Posted on 05/16/2007 1:51:59 PM PDT by Friar Roderic Mary
The jurisdictional issues are also very real but bridgeable, and even the infallibility issue can be, if construed within the framework of the undivided Church of the first millennium.
The issue of Immaculate Concpetion involves the issue of Augustinian teaching on the original sin, which the Eastern Church never accepeted and the undivided Church did not teach as dogma.
As long as the Immaculate Conception was a devotional belief of many in the Church it could be treated as such in any re-unification without requiring theological changes on either side, but as a dogma it is carved in stone.
It would require that the Orthodox scrap the theology of the Church of the 1st millennium, of the seven councils, in order to accept the dogma of IC, and that's not going to happen because we are still the 1st millennium Church.
So, once IC became a dogma, it essentially welded the doors shut that only a miracle can open because right now the choices are toom extreme for either side, no matter how good the will may be to re-establish our communion.
If, by some miracle we were to find common theological ground on IC, we are still facing the issue of created vs. uncreated grace on which our Churches speak very rarely because it is a huge stumbling stone.
You’re welcome.
One of the better questions ever asked on this topic.
I could see the point of a Mediatrix/Advocate definition if it was combined with some new movement to spread devotion to Blessed Mary among those with whom that devotion has grown cold. There is plenty of support from theological sources both east and west for these ideas, and turning people towards Blessed Mary as the channel of grace from Jesus to us would be helpful.
I have no idea what the Co-redemptrix definition is supposed to resolve. It looks to me like a sure-fire way to spread confusion, bigotry, and division among Christians, who are already ill-enough catechized as is and certainly already plenty divided over Marianism. If the knowledgeable among us have difficulty grasping the concept, I can't imagine what good popularizing it among the common people would do.
Let people learn the value again of saying a few Hail Mary's morning, noon, and night, and we'll see where we go from there.
Very well put. That goes without saying. We Orthodox pray that she saves us (through her prayers). A mediatrix makes her a saint. A co-redemptrix makes her divine.
I have no idea what the Co-redemptrix definition is supposed to resolve. It looks to me like a sure-fire way to spread confusion, bigotry, and division among Christians, who are already ill-enough catechized as is and certainly already plenty divided over Marianism
This would create great upheaval even among the Catholics, but I can assure you that the work this Pope has so diligently accomplished in bringing us closer would be effectively dissolved.
In reply to LadyDoc:
You erroneously equate the term “Co-redemptrix” with “Co-equal”. This is incorrect, because “Co-redemptrix” means redeeming with Christ, not equal to Him. He is divine, She is a creature, and He chose Her before all time to give Him the flesh with which He redeemed us, and with which He still remains for all eternity, beginning from that point in time, and from which He will examine and judge us. Without this flesh, freely given by Her, there is no redemption. If this is not “Co-redemption”, please define what you think redemption is all about or how it took place.
Ave Maria!
Mary’s role as Coredemptrix is Scriptural and rooted in Tradition—Saints, Popes, theologians and faithful alike have always seen Our Lady’s role in our salvation (always secondary and subordinated to Christ) as important.
Check out this link
http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
Also, Monsignor Calkins has some excellent articles on the web on this topic, such as
http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=833&Itemid=40
God included Mary in His plan for our salvation, including her sorrows with and under Christ for the sake of His Church during the actual event of our Redemption on Calvary. A dogma on Mary’s spiritual motherhood as Mediatrix of Grace and Coredemptrix would clarify that she is not equal to Christ in her role, yet would uphold her unique participation in the work of our salvation and her unique role in dispensing God’s grace to her children.
Peace...
How so? It means "redeeming with."
Thanks for that, baa. I first read that last night when I was getting tired responding. It gave me a lift!
Ave Maria!
Hope to see you there!!
Ave Maria!
In reply to Kolokotronis:
You ask, “What heresy or problem would a “Coredemptrix” dogma address? If none, what is the point of such a dogma?” You pose this question as if it were a secular issue — that we need to weigh up the costs and balances, the values of the arguments each way to reach some “positive outcome”. If the dogma is true, then such arguments are completely invalid, by definition. If it is not true, then all of this doesn’t matter. This is the point: If you have an argument as to why it is untrue, then make it! Don’t ask if it is appropriate to establish this dogma now, as if it were a purely political issue.
I just had a “devil’s advocate” thought I’d like all of your input on...it has been said that co-redemptrix is confusing, in that it obviously can’t mean to say that Mary is a co-equal Savior with Christ (abject heresy!)...so why proclaim it at all.
Yet the East has long spoken of “theosis” which—if one was not careful—could be equally confusing, perhaps more so, to someone who didn’t understand it the right way.
What value do we place upon the possible misinterpretations of a doctrine as far as whether to stand behind it? Any? None?
Just throwing that out there. :)
Welcome to FR. It appears you both joined today.
No it doesn't. The word Redemptrix is a noun, female redeemer; it's not a verb. Co-Redemptrix is a female person who reedems with another redeemer.
Just as mediatrix means a female mediator, or the executrix, meaning a female executor.
Yeah, that was an oversimplification. But, as I asked, how does that make her divine?
Theosis/deification/divine filiation has never been defined dogmatically by the Church.
It is certainly true, but it is not a dogma "de fide definita".
Just because the Church speaks of ideas or truisms does not mean she must define them in dogmatic formulas.
True enough....and maybe that’s part of the answer.
Perhaps we should live with a term for a few centuries before considering it as a dogmatic proposition.
I understand the time issue!
Just to point out the level of our commitment to address Ecumenical Concerns, the entire 3rd Symposium in 2002 was dedicated to Ecumenical concerns: and was called MARIA MATER UNITATIS, Mary Mother of Unity and includes:
James Likoudis, M.S. in Education: “The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God and the Doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix in Eastern Orthodoxy.”
and FR FRANCIS MARSDEN: “Breathing with both lungs – some reflections on Prayer to Mary, Mother of God, from the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic tradition”.
and many presentations addressing Protestant concerns and other ecumenical issues as well.
Also, in our upcoming 8th Symposium July 2007 in Fatima
Lutheran: Useless Instrument? A Thomistic Reflection on Marian Coredemption and the Joint Declaration on Justification (Dr. Christopher Malloy)
Anglican: The Concept of Redemption in the Caroline Divines and in the Anglo-Catholic Theologians (Dr. Judith Marie Gentle)
A more complete description of each of the past conferences can be accessed at the bottom of the page for the 8th Symposium July 2007 in Fatima
BTW I love that tagline of yours!! (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
Ave Maria!
How so? It means "redeeming with."
This is incorrect, because “Co-redemptrix” means redeeming with Christ, not equal to Him.
The objection is that nobody redeemed anything with Christ, since redemption is a divine (or rather a theandric) act and was accomplished by Christ alone through the shedding of His Precious Blood (Isaiah 53-54, Romans 3.24, Ephesians 1.7, Colossians 1.14, Hebrews 9.15).
This redemption of the human race happened THROUGH the actions of Blessed Mary, not WITH her assistance. The words of the saints helpfully pointed out by Fr. Maximillian Mary make that point clear: "Death through Eve, life through Mary." (St. Jerome) "Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse." (St. John Damascene), "through her, man was redeemed." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux)
THROUGH means "by reason of, by agency, means".
COM (the route of CO in English) means "with, together, jointly"
WITH means "in or into the company of or relation to, among, beside" (all from Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
If you can't see the difference between a word meaning "together, jointly" and a word meaning "by reason of", you don't belong in a delicate theological discussion on such a topic because your intellectual capabilities are not equal to the lessons of ordinary High School English grammar.
And a basic 9th grade familiarity with Latin Grammar would tell you that THROUGH in Latin is PER, while WITH is CUM, and these are different words with different meanings. Therefore, quoting the Fathers saying "through Mary, such and such" is hardly at all a proof of the statement "such and such accomplished with Mary". The implication and meaning of co-redemptrix is "the woman who redeems with [the redeemer]."
If my father loans me $5000 that I use to buy a car, I could say, "I purchased the car through the help of my father." I could not say "My father is the co-purchaser of my car because he lent me $5000", because my father didn't actually do the purchasing and the signing on the dotted line.
Blessed Mary gave Our Lord Jesus Christ His human body and life, accompanied Him on His ministry, and sorrowed with Him at the Cross. Christ used those things and her help to achieve our redemption on the Holy Cross. Therefore, our redemption is accomplished through the work of Blessed Mary. But Blessed Mary is not thereby made a co-redeemer, because she didn't redeem anything - rather and quite to the contrary she stood in need of redemption, which she received at her conception.
Unfortunately, basic word definitions and logic have escaped the notice of this entire movement, with their deceptive attempts to tell us that "co/com" only means "with" and that "with" doesn't mean jointly or beside or together.
This goes hand-in-hand with an extraordinary historical blindness that ignores the unqeustionable fact that this doctrine was not part of the consciousness of the Church even 100 years ago (one strains and finds nary a word of coredemptrix in the monumental Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909), quite unlike the Assumption or Blessed Mary's perfect sinlessness and mediation, which are strictly Patristic and well attested from then up to the present in Catholic and Orthodox thought, and in the Liturgy of the Church. This historical blindness is present throughout the scholarship of this movement restarted by Dr. Miravalle, which unlike traditional Catholic theological inquiry, fails to present any objections to their proposals, but instead treats them as uncontroversial givens to which all must assent because of their obvious truth - the ipse dixit arguement.
But let us pose the question to the supporters here. Find five statements from Christian authorities (Fathers of the Church, Bishops, Popes, Theologians, the Liturgy) prior to 100 years ago saying "Mary redeemed us with Christ", "Mary is the Coredemptix" or similar words to that effect.
It does not lead to any comfort either to see the same crowd pushing this dogma supporting the condemned Medjugorje apparitions as authentic (or using other private apparitions such as Fatima as a basis of support for this public dogma in their writings about the title Co-redemptix).
It is easy enough to understand the point that is attempting to be made by this movement - the redemption happend THROUGH Blessed Mary. However, it is quite unclear that the title Co-redemptrix is the best way available to explain this truth.
Friar, you have a reponse? I can't recall, but what did St. Maximilian think of this? I know he was a staunch advocate of the title Mediatrix.
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"
And this is a general assertion that we are trying to make, that a correct understanding of Mary is key to a correct understanding of Christ and is therefore key to solving the many problems both in the Church and in the world at large. Just as it has been in the past.
Ave Maria!
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.