I’ve been thinking about some of the Catholic Marian doctrines, and many of them revolve around Old Testament typology — e.g., Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary as the Daughter of Zion, Mary as the New Eve.
On that last point, a Catholic would say that just as Eve played a crucial role in the Fall of man, Mary plays a crucial role in man’s redemption.
But many Protestants take a very Adam-centric view of the Fall. E.g., it wasn’t until after Adam ate the fruit that the eyes of both of them were opened.
You could interpret the story a few ways. You could say they both sinned, then they both received the consequences. It was the fall of man and woman. Or you could say that Eve sinned, but that wasn’t dispositive — it was only Adam’s sin that caused the Fall because he was the federal head of the human race.
Christ, being the new Adam, became the new federal head of the human race and redeemed mankind, undoing the curse of Adam.
Such an “Adam-centric” view of the Fall lessens the significance of Eve, and therefore undermines the significance of Mary as the New Eve.
I’m not concerned with whether all the details are true. Rather I’m wondering if such a view of the Fall would have a subtle effect on people’s view of Mary. E.g., “Okay, even if Mary is the New Eve in some weird way, what difference does it make, because Eve’s role wasn’t that important.”
Another way to look at it might be to ask “was it necessary for someone to undo the role of Eve?”
You could say that such a view would be far more patriarchal than the Catholic view. (Realize that I don’t mean that as a criticism because I don’t view “patriarchal” as a bad thing, the way some people today would. I’m just making the observation.)
Anyway, I’m curious what you think of the overall theory.
QUOTE: Rather I’m wondering if such a view of the Fall would have a subtle effect on people’s view of Mary.
I don’t think so. ISTM, the view of Mary comes from her role in the story. Albeit her role is necessary and important, the focus is primarily on others and that seems to be the greatest influence.
I think the whole idea that Protestants don’t think Mary has significance is a fallacy. (Some surely do, and I’ve seen it, but I mean that in general, the Protestant view of Mary doesn’t require that she’s “insignificant”.)
It’s not that she’s insignificant, it’s just that viewing her as significant, admirable, and all the rest does not require attributing certain specific things to her that Protestants find biblically and theologically untenable.
There’s nothing in the Protestant view of Mary that requires denying that she is in some sense the “New Eve,” even. Granted, the type of Protestant that gets allergic to anything that “sounds Catholic” whether it really conflicts with their theology or not will have a problem with it, but there’s nothing in the common denominator of “Protestant theology” that requires having a problem with it.
Second sentence should be “some surely do think that way…”