Coredemptrix

[Vitalii Cherednichenko]

Dear colleagues,

regarding the ongoing fascinating discussion on the Coredemptrix term
I wonder if there is a room to respond to the following issues that
relate both to the style and to the essential subject-matter of the
discussed:

1) When Professor Olga Meerson informs the list that: "what I, OLGA,
believe and confess, say, in the Nicene Creed and in my prayers, I
probably know more than you do, no..." --> does she claim that "her"
(i.e. "Olga's") personal views and beliefs are to be observed as *the
standard* and the most representative ones for the entire Orthodox
Christianity? And it is up to "I Olga" to decide upon what is right
and what is wrong? I do not see an easy way to understand why Olga
Meerson seems to position herself as "the" Source on what Orthodox
Christians think and feel? Don't we need to consult let's say, some
Levada Centr anymore? Let us, then blindly subscribe to Olga's words
and this will be the right to do.
1-a) Can we relate the somewhat surprising pathos of Olga Meerson's
emotional address to Rolf Fieguth with the latter's finest explanation
of "coredemptrix" as "soiskupitel'nica", a Russian equivalent term
that was omitted in the previous answers?

2) Agreeing that the Dogma of Modern Christianity does not relate Mary
to "deity" we, as scholars (and not only as "believers", --> remember,
that the believer = believes and the scholar researches) may not
forget the broader historical context of this subject. Let me just
remind the well known facts that relate the Mother of Christ to
Sophia, to the Great Mother-Goddess traditions, and so forth. They all
correspond to the image of Mary. Shall we be interested in the History
of Religions in the sense of Max Mueller and Mircea Eliade, or we'd
rather stick to the Moskovskaia -Patrirchija, or the like dogmatic
"prescriptions"? Shall we remember the term "archetype" in the History
of Religions and what it stands for, or shall we rather not? What
archetype does the Virgin Mary represent? No Mother-Goddess archetype
at all?
Our beloved and omnipotent Wikipedia rightly mentions that: "there are
mystic undercurrents which emphasize the feminine aspects of the
Godhead, e.g. the Collyridians in the time of early Christianity, who
viewed Mary as a goddess, the medieval visionary Julian of Norwich,
the Judaic Shekinah and the Gnostic Sophia traditions.".
              In the same vein we must not forget the versatile work
of Joseph Campbell who also argues that the image of the Virgin Mary
was derived from the image of Isis and her child Horus: "The antique
model for the Madonna, actually, is Isis with Horus at her breast".
Totally subscribing to R. M. Cleminson's wise citation on Es tut mir
Leid, aber ein Tisch ist ein Tisch, I'd rather suggest we would deal
with Christianity in a broader religious paradigmatic perspective,
remembering where the religion was born, etc. The Gnostic and other
Sophianic ideas here should be extremely relevant. And above all not
to forget the apt expression by Max Mueller "The on who knows only one
religion knows none". Thus, if dealing with the Virgin Mary as a
deity, we may relate it to the broader archetype (of Isis, etc),
rather than just sticking it up to what one particular believer, be it
Olga Meerson or any other. The luxury of being a scholar, rather than
a believer, is the ability to transcend the traditional dogmatic
boundaries the regular adept of this Patriarchate or another can
hardly afford.

With regards to the list,
Vitalii.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------