Marian Studies Volume 14 Article 6 1-15-1963 The rP oblem of Mary's Holiness in the First Christian Centuries Ambrose Agius Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Agius, Ambrose (1963) "The rP oblem of Mary's Holiness in the First Christian Centuries," Marian Studies: Vol. 14, Article 6, Pages 41-61. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol14/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marian Library Publications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marian Studies by an authorized editor of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Agius: The Problem of Mary's Holiness in the First Christian Centuries THE PROBLEM OF MARY'S HOLINESS IN THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CENTURIES In this paper we are not concerned with the orderly marshalling and unfolding of patristic ideas on the Mother of God up to the council of Ephesus ( 431) . That has already been done, with expert finality, by Canon Jouassard and Father Burghardt.1 Here we are concerned with the passages in which notable fig­ ures, and especially Origen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, utter some strictures on the Blessed Mother implying sin, or at least weakness, in her conduct on various occasions. How far should we allow ourselves to be disturbed by these passages, which have furnished ammunition for the enemies of the Church, and of Our Lady, over many years? This we shall now discuss. Our title actually resolves itself into the problem of the accept­ ance or non-acceptance of Mary's holiness in the first Christian centuries. Very briefly, the apparent non-acceptance of Mary's holiness by distinguished publicists is to be found in professional lectures on *The following authorities may be consulted with advantage: P. M. Frua, O.S.M., L'lmmacolata Concezione e S. Agostino (Saluzzo, 1960); B. Przybylski, O.P., De mariologia Sancti lrenaei Lugdunensis ... (Rome, 1937); C. Vagaggini, O.S.B., Maria nelle opere di Origene (Rome, 1942); A. Eberle, Die Mariologie des hl. Cyrilltts von Alexandrien (Freiburg, 1921); S. S. Fedyniak, O.S.B.M., Mariologia apud P.P. Orientales ... (2nd ed., Rome, 1958); Ph. Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus Cologne, 1907); A Pagnamenta, La mariologia di S. Ambrogio (Milan, 1932). 1 Cf. G. Jouassard, Marie a travers Ia patristique: maternite divine, virginite saintete, in Maria. Etudes sur Ia Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, S.]., I (Paris, 1949) 71-157; Id., Le probleme de Ia sainte de Marie chez les Pires, in BSFEM (1947) 10-31; W.J. Burghardt, S.J., Mary in Western Patristic Thought, in Mariology, ed J.B. Carol, O.F.M., I (Milwaukee, 1955) 110-117; Id., Mary in Eastern Patristic Thought, ibid. 2 (1957) 88-100. 41 Published by eCommons, 1963 1 Marian Studies, Vol. 14 [1963], Art. 6 42 "The Problem of Mary's Holiness" Scripture, quite often mere guess-work and unwarranted by the text or just the echo of an encrusted literary tradition. We find also a glimpse of prejudice and invalid argument a fortiori. Usually the speaker is not concerned with Mary's holiness at all, but with some other subject then under discussion. And sometimes we have to say what the editors of Tertullian remark in a footnote to the Migne Patrology: "Dicendum est hie, ut quandoque alias, dormi­ tasse bonum Tertullianum."2 Or, as we say, "Even Homer nods." And Shakespeare too. Before producing textual examples, we may outline the develop­ ment of the recognition of Mary's holiness from the beginning. The New Testament gives us the Divine Maternity and the Vir­ ginity ante partum. Sub-apostolic times produced, in Justin and Irenaeus, the notion of Mary as the Second Eve, though its im­ plications were only gradually understood. But the moral grandeur of Mary's close association with God were appreciated very early. Attention on Mary as Mother of the Savior was focussed suc­ cessively by the early heresies and their refutation. Even the un­ reliable Apocrypha showed the Christian mind obsessed by her. Then, with Athanasius and the rise of asceticism, Mary is pro­ claimed as the inspiration and model of virgins. The implications of virginity in partu and post partum were worked out. And, to the ascetics, virginity and sanctity were almost interchangeable terms. Then came Ambrose with his unforgetable presentation of the Blessed Mother, unique in her own splendor: "Quid splendidius ea quam Splendor elegit ?" 8 and as the model of vir­ gins and indeed the pattern of every virtue.4 This is the complete and flawless Mary: "Virgo per gratiam ab omni intergra labe peccati."6 The mistakes and blunderings of previous commentary 2 Tertullian, De carne Christi, cp. 7; PL 2, 767, note 2. sSt. Ambrose, De virginibus, 22, 7; PL 16, 220B. Cf. A. Agius, O.S.B., St. Ambrose and Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in DR 44 (1926) 50-58. 4 "Talis fuit Maria ut ejus unius vita omnium est disciplina." ( St Ambrose, De virginibus, 2, 2, 15; PL 16, 2220. 5 St. Ambrose, Expositio in ps. 118,- PL 15, 15990. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol14/iss1/6 2 Agius: The Problem of Mary's Holiness in the First Christian Centuries "The Problem of Mary's Holiness'' 43 are brusquely and effectively demolished. And all this even though in the East Cyril of Alexandria was rekindling some of the embers of past criticism. Mter Ephesus, with the liturgical ex­ pansion of devotion to Mary, her grandeur is extolled with an ever-increasing vehemencee chiefly in the East. In the West, which had hitherto led in recognition of Mary's grace, a misunderstand­ ing of Augustine's reply to Julian of Edanum held up belief in the Immaculate Conception for some centuries. The Greeks ad­ mitted no such problems. This is a brief conspectus of the way in which asknowledg­ ment of Mary's prerogatives was worked out, gradually, of course, as in the case of all dogmas. Let us now, as promised, produce some passages to show how the minds of those who criticized the Blessed Mother were working. The source of the trouble was undoubtedly Origen. It is true that Tertullian, after vigorously defending the Blessed Mother against the infamous slander that an unknown soldier named Pan­ ther was the father of her Son,6 himself falls into error. Reacting against the Manichaean heresy, he presents Mary as the exemplary mother of a family. He also says that Mary went along with the family council who "did not believe in Him." But, as we have seen, "Tertullian sometimes nods" and he was not regarded as a reliable exponent of Christian orthodoxy. But with Origen it is otherwise. With his vast audience and immense prestige he set, in this matter, a literary tradition at Alex­ andria which we find echoed, with gradually diminishing rever­ berations, in Basil, Amphilochius of !conium and others, and ob­ viously inspiring the more startling declarations of Cyril of Alex­ andria and John Chrysostom. So Origen requires some dose attention. Origen was a human dynamo. 7 He would have been quite at e Tertullian, De spectaculis, 30; PL 1, 662A. 7 Cf. Agius, Origen and Our Lady, in CR 43 (1958) 671-678; Id., The Blessed Virgin in Origen and St. Ambrose, in DR 142 (1932) 126-1~7. Published by eCommons, 1963 3 Marian Studies, Vol. 14 [1963], Art. 6 44 "The Problem of Marys Holiness" home as president of a corporation in Wall Street. At one time he retained the services of twenty amanuenses, copyists and calli­ graphers, paid for by a rich disciple, Ambrose. In his teaching career also he was a human dynamo. At 18, after his father's martyrdom, he became head of the Cathechetical School at Alex­ andria. Thenceforward he was, like Ambrose of Milan, teaching and learning at the same time. In one of his lectures we get a hint of the pressure: We have to skim rapidly through all this, because we are hurrying on to say something about the laws governing leprosy.8 He was frequently falling foul of ecclesiastical authority. He never hesitated to take a leap in the dark. And some of his guesses were almost comic. He also had the Eastern contempt for women as a sex, which reappears in all the critics whom we have to con­ sider. But first let us take a look at the brighter side. For Origen, as all the others, had plenty to say in praise of the Blessed Mother. It is important to stress this point as a corrective to those who quote only the critical passages as if they represented the whole mind of the writer. Mary, says Origen, 8 was saluted by the Angel with a form of address reserved to her alone, (The East was impressed by the fact that it was given to a woman!) No one else has there been, or can be, to share such a grace: the divine conception, the divine offspring, the mother of the God-man all alike are unique. Elizabeth says to Mary: "It was fitting for me to go to you because you are blessed above all women, the Mother of my Lord, and my Lady." Only a madman would suggest that Mary was denied by her Son because, after His birth, Mary gave herself to another. Mary 8 PG 12, 497C. 9 For this summary cf.