[S]o also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve\u2019s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.\u201d\u00a0(3,22,4; from Jurgens, W.A.,\u00a0The Faith of the Early Fathers<\/em>, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press,\u00a01970, vol. 1, p. 93, #224)<\/p>\n[F]or in no other way can that which is tied be untied unless the very windings of the knot are gone through in reverse: so that the first joints are loosed through the second, and the second in turn free the first . . . Thus, then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied\u00a0through the obedience of Mary.\u201d\u00a0(Against Heresies<\/em>, III, 22,4; from Most, William G.,\u00a0Mary in Our Life<\/em>, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954, 25)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWilliam Most comments:<\/p>\n
Mary, says St. Irenaeus, undoes the work of Eve. Now it was not just in a remote way that Eve had been involved in original sin: she shared in the very ruinous act itself. Similarly, it would seem, Mary ought to share in the very act by which the knot is untied \u2014 that is, in Calvary itself.\u00a0(in Most,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 25)<\/p>\nJust as the human race was bound over to death through a virgin, so was it saved through a virgin: the scale was balanced \u2014 a virgin\u2019s disobedience by a virgin\u2019s obedience.\u00a0(Against Heresies<\/em>, V, 19, 1; cited in Most,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 274)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSwan acts as if this is extraordinary special pleading to see in remarks such as these a kernel of the notion of mediatrix or the always vastly-misunderstood term, \u201cco-redemptrix\u201d. Funny, then, that the well-known Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly doesn\u2019t think so (he precisely agrees with me):<\/p>\n
The real contribution of these early centuries, however, was more positively theological, and consisted in representing Mary as the antithesis of Eve and drawing out the implications of this. Justin was the pioneer, although the way he introduced the theme suggests that he was\u00a0not innovating\u00a0<\/strong>. . . Tertullian and Irenaeus were quick to develop these ideas. The latter, in particular, argued [Against Heresies<\/em>, 3, 22, 4; cf. 5, 19, 1] that Eve, while still a virgin, had proved disobedient and so became the cause of death both for herself and for all mankind, but Mary, also a virgin, obeyed and became the\u00a0cause of salvation\u00a0<\/strong>both for herself and for all mankind. \u201cThus, as the human race was bound fast to death through a virgin, so\u00a0through a virgin it was saved<\/strong>.\u201d Irenaeus further hinted both at her\u00a0universal motherhood\u00a0<\/strong>and at her\u00a0cooperation in Christ\u2019s saving work<\/strong>, describing [Ibid<\/em>, 4, 33, 1] her womb as \u201cthat pure womb which\u00a0regenerates<\/strong>\u00a0men to God.\u201d\u00a0(Early Christian Doctrines<\/em>, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition of 1978, 493-494, emphases added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo we see that William Possidento and myself were merely citing most of the same passages that Kelly cites, and interpreting them in precisely the same way. Even Mr. White is not a Church historian, so if it comes down to a conflict of historical fact between White and Kelly, it is obvious who has the advantage and who can be trusted for the facts. And that is not all one can find by way of Protestant historians. How about Philip Schaff? He writes:<\/p>\n
The development of the orthodox Mariology and\u00a0Mariolatry<\/strong>\u00a0originated as early as the\u00a0second century\u00a0<\/strong>in an allegorical interpretation of the history of the fall, and in the assumption of an antithetic relation of Eve and Mary, according to which the mother of Christ occupies the same position in the history of\u00a0redemption<\/strong>\u00a0as the wife of Adam in the history of sin and death [Rom 5:12 ff., 1 Cor 15:22] . . . Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a\u00a0\u201cmother of all living\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the\u00a0mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption\u00a0<\/strong>to the human race, as Eve by her disobedience was the fountain of sin and death.\u00a0[Footnote: \u201cEven St. Augustine carries this parallel between the first and second Eve as far as any of the fathers . . . \u201c]\u00a0(History of the Christian Church<\/em>, Vol. III:\u00a0Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600<\/em>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974; reproduction of fifth edition of 1910, 414-415, emphases added. This work is available in its entirety online, too)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nBut James White makes the following profoundly ignorant historical summation, that James Swan cited from the original paper:<\/p>\n
James White did not bring most of these ECF\u2019s [early Church Fathers] up. DA has, in order to disprove White\u2019s assertion that\u00a0<\/span>\u201cthe idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.\u201d<\/span> [pp. 75-76 of White\u2019s book]<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThis being the case, I have the utmost sympathy and compassion for James Swan in his effort to defend such a ridiculously wrongheaded point of view. The old wise proverb says that \u201cyou can\u2019t make a silk purse out of a sow\u2019s ear,\u201d but maybe Swan can somehow pretend that these notions were\u00a0absent\u00a0<\/em>from history, per White, when they clearly were\u00a0not<\/em>, according to Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (two of the very best and most-cited, at that). Best wishes! I don\u2019t envy you. And I think we can already see one reason why Mr. White won\u2019t come out from behind his word-processor and defend his own historical absurdities from his book.<\/p>\nFurthermore, Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan (who converted to Orthodoxy after the following was written), observed the true focus of patristic and Catholic Mariology, during St. Irenaeus\u2019 time:<\/p>\n
[A]s Christian piety and reflection sought to probe the deeper meaning of salvation, the parallel between Christ and Adam found its counterpart in the picture of Mary as the Second Eve . . . in is fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.<\/p>\n
For it mattered a great deal for christology whether or not one had the right to call Mary Theotokos [Mother of God<\/em>] . . . an apt formula for their belief that in the incarnation deity and humanity were united so closely . . . It was a way of speaking about Christ at least as much as a way of speaking about Mary.\u00a0(The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine<\/em>, Vol. I:\u00a0The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600),\u00a0<\/em>University of Chicago Press, 1971, 242-243)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nQuestions:<\/span><\/p>\n1. Which line from Irenaeus above actually says this?<\/span><\/p>\nThe concept (in early development) was there, as seen in the quotes themselves and in the summary of Irenaeus\u2019 teaching by Kelly and Schaff, where they actually relate it to \u201credemption\u201d and \u201csalvation\u201d and use words like \u201cmediate\u201d and \u201cinstrumental\u201d with regard to Mary\u2019s place in the economy of redemption. The word no more has to be present than the word \u201cTrinity\u201d has to be in the Bible, in order to think that the teaching is there.<\/p>\n
2. I direct your attention to Giovanni Miegge\u2019s explanation of the passage from Irenaeus in question:<\/span><\/p>\nIf we pass from the New Testament to the patristic field there is equal silence. Irenaeus\u2019 famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to the motherhood of Mary who gives the Redeemer to the world with her faith in the divine annunciation. The title \u201cadvocate\u201d refers to the restoration of Eve and could be extended at most to the idea of a ministry of intercession which, however, is not explicitly contained in the term. All those who in various ways look for this parallel in the first century connect it with Mary\u2019s motherhood. Mary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ: \u2018if anyone is it is the martyrs, but in a quite indirect form as imitators of Christ, as members of His body, as witnesses of Him. In that sense the apostle Paul speaks of his part in the sufferings of Christ, with an ardent figure of speech, \u201cto fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ\u201d (Colossians 1 : 24, R.V.); but he attributes no co-redemptive significance to this thought. But Mary did not know martyrdom.<\/span><\/p>\nSource: Giovanni Miegge,\u00a0The Virgin Mary\u00a0<\/em>(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 163-164)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThat does not agree with Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan, and (frankly) they carry a lot more weight than Miegge does. Why don\u2019t you tell us more about him? What are his credentials?<\/p>\n
3. Where does Jaroslav Pelikan say that Irenaeus believed Mary was co-[re]demptrix?<\/span><\/p>\nIt is implicit in the concept of Second Eve, by its very nature, as shown above.<\/p>\n
I couldn\u2019t find it in the quote from your paper.<\/span><\/p>\nThat\u2019s because you are looking for a word, rather than a concept.<\/p>\n
Is your use of Pelican<\/span> [sic] simply arguing for development of doctrine,<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not\u00a0just<\/em>\u00a0development (though that is a crucial component of this discussion), but the fact that the concept of New Eve was already in full force at this early stage (as early as Justin Martyr, who died in 165 \u2014 and Kelly says it looks like he was just passing on what he received).<\/p>\n. . . in which case, the reader has to accept the faith claim of the \u201cacorn and the oak tree\u201d? If this is so, your critique of James White should spell this out clearly, with a statement like this: \u201cDave Armstrong\u2019s interpretation of the history of Mariology demands the Roman Catholic notion of development of doctrine. Without this, James White\u2019s book,\u00a0Mary Another Redeemer\u00a0<\/em>makes historical sense.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not necessary to have a \u201cRoman Catholic notion of development of doctrine\u201d in order to accept this development, but to have whatever kind of development Schaff and Pelikan and Kelly accept (since they are not Catholics). This is the whole point. It\u2019s not a \u201cCatholic<\/em> thing\u201d; it is an \u201chistorical<\/em> thing.\u201d Schaff detests the very doctrines he is describing, and makes no bones about it, but he is also (invariably) an honest historian who presents the facts \u2014 whatever he thinks of them.<\/p>\nWhite detests the doctrines, too, but then tries to vainly pretend that they were absent from patristic history. This is the difference, and this is one of a multitude of reasons why I have long maintained that White is a sophist and special pleader.<\/p>\n
In my portion of the book review I made elaborate and involved arguments showing that White himself accepts development in one area but denies it in another, and his criteria for doing so are completely arbitrary, self-contradictory, and instances of glaring double standards. So this has already been thoroughly dealt with.<\/p>\n
Development of Mariology is no different than development of any other doctrine. One may quibble with it because it is supposedly so \u201cunbiblical,\u201d but then one would have to also toss out the canon of Scripture, which is\u00a0absolutely<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0unbiblical. Etc. I\u2019ve made all the arguments.<\/p>\n*****<\/p>\n
As far as I am concerned, so far, not one thing I have contended has been overthrown or refuted. It was claimed (by White and his defenders) that St. Irenaeus taught not a thing about Mary Mediatrix. I responded with Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (and a bit indirectly), Pelikan, who thought quite otherwise. It was claimed that I was demanding people to accept a presupposed Catholic version of development of doctrine. I showed how that was not the case, and my extensive reasoning for why I think that, in the review itself, needs to be dealt with.\u00a0So we don\u2019t have much substance so far. Let\u2019s see how much can be produced . . .<\/p>\n
I would like to work through all of DA\u2019s Irenaeus quotes, slowly, as time allows.<\/span><\/p>\nIt would be nice if you would counter-respond to my first lengthy response, since I raised, I think, several important issues that you need to deal with for your case to succeed. I cited three very reputable Protestant historians. But I guess that would be too much like a dialogue . . . I\u2019ll take what I can get. But I will always note that you left something unresponded-to, so readers don\u2019t miss that \u201cdetail.\u201d<\/p>\n
I would like to look first at this comment from DA\u2019s paper:<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Irenaeus wrote, for example, of Christ as the pure one opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God (Against Heresies<\/em>\u00a0IV,33,11) \u2013 words with which Irenaeus credited the Virgin\u2019s womb and assigns to her a universal motherhood. Writing of the economy, that is, the plan of salvation, St. Irenaeus remarked ..without Joseph\u2019s action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy\u2026 (Against Heresies<\/em>\u00a0III, 21,5, in Miravalle, p. 178). Contemplate that. St. Irenaeus gave, with those words, a second century statement of belief that Mary had a unique role in the plan of salvation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDA\u2019s comments about Irenaeus<\/span><\/p>\nActually, William Possidento\u2019s at this point (just to clarify). My arguments in the review were mostly analogical ones dealing mostly with development of doctrine, whereas his were textual ones from the Fathers and James White\u2019s own book.<\/p>\n
overlook something rather important: the context in which they were written.<\/span><\/p>\nContext does not nullify our points at all (as I will show). You only\u00a0think<\/em>\u00a0it does when you apply the typically Reformed \u201ceither\/or\u201d dichotomous mindset to the passage in order to maintain that one must be doing only one thing and could not possibly be doing more than one (killing two birds with one stone).<\/p>\nNote above, the book written by Irenaeus is called\u00a0Against Heresies<\/em>. The intent of Irenaeus was not to write a Bible dictionary, so when he got to the letter \u201cM\u201d he wrote out his thoughts on Mary. Hardly.<\/span><\/p>\nIn fighting heresy, one may express points of Mariology, just as he might express various aspects of christology, soteriology, anthropology, theology proper, etc. It doesn\u2019t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If you are fighting\u00a0heretical<\/em>\u00a0theology, you have to give\u00a0orthodox<\/em>\u00a0theology to counter it (in fact, fighting error is often the occasion for some of the most elaborate expositions of orthodox theology, as a counterpoint; for example, St. Augustine\u2019s reactions to the Manichees and Donatists and Pelagians).<\/p>\nAnd if Mary is mentioned in any \u201ctheological\u201d way, that is Mariology, pure and simple. It may be very primitive and undeveloped (of course<\/em>\u00a0it is, in the second century (Irenaeus\u2019 era), though it is remarkably and surprisingly well-developed, given Protestant hostile assumptions about how little it should be by this time), but it remains Mariology because it offers some theology and interpretation of Mary.<\/p>\nAgainst Heresies<\/em>\u00a0is concerned with, you guessed it, heresy.<\/span><\/p>\nVery good; a refreshing note of agreement . . .<\/p>\n
As Giovanni Miegge explains,<\/span><\/p>\nThe gnostic teachers in the imposing cycle of their cosmogony brought in the Saviour Jesus at a certain point, one who came down into the material world to free the souls that had fallen. But, spiritualists to excess, they maintained that the purest \u201ceon\u201d could not really have incarnated himself in a man. They thought that the Christ had temporarily united himself to the man Jesus from his baptism to the crucifixion only, or that he manifested himself with a seeming body without true material substance (docetism, from dokei<\/em>, seems). This second conception had the advantage also of not requiring a real maternity in the physical sense on the part of Mary, whom the eon Christ simply passed through as water passes through a conduit. The virginity of Mary in the bringing forth was the legitimate consequence of these speculations, although it was not one in the strict sense.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Church reacted decisively to the gnostic docetism that denied the real humanity of the Lord and transferred salvation to a mythical plane away from the historical and human. The traces of this reaction are plain to be seen, first in the later writings of the New Testament, then through the references and confutations of the anti-heretical writers, and also in the elaboration of the oldest symbols of the faith.\u201d The so-called Apostles\u2019 Creed has an anti-docetic tone that is quite recognizable in the emphasis of its affirmation of the real humanity of the Lord and His historical life, \u201cBegotten {gennethenta<\/em>) by the Holy Spirit and by Mary\u201d, \u201cqui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine<\/em>\u201c, as the Roman Apostles\u2019 Creed affirms. Or \u201cconceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary\u201d, \u201cconceptum de Spiritu Sancto, natum ex Maria Virgine<\/em>\u201c, according to the more accurate rendering of the definitive Gallican wording. The Creed expresses the same insistence on the humanity and historicity of Christ in its particularizing of the Passion: \u201csuffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead and buried\u201d.The Church did it directly again with the stress these expressions receive from Ignatius of Antioch: \u201cJesus Christ of the progeny of David by Mary, who was truly begotten, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the presence of beings celestial, terrestrial and subterrestrial, who was truly brought to life from the dead, His Father raising Him up.\u201d Mary and Pilate! The two pillars on which stands the affirmation of the real historicity of Christ, truly born in a human body at a definite point in history, and truly crucified in that body at an equally definite point in time. Mary and Pilate, the two witnesses of the humanity of the Saviour, that is of the reality of the incarnation. Mary owes her inclusion in the Creed\u2014as does Pilate\u2014to this her function of witnessing, but she assumes, besides, the other function of testifying to His divinity by the adjective that describes her, the Virgin Mary. This function she shares with the affirmation of the resurrection and ascension of Christ which ends the central article of the Creed, Vere homo et vere Deus<\/em>, according to the concise formula of Irenaeus.<\/span><\/p>\nSource: Giovanni Miegge,\u00a0The Virgin Mary<\/em>\u00a0(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 36-37.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes, of course. I have no problem with this. Catholics have always stated that Mariology is christocentric, and that this was its primary purpose. It was to safeguard the deity and incarnation of Jesus. You guys are the ones who try to make out that we are somehow separating Mary from her Son Jesus, as some sort of ridiculous rival \u201cgoddess.\u201d So now we have to be accused of the caricature that you try to make out is our belief, that we always deny, and you see this as some \u201cdebating point\u201d? :-)<\/p>\n
This is precisely why I cited Jaroslav Pelikan, in agreement with Catholic theology and perspective: \u201c. . . in its fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n
But somehow you miss that \u201cdetail\u201d because (apparently) you are so uninterested in my first response that you repeat things already dealt with in it, and agreed to. Weird . . . but this is common in the Protestant response to Catholic apologetics. It\u2019s almost as if we are talking but the words don\u2019t register. Many times in debates like this, I find myself repeating the argument I just made, because my opponent acts as if I never\u00a0made<\/em>\u00a0it, in the very structure and thrust of his \u201cresponse.\u201d It\u2019s very frustrating, and a bit insulting, I must say. In effect, you are forcing us to \u201cbelieve\u201d only what you\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0us to believe (i.e., the polemical\u00a0caricature<\/em>\u00a0of \u201cCatholicism\u201d), no matter what we say; no matter how many times we clarify, till we\u2019re blue in the face. Even when we fully\u00a0agree<\/em>\u00a0with you, you don\u2019t want to believe it.<\/p>\nSo, the statements about Mary found in Irenaeus are not intended to present the \u201ckernel\u201d of the non-defined \u201cco-mediatrix\u201d dogma, but are rather intended to safeguard correct doctrine about Jesus Christ.<\/span><\/p>\nThe negation you assert doesn\u2019t follow, and is illogical. First of all, you haven\u2019t proven that to argue about Christ necessarily excludes discussion of Mary, as if the two are like oil and water or two magnetic poles. In fact, the long citation you just provided puts the lie to this. Mariology was (and is) a subset of christology. This is how Irenaeus approaches it, and how the Catholic Church does, as well.<\/p>\n
Secondly, when people are presenting a primitive, undeveloped form of a doctrine, they don\u2019t themselves know how far it will be developed in the future, by definition. If they did, there would be no development! But there is development, of every doctrine. The canon of Scripture developed; so did original sin, and the Hypostatic Union, and trinitarianism, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and Mariology, and sacramentology, and the doctrine of the atonement, and eucharistic theology. Irenaeus would have been incapable of presenting, for example, the full intricate doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which was fully developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.<\/p>\n
So basically, you have argued nothing whatsoever in your last statement. That\u2019s all it is: a bald statement. You state what you assume. This is not argument. It is an assumption. To the extent that you think it\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0an argument, it is merely logically circular. But you have some more reasoning to go, so I will desist.<\/p>\nThe quote offered by DA:<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Irenaeus wrote, for example, of Christ as the pure one opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God (Against Heresies<\/em>\u00a0IV,33,11) \u2013 words with which Irenaeus credited the Virgin\u2019s womb and assigns to her a universal motherhood.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFirst of all, this is not just Catholic \u201cspecial pleading\u201d and \u201canachronistically reading our \u2018papist\u2019 views back into the 2nd century. Here we go repeating the argument we already gave, again, because you have ignored it and act as if it never happened (the only good thing about that is that repetition is a helpful learning tool). I cited J. N. D. Kelly arriving at the same exact same conclusion about this very passage: \u201cIrenaeus further hinted both at her universal motherhood and at her cooperation in Christ\u2019s saving work, describing her womb as \u2018that pure womb which regenerates men to God.'\u201d<\/p>\n
So how is it that I am somehow the unreasonable one even though I can cite one of the leading Protestant patristic experts in exact agreement with my interpretation of Irenaeus, while you are reasonable when you ignore that and keep citing this Miegge \u2014 whom you won\u2019t tell us a thing about (per my request)? Do you actually believe that Miegge is a better scholar than Kelly and Schaff, and to be believed over them in the event that they disagree? If so, why? But I don\u2019t expect you to answer this, since you ignored my entire first reply. This gets old. But I\u2019ll pray for patience and keep refuting what you write as long as I can stand your utter ignoring of my arguments.<\/p>\n
Schaff (repeat, REPEAT) also asserts a \u201cuniversal motherhood\u201d as an early patristic belief:<\/p>\n
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a \u2018mother of all living\u2019 in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now, lets look at IV, 33, 11, in its context:<\/span><\/p>\nSure, let\u2019s. And I show you the courtesy of actually\u00a0replying<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0your<\/em>\u00a0arguments. That\u2019s kind of nice, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n11. For some of them, beholding Him in glory, saw His glorious life (conversationem) at the Father\u2019s right hand;(3) others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man;(4) and those who declared regarding Him, \u201cThey shall look on Him whom they have pierced,\u201d(5) indicated His (second) advent, concerning which He Himself says, \u201cThinkest thou that when the Son of man cometh, He shall find faith on the earth?\u201d(6) Paul also refers to this event when he says, \u201cIf, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire.\u201d(7) Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and , as if it were a burning furnace, (to) the day of the Lord, who \u201cgathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire,\u201d(8) were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, \u201cDepart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels.\u201d(9) And the apostle in like manner says (of them), \u201cWho shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him.\u201d(10) There are also some (of them) who declare, \u201cThou art fairer than the children of men;\u201d(11) and, \u201cGod, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows;\u201d(12) and, \u201cGird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O Most Mighty, with Thy beauty and Thy fairness, and go forward and proceed prosperously; and rule Thou because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.\u201d(13) And whatever other things of a like nature are spoken regarding Him, these indicated that beauty and splendour which exist in His kingdom, along with the transcendent and pre-eminent exaltation (belonging) to all who are under His sway, that those who hear might desire to be found there, doing such things as are pleasing to God. Again, there are those who say, \u201cHe is a man, and who shall know him?\u201d(14) and, \u201cI came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;\u201d(15) and those (of them) who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, (declaring) that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He (nevertheless) is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. And there are also some of them who say, \u201cThe Lord hath spoken in Zion, and uttered His voice from Jerusalem;\u201d(16) and, \u201cIn Judah is God known;\u201d(17)\u2014these indicated His advent which took place in Judea. Those, again, who declare that \u201cGod comes from the south, and from a mountain thick with foliage,\u201d(18) announced His advent at Bethlehem, as I have pointed out in the preceding book.(19) From that place, also, He who rules, and who feeds the people of His Father, has come. Those, again, who declare that at His coming \u201cthe lame man shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall (speak) plainly, and the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear,\u201d(1) and that \u201cthe hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, shall be strengthened,\u201d(2) and that \u201cthe dead which are in the grave shall arise,\u201d(3) and that He Himself\u201d shall take our weaknesses, and bear our sorrows,\u201d(4)\u2014(all these) proclaimed those works of healing which were accomplished by Him.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNow is Irenaeus \u201cassigning to Mary a universal motherhood\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\nAccording to Kelly and Schaff, he is. Why do they think that? Because of an incorrigible \u201cpapal propagandistic\u201d bias?<\/p>\n
and expressing Mary\u2019s role in suffering with Christ as Coredemptrix? No.<\/span><\/p>\nThat\u2019s a later development, and I agree that it is improper to read into Irenaeus\u2019 statements.<\/p>\n
Irenaeus is protecting Christian doctrine against heretics.<\/span><\/p>\nThat\u2019s right, but no one is arguing that he isn\u2019t. How does that preclude this particular interpretation of his words about Mary?<\/p>\n
DA further offers:<\/span><\/p>\nWriting of the economy, that is, the plan of salvation, St. Irenaeus remarked ..without Joseph\u2019s action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy\u2026 (Against Heresies<\/em>\u00a0III, 21,5, in Miravalle, p. 178). Contemplate that. St. Irenaeus gave, with those words, a second century statement of belief that Mary had a unique role in the plan of salvation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes, indeed, let\u2019s contemplate it. Here is III, 21, 5:<\/span><\/p>\n5. And when He says, \u201cHear, O house of David,\u201d(9) He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be \u201cof the fruit of his belly,\u201d which was the appropriate (term to use with respect) to a virgin conceiving, and not \u201cof the fruit of his loins,\u201d nor \u201cof the fruit of his reins,\u201d which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established \u201cthe fruit of the belly,\u201d that it might declare the generation of Him who should be (born) from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, \u201cBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;\u201d(1) the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of (David\u2019s) belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, \u201cBehold, a young woman shall conceive,\u201d and who will have Him to be Joseph\u2019s son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As DA\u2019s paper admonishes to \u201ccontemplate\u201d that \u201c Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy\u201d , I can\u2019t quite see where I\u2019m supposed to find the seed of co-redemption in the above quote. I\u2019d rather simply read what Irenaeus said, and agree with this ancient author that Christ was not the biological son of Joseph.<\/span><\/p>\nThe passage is actually from III, 21, 7, as Miravelle indicated in his notes. Here is\u00a0the whole passage\u00a0<\/a>(emphasis added):<\/p>\n7. On this account also, Daniel, foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what \u201cwithout hands\u201d means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but\u00a0Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan<\/strong>. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: \u201cThus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.\u201d So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nMiravalle gives the Latin of the relevant phrase:\u00a0sola Maria cooperante dispositioni<\/em>.<\/p>\nBeware of reading history with the glasses of modern Roman Catholic Mariology.<\/span><\/p>\nAgain (for the tenth) time, it is not just \u201cCatholic-tinted glasses\u201d but the informed historical opinions of Kelly and Schaff. James White claims that mediation and co-redemption are \u201ccompletely absent\u201d from \u201cthe early Church.\u201d But Kelly, writing about Irenaeus\u2019 Mariology, uses descriptive words like \u201ccause of salvation,\u201d \u201cthrough a virgin it was saved,\u201d \u201cuniversal motherhood,\u201d \u201ccooperation in Christ\u2019s saving work,\u201d and \u201c[her womb] regenerates men.\u201d Schaff uses words like \u201cThe development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century,\u201d \u201credemption,\u201d \u2018mother of all living\u2019,\u201d and \u201cmediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race.\u201d What more does one need?<\/p>\n
Furthermore, a few centuries later, these concepts became extremely explicit in some of the Fathers (precisely as we would expect from the nature of development itself). So. for example, St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) wrote:<\/p>\n
Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world \u2014\u00a0operata est mundi salutem<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 and when she conceived the redemption of all \u2014\u00a0concepit redemptionem universorum<\/em>. (in Miravelle, Mark I., editor,\u00a0Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations<\/em>, Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1995, p. 14; from Epist. 49,2; ML 16, 1154)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAnd:<\/p>\n
She engendered redemption for humanity, she was carrying, in her womb, the remission of sins. (in Miravelle,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., p. 14; from\u00a0De Mysteriis<\/em>\u00a0III, 13; ML 16,393;\u00a0De instit. Virginis<\/em>\u00a013,81; ML 16,325)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSt. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) called Mary the \u201cdispensatrix of all goods.\u201d (in William G. Most,\u00a0Mary in Our Life,<\/em>\u00a0Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1963, 48)<\/p>\nBasil of Seleucia (died c. 458) referred to her as the \u201cMediatrix of God and men.\u201d (in Most,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 48)<\/p>\nSt. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote:<\/p>\n
Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved [sozetai<\/em>].\u00a0(in Miravelle,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., p. 13; from MG 77,992, and 1033; from the Council of Ephesus in 431)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe expression\u00a0Mediatrix\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0Mediatress<\/em>\u00a0was found in two 5th-century eastern writers, Basil of Seleucia (In\u00a0SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem<\/em>, PG 85, 444AB) and Antipater of Bostra (In S. Joannem Bapt<\/em>., PG 85 1772C. The theory developed in the work of John of Damascus (d.c. 749; see\u00a0Homilia I in Dormitionem<\/em>, PG 96 713A) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.c.733; see\u00a0Homilia II in Dormitionem<\/em>, PG 98 321, 352-353). [see Miravelle,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 134-135]<\/p>\nThe Protestant reference\u00a0Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/em>\u00a0(ed. F. L. Cross, 2nd edirtion, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 561), states concerning Patriarch Germanus:<\/p>\nMary\u2019s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and her universal mediation in the distribution of supernatural blessings, are his two frequently recurring themes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the \u201cMediatrix of the law and grace\u201d and also stated that \u201cshe is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.\u201d (Nativ. Mari\u00e6, Serm. 1 and Serm<\/em>. 4, PG 97, 808, 865; in Miravelle,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 283)<\/p>\nSt. John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the \u201coffice of Mediatrix.\u201d (Hom. S. Mari\u00e6 in Zonam<\/em>, PG 98, 377; in Miravelle,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., 283)<\/p>\nBut remember, James White has informed us on pp. 75-76 and 137 of his book:<\/p>\n
In fact, not only is the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely\u00a0absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in\u00a0history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n[T]he push to define Mary as Coredemptrix flows out of the piety seen so plainly in Alphonsus Ligouri<\/span> [sic] and Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort. It does not come to us from Scripture, nor does it come from history.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhite consistently misspells Liguori as \u201cLigouri\u201d. That saint lived from 1696-1787. White appears to date this theological development to him, but he is more than 1200 years off the mark, since, as shown, the very terms mediatrix<\/em> or mediatress<\/em> were being used in the 5th century by at least two writers, and the concept in kernel can be traced as far back as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. So much for Mr. White\u2019s historiographical abilities . . . they are almost as deficient as his theological methodologies and conclusions.<\/p>\nOf course, he might want to argue that the 5th century (when St. Augustine and St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria lived) was not the time of the \u201cearly Church.\u201d It wouldn\u2019t be the oddest thing he has argued.<\/p>\n
Contrarily, Read the Ancient Church Fathers in their contexts. I assume that anyone looking for Mary in the Roman Catholic sense will find any statement about Mary in ancient church history and find some way to apply it to their own paradigm.<\/span><\/p>\nYou are merely assuming what you are trying to prove, by offering either no arguments at all, or circular ones (as I think I have shown).<\/p>\n
Which leads me to ask the question: Does a Roman Catholic need an infallible interpreter to interpret history also? It seems they do.<\/span><\/p>\nNo, we only need good, competent Protestant historians like Kelly and Schaff. But we need to avoid amateur historians like James White (and James Swan) who are clearly in over their head when trying to discuss early Mariology. I\u2019m no historian, either, but it is very easy for me to find substantiation from the best Protestant historians of Church history and the history of doctrine, for my point of view.<\/p>\n
I suggest as a friend that you give up this fight, before you dig yourself deeper into self-contradiction and futile opposition to plain historical facts. Let James White defend himself! Why should you<\/em> have to take the fall for him?<\/p>\nJames Swan further\u00a0responds (on the CARM board):<\/p>\n
I posted the following quote from Giovanni Miegge giving an explanation of the passage from Irenaeus put forth by Dave Armstrong:<\/span><\/p>\nIf we pass from the New Testament to the patristic field there is equal silence. Irenaeus\u2019 famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to the motherhood of Mary who gives the Redeemer to the world with her faith in the divine annunciation. The title \u201cadvocate\u201d refers to the restoration of Eve and could be extended at most to the idea of a ministry of intercession which, however, is not explicitly contained in the term. All those who in various ways look for this parallel in the first century connect it with Mary\u2019s motherhood. Mary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ: \u2018if anyone is it is the martyrs, but in a quite indirect form as imitators of Christ, as members of His body, as witnesses of Him. In that sense the apostle Paul speaks of his part in the sufferings of Christ, with an ardent figure of speech, \u201cto fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ\u201d (Colossians 1 : 24, R.V.); but he attributes no co-redemptive significance to this thought. But Mary did not know martyrdom.<\/span><\/p>\nSource: Giovanni Miegge,\u00a0The Virgin Mary<\/em>\u00a0(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 163-164)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt should be pointed out that Dave simply dismissed the quote rather than interact with the quote. It\u2019s the old, \u201cmy scholar is better than your scholar\u201d technique, of which I can also be guilty of utilizing at times. The technique is useful since it dismisses the content of the quote without ever interacting with the content of the quote.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is not an accurate description of what I did, and I\u2019ll explain why. First of all, roughly the second half of Miegge\u2019s citation has nothing to do with Irenaeus in the first place, and his Mariology was the subject at hand, and so that portion can be dismissed for the time being.<\/p>\n
Secondly, no argument that I can see is presented here, with regard to Irenaeus; there are only bald declarative statements:<\/p>\n
\u201c[in the] patristic field there is equal silence . . . \u201d<\/p>\n
[this is, of course, demonstrably untrue, just as White\u2019s summary of supposed patristic silence or \u201cabsence\u201d is]<\/p>\n
\u201cIrenaeus\u2019 famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to . . . \u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe title \u2018advocate\u2019 refers to . . . \u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ:\u201d<\/p>\n
These are not arguments, but mere statements. There is a difference.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, this being the case, it becomes basically an appeal to authority on both our parts. We\u2019re all reading the same texts and drawing conclusions from them: the professionals (Miegge, Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan) and the amateurs (me and you). Professionals hold more weight in these matters than amateurs do, because they are familiar with the whole body of a Church Father\u2019s work, and with his thought, just as a Bible scholar can interpret the Bible with much more knowledge because they know much more about background, language, culture, exegesis, hermeneutics, etc.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, if it is simply one scholars\u2019 word against the other, I stand by my opinion that Kelly and Schaff are more to be trusted than Miegge. How does the layman decide when there are differences of opinions among scholars? In this case, I am citing all Protestant scholars, rather than Catholic partisans who already agree with me (as a foregone conclusion).<\/p>\n
And I am citing some of the most well-known and reputable historians of Christian doctrine. I need not argue that. I don\u2019t believe you would deny it. You, on the other hand, cite a relatively unknown scholar, who looks to be an anti-Catholic and a fellow Reformed. You\u2019re citing your own guy. This carries less weight in disputes such as this, because you are obviously biased towards the person in your own camp (just as I am, and everyone is), and will tend to agree with most (if not everything) of what he says.<\/p>\n
Schaff speaks of \u201cMariolatry\u201d too, but he doesn\u2019t deny that these ideas were present in Irenaeus (unlike Miegge and White). That is the difference. At best, you can only establish that either of our positions are equally tenable, based on which historian we go with. But Miegge\u2019s and White\u2019s assertions about \u201cabsence\u201d and \u201csilence\u201d in the Fathers on these issues are able to be demonstrated as false, and I have already done so. That is something solid and factual to refute (it\u2019s falsifiable), and since they have been shown to be in error on the facts, their judgment in matters of interpretation is not quite so credible as it was before we exposed their serious errors of fact.<\/p>\n
You say that I dismissed the quote. I did insofar as no argument was presented in it. If he gives no argument, I am not obliged to refute what he says. In fact, I cannot, because there is nothing to refute if no argument from the texts is presented. He gives his dogmatic interpretation. I simply said that Kelly and Schaff disagree with his interpretation and that they carry more weight. As a layman, I yield to their judgment. And I can\u2019t be accused of simply \u201cchoosing my own guy\u201d because none of them are Catholics. You choose your one guy, though (and no one else thus far) and that doesn\u2019t strike one as particularly \u201cobjective.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dave then asked,<\/span> \u201cWhy don\u2019t you tell us more about him? What are his credentials?\u201d<\/p>\nGiovanni Miegge, was Professor of Church History in the Waldensian Faculty of Theology at Rome. He published a book on Rudolf Bultmann for which he is better known for.<\/span><\/p>\nThank you. With all due respect to you and Dr. Miegge, this hardly puts him in league with giants in the field like Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff. I look in vain to try to find this guy in any bibliographies of Mariological works (neither Pelikan nor Kelly list him, nor does Protestant Max Thurian, in his book on Mary). Can you give me any bibliographies that he is listed in? If you type his name in at Google, you find very little (at least not in English).<\/p>\n
Therefore, it\u2019s not a case of \u201cmy professor\u2019s better than yers; nya nya nya nya naaaaa nya,\u201d but a clear-cut case of some of the most eminent and widely cited Church historians vs. a relatively unknown one. So it is quite reasonable to side with the former in cases of disagreement.<\/p>\n
Is this all you can come up with? You\u2019ll simply keep quoting Miegge as if he is the last word on the subject, and blithely dismiss the fact that three major Protestant historians agree with my position almost exactly?<\/p>\n
You haven\u2019t acknowledged that all these things developed. To me it is self-evident. One cannot believe otherwise. It is simply the history of doctrine.<\/p>\n
Is the following part of \u201cprimitive, undeveloped form of a\u00a0doctrine\u201d found in Irenaeus?<\/span><\/p>\nIn his book titled, Irenaeus of Lyons<\/em>, Grant wrote:<\/span><\/p>\nIn Irenaeus\u2019 judgment the Ephesian church, founded by Paul and\u00a0preserved by John, is a reliable witness to the tradition of\u00a0the apostles (Against Heresies<\/em>, 3.3.4) though his exegesis of\u00a0John 8:57 (\u201cyou are not yet 50 years old\u201d) leaves much to be\u00a0desired. He is convinced that Luke cannot have meant to say\u00a0that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, because unless\u00a0he reached \u201cthe most necessary and honorable period of his\u00a0life\u201d he could not have had disciples. John certifies that he\u00a0was over 40 but under 50. \u201cAll the presbyters of Asia who were\u00a0with John the Lord\u2019s disciple testify that John delivered the\u00a0same tradition to them, for he remained with them until the\u00a0reign of Trajan\u201d (Against Heresies<\/em>, 2.22.4-5). Irenaeus\u2019\u00a0doctrine of recapitulation assured him that in order to save\u00a0men of all ages Jesus had to \u201crecapitulate\u201d the life of\u00a0humanity and pass in five stages from infant to child to\u00a0adolescent to manhood and finally advanced age. His analysis\u00a0of ages is like what we find in Hippocrates, for whom each of\u00a0the ages mentioned by Irenaeus occupies some multiple of\u00a0seven years. One is a child from 1 to the loss of teeth at 7,\u00a0a boy to puberty at 14, a lad till the trace of a beard comes\u00a0at 21, a young man until the whole body is grown at 28, then a\u00a0man from 29 to 49; an elderly man lasts only until 56, and\u00a0after that becomes an old man. Jesus could not have become\u00a0really mature before reaching 49. Since Irenaeus explicitly\u00a0dated the birth of Jesus around the forty-first year of\u00a0Augustus, he cannot have had in mind the real beginning of\u00a0that emperor\u2019s reign in January 27 BC, but must have backdated\u00a0it to the death of Julius Caesar in 44. If then Jesus was born\u00a0in about 3 BC he would have reached 49 during the reign of\u00a0Claudius (41-54), and that is where Irenaeus set his death in\u00a0his later Demonstration. <\/span><\/p>\nSee Robert M. Grant,\u00a0Irenaeus of\u00a0Lyons\u00a0<\/em>(London: Routledge, 1997), p. 33.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHe was clearly wrong in this respect, so no, this was not part of legitimate apostolic tradition that developed over time. It is simply an error.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not trying to misdirect the issue here, only to focus\u00a0on a crucial point in this discussion- If Irenaeus was the\u00a0pupil of Polycarp (who was the pupil of John), why has this\u00a0important aspect of Christology not been \u201chanded down\u201d and\u00a0developed?<\/span><\/p>\nBecause individual Fathers are not infallible. They can be mistaken in many things. We believe that popes can be, too, but that they are specially-protected with the gift of infallibility under certain carefully-defined circumstances. You need to learn a lot about how Catholic authority and epistemology works. I don\u2019t mean that as a put-down, but a simple observation.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s funny how, whenever I write about Luther and point out some unsavory (and to Protestants, shocking) things (such as his advocacy of death for peaceful Anabaptists or his early position that the damned should cheerfully accept their fate), I am always told (what I already know, of course, and believed as a Protestant) that he was not infallible, nor the rule of faith himself, for Protestants. All Catholics do is apply that same outlook to the Church Fathers. Individually, they make plenty of mistakes. But when we look at the consensus of what they taught, we see the mind of the Church and the leading of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
Yet you think you have found (if I gather correctly what you are trying to do here) a \u201cdifficulty\u201d in my position by pointing out gaffes in Irenaeus, as if this negatively affects in the slightest way the argument I have made. The current dispute proper isn\u2019t over whether Irenaeus was\u00a0
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/06\/MaryAnotherRedeemer.jpg\")
<\/p>\n