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

Diak and Alex,

I agree with you both. Alex, your last question troubles me most of all.

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

I can think of no counter argument based upon Roman predelictions. I fear that they will press ahead with this eventually and this bit of nonsense will cause further schism in the Church. The "conservatives" (whatever that means) over on the Catholic Convert board indicate that the former Marian "dogmas" are infallibly given and so must be true. It really hits at the heart of the differences between East and West doesn't it? How can we avoid the accusation that to be in communion with Rome is to be "under" Rome if we are obliged to accept such dogma even when we know the statement is an error?

Dan Lauffer

Thank you to Stephanos I and Administrator for your clear and thoughtful posts.

Dear Dan,

I think the consensus here is that these doctrines are unnecessary and inadvisable. It's much less clear that there is any error involved.
Couldn't you accept as true the precise theological definitions and still express disapproval at their being expressed in this fashion?

David

Dear Professor Dan,

You comment on another board? IS there another board that can come even CLOSE to this one and that would therefore be worthy of you dedicating time to it?

The differences between East and West are simply that - differences.

In the event of reunion, no one is going to tell the RC Church that its Marian pronouncements are wrong or must be dropped.

In a world-wide, reunited Church, they can be regarded as Latin Church affirmations in the "Local" sense.

Let's remember that the Catholic Church of the Spanish Empire defined belief in the Immaculate Conception FOR ALL SPANISH PARISHES throughout the world in the . . . 17th century.

In other words, if you were a Latin Catholic subject of the King of Spain anywhere, including, at one time, Louisiana and New Orleans, you had to assent to the Immaculate Conception. I believe the French Church did this as well.

This is an example of a Local Latin Church affirming a doctrine to be held by its members.

But the comparison between East and West is different insofar as there is no disagreement between the two of them on the "pith and substance" of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption or even the proposed Co-Redemptrix doctrine.

One could argue at the level of doctrine or at the level of appropriateness of the definition of doctrine.

With respect to the former, the East believes the Mother of God never had the "stain" of Original Sin, especially since the East doesn't accept a "stain" of Original Sin to begin with.

(There were some a few weeks ago who argued that the CCC affirms the traditional Augustinian view here - if you read section 404 carefully, you will see that the CCC most certainly does not.)

The East celebrates Mary's being taken, body and soul, to heaven liturgically. And the East certainly does see Mary in a "Co-Redemptrix" role, although it would reject that term.

Liturgically, the Byzantine East stands alone in praying to our Lady: Most HOly Theotokos SAVE us!

Only the Mother of God can be said to have the power to "save us" by her most mighty intercession at the throne of Her Son and our God, Jesus Christ.

Her "Co-Redemptrix" role is primarily defined in terms of Her being the medium of the Incarnation of God the Word, of course.

As a matter of fact, the Byzantine East has a much greater and more beautiful devotion, theologically and liturgically, to the Mother of God than the Latin West.

It was the East that began the feast of the Conception of St Anne which is, by implication, the feast of that Hallowing of the Mother of God by the Spirit right from her very Conception - liturgically, only the feast of saints may be celebrated.

If the West wasn't so hung up on the "stain" of Original Sin, it would have seen that the Immaculate Conception doctrine is redundant since to celebrate the Conception of St Anne is ALREADY to glorify the holiness of the Virgin Mary from her very beginning.

We also believe the same about John the Baptist whose Conception we also celebrate.

The West emphasises the feast of the Visitation as the time when John was "purified of the stain of Original Sin."

I think that if the West had developed the extensive liturgical tradition that the Byzantine East did, it would not have felt the need to overtly affirm Marian doctrines which are truly "paraliturgical" phenomena.

Those doctrines, as well as the felt need to define them as such, are expressions of the religious culture of the West. They have nothing to do with the East and, ultimately, they are simply Local Latin Church decisions that will remain in place long after the Churches of East and West, God willing, achieve unity.

Alex

Posted by Dan:

"I agree with you both. Alex, your last question troubles me most of all.

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

I can think of no counter argument based upon Roman predelictions. I fear that they will press ahead with this eventually and this bit of nonsense will cause further schism in the Church. The "conservatives" (whatever that means) over on the Catholic Convert board indicate that the former Marian "dogmas" are infallibly given and so must be true. It really hits at the heart of the differences between East and West doesn't it? How can we avoid the accusation that to be in communion with Rome is to be "under" Rome if we are obliged to accept such dogma even when we know the statement is an error?"


Dear Dan (and/or Diak and/or Alex),

I read This posting with great interest. But I'm confused as a result. (Some would say that that is a permanent state! :rolleyes: )

I am not sure, Dan, that I understand what you are saying in it. So, if you'll bear with me, I'd like to ask a few questions and explain why I'm asking. Perhaps you or other posters can clairfy my understanding.

You refer to former Marian "dogmas." What former dogmas are you talking about?

You talk about error in connection with dogmas. What is the error? Is it what the statements of former Marian dogma say that is the error?

If I understand what you are saying, you associate accepting dogma with being under Rome. Is allowing that an dogmatic expression presented by the Pope truly expresses what is our Faith somehow wrong? Is that what causes being under Rome?

Here's why I ask.

I've read here that the Marian dogmatic statements and the theological speculation being discussed here, carefully explained and understood, here do not introduce anything new into Eastern or Oriental Catholic belief. Perhaps I've misunderstood. They merely make explicit what is commonly accepted to be real among all Churches of the Catholic Communion.

So, I am not sure what the issue is in terms of accepting expressions of our common Faith. I do understand that Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churces might see that new dogmatic statements might be considered inopportune or unneeded based on their reception by our sister Orthodox Churches.

The issue here does not arise from the content of what we believe about Mary and her role in Salvation History, right? The issue for the Orthodox, as I understand it, comes from the fact that the statements were made by the Pope acting in His service role among the Churches, and not simply as Patriarch of the West. Is that the core of the issue for Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

In the short run, the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger have assured that no new Marian Dogma is in the works. In any event, don't we have assurance that the Holy Spirit will guide the Churches so that the Church will teach the truth about what is real and what is not real? Don't we believe as members of the Catholic Communion that that is what happened in these dogmatic statements?

What am I missing?

Thanks for hearing me out!

Steve

Dear Brethren,

Speaking as an Orthodox Catholic not in communion with Rome, I would like to remind the participants that the addition of "co-redemptrix" to Rome's Marian dogmata would add one ADDITIONAL stumbling block to efforts at reunion.

Brother Alex, as always, is the perpetual optimist. He lives in faith and I thank God for that. I also want to believe that East and West believe the same thing while using different terminology, but after all of these months reading the well-thought out posts by so many on this site, I'm still not convinced.

The view that these dogmata are local proclamations for the Latin Rite only would be tested once again by "co-redemptrix." I offer the following as examples where that view, that these dogmata are local in nature (asserted for Latins only) fails miserably.

The Easterner, not in communion with Rome, may openly hold that the Theotokos was not assumed bodily into heaven. May an Easterner, in communion with Rome, assert this and remain in good standing in the Catholic Church?

Liturgically, on the Dormition, we recognize that she was "translated to life." Is this a bodily Assumption? The East, not in communion with Rome, remains unconcerned with what her communicants believe on this.

The Easterner, not in communion with Rome, may openly assert that the Theotokos is not sinless and that she inherited original sin (mortality). May the Easterner in communion with Rome openly assert this and remain in communion with Rome?

The Easterner, not in communion with Rome, may openly assert that the Church must be conciliar and that ANY bishop may be removed for serious scandal or dogmatic error by his brothers. May an Easterner, in communion with Rome, openly assert this and remain in communion with Rome?

I urge you to consider well the damage that the dogmatization of "co-redemptrix" would effect. Especially since it is thoroughly incorrect.

To the East, there is no such thing as a local dogma. There are local liturgies, local traditions, local saints, etc., The faith is universal. That's why we have (I should say "had") a universal creed established and modified by ecumenical councils only.

Dogmata are to be be promulgated not by local bishops, nor even by local synods of bishops, but by the world-wide gathering of bishops.

The East would rhetorically ask, when and why did we start having dogmata without ecumenical councils?

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew J. Rubis<<Dogmata are to be be promulgated not by local bishops, nor even by local synods of bishops, but by the world-wide gathering of bishops.

The East would rhetorically ask, when and why did we start having dogmata without ecumenical councils?>>

I agree with you, brother Andrew. The East would further ask, "What is this Roman penchant to add additional dogma?" Does it bring anyone closer to salvation? Is this proposed new dogma absolutely necessary to safeguard the teaching concerning Christ's Divinity or does it touch upon the dogma of the Holy Trinity? Or does it provide more stumbling-blocks for the searchers of Truth?

OrthodoxEast

Dear Reader Andrew,

I am grateful, as always, to your challenging and stimulating, intellectual contributions to such discussions!

Even when they are wrong . . .

Now I am going to do the unthinkable and present the case as an Orthodox Christian as I understand and embrace Orthodoxy.

An Orthodox Christian would not dogmatize about the bodily assumption of the Theotokos into heaven.

He/she would, instead, point to the lex orandi, the liturgical tradition, to determine what the Church believes in its inner, mystical life of veneration for the Theotokos.

Perhaps someone of your theological calibre can pray the liturgical texts of the Dormition and question whether it is clear that they teach she was taken bodily to heaven. Or that the icons of the Dormition leave that in doubt. I daresay 99 % of Orthodox Christians would have no such doubts.

Even the Lutheran Confessions of the 16th century asserted Mary's bodily assumption . . .

It is part of the Church tradition of the united Ecclesia of Christ.

Andrew, I esteem and love you. But I love the Most Holy Theotokos more. Sorry . . .

I am somewhat surprised by your understanding of Original Sin - you answer your own question.

The Immaculate Conception is simply a Latin way to exempt the Mother of God from the STAIN of Original Sin - this STAIN is foreign to Orthodoxy.

That the Mother of God reposed in the Lord, well, see the liturgical services for August 15th . . .

That she was conceived in all Holiness, see the services for December 9th, the Conception of St Anne.

Only feasts of SAINTS may be celebrated. And, remember, I didn't go to St Vladimir's Seminary . I'm sorry I didn't, but there you have it.

And the same applies to the Forerunner whose Conception we also celebrate.

Co-Redemptrix? Not a title that any Eastern Christian would like.

But "Most Holy Mother of God, save us" sort of says it - for me if not for you.

There truly ARE local beliefs and doctrines in the history of the once united Church.

So, if I as an Orthodox Christian, in or out of communion with Rome, said I didn't believe in the bodily Assumption of the Mother of God, I believe I would be contradicting the lex orandi of Orthodoxy.

If I said the Mother of God ever had a stain of any sin on her soul (and death etc. isn't about "stains"), that would really go against the entire, great tradition of veneration for the Mother of God of the East.

My Orthodox prayerbook tells me that when the Mother of Christ stood beneath Her Son's Cross, she "co-suffered" with Him.

Again, not an object of doctrine, but just as valid and not something we need to go into any great detail on.

I firmly believe all this about the Mother of God because the Orthodox liturgical tradition affirms this.

And I don't need Elder Rome to pontificate on what that tradition has always believed.

You may interpret that tradition differently - but your interpretation isn't the majority view in any event.

And just because one sparrow has sung, in this case, yourself, Big Guy, doesn't mean that spring is here.

Have you seen all the snow we have outside?

In addition, the Pope of Rome did indeed proclaim those doctrines for the world-wide Catholic Church.

He didn't do it by way of Council, but he did consult with the Episcopate. The issue of conciliarity is an important one and one that must be dealt with in any future union council, to be sure. That most certainly is a stumbling block on the road to unity.

What is "Local" is not the "pith and substance" of those doctrines - the total holiness of the Mother of God is universally affirmed by both East and WEst - but the Particular theological perspective in which those doctrines are formulated. And Churches have the Rite to see theology through the prism of their own theological patrimony.

Alex

Dear OrthodoxEast,

I agree with you.

But "searchers of truth?"

Usually in East/West faceoffs, it is a question of "My Church is more true than yours."

If we really sought the truth, I think we'd all be one Church once again.

Alex

Alex<<But "searchers of truth?">>

Alex, when I wrote that I thought I had capitalized "Truth," to refer to Him Who is "The Way, the Truth and the Life."

Truth for me is not a concept, but a Person, the Person of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

I was thinking of searchers outside the context of traditional Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Sorry, I should have made myself more clear, but sometimes when I post on this forum, my 'puter acts up and refuses to cooperate.

OrthodoxEast

Dear Alex,

So, the snow is gone, in Philadelphia anyway, and perhaps spring is here. This is my song:

You are conceeding my third point, that the lack of conciliarity in the Western Church, especially in the formulation of dogma, is a true stumbling block to unification. East and West believe differently on this. It is about ecclesiology, a dogmatic issue in itself.

Regarding the issue of original sin as found in Eastern and Western definitions: My point is to say that East and West don't even agree on what is sin. The Roman definition of the Immaculate Conception merely proves the point. On a good day, after a glass or two of wine, East and West might be able to agree to say that "while the Theotokos inherited mortality she inherited no personal sins from her holy parents," this would only beg the next question from the East, "then how may one call her sinless if she is mortal?"

On the issue of sin itself (just forget about "original sin" for a moment) East and West are miles apart.

On the Dormition/Assumption: I highly recommend a book titled "On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilees" by Brian E. Daley, Jr. who served as both translator and writer of the excellent introduction. It was published by SVS Press in 1998. Here is some of his song:

"A first characteristic of this whole body of homilies is what might be called their cultivated vagueness about the event being celebrated. As I have mentioned, it is clear from the late sixth century until the tenth (when a certain sceptical reaction against belief in her bodily assumption emerged in certain ecclesiastical quarters, east and west) virtually all treatments of the end of Mary's life accept the belief that she died, was buried, and was raised from the tomb to heavenly glory within a few days of her burial. Nevertheless, it is striking that the authors of these homilies, like the broad ecclesiastical tradition since their time, consistently avoid the language of death and resurrection in speaking of Mary's end. Instead, we repeatedly encounter hallowed euphemisms: Mary's death is always referred to as a "falling asleep" (koimisis, dormitio), her passage into glory as a "transferral" (metathesis) or "a change of state" (metastasis), "a crossing over" (metavasis, diavasis) or "a change of dwelling" (metokisthi). John of Damascus boldly streeses that Mary has been "lifted up" (hirtai, memeteoristai), and Theoteknos of Livias repeatedly refers to her entry into glory as an "assumption" (analipsis) - a word otherwise rare in Greek language for this feast, as we have mentioned. All of our authors clearly believe that Mary's death was real, natural, and complete; Andrew of Crete, for instance, refers to "the separation of the soul from her body, her putting off of flesh, the end of her incarnate existence, the separation of her parts, their dissolution," and alludes to her entering the "foreign," "unknown regions" of the underworld, while Germanus even suggests - alone of these homilists - that her body had undergone some corruption in the tomb. Yet only Theoteknos, who stands near the beginning of the tradition of the feast, uses the strong metaphor of "assumption" to depict Mary's entry into glory as a kind of heavenly journey. And none of these preachers speaks directly of Mary's fulfillment, as one might have expected, as a "resurrection from the dead:" perhaps because of the inherent conservatism of liturgical tradition, going back to a time when consensus on the details of her end was less clear, or perhaps because it seemed more appropriate to reserve the term "resurrection" for what happened to Jesus, and for the eschatological hope of all Christians for the end of time. So our homilists, especially Andrew of Crete, repeatedly emphasize the mysterious, ineffable character of what Christians discern as Mary's end, and suggest that if the liturgy itself did not call for some attempt at explanation, it might be more reverent, as well as more practicable, to "choose silence over words."

The ancient Eastern sparrows were singing, but they certainly weren't speaking.

And just in case anyone believes that our "tune" has "changed" or "developed" over the centuries to the point where East will accept the Assumption as a dogma, I cite Father Theodore Pulcini's "Orthodoxy and Catholocism: What are the Differences?" published by Conciliar Press in 1995. This is his "song":

"To be sure, a strong and early tradition existed in both East and West that after Mary's death the Lord assumed her into heaven. In Psalm 45, a messianic psalm, the Church fathers interpreted the phrase, "At your right hand stands the queen" (v.9) as a reference to Mary's presence with the Lord now. But her assumption is not a required belief for Orthodox, though it is a widely respected theological opinion. Why, the Orthodox wonder, should such a belief, hardly central to the christian proclamation of salvation, be dogmatized and put on the same level as other truly central dogmas like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the two natures of Christ?"

Alex, you may be interested to note that he published this in 1995. I bought it that same year. He was subsequently offered a position as a professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary in 1996. He turned it down to return to the God-Protected Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, it seems strange that the entire board of Governors [which includes bishops, priests, professors, and knowledgeable lay leaders] of such an esteemed institution, in your own view, would select as a professor one who held radical views representing only 1% of the faithful.

Orthodoxy: same bird, same song.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Yes, it is warmer up here now and a few sparrows are singing . . .

I appreciate your quotes and I suppose we don't have to worry about East and West having different interpretations when we ourselves see things differently - and still do.

The East is much less concerned with dogmatic definition and the exactitude that comes with it.

That is, at once, its strength and its weakness. The same applies to the more organized and practical West.

And the way that theology is done today, at ANY seminary or institute of whatever Church is not uniform and is, of necessity, influenced by the winds of intellectual change felt in other fields such as history, critical literary analysis, what have you.

All I'm suggesting with this is that quoting texts with the interpretations of modern individuals, no matter how qualified, is still an interpretation which is not the final word - and need not be an authoritative one at that.

For example, for my doctoral dissertation, I ripped apart the theories of a famous professor quite mercilessly . . .

It came as somewhat of a shock when this same professor was appointed my chief oral examiner . . .

I thought I would be in hot water, but he actually agreed with what I said, even though I was a PhD candidate at the time, and he had written more books than I had read . . .

My point is that it is all in the interpretation. The fact that I totally disagree with the presuppositions of that would-be professor at St Vlad's is no slight against him - I'm sure he would have made a top-notch theology prof and, had I been at St Vlad's, I would have learned tremendously from him.

The only authority in theology is that of the Church hersel and her interpretation - in the final analysis.

That's my point, take it or leave it. If we were talking about social science, that's a whole different kettle of fish, different paradigms and a different way of arriving at authoritative conclusions.

While I agree that conciliarity in the West needs to be addressed, I think that your discussion also shows, to me at least, why a Primate like a reformed Papacy would be good for the East.

Sin isn't all that different in East and West, if we hold Augustine in abeyance for a moment.

There is the shared notion of "sin" as a deliberate act of our will for evil and that of "sinfulness" as a continual state of our fallen nature with its propensity for concupiscence, darkened mind, and experience of death.

That the East doesn't dogmatize on its inner liturgical Life in Christ - that is of no real consequence for our life of faith.

It is sufficient for us to worship with the Mind of the Church liturgically. If our faith is indicated by our worship, then we truly do believe in what the liturgy makes plain and evident. And that is that the Most Holy Theotokos was completely sanctified by the Spirit as the Bearer of God the Word Incarnate, and all her dignity and honour derive from this fact. That she was the first to reach the resurrection of the body - if that isn't plain from the liturgy and historical consciousness of the Church, I don't know what is. To question it today is just . . . nonsense and I'll leave it at that. Others have also gone to heaven bodily, including the Prophet Elias and St John the Theologian.

These are not matters of "dogma" but then the point is that the East doesn't need special pronouncements to believe what it does believe.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council truly did sing out about the glory of the Mother of God and the Saints, the holy icons and relics etc.

Your source, to me at least, seems to be using reverse Latin theology here: If the Orthodox Church doesn't dogmatize about this or that, then that means it doesn't believe in this or that.

And that, Reader Andrew, is truly Latinization at its worst, even in someone who is Orthodox.

Kallistos Ware pointed out that when the RC dogma of the Assumption was declared, there were Orthodox who denied Orthodoxy believed the Mother of God was assumed bodily into heaven. But, he said, they were a small minority, implying they were disagreeing for disagreement's sake.

And I would hope that Orthodox theologians would take a more traditional stand with respect to their theological perspectives and not give in to the secularist, scientist nonsense that one finds in other Western theological work these days.

If one wants to be a scientist, one should go and study natural or social science. I did - and it is all highly overrated!

I think our differences, then, come down to our differing views on how theology is to be approached in general.

Were I ever to return to my Mother Orthodox Church, I would believe about the Theotokos as I do today.

For me, the RC dogmas don't go far enough in glorifying the Most Holy Theotokos.

For me, Orthodoxy goes beyond the notion of the Mother of God simply being conceived "without the stain of Original Sin." But I have seen one RC litany to Mary that, instead of this, says, "Mary, conceived in Holiness, pray for us."

Dogmatisation about Her is not the way of Orthodoxy.

But then again, we never had a crisis of devotion to her in our history.

Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the usual thoughtful and insightful response.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that because the East doesn't dogmatize something that it doesn't believe it. But, if the Church doesn't dogmatize something, she allows various and even contradicting beliefs and practices on said subject. Once said subject begins to cause division (that old Satan's delight), the Church has been forced to dogmatize. Thus we have canons, both dogmatic and disciplinary.

Regarding sin, you stated:

"There is the shared notion of "sin" as a deliberate act of our will for evil and that of "sinfulness" as a continual state of our fallen nature with its propensity for concupiscence, darkened mind, and experience of death."

But, I would hope that you would include with "sin" the non-deliberate acts. (As usual, I refer us to the Prayer before Communion: "in word or in deed, knowledge or ignorance, knowlingly or unknowingly, manifest or unseen") West does not include these in its understanding of sin, but the East does. Are you yourself not revealing that East and West have different views? Is Augustine about to be put aside????

Regarding the Dormition/Assumption, the primary point that I have gained over the years of much reading is the one that Daley brought out so well: No major eastern theologian (with the exception of you ) speaks of it with the word "resurrection."

We have to deal with "translation," "transferral," "change of dwelling," and in only one or two bolder examples "lifted up" and "assumption."

And as you have pointed out so many times, Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and The Forerunner fall into the same category. So the Most Holy Theotokos, being circumscribed by time as these others were, would clearly not have been first in the resurrection. Clearly, Elijah, Enoch, or Moses, by use of this term "resurrection" as a substitute for "translation, et. al." precede not only the Theotokos in the resurrection, but would precede Christ himself!

Also keep in mind the other "resurrection," that of Lazarus which was a temporary one. Also the saints who walked about the earth at the crucifiction! All of these also would precede the Theotokos' "resurrection." All of these examples must be held together in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding.

One may believe, teach, or preach regarding the "assumption" or "resurrection" of our Most Holy Theotokos. Still one must realize that this remains theologumen (opinion) and that he or she may hear different opinions on the same subject. That is why it is not a dogma.

It would be a different matter if one challenged the concept of "translated" or "transferred" that we have affirmed liturgically for so long. Challenging that would be a serious problem, perhaps not one alongh the lines of a dogmatic problem, but something akin to rejecting long-held traditions of the Church. And you won't find me with that bunch!

For those of us interested in this subject, we try to discern what the "translation" and "resurrection" mean, holding up, simultaneously, uses of similar words scripturally or litugically for the other figures mentioned above. Still nothing absolutely definitive will come of the effort, but it helps keep us and the other faithful out of more serious error. To wit: "co-redemptrix."

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Well, I'm no theologian - but you most certainly are!

(Could you write a letter to my wife asking her to allow me to attend seminary part-time? ).

Your analysis of "taking up" is well put, in depth and right on the money.

As for the "taking up" of the Mother of God, yes, it is capable of different views in the Orthodox Church.

BUT I daresay it is only in these times that you will actually find theologians saying different things that might be seen as challenging what I would call the universal view of the Mother of God as celebrated liturgically and in the deuterocanonical tradition.

If an Orthodox Christian today can DENY the Mother of God was taken up bodily to Heaven and not incur ecclesial censure - is that view in keeping with the rest of Orthodoxy from the times of the Apostles?

I would say it is not and I think many would agree.

You raise the fascinating point, worthy of a thread or even a book in itself, of the "taking up into heaven" of other saints before and during Christ's coming.

You mention the issue, without commenting on it, about how it is possible for those taken up BEFORE Christ to be said to have participated in the resurrection etc.?

RC theology has traditionally responded to this issue by saying that, as with the Immaculate Conception, the salvation of Christ can not only be effective to those who lived after Christ, but also for those who preceded Him, in view of the future salvation wrought by Him.

As for sin, it is true that RC theology these days has tended to emphasize the role of the actual will in committing personal sin and that, without it, it cannot be "sin."

But I think that the RC emphasis on the "situation of sin" into which we are born, the sinful effects of the evil we do of which we are not aware etc. more than "catch up" with the same Orthodox view.

During the Novus Ordo Mass, the priest prays for forgiveness for "what I have done and what I have failed to do" suggesting, with the Orthodox ascetical Fathers, that good left undone has sinful effects and is sinful in itself.

I've also never heard of RC and Orthodox theologians fundamentally disagree over the theology of sin and RC theologians these days are often very willing to learn from Orthodox Fathers etc.

Perhaps RC views fall short by Orthodox standards. But RC willingness to be open to them surely must be an open door for unity in this regard.

My first encounter with the Nicene Creed without the Filioque was not in an Eastern Church. It was via my RC university chaplain.

A liturgist before his retirement to the chaplaincy, he simply told me, "The Filioque isn't in the original Creed and there is no justification for keeping it in."

Then there are those RC priests who insist on blessing with the Christogram . . .

Is there no end to ecumenical hope?

Alex

Dear Andrew, your statement above really speaks to the heart of the understanding of the distinction between theologumena and dogma. You have definitely brought some wonderful insight into this discussion of these two in the East. And it is essential that this distinction be kept in its proper place.

In the post-medieval West there has been an increasing blurring of distinction between the two, to the point that such a formulation as that proposed for co-redemptrix is seen as necessary when in the East we wouldn't see the need at all nor understand the "theological insecurity" that might precipitate such a formulation. A theological question such as this in the East would stay within the realm of theologumena and be "addressed" so to speak through the lex orandi which the Latins appear to feel compelled to address outside of the lex orandi.

I keep going back to the fact that there is certainly no lack of devotion or recognition of place of honor of the Theotokos in either East or West. I really don't understand the need of the West to promulgate yet another dogma which has a very good chance of furthering the rift between Orthodox and Catholics.

The ecumenical councils had to resolve raging dogmatic controversies. In the case of the Theotokos and the issue of co-redemptrix there is no such similar controversy setting the stage, such as questioning her virginity or being the Theotokos. But to my knowledge this term of "co-redemptrix" does not appear as used in this way in the patristic corpus.

One of my primary hangups is the predisposal of the term "co-redemptrix" to misunderstanding. By its very title it could be prone to heretical understanding if you take "co" to mean "equal" as it often means and is used in English. For me, my reluctance is as much because of the potential for misunderstanding as anything else.

Only God is our Redeemer, and we all know that Jesus Himself as God-With-Us completed the Paschal Mystery by obedience of the will of His Father. The Theotokos "saves" through intercession and her maternity. She is the Mother of God, but is not God. She certainly may have mystically shared in the sufferings of her Son but only the Most Holy Trinity, one triune God, effects the redemption of mankind.

Again, in my eyes there is a real theological can of worms that could be opened up with defining such a dogma as this in the West. I am also very concerned that if this is proclaimed ex cathedra it would precipitate about yet another rift between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches through an unnecessary Latin unilateral theological declaration. Most Holy Theotokos, save us.