bizarre teachings about the Mother of God

[Salpy]

A few weeks ago, on Christmas day in fact, the mother of a friend passed away.  A sweeter Christian woman never lived, and it was really no wonder that she entered into paradise on the day Christ entered the world.  My friend, who called me upset about her mother, said that the only thought that made her feel better was the thought that her mother would be celebrating Christmas in heaven.

Anyway, a few days later my friends and I went to the house of my friend's sister, where the family was sitting in mourning.  We brought lots of things to eat, which is what Armenians do at these times, and we all sat and talked. 

As we were there, another old friend arrived.  I had not seen this woman for a long time, since she had left the Armenian Church.  She is a follower of Vassula Ryden, and her involvement in the Vassula movement caused her to eventually renounce the Armenian Church and convert to the Catholic Church.

Before long, this woman began telling us things that did not sound right.  They were teachings about the Mother of God that just sounded bizarre to me.  My friends and I tried to gently correct her, but she continued on with her assertions. 

I want to pass what she said by our Catholic members here, to see if what she said is really Catholic teaching, or if it is perhaps just some weirdness coming out of the Vassula crowd. 

One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


This all sounded weird to me.  I know that the Mother of God had a unique role in our salvation, by bearing Christ.  I also know that she is the source of His humanity.  I also know that the Wedding at Cana demonstrated what an effective intercessor the Mother of God is.  However, the above things said by this woman seemed to go too far.

I have trouble believing that this correctly represents the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I get the feeling that this woman's main source of instruction has been from people who are in the Vassula movement.  I therefore just assumed that the weird things she was saying could be attributed to that.

However, I just wanted to be sure.  If and when I get into another conversation like this with that woman, or others like her, I'd like to be able to say that I've communicated with other Catholics who said such beliefs are not really the beliefs of their Church.

Unless, of course, what she said really does represent what you guys believe.   


 

[Shiranui117]

It's certainly not anything that we were taught in RCIA, nor anything I've come across since...

And memory eternal to your friend's mother.

[Ortho_cat]

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

[Shlomlokh]

It's certainly not anything that we were taught in RCIA, nor anything I've come across since...

And memory eternal to your friend's mother.

Yeah, I never heard that either. Although they did tell me that God was also Mother, too.  (I do know that is not RC teaching, however).

In Christ,
Andrew

[soufliotiki]

Vassula is a problematic character and well known among the Orthodox as teaching extremally heretical concepts mixed in with honey ... avoid her teachings like a plague. As for people who follow her smile and let it go in one ear and out the other.

No theological discussion will go anywhere.

[orthonorm]

No theological discussion will go anywhere.

Apt subtitle for most threads on this forum.

[Wyatt]

I have never heard this before either. What exactly is the Vassula movement? I have never heard of it before.

[Irish Hermit]

Who is Vassula Ryden?

See Message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5925.msg404054/topicseen.html#msg404054

EXCOMMUNICATED by the Church of Greece.

The reason --- taking Communion in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

[Salpy]

Wyatt,

Click on the Vassula tag below and you'll see past threads.  She claims to receive messages from Christ, through a sort of automatic writing.  Some of the things related in the messages are, to put it nicely, a bit strange.

Ironically, one of the main goals of her movement is bringing Orthodox Christians into unity with Rome, yet Pope Benedict won't have anything to do with Vassula.  He has consistently refused to endorse her and has issued statements criticizing her.  Vassula used to be Greek Orthodox, but, as Fr. Ambrose pointed out, the Greek Church has excommunicated her.

[Irish Hermit]

Personally I love Vassoula to bits.

During her travels in Russia Jesus revealed to her that the Russian Patriarch will push the Pope off his throne and it will be the Russian Patriarch who will be the leader of a united Catholic and Orthodox Church.   

[Salpy]

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?

I thought the same thing years ago when watching some documentary on the Shroud of Turin. Apparently they did some tests on it and the blood on it was a woman's blood, to which Roman Catholics were like "Ah, yes, of course, because his blood was Mary's blood." I thought it was totally bizarre at the time, but I suppose it bothers me less now that I'm not a Protestant.

[LBK]

Personally I love Vassoula to bits.

During her travels in Russia Jesus revealed to her that the Russian Patriarch will push the Pope off his throne and it will be the Russian Patriarch who will be the leader of a united Catholic and Orthodox Church.   

You naughty, naughty Irishman, you! 

[WetCatechumen]

A few weeks ago, on Christmas day in fact, the mother of a friend passed away.  A sweeter Christian woman never lived, and it was really no wonder that she entered into paradise on the day Christ entered the world.  My friend, who called me upset about her mother, said that the only thought that made her feel better was the thought that her mother would be celebrating Christmas in heaven.

Anyway, a few days later my friends and I went to the house of my friend's sister, where the family was sitting in mourning.  We brought lots of things to eat, which is what Armenians do at these times, and we all sat and talked. 

As we were there, another old friend arrived.  I had not seen this woman for a long time, since she had left the Armenian Church.  She is a follower of Vassula Ryden, and her involvement in the Vassula movement caused her to eventually renounce the Armenian Church and convert to the Catholic Church.

Before long, this woman began telling us things that did not sound right.  They were teachings about the Mother of God that just sounded bizarre to me.  My friends and I tried to gently correct her, but she continued on with her assertions. 

I want to pass what she said by our Catholic members here, to see if what she said is really Catholic teaching, or if it is perhaps just some weirdness coming out of the Vassula crowd. 

One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


This all sounded weird to me.  I know that the Mother of God had a unique role in our salvation, by bearing Christ.  I also know that she is the source of His humanity.  I also know that the Wedding at Cana demonstrated what an effective intercessor the Mother of God is.  However, the above things said by this woman seemed to go too far.

I have trouble believing that this correctly represents the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I get the feeling that this woman's main source of instruction has been from people who are in the Vassula movement.  I therefore just assumed that the weird things she was saying could be attributed to that.

However, I just wanted to be sure.  If and when I get into another conversation like this with that woman, or others like her, I'd like to be able to say that I've communicated with other Catholics who said such beliefs are not really the beliefs of their Church.

Unless, of course, what she said really does represent what you guys believe.   


 

Well, in response to this, the woman is nuts, and doesn't represent Catholic teaching. Mary is the co-savior of mankind only in that she assisted in the salvation of every man through her bearing of Jesus Christ. Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen. However, it wasn't as if what she did was necessarily salvific - it was only so because of its relation to her son, whom she herself calls her Savior.

Mary did save us by consenting to God's will that she bear Christ. However, the power to consent was given to her by God and the salvific act of the Incarnation was performed by God and the passion, death, and resurrection were performed by God.

He is the sole savior of the universe, but Mary did assist him in the salvation of every single human being.

She is also right about the biological fact that we can say that Mary shared her blood with Christ and that it was Christ's blood and therefore Mary's blood that saved us - but it saved us because it was Christ's blood.

Furthermore, simple because at one point in time Mary's blood was mingled with Christ's blood doesn't make her physically present in communion - we don't teach that. However, because she is united to Christ we are united to her through the Eucharist - but only through Christ, and only inasmuch as we are united to all other Christians.

Long story short: we don't believe that "Mary's blood" is in the chalice, and we don't believe that she is the savior of the world.

[ialmisry]

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?

There is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the Theotokos, under the title Immaculata, of Maximillian Kolbe, a modern canonized saint of the Vatican.  Some wherehere I and Fr. Ambrose have posted on this, but here is something on it from a Vatican authority
http://www.markmiravalle.com/uncategorized/11/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix/

That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

[Ortho_cat]

From the above article:

The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

We must seek to view Mary from the perspective of the Father, as the Virgin Daughter Immaculate, his greatest masterpiece. We must view Mary afresh from the perspective of the Son, as perfect Mother in the order of love, and most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

[ialmisry]

From the above article:

The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

We must seek to view Mary from the perspective of the Father, as the Virgin Daughter Immaculate, his greatest masterpiece. We must view Mary afresh from the perspective of the Son, as perfect Mother in the order of love, and most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

Yes, and Dr. Mark Miravalle is a mainstream authority of the Vatican's teachings.

[Irish Hermit]

most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

Presumably Mary continues with her intimate role in redemption with her divine Son and one day she will appear with Him as our Co-Judge and co-Punisher.

[Ortho_cat]

most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

Presumably Mary continues with her intimate role in redemption with her divine Son and one day she will appear with Him as our Co-Judge and co-Punisher.

Actually, if I understand correctly, Jesus and Mary each rule half of the kingdom, He over the kingdom of justice, and her over the kingdom of mercy, so justice and punishment would be all his.

The Grand Chancellor of Paris, John Gerson, meditating on these words of David: "These two things have I heard, that power belongs to God, and mercy to you, O Lord" (Ps 61:12-13), reasoned this way - since God's kingdom consists of two elements, justice and mercy, God decided to divide his kingdom. Justice he reserved to himself; mercy he transmitted to Mary, ordaining that all mercies which come to human beings should come through Mary's hands, and that these mercies should be distributed according to her choice. Saint Thomas, in the preface to his commentary on the Canonical Epistles holds the same opinion. He says that when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal Word in her womb, she obtained half of his kingdom. Mary became the queen of mercy, he says, while the distribution of justice remained in the hands of her son.

http://www.sanpiodapietrelcina.org/english/glories.htm

[podkarpatska]

No theological discussion will go anywhere.

Apt subtitle for most threads on this forum.

lol

[podkarpatska]

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?

There is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the Theotokos, under the title Immaculata, of Maximillian Kolbe, a modern canonized saint of the Vatican.  Some wherehere I and Fr. Ambrose have posted on this, but here is something on it from a Vatican authority
http://www.markmiravalle.com/uncategorized/11/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix/

That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

Not while Benedict is Pope. but you may be right as to the long term as there are many Marian cultists floating around.

[minasoliman]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

[Papist]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

[elijahmaria]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

Yes.  We either believe in God's Providence or we don't.  Can't have it one way, one day, and another the next.

[minasoliman]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

[ialmisry]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

[minasoliman]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.

[ozgeorge]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

[ialmisry]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.

I don't disagree. But then again, neither did the Holy Theotokos, hence the success.

[ialmisry]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

yes, you can help nudge the supreme pontiff towards his cathedra to usher in the New Age
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/
Dr. Miravalle can make Vassula look sober.

[orthonorm]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

[podkarpatska]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.

[orthonorm]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.

Looking over my last couple of posts, I have more typos and dropped more words than normal. Not feeling well, so I apologize about that.

I've probably heard Fr. Hopko's podcast. I looked up some other material on the subject. I never got the whole "Mary thing" from the RCC perspective among other stuff.

Without getting into the more "speculative" elements in Orthodoxy about Mary (read Bulgakov), being present during the Liturgy, listening to the wonderful hymns weaving all the OT typology pre-figuring Mary, reading (limited mind you) the Church Fathers and listening to more podcasts from Orthodox thinkers on the subject that probably anyone should, it just seems simply "right" that Mary was uniquely the woman who worked with God to be able to give birth and care for and raise Jesus, the Logos incarnate.

All the theology aside, I can say that my very difficult relationship with my mother was transformed in no small way due to my limited appreciation of the role of Mary as a woman and a mother and the incredible synergy of her predecessors and her own with God to allow such an awesome thing to occur.

If I am rambling, I apologize.

Basically, seeing Mary as much as Christ prefigured amid the awful violence, incredible sexual immorality, etc. of the OT and how all that how to be worked out and was able to be worked out by people working with God gradually over time not in spite of these "problems" but within them, allowed me a much more generous and charitable spirit to the incredible difficulties of my own family and my own responsibility for what I inherited.

If my inquiry into Orthodoxy allowed me that grace alone, I would be convinced of its truth.

Never did I think I would have such love and compassion for my family again not in spite of the pain suffering but amid it. I did not do it on my own.

And please anyone feel free to correct me on my next statement, perhaps it is not Orthodox or perhaps improper:

It is through the person of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ that was perhaps the greatest catalyst for that change.

Perhaps that is overly sentimental or less than Christo-centric. If so, I would be glad for the correction.



 

[Walter]

I was raised in a RC environment, and have never heard of Mary being co-Redeemer; co-Redemptrix, yes. This has led many RC's to perceive the Theotokos as sharing equally in our redemption, which she does not. I do not believe this philosophy has infiltrated the Byzantine Catholic circles, but with them being more Latinized, it may have.

[minasoliman]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.

I don't disagree. But then again, neither did the Holy Theotokos, hence the success.

Yes, thank God and thank the Theotokos for that.

I'm just saying that to say that if the Theotokos didn't accept, we would have never been saved is as if salvation primarily depended on the Theotokos' "yes."

[Schultz]

I was raised in a RC environment, and have never heard of Mary being co-Redeemer; co-Redemptrix, yes. This has led many RC's to perceive the Theotokos as sharing equally in our redemption, which she does not. I do not believe this philosophy has infiltrated the Byzantine Catholic circles, but with them being more Latinized, it may have.

Redemptrix is just the feminine of Redeemer. 

[minasoliman]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

The Theotokos will forever be the unrivaled chosen vessel of our salvation, and she deserves our veneration.  I do not wish to lessen her role.  She became for us a Mother in a true sense, the mother of our salvation.

I'm only arguing against putting too much credit that without her, salvation can never be achieved.  That simply means to me that this puts too much emphasis on equating her with salvation, not merely as the most important and active participant of our salvation.

I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

Lord have mercy!  I hope you get well soon.

[Wyatt]

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

As it rightly should. That sounds terribly heretical to me.

[Wyatt]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

[ialmisry]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

[Irish Hermit]

, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way.

Define "special way."

[SolEX01]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance,

co-conspirator; co-religionist; co-chair; co-chairman; co-Redeemer; co-Mediator; co-anchor ... so is the Virgin Mary an assistant to (or an employee of) Christ when it comes to redeeming and mediating?  The Orthodox believe that the Virgin Mary intercedes to Christ our King and our God on our behalf and not as an equal Mediator, Redeemer, etc.

but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

Mary obeyed God; she did not cooperate with God unlike the Pope and Mussolini who cooperated in having the Lateran Treaty signed.  I don't see Mussolini recognized as a Co-Redeemer and Co-Mediator of the Vatican....  

[podkarpatska]

Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.

Looking over my last couple of posts, I have more typos and dropped more words than normal. Not feeling well, so I apologize about that.

I've probably heard Fr. Hopko's podcast. I looked up some other material on the subject. I never got the whole "Mary thing" from the RCC perspective among other stuff.

Without getting into the more "speculative" elements in Orthodoxy about Mary (read Bulgakov), being present during the Liturgy, listening to the wonderful hymns weaving all the OT typology pre-figuring Mary, reading (limited mind you) the Church Fathers and listening to more podcasts from Orthodox thinkers on the subject that probably anyone should, it just seems simply "right" that Mary was uniquely the woman who worked with God to be able to give birth and care for and raise Jesus, the Logos incarnate.

All the theology aside, I can say that my very difficult relationship with my mother was transformed in no small way due to my limited appreciation of the role of Mary as a woman and a mother and the incredible synergy of her predecessors and her own with God to allow such an awesome thing to occur.

If I am rambling, I apologize.

Basically, seeing Mary as much as Christ prefigured amid the awful violence, incredible sexual immorality, etc. of the OT and how all that how to be worked out and was able to be worked out by people working with God gradually over time not in spite of these "problems" but within them, allowed me a much more generous and charitable spirit to the incredible difficulties of my own family and my own responsibility for what I inherited.

If my inquiry into Orthodoxy allowed me that grace alone, I would be convinced of its truth.

Never did I think I would have such love and compassion for my family again not in spite of the pain suffering but amid it. I did not do it on my own.

And please anyone feel free to correct me on my next statement, perhaps it is not Orthodox or perhaps improper:

It is through the person of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ that was perhaps the greatest catalyst for that change.

Perhaps that is overly sentimental or less than Christo-centric. If so, I would be glad for the correction.



 

It seems to me that you have indeed a correct Orthodox perspective on the Theotokas. Hope you feel better soon!

[Wyatt]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

[ozgeorge]

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

Oh dear.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God