With all due respect, I doubt you’ll see any dogmatic declarations coming out of Rome for the foreseeable future that could in any way adversely impact on the dialog between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. This one likely would. Assuming we can resolve the proper exercise of the Petrine Ministry, we will have quite enough to deal with discussing in a new Ecumenical Council Rome’s post 7th Ecumenical Council dogmas without adding more divisive issues.
Just as a matter of curiosity, what heresy or problem would a “Coredemptrix” dogma address? If none, what is the point of such a dogma?
Apparently, some are not at all concerned about ruining sincere efforts at re-uniting the Church, but are pressing forward with more innovations.
What most people don't realize is that had it not been for two 19th century dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, the Church would probably have been re-united by now!
So, the real, almost unbridgeable rift did not exist until the 19th century. If this century produces Mary the Co-redemptrix dogma, that will put the last nail in the coffin of fulfilling Christ's commandment of a united Church.
I am certainly no theologian. In fact, I am a seminary drop-out, but I will, for the sake of discussion, add my two cents. I am very interested in seeing the East and West be reunited. I am a Protestant convert and see unity as very important and especially as a sign for the non believers to see that Christ is sent by the Father, John 17 et al. Perhaps there is already to much to deal with doctrinally but this is the point, the primary issue between the east and the west is jurisdictional, as you point out in your comment.
Sure there is the Photian based spat over the Philioque and, yes, the Immaculate Conception, but most of the anger surrounding these hinges on the fact that the Pope declared these things with little or no agreement or dialog with the East. Sure there are some modern dyed-in-the-wool Photians among the Easter Orthodox theologians (Losski and Clement to name two) but there are also some theological giants, some of your best Fathers of the East such as St. Epipiphius St. Cyril or Alexandria who are in agreement with the Philogue. As such, i think the greatest part of the battle is a question of authority.
And, I can understand the difficulty in regard to authority. There are sins on both sides. However, we need help from Our Lady. We have already waited almost 1000 years to resolve this split, but we need Our Lady’s help NOW. By all indications this is Satan’s hour for battle (the big battle) and to be able to do battle with him we must be fully sons and daughters of Mary (Gen 3:15, Apoc 12:1ff) and so be brothers and sisters of Christ. And this doctrine of the Coredemption is a great way to honor our Mother. And if the devil is the great divider, turning us into deviled ham, if you will, then perhaps the first fruit of our battle with him will be the healing of the rift between east and west.
The majority of all Christians are in one single denomination. If we can’t proclaim Mary as Coredeemer as a fully united Church (which would, indeed, be preferable) should not the majority go ahead and do so as a second best plan? And do so for the sake of the whole Church?
At any rate, I believe once we resolve the juridical issues we can resolve all the doctrinal issues easily enough, be it the Philioque, the Immaculate Conception or even the Coredemption. After all, do you really disagree with the doctrine of the Coredemption? Isn’t it just saying that we all must take up our cross and follow Christ? That we are coredeemers with Christ? and Mary is our exemplar?
Your Brother in Christ and Mary,
Fra Roderic, Ave Maria!
Also, one further point, the Marian dogmas of the west are highly linked to the Christology of John Duns Scotus of which the doctrine of the Absolute Primacy of Christ is central. It says that Christ the God-man would have come whether Adam sinned or not and that the Incarnation is in fact the very reason for creation so that there would be a human nature for God to unite himself to. This is also called the Franciscan thesis and it is the Franciscans who promoted the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, starting with ... Scotus. Thus, the Franciscan exaltation of Mary is merely the recognition that if Christ was the Primary thought of God in regard to creation then Mary would naturally be the second since she is the immediate creaturely instrument of bringing about the Incarnation.
This basis for the Marian dogmas offers some alleviation to the ecumenical concerns. In regard to the Protestant objection that focusing on Mary detracts form Jesus, it must be said that the Franciscan thesis upon which these doctrines are based are the most Christocentric position possible, bar none, including any Protestant Christology!! Any step away from Scotus' doctrine is a step away from the highest possible Christocentrism. Thus Marian-centric dogmas are fully compatible with Christo-centric dogmas, in fact, symbiotic.
In regard to the Eastern Orthodoxy, it is actually the Eastern Fathers that were stronger on this than the western (citation needed). St Augustine explicitly denied that Christ would have come if Adam had not sinned.
If you want to know more about the Absolute Primacy of Christ it is being discussed in great detail in the video series by Fr. Maximilian at Airmaria.com and in his book, available there. And it is very interesting indeed!! Especially the Biblical stuff.
Now I am going to bed!!!!
Oh, ... and the full Dogma as it is being proposed is not just Mary Coredemptrix but Coredemptrix, Mediatrix (of all Graces) and Advocate. But, I will let someone else deal with that.
I just have to get this stuff out to give everyone plenty to yell at me about while I sleep in tomorrow.
Happy Solemnity of the Ascension!! (Holy day of obligation in some(??) diocese...)
BTW when is Ascension in the Eastern Orthodox Church this year?
Now I am really going to sleep, . . . really! Thanks for your patience, Kolokotronis.
Mary Coredemtrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for me!!!
Ave Maria!
One of the better questions ever asked on this topic.
I could see the point of a Mediatrix/Advocate definition if it was combined with some new movement to spread devotion to Blessed Mary among those with whom that devotion has grown cold. There is plenty of support from theological sources both east and west for these ideas, and turning people towards Blessed Mary as the channel of grace from Jesus to us would be helpful.
I have no idea what the Co-redemptrix definition is supposed to resolve. It looks to me like a sure-fire way to spread confusion, bigotry, and division among Christians, who are already ill-enough catechized as is and certainly already plenty divided over Marianism. If the knowledgeable among us have difficulty grasping the concept, I can't imagine what good popularizing it among the common people would do.
Let people learn the value again of saying a few Hail Mary's morning, noon, and night, and we'll see where we go from there.
In reply to Kolokotronis:
You ask, “What heresy or problem would a “Coredemptrix” dogma address? If none, what is the point of such a dogma?” You pose this question as if it were a secular issue — that we need to weigh up the costs and balances, the values of the arguments each way to reach some “positive outcome”. If the dogma is true, then such arguments are completely invalid, by definition. If it is not true, then all of this doesn’t matter. This is the point: If you have an argument as to why it is untrue, then make it! Don’t ask if it is appropriate to establish this dogma now, as if it were a purely political issue.
How about if we just solemnly define dogma stating that the line "Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us!" from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a very good thing to say. :-)
That one line is more "Marian-ly co-redemptive" than anything in the Roman liturgy for sure, and maybe moreso than anything in Latin-Rite Catholicism taken as a whole.
Ave Maria!
In #8 you mentioned the “proper exercise of the Petrine Ministry”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that this is the stumbling block for union of the East and West, not the dogmas. I realize that there are other differences, but this seems to be the key one.
Are we agreed that Christ gave St. Peter primacy over the Apostles as dictated by Our Lord Himself and as can be seen played out in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul? Are we agreed that that primacy extends to the Successor of St. Peter (the Pope) over the Successors of the Apostles (the Bishops) as seen in Church history from the beginning?
I’d like to dialogue a bit on this point, but I’m not sure exactly where the Orthodox stand.
God bless you all...