Co-redemtrix and Churches of the Syriac-East

[shlomo3amrooh]

In Michael Voris’ recent video, he speaks about the title of co-redemtrix for the Birth-Giver of God Maryam, he claims that Pope Francis may declare this as a dogma. He then goes on to speak about how orthodox Catholics are generally in favour of this, while the more liberal crowd are not.

I would like to suggest that, as a small o orthodox Catholic and as a capital O Orthodox Catholic in Communion with Rome that this generalisation is not true for at least myself. For the reasons explained below:

to read more click below:
qadishat.com/2013/11/co-redemtrix-and-churches-of-syriac-east.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

I understand the continued research by theologians in the Church n this regard. And yes they present a very impressive. logical, articulated case.

BUT…

This is absolutely correct “We are just starting to solve the problems associated with the language of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption”. People don’t know when to leave well enough alone.

 

[Denho]

If they set their minds to it they can find a way to jump through whatever theological contortions they need to proclaim this as dogma, but as you say, why can’t they just leave well enough alone?

• Is it Necessary? All of the Ecumenical Councils met to clarify doctrine for a truly existential reason. Why must this be done? Just because they can and there is a vocal lobby?
• It will be yet another obstacle to the path of full communion with the Orthodox Churches. If they can’t leave the Deposit of Faith alone for a full century without unilaterally adding a new dogma then that will most assuredly send a signal to the Orthodox that Rome isn’t serious about re-union.
• I suppose the Protestants closed the door to a path for the future when they started ordaining women ministrixs so this can be Rome’s way to close the door on their side.

 

[MattofTexas]

If they set their minds to it they can find a way to jump through whatever theological contortions they need to proclaim this as dogma, but as you say, why can’t they just leave well enough alone?

• I suppose the Protestants closed the door to a path for the future when they started ordaining women ministrixs so this can be Rome’s way to close the door on their side.

If you’re referring to formal reunion between the CC and a Protestant denomination as a whole then you may be correct (albeit there are many kinds of Protestants and not all believe in ordaining women), however, accepting this as dogma could prove a stumbling block in many Protestants’ minds who are considering converting and joining the Church…

 

[TimothyH]

In Michael Voris’ recent video, he speaks about the title of co-redemtrix for the Birth-Giver of God Maryam, he claims that Pope Francis may declare this as a dogma. He then goes on to speak about how orthodox Catholics are generally in favour of this, while the more liberal crowd are not.

I would like to suggest that, as a small o orthodox Catholic and as a capital O Orthodox Catholic in Communion with Rome that this generalisation is not true for at least myself. For the reasons explained below:

to read more click below:
qadishat.com/2013/11/co-redemtrix-and-churches-of-syriac-east.html

I would relax.

Michael Voris is an extremely poor spokesman for Roman Catholicism and he has no special knowledge about what Pope Francis is going to do. He would like nothing more than for everyone to get excited about this issue so that he can create more division and assign labels to people.

Forget what Michael Voris says. He does not speak for Roman Catholicism.

-Tim-

 

[RPRPsych]

I would relax.

Michael Voris is an extremely poor spokesman for Roman Catholicism and he has no special knowledge about what Pope Francis is going to do. He would like nothing more than for everyone to get excited about this issue so that he can create more division and assign labels to people.

Forget what Michael Voris says. He does not speak for Roman Catholicism.

-Tim-

I would agree. This is a complex theological issue and cannot be resolved into a simple “liberal vs. conservative” debate. Unfortunately, some commentators - especially those who like “playing to the gallery” - fail to appreciate this.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The difference of opinion on whether Co-redemptrix (and Mediatrix of all Graces) should be declared a dogma does not, I think, fall along a liberal-conservative divide. Incidentally, using the word “orthodox” as the opposite of “liberal” and thus equating it with “conservative” is, in my opinion, a heinous misuse of the word which is actively tainting it today.

Personally I have no problem with the title properly understood, and I think if any Pope declares it Pope Francis seems like the type to do it (as opposed to Pope Benedict XVI, who I always felt confident would never seriously consider proclaiming the dogma, in spite of the fact that most would perceive Benedict as more “conservative” than Francis, not that his is a good paradigm to judge either by). But considering the ecumenical difficulties that would arise from the misunderstanding of the dogma, and the broader misunderstanding that the Church would have thus “invented” a new belief, I don’t think it is particularly likely that this will happen in our lifetimes. If it does happen at all it should, in my opinion, be done slowly like was the case with the Immaculate Conception. Use the term theologically and liturgically, including a feast or solemnity specifically for Mary, Co-redemptrix, for decades or preferably centuries before proclaiming the dogma.

 

[TimothyH]

I would agree. This is a complex theological issue and cannot be resolved into a simple “liberal vs. conservative” debate. Unfortunately, some commentators - especially those who like “playing to the gallery” - fail to appreciate this.

Unfortunately Mr. Voris chose to use the word “orthodox” here.

He is an extremely poor spokesman for Roman Catholicism. The Church herself has held Mr. Voris at arms length.

We can debate the doctrine but I would urge the Orthodox to put zero faith in Michael Voris’ predictions about what the Pope is going to do.

-Tim-

 

[malphono]

Personally I care less what Voris has to say about anything, (unless it’s the announcement of his retirement but I digress), but I will offer a comment on the subject matter.

The blog post cited in the OP says it pretty well. As another poster has already said in this thread, why can’t they just leave it alone? We’ve been down this road before and already have more than enough unnecessary dogmas unilaterally declared by Rome (including what came out of Vatican I but that’s another discussion and I won’t go there now). We have both the IC and Assumption: what reason was there for either to have been dogmatized when all of the Apostolic Churches accepted the basic premises in the first place? Ah! I know :idea: the definitions just had to be couched in Latin scholastic language just to make sure.

One need look no further than this very forum, where threads about both of those Marian dogmas have proliferated for years, to realize that the unilateral declarations of same by Rome were unnecessary at best and detrimental to unity at worst. Do we really need another one?

 

[RPRPsych]

Unfortunately Mr. Voris chose to use the word “orthodox” here.

He is an extremely poor spokesman for Roman Catholicism. The Church herself has held Mr. Voris at arms length.

We can debate the doctrine but I would urge the Orthodox to put zero faith in Michael Voris’ predictions about what the Pope is going to do.

-Tim-

While I can tell that the gentleman in question (Mr. Voris) is zealous, some of that zeal is misguided.

And the use of the word “orthodox” in this context is pernicious.

Is Mary Co-Redemptrix? The bottom line is that if the Church took till the 19th century to officially declare the Immaculate Conception, and made its definitive pronouncement on the Assumption just a year before my own mother was born, it’s not going to hurry despite any number of rumours. The Church will do things in its own good time.

 

[MattofTexas]

An often quoted phrase is “in essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, and in all things charity”, and perhaps that best applies to this question. With that said Jesus revealed that He is The Way, The TRUTH, and The Life. He taught that the truth sets us free and that He was sending the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all truth. So with so much emphasis on truth one might conversely ask if even unity is a great enough cause to merit silence in lieu of defining the truth as the Magistrium has recognized it? Of course this is a false question: the Church of Jesus Christ, the Household of God, is not true or unified- but must be both true and unified! I think the real question is how to balance both so that we may all be one as The Lord prayed for us to be, but not compromise the joy of knowing and understanding the fullness of the faith our Lord had given His Church that the definition of doctrine and dogma can bring? I have confidence the bishops, as guided by the Holy Spirit, will make everything for the best.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

It would seem that no one could make this a dogma in light of Pope Pius IV’s declaration ex-cathadra at the Council of Trent where he said " and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” The word “alone” eliminates the possibility of a “co-redeemer” in my opinion. When supporting this title, people spend all sorts of time explaining the word “co” and how it means “with” and not “equal to”-- but they don’t spend a lot of time reflecting on the word redemptrix or redeemer.It is Jesus’ blood ALONE that redeemed mankind. We mere humans, including the Blessed Mother, can certainly work WITH Jesus to bring believers to Him-- but we cannot redeem.

Furthermore, in 1996 the Holy See consulted the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy on this very matter to see whether or not it should consider this as a dogma. The result? The commission voted unanimously that this should NOT happen because the title is too ambiguous and lacks theological clarity. The Holy See took their advice.

I concur with the majority of posters for this thread–Mr. Voris is not a spokesperson for the Church.

.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

An often quoted phrase is “in essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, and in all things charity”, and perhaps that best applies to this question. With that said Jesus revealed that He is The Way, The TRUTH, and The Life. He taught that the truth sets us free and that He was sending the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all truth. So with so much emphasis on truth one might conversely ask if even unity is a great enough cause to merit silence in lieu of defining the truth as the Magistrium has recognized it? Of course this is a false question: the Church of Jesus Christ, the Household of God, is not true or unified- but must be both true and unified! I think the real question is how to balance both so that we may all be one as The Lord prayed for us to be, but not compromise the joy of knowing and understanding the fullness of the faith our Lord had given His Church that the definition of doctrine and dogma can bring? I have confidence the bishops, as guided by the Holy Spirit, will make everything for the best.

Hello Matt. While I agree with the above assertion regarding the truth. It must also be told that the Church provides not only theological truth, but also spiritual truth by means of the sacraments (and esp the Eucharist). The latter can at times reveal a greater portion of the truth than the former.

 

[MattofTexas]

Hello Matt. While I agree with the above assertion regarding the truth. It must also be told that the Church provides not only theological truth, but also spiritual truth by means of the sacraments (and esp the Eucharist). The latter can at times reveal a greater portion of the truth than the former.

Of course! I never meant to imply anything else (nor that I nessicarily agree with dogmatically defining the title and theological reality), but if something is true, and the Church knows it (once again, I’m speaking theoretically) I feel the Church has a responsibility to define it for the Faithful. If the Truth causes disunity, well on one hand this is what Jesus told us He would cause, but ultimately the definition of truth should be balanced with unity in a pastoral way such that neither suffers. After all if defining aspects of salvation causes some to stumble is the very salvation being defined not being hindered? Yet the Church is called to truth.

 

[Zekariya]

I think that the Church should stick to the age-old practice of defining doctrines in order to attack heresies. The Church has never sought to define every jot and tittle of truth. She defines doctrines when they are being attacked in order to stop falsehoods which are detrimental to the Faith.

 

[Peter_J]

I would relax.

Michael Voris is an extremely poor spokesman for Roman Catholicism and he has no special knowledge about what Pope Francis is going to do. He would like nothing more than for everyone to get excited about this issue so that he can create more division and assign labels to people.

Forget what Michael Voris says. He does not speak for Roman Catholicism.

-Tim-

Exactly. What we see here is a form of sensationalism … the pope *might *do such-and-such, and since nobody can actually prove that he won’t, everyone gets into a bit of a frenzy.

If someday a pope says “I’m thinking about dogmatically defining” then I’ll worry. But until then … well, I guess I will worry just not about that particular matter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly. What we see here is a form of sensationalism … the pope *might *do such-and-such, and since nobody can actually prove that he won’t, everyone gets into a bit of a frenzy.

If someday a pope says “I’m thinking about dogmatically defining” then I’ll worry. But until then … well, I guess I will worry just not about that particular matter.

Right, I didn’t want to get into the Voris aspect which is why I mentioned “people” to begin with. Same with Scott Hahn and others though perhaps with a more pious thinking. EWTN through Scott Hahn has suggested for years this would be nice to be done as its Tradition. We see how Tradition and dogma clash though already.