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

"Rome vs the Bible" vs Reality

A Critical Review of a Popular Anti-Catholic Pamphlet

        

       What would you do if you discovered the majority of the bad things you were taught about Catholicism were incorrect and meant to deceive you?

 

 

      The pamphlet “Rome vs the Bible” has many factual errors both blatant and more subtle.  In discovering these errors, will you continue to spread them, or correct them?

 

Authority

 

 

"Rome vs the Bible" (RvB) claims that "the Bible teaches Scripture has authority over the church" and cites 2Tim3:16.  RvB then claims "Catholicism teaches the Church has authority over Scriptures" and cites the Catholic Catechism (CCC) paragraphs 100 and 119.

 

 Reality shows Catholicism teaches that the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture (85, 100, 119) by the power of the Holy Spirit (109-114) but clearly teaches “the Church is the servant of Scripture. "(86)  RvB doesn’t report accurate Catholic teaching.   Why?

 

Also 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing about the church.  It merely shows the high authority, inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture , something that Catholicism teaches (101-141).  But is that the only thing that has authority according to Scripture? 

 

Ask yourself: what do I believe has the authority to decide between arguing Christians?

 

What do I believe is the pillar and foundation of truth for the Christian?

 

What did God plan to use, from the beginning of time, to make known His entire wisdom?

 

RvB would like you to believe it is The Bible.

 

Reality shows, according to that Bible, it is:

 

The Church (Mt 18:15-18; 1Tim3:15; Eph 3:10)

 

 Also ask: How do I know what books belong in Scripture?   Scripture cannot tell you.

 

Salvation / Justification

 

RvB implicitly denies that one can lose salvation.  RvB then derides Catholicism for believing in Mortal sin and the ability to lose salvation.

Reality shows that the Bible explicity teaches there is Mortal sin, or the “sins that lead to death” ('death' = 'mortal' in Latin)(1Jn5:17) meaning a spiritual death.  The Bible teaches that a Christian can, indeed, lose salvation through sinning. Take heed you who think you stand secure, lest you fall.  (1Cor 10:6-8; 11-12) (Rom 11:22; Gal 5:6; 2 Pet  2:20-22) RvB doesn’t address these verses.  Why not?

 

RvB states “man is Justified once by faith”.  RvB then condemns Catholicism for teaching that Salvation and Justification are a process, with a one-time event to begin them, but then cooperation needed to continue progressing in them.

Reality shows the Bible says both Salvation and Justification are processes with a past completed event (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5-8 etc), present application (1Cor1:8; 2Cor2:15; Phil 2:12), and future cooperation needed to get to heaven (Rom 5:9-10; 1Cor 3:12-15).RvB doesn’t address the rest of these Biblical passages.  Why not?

 

RvB implies that faith alone is what saves someone and works will come afterward, but does not have anything to do with salvation.  RvB then claims Catholicism teaches that one can earn “their own salvation” through good works.

 

 Reality is Catholicism teaches that no one can earn their own salvation(2010) .  Catholicism teaches that we are justified entirely by Grace (1996).  Catholicism teaches Grace / Justification is the work of Christ's atoning death on the Cross and by His Blood (1992).  Catholicism teaches that we must have faith in Christ to be saved (161).  Catholicism recognizes that once we have Grace, we must cooperate with God to continue walking in the Light, so that the blood of Christ continues to cleanse us (2006-2029, cf 1Jn 1:7)

 

RvB again does not report accurate Catholic teaching.  Why not?

  

Reality shows the Bible teaches we are saved by Grace which no one can earn (Eph 2:8-9).  But once we are “in Christ” we are commanded to do good works (Eph 2:10).  If we disobey this command, we cannot be saved (Jn 3:36); If we rely only on faith, without good works, that faith cannot save us.  Good works complete our faith, as it did with Abraham, and therefore it was credited to him as righteousness.  Just as a body cannot be alive first and the soul comes later, faith without good works is dead. The only place in Scripture the phrase “Faith Alone” appears it says:  We are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE (Ja 2:14-24). 

 

 We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in us (Grace) both to will (faith) and to work (good works) (Ph 2:15-16).  We must keep the Commandments to go to heaven (Mk 10:17-22)

 

 Reality is everywhere in Scripture where people are judged to heaven or hell, they are judged by their works (Rom 2:5-11; Mt 25-31-46; Rev 20:12 among many others). 

 

RvB neglects to mention any of these Bible passages.  Why not?

Baptism

 

RvB states that only the Holy Spirit regenerates people.  RvB then implies that Catholicism is opposed to this by teaching Baptism regenerates people.

 

Reality is that Catholicism teaches Christ empowered Baptism to bring the Holy Spirit, which is why it regenerates people (1225; 1987; 2017).

Reality shows that Christ said exactly that.  (Jn3:5) Reality also shows that the Bible teaches Baptism is necessary for salvation and forgives sins (1Pet 3:21-22; Act 2:38-39

 

RvB again fails to give accurate representation of Catholicism and ignores Scripture.  Why?

 

Eucharist / The Lord's Supper

 

RvB states, “the Lord’s Supper is a memorial” implying an intellectual recollection only and cites 1Cor11:24-25.  RvB then implies that the Catholic Mass is re-sacrificing Christ.

Reality shows that the word for “remembrance” (anamnesis) means making a past event present today.  Also the word for “do” implies sacrifice.  Christ also said, “This IS my Body” and “This IS my Blood” not "this represents" (Lk 22:19-20; paralleled in Mk, Mt; 1Cor11:24-25).  Christ also commands us to “Eat My Flesh” and “Drink My Blood” numerous times using language that can only be interpreted literally without doing violence to the text. (Jn 6:51-56).  Paul also tells us this is a literal participation in Christ's Body and Blood (1 Cor 10:16) and to receive without discerning Christ's Body, is to be guilty of His literal Body and Blood i.e. of murder (1 Cor 10:27-30).

Reality is Catholicism teaches Christ’s sacrifice was Once-For-All, and the Eucharist is making that One Sacrifice present today (re-presenting) (1362-1363).

Reality also is all Christians writings from the first EIGHT CENTURIES taught the literal interpretation of Christ’s words.  One cannot find a single Christian writer who states what RvB believes about the Lord’s Supper for 800 years after Christ’s Ascension.

Reality also shows RvB's idea of "the Lord's Supper" was made up by men in the 16th Century.   A warning from Scripture is appropriate here: Gal 1:8.

 RvB only cites one of the dozens of paragraphs of the CCC dealing with this; only one of the Bible verses above and doesn't tell you what those words actually mean.  Why?

Anathemas

  

Anathema merely means to not belong to the community.  RvB would like you to believe it means "condemned to hell." 

 

RvB's own teachings (Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, Symbolic Only Lord's Supper, Once Saved Always Saved, the Rapture etc) were made up by men in the 16th Century or later. Protestant Historians like JMD Kelly acknowledge this.

 

RvB's own warning (Gal 1:6-9) applies to them, not to the Catholic Church whose biblical teachings have stayed consistnent for 2000 years.  One only need to read the writings of the students of the Apostles to see this is true.

 

By believing - and pushing -  these brand new, non-biblical teachings RvB proves they 'do not belong' to the Church Christ founded.

 Saints / Priests

RvB claims that Catholicism doesn’t teach that all Christians are priests and saints.

 

Reality: The Catholic Church explicitly teaches the priesthood of all believers and that all Christians are saints (priesthood: 1141; 1268; 1546 / saints: 946-962).  RvB did not bother to take 10 seconds on a internet search to find this out. Why Not?

 

Reality: Recognizing what Scripture tells us, Catholicism teaches  Christ also set up a ministerial priesthood by giving it much of His Authority (Lk 10:16; Jn 20:21-23 cf. 2Cor 5:18; Mt:18:18 and many others) and that the “Holy Ones” in heaven (1 Thes 3:13) (the Latin word ‘holy’ is where ‘saint’ comes from) / the souls of Just men made perfect can now, because of Christ, be address and approached (Heb 12:22-24).  Since: the Church is the Body of Christ(Col 1:18); Christ only has one Body, not multiple (1Cor 12:12); Death cannot separate us from Christ (Rom 8:37-38); and we, in Christ, are commanded to pray for one another (1Tim2:1-4), therefore those members of the Church in Heaven are praying for us, and presenting our prayers before the Throne of God (Rev 5:8).

RvB does not present the full Biblical picture and presents a completely FALSE representation of Catholic teaching.  WHY?

 

 Final Thoughts

RvB does NOT want to present accurate Catholic teaching, nor the full Biblical teaching on these topics.  WHY?

They have believed the Traditions of Men: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Smyth, John Wesley, and the tens of thousands after them.  They have not held fast to the Traditions of God, which includes Sacred Scripture, (2Thes2:15; 3:6; 1Thes3:13; 2Tim2:2; 1Cor11:2) passed on faithfully for 2000 years by the Catholic Church!

 

We encourage you to read your denomination's teaching charters / documents / confessionals and compare them to   1) History: the writings of the 1st Christians after the Apostles 2) The WHOLE Bible 3) The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

We welcome your charitable comments or questions.

Fidei Defensor


Bulk pamphlets available upon request.Pamphlets coming soon:  Sola Scriptura vs the Bible, History and Logic; Sola Fide vs the Bible; Protestantism vs. the Bible and History.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statues and Icons and Art... OH MY!

Talking about the Catholic Practice of Statues

"What don't you Catholics understand about Exodus 20:4-5?  'You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.   You shall not bow down to them or worship them...'  You guys have statues and you bow to them!"  Catholicism has also been charged with changing the commandments to hide this from the people.

          This is a great topic and is often a starting point in conversations with non-Catholic Christians (Protestants).  This article is broken up into three parts: a 'bumper sticker' answer; a mid-length explanation; and an in-depth yet still remember able answer.

The "Bumper Sticker" Answer

          As a practicing Catholic, I have never worshiped a statue; I have never seen anyone worship a statute; I have never been taught or counseled to worship a statue.

          A full study of  Scripture shows that God was not forbidding the making of art, but was forbidding Idolatry  [the worship of that stone, wood, metal or paint in and of itself as a god] .  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.

The Mid-Length Answer

          Catholicism has always taught that the first Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."  Ex. 20:3-5.  However a close look at Scripture will show that shortly thereafter (5 chapters) God commanded the making of 2 gold cherubs (Ex 25:18).  There is also the story of the Brass Serpent in which God, again, commands the making of a Brass or Bronze Serpent where anyone who looks upon it will be saved.  Jesus uses this as an example of himself.

          We can also see from Scripture that bowing is not reserved for worship alone.  Jacob bowed low to Esau seven times (Gen 33:3) and Solomon - a prefigurement of Christ - bowed to his mother, the queen (1 Kgs 2:19).

          Some may ask: 'Show me one place in Scripture where someone bows to a statue?'  Joshua 7:6 shows Joshua and the Elders prostrating themselves (a form of  bowing) in front of the Arc of the Covenant.  What is on the Arc?  Those two gold cherubim mentioned before.

          In Exodus 20:3-5, God was not forbidding the making of art, or forbidding honoring anyone the art depicted.  He was forbidding Idolatry.  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.

The In-depth Answer

          Look around yourself right now.  Are there any images " of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"?  Any pictures of family?  Any paintings?  Carvings?   Look carefully: children's toys, food labels, movies, T.V.... Are these all forbidden by this commandment? 

          But some may object, God was speaking of religious objects in a religious context.  Unfortunately Scripture does not make this distinction.  But even if it did, look around many Protestant church buildings:  there are images and statues of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, doves, grapes, angels, lambs, etc.  Even the most Fundamentalist of denominations will have at least a cross.  How about Cress Scenes?  Children's Picture Bibles?  The movie, "The Passion of the Christ?"  Are not all of these, including the cross, an image of anything that is in heaven, in the earth or in the water?

          But the objection continues, Catholics kneel before, bow to and even kiss these images.  Again, in everyday life we recognize that kneeling, bowing and kissing do not equate to worship:  Do soldiers worship the American Flag (another image) when they salute it?  Or when the same soldier, deployed, talks to and kisses a picture of his family he is separated from?  Do the Japanese and Chinese people worship each other when they bow in greeting?  Did Reformers commit idolatry when they kneeled before the princes and kings supporting their efforts?  I've talked to Protestants who love the Bible so much, they kneel before it as they read it.  Are any of these committing Idolatry? 

          Through Scripture we can see that God was not forbidding art and other images in general, nor was He forbidding using gestures to give honor to people or situations even those depicted in art.  He was forbidding the worship of those images in-and-of-themselves; in a word: Idolatry. 

          The Catholic Church has always recognized and taught this distinction.  In Part 3, Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that the First Commandment is " I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them..."

          However, that is not the last word, or only word, Scripture has on images.  In Exodus 25:18, a mere five chapters later, God commands the making of statues:  "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat [of the Arc of the Covenant]."

          In Exodus 26:1God commands that cherubim be woven into the tabernacle curtains.

          In Numbers 21:8-9 God again commands the making of a bronze image:  "And the LORD said to Moses; 'Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.'  So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live."  Christ later uses this as a prefigurment of himself (Jn 3:14).

          Some objections then say we are only to make religious art / statues when God commands us to.  This also does not take into account all of Scripture:  1 Kings chapters 6 and 7 describe the temple with many images in it:  cherubim, palm trees, flowers, gourds, oxen, lions, and wreaths (6:23,29,32, 35, 7:24, 25, 29, 36).  None are explicitly commanded but God blessed the temple by His presence. Even in Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly temple, Ezekiel also sees many statues and carvings: palm trees, cherubs, a man's face, a lion's face, leaves etc.  Can God be contradictory?  Catholicism recognizes that especially since Jesus became the "icon" of the Father, He blessed all art, even religious art in churches (Col 1:15).

          But, some continue, it's the bowing, kneeling and kissing of these images that make the problem.  I would ask: is bowing, kissing or kneeling always "worship" in Scripture?  Did not Jacob bow himself to the ground seven times to Esau (Gen 33:3)?  Did not Solomon, a prefigurement of Christ, and the King of all Israel, bow down to his mother (1 Kgs 2:19)?  Was Judas' kiss worshiping Christ or betraying Him?

          But can you show me, says the objector, even ONE place in Scripture where someone bows to a statue?  Joshua 7:6 shows Joshua and the Elders going prostrate - an extreme bow - before the Arc.  But don't forget what's on the Arc: two 5' tall gold statues.  To the Protestant onlooker this would be Joshua bowing to a statue.

          What's the difference?  The difference is in the heart.  The Catholic Church is clear that if someone bows before a statue thinking it, in-and-of-itself is the source of power, that is Idolatry and in the Catholic Church that person could lose their salvation for doing so.  But one can also, properly disposed, bow before a statue to honor, not worship, the person or situation that statue or artwork depicts.

          If an objector is still insistent that a Catholic is committing the sin of Idolatry after this explanation, the objector is claiming to read hearts, something only God can do, and is therefore setting themselves up equal to God, which is Idolatry of self.

          Why do Catholics have artwork, statues and other images?  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.  The Catholic Church recognizes that throughout the history of the world, and even world-wide today, the majority of people cannot read.  The Catholic Church is committed to getting Scripture to the people anyway possible.  So, in addition to reading it to them every day [at a rate of virtually the whole Bible per year] the Catholic Church puts art and statues that depict the various people, places and events from the Bible in the churches so the illiterate can still learn the stories and teach them to their children.  We can thereby honor and worship God more fully through the honor of the people and events depicted, than we could without these pieces of art.

          I hope this helps you understand the Catholic Church's possession on religious statues and artwork.  For further information please go to www.catholic.com keyword search 'statues'.



Do Catholics Just Assume the Assumption?

Where in the Bible is the Assumption of Mary?

     Many of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters-in-Christ have many misunderstandings and misconceptions about the Blessed Virgin Mary and what the Catholic Church teaches about her.  (It doesn't help that many Catholics have the same misconceptions or do not know how to explain these truths.)  Out of the three Catholic Dogma's about Mary (her Immaculate Conception, being Ever Virgin and being Assumed body and soul into heaven) I think the one that seems the strangest to most people is the Assumption of Mary.  The idea of this is so strange, that most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, just avoid it all together. 

     "Catholics just assume the Assumption." many will say as a way of just dismissing the whole thing without even knowing what it is, let alone considering if there's any truth to it at all.  It's assumed it's false and assumed it's leading Catholics to hell.  If you don't believe me, just come to the next "Walk to Mary" or come to the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help this Saturday and observe the protesters.  If anyone were to ask them, my guess is some might be able to tell you what the Assumption is in general - though there will be at least one thing wrong - and NONE will be able to tell you what verses from Scripture the Catholic Church read to come to this conclusion.

     So, this is where we will begin: 

What is the Assumption of Mary?

       

     Many people get the "Assumption" of Mary and the "Ascension" of Jesus Christ mixed up in two ways:

1) Believing the "Assumption" is the "Ascension".  These are two distinct events and are very (infinitely) different. 

2) Believing that Mary did this of her own power.

     To answer both at the same time, "Ascension" is something someone does for one's self:  we ascend the stairs.  "Assumption" is something someone has done to them: the cow ate the grass and assumed it into itself.  The grass did not - nor is it capable of - force itself into the cow's stomach.

     Jesus, being all God (and all man minus sin) Ascended into Heaven.  He did it of His own Power.  Mary was Assumed into Heaven.  She did not have the power to do this herself.  It was done to her by God.  This is why I said before these two events are infinitely different.

So... What is the Assumption then?

    I've said what the Assumption is not, but I have not said what it is.  The Catholic Catechism paragraph 966 says: 

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians...

   Again, just to point out that the Assumption was done TO Mary, not of her own power.  This is important to point out to non-Catholics who believe the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is another member of the Trinity or otherwise deified.

Where is this in the Bible?

     It is argued by detractors, that if Mary's Assumption is so important why isn't it mentioned explicitly in Scripture?  The first response is that many important things are not mentioned in Scripture: the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union etc.
     Unfortunately, though, most Catholics believe because of this, that the Assumption is just Tradition - which many errantly think is some sort of secret rules and teachings passed on in a secret game of 'telephone' from bishop to bishop.  I won't stop to correct that here.  I've even heard some Catholic apologists say that there's nothing in the Bible regarding Mary's Assumption.  I believe they miss some very important verses in Scripture.
     But there is some truth in what people say about not finding the Assumption in Scripture.  If we recall, Mary was given to St. John, by Jesus - in the apex of Salvation history, I might add, making that an extremely important event that most ignore (I sense a future post...).  Mary lived for many years after, with St. John, in Ephesus and later, possibly went back to Jerusalem with him for the 1st Ecumenical Council detailed out in Acts 15.  It is argued whether or not she stayed in Jerusalem or traveled back to Ephesus.  There are two graves claiming to be Mary's grave: one in Ephesus, one in Jerusalem.  BOTH ARE EMPTY.
     The whole point is that Mary was still alive when the vast majority of the New Testament was written so her Assumption COULDN'T have been mentioned.

The Assumption Revealed...

     One of the few books of the New Testament not yet written prior to Mary's Assumption was Revelation.  Interestingly, it is written by St. John, the one who lived with Mary.  So wouldn't we expect him to mention it?  He does.
     Starting at Rev 11:19, St. John states he saw the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven.  He then says the Ark is a woman (Rev 12:1).  Most people miss this because of the chapter break.  Now we know from our study of the Immaculate Conception of Mary that she is revealed as the Ark of the New Testament.  So this is no surprise to knowledgeable Catholics that John sees the Ark as a woman.
     This woman is no ordinary woman though.  She is clothed in the sun, has the moon under her feet and is wearing a crown of 12 stars.  She also bears Jesus: the one who is to rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5).  Even though Revelation is written in a very symbolic language and each passage can have multiple meanings at the same time, this does not mean that we can't know some of the meanings, or that if we figure out one meaning that's the ONLY meaning to the passage.  On the literal level, there is only one woman this woman could be: Mary.  If we continue to read carefully, we see that this woman is one of the only ones mentioned in Heaven to have body parts (head, feet).  The others in Heaven are mentioned only as 'Souls' (Rev 6:9).  Mary is also taken away from Satan by 'two wings of the great eagle' (Rev 12:14).
     There is one more verse that must be taken into consideration when speaking of Mary's Assumption.  As I mentioned before, Mary is revealed in Scripture as the Ark of the New Covenant.  Once we see this, Psalm 132:8 becomes very interesting: 

"Rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place,

    you and the ark of your might."

So what?

Unfortunately even many Catholics have this attitude towards the Marian dogmas:  'How does this help me get to heaven?'

Almost all Christians agree that at the end of the world, our earthly bodies will be raised and rejoined to our souls.  For those going to heaven, our earthly bodies will be glorified and what they will become, we cannot conceive of. 

Mary's Assumption is that promise fulfilled at an earlier time so that we may believe in the resurrection of the dead.  To deny that it is possible that Mary was Assumed into Heaven is to deny that we, as Christians, can hope for the resurrection of the dead.  After all, Mary was the first person to accept Jesus, His Word and follow it so well she manifested, physically, Jesus to the world.  If she is denied the bodily resurrection of the dead, what hope do we have?

How do I have this conversation?

1) Remain calm.  Let them have the last word before you get upset.
2) Listen to their question / statement.
3) Start with a positive phrase: "This is a Great Question"
4) Explain what the Assumption is not and how it differs from Christ's Ascension
5) Explain what the Assumption IS (CCC 966)
6) Explain that Mary was alive for most of the writing of the New Testament so the Assumption, like many other important teachings, is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture
7) Take out your Bible (have a Bible with you) or use theirs and turn to Rev 11:19 through Rev 12:14
8) Show them how 'the woman' is Mary, she has body parts, she is seen in Heaven.
9) You may have to take a large detour to explain Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant
10) Show them Psalm 132:8
11) Point out that this is just an early fulfillment of the promises of Christ.  If the possibility of Mary's Assumption is denied, then there's no way we gain it either.
12) End with, "I hope this helps you see that the Catholic Church has biblical reasons for her teaching on the Assumption of Mary."

Let us rejoice in the Power and Glory of Christ in bringing His mother into Heaven, this Aug 15th!



How do we even know God exists?

Questions from Teens continues

 

     This is a great question.  First let me take this from the exact opposite angle: How do we know God or a god DOESN"T exist?  Is there any proof for the non-existence of God or a god?  Quick answer: No there isn't ANY proof for the non-existence of God.  Christopher Hitchens, one of the 4 horsemen of the 'New Atheism' - he's deceased now, God rest his soul - said as much in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist who specializes in debating atheists.  Mr. Hitchens did not present one single argument for atheism.  He said that Christians behave badly - yes, I behave against God's Will usually daily.  He said that the universe would be destroyed in several billion years - yes, all Christians believe in the End of the World, some day.  He said that evil exists and a God that's all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful would want to do something about evil, would know that evil exists and would be able to do something about it.  But evil exists therefore there is no 'god'. 
     However, the most this can show - and I mean the absolute most - is not that a god doesn't exist, but that God is either not all-knowing, not all-powerful or not all-good.  On the other hand, this argument is also a 'false dichotomy', meaning, it presents two choices and pretends those are the only two choices available.  The two choices are: either evil exists or God does.  But there is at least one more choice:  That God exists and has good reasons for allowing, temporarily, evil to exist in our world.

     Near the end of the debate, after being asked several times by Dr. Craig for a single argument for the non-existence of God, Mr. Hitchens stated, "I don't have to give any."  He then went on to say that everyone is born an atheist so it is up to the theist to convince us, but he just hasn't found any of the arguments compelling.

     Several things here: 1) Note that he agrees that he did not present ANY arguments for atheism.  In saying, "I don't need to give any [reasons]."  Mr. Hitchens is also saying, "I didn't give any." 

2) The idea that everyone is 'born' an atheist assumes atheism is the norm.  This is entirely false.  I believe the last I saw it, atheism comprises about 1 to 2 percent of the population - I think it would be reasonable that if atheism were true, we'd see a higher percentage of atheism. 
      Also, if everyone is born an atheist, how did we go from 0 to 1?   In other words, how did the first person begin to believe in God or a god?  Some would argue that a cave man saw lightning and couldn't explain it so he assumed some powerful being in the sky made it.

     This is also problematic.  Why would early man make up an explanation for something that was a regular, natural occurrence in his experience?  Lightning isn't a one-in-a-lifetime thing that is so shocking - pun intended - that demands a unique, radical, crazy, never-been-thought-of-before answer.  You might as well say rain was so shocking it needed someone to make up a god to explain it. 
      In addition, if there is no idea of God, why would someone make it up?  And it had to be so convincing that 90+% of people he told believed him - who all held the opposite opinion to begin with.  I might as well make up, right now, that some sort of invisible pen is writing these letters on my screen as I press the corresponding key on the key board.  Who's going to believe that?
      But, Mr. Defensor, we have modern science.  Primitive Man could not have been able to understand such things and therefore needed to make up a god to explain it...  Says who?  Primitive Man had their five senses and a brain.  If someone were to start telling Primitive Man about some source of all being that was an invisible, intelligent source of all existence... they'd tell that person to go take a long half-erect walk off a short stone pier... Unless it reflected a truth engrained in us. 

3) I highly doubt Mr. Hitchens had read all the full arguments for the existence of God, with an open mind evaluating both sides for what is true.  In some of his other writings, as quoted by other Christian apologists, he seems to have many misunderstandings of the arguments and especially of what Christians mean by "God."

 

Ok then how do we know God or 'a god' exists?

     You may have noticed that both Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Craig talk about the arguments FOR God's existence.  In the book, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics Dr. Peter Kreeft lists 20 arguments.  I'm only going to detail out one.

 

The Cosmological Argument

    Premise #1:  Nothing that has a beginning, began itself.

Ok what?  Well let's think about it.  Look out your window and look at a tree.  Did that tree have a beginning?  Yes.  Did that tree decide when it was going to begin?  No.  Another example would be yourself.  Did you have a beginning?  Yes.  Did you, in your non-existent state, decide when you were going to exist?  No.  Everything that has a beginning needs something else to cause it to begin.

 

     Premise #2:  The Universe had a beginning.

Science shows that the Universe indeed began about 13.7 billion years ago.  Interestingly, even though today many atheistic scientists assume that the Big Bang theory disproves the existence of God - and many Christians reject the science (and science in general) believing that to be true - the theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Fr. George Lematre (also a friend of Albert Einstein's).  Atheistic scientists at first opposed the theory vehemently realizing it sounded way too much like Genesis.

     Back on topic: a simple definition of the Universe is all time, energy, space and matter.

 

Conclusion:  Something outside of time, matter, energy and space began the Universe.

 

Think about how astounding this is, for a minute.  What, outside of time, matter, energy and space, began the Universe?  Aliens?  Nope they'd be inside of time, matter, energy and space.  The only thing that fits the bill is a timeless (eternal), spirit (non-material).  The Spirit would have to be the source of all existence, energy, and be able to create something from nothing.   That's a tall order... unless it's God.

 

There are objections and the counter points to those objections that could be detailed out.  There are also dozens more arguments for the existence of God that could be made too.  But let me challenge you to think about something:  If someone said, "There's a treasure chest in that cave full of amazing gold, jewels and art."  But someone else says, "No there's not."  When you ask why each believes what they believe, the second person says, "I don't have any reasons; I don't need any reasons."  But the first person says, "I have an old treasure map which shows this is the spot.  The locals have many stories of treasure being hid in this cave.  Several locals have gone into the cave and come out with treasure, and they say there's treasure in there."

Are you going to explore that cave or not?

 

The atheist says, "I don't have to give you any reasons to not believe in God."  The theist says, "Here's twenty based on logic, science and philosophy."  No evidence on one side and evidence on the other.  Even if it's weak evidence, shouldn't you side with the evidence?  That's what we do in courts, the scientific method, and all other rational deduction.

 

But this would mean changing your life, and the way you live... that might be the REAL issue.

 

 



Where the Bible Shows Mary Was Immaculate Conceived...

Biblical Support for Mary's Sinlessness

 For additional info read "Behold Your Mother" by Tim Staples

     Dec. 8th the Catholic Church celebrates the Immaculate Conception.  No, this is not in reference to Jesus' conception as some Protestants (and even some Catholics) believe.  This is in reference to MARY's CONCEPTION. 
     The phrase "Mary's Immaculate Conception" confuses and concerns our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in the non-Catholic Communities.  "How can you say that Mary was sinless?  Don't you Catholics read the Bible?"  Unfortunately, despite regularly exhortations from the Pope, Bishops and Priests through out the Centuries to do so, the average Catholic is very unfamiliar with Scripture; but that's a post for another day.

     As a result, though, the vast majority of our Protestant Brothers and Sisters have never heard any of the EIGHT WAYS Scripture witnesses to the Sinlessness of Mary.  We're just going to detail out three here:  Scripture shows that Mary 1) is named or titled 'Full of Grace' 2) has Enmity with Satan and 3) is The Ark of the New Covenant.

 

What Catholicism Doesn't Teach about Mary's Sinlessness...

     Some Catholics have errantly argued that since Christ's human body came from Mary, Mary had to be sinless in order to give sinless flesh to Christ's Body.  Unfortunately, this argument is false, is easily demonstrated as false and is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.  As many of our wise Protestant brothers and sisters have pointed out in the past:  If Mary had to be sinless to give Christ sinless flesh, then wouldn't Anne (Mary's Mother) have to be sinless, and then wouldn't her mother have to be sinless and so on all the way back to Eve.  Saying Mary had to be sinless eventually ends up denying the Fall.

    The Catholic Church teaches that Mary's sinlessness was not necessary, but was "appropriate to such roll" (CCC 491) 

 

What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches...

     The ex-Cathedra statement from Pope Pius the IX states, "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by the virtues of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."  (Ineffabilis Deus, 1894 as quoted in CCC 491).

     Please note a few things:

1) This was a "singular grace and privilege" meaning it was granted to no one else after the implementation of Original Sin.  (Please note that if this teaching is true Mary would be one of FOUR people in the Bible created, by God, without Original Sin.  The others are, Adam, Eve and Jesus.)

2) This is only by the power of God and the merits of Christ.  As the Catholic Church has always taught, Mary, like us, is only anything because of the super abundance of Grace flowing from her Son, Jesus.  (Lumen Gentium, 60)

3) Also, in Lumen Gentium paragraph #60, the Catholic Church teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.  Mary is NOT another mediator.... just to get that out of the way too.

"Hail, Full of Grace..." (Luke 1:28)

     In Luke's Gospel, an angel from heaven comes to a little 14 to 16 year old girl and says, "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you."  In this one small sentence is a myriad of meaning.

Hail, Caesar...

     The first thing to notice is that a messenger (meaning of 'angel') from heaven 'hails' Mary.  What does this mean?  Some, like Protestant Apologist James White, claim that "hail" is just another greeting.  It's like saying "Hey what's up?"  Unfortunately, blinded by his forgone conclusion that Mary is nothing special, and certainly NOT sinless, ever-virgin etc, Mr. White misses something crucial in the exact next verse.  Just to set it up a little more, most people, when an angel from heaven stands before them, faint (Rev 1:17) or get all upset (Is 6:5).  Now back to the point: what does Mary do?  Is she all concerned that this amazing supernatural creature has just appeared in front of her?  No.  She was all concerned... about the GREETING  (Lk 1:29).  If this were a normal greeting, why would Mary be concerned at all with the greeting?  Because it's NOT a normal greeting.

     The word 'hail' in Greek is chaire (pronounced: Kahee-ray).  Anywhere else in Scripture it is used, it is used in conjunction with a title:  (Mt 26:49; Mk 15:18; Jn 19:3; Acts 23:26).  It would follow, if Scripture is consistent and can be used to interpret other parts of Scripture, that this greeting of Gabriel's should be associated with a title.  What is the title?  'Kecharitomene.'  Why is it important that this is a title?  In the Bible, when someone is given a new name or title, it reveals something essential about that person's character: Abraham is now the "Father of Nations", hence "Father Abraham"; Eve is now the "Mother of All or of the Living"; Peter is now the "Rock" on which the Church is built and so forth.  So this new title, reveals something about Mary that is essential to who she is.

Kecharitomene (Pronounced: KAY car-ee-toh-Meh-neh)

       The word is actually difficult to translate because it is in a tense that we don't have in English: perfect, passive participle.  Ok, so for all of us who are not Koine Greek scholars let's put this into English.  What that tense means is that something is entirely completed somewhere in the past, it persists up to this moment and will continue unforeseen into the future.

     Now we get to the actual root meaning of the word 'charitoo' which means "grace."  So what this one word means is "She who has been completely filled with grace somewhere in the past, which continues through today and unforeseen into the future..."  This is why St. Jerome translated this "Gracia Plena" or "Full of Grace."

But my Bible says "Highly Favored"...

     'Charitoo' can be translated as "favor."  But the question must be asked, "Who's favor?"  The answer is: God's favor.  What is God's favor?  Just ask any Protestant what "Grace" is and most likely they'll say, "Unmerited Favor."  God's favor is His Grace and His Grace is His Favor.  But this brings up another point of difference:  Most Protestants don't believe that God's Grace actually changes us.  Whereas Catholicism teaches, based on numerous passages in Scripture, that God's Grace is God's life living in us and it changes us to be more like Him.  I won't go into depth here, but a quick read on the Catholic understanding of Grace can be found in the Catholic Catechism paragraphs 1996 and following.

     But I will relate a conversation I had with a local Protestant radio show host.  We were talking about Grace.  I asked him if the cup in front of me was filled up to the tippy top with Grace, could any sin exist within that cup?  His response was a very emphatic "Absolutely not!"

     So even in the Protestant understanding of Grace there is the idea that it cleanses us from sin.  If that's the case, then heaven declared Mary to be completely without sin sometime in the past, it continued through the announcement unforeseen into the future.  The fact that "Full of Grace" is a title reveals that this is an essential aspect of Mary's character, who she is as revealed by heaven.

     It should be noted too that in the Greek, "highly" does not appear.  Given that the context is in the feminine form, "Favored Daughter" is a reasonable translation, but this shows us another way that Mary is without sin: She's the "Daughter of Zion", which I will not get into here.

Mary has Enmity with Satan

     What does 'enmity' mean?  When Scripture says that Christ and Satan will have enmity between them (Gen 3:15) what does that mean?  Can Satan have any influence over Christ?  Can any part of Christ have Satan living in Him?
     Enmity is total separation, mutual hatred, antipathy and shares the same Latin root as enemy.  Christ is the enemy of Satan, He is totally separated from Satan.  Can we say the same for ourselves?  No we can't.  Every time I sin, or desire to sin, I am on Satan's side; I am a friend of Satan and have partnered with him.
     What does this have to do with Mary?  If we read the cite above, Genesis 3:15, every Christian believes "the seed" is referring to Christ.  But first it says that "the woman"- who's seed is Christ - and Satan will have enmity between them.  Who's the woman who's seed is Christ?  Mary.
     We see this played out in the book of Revelation Chapter 12 where "the woman" who bears Christ - the male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron - is chased by the serpent, Satan, but is not caught or even touched by Satan.  Who is this "woman" who was given wings of the eagle to fly away from Satan to a place prepared for her by God?  Revelation is polyvalent, meaning there is multiple ways to interpret each thing with out either interpretation necessarily being wrong.  But if we keep it on the literal level, there is only one "woman" who gave birth to Christ: Mary; and Satan was not allowed to touch her.  What happens when Satan realizes he can't touch her?   I like the way the New International Version translation of the Bible says it, Satan "was enraged at the woman..."  Revelation shows the enmity between Mary and Satan.

 

The Ark of the New Covenant

     The Ark of the Covenant was a box. It was gold on the outside and gold on the inside. God's Spirit 'overshadowed' it - a specific word used only in connection with God's Spirit over the Ark. The Ark contained in it God's Law (also translated, "God's Word") written in stone, the manna from the desert and Aaron's staff of the High Priesthood. (Heb 9:4)

      At one point the Ark travelled to the hill country of Judea and stayed there about 3 months (2 Sam 6:1-11). When David arrives in the presence of the Ark he asks "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9) David, dressed as a high priest, leaps and dances in the presence of the Ark. (2 Sam 6:14) David 'Shouts' in the presence of the Ark - shout being a rare Greek word. (2 Sam 6:15)

      Here's a quote from the Gospel of Luke.  See if you notice anything:

      "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Lk 1:39-45)

Did you catch it all?

1) Mary goes to the hill country of Judea ('city of Judah' is in Judea);
2) John the Baptist 'leaps' in Elizabeth's womb (same word used for David's 'leaping')
3) John the Baptist was in the lineage of Aaron the high priest (David was dressed as a high priest)
4) Elizabeth exclaims with a 'loud cry' (same Greek word as David's 'shout')
5) Elizabeth states "Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (David states, "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?")
6) Mary stays in the hill country for about 3 months (The Ark stayed in the hill country of Judea for about 3 months)

Some additional parallels:

7) The word that Gabriel used for 'overshadow' is the same used for God's Spirit over the Ark in the Old Testament;
8) Jesus is God's Law / Covenant made flesh (The Ark contained the Law written in stone)
9) Jesus is the Manna come down from Heaven (Jn 6:51) (The Ark contained a jar with manna)
10) Jesus is the true High Priest (Hebrews 5) (the Ark contained Aaron's staff which would show who the High Priest was).

      If you don't see the blatant indications here I'm not sure we're reading the same book!

     We have at least 10 parallels between Mary and the Old Testament Ark.  So what is the implication?  How pure and holy was the Ark?  Ask Uzzah.  Who's Uzzah?  Uzzah was the unfortunate guy who touched the Ark to keep it from falling into the dirt.  He died for it.  Why did he die?  He, a sinful man, touched what is completely holy, pure and clean.  But what about the dirt?  Wouldn't the Ark have fallen into the dirt?  But even according to Protestant writers like R.C. Sproul Uzzah committed the sin of presumption.  He presumed the dirt was more unclean than he was.  But man disobeys God's commands regularly; dirt doesn't.  Dirt turns to mud when water is poured on it.  Man sins.

     Here we have to apply a little Biblical Studies tool called 'typology.'  Typology is - very, very briefly - looking for parallels in people, events and objects from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  One example of this is Adam and Christ.  St. Paul says that Adam was a "type" of Christ.  One rule of typology is the Old Testament person, event or thing CANNOT be equal or greater than it's New Testament fulfillment.

     So if the Old Testament Ark is that pure, holy and clean what does that say about Mary?  Another way to look at it, gold is considered a symbol of purity.  The O.T. Ark was laid with gold, "inside and out."  What would that say about the Ark of the New Covenant?  It can't be equal or less than the O.T. Ark.  Mary would have to be completely pure, inside and out.

     There are numerous other ways that Scripture shows that Mary was Immaculate (she is the New Eve; she is the Daughter of Zion and more).  But what about objections?

I Object!

     Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters are trained to memorize passages of Scripture from very early on - something we Catholics could learn to do more.  One of the earlier passages memorized seems to disprove the whole notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception: Romans 3:23: "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."

     "How much more clear does Scripture have to be?" some might ask.  How do we respond?  With kindness, respect and, of course, Scripture.

     If "all" in that verse truly means "every last single person" then there's a problem.  Was Jesus a man?  Yes he was 100% and 100% God.  In addition, Hebrews 4:15 tells us Christ was like us, except sin.  So there is one GLARING exception to "All" of Romans 3:23. 

     But what about others?  Are there other exceptions?  In context (read the whole chapter 3 of Romans) Paul is talking about personal sin - sins we actually do - not original sin.  So what about a miscarried or aborted baby?  Did they do any personal sin?  What about infants?  Did they perform any personal sin?  How about severely mentally handicapped people?  Did they perform any personal sins?  The answer is No.  There are MILLIONS of exceptions to Romans 3:23.

    Catholicism merely believes that Mary is another exception.

     I hope this helps shed some light on the subject.

     Have a question or objection?  Feel free to comment below.

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

Teaching Catholics how to explain the Faith with kindness and respect.