Posted on 05/16/2007 1:51:59 PM PDT by Friar Roderic Mary
Just read up on this fellow Leopold Mandic. If a person like him professed this Co-Redemptrix idea, I’d say that alone is enough to make me want to stay away from it. Apparently his time in Orthodox lands was spent trying to convert the Orthodox to the Latin Church. This practice has been condemned by the Vatican and the Pats of Constantinople, Moscow and Antioch. He is no example to use with Orthodox Christians. What a presumptious man he must have been, aside from being quite deluded in his belief that the Orthodox needed conversion!
well said kolo.
This is a great post Kolo, in fact one of numerous great posts I have seen on this thread, to the credit of our learned Latin brothers and sisters.
Dogma in response to heresy is the essence. For lurkers, I think it will be helpful to mention that the Orthodox Church basically has three dogmas: Holy Trinity, Christology, Theotokos. All three were defined by the undivided Church in response to specific heresies.
There is a "fuzzy" issue of the hesychastic uncreated grace ("energies"), which is, for all practical purposes, is an Orthodox post-Schism (14th century) "dogma." It was formed in response to schalsticism, which is not, in and of istelf, necessarily a heresy, but it is a doctrinal challenge to the patristic understing of God's grace.
Kolo also points to the fact that +Augustine's "Original Sin" was never dogmatized in the undivided Church, nor was it universally taught. The same is true of Immaculate Conception.
There are no heresies in the history of the Church that would necessitate such dogmas. The same can be said of the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
All I can do is shake my head in disbelief as people intentionally set about misusing a word....redeem.
There is only one sacrifice. It was made by Christ. The price was paid by Christ. The redemption was effective. The proof is the resurrection.
There is no other redemption that needs being made.
Oh, I agree with you. But my point is that by using “co” that it will be misunderstood.
Mary is the first “co redeemer” and as Paul pointed out, we are all “co redeemers” when we unite ourselves with Christ.
But it is a shame that the term will be used for misunderstanding and ridicule of the complex idea.
Yes, Friar Roderic, the Eastern thought on the Incarnation focuses especially on “theosis” or divinization of man in Christ. Christ comes as Mediator to elevate man to a participation in the divine nature (sin or no sin). Such names as St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazienzen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Maximus the Confessor come to mind. To see a beautiful outline of the motive of the Incarnation from an Orthodox perspective see the article by Archpriest G. Florovsky called “Cur Deus Homo?” on 10/20/2006 at http://www.ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html
As you noted, this places Mary Theotokos above all creatures as the unique Mediatrix with Christ the one Mediator. She is second only to Christ and her role depends entirely upon the one mediation of Christ the High Priest.
God bless...
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. – Hebrews 9:11-15
I can see no justification for intentionally using a term which is widely understood to be non-communicative and which will surely harden the differences which already exist among the brethren.
Thank you, sister, for a very balanced post. There is no justification for using words as one feels like at the moment.
However, I don’t believe it’s an accidental misuse. It is intentional, and I can only think that it moves something down the road in the future that someone wants moved down the road.
If one gets a pass on a misuse now, one can conduct a full-scale obfuscation or misdirection at some other point.
This is a sad thing to observe.
Fr. Florovsky was certainly one of our greats. He was quite firm in his criticism of Russian theology, especially of the 19th century, which he felt had been heavily influenced by scholasticism. The piece you cited is interesting, if a bit arcane. From an Orthodox perspective, although Florovsky is interesting, the patristic understanding set out here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.i.html
is more beneficial to the advancement of Christian understanding of the Incarnation.
“As you noted, this places Mary Theotokos above all creatures as the unique Mediatrix with Christ the one Mediator. She is second only to Christ and her role depends entirely upon the one mediation of Christ the High Priest.”
Indeed she is, by grace, though she was born and died fully human and in need of a saviour and the great Mystery of the Incarnation...just like the rest of us. How does the title of “Co-Redemptrix” add to, or more dangerously, better define, what The Church already believes at all times and everywhere? Is this to address some problem endemic in the Latin Church which we in Orthodoxy don’t have?
“Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Saviour save us!”
Only God can make redemption on account of men. It is an act of divine will and power. No human can be add to, or subtract from it.
In this case, you, the Orthodox and many, many Catholics, as this thread clearly shows, are on the same sheet of music.
What heresy does it address?
Now this is a completely legitimate objection.
Already been covered.
See my Comment #35 on how Marian Doctrines in the past have effected Dogmas and how this one will address the modern heresy that suffering is the greatest evil and how this is the source of all of our moral evils of hedonism e.g. sexual immorality, contraception, abortion, euthanasia. If this is not important then what is? Does anyone have a serios objectionto this logic? So far I have heard none.
Ave Maria!
I believe you need to study the proceedings of the Great Councils and the elaboration of the Theotokos dogma, which was done in order to counter heresies.
As for Queen of Heaven, BEVM should certainly be a personal queen, not goddess, in the eyes of any human being. We Orthodox do not use that particular term, but I see no problem with it. Only those who tend to, out of envy or some other wrong reason, try to bring everyone down to their own level would find fault in considering her a spiritual "royal," imho.
Now, on the issue of Co-redemptrix, the majority of Christains and the majority of Catholics are on the same sheet of music: there is one Redeemer and no human can add or subtract to or help with His redemption.
It goes beyond scholasticism. It actually delves into Protestant heresy. For instance, Russian Patriarch Philaret in the mid 19th century issued a Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church in which, at the very beginning he writes in the introductory note that the only true Old Testament is the Hebrew language version, which is even echoed today by some OCA churches! (the Orthodox Churches use the Greek-language Septuagint and "apocrypha" as the authoritative source).
It was Peter the Great and his fascination with things western, and western royalty (Catherine the Great), which brought much of the western religious flavor to Russia in the 18th century, along with powerful influence and Uniate conversions of traditional Orthodox lands (from Herzegovina in the Balkans to Ukraine and the Carpathian regions) brought by Maria Theresa of Austria.
We should also not neglect the seed of poisonous western influence in the phenomenon of Cyril Lucaris I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who embraced Calvinism in the preceding (17th) century, or the westernizing damage done by Meletius IV Metaxakis in the early part of the 20th century, during his two years as the first among equals in the Orthodox Church (among other things, he "recognized" Anglican Holy orders as "valid," uncanonically proclaimed "re-union" between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches, and equally uncanonically introduced western cadlendar that effectively divided and still divides the Church except for Pascha).
There are no heresies in the history of the Church that would necessitate such dogmas. Everyone is so concerned about this but seem to ignore that I have already responded to this objection in Comment #35; and also in Comment #60 which says, I recommend reading Fr. Peter Fehlners's Opening Address for the upcoming 2007 Symposium. This year will focus specifically on how this dogma addresses the many doctrinal errors that abound in today's world regarding the redemption of Christ. This Symposium is titled "Co-redemption as key to a correct understanding of Redemption"
In his opening address Fr. Peter states:
"The first error has been circulating for centuries in the West and may be summarized with a certain degree of accuracy under the shiboleth: Christus solus . There is only one Mediator (I Tim 2: 5) and any attempt to link anyone else with Him as Mediator is an attack on a genuine notion of expiation for sin and reconciliation with God. In its extreme form it is met in the old Calvinism, still very much alive, but in disguise, as liberation theology (Marxism, patripassianism, etc). The give away is some form of metaphysical dualism attributing to the redeemed such corruption as to be unable to function salvifically. Only God in suffering can redeem, and this by substituting himself in our place and enduring what we could neither endure physically or accomplish ethically. The Christus solus theory to be consistent must reject any form of vicarious satisfaction by a man who merits or satisfies for others de condigno as mere legalism, and hence who can make it possible for others to be associated with Him in this work, above all uniquely one who is Immaculate, without ever having fallen “under the law” (Gal 4: 4) and so redeemed preservatively, and who makes it possible for others to cooperate through her mediation (under and with Christ). Without the slightest doubt redemption is a guarantee of the correctness of vicarious satisfaction, of the truth of the underlying insights of St. Anselm into the patristic tradition on this point, and on which depends the great scholastic elaboration of the 13 th century, both that of the Franciscan school and that of the Thomistic. In sum, the measure of the difference between substitutionism and vicarious satisfaction is precisely the absence or presence of the Coredemptrix."
and recently I wrote on the subject in Comment #111
This is it, boys, hedonism and the error that suffering has no redemptive value, that we can not participate in the sufferings of Christ because he has done it all, Christus Solus. I challenge you to find any heresy greater and more wide spread and causing more damage than this stigma against suffering, the unwillingness to take up one's cross. Nothing "fuzzy" about this, nor anything more central to Christianity, especially in our times. So let's fight this by taking up our cross's, getting in battle array behind Our Lady Co-redemptrix and start doing some serious serpent stomping.
And if you don't want to do that, at least read the thread before commenting so that we can stop the deplorable shadow boxing.
Ave Maria!
Nevertheless, as is obvious, he remained in this ministry for a very small amount of time. I’m sure Our Blessed Mother saw that he would do more for the cause of reunification by his works in the confessional, then in other apostolic works.
I hope that all this is taken in the correct spirit. I know that we all wish to fulfill the Holy Will of God, so let us all resort to prayer as our starting point, so that that our God may shed His light upon us.
JMJ
Ave Maria
Three points:
1. What’s in a name. The title Co-Redemptrix is not as old as the doctrine it has come to denote for nearly a half millennium. It first appears in a popular hymn of the 14th century. By the first part of the 17th century it had replaced in theology texts earlier terms such as salvatrix, liberatrix, etc., used before this time by theologians when discussing Our Lady’s unique cooperation in the work of the Redemption. The word Co-Redemptrix was adopted, not to put Mary on a par with Jesus, but precisely to show the opposite: that while Jesus and Mary are united in a single work of salvation, Mary is not on a par with Jesus. This is what the Latin original means, and conveys. If someone can find a better name for the part played by the Virgin Mother in the work of salvation under Jesus, that is fine, but so far no one over the last 500 years has found a better one. As to the doctrine itself connoted by the term, that is not mere theological opinion. It is the common teaching of the Church.
2. It is often said that promotion of the doctrine connoted by the term Co-Redemptrix serves no purpose theologically and ecumenically is counter-productive. Cardinal Newman once remarked apropos the title Mother of God that the privileges of Mary are for the sake of her Son’s glorification, The fact is, promotion of the doctrine of Marian coredemption does contribute to the final glory of Christ in the Church. In the case of the coredemption such promotion underscores exactly what is meant by the perfect redemption wrought by Jesus on the Cross: not any kind of redemption, but perfect redemption, and kind of blessedness in store for us precisely because perfect redemption is that kind of redemption which God effects through the cooperation of the Virgin Mother in the Incarnation, in the sacrifice of Calvary and of the Eucharist, and in the daily life of the Church and Christians. For this reason promotion of the doctrine is an important key to fruitful ecumenism. When all Christians find themselves one about Mary, they will find themselves no longer divided.
3. As to the unity of the Church: this is a gift of Christ to the Church, not a product of ecumenical effort. That unity already exists or there is no Church, and it is to be found, according to a most recent ecumenical Council (Vatican II) where the one Mystical Body of Christ subsists, in the Roman Catholic Church. As to the unity of Christians, that is another matter. Whether single persons or groups of Christians, that unity can certainly be perfected, and it is precisely this which the promotion of Mary among all believers will benefit.
But others have already responded to your replies. First, the idea that BEVM would threaten us with her Son's wrath is just something the Church never taught or believed. Second, the call Anslem's doctrine of atonement "patristic" is stretching it. Third, the name Co-Redemptrix is misleading, as she is not redeeming anyone, for her Son has already redeemed us. This doesn't mean that her pure prayers on hour behalf remain unaswered, but that is not the same as our redemption.
And Christ's suffering somehow does not address that?
-A8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.