Replies

yorkie:

I think Quix in all caps stated something about idolatry and worship of Mary. Catholics, and for that Matter, Eastern Orthodox, both “honor Mary”. So lets start with One Doctrine which Catholics call the Assumption of Mary and the Eastern Orthodox call the Dormition of Mary. I will say up front the post is someone long but since you asked, I thought I would provide.

The early orthodox CHurch Fathers clearly reflected on Mary’s unique role in salvation history. For example, The OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes

“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.

(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)

(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)

St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:

“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)

Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:

“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)

In summary, there was a well developed doctrine of Mary’s unique role in salvation history way before the New Testament Canon was settled in the 4th century Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively. The second century testimony of two of the greatest orthodox Church Fathers, Justin and Irenaeus support the position that Mary was chosen by God to be the means through which the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (c.f. John 1:14). The Church Fathers and the Apostolic Tradition viewed Mary in the role that honors her as early as the late 1st and clearly 2nd century. Christ became incarnate of the Virgin Mary. So, it is correct to say that she played a unique role in salvation history.

2) A second point of contention with folks like Quix and other “sola Ego” Protestants is the title honoring Mary as the “Mother of God”

Throughout the early history of the Church, orthodox Theologians constantly had to battle against false doctrines about Christ. In the 2nd century, the heresy of Gnosticism spread which in addition to being dualistic, it argued that God would not become Incarnate as “matter was evil” and thus Christ could not have had a human body. Of course, the Catholic Church rejected this Doctrine as evidenced by the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the various Churches he wrote to [Rome, Ephesians, Smyrnaeans, ca 107 AD], Marcion being excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144 AD, and the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyons against the Gnostics [170AD]. In the early 3rd century, a heresy called “Modalism” started which argued that God is One, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different modes of the same Individual. This understanding stressed the Oneness of God to the exclusion of the Trinity. This is heretical and of course the other extreme is to emphasize the Trinity of Persons to an extreme as to destroy God’s Unity [the other extreme of unorthodox Trinitarian Doctrine]. So, when Modalism was taught by Sabellius, he was excommunicated by Pope Callistus [217-222] and thus Modalism was rejected as a heresy by the Church of Rome.

Of course, all this time the Church is keeping orthodox Doctrine and rejecting heretical Doctrines, and as of yet, the Church had “not” formally defined what the New Testament Canon was, which would not occur until the late 4th century. So again, as Fr. Richard Hogan puts it in his book Dissent From the Creed, “Two essential points should always be kept in mind. One cannot emphasize the oneness of God to the exclusion of the Trinity, and one cannot put so much weight on the Trinity of Persons that the unity of the Godhead is destroyed” (p.57).

With Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which contrary to popular opinion, did not make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, it only stated that the Roman state would no longer as official state policy persecute the Church. With this the Church was free to openly have theological discussion. In 318 AD, a priest named Arius, who was from Alexandria, but trained in Antioch, began preaching [back in Alexandria] , based on his interpretation of Proverbs 8: 22-31 [Discourse on Wisdom] that the Logos in John 1 did not exist from eternity. Arius argued that God has not always been a Father, later He became So. Arius was told be his Bishop not to preach this, he did not obey and was excommunicated and thus Arius’s supporters in Antioch did not support the Church of Alexandria’s excommunication of Arius and the Church imploded. In response, the Council of Nicea [325 AD] was called and rejected Arius and his Doctrine and stated that Christ is “one in being with the Father”, which is the translation of the Greek philosophical term “homoousios”, which was translated into Latin as consubstantialem and in understanding of the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed, the Three Persons of the Trinity are one in being with the others or another way the Three Persons are the Same Substance [Divine]. Today, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians still hold to the Nicene Creed can see the wonderfully orthodox Doctrine expressed by the words “We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ…the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father…one in being with the Father…through Him all things were made.”

Next, while the Council of Nicea had formally defined the relation of the Christ the Son to the Father, it had not defined the relationship between the Holy Sprit and the Son and the Father. Thus, another controversy arose and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) addressed this question by adding to the phrase “We believe in the Holy Spirit”, which was all the Nicene Creed stated in its original 325 AD form, the following text “the Lord giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and Son is worshiped and Glorified.” Thus, in using the title of “Lord” [remember that], the Council was clearly teaching that the Holy Spirit was Divine and with the term “giver of Life”, the Holy Spirit linked with the act of Creation and finally, the text “worshiped and Glorified” can only mean that the Holy Spirit is worshiped in the same manner as the Father and the Son. Thus, by 381 AD, the Church had formally and clearly defined the Holy Trinity. Also, note that the New Testament Canon as of yet had not been formally defined as that would not take place until the Decisions of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD) which codified the New Testament., and sent their canons for approval from Rome.

Now, while the Church had rejected Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, etc, the problem of Christ relationship of His Divinity to His Humanity still was being discussed. Clearly, the early definitions had stressed both Christ Divinity and humanity, but the Church still did not have a theological terminology to define the Divine and human in an unbreakable bond in the Person of Christ. During the period from 400 AD to 430 AD, one theological opinion discussed by Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople was whether the Blessed Virgin Mary could be called “Mother of God” but rather only the “Mother of Christ” since saying Mary was the “Mother of God” implies that Divine Nature was born.

Thus, Nestorius’s doctrine was nothing short of Dualism as it destroyed the Unity of Christ. Thus, if God was not born, then God did not die on the Cross and we are “not redeemed”. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Bishop there, rejected Nestorius’s doctrine and sent a letter to the Bishop of Rome [Celestine I] and the Pope agreed with Cyril and commanded that Nestorius recant his teaching that Mary “was not the Mother of God”. Of course, nothing is ever this easy and the Council of Ephesus [431 AD] was called.. Nestorius was deposed as Bishop of Constantinople and his “heresy was rejected” and the Council said that “in Christ there are Two Natures in union without confusion”. So, if the Trinity is Three distinct Divine Persons, yet One God, then the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was born of Mary, and that “One Person” is Christ Jesus and thus if a Divine Person was born of Mary, Mary then is correctly called “Theotokos: The Mother of God” because if she is not, then God was not born and did not die. Any other understanding is “heretical”. For example, if only the Human Person of Christ is born, then where did is Divinity come from, was he “adopted” and thus became Divine later after his birth, no, no, no, that would make Christ less than fully God. Let’s take another one, if only the Human person of Christ was Born, but the Divine Person was not. Hmmmm, does not work, because then Christ is Two Persons and that would conflict with the Holy Trinity, which is Three Distinct Divine Persons, and further Two Persons can’t be born. So, the orthodox understanding of Christ is he is a One Divine Person, who has two distinct natures, One Divine and One Human, both united in the Person of Christ, without confusion and both operating to the fullness within that same One Person. Thus, Mary is correctly called the “Mother of God”, which is hinted at in Sacred Scripture in Luke 1:43 when Elizabeth refers to Mary as the “Mother of my Lord”. Thus, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD provided the orthodox interpretation of Luke 1:43 which was consistent with the orthodox Doctrine of Christ as a Divine Person with both a human and Divine Nature, which thus also was consistent with an orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, i.e. that the eternal Word became flesh, and one that is consistent with the formal Definition of the Doctrine of the Trinity [as Defined at the Council of Nicea 325 AD and Constantinople in 381AD] and expressed in the Nicene Creed.

So in summary, I have tried to clearly lay out why the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church clearly “Honor Mary” and explain the dogmas of the Assumption/Dormition to use Orthodox Terminology and Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God.

Respectfully submitted and hope I provided a clear back up of my statement “Your wrong in my statements”