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.
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!
First of all, it’s refreshing to see some intelligent conversation about doctrine by souls who believe and love God! So many don’t have the time of day for discussing revealed doctrine! On that note, I know what Panagia means, but perhaps one of you could give me and others who might scroll through these comments a fuller understanding of this beautiful title of Our Lady.
At any rate, why a dogma about Mary’s spiritual motherhood? (Cardinal Toppo with 4 other Cardinals and 50 Bishops put the accent on the Virgin Mary as Spiritual Mother. Vox Populi Maria Mediatrici, in particular Dr. Mark Miravalle, explain the titles in discussion with an emphasis on her maternal role: Coredemptrix—the Mother suffering, viz. the fruitful birth pangs in bringing forth the Church with and under her Crucified Son; Mediatrix—the Mother nourishing her children; Advocate—the Mother pleading their cause).
Dogma indeed expels heresy as was the case with the proclamation of Holy Theotokos in relation to Nestorianism; but dogma is also the fullest, most perfect expression of revealed doctrine by the Holy Spirit in and through the Church. In other words, there are also positive reasons for a dogmatic definition.
For example, Mary as Theotokos increased the Church’s love for Mary, true Mother of God, and caused a renewal in the whole Church. The icons and hymns and sermons that were and are the fruit of that dogmatic proclamation are incalculable! So a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s ongoing role as our spiritual Mother in the order of grace as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, Advocate would certainly have a similar effect the world over.
Moreover, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary being discussed here is most consoling and would be most beneficial for souls since it relates to her role now in relation to us and a better understanding of our spiritual role in relation to others. Coredemption, by the way, is not just a past event of participating in the Redemption of the world with and subordinate to Christ, but has a twofold dimension: acquisition of redemptive grace (on Calvary in particular); application of that grace to souls (this continues until the Parousia). Referring to this second aspect Pope John Paul II in 1985 stated that “Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”
Another point, in order to celebrate fully and liturgically her ongoing role in our spiritual life requires clarity of doctrine. While in the East it may be unthinkable to push Mary out of the picture of Christianity; in the West both within the Catholic fold and without there are many who misunderstand or deny her role. Perhaps this gets to the heresy to be addressed, and this heretical infection is rampant amongst Catholics in the West—not too mention the view of Protestants—namely, the denial that a creature can participate in Christ’s one and perfect mediation, and further the denial of merit by a creature in a state of grace.
Creatures participate in God’s Being in various ways (”in Him all things continue in being” Col. 1), yet they are not God or a pantheistic part of God. Creatures also participate in God’s Goodness in various ways, yet they are not Goodness Himself. Priests participate in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (and faithful by way of the common, royal priesthood of all the baptized), yet they themselves are not Jesus the great and only High Priest of the new covenant. So too with the mediation of the God-Man—we all can participate in various ways (mediators of grace through prayer, sacrifice, etc.) yet none of us is the One Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). But Mary alone can participate in the one mediation of Christ as Mother, Theotokos, Panagia! It seems to me that for both East and West a deeper knowledge of the essential role of Mary Theotokos in our supernatural life here and now as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate would do us all a lot of good.
For those who believe it would renew and strengthen their love for their Immaculate Mother; for those who misunderstand or deny her role it would clarify what exactly the Church believes (and doesn’t believe).
God’s will be done. Peace...