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

[Ghosty]

Sources?

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Sin (Original Sin #2)

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html (section 8)

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/343908/Re:%20Hi,%20I’m%20Orthodox,%20and%20I%20be#Post343908 (Apotheun’s post)

pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/ (last paragraph of Fr. Meyendorf quotation)

romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm (long article, but specifically: “Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.”)

Some of these are Eastern Catholic sources reflecting the “true Eastern view of Original Sin”, and others are purely Eastern Orthodox. All of them state that we tend to sin because we are mortal. This is the same point made in post#59 above.

I could continue to Google discussions and articles making this same claim, but I think this should be sufficient to show that this claim is indeed made in a wide range of places.

Now, back to my original request: Can anyone share some actual references to Church Fathers who claimed that death leads to sin?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

Yes.

The Catholic Church has not defined a dogma of faith on the death or non-death of the Blessed Virgin Mary…

But it is a primary element of the theology of the Assumption.

Without the death and burial, there is no resurrection.

Saint Mary of Nazareth the Mother of God was among the First Fruits of the resurrection, following Jesus. That is the theology the assumption of Mary is based upon, that is the tradition the belief in the Assumption derives from.

So, what does “has not defined” mean in this sense? That there was no Papal Infallibly defined dogma on the point? If that is the case, most of what the Catholic church does actually teach would be questionable. I don’t see how a faithful Catholic in good conscious could deny that she died and was raised from the dead.

It is the expressed view of Pope Saint Pius XII, who made it clear that he agreed with the traditional teaching of the church on this matter within the document “The most bountiful God”. He cited several Fathers who taught that very belief.

 

[Hesychios]

well St Ephrem said of Mary: "After the mediator, the mediatrix of the whole world "



so it is part of Eastern Tradition too.

Mediatrix is the feminine for mediator. That works through people is not in question, many others may be reckoned mediators in some sense as well if we want to take this logic to it’s extension. John the Forerunner comes to mind, and Simon Peter.

The problem is that people want to define her as Mediatrix ‘of all graces’, which is not what Saint Ephrem said.

I have yet to see anyone explain to me what ‘of all graces’ actually means. If you know could you please explain it for the rest of us?

 

[Monica4316]

Mediatrix is the feminine for mediator. That works through people is not in question, many others may be reckoned mediators in some sense as well if we want to take this logic to it’s extension. John the Forerunner comes to mind, and Simon Peter.

sure, it’s true that we all can be mediators (of course, in a different and secondary way to Christ)

The problem is that people want to define her as Mediatrix ‘of all graces’, which is not what Saint Ephrem said.

that is more devotional, I’d say… not all Catholics agree with the “all graces” part. But we do see her as a Mediatrix, whether of all or many or some graces.

I have yet to see anyone explain to me what ‘of all graces’ actually means. If you know could you please explain it for the rest of us?

sure, it’s related to her role as the Mother of God and her being beside Jesus as He died on the Cross. Typically, it means that she:
a) helped to bring grace into the world by giving us Jesus (the Incarnation)
b) helps to distribute the graces to us today through her prayers.

I think this article describes it pretty well:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm

God bless

 

[Ghosty]

I have yet to see anyone explain to me what ‘of all graces’ actually means. If you know could you please explain it for the rest of us?

I thought the St. Gregory Palamas citation above explained it pretty well.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

But it is a primary element of the theology of the Assumption.

Without the death and burial, there is no resurrection.

Saint Mary of Nazareth the Mother of God was among the First Fruits of the resurrection, following Jesus. That is the theology the assumption of Mary is based upon, that is the tradition the belief in the Assumption derives from.

So, what does “has not defined” mean in this sense? That there was no Papal Infallibly defined dogma on the point? If that is the case, most of what the Catholic church does actually teach would be questionable. I don’t see how a faithful Catholic in good conscious could deny that she died and was raised from the dead.

It is the expressed view of Pope Saint Pius XII, who made it clear that he agreed with the traditional teaching of the church on this matter within the document “The most bountiful God”. He cited several Fathers who taught that very belief.

I agree. I believe the lack of belief that Mary died has much more serious consequences than what you have stated here. Here is my response to a Latin inquirer on the topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6717022&postcount=40

I also agree with your point about “what does ‘has not defined’ mean”? Catholics should not forget that just because a certain teaching has not been formally dogmatized, that does not mean it is not de fide. I mean, we are certain that dogmas are de fide, but we should not presume that just because something is not a dogma, then it is not de fide.

Dogmatization does not make something true, any more or less than a dogmatic rejection makes something false. Dogmatization simply gives an authoritative recognition of the Truth, normally accompanied by sanctions. Just because the belief that Mary did not die has not been formally condemned, that does not mean it is right. A certain doctrine’s orthodoxy or heterodoxy is an objective reality, which can be determined by appealing to Sacred Tradition. A definition will not make a doctrine any more or less orthodox or heterodox than it was before the definition. All that a definition does is simply effect moral culpability for the doctrinal error.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Mediatrix is the feminine for mediator. That works through people is not in question, many others may be reckoned mediators in some sense as well if we want to take this logic to it’s extension. John the Forerunner comes to mind, and Simon Peter.

The problem is that people want to define her as Mediatrix ‘of all graces’, which is not what Saint Ephrem said.

I have yet to see anyone explain to me what ‘of all graces’ actually means. If you know could you please explain it for the rest of us?

Our Redeemer is the Source of all graces, so in Mary giving birth to Our Savior she is the channel of all graces, and for the same reason Mediatrix of all graces.
Additionally by her intercession in Heaven, since her Assumption, she is Meadiatrix of all graces. It is also probable that since the Assumption no grace is conferred on man without her intercessory co-operation. Why is she better than Saint Peter or Saint John the Baptist? Consider the tradition in the Divine Liturgy:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

 

[mardukm]

Our Redeemer is the Source of all graces, so in Mary giving birth to Our Savior she is the channel of all graces, and for the same reason Mediatrix of all graces.
Additionally by her intercession in Heaven, since her Assumption, she is Meadiatrix of all graces. It is also probable that since the Assumption no grace is conferred on man without her intercessory co-operation. Why is she better than Saint Peter or Saint John the Baptist? Consider the tradition in the Divine Liturgy:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

Yes. I don’t have time to research it now, but I know I’ve read many Fathers who state exactly what you are saying here - that when it is said that Mary is the mediatrix of all Graces, it is referring to her Divine Maternity of Him Who is the Source of all Graces.

Blessings

 

[Adeodatus]

Our Redeemer is the Source of all graces, so in Mary giving birth to Our Savior she is the channel of all graces, and for the same reason Mediatrix of all graces.
Additionally by her intercession in Heaven, since her Assumption, she is Meadiatrix of all graces. It is also probable that since the Assumption no grace is conferred on man without her intercessory co-operation. Why is she better than Saint Peter or Saint John the Baptist? Consider the tradition in the Divine Liturgy:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

Question: were there ever any graces before the Nativity of our Lord? If so, from where did these pre-Nativity graces come?

Surely the Blessed Virgin herself received graces before the Nativity (in addition to the upright among the Hebrews, for how else could they have been upright?). From where did these graces come?

 

[Monica4316]

Question: were there ever any graces before the Nativity of our Lord? If so, from where did these pre-Nativity graces come?

Surely the Blessed Virgin herself received graces before the Nativity (in addition to the upright among the Hebrews, for how else could they have been upright?). From where did these graces come?

Mediatrix of all graces, doesnt’ mean that grace CAN’T come to us but through Mary, rather that her role in Heaven is one of mediation (of intercession). God could have chosen a different way, but He chose Mary.

Prior to Christ, it wasn’t like this, I guess. But I believe the graces were still given because of the Cross, - since God is outside of time. I dont know if I’m right about this last point, I’m not a theologian.

 

[Hesychios]

I thought the St. Gregory Palamas citation above explained it pretty well.

I haven’t seen it. Perhaps later.

Can we assume that what saint Gregory wrote on the subject is what modern Latin Catholics believe on the subject? Is it for example the definition Dr Mark accepts?

 

[Mickey]

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Sin (Original Sin #2)

Anthony Dragani is a Ruthenian (Byzantine Catholic). Perhaps you should ask him for further clarification to your dilemma.

 

[Mickey]

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html (section 8)

Fr Azkoul says that death is the effect of ancestral sin. This does not address your strawman.

 

[Mickey]

(Apotheun’s post)
Todd is also Eastern Catholic (I love his posts). But it looks like he is saying that the ancestral sin introduced death to the human race. This does not address your strawman.

 

[Mickey]

pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/ (last paragraph of Fr. Meyendorf quotation)

I’m not particularly versed on Fr Meyendorf’s writings. I would have to read more about what he says on the subect before I could accuse him of some non-patristic innovation.

 

[Mickey]

romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm (long article, but specifically: “Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.”)

Boy oh boy. Once again, it sure looks like he is saying that death is a consequence of ancestral sin.

 

[Mickey]

All of them state that we tend to sin because we are mortal. This is the same point made in post#59 above.

I think that they all make the point that ancestral sin has brought mortality (death) to the human race making us subject to sin and the passions. Your strawman does not have any legs.

I could continue to Google discussions and articles making this same claim.

Sure…you could continue to spin people’s writngs to fit your strawman dilemma—but what’s the point?

 

[dvdjs]

I think that they all make the point that ancestral sin has brought mortality (death) to the human race making us subject to sin and the passions.

Fr. Michael Azkoul says plainly:

… the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.) …

Because of the ancestral sin we inherit subjection to death, which “generates” passions. This is the crux of the matter; it makes it plain that Ghosty’s question is a valid one not a straw man at all. Very simply put: a) do we inherit death, which is the cause of our inclination toward sin; or b) do we inherit death and, in addition - not necessarily as a consequence of death - an inclination toward sin.

If the former is consensus Orthodox teaching, then, for example, reconciliation of the IC with Eastern theology is not possible (as some Orthodox believe); if the former is, then reconciliation of the IC with Eastern theology is possible (as some other Orthodox believe).

You have, for years, been involved in these discussions of original sin, the IC and their interconnection here and at byzcath. It is fascinating to see that you take the position that the distinction is a strawman. In my experience, polemicists more typically claim that idea a) is Orthodox, and b) is an innovation that occurred during the “Western captivity”. In any case, I am delighted to see you dismiss the idea a) as inauthentic. Of course the neo-Patristic school, reacting against the Western captivity, would not agree with you. But, I am delighted to see their innovations being questioned by Orthodox.

You see also to misunderstood the question: it is not about whether the ancestral sin causes death. This issue is not in dispute.

 

[dvdjs]

Fr. Michael Azkoul says plainly:

Because of the ancestral sin we inherit subjection to death, which “generates” passions. This is the crux of the matter; it makes it plain that Ghosty’s question is a valid one not a straw man at all. Very simply put: a) do we inherit death which is the cause of our inclination toward sin; or b) do we inherit death and, in addition - not necessarily as a consequence of death - an inclination toward sin.

If the former is consensus Orthodox teaching, then, for example, reconciliation of the IC with Eastern theology is not possible (as some Orthodox believe); if the former is, then reconciliation of the IC with Eastern theology is possible (as some other Orthodox believe).

You have, for years, been involved in these discussions of original sin, the IC and their interconnection here and at byzcath. It is fascinating to see that you take the position that the distinction is a strawman. In my experience, polemicists more typically claim that idea a) is Orthodox, and b) is an innovation that occurred during the “Western captivity”. In any case, I am delighted to see you dismiss the idea a) as inauthentic. Of course the neo-Patristic school, reacting against the Western captivity, would not agree with you. But, I am delighted to see their innovations being questioned by Orthodox.

 

[dvdjs]

But it is a primary element of the theology of the Assumption.

Without the death and burial, there is no resurrection.
… I don’t see how a faithful Catholic in good conscious could deny that she died and was raised from the dead.

Very interesting. I have heard the idea that without Christs’ death and resurrection, there is no salvation. I have never heard that this suggestion our death - and, more amazingly, burial - is also required for our salvation. Nor that the death of the Theotokos is a primary element in the theology of the Assumption. The primary element, I thought, is that she has been translated from earth to heaven, and was not subjected to decay. As Byzantines say at the feast, she experienced a “deathless dormition”.

In good conscience, anyone can understand that Christ’s destruction of death makes discussion of her death, particularly in light of her celebrated translation to heaven, a moot point.