“Perhaps we should live with a term for a few centuries before considering it as a dogmatic proposition.”
I think its more than that. From this thread it is clear that at least for some Latins, it is thought that some theological point should be dogmatized simply because it is “true” or some substantial number of the faithful believe it to be true. Both notions are dangerous.
Orthodoxy is quite clear that there is very little “dogma”, or at least dogma declared as such. Dogmatic declarations were made in the One Church only in response to serious, widespread heresy being preached within The Church and not otherwise. Since the Great Schism, the Latin Church has departed from that road and dogmatized a number of theological opinions absent that internal heresy problem. Indeed, it appears that at least some of the later innovative Latin Church dogmas were in response to beliefs held by those outside “The Church”, for example, dogmatizing the Real Presence or the notion of purgatory. In other instances, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, for example, it seems that the Latin Church simply dogmatized popular belief. That’s clearly the case with the Assumption. At one level it is with the IC too but at deeper levels, the IC may well be the nearest thing to an insurmountable barrier to reunion between the Orthodox and Latin Churches other than the proper exercise of the Petrine Office. I say this because at base the IC really deals with the non-patristic, Augustinian notion of Original Sin. The sinlessness and ever virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos are givens within all The Church. Yoking her to the dark concept of Original Sin, even to find a way around it in her case, has had baleful effects on the faithful. In great measure it is precisely the IC/Original Sin mentality which leads people to believe that Panagia goes around threatening the destruction of the world if people don’t buy into the IC idea or that unless they pray to her “Immaculate Heart”, she won’t be able to restrain her Son from wiping us all out. On another thread populated by many Western non-Latin Christians, Kosta and I have opined that this “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” phronema might well lead to the Orthodox believing that those people worship a different “god” than we do. That particular phronema, or mindset, is a direct result of Augustinian notions of Original Sin. A “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry BVM” carries with it the same level of attraction for Orthodox Christians as the former does, exactly none. Anyway, what heresy was that dogma designed to counter within The Church? A doubt about Original Sin? Or was it simply to solve a problem created by the whole notion of Original Sin in the first place?
The Co-Remptrix idea, to the extent that it is not in and of itself heretical, is the same sort of thing. What heresy does it address? Does Rome have hierarchs teaching ideas about Panagia which are not in accord with the consensus patrum or in violation of any of the Marian canons of Ecumenical Councils, other than these notions about Panagia demanding certain honors or she or her Son will destroy us? If it does, it certainly isn’t widespread otherwise we’d all have heard of it, even in Orthodoxy. If we assume that the problem is the miserable state of Marian catechesis among Latin Christians, well, dogmatizing something as fuzzy as “Co-Remdemptrix”, something which requires rather extensive and arcane theological explanation to get beyond (if indeed that is possible) an immediate “This is heresy” reaction, won’t help matters. It will only make them worse.
This Latin fascination with dogmatizing matters of faith is foreign to an Orthodox phronema. The Church believes that which The Church always and everywhere believes and believed. Except in extrordinary circumstances, heresy being preached within The Church, the foregoing rule has worked fine for Orthodoxy for 2000 years now.
Now this is a completely legitimate objection.
There's no point in dogmatizing what amounts to a theological reflection on Scripture, and one with a very short pedigree, especially if it responds to no urgent crisis or heresy.
The reflection itself may be perfectly orthodox (and I believe that it is), but every perfectly orthodox sentiment doesn't need to be defined dogma.
Its an enthusiasm of the last 150 years in the Church, starting with Bl. Pius IX, and the ability of modern telecommunications to quickly unite the world.
Better watch out! If you aren't good, Jesus and Mary are going to nuke you!
That is about the level of some of these "apparitions" that the apparition freaks chase after.
This is a great post Kolo, in fact one of numerous great posts I have seen on this thread, to the credit of our learned Latin brothers and sisters.
Dogma in response to heresy is the essence. For lurkers, I think it will be helpful to mention that the Orthodox Church basically has three dogmas: Holy Trinity, Christology, Theotokos. All three were defined by the undivided Church in response to specific heresies.
There is a "fuzzy" issue of the hesychastic uncreated grace ("energies"), which is, for all practical purposes, is an Orthodox post-Schism (14th century) "dogma." It was formed in response to schalsticism, which is not, in and of istelf, necessarily a heresy, but it is a doctrinal challenge to the patristic understing of God's grace.
Kolo also points to the fact that +Augustine's "Original Sin" was never dogmatized in the undivided Church, nor was it universally taught. The same is true of Immaculate Conception.
There are no heresies in the history of the Church that would necessitate such dogmas. The same can be said of the dogma of Papal Infallibility.