ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS' OWN RESPONSE TO JORGE CASTRO ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY AND PRAYING TO THE SAINTS

Dear Mr. Castro:

Thank you for your patience. I have been very busy for the past few days. I am a trial lawyer by profession and I was swamped with so many cases to attend to.

I also made some research so that I can intelligently and adequately respond to your questions. I scoured around for Evangelical reference materials on Mary so that I can get information straight from Evangelical sources. I don’t want to misrepresent the beliefs of our Evangelical brothers and sisters.

I am thankful that I have the book Mary for Evangelicals by Prof. Tim S. Perry, an associate professor of theology at Providence College in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. He is also a columnist for Faith Today magazine. Prof. Perry’s book provides a comprehensive and scholarly treatment on Mary from Evangelical perspective. It has the endorsement of various Evangelical authors and scholars. Thus, I shall draw heavily from Prof. Perry’s discussion in Mary for Evangelicals.

I consulted Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker (Catholic) and David Gustafson (Evangelical). This book provides insights and perspectives from both sides. The book illustrates that we can disagree without being disagreeable. For me, ecumenism means properly articulating, as charitably as possible, where we can agree and where we cannot. Ecumenism is unity in truth – based on the highest common denominator and not the lowest.

So, here is my response to your email. Your words are in red while mine are in black. Quotations from various sources are in blue.

Thank you and may God bless you.

Very truly yours,

Marwil N. Llasos

First of all, I want to thank you for your quick and prompt reply to my inquiry. I will be waiting to read the one about Mary's perpetual virginity.

I have already posted in my blog my answer to your question on the perpetual virginity of Mary. You can find it here:

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

I have finished reading your answer and since it seems that you prefer me to communicate with you directly I will do so. It is better this way so we don't confuse other readers with such discussions.

Actually, I invited you to study the teachings of the Catholic Church right from Catholic sources. I believe that in your search for God’s truth, you could communicate with me or Fr. Abe directly if you want to know more about our holy Catholic faith. Thank you for responding favorably to my invitation.

By the way, once again I want to emphasize that I am just as happy to say that Mary could have remained a virgin after the birth of our Lord.

God’s truth has nothing to do with our preference. It does not depend on whether we are happy with it or not. God’s truth is truth, period. We have to accept it as such no matter what we feel about it. Nevertheless, your admission that you are as happy to say that Mary “could have remained a virgin” after the birth of the Lord Jesus reveals that, theoretically, you don’t have any problem with Mary’s perpetual virginity. That’s a good sign. At least, it appears to me that you are not bigoted nor biased against the Catholic position because, at any rate, you said that you can go with it. So, why not just believe it?

I just happen to think that the Scripture’s evidence is more against than in favor.

I believe that your thinking needs reconsideration. The evidence of Scripture is in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I hope that you will revisit my article to see that your idea that Biblical evidence is more in favor than against Mary’s perpetual virginity holds no water whatsoever.

Essentially, the objections raised by Evangelicals against the perpetual virginity are the arguments based on (a) the mention of “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus in the Bible; (b) the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 just like what you argued; and (c) Jesus is referred to as the “firstborn” son of Mary.

All these objections, if subjected to closer Biblical scrutiny, prove nothing against the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Regarding the so-called “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus, you already concluded in your original post that it does not disprove the perpetual virginity. Hence, I will no longer discuss it here.

In my earlier reply to you, I already discussed that your argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity based on “until” in Mathew 1:25 does not support in any way your conclusion that Mary and Joseph had sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth. I quoted Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry’s assessment that the “grammar and context [in Matthew 1:25] both suggest that Matthew’s point is not to allude to Mary and Joseph’s assumption of a normal sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth, but to explicitly affirm one of chastity prior to it” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 57].

Moreover, I quoted at least 20 verses from the Bible which use “until.” I pointed out that in the verses cited, the Bible is abundantly clear that no change of status is conveyed by “until.” On the contrary, it is a Hebraic way of expressing a permanent condition or state. Instead of negating Mary’s perpetual virginity, the expression “until” supports it.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that in the verses cited, a change of status occurred afterwards. If you can’t, then your objection against the perpetual virginity of Mary based on “until” in Matthew 1:25 has no leg to stand on.

The last argument brought forward by Evangelicals to refute Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Biblical reference to Jesus as the “firstborn.” Thankfully, you did not use that argument because it doesn’t hold any water anyway. Prof. Tim Perry, citing Bible scholar John Nolland, explains that the “Greek term translated “firstborn,” prόtotokos, does not imply the births of subsequent children but means only that no children preceded Jesus. It ‘establishes for this child the status and privileges in Mosaic law of the firstborn child’ (Exod. 13:2; Num. 3:12-13; 18:15-16; Deut 21:15-17)” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 82, citing John Nolland, Luke, Word Biblical Commentary 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989), p. 105].

So, where’s now the evidence of Scripture that, as you said, more against than in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity? Nada.

I guess the real point for me is that given that she was married with Joseph and marriage is a holy institution blessed and created by God.

Indeed, marriage is a holy, nay sacred, institution. In fact, the Catholic Church considers it a sacrament for which reason it disallows divorce. Protestants have long since allowed divorce in blatant disregard and open violation of Christ’s commandment (Mt. 19:6).

While it is true that marriage is a holy institution, it is equally true that it may be renounced for the sake of the kingdom of heaven by those who accept it (celibacy). “He answered, not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Mt. 19:11-12).

I don't see how her status would change (or be diminished) if she complied with her marital duties/responsibilities with Joseph after Jesus was born. What is offensive about that? It doesn't offend me, nor does it change my perception of her at all either way. I would love to hear from you why that is a necessity for Catholics.

This is rehash of what you already stated in your earlier comment. I have already dealt with this issue. Nevertheless, let me restate what I already answered and, possibly, to add a few more things.

First, let me address your claim that Mary’s having marital relations with Joseph does not change your perception of her (Mary). I think that you employ double standard here. If indeed it is true that Mary’s marital relationship with Joseph does not change your perception of Mary either way, then why lean against rather than in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity? After all, the issue seems immaterial to you. Remember that you earlier said that Mary’s marital status does not affect your great respect for her? If it is true as you said that you are “just as happy to say that Mary could have remained a virgin after the birth of our Lord,” then why not just believe it? After all, the objections raised against the perpetual virginity of Mary are overruled by no less than the Bible itself.

You said that it wouldn’t offend you if Mary complied with her duties/responsibilities with Joseph after Jesus was born. Whether you are offended or not is not the issue. God’s truth, as I already said, is not dependent on what we feel. God’s truth is what He reveals to His people. Since you believe (as I do) that the Bible contains God’s truth (Divine Revelation), I will hold you to it.

Let me first acknowledge that sexual relations between husband and wife are normal and good. However, we also say that consecrated celibacy is also a good thing and, in fact, we honor it as a higher spiritual calling. The apostle Paul did teach that it is good to remain single (1 Cor. 7:1, 26). He says that celibacy can liberate someone to “be concerned about the Lord’s affairs – how he can please the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32). For Paul, the virgin has a special opportunity to “be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit … in undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:34-35). Thus, celibacy is a “gift” (1 Cor. 7:7).

We believe that, based on the Bible, Mary expressed a desire – or if you will, made a vow of chastity. This we find in her expression, “How can this be, I do not know man? (Lk. 1:34), which is better translated, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The response of Mary to the words of the angel is not what we would expect from a typical engaged woman, who would have simply been thankful that in time she would be blessed with a child. Mary’s surprise very well shows that she did not expect to have a normal marriage relationship with Joseph despite their engagement or betrothal. Mary then had set herself aside totally to God. If she had taken a vow of chastity, then she was committed to God. Joseph knew of that commitment, and being a “just man” (cf. Mt. 1:19), he had to respect it.

Mary had a lifelong virginity because she consecrated her whole self to God. We believe that, even prior to the Annunciation, Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity, as can be glimpsed in Luke 1:34. Truly, the reaction of Mary was unusual for someone who is already betrothed. One who is betrothed and soon to be married should know that giving birth is by the normal way. Mary was definitely not asking the angel on how babies are made. Her question would not make sense unless she had a vow of remaining a virgin even in marriage. In the episode, Mary showed amusement. Since she was already betrothed to Joseph, she should have said, “How wonderful! Joseph and I would be the parents of the Messiah!” Instead, she said: “How can this be? I do not know man” (Lk. 1:34).

Placed on the cultural backdrop of her time, Mary’s question would be senseless especially so that she would soon be a bride and a wife. Her reaction should be one of exultation rather than surprise. The only permissible conclusion is that she made a vow of perpetual virginity to God.

Having unconditionally vowed her virginity to God, she is expected to make good that vow. She also expected God to respect her vow. The announcement of the angel that she would be pregnant naturally startled her. She asked the angel how that could happen – and not when. Mary was not asking the angel for a lecture on human reproduction. Rather, she wanted to know how her pregnancy would come about considering her vow of perpetual virginity to God. The angel assured her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). God, through the angel, asked for Mary’s consent to be the mother of His Son. He gave her the assurance that Mary’s virginity which she has vowed to Him would in no way be violated.

St. Augustine, the greatest of the western church fathers and well respected in evangelical circles, understood Luke 1:34 exactly how Catholics understand it. The Bishop of Hippo made a very incisive remark, “Surely, she would not say, ‘How shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin … If she intended to have intercourse she wouldn’t have asked this question!” (De Virginitate, 4,4).

Indeed, Mary’s statement “I do not know man” can only be construed as an indication of a permanent condition or status (i.e. perpetual virginity). It is similar to the statement “I don’t smoke” which means “I never smoke” and not “I am not smoking now.” So, Mary’s statement “I do not know man” indicates her intent to remain a virgin all her life, even in marriage. Contemporary Catholic apologist Edward Sri discusses this point further: “To use an analogy: If someone said to me, ‘You will die of lung cancer in the future,’ and I replied, ‘How can this be since I do not smoke?’ my response would not simply describe a present circumstance (“I don’t happen to be smoking right now”). Rather, it would indicate a long-term intention on my part to avoid smoking (“Smoking is not something I ever intend to do”). Analogously, Mary’s expression ‘I do not know man’ – when seen in the wider context of the Annunciation account - further suggests her commitment to remain a virgin for the rest of her life.” [Edward P. Sri, “Mary’s Question: A Vow,” Lay Witness (Steubenville, Ohio: Catholics United for the Faith, May/June 2007) 25].

Vows were made even during Old Testament time (Num. 30:3-16). Since Mary made a vow to God, she had to keep it, as in fact she did, in fulfillment of the Scriptures: “I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people” (Ps. 116:14, 18). “I am under vows to you, O God; I will present my thank offerings to you” (Ps. 56:12).

I would love to hear from you why that is a necessity for Catholics.

I also love to respond to you why Mary’s perpetual virginity is a necessity for us Catholics – and also for Christ!

Actually, you already asked this question before: “I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.” And I already shared to you the importance of Mary’s remaining a virgin forever.

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

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

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

Moreover, Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man. This observation was not lost to Jaroslav Pelikan when he was still a Protestant. For him, the eternal begetting of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity should be mirrored in His incarnate life: “He is the single and only begotten Son of God [and] also the single and only begotten Son of Mary” [Jaroslav Pelikan, “Most Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” in Mary: Mother of God, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 2004) p. 8]. Thus, in the divine economy, the corollary of the ontological description “only begotten God” is “ever-virgin” (aeiparthenos; semper virgo). “For I was a son to my father, Tender and an only child in the sight of my mother” (Prov. 4:3).

An early church father, Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446 AD), saw the perpetual virginity of Mary as proof of the divinity of her Son. He said: “No mother of a man has ever remained a virgin. Have you seen how this birth offers us a twofold consideration regarding the One who is born? If he had been born like us, he would have been a man, but if he kept his Mother a virgin, it is clear, for those who know how to think, that the One who is born is God” [Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 2, cited in Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius, 1999) pp. 262-263].

Pope Leo the Great (ca. 400-461) affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity in its incarnational context in his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople: “He was truly conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of his Virgin Mother, who bore him while preserving her virginity just as, preserving her virginity, she conceived him … Fecundity was given to the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but the reality was taken from her body … He was born in a “new type of birth” in that undefiled virginity experienced no concupiscence, yet supplied the material for the flesh. From the Mother the Lord took his nature, but no fault; and the Lord Jesus Christ, born from a virgins womb, does not have a nature different from ours just because his birth was an unusual one” [Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 22: 25 December 441; quoted in Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 159].

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry, in assessing the patristic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity, states: “It is in these christological and soteriological contexts that Mary’s virginity – whether ante partum, in partu or post partum – arises” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 150]. Simply, the focus of the Catholic Church in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity is on Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and not on Mary herself.

In addition, I want to borrow the reflection of Protestant John de Satge regarding the necessity or importance of Mary as “Ever Virgin” –

“There is certainly nothing in the Scriptures to invalidate the conclusion of the Church, in the days before the split between East and West, that was Mary was a virgin all her life … The full glory [of perpetual virginity] may be in the person of our Lord and his universal love, which all could claim and receive, but none could monopolize. In this sphere of love’s freedom, Mary enjoys to the full an identification with Him. It has set free for universal ministry” [John de Satge, Down to Earth: The New Protestant Vision of the Virgin Mary (Consortium, 1976), p. 112-113].

Now, it’s my turn to ask you. How does Mary’s having many children prove the uniqueness of Christ? How does Mary’s having many children prove the Divinity of Christ? If you were a first century Jew and you knew that Jesus had many brothers and sisters (siblings) would you not assume that Jesus was conceived and born the normal way?

Please note that I already asked these questions but I have yet to receive your response: Since you believe that Mary had many children, my question to you is: What is the theological significance of Mary having many children? Or, What is the Christological focus of your belief that Mary had many children?

I want to be more clear (sic) about a few things. My intention was not to make a generalization about all Catholics necessarily.

Asking for clarification is a welcome thing. It’s good that as you admitted you do not want to make a generalization about Catholics. I will hold on to this promise of yours.

Indeed, I have met and worshiped together with Catholics that I have no doubt were worshiping God "in Spirit and in Truth.”

This is heartwarming. I hope that gone were the days when evangelical preachers declared that all Catholics would go to hell.

I might have gotten a little carried away with my post. Don't get me wrong,

It’s human tendency to be carried away sometimes. I didn’t get you wrong.

I understand the difference between veneration vs. adoration (or at least I think I do). I also think that people like you, the Vatican and many of the "practical Catholics" out there also know the difference as well.

Thank you for this admission. What is important is what the Church officially and actually teaches and not what we think the Church teaches.

However, I can't deny the fact that it seems like many people in Latin America give adoration rather than veneration or respect to Mary. Once again, I am making a generalization and I admit that it is biased and subjective.

As you said, you are just making a generalization and you are biased and subjective when you said that it “seems” to you that many people in Latin America give “adoration” rather than mere “veneration” to Mary. I don’t know what makes you say so. All I know is that you don’t have the power to read the hearts of man. Worship is essentially a state of mind. One must have the intention to worship someone or something. And humans as we are, we just don’t have the capability to see the heart of our fellowmen to be able to judge them. The Bible says, “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7) because “the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chron. 28:9).

However, everybody (including you too) is subjective; it is impossible to be 100% objective.

I admit that, human as I am, I am not free from subjectivity because as you said “it is impossible to be 100% objective.” Nevertheless, in my response to your queries, I am certain that I have not judged or accused evangelicals of something based on my subjective opinions or perceptions. I can’t recall any.

My point is that everything I have known through my life (originally from Spain where most of my relatives are Catholics) and raised in Puerto Rico (where the majority is still Catholic -- I think?) seems to support my view (even if it is just my personal perception) that the average person appears to give a higher place to Mary than to God or Jesus. I know that if you ask them, they will deny this.

As you said, it is based on your personal perception. You are entitled to it. However, as I said earlier, you don’t have the power to judge people based on what you see or perceive. That is rash judgment (Lk. 6:37, Rom. 14:4, 1 Cor. 4:3-4). Let’s leave the judgment to God and do not usurp His prerogative. “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts” (Ps. 139:23).

You mentioned Spain, Peru and other Latin American countries. You held that, as it seemed to you, Mary is given a higher place in this country rather than God. I note the latent racism evident in your statement. It implies that Spaniards and Latin Americans are especially prone to excessive devotion to Mary and effectively eclipsing God. I say that it is cultural for these peoples (Spaniards and Latin Americans – and may I say Filipinos, too) to be very sentimental. But what is wrong with sentiment and being sentimental? Our feelings are surely part of the equipment God gives us to live with, to love with, and to pray with.

For us Catholics, especially those with Spanish cultural heritage, dourness is not our style. We resent it to be judged by Puritanical standards! And the myopia is all too apparent when Catholics are singled out for their “excessive” devotion to Mary but leaving the Orthodox out of the picture. Consider that the devotion of the Orthodox Christians to Mary will make Catholic devotion pale in comparison!

I wish that you take note of Luke 1:42: “And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (Lk. 1:42). Notice how the mother of the Precursor praised the mother of the Lord. She did so in a loud voice! Catholics, like St. Elizabeth, loudly praise the Blessed Virgin Mary. Contrast this with the cold silence by which the Blessed Mother is treated by Protestants. In Protestant churches, it seems that there is a natural aversion to Mary. Protestant pastors may preach about Sarah, Esther, Ruth, Mary Magdalene or other women in the Bible but seldom, if at all, do they preach about Mary, the Mother of Jesus. They simply feel embarrassed to talk about Mary. You may also notice that in Luke 1:42, Mary is first proclaimed “blessed” by St. Elizabeth before she proclaimed “the fruit of her womb.” It thus appears in the Bible that Jesus had no problem with His mother. Why do Protestants have?

Yet, the fact still remains that while there may be a very rich tradition of prayers as you mentioned (including spontaneous prayer), the average person doesn't practice them.

And how do you know that the “average” person doesn’t practice them? Do you have statistics to back you up? All I know is that I myself am an “average person” and I can honestly say that I do practice them.

Every Spanish soap opera that comes from Latin America shows people making prayers to Mary (95% or more of the time). Jesus or God is rarely mentioned. This also holds true with what I have experienced. I know that soap operas are not exactly a good source of apologetics of theology but they do show trends in a culture. I am just giving it as an example.

The producers of Latin American soap operas are not the magisterium. The Church is. So, the producers of soap operas have absolutely no authority on matters of faith and morals.

At any rate, let it be stated that these soap operas are fond of stereotyping. Catholics are purposefully typecast into a stereotype that people pray to Mary and not to God. But what about the Mass? For us Catholics, Mass is our highest form of prayer. We worship God chiefly in the Liturgy. On the other hand, “Protestants, in their worship services, offer songs and praise and prayer to God; this is their highest form of worship. Since they don’t have a [ministerial] priesthood, they have nothing else they can offer. Catholics on the other hand, offer the Sacrifice of the Mass to God. Our offering of sacrifice is made only to God and is our form of worship. This allows us to give lesser things such as songs and praise and prayer to those who can pray in our behalf: the saints and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary. When Protestants see us offering what is their highest form of worship to someone other than God, it appears to them that we are worshiping someone other than God” (http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c8.htm). The same observation was not lost to Kimberly Hahn, the wife of Dr. Scott Hahn. When she was a Presbyterian, she also thought that Catholics worshiped Mary. When she later on converted to Catholicism, she testifies: “I could not figure out why it was that it seemed to me that Catholics worshiped Mary, even though I knew worship of Mary was clearly condemned by the Church. Then I got an insight: Protestants defined worship as songs, prayers and a sermon. So when Catholics sang songs to Mary, petitioned Mary in prayer and preached about her, Protestants concluded she was being worshiped. But Catholics worship as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and Catholics would never have offered a sacrifice of Mary nor to Mary on the altar. This was helpful food for thought.” [Scott Hahn and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Home (San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1996) 145].

I also know for a fact that in the United States of America, a predominantly Protestant country, it is illegal to pray to God inside the classrooms. This institutionalized banishment of God from the classrooms should worry you more than what Latin American telenovelas portray. In US classrooms, God is not just rarely mentioned: it is illegal to ever mention Him in prayer.

Manifestation of devotion to Mary is a sign that people still believe in God whose handiwork and masterpiece is the Blessed Virgin Mary. What should bother us more is the deluge of secularism in most societies whose flashy coda is “God is dead.”

I noticed that in 2004, a Catholic named Mel Gibson filmed The Passion of the Christ. It was a top-grosser and was the talk of the town. However, the film never got any nomination from the Oscar’s! Oh well, that’s Hollywood for you.

My point here is that one thing is to say something is in a certain way and another is what we actually practice in our daily living. Remember James? I totally agree with his point; "We show our faith/beliefs by our actions" or "faith without works is dead"; plain and simple.

I am surprised why you cite James 2:26, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.” Evangelicals who believe in sola scriptura rarely cite that verse because James 2:26 debunks the “faith alone theory” of Protestantism.

Why is it that there are so many manifestations "appearances" of the Virgin in Latin America and other places? The reaction of people to those event(s) supports my view. Once again, I believe that The Church doesn't approve of most of those; but that doesn't change the fact that millions of people blindly follow such things. I guess the point that I am making is that the "veneration" of Mary has gotten out of control (in my opinion) and in a way I think that The Church is partially responsible for that. I guess this is biased but what can I say, I have to be honest.

As you said, the Church doesn’t approve of most of the alleged Marian apparitions in Latin America. One approved apparition is that of Guadalupe. You fault the Church for those “millions” of people who “blindly” follow such things. Of course, people can be misguided at times. This remains to be a pastoral challenge. The Church as we all know is itself going through a lot of difficulties. We have a crisis in vocations. Church attendance is low. So, the Church cannot fully and effectively exercise its influence on those “blindly” follow the unapproved apparitions. Still, the challenge is there. If you could only become Catholic, the Church can make good use of your zeal in reminding Catholics to live within the bounds of Church doctrine. Why not come on over? We can be together in pursuing the Church’s evangelizing work.

Finally, I do read Catholic literature with some frequency. As a matter of fact, the Catholic encyclopedia (newadvent.org) is one of my favorite religious bookmarks when it comes to information about bible topics and I have used it to prepare for Sunday school classes a few times.

Good for you! By your very admission that the Catholic Encyclopedia is your source for information on Bible topics which you prepare for your Sunday school, it means that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Bible. Can you acknowledge in your Sunday school that your reference material on Bible topics is the Catholic Encyclopedia? I wish you could give credit where credit is due.

When it comes to studying or at least reading the bible occasionally or regularly, there is no doubt in my mind that the percentage of protestant/evangelicals that do it is way higher than Catholics. Again, this is just my perception.

Your perception, yes. I would understand why. Protestants only have the Bible and nothing else. And they use it to attack Catholic doctrines and practices. That’s why they have to memorize a lot of Bible verses that support their views.

Catholics admittedly are not very good in giving Bible chapters and verses. But it doesn’t mean that they are not immersed in Scripture. The Bible is proclaimed and explained in the Liturgy. We have Bible classes. However, I must say it remains a pastoral challenge to let Catholics read, love and live the Bible. And here is where you can help when you finally become Catholic. We need workers in the vineyard of the Lord. I firmly believe that the Lord of the harvest is mightily inviting you to be one of them. Come on over!

I want to say (also) that there was a time when I thought that most (or all) Catholics would not go to heaven and I was very prejudiced about that. This is not the case anymore. I don't think like that. There are many views of the Catholic Church that I like.

The Spirit blows wherever He wills. I hope that I would never hear a Jimmy Swaggart again who would declare in his bully pulpit that “all Catholics will go to hell.” That is not just uncharitable, its is also untrue. The Church is founded by Christ who declared that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18).

The issues on Mary should not anymore be considered as church-dividing. Protestants must realize that the Reformers believed essentially in the same dogmas on Mary that Catholic believe. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence of a growing interest in Mary among Protestants today as featured in the March 21, 2005 issue of Time magazine.

Protestant theologian K.E. Skydsgaard says, "Mary’s name shall not disappear in anonymity, but shall be recalled in every age and praised as holy. Evangelical Protestantism must also learn to sing this song” [K.E. Skydsgaard, One in Christ, Protestant and Catholic (Philadelphia: Muhlendberg, 1957), quoted in Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady,” Marian Library Studies Nos. 128/129, January-February 1967, p. 17].

The German Evangelical Adult Catechism says, “Mary is not only Catholic, but she is also Evangelical.” With the new Protestant interest in Mary, we are prayerfully hoping that the Lord Jesus who willed that all His followers be one (Jn. 17: 21) will draw us all closer together. Mary is not a stumbling block to Christian unity – on the contrary, she fosters it.

I guess there are some things that are difficult for me to accept and the issue of prayers (and frequency of them) to Mary and the Saints is one of them.

We shall address this difficulty. I pray to God that you will be open to the Spirit’s leading. For more information about praying to Mary, the angels and the saints, please read my article:

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Praying%20to%20Mary

Jesus taught to pray to the Father.

That’s why Catholics pray to the Father. Our favorite prayer is the “Our Father” which was taught to us by the Lord. The official Liturgy of the Church is addressed to the Father through Jesus Christ Our Lord in the Holy Spirit. The point of praying directly to the Father is well taken. We don’t have an issue with it. It should not detain us any longer.

He also mentioned the prayer of a sinful man in the temple and how he was humble because he was a sinner; yet God (not Mary or the Saints) heard him regardless of his sins.

It was God who answered the humble publican’s prayer because it was addressed to Him. It proves nothing about praying to Mary and the saints. The Scriptural episode you mentioned does not deal with praying to the saints. It deals with a sinner’s justification before God. So, bringing up this point is a red herring.

At any rate, let me address what I sense as your presupposition that Mary and the saints cannot hear our prayers. I answer that “God empowers Mary and the saints and angels to hear and answer all our prayers. It is properly His power, not theirs. By praying to them, we glorify His love and power. The reason we go to them is for His sake alone, to strengthen the bonds of family among ourselves and with Him, who has called us all from darkness into His marvelous light” [Father Mateo, Refuting The Attack on Mary (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999) p 85].

My point here is that the Bible supports and encourage us to pray to the Lord directly regardless of the fact that we are sinners and continue to sin.

The Catholic Church does so too. We can and should pray directly to the Lord. As I said, praying directly to God is not an issue. The Church, however, also encourages her children to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the saints.

Hence, I don't see why we should have the mentality that we are not worthy of praying to the Lord directly, especially since the practice throughout the New Testament is to pray to God/Jesus directly without intermediaries.

Here you have several misconceptions. First, the Catholic Church never promotes the mentality that we are not worthy of praying to the Lord directly. This is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. The Church never teaches that we are not worthy of directly approaching our loving Father in prayer.

Second, you are in clear Biblical error when you say that it is the practice throughout the New Testament to pray to God or Jesus directly without intermediaries. As I already mentioned, by all means we can go to God directly in prayer. However, it is also clearly taught by the Bible that we can have prayer-partners. We call them intercessors. The Bible encourages us to pray for each other, hence, serving as intermediaries or intercessors before God. As a matter of fact, we are commanded “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks to all men” (1 Tim. 21:1). Truly, the Bible (New Testament) enjoins every Christian to pray for each other (1 Thes. 5:25; James 5:16; 2 Thes. 3:1; Acts 8:24; Col. 1:9, 4:3, 12; 2 Thes. 1:11; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:18-19; Heb. 13:18). And we ask Mary and the saints, our fellow Christians, to pray for us when we pray to them.

So, your view that the New Testament teaches that intermediaries are not needed when we pray to God is amply refuted by the verses cited. And more: the angels and saints in heaven present our prayers to God. In so doing, they act as our intermediaries before His throne. This is the clear verdict of Scripture: “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4). “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).

No matter how I look at it, the notion that it is better to pray to Mary and not to Jesus or the Father directly because she is more loving and will hear us and then forward our request to God seems strange to me and that is the point that I want to make. I don't see a good basis for this in the Bible.

You are looking for a basis in the Bible for something that the Catholic Church does not teach. Nowhere in the official teachings of the Catholic Church can you find that notion that it is better to pray to Mary and not to Jesus or the Father directly because Mary is more loving and will hear us and “forward” our request to God. So, if it seems strange to you, it is also strange to me. The Church believes no such thing.

Mary, our mother, is our most powerful prayer-partner in heaven. Her prayer is all-powerful with her Divine Son because “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). Apart from Christ, I don’t know of anyone more righteous than Mary. And I know that, based on the Bible, Mary’s intercession in behalf of others before Jesus Christ (Jn. 2:1-12) is very powerful. Jesus, who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8) cannot and will not break the words of Scripture: “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is very well pleasing to the Lord” (Col. 3:20).

I know that this is a big point of difference between us, you look at the tradition of the Church as a high authority and I can't say that I hold that same view.

Praying to Mary, the angels and the saints is not just based on Tradition; it is well-attested to in Scripture as well. I am bothered when you said that you don’t hold the same view of the Church in looking at Tradition as a “high authority.” In saying thus, you admit that you do not go with what the Apostle Paul teaches; rather, you follow the man-made “tradition” of Protestantism regarding sola scriptura. The Bible does not condemn all traditions. In fact, it unequivocably commands us to obey Sacred or Apostolic Tradition:

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

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

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

Since adhering to Sacred Tradition is an apostolic teaching, what would happen to those who don’t adhere to it? Galatians 1:8-9 provides this answer: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

I can certainly see the value of looking at The Tradition (early Church Fathers, etc) for instances where the bible doesn't give as many details or references about a subject but I think that the point of being able to pray to God directly is extensively demonstrated in the bible and I don't see how to go against that. I could be completely wrong but I have say things as I think they are.

There’s absolutely no way for us to go against praying directly to God as extensively demonstrated in the Bible. As I said, this is a non-issue for us Catholics, so why belabor the obvious? Nevertheless, it is also amply demonstrated in the Bible that we can pray (or invoke) God’s “holy ones” or saints.

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

To further help you understand why we Catholics pray to Mary, the angels and the saints, let me share with you Fr. Mateo’s extensive discussion on this topic in Refuting the Attacks on Mary –

“… Jesus the mediator is the head of a host of subordinate mediators p his members, his branches – who, because of their oneness with him, share in his priestly activity, part of which is intercession.

The vine and the body are metaphors for the Church. The Church is not a collection of isolated individuals, but a family of adopted brothers and sisters of Christ, children of God (2 Cor. 6:18). We are members of one another (Eph. 4:25), and it is God’s will for us to have concern for one another (1 Cor. 12:25). We are the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15), both here and forever in heaven (Rev. 13:6). Our members in heaven are not “dispensed” from having concern for us still on earth. That they are aware of us and concerned for us is the teaching of Hebrews 12:1-2. “Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [the saints in heaven, Heb. 11], let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin … and persevere … while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus.” This text means that these heavenly witnesses are a help to us in our efforts, and their help is integrated and finds its goal in Jesus.

In Revelation 4:4; 5:8, twenty-four “elders” engage in worship before the throne of God and of the Lamb. Are these elders saints in heaven or are they angels? It would seem they are human, because they are distinguished from angels in 5:1. Whoever they are, these heavenly worshipers are involved with us and our concerns, because each of them holds a golden bowl “filled with incense which is the prayers of the holy ones” (5:8). The “holy ones” or “saints” are, in New Testament language, the members of the Church on earth (Rev. 13:7). So the heavenly elders offer our prayers to God as part of their own divine worship.

None of this biblical witness has any meaning to one who denies that we on earth can pray to our Mother and to our siblings in heaven, the saints. To be in heaven is to love to perfection (1 Cor. 13:8, 13). Do the saints in heaven love God? Do they love their brothers and sisters still on earth? If they do, then how do they express and manifest this love for us? By praying for us, of course. They have no other way. Can we, on our part, from down here, get in touch with them, pray to them, ask their prayers? Christians have always done so, with God’s full approval. Our God is the Father of an adopted family. He loves us. He is not a dog-in-the-manger God. He is not insecure, threatened when His children show love for and trust in one another. He is not paranoid nor miserly of His own glory. He welcomes our prayers to his angels and saints, and he welcomes their intercession on our behalf. There is nothing in the Bible which contradicts Catholic belief and practice here and much in the Bible which teaches and supports the Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints” [Father Mateo, Refuting The Attack on Mary (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999) pp. 55-56].

“… Paul says the Church is Christ’s Body. He is eloquent about our need for one another (Eph. 4:25).

This family unity is not interrupted by physical death. In fact, Scripture says that baptism is the moment of our true and meaningful death. It is then that we die and are raised to newness of life in Christ (Rom. 6:3-11). “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). Physical death is only passage from this world to the next; it does not separate us from the Lord (Rom. 8:38-39). It but marks the moment “when Christ your Life appears – then you too will appear in Him in glory” (Col. 3:4). We are the Lord’s both in this life and in the next (Rom. 14:8), because He is our head and we are His members and members of one another. The Bible famously asks, “Death, where is your victory?” (1 Cor. 15:55) …

Baptized members of the Church are called “saints” or “holy ones” in the New Testament. This word (hagioi in Greek) is also used of the saints in heaven (Col. 1;12; Eph. 2:19; Rev. 18:20). It represents the Hebrew qedoshim, which is used of the saints in heaven in three places in the Old Testament (Zech. 15:5, Ps. 89:6; Dan. 7:22). The saints in heaven, in the persons of the elders in Revelation 5:8, are shown offering to God the prayers of the saints on earth. This activity of the elders is intercession by the saints and angels (Rev. 8:3-4) in heaven and on behalf of us on earth.

When Christ teaches us to pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” he holds up for our imitation the behavior of the saints in heaven, who do His will perfectly. Doing God’s will means loving Him and loving others as we love ourselves (Matt. 22:36-40). Because the saints are our models for this twofold love, they too must love God and others. What others? Every other human being, no matter who or where, but especially their fellow members of the family of the faith (Gal. 6:10). How can they show their love for us? By caring for our needs. And how can they do this? By praying for us. If they could ignore this love for us, they could not love God nor remain with Him in heaven, because the two loves cannot be separated. The Bible says, “This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:21); “Bear one another’s burdens and so you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Scripture cannot be broken – in this world or the next.

The notion that the redeemed in heaven are excused from the concern for their brothers and sisters on earth, that they can know nothing of us and do nothing for us, is quite simply indecent. A theology which proposes such selfishness and spiritual paralysis as our heavenly destiny is shameful and unworthy, both of God’s love and our human dignity. [Father Mateo, Refuting The Attack on Mary (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999) pp. 82-84].

“Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:15:18).

[1] In some translations like the NRSV and NIV renders “saints” in Job 5:1 as “holy ones.” Who or what are these “holy ones”? The Amplified Bible renders Zechariah 14:5: “… God shall come and all the holy ones [saints and angels] with Him.” So, the “holy ones” are the saints and angels of God. Catholics, like Job, call or turn to the saints and angels unlike Protestants, who, like Eliphaz, don’t.