www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Co-redeemer???

Dear Mor Ephrem,

CIX!

You've brought up an excellent point! Salvation is not just effected by the work and sacrifice of an active God on a passive mankind - it's a joint effort. The Mother of God's "yes" was the beginning of our salvation process, and if I recall correctly, the Byzantine texts for the feast of the Annunciation speak of how "today is the beginning of our salvation". As you said, St Bernard of Clairvaux's text has all of creation pausing and eagerly awaiting her answer, because she is the most perfect one of our fallen race, and she speaks for all of us, and her "yes" is spoken on behalf of all creation. That's one possible interpretation of the "Most Holy Mother of God, save us" exclamation.

Then there's the one I mentioned earlier about Hell being despondency and a place where we have no hope, hence Dante's "Abandon hope, all ye who enter" above the gates of Hell. Whenever we lose hope, we are in Hell in a sense already, and the Mother of God represents (among many other things) hope. Just as in the Salve Regina we hail her as "spes nostra" or "our hope", when we cry "Most Holy Mother of God, save us", we beg that she who is hope will not desert us. Another possible interpretation? I love the many layers of meaning in our church texts, and being able to compare texts from east and west enriches the spiritual experiences of all.

Ephrem, can you think of any Syriac texts that might be analogous to these Latin and Byzantine ones?

Just my two Euros.

In Domino,

Edward

Dear Edward,

Do not forget thet the Liddell & Scott's Dictionry is not the all and eldow. The primary meaning of verb "sozo" is "keep safe". There was nothing similar to the Christian idea of "Salvation" in Ancient Greek or Classical religion. Only in the mysterical and in the Eastern Cults of the Helenistic and Roman periods we will find the idea of "Salvation" with the meaning "Redemption of the Soul". "Redemptio" had a similar meaning in Latin "to set free someone (a slave for instance) by paying". In linguistics we say that words had before a concrete meaning (an objet)to have later a philosofical meaning (an idea). But I am not here to teach Greek but because of my interest in Easter Church!

About the Akathist Hymn, please to you all, BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS when using them not for liturgical but for theological purposes:

The Greek Text sais (oikos T):

"Chaire, chorige theikis agathotitos", wich can be translated
"rejoice, provider of God's benevolence" or "Hail, O Dispenser of God's bounty!".

"Agathotis" does not mean "Grace" but "goddness, benevolence, bounty". The Akathist does not say "ONLY provider of God's all Graces".

By the way is not the Holy Spirit in Byzantine tradition the "Spirit of the Grace", the "treasure of the goods" and the "provider od life"? Some Orthodox accuse wrongly the Catholics of believing in the "Tetras" of the Father the Son the Spirit and the Virgin Mary. The dogma of Co-redentrix and Mediatrix of all the Graces would not be contrary to the Trinity dogmata? Such dogmatic definitions could change many think in the Catholic Theology. Please for God's and Mary's sake be very, very careful.

And you, orthodox guys, I know there are several orthodox faithful and even priests in this forum, Have you nothing to say about these new Roman "innovations"? Should not you take part in the discussion instead of remaining like pasive observers? Is any Mark Eugenikos or any Gregory Palamas among you?

[Q]Do not forget thet the Liddell & Scott's Dictionry is not the all and eldow. The primary meaning of verb "sozo" is "keep safe".[/Q]

Liddell & Scott's lexicon is the standard lexicon for Greek in the English language - if that's not an authority, then nothing is. The primary meaning of CWZW is to save, or to deliver, with the additional nuance of an active movement. That sounds like save to me.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with pre-Christian Greek and Roman religion, so I have nothing to add on that topic.

[Q]In linguistics we say that words had before a concrete meaning (an objet)to have later a philosofical meaning (an idea). But I am not here to teach Greek but because of my interest in Easter Church! [/Q]

Yes, yes, all that linguistic theory is nice and academic sounding, but I'm afraid I have as much time for that as Bakhtin.

[Q]About the Akathist Hymn, please to you all, BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS when using them not for liturgical but for theological purposes[/Q]

Yes, yes, Francisco, I'm using the english for the benefit of the general readership of this forum.

[Q]The Greek Text sais (oikos T):

"Chaire, chorige theikis agathotitos", wich can be translated
"rejoice, provider of godly benevolence" or "Hail, O Dispenser of God's bounties!".

"Agathotis" does not mean "Grace" but "goddness, benevolence, bounty". The Akathist does not say "ONLY provider of God's all Graces".[/Q]

Certainly no one is saying the adjective MONO exists anywhere in that phrase, but please remember in English "benevolence" also has a meaning of "favour" and "goodwill", which is traditionally translated also as "grace". We're not talking about spiritual blessings here, but in the sense that we say "fallen from grace" to mean "fallen from favour". In this context, agathotis can be quite legitamately translated as "grace".

[Q]Some Orthodox accuse wrongly the Catholics of believing in the "Tetras" of the Father the Son the Spirit and the Virgin Mary.[/Q]

I've more commonly heard the Tetras as being Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Pope.

[Q]The dogma of Co-redentrix and Mediatrix of all the Graces would not be contrary to the Trinity dogmata?[/Q]

Not really. As I said, Mary's fiat was as essential as Christ's sacrifice for our salvation.

[Q]And you, orthodox guys, I know there are several orthodox faithful and even priests in this forum, Have you nothing to say about these new Roman "innovations"? Should not you take part in the discussion instead of remaining like pasive observers? Is any Mark Eugenikos or any Gregory Palamas among you?[/QB]

I suspect any Orthodox here would prefer to keep singing "Most Holy Mother of God, save us" and ignore any pronouncements from Rome, just as I do.

In Domino,

Edward

Dear Francisco,

St Gregory Palamas, in his sermon on the Dormition of the Mother of God, truly comes close to what some say is the western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary! St Gennadios Scholarios, as Meyendorff notes, actually did accept that western doctrine.

Theotokology or the theological study of the Mother of God in the East agrees entirely with what Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem (He is "Qathuliqa" because I consecrated him as such on-line some time ago and Patriarch Edward (ditto!) said.

Sorry, but I detect a note of Protestantism in your perspective here - can you present one Catholic theologian/author who would agree with you here?

Alex

Dear Edward,

If you believe in the "infability" of the Liddell & Scott's Dictionry and you do not apreciate linguistic theory, well I think that I can do nothing to change it, that is your problem. Why do not you find "agathotes" up in your Liddell & Scott's Dictionry? "Agathotes", form the adjetive "agathos" ("good") does not mean "favour" ,nor "goodwill", nor "grace" but "goodness" (in singular). God the Father has shown to us His "goodness" in the person of His incarnated Son, that because of it Mary is called " Dispenser of God's goodness".

If you, Byzantine Catholic Christians or Orthodox in communion in Rome as some of you prefer, believe that the author of the Akathist Hymn to the Most Holy Mother of God or the Fathers of the Church of the Eastern Catholic Church did believe that the Mother of God is in fact "Medriatrix of all the Graces" and "Co-Redemptrix" of the Humankind, two theological opinions that appeared in the Latin theology in the 20th century (in fact these ideas first appeared among some friars and people interested in Marian aparitions who did not apreciate very much the teaching of II Vatican Council), not among serious theologians, most of whom refuse them), that is your problem, not mine. Any person who would like to study the Mariology of the Eastern Church from an objetive point of view and not just trying to find theological basis for any Western theological theory (no matter how much strange to the Eastern tradition it must be) will find that these ideas are completely strange to the Church Fathers and the liturgical tradition of the Estern Church. If the Fathers of the Eastern Catholic Church did believe so, why Orthodoxs refuse Latin dogma of Inmaculate Conception (which I as catholic acept)? Why Eastern Church have not proclaimed already such dogmatical definitions if they really believed so but only consider Mary Most-Holy and Ever-Virgin Mother of God ? Please stop trying to justify these strange Latin theories (Mediatrix-Co-redemtrix) making use of the Eastern tradition. If you can justify these theories you can better use the Latin theological tradition, where they are supposed to come from. Obviously they do not come from II Vatican Council Mariology, a much more healthy Mariology, but from rather ultra-conservative circles. But, who cares about the II Vatican Council in the Catholic Church? Why all ultraconservatives circles in the Catholic Church use the Virgin like their flag? Let all go back to Trento !!!!

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

(With just a bit of humor) Believe me I have not relation with protestantism. I am 100 % catholic. Yes I can show you a Catholic theologian who would agree with me here: the fathers of The II Vatican Council and all the popes, who, after the proclamation of the dogma of the Assunmtion, refused to proclaim more mariological definitions.

Well, I apreciate very much what Gregory Palamas said, but I do not consider him a saint (if you consider him a saint I wonder why are you in communion with those "heretical Latins" as Gregory Palamas used to say). I wonder how Genadios Scholarios could agree with Catholic dogma of Inmaculate Conception centuries before its proclamation? These anti-unionist saints are not only saints but also wonderworkers (by the way G. S. wrote in favour and against the filoque, he was so great theologian!!!).

May Christ our true God through the prayers o the the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all the graces Mother of God and Saint Fotius and Saint Gennadius, patriarchs of Constantinople, Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, Saint Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, confessor and defender of the Orthodox faith, and the holy hiero-martyr Cosman the Aetolian, the wonder-worker, bless you and drive you to the true faith!!!

P. S. Please do not forget that I am joking, but I really wonder how can you consider these people saints and remain in communion with the Holy Roman See (Cosmas the Aetolian, for example, said that the pope was anti-Christ). Or do you consider them saints just when you want to support Catholic dogmata with their writigs?

Dear Francisco,

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Roman Catholic Church accepts St Gregory Palamas as a saint, and has so for some time. Look on "Catholic Saints Online" to read the life of St Gregory Palamas, Catholic Saint . . .

St Cosmas Aitolos did have some things to say about the Latin Church. But he repeated the views of the Latin Church of his environment and they were not characteristic of his life. He also did not like Armenians .

Again, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was around for centuries before it was formally defined by the Latin Church.

We Easterners see is as a "Latin hangup" over Augustine's view of Original Sin, the "stain" of Original Sin that the Eastern Fathers never accepted anyway.

The Eastern Church has ALWAYS ALWAYS believed the Mother of God to have been conceived in holiness from Her Conception in the womb of St Ann.

We could not celebrate the "Conception of St Anne" otherwise since one may only liturgically celebrate the feast of a Saint. Therefore, we never accepted the Mother of God to have had any "sinful stain" on her soul of any kind and at any time.

Disagreements between Churches existed and exist. Mark of Ephesus came to Florence as a unionist and only demanded that the West remove the Filioque as a minimal condition for full union. The Latin West refused to comply and . . .

It was the Latin West who attacked the East with its blasphemous "Crusaders," who desecrated Eastern Churches and Cathedrals at Constantinople and at the time of St Alexander Nevsky.

It is no act of treason against Rome to criticize those acts for what they were - blasphemous banditry at their worst.

And attacking one another as Orthodox AND Catholic churchmen did occurred throughout the history of the Church. ST Nicholas punched Arius on the jaw during the First Council etc.

There is no reason why the saints of Orthodoxy, even though they expressed anger at the West, should somehow have their sanctity - or cult - impugned because of that.

And there is no real attempt to try and use Eastern Fathers to "prove" Western theories.

The Fathers agree with one another, East and West - that is a basic ecclesiological and theological principle, enunciated well at Florence, for instance.

The holiness of the Mother of God is something the Fathers of both East and West always accepted. Aquinas' non-acceptance has been blown out of proportion since he understood 'Original Sin' in the Eastern sense and so . . . he too always accepted the holiness of the Mother of God since her Conception.

The "Co-Redemptrix" proposal is one that I wish was never brought up on this Byzantine Forum.

It is PURELy a Latin debate that has NOTHING to do with the Eastern Churches.

The West can teach the Eastern Churches NOTHING when it comes to veneration, esteem and love for the Most Holy MOther of God.

We don't like to define things, we don't need to - our liturgical traditions provide us with sufficient theological food for us to digest.

The "essence" of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and anything else you Westerners choose to dream up is already contained in our ages-old, patristic veneration of the Mother of God.

We need nothing further.

As for the Orthodox saints, again, the Roman Catholic Church does not question Orthodox canonizations and vice-versa.

RC bishops often attend Orthodox canonizations, as they did for the canonization of all Orthodox New Martyrs.

They venerate the icons of the newly canonized Orthodox saints and take them home with them.

If the RC Church does not recognize Orthodox saints, why does it participate in the canonizations, kiss the icons and take them with them?

Is this just diplomacy? It cannot be.

Also, in 1904, Rome approved the veneration of all Orthodox Saints in the Russian calendar, including St Gregory Palamas, for the Russian Catholic Church as a result of a petition by Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

Sorry, but your theological grasp is excellent. You need to work on some historical points, especially with respect to the mutual recognition of saints and the way Rome will recognize Orthodox Saints, including St Sergius Radonezh and St Seraphim of Sarov.

Otherwise, you are truly behind the times . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

I knew perfectly well that the Catholic Church had approved the veneration of Orthodox saints since the memory of Gregory Palamas is also celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church that has become my parish in Greece (Melkite catholic celebrates the Veneration of the Holy Relics on the Second Sunday of Lent). The question is: Why??? The conmemoration as saint by the Catholic Church of heretics ans schismatics is from the ecclesiological point of view incoherent. So that I supose that it is for diplomatic or proselitistic reasons, but I would like to judge the reasons just because do not know them. Years ago on January 19th I attended a Divine Holy Liturgy celebrated by an "Orthodox" priest, he conmemorated (Saint) Mark of Ephesus and , as it was an ecumenical ceremony, also his patriarch, the pope and the cardinals. Someone told me that the "Orthodox" priest worked like assesor of the Catholic Church for ecumenical relationships.

I say that it is not coherent from the ecclesiological point of view because both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church believes that the Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. That means that it is not possible the existence of more than one single church (as protestants say). The attitude of most catholics theologians is now nearer to the protestant piont of view. If you ask me if the Orthodox and Eastern Apostolic Churches are real churches I will answer to you that I believe that orthodox, and apostolic easterns by the common apostolic faith and tradition, the Apostolic succesion and the sacramental life are also members of the One, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In an invisible manner we are members of the same church although apparently separated. That is what Latins theologians used to call membership in voto. I venerate the memory of many orthodox after the schism saints (Who could not venerate the memory, for example, of the Armenian Orthodox Martyrs of 1914?), but I do not consider Gregory Palamas a saint, for instance, because I do not share with him the same faith and because he did not consider me a member of the Church because of being "an heretical Latin". If I would life in the times of Gregory Palamas he would not give me Holy communion (comunio in sacris), so that I do not conmemorate him because I think that we are not in full communion (communion of saints). Commemoration in the Eastern Chuch was just for orthodoxs not for heretics or schismastics.
When the monothelistics heretics told Saint Maximus the Confessor that they conmemorated the orthodox pope of Rome in the Liturgy, Saint Maximus said "You conmemorate him, but you do not share his orthodox faith". That is because of it that I find incoherent to celebrate the memory of schismatics and enemies of the Christian unity like Gregory Palamas. By the way is "hesychiasm" "orthodox" from the catholic point of view?

I understand that you are very proud of being and Eastern Catholic faithful and, although Catholic, you have no proble to show your historical anger towards the Latin Western World. Well, no problem, I feel rather Eastern than Western, if you allow me to feel so, but, excuse me, if I tell you to be "Orthodox" or "Easter Catholic" or "Catholic" or "Christian" means nothing if you do not work everyday to show that you are worthy of this name. I know many unorthodox Orthodoxs, I am sure you know many Eastern catholic that are more Western than Westerns, we all know a lot of "Catholics" that have no "catholic" vision of Church, and probably the life of many of us is not worthy of the name of Christians, we recieve in holy baptism. Names are nothing. I ask from you, Eastern Catholic, to be worthy of the faith and virtue of the holy martyrs, the monastics, and the Father of the Eastern Church, and to be proud of your tradition, being first "orthodox" and later, keeping the comunion with the "orthodox" pope and bishop of Rome. that is because of it that I do not hope from you to admit Latin theological theories about the Theotokos that are strange (from my humble point of view)to your tradition. I am sure that you expect from us, Western Catholic, the same thing (fidelity to the tradition of the Chuch of Rome, "the president in love" according to St Ignatius), but believe me, that is not easy to do so, neither for you, nor for us. In Christ,

P.S. Next time I will visit (Saint) Gregory Palamas Church here in Thessaloniki I will light a canddle for you.

Dear Francisco,

O.K., I see your point - but on the score of the saints, there are many saints venerated in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches that, in their lifetime, would have considered these very churches "heretical" or "schismatical" - and yet they are in the calendars . . .

It is true that Palamas would not have admitted you to Communion as a Latin heretic. Or me, for that matter.

And you raise the issue of Saints who are outside of the communion of our own Particular Church - a point discussed by the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

So what is Rome itself saying when it acknowledges St Gregory Palamas as a saint - which also means that Rome is canonizing Hesychasm too.

Old Latin theologians considered hesychasm as heretical and compared to "Quietism."

In fact, the theology behind it is very orthodox as well as Orthodox.

The Latin nominalists in Italy in Palamas' time were truly heretics. Palamas defended our ability to participate in the created energies of God, Theosis etc.

There are even Arian saints in the Catholic and Orthodox calendars, including St Nicetas and St Sabas the Goths.

St Basil the Great even wrote a panegyric in honour of St Nicetas.

The fact of their martyrdom for Christ made the Church to overlook the defect of their orthodoxy.

Also, Churches separated from each other that later came together continued to honour their own saints that were made so during the time of separation.

Again, Mark of Ephesus was never condemned as an heretic as was Arius, for example.

(An Arian scribe deliberately placed Arius' name in the calendar of saints where it stood for centuries under June 6 as "St Artotis." The Bollandists found this out and had this name expunged from the calendar).

The fact that a saint disagreed with another Church, as did St Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople (and our Ruthenian Catholic colleagues have him in their calendar), has no bearing on his capability to be honoured as a saint, even by the Church to which the disdain was directed. Again, only formal condemnation as an heretic would prevent this.

There were many condemned heretical groupings in the early Church and they all had their saints. The Church strictly forbade its faithful from attending pilgrimages to them . . .

The antipopes lives were read widely by Latin Catholics, despite their status. After the Celts had their practices condemned at Whitby, they moved north because they refused to submit to the Synod - and yet the rest of the English (Latin) Church commemorates them as saints, despite their tenacity.

I would recommend Fr. Holweck's introduction to the Dictionary of Saints.

It is a massive work and you will soon see just how many saints, implicated in heresy and schism, are in the Roman calendar.

Also, every Eastern Church coming into Communion with Rome keeps its saints in its own calendar.

Even if a saint is known to be "anti-Roman" he is allowed to remain in the calendar.

As for Western theories, I think you will find many Catholic theologians who will defend the substance of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine and others.

I think you are in a Latin minority.

While we don't use "Co-Redemptrix" or other terms, the substance of these are already contained in our liturgical prayers.

When you get to become more familiarized with these, you will see what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the candle!

Alex

Dear Edward,

I don't have too much time to search through the books, nor do I have all of them in which to search, but here are three quotes from the Sh'himo which may interest you.

From a hymn at the First Watch of the Midnight Prayer on Mondays:

How to address you I know not, O Daughter of David.
If I call you virgin, I see a Son Who sucks at your breast.
If I call you mother, your virginity remains.
Therefore I will call you the Virgin Mother of God.
You are the root of the resurrection.
You are the fountain of immortality.
By your prayer and intercession, may God's love be shown to us.
Alleluia, may your prayer assist us.

From a hymn at the First Watch of the Midnight Prayer on Tuesdays:

Who is this Virgin standing above the course of the world,
who will not suffer darkness to rule over creation?
It is Mary who is adorned with the sun, like the day.
When she speaks, the Sun of Righteousness dawns upon the world.

From the Sedro of Vespers on Wednesdays:

What tongue is able to tell your praises, O Virgin full of all beauty, Mother of Christ our God and Saviour? We acknowledge you as the fountain of life, the source of salvation, the blessed field, the ladder of ascent to heaven. We are full of wonder as we say: "Blessed are you, mystical bush and living ark in whom the Most High was seen!"

If it wasn't for school, I could probably find more, but as it is I have too much work, and when I'm not working (or when I should be working ), I'm online doing the forum thing. I should probably type less and pray more, come to think of it...

Dear Qathuliqa,

Oh, stop looking up Eastern texts to prove dubious Western theories .

God bless y'a, Big Guy!

Alex

"He also did not like Armenians. -Orthodox Catholic"

Oh there you Byzantines go picking on us Armenians again. How did we get dragged into this one?

Dear Alex,

I thik we can continue our discussion on post-schism "orthodox" saints in the new topic in Byzantine Faith and Worship section of Byzantine Forum "Saint Gregory Palmas" opened by Monk Silvan. Are you sure that you do not prefer a candle in Thessaloniki Church of Saint Cyrill and Methodius, who are real example of "orthodox" saints in communion with Rome?

Mor Ephrem,

Thank you for those profound Syriac liturgical reflections. The more I see these of the various ancient Churches, the more I see commonality in our veneration of the Soorp Asdvadzadzeen (Holy Mother of God). Surely theological consensus on the Mother of God will be greatly aided through this avenue of study.

I hear a lot of theories and read a lot of explanations on how different we are concerning our understanding of St. Mary. But when I look at the prayers of any given ancient Church, inevitably I find myself thinking, "this is what I believe too."

Anyways, thanks again.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee...emptrix� within the foreseeable future [geocities.com]