Recently,
Tim Staples, author of Behold Your
Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, was
interviewed by Matt Fradd as part of the Pints With Aquinas podcast/youtube
channel:
4 Things Catholics Believe About Mary w/ Tim Staples | Pints with Aquinas Episode #213
For those
who wish to know how Catholics defend the four Marian dogmas (Mother of God
[which Latter-day Saints should not find objectionable]; Perpetual Virginity;
Immaculate Conception; Bodily Assumption) as well as the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix/co-mediatrix, one would do well to listen to it (I actually watched its premiere on youtube, Mariology ned that I am).
Notwithstanding, as with his books, Staples’ arguments are, to be honest,
lousy. Fradd referred to his book as perhaps the best Catholic apologetic
volume on Mariology, and if that is the case, our Catholic friends are in
trouble, as, contra Staples, the final 3 dogmas proposed by Rome are opposed to
the Bible, and especially with the Immaculate Conception, the earliest
patristic corpus, too.
See my book
(which one can download as a free PDF):
Behold the Mother of
My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology
One can find
the various arguments Staples used in his interview throughout this book, such
as his claims about the meaning of αδελφος in the New Testament era, and purported evidence thereof which Staples claims to have always existed, albeit in "seed form," in the earliest strata of Christianity, based on some early Christians believing Mary to be the New/Second Eve--Irenaeus, in the same book of Against Heresies where he made the Eve/Mary parallel accused Mary of personal sin based on John 2:4; Staples in his book and in the interview claims this was only an accusation of "venial faults" not sins(!)--an example of the special pleading Staples engages in. Irenaeus and other early Christians did not just accuse Mary of having "faults" (even if they did not use the term "sin[s]"), but actions which, in RC theology, are venial sins, such as vanity.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high
spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the
sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of
doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom.
xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the
fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which
pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and
of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at
Capharnaum (Matthew 11:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In
Matt.", hom. iv). (Frederick G. Holweck, "Immaculate Conception")
Since my
book came out in late 2017, I have written a bit more about Mariology, including the
following posts addressing the claims of Brent Pitre in his Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary and
the perpetual virginity of Mary which would be a good supplement to the chapter on this topic in my book:
αδελφος in Josephus' Jewish Wars, 6:356-57
Josephus' Paraphrase of Genesis 29:12 and the meaning of αδελφος
And in case anyone is wondering, yes, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and I would happily have a moderated debate with a Catholic on the Immaculate Conception and whether it is a genuine apostolic tradition (and yes, that includes Staples, Fradd, and anyone else).
