
The administrator has a clear picture of what this means. Neither is it a new teaching or doctrine, and it needs to be defined precisely so that others cannot distort this teaching or misunderstand it as current protestants and others who are uninformed.

Both titles are appropriate to the Most Holy Theotokos.
Her unique role in salvation history in giving the world its savior. The source of redemption and grace.

Stephanos I

More from the lex orandi:

"To you O Powerful Ruler, we sing this song of thanks O Mother of God. Since you have unconquerable power, free us from all danger that we may cry to you, Rejoice O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!" (Kontakion in Tone 8 from the Akathist Hymn to the Most Holy Theotokos)

"O Virgin thou wast truly shown to be the tree of Life which hath slain the deceiving serpent with thy fruit, having given birth to Christ God, our Life" (Ode VI of the Canon to the Theotokos from Small Compline for Monday night in Tone 1)

Doesn't that say it better than any "more precise" theological definitions?

Unfortunately I don't think I can agree with the previous statements of the Admin attempting to reconcile this proposed dogma with established orthodox theology. The ecumenical results of promulgation of this as de fide dogma would be absolutely disastrous with the sister Orthodox churches (and even I believe within some Greek Catholic churches) and the good of the entire Church and her sisters must be taken into account when formulating doctrine.

I think there continues to be a post-medieval Latin tendency which hyperdevelops, categorizes, and defines theology outside of its organic development through liturgy, and not allowing spirituality and theology to flow naturally from its liturgical source, effectively divorcing these in the interest of clarification and definition.

The term "co-redeemer" as defined here is to my knowledge not present in any extant Byzantine liturgical texts nor in the writings of the Fathers of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

But really for the short term this is a dead issue. The Holy Father has prudently already spoken to this issue as has Cardinal Ratzinger, effectively removing this issue from further serious theological consideration as a de fide doctrine at least for the near future in the Latin Church by public statements to that effect.

Dear Friends,

The point is, I believe, not that the liturgy already contains what a proposed Co-Remptrix doctrine would overtly affirm, but that such dogmatisation about the Mother of God is unnecessary to begin with.

This means that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption doctrines are, like "Co-Redemptrix," unnecessary BOTH in terms of truths about the Mother of God AND in terms of appropriate ways to express them (i.e. dogmatic pronouncements versus liturgical prayer, as Diak stated).

Ecumenical Councils defend and define the Apostolic faith when it comes under attack etc.

The Eastern church's devotion to Mary is rooted in its mystical, liturgical veneration where new icons, new Marian titles, new miracles are celebrated and the Mother of God is continuously glorified anew!

Dogmatic pronouncements are simply inappropriate ways of solemnizing the Mother of God and, at best, they are superfluous statements that say what the Church has already always believed.

One could venture to state that the Roman Church is currently in a bind with respect to its formerly defined Marian doctrines.

Once it went ahead to declare two of them, what really IS stopping it from declaring more?

What really is the argument to counter those who wish another Marian doctrine to be proclaimed?

Alex