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

[Formosus]

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.

In the Triads, Palamas seems to support the idea that original sin involved more then just physical death, though he would never have used a term like sanctifying grace ; ).

 

[Formosus]

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.

But how does anyone ever choose to follow God without participating in His Divine Energies?

 

[Ghosty]

In the Triads, Palamas seems to support the idea that original sin involved more then just physical death, though he would never have used a term like sanctifying grace ; ).

This actually raises another issue that I have with these discussions, and the typical Eastern Orthodox argument about “Original Sin”: I’ve not found any Patristic writings that support the exclusively “Original Sin is death” notion. While death is certainly incorporated into the teaching much more in the East than in the West, the “inheritance of death” notion seems to come up only recently in anything I’ve read.

Most notably this “difference” doesn’t seem to have been brought up as a divide at all by the Eastern Orthodox until recently, despite the fact that there was a widespread understanding of what the West taught concerning original sin. For people who cited the use of unleavened bread as a Church dividing issue, overlooking a major theological difference like Original Sin seems surprising.

Anyone have some resources on this subject? I’m particularily interested in Eastern writings older than the past two centuries that support the “death exclusive” view of original sin.

Thanks, and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Anyone have some resources on this subject?

Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

1Corinthians 15:56: The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

“Partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him … he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity.”
[St John Chrysostom Hom. in Gen XVIII, 3 PG 53 151]

“Adam had heard: ‘Earth thou art and to the earth shalt thou return,’ and from being incorruptible he became corruptible and was made subject to the bonds of death. But since he produced children after falling into this state, we his descendents are corruptible coming from a corruptible source. Thus it is that we are heirs of Adam’s curse.”
[Doctrinal Questions and Answers, IX, 6 in Cyril of Alexandria, Selected Letters]

 

[Ghosty]

Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

1Corinthians 15:56: The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

“Partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him … he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity.”
[St John Chrysostom Hom. in Gen XVIII, 3 PG 53 151]

“Adam had heard: ‘Earth thou art and to the earth shalt thou return,’ and from being incorruptible he became corruptible and was made subject to the bonds of death. But since he produced children after falling into this state, we his descendents are corruptible coming from a corruptible source. Thus it is that we are heirs of Adam’s curse.”
[Doctrinal Questions and Answers, IX, 6 in Cyril of Alexandria, Selected Letters]

None of these quotes addresses what I was talking about, actually. There’s no question that death is a consequence of Adam’s sin. I’m talking about the notion that the inheritance of death is the exclusive consequence of Adam’s sin, and that our sinful behavior merely follows upon us being mortal, i.e. “because of death, all have sinned”.

I’ve never actually seen any Patristic writings that back up this interpretation of St. Paul, and the quotes you cited don’t address it either.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

This actually raises another issue that I have with these discussions, and the typical Eastern Orthodox argument about “Original Sin”: I’ve not found any Patristic writings that support the exclusively “Original Sin is death” notion. … Anyone have some resources on this subject?..

Infants are baptized, although sinless, for they are lacking something brought by death, true in Latin or Eastern Catholic or Orthodox theology; They need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom explains, they receive: “sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance”. These are what we have lost through the effects of the ancestral sin, and are one dimension of death.

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.” – John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

 

[malphono]

…

This has nothing to do with the post, but rather with the signature line, and I apologize in advance for the diversion.

I recall having said this once before a while back, although I don’t recall to whom (if it was you, Vico, sorry for the repetition). Anyway, what is billed there as a “Maronite Cross” is anything but. It’s usually known as an “Antiochian Cross” or a “Patriarchal Cross.” By whatever name, it has (despite what some post-conciliar neo-Maronite diehards will contend) absolutely nothing to do with the Maronite Church.

Now it’s time for me to :winter: chill.

 

[Vico]

I changed the crosses, in case you are wondering why they do not look like described, so they are more like expected. Strangely the Maronite Patriarchial Synod uses the Papal Cross. I changed this one to look like one that was carved in stone.

 

[Mickey]

None of these quotes addresses what I was talking about,

I beg to disagree.

I’m talking about the notion that the inheritance of death is theexclusive consequence of Adam’s sin,

Perhaps you should clarify by quoting the exact comments (with sources) that you are referring to. A separate thread would be necessary because it does not relate much to this thread.

 

[Ghosty]

I beg to disagree.

Then by all means demonstrate it by expanding on the quotes. All I’m seeing them say is that we inherit mortality from Adam, not that our mortality is what leads us to sin. In fact, the second quote directly contradicts the notion that we sin because of death; if eating the Tree of Life would allow us to continue on in perpetual sin, then mortality is not was the cause of our sinnful tendency.

Perhaps you should clarify by quoting the exact comments (with sources) that you are referring to. A separate thread would be necessary because it does not relate much to this thread.

Posts #59-61 of this thread, with post #59 being the primary one in question. I bring it up in this thread because the idea has been cited as an argument against these honorifics applying to Mary, and I’m asking for some evidence that this is actually the traditional Eastern view since the Easter Fathers I’m familiar with do not follow this interpretation. So long as it doesn’t get into a broader argument I don’t see a reason that it would require a new thread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Posts #59-61 of this thread, with post #59 being the primary one in question.

I see know sources there.** You** have made the accusation–so I suggest you provide quotes and sources so that we may explore your contentions further.

 

[cargau]

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.

God works through His Chirch to expand our understanding of previously revealed truth.
While, I will acknowledge, some theologians are a bit out there, the Church typically does not “Invent” new titles.

Let’s examine a bit of the theology of Mary as Co-redeemer, Mediatrix of all graces.
Mary is the mother of Jesus. No one argues that. When we think of graces flowing we relate that to reception and celebration of the Sacraments, do we not?

Vatican II talks about Jesus, in His humanity, as the primordial or fundamental sacrament. Indeed, it was Jesus who, through His ministry instituted the Sacraments. The Sacraments we celebrate today are an extension of Christ’s ministry in time thoughout all time to all ages.

Mary, as the mother of Christ, is the mother of Sacrament, fundamental and primordial. Since God wills our participation in Sacraments as a means to merit grace, Mary is the co-mediatrix of all of these graces. Since it is through her “Yes” that we were redeemed, she is the co-redeemer. To flip that around, without her yes, there would be no redemption…

Mary is not God. Nor she we ever deify her. I am sure she would be the first one to correct us if we were tempted to do so. But, Mary has a unique role in the sanctification and redemption of mankind that no one else ever possessed.

I have authored posts that questioned the wisdom of ever making a proclamation regarding our Blessed Lady as co-redeemer. After much study and prayer, I am starting to soften a bit.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your search for wisdom and truth…

 

[Mickey]

All I’m seeing them say is that we inherit mortality from Adam

Does the RCC permit Her members to believe that the Most Holy Theotokos did not die?

 

[Vico]

Does the RCC permit Her members to believe that the Most Holy Theotokos did not die?

Yes.

The Catholic Church has not defined a dogma of faith on the death or non-death of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is commonly believed doctrine in the Catholic Church that she died prior to the Assumption.

Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma lists the belief that Mary suffered a temporal death as Sententia communior which is a widely held belief; traditional doctrine.

 

[Ghosty]

I see know sources there.** You** have made the accusation–so I suggest you provide quotes and sources so that we may explore your contentions further.

I’m not the one making assertions about a certain teaching being definitive tradition, so there’s nothing for me to provide. It has been others who have asserted that “the tendency to sin comes from death/mortality”, and I’m simply saying that I’ve never seen such a teaching upheld by the Fathers, or even other Eastern theologians until relatively recently. I would like to see some evidence that this notion is indeed the definitive ancient Tradition of the Church.

Notice that I’m not saying that it’s NOT the ancient belief, I’m simply saying I haven’t seen any evidence that it IS. The burden is on those who claim it to be the Apostolic teaching (as in post #59) to show that it is indeed the Apostolic teaching. My only contention is that such evidence is seemingly absent, a contention that doesn’t require me to cite every Patristic source that doesn’t speak of this belief, but one that could be quickly and easily refuted by simply citing something that supports this teaching.

Does the RCC permit Her members to believe that the Most Holy Theotokos did not die?

The RCC doesn’t dogmatically address this issue, so in a certain sense it can be said to be allowed. The tradition of the Roman Church, however, has been that she did indeed die. Some may not believe this, but they are the outliers in history; even the document that affirmed the Dogma of the Assumption refers to her dying. As Vico pointed out, Mary’s death is the “traditional doctrine” of the Roman Church, just as it is with all the Apostolic Churches.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I’m not the one making assertions about a certain teaching being definitive tradition, so there’s nothing for me to provide.

Oh I see. You are making assertions about what one particular poster has written.

It has been others who have asserted that “the tendency to sin comes from death/mortality”,

Others? I am asking you to outline this “teaching” so that we might delve further into your dilemma. The poster you are questioning said that death was an effect of original sin. Do you disagree? Perhaps you should private message him for clarification since you are having such problems with his post.

The burden is on those who claim it to be the Apostolic teaching (as in post #59)

Who are “those”? Is it just this one poster you have issues with? Are there “others” who teach this? .

The RCC doesn’t dogmatically address this issue, so in a certain sense it can be said to be allowed.

That’s what I thought.

 

[Ghosty]

Others? I am asking you to outline this “teaching” so that we might delve further into your dilemma. The poster you are questioning said that death was an effect of original sin. Do you disagree? Perhaps you should private message him for clarification since you are having such problems with his post.

I’m not questioning whether or not death is an effect of original sin, I’m questioning the notion that our tendency for sin comes from our mortality, specifically:

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.

This is a very common argument, but I’ve never seen any supportive texts from the Fathers on the subject, and that’s what I’m asking for.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

This is a very common argument

Sources?

 

[mardukm]

Ghosty:

This is a very common argument

Sources?

I agree with brother Ghosty. This is a very common Eastern Orthodox argument - the idea that it is physical death that is the main or only consequence of Original Sin and that all other consequences flow from that mortal/corruptible state. For example, let me quote from a good Eastern Orthodox source:

We are inherently good. Created in the image of God. We are born into a sinful world and subject to the passions. We inherit nothing from Adam–we are not responsible for Adam’s sin. But we are subject to the consequences of that original sin—which is death. Through the grace of God–we fight the good fight-- and we have free will to accept and participate in that grace–hence the ongoing process of deification (theosis)…For Adam and Eve, sin came first, and this led to death. This death then spread to all men. The rest of humanity inherits death, and then in our mortal state, we all sin. Thus, all mankind suffers the consequences of Adam’s “original sin”.

I also agree with brother Ghosty that there is no patristic support for this position. It is not of itself heterodox - it’s just that there’s no patristic support for it.

Blessings

 

[Monica4316]

well St Ephrem said of Mary:

(306-373)

After the mediator, the mediatrix of the whole world

so it is part of Eastern Tradition too.

Concerning Co-Redemptrix, Pope Benedict apparently said that there’s nothing wrong with it theologically, but that the title is confusing (it makes it sound like Co-Redeemer, which is NOT what it translates to from Latin) - so it might not become dogma. He said, other titles that we already have, fit the concept better.