I think it would be beneficial to specify exactly when the historical record first gives reference to the various Marian doctrines:
I agree that this is beneficial. The study of the history of Christian doctrine is beneficial in all aspects. For example, the development of the concept and word “Trinity” occurred around the same time, as did the doctrine of
homousious. Then there is the development of the canon of scripture, which was pre-dated by all of these.
a) the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary first appears around the end of the 4th or start of the 5th century….so more than 300 years after the alleged event
No, the first historical record is found in the liturgies, which contain hymns and prayers to Mary, ever virgin and Theotokos.
After those, the NT itself is the first written reference. The passages about Mary in scripture reinforce what the Church believes, prays, and teaches about Mary.
Your figure of 300 years, even if it were accurate, does not indicate that the doctrine is “false” any more than the promulgation of the canon in 382 is false. It is a bogus criteria for truth.
b) the first record of an express statement of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is hard to pin point. It seems that its roots go back to the 4th or 5th centuries and that it was debated in the middle ages with Aquinas opposing it. It seems that an express statement of the doctrine doesn’t show up until hundreds of years after (maybe even a thousand years after) the alleged event
It is true that dogmatic statements of the faith are not made until they are needed to combat heresy. This was also true about the dogmatic statements found in the Apostles’ creed. The fact that the word Trinity does not appear for a couple hundred years in no way diminishes that it was believed and taught by the Apostles.
c) the doctrine of perpetual virginity first appears in the spurious Gospel of James around 150AD……only a hundred years of silence on this one.
What is meant by the term “spurious” here?
The fact that a document was not included in the canon does not necessarily mean it is “spurious”. Many of the 400+ documents claiming to be inspired contained eternal Truth as taught by the Aposltes, the Shepherd of Hermas, for example.
d) the views of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix are also difficult to pin point partly b/c both have been built up over the centuries….again I suspect that it is fair to say that it wasn’t until a few hundred years after the death of Jesus that history records the early forms of these beliefs.
I agree. It seems clear that the nature and extent of Jesus revelation about His mother was not immediately clear. Just like it took a while for the Apostles to “get” that the Gentiles were to be included in the Church, the role of Mary as mother of the Church became more evident over a period of time.
Elvisman would have us believe that this silence exists b/c doctrines were only recorded and defined when they were challenged. This explanation strikes me as being very implausible for a couple of reasons.
Then you will have some trouble with some of the other very basic doctrines of the Christian faith.
First, the apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and the ECFs did not write only when confronting heretics. Often their letters were addressed to believers explaining matters of faith and telling of how to run the good race.
Yes. However, the great amount of writing that is addressed to heresies was germaine to the development of doctrine.
Code:
If Mary was as important then as she is now (to the venerators), then she would have merited mention on those occasions (particularly with respect to her role as mediatrix and coredemptrix she should have been mentioned b/c of her continuing importance in one’s salvation).
This is how it seems to us in the Liturgies of the Church.
Second, on early challenge to orthodoxy came from Gnostics who denied that Jesus actually suffered in the flesh. John refers to those one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. Ignatius described what one group of such Gnostics denied:
If the Gnostics denied that Jesus came in the flesh, they would have no need for Mary’s perpetual virginity b/c a natural bodily birth would never have occurred. Mary’s need for purity b/c of having Jesus in her womb would therefore be reduced to zero and therefore her alleged sinlessness and her alleged immaculate conception would have made no sense to them. In contrast, if her sinlessness and her immaculate conception were part of orthodoxy at that time, they would have been referenced to establish Christ’s coming in the flesh via Mary’s pure womb.
The development of these doctrines was parallel with the response to the Gnostics. What was under discussion was the nature and description of sin, both original and personal. The Jews brought to the Church the notion of original sin, but it was a long debated point of theology among the Greeks, and later the Latins.
If Tertullian thought that Mary was immaculately conceived or that she was sinless then he surely would have raised those orthodox beliefs as giving evidence that these things were put in place so that Christ could obtain his flesh from her….
This is a false conclusion. It is like saying “if the Apostles believed that God was three persons in One, they surely would have used the word Trinity to describe this.”. There are many truths of Christian doctrine that are not directly referenced in the NT, the assignment of Sunday as the Lord’s Day, for example. I have had Sabbatarians on CAF argue that Saturday is the Lord’s Day, and that it is unscriptural for the Church to “change the Sabbath to Sunday”. There is nothing specific in Scripture written on this point, since it was a later development. Does that mean that the Apostles did not celebrate Sunday as the Lord’s Day?
As such, the excuse that the historical record is silent on these Marian doctrines b/c there was no need to address them, smells extremely fishy.
Of course it would to someone who is looking for an excuse to deny this aspect of the Apostolic Teaching.
