Mariology:



What Did the Church Fathers Believe about the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Rev. Canon Glenn E. Davis

Introduction

No subject stirs passionate emotion between members of the Roman Catholic Church and adherents of Evangelical Protestantism then a discussion about Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Recently, this theological controversy was brought to the forefront again by an article featured in Newsweek magazine. This essay pointed out the vast amount of lay support in the Roman Catholic Church for declaring Mary co-Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix with the Lord Jesus Christ:

This week a large box shipped from California and addressed to "His Holiness, John Paul II" will arrive at the Vatican. The shipping label lists a dozen countries--from every continent but Antarctica--plus a number, 40,383, indicating the quantity of signatures inside. Each signature is attached to a petition asking the pope to exercise the power of papal infallibility to proclaim a new dogma of the Roman Catholic faith: that the Virgin Mary is "Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God."[1]

The Evangelical world was aghast for it had hoped that the Roman Catholic Church was moderating its position about Mary. Recent ecumenical dialogues with the Roman Catholic theologians had resulted in warm and responsive discussions; Evangelicals looked forward to continued rapprochement. However, Evangelicals were not only grieved that Mary would be elevated to a redeemer status, but also that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility could be invoked in order to establish Mary as a co-Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix with Christ. The mere mention of the concept of infallible Papal authority renewed many old theological anxieties for Evangelicals: tensions, debates, and antagonisms of the Reformation period were renewed. The reaction was immediate and strong from the Billy Graham founded magazine, Christianity Today.

The possibility, however remote, of the pope's responding to the grassroots groundswell by giving Mary titles that blur the New Testament's clear vision of Jesus' unique role in our salvation endangers this uncompromising achievement of clarity [the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Joint Statement on Salvation]. All of which prompts us to say, Don't. Don't give to Mary that which belongs to Jesus. Do keep on the road established at Vatican II. [2]

The Roman Catholic Church already has such an official high view of Mary that many Evangelicals feel such that a belief diminishes the centrality of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church presents Mary as the ever-virgin, sinless handmaid, and heavenly intercessor. Rome encourages the faithful in their devotion to Mary:

Mary is the perfect Orans (prayer), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.[3]

This statement, and others like it, upset many Evangelicals fearing that the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary distracts from the Lord Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross, his unique mediatorial position, and his ministry of heavenly intercession. Therefore, the question needs to be asked, “What did the Fathers of the Church believe about Mary, the Mother of Jesus? Did they lay the groundwork for present Roman Catholic doctrine? On the other hand, did the Fathers simply affirm what modern Evangelicals believe today? The purpose of this essay is to answer that question.

Ignatius of Antioch

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch is a good representation of the views of the Fathers during the time known as the apostolic period. This period gets its name from the fact that many of the leaders of the Church had personal relationships with the original Twelve Apostles. During Ignatius’ journey to Rome for his trial and execution, he wrote seven letters to churches located in Asia Minor. In one of those letters, Ignatius speaks of Mary for purely Christological purposes. He emphasizes Jesus’ birth through Mary to prove that Jesus was truly human. Ignatius would invoke Mary’s name in order to prove that Jesus was God incarnate in human flesh. Mary’s role is simply defined as being an instrument of God for the birth of the Son of God. “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.”[4] Ignatius is deliberately refuting the error that Jesus was a phantom, not an apparition, but lived as a human in the flesh. If as the Bible says, Jesus was born of a human mother, then he would have to be human. Jesus’ humanity was problematic for those who believed that flesh was evil as ancient Greek Platonic thought described. Repeatedly, Ignatius proclaims that Jesus is a descendant of David through Mary.

Ignatius does speak of the importance of Mary in that; God placed her virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus in a mystery hidden from the devil. These truths were grouped with the death of Christ as being of utmost significance. However, Ignatius does not explain why they are mysteries or why they are as important as a grouping. “Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world?”[5]

Ignatius will agree, as will all the Fathers without exception, that the Biblical account of the virgin birth of Christ is true and that it is essential to true faith in Christ. As Origen would say at a later time, “Those who believe in Jesus who was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate, but did not believe that he was born of the Virgin Mary, believe and do not believe in the same Person?”[6] This fact of Patristic consensus in regards to the virgin birth will remain unchanged throughout the first six hundred years of the Church.

Justin the Martyr

Patristic writing in the Second Century is named after its most predominant style of discourse—the Apology, the defense of the Faith. The Apologists put forth a number of treatises defending Christianity from its detractors and persecutors. Justin the Martyr was the foremost of these authors and his three documents: the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho each contain references to Mary. In the first Apology, Justin defends the uniqueness of Christ by his unusual birth. That Jesus was born without marital relations and that the Holy Spirit conceived the child in Mary creating that uniqueness that sets Christ apart from all others. Thus, Mary was a mother without taking away her virginity. Justin insists that Isaiah 7:14 should be translated virgin not handmaiden. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”[7] The controversy over the correct translation of the Hebrew word, ha’almah, is still reflected today in liberal versus conservative debates. Is ha’almah to be translated: virgin or handmaiden? Compare the Revised Standard Translation (RSV) with New International Version (NIV) quoted above: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Without exception, the Fathers affirmed, “virgin” to be the correct translation.

The New Eve

Justin confirms traditional Marian teaching, but also broaches a fresh theological idea in a concept now called “The Eve-Mary Parallel.” Justin is the first to conclude that Mary is the “new Eve.” In 1 Cor. 15:21-22, the Apostle Paul talks about Christ being the “new Adam.” Therefore, Justin to draws a soteriological connection between Eve and Mary. Eve is a virgin, but listens to Satan’s words and becomes defiled. Mary is a virgin, but hears God’s words through an angel and responds in obedience. Mary righteous choices undo the sinful work of Eve’s selfish pride. John Henry Newman wrote that though this Eve-Mary parallel is a very rudimentary doctrine in Justin, the parallelism is extremely important in Roman Catholic theological development.[8]

Justin states in Dialogue with Trypho:

For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her. And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.[9]

For the apologists, Mary’s obedience triumphs over the sins and failings of Eve and this triumph is accepted as dogma during the Patristic period. Scholars deduce this early patristic commitment from the fact that no known refutations of the Eve-Mary parallel were written by any early church writer. It was Justin’s belief in his Dialogue with Trypho, that he was simply stating the obvious: Mary’s obedience undid Eve’s sinful disobedience. Justin was attempting to convey only what the church universally believed. Justin was not speculative writer developing new theological concepts like an Origen. However, the historian must be cognizant that for Justin the center of redemption is still the person and work of Jesus. Justin is adamant that a sinner should repent and believe in Jesus, not Mary.

Irenaeus of Lyon

Irenaeus of Lyon is the first of the great Patristic thinkers. Polycarp of Smyrna trained Irenaeus around 150 A. D. Irenaeus later moves to Gaul and there he becomes the first major articulator of the ancient faith. Irenaeus is tragically martyred around 193 A. D. Irenaeus’ thinking concerning Mary is considered groundbreaking by the Roman Catholic Church, “In his age the theology of Our Lady was truly born.”[10] Irenaeus developed a soteriology named the theory of recapitulation: all humankind was taken up in Christ, with the result that all that was lost in Adam is regained in Christ.[11] The Book of Romans states, “For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”[12] The work of Christ on our behalf accomplished two things: the conquering of sin and death and the restoring of fallen humankind to the image of God.

Mary and Salvation

Along with the redemptive work of Christ, Irenaeus draws on Justin’s application of the Mary-Eve parallel. Irenaeus goes on to say that as Eve brought failure through her disobedience with the Serpent, then Mary brought salvation through her obedience to the word of God brought by the angel, Gabriel, at the Annunciation.

But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin, having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation (emphasis mine), both to herself and the whole human race.[13]

Irenaeus’ takes the Adam-Christ parallel and makes the same association to Eve and Mary. As a result, Irenaeus creates a completely new way of thinking in regards to Mary: Mary is thought of in terms as having contributed to the redemption of humankind. “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.”[14]

Advocate

Later in Irenaeus’ argument, he uses the Latin word advocata in reference to Mary being the advocate of Eve.[15] This use of the word advocata is the beginning of the theological idea that the person of Mary has intercessory qualities. The use of the word advocata is treading on dangerous ground for when Latin is translated into Greek the word becomes Paraclete, which is a title for the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. Currently, scholars do not have a Greek copy of Against Heresies to know if this would have been Irenaeus’ intention. However, in later centuries, this concept of advocata would open the door for Mary being an intercessor for the church. Before Irenaeus, this concept of priestly intercession was not discussed in terms of Mary’s life and ministry.[16]

Mary Recapitulates

The concept of Mary being involved in the salvation history is developed even further in Irenaeus’ work, Proof of Apostolic Preaching. Here, he makes a direct connection between the work of Christ and the work of Mary by stating that they both recapitulated the devil, “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.”[17] In summary, Irenaeus stated, there is one divine plan of salvation that Adam disrupted and in which Eve contributed to their disobedience, but Christ is restoring Eden with the contribution of Mary.

Tradition without Foundation

Protestant theologians criticize this salvation development in Marian devotion for its conclusions were drawn without the explicit, or even implicit, teaching of Scripture. In that all-important chapter five of the Book of Romans, which discusses Adam as our covenant head, there is no mention by Paul of Eve or Mary. During the Patristic Period, the belief that Mary contributed to redemption was widely held in Christian antiquity. Irenaeus writes that it is his express goal in writing is to articulate what the whole Church believed everywhere.[18] Irenaeus does not attempt to defend his statements since they were the consensus of the church, “It is difficult . . . to avoid the impression that he cited the parallelism of Eve and Mary so matter-of-factly without arguing . . . because he would assume that his readers would go along with it . . . .”[19]

Origen and Eastern Mariology

Outside of heretical movements, Origen was the most controversial thinker of the Patristic period. Brilliant yet greatly misunderstood, he was branded a heretic based largely on the behavior of heretics that invoked his name. Increasingly, modern church historians are looking on him with greater favor and respect.[20] There is no doubt that his thinking influenced Eastern Christianity for centuries: his theological reflection is still the centerpiece of Eastern Orthodox thought today. He died approximately 253 A.D. and spent the end of his life in Palestine after leaving Alexandria over a disagreement with his bishop. Origen was a man who lived out his Christian life with incredible courage and personal holiness.

The Four Truths

Origen affirmed four truths about the Virgin Mary. First, he declared that Mary was indeed the Mother of God (Gk: Theotòkos): a title which emphasizes Christ’s divinity. Second, Origen said that it was essential for someone who claims to believe in Christ to believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.[21] Third, Origen affirms the belief that Mary was an ever-virgin. Her perpetual virginity means that Mary had no other children after Jesus, “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”[22] Origen’s mention of Mary’s perpetual virginity as a doctrinal belief may be the first, for a century earlier, Tertullian had denied this conviction. Mary’s ever-virginity was the committed belief of the early church and this conviction continues in Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today. Fourth, Origen accepts as true the personal purity of Mary. Origen does not state that she was sinless, but he does affirm that she was ever growing in her spiritual life and progressing toward perfection.[23] Thus, Origen’s theology sets a pattern for Eastern belief about Mary: her title will be Theotòkos, express believe in the virgin birth, affirmation of her ever-virginity and no individual sin (they do maintain that she inherited “a bent to sinning”).[24]

Athanasius of Alexandria

Concerning Marian theology, there was a period of dormancy at the end of the third century up to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. As the fiery debate over the eternal Sonship of Christ raged between Athanasius and Arius, discussions revived concerning the contributions of Mary in the economy of salvation. Athanasius, the great defender of the Nicene position, advanced strongly the traditional understanding of Mary’s motherhood. In turn, Athanasius affirmed the use of the title, Theotòkos, for the Virgin Mary. The title, Theotòkos, is best defined as “the one who gave birth to the one who is God.”[25] This term “Mother of God,” or “Bearer of God,” was used by the Fathers to declare that Jesus was human, born of a woman, and divinity, that is, the Son of God. The intent of the title “was to affirm that the person Mary bore was truly God as well as truly man.”[26] The purpose of the title “Mother of God” was not for exalting Mary: it was given to her for the purpose of honoring and glorying Christ. During the Arian controversy, it is important that in mentioning Mary, the church fathers were simply guaranteeing the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus being God incarnate in human flesh is human if he is born of a woman, but also God, since Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius said, “Christ, being God became man for our sake and was born of Mary, Mother of God, Theotòkos, to free us from the devil’s power.”[27]

Nestorius

The term, Theotòkos, had long been used of Mary in the Eastern tradition since the time of Origen. The term was mainly used as an expression of devotion. In 429, Nestorius and his followers said this title contradicted the humanity of Christ. The Nestorians preferred the term Christotòkos, “the bearer of Christ.”[28] Nestorius believed that Jesus’ humanity and divinity functioned in separate compartments effectively creating two natures and two persons in one individual. “If you dismiss Jesus’ humanity like that, he cannot be the Savior of humankind. Better to say he has two natures and also two persons: the divine Christ and the human Christ lived together in Jesus.”[29]

Cyril of Alexandria

Nestorius’ orthodox antagonist was Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril affirmed that Jesus was not indwelt or conjoined to God- he is God, the Word made flesh (John 1: 14).[30] "The difference between Cyril and Nestorius can be summarized as follows: Nestorius spoke of Jesus and God the Word, while Cyril believed that Jesus was the Word.”[31] The Council of Ephesus disagreed with Nestorius and in 431 A. D.; the council declared his teaching heretical.

The Ephesian Council made the title, Theotòkos, official. The Council felt that Nestorius made Christ contradictory in his person. They affirmed the traditional understanding of Christ as two natures and one person. Thus, Mary was the bearer of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, a child who came in human flesh. As Scripture declares, Jesus both fully God and fully human, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.”[32] By declaring Mary, Theotòkos, the church catholic affirmed the hypostatic union of Jesus. “For the scripture says not that the Word united himself to the person of a man, but that he was made flesh. That means nothing else than that he partook of flesh and blood like us. He made our body his own, not ceasing to be God.”[33]

Devotional Developments

The clergy East and West, and especially the laity, looked at the Blessed Virgin Mary as the ultimate role model for Christian devotion. In antiquity, the everyday believer was convinced that one was spiritually mature if he or she remained a virgin. It was commonly believed that the physical and spiritual discipline of chastity exhibited one’s priorities as being in the spirit realm as opposed to the earthly realm. “Mary, who gave birth to God, remained a virgin to the end [in order to be a model for] all to come after her.”[34]

Ephrem the Syrian

The admiration of the Blessed Virgin Mary would increase more and more through the decades. When deacon, Ephrem the Syrian (306-373), appears on the scene in the fourth century, he brings Marian devotion to new heights. His poetry becomes the first to exhibit high praise of Mary. Ephrem is considered the first doctor of Marian devotion and his abilities are called “the harp of the Holy Spirit.”[35]

Only you [Jesus] and your Mother

Are more beautiful than everything.

For on you, O Lord, there is no mark;

Neither is there any stain in your Mother.[36]

Mary is pictured as the most marvelous creature that exists besides Jesus. The sinlessness of Jesus is declared and Mary is said to be without spiritual blemish. This poem exalts the Son of God while honoring his mother. In Ephrem, Mary is equated with Church and her sacraments. In Ephrem’s writings, Mary is viewed not just in terms of Christology, but also viewed in terms of ecclesiology. In one of his poems, Mary has become part of the Eucharist: one of the sacraments of the Church. “Mary gave us the refreshing bread, in place of the fatiguing bread that Eve procured for us.” [37]

Bishop Epiphanius

Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) is an unusual character: he was extremely polemical by nature. Epiphanius was aggressive in his defense of Mary calling anyone a heretic who did not believe in Mary’s ever-virginity.[38] He continues to affirm the Incarnation of Christ and Mary as the new Eve. For the first time, Epiphanius raises a question concerning Mary’s death. He speculates that death did not touch her, but is uncertain about her outcome. He also says that Mary is the woman found in Revelation 12:13-14 that was able to flee the devil and remain untouched by death:

But I dare not affirm this with absolute certainty, nor do I say that she remained untouched by death, nor do I confirm whether she died. The scriptures, which are above human reason, left this question uncertain, out of respect for this honored and admirable vessel, so that could suspect her of carnal baseness. We do not know if she died or if she was buried; however she did not have carnal relations. Let this never be said![39]

Epiphanius’ statements allow for speculation concerning Mary’s death, which after many centuries would develop into to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The doctrine of the Assumption states that Mary was received body and soul straight up into heaven without suffering the pains and corruption of death: this belief was not made official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church until 1950.

Sixth Century A.D.

Evidence exists of a liturgical feast day in the Christian calendar celebrating the death of Mary in the fifth century. It was not until the late sixth century, that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was affirmed by a church father, Gregory of Tours. Gregory quoting from a lost apocryphal Greek text states his belief that the apostles witnessed Jesus taking Mary bodily into heaven after passing. It is generally agreed, that the belief in the Assumption of Mary was unknown in the earliest church. However, Gregory of Tours’ statements begin to shape Western thought.[40] Devotion to Mary increases as the centuries pass with the Church holding her up as a model for Christian obedience, celebrating her in their songs and poetry, and speculating on her death.

Ambrose of Milan

Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) is largely known as the bishop whose oratorical skills led to the conversion of Augustine. However, his contributions to the Church’s theology and practice are considerable in their own right. Ambrose is the first of the Fathers to make Mary a type of the Church. This new “Mary-Church parallel” is the concept that everything that is enacted in the Church was first brought forth in Mary.

Rightly is she [Mary] betrothed, yet a virgin, because she is the type of the Church, which is immaculate yet married. The virgin [Church] has conceived us by the Spirit; the virgin brings us forth without pain. Therefore perhaps is the holy Mary married to the one [Joseph], but filled with another [Holy Spirit], because the individual Churches, too, are filled by the Spirit and his grace, but are externally joined to a mortal priest.[41]

Ambrose’s interpretation will open up a completely new understanding of the Virgin Mary. While giving birth to Christ she also gives birth to Christians. Ambrose says that Mary is physically and morally pure. God would not have chosen her as Mother of Jesus if she had not been pure. She not only gave birth to Christ, but also according to Ambrose, she gave birth to the Church. However, Mary is simply a vessel of salvation not to be confused with Christ’s redemptive work.[42]

The Fourth and Fifth Centuries

With the exception of Ambrose, the fifth and sixth century fathers; Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom, continued the same consensus opinion in regards to Mary as the early founders. That opinion being the belief that Mary guarantees the humanity of Christ, that Mary is pure, she is the perpetual virgin, and the New Eve. This essay focuses on novel theological thinking in regards to Mary, the vast amount of discussion about Mary in the writings of the Fathers focused on her in terms of Christology. That is to say, that Mary was talked about in terms of her relationship to Christ as his mother for the primary purpose of defending the doctrine of the incarnation. Until Ambrose and in some respect with Ephrem, the Fathers did not think of Mary as being a picture of the Church.

Low or High View?

In summary: The Fathers did not hold to an Evangelical, or low view of Mary. A low view would simply see her as a person who should be honored for her obedience, but not exalted in her stature--in other words, a role model.

However, it is also my conclusion that the Fathers did not hold to theological convictions held currently held by the Roman Catholic Church regarding an Immaculate Conception or an Assumption into heaven. In the first five hundred years of the church, there is no evidence for a belief in the Assumption of Mary. No documentation supports that doctrine. Only speculation existed about the nature of her death, but the Fathers drew no conclusions about the manner of her passing.

There is evidence to show that the Fathers were moving in the direction of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. During the Patristic period, there was much discussion about Mary’s purity and holiness especially regarding the effect of original sin on her soul. There is without a doubt a firm belief in her purity in regards to individual sin, but some discussion existed as to whether she inherited original sin.

The early church did maintain a high view of Mary with liturgical feast days celebrated in her honor. The most well known was called the “Commemoration of Mary” and it was held the Sunday before Christmas, today called Rose Sunday, the third Sunday in Advent.[43] The laity in the ancient Church seemed to be the prime movers in the exaltation of Mary with theologians trying to catch up. The laity’s devotion generated numerous feast days and celebrations in her honor.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Fathers left their convictions regarding Blessed Virgin Mary open to misinterpretation by not defining terms and by not clarifying their theological ideas. The intense theological debates over the nature and divinity of Christ forced the church to be specific in their terminology about the person of Jesus. However, these types of theological debates did not manifest concerning Mary’s nature. The only theological dispute concerning Mary that captured the Fathers’ attention was the Theotòkos controversy and that debate was not about her as much as it was about Jesus Christ.

This lack of clarity allowed for later medieval developments. These developments are the root of the controversy between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Church Fathers’ discussion about Mary being the “New Eve” created the possibility that she was co-Redemptrix. Their focus on her ever-virginity created speculation about her sinlessness, thus the development of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. The creation of the “Mary-Church” parallel led some toward a belief in her as a co-Mediator with Christ.

The Fathers did not explicitly state any of these doctrines: their lack of clarity left themselves open to misinterpretation. It must be stressed, that the Fathers’ first and main focus was appropriate belief about Jesus Christ, not Mary. Only where someone’s view of Mary affected their view of Christ were the Fathers gravely concerned.

Works Cited

Catechism of the Catholic Church. St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site. .

Clendenin, Daniel B., Ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1995.

Cross, F. L., Ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Ferguson, Everett., Ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. “The Evolution of Mary: From the Gospels to Mariology to Feminist Critiques, Parts I & II.” Books and Culture Magazine. May/June, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

Graef, Hilda. Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion. London: Sheed and Ward, 1965.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrine. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978.

Lane, Tony. Exploring Christian Thought. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

Neff, David. “Let Mary Be: Why the Pope Shouldn't Give Mary that which Belongs to Her Son.” Christianity Today, Vol.41, No.14. December 8, 1997.

O’ Carroll, Michael. Theotòkos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.

Oakes, Edward T. “Books in Review: Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture.” First Things, 70. 1997.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600): The Christian Tradition, Vol. One. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary Through the Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

Woodward, Kenneth L. “Mary: A Growing Movement in the Roman Catholic Church Wants the Pope to Proclaim a New, Controversial Dogma: That Mary is a Co-Redeemer. Will He Do It, Maybe in Time for the Millennium? Should He?” Newsweek, July 25, 1997.

February 20, 2002

-----------------------

[1] Kenneth L. Woodward, “Mary: A Growing Movement in the Roman Catholic Church Wants the Pope to Proclaim a New, Controversial Dogma: That Mary is a Co-Redeemer. Will He Do It, Maybe in Time for the Millennium? Should He?” Newsweek, July 25, 1997 [article-on-line].

[2] David Neff, “Let Mary Be: Why the Pope Shouldn't Give Mary that which Belongs to Her Son.” Christianity Today, Vol.41, No.14 (December 8, 1997), 14.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site, () 2679.

[4] To The Ephesians 7.2

[5] Ibid. 19.1

[6] Commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, PG 14, 1228.

[7] NIV

[8] Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 47.

[9] Dialogue with Trypho, 100.

[10] Michael O’ Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982), 189.

[11] Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 585.

[12] Romans 5:17, NASB.

[13] Against Heresies III, 22.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid. V. 19

[16] Gambero, pg. 56.

[17] Proof of Apostolic Preaching, 33.

[18] Against Heresies, IV. 27.

[19] Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary through the Centuries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 43.

[20] Gerald Bray, personal interview (April 28, 1999).

[21] Commentary on John, 32.16.

[22] Ibid. 1.4.

[23] Gambero, 71-78.

[24] Sergius Bulgakov, “The Virgin and the Saints in Orthodoxy”, Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 66-68.

[25] Pelikan, 55.

[26] Ferguson, 586.

[27] Athanasius, On Virginity, 3.

[28] Timothy George, “The Blessed Evangelical Mary,” Christian History Magazine (December 2003, Vol. 47, No. 12): 34. Cross, 1365.

[29] “Sifting Through the Christ Controversies,” Christian History Magazine (Issue 51, Vol. XV, No. 3): 21.

[30] Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Thought (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 46.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Gal. 4:4, NASU.

[33] Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 4.

[34] Ibid., 244.

[35] Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London: Westminster, 1965), 57.

[36] Carmina Nisibena, 27.8.

[37] Hymns for the Unleavened Bread, 6:6-7.

[38] Gambero, 120-122.

[39] Panarion, 78:11.

[40] F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 98-99.

[41] Exposition in Luke, 2:7.

[42] Graef, 88.

[43] Cross, 883.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download