Orthodox view of, "one Mediator between God and men"

[Basil the Great]

I could be wrong here, but I think we as Orthodox would not even say that the Theotokos is mediatrix of "some" graces. Since Grace is God Himself, not some created thing, Grace doesn't/couldn't have a mediator.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, if that is indeed the EOC does not even accept that Mary is Mediator of "some" graces, then if a Pope ever does issue a new Marian Dogma decreeing that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, such a move would seem to pretty much close the door on any realistic chance for a Catholic-Orthodox reunion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, if that is indeed the EOC does not even accept that Mary is Mediator of "some" graces, then if a Pope ever does issue a new Marian Dogma decreeing that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, such a move would seem to pretty much close the door on any realistic chance for a Catholic-Orthodox reunion.

Rome is too forgone for any real hope for reunion as they are now. and Mediatrix of all graces is a title they give her.

but us and Rome pretty much disagree on everything about the faith

 

[LizaMarie]

Has this title for Mary been considered a Dogma or infallible yet? Or is it still in the discussion area? I have always found the Orthodox way of looking at Mary to be the most balanced.
I do understand that as far as Marian apparitions, no one in the RC is required to believe them at all, not even Fatima or Lourdes, (I learned this during my my study of RC) just the Dogmas of the faith are all that's required. But I don't think I could get on board with that doctrine, if it's a doctrine.

 

[FenderTL5]

Has this title for Mary been considered a Dogma or infallible yet? Or is it still in the discussion area? I have always found the Orthodox way of looking at Mary to be the most balanced.
I do understand that as far as Marian apparitions, no one in the RC is required to believe them at all, not even Fatima or Lourdes, (I learned this during my my study of RC) just the Dogmas of the faith are all that's required. But I don't think I could get on board with that doctrine, if it's a doctrine.

To my understanding the title Mediatrix does not appear in Orthodoxy, neither in doctrine nor practice and certainly not dogma. I can't speak for Rome.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Has this title for Mary been considered a Dogma or infallible yet? Or is it still in the discussion area? I have always found the Orthodox way of looking at Mary to be the most balanced.
I do understand that as far as Marian apparitions, no one in the RC is required to believe them at all, not even Fatima or Lourdes, (I learned this during my my study of RC) just the Dogmas of the faith are all that's required. But I don't think I could get on board with that doctrine, if it's a doctrine.

That actually brings up a question. I may be misinformed too.

But I've heard that believing in apparitions is not required for Catholics, but the dogmas are. So far so good. But isn't the Immaculate Conception a dogma that came from an apparition? That seems to blur that line a little?

 

[LizaMarie]

I think it is a dogma, I may be misinformed but I think it was declared infallible,in the 1800's(any Catholics reading this can correct me!)
I have always felt that the Protestants, including my own church, really ignore Mary too much, except during Nativity, or Christmas. Over on the Lutheran forum someone showed where Luther did believe in ever- virgin, something many other Protestants don't believe in. I have always believed it even though I have been raised a Lutheran(and it was never discussed) and attended a non-denominational church for 10 years, where a lot of members were like, "Duh of Course Mary and Joseph had other children!"What about the "brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Bible?" However, from my Catholic studies, I have seen what the brothers and sisters likely are, probably cousins, or maybe children Joseph had in a previous marriage and then he became a widower? The Bible or course doesn't tell us much about Joseph.(Well besides the fact that he was a just man, and son of David.) Anyway,
from what I have seen of Orthodoxy so far, they really have the most balanced view of Mary.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To my understanding the title Mediatrix does not appear in Orthodoxy, neither in doctrine nor practice and certainly not dogma. I can't speak for Rome.

we have Mediatrix in some of her titles in some hymns, but it has nothing to do with how God's grace comes into play. we only use it as her boldness in prayer to her Son, and that she gave Him flesh.

certainly nothing about being Mediatrix of all (or any) graces.

 

[FenderTL5]

we have Mediatrix in some of her titles in some hymns, but it has nothing to do with how God's grace comes into play. we only use it as her boldness in prayer to her Son, and that she gave Him flesh.

certainly nothing about being Mediatrix of all (or any) graces.

Thanks Matt.
I heard the 'Queen of Heaven' one during the Dormition services. I was unaware of that one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

we have Mediatrix in some of her titles in some hymns, but it has nothing to do with how God's grace comes into play. we only use it as her boldness in prayer to her Son, and that she gave Him flesh.

certainly nothing about being Mediatrix of all (or any) graces.

Yes, there's a learning curve, and those kinds if terms can cause confusion because of the way others use them and assumptions they may bring to us at first.

Orthodoxy should have a book about things like that, or at least something informational. It's difficult to catch them little by little.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks Matt.
I heard the 'Queen of Heaven' one during the Dormition services. I was unaware of that one.

yeah, it certainly is not common, and the kicker is in our understanding.

 

[FenderTL5]

Yes, there's a learning curve, and those kinds if terms can cause confusion because of the way others use them and assumptions they may bring to us at first.

Orthodoxy should have a book about things like that, or at least something informational. It's difficult to catch them little by little.

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy does a good job, but covering everything would be an overwhelming undertaking.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy does a good job, but covering everything would be an overwhelming undertaking.

I was thinking of that one.

But I'm not sure how many terms he specifically covers, and I was thinking it might be a good idea to have them gathered together. I can think of a few, but I'm sure I would be unaware of some, maybe many.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was thinking of that one.

But I'm not sure how many terms he specifically covers, and I was thinking it might be a good idea to have them gathered together. I can think of a few, but I'm sure I would be unaware of some, maybe many.

And it may just be a personal issue of my own, since I talk to people of different backgrounds and it is of great importance to me to try not to misrepresent Orthodoxy (as well as not misunderstand myself).

But there's often a bit of a "language barrier".

 

[FenderTL5]

And it may just be a personal issue of my own, since I talk to people of different backgrounds and it is of great importance to me to try not to misrepresent Orthodoxy (as well as not misunderstand myself).

But there's often a bit of a "language barrier".

It's not just you.
It seems every where I turn, I get some portion a little bit 'wrong' (as in above).

..and to think - about 6 years ago I thought i'd heard just about all there is about Christianity.. now it seems it's a whole nuther thing.

 

[Basil the Great]

The titles of Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-Redemptrix have not yet been declared as a new Marian Dogma. They are commonly believed by some Catholics, but by no means all. When or if they will be declared dogma, no one knows. I read somewhere where John Paul II wanted to declare them as dogma, but decided not to do so, for fear that such would harm the chances of a reunion with the EOC.

It might do us all well to read what Maximilian Kolbe wrote about this matter. I believe that he was the Polish priest who offered his life to save someone else in the concentration camps during WWII. I have read his somewhat detailed explanation of what the title(s) mean, but it has been many years since I did so. He was canonized a saint in 1982 by John Paul II.