'Co-redemptress' and 'Mediatrix'?

[Byzcath1]

What does General Orthodoxy think about the
Roman Catholic Undefined Doctrines regarding the Theotokos such as...

Co-Redemprtix & Medatrix of Graces/All Graces.

Is this problematic to Orthodoxy if so why? Im having some problems with this, grace only coming through mary? I dont think so.

In Christ +
Daniel

[Daniel Jeandet]

I dont think Orthodoxy has been thinking about it at all.

The Orthodox Church does not need to work anything out or resolve any particular theological issue in the way the Catholics need to.

If you want the true Theology about the Most Pure Mother of God, just get yourself an Orthodox prayer book and read the canons and akathist to the Mother of God, or any other hymns composed by the Orthodox saints in Her Honor.

Catholic Theology is built on confusion and doubt, reason and logic, the fantasy of a passionate God's law and imaginary celestial retributive machinery.

Orthodox Theology is different from Catholic theology in the same way that a real flower is different from a thousand plastic ones.

The whole Catholic approach to theology is nothing more than a vain intellectual distraction designed to deprive the world of true knowledge. Never mind all that brain effort.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I am tired of seeing people try to define Orthodoxy by comparing it to Catholicism. Orthodoxy stands on its own. It is the true Church. Orthodoxy illumines everything else, nothing can illuminate it, it does not need to be understood through other ideas, it is sufficient.

[M.C. Steenberg]

A recent post read:


What does Orthodoxy think of notions of Co-Redemprtix & Medatrix of Graces/All Graces.

You have hit upon a subject of keen interest to me personally, as ecclesiastical reflections upon the Mother of God over the course of Church history is an area that has long captured my interests, academic and personal. In direct relevance to your question, I spoke at a conference earlier this summer, whose focus was broadly 'The Mother of God', at which my paper was entitled, 'Co-Redemptress, Mediatrix and Advocate: A Survey of Reflections on the Mother of God in Orthodox and Roman Catholic Thought'.

The 'short answer' to your question is that two 'responses' most often arise: (1) That given by Daniel in his above post, namely that Orthodoxy 'has not been thinking about it at all'. This is true in a very relevant sense: there has never been a single 'Marian dogma' pronounced by the Orthodox Church at any point in her history, apart from the sole dogmatic proclamation that she is Theotokos ('God-bearer' or more loosely 'Mother of God'), which is actually a Christological dogma more than a Marian dogma. But apart from this, nothing on the person, life, activity or role of the Mother of God has ever received dogmatic (i.e. conciliar, canonical) proclamation by the Orthodox Church.

(2) On the other hand, Orthodox theology is overwhelmingly orientated toward the consideration of her person, and has been in the recorded Patristic witness since at least Justin the Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, though coming much more into a tenor of strong focus with John of Damascus, Andrew of Crete, Germanos of Constantinople and others of that generation. In these we have the writings of holy Fathers, canonised by the Church and accepted in their teaching as reflecting and expressing the revealed truth of the divine mystery, who offer considered and oftentimes extensive reflections on the Mother of God. These reflections contain witness to realities of her person such as the everlasting virginity, lifelong purity, perfect faithfulness. They also offer considerable reflection upon her 'mediation' -- which we must keep in mind has often a quite different meaning in Orthodox terminology than in Roman Catholic or other churches -- as well as her 'co-redemptive' role in the salvation of humankind. So while there has never been dogmatic proclamation on these aspects of her life and role in the divine and human economy, there is lengthy and wonderfully important reflection in the very heart of the Church.

But the word of warning is worth repeating: the Roman Catholic Church and her various branches have clearly defined doctrines and dogmas regarding such things as Immaculate Conception, Pepetual Virginity, Assumption, Mediation, and (though not [yet] dogmatically pronounced) Co-Retemption. While Orthodoxy oftentimes has patristic and liturgical reflection on similar aspects of the life and role of the Mother of God, they are often extremely different in source and nature, and it becomes easy to fall into a sense of false homogeneity.

INXC, Matthew

[Byzcath1]

Dear: Daniel,

Your view of Roman Theological Perspective, is very wrong, and offensive to many catholics here reading. You make it sound like we "catholics" trick our faithful into believeing what we want them too, which is out right wrong. The Roman Theology is not based in Doubt and Confusion, but in Carfull Definition, and Great Scholaticism in its thinking which is nothing wrong with that. Thats just how roman theology developed through out the ages. Its Scholasticism not Counfusion and Trickery!

Daniel

[Daniel Jeandet]

I am very sorry about my post. I really am sorry that I posted that. There was no need to say those things in the way I said them, it is just my pride and vanity, even if what I said is true, anyone with eyes to see should perceive my ego within my posts and know that I did not post for the purpose of helping anyone, but just to satisfy my passions.

Please forgive me that I have offended you. Ignore my ill mannered tone and please do not think that this is how the rest of the people are here, because they are much more human than me and will give you a better response, without the ego, and they will try to treat you as a Christian should treat someone, not like me treating you like a block of wood to chop.

I dont have any excuse. I have hurt you and also done this in a most terrible way, as if I preach Orthodoxy. My heart is a stone. Please forgive me.

Lord have mercy on me.

[Byzcath1]

Dear, M.C. Steenburgh,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your imput on this topic, i would like to know more about it because i Strongly disagree that Mary is the Mediatrix of "All Graces", i just do not accept. I would like to ask of you one thing.

Is it possiable to e-mail me your Article "Co-Redemptress, Mediatrix and Advocate: A Survey of Reflections on the Mother of God in Orthodox and Roman Catholic Thought".

I would love to read it, it sounds very intresting.

Daniel
Through the Prayers of the Mother of God,O Saviour Save Us!

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear fellow discussion participants:

Bishop Kallistos Ware has written a very helpful article on the difficulties with the proposed Catholic dogmatisation of the Theotokos as "co-redemptrix" from an Orthodox perspective. The article, "No New Dogmas, Please," which originally appeared in 1998, has been posted on the Internet at http://www.cs.ust.hk/faculty/dimitris/metro/aug01/AUG01.html#ORTHOVIEW.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear in the Lord, Juretta,

Thank you for your recent post regarding the article by Bishop Kallistos on the proposed RCC dogmatisation of the title 'Mediatrix' for the Mother of God. It is worth noting here, however, that the Bishop is, in that article, against the notion of dogmatisation, not necessarily against the notion of mediatrix, which he explains therein to be quite present in Orthodox thought and practice.

(It is also an interesting aside to note that the title of the article, 'No new dogmas, please', was chosen for Bishop Kallistos by the publishers of the text, not by the bishop himself!)

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

A question occured to me while browsing the net:

Do we have a tradition of "spritual marriages", like that of St Catherine of Sienna, in Orthodoxy? It is said that in her marriage to Christ, she was offered the Holy Prepuce for a ring! Do we have a tradition of such a holy relic in the Orthodox Church (I suspect not, since it was found by Charlemagne). What about the Lord's nail clippings, hair cuttings etc.?

respectfully
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

P.S. The life of St Catherine of Alexandria seems to involve one such mystical marriage, but how is it viewed in terms of traditional Orthodox teaching?

[Father Anthony]

Do we have a tradition of "spritual marriages", like that of St Catherine of Sienna,in Orthodoxy?

No. She and the other so-called "mystics" of the RCRO are considered to be in prelest, at least, and demonized at worst.


It is said that in her marriage to Christ, she was offered the Holy Prepuce for a ring!

Such blasphemies are typical of the Middle Ages RCRO body-part worship seen yet today as "the Sacred Heart of Jesus," "the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Unfortunately, some Orthodox under the influence of the Latins - especially in Eastern Europe - bought in to these and similar (like the Cultus of the Sacred - Word Not Allowed...but it's the organ where the afore-mentioned "prepuce" originates - ... give me a break!) outrageous departures from piety. Thankfully, it's mostly eradicated among the Orthodox, today.


Do we have a tradition of such a holy relic in the Orthodox Church (I suspect not, since it was found by Charlemagne).

Nope. No such tradition. Found by Charlemagne...right! Even most Roman Catholics are embarrassed by these claims.


What about the Lord's nail clippings, hair cuttings etc.?

The same. There are *no* such relics of Christ's person.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Catherine of Alexandria

Born into a noble, possibly into a royal family, St. Catherine was a beautiful, learned, and wise maiden who converted to Christianity as a teenager. Legends differ in the telling of her life. Some say that she rebuked the emperor Maximinus (or Maxentius) when he ordered a general sacrifice to the gods. Others assert that she resisted the adulterous advances of the Emperor (Maximinus or Maxentius). All agree that she had a vision of the Theotokos and Christ, in which Christ, a child, gave her a ring as the token of their mystical marriage. This scene is a popular subject in Mediæval and Renaissance art. All agree that she disputed with 50 philosophers whom the emperor summoned to dissuade her from the faith. She converted them, and all the philosophers were burned. The emperor then ordered her strapped to a spiked wheel (now called the Catherine wheel) in the hope that the physical pain would break her spirit. When the wheel fell to pieces, the emperor ordered her beaten and imprisoned without food, again in the expectation that the physical discomfort would change her mind. Angels ministered to her, and a dove fed her. Catherine is said to have converted the empress and many soldiers, all of whom were martyred. She was beheaded c. 305. Angels are said to have transported her body, from which flowed milk, to the site of Moses' burning bush. In the IX Century, her relics were uncovered in a monastery that had been on the site since the VI Century. Her veneration was widespread in the Eastern and Western churches. The Roman church suppressed her feast in 1969.

Karen Rae Keck

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you Fr Anthony for clarifying these points. The idea of relics of the Lord does seem blasphemous, although I confess that I am not personally scandalised by it, preferring to see it as "solid proof" that He existed in the flesh. What about the Ethiopian Church, claiming to hold the Ark of the Covenant in its possession?

The brief article quoted by Kosmas, and what little I've read about St Catherine of Alexandria (on the OCA website), seem to suggest some kind of mystical marriage taking place. Is this a singular incident in Orthodox hagiography? How is it understood doctrinally?

By the way, why did the RC church suppress St Catherine's feast?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

As nobody has responded to these questions, I presume they have not provoked any interest, or worse - my sincere apologies to anyone who might have felt the subject matter to be irreverent (As I already said, I do see how such questions may be taken as blasphemous, although I personally think religious experience can be unconventional without being unorthodox).

In Christ
Byron

[Theopesta]

I think many monks and nuns have the same thought of st. catherine but the ring not in hand it is in heart, in feelings in senses, as a reminder to the monk he not fertile he not with hard heart
instead he is very fruitful very senstive in his heart to the deepth of love

some mature monks find a great spritual in reading
song of solomon

[Leandros]

Brother Byron Jack Gaist,

We are all in a mystical marriage with Christ. He is the bridegroom of our souls.

"And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."(Matthew 25:6)

As for Catherine of Sienna, "Either make a tree good and its fruit good, or make a tree bad and its fruit bad. People know what kind of tree it is by the fruit on it." (Matthew 12:33)

Now, we shall examine some of Catherine's fruits.

Catherine's most known work is "the dialogue". She have dictated one of her dialogues with God. The dialogue was "DICTATED BY HER, WHILE IN A STATE OF ECSTASY,TO HER SECRETARIES, AND COMPLETED IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1370".

In this "dialogue" (http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Dialog/CFPtoc.htm) she speaks (her soul) with the Father.

A small passage from this dialogue:

Father: "Wherefore I gave My Word, My only-begotten Son, because the whole stuff of human generation was corrupted through the sin of the first man Adam. Wherefore, all of you, vessels made of this stuff, were corrupted and not disposed to the possession of eternal life -- so I, with My dignity, joined Myself to the baseness of your human generation, in order to restore it to grace which you had lost by sin; for I was incapable of suffering, and yet, on account of guilt, My divine justice demanded suffering. But man was not sufficient to satisfy it, for, even if he had satisfied to a certain extent, he could only have satisfied for himself, and not for other rational creatures, besides which, neither for himself, nor for others, could man satisfy, his sin having been committed against Me, who am the Infinite Good. Wishing, however, to restore man, who was enfeebled, and could not satisfy for the above reason, I sent My Word, My own Son, clothed in your own very nature, the corrupted clay of Adam, in order that He might endure suffering in that self-same nature in which man had offended, suffering in His body even to the opprobrious death of the Cross, and so He satisfied My justice and My divine mercy. For My mercy willed to make satisfaction for the sin of man and to dispose him to that good for which I had created him. This human nature, joined with the divine nature, was sufficient to satisfy for the whole human race, not only on account of the pain which it sustained in its finite nature, that is in the flesh of Adam, but by virtue of the Eternal Deity, the divine and infinite nature joined to it. The two natures being thus joined together, I received and accepted the sacrifice of My only-begotten Son, kneaded into one dough with the divine nature, by the fire of divine love which was the fetter which held him fastened and nailed to the Cross in this way. Thus human nature was sufficient to satisfy for guilt, but only by virtue of the divine nature."

<font color="ff0000">THIS IS <font color="000000">NOT</font> AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PRESENTATION.</font>

First, she is talking directly to the Father. This is so original and so un-Orthodox at the same time!

Nobody, not even in the Old Testament has talked directly with the Father. Saints of both Old Testament&#39;s age and of New Testament&#39;s age have talked only with the Son.

Then, Catherine is presenting Father in saying to her: &#34;My divine justice demanded suffering&#34;, &#34;But man was not sufficient to satisfy it,&#34; so &#34;I sent My Word, My own Son, clothed in your own very nature, the corrupted clay of Adam, in order that He might endure suffering in that self-same nature in which man had offended, suffering in His body even to the opprobrious death of the Cross, and so He satisfied My justice and My divine mercy&#34;.

This is the roman-catholic doctrine of &#34;divine justice&#34; that asks to punish the human disobedience. Devine justice must be satisfied by punishing an equivalent divine person &#40;the incarnated Son&#41; because the insulted person is the Father and He could not have been satisfied by the punishment of a lower-class being!

This is a doctrine manufactured by the Catholic Church and it is absolutely non-Orthodox. Actually is the most distorted doctrine of christian faith, which was shaped by philosophizing “theologians” like Anselm of Canterbury who created the theory of “atonement and satisfaction”. After Anselm, Thomas Aquinas completed this theory as a roman-catholic doctrine.

Anselm lived in 1033-1109 and Aquinas lived in 1225-1274.

Aquinas was canonized in 18 July, 1323,

Catherine lived in 1347-1380

From Catherine’s letters we can see that she was ill from “Anorexia Nervosa”. In her letter “TO A RELIGIOUS MAN IN FLORENCE WHO WAS SHOCKED AT HER ASCETIC PRACTICES” (http://www.op.org/DomCentral/trad/cathletters.htm#2Religiousman) she acknowledges that she is not capable to eat food and that she “prays to God … that in this matter of eating He will give me grace to live like other creatures”:

&#34;You sent me word to pray God particularly that I might eat. I tell you, my father, and I say it in the sight of God, that in all ways within my power I have always forced myself once or twice a day to take food. And I have prayed constantly, and do pray God and shall pray Him, that in this matter of eating He will give me grace to live like other creatures, if it is His will--for it is mine. I tell you, that often enough, when I have done what I could, I enter within myself, to recognize my infirmity, and God, who by most special grace has made me correct the sin of gluttony. I grieve much that I have not corrected that miserable fault of mine through love. I for myself do not know what other remedy to adopt, except that I beg you to pray that Highest Eternal Truth, that He give me grace, if it is more for His honour and the salvation of my soul, to enable me to take food if it please Him. And I am sure that the goodness of God will not despise your prayers. I beg you that if you see any remedy you will write me of it; and provided it be for the honour of God, I will accept it willingly. Also I beg you not to be light in judging, if you are not clearly illumined in the sight of God. I say no more to you. Remain in the holy and sweet grace of God. Sweet Jesus, Jesus Love&#34;.

Mario Reda and Giuseppe Sacco from University of Siena have published an article about Catherine’s illness (http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol8is1/reda.html) where they present an analysis of her behavior:

“…Challenged by her mother, Catherine chose to make everything in life a hardship, wishing to be acknowledged and to be confirmed by her mother in that choice: &#34;I wanted to see you mother as a true mother not only of my body but also of my mind. I think that if you loved my mind more than my body your exaggerated tenderness would die and you would not suffer so much to be deprived of my corporeal presence. In fact, it should be a consolation to you to think that I have a special relationship with God, so you should want to support my suffering….

At seven years, after a vision of Christ while returning home after a visit to her sister Bonaventure who was &#34;happily married to a rich painter who was rough and brutal&#34; &#40;Uboldi, 1995&#41;, Catherine decided to &#34;deprive herself of this flesh, of all flesh as far as possible….

At 15 years of age, we find a significant event. Her sister Bonaventura died in childbirth; Lapa, one always preoccupied with the well-being of the family, talked openly about the possibility that Catherine could marry the widower of her sister because this match to the rich painter would guarantee the economic well-being of all the Benincasa family. The conflict became very intense, aggravated also by Catherine’s sense of guilt for the death of her sister Nanna, less than one year old, whom Catherine had come to think of as a &#34;substitute&#34; for Bonaventura. It is in this circumstance that it is possible to confirm the actual definition of &#34;compensatory anorexia.&#34; &#34;Reinforced by the personal pact with God, Catherine entered into battle with her family&#34; &#40;Bell, 1985: 50&#41;. She lost half of her proper weight and opposed the demands of Lapa by fasting, which confirmed her true dedication to God, and renouncing her &#34;corporeality.&#34; Nevertheless, the intervention of Don Tommaso of Fonte, the local priest to whom her parents had sent her &#40;note the analogy with sending to a psychiatrist in similar situations today&#41;, was able to get Catherine somewhat to desist. In response to injunctions from Don Tommaso in the name of God to take food at least once a day, Catherine began to vomit with every attempt: &#34;God did not make me eat to correct the depravity of my throat. I pray in order to return to eat, but it is His wish for my expiation in this way…..

She continued then to state: &#34;So great is the need for the salvation of men that she had not the time to think, let alone to touch earthly food….

All the days she took the Eucharist she continued to fast: &#34;So as not to cause scandal, she sometimes took a little salad, fresh vegetables and fruit, but would then turn around and spit them up. And if it was the case that she swallowed just a single morsel, the stomach did not let up until it could not regurgitate any more: the incessant vomiting gave her so much pain that her face was almost bursting. On occasion she would go away with one of her friends and prod her throat with a stick of finnochio or with a goose feather, until it was thrown open depending on how much she had swallowed. And this she called &#34;doing justice.&#34; &#34;We do justice for our miserable sins,&#34; she liked to say….

&#34;Holy anorexia&#34; may be interpreted as a response to social structural factors and the patriarchalism of medieval Catholicism. It is significant that Saint Catherine made her choice in adolescence, a period well-known to be one of opposition to the family which seems to repeat almost exactly the stereotypical view of adolescent rebellion. Moreover, a strong and competitive maternal figure existed, who wanted to guide her daughter into a role of high social approval. Meanwhile, a father moved on the periphery and left direction to the mother; in this sense, he was a disappointment to his good daughter. &#34;Holy anorexia&#34; became a singular mechanism for autonomy and a way out of the destiny prescribed for her by her family and society. In order to follow this logic, we need to understand, therefore, all the relevant forces that operated upon her, and not to look to supernatural causes &#40;unless they are actual forces perceived by her&#41; during her entire life.

…So also for Saint Catherine: here and there she received confirmation and recognition, but never completely. She was always trying to understand her oscillation between illusion and delusion by putting herself constantly in doubt about her real strength and perseverance to continue her hyperactive religious mission. The possibility of disconfirmation came to her not from confrontations with others, but only with God. Only God did not deceive her and only with him could she consent to let go of her intense emotions. From him she received after not a little &#34;harvest of proof&#34; the guarantee that she would never be deceived or abandoned. Included in this was the constant necessity of total control of her body. To yield to food was to yield to sin, to deceive God, to lose all the power that she had laboriously garnered, erasing the sense of identity gained from the victory over her opposition to family regulation. It is of little matter, then, if she did not feel understood by her opponents &#40;in the medieval time compared to ours&#41;. Indeed, incomprehension provided the stimulus to go on. The challenge continued to provide a way for her to confirm her true sense of identity. In doing so she won more than mere Holiness, but as well became Doctor of the Church and Patron of Italy and Europe…”

This article (http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol8is1/reda.html) is very apocalyptic, and there is another more analytical article here (http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/italy%27speoples/exerpts/cathy.htm).

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 11 July, 2005&#41;

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In Orthodoxy when we speak of 'mystical marriage' we are referring to theosis or the life in Christ. Under the influence of emotionalism western spirituality began to suggest something that was sensual in this relationship but we would firmly reject this as spiritually dangerous & a state of delusion.

A few days ago we celebrated the Holy martyred Nun Febronia (June 25). Here is the second stichira to her from Lord I Have Cried:


The divine beauties of thy soul came together with the comeliness of thy body, and thou didst shine forth like a white lily in the habitations of the venerable, yet empurpled by the streams of thy blood, O most immaculate bride. Wherefore, the comely Bridegroom of heaven and the indestructible bridal-chamber have received thee as a virgin and martyr.

The image of the Bridegroom used here and throughout the Holy Fathers is the result of combining different images which Christ presents about Himself in the Gospels- chiefly the parable of the 5 wise & 5 foolish virgins. As we can see from the stichira this is also combined with imagery from the Song of Songs ("thou didst shine forth like a white lily"). This type of language is often used in the services to the women saints but it always refers to the strength of the communion of the life in Christ and certainly not to anything sensual.

Indeed when counselling women (and especially women monastics) this advice is strongly stressed as it is easy for women (and also certain men)to fall into the emotional and to mistake this for the spiritual. Perhaps this is why in the services for women saints along with language about the Bridegroom we often also come across phrases to the effect that the woman had the "manly virtue of courage" etc. Some have a reaction about 'sexism' when they first encounter phrases like this- but the actual purpose of this language is to encourage sobriety- the perfect antidote to emotionalism for both men & women alike.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

may these texts reflect the bridal feelings of the honest monastics in there sojourned life on the earth :

1- songs 3: 6
&#40;AKJV&#41; Who is this that comes out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?

2- songs 4: 12
&#40;ASV&#41; A garden shut up is my sister, my bride; A spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

3- as the monastic become more fruitful in the time of sufferings 4: 16
&#40;AKJV&#41; Awake, O north wind; and come, you south; blow on my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

4- the life of the monastic is mainly in praises 6: 13

&#40;Darby&#41; What would ye look upon in the Shulamite? --As it were the dance of two camps

5- jer 2: 2
&#40;AKJV&#41; Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus said the LORD; I remember you, the kindness of your youth, the love of your espousals, when you went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.

[Marie-Duquette]

Mr Byron Gaist, Leandros, Fr. Anthony, and all . . .

Peace in Christ Jesus!
As I read the many posts and replies engenderred by byron&#39;s question as depicted in Post # 118 on &#34;spiritual marriages&#34; , specifically as expressed in St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Catherine of Alexandria &#40;of which NOTHING was spoken in reply to the question in view of Orthodox Tradition, my mind has turned a couple of summersaults!

First of all:
why bring up the question of the &#34;RING as being a &#34;prepuce&#34;? where and when was this particular perspective on the mystical marriage taken?

Second: Byron, your being a psychylogist and psychiatrist, and seemingly studying a Holy Mystic in the light of your scientific approach seems to me to cast a long shadow on the mysterious works of God in the lives Saints of both East and West, men and women.

Third: Concerning St. Catherine addressing the Father. In her ecstacies, Her DIALOGUE with God is expressed as with the Godhead, or Father. As Jesus Christ Himself taught us to pray to God as Father in the Gospel. Even stating that all that you ask the Father in my Name will be granted to you.

Fourth: Leandros, post # 157 at the very end you refer us participants on this Forum to &#34;ARTICLE&#34; and to &#34;here&#34; .

I looked at both of these: and analysis of &#34;holy anorexia&#34;; and a letter that Catherine is writing to her confessor, or spiritual father, addressing him as Father. This is not a letter to God the Father but to her confessor.

It seems to me that mixing a psychological analysis and attributing and &#34;illness&#34; to Catherine should not be presented as an absolute of being in &#34;prelest in the least or demonized in the worst&#34;, as Father Anthony states in his post # 18 .

Catherine&#39;s DIALOGUES seem to me to be beautiful expressions of a person in very close intimacy with the most Holy Trinity.

Of course, I could be very wrong, but I do honor St. Catherine as one of God&#39;s masterpieces of Holiness. A woman whose prayer was Theology at her time in History.

Please forgive me a sinner, who looks forward to always deeper communion in Love with God-Trinity at the Heart of my existence, hoping for the Mystic Marriage with the Bridegroom of my soul.

marie-duquette

p.s. mystic marriage or union and communion with The fullness of TRUTH.

theopesta Dem, Thank you for mentioning a most important point: that monks and nuns seem by their life-style to have a greater spiritual sensitivity towards this &#34;mystic marriage&#34; with God, as all Christians are also ultimately tending towards in Prayer, Liturgy, Scripture Reading and the struggles of every day life in Christ.

Isn&#39;t the Song of Solomon an Icon of the Christian&#39;s Journey towards Thesis and Divination? As Gregory of Nyssa and other Fathers and Mothers of the Church write and teach.}

[Theopesta]

ps 45: 10- 11 http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif
&#40;AKJV&#41; Listen, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear; forget also your own people, and your father&#39;s house;

&#40;AKJV&#41; So shall the king greatly desire your beauty: for he is your Lord; and worship you him.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Thanks to everyone for their responses to the issue of mystical marriage. I would like to clarify that, although I&#39;m a practising psychologist, it is not my aim to study the work of St Catherine of Siena scientifically, though the information about her possible eating disorder seems interesting and significant. I have learned a lot from your responses - sometimes the obvious escapes me, such as the fact that mystical marriage with the Bridegroom &#40;simply another scripturally-based way of saying &#34;theosis&#34;?&#41; is of course what every Christian soul aspires to &#40;thank you, brother Leandros&#41;, but also it seems from what has been said so far that the specific form or expression of this marriage is a distinct, particular spiritual event occuring between the individual as a member of the Church, and God. It is also useful and important to hear Fr Raphael&#39;s caution to sobriety on such potentially intoxicating or - much worse - deluding religious phenomena, but also to enjoy sister Theopesta&#39;s beautiful quotations from Scripture and her account of events in the inner life of the monastic.

I notice little has been said about St Catherine of Alexandria&#39;s particular experience, or why her feast day was suppressed by the RC church.

In Christ
Byron

[Leandros]

I notice little has been said about St Catherine of Alexandria's particular experience, or why her feast day was suppressed by the RC church.

In 1969 (reform of Roman Catholic liturgy), Vatican removed St Catherine's and St Barbara's feast days from its general calendar, citing a lack of historical evidence for their existence.

It is a matter of roman catholic logic: what is not documented does not exist at all!

For roman-catholic church fathers the Tradition of Church is a mystery that they can not figure out.

[Theopesta]

brother Byron Jack Gaist

I am not knowledable to answer any one of your questions

but you can find on of the most angelic sober bridal feelings in the letters of st. trese &#40;sainte therese de l&#39;enfant- jesus&#41;
she is not orthodox saint but I think many orthodox love her

[Leandros]

I notice little has been said about St Catherine of Alexandria's particular experience, or why her feast day was suppressed by the RC church.

Roman-catholic church, while having drop St Catherine's (of Alexandria) feast in 1969, they renew her feast in 2002 : "The Higher Authority has arranged the addition of eleven new celebrations"-- the Most Holy Name of Jesus (Jan. 3), St. Josephine Bakhita (Feb. 8), the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima (May 13), Ss. Christopher Magallanes and companions (May 21), St. Rita of Cascia (May 22), Ss. Augustine Zhao Rong and companions (July 9), St. Apollinaris (July 24), St. Sarbel Makhluf (July 24), St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (i.e., Edith Stein) (Aug. 9), the Most Holy Name of Mary (Sept. 12), and St. Catherine of Alexandria (Nov. 25). (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/news0066.htm)

If the "Higher Authority" had look at the Chapel Sistine (http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/10select/10select_03.html), and at the Vatican museum (http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/PINs/PINs_Sala03_02_018.html),he would have found that St Catherine of Alexandria is not a "new" celebration.

[Marie-Duquette]

Dearest Theopesta Dem,

Trully I rejoice that many Orthodox Christians are looking at some of the RC Saints, specifially the Monastic one. And St. Therese of Lisieux is another one of God&#39;s masterpieces; a masterpiece or Icon, honoring especially His Divine Love and her own response as a surrendered, child-like soul, into the Divine Will and Providence of God, this in total Child-like trust in a Loving Father. &#40;by the way she in her life prayed to the Father, as well as to, with and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit&#41;. She truly is one of the &#34;Brides of Christ&#34; for our present day generations of youngsters; and for ourselves not so young not so young people.

I personally know that she is one of my close friends in Christ, having grown up in the light and fragrance of her writings.

May God be praised in and through His Saints, both old and new; and also by us Christians who strive each day to follow Christ as He taught us through His Life as depicted in the Gospels. &#34;Learn from me&#34;, he pleads with us, &#34;that I am gentle and humble of heart!&#34;

marie_duquette

[John Michael Fowler]

I would agree with Marie. My views on psychology are well known and our friends here have illuminated me on certain points. However I beleive the Orthodox Christian Faith stands by itself, to mix other things with it is to dilute it. I like beer and I like whisky but I wouldn't dream of mixing them both.

Do the psychologists here beleive in demon posession? If they wrote that a patient was posessed by a demon what would happen? but as a Christian, (and the same goes for buddhists and muslims) I have to beleive in this. In this country many papers have attacked African immigrants for beleiving in demon posession, but it is a Christian thing not just an African thing.

In many ways psychology and Orthodoxy are incompatible- at least that's the way it seems to me. But I wait to be corrected.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John M Fowler wrote:


My views on psychology are well known and our friends here have illuminated me on certain points. However I beleive the Orthodox Christian Faith stands by itself, to mix other things with it is to dilute it. I like beer and I like whisky but I wouldn't dream of mixing them both.

But certainly Christianity does not stand apart from the life given us by God nor should it completely merge with this world. We are called to be "in the world but not of it".

Christianity transfigures the world in which we live, purifies it and offers it to God. So it is not a matter of seeing whether we can mix two equal substances but rather of seeing the extent to which something can be transfigured in Christ and it still retain enough of its original or intended characteristics. In other words I think the discussion about psychology- and other like things which we face in this world- should be to what extent can psychology be transfigured. And then would a transfigured psychology still in reality be psychology?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theotokodoulos]

Allholy Theotokos and Evervirgin Mary save us!!

I read in one post if the Theotokos is sinless??

Of course does the Orthodox teach the absolut sinlessness of the Allholy Allblameless, Allblessed Allgracefilled Allimmaculate, Allpure ,Allgloryous Theotokos,
What menas Allholy &#40;PANHAGIA&#41;??&#40;HYPERHAGIA&#41;PANAMOMITON,AIMAKARISTON,P ANMAKARISTE,

The Orthodox Church teach about the Mother of God:

She is Evervirgin: in , by ,after brithgiving
Theotokos
Allimmaculate&#40; without sin&#41;
Mediatress,Intercessor
Assumed with body and soul on the 3 day
&#40;was&#41; crowed by Trinity in Heaven &#40; Queen&#41;


Some orthodox are afraid to call her Redemptrix but with the right interpretion it is ok !!
For example:
Allholy Theotokos save us!! &#40;Someone who saves is a Savier&#41;
The wonderworking icon Psychososrtia&#40;Savier of Souls&#41;!!! SOSTRIA is the fm word in gr for Savier
St. Anthimos said : She is the Salvation of the whole world!!

Of Course there is only one Mediator
Savier,- Christ!!

He by nature she by grace and the will of God!!

In CHRIST