THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ON MARY

The stupendous witness of Scripture to Mary and her role in the scheme of salvation was echoed and amplified by the New Testament Church. As the first Christians preached and lived the Gospel it became clear that to understand and present the Christian message they had to formulate what they believed into clearcut doctrines. Right from the beginning it was taken for granted that such formulation of doctrine would involve not just Jesus but also Mary. In the ancient debates over doctrine the affirmation of Mary's exalted role and scriptural titles became a mark of orthodoxy and adherence to the historic Faith (take, for instance, Chalcedon). Furthermore, Marian doctrines can rightly be called Christological doctrines because the deeper we delve into Mary the more we learn about Christ.

o Scripture: As we have seen, no other human person has been so highly and consistently exalted in Scripture as Mary. Even Cana, which some have wrongly interpreted to be a rebuke, ended with Jesus performing what Mary requested of Him - although His hour had not yet come.

Scriptural Portraits: New Adam-New Eve: The scriptural depiction of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve had a tremendous impact on the first Christians and the earliest Church Fathers. At the root of every Marian doctrine lies the ancient scriptural proclamation of the New Adam and the New Eve.

Scriptural Portraits: Mother of God: Allied with the New Adam-New Eve theme is the scriptural portrait of Mary's divine maternity. Elizabeth's cry, "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?", is echoed in subsequent doctrine and the definition of Mary as the Mother of God was established as a touchstone of orthodoxy. All Marian doctrine and devotion was inevitably affected by the understanding of Mary's divine maternity.

Scriptural Portraits: Transformed by Grace: the angelic greeting, kecharitomene, established beyond doubt that Mary was specially favored by God in a way no other human person had been favored because she was "transformed by grace" from the very beginning by the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world." When considered alongside the scriptural revelation of Mary's spousal union with the Holy Spirit we see here another major fount of Marian doctrine.

o The New Testament Church: How did the contemporaries of the Apostles and the first generations of Christians understand Mary? From the Gospels themselves and from the writings of the first Fathers and the records of ancient prayers it has become clear that Mary's great role in the scheme of salvation was recognized in the New Testament Church. Marian doctrine lay at the core of the historic Faith.

o Councils, Creeds and the Historic Christian Faith: Closely related to the question of the faith of the New Testament Church is the question of how the recognition of Mary's role was reflected in the teachings of the Councils and Creeds that underlie historic Christianity. A survey of the earliest Councils shows that the definition of Mary as the Mother of God came even before the final consolidation of the Christological teaching that Jesus was God and Man. Just as Mary's assent was required for the coming of the God-man in Scripture, the definition of Mary as the Mother of God (at Ephesus in 431) preceded the final definition of Jesus as truly God and truly Man (at Chalcedon in 451).

o The Great Mystery: Behind the Scriptural witness to Mary and its echo in Marian doctrine lies an insight into a great mystery: God's final victory over Satan was achieved by the God-man. But this final victory was made possible by the free decision of a human person just as it was a free decision of another human person that opened the path to damnation. Although Mary was aided by the transforming grace of God and Eve was deluded by the Devil, both made free choices for which they were responsible. That one human person could play such a major role in reversing the schemes of the Devil magnifies the ultimate victory of God over the Devil.

o The Seamless Garment of Doctrine: Marian doctrine cannot be seen in isolation from the rest of Christian doctrine. All doctrines of the historic Faith are organically connected to each other and the loss of one or more of these doctrines leaves gaping holes in the armor of faith through which enemy arrows can enter - sometimes with fatal consequences. There is, moreover, a logical interconnection between the various Marian doctrines.

To fully understand the truth about Jesus we have to first understand the inspired teachings about Jesus that came out of the Councils and read the New Testament in the light of this inerrant interpretation. Similarly to fully understand the truth about Mary we have to first understand what the Councils taught about her and read Scripture in the light of these proclamations. We must remember that the Council that established the canon of the New Testament in the fourth century already accepted the Marian doctrines that belonged to the historic Faith. It is obvious that the Council would not have held these Marian doctrines if it accepted the kind of interpretations of Mary in the New Testament that are offered today by the Fundamentalists and Liberals. Moreover the early Church did not immediately proclaim Jesus as God for fear of spreading misconceptions of polytheism. The proclamation of Mary as Mother of God took place in parallel with proclamations of the doctrine that Jesus was God and man. Thus the Christian understanding of Mary proceeded in a coherent sequence that mirrored a deeper understanding of her Son.

Fundamentalists often like to contrast the Mary of Scripture with the Virgin Mary of Tradition. In their assessment the biblical Mary has none of the titles and attributes that her devotees claim for her. Often they use proof-texts from Scripture to challenge various Marian doctrines. Their whole strategy in discussing Mary is to start and stay with their (arbitrary) interpretation of the New Testament. This strategy is now adopted by New Testament scholars who start and stay with their interpretation of the New Testament in their study of Jesus. These scholars reject the traditional doctrines about Jesus using various proof-texts and their own interpretations of these texts. The final result of these procedures is to end up with a "Jesus" or a "Mary" who reflects the reader's interpretation and world-view and not the Jesus and Mary that the New Testament Church came to know and preach.

The lesson for us here is that a study of Jesus or Mary which is restricted simply to arbitrary "modern" interpretations of the New Testament cuts us off from the treasures endowed to the faithful by the Spirit of Truth Who, as Jesus promised, leads Christians "into all truth". To stay simply with the Jesus and Mary of our personal interpretation of the Gospels and to ignore the understanding of the Son of God and His Mother that has been given through the centuries is like focusing strictly on the architect's blueprint for your house without bothering to live in it even after it is built.

We must remember that until the 19th century almost all Christians accepted the faith of the early Church concerning the Marian doctrines of the Divine Maternity, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The only Marian doctrine that was rejected by the Reformation was the ancient doctrine of Mary's mediation and intercession. With the Enlightenment, by the end of the 18th century Marian doctrine and much other Christian doctrine dropped out of the faith of many Christians and this in turn spawned varieties of Fundamentalism (rejection of the inerrant interpretation of Scripture) and Liberalism (rejection of both Scripture and its inerrant interpretation) in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The only way out of this chaotic situation is the recognition that it is not our interpretation or understanding that is the ultimate judge or referee in understanding Scripture and doctrine. The ultimate authority is the historic Christian Faith which is protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is not a checklist of doctrines and neither the Christological or Trinitarian doctrines are spelt out in so many words in Scripture. These doctrines were the objects of sharp debate and numerous heresies for centuries - and even today they are denied by many. The same is true of the Marian doctrines which are inextricably linked to the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines. For the Christian who wishes to know the true interpretation of Scripture, the only option is to stick with the interpretation of the historic Faith.

The historic Faith has found expression in the Creeds and Councils of the New Testament Church. The ancient Apostles Creed refers to Mary as the "Virgin Mary" who is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of the God-man. That the role of Mary was taken with great seriousness in the apostolic age is demonstrated by this question in the Rite of Baptism quoted in Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition (c.215): "Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary?"

The Councils go into greater detail on Mary as they do on Jesus and the Trinity. Mary's perpetual virginity was defined by the Synod of Milan in 390 and the Lateran Council in 649. The definition of the Lateran Council was accepted and ratified by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681. The Council of Ephesus defined Mary's Divine Maternity in 431. Mary's immaculate conception was implicitly defined by the Councils in their depiction of her holiness. The First Lateran Council (649) called her "the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary." The Second Council of Constantinople called Mary the "holy, glorious, ever-Virgin Mary." The Third Council of Constantinople ratified the Synodal Epistle of Sophronus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, with its teaching that Mary was "entirely free of all contagion." All the Councils implicitly presented Mary as the all-holy New Eve who interceded for her children before her Son; Cyril's homily on Mary's mediation at the Council of Ephesus is an example. Belief in Mary's holiness and intercession is reflected in the most ancient liturgies and in such prayers as the Sub Tuum preserved in a third century document. Ignatius of Antioch said in 107 that "He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost." (Quoted in Virgin Wholly Marvelous, edited by Peter Brooksby (Cambridge: The Ravengate Press, 1981), 123).

We have said that Marian doctrine is a shadow of the scriptural witness to Mary. The inerrant interpretation of Scripture that came to us from the Councils, Creeds and Fathers who spoke in union with the Apostolic Community gave us doctrine both in Christology and Mariology. The doctrines merely reflected what was already believed and affirmed by the New Testament Church. When we talk of reading and interpreting Scripture for ourselves we cannot ignore the interpretation of Scripture that came from the generations of Christians who fixed the canon of Scripture.

It might be said that the interpretations historically made by the Apostolic Community may not be acceptable to today's Liberal New Testament scholars or Fundamentalist ministers. But an interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit has an authority far higher than the arbitrary interpretation of a New Testament scholar or Fundamentalist leader. In interpreting Scripture we must realize that it is not our subjective interpretation that is the ultimate norm or referee: it is the voice of the historic Christian Faith alone that can provide continuity and consistency. The historic interpretation of the Christian community is reflected in the writings of the Fathers, Councils, and liturgies. Those who ignored the teachings of the historic Faith simply ended up repeating the historic heresies while also fragmenting themselves into a multitude of conflicting interpretations.

In addition to Sacred Scripture, Marian doctrine and devotion has its roots in the earliest Faith Tradition of the New Testament Church and the inner dynamic of Christianity that emerged through the authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Councils and Creeds. The living experience of Mary in her maternal role enjoyed by millions through the centuries supplemented and confirmed the historic teaching.

That Marian doctrine and devotion is as old as Christianity itself we know from the writings of the earliest Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and from 3rd century manuscripts such as the Sub Tuum prayer. Of all the various Christian denominations it is generally agreed that the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox churches go back to the first centuries of Christendom and thereby reflect the faith of the ancient Church. Concerning the relationship of Marian doctrine to the ancient Faith, the great Eastern Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov said, "Love and veneration for the Virgin is the soul of Orthodox piety ... A faith in Christ which does not include his virgin birth and the veneration of his Mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox Church."1

The Councils, the Creeds and the Fathers mirror the Marian veneration of the New Testament writers. According to the exegete John McHugh,

"There is nothing improbable in the suggestion that the early Christians sang hymns of praise in honour of Mary. ... That her special rank was acknowledged by the Church is implied by the text of the Magnificat, where Luke says that 'from this present time' (1:48b) all generations will call her blessed. Could Luke have written that phrase if, at the time when he was writing (A.D. 70-80), his own generation had not begun to call her blessed? The text of Lk 1:42 would seem conclusive proof that the early Church expressed its reverence for the mother of its Lord by singing hymns in her honour.2

The praise and veneration of Mary was a practice of the New Testament community that will be continued throughout all generations. This testimony, however is not just historical, it is "biblical," it is part of the written word of God. The veneration of Mary by God's people in "all generations" ever since the earliest Christian days is a "biblical" fact, biblical information, and biblical teaching.

Mary's veneration is a "biblical" fact also from another standpoint - from the standpoint of all the "servants of the Lord." God's saving instruments were publicly venerated and praised by the biblical people as the instances of Moses, Pinhas, Debora, Yael, David, Judith, etc., serve to prove. In the New Testament we meet the example of John the Baptizer whom the Christian community of the New Testament celebrated together with the Messiah, though of course, in second position. Mary's veneration and exaltation by "all generations" of the Christian people, ever since the very first one, is grounded on the purest and surest biblical practice of glorifying God for his saving deeds through "his servants." ...

The biblical teaching and the biblical practice establish a principle. ... Mary deserves a very singular veneration by God's people redeemed by "the Servant of the Lord," born of "the mother of my Lord"; and for the very reason of her having borne the Messiah, the Son of David, Mary is acknowledged and greeted as "Our Lady" by the messianic community.3

A study of Jesus or Mary which is restricted simply to the New Testament texts cuts us off from the treasures endowed to the faithful by the Spirit of Truth Who, as our Lord promised, has led Christians "into all truth". It is the Fundamentalist "stick strictly to the New Testament narratives and to your interpretation of it" mentality that has given us both Liberalism - the mind-set that rejects the truths of historic Christianity, even the truths accepted by the Fundamentalists - and the thousands of cults that have sprouted from the fertile soil of "sola scriptura." If we ask why Jesus did not explicitly proclaim the doctrines of Mary's Divine Maternity, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption and Mediation we must also ask why He did not explicitly proclaim the truth that He was fully God and fully Man or that Three Divine Persons subsist in the unity of one divine nature (both of which have been areas of recurring heresies throughout the history of Christianity). The answer to both questions is that He gave us a Spirit of Truth Who would lead us "into all truth" on these and all other matters relating to His revelation.

If you use Scripture to reject Marian doctrine you will eventually use Scripture to reject Christological doctrine. If you choose to believe just the Christological doctrines while ignoring or denying the Marian doctrines then you will be rejecting the Faith of the Fathers who gave you the Christological doctrines. And eventually you will reject their Christological doctrines as well. Historically, any dishonor of Mary has led eventually to the loss of belief in her Son as John Henry Newman has shown in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

The Marian title Theotokos, Mother of God, is explicit in Scripture. Mary is the Virgin Mother of "EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us." [Matthew 1:23]. When she visits her cousin, Elizabeth exclaims, "Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43]; and "Lord" (Adonai) here is the same title used for Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Both the early Fathers and major Councils taught that Mary was Theotokos. The doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God was defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

The Council of Ephesus taught that Jesus Christ is a divine Person with a human and a divine nature and that Mary is the Mother of God. The Council proclaimed that "If anyone does not confess that Jesus Christ is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema." In making this definition the Council rejected the heresy of Nestorius who said that there are two persons in Christ, one divine and one human.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was called to define the two natures and one Person of Christ but also taught the truth of the Marian title "Mother of God":

Following the holy fathers we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational soul and a body, truly man, consubtantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature, like unto us in all things except sin (Hebrews 4:15); indeed born of the Father before the ages according to divine nature, but in the last days the same born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to human nature.

This great Council, accepted as authoritative by all of Christendom, was concerned to protect the truth that there is only one Person in Jesus and that that Person is a divine Person. An inevitable corollary of this truth of faith defined by the Council was the affirmation that Mary is the Mother of that Person, the Mother of the Son of God made man. The definition of Mary's divine maternity went hand in hand with the definition of the two Natures and divine Personhood of Jesus. The truths embodied in these definitions were accepted and taught long before they were officially defined by Councils.

Conception and birth involve not a nature but a person-united-to-a-nature and the Person Whom Mary bore in His human nature was God though she did not generate either His divine nature or His divine Person. She did not create God or bring Him to be but God was truly conceived and born of her in His human nature just as any human mother does not create her child's soul but prepares the body for the soul and is the mother of the union of body and soul, ie., of the child.

Unlike early Church heresies which proclaimed that Christ was only God or only man or not completely human, and which could not therefore teach that Mary was Theotokos, the historic Christian Faith has always taught that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, was united to a human nature. When He assumed this human nature Mary became His mother. Thus, if one believes or is to believe that Jesus was the God-man, one must believe too that His mother was the Mother of God. In being thus the Mother of God, Mary is not taught to be in any sense divine, a goddess. It is, in fact, rank heresy to think of her as deity. Christ's Divine Being did not come from her - rather, the Divine Person Who existed from all eternity united Himself and His divine Nature to a human nature in her womb.

Every Marian doctrine is simply a consequence of the fundamental Christological affirmations. This great truth was enunciated most clearly by John Damascene who said of Mary, "This name - Theotokos (the Mother of God) - contains the whole mystery of the Incarnation." The more we reflect on the implications of Mary's Motherhood, the more we learn about the Incarnation itself. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ Who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Who is God. She conceived and bore Him knowing Him to be Emmanuel, obeying in faith and in the fullness of her grace, the command of God to bear One Who is God united with a human nature.

E.L. Mascall has pointed out that the Ephesus definition of Mary as Theotokos appropriately enough gave a new impetus to Marian veneration. This devotion was both logical and legitimate because "devotion was simply drawing the logical consequences of the more explicit understanding that the Church had now acquired of the nature and the circumstances of the Incarnation."4

The Virginal Conception of Jesus was taught by all the Christian Councils and Creeds and even Protestant Fundamentalists profess faith in the Virgin Birth.

In all other births God transmits His gift of life through secondary agents. No human agent, however, could generate a divine Person Who had both a human and a divine nature and so, in the Virgin Birth, in one unique instance, He gave life directly, without the mediation of two secondary agents. The prophecy of Isaiah that a virgin would conceive and bear a son is fulfilled in the virginal conception of Jesus so memorably described in the infancy narratives of the New Testament.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth focuses our minds on the mystery of how God, a Divine Person, could be born of a human being. No finite mind can begin to grasp the depth of this mystery. In accepting the Virgin Birth we are not simply reading the Bible as Fundamentalists but acknowledging one of the greatest of theological mysteries - the mystery of the Incarnation in which the pre-existing Son of God (Who is not born of human generation) unites Himself to a human nature.

Once we see the Virgin Birth as a mystery - a mystery to be meditated upon in the overall setting of the mystery of the Incarnation - we will understand why Christians from the beginning have believed and taught that the womb that bore the God-man could not possibly have borne any other being. Fundamentalists for whom the Virgin Birth is a "proof-text" and not a great mystery of faith usually do not grasp this ancient insight. But the historic Christian Faith - because it is guided by the Holy Spirit and not by literalists or reductionists - led the Christian community to the affirmation that Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Apostles' Creed affirms the virginity of Mary and Epiphanius in explaining the Nicene Creed calls her "ever virgin." In 649 A.D. the Lateran Council declared that "she conceived without seed, of the Holy Spirit ... and without injury brought him forth ... and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate." This teaching was re-affirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681.

The Gospel witness to Mary's perpetual virginity is given most clearly in two important areas. First, the Gospels call only Jesus the son of Mary and Mary is never called the mother of anyone else. Secondly, we see our Lord on the cross asking the Apostle John to take care of His Mother because she had no other children. It is unthinkable in the Jewish world that a son would entrust his mother to the care of a friend if he had a sibling. Moreover Mary's scriptural role as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit makes it quite improbable, if not unthinkable, that she would have conjugal relations with any human person.

It is sometimes said that Jesus is called the first-born in the Gospels indicating there were siblings who followed Him. The fallacies in this argument and others like it have been exposed not only by the Fathers but by the Protestant Reformers. The Bible has several cases in which "first-born" does not necessarily indicate that other children came after. For the Jews "first-born" meant the child that opened the womb and the first male child was referred to as the "first-born" even if he was the only child.

It is often alleged too that such verses as Mark 6:3, "His brethren James and Joseph, and Judas and Simon," and Matthew 13:55-56, "his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon and Judas ...", are evidence that Jesus had brothers and sisters. What is forgotten is that the Jewish expression for brothers and sisters applies to cousins and even to people in the same tribe. Although Lot was the son of Abraham's brother Aran, he is described as Abraham's "brother" (Genesis 14:14). Similarly, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Genesis 29:15). Similar examples are found throughout Scripture. In any case, in Matthew 27:56, Mark 14:40 and John 19:25, James and Joseph are described as the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas - thus Scripture tells us that the "brethren" James and Joseph in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 are not blood brothers of Jesus. If James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was truly a son of Mary it would be impossible for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary to be affirmed in the early Church. Nevertheless such ancient writers as Irenaeus, Polycarp and Ignatius all taught the doctrine as an article of faith.

To suggest that Mary had other children is to dishonor Christ Who was the only-begotten of God the Father and, likewise, in His human nature, the only-begotten of His mother. As John Damascene said: "For how were it possible that she, who had borne God and had come to know that miracle from her experience of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought!" (The Source of Knowledge 3:4:14).

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli held that "It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, 'who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.' For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing ... Zwingli believes he has shown that Mary's permanent virginity rests on biblical fact, not human decree."5

Along with the affirmations of Mary's divine maternity and perpetual virginity, the early Church proclaimed the immaculate holiness of Mary. The Council of Ephesus calls Mary "the holy Virgin", the Second Council of Constantinople calls her the "holy, glorious, ever-Virgin Mary" and the First Lateran Council (649 A.D.), which was later ratified by the Third Council of Constantinople, states: "If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, let him be anathema."

When the Fathers wrote that Mary was "spotless", "free from any stain of sin", "immaculate", "all-holy" they were simply echoing the biblical witness to the immaculate conception of Mary. To say that Mary was immaculately conceived is simply to say that from the very beginning of her conception she was free from all trace of Original Sin. This is to say that when God brought together soul and body to create the person who was Mary her nature was not flawed like that of everyone else in the Adamic race by the will to evil. She was not for an instant in the grip of Satan.

The basis in Scripture and Christian doctrine has been reviewed. To begin with, we cannot fail to see that Scripture itself proclaims Mary's immaculate holiness when she is addressed as kecharitomene, "transformed by grace" so that she was without sin. It was only because she was "transformed by grace" that Mary could be offered the honor of being the Mother of God. Moreover, she could truly be the New Eve only if she was not subject to the Serpent. And as the New Ark of the Covenant she could not be "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit if she was stained by sin.

We see in the Old Testament that the prophets and messengers of God's salvation were given special graces to perform their mission. In certain exceptional cases, notably Jeremiah and John the Baptist, the prophets were sanctified while still in the womb. Thus the idea of Mary's sanctification before birth is not only scripturally based but has ample scriptural precedent. As the great Protestant theologian Charles Augustus Briggs points out, this process of pre-ordained purification reached its climax in Mary who was called to play, next to the mission of Christ, the single most important role in the history of salvation. From the announcements of the angel and Elizabeth revealed in Scripture we are led to conclude that this preparation meant that Mary was immaculately conceived:

May we not suppose (writes Briggs) that the Holy Spirit had been sanctifying the holy line for generations, preparing it for that fulness of the time when the Messiah was to be born of it, and that in Mary the Mother of our Lord that sanctifying had reached the supreme point of entire removal from her, even at her birth, of all the taint and defilemeni of original sin, so that she was fitted from her birth by purity, innocence, and consecrated sanctity to be the Mother of our Lord." Such an approach Briggs maintains does no violence to the pauline doctrine of original sin. Here there is no magical breaking into the chain of human life. Rather there is witness to a slow careful preparation for the advent. It is a preparation that has reached its fulfilment in Mary. "The holy Mother, pure and undefiled, immaculate and altogether sacred, had been prepared through many generations of holy ancestry, as the consummate flower of humanity, to bear as her fruit the holy child."6

The significance of the scriptural description of Mary (the Angel Gabriel's greeting) as kecharitomene, "transformed by grace", has already been considered. Ignace de la Potterie points out that

"Kecharitomene" signifies then, in the person to whom the verb relates, that is, Mary, that the action of the grace of God has already brought about a change. It does not tell us how that came about. What is essential here is that it affirms that Mary has been transformed by the grace of God.7

Mary's relationship with the Holy Spirit is also vital here. Scripture shows a unique intimacy between Mary and the Holy Spirit. The inspired interpretation of Scripture preserved in the historic Faith has seen fit to infer from this union that she who is the Mother of God is also the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. The implications of this inference are as colossal as that of the affirmation of Mary as Theotokos. We know that these implications were recognized by the early Church because the name given to Mary, "Panagia", "all holy" in Greek, is also the name given to the Holy Spirit, "Panagion". As the all-holy Spouse of the Holy Spirit, it is inconceivable that Mary could have had any stain of sin.

Unquestionably, the affirmation of Mary's immaculate conception does not imply that she did not require a Savior. Mary's Son was her Savior. Just as our Lord delivers us from sin, He preserved His Mother from sin. How this could take place was a mystery even to such great minds as Thomas Aquinas - and Aquinas rightly rejected explanations of the Immaculate Conception which implied that Mary did not need a Savior. It was left to the great scholar John Duns Scotus to give a theological explanation for how these two great truths of faith fitted together.

The mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation could only be formulated after the great minds of the Church used the Greek concepts of "person" and "nature" to give a theological explanation for doctrines which the faithful already accepted. Similarly Duns Scotus showed how a deeper understanding of the fact that God is not limited in His power or knowledge by time can help us understand how the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ is the Savior of His mother. The results of the Redemption achieved by Christ are applicable backwards or forwards in time by God: since God is outside time (there is no past or future in God), He can apply the results of the Redemption at any point in time. We read in Scripture that Jesus is "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world". By an anticipation of the merits of the Redemption which Christ won for the human race, we see that God filled Mary with grace from the moment of her conception. She is the first of the redeemed, of those who are restored in Christ to what man was meant to be.

This idea of the "anticipation of the merits of redemption" is certainly not alien to Protestants. According to the Calvinist Westminster Confession:

"Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his Incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively, from the beginning of the world." (W.C. VIII, 6).8

But the idea of predestination, in its orthodox formulation, must be understood not in terms of salvation for a few and deliberately willed damnation for the many. Rather, predestination in the historic Faith is the preparation of certain special individuals to play a key role in the divine scheme of salvation (a point well developed by John Wesley). This salvation is offered to all of humanity but the possibility of making the offer of salvation depends on the free cooperation of these special individuals. Mary's immaculate conception must be understood in the context of her role in the scheme of salvation. In his ecumenical study of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the Presbyterian theologian Donald Dawe considers this context:

Now predestination always embraces all the necessary graces to accomplish the end of the divine election. In the case of Mary, this implies those graces needed to prepare her for her role as the Theotokos. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is then, according to Nicolas, the explication of what is implied in the election of Mary.

Such an analysis holds great promise for fresh interpretations of the Immaculate Conception.9

Although refined only over the course of centuries, the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception was affirmed by the Christian community almost from the beginning.The differences and similarities between East and West on this doctrine are clarified by Michael O'Carroll:

Original sin was not understood in the East as in the West, where St. Augustine's idea was dominant. That the great Easterners in speaking of Mary as all-holy included in this praise exemption from the initial guilt is certain.10

In no way does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception raise Mary to deity: she is recognized to be purely a human being, but a human being restored by God to the state of harmony with God that the first human beings enjoyed before the Fall. Mary's Immaculate Conception does not divert our attention from the worship due to our Creator but helps us to appreciate His glory all the more. The insight that Mary was all-pure and all-holy, free from all stain of actual sin, was affirmed by Western and Eastern Christianity, by the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Reformers.

Like Mary's immaculate holiness, Mary's assumption into Heaven was accepted by Christians of East and West from a very early age. The scriptural basis of the doctrine is most evident in Revelation 12 which gives us unequivocal confirmation that the Mother of the Messiah is now glorified. Unfortunately the Book of Revelation itself was not considered part of the New Testament canon until the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Eusebius of Caesarea (died 339), Dionysius of Alexandria (died 265), Lucian of Antioch (died 312) and other Christian writers deliberately excluded Revelation from their lists of the New Testament books. It was only after the decrees of Gelasius in 382 and Innocent I in 405 that Revelation was accepted as a part of the canon. As a result earlier Church Fathers did not have the benefit of the scriptural revelation of the glorified Mother of the Man-child who was "to rule all nations".

The affirmation of Mary's Assumption is simply the recognition that, after her death, God did not allow Mary's body to suffer corruption but resurrected and re-united it with her soul: she was assumed into Heaven body and soul. This affirmation is to be understood from the perspective of both Scripture and other biblical truths. For instance, the Old Testament gives explicit examples of the assumption of the holy ones of God. We even see Elijah and Enoch being taken up into Paradise and Moses too, it seems likely, was assumed into Paradise given his appearance at the Transfiguration. So the idea of "assumption" as such is very scriptural - and is in fact applied to the holy ones of God.

There are three fundamental areas in which the biblical witness points to the Assumption of Mary. Revelation 12 is of central importance. We see conclusive evidence there that the New Eve cannot be separated from her Son and continues to participate in His mission. Secondly, Mary's role as the New Eve is as important in the context of the Assumption as it is in understanding her Immaculate Conception. For her disobedience the first Eve was punished with libido, the pains of labor and the corruption of the tomb ("for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 3:19)): as the obedient New Eve, Mary cannot be subjected to these three punishments. Since God preserved Mary from Original Sin it is at least to be expected that He would not let her body suffer from the consequences of Original Sin. Thirdly, as the Fathers recognized, it is inconceivable that the all-holy Mother of God who is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit would be left to decay in the dust of the earth. Is it to be imagined that the resurrected Son of God would even countenance the possibility that the body of His beloved mother, His partner in the mission of salvation ("A sword shall pierce through thy own soul also." (Luke 2:35)), would be left to the indignity of the grave? Is it to be believed that the sacred body of the spouse of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity will be left to rot in the dust of the earth? Is it to be thought that she whom the Father wills to be called "blessed" by all generations will suffer the curse of the grave? The New Eve who suffered with the New Adam in the work of redemption shares also in His triumph.

In "assuming" Mary, God did for her what all the saved will enjoy after the Last Judgment. But her Assumption was different from Christ's Resurrection and Ascension because she was redeemed by Him: she was in fact the first creature to enjoy the fruits of the Redemption wrought by our Savior. While Jesus ascended into Heaven through His own divine power, Mary was assumed into Heaven by God.

The biblical witness for the truth of the Assumption is complemented by the witness of history. It is a remarkable fact that there is no tradition or legend whatsoever about either the physical relics of the Blessed Mother or of a tomb in which she presently lies buried. The earthly resting places of all the other Apostles and of holy Christians through the ages have inspired shrines and pilgrimages; relics associated with them have been treasured by the faithful. Is it conceivable that the greatest saint of them all, the Mother of God, would not have been thus honored if there had been even the slightest inkling that she was buried somewhere in this world? Like "the empty tomb" that testified so strongly to the resurrection of Our Lord, the absence of belief in a tomb holding Mary's remains testifies powerfully to the truth that she was assumed into Heaven (of course there are traditions of the tomb where her body was laid prior to the Assumption much as Jesus too was laid in a tomb prior to His Resurrection).

It is sometimes thought that the Assumption is a late belief in comparison to all the other Marian doctrines. There is certainly a silence about the Assumption in the writings of the earliest Fathers. But this can partially be explained by the fact that the Book of Revelation was not recognized as canonical until the fourth and fifth centuries. Nevertheless, other considerations make it clear that the Assumption was generally accepted as far back as the second century.

Since we have texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), and Arabic, there would seem to be little doubt that the Assumption was a catholic (i.e. universal) belief among early Christians. While popular Christian literature has never been entirely reliable historically or theologically (it rarely is even today), yet there is much to be learned from the Transitus about the faith of the average Christian sitting in the pew.

Behind legends there is often some basis in fact. ... What does the Transitus literature teach us? It teaches that the Assumption didn't just pop up out of nowhere in 1950, which is often the vague assumption of non-Catholics. Indeed, the belief was so widespread in the fifth century that it is hard not to conclude that it must have originated at a much earlier date. Many scholars place the Syriac fragments of the Transitus stories as far back as the third century, and noted Mariologist Michael O'Carroll adds, "The whole story will eventually be placed earlier, probably in the second century -possibly, if research can be linked with archaeological findings on Mary's tomb in Gethsemani, in the first [century]." This conclusion would seem to be supported by the fact that the doctrine flourished without anyone, especially the bishops, protesting against a growing "superstition."11

In the Anglican book The Blessed Virgin Mary, H.S. Box points out that legends of the Assumption do not lie behind belief in it: rather the legends were inspired by the prior belief:

It is indeed true that apocryphal legends were in early times associated with Mary's death, burial and resurrection, but as Thomas Mozley pointed out in his Reminiscences of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement (1882), the belief was never founded on the story of the Assumption. 'The story was founded on the belief, and testifies to the fact of that belief. The belief which was universal required a defined shape, and that shape at length is found.' ...

Although the apocryphal stories do not form the basis for belief in the Assumption, and provide no certain argument for the truth of the doctrine, their antiquity is an indication of an early tradition that the end of our Lady's life on earth was unusual, and that her body was saved from corruption. 'Of the early stories of the Assumption it may be said that all sought to supply the known fact with unknown details. The faithful believed that Mary is body and soul in glory. Writers set to work to guess the rest of the story.'12

A suitable conclusion here is a summary sequence of the foundations for the doctrine of the Assumption given by Francis Davis:

If we were to continue the history of the arguments put forward century by century, we should find that they can be reduced to the following heads:

(2) Immaculate conception and sinlessness imply exemption from corruption and the grave, and so imply resurrection and glory.

(3) Perpetual virginity, as fleshly incorruption, involved exemption from physical corruption after death.

(4) The filial piety of the divine Son implied that He would do this for her, if it were otherwise possible and fitting.

(5) Mary at her death was more exalted in dignity than other creatures will ever be. If, then, other Christians are destined to be bodily with Christ in heaven, this must have applied to Mary straightaway after her death.

(6) The doctrine of the Second Eve implies assumption as the final and complete victory of the woman.

(7) The woman of the Apocalypse is already seen in her glory, after being taken by the Eagle.13

The characterization of Mary as the New Eve both in Scripture and the earliest Church Fathers is doctrinally expressed in the Marian titles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. Mary's role in God's redemption of humanity is obvious from the very fact that it was through her free choice and cooperation with the will of God that the Redeemer came to humanity. "The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith," said Irenaeus in 189 A.D. She is the New Eve because she obeyed where the old Eve disobeyed - in both cases the free choices involved had crucial consequences for the salvation or damnation of the human race. And the importance of Mary's act of obedience, we have said, lies in the fact that it was the most important such act by a human person in salvation history. After the prophecy of Mary's coredemptive role ("A sword shall pierce your soul also") Scripture tells us too, as clearly as possible, that Mary continues to participate in her Son's Salvific Mission (John 19, Revelation 12).

The true grandeur of Mary's great Yes to God can be appreciated only when we understand the Christian theology of freewill. It is no coincidence that the denial of man's freedom was followed by an eclipse of Marian doctrine and devotion. John Calvin's conception of God as Master Puppeteer and man as puppet flatly contradicts the entire Christian revelation of God's infinite love and our awesome ability to accept or reject our Creator.

Although the Protestant Reformers accepted the Marian titles they rejected every conception of Marian mediation and intercession because of their mistaken belief in salvation without freedom. Their heirs, the Protestant Fundamentalists, have resolutely continued this rejection of Mary's participation in the divine scheme of salvation. But this rejection of Mary's coredemptive role ignores key elements of the witness of Scripture and the historic Faith.

The theme of Mary's surrender of her maternal rights at the Cross is found in Irenaeus, one of the earliest Church Fathers who implicitly compares her to Abraham offering up Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

The Eastern Orthodox theologian John Breck points out that the early Christians saw in the suffering of Mary at Calvary the fulfillment of Simeon's prophecy:

"And a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (2:35). The traditional interpretation of this verse holds that the "sword" to pierce Mary's soul is her suffering at the death of her Son on the Cross. ... Christian tradition clearly knew of Mary's presence near the cross with the other women of Galilee, and there can be little doubt that Luke's community shared that knowledge. The image of the Pieta the Mater Dolorosa, is not just a product of medieval Roman Catholic piety; it is a profoundly "evangelical" truth, firmly rooted in the biblical witness.14

Mary's freely offered obedience was the catalyst for the final divine victory. For God to intervene on behalf of the free beings He had created, He had to have the free cooperation of at least one of these beings. The one being who did this was Mary. It was Mary's obedience at the Annunciation that untied "the knot of Eve's disobedience." For the divine Person to make the all-sufficient reparation, a human person had to first untie "the knot" and it is here that we perceive both Mary's true glory and God's ultimate victory. Again, it was through Mary's cooperation (by being His Mother) that the divine Person could become a human being - thus laying the groundwork for the future Redemptive Act. In a nutshell, the Incarnation could not have taken place if Mary had not accepted the divine invitation to be the Mother of the Redeemer. The entire plan of salvation depended on Mary's acceptance and her freely given assent was therefore the key that opened the door to redemption for the human race.

Mary's coredemptive role is brought to view throughout the New Testament, from the Annunciation through Simeon's prophecy, Cana, Calvary, Pentecost and finally Revelation 12. Simeon's prophecy about Mary, "and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also" (Luke 2:35), is fulfilled on Calvary where she suffers desolation at the foot of the cross (Mary's sorrow at Calvary is again shown in Revelation 12 with its theme of the woman in travail). Mark Miravalle points out that

"Mary, who previously was the Handmaid of the Lord at the Annunciation, becomes through the bitter suffering of Calvary the Woman with the Man of Redemption, the Mother with the Son of Salvation, the Lady (Domina) with the Lord (Dominus) of all peoples."15

Mary's participation in her Son's mission of salvation is pre-figured in Genesis, executed in the Gospels and reiterated in the Book of Revelation. Is it any surprise then that Mary's coredemptive role and her mediation were recognized in the earliest Christian teachings, in particular the teaching of her as the New Eve? This role of co-redemption and mediation, a role to which all Christians are called, is developed most fully in the theology of Paul (Colossians 1:24 and 1 Cor 3:9).

The Fathers of the Church have recognized that Mary's suffering at Calvary played a coredemptive role in the divine scheme of salvation. Protestant Fundamentalists may feel uneasy about the idea of uniting one's suffering to the suffering of Christ and thereby participating in His salvific mission. But this is precisely the idea that is so masterfully developed by Paul in his epistle to the Colossians: "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the Church." (Colossians 1:24). This is a startling passage - and a familiar part of Lutheran-Catholic polemic - because it implies that there is something "lacking in Christ's afflictions" and that Paul can "complete" what is lacking through his suffering. What the Protestant Fundamentalist fails to understand is that while the redemptive sacrifice of Christ was completed on Calvary the work of redemption, the application of this redemptive sacrifice to men and women, will continue throughout history. The suffering of any person, when offered freely to God, is incorporated by Him in the salvific scheme. We can all be co-redeemers in this sense. "We are God's fellow-workers," says Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:9. But the co-redemptive role performed by the immaculately conceived Mother of God is qualitatively distinct. Because of her relation to her Son as Mother and because her aversion to sin in her Immaculate Conception and her love for God is far greater than that of any other human person, Mary's suffering is most intimately united to our Lord's and plays such a significant role in the divine scheme of salvation.

The Anglican theologian John MacQuarrie has given us a memorable exposition of Mary's coredemptive role:

In the glimpses of Mary that we have in the gospels, her standing at the cross beside her Son, and her prayers and intercessions with the apostles, are particularly striking ways in which Mary shared and supported the work of Christ - and even these are ways in which the Church as a whole can have a share in co-redemption. But it is Mary who has come to symbolize that perfect harmony between the divine will and the human response, so that it is she who gives meaning to the expression Corredemptrix. But secondly there is the further context in which Mary has to be considered, the context of the incarnation of the Word. In this context, the language of co-redemption is also appropriate, but in a different way, for in this regard her contribution was unique and by its very nature could not be literally shared with anyone else. We are thinking of her now not just as representative or pre-eminent member of the Church, but as Theotokos or Mother of God. Mary's willing acceptance of her indispensable role in that chain of events which constituted the incarnation and the redemption which it brought about, was necessary for the nurture of the Lord and for the creation of the Church itself."16

The recognition of Mary's coredemptive role helps us to avoid and refute the dark doctrines of Luther and Calvin. Their theology portrays human beings as puppets programmed to perform pre-determined roles by a cosmic puppeteer who has already assigned damnation for most of the human race. Macquarrie recognizes the importance of recognizing this role:

Let us now come back to the consideration of Mary as Corredemptrix. Perhaps we do have to acknowledge that Barth and others have been correct in believing that the place given to Mary in catholic theology is a threat to the doctrine of sola gratia, but I think this is the case only when the doctrine of sola gratia is interpreted in an extreme form, when this doctrine itself becomes a threat to a genuinely personal and biblical view of the human being as made in the image of God and destined for God, a being still capable of responding to God and of serving God in the work of building up the creation. This hopeful view of the human race is personified and enshrined in Mary."17

In calling Mary Coredemptrix we are not suggesting that she is in any sense an "equal" of her Son. Jesus is a divine Person. Mary is a human person. Although she is the highest human person the gulf between the divine and the human is infinite.

In the same vein, the Anglican theologian Eric Mascall clarifies the meaning of the term "Coredemptrix":

Mary's part in our redemption was thoroughly real and genuine. It was none the less secondary to the part played by God and by Christ. In certain theological circles in recent years the word 'co-redemptrix' has been frequently applied to Mary. ... He is redemptor, not co-redemptor; she is coredemptrix, not redemptrix. The force of the prefix co is to indicate not equality but subordination, as when St Paul tells his Corinthian disciples that 'we are God's fellow-workers', his synergoi, his co-operators. Mary is thus described as coredemptrix in order to bring out the fact that, while Mary has a real part in the redemptive process, because she is morally and physically associated in it with her Son, yet her part is, and must be, essentially subordinate and ancillary to his.

In all the best Mariological writing of the present day the utmost care has been taken to preserve the unity of the redemptive act, to insist that there are not two acts, one performed by Christ and one by Mary, but one act, whose principal agent is Christ, and in which Mary's part is organically related and subordinated to his. ... In the early Church the fact about Mary's part in redemption which seems to have struck the minds of Christians most forcibly was that her obedience reversed the disobedience of Eve.18

By being the Coredemptrix who suffered at the foot of the cross, Mary also became the Mediatrix of the graces that Jesus won on the cross. To understand the time-honored title of Mediatrix we have to understand the relation between Mary and the Holy Spirit. We have seen that four out of the six direct interventions of the Holy Spirit shown in Scripture involve Mary. Scripture shows us that no other human person had the kind of intimate union with the Holy Spirit that we find with Mary and hence the historic Christian Faith has addressed her as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. This title is as important in understanding the significance of Mary as the title Theotokos.

In meditating on the significance of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, historic Christianity has discerned a union between them that is so intimate and inseparable that the Holy Spirit mediates His graces through her. The greatest grace received by all of humanity was the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and this grace came from the Holy Spirit through His Spousal Preparation of the Virgin Mary. In that very act she became the mediatrix of the greatest of all graces. In the Gospel of John we see her petition to her Son result in the grace of faith for the disciples of Jesus ("This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him"). And in offering up her beloved Son at Calvary (as Simeon foretold in speaking of the sword that would pierce her heart), Mary, like Abraham who offered up Isaac to the Almighty, became the mediatrix of Jesus' redemptive death and all the graces that came with it. It was the Holy Spirit Himself, the Source of all graces, Who honored Mary (as no other human person has been honored by God Himself) by speaking through the lips of Elizabeth ("Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"): "Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb ... As soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from God." Again the Holy Spirit addresses her through Simeon ("the Holy Ghost was upon him ... he came by the Spirit into the temple"): "Simeon ... said unto Mary his mother, Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel ... Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also."

Mary's role as Mediatrix was recognized even at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus at which Cyril of Alexandria proclaimed, "Hail Mary Theotokos, venerable treasure of the whole world ... it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored ... through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom that all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom holy baptism has come to believers ... through whom nations are brought to baptism."

The proclamation of Mary as Mediatrix roots all salvific activity in the Holy Trinity: it acknowledges the truth affirmed by all Christians that the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier Who brings all graces while noting that the Spirit's unique relationship with the Blessed Virgin which began with the conception of Christ will continue for all ages. The implications of the Scriptural affirmations that Mary is both the Theotokos and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit have been worked out over the centuries and have led to a greater awareness of the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

We have seen that there is no contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:5 ("There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus") and the affirmation of Mary as Mediatrix. In recognizing our Lord's primary mediation we do not have to ignore or deny all other forms of mediation between God and man that participation in His mediation in different degrees. In fact Scripture itself shows numerous instances of mediation between God and man involving angels and human beings. We have seen that both Abraham and Moses were great mediators with God for the people of Israel and pre-figured in many ways the role played by Mary. The New Testament lists three kinds of mediators (the Apostle Paul, for instance, was certainly conscious of his calling as a mediator). Like every verse in Scripture, 1 Timothy 2:5 too must be interpreted in the light of the authoritative interpretation of the biblical texts (detailed studies of the text are given in the trilogy).

Mary's roles as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix also show us that she is an intercessor, an Advocate for her beloved children. Mary is for all eternity the Mother of Christ in His human nature and, as she did at Cana, she can obtain graces from Him for those who request her to do so. In Scripture we are told to ask others to pray for us (God is often seen as granting favors through the prayers of others) and for us to ask the Mother of Our Lord now in Heaven to pray for us seems eminently reasonable.

Intercessory prayer to Mary goes back to the second and third centuries (the Sub Tuum prayer, for instance, is found in a third century manuscript). To petition her is implicitly to pray to God for it is to Him that she takes one's petition with hers: and two prayers are more powerful than one. In the spiritual world of cause and effect, prayer achieves definite results. At Cana, her Son did what Mary asked for although His "hour had not yet come". Now that His "hour" has come - an "hour" in which she participated as only a mother can, an "hour" in which He gave her to us as our mother - we can be sure that she will implore Him for everything we need. Like Abraham and Moses, Mary pleads for her children with God. As at Cana she remains forever our Advocate - a human expression of the divine Advocate Who is her Spouse, the Holy Spirit.

Mary's mediation of grace is most prominent in Eastern Christianity and is today expounded most powerfully by the Eastern Orthodox. Modern Orthodox thinkers have seen Mary's role in the mediation of grace in the context of her relation to the Holy Spirit:

Evdokimov says in the last paragraph that he ever wrote, a few hours before his death, 'The Holy Spirit has no place of incarnation but he possesses in Mary the unique and altogether distinctive temple of his presence.' Prior to Evdokimov, Bulgakov had also suggested a similar approach. In the Virgin, so he urges, is brought to highest fulfilment that which the Paraclete is seeking to effect in every one of us: "The Holy Spirit is not incarnated in a man but manifests himself in humanity. The Virgin Mary, 'the handmaid of the Lord', is a personality transparent to the action of the Holy Spirit."19

We have said in the introduction that Mary's coredemptive role can only be understood in relation to the doctrine of her spiritual motherhood. This point is persuasively presented by the Anglican theologian Edward Symonds:

Mary is recognized as the mother of all Christian people from at least the time of Origen, who says, 'No one will be able to understand the meaning of St John's Gospel if he has not leaned on the breast of Jesus and received from Jesus the one who has become his mother also. Because Christ lives in him, the words are said to Mary of him, "Behold thy Son the Christ".' This motherhood is perpetual, for the Incarnation is a permanent reality not a merely past event. Our Lord retains his human Nature in Heaven. Therefore Mary is still his Mother, but also the Mother of the Church which is his Body, the living organism of Christ's glorified human Nature and of each of its members, who are made her adopted, not her natural children, by their baptismal incorporation into the human Nature of her Son.

But a further question is, how does our Lady exercise this motherhood? The answer is by love, and by intercession. There can be no doubt that the saints exercise charity, the crown of Christian virtues, in Heaven. And that charity which is primarily directed towards God is, as the New Testament teaches, empty and worthless if it does not include the love of man, specially of our fellow-members in the Body of Christ. And this love finds its chief (though not its only) expression, in the case of the saints in Heaven, in intercession. In the form for the Commemoration of King Charles the prayer occurs that 'by a careful imitation of this thy Blessed saint, and martyrs that have gone before us, we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they, in communion with the Church Catholic, offer up unto thee for that part of it here militant'. But while many of the best Anglican theologians of the seventeenth century recognize the intercession of the saints for the Church Militant in general (e.g., Andrews, Bull, and Richard Field), few would admit the lawfulness of invoking them directly, that is of asking them for their prayers. Bishop Forbes of Edinburgh (1634), however, says the practice is not to be condemned either as unlawful or as useless. After an exhaustive examination of the Fathers he concludes:

Let God alone be religiously adored; let him alone be prayed to, through Christ, Who is the only and sole mediator, truly and properly speaking, between God and man. Let not the very ancient custom received in the universal Church, as well Greek and Latin, of addressing the Angels and saints after the manner we have mentioned, be condemned or rejected as impious, nor even as vain and foolish.

It has been urged however that we have no certainty that the saints can hear our prayers, or that, if they are aware of the prayers of the Church in general, they are conscious of individual requests. In particular it has been maintained that it would be impossible for our Lady to hear every Hail Mary addressed to her, without ascribing to her something akin to divine omniscience.

It may be answered however that the Church neither in the East nor in the West has ever officially declared that the saints are aware of our individual petitions. The Council of Trent is content with laying down that 'it is good and useful to invoke them (the saints) by way of supplication (suppliciter) and to take refuge in (confugere ad) their prayers, support and help'. It condemns only those who say that they ought not to be invoked, or that they do not pray for men. But it carefully refrains from asserting that they hear our individual petitions.

If however St Gregory and St Thomas are right in their speculation that the saints in their contemplation of the eternal Word see all that is fitting for them of earth)y affairs, it must be true that our Lady has a greater knowledge of them than all other saints. It may be difficult to believe that she hears every individual Hail Mary addressed to her, but we have no right to set limits to the heightened consciousness which must belong to those who enjoy the vision of God.

This consciousness, however, is that which belongs to a creature, and is by no means akin to the omniscience which is the peculiar prerogative of God himself. But no one could be accused of heresy, even on Western standards, if he thought that the devout saying of the Hail Mary brought him and his needs into the stream of effectual prayer made by our Lady, without her actual consciousness of all particular requests.

There are other considerations however in favour of the view that the saints hear us. There is actual evidence for this belief in the New Testament. Heb 12:1 says: 'Therefore let us also being compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses ("martyrs", alluding to the heroes of faith in the preceding chapter) run with patience ("endurance") the race which is set before us', where the witnesses, though primarily witnesses to their faith suggest at least, as Westcott points out, 'spectators' looking on at our earthly struggle in running the race appointed for us Christians. This is confirmed by the picture of the heavenly Jerusalem in the same chapter to which Christians on earth are now come, with the solemn assembly of the firstborn and the spirits of just men made perfect. (Verse 23).20

Mary's intercession and mediation are not simply theological abstractions. On the contrary they highlight the true importance of Marian doctrine and devotion in Christian life.

In the first place, it shows us that we are free beings, that we can exercise our freedom in the direction of either salvation or damnation and finally that Mary is our model in our life in Christ. Once we realize that our choices have consequences in the spiritual world and for our ultimate destiny, we will focus on doing God's will. If we are lulled into an illusory belief that we are free to sin without fear of consequence once we "accept Christ" (as Luther said, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly"), then we have set ourselves on a dangerous path. We must realize that our spiritual and moral choices affect the state of our souls. And we are free to do right and wrong. In meditating on Mary's coredemptive role we recognize the true dimensions of man's freedom while also recognizing that it is possible to obey God - as Mary did. Mary is the only human person who decided and chose freely to do God's will. She is our model and helper in making free choices for God.

Secondly, in studying Mary's role in salvation we look at the spiritual imbalance in the world from a new perspective. As Christians we must realize that this imbalance exists because there are absolute moral laws and consequences for choices which violate these laws. The Bible tells us that every sin, even the slightest, is an infinite offense against God, infinitely intolerable to Him. From this the Bible leads us to recognize the importance of the struggle against evil. The Bible also shows us Mary's incredible role (in union with her Son) in the battle against evil from Genesis to Revelation. Once we comprehend this about Mary, we recognize that the purpose of Marian doctrine and devotion is to lead us to spiritual perfection. By rejecting the importance of right choices and actions ("works"), we reject holiness and fail to understand the absolute despicability of evil. In recognizing the holiness of Mary and her role as the Woman of Genesis and Revelation who struggles with her Seed against the Serpent, we are able to turn to her as model and helper in joining her Seed in crushing the head of the Serpent.

Finally, to recognize that Mary is co-redeemer is also to recognize that we are all called to be co-redeemers. Paradoxically it is Paul, cited often by Luther in developing his theory of faith without works, who teaches most clearly the importance of being coredeemers and mediators in performing the work of Christ. We see this most clearly in 1 Corinthians 3:9 and Colossians 1:24 but also in several other significant passages in his epistles. There are free choices and actions that only we can perform in furthering God's plan of salvation. Here again Mary is our model and helper as we seek to participate with the Redeemer in His work of redemption.

If there is one thing that no Bible-believing Christian can deny about Mary it is the clear Scriptural testimony to a special relationship between Mary and the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In fact Scripture shows that Mary has a more intimate relationship with the Three Persons than any other human person. The angel Gabriel tells her "Thou hast found favor with God". [Luke 1:30] - she is the favored daughter of the Father. We read too that "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" [Matthew 1:20] - she is literally the spouse of the Holy Spirit and in Luke we see the Holy Spirit, in a direct intervention, inspiring Elizabeth to proclaim Mary's blessedness. Finally, from the Father's "favor" and the sanctifying of the Holy Spirit, the Second Person is born of Mary in His human nature - and Mary thereafter participates intimately with her Son in His salvific mission. We see thus a solid Scriptural basis for understanding the significance of Mary in terms of the Trinity. And the Fathers of the Church developed their understanding of Mary in the light of her Trinitarian relationship.

Fundamentalist Christians often say that Marian devotion is a detraction from or diminution of the worship we owe to Christ. What they forget is that both Jesus and Mary point to the mystery and reality of the Trinity. Certainly our faith must be Christocentric - but it should be Christocentric within a Trinitarian theology and spirituality. The identity of Jesus - the divine and the human natures co-existing in one divine Person - and His mission can only be understood in the context of the Three Divine Persons subsisting in the Unity of One Divine Nature. The Mother of Jesus and her mission too can only be truly understood through contemplation on the Trinity. Sacred Scripture portrays her as Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and Spouse of the Spirit and the Apostolic Community has continued to unveil the deeper dimensions and the implications of the bare outline we are given in Scripture.

Authentic Marian doctrine and devotion help clarify and make concrete the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Once we "tune in" to Mary we come to see Jesus really as a Man while seeing also that He is God - which then leads us on to the Trinity. Marian doctrine and devotion thus make the Trinity and the Incarnation real to us.

A major obstacle to Marian devotion for Fundamentalists is the idea that devotion to Mary "competes" with devotion to Jesus. Once we realize that Mary is the Mother given to us by the Holy Trinity and that we turn to her as we would to an earthly mother without "competing" with the worship we owe to God, many of the Fundamentalist misconceptions problems would evaporate. And once we realize that Jesus honors Mary as His mother we who are His followers can do no less.

The doctrine of the Trinity is essentially the revelation that the Godhead in Itself is a loving union of Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus through His life gives us the fullest expression in human terms of the infinite love of the Three Persons. Mary in her response to the Three Persons shows us how humanity should respond to the Trinity. For this she is "favored" and "blessed" by God. Additionally, as any mother would, Mary seeks to help each one of us on our voyage to the Trinity.

Mary is the mirror in which we see the action of the Holy Trinity. In her life and mission we see the direct activity of the Three Persons. When we reject Marian doctrine we are on the way to losing an orthodox theological and spiritual understanding of the Trinity. Fundamentalists who reject Marian doctrine tend to go in one of several directions:

Some focus entirely on the Father to the exclusion of the other Two divine Persons: The Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. Others focus only on the Son to the virtual exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit: most Fundamentalists. Still others focus only on the Holy Spirit: the Pentecostals. Fundamentalists who say that devotion to Mary takes away from devotion to Jesus tend not to have a concrete awareness of the Trinity in their lives. They are easy prey for Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarian cults that deny the most fundamental revelation of Christianity, the revelation of the Trinity. Pentecostals with their exclusive focus on the Holy Spirit in practice have little awareness of the Father or the Son. Finally the Jehovah's Witnesses and other such cults simply deny the doctrine of the Trinity.

The only lasting corrective to these three perversions is a sound body of Marian doctrine and devotion. Authentic Marian doctrine will ensure that we remain Trinitarian in mind and heart. With the anchor of she who is daughter of the Father, spouse of the Spirit and mother of the Son, we will see all of life and faith and reality in Trinitarian terms. The Father sends her to us to bring us to the Son through the Holy Spirit.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was called to define the two natures and one Person of Christ but also taught the truth of the Marian title "Mother of God":
Following the holy fathers we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational soul and a body, truly man, consubtantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature, like unto us in all things except sin (Hebrews 4:15); indeed born of the Father before the ages according to divine nature, but in the last days the same born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to human nature.
This great Council, accepted as authoritative by all of Christendom, was concerned to protect the truth that there is only one Person in Jesus and that that Person is a divine Person. An inevitable corollary of this truth of faith defined by the Council was the affirmation that Mary is the Mother of that Person, the Mother of the Son of God made man. The definition of Mary's divine maternity went hand in hand with the definition of the two Natures and divine Personhood of Jesus. The truths embodied in these definitions were accepted and taught long before they were officially defined by Councils.

The writer opened the door by commenting on what “fundamentalists” supposedly believe. But, I will only stick my toe in right now. To say that Mary has any role in salvation beyond bearing the Child is to reduce the work of Christ on the Cross. I don’t want to start a fight...so I will just shake my head and walk away.

Length is one indicator.

If an article purportedly on what the Bible says about Mary is longer than about 500 words, you know he’s making most of it up.

(I’ve noticed this often: it can take an awful lot of words to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say.)

Once again, Roman Catholics draw on a multitude of non-Biblical sources and traditions...most of which having no foundation in Scripture. It is appalling that they assign Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix status to Mary. As an old writer once wrote, “Their God is too small!”

“Once again, Roman Catholics draw on a multitude of non-Biblical sources and traditions...most of which having no foundation in Scripture. It is appalling that they assign Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix status to Mary. As an old writer once wrote, “Their God is too small!”

Agreed.

To say that Mary has any role in salvation beyond bearing the Child is to reduce the work of Christ on the Cross.

Ignatius of Antioch said in 107 that "He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.

Concerning the relationship of Marian doctrine to the ancient Faith, the great Eastern Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov said, "Love and veneration for the Virgin is the soul of Orthodox piety ... A faith in Christ which does not include his virgin birth and the veneration of his Mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox Church."

Exactly...That's what I've been sayin'...Catholics and Bible Believing Christians are not of the same faith...Catholics know this...I know this...God knows this...

We are counting on different things to get us to Heaven...We are not all Christians in the Biblical sense of the word...

Bible believers believe the word of God, the Bible...The other religions; Mormans, Catholics, Muzlims, etc., rely on the wisdom of man for their religions...

One will notice that this entire article consists of maybes, probablys, logical deductions and of course, historical tradition...All man made...

The Marian title Theotokos, Mother of God, is explicit in Scripture. Mary is the Virgin Mother of "EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us." [Matthew 1:23]. When she visits her cousin, Elizabeth exclaims, "Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43]; and "Lord" (Adonai) here is the same title used for Yahweh in the Old Testament.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

To say that Mary has any role in salvation beyond bearing the Child is to reduce the work of Christ on the Cross.

Is it also true that saying that my prayers for the lost have any role in their salvation is to reduce the work of Christ on the cross?

-A8

What Rome does is to take a few snippets, some of which were minor understandings, and some meant nothing that Rome came to infer they meant, and to read the mariology that developed in the Roman Catholic religion during the middle ages forward, back into those snippets.

Just as Rome does when twisting the Scriptures, Rome twists the church fathers by reading it's later constructs back into them where they do not exist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.