Coredemptrix

[Melissa Smith]

Dear Luciano and others:

Since you introduce a broader context for the discussion of belief 
systems, I offer my own excursus on this topic. My historical dating is 
rather approximate, but there is ample opportunity for fact-checking on 
the web.

I and at least one other Slavist of my acquaintance are members of the 
Unitarian-Universalist church which extends back at least to Michael 
Servetus, who wrote a tract on "The Errors of the Trinity," and was 
burned at the stake for his troubles. The "Bohemian Brethren" and a 
16th(?) century King Sigismund were among historical exemplars of this 
belief.

In the Americas, one branch of Unitarianism was introduced by the 
British Scientist, Joseph Priestly. The northern branch arose as a 
reaction against "the Great Awakening," an emotional, evangelical 
movement in the late 18th-early 19th century, against which the more 
rationally-inclined Protestants offered their own alternative visions 
of Christianity. Among early proponents of this faith were our second 
president, John Adams and many of the New England 
Transcendentalists,such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. Thomas Jefferson, 
although not professing to be a Unitarian himself, predicted that, by 
the end of the 19th century, Unitarianism would be the predominant 
faith of the USA.

We should not, of course, be surprised that the "founding fathers'" 
influence in such matters was more limited than Jefferson supposed, 
although the Judaeo-Christian tradition that spawned this denomination 
remains dominant and multifarious. In the 1960's the Unitarians merged 
with the Universalist denomination.

Since neither denomination has a catechism or other form of dogma, only 
the sketchiest generalizations can be made. Relevant to the current 
discussion is the general acceptance of Christ as a great religious 
TEACHER, but not a divinity (hence, "Unitarian" as opposed to 
"Trinitarian"). I know less about Universalism, but one of its 
founders, Hosea Ballou reject the notion of Hell altogether and viewed 
salvation after death as universal.

I personally reject the label "atheist," although etymologically 
"a-theos," would imply the rejection of ANY divine persona, whether it 
be depicted in a toga and sandals or sporting a long, white beard. From 
the Universalist perspective, the absence of eternal damnation would 
seem to obviate a "redeemer," or "coredemptrix." I accept such 
terminology, however, from a linguistic perspective, and therefore 
welcome the discussion and justification of usage that is presented on 
this listserv. I would suggest, moreover, that in these days of 
proposed Qu'ran burnings, such discussion assumes even greater 
relevance. The "belief system" of our profession is in continual 
evolution.

Sincerely,

Melissa Smith


On 9/10/10 11:02 PM, Luciano Di Cocco wrote:
> This discussion is obviously only marginally connected with the main 
topic of this ML, but I find it very interesting. In particular, and 
more to the topic, I am interested in differences, even early ones, 
between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, of which I have only a rough 
understanding.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> I find that part of the problem is using the term "deity" without 
giving the context. A deity in a polytheistic context is _very_ 
different from a deity in a monotheistic context. Even monotheistic 
contexts can have very different interpretations of "deity". To a Jew 
or a Muslim the Trinity can and do appear a polytheistic concept. On 
the other hand even the atheistic forms of Buddhism do have the concept 
of deity, similar to that of Mediterranean polytheism.
> 
> I stated that as far as I know no major branch of Christianity (and I 
include Jeovah Witnesses and LDS, divergent as they are, in the major 
branches), present or past, include in their specific mainstream 
definition of deity Mary the mother of Jesus (or other Mary for what 
matter).
> 
> _Do_ exist single theologians that have a different vision. As _do_ 
exist theologians in the major branches of Christianity that negate the 
perfection of the Godhead. To me these positions appear somehow 
connected. And personally, as an atheist, I find these positions very 
interesting. On philosophical and moral grounds I cannot believe in a 
perfect God. But I cannot, on the same grounds, negate the possibility 
of an immensely powerful but not perfect Godhead that is moving toward 
perfection.
> 
> Anyway, if we take a definition of "deity" more close to Mediterranean 
polytheism, especially after the development of Neo-Platonism, one 
could argue that Mary can be considered a deity. At the cost of 
considering, in a RC context, all the saints deity, minor to Mary but 
deity anyway. Interestingly, as far as we know, Gnosticism (strongly 
Neo-Platonic) never asserted that Mary was a deity. 
> 
> In the Mediterranean polytheism, deities where non perfect nor 
omnipotent. They could learn from errors. They were immensely more 
powerful than humans, as humans (according to them) are superior to 
animals, but in no way omnipotent. There were things, logically 
possible, that even them couldn't do.
> 
> And the distinction between gods and humans were in many points 
blurred. Not only there were demi-gods of mixed origins, but there were 
humans that for exceptional feats (even morally negative) were conceded 
a cult similar to a minor deity. I don't remember the name and the 
place, but it is reported that in Greece an exceptional athlete in an 
excess or wrath provoked the destruction of a gym, killing himself and 
many people in the gym. A small temple were built for the athlete, and 
sacrifices were made to him. In effect Greco-roman cult was more 
connected with keeping deities out of human affairs than with receiving 
benefits, The latter was considered magic, practiced a lot but 
suspected from the institutions.
> 
> With Neo-Platonism, that developed more or less at the time in which 
the Jesus movement defined itself, it was defined the concept of a 
Godhead (the One) perfect but not connected with the World, and various 
levels of deities.
> 
> Saint Augustine used part of this system to give a system that is the 
basis for western Christianity. He specifically refers to "some books 
by some Platonists" but unfortunately didn't say which ones.
> 
> If we accept the monotheistic standard definition of a deity as an 
uncreated perfect entity, the only way to have Mary as a deity is 
including her in the Trinity. As far as I know no branch of 
Christianity has done so. Carl Gustav Jung, on psychological grounds, 
expected and hoped that RC would in the future do so, but it is his 
opinion.
> And the concept of a minor deity, perfectly standard in polytheism, 
would be stretching monotheism beyond its limit.
> 
> Roman Catholicism however, especially in folk piety, comes very close 
to defining a second level of divinity, in the form of humans (Saints) 
that can answer requests from the faithful. In RC folk piety it is very 
common to ask Mary or other Saints miracles (grazie in Italian, graces, 
but unconnected with the theological concept of Grace). The official RC 
doctrine is that in these miracles Mary or the saint is an intermediary 
between the faithful and the Godhead. But the language is very 
ambiguous and I would say that the majority of Roman Catholics believe 
that the miracles are actually performed by May or the Saint. Anyway, 
the RC canonical procedure of sanctification requires at least a 
miracle to declare a Saint.
> 
> In this specific sense we could argue (polemically of course) that 
many Roman Catholics act in a way very similar to Greco-Roman Pagans 
and functionally consider Mary and the Saints very similar to a 
Mediterranean Polytheistic deity. And even that, while the Greco-Roman 
public  cult was more connected with the Pax Deorum (non interference 
of the deities in human affairs), although magic was widespread, Roman 
Catholics are practicing unknowingly a kind of magic.
> 
> This is an extremization of course. RC theology is very accurate in 
avoiding this pitfall.
> 
> I am very interested in knowing something on this point in an Orthodox 
context. If this ambiguity in folk piety exists in the Orthodox context 
or if it is specific of Roman Catholicism.
> 
> Regards
> Luciano Di Cocco
> 
> > "Deified" means nothing other than "made a god of; raised to the
> > position of
> > a god," of course.  If your objection to referring to Mary as a deity
> > is (if
> > I may summarize how the argument progressed), "no Orthodox Christian,
> > nor
> > any other Christian. nor _anyone_ who has looked deeply into the 
matter
> > thinks of or would refer to Mary as a deity," then the quotations 
cited
> > are
> > quite to the point.  You ignore "quod _est demonstratum_" at your
> > peril.
> > 
> > Prof. Dumanis' assertion that "обожествлять" merely means "to admire"
> > is
> > much more pertinent.  However, is it tenable?   See, for instance, 
the
> > online version of the Ushakov dictionary, which says:
> > 
> > ОБОЖЕСТВИ́ТЬ, обожествлю, обожествишь, ·совер. (к обожествлять), 
кого-что
> > (·книж. ). Признать имеющим сверхъестественную, божественную силу,
> > божеством. Древние обожествили силы природы.
> > 
> > [koi8-r encoding, see
> > <http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Ushakov-term-
> > 37283.htm>
> > if my quotation is scrambled in transmission].
> > 
> > Ernie Sjogren
> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>  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/
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-


------------------------------------

Melissa T. Smith, Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and 
Literatures  
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, OH 44555
Tel: (330)941-3462

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------