Apologetics 2.4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary the Theotokos

(1). The “brothers and sisters” of the Lord in scripture are not Jesus’ biological siblings, but cousins and close relatives considering that the word cousin was not used in the ancient Aramaic spoken by the Jews in the ancient world.

(2). Being that Jesus Christ is the First – Born of the Theotokos (Matt 1:25), it would obviously mean that He is the oldest of all His “siblings”. Had this been the case, it would be against the ancient Palestinian tradition for the younger to correct and rebuke one’s elders, as we see His “brothers” do in John 7:3-5.

(3). In John 19:26, Jesus gives His Mother to the Apostle John. Had Jesus had siblings, He would have passed that care to the next oldest sibling. This was the ancient law of the Jews.

(4). Protestants and other heterodox sects use Matt 13:55 as one of the scripture verses to argue against Mary’s virginity considering that there is a list of “brothers” of Jesus by name; that being James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. This was an argument used by the ancient Helvidius and Antidicomarianite heretics.

Yet, it must be taken into account that James, the “brother of the Lord” in Acts 9:27 is the Son of Alphesus, whereas the Martyred James of Acts 15:6 was the son of Zebedee. (See Matt 10:3, Mark 3:18). Jude, being the brother of James the Less (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) would have to also be the son of Alphesus.

St. Simon (not to be confused with Simon Peter), was known by the early church to be Simon, Son of Cleopas, in whom succeeded James the Apostle as Bishop of Jerusalem. On comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph (Joses). That being said, St. Simon of Jerusalem was also the son of Mary of Cleopas, along with Joseph. (Not to be confused with the adoptive earthly father of Jesus).

Note: Cleopas and Alphaeus are the same person. Papias of Hierapolis, who lived c. 70–163 AD, teaches: “Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph.”

(5). “Until” in Matt 1:24-25 is a idiomatic expression not to be taken literal, as 1 Sam 6:23 also expresses that Saul’s daughter didn’t have children until her death. Does that mean that she had children after her death? Of course not! In 1 Cor 15:25, it states that Jesus must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. Would that mean that His reign would eventually end? Absolutely not. (Luke 1:33).

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 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

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]).

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]).

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]).

Therefore, being that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, it is clear by scripture and by the teachings of the Early Christians that Mary remained a Virgin all the days of her life.

Apologetics 2:2 – Matthew 6:5-8 and Prayer.

Disclaimer: The commentary below was inspired by the Orthodox Study Bible.

When examining this scripture verse, here are some things that must be taken into account.

1. The Hypocrites miss the spirit of prayer, which is an intimate, personal communion with God that leads to the vision of His Glory. ( 1 Co 2:9).

2. Christ does not condemn the use of many words per se, but teaches that the words must express desire for communion with God. Therefore, it is vain repetition (pointless prayers without with the intention of having true communion with God) that are useless. Had repetition of prayer been condemned itself, Jesus would have not instructed us to repeat the Lord’s Prayer, nor would Luke 18:1 suggest to pray always; in addition to 1 Thess 5:17 demanding that we must “pray without ceasing.” In fact, the Book of psalms has many phrases in which we’re very repetitious! For example:

In Psalm 108 (109) King David continuously asks God for mercy. Verse 21: “Bless You, O Lord, O Lord, deal mercifully with me for your name’s sake, For Your Mercy is good.” He continues in verse 26: “Help me, O Lord my God; save me according to Your Mercy!” These are just a couple verses of the many examples of true repetitious prayer! (In fact, the continuous calling upon God’s mercy is exactly what we do when we pray the Jesus Prayer in the Eastern Churches).

3. True prayer is not telling God what He already knows and then telling Him what to do about it (a common practice we all unfortunately have done or continue to do), nor is it praying in-front of others to look pious. (I.E. worldly praise, the “reward” that the Pharisees got.) Rather, true prayer is (1) Humble. (I.E. “Go into your room” in Verse 6), (2) Personal. (“Pray to your Father”, Verse 6.) (3) Sincere. (“Do not use vain repetitions, Verse 7).

Apologetics 2:1 – Biblical Proof for the Liturgy

The Divine Liturgy of the Church is absolutely identical to the liturgy celebrated by the Old Testament Jews. Considering that the Old Testament was a prefiguration of the Church, it shouldn’t be surprising to see many corresponding elements.

For example, when comparing the Divine Liturgy to the Liturgy of the ancient Hebrews, it is evident by its nature that both liturgies have a Priest to celebrate a sacrifice for the remission of sins. In Leviticus 5, the Bible says:

“And he shall give them to the priest: who shall offer the first for sin, and twist back the head of it to the little pinions, so that it stick to the neck, and be not altogether broken off. And of its blood he shall sprinkle the side of the altar, and whatsoever is left, he shall let it drop at the bottom thereof, because it is for sin. And the other he shall burn for a holocaust, as is wont to be done: and the priest shall pray for him, and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.”

As stated above, the Old Testament was a prefiguration of the New Testament since Christ the Messiah has not yet come. This is why St Augustine, in his holy wisdom, explained it best when he stated: “The New Testament is hidden in the old, and the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.”

Given that Jesus Christ has come to fulfill the law, (Matt 5:17) the sacrifice of animals are no longer necessary. Instead, we celebrate the sacrifice that Jesus has done for us on the Cross for the remission of our sins (Hebrews 9:12), in addition to also celebrating His Resurrection. This explains why we have an altar in our churches. The sacrifice is done when the priest says the words of consecration to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus; also known as the Holy Eucharist. (John 6:52 , Luke 22:19-20). This was celebrated every Sunday in the early Christian Church. (Acts 20:7).

Not only do we see the continuation of a sacrifice in the New Testament Church, but we also see the continuation of the use of Incense. The use of incense symbolizes both the presence of the Holy Spirit and the rising of our prayers to heaven. (Rev 5:8, Rev 8:1-5, Psalms 141:2). This can be seen within ancient Jewish worship as well.

Leviticus 2: 1-13 mentions how one must properly make a grain offering when it says: “Now if a soul should offer a gift for a grain offering to the Lord, his gift shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense of it. He shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests, one of whom shall take it from his handful of fine flour and oil with all the frankincense. Then the priest shall put it on the altar as a memorial (emphasis added), a sacrifice of sweet aroma to the Lord … and when it is presented to the priest, he shall bring it to the altar …”

Other examples of this can be seen in Num 17:3-15, Tobit 8:2-4 , Songs of Solomon 4:6, WSir 39:14, Mal 1:11, & Isiah 6:1-6. Being that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is also a priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), this explains why the Magi have offered Jesus Incense as a symbol of His Divine Priesthood. (Matt 2:11).

In conclusion, we can see that the New Testament Church is the continuation of the ancient Jewish religion since Christ the Messiah has come! May Christ our Lord be Glorified unto ages of ages, amen!

Apologetics 1.9: EARLY CHURCH PAPACY

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ¹⁸ And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Said our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to the Apostle Peter. It was from this very moment that Christ established not only his church, but the authoritative voice of his church. In modern times, there is this misconception of papal authority being an intrusive theology and practice to the Christian faith, this is no modern phenomenon. Starting from the creation of the church we’ve seen the authority of Saint Peter.

Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles as seen in all four gospels. It is Peter’s faith that guided his brothers (Luke 22:32) and Peter was given Christ’s flock to rule (John 21:16). He elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). It was to Peter that received revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).

Now we move into the post apostolic era of the church. It is standard fare in the theology of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox to assert that the doctrine of the primacy of the See of Rome was an invention of the Middle Ages. The false claim of this assertion is the belief that, in the patristic era, the bishops patriarchal sees all interacted as equals with no concept of a papal primacy until the early medieval era, or during the 7-9^th centuries. Many are even Unaware of the Rock Solid Proof of papal authority not only in scriptures but also in church history, papal infallibility and supremacy being acted out on in early church, and the acknowledgement of the divine authority the office holds.

In the post apostolic era we see the Pope forcing Dionysius of Alexandria to explain his Trinitarian teachings, forced the patriarch of Antioch to not support Novationism, as Pope Clement did to force Corinth to reinstate its priests and bishops. It was the pope who overruled the Second Council of Ephesus and the Arian council of Rimini, even when a majority of bishops supported these heresies and much more.

Alluding to councils let’s say all bishops were equal, and orthodoxy was dependent on a “synodical democracy” that would mean the councils of: Antioch in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism, Sirmium in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism, the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine, the numerous “councils” in Constantinople which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox) and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils would have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

Which also leads what makes a council ecumenical, this also plays into the part of Papal infallibility. After each councils, the sessions would be recorded and the canons and decrees listed then, the bishops would sign it and then the Emperor proceeding. Subsequently, if the council maintained Orthodoxy then he’d accept it and elevated it to ecumenical status. In the words of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) :

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine
brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by
canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval
or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned
to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their
hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus,
Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

Interesting isn’t it? Countless church fathers and councils understood the authority of the pope having not only jurisdictional authority when abuses were being committed but also in deciding orthodoxy using his papal infallibility.

In the council of Chalcedon, the bishops gathered begged the Pope to accept their decrees as the head, and that they needed to be in agreement with him:

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. — Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Then came the concern of canon 28 and even with the ratification of the 28^th canon it was never accepted by the Pope. Pope Leo refused to aceept this canon and putting a “line of veto,” ordered it off from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it.

Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. — Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, the matter was settled and, for the next 6 centuries all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector, John Skolastikas, Dionysius, etc.

 St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) says, writing to Pope
Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd
after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or
his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church
be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

…and ….

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of
those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that
representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which
might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the
Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an
ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his
synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite,
Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Also, during Photius’ own time, his Byzantine contempory St. Methodius, the brother of
St. Cyril and Apostle to the Slavs (865), clearly testifies to the belief that the authority
of an Ecumenical Council depends on the authority of Rome:
“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an
Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by
sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as nonexistent,
for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius, in N.
Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church
and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p.
177).

It is clearly Rome’s teaching authority the very thing “Saint” Photius denied so as to foster Byzantine primacy through an untraditional bid to make the Patriarch of Constantinople “Ecumenical Patriarch” But, getting back to my point, the Orthodox have bought into a non-Ecclesial, very imperial notion of what determines orthodoxy via magisterium. Their idea that “all bishops are equal” is really rooted in the Imperial idea of polling bishops so as to see what is taught everywhere.

However, while this is sometimes a useful tool it is no replacement for a magisterium. The very non-representational Greek Democracy in other words, it doesn’t work. If it did, we would not have had all those illicit “ecumenical councils” I referred to above. And in this, we see a simple rule for defining orthodoxy:

With Rome = Legitimate Ecumenical Council

Without Rome = Illicit, Heretical Council.

Apologetics 1.8: Call no man ‘Father’?

If you have ever come across a Protestant, one common argument that you may have heard is “The Bible says to not call anyone father.” The scripture passage that they are  referencing is Matthew 23:9 in where Jesus says to not call anybody on earth your father. However, this must be taken in its proper context from the understanding of that time period and from Jewish lenses. In that time period, the Roman kings would identify themselves as “Father God” to replace the True Creator. Considering that this is blasphemy and outright idolatrous, Christ warned to not identify anybody on earth as “Father” in the context of “Father God”, for such would be idolatrous.

If Christ implied to not use the term “father” within itself, then we’d have to conclude that He and the scriptures have contradicted itself. Since Christ is God and cannot do so, nor can scripture since its inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself, that’s impossible. All throughout scripture, the term Father is used by God Himself or His disciples.
Luke 14:26 – “If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yes, even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple.” Note, Christ clearly used the word father to refer to the earthly male parents of our life on earth. Christ is clearly not against the use of the term, for even the fourth commandment says to “honor your father and your mother.” Would this mean that God is contradicting Himself? Absolutely not. Again, context needs to be considered.

Later, in the book of Luke chapter 16:24, Jesus says the following when giving a parable: “And crying out, he said: ‘Father Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to refresh my tongue. For I am tortured in this fire.’ ” This is also why in the book of Romans, Paul calls Abraham the “Father of us all.” (Romans 4:16-17)

Therefore, the reason we identify deacons and priests as ‘Father’ is because of their pastoral role as spiritual fathers in whom tend the flock, us as the spiritual children. This is the very continuation of how the ancient Jews identified the priests of their time period, thus St. Stephen the martyred deacon’s identification of the Jewish elders and priests as “fathers.” (See Acts 6:14)

 

Apologetics 1.6: Does God condemn iconography?

Protestants make the absurd accusation that we as Catholic’s worship statues and images. In my previous post, I have made it clear that we as Catholics worship the Trinity alone and that the Catholic Church condemned idol worship. (Nicea 2).

With that being said, Protestants cite Exodus 20 which states the following:
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them”
As Catholics, we complete agree with this verse. That’s because we as Catholics agree with the bible 100% being that we are bible Christians. That’s right. Protestants would say we don’t accept this, thus God’s condemnation on the construction of statues. However, what is this scripture really addressing? If you were not aware, Protestants suffer with a bad case of personal interpretation of scripture, something coming from the heretic and schismatic Martin Luther.

When examining this scripture in context, the scripture in itself is condemning the pagan use of statues, that being the construction of them in order to put them in the place of God out of pride and disobedience. Being that God is almighty and cannot be replaced, the pagans have committed the sin of idolatry. However, does God condemn the religious use of images? No, for God doesn’t contradict Himself.
Five chapters away from Exodus 20, God instructs the construction of the ark of the covenant. The ark of the covenant was a container in which held the very word of God within it, that being the tablets of the Ten Commandments.

“And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).

Also, in the book of 1 chronicles, David has commanded Solomon to make statuary. “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19).

Note something, “made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, al the work to be done according to the plan.” If the construction of images were idolatry in themselves, why would David make it known that this is according to God’s plan? This plan included statues of angels, something found within Catholic Churches which co exists with images of saints.

Within the book of Ezekiel, the author describes the interior of the Jewish temples of the time. It is described as having images of the cherubim. On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.” (Ezekiel 41:17–18)

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9).

Catholic Apologetics 1.4: The Saints are Alive!