![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/MaryAssumption11.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This dialogue came about as a result of\u00a0Jack DisPennett<\/strong>\u2018s critique of my paper,\u00a0The Blessed Virgin Mary:\u00a0Biblical & Catholic Overview<\/a>. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n There is very little I can say in response to this issue, since the Bible doesn\u2019t really tell us anything affirmative or negative.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, to make this statement, you casually assume that all Christian doctrine must be explicitly found in the Bible: itself a non-biblical and arbitrary unproven axiom. We don\u2019t accept this presupposition, but I understand that you are operating from it, whether or not you are aware of it. The Bible also tells us nothing about the canon of the New Testament.<\/p>\n But millions of Protestants accept with more-or-less blind faith, both\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and the New Testament as they have received it. So if I am told that one of my distinctively Catholic beliefs is rejected because \u201cit ain\u2019t in the Bible,\u201d I ask, \u201cwhy, then, do you accept\u00a0other\u00a0<\/i>things \u2014 even fundamental Protestant premises \u2014 which are also not explicitly (or not at\u00a0all<\/i>) in the Bible? Is this a double standard?\u201d<\/p>\n However, I would like to make a quick comment about the centrality of Mary in the Catholic Church today\u2013an emphasis that seems to be totally lacking until the mid-4th century A.D.<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, you would have to define \u201ccentrality.\u201d We would fully expect the relatively late development, as Cardinal Newman argued, because Christology was on the front burner. After that was taken care of and defined, then the Church had the \u201cluxury,\u201d so to speak, to develop and ponder other doctrines. Mariology came to the fore precisely because of its proximity to Christology. One must understand the inevitability of development of doctrine.<\/p>\n I have just read most of Eusebius\u2019s\u00a0Ecclesiastical History<\/i>, (along with his concise\u00a0Book of Martyrs<\/i>) and although this is far from being a comprehensive doctrinal treatise, it\u00a0definitely does reveal many of the emphases of the early church. Much emphasis is given to martyrs (it is interesting, though, that although dead martyrs sometimes appear to people in dreams, e.g. Potamiaena, they are never prayed to),<\/span><\/p>\n It was more so a matter of praying\u00a0for<\/i>\u00a0them, for the dead, as we see in the catacombs. As time went on, the intercession of the saints (whereby a Christian asks a saint to pray for them, just as they would ask a Christian brother or sister on earth), came into more widespread use. The latter is generally what a Catholic means by \u201cpraying\u00a0to<\/i>\u201d a saint.<\/p>\n \u201cPrayer\u201d has a wider meaning in Catholicism, to include\u00a0asking<\/i>\u00a0(a dead saint, who is much more alive than\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0are) for prayer, or intercession, whereas in Protestantism it is almost regarded as intrinsically an act of worship, which is why Protestants have such a problem with the intercession of saints, because it strikes them \u2014 in their unfortunate lack of understanding of it \u2014 as rank idolatry and elevation of creatures to the place of God\u2019s sole prerogatives. In fact, all it is an acknowledgment that Christians who die are still able to pray and love, and thus, to help us by their intercession. It\u2019s very simple.<\/p>\n to the centrality and deity of Christ, to doctrinal disputes about the Passover, deity of Christ, immortality of the soul, Mary is never mentioned, except in passing.<\/span><\/p>\n I explained our reply to this, above. This poses no problem for the Catholic, who accepts development of doctrine. Protestants, however (if they wish to follow this line of argument) have a\u00a0huge<\/i>\u00a0problem finding many of their distinctive doctrines in the Fathers. If they wish to make this case, they will create more difficulties for their own position than they could imagine, whereas the Catholic position is unharmed by the mere presence of late development of any particular development.<\/p>\n For me, though, rhetorically speaking, \u201clate\u201d would be much more applicable to the novelties and inventions of 16th-century Protestantism (sola Scriptura<\/i>,\u00a0sola fide<\/i>, two sacraments, symbolic Eucharist and baptism, congregationalism, etc.), than to Marian developments in the 4th century. Even the canon of the Bible wasn\u2019t finally formalized until 397. Why is that not mentioned in the cry over the \u201clate\u201d development of Mariology? What\u2019s good for the goose is good for the gander . . .<\/p>\n In fact, the title \u201cThe Virgin Mother\u201d is used for the Church, not for Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n One of many parallelisms in the Bible and Christianity. Mary is indeed a symbol for the Church, and for the Christian.<\/p>\n (There are also documents from the council of Nicaea in an appendix to my copy of the\u00a0Ecclesiastical History<\/i>\u00a0that seem to support the authority of the Bible against tradition, but that\u2019s another topic entirely).<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, and I have more on that subject than I have on anything else, on my website (which is why I chose not to include your remarks in that vein \u2014 as you suggested as a possibility \u2014 in this dialogue.<\/p>\n It seems strange that the earliest surviving comprehensive church history that\u00a0is extant would not mention Mary as an important figure in Christian devotion,\u00a0if this doctrine was supposedly \u201chanded down\u201d from the Apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n No more than the absence of the canon of New Testament Scripture. What was handed down was the \u201ckernel\u201d \u2014 which is, basically, the Virgin Mother and the New Eve. All else develops straightforwardly from that. Elsewhere I summarized early Christian teaching on Mary:<\/p>\n In the second century, St. Justin Martyr is already expounding the \u201cNew Eve\u201d teaching, which Cardinal Newman regards as a starting-point for much later Marian dogmatic development:<\/p>\n Christ became man by the Virgin so that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it originated. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. The Virgin Mary, however, having received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced to her the good tidings . . . answered: Be it\u00a0done to me according to thy word. (1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Irenaeus, a little later, takes up the same theme: \u201cWhat the virgin Eve had tied up by unbelief, this the virgin Mary loosened by faith.\u201d (2) He also views her as the preeminent intercessor for mankind. (3)In the third century, Origen taught the perpetual virginity (4), Mary as the second-Eve (5), and was the first Father to use the term\u00a0Theotokos<\/i>. (6) He expressly affirms the spiritual motherhood of Mary: \u201cNo one may understand the meaning of the Gospel [of John], if he has not rested on the breast of Jesus and received Mary from Jesus, to be his mother also.\u201d (7)<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Dialogue with Trypho<\/i>, 100:5, in Hilda Graef,\u00a0Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion<\/i>, combined edition of volumes 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Against Heresies<\/i>, 3, 21, 10.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0Ibid<\/i>., 4, 33, 11.<\/p>\n 4. Homily 7 on Luke.<\/p>\n 5. Homily 1 on Matthew 5.<\/p>\n 6. Two Fragments on Luke, nos. 41 and 80 in the Berlin edition.<\/p>\n 7. In John, 1, 6.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even Eusebius calls her\u00a0panagia<\/i>, or \u201call-holy.\u201d (Ecclesiastica Theologia<\/i>).<\/p>\n It seems to me much more likely that Marian devotion increased as pagans estranged from their\u00a0pagan goddesses in the wake of Constantine and his successors sought comfort in\u00a0Marian devotion, and that the doctrine developed thusly. This is confirmed by\u00a0the resemblance between early madonnas and figures of one of the pagan goddesses\u00a0and her son (Another church historian, writing roughly 100 years after\u00a0Eusebius, whose name escapes me currently, mentioned Mary as a figure of\u00a0Christian devotion, however).<\/span><\/p>\n This is the familiar Protestant charge, but it is a very difficult one to prove, and is little more than a bald assertion. Why not go after the same Fathers for promoting prayers for the dead, or sacramentalism, or baptismal regeneration, or penance, on the same basis: similarity to pagan precursors? Pretty soon you\u2019ll find yourself attacking biblical, apostolic Christianity lock, stock, and barrel, for similarities can always be found by those insistent upon finding them. Atheists and Jews and Muslims and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses find what they think are manifestations of\u00a0trinitarianism<\/i>\u00a0in kernel form, in Babylonian three-headed gods and so forth.<\/p>\n Anthropologists have (for some odd reason) long thrilled themselves over similarities in creation myths, such as the\u00a0Epic of Gilgamesh<\/i>, or like-minded ethical codes (Code of Hammurabi<\/i>, etc.) which approximate the laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Christmas and Easter have been pilloried by various Protestant sects as pagan and unworthy of celebration. Such speculation is subjective in its very nature, and therefore quite weak and insubstantial. There is a fallacy and serious misunderstanding involved here, too, even beyond the obvious genetic fallacy.<\/p>\n <\/p> I\u2019ll refer the readers to my remarks on the profundity of the role of\u00a0Theotokos\u00a0<\/i>above. One either immediately grasps the significance of that or they don\u2019t. Martin Luther did, so I am not left without hope that Protestants today can regain some of the original Protestant beliefs, which had a fairly high Mariology.<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0(vs. James White) [June 1996]<\/p>\n Bodily Assumption of Mary: Harmonious with the Bible?<\/a>\u00a0[2002]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel<\/a>\u00a0[3-1-07]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture?<\/a>\u00a0[4-22-07]<\/p>\n 11 Bible Passages & Mary\u2019s Assumption\u00a0<\/a>[2009]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption)<\/a>\u00a0[5-28-12]<\/p>\n Is Mary\u2019s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone?<\/a>\u00a0[8-14-15]<\/p>\n Bible on Mary\u2019s Assumption<\/a>\u00a0[2015]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\nMary\u2019s Death Before Her Assumption: Required Belief?<\/a>\u00a0[2-27-17]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #7: Mary\u2019s Assumption<\/a>\u00a0[3-1-17]<\/div>\n