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

That settles it for me. The Jordanville Unnabreviated Horologion (which we use in our home also ) is largely a translation of the last pre-Revolution Synodal text from Kyiv and even for an Orthodox text is precise and very Orthodox in its texts and explanations. That's on Page 173 if anyone is concerned.

Dear Friends,

Again, this concept of "Co-Redemptrix" is a foreign one to the Eastern Churches.

But then again, so are the other two Marian doctrines as defined by Roman Catholicism in terms of their context and terms of reference.

The Byzantine liturgical tradition does indeed believe in a special salvific role of the Mother of God.

To her alone do we pray: "save us (by your intercession)."

And ultimately, we are all called to participate in Christ's mission in bringing His Word and salvation to the world.

Christ is the Mediator but he calls us to be mediators of His salvation as well.

Alex

So, I didn't know that the Ecumenical Council meeting at Jordanville, NY had passed this dogma of the Theotokos' resurrection.

The above comment is a "tongue in cheek" response meant only to question whether one thinks it appropriate that a particular Church's horologion (published in the year 19 what? and propbably based upon a Nikonian reform of when?) should outweigh in testimony the first ONE THOUSAND YEARS of patristic commentary.

Again, I will highly recommend the work by Brian E. Daley, SJ of the University of Notre Dame entitled, "On the Dormition of Mary" published by SVS Press in 1998.

A glorious celebration of the Lord's resurrection to all participants!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

The day when an Orthodox Christian refers to a work by a Catholic Jesuit to determine traditional Orthodox positions . . .

And I didn't know that hundreds of years of Orthodox faith and liturgical tradition denied any of this.

Frankly, if Orthodoxy truly does deny it, I'm sticking with the Pope, tooth and nail!

(Remember that the Jesuits do too, so be careful who you hang out with intellectually! ).

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!

Alex

Gosh, Andrew, lighten up a little. You thought I was serious in that above post regarding the Horologion. I guess I should be more careful with tongue-in-cheek comments.

I didn't realize that Orthodox think the ROCOR are modernists or innovators...But others in the tradition including St. Peter Moghila who share these thoughts couldn't have been all wrong, could they?

Dear Diak,

I'm just wondering if our friend, Reader Andrew, is dogmatizing in the opposite directon on these subjects to make a point?

To say it's all not a dogma is one thing. To dogmatize about it not being a dogma is another.

But I remove myself from this discussion since I have a perceived conflict of interest.

Whenever these things are questioned of the Mother of God, I lose interest . . .

Alex

What is the big deal with "Assumption"? Isn't it just a different terminology than we Orthodox use, but the same basic idea (with the caveat that, at one time, apparently Catholicism fudged on the issue of whether the Theotokos actually died)? I don't see why this should be an issue, other than the way that the dogma was proclaimed (itself probably used to prove a point more than anything else).

Apparently it was not considered necessary to rule dogmatically on that point. Have the Orthodox made such a dogmatic declaration?

Dear Brendan,

Forgive me, but I think I'll break out in song:

Rejoice, Defender of Orthodoxy!
Rejoice, He who makes things plain!
Rejoice, He who gets to the heart of the matter!

Rejoice, Teacher of the faith!
Rejoice, New Theologian!
Rejoice, Possessed of great understanding of Orthodox liturgical prayer!

Rejoice, Imparting comprehension to us!
Rejoice, Inspired professor of truth!
Rejoice, Promoter of Divine knowledge!

Rejoice, Friend of the doubting!
Rejoice, Hammer of the seeds of doubt!
Rejoice, Enlightener of those seeking light!

Rejoice, O Brendan, Wise Teacher and Instructor in all things profitable unto our souls!

Alex

Dear Michael,
Thanks for your response.
I have no ideas on the why anyone would think a "co-redemptricx" dogma would be necessary.
My question is really aimed at finding out people's idea "necessary" in the context of declaration of dogma. It could be argued that Christological diputes could have been settled without saying anything at all about Mary. Not Thoephoros, Christotokos, Theotokos, just Mary. This is the Jack Chick perspective:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

This is, however, not what the Church did. I am wondering what criteria people have on necessary/unecessary that understands this early declaration versus later ones e.g., Immaculate Conception, etc.

No the Orthodox have no dogmatic definition concerning the Dormition, but the liturgical feast hymnography and rite clearly indicate the Orthodox belief is that she died.

Dear Brendan,

Yes, but her death was clearly a very light and "sweet" experience, unlike the deaths of other people, owing to her great holiness, a true "Falling Asleep."

And does the liturgical tradition also not praise her who was taken to heaven by Her Son?

Alex

Dear djs,

Clearly, the later Roman doctrines of the IC and Assumption dealt solely with the Mother of God, her holiness and favours bestowed on her by Christ, Her Son.

The early doctrines proclaiming her Ever-Virgin Mary and Mother of God, who constantly makes intercession for us before the throne of Her Divine Son on our behalf, and whom it is incumbent on us to invoke for that intercession - all this deals with Christology, Soteriology, the Church and the Communion of Saints.

All her many honours that are celebrated in the liturgical prayers, the miraculous icons and her many miracles of protection across the globe - all these derive from the fact of her fundamental relation to our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ and her role in the plan of salvation and deification of humanity.

As one Orthodox liturgical prayer says, "Rays come from your hands, O Most Holy Mother of God!"

That she was born completely sanctified by the Spirit at her Conception is shown by the fact that we celebrate the Conception of St Ann as a liturgical feast - an honour also given to John the Baptist.

Since the East did not have the issue of the "stain of Original Sin," the IC was never an issue.

Kallistos Ware once wrote that if his tradition believed in a "stain of Original Sin," then it would probably have happened that Orthodoxy would have wanted to declare the Mother of God "free from that stain" via an IC doctrine.

As Ware also states, Orthodoxy has always held that the Mother of God was taken to heaven, body and soul and this is celebrated especially in the liturgy and in the deuterocanonical tradition of Orthodoxy, the visions of the Apostles and the Saints.

Reader Andrew mistakenly assumed that the quote I gave from the Unabbreviated Horologion came from the Jordanville Monastery.

It is, in fact, an ancient quote describing the experience of the Apostles soon after the Dormition of the Mother of God and has nothing to do with Jordanville per se.

Most Holy Mother of God, save us!

Alex

Not clear at all, in particular with regard to the IC.

A key aspect of the controversy in the West was reconciling the Mary's immaculateness with the central necessity of Christ's redemptive act.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

This problem is echoed in certain Orthodox apologetics:
http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/OrthHtrdx/P06.htm
This argument strikes me as borderline soteriological heresy. The author continues, however:
In fact, the IC dogmatizes precisely against this problem.

But isn't it the case that many Orthodox would simply say that Christ had to assume the fallen nature of the Theotokos in order for that fallen nature of humanity to be saved through its reconciliation with, and in the person of, Christ?