I. Mary, the New Eve

Even though the explicit treatment of Mary’s collaboration in the work of redemption has appeared in ever sharper relief in the papal magisterium only within the past two centuries, there is well founded reason to say that it is part and parcel of the tradition that has come down to us from the Apostles and makes progress in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Dei Verbum #8). The indissoluble link between the “Woman” and “her seed,” the Messiah, is already presented to us in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15)^{^[1]}, where the first adumbrations of God’s saving plan pierce through the darkness caused by man’s sin. The identification of the “Woman” with Mary is already implicit in the second and nineteenth chapters of the Gospel of St. John where Jesus addresses his mother as “Woman”^{^[2]} and in the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation^{^[3]}. The Apostle Paul had already explicitly identified Jesus as the “new Adam” (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49) and it was a natural and logical development for the sub-Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr (+ c. 165), Irenaeus of Lyons (+ c. 202) and Tertullian (+ c. 220), to see Mary as the “new Eve”^{^[4]}, the God-given helpmate of the “new Adam”. Virtually all of the experts are agreed that the classic presentation of Mary as the “New Eve” achieves full maturity in the writings of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. Of Irenaeus’ Eve-Mary comparison René Laurentin says

Irenaeus gives bold relief to a theme only outlined by Justin [Martyr]. With Irenaeus the Eve-Mary parallel is not simply a literary effect nor a gratuitous improvisation, but an integral part of his theology of salvation. One idea is the key to this theology: God’s saving plan is not a mending or a “patch-up job” done on his first product; it is a resumption of the work from the beginning, a regeneration from head downwards, a recapitulation in Christ. In this radical restoration each one of the elements marred by the fall is renewed in its very root. In terms of the symbol developed by Irenaeus, the knot badly tied at the beginning is unknotted, untied in reverse (recirculatio): Christ takes up anew the role of Adam, the cross that of the tree of life. In this ensemble Mary, who corresponds to Eve, holds a place of first importance. According to Irenaeus her role is necessary to the logic of the divine plan. ...

With Irenaeus this line of thought attains a force of expression that has never been surpassed. Later writers will broaden the bases of the comparison but to our day no one has expressed it in a way more compact or more profound.^{^[5]}

Before moving on to the papal magisterium as such, it will not be out of place to underscore why I believe Saint Irenaeus is such an important figure for our consideration. Not only is he invoked implicitly – by being included among the Fathers – in the Marian magisterium of Blessed Pius IX, but he is also referred to explicity in that of Pius XII, Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council and most notably in that of John Paul II. The Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan provides us with a fascinating hint about the importance of the Bishop of Lyons:

When it is suggested that for the development of the doctrine of Mary, such Christian writers as Irenaeus in a passage like this [in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching] “are important witnesses for the state of the tradition in the late second century, if not earlier” that raises the interesting question of whether Irenaeus had invented the concept of Mary as the Second Eve here or was drawing on a deposit of tradition that had come to him from “earlier.” It is difficult, in reading his Against Heresies and especially his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, to avoid the impression that he cited the parallelism of Eve and Mary so matter-of-factly without arguing or having to defend the point because he could assume that his readers would willingly go along with it, or even that they were already familiar with it. One reason that this could be so might have been that, on this issue as on so many others, Irenaeus regarded himself as the guardian and the transmitter of a body of belief that had come to him from earlier generations, from the very apostles. A modern reader does need to consider the possibility, perhaps even to concede the possibility, that in so regarding himself Irenaeus may just have been right and that therefore it may already have become natural in the second half of the second century to look at Eve, the “mother of all living,” and Mary, the mother of Christ, together, understanding and interpreting each of the two most important women in human history on the basis of the other.^{^[6]}

Put simply, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. There is every reason, then, to believe that what he transmits to us about Mary as the “New Eve” is an integral part of “the Tradition that comes to us from the Apostles”.^{^[7]}

This datum of the tradition has come into ever clearer focus through the teaching of the Popes in the course of the past one hundred fifty years, most notably in Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Bull of 1854, Ineffabilis Deus^{^[8]}, Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution of 1950, Munificentissimus Deus^{^[9]}, and his Encyclicals Mystici Corporis of 1943^{^[10]} and Ad Cæli Reginam of 1954. In the last mentioned document the Holy Father spoke in these explicit terms:

From these considerations we can conclude as follows: Mary in the work of redemption was by God’s will joined with Jesus Christ, the cause of salvation, in much the same way as Eve was joined with Adam, the cause of death. Hence it can be said that the work of our salvation was brought about by a “restoration” (St. Irenaeus) in which the human race, just as it was doomed to death by a virgin, was saved by a virgin.

Moreover, she was chosen to be the Mother of Christ “in order to have part with Him in the redemption of the human race” [Pius XI, Auspicatus profecto].

“She it was, who, free from all stain of personal or original sin, always most closely united with her Son, offered Him up to the Eternal Father on Calvary, along with the sacrifice of her own claims as His mother and of her own mother love, thus acting as a new Eve on behalf of Adam’s children, ruined by his unhappy fall” [Mystici Corporis].

From this we conclude that just as Christ, the new Adam, is our King not only because He is the Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so also in a somewhat similar manner the Blessed Virgin is Queen not only as Mother of God, but also because she was associated as the second Eve with the new Adam. [Quibus ex rationibus huiusmodi argumentum eruitur: si Maria, in spirituali procuranda salute, cum Iesu Christo, ipsius salutis principio, ex Dei placito sociata fuit, et quidem simili quodam modo, quo Heva fuit cum Adam, mortis principio, consociata, ita ut asseverari possit nostræ salutis opus, secundum quandam «recapitulationem» peractum fuisse, in qua genus humanum, sicut per virginem morti adstrictum fuit, ita per virginem salvatur; si præterea asseverari itidem potest hanc gloriosissimam Dominam ideo fuisse Christi matrem delectam «ut redimendi generis humani consors efficeretur», et si reapse «ipsa fuit quæ vel propriæ vel hereditariæ labis expers, arctissime semper cum Filio suo coniuncta, eundem in Golgotha, una cum maternorum iurium maternique amoris sui holocausto, nove veluti Heva, pro omnibus Adæ filiis, miserando eius lapsu foedatis, æterno Patri obtulit»; inde procul dubio concludere licet, quemadmodum Christus, novus Adam, non tantum quia Dei Filius est, Rex dici debet, sed etiam quia Redemptor est noster, ita quodam anologiæ modo, Beatissimam Virginem esse Reginam non tantummodo quiameter Dei est, verum etiam quod nova veluti Heva cum novo Adam consociata fuit.]^{^[11]}

We may note that with the clarity which characterized all of his dogmatic statements the great Pontiff insists on Mary’s active, but subordinate role in the work of our salvation and in doing so invokes the authority of Saint Irenaeus, the “father of Catholic dogmatic theology”^{^[12]}.

The theme of Mary as the “New Eve”, with explicit references to Saint Irenaeus, was duly cited in chapter eight of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #56 thusly:

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “Mother of the living,” and frequently claim: “death through Eve, life through Mary.” [Merito igitur SS. Patres Mariam non mere passive a Deo adhibitam, sed libera fide et oboedientia humanæ saluti cooperantem censent. Ipsa enim, ut ait S. Irenæus, «oboediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est saluti». Unde non pauci Patres antiqui in prædicatione sua cum eo libenter asserunt: «Hevæ inobedientiæ nodum solutionem accepisse per oboedientiam Mariæ; quod alligavit virgo Heva per incredulitatem, hoc virginem Mariam solivsse per fidem»; et comparatione cum Heva instituta, Mariam «matrem viventium» appelant, sæpiusque affirmant: «mors per Hevam, vita per Mariam».]^{^[13]}

In his Professio Fidei of 30 June 1968 Paul VI, expressly citing Lumen Gentium #56 as a source, called Mary the “New Eve”^{^[14]} and Pope John Paul II without a doubt made more references to Mary as the “New Eve” and examined the implications of this title more than all of his predecessors combined.^{^[15]} Here is one of his last such references which occurs in his Letter to the Men and Women Religious of the Montfort Families for the 160^th Anniversary of the Publication of True Devotion to Mary:

St Louis Marie contemplates all the mysteries, starting from the Incarnation which was brought about at the moment of the Annunciation. Thus, in the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, Mary appears as “the true terrestrial paradise of the New Adam”, the “virginal and immaculate earth” of which he was formed (n. 261). She is also the New Eve, associated with the New Adam in the obedience that atones for the original disobedience of the man and the woman (cf. ibid., n. 53; St Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III, 21, 10-22, 4). Through this obedience, the Son of God enters the world. The Cross itself is already mysteriously present at the instant of the Incarnation, at the very moment of Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb. Indeed, the ecce venio in the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 10: 5-9) is the primordial act of the Son’s obedience to the Father, an acceptance of his redeeming sacrifice already at the time “when Christ came into the world”. [San Luigi Maria contempla tutti i misteri a partire dall’Incarnazione che si è compiuta al momento dell’Annunciazione. Così, nel Trattato della vera devozione, Maria appare come “il vero paradiso terrestre del Nuovo Adamo”, la “terra vergine e immacolata” da cui Egli è stato plasmato (n. 261). Ella è anche la Nuova Eva, associata al Nuovo Adamo nell’obbedienza che ripara la disobbedienza originale dell’uomo e della donna (cfr ibid., 53; Sant’Ireneo, Adversus Haereses, III, 21, 10-22, 4). Per mezzo di quest’obbedienza, il Figlio di Dio entra nel mondo. La stessa Croce è già misteriosamente presente nell’istante dell’Incarnazione, al momento del concepimento di Gesù nel seno di Maria. Infatti, l’ecce venio della Lettera agli Ebrei (cfr 10,5-9) è il primordiale atto d’obbedienza del Figlio al Padre, già accettazione del suo Sacrificio redentore “quando entra nel mondo”.]^{^[16]}

In this case there is a graceful reference which links Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort to Saint Irenaeus of Lyons while at the same time linking the reparation accomplished by the “New Adam” for the world’s salvation to that of the “New Eve”.

Let us allow Father Lino Cignelli, O.F.M., an expert who has studied the Mary-Eve parallel in Irenaeus and the early Greek Fathers at length, to offer us this penetrating analysis which may also serve as a summary of what we have found thus far in the papal magisterium:

From the human side, both the sexes contribute actively in determining the lot of the human race, but not however to the same extent. Ruin and salvation rest with the two Adams. With regard to Christ the New Adam, he can redeem because he is the God-man. As God, he guarantees the victory over the devil and communicates life, incorruptibility and immortality, which are essentially divine goods; as man, he is the primary ministerial cause of salvation and the antithesis of Adam, cause of universal ruin.

The two virgins, Eve and Mary, beyond depending on Satan and God respectively, are ordained in their actions to the two Adams, with whom they share ministerial causality. They thus carry out an intermediate and subordinate task. Subordination, however, does not mean being simple accessories. Irenaeus clearly points back to the feminine causality of the ruin and the salvation of the human race. Eve is the “cause of death” and Mary the “cause of salvation” for all mankind.^{^[17]}

Father Cignelli further comments that Mary’s “contribution, made in free and meritorious obedience, constitutes with that of Christ the man a single total principle of salvation. At the side of the New Adam, she is thus a ministerial and formal co-cause of the restoration of the human race.”^{^[18]} Although we have not been able to review all of the texts here, this conclusion is fully justified by its use in the papal magisterium.^{^[19]}

II. The Protoevangelium

Intimately related to the concept of Mary as the “New Eve” are the words spoken by the Lord after the fall of our first parents. God metes out punishment first to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15), then to the woman (Gen. 3:16) and finally to the man (Gen. 3:17-19). What is particularly striking, however, is that the sentence passed upon the serpent already heralds the reversal of the fall. The Lord says: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; she shall crush your head, while you lie in wait for her heel” (Gen. 3:15).^{^[20]} This text has become famous as the protoevangelium (“first gospel”) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains why:

The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the “Protoevangelium” as Mary, the Mother of Christ, the “New Eve”.^{^[21]}

Arguments as to whether the text of the protoevangelium should be translated “he [the seed of the woman] shall crush your head” (ipse conteret caput tuum as in the Neo-Vulgata) or “she [the woman] shall crush your head” (ipsa conteret caput tuum as in the Vulgata of St. Jerome) continue to argue the matter.^{^[22]} The Neo-Vulgata has chosen in favor of the masculine pronoun. I believe, however, that Father Stefano M. Manelli’s treatment of the matter in his Biblical Mariology provides an excellent overview of this issue^{^[23]} and draws conclusions fully in harmony with the consistent use made of this text in the papal magisterium:

As Pope Pius IX summarizes it, both according to tradition (the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers) and according to the express declarations of the papal Magisterium, the Protoevangelium “clearly and plainly” foretold the Redeemer, indicated the Virgin Mary as the Mother of the Redeemer, and described the common enmity of Mother and Son against the devil and their complete triumph over the poisonous serpent. One can, therefore, without hesitation affirm that the content of the Protoevangelium is “Marian” as well as messianic. Not only this, but the mariological dimension in reference to the “woman” must be also understood literally to be exclusive to that “woman”, to Mary, that is, to the Mother of the Redeemer, and not to Eve.^{^[24]}

Pope John Paul II, even giving full weight to the Neo-Vulgata rendition, puts it this way:

Since the biblical concept establishes a profound solidarity between the parent and the offspring, the depiction of the Immaculata crushing the serpent, not by her own power but through the grace of her Son, is consistent with the original meaning of the passage.

The same biblical text also proclaims the enmity between the woman and her offspring on the one hand the serpent and his offspring on the other. This is a hostility expressly established by God, which has a unique importance, if we consider the problem of the Virgin’s personal holiness. In order to be the irreconcilable enemy of the serpent and his offspring, Mary had to be free from all power of sin, and to be so from the first moment of her existence. [Poiché la concezione biblica pone una profonda solidarietà tra il genitore e la sua discendenza, è coerente con il senso originale del passo la rappresentazione dell’Immacolata che schiaccia il serpente, no per virtù propria ma della grazia del Figlio.

Nel medesimo testo biblico viene inoltre proclamata l’inimicizia tra la donna e la sua stirpe da una parte e il serpente e la sua discencenza dell’altra. Si tratta di un’ostilità espressamente stabilita da Dio, che assume un rilievo singolare se consideriamo il problema della santità personale della Vergine, Per essere l’incolciliabile nemica del serpente e della sua stirpe, Maria doveva essere esente da ogni dominio del peccato. E questo fin dal primo momento della sua esisitenza.]^{^[25]}

It should also be noted that already in drafting the Bull Ineffabilis Deus it was confirmed that, for Catholics, it is always necessary to read the biblical texts in the light of the patristic interpretation.^{^[26]} This latter point has been further corroborated and validated in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum.^{^[27]}

Let us now proceed to the elaboration of this theme in Ineffabilis Deus of Bl. Pius IX.

The Fathers and writers of the Church ... in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced His merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which He crushed the audacity of the deceitful Serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed” – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold; that His most blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and at the same time the very enmity of both against the Evil One was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. [Quapropter enarrantes verba, quibus Deus præparata renovandis mortalibus suæ pietatis remedia inter ipsa mundi primordia prænuntians, et deceptoris serpentis retudit audaciam, et nostri generis spem mirifice erexit, inquiens: “Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius” docuere, divine hoc oraculo clare aperteque præmonstrandum fuisse misericordem humani generis Redemptorem, scilicet Unigenitum Dei Filium Christum Iesum, ac designatam beatissimam eius Matrem Virginem Mariam, ac simul ipsissimas utriusque contra diabolum inimicitias insigniter expressas. Quocirca sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decreti, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum Eo coniuncta, una cum Illo et per Illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illius caput immaculato pede contrivit.]^{^[28]}

Here we may note that the Pontiff gives an admirable summary of the Church’s understanding of the protoevangelium and in so doing illuminates the teaching about Mary as the woman who was united with the Redeemer “by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot”. We should not be ignorant, however, of what Father Settimio Manelli points out in his recent study i.e., that in recent decades there has been a blatant change of course in the interpretation of this text so that many modern exegetes are no longer willing to admit a Marian interpretation.^{^[29]} By the same token the painstaking work of Father Tiburtius Gallus shows a consistent Marian interpretation of this text over the course of the centuries in medio Ecclesiæ^{^[30]} and the numerous commentaries on the protoevangelium by the late Pope John Paul II continue to sustain the Marian interpretation on the part of the magisterium. Let us conclude this part of our discussion with an excerpt from his Marian catechesis of 24 January 1996:

The Protogospel’s words also reveal the unique destiny of the woman who, although yielding to the serpent's temptation before the man did, in virtue of the divine plan later becomes God’s first ally. Eve was the serpent’s accomplice in enticing man to sin. Overturning this situation, God declares that he will make the woman the serpent’s enemy.

Exegetes now agree in recognizing that the text of Genesis, according to the original Hebrew, does not attribute action against the serpent directly to the woman, but to her offspring. Nevertheless, the text gives great prominence to the role she will play in the struggle against the tempter: in fact the one who defeats the serpent will be her offspring.

Who is this woman? The biblical text does not mention her personal name but allows us to glimpse a new woman, desired by God to atone for Eve’s fall; in fact, she is called to restore woman’s role and dignity, and to contribute to changing humanity’s destiny, cooperating through her maternal mission in God’s victory over Satan.

In the light of the New Testament and the Church’s tradition, we know that the new woman announced by the Protogospel is Mary, and in “her seed” we recognize her Son, Jesus, who triumphed over Satan’s power in the paschal mystery.

We also observe that in Mary the enmity God put between the serpent and the woman is fulfilled in two ways. God’s perfect ally and the devil’s enemy, she was completely removed from Satan’s domination in the Immaculate Conception, when she was fashioned in grace by the Holy Spirit and preserved from every stain of sin. In addition, associated with her Son’s saving work, Mary was fully involved in the fight against the spirit of evil.

Thus the titles “Immaculate Conception” and “Cooperator of the Redeemer”, attributed by the Church’s faith to Mary, in order to proclaim her spiritual beauty and her intimate participation in the wonderful work of Redemption, show the lasting antagonism between the serpent and the New Eve. [Le parole del Protovangelo rivelano, inoltre, il singolare destino della donna che, pur avendo preceduto l’uomo nel cedere alla tentazione del serpente, diventa poi, in virtù del piano divino, la prima alleata di Dio. Eva era stata l’alleata del serpente per trascinare l’uomo nel peccato. Dio annuncia che, capovolgendo questa situazione, Egli farà della donna la nemica del serpente.

Gli esegeti sono ormai concordi nel riconoscere che il testo della Genesi, secondo l’originale ebraico, attribuisce l’azione contro il serpente non direttamente alla donna, ma alla stirpe di lei. Il testo dà comunque un grande risalto al ruolo che elle svolgerà nella lotta contro il tentatore: il vincitore del serpente sarà, infatti, sua progenie.

Chi è questa donna? Il testo biblico non riferisce il suo nome personale, ma lascia intravedere una donna nuova, voluta da Dio per riparare la caduta di Eva; ella è chiamata, infatti, a restaurare il ruolo e la dignità della donna e a contribuire al cambiamento del destino dell’umanità, collaborando mediante la sua missione materna alla vittoria divina su satana.

Alla luce del Nuovo Testamento e della tradizione della Chiesa, sappiamo che la donna nuova annunciata del Protovangelo è Maria, e riconosciamo nella «sua stirpe» (Gn 3,15), il figlio, Gesù, trionfatore nel mistero della Pasqua sul potere di satana.