“The first error is that Christ, not only as man, but also as God, was obedient to the Father. This error gravely undermines the true divinity of Christ, which the Nicene Creed asserted against the Arians.”1

The citation from the Book of Concord reads as such:

Against both the errors just recounted, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our Righteousness neither according to the divine nature alone nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.2

This quote sparked the whole controversy. The context is that there was one theologian who said that our righteousness comes only from Christ’s divine nature, while another said that it was only from the human nature. And so the commune of Lutheran theologians concluded that our righteousness comes from both the divine and human nature of Christ.

After the Lutherans read through St. Bellarmine’s judgment on the Formula, they composed an extensive work titled Veritas et Solidam Refutatio, responding to each point St. Bellarmine raised.

One error St. Robert Bellarmine argues against goes as such,

He who obeys is less than the one whom he obeys. For to command belongs to a superior; to obey belongs to an inferior. Therefore, if Christ as God obeys the Father, then as God he is less thanthe Father, and the Athanasian Creed lies when it says: ‘Equal to the Father according to his divinity, less than the Father according to his humanity.’

Moreover, Christ obeyed according to the nature in which he died. For death itself was the highest and most absolute obedience. But Christ did not die according to his divinity, but only according to the flesh, as Peter says: ‘Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh,’ etc. (1 Peter 4:1). Therefore, Christ was obedient according to the flesh.

Finally, why did the Apostle Paul, when he was about to say to the Philippians, ‘He humbled himself, being made obedient unto death’ (Philippians 2:8), first say, ‘He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant’ (Philippians 2:7), except to warn us that Christ rendered obedience unto death to God the Father, not according to the form of God, by which he is equal to the Father, but according to the form of aservant, by which he is less than the Father?3

In essence, St. Bellarmine argues that if Christ is obedient as God, this leads to 2 distinct divine wills and, thereby, 2 distinct divine essences. Nature is the principle by which a person acts, and so if the operation of the Father is commanding and the operation of the Son is obedience (i.e., two different principles), this leads to 2 distinct wills and thus 2 distinct natures. This is why Catholics say Christ’s obedience is only predicated to him as man, i.e., the person of Christ obeyed the Father only insofar as he is a man, in order to maintain unity in will within the Trinity.

St. Bellarmine further makes the explicit accusation of the Lutherans committing the Arian heresy when Lutherans affirm Christ’s obedience to the Father when he was sent on His salvific mission,

But they [the Lutherans] say:

If God sent His Son into the world to assume flesh, how did the Son not obey the Father when He came into the world and assumed flesh?

This very thing is the argument of the Arians, who gathered subjection from mission. But our forefathers answered the ancient Arians, and we answer the new Arians, that to send is not to command, nor is to be sent always to obey. For a master indeed sends a servant by commanding; a friend sends a friend by exhorting; an inferior can send a superior by asking4

In response to this argument, the Lutherans accuse St. Bellarmine of being a Nestorian (they believe that there are two suppositum in the hypostatic union). In addition, the Lutherans double down on the fact that they believe Christ was obedient to the Father in His sending mission of the incarnation. The Lutherans write,

For the Jesuits deny that Christ was made obedient to the Father not only as Man, but also as God. For just as Mary was the mother of Christ not only as man but as God, and truly conceived and bore the Son of God — whence she is truly the Mother of God, and is truly so called and confessed — which the Nestorian heretics were unwilling to say or confess, since they supposed this would tend to the diminishing of the Deity of Christ, and to the reproach of our Lord’s majesty — so too Christ was obedient to the Father not only as Man, but also as God. And it was as God that he was able to render this obedience, in such a way that, as God, he was made man; and by rendering obedience in human nature, he redeemed the human race — a work which mere naked man, unaided, could not have accomplished by his own obedience…

For they believe in such a Jesus in whom there are not only two natures, but also two persons — of which one (namely, the human) was obedient to the Father, while the other (namely, the Son of God) came by no means into fellowship with this obedience. And by this reasoning they contrive out of Christ a twofold mediator: one who is obedient, and another who affords God no obedience at all. Wherefore not without cause do we ask of them: whether Christ, as he said, ‘God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.’

If therefore God sent his Son into the world, that he might save the human race, it was necessary that this Son of God, obedient to the Father, when he came into the world, should assume human nature and, redeeming us wretched sinners in it, should suffer for our sake.5

So they accuse the Jesuits of being Nestorians, seemingly because they find that the difference in operations between the two natures of Christ, for they say also two persons — of which one (namely, the human) was obedient to the Father, while the other (namely, the Son of God) came by no means into fellowship with this obedience, i.e. two distinct operations between the natures lead to two persons. They also say that this is as if we were to say that Our Lady is not the Mother of God and only the Mother of Jesus; hence them saying for just as Mary was the mother of Christ not only as man but as God, and truly conceived and bore the Son of God. It seems that the Lutherans composing this document seem to understand that all operations of the human nature operate additionally under the divine nature, since they predicate obedience to the Father with respect to both natures. Operations are principled from their nature, and we can predicate the operations of the human nature and the divine nature to the Person of Christ. For example, it is orthodox to say “God died on the cross”, but we understand this means that Christ died on the cross insofar as He is man and His soul was separate from His earthly body. However, if we mean that God died on the cross insofar as the divine essence died/ceased to exist, then this is not orthodox. Not all predicates can be shared with both natures even though they are predicated to the same divine person. St. Thomas answers the question whether there is one operation in the Godhood and Manhood of Christ,

I answer that, As was said above (Q. 18, A. 1), the aforesaid heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in Christ. Now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion, we must bear in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents, the inferior is moved by the superior, as in man the body is moved by the soul and the lower powers by the reason. And thus the actions and movements of the inferior principle are things operated rather than operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the operation; thus we say of man that to walk, which belongs to the feet, and to touch, which belongs to the hand, are things operated by the man—one of which is operated by the soul through the feet, the other through the hands. And because it is the same soul that operates in both cases, there is only one indifferent operation, on the part of the thing operating, which is the first moving principle; but difference is found on the part of what is operated. Now, as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul, and the sensitive by the rational appetite, so in the Lord Jesus Christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the Divine. Hence they said that there is one indifferent operation on the part of the Godhead operating, but diverse things operated, inasmuch as the Godhead of Christ did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things by the word of His power—and another thing by His human nature, as to walk in body. Hence the Sixth Council quotes the words of Severus the heretic, who said: What things were done and wrought by the one Christ, differ greatly; for some are becoming to God, and some are human, as to walk bodily on the earth is indeed human, but to give hale steps to sickly limbs, wholly unable to walk on the ground, is becoming to God. Yet one, i.e., the Incarnate Word, wrought one and the other—neither was this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms…the operation which belongs to a thing by its form is proper to it, nor does it belong to the mover, except in so far as he makes use of this kind of thing for his work: thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but not of a smith, except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating iron. But the operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by another, is not distinct from the operation of the mover; thus to make a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman. Hence, wheresoever the mover and the moved have different forms or operative faculties, there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the moved be distinct; although the moved shares in the operation of the mover, and the mover makes use of the operation of the moved, and, consequently, each acts in communion with the other…Therefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power whereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human nature has its proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely. Nevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the operation of the human nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same way the human nature shares in the operation of the Divine Nature, as an instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent.6

Johannes Wiggers, a 17th-century Catholic theologian, comments on this passage writing,

It is to be held by Faith that, just as in Christ there are two natures and two wills, so also there are two operations — one of the divinity and another of the humanity. This was defined in the Sixth Synod, Acts 4 and 8, and in the other councils cited in the preceding question, article 1. See what was said there at the Second Conclusion. Nor does it stand in the way that every human action of Christ was also willed by His divine will — because, given the willing of the divine will with respect to this or that action of His human will, it nonetheless came about that the human will not only received the action in itself, but that it itself efficiently elicited it and produced it in itself. And this not only by way of a power receiving an influx and moved to act by the command of another to which it necessarily moves itself — as the locomotive power operates by the command of the will — but entirely as a free power that in its own order moved itself first, such that the human action proceeded from it as from a vital and free principle. This was so even though it operated simultaneously from divine direction and sometimes from a divine precept, as our own will also operates — and yet our action does not thereby cease to be the action of our own will.7

Now, as for the sending of the Son, St. Thomas says that,

The notion of mission includes two things: the habitude of the one sent to the sender; and that of the one sent to the end whereto he is sent. Anyone being sent implies a certain kind of procession of the one sent from the sender: either according to command, as the master sends the servant; or according to counsel, as an adviser may be said to send the king to battle; or according to origin, as a tree sends forth its flowers. The habitude to the term to which he is sent is also shown, so that in some way he begins to be present there: either because in no way was he present before in the place whereto he is sent, or because he begins to be there in some way in which he was not there hitherto. Thus the mission of a divine person is a fitting thing, as meaning in one way the procession of origin from the sender, and as meaning a new way of existing in another; thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, inasmuch as He began to exist visibly in the world by taking our nature; whereas He was previously in the world (John 1:10).8

Now moving onto the comparison Lutherans made where our doctrine is like that of the Nestorians, they write, “So little does the obedience rendered to the Father overthrow the Deity of Christ, that Mary, who is the Mother of God, does not thereby overthrow his Deity either.”9 In other words, our saying Christ as God is obedience to the Father is just as non-destructive to orthodoxy as we say Mary is the Mother of God. I personally think this is not a great comparison because when we say Mary is the Mother of God, we mean that she formed the human nature of a divine person, and since He is a divine person who is properly called God, it can properly be said Mary is the Mother of God. Rather, the Lutherans think that Christ, according to His divinity, obeys the Person of the Father.

So this was all the information covered in Scholastic Answers’ video on the subject; now we can look to what Dr. Cooper said in his video. He starts the response by stating the statement from the Book of Concord listed above and then gives the historical context for the quote, also given above. He seemingly attempts to downplay the relevant section at hand by saying,

It’s [what aspect of Christ makes us righteous] both natures that we are attributing this righteousness [the grounding of our justification] to. So Christ is our righteousness according to both natures, that is all the statement is saying. And so, just the fact it said that this statement says that Christ obedient to the Father and mentions the divine nature, this does not mean that the divine nature has a distinct will from the will of the Father. (8:26-8:41)

The problem is that the statement still says Christ is still obedient to the Father according to both natures, even if it isn’t the focal point of the passage. There is an interesting point that Dr. Cooper makes when giving a general statement on what classical trinitarianism is and then says that predicating Christ's obedience to the Father according to the divine nature is opposed to classical trinitarianism. He says,

Now in a classical trinitarian approach, the Son is not eternally obedient to the Father. He is obedient to the Father in the state of humiliation. So only after his incarnation, but eternally, he is not obedient to the Father because there is one divine will. There is one divine will that is identical to the divine essence that is shared between the three persons. And so if you're going to say that according to Jesus's divine nature, He is submitting his will to the Father's will. That creates two distinct wills between Father and Son, which is again opposed to classical trinitarianism. (5:27-6:07)

This is correct to call out, but it’s interesting to say this given that the Lutherans responding to St. Bellarmine say explicitly what Dr. Cooper concedes is not considered classical trinitarianism and even consider it to be their most pious view. The authors of Veritas et Solida Refutatio write as such,

Nor is it necessary that we should convince the Jesuits at length, out of the Book of Concord and out of Philip’s Loci Communes, of this doctrine — since we not only constantly profess it, but also reckon it to be our chief consolation: that by that obedience by which we are accounted just and blessed, Christ is to be credited not only according to his humanity, but also according to his Deity — otherwise we would be neither redeemed, nor justified, nor saved.10

Dr. Cooper himself may have a very distinguished view on this theological point that puts himself within the bounds of orthodoxy, although he does not go in depth on his personal views; but by Dr. Cooper’s words above, he seems to condemn the words of the Lutherans responding to St. Bellarmine.

The next thing that I want to address is how Dr. Cooper explains how the two natures communicate with each other. Dr. Cooper says,

So what exactly is the relation between the human nature of Christ and the personhood of Christ then? Well, traditionally it's been understood that the personhood of Christ is his divine personhood. So his divine personhood is according to the divine nature. That means that if we are speaking of any act that is attributed to the human nature of Christ, it is the divine person that is doing those things because he is a person, not a bare nature. So anything that Christ does according to the human nature he also, in some degree, this is credited to the divine nature because it is a divine person that is doing these works through human nature. The theologians historically are not trying to say that the divine nature and the human nature operate in exactly the same way at all of the acts of Christ. That's not what's going on. That's not what they teach. (9:20-10:20)

The problem with this statement is that this does not necessarily follow that the works of the person of the Word with respect to his human nature can be attributed to the divine nature. We consistently distinguish propositions regarding Christ with respect to each nature within their contexts. For instance, we would not say Christ as God was created when truly it was that Christ as man was created, because his human nature is a created essence that which the divine person of the Word assumed. We also would not say that Christ as God died. We would say that Christ as man died. Similarly, when we say that “God died on the cross,” we mean that God, with respect to his human body as Jesus died, that is, the soul of the divine person of the Word separated from the bodily flesh at Calvary.

Now, Dr. Cooper’s statement that the divine nature and the human nature operate in exactly the same way at all of the acts of Christ is not historically taught; I find this wording to be a little vague. Perhaps in the future Dr. Cooper will expound on this. Still, it seems to be that Dr. Cooper thinks that historical Lutherans deny that all the operations of Christ communicate with one another, but rather some operations communicate with both natures but not others (Dr. Cooper can correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation of his words). But it seems possible that the Lutherans, responding to St. Bellarmine, concede that all operations of Christ communicate to both natures; they write,

For since there are not two Christs but only one, in whom the two diverse Natures are most closely and intimately united, therefore the operations, sufferings, and glory of these two natures of the one Person all communicate with one another.11

Although Dr. Cooper said this was historically denied that the divine nature and the human nature operate in exactly the same way at all of the acts of Christ is not historically taught, he does not provide specific theologians and their works on the matter in the specific video I am responding to; perhaps in the future he may cover this again, as I am willing to recant this point if sufficient evidence to the contrary is shown (I do not wish to be crude to the Lutherans, but just point out some problems I see with the response to St. Bellarmine).

As stated above, the Lutherans affirm that Christ’s mediation is attributed to both the human and divine nature. Dr. Cooper states in the video that,

when we are saying that Christ is our righteousness, Christ is the ground of our justification, we're not attributing that righteousness to just one nature. It's both natures that we are attributing this righteousness to. So Christ is our righteousness according to both natures…there are Lutheran theologians who want to say that Christ's mediation his role as mediator is to be attributed to both natures. (8:07-8:20; 10:34-10:42)

And Veritas et Solida refutatio says,

These two statements of Paul [in 2 Cor. 5 and 1 Tim 2], when joined together, declare to us that Christ Jesus is the Mediator according to both natures.12

The reasoning is that since something of infinite worth must be given to forgive the infinite sin of mankind, both natures must be attributed to the mediation of mankind for salvation. However, the traditional Catholic response is as such, that the dignity of the actions is derived from the dignity of the person who acts. So even if the acts of Christ’s humanity were finite, the person who does such an act is of infinite dignity (given the human nature’s union with the divine person of the Word). Thus, the human nature of Christ is a sufficient sacrifice for the redemption of mankind, because it is linked to the Word and His infinite dignity. St. Thomas writes on this saying,

He [Jesus] properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; second, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; third, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q. 46, A. 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.13

The last few minutes of the video consist of Dr. Cooper citing Lutheran theologians affirming there is one divine will, because he wished to demonstrate that Lutheran theologians don’t affirm the Father and the Son have two distinct divine wills. Now, I would concede that Lutherans are going to confess one divine will, as it is stated at nauseam. However, that is not the same as affirming a proposition that leads to an unintended consequence which snowballs into Christological error and thus the theological point in contention. For example, if I were to say “Christ is ignorant of the Hour of Judgement with respect to both natures”, this has the consequence of me affirming that Christ is not omniscient. In short, although it does bring some clarity to the Lutheran view on the doctrine of God, it is not entirely relevant to the quote from the Book of Concord regarding the obedience of the Son.

Overall, I think that there are two possible outcomes of this whole controversy that can occur. Either that one type of interpretation (given by St. Bellarmine and reiterated by Christian Wagner) is the case, then the Lutherans commit an error that the Arians committed. Or the other interpretation (given by ones like Dr. Cooper) is the case, then the Lutherans may be considered to be in the bounds of orthodoxy ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT, but they convey their point in the most confusing and puzzling way possible. However, after reviewing and after speaking to some Lutheran friends, I am mixed on this subject, leaning towards the idea that the Lutheran authors here are just using very poor semantics. If discourse on this point were to continue, I hope that it is done so civilly and with charity, being slow to anger and patient with our opponents.

May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you! God Bless

This thesis comes from my paper on the Divine Maternity:

Biblical Prophecies of Mary:

Within the Old Testament, time and time again, our Lord’s coming and sacrifice are prefigured to occur. And when we read some of the prophecies that prefigure Christ, some of them prefigure His mother as well. The two major prophecies that involve Our Lady are the Protoevangelium1 and the Virgin Birth of Our Lord.2

The Protoevangelium:

At the time of the fall, when God is punishing the serpent, he tells the serpent that he will be defeated by the woman and her seed, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”3 Let us analyze each piece of this prophecy and what exactly God is foretelling.

1. The Snake: According to several Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant commentators, it is Satan himself taking the form of a reptile. This is also confirmed by Sacred Scripture, “but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.”4 In addition, this is confirmed in the New Testament.5

2. The seed of the Serpent: Catholic commentators understand Satan’s seed to be either just evil itself or wicked men who participate in evil.6

3. The Woman’s Seed: This object can be understood in a couple of different senses, the individual sense and the collective sense. In the individual sense, we understand to be Christ Himself andHimself alone. In the collective sense, we refer to the future generations of Eve, with Christ, in a special manner. I find that the individual sense is the more sensible and consistent reading. This is due to man not being in enmity with the devil. Furthermore, based on the New Testament, we see that Christ alone redeems mankind from sin, thereby making the individual sense the more tenable position.7

4. The Woman: There are several different interpretations of the woman, most of which are connected to Mary.8

   1. The woman is Eve, and Eve alone. This is a fringe opinion held by few Catholics, but mainly by non-Catholics.

   2. The woman refers to the whole female sex, with special reference to many. This is another fringe opinion among scholars.

   3. The woman is Eve in a literal sense and Mary in a typical sense. This is a more popular view.

   4. The woman is both Eve and Mary in a literal sense; however, in the imperfect literal sense in Eve’s case and in the perfect literal sense for Mary’s case. Many commentators take this position.

   5. The woman is Mary, and Mary alone in the literal sense. This view is the majority opinion of Catholic scholars and commentators, and this is the interpretation I personally take, given all of the data.

Text and Context: The text in Genesis informs us that God promises to cause enmity between the woman and the devil and that the devil will be defeated by the seed of the woman. As stated prior, some say that the woman is Eve alone; however, Sacred Scripture tells us that Eve was deceived by Satan, so this interpretation cannot be the case.9 In addition, the text indicates that the woman is connected to her seed’s victory over Satan, and we now know the seed that defeated Satan was Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. Therefore, the woman must be Mary, who is referred to in Genesis 3. This prophecy serves as the basis for many mariological conclusions that I will talk about in the future as we talk about other dogmas of the faith.

The Virgin Mother of Emmanuel:

In 732 BC, God sent the prophet Isaiah to promise safety to the king of Juda, while being attacked by the kings of Damascus and Israel. King Ahaz asked God for a sign of His promise, and Isaiah gave King Ahaz a promise of safety. Isaiah told the king, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman[virgin] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.”10 This prophecy tells us that the House of David will bring us the Messiah by the way of a virgin birth. There are several interpretations of this verse.

1. “Emmanuel” refers to the son of Ahaz, Ezechias, or some other boy not specified. Non-Catholicsclaim that the “virgin” in the text is the wife of Ahaz, or Isaiah, or some other woman not named. This interpretation cannot be the case, as Ezechias was 9 years old when this prophecy was uttered, and other excerpts from Isaiah11 do not fit his description. In addition, this interpretation is expressly condemned by the Church under Pope Pius VI.

2. Some Catholic authors will say that “Emmanuel” is literally the son of Isaiah, but is a type ofChrist Jesus, with the “virgin” literally being the wife, typically Mary. However, this interpretation is unlikely since a married woman can hardly be a type for a virgin conception.

3. Most interpret “Emmanuel” and “virgin” as literally being Christ and Mary. This interpretation appears to be the most accurate, as St. Matthew in his gospel specifically cites this prophecy when he describes the birth of Christ. In addition, most of the Fathers and ecclesiastical traditions subscribe to this interpretation. This is further supported by the next chapter of Isaiah, where it is said that “Emmanuel” is to be the savior of his people, so here this prophecy must literally be about Christ and Mary.

Text and Context: The passage informs us that God is promising his people safety through the birth of a Savior and that this Savior will be born from a virgin. This passage serves as another founding principle to understand the deep connection that Mary has to Christ and how we can build theological conclusions of Mariology.

Mary As the Woman in Revelation:

In biblical typology, the Woman from Revelation 12 is hotly debated as to what type she is. St. John writes,

“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child, and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.”12

Many will posit it as the Church, Israel, and a few others; although some of these are within the bounds of orthodoxy, the most parsimonious type with the biblical data is Mary. This text speaks of a woman who was giving birth to a son who was to rule all nations and was being opposed by a large dragon who wished to destroy the son. The reading that this is talking about Jesus and Mary is supported by the Psalms, where the Messiah is prophesied to rule with a rod of iron, “You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”13 This passage in Revelation also is making a callback to the Protoevangelium in Genesis and is telling us of the birth of Christ and his Lordship over all. In Genesis, we see that there is this 2 sided fight, the woman and her seed against the serpent, which we have shown to be a type for Mary and Jesus. Then in Revelation, we see the woman giving birth to her seed, and the seed [i.e., the Son] condemning the dragon. This shows a clear type of Mary andJesus in Revelation, thus showing Mary is “the woman”. Some take this to be the Church, with the crown being the12 Apostles, or as Israel, thinking the crown to be the 12 tribes. With each giving birth to the Messiah. However, Mary fits the type better. The Church type fails as the Church was formed by Christ. Christ is antecedent to the Church. For the Kingdom of Israel type, this fails because this would only be in a metaphorical or imperfect sense of Israel forming Christ, whilst Mary works in a perfect sense as she physically formed the flesh of Christ. This text will help us in the future to talk about certain theological conclusions about Mary’s titles.

Objections:

Obj 1. Satan’s defeat would be far more humiliating if the prophecy in Genesis 3 were referring to Eve as the “woman” and strengthening the hope of Eve’s posterity; therefore, Eve is the “woman” in Genesis 3.

Reply 1. If we follow this logic, then God should have predicted the defeat of Satan through Adam since he is the chief agent in the perpetration of original sin, and he acts as the physical head of the human race. And if this were the case, we would have to exclude Adam from the subsequent victory of Christ, simply due to the victory being predicted of the woman and her seed. And since we don’t exclude Adam from the story of salvation, this objection falls flat. In addition, this could lead to problems with later revelation. If we are to understand Jesus as the New Adam14, then we cannot exclude Adam from the story of salvation; this objection sacrifices one aspect of fittingness in revelation for another, and due to the primacy of Christ, we ought to take the former idea of fittingness as opposed to the connection that the objection makes.

Obj 2. The original Hebrew word used is almah, which simply means “young maiden/woman.” Therefore, the Isaiah prophecy cannot show Mary’s virginity. Even if she were a virgin in the strict sense, Mary bearing her Son would break her virginity.

Reply 2. The word almah does not etymologically absolutely necessitate the object to be a virgin in a technical sense; however, we see that this word is used in several places where virginity is implied using almah.15 Since we see that the word refers to a virgin in the majority of the usage, then we can say with high probability that Isaiah is using almah to refer to a virgin. In addition, the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 speaks of the virgin conceiving and retaining her virginity while bearing the son.

Obj 3. If the woman in Genesis 3 is to be a type for Mary, then would this mean that Mary had birth pains, as verse 16 tells us? However, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition tell us Mary did not experience birth pains16; therefore, Mary cannot be the woman in Genesis 3 in the perfect literal sense.

Reply 3. This punishment is only directed towards Eve, as the prophecy is to be the type for Mary, which is only contained in the punishment towards the serpent.

Obj 4. If the woman in Revelation 12 is to be a type for Mary, then would this mean that Mary had birthpains, as verse 2 tells us? However, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition tell us Mary did not experience birthpains17; therefore, Mary cannot be the woman in Revelation in the perfect literal sense.

Reply 4. This was a common objection brought up in the Patristic Age, and the response is that Mary experienced the pain and sorrow at Calvary, seeing her Son dying on the cross. This also explains the sword that shall pierce Our Lady that was described in Luke 2. St. John of Damascus writes, “But this blessed woman [Mary], who was deemed worthy of gifts that are supernatural, suffered those pains, which she escaped at the birth, in thehour of the passion, enduring from motherly sympathy the rending of the bowels, and when she beheld Him, Whomshe knew to be God by the manner of His generation, killed as a malefactor, her thoughts pierced her as a sword, and this is the meaning of this verse: Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also Luke 2:35. But the joy of theresurrection transforms the pain, proclaiming Him, Who died in the flesh, to be God.”18

Obj 5. The Scriptures say that sin came into the world through Adam. However, the syllogism above says that sin entered the world through Eve; therefore, the thesis is false on the basis of being contrary to Scripture.

Reply 5. I distinguish the minor, for there is a multiplicity in causation. We say that by secondary cause, sin entered the world through Eve. Same as by secondary cause, salvation enters the world through Mary. Sacred Scripture implicitly teaches Eve as secondary cause, “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

On the Contrary, St. Gregory the Great says, “This can be the more precisely understood because the Only-begotten, having been incarnate, and made perfect man for us, in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, He did not know from that very (nature), because God-made-man knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Godhead. . .”2 Therefore, Christ knew the Hour of Judgement.

I answer that Christ did know the hour because He is the Incarnate Word of God. The person of the Word is the second person of the Godhead and is united to the humanity of Christ perfectly. The divine person of the Word infuses knowledge into the human mind of Christ, where His human mind knows all things that have been predestined in the divine decree of God, for St. Paul says, “[Christ] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”3, and Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben writes,

Accordingly it embraced in the most perfect way together with God the whole real world and the course of the world, both everything present and also everything past and future. For this is the only fitting way in which to understand the “fullness of truth” or “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and the “measureless gift of the Spirit” of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3; cf. Jn 3:34 and Is 11:2), which Sacred Scripture speaks about (see above n. 936) [n. 936 is on the perfection of Christ]. Such knowledge belonged by right to this soul as to the soul of the Eternal Wisdom Himself, especially since this soul was appointed queen of all created things by virtue of its hypostatic union with the Son of God; this knowledge belonged to it by right in particular as to the head of all knowing creatures, which it had to precede in wisdom and knowledge in such a way that it surpassed them all taken together and all could learn from it, while on the other hand there could be no creature from which it could have learned something. And according to the account of the Gospels, this soul in fact manifested such wisdom too, in that they report about the Christ, acting and speaking in a human fashion, that He knew the most hidden thoughts of men and foretold the most diverse secrets of the future, without ever suggesting that this knowledge had been imparted to Him by God through a special ad hoc revelation; on the contrary, in Jn 6:65 it says that Jesus knew from the beginning which followers did not believe and who would betray Him.4

The Gospels document Christ’s divinity5 and His omniscience6. Since He is omniscient, He knows of the Hour of Judgement.

Reply 1. There are a number of ways to respond to this. First, we can look to the Greek text. In the Greek reading of the text, it reads οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. [Nor the Son, IF not the Father].”7 If is the crucial word in this phrase that completely dismantles the objection. The Scriptures are in reality giving a conditional statement, specifically that if the Father doesn’t know the Hour, then neither does the Son. Thus, the contrapositive is true; that is, if the Father knows the Hour, then so does the Son. St. Mark records Christ implicitly showing that He knows the Hour.

Next, we can say that in Greek, knowing can refer to revealing. The Greek word oiden can be used in the context of revealing something to another person. An example of this is in 1 Corinthians 2:2, where the Apostle writes, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”8 Obviously, St. Paul really knew more than just Christ Jesus, but this is what St. Paul revealed to the Corinthians. Therefore, we can apply the same principle to Mark 13:32, that Christ did not reveal the Hour of Judgement to the people at that time. This is further evident by the fact that Christ said at times the Apostles were not ready for some of His teachings, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.”9 Therefore, it is parsimonious for Christ to be speaking in the sense of not revealing the Hour of Judgement to the people.

Another way to respond to this is to distinguish that Christ’s humanity does not produce the knowledge of the Hour in itself, but rather is informed of the Hour by the knowledge of His divine intellect; thus, it can be said that Christ did not know the Hour inasmuch as His human mind did not produce such knowledge.

Finally, we also distinguish the different types of knowledge that can exist, that being dispositional and oncurrent knowledge. To put it simply, dispositional knowledge is information you hold but aren't actively thinking about, and oncurrent knowledge is the knowledge currently being experienced in that moment. So we can say that Christ had dispositional knowledge of the Hour, but not oncurrent knowledge.

Meaning: Mary is the mother of the Son of God/the person of the Word. She is the title of “Theotokos”[God-bearer in Greek], as stated in the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople 2. This title entails that she formed the Flesh of the Person of the Word.

Errors: The groups who deny this Thesis are the Nestorians, Ebionites, Arians, Rationalists, and Anabaptists. Some groups claim that Christ is not a true man; therefore, Mary cannot be the Mother of God. Other groups deny the divinity of Christ and therefore claim Mary cannot be the “Theotokos”. The Nestorians believe in the divinity and the humanity of Christ and two distinct persons in Christ; therefore, Mary cannot be the “Theotokos.”

Proofs: This thesis can be proven from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Scripture: Although Sacred Scripture never uses the word “Theotokos” to describe Mary verbatim, we can use the verses that speak of Mary as the “mother of Jesus” and “mother of Our Lord,” and we can deduce that she is the Mother of God. In other words, since Mary is described as the true mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, Mary is the Mother of God. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel references the Isaiah prophecy when telling Mary that she will give birth to Jesus and that he will be the Son of the Most High from the line of David.1 The angel Gabriel also tells Mary that she will give birth to the Son of God, “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child will be born and will be called holy, the Son of God.”2 This thesis is also evident from the Pauline Epistles, when St. Paul was writing to the Galatians, he says that God sent His Son and that the Son was formed by a woman, “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law.”3 From these passages, we can conclude that Christ is the Son of God, and since Mary is the mother of Jesus, Mary is the “Theotokos.” We can also use the typology from Revelation, the Psalms, and the Protoevangelium to further show that Mary is the Mother of God. The Psalms prophesy that the Messiah will rule the nations with an iron rod, and the child in Revelation is equated as Christ Jesus. Thus, since Mary is the Woman in Revelation, Mother of Jesus the Messiah, and since the Messiah is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.

We can give a concise syllogism below:

P1: Christ Jesus is known to be God in the New Testament

Proof: In John 8:58, Christ gives Himself the Divine title. Christ is known to be called Lord (Jn 20:28). Christ is granted divine attributes (Phil 3:20-21; Heb 1:2-3; Jn 2:25, 21:17). Christ created the world (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). He is offered latria (Phil 2:10-11)

P2: If Christ is known to be the Son of Mary, then she is the Mother of God

Proof: Mary gives birth to a Son named Jesus (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7, 21)

P3: Mary is known to be the Mother of Christ Jesus

Proof: In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth calls Mary the “mother of her Lord.” In Lk 1, Lord is consistently used to refer to the divine essence. This proves P1 and P3.

C: Mary can be known as the Mother of God.

Sacred Tradition: It is the moral consensus of the Fathers from different ages that Mary is the Mother of God (i.e., the “Theotokos”). Holy Fathers and theologians such as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ephraem the Syrian, St. Ambrose, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and many others all affirm Mary to be the Mother of God.

St. Irenaeus, a 3rd-century saint, venerated in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Oriental Orthodox(OO) Churches, writes,

Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; Isaiah 53:2 that He sat upon the foal of an ass; Zechariah 9:9 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, Isaiah 9:6 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; Daniel 7:13 — all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.4

St. Irenaeus understood the Isaiah prophecy to be speaking of Christ and Mary, as he explains that Isaiah is prophesying the coming of the Lord. And since he identifies the infant to be God, then therefore the virgin [Mary] would be the Mother of God.

Tertullian is a Church theologian from the 3rd century. Although he was condemned for other positions and for his Montanism later on, many of his works are still orthodox and well-received by many churches. He writes,

God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother’s womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults ofthe tempter; while from being ‘Lord’ He becomes ‘Master’, teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience.5

Tertullian explicitly states here that God was conceived and born from a woman [Mary], indicating that Mary is the Mother of God.

St. Clement of Alexandria, a prominent 3rd-century saint of Christ, venerated in Catholic, EO, and OO churches, writes,

This mother [Mary], when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother — pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, with the Word for childhood. Therefore, she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood.6

St. Clement says that Christ [i.e., the Word] was from the seed of Mary, implying that she is the Mother of God.

St. Ephraem the Syrian, a prominent 4th-century saint and theologian, venerated in Catholic, OO, and EO churches, wrote a whole text called The Mystery of the Mother of God, clearly showing that he affirmed Mary as Theotokos.

St. Ambrose of Milan, a holy saint in the 4th century, venerated in Catholic, EO, and OO churches, writes that the Isaiah prophecy proves Mary to be the Mother of God,

Such an incredible and unheard-of birth needed to be announced to her before it could be believed. A virgin giving birth is the sign of a divine mystery, not a human one. And so he says, ‘Let this be a sign for you: Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb and bear a son’ (Is 7:14). Mary had read this passage; therefore, she believed that the prophecy would come true, but she could not have read about how it would happen.7

St. Ambrose sees that it was God to be born from a virgin. Since that virgin is to be identified as Mary, then Mary is the Theotokos.

Pope St. Gregory the Great was a bishop of Rome in the 6th century, and is venerated in Catholic and EO churches. St. Gregory the Great writes, “the same Virgin is called both the handmaid and the mother of the Lord. For she is the handmaid of the Lord, because the Word before the Ages, the Only-begotten, is equal to the Father; but the mother, because in her womb from the Holy Spirit and of her flesh He was made man.”8 St. Gregory the Great exclaims that Mary is the true mother of the Son, thereby identifying her as the Mother of God.

The word “Theotokos” used in the later Fathers suggests that they used a principle founded in St.Ignatius’s epistle to the Ephesians to justify the title, “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.”9

Objections:

Obj 1. The person of the Word existed before the existence of Mary; therefore, Mary cannot be the Mother of God, but only the Mother of the humanity of Christ.

Reply 1. This is the error of the Nestorians. To correct this error, we must understand the Hypostatic Union and the Hypostatic Order. So when we talk about motherhood, we have to realize that a connection is established between a mother and a son, because she communicates a nature identical to her own when she has offspring. The end of a generation is the entire Son, not just the physical body of the Son. So in Christ, there are two distinct, yet inseparable natures within the Divine Person of the Word; this is what we understand as the Hypostatic Union. Mary, being the one to furnish His human nature, and since the two natures are deeply connected to each other, we say that she truly conceived and gave birth to God. This special and unique connection that she has with Christ, in tandem with the plenitude of grace she received from God10, elevates her to a new category within the hierarchy of creation.11

To summarize this relationship, Mary has a unique relationship with the Father because they have a common Son, although in different ways. She is related to the Son (as Man) by consanguinity, inasmuch as the Word in His human nature is the end of her motherhood. Mary is related to the Holy Spirit by being the mother of Him[the Son], who spires infinite Love, which is the Holy Ghost. Therefore, Mary is the styled spouse of the Holy Ghost because it was by a supernatural operation of the Father that she conceived Christ. This thereby includes her in the Hypostatic Order as she helped accomplish the Union.12

So, to answer the objection, this attacks a strawman of the Orthodox Catholic position. For we concede that the divinity of the Son existed before Mary; however, since humanity and divinity are deeply connected, we say she is the Mother of God.

Obj 2. If Mary is the Mother of God, then she must be the Mother of the Father, however, this is not said to be the case. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. In other words.

P1: The Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God

P2: Mary is not the Mother of the Father nor the Holy Spirit

C: Mary is not the Mother of God

Reply 2. The title of Theotokos is based on the generation of the flesh of the Divine Person of the Word, and the generation is predicated on the suppositum. St. John tells us that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, and not the Trinity, but only the Person of the Word (Jn 1:14). Therefore, since the Word was the one to become incarnate, we say that she is only the Mother of God insofar as the Person of the Word became flesh.

Obj 3. Jesus is really identical to the divine essence. Mary is not the Mother of the divine essence, thereforeshe cannot be the Mother of God.

Reply 3. I concede the major and minor, but deny the conclusion. The Theotokos has its terminus in a suppositum and not in an essence. Thus, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In other words, the bearing of something relates to a person and not to a nature, so the objection falls flat. In addition, Jesus being really identical isn’t necessarily the case for logical identity to the divine essence (i.e., is identical after the comprehension of a subject/in concept). Real identity doesn’t require sameness in all respects. For example, Jesus is begotten, but the divine essence is not. Read Lateran IV for more.

Obj 4. If the Church can just go beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6), then what’s stopping the Church from elevating Mary to a goddess (This is from Matt Slick).

Reply 4. The Roman Catholic Church serves scripture. For Dei Verbum says, “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” In addition, I would argue that the doctrines of the Church are at least virtually contained in Scripture.

Obj 5. If Mary is the Mother of God, this would mean that St. Joseph is the step-father of God. St. John the Baptist would be the cousin of God. This sounds ridiculous to say; therefore, Mary cannot be the Mother of God (From Matt Slick).

Reply 5. I deny the conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the prior statements. In addition, I can concede those titles to other individuals; we place emphasis on Mary because she physically birthed the Flesh of Christ.

drive.google.com/file/d/1QVAWBQUECmXOeunHPpPPoPOaLnlBzEkg/view

When people understand sola fide in St. Thomas, they will often go to his commentaries on the Pauline Epistles. In his commentary on Galatians, he writes,

If, then, you are the sons of God by faith, why do you wish to become slaves by the observances of the law? For faith alone makes man the adopted son of God. Indeed, no one is an adopted son unless he is united to and cleaves to the natural son: for whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). For faith makes us sons in Jesus Christ: that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts (Eph 3:17). And this in Christ Jesus, i.e., you are sons of God through Jesus Christ.1

Then some look to his commentary on 1st Timothy, which he writes,

But the Apostle seems to be speaking of the moral precepts, because he continues by saying that the law was made for sinners, and these are moral precepts. The proper use of these precepts is that a man not attribute more to them than is contained in them. For the law was given in order that sin be recognized: for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet (Rom 7:7). Therefore, the hope of justification must not be placed in them, but in faith alone: we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law (Rom 3:28).2

Now we do recognize that St. Thomas is saying that we are justified by faith alone, as Sacred Scripture says. Catholics affirm, in a sense, that we are justified by faith alone (which is shown below). However, the question that needs to be asked is “What does St. Thomas mean by faith alone?” Well, we can look into the rest of his corpus to see what he perceives to be faith. First, St. Thomas affirms that a living faith is necessary to be saved, “Now dead faith does not suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith alone, that worketh by charity (Gal 5:6), as Augustine says (De Fide et oper.)”3 Next, he defines what he means by living faith in two places in his commentary on the epistle to the Romans. St. Thomas writes,

For a virtue is a principle of a perfect act. But an act depending on two principles cannot be perfect, if either of the principles lacks its perfection, just as riding cannot be perfect, if the horse does not run well or the rider does not know how to guide the horse. Now the act of faith, which is to believe, depends on the intellect and on the will moving the intellect to assent. Hence, the act of faith will be perfect, if the will is perfected by the habit of charity and the intellect by the habit of faith, but not if the habit of charity is lacking. Consequently, faith formed by charity is a virtue; but not unformed faith.4

Thus, the faith that St. Thomas says is needed for salvation is faith formed by charity (this is known as fides formata). St. Thomas expounds on this further,

But this faith, out of which justice exists, is not the unformed faith about which James says, faith without works is dead (Jas 2:26), but it is faith formed by charity: for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing without faith (Gal 5:6), through which Christ dwells in us. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17), which does not happen without charity: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is the faith about which it is said, he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), a cleansing that does not occur without charity: love covers all offenses (Prov 10:12).5

Clearly, St. Thomas affirms that one has saving faith if it is perfected by the virtue of charity, or formed faith. As a summary of what it means, faith is the assent of the intellect based on God revealing something6, and charity is an act of the will that moves towards an object of one’s love.7 Now we can give a basic summary: faith is an assent that requires the movement of the will…thus, for the virtue to be perfected, there must be a perfection in both the intellect and the will. You can think of faith and charity as form and matter or body and spirit. The body (faith) without the soul (charity) is dead, and the soul is what gives life to the body and grants it its animation.

This is the teaching of later Catholic theologians as well. Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben writes,

Therefore faith already in itself (as fides informis, formless faith) is faith of the heart, and it does not become such only with the addition of caritas (as fides formata, formed faith). For although even that inclination and devotion to God as the source of truth which already internally enlivens the fides informis as such can be called love, nevertheless this love is just as different from genuine caritas as the “diligere Deum tamquam omnis iustitiae fontem”[“love of God as the fount of all justice”] which the Council of Trent lays down as the essential component of conversion to God and as an essential condition for justification, and which is nothing other than the piety due to God, without which no converse with God is possible.8

This definition differs from what is given in the Protestant tradition. For reference, I am quoting Theoretical-Practical Theology by Petrus van Mastricht, who is an 18th-century Reformed Scholastic. Petrus gives 4 things that are denoted as divine faith,

Divine faith, which belongs to this passage, designates these four things: either (1) bare assent given to anything that has been said; and this is called historical faith …; or specifically, (2) assent given to the divine promise of working or receiving miracles, which is called the faith of miracles, both active… and passive …; or (3) assent that in addition stirs up motions in the will that are in some way good, but transient…, which is called temporary faith;3 or (4) assent that also stirs up such motions in the will by which we take hold of God as our highest end and Christ as our one and only Mediator, which is called saving faith.9

So, saving faith is this hold of God as the true end of man and Christ as our Savior. However, for Catholics, as explained above, we define faith as the assent of the intellect on the basis of God revealing, and Protestants believe that all faculties of the soul are involved in faith. This brings in a sort of emotional aspect to saving faith. Petrus further expands,

Faith is therefore an act, but of what? Certainly not of the body, although faith is attributed to it in its own way …, but of the soul, for with the heart one believes …, and indeed, of the whole soul: “If you believe with your whole heart…” … For it is the first act of life, by which the whole person lives spiritually... Moreover, it is an act of each of the soul’s faculties—the intellect, the will, the affections, and so forth.10

From this, it is clear to see that some Protestants do not agree with St. Thomas on Sola Fide, as some Protestants use a different definition than St. Thomas (there is a much more nuanced discussion that I may cover in the future, as some of the Reformed do hold to some sense of fides formata). This article is based on notes I took from watching Scholastic Answers, so be sure to check him out.

May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.1

The Protestant I named above, thelionsroar7, also gives another citation saying “Sola scriptura canonica est regula fidei/The only rule of faith is the canonical scripture (ST.PP.Q1.A8.Ad2) [← His citation he uses, this will be relevant later].”

Protestants will argue that since St. Thomas sees the scriptures as an irrefutable authority and that the faith comes from revelation, then therefore he believed in Sola Scriptura. However, this is promptly false when we look at the rest of his corpus and look at how other Catholic authors describe scripture. For context, Protestants believe that there is one rule of faith, and that is Sacred Scripture.2 Catholics believe there is more than one rule of faith. A rule of faith here is a thing that can bind the conscience of the believer by its own authority. First, I will show this from other authors, then from other works in St. Thomas’s corpus, and finally, I will give a brief exegesis of what St. Thomas is saying in the passage Protestants use.

For example, we can look to Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, a 19th-century theologian, who states that Scripture is infinitely higher than any other rule of faith. He writes,

As the record of His revelation issued by God Himself, Sacred Scripture ranks infinitely higher in dignity than any other human report about God’s revelations, however correct and free of error it may be, and any human exposition and interpretation of its content. The value that it possesses as a source of revelation, due to this exalted dignity, is however further enhanced bythe fact that God not only had the essential content of His formal revelation written down directly, but also set up for us in Sacred Scripture a mirror that He Himself created, lasting for allages, in which both the entire history of the revelations from the first to the last is reflected in its original freshness, and also the content thereof is displayed for us in a superlatively manifold, abundant, and vivid depiction.3

In addition, the Second Vatican Council affirms that the magisterial office of the Church is a servant of the word of God and not superior to it. Dei Verbum states,

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.4

The sentiment is also shared by commentators on St. Thomas, such as Fr. Garriagou-Lagrange.5 From this, it suffices to show that St. Thomas is not deviating from Catholic teaching on fundamental theology but rather aligning with it.

Next, we can look to other places in St. Thomas’s corpus to show he does not affirm Sola Scriptura. First, let us look into the summa. In secunda secundae, St. Thomas affirms that the Soverign Pontiff (i.e., Rome) can form a symbol of faith. St. Thomas defines a symbol of faith as, “the need for the truth of faith to be collected together, so that it might the more easily be proposed to all, lest anyone might stray from the truth through ignorance of the faith. It is from its being a collection of maxims of faith that the symbol takes its name.”6 With this in mind, we see that St. Thomas believes that Rome can draw a symbol of faith by its own authority. St. Thomas writes,

a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred, as stated in the Decretals. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Cor. 1:10: That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.7

St. Thomas further writes in his disputed questions that the Church is infallible when she canonizes saints (i.e., pronounces that a person is in heaven with God). St. Thomas writes,

If divine providence were to be considered which directs its Church by the Holy Spirit so that it might not err, just as he promised in John 16:13 that the Spirit coming would teach all truth, namely, concerning things necessary unto salvation, it is certain that it is impossible for the judgment of the Church universal to err in these things which pertain to faith. Hence the sentence of a pope, to which it pertains to determine concerning faith, which he proffers in judgment, must stand more than the opinion of any wise men in their writings, since Caiaphas, although wicked, is still read, because he was the pontiff, to have prophesied unknowingly, in John 11:51.8

Then we can look to the same article, where in his reply to the objections, he states that the declaration of faith made by St. Athanasius is a rule of faith,

Reply Obj. 3: Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.9

We can reason as to what St. Thomas means in this passage. Here, St. Thomas says that St. Athanasius made a declaration of faith to explicate doctrine. This declaration of faith is considered a rule of faith. However, St. Thomas is calling this declaration a rule of faith in a different sense than the sense discussed above. Here, the declaration is a rule of faith secundum quid or in a certain respect. That is to say, the declaration is a rule of faith, insofar as the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff pronounced it. In other words, by the authority of the Church (rule of faith simpliciter), the declaration of faith by St. Athanasius is a rule of faith (i.e., the declaration is a rule of faith in light of the teachings of the Supreme Pontiff). Thus showing, implicitly, that St. Thomas affirms the Supreme Pontiff as a rule of faith by its own authority.

Then, as a nail in the coffin, we can also look at what St. Thomas deems to be the manifestations of the formal object of faith. St. Thomas believes that the formal object of divine faith is contained in Sacred Scripture and the Church. St. Thomas affirms that the teaching office of the church is an infallible rule, and he who rejects any teaching of the Church follows not the teaching of the Church, but his or her own will. This is irreconcilable with the Protestant tradition. St. Thomas writes,

Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church…has not the habit of faith…Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.10

As stated above, a Protestant apologist gave the Latin for his citation on the rule of faith. When looking into the exact Latin text he provides (the Latin text from St. Thomas I am using to check this is from aquinas.cc, which includes the vast majority of St. Thomas’s works), there is not one instance in the entirety of St. Thomas’s Summa where he says Sola scriptura canonica est regula fidei. In addition, when looking into the Latin text (as provided by aquinas.cc), there are only 4 places in the entire Summa Theologiae where St. Thomas uses the words “regula fide,” with only one being in reference to Sacred Scripture. St. Thomas writes,

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deut 4:2): You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it. Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.11

You will notice that this is from the objections section of the article (i.e., the section which St. Thomas refutes later in the article). His response to the objection is as follows,

Reply Obj. 1: The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.12

Now, we can exegete the reply to understand what St. Thomas is saying. St. Thomas is saying that the truth of faith is contained in written revelation (i.e., Sacred Scripture); however, it can be difficult to understand the meaning of Scripture at times, and not everyone has the time to go into a deep study of the Scriptures to grasp the truth of faith. Thus, there was a need for a gathering of people (i.e., a council) to compose a summary of what Sacred Scripture teaches so that it may be proposed to all the faithful. Since the faithful do not have the time to deeply study the scriptures to assess the summary, the faithful are going to give divine assent to the summary based on the authority of the council/Church, according to St. Thomas.

Then we can look at some of St. Thomas’s commentaries. In his commentary on 2nd Thessalonians, he explicitly states that we are to follow and give assent to the oral teachings of the apostles, even though they were not written down. He writes,

And they delivered these traditions in two ways. Some they delivered by words, and so he says, by word. Others they delivered in writing, and so he adds, or by our epistle. Hence it is clear that there are many things in the church which were not written and yet were taught by the apostles and so must be followed. For there were many things which the apostles judged were best hidden, as Dionysius says. Hence the Apostle says: the rest I will arrange when I come (1 Cor 11:34).13

However, when looking more into the rest of St. Thomas’s corpus, thelionsroar7 mistook where the quote was from. St. Thomas does say something similar to what thelionsroar7 quoted above, but in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John,

Note that although many have written about universal truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical Scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical Scriptures are the standard of faith [quia sola canonica Scriptura est regula fidei]. Others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.14

There is a way one can understand this passage here. We can understand it in light of what he said about the manifestations of the formal object of faith. St. Thomas is saying that the scriptures act as a standard for divine faith that speaks with universal authority that cannot be doubted, in that their infallible testimony reveals who God is, hence his saying Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true, and only the canonical Scriptures are the standard of faith. In other words, the scriptures act as the rule of faith in that they cannot be doubted, for it was divinely authored by the Holy Ghost. Now, St. Thomas believes that other authors can speak truth or partial truth, hence his saying Others have set forth this truth except in those things in which they say what is true. Now this is consistent with catholic authors, since Catholic theologians affirm that the Church acts only as a proximate rule of faith as opposed to a remote rule of faith like sacred scripture. A proximate rule of faith is a principle that acts as a regulation and authoritative proclamation of doctrine to help the faithful navigate the divine revelation, unify the faithful, and explicate dogma.15 A remote rule of faith is the objective source from which we receive revelation. The Church acts as a necessary condition but is not the formal motive for faith, for the formal motive is God's testimony and His moving us through grace.16 Thus, St. Thomas is consistent with Catholic theology and is further harmonized by his own words regarding the habit of faith in secunda secundae and his words in his commentary on 2nd Thessalonians.

From these quotes, it is clear that St. Thomas believes that the Church acts as her own rule of faith, in which she can bind the conscience of the faithful by her own authority, which is irreconcilable with the Protestant view of the Church and Sacred Scripture. The Church would require the ability to bind the conscience of the believer simpliciter if she can canonize the saints in heaven and can draw a symbol of faith.

Finally, I wish to help people understand what St. Thomas meant in Prima Pars regarding the scripture. St. Thomas here is arguing that since the scriptures are the divine speech of God, they cannot be refuted and act as a definitive proof for a thesis, hence his saying the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof. We give divine faith to the formal object, that being God as He reveals Himself, and this is irrevocable. However, when examining individual doctors of the Church, they can err privately from time to time, and were not individually given a charism of infallibility, thus their individual opinion is merely probable, hence the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. As I said above, we place divine faith in the formal object of God, who reveals Himself, and He reveals Himself through revelation. The prophets, patriarchs, and apostles mediated this revelation. However, this revelation is given in two distinct modes, a written mode and an unwritten mode. Catholic teaching rests upon the revelation that is contained within Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, hence Dei Verbum states, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles,”17 and this is why St. Thomas says our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets. Thus, by proper exegesis, it is evident that St. Thomas is in line with Catholic teaching and is not affirming the Protestant position.

Before I close off, I want to make a note about how proper exegesis is important in Protestant and Catholic polemics; if we misrepresent each other’s position, then the conversation is going to go nowhere. When protestants argue their position that St. Thomas taught Sola Scriptura, it shows that their method of exegesis is problematic, because some of these proponents will hand-wave away any other quotations that would disprove their reading and reply saying, “Oh, this just shows that the Church and her doctors are hopelessly contradictory and shows we can only hold sola scriptura to stand firm in the faith.” In other words, if quote B contradicts my reading of quote A, then the author contradicts himself. This is a ridiculous way to do exegesis of a text because it assumes the reader properly grasps what the author is trying to get across. We should be reasonable enough to say that an author is going to remain consistent within his own work; it would be ridiculous to say that one of the smartest philosophers of all time was so irresponsible as to contradict himself in the same work, especially when such an author constantly refers back to older articles they wrote. If we apply this methodology to authors, like in the Protestant tradition, then one can dishonestly argue that the Protestant scholastics denied Sola Scriptura. For example, Louis LeBlanc, a reformed theologian, states that councils gathered in the name of Christ cannot fall into pernicious error and are infallible, he writes,

Indeed, they [Reformed Theologians] acknowledge that those councils which are truly gathered in the name of Christ, that is, which is seriously and diligently fulfill the condition included in these words ‘gathered in the name of Christ,’ while putting aside human affections and solely and earnestly seeking the truth in the word of God handed down through the Prophets and Apostles, and invoking the help of the divine Spirit with prayers and ardent supplications, they acknowledge, I saym that those councils ahve Christ so present that they cannot fall into any pernicious error. But just as we can safely and certainly judge no visible assembly of pastors whether it has truly fulfilled the condition Christ requires of those who wish to be gathered in his name, so they also think that there is no council, however general and numerous, of which we can state and say that it cannot err and necessarily bind the faith of Christians, and therefore what is concluded and defined in one council can be subjected to examination in another council. 18

Here, LeBlanc says Church councils or those gathered in the name of Christ can be infallible. Does this mean he denied Sola Scriptura or that he contradicts himself? No! I interpret LeBlanc in light of his corpus and his tradition, in that he believes councils or gatherings are infallible and bind the conscience of the believer insofar as it agrees with the teachings of Sacred Scripture and not by its own authority. I hope this helps you understand that St. Thomas did not teach Sola Scriptura.

May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

P1: God is necessary

P2: God’s will is identical to God

P3: God wills things apart from Him

C: God wills apart from him necessarily

If you wish for responses from modern philosophers, stick to the end, where I include links to a couple of papers.

Although there is a more modern formulation of the objection by people like Dr. Ryan Mullins, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange will refute the general argument from people like Spinoza and Leibniz, in The One God and God, His Existence, and His Nature, Vol. 2.

In his commentary, he will respond by saying that God wills necessarily His own goodness, but God wills things apart from Himself mostly freely and not necessarily. In other words, we are going to deny the conclusion. The first aspect is known because the divine will has a necessary relation to divine goodness, due to divine simplicity and divine goodness being the proper object of the will. Fr. Lagrange elaborates, “Moreover, there is not and cannot be any idea of evil resulting from the divine goodness, but in it we see clearly all that pertains to good. And then God is of necessity actually willing and not merely potentially so. Therefore God necessarily wills His goodness, and the necessity is one of specification and of exercise.”1

Next, Fr. Lagrange illustrates that St. Thomas solves the second part of the statement by showing that God is not dependent on creatures for His goodness. He proves the proposition by saying that when we will an end, we do not will the conducive aspects to the end, unless the conducive aspects are necessary to achieve the end. Just when a man wills to eat breakfast, opening his mouth is going to be necessary to achieve the end. Now, when God wills things apart from Himself, he is going to will them as ordained to His goodness, which is perfect, can dispense with creatures, without increasing His goodness. Therefore, God does not necessarily will things apart from Himself.2

Another way that this second part can be expressed is that after creation, there are more beings, but not more being, or more goodness/perfection. This is because there is necessarily and from eternity pre-existing infinite goodness that is actually and necessarily loved and possessed by God Almighty.3

In God, His Existence, and His Nature, Vol. 2, Fr. Lagrange is going to give a more detailed response to the question against Leibniz and Spinoza. Lagrange puts it into 4 propositions4:

1. God necessarily loves Himself

2. He creates freely without moral necessity according to real fittingness, which does not urge infallibly, and which He could leave out of consideration, remaining good and wise.

3. God could have chosen a better world, but He could not have arranged its elements better than the actual world or shown greater wisdom in their arrangements.

4. God has free preferences which are their own reason for being, and in which His supreme and absolute liberty shines forth.

For the first proposition, we are going to know this is the case based on simplicity. The divine will is going to have a relational necessity with divine goodness, as it is its proper object. Hence, God wills or loves His goodness necessarily. An analogy would be something akin to sight to color. The faculty of sign is going to have color as a proper object necessarily because that is the very essence of the faculty.

For the second proposition, Lagrange and St. Thomas are going to argue that God wills things apart from Himself insofar as they are ordered to His own goodness. As stated above, when an end is willed, we do not will things that are conducive to the end, with the exception that they are going to be necessary to achieve the end. Like with the will to eat a peanut butter sandwich above, I would will the conducive aspect of opening my mouth, but I would not necessarily will the use of a spoon, since I can use a knife instead to still achieve the end. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as they do not add to God’s goodness or perfection. The creative act is going to be free regarding the liberty of exercise and by the liberty of specification. St. Thomas elaborates,

For natural things have a natural inclination not only towards their own proper good, to acquire it if not possessed, and, if possessed, to rest therein; but also to spread abroad their own good among others, so far as possible. Hence we see that every agent, in so far as it is perfect and in act, produces its like. It pertains, therefore, to the nature of the will to communicate as far as possible to others the good possessed; and especially does this pertain to the divine will, from which all perfection is derived in some kind of likeness. Hence, if natural things, in so far as they are perfect, communicate their good to others, much more does it appertain to the divine will to communicate by likeness its own good to others as much as possible. Thus, then, He wills both Himself to be, and other things to be; but Himself as the end, and other things as ordained to that end, inasmuch as it befits the divine goodness that other things should be partakers therein.5

So, is it going to follow that there is going to be a moral necessity for creation, or that God would not be perfect if he didn’t create? No. Lagrange cited Cajetan and his principle of good being diffusive of itself. Good being diffusive of itself is going to be understood analogically, like the notion of itself, of being, on which it is based. For creatures, it is going to be a free perfection for free beings to give their plenitude. So a created object is not going to be loved if the object is isolated, because the virtue is only going to become more perfect if there are other things to love or be loved by. But this is not the case for God, because God is infinite goodness. If God were to isolate Himself, His goodness would not be diminished or hindered from increasing because of its infinitude. Therefore, it is not morally necessary for God to create. This creative act is not added by any accident to the necessary act of God loving Himself. Thus, the action of God outside Himself is going to be dependent upon His liberty, so much so that the divine knowledge cannot, without divine decree, foresee whether creation will take place or not.6

The third proposition might be a bit difficult at first, but it can be properly illustrated. St. Thomas refutes Leibniz’s theories on this point. Leibniz is going to say that God is going to necessarily create the best possible world because of His own goodness and infinitude. However, St. Thomas writes,

Others, however, said that the divine power is restricted to this present course of events through the order of the divine wisdom and justice without which God does nothing. But since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the divine power which is not in the order of the divine wisdom; for the divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power.

Yet the order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion of His justice consists, is not so adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all proportion things created. Whence the divine wisdom is not so restricted to any particular order that no other course of events could happen. Wherefore we must simply say that God can do other things than those He has done.7

Lagrange cites St. Thomas on how God can make a better world without making a better arrangement of its elements,

When it is said that God can make a thing better than He makes it, if better is taken substantively, this proposition is true. For He can always make something else better than each individual thing: and He can make the same thing in one way better than it is, and in another way not; as was explained above. If, however, better is taken as an adverb, implying the manner of the making; thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it, because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness. But if it implies the manner of the thing done, He can make something better; because He can give to things made by Him a better manner of existence as regards the accidents, although not as regards the substance.8

Then, in his response to the third objection, St. Thomas writes,

The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe.9

So here we can see that the world is a master piece, in itself, but another greater master piece is possible. An analogy we can give is that of a plant and an animal. A plant is going to be a less perfect creature than an animal, yet there isn’t going to be a better arrangement of the parts of the plant. Similarly, a master piece by Tame Impala is a master piece without fault in it, does not exclude the possibility the creation of another master piece in a different order of that of a similar kind.10

The fourth proposition is going to be proven by absolute liberty. Absolute liberty does not detract from divine wisdom. St. Thomas writes,

In the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, although primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place.11

From this, we reason to the idea that there are free preferences in God that have their own reason of being; in this, divine liberty is going to show its primacy. So these things are going to be contingent on God’s divine will. Fr. Lagrange writes,

These are none the less made with infinite wisdom: the absolute dominating indifference of the divine volition with regard to both sides equally convincing, is based precisely upon the divine wisdom which manifests the equality of both sides and their infinite distance from divine goodness which is the end of all things. Wisdom shows therefore that, in this case, the free determination can come only from liberty itself, and judges taht it is fitting for it to be so. There is always self determination in free acts, but here self-determination is as complete as can be.

A theological analogy can be how God predestines the elect. God elects those by His love. His will, by which He loves, wishes good towards a person, and this acts as the cause of the good (i.e., grace) possessed by some in preference to others. Thus, God’s love precedes His election, and this free preference is going to be a sufficient reason in itself, which also resolves any conflict with divine wisdom. In addition, supreme wisdom judges that which is fitting for it to be so, just as St. John the Apostle writes, “The Spirit breatheth where he will.”12

We do not look for exactness in the divine choice because it is infinite, being counterbalanced only by the supremacy of its expression. Just as a singer observes and maintains the rules of singing, he retains a freedom that proves the very volition he has of his art. The singer is not enslaved by his principles, but dominates them in his singing.13

I hope that this helps some of you who wished to learn about Fr. Lagrange and his philosophy. If you wish to look into more modern responses to the modal collapse argument, look into Dr. Christopher Tomaszewski’s two papers: Collapsing the Modal Collapse Argument: On an Invalid Argument Against Divine Simplicity and How the Absolutely Simple Creator Escapes a Modal Collapse.

May the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!.

First, we can look to the Quran to see what it says about Our Lady. Firstly, it would appear that the Quran affirms that Our Lady acts as a sign of the power of Allah. The Quran states, “And ˹remember˺ the one who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our angel, ˹Gabriel,˺ making her and her son a sign for all peoples.”1 (Quran 21:91) The Quran further writes, “And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and gave them refuge on high ground—a ˹suitable˺ place for rest with flowing water.”2 From this, we can see that Islamic scripture puts Our Lady on a high pedestal to say she and her Son are a sign of Allah. The Quran testifies that she will be perfectly docile to the will of Allah, “˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺. She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.3

Second, we can see that it affirms the virgin birth of Christ and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. The Quran explicitly recounts the dialogue between Mary and the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation and then the subsequent birth, although the Quran does wrongly testify that Mary experienced birth pains during the birth of Jesus.4 However, the Quran does teach that Mary was a chaste woman and a perpetual virgin. The Quran writes, “She wondered, ‘How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me, nor am I unchaste?’”5 The Quran further writes, “˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺. She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.”6

Lastly, we can see that the Quran testifies to Mary being purified, with later testimony alluding to her sinlessness, by Allah, and is more virtuous than all other women of the world during her time, “And ˹remember˺ when the angels said, “O Mary! Surely Allah has selected you, purified you, and chosen you over all women of the world.”7 Later Muslim authors recount a time when Muhammad said that Mary was the only perfect woman, “Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, ‘Many amongst men attained perfection, but amongst women none attained the perfection except Mary, the daughter of `Imran and Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh.”8

From these citations, we can see that Islam illustrates Mary as a docile servant of Allah, a sign of Allah, perfect, virtuous, and chaste. I think this gives credence to a type of Mariology that existed around the time of Muhammad. On a few occasions, the Islamic tradition has said significant figures have encountered Christians living in the Middle East, and I believe there can be things we can pull from this. Perhaps the statement of Muhammad about Mary’s perfection coincides with what Christians around the time were saying that Mary was sinless.9 There is one interesting verse that can give a bit of historical context to what Christians believed about saintly intercession. The Quran says that Allah will ask Jesus if he told his disciples to worship Him and Mary,

And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.10

The Quran is saying that those who follow after Jesus (i.e., Christians) were worshiping Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah. From this, we can see that the author of the Quran is saying that Christians offer worship to Christ, Mary, and Allah. However, the Quran doesn’t acknowledge the distinction between worship and intercession. This verse tells us that, around the time of Muhammad, people were “worshipping” Mary, informing us that Christians were practicing intercessional prayer. I think that this gives some historical credit to the belief of intercession of the saints and lowers the chances that saintly intercession was an innovation of the Second Council of Nicaea.

May the grace of Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, be with you.

“In what sense then her firstborn? By firstborn she here means, not the first among several brethren, but one who was both her first and only son: for some such sense as this exists among the significations of ‘firstborn.’ For sometimes also the Scripture calls that the first which is the only one; as ‘I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other.’ To shew then that the Virgin did not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word firstborn; for as she continued to be a virgin, she had no other son but Him Who is of the Father: concerning Whom God the Father also proclaims by the voice of David, ‘And I will set Him Firstborn high among the kings of the earth.’ Of Him also the all-wise Paul makes mention, saying, ‘But when He brought the First-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ How then did He enter into the world? For He is separate from it, not so much in respect of place as of nature; for it is in nature that He differs from the inhabitants of the world: but He entered into it by being made man, and becoming a portion of it by the incarnation.

For though He is the Only-begotten as regards His divinity, yet as having become our brother, He has also the name of Firstborn; that, being made the first-fruits as it were of the adoption of men, He might make us also the sons of God. Consider therefore that He is called the Firstborn in respect of the economy: for with respect to His divinity He is the Only-begotten. Again, He is the Only-begotten in respect of His being the Word of the Father, having no brethren by nature, nor being co-ordinate with any other being: for the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, is One and Alone: but He becomes the Firstborn by descending to the level of created things. When therefore He is called the Only begotten, He is so with no cause assigned by reason of which He is the Only-begotten, being ‘the Only-begotten God into the bosom of the Father:’ but when the divine Scriptures call Him Firstborn, they immediately also add of whom He is the firstborn, and assign the cause of His bearing this title: for they say, ‘Firstborn among many brethren:’ and ‘Firstborn from the dead:’ the one, because He was made like unto us in all things except sin; and the other, because He first raised up His own flesh unto incorruption.

Moreover, He has ever been the Only-begotten by nature, as being the Sole begotten of the Father, God of God, and Sole of Sole, having shone forth God of God, and Light of Light: but He is the Firstborn for our sakes, that by His being called the Firstborn of things created, whatever resembles Him may be saved through Him: for if He must of necessity be the Firstborn, assuredly those must also continue to exist of whom He is the Firstborn. But if, as Eunomius argues, He is called God’s Firstborn, as born the first of many; and He is also the Virgin’s Firstborn; then as regards her also, He must be the first as preceding another child: but if He is called Mary’s Firstborn, as her only child, and not as preceding others, then is He also God’s Firstborn, not as the first of many, but as the Only One born. (Commentary on Luke 2:7, Sermons 1)

Now, St. Cyril’s words are very important, first, for his explanation of the word gives proper context to what is being spoken in Sacred Scripture and aids to harminize Sacred Scripture for the reader. Second, his exegesis refutes the claims of several heretical groups, namely the Helvetians and the Arians. First, let us speak of the Arians, for their heresy is among the greatest of heresies.

The Arians were a group of heretics who believed Christ to be a creature and not God. They often used verses from Colossians and Luke to prove that Christ is the first among creation; therefore, he cannot be divine because there must have been a time when the Son was not. St. Cyril refutes this by asserting that Christ is the firstborn because He is the Only-begotten Son of God and none other is like Him according to His Divine Nature. St. Cyril continues saying that He is the firstborn among us because Christ has come to bring us salvation and that all are saved from hellfire through Him, Christ Jesus. His incarnation makes Him like us, but without sin, and His resurrection acts as the Firstborn among the people to be resurrected in the Second Coming.

The Helvetians, likewise, spread falsity with respect to the Catholic faith; for they claim that Our Lady had other children besides Our Blessed Lord. This lie has spread throughout the Low-Church Christians and lacks the truth regarding Our Lady’s virtue. They will argue that the word firstborn indicates that there are others born after Christ, therefore Our Lady was not a perpetual virgin. St. Cyril refutes by giving examples in Sacred Scripture to prove firstborn does not necessitate that there are others born after a firstborn. St. Cyril quotes Isaiah 44:5, where God states that He is the First and Only God, and that there are no others like Him. If saying one is the First necessitates subsequent objects, then God’s statement would be true, for then there would be a second, third, etc. that are like Him. Therefore, it is evident that the word firstborn does not necessitate others to follow from the first, thus offering an adequate response to the objection of the Helvetians.

In conclusion, let us hold fast to the truths of Sacred Scripture and the Church. Our Lady of Lebanon, ora pro nobis. God Bless you all and may the grace of Our Lord be with you.

Mary as the New Eve:

Meaning: Just as how Jesus is portrayed as the New Adam in the Old Testament, Mary acts as an antithesis for Eve and acts as the New Eve. This is due to the fact that by Eve’s disobedience, sin entered the world and through Mary’s obedience, salvation came as the Son of God.

Proofs: This can be shown from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Scripture: Although it is not explicitly in scripture, we can take principles from scripture to establish the typology. According to the epistle to the Romans, St. Paul establishes Christ as the New Adam that saved us from our sins, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12,21) Further, St. Paul writes,

Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. -1 Cor. 15:45-49

From this, we can establish the principle because Christ became the new Adam due to His work for our Redemption. We can say that Mary is the New Eve because the salvation (i.e., Christ) came into the world through her, just as how sin entered the world through Eve.

Sacred Tradition: Some Fathers make the connection that Mary is the New Eve. Across the Age, for brevity, I will only cite a couple of Fathers.

St. Justin Martyr in His dialogue with Trypho writes,

He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ Luke 1:38 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him. -Dialogue of Trypho ch. 100.

Here, he clearly makes the connection between Mary being an antithesis to Eve based on the introduction and destruction of sin.

Another Father that make this connection is St. Irenaeus of Lyon explicitly. For context, St. Irenaeus was just speaking of how Christ is the New Adam; he writes,

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. -Against Heresies 3.22.4

He writes again,

That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled — was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death. -Against Heresies 5.19.1

So in multiple places, St. Irenaeus explicitly makes the connections that Mary is the New Eve.

St. Jerome writes in his letters, “Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.” (Letters 22.21)

Obj. Eve was married to Adam, which is not the case for Mary and Jesus; therefore, Mary cannot be the New Eve (1 Timothy 2:14 RSVCE).

Reply. Biblical typology is not a strict 1-to-1 connection, but there is a connection that is made, rather atype is meant to emphasize a certain point. The connection is that sin came through Eve by disobedience and salvation came through Mary by obedience.

Thank you for reading. May the grace of Our Lord be with you.

drive.google.com/file/d/13-kIQKkn5eo-JoCKnXJGseXgaOlcTBEQ/view?usp=drive_link

If it pleases you, use all that I am and have without reserve, wholly to accomplish what was said of you: “She will crush your head,” and, “You alone have destroyed all heresies in the world.” Let me be a fit instrument in your immaculate and merciful hands for introducing and increasing your glory to the maximum in all the many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus help extend as far as possible the blessed kingdom of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus. For wherever you enter, you obtain the grace of conversion and growth in holiness, since it is through your hands that all graces come to us from the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

V. Allow me to praise you, O sacred Virgin.

R. Give me strength against your enemies.”

“Protestantism has slowly lost the full knowledge of the divinity of Christ because it refused to Mary the honor which is due to the Mother of God, supposedly for the sake of God and Christ” -Fr. Scheeben Mariology Vol 1 pg 139

To briefly break down this quote. Fr. Scheeben is describing the pitfall that Protestants fall into as they deny the Divine Maternity. He sees to it that those who deny the Divine Motherhood lose sight of the fullness of Christ’s divinity. And he points out the sentiment that Protestants have to give more glory to God is zealous, but is misguided, and retroactively dismantles the glory of God that they wish to uphold.

I ask that you keep the principle that Fr. Scheeben employs close to your heart. Continue in regular prayer, give honor to Our Lady, and hold fast to the teachings of Christ and His Church, for the sake of your souls.

I wish you all a blessed day. May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

drive.google.com/file/d/1ckg88y2r43Kv69ArCeQmNJQA6CO71Y9c/view