NO NEW DOGMAS, PLEASE
by BISHOP KALLISTOS OF DIOKLEIA

The London Tablet,
January 17, 1998

Could ecumenism recover if the Catholic Church defined the Virgin Mary
as Co-Redeemer? That is the project being pushed in the United States.
In a series of Tablet articles, prominent mariologists will consider the
issue. This week a Greek Orthodox bishop who teaches in the University
of Oxford explains his opposition.

As a child, a friend of mine used to be told by his nanny: "Before you
say anything, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?"
The same three questions may well be asked about the current proposal to
define Mary as Co-Redeemer.

Is it true? The answer to that question depends on the way in which we
interpret the title "Co-Redeemer", along with the related titles
"Mediator of All Graces" and "Advocate of the People of God". As a
member of the Orthodox Church I have no objection to these three titles
in themselves * provided that they are rightly understood.

Indeed, closely similar language occurs in the prayers and hymns used in
the Christian East. With the greatest frequency in Orthodox worship we
say to the Virgin Mary, "Most Holy Mother of God, save us". In our
invocations to other members of the Communion of Saints, including St
John the Baptist, except on very rare occasions we never say more than
". . . pray for us".

This is not an isolated example. In the preparation before the beginning
of the Divine Liturgy we address Mary in parallel terms: "Open to us the
door of compassion, blessed Mother of God; setting our hope in you, may
we not go astray; through you may we be delivered from distress; for you
are the salvation of the Christian people." Our
evening prayers include the petition, "All my hope I put in you, Mother
of God: guard me under your protection". And at the end of the highly
popular Paraklisis or Service of Intercession to the Theotokos (Mother
of God) we sing, "Queen of the world, become our mediator" (mesitria).

Such language is not new. It has been used by Eastern Christians for
many centuries, and scarcely ever has it given rise to scandal or
controversy. The phrases are thoroughly traditional, just as the titles
which the Pope is now being asked to endorse have a long history in the
Latin West.

But precisely how are all these titles and invocations to be understood?
Since Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the "one Mediator between God
and humankind" (1 Tim. 2:5), how can we speak of Mary in this way?

Here we may take as our guideline the striking words of St Paul (or one
of his disciples) in Colossians 1:24: "I am now rejoicing in my
sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing that which is
lacking in Christ*s afflictions, for the sake of his Body, that is, the
Church." What is meant by the paradoxical phrase "that which is
lacking"? How can anything be lacking in Christ*s all-sufficient
sacrifice upon the
Cross, performed once for all time?

Yes, indeed: the sacrifice of the Cross * never for one moment to be
sundered in our thinking from the resurrection * is altogether complete
and unrepeatable. Yet at the same time through our own self-offering *
through our own suffering and our martyrdom, inner or outward * we the
baptised make up "that which is lacking" in Christ*s suffering: we bear
witness to his perfect sacrifice and we make it ever present in a
bewildered and broken world. In this sense all the members of the Body
are co-redeemers with Christ.

Mary, however, is Co-Redeemer in a particular and outstanding way; for,
as Mother of the Saviour, she is involved with a unique nearness in her
son*s work of salvation. There is, then, a special appropriateness in
calling her the Co-Redeemer par excellence, so long as we never forget
that she and we share the same vocation. We too are called, in union
with her, to "complete that which is lacking in Christ*s afflictions".

So much for nanny*s first question, "Is it true?" Yes, it is, if
understood in terms of Colossians 1:24. But is it kind? Is it
ecumenically helpful? Alas! Any definition concerning Mary as
Co-Redeemer and Mediator, however carefully hedged about by theological
qualifications, will inevitably give rise to misunderstanding. And this
is likely to happen especially among those Christians who in the past
were alienated by devotion to Mary, but who are today beginning,
hesitantly and cautiously, to discover in her * to use Tina Beattie*s
words in The Tablet for 20 September 1997 * "a unique person able to
identify with the deepest delights, griefs and aspirations of people
across ages, cultures and classes". Is it kind to snuff out so many
candles that are just beginning to flicker?

If it is not kind, is it necessary? Ockham*s razor needs to be used when
formulating doctrine: dogmas, like other entities, should not be
multiplied without reason. Let us keep obligatory definitions to a
minimum, whether concerning the Virgin Mary or anything else.

When in 1950 Pope Pius XII issued a formal definition concerning the
bodily assumption of the Mother of God, the response of almost all
Orthodox Christians was immediate and unambiguous. "This is something
that we have long believed", they said. "It is plainly affirmed in our
private devotion and our liturgical worship. But we see no need for any
definition."

>From apostolic times, Christ*s birth, death and resurrection were
openly made known in the Church*s public preaching, proclaimed from the
housetops for all the world to hear. But the mystery of his Mother forms
part of the Church*s inner, secret tradition, that is revealed only
through prayer and doxology to those inside the Church. In the
words of the Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky: "It is not so much an
object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened
in tradition. Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not try to
dogmatise about the supreme glory of the Mother of God."

That was how we Orthodox reacted in 1950 to the papal definition of the
Assumption. And if today, half a century later, there were to be a
further papal definition about Mary as Co-Redeemer, our reaction would
probably be exactly the same: let us keep silence, and let us not
dogmatise.

Roman Catholics have long honoured Mary with the title "Co-Redeemer",
and doubtless they will continue to do so. By the same token, we
Orthodox will continue to address Our Lady with the time-honoured
invocation, "Most Holy Mother of God, save us". For both of our
traditions, she is a life-giving fountain of hope, joy and love. But,
alike in East and West, let us refrain from promulgating "Marian"
dogmas. It will not help the cause of Christian reconciliation, and it
is not necessary.