'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

How did I do, Blogger and FK?

Pretty good, I'd say. I can tell you are trying to be fair and I appreciate that. :) I agree with the substance of Blogger's response, so basically my only addition is in regard to:

"Saved" here means a one time sincere commitment, like what we read in the gospel occurring in adult converts at the time of their adult baptism. Baptism is a visible manifestation of such committed faith.

It is reasonable for you to say this, but I would have to disagree on (perhaps hyper-) technical grounds. :) As a Reformed Baptist, of course I am uncomfortable making any comparison between saying the sinner's prayer and adult baptism. (You are spot on in that we see baptism as a manifestation of faith, it is an obedience to God, one done from free will.) I guess what has me squirming a little bit is that when I read what you wrote I think to myself that the view being expressed is that before the sinner's prayer, one is not of the elect, but after saying the prayer, THEN one is of the elect. Is this what you were thinking? (If I'm misreading this, then it's on me, not you. :)

While we're at it, what is the Catholic view of the moment within time when a person becomes one of the elect? We would say from before all creation. If one has the view that God looked ahead in time to see who would choose Him, then "within time" the actual "effective" election would happen at perhaps the person's baptism, or at belief, or at his confirmation, or at the end of his life with clean confession and Last Rights, etc. (It is my understanding that in Catholicism, one's ultimate destiny cannot change after physical death. If correct, we agree with this.)

The commentary I read here and elsewhere about "pecca fortiter" was that is was a vivid illustration of the doctrine of security of salvation rather than a practical lifestyle advice.

YES, thank you for even suggesting the possibility that Luther was not actually advocating running around and sinning at will. :) You are most kind, and I mean that sincerely. He was making a perspective comparison to show the finality of the Atonement (just like you said). We all know that Luther fretted tremendously about his own sins, so it is not possible that he was literally advocating sinning. He was making a point. By our standards today, perhaps it sounds clumsy, but what was really in his heart was consistent with the rest of his teachings, right or wrong. He was no supporter of sin. :)

[MD to BAC:] Your post was addressed to a number of people but it seems you are describing the behavior of one person. (In the south, we say "you all" as the second person plural pronoun. It actually makes communication clearer.)

Now wait a minute. As a resident of the Show-Me state I doth protest. :) As I understand it, "y'all" is the second person SINGULAR pronoun. The second person plural pronoun is "all y'all". :)

*In the Creed, we Christians profess that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic...Church.

*That Apostolic means, in part Apostolic Succession...
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me?" "I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
*THAT'S TRADITION AND ORTHOPRAXIS.
Acts 1:20...For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
2 Tim 1:6...Bishop Paul Ordains Timothy... For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.
Titus 1...Bishop Paul reminds Titus he ordained him Bishop and as Bishop, Titus will ordain priests...For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
*THAT'S SCRIPTURE

Lumen Gentium
That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world, since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors.
For they not only had helpers in their ministry, but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves, recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God. They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry. Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed. Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down ln our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved.
Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.
... For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person. Therefore it pertains to the bishops to admit newly elected members into the episcopal body by means of the sacrament of Orders.
*THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING

* Now, I have posted Teaching from Scripture, Tradition, and Church. That is the way our Triune God, in his Threefold Treatise on Truth, Teaches us. It has been this way, as I have just shown, from the get go. There is no such orthodox belief known as Sola Scriptura I have just illustrated the reality of Church, Tradition, Scripture, which, is both their appearance in Christian Chronological order, and also the the Rule of Faith. Let he who has ears hear.

Just as I bridle when Protestants tell me that I am an unwitting idolater because I have been seen kneeling before a statue of the Mother of God, so I expect most intelligent Protestants of good will to bridle when we stomp all over Luther without any understanding, or at least acknowledgment, of the plausible aspects of his position.

P.S. to my last post. Thank you very much for this very intellectually honest statement. As a Reformer, I do appreciate it. We may disagree, but all of us should always strive to be civil about it. :) You are a good example.

That is ideological eisegesis which Church, Scripture, and Tradition does not recognise as orthodox.

Now, you seem like a nice man and you have free will to do whatever you desire. But, you are way off base here. All I can do, and I have done, is to show the actual Doctrine and how it has been attested to since the get go. It is up to the Holy Spirit after that because it is ineluctable I have truth on my side because ALL I do is echo what the Church teaches and has always taught.

I would like to ask you a question though. Why do you think I might be convinced by your ideas? Isn't it clear I reject your ideas as opposed to Church, Scripture, and Tradition?

I am sorry. As a sola scripturist, you are rejecting scripture

No, lack of words still signifies nothing. There is no passage in Scripture which says 'only Scripture is inspired of God' or 'only Scripture is useful for teaching, reproof, etc.' There is, however, a passage at the end of St. John's Gospel, which asserts its incompleteness.

Yes there is, it's in my tagline.

John 21: 25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

By the way, how do you read that and conclude the bible is not complete?

Amen. In Apostolicae Curae the Aphoristic Pope Leo XII Taught that Anglican Orders are ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID

*BTW, my Bride responds to many of my claims using that aphorism

I am not [Roman] Catholic, if that's what you had in mind.

It was what you said about praying to the dead that fooled me.

Brother, I've got moves you ain't never seen :)

I am like Earl"The Pearl" Monroe when he first got to the NBA out of Winston-Salem

But, I get ya...See, in my longanimity, I didn't even bite on your second sentence ...

Woo WOO! Made it past 5000!

Where I learned my southern was in Mississippi and I was firmly told, well, I was firmly told a lot of things that we need not go into here. But "y'all" (they said) is plural. "All y'all" is, like a plural intensive general, as opposed to "each one of y'all" .

And here in the Old Dominion, which Mississippi considers to be the North, the usage is the same.

Dang pesky border states!
Daddy? Is it time to tell them you were born in Indiana and brung up in Long Island, NY?
You hush up now, littl'un.

Yeah, you are right. I am just speaking colloquially as a Christian and I should be more pointed. I'll try and, um, reform :)

Some times, sola gratia Dei, I am a good example.

Most of the time, however I'm a good example of a bad example.

Very kind of you to say what you said, and I will try (when I remember) to deserve it.

There are parts of Luther that are excellent, I think. There are parts of Calvin ditto. I learned someting from Calvin about the Eucharist that I COULD have learned elsewhere but I got it from Calvin, and lo it was pretty good!

So all this kind of theological jingoism gives me a rash in my nether regions. And then I disgrace myself. "Thus shall I ever do, O Lord, when thou leavest me to myself," as somebody said more or less.

I was suffering with ephesians but I'm better now.

*LOL Scripture has diagnosed the source of your malady...1 Cor 11:30...Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

*See, no Eucharist and one can suffer physically; even die.

However, even one who does go to Mass/Eucharist and consumes the New Covenant Meal can get sick.

Even now, me and the Bride have Colossian Colds but I am taking my hands and Philemon with Vitamin C so I am getting better and not Roman around coughing so much...

If this sets off a round of ghastly puns, YOU are to blame, brother

Just as I bridle when Protestants tell me that I am an unwitting idolater because I have been seen kneeling before a statue of the Mother of God, so I expect most intelligent Protestants of good will to bridle when we stomp all over Luther without any understanding, or at least acknowledgment, of the plausible aspects of his position.

I think the big difference is that as a protestant we don't look at Luther as anyone more special than the janitor of our church inasumch as Mary, Luther and the church janitor are only special to us in the sense that they were called by God to do a certain task and they were faithful in that task. The gifts and the callings of Mary, Luther and the church janitor all belong to God and the Glory for their accomplishments goes to God and not to them.

We don't erect a statue of the church janitor and bow before it simply because he was faithful in his calling. If the church janitor was faithful in his calling, the glory for that accomplishment belongs to God and God alone. And yes, we would "bridle" if we saw people prostrating themselves in front of a statue of the janitor, or at the sight of some relic of his accomplisments, such as an old mop or an old broom that someone claimed was used by him in the accomplishment of his mission on earth.

22!

"Some people just can't tell a joke."

You told it perfectly. I love it when somebody lobs one gently over the plate so that somebody else can send it over the fence.

And thank you for playing our game. For our departing guests we have some lovely gifts. These watch bands from Spiedel .....

Those who leave the faith were never of it to begin with or else they would have stayed with it.

Have you been reading Kierkegaard again?

I think the big difference is that as a protestant we don't look at Luther as anyone more special than the janitor of our church inasumch as Mary, Luther and the church janitor are only special to us in the sense that they were called by God to do a certain task and they were faithful in that task. The gifts and the callings of Mary, Luther and the church janitor all belong to God and the Glory for their accomplishments goes to God and not to them.

I can hear you say that about Luther. Can you hear me saying it about Mary?

Also there's a certain requisite mutatis mutandis here. I might talk to the Janitor about spiritual matters, and I might learn from him or her. I would have little hesitation in asking the janitor to pray for me. (Come to think of it, I worked as a church janitor for a month or so in Carmel, CA in 1971.)(But I certainly wouldn't recommend talking to ME about spritual matters.)But I wouldn't necessarily ask his or her advice on, say, the stock market. I would go to Luther for theological conversation, and I do go to Mary when I want her to let me see her baby.

But yes, all of them like moons, meteors, and lesser satellites, reflecting the light from the Sun of Righteousness, none with any gifts other then by derivation.

Radio Replies

in what way did Mary take her part in the redemptive work of mankind, which was accomplished by Christ alone?

Christ was the principal Author of our redemption, but there were many secondary cooperators in the work. We even find St. Paul saying that we are to fill up what is wanting to the sufferings of Christ. The explanation of this, however, would demand a treatise on the mystical body of Christ as comprising all the members of the Church, and I can scarcely do justice to it now. All I can say is that Mary cooperated in the redemptive work in a way quite special to herself.

As Jesus is the second Adam, so Mary is the second Eve. As our first Mother Eve brought us forth to misery and suffering, so our second Mother Mary, in bringing forth our Savior, brought us forth to happiness and salvation. Mary's consent was asked by God when the time for the Incarnation was at hand; she consented to the full work of Christ from the cave of Bethlehem to the Cross of Calvary. She provided the very blood that was shed for us. In union with Christ she had her own passion, and Simeon rightly predicted to her, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, "Thy own soul a sword shall pierce." With, in, and through the work of Christ her sufferings also contributed secondarily towards our redemption. And she was given to us from the Cross as a mother for a mother's work. To all of us Christ said, in the person of St. John, "Son, behold thy Mother." We Catholics, therefore, regard Mary as our spiritual Mother, entertaining towards her the love and devotion of children. Every Christian woman, above all, should regard Mary, the Mother of Christ, as the glory of her sex.

I think the brothers and sisters referred to were the children of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. There is no reason to think otherwise.

There is every reason to think otherwise. Firstly, the so-called brethren of Jesus are depicted by the Gospel texts as older than He Himself, criticizing and advising Him, and jealous of His popularity. Secondly, when the offer was made to Mary that she should become the Mother of the Messiah, she said, "How shall this be done, because I know not man." Almighty God provided miraculously that she should become the Mother without sacrificing her virginity. She was not likely to sacrifice it later on for other children so much less than the very Son of God. As that Son was the only-begotten of His Eternal Father, so He would be the only-begotten of His earthly Mother. Thirdly, Jesus alone in the Gospels is called the Son of Mary; and never once is she called the Mother of the brethren of the Lord. Fourthly, the only four brethren mentioned by name are James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Now St. John tells us that there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and His Mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas. And this latter is referred to by St. Matthew as the mother of James and Joseph. Again, if you look up the first words of St. Jude's Epistle you will find him saying, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Why did he make that distinction? Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were direct children of Mary, and if there were yet other brethren and sisters of Jesus in your sense of the word, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John after His death, so that John took her as his own mother thenceforth? That would not be necessary if she had other children to look after her.

Mark VI., 3, says, "Is not this carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph, and Jude and Simon? Are not also His sisters here with us?"

The reference to Jesus as the Son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph, Jude and Simon, as also to His sisters is also quite compatible with our Lord's being the only Son of Mary. The term brothers or sisters was applied to any near relatives within the same tribe even though they were first, second or third cousins. In much the same way 1 could speak of a brother American without suggesting that he was of the same mother as myself. Remember that in the Aramaic language used at the time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews had to use the word "Achim," brethren, for the description of any kindred by collateral descent. I could give you a dozen references from the Old Testament proving the Jewish usage of those terms for half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and any blood relatives in general. Renan, quite an unbeliever in Christ and whose verdict is above suspicion, says of this passage that the preliminary expression "the Son of Mary" followed by the mention of the other names takes it for granted that Jesus was known as the only son of a widow. Loisy, another who was by no means well disposed towards the Catholic doctrine, declares that, when Mary hesitated to accept the offer of the Angel to become the Mother of Christ, she spoke so absolutely when she said, "How shall this be, for I know not man," that Catholics are justified in seeing the intention of perpetually preserving her virginity.

Luke I., 36, confutes the story that there was no word in the Greek to describe James, Joseph, Jude and Simon as cousins.

I have never heard it said that there was no word in Greek for cousin. It is certain that there was no word in Hebrew for cousin. The Hebrew word for brother, ah, and in the Aramaic, aha, was used to describe brothers, half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and relatives in general. It is certain that any cousins of Jesus would have to be described in Aramaic as brethren. And, in translating the Hebrew expression literally by the Greek word brethren, the Evangelists merely followed the example already given in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament.

St. Paul wrote:' ". . . But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which 1 write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. . . ." Galatians I., vv. 19, etc.

Quite so. St. Paul did not lie. He saw St. James. But when he alluded to James as the Lord's brother, he had not in mind the sense you imagine. He made a perfectly lawful use of the term in the broad sense which included cousins, according to Jewish usage at that time. Critical scholarship demolishes the idea that these brethren were other children of Mary the Mother of Jesus. It observes that these brethren are depicted as older than Jesus, though it is certain that Mary had no children prior to Jesus. And precisely because Mary had no other children of her own, Jesus had to confide His Mother to the care of John, the son of Zebedee, as He died upon the Cross. One wonders why Protestants wish to assert that Mary had other sons after Jesus was born. Is it for the sheer love of truth, and that they may contribute to the greater honor of Jesus and Mary? Or is it that they want to drag Mary down from her true dignity, and Jesus down to the level of ordinary men, in order to show their contempt for Catholicism? I am afraid that, in some Protestants, faith in the Gospels and in Jesus Christ runs a bad second to their dislike of Catholicism. It is enough for them that the Catholic Church teaches a given doctrine to inspire them with zeal to deny it, whatever the consequences to the Jesus Christ they profess to serve, and to His Mother Mary, whom Jesus cannot desire to be held in anything but the highest reverence and esteem.

On the Cross Christ said to St. John, "Son, behold thy Mother," there" fore, making out John was another son.

Christ, in His infinite wisdom, would not waste words in those precious and most painful last moments to tell John something of which John was already well aware. It was precisely because Mary was not the natural mother of John that Christ asked him to be a son to her. And the Gospel tells us that "From that hour the disciple took her as his own." Which means that only from that moment, in virtue of this commission of Christ, John recognized that he had filial obligations to Mary. Had he been her natural son, he would have had them all along. Scripture gives us the names of John's father and mother, and they were not Joseph and Mary. Mark I., 19, tells us that his father's name was Zebedee. In Mark X., 35, we again read that "James and John, the sons of Zebedee came to Christ saying . . ." etc. In Matthew XX., 20, we are told that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Christ adoring Him and asking a favor. And she was not His own Mother. Who was she? Her name was Salome, mentioned in Mark XV., 40. So that St. John was the natural son, not of Joseph and Mary, but of Zebedee and Salome. And it was precisely because Christ knew that His Mother Mary had no other children to care for her that He committed her to the care of His loved disciple St. John, asking him to regard her henceforth as if she were his own Mother.

Was our Lady vowed to virginity from early childhood, or was she "espoused to a man named Joseph" with the intention of marrying him in the ordinary way, until the advent of the Angel Gabriel changed her plans?

According to the teaching of Catholic theologians, Mary, under the inspiration of God, had formed the determination to preserve life-long virginity, and under that same inspiration of God, had agreed later to be espoused to St. Joseph, both of them by mutual consent making a vow not to demand of each other the right to those marital relations which are one of the normal privileges of marriage. This espousal was in view of God's purpose to provide a protector for the Mother and Child, a purpose which became clear to Mary when the Angel Gabriel, as St. Luke says, "appeared to a virgin who was espoused to a man named Joseph." When the Angel predicted that she would bear a child, consciousness of her determination to remain a virgin is evident from her reply, "How shall this be done, because I know not man." As St. Augustine points out, she would not have said this, despite her engagement to Joseph, had she not resolved to remain a virgin.

Do you believe that Mary ascended into heaven, and was crowned amidst the glory of all the Saints?

Catholic teaching does not speak of Mary's ascending into heaven. Christ, by His own divine power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven, body and soul, after her death. We Catholics believe, therefore, in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And we speak of the fitting honor with which God received her as her crowning with glory. There is nothing in this doctrine which is in any way opposed to sound and reasonable principles. Nor a single rational argument can be advanced to prove that it could not happen, or that it did not happen. On the other hand, there are solid reasons for the belief that it did happen, and also the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, an authority guaranteed by Sacred Scripture.

There is nothing in Scripture about this.

It is not necessary that there should be. We know that Christ is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. We know that His Mother is in heaven, and that the Mother of the King rejoices in a queenly dignity. It is quite certain that our Lady has a closer bond with Jesus than any other human being, and that, if He is going to crown His Saints with glory, He will give the highest honor to His Mother.

What authority is there for the doctrine?

Firstly, of course, the inherent teaching authority of Christ. The Catholic Church was commissioned to teach all nations with His authority and under His protection. The mere fact that she teaches the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven is sufficient assurance of the event. But what reasons support the teaching, apart from the authority of the Church? There is no express reference to the subject in Sacred Scripture. But it has ever been the tradition of Christians from the very beginning, and, as the Anglican Mozley has pointed out, "The conviction of the fact did not arise from mere belief; the belief can only be accounted for by the primitive fact." Theologically, the corruption of the body is a consequence of the corruption of original sin. But Mary was exempted from the corruption of original sin, and it was most fitting that she should be exempted from corruption in the grave. The Greek Orthodox Church agrees with the Catholic Church on this doctrine. High Church Anglicans are returning to it. I have just been reading an Anglican booklet on the subject, in which the author writes: "It would seem rash to deny such a bodily Assumption, for despite the prevalence of credulity in the matter of relics, no Church (or city) has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of our Lady. Why not? It is a fact which requires explanation. Relics of our Lady would possess a greater value for Christians than any others. Do not urge that the Reformers abolished the festival of the Assumption. They abolished much that had been better left untouched. Many of their experiments have not proved successful. We may hope the day will come when the authorities of our provinces will repair the loss which has been sustained by its omission." I quote that to show the High Anglican tendency, and also, because there is something in the historical fact that, whilst St. Peter's body, for example, is so deeply reverenced at Rome, no city has ever claimed to possess the remains of our Blessed Lady. Her assumption, body and soul, into heaven is an obvious reason why.

Why do Catholics believe that Mary prays for them and helps them?

Because they believe that she is their spiritual Mother, and that she has not lost her interest in those for whom her Son died, merely because she is in heaven. It is the Christian law, according to St. James, that we should pray for one another. The Saints in heaven pray for us who are on earth and still endeavoring to work out our salvation. And Mary is the greatest of the Saints. It is but an application in practice of our belief in the Communion of Saints, a doctrine we profess every time we say the Apostles' Creed.

Why do they pray to her instead of to God, as Protestants do?

We do not pray to Mary instead of to God, but we pray to her as well as to God. And those who retain devotion to Mary are in the habit of offering more prayers directly to God than those who have repudiated devotion to Mary. Moreover, prayers to Mary are prayers to God through her intercession. And you cannot deny that at times it is good to have our Lady praying with us rather than to pray alone to God. Two prayers are better than one, above all when the other whom I have asked to join in my petition is the very Mother of Christ.

To my Protestant mind your worship of Mary is little short of idolatry.

That can only be because you have not understood Catholic doctrine on the subject. The Creator alone is God. Mary is as much a creature as any other human being. But whilst she is as much a creature as we are, we have not been honored by God nearly as much as she.

Does not the elevation of Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ, to a rank quasi-divine, find an illuminating analogue in the ancient Egyptian cult which gave Isis the divine rank of Mother of Heaven?

Firstly, Mary has not been elevated by the Catholic Church to a rank quasi-divine, or even remotely divine. In Catholic theology she falls as far short of divinity as I do, and that's infinitely. Secondly, there is no true analogue between the historical Mother of Christ and the purely mythological Isis, and still less can any illumination be derived from a comparison of the two.

Catholicism says Mary is omnipotent in power and infinite in mercy.

It does not say that Mary is omnipotent in power and infinite in mercy. It says that her prayer and intercession have a special efficacy in winning for us the protection of the Omnipotent power of God and His infinite mercy.

"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection." No~ where in Scripture do we find that by man and woman came the resurrection.

The resurrection was but the complement of the redemptive work. Essentially that work was accomplished on Calvary by the death of Jesus on the Cross. And Mary was there, standing at the foot of the Cross, identifying herself with the offering of her Son. By man and woman came our death. Both sexes co-operated in our downfall, and both sexes co-operated in our redemption. God Himself predicted that this would be so. After the sin of our first parents, God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel, and she shall crush thy head." Gen. III., 15. Mary is the second Eve as Christ is the second Adam. And both repaired the evil of our first parents, Christ principally and Mary secondarily and subordinately to Christ.

I have even read in a Catholic book that Mary is co-redemptress of mankind !

Mary's work was to be our co-redemptress, and to mediate for us together with Christ, but of course in subordination to Him. He is the one principal Mediator to whom we owe all. Do not be disturbed by this association of Mary with the redemptive work of Christ. If all Christians are members of Christ, and are called upon, as St. Paul says, to fill up what is wanting to the suffering of Christ, then you can be sure that as Mary, His Mother, was more closely associated with Christ than we are, so she is more closely associated with His redemptive work. By a special title, therefore, we call her co-redemptress. We call her "Our life, our sweetness, and our hope." For, in bringing forth Christ she brought us forth to life, she is the model of every virtue, and above all should be the glory of all women; and she is our hope as Eve was our despair. All this tells us what she is for. She is our spiritual Mother in heaven, and she fulfills the duties of a Mother, winning for us by her intercession that grace of Christ which is life to our souls and which, please God, will mean eternal life in the end.

What do you mean by her Immaculate Conception?

The Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary was conceived miraculously, or that there was anything abnormal in her physical origin. It simply means that her soul was preserved from that taint of original sin which all others inherit from our first parents. It was really an anticipated baptism, a redemption of Mary's soul by prevention of sin's contamination and through the merits of Christ. The Eternal Son of God would not enter this world through a defiled doorway.

Mary said, "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." Lk. l, 47. Would Mary have said this if she were already immaculate, and in no need of a Savior?

She owed her preservation from sin to the anticipated merits of Christ. Christ, therefore, was her Savior by prevention as He is ours by subsequent cleansing.

Mary also said, "He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaiden." How could she be lowly if she were the highest person ever in existence since Adam before his fall from grace?

Mary was not the highest person in existence since Adam. Christ was infinitely higher than Mary. But sin is not the only motive of lowliness or humility. The purest and most innocent of creatures, by the mere fact of being a creature, is infinitely lowly before the Creator. Adam, before his fall from grace, was the lowly servant of God. Jesus Himself, in virtue of the limitations of His created human nature, said, "Learn of Me, that I am meek and humble of heart." Our Lord was certainly without sin, and if He described Himself as lowly of heart, the use of the same expression by Mary is no argument against her sinlessness.

If Mary was free from sin and immaculate, how could she die? Death is the wages of sin.

Death is the wages of sin in a very special sense. Sin or no sin, it is natural to man to die. The human body, just as the bodies of animals, has a natural process of growth to maturity followed by age, decay, and death. Naturally, therefore, even Adam and Eve, had they never sinned, would have encountered a natural physical death if no other provision had been made for them. But God promised them a supernatural exemption from any natural process of death if they remained faithful to Him. They fell, forfeited their supernatural immunity from physical death, and nature was allowed to have its way. Therefore death is the wages of sin not as if death were abnormal, but as a normal conclusion of earthly life from which men had lost their exemption. Since Mary was human, it was not unnatural that she should die. But you will ask, "If she was supernaturally preserved from sin, why was she not supernaturally preserved from death?" That we shall see.

No one except Christ could possibly be without original sin, and yet see death, unless he or she were God.

I am afraid your thought is here a little obscure. Christ was without original sin, yet saw death, not because He was God, but because He was man. In His Divine Nature He could not die. In His human nature He could. Keep in mind that death is natural to a human nature, quite apart from original or any other sin. A human nature could not be God, and it could, and normally should die, quite apart from sin. By a special privilege God had exempted man from the normal process of death on the condition that he refrained from sin. Man sinned, and lost the privilege. Mary was preserved from all taint of sin, and by that, at least, deserved to be preserved from the natural process of death. But her life and her vocation were so intimately blended with the life and vocation of Christ, that both she and He endured an undeserved death. As when mankind fell, both sexes were represented in Adam and Eve, so both sexes were represented in our redemption. Mary, the second Eve shared death with Christ, the second Adam. The death of Christ was our redemption, but included in the redemptive work of Christ, though subordinate to it, was the death of Mary. The primitive traditions which tell us of the assumption also tell us of the "falling asleep of the Virgin Mary," an expression used to denote the transitory character of her death.

Why does the Catholic Church maintain that Mary was "ever a virgin," when Scripture clearly states that she was a virgin only until the birth of Christ?

The Catholic Church has defined as an article of faith that Mary remained always a virgin. Every Catholic in the world is obliged under pain of serious sin to believe that on the very authority of God's knowledge and veracity. Now cannot you see that the Catholic Church would be very, very foolish to define such a doctrine, if the opposite were clearly stated in Scripture? Anyone can get hold of a copy of Sacred Scripture. If the opposite of the Catholic dogma were clearly stated there, one would only have to quote the passage to refute the defined doctrine, and the whole case for the Catholic Church would collapse. Should you not suspect that if the Catholic Church has defined that Mary remained ever a virgin, then, to say the least, there cannot be anything in Scripture against it? Don't you think the Church would have made sure of that, before defining what otherwise could so easily be proved to be erroneous?

If Joseph was not His father why do they trace His descent from David through him?

Because the Jews always kept their genealogies in the male line, and since Mary was of the same tribe as Joseph, his line of ancestry was also hers.

You say Jesus was descended from, David through Mary, but the Bible says He is descended from David through Joseph.

The Bible does not say that. St. Matthew says, "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." That says no more than that Joseph was related by marriage to Mary, who, as a matter of fact, gave birth to Christ. St. Luke says at the beginning of his account, "Jesus, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." He knew quite well that Jesus was not the son of Joseph in reality, though Joseph was the legal head of the Holy Family.

Did Jesus or Mary ever deny that Joseph was His father?

The whole of the New Testament is the written Word of God, and as Jesus is the Eternal Word, every utterance in the New Testament is His. When St. Luke writes, "Jesus, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph," Jesus accepts full responsibility for those words. No direct utterance from His own lips whilst on earth is recorded, though that is not proof that He never spoke of it. Not every word Jesus ever said was written down. Indirectly His words in John VIII., 14, 23, certainly indicate an origin differing from that of ordinary men. "I know whence I came," He said, "but you know not whence I come. You are from beneath; I am from above." Mary certainly spoke of the fact that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, for all scholars admit that St. Luke got his account of the birth and infancy of Jesus from Mary. But Matthew I., 19, 25, shows clearly that Joseph knew that he was not the father of Jesus. Mary being found with child, Joseph being a just man was minded to put her away privately. But the Angel appeared to him and said, "Joseph, son of David, fear not, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Reassured that the child of which he knew he was not the father had been miraculously conceived, Joseph did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him.

The Sinaitic Code, or maybe one of the Neutral Texts, is that "Joseph begat Jesus." How reconcile this with the Catholic concept of a Virgin Birth?

That reading does not occur in what are known as the Neutral Texts, nor in the Codex Sinaiticus. It occurs in a Syrian translation found on Mt. Sinai some few years ago, and which has been called the Sinaitic Syriac. Now as regards the wording you quote, i.e., "Joseph begat Jesus," I reply that whether it is correct or not it would not necessarily affect the Catholic concept of the Virgin Birth. But also I say that, whilst it would not affect the doctrine whether correct or not, it is not correct. Firstly, even if it were correct, it would not affect our doctrine. For such an expression would be quite normal even when referring to legal paternity as opposed to real and natural paternity. And parallel passages compel the acceptance of legal paternity only. Secondly, however, it is not correct. This isolated Syrian translation must yield to the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Vod Soden admitted the reading you quote into his edition of the Greek text, and met with protests from scholars the world over. His action was against all the principles of Biblical textual criticism, and Lagrange did not hesitate to call it a "critical enormity." The reading, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct, and even if it were, it would not affect the Catholic doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

From the medical standpoint a virgin birth is impossible.

The medical standpoint is that children normally result from the activities of both a father and a mother. And with that standpoint I am in full agreement. But then, we have never said that the birth of Christ was a normal event. And no medical standpoint demands the admission that God is bound always to observe normal procedure according to the natural laws we usually observe. Once we assert a miraculous birth outside the normal teachings of medical experience, there is no medical standpoint left. There is a philosophical standpoint, as to whether an Infinite Creator could do immediately what He usually does mediately by secondary causes of His own making. And, granted the philosophic possibility of His doing so, there arises the historical standpoint as to whether He did so. And the Virgin Birth is an historical certainty.

If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then Jesus was illegitimate.

That is not so. What is an illegitimate child? An illegitimate child is one born as the result of unlawful relations between two people not married, and who is not legally accepted in the eyes of the state as belonging to a lawfully married couple. But the Child Jesus was not the result of any unlawful relations on Mary's part with any person to whom she was not married. The very Bible which says that St. Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus also makes it clear that no other created human being was the father. St. Joseph was told that God Himself had miraculously caused Mary to be with child; and it is as legitimate for God to dispense with the need of a human father as to allow normal processes of generation. So, from the viewpoint of His conception Christ was certainly not illegitimate. Secondly, Joseph and Mary were lawfully married, and the Child born of Mary was legally accepted by the State as belonging to a lawfully married couple. In the external order, therefore, Jesus was legitimate also in civil law. Both by origin and public acceptance, then, He was quite legitimate.

In what category would you place the Gospel of Nicodemus?

The author of that uncanonical Gospel was orthodox in his faith, and in no way intended to discredit that faith.

He mentions that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus chided Him with being of illegitimate birth.

It is not improbable that the Jews thus slandered Christ. And the author mentions it as a slander. If the Gospel of Nicodemus has any value for you, you can get nothing more out of it than that the enemies of Christ made a charge against Him and that the charge was false. But you, apparently, wish to accept the record of a false charge as sufficient evidence that the charge was true.

Is not such a matter supported by a second century writer, Celsus, who enlarges this into the charge that Joseph divorced Mary for adultery because she had borne a child to a certain soldier named Pantheras?

The matter is not supported by Celsus. Celsus, the pagan, and the bitter enemy of the Christian Church, repeated and amplified whatever slanders he could find. And the fact that Celsus slandered Christ in the second century no more militates against the historical character of the Gospels than the fact that you approve of those slanders in the twentieth century. Origen refuted Celsus centuries ago, showing the obviously fictitious nature of his calumnies. No reputable scholar attaches any weight to the utterances of that bitter pagan.

Further, was not this charge also carried into Jewish writings, from quite an early date, which state that Jesus was actually the son of a Greek officer in the Roman Army named Pantheras?

It was. And such was to be expected. Bitter enemies of the Church in those days no more hesitated to indulge in the propaganda of lies and calumnies than they do in these days. But, as Origen points out, the enemies of the Church had no sources of information against Jesus save the Gospels themselves. The very name of your Greek officer, Pantheras, was probably no more than a corruption of the Greek word for Virgin, "Parthenos." The attacks of these early opponents of the Christian religion have but one real value only. In their own perverted way they furnish important evidence of how essential to the Christian Faith was the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in the estimate of all the early Christians. But you repeat very old charges when you fall back on the objections of early Jewish and pagan enemies of Christianity. Do you really think that, after surviving those for nearly two thousand years, the authenticity of the Gospels is going to collapse under them now?

What is there that is essential in a belief in the Virgin Birth?

For a Christian it is essential to believe all that God has revealed. To deny the truth of what God reveals is to accuse God of not knowing what He is talking about, or of being a deliberate liar, surely not a very Christian attitude towards God! In the Apostles' Creed Christians for centuries have professed their faith that Jesus Christ was "conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary." The Gospels very clearly state God's promise to Mary that her Child would be due to the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost and the Divine Omnipotence without the necessity of any relations with the opposite sex. They also show that St. Joseph knew quite well that he was not the father of Jesus, and that he was told that the Child to be born of Mary was "of the Holy Ghost." To repudiate the fact that Jesus was born of a Virgin Mother is, therefore, to repudiate the direct teaching of Sacred Scripture.

Is it possible that the holding of such a belief can strengthen one's character?

It would not matter in the least if it could not! What is true does not cease to be true, merely because it does not prove useful for every purpose. The truth that there are other planets besides this earth does not serve to strengthen one's character. But men do not deny the truth because of that. However, belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ does strengthen one's character, for it is due to one's faith in God, and the man of deep faith in God is strong where others are weak. To deny what God has revealed to be true is the rebellion of pride, and pride is the beginning of all sin and corruption of human character.

Can the belief encourage one to stronger Christian living?

Most decidedly. For if indeed Christ be God coming to seek us, instead of our merely seeking God, then an impetus is given to our love of God which cannot rest content without reciprocal generosity. It may be said that the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ could be independent of that concerning the Virgin Birth. But not so. Is it not significant that attacks on the Virgin Birth come from those who reject all the supernatural and miraculous aspects of Christ? True Christians have ever held fast to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, not only as a fact revealed by God, but as a guarantee of the real humanity of Christ because born of a human mother, yet not less decisively as a guarantee of His super-human dignity because born without the agency of a human father. The conviction that Jesus is my God is the greatest possible encouragement to Christian living. And His supernatural Virgin Birth, having for its end the founding of a new and regenerated humanity, and the introduction of a Redeemer with the divine forces needed for the world's salvation, is the normal corollary of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. Natural generation has never resulted in a truly human, yet at the same time, a super-human being. Therefore those who have lost faith in the super-human character of Christ attack the Virgin Birth, and insist that His was a merely natural generation by an ordinary father and mother in the ordinary way. But their rejection of the Virgin Birth is a mutilation of Scripture, a contradiction of the Christian Faith from Apostolic times, and a surrender of Christian teaching into the hands of advocates of a non-miraculous, purely humanitarian Christ who may be ranked only with Buddha, or Confucius, or Mahomet, as each may wish.

How do you know the Virgin Mary is in heaven yet?

I will reply to that question as Christ replied to His adversaries on another matter. Do you remember how the chief priests said to Him one day, "Tell us by what authority Thou dost these things?" and He replied, "Answer Me one question, and then I will tell you. The baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or from earth?" They would not answer. Now let me ask you a question. If the Virgin Mary is not in heaven yet, where is she? Will you suggest that our Savior did not save His own Mother, and that she is in hell? Or, if you won't admit that, will you suggest that she is not in heaven yet because she is still in purgatory?

Please explain fully the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The doctrine merely says that, after the Blessed Virgin Mary died, her body was not allowed by God to corrupt as is the case with others. This was prevented by the resurrection of her body before corruption could set in. Reunited with her soul, her body was spiritualized and glorified; at once being assumed into heaven. In other words, God anticipated for the Blessed Virgin Mary what is going to happen to all the saved on the last day.

What reasons are there for her bodily assumption?

Death and corruption are penalties of original sin. But Mary, by her Immaculate Conception, was preserved free from all taint of original sin. You may ask, "Why, then, did she die?" Though innocent, she died in union with her innocent Son. She shared in the whole work of redemption, identifying herself with Jesus in all His sorrows and sufferings. And she accepted death as He accepted death. But, as she shared in His redemptive work, so also she shared in the privilege of His resurrection and glory. After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day

Let us turn from your dogma of Christ to those dogmas concerning your goddess Mary.

Let us turn from your dogma of Christ to those dogmas concerning your goddess Mary.

It would be mortal sin for any Catholic to regard Mary as a goddess. If a Catholic expressed such a belief to a Priest in confession he would be refused absolution unless he promised to renounce such an absurd idea. If you wish to attack Catholic doctrine, at least find out what Catholics do believe before you begin.

If you call her Queen of Heaven do you not do her an injustice in refusing to her the title of goddess?

It would be the greatest possible injustice to regard her as a goddess. It is just to honor her even as God has honored her, which we Catholics do. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, and His mother certainly possesses queenly dignity, holding the highest place in Heaven next to her Divine Son. But that does not, and cannot change her finite and created human nature. To regard her as a goddess would be absurd.

Yet you insist that she is the Mother of God!

Jesus Christ is true God and true man, and as He was born of Mary she is truly the Mother of God. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was born of her according to the humanity He derived from her. She is not a goddess, for God did not take His Divine Being from her. But she is the Mother of God since the Second Per-Bon of the Blessed Trinity was truly born of her in His human nature.

How could Mary be the mother of the One who created her?

Mary owed her being, of course, to God, but this under the aspect of His eternal Nature. Subsequent to her creation that human nature was born of her which the Son of God had assumed to Himself. She was, therefore, the mother of Christ. But Christ was one Divine Person existing in two natures, one eternal and divine; the other temporal and human. Mary necessarily gave birth to a being with one Personality and that Divine, and she is rightly called the Mother of God.

Does not the Catholic Church insist also upon the biologically impossible dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary herself?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has nothing to do with biology. It does not mean that she was conceived miraculously in the physical sense. She was normally conceived and born of her parents, Joachim and Ann. But in her very conception her soul was preserved immaculate in the sense that she inherited no stain of original sin, derived from our first parents.

According to Catholic doctrine the Sacrament of Baptism destroys original sin. Would you say that Mary did not need Baptism?

Mary did not need Baptism in so far as that Sacrament was instituted for the destruction of original sin. She received that Sacrament in order to participate in its other effects, and chiefly in order to receive the Christian character which that Sacrament impresses upon the soul.

If Mary was sinless, she could not have needed redemption! Yet is not Christ the Redeemer of every child of Adam?

In so far as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation Mary needed redeeming. But there are two ways of redeeming. God could allow one to be born in sin and then purify the soul by subsequent application of the merits of Christ, or He could, by an anticipation of the merits of Christ, exempt a soul from any actual contraction of original sin. Thus He exempted Mary from any actual inheritance of the sin, and she owes her exemption to the anticipated merits of Christ. In other words, she was redeemed by Christ by prevention rather than by subsequent purification.

Is there any evidence in Scripture that Mary was indeed never actually subject to original sin?

Yes. In Gen. III., 15, God said to Satan, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman ... thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." The radical enmity between Satan and that second Eve, the Mother of Christ, forbids her having been under the dominion of Satan, as she would have been had she ever contracted original sin in actual fact In Lk. I., 28, we read how the Angel was sent by God to salute Mary with the words, "Hail, full of grace." Grace excludes sin, and had there been any sin at all in Mary she could not have been declared to be filled with grace. The Protestant version translates the phrase as "thou that hast been highly favored." But the Greek certainly implies "completely filled with holiness." However, complaints that our doctrine exempts Mary from the contracting of original sin are becoming more and more rare in a world which is tending to deny original sin altogether, and which wishes to exempt everybody from it.

St. Paul says that One died for all, and therefore all were dead. II.Cor. V., 14.

Such texts must be interpreted in the light of other passages where God reveals that Mary was never under the dominion of Satan. Mary is included in these words of St. Paul juridically in so far as she was born of Adam, but she was not allowed to be born in sin to be afterwards redeemed. She was redeemed by prevention.

St. John knew the Mother of Christ better than the others, yet he does not mention her Immaculate Conception!

In Rev. XII. he shows clearly his knowledge of the deadly opposition between Mary and Satan. His Gospel he wrote to supplement the Synoptic accounts, and sufficient details had been given concerning Mary herself by St Luke. Omission to mention a fact in a given book is not proof that the writer did not know of it, and above all if it does not fall within the scope of his work.

Did the early Church know anything of this doctrine?

St. Augustine, in the 4th century, wrote, "When it is a matter of sin we must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I will have no question raised, owing to the honor due to Our Lord." St. Ephrem, also in the 4th century, taught very clearly the Immaculate Conception of Mary, likening her to Eve before the fall. The Oriental churches celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as the 7th century. When Pope Pius IX. defined the Catholic doctrine in 1854 he gave, not a new truth to be added to Christian teaching, but merely defined that this doctrine was part of Christian teaching from the very beginning, and that it is to be believed by all as part of Christian revelation.

Your infallible Church allowed St. Bernard to remain in ignorance of this doctrine.

Since the Church had not then given any infallible definition on the subject St. Bernard naturally could not be guided by it. St. Bernard believed that Mary was born free from sin, but he was puzzled as to the moment of her sanctification. He thought the probable explanation to be that she was conceived in sin, but purified as was St. John the Baptist prior to her actual birth. But he did not regard this opinion as part of his Faith. Meantime his error was immaterial prior to the final authentic decision of the infallible Church. St. Bernard believed all that God had taught and all that the Catholic Church had clearly set forth in her definitions prior to his time.

Did not St. Thomas Aquinas deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

His opinion was probably much the same as that of St. Bernard. Before the definite decision of the Church was given theologians were free to discuss the matter. But the Church has since defined that the soul of Mary was never subject for a single moment to the stain of original sin. Both St. Bernard and St. Thomas would have been very glad to have had the assistance of such a definition.

Why did the Church withhold that honor from Mary for so long a time?

Since Mary always possessed that honor the Church did not withhold it from her. The definition that Mary did possess such an honor was given by the Church when necessity demanded it. There was no real dispute about this matter in the early Church. In the middle ages theologians attempted a deeper analysis of the privileges of Mary and, with no infallible decision of the Church to help them, some theologians arrived at defective conclusions chiefly because of the defective psychology of the times. Some theologians held that Mary was preserved from original sin from the very moment of her conception; others said from the moment of her animation; yet others that she was purified at a moment subsequent both to her conception and to her animation. All admitted that she was sanctified prior to her actual birth. Now that the Church has spoken there is no doubt on the subject.

Did not Franciscans and Dominicans attack each other bitterly over the Immaculate Conception?

They indulged in much controversy, but it was a free matter for discussion until the Church had given her definite ruling. The Catholic Church demands unity in doctrines which have been definitely decided, liberty in matters still undecided, and charity always. I admit that her ideals of charity have not always been maintained by her wayward children in theological controversies, but that is no fault of the Church.

Did not Philip III. and Philip IV. ask the Popes Paul V., Gregory V., and Alexander VII. to define the Immaculate Conception in order to stop the wrangling, the Popes replying that the doctrine was not definable as not being in Scripture?

The Popes have never given such a decision. Paul V. in 1617 forbade anyone to teach publicly that Mary was not immaculate. Gregory V. in 1622 ordered the discussion to stop until the Church should have given an official decision. Alexander VII. said that the Immaculate Conception of Mary was the common doctrine of the Church and that no one must deny it. None of these Popes gave a dogmatic definition, but rather a disciplinary ruling. Pope Pius IX. defined the doctrine finally in 1854.

Why call Mary a virgin, seeing that she was a mother. The linking of the two terms is an insult to reason.

The assertion that an omnipotent God is limited by the natural laws, which He Himself established, is an insult to reason. Jesus, the child of Mary, was conceived miraculously without the intervention of any human father, and was born miraculously, Mary's virginity being preserved throughout. I do not claim that any natural laws were responsible for this event. I claim that God was responsible, and the only way you can show that the doctrine is not reasonable is by proving that there is no God, or that He could not do what Catholic doctrine asserts.

Where does it say in Scripture that Mary was ever a virgin?

Isaiah the prophet (VII., 14) certainly predicted a supernatural and extraordinary birth of the Messiah when he wrote, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and his name shall be called Emmanuel." St. Luke says, "The angel Gabriel was sent from God ... to a virgin . . . and the virgin's name was Mary." When Mary was offered the dignity of becoming the mother of the Messiah, a privilege to which any Jewish maiden would ordinarily look forward with eager desire, she urged against the prospect the fact that she had no intention of motherhood. "How shall this be done, because I know not man." She does not refer to the past, but by using the present tense indicates her present and persevering intention. The angel assured her that her child would be due to the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit, and that she would not be asked to forfeit the virginity she prized so highly, and then only did she consent. Luke I., 26-38. When Jesus was born Mary had none of the suffering usually associated with childbirth. The child was born miraculously, Mary herself in no way incapacitated. She herself attended to her own needs and those of the child. "She brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger." Lk. II., 7.

Did not Mary, to cloak her own sin, persuade St. Joseph that her child was of the Holy Ghost?

No. That is absolutely false. Mary, saluted by an angel as full of grace, was the purest and holiest woman who ever lived on this earth. And, as a matter of fact, with sublime confidence in God, Mary refrained from explaining the event to St Joseph, leaving all to God. As St. Matthew tells us, "Behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.'" I., 20. What you suggest has been said by certain people merely because the Catholic Church honors Mary. Their hatred of the Catholic Church is so great that they dislike all she loves, and are willing to overlook any injury to Christ in fostering their hatred. Yet how can they hope to please Christ by dishonoring His mother? Every true child bitterly resents disrespect to his mother, and Christ was the best son who ever lived. The more we honor Mary the more we honor Christ, for the honor we show her is because of Christ, If He were not the central figure, Mary would have been forgotten long ago.

If Jesus was born of a virgin why does He say nothing about it?

We do not know that He said nothing about it. The evangelists do not record any special utterances of Christ on this subject, but they do not pretend to record all that He ever said. St Luke tells us that when He met the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things that were concerning him." XXIV., 27. There is every probability that He explained His advent into this world according to the prophecy of Isaiah. Meantime the Gospels do record the fact that Mary was a virgin, and their words are as reliable in this as when they record the utterances of Christ.

To prove Davidic descent both Matthew and Luke give the genealogy of Joseph, useless were not Joseph the father of Christ.

The genealogy of Joseph was that of Mary also. They were kinspeople of the same Davidic stock. The Jews as a rule counted their generations only in the male line, and such a generation alone would appeal to the Jews for whom Matthew above all wrote. The same St. Matthew records that the angel told Joseph that the child was conceived miraculously by the Holy Ghost and not through the intervention of man. St. Luke in turn left no doubt as to his mind on the subject when he carefully wrote that "Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." III., 23.

St. Matthew says that Joseph knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son.

Nor did he. And the expression "till" in Hebrew usage has no necessary reference to the future. Thus in Gen. VIII., 7, we read that "the dove went forth from the ark and did not return till the waters dried up." That expression does not suggest that it returned then. It did not return at all, having found resting places. Nor doe3 the expression first-born child imply that there were other children afterwards. Thus Exodus says, "Every first-born shall be sanctified unto God." Parents had not to wait to see if other children were born before they could call the first their first-born!

Matt. XIII, 55-56, says, "His brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Judes and His sisters, are they not all with us?"

The Jewish expression "brothers and sisters of the Lord" in Scripture merely refers to relationship in the same tribe or stock. Cousins often came under that title. In all nations the word brother has a wide significance, as when one Mason will call another a brother-mason without suggesting that he was born of the same mother. The same St. Matthew speaks explicitly of "Mary, the mother of James and Joseph" in XXVII., 56, obviously alluding to a Mary who was not the mother of Jesus but who was married to Cleophas, the brother of Joseph.

There would not be two girls in the one family called Mary.

There certainly could be. And St. John, XIX., 25, writes that there stood by the cross of Jesus "His mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas." But even here, Mary of Cleophas need not have been a sister in the first degree of blood relationship, but rather of the same lineage in more remote degrees of either consanguinity or affinity.

Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary had other children?

They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ, or for Scripture in their doctrine. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the Catholic Church. But it is a position, which is rapidly going out of fashion. Learned Protestant scholars to day deny as emphatically as any Catholic that Mary had other children. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to care for her. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary. It insults Christ, who was the only begotten of His mother even as He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of great ingratitude to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity, which God had so carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angel to take Mary to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly father but was the very Son of God. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing man who would respect her. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have seemed a sacrilege.

You urge these privileges granted to Mary as the foundation of your devotion to her, yet Christ said, "Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it."

Would you presume to say that Mary, whom the angel addressed as full of grace, did not hear the Word of God and keep it? You have missed the sense of the passage to which you allude. In Luke XI, 27, a woman praised the one who had the honor to be the mother of Christ. Christ did not for a moment deny it, as you would like to believe. The sense of His words is simply, "Yes, she is blessed. But better to hear God's word and keep it, and thus attain holiness, than to be My mother. You cannot all imitate Mary by being My mother; but you can do so by hearing God's word and keeping it." The thought that those who hear God's word and keep it are rather blessed than Mary because she did not is simply absurd. "Henceforth," declared Mary prophetically, "all generations shall call me blessed." Lk. I, 48. And Elizabeth saluted her with the words, "Blessed art thou among women." Lk. I, 42.

Row do you prove Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven?

No Christian could dispute the fact that Mary's soul is in Heaven. Christ certainly did not suffer the soul of His own mother to be lost. The doctrine of her bodily assumption after her death is not contained in Scripture, but is guaranteed by tradition and by the teaching of the Catholic Church. That Scripture omits to record the fact is no argument against it. Omission is not denial. Meantime early traditions positively record the fact, and negatively we note that, whilst the mortal remains of a St. Peter and of a St. Paul are jealously possessed and honored in Rome, no city or Christian center has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of Our Lady. Certainly relics of Our Lady would be regarded as having greater value than those of any Saint or Apostle, so nearly was she related to Christ. And it was most fitting that the body of Mary, who had been preserved even from the taint of original sin, should not have been allowed to corrupt After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to Heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day. However the definite sanction of this doctrine by the Catholic Church is sufficient assurance of the fact.

+++++++++++++++++++++ end of quotes ++++++++++++++++++

*FR's Rumble and Carty were Radio Priests in Australia in the 30's and 40's. It is simply a fact that the same questions are repeatedly brought-up and repeatedly responded to but, due to the malign influence of the 16th century revolution's oral tradition of antipathy towards the Church Jesus established, the progeny of the protestant progenitors are doomed to endlessly repeating these errors, falsely imagining THEY just thought these questions up. They will not hear the Church.

LOL Touche