www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in Communion

"The "Co" in the title Co-Redemptrix is understood not in the sense of being "equal" to the Redeemer but rather "with" the Redeemer. That is how I've read/heard it being explained. I know that "Co" in everyday common language denotes a sense of equality, but in this instance, equality is not being asserted or intended by the title.

Looking at it this way, there should be no problem in saying that the All-Holy Mother of God is "With" the Redeemer. She participated/participates in the Redeemer's plan of salvation most perfectly, just as we all, in accordance with our talents and calling, participate in His plan when we evangelize and bring the world to Christ. In other words, we are all "co-redeemers" and the Holy Virgin is the most pre-eminent among us. We are not all equal to God, for there is only one God, but we are all with God when we participate in His plan of salvation."

Christ is Risen!
Indeed, He is Risen!


The question that remains unanswered is succinctly, does grace proceed from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit or is there now an additional intermediary of grace in the person of the Theotokos. Of course, if you endorse created grace, there is an infinite chasm between created and uncreated and Christ's Sacrifice has only a "nominal" impact on redemption; however, Christ was perfect God and perfect man with prefect human and perfectly Divine wills and energies which are sovereign without comixture. His life on earth culminating with the Crucifixion and His death was the way of perfect humanity and His resurrected Body Which ascended to the Father was the most perfect expression of human nature which has direct relationship with the Father and the opening of our nature to direct relationship with the Father. He justified human nature and presented it to the Father, providing the way for all flesh to follow. Christ is not an impersonal Christ and does not need intermediaries. He came to save us and did not send a Prophet or even the Theotokos to do so. He sent the Holy Spirit, not as a creature, but as the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity to abide with the Apostles at Pentecost and this Spirit abides with His Church even unto this day. God in creation creates/acts through the Son in the Holy Spirit in uncreated operation (energies) and He is not removed or nominal. The role of the Theotokos, then is one of a Mediatrix, one who has attained the highest level of Deification IN CHRIST JESUS who intercedes for us before the SON by whose intercessions, Christ Who has deified her and enhypostasized her sends grace, much like the other Saints. In none of this is it proper to denature christology or insist on a nominal relationship with Christ--salvation is through HIM ALONE. Endorse a personal Lord and Saviour.

My questions stand and I would ask that you give them due consideration and consult the Fathers to present a fairer contest.
E D

""Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143

139 Lk 1:28-38; cf. Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
143 LG 56; Epiphanius, Haer. 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

And this presupposes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception while contradicting it with the annotation of St. Irenaeus, for he maintains that the Theotokos purged the stain of Eve after/during the Annunciation, not that she was born without it and was "ever-immaculate". For if she were without original sin, she would represent the recapitulation of human nature without the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and she would be as the Holy Ancestors, Adam and Eve, before the fall, immortal. She would represent the redemption of human nature in her. Now, the passage from the catechism in no way maintains that she issues forth grace or that she shares in the office of Saviour in the world. The idea of co-Mediatrix implies that. Again, my questions stand and simply ask due and unbiased consideration.
E D

Dearest Friends!

I think the entire tone of this thread has gotten way out of hand!

Let us remember this is Bright Week!!

I sympathise with Balaban with respect to his upset regarding the famine issue raised by Hritzko here.

But words such as "swine" etc. in referring to another poster are simply NOT tolerated on this forum.

Perhaps they are tolerated on other forums, but not here.

Let's move away from the political issues that have crept into this discussion as no one will win in the end. Da? Tak?

The emotions that are generated by that talk are very destructive and lead nowhere.

I know what I'm talking about from my own past experiences here with respect to similar emotional arguments.

So let's let it go, guys, O.K.?

Alex

Dear Balaban,

Actually, the Slavonic terms I was thinking of include "Vseneporochnaya" and "Preneporochnaya."

There is also the beautiful Orthodox term "Vseprechystaya Vladychytsa" or "All-Pure Sovereign."

Again, the East would never accept the term "Co-Redemptrix."

And any discussion surrounding the Mother of God "saving us" as Orthodox liturgical prayer affirms has to do with the theology of the Communion of Saints and NOT with Triadology.

If we are upset by "Co-Redemptrix" as we find it in the West, let us remember that there are many Latin Catholics who are likewise shocked at the Orthodox invocation "Most Holy Mother of God, save us!"

I'll leave it at that, after reading through this thread I think the best thing for my soul is to stay away from it - and from this forum until things settle down.

I won't let anything upset my experience of Paschal joy this Bright Week.

Alex

E D

quote: The latins teach, however, that she did not die and couldn't, because of her "immaculate conception"

The links that you provided do not support your remark, which remains in error.

Dear Alex,

I am with you. The week just doesn't look that bright around here--but there are rays of sunshine...in you, Tammy, and others!

Avoid the clouds (here)like I shall, but please don't leave!!! I am always happy when I see the sun!!!

With love in Christ,
and wishing you every blessing of the Resurrection,
Alice

I realized this morning that Balaban and previously registered on the Forum under another name and had already forfeited his posting privileges because of a continuing lack of charity. It is simply unacceptable for anyone who is a follower of Jesus Christ to state that another believer has �the voice of a swine�. Balaban�s ability to post under his new username has been suspended. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

Dear balaban:

Grace proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit if by procession you mean origin/source. God alone is the source of grace, and therefore the Theotokos or anyone else is not included.

If by procession, something other than origin/source is meant, then the Theotokos, Saints, priests, as well as lay people are all intermediaries. We all participate in the "procession" of God's grace to the world, each according to his role in life, and the Holy Virgin is the most pre-eminent among us. God saves us through the willing participation of others.

The Theotokos' role, to give an analogy, is that of a "throat". Christ is the head, the Church is the body, and Mary is the throat by which Christ is joined to His body.

True, Christ is not an impersonal Christ and does not need intermediaries. Christ doesn't need anyone. However, that is how He chose to setup the plan of salvation by involving others in the salvation of others. The Theotokos willingly accepted the invitation of the archangel, and was not forced into it, thereby establishing her as an intermediary through whom the God-Man was born.

I think the theological traditions of East and West on grace can ultimately be complementary. The Eastern view of uncreated energies and the Western view of created grace are both non-exaustive expressions of the Mystery, and I'm not going to pin one against the other. Each is valid within the theological framework presented in.

No contradiction here. After her conception in grace and holiness, she could have sinned like Eve but chose not to. She was obedient to God whereas Eve failed. Her yes to God causing her salvation need not be understood as a negation of her conception in holiness. It dosn't have to be understood as an either/or, that is, either at conception or at the annunciation. In order to show a contradiction, you would have to show St. Iranaeus saying the Theotokos was not graced at conception.

Since Eve was created in original holiness, Mary being the second Eve, was likewise created in original holiness. The difference between the two is that one fell and the other never did. Eve lost immortality. Could Mary have been immortal? It's possible. Some say that she chose to die in order to be with her Son.

Indeed she does not issue forth grace in the sense of being the originator of grace, and does not share in the office of the Saviour in the sense of being equal to the Saviour. Co-redemptrix and Medriatrix should be properly understood with the above in mind.


Ok, I'll try to answer your earlier questions. They do, however, reflect an improper understanding of co-redemptrix. Here goes:

She doesn't have her own grace. All grace originate from the Trinity.

He's God, the source of Grace.

She's not God. She saves in participation with God the source of salvation. Apart from God, she cannot save. Again, "Most Holy Theotokos, save us!"

See prior question.

No. It's the Communion of Saints dynamic espoused here.

Christ is indeed the source of her as well as our salvation.

The Theotokos partook in the divinization of the divine nature, but she always remained and will continue to remain only a creature. She saves in participation with the Creator through her intercession just like priests save the lost in participation with the Creator during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries.

She was conceived in holiness and light by an act of God. Her divinization started at conception. That is all the Latins are saying when they explain this using Latin terminalogy.

Her deification started at conception, but she was always infinately less than God and only human.

Yes, all of us Apostolic Christians consider her the highest perfection of created human being. Co-Redemptrix does not make her God/demigod, nor does our deification make us Gods/demigods. I've explained the "Co" earlier.

Her deification with uncreated energies/created grace started at conception. Whatever the theology you use, she was holy from conception.

No.

See earlier question.

You are not the only one who consults the Fathers

God bless,

CC

Admin,

Thank you and God grant you many years.

I hate to seem to be taking pleasure in the misfortunes of another but, as I suggested days ago, balaban showed his nature and style as being incompatible with all for which this Forum has stood. Now, we can perhaps enjoy the last few days of Bright Week without the discord, the rabid nationalism (from more than 1 direction), and the posting of every related article from the net that has characterized this Forum for the past 2 weeks.

Fellow Forum members,

Until proven otherwise (and I hope I won't soon be), I stand by what I posted at CinEast and elsewhere on this forum a few days back about the unique nature of this entity, its members, and their relationship to each other.

God grant the members of the Forum, my beloved fellow Easterners - both Catholic and Orthodox, and my Latin and Protestant brothers and sisters, equally beloved, many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

You were indeed correct!

I would like to briefly address the issue of "rabid nationalism."

It would certainly be better for posters to leave the politics of nationalism alone here. This is especially true when the most extreme form of it, chauvinism, comes into play where posters defend the "glorious imperial past" of various European countries and repeat old colonial ideologies.

You yourself once attacked me (and you pull no punches when you go on the offensive either, my friend!) because you saw my discussion of the Kyivan Church's influence in Eastern Europe (discussed by Patriarch Lubomyr in his letter posted on another thread) to be an ethnic expression of this very thing.

Apart from the political issue of nationalism and its connection with Eastern church life, it is certainly the case that all the Eastern Churches are embodiments of the spiritual culture of the particular peoples and nations in which they have historically served.

As you know, Eastern Churches are organized along national lines and these aspects are brought over to North America and the West in general.

One cannot get away from that, notwithstanding the fact, as raised by the Administrator and others, quite correctly, that this issue blocks the potential for our Churches' growth in North America.

I myself am now in the middle of a situation of involvement to use English in a church school context that is causing upset to a number of our ethnic community's leadership.

But this doesn't change the fact that the Eastern Churches will continue with their traditions that represent a mix of both religion and culture in a way that is not the case in North American mainstream religion.

It is true, however, that the days of the religious Eastern ethnic club parishes are over, as they are dying out. This resembles a sinking ship where the few survivors continue to attack efforts by others to fix the leaks!

Alex

Dear Neil,

I'm sorry that you feel that there is 'rabid nationalism' on the part of some of us.

The Ukrainian/Rusyn Nationalists are trying to re-establish their nation and Orthodox church which vanished into the Russian/Muscovite (turned Soviet) empire for over 200 hundred years.

Unlike the people of Muscovy (Russians) the Ukrainians/Ruthenians have long tried to establish a democratic Christian nation.

For example, the 17th century Ruthenian Cossaks of Ukraine were the first people of Europe to estabish a democratically elected Christian leadership (or Hetmanate).

Another example would be the first Ukrainian Republic of WW1 which promoted an 'Integral Christian Democracy' - including a guarantee of some government power to the three major minorities in Ukraine at the time: Russians, Poles, and Jews.

Modern Ukrainian Nationalists believe in the 'Dontzov Integral Philosophy' which promotes the Ukrainian/Rusyn Christian Democratic ethos, but affords equal rights, opportunities, and protection for all other citizens of the Ukrainian nation. This is the philosophy of the current Ukrainian government.

Perhaps you could explain how you interpret the examples I gave, and the information I have posted in the past to be "rabid nationalism" vs that which exists in say Ireland, or even in the United States.

HOLODOMOR (Genocidal famine in Ukraine 1932 - 1933)

By the late 1920' even the Ukrainian Socialists / Communists began supporting the re-establishment of a Ukrainian nation. The Russian Communists of Moscow undersood that without Ukraine, their dreams of Godless Empire would soon vanish, so they decided to 'break the Ukrainians'. The Russian Communists in Moscow orchestrated this 'Holodomor' and sent their agents in from Moscow to carry it out. 7 - 10 million Ukrainians died in that year alone. The Russians had plenty of food, including those in Orel, Russia where Balaban claimed there was also famine.

The 'seeds of this evil' were planted many years earlier by the Russian Imperialist (Monarchists / Czarists) who also did all possible to suppress the aspirations of the Ukrainian people. This included executions, deportations, banning of the Ukrainian language, and many other civil rights infractions (as we know them today) - including the suppression of the Greek Catholic Church on the territories of the Russian Empire.

The Christians of Russia suffered at the hands of the Communists - there should be no doubt about that. However, the genocidal famine of 1932 - 1933 was targeted at the Ukrainians and was in many ways an amplification of the hatred the Russian Imperialists had for Ukrainian statehood.

Balaban's claim (through a personal family story) that Russians were also subjected to this genocide is not true - period. I challenged him on his personal account - and frankly he 'lost it' when I proved his story about famine in Orel, Russia in 1932 - 1933 could not be true. It is easy historical fact to verify and there is no chance of misinterpretation.

The Russian/ Muscovite people must come to terms with what happened to the Ukrainians, and how this hatred had been cultivated in Czarist times was later magnified by the Communists. The analogy with Jews in democratic Germany, and then under NAZIS is striking.

The Holy Father John Paul 2 and Patriarch Lubomyr have in their (2003 70th anniversary of the Holodomor) addresses to the people of Ukraine supported this historical fact. The US government will soon also make this declaration in Congress as did Canada and Britan.

Are you claiming that the Holy Father, Patriarch Lubomyr, USA, Canadian, and British governments are "rabid (Ukrainian) nationalists" for highlighting to the world the genocide against the Ukrainian people and supporting the democratic Christian aspiration of their nation ?

During the Soviet era, the ROC always branded the aspirations of the Ukrainians for their own churches and nation as "Bourgeoisie Nationalism". Today in 'democratic Russia' and some emigree circles, they call it "Rabid Nationalism". I sometimes wonder where you get your cues from Neil.

Hritzko

Hi,

My own few thoughts from the Roman Catholic perspective.

Both so-called "Marian" dogmas relate to each other. If the Mother of God was preserved from the stain of Original Sin, even from the moment of her conception, it is fitting that she did not suffer the ultimate consequence of that Orginal Sin, which is the corruption of the body after death.

Of course, this dogma uses Augustinian language about Original Sin, but I think we shouldn't be distracted by that fact.

Baptismal liturgyies, both East and West include the notion of something being "purified", about something bad being "washed away".

What ever we want to call that, it is exactly that what the Mother of God was conceived without.

And of course, let us not confuse "stain" and "guilt". Although Augustine seems to think that "stain" is inherited, and he might be right about it, "guilt" is certainly not inherited and nobody is claiming that we are born with the guilt of Adam's sin, which is Adam's and his alone.

Now, whether Mary did actually die is subject to theological opinion, as the dogmatic definition only speaks of things that happened "at the end" of ther life in the world, without going to the specifics on whether the natural "end" actually happened or not.

My own view is generally in line with the Eastern tradition that she actually died, and then was translated in body and soul to Heaven.

Now, both of these dogmas are not "Mariocentric", but acutally "Christocentric", because both talk about the extent of God's salvation. In the Mother of God, the grace of God acts with its full power, completely conquering sin in the life of someone who was 100% a human being, and nothing else.

With Christ's dual nature, one could argue that His perfect life and sinlessness was predicated upon the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of the Lord.

With Mary, we have no such excuse. God's grace is enough for us to attain perfection, there is proof of that.

And Mary's and Christ's perfections, although being similar in the sense that they are total, they are also essentially different, because in both cases, the extreme outpour of grace for Mary was exactly that, a gratuitous act of God.

We say that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and made man. But we also say that Christ took our nature, it was also an act of His will.

We also say that Christ was resurrected by God. But we also say that Christ laid down His life, and took it again, it was also an act of His will and power.

With Mary, it is different. She was conceived free from the stain of original sin, but not because of her own, of course, but as a totally free gift of election by God. She was assumed to heaven, but not by her own power, but by that of Him who she bore and gave birth to.

My view is that these doctrines are necessary, because they teach us the "how" of our salvation. Not how the gift is given by God, but how are we to receive and respond to such gift.

Should the Church declare another dogma proclaimin Mary as Co-Redemptrix?

My position is contrary to this. I agree with the theology of the doctrine, but unlike the two existing dogmas, I fail to see how this would be essential for our salvation, I also fail to see how this doctrine is a revelation of God's Plan of Salvation, it is more a consquence.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Well, inherited "guilt" and "stain of sin" are really one and the same thing.

In both cases, what is being affirmed is that Adam's personal sin of disobedience becomes OUR personal sin, as if we had committed it.

We inherit not Adam's personal sin, however we call it, but the effects of that sin on our nature which is "Original Sin."

Those effects include death, concupiscence and the darkening of the mind and will with respect to our ability to fulfill God's Will and resist temptation - our nature is inclined toward sinfulness.

The East has therefore never felt a need for the Immaculate Conception doctrine for this reason - there was no "stain of Original Sin" for the Mother of God to be imputed to her.

But the feast of the Conception of St Anne or Mary's Conception is celebrated in the East to underscore the belief that she was sanctified from her Conception, i.e. filled with the Holy Spirit in view of her exalted role in salvation history.

And her great holiness mitigated the effects of Original Sin in her i.e. she did not feel pain at giving birth to Christ and her repose or death was so light that the East calls it a "falling asleep" or "dormition."

The East therefore sees Original Sin as a condition rather than an Actual Sin that is inherited.

The Mother of God therefore, in this understanding, was not exempt from Original Sin because she did die. But she was always "All-Holy" and "All-Pure" by the Will of God throught he Holy Spirit. And this mitigated the effects of Original Sin in her in a way they are not in us.

As Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote in his "The Orthodox Way," if he believed that Original Sin was indeed a "stain of sin" or inherited guilt, then he too would want a doctrine of an Immaculate Conception to preserve the Mother of God free of such.

The East has always believed in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, but has resisted dogmatizing about it. The law of liturgical prayer is sufficient for it.

And I, for one, don't see any essential differences between what RC's believe about "Co-Redemptrix" and what the East liturgically expresses about the role of the Mother of God as our chief intercessor before Christ, so much so that it calls out to her, "Save us!"

Alex

No, "stain" refers to the effects.

Dear djs,

Please do enlighten us further!

And that flies in the face of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as it was proclaimed.

Is there no length you will not go to to be accommodating to Latin doctrine?

Have a nice evening anyway!

Alex