How does the East feel about "Mediatrix" and "Co-redemptrix" Mariology?

[trophybearer]

Ah, sorry.

Then what exactly is the the Holy Theotokos?

Theotokos is Greek for Mother of God( more literally God-bearer). So yes, that’s speaking of the Virgin Mary, but not of the immaculate conception. The idea that she was concieved “without the stain of original sin” makes no sense to us, as we don’t see anyone as born with a “stain” or personal guilt for Adam’s sin. Moreover, it would make the Theotokos different from us, having no propensity toward sin, which we don’t believe her to be. She is the great example, not the great exception. I wish I could go into all the detail with you but it would barely be possible for me.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.aspx

If you scroll down and read point 9. on that page it will give you a basic overview of our objections. If you want to read more there’s definitely more!

 

[LoyalViews]

Dear Elizium,

There is some support for it from the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. However, there is absolutely no reason to dogmatize the matter. Dogmas are, first of all, Christological, and I personally cannot find anything Christological in the teaching (unlike the existing Marian dogmas, it is really all about Mary, not Jesus).

Secondly, dogmas are necessary to be believed, but I personally don’t see the necessity of believing that Mary is the greatest intercessor among creatures. How about you?

Thirdly, anything about the proposed dogmas that could possibly be related to Christ is already encompassed in the dogma of the Theotokos. So, once again, there is no reason for it.

Blessings,
Marduk

I know this was addressed to the OP, but…I can’t resist , The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, the Holy Theotokos, is the Mother of God. Of couse she is the greatest intercesser of all beings! “To Jesus, Through Mary”! She is the Mother of Christ, Christ who is God, and man. Therefore making her (Our Lady) the Virgin Mother of God.
Just saying, I don’t want to start an argument . God Bless!

I always thought dogma is just things that are divinely revealed to us as true. So the dogmatic Mariology has been divinely revealed as the Truth through the Catholic Church; thus, we are required to believe it. I of course could be wrong about the definition of dogma though.

Right!

 

[twf]

trophybearer:
This issue has been discussed to death on this board in the past, and I won’t go into detail here, but there are many Eastern and Latin Catholics who disagree that there is a fundamental distinction between the two viewpoints. Just briefly right now, no Latin Catholic believes that anyone is conceived with “personal guilt” for the sin of our First Parents. Secondly, while Latin theology uses the term ‘stain’, it is better understood as the loss or absence of sanctifying grace (divine life), and not a literal ‘essence’ or mark on the soul (which is more or less in line with the Eastern understanding). Again, this has been discussed in detail many times on this board with endless material to back it up…just do a search for original sin. Mary could have sinned, but she chose not to, with the help of God’s grace. The difference between us and the Mother of God is that she, from the very moment of her conception, was full of God’s grace (God’s presence dwelled within her soul), while the rest of us were spiritually ‘dead’ (deprived of God’s divine presence) until baptism. The Orthodox deny this?

 

[Adeodatus]

I personally (a Roman Catholic) don’t get how “Mediatrix of all graces” is even possible. If she were to mediate all graces, she would even mediate them to herself. That would mean that she alone among all creatures lived a Pelagian existence. That cannot be compatible with the Catholic Faith.

 

[Hesychios]

… If she were to mediate all graces, she would even mediate them to herself. …

 

[Kook]

trophybearer:
This issue has been discussed to death on this board in the past, and I won’t go into detail here, but there are many Eastern and Latin Catholics who disagree that there is a fundamental distinction between the two viewpoints. Just briefly right now, no Latin Catholic believes that anyone is conceived with “personal guilt” for the sin of our First Parents. Secondly, while Latin theology uses the term ‘stain’, it is better understood as the loss or absence of sanctifying grace (divine life), and not a literal ‘essence’ or mark on the soul (which is more or less in line with the Eastern understanding). Again, this has been discussed in detail many times on this board with endless material to back it up…just do a search for original sin. Mary could have sinned, but she chose not to, with the help of God’s grace. The difference between us and the Mother of God is that she, from the very moment of her conception, was full of God’s grace (God’s presence dwelled within her soul), while the rest of us were spiritually ‘dead’ (deprived of God’s divine presence) until baptism. The Orthodox deny this?

Some do. Some don’t. It depends on who you talk to.

 

[kbarr82]

mardukm: What if the purpose of this dogma was to highlight the special relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit? Mary mediates all grace from Heaven by virtue of her profound and unique bond with the Holy Spirit, with whom she shares a far greater unity than any other creature. Isn’t there an Eastern tradition of Mary as the “icon of the Holy Spirit” in role of bringing Christ (who IS grace) into the world? Many in the Latin Tradition have spoken of Mary cooperating with the Holy Spirit, her divine spouse, from heaven to form all of her children into god-men, as the Holy Spirit formed the true God-Man, Jesus, within her physical womb on earth.

The fifth Marian dogma, IMHO, goes too far. What you are suggesting puts Mary very close to being on par with the Trinity, something I find troubling, if not outright heretical. I pray the Church does NOT put this forth, for then I might have to convert to Orthodoxy. Speaking as a Byzantine-leaning Catholic (growing increasingly disenfranchised with the liturgy in the Latin Rite, to the point where it is becoming a stumbling block) I cannot for the life of me accept this dogma. I agree with the others in that dogmas are primarily Christological, that is, Christo-centric in nature. What is being called for by Vox Populi is explicitly Marian. If Mary is the mediator of all graces, where does that leave Christ? Co-redemptrix? Was Mary crucified for us? I think not. She intercedes for us, she is “our tainted nature’s solitary boast.” Is she equal to the Trinity? Does she augment or enhance the role of the Trinity in any way? No and No.

 

[kbarr82]

I was a bit hasty in my first response, and am doing more prayerful study on this dogmatic proposal. I feel that it may not be objectionable as I first thought.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

trophybearer:
This issue has been discussed to death on this board in the past, and I won’t go into detail here, but there are many Eastern and Latin Catholics who disagree that there is a fundamental distinction between the two viewpoints. Just briefly right now, no Latin Catholic believes that anyone is conceived with “personal guilt” for the sin of our First Parents. Secondly, while Latin theology uses the term ‘stain’, it is better understood as the loss or absence of sanctifying grace (divine life), and not a literal ‘essence’ or mark on the soul (which is more or less in line with the Eastern understanding). Again, this has been discussed in detail many times on this board with endless material to back it up…just do a search for original sin. Mary could have sinned, but she chose not to, with the help of God’s grace. The difference between us and the Mother of God is that she, from the very moment of her conception, was full of God’s grace (God’s presence dwelled within her soul), while the rest of us were spiritually ‘dead’ (deprived of God’s divine presence) until baptism. The Orthodox deny this?

This is a really neat, eye-opening post for me! I always thought there was a definite difference between Catholic and Orthodox views on Original Sin, but the way you put the Catholic viewpoint forward, I’m forced to think again! That is exciting to me, as this has been one of the key points of contention between many Orthodox and Catholics, which separates us doctrinally.

kbarr82:

Speaking as a Byzantine-leaning Catholic (growing increasingly disenfranchised with the liturgy in the Latin Rite, to the point where it is becoming a stumbling block)

If the Latin Rite bothers you so much, become a Byzantine Catholic . There is a lot of permissible diversity in the Catholic Church.

kbarr82:

I pray the Church does NOT put this forth, for then I might have to convert to Orthodoxy. Speaking as a Byzantine-leaning Catholic (growing increasingly disenfranchised with the liturgy in the Latin Rite, to the point where it is becoming a stumbling block) I cannot for the life of me accept this dogma.

Well, I’m going to give a go at explaining it, so please don’t just shut out what I’ll try to say automatically and without even thinking about it.

kbarr82:

The fifth Marian dogma, IMHO, goes too far. What you are suggesting puts Mary very close to being on par with the Trinity, something I find troubling, if not outright heretical.

Actually, the doctrine of Mediatrix is part of the meaning of Theotokos, God-bearer. Jesus is all grace, therefore all Christians, even including the Protestants, agree that through Mary, all grace came into the world. Indeed, the coming of all grace depended upon her assent, her free will decision at the Annunciation. All grace flowed through Full of Grace (Mary) for our salvation in Jesus Christ, for in Him is all grace.

The Church teaches that all grace pours out from Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, “the fullness of Him Who is everything in every way” (Eph. 1:23), and Mary gave birth to Christ, that very Eucharist that is all our life and grace. The Church is Christ’s Body, so she gave birth to the Church through which all grace flows, even as she gave birth to Christ through Whom all grace flows. Her intercession is also part of her motherhood, because through it, she brings forth Christ in us. These roles, “Advocate” and “Mother” are really not distinct but perfectly fused. She brought forth all of Christ and she brings forth all of Christ, all grace, because the gift of her role as Theotokos was not a temporal gift but an eternal one.

When we pray and Jesus brings forth grace through us, our participation in the divine action does not “lessen” Jesus’ role in the least. We are all little mediators in the world, mediating grace (Christ) to souls, to a lesser or greater extent depending on how God wants to work in us and on how fully we cooperate with His will in our lives. Our mediation and intercession in no way diminish Christ’s role as our One Mediator to the Father. Mary does not mediate between us and the Father but between us and Christ, just as we mediate between one another and Christ whenever we pray or sacrifice for one another. The great saints mediated much more than the rest of us and brought many more souls to God than we do, but the greatness of their mediation never diminished Christ but only magnified Him. In the same way, Mary’s mediation as Mediatrix never diminishes Christ’s necessary and essential role as the source and end of all prayer, but rather it magnifies Him.

The fact that I pray to God doesn’t mean I need Jesus less than other people do. Such a view would be absurd. All my prayer depends completely on Jesus, and all my good prayer has its origin in Christ’s will, so Christ inspires, Christ prays through me, and Christ answers the prayer. This is true in me and every Christian intercessor, and it is true for Mary as well.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Mary’s mediation is like ours in nature, for she, like everyone else, prays to and depends fully on the Son and His Sacrifice. Neither the teaching of Co-Redemptrix nor the teaching of Mediatrix, which you need to understand more, conflict with that truth. No one’s intercession diminishes God’s glory. God’s glory is magnified more completely in our cooperation with His will, as we become like Him and pray (mediate) to Him for one another, as the Scripture commands us to do (James 5:16). Jesus is the One Mediator, but He unites us with Himself in that role of Mediator so that we, living as He lived, mediate (pray and sacrifice) for souls. Mary, who was most perfectly united with Christ’s will for her life, is most perfectly mediating between us and Jesus while Jesus and His Sacrifice alone open the way for us to the Father. Whenever Mary prays, it is Christ that inspires her to pray, Christ’s life in her that does the praying, and Christ that answers the prayer, so truly we have only One Intercessor, One Mediator, and it is impossible for anyone sharing and praying in the life of Christ to break that unity.

Mary is Mediatrix in the same way we are mediators, only we bring forth Christ only in part, whereas Mary’s role as Theotokos means she brings forth Christ fully.

In this article you will find that this has always been the Church’s teaching, from the early centuries all the way till now.

The Fathers understood that Mary’s role as Mediatrix does not at all detract from Christ’s role as our One Mediator, but rather is like in nature to our own roles as mediators, and is completely dependent on Christ and can only exist through Him. He is our One Intercessor and One Mediator, and like Him there is no other.

kbarr82:

Co-redemptrix? Was Mary crucified for us? I think not. She intercedes for us, she is “our tainted nature’s solitary boast.”

That intercession is a key part of what the teaching of “Co-Redemptrix” describes. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24). We all can suffer in unity with Christ, for we all are Christ’s Body, so we all must bear the Cross as Jesus did to be one with Him. Mary, like us, suffers in unity with Christ. In the sense that we all suffer with Christ to bring forth His salvation to others, we all are “co-redeemers,” though we only will suffer with Christ because He inspires us to suffer, because He living in us gives us the strength and will to suffer for Him, and because He accepts the offering and uses it. So again, all redemption is in Christ, and the more greatly we suffer for Christ to bring Christ’s redemptive life to others, the more greatly He is glorified in us and in the world.

The teaching of “Co-Redemptrix,” is like the teaching of “Mediatrix,” and again is tied to Theotokos, the teaching that Mary brings Christ forth.

2 Maccabees 7 prophecies both the redemptive offering of Christ and Mary’s role as co-redemptrix. In that passage, seven sons are martyred for their faith in God and refusal to disobey His Law. The seven sons represent Christ. They are wounded in the same parts of their bodies as Christ was wounded (back, scalp, mouth, wrists and ankles), and their mother urges them on. The faith of the mother in this passage foreshadows the faith of Mary at Golgotha, in which she offers up Christ for the salvation of the world. The mother in 2 Maccabees 7 offers her sons up for the fulfillment of God’s will. She encourages them to keep going, the reverse of Christ’s apostles, who tried to dissuade Him from His sacrificial offering. The mother in 2 Maccabees 7 offers her sons up in faith to the tortures Antiochus has in store for them, foreshadowing how Mary, in perfect faith, offered up her Divine Son to the torments of Satan.

She suffered more than anyone in the world has suffered except her Son, because she was immaculate and perfectly in love with Him, so it tore at her heart to see Him suffer. She had the best possible relationship with Jesus, she loved Him as His Daughter, His Mother and His Bride, she had been with Him all the years of His Life except parts of His last three, and she was completely self-abandoned for love of Him. She also was with Him more openly, standing right next to His Cross in His Passion, than anyone. The enormity of her suffering is the result of her perfect love.

Because she was so fully given to Him, the sacrifice of Jesus was completely given through her, along with all other graces. This doctrine also is part of the Annunciation, for at the Annunciation, she assented by faith to Christ’s coming into the world. At Golgotha, she assented by faith for Christ’s suffering to be completely poured out to us. At the Annunciation and at Golgotha, through faith, Mary brought forth Jesus, our Redemption.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

. . . Continued from my two posts to kbarr82 left behind on the previous page (Part 3 of 3).

This [Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix] is all part of Jesus and Mary’s roles as New Adam and New Eve. The first Adam came to the tree, naked, and the New Adam was stripped naked at the tree of the Cross. At the tree, the first Adam plucked the fruit. At the tree, the second Adam gave the fruit, His blood for the world. The first Adam made the decision that destroyed the world in the Garden of Eden, the second Adam made the decision that restored the world in the Garden of Gethsemane. The first Adam was led to the tree by Eve. The second Adam was led to the tree by Mary (through the Annunciation and her faithful offering of Him at Golgotha, in fulfillment of 2 Maccabees 7, Gen. 3:15, and the typological prophecies of Judith and Esther). The first Adam and Eve were conceived sinless, the second Adam and Eve were conceived sinless. The first Eve urged the first Adam to take the fruit; the second Eve urged the second Adam to give the fruit at the Wedding of Cana, the miracle of which represents the whole salvation journey of each soul (Mary’s intercession/motherhood, then the water of baptism is poured into our stone hearts, then we are given the wine of Christ’s blood in the Eucharist, and finally we are judged at the Last Judgment). The first Eve sinned through disobedience and unbelief when she heard an angel from Hell; the second Eve repaired the damage through obedience and faith when she heard an angel from Heaven. The following writing by Cardinal John Henry Newman describes the Early Church’s attitude toward Mary as the New Eve. christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html

The teaching of “Co-Redemptrix” describes Mary’s role as the New Eve undoing the damage the first Eve did. “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” are both part of Mary’s role as God-bearer, the one who brings forth God, and we share with her these roles as mediators and co-redeemers, though to a lesser extent, just as we too bear Christ in us as holy arks, while Mary is the definitive Ark of the New Covenant.

None of this makes her even remotely close to the Trinity or takes anything from her Son. She is finite; God is infinite. She is a creature. God will always be infinitely more greatly above Mary than the universe is greater than a single atom.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The teaching of “Co-Redemptrix” describes Mary’s role as the New Eve undoing the damage the first Eve did. “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” are both part of Mary’s role as God-bearer, the one who brings forth God, and we share with her these roles as mediators and co-redeemers, though to a lesser extent, just as we too bear Christ in us as holy arks, while Mary is the definitive Ark of the New Covenant.

Nice. If I may add:

The Church remembers the sorrows of Our Lady because she participated in the redemption of man with and under Christ.

Christ enabled Mary’s suffering to be fruitful.
Mary gave birth to all of us at the foot of the cross. You know that woman travailing in pangs of birth in the book of Revelation? In the encyclical on the Immaculate Conception the Holy Father says:

1. Leaving aside charity towards God, who can contemplate the Immaculate Virgin without feeling moved to fulfill that precept which Christ called peculiarly His own, namely that of loving one another as He loved us? “A great sign,” thus the Apostle St. John describes a vision divinely sent him, appears in the heavens: “A woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon her head” (Apoc. xii., 1). Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary, the stainless one who brought forth our Head. The Apostle continues: "And, being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered"yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect. (Apoc. xii., 2). John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness

She who gave birth to our Head, Jesus Christ, must, consequently, give birth to the entire body.

 

[Ghosty]

Speaking from the Byzantine perspective, the notion of Mary being “Mediatrix of All-Grace” is not unknown, and is actually directly tied to her role as the Theotokos. St. Gregory Palamas, in his homily on the Dormition of Mary, put it this way:

Isaiah shows us clearly that it is only through her that they together with us both partake of and touch God, that Nature which defies touch, for he did not see the seraphim take the coal from the altar without mediation, but with tongs, by means of which the coal touched the prophetic lips and purified them (cf. Isaiah 6:6-7). Moses beheld the tongs of that great vision of Isaiah when he saw the bush aflame with fire, yet unconsumed. And who does not know that the Virgin Mother is that very bush and those very tongs, she who herself (though an archangel also assisted at the conception) conceived the Divine Fire without being consumed, Him that taketh away the sins of the world, Who through her touched mankind and by that ineffable touch and union cleansed us entirely. Therefore, she only is the frontier between created and uncreated nature, and there is no man that shall come to God except he be truly illumined through her, that Lamp truly radiant with divinity, even as the Prophet says, "God is in the midst of her, she shall not be shaken’(Ps. 45:5).

…

Hence, as it was through the Theotokos alone that the Lord came to us, appeared upon earth and lived among men, being invisible to all before this time, so likewise in the endless age to come, without her mediation, every emanation of illuminating divine light, every revelation of the mysteries of the Godhead, every form of spiritual gift, will exceed the capacity of every created being. She alone has received the all-pervading fulness of Him that filleth all things, and through her all may now contain it, for she dispenses it according to the power of each, in proportion and to the degree of the purity of each. Hence she is the treasury and overseer of the riches of the Godhead.

So “Mediatrix of All Grace” is actually a Christological teaching, though it is not dogmatic. In a certain sense, she is indeed the mediator of “her own Grace”, since it was by bearing Christ that Grace came to her as well as to all mankind. The Roman tradition alludes to this when it says that Mary was conceived Immaculately:

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

The Co-Redemtrix theology is basically just an extension of the Mediatrix theology, but is much more likely to lead to confusion and condemnation, IMO, and shouldn’t be pushed at all. Leaving it at “Mediatrix” is fine, and says everything that needs to be said about Christ with regards to this issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Diak]

There is one Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Anything that might obfuscate that reality is very dangerous. The mere fact that this term “co-redemptrix” immediately causes the need for additional clarifications (since one frequent meaning of the prefix “co” is fully equal) means that it is inherently unclear, and thus thorougly innapropriate as the source of a dogmatic definition. The Mother of God (as glorious as she is) is not equal to one of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity Who is the only Redeemer.

While there are certain aspects that may arguably be consistent with Eastern Christian teaching (the quote by St. Gregory Palamas, for example) there are others that are completely Western and would do nothing to further larger communion with Eastern Christianity.

Mediatrix is an entirely different term with entirely different (and much clearer) meaning and has precedent in patristic and older liturgical works and as such is entirely appropriate as a descriptive for the Mother of God.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Nice. If I may add:

The Church remembers the sorrows of Our Lady because she participated in the redemption of man with and under Christ.

Christ enabled Mary’s suffering to be fruitful.
Mary gave birth to all of us at the foot of the cross. You know that woman travailing in pangs of birth in the book of Revelation?

I love Mariology! Praise be to our holy and beloved New Adam and New Eve!

Thanks for sharing that about Rev. 12. I think about Mary’s anguish at Golgotha as reflecting both her giving birth to the Church and her giving birth to the glorified body of Christ, the body that rose from the dead, remained here for forty days and then passed on into Heaven.

It is worth considering that Jesus’ body was laid in a tomb that had never been used, and when the women found the tomb open, they saw an angel seated on either end of the slab where Jesus lay. That exactly replicates the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant, with one cherubim on either side of the Mercy Seat. The slab where Jesus lay was the Mercy Seat, and He, Mercy Himself, was mounted on it, through His death bestowing mercy. The Ark was never used to enclose anything but the Law, the Manna and the Rod of Aaron (representing, of course, the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven and the High Priest, all of which are Jesus), just as the tomb was never used to enclose anyone but Jesus, and just as Mary was kept a virgin. The tomb where Jesus lay before coming forth in His glorified body represents Mary’s womb, and the Ark parallels identify it with her. So again Christ comes forth through Mary into the world. Golgotha was the birth pangs, the sword in the soul, from which, by Mary’s faith and Christ’s will, comes the Resurrected Body of the Lord and the new life of all the Church.

The Fathers saw Mary foreshadowed in the universe, for the first Adam was created out of the elements of the universe which God had called, “very good,” just as the New Adam was created out of a woman God called, “Full of Grace.” And the first world was completed by the creation of Adam just as the new world is completed by the Epiphany of Christ. From Christ comes the New Heaven and New Earth, and we already live with the sacramental seed of this eternal realm alive in us. All of this glorious “coming forth” occurs through Mary, and we are all formed in and through Christ in her, so she will always be our Mother. She is our universe and will be our universe, for in her we will always dwell, and the light of Heaven shines down upon us through her. Praise be to Jesus Christ!

The Book of Sirach (40:1) hints at her role in bringing us forth into the heavenly realm when it says, "Hard work was created for everyone, and a heavy yoke is laid on the children of Adam, from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until the day they return to the mother of all the living.” The presence of Eve at the moment of death, or birth into eternal life, is fulfilled in the presence of the Virgin Mary at the moment of death, bringing people into union with God.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

There is one Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Anything that might obfuscate that reality is very dangerous. The mere fact that this term “co-redemptrix” immediately causes the need for additional clarifications (since one frequent meaning of the prefix “co” is fully equal) means that it is inherently unclear,

Mother of God also requires additional clarification but nobody that holds the true faith is scared to use that term.

 

[Diak]

Mother of God also requires additional clarification but nobody that holds the true faith is scared to use that term.

All of Christianity was torn apart by not just one word, but one letter (iota) and I have learned at least that lesson from our Church history. Theological definitions should not necessitate a great deal of clarification.

Regarding Mother of God or Theotokos - this term is actually quite clear, and there is no threat in that term of confusing her as an equal Redeemer to the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. She is the Mother of God, not “Co-God”. Thankfully this discussion is essentially moot since the entire discussion rests on hypothetical speculation of something that will not be proclaimed as dogma, not by the last Pope nor this Pope. As was said on another thread, the decision of Ephesus to codify Theotokos/Mother of God is sufficient without anything else being necessary.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

“Scared”? We are talking about potentially serious theological obfuscations, and puerile jabs don’t really help the discussion.

It wasn’t a jab, but a figure a speech.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Mother of God or Theotokos is actually quite clear, and there is no threat in that term of confusing her as an equal Redeemer to the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. She is the Mother of God, not “Co-God”.

Tell that to the CO-pilot of your next flight. In fact, the co- prefix doesn’t imply equality of its counter part. At its core, it simply means together, in association with and so forth. In fact, in certain cases, co- sets a context for an individual: A co-author is not equal to the author. Now a co-worker doesn’t set up that context.

Either way, there is rarely anything that comes from religion that doesn’t require edification.

 

[Diak]

Tell that to the CO-pilot of your next flight. In fact, the co- prefix doesn’t imply equality of its counter part.

The co-pilot is trained to take full control of the plane and for most commercial airlines actually does some flying. And Webster’s seems to take issue with you; as part of the definition of the prefix “co” the following is noted:

to the same degree

. And even if the supposed meaning of “mutual” or “shared” is applied, how can anyone except the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity be the Redeemer, as all of orthodox theology teaches us? If the redemptive power is “shared” or “mutual” then there has to be more than one exercising the redemptive power, one of whom is not God.

The fact that we have to have this discussion shows how gravely flawed the term is for any serious theological definition. There’s no such dissention with Mother of God, for example.