Author Topic: The Mary thing.  (Read 8033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2012, 06:27:33 PM »
Here is the accusation against Marian Catholic belief and practice by an Orthodox poster:
But often popular Roman Catholic hyperdulia is rather indistinguishable from worship reserved for God. Orthodox leaders have also denounced Roman Catholic Marian "hypertrophy", so be careful whom you are slamming the door on...
However, I would suggest that the prayer: Most holy Mother of God save us, is quite strong even in the context as quoted above.

Indeed. It was in a similar vein that I asked whether Orthodox speak of "praying to Mary".
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2012, 07:03:01 PM »
Here is the accusation against Marian Catholic belief and practice by an Orthodox poster:
But often popular Roman Catholic hyperdulia is rather indistinguishable from worship reserved for God. Orthodox leaders have also denounced Roman Catholic Marian "hypertrophy", so be careful whom you are slamming the door on...
However, I would suggest that the prayer: Most holy Mother of God save us, is quite strong even in the context as quoted above.
Indeed. It was in a similar vein that I asked whether Orthodox speak of "praying to Mary".

Mary is not who we are committing ourselves and each other an all our life to. She is not God and she is not the one being referred to as Lord. Even if the context still seems strong to you, it is not really any stronger than the scriptural passages I made reference to.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Aaron M

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2012, 10:50:01 PM »
Hmmm, since a Protestant is needed in here... (David Young?  Cleopas?  Keble?)

My being a perpetual half-hearted lazy inquirer, I do not have terribly much invested in the Marian question as applied to Orthodoxy, but I don't at all 'buy' that the Orthodox understanding of her veneration or "powers" is essentially different from the Roman Catholic.  If anything, I think that the Orthodox both in quality (in "poetic" expression) and quantity (the frequency of her mention) give **more** laud to her, and as (or more) explicitly than the Catholic, freely assign imperatives of salvation to her (or so it definitely sounds to me, and I don't see my understanding ever really changing).  Ultimately it means little to me the apologetic that the Orthodox "do not dogmatize" about beliefs concerning her, if in substance they be the same.

I have an Orthodox prayerbook that I sometimes still use when wanting to pray something deep and feeling inclusive of ancient Christian history - usually will just read the Marian prayers as approved to praying them as the other God-addressed ones (not always, but most of the time; Protestant!)

Tackle this one, please:

"Open the door of thy loving-kindness; O blessed Mother of God, so that we who put our hope in thee may not perish.  Through thee may we be delivered from adversities, for thou art the salvation of the Christian people."  (included in 'Troparion' section of "Prayers Before Sleep")

While any Marian veneration is very problematic for Protestants, what in there do you (figurative, any one?) suppose is the most difficult phrase in this prayer?  (And this is the most difficult Marian prayer to me that I have read, Orthodox or Catholic.)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 10:53:44 PM by Aaron M »

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2012, 11:14:48 PM »
I just don't like dogma being declared by Internet posters. I'll leave that to Ecumenical Councils.

And that's what I take issue with; the attitude that you can be sola synoda and Orthodox.
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2012, 11:42:41 PM »
I just don't like dogma being declared by Internet posters. I'll leave that to Ecumenical Councils.

And that's what I take issue with; the attitude that you can be sola synoda and Orthodox.

William, I think you're right to highlight the dangers of Clemente's approach. I sometimes take issue with what I think qualifies as the opposite approach -- namely, taking any theological error repeated over the last few decades or perhaps a century or two and saying it is part of the apostolic faith.

Is there a way of "doing" Orthodoxy which doesn't fall into either of these two extremes?
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2012, 11:47:43 PM »
How about, "Most Holy Theotokos, could you consider possibly helping me out when you get around to it. I mean, I'm surrounded by enemies stronger than I am and will probably die without intervention, but don't go through any trouble on my account" ?

This is pretty much how I do things. I find passive aggression most effective with Jewish mothers.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2012, 11:50:31 PM »
Quote
Is there a way of "doing" Orthodoxy which doesn't fall into either of these two extremes?

Yes.

Grow older - age has a way of improving discernment for most people.

Expose yourself to different "flavors" of Orthodox praxis.

Attend as many church services as you can, and keep your eyes and ears open. Hymnography and iconography are pillars of safe, reliable doctrine and theology.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #97 on: February 29, 2012, 12:12:22 AM »
Hmmm, since a Protestant is needed in here... (David Young?  Cleopas?  Keble?)

My being a perpetual half-hearted lazy inquirer, I do not have terribly much invested in the Marian question as applied to Orthodoxy, but I don't at all 'buy' that the Orthodox understanding of her veneration or "powers" is essentially different from the Roman Catholic.  If anything, I think that the Orthodox both in quality (in "poetic" expression) and quantity (the frequency of her mention) give **more** laud to her, and as (or more) explicitly than the Catholic, freely assign imperatives of salvation to her (or so it definitely sounds to me, and I don't see my understanding ever really changing).  Ultimately it means little to me the apologetic that the Orthodox "do not dogmatize" about beliefs concerning her, if in substance they be the same.

I have an Orthodox prayerbook that I sometimes still use when wanting to pray something deep and feeling inclusive of ancient Christian history - usually will just read the Marian prayers as approved to praying them as the other God-addressed ones (not always, but most of the time; Protestant!)

Tackle this one, please:

"Open the door of thy loving-kindness; O blessed Mother of God, so that we who put our hope in thee may not perish.  Through thee may we be delivered from adversities, for thou art the salvation of the Christian people."  (included in 'Troparion' section of "Prayers Before Sleep")

While any Marian veneration is very problematic for Protestants, what in there do you (figurative, any one?) suppose is the most difficult phrase in this prayer?  (And this is the most difficult Marian prayer to me that I have read, Orthodox or Catholic.)


I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain. This is not the only way to understand it, of course, but you have to understand that regardless of interpretation, it is implicit that God is the only one who saves in this abstract soteriological sense that you're talking about. The Orthodox seem to get a lot of criticism from Protestants for the fact that they don't focus on the abstract (the question of who saves and how are we saved) but instead choose to focus on that which is experienced (how may we live a Christian life and have communion with God), hence the common but misguided accusation that the Orthodox are Pelagian heretics or the like.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 12:12:56 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #98 on: February 29, 2012, 12:18:17 AM »
I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain.

I believe it was the Wise Ass of Seria, me, who came to the very same conclusion without much reading. And similar thoughts about why we pray for folks departed in general.

 
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #99 on: February 29, 2012, 12:33:39 AM »
I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain.

I believe it was the Wise Ass of Seria, me, who came to the very same conclusion without much reading. And similar thoughts about why we pray for folks departed in general.

 

Jeder Esel merkt
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #100 on: February 29, 2012, 12:39:48 AM »
I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain.

I believe it was the Wise Ass of Seria, me, who came to the very same conclusion without much reading. And similar thoughts about why we pray for folks departed in general.

 

Jeder Esel merkt

Brilliant.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline DavidH

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 531
    • Signature Landscape Designs
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #101 on: February 29, 2012, 12:45:10 AM »
My understanding is that when we ask Mary to "save us" we are not asking her to redeem us, that belongs to Christ alone.

The word save ("sozo") can also be translated as "deliver" us.

So why don't we just say that? Why should we? It's not the way we feel we have to talk in everyday conversation when we say to someone who helps us, "Oh, you really saved me!"

And it is not the way Scripture speaks either when St. Paul tells St. Timothy to continue being faithful so he can save both himself and those who hear him (1 Tim. 4:16) or when we are told that by turning someone from error we save his soul from hell (James 5:20) or when we are told to save others with fear by pulling them out of the fire (Jude 22, 23)

So, saying "Most Holy Theotokos save us!" does not mean "Redeem us!" but "Deliver us!"

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,524
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #102 on: February 29, 2012, 01:27:55 AM »
I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain.

I believe it was the Wise Ass of Seria, me, who came to the very same conclusion without much reading. And similar thoughts about why we pray for folks departed in general.

 

Jeder Esel merkt
Translation please.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 01:28:25 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #103 on: February 29, 2012, 01:35:36 AM »
I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain.

I believe it was the Wise Ass of Seria, me, who came to the very same conclusion without much reading. And similar thoughts about why we pray for folks departed in general.

 

Jeder Esel merkt
Translation please.

Any fool (literally donkey) notices [that].

This is what Johannes Brahms famously remarked when somebody pointed out to him the similarity between the secondary theme of the fourth movement of his First Symphony, and the main theme of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #104 on: February 29, 2012, 01:56:35 AM »
Hmmm, since a Protestant is needed in here... (David Young?  Cleopas?  Keble?)

My being a perpetual half-hearted lazy inquirer, I do not have terribly much invested in the Marian question as applied to Orthodoxy, but I don't at all 'buy' that the Orthodox understanding of her veneration or "powers" is essentially different from the Roman Catholic.  If anything, I think that the Orthodox both in quality (in "poetic" expression) and quantity (the frequency of her mention) give **more** laud to her, and as (or more) explicitly than the Catholic, freely assign imperatives of salvation to her (or so it definitely sounds to me, and I don't see my understanding ever really changing).  Ultimately it means little to me the apologetic that the Orthodox "do not dogmatize" about beliefs concerning her, if in substance they be the same.

I have an Orthodox prayerbook that I sometimes still use when wanting to pray something deep and feeling inclusive of ancient Christian history - usually will just read the Marian prayers as approved to praying them as the other God-addressed ones (not always, but most of the time; Protestant!)

Tackle this one, please:

"Open the door of thy loving-kindness; O blessed Mother of God, so that we who put our hope in thee may not perish.  Through thee may we be delivered from adversities, for thou art the salvation of the Christian people."  (included in 'Troparion' section of "Prayers Before Sleep")

While any Marian veneration is very problematic for Protestants, what in there do you (figurative, any one?) suppose is the most difficult phrase in this prayer?  (And this is the most difficult Marian prayer to me that I have read, Orthodox or Catholic.)


I believe that it was St. Isaac the Syrian who explained that when we pray for the Theotokos to save us, we are praying that she will accept the annunciation, because without that our salvation would never come to be, and our faith would be in vain. This is not the only way to understand it, of course, but you have to understand that regardless of interpretation, it is implicit that God is the only one who saves in this abstract soteriological sense that you're talking about. The Orthodox seem to get a lot of criticism from Protestants for the fact that they don't focus on the abstract (the question of who saves and how are we saved) but instead choose to focus on that which is experienced (how may we live a Christian life and have communion with God), hence the common but misguided accusation that the Orthodox are Pelagian heretics or the like.

why would we be praying for her to do what she already did?

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #105 on: February 29, 2012, 02:25:41 AM »
ya, I think the charge that the RC's venerate Mary more than the Orthodox is trumped up. They do tend to represent her as stand-alone though in statuary, while you will rarely see her by herself (without the Christ Child) in Orthodox iconography.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #106 on: February 29, 2012, 02:34:58 AM »
RE Question 4: The danger of offering adoration or divine service to something or someone other than God is, and will be, present no matter what until the end of this age.

I think what the OP is more concerned about is whether or not we open up a door for such activity by encouraging such high veneration of Mary and the Saints.

Offline Andrew21091

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,272
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #107 on: February 29, 2012, 03:55:53 AM »
2. How does it differ from Catholicism?

Well, it doesn't differ too much. I think they have some dogmas in the Catholic Church that some Orthodox see as problematic such as the dogma of her being Co-Redemptrix. My knowledge of that particular dogma isn't very clear so I really couldn't tell you too much. However, I feel that the devotion assigned to St. Mary in the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church isn't very different at all. We Orthodox Christians have a very strong devotion to the Mother of God. Read any Akathist service or canon to her and you will see this very clearly. Orthodox wouldn't have any problem with the rosary for example. Some do, but it really centers around using the imagination during the rosary that Orthodox Christians find problems rather than the prayers themselves.


To be fair, "Co-Redemptrix" isn't dogma yet in the Roman Catholic Church. But it, along with "Co-Mediatrix" could be declared dogma in the future, since there is certainly much popular support for such dogma.

These titles are not typically found in Orthodoxy and certainly not Orthodox dogma.

I was ready to cue the game-show buzzer when Andrew that Catholics have a "dogma of her being Co-Redemptrix".

As far as the possibility that it will be dogmatically defined in the future ... well, naturally I can't prove that it won't be, but I see no reason to expect it.

Which is why I clarified I didn't know much about the idea since I have not read up on that particular belief. I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas. Thank you both for the clarification. Just the same, I still hold to the position that the way that Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholic veneration is pretty much on the same page.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #108 on: February 29, 2012, 08:55:12 AM »
I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas. 

There a movement (a fringe movement some of us would say) that believes that a "fifth Marian dogma" is going to be defined immanently. But even those persons, if cornered, will admit that there's no "fifth Marian dogma" yet.

Thank you both for the clarification.

 :)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #109 on: February 29, 2012, 12:42:07 PM »
I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas.  

There a movement (a fringe movement some of us would say) that believes that a "fifth Marian dogma" is going to be defined immanently. But even those persons, if cornered, will admit that there's no "fifth Marian dogma" yet.

Thank you both for the clarification.

 :)

From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 12:42:47 PM by Ortho_cat »

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #110 on: February 29, 2012, 12:45:28 PM »
saw this from wiki:

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably: that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind, and to bring about all particular post-assumption graces by way of intercession. The latter concept is included in the concept of Mediatrix which is a separate concept[1] but regularly included by faithful who use the title of co-redemptrix.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,892
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #111 on: February 29, 2012, 03:56:44 PM »
I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas.  

There a movement (a fringe movement some of us would say) that believes that a "fifth Marian dogma" is going to be defined immanently. But even those persons, if cornered, will admit that there's no "fifth Marian dogma" yet.

Thank you both for the clarification.

 :)

From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 520
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #112 on: February 29, 2012, 07:27:09 PM »
I commend Mother Maria's article "The Veneration of the Mother of God."

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #113 on: February 29, 2012, 07:52:01 PM »
I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas.  

There a movement (a fringe movement some of us would say) that believes that a "fifth Marian dogma" is going to be defined immanently. But even those persons, if cornered, will admit that there's no "fifth Marian dogma" yet.

Thank you both for the clarification.

 :)

From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.

But, as I understand it, the proposed dogma would say that Mary is Co-redemptrix, not that all of us are.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #114 on: February 29, 2012, 10:28:29 PM »
From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.
But, as I understand it, the proposed dogma would say that Mary is Co-redemptrix, not that all of us are.

Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #115 on: February 29, 2012, 11:44:06 PM »
From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.
But, as I understand it, the proposed dogma would say that Mary is Co-redemptrix, not that all of us are.

Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.

what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #116 on: February 29, 2012, 11:47:46 PM »
odox

Finally a street worthy way to refer to the Church I am part of.

Thanks.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,892
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #117 on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:05 AM »
I've heard some Orthodox people criticizing Catholics for those ideas and they've always referred to them as dogmas.  

There a movement (a fringe movement some of us would say) that believes that a "fifth Marian dogma" is going to be defined immanently. But even those persons, if cornered, will admit that there's no "fifth Marian dogma" yet.

Thank you both for the clarification.

 :)

From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.

But, as I understand it, the proposed dogma would say that Mary is Co-redemptrix, not that all of us are.
Every explanation that I have ever read about the title "co-redemptrix" has rested on the notion that we are all "co-redeemers with/in Christ". Mary simply participates in this quality to a higher degree because she is the New Eve that has untied the knot of the old Eve. I doubt that the Catholic Church will every raise the idea to the level of dogma, but if she does do so, I have every bit of faith that it will described in this context.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,892
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #118 on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:52 AM »
From what I understand, its can be considered a pious opinion at this stage. Orthodox would not hesitate to say that Mary had a role/ a part to play in the salvation of mankind, via her Fiat, her "yes". Although an RC understanding I think goes so far as to say that she suffered along with Christ, and this has some redemptive value (correct me if i'm wrong), I've not heard this from an Odox perspective, although we talk about her sufferings along with Christ during holy week.
Her suffering is not considered to be different than St. Paul's suffering when he says "I make up in my body, what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." Of course the is a difficult and enigmatic scripture, but it is there never the less.
But, as I understand it, the proposed dogma would say that Mary is Co-redemptrix, not that all of us are.

Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
Well stated.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,314
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #119 on: March 01, 2012, 12:41:03 PM »
I just don't like dogma being declared by Internet posters. I'll leave that to Ecumenical Councils.

And that's what I take issue with; the attitude that you can be sola synoda and Orthodox.

William, I think you're right to highlight the dangers of Clemente's approach. I sometimes take issue with what I think qualifies as the opposite approach -- namely, taking any theological error repeated over the last few decades or perhaps a century or two and saying it is part of the apostolic faith.

Is there a way of "doing" Orthodoxy which doesn't fall into either of these two extremes?

Standard Orthodox response to your question: "It depends."  ;)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #120 on: March 01, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »
From Yahoo Answers:

Quote
Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary "the woman with the redeemer." This is because "co" is from the Latin word "cum" which means "with." Therefore, "co-redemptrix" means "woman with the redeemer." Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

- Why is the Catholic Church teaching Mary is the mother of God?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #121 on: March 01, 2012, 01:41:21 PM »
Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #122 on: March 01, 2012, 02:12:04 PM »
Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.

Yes, we say Jesus offers Himself, to Himself.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #123 on: March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 PM »
Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.

Yes, we say Jesus offers Himself, to Himself.

EDIT: Now if you are going to parse that as the Church being the Body of Christ and thus Christ is still doing the offering, that would include Mary as well.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 02:36:47 PM by orthonorm »
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #124 on: March 01, 2012, 04:20:07 PM »
Dogmatically, I think what makes the RC understanding of Mary problematic is the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, which itself is hinged upon the doctrine of Original Guilt. The Theotokos must be spared original guilt so that she can give birth to Christ (who must be sinless, and therefore cannot be guilty of Adam's sin). Orthodoxy rejects the notion of original guilt outright. We are not personally guilty of the sin of Adam.

Further, removing the Theotokos from our fallen nature also removed Christ from our fallen nature. That is, they have a different nature, an unfallen human nature. However, as the Fathers teach us, "That which is not assumed is not saved." How can Christ redeem our fallen nature if he does not assume it?

This means that, in Orthodoxy, the Theotokos is human just like we are human. She is the great example, not the great exception. There is nothing special about her. She's just as human (and only as human) as anyone else. We can all attain to similar glory, having the same starting point as her ourselves.

However, the idea that the Theotokos is a mediatrix or even a co-redemptrix, I think, does exist in Orthodoxy. However, this does not imply some active participation in the Passion of Christ. No, this ultimate and salvific act belongs to Christ alone. However, the Theotokos brings Christ into the world, and so it is through her that He accomplishes His work. As we sing at Sunday Matins,

"since Thou hast given birth to Christ, thou hast delivered Adam from his sin, thou has given joy to Eve instead of sadness through the God-Man who was borne of thee..."

It is through the Theotokos that Christ accomplishes these things, and we honor her for that participation. However, nothing in this implies that she participates especially in Christ's saving passion. Further, since she inherits the same fallen human nature as the rest of us, she is also in need of redemption through her Son, just as we are.
"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #125 on: March 01, 2012, 04:48:08 PM »
Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....
Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.
Yes, we say Jesus offers Himself, to Himself.

Actually we say we offer the Eucharist (Christ's Body "which is broken" and Blood "which is shed") to God the Father, that is who that entire anaphora is prayed to.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #126 on: March 01, 2012, 05:03:23 PM »
However, the idea that the Theotokos is a mediatrix or even a co-redemptrix, I think, does exist in Orthodoxy. However, this does not imply some active participation in the Passion of Christ. No, this ultimate and salvific act belongs to Christ alone. However, the Theotokos brings Christ into the world, and so it is through her that He accomplishes His work. As we sing at Sunday Matins,

"since Thou hast given birth to Christ, thou hast delivered Adam from his sin, thou has given joy to Eve instead of sadness through the God-Man who was borne of thee..."

It is through the Theotokos that Christ accomplishes these things, and we honor her for that participation. However, nothing in this implies that she participates especially in Christ's saving passion.

Actually that is one of the reasons why I'm Orthodox, Christ's saving work isn't something that just happens to us, but something that we actively participate in, as Fr Hopko likes to paraphrase St Paul - You can't reign with Him unless you suffer with Him and you can't live with Him unless you die with Him. Also keep in mind, while present at Christ's passion, she watched it happen as a mother watching it happen to her Son.

Quote
Further, since she inherits the same fallen human nature as the rest of us, she is also in need of redemption through her Son, just as we are.

Agree 100%. Just for the record.

As I said earlier, I'm personally uncomfortable with the phrase, even though the teaching behind it can have a good and proper explanation. I would say that this would be one of those things better left as theological opinion and pious expression and not officially dogmatized.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #127 on: March 01, 2012, 05:09:37 PM »
Can't say I care for how the term sounds, but to be fair to what it sounds like they are trying to say, not all of us said yes at the annunciation and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, even though we are called to imitate that "yes" in our daily lives.
what about this part:

"that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind..."

seems theologically faulty to me from an odox perspective....
Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.
Yes, we say Jesus offers Himself, to Himself.


Actually we say we offer the Eucharist (Christ's Body "which is broken" and Blood "which is shed") to God the Father, that is who that entire anaphora is prayed to.

Are you sure it is referring to the sacrifice and us as the one who offers it?

Every book/podcast i've read/heard explaining the sacrificial offering clearly states that Christ is the one who is offered, the one who offers, and the one who receives.

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #128 on: March 01, 2012, 05:25:20 PM »
Actually we say we offer the Eucharist (Christ's Body "which is broken" and Blood "which is shed") to God the Father, that is who that entire anaphora is prayed to.
Are you sure it is referring to the sacrifice and us as the one who offers it?

Every book/podcast i've read/heard explaining the sacrificial offering clearly states that Christ is the one who is offered, the one who offers, and the one who receives.

I'm just quoting the prayer in what we say and Who we say it to.

Yes Christ is the Great High Priest Who offers the Sacrifice of Himself, but according to the prayers, we literally remember (make present) Christ's Sacrifice of Himself and offer that up to God the Father as we also offer ourselves up to God to receive and be united to Christ in the Eucharist.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,524
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #129 on: March 03, 2012, 01:15:31 PM »
The tangent regarding whether the Theotokos was born needing the redemption of baptism to live a sinless life has been split off and moved to this location on the Orthodox-Catholic board: We are all (the Theotokos included) born in need of redemption?  What remains here on the Orthodox-Protestant board started as a discussion of whether Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary. Let us please keep our replies focused on this topic as stated in the OP. Thank you.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline acts420

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
    • Acts420
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #130 on: March 15, 2012, 08:28:04 PM »
Thank you for mentioning this, Shanghaiski.  I've come to that conclusion myself.  However, I'm a catechumen and have not had the chance to ask my priest about this issue yet.  It is good to know more orthodox affirm this.

So if Mary is without sin how do you reconcile this with the biblical admonition that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Does this imply Mary is excepted from all and if so how?

We believe she is without voluntary sin. There is, however, involuntary sin. We say in prayers that we sin at every hour, and we ask for God to forgive those sins about which we know and those sins about which we don't know--our perspective is very limited, and sin clouds it. The Mother of Christ our God also needed a savior, like all of us. She is not excepted from humanity. Only Jesus Christ is completely sinless.
In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #131 on: March 15, 2012, 11:12:35 PM »
Thank you for mentioning this, Shanghaiski.  I've come to that conclusion myself.  However, I'm a catechumen and have not had the chance to ask my priest about this issue yet.  It is good to know more orthodox affirm this.

So if Mary is without sin how do you reconcile this with the biblical admonition that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Does this imply Mary is excepted from all and if so how?

We believe she is without voluntary sin. There is, however, involuntary sin. We say in prayers that we sin at every hour, and we ask for God to forgive those sins about which we know and those sins about which we don't know--our perspective is very limited, and sin clouds it. The Mother of Christ our God also needed a savior, like all of us. She is not excepted from humanity. Only Jesus Christ is completely sinless.

most people will say she was sinless, period.

Offline acts420

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
    • Acts420
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #132 on: March 16, 2012, 03:09:45 AM »
most people will say she was sinless, period.

Dear Ortho_cat,

By saying that, do they mean she was without involuntary sin?  Or is your point rather that most just don't get into specifics? 

If they specifically mean she was without involuntary sin, do you think it is possible for "most orthodox" to be wrong on any given issue?
In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #133 on: March 16, 2012, 08:49:51 AM »
Ecumenical Councils are not the only way that the Church proclaims her truths. In the service for the Dormition you will hear about the Assumption of Mary -- case closed, really. If you don't want to believe in the Assumption I guess you could just never go to Church on the Dormition...

Also, the Councils themselves proclaimed that they were following the Fathers, so then we know that the Fathers are a source of dogma. Its not like the teachings of the Church became true once the Councils proclaimed it. The truths were always true and taught in the Fathers and liturgical services of the Church.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: The Mary thing.
« Reply #134 on: March 16, 2012, 11:15:51 AM »
most people will say she was sinless, period.

Dear Ortho_cat,

By saying that, do they mean she was without involuntary sin?  Or is your point rather that most just don't get into specifics?  

If they specifically mean she was without involuntary sin, do you think it is possible for "most orthodox" to be wrong on any given issue?

I've attempted to make the distinction before regarding her being sinless from voluntary sin while still being subject to involuntary sin. My viewpoint was rejected by most. Although in Orthodoxy there is a distinction between the two, most people you find will say that Mary was sinless in both aspects. With that being said, no one will throw you under the bus for believing either. It's not dogma by any means...i.e. to what extent/degree she was sinless doesn't affect our salvation.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 11:16:17 AM by Ortho_cat »