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

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!



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.