Scriptural Support for Devotion to Mary?

[Apollos]

It is anachronistic to speak of Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom or even Augustine as 'Catholics'. The doctrine of the papacy had not been developed while they lived, and on a number of issues seen as dogmatically fundamental to Roman Catholicism, they were at variance with what came to be.

[steve]

BrotherAlan,

I am sorry for sounding disrespectful. I meant no disrespect toward you, nor toward the church fathers, as persons. However, I do disrespect certain arguments that are transparently fallacious, and, while I can esteem as good men those who apparently have no aptitude for analyzing arguments, I do not necessarily respect the level of objectivity exhibited in their handling of the scripture (I do respect the scriptures enough to avoid twisting them through inappropriate application).

Your argument was long and, no doubt, sincere, but lacking in anything resembling evidence for your proposition. I had a hard time finishing it because it took so long to read and I could tell from the first paragraphs that you were not presenting actual exegetical arguments that I could find impressive. I do not intend to insult you, but I believe that some (otherwise wonderful) people lack either the objectivity or the analytical discipline to draw from a passage of scripture what it actually says and teaches, rather than what they wish for it to say. This was true in the first group of arguments you presented for the veneration of Mary, and continues to be true in your post that discusses the enunciation of Gabriel to Mary. My impression is that you are repeating arguments from a book on Catholic apologetics, without looking critically at them yourself to notice whether they make any sense.

It is no part of my interest to deprive Mary of whatever honor is due to a person who was virtuous and who made a significant contribution to the outworking of God’s purposes. I merely point out that nothing in scripture—including the words of the angel—places her in a position above other godly people.

1. You state that Mary’s being honored in the address of an angel counts specially in her favor, because angels are greater than we are. Angels are indeed “greater in power and might” (just as big, muscular men are greater in power and might than are small men), but angels are not greater in status, since redeemed people are actually heirs in God’s household, whereas angels are mere household servants:

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? (Heb.1:14)

Our actual position in Christ is higher than that of angels (see Eph. 1:20-21; 2:6).

Do you not know that we shall judge angels? (1 Cor.6:3)

That an angel would speak with great respect to Mary, the mother of Messiah is not surprising—no more surprising, at least, than that an angel would speak with similar respect to a prophet of God:

And he said to me, "O Daniel, man greatly beloved…” (Dan.10:11, 19)

You mentioned that John fell down and worshipped an angel (twice, actually), but you neglected to mention that, both times, he was rebuked for doing so, and that the angel protested on the grounds that he was nothing more than a “fellow servant” of God—and, therefore, no greater than John (Rev.19:10; 22:8-9).

2. As for the specific phraseology of the angel’s address, there is nothing in it that is so unique as to establish a special place for Mary above that of other godly persons. Since the word “grace” means “favor,” there is no reason to object to exchanging the phrase “full of grace” with “full of favor” (or “highly favored”). What is said to Mary in this regard is not substantially different from what is said of others, whether Noah, Naphtali, or even all believers in Christ:

Noah found grace [or favor] in the eyes of the LORD. (Gen.6:8)

And of Naphtali he said: "O Naphtali, satisfied with favor, And full of the blessing of the LORD (Deut.33:23)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth… And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. (John 1:14, 16)


3. The phrase, “…the Lord is with you” is so generic as to apply to any number of godly folk, whether Israel in general, or Joshua, or Gideon, or David, or Asa (or any of us!—Matt.28:20)

for the LORD your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. (Deut.20:1)

"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." (Josh. 1:9)

And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him, and said to him, "The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Judges 6:12)

Then Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the LORD is with you." (2 Sam.7:3)

"Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. (2 Chron.15:2)

4. “Blessed are you…” is similarly very generic, and is applied to very many people, including Ruth, of Abigail, of Jael, all those described in the beatitudes, and all who obey the words of Jesus (that’d be us):

Then he said, "Blessed are you of the LORD, my daughter!” (Ruth 3:10)

"And blessed is your advice and blessed are you, because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand.” (1 Sam. 25:33)

"Most blessed among women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Blessed is she among women in tents.” ( Judges 5:24)

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. (Matt.5:11)

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matt.16:17)

"If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” (John 13:17)

Your suggestion that Jael and Judith were “types of Mary” is nothing but special pleading. There is no indication that either woman was ever regarded by the apostles as such a type (nor that anything in the Bible was a “type of Mary”). There is nothing in the lives or accomplishments of these women that parallels anything about Mary. Mary did not fight or defeat any enemies on our behalf. Jesus did. In saying that Mary did it through Jesus, you are introducing an element that is nowhere suggested in scripture. You might as well say that Rahab defeated Satan through Jesus, since she too was in Christ’s ancestry, and was thus a vessel through whom He came into the world.

While we are encouraged to honor all to whom honor is due, nothing in scripture suggests that more honor is due Mary than to any other godly person. It was truly a unique blessing that she received (one which any Jewish girl would have seen as a privilege to receive), but it is never stated that she was selected for her virtue (fair as it may be to assume such). It is said that she received “grace,” which is unmerited (Rom. 4:4; 11:6). Samson was also given wonderful gifts, and a wonderful assignment, but this does not tell us anything about his virtue. When we talk about someone receiving grace, we are saying it isn’t about that person. It is about God who extends unmerited grace (Rom.9:11, 16).

Mary certainly agreed to accept the supreme blessing of being mother of the Messiah (wouldn’t every Jewish girl jump at the chance?), but in doing so, she was no more remarkable than every godly person in scripture (or in history) who agreed to receive the blessings and privileges that God offered them.

[Homer]

I do disrespect certain arguments that are transparently fallacious, and, while I can esteem as good men those who apparently have no aptitude for analyzing arguments, I do not necessarily respect the level of objectivity exhibited in their handling of the scripture (I do respect the scriptures enough to avoid twisting them through inappropriate application).

Your argument was long and, no doubt, sincere, but lacking in anything resembling evidence for your proposition. I had a hard time finishing it because it took so long to read and I could tell from the first paragraphs that you were not presenting actual exegetical arguments that I could find impressive. I do not intend to insult you, but I believe that some (otherwise wonderful) people lack either the objectivity or the analytical discipline to draw from a passage of scripture what it actually says and teaches, rather than what they wish for it to say.

Ouch! Those sentiments couldn't as easily apply to universalism, could they? "Wish for it to say" sort of rings a bell, does it not?.

[steve]

Obviously, if I thought that universalism was a doctrine that needed twisting of scripture to support it, I would disrespect it. What I have found is that the universalist writers use far more scripture, responsibly exegeted in its context, than do most of the writers defending the traditional view. In addition to the strong exegesis of individual texts, it also has the advantage of being the view most in harmony with the consistently revealed sentiments of the Almighty. My respect for universalism began at zero and moved up the thermometer exactly in proportion as I saw scriptures treated fairly and honestly. The same is true for my respect for conditional immortality.

My attraction to either of these views may include a measure of affinity between them and what I would like to see as true—but I would have had that same affinity toward them (on that basis) at any point during the thirty years when I was teaching the traditional view. Those were the years prior to my making a thorough scriptural inquiry. It was that belated inquiry—not wishful thinking—that informed the shift in my opinions.

[steve7150]

Ouch! Those sentiments couldn't as easily apply to universalism, could they? "Wish for it to say" sort of rings a bell, does it not?. Homer







Rings a bell for hell, Homer? Or to be more precise "rings a bell for eternal hell."

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings, in Christ,

Returning, once again, to this thread.....

While I'd love to respond to some of Steve's comments from one of his previous posts, for this post I will confine myself to responding to one of the previous posts from Apollos (though, I would like to communicate to Steve that I accept the apology that you offered on your previous post).

I understand that this post, like my previous one, is longer than the average post on this forum. However, I believe these issues are worthy of deeper consideration and so I ask for your patience and open-ness in reading and considering the thoughts that I have written here. Thank you, God bless you.


Now, Apollos wrote:

I am uncomfortable with the sentiments you express here [i.e., of giving special respect to some of the Church's theologians and Fathers]. It feels like you are respecting persons. I believe that as Christians we ought to speak with grace and respect to everybody, as Paul commands, and not just some special people on the basis of human brilliance.

Apollos, I completely agree that we ought to show love and respect to every person. "The commandments...are summed up in this sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Rom. 13:9) At the same time, however, there are a variety of gifts given to the members of the Body of Christ, as it is written, "There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:4) One of these gifts is the gift of profound wisdom, according, again, as it is written, "To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom...." (1 Cor. 12: 8) Thus, those men who are evidently wise men deserve to be respected as wise men. Among these wise men are those who are commonly acknowledged to be "Church Fathers". Thus, these men, since they are both "fathers" (in a sense) to us Christians, and, also, since they are wise men, ought to be given the special respect due to them as both "fathers" and wise men. For, it is written, "Hear, O sons, a father's instruction, and be attentive, that you may gain insight." (Proverbs 4:1) And, "On the lips of him who has understanding wisdom is found....Wise men lay up knowledge." (Proverbs 10:13,14)

So, again, yes, we must love and respect every person, as a person ("This I command you, to love one another." (John 15:17)); yet, we must pay special respect to the teachings of those wise men who are justly called "fathers" of the Church. "Remember your leaders....and imitate their faith." (Hebrews 8:7)

Apollos wrote:

On another point, it is anachronistic to speak of Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom or even Augustine as 'Catholics'. The doctrine of the papacy had not been developed while they lived, and on a number of issues seen as dogmatically fundamental to Roman Catholicism, they were at variance with what came to be. Athanasius was a disagreeable character, according to the church history I have read; Jerome rejected the apocyrpha, Chrysostom taught justification by faith alone, Augustine is said to have denied transubstantiation. In fact the faithful consent of the primitive church was quite against the doctrines which the church of Rome later taught.

We don't have the time, right now, to go into detail into all that each of the Fathers believed and taught. So, for now, I'll simply have to assert that I do not believe it is anachronistic to speak of the aforementioned Church Fathers as being "Catholic". For, in addition to labeling themselves as members of the "Catholic Church" (from as early as 107 A.D. this term was used), they also held to beliefs which are fundamental to being a "Catholic Christian", as that term is understood today (eg., they believed in divine revelation through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, as these are known and interpreted by a genuine Teaching Authority (aka., Magisterium) in the Church; they believed in the unity of Christians through baptism into the same true Trinitarian faith, participation in the same Sacraments, and the renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary through the sacrifice of the Mass).

Secondly, I do need to comment on the claim that Augustine denied transubstantiation; this claim is simply not true. It is true that Augustine recognized (and, at times, emphasized) the symbolic nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as well as the necessity to receive the Sacrament "spiritually" (i.e., with true faith). But, these beliefs do not, in any way, contradict belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (indeed, any well-informed Catholic today affirms these same beliefs concerning the Eucharist). Those are not mutually exclusive beliefs (Catholic doctrine holds to all of the above: i.e., that the Eucharist is symbolic, that we must receive it with faith in order to gain fruit from the Sacrament, and that Christ is truly present, in His substance, in the Eucharist).

Below are just a few of a good number of statements from Augustine that show that he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (i.e., that he believed in transubstantiation):

"[Christ] received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped....not only (do) we not sin in worshipping it, but we sin in not worshipping." (see Exposition on Psalm XCIX, 8; NPNF 1, Vol. VIII)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ." (Sermons, 272; Jurgens, III, 32)

"The bread which you see on the altar is sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ." (Sermo 227; Ott, 377)

"Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that
the Son of God was that Eucharist." (Denis, 3, 3; Pope, 66)

"The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side." (Sermo iii. 1-2; Pope, 62)

Thus it is that Augustine (like all of the Church Fathers) had a firm belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

A lot more could be said about the teachings of the Fathers on the various aspects of Christian doctrine, but that would take us too far off track from the current discussion on Mary (perhaps this could be discussed in more detail in a different thread).

Apollos wrote:

I would go further and think that it is actually disingenuous for a Roman Catholic to even appeal to the early church fathers, since such an exercise is necessarily very selective, though the fault is mostly with the big RC apologists who know better, rather than with those who simply cut and paste from their sites.

It is not disengenuous for a Roman Catholic-- or for anyone-- to look to the early Church Fathers for guidance, for the reasons I listed above (i.e., the Church Fathers are commonly recognized, by the Christian faithful themselves, as leaders of the Christian Church, and as wise men). Therefore, there is bound to be found some wisdom in their writings for anyone, whether Catholic or not.

Now, this is not to say that a Church Father is infallible; no, like all of us, they are men who could make mistakes, and their writings are not, strictly speaking, inspired (as are the divine Scriptures). However, having said that, when the Church Fathers are in unanimous (or almost unanimous) agreement among themselves, then that is a very strong (or, perhaps, even certain) sign that such a teaching is an authentic part of Apostolic Tradition. At the very least, for now, we can say that there is a very good reason for a Christian to assent to the teachings of the Fathers when there is very widespread (or even unanimous) agreement among them.

Further, with regards to these teachings-- i.e., those in which there is widespread agreement among the Fathers-- there is no need to think that one needs to be "very selective" in reading the Fathers (as one might need to be concerning those teachings in which the Fathers seem not to have such widespread agreement). Rather, when one recognizes such common agreement among the Fathers, one can have confidence that this teaching is an authentic part of the Christian Faith.

All that being said, such widespread agreement among the Church Fathers is found with respect to their teachings and veneration of Mary. Thus, we can have great confidence that their teachings (and veneration) of Mary is an authentic part of the Christian Gospel.

Now, brother, I also need to add that I object to your assertion that my appeal to the Church Fathers is "disengenuous", as well as the last part of your comment ("the fault is mostly with the big RC apologists who know better, rather than with those who simply cut and paste from their sites"). Those comments are "ad hominem" statements (i.e., they are slights against persons which fail to address the issues themselves), as they imply that professional Catholic apologists are acting in bad faith and that I myself am not making an honest intellectual effort in considering these matters; these things being implied, those comments of yours are a bit presumptuous, and also a tad insulting. As I am seeking simply to get a better understanding of the truth of these (very lofty) matters, without calling into question the moral integrity or intellectual honesty of those with whom I am engaged in dialogue, I kindly ask that you do the same. So, please refrain from making such statements in the future. Thank you.

Lastly, Apollos wrote:

The fathers contrasted the faithfulness of Mary and the unfaithfulness of Eve - a Protestant might do the same thing, and in itself it is no evidence of any particular RC understanding of Mary. Clement of Alexandria rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary; Origen tells us that some Christians held it and some didn't hold it (therefore it wasn't an article of faith, which must be received by the faithful in order to inherit salvation, nor was it a universal belief, and Origen himself admits that this view was motivated by the desire to "preserve the honor of Mary in virginity". I could go on.

Getting back to the discussion on Mary.....

First, with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary, the fact that "some" held it and "some" did not does not lead us to conclude that it was not an article of faith. Consider, for example, that in the 4th century, "some" held to the doctrine on the Trinity, and "some" did not. This fact, however, does not mean that the Trinity is not an article of faith; it certainly is (the most fundamental article of the Christian faith). In other words, we need to consider exactly who it is that is holding to the doctrine.

Now, when considering the perpetual virginity of Mary, we find that there is all-but-universal agreement among the respected Fathers of the Church that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Origen, whom you quoted, held to it (regardless of the reasons you think he had for holding it, the fact is that he asserts belief in the perpetual virginity as "the right opinion"). Likewise, the great majority of the other Fathers affirmed it (including, I believe, Clement of Alexandria; I'm not aware of any place where Clement of Alexandria denies the perpetual virginity, and, in fact, it seems to me that Clement affirmed this as his own belief when he wrote, "Some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. 'And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth,' . . . (Stromata / Miscellanies, Book VII, chapter 16; ANF, Vol. II)). Again, when there is such universal agreement among those who are respected as Fathers of the Church, that is a sign that we are dealing with an authentic part of the Christian faith (even if there were, occasionally, other men who denied it, as there were others who denied even more fundamental Christian truths, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.).

Also, the Fathers did not merely contrast the faithfulness of Mary with the unfaithfulness of Eve; they seemed to go further than that by recognizing contrasting roles in the whole salvation history of mankind. The common theme among the Fathers is, thus, not only that Mary was faithful, and Eve was not; but, more than that, that Mary was the instrument who brought mankind life (namely, Life Himself, Jesus Christ), while Eve was, unfortunately, the instrument that led to our death (by seducing Adam into sin). The whole Patristic tradition seemed centered on that thought, to the point that Jerome, in a sort of summary of the Patristic thought on this matter, would say, "Death by Eve; life by Mary." Thus, the whole tradition of the Fathers seems to be narrowing in not merely on the relative merits (or de-merits) of these two women, but, moreso, on the notion that Mary is a "second Eve" (an idea which, of course, has profound theological implications).

Furthermore, as mentioned before, other aspects of the writings of the Fathers make it very clear that they held Mary in great esteem, venerated her, and prayed to her (she was called "the Mother of God", "Ever-Virgin", "spotless", and the like; and the early Church Councils declared similarly concerning her).

Also, the life of the faithful in the early centuries of the Christian Church was also filled with piety and devotion towards Mary, as is evidenced by the fact that churches were built in her honor, prayers were said to her, Christian art was dedicated to her (pictures, hymns), the faithful believed to have seen appearances of her, etc. One such prayer to Mary, from at least as early as the third century (and still prayed in the Catholic Church today), is prayed thus:

"Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix, nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris. Sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta."
("We fly under your protection, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our needs. But always free us from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin.")
(Note: Mary is addressed as both 'Mother of God', and 'Virgin'; it would be odd to address her as 'Virgin' if there was not a belief that she always remained a virgin).

An even greater indication of the kind of piety that the early Church had towards Mary can be seen in the homily given by Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus (in 431). At the Council of Ephesus, Cyril, the bishop from Alexandria, successfully defended the Christian belief that the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ are united in one single Divine Person. Since Jesus Christ is one single divine Person, Cyril successfully argued that Mary must be given the title "Mother of God" ("theotokos"); for, to deny her this title, would be to deny the unity of the humanity and divinity in Christ (which would, in effect, deny the divinity of Christ altogether). Thus, an important question about the natures and Person of Jesus Christ led to an important discussion on the person of Mary, Jesus' Mother. Indeed,the early Church saw a very close connection between the worship given to Jesus and the honor given to Mary. At the Council, Cyril preached the following homily (please take note of the fact that his devotion to Mary is rooted in his belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and that he not only honors Mary, as the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, but that he also addresses her in a form of prayer):

"I see here a joyful company of Christian men met together in ready response to the call of Mary, the holy and ever-virgin Mother of God. The great grief weighed upon me is changed into joy by your presence, venerable Fathers. Now the beautiful saying of David the psalmist: 'How good and pleasant it is for brothers to live together in unity' has come true for us.

Therefore, holy and incomprehensible Trinity, we salute you at whose summons we have come together to this church of Mary, the Mother of God.

Mary, Mother of God, we salute you. Precious vessel, worthy of the whole world's reverence, you are an ever-shining light, the crown of virginity, the symbol of orthodoxy, an indestructible temple, the place that held him whom no place can contain, mother and virgin. Because of you the holy gospels could say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

We salute you, for in your holy womb was confined him who is beyond all limitation. Because of you the holy Trinity is glorified and adored; the cross is called precious and is venerated throughout the world; the heavens exult; the angels and archangels make merry; demons are put to flight; the devil, that tempter, is thrust down from heaven; the fallen race of man is taken up on high; all creatures possessed by the madness of idolatry have attained knowledge of the truth; believers receive holy baptism; the oil of gladness is poured out; the Church is established throughout the world; pagans are brought to repentance.

What more is there to say? Because of you (Mary) the light of the only-begotten Son of God has shone upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; prophets pronounced the word of God; the Apostles preached salvation to the Gentiles; the dead are raised to live, and kings rule by the power of the holy Trinity.

Who can put Mary's high honor into words? She is both mother and virgin. I am overwhelmed by the wonder of this miracle. Of course no one could be prevented from living in the house he had built for himself, yet who would invite mockery by asking his own servant to become his mother?

Behold then the joy of the whole universe. Let the union of God and man in the Son of the Virgin Mary fill us with awe and adoration. Let us fear and worship the undivided Trinity as we sing the praise of the ever-virgin Mary, the holy temple of God, and of God himself, her Son and spotless Bridegroom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

(Cyril's homily at the Council of Ephesus, as translated in The Liturgy of the Hours, III, pp. 1575-76)

Now, that was the faith of the early Church.

The Council, in the end, defended the title of Mary as "Mother of God". Following the Council, a basilica was built in Mary's honor (the beautiful basilica of St. Mary Major, which is still standing in Rome today).

Again, that was the faith of our fathers in the Christian faith.

So, regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant, one should at least acknowledge that the faith of the early Church was filled with a deep faith in the holy Trinity; a burning love for Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God; and a deep love and devotion towards Mary, the Mother of God.

In Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

[Apollos]

Unfortunately from reading these apologists, I do consider them disingenuous, based upon my observations that they selectively quote the fathers. 'Argument by Selective Observation' is a recognized fallacy, and so it is not ad hominem for me to point out this logical fallacy in their work. The way forward is for us to test the argument by choosing some distinctively RC teachings, and then seeing what the fathers in totality have said.

[Apollos]

I do not understand your thinking here, and would like to ask for your clarification. As I understand it, an article of faith is something which must be believed by the faithful; failure to believe this would constitute one a heretic and would disqualify one from receiving communion in their church. That's my understanding. Is that your understanding, or is your understanding different? If some Christians held it as an opinion, and some did not, then would not those who did not hold it have been excommunicated from the church? The fact that a variety of opinion was allowed surely is evidence that it was not an article of faith? Origen tells us that the belief in the perpetual virginity was the new belief, not, by his own admission, passed down by the apostles, but rather motivated by a desire on the part of Christians to protect her honor in virginity.

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings, in Christ,

First.....Apollos, thank you for your reply from Aug. 12. I just recently read your reply and will consider the points you have to offer (and, if I have time, give you some kind of response in the future). God bless.
________________
Secondly, several posts ago, Steve expressed a number of thoughts to which I wanted to give a response.

I. Steve wrote:

1. You state that Mary’s being honored in the address of an angel counts specially in her favor, because angels are greater than we are. Angels are indeed “greater in power and might” (just as big, muscular men are greater in power and might than are small men), but angels are not greater in status, since redeemed people are actually heirs in God’s household, whereas angels are mere household servants....That an angel would speak with great respect to Mary, the mother of Messiah is not surprising—no more surprising, at least, than that an angel would speak with similar respect to a prophet of God....

The distinction we need to make is between nature and grace. On the one hand, angels are greater than men by nature. For, angels are pure spirits (cf., Heb. 1:14), and so they are greater than us men, who are composed of not only a spiritual soul, but also of corporeal and corruptible matter (as Abraham spoke, "I am but dust and ashes." (Gen. 18:27)). Thus, according to nature, Scripture states that angels, in comparison to men, are "greater in power and might." (2 Peter 2:11). On the other hand, by the gift of grace, which elevates nature to participate in the very life of God (according to 2 Peter 1:4), the dignity of some holy men may exceed the dignity of even some of the angels. However, the holy angels also receive grace, becoming friends of God, living in His Presence (eg., Matt. 16:27; John 1:51; 2 Thess. 1:7; etc. etc.), so it is not the norm, but the exception, for a man to be raised higher than the angels.

So, the fact that the angel revered Mary in such a way is to be mareveled at (as we should also marvel at the fact that angels revered other holy men, eg., Gideon, Daniel). For, the angel revered Mary due to the fact that she was "filled with grace" to such a degree that the Angel Gabriel, who far exceeds Mary by nature, was impressed by her due to the gifts of grace that she received from God.

_________
II. Steve wrote:

You mentioned that John fell down and worshipped an angel (twice, actually), but you neglected to mention that, both times, he was rebuked for doing so, and that the angel protested on the grounds that he was nothing more than a “fellow servant” of God—and, therefore, no greater than John (Rev.19:10; 22:8-9).

A being is worshipped only if he appears to be like to God. But a being is like to God only if that being possesses great dignity. Therefore, the fact that John fell down and worshipped the angel shows that the angel possesses great dignity (so much so that John "confused" him for God). This fact confirms the above-mentioned point (namely, that the angels possess tremendous dignity).

So, that the angel protested the type of worship that John offered to him does not disprove the fact that angels are, in general, greater than men; and this is so for two reasons. First, because the fact that two individuals are both servants of God does not make them equal in all respects-- there is still a hierarchy among servants (eg., in an army, a private is lower in rank than a general). So, an angel and a man can be servants of God and, yet, they can (and do) still have different "ranks" in the "army of God". Secondly, the angel was speaking to the beloved disciple, that is, to John, and, since John was a holy Apostle, it is quite possible/probable that he, in fact, did, or would eventually, exceed this angel in holiness.
__________
III. Steve also wrote:

2. As for the specific phraseology of the angel’s address, there is nothing in it that is so unique as to establish a special place for Mary above that of other godly persons. Since the word “grace” means “favor,” there is no reason to object to exchanging the phrase “full of grace” with “full of favor” (or “highly favored”). What is said to Mary in this regard is not substantially different from what is said of others, whether Noah, Naphtali, or even all believers in Christ....

As far as your specific examples go....a.) Noah was a very holy man, and similar to Mary, he is said to have found grace with God (the word for grace/favor is formed from the Hebrew word חֵן (“chen”) and from χάρις (“charis”), in the Greek Septuagint (LXX); both can be translated as favor, or grace). But, he is not said to be filled, or perfected, in grace, as Mary was (she is addressed as “full of grace”, or “one who has been filled with grace”, as κεχαριτωμένη (“kecharitomene”), the perfect passive participle of the verb, χαριτόω ( "charitoo")). So, I believe it is the case that the language is stronger in reference to Mary as compared to that of Noah. b.) First, the reference to Naphtali of Deut. 33:23 is referring, primarily, not to the man, Naphtali, but to the tribe (and we cannot compare the words of blessing given to a whole tribe to words given to an individual, such as Mary). Besides, Mary's grace was interior, while the tribe of Naphtali received material blessings (for, that tribe is said to "possess the lake and the south" (Deut. 33:23)). c.) All believers in Christ (including Mary) are said to receive grace from the Christ, Who alone possesses, in Himself, the fullness of grace (according to John 1:16, "From his fulness have we all received....") However, not all believers are said to be "full of grace", as Mary is said to be (so, the comparison is not valid).

Now, it should also again be noted that the Angel did not just say that Mary was full of grace, but he directly addressed Mary as “full of grace”, as κεχαριτωμένη-- almost as if her very name is "Full of Grace". Since a person receives a new name to signify a distinguishing trait of that person (eg., Abram became “Abraham”, which means, “father of many nations”), the fact that Mary was directly addressed as κεχαριτωμένη is another strong indication that Mary's fullness of grace is a trait which distinguishes her from all other creatures (even from other very holy persons).

So, while there are many holy persons in the Scriptures who are given praise, I don’t think we can assert that any were given as high a praise as Mary was. This, indeed, also seemed to be the opinion of Origen (one of the most knowledgeable Scripture scholars in the history of Christianity) who, back in the third century, stated, "The angel greeted Mary with a new address, which I could not find anywhere else in Scripture. I ought to explain this expression briefly. The angel says, 'Hail, full of grace.'...I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture. An expression of this kind, 'Hail, full of grace,' is not addressed to a male. This greeting is reserved for Mary alone." (Origen, Homilies on the Gospel of Luke; see Patrologia Graeca (PG),13, 1815-1816)

But, perhaps more to be noted is the fact that the grace given to Mary was the basis for her receiving the great gift of becoming the Mother of the Savior. The Angel's words make it clear that the reason for him being sent to her was the fact that she was "filled with grace" and that she "found grace with God”. This means, then, that the grace with which she was filled was the reason why she was chosen to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate (just as the חֵן , the grace/favor, that Noah had with God merited him to be chosen for his task). Now, aside from the dignity of the Savior Himself, the dignity of the role of being Mother of the Savior, the Mother of God, is, undeniably, greater than all other dignities (including that given to Noah). So, if her being filled with grace is what made her worthy to receive this dignity, then she must have had more grace than all others.

And so Augustine says that Mary conceived the Word in her heart (i.e., she was completely filled with grace, more than all others) before she conceived Him in her womb. Seeing the Word already conceived in her heart, the Holy Spirit chose her to be the one who would conceive Him in her womb.

__________
IV. Steve wrote:

3. The phrase, “…the Lord is with you” is so generic as to apply to any number of godly folk, whether Israel in general, or Joshua, or Gideon, or David, or Asa (or any of us!—Matt.28:20)..... “Blessed are you…” is similarly very generic, and is applied to very many people, including Ruth, of Abigail, of Jael, all those described in the beatitudes, and all who obey the words of Jesus (that’d be us):

The use of these generic phrases alone would not give us reason to establish Mary's pre-eminence among the saints. For, there is no argument that the phrases, "The Lord is with you," and, "Blessed are you," are generic phrases. However, being generic, the meaning and importance of these phrases will vary depending on the context/situation in which they are spoken (much like the meaning of words, like "good" and "love", will vary greatly depending on the context in which they are used). In the case of Mary, the context is that of her being elevated to the office of Mother of God. Therefore, these phrases, when applied to her, take on greater significance than when they are applied to others in less important situations.

Thus, to say, “The Lord is with you,” in an ordinary situation could simply mean that God is present to you, as He is to all His creatures. But, to say, “The Lord is with you,” in the context of announcing to a virgin that she is to become the mother of God is to say much more—it is to say that the Lord is so very close to you that He desires to become Incarnate in your womb. There is a big difference, then, in the meanings of the phrase depending on the context in which it is used.
__________
V. Steve wrote:

Your suggestion that Jael and Judith were “types of Mary” is nothing but special pleading. There is no indication that either woman was every regarded by the apostles as such a type (nor that anything in the Bible was a “type of Mary”). There is nothing in the lives or accomplishments of these women that parallels anything about Mary.

One can see that the suggestion that Jael and Judith are types of Mary is not “special pleading” (sic) when one considers the fact that a very similar, and rather particular phrase-- "Blessed are you among women"-- is applied to Mary as was also applied to both Jael and Judith. That this same/similar phrase is quoted to Mary as was said to Judith and Jael is quite likely to be noticed by an ordinary student of Scripture; thus, it is certain that was also noticed by Luke, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf., 2 Tim. 3:16) quoted this phrase as it was applied to Mary. Therefore, it is certainly not unreasonable, nay, it is certainly reasonable and probable, to conclude that Luke was intentionally hearkening the memory of the observant reader of Scripture back to the former times when very similar phrases were applied to Jael and Judith. In so doing, Luke would have had to have had the intention of stating that Mary had similarities to these other women.

What could be the similarities between Judith and Jael (on the one hand) and Mary (on the other hand)?
To answer this, we must first ask: What was it that made Judith and Jael "blessed above women." (cf., Judith 13:8; Judges 5:24)? It was the fact that these heroic women defeated the enemies of God's People, and they did so by inflicting wounds to the heads of the enemy leaders (Judith chopping off the head of Holofernes; Jael driving the peg through Sisera's head). So, if that is what made these women, "blessed among women", it is not unreasonable to say that Luke intended to communicate to his readers that Mary, too, is blessed among women, and for the same reason-- namely, because she, like her forerunners, crushed the head of God's enemies. And who is the ultimate enemy of God's People? Satan himself, the serpent of old. And how did Mary crush Satan's head? She did so by delivering to the world the God-Man, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, the One Who would ultimately crush the serpent's head (at, appropriately, Calvary, "the place of the skull"....with His Mother present). In so doing, Mary shows that she is the promised woman of Genesis 3:15 (the "New Eve"), for she is the only woman whose seed-- Jesus Christ-- crushed the head of the serpent, our ancient enemy ("I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal." (Gen. 3:15)). Thus, Mary, even moreso than Jael, Judith, or any of the other holy women of the Old (or New) Testament, is truly "blessed among women."

_________
VI. Steve wrote:

Mary did not fight or defeat any enemies on our behalf. Jesus did. In saying that Mary did it through Jesus, you are introducing an element that is nowhere suggested in scripture. You might as well say that Rahab defeated Satan through Jesus, since she too was in Christ’s ancestry, and was thus a vessel through whom He came into the world.

First, in response to the objection concerning Rahab....There are fundamental differences between Rahab and Mary (which are not hard to notice). Mary was filled with God's grace, was chosen by God to be the Mother of our God and Savior, freely responded to fulfill this most excellent office (despite the certain sufferings it would entail), and then executed this office faithfully; Rahab had none of these qualities and did none of these things (though she did aid God's People, and so helped pave the way for Jesus' victory, she did so in a much more remote way than did Mary). Therefore, the comparison is not valid.

With regard to the consideration of whether or not Mary fought any enemies on our behalf....The Apostle (Paul) once wrote to the Christians at Ephesus, "We are not fighting against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness....Therefore, take the whole armor of God, etc." (Eph. 6:12-13) Now, if your ordinary Christian at Ephesus was expected to fight the enemies of God and of the Church, then how much moreso did the Mother of God herself fight these same enemies?

The Apostle also wrote, "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church, of which I became a minister....to make the word of God fully known." (Col. 1:24) If the Apostle Paul could write this, how much more so the Mother of God (who, no doubt, suffered for the sake of the church as she watched her own divine Son be calumniated, ignored, persecuted, and, eventually, be crucified and die on the cross)? Lastly, if Paul can boast-- and rightly so-- of being a minister to make the word of God fully known, how much more so can she who brought forth the Word Incarnate Himself?

In all these ways, Mary fought, and suffered, for the sake of the Christ's Body, which is the Church.

As far as the concern that I am “introducing an element that is nowhere suggested in scripture,” I say that I am doing no such thing. Rather, I am simply giving an explicit description of what Scripture implicitly, but certainly, teaches (namely, that Mary, because she was filled with grace, was chosen to be the Mother of the Savior, and she herself freely chose to become the Mother of this Savior, Which Savior crushed the serpent’s head). There is nothing wrong with making explicit what is implied in Scripture; indeed, such a task is the whole purpose of theology.

__________
VII. Lastly, Steve wrote:

While we are encouraged to honor all to whom honor is due, nothing in scripture suggests that more honor is due Mary than to any other godly person.

The very fact that Scripture reveals to us that Mary is the mother of Christ, Who is God (and, thus, that she is "mother of the Lord" (cf., 1:43), i.e., Mother of God) is itself the foundation for which we can assert that she is deserving of the greatest honor, and that she was given more grace than any other member of the Church.

For, the higher the calling, the greater honor that is due to a person. Next to Christ, Mary had the highest calling; thus, she is deserving of the greatest honor.

Further, as mentioned above, when God calls an individual to fulfill a role in the Church, He gives grace proportionate to that role. That is, the higher the office to which one is called by God, the more graces that God will give such an individual. Now, next to Christ, Mary was called to the greatest office that any human being could receive-- namely, the office of Mother of God. This calling is a much higher calling than any other calling in the Church (including that of the Apostles); indeed, it establishes her in what could be (and has been) called the "hypostatic order" (i.e., her vocation-- and her predestination-- is specially ordained to the very Person/"hypostasis" of Christ Himself). Hence, since Mary was given this most noble of roles in the Church, it follows that Mary was given the grace of a degree (and of a kind) greater than that of any other member of the Church. She could not have merited to have been predestined by God to be the Mother of God-- that, indeed, was an unmerited gift-- but, having been predestined by God, from all eternity, to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate, God gave her the grace to be a worthy Mother of God (the only kind of mother we would expect for the Son of God), and, thus, her graces far exceeded that of even the greatest of the other saints.

Thus it is that the tradition of the Church has always held that, because Mary was called to be the Mother of the Divine Savior, she must be the greatest of saints; such is the clear testimony of the Fathers of the Church. For example, in the west, Augustine (in the 4th century) asserts, "Concerning [the holy Virgin Mary] I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." (Augustine, A Treatise on Nature and Grace, Ch. 42; emphasis added) Ambrose, Augustine's mentor in the orthodox Christian faith, similarly affirmed, "What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (Ambrose, Virginity, II, 6) In the east, Christians, following the "Divine Liturgy of John Chyrsostom", have been praying, "May Christ, our true God (who rose from the dead), as a good, loving and merciful God, have mercy upon us and save us, through the intercession of his most pure and holy Mother." (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) Even more emphatically, Ephrem the Syrian (4th century) proclaimed, "Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy mother no stain." (Ephrem, Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8) Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), that great defender of the true Christian doctrine on the Trinity, similarly stated, "[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin." (Gregory of Nyssa, "Against Apollinaris", 6) Another Gregory, Gregory the Wonderworker, of the third century (even before the Council of Nicea in 325, and even before there was a canonized New Testament), in praising Mary, wrote, "O purest one, O purest virgin where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present....Through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold." (As a side-note, Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Mary appeared to Gregory the Wonderworker; thus, we have reports of Marian apparitions dating all the way back to the Church of the 3rd century, before Nicea, before the formation of the canon of Scripture).

While we could go on with this litany of citations from the Fathers of the Church to the effect that Mary, the Mother of God, is the greatest of saints, we shall end with just one more-- and that from Athanasius, perhaps the greatest defender of the true Christian doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ and the holy Trinity (for, it was Athanasius who, at the Council of Nicea in the year 325, successfully defended the Christian belief in the holy Trinity against the Arian heresy). Athanasius, the voice of orthodox Christianity in the 4th century Church, expressed his love for Christ, the God-Man, by praising Mary, exclaiming the following:

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin)

__________

And, so it is that Mary-- Blessed Mary (cf., Luke 1:48)-- the Mother of the Word Incarnate, the Mother of God, is truly the greatest of saints, and, among saints, worthy of the greatest honor.

To her Divine Son, Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all glory forever....Amen.

In Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

"Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Blessed is she who believed...." (Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, concerning Mary; Luke 1:43)
"All generations will call me blessed." (Mary; Luke 1:48)

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings, in Christ!

Apollos, with regard to the discussion about the Eucharist/transubstatiation, since that is a topic distinct from the topic of this current thread, I think we should "table" that discussion for another thread.

The topic on the nature of doctrine (eg., what do we mean by an "article of faith"? How do we know what is an article of faith? How does doctrine develope? etc.), could/should probably also be devoted to an distinct discussion from this topic on Mary. But, since it does touch upon this discussion on Mary, I'll address this question, at least in part, right now.

Apollos wrote,

As I understand it, an article of faith is something which must be believed by the faithful; failure to believe this would constitute one a heretic and would disqualify one from receiving communion in their church. That's my understanding. Is that your understanding, or is your understanding different?

My understanding of "article of faith" is very similar to yours, but perhaps not exactly the same. Simply put, I understand the term "article of faith" to mean something that has been revealed by God. As such, it does require the assent of faith by the faithful. However, if one believes something contrary to what has been revealed out of an honest mistake (as opposed to being obstinate), then such a one is not, formally speaking, a heretic, and would not be cut off from the Church (it is still not a good thing to be mistaken in this way, for it makes one to be a "material heretic", for the "material" of what one believes is heresy; but, because one is honestly mistaken about it, one is not a "formal heretic").

That being said, I should add that we come to know what God has revealed through what is taught in Sacred Scripture (according to 2 Tim. 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God, etc."), Apostolic/Sacred Tradition (according to 2 Thess. 2:15, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter,"), as these Scriptures and Traditions are known and understood by the Church (according to 1 Tim. 3:15, "[The Church] is the pillar and bulwark of truth."); or, more specifically, by the Church's Teaching Authority (Magisterium) which resides in the successors of the Apostles (validly ordained bishops), especially the Apostle of Peter (the bishop of Rome, the Pope), for it was to the Apostles, particularly the Apostle Peter, that Christ entrusted the care of His Church (according to Matthew 16:18-19, "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; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.") That the Apostles had successors is indicated in Scripture (eg., Acts 1:26; Matthias becomes Judas' successor) and is even more clear from the writings of the Fathers (particularly with regard to Peter, whose successors are dilineated in some of the writings of the Fathers. As far as I know, Peter is the only Apostle whose successors are tracked by the early Church; I believe this strongly indicates that the early Church saw a certain primacy held by the successor of Peter).

Much more, obviously, could be said about all that (and I am fully aware that there is a lot in here that is ripe material for discussion....but, again, a detailed discussion on this would probably be best for another thread); but, I write this to help you understand how I understand the term, "article of faith"

****************
So, to return to the specific discussion on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is this an article of faith? I believe that it is, for the reasons given above-- namely, that it is revealed by Scripture and Tradition, as these Scriptures and Traditions are known and understood by the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church.

That this is revealed in Scripture is indicated by the fact, first, that Mary is the Mother of God, and it would be entirely unfitting for the Mother of God to not remain a virgin. This would be unfitting for four reasons. First, it would be opposed to the dignity of Christ, the God-Man, Himself; for, just as Christ is the only Son of the eternal Father according to His Divine Nature, so too, He ought to be the only Son of His Mother. Secondly, for Mary to not remain a virgin would be opposed to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, Who sanctified, once and for all, the holy womb of Mary. Third, it would be opposed to the dignity and holiness of Mary herself, as it would seem to imply that she was not satisfied with having Christ as her only Son. Fourth, it would cast serious doubts on the integrity of Joseph, "the just man" (Matthew 1:19), for he would certainly seem to be guilty of the greatest presumption if he were to have violated the virginity of the woman whom he knew, by the angel, conceived the God-Man by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That this is revealed in Scripture is also indicated by the fact that when it was announced to Mary that she was to become the Mother of the Messiah, Mary responded with the question, "How shall this be, since I know not man?" (Luke 1:34) As some of the Fathers of the Church comment, this question implies that Mary had planned to remain a virgin. For, unless she had planned to remain a virgin, she would have had no reason to ask such a question (for, planning to engage in marital relations, she would have had reason to simply assume that the conception would take place through the course of nature). But, she did ask that question, which means she had reason to ask that question-- which reason, it would seem, could only be that she had never intended to "know man", i.e., that she had already resolved to remain a virgin. Having resolved to remain a virgin, it would be unfitting to presume that, later, she turned back on such a resolve.

That this is revealed in Scripture is also indicated by the fact that Scripture presents Mary as the "New Ark of the (New) Covenant". That Scripture presents Mary as the New Ark is evidenced by the fact that, just as the old Ark housed the manna (bread), the tablets (God's word), and Aaron's staff (symbol of priesthood); so, too, Mary is the one who housed Christ, Who is the "Bread of Life", the Incarnate Word, and the Eternal High Priest. So, too, Scripture presents to us Mary as being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), just as the O.T. Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory (Exod. 40:34-35; Num. 9:15). Additionally, Scripture presents to us Mary's visitation to Elizabeth in the following manner: Mary visited Elizabeth for three months, at the start of which visit Mary's presence caused John the Baptist to leap (inside Elizabeth's womb), and led Elizabeth to exclaim, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?[/i]" (Luke 1:43) This presentation is clearly paralleled by the three-month visit of the Ark to David, at the start of which visit David leaped and danced for joy, exclaiming, "How can the ark of the Lordcome to me?" Such parallels are not hard to notice, and so it is certain that the sacred author, Luke, under the guidance of t he Holy Spirit (cf., 2 Tim. 3:16), penned these verses with the intention of drawing our minds to see these parallels, and, thus, to see Mary as a kind of "New Ark". Thus, we are to see that, as the old Ark, by the command and action of the Lord was given such great honor, so too Mary, the New Ark, is to given great honor. Similarly, as the old Ark was sacred and, thus, could not to be touched by man (lest one be struck with death, see 1 Sam. 5; 2 Sam. 2: 6,7), so too, Mary, the New Ark (a "vessel" more sacred than the old ark) was not to be "touched by man" (i.e., she was to remain a virgin).

Now, some may object and say that the divine Scriptures deny the perpetual virginity. For, it is written in Sacred Writ that the Lord Jesus had "brothers" (eg., Matt. 13:55). Likewise, the Divine Word speaks of Joseph not having relations with Mary "until" she had given birth to the Lord Christ, It also speaks of Christ as being the "firstborn" of Mary (Matt. 1:25).

To these objections, we may respond in the following manner. With regard to the fact that the Word of God speaks of "brothers" of Jesus can be explained in one of two ways. First, these "brothers" could very well be the sons of Joseph of another marriage (such was the opinion of Origen, following the Protoevangelium of James). These "brothers" could also be other blood relatives (eg., cousins) of the Lord. For, in the Hebrew tongue, the word "brother" can be used to apply to other relatives (as is the case in Gen. 14:14, where Lot, Abraham's nephew (Gen. 11:26-28), is referred to as Abraham's "brother"). These are both real possibilities; and, the fact that the Sacred Word never refers to anyone but Jesus as being a "son/child of Mary" means, at the very least, that the verses of Scripture which refer to the "brothers" of Christ do not exclude belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

As to the second objection, that the words, "[Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus," (Matt. 1:25) and the reference to Christ as being Mary's "firstborn" (Matt. 1:25), the following can be said. The use of the word "until", can be used in two ways. First, "Thing A existed until event B," can mean that A ceased to exist once B occurred; examples of this usage of "until" are obvious (eg, "It was dark until the sun rose this morning.") But, the usage of "until" can also mean that thing A did not cease to exist once B occurred (but, an author may adopt this usage of "until" for the sake of emphasizig the significance of event B). Examples of this second kind of usage of "until" are not lacking in the divine Scriptures. For example, it is written in God's Word that Christ the Lord will reign "until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (cf., 1 Cor. 15:25) Clearly, this is an example of this second kind of usage of "until" (for, Christ the Lord will not only reign before he has put enemies under his feet, but, also, after he has put all his enemies under his feet, as it is written, "He shall reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15)) It is this second kind of usage of "until" that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf., 2 Tim. 3:16) is utilized by the sacred author, Matthew. For, as Paul used the word, "until" to emphasize the significance of Christ putting all his enemies under his feet (without intending to communicate that Christ's reign would end after that event!), so, too, Matthew, used the word "until" to emphasize the significance of the event of Christ's birth (without intending to communicate that Mary's virginity would end after that event.)

The reference to Christ as the "firstborn" can be explained by the fact that the term, "firstborn", can be used as a term which indicates a special place or rank (for, this is the way it was used in legal matters). This is the way that Paul uses the term in Colossians 1:15, where he refers to Christ as the "first-born" of all creation (even though many other creatures were born before Christ was born in His human nature). Likewise, "firstborn" can simply mean "first", without implying that there would be a second. This is the way it is used in Exodus 34:20, which commands the people, "All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem." Now, these males were called "firstborn" regardless of whether or not there would be any "second-born" (for, the parents had to redeem these firstborn 40 days after birth, well before any second-born; and, in some cases, there would not be any "second-born" and, yet, the only son was still called a "firstborn").

So, again, at the very least, we can conclude that the Scriptures' use of the words "until" and "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25 do not exclude belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

That this is revealed through the Tradition of the Church is evidenced by a number of testimonies. For, the Tradition of the Church is revealed to us through such means as the testimony of the Church Fathers (particularly when the Fathers are of one voice), the liturgy/prayers of the Church and other works of piety, the Creeds, etc. Among the ante-Nicene testimony evidencing belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, we have the "Protoevenagelium of James", which speaks of Mary as being, from her youth, a virgin consecrated to the Lord (which testimony is in-line with the aforementioned Fathers' interpretation of Luke 1:34). Further, as already discussed, Origen also affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. Besides these, we have frequent references to Mary as "the virgin" (eg., in a 3rd century Egyptian prayer, Mary is prayed to as “Glorious and blessed Virgin” (although some translations do address her with the words, “only pure one”, instead of as “virgin”, the idea is likely the same—that Mary, as a virgin consecrated to God, remains perfectly pure). The fact that she continued to be addressed in this manner by Christians shows not only their belief in her intercessory power from heaven, but also strongly indicates their belief that she still was a virgin as they were praying to her.)

Now, some may object and say that there is not a great amount of ante-Nicene testimony to the perpetual virginity. Some may also object by saying that the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is contradicted by some ante-Nicene Fathers (eg., Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hegisippus). To the first objection, it needs to be noted that, over time, the expression of the Christian Faith becomes more explicit and developed. Thus, what is at first believed and expressed in a vague, confused, or implicit manner is, over time, believed and expressed in a more precise, clear, and explicit manner. Such was the case, for example, in the Christian belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (the two fundamental truths of the Christian faith). The belief in these two doctrines was first expressed in a more-or-less vague or implicit manner; as time went on, the Church developed ways to express these truths more precisely and explicitly. Such is also the case with the Church's beliefs concerning Mary, including the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. While Mary is, early on, simply referred to as, "the Virgin," over time the Church had to make herself more clear as to what exactly is to be believed about, "the Virgin," namely, that Mary is a perpetual virgin. So, it is not surprising-- nay, it is to be expected-- to find that the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers is not quite as clear and explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary (or, for that matter, concerning any other Christian belief), as were the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers (which Fathers are much more clear, for the most part, in expressing their belief that the Church's faith includes belief in Mary's perpetual virginity; for example, Basil the Great, that great defender of the Trinity in the 4th century Church), once wrote, "The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin. (On the Holy Generation of
Christ, 5; a number of the early Councils also give witness to this belief, especially by their reference to Mary as "Ever-Virgin").

As to the second objection (that there are ante-Nicene Fathers who actually contradict the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity), this objection needs to be shown by evidence from the writings of the Fathers. It can be admitted that Tertullian denied Mary's perpetual virginity. But, Tertullian excepted, it is not clear that any ante-Nicene Fathers outright denied or contradicted Mary's perpetual virginity. Some may point to Irenaeus' words, ""To this effect they (the Prophets) testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4) While this appears to be an implicit denial of Mary's perpetual virginity, such is not the case (at the very least, it is not necessarily the case), as can be seen by looking at the entire context of chapter 21 of Book III of Against Heresies. For, as was said above concerning the use of the word, "until", similar things can be said concerning the use of the word, "before". That is, if, "Thing A existed before event B," does not necessarily mean that event B ever really occurs (but, we might use this kind of speech to emphasize the importance of event B, and the significance of it never occurring). For example, we might say something like, "I had to rush to work before I could even say good-bye to my family;" "Grandpa died before he could ever travel to Europe;" "The Montreal Expos were dis-banded before they could ever win a world series," etc.) Such, I believe, is the way that Irenaeus is using the word, "before", here. For, the goal of that entire chapter is to show that God, in truly becoming man, was born of a virgin. Thus, Irenaeus is at pains to show that Mary was a virgin at the time of her giving birth to Christ. His whole focus is on the time of Christ's birth; he is not concerning himself with what occurred after Christ's birth (for he is simply interested in showing that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Christ). So, his use of the word "before" in reference to Mary and Joseph "coming together" do not imply that the event (i.e., Mary and Joseph's coming together) necessarily occurred (and, I myself do not believe that this ever did occur).

While I would love to address some of the other objections, time has run out; so, let this response suffice for now.

In Christ the Savior, Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)