Mary as the "New Eve"

Hello @archer75, if it was a reasonable notion to consider in the 2nd Century, why would it not be so in a "19th-century English context"

Thanks

--David
p.s. - since we are already here, it's statements, like this one by St. Irenaeus (see below in bold, in particular), that I disagree with, in the sense that her role in salvation seems VASTLY and unnecessarily overstated here (at the very least), and heretical in the sense that such statements turn our eyes away from where they need to be constantly focused, on our Savior alone, and turn them toward one of His creatures instead (see the words in bold below, in particular).

archer75 said:

@St_Worm2 I meant to ask whether it's reasonable to assume someone born in the last decade of the 1700s, a regular literate parishioner in the CofE, would have been familiar with this notion.

Click to expand...

I know that Luther, Calvin and Arminius had access to the Library of the Fathers (some 100 to 200 years earlier than that), so now you've got me wondering, is there some reason why a literate parishioner, in 18th or 19th Century England, would not have had access to the ECF?

Thanks again

--David

Probably only after the Tractarian movement of the mid to later 19th century. At least its not mentioned in any of the materials I have form the 18-19th centuries. Recall that Anglicans generally did not sing hymns until the late 18th to early 19th century but sang metrical psalms and biblical canticles. Add to the that I have not come across such a teaching in any of the Anglican catechisms from the time period II would have to say not from those sources. My guess is that if one could read Ireaneus in the in the original language then you would know what Ireaneus thought about Eve.

I would have expected the idea to be well known earlier, at least during the time of the Caroline divines (17th century). They had amongst their leading lights good patristic scholars keen to "renovate" the best of ancient ideas and practice, and that some of them engaged in Marian devotion has been well documented.

That said, I think by the 19th century you'd have a situation where it would depend on the "flavour" of parish one attended. There would be parishes more deeply impacted by movements like the Caroline divines and the Tractarians, where such ideas would perhaps be circulating widely, but then you'd have parishes where the influences would have been more Reformed/Puritan/Evangelical, and such ideas would not have been to the forefront.

What particularly are you trying to find? It sort of sounds as if you're doing something like researching a setting for a story, and if so, some of us might be able to help more if we know more.

Some of our English folks might be able to help. I'm afraid it's the other side of the world from me!

I might have been sick that day, archer.

They did try to make sure we got a pretty comprehensive overview of Anglican history (if for no other reason than to appreciate our current diversity), but that is a very specific request.

St_Worm2 said:

p.s. - since we are already here, it's statements, like this one by St. Irenaeus (see below in bold, in particular), that I disagree with, in the sense that her role in salvation seems VASTLY and unnecessarily overstated here (at the very least), and heretical in the sense that such statements turn our eyes away from where they need to be constantly focused, on our Savior alone, and turn them toward one of His creatures instead (see the words in bold below, in particular).

Click to expand...

See what ya' mean. . .yes, it's all heresy, and here's why:

Nowhere, in the NT or the OT, does Scripture present Eve as the mother of the dead.
Scripture only presents Eve as "the mother of the living."

Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve 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...

Click to expand...

"Cause" is incorrect here.
If my husband, who is allergic to cheese, knowingly eats the pizza I made for the kids, it is not me who causes his discomfort, he does.

My pizza may be the occasion or the occurrence of his allergic reaction, but it is he who causes--produces, effects, executes--the reaction, by his choice.
My husband alone is the cause of his allergic reaction.

If my son constructs a tower in New York, I am not the cause of that construction, anymore than I am the cause of my husband's allergic reaction. My son is the cause (producer, effector, executor) of that construction. I am the occasion or the occurrence of my son's existence, but he is the cause of the construction of that tower.
My son alone is the cause of construction of that tower.

So it is with Eve--she was not the cause of death for the whole human race, she was simply the occasion or occurrence of Adam's choice.
Adam alone was the cause of the death of all mankind.

And so it is with Mary--she was not the cause of eternal life to the human race, she was simply the occasion or occurrence of Jesus' existence.
Jesus alone was the cause of eternal life to mankind.

The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith. (Against Heresies 3, 22)

Click to expand...

"Poetic" nonsense. . .

It was neither Eve's disobedience nor unbelief that caused the death of mankind--Adam did, and
it was neither Mary's obedience nor faith that caused eternal life for mankind--Jesus did.
Allowing anything other than, or to be added to, Jesus' atoning death as the sole cause of eternal life is grave
New Testament heresy.

It is the loose use of words (e.g., cause), abusing their meaning, which alters and undermines the meaning of Biblical texts, thereby allowing for the creation of contra-Biblical doctrine; e.g., Eve is the "mother of the dead," or Mary is the cause of eternal life.

.

Dewi Sant said:

in as much as the old hymns were remembered, I think it would have been known...though mostly in the theological instututes rather than at large in the parish system.


The formula appears in the second stanza of the Ave Stella Maris (Hail Star of the Sea, composed 8th century), one of the ancient hymns of the church.

Sumens illud 'Ave'
Gabrielis ore,
funda nos in pace,
mutans Evæ nomen.

Receiving that "Ave"
From the mouth of Gabriel,
Establish us in peace,
Transforming the name of "Eva"

Click to expand...

"Ave" (Hail! Fare Well!) meaning something like "Peace to you"?

A 2nd century Christian, St. Irenaeus, who risked his life for the faith, helped preserve the Bible as we know it, rooted out Gnostic heresies etc. has an aspect of his preaching referred to as nonsense.

His reference to the Virgin Mary as the “cause” is purely in a secondary, created sense in relation that the Word became flesh ( John 1:14). Our language is a bit limited in expression of how the ancient Christians preached.

Here is the chapter of what St. Irenaeus was preaching about:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)

Lukaris said:

A 2nd century Christian, St. Irenaeus, who risked his life for the faith, helped preserve the Bible as we know it, rooted out Gnostic heresies etc. has an aspect of his preaching referred to as nonsense.

His reference to the Virgin Mary as the “cause” is purely in a secondary, created sense in relation that the Word became flesh ( John 1:14). Our language is a bit limited in expression of how the ancient Christians preached.

Here is the chapter of what St. Irenaeus was preaching about:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)

Click to expand...

In the link above, the English translation uses "cause" in relation to Eve and Mary.

Is it a correct translation of its original language?
.

Clare73 said:

In the link above, the English translation uses "cause" in relation to Eve and Mary.

Is it a correct translation of its original language?
.

Click to expand...

It is in the aspect of the Lord’s work in redeeming His creation. He is The Cause and she is a secondary cause in relation to what is created being redeemed. That is why the Virgin Mary is considered the new Eve.

Here is some info on the various meanings of “cause” over the centuries ( from the same link).CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cause

Forgive me, I should not be butting in on another church forum. I do not as a rule but I broke my own rule here. I was not enraged in any way in my post just upset but still overreacting & , unintentionally, judgmental.

Lukaris said:

It is in the aspect of the Lord’s work in redeeming His creation. He is The Cause and she is a secondary cause in relation to what is created being redeemed. That is why the Virgin Mary is considered the new Eve.

Here is some info on the various meanings of “cause” over the centuries ( from the same link).CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cause

Forgive me, I should not be butting in on another church forum. I do not as a rule but I broke my own rule here. I was not enraged in any way in my post just upset but still overreacting & , unintentionally, judgmental.

Click to expand...

Thanks. . .don't be so hard on yourself. . .but you might want to sit down for the rest of this.

Since Mary was not the cause--primarily, of the Son of God coming down, nor secondarily, of his conception--God was both, she is the "means" of the Son of God's incarnation, and is not related in any way as "causal," primarily or secondarily.
And Eve is in no way causal nor a means, she is simply the occasion or occurrence of Adam's voluntary and free choice to sin.

These are the metaphysical facts.

However. . .that Mary was the mother of the Son of God, bringing him up in the way he should go, gives her as much to do with the gospel (the Good News) as the apostles have, whom all Christians, not just Catholics, revere.
But like the apostles, she is not causally related to the redemption, only as the means of the agent
of redemption, which agent is its only cause.

Hope that wasn't too hard on you. . .