Don't Tollerate Intollerance!?!

     I had heard a rumor that, some years ago, a college student scrawled on the sidewalk in chalk the following: DON'T TOLLERATE INTOLLERANCE!
     I half thought this to be one of those legendary commentaries on the state of "higher" education that had festered into fact.   But then, while watching the news recently I saw a sign that had written on it, "DON'T TOLLERATE INTOLLERANCE!"  Now the sign was stenciled with each letter being a different color in a pattern, so someone took a lot of effort, time and energy to make the sign... but apparently not a lot of thought.
     The context in which this sign was held was not important - unfortunately, I think most people of any stripe, age, race, creed, education level would think the sentiment a good one - what is important is the lack of education in our educational system.
     What if I were to type the following: "I can't type in English."  What is wrong with that?  How about a speaker that says, "I don't have the ability to speak."  What about someone who says, "Don't believe anything I say."  Unfortunately most people would just nod their heads and say, "Oh, O.K."
     Years ago it was decided - by who? - to eliminate a whole subject from the educational system.  So complete was this decision that not only do 99% of schools NOT have this subject today, you have to ask some of our most experienced members of society before we find one who remembers it as a subject.
     What subject was it that was so useless, so superfluous, so unwanted that it was systematically eliminated from virtually all schools across, not only the country, but the world?

Logic

     Logic: the ability to think correctly, rightly, properly.  "Wait!," you revile.  "NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO THINK!!"  Well, you're right.  No one can tell you WHAT to think, but we can know if 'what' you're thinking is correct or not.
    "But there isn't a 'right' way or a 'wrong' way to think!"  Oh really?  Is that idea - that there isn't a 'right way' or 'wrong way' to think - right?  According to the premise - that there isn't a right or wrong way to think - that idea itself can't be right or wrong... so it refutes itself.
     And already we are at the crux of the problem of this entire post...  Relativism.  The belief that everything is relative, there are no "rights" or "wrongs", and "what's good for you is good for you; what's good for me is good for me."  Relativism is summed up in the phrase "It is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths."  The problem with Relativism, besides that it has infected almost every aspect of our life, is that it is always a self-refuting proposition.  That is the logical fallacy name.  What it means is that the idea proposed contradicts and nullifies itself; it means that if the idea proposed is true, then the idea proposed would also be false at the same time.  This is impossible and therefore incorrect.
     Take the phrase that sums up and defines all Relativism: It is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.  Think about it.  If there were NO absolute truths then how is the statement "it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS" true?  It contradicts and nullifies itself.  If it is true, then it is false at the same time.
      Every form of Relativism nullifies itself, or self-refutes.  Take, "There is no 'correct way' or 'incorrect way' to think."  Ask:  "Is that idea correct?"  Do you see it now?  If that idea is correct, then that same idea cannot be correct.  It nullifies itself.
     Let's now go back to the original idea that started this post:  "Don't Tolerate Intolerance!"  Ask: what does "Don't Tolerate" mean?  It means being intolerant towards something.  That is the definition of "intolerance": the prefix 'in' meaning negative or 'not', 'tolerate' meaning... well... tolerate.  So if we are to be "Intolerant" to "Intolerance" we will be "intolerant" towards statements such as "Don't tolerate Intolerance" because the statement itself is intolerant.  If the idea is accepted then it must be rejected at the same time.

Are we dizzy yet?  That's a good sign of Relativism at work...
    
    The reason Logic was eliminated - purposely - from the educational system is that it is impossible to break down the moral fabric of society (and the institutions that promote them) if our children are learning that there is a right way to think; that we can know if something is an impossible (aka 'illogical') thought and therefor should not be followed.  
     Logic, more than nearly any other subject, clearly leads one to the proper conclusion that God exists and there are objective moral truths we must live our lives by.  Logic is now only reserved for the realms of "higher education" where, as Dr. Peter Kreeft (professor of Philosophy at Boston College) says they teach philosophies so illogical, so stupid, it takes a Doctorate in Philosophy to believe them.
     Folks, we can think any thought under - and even over - the sun.  We can "imagine" almost an infinite possibility of things.  That doesn't make any of them correct or even worthy of voicing.  We need to bring logic back into our thoughts, discussions and public square.  Unfortunately that might mean being "tolerant" of "intolerance."
     A great resource to begin with (it's good for even middle schoolers) "The Fallacy Detectives." One to use later in life, "Socratic Logic" by Peter Kreeft.

Private! Keep Out!

Reasons Catholics Don't Share Their Faith

    Fidei Defensor has had a great summer!  We've been out spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church at the farmer's market virtually every Saturday this summer.  We even made it down to Manitowoc for Kite Fest.  All over we have been talking to Atheists, Agnostics, non-Christians, non-Catholics and many Catholics.  Interestingly enough we've had many, many Catholics tell us that they're so pleased to see a fellow Catholic doing street evangelization and that it bolsters their own faith.

     But why don't more Catholics do this?  In a previous Facebook post (Mar 20th 2015) we answered the adage "I follow what St. Francis said, 'Preach the Gospel boldly; only when necessary use words.'" Feel free to browse in the Facebook page archives for the answer (hint: St. Francis never said it.)  Today we're going to be looking at another excuse many Catholics use to not talk about the faith:  My faith is a private matter.

    There are a couple problems with this adage: 1) According to the Catholic Church, no it's not  2) Since when does 'private' mean 'never talk about'?

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty plain on whether or not we should verbally share our faith:  Paragraphs like 848 state that we have "...the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."  Numerous whole encyclicals from numerous popes down through the ages have practically begged the laity to verbally evangelize and explain the faith to others.  Evangelii Nuntiandi by Bl. Pope Paul VI and Evangelii Gaudium by Pope Francis are just two of the many examples.

    But two of my favorite examples are from the earliest section of the Catechism and a document from Vatican II.  In the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church it states, "... evangelization is the fundamental task of the People of God."  Who are the 'People of God?'  Every one of us who belong to Christ.  From the laity to the pope... soup to nuts if you will.  Our "fundamental" i.e. Primary, most basic, most important and everyday task is to talk about the faith to others... Catholics and non.

     My other favorite example is paragraph 14 of the Catechism.  Notice how close to the beginning this is.  This is one of the first things the writers / compilers of the Catechism thought of... and it goes like this:  "Those who belong to Christ through faith and Baptism must confess their baptismal faith before men."

     Are you baptized?  Do you believe in God?  Then you must "confess" (verbally) your faith before other people.  Notice this is a command.  Not a request; not optional.  When we're going through our examinations of conscious at the end of the day are we adding the omission of NOT talking about our faith to others that day?

    To further deal with our original excuse we must ask ourselves: Since when does 'Private' mean 'never share?'  Almost everything else that is 'private' has some condition under which we share it.  I would think telling someone else about the best, most fulfilling way to live their lives would be one.  I mean, what would we think of a Doctor who kept a cure for a miserable condition back because he thought it was 'private?'  We even have safety exceptions to HIPPA laws.  If a patient admits suicidal or homicidal ideations to a counselor in session, the counselor is able (some would say 'bound') to let the proper authorities know.

     In the end, the best way to deal with this objection is to respond with this simple one line:  Our faith is NOT private... it is DEEPLY PERSONAL but NEVER private.

Taking it to the Streets!

Fidei Defensor at Farmer's Market

     Today my family and I had the blessing of Evangelizing near the Saturday farmer's market in Green Bay.  What a blessing.  Again, as always, there was not a single negative conversation.  Quite the contrary we were struck so profoundly that:

My Family and I have committed to being at the farmer's market most, if not all, Saturday mornings we can.

Please Join us: bring your own lawn chair.  The only thing we ask from you is prayer, you do NOT have to talk to anyone... However...

  
 This was my wife's first time going out Street Evangelizing.  As we talked ahead of time, she was nervous.  What I told her was to just come out, observe and pray; she didn't have to say anything.  The first person to stop and talk with us after my wife came, was such a great conversation that my wife was right in there sharing as well.  Why?  She said it's so natural! 

     We had about six conversations of varying length in the 2 1/2 hours we were there. 

 

1) We had a man we'll name Matt who was career military and with his wife, daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren.  His daughter had been pressuring him to come back to confession.  Matt and I had a great conversation about being the leader of his family.  Showing them that this is what they need to get to heaven.  I asked Matt - who was a Sgt. - if he didn't know what the objective was, or where to go, could he ever lead his men there?  He agreed, understood where I was going with it.  He took a pamphlet on Confession including a examination of conscience.  He said he was just visiting in the area, but he was going to go to mass with his daughter and son-in-law the next day (and go to confession at his next earliest convenience).

 

2) Next was a man who did not give his name.  He came up to us with a pained look and said, "Can you pray for me?  I'm struggling with addiction, badly."  We prayed with him for healing and guidance.  I also told him of a friend of mine who is overcoming alcoholism with great help from the Rosary.  I gave him a pamphlet about Mary's intercession.

 

3) Next we had Pamela.  Pamela had just recently come back to the Catholic Church after decades away.  She stated she didn't leave over any of the teachings, she had been hurt and was very mad over that hurt.  It took her years to realize that the Catholic Church is made up of sinners in need of a Savior, just like everyone else; and the people who had hurt her had done so not because of Catholic teaching, but against Catholic teaching.  She was VERY interested in joining our group and even helped Evangelize the next man who came to the booth!

 

4) While talking to Pamela, an unnamed man came to the booth.  He was reluctant to say much, but through our non-pressure questions, told us he used to be Catholic but left because "I started reading the Bible" and some people showed him, from the Bible, how the Catholic Church was wrong.  I asked him what his biggest objection was.  The man said that Catholic Church doesn't believe that we are saved by "Faith Alone".  I agreed with him that we absolutely need faith in Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit in order to be saved.  I told him a little of my story, of how reading the Bible, as a Protestant, I ran across the only place in Scripture where the phrase "Faith Alone" appears.  I asked him if he knew where that verse was.  He did not.  I showed him my Bible, James 2:24 which says, "So you see a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE."  I told him that the Catholic Church always taught that God's grace enables us to have faith and to do meritorious works.  Again, only by the Grace of God.  I invited him to explore what the Catholic Church actually teaches and invited him back saying, "You're welcome back anytime.  We need people like you."  He took a pamphlet on Faith Alone.

 

During this conversation, Pamela jumped in and told him her story about how she had been hurt, and came back through forgiving the people who hurt her.  SEE HOW NATURAL IT IS TO SHARE CHRIST?

 

5) We had a young man (20's) run up and take a pamphlet on "Why Be Catholic?" and leave right away.  He was with a group of men about the same age and my guess is he didn't want to be embarrassed by his friends by talking to us, but was still interested enough to take a pamphlet.

 

6) We had numerous people say they were Catholic and thanking us for being out there.  They told us to keep it up!

 

Please pray for us and all those people.  Again, if you want to join us and just observe, we'll be out at the Nicolet National bank (the drive through side) most Saturday mornings.  Come Evangelize with us!  Share Christ with a world living in quiet desperation.

 

God Bless,

Fidei Defensor

Woman to Pope: "Be a Man!"

The Power of Women in the Catholic Church

     Recently, after a talk, in the question and answer session, a question was posed that could have been taken two different ways.  While I do not recall the specific wording the two different meanings were 1) The Catholic Church was man-made, why should we believe in it 

 

or

 

2) The Catholic Church is only for males why should we follow it.

 

     At the time, I answered the first way but it got me thinking that maybe they meant the second way.  Especially with the entire secular media believing that Pope Francis is going to ordain female deacons any day now, I thought I'd address the second possible meaning.

 

     Rephrased the question becomes:  Isn't it unbalanced or unfair that men have all the power in the Church?  This is a great question and the answer speaks to (though doesn't answer entirely) other issues such as people with Same Sex Attraction, Transgendered issues, Abortion, the Divorce culture and many others.

    What I will NOT do is spend my time saying, "Well, Jesus appointed 12 men..." as I saw an obviously ambushed Jesuit Priest on CNN start with.  This line of reasoning doesn't make sense to people who don't already deeply believe in Scripture and / or Catholic Teaching. 
    What I WILL start with is explaining that this question is the pinnical of a tall tower based on science, philosophy and finally revelation.  But our world has destroyed the base of the tower; the foundation upon which that pininical rests, several stories up.  So for us to discuss this question, I need to back up...

 

XX or XY and Nothing else

     "God created them male and female" Genesis tells us.  But we don't need Genesis - or any Divine Revelation for that matter - to tell us that there are men, there are women and they are different.  But maybe we do.  Today we have people who think science is wrong in this matter.  These are some of the same people who would tell you that science proves religion is wrong, but in this case I guess their "religion" trumps science.  However I think everyone would agree that our in our physical bodies there are only XX or XY chromosomes.

     But can't we become "trapped" in the wrong one?  This is not supported by science, religion or philosophy.  I don't think we need to dive into science or religion to see this but I will take a brief fly-by of the philosophy.  What people who believe "we" can become trapped in the "wrong body" are espousing is a type of Gnosticism: a belief system that came on the scene in the 1st Century AD.  While Gnosticism has many distinctive beliefs that keep cropping up over and over throughout history, one of them is that Spirit and Matter are completely separate.  Spirit is 'good' and Matter is 'bad;' hence my 'mind' (who I think I REALLY am) is good and my body (what "I'm" trapped in) is bad.  A latter manifestation of Gnosticism, Manicheism, practiced a form of ritual suicide to "release" the good spirit from its fleshy prison.  (Marital intimacy and becoming pregnant was also seen as evil since that "trapped" a good soul in a fleshy prison).
     Mix this with a heaping dose of Relativism - the belief, in part, that there are no objective truths and we must disbelieve our senses, including the objective truth and sense of our physical bodies as part of us - and you get the modern belief that "gender" is arbitrary and "I" (as different from my body) can decide what my "real" gender is... and then I can force you to believe this to.

     What proper philosophy, like Thomism, shows us is that the soul is what animates the body and is the body's form.  We can no more be "trapped" in the wrong body then electricity can be "trapped" in the "wrong" electrical circuit - so to speak.  They are part of the same thing.  There's much more to a soul / body unity than that, but I think the analogy suffices for what I'm trying to say.  However, we can have feelings that do not corospond to reality: I once met a woman who felt that the local diocese was sending in the "Priest SWAT team" into her house, at night, to do exorcisms on her - but then would disappear without a trace, because they were all trained ninjas.  I think we all recognize that her feelings did not corospond to reality.

    We could get side tracked here for a while, but I think it is enough to say that science, religion and proper philosophy shows us that there are only two possible, objective realities: male and female / men and women and they are different from each other.

     

Feminine Genesis

     Our Western society has decided, for some time now, to devalue women and despise what it means to be 'woman,' eventually making it so meaningless that being a 'woman' is now an arbitrary choice that one can make one day, but chose against the next.  Yes, other cultures devalue women by physically demeaning them and legally making them second class citizens to men, but ours is much more sinister with it.  While, legally - and obviously correctly - our Western legal system gives equal rights under the law to women, it is our culture that has not embraced the underlying reasons for this.

     In Genesis, when "Woman" (Eve's original name) was created, she was created from "Man's" (Adams original name) rib.  Jewish commentators have thought about this for centuries longer than Christian.  Their question was, "Why the rib?"  Their answer was that Woman was not created from Man's head  - she should not rule over Man; neither was she created from his feet - she should not be subservient to Man;  rather she was created from his rib to be equal dignity, equal worth and equal value to Man.

     Where our culture gets all messed up with this is it only sees the value in a woman in one of two ways: 1) How she can please a man and 2) How she can be like a man.  Take a look at most popular "women's" magazine covers in the grocery checkout isle: between the cover model and articles they're all about how a woman can please a man.  I'm not even going to address the popular "men's" magazines...  Look at the beer adds:  The supermodel is drinking the same thing as the man, and as much of it as the man.  Look at the movies and T.V.: a woman must look a certain way, act a certain way and interact in a certain way to be like, just as good as or pleasing to a man.  Look at the workforce.  What does the modern thought say?  Women must work the same jobs at the same hours for the same pay as a man.  Some of that IS legitimate but it still begs the question:

 

     Why is a man the standard by which women's worth is judged?  Shouldn't women be their own standard?  Shouldn't a women be valued for being the best Woman she can be and not for how much she's like (or liked by) a man?

 

Equal, not Identical

    What the Catholic Church has always taught - though understood more fully today - is that men and women have equal value, equal dignity and equal worth but not identical roles.  I can think of no better way to sum this up than with Dr. Peter Kreeft's statement, "Women are better than men at being women; and men are better than women at being men."  This is Catholic teaching.  Men and women each have their own, unique, irreplaceable, positive contributions to society and life BUT there are differences that the other cannot do.

     Case and point: I am of the opinion that God gave the Priesthood to only men to make us men feel like our roles were almost as important as women's.  WAIT DID YOU READ THAT RIGHT?  Yes.  I believe that the all-male priesthood was given to men to make us men feel like our rolls were almost as important as a woman's.

     So what is this role that women were given that is so highly important, so powerful, so valued?

 

The all-woman Motherhood.   None of us would exist without it and I, as a man, cannot be "ordained" into it, no matter how much I may think it unfair.

 

     I'm in agreement with G.K. Chesterton.  He, jokingly, did not believe in equality of the sexes. Since he lived in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, one would be tempted to think he thought men were better.  This is incorrect.  Chesterton believe WOMEN were far more valuable and important to society.  Paraphrasing one of Chesterton's essays, Chesterton states that a man means only little to the many people he encounters each day.  A woman, on the other hand, means the UNIVERSE to her children.  It truly is the hand that rocks the cradle changes the world.

    This isn't to say that a "woman's place is in the home" or that a woman shouldn't do anything but get pregnant as many times as she can.  But it does mean that we need to understand AND RECLAIM woman AS WOMAN and not as a man. 
   This is what the Catholic Church has always taught; this is the entire point of Pope St. John Paul the Great's encyclical "Letter to Women."  Going back to Biblical times, the Catholic Church was one of the first, and certainly the most influential force, in showing that women are more than just property; that women have equal dignity, worth and value as men.  In a time where women were property and even in the progressive - for the day - religion of Judaism, women could be "put away" (divorced) without right or council and women's testimony was weighed 1/4 of that of a man's; in that culture and time Paul writes this bombshell (inspired by the Holy Spirit): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) or "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies... For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (excerpts from Eph 5:25-33).  Other passages near there show that a husband's role is NOT living for himself, and using his wife in the process, but instead "that he might sanctify her."
    In the modern day, the Catholic Church is still telling women that they have intrinsic, infinite value AS WOMEN, not in how a woman can please, or be like a man.  In these, and many more ways than I can list here, when properly understood, the only Truly FEMINIST movements have been in the Catholic Church.  All others have been masculinist movements.  This is shocking to the modern mind, raised on and accepting of the degradation, demonization and demoralization of true feminism.

 Women's Power in the Church

      So am I saying that women have no power or roll in the Catholic Church's decisions other than to have kids?  Absolutely not, though let us not just pass over that!  Again, NONE of us would be here with out women embracing the blessing (and cross) of the all woman Motherhood (of which I cannot participate in, no matter what I self identify as).  But the Catholic Church doesn't see that as women's only roll either.  Several of the Doctors of the Church - those Saints whose writings we can rely on for accurate, official, Catholic Teaching - are women: St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux; St. Edith Stein and others; soon-to-be St. Mother Theresa told bishops, and even St. JP II what to do, at times, in decisions that effected her ministry (She also made then Pres. Bill Clinton absolutely speechless by taking him to task for his stand on abortion; an encounter which I have no doubt factored into Clinton's decision to sign some pro-Life legislation). 
      If it hadn't been for women, our churches would have collapsed in America in the last 50 years:  As we've lost the sense of what "Woman" is, so we have lost what it means to be "Man."  Men have shirked their rolls for far too long.  Women have been there to pick up the pieces that men drop - as they always have.  Recall, when weak men in the Church gave into the demands of a secular king and moved the Papal offices and residence to France, one woman - who knew one of her unique rolls as woman (as any wife knows) is to spur men on to be better men (read: give them a swift kick in the pants) - approached the pope with a message.  St. Catherine of Sienna told Pope Gregory XI to his face, "ESTO VIR!" ( or "BE A MAN!") and get the Papacy back to Rome where St. Peter founded it.  Pope Gregory promptly moved the Papacy back to Rome.  Notice what St. Catherine is and is NOT saying in this?  She is saying: This is wrong.  You are wrong. YOU need change this.  She is NOT saying: Our rolls are identical, but you're just oppressing me.  Give ME this roll and I'LL change it myself.

    But isn't that one of the powers of women as Woman: to show what real manhood is too?  When we know the differences, the different roles, and appreciate them, we know how to help each other, unite with each other and lead each other to Christ.  This kind of unity is so absolute and full that it can create new life!  When we blur those lines, devalue each other's differences, roles, become jealous of each other and try to be identical to each other, that is when we are truly divided, devalued and eventually come to the conclusion that gender is arbitrary, that children are a burden and marriage is nothing special.
    Please, women, continue your absolutely necessary, tremendously powerful and uniquely beautiful role in our Church.  We all need you and we are all infinitely indebted to you, as women.

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

When Was Christ Actually Crucified?

Some Say the Bible Clearly Shows it was... Thursday?!    

     Some years ago, during Holy Week, I was listening to a Non-Catholic Christian radio show talking about Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection.  A caller called in and questioned the hosts' Biblical literacy.  The caller stated that Christ said he would be in the tomb "three days and three nights" using the story of Jonah to make the point (Mt 12:40, Lk 11:29).  Since Christ Resurrected on the 1st day of the Jewish week - the day we now call Sunday - this would mean, the called instructed, that Christ was actually Crucified on Thursday.  The caller then stated that it was the errant Catholic Church, for some unknown and unstated reason, who tried to fool everyone into thinking Christ was crucified on Friday.  The hosts, who are no defenders of Catholicism, denied the caller's claim and reiterated that Christ was crucified on Friday, but never used any Scripture to back the rebuttal.  The called rebuked them for believing a "tradition of men" and hung up.

     In the years since, I have learned that this is a growing opinion among "Bible Alone" Christians.  In just doing an internet search on "sign of Jonah three days three nights" the third link down was an article about Christ "actually" being crucified on Thursday.  I did not read the article to find out if they took a swipe at the Catholic Church or not.

     How do we, as main stream Christians and Catholics, defend the fact that Christ was crucified on Friday in light of Scripture saying he would be in the tomb "three days and three nights?"  Catholics hold that Scripture is "inerrant" that is, with out error (See Dei Verbum).  How do we reconcile the two?

Boy Did I Just Shoot Myself in the Foot!

     There are actually several ways: one is the unanimous voice of the earliest Christians (Who you going to believe: a person who learned from someone who was there or a person who is 2,000 years and 10,000 miles removed relying on their own personal interpretation?) However, the way we'll focus on here is the phrase "three days and three nights."

     As I eluded to in the previous parenthetical, today we are 2,000 years and 10,000 (give or take) miles removed from the context in which Scripture was written and understood.  We miss things on every page of Scripture because we were not raised Jewish, nor in a Middle Eastern country, nor in the 1st Century.  As a quick example, when told the story of the Prodigal Son, a Middle Eastern audience was most struck that the father would "run" to his son.  To run is beneath the dignity of the father of a family.  It would bring embarrassment to him.  In a sense, then, a small part of the story is showing how God is willing to be embarrassed in order to show how much He loves us and welcomes us back into relationship with Him.

    More to the point, the phrase "three days and three nights" in the Jewish culture did not mean a strict, literal 72 hours; it is a figure of speech; an idiom.  It meant any parts of three days.  We see this in at least one other place in Scripture in the book of Esther.  Esther asks the Jews to fast for her for "three days and nights" before she sees the king (Ester 4:16).  Yet it is "on the third day" that she goes to see the king (Ester 5:1; 15:1).

     To the 1st Century Jewish understanding, if I were to say "in three days" I'm going to do something, the day I say that is considered day #1 even if it were 10 mins to midnight (or sunset in the Jewish custom of when days end / begin); the following day would be day #2 and at any point on the day after that it would be considered "the third day."

     Would anyone in modern America be concerned for my safety if I exclaimed "Boy did I just shoot myself in the foot!"  Would anyone call an ambulance for a gunshot wound?  No.  Neither would any 1st Century Jew think it strange to call the time between Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and Resurrection on Sunday "three days;" or the full expression "three days and three nights."

 

Take it to Scripture

    

      If someone continues to insist on a strict, literal interpretation of Christ's expression of "three days and three nights" then they have a problem.  Else where Christ says he rose "on the third day" (Lk 24:46) not after the third night; he also states he would rise "in three days" (Jn 2:19-21).  Both of these, if taken in the strict, modern, American, literalist view point would contradict with "three days and three nights" if taken literally.  There are also the verses that state that Jesus was placed in the tomb just before the start of the Sabbath (which is sunset), then the women rested on the Sabbath (the last day of the Jewish week), then at dawn on the first day of the Jewish week they returned and found the tomb empty.  (Mk 15:42, 16:1-2; Lk 23:54 - 24:1)  Again, taken strictly literal these verses would contradict Christ's statement of "three days and three nights." We could multiply examples  Testaments.

      The Catholic view is to take everything to Scripture - the ENTIRE Scripture, not just one or two verses we've been told about - as interpreted by those Christ left behind to teach us (Lk 10:16; Mt 28:18ff).  In Catholicism we're taught to read Scripture in four different ways, the first one being literal, however, 'literal' means reading the words in light of literary genre and the culture in which it was written.  We have no problem rectifying all of these verses.  Remembering that "three days and three nights" (and it's short-cut way of saying it: "three days") is an idiom referring to any part of three days.

    So given the literary genre, culture and words of Scripture we see all these phrases pointing to Christ was crucified and died on Good Friday; was placed in the Tomb before the Sabbath began in the evening (1 day); was in the Tomb all of Holy Saturday or the Sabbath (2 day); then Rose before dawn "on the Third Day", Sunday, the 1st Day of the Jewish week (3rd day).  Hence the sign of Jonah is fulfilled.

 

 

Do Catholics Pray TO Saints and if so why?

Prayer to Saints Explained

    In my journey back to the Catholic Church one of the questions I had to confront was this idea of Catholics praying to Saints in heaven.  Isn't that blasphemy?  We should pray to God alone, shouldn't we?

     I didn't see the logical fallacy in my objection: I didn't define terms.  I assumed that everyone defined "prayer" as "worshiping God."  By that definition, yes, "prayer to" Saints would be blasphemous.

     However, it blew the lid off that objection when I discovered that "prayer" has TWO definitions.  According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary the word "Pray" means 1) To speak to God and 2) To seriously ask for something.  I then discovered that until very recently, most people used the word "pray" to mean "to ask" even in regular speech: a detective might have said, "Pray tell, what happened?" not meaning, "I'm worshiping you so that you'll tell me what happened."  but merely meaning "I'm asking you to tell me what happened." 

     We still use "pray" today to mean "to ask" in certain circles.  It was a game changer the first time I had to fill out a search warrant for my job (Police Officer).  The warrant says, "I pray the court [grant me this search warrant]."  Now in our "Separation of Church and State" crazed world, would anyone think that I'm performing an act of Worship to the court for a search warrant?  No, it's just a formal way of asking for a search warrant.

     The whole "Pray" part of my objection was once-and-for-all put to bed when I realized that the BIBLE uses the word 'Pray' to mean "to ask."  In both the King James translation and the Douay-Rheims translation we see things like 1 Kings 2:20 Bathsheba comes to her son, King Solomon, and says, "I pray thee say me not nay." [Emphasis added].  There are dozens of uses of the word 'pray' meaning 'to ask' in those two translations alone.

But is praying to Saints Biblical?

    I then had to ask if praying to Saints is Biblical?  (It was a while before I encountered the false presupposition in my objection: the idea that everything we believe as Christians must be found in the Bible is, itself, not found in the Bible.)

    In researching, I found bits and pieces of the puzzle, but it wasn't until I heard two explanations - one from Patrick Madrid, and one from Tim Staples - that I not only realized how Biblical it really was, but how unbiblical ignoring this is.

    I have now meshed the two arguments to show you here:

 

Scripture is just about as plain as it can get about the following points:

1) The Church is the Body of Christ (Col 1:18; 1 Cor 12:27)

2) Christ has only one Body, not one here on earth and another in heaven (1 Cor 12:12)

3) Death does not separate us from the Body of Christ (Rom 8:37-38)

4) We are commanded to pray for one another (1 Tim 2:1-4)

5) This command is not rescinded upon death

6) We are told that in the New Covenant we can now approach not only God, but Christ, "innumerable angels" and "the souls of just men made perfect."  (Heb 12:22-24)

7) We see this in action (Rev 5:8) where the elders are taking multiple prayers from multiple believers on earth and presenting them before the throne of God

8) This is not "praying to the dead" because the Saints are not dead, they are more alive than we are (Mt 22:32) and no where in Scripture does it say that those who are in heaven with Christ are "dead"

9) Christ shows us that we can do this in the Transfiguration (Mt 17:3) where Moses and Elijah appear with Him and Christ speaks to them about His upcoming death and resurrection

10) We are told that the prayers of the Righteous are powerful (Jas 5:16) who is more righteous: those living on earth still mired in sin or those who are permanently free from sin in heaven?

11) This does not violate the One Mediator-ship (1 Tim 2:5) of Christ any more than one Christian on earth praying for another.  Why not just tell them to approach God themselves and stop putting you in the middle (which is the definition of mediator)?

 

This is a very brief explanation.  For a full treatment I suggest Patrick Madrid's book "Any Friend of God's is a Friend of Mine" or Tim Staples' "Friends in High Places."

 

I hope this lends some understanding to the very Biblical practice of praying to Saints.

 

All you Holy Men and Women PRAY FOR US!

 

Men for All Seasons recap, Official Patroness announced, next meeting

Next Meeting March 26th 8:00 am

Yes, that is Holy Saturday

Welcome to all new sign-ups from Men For All Seasons!

     Our next meeting is on Holy Saturday, March 26th, 8:00 - 9:30a, at the Gehl Center (the building directly behind St. Francis Xavier Cathedral in Green Bay).  We'll be going over the basics of Evangelization in general - how to have a conversation with someone.  We'll use lots of stories but almost as important: the 'how'; how do we move the topic to religion / spiritual things; how do we earn the right to talk about the most personal things in their life and invite them to explore  Catholicism?  For those of you unable to make it I will try to do a follow up post.

     

     I would also ask each of you to consider coming with Shawn and I to watch while we do Street Evangelization.  We're starting to gear up for Summer: Farmer's Markets, De Pere Fest; Manitowoc Kite Festival; Packer's Practices and Games etc.  We'll let you know dates as we're able to do them.  We may even do a fast one and switch the site of our meeting one month to be the farmer's market!  Please pray on this.  We're firm believers that Christ's final charge to us was NOT "Go get yourselves to heaven." but "Go make disciples... teach them everything I have commanded." (Mt28:18ff).

 

     If you'd like to know more about how we do Street Evangelization check out: streetevangelization.com (no 'www' just "streetevangelization.com").  Sign up for their news letter and read some testimonials from some of the over 150 teams of Catholics across all 50 states and over 30 countries.

 

Official Patroness of Fidei Defensor:

     The more I do this work, and the longer I live, the less I believe in coincidents.  The table next to Fidei Defensor's at Men for All Seasons was a couple of Byzantine Catholic monks selling icons... well selling many copies of ONE icon.  I love art and icons and this icon caught my eye.  It was obviously of Mary and the Child, Jesus.  But it wasn't until late in the conference I got over there and had, what ended up being, a great discussion with one of the Brothers.  The icon is called, "Mary, Mother of God, Seeker of the Lost."  You can see it at their Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/SearcherForTheLost/

 

   The prayer behind it is that Mary wants everyone to come to find, know and love her Son, Jesus Christ, but this Title and icon is a special prayer / help for those lost sheep who have wandered from the fold or never knew it.

     When I told the Brother that I was going to adopt Mary under the title: Mother of God, Seeker of the Lost, as our Patroness, he gave me around 100 3x5 card prints of the icon to hand out on our Street Evangelization days.

     Please continue to pray for Fidei Defensor and it's members, and if you remember, now request the intercession of Mary, Mother of God, Seeker of the Lost.

 

Men for All Seasons Re-cap

     We spoke to easily 100 men at the Men for All Seasons conference this past weekend.  Out of that we had lengthy conversations with dozens of them - I left there with my voice hoarse.  The most meaningful conversations came from men who were looking for answers to help bring their family members back into the Catholic Faith.  Our pamphlets on "Why be Catholic?",  "Reasons to Return to the Catholic Church", "Scriptural Reference Guide" and "Prayer to Saints" were obviously our most popular pamphlets there, however, many of the men took one of everything.

    I'll type a little about a few of the more member able conversations:

     One elderly man was deeply saddened that his three sons were not serious about their faith.  Two, he said, attended Mass only on Christmas and Easter and otherwise didn't go at all.  The third was attending, sporadically as well, a non-denominational church.  We talked to him about first and foremost praying for and loving his sons as best he could.  We let him know that it is sometimes more effective to have someone else talk to family members about the faith then himself, however, that can mean a book or a CD.  We recommended "Jesus Is_____?" - a CD from Lighthouse Catholic Media, by Fr. Michael Schmidtz, which is good for people who are luke-warm to almost non-participating Catholics, for his two sons.  But we recommended "True Worship" again a CD through Lighthouse Catholic Media by Fr. Schmidtz, for his non-denominational son, which walks through what the Biblical true way to worship God is: The Eucharist.

     Another man was just coming back into the Catholic Church after years away.  He had been married, divorced and remarried.  He had some questions about what his status was with the Church.  We told him he was absolutely welcome!  We explained that he would have to receive a Declaration of Nullity for his first marriage before he could receive Confession or the Eucharist OR he and his current wife could live as "Brother and Sister."  He described the way his first marriage happened and that it was in a Protestant church, without permission from the Church.  Shawn was aware from a family member who had a similar experience, that the process probably would be a short one due to a violation of "form."  We directed him to his parish priest at first, but there were so many priests at the conference we put him in touch with one right there!  We also directed him to a small booklet on Catholic Answers titled: 101 Quick Questions: Divorce and Annulment.

     Finally, we had a man who had come back to the Catholic Church a few years earlier.  He had questions about how to raise his teenaged son to not make the same mistakes he did, without sounding and feeling like a hypocrite.  We explained to him that the definition of a hypocrite is NOT having done one thing, learning from it and then teaching someone else to avoid it.  That's called "Learning from your mistakes."  A hypocrite is not even someone who believes something, tries to live what they believe but fails to do so.  That's called "a sinner"; and I am absolutely in that list.

     A hypocrite is someone who believes one thing, but teaches others to believe something else.  For example: just recently a nationally known Catholic Apologist was "outed" by a Catholic news group that he had joined and been attending an Anglican / Episcopalian congregation for 2 years while still giving seminars and talks defending the Catholic Church.  THAT is a hypocrite. 

    We also directed this man to look up Steve Ray's "Swimming Up Stream" available at Lighthouse Catholic media again.  It's a talk about how to raise our children to be Rebels With a Cause; rebelling against the secular world, swimming against the current of this culture. 

    We had MANY other talks like this with men of all ages.  Please pray for all these men and their families... and as always please pray for Fidei Defensor.

 

God Bless,

Fidei Defensor

Mary, Mother of God, Seaker of the Lost, pray for us!

Why do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

Questions from Teens

     This question comes from several teens at the Holy Cross retreat in Kaukauna and it is a question that everyone must think about at some point in time; especially when we learn of horrible tragedies: children dying in a house fire; a father killed driving his pregnant wife, who is in labor, to the hospital; millions starving or dying of diseases that have simple cures or because of corrupt governments.  Everyone will have to confront this question and find some sort of answer...

     However, no answer - from any point of view - is 100% satisfying.  No answer would make a grieving mother stop grieving.  No answer heals the hurt of a loved one who's suffering or who's been lost...

     But some of the answers are better than others.  Some answers at least show us a reason and maybe a future hope.  Others just leave us in the muck and do nothing for us.  An example of the latter, is "Well that just the way it is."  What does that do for anyone?  It's almost akin to "shut up and take it." 
     Another is the atheistic response to suffering: suffering has no meaning and we should avoid it at all costs.  The first part of that sentence seems to make sense, especially when we're the ones suffering and the second half seems attractive; but if we're honest, we know it's impossible to avoid all suffering and we want our suffering to be for some purpose.  Isn't that what we yell at God, "Why, God, Why?"  We want our suffering to mean something.
    Let's look at another view of suffering:  The Christian and, specifically, Catholic view.  We must understand a few principles first before we dive into the Catholic view on suffering.  First we must understand the radical unity of the Body of Christ.  Once we are baptized, we are part of a Body, like a cell is part of a body, but much more important.  We have a roll, a purpose and we effect each other.  We see it when we directly effect each other: I punch someone.  My actions have hurt another person. 
     But this action has a greater effect: as a Christian, having sinned, I have brought the Body of Christ lower. Another Christian, who knows nothing of my actions, may suffer because the person I punched now believes Christians punch others.
    This principle is applied to the world in general: a sin is NOT a personal thing.  Every sin, even those done in private, effects the world.  Think of it like ripples in a pond.  Even the smallest stone thrown into the pond produces ripples that go to the edge of the pond - we may not be able to see the ripples, but the effect is there.  And so it is with our sins, both the big ones and the small ones.
    Another principle we must understand is Original Sin.  Many people ask: if God is all Good and All Powerful, why didn't He create a world without sin?  The answer is: that's EXACTLY what He did.  On top of that, he put Adam and Eve in charge: "You shall have dominion over..."  But why would God do this?  The same reason He created us to begin with: Love.
   Which brings us to another principle we must understand:  Love.  Love is NOT a feeling (and when I stop feeling it, I stop loving.)  Love is a choice; an action.  Love is to will the good of another, especially if it costs you something.  Some theologians have said we can substitute "sacrifice" for "love" and get the same idea.
   So God creates us out of Love for the sole purpose of Loving Him.  But since love is a choice, we had to be free to either chose God or chose "not God".  Another way to say that is we could chose God or sin.  If there wasn't a free choice, it could not be love.
     At some point Adam and Eve chose "not God" or sin.  This caused a chain reaction.  Think of a magnet high up somewhere.  Connected to that magnet are three rings, the first touching the magnet, the second touching the first and the third touching the second.  The magnetism represents God's life - or Grace.  The first ring is the soul.  The second ring is the body.  The third ring is nature.  When Adam and Eve sinned, their souls were cut off from Grace, from the magnetism.  This caused the first ring to fall.  But since the body and nature were connected to God through man's soul.  This brought suffering such as disease and natural disasters into the world, in addition to sin.
    Here's where all our principles come together.  Because we are all God's creation, we come into the world, now, with a lack of Grace i.e. with "Original Sin."  Even after we're baptized and our soul is "re-magnetized" we suffer with the "effects of Original Sin:" we are more prone to sin, our bodies still suffer, are subject to disease and decay; and we suffer against nature.
    As we continue to sin, we continue to effect ourselves, each other and nature by choosing "not God" and "not God's way."  This causes others to suffer even when they didn't do anything to directly deserve the suffering they receive.  Natural disasters, accidents and disease cause even more suffering.
    I know that's not very satisfying.  God knows that.  God knows we wouldn't be fully satisfied, nor would we fully understand why.  So... instead of what the imaginary gods of paganism do, which is stay away from human affairs in their perfect abodes... God became a man.  The Perfect human.  He never sinned but He chose to suffer for ALL OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE, in the Garden and on the Cross.  He participated in our suffering.  Moreover, He suffered when He didn't have to; He took more suffering than anyone had ever suffered, and He was the most innocent Person ever.
      Talk about unfair suffering...
But there's still more to the story.
    Remember what I said about our actions effecting each other and the world?  Jesus shows us this.  He did the greatest Jujitsu move of all time: He took all that evil and Redeemed the world through it!  He forgave, Redeemed and Saved.  You can think of it this way: He took the biggest pocket of "not God" and made it "yes God" through the suffering He endured... the "needless", "senseless", "unfair" suffering He endured.
     Those of us who are In Christ - if you're baptized you're In Christ - we can use suffering in the same way: for Good.  We can add our suffering to prayers or pious practices to increase the effectiveness of those prayers and practices.  We can also mimic that ultimate Jujitsu move: we can forgive the wrongs done to us.  We can also bring relief to those who suffer.  All these are like absorbing waves in that pond and leaving calm water behind you.
     This is only a brief explanation: there is much more that could be said.  But with the Catholic view our suffering does not have to be meaningless and each and every suffering can be used to bring a greater good, even if we don't see it.
     Let me bring up one more principle: heaven.  Heaven could be described as "infinite good."  Or at least, we're together with Infinite Goodness (God) forever.  This is our true home, not this world.  Any suffering we receive in this world can be repaid with infinite goodness.  Since this means that all suffering can be finite - or will have an end - what does it mean to be repaid with infinite goodness?  Well if we think of money: if you pay $1,000,000.00 only to be repaid with infinite money, how much in debt are you?  What if you were in a trillion dollars debt but were repaid with infinite money?  Get the idea?  Heaven is our ultimate goal, not this world.
     Let me apply this to something concrete: the fire in Sheboygan.  For those who may not know, while the parents were gone at a Bible study, a fire started in their home.  Two of the four children initially escaped.  The 11 year old returned to the house to try to rescue her siblings.  She ended up dying as well.
     While this will not end the suffering of the parents; it is my belief that the actions of the parents - attending Bible studies and choosing God and God's way - instilled in the 11 year old with Christian character, virtue and especially the sense of courage.  The Bible says there is no greater love than to lay down your life for someone else.  The 11 year old wanted to save her siblings.  Who is to say that her sacrifice did not Save herself and her siblings to where they are now repaid with Infinite Goodness?

I wrote another piece with another take on this question here:

http://fideidefensorgb.blogspot.com/2015/04/will-god-help-me-through-my-tough-times.html

I hope this helps bring you along the road towards an answer.

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

The Ever-Virgin Mary...

Where Does Scripture Say Mary Was Ever-Virgin?

     The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during and ever after the birth of Christ (CCC 496 - 507). Most non-Catholic Christians (I will use "Protestant" from this point on in the colloquial sense) believe and teach that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception to the time of birth - although, by rejecting a unifying, interpreting, authority that can declare the truth of a matter (the magisterium), some Protestant pastors are no longer teaching that either.  Virtually all Protestants reject that Mary was a virgin throughout her life, although that was not always the case.  I don't believe many Protestants (or Catholics for that matter) have ever considered whether or not she was a virgin in partu. 

     There are several reasons why the Catholic Church teaches Mary's Perpetual Virginity; some are logical; some based on Scripture and some based in God's Tradition (1 Thes 2:15).  As with all the Marian teachings, they "re-echo" the most important aspects of Christ and to miss it on Mary - and keep a consistent Christology - is to miss it, eventually on Christ.

 

It's Scriptural

     In the Old Testament if a woman becomes the wife of a second man, due to divorce, but then the second husband dies or divorces her, the first man can still never have relations with her again.  (Dt 24:1-4) We see this played out with King David.  When David's son, Absalom, tries to take over the kingdom one of the things he does is sleep with 10 of David's concubines (2 Sam 16:22).  After Absalom is killed and David returns to Jerusalem, David takes back the concubines, but puts them in a separate house where he provides for them, but never again has relations with them (2 Sam 20:3).

     The New Testament describes Joseph as a "righteous man" (Mt 1:19).  Among other things this means he knew and followed all the precepts of the Old Testament.  When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant he decided to divorce her.  (Unlike what some modern translations say, Mary and Joseph were in a ratified marriage, but not yet consummated.  This is equal to the time after the wedding ceremony but before the wedding night.  In Jewish custom this ratified marriage state could last several months but this is not mere 'engagement'.)  Notice this was "before they came together."  This phrase means before they engaged in marital relations.

     Joseph is then approached by the angel who tells him "...do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife..."  The "take" here is a different word than the one above.  In this case the Greek word is "paralambano."  Unlike the previous phrase "synelthein", paralambano (to take with) has no connotation of marital intimacy.  It can be properly translated "to walk along with."  Other uses in Scripture of paralambano show this: Acts 12:25, Gal 2:1 as just 2 examples.

     Joseph would have recognized his situation as akin to what King David had.  Joseph would have protected and provided for Mary, but since she was essentially the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph would never have marital relations with her.

The Vow

     When Mary is visited by Gabriel and told what God wants of her, Mary replies, "How shall this be seeing I know not man?"  As the Christian writers of the first few centuries commented, this question reveals a vow of virginity.  It is significantly different than Zechariah's question in the previous chapter because unlike Zechariah, Mary's question accepts that it will happen, she is merely asking how this will happen. 

     Anti-Catholic author James White says the notion of a vow is not in the text.  Mr. White believes that Mary knew the angel meant this will happen RIGHT NOW and since there were no men around, Mary was inquiring how this was going to happen, RIGHT NOW.

     The problem with this is the text never says WHEN this is supposed to happen.  The angel merely makes a vague reference to the future with "will."  Mr. White is reading his bias against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into the text. 
     Let's make a reasonable parallel.  If a new bride, at the reception, is told she will have a child in what way will she believe this will happen?  I think it's reasonable she will think in the normal course of her marriage, she will get pregnant and have child.  Why, then, would Mary ask the question unless she had taken a vow of virginity.

     Why would a vowed virgin marry then?  We need to place this in the ancient context: women could not work and if they did not have a man taking care of them they would starve to death.  This is one of the reasons it is so important in all of Scripture to take care of widows and orphans (e.g. Jas 1:27).  Mary and Joseph's marriage would have been one of provision and protection of Mary, as she still would need support.

Common Objections

     There are several objections to the Catholic teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity.  I will only take a look at a few.

Brothers of the Lord

     The most common objection to Mary's Perpetual Virginity comes from the references to "the brothers of the Lord" (Mt 13:55-56; Mk 3:31; Gal 1:19).  "The Bible clearly show that Jesus had brothers.  How much clearer does Scripture have to be you Catholics?"  I've heard the objection phrased very similar to this at times.

     The problem with this objection is several fold: 1) The word "brother" in an ancient Jewish context did not always mean "uterine brothers;" 2) Scripture shows these men cannot be uterine brothers; 3) if Jesus would have had uterine brothers Jesus would have broken Mosaic Law.

     In the ancient Middle East, many of the languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) did not have words for "uncle," "cousin," "nephew" etc.  They would use circumlocutions to describe the relationship: "the son of my brother," "my father's brother," "the son of my mother's sister" etc.  But these can become cumbersome in casual conversation.  The solution was to call all relatives "brother."  Not only is this well documented in history, it is also found in Scripture.  In Genesis, Lot is Abraham's nephew yet they call each other "brother" (Gen 14:14).

     Even in English, we don't use the term "brother" as exclusively referring to uterine brothers.  "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" was a very popular song, sung by Bing Crosby, during the Depression.  No one believed Bing was referring to only his uterine brother.  In religious circles we call monks, "Brother" as well as fellow believers "Brothers and Sisters" yet no one thinks we're mistaking them for our blood siblings. 

     So going back to texts in question, we see there are multiple definitions for 'brother.'  All are still on the table: Scripture could be referring to other son's of Mary OR to some other relationship.  However, when we add in other Scriptural references we see one of these definitions is impossible, while the other is most likely.  Scripture tells us that the brothers of the Lord are "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas."  However, when we reference Mt. 27:56 and Jn 19:25 we see something very interesting: James and Joseph's mother is, "the other Mary," Mary wife of Clopas, not Mary, Mother of Jesus.

     Looking at Gal 1:19, we see the Apostle James is also called "the Lord's Brother."  Yet in the lists of the Apostles, there are only two James', both of whose fathers we know and neither father is Joseph (James son of Zebedee; James son of Alphaeus).  So, at least for James, Joseph and the Apostle James, "brother" is used to mean some other relation other than "other sons of Mary Mother of Jesus". 

Jesus Sinning?

     When Jesus was on the Cross he said seven things, commonly called, "The Seven Last Words of Christ."  To say something while nailed on a cross is truly an unbelievably painful experience.  One would have to push up on the nail through your feet and pull up on the nails in your wrists, and in Jesus' case, scrape your flayed back up the rough wood, just to get a breath enough "speak.  Christ used one whole time of this to say to his mother, "Woman, behold your son.  [John,] Behold your mother."

     Jesus took the time, took on the excruciating pain and effort to give his mother to John.  Why?  If Jesus had uterine brothers the Law of Moses dictated that the next oldest would be the one to take care of Mary.  The only explanation is that Jesus was an only child and there was no one else charged with taking care of Mary.

     Mr. White says it's because none of Jesus' brothers believed in him.  But there's a major problem with this: Jesus was God.  One of Jesus' brothers, according to Gal 1:19, was James the Apostle.  Wouldn't Jesus know - as he knew about his crucifixion, the destruction of the Temple and many other things - that his brothers, or at least James, would come back to the faith enough to die for it?  The idea that Jesus gave Mary to John just because Jesus' brothers were non-believers - or a kissing cousin objection says just because no one else was around - shows a very low view of Jesus as God.  But on top of that, again, it would be breaking Mosaic Law.  The next eldest brother was to take care of their mother, regardless if he was around at the time of the eldest brother's death; regardless if he was a non-believer or  not.

 

Until next time...

     Often Protestants (and even Catholics who want to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) will point to a verse like Mt. 1:25 "...but he [Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son..."  "See," the objector continues, "it says 'until.'  That means Mary and Joseph had marital relations afterward."

     To be completely fair, let's start by acknowledging that the word "knew" does in fact mean marital relations.  But what about the "until?"  That does sound pretty convincing on the surface.

     We must realize that even in English the word "until" does not mean a 100% change after the stipulations related to the word are fulfilled.  For example, if someone says, "Until we meet again, may God bless you."  Do we also mean by saying this, "Next time we meet, God curse you!"?  No. 

       But the case is even stronger in Greek.  The word in Greek is "heos".  Heos means the time up to the stated event and does NOT necessarily mean there was a change afterward.  We see this in numerous other places in Scripture where heos is used:  Mt. 28:20 says, in part, "Behold, I am with you till the end of the age."  "Till" there is heos.  Is Jesus also saying by this, "After the end of the age I am no longer with you."?

     "For he [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Cor 15:25).  Is Paul saying that once all Jesus' enemies are put under his feet, Jesus no longer reigns, i.e., he is no longer King?  No, absolutely not.

     I had an interlocker try to say that, yes, every time heos is used it necessarily means a 100% change after the event is fulfilled.  Of course his main reason for saying this was to deny Mary's Perpetual Virginity.   But as we saw with denying Mary as Mother of God, it is very easy to deny something, but to make a coherent theology that logically follows from that denial is not very easy.  After pointing out these, and numerous other verses, this particular confused Protestant had Jesus only temporarily as King, him abandoning the Church after a time and many, many other strange things.



The Reformers Believed it

     One of the more interesting aspects of studying the history of the belief of Mary Ever Virgin, is the fact that almost all of Protestantism believed and taught Mary was perpetually a Virgin until the 18th Century!  Here are just a few quotes to make the point:

Martin Luther

 

     “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

     “A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .”{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

John Calvin

      “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. “{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

      Helvidius was someone who denied Mary as Perpetual Virgin in the 4th / 5th Century.

     “Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. “ {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Ulrich Zwingli

 "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."  Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424

Re-echoing Christ

    Ultimately everything about Mary, especially the dogmas, flow from, re-echo and protect a proper understanding of who Jesus Christ is.  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary helps teach us that once we give ourselves to Christ, we cannot be used for any other purpose again.  To do so would be to profane that which God has made holy.  If you want to know how serious it is to profane something God has made holy, just ask Uzzah (2 Sam 6).  And Uzzah was only dealing with the Old Testament Ark.  How much more should the New Testament Ark, Mary, should be untouched by sinful man?  And we are the Body of Christ, the Church.  How much more importance is it that the Body of Christ, the Church be used only for the purpose for which God set us aside?

Do not be afraid to share your faith with everyone!
God Bless,
Fidei Defensor