Friday, February 3, 2012
Monday, October 5, 2009
ANG KAMALIAN NI SORIANO UKOL SA PAGTUTURO: NAGPAPATUNAY BA NG SOLA SCRIPTURA PRINCIPLE ANG ROMA 15:4? Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila CFD, DIOCESE OF BACOLOD 8/21/09
TALATA:
Rom.15:4 – Sapagka’t ang anomang mga bagay na isinulat nang una ay nangasulat dahil sa ikatututo natin, upang sa pamamagitan ng pagtitiis at pag-aliw ng mga kasulatan ay mangagkaroon tayo nga pag-asa.
Para kay Ka Eli, itong Roma 15:4 ay patunay raw na sapat na ang nakasulat sa Biblia, hindi na kailangan ng Apostolic Tradition at Pagtuturo ng Simbahan (Church Magisterium). Pero saan nakasulat diyan na Biblia lamang ay sapat na? Wala naman a, di ba? Ang sinasabi riyan ay “anomang mga bagay na isinulat nang una ay nangasulat dahil sa ikatututo natin”, past tense ‘yan, ano sa tingin mo? Ang isinasaad ni San Pablo ay dapat yaong mga Kristiyano na sinulatan niya noon ay matuto sa mga isinulat noong una. Ano yung tinutukoy niya na nakasulat noong una? Hindi siya tumutukoy sa Bagong Testamento na hindi pa nga nabuo, KUNDI sa mga nakasulat sa LUMANG TIPAN!
Kung ito ang proof-text mo, Ka Eli, e di Lumang Tipan lang sapat na sa ‘yo at sa mga disipulos mo, hehe. Kita mo, kahit anong talata sa Biblia ang gamitin mo, WALA ka talaga, KAHI’T ISA man lang na makakatulong sa man-made o Luther-made na docktrinang Biblia lamang ay sapat sa pagtuturo ng dalisay na pananampalataya. Sige pa, halungkatin mo pa ang buong Biblia, ang masasabi ko lamang sa iyo ay sayang lang ang oras mo at ng mga nakikinig sa iyo. Sinabi mo na lahat nga aral mo, basahin mo sa Biblia. E wala ka ngang mababasa e. O, nakita mo na, UNBIBLICAL pala ang presupposition mo at nang buong Protestantismo na Biblia lamang (Bible Alone), at nagbunga nang libu-libong mga magkasasalungat na mga aral tulad nang mga pinangangaral mo.
Kahit ano mo pang ikot sa mga tao upang pag-isahin laban sa Katolikong Simbahan, ay di mo makayang gibain ang katotohanan na si Kristo ay nagtatag ng kanyang simbahan upang MAGTURO (Magisterium) sa pamamagitan ng katotohanang ipinapasa mula pa sa mga Apostoles (Apostolic Tradition) at hindi sapat ang nakasulat lamang.
Rom.15:4 – Sapagka’t ang anomang mga bagay na isinulat nang una ay nangasulat dahil sa ikatututo natin, upang sa pamamagitan ng pagtitiis at pag-aliw ng mga kasulatan ay mangagkaroon tayo nga pag-asa.
Para kay Ka Eli, itong Roma 15:4 ay patunay raw na sapat na ang nakasulat sa Biblia, hindi na kailangan ng Apostolic Tradition at Pagtuturo ng Simbahan (Church Magisterium). Pero saan nakasulat diyan na Biblia lamang ay sapat na? Wala naman a, di ba? Ang sinasabi riyan ay “anomang mga bagay na isinulat nang una ay nangasulat dahil sa ikatututo natin”, past tense ‘yan, ano sa tingin mo? Ang isinasaad ni San Pablo ay dapat yaong mga Kristiyano na sinulatan niya noon ay matuto sa mga isinulat noong una. Ano yung tinutukoy niya na nakasulat noong una? Hindi siya tumutukoy sa Bagong Testamento na hindi pa nga nabuo, KUNDI sa mga nakasulat sa LUMANG TIPAN!
Kung ito ang proof-text mo, Ka Eli, e di Lumang Tipan lang sapat na sa ‘yo at sa mga disipulos mo, hehe. Kita mo, kahit anong talata sa Biblia ang gamitin mo, WALA ka talaga, KAHI’T ISA man lang na makakatulong sa man-made o Luther-made na docktrinang Biblia lamang ay sapat sa pagtuturo ng dalisay na pananampalataya. Sige pa, halungkatin mo pa ang buong Biblia, ang masasabi ko lamang sa iyo ay sayang lang ang oras mo at ng mga nakikinig sa iyo. Sinabi mo na lahat nga aral mo, basahin mo sa Biblia. E wala ka ngang mababasa e. O, nakita mo na, UNBIBLICAL pala ang presupposition mo at nang buong Protestantismo na Biblia lamang (Bible Alone), at nagbunga nang libu-libong mga magkasasalungat na mga aral tulad nang mga pinangangaral mo.
Kahit ano mo pang ikot sa mga tao upang pag-isahin laban sa Katolikong Simbahan, ay di mo makayang gibain ang katotohanan na si Kristo ay nagtatag ng kanyang simbahan upang MAGTURO (Magisterium) sa pamamagitan ng katotohanang ipinapasa mula pa sa mga Apostoles (Apostolic Tradition) at hindi sapat ang nakasulat lamang.
MGA MALING ARAL NI SORIANO TUNGKOL SA MATEO 18:15-18 Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila CFD, DIOCESE OF BACOLOD 8/21/09
Mt.18:15-17- 15 At kung magkasala laban sa iyo ang kapatid mo, pumaroon ka, at ipakilala mo sa kaniya ang kaniyang kasalanan na ikaw at siyang mag-isa: kung ikaw ay pakinggan niya, ay nagwagi ka sa iyong kapatid.
16 Datapuwa’t kung hindi ka niya pakinggan, ay magsama ka pa ng isa o dalawa, upang sa bibig ng dalawang saksi o tatlo ay mapagtibay ang bawa’t salita.
17 At kung ayaw niyang pakinggan sila, ay sabihin mo sa iglesia: at kung ayaw rin niyang pakinggan ang iglesia, ay ipalagay mo siyang tulad sa Gentil at maniningil ng buwis.
Pinagmali ni Soriano ang hayag na katotohanan na ang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo ay siya mismong final arbiter (Supreme Court, ika nga) ng mga espiritual na bagay na di kayang ma-resolve ng mga Kristiyano. Sinabi niya na ang konteksto ng Mt.18:15-17 ay fraternal correction lamang at di ito nagpapatunay ng autoridad o Teaching Authority (Magisterium) ng Simbahan. Kung ganun, masyado yatang makitid ang pang-unawa niya sa inspiradong aklat ng Biblia!
Hindi mo yata nalalaman na ang Biblia ay dapat unawain sa magkakaibang “senses”: literal sense, spiritual sense (allegorical, moral, anagogic) at sensus plenior (fuller sense). Ang literal ay yaong konteksto. Totoong ang konteksto ay nagsasaad kung paano mag-approach sa nagkakasalang kapatid, pero ang buong konteksto ay nagpapahayag nga autoridad ng simbahan, hindi lamang sa pagtuturo ng moralidad kundi nga totoong pananampalataya rin.
Ito ang prueba, kapatid. Sa talatang 17 “At kung ayaw niyang pakinggan sila, ay sabihin mo sa IGLESIA: at kung ayaw rin niyang pakinggan ang IGLESIA, ay ipalagay mo siyang tulad sa Gentil at maniningil ng buwis.”
Anong iglesia itong dapat pakinggan? Of course, para sayo, hindi iglesia na itinatag ni Manalo (1914). Hindi rin Sabadista (1863) or Mormon (1830) o Baptist (1609) o Saksi ni Jehovah (1872). Hindi rin ito kahit anumang iglesia na Protestanteng nagsimula noong 1521 na pinagunahan ni Luther. E, ano yun para sayo, kapatid? Ah, iyon ay iglesia ni Perez (1936), na kahit sabihin mo pa na iglesia ng Dios, pero hindi talaga ang Dios ang nagtayo kundi si Ginoong Nicolas Perez!
Inaatake mo ang Iglesia ni Cristo na di dapat tawaging Iglesia ni Cristo, kundi, iglesia ni Manalo. Yun pala kung i-apply rin sa yong iglesia ay di rin dapat tawaging iglesia ng Dios, kundi iglesia ni Perez! Wala kang kawala ano, ka Eli?
E, kung ayaw mo magpailaim sa successor ni Perez na si Levita Gugulan, kasi siya’y babae, ika mo, nangyari na gumawa ka rin ng iyong iglesia na iyong ipina-rehistro sa SEC na mayroong pabago-bagong pangalan, na wari ko noon wala na yatang katapusang paghahanap ng pangalan kasi may mga nauna na sa iyong mga iglesia na may gayong pangalan.
Anong ibig sabihin nito? Simple po lamang, ang iyong iglesia ay di dapat ngang tawagin na iglesia ng Dios o iglesia ni Perez, kundi iglesia ni Soriano (1975 o 2009)! Diyan, wala ka nang problema sa SEC. Good suggestion, di ba mga miyembro ng ADD? Para makapagpahinga naman kayo ng maluwag na solo niyo talagang title na iyan.
Pero di pa rin yata kayo makapag-buntong-hininga, kasi ang itinatayong totoong iglesia ng Dios na si Kristo ay itinayo sa Jerusalem, hindi dito sa Pilipinas, at itinatag noong 30 AD, hindi 1975!
Nguni’t kung kayo ay talagang tapat sa inyong pagsasaliksik ng katotohanan, I suggest gumawa kayo ng hakbang patungong katotohanan na madali lg masyado, RELATED pa kay Eli – ang ELIMINATION TECHNIQUE! Hehe, huwag mag-panick. Simple lg ito, kahit di ka nagtapos ng elementary o high school, kaya mo ito.
Ito lang: sapagka’t nalaman natin bago lg na disqualified na ang mga iglesiang itinayo dito sa Pilipinas, including your sect, disqualified din ang mga iglesia Protestante,e ano na lg ang pipilian nyo? Dalawa na lg dambuhala at makasaysayang iglesia – iyon ay ang Orthodox Church at Catholic Church. Pero ang mga Orthodox churches ay lumabas sa Catholic church noong 1054 (kung nagbabasa ka ng World History – I hope so - aside sa “Biblia lamang” at daily news).
Therefore, isa na lg talaga ang naiwan, at wala na talagang iba pa, kundi ang totoong iglesia ng Dios na si Kristo na sa kanyang paghahari at paggabay ay lumaganap sa buong mundo (catholic = laganap, universal), na walang iba kundi ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA. “The Catholic Church is the true organization founded by Jesus Christ” (Grolier Encycl. Vol.5, p.106).
Ang tanong, kapatid na Eli at mga nasa Dating Daan, bakit hindi kayo nakikinig sa iglesia Katolika? Ang nakasulat e, kung hindi ka nakikinig sa kanya, ikaw ay bilangan bilang gentil (pagan, heathen; idolater) o ang traidor sa bayan at madayang tax collector. O sige nga, hihintayin ko ang inyong sagot.
Ano ang kapangyarihang ibinigay ni Hesukristo sa Simbahang ito? Mt.18:18 – Katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo (mga pinuno o obispo ng iglesia mula pa sa mga apostoles), na ang lahat ng mga bagay na inyong talian sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit: at ang lahat nga mga bagay na inyong kalagan sa lupa ay kakalagan sa langit.
Dito yata nagkakamali ang “pantas” sa Biblia. Ayaw mo kasing makinig sa iglesia e, puro iyong tinig na lang pinakikinggan mo, o iglesia lg ni Perez (1936) ang pinakinggan mo, at di mo nasisyasat ng mabuti at pakinggan ang iglesia Katolika na pinag-iwanan mo. Ika nga ni Rizal e, itinapon mo ang diamante upang kunin mo ang karaniwang bato.
16 Datapuwa’t kung hindi ka niya pakinggan, ay magsama ka pa ng isa o dalawa, upang sa bibig ng dalawang saksi o tatlo ay mapagtibay ang bawa’t salita.
17 At kung ayaw niyang pakinggan sila, ay sabihin mo sa iglesia: at kung ayaw rin niyang pakinggan ang iglesia, ay ipalagay mo siyang tulad sa Gentil at maniningil ng buwis.
Pinagmali ni Soriano ang hayag na katotohanan na ang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo ay siya mismong final arbiter (Supreme Court, ika nga) ng mga espiritual na bagay na di kayang ma-resolve ng mga Kristiyano. Sinabi niya na ang konteksto ng Mt.18:15-17 ay fraternal correction lamang at di ito nagpapatunay ng autoridad o Teaching Authority (Magisterium) ng Simbahan. Kung ganun, masyado yatang makitid ang pang-unawa niya sa inspiradong aklat ng Biblia!
Hindi mo yata nalalaman na ang Biblia ay dapat unawain sa magkakaibang “senses”: literal sense, spiritual sense (allegorical, moral, anagogic) at sensus plenior (fuller sense). Ang literal ay yaong konteksto. Totoong ang konteksto ay nagsasaad kung paano mag-approach sa nagkakasalang kapatid, pero ang buong konteksto ay nagpapahayag nga autoridad ng simbahan, hindi lamang sa pagtuturo ng moralidad kundi nga totoong pananampalataya rin.
Ito ang prueba, kapatid. Sa talatang 17 “At kung ayaw niyang pakinggan sila, ay sabihin mo sa IGLESIA: at kung ayaw rin niyang pakinggan ang IGLESIA, ay ipalagay mo siyang tulad sa Gentil at maniningil ng buwis.”
Anong iglesia itong dapat pakinggan? Of course, para sayo, hindi iglesia na itinatag ni Manalo (1914). Hindi rin Sabadista (1863) or Mormon (1830) o Baptist (1609) o Saksi ni Jehovah (1872). Hindi rin ito kahit anumang iglesia na Protestanteng nagsimula noong 1521 na pinagunahan ni Luther. E, ano yun para sayo, kapatid? Ah, iyon ay iglesia ni Perez (1936), na kahit sabihin mo pa na iglesia ng Dios, pero hindi talaga ang Dios ang nagtayo kundi si Ginoong Nicolas Perez!
Inaatake mo ang Iglesia ni Cristo na di dapat tawaging Iglesia ni Cristo, kundi, iglesia ni Manalo. Yun pala kung i-apply rin sa yong iglesia ay di rin dapat tawaging iglesia ng Dios, kundi iglesia ni Perez! Wala kang kawala ano, ka Eli?
E, kung ayaw mo magpailaim sa successor ni Perez na si Levita Gugulan, kasi siya’y babae, ika mo, nangyari na gumawa ka rin ng iyong iglesia na iyong ipina-rehistro sa SEC na mayroong pabago-bagong pangalan, na wari ko noon wala na yatang katapusang paghahanap ng pangalan kasi may mga nauna na sa iyong mga iglesia na may gayong pangalan.
Anong ibig sabihin nito? Simple po lamang, ang iyong iglesia ay di dapat ngang tawagin na iglesia ng Dios o iglesia ni Perez, kundi iglesia ni Soriano (1975 o 2009)! Diyan, wala ka nang problema sa SEC. Good suggestion, di ba mga miyembro ng ADD? Para makapagpahinga naman kayo ng maluwag na solo niyo talagang title na iyan.
Pero di pa rin yata kayo makapag-buntong-hininga, kasi ang itinatayong totoong iglesia ng Dios na si Kristo ay itinayo sa Jerusalem, hindi dito sa Pilipinas, at itinatag noong 30 AD, hindi 1975!
Nguni’t kung kayo ay talagang tapat sa inyong pagsasaliksik ng katotohanan, I suggest gumawa kayo ng hakbang patungong katotohanan na madali lg masyado, RELATED pa kay Eli – ang ELIMINATION TECHNIQUE! Hehe, huwag mag-panick. Simple lg ito, kahit di ka nagtapos ng elementary o high school, kaya mo ito.
Ito lang: sapagka’t nalaman natin bago lg na disqualified na ang mga iglesiang itinayo dito sa Pilipinas, including your sect, disqualified din ang mga iglesia Protestante,e ano na lg ang pipilian nyo? Dalawa na lg dambuhala at makasaysayang iglesia – iyon ay ang Orthodox Church at Catholic Church. Pero ang mga Orthodox churches ay lumabas sa Catholic church noong 1054 (kung nagbabasa ka ng World History – I hope so - aside sa “Biblia lamang” at daily news).
Therefore, isa na lg talaga ang naiwan, at wala na talagang iba pa, kundi ang totoong iglesia ng Dios na si Kristo na sa kanyang paghahari at paggabay ay lumaganap sa buong mundo (catholic = laganap, universal), na walang iba kundi ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA. “The Catholic Church is the true organization founded by Jesus Christ” (Grolier Encycl. Vol.5, p.106).
Ang tanong, kapatid na Eli at mga nasa Dating Daan, bakit hindi kayo nakikinig sa iglesia Katolika? Ang nakasulat e, kung hindi ka nakikinig sa kanya, ikaw ay bilangan bilang gentil (pagan, heathen; idolater) o ang traidor sa bayan at madayang tax collector. O sige nga, hihintayin ko ang inyong sagot.
Ano ang kapangyarihang ibinigay ni Hesukristo sa Simbahang ito? Mt.18:18 – Katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo (mga pinuno o obispo ng iglesia mula pa sa mga apostoles), na ang lahat ng mga bagay na inyong talian sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit: at ang lahat nga mga bagay na inyong kalagan sa lupa ay kakalagan sa langit.
Dito yata nagkakamali ang “pantas” sa Biblia. Ayaw mo kasing makinig sa iglesia e, puro iyong tinig na lang pinakikinggan mo, o iglesia lg ni Perez (1936) ang pinakinggan mo, at di mo nasisyasat ng mabuti at pakinggan ang iglesia Katolika na pinag-iwanan mo. Ika nga ni Rizal e, itinapon mo ang diamante upang kunin mo ang karaniwang bato.
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO SA KAHULUGAN NG JEREMIAS 6:16 Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila CFD, DIOCESE OF BACOLOD 8/20/09
Jer.6:16 - Ganito ang sabi ng Panginoon, Magsitayo kayo sa mga daan at magsitingin kayo, at ipagtanong ninyo ang mga dating landas, kung saan nandoon ang mabuting daan; at magsilakad kayo roon, at kayo’y mangakakaasumpong nga kapahingahan sa inyong mga kaluluwa: nguni’t kanilang sinabi, Hindi kami magsilakad doon.
Kamangha-mangha na ang isang bagong litaw na sekta na “offshoot” lamang ng sektang itinatag ni Nicolas Perez noong 1936, ay matapang na kumuha ng talata sa Lumang Tipan at mag-claim na sila ang tinutukoy roon, ang dating daan! Whew! 1975 lang itinayo ang sekta ni Soriano, pinapalabas pa na sila ang DATING DAAN sa Lumang Tipan! Di ba maliwanag na hocus-pocus ito, mga kapatid?
Ang tinutukoy sa Jer.6:16 ay ang kasaysayan ng bayan ng Dios (Israel at Judah) at ang mga espiritwal na aral na makukuha roon. E, anong, relasyon ng sekta ni Soriano roon, na mahigit 2,500 taon na agwat sa kanila? No relation at all, but a figment of Eli’s imagination!
Sapagka’t ang Lumang Tipan ay nagkakaroon ng kaganapan sa Bagong Tipan, ang Judaismo ay napalitan at naging ganap sa Kristiyanismo, ang tunay na Daan ay si Hesus (Jn.14:6) at ang kanyang bagong sambayanan ay tinawag ring Daan (Gawa 9:22). Kaya ang DATING DAAN ay hindi na aplikable sa Bagong Testamento, kundi ang Bagong Daan na siyang walang kamatayang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo mismo. Iyon, mga kapatid, ay HINDI ang Iglesia na itinatatag ni Nicolas Perez (1936), o ni Soriano (1975) o ni Manalo (1914), as common sense tells us. Iyon ay ang totoong iglesia ni Kristo (see Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 816 “the sole Church of Christ”) na laganap sa buong mundo (Catholic = universal)!
O, sige nga, mga miyembro ng Dating Daan, ibigay niyo ang lahat ng ebidensya nyo na sa Lumang Tipan, KAYO ang tinutukoy na DATING DAAN. Tell it to the marines, hehe, ika nga!
Lalo ring wala kayong ebidensiya sa Bagong Tipan, kasi Lumang Tipan ang ginamit niyo, e hindi pala kayo yun. Ngayon, lipat naman kayo sa Bagong Tipan? Palipat-lipat pala kayo, pabago-bago ang isip at doktrina, walang-katiyakan, haha. Depende sa andar ng utak ng kanilang Founder kasi e, hindi ayon sa katotohanang di-nagbabago! E, Bagong Tipan na nga e na may bagong Daan - si Hesus at ang kanyang ITINAYONG iglesia - gawin nyo pang DATING daan. Lantaran na yatang kalokohan yan, pareng Eli. Pero, di lang masyadong halata ng iba – lalong-lalo na ng mga taga-Dating Daan. Sorry.
Kamangha-mangha na ang isang bagong litaw na sekta na “offshoot” lamang ng sektang itinatag ni Nicolas Perez noong 1936, ay matapang na kumuha ng talata sa Lumang Tipan at mag-claim na sila ang tinutukoy roon, ang dating daan! Whew! 1975 lang itinayo ang sekta ni Soriano, pinapalabas pa na sila ang DATING DAAN sa Lumang Tipan! Di ba maliwanag na hocus-pocus ito, mga kapatid?
Ang tinutukoy sa Jer.6:16 ay ang kasaysayan ng bayan ng Dios (Israel at Judah) at ang mga espiritwal na aral na makukuha roon. E, anong, relasyon ng sekta ni Soriano roon, na mahigit 2,500 taon na agwat sa kanila? No relation at all, but a figment of Eli’s imagination!
Sapagka’t ang Lumang Tipan ay nagkakaroon ng kaganapan sa Bagong Tipan, ang Judaismo ay napalitan at naging ganap sa Kristiyanismo, ang tunay na Daan ay si Hesus (Jn.14:6) at ang kanyang bagong sambayanan ay tinawag ring Daan (Gawa 9:22). Kaya ang DATING DAAN ay hindi na aplikable sa Bagong Testamento, kundi ang Bagong Daan na siyang walang kamatayang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo mismo. Iyon, mga kapatid, ay HINDI ang Iglesia na itinatatag ni Nicolas Perez (1936), o ni Soriano (1975) o ni Manalo (1914), as common sense tells us. Iyon ay ang totoong iglesia ni Kristo (see Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 816 “the sole Church of Christ”) na laganap sa buong mundo (Catholic = universal)!
O, sige nga, mga miyembro ng Dating Daan, ibigay niyo ang lahat ng ebidensya nyo na sa Lumang Tipan, KAYO ang tinutukoy na DATING DAAN. Tell it to the marines, hehe, ika nga!
Lalo ring wala kayong ebidensiya sa Bagong Tipan, kasi Lumang Tipan ang ginamit niyo, e hindi pala kayo yun. Ngayon, lipat naman kayo sa Bagong Tipan? Palipat-lipat pala kayo, pabago-bago ang isip at doktrina, walang-katiyakan, haha. Depende sa andar ng utak ng kanilang Founder kasi e, hindi ayon sa katotohanang di-nagbabago! E, Bagong Tipan na nga e na may bagong Daan - si Hesus at ang kanyang ITINAYONG iglesia - gawin nyo pang DATING daan. Lantaran na yatang kalokohan yan, pareng Eli. Pero, di lang masyadong halata ng iba – lalong-lalo na ng mga taga-Dating Daan. Sorry.
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO SA KAHULUGAN NG GAWA 15 Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila
Ang pagtutol ni Eli sa aming tv dialogue noong 2003, na si San Pedro ang Pangulo ng mga Apostol at pangulo sa Konsilyo sa Herusalem, ay lumang estilo na ng mga anti-Catholics, katulad din sa walang laman na pagtutol ni James White na Protestanteng debatedor sa America. Kaya, mga kapatid, basahing mabuti ang pamamahayag ko sa ibaba. (Note: kung di-masyado maka-gets ng sinulat ko, kasi isinulat ko noon ito sa English, magpaturo lamang sa mga kapatid nyo riyan sa Dating Daan).
Protestant Objection: “In Acts 15 we read about a council of the early Church held at Jerusalem. Much has been made of this council and its relevance for claims of Petrine primacy. Let us note the important features of this account. In verse 6 we read, ‘The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.” It does not say that the Pope and the apostles and the elders met. Peter is plainly considered as an Apostle, as all the rest. The council is not under the direction of Peter. As the bishop of Jerusalem, James directs the proceedings. Peter addresses the group not as a Pope, but as an Apostle used by God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, p.112).
My Answer: It was St. Peter who presided the Council in Jerusalem, not James. It was Peter who stood up and settled the matter that no one could solve, whether the gentile converts be circumcised or not. Starting with verse 7, Peter said,
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by MY mouth (not Apostle James’ mouth)the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
It was actually Peter, not James, who was chosen by God to open the doors for the salvation of gentiles. Peter then argued that the Jews should not impose circumcision for the gentiles.
Verses 10-11 give the concluding remarks of Peter, “Now, therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (NKJV).
Peter has solved the problem which no other Apostle can solve. Then the whole assembly became silent after the conclusion and decision made by St. Peter.
What James did, as the host of the Council, being the bishop of Jerusalem, was to concur (agree) with what Peter had decided. In verse 19, James, not himself a member of the 12 Apostles, said:
“Therefore I judge that we (the Jews of James’ bishopric) should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to God”.
James merely followed what Peter has declared for both the Jews and gentiles alike.
Mons. Bertrand Conway clarified, “The translation in the King James version of krino, ‘my sentence is’ (Acts 15:19) should be ‘I think; I am of the opinion’; as we learn from other passages of the Acts (13:46; 16:15; 26:8). James gave no special decision on the question, but merely expressed the views that had been adopted at the meeting spoken of in Gal.2:6. Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters, assisted by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:4; 15:8), and not to James personally. (The Question Box, p. 152).
Kahit ano mang paniwala ni Soriano na si Santiago ang mas pangulo pa kay Pedro, nanatiling MALING paniniwala niya iyon. Ang mge ebidensya ay nagtuturo na si San Pedro, bilang unang lider ng mga Apostoles ay siyang nag-solve ng napakahagang problema sa Konsilyo sa Herusalem. Si Santiago ay sumang-ayon lamang sa kanya.
O, ano ang maisasagot niyo mga pareng taga-Dating Daan. Mananatili pa ba kayo riyan sa Dating kamalian nyo?
Protestant Objection: “In Acts 15 we read about a council of the early Church held at Jerusalem. Much has been made of this council and its relevance for claims of Petrine primacy. Let us note the important features of this account. In verse 6 we read, ‘The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.” It does not say that the Pope and the apostles and the elders met. Peter is plainly considered as an Apostle, as all the rest. The council is not under the direction of Peter. As the bishop of Jerusalem, James directs the proceedings. Peter addresses the group not as a Pope, but as an Apostle used by God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, p.112).
My Answer: It was St. Peter who presided the Council in Jerusalem, not James. It was Peter who stood up and settled the matter that no one could solve, whether the gentile converts be circumcised or not. Starting with verse 7, Peter said,
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by MY mouth (not Apostle James’ mouth)the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
It was actually Peter, not James, who was chosen by God to open the doors for the salvation of gentiles. Peter then argued that the Jews should not impose circumcision for the gentiles.
Verses 10-11 give the concluding remarks of Peter, “Now, therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (NKJV).
Peter has solved the problem which no other Apostle can solve. Then the whole assembly became silent after the conclusion and decision made by St. Peter.
What James did, as the host of the Council, being the bishop of Jerusalem, was to concur (agree) with what Peter had decided. In verse 19, James, not himself a member of the 12 Apostles, said:
“Therefore I judge that we (the Jews of James’ bishopric) should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to God”.
James merely followed what Peter has declared for both the Jews and gentiles alike.
Mons. Bertrand Conway clarified, “The translation in the King James version of krino, ‘my sentence is’ (Acts 15:19) should be ‘I think; I am of the opinion’; as we learn from other passages of the Acts (13:46; 16:15; 26:8). James gave no special decision on the question, but merely expressed the views that had been adopted at the meeting spoken of in Gal.2:6. Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters, assisted by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:4; 15:8), and not to James personally. (The Question Box, p. 152).
Kahit ano mang paniwala ni Soriano na si Santiago ang mas pangulo pa kay Pedro, nanatiling MALING paniniwala niya iyon. Ang mge ebidensya ay nagtuturo na si San Pedro, bilang unang lider ng mga Apostoles ay siyang nag-solve ng napakahagang problema sa Konsilyo sa Herusalem. Si Santiago ay sumang-ayon lamang sa kanya.
O, ano ang maisasagot niyo mga pareng taga-Dating Daan. Mananatili pa ba kayo riyan sa Dating kamalian nyo?
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO SA KAHULUGAN NG 1 JUAN 1:1-4 (Ang Biblia version) Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila (10/21/09)
MGA TALATA:
1 Jn.1:1-4 – 1 Yaong buhat sa pasimula, yaong aming narinig, yaong nakita ng aming mga mata, yaong aming namasdan, at nahipo ng aming mga kamay, tungkol sa salita ng buhay
2 (at ang buhay ay nahayag, at aming nakita, at pinatotohanan, at sa inyo’y aming ibinabalita ang buhay, ang buhay na walang hanggan, na kasama ng Ama at sa atin ay nahayag);
3 Yaong aming nakita at narinig ay siya rin naming ibinabalita sa inyo, upang kayo naman ay magkaroon ng pakikisama sa amin: oo, at tayo ay may pakikisama sa Ama, at sa kaniyang Anak na si Jesukristo:
4 At ang mga bagay na ito ay aming isinususulat, upang ang ating kagalakan ay malubos.
Komentaryo: Dalawang bagay ang dapat tandaan: sa talatang 3 “ibinabalita” ni Juan sa mga Kristiyano, at sa talatang 4, “isinususulat” naman para sa mga mananamplataya. Ano ang konklusyon natin? Ito: ang “prueba” ni Soriano na ito’y nagpapakita na Biblia Lamang ang basehan, ay napakalaking PAGKAKAMALI. Dalawa nga ang binasehan dito e: ang oral Apostolic Tradition na pagbabalita, at ang written document na ito. (Expound ko pa ito later, mga kaibigan).
Isa.34:16 – Inyong saliksikin sa aklat ng Panginoon, at inyong basahin: kahit isa sa mga ito ay hindi magkukulang, walang mangangailangan ng kanyang kasama; sapagka’t iniutos nga aking bibig, at pinisan sila ng kaniyang Espiritu.
Komentaryo: Ang talatang itong ginamit ni Soriano at hindi lang niya kundi ng mga “Bible Alone” preachers, ay hindi nagsasabi na SALIKSIKIN AT BASAHIN SA AKLAT LAMANG upang malaman ang Kanyang kagustuhan. Sapagka’t Siya mismong Dios ang nag-utos sa mga propeta na mangaral spamamagitan ng salita man or sulat. Mayroon ngang mga propeta na nangaral pero hindi sumulat: si Natan, si Elias at si Eliseo (pero hindi si Eliseo Soriano, of course).
In fact, basahin mo ang unang talata nitong Kabanata 34: “Kayo’y magsilapit, kayong mga bansa, upang mangakinig; at dinggin ninyo, ninyong mga bayan…” O ano, masasabi mo Eliseo, nagsabi ba ang Dios na lahat ay isulat lamang at basahin lamang, o makinig din sa autorisadong pagtuturo? (to be continued, mga kaibigan, kapatid at magulang…)
1 Jn.1:1-4 – 1 Yaong buhat sa pasimula, yaong aming narinig, yaong nakita ng aming mga mata, yaong aming namasdan, at nahipo ng aming mga kamay, tungkol sa salita ng buhay
2 (at ang buhay ay nahayag, at aming nakita, at pinatotohanan, at sa inyo’y aming ibinabalita ang buhay, ang buhay na walang hanggan, na kasama ng Ama at sa atin ay nahayag);
3 Yaong aming nakita at narinig ay siya rin naming ibinabalita sa inyo, upang kayo naman ay magkaroon ng pakikisama sa amin: oo, at tayo ay may pakikisama sa Ama, at sa kaniyang Anak na si Jesukristo:
4 At ang mga bagay na ito ay aming isinususulat, upang ang ating kagalakan ay malubos.
Komentaryo: Dalawang bagay ang dapat tandaan: sa talatang 3 “ibinabalita” ni Juan sa mga Kristiyano, at sa talatang 4, “isinususulat” naman para sa mga mananamplataya. Ano ang konklusyon natin? Ito: ang “prueba” ni Soriano na ito’y nagpapakita na Biblia Lamang ang basehan, ay napakalaking PAGKAKAMALI. Dalawa nga ang binasehan dito e: ang oral Apostolic Tradition na pagbabalita, at ang written document na ito. (Expound ko pa ito later, mga kaibigan).
Isa.34:16 – Inyong saliksikin sa aklat ng Panginoon, at inyong basahin: kahit isa sa mga ito ay hindi magkukulang, walang mangangailangan ng kanyang kasama; sapagka’t iniutos nga aking bibig, at pinisan sila ng kaniyang Espiritu.
Komentaryo: Ang talatang itong ginamit ni Soriano at hindi lang niya kundi ng mga “Bible Alone” preachers, ay hindi nagsasabi na SALIKSIKIN AT BASAHIN SA AKLAT LAMANG upang malaman ang Kanyang kagustuhan. Sapagka’t Siya mismong Dios ang nag-utos sa mga propeta na mangaral spamamagitan ng salita man or sulat. Mayroon ngang mga propeta na nangaral pero hindi sumulat: si Natan, si Elias at si Eliseo (pero hindi si Eliseo Soriano, of course).
In fact, basahin mo ang unang talata nitong Kabanata 34: “Kayo’y magsilapit, kayong mga bansa, upang mangakinig; at dinggin ninyo, ninyong mga bayan…” O ano, masasabi mo Eliseo, nagsabi ba ang Dios na lahat ay isulat lamang at basahin lamang, o makinig din sa autorisadong pagtuturo? (to be continued, mga kaibigan, kapatid at magulang…)
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO SA KAHULUGAN NG 1 TIMOTEO 3:15 Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila 8/21/09
1 Tim.3:15 – Ngunit kung ako’y magluwat nga mahabang panahon, ay upang maalaman mo kung paano ang dapat sa mga tao na ugaliin nila sa bahay ng Dios, na siyang iglesia ng Dios na buhay, at haligi at suhay ng katotohanan.
Examination of 1 Tim.3:15
1. called also the household of God, bakit di inilagay ni Soriano ito sa titulo ng kanyang iglesia? Kulang ano?
2. not just Church of God, but Church of the living (buhay) God – bakit hindi rin isinulat tio ni Soriano kasi gusto nya raw kompleto na pangalan ng kanyang iglesia. Kulang title nya, di ba?
3. Ang Church pala, not the Bible is the pillar & ground of truth. Kung walang haligi at saligan ang katotohanan, di madaling mawala at masira sa mga haka-haka ng taong tulad ng mga “Bible Alone” preachers! Kasi di nila nakita na ang Iglesia (Katolika) pala ay siyang nag-compile, nagbantay, nagprotekta at maiging nagsalin sa mga iba’t ibang lengguahe before the advent of Protestantism!
4. that Church existed in apostolic times, not in 1975
5. Soriano “UMANIB LAMANG” sa iglesiang nasa biblia? Hehe! Tell it to the Marines, pare ko! Sinong maniwala diyan sa kanya? Kung umanib ka, sinong tumanggap sa kanya? Siya na sa 21st century ngayon, nakipagkita sa mga 1st century Christians upang sumali sa kanila? HaaaaH???? Horror story yata ito. Akala ko sa sine lang ito nangyayari, sa ADD din pala. Mabuti’t nalaman natin na nag-iimbento si Soriano ng mga man-made tradition na salungat sa Biblia.
6. Kung totoong umanib ka sa iglesiang nasa Biblia, ang pamamaraan ay sumali ka sa mga successors ng mga 1st century Christians na ma-trace mo ang linya mula 21st century, 20th, 19th,18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, hanggang sa 1st century.
7. E ano’ng iglesia yung makapag-trace ng unbroken succession mula 1st century hanngang nagyong 21st century? Of course, hindi ang ADD, INC, Pentecostal Churches, o Protestant Churches which departed from the true Church in 16th century.
8. What’s that church? It’s the Catholic church! Shocking ba? Shocking sa mga di-nagbabasa o di nag-aaral kundi nag-aaral lamang kung paano sirain ang iglesia Katolika. Kaya is Soriano is poor in history! Poor din yung kanyang mga disipulos. Sabi ni Soriano sa tv si “Didache” raw! E ang Didache ay hindi tao kundi dokumento ng mga unang Kristiyano, naisulat about 80-100 AD). Ano ba yan bro. Eli? At yang dokumentong iyan ay nagpapatunay, kung tapat mong basahin, na ang mga practices ang mga early or 1st century Christian ay yaon din ang practice ng mga katolikong kristiayno hanggang ngayon, hindi kapareho ng practices ni Soria
Examination of 1 Tim.3:15
1. called also the household of God, bakit di inilagay ni Soriano ito sa titulo ng kanyang iglesia? Kulang ano?
2. not just Church of God, but Church of the living (buhay) God – bakit hindi rin isinulat tio ni Soriano kasi gusto nya raw kompleto na pangalan ng kanyang iglesia. Kulang title nya, di ba?
3. Ang Church pala, not the Bible is the pillar & ground of truth. Kung walang haligi at saligan ang katotohanan, di madaling mawala at masira sa mga haka-haka ng taong tulad ng mga “Bible Alone” preachers! Kasi di nila nakita na ang Iglesia (Katolika) pala ay siyang nag-compile, nagbantay, nagprotekta at maiging nagsalin sa mga iba’t ibang lengguahe before the advent of Protestantism!
4. that Church existed in apostolic times, not in 1975
5. Soriano “UMANIB LAMANG” sa iglesiang nasa biblia? Hehe! Tell it to the Marines, pare ko! Sinong maniwala diyan sa kanya? Kung umanib ka, sinong tumanggap sa kanya? Siya na sa 21st century ngayon, nakipagkita sa mga 1st century Christians upang sumali sa kanila? HaaaaH???? Horror story yata ito. Akala ko sa sine lang ito nangyayari, sa ADD din pala. Mabuti’t nalaman natin na nag-iimbento si Soriano ng mga man-made tradition na salungat sa Biblia.
6. Kung totoong umanib ka sa iglesiang nasa Biblia, ang pamamaraan ay sumali ka sa mga successors ng mga 1st century Christians na ma-trace mo ang linya mula 21st century, 20th, 19th,18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, hanggang sa 1st century.
7. E ano’ng iglesia yung makapag-trace ng unbroken succession mula 1st century hanngang nagyong 21st century? Of course, hindi ang ADD, INC, Pentecostal Churches, o Protestant Churches which departed from the true Church in 16th century.
8. What’s that church? It’s the Catholic church! Shocking ba? Shocking sa mga di-nagbabasa o di nag-aaral kundi nag-aaral lamang kung paano sirain ang iglesia Katolika. Kaya is Soriano is poor in history! Poor din yung kanyang mga disipulos. Sabi ni Soriano sa tv si “Didache” raw! E ang Didache ay hindi tao kundi dokumento ng mga unang Kristiyano, naisulat about 80-100 AD). Ano ba yan bro. Eli? At yang dokumentong iyan ay nagpapatunay, kung tapat mong basahin, na ang mga practices ang mga early or 1st century Christian ay yaon din ang practice ng mga katolikong kristiayno hanggang ngayon, hindi kapareho ng practices ni Soria
SORIANO'S ERROR IN 1 JOHN 4
1 John 4:1-3 – 1 Mga minamahal, huwag kayong magsipaniwala sa bawa’t espiritu, kundi inyong subukin ang mga espiritu, kung sily’a sa Dios; sapagka’t maraming nagsilitaw na mga bulaang propeta sa sanglibutan.
2 Ditoy’ nakikilala ninyo ang Espiritu ng Dios: ang bawa’t espiritung nagpapahayag na si Jesucristo ay naparitong nasa laman ay sa Dios:
3 At ang bawa’t espiritung hindi ipinahahayag si Jesus, ay hindi sa Dios: at ito ang sa anticristo, na inyong narinig na darating; at ngayo’y nasa sanglibutan na.
6 Tayo nga’y sa Dios: ang nakakakilala sa Dios ay dumirinig sa atin; ang hindi sa Dios ay hindi dumirinig sa atin. Dito’y ating nakikilala ang espiritu ng katotohanan, at ang espitiu ng kamalian.
Komentaryo: Si Soriano pala ang tatamaan dito e. Una, kasi itinuturo niya na si Kristo “ay PARANG tao, pero hindi talaga tao”. Yan ang maling katuruan ng mga Gnostico ng 1st-3rd century sa early Church. Kaya binabalaan ni San Juan na huwag padadala sa Gnostikong katuruan na si Kristo ay esparto lamang, di-nagkatawang-tao. Yun nga ang itinuturo ni Soriano! Kasi hindi nagbabasa ng history yan, gusto nya ang history ay mag-ayon sa kanya. Pwede ba yun?
Pangalawa, sa talatang 6, sabi ni San Juan, ang nakakilala sa Dios ay nakikinig sa ATIN. Sinong ATIN YAN? Yan ang mga unang Kristyano na kasama ng mga Apostoles at ng kanilang mga tagsunod century after century till the end of time. Aside from Titus, Timothy, Barnabas, Mark, who were the 2nd generation Christians after the Apostles, sinong mga 3rd generation Christians and all those after them? TOTAL BLACK OUT NA dito si Soriano at mga Protestante! Wala kasi silang Church history kasi bagong salta lang ang kanilang iglesia! Pero ito assignment ko sa inyo: basahin nyo mga standard references like encyclopedia and world history at alamin kung sino sila St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ireneus, St. Polycarp na direct disciple of John the Beloved, mga early Church Fathers. O medyo marami na yan, baka di kaya ng mga utak nyo at magka-LBM kayo, ako pa ang may kasalanan nyan. Pero for the sake of the truth naman yan e, at added pa sa ating kaalaman para sa ating kaligtasan, mga pare ko.
O sige na, dito lang muna tayo magpaalam, kasi magpahinga na muna ako. Pasalamat tayo sa Dios sa ating hero na si Ninoy, at walang classes ako ngayon, kaya mabigyan ko naman kayo ng time ko, especially mga taga-Dating Daan.
May God bless us all. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
(Next na mga Paksa ko, abangan nyo, mga kaibigan).
2 Tim.3:16-17 – Ang lahat ng mga kasulatan na kinasihan ng Dios ay mapapakinabangan din naman sa pagtuturo, sa pagsansala, sa pagsaway, sa ikatututo na nasa katuwiran:
Upang ang mga tao ng Dios ay maging sakdal, tinuruang lubos sa lahat ng mga gawang mabuti.
Santiago 1:4 – At inyong pabayaan na ang pagtitits ay magkaroon ng sakdal na gawa, upang kayo’y maging sakdal at ganap, na walang anoman kakulangan.
1. Acts 20:28 – Jesus who is God bought the church. For INC, Christ is only man.
2. Acts 20:28–30 some (not all) will introduce heresies – that’s Manalo! Total apostasy is a heresy concocted by Manalo, Mormons, SDA and the Protestants
Examination of the claims of Anti-Catholic Churches
a. Examination of INC’s claim for Rom.16:16 & Acts 20:28
3. Churches, not church (iglesia)
4. Cristo, not Filipino (Kristo) but Spanish
5. Roman Christians are Catholics
6. 1st cent. Christians ang tinutukoy, not 20th cent. Christians na dito lang nagsimula sa Pilipinas noong 1914. Kahit ano pang twist ni Manalo sa talata ng Isaaiah 46:11 na "Far East" daw.
7. INC is not Church of Christ because Christ did not establish it, but the Church of Manalo as evidenced by the SEC
8. Church, nagtalikod/ apostasized & be erected by Manalo? Where in that verse & the entire Bible? Mt. 16:18 – the powers of hell shall not overcome it. It’s either Jesus or Manalo was telling lies. Since Jesus could not tell lies, then it is Manalo who is telling lies!
9. Acts 20:28 – flock of God, not just Church of God as its name
10. Acts 20:28 – bishops – who has bishops but the Catholic Churc
2 Ditoy’ nakikilala ninyo ang Espiritu ng Dios: ang bawa’t espiritung nagpapahayag na si Jesucristo ay naparitong nasa laman ay sa Dios:
3 At ang bawa’t espiritung hindi ipinahahayag si Jesus, ay hindi sa Dios: at ito ang sa anticristo, na inyong narinig na darating; at ngayo’y nasa sanglibutan na.
6 Tayo nga’y sa Dios: ang nakakakilala sa Dios ay dumirinig sa atin; ang hindi sa Dios ay hindi dumirinig sa atin. Dito’y ating nakikilala ang espiritu ng katotohanan, at ang espitiu ng kamalian.
Komentaryo: Si Soriano pala ang tatamaan dito e. Una, kasi itinuturo niya na si Kristo “ay PARANG tao, pero hindi talaga tao”. Yan ang maling katuruan ng mga Gnostico ng 1st-3rd century sa early Church. Kaya binabalaan ni San Juan na huwag padadala sa Gnostikong katuruan na si Kristo ay esparto lamang, di-nagkatawang-tao. Yun nga ang itinuturo ni Soriano! Kasi hindi nagbabasa ng history yan, gusto nya ang history ay mag-ayon sa kanya. Pwede ba yun?
Pangalawa, sa talatang 6, sabi ni San Juan, ang nakakilala sa Dios ay nakikinig sa ATIN. Sinong ATIN YAN? Yan ang mga unang Kristyano na kasama ng mga Apostoles at ng kanilang mga tagsunod century after century till the end of time. Aside from Titus, Timothy, Barnabas, Mark, who were the 2nd generation Christians after the Apostles, sinong mga 3rd generation Christians and all those after them? TOTAL BLACK OUT NA dito si Soriano at mga Protestante! Wala kasi silang Church history kasi bagong salta lang ang kanilang iglesia! Pero ito assignment ko sa inyo: basahin nyo mga standard references like encyclopedia and world history at alamin kung sino sila St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ireneus, St. Polycarp na direct disciple of John the Beloved, mga early Church Fathers. O medyo marami na yan, baka di kaya ng mga utak nyo at magka-LBM kayo, ako pa ang may kasalanan nyan. Pero for the sake of the truth naman yan e, at added pa sa ating kaalaman para sa ating kaligtasan, mga pare ko.
O sige na, dito lang muna tayo magpaalam, kasi magpahinga na muna ako. Pasalamat tayo sa Dios sa ating hero na si Ninoy, at walang classes ako ngayon, kaya mabigyan ko naman kayo ng time ko, especially mga taga-Dating Daan.
May God bless us all. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
(Next na mga Paksa ko, abangan nyo, mga kaibigan).
2 Tim.3:16-17 – Ang lahat ng mga kasulatan na kinasihan ng Dios ay mapapakinabangan din naman sa pagtuturo, sa pagsansala, sa pagsaway, sa ikatututo na nasa katuwiran:
Upang ang mga tao ng Dios ay maging sakdal, tinuruang lubos sa lahat ng mga gawang mabuti.
Santiago 1:4 – At inyong pabayaan na ang pagtitits ay magkaroon ng sakdal na gawa, upang kayo’y maging sakdal at ganap, na walang anoman kakulangan.
1. Acts 20:28 – Jesus who is God bought the church. For INC, Christ is only man.
2. Acts 20:28–30 some (not all) will introduce heresies – that’s Manalo! Total apostasy is a heresy concocted by Manalo, Mormons, SDA and the Protestants
Examination of the claims of Anti-Catholic Churches
a. Examination of INC’s claim for Rom.16:16 & Acts 20:28
3. Churches, not church (iglesia)
4. Cristo, not Filipino (Kristo) but Spanish
5. Roman Christians are Catholics
6. 1st cent. Christians ang tinutukoy, not 20th cent. Christians na dito lang nagsimula sa Pilipinas noong 1914. Kahit ano pang twist ni Manalo sa talata ng Isaaiah 46:11 na "Far East" daw.
7. INC is not Church of Christ because Christ did not establish it, but the Church of Manalo as evidenced by the SEC
8. Church, nagtalikod/ apostasized & be erected by Manalo? Where in that verse & the entire Bible? Mt. 16:18 – the powers of hell shall not overcome it. It’s either Jesus or Manalo was telling lies. Since Jesus could not tell lies, then it is Manalo who is telling lies!
9. Acts 20:28 – flock of God, not just Church of God as its name
10. Acts 20:28 – bishops – who has bishops but the Catholic Churc
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO SA KAHULUGAN NG JEREMIAS 6:16
ANG PAGKAKAMALI NI SORIANO
SA KAHULUGAN NG JEREMIAS 6:16
Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD, DIOCESE OF BACOLOD
8/20/09
Jer.6:16 - Ganito ang sabi ng Panginoon, Magsitayo kayo sa mga daan at magsitingin kayo, at ipagtanong ninyo ang mga dating landas, kung saan nandoon ang mabuting daan; at magsilakad kayo roon, at kayo’y mangakakaasumpong nga kapahingahan sa inyong mga kaluluwa: nguni’t kanilang sinabi, Hindi kami magsilakad doon.
Kamangha-mangha na ang isang bagong litaw na sekta na “offshoot” lamang ng sektang itinatag ni Nicolas Perez noong 1936, ay matapang na kumuha ng talata sa Lumang Tipan at mag-claim na sila ang tinutukoy roon, ang dating daan! Whew! 1975 lang itinayo ang sekta ni Soriano, pinapalabas pa na sila ang DATING DAAN sa Lumang Tipan! Di ba maliwanag na hocus-pocus ito, mga kapatid?
Ang tinutukoy sa Jer.6:16 ay ang kasaysayan ng bayan ng Dios (Israel at Judah) at ang mga espiritwal na aral na makukuha roon. E, anong, relasyon ng sekta ni Soriano roon, na mahigit 2,500 taon na agwat sa kanila? No relation at all, but a figment of Eli’s imagination!
Sapagka’t ang Lumang Tipan ay nagkakaroon ng kaganapan sa Bagong Tipan, ang Judaismo ay napalitan at naging ganap sa Kristiyanismo, ang tunay na Daan ay si Hesus (Jn.14:6) at ang kanyang bagong sambayanan ay tinawag ring Daan (Gawa 9:22). Kaya ang DATING DAAN ay hindi na aplikable sa Bagong Testamento, kundi ang Bagong Daan na siyang walang kamatayang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo mismo. Iyon, mga kapatid, ay HINDI ang Iglesia na itinatatag ni Nicolas Perez (1936), o ni Soriano (1975) o ni Manalo (1914), as common sense tells us. Iyon ay ang totoong iglesia ni Kristo (see Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 816 “the sole Church of Christ”) na laganap sa buong mundo (Catholic = universal)!
O, sige nga, mga miyembro ng Dating Daan, ibigay niyo ang lahat ng ebidensya nyo na sa Lumang Tipan, KAYO ang tinutukoy na DATING DAAN. Tell it to the marines, hehe, ika nga!
Lalo ring wala kayong ebidensiya sa Bagong Tipan, kasi Lumang Tipan ang ginamit niyo, e hindi pala kayo yun. Ngayon, lipat naman kayo sa Bagong Tipan? Palipat-lipat pala kayo, pabago-bago ang isip at doktrina, walang-katiyakan, haha. Depende sa andar ng utak ng inyong Founder kasi e, hindi ayon sa katotohanang di-nagbabago! Bagong Tipan na nga e na may bagong Daan - si Hesus at ang kanyang ITINAYONG iglesia - gawin nyo pang DATING daan. Lantaran na yatang kalokohan yan, pareng Eli. Pero, di lang masyadong halata ng iba – lalong-lalo na ng mga taga-Dating Daan. Sorry.
(end of article)
SA KAHULUGAN NG JEREMIAS 6:16
Sinulat ni: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD, DIOCESE OF BACOLOD
8/20/09
Jer.6:16 - Ganito ang sabi ng Panginoon, Magsitayo kayo sa mga daan at magsitingin kayo, at ipagtanong ninyo ang mga dating landas, kung saan nandoon ang mabuting daan; at magsilakad kayo roon, at kayo’y mangakakaasumpong nga kapahingahan sa inyong mga kaluluwa: nguni’t kanilang sinabi, Hindi kami magsilakad doon.
Kamangha-mangha na ang isang bagong litaw na sekta na “offshoot” lamang ng sektang itinatag ni Nicolas Perez noong 1936, ay matapang na kumuha ng talata sa Lumang Tipan at mag-claim na sila ang tinutukoy roon, ang dating daan! Whew! 1975 lang itinayo ang sekta ni Soriano, pinapalabas pa na sila ang DATING DAAN sa Lumang Tipan! Di ba maliwanag na hocus-pocus ito, mga kapatid?
Ang tinutukoy sa Jer.6:16 ay ang kasaysayan ng bayan ng Dios (Israel at Judah) at ang mga espiritwal na aral na makukuha roon. E, anong, relasyon ng sekta ni Soriano roon, na mahigit 2,500 taon na agwat sa kanila? No relation at all, but a figment of Eli’s imagination!
Sapagka’t ang Lumang Tipan ay nagkakaroon ng kaganapan sa Bagong Tipan, ang Judaismo ay napalitan at naging ganap sa Kristiyanismo, ang tunay na Daan ay si Hesus (Jn.14:6) at ang kanyang bagong sambayanan ay tinawag ring Daan (Gawa 9:22). Kaya ang DATING DAAN ay hindi na aplikable sa Bagong Testamento, kundi ang Bagong Daan na siyang walang kamatayang iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo mismo. Iyon, mga kapatid, ay HINDI ang Iglesia na itinatatag ni Nicolas Perez (1936), o ni Soriano (1975) o ni Manalo (1914), as common sense tells us. Iyon ay ang totoong iglesia ni Kristo (see Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 816 “the sole Church of Christ”) na laganap sa buong mundo (Catholic = universal)!
O, sige nga, mga miyembro ng Dating Daan, ibigay niyo ang lahat ng ebidensya nyo na sa Lumang Tipan, KAYO ang tinutukoy na DATING DAAN. Tell it to the marines, hehe, ika nga!
Lalo ring wala kayong ebidensiya sa Bagong Tipan, kasi Lumang Tipan ang ginamit niyo, e hindi pala kayo yun. Ngayon, lipat naman kayo sa Bagong Tipan? Palipat-lipat pala kayo, pabago-bago ang isip at doktrina, walang-katiyakan, haha. Depende sa andar ng utak ng inyong Founder kasi e, hindi ayon sa katotohanang di-nagbabago! Bagong Tipan na nga e na may bagong Daan - si Hesus at ang kanyang ITINAYONG iglesia - gawin nyo pang DATING daan. Lantaran na yatang kalokohan yan, pareng Eli. Pero, di lang masyadong halata ng iba – lalong-lalo na ng mga taga-Dating Daan. Sorry.
(end of article)
Friday, September 11, 2009
Mary the Mother of God
Mary the Mother of God
Written by: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD - Diocese of Bacolod (Written: June 2005)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, by giving birth to Jesus Christ who is God the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is truly called the Mother of God.
I. The Teaching of the Church
“Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord". In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).” (CCC 495)
Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).
“Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself”(CCC 509).
“The Virgin Mary "cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (Lumen Gentium 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living” (CCC 511).
II. Old Testament Prophecies
Right after the Fall of our First Parents, Adam and Eve, God delivered the first good news (protoevangelion) saying, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15). There shall be enmity between Satan (the serpent) and the woman.
Since Eve has succumbed to the temptations of the devil, she is not the woman that will have enmity (war, deep opposition) with the serpent. That would be another woman (Mary) whose seed (Greek “spermatos”) will be against Satan’s seed. This is the one and only time in the whole of the Bible that the woman will have a seed, which is naturally applied to men. This even predicts the virginal conception of Jesus by the Virgin Mary. Finally, the woman’s seed shall crush the serpent’s (Satan’s) head. It will be the Promised Messiah and His mother, the woman, is Mary.
Another prophecy made some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa.7:14) The young woman (Greek, parthenos; Hebrew, almah) who will give birth to the Immanuel (literally, “God with us”), is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Although this verse may have been used by the Jews to refer to King Hezekiah of Judah, the New Testament writers who were inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired Old Testament writers, apply this to Jesus. This is the sensus plenior (full sense). The sign there became a miraculous sign because the woman was not just any young woman who was married to conceive a child, but a virgin mother. The son was not just an ordinary son, but the Son of God, whose virgin mother is Mary the Mother of God.
The third of the Old Testament prophecies that concerns about the mother and son relation is in Isaiah 9:5-6. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." That child is born of the Virgin Mary. Since that child is called the Mighty God and Mary is His mother, Mary is therefore the Mother of God.
III. New Testament Fulfillment
a. Synoptics
“And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). St. Elizabeth who was in verse 41, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary the "mother of my Lord". The Lord (Gk. “Kyrios”) in the Septuagint or Greek version of the Old Testament refers to the “Lord your God” (Deut.6:4). Both Elizabeth and Luke the writer of the Gospel, were guided by the infallible Holy Spirit to proclaim Jesus as Lord or God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit… ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us).” (Mt.1:18,23). The Old Testament prophecy is now accomplished through the virgin Mary who will bear a son called Emmanuel = "God is with us". The suffix “el” in Emmanuel in Hebrew means “God”. Its plural form, Elohim, found in Gen.1:1 signifies that God is not just one person (cf. Gen.1:26 – “let us”) but later revealed in the new Testament as a Trinity of Persons. It is the Second Person of the three Divine Persons that Mary was chosen to be the mother. Hence, she is called a divine mother, not that she is divine but that her son is Divine.
“And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35). The child born will be called holy, “the Son of God” . The definite article “the” signifies exclusiveness and uniqueness, whereas the “Son of God” proclaims that he has same nature (Gk. Homoousious) with God, but not the same person. Jesus is Son of God by eternal generation having been begotten, not made, not made by the Father from all eternity. Since Mary is declared to be the bearer of this eternal Son of God, then she is the Mother of God.
There are still several passages in the New Testament which prove the point under discussion, worthy of mentioning but need not be given further explanations. “…and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh… Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him" (Mt.2:11,13,20).
“While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him.” (Mt.12:46) Again, “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Mt.13:55) Lastly, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:31).
b. John the Evangelist
John who is both an apostle and evangelist describes the mother of Jesus as the “woman”.
“On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there” (Jn.2:1).
“When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (Jn. 2: 3-4).
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (Jn. 19: 26).
c. St. Paul the Apostle
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal.4:4) Here St. Paul uses the word “woman” found in the protoevangelion or the first good news in Gen.3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This word takes a mysterious meaning since the woman in this passage will have a son who will crush the serpent’s (satan’s) head. Since that Son is Jesus, Mary is the woman. St. John who was privileged to take care of the Blessed Mother after the death of Jesus on the Cross used this hallowed word “woman” in the beginning (ch.2) and end (ch.19) of his Gospel. “Woman” is found in the beginning (Gen.3:15) and end (Rev.12) of the whole Bible.
IV. Protestant Reformers on Mary as Mother of God
In this research on the Marian doctrines, the researcher also hopes to show from the writings of the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century the truth and facts that even these vehemently anti-Catholic writers did not consider Catholic Marian doctrines as unbiblical. This is contrary to the positions held by modern Protestants today, who in their theological chaos, even rejected what their forebears held dearly. This might be surprising to the eyes and ears of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today, but it may just indicate that due to the lack of historical scholarship in favor of the “Bible alone” theory, they may have forgotten their doctrinal heritage of the 16th century.
First and foremost among the Protestant Reformers is their unwavering faith that Mary is the Mother of God. Below are the citations of their words and works.
a. Martin Luther
“In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them.... Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (Weimer, p. 572.)
b. John Calvin
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor... Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God” (Calvini Opera, p. 348, 35.)
c. Ulrich Zwingli
“It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God” (Zwingli, v. 6, 1, p. 639.).
IV. Modern day Fundamentalist Objections Against the title “Mother of God”
“As God, He (Jesus) had no beginning, and He was Mary’s Creator. As God, He cannot possibly have a mother. Mary cannot be the mother of God the Father, nor the mother of God the Holy Spirit. In the same way, she is not the mother of God the Son.” (Pezzotta, p. 137.)
However, the ex-Salesian priest-turned Baptist, Mr. Anthony Pezzotta, has committed grave heresy when he denied the Blessed Mother’s title Mother of God. First, he denied the clear Biblical teaching that the Word (Jesus) who is God became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn.1:1,14) with Mary as his mother (Jn.2:1-4). Since Jesus is God, and Mary was His chosen mother, therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. To deny that Jesus is God is to fall into the condemned Arian heresy of the fourth century. In the same way, to deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to commit the condemned heresy of Nestorius in the fifth century and leads to the heresy of Arius once again. Even Protestant Reformers proclaimed the Catholic belief concerning Mary as Mother of God. Therefore, while biblical, historical, logical and philosophical evidence points to the Catholic faith of the Divine Motherhood of Mary, nothing supports the heresy of Pezzotta.
V. The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
The Church Fathers are the well-known Christian teachers of the early centuries of Christianity who upheld and defended the teachings of Christ which were passed down from generation to generation. Four characteristics are necessary for a person to be qualified as a Church Father: 1) Antiquity, 2) Orthodoxy, 3) Holiness, and 4) Approval of the Church. The last of the Church Fathers of the West is St. Isidore of Seville (560-636). In the East, it is St. John Damascene (675-749). These Church Fathers were the witnesses of the true Apostolic Tradition that closely guarded the pure deposit of the Christian faith. To deny their authority and orthodoxy is tantamount to the denial of the constant guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit to His established Church which was tasked to continue the saving mission of Christ. The following are the quotations from the early Church Fathers on Mary as the Mother of God.
a. Irenaeus. "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
b. Athanasius. "The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).
c. Jerome. "As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).
"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).
d. Cyril of Alexandria. "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).
e. Vincent of Lerins. "Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ" (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).
The following excerpts are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative and magisterial document that proclaims the unchanging truth about the Blessed Mother, her relationship to Jesus as well as to the Church which is His body (Col.1:18).
“Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head." "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church" (CCC 963).
“Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death"; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son" (CCC 964).
“After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers." In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation"(CCC 965).
Written by: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD - Diocese of Bacolod (Written: June 2005)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, by giving birth to Jesus Christ who is God the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is truly called the Mother of God.
I. The Teaching of the Church
“Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord". In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).” (CCC 495)
Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).
“Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself”(CCC 509).
“The Virgin Mary "cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (Lumen Gentium 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living” (CCC 511).
II. Old Testament Prophecies
Right after the Fall of our First Parents, Adam and Eve, God delivered the first good news (protoevangelion) saying, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15). There shall be enmity between Satan (the serpent) and the woman.
Since Eve has succumbed to the temptations of the devil, she is not the woman that will have enmity (war, deep opposition) with the serpent. That would be another woman (Mary) whose seed (Greek “spermatos”) will be against Satan’s seed. This is the one and only time in the whole of the Bible that the woman will have a seed, which is naturally applied to men. This even predicts the virginal conception of Jesus by the Virgin Mary. Finally, the woman’s seed shall crush the serpent’s (Satan’s) head. It will be the Promised Messiah and His mother, the woman, is Mary.
Another prophecy made some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa.7:14) The young woman (Greek, parthenos; Hebrew, almah) who will give birth to the Immanuel (literally, “God with us”), is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Although this verse may have been used by the Jews to refer to King Hezekiah of Judah, the New Testament writers who were inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired Old Testament writers, apply this to Jesus. This is the sensus plenior (full sense). The sign there became a miraculous sign because the woman was not just any young woman who was married to conceive a child, but a virgin mother. The son was not just an ordinary son, but the Son of God, whose virgin mother is Mary the Mother of God.
The third of the Old Testament prophecies that concerns about the mother and son relation is in Isaiah 9:5-6. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." That child is born of the Virgin Mary. Since that child is called the Mighty God and Mary is His mother, Mary is therefore the Mother of God.
III. New Testament Fulfillment
a. Synoptics
“And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). St. Elizabeth who was in verse 41, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary the "mother of my Lord". The Lord (Gk. “Kyrios”) in the Septuagint or Greek version of the Old Testament refers to the “Lord your God” (Deut.6:4). Both Elizabeth and Luke the writer of the Gospel, were guided by the infallible Holy Spirit to proclaim Jesus as Lord or God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit… ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us).” (Mt.1:18,23). The Old Testament prophecy is now accomplished through the virgin Mary who will bear a son called Emmanuel = "God is with us". The suffix “el” in Emmanuel in Hebrew means “God”. Its plural form, Elohim, found in Gen.1:1 signifies that God is not just one person (cf. Gen.1:26 – “let us”) but later revealed in the new Testament as a Trinity of Persons. It is the Second Person of the three Divine Persons that Mary was chosen to be the mother. Hence, she is called a divine mother, not that she is divine but that her son is Divine.
“And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35). The child born will be called holy, “the Son of God” . The definite article “the” signifies exclusiveness and uniqueness, whereas the “Son of God” proclaims that he has same nature (Gk. Homoousious) with God, but not the same person. Jesus is Son of God by eternal generation having been begotten, not made, not made by the Father from all eternity. Since Mary is declared to be the bearer of this eternal Son of God, then she is the Mother of God.
There are still several passages in the New Testament which prove the point under discussion, worthy of mentioning but need not be given further explanations. “…and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh… Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him" (Mt.2:11,13,20).
“While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him.” (Mt.12:46) Again, “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Mt.13:55) Lastly, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:31).
b. John the Evangelist
John who is both an apostle and evangelist describes the mother of Jesus as the “woman”.
“On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there” (Jn.2:1).
“When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (Jn. 2: 3-4).
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (Jn. 19: 26).
c. St. Paul the Apostle
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal.4:4) Here St. Paul uses the word “woman” found in the protoevangelion or the first good news in Gen.3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This word takes a mysterious meaning since the woman in this passage will have a son who will crush the serpent’s (satan’s) head. Since that Son is Jesus, Mary is the woman. St. John who was privileged to take care of the Blessed Mother after the death of Jesus on the Cross used this hallowed word “woman” in the beginning (ch.2) and end (ch.19) of his Gospel. “Woman” is found in the beginning (Gen.3:15) and end (Rev.12) of the whole Bible.
IV. Protestant Reformers on Mary as Mother of God
In this research on the Marian doctrines, the researcher also hopes to show from the writings of the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century the truth and facts that even these vehemently anti-Catholic writers did not consider Catholic Marian doctrines as unbiblical. This is contrary to the positions held by modern Protestants today, who in their theological chaos, even rejected what their forebears held dearly. This might be surprising to the eyes and ears of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today, but it may just indicate that due to the lack of historical scholarship in favor of the “Bible alone” theory, they may have forgotten their doctrinal heritage of the 16th century.
First and foremost among the Protestant Reformers is their unwavering faith that Mary is the Mother of God. Below are the citations of their words and works.
a. Martin Luther
“In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them.... Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (Weimer, p. 572.)
b. John Calvin
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor... Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God” (Calvini Opera, p. 348, 35.)
c. Ulrich Zwingli
“It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God” (Zwingli, v. 6, 1, p. 639.).
IV. Modern day Fundamentalist Objections Against the title “Mother of God”
“As God, He (Jesus) had no beginning, and He was Mary’s Creator. As God, He cannot possibly have a mother. Mary cannot be the mother of God the Father, nor the mother of God the Holy Spirit. In the same way, she is not the mother of God the Son.” (Pezzotta, p. 137.)
However, the ex-Salesian priest-turned Baptist, Mr. Anthony Pezzotta, has committed grave heresy when he denied the Blessed Mother’s title Mother of God. First, he denied the clear Biblical teaching that the Word (Jesus) who is God became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn.1:1,14) with Mary as his mother (Jn.2:1-4). Since Jesus is God, and Mary was His chosen mother, therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. To deny that Jesus is God is to fall into the condemned Arian heresy of the fourth century. In the same way, to deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to commit the condemned heresy of Nestorius in the fifth century and leads to the heresy of Arius once again. Even Protestant Reformers proclaimed the Catholic belief concerning Mary as Mother of God. Therefore, while biblical, historical, logical and philosophical evidence points to the Catholic faith of the Divine Motherhood of Mary, nothing supports the heresy of Pezzotta.
V. The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
The Church Fathers are the well-known Christian teachers of the early centuries of Christianity who upheld and defended the teachings of Christ which were passed down from generation to generation. Four characteristics are necessary for a person to be qualified as a Church Father: 1) Antiquity, 2) Orthodoxy, 3) Holiness, and 4) Approval of the Church. The last of the Church Fathers of the West is St. Isidore of Seville (560-636). In the East, it is St. John Damascene (675-749). These Church Fathers were the witnesses of the true Apostolic Tradition that closely guarded the pure deposit of the Christian faith. To deny their authority and orthodoxy is tantamount to the denial of the constant guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit to His established Church which was tasked to continue the saving mission of Christ. The following are the quotations from the early Church Fathers on Mary as the Mother of God.
a. Irenaeus. "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
b. Athanasius. "The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).
c. Jerome. "As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).
"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).
d. Cyril of Alexandria. "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).
e. Vincent of Lerins. "Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ" (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).
The following excerpts are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative and magisterial document that proclaims the unchanging truth about the Blessed Mother, her relationship to Jesus as well as to the Church which is His body (Col.1:18).
“Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head." "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church" (CCC 963).
“Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death"; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son" (CCC 964).
“After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers." In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation"(CCC 965).
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Written by: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD - diocese of Bacolod (written: June 2005)
Perpetual Virginity. Perpetual, from the Latin “perpetuus”, meaning continuous, and Virginity, from the Latin “virgo” which means maiden, virgin. The Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. Her virginity is both physical and moral.
The virginity of Mary includes “mental virginity”, which is a constant virginal disposition, “sensual virginity”, which is freedom from sexual desires, and lastly, “physical virginity”, which is physical integrity. The doctrine of the Church refers primarily to her bodily integrity.
1. Virginity before the birth
Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus
Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus
Also after the birth of Jesus Mary remained ever a virgin.
I. The Teaching of the Church
Mary's Virginity
“From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed". The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own” (CCC 496).
Mary - "ever-virgin"
“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin" (CCC 499).
“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus’, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary’. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression” (CCC 500).
“Mary ‘remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin’ (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is ‘the handmaid of the Lord’" (Lk 1:38 (CCC510).
Council of Constantinople II
"If anyone will not confess that 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, let him be anathema" (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]).
II. Old Testament Prophecies
Seven hundred years before the birth of the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah prophesied to the distressed people of Israel, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa.7:14) Although the Jews interpreted this verse for the birth of their ideal king in the person of King Hezekiah, and the young unmarried woman (Heb. almah), the New Testament Church applied this prophecy perfectly to Jesus Christ who is perfect king and Messiah who was miraculously born of a pure virgin without the seed of a man. The virgin shall give birth to “a son” and not “sons”.
Since the time of the early Church Fathers, the words of the Prophet Ezekiel were applied to Mary giving birth to only one child. – “And he said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut”(Ezek. 44:2).
Jesus is predicted as both only child and firstborn. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born” (Zec 12:10).
III. New Testament Fulfillment
a. Synoptics
The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) explicitly tell us that the conception and birth of Jesus happened through the supernatural intervention of God in human affairs. Mary was a virgin engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together as husband and wife, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she will conceive a child, not in the human and natural way, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s why, “Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Lk 1:34).
In the incident of the finding of Jesus in the temple, there was no mention that there were other younger brothers and sisters of Jesus by Mary and Joseph. Jesus could have been reprimanded for not going home in order to care for his brothers and sisters, being a responsible eldest son. But nowhere does the Bible mention this (Lk.2:41-51).
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him” (Mk.6:3) This is the verse most often used by the Fundamentalists to “prove” that Mary is not a perpetual virgin. First, Jesus is called “the son”, not a son or one of the sons of Mary, meaning he is the only son of Mary. Second, the word “brother” in the Jewish context refers not only to being siblings under same father and mother, but also to cousins, relatives, tribesmen and fellow Israelites; therefore, one cannot make a definite conclusion that the “brothers” here means Jesus’ brothers born of Mary. Third, if the Jews would mean without a doubt that they are his real blood brothers, then the expression should be “sons of Mary” which is not used for them. Fourth, James and Joses/Joseph have another Mary as their own mother, “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt.27:56); “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid” (Mark 15:47); she is oftentimes called in the Gospels as “the other Mary”: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre… Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre” (Matt. 27:61; 28:1).
“Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.” Matt. 10:3. The three James related to Jesus are the following: James the Greater, whose brother is John, is the son of Zebedee and his mother is Mary Salome. James the Less, whose brothers are Joses and Jude, has Cleophas/Alpheus as his father and “other Mary”, the relative of Virgin Mary. The last James is mentioned in Acts 15 and Gal.2 and the writer of the Epistle of James. He is the relative of Jesus. All these three James were never mentioned as sons of Jesus’ mother Mary.
The Genealogy of the Brethren
Parents Siblings Biblical Texts
Zebedee and Salome or Mary Salome James the Greater and John the Beloved (Boanerges = Sons of thunder) Mt 10:2; Mk 1:19; Mk 3:17;
Mt.27:56; Mk.15:40;
Cleophas (Gk.)/Alpheus or Halpai (Heb.) and Mary (or the other Mary) the sister (cousin/relative) of Virgin Mary James, Joses and Jude Mt.10:3; Mt. 27:56,61; Mt 28:1; Jn.19:25; Lk 6;16; Acts 1:13 Holy Spirit (overshadowed Virgin Mary) and Virgin Mary the mother of Jesus Jesus Christ Isa 7:14; Zech 12:10;
“And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21). Jesus’ extended family wanted to seize Jesus out of public dismay. If Jesus were the firstborn son in their family, they could not have acted in that disrespectful manner.
b. John
“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” (Jn.19:25-27)
“For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For even his brothers did not believe in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil.” (Jn.7:3-4)
IV. Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Martin Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, v. II, pp. 319-320; v. 6, p. 510.)
John Calvin: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ" (Calvin, Opera).
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company.... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Huldrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin” (Zwingli Opera, v. 1, p. 424.).
Mary’s perpetual virginity was defended by Zwingli by referring to Exodus 4:22.
V. Modern-day Fundamentalist Objections Against the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity
“…Mary had other children after Jesus. For one thing, “brothers’ and “sisters” are mentioned in the context of the family with the “carpenter’s son” and “mother,” which clearly indicates they are immediate blood bothers. For another, the Greek term for “brother” (adelphos) here is the normal word for “blood brother.” In fact, there is no single example where adelphos is used for “cousin” in the New Testament. There is a word for “cousin” (anepsios), as in Colosians 4:10, where Mark is described as “the cousin (anepsios) of Barnabas.” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, P.303.)
The objection above can be answered that to prove that adelphos in the New Testament is also used for persons not related by blood is quite easy. Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren (adelphos).” Here, St. Paul refers to Christ as the prominent one among the brothers, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense.
The paragraphs below will further clarify the Biblical words that have been the cause of much confusion in the Fundamentalists’ groups today.
a. "Brothers" of Jesus
The word “brother” in Hebrew is ‘AH. Unlike the Greeks who utilize a variety of words for cousins and relatives, the Jews who are ever mindful of their common ancestry, call their close and distant relatives (Gk. “sungenis”) as ‘AH (brother). To read therefore from the New Testament that Jesus had brothers and sisters and conclude that they were his siblings in the same mother and father, is a hasty generalization. The earliest disciples who were Jews merely translated the Hebrew ‘AH to a general Greek term for brother.
Even in the Old Testament, Abraham called Lot ‘AH although Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gk. "anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16. (see also other references for the word brother which did not really mean strictly sons coming from the same mother. Gen. 29:15; Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen). Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin." (2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - 2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen).
The real question is, if Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph, why did the Gospels not mention as close to the persecuted and dying Jesus on the way to Calvary? Or, if they were there, why did they not assert their legal right to claim Mary for their care when Jesus gave His mother Mary to his beloved disciple? The fact is, Jesus who cared for the Virgin Mary after the death of St. Joseph, hang suspended and dying on the Cross. With no sibling to care for His widowed mother, He entrusted her to John. This is the Catholic exegesis that perfectly fits the Gospel accounts, as opposed to modern-day Fundamentalists’ weak assumptions.
b. Lk.2:7 “Firstborn” (She gave birth to her firstborn son)
The next word that stirs the minds of many “Bible Christians” today is the word “firstborn”. Immediately it is erroneously concluded that there must be second born or third born or a dozen after the firstborn. But this is not correct biblical interpretation. The word “firstborn” is applied to the first male child who opens the womb of the mother, regardless whether there are other siblings afterwards or not. “Firstborn” is a technical term since one who has that title is given the privilege to receive the material and spiritual blessings of the family. The female child, although may be first in the order of siblings is never considered the firstborn.
"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine" (Ex.13:2).
"Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine” (Nb.3:12).
”The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty” (Ex 34:20).
c. Matthew 1:25 (Joseph did not know her "until")
Another word that has confused the minds of the Fundamentalists for a century now, is the word “until” in Matthew 1:25. This is a theological novelty which even the original Protestant fathers never ventured to deny the Blessed Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is again another case of theological bias in order to discredit the Catholic Church’s belief.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1982) gives the meaning of the word “until” – prep. 1. up to the time of 2. before a specified time; conj. 1. Up to the time that 2. before 3. To the point or extent that.
To conclude that the phrase “Joseph did not know her until” means Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, is to do violence to the meaning of that word. In that case, the word “until” can also mean that immediately or few days after her giving birth, Joseph had relations with her, to which one may object that it is too much violence to that word. Well, that absurdity happens when one reads the Bible and interprets it by his own little learning and not according to the proper biblical context.
The following verses show the many occurrences of “until” wherein nothing happened to the contrary after it, as oppositionists assert.
”And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Mt.28:20, NAB); “Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching” (1Tim.4:13).
“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1Cor.15:25); “And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Lk 1:80). “And as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day”(Luke 2:37).
“The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' (Luke 20:42-43); “and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (Gen. 8:7).
“Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you" (Gen. 28:15); “And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day” (Deut. 34:6).
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23); “So they went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned in safety” (1 Macc. 5:54).
Given the more than a dozen examples above, one can shatter one’s deeply-held bias and replace it with a scholarly viewpoint which considers the totality of the biblical data. That data shows and proves again and again for 2000 years already the Holy Spirit’s constant and infallible guidance of the Church’s faith in the perpetual virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
VI. The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
Protoevangelion of James (120 AD). "And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’".
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’".
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’".
Origen. "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. 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]).
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]).
Jerome. "[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., ).
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]).
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]).
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]).
Written by: Bro. Rey V. Entila
CFD - diocese of Bacolod (written: June 2005)
Perpetual Virginity. Perpetual, from the Latin “perpetuus”, meaning continuous, and Virginity, from the Latin “virgo” which means maiden, virgin. The Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. Her virginity is both physical and moral.
The virginity of Mary includes “mental virginity”, which is a constant virginal disposition, “sensual virginity”, which is freedom from sexual desires, and lastly, “physical virginity”, which is physical integrity. The doctrine of the Church refers primarily to her bodily integrity.
1. Virginity before the birth
Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus
Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus
Also after the birth of Jesus Mary remained ever a virgin.
I. The Teaching of the Church
Mary's Virginity
“From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed". The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own” (CCC 496).
Mary - "ever-virgin"
“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin" (CCC 499).
“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus’, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary’. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression” (CCC 500).
“Mary ‘remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin’ (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is ‘the handmaid of the Lord’" (Lk 1:38 (CCC510).
Council of Constantinople II
"If anyone will not confess that 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, let him be anathema" (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]).
II. Old Testament Prophecies
Seven hundred years before the birth of the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah prophesied to the distressed people of Israel, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa.7:14) Although the Jews interpreted this verse for the birth of their ideal king in the person of King Hezekiah, and the young unmarried woman (Heb. almah), the New Testament Church applied this prophecy perfectly to Jesus Christ who is perfect king and Messiah who was miraculously born of a pure virgin without the seed of a man. The virgin shall give birth to “a son” and not “sons”.
Since the time of the early Church Fathers, the words of the Prophet Ezekiel were applied to Mary giving birth to only one child. – “And he said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut”(Ezek. 44:2).
Jesus is predicted as both only child and firstborn. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born” (Zec 12:10).
III. New Testament Fulfillment
a. Synoptics
The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) explicitly tell us that the conception and birth of Jesus happened through the supernatural intervention of God in human affairs. Mary was a virgin engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together as husband and wife, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she will conceive a child, not in the human and natural way, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s why, “Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Lk 1:34).
In the incident of the finding of Jesus in the temple, there was no mention that there were other younger brothers and sisters of Jesus by Mary and Joseph. Jesus could have been reprimanded for not going home in order to care for his brothers and sisters, being a responsible eldest son. But nowhere does the Bible mention this (Lk.2:41-51).
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him” (Mk.6:3) This is the verse most often used by the Fundamentalists to “prove” that Mary is not a perpetual virgin. First, Jesus is called “the son”, not a son or one of the sons of Mary, meaning he is the only son of Mary. Second, the word “brother” in the Jewish context refers not only to being siblings under same father and mother, but also to cousins, relatives, tribesmen and fellow Israelites; therefore, one cannot make a definite conclusion that the “brothers” here means Jesus’ brothers born of Mary. Third, if the Jews would mean without a doubt that they are his real blood brothers, then the expression should be “sons of Mary” which is not used for them. Fourth, James and Joses/Joseph have another Mary as their own mother, “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt.27:56); “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid” (Mark 15:47); she is oftentimes called in the Gospels as “the other Mary”: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre… Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre” (Matt. 27:61; 28:1).
“Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.” Matt. 10:3. The three James related to Jesus are the following: James the Greater, whose brother is John, is the son of Zebedee and his mother is Mary Salome. James the Less, whose brothers are Joses and Jude, has Cleophas/Alpheus as his father and “other Mary”, the relative of Virgin Mary. The last James is mentioned in Acts 15 and Gal.2 and the writer of the Epistle of James. He is the relative of Jesus. All these three James were never mentioned as sons of Jesus’ mother Mary.
The Genealogy of the Brethren
Parents Siblings Biblical Texts
Zebedee and Salome or Mary Salome James the Greater and John the Beloved (Boanerges = Sons of thunder) Mt 10:2; Mk 1:19; Mk 3:17;
Mt.27:56; Mk.15:40;
Cleophas (Gk.)/Alpheus or Halpai (Heb.) and Mary (or the other Mary) the sister (cousin/relative) of Virgin Mary James, Joses and Jude Mt.10:3; Mt. 27:56,61; Mt 28:1; Jn.19:25; Lk 6;16; Acts 1:13 Holy Spirit (overshadowed Virgin Mary) and Virgin Mary the mother of Jesus Jesus Christ Isa 7:14; Zech 12:10;
“And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21). Jesus’ extended family wanted to seize Jesus out of public dismay. If Jesus were the firstborn son in their family, they could not have acted in that disrespectful manner.
b. John
“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” (Jn.19:25-27)
“For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For even his brothers did not believe in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil.” (Jn.7:3-4)
IV. Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Martin Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, v. II, pp. 319-320; v. 6, p. 510.)
John Calvin: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ" (Calvin, Opera).
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company.... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Huldrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin” (Zwingli Opera, v. 1, p. 424.).
Mary’s perpetual virginity was defended by Zwingli by referring to Exodus 4:22.
V. Modern-day Fundamentalist Objections Against the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity
“…Mary had other children after Jesus. For one thing, “brothers’ and “sisters” are mentioned in the context of the family with the “carpenter’s son” and “mother,” which clearly indicates they are immediate blood bothers. For another, the Greek term for “brother” (adelphos) here is the normal word for “blood brother.” In fact, there is no single example where adelphos is used for “cousin” in the New Testament. There is a word for “cousin” (anepsios), as in Colosians 4:10, where Mark is described as “the cousin (anepsios) of Barnabas.” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, P.303.)
The objection above can be answered that to prove that adelphos in the New Testament is also used for persons not related by blood is quite easy. Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren (adelphos).” Here, St. Paul refers to Christ as the prominent one among the brothers, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense.
The paragraphs below will further clarify the Biblical words that have been the cause of much confusion in the Fundamentalists’ groups today.
a. "Brothers" of Jesus
The word “brother” in Hebrew is ‘AH. Unlike the Greeks who utilize a variety of words for cousins and relatives, the Jews who are ever mindful of their common ancestry, call their close and distant relatives (Gk. “sungenis”) as ‘AH (brother). To read therefore from the New Testament that Jesus had brothers and sisters and conclude that they were his siblings in the same mother and father, is a hasty generalization. The earliest disciples who were Jews merely translated the Hebrew ‘AH to a general Greek term for brother.
Even in the Old Testament, Abraham called Lot ‘AH although Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gk. "anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16. (see also other references for the word brother which did not really mean strictly sons coming from the same mother. Gen. 29:15; Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen). Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin." (2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - 2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen).
The real question is, if Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph, why did the Gospels not mention as close to the persecuted and dying Jesus on the way to Calvary? Or, if they were there, why did they not assert their legal right to claim Mary for their care when Jesus gave His mother Mary to his beloved disciple? The fact is, Jesus who cared for the Virgin Mary after the death of St. Joseph, hang suspended and dying on the Cross. With no sibling to care for His widowed mother, He entrusted her to John. This is the Catholic exegesis that perfectly fits the Gospel accounts, as opposed to modern-day Fundamentalists’ weak assumptions.
b. Lk.2:7 “Firstborn” (She gave birth to her firstborn son)
The next word that stirs the minds of many “Bible Christians” today is the word “firstborn”. Immediately it is erroneously concluded that there must be second born or third born or a dozen after the firstborn. But this is not correct biblical interpretation. The word “firstborn” is applied to the first male child who opens the womb of the mother, regardless whether there are other siblings afterwards or not. “Firstborn” is a technical term since one who has that title is given the privilege to receive the material and spiritual blessings of the family. The female child, although may be first in the order of siblings is never considered the firstborn.
"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine" (Ex.13:2).
"Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine” (Nb.3:12).
”The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty” (Ex 34:20).
c. Matthew 1:25 (Joseph did not know her "until")
Another word that has confused the minds of the Fundamentalists for a century now, is the word “until” in Matthew 1:25. This is a theological novelty which even the original Protestant fathers never ventured to deny the Blessed Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is again another case of theological bias in order to discredit the Catholic Church’s belief.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1982) gives the meaning of the word “until” – prep. 1. up to the time of 2. before a specified time; conj. 1. Up to the time that 2. before 3. To the point or extent that.
To conclude that the phrase “Joseph did not know her until” means Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, is to do violence to the meaning of that word. In that case, the word “until” can also mean that immediately or few days after her giving birth, Joseph had relations with her, to which one may object that it is too much violence to that word. Well, that absurdity happens when one reads the Bible and interprets it by his own little learning and not according to the proper biblical context.
The following verses show the many occurrences of “until” wherein nothing happened to the contrary after it, as oppositionists assert.
”And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Mt.28:20, NAB); “Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching” (1Tim.4:13).
“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1Cor.15:25); “And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Lk 1:80). “And as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day”(Luke 2:37).
“The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' (Luke 20:42-43); “and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (Gen. 8:7).
“Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you" (Gen. 28:15); “And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day” (Deut. 34:6).
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23); “So they went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned in safety” (1 Macc. 5:54).
Given the more than a dozen examples above, one can shatter one’s deeply-held bias and replace it with a scholarly viewpoint which considers the totality of the biblical data. That data shows and proves again and again for 2000 years already the Holy Spirit’s constant and infallible guidance of the Church’s faith in the perpetual virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
VI. The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
Protoevangelion of James (120 AD). "And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’".
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’".
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’".
Origen. "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. 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]).
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]).
Jerome. "[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., ).
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]).
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]).
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]).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)