Regarding sharing in the work of redemption, St. Paul says as much in Colossians, when he writes that in his flesh he does his share on behalf of Christ’s body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. (Col. 1:24) And that isn’t blasphemy; it is part of the generosity of Christ, that we are given the opportunity to share in His sufferings, and thereby participate in His redemption of the world. The whole Old Testament is a preparation by God for the coming of the Messiah, and in this way all the righteous figures of the Old Testament participate in Christ’s work of redemption. Mary especially participates, by being the very mother of the Savior, giving to Him His very flesh, the flesh that would be nailed to a cross. If participation in Christ’s redemption were blasphemy, there would have been no Old Testament, no Jewish people, and no Mary. Instead, Christ would have come down from heaven with a body made ex nihilo, with no lineage, into no special people, with no expectation of His coming. Nor would there be a Great Commission by which the work of redemption is continued throughout the whole world by Christ’s followers, until He returns."
end of quote
The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents the truth of Mary's mediation as "a sharing in the one unique source that is the mediation of Christ himself." Thus we read: "The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that, encouraged by this maternal help, they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer."
98 This role is at the same time special and extraordinary. It flows from her divine motherhood and can be understood and lived in faith only on the basis of the full truth of this motherhood. Since by virtue of divine election Mary is the earthly Mother of the Father's consubstantial Son and his "generous companion" in the work of redemption "she is a mother to us in the order of grace."
99 This role constitutes
concerning Mary having other children: from comment 48
here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-46784
Fourth, you claim that the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is contrary to Matthew 12:46-47, 13:55, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, John 7:3-5, Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19, and Psalm 69. But the terms translated there as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ have a broader semantic extension than do the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ in English, and can refer to half-brothers/sisters or cousins. (See, for example, Gen. 14:14, 29:15, Lev. 10:4, 2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9) So for that reason alone none of the passages to which you refer here are incompatible with the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. You referred to Galatians 1:19, which speaks of “James the Lord’s brother,” as evidence of the falsehood of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But this James (i.e. James the lesser) was the son of Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25, Mt. 27:56, Mk 15:40), also known as Alphaeus (Mt. 10:3), not the son of the Virgin Mary. This James is called “the Lord’s brother” because according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the brother of Joseph. Regarding Psalm 69, the meaning of ‘brothers’ here is His people (the Jews), and “mother’s sons” has the same meaning (cf. Ezekiel’s use of the term ‘mother’ to refer to Jerusalem in Ez. 19). So the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not contradict any of these verses.
from comment 48 from the above link:
Finally, you claim that the Catholic doctrines of Marys’ immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness are contradicted by Rom 3:23, Lk 1:47, and Lk 2:22-24. By ‘all’ [πάντες] in Romans 3:23, the Holy Spirit is not referring to “every human exhaustively, taken individually,” but is teaching that the righteousness of Christ is for both Gentiles and Jews, which is why he says in the previous verse, “for there is no distinction.” He is saying that the need for, and gift of the righteousness that comes through Christ is not limited to Gentiles alone, or to Jews alone, but belongs to both without distinction. Hence the ‘all’ is an all of catholicity. Of course it is true that every human being is either a Jew or a Gentile, and therefore falls under the ‘all.’ But because here this term is not intended to mean that every human individually has sinned, this passage is not in conflict with the Church’s doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness for the same reason that this passage is not in conflict with the Church’s doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness; the ‘all’ is not intended in an individually exhaustive way, so as to rule out exceptions such as Christ and His Mother. Regarding Lk 1:47, in Catholic doctrine, Jesus is Mary’s Savior, and saves her (by His Passion and Death on the Cross) more perfectly than He saves any other human being, namely, by preventing her from contracting original sin and ever falling into sin. I have explained this in more detail in the section on Scotus in “Mary’s Immaculate Conception.” Lastly, regarding Mary’s sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons at the Presentation, in obedience to the Law of Moses, this no more entails that Mary was sinful than does Christ’s baptism by John the Baptist entail that He was in need of repentance, as I explained in “Feast of the Presentation of the Lord.” Circumcision symbolizes the removal of original sin. Yet Jesus who had no original sin, was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). So obedience to the ceremonial law does not entail that the one obeying this law is sinful, because Jesus too obeyed the ceremonial law, and yet He was sinless. Thus there is no contradiction between Mary’s immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness on the one hand, and the Scriptures you cite here on the other hand.
end of quote
Thanks for your reply.
Your replies were all the standard responses that I’ve come to expect from Roman Catholics. When I first read them, I sighed as I usually do at the inability for someone who otherwise seems intelligent to see the obvious right in front of him. It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics that someone will go through to convince themselves and others that X is actually Y.
One of the things about ad hominems is that they can easily be returned, and thus cancelled out. So if your response to my replies is to attack my intelligence, I could (but I won’t) easily say the same thing to you, namely, that the reason you insist on claiming that there are five contradictions internal to Catholicism, even after I showed that these five cases are no contradictions at all, is merely because of an intelligence problem. So resorting to ad hominems doesn’t make one’s case. It generally indicates that one doesn’t have the evidence or argumentation to make one’s case, so one’s only remaining option (besides conceding the point) is to attack the person, character, intelligence, etc. of one’s interlocutor. Otherwise one would simply let one’s evidence and argumentation do the work of refutation.
I could go into quite lengthy responses to each of the 5 contradictions that I mentioned to show how you actually miss the point (and even contradict yourself at times), but I’ve learned that it will be almost entirely pointless.
If you believe I have contradicted myself, then instead of merely hand-waving with a general criticism, please point to the specific place where you think I contradicted myself. Hand-waving general criticisms are easy, but unhelpful. It makes it seem either that you don’t want to help me come to see the error of my position, or don’t want to learn that you might be wrong about your claim that I have contradicted myself.
Vast amounts of books have been written by others outlining each of these contradictions (and dozens of other contradictions in Roman Catholicism).
Many books have been written about many topics. And even though you don’t identify the books you have in mind, it is probably the case the many books have been written refuting the ones you have in mind. So, again, merely trading references to books does not make your case for you, because I could do the same. To make your case, you have to show actual contradictions (i.e. x and ~x) within Catholicism. And you have not yet done that.
As a Roman Catholic, you must fundamentally believe that there are no contradictions in your faith, and so you will have some explanation for anything that is presented to you as a contradiction.
This too is an ad hominem. If I do have explanations for the alleged contradictions, then this is not a problem for me, but for the person claiming that there are contradictions internal to Catholicism. Your task, in such a case, is either to show how the contradictions remain in spite of these explanations, or to concede that you do not know of any contradictions internal to Catholicism.
For example, on the first point about justification by faith, you take the clear words of Trent and add in extra interpretation. The comment by Trent speaks of nothing in the way of receiving ‘the grace of justification at baptism’, nor do either of the quotes by Paul. The words of Paul match the words of Trent (though in the opposite way) almost perfectly.
Here’s one of the general principles of ecumenical dialogue: Out of respect and charity, each person gets to define, articulate and specify what is his own position, such that no one ought knowingly to attribute to or impose upon another, a position the other person denies is his own. So as a Catholic, I get to explain and specify how Trent is to be understood. And if you (as a non-Catholic), insist that Trent means something else, and then criticize that interpretation of Trent, you’re criticizing a straw man of your own making, and the contradictions to which you refer are contradictions only within Catholicism-as-you-interpret-it, rather than in Catholicism as it is believed and understood by Catholics.
The Canons of Trent 6 are based on the Chapters of Trent 6. And Canon 9 of Trent 6 is based on Chapters 7-8 of Session 6. That’s the source of the “extra interpretation,” as you put it.
This goes to the heart of the point I’ve just made above – the belief that something is not a contradiction, combined with the authority to interpret what something actually says, means that any apparent contradictions, no matter how clear the language may be, can simply be interpreted away.
An atheist who thinks Christianity is full of contradictions could say the same to a Christian. In such a case, this is a problem not for the Christian, but for the atheist attempting to demonstrate his claim that Christianity is full of contradictions. Instead of complaining that the Christian can “interpret away” these alleged contradictions, the atheist needs to show how the “interpreting away” does not actually remove the contradictions. Otherwise he is merely conceding that he cannot substantiate his claim.
And the same is true here. So regarding your first alleged contradiction, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction internal to Catholicism, but only between Catholicism and your own interpretation of Scripture/Trent.
Again, on the second point, I could point out that Paul makes a clear dichotomy between works and faith in Romans 4:4-5. But you won’t accept that dichotomy, because it would result in a contradiction, which Roman Catholicism must not have. So once again you explain it away under the guise of authoritative interpretation.
The “you won’t accept that dichotomy” is an ad hominem, attacking the person of your interlocutor. But neither what you could do (i.e. “point out that Paul …”), and what I allegedly “won’t do” (i.e. “accept that dichotomy …”) show that there is a contradiction within Catholicism. Again, complaining about the fact that I can “explain away” the alleged contradiction does not make your case. It concedes that you cannot substantiate your claim. If you wish to make your case, you need to show how the explanation I have given is false and/or does not remove the alleged contradiction internal to Catholicism.
So regarding your second alleged contradiction, here too you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction internal to Catholicism, but only between Catholicism and your own interpretation of Scripture.
The same can be said of point three and your dismissal of all the counter evidence showing Peter’s non-primacy role.
This too, fails to show that there is any contradiction involving the Catholic doctrine of Peter’s primacy. It just hand-waves by referring generally to “all the counter evidence.” So regarding your third alleged contradiction, here too you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction internal to Catholicism.
The same can be said about point four and your reinterpretation of the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ and ‘mother’ and ‘sons’. I could bring up how you interpret the terms ‘brothers’ and ‘mothers sons’ in Psalm 69 in a non-literal sense, despite all the other aspects of that prophecy that were quoted in the New Testament in a literal sense. Such multiple, repetitive, clear teachings, in multiple gospels and letters by multiple writers is blatantly obvious, but with the authority to interpret however the Roman Catholic Church sees fit, along with the fundamental presupposition that there are no contradictions in Roman Catholic doctrine, there comes an answer for everything.
The Pharisees could have said the same to Jesus: “You have an answer for everything.” And yet He is the Truth, and was not thereby refuted by having an answer for everything when they raised objections against His teaching. So the fact that Catholics have an “answer for everything” when charges of contradiction are laid against them does not show that they are wrong, or that there really are contradictions internal to Catholicism. It tacitly concedes that the accuser (in this case, you) is unable to make his case and substantiate his claim.
Also, regarding the interpretation of ‘brothers’ and ‘mothers sons’ in Psalm 69, you’ll need to present an argument showing why if other passages of the Psalms are prophecies meant in a literal sense, then ‘brothers’ and ‘mother’s sons’ in its prophetic sense Psalm 69 must be taken to mean birth-mother and sons of the same mother. Here, it turns out, your charge of contradiction is not a contradiction internal to Catholicism but a contradiction between the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and your own interpretation of Psalm 69. But a contradiction between Church doctrine and your interpretation of Scripture is not a contradiction internal to Catholicism. So regarding your fourthalleged contradiction, here too you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction internal to Catholicism, but only between the Church’s teaching and your own interpretation of Scripture.
On point five, I could point out that, despite the fact I mentioned there are numerous other verses to support the points being made, you only focused on one: Romans 3:23. I could just have easily provided other verses that clearly show the sinfulness of all mankind (Romans 5:12 or Galatians 3:22, or countless others) I’m sure someone as studied as you knows many such verses, but you chose to ignore them.
What I said concerning Rom 3:23 applies also to Rom 5:12 and Gal 3:22.
The bible clearly teaches all have sinned, and yet you want to claim that it’s not true.
No. I do not claim that what the Bible teaches is not true. Rather, I claim that your interpretation of the ‘all’ is not true.
I could point out that your exegesis of Romans 3:23 is claiming that ‘all’ only refers to both Gentiles and Jews because the previous verse says “for there is no distinction”, despite the fact that if you go back and start at verse 10 and read everything in context, Paul is pounding home the fact, with multiple Old Testament references, that ‘all’ does actually mean all! “Not even one” is a pretty clear statement, especially when repeated for emphasis, no matter how much you want to reinterpret it away.
The claim that I “want to reinterpret it away” is an ad hominem, criticizing my person. The question has to do the scope of the reference of the ‘all.’ Does the Holy Spirit mean it to include Mary, or not? As Catholics, we believe that babies are persons, both in the womb and already born. And we believe that they have not sinned, not yet, not until they reach the age of reason. So babies are evidently not among the all who “have sinned,” if “have sinned” is understood to mean having committed an actual sin. And in that case the Holy Spirit’s meaning with regard to the ‘all’ is already a much smaller number than all the human persons who have ever lived and will live, because it wouldn’t include all the babies who have died (and will die) prior to reaching the age of reason. If so, then the Spirit’s meaning regarding the ‘all’ isn’t as comprehensive as you claim, but is intended to be interpreted with qualifications, among which could be the Mother of God. So either we must qualify the ‘all,’ or qualify the “have sinned” to mean [in reference to babies] that under the post-Fall economy, they too are in need of a Savior, because they come into the world without grace. And Mary too, was in need of a Savior, because she too was conceived in this post-Fall economy, and according to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, was saved by Christ in the prevenient way I described in the article linked in my comment #48. Either way you take this verse, therefore, either by qualifying the ‘all’ or by qualifying the ‘have sinned,’ the Church’s teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception is compatible with Romans 3:23. And in neither case is there shown to be a contradiction *internal* to Catholicism, but only between the Catholic doctrine and your own interpretation of Scripture.
I could point out the fact that your exegesis even goes against your own church’s understanding of Romans 3:23 applying to all men. In the link to the vatican provided by Christopher Lake (#49, right after your post, the second link out to the vatican.va site), point #10 clearly states that “All human beings are in need of God’s righteousness, “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God””. (yes, I do read the articles that are linked) It references Romans 3:23, showing that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t actually exegete Romans 3:23 the way that you do, in a way that simply means ‘Gentiles and Jews’ without distinction.
One of the paradigmatic differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is that in the Catholic paradigm there are types and levels of causes that can act simultaneously, levels of meanings that can be true of a passage simultaneously, and forms of participation and union by which persons can participate in the life, work, suffering, and even nature of another. Here too, what I said about the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, is fully compatible with the verse applying to the rest of us, who fall into those two categories, with the proper qualifications referred to above.
The Roman Catholic Church exegetes the verse to mean “all human beings”, directly contradicting your comment of “here this term is not intended to mean that every human individually has sinned”.
The ‘all’ here is intended in a qualified sense; it is not intended to mean that Mary sinned and fell short of the glory of God. So what you are doing here is criticizing a straw man of your own making, by misconstruing the meaning of a Catholic document, so as to make it seem to contradict a Catholic dogma.
Or I could take a different track altogether. I could point out how your comparison of Mary’s sin offering to Jesus’ baptism is entirely irrelevant, since 1) John’s baptism had nothing to do with Old Testament law; and 2) Jesus’ baptism was clearly a unique event, as evidenced by the Holy Spirit’s descending upon Him and the Father speaking of Him, and as such clearly had nothing to do with repentance.
I grant that Jesus’ baptism was a unique event, and that John’s baptism was not required under OT law. But that does not refute my point. My point is that just because someone undergoes a ritual purification, this does not entail that he is or was morally impure. My point is substantiated by the example of Jesus undergoing John’s baptism. And my point demonstrates that from Mary’s obedience to the ritual purification law of Moses, it does not follow that she was morally impure.
I could also point out that your comparison of Mary’s sin offering to the circumcision of Jesus is also entirely irrelevant, since 1) although circumcision does symbolize the removal of sin, this is not in regards to the individual himself – it is in reality the sign of the covenant in general to Jews (all of Abraham’s household, actually), not to a specific person, and as such was perfectly normal for Jesus to be circumcised; and 2) the act of circumcision is an act of obedience by the parents, not the child (since he couldn’t really do it to himself) and so the circumcision of Jesus speaks to the obedience of Joseph and Mary, and again has nothing to do with any sin of Jesus.
I agree that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, but it is also a symbol of the removal of sin from the individual incorporated into the covenant, i.e. the infant being circumcised. The example of Jesus being circumcised is one more example substantiating my point that just because someone undergoes a ritual purification, this does not entail that he is or was morally impure. And therefore, just because Mary obeyed the ritual purification law of Moses, it does not follow that she was morally impure.
I could also point out even further biblical teachings that show Mary wasn’t sinless, like Luke 18:18-19 when a man refers to Jesus as good, but he claims that no one is good except God alone (being sinless would qualify Mary as good – after all, it was enough for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1).
Jesus wasn’t going all Manichean here, denying the goodness of creation. The meaning of the passage is that God alone is goodness, and the source of all goodness. Otherwise, Jesus was contradicting what He said earlier in Luke when He said, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good” (Luke 6:45), and when He said, “these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart.” (Luke 8:15). And St. Luke himself (and the Holy Spirit inspiring him) would subsequently be contradicting Jesus by referring to Joseph of Arimethea as “a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50).
Or how in Matthew 11:11 Jesus actually places John the Baptist as greater than Mary (not possible if Mary truly was sinless the way the Roman Catholic Church claims).
In Matthew 11:11, Jesus is contrasting the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. John the Baptist was the greatest in the Old Covenant. But, says Jesus, even the least in the New Covenant is greater than he, because he that is least among the children is greater [as such] than he that is the greatest among the bondslaves. (Gal 4:24-25) Hence Jesus says “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.” (Luke 16:16), and “many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.” (Luke 10:24) This is the greatness of the New Covenant in relation to the Old: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.” (Gal 3:24) And Mary was within the New Covenant as the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27 and Acts 1:15). So this passage does not teach that Mary is less than John the Baptist, let alone that she ever sinned.
So, here too, regarding your fifth alleged contradiction, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction internal to Catholicism, but only between the Church’s teaching and your own interpretation of Scripture.
I could go on and on and on, pouring on contradiction after contradiction, but there’s really no point, is there.
Regarding any future claims you might make regarding alleged contradictions within Catholicism, I cannot say whether there is a point, because you haven’t yet specified what they might be. I can only say that the five you have already alleged, have turned out to be contradictions not internal to Catholicism, but between Catholicism and your own interpretation of the Bible.
Bryan, as I said before, when I originally read your replies, I just sighed at how old and predictable they get, but also how frustrating it is to deal with.
I’m not so concerned about how old or predictable my replies are, because old and predictable replies can still be true, and my desire is for truth, not novelty or unpredictability.
The bottom line, no matter how many sighs, and how much frustration you feel, is that so far you are unable to substantiate even a single contradiction within Catholicism. Instead of sighing with frustration, you should either concede that you cannot show there to be any such contradiction, or show your claims of contradiction stand in spite of what I’ve said.
It’s like trying to discuss math with someone who fundamentally believes that 2+2=5.
Again, with ad hominems, I could say the same to you, and they would cancel each other out and we would be right back where we started. So it is better simply to refrain from ad hominems, and focus on the substance of the disagreement.
But when I came back to your post again after reading what John Thayer and Benjamin Keil wrote, I was able to understand why Roman Catholicism can’t see the glaringly obvious contradictions. Your responses were the perfect practical example of the truth I was talking about above. Roman Catholicism fundamentally presupposes that there can be no contradictions in its doctrines! As such, it doesn’t matter how blatant something may otherwise be, Roman Catholicism simply can’t accept that it could ever be wrong about such issues. And when we add in the authority to be the sole and final interpreter of everything, Roman Catholicism can redefine any contradictions right out of the way, making it appear internally consistent.
This is all an ad homimen. You have claimed that there are contradictions internal to Catholicism. When I refute each of your claims, you respond by saying that Catholics cannot see them. Once more, I could turn that same kind of ad hominem right back at you: you are blind to the truth of Catholicism, and therefore cannot see its internal consistency, or something like that. And then we’d be right back where we started. So the “you’re blind,” .. “No, you’re blind,” … “No, you’re blind” dialectic is pointless. Again, we have to discipline ourselves to focus on the evidence and argumentation, and refrain from attempting to make our case by relying on an “all who disagree with me are blind” ad hominem.
Now, this is something that I (and hundreds of millions of others) have known about Roman Catholicism for a long time – that the Roman Catholic Church sets itself up as its own authority, presupposing the truth of itself. In many ways, it’s really not that different from Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instead of accepting God as the ultimate authority and the necessary presuppositional starting point, the Roman Catholic Church declares itself as the ultimate authority and the necessary presuppositional starting point.
No, Catholicism does not claim or believe that the Catholic Church is the “necessary presuppositional starting point.” The Catholic Church rejects fideism, as I have explained in “
Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective.” The divine authority of the Church is established not by the divine authority of the Church (that would be circular), but by the motives of credibility. So what you are criticizing here is a straw man.
Oh, the Roman Catholic Church will SAY that God is the ultimate authority, but as I mentioned before, they will then tuck Him back in underneath their own authority – they are the only ones who can tell us what God says, who can interpret what He means, can tell us how to live, can provide a pathway to God, and on and on and on.
The very same objection could have been made by persons listening to the Apostles preach on Pentecost. This objection presupposes that Christ has not given divine authority to anyone, and thus begs the question, i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question between Protestants and Catholics.
But this whole conversation has shed a new light on things for me also, and it is this: the typical Roman Catholic will likely never realize this vital point about the Roman Catholic Church being the actual ultimate authority. The typical Roman Catholic will likely go through life thinking that God is their ultimate authority, not realizing that they have actually accepted the Roman Catholic Church as their ultimate authority in God’s place.
Or, on the flipside, the Protestant who remains Protestant his whole life, will go through his whole thinking that he is submitting to God, not realizing that he is actually merely submitting to his own interpretation of Scripture.
These question-begging criticisms are unhelpful, precisely because they presuppose the point in question.
I’ve got some ideas, but there’s a whole lot more left to research and think about on this. But I do need to thank those of you here for the conversation – you have truly helped me to understand things much better, become closer to God through it all, and move forward better equipped to help evangelize Roman Catholics in general, and my friend in particular, and share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them.
You’re welcome. By this interchange you’ve also demonstrated that by “the contradictions of the Roman Catholic Church” you are actually referring to contradictions between Catholic doctrine and your own interpretation of Scripture. And so when you say, as you said in comment #26, “It still shocks me when someone spends that much time studying the bible and yet still falls for the contradictions of the Roman Catholic Church,” it turns out that what you really mean is simply that you are shocked when people who spend so much time studying don’t adopt your interpretation of the Bible. And the same shock was shared by Luther, when other Protestants didn’t adopt his interpretation of the Bible, and the proliferation of Protestant sects (including various Lutheran sects) began, and has continued to this day.
In a way, this shock is not compatible with itself, because it presupposes that others are no less intelligent and truth-loving than oneself, and that Scripture is perspicuous. Otherwise there would be no shock, but the divergent interpretations by persons devoting equivalent time and effort into the study of Scripture, would be entirely expected. But then, to cope with this discrepancy, the divergent interpretations are “explained away” (as you put it) by imputing to all such persons either a lack of intelligence (see above), blindness, malice, or deceiving spirits. And in this way, the paradigm is propped up and perpetuated. So, again, the same sort of charge of resorting to moves that preserve one in ignorance or deception can be applied to the Protestant as well. And therefore, again, exchanging such charges is pointless. So it is better to evaluate the paradigms on their own terms, according to evidence and standards that are not question-begging.
I conclude [this section] with a quote from the homily of John Paul II on the occasion of the 150 years of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate, in which Mary is qualified as an “Eschatological icon of the Church,” as the one who pronounces the first “yes” of the Covenant between God and humanity and precedes the people of God in the path to Heaven, and the Church sees in her its salvation “anticipated”:
“She, the first one redeemed by her Son, fully participates in His sanctity, already becoming what the whole Church wishes and hopes to be. She is the Eschatological icon of the Church. For this the Immaculate, is “the source and image of the Church, the bride of Christ, filled with youth and of limpid beauty” (Preface), precedes always the people of God in the pilgrimage of the faith towards the kingdom of Heaven. In the immaculate conception of Mary the Church sees itself projected, anticipated in its most noble member, the salvific grace of Easter. In the event of the Incarnation we find, indissolubly united the Son and Mother: ‘He that is its Lord and its head and she who, pronouncing the first yes of the new Covenant, prefigures its condition of bride and Mother’.”
..................
Notwithstanding, it might do us good to draw several conclusions, in light of the riches we have seen, that these may be helpful in our ecclesial life. The affection and veneration we all feel, almost “spontaneously,” for the Virgin and before the Eucharist we must cultivate for the Church. These must be the same, given that as we have seen, Mary and Church are “vessels” transformed at the core for He who desired to “dwell” in them. The effect of of such an incarnation comes from the fact that these “wineskins” are transformed fully in the highest reality that includes them. Just as the Word in taking flesh from Mary sanctifies her totally (including prior to the Eucharist, in the Immaculate Conception), so is the Church holy and sanctifying due to the Covenant the Lord desired to make with her.
Therefore the Christian, when looking at the Church, sees her as holy, spotless and without blemish, as [he would] Mary, bride and Mother. The Christian sees the Church as the Body of Christ, as the vessel that guards with absolute integrity the deposit of faith, as the faithful Spouse who communicates without addition or subtraction all that Christ entrusted. In the Sacraments the Church communicates to us the fullness of life the Lord came to bring us. Although as sons we sometimes/often break our Covenant with the Lord at an individual level, the Church is the place where that Covenant – which we are given for ever in Baptism – remains intact and we might recover it with the [Sacrament of] Reconciliation.
..........
The Church as a fully “sanctified” reality and capable of receiving and of comunicating – without error or defect, from its own poverty and even with its own sins –the full sanctity of God, is not a “complement” or an “institutional addition” to Jesus Christ, but a full participation of his Incarnation, of His Life, of His Passion, death and Resurrection. Without these are the “new wineskins” that are the Church and Mary – a concrete universality sin parallel, whose relation is paradigmatic of all else – the coming of the eternal Word into the world and assuming flesh, the Word in our ears and His life in our history, could not be received adequately.
To contemplate the mystery of the Covenant between God and humanity – Covenant that comes from the Old Testament and that is to be extended to all men of good will – the first thing is to situate the Church in the midst of this mystery as the “vessel fully sanctified and santifying,” just like Mary, from where springs the gift of God for the life of the world. As the Pope said, citing Vatican II.
Let us consider, then, the Church-Mary that have their center in the Eucharist: the Church-Mary that lives of the Eucharist and we makes us live thans to the Eucharist. Let us consider the Church-Mary that receive from their spouse the totality of the gift of the Bread of life along with the mission of distribuiting it to all, for the life of the world.
In them the Covenant of God with the humanity is give and is received and comunicated without fissures or defect. The selfgiving to the end, by the bridegroom makes the bride –Mary/Church – all holy, purifies and always creates anew in faith and in charity and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.
I finish by saying that this reassurance of the sanctity of the Church, is not a question of personal or social privilege, but rather that the Church is ordained to service. Let me explain. As the Church always defends its integrity – as always there have been and are those who take evil advantage of the strength of an institution (which is pathetic for how reductive it is to use something so beneficent as eternal life for the pleasures of transitory life), world has the impression the Church always defends its power and it is not so. In defending its purity, its indefectibility, its sanctity as the bride, the Church is defending the “place” through which the gift of the life of God passes on to the world and the gift of the life of the world to God. This gift – the fullest expression of which is the Eucharist –is not another gift among ourselves but the supreme gift of the most intimate life of the Trinity that poured forth for the life of the world and the life of the world assumed by the Son that is offered to the Father.
.......
“In uniting to Christ, instead of sealing itself off, the People of the new Covenant are converted into a “sacrament” for all humanity, sign and instrument of salvation, in a work of Christ, into a light of the world and salt of the earth (cf. Mt 5:13-16), for the redemption of all. The mission of the Church continues that of Christ: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” (Jn 20:21). Therefore, the Church receives the spiritual strength necessary to accomplish its mission of perpetuating in the Eucharist the sacrifice of the Cross and being in communion with the body and the blood of Christ. So, the Eucharist is the source and, at the same time, the summit of all evangelization, given that its objective is the communion of men with Christ and, in Him, with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.”
from comment 14
here referring to Revelation
While ‘”metaphor” may be applied here secondaraily, it must be noted that 11:19 starts out with the temple of God being opened and the Ark of the Covenant appearing – ie: Mary. I’m sure you don’t allegorize the red dragon (Satan). Consistent exegesis would apply. Additionally, reading forward the story of the child (Christ) is clear; 12:6 in particular. God elevated “the Woman” in Genesis and this just completes the picture.
from an Amazon comment on Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett:
Hello T,
Just a few more thoughts re your comments
pertaining to the book, Four Witnesses, and the response comments you put forth
to my previous thoughts. These are in regard to Mary's
Virginity.
Protestants often point to Matt 1:25 and the word "until"
seeming to imply that Mary and Joseph had marital relations after the birth of
Jesus. The problems with this understanding is that it forces a modern English
use of "until" on the Bible. The Greek and Hebrew words for "until" means only
that some action did not happen to a certain point. It does not imply anything
changed after that time. Scholars agree on this point. Dr William Hendriksen,
for one, formerly of the Calvin Seminary in MI agrees. Consider this quotation
from Samuel: "And so Saul's daughter Michal was childless "until" the day of her
death. Are we to conclude that she bore children after her death? How about the
raven released from the ark? We read that the raven "flew back and forth "until"
the waters dried off from the earth (Gn 8:7)" Does that mean the raven returned
to the ark when the earth dried? Other examples are replete in old and new
testament.
The Catholic Church agrees with you re intercourse being
divinely approved. But that does not mean that it is divinely commanded. God
commanded Jeremiah not to marry (Jer 16.2)
In Mt 12:46-47 two references
are made to Jesus's "brothers" Similar statements appear in other passages.
Neither Aramaic or Hebrew has a separate word for brother, cousin, or uncle.
Hence the single term "adelphos" was used in scripture. In a number of
additional passages the term was used to denote an even broader meaning than
these. Additionally the named brothers of Jesus in the new testament refer to
sons of another Mary, Mary of Clophas; others the son of James, another Mary in
Mark 15:40 and probably the same Mary in Jn 19:25.
But Jesus is called
Mary's firsborn son in Luke 2:7. This objection ignores the ancient Jewish
idiomatic use of the word "firstborn" which refers to the first son of the open
womb irregardless of other children. The term was in fact a legal term under
Mosaic Law.
Some biblical bases for Mary's perpetual virginity include
the following:
1. Jesus's action at the foot of the cross, when he entrusted
his mother to John, makes no sence if Mary had other sons. The social customs of
the time would have made such an action unthinkable.
2. In the account of
Jesus being found in the temple at age 12, there is no hint of other
children.
3. In the passages that refer to Jesus's brothers, the sacred
authors are careful to only call Jesus the son of Mary, no one else.
4. In
referring to Jesus as the son of Mary (Mk 6:3), the force of the Greek implies
that was Mary's only son, not a son.
5. In the Jewish society in which Jesus
lived, younger sons never gave public advice to an older brother, much less, the
older son. Yet we see this happening in Jn 7:3-4 and Mk 3:21. These passages are
understandable, however, if these bretheren were in fact Jesus's uncles or some
other older relatives.
I'll end this simply by pointing out some views of
the reformers:
Luther, in 1546, wrote that Mary was "a virgin before the
conception and birth; she remained a virgin also at the birth and after
it".
Zwingli wrote in 1528 "I speak of this in the holy church of Zurich
and in all my writings. I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy".
Calvin
in his commentary on Matthew called objectors to Mary's perpetual virginity "pig
headed and stupid". Later he wrote that "all relatives were called
bretheren".
Of course Protestants have broken away from the beliefs of
their founders in a similar manner to their breaking away from the Catholic
faith, and continue to break away from each others beliefs in the form of
thousands of denominations, implying thousands of differing beliefs. That's a
very sad fact as far as I'm concerned. I would much preferred to have seen them
work within the Church to bring about warranted reforms. Once a breaking away
mindset begins, it seems to never end. How great would be the unity of all
Christian believers.
One other comment. It pertains to your sarcastic
comments about the unnecessary burdens laid on by Catholic beliefs, as well as
your previous presumptious comments about living more freely in the grace of
Christ than me or others. What immediately came to mind as I read such
statements and perceived their tone was the Pharisee's declaration in Luke
18:9-14.
Will get back to you on a final point.
God bless, Mike
from comment 300
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-62299
First, consider the difference between Marian devotion and the actual doctrines on Mary that have been propagated by the Church through official teaching deemed to be infallible and binding on the conscience, whether they be the immaculate conception, Mary’s assumption/dormition, her lack of sin, etc. These doctrines, I know, can be difficult to understand or appreciate from a Protestant perspective. However, as I studied each, I found the biblical warrant and logic of each, and reminded myself of what so many devout Catholics, including priests, professors, and laymen had told me: anything the Church teaches regarding Mary can only give more glory to Christ. Marian devotion, on the other hand, takes many forms – some easy to digest and accept, others which I still find either concerning or maybe dangerous. We as Catholics are not demanded to accept every form of Marian devotion as legitimate, even if taught by Alphonsus Liguori or another saint. We are only expected to believe those doctrines on Mary, or anything for that matter, taught by the Magisterium.
Second, consider that there are many “extreme” forms of Protestantism that exist. Simply because one denomination, or pastor, or religious community starts misunderstanding or misappropriating a certain teaching, doesn’t necessarily make that doctrine wrong. I’m assuming you’re currently Protestant – if a pastor or particular community were to start offering nachos and soda as communion instead of bread and wine, I hope that wouldn’t lead you to question the validity and significance of communion, but rather lead you to a more diligent reflection on what communion is or is not. Simply put, extreme forms of devotion, whether they be right or wrong, will exist in any Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox community, and don’t necessarily define what that community teaches as truth
st Augustine on mary
"O Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily give you the just dues of praise and thanksgiving, you who by the wondrous assent of your will rescued a fallen world?
"Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have to offer here, though they be unequal to your merit; and, receiving our vows, obtain by your prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience and bring forth the gift of our reconciliation....
"Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for you are the sole hope of sinners. Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God." St. Augustine of Hippo, in Thanksgiving and Prayer to Mary.
http://www.celtic-catholic-church.org/library/prayer/Marian_prayers.html
4
The incarnation begins with Mary, God´s marvelous beachhead in the redemption of humankind. Mary, the handmaid of the Lord, was made full of grace, kecharitomene, and becomes the first and greatest beneficiary of her Son´s salvific gift. As the Nicean fathers rightly stressed, Jesus was born of Mary (ex Maria virgine), not through Mary. That is, Jesus did in fact take upon himself Mary´s nature. But her nature had been made ready, had been thoroughly graced by God, so that in Mary, Jesus takes on full, true human nature, except for original sin. God´s graceful gift to Mary was fitting and proportionate to her glorious task. Yet, God´s grace requires and relies upon Mary´s yes, freely given. That is, God´s preserving Mary from original sin does not detract from her humanity nor from her freedom, but, rather, elevates them.
While as an Evangelical I was fully orthodox in my embrace of the Nicene and Chalcedonian symbols, I had missed a fundamental dimension of the incarnation. The Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been for me the easiest to accept, because it is fundamentally Christological, and the truth it expounds was clearly understood by the fathers, by Augustine and even by Luther. Immaculate Mary is the paradigm and mirror of the Church, whose glorious end is to be made “immaculate” (me echousan spilon, Eph. 5:27). This blind side of mine manifested itself in other ways. As Cantalamessa points out, the same God who became flesh in Mary´s womb also comes to us in the heart of matter, in the Eucharist, and those who cannot comprehend the former, are not likely to grasp the latter. (Cantalamessa, p.65)
From comment 10
here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/
It must be frustrating trying to bring this argument to what is in Sacred Scripture while us Catholics seem to be avoiding the issue like professional contortionists.
I don’t know if this would help, but I’ll try to explain why we are doing this.
We acknowledge that revelation came in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that the Truth He conveyed “Sets us free”. We all agree on this.
Where we disagree is how that revelation is transmitted to us. You acknowledge only method “S”, Scripture. We acknowledge “S”–Scripture, “T”–Tradition, and “M”–the Magisterium, which is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to all Truth in its interpretation and understanding of “S” and “T”.
You are trying to argue against devotion to Mary based on “S” alone, but we don’t rely on “S” alone, but also acknowledge “T” and “M”. For us to engage in discussing with only “S” as an authority would be to presume your rejection of “T” and “M”, and we could not present the full Catholic understanding, which would cripple the discussion.
It would be legitimate to discuss whether the Catholic understanding of “T” contradicts “S”. Therefore we ask you not to demand where we justify something in “S” alone, because we don’t acknowledge “S” alone. Rather, on the subject of “S”, you would need to show that the (accurate) Catholic Teaching on devotion to Mary contradicts Scripture, and not just demand that we justify it, especially since our reading of Mary’s place in Scripture is heavily influenced by “T” and “M”.
Why Fred keeps driving the point of the canon and our fallible intellects is because, as we argue, you cannot have “S” without “T” and “M”, which gets to the root of the disagreement, for if without “T” and “M”, we cannot have “S”, then, since we all agree that “S” is the inerrant word of God, you will need to acknowledge the need for “T” and “M”. But if we just sling Bible verses back and forth, from within different ways of understanding the role of the Bible and how we are to go about interpreting it, we will quite literally get nowhere.
Finally, I wanted to point out the irony of you quoting 2 Peter 2:1. We to acknowledge that; however, we also acknowledge that God intervenes and gave the Body of Christ an “Immune System”. We acknowledge that such false teachers have come: Arius, Marcion, Nestorius, … Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. However, thanks be to God, the Magisterium of the Church defended the Faith given to us by the Apostles and condemned these false teachers.
Fred is pointing out that, yes, false teachers will arise, but how do we know we aren’t being false teachers? If from the 200′s to the 1500′s no one had a problem with devotion to Mary and the saints, by what right can we say they got it wrong, but we got it right! And in such an obvious way that it would fall into the “Essentials” (I presume you believe that devotion to Mary and the Saints is a violation of the “essential doctrines).
The first, which some have pointed out, is the Angel telling Mary that the Holy Spirit will overshadow Her, like the Shekinah which filled the Tabernacle and, later, the Holy of Holies. She conceives and carries He who is the fulfillment of the contents of the Ark of the Covenant: the fulfillment of the Law (10 Commandments), the Bread of Life (Manna), and the True High Priest (Aaron’s Staff). Textual parallels between II Sam 6 and Luke 1 portray Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, and, finally, the end of Rev. 11 introduces the revealing of the Ark, which is then shown to be a woman. Finally, consider what happened to poor Uzzah when he merely touched the Ark of the Lord.
Joseph knew Mary had born within Her God Himself. As a Jew, he would have the characteristic reverence they had toward sacred objects towards Mary.
from comment 77:
Just a couple of points; first, as Fred says, if Mary were not a Perpetual Virgin, the idea of the Virgin Birth would have been undermined completely.
As I Isaiah says, “A Virgin” will give birth. Mary remained a virgin in partu. I can’t go into detail here but a Fr. Potterie brings out that in John 1, it says Jesus was not “born of bloods” in the original. Notice the plural. “Bloods” in the OT meant either menstrual or parturition blood. Contact with blood would have rendered Jesus ritually unclean. Virginity in partu proven.
another good link http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/The_%22Brethren%22_Of_The_Lord
This explains brother etc
from a comment at 156 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/
To tie up some loose ends before getting back on topic.
@ Kevin
I will repeat my earlier comment that you don’t understand the basics of Mariology. In Theology in general, one needs work from the foundation up. You can’t understand our salvation unless you understand God Himself died and rose again, you can’t understand God dying unless you understand the Incarnation, and you cannot fathom the Incarnation until you have a general idea of the Trinity. It is similar with you objections to Mary. You have received a caricature of Marian doctrine close enough to be able to object to it, but you have no exposure (I presume) the foundations of those same doctrines.
To give some general perspectives:
Any Marian doctrine or devotion that does not ultimately point to Jesus and to the Father is vain, heretical, diabolical, and should be denounced with the utmost vigor.
Any Marian doctrine or devotion that seeks to elevate Mary to a divine person is vain, heretical, diabolical, and should be denounced with the utmost vigor.
Any Marian doctrine or devotion that denies the unique role of Jesus as the sole mediator between God and man is vain, heretical, diabolical, and should be denounced with the utmost vigor.
And I say this as a member of a religious order which is “consecrated” to Mary, whose entire purpose is “to give Mary to souls, to cause them to discover and know Her, to make all Hearts love Her, availing ourselves of every means in order to that She may bring souls to Jesus and transform them into other Christs “in the swiftest, surest, most beautiful way.”
Mary is the masterpiece of God, and by loving, extolling and glorifying Her, we are loving, extolling, and glorifying God. Mary is the means God chose to come to us, and is the means He chose to bring us to Him. Mary is all about Jesus, entirely from God and for God, Her entire being was created Immaculate, United with God, so that she would be the worthy Mother of God. She cannot be understood apart from Jesus, and without realizing this fundamental fact, you cannot understand Mary.
Again, Kevin, I understand, appreciate, and applaud your jealousy for the Glory of God, the question, however, is “Does He share His glory and thereby increase it?” Consider the parables of the talents and the servants. The third servant was jealous to protect his talent for his Master, but failed to realize the Master is glorified by his servants to bring return on the gifts they received from God. You say “Soli Deo gloria,” we say “Ad maximum Dei gloriam.”
Kevin, please do read and consider. A turning point in my life, and many others here, is when I actually learned what the Church taught! I would ask you to try to understand the Catholic teaching on Mary from knowledgeable Catholics, and not simply rely on the mischaracterizations, misunderstandings, and even lies from anti-Catholics apologists. As Christians, we should seek the Truth, and not be satisfied with unTruth.
Finally, @ George (148), you may be interested in a book our publishing company just sent to the printers. It is an examination of the parallels between Catholic Scotistic thought and Eastern Orthodoxy (particularly Palamas and Mark Eugenicus).
from comment239 on the ctc link:
Maybe it becomes more clear that adelphos can also mean kindred when we read that the parents of James and Joseph are Clopas and Mary, the wife of Clopas. Compare John 19:25, Matthew 27:56, and Mark 15:40.
from comment 232
Reformer Turretin’s defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Hence Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites (so-called because they were opponents of [antidikoi] Mary)are deservedly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin (aei Parthenon). They held that she cohabited with Joseph after delivery; yea, also bore children from him. As Augustine remarks, they rely on the shallowest arguments, i.e., because Christ is called the ‘firstborn’ of Mary (cf. De Haeresibus 56, 84 [PL 42.40, 46]). For as Jerome well remarks, she was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because there was another after him. Hence among lawyers: ‘He is the first whom no one precedes; he is last, whom no one follows.’ The Hebrews were accustomed to call the firstborn also only begotten; Israel is called ‘the first-born of God’ (Ex 4:22), although the only people chosen of God. Thus ‘the firstborn’ is said to be ‘holy unto God’ (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another offspring had been procreated (the law shows this to be false because it commands it to be redeemed a month after birth, Num. 18:16).
Not more solidly have they been able to elicit this from the fact that in the New Testament certain ones are called ‘the brothers of Christ.’ It is common in Scripture not only for one’s own and full brothers by nature to be designated by this name, but also blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called brothers of Christ (Mt. 13:55) by a relation of blood. For Mary (who is called their mother by Matthew and Mark) is called by John the sister of the Lord’s mother. However what is said in Jn. 7:5 that ‘neither did his brethren believe him’ must be understood of more remote blood relations.
Nor is it derived better from this-that Joseph is said ‘not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son’ (Mt. 1:25). The particles ‘till” and ‘even unto’ are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future-cf. Gen 28:15; Pss 122:2; 110:1;Mt.28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained form her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child ‘before they came together’ (prin e synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not subsequent affirmed.
Although copulation had not take place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith, but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring.”
[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 345–346.]
comment 54: To that final question, one can simply read Matthew’s own words in 12:46-49, and 13:55.”
It isn’t that simple Ted. When you follow the parallel passages of the Gospels, you see that James and Joses (Joseph) are the children of the “other Mary” who is also called the sister of Jesus’ mother in John 19:25. Even if you dispute whether there were 3 or 4 women at the cross (since there were no original commas), the mother of James and Joses parallels with the wife of Clopas.
We then see that Judas (Jude) claims to be the brother of James. So this now shows three of the brothers of Christ listed in Matt. 13:55.
How likely is it that Jesus also had three brothers with these same names which are specifically called out in scripture?
Also in Galatians, we see that Paul saw Peter in Jerusalem and no other apostles except for James, the Lord’s brother. Of the two apostles James (Jacob) listed in scripture, neither are the sons of Joseph.
Then of course we see Jesus giving His mother to John and vice-versa (John 19:26-27) as his last action before drinking the sour wine and taking His last breath on the cross.
The care of Mary would have passed to her children, yet she went to live with John from that moment on. Would Jesus have violated the spirit of the Law by taking His mother away from her children? Even so with His “brother” James being the leader of the church in Jerusalem?
It might be of assistance if you read Papias from the late 1st or early 2nd century on the relations of the women at the cross. He also shows that those brethren of the Lord were not blood brothers.
It also would be of value to read the full text of St. Jerome’s response to the Arian Helvidius. (Against Helvidius – “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary”). John Calvin cited Jerome’s work in his agreement with the doctrine.
I think this also speaks to the original post about literal usage of terms like adelphos (from the same womb) which can lead to an etymological fallacy when insisting on a literal translation. The term is used for multiple types of relations in scripture.
