Turning to the issue of the BV, you write, “…another fact that speaks for itself…is the total absence (in the NT and Apostolic Fathers) of any reference to Mary serving any significant continuing role for anyone.”
Ignatius of Antioch wrote (c. A.D. 107-110), “He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will never be lost.” This demonstrates that the doctrine was already well-established in the 1st Century, since Ignatius doesn’t elaborate, explain, or defend his position. Clearly he knew he was was preaching to the choir.
really? Your quote smells like a pure fabrication…could you be so good as to provide the reference for that quote.
Justin the Martyr, in his First Apology (A.D. 148-155) taught that Holy Mary, as the second Eve, was as involved in the reversal of the human sin problem as the first Eve was involved in introducing sin into the world:
…and like Eve, Mary played no continuing role? Was that your point?
St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (A.D. 180-199), also taught that Holy Mary was the second and sinless Eve: “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.”
did you notice that there is nothing about Mary being sinless? …yet you claim that is what he taught and you want me to accept your interpretation over that of scholars? Really?
Tertullian & others have agreed with these formulations.
Tertullian didn’t agree with these formulations at all… Tertullian has Mary giving birth to other kids…and regarding her character here is something Tertullian wrote:
Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, **“What are mother and brothers to me? " ** And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When
denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour’even because they listened to the word (of God)'
He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours’for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in
the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Isreal remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as
more "blessed who hear the word of God.”
Tertullian argued that by denying his mother, Jesus was not denying that he went through a physical birth…but note what Tertullian also said (now in bold):
a) Jesus, in indignation, denied Mary
b) Jesus censured Mary’s fault
c) Mary was denied by Jesus
d) Mary was abjured by Jesus
e) Jesus preferred to think of his believers (the Church) as his mother (as opposed to Mary)
f) hearers of the word were more blessed than Mary
This doesn’t sound like any modern Catholic description of Christ’s relationship with Mary. Can the modern (conservative) Catholic envision that anyone could be more blessed than Mary? Can the modern conservative Catholic imagine that Christ denied, abjured or censured Mary?..that is something Jesus would do when someone he loved sinned and needed disciplining….and Tertullian wasn’t alone with that view.
I repeat, I’m not trying to convince you of anything-- …
OK
…merely to demonstrate for your benefit that the Catholic position is not, as you claim, without foundation.
I wouldn’t say that the conservative Catholic position is w/o foundation….though as scholarship progresses, it seems that the foundation is becoming weaker. I also wouldn’t say that the conservative Catholic position is unreasonable….there are far too many brilliant conservative Catholic scholars out there to think that they should all be written off as nuts or part of some grand conspiracy (as you seemed to be inclined to do with non-conservative Catholic scholars). I just don’t think that theirs is close to being the most reasonable or most probable presentation of the history of God’s Church.
