MY RESPONSE TO CASTROJ1 ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY & OTHER RELATED ISSUES

Coronation of Mary

[Jorge's e-mail is in Red while my response is in Blue]

First of all, I want to thank you for your quick and prompt reply to my inquiry.

You’re welcome Jorge. We are glad to clarify with you matters involving the Catholic Faith and the Sacred Scriptures. We are always very busy people - Mars is a lawyer and a professor of law while I am a priest, a College Administrator and a Station Manager. But, we are praising the Lord for giving us the opportunity to respond to you as soon as possible.

I will be waiting to read the one about Mary's perpetual virginity.

It’s already posted Jorge. It is in my Blog right now. It’s been posted there since the other day.

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.

Most probably you are referring to Bro. Mars. On my part I prefer to post our discussions on the Blog because by exchanges like this then our readers will learn a lot from our responses. So, if it is Ok with you I will post my response later but if you prefer that we maintain it privately then I will respect your preference.

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 birht of our Lord (I just happen to think that the Scritures evidence is more against than in favor).

I am glad to know that you are happy to say that Mary could have remained a virgin after the birth of our Lord. My experience with Protestants, Evangelicals and Born Again are quite the contrary. They were so happy to argue against the Virginity of Mary. It’s understandable to me, their religion are American invented so they carry with them the sex-crazed mentality of the West wherein the girls are loosing their virginity very early in life. But Orientals like Filipinas and the ancient Israelites as in the case of Mary Virginity is something to be proud of. The West considers Virginity as ‘foolishness’ while the Orientals call the Devirginized West ‘Immoral’.

The great majority of Protestant or Evangelical Bible scholars are agreeing with the Catholic Church that there is no Biblical passage that can directly disprove the Virginitas Post Partum [Virginity After Birth] of Mary. Thus, your claim about Scriptural evidence is only a subjective claim. You may have been influenced by anti-Catholic propaganda or Anti-Mary propaganda usually propagated by pastors of Born Again sects whose churches or fellowships are newly invented. I suggest you read books from Protestants, Evangelicals or Catholic scholars with Doctorate in Sacred Scriptures or Biblical Theology because there is no Biblical passage that shows Mary loosing her virginity after the birth of Jesus.

The claim that Mary had other children was a late invention coming from Helvidius, the heretic. He was condemned by Jerome the greatest Biblical scholar of the Patristic period, the one who first translated the Sacred Scriptures into a single language of that period. Pope Damasus I condemned him also and he was the Pope who decided the composition of the Canon of Sacred Scriptures. Jerome, being the best Greek, Hebrew and Latin scholar of the time castigated Helvidius for his heresy concerning wrong interpretation of Matthew 1:25 and those that concern the so-called ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus. Jerome, the greatest Bible scholar of the 4th century and one of the best ever, debunked the claim of Helvidius the heretic and for that this heretic went to oblivion while Jerome is recognized throughout history as a genuine Christian believer. You can read his magnificent refutation of Helvidius here:

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/perpetual-virginity-of-blessed-virgin.html

The Fathers of the Church or those who have succeeded the Apostles in Church leadership unanimously proclaimed the Virginity of Mary even after the Birth of Jesus and on during her later years:

Church Fathers

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

· St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),

· Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),

· St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),

· St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);

· St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),

· Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),

· Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),

· St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),

· St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),

· St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),

· St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).

St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

The contrary doctrine is called:

· "madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),

· "madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),

· "sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),

· "impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),

· "perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),

· "full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),

· "perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),

· "heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

These ancient Christians were Greek-speaking [some were Latin speaking but being theologians they were also erudite in Greek] and therefore much better in understanding the Greek language of the Bible than the people of today. They know the meaning of Adelphoi much better that you and me. Yet they decried heresy hearing the arguments of those opposing the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Early Christian writings from the first centuries

Athanasius: "Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). [Athanasius is the Champion of Orthodoxy against Arius who denied the Divinity of Christ. I think he is more credible than you Jorge in understanding the Bible.]

Epiphanius of Salamis:"... the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

..."And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Hilary of Poitiers: "If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1)

Didymus the Blind: "It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]). [Here goes your Matthew 1:25]

Ambrose of Milan: "Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I: "You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Origen: ...And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Augustine: "In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

..."It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

..."Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

"That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Leporius: "We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria: "[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I: "His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Council of Constantinople II: "... the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,..." (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]).

One of the few old proponents of the claim denying the Post-Partum Virginity of Mary was Tertullian, who later succumbed to Montanist heresy. He argued:

Virgin because she abstained from man; non-virgin because she gave birth... Virgin when she conceived, she became a wife when she gave birth... Who really opened her maternal womb, if not the one who opened the womb that had been closed [in his conception]? Normally, conjugal relations open the womb. Therefore [Mary’s] womb was all the more opened, since it had been more closed. Consequently it is more accurate to call her non-virgin, than virgin. [Tertuallian, PL 2, 835-836. Cf. Luigi Gambero. Mary and the Fathers of the Church, The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Trans. by Thomas Buffer. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. P. 65.]

The problem with Tertullian is that he failed to take into account Isaiah 7:14 and its New Testament fulfilment Matthew 1:23:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The Sacred Scriptures under the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit testify that the Mother of the Messiah was chosen by God as a Virgin, she will and did conceive as a Virgin and she will and did give birth as a Virgin. The reasoning of Tertullian is not consistent. If God chose a Virgin what is the reason why He will de-virginize her by the birth of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Virgin and therefore He was given birth by the same Virgin. Jesus didn’t destroy Mary’s virginity when He entered her womb, thus He also didn’t destroy her virginity in coming out.

For this reason, the Creeds produced by the Ecumenical Councils of Bishops at the time when Christianity was still One and Undivided Church unanimously declared that Christ the Lord is ‘BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY’ [cf. The Nicene Creed, The Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Apostles Creed: “Et incarnates est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine”]. The Bishops who gathered in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and of Constantinople were Greek speaking theologians yet they attested to the Virginity of Mary. Actually, the early Christians of Greece such as Constantinople, Ephesus, Thessalonica and even Rome then unanimously held Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Now, the Filipino Born Again pretend to be knowledgeable in Biblical Greek claiming that ‘Adelphoi’ and ‘Heos Hou’ [Until] of Matthew 1:25 prove that Mary lost her virginity. Excuse me but that is not the way the Greek Christians interpret these passages and these Greek terms. Until now the Greek Orthodox Church headed by their Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitans of Ephesus and of Pergamon believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. They call her ‘Ever-Virgin’ just like the Catholics.

The position of Tertullian, Victorinus and Helvidius on the Virginitas Post Partum is isolated and minimal in comparison to the unanimous stand of the Fathers and of the early Christians in general. They were drowned by the unanimous defence of the True Faith from all side: from Rome, Constantinople, Carthage, Hippo, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Milan, Lyon and the rest who all upheld Mary’s perpetual Virginity and this continued until the post Patristic Period until the Medieval Age then on to the Reformation Period [at least during the time of the Reformation founders].

Fortunately for us even the founders of Protestantism supported the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Luther and Calvin, both worthy Bible scholars, considered that doctrine part of the Christian Faith. Luther, the one who translated the Bible into German is a great Bible expert. If the evidence that you are talking about is so obvious and prima facie then Luther would have used it against the Catholic Church. Yet, he didn’t. He sided with us on this matter. Unless both the Reformation founders are biblical idiots like the Greek Fathers then the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is stronger than your so-called evidence to the contrary. Here are the statements of Martin Luther on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Commentaries on Luther

". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". (David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)

Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}

So much for Biblical Evidence against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, I suppose that these great Bible scholars are blind or simply ignorant of Biblical Greek. I suppose you can discredit them on this issue Jorge by presenting your own scholarly explanation of the Word of God proving that Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus. The leading apologist of the Bereans Research Ministry just recently tried that but after some exchanges he apologized for distorting the Greek texts of the Bible.

Now, going to the contemporary period Atty. Mars have presented you some materials from Evangelical authors. I want to add from those in the mainline Protestant scholars. I have a copy of the book MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT which is a collaborative studies of 12 scholars [6 Catholics and 6 Protestants from various denominations] considered as the best of the best in their field. ALL DOCTORS OF SACRED SCRIPTURES, I mean they have Doctorates in Sacred Scriptures or Biblical Theology or Religious Studies from the best Universities of the world and they are all authors of scholarly books on Scriptures and they are renowned professors of Scriptures as well. In short, they are Biblical scholars par excellence. They are proponents of Historico-Critical Method and therefore they study the Scriptures not in the perspective of faith but as if it is an ordinary document to be analyzed. They are:

1. Rev. Dr. Paul J. Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia.

2. Rev. Msgr. Myles M. Bourke, Rector of Corpus Christi Church and Adjunct Professor at Fordham University, New York, New York.

3. Rev. Dr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Union Theological Seminary, New York, New York.

4. Rev. Dr. Schuyler Brown, S.J., General Theological Seminary, New York, New York. Later became a staff of American Bible Society, NY.

5. Rev. Dr. Karl P. Donfried, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts.

6. Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Later Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

7. Dr. [of Theology] Karlfried Froehlich, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

8. Rev. Dr. Reginald H. Fuller, Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia.

9. Rev. Dr. Gerhard Krodel, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Later, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

10. Dr. J. Louis Martyn, Union Theological Seminary, New York, New York.

11. Dr. Elaine H. Pagels, Bernard College, New York, New York. [I think this one already left mainline Protestantism and is already into Gnosticism, if I'm not mistaken.]

12. Rev. Dr. John Reumann, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

What did they say or write concerning Matthew 1:25? Well, here it is:

Before we leave the level of Matthew’s intention, we should look further at the assurance in 1:25 that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary before (“did not know her until”) she gave birth to Jesus. There is no doubt that Matthew’s primary interest is in what preceded the birth of Jesus and in the fulfilment of Isa 7:14 which gives “the virgin” the double role of conceiving and bearing a son. Verse 18-22 tell us that Mary was a virgin when she conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit; v. 25 tells us that she remained a virgin even until Jesus was born. Thus, in itself the verse tells us nothing about what happened by way of marital relations after Jesus was born. [Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried, Joseph Fitzmyer and John Reumann. Mary in the New Testament. Quezon City, Philippines: Claretians Publications, 1986. P. 86.]

That explanation was followed by a footnote #177 which contain an explanation beneficial in our study:

In English when something is negated until a particular time, occurrence after that time is usually assumed. However, in discussing the Greek hoes hou after a negative (“not... until,” “not... before”), K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 1. 132, n. 1, points out that in Greek and in Semetic (Aramaic, Hebrew) this type of negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the “until” was reached. [Ibid., p. 86-87.]

On the other hand you might contend that the next sentence given after the first quote above states the following:

It is only when this verse [Mt 1:25] is combined with Matthew’s reference to Mary and the brothers of Jesus (12:46), along with the sisters (13:55-56) that a likelihood arises that (according to Matthew’s understanding) Joseph did come to know Mary after Jesus’ birth and that they begot children. [Ibid., p. 86-87.]

Well, we have to bear in mind that the issue of brothers and sisters of Jesus have been debated by this same team of scholars since their study of the Gospel of Mark and these are their common stand:

The members of the task force agreed that there was no way to be certain whether the evidence of Mark 15:40 (and 15:47; 16:1) solves the problem of the nature of the relationship between Jesus and those called his brothers and sisters in Mark 6:3. We were not even agreed on which solutions might be called the more likely. But we did agree on these points:

(1) The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the NT.

(2) Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the “brothers” (and “sisters”) of Jesus.

(3) Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

(4) The solution favoured by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later church insights. [Ibid., 72.]

These team of scholars studied the topic with scepticism on both Catholic and Protestant positions. They agreed that Mary was chosen a Virgin, conceived as a Virgin and gave birth as a Virgin. These most sceptics of scholars agreed that the New Testament is not directly categorical whether Joseph had relation with Mary after the birth or if she remained a virgin after the birth. That debate must be settled in Church History and in the teachings passed on by the Christians from one generation to another. On this account the Early Christians are unanimous in upholding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and those who deny it are following recently invented point of views and whose support from ecclesiastical history is minimal and mostly from condemned heretics like Tertullian and Helvidius.

Mary is always referred to in the Bible as Virgin and there is no instance that the Bible negated that Virginity. Jesus preserved her Virginity in coming in her womb and The Catholic Church believes that He came out of the same womb without destroying that Virginity. Obviously Jesus is respectful of His mother’s Virginal Integrity.

The Blessed Mother "The Highly Favoured of God"

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. I don't see how her status would change (or be dimished) if she complied with her marital duties/responsabilities with Joseph after Jesus was borned. 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 neccesity for Catholics.

Marriage is a holy institution. I agree, that is why there is no divorce in the Catholic Church while in the Protestant and in Born Again denominations, churches or religions there are divorce and even abortions and even permission of same sex marriage while the Catholic Church maintain the sanctity of marriage against these evils. But, VIRGINITY TOO IS A HOLY INSTITUTION and is created by God ALSO. God didn’t choose a Virgin simply to be broken later. He chose a womb that is exclusive of Him alone. The Lord Jesus Himself although became man like us in all things except sin didn’t marry. Of course He didn’t consider marriage or marital relation sinful. However, He showed us that a Virginal life is also very good and divine. Among the Apostles there is no mention of them being married except Peter, and Peter said he left everything for the Lord:

Luke 18:28-30 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Peter left all for the Kingdom of God. And Jesus stated that those who abandoned having wife or kids of their own will not be punished but instead will be blessed and will be saved. HOW COME THE BORN AGAIN ARE SO ANGRY AT CELIBACY AND IN BEING SINGLE FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF A LIFE OF VIRGINITY? HOW COME? The Lord Jesus approved of it and even promised eternal life for it yet the Born Again makes it appear as if we are committing evil in our life of Celibacy and practice of Virginity.

For sure you know St. Paul. The Born Again and the Evangelicals are always using his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians to argue for their self invented Dogma which is not written by Paul: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. Yet, they forget the fact that PAUL NEVER MARRIED AND HE DIED WITHOUT ANY MARITAL RELATION AND SO DID JOHN THE APOSTLE. How about Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas, etc.? Do you know any information that they got married? How about Barnabas, Mark, Luke, Timothy, Titus, Silas any news about their marriage? When did they engage in honeymoon?

Joseph and Mary were married but we know that their relationship is above the normal situation. Mary was chosen most particularly to conceive, give birth and to raise the Messiah. HER ROLE IS TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE MESSIAH NOT OF OTHER CHILDREN. If Mary had other children then the Virgin Birth of Jesus will be under question too. If Mary is not pure in carnal practice then it is most probable that the Child Jesus was also a product of her Carnal Desires. But, if she is Virginal throughout then the Virgin Birth of Jesus is solidly proven and can surpass the strictest scrutiny. On the part of Joseph, after he realized that Mary was pregnant with the Son of God his role became the protector and foster father of the Child. He gave him legitimacy by his name and loved him as his very own son.

The womb of Mary is no ordinary womb. It is sacred because the Lord lived in it. The Holy Land is called Holy because the Lord resided in it. The Temple in Jerusalem is Sacred because the Lord filled it with His Glory. The Womb of Mary is more Sacred still because it has become the deepest sanctuary of the Incarnate Son of God. Then, how can Joseph violate that Sacred Womb resided upon by Our Lord and God Jesus Christ by penetrating it with his fleshly genital in a sexual act?

Man doesn’t live on bread alone and we doesn’t live on sex alone as well. Joseph and Mary didn’t need another child or children because they already got THE BEST, THE GREATEST CHILD IN THE WORLD. JESUS!!! JESUS WOULD BE MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM HAPPINESS AND SATISFACTION. WHEN GOD IS WITH YOU THE DESIRES FOR MONEY AND SEX AND MATERIAL THINGS DISAPPEAR BECAUSE YOU WILL BE ABSORBED BY THE HOLINESS AND SANCTIY AND BLESSEDNESS OF GOD. Thus, the Angels and Saints in Heaven are not marrying and not indulging in sex.

Doing marital union and begetting children are human but they are only on the level of the flesh. They are passing things of this world. The Lord Jesus Himself bears testimony to this:

Luke 20:34-36 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

The reason why Jesus didn’t marry because He already lived a life of the Spirit here, His life on earth is a life of Blessedness of Heaven. We believe that Mary also shared the same blessing as a gift of Jesus to His faithful Mother. Mary lived, not an abnormal life, but a heavenly life because her Son Jesus already saved her prior to His death on the Cross: “My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour” [Luke 1:47] and Joseph was able to do the same because God filled him with grace to be a just man, a righteous man [cf. Matthew 1:19]. The presence of God in their lives is enough to give them the Blessedness of Heaven here on earth. Just like the Apostles after being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their goal and objective is to serve and proclaim and to be with Christ; no longer to find a wife, to enjoy marital union and beget children.

Thus, your insistence of sexual union between Mary and Joseph is only on the level of the flesh. You are making it appear that the sanctity of Mary and Joseph are only on that level. Definitely they are much much higher than yours and of the ordinary husband and wife.

I am wondering why our Born Again brethren find it difficult to understand the Biblical teaching practiced by JESUS, Mary & Joseph, Paul, John and the rest of the Apostles: “And some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s Kingdom.” [Matthew 19:12] ---

The condemnation in Genesis 3:16 “Your urge shall be for your husband and he shall be your master” was cancelled by the matrimonial relationship between Mary and Joseph. Out of love for the Kingdom, Mary, the woman completely possessed by the Spirit, consented to being taken into the home of Joseph and living with him. She established a communion with him that made them one life without either of them ceasing to be their individual selves... The love of the Kingdom transfigured the eros and converted it into a vehicle of oblation, of surrender to mutual service and, above all, to special attention toward Jesus, the new life developing in the family... Jesus, Mary and Joseph made up the first community of the Kingdom, “the starting point of the Church, the origin of the Church which is communion and reconciliation, the redemption of sex no longer as instrument of domination but as means of communication”. [Jose Cristo Rey Garcia Paredes. Mary and the Reign of God, A Synthesis of Mariology. Trans. by Joseph Daries, CMF and Josefina Martinez, MMB. Quezon City, Philippines: Claretian Publications, 1990. P. 207]

I want to be more clear about a few things. My intention was not to make a generalization about all Catholics necessarily. Indeed, I have met and worshiped together with Catholics that I have no doubt were worshiping God "in Spirit and in Truth". I might have gotten a little carried away with my post. Don't get me 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 your understanding and accepting the genuineness of our worship.

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

Jorge, we cannot and must not abolish a pious act just because there are abuses. We have to correct the abuses without destroying what is good. For instance, TV Evangelization of Evangelicals and Born Again. It appears to me that for many people they seemed to be worshipping Almeda of Jesus Miracle Crusade, or Eddie Villanueva, or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen to the point that when these people were asked to cry, to jump, to shout and to do things they were being obeyed. That for me is ‘crazy’ and even ‘stupid’. I thought that these people are teaching justification by faith alone yet in their worship there are so many dramatizations that have nothing to do with God but simply theatrics and antics of the Pastors. So, are they willing to abandon TV evangelization because of these abuses? Will they stop their worship services because of these abuses? How about the abuses in Tithing? How many prominent pastors have been brought down by scandals involving money such as Jimmy Swaggart and others? Just going to the web and Google them we can have a long list. Shall you stop Tithing too?

You may find the Marian devotions of Latin Americans questionable but I also find Evangelical’s manner of Speaking in Tongue as lunacy and sign of diabolical possession. There is a Speaking in Tongue in the Bible but definitely it is not like that sounding like possessed by the devil and uttering sounds with a twirling tongue and spewing salivas. The Apostles spoke human languages and they were able to be understood by people of diverse languages. There are occasions that they cannot be understood because what they were speaking were deep theological messages. But, they never made the Speaking in Tongue as being done by many Evangelicals.

I am not saying that the Evangelicals doing such manner of speaking in Tongue are diabolically possessed but they appear to me as such. Perception must be tempered with deeper analyses and even scientific study Jorge.

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 personall perception) that the average person appears to give a higher place to Mary than to God or Jesus.

I think your perception of Catholic life has been distorted Jorge. To say that “the average person appears to give a higher place to Mary than to God or Jesus” is too much and unfair. That is a biased statement. Because the Catholics are not required to pray to Mary but we are required and demanded to Adore and Worship God and Christ in the HOLY MASS where Mary is rarely mentioned, except in commemoration of the saints and in the Creed which states that “He was born of the Virgin Mary’.

Every day Catholics are signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross and that is the Sign of Jesus not of Mary. All our prayers, actions start with that. We do it when after waking up, before meals, when leaving the house, when passing a Church, when we are praying, when we are afraid, etc. On top of all our Houses of Worship is the Cross showing that the Redeemer is above all. Even the Rosary is crowned with the Holy Cross of Jesus. Here in the Philippines, the people have strong devotion to Mary but Marian devotions are nothing in comparison with the honour and love given to the Lord Jesus as the Holy Child, Holy Nazarene, Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy.

Even if you check the Novena Prayers whom you might perceive as prayer to Mary you will be surprised that the prayer guides contained therein are actually Christological prayers. They are prayers directed to Jesus and pointing to Jesus.

I know that if you ask them, they will deny this.

Of course they will deny it because it is not true.

We Catholics are reciting the Our Father everyday and each Rosary Prayer begins with the Apostolic Creed which starts with “I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord.” Every Catholic who received the catechesis of the Church knows that Mary is nothing in comparison with Jesus. Yet we love Mary because it is Jesus who gave Mary to us in the Bible. While the so-called Born Again Christians honour their TV evangelists as if they are ‘gods’ we Catholic Christians honour Mary, Joseph, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Paul and the holy people – the saints mentioned in the Bible.

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

Once again that is not true.

I have visited places of Marian pilgrimages where thousands of Catholics are visiting I frequently see people entering the Church, signing themselves with the sign of the Cross then they will close their eyes in spontaneous prayers. Many are even shedding tears in front of the Altar of God, before the Blessed Sacrament. The only difference is that when we Catholics are praying we kneel before the Altar and we pray in silence while the Born Again almost shouts their prayers. I find our manner more serious and more contemplative while I find the other superficially noisy and prone to show off. Actually in experience and based on my own observations the Born Again, the Baptists and the Evangelicals mumble more with words than Catholics who usually pray in silence.

Our Catholic Worship is very solemn and dignified while the Born Again worship is like a Rock concert of the drug addicts.

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.

Almost all of the TV programs coming from Protestant U.S.A. are promoting only sex and money and politics. There are no prayers at all. If there are prayers in those programs mostly 1% only or less. So, they are perfect promoter of promiscuities and immoralities. So before you look at our Latin American soap operas please check first the kind of programs coming from Protestant or Evangelical countries such as the United States and Britain and Australia. It's nice to criticize, isn't it? But it is harder to look at the evil at is present in your own household and in your own kind.

Concerning Latin American soap operas I don’t know which one you are referring to. I rarely watch soap Operas because I am a teacher and administrator and have no time to watch a lot of soap Operas. You must be very free to be able to see a good number of them. However, when I was not yet a priest my mother used to watch a very popular soap Opera Marimar. And it is not true that God is rarely mentioned. I have noticed that the lady and some characters are calling on the name of the Lord. Why don’t you read the entire script of these telenovelas?

Besides, it appears to me that your concept of prayer is wrong by our Catholic perspective. We Catholics are not ‘MAKING’ prayer to Mary. WE ARE PRAYING WITH MARY AND WE ARE ASKING MARY TO PRAY FOR US. That is Intercessions, just like the Christians asking their friends or relatives to pray for them. The Born Again are also asking their Pastors to pray for them and the TV evangelists are asking their viewers to pray and to SEND THEIR PRAYER REQUESTS. If the TV Evangelists Pastors can accept prayer requests on TV how come Peter, Paul, Joseph or Mary cannot receive prayer request from Heaven? Why, are these pastors holier than Mary ‘the beloved’, the ‘Highly Favoured of God’?

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.

I agree. God will base His judgment according to our works [Romans 2:6/ Revelation 20:12].

It is a fact and shown on TV sets all over the world that the Born Again Christians are giving prayer requests to the TV Evangelists and Radio Pastors mostly wearing a thousand dollar business suit while we Catholic Christians address our prayer requests to Biblical personages like Mary, Joseph, Peter and Paul. I THINK I AM PROUD OF OUR CHOICE OF PEOPLE TO WHOM WE SEND OUR PRAYER REQUESTS. Remember James? I totally agree with his point; "We show our faith/beliefs by our actions" or "faith without works is death"; plain and simple.

Of course James is correct because he wrote those words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. ALSO JAMES, UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE SAME SPIRIT DECLARED THAT MAN IS JUSTIFIED NOT BY FAITH ALONE AND THAT FAITH WITHOUT WORK IS DEAD. I think this is contrary to the claims of the Evangelicals. James is very Catholic in his teaching of Justification, just like Paul who never taught Justification by Faith Alone as claimed by the Sola Scriptura Evangelicals even if it is not found in the Bible.

Thus, besides prayers Catholics are demanded to do works of Charities. Thus, our centres of charities all over the world are unmatched by any institutions. We Catholics are the pioneers of building schools and universities, hospitals, orphanages, home for the aged, etc. We call these activities helping the destitute WORKS OF MERCY. We Catholics are encouraged to do so because to pray alone is not enough but we have to express it in charitable works.

We are doing these works even if 10% tithing is not required for our members.

I have Born Again Pastors friends they are preaching Justification by Faith Alone. They claim that works are not necessary for Salvation but when the members do not give tithing of which they have strict records they get mad; they regularly states during the worship service that those who are not faithful in Tithing are stealing from God. Wow... I was surprised to hear that preaching. What I know from Scripture is that Jesus accepted the lowest coin given by a poor widow. So, it is Justification by Faith Alone apart from Works EXCEPT ON MONEY MATTERS.

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 supports my view.

What is your problem with those apparitions? When there are reports of that kind Catholics commonly go and visit. Many are praying the rosaries, attending Masses in the area and they pray peacefully then they go home. These are pious practices.

For me what is troubling is the proliferation of many cults and religions and fellowships with different creeds and beliefs so that heresies are spreading through these groups. Now there are already more than 38,000 Protestant and Evangelical denominations competing against each other and debating against each other. Since they differ in doctrines, even in major doctrines, then how can they determine what is the true teaching or not? Their Sola Scriptura led them to Dogmatic Babel.

Some of the leaders of these groups even asked their female members to let themselves be impregnated by them, some asked them to commit suicide or even murders by throwing poisons inside the train or to go into shooting rampage inside a university, others required their members to submit their properties then they go on top of the mountain to wait for the end time yet nothing happened and their properties gone for good. These are the evils that must be condemned. Here are the roots of countless heresies and evil in the society. Yet, go to Fatima and to Lourdes and see if these kind of evil are happening to people praying in these shrines. They are dignified, peaceful loving devotees armed only with prayers and love of God and devotion to Mary.

I understand that in Latin America there were abuses because people who are pretending to be Catholics are actually Voodoo practitioners. I believe that your relatives are not part of this group. I suppose that they are dignified and peaceful and devoted Catholics.

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.

The fact that ours is a Church with systematized and unified Authority is a great blessing. Because the Roman Catholic Church is implementing the system started by the Apostles wherein each town has a presbyter [priest], then the province has a Bishop, then the region has an Archbishop or in Greek Metropolitan, then universally there is a head which is the Universal Pastor the Pope.

Our Church Authority can decide and discern for us the validity of claims such as the Apparitions. With the Evangelicals this is not possible because almost every pastor is independent. When one pastor is reprimanded for heresy in a denomination he can simply transfer to another or he can create his own independent, separatist fellowship or even a new religion. The Apostolic Church was not like that. It was not a free for all, do what you want churches or fellowships rather a Church composed of various cluster yet inter related and united with each other: ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE SPIRIT, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE BREAD.

Yes, there are people who are disobeying our leaders but the same reality is also present among the Evangelicals and Born Again. I still remember the man called Evangelist Almeda, the head of Jesus Miracle Crusade in the Philippines. He has hundreds of thousands of followers. Before the World Youth Day in Manila in 1995 he gathered his followers in the National Park and declared live on Television that they have to pray and fast for the coming of the Pope so that right in front of cameras the Pope will reveal himself to be the incarnate devil. His pangs and his tail and his horns will burst forth out of his body. They did so. They prayed in public which was covered by the media for several days that the Pope will be revealed as a devil and that he will stick to the wall where Almada could kill him.

Then the Pope arrived, greeted by the President of the Republic and all government officials with leaders of various religious organizations in front. He paraded before Metro Manila seen by 3 million people during motorcade, then celebrated a Vigil Prayer before 2 million young people and finally celebrated the Holy Mass in the same National Park attended by 4-5 million people - the biggest crowd in a single place in history. He spoke of peace and of love and of the call to be model of Christian virtues in the society. The young people from all over the world cried with joy for witnessing a man of great holiness preaching a message of charity.

Now, who is evil then? Many leaders of various Christian denominations are attacking the Pope for his views yet have you heard any counter attack from the Pope Benedict XVI or from any of our Popes?

The Pope and Catholics of good will got their peace and charity from Christ by having Mary as their example and model of Christian life. By looking at Mary of Nazareth we Catholics have a very good example of what it is to be a true Christian. Because she lived a life of total dedication to God, humble, prayerful and faithful even in front of the Cross and insults of those who wishes her Son to die.

I am convinced that when Catholics are devotees of Mary the more they become better Christians. I know it from the examples of my own family and of countless friends. In fact, the Marian devotees in my family and in our parishes and school are telling me: “Father, don’t debate the Anti-Catholics, just pray for them.” Yet, they are the people commonly insulted, misunderstood by these Anti-Catholics roaming the streets or writing on the Webs insulting the Marian devotees. Ironic isn’t it?

I guess the point that I am making is that the "veneration" of Mary has gotten out of control (in my oppinion) 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.

I want to be honest with you too.

The heresies arising from Evangelical denominations have gotten out of control and this is not my opinion but a proven fact because the Evangelicals themselves cannot provide even a unified meaning for their Dogmas of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Rapture, Altar Call, etc. The ecclesiastical divisions arising from the Evangelical groups are on-going day after day so that people are confused on matters of faith and morals. There are now more than 38,000 Evangelical and Protestant denominations in the world.

The veneration of Mary in general is in proper place. Even if the Catholics are praying the Rosary, the Our Father and the Hail Mary contained therein are Biblical prayers, they are derived from the Word of God. In many spontaneous prayers of the Protestants or Evangelicals the prayers are not Biblical on many occasions but a prolonged parroting of personal concerns.

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.

Very nice. The Catholic Church has a very long history of Gospel proclamation from the time of the Apostles until now. Our theology has been developed for two Millennia and that is why it is more polished and solid. Having a Catechism of the Catholic Church is also a blessing because we can claim that “this is the official teachings of our Church”. So, we cannot invent doctrines we make it sure that we remain faithful to the Apostolic heritage.

When it comes to studying or at least reading the bible ocassionally 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 preception.

I don’t think so. The Catholics simply do not memorize the chapters and the verse but they know the Word of God. They can quote statements of Jesus and that of St. Paul or cite incidents in the Bible as easy as their Protestant counterparts. The Apostles themselves are not citing Chapters and Verses when they were quoting the Scriptures.

Now, some Protestants are so eager to show that they know the Bible that they keep on quoting it but I’ve noticed that they mostly quote the memorized verses. So, they have it packaged. When I got the chance to meet these kind I put them into scrutiny and almost all falter. In deeper examination they are also ignorant of the Bible; they simply memorized few verses such as John 3:16 etc.

During the 80’s I noticed that the Evangelicals were so eager to read the Bible. Now years later I observed that the next generation are no longer as knowledgeable as before. There are also a lot of Biblical ignorant from their ranks. I am speaking of my own students in class from various level of Tertiary Education.

Now, Evangelical apologists are already afraid to face their Catholic counterparts in public plazas to square off in a one on one debates. The Bereans Research Forum knows that. Their apologists are cowering and hiding their identity when challenged by Catholic Faith Defenders and of Defensores Fidei Foundation apologists.

Go to any forum in the internet where people are debating their faith you will be surprised to see good number of Catholics defending their faith using the Sacred Scriptures.

I want to say (also) that there was a time when I thaught 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.

Praise the Lord for giving you such wisdom and deeper understanding of our faith. We too believe that Evangelicals and Protestants can enter heaven. I know that from childhood because my catechists in Elementary taught us correctly. So, if you learn that Catholics can enter heaven only nowadays it means that your pastors didn’t teach you properly and correctly right from the start.

If your pastors claim that only them and their followers will enter heaven, then obviously they are teaching errors.

There are many views of the catholic church that I like. 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.

I have attended Evangelical and Protestant worships when I was in High School and I was disappointed [My alma mater school, General McArthur Memorial Academy in Barangay Minuyan, San Jose del Monte City is Protestant dominated]. Many are attacking the Catholic Church openly during the 2 hour discourse of the pastors. That is very unchristian because in the Catholic Mass the focus of homilies is mostly moral and spiritual explanation of the Gospel and not attacks against other religion. I was also horrified by a rock n roll type of worship; I found it cheap and full of gimmickry. I also hated the manner, the regular practice wherein the pastors were encouraging their members to donate money, they were delivering regular and systematic admonitions for Tithing complete with songs and dance just to move them to give more. It’s sickening.

What I found funnier is the Breaking of the Bread of some Evangelicals. Gosh... they are using Biscuits and Grape juice and then they are junking them after the fellowship. Is that the way to treat the Body and Blood of the Lord as Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29?

Jesus taught to pray to the father.

We are praying to the Father.

In fact, the Our Father is the official prayer of the Catholic Church while the Evangelicals that I know don’t recite it. They told me that Jesus used only the Our Father as an example. For Catholics, example or not, it is a Sacred Prayer given by the Lord and therefore it is the most perfect prayer. Better than the self invented prayers of each one of us no matter how beautifully composed or spontaneously spoken.

The official Creeds of the Catholic Church starts with: “I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY”. I was told by several Protestant theology professors that I’ve met in an Ecumenical gathering that it is unfortunate that the Evangelicals do not recite these Creeds in their worship. These Creeds are important because they were composed when Christianity was still One and Undivided.

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.

Where did you get that idea that Catholics think that when a person is praying it is not God hearing him? It is the Catholic teaching as well that when a repentant sinner is praying God is the one who hears him.

However, our God is God of the living not of the dead [Luke 20:38]. The book of Revelation attests that the souls of the holy ones are alive in heaven and they are praying to God. The prayers of the saints are rising to God like incense [Revelation 5:8/ 8:4].

It appears to me that your belief in your God is somewhat distorted. It seems that your Deity is selfish: “You and Me alone”. Our God, the Catholic God is not selfish. He looks at us as one Family and one Community of Believers. We belong to His Kingdom. So, although God hears us we are also allowed to communicate spiritually to each other through faith. Thus, I do not hesitate to say: “St. Paul please pray for me.” Since we believe that St. Paul is saved and justified so he is in heaven; he is a righteous man. And the prayer of the righteous is effective indeed [cf. James 5:16-18]. We view the saints and Mary as servants of God, holy people dear to God. Thus, to ask their intercessions on our behalf will not be insulting to God but rather pleasing to God because then there are two or more souls praying to Him rather than one.

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.

If you are thinking that we Catholics are not encouraged to pray directly to God you are mistaken; greatly mistaken. But, our manner of praying is different from yours and therefore it is not fair that you are judging us according to your standard. Because in many instances we also see the Evangelicals and Protestants as praying indirectly such as asking their Pastors to pray for them or their friends and relatives. I myself is being asked by Evangelical friends to pray for them especially when they are taking difficult exams, looking for jobs or getting married or leaving for abroad. Instinctively, Christians of various denominations are asking the help of another person to pray for them.

How about that prayer requests on TV and Radio? Are they prayers directly to God? Why do they need to pass through the Televangelists? Why do they need to bring their donations with it?

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

We Catholics are not teaching that we are not worthy to pray to God directly but we simply say that two souls praying for a single intention is better than one. Actually Evangelicals are doing the same. Here is one example:

“In the name of Jesus, we raise our sick sister to Jesus... to heal her from this cancer. Let us join our hands and close our eyes and intensely believe that by praying together the Lord Jesus will answer our prayers....”

I got that prayer in a public hospital when I was doing the apostolate and one of the sick stricken with cancer is Evangelical. I wanted to tell the sick person but I withhold myself of course: “Well, why don’t you need these intermediaries? Pray to Jesus directly and alone. That’s enough. Why do you have to bother others to pray for you? Isn’t God seeing and hearing you directly?”

Their practice of laying on of hands practically disprove the point that you are claiming.

The truth is ever since the ancient times the presence of intermediaries are used by our holy people and it was acceptable and even pleasing to God. The sacrifices of Abraham was effective not only for his person but for his entire tribe. The blessings received by Isaac and Jacob are blessings to their sons and families as well. Many other examples from OT and NT.

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 becuase 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.

It is not Catholic notion that is better to pray to Mary and not to Jesus. It is never taught to us by the Catholic Church. You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia from cover to cover and try to get that for me if you can. Or you can check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and try to find that teaching. See if you can find it. If you will question us, question us based on our teaching not on things that you supposed to be our teaching. Otherwise you are creating the evil that is your own invention and attributing to us your own imagined monsters.

I don't see a good basis for this in the bible.

We see good basis for Intercessions of Saints in the Bible. But if you are referring to prayer to Mary and not to Jesus then you are right that is really wrong. Fortunately for us that is not our Catholic Teaching and our official prayers addressed to Mary are prayers leading to Jesus.

If you are praying directly to Jesus and so we do. If you don’t like to ask the help of Mary to intercede for you to Jesus then that is your choice but don’t hinder us to request others, especially Mary, to pray for us. We have chosen her to pray for us rather than your pastors because we are convinced that Mary is better than them in holiness of life and therefore in efficacy of prayers.

I know that this is a big point of diffeence 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.

Unfortunately for you St. Paul holds the same view with us:

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain THE TRADITIONS even as I delivered them to you. [New King James Version/ English Standard Version/ International Standard Version]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [King James Version]

2 Thessalonians 3:6 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. [King James Version]

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 also do not see how to go against that.

When Jesus came to earth He chose Mary to be His intermediary – the channel through which He was born into our world [cf. Galatians 4:4], when He made His first Miracle at Cana He did it ahead of time because of Mary’s pleading [cf. John 2:1-11] and on the Cross, He gave Mary to the beloved disciple to be our Mother [cf. John 19:25-27]. So Jesus keeps on showing to us that Mary is a Biblical intermediary to Him just like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Elijah, Peter and Paul, etc. And here you are giving me a new doctrine trying to set aside Mary and worse trying to pit Mary against Jesus.

Sorry to tell you but you are the one who is Unbiblical here. You are inventing a doctrine that is contrary to what is given in the Bible. Mary is part of the Bible and part of the plan of God and Mary is “highly favoured of God” [cf. Luke 1:28]. So, stop pitting Mary against Jesus. THAT’S FOUL!

I could be completely wrong but I have say things as I think they are.

It’s alright. You have stated what you want to say and I myself have done the same. You have questioned some aspects of our faith and we clarified it and on our part we are also questioning your position, your suppositions and what we have observed on people belonging to your kind.

God Bless you too!!!

Thank you and God bless you too!!!

Jorge

Rev. Fr. Abe P. Arganiosa, CRS

P.S.

One quick clarification of something I said. I don't consider myself wordy of praying to the God/the Lord. But that this is exactly the reason for Jesus coming to earth and dying for us. We are sinners and will continue to sin yet we are guaranteed through Jesus sacrifice that we can pray to God and be heard even do we don't deserve it.

That is also the Catholic position. We are sinners and therefore unworthy to pray to God. Of course we are undeserving of His grace. Indeed Jesus came into this world so that what we cannot do will be fulfilled by Him who is sinless and perfect. For sure you found this in Catholic Encyclopaedia; if not please continue reading.

None of us deserve this.

Yes, none of us deserve this. Every body says that, even Catholics. We never claim that we deserve it. We do not deserve to be treated by the Divine Saviour with such love and affection to the point that He had to go down on earth and died for us. Tell me a Catholic who claims that he deserves it.

Mary is dear to us not because she deserves it. In fact, she calls herself “The maid servant of God” [Luke 1:38]. But she is also called “Highly Favoured of God” and in the Tagalog rendition of King James Version it is even stated “Truly beloved of God”. MARY IS BELOVED OF GOD. Of course every person and things loved by God is also dear to Christians. Thus, Mary is also very dear to the hearts of Catholics but honestly speaking I never saw any manifestation of that love from Evangelicals, what is evident is hatred. On your part Jorge you claim not to have anything against Mary yet it is obvious in your writing you do pit Mary with Jesus. I see it as evident in your presentation of ideas.

On the book covers of the materials published by Evangelicals most of the photos right in front are faces of your pastors and televangelists. Even in the announcements on TV and newspapers: ATTEND JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE, COME TO JESUS IS LORD GATHERING... THEN THERE IS A VERY LARGE IMAGE OF AN IDOL... THE PICTURE OF THE SELF-PROCLAIMED EVANGELIST, evangelists who didn’t write any Gospel at all. Yet these Evangelists are attacking Catholics for having images yet the only images hypocritically acceptable to your Evangelists are IMAGES OF THEIR OWN FACES. I believe its plain hypocrisy.

I am not saying that it is wrong to pray to Saints or Mary.

How nice of you Jorge. Because if you will claim that it is wrong to pray to Saints or Mary then you have to prove it to me and to us. You are necessitated then to show me verbatim, word for word, verse by verse, direct and explicit from the Bible that asking the prayers of the righteous ones in heaven is wrong.

Then I also have to ask you to prove to me that THE PRAYER REQUESTS ON RADIO AND TV DONE BY THE EVANGELICALS AND BORN AGAIN are Ok while asking the prayers of the 100% sure justified and saved persons such as Mary, Paul, Peter, Joseph, etc. is wrong.

Then you have to prove to me that the praying over of the pastors to their followers are Ok while the praying over from Heaven of the saints are wrong.

But I can't accept the notion that I have to pray to them before I can do so to the Lord and I believe that the Scriptures (and by this I mean the New Testament) support this view.

It is never a Catholic teaching that Catholics have to pray to the saints before we can do so the Lord. Where did you get that? Definitely it is not in Catholic Encyclopaedia. Please don’t invent our doctrine for us Jorge, that’s foul.

Since our Catholic belief doesn’t spouse what you claim to be our position then we are doing what is right. We are praying to God directly and if we are asking other persons to pray for us, whether here on earth or in heaven, that is none of your business. Then if your people are asking your pastors to pray for you on radio, tv or in persons or somewhere else then that is your right and privilege. We are not close minded people to create an issue out of that. But if you will criticize our manner of prayers make it sure that you are presenting our real position and doctrine not your imagined ones. If I need another person to pray for me I will choose Mary over a pastor or a televangelist because she is the highly favoured of God.

God bless you!

God bless you too!

Jorge

Rev. Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS

· Just an inquiry, Jorge. Where did you get my e-mail address and that of Atty. Mars? I do not remember giving them to you?