Posted on 05/16/2007 1:51:59 PM PDT by Friar Roderic Mary
You just don’t understand, xzins! You can’t just read and believe your Bible, you ignorant Protestant. It’s like a game of telephone: the original message is nothing! You’ve got to wait until it’s passed through 247 players! Then you have the intricate, true, real Thing.
In order:
Yes, He alone.
No, we’re not.
No, she did not.
God fertilized one of her eggs and she nurtured Him, and loved Him. She herself contributed nothing to the work of redemption, which Scripture attributes to Jesus Christ alone (cf. Acts 4:12).
This is your one annual response.
” 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”.”
In great haste; Ecumenical concerns? FRM, Likoudis is considered among the worst of apostates among the Orthodox and is generally loathed, a sentiment, I might add, which he returns in spades. As for the “Ukrainian Greek-Catholic tradition”, well, the last time the dialog fell apart, about 7 years ago as I remember it, it was over the uniate issue. The unfortunate “two lungs” analogy of +JPII was immediately rejected by Orthodoxy. With all due respect to this Symposium, such speakers and topics indicate a degree of cynicism and disengenuousness which I find astonishing even for the “Dictatus Papae” wing of the Latin Church.
Interesting. If you preach the Gospel, aren't you coöperating in the redemption of the world? What are you coöperating in, then?
she nurtured Him, and loved Him. She herself contributed nothing to the work of redemption, which Scripture attributes to Jesus Christ alone
There wouldn't have been an incarnate Jesus Christ without that. That isn't "contributing anything to the work of redemption," but it's most certainly coöperating with it.
You are missing the point. God does not need us but has decided he wants us and wants us to participate. We all know what the normal channels of grace are and that they involve the participation of human beings. I agree with you on that. I was only bringing the God-alone mentality to its ridiculous extreme. The question is where do we draw the line between what God does and what man should do. Fr. Maximilian drew it based on biblical evidence. Where is your evidence? Remember from way back in the beginnig of the thread Comment 4 posted by eastsider Paul said "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Col 1:24 (NIV) We do participate in the Redemption. And if you disagree with this then please be spcific. We need to go beyond vague assertions that it makes Mary God to be a participator in redemption. This part we should all agree with. Now where do we draw tht line?
Ave Maria!
Then don't use the word REDEMPTION, REDEEMER, etc. You just confuse the issue.
Why not make her "Co-NiceGuy?"
I can buy that.
“Perhaps we should live with a term for a few centuries before considering it as a dogmatic proposition.”
I think its more than that. From this thread it is clear that at least for some Latins, it is thought that some theological point should be dogmatized simply because it is “true” or some substantial number of the faithful believe it to be true. Both notions are dangerous.
Orthodoxy is quite clear that there is very little “dogma”, or at least dogma declared as such. Dogmatic declarations were made in the One Church only in response to serious, widespread heresy being preached within The Church and not otherwise. Since the Great Schism, the Latin Church has departed from that road and dogmatized a number of theological opinions absent that internal heresy problem. Indeed, it appears that at least some of the later innovative Latin Church dogmas were in response to beliefs held by those outside “The Church”, for example, dogmatizing the Real Presence or the notion of purgatory. In other instances, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, for example, it seems that the Latin Church simply dogmatized popular belief. That’s clearly the case with the Assumption. At one level it is with the IC too but at deeper levels, the IC may well be the nearest thing to an insurmountable barrier to reunion between the Orthodox and Latin Churches other than the proper exercise of the Petrine Office. I say this because at base the IC really deals with the non-patristic, Augustinian notion of Original Sin. The sinlessness and ever virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos are givens within all The Church. Yoking her to the dark concept of Original Sin, even to find a way around it in her case, has had baleful effects on the faithful. In great measure it is precisely the IC/Original Sin mentality which leads people to believe that Panagia goes around threatening the destruction of the world if people don’t buy into the IC idea or that unless they pray to her “Immaculate Heart”, she won’t be able to restrain her Son from wiping us all out. On another thread populated by many Western non-Latin Christians, Kosta and I have opined that this “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” phronema might well lead to the Orthodox believing that those people worship a different “god” than we do. That particular phronema, or mindset, is a direct result of Augustinian notions of Original Sin. A “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry BVM” carries with it the same level of attraction for Orthodox Christians as the former does, exactly none. Anyway, what heresy was that dogma designed to counter within The Church? A doubt about Original Sin? Or was it simply to solve a problem created by the whole notion of Original Sin in the first place?
The Co-Remptrix idea, to the extent that it is not in and of itself heretical, is the same sort of thing. What heresy does it address? Does Rome have hierarchs teaching ideas about Panagia which are not in accord with the consensus patrum or in violation of any of the Marian canons of Ecumenical Councils, other than these notions about Panagia demanding certain honors or she or her Son will destroy us? If it does, it certainly isn’t widespread otherwise we’d all have heard of it, even in Orthodoxy. If we assume that the problem is the miserable state of Marian catechesis among Latin Christians, well, dogmatizing something as fuzzy as “Co-Remdemptrix”, something which requires rather extensive and arcane theological explanation to get beyond (if indeed that is possible) an immediate “This is heresy” reaction, won’t help matters. It will only make them worse.
This Latin fascination with dogmatizing matters of faith is foreign to an Orthodox phronema. The Church believes that which The Church always and everywhere believes and believed. Except in extrordinary circumstances, heresy being preached within The Church, the foregoing rule has worked fine for Orthodoxy for 2000 years now.
Do you have a problem with calling Mary, also, "God's fellow worker"?
Last I checked the greek words for "worker" and "redeemer" are different.
There is no CO-Redeemer.
I guarantee you that if you add this co-redemptrix trixyness on top of the assumption, the immaculate conception, and the immaculate hymen, then self-respecting, intelligent READERS are going to have to write you all off entirely. I mean....why not just go with Aesop's Fables!
Now this is a completely legitimate objection.
There's no point in dogmatizing what amounts to a theological reflection on Scripture, and one with a very short pedigree, especially if it responds to no urgent crisis or heresy.
The reflection itself may be perfectly orthodox (and I believe that it is), but every perfectly orthodox sentiment doesn't need to be defined dogma.
What work does/did Christ do? If someone is a "fellow-worker with God," on what are they working with God? Are they and God painting the back fence? Changing the oil in the pickup truck? Washing windows?
Redeeming the world?
No you are not cooperating in redeeming the world. Christ redeemed all mankind by dying on the Cross for the sins of the whole world. No one can cooperate in this work because anything they have to contribute towards it is something Christ gave to them.
"CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
"CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way." (Second Council of Orange)"For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4.7)
Precisely how could Blessed Mary add a single iota to the work of Christ in redeeming mankind? There is not a single thing that any human can have of his own that could contribute in anyway at all to the redemption of mankind, Blessed Mary included. Otherwise, mankind would be capable in some sense of saving itself. Hello Brother Pelagius - are you there?????
Now, when you preach the Gospel, you are cooperating in the justification of the world, which is the application of the redemption won for us by Christ to particular persons.
Surely we all know the difference between redemption and justification?
And surely the advocates of this doctrine are studiously ignoring the Angelic Doctor in their misapplication of Colossians 1.24:
Article 5. Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer? ...
Objection 3. Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church." Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to the other saints. ...
On the contrary, It is written (Galatians 3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." But only Christ was made a curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer. ...
I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required--namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price of our redemption (Leviticus 17:11,14), and that life He paid. ...
Reply to Objection 3. The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation." (Summa, pt. III, Q. 48, Art. 5)
The outright stupidity this title given by some to Blessed Mary engenders, whereby people immediately lose all site of the first principles of our holy religion, absolutely amazes me.
Remember from way back in the beginnig of the thread Comment 4 posted by eastsider Paul said "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Col 1:24 (NIV) We do participate in the Redemption. And if you disagree with this then please be spcific.
This is not at all the interpretation given that verse by the Doctor's of the Church.
Article 5. Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer? ...
Objection 3. Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church." Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to the other saints. ...
On the contrary, It is written (Galatians 3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." But only Christ was made a curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer. ...
I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required--namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price of our redemption (Leviticus 17:11,14), and that life He paid. ...
Reply to Objection 3. The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Pt. III, Q. 48, Art. 5)
Its an enthusiasm of the last 150 years in the Church, starting with Bl. Pius IX, and the ability of modern telecommunications to quickly unite the world.
Better watch out! If you aren't good, Jesus and Mary are going to nuke you!
That is about the level of some of these "apparitions" that the apparition freaks chase after.
“The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: “Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Pt. III, Q. 48, Art. 5)”
A remarkably Orthodox and patristic comment which, honestly, points to the seldom discussed but fundamental tension between concepts of “created” grace and uncreated grace.
“That is about the level of some of these “apparitions” that the apparition freaks chase after.”
LOL! You know, its not so much that people have visions of Panagia, its what they make of them. In Orthodox “old countries” it isn’t considered at all unusual for holy people to have visits from saints or Panagia. The attitude is, “Why wouldn’t they want to visit old aunt so and so?” It just isn’t a big deal. Of course, Panagia and the saints don’t visit some yiayia in a village to send messages of how to avoid universal destruction either or to pass on a word or two of instruction to the local bishop or metropolitan. Sometimes its just to visit and pass on a few kind words. Its happened for centuries at least in my own family.
In Orthodox countries, miracles and visitations happen all the time...because God and Panagia and the saints love us.
I just thought i would through in my two cents, which will hopefully be of some use.
In the recent history of the Church, there was a Capuchin priest, originally from Dalmatia (old yugoslavia area), who grew up as a Roman Catholic, and yet was surrounded by many Orthodox Christians of whom he was very fond.
There was a longing in his heart for the reuniting of the Church, and that is one of the main reasons why he jioned the particular province of capuchins, because they had missions that were stationed in Orthodox areas.
As providence would have it, he only spent a very short time in his much longed for mission, and this due mainly to his poor health, and the fact that God had bestowed on him the special grace of reading hearts, in a similar manner to what St Padre Pio was famous for.
Now, to my point; This priest who is now known as St Leopold Mandic, Consecrated himself to Our Lady, under the specific title of CO-REDEMPTRIX, with the express desire of offering all his sacrifices and works through Her for the reunification of the Church.
I think that this is an important example of a canonized saint, who recognised the importance of Mary’s role in the Redemption, and desired to apply it to the 1000year heart cahe of all who long for the Mystical body of Christ, to once again be one!
By the way, any chance of someone posting a quick explanation of the idea of “objective and subjective redemption”?
JMJ
lol. Except that Aesop's fables don't carry with them God's condemnation that most certainly accompanies the breaking of the First and Second Commandments.
But maybe it's a good thing that Mary be named "co-redeemer" as official Vatican dogma. It will be that much easier for RC men and women to see the errors of Rome and depart.
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.