Catholic and Orthodox views of the Blessed Virgin Mary/Theotokos

[jwinch2]

Exclusivity in the sense that all Grace flows from God through Mary alone. That is not the Orthodox faith. Grace flows from God to us. Certainly it can be channeled through all of the saints who possess God within themselves as they are already deified. So “mediatrix of all graces” is not an Orthodox belief.

It is probably important to recognize at this point that the Catholic Church has never declared any sort of doctrine regarding Mary as “Mediatrix of all Graces, co-redemptrix, etc.”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exclusivity in the sense that all Grace flows from God through Mary alone. That is not the Orthodox faith. Grace flows from God to us. Certainly it can be channeled through all of the saints who possess God within themselves as they are already deified. So “mediatrix of all graces” is not an Orthodox belief.

There is no dogma all Grace flows from Mary “alone”. Mary has always been mediatrix of All Grace. For the simple reason All Grace passed through Mary at the incarnation. This process of divinization, do you suppose Mary decreased or increased from the Incarnation forward? What does a Queen of Heaven do?

 

[godisgood77]

Exclusivity in the sense that all Grace flows from God through Mary alone. That is not the Orthodox faith. Grace flows from God to us. Certainly it can be channeled through all of the saints who possess God within themselves as they are already deified. So “mediatrix of all graces” is not an Orthodox belief.

In fact, Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces is not a teaching of the Catholic Church either. There are many Catholics who believe this in their private devotions, but it is not formally taught by the Church.

There was a thorough debate on the subject in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10797963#post10797963

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Dan

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is probably important to recognize at this point that the Catholic Church has never declared any sort of doctrine regarding Mary as “Mediatrix of all Graces, co-redemptrix, etc.”.

And yet that is what people believe in anyway, right? Not every belief has to be in a document somewhere in the Vatican.

There is no dogma all Grace flows from Mary “alone”. Mary has always been mediatrix of All Grace. For the simple reason All Grace passed through Mary at the incarnation.

This one of course is the Orthodox understanding. But by no means do we believe that the Theotokos alone dispenses all graces coming from God today (or ever).

This process of divinization, do you suppose Mary decreased or increased from the Incarnation forward?

Theosis is ever increasing, there is only one way to go.

What does a Queen of Heaven do?

Who knows. But what do you want me to do? Create a doctrine off a conjecture based on our earthly understanding of what a Queen does in a Kingdom? Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world, so we shouldn’t assume that what an earthly queen does is the same as the Heavenly Queen. We believe the Theotokos to be enthroned in heaven, why do we need to think beyond that?

 

[godisgood77]

Her ever-virginity isn’t a favor. It is because Christ, who sanctifies, never defiles anything.

As if giving of ones virginity in marriage or childbirth is defiling in anyway…

 

[godisgood77]

And yet that is what people believe in anyway, right? Not every belief has to be in a document somewhere in the Vatican.

Some people believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces; certainly not all or a majority. There is a movement in the Church to declare Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces and there have been a petition(s) submitted. Last I knew, there had only been 8 million signatures gathered which would be a far cry from being a meaningful number.

 

[jwinch2]

And yet that is what people believe in anyway, right? Not every belief has to be in a document somewhere in the Vatican.

There are various understandings of what this means. Since it is not defined, there is no official interpretation. I agree with you that it is widely held by clergy and the faithful.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CTG we can conclude Mary was Full of Grace at the Incarnation. Lets look at Grace backward from before the Incarnation. We agree on forward ever-virgin, Queen etc. You bought up the angels not I. That was a hint at that Divine order where the Apostolic Church’s all place Mary.

Luke- 1:28.-And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail Mary, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women etc

This occurred before the Holy Spirit/Incarnation. How does this Grace vary from here and the Incarnation? Certainly the Angel knew the message before Mary also. When then did this great mystery occur?

The Eastern Church already agrees all Grace/Incarnation? Its Biblical CTG basic Christianity.

The sin aspect in relation to the garden is where I read the confusion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As if giving of ones virginity in marriage or childbirth is defiling in anyway…

Do you understand what “virgin” means?

 

[godisgood77]

Do you understand what “virgin” means?

Yes.

Do you know what “defile” means?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes.

Do you know what “defile” means?

Definitely.

We sing in our Liturgy all the time, “without defilement you gave birth to God the Word”. Which means the act of losing one’s virginity is defilement.

Why do you think the Church herself has high regard for virgins?

 

[godisgood77]

We sing in our Liturgy all the time, “without defilement you gave birth to God the Word”. Which means the act of losing one’s virginity is defilement.

Sounds like a prayer that was created at a time when people falsely thought that sexual relations were somehow dirty or unholy. The time where a deep pathology developed against a beautiful and good act created by God…an act that is sacramental in nature, creates life and expresses the love of spouses. Glad I don’t pray that pray…

I think the Church holds virgins in high regard because they have given their virginity to God. Certainly not because the act is defiling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sounds like a prayer that was created at a time when people falsely thought that sexual relations were somehow dirty or unholy. The time where a deep pathology developed against a beautiful and good act created by God…an act that is sacramental in nature, creates life and expresses the love of spouses. Glad I don’t pray that pray…

I think the Church holds virgins in high regard because they have given their virginity to God. Certainly not because the act is defiling.

Such piety towards sex did not exist in the East. It has nothing to do with sex as something disgusting and sinful. There is a physical corruption when one has sex as well as gives birth (tearing of the hymen, tearing of the birth canal). When the Theotokos gave birth, God who sanctifies all and renews all, did not defile the Theotokos in every way, including physically.

Another way this can be read is with the word “corruption”, but again in Eastern thought corruption is related to sin and death. So giving birth is a corruption not in a sinful act way, but this is consistent with Genesis where God told woman that she will have pains during birth after the fall. But in Eastern thought, this is not because Mary is pre-fall because of the Immaculate Conception, it is because she is giving birth to God who does not corrupt.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s virginity/chasity…

newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm

Purification/Presentation. also comes to mind in keeping with the tradition of the Jewish.

aug.edu/augusta/iconography/purification.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentation_of_Mary

The Creation in Genesis, which results in banishment from the Garden, also leaves us with these words from the Lord God. "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This too was resolved NT as is the deeper understanding of virginity/chasity in that women are allowed to remain in this state, while virginity has been around historically, what was not historic is remaining in this state through life.

Maximus the Confessor states, “the transcendence of pleasure and pain proves that man has cleansed his heart from the passions.” The entire Biblical context and Tradition with Mary is covered by him and a informative read.

You or I corrupt ourselves , God has nothing to do with this but in that He gave the free will to man. Think about the Garden but again. 3:9- the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

The Lord “knew” where they were, and that where was that, they were “not” in a state of Grace anymore. He states this so “they” would know.

Nevertheless none of this occurs with the BVM, in fact through examination of the Gospel of James we see what is discerned as true and false in regards to early Tradition.

The East does acknowledge St Anne in regards to the IC.

"The Feast of the Immaculate Conception, in its oldest form, goes back to the seventh century, when churches in the East began celebrating the Feast of the Conception of Saint Anne, the mother of Mary. In other words, this feast celebrates the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the womb of Saint Anne; and nine months later, on September 8, we celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As originally celebrated (and as still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Churches), however, the Feast of the Conception of Saint Anne does not have the same understanding as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception has in the Catholic Church today. The feast arrived in the West probably no earlier than the 11th century, and at that time, it began to be tied up with a developing theological controversy. Both the Eastern and the Western Church had maintained that Mary was free from sin throughout her life, but there were different understandings of what this meant." [about.com]

Note; free from “sin throughout her life” in other words, Mary is conceived how? Immaculate and without sin throughout her life.

 

[GaryTaylor]

BTW, Birth Pain introduced to this conversation is for a reason. This pain came as a result of the fall. This was not part of the Birth of the Lord post fall. We can thus conclude Mary was “not” subjected to the same consequence of everyone post fall. Could pain have existed pre-fall? Not according to the translation or understanding of Grace/Communion/Paradise…

“Wherever moral evil rushed into the world, physical evil also followed as an inevitable consequence: sickness, pain, affliction, and indeed the height of misfortunes, death, plagued man. It was necessary for the prestige of the law (which the supreme law-maker, God the Creator, had given to man) to be restored by the punishment of disobedience.” Bishop Ware

Isaiah 7 “The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel”

One of the signs of this prophecy is that Mary and the Lord are known by the Virgin Birth and Mary remaining ever-virgin which indicates Gods Grace which coincides with St Maximus above.

“the transcendence of pleasure and pain proves that man has cleansed his heart from the passions.”

Cooperation with Gods Grace. The question “Why did God become man” is here…

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0750.html

The Lord God was not required to take on the physical body of a sinner to overcome mans sin. Jesus Christ the second person Trinity, God, took on human nature, so He could die for “our sins” as a human, taking the penalty we deserve for our sins. Yet he had no sin, thus the redeeming act.

Marys “intercession” belief/faith in God for man is what found favor with God. In this very real way, Mary interceded for “all mankind” and through the Lord introduced All Grace to mankind once again by Her intercession. And that is what Mary continues to do in a very real way. Queen intercedes for the King. His business is Life which is contingent on one reality…Grace.

Creation isn’t over, it never ended as the Lord creates by the moment and in the moment through Grace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Lord God was not required to take on the physical body of a sinner to overcome mans sin.

Totally wrong. St. Athanasius said on his work, “On the incarnation,”

But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God.

So it is totally required for the Lord to take on human flesh to conquer the corruption of the flesh.

 

[ConstantineTG]

BTW, Birth Pain introduced to this conversation is for a reason. This pain came as a result of the fall. This was not part of the Birth of the Lord post fall. We can thus conclude Mary was “not” subjected to the same consequence of everyone post fall.

That is not the Orthodox (true) teaching. It is not Mary’s condition that preserved her from birth pains, but it is of whom she gave birth to. Had Mary conceived another child and gave birth to someone else, she would have experienced birth pains. The effect of the Fall is on all of creation, no one can be personally exempted from it with the rest of creation still under it. Not of course until someone dies and is resurrected, that is why we all must go through that process. That is why without question we believe the Theotokos to have passed from this world and is resurrected, because it is a necessary step.

Everyone was subject to the Fall, including Christ. That is why He experienced pain and died.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is not the Orthodox (true) teaching. It is not Mary’s condition that preserved her from birth pains, but it is of whom she gave birth to…

Mary’s condition was always contingent on the Lords Grace, never was it not. So is yours and mine. Whats considered the true teaching? Right, The Lord.

Had Mary conceived another child and gave birth to someone else, she would have experienced birth pains.

Is this your thinking? .

The effect of the Fall is on all of creation, no one can be personally exempted from it with the rest of creation still under it. .

The Fall of man subjected all man to sin and death biblically. The Lord is and was exempt from both. "

Not of course until someone dies and is resurrected,.

Another aspect we haven’t discussed, but I thought we were going backwards not forward with Queen of Heaven etc?

Everyone was subject to the Fall, including Christ. That is why He experienced pain and died.

The Divinity of Christ did not suffer pain. The Humanity indeed did. A mystery of the Apostolic Church. Plenty of patristic writing on this.

God was exempt He had no sin. The human nature/divine hypostatic union. He indeed become fully human but had no-sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mary’s condition was always contingent on the Lords Grace, never was it not. So is yours and mine. Whats considered the true teaching? Right, The Lord.

You are aware that such reasoning is also held by Protestants.

Is this your thinking?

It is entirely consistent with what has been taught. Of course there are other theological reasons why Mary wouldn’t give birth to anyone else, so what I offered is merely a conjecture of what the orthodox faith teaches.

The Fall of man subjected all man to sin and death biblically. The Lord is and was exempt from both. "

Wrong agin, based on St. Athanasius’ teaching (you really should read this)

He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.

Another aspect we haven’t discussed, but I thought we were going backwards not forward with Queen of Heaven etc?

I’ve already responded to that, what more do you want me to say about it?

The Divinity of Christ did not suffer pain. The Humanity indeed did. A mystery of the Apostolic Church. Plenty of patristic writing on this.

Indeed a mystery, but you seem to make a clear distinction between both, as if it were two separate persons fused into one. That is not the orthodox Patristic teaching. While Christ has two natures, He is one person. So how do you separate the divine from the human to speak in a manner that the human suffers while the divine doesn’t? It is as if there is this one being who is human that is suffering while this other being who is divine is just there watching, or totally unaffected. Christ is one person, if he suffers, he suffers.

God was exempt He had no sin. The human nature/divine hypostatic union. He indeed become fully human but had no-sin.

He had no sin for sure, but do you or don’t you confess every Sunday that He “suffered, died and was buried”?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Totally wrong. St. Athanasius said on his work, “On the incarnation,”
So it is totally required for the Lord to take on human flesh to conquer the corruption of the flesh.

This is the whole paragraph; “The Lord God was not required to take on the physical body of a [sinner] to overcome mans sin. Jesus Christ the second person Trinity, God, took on human nature, so He could die for “our sins” as a human, taking the penalty we deserve for our sins. Yet he had no sin, thus the redeeming act”

C, He had no sin. This is what I’m saying above with the Hypostatic Union. Flesh indeed.