Crowned Mary and Baby Jesus

Mother of God: Anglicans and the Marian Dogmas

On November 4, 2025, the Roman Catholic Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released a long-anticipated document on St. Mary, Mother of Jesus. Specifically, this document, Mater Populi Fidelis, addresses two titles that many Catholics have been ascribing to Mary for some time now: โ€œCo-redemptrixโ€ and โ€œMediatrixโ€. While some expected Rome to dogmatize these titles in the document, the Vatican surprised many by cautioning against their use. Central to their reasoning was that the terms โ€œrisk obscuring Christโ€™s unique salvific mediation.โ€

As far as the Vatican was concerned, the matter was settled: there would be no new Marian dogma to which the Catholic Church would be bound. This brings us to the purpose of this article: what is a Marian dogma? How many are there? Do Anglicans have Marian dogmas, or dogmas at all?

Sponsored

Dogma vs. Doctrine

To begin addressing these questions, letโ€™s first compare dogma and doctrine. While doctrine can address any number of church teachings, dogma is a type of doctrine that has been divinely revealed and formally declared as such by the church. Generally, when we think of dogma, we think of essential teachings surrounding Christ and the Godhead. The Trinity and the two natures of Christ are examples of dogmas. These teachings have been divinely revealed through Scripture and affirmed by the church through time and place (at the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, respectively).  Dogma is not optional, cannot be changed, and is essential to our identity as Christians.

Marian dogmas are teachings regarding Mary that the church has elevated beyond mere doctrine to the level of dogma. The Roman Catholic Church currently has four Marian dogmas: her Divine Motherhood, her Perpetual (lifelong) Virginity, her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption into heaven. Note here that โ€œimmaculate conceptionโ€ refers to Maryโ€™s conception free from original sin and sinless life, not the virgin birth of Christ. If you are a Roman Catholic, belief in these doctrines is mandatory. They sit at the highest level of authority and certainty in the church alongside the Trinity and two natures of Christ. So what about Anglicans? How do we view the Marian dogmas, and what differences exist between our view of dogma and Romeโ€™s?

The Ecclesial Limits of the Church

Article Twenty of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (one of the historic Anglican Formularies and the primary summary of Anglican theology) says this of the churchโ€™s authority to define doctrine:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to Godโ€™s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Article Twenty, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

Article Twenty lays out the church’s authoritative limits. While the church does have the authority to settle doctrine, it does not have the authority to ordain โ€œany thing that is contrary to Godโ€™s Wordโ€. Further, the church cannot enforce any doctrine that does not explicitly come from Scripture. Article Six states,

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith…

Article Six, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

The term โ€œnecessary to salvationโ€ is key because dogmatic teachings represent what the church believes are essential truths at the core of the gospel message. The church considers them at least generally necessary to salvation.

The Full Deposit of Faith

Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that Christ and the Apostles delivered the full deposit of faith. Yet, Roman Catholics maintain that this deposit was conveyed both in Scripture and in unwritten apostolic tradition. Anglicans, in line with the Protestant reformers, affirm that the entire Apostolic Deposit is contained in Holy Scripture alone. These distinctions carry obvious implications for the church’s limits.

For Anglicans, the church can’t dogmatize anything not explicitly laid out in Scripture because Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation and the entirety of the Apostolic Deposit. The church may carry authority to speak on issues not mentioned in Scripture, and it often does, but it does not have the authority to dogmatize them.

This addresses the most significant difference between the Roman and Anglican views of dogma. Where Rome holds to the infallibility of both Scripture and tradition (the teaching authority of the church), Anglicans hold to the sole infallibility of Scripture. Tradition is essential, but still capable of error. Since, for Catholics, tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, the church carries the authority to declare dogmas on issues not expressed in Scripture. However, since Anglicans view tradition as subordinate to Scripture, the church has authority only to dogmatize what Scripture itself proclaims.

Do Anglicans Affirm any Marian Dogmas?

So, what does this have to do with Mary? Do Anglicans affirm any of the Marian dogmas? Actually, yes! Anglicans affirm Maryโ€™s divine motherhood, or her title as โ€œTheotokosโ€ (God-bearer). While โ€œTheotokosโ€ is a title for Mary, it has much more to do with identifying Christ than it does his mother. In his gospel, St. John affirms this truth when he says, โ€œthe Word became flesh and dwelt among us.โ€

The Mother of God

Affirming Mary as the mother of God, as opposed to merely the mother of Christ, clearly proclaims Christโ€™s divinity. God did not metaphorically become man, nor did God insert a human Jesus with divinity later in his life. Rather, Christ is fully God and fully man, and Maryโ€™s title as โ€œMother of Godโ€ reflects that truth.  This teaching was the focal point of the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and reflects the biblical teaching of Christโ€™s birth of the Virgin Mary. So that is one dogma, but what about the other three?

Later Marian Dogmas

While the Anglican Church does affirm the dogma of Mary as the Mother of God, it does not affirm the latter three Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. This includes the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Article Fifteen, On Christ Alone Without Sin, argues that all human beings are guilty of sin:

But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,and the truth is not in us.

Article Fifteen, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

While Roman Catholics have presented arguments that attempt to explain how Mary could be born without original sin and still be in need of a savior, the Articles do not seem to allow for such lenient interpretationsโ€”affirming alongside 1 John 1:8 that all (other than Christ) are guilty of sin, including St. Mary.

As for the Perpetual Virginity and Assumption of Mary, it is important to note that the church does not outright reject these doctrines, but it does refuse to dogmatize them because neither teaching is directly mentioned in Scripture. Because of the lack of biblical testimony, the church would be wrong to bind these teachings to the conscience of every Christian. Anglicans are largely free to interact with and affirm these doctrines at their own discretion, but the church must not enforce them. This brings us to an essential tenet of Anglican practice: freedom in adiaphora, or โ€œindifferent things.โ€

Adiaphora in the Anglican Tradition

The term adiaphora refers to secondary matters of faith. These are either not mentioned in Scripture, are open to numerous orthodox interpretations, or are spiritually neutral. Anglicans have a high level of freedom in secondary matters that may surprise outsiders from a Roman Catholic or Reformed tradition. The Marian doctrines that meet these criteria are no different. For example, while many Protestants today reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Romeโ€™s second dogma), it is the long-held majority position of the church, even by the first generation of Reformers.

The Perpetual Virginity

Today, many Anglicans still hold to the Perpetual Virginity as a matter of personal conviction. However, because of the lack of testimony in Scripture (and even possible evidence against it), the church identifies this as an adiaphora issue. Proponents of this view often cite two biblical arguments. First, the Greek word for โ€œbrotherโ€ can also mean โ€œcousin,โ€ which may be the case when Scripture refers to the brothers of Christ. Second, that Jesusโ€™ siblings may also come from a previous marriage of Josephโ€™s.

While neither view would generally be seen as the โ€œplain readingโ€ of the text of Scripture, those who affirm it often point to the longstanding testimony of the church in upholding these particular interpretations.

The Assumption of Mary

While it is far less common among Anglicans to affirm the Assumption of Mary, Anglo-Catholics sometimes do so. Apart from Jesusโ€™ ascension, there are two instances in the Bible in which people are taken up or assumed into heaven by God.

  • Genesis 5:24 tells us that Enoch was โ€œtaken upโ€ by God.
  • 2 Kings 2 tells the story of Elijah being taken up into heaven and leaving Elisha to succeed him in his earthly ministry.

The New Testament tells no such story of Mary being taken up into heaven. However, it does not tell us of Maryโ€™s death either. This would be one defense from a biblical perspective, albeit an argument from silence. While Anglicans have the freedom to affirm the Assumption of Mary, Article Twenty-Two teaches against the practice of intercession and seeking guidance from her, which is often associated with this belief.

The Plain Reading of Scripture

The churchโ€™s limits in these secondary matters do not mean the laity has unrestricted freedom to believe whatever they want so long as the church hasnโ€™t condemned it. The whole church, including the laity, is held to the standard outlined in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Canon 2 of GAFCON‘s Jerusalem Declaration states this principle well:

The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the churchโ€™s historic and consensual reading.

Canon 2, The Jerusalem Declaration

The church does not have to specifically identify an individual issue to make it illicit for the body. For example, the Marian titles โ€œCo-redemptrixโ€ and โ€œMediatrixโ€ violate the plain, canonical, and consensual reading of Scripture. While they may have historical roots, they are novel readings of Scripture that, at best, distort the catholic and apostolic faith, as the Vatican itself argued. Anglicans have not had the same problem as Rome regarding the popular use of these titles, and so releasing a similar statement would be largely unnecessary. Some issues may be less clear than others. However, Anglicans are still beholden to this principle of biblical fidelity expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles and laid out in the Jerusalem Declaration.

Final Thoughts

While many Roman Catholics were waiting with bated breath to see whether Mater Populi Fidelis would introduce a fifth Marian dogma, Anglican observers knew that such a scenario would never occur within their own ecclesial structure. The English Reformers were courageous in their fierce defense of Scripture as the churchโ€™s sole infallible authority.

The church has a special responsibility as a witness and keeper of Holy Writโ€”to proclaim and preserve the faith once delivered to the saintsโ€”but she must never mistake her responsibility to preserve Godโ€™s Word revealed in Scripture with a divine mandate to determine articles of faith that go beyond the scope of it. We should rejoice as Anglicans in our freedom to hold differing beliefs in secondary matters while uniting around our common commitment to the Gospel as revealed in Scripture, which contains all things necessary to salvation, and can neither be added to nor subtracted from.


Image: Statue outside the Dominican Church, Alsace, France. Photo by benedek from Getty Images Signature, courtesy of Canva. Digitally edited by Jacob Davis.

Author

Andrew Bass

Andrew Bass is the Director of Student Ministries for St. Francis Anglican Parish in Sanford, North Carolina. He is a postulant for ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Christ Our Hope and a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

View more from Andrew Bass

Comments

Please comment with both clarity and charity!

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
18 Comments

This was delicately written, insightful, clear and comprehensive. Thank you

This is extremely helpful and clear. It would be nice to know the historical background for the dogmas that exist in the Roman Catholic tradition yet not affirmed by the Anglican Communion.

I agree. Andrew explained the Anglican position very well. It was helpful. But the RC dogmas, even if in error, must be supported by some type of justification. They weren’t, I presume, just made up out of thin air.

I rejoice in the freedom to follow my conscience on secondary issues.

Right.

Last edited 10 months ago by Fr. John Kincaid

This was a good article. Easy to follow. Of course, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a consistent belief for the historic church merely because it is a Roman Catholic dogma – as the article intimates by saying it goes far back into church history. And, indeed, it does (cf. e.g. Clement of Alexandria writing in the Stomata c. 195-203). Of course, the whole of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy also affirms this belief. Whatโ€™s different about the perpetual virginity, is that, unlike the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which are very late papal pronouncements (1854 and 1950, respectively), the belief in Maryโ€™s perpetual virginity derives its dogmatic status from the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553 which refers to Mary as โ€œever-virgin.โ€ Of course, such a belief cannot be required for salvation. Whereas the title Theotokos does have direct connection to our salvation, Maryโ€˜s sexual activity โ€“ or lack thereof โ€“ does not (even though I do affirm this belief with the majority of the church, not only presently, but in centuries past).

One thing I want to address from the article is this line, โ€œ While Anglicans have the freedom to affirm the Assumption of Mary, Article Twenty-Two teaches against the practice of intercession and seeking guidance from her, which is often associated with this belief.โ€ If asking the Saints for intercession cannot be an Anglican (i.e., English Catholic) belief, then I have no church home. I would never be Roman Catholic. And I used to be Eastern Orthodox. Both those traditions (and I would include Oriental Orthodox here), are untenable for me as I have explained on my YouTube channel (and, no, I am not going to put in a shameless plug here). But I cannot deny the fact that God has worked many wonders in my life, and in the lives of others I know, through the intercession of the Saints. So, if not Anglican, which I believe, at its best, embraces the fullness of the faith of the Undivided Church, then what? Where? The Baptists?

Last edited 10 months ago by Fr. John Kincaid

Fr. John,

Thank you for your comment. This raises a relevant question on intercession in the Anglican tradition that could have many words written on it itself. Generally, there are three positions Anglicans tend to take as it relates to intercession, the Articles, and the history of the church.

First, some Reformed-leaning Anglicans hold a strict reading of the Articles, and would say all prayers of intercession are always wrong and Article 22 is binding on all Anglicans.
Second, some may take a “historical documents” view to the Articles, claiming they do not represent the last word on all the topics they address.
Third, some may take a Newman-style view, allowing for a loose interpretation of the Articles, and argue that the main intention of Article 22 was to address the Roman abuses of the intercession of saints that sought much more out of Saints in heaven than merely asking for their prayers.

In this article, my intention was to be faithful to the formularies. Though, there is a lot Anglicans have written both on Mary and intercession through time.

Thank you for sharing your story!

Thank you for the well-considered reply. I would lean toward the third option as I also do appeal to the Articles as an Anglican.

Very good article, brother.

“But I cannot deny the fact that God has worked many wonders in my life, and in the lives of others I know, through the intercession of the Saints.” What evidence do you have to support this statement, Father?

When holding to a belief that scripture is the only infallible source of truth, how do we know we have the right scripture? Nowhere in the Bible do we learn what the books of the Bible are. Isnโ€™t the canon of scripture part of a sacred tradition that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit and apostolic succession, infallibly interprets?

When we have all the bishops in apostolic succession, RC, Anglican, Eastern, Oriental in an Ecumenical Council like Nicaea let me know. The RCs alone doesn’t cut it.

Well done!

If Marian Dogma is Adiaphora in the Anglican Tradition, how can you say that “..yes! Anglicans affirm Maryโ€™s divine motherhood, or her title as โ€œTheotokosโ€ (God-bearer).” when there is no assertion of the question within the Thirty-nine Articles???

Hi Eric,

Good question!

While the specific doctrine of Theotokos is not affirmed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, it is implied in them – as well as other formularies.

Article 21 affirms General Councils when their teachings reflect things taught in Scripture. Chief among the “general councils” of the church were the first four ecumenical councils, which include Ephesus (where this doctrine was defined). It was the common view of the Reformers and most medieval Christians that the first four councils were especially important in establishing the Christology of the church. The doctrine of the Theotokos was also endorsed by the English Reformers, including Thomas Cranmer.

Further, the Athanasian Creed is mentioned both in the Articles and the Prayer Book. The creed affirms Mary as Theotokos where it says: “…our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man...One altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity in Person.”

Lastly, the Anglican Communion as a whole broadly affirms the first 4-7 Ecumenical Councils. All GAFCON churches affirm the first four, and the ACNA affirms the first four plus “the Christological distinctions” of 5-7.

I hope this addresses your question, thanks for the comment!

I was looking at the background… I think you probably have to understand the assumptions of Egyptian/Coptic Christianity and then how the Byzantines, before the Ottoman conquest (one of the many reasons Greece and Turkey remain rivals), viewed Marian devotion to understand the tradition.
https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_book_edited/j.ctv8pzdqp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_tuum_praesidium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akathist

There have always been Anglicans (and protestants) who accept and joyfully embrace the traditional and ancient Marian doctrines of Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception (or some equivalent). The ARCIC joint theological document “Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ” should be mandatory reading for anyone who is seriously investigating these things.

Given not just the absence of any biblical claim of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity but also in light of Matthew 1:25, I always thought the claim to be particularly strange and unbelievable. From the “until” part is seems clear that he did “know” her.

Greek: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮณฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮบฮตฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ•ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ— แผ”ฯ„ฮตฮบฮตฮฝ ฯ…แผฑฯŒฮฝยท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮบฮฌฮปฮตฯƒฮตฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ แฝ„ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฑ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผธฮทฯƒฮฟแฟฆฮฝ
Translation: “And he did not know her until she had given birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus”

My son and I recently went to New York City and we visited both Trinity and St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The differences between the two interiors were dramatic: St. Patrick’s was like a giant, elaborate, pop-up card, and Trinity was like a simple thank you note that’s blank on the inside for a personal message of thanks. With so many side altars and shrines dedicated to saints, it seemed that Jesus was just one of many to pray to, whereas Trinity was completely Christ-centered and cross-focused. Saints are great life-examples to inspire and to emulate, but to worship, venerate, or to pray to? No.