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

[Elizium23]

I was composing an answer in this thread about Mary and was led to further study of the Mariological concepts of Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix.

The information I have says that this is a fairly recent development, with no mention of it pre-Schism. So it occurred to me that if these earthly petitions were answered, and the above were declared as dogma, it may serve to drive a wedge further between us and our Orthodox brethren, such as is the case with the Immaculate Conception.

So, is there any support for these teachings in Eastern theology? If not, is there room for acceptance in the future? Feel free to speculate!

 

[mardukm]

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

 

[twf]

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.

 

[wynd]

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.

What would we gain by having this dogma? Is our salvation currently at risk by not having it defined? The way you word it strikes me as something that would be nice to have, not something that needs to happen.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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.

 

[malphono]

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.

Absolutely true.

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

For brevity, I’ll over simplify.

West: Mary is conceived without sin in order to facilitate bringing Christ into the world. She is not God incarnate though (probably known, but worth stating). Her free will is intact. She could have said no.

East: The Theotokos is like the burning bush. She was able to to hold God within her without being consumed. Because… she is the chief ascetic, according to tradition. She is the first of all saints because she personifies “Theosis” ( 1 reason she is the “Patron” of monastics especially, and the succor for all who struggle).

The Eastern view does not invalidate the view of the West nor vise versa, imo. Christ was ascetic as well as all of the saints, including Mary, both East and West. The position of honor and veneration remains the same.

I think there are much bigger obstacles ( I would say almost akin to St Symeon vs St Anselm )

 

[Hesychios]

I always thought dogma is just things that are divinely revealed to us as true.

From Jesus Christ through the Apostles certainly. Anything else, although worthy of belief, will be less certain.

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.

The question on this thread would be relating to new dogmas, presumably, not older dogmatic pronouncements.

Speaking as a private individual with Orthodox leanings, not a theologian, I would look at the proposed new dogmas in light of their ‘utility’ (for lack of a better word).

What do we possibly gain vs what do we possibly lose?

Will the enhanced understanding be necessary to save us? Probably not, in my opinion.

But once a new ‘unnecessary’ (I put that in quotes as an unprovable assumption) dogma is proclaimed, it anathematizes any and all who refuse to believe it or cannot in all honesty understand how it can be true.

In other words, such a dogma (as a bit of knowledge) does not increase one’s chances for salvation, but it increases one’s chances of damnation. In itself it does not save, it only damns people (Matt 23:13).

Saint Vincent said:
"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. "

Which a new dogmatic pronouncement, unknown (and presumably unnecessary) in the early church and all over the east to this day is not on all three counts. It was never believed everywhere (even within Latin Catholicism alone), not always (even in Latin Catholicism) and certainly not by all.

Numerous people over time have gone on to quote “In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas” as if it were Saint Augustine. It apparently isn’t from Augustine but I think it conveys the spirit of my thought on this matter.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Are you an Eastern Orthodox member not in communion with Catholicism? Because if not I’m adressing what I said to Catholics, really. Obviously if you don’t accept the infallability of the Catholic Church or our sucessors to the apostles you wouldn’t believe in any of her later dogmas necessarily. But as a member of the Catholic Church as officially declared dogma we must believe it.

Unless I’m just totally missing thee boat or something.

 

[Hesychios]

Are you an Eastern Orthodox member not in communion with Catholicism? Because if not I’m adressing what I said to Catholics, really. Obviously if you don’t accept the infallability of the Catholic Church or our sucessors to the apostles you wouldn’t believe in any of her later dogmas necessarily. But as a member of the Catholic Church as officially declared dogma we must believe it.

Unless I’m just totally missing thee boat or something.

I presume you are addressing me.

I am not considering any other dogmas already proclaimed.

The original poster **Elizium23 **was wondering about the new Marian dogmas from an eastern theological perspective. To wit: “So it occurred to me that … may serve to drive a wedge further between us and our Orthodox brethren.”

As an eastern Christian my opinion as expressed would be the same whether I was Catholic or Orthodox. Since I have been both an Eastern Catholic and Orthodox, I already know this has consistently been my position. I think it is good if we can share our opinions as if we were already one undivided church. I think your opinion and mine are both important to consider as the church ponders these things going forward.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

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.

I agree with everything you say here. Nevertheless, your explanation evinces that such a teaching is not primarily Christological in nature, but Marian. If it is not primarily Christological, I don’t believe it deserves to be dogma.

I mean, I just look at all the dogmas of the Church, and I can’t help but see the Christological focus in all of them. Even the dogma on sacred images from the 7th Ecum is seen as a defense of the dogma of the Incarnation. Even the Assumption can be seen as a defense of the dogma of the Resurrection and its promise. Even the dogma on Indulgences is focused on the infinite merits of Christ, etc.

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marc_Anthony]

All right, Heyschios.

I’ll address your point directly then. You don’t like making the later Marian doctrines dogma (am I using these words correctly? I hope so.) because they’re not necessary for salvation but if you don’t believe them you can be anathematized.

But if dogma is by definition things that are divinely revealed to us to be true then if people we believe are valid successors of Saint Peter and the other apostles make an official ruling it, they are doing so because God has directed them toward Truth. If certain aspects of Mariology are indeed True and God has revealed them as True to the Church then the Church has the duty to tell her members this.

Make sense?

I’m approaching this cautiously because I"m not quite sure if I have a full understanding of the issues here.

 

[Hesychios]

All right, Heyschios.

I’ll address your point directly then. You don’t like making the later Marian doctrines dogma (am I using these words correctly? I hope so.) because they’re not necessary for salvation but if you don’t believe them you can be anathematized.

I am only addressing the proposed new ideas which are not now dogmas.

Catholics do not have to believe them, because they are not dogmatic.

I don’t like them because they are not necessary, and in Christian charity I do not think such ideas ought to be imposed upon others.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So you accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary?

 

[Hesychios]

So you accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary?

Orthodox have always believed that the Holy Theotokos was conceived and born without the culpability of Adam’s first sin, but with the effects. This is also what Orthodox believe about you and me, so of course we would not think any the worse of our heroine who would not sin and bore the Savior of our souls.

“Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.” Deacon’s acclamation from the divine liturgy.

The assumption of the Holy Theotokos was a belief that began in the east, and spread to the west, so of course we have always believed it and never needed anyone outside to tell us about it.

 

[Stephentlig]

Of course, the Immaculate Conception is certainly Biblical and Traditional.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235). Earliest text

**“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” **John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749). Latest known Traditional text.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Orthodox have always believed that the Holy Theotokos was conceived and born without the culpability of Adam’s first sin, but with the effects. This is also what Orthodox believe about you and me, so of course we would not think any the worse of our heroine who would not sin and bore the Savior of our souls.

“Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.” Deacon’s acclamation from the divine liturgy.

The assumption of the Holy Theotokos was a belief that began in the east, and spread to the west, so of course we have always believed it and never needed anyone outside to tell us about it.

Wow, that’s an interesting way of explaining the Immaculate Conception.

I love Eastern Catholic theology. It’s fascinating.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I think its good and fitting to honor our lady with such titles and the background associate with them.

 

[trophybearer]

Wow, that’s an interesting way of explaining the Immaculate Conception.

I love Eastern Catholic theology. It’s fascinating.

That’s actually Orthodox and in no way implies the “Immaculate Conception”. We believe that the Mother of God remained sinless throughout her whole life, but we do not believe in this “Immaculate Conception”. The Mother of God was concieved in the same state as we all are.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s actually Orthodox and in no way implies the “Immaculate Conception”. We believe that the Mother of God remained sinless throughout her whole life, but we do not believe in this “Immaculate Conception”. The Mother of God was concieved in the same state as we all are.

Ah, sorry.

Then what exactly is the the Holy Theotokos?