Refuting Lizzie Reezay on the Implications of Early Christians Viewing Mary as the "New Eve"

I have recently been sent a video by a friend from a Catholic apologist, Lizzie Reezay on Mary being the New/Second Eve:

Why Mary was called "The New Eve" by Early Christians!

I have written about Reezay's sloppy use of sources and arguments before:

Adolf Von Harnack vs. the Monarchial Episcopacy in Rome

and

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

I have, on occasion, left messages to Reezay on these issues, but she has always ignored my request for her to interact with these and other arguments.

In the above video, commenting on Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian parallelling Eve with Mary, said:

Three of the earliest Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian) all referred to Mary as the “New Eve.” What's so significant is that these three Christians lived in opposite sides of the ancient world at a time without Internet or a good mail service, this is astounding, and when it comes to proving the original text of the New Testament to know what words are in the original manuscripts of the Bible, we use these same exact proof. When we see that the same concept, the same words, are in opposite parts far away from each other it super ups the probability of the original idea of theology proof starting in one place and then expanding outwards.

Irenaeus specifically was taught by a man called Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John. One-two steps away from someone who knew Jesus and started the Church. I really, really trust this as being original. Irenaeus is also needed to prove the authorship of the Gospels. Otherwise, they are anonymous, it’s meaningless, they really don't prove the resurrection, so every Protestant is trusting Irenaeus to prove the Gospel accounts. Let's also trust him about the New Eve concept. (0:42 mark)

She then continues with further comments about Justin and Tertullian on their comments about Mary as being the New Eve. Reezay, of course, believes this to be supportive of the Immaculate Conception of Mary which was elevated to a dogma in 1854 by Pius IX. The problem for Reezay is that, while early Christians did parallel Eve with Mary (contrasting the former's disobedience to Mary's obedience at the words of Gabriel), they would, often in the same writing, accuse Mary of personal sin! While Justin says very little about Mary in his writings beyond paralleling the disobedience of Eve with the obedience of Mary, Irenaeus and Tertullian did write more on Mary. Let us examine these two early Christian writers:

Irenaeus

Irenaeus of Lyons is often cited as evidence for early Church fathers holding to Mary being sinless due to his identification of her as the new/second Eve (Against Heresies, 3.22.4). However, if one reads this text, Irenaeus only parallels Eve and Mary due to the former’s disobedience (eating the fruit) resulting in sin coming into the earth and the latter’s act of obedience leading to the birth of the Messiah and the destruction of sin. Further, Irenaeus, based on John 2:4, explicitly stated that Mary was guilty of sin in the very same work he draws this parallel between Mary and Eve (Against Heresies 3.16.7):

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come"-- waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.

Many Catholic theologians will readily admit that some early Christian authors did accuse Mary of committing venial sins. For instance:

It is true that certain situations and actions involving Mary in the gospels (e.g., her need to fulfil the law of purification for women giving birth; her lack of understanding on finding the child Jesus in the Temple; her apparent boldness and reproof at Cana; her need for support at the foot of the Cross) were incorrectly explained by some eastern Fathers as imperfections, as lack of perfect faith, as a kind of doubt, in a word, as venial sins. (Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, F.I. “The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception,” in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, ed. Mark I. Miravalle [Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], pp. 213-76, here, p. 237)

If, for Reezay, Irenaeus is needed to prove the reliability of the Gospels, why does she dismiss his belief Mary was not sinless? She has to be inconsistent, and keep in mind: according to Roman Catholic theology, the Immaculate Conception (of which Mary's personal sinlessness is a part thereof) is a dogma.

Tertullian

On Tertullian, Luigi Gambero admitted, under a section of his book entitled, “Tertullian’s Severity toward Mary”:

It does not seem that our author is directly concerned about, or sympathetic toward, the Virgin as a person. To the contrary, one must acknowledge that it was characteristic of him to render one of the most severe and rash judgements of the holy Virgin known to patristic literature. He poorly interpreted the Gospel passages that mention the brothers of Jesus (cf. Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21). According to him, the Lord was reproving his Mother together with his brothers. It is known that the word “brother” is used in the Gospels to indicate relatives in general, but Tertullian, as we shall see, understands it to mean sons of the same parents. The text that interests us is the following:

[Jesus] was justly indignant that persons so close to him should stand outside while strangers were in the house with him, hanging on his every word. He was indignant above all because they were seeking to take him away from his solemn task. He did not ignore them, but disavowed them. Therefore, in response to the question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” he responded, “No one except those who hear my words and put them into practice.” He transferred the terms indicating blood relationship to others whom he considered closer to him because of their faith. (Adversus Marcionem 4, 19, 11; PL 2, 435)

In this text also, Tertullian not only shows himself to be confident and peremptory in his judgements but reveals his lack of a sense of proportion. In order to emphasize and exalt the person of Jesus, he does not hesitate to criticize his close relatives when necessary. (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [trans. Thomas Buffer; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 62-63)

As with other early Christian denials of Mary’s sinlessness, there was no outcry from the masses against Tertullian. The reason? Simply put—there was no “apostolic tradition” or biblical warrant for the IC. It was a much later development.

For more on this issue (e.g, a discussion of Ephrem the Syrian), see:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

The "Woman" in Rev 12

Also, at the beginning of the video, Reezay interprets the "woman" in Rev 12 as being Mary. However, even Catholic scholars admit that Mary is not the woman in Rev 12; instead, it is the Church/New Israel. As Wilfrid J. Harrington (a Catholic) wrote:

woman: This woman is surely the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem (19:7–8; 21:9–10), antithesis of the harlot (Rome) (17:14; 18:16). . . . The woman, though first seen in a setting of splendor, is with child and close to delivery. Her birth-pangs may be those of Eve (Gen 3:16); they are, more immediately, the birth-pangs of travailing Israel. See Mic 4:10, “Writhe and groan, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail.” In rabbinical literature “the birth-pangs of the Messiah” is a familiar phrase. Verses 5–6 identify the woman more closely. Whatever his background, and whatever the later use of the text (in Mariology), for John this woman is the heavenly Israel, depicted in terms of the woman of Gen 3. She is faced by Satan, the ancient serpent (Gen 3:1); she brings forth in anguish (3:16); her child will suffer attack by Satan (3:15). She is, all the while, the people of God who gives birth to the Messiah and the messianic age.

In stark contrast to the woman stands another sign: a great red dragon. Much earlier than the Python image is that of dragon or sea-serpent as a mythic symbol of chaos. Babylonian and Canaanite texts mention a serpentine monster with seven heads. In his text, John links the “dragon” with the “serpent” of Gen 3. Already, in a retelling of the Genesis story, the nāḥāš (“snake”) had become “the devil” (Wis 2:24). In his reference to the sweeping down of “a third of the stars” John seeks to depict the colossal reach and vast strength of the monster. In Dan 8:10, which he surely has in mind, the “stars” are angelic representatives of pagan powers. John’s text has nothing to do with a legendary “fall” of angels. It is worth observing that a reading of Gen 6:1–4 in the sense of angelic “fall” is not biblical. It goes back to 1 Enoch 6–13.

The dragon seeks to destroy the child of the woman. Her “male child” is the Messiah, explicitly identified as such by the invocation of Psalm 2. The reference is significant. The anointed king of the Psalm is addressed by God not at his birth but at his enthronement: “You are my son, today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). See Acts 13:33, “This he has fulfilled … by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘Thou are my son, today I have begotten thee’ ”; the text is applied to the resurrection (see Rom 1:4). By the “birth” of the Messiah John does not mean the nativity but the Cross—the enthronement of Jesus. Interestingly, the idea behind this passage of Revelation is thoroughly Johannine: the death of Jesus, which is his glorification, is also the moment of the assault of Satan and of his defeat. Precisely by dying on the cross, Jesus defeated the dragon and was exalted to God’s right hand. The Fourth Gospel has no temptation story at the beginning of the ministry: Satan makes his bid at its close. It is he who instigated Judas’ betrayal (John 13:2, 27; see Luke 22:3). In his final discourse Jesus declared: “I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me” (John 14:30). Luke, who has many contacts with the Johannine tradition, reflects the same viewpoint. After the temptation story he adds, “And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13); the moment indicated by the “opportune time” is the moment of the passion (22:3, 53).

Meanwhile the woman—the people of God of the Old Testament who, having given Christ to the world, thereby became the Christian Church—found refuge in the desert where God cared for her for 1,260 days. This is the equivalent of forty-two months or three and one-half years—the earthly duration of the Church. By “desert” John seems to have in mind more than an unspecified traditional place of refuge; v. 14 surely has the Exodus in view. Wilderness suggests the Sinai wandering: the desert was the place of freedom and safety after Egyptian bondage, the oppression of the dragon/Pharaoh. Besides, God’s care, described as sustainment, or nourishing, recalls the manna.

To John the Church appears as a woman, pregnant with the Messiah, a woman who will become bride of the Lamb. In the here and now she is protected from the malignant design of the dragon. Jesus had spoken to Peter of “my Church,” promising that the “gates of Hades” would not prevail against it (Matt 16:18). We share that assurance. But we must also expect that the Church will ever be an ecclesia pressa, a Church under fire. The dragon will be around until the end. (Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation [Sacra Pagina Series vol. 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008], 128, 129-31)

Reezay is way out in left field in her understanding of patristic (and biblical) Mariology. As Reezay is pretty active in making videos and speaking on her conversion to Rome, she can consider this an open challenge to debate Mariology, specifically the following:

Thesis: The Immaculate Conception of Mary, as defined dogmatically by Roman Catholicism, is consistent with biblical and apostolic tradition

If other informed Catholic apologists who wish to debate me on this topic instead, they can let me know.

Robert Boylan

IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom

14 September 2019