Mary Worship Angers God!!!

Mary Worship Angers God!!!

The article The Pagan Origin of Mary Worship which appears in a virulently anti-Catholic website (http://www.abcog.org/mary4.htm) asserts that Mary worship angers God.

I agree. Indeed, to worship Mary or any other creature is hateful to God – that would be rank idolatry, plain and simple. That’s why we Catholics don’t worship Mary. We simply honor her.

Last time I checked Church History, the Catholic Church excommunicated a group that worshipped Mary – the Collyridians. I will discuss this extensively later.

The writer of the article comments that as far as Catholic theology is concerned, it is technically impossible for Catholics to "worship" Mary. He says that "worship" has been defined as applying only to "God.” He adds: “the worship of Mary is termed "hyperdullation" (sic) or "veneration," and of the Saints, "dullation.”

The ignorance of the anti-Catholic writer with regard to Catholic teaching is clear as daylight. What on earth is “hyperdullation” and “dullation”? Perhaps, the writer meant hyperdulia and dulia. He didn’t get it right.

Notice, too, that the writer does not provide the definition of hyperdulia and dulia (which he erroneously called hyperdullation and dullation, respectively). Yet, he attacked the Catholic veneration of Mary even if he doesn’t know what is exactly meant by veneration. Nevertheless, he states that “Catholics do not ‘pray to’ Mary,” rather “they ‘ask Mary to pray for us.’” And his conclusion: “But to any non-Catholic, this is exactly the same as praising and praying to someone, i.e., worshipping them.” His basis? Shakespeare’s famous cliché: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

For the anti-Catholic writer, “praising” and “praying” mean “worshipping.” This is clear Biblical illiteracy. While it is true that we praise God when we worship Him, it is equally true that we can praise fellow human beings. That is certainly not against the Bible as it clearly shows that humans may be praised. And Mary herself is praised in the Bible: “Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord?” (Lk. 1:42-43, JB). Applying the (false) logic of the anti-Catholic writer, it would seem that the Bible itself encourages the worship of Mary because it praises her!

Praying also doesn’t always mean worshipping. To “pray” only means to “ask,” “beseech” or “request.” For instance, we read in Acts 8:34: “And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or some other man?” In the Old Testament, we find the patriarch Jacob addressing the angel: “And Jacob asked him, and said; Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed them there” (Gen. 32:29).

The original meaning of prayer as “request” survives to this day in legal jargon. A lawyer ends his pleading with a “prayer” where he requests the Court to give his client the relief sought. The lawyer pleads: “Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court…” Does this mean that the lawyer worships the Court by praying to it? I don’t think so.

Praying to Mary, the angels and the saints is talking to them as our intimate friends and family members and asking them to pray for us to God. After all, we belong to the same “household of faith” (Gal. 6:10) and we are “but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

Placed against the backdrop of Sacred Scripture and plain common sense, the Catholic bashing of the anti-Catholic yet Biblically illiterate author holds no water.

The Queen of Heaven

The anti-Catholic writer quotes Jeremiah 7:18: “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN...that they may provoke me to anger.” He uses this verse to assail the title with which Catholics call Mary – The Queen of Heaven. He argues –

Let's continue our look into darkness - the worship of Mary as the queen of heaven and CO-REDEEMER with JESUS CHRIST [Lord have mercy, Jesus].

The statement is riddled with errors and false accusations against the Catholic Church. First, Catholics don’t worship Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ. While we do use these titles in reference to Mary, still these do not mean that Mary is in equal footing with Christ. We are clear about what the titles of Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix signify. They don’t make Mary a goddess.

First of all, the Mary of the Catholic religion is NOT the Mary of the Bible. They have simply taken her name and superimposed it on top of a pre-existing goddess.

This is a baseless assertion. The Catholic Mary is the Mary of the Bible, and not the Mary of sola scriptura. Catholic teachings on Mary are all Bible-based and are taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

I have already discussed and refuted the oft-recurring canard that our Mary is a superimposed pagan goddess in my article “Pagan Goddesses and Mary.” You may read it here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Goddess.

The above passage from Jeremiah was written hundreds of years BEFORE Mary was born – the queen of heaven was already being worshipped and the people were making God mad.

The Queen of heaven surrounded by a legion of Angels

The “Queen of Heaven” in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17 actually refers to the pagan goddess Ishtar or Astarte, a near-Eastern goddess of fertility. God had all the reason to get mad at what the people are doing – they were worshipping a false god! Look at what they were doing –

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger (Jer. 7:18).

But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil (Jer. 44:17).

So, the people really worshipped Ishtar by making cakes to her and pouring out drink offerings to her. Do we do that to Mary? No. In fact, as I said, the last time I checked Church History, the Catholic Church condemned and excommunicated those who did. St. Epiphanius of Salamis condemned the Collyridians in the 4th-century Arabia who worshiped Mary. He writes:

Certain women there in Arabia have introduced this absurd teaching from Thracia: how they offer up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the ever-Virgin Mary, and all partake of this bread (Panarion 78:13)… It is not right to honor the saints beyond their due (Ibid. 78:23) … Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worshiped him who was born in the flesh from her.... Honor Mary, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshiped, but let no one worship Mary, . . . even though Mary is most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshiped (Ibid. 79:1, 4).

Catholics do refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven but in a much different sense than the pagan goddess Ishtar. Our position is quite simple: Mary is Queen because Jesus is King. Mary is Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King of Kings whose “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36).

The fact that a title is improperly and erroneously applied to a pagan deity does not mean that it cannot be properly and validly applied to someone else.

The title “King of Kings” was a pagan title applied to Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12. However, the same title is applied to God in 1 Timothy 6:15 and to Christ in Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. The same title was used for Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37. Of course we know that Jesus Christ is the true King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

Another example is the title “Morning Star.” The title was used for Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. The angels of God are also referred to as “morning stars” in Job 38:7. In Revelations 22:16, Jesus is called the “bright morning star.”

It is clear that a title wrongly applied in one case can be used correctly and validly in the proper case.

Catholics are not the only ones who use the title of Queen of Heaven to Mary. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, considers the title “Queen of Heaven” as “true enough name and yet does not make he a goddess” (Luther’s Works 21:327).

Evangelical scholars admit the validity of Mary’s title of Queen of Heaven. In his survey of Johannine literature, Prof. Tim Perry concluded: “In the Gospel, Mary symbolizes God’s people. In Revelation, at least in its canonical context, she retains her corporate referent and is exalted as the Queen of Heaven” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 113].

This is the Bible talking, we're not looking at history books, we are looking at God's holy word. Blessed be the Lord Who hath preserved His word so that we don't have to be deceived.

The Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth

God’s Holy Word – the Bible – do points out to Mary’s role as the true Queen of Heaven. Thus, Mary is the true Queen of Heaven because her Son is King whose kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).The Seer of Patmos discloses that he saw that “there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1). This Woman who wears a crown of 12 stars is none other than Mary, the Mother of the King who is destined to rule the world with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 2:9). Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry states that “[f]or the seer, she [Mary] is the exalted Heavenly Queen who is Eve and the persecuted faithful at once” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 114].

Let us indeed thank the Lord for preserving His Word. And He made use of the Catholic Church, His Church, to precisely do that task!

I’ve heard Catholics say things like, "I don't really pray to Mary, I just talk to her. She helps me and she can talk to Jesus for me." What is praying but talking to the Lord?

This is Scriptural blindness, pure unadulterated prejudice and absolute ignorance. Yes, praying is talking to the Lord. But it doesn’t mean we can talk (call, or pray) to our brothers and sisters to ask for their prayers to the Lord.

As early as Old Testament times, there have been holy people – servants of God – who invoke or pray to the saints or holy ones of God. One such example was Job, a righteous and honest man who feared God and shunned evil (Job 1:1). The Bible tells us that he invoked the saints as in fact he was taunted for this by his friend Eliphaz saying, “To which of the saints will you call?” (Job 5:1). This only reveals that Job had the constant practice of invoking God’s saints. We are certain that Job was doing the right thing considering that he was a righteous man compared to his evil friends. The anti-catholic writer is like Eliphaz who taunts Catholics who, like Job, invoke the saints.

Where do you read in the Bible that you are supposed to ask Mary for anything? You can't find that command anywhere in the Bible because we are supposed to ask Jesus Christ Himself.

This is the height of sola scriptura. It is not necessary for us to read in the Bible to ask Mary for anything. It is enough that the Bible commands us: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1). We must ask others to pray for us - it is a Biblical imperative. Asking Mary (the angels and the saints) fulfill that command.

Yes, Mary can hear our request. She may not be omniscient as God, but certainly she is aware of what is happening to us in this world. The testimony of Scripture is clear: the saints in heaven, including Mary, are aware of what is happening here below and they are able and willing to help us through their prayers. Our Lord taught us to pray that the will of the Father be done on earth as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10). Since it is the will of the father that we pray for each other on earth, we are assured that it is also the will of the Father that we pray for each other even in heaven.

While it is true that we can ask Jesus Christ Himself, yet it is also perfectly alright to ask the righteous to pray of our behalf because “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16).

But then I get an answer like, "Well, it doesn't exactly say that we have to pray to her, but ...” If it don't (sic) say it, then we don't have the liberty to add it in!

There’s absolutely no way for us to validate the anti-Catholic author’s claim that he received an answer from a Catholic who allegedly said that the Bible doesn’t exactly say that we have to pray to Mary. Yes, but we’re not adding to what the Bible says when we pray to Mary. We simply follow what the Bible means when it enjoins every Christian to pray for each other (1 Thes. 5:25; James 5:16; 2 Thes. 3:1; Acts 8:24; Col. 1:9, 4:3, 12; 2 Thes. 1:11; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:18-19; Heb. 13:18). The point is clear: we need to pray for each other. And we ask Mary (and the saints), our fellow Christian, to pray for us when we pray to her.

This IS what the Bible says: "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." - 1st Timothy 2:5

Indeed, that is what the Bible says. I just don’t think that the anti-Catholic writer knows what the Bible means.

1 Timothy 2:5 should not be isolated from the context. The verse does not refer to exclusivity of mediation of Jesus Christ. It does not rule out other mediators with Christ. The Bible testifies that God allows his creatures to participate in His scheme of salvation.

Contrary to what the anti-Catholic writer had done, 1 Timothy 2:5 should not be singled out of Chapter 2 of the First Letter of Paul to Timothy. The entire chapter actually deals with our participation with the mediatorship of Christ. If we start reading from verse 1 on to verse 7, we realize that Paul is actually commanding Christians to be mediators and intercessors for all because God is one God for all, and Christ is Mediator for all. Again, it should be emphasized that 1 Timothy 2:1-7 must be read as a unit. We must not isolate the text in 1 Timothy 2:5 from the rest of the chapter.

It is clear from the original Greek text that “heis” in 1 Timothy 2:5 means “pre-eminence” or “primary.” It suggests inclusiveness. It admits other mediators with Christ. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:1 commands all Christians “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.” Praying for someone is an intercessory prayer, which is an act of mediation.

"But tradition and Pope Pious the so-and-so says..." Hold it right there. Let's break it down to see what Jesus Christ thinks about the tradition of men:
And he said unto them, "Full well ye REJECT the commandment of God, that ye may KEEP your own tradition ... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." - Mark 7:9, 13.

Is there any question about what the Lord thinks of tradition?

In my reply above, I haven’t quoted any papal document or even cited the Tradition of the Church. And by the way, was there ever a Pope “Pious the so-and-so” in the catalogue of the Popes? The anti-Catholic writer’s ignorance and prejudice rear its ugly head all too often.

At any rate, let me respond that the anti-Catholic writer misused Mark 7:9, 13 in attacking Sacred Tradition. Misuse of God’s Holy Word is sacrilege, sin.

Does Mark 7:9,13 condemn all traditions, as the anti-Catholic writer would have us believe? No.

Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s Word. The anti-Catholic writes uses this to condemn all tradition. He fails to realize, however, that these verses have nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the Apostles. The Pharisees, in their human tradition of the Corban, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents. This voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother as pointed out by Our Lord in verses 7:10-11 and also in Matthew 15: 4-5.

The Bible does not condemn all traditions. In fact, it unequivocably commands us to obey Sacred or Apostolic Tradition:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thes. 2:15).

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thes. 3:6).

“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“But the new catechism has changed things." No it hasn't. The Catholic religion is the same heretical cult, leading its followers straight to hell with its false sacramental gospel--incidentally, there is no purgatory and no outward activity like belonging to an organization can save your soul. According to the 1992 catechism, Mary is sinless, a perpetual virgin, the mother of God (God ain't got no mother!), queen of heaven and co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ [Lord, have mercy, Jesus] (see articles 491,494,495,508,964,966,968,969)--the same ol' stuff.

Of course, the Catechism doesn’t change the consistent teachings of the Church. Truth does not change.

The above statement from the anti-Catholic writer if full of regurgitated accusations against the Catholic Church. Notice that the anti-Catholic writer, froth in the mouth, has not proven anything against the Church’s doctrines on purgatory, the sacraments and the Church’s teachings on Mary as the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity. We have already answered the attack on Mary’s title as Queen of Heaven above. We shall also explain Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix below.

What surprises me is that the anti-Catholic writer merely rehashes old, long-answered and already-debunked accusations. Now wonder, the anti-Catholic writer takes his cue from his father and master, the accuser of the brethren in Revelations 12: 10: “the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night.”

How can she be co-redeemer with Jesus Christ when the Bible says (speaking of Jesus): Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. -Acts 4:12. You can't get clearer than that.

Here, the anti-Catholic writer bashes a Catholic doctrine he doesn’t know anything about. Notice that he does not even define what is meant by Co-Redemptrix. Neither does he even bother to check on what we Catholics mean by that title.

We don’t deny that Jesus is our one and unique Savior. Without Jesus no one can be saved, including Mary. Truly, the redemptive sacrifice of Our Savior Jesus Christ was completed in Calvary (objective redemption). The application of the redemptive sacrifice, however, will continue in history (subjective redemption). St. Paul clearly emphasizes this point in Colossians 1:24: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.”

By the solemn words of Our Lord Jesus, we can all participate and cooperate with Him in the salvation of souls as He said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me, you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). Thus, we too can save (Jude 24; James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16). Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is the sole Principal Cause of salvation by His life, passion, death and resurrection. We who belong to His Mystical Body who cooperate with Him in saving our fellowmen are but “instrumental causes” of salvation.

Truly then, we are co-redeemers with Christ. But Mary’s co-redemption is qualitatively distinct because of its maternal dimension. As the Mother of the Redeemer, she suffered most with Him. Her suffering as the one most intimately related to Christ was prophesied by holy Simeon, “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed“ (Lk. 2:35). The ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy was in Calvary where the Savior redeemed us by His Cross. And at the foot of the Cross there stood His Mother (Jn. 19:25). If St. Paul could say: “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), how much more Mary? She was there at the foot of the Cross witnessing the suffering of her Son.

"But, the immaculate conception..." That's not in the Bible. "But she was sinless..." That's not in the Bible. "But she is our intercessor to Jesus..." That's not in the Bible. "But she's the mother of God..." That's not in the Bible.

These are all in the Bible. It’s just that the opaque blindness, prejudice and bias of the anti-Catholic writer prevent him from seeing the truth even if it is right there in his very Bible. The problem with the anti-Catholic writer is that his sole authority in matters of faith is his own personal and private interpretation of the Bible. And that is not in the Bible!

"But she suffered as much as Jesus did on the cross..." That's not in the Bible. "But she's more compassionate than God--like your mom is more compassionate than your dad..." That's not in the Bible.

This is a red herring. Catholics don’t believe these things. So, it is clear that the anti-Catholic writer is bashing Catholics for something that they don’t believe. What can be more unjust than that?

"But my family is catholic..." Your family does not determine your eternal salvation--your relationship with Jesus Christ does: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” -2 Corinthians 6:17-18

Indeed, but the Lord Jesus Himself commands us to honor our father and our mother (Mt. 15:4-6). And He condemned the Corban rule because it nullifies this Commandment (Mt. 15:6, Mk. Mk. 7:9-11).

Notice also that the verse (mis)quoted by the anti-Catholic writer has nothing to do with rejecting the family per se. It refers to fleeing from iniquity: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what part have righteousness with iniquity? What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:14-15).

The chopping of Biblical passage by the anti-Catholic writer is meant to deceive. Worse, it is sacrilegious misuse of God’s Sacred Word.

Jesus said, "They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH." God will not accept your worship based on a lie. Repent or perish.

Yes, truly. God will never accept worship based on a lie. That’s why he will not accept any worship from the anti-Catholic writer and his ilk. We have proven that all the accusations of the anti-Catholic writer are false, hence, blatant lies. The Bible says: “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Exo. 23:1). Beyond doubt, the anti-Catholic writer did bear false witness against his neighbor in gross violation of God’s commandment (Exo. 20:16; Dt. 5:20).

The Queen Mother crushes the head of the serpent.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. Was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies!” (Jn. 8:44).

More on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

More on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

In the comments section of Fr. Abe Arganiosa’s blog, a blogger [castroj1] posted a comment regarding my article on perpetual virginity which Fr. Abe graciously published in his wonderful blog.

Here’s the link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-poor-scholarship-shows-in-their.html

Actually, the blogger has two questions: (1) on Mary’s perpetual virginity, and (1) praying 10 Hail Marys for every one Our Father in the rosary. I will answer these questions separately. I hope that, with God’s grace, I will be able to clear up sum of the difficulties of Castroj1 (I’ll call the blogger by that name).

Before I proceed, I note that Castroj1 (I’ll call the blogger by that name) has a rather high regard for the Blessed Virgin Mary. He admits that Mary “was a great woman.” He also says that Mary is in Heaven. For him, “Mary is the most important woman mentioned in the bible as she was the mother of the Messiah (Jesus Christ).” Given his high regard for Mary, Castroj1 is able to conclude that “Mary was a great woman, and the issue of perpetual virginity to me is not important for who (s)he was nor does it affect the great respect that I have for her.”

Yet, it seems to me that despite Castroj1’s esteem for the Blessed Virgin Mary, he grapples with some difficulties about our Catholic teachings on Mary. As he himself candidly admitted: “I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she [Mary] remained a virgin forever.” He also confessed: “I don't see how it is OK to pray 9-10 times to her per each time we pray to God. It is almost as if she is 10 times more important than

God.”

With my response, I hope and pray that God’s grace will enable Castroj1 to understand Catholic teachings on Mary.

On Mary’s perpetual virginity

I think that Castroj1 is an honest Christian. He only has difficulties which need to be resolved. I am glad that he came to the right sources to (hopefully) clear up his misconceptions.

Castroj1 says that he agrees “that the New Testament is not conclusive about the perpetual virginity of Mary.” However, he posits that “if I had to give it a percentage scale where 0% means that it is certain that Mary was always a virgin and 100% that it stopped being a virgin after Jesus birth; then I would choose 70%” [later on, however, he said that he came up with 65%]. What is his basis in saying so?

He avers: “However, I find that Mathew 1:25 seems to implicate (sic) that Joseph "knew" (in the biblical sense) Mary after Jesus was borned” (sic). By his very own admission, his basis in denying Mary’s perpetual virginity is a mere “implication” allegedly in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born.

Castroj1 expounds his point of view: “What can you say about Mt 1:25? I have seen this verse [translated] in Catholic bibles as if they were trying to minimize its impact. As a matter of fact, in the Jerusalem Bible (which I have in Spanish) this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then the verse goes on to say that the rest of the gospel as well as the tradition of the Church suppose it. The problem I see with this argument is that, they are basically saying that if you ignore this verse; then the rest of the gospel agrees with the hypotheses of perpetual virginity. But how can you ignore this verse and then make a conclusion about the gospel. It would be more appropriate to say that based on everything that the gospels say about Mary (including Mt 1:25), it is more likely (more than 50%) that Mary did have more children with Joseph that not.”

Well, it is obvious that Castroj1’s statement is full of errors, inaccuracies, misconceptions, if not misrepresentations. I shall respond briefly to each of the points raised.

“What can you say about Mt 1:25? I have seen this verse [translated] in Catholic bibles as if they were trying to minimize its impact.

Here, Castroj1 imputes bias or dishonesty on the Catholic Church in the translation of Catholic Bibles. Castroj1 accuses our Catholic translations of minimizing the impact of Matthew 1:25. Nothing can be farther from the truth. There is absolutely no need to “minimize the impact” of Matthew 1:25 as it has no impact whatsoever. Evangelical sources affirm this conclusion.

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry comments in footnote 68, p. 57, of Mary for Evangelicals –

“In passing, I draw attention to Mt 1:25, which states that Joseph did not have sex with Mary “until she had borne a son.” In the light of passages concerning Jesus’ brothers (Mt 12:46-50; 13:54-58), readers may infer that Mt 1:25 assumes that Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth, as a normal part of their marriage. However legitimate the inference, it is just that – an inference. Grammar and context both suggest that Matthew’s point is not to allude to Mary and Joseph’s assumption of a normal sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth, but to explicitly affirm one of chastity prior to it. It thus reemphasizes that Jesus can in no way be biologically connected to Joseph” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 57, emphasis added]

So, what can I say about Matthew 1:25? It proves nothing against Mary’s perpetual virginity. As your own evangelical scholar himself admitted, the grammar and context of Matthew 1:25 suggest that Matthew’s point is not to allude to Mary and Joseph’s assumption of a normal sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth. Thus, to read into it anything that suggests that Joseph and Mary had sex after Christ’s birth is an unwarranted and unscriptural inference.

Since the basis of Castroj1’s 70% (or 65%, or more than 50% - he is not sure) position that Joseph and Mary had sex is Matthew 1:25, which, even evangelical scholars like Prof. Tim Perry admit that it doesn’t allude to Joseph and Mary’s assumption of sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth, therefore Castroj1’s position is back to 0%.

As a matter of fact, in the Jerusalem Bible (which I have in Spanish) this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then the verse (sic) goes on to say that the rest of the gospel as well as the tradition of the Church suppose it.

I don’t have the Spanish version of Jerusalem Bible but I have its English translation. Matthew 1:25 of the Jerusalem version states: “and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”

In footnote i, p. 35 of the Jerusalem Bible, it states –

“Lit. ‘and he did not know her until the day she gave birth.’ The text is not concerned with the period that followed and, taken by itself, does not assert Mary’s perpetual virginity which, however, the gospels elsewhere suppose and which the Tradition of the Church affirms. On the ‘brothers’ of Jesus, cf. 12:46+” [The Jerusalem Bible (Manila: Philippine Bible Society, 1966) p. 35].

We may thus note the inaccuracies of Castroj1. He sliced off portions of the footnote. He merely said that “this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.” In reality, the footnote explicitly states that “[t]he text is not concerned with the period that followed and, taken by itself, does not assert Mary’s perpetual virginity which, however, the gospels elsewhere suppose and which the Tradition of the Church affirms.”

The problem I see with this argument is that, they are basically saying that if you ignore this verse; then the rest of the gospel agrees with the hypotheses of perpetual virginity. But how can you ignore this verse and then make a conclusion about the gospel.

I think that the argument proffered by Castroj1 is a misrepresentation of what the footnote says. Nowhere is there a statement nor a clear implication that Matthew 1:25 has to be ignored in order for the rest of the gospel to agree with the “hypotheses” (sic) of perpetual virginity. The Catholic Church in no way ignores this verse, as in fact, this verse is so important for us Catholics because it proves the Virgin Birth or the Virginal Conception of Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church points out that the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, on both grammatical and contextual grounds, does not allude to marital relations between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus Christ. As already pointed out, scholarly evangelical sources affirm this.

It would be more appropriate to say that based on everything that the gospels say about Mary (including Mt 1:25), it is more likely (more than 50%) that Mary did have more children with Joseph that (sic) not.”

No, it is not appropriate. In fact, it is even unbiblical. The cumulative biblical evidence points to the fact that your position that “Mary did have more children with Joseph than not” is more likely 0%.

Castroj1, like evangelical David Gustafson, rests his case against Mary’s perpetual virginity on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, among others. Mr. David Gustafson, in his debate with Catholic Dwight Longenecker, quickly admits as “absolutely not decisive” the Gospel accounts on whether or not “Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage physically.” He says, “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 65] So, if the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive, then what are?

Mr. Gustafson cannot present any conclusive or absolutely decisive scriptural support for the evangelical view that Mary and Joseph physically consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. Instead, he offered what he calls “indirect biblical evidence” that “tends against Mary’s perpetual virginity” [cf. Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 65] p. 70] Notice how similar Mr. Gustafson’s line of thinking with that of Castroj1.

What are these “indirect biblical evidence”? One is Matthew 1:25 which, according to Mr. Gustafson, “asserts” that Joseph “had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son.” He asked, “Does this imply that he did afterwards? Mr. Gustafson left his own question unanswered. Later on, however, he concluded: “As a reader of the English New Testament, I find that these details – even if they are not conclusive – add to my impression that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 70, underscoring supplied].

Let’s summarize Mr. Gustafson’s arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25:

1. The Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point;

2. There is only “indirect biblical evidence” that “tends” against Mary’s perpetual virginity;

3. The use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did have union with Mary after Jesus was born;

4. The details in the English New Testament are not conclusive

5. Yet, they add to the “impression” that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

In short, the evangelical argument against Mary’s virginity based on Matthew 1:25 is “not absolutely decisive” because it rests only on “indirect biblical evidence” which merely “tends” against Mary’s perpetual virginity. The use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 only “implies” that Joseph had union with Mary after Jesus was born although it is “not conclusive” but nevertheless “adds” to the “impression” that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

Excuse me, but is this the best argument that evangelicalism has to offer? Arguments that are not absolutely decisive? Indirect biblical evidence? Tendency? Implication? Inconclusive details? Mere impression?

Mr. Gustafson’s frail and effete arguments against the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 was easily demolished by Catholic apologist, Dwight Longenecker, thus –

“Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily mean that Mary and Joseph did “have union” after Jesus’ birth, since “until” does not always mean that a change took place after the noted event. (When I tell my children to “be good until I return home,” I don’t mean that they can start being bad after I arrive)” [p. 70].

In my response to Castroj1, I wish to amplify Mr. Longenecker’s arguments with scriptural and linguistic support.

I have had the occasion to write on this issue in my refutation of Rev. Anthony Pezzotta’s similar use of the “until” argument in Matthew 1:25 to assail the perpetual virginity of Mary (click: www.bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com). Like Rev. Pezzotta, Castroj1 also anchors his objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25. Let me just share my answer here.

Link:http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Perpetual%20Virginity

Another argument that Pezzotta uses in attacking the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25:

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Pezzotta claims that “[t]his passage says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born, but it does not suggest that he kept her a virgin after that.”[1] This is an unwarranted, if not malicious, assumption. Matthew was only stressing the point that Mary could not have been pregnant from St. Joseph. The immediate intention of Matthew was to prove the miraculous and virginal conception of Jesus and His virgin birth. Pezzotta is reading too much into the verse.

Since Dr. Pezzotta has an undergraduate degree in Greek, he ought to know that the Greek expression “heos hou” does not indicate change. It does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. It only emphasizes the Virgin Birth. It simply states that Joseph had no relations with Mary before or during her pregnancy as can be plainly understood in the context. Matthew was not immediately concerned with discussing Mary’s continued virginity after the birth of Jesus.

Verse 25, the last verse in the first chapter of Matthew, is the summaryor the bottom line of all the previous verses (verses 18-24) which relates how the conception of Jesus happened, without any intervention of Joseph. To interpret it other way - that Joseph had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary after the birth of Jesus - is to change the whole meaning of the chapter.

Closer Biblical study reveals that “until” does not imply change of status. On the contrary, it conveys perpetual or permanent condition. Consider the following verses:

2 Samuel 6:23

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child un

to the day of her death.”\Does it mean that Michal had children after the day of her death?

Isaiah 46:4

“And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.”

Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25

“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Ps. 110:1).

“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor.15:25).

Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Shall the reign of Our Lord stop after he has put all his enemies under his feet? No, because Jesus shall reign forever and ever (Rev. 22:1,3).

Matthew 28:20

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Does this mean that after the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with his followers?

1 Timothy 4:13

“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”

Does this mean that when Paul arrived, Timothy had to stop attending to reading, exhortation and doctrine?

Genesis 26:13

“And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great.”

Did the man become poor after he became very rich? No, the text merely says that the man collected money until he was very rich. The man did not start losing money after he became very rich.

Deuteronomy 2:15

“For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed.”

Did the anger of God cease at their death? It’s unlikely, unless there is no life after death. They remain as God’s enemy even after their death.

2 Kings 6:25

“And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.”

Did they lift the siege after the ass’s head was sold? The situation turned worse.

1 Chronicles 6:32

“And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacle of the congregation with singing, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem: and then they waited on their office according to their order.”

Did they stop ministering before the tabernacle after the temple was built? No, they continued afterwards not anymore in the tent but in the temple.

2 Chronicles 21:15

“And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.”

Did the man get well after his bowels come out? He continued to be sick afterwards. In fact, his condition got even worse.

2 Chronicles 26:15

“And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong.”

Did the man’s fame stop after ­he became strong? Did the man stop being strong when he was already strong?

Psalm 57:1

“Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.”

After the calamities were over, did God cease to be merciful? No, for God’s mercy endures forever (Ps. 136).

Psalm 123:2

“Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us.”

Will they stop waiting upon the Lord after God had mercy on them?

Ecclesiastes 2:3

“I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.”

After he has seen the good in the sons of men, did he stop searching for wisdom?

Ezekiel 24:13

“In thy filthiness is lewdness: because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee.”

After God has satisfied His fury, will those who have died be still purged for their filthiness?

Matthew 13:33

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”

Did the woman take out the leaven after the flour was leavened?

Matthew 18:34

“And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.”

How can a man pay his debt while being tortured in prison? Here, “until” is actually used to indicate infinite duration.

2 Peter 1:19

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.”

After the light has shone in the dark, the day dawned and the day star rose in our hearts, should we stop taking heed of the sure word of prophecy? Again, “until” means an infinite duration or a perpetual condition.

We can add more to the verses but that would be belaboring the obvious. I hope that Dr. Pezzotta already gets the point. In all the verses cited, the Bible is abundantly clear that no change of status is conveyed by “until.” On the contrary, it is a Hebraic way of expressing a permanent condition or state. Instead of negating Mary’s perpetual virginity, the expression “until” supports it.”

I therefore ask Castroj1 if in the verses given, a change of status is conveyed by “until.” If no change is implied after the time indicated, then, biblically speaking, your argument holds no water.

CONCLUSION:

Castroj1 states: “To me, Mary was a great woman, and the issue of perpetual virginity to me is not important for who (s)he was nor does it affect the great respect that I have for her. I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.”

Indeed, Mary was (and is) a great woman. Her perpetual virginity is part of who she was and of her greatness.

Castroj1 involves himself in big contradiction when he claims that the issue of perpetual virginity is not important for who Mary was nor does it affect the great respect Castroj1 has for her. If that is the case, then why is he openly opposed to Mary’s perpetual virginity if the same is not important for Mary’s identity? Why is Castroj1 so against it when, according to him, it does not affect the great respect he has for Mary? Why not just believe? Honestly, I just can’t understand where this double standard is coming from.

Our beloved brother Castroj1 also honestly acknowledged: “I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.” I think that the reason why you don’t understand the importance of Mary remaining a virgin forever is that you allow your “protestant” or “evangelical” mindset to limit your appreciation of God’s truth as revealed in Scripture and constantly taught by His Church as shown by the unbroken Tradition of the Christian faith.

Castroj1 says he believes at least 70% that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth and that she many children by Joseph. You see, Castroj1’s evangelical belief allows him 70% only of the truth. I thought that truth must be whole and entire – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Truth brings us holiness, so it must be total: “Sanctify them in truth: thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). Truth must be total – 100% – otherwise it’s heresy if it’s only partial.

The beauty of Catholicism is that it has the splendor of truth – the pure, entire and unadulterated truth. We don’t accept the tyranny of relativism. We have the teaching authority of the Church to guide us. The Lord Himself solemnly declares: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and

whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt. 16:18-19). We believe the assurance of the Savior that He will never abandon His Church: “I will be with you always until the end of time” (Mt. 28:20). Thus, the Church cannot teach error because it has promise of the Lord that He will send the Spirit of Truth to guide it and to lead it into ALL the truth: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:26).

Unlike in protestantism and evangelicalism where you belong, there is no central teaching authority – everything is interpretation – hence, truth remains to be subjective and relative (and that is no truth at all). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has a teaching authority as willed by its Divine Founder. Thus, when as doctrine is doubted or debated, the Church settles the issue once and for all, as in the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Truly, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). When our leaders make a binding decision, we obey and submit them because it is written: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb. 13:17).

I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.

Since you believe that Mary had many children, my question to you is: What is the theological significance of Mary having many children? Or, What is the Christological focus of your belief that Mary had many children?

Let me share with you the importance of Mary’s remaining a virgin forever.

For Catholics, dogmas are not sterile propositions. They contain multifaceted truths which affect other aspects of our faith life. In short, truth is interconnected.

The Catholic Church emphatically affirms the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is a corollary truth to the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. It is intended to safeguard the virginal conception of Jesus Christ which is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The Virgin Birth points out the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mary’s perpetual virginity is a sign of that uniqueness. Hence, God’s wisdom decreed Mary’s perpetual virginity to safeguard the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. An only childwas unusual during the time of Christ. If Jesus were not the only child of Mary, His birth would not appear miraculous. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, the people of His time would always suspect that He was born the normal way.

Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man. It is also further affirmation of the holiness and Deity of Jesus. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been). As the ancient Ark of the Covenant was consecrated for sacred use, so the New Ark could not be defiled by common usage.

Moreover, Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.

An early church father, Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446 AD), saw the perpetual virginity of Mary as proof of the divinity of her Son. He said:

“No mother of a man has ever remained a virgin. Have you seen how this birth offers us a twofold consideration regarding the One who is born? If he had been born like us, he would have been a man, but if he kept his Mother a virgin, it is clear, for those who know how to think, that the One who is born is God” [Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 2, cited in Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius, 1999) pp. 262-263].

Pope Leo the Great (ca. 400-461) affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity in its incarnational context in his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople:

“He was truly conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of his Virgin Mother, who bore him while preserving her virginity just as, preserving her virginity, she conceived him … Fecundity was given to the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but the reality was taken from her body … He was born in a “new type of birth” in that undefiled virginity experienced no concupiscence, yet supplied the material for the flesh. From the Mother the Lord took his nature, but no fault; and the Lord Jesus Christ, born from a virgins womb, does not have a nature different from ours just because his birth was an unusual one” [Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 22: 25 December 441; quoted in Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 159].

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry, in assessing the patristic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity, states: “It is in these christological and soteriological contexts that Mary’s virginity – whether ante partum, in partu or post partum – arises” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 150].

Simply, the focus of the Catholic Church in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity is on Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and not on Mary herself.

Pope Pius XII praying before the image of the Madonna and Child

I hope that this article will help clear some of the doubts and difficulties of our beloved brother Castroj1. I just would like to hasten to add that there’s much for him to learn about the beauty and splendor of the Catholic faith. I invite him to consider and study our Faith with an openness of mind and heart to the gentle voice of the Spirit of Truth. Come on over, brother!

---

[1] TE, p. 139.

10:1 – Is Mary greater than God?

10:1 – Is Mary greater than God?

The same blogger [castroj1] who posted in the comments section of Fr. Abe Arganiosa’s blog raised a question regarding praying 10 Hail Marys for every one Our Father in the rosary. I will respond to that question which, hopefully, clear the lingering doubts in Castroj1’s mind.

Here’s the link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-poor-scholarship-shows-in-their.html

Mary was a great woman; but I just don't understand and can't understand why when Catholics pray you have 9-10 Hail Mary's for each Abba Father prayer.

Mary is the most important woman mentioned in the bible as she was the mother of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) but I don't see how it is OK to pray 9-10 times to her per each time we pray to God. It is almost as if she is 10 times more important than God. This is bordering dangerously close to idolatry (sic).

This is typically asked by those who do not know the essence or meaning of the rosary. Just like Castroj1, they accuse us Catholics of paying more attention to Mary because we address TEN Hail Mary’s to her while just ONE Our Father to God. Invariably, Protestants ask why Catholics say ten Hail Mary’s for every one Our Father. Is Mary greater than the Father?

The ratio of 10:1 (ten Hail Mary’s to one Our Father) actually shows God’s infinite greatness compared to Mary’s finite greatness. Mary remains a creature. Her greatness is due only to the sheer munificence of God’s grace given her to the fullest. It takes ten Hail Mary’s to equal one Our Father. Otherwise stated, it takes ten Hail Mary’s before we can even consider approaching one Our Father.

Protestants take Catholics to task for mentioning Mary more than Jesus in the rosary. Well, they should realize that the rosary is primarily a means of devotion to Mary. Even then, the core of the rosary is really Jesus. In the Hail Mary, Jesus is at the center: “blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.”

The frequency of the mention of Mary in any particular setting really depends on one’s perspective. In our experience as Catholics, Mary is not the core component of our faith. Jesus is. However, we cannot simply neglect Mary because she plays an integral role in the redemption of the whole world. She said “Yes” to God’s plan and Jesus was born to redeem us. One cannot simply talk about Jesus without being grateful to His mother for giving Him to us. It is true that without Mary’s free acceptance of her calling from God, we would not have Jesus. Moreover, the fact that the Bible refers to her in such a very special way is good enough reason to talk about her.

Mentioning Mary often, even more than Jesus, does not make Jesus less important. In the Protestant version of the Book of Esther, “God” and “Lord” do not appear. Does that mean that God does not exist? Would the absence of any mention of “God” or “Lord” in Esther make the author of that book an atheist?

So, there’s no Biblical basis for your accusation that praying 9-10 times to her [Mary] each time we pray to God’ is “bordering dangerously close to idolatry.” Furthermore, your statement that “[i]t is almost as if she is 10 times more important than God” reveals that you are judging us based on your erroneous perception (“as if”) on how we Catholics pray. I just don’t know what you mean by “bordering dangerously close to idolatry” because you don’t define what is meant by idolatry.

Again, by just consulting a Bible concordance, one can easily find that David is mentioned more than Jesus in the Bible (Moses follows Jesus in frequency). Does this mean that David is greater than Jesus? In the New Testament, Paul is mentioned more than Jesus. That also does not mean that Paul is greater than Jesus. So, even if Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in the rosary, it does not mean that Mary is greater than Jesus. The “statistical” argument does not hold any water whatsoever. In fact, Jesus even said, “Not every one that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 7:21).

The rosary is just one of the devotions we have to Mary. And, please note that the rosary is not our only prayer. Formulary prayers, like the rosary, are not the only prayers Catholics pray. The Catholic Church has a beautiful theology of prayer that Protestants vaguely know about. The Church encourages her children to engage in spontaneous prayer, vocal prayer, mental prayer, contemplative or meditative prayer, liturgical prayer, as well as a host of other forms of prayer constituting her inexhaustible treasury of prayers that ascend like fragrant incense to the throne of the Almighty.

Perhaps, the reason why the rosary invites your attention is that it is “a very Catholic thing to do,” hence, your bias and prejudice as a Protestant or Evangelical makes you react against it. But please understand, the rosary is no longer just a Catholic thing; it is fast becoming a Protestant thing as well. We may thus conclude that praying the rosary isactually a Christian thing to do.

Protestants are now beginning to appreciate the beauty of the rosary as a Gospel prayer. Neville Ward, a Methodist pastor, wrote a book on the rosary – Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy. For him, the rosary is a symbol of “religious hoping and wanting” and is a “stimulus for praying in new ways.” The mysteries of the rosary speak of human existence; they are “forms of experience” – illustrated in the life of Jesus and his mother. They are “images of reality.” “Nothing can happen to us that is not contained there; all that is there can happen to us now. To pray the Rosary is to try yet again to keep in touch with life in its fullness, to insure that we do not evade or miss anything” (cf. http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/Summer2003.html)

Anglicans have also recently developed their own version of the rosary. They admit: “The use of prayer beads, or Rosaries, has not been common to Anglican prayer life. Many objections have been raised on apparent ‘Marian’ nature of the Catholic Rosary. However, there is a growing interest in the tradition of using prayer beads as an aid to contemplative prayer” (cf. http://www.franciscan.org.au/anglicanrosary.html).

A Lutheran scholar, Very Reverend Dr. H.W.M. Tajra gave a lecture on The Psalter of Mary: A Lutheran Approach to the Holy Rosary for the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to him, “The Holy Rosary is an evangelical exercise of piety entered on the life of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is a quiet, gentle meditation on God’s wondrous plan for the salvation of mankind which was fulfilled by the incarnation, passion and resurrection of his only-begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. It is he, the Christ, the divine Master, who is the focus of the Rosary, and the one who is chiefly celebrated therein. The Rosary is above all a Christocentric exercise of devotion, which places our Lord, as he ought to be placed, in the very center of our prayers and concerns.” Dr. Tajra concluded his lecture with a very touching appeal: “May we all, praying in that Psalter each day, be accorded the grace to enable us to follow the way to salvation, the way to her Son, which the Blessed Mother, who is also our Blessed Mother, indicates so clearly to us” [Dr. H.W.M. Tajra, The Psalter of Mary: A Lutheran Approach to the Holy Rosary (UK: Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, January 1999) 3].

So, there’s no reason for Protestants and Evangelicals to attack Catholics for praying the rosary if they also don’t attack their brother Protestants. That would mean double standard.

Nobody will ever question that Mary is in Heaven, but a lot of Catholics that I have known through the years would not say much if somebody curses Jesus or God but if they curse Mary; then they get extremely angry. By the way, I want to be clear that I don't course on anyone's name and certainly not Mary, God, Jesus, etc. Nor do I believe it is OK to do so by anybody else.

This comment, I’m afraid, is borne out by prejudice or bias. Castroj1 claims: “a lot of Catholics that I have known through the years would not say much if somebody curses Jesus or God but if they curse Mary; then they get extremely angry.” I think that this comment is based purely on perception, hence, subjective. While I don’t want to question our brother Castroj1’s experience, I wish to point out, however, that he is making a hasty generalization. His own subjective experience cannot serve as a basis for a conclusion. Let me stress objective facts.

Protestants and Evangelicals, I believe, don’t curse God. So, the opportunity for Catholics to get “extremely angry” at them for cursing Jesus or God [Is Jesus not God to you?] is almost nil. Chances are, Protestants and Evangelicals say things against the Blessed Virgin Mary which really upsets us. Our reaction is borne out by our love for the Lord Jesus whose Mother she is.

The history of the Church proves that when Our Lord is blasphemed or cursed, Catholics rise up to condemn the outrage. When Arians blasphemed Our Lord Jesus Christ by denying His Divinity, the Church held the Council of Nicea to condemn Arius’ heretical teachings and anathematized him. The same thing happened to Nestorius when he denied the hypostatic union. The Church condemned him in the Council of Ephesus. When the Nazis and Communists mocked God by denying His existence, the Church vigorously condemned their godless ideology and teachings.

When God is exorcised from the classrooms by banning school prayer, Catholics are in the frontlines denouncing this evil. When God’s handiwork – the unborn babies – are sacrificed in the altar of convenience with the sanction of the State, who do you think most vociferously and resolutely acts against it? The Catholic Church. Is not abortion a way of cursing God, the origin and giver of all life?

I recall that when the blasphemous and heaven-insulting The Da Vinci Code was shown, we were the ones who opposed and rallied against it.

So, please brother, don’t let your Protestant or Evangelical prejudice and bias blind you to the greater reality and objective truth. I hope and pray that you will be less judgmental of us Catholics next time. Better yet, why don’t you study the teachings of the Catholic Church right from Catholic sources and not what your pastors and teachers tell you about what we Catholics believe. Your posting in the comments section of Fr. Abe is a good sign. I welcome it as God’s grace. May you continue your search, in an attitude of humility and love for God’s truth, by communicating with us directly. My email address is bro_marwil@yahoo.com. Or, you may opt to correspond to Fr. Abe through email at splendor236@yahoo.com.

God bless you!

THERE’S NO “HO HUIOS” IN JOHN 4:5

THERE’S NO “HO HUIOS” IN JOHN 4:5

[This article has been rendered moot and academic by my friend Rodimus’ reconsideration of his previous stance on John 1:1 and John 4:5. However, I decided to post this for whatever it is worth, and especially for those who may have read the already deleted article of Rodimus, in the interest of fairness. Also, the reader may find the Internet sources useful. For the sake of charity, harsh words against Rodimus has been carefully omitted.]

In a past article (“Ridiculous Answers of the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry”) I responded to the following argument from Rodimus of the Bereans –

“Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children?”

I explained –

“In my refutation of Rodimus’ supposition that Matthew 13:55 as “comprehensive” in proving that Mary had other children, I did raise the issue of the use of the definite article “the” as an added proof that “Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.”

I mentioned the use of “the” in Mark 6:3 merely as one of the cumulative evidence for the Catholic position that Jesus is Mary’s only Child. I don’t rest my case on that argument alone; I pointed out its significance. As Rodimus himself admitted, “the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences.” Yes, but its significance cannot be discounted.”

Likewise, I noted -

That Jesus is the only Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored by the fact that He is always referred to as “THE” Son of Mary. The article “the” [“ho” - the Greek letter o’ (o with the iota subscript)] is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, ho theos refers to the oneness or unicity of God: there is only one God. Thus, ho huios means that Jesus is the only Son of Mary just as He is the only Son of God.

I based my observation on the rendering of Mark 6:3 as compared to that in John 4:5. I said -

Let us now consider the Bible verses we cited. I used Mark 6:3 while Rodimus used John 4:5.

Mark 6:3 is rendered in Greek (Romanized, for easy reading) “ouch houtos estin ho tektOn ho huios tEs marias kai erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

In John 4:5 where Joseph is [allegedly] mentioned to be “the Son” of Jacob is rendered differently: “erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

Given the comparison of the two verses, I further observed –

I don’t think I clearly saw “ho huious” in John 4:5 in reference to Joseph “the son” of Jacob which Rodimus used to counter my use of Mark 6:3 (which clearly mentions “ho huios”).

Then I checked at least two English versions of the Bible. One was the New International Version which is a favorite among evangelicals and the other one was the Revised Standard Version, an ecumenical translation –

In the New International Version, evangelicals’ favorite translation, John 4:5 is rendered: “So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.” I also didn’t see the expression Joseph “the son” of Jacob. So also in the Revised Standard Version, the expression “the son” of Jacob is conspicuously absent: “So he came to a city in Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.”

I also checked Tagalog versions of the Bible. They all mention “kaniyang anak” instead of “ang anak ni Jacob” –

Ang Biblia:

Sumapit nga siya sa isang bayan ng Samaria, na tinatawag na Sicar, malapit sa bahaging lupang ibinigay ni Jacob kay Jose na kaniyang Anak.

Ang Salita ng Diyos:

Pumunta nga siya sa Sicar na isang lungsod ng Samaria. Ito ay malapit sa lupaing ibinigay ni Jacob sa kaniyang anak na si Jose.

It is thus clear that the expression “the son” of Jocob in the English Bibles is not in the verse. So thus “ho huios” in Greek.

In a recent post in my blog (“Liar! Liar!”), I listed the passage in John 7:5 in several English translations. Not a single one of them has the expression “the son” of Jacob. Of course, Rodimus of the Bereans virulently reacted. He was perhaps stung by the rather sharp diction I employed in my article for which I apologize to my brother Rodimus.

Nevertheless, I noticed how Rodimus employed the classic tactic of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) which he severely criticized in one of his latest articles attacking me. The moderator of the Bereans dropped all the English versions of the Bible. Why did he do that? Because the English versions of the Bible do not support his thesis that “in John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob.” He had to find a basis to prove his point.

To set the record straight, before I posted my article Liar! Liar!, I did check on the Greek of John 4:5. As I said, there’s just no “ho huios” there. It says: ““erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

And what was my source? The UBS Greek New Testament by Peter Ballard. Its Romanized form is available at his website at http://www.peterballard.org. If the reader can’t access it online (I fear it has already been pulled out), they can email Mr. Ballard and request for it. Here’s his email: pb@peterballard.org. Else, they can email me directly and I’ll forward the UBS Greek New Testament to those who’d request it. My email is bro_marwil@yahoo.com.

I also consulted the authoritative Greek New Testament by Nestle Aland [See: Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979)]. It also states “TO HUIO AUTOU” in John 4:5.

So, it is simply not true that, contrary to what Rodimus stated, that I did not consult the Greek text of John 4:5, and that I am “deceived and deceiving.”

Rodimus was also mistaken when he referred to his Internet sources as “Greek manuscripts.” Manuscripts (MSS) are the parchments, scrolls, or codices on which scriptures were copied or written. I doubt it if Rodimus has these priceless MSS. I don’t own one. These MSS are so rare and are now just museum pieces. The Vatican owns several of them. The Internet sources that Rodimus cited do not qualify as MSS; they are, at best, secondary sources.

Rodimus used the Greek Interlinear. Unfortunately, Rodimus’ source renders the phonetic equivalent of the words TW HUIW as “HO HUIOS.” It gives the base form but not the inflected form that appears on the sacred text. The Greek text in John 4:5 is much more nuanced than what Rodimus’ source says. [Note: He already reconsidered his position thereby rendering the discussion here moot and academic].

For the readers who don’t own a Greek New Testament, please click this http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0206 so that you can actually see the Greek text in Mark 6:3 and compare it with the text in John 45 by clicking this http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0404.

Now, we are ready to study the Greek words based on the analysis from the University of York (available at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/).

Let’s first see the words used in Mark 6:3.

Mark 6:3 clearly uses the Greek letter o’ [o with the iota subscript] which clearly reads “HO.” Here it is:

Current word Inflected form: Base form: Major1: pronoun Major2: article Case: nominative Number: singular Gender: masculine

For your reference, please click:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=02060306#h

So, it is obvious that Mark 6:3 uses “ho” in its inflected form. The base form of “ho” is also “ho.” The word “ho” as used in Mark 6:3 is a pronoun, an article, in a NOMINATIVE CASE, singular and masculine.

Now, let’s compare it with the word used in John 4:5. Here it is:

Current word Inflected form: Base form: Major1: pronoun Major2: article Case: dative Number: singular Gender: masculine

For your reference, please click:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=04040517#h

Notice the difference between the word used in Mark 6:3 and in John 4:5. The word used in John 4:5 is “TO” which is in the INFLECTED FORM. The base form “HO” is not used in John 4:5 but rather its inflected form. “TO” is a pronoun, an article, in a DATIVE CASE, singular and masculine. Mark 6:3 uses “HO” in its INFLECTED FORM. It is in NOMINATIVE CASE. On the other hand, John 4:5 uses “TO,” the inflected form of the base form “HO” and it is in DATIVE CASE.

Hi ho! Hi ho! There’s no “HO” in John 4:5!

And we’re not done yet! There’s still the controversy between “HUIOS” and “HUIO.” Rodimus maintains that “HUIOS” appears in John 4:5. Let’s see.

Let’s go back to Mark 6:3. The Greek text clearly uses “HUIOS.” Take a look at this:

Current word Inflected form: Base form: Major1: noun Case: nominative Number: singular Gender: masculine

For your reference, please click:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=02060307#h

Note that Mark 6:3 uses “HUIOS” in its inflected form from the base form of the same word. “HUIOS,” as used in Mark 6:3 is a noun, in NOMINATIVE CASE, singular and masculine.

But what about John 4:5? Does it also mention “HUIOS” as Mark 6:3 does? See for yourself:

Current word Inflected form: Base form: Major1: noun Case: dative Number: singular Gender: masculine

For your reference, please click:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=04040518#h

There you go! John 4:5 uses the inflected form “HUIO” from the base form of “HUIOS.” Compared to “HUIOS” in Mark 6:3, the word used in John 4:5 is “HUIO” which is a noun, in DATIVE CASE, singular and masculine.

Look, Ma! There’s no “HUIOS” in John 4:5! Simply put, no “HO HUIOS” appears in the Greek text of John 4:5.

Truly, Rodimus is wrong and all the Bible scholars and translators are right. They all correctly translated John 4:5 with the expression “his son Joseph” and not “the son of Joseph” contrary to what Rodimus erroneously assumed.

In passing, let me express my apprehension. I am sincerely disturbed by the way Rodimus brushed aside the English translations of the Bible just because they don’t support his thesis that “the son” of Jacob appears there. If the English translations are not reliable and the scholars debate on the Greek texts, how can we infallibly know the infallible sense of the infallible Scriptures? The attitude of Rodimus in cavalierly brushing aside the English Bibles just because they don’t suit his purpose is something to worry all Bible Christians. What then happened to the perspicacity of the Bible? Since most Bible readers are no Greek experts, can we honestly rely on the English translations on our shelves?

[NOTE: Since Rodimus already apologized for the words he used in his articles, I do accept his apology. I am greatly humbled by the truly magnanimous gesture of Rodimus who I still honor as a “brother and a friend” in Christ. My friend’s apology behooved me to have a closer introspection on my own actuations. I take this opportunity to also ask for forgiveness for the caustic remarks that I used in my articles. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I believe that, henceforth, we can still discuss our differences with “gentleness and respect” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). Thus, the article above is an edited version of an otherwise sardonic article by yours truly. I firmly believe that there is a Christian way to deal with our differences, no matter how serious these may be. The debate between MR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER (Catholic) and MR. DAVID GUSTAFSON (Evangelical) is instructive [See: Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003)]. We can disagree without being disagreeable.]

MEA CULPA! MEA CULPA! MEA MAXIMA CULPA!

MEA CULPA! MEA CULPA! MEA MAXIMA CULPA!


“Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.”
- Proverbs 12:1

Our most worthy opponent, Rodimus of the Bereans, has just recently published in his blog a retraction, or more aptly a reconsideration, of his previous stand on John 1:1 and John 4:5 regarding the “huios ho” controversy. He likewise apologized to Fr. Abe, Mr. Cenon Bibe and myself for the words he used during our rather polemical exchanges.

I am sincerely touched by Rodimus’ truly magnanimous gesture. His apology behooved me to an examination of conscience to also see my faults and failures.

I wish to take this opportunity to ask for Rodimus’ forgiveness for the strong words I used in my exchanges with him. Having taken stock of what had happened, I realized that failed to “turn the other cheek” when I was hurt. I tried to fight fire with fire. I regret that our discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks against each other.

In retrospect, what I really wanted from the beginning was a friendly discussion of issues sans the usual acrimony that attends religious debates. I stated this clearly in my first article in response to Rodimus’ post. I said –

“I was genuinely sincere when I told him that I was delighted to receive his email. I told myself that finally I would have a dialogue partner who may be reasonable, fair and a sincere seeker for the truth. What I had in mind was entering into an honest and scholarly dialogue with an evangelical friend. That way, I believed that we would be raising the standard of apologetics in this country – far different from what the ADD and INC are doing.

My idea was to imitate the exchanges between MR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER (Catholic) and MR. DAVID GUSTAFSON (Evangelical). Theirs was a friendly debate – sans the acrimony and rancor that are usually noticed in religious discussions. The antagonists in fact published their discussion. The output was the book Mary: A Catholic Evangelical Debate published by Brazos Press in 2003. I purchased that book immediately after I received the email from RODIMUS. I intended to pattern our discussion to the style and manner of those two respected gentlemen…”

One may also note my reply to Rodimus’ email dated 1 December 2008 which I posted here in my blog. In my reply, I merely answered his questions matter-of-factly. I painstakingly refrained as much as I can from making any snide remarks or comments.

Also, in our email exchanges, please note that we have been pleasant and cordial with each other.

As I already pointed out in the past, I treated Rodimus’ emails to me as private because they were addressed to me alone. I respected the privacy of communication so much that I did not publicly comment on the contents of Rodimus’ private emails to me. It was only when he made them public that I also responded publicly.

In my first post, I think that I was as charitable as possible. I simply voiced out what I really felt regarding his first article. Nevertheless, I sincerely honored Rodimus with the title of “brother.” I also called him “friend.”

At this juncture, I would like to mention that in his first blog article about the perpetual virginity of Mary, Rodimus made it appear that Catholic Answers and Defensores Fidei Foundation contradict each other’s position. I would have appreciated it if Rodimus did not drag the name of Defensores Fidei Foundation into the controversy. Since Rodimus was reacting to an article I posted in my blog regarding Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, he should have spared Defensores Fidei and concentrated on me personally instead. A blog is something that is personal. It is like an online diary. So, what I write there are my personal views and experiences and do not necessarily reflect those of Defensores Fidei although I am its member. I am thankful that Defensores Fidei did not disown me. My colleagues and friends supported me all the way. Since, Rodimus dragged Defensores Fidei into the controversy, I retaliated by also dragging the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry into the fray. Thus, I did not “turn the other cheek.”

It was when Rodimus came out with his second post that made me really very much upset because of his potshots at me. I blew the whistle and I cried foul when he made snide remarks about my profession. Remember his story about the funny lawyer? He stated that I did precisely what the “funny lawyer” was trying to do in his story. Of course, Rodimus committed a mistake there because as I pointed out the accused in his story is entitled to an acquittal on reasonable doubt.

I really resented what Rodimus did. My being a lawyer has nothing to do with my ministry as an apologist. He should have spared my profession from being dragged into the controversy. As a lawyer, only my clients, the courts and my peers have the competence to judge my ability. Rodimus clearly has no right to make potshots at my profession. He did so again in a recent post attacking me as a “church father-hopping lawyer-apologist.”

Rodimus, I hope you realize that we aren’t, in a way, on equal footing. I have my face, name and reputation which you can attack, malign or even destroy. The Internet is so public that almost anyone has access to it. On the contrary, you have nothing much to lose because your identity is hidden. You are using a codename. You don’t have a face. We have the faintest idea of who you are. So, you can attack us and destroy us if you want because you can afford to do so. Even if we retaliate, it doesn’t do you any harm because you are anonymous compared to us whose identities are out in the open. Please understand that we do have our reputation and profession to protect. Your anonymity does not make you accountable and responsible for your actuations. As a Christian, I urge you not to abuse the impunity afforded by your anonymity.

Our personal and professional lives are not the issues here. We can discuss matters without resorting to personal attacks. I ask forgiveness if I also called into question your professional competence as an accountant and internal auditor. I plead guilty for not “turning the other cheek.” I retaliated with equally strong language. Indeed, our all-too-human weaknesses get the better of us.

When you apologized, you are not diminished one whit by your humility and candor. You emerged bigger in my estimation than before. I accept your apology. I hope you also accept mine. I am also sorry for hurting you with my scathing invectives.

I believe that there are Christian ways to discuss, if not settle, our differences. I note that the doctrinal differences that divide us are older and bigger than ourselves. They can and will outlive us. Yet, we can be charitable with each other in dealing with these differences.

Remember my favorite evangelical author which I often quote in my posts? His name is Prof. Tim Perry. I would like to share what he beautifully stated in his book Mary for Evangelicals –

“Against an increasingly hostile, intolerant and powerful secularism, Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants in North America have found themselves thrown together, allies in the fight for the lives of those whom the culture regards as disposable. In front of abortion clinics, courthouses, legislative assemblies, and even in jail cells and at adoption centers and hospices, many of us made a radical discovery: we are one in Christ. Our unity is a gift of God already given; our disunity reflects the all-too-human ability to abuse, ignore and deny that which God has already done. In this case, the Father has elected one people, saved them through the work of one Lord and united them by one Holy Spirit. Ecumenism is not about negotiating a series of treaties among divided churches, but about those churches learning to accept what God has accomplished and discerning together what unity-in-the-truth means and implies.

Unity-in-the truth in the light of our disunity means that’s serious disagreements persist over just what is the truth, and as a result visible unity is at present and for the foreseeable future impossible...

But unity-in-the-truth as a gift of God already accomplished in the cross and resurrection and poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit also means that what unites – namely, the triune God – is infinitely greater than what divides. Taking this to heart, growing numbers of traditionally minded Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians in North America have set out to articulate as clearly and as charitably as possible where we can agree and where we cannot. This has led to many fruitful semiformal and informal conversations that in turn have led to many fruitful semiformal and informal conversations that in turn have led not only to greater mutual understanding and appreciation, but also to a deeper perception of just how intractable some of these difficulties, humanly speaking, are. Still, conversations are ongoing, and God has been known to work miracles. I hope that this book [Mary for Evangelicals] helps to contribute to these conversations and at least does not provide the Holy Spirit with another human impediment to be removed is the visible unity for which our Lord prayed is to become a reality.”

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

“The Church Father Hopping of a Lawyer-Apologist”

“The Church Father Hopping of a Lawyer-Apologist"

RODIMUS of the BEREANS published in his blog (http://rodimus-apologetics.blogspot.com) an article with the title “The Church Father Hopping of a Lawyer-Apologist.” I take this article as an attack against me as can be seen in the title itself. I reserve my right to respond to this article as charitably as I can. However, in view of my very tight schedule these days, I asked one of our colleagues in the Defensores Fidei Foundation to answer some of the issues raised by our good friend RODIMUS. I thank BRO. CARLOS PALAD for the article which, with his permission, I post below.




Rodimus recently accused our esteemed Brother Marwil of hypocrisy for quoting Tertullian in favor of Blessed Mary as the New Eve, only to quote St. Jerome (who criticizes Tertullian as not belonging to the Church) in favor of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. Thus, according to Rodimus, Marwil is engaging in Church Father-hopping and hypocrisy.

First, a few historical facts:

1) Quintius Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born c. 160, and converted to Catholicism in 195 AD. Around 200 AD he was ordained a priest.

2) Tertullian's Catholic period lasted for about 11 years (195 - 206 AD). It is his writings from this period that are mostly quoted by Catholic theologians and writers as witnesses to the steadfast doctrine of the Church.

3) Beginning in 206 AD, Tertullian began to be dissatisfied with the "laxity" of the Roman Church, and fell into the Montanist heresy. A few years later, Tertullian formed his own sect, the Tertullianists. The Montanist and Tertullianist heresies taught, among other things, that some sins can never be forgiven at all by bishops and priests. Tertullian died in 220; more than 200 years later, his last remaining followers were converted by St. Augustine to the Catholic faith.

4) The writings of Tertullian c. 206-220 fall within his heretical period. However, just as 1+1=2 does not become wrong simply because it is uttered by an idiot, so not everything Tertullian wrote in 206-220 can be considered as heretical. Thus, where the teachings of Tertullian even in his Montanist period are in complete conformity with the writings in his Catholic period, the relevant quotes may still be cited as witnesses to apostolic teaching.

To pick an analogy: no Protestant divine worth his theology degree would say that either Martin Luther or John Calvin is infallible in all things. Indeed, most Protestants would say that they taught major errors in this or that area of doctrine. Nevertheless, most Protestants still draw from the writings of these Reformers for inspiration and learning, because the fact that they committed errors here or there does not (in their view) vitiate the fact that they were "right" on so many other things.

So, isn't this "pick and choose"? No, it is not.

In citing the Church Fathers, five things ought to be kept in mind:

A) Individual Church Fathers are not infallible. We Catholics never cite a particular Church Father because we think he is infallible, and because a citation from him is of its nature irrefutable. Even St. Augustine -- considered by Roman Catholics as the greatest of the Fathers -- was not infallible in all things.

B) Rather, when we cite the Church Fathers, it is in the context of what we call the "Consensus Patrum", or the Consensus of the Fathers. The Consensus Patrum may be defined as the broad agreement among the great majority of the Church Fathers, from the very first Apostolic Fathers down to the last Church Fathers (generally held to be St. Bede the Venerable in the West and St. John Damascene in the East), on the truthfulness, reliability and apostolic origin of certain teachings.

C) Thus, when we cite the Fathers on this or that issue, they are cited not so much because of their individual authority, but because their testimony on a certain doctrine constitutes yet another link in the golden chain of testimonials stretching from one generation of Fathers down to the next, proving that a certain belief is indeed that which "has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, #6). Indeed, as St. Vincent of Lerins further declares in the same paragraph:

"For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors..."

Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.

When Brother Marwil cites Tertullian, it is not because Tertullian is an infallible authority. Rather, the value of Tertullian lies in the fact that he is one of the links in the unbroken chain of Patristic testimonies to Mary as the New Eve. His testimony is, to use the terminology of St. Vincent of Lerins, one of the proofs of the antiquity and universality of early Christian belief in the exalted state of the Blessed Virgin.

Regards:

Carlos

So where is it now?

In a previous article, I answered Rodimus' allegation that I wrote him of my disappointment with him stating that he betrayed me because he had posted his article even without waiting for my response. I wote -

"First, it is not true that I wrote Rodimus of my disappointment with him stating that he betrayed me because he had posted his article in his blog even without waiting for my response to his question in a previous email. Rodimus is clearly making things up. I challenge Rodimus to present what I have allegedly wrote him. If he can’t, the only honorable and Christian thing for him to do is to acknowledge his fault and ask for forgiveness. I am Christian enough to forgive.

To refresh Rodimus’ memory, I never wrote him anything to inform him of my disappointment. What I did was to post in his blog a comment which informs him of his earlier promise that he would patiently wait for my response. This is exactly what I have stated as can still be clearly seen in his blog: “I received your email yesterday regarding the article in Catholic Answers. I remember you said that I can take my time and you will wait for my response patiently. I am holding on to that assurance from you. However, I didn't know that you already posted the issue here in your blog. Please know that I am preparing my response to you regarding this issue and I will gladly post it here too.To those who may have read your blog, may I appeal that they withold their judgment before I have given my piece.”

Rodimus has already read that article. Yet, until now, he cannot present that letter or email or whatever that I allegedly wrote him.

If he cannot present that, then what else can we conclude? He is making things up. A person who makes things up is a LIAR.

So where is it now?

If he can’t, the only honorable and Christian thing for him to do is to acknowledge his fault and ask for forgiveness. I am Christian enough to forgive.

Liar! Liar! Part II

Brazen Liar!!!

Apparently stung by my post below, Rodimus took me to task and claimed that -

"In John 4:5 you will find: HO HUIOS. When translated to English is THE SON. Of course, many English translations did not translate it as "the son", but we all know that the New Testament was written in GREEK. What is important is the Greek Manuscript."

Rodimus is a case of a liar who is still in a denial stage. He clumsily tries to cover his back by trying to turn the table. Actually, all his conclusions backfires on his face (Oh, I forgot! He has none).

He claims that HO HUIOS is in the Greek manuscript of John 4:5? Dream on, Rodimus.

Here's what John 4:5 says in Greek: “erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

There's no HO HUIOS there! Maybe constant lying makes a person suffer from dyslexia. Worse, from monumental blindness which prevents Rodimus of the Bereans see reality.

Get your Nestle Aland if you have any and read it: "to huio autou".

So what credibility does this absolute coward and pathological liar have?

So, when are you DEBATING me to settle this once and for all?

I'm waiting!

LIAR! LIAR!

THE BEREANS LIED THROUGH THEIR THEIR TEETH IN THEIR PERPETUAL VIRGINITY REBUTTAL!!!



“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” – John 8:44

The Bereans lied through their teeth in their perpetual virginity rebuttal. They desperately resorted to LYING to refute my arguments.

In his pathetic attempt to refute my use of Mark 6:3 as an additional proof for Mary’s perpetual virginity, the moderator of the Bereans deliberately LIED in saying that >>“In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children?”

Rodimus thinks that he can lie all he wants without getting caught. He thinks that his readers will not check the verses he is citing. Well, you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Let’s check if we can find the expression “THE SON OF JACOB” in John 4:5 as Rodimus claims it does.

The following are several Bible translations. See for yourself if “THE SON OF JACOB” appears in John 4:5.

The New American Standard Bible

So He came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph;

King James Version

Then cometh he to a city of Samaria , which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

New Revised Standard Version

So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.

American Standard Version

So he cometh to a city of Samaria , called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph:

Basic English Bible

So he came to a town of Samaria which was named Sychar, near to the bit of land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph:

Webster’s Bible

Then he cometh to a city of Samaria , which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground, that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

Darby Version

He comes therefore to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near to the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

Weymouth NT

and so He came to Sychar, a town in Samaria near the piece of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

World English Bible

So he came to a city of Samaria , called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son, Joseph.

Young’s Literal Translation

He cometh, therefore, to a city of Samaria , called Sychar, near to the place that Jacob gave to Joseph his son;

New International Version

So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.

The Message

To get there, he had to pass through Samaria. He came into Sychar, a Samaritan village that bordered the field Jacob had given his son Joseph.

Look, Ma! There aint no "THE SON OF JACOB" there!!! Oh, no! I thought that as Rodimus said "in John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob!"

So, Rodimus of the Bereans, with neither compunction nor shame, lied to us when he claimed that Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON OF JACOB in John 4:5. It's not just there. He lied, didn't he?

Since the Bereans lied to us, do we still have to believe them?

What credibility do they have?

NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.


"Kayo ay sa inyong ama, ang diyablo. Ang mga masasamang hangarin ng inyong ama ang nais ninyong gawin. Siya ay mamamatay-tao buhat pa nang pasimula. Siya ay hindi nananatili sa katotohanan sapagkat walang katotohanan sa kaniya. Kapag siya ay nagsasalita ng kasinungalingan, siya ay nagsasalita sa ganang kaniya. Siya ay sinungaling at ama ng kasinungalingan." - Juan 8:44, Ang Salita ng Diyos

THE BEREANS POOR SCHOLARSHIP SHOWS IN THEIR PERPETUAL VIRGINITY REBUTTAL!!!

THE BEREANS POOR SCHOLARSHIP SHOWS IN THEIR PERPETUAL VIRGINITY REBUTTAL!!!

I wish that the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry will be true to its name. As an apologetics and research ministry, it is expected to do in-depth research before it publishes its article on the web. It could have saved itself from needless embarrassment when its articles have been proven to be thoroughly deficient, totally unsubstantiated, grossly unscholarly and utterly baseless.

The Bereans’ type of sordid argumentation is best seen in its own moderator and official spokesperson – GERALD, a.k.a. RODIMUS – an amateur apologist who spreads his ignorance on the Internet with impunity.

Here’s how Rodimus of the Bereans argue (his words are in red):

Finally, Atty. Llasos is confident that the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable that he challenged me to answer these questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”

2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”

Note that Rodimus never answered these questions. He could not give me the two verses I asked him to cite.

Yet, he simply contented himself by giving an evasive, non-responsive reply –

As I understand it correctly, in order for Atty. Llasos to be convinced that Mary had other children, he wants Bible verses that say these people are Mary’s children.

Of course, I want Bible verses that say that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are Mary’s children. Until now, Rodimus can’t give me any. Verse please, Mr. Sola Scriptura?

He is still not convinced of the Greek word adelphos and the context of Matthew 13:55. He wants it clear that these people were born from (sic) Mary. I’m sorry to say that the above questions of Atty. Llasos are born from prejudice.

This is just your opinion. It’s just that you cannot give me the verses, period.

I am convinced that the Greek word adelphos and the “context” of Matthew 13:55 do not conclusively prove that those called as the “brothers” of Jesus are Mary’s children. I am not alone in saying this. Evangelical David Gustafson conceded: “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 69].

If an evangelical admitted that the Gospel account in Matthew 13:55 is not absolutely decisive in proving that Mary had other children aside from Jesus, he would not be accused of prejudice. If a Catholic like me believed similarly, Rodimus is quick to point his furtive at me and accuse me of prejudice. Double standard at its best!

What about the word adelphos? Here’s how it is defined by The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament –

άδελφός

a brother; near kinsman or relative; one of the same nation or native; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate; a member of the Christian community.

See: William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1993) p. 52.

So, Greek experts and scholars like William D. Mounce acknowledge that άδελφός also mean “near kinsman or relative.” Once again, the sloppy research typical of the Bereans rears its ugly head.

What about the context of Matthew 13:55 which Rodimus did not bother to explain?

Here’s how Bible scholars explain the context of the pericope in Mathew 13:55-56 and its parallel in Mark 6:3 –

“To the people of Nazareth, Jesus is the local boy, and they know of no reason why he should have turned out to be any different from the rest of his family” [R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p. 242].

“The simplest understanding is best. Jesus is “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” a local manual laborer whose father had died some years back. We may paraphrase their exclamation to reflect its small-town gossipy nature: “Who is this guy? Is he not the carpenter? You know, Mary’s boy?” The description says little about Mary ...” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 38].

So, what is the context are you referring to, Rodimus?

Let me prove that. The Bible mentions of Lazarus, Martha and Mary Magdalene in Luke 10, John 11-12. We all know that these people have a sibling relationship. The Greek words used are adelphos for Lazarus while adelphi for Martha and Mary Magdalene. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms the following:

Lazarus - This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania

Martha - ... by St. John when he tells us that “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.”

Mary Magdalene - the sister of Martha and Lazarus

By Rodimus very admission, “we all know that these people have a sibling relationship,” there’s no issue as regards the relationship between Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Since it is not contested, why belabor a non-issue?

However, I can’t let this moment pass without commenting on the Bereans’ scholarship (or the lack of it). It citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Rodimus curiously omitted the exact volume and page numbers if indeed he checked the Catholic Encyclopedia. I wonder if the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry owns a complete set of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online at www.newadvent.org.

The Bereans, if they are scholarly enough, should learn how to cite or acknowledge their sources properly. But they are so reckless and clumsy that they don’t bother to properly cite their references. Their intent in hiding their sources is clear: they don’t want us to check the facts.

At any rate, here’s the complete entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Lazarus, Martha and Mary –

LAZARUS –

This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania; all three were beloved friends of Jesus (John 11:5). At the request of the two sisters Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-44). Soon thereafter, the Saturday before Palm Sunday, Lazarus took part in the banquet which Simon the Leper gave to Jesus in Bethania (Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11; John 12:1-11). Many of the Jews believed in Jesus because of Lazarus, whom the chief priests now sought to put to death. The Gospels tell us no more of Lazarus. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09096a.htm).

MARTHA -

Mentioned only in Luke 10:38-42; and John 11, 12, sqq. The Aramaic form occurs in a Nabatæan inscription found at Puteoli, and now in the Naples Museum; it is dated A.D. 5 (Corpus Inscr. Semit., 158); also in a Palmyrene inscription, where the Greek translation has the form Marthein, A.D. 179.

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are represented by St. John as living at Bethania, but St. Luke would seem to imply that they were, at least at one time, living in Galilee; he does not mention the name of the town, but it may have been Magdala, and we should thus, supposing Mary of Bethania and Mary Magdalene to be the same person, understand the appellative "Magdalene". The words of St. John (11:1) seem to imply a change of residence for the family. It is possible, too, that St. Luke has displaced the incident referred to in Chapter 10. The likeness between the pictures of Martha presented by Luke and John is very remarkable. The familiar intercourse between the Saviour of the world and the humble family which St. Luke depicts is dwelt on by St. John when he tells us that "Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus" (11:5). Again the picture of Martha's anxiety (John 11:20-21, 39) accords with the picture of her who was "busy about much serving" (Luke 10:40); so also in John 12:2: "They made him a supper there: and Martha served." But St. John has given us a glimpse of the other and deeper side of her character when he depicts her growing faith in Christ's Divinity (11:20-27), a faith which was the occasion of the words: "I am the resurrection and the life." The Evangelist has beautifully indicated the change that came over Martha after that interview: "When she had said these things, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The Master is come, and calleth for thee."

Difficulties have been raised about the last supper at Bethania. St. John seems to put it six days before the Pasch, and, so some conclude, in the house of Martha; while the Synoptic account puts it two days before the Pasch, and in the house of Simon the Leper. We need not try to avoid this difficulty by asserting that there were two suppers; for St. John does not say that the supper took place six days before, but only that Christ arrived in Bethania six days before the Pasch; nor does he say that it was in the house of Martha. We are surely justified in arguing that, since St. Matthew and St. Mark place the scene in the house of Simon, St. John must be understood to say the same; it remains to be proved that Martha could not "serve" in Simon's house. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09721b.htm).

ST. MARY MAGDALEN

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke 8:2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark 16:9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 19:25; Luke 23:49). She saw Christ laid in the tomb, and she was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection.

The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:

• the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50;
• the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and
• Mary Magdalen.
  

On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels." It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants. It almost seems as if this reluctance to identify the "sinner" with the sister of Martha were due to a failure to grasp the full significance of the forgiveness of sin. The harmonizing tendencies of so many modern critics, too, are responsible for much of the existing confusion.

The first fact, mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ's feet by a woman, a "sinner" in the city (Luke 7:37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being "Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth" (Luke 8:2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the "sinner" of the previous chapter. In 10:38-42, he tells us of Christ's visit to Martha and Mary "in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from 9:53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this "town" was Bethany. This seems confirmed by the preceding parable of the good Samaritan, which must almost certainly have been spoken on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. But here again we note that there is no suggestion of an identification of the three persons (the "sinner", Mary Magdalen, and Mary of Bethany), and if we had only St. Luke to guide us we should certainly have no grounds for so identifying them. St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ's feet (12; cf. Matthew 26 and Mark 14). It is remarkable that already in 11:2, St. John has spoken of Mary as "she that anointed the Lord's feet", he aleipsasa; It is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in 12:3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used he aleipsasa if another woman, and she a "sinner" in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the "sinner." In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (5:7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the "sinner" are one and the same. But an examination of St. John's Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the "woman" who anointed Christ's feet previous to the last supper. We may remark here that it seems unnecessary to hold that because St. Matthew and St. Mark say "two days before the Passover", while St. John says "six days" there were, therefore, two distinct anointings following one another. St. John does not necessarily mean that the supper and the anointing took place six days before, but only that Christ came to Bethany six days before the Passover. At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, "she hath wrought a good work upon Me . . . in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial . . . wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached . . . that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her." Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls her "Mary Magdalen" in 19:25, 20:1, and 20:18, he calls her simply "Mary" in 20:11 and 20:16.

In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole; the "sinner" comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described immediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen "out of whom seven devils were gone forth"; shortly after, we find her "sitting at the Lord's feet and hearing His words." To the Catholic mind it all seems fitting and natural. At a later period Mary and Martha turn to "the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and He restores to them their brother Lazarus; a short time afterwards they make Him a supper and Mary once more repeats the act she had performed when a penitent. At the Passion she stands near by; she sees Him laid in the tomb; and she is the first witness of His Resurrection--excepting always His Mother, to whom He must needs have appeared first, though the New Testament is silent on this point. In our view, then, there were two anointings of Christ's feet--it should surely be no difficulty that St. Matthew and St. Mark speak of His head--the first (Luke 7) took place at a comparatively early date; the second, two days before the last Passover. But it was one and the same woman who performed this pious act on each occasion. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm).

Unless the Catholic Encyclopedia itself was originally written in Aramaic, it’s safe to say that they verify the sibling relationship with the use of the English words brother and sister and not cousins or relatives.

This is a red herring. The Catholic Encyclopedia need not be originally written in Aramaic for our Catholic scholars to verify the sibling relationship of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Internal scriptural evidence supports the conclusion that they are siblings unlike in the case of Jesus and his “brothers and sisters.”

How does this concern Atty. Llasos? The Bible does not mention that the three are children of the same parents. Neither were their parents are mentioned in the Bible. Since the parents are unidentified, would Atty. Llasos say that they are cousins just like what he theorize to the brothers of Christ?

It doesn’t matter if the parents of Lazarus, Martha and Mary are not mentioned in the Bible in order to conclude that they are siblings. As I said, internal scriptural evidence supports that conclusion.

Cursory reading of the scriptural accounts about them gives the impression that they are siblings. The three lived in the same house as siblings normally do. In John 12:1-3, we are told that Jesus “came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.”

Would he even follow the theory of Mr. Evert that it (is) not the Catholic position that the three are cousins?

Like a broken record, Rodimus keeps repeating this long answered issue.

If he ever accepts that the three have a sibling relationship, then why is he being rough on the brothers of Christ by implying that it is not enough that they are called brothers and that we should show they are Mary’s children? Prejudice at its best.

Rodimus just doesn’t get the point. Internal scriptural support warrants the conclusion that Lazarus, Martha and Mary are siblings. By just reading the Gospel accounts about them, one gets the impression that the three are indeed siblings. I already mentioned John 12:1-3, supra.

Also, Luke 10:3842 leaves no doubt as to the sibling relationship between Martha and Mary –

“Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Martha was concerned with the division of the household chores!

What about the Gospel accounts on the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus? Since Rodimus already accused me of “prejudice at its best” [while his is prejudice at its worst], I shall be contented in citing an evangelical source instead. I wonder if Rodimus would also accuse his brother evangelical of prejudice. Evangelical David Gustafson said that “the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” (against Mary’s perpetual virginity, see supra).

Now Atty. Llasos may say he knows that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings because of historical evidence.

Rodimus here employs pre-emptive strike. He tries to steal my thunder. Nevertheless, as I’ve already pointed out, my argument rests not only on historical evidence but on internal scriptural evidence as well.

But that would put Mr. Evert’s position in jeopardy because the Roman Catholic scholars have exerted effort to identify the relationship of the three but failed to do so in the brothers of Christ.

This is a non-issue for us Catholics. The exact relationship between Jesus and his “brothers” is not church-dividing for us Catholics. In fact, our Orthodox brothers and sisters also share our belief. The Orthodox churches, despite their separation for more than 900 years from the Catholic Church, share the same view regarding the so-called “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus. Orthodox Peter E. Gillquist comments: “For one thing, the Scriptures never call them the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph.” He continues –

“Scripture is therefore silent concerning the nature of the relationships between Christ and these brothers and sisters. Early Fathers differed slightly in their understanding of what the terms meant. Some, such as Saint Ambrose believed that the “brothers” were children of a former marriage between Joseph and a wife who died prior to the events of Matthew, chapter 1. Others taught the “brothers” were cousins. But on one point, almost everyone is in agreement: Mary and Joseph had no sexual union whatsoever before or after the birth of Christ” [Peter E. Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox – A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1990) p. 111]. (underscoring supplied)

Wouldn’t that be ironic? A supposedly 2,000 year old infallible Roman Catholic Church cannot identify the actual relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55 but was able to verify that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents.

I wonder if Rodimus actually knows what is meant by “infallibility” as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. I have no time or desire to give him a tutorial on this. All I know is that from his short statement, he reveals his absolute ignorance about the concept of “infallibility.”

I note that Rodimus, by sheer bullheadedness, continues to repeat questions that have long been answered.

We have already pointed out that it’s not an issue for us Catholics (as well as for our Orthodox brothers and sisters) to identify the exact relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55. It’s sufficient that they are not Mary’s children. There is no necessity for the Church to define just because Rodimus would have it so. The Church leaves the matter for exegetes and Bible scholars, of which Rodimus is not, to study and determine the exact relationship between Jesus and his “brothers.”

As evangelical Prof. Tim Perry explains that “[t]he continued virginity of Mary is not a concern of New Testament authors. Had the question not arisen as a result of later theological debates, it would not arise here. But it did arise later and has caused exegetes to try to determine just what the relationship was between Jesus and his siblings. We can conclude that the actual grammar of the texts leaves room for debate. Grammatically, Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” may or may not have been other children of Mary” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 40].

I already answered Rodimus’ concern on why we understand Lazarus, Martha, and Mary as siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents. We base this on internal scriptural evidence that leaves no doubt as to their exact relationships. In the case of Jesus Christ, it’s an altogether different matter. Prof. Tim Perry notes that “[o]n strictly biblical terms, the most that can be said is that the semantic range of the Greek word adelphos can include blood siblings, stepsiblings or half siblings and close relatives. As a result, the East has understood the relevant New Testament passages to refer to Mary’s stepchildren while the West has taken them to denote Jesus’ cousins. Without arbitrating between the two traditions, are there reasons to follow them in “stretching” the elasticity of adelphos? Three may be give. First, we have the actions of Jesus on the cross according to John 19:26-27. If this account is both a theological account of the way in which Jesus’ death creates new family bonds and an apostolic memory of Mary’s presence at Calvary, then we are free to wonder with Athanasius and others just why Jesus – the firstborn – did not entrust his mother to his siblings, but to his beloved disciple. Many answers, all of them speculative, can be offered. The simplest is that there were no other family members …”

Unlike in the case of Lazarus, Martha and Mary where the Bible unequivocably makes clear that they are siblings, Jesus’ relationship with his “brothers” suggests that they are not siblings but mere close relations, most strongly, cousins. This is so because at least two of His so-called brothers in Matthew 13:55 and ark 6:3 are said to be children of another Mary identified in Mark 15:40 as Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses. If the first two named “brothers” of Jesus (James and Joses) are children of a different mother, then the remaining two (Jude and Simon) no longer be conclusively held to be the children of Mary the mother of Jesus because it would then be absurd to first mention those who are not actual siblings of Jesus before his real siblings.

Rodimus demurred from the foregoing analysis by lamely claiming that the James the less (or the younger) and Joses mentioned as children of Mary in Mark 15:40 are different from the James and Joses who are the said to be the brothers of the Lord in Matthew 15:55 and Mark 6:3. Prof. Tim Perry disagrees. He says –

“Our final stop in Mark is the cross and tomb. The male disciples have fled (Mk. 14:50); only female disciples bear witness to Jesus’ final hours. Three are named because of their status as witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (Mk. 15:40). After Jesus’ death, the two Marys remain with Joseph of Arimathea to inter the body (Mk. 15:43, 47). Finally, on Easter morning all three return to the tomb to embalm the body (Mk. 16:1) ….

Finally, the description of James as “the younger” or “the less” seems to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee among the Twelve. If so, then this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus (cf. Mk. 3:18)” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 38, 39].

James Strong, STD, LLD, identifies Alphaeus and Cleophas (Cleopas) to be the same person. In page 48 of The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the entry on Alph