'History shows . . . that a Christianity which no longer gives our Lady the homage accorded her by the Church is a mutilated Christianity . . . Once refuse to admit the uniqueness of his Mother and the Christ you think you have kept is but a disfigured Christ; no longer do God and man come together in him . . .'
-Louis Bouyer (emphasis mine)
Apparently, the 'New Testament Church' looked quite a bit different than that which the historical evidence seems to suggest. . .
The Catholic Faith does not buy into the novel notion of 'Sola Scriptura' - Scripture alone - but in order to make my case for the Blessed Virgin complete, I feel it necessary to address some 'Scriptural' objections to the veneration of Mary as virgin and upright (the latter of which is a particularly shameful attack).
First, I'll address two Biblical and one historical objections concerning the 'invented' doctrines about Mary. Second, I will show a very, very early Marian understanding in the faith - especially in regard to the 'invented' doctrines. Third, I will call to task the anti-Catholic doctrine of ahistorical infallibility.
1. 'But Scripture clearly speaks of Jesus' brothers. -And James was 'the brother of our Lord'! How on earth can the Catholic Church sustain any teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity?'
a. The Tiny 'John Problem'
If we're going to use Sola Scriptura, then let's use Scripture. There is a notable kink that arises in trying to denounce the title of the Blessed Virgin:
'When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.'
(John 19:26)
While we're throwing out doctrines of the Church, we might as well throw out the troublesome Scripture passages that come along with them.
This passage is loaded for many, many different explorations. However, for the present objection, it is noteworthy that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' took the Blessed Virgin into his household. Given the Jewish culture, this strongly suggests that St. Joseph had died prior to Jesus' crucifixion, and that every single one of His dogmatically-defined brothers died prior to this as well (even St. James, who wrote a letter after his apparent death). -Please pardon my sarcasm. If Jesus did have literal 'brothers', wouldn't they be the ones to take care of His mother? In this instance, though, we see Jesus giving His Mother a son and the disciple His Mother - and, again, this is loaded for exploration.
b. Greek Language and Jewish Culture vs. English Language and Modern 'Nuclear Families'
Enter the reality of the translation; also (and paralleling this), here we have a case of reading our modern context and subsequent linguistics into the ancient cultural context of Scripture.
First of all, it must be noted that much of the New Testament is not written in purely 'Greek Greek'; in fact, most of the Gospels and books within the New Testament contain a wide variety of 'Semitisms' - that is, Hebrew or Aramaic words/constructions that are conveyed by ('carried through') the actual Greek language. Examples of this would include explicit elements like Jesus' 'Eloi eloi lama sabachthani' and the words 'Golgotha' and 'Corban' as well as countless other nuanced elements, like the phrase 'he/she was full of days' to express old age, and St. John's 'ego eimi' ('I am') to express the divinity of Christ.
In noting this, it is then helpful to look at the word itself in the original language. In every single reference to Jesus' 'siblings' - including St. James' own reference to himself - the Greek word adelphos (plural: adelphoi)[1] is used, which, like the Greek word for 'all,' has several variant meanings. This can and does primarily mean 'a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.' However, it can also quite honestly refer to a person of the same clan/family, one of the same nationality, or even one who is 'united to another by a bond of affection.' And considering the early Church's teachings of Mary's perpetual virginity (which will be addressed later in this entry), I would personally find it reasonable to line up the highly potential ambiguity with the Church's teachings and translate the adelphoi of Jesus as 'relatives' or 'cousins.'
Furthermore, given the ancient, Jewish/Hebrew scenery of the Gospel story - NOT our modern, 'nuclear family' mindset in which relationship status is clearly spelled out - it seems highly likely to me that the adelphoi of Jesus are indeed related to him, but as fellow members of a clan/family (cousins, uncles, etc.) - perhaps more distantly than closely related, as would make sense given the previous section's consideration (i.e. the Blessed Virgin being taken into St. John's house). Using the Old Testament as a reference, 'brother' can be as very specific or patriotically general as much as it is used.
2. 'Using Mark 3 as a reference, it is apparent that Mary didn't recognise who Jesus really was and, in fact, may have opposed Him. Also, Jesus' words in both Mark 3 and Matthew 12 indicate that He did not have high regard for them.'
a. Jesus' Words
This reminds me of a scholar who recently tried to write a novel revealing the 'real Paul,' a Paul who wandered the cobble-stone streets of Tarsus as a teenager and who had a mystical experience on one occasion by watching the pagan sacrifices. Quite simply, this objection is putting a whole load of words into Jesus' mouth. All that is written is this:
'"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" and stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."'
I do initially see how this seems to indicate a 'detachment' of Jesus toward His family, which particularly resonates with the rebel-without-a-cause mentality of 'Protest-antism', but this is simply taking the artistic expression of a teaching parable and reducing it to the scientific notations of our own agendas. It is fine to be completely logical with the parable (which is why I understand the initial sense of scorn), but we have to consider the message of Jesus' words and furthermore avoid reading our mindsets into Jesus' nuanced words. I have news for everyone: when Jesus said His disciples are the 'salt of the earth,' I don't believe He wasn't envisioning them in a table shaker. Maybe He was, but I highly doubt it.
Is it going to be Sola Scriptura, or Sola Protestantism? I see a lot of dubious textures (complete with psychological back-stories) given to one particular parable out of many.
b. The Situation as a Whole
The issue of 'reading in our own meanings' continues into the rest of the passage. I've heard various people - even a Bible professor at Trevecca whom I deeply respect - describe the journey of 'Mary and the brothers' as concern over Jesus losing His mind. I've heard all kinds of wild concoctions of stories, generally along the lines of His 'mother' trying to stop His teaching.
Let's let the Bible speak for itself, if that's what we're going to do. The passage itself simply states Jesus' mothers and relatives/cousins came to Him and 'called for Him', and that He used this to provoke a parable. Perhaps the crowds in Mark 3:8 were coming to tell Jesus to shut up as well; we're given about as much information as to their coming as the coming of the Blessed Virgin and those accompanying her.
It is simply speculation and silliness to turn this passage into some kind of a 'denouncement' of the Blessed Virgin, and what's more, I find it heart-breaking that we go out of our way to slander the Holy Mother just so we can have ourselves a nice bowl of 'Protest-ant' stew.
c. Mary's Treasuring
Again, let's let Scripture talk. Do phrases like 'Mary treasured [stored up] all these things in her heart' ring any bells? They should, because they are in the Pre-reconciled idol, the Holy Scriptures. In the Nativity story, Mary does seem to be observing and aware of the events taking place around her.
3. 'The notion of putting Mary on such a lofty pedestal is a perversion of original New Testament Christianity.'
Instead of merely reposting quotes, I'll offer the following link. These are from the writings of early Church leaders, some of the earliest writings:
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/05/marian_theology_in_the_early_c.html
I would also offer these quotes from St. Ephrem, which are from writings pre-373 (that is, before the dogma of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the two natures of Christ had been completely hammered out[2]):
'You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother.'
-Nisibene Hymns, 27:8[3]
'O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun's splendor, rays, or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth.'
-From 'Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God'[3]
4. Ahistorical Infallibility
Ultimately and not surprisingly, these 'Scriptural' objections to Marian theology are the fruit of Pre-reconciled/'Protest-ant' theology; by a fruit you shall know the tree, so to speak. First the Pre-reconciled groups divorced 'man's traditions' (i.e. the Roman Catholic ones) from Scripture to save Scripture, but now (with no historical context remaining) we see that this divorce has disfigured even the reading of Scripture. The believer 'as a priest' ultimately becomes the new pope, and so we witness the ridiculous 'ahistorical' reading (i.e. a reading devoid of historical context) of Scripture.
I call it the doctrine of ahistorical infallibility, and this will be addressed in the next entry. 'I don't see that in the Bible' . . . basically, nevermind what all the early Christian writers left for us. Somehow there exists this untenable notion that the Pre-reconciled person's reading of the Bible - isolated in her/his closet - will somehow be more reflective of 'New Testament Christianity' (an abstract principle) than the people who were closer to the life of Jesus Christ and His apostles and actually were the New Testament Church. Our cavalier arrogance, when considered, astounds me.
[1]G80, Strong's Number 80
[2]Dave Armstrong
[3]cited from Dave Armstrong, cited from Hilda Graef's Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965)
-Rick
