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

Dear Alex, Diak, and other participants,

Thank you for "hearing me out" in my lengthy expostulations and quotations. I think that we have come closer in understanding on this rather fine point.

I don't think it is wise to "deny" something that may be true. Which side is sure or knows that she was or was not translated "bodily." The litugical texts don't stress the bodily, but speculate on it with a question mark "?" as I recall. And isn't that the great promise reserved to the resurrection: a bodily resurrection?

If "resurrection" raises these very difficult questions that I posed, then "bodily" equally does.

This is why I can be so very comfortable with "translated to life" and simultaneously uncomfortable with the two words used above.

As a professional translator and interpreter, I'm constantly face to face with the word "translated." It implies that the meaning or the essence of the item being translated is preserved, but that the form changes, often into another language.

Even if someone has died, they may be "alive in Christ." As numerous teachers point out, one could be "in Ceasar" or "not in Ceasar." "In Ceasar" meant to be "under his authority" or "in his kingdom" doing things "in his name." Certainly, we hold being "in the Kingdom of God" in a mystical sense that transcends physical boundaries. We Christians are still "physically in the world," but because we are not "of the world" or "belonging to the world" (the prince of which is you know who...) we can also be "in the kingdom of God" or "be of and belong to Christ." We are under "the authority of God."

So in this sense, being "translated to life in Christ" is a term appropriate for all of the righteous, but only rarely attributed to a few select shining examples that we are called to emmulate. And if for no other reason than this, I'm ready to venerate Fr. Schmemann as a saint for saying [paraphrased] 'for us, Mary is not the great exception, she is the great example!'

She is the very best example, among several examples, to show us what it is like to be "in Christ, the redeemer" both while alive and after falling asleep.

Thus "in the redeemer," "under the authority of the redeemer," "of the redeemer," "belonging to the redeemer," but not the "co-redeemer."

Wishing all a glorious and most blessed Holy Week and Pascha.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Yes, indeed, "Co-Redeemer" is not the best choice of terminology and what it is meant to convey in reality is something that all the Churches celebrate already.

As for your comments on the bodily "taking up" of the Most Holy Theotokos - I will still say that you, being a professional translator and analyst, are taking things a bit too seriously and using paradigms that are suited to natural and social sciences - but not to theology, faith and liturgy.

I know a pious engineer who does the same thing!

The weight of Tradition is in favour of the Mother of God assumed to heaven bodily. As for "knowing" in a scientist or positivist sense - is faith about that?

Perhaps we can begin a literary critique of other liturgical and creedal texts and begin to undo the doctrines of the Trinity et al.?

Historically, that has been done, as you know . . .

Our faith is that of the Church and her Tradition which includes everything it prays, believes and does.

Have a blessed Holy Week and Easter, Servant of Christ, you and your family.

I'm on the Old Calendar . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Regarding "knowing," your point is a good one, but I only mean it in the sense that what is in scripture or what has been canonized is "known." The Church has unequivicably affirmed certain things. Other things have been left open for "opinion," within the bounds of appropriateness and good order, of course.

For example, it would not be appropriate or in good order to preach on the Feast of the Dormition to a crowded Church and raise the sort of questioning of the "assumption" that I have raised here in this forum. My preaching would simply cover her falling asleep and her translation to life, as things that we "know" on the basis of scripture, canon, and worship.

And even with worship itself, there are well-respected theologians who don't consider "lex orandi" to be canon. They limit the "what we know for sure" to scripture and canon. So you see, I'm not all that narrow-minded and mean after all.

We must use logic and informed reasoning to discern the faith. God gave us those for good, although we often use them for bad. But you are right that it is very easy to misapply the paradigms of the world to the things of God.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

PS: My diocese is on the new calendar except for the Paschal cycle. I had thought that all of the Byzantine Catholics were on the "new" or Gregorian calendar, even for the Paschal cycle.

Dear Reader Andrew,

If you thought all of us were on the New Calendar - well, you are wrong yet again!

The Eastern Catholics in Ukraine and Eastern Europe are on the Old Calendar, for the most part.

The Eastern Eparchy of Canada is on the Old Calendar as well.

As for the rest, they follow the practice of the Finnish Orthodox Church .

No kidding, one pastor here even adopted the Finnish experiment with the restored Kiss of Peace et alia!

But you are right - the Eastern Catholics who follow the new calendar should still stick to the Orthodox Pascha, as do the Greeks etc.

My friend who is getting ordained in the OCA next month belongs to an OCA parish that follows the Old Calendar too . . .

In the Unabbreviated Horologion under "The Panaghia," here is the last sentence of the explanation for it:

"Having come to her tomb and not finding her most holy body, they (the Apostles) came to believe truly that she who had lived in the body was resurrected after three days like her Son, and she who had reposed had passed into the heavesn and reigneth with Christ unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Taking into account my woeful ignorance, being theologically unlettered, and just generally unworthy of so many things - I think even the Apostles believed in the bodily Resurrection and Assumption of the Mother of God!

That's assuming that the Orthodox don't deliberately make things like this up!

But what do I know?

A happy Pascha to you and yours!

Alex

Wow.

Mediatrix is fine. It is accurate.

Co-Redemptrix is likely to lead some into error. Christ is the Redeemer.

I think the big-wigs at the Vatican know all this better than I!

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

Well, shouldn't you all consult Mother Angelica at EWTN to see what her stand is on all this? :-)

OrthodoxEast

Using the word: "co-redemptrix" makes it easy enough for the mariolaters to ascribe yet another title to the Mother of God. The fact is, if one goes from the Latin "co-redemptrix" to the Greek: "co-savior", then I think a lot of the well-intentioned but fringe folks will take a second thought.

Mary is NOT the co-savior; nor is she the co-redemptrix. She is "theotokos", "God-bearer". That should be enough. The next thing one knows, the crazies will be making her the "Earth-Mother" or "Gaia" or some such and special liturgies will involve wallowing around in mud, or throwing mud at one another, a la mode de Carpathiens.

Blessings!

The biggest prblem with these titles is the fact that most Catholics (yes, I mean most) are poorly catechized, more than half of the Western world is unchurched and many Evangelical and Fundamentalist believers are totally hostile to the church, both Catholic and Orthodox.

The protestant spin doctors would have a field day with this. And our hair splitting about what this or that term precisely means will have no impact on the general public.

It should be painfully obvious by now that the youth of our churches is deserting the Faith in droves. When I was young (long ago now, I'm afraid) I and my friends fell right into the "are you saved?" spin. After that we learned about every thing the Evangelicals thought about the Catholic church. And some of my sceptical, rebellious generation was "shocked" and pained" by the "deception" "manipulation" and "idolatry" of the church we were raised in!

To paraphrase Fulton Sheen there are many who hate what they think the Church is.

Now, personally I don't think the multiplication of titles is helpful here. Others may disagree and that's OK as far as I'm concerned but the dogmatic redundancy isn't going to save souls, and Saint Mary certainly doesn't need the flattery.

As stated earlier the level of catechesis is horrible among Catholics of all ages. Many Catholics who advocate this dogmatic enlightenment think it means a lot more than it does and will spread their beliefs accordingly, and don't think they won't!

And Protestant apologists will have a field day with every quote and mis-quote and lie that they can dredge up. It doesn't matter if you or I can dispute with these people and shut them down in debate. Their real success will come from leading millions of others right out of a deeply wounded church. Think Jack Chick.

In Christ,
Michael, sinner

Michael,

"Their real success will come from leading millions of others right out of a deeply wounded church. Think Jack Chick."

EXACTAMUNDO!!!

Dan Lauffer

Jack Chick - who he ??????

Dear OLS o' Love,
I thought you'd never ask!

Jack Chick is a publisher of "Chick Tracts" from California (I believe). I do not actually know if this is a real person.

The tracts are popular all over the United States and you may find them in their own rack at many independant bible book stores. I am always amazed to see them sold near bibles. They are inexpensive to produce and cheap to buy. I don't think the major chains will carry them, they are notorius for an inflammatory and distorted "baiting" type of polemic. They don't try to be objective and do not seem to quote verifiable sources but you can be sure the church has given them plenty of material to work with lately.

They play upon peoples prejudices and reinforce them. Some tracts are "testimonies" or former priests and nuns. They are something like urban legends given legitimacy in print! They come complete with cartoon graphics like drawings of scheming bishops being dragged into hell. I think new christians and young people are particularly vulnerable to their invective because they are so eager to learn and sometimes do not weigh the arguments critically.

If you engage in apologetics in the USA you would be advised to read them and be familiar with their claims because you will hear them on the street.

Of course, the other targets of this group are gays, Hindus and Muslims. You know, the usual suspects.

Ah - thanks.

I suppose we must have their equivalent - but I have to admit that I've never seen them.

Ah well - each to his own taste - and I don't think they are to mine

Anhelyna

I agree that "co-redemptrix" may lend itself to misunderstanding. But surely such a problem must solved by catechesis, rather than by shrinking from one's opponents. The fact that Jack Chick and others of ill-will find some thing or another as worthy of ridicule has no bearing on its truth, nor can it have any bearing on our proclaiming it.

There seems to be a sense here that a pronouncement of this idea is unecessary. I am curious about the basis for such an assertion. I would like to ask those who hold this opinion to dicuss the necessity for a council's levying anathemas against those who would not hold Mary as the Theotokos. (A concept, btw, that Jack Chick et al no doubt find ridiculous).

Why was it necessary for the council not only to define strict Christological formulas, but also to incorpoate this Mariological terminology? How does this necessity contrast with the lack of necessity for any of the later Marian doctrines (or this proto-doctines)?

Slava Isusu Christu!

I agree! Most wholeheartedly.

Quote

The fact that Jack Chick and others of ill-will find some thing or another as worthy of ridicule has no bearing on its truth, nor can it have any bearing on our proclaiming it.

I agree! Very true, let us defend truth together.

Quote

There seems to be a sense here that a pronouncement of this idea is unecessary. I am curious about the basis for such an assertion.

I would like to know why some people find it necessary. I guess we are stuck here.

Quote

I would like to ask those who hold this opinion to dicuss the necessity for a council's levying anathemas against those who would not hold Mary as the Theotokos.

I think because if we affirm Mary as Christotokos (which she is) that leaves open the possibility of separating Christs' human and divine natures, or denying Jesus' divinity entirely. This has everything to to with our understanding of Jesus Christ in the Triune God. Theotokos is better.

Quote

(A concept, btw, that Jack Chick et al no doubt find ridiculous).

I disagree. I am pretty sure that Jack Chick would find the term Theotokos appropriate.

Quote

Why was it necessary for the council not only to define strict Christological formulas, but also to incorpoate this Mariological terminology? How does this necessity contrast with the lack of necessity for any of the later Marian doctrines (or this proto-doctines)?

The councils were concerned with defining the nature of Christ. The later doctrines were concerned with defining the nature of Mary for the Latin church.

This proposed deutero-doctrine has not been defined for the Latins, John Paul II had asked a panel of Mariologists convened in Poland to advise him on the necessity of proclaiming such a doctrine and they unanimously voted to advise him not to proclaim such a doctrine. I don't have the particulars of when this happened but that should bury the idea for this generation.

The the topic is sure to sell a lot of books so I guess we'll be hearing a lot more about it under the next Pope!

In Christ,
Michael, sinner

If you want to know who Jack Chick is go here: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5023/5023_01.asp

Warning lies and ignorance await those who decide to venture to the realm Jack Chick's stupidity!