www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Co-redeemer???

Sheldon,

Two observations. 1) What weight does St. Nicodemus hold? He is not, to my knowledge, ranked among the "Father of the Church" and he seems a bit late. This is not to say that he is not in the patristic tradition, just observing. 2) This title, if you will, remains an innovation. That there may be an understanding that can be made to appear similar to what this title implies is possible, I cannot deny you that. This appelation however still seems new, you are trying to flesh it out of various sources when it looks like it is not there.

Again, is this necessary? What heresy does this combat? Is there something that is unclear that needs clarification?

Dear Bob,

Is the English translation of "save us" an acceptable and correct translation of "spasi nas?"

Also, you do have a point as to what heresy this co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix deals with. Maybe it's just the prevailing thought among mandy Christians (mostly Protestants) that Our Lady wasn't really crucial or important in anything concerning Christ or His Kingdom. Just a guess.

Soli Deo Gratia,
ChristTeen287

I believe everyone who is seriously contemplating the topics discussed on this forum should read this website.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/co-redemptrix1.htm

Dear ChristTeen287:

Thanks for the site. And there are many, many similar ones on the net. It's good to find out what these ideas entail rather than making conclusions on the basis of contentious interpretations of the wording. Good apologetics on Marian dogma, moreover, work to show the Christological and soteriological implications of the ideas, which, and only which, motivate raising the ideas to the level of dogma.

Bob:
from the Ascension Tropar
",.. jako Ty jesi Syn Bozhij, izbavitel' mira."
OCA translates "izbavitel' " as "Redeemer" of the world. "Deliverer" or "Free-er" would be awkward; "Liberator" might be better?

djs

With the greatest respect to the OCA, to which I owe my jurisdictional allegiance, izbavitel' is not redeemer.

I think that mis-translating this in this instance, however, is less harmful than the the other text cited by Sheldon. Redeemer is a title that is applied to the Saviour, we are not giving him any 'promotion.' To call any entity other than One of the Holy Trinity (namely the Son) redeemer seems dangerous.

If we peruse the English-language texts of the various Orthodox and Greek Catholic jurisdictions, I am sure we will find many inconsistencies. The OCA is probably guilty of as many as any other. This is the reason, IMHO, that accurate translations are SO IMPORTANT. If we are churches that believe in the rule of lex orandi, lex credendi imagine what havoc can ensue from incorrect translations!

As an obedient Orthodox Christian I will use the text that is provided by the local Hierarch, or if none is provided another I find suitable or produce my own translation or rendering. To change something without competent authority is dangerous too. I am not encouraging that. What I am encouraging is the study of the 'original' languages of Greek and to a lesser degree Slavonic so that when these issue arise, such as the ones so hotly 'debated' elsewhere on this forum, we can make informed appraisals.

Bob

Bob:

I agree with most of what you say.

We may talk of Christ, who freed us from the slavery of sin and death (or death and therefore sin, if you prefer) with various metaphors: a Deliverer, who, like Moses carries a people out of bondage; a Redeemer, who purchases their freedom; a Liberator, who vanquishes the captor. To the extent that the metaphors are "dead" they are interchangable. But as we resurrect the dead metaphors the implications lead in directions that can be very different (what was the currency and price of the buy-out, ...). So a consideration of nuances and long-range implications is by no means tendentious, but is at the heart of the hard work of making excellent translations.

On the other hand, I think that suggestions within this thread that "co" necessarily implies necessity or equality - thus implicating heresy in the title co-Redemptrix - are inconsistent with the scope of English usage and are tendentious. I would stiplulate, however, that co-Redemptrix represents horribly poor wording, because it so easily lends itself, within English usage, to misinterpretation.

djs

Bob raises an interesting point. The nuances of individual words carry great weight even if the dictionary gives them almost identical definitions. A brief survey of some of the liturgical texts on my shelf (Mother Mary / Kallistos Ware, Hapgood, Raya, Archimandrite Ephrem, Sisters of St. Basil, Nassar, and parish editions) shows that two translations uses the work "delivered" while all the rest use "redeemed".

MM/Ware: O Virgin, who has borne the Give of Life, thou hast delivered Adam from sin, and to Eve thou has brought joy in place of sorrow, He who took flesh from thee, who is both God and man, has raised up once more those who had fallen from life.

Hapgood: In that thou didst bear the Giver of Life, O Virgin, thou didst redeem Adam from sin, and didst give to Eve joy in place of sadness; and He who was incarnate of thee, both God and man, restored to life those who had fallen therefrom.

Raya: O Virgin, you bore the Giver of Life. You redeemed Adam from his sin and granted joy to Eve instead of sadness. As for the God and Man who was incarnate of you, He has restored to life those who had strayed away from it.

Archimandrite Ephrem: O Virgin, by giving birth you redeemed Adam from sin, and you brought Eve joy instead of sorrow. He who was incarnate from you, who is both God and man, has guided back to life those who had fallen from life.

Sisters of St. Basil: O Virgin, you bore the Giver of Life. You redeemed Adam from his sin and granted joy to Eve instead of sadness. For He who is both God and Man was incarnate of you, and He has restored life to those who had strayed away from it.

Nassar: In that thou didst bear the Giver of Life, O Virgin thou didst redeem Adam from sin, and didst give to Eve joy in place of sadness; but he who was incarnate of thee, both God and Man, hath restored to life those who have fallen therefrom.

OCA (Parish edition): Since you gave birth to the Giver of Life, O Virgin, you delivered Adam from his sin! You gave joy to Eve instead of sadness! The God-man Who was born of you has restored to life those who had fallen from it!

ROCOR (Parish edition): In bringing forth the Giver of life, thou hast redeemed Adam from sin, O Virgin, and hast brought joy to Eve instead of sorrow; and those fallen from life have thereunto been restored, by Him Who of thee was incarnate, God and man.

One of my dictionaries gives the following definition for "redeem": Theol.) Hence, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's violated law. [It references Psalm 25:22 and Gal 3:13 as examples and quick look shows the use of "redeem", "ransom" and "deliver" in the various editions of Scripture.]

For "deliver" my dictionary states: "Usage: Deliver denotes, literally, to set free."

It there a linguist among us? It would be good to know the etymology of the original Slavonic and Greek terms.

.

And the connotation of subordinate accompanying:
pilot/co-pilot

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

A very good point. When we hear the term "co-worker" we think of team members. While the intent of the use of the term "co-redemptrix" really means that Mary was a co-laborer with Christ from the time she said "yes" it carries with it the connotation of equality (at least in American English usage).

I think the Church has already pronounced that it has no intention of proclaiming another Marian dogma. I do not at all understand the need or desire for such a dogma.

I think Mr. Administrator hit the nail on its eency weency head. Technically, the theology behind co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix is not heretical, wrong, or far-fetched (in fact it's legitimate), these terms bring negative connotations to mind in modern American English. I think this is the main problem surrounding the theology; it's just not very *smart* or timely to use these words.

Soli Deo Gratia,
ChristTeen287

I haven't read many of these posts because of time, but noticed a few citations of the phrase:

"Most holy Theotokos save us."

I have researched this phrase in the prayer books about a year ago, since it seemed like an interesting one; Of course I know we don't say this as if she or any of the other saints have magical powers or are demigods. When we sing "Holy Theotokos, save us", we don't mean "save" in an eternal sense, as we would pray to Christ; we mean "protect, defend, take care of us here on earth," Just as we ask for each other's prayers, we ask for the prayers of Mary and the other saints as well.

Anyway, the only interesting thing I found was an old Greek prayer book that translated into "pray for us" instead of "save us". Because of circumstances, I didn't have much time to look at the book but believe I saw the text at the tail end of the Akathist Hymn. The book was from the 1930's.

Current Greek texts indeed say "save us", but I have always wondered if the texts have changed or if they are simply written one way or the other with the knowledge they mean the same thing. Since I gave up, I guess I'll never know.

Etymology of the Slavonic word izbaviti and iskupiti are given above in a previous post.

Addendum: Izkupiti and its relation to redeem is discussed above. Recall that to redeem is to purchase thus the redemption there we still see the -empt root more obviously. For the etymology of izbavit you will have to wait although the Our Father example should be sufficient, perhaps someone can compare the corresponding verb in Greek and then compare that to the Greek text of that part of Matins?

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

To the best of my knowledge it is the only way to translate it. Again, someone may wish to compare the Greek which I am not qualified to do.

Hooooooo Boy!!

Just when I, as a convert, am starting to get comfortable with all the honors lauded upon our Blessed Mother, the Latins have to come up with THIS!!!

I have a headache now!!

And HOW, may I ask, is THIS going to make it any easier to bring Protestants into the Church?

Brother Ed

Bob King,

Good evening.

You asked for specifics when I said that somewhere in the Orthodox Liturgy there's a mention of Theotokos being the co-mediatrix.

I know it's in the Kontakion (sp?) right after the Troparion of the day. But today's Kontakion at the Orthodox Church speaks about Theotoko's Dormition, so it wasn't there. But just about every Sundays during the "ordinary" time they use the same Kontakion which mentioned co-mediatrix.

So I don't have it word for word yet. But when I come across to it again, I'll type it all out for you.

And also...I can't remember if I see co-mediatrix somewhere else...either in the Matin (Orthros) or in the Great Vespers. Also I can't remember if there's a mention of that in the Akathist of Theotokos.

But I do know generally the Orthodox don't see Co-Mediatrix as a problematic to them as it would to co-redemptorix.

I would have a problem with her being the co-redemptorix.

But I can certainly put myself in the Roman Catholic's shoes and see where they're coming from...when it's through Theotoko's "YES" to God-incarnate...the salvation begins right there. It's not she that saves us but God saves us in the flesh inside of her and through her. God alone have the power to save us.

I hope this helps about where I was coming from about the Kontakion.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine