taff Apologist, John Pacheco, went "undercover" to expose and refute the Anti-Marian agenda of some former Roman Catholics.  Using the board handle of "Mathias1", John secretly slipped into NTRMin's public discussion board just before Dr. Eric and crew required positive ID for board members.  After a few rather light discussions with board participants, Dr. Eric weighed in against "Mathias1" by beguiling his followers with a rather long and seemingly impressive response against Her Majesty.  Unfortunately for "Mathias1", he was unable to post his rebuttal to Dr. Eric because of an unfortunate leak which got "Mathias1" booted from the board.  (Drat, those private e-mails!)

There is not one hint of Mary "opposing Jesus' mission" in all of Scripture, much less any "confrontation". It is far from coherent to suggest that the woman who knew Jesus was divine and consented to bear his very person would later come to "confront and oppose him". For what purpose? And how is that consistent with her total self-giving to God at the annunciation?

No, that is incorrect. She has no special status insofar as her maternity tries to directly approach His divinity. However, insofar as her maternity and Christ's humanity is concerned, she does have a very special status, as all mothers do with their sons. And precisely because of the mystery of the incarnation and the indissoluble hypostatic union of His two natures through one person, Mary has indeed indirect access and influence with the Godhead via Christ's human nature - the degree of which, quite obviously, no one else can reach.

That's rather comical considering Eric's citation of St. Augustine later on. St. Augustine seems to take an opposing view of the matter; namely, that Our Lord did not recognize his Mother at Cana but did so at the Crucifixion!

There is no "severing of biological ties" in Augustine's estimation, nor does Holy Scripture ever hint at such a wild and drunken speculation.

What are these verse(s) in question which indicate that he "severed his biological ties"? There are none. Also, severing his sonship to Mary would constitute a great dishonor to His Mother, and for what purpose? To reward her for standing at the foot of the cross while His "followers" were cowering in some hole somewhere? Eric must be delusional.

According to whom? Eric or their pupils?

Well, I am rather astounded that Eric would make such a statement on the patristics concerning Mary. The Fathers writings of Mary are very Catholic and legion.

Since Eric mentions Basil, here is something from him:

Basil also went on to describe Mary as having "God-bearing flesh" and claiming that her womb was the "workshop of this economy". Indeed, St. Basil had lots of nice Catholic things to say about the Blessed Mother. He might not have touched on her mediation explicitly, but then again I don't think it's fair to demand any single Father, who was many times embroiled in a particular kind of Marian-related controversy, to give his views on a doctrine which was not an issue when he lived. Basil also believed that Mary was theotokos.

A true mother of any son is, by her natural and maternal role, a mediator in the family. All of us recognize that as a natural truth. Some people may disagree with me, but I think for the most part, the majority would concede this point. Mothers are always acting as conciliators and mediators in a family - that's part of their job.

If Mary is truly the Mother of God, then she is also a mediator with God and in particular her Son. It seems to me that if Eric were to concede that Mary is the Mother of God, the development of her as mediatrix is hardly a huge theological jump. And, as he should know, Mary as theotokos is the buzz word for orthodoxy at Ephesus and Chalcedon. But then again, because he has sought to sever such a link between mother and son as he has indicated above, then I guess he doesn't have to worry about Mary being either Mother of God and much less a mediatrix. The thing about theotokos is that it provides the foundation for all Marian doctrines. Accept it and the others are just a stone's throw away.

Well, I would agree, of course, that all Christians are in a profound and deep sense mediators with Christ. When you witness to someone, you are fulfilling your duty as an ambassador of Christ, and the job of an ambassador is to mediate:

Two things to reflect carefully on:

1) St. Paul attributes Christ's mediation THROUGH the body;

2) St. Paul's appeal is ON BEHALF of Christ. This makes St. Paul a type of mediator between the world and Christ.

The mediation of the members of the body is predicated and draws its power and authority from the supreme mediation of Christ who is the true and only mediator between God and men. To say that Jesus is the only mediator does not preclude his body from participating in that mediation. How could it? There is, after all, only ONE BODY OF CHRIST (Cf. Romans 7:4, Romans 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph. 3:6, Eph. 4:4,12,16,25, Eph. 5:23, Col 1:18, Col 3:15)! What it does exclude, however, is another way to the Father through, for instance, another prophet or religion. In existing as the body of Christ, individual members of this body are not set against Christ in His mediation, but act as a sort of conduit through which He works in this world (Cf. Rom. 15:18). Hence, our mediation is a logical corollary to this great truth since the body cannot be separated from the Head (Cf. 1 Cor 11:3). Or, as St. Paul asks the contentious Corinthians: Is Christ now divided? (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:13) Since Christ lives through his mystical body in this world, so too therefore does His mediation.

In the incarnational economy of Christianity, this mediation provides a very logical basis for Mary's particular place in it. The only issue remaining is one of degree of this subordinate mediation which all Christians share. The New Testament (along with the Old) is replete with hierarchical evidence of preference: angels (Col. 1:16, Eph.3:10, Romans 8:38, Jude 1:9, 1 Thes. 4:16, Luke 1:26); the Apostles over their appointed ministers (Cf. Acts 15, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Thes 3:2); within the Apostles themselves (Cf. Matthew 17:1-4, Mark 5:37, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:32-33, Luke 22:8, Galatians 2:9); and those who will sit at God's right hand (Cf. Mark 10:40). Even St. John has always been considered the "beloved disciple", the "one whom Jesus loved".

In regards to Mary, her particular mediation to Christ is more significant than any other Christian because:

i) She was closer to Christ physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, and temporally than any human being has ever been.

ii) She proximately supplied the very flesh that would redeem the world (Cf. Genesis 2:23). Christian redemption is based on the flesh of Christ. On that basis alone, Mary's place is special and unique. She was, after all, the place where God incarnated himself: where the word was made flesh - the central point in human history occurring within her very womb. Nothing else compares to this. On that basis alone, she herself is a profound mediation since through her womb, mediation was incarnated.

iii) She was Jesus' first, most obedient and loyal, and oldest disciple. She loved Jesus the most. And love (not faith) is the greatest of all the theological virtues (Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13).

iv) She is the principal human participant in the inauguration of human salvation. Her womb was the place where salvation itself became a reality. She inaugurates the beginning of Jesus public ministry. And she is the bridge which links birth of the Messiah to His death on a cross to the birth of the Church: "Woman, behold your Son" just as she was the bridge between God and Man since God became Man WITHIN her.

Much more, of course, could be added, but the above examples are sufficient for my purpose. All of this certainly qualifies her for a special mediatorial role within the Christian Church. Certainly, speaking for myself, I can say that her mediation is substantially more than my own, but perhaps I am underestimating Eric's mediation in the body. I will therefore defer judgement on whether he thinks his particular contribution is as great as the Virgin's. I know he thinks his book Who Is My Mother is something special, but it would have to be rather exceptional to surpass the hosting of the Incarnation.

To attack Mary's identity is, as Nestorius (Cyril's opponent) and Valentinus (Basil's opponent) attempted to do, to obscure and destroy the authentic identity of Christ. She is invariably brought into the picture in order to protect Jesus.

Because space does not permit me to go into a number of heresies that directly bear on Mary's role, I will instead confine myself to a few.

Let us first look at Nestorianism. Let me first begin by citing the very FIRST of the 12 Anathemas of Ephesus (431 A.D.):

"If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is theotokos for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema."

If Mary is not central to protecting Christ's person, as understood in our common Trinitarianism, then why is theotokos used in the very first anathema? I'll tell you why: because by defining who Mary is, you define who Christ is, and by denying who Mary is, you effectively deny who Christ is. That's why she is mentioned in the very FIRST anathema in the list.

They did this, of course, in response to Nestorius who tried to push the idea that Christ was two persons, and so he identified Mary not as Theotokos (God Bearer) but rather Christokos (Christ Bearer). Leo, who became Pope twenty years later, commissioned John Cassian to refute Nestorius. What follows are a few of his criticisms of Nestorius in his monumental work which has been entitled:

The Seven Books of St. John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius

In the citations below, I think one will see why Mary is so central to guarding Our Lord's divinity:

In order to safeguard Jesus' true identity as God and Man, and all of the terms that follow from that (i.e. substances, natures, wills, persons, hypostasis, etc.) it was necessary for the Church to identify the SOURCE from which all these things came. One source is God and the other is Mary. Hence, it is no great surprise to find the Church Fathers appealing to Mary and her identity to define who Jesus was! This is testified to by the very next Ecumenical Council after Ephesus:

Notice what the Council states? It says that by refusing to apply God-bearer to Mary, the heretic ends up "corrupting the mystery of the Lord's economy" and "ruin[ing] the proclamation of the truth". Those are rather strong words to be directed at "believers" who refuse to accept the title of a woman who, according to her detractors, is not central to the gospel message, not the least of which is the divinity of Jesus Himself!

The patristic witness and concilliar witness to this issue is quite clear: Mary's identity does indeed protect Jesus' identity as God incarnate.

And not only did the Fathers and the Councils appeal to Mary's identity to help define and protect Jesus' divinity, but they also did so to protect is humanity.

Here are selected citations from Pelikan's Mary Through the Centuries:

In that sense, therefore, she is central because her role cannot be ignored in grasping the fullness of who Jesus Christ really is. If she were not central, she would never have been an issue. The fact that our common heritage appeals to her identity vindicates my position and not Eric's.

This is simply a gratuitous assertion on Eric's part. The heretics appealed to the Bible to butress their positions as well. When such terms like substances, natures, persons, wills, etc. started being thrown around - concepts, by the way, not exactly having an abundant depth in the Bible - the Church had to respond in order to squash various forms of subordinationism. That's why Eric and his fundy friends must consistently appeal to the Fathers and Concilliar decrees to salvage orthodox Christology and Trinitarianism. Without them and the definitions that they provide, his "biblical position" alone is not worth a hill of beans. It's merely one possible interpretation among a plethora of them. To substantiate his position, he must have some semblance of continuity of his non/anti-Marian beliefs, which quite certainly, he does not.

Mary's significance cannot be merely restricted to the Bible, but must be understood within the entirety of Church history. If Mary's role was insignificant to the Church, she would never have retained the prominence that she has received throughout history: the Fathers and the Councils' glowing testimony of her are replete throughout their writings, deliberations, and definitions. As explained above, her role and identity are often central to Christianity's central tenets. Those are the uncompromising facts of Christian orthodoxy. One simply cannot ignore her central significance in formulating the definitions that formed what even Eric considers to be 'orthodox' Christology (mind you, with Eric's recent escapades into Christology, this might not be completely true any longer). As my two examples above demonstrated, when the heretics attacked Our Lord's identity - whether human or divine - Mary's identity was used by the Church to squash their teachings.

In a short while, Mark Bonocore will provide us with an insightful look into why some of the Eastern Fathers might have believed this. For the time being, let us ponder this little detail:

Yet despite this limitation in Chrysostom's view, he still has the courage to say:

Augustine wrote these words in defense of Our Lord's humanity against the Manichaens who advocated doceticism - a heresy which denied the true humanity of Jesus. Augustine used this text as an apologetic to demonstrate that, indeed, Our Lord was human.

Unlike Eric Svendsen, Augustine approaches this text with a certain sensitivity and delicacy by recognizing the "mystery" of Our Lord's actions as if to imply that one should not be so hasty to form presumptious conclusions about Our Lord's words to His Mother. There would be no need, indeed it would have been wholly superflous, to insert the phrase "in a mystery" unless it was to save readers from jumping to false and premature conclusions about Our Lord's disposition toward His mother. Unfortunately, by not recognizing such delicacy on the part of Augustine, Eric exposes, yet again, the blunt instrument he uses in exegeting patristic texts.

First, the "repelling" in question is only an apparent one. It is not real. Our Lord did not grant requests on the basis of a sin (i.e. in this case, a sin of presumption.) The point of Our Lord's words is simply this: "on the basis of my divinity, you have no claim. But on the basis of my humanity and your maternity, you do." Hence, by His words, he defines and claims his Divinity, but by granting her request, he recognizes his mother's influence over Him, even though, as He says, "it is not my time". Whose time? God's time. Here we see the dynamic interplay of the hypostatic union where the humanity of Jesus "trumps" His divinity for the love of His mother. Therefore, on the basis of His divinity, she had no claim. On the basis of His humanity, which she supplied, she does.

Second, Augustine believed that Mary was sinless:

"We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." (On Nature and Grace, Ch.42)

Hence, when he speaks of Jesus "repelling" His Mother, it cannot mean that he believed her to sin (i.e. through the sin of presumption). As Mark Bonocore will explain later on, the concept of "venial sins" had not yet been fully developed by Augustine. This explains why in the discourse cited above, Augustine can attribute a "repelling" by Jesus of His Mother yet at the same time maintain that she never sinned. The most likely explanation for Augustine's interpretation of the passage, therefore, is that he wanted to emphasize that Our Lord was truly human, and once again, Augustine, like many Fathers and Councils will do after him, used Mary in order to do it.

Third, here is the context of the text in question:

Why did Eric leave out the second part of Augustine's comments? -

"but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection [the mother] by whom He had become man."

The answer, of course, is because Mary is presented in a very favorable light being "commended with human affection" to St. John. What is rather apparent from the context of Augustine's apologetic is that he is attempting to demarcate between Our Lord's divinity and His humanity. The purpose of his attack on docetic Christology is not to demote Mary but to defend Christ's humanity. Any fair, sober consideration of Augustine's writings could not help but come to this conclusion.

Here is the context of that passage with Eric's citation in red:

I do not see in this discourse a strict "reprimand" by Jesus. Irenaeus' point is not emphasing the "What have I to do with you" part but the "mine hour has not yet come" part. This is clearly seen by the fact that the whole passage is talking about God's inscrutable timing for divine revelation. No one is disputing that Mary's time table for a miracle was not the same as Our Lord's - that much is obvious - but this does not necessarily gravitate to interpreting Irenaeus' comments as a strict "reprimand". It is more like a reminder (albeit somewhat stern, granted) from Jesus to His mother that His hour had not yet come. Even the saintly Fathers of our common heritage disagreed with one another, after all. There is no great scandal in that. Mary was human, after all, and she, like all of us, was ignorant of God's plans. She was not ominiscient. The key point of contention for Eric is to show that Mary's action was a sin which would have been met with a strict reprimand (Cf. Galatians 2:11 ff). That and precisely that is what wins the prize on this question. If Mary did not sin on this occasion (which is my contention), then he has no basis for appealing to this passage as evidence of Mary being reprimanded in the strict sense.

As a Mother, she requested from the PERSON of her Son a favor. As God, He reminds her that she has no claim on His divinity. However, as her Son, she does have such a claim. That is why He performs the miracle - because the Divine Son has forever tied Himself to his humanity and all that that entails - which includes obedience to His human mother. Since therefore one cannot separate Christ's humanity from His divinity (which is a truth that all Trinitarians affirm), then neither can one nullify the Mother's "pull" with her Son either. As Mother to his sacred humanity, she has maternal rights over her Son, and because the sacred humanity is "of one accord" with Jesus' divinity, then that means that Mary has indirect access to divinity itself by virtue of the hypostatic union - a union, it must be stressed, she had a central role in forming. Moreover, the fact that the Lord granted her request could hardly support the contention of the strict reprimand which would have been necessitated by a sin of presumption. If the Lord strictly "reprimands" someone, He does not then grant the request and reward the sin which was, only a few seconds before, scolded.

But since Eric has brought up Irenaeus as a witness against Mary, let me provide the viewing audience with Irenaeus' glowing praises of her:

An "advocate" who "rescues the human race"? I thought Jesus was the only advocate who did that? Apparently the saintly Father saw no false dichotomy between Mother and Son which Eric has sought to manufacture. Evidence such as this teaching, so early (Against Heresies was written around 180 A.D.) in Christian history, provides the basis for such doctrines of Mary as Co-Mediatrix. An advocate is, after all, a mediator.

Catholic Apologist Mark Bonocore provides some valuable thoughts on this question:

Incidentally, here are a few selected citations from the same Theodoret Dialogue which Eric quoted. Very Marian, I should say….

The first thing we should immediately notice about this passage is that it is a "mini-Catholic Gospel" - all of the elements are there: a problem, an intercession of a saint, God's hearing and granting of the intercession, movement by the saint to solve the problem, co-operation of the servants, sacramentals, dispensers, a taste of the heavenly gift, joy and contentment.

Now to Eric's points….Firstly, even if the passage is seen as a reproach or distancing of Our Lord, it is only an apparent or masked one as I have already argued. Nevertheless, Eric's interpretation of the passage is far from certain. The phrase in question could be as a certain distancing, but then again it might not be.

First and foremost, there is the issue of the grammatical range of the Greek phrase in question. The idiomatic expression occurred in Greek, but most take it to be a Greek Translation of a Hebrew idiomatic Semitism. Here is a sample of positions, most of which are at variance with Eric's:

Yet, despite the testimony of these sources, Eric makes the following curious claim: "if in every place it occurs-whether in the LXX, the NT, classical Greek literature, Hellenistic Greek literature, or classical and later Latin literature-this phrase always and without exception carries a negative connotation of reproach, it is precarious in the extreme to suggest we should render it differently in our present passage just because Mary happens to be the recipient." This is a very strange statement indeed considering the wide divergance of opinion on the matter. How is it that all of the scholarly sources cited above account for their opinion? Do they not have at least some historical or grammatical basis for their opinion? I should think that they most certainly do. So the question is: how can Eric make such a categorical and comprehensive claim? He seems to be rather more optimistic of his opinion than he ought to be.

Apart from the issue of grammar, the contextual problems of Eric's position are also legion. The connotation of reproach is determined by the immediate context of the passage, and not necessarily by the idiom of speech.

First, as Brown had indicated above, one Old Testament passage, 2 Samuel 16:10, does not necessarily support Eric's contention of an absolute or exceptionless rule regarding "what to me and to you", the problems with the other sources I cited notwithstanding.

The above passage does not suggest an opposition between David and Abishai. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite. The context clearly reveals that David and Abishai are on the same side. At the very least, it is possible to render the text: What does that have to do with us, you sons of Zeruiah?

Second, all of the New Testament passages Eric cites above in support of his position involve a demon possessed man (Cf. Matt 8:29, Mark 1:24, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34, Luke 8:28). In fact, there are simply two scenarios in the New Testament involving "what to me and to you": one involving demons and the other involving Mary. This hardly represents a sufficient population from which to draw an exceptionless rule.

Third, all of the passages cited in support of his position (with the exception of 2 Samuel 16:10 perhaps) presuppose a diametrical opposition between the participants in light of their immediate or past history. There exists no such history between Jesus and His mother. Therefore, because of the lack of evidence for a diametrical opposition, the context of the immediate passage must take precedence in determining what Jesus meant.

Fourth, Mary is the first disciple to publically identify and profess Jesus' divinity. She asks something of Him that neither man or woman could yet know nor that mortal man could fulfill. Jesus recognizes that his Mother knows and understands His mission - otherwise his reply "My hour has not yet come" would make little sense as she would naturally know what He meant. This interplay shows the intense intimacy between Mother and Son - both of them and only them knowing the truth of who Jesus was.

Fifth, the distancing of Jesus, if that view were taken, is not in itself a categorical distancing but only a temporary one. Hence, Jesus tells his mother that the time is not yet here. If Our Lord simply wanted to distance himself from His mother and put her in "her place", then it would be very strange for Him to "temporalize" the situation, and deflect attention away from his alleged reprimand.

Sixth, if Mary understood Jesus' comments as a reproach, her whole response and reaction would reflect that. She, as a disciple, would quietly leave her Son alone after such an allegedly strong rebuke. But does that happen? No. The exact opposite happens. She orders the servants to "do whatever Jesus tells them to do". In other words, in faith she expects Jesus to do what she had asked. Unless Mary received Jesus words positively or without reproach, then her whole response would have made little sense, especially in light of her humble nature. Such an exegetical position would effectively fall out with the revealed character of this humble servant of the Lord. On the other hand, if Mary understood Jesus words without reproach, this would explain why Mary does not skip a beat but orders the servants to do what He says. If he was distancing himself from her, it would be kind of presumptuous for her to tell the servants to await his orders; and it would be rather bizarre for Jesus to distance himself from her but then do precisely what she wanted in the first place in the very next verse!

This handmaid knew God's mercy and love more than any other, entrusting the servants to Jesus' instruction. Seeing her faith, Jesus responds, and He responds is a big way, performing his first public miracle at her bequest. And under what circumstances is the miracle performed? Under filial protest(?) and maternal intercession, no less!

If the Son is understood to include Mary in his plan of salvation, then this effectively puts a Marian spin on the passsage. If, on the other hand, the Son is understood to protest at her request, it only shows that His love for her surpasses the timing of the plan of salvation. Either way, Mary comes out smelling like the rose that she is.

Finally, Jesus grants Mary's request despite it not being "His time". What is the signficance of this? How can God be moved to change the timing of salvation history by a mere human's request? Who can change God's mind? The only person that I can recall that did that was Moses, and he was some kind of intercessor.

Yes, and that is the very interesting thing about Jesus' address. If He were trying to deflect attention from her, then He would simply refer to her the way everyone else refers to their own mother by calling her "Mother". By calling her "Woman", He is drawing attention not only to Himself and to His divinity but to her as well. If He were to refer to her as "Mother" or "Mary", there would have been no apparent significance to His address, but by referring to her with such an enigmatic title, one is forced to recognize it. Either He is demoting His mother, or He is elevating her in a mysterious way. The stakes are high indeed.

Yes, and we are compelled to conclude that Jesus either insulted His mother by such a common address or He had some other intention. Calling someone "woman" might be considered polite to a stranger, but it might not qualify as such to one's own mother.

And yet, it would have been an even more bizarre address for Jesus to call his Mother by her first name. In fact, if He were to do that, one could argue that such an address would not close the distance between Mother and Son, but rather widen it. The fact that when Jesus addresses Mary, He only refers to her as "woman", and not by any other title.

Yet, the example of the woman caught in adultery seems to contradict you. In that instance, Our Lord used the title to express His respect towards a prostitute, and close the distance between Him and her and widen the distance between Him and the mob:

Again, whether it is polite to address one's mother as "woman" is a matter of dispute.

I find it rather remarkable that anyone would suggest that, in all His 33 years, Jesus would never refer to his mother as "Mother". The fact that there is no explicit and direct reference to Jesus calling Mary "mother" proves little if anything at all. Indeed, He never referred to his alleged uterine brothers or sisters by "Brother" or "Sister" but that hardly discourages Helvidians from considering them to be so. The Gospel of John mentions that Mary was indeed His Mother (Cf. John 2:1,3,5,12, John 19:25-26), and that is all that is required for a theological truth. Mary was Jesus' Mother, and Jesus was God. Furthermore, Jesus refers to His mother as "woman" a sum total of two times - once at the beginning of His Ministry (John 2:4, John 19:26) and once at the end. This would suggest that, far from attributing a very common position to Mary, He was actually elevating it. But more on this later.

Throughout Eric's books and writings, it is more than evident that he has an anti-sacramental prejudice. Although he will not concede it, this prejudice and the consequential attacks on Marian truths has inevitably lead to an attack on the Incarnation itself. He makes it a point to emphasize - time and time again - that "Mary's physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed." Yet, this assertion is quite gnostic in its undertone, and it is a half-truth at best; a distortion at worst. Throughout his writings, he seeks to separate the physical order from the spiritual order. Yet, seemingly oblivious to him, is that his attack is ultimately directed at the Incarnation which is the epitome of spirit and matter. But let us digress a bit…

Jesus does not demote the physical order per se in order to elevate the spiritual order. Both, being created by Him, are good and holy. To make such an arbitrary and ridiculous separation would be bordering on gnosticism.

The physical order is good. The spiritual order is better. There is no necessary conflict between them. However, when a conflict does occur (i.e. when someone elevates the physical ties over (or at the expense of) the spiritual ones), Jesus instructs us to put the spiritual ones over the physical ones. This is the significance of Jesus' teaching about renouncing family for the sake of the gospel. (Cf. Mark 10:29-30, Luke 14:26, Luke 18:29). It is also the basis for Jesus teaching about his spiritual family (Cf. Matthew 12:48, Mark 3:33, Luke 8:21). Spiritual growth must not be inhibited by the physical order or uterine family ties.

In the case of Mary, however, a curious lacuna develops in the New Testament concerning the aforementioned principle. Mary's physical motherhood was generated by her spiritual assent and obedience to the Word of God, and thus was in complete harmony with the will of God. Indeed, it was the will of God that she bear his very person and thereby become the mother of God! In her case, she became the spiritual Mother of God by her obedience and assent before she became the physical Mother of God. Mary could not have been the Mother of God through the physical order before becoming the Mother of God through the spiritual order. As such, in her particular case, she had to be both or neither. Mary is the prime example of the physical and spiritual order being perfectly balanced. Whereas Eve was an instrument of spiritual and physical division between man and God, Mary becomes God's instrument in mitigating and mediating that division through Jesus.

Mediation in the Body is predicated on how much the person did God's will. Since only one human person consented to bring about the Incarnation, that puts her in an exclusive club in the order of mediation.

I fail to see how this establishes Eric's point. The pattern of request-rebuff-compliance only causes us to look more closely at the object of the apparent rebuff. In fact, if we examine the Scriptures carefully, what we learn is quite revealing. Let's take a look at the first of Eric's citations:

What admirable qualities do we see exhibited here? Answer: persistence and faith. If Eric wants to remain consistent in his analysis above and attribute these qualities to Jesus' mother, I would be very amenable to accepting it.

No. He does not "comply" at all. The context of the passage is one of clear hostility between Jesus and his brothers. Jesus does not grant their "request". Instead, the Gospel recounts that after "having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee" (v.9) and did not go to Judea. He responded this way as a rebuke and a refusal to their goading. It is only after "His brothers had gone up to the feast, [that] He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret." (John 7:10) so as to not give the impression of compliance.

As an aside, it must be remarked that the brothers do not engage in a respectful "request" at all but rather more of a taunt. Contrast their belligerent provocation to Jesus in this passage, for instance, to Mary's motherly request in John 2. Both parties are trying to invoke Jesus' divinity. The brothers do it their way - through the flesh; Mary does it through the spirit. Moreover, Jesus was likely already planning to go to Judea but ended up delaying His decision because of the "negative intercession" of His brothers. We can contrast this to the events at Cana: Jesus was not planning to begin his public ministry at Cana; but here again, He changed His mind because of the "positive interecession" of His mother. The disposition between the the two parties is like night and day, and only further seeks to portray the Blessed Mother in an even more positive light. It shows that she was on the side of Her Son, and not Jesus' "brothers" at all, as Eric attempts to suggest in Mark 3.

Again, we see the same themes demonstated with this woman as we did earlier with the nobleman: perserverance and faith.

As demonstrated above, the instances Eric has pointed out only seek to further erode, and certainly do not strengthen, his position. Two of them showed perserverance and faith; the other showed faithlessness. All of the episodes cited, however, only further highlight Mary's obedience and trust at Cana.

Insofar as a "special relationship to her" goes, this is testified by the fact that it was through her intercession that 1) Jesus begins His public ministry and 2) His divinity is first gloriously manifested. In other words, while 30 years earlier she gave birth to His humanity at Bethlehem, she now brings forth His Divinity. She therefore shows herself to be the first of Jesus' disciples and the first to know and induce his Godhood.

Another signficant fact is Jesus' comment about "His hour". He says in the Gospel that: "My hour has not yet come." In spite of this, however, Jesus grants His mother's request. The question is why? Eric will have us believe that it is to only show Jesus' glory and magnanimity and it has little, or more precisely nothing, to do with his relationship with his mother. Yet, as we have seen, Jesus' response does not, in point of fact, fit the context which Eric seeks to portray. Jesus would not perform a miracle for someone if He were trying to truly distance Himself from that person. He never did such a thing in all of Scripture. In fact, He did quite the opposite (Cf. Mark 6:5-6). There is, of course, one alternative - the one that is most apparent and plain from the reading of the text: Jesus, out of love and respect for His mother's request, was moved to compassion and altered His Divine plan and timing for her. In other words, His hour had not yet come, but hers had.

On the contary, if Jesus wanted to truly "teach others not to assume they have a right to request anything from him based on biological ties", his response would have been to refuse rather than to comply with Mary's request! It is a poor teacher indeed who seeks to correct a precocious student by granting them the very thing which should be refused. If Jesus really wanted to "sever" his biological ties with His mother, as Eric has consistently maintained in his writings, then Cana would have been a perfect place to do it! Close your eyes and picture the scene: Imagine Jesus at the crowded wedding feast of Cana, His first public appearance after the beginning of His ministry. He is surrounded by His new disciples. Mary approaches Jesus with the stewards of the wedding party in tow. She makes her pitch. And what does Jesus ultimately do? He complies with the request after telling His Mother that it was not "His time". Now I ask you, dear reader, is that the kind of reaction you would expect from a teacher who wanted to emphasize that His mother had no pull with him any longer? To me, this would have been perfect opportunity to show that He was no mama's boy. The fact that He did not refuse His mother: "ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you." (1 Kings 2: 20-21) shows that He remains His Mother's Son.

Not at all. The Catholic interpretation of the passage has cogency; Eric's view does not. The bottom line here, folks, is that Jesus, like a good Son, complied with His mother's request and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, changed God's timetable. Others could not (Cf. John 11:6). That's pretty awesome.

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for this rather absurd assertion. There is no hint anywhere in Holy Scripture of Jesus severing any biological ties with any of His relatives, much less Mary. There is one recorded instance (possibly two) of confrontation between Jesus and His brothers (Cf. John 7:1-10), but there is no severing to speak of. Secondly, if Jesus is no longer Mary's son, then He is no longer the Son of Man today because a Son of man must have a mother. Is Eric prepared to accept this consequence? If he is, then he has just shot down his own redemption (via the Incarnation).

The Greek phrase in question oi par autou does not necessarily translate into "family", but might include friends, followers, disciples, or members of a household. The NASB, for instance, translates the verse: "And when His own people, heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him…"

I will address this in more detail in just a moment but for now let me make one small point. In his book, Eric makes a big deal about the crowd always being astonished by Jesus and never being in doubt of His sanity (see below). Yet, it is likewise true that Jesus' family never thinks he is insane either, and this is similarly "unattested in Mark".

Furthermore, it is questionable whether the phrase "He is out of his mind" or "He has lost his senses" is necessarily the best one. In fact, the Greek phrase in question was used by Mark elsewhere to indicate astonishment at the teachings of Christ (Cf. Mark 2:12; 5:42; 6:51). Insanity might therefore be too strong a translation. Another rendering of the phrase could be "He is beside himself" as the KJV and RSV translate it.

The group of persons in verse 21 is not necessarily the same group (i.e. the Mother of Jesus and His brothers) in verse 31 - sandwiching techniques notwithstanding. One could easily argue that Mark was trying to differentiate both groups by not identifying Jesus' mother and brothers in verse 21. In fact, in view of Mark's wish to emphasize the spiritual relationship of Jesus to His followers over the physical relationship to His family, there would have been even more of a reason to identify them as Jesus' immediate family members (in v. 21) in order to show the contrast between "the spirit" and "the flesh". This is particularly relevant in light of Mark 6:3 where he takes care to identify the members of Jesus' family.

No.

#1 - We do not know that Mary was part of that group in v.21.

#2 - Even if she were part of that group, there is no necessary indication that every single one of those "people" felt that He was insane. Mark is simply trying to capture the consensus of opinion in the group.

#3 - In arguing against the proposition that it was the crowd who accuses Jesus of being "out of his mind", Svendsen writes: "Third, in Mark, the "crowd" is always only astonished by Jesus - never in doubt of his sanity." Moreover, while the word existemi does sometimes mean insanity ("out of mind", 2 Cor 5:13), Wasnbrough's solution ("out of control with enthusiasm") in unattested in Mark and elsewhere." (p.110-111, Who Is My Mother?).

In all of the other three instances in Mark, the word is translated as "astonished":

There are a few things to note here. First, on an exegetical level, Svendsen seeks to exempt the crowd from thinking Jesus is insane because it is unattested in Mark, but, as intimated above, he refuses to apply the same standard when the subject has been switched from "the crowd" to "Jesus' family". In other words, it is permissible, according to Eric, to apply "insanity" to the accusation by Jesus' family but not so with the crowd. Yet, there is no objective basis for making such arbitrary attributions. If the "insanity" translation of existemi is to be rejected for the crowd's impression towards Jesus, then for the same reason, it is also to be rejected for Jesus' family's impression towards Him as well. Second, no where in Mark is Jesus' family portrayed as thinking He was insane either, but you do not see Eric dismissing them as the identity of "they" in the phrase "for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" (v.21b)

Let us turn then to perhaps the best translation of the passage found in the Revised Standard Version:

"Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself.'" (Mark 3:20-22)

For the sake of argument, however, I will accept "He is insane" as an exegetically possible translation, and therefore will use it in the forthcoming analysis. My contention is not with this particular sentence. Rather, it is with the the group identified as "they" in "for they [people/followers/Jesus'family] were saying". Who are "they"? Is it Jesus' disciples as some exegetes posit? Is it Jesus' family as Eric and others maintain? Or is it the crowd as the RSV and other exegetes suggest?

To answer this question, we must turn to the surrounding context and examine the literary techniques Mark employs. From a contextual stand point, let us examine the passage again carefully:

they" in v.21b, we must consider the circumstances that led the particular group in v.21b to say that Jesus was "insane".

 

What is the reason the group in v.21b says Jesus was "insane"? What reason would Jesus family have for saying that He was "insane"? There is no reason. Why would Jesus' family say that He was "insane" because of the mere mention He could not even eat a meal? There would have been no provocation on their part to do so. Remember, they were not with Jesus to even be provoked to such an insult until verse 31 (if you accept that the group identified v.21a and v.31 is his family). And the text does not even suggest any other reason why they might be provoked to this opinion. On the other hand, if the group in v.21b is the crowd and not Jesus' family, there are several reasons to believe why the crowd would say such a thing.

 

#1 - Eric says this in his book: "Moreover, Mark does not elsewhere present the crowd as being hostile to Jesus before the crucifixion, and nothing in the narrative leads us to believe that the crowd is hostile here." (p.111). Yet we notice a little later in Mark 6:1-6 the exact opposite evidence being presented:

 

And he went out thence and came to his own country, and his disciples follow him. And when sabbath was come he began to teach in the synagogue, and many hearing were amazed, saying, Whence [has] this [man] these things? and what [is] the wisdom that is given to him, and such works of power are done by his hands? 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 were offended in him. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not despised save in his own country, and among [his] kinsmen, and in his own house. And he could not do any work of power there, save that laying his hands on a few infirm persons he healed [them]. And he wondered because of their unbelief. And he went round the villages in a circuit, teaching." (Mark 6:1-6)

 

Notice that the crowd in Mark 6 above "took offense at him". Notice also that both in Mark 3 and Mark 6, both confrontations took place in "his home town". This suggests that indeed there is evidence of hostility and confrontation between the crowd and Jesus in Nazareth.

 

#2 - The second point to be discussed involves the surrounding context of verses 20-21:

 

Question: Why couldn't Jesus eat?
Answer: Because He was being pressed by the crowd. (v.20b)

 

Question: Why did some of the crowd say he was insane?
Answer: Because He was teaching them the gospel.

 

Question: Why were the scribes (who came down from Jerusalem) saying that He "was possessed by Beelzebub." (v.21)?

 

Answer: Because Jesus was teaching the gospel to the crowd, and having heard it, they rejected Him and made their accusation.

 

Hence, under this scenario one can quickly see that it is very likely that it was indeed the crowd who was saying that Jesus was "insane".

 

In Eric's book, he makes much ado about Mark's literary technique called "sandwiching":

 

Mark's account uses a 'sandwiching technique that connects vv.20-21 with vv.31-35. In vv.20-21 he notes that Jesus' family sets out to "take charge of him"…His family arrives in vv.31-35. Between the two mentions of Jesus family Mark records that the teachers of the law had charged Jesus with demon possession." (p.108)

 

If we were to take this same "sandwiching" technique and apply it simultaneously between Jesus' confrontation between the crowd and Jesus confrontation with the scribes, we see the same kind of technique being utilized on a different plane.

 

1. In both passages, Jesus is confronted by the crowd or scribes

 

• 1a. "Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. (v.20)
• 1b. "And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." (v.22)

 

2. In both passages, both the family and Jesus become aware of it

 

• 2a. "And when his family heard it…" (v.21a)
• 2b. "And he called them to him…" (v.23a)

 

3. In both passages, both the family and Jesus respond

 

• 3a. "…they went out to seize him…" (v.21a)
• 3b. "…and said to them in parables, 'How can Satan cast out Satan?'" (v.23b)

 

4. In both passages, the reason for the response is given either by the crowd or by the scribes.

 

• 4a. "…for [they] people were saying, 'He is insane.'" (v.21b)
• 4b. "…for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit.'" (v.22a)

 

Now, why is this important? Notice the parallelism between #1 and #4 on the one part and #2 and #3 on the other part? In #2 and #3, the subjects in question are Jesus and his family. In #1 and #4, the subjects identified are the crowd and the scribes. This is suggestive since it implies that the infamous "they" in verse 21b is indeed the crowd and not the family of Jesus as the following chart demonstrates:

 

1a.------->4a.

 

1b.------->4b.

 

With both numbered verses, the 'a' is identified with the crowd and 'b' is identified with the scribes. '1' sets up a confrontation while '4' gives the reason why action was taken by either the family (3a) or by Jesus Himself (3b).

 

#4 - Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Eric's thesis is his own penetrating assessment of Mary's disposition in the whole Marcan account. According to Eric, Mary "heads out to silence Jesus because she thinks he is insane." Indeed, one is left quite speechless at this remark. Readers can form their own conclusions about how close such an assessment comes to Mary's character as recorded in the Gospel narratives.

 

Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (v. 32) A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' (v. 33) 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' he asked. (v. 34) Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! (v. 35) Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'" Jesus is in essence replacing his biological family (his brothers and sisters and mother) with his spiritual family.

 

Far from it. He is, in fact, using a biological relationship to explain how those who are not biologically related to Him can commune with Him on a spiritual plane. He does this by appealing to the most intense bonding humans share on earth: the human family. He is therefore using the biological family as a basis for understanding the spiritual family. In effect, He is saying, "You know well the bond that exists between a mother and a child or a brother and a brother on a biological level. Well, you can experience that same (and even more intense) bond with me if you believe in me and do God's will." Now, how does this impact Jesus' biological family? Not much actually. It is what it is. Good and pleasing to God, but it is only a shadow of the spiritual family He wants everyone to be a part of. As previously explained, in the case of Mary, however, her particular spiritual obedience required a BIOLOGICAL response. On this basis alone, it is absurd to say that Jesus is "replacing his biological mother" when God was the one who initiated that biological relationship on the foundation of a spiritual communion with Mary - a spiritual and physical communion which generated the Incarnation! In essence, then, Mary is blessed precisely because she obeyed the Word of God in becoming the Mother of God. The special place of her physical maternity is irrevocably dependent on her spiritual obedience. The two cannot be separated.

 

St. Augustine understood this very well. Mary had to have accepted the Word of God first, and receive the Christ child first in her heart before she could do so in her womb. The greatness lies principally in the former but is actualized in the latter.

 

Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ…Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh." (De Virginitate, 3)

 

And if she was declared blessed by being the physical mother of God, how much more, St. Augustine says, is she in the spiritual plane. For Mary, therefore, receiving the Word of God was first a spiritual exercise and then an obedience to that spirtual assent. Here we see how the Catholic teaching on justification has its basis in the incarnation. If Mary had received God "spiritually" but not physically, that is through "faith alone" without obedience, there could not have been an incarnation. Alternatively, if she were to become pregnant without faith, her physical maternity alone would have availed her nothing, as St. Augustine taught above.

 

Another passage is Mark 6:1-6 (with parallels in Matthew 13:53-58 and Luke 4:22-24). Here the townspeople are wondering just who Jesus is: "'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.' In v. 4 Jesus responds to this: "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." So not only does Jesus receive no honor from those in his hometown (i.e., those who "took offence at him"), but neither does he receive it from his "relatives," nor those "in his own house" (i.e., the mother, brothers and sisters just mentioned). And so Jesus counts his own mother among those who do not honor Him.

 

Well, suffice it to say, that there is no direct evidence which says that Mary is included in that dubious group. There is, of course, much to say about this passage, but you'll have to wait for book to read about it.

 

Luke 2:21-35 (Simeon; "a sword shall pierce your own soul, too"). In this passage, the infant Jesus is presented in the temple and receives a blessing from Simeon. (v. 34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against-(v. 35) and a sword will pierce your own soul too-so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." This phrase has often been taken by Roman Catholics to mean that Mary would experience the anguish of seeing her son suffer and die on the cross.

 

Of course. That is the plain reading of the text: that a Mother would share in the suffering of her own Son. Is Eric seriously disputing that Mary felt anguish at her Son's suffering and death?

 

But, this interpretation depends on two unlikely things: (1) that Luke is making a reference to Mary's presence at the cross. But when we get to Luke's scene at the cross (later in chap. 23), he doesn't even mention Mary. And John's gospel, which is the only account that mentions Mary in the detailed way this interpretation requires, had not yet even been written. Obviously Luke is not going to record something that requires for its interpretation a writing that at that time did not even exist. And so if Simeon's prophesy refers to Mary's anguish at the cross, then this prophesy remains unfulfilled so far as Luke is concerned.

 

Luke does not have to mention Mary at the cross for this prophesy to come to its fulfillment, any more than the destruction of Rome needs to be described in the New Testament for to be fulfilled (Cf. Matthew 24:2). All he has to know is that Jesus was crucified and that Mary suffered.

 

(2) The other thing this interpretation depends on is an awkward change of thought. Simeon is speaking of the "falling and rising of many in Israel . . . so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." This is referring to the demands of discipleship: Jesus becomes the focal point around which some will rise and others will fall. To propose that Simeon suddenly changes the subject to Mary's anguish at the cross makes no sense at all.

 

Indeed, it makes little sense for Simeon to introduce such an alleged insignificant figure at all, but he does so. Why? Because he wishes to stress that Mary's union with Christ is a profoundly intimate one - as a faithful Mother to a Son. Notice, for instance, how Mary's anguish (a sword piercing her soul) follows directly the sign of opposition which Jesus becomes. This demonstrates that her anguish is a consequence of people who reject Him. Notice as well that Simeon does not directly prophesy about Christ's passion, but rather Mary's.

 

In fact, the climax of Mary's suffering occurs underneath the cross - the ultimate "sign of opposition" to the Gospel, and under that cross Our Saviour is 'pierced' (Cf. John 19:34,37). Yet the only other time such a rendering occurs in the Gospels is with Mary in Luke 2:35 where her soul is 'pierced.'

 

For a stun that shall be spoken against. By a sign, we properly, understand in Scripture a cross. Moses, it is said, set the serpent "upon a pole." That is upon a cross. Or else a sign is indicative of something strange and obscure seen by the simple but understood by the intelligent." (Basil, Letter CCLX, 8)

 

When Simeon tells Mary that a "sword" will pierce her own soul as well, he is referring to a "sword of division" that separates those who reject Jesus (and as a result will "fall") from those who become "disciples" (and as a result will "rise").

 

Yes, that is true. And more particularly so with the woman He uses to embody Christian discipleship - the first woman and disciple whose "soul was pierced" because of her love for Him.

 

In Luke 12:51, Luke records Jesus as saying: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division" (Luke 12:51-53). Matthew 10:34-36 records the same saying as "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man's enemies will be the members of his own household'." This "sword of division" divides people into two groups: those who align themselves with Jesus and hence "rise"; and those who oppose Jesus and hence "fall." In either case the demands of discipleship are what is in view. Everyone must be pierced by this sword, and Mary is no exception.

 

Agreed.

 

She's part of Israel, and as part of Israel, according to Simeon, Mary's soul too must be pieced in order that it may be revealed whether her thoughts are those of a believer or an unbeliever. So we see that, far from any special privileges conferred on her as "mother" of Jesus, Mary is expected to undergo the same examination and the same discipleship process as everyone else.

 

No. Not really. Our Lady's soul is pierced because of her indissoluable union and love for her Son. She shares in intimate union with Christ's suffering, passion, and death. She is not among those who must decide "whether her thoughts are those of a believer or an unbeliever" since she made that decision at the Incarnation. Her lot in life now is to bear the weight of the cross with her Son. Simeon speaks of the "rise and fall of many" because of the Gospel. Those who "rise" are victorious with Christ. Those who "fall" are his enemies. Mary herself made this prophesy in the Magnifcat:

 

He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. (Luke 1:51-52)

 

Notice the similarity between Mary's words earlier in the Gospel and Simeon's here:

 

This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too." (Luke 2:34-35)

 

Two things of notice here. First, the character of Mary, especially the one portrayed by Luke, is hardly going to fit the portrait of a proud and ambitious woman. In her Magnificat, we read that Mary rejoices that God "has brought down the rulers from their thrones." And the same thing is said by Simeon at the Presentation: Jesus would be the "cause of the falling and rising of many"; that is, the elevation of the humble and the scattering of the proud. Hence, unless Eric wants to foist Mary into the "proud" company, his objection is rather useless. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, note well Mary's words above:

 

…he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts." (Luke 1:51)

 

And compare them to Simeon's prophesy:

 

…so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." (Luke 2:35)

 

Here we see clearly that Mary is hardly going to be included as one of the 'proud' whose inmost thoughts are revealed. God, after all, does not commune with a proud woman.

 

Just as an aside, Basil agrees with our interpretation of this passage when he says that the sword is "the word which tries and judges our thoughts," applies it to Mary's doubting at the cross (thereby indicting her with sin), and characterizes this interpretation as universally accepted ("no obscurity or variety of interpretation").

 

Here is the text in question which deals with Basil's view of the Presentation as described in Luke 2:

 

By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, " All ye shall be offended because of me." Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. "That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn." (Letter CCLX, 9)

 

We have already seen how some regional Eastern fathers had not yet recognized St. Augustine's distinction between a mortal and a venial sin. This explains why Chrysostom and Basil, among a few others, might be wrongly thought by us today to believe that the Blessed Virgin had sinned. We learn from Basil above that Mary "shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest", but that she would receive "swift healing from the Lord". At the very least, it is unclear from Eastern writing at this time if "offence at the cross of Christ" would be considered a sin proper, or more than likely, simply attributed to a weakness of human nature.

 

(I also could not help but notice that Eric did not actually cite Basil's text above. Of course, on reading what Basil is teaching above, we can clearly see why Eric chose not to reproduce the text. Basil writes, "The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood." I suspect that Basil's view of the atonement being for every man and to justify all men would not fit into Eric's Reformed theology.)

 

Here is what some other contemporary Greek and Latin fathers have to say on Mary's sinlessness:

 

• Theodatus of Ancyra (c. 350 A.D.) "…a Virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God."
• St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 371 A.D.) "Just as, in the age of Mary the Mother of God, he (satan) who reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her …"

  The reader should please note here that St. Gregory of Nyssa is the brother of St. Basil the Great, who supposedly accused Mary of sin.

• Basil (c.370 A.D.) "Since the humanity of that time had nothing to equal Mary's purity, as to be able to accommodate the working of the Holy Spirit…the Blessed Virgin was chosen…" (On Holy Generation of Christ, 3)
• St. Ambrose of Milan (c.370 A.D.) "Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." "Adopt me, however, not from Sarah, but from Mary, so that it may be from an incorrupt virgin, a virgin by grace, free from all stain of sins."
• St. Augustine of Hippo (c. 390 A.D.) "Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." "Except for the holy Virgin, about whom I do not wish any question to be raised when sin is being discussed --for whence do we know what greater grace of complete triumph over sin has been given to her?"
• St. Maximum of Turin (424 A.D.) "She (Mary) was a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace." THE SYRIANS St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350 A.D.) "Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother." "My Lady, Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate."
• St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 638 A.D.) "Many saints appeared before thee (Mary) but none was filled with grace as thou …no one has been purified in advance as thou has been …Thou dost surpass all that is most excellent in man."
• Jacob of Sarug (c. 700 A.D.) "The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
• St. John Damascene (645-750 A.D.) "Oh happy loins of Joachim (Mary's father), which had produced the seed (Mary) that is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anna (Mary's mother), in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape." "The Blessed Mother of God …the serpent never entered that Paradise."

 

In Luke 2 we also find the adolescent Jesus at the temple. This is Mary's first encounter with "the sword of division." (v. 48) "When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.' (v. 49) 'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' (v. 50) But they did not understand what he was saying to them." In this passage Luke paints a picture of Mary that indicates not only that Mary did not understand Jesus' purpose and mission…

 

Two words: So what? This does not detract from Mary's character one little jot. What would you expect a human mother to ask if her child had been missing for three days? All the passage reveals is that Mary's (and Joseph's) understanding of Jesus' mission was unfolding and developing. She had very little details of the manner in which Jesus would exercise His ministry. Up until that point, all she had was Simeon's mysterious prophesy twelve years earlier. The fact that Mary did not yet understand the fullness Jesus ministry is hardly a mystery since she, like all Christians, had to walk by faith. And she was the first disciple to do it.

 

-and even opposed to some degree

 

There is no evidence for this assertion. In fact, this obtuse allegation is contradicted in an immediate verse following the Temple incident. Luke records: "…and His Mother treasured all these things in her heart." (Luke 2:51) How is it that Eric can translate Mary "treasuring all these things in her heart" (i.e. the events surrounding the Finding in the Temple) with "opposition"?

 

…but more importantly, that Mary is in need of correction…

 

That all depends on the perspective. I think a "fuller understanding" of Jesus' mission would be a more pious and realistic alternative. However, even if one were to adopt that view, it would not impugn Mary's character in the slightest since it would only be her understanding that would be in need of correction. This would hardly compromise the Catholic understanding of Mary's sinlessness.

 

…not only in the misdirection of her question but perhaps also in her prerogative to ask it.

 

Where is that suggestion in the text? No where. In order for this unwarranted confrontation-loaded exegesis to have any merit, there is a presupposition to Eric's claim; namely, that Mary should have known where Jesus would be. This presupposition, however, is far from established. In fact, Luke states that Mary and Joseph were more than amazed, they were "astonished" (in Greek existemi - a very strong word meaning "shock") at finding Him in the Temple. They reacted this way because, presumably, the Christ child had never shown any apparent demonstration of divinity previously, and, up until now, had conducted Himself as a normal Jewish boy. The mission of Jesus was for Mary and Joseph, much like it is for everyone else a matter of faith and not vision. Hence, Jesus' response to them was really a rhetorical question to manifest His Divinity. He was not really expecting an answer. To suggest that Mary should have known where Jesus would be during this episode is to attribute to her divine qualities while on earth. This, quite obviously, is not Catholic teaching.

 

Later, in Luke 11:27-28, we read that while Jesus is speaking: "a woman in the crowd called out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.'" In this case a woman attempts to offer indirect praise to Jesus by praising his mother. Now, if Jesus rebuffs this woman's comparatively minimalistic praise of Mary, it seems certain that he would much more forcefully rebuff the inherent praise and unique status implied in such titles as Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptress, Co-Mediatrix, and the like. We've already looked at John 2 in detail, so we'll skip this for now.

 

There are number of things to note here.

 

Firstly, only a superficial reading of the passage would lead one to believe as Eric does. Our Lord was hardly denying that Our Lady was blessed, especially in light of passages like Luke 1:28 (the Annunciation) and Luke 1:42 (the Visitation). Any woman who was chosen to bear the Messiah of the human race would obviously be blessed by God. Has Mary's divine favor, described by the Angel at the Annunciation, been somehow withdrawn? If so, where is the evidence for this loss of favor and blessing?

 

Secondly, Our Lord's words are: 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.' Does this blessing not extend to Mary? Of course. What other person in the course of Church history has been more faithful to obeying the Word of God Himself in His very person? Mary, of course - the very woman who was there during his conception, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and for the maternal spiritual adoption of the Church.

 

Question: What is the ultimate and principal will of God for men?

 

Answer: That all men should be saved. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:4)

 

Question: How is this accomplished?

 

Answer: Through the Incarnation. (Cf. Gal 4:4-5)

 

Question: Besides God Himself, what human directly participated in doing this principal and central will of God?

 

Answer: Mary.

 

One final passage to consider in this regard is John 19:25-27: "When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'woman, here is your son,' and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.'" Roman Catholics argue that, by His words, Jesus is conferring on His mother the role of spiritual mother over all disciples. John is viewed here as representing all disciples (Catechism, Art. 964).

 

St. John is careful to describe Mary as "the Mother of Jesus" (Cf. John 2:1, 2:3) or "His Mother" (Cf. John 2:5, 2:12, 19:25, 19:26) throughout his Gospel. This is important because he is describing Mary's position in the Christian community: "Mother of Jesus". The significance of this point is appreciated when he records Jesus' words from the cross: "Behold your mother". So, on the one hand, he is constantly referring to Mary as "Jesus' mother" until the end of the gospel where he records Our Lord's words: "Behold YOUR mother". In other words: "She is my mother. Now I give her to you as your mother in the spirit. And not just you, but all believers." And it is no coincidence, therefore, that the very next appearance of her is at Pentecost among the Apostles in Acts 1:14, again described as "the Mother of Jesus". Indeed, as Jesus did have a Mother and continues to have a Mother, then by virtue of the unity of the Body, all are her sons and daughters.

 

John's testimony concerning Jesus' words on the cross would make little sense unless Jesus was acknowledging, at that moment, Mary as His Mother, and then subsequently giving her over to John and the Church. Jesus could give us His peace, because He possessed it. He could give us over His love, because he had the Father's love. He could give us eternal life, because He was the Resurrection of Life. And because He was still the Son of Man (and is still the Son of Man), He could give us (and did give us) His mother from the cross. So far from "severing" His relationship with His Mother on the cross - a rather absurd proposition for sure - Our Lord wanted us to share in the relationship He had with His own mother.

 

Jesus is therefore showing his intimate communion with his Church in the most profound way possible: through the "Woman"; through His mother. This flows from the principle of the incarnation where God seeks to commune with us through the body, the first and foremost of which, is the woman who gave birth to that body. From that point forward, she is not only the "mother of Jesus" but also the mother of God's children, the Church. At the Crucifixion, the moment when the Old Covenant passes away and the New is instituted, the New Adam introduces us to the New Eve, His Mother. She fulfills her destiny begun at the Incarnation: she is the New Woman, the New Eve, and the New Mother in the New Creation.

 

Not only, therefore, are we brothers and sister of Jesus and children of the Father, but we are also so by virtue of His Mother, whom Christ gave to us. On the one hand, we are a divine family by virtue of the Father's Divinity, but we are also a human family by virtue of the Mother's humanity. Jesus identifies with us by sharing both His divinity and humanity with us. He taught us to call God "Our Father" thereby (through baptism) sharing in His divinity, but He also shares His Humanity with us through His Mother as He says 'Behold your mother'. We are a reflection of the Incarnation through baptism: Divine (The Trinity) and Human (Mary). In a certain mystical sense, the Church is the mystical Incarnation of Christ: it has a Father and it has a Mother. The body of Christ was born of the Father and the Mother. This is the significance of St. Paul's letters when he talks about the Church BEING the body of Christ (Cf. Rom. 7:4, 12:4, 1 Cor 6:19, 10:16, 11:27, 12:12-27, Eph. 3:6, 4:4, 4:12, 4:16, 4:25, 5:30, Col 1:18, 1:24, 3:15). And thus, in a certain sense, Pentecost was the second birth of Christ in His mystical body, the Church. There too, in that upper room, the Holy Spirit fell upon the believers, and the Church was born. Since therefore only through the Incarnation could the Holy Spirit reside in the Church and since only through a mother could the incarnation be effected, we can also say that Mary's motherhood is elevated from Physical Mother (God-bearer) to Spiritual Mother (Church-bearer). In John 2, her mediation was first publicly manifested. Here at the crucifixion, that mediation is formalized by Our Lord as he assigns Mary with the role of "Mother" for the Church.

Woman

 

Point #1:

 

From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, or in the day you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17).

 

In the New Testament, this command is reversed. Jesus says:

 

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

 

And he tells us what precisely that flesh is:

 

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world My flesh." (John 6:51)

 

In verse 51, Jesus tells us that his flesh will be given for the life of the world - an unmistakable reference to the crucifixion. In verse 53, Jesus tell us that we must eat that flesh. And so, in both the book of Genesis and the Gospel of John, there are striking parallels:

 

There is a command which brings death and life. In Genesis, not to eat or else death. In John, to eat or remain in death.

 

In the next verse in Genesis, Genesis 1:18, we read:

 

Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him…And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

 

We learn who the suitable helper was for the Man under the New Covenant:

 

Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according your word." (Luke 1:38)

 

We know Mary was "suitable" because God requires suitability to host Divinity (Exodus 25, Rev. 21:27). The Annunciation and Visitation accounts in Luke also imply as much:

 

Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (Luke 1:28)

 

And how has it happened to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me." (Luke 1:43)

 

Genesis also foretold the Incarnation:

 

And this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man." (Genesis 2:23)

 

The title "woman" comes from Genesis 2:23: "She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man." In the Redemption, the order is reversed as Jesus was born of a woman (Cf. Gal. 4:4) or put another way: "he was taken out of Woman." As far as the Gospel of John is concerned, the fact that Jesus uses this title at the outset of His public ministry is signficant because it is an allusion to who He really is: the New Adam. Of course, in identifying himself as the New Adam, Mary's identity as the New Eve is also revealed because her Son is "bone of her bones, and flesh of her flesh."

 

The Genesis account goes on to describe a profound intimacy between Man and Woman in the paradigm of marriage: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24-25) In the New Covenant, this revelation ascends to the spiritual plain where the sexual intimacy is replaced by the spiritual intimacy between the New Adam and the New Eve in the New Creation.

 

In Genesis, we learn that after Eve was seduced by the Serpent, she approached her husband and invoked his participation in the First Sin. The beginning of Jesus' public ministry also signals an inauguration - not of the Fall but of the Kingdom of God. Eve tries to become like God by disobeying Him, and instructs her husband to do the same. Mary, on the other hand, reverses this and becomes like God by obeying Him, and instructing others to do the same. Both episodes begin with the woman approaching the man (Genesis 3:6, John 2:3): while Eve aims to usurp God's plan by faithlessness, Mary seeks to serve Him by faithfulness.

 

At Cana, then, Mary recognizes her Son's Divinity and her place with Him. Mary draws out Jesus' Divinity. She bears it, invokes it, and instructs others to obey it. The level of intimacy must have been so great for Mary to understand that Jesus would still be open to answering her petition in light of his apparent refusal. She must have at least had the hope that her petition would be answered, but what kind of intimacy hopes against such a "strong reprimand"?

 

The Genesis account also touches upon the reason for creating Woman; namely, as a helpmate for man:

 

"…but for Adam, there was not found a helper suitable for Him…And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:22)

 

In securing the redemption of mankind, what person other than Mary of Nazareth, could be more aptly described as "helpmate" (or, in other words, co-worker, co-mediatrix, co-redemptrix) to Our Lord? What saith the Scriptures? - Behold the handmaid of the Lord! (Cf. Luke 1:38). Again, the New Testament chronology reverses the Old Testament:

 

"And the Lord God fashioned into a MAN the rib which He had taken from the WOMAN, and brought Him through her."

The case is quite the contrary, though. Jesus instead is doing the very same thing here that he has done elsewhere in the Gospels; namely, He is severing biological ties to him, including those of His mother.

 

Then Eric needs to explain, why, if in fact Mary is no longer to be considered Jesus' mother, she is described as such after the crucifixion (just before Pentecost):

 

These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." (Acts 2:14)

 

I suspect no one told Luke that Mary was no longer the Mother of Jesus when he wrote the Books of Acts!

 

Apart from the obvious tortured and unfounded view Eric has volunteered above, one has to wonder as to the logic of such a statement. How can Jesus deny one of the very principles of His own Incarnation; namely, that he chose a woman to bear His very person? Jesus cannot deny Mary is His Mother any more than He can deny He is the Son of Man. If He denies His Mother now, He denies His humanity now. Moreover, in such a warped understanding of the passage, the question inevitably presents itself: why would one sever a biological relationship when there is no cause to do so? Jesus does not have to sever His relationship with His Mother in order to enhance His spiritual relationship with His followers. Again, we see clearly the Protestant mindset of exclusion, the phony "either/or" choice which they seek to arbitrarily impose on the text.

 

Mary is now John's "mother" in the same way that, according to Paul in 1 Tim 5:1-2, all older women are to be viewed as mothers (btw, 1 Tim 5:1-2 is the very passage Augustine cites when he explains the meaning of Jesus' words in John 19).

 

Here is the passage in question:

 

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity." (1 Tim 5:1-2)

 

Well, yes, Augustine does refer to this passage in his Commentary on St. John. He writes:

 

And what are so much home concerns to any one, as parents to children, or children to parents? Of this most wholesome precept, therefore, the very Master of the saints set the example from Himself, when, not as God for the hand-maid whom He had created and governed, but as a man for the mother, of whom He had been created, and whom He was now leaving behind, He provided in some measure another son in place of Himself." (Tractate 119, 2)

 

So it is true that Augustine does use Our Lord's example of how we should treat older women, but this scarcely detracts from the Catholic position, since that is not all of what St. Augustine says. Notice above that he also singles out the "disciple whom he loved" to take care of His Mother and "provide her with a son in place of Himself."

 

St. Augustine also adds this:

 

From that hour the disciple took her unto his own," that everything necessary for her was entrusted to his care? He received her, therefore, not unto his own lands, for he had none of his own; but to his own dutiful services, the discharge of which, by a special dispensation, was entrusted to himself. " (Tractate 119, 3)

 

This view can hardly be reconciled with Eric's:

 

mother" in the same way that, according to Paul in 1 Tim 5:1-2, all older women are to be viewed as mothers.

 

Apparently, to Augustine, however, Mary's care was given to John by a "special dispensation".

 

Now, all of these passages suggest assumptions on the part of the NT writers that are clearly at odds with the view that Mary held a special status in the early church. All of these passages indicate that biological relations are absolutely inconsequential in the kingdom, including those-perhaps even particularly those-of Jesus and his mother.

 

On the contrary, all of these passages may lead to a wrong interpretation unless they are carefully understood and absorbed within the wider contexts of the passages themselves and the reality of the Incarnation itself. I do concede, however, that a truncated, blunted, and pedestrian reading of the passages might lead one to the position Mr. Svendsen espouses. Mind you, very few people who appreciate the biblical character of the Mother of the Lord, the woman to be blessed by all generations, would make such a slanted exegesis like…

 

…and so now we know that Mary is part of the family who heads out to silence Jesus because she thinks he is insane."

 

No exalted status of Mary can legitimately "develop" from the NT portrait of her. Such a direction contradicts the direction of the NT writers.

 

Eric has no need of the mother of the Lord. He sees no particular significance to her role as the principal human agent in the Incarnation - the very woman who supplied the flesh who would redeeem the world. Apparently, he does not share St. Elizabeth's exalted view of the Blessed Mother:

 

And how has it happened to me, that the mother of My Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

 

Were Mr. Svendsen able to say with Elizabeth "How has it happened to me…", he would have no need of his pretensions of being 'biblical'.

 

As for the "oral tradition" to which you referred; you might want to inform the earliest commentators (such as Basil, about this "marian tradition" since it is clear they knew nothing of it.

 

Well, as Mark Bonocore explained above, the Greek Fathers had not yet an appreciation for distinction between venial and mortal sins, but since Eric is not particularly concerned with the historical context of his comments, then this small factor need not concern him. (In fact, Bonocore's observation is consistent with Basil's comments about Mary's purity: "Since the humanity of that time had nothing to equal Mary's purity, as to be able to accommodate the working of the Holy Spirit…the Blessed Virgin was chosen…(On Holy Generation of Christ, 3)).

 

I've written a little book about all this that you might want to pick up sometime…

 

Yes, Eric has indeed written a "little book" on Mary. I agree that it is very small.

 

What has this to do with what Basil cites above in regard to Jesus rebuking Mary? This is nothing more than typical RC obfuscation.

 

I already explained Eric's concern over Basil. What Eric needs to do is reconcile Basil's otherwise glowing praise of Mary with his own anti-Marian theology. Basil also went on to describe Mary as having "God-bearing flesh" and claiming that her womb was the "workshop of this economy". Indeed, St. Basil had lots of nice Catholic things to say about the Blessed Mother.

 

Again, completely irrelevant and complete obfuscation of the issue. Your burden is to deal with and explain the passages where they don't have "catholic" things to say about Mary. Can you do this?

 

Yes, I did. See above. Now, can Eric please explain how the overwhelming majority of the Fathers - regardless of historical contexts, if he prefers - have such a Marian slant in their writings? Can he do this? I doubt it.

 

Bear in mind, I don't consider the fathers to be infallible, and I believe they were wrong and /or inconsistent on many, many beliefs. They are not my rule of faith. I mention them only because you do view them as a "rule of faith" of sorts-and they contradict your current understanding of Mary's status in the NT.

 

Eric must have this low view of the Fathers because it is the only way he can justify his position. Other than citing a few Fathers out of their historical or geographical contexts, he's got nothin'. Rest assured, when CAI's book on Mary comes out, we'll be sure to present not only the correct biblical portrait of Mary but the historical one as well. There will be no question that Mr. Svendsen's views about the Blessed Mother will be considered a pedestrian one at best. As for the Fathers, when one eliminates the uncomfortable historical Catholic witness to Marian beliefs (or any Catholic doctrine for that matter), you can set yourself to be the final arbiter of any theological question. Obviously, Mr. Svendsen is comfortable in this anti-biblical role (Cf. Acts 15:22-26).

 

As for his earlier comments about mediation, some of the Fathers might not have touched on Mary's mediation explicitly, but then again I don't think it's fair to demand any single Father, who was many times embroiled in a particular kind of Marian-related controversy, to give his views on a doctrine which was not an issue when he lived.

 

I'm not concerned about what they *don't say-I'm asking you to comment on what they do say regarding Mary's status in the passages I cited above.

 

Well, Mr. Svendsen will have to wait for my book to read all about it. No one really believes, however, that Mr. Svendsen is sincere when he says he is concerned about what the Fathers do say about Mary.

Basil also believed that Mary was "theotokos".

 

Again irrelevant. I also believe that Mary was "God-bearer" (although she was also Anthrotokos and Christotokos as well). So what?

 

So what? That's just it. Where the Fathers will appreciate the significance of this awesome reality and reflect it in their theology and worship, Mr. Svendsen does not. He refuses to do what St. Elizabeth does in asking…

 

And how has it happened to me, that the mother of My Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

 

If this is not an elevation of Mary, then nothing is.

 

A true mother of any son is, by her natural and maternal role, a mediator in the family. All of us recognize that as a natural truth. Some people may disagree with me, but I think for the most part, the majority would concede this point. Mothers are always acting as conciliators and mediators in a family - that's part of their job.

 

I think you're living in a dream world on this one.

 

Notice that Eric has no real answer to what, to everyone else, is a self evident truth. Once one accepts the title of Mary as "the Mother of God", then the logical consequence leads to accepting all the follows from that, including Mary's mediatorial role in the supernatural family of God.

 

If Mary is truly the Mother of God, then explain to me how she is not also a mediator with God and in particular her Son?

 

I don't grant that Mary is "Mother of God"-neither did Augustine, Gregory the Great, and a host of others concede this point.

 

So what you are saying is that Augustine would have rejected "Theotokos"? I doubt it. "Theotokos" was not an issue for Augustine. The Nestorian controversy was after his time -- so to say that Augustine did not accept the title is another yet example of your historical anachronisms.

 

Nor did the NT writers grant Mary any kind of special status based on this biological relationship. Indeed, they intentionally downplayed Mary's role as "mother." That much is crystal clear from the NT witness.

 

Yes, it sure is crystal clear:

 

And how has it happened to me, that the mother of My Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

 

On the one hand, St. Elizabeth thinks it is an exceptional blessing for the Mother of her Lord to visit her - even implying, perhaps, an unworthiness to such a great honor. On the other hand, Eric Svendsen would be hard pressed to give the Virgin the time of day. What a sad parody that is.

 

It seems to me that if Eric were to concede that Mary is the Mother of God, the development of her as mediatrix is hardly a huge theological jump.

 

This may be extremely difficult for you, but if you could just take off your Rome-colored glasses for a minute you'd see how ridiculous this sounds to the rest of us.

 

What's ridiculous about it? Christianity is about relationships. Even defective Protestant theology recognizes that. Remember, it's about a "personal relationship", right? Mary as theotokos is the buzz word for orthodoxy at Ephesus and Chalcedon. But then again, because Eric has sought to sever such a link between mother and son, then I guess he does not have to worry about Mary being the Mother of God and much less a mediatrix.

 

You're falsely assuming theotokos means "mother of God"; it doesn't historically mean that. It simply means "God-bearer."

 

There is no substantial difference between the two titles. A mother is a physcial bearer of a person. That is what "mother" means. So unless Eric has an objection to this definition, or wants to reconstruct it to fit his low Marian views, he should be a man about it and concede the point.

 

The phrase "mater theou" is "mother of God," and was in use during the Christological controversies by Cyril. Significantly, even though Cyril spearheaded Ephesus, the council did not adopt his nomenclature for Mary.

 

Yes, and has Eric really ever thought of the reason for that? Interested readers are encouraged to check out our Q&A section which answers this objection. Basically, "theotokos" is a more precise theological definition for Mary's role, a role in which quite obviously, based on his comments in this dialogue, Eric Svendsen sees really no lasting benefit. The phrase "Mother of God", while encompassing "theotokos", is more of a personal and relational title to Mary's Son which Cyril and the Council hardly rejected. They simply preferred an element of this Motherhood i.e. "God-bearer" which would crush the various heresies around that time.

John Pacheco

August 12, 2002

Rejoice, therefore, and dance for joy; rejoice, and tread upon the serpent's head.  Rejoice, full of grace.  For the curse has come to an end; corruption is taken away; sadness has passed; happiness is flowering; the blessing ever foretold by the prophets of old has come to pass.  You are the one to whom the Holy Spirit referred, speaking through the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold, the Virgin shall conceive in her womb and bear a son…"  (Isaiah 7:14)

You are that virgin.  Rejoice, therefore, O full of grace.  You are pleasing to the Demiurge; you are pleasing to the Maker; you are pleasing to the Creator; you are pleasing to Him who delights in the beauty of souls.  You have found a Spouse who will protect your virginity instead of corrupting it; you have found a Spouse who wants to become your Son because of His great love for men.  The Lord is with you! He who is everywhere is in you; He is with you, and He comes from you, the Lord in heaven, the Most High in the abyss, the Creator of all, Creator above the cherubim, Charioteer above the seraphim, Son in the womb of the Father, Only-begotten in your womb, the Lord – He knows how – entirely everywhere and entirely in you.  Blessed are you among women!  (Pseudo-Chrysostom, 4th Century)

…There shall be neither night nor day to thy praises.
Adoration to the Father who created thee!
Adoration to the Son Who took flesh from thee!
Adoration to the Holy Spirit, thy Divine Spouse!
Three in One,
One in Three.
Equal in all things.
To Him be glory for ever.
For ever.
For ever.  Amen.  (St. Lomman, Abbot (c. 7th Century A.D.))

It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.  It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles.  It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions.  It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father.  It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.  (St. John of Damascene (c.749 A.D.) )