Our Tainted Nature's Solitary Boast The Marian Dogmas Neil Patterson Originally published in Issue II of Vulgata,  November, 2001.

There are four attributes of Mary that the Church has defined with the stamp of infallibility:  Mary, Mother of God; Mary, immaculately conceived; Mary, perpetually virgin; and Mary, assumed into heaven.  There are so many more things that can be said about our Blessed Mother, but these are the four basics.  Although they are the source of much debate between Catholics and Protestants, the basic proofs of them are quite plain to anyone who is willing to follow them through, or as St. Jerome would say: to deny any of these dogmas is "novel, wicked and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world."  With that firmly in mind, let's begin.

Mary, Mother of God

By this the church means that Mary was the mother of both Jesus' human and divine natures.  To say that Mary only bore Christ's human nature is to fall into the heresy of Nestorius, which was dealt with over fifteen hundred years ago.  Nestorianism doesn't make much sense if one understands the way in which Jesus is both fully man and fully God.  If only Jesus the man was in Mary's womb, then his divine person must have been added later, perhaps at birth.  But this implies a separation of his human and diving natures, in a sense creating two persons -- Jesus-God and Jesus-man -- in one body.

This does not mean that His divine nature came from her.  Just as your mother did not create your soul and is yet your mother, Mary did not create Jesus' divine nature and yet is His mother.

Mary, Immaculately Conceived

The immaculate conception is the doctrine that states that Mary was conceived without sin.  Just as in Jesus "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9), Mary must be "full of grace" (Luk 1:28).  Not only is the immaculate conception supported in scripture, one can argue that it is logically necessary.  When Gabriel greeted Mary, he used the proper name (Kecharitomene in Greek) which means "one who is full of grace".  This is literally true.  The source of all grace is God and she had God in her womb.  She was full of grace.  As you can see, "highly favoured daughter" is hopelessly understated.  A fullness of grace is a state of perfection.  If a glass is full of water, no more can be added to it.  If Mary is full of grace, there is no further grace that could be given to her. We know that by grace our sins are washed away.  Therefore, Mary must be free of sin, particularly original sin.

Romans 3:23 ("all have sinned") is often presented as a simple swift refutation to the immaculate conception.  Luckily, at some point over the past two thousand years, Catholic biblical scholars noticed this and remarked that St. Paul must have been using hyperbole since we can think of other obvious exceptions to this rule: e.g. children before the age of reason, the severely mentally disabled and Jesus.

I should also like to point out, in reference to Luke 1:47 and innumerable other passages, Jesus is the Saviour of all mankind including Mary.  It is only because of his redemptive power that Mary was without sin.

Mary, Assumed into Heaven

Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven."  It is true that there is no explicit scriptural proof of this doctrine, but Scripture does tell us that it is possible and, if one accepts the above arguments for the Immaculate Conception, it follows logically.

We know that Enoch was assumed into heaven (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5), as was Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-12) so it is not unheard of for very holy people to be saved from the corruption of their flesh.  This makes sense, since death (and therefore corruption) are a result of original sin.  So it is fitting, perhaps even necessary, that Mary, who was without original sin, was saved from its effects.

No one has ever fulfilled the commandments of God better than Jesus, Who could only do His own will, so does it not make sense that He honour His mother and save her from the disgrace of bodily decay?  If God is willing to bodily assume other very holy people, why would he not assume his own mother?

Another interesting thing to note is the lack of relics of Mary.  The church during its first thousand years had a much greater love of relics than it does today, and yet we see no one claiming to have the relics of the Blessed Virgin.  If there were any (i.e. if she had not been assumed) they would have been the most sought after objects in Christendom and very famous.  Furthermore, if they had existed, no one would have professed the Assumption.

Mary, Ever Virgin

Mary, although she was married to St. Joseph, remained a virgin throughout her entire life.  I am sure that everyone is familiar with Mary's question to the Angel Gabriel  after the Annunciation "how can this be, for I am a virgin?" (Luk 1:34).  I am always astounded at how such a direct passage fails to convince my Protestant brothers of Mary's perpetual virginity, but I shall nonetheless work through it logically as many apologists before me have.

There are two ways to interpret that sentence.  Either Mary is saying that she is a virgin at this particular moment (her current state is virginity) or she has taken a life-long vow of virginity (her perpetual state is virginity).  Very few other words work this way in English.  For example if I said, "I am thirsty" it is clear that I do not mean I am perpetually thirsty, but that I am currently in that state.  Conversely, if I said, "I am a man" it is clear that that is a perpetual state that will not change.

On the surface, it would seem that Mary is simply saying that her current state is virginity since she is betrothed to St. Joseph.  However, her statement is in response to the Angel Gabriel's announcement that she will bear a child.  Imagine if you went to a soon-to-be-married couple and told them that they were going to have a child.  Their response would not be "how is this possible", children often follow very closely after marriage.  The only way Mary's response makes sense is if she is a perpetual virgin, not just in a current state of virginity.

There are about ten passages in the Bible that mention the brothers or sisters of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31-34, 6:4; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; 7:1-5; 7:10; Acts 1:14 etc.) However, this is by no means a proof that Mary had other children.  We know that the word "brother" can refer to other male relatives or even just people of the same city (Amos 1:9).  In many translations, 1 Samuel 20:32 says that Saul is Jonathan's brother, when he is his father.  Similarly, Genesis 14:12 refers to Abraham's nephew, Lot as his brother and again with Jacob and Laban (Gen 29:15).  In Hebrew and Aramaic there is no separate words to differentiate among male kinsmen.  When the Old Testament and the Gospels were being translated into Greek, the translators used the word adelphos, which means brother.  Some of the best recent English translations (particularly the Ignatius) have cleared up the confusion by using more accurate terms.

Therefore, it is certainly possible that the "brothers" of Jesus are his cousins or even just his friends and followers.  If they were his brothers, why don't they get more mention than they do?  Why weren't they proclaimed as saints by the early or medieval church?

It also seems both unfit and ridiculous to suggest that same womb which bore God bore fallen humans.  Blessed is the fruit of the womb of Mary: Jesus and only Jesus, not Jesus and an unknown number of unknown people.

An Appeal

Even if one of my Protestant brothers does not accept the above four truths about Mary, I would like to at least convince him of the great injustice he and his fellow Protestants have done to her.  In attempting to distance themselves from what they see as Catholic Mary-worshipping they have forgotten her altogether!  Mary said that all generations would call her "blessed" (Luk 1:48).  Why should Protestants have any objection to honouring her in the smallest of ways -- referring to her as the Blessed Virgin Mary?  She is also the mother of the Church (however a Protestant wants to define that term), for the Church is the body of Christ and she is the mother of Christ.   So I ask my brothers in Christ why would you have a church service without even mentioning the mother of God?  And what reason have you to reject her?  She is John's mother as she is ours and what could she possibly do other than show her children the blessed fruit of her womb, Jesus Christ.