Recently in Mary Category

Now of this Mediator [Jesus] it would occupy too much space to say anything at all worthy of Him; and, indeed, to say what is worthy of Him is not in the power of man. For who will explain in consistent words this single statement, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," so that we may believe on the only Son of God the Father Almighty, born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary? The meaning of the Word being made flesh, is not that the divine nature was changed into flesh, but that the divine nature assumed our flesh. And by "flesh" we are here to understand "man," the part being put for the whole, as when it is said, "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified," that is, no man. For we must believe that no part was wanting in that human nature which He put on, save that it was a nature wholly free from every taint of sin - not such a nature as is conceived between the two sexes through carnal lust, which is born in sin, and whose guilt is washed away in regeneration; but such as it behoved a virgin to bring forth, when the mother's faith, not her lust, was the condition of conception. And if her virginity had been marred even in bringing Him forth, He would not have been born a virgin; and it would be false (which God forbid) that He was born of the Virgin Mary, as is believed and declared by the whole Church, which, in imitation of His Mother, daily brings forth members of His body, and yet remains a virgin. Read, if you please, my letter on the virginity of the Holy Mary which I sent to that eminent man, whose name I mention with respect and affection, Volusianus.

- - St. Augustine, The Ineffable Mystery of the Birth of Christ the Mediator Through the Virgin Mary

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Jay

I’ve often heard statements such as “The Church didn’t start worshipping Mary until the Middle Ages.” There are obviously two things wrong here: (1) the Church doesn’t worship Mary and never has; and (2) Devotion to Mary started much, much earlier. In fact, from the earliest moments of the Church we see the faithful adoring Mary.

The Beginning of Marian Devotion
Let’s start with Mark Miravalle’s Introduction to Mary:

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is present in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the right half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; and at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the woman of prayer.

From early on the faithful saw Mary as a woman chosen by God to bear His Son. Remember that at the point these were done the Apostle John was still alive and the Apostles Peter and Paul were crucified in Rome around this time. They were without question spending much of their time in the catacombs where this art was done.

And there’s another point here: clearly the early Christians did not believe that statues, pictures, or other depictions of holy men and women were idolatry as some modern-day protestants believe.

Miravalle also adds:

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco is the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church.”
[snip]
It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that Mary was seen not only as an historical person but also as a sign of protection, of defense, of intercession. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs.

And it Continues
Marian art exploded in the early Church after 313 A.D. (when Christianity stopped being persecuted). And since then it hasn’t stopped. The importance of the Virgin Mary in our Christian history cannot be overstated – she brought the Christ Child into the world and serves as Theotokos or God-bearer.

The art in the early started while the Apostles were still alive. I think it would be difficult to mount an argument that the Apostles fell away from Christ that quickly (much of anti-Catholic argument hinges on the notion that the Church fell away at some point).

You can read more of the book cited here.

God bless,
Jay

A common disagreement between Catholics and protestants is over the “brothers” of Christ. Catholics argue that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children than Jesus, whereas protestants point to a few passages in the Bible to argue she did. Here are my five Biblical proofs showing that Jesus did not have actual brothers (each argument – in my mind – gets stronger). Let’s get started:

One: Brother doesn’t mean Brother
This is weak as a “proof,” but is an important Scriptural consideration. “Brother” – especially in the Bible – doesn’t necessarily mean brother in the English sense of the word:

From An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Adelphos (the Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:

1. male children of the same parents
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
3. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
4. any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
5. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
6. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
7. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
8. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
9. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)

So we can clearly conclude that Scriptural passages noting Jesus’ brothers aren’t necessarily “brothers” in the English sense of the word (children of the same parents). The Old Testament is full of examples where men are called brothers that clearly are not brothers (Gen 11:26-27, 14:14, 29:10, 29:15; Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9).

You can argue that Jesus had brothers, but the reality of the Scriptural word “brother” must be taken into consideration. To further advance this argument, you can look at Matthew 12:49-50, 23:1, and 23:8. In all of these passages Jesus refers to obviously non-brothers as brethren.

At this point a non-Catholic is likely to point at Matthew 13:55 where James and Jude are referred to as Jesus’ brothers. However, if you add in your analysis Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, you’ll see that they are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Most argue that Clopas and Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, were related, which makes James and Jude Jesus’ cousins or other near relative. But not His brothers.

Two: Nowhere to be Found
We know from various sources that Joseph was an older man when he took Mary as his wife. Christian tradition teaches that Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins, so Joseph was accepting Mary as his wife in order to simply provide her with a home, something unwed women at the time needed. It was not unusual in that time to see two consecrated virgins marry. Why does this matter? Fast forward to Luke.

In Luke 2, we have the story of Mary and Joseph searching for Jesus when He was lost at the temple. One notable oddity of this passage is the lack of other children. I think we can all agree that Jesus was the first child (otherwise Mary wasn’t a virgin), so at this point Jesus was about 12. Where are his brothers? Not one other sibling is mentioned or even referred to in this passage and with an elderly Joseph you have to call into question the potential brothers of Jesus.

Three: Subtle but True
As a more subtle argument (that is still valid), I would point to Mary’s reply to the Angel Gabriel:

Luke 1:34. And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

When she was told she would bear the Christ Child her response was “How can this be, since I have no husband?” Clearly Mary was aware that she was about to get married. Why would she ask this if she were not a consecrated virgin? As St. Augustine famously pointed out, “if she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”

Was Jesus an only child? Yes, and His mother was a perpetual, consecrated virgin.

Four: A Mistake by God?
This is the classic response to the argument that Jesus had brothers:

John 19:26-27. When Jesus saw his mother [from the cross], and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his home.

In the times that Christ lived in, brothers would take care of their mother when the Father died. It was a strict practice among the Jews – the oldest brother would have been the first to take over. But if the eldest died, it would have naturally passed to the next eldest brother. You only gave your mother to another person if you had no brothers. It’s that simple.

So here Jesus gave John (a non-brother) responsibility for His mother. Some protestants claim that James (a follower of Christ) was one of the brothers of Jesus, which would invalidate any argument that Jesus had non-believing brothers (a typical response when you point this out). Even so, it would have been an odd mistake to give this responsibility away if Jesus had brothers. This is another clear Biblical example that He did not have brothers –this is much clearer and stronger than the two passages that suggest He did have brothers. Note also that this clearly suggests Joseph had died by this time (most put Joseph’s death around the 15th birthday of Jesus). This ties in with the point that Joseph was significantly older than Mary.

Five: An Odd Response
If Jesus did have brothers, this is the oddest response ever by Mary Magdalene:

John 20:16-18. Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that He had said these things to her.

If Jesus really had brothers, then Mary Magdalene disobeyed one of His last instructions to her. Clearly she was a very close disciple and would have known whether or not Jesus actually had brothers. And furthermore, John in writing this passage acts as if Mary did exactly the right thing – he does not explain why she went to the apostles rather than Christ’s brothers.

This passage is the clearest example that Jesus did not have brothers. He did have cousins, nephews, etc. and He had disciples that he considered His brethren.

Bonus: 2,000 Years of Christian Tradition
This isn’t Scriptural, so I add it as a bonus. From the earliest times of the Church, it was believed that Mary was an ever-virgin and Jesus had no brothers – these two beliefs are tied together. In Writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary we cite some of the many Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Virginity and Jesus’ lack of brothers. It provides some extra details that flesh out the reality of the situation.

Conclusion: Jesus was an Only Child
Let me quote a protestant source, Commentary on the Whole Bible:

The word till [Matthew 1:24-25] does not necessarily imply that they [Mary and Joseph] lived on a different footing afterward (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word firstborn decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.

And Dave Armstrong in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (a book I highly recommend) points out:

John Calvin used this very argument [cited above] to establish the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly protestants (such as John Wesley). No one ever denied this doctrine until the late fourth century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus’ supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which “higher criticism” has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.

In terms of individual arguments, not all of these draw a perfect conclusion. However, when you combine these arguments together, you see the picture that Jesus was an only child. Outside of the Bible there is no evidence that Jesus had a brother. Recently, even the famous “Brother of Jesus box” was proven a forgery (it attempted to prove that Jesus has a brother, James). There is simply no reason to believe that Jesus had siblings.

God bless,
Jay

On the eve of a Marian Feast Day (the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven), I wanted to point out one particular difference between Catholics and protestants: our multiple views of Mary. As Catholics we have the Blessed Virgin Mary in many different devotions from Our Lady of Sorrows to Our Lady of Lourdes and including Our Lady of Grace. Why the many versions? After all, the Saints are generally seen in only one form.

The Faces of Mary
Each devotion of the Blessed Virgin Mary points to and emphasizes one or two of her particular traits. But it is more than that: everything about Mary leads us closer to Jesus Christ. We have her words recorded in the Gospels: Do whatever He tells you to. And these words echo to us through the revelations of Mary in different forms.

An example is Our Lady of Grace. It originated as a title of the Blessed Virgin Mary from an icon painted with Mary holding the baby Jesus. Mary, by giving her acceptance to have the Christ Child brought the source of all Grace into the world. In other words, Jesus, who is the source of all Grace, came into the world through Mary, so she introduced Grace (in human form) into our world. It not only illuminates our knowledge of Mary, it also underlines the reality of who Christ is.

As Pope John Paul II wrote in Theotokos: Woman, Mother, Disciple:

The People of God, under the guidance of their pastors, are called to discern in this fact the action of the Holy Spirit who has spurred the Christian faith onward in its discovery of Mary’s face. It is he who works marvels in the centers of Marian piety. It is he who, by encouraging the knowledge of and love for Mary, leads the faithful to learn from the Virgin of the Magnificat how to read the signs of God in history and to acquire a wisdom that makes every man and every woman the architects of a new humanity.

Mary underlines Her Son
Throughout history, Mary has called us to follow her Son. Even in the various names and devotions we give her, she underlines her Son’s traits and calls us to “do whatever He tells you.” And if you examine the apparitions of Mary (like Fatima and Lourdes) they again call us to Jesus.

Don’t be afraid of Mary: her love calls you to worship her Son more fully.

God bless,
Jay

This is actually an interesting apologetics question, since there is a clear difference of opinion between Catholics and most protestants (a few prominent protestant exegetes do adhere to the Catholic position). The “Woman” in Revelation 12 is important because of the position she is given in the book and in heaven by St. John (she is depicted as the “Queen of Heaven”). Here is the text:

Revelation 12:1-6. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Agreeing on the Basics
Let’s start with a few things we can agree on: the Woman is giving birth to Jesus and the dragon is the devil. Virtually all will agree on that. We can also agree that in some respects the woman represents the Church, which gives birth to faith and children of God. However, the question here is: who does John intend the woman to be? And at this, the question becomes very complex. As Stefano Manelli points out in All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed:

According to one scholar, “not two exegetes are in perfect agreement about the twelfth chapter of Revelation.” The interpretation of this splendid, dramatic page of the Book of Revelation, in fact, has been and remains difficult because of the complexity of elements composing it, because of the variety of its literary genres (prophetical, apocalyptical, Johannine), and because of the multiple references to the Old and New Testament.

So we can all agree that it is complex and we probably will not completely understand the text until we are in heaven with the writer! There are, as pointed out, multiple references to the Old Testament here: Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Song of Songs 6:9, Psalms 2:9, and Micah 5:2, for example. And these must all be considered in a full analysis.

The Logical Conclusion
Now with those basics set, we can agree on two of the three players. It seems almost too obvious to stick the Virgin Mary as the third player, but frankly she fits. Remember, she gave birth to Christ and then fled through the desert (three and a half years) during Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, which can be interpreted as the devil throwing down the “stars.” It is, I concede, an imperfect fit, but clearly one of the two best fits for the passage. As Manelli also states:

A more critical analysis of the theories [concerning this passage], however, shows that as in yesteryear, so today there are but two basic interpretations of the “woman” of Revelation 12, namely: Mary and the Church. Traditionally, there has been “a pendulum movement between the two interpretations,” writes I. de La Potterie, “and neither of the two aspects can be totally excluded in the interpretation of this mysterious symbol.”

And, as Cardinal Newman points out:

The image of the woman, according to general Scripture usage, is too bold and prominent for a mere personification. Scripture is not fond of allegories. We have indeed frequent figures there, as when the sacred writers speak of the arm or sword of the Lord. So, too, when they speak of Jerusalem or Samaria in the feminine, or of the Church as a bride or as a vine. But they are not much given to dressing up abstract ideas or generalizations in personal attributes. This is the classical rather than the scriptural style. Xenophon places Hercules between Virtue and Vice, represented as women.

This does not remove the value of interpreting the woman as the Church, however I think there is enough evidence available to say that one interpretation of Revelation 12 must be the woman as Mary, Queen of Heaven.

Why Must Mary be Accepted?
There are numerous reasons why Mary the Mother of God must be seen in this passage, but I’ll point out the key ones:

• She was the Mother of Jesus and the Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) puts her as the devil’s adversary.
  
• The term “Woman” is used throughout Scripture to refer to Mary: Genesis 3:15, Galatians 4:4, John 2:1-11, and John 19:25-27 (note the last two, along with Revelation, were written by the Apostle John)
  
• She fled after the birth into the desert wilderness.
  

Again, this isn’t a perfect interpretation, just as putting the church as the woman is not a perfect interpretation. The best answer is seeing the woman as primarily Mary and a model of the Church. In Christian history Mary was always seen as representative of the Church, so this fits perfectly. As Scott Hahn points out in Hail, Holy Queen:

The woman of the Apocalypse is the ark of the covenant in the heavenly temple; and that woman is the Virgin Mary. This does not, however, preclude other readings of Revelation 12. Scripture, after all, is not a code to be cracked, but a mystery we could never plumb in a lifetime.
In the fourth centry, for example, Saint Ambrose saw the woman clearly as the Virgin Mary, “because she is mother of the Church, for she brought forth Him who is the Head of the Church”; Yet Ambrose also saw Revelation’s woman as an allegory of the Church herself. Saint Ephrem of Syria reached the same conclusion, fearing no contradiction: “The Virgin Mary is, again, the figure of the Church . . . Let us call the Church by the name of Mary; for she is worth of the double name.”

The Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God
In the end, we must say that the woman in Revelation was intended to represent Mary – at least as one of two symbols. I believe the evidence strongly suggests she is the primary symbol and her motherhood of the Church is the secondary symbol. It is silly to try and say she has no part of the passage, especially once you concede the other two participants: Jesus and the Devil.

God bless,
Jay

May is considered to be a Marian month, so I thought it would be appropriate to consider what the Early Fathers taught about Mary.

On the Immaculate Conception

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary."
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135

"As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay" Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation"
Andrew of Crete,Sermon I,On the Birth of Mary(A.D. 733),in THEO,180

"[T]ruly elect, and superior to all,not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as ecelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever."
Germanus of Constantinople,Marracci in S. Germani Mariali(ante A.D. 733),in ULL,98

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew."
John of Damascus,Homily I in Nativ.(ante A.D. 749),in THEO,200

The following is an article that I stumbled upon on Dave Armstrong's blog. It deals with the objection that has been repeatedly posted on this blog in reference to Mary being sinless and the apparent contradiction created by St. Paul's comment to the Romans. The comments in bold are the Protestant objections. Enjoy!

"All Have Sinned . . ." (Mary?)

I wrote the following to an evangelical Protestant friend who has since converted to Catholicism. This is a classic Protestant objection which has in the past troubled me a little bit (even as a Catholic) as well.

Romans 3:23: "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." {NRSV}

I'm still looking for a good answer on the "for all have sinned" question in regards to Mary. The "all doesn't always mean all" answer is not satisfactory since I am sure there are references where all does mean all!

I don't follow. If the word "all" (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), then it can have different meanings! It matters not if it means literally "every single one" in some places, if it can mean something less than "absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos ("brother") meaning "sibling" in one place rules out a meaning of "cousin" or other non-sibling somewhere else.

We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV reads, "being filled with all unrighteousness.....," whereas NRSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, ".....every kind of wickedness...." As another example in the same book, Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.

The "exception" answer is not satisfactory either considering Adam and Eve were before there was original sin and Jesus was God!!

The Anglican church has just issued a new document that agrees with Catholic teaching on Mary. Some quotes from the article:

In the passage likely to cause most dissent, the document says the infallible dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - the teachings that Mary was herself conceived "without sin" and that on death she was "assumed" body and soul into Heaven - are "consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures".

Remember, the Anglican church is one of the original protestant churches (one of the first to break off from the true church). Perhaps it just takes almost 500 years to search the Scriptures and realize the reality of the Catholic position? After all, protestant churches in the US (which are significantly younger than the Anglican church) are now beginning to appreciate Mary much more. Another quote:

It [the document] states that there is "no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division" over the role of the Virgin Mary. "We do not consider the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as communion dividing," it says. The document also describes private devotions inspired by apparitions of Mary as "acceptable".

Interesting - another move in the direction of a unified Church, which is what Christ prayed for . . .

God bless,
Jay

In the many discussions I have had with Protestants over the years regarding the Rosary one of the first questions to come up is the following: How do Catholic justify praying the Rosary in light of what Jesus said in Matthew's Gospel?

"And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words" (Matt 6:7)

At first glance it is easy to understand why this question would naturally be asked. The Rosary does consist of numerous prayers being recited repeatedly. Yet we must look deeper at Jesus' words to understand their true and contextual meaning.

Is Jesus condemning repetitive or formal prayer? Absolutely not, for in Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus Himself provides us with a formal prayer that obviously He wants us to repeat on a regular basis. Secondly, Jesus Himself "repeatedly" partook in the Jewish prayers and ritual celebrations practiced by the Jewish people of His day.

So is the Rosary, altough repetitious and formal, a prayer full of "empty phrases" and one that attempts to draw God's attention due to it's lengthiness? Absolutely not. The prayers of the Rosary are full of meaning and devotion, they are not empty, most of them are specifically scriptural. They draw our hearts and minds into a pattern of prayer that better disposes us to meditate on the life of Christ. This immediately leads us into the lengthiness of the Rosary as a prayer. The Rosary is lengthy only in that each time it is prayed a specific portion of Jesus' life is meditated upon. This isn't done in an effort to get God's attention but rather in order to provide ample time to meditate upon each specific event in the life of Christ. It is for this reason that the late John Paul II stated in his Apostolic Letter, ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE:

The Rosary, though clearly Marian in character, is at heart a Christocentric prayer. In the sobriety of its elements, it has all the depth of the Gospel message in its entirety, of which it can be said to be a compendium.(2) It is an echo of the prayer of Mary, her perennial Magnificat for the work of the redemptive Incarnation which began in her virginal womb. With the Rosary, the Christian people sits at the school of Mary and is led to contemplate the beauty on the face of Christ and to experience the depths of his love. Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer.

In praying the Rosary, Catholics, through Mary grow closer to Christ, just as Christ through Mary came closer to us. This is not what Jesus was condemning in Matthew 6:7, rather this is exactly what He was encouraging in John 15:9:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.

The love of Jesus Christ has been revealed to us in His life, death, and resurrection. It is in meditating upon these events that we find the heart and the meaning of genuine Marian devotion and the Rosary itself.

In Christ,
Joe

Many fellow Christians (Protestants) and members of other religious cults (Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc) often attempt to us certain biblical passages as "proof" that the Catholic teaching on Mary's Perpetual Virginity is untrue and contradicted by the Bible. The first part of this series, Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, dealt with the word "brothers." Inspired by the following comment, I decided it was time to clear up one more commonly misunderstood word used by those attempting to prove that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

I don’t mean to blow your cover on your site but I don’t think most people today even think of Mary as “ever-virgin” and the first chapter of the New Testament explains why. It speaks of Joseph and Mary at Matthew 1:25 “But he had no intercourse with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

So let us begin by looking at this passage:

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called hsi name Jesus. - Matt 1:24-25

And at this point all non-Catholics jump for joy shouting "See, see! There it is, clear as day! It says Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth to Jesus!" But in reality, that is not what the verse states nor does it necessarily mean that Joseph ever knew Mary. In the Navarre Bible commentary we find the following:

Following the Greek text strictly, the New Vulgate version says: "et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium." The literal English translation is: "and he knew her not until she had borne a son". The word donec (until) of itself does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment, that is, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ by a unique intervention of God. We find the same word in John 9:18, where it says that the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind from birth "until" (donec) they called his parents. However, neither did they believe afterwards. Consequently, the word "until" does not refer to what happens later.
- The Navarre Bible: St. Matthew, Texts and Commentaries; pg. 32

Clearly this understanding would explain why we find so many of the Early Church Fathers proclaiming Mary to be the "Ever-Virgin". So once again a common argument is shown to have no foundation. Mary's perpetual virginity is both valid and in harmony with Sacred Scripture.

In Christ,
Joe

I am reading Catholic for a Reason II, Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God and just read a profound statement that I wish I had heard when I was Protestant. I pray that everyone reading this will prayerfully consider these words of Curtis Martin:

...Those who, in all sincerity, find themselves rejecting the Church's teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary are often only one step away from the fullness of the faith... the teachings about Mary do not take away from the glory of God, but manifest it. Just as she gave flesh to God the Son, she also gives flesh to His Gospel throughout the centuries.

What a profound statement that is! Curtis Martin continues by saying,

"Our Evangelical friends rightly bring up the fact that "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5), but they fail to understand the power, depth, and nature of that mediation. Mary and the saints intercede for us not as other mediators separate and distinct from Christ, but as an extension of Christ's mediation. It was Jesus Himself who said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me" (Jn. 15:4). Jesus saves us by incorporating us into Himself, like a branch is united to a vine, so that there is no clear distinction as to where the vine ends and the branch begins. The branch ony has life if it is united to the vine. This fundamental understandning changes everything. It takes the objections of our Evangelical brothers and sisters and the misunderstandings of our Catholic brothers and sisters an turns it completely around. Our Father is not in competition with us, as though He is honored only if we are not. God's victory is to share His goodness with us- He accomplishes His will when His love is manifested in our hearts. Our Father chooses to share His glory with His saints (cf. Rom. 8:29-30).

...The teachings of Christ do not simply show us how to avoid hell and achieve heaven. They also allow us to make sense out of this life. In Christ, God has taken the broken, fractured family of humanity and restored it and made it anew as the Family of God. If we forsake this biblical teaching of family, we will fall away from God's plan and away from the Church, the Family of God.
...The family is a God-given model, or icon, for us to make sense out of this life and out of the life of God. Only when we forget this, do we find ourselves falling back into a spirit of competition according to which honoring Mary takes away from honoring God. Families do not speak this way. You will never hear me say, as a father, do not honor my son because it takes honor away from me. No, when you honor my son, you bring honor to me. So it is with God. Even more than the miracle of creation, the greatest work of God is our sanctification. When we honor the holiness, the goodness, and the love found in a human soul, we don't take away from the honor of God; we manifest it. This is most true of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(bold markings are my emphasis, not the author's)

Reading this caused me to reflect on my feelings for my Earthly Mother. It brings me so much joy to see others show love to my Moma. (You can ignore me but love my Moma and I am happy!) If I feel that way, and I am just a sinful, selfish human, then I can only imagine how our Lord must feel.

What I love about the Catholic Church is that it just makes sense!

In Christ,
Krista

Dappled Things (an excellent blog) pointed to an interesting article today that takes a look at the changing opinions of Protestants concerning the role of Mary. In What about Mary? Protestants and Marian devotion we get an interesting glimpse at the changing view of Mary among protestant scholars and pastors, in particular. The whole article is good (although it does make a few errors in terms of the Catholic position), so I recommend reading it.

He notes specifically that the “protestant aversion to Mary is eroding” and that Mary may end up being a “ecumenical bridge” between Catholics and protestants. One interesting passage:

As the Catholic theologian Lawrence Cunningham puts it, there is an “almost outrageous particularity” about saying that God’s presence in the world is localized in the womb of an unmarried teenage girl from Nazareth. Anyone can claim God as “almighty” or “omnipotent” or “omniscient” or whatever philosophical word we wish to append to him. To claim that God is enfleshed, that God has a birth and death date, that God is Jewish, is the scandal of particularity to which Christian faith is committed. Claims about Mary are ways to keep from smoothing out the scandal. As Luther said, “Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God.” She also taught him the songs, stories and practices of the Jewish people whose messiah he would later claim to be. Similarly, Charles Wesley (as Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wainwright points out) praised God as one “who gave all things to be, what a wonder to see, him born of his creature and nursed on her knee.” In Mary the church ties a string around its finger to remember the particularity of its claims about God. (John Henry Newman argued more than a century ago that the churches that had maintained strong doctrines on Mary are those that had not abandoned strong christological ones.)

As a former protestant, Mary was always one of the main issues that bothered me (even after I had decided I must follow Christ’s Church). It took a lot of trust in the Holy Spirit, who I firmly believed was leading the Church, a lot of prayers, and a massive amount of reading and study to really grasp what the Church was teaching and why. Often for protestant converts to Catholicism, Mary is one issue they barely agree with when entering the Church. So it’s very fascinating to witness this changing notion of the role of Mary within popular protestantism (many of those cited in the article are from well-known larger churches, not just small communities that may have an odd focus).

The author also notes:

A focus on Mary also gives us a fresh approach to scripture. A standard Protestant objection to Catholic Mariology is that she is not as important in scripture as she has become in ecclesial traditions. To a degree this is true. No one can argue for her immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven, or her coronation as heaven’s queen directly from scripture. Yet argument over those points has clouded other scriptural claims about Mary. What she lacks in quantity of appearance in scripture she makes up for in quality. Luke’s telling of the gospel begins with her, and her fiat (“let it be” in Latin) to Gabriel’s announcement of God’s incarnational intent opens the way for a new eruption of grace into the world. She is present at and indeed an instigator of Jesus’ first miracle at Cana in Galilee (John 2: 1-11). She and other women are present at the cross, when the male disciples flee. Depending on how one reads the resurrection narratives, she is present there too (Mark 15:40; 47).
It is striking that Mary is in the upper room at Pentecost—the only woman present there who is named—to receive the outpouring of God’s Spirit at the birth of the church (Acts 1:14). When Paul makes his one oblique mention of Jesus’ mother it is to point to her as a sign that he was indeed born, and so was genuinely human (Gal. 4:4). To cite a more contested passage, her image in Revelation 12:17 as a woman clothed with the sun with a crown of stars in the agony of giving birth to a son who will rule the nations is, at the very least, impressive. Mary’s appearances in scripture are indeed limited, but they are tied to crucial moments in salvation history, without which there would be no church.

Scripture presents Mary as an important agent in her own right, not just as the mother of her son. If her Magnificat is any indication, she is an extraordinary reader of the Bible, lyrically weaving together Jewish scripture into a new song that is perhaps the most frequently sung canticle in church history. We are twice told that she “treasures” the words entrusted to her by angels and shepherds and that she “ponders these things” in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51). Aged Simeon promises her that her child’s destiny to be for the “falling and rising of many in Israel” will cause a “sword to pierce” her own soul too—suggesting that Mary’s importance continues in the saga of salvation long after her child’s birth (Luke 2:34-35).

Mary’s interaction with her son on the cross is striking, since one of his final acts is devoted to naming John as her new son, and her as John’s mother. In this and other scenes she is depicted as an image of the church, the mother of believers, and one to whose care Jesus is devoted to his dying breath. Scripture presents a vision of Mary as one whose importance is not limited to the Annunciation and to Christmas, but extends into the life of the church.

Obviously I would point to passages which contain the “seeds” of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and the Queen of Heaven (which is strongly pointed to in Revelation), but other than that I think these are good points. Overall the theme of the article seems to be that “maybe Catholics aren’t all wrong about Mary.” Which is a good start in my mind and moves Catholics and protestants closer to one another in practice. It will be interesting to see if and where this filters down to local protestant churches, where the rubber meets the road in a real sense – frankly, I’m willing to bet most pastors who go down this road will lose church members because of it. In my experience within the Baptist church, a riot may have started if the pastor suggested many of the points this article makes.

He does make some errors. For example, the author suggests that Jesus speaks harshly to Mary at the wedding feast of Cana (calling her “woman”). However, this is incorrect. The word “woman” was not at all a sign of disrespect during Christ’s timeperiod. Christ was also using the term to tie her back to the “Woman” of Genesis and Revelation, who would bear the Christ. His words, rather than being harsh, indicated His obedience and love for her even in a situation where He disagreed with the need for a miracle.

The author goes on . . . and this took my breath away:

Nevertheless, Mary is far more than an eyewitness to key kerygmatic events and a crucial early theologian and church leader. She is “a space for the spaceless one,” to quote an Orthodox prayer. Her womb was the physical site of the enfleshment of God. This leads Robert Jenson to a conclusion that may sting Protestant sensibilities—we ought to ask Mary to pray for us.
Jenson argues that death does not sever the bonds of the body of Christ—as even most Protestant eucharistic prayers makes clear. To ask for a departed saint’s prayer, then, is not in principle different from asking another Christian for her prayers. We hold that the saints are not simply gone but are ever alive to God, and so we ought also consider them to be available as intercessors, and powerful ones at that.

We’ve argued this several times on this blog – without a whole lot of success, mind you – so it is fascinating to see protestants agreeing with our point. Of course, I’m sure many, many protestants may have fallen out of their seat at this one, but a start is a start. Right? He explains thusly:

Jenson insists that “the saints are not our way to Christ; he is our way to them.” Each saint’s particular graces can be seen as reflections of the grace of Christ, whose greatness grows in our eyes as we attend to the saints’ individual stories. The strengthening of the bonds of the body of Christ, stretching as they do across the divide between earthly life and death, should bring tribute to Christ rather than discredit.

Amen, brother. Another Amen when he quotes a protestant saying “Salvation begins with Mary’s yes.” And he concludes:

Perhaps we might even say a Hail Mary or two. Luther objected only to the second half of the Hail Mary, not to the first. To pray “Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus” is merely to cite scripture, he thought. To say “Holy Mary, full of grace, pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our deaths” seemed to him to express an extrascriptural accretion. But perhaps asking Mary for her prayers is not in itself un-Protestant. To do so may even guard christological dogma and defend against patriarchy. Who knows? Mary might just be key to the future of ecumenism after all.

I know I quoted quite a few passages, but the whole article is interesting for both protestants and Catholics. I’m interested to hear any thoughts on it – I haven’t heard of The Christian Century magazine before, so I’m not aware of any inherent biases in their choices of articles (or any affiliations). What do you think? Is it possible that protestants will become a little closer to the Catholic position on Mary? I’ll ask her to pray that it will be so!

God bless,
Jay

I keep hearing the claim that Mary is “invisible” or “faint” within Scripture, which I disagree with. As we near Christmas, Catholics often think of a woman with God actually within her body. As any parent understands, mothers have an automatic and intimate connection with their newborn children that arises from developing the child for nine months. It is worth considering why God chose Mary to carry Jesus out of all women who had ever lived. No one, I repeat, no one has a more intimate connection with God than Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant that held the Word of God within her human body.

So, we get back to Scripture. I wanted to point out the numerous passages in the Bible that refer to the Mother of God and focus on how she is depicted.

Mary in the Old Testament

Genesis 3:14-15. The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you should go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This is referred to as the protoevangelium or “first gospel” since it is the first mention of how God will restore the world – through a “woman” and her “seed.” Everyone agrees that the “seed” referred to is Christ, so the “woman” must be Mary. It’s also important to note that God didn’t say “my seed,” even though this would also be true. God chose to refer to Christ as “her seed” and immediately suggests the title “Mother of God” for Mary. Mary is often referred to as “woman” in Scripture (as we shall see), since she is the ideal holy woman: she trusts God so completely she consents to whatever He wishes.

John Henry Cardinal Newman was one of the great Catholic converts of his day. Born in 1801, Newman was raised Anglican. At the age of 24 he was ordained an Anglican priest. He was of high regard in the Anglican Church and his conversion to Catholicism rocked the Anglican world. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1847 and he eventually was made a bishop, and then a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII. Newman was an outstanding scholar and a tenacious apologist. He also was a prolific writer. One of his most reknown books was the classic The Development of Christian Doctrine . Yet he also wrote about many other matters of the faith including the Blessed Virgin Mary. Through his preaching and his writing, Newman led many Anglicans and other non-Catholics of his day to the fullness of the Catholic faith.

The Mystical Rose is a compilation of Newman's writings on Mary. It is divided into two parts. The first part shows how the Catholic Church's teachings on Mary are based in the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers. The second part is taken from his work Meditations and Devotions and explains the various attributes given to the Mother of God in the Litany of Loreto. This book provide a good overview of Marian doctrine and a sound meditation on the Woman who bore our Redeemer. Here is a brief excerpt:

Mary has been made more glorious in her person than in her office; her purity is a higher gift than her relationship to God. This is what is implied in Christ's answer to the woman in the crowd who cried out, when he was preaching, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked." He replied by pointing out to his disciples a higher blessedness; "Yea, rather blessed," he said, "are they who hear the word of God and keep it..."
Protestants take these words in disparagement of our Lady's greatness, but they really tell the other way. For consider them; He lays down a priniciple that it is more blessed to keep His commandments than to be His Mother, but who even of Protestants will say that she did not keep His commandments? She kept them surely, and our Lord does but say that such obedience was in a higher line of privilege than her being His Mother. She was more blessed in her detachment from creatures, in her devotion to God, in her virginal purity, in her fullness of grace, than in her maternity. This is the constant teaching of the holy Fathers: "More blessed was Mary," says Augustine, "in receiving Christ's faith, than in conceiving Christ's flesh." And St. Chrysostom declares that she would not have been blessed, though she had borne Him in the body, had she not heard the word of God and kept it.
This of course is an impossible case; for she was made holy that she might be made His Mother, and the two blessednesses cannot be divided. She who was chosen to supply flesh and blood to the Eternal Word was first filled with grace in body and soul. Still, she had a double blessedness, of office and of qualification for it, and the latter was the greater. And it is on this account that the angel call her blessed. "Full of grace," he says, "blessed among women"; and St. Elizabeth also, when she cried out, "Blessed thou that has believed." Nay, she herself bears a like testimony, when the Angel announced to her the favor which was coming on her. - The Mystical Rose, pg. 48-49

In Christ,
Joe

We have often discussed on this blog the role of Mary in the Early Church. Many have insisted that her role was minimal and insignificant. Yet we cannot deny the vividly strong presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Gospel of St. Luke.

Most certainly there is proof of St. Matthew having some contact with Mary in the events that he depicts in the first two chapters of his Gospel, yet St. Luke's Gospel is unique in the extensive detail provided in his first two chapters. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's visit to Elizabeth. It is St. Luke that records word for word Mary's famous proclamation, the Magnificat. It is St. Luke who tells us of the presentation in the Temple and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna. It is St. Luke who details the events surrounding the finding of Jesus in the Temple.

Two things must stand out to us when considering these things; (1) ultimately, either St. Luke or someone helping him, sought Mary's interpretation of the events of Jesus' early life, and (2) St. Luke, inspired by Almighty God, felt it was absolutely necessary to include it in his Gospel.

It has recently been suggested by some of our visitors that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was not established by the early Church, but rather first became pervasive during the middle of the fourth century. I felt it appropriate, especially in light of all the discussion this topic has received lately, to review just exactly what the writings of Christian antiquity do say about the subject. As will be seen, the earliest writing clearly speaking to the issue comes from the middle of the second century, less than fifty years after the death of the last apostle. There were multiple written records of the perpetual virginity of Mary between the second and fourth centuries. Even so, remember that much of the writing during that period has been lost to time, especially due to the persecutions of the Roman empire between 200 and 315 A.D., which routinely included the burning of Christian literature. It is thus amazing that even these examples survived. Moreover, the majority of writing on the subject does come from the fourth century, because that is when the heretics in the Church first began attacking the doctrine. In fact, the same thing can be said of writings on the Trinity, which also fell under attack during the fourth century. For those of you not much interested in the early fathers, I suggest you skip to the bottom of the article, which details the position of the fathers of the Reformation.

The Protoevangelium of James

And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there.

And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.’

And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth.’

And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man.’
-Protoevangelium of James 4, 7, A.D. 120.

This is an article long in coming, but certainly due. The Rosary. What is it? Why does it benefit one to pray it? Where did this prayer come from? How come I can't find it in the Bible? For many Catholics and Protestants alike these are common questions. So let us take a closer look at this incredible prayer.

The Rosary is a beautiful combination of vocal prayer and meditation that centers upon the greatest Gospel mysteries in the life of Jesus Christ and secondarily in the life of the Mother of Jesus. It is an "incarnational" prayer, a prayer consisting of both vocal and mental prayer that serves to incorporate both body and soul into spiritual communion with Our Lord. - Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, pg. 86

This is very adequate summary of what the Rosary is. It is, as all prayers ultimately are, Christocentric (or focused on Christ), for in truth even the mysteries that focus on Mary only happened because Christ willed them to. But let's first look at the history of this prayer.

There has been some significant discussion on this site regarding the "brothers" of Jesus referred to in the Gospels. Most of you know that the Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning that she could not have had any children after Christ, making Christ an only child. The common Protestant response is to point to the brothers mentioned in Scripture and then, presto, anounce the end of the discussion. Catholics will frequently respond with the equally flawed "there was no word for 'brother' in Greek." I hope this post will clarify some linguistic issues to show why the Catholic position is at a minimum not contrary to the Scriptures.

First, we must start with the understanding that Christ spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek. Though Aramaic had a word for brother, the word was used for many male relatives (i.e. cousins, step brothers, half-brothers, etc; the word was "aha"). In other words, Aramaic did not have a separate word for cousin, half brother, or step brother. So, when Christ spoke of His brothers, the words themselves would not have told us the particular blood relationship. Additional words would have to have been used, such as "son of my mother".

The dispute arises because the New Testament is not written in Aramaic, but in Greek. Contrary to what many Catholics have heard, Greek actually does have a word for both brother (adelphos) and for cousin (anepsios). So which word was used in the New Testament? Adelphos. That is why Protestants are so adamant that Mary had other children. There are a few problems, however, that must be addressed.

One problem is that we must remember Jesus and Mary did not speak Greek, but Aramaic. Moreover, even though the writers of the Gospels wrote in Greek, their native tongue was also Aramaic. It is not difficult to imagine that when they swithched, one of two things could have happened. First, they may have used a mixed or polluted form of Greek that commingled Aramaic. More plausible however, is that they could have used the language imprecisely, just as we are apt to do with second languages. Having used tha same word (aha) to describe both brothers and cousins in their native tongue, they may also have used "adelphos" in a broader sense (and consider the innumerable references throughout Scripture to "brother" where it really does not mean blood brother).

There is, however, a much bigger problem that is insurmountable for Protestants, and that is this: even Protestants concede that Jesus did NOT have any "brothers". Think about it; who was Christ's Father? No other human being has God/Holy Spirit as their literal parent. So at the very most, Jesus had HALF-brothers. And yet our Protestant brothers (aren't I a pun genius?!) must concede that the text does not say that Jesus had half-brothers, but rather that he had brothers. Now they may respond that a half-brother is pretty close to a brother (i.e. a shared parent). However, a step-brother would for all intents and purposes be equally close. Consider that Joseph may have taken a second wife by whom to bear children (note that this is not the standard Catholic position, though it has never been dogmatically defined). If he did so, would not Joseph's children have grown up with Jesus? Wouldn't they have shared the same earthly father (though an adoptive one for Christ)? What term would even a Greek speaking native have applied to Christ and his step-brother other than "adelphos"? So you see, the term adelphos proves nothing. At most it proves that Joseph had children of his own. At the least, it is simply an example of the broad use of the word brother. I hope this sheds a little more light on this issue.

In Christ,
Dave

Romano Guardini is fond of noting the “stillness” and “quiet” the surrounds the incarnation of God into the womb of Mary (the new Ark of the Covenant). Part of this quiet lies in the silent assent of Mary to the will of God.

Consider this: Mary was waiting to be wed to Joseph, the man she loved. God appears and lets Mary know she will conceive of Him – which is the second person of the trinity. At this point Mary gives her quiet assent to God’s will all the while realizing the possible ramifications.

So, when Joseph discovers that his future wife is pregnant, he begins making plans to “send her away quietly” (Matt 1:19) in order that she not be shamed. As Joseph is making plans, what does Mary do? Nothing. She quietly accepts God’s will and trusts in Him that all should happen correctly. She does not go to Joseph and protest her innocence or proclaim that this is a divine act. She does not complain to God that this is unjust. No, Mary quietly accepts God’s will trusting completely in Him to make everything correct despite the fact that her entire life is crumbling around her. Now that is faith.

Remember as you prepare for Christmas, the quiet faith of Mary, the stillness of her pregnancy, and her faith and trust in God. May we all have the faith of Mary.

God bless,
Jay

One thing we can all agree on (hopefully) is that Jesus came from the line of David. The Lord promised David that a king in his line would one day rule all nations, and he would reign forever (2 Sam 7:12-14). So Jesus, the king of kings, is a Davidic King. Matthew also proves the genealogy of Jesus from David, and calls Him the “son of David” (Matt 1:1).

Now, let us turn our attention to Israel’s monarchy and the Davidic dynasty. The people of Israel begged the prophet Samuel for a king so they could “be like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:7). So the people looked around for models of governance. Following the models of neighboring lands, they established a dynasty, a legal system, a royal court, and a queen mother. God allowed the people to have their way, but only for His glory. Israel’s monarchy would providentially foreshadow the kingship of God’s own Son. Now the logic behind honoring the king’s mother as queen is simple and reasonable. In most cultures in the Near East at time, most kings practiced polygamy. Whom should the people honor as queen if she was one of the wives? If there was more than one queen, whose son should receive the right of succession to the throne? These problems were solved with the mother being queen.

Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation is absolutely crucial. In a way, Mary is the new Eve. Eve’s disobedience immersed all humans in the bondage of sin. On the contrary, Mary’s obedience to God opened the way for the saving work of Jesus. One thing I ask Christians who have a problem with the Church’s teachings on Mary to think about is: why did Jesus choose to come into the world the way he did? Why didn’t He choose to suddenly appear as a 30-year-old man and start His ministry right away? It’s a good question to ask, because God doesn’t do things without a reason. It’s important for us to ponder the fact that Jesus chose to be conceived in a woman, and then we need to prayerfully reflect on the logical consequences of His perfect decision.

First of all, the Bible shows us that we must honor Mary. It says we need to call her “blessed” (Lk 1:48) and she immediately directs all this praise back to God (Lk 1:49). Mary is also the first recipient of the Holy Spirit. Mary is highly favored, full of grace, with the Lord, Blessed among women (Lk 1:28). Mary is called the mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43). Finally, Mary is our mother (Jn 19:26-27).

Another important consequence of Jesus’ decision is that Mary is the ark of the new covenant (Rev 11:19-12:2). First of all, logic will bring you to this conclusion. She carried, bore, and nurtured God in the flesh. As if that weren’t enough, scripture is packed with parallels. Luke parallels the whole story of Mary's visitation to Elizabeth to when David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. For example, the story begins as David "arose and went" (2 Sam 6:2) and Mary "arose and went" (Lk 1:39). Also, (Lk 1:35) “Power of the Most High will overshadow you” parallels the power of the Lord overshadowing the Ark in Exodus 40:34-35 or the temple in 1 Kgs 8:10. The story contiues with “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9) = “But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). David danced for joy in the presence of the ark (2 Sam 6:14,16) as the child in Elizabeth’s womb did when Mary approached her (Lk 1:44). The ark remained in the hill country for 3 months (2 Sam 6:11) = the amount of time Mary spent with Elizabeth (Lk 1:56). The number and precision of the parallels are strong evidence that they were well thought out and calculated, not mere coincidences. But most important of all, they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Now we must prayerfully reflect on the fact that the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was extremely holy and highly honored. Outsiders looking in at the Jews might have mistakenly assumed that they worshipped this ark. (Sound familiar?). Inside it were the 10 commandments written by God, the Manna sent by God to feed his people in the wilderness, and the priestly rod of Aaron. So let’s pray and think about it. If the old ark was extremely holy, then how much holier and deserving of honor is Mary, who carried all these things in the flesh!? The gospel writers don't flat out call Mary the Ark of the Covenant because she was probably still alive when they wrote the gospels. This idea is supported by the fact that the only book that calls her the Ark of the Covenant is the book of Revelation, which we know for a fact was written after her death. This concludes part I of Biblical Mary. In part II, I will focus on Mary being the queen mother and the defense of Marian dogma.

A visiting blogger recently posted a comment under Jay's article entitled "Pius XII and Hitler: Facts, not Fiction" in which the blogger called into question whether or not Mary had other children besides Jesus.

Here I will show that this was not the case. The resources to support the Catholic position of Mary being a virgin are numerous. Mary's virginity was a common belief until the Protestant Revolution (I refuse to call it a Reformation since it has scattered Christianity into over 20,000 denominations).

First let us read the referred to verses:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Mark 6:3-4
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" Matthew 13:55-56

In a previous article I addressed the reason why Catholics pray to Mary and have such devotion to her as the Mother of God. I might add that this is not some new fad that has captivated Catholics only in recent centuries (I will go into some of the Early Fathers' writings to show that this understanding has existed from the beginning of the Catholic Church). So why do so many non-Catholics miss the boat on Mary? This article is in response to the second comment made on my first article. I began commenting back, but felt a second article would be more visible and more appropriate.

For those who didn't read that comment or that article I will restate the question of the blogger here:

"Can you please explain why the Mary-Worship?"

I'll start by challenging the phrase "Mary-Worship". As stated in both my previous article and in Jay's comment, Catholics DO NOT worship Mary. Asking someone, the Mother of God I might add, to intercede and pray for us is much different than worshipping them.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

I decided to open this article with a definitive "yes" to the title question by presenting the age old prayer to Mary. The Summa of the Catholic teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary. I wants to take this prayer phrase by phrase to show, not just the Scriptural basis for the praying to Mary, but also the need for praying to Mary.