The Rosary and Orthodoxy

WesternOrthodox.com ^

[Pyro7480]

It doesn't. Here's what the teaching means:

It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

[FormerLib]

And you would have us ignore the countless examples of the Light of Christ shining through His creations as we pray for It to shine through us.

Each and every saint that we commemorate is an example that His Light can shine through us. When we celebrate them, we celebrate Him first and foremost. But that doesn't fit the interpretation of others and so they accuse us of blasphemy.

I contend that there is no blasphemy in our hearts, our minds, or our practices.

And that is my point.

[Tantumergo]

"John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me [NOT ME AND MARY]."

But Steve, Moses did indeed write of Mary:

Gen 3,15 "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: s/he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her/his heel."

[drstevej]

***Can you direct me to the scriptural statement that Jesus is the antitype of the ark?***

No. Nor do I believe it is certain that He is.

[drstevej]

Granted Genesis 3:15 speaks of Mary. I think my point is still valid in context.

[drstevej]

I never accused you of blasphemy.

I inferred that the statements without qualifications ascribe to Mary that which pertains to Christ, hence it flirts with blasphemy.

[FormerLib]

I hope you understand that when you enter the discussion with "Help me see how this isn't blasphemous," you've already raised a few hackles.

[dangus]

I don't foresee this being told to me in Heaven:
200 Hail Mary's? Whoa... too bad, you overshot the mark. Bub-bye!

*grin*

[drstevej]

Not intended.

Candidly, my initial reaction when I read the prayer (I had not seen it before) was shock in that it replaced Jesus with Mary. I tried to phrase my question diplomatically (believe me I can be far less diplomatic... ask the LDS).

:~)

[FormerLib]

I inferred that the statements without qualifications ascribe to Mary that which pertains to Christ...

I can certainly accept the idea that among those who have rejected Holy Tradition, there is much within Holy Tradition to misinterpret. This does not, however, invalidate Holy Tradition anymore than does those who find support for same-sex marriage within Holy Scripture to invalidate Holy Scripture (going for an extremem case to make the point).

Hopefully, I can one day persuade you to accept that as well.

[Tantumergo]

"The phrases I underlined all required explanation of how they don't say what they seem to say on the surface. They all are better and rightly said about Jesus.

Give me the primary and I'll leave the secondary for others."

You are working on the assumption (no pun intended!) that to say something about Mary and the saints which can also be said, or said in a primary way, about Christ, is to necessarily detract from the uniqueness of Christ or the glory that is due to Him alone.

This is not the case and there is a very similar parallel in Protestant jargon. What is the Word of God? We would all agree that the primary meaning of this phrase is the second person of the Holy Trinity - Jesus Christ. But also we all agree that it is acceptable to use this term in its secondary meaning - about the bible.

Would it be reasonable to assume that using the title "Word of God" about the bible in any way detracts from the honour and glory that are due to Christ alone?

[FormerLib]

Candidly, my initial reaction when I read the prayer (I had not seen it before) was shock in that it replaced Jesus with Mary.

Quite alright.

I had a long discussion about a similar topic with my Priest concerning a litany which ended with the phrase, "Holy Theotokos, save us!" Our Orthodox teachings are clear that it is Christ that does the saving (going for brevity here) not Mary. He explained that the problem is that a literal translation of the Greek is being used here when the true meaning is "Pray to your Son to save us!" This is actually a statement of our desire to have Christ in our lives, the only true path to salvation.

When the true meaning is known, no suggestion of blasphemy will be found in the words.

[FormerLib]

Would it be reasonable to assume that using the title "Word of God" about the bible in any way detracts from the honour and glory that are due to Christ alone?

You know, that's quite good.

[eastsider]

Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your posts, but are you saying that only those things, places or events in the OT that are alluded to allegorically in the NT can properly be called "types?" For example, to my knowledge, Abraham's abortive sacrifice of his son Isaac is not spoken of in the NT as a type of the Father's offering up the Son as a sacrifice. Would you say that it was "speculation" to say that the former event was a "type" of the latter, or that Isaac was a "type" of Jesus?

[dangus]

I've been taught the Jesus prayer. Recently, the Pope elevated St. Faustina, of Poland, who taught a similar "rosary,"* which could be sung. In the place of the Hail Mary's one would sing or recite this prayer, which is of a very similar spirit to the Jesus prayer:

"For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

On the Our Father's, "Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins, and those of the whole world."

[Tantumergo]

Must be the influence of all those Greeks I hang around with! ;)

[drstevej]

***Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your posts, but are you saying that only those things, places or events in the OT that are alluded to allegorically in the NT can properly be called "types?"***

No. I am saying that caution must be exercised that we do not read meaning into the text which was not intended. Otherwise, allegorists are unrestrained.

***For example, to my knowledge, Abraham's abortive sacrifice of his son Isaac is not spoken of in the NT as a type of the Father's offering up the Son as a sacrifice. Would you say that it was "speculation" to say that the former event was a "type" of the latter, or that Isaac was a "type" of Jesus? ***

It is true that the word type is not used of Abraham's offering of Isaac, however, the book of Hebrews make the correlation plain...

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure [PARABOLH).

The linkage between the Passover and Christ is plain (1 Corinthians 5:7). Between Adam and Christ is plain (Ro. 5:14), etc.

Here is some material I pulled together a while back:

Degree of Cerrtainty in Types:
[1] Innate Types - types specifically declared as such in the New Testament.


[2] Inferred Types - types intended by the Holy Spirit but not declared as such.

”It can not be emphasized too strongly that types which do not have express scriptural authority are illustrative rather than proof for doctrinal points.” Walvoord

[3] Invented Types - speculative types, eisegesis.

“Temptations to be novel, clever, original or shocking should be resisted... A teacher of the Bible should not boast of finding more types than other teachers because he is more spiritual.” Ramm

“Typology has suffered more from its friends than its foes.” Chafer

[Salvation]

The Rosary

And more about the Rosary

[drstevej]

***When the true meaning is known, no suggestion of blasphemy will be found in the words.***

Nevertheless, the prayer suffers from fuzzy language at best.

[drstevej]

The written word (Scripures) and the living word (Christ) are both rightly called the Word of God. They testify to each other. Jesus authenticates the Scriptures and the Scriptures authenticate Jesus. In this sense neither are secondary.

Granted that Jesus as God is a member of the trinity and the Scriptures are a witness to Him. So if you call that secondary, I won't protest.

I will restate my point.

Give me the primary as fully primary and I will let the secondary be secondary to the extent the Scriptures allow. But don't inflate the secondary -- keep it the right size.