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

[Chaldean_Rite]

The co-pilot is trained to take full control of the plane and for most commercial airlines actually does some flying. And Webster’s seems to take issue with you; as part of the definition of the prefix “co” the following is noted: . .

No it doesn’t; just read the rest of them.

how can anyone except the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity be the Redeemer, as all of orthodox theology teaches us? If the redemptive power is “shared” or “mutual” then there has to be more than one exercising the redemptive power, one of whom is not God.

The fact that we have to have this discussion shows how gravely flawed the term is for any serious theological definition. There’s no such dissention with Mother of God, for example.

With God all things are possible. This statement is neither affirming or denouncing the idea of co-Redemptrix. In either event, had the this dogma been made a reality by its revelation, if so, maybe you can meditate on God’s providence and what He wills to do with His Mother and Her Sufferings.

1172 "In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love.** She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son**. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.

In which way is the Immaculate Conception inseparably linked to the saving work of her Son?

 

[Hesychios]

…

The fact that we have to have this discussion shows how gravely flawed the term is for any serious theological definition. …

A most excellent observation.

 

[Hesychios]

I personally (a Roman Catholic) don’t get how “Mediatrix of all graces” is even possible. If she were to mediate all graces, she would even mediate them to herself. That would mean that she alone among all creatures lived a Pelagian existence. That cannot be compatible with the Catholic Faith.

One of the reasons the dogma has to be pushed is that there is a fundamental difference between being a mediator/mediatrix of grace and the mediator/mediatrix of ALL graces.

What exactly does all represent?

All types? Does she mediate some portion of all types of graces?

The totality of graces? Does she mediate every possible grace that flows from God?

Grace to me is an uncreated aspect of God. I don’t know what other people think of it. A lot of times the Holy Theotokos is referred to as a mediator because she bore Jesus Christ, who really is our mediator without question.

So, if she carried Him in the physical world, one could say she mediated for a time in Christian history. But did this involve an intelligent or conscious distribution of ‘blessings’ or ‘favors’ from God to select individuals?

I like the terminology of advocate, because it is very clear what that means (namely pleading on our behalf). Even Mediatrix, in the context of bearing Christ in when in the womb makes some sense, but the phrase “of all graces” is very unclear, and may actually be a heresy.

 

[Adeodatus]

One of the reasons the dogma has to be pushed is that there is a fundamental difference between being a mediator/mediatrix of grace and the mediator/mediatrix of ALL graces.

What exactly does all represent?

All types? Does she mediate some portion of all types of graces?

The totality of graces? Does she mediate every possible grace that flows from God?

Grace to me is an uncreated aspect of God. I don’t know what other people think of it. A lot of times the Holy Theotokos is referred to as a mediator because she bore Jesus Christ, who really is our mediator without question.

So, if she carried Him in the physical world, one could say she mediated for a time in Christian history. But did this involve an intelligent or conscious distribution of ‘blessings’ or ‘favors’ from God to select individuals?

I like the terminology of advocate, because it is very clear what that means (namely pleading on our behalf). Even Mediatrix, in the context of bearing Christ in when in the womb makes some sense, but the phrase “of all graces” is very unclear, and may actually be a heresy.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I know that there are many who have a great zeal for the Theotokos and rightly love and adore her with great ardor. This is a beautiful gift from God. However, I think because of the very vague wording of the formulation (at least in English… and really I’d be shocked to see “omnia” in the Latin!) this whole issue becomes very delicate. It is of the utmost importance that the Church never proclaim a teaching which is liable to lead people into grave error (to say nothing of not actually proclaiming error, which I trust God that the Church will never do).

The problem is, “Mediatrix of all graces” sounds awfully unqualified. And if the formulation needs to be robed in a thousand layers of qualification, perhaps it is infelicitous.

It would be sad if people allowed a great and wonderful devotion to the Theotokos to be an occasion of heresy. That would be a terrible tragedy. I am also disturbed that those who promote this idea appear at times to try to drum up popular support, as if this was somehow a democratic process. May God forbid it.

Myself, I think it’s always best to act on the side of caution in something like this.

 

[Diak]

No it doesn’t; just read the rest of them.

As one of the definitions of “co” Webster’s clearly reads “to the same degree”, which I have cited. That would be in direct opposition to your statement, that

In fact, the co- prefix doesn’t imply equality of its counter part.

It does indeed imply equality by one of its definitions, and your statement is simply not a true statement at least in common usage of the English language. Webster’s New World College actually uses “equally” in the definition as well.

The demonstrated inherent lack of clarity (Webster’s is not a bad example) and thus the potential mistaking of meanings (which are multiple) also clearly proves my that this term is unclear at best, misleading at worst. You, sir, are free to follow whatever personal belief you may, but please do not imply that this is anything even remotely close to a proclaimed universal dogma of the Catholic Church, of which it most certainly is not.

With God all things are possible. This statement is neither affirming or denouncing the idea of co-Redemptrix. In either event, had the this dogma been made a reality by its revelation, if so, maybe you can meditate on God’s providence and what He wills to do with His Mother and Her Sufferings.

1172 "In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.

I have meditated quite a bit on this. 1172 does not state that the Mother of God is “the same degree” or “equally” as the second person of the Most Holy Trinity nor shares “the same degree” of redemptive power as being “equally” fully God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diak

The fact that we have to have this discussion shows how gravely flawed the term is for any serious theological definition. …

A most excellent observation.

I am thinking “gravely flawed” may now be too generous of an observation, but thank you, Michael, nonetheless. This discussion, as all of these on this particular subject I have seen or participated in, is dissapating into circularisms centering around an inherently flawed terminology.

 

[stephraim]

And if the formulation needs to be robed in a thousand layers of qualification, perhaps it is infelicitous.Myself, I think it’s always best to act on the side of caution in something like this.

I agree completely. Just look at the mess we have with the filioque.

 

[malphono]

As one of the definitions of “co” Webster’s clearly reads “to the same degree”, which I have cited. … It does indeed imply equality by one of its definitions, and your statement is simply not a true statement at least in common usage of the English language. Webster’s New World College actually uses “equally” in the definition as well.

The demonstrated inherent lack of clarity (Webster’s is not a bad example) and thus the potential mistaking of meanings (which are multiple) also clearly proves my that this term is unclear at best, misleading at worst. You, sir, are free to follow whatever personal belief you may, but please do not imply that this is anything even remotely close to a proclaimed universal dogma of the Catholic Church, of which it most certainly is not.

FWLIW, I agree. The prefix “co-” is very commonly used in modern English to represent equality. Those who say otherwise might take a look at, e.g., the terms “co-regent” or “co-president” etc, where the meaning becomes quite obvious.

I’ve heard the expression “co-redemptrix” bandied about for many years, and in this case the prefix “co-” seems to me to cross the line between “unclear” and “misleading.” I tend to think that’s among the reasons why this proposed (and absolutely unnecessary) “dogma” has gone nowhere.

I have meditated quite a bit on this. 1172 does not state that the Mother of God is “the same degree” or “equally” as the second person of the Most Holy Trinity nor shares “the same degree” of redemptive power as being “equally” fully God.

Again unsolicited, but I cannot help but inject (what I hope is) a note of levity here:

Some years ago, we had a housekeeper/cook at the house of studies where I was resident, who was a pious but simple (as in uncomplicated, not mentally challenged) woman. One day a few us were passing through the kitchen, and one of the guys (who hated her – actually they hated each other, but that’s another very long story that I will not go into) stopped and asked if she knew the definition of the Trinity. Her reply was: “Oh yes, of course I do: it’s God, Jesus, and the Holy Virgin” and she was dead serious.

That was 40 years ago and I remember the incident as if it happened this morning. I suppose the point of that boring little story is that people – as pious and well-intentioned as they may be – can very easily misunderstand Church teaching. To my myopic eyes, the more unnecessary “dogma” defined, the more room there is for misunderstanding.

 

[kbarr82]

Please ignore that first post, as I had asked the moderator to remove it because I could not delete it. Thank you all for your clarifications. I have also been looking at other online resources in support of this definition and I find that I greatly misunderstood it by taking the terminology at face value. Indeed this definition is not unacceptable when explained correctly, for it in reality teaches nothing new.

 

[Diak]

To my myopic eyes, the more unnecessary “dogma” defined, the more room there is for misunderstanding.

Spoken like a true Oriental Catholic!!! (Great story, BTW).

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

1172 "In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love.** She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son**. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.

In which way is the Immaculate Conception (Our Lady, Queen of Hearts) inseparably linked to the saving work of her Son?

Forget the context of “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix”, would anyone like to answer my question?

 

[Adeodatus]

Forget the context of “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix”, would anyone like to answer my question?

I’ll take a stab at it. The Blessed Virgin Mary was the conduit through which God entered the world in His Holy Incarnation. The Immaculate Conception is necessary for it would be improper to house God in an unsanctified tabernacle.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

That is accurate but not complete.

1964-NOV-21: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II, and “Solemnly promulgated by Holiness Pope Paul VI” states, in part:
“Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching …‘death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”
Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church,” Chapter 8, *The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of god in the mystery of Christ and the Church, *II, 56, Pages 380 & 381. Online at: cin.org/v2church.html

She is known by Our Lady of Sorrows for a specific reason in that Christ *enabled *her sufferings to be fruitful can give birth to us all at the foot of the Cross.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Diak do you have any (name removed by moderator)ut or comments on CCC 1172?

 

[Hesychios]

… do you have any (name removed by moderator)ut or comments on CCC 1172?

This is the hand of Pope John Paul II. What does the catechism of Trent say on the subject? I am interested to know.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I see development of doctrine slowly at work in the Latin church, and this could be another little piece of seemingly innocuous undergird for a future new dogma.

 

[Ghosty]

Forget the context of “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix”, would anyone like to answer my question?

The paragraph seems to put her forth as a model of the work of Redemption in human kind. She is the example of what we hope for in Christ, most notably the bodily Assumption which is directly linked to the Resurrection of the Dead. In a sense she is the Icon of Redemption.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatius]

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.
!

Mediatrix of all graces and co-redemptrix are not only unnecessary, but problematic and this hyperbolic language should be proscribed from use in any official Church documents.

Certainly we should honour Mary as Theotokos for her perfect obedience and sinless life, and as the mother of our Saviour, and as our own mother, given to us by Christ. But we don’t need to invent titles or demand new dogmas.

 

[fritzz_ezz]

Mediatrix of all graces and co-redemptrix are not only unnecessary, but problematic and this hyperbolic language should be proscribed from use in any official Church documents.

Certainly we should honour Mary as Theotokos for her perfect obedience and sinless life, and as the mother of our Saviour, and as our own mother, given to us by Christ. But we don’t need to invent titles or demand new dogmas.

I agree this is not needed. Mariam is Theotokos and she is Aeiparthenos.

We all suffer from the consequences of Adam’s sin, but we are not guilty of his sin. Therefore there is no need for an immaculate conception. Mariam never sinned because she chose not to. This is what makes her special.

 

[dvdjs]

We all suffer from the consequences of Adam’s sin, but we are not guilty of his sin. Therefore there is no need for an immaculate conception. Mariam never sinned because she chose not to. This is what makes her special.

Hospodi pomiluj!
The first sentence is correct and not in dispute among Apostolic Christians. The second sentence is a non sequitur that bespeaks a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the IC. The third sentence sounds too close to Pelagian heresy for comfort.

 

[fritzz_ezz]

Hospodi pomiluj!
The first sentence is correct and not in dispute among Apostolic Christians. The second sentence is a non sequitur that bespeaks a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the IC. The third sentence sounds too close to Pelagian heresy for comfort.

The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase “eph’ho pantes hemarton.” The Western Church has traditionally translated this as "in whom all have sinned.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word “eph’ho” to modify the preceding word “thanatos,” which means “death.” Therefore the Eastern Church translates the phrase in question as “because of which (death) all have sinned.” Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.

Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans 5:12 as such:

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,” (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:

“…and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned.”

In part because of this difference the Eastern Christian teaching on original sin developed differently. In our tradition, the primary effect of original sin is not a “stain”, passed on from generation to generation. Rather, it is death. Because “death passed upon all men,” all of us now sin. It is death itself that causes us to sin.

 

[dvdjs]

In part because of this difference the Eastern Christian teaching on original sin developed differently. In our tradition, the primary effect of original sin is not a “stain”, passed on from generation to generation. Rather, it is death. Because “death passed upon all men,” all of us now sin. It is death itself that causes us to sin.

I am skeptical of this assertion. I could (and have on earlier threads) provide an abundance of Eastern Orthodox writing that adheres very closely to Western Catholic ideas on original sin. It is very common. Typically the insistence on death as “primary” and sin and loss of sanctification as secondary is found by people who are working to promote a distinction between Eastern and Western teaching. But there is nothing unorthodox about the idea that the legacy of the ancestral sin include both our mortality and the ontological deficit (to quote and orthodox writer) of our separation from divinity - or in Western terms the deprivation of sanctifying grace.