Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Hmmmm....while I don't like to speak in hypothetical, what exactly would be your reaction if the Latin Church made Mary "co-redemptrix"? You know the Latin Church is very close to this.
she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix
"Hmmmm....while I don't like to speak in hypothetical, what exactly would be your reaction if the Latin Church made Mary "co-redemptrix"? You know the Latin Church is very close to this."
Well, it would all depend on what the Latins meant by it. If what they meant was what the Catechism says, then no problem. If they meant something more, well, then I might have a problem. I do have a problem with the term because it seems to raise her to the level of Christ, but then again, I'm a guy who chants, "Most Holy Theotokos save us!" so who am I to throw rocks? Within an Orthodox culture, that prayer is just fine, but I've seen the reaction of you westerners here to it and have to admit that outside an Orthodox milieu, it obviously causes trouble. I suspect the same can be said for "co-redemptrix", at least I hope so. On the other hand, we Orthodoxers do all sorts of things you folks find odd. :)
Marion Typo, who's been around at least as long a Philo. :|
I have a capacity to appreciate such as beautiful art.
I have a . . . fierce aversion
to consider any image sort of thing re God or anything close to God in any sort of spiritual/religious way.
I take the prohibitions against such in Scripture fiercely literally and wholesale as statements of God's sentiments about such and seek to abide well on God's side of that line . . . exceedingly, no doubt, on God's side of that line.
I have a simple cross. I don't wear it often. I never consider nor relate to it as any sort of focus of my spiritual meditations. It is merely a statement of who I am--a Christian.
I believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said on the issue of images and that rationalizations to the contrary are greatly spiritually hazardous.
As a human being and as a psychologist I'm keenly aware of humans' need and tendency to have something tangible to focus worship on. God proscribed that in the strongest terms repeatedly in Scripture. I don't want to stammer around, when facing Him in eternity, with only the weak claim that I was too dense to understand.
I want to show Him in thought and deed that I received His commandments and responded to them as a loving son to a loving Father faithfully and thoroughly and WELL, FAR ON HIS SIDE OF THAT LINE.
I'm also keenly aware that probably SOMEWHAT comparable proportions of Protesty's are as guilty of idolatry as any RC's or Orthy's. Though I also suspect that the percentages are likely somewhat to significantly less on the Protesty side since such is proscribed overtly and taught against vs being covertly sanctioned and encouraged by many overt doublt talk sorts of things.
At least Protesty's worshipping their TV's, cars, homes, hobbies, spouses, children, jobs . . . are NOT fooling themselves about such REALLY representing God Almighty in tangible form.
At least I haven't heard of any such writing veneration poetry to their DIRECT-TV service or plasma screens.
At the same token, I don't want to sit in any shred of haughty judgment of anyone about anything.
We are called to walk in the light we have been given. But this issue is well lit in Scripture, imho. And Traditions of men NEVER trump Scripture in my theology and prayerfully in my practice.
If I left something out, please ask again.
Thanks for the honor of your question.
What do you mean by "very close", and where can I go to see the data that lies behind this assertion?
My adoration and commitment and reverence for
JESUS THE CHRIST
is soooooooooooooooooooo intense and extensive . . .
EVEN IF I knew proof positive that He approved of Mary taking on such a blasphemous role,
I WOULD STILL choose to avoid giving any hint of support to it out of my own personal preference to ascribe to HIM ALL GLORY, HONOR ETC.
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and Unbound Bible
Both include seamless searches throughout the Canon, and the latter has all possible languages, and a very powerful search engine.
My hero! Blue Letter is good, but it doesn't include any Catholic Bibles...At least Sword has the DR Bible. However, those guys removed the OT Deutero's as well!!
Regards
I like it a LOT!
Do you mean you would agree that it's a heresy if it means "equal"? But even if it means "with", what does Mary actually contribute to anyone's redemption? If it is anything at all, then it seems there would be a sharing in the glory for this all important accomplishment. I don't think the Bible supports this at all:
Ps 103:1-4 : Praise the Lord, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name. 2 Praise the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits — 3 who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, ...
Eph 1:7 : 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ...
Heb 9:12 : He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
There are plenty of others and the common denominator is that there is no Mary in any of them. It just seems to me that Christ is lessened if we say that He needed help, AND that we owe thanks to Mary for saving us.
As to "New Eve", wazza big deal? Whatever Mary "is" she is so by the gift of God and not in her own right. If she is "Queen of Heaven" it is not a title inherently hers, but is rather a courtesy title. The "Queen Mother" has no RIGHT to that title. She was queen by marriage not birth and is Queen Mother entirely by courtesy.
I suppose I don't understand the desire to make the connection to Eve or to give her this title. Why does Mary need this additional title? We know that she was "blessed among women" and that she was an honorable and loyal servant of the Lord. In terms of what she would want, I would think that a humble servant would be fine with that. :)
In many ways, I think your comparison to the Queen Mother is apropos. Hers is a title of courtesy and by consent of the people. She also did nothing to merit such a title. Yet, she was an object of great respect and admiration. (This includes, inexplicably, Americans.) While I'm sure she was a very nice person and did some good things, it seems to me that the adoration she received was objectively baseless. I wouldn't imagine that Mary would have wanted to participate in anything like that. Mary was genuinely good and I would think she understood Christ's teaching that the first will be last and the last will be first.
To call us "sons of God" makes us Princes of Heaven in a somewhat similar way, ...
Oh, I don't think so at all. :) Mary is prayed to with her title(s). All believers are sons and daughters of God, but only Mary is the "Queen". I think it's very different.
If God wants to grant gifts and honors to the Theotokos, what's the deal? Shall we be envious because He is generous? Personally, I generally like parties, even when I'm not the guest of honor.
I don't think it's a matter of envy. I think Mary was wonderful, and a role model for all Christians. If God really wanted to grant all the honors and glories given to Mary today, that would be one thing. But I see this as only coming from man. Legitimate honors from God are not without precedent. Christ granted a specific honor to John the Baptist (Luke 7:28). And as I mention above, Mary is also granted a measure of honor in scripture. However, the level some men have decided to raise it to is found no where in scripture. That is why I object. In a sense, I'm even objecting on Mary's behalf.
AMEN, Mary! Praise be to God for His precious promises.
I saw it and thought it a truly moving and beautiful movie. Frankly, my respect for Mary and Joseph is even greater.
The differences between the Catholic and Protestant idea of Mary in the film, are not great enough to warrant all this hullabaloo.
If you persuade me that I am mistaken in thinking about Mary this way, you will have been (by Grace) Part (a MINOR part, but a part) of the process of bringing me closer to God and to conformity with His will, if only by correcting a misconception I had about Him. You will have shared, my His grace in His redemptive work. -- That's what.
I have to ask. Do you think I am unfamiliar with or have forgotten the tests of Scripture you quote here?
I>It just seems to me that Christ is lessened if we say that He needed help, AND that we owe thanks to Mary for saving us.
I don't think the infinite can be lessened. ANd I owe thanks to people who brought me to to Church, who corrected me, who showed me how Grace could possibly be "irresistible" without crunching my freedom, and on and on and on. I owe so many thanks that they would never give me an Oscar because I'd be there all night and into the next day. I LOVE to give thanks! (Well, okay, not to the IRS, ....) "Thanks" is one name of my chief act of worship, after all, and I see the Grace of God as coming to me in a thousand different ways and through a thousand different conduits. And I think the pipes as well as the Well, and I would be ungenerous, I would be showing that I had not yet drunk so deeply that the suply of thanks was no welling up in me to eternal life If I di dnot thank God for all the people He has given me to thank, and thank him for thinking up gratitude as a thing for me to feel and show. I am in debt all over the place! It's fabulous!
Why does Mary need this additional title?
Mary needs nothing at all! She is full of Grace. But I need to understand how unutterably cosmic the smallest word can be, and how much more beyond the measure of my mind is a woman, a girl really, who gives herself to God, who can say "yes" so intimately and so completely -- by His gift, and bu His gift bring His love into the world. I need to remember that She bore the son who bruised and more, who gave a mortal wound the the head of the ancient serpent.
But even that need is not like."Oh I need to do pushups now," not a burdensome need. It's more like I need to sing because if I don't I'll burst. Like I need to hug my daughter or to kiss my wife.
Without quoting you, yes princes are in some sense "inferior" to queens. I didn't say to the same degree. I said a similar fashion.
You recognize the reference to envy, I hope?
But once again we hit the wall of your thinking that the only revelation of God since well, since back then, is the Bible, and my not thinking about the whole intercourse between God and humanity in the same way at all. Starting with different premises and different modes of argument unsurprisingly leads to different conclusions.
Finally, I think you DO have a cultural "lens". I don't think you get royalty, and how royal titles in another culture are part of the currency of honor. I think the lens not so much of the Reformation as of the Enlightenment and the separation of Church and state provides a distorted understanding of and affect towards this kind of lingo. It's a younger language.
OOPs I'm late for "24".
"If I left something out, please ask again.
Thanks for the honor of your question."
You left out nothing that I can see and I appreciate your answer. As an aside, icons are not properly "art" at all. They are objects of veneration.
Modern Christian iconoclasm fascinates me. As you know, the last bout The Church had with iconoclasts was in the 8th century for a relatively short period of time and it was condemned by the 7th Ecumenical Council. In those days it seems likely that the iconoclasts were influenced by the iconoclasm of the Mohammedans. I take it modern iconoclasm bases itself in the OT? That, at any rate, was the argument used by the 8th century crowd (which included the Emperor and his court). The council fathers pretty much demolished the argument. Here is what they said:
"As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatised, as the Universe has agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved, as Wisdom has presented, as Christ awarded, thus we declare; thus we assert, thus we preach Christ our true God, and honour His Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in Churches, in Holy Icons; on the one hand worshiping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord; and on the other hand honouring as true servants of the same Lord of all and accordingly offering them veneration.
"This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is the Faith which has established the Universe!"
Iconoclasm was dead until after the start of the Reformation and, as you point out, not all Protestants ascribe to it.
Am I correct in assuming that you reject the dogmatic decrees of the 7th Ecumenical Council? If so, do you accept any of the decrees of any of the earlier Ecumenical Councils?
"I like it a LOT!"
Well of course YOU like it! :)
The one I posted is from St. George Greek Orthodox Church in Lowell, Ma.
"The one I posted is from St. George Greek Orthodox Church in Lowell, Ma."
I'm sorry. Its from Sts. Constantine and Helen out in California. St. George's has a nice one too.
And as I seek God, and when He grants a consolation, I can see, oh yeah, a "painting", but also something given to me as a window to help me look beyond where I could possibly see, and there, still only seeing tempera on wood (or whatever) I see what cannot be seen by mortal eye.
But to these other brethren, that is unacceptable. To me they seem parsimonious and fearful of offending God. To them I seem idolatrous and proud of myself. To me an icon or an image is a beautiful thing and a gift which points beyond itself. To them it's at best a dangerous distraction and temptation and a kind of theft from God of what is due to God alone.
I don't know how to go further. I like the world I see where anyone and anything can be a saving act of God and where thanks is the currency of life. T me that Icon knocks my mind right off its rails: The inside is bigger than the outside, the womb of a girl contains that which is bigger than the Universe. And words fall away.
"T me that Icon knocks my mind right off its rails: The inside is bigger than the outside, the womb of a girl contains that which is bigger than the Universe. And words fall away."
You understand the Platytera well. There are no words for the concept, at least no words which can encompass that truth. That's why The Church gives us this icon; because it "says" what we cannot. Now if it has such an effect on you, imagine what I feel when I look on one beneath which my family has worshipped for 700 years.
How would you characterize Panagia's role to merit her place in the Church? The disaster that Eve initiated was through her own choice. So, is Mary's "position" as the New Eve really based on her "right choice" to bear Christ? Is that why she is lifted up so high? If that is correct, then why is she higher than any of the other many Biblical figures who heard God's word and obeyed? I'm sure you are aware of our position that Mary was simply informed by the angel as to what was going to take place. I think that matches much better with other scriptural examples because I cannot think of one where God made His intentions clear (via weight of decree) and "that thing" did not happen. God specifically prepared and ordained that Mary would say "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word".
As +Irenaeos of Lyon wrote, "...the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by her unbelief, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by her faith."
Perhaps this answers my earlier question right here. This statement really seems to imply that "BUT FOR" Mary's obedience Christ would not have come into the world. I suppose if that was actually true, then you could count me among the most rabid Mary venerators in the world. :) However, from our point of view, the only "BUT FOR" was God's sovereign decision to send His Son to save us.
As Eve was our original mother in the flesh through whose disobedience we lost our potential for theosis and became bound to death, so Panagia, the New Eve, is our spiritual mother through whose obedience our deliverance was accomplished through Christ.
Is this co-redemptrix? No, not at all. Just as it was Adam's Sin which cursed mankind, so it was Christ's sacrifice which redeemed us. It wasn't Eve's sin, or Panagia's obedience which effected the curse or our salvation.
Well, in the first part you give Eve partial attribution for the Fall. In the second part you appear to take it away. Perhaps you are saying that Eve was "there" and participated in the Fall, yet Adam gets all the blame. AND, Mary was "there" to give birth to Jesus, and He gets all the credit for our salvation. If that's correct then I suppose I could hang with you on this point. (Aren't I a nice guy? :) However, if Mary, as New Eve, is a mere catalyst, then I still don't understand her elevation. It appears you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand Mary is to be given all credit and honor for her obedience, yet Eve isn't blamed at all, Biblically, for her disobedience.
At any rate, I'm glad we see eye to eye on co-redemptrix and the Immaculate Conception. I know that on most matters of Mariology that my general beef is much more with the Latins. Now if you'd just drop the sinless thing ...... :)
I appreciate your wanting to keep me in this loop, annalex, but I'm no longer interested in this thread. Too long and boring at this point. Thanks anyway.
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.