Pope Siricus to Bishop Anysius on the Importance of Mary Being a Perpetual Virgin

In a letter to Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica, written in AD 392, Pope St. Siricus (who reigned as bishop of Rome from 384 to 398) wrote the following, which highlights why the perpetual virginity of Mary (as well as the rest of the Marian dogmas) are such important topics for Roman Catholic truth claims:

We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary, and Your Holiness was right in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had judged that she would be so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the body of the Lord, the home of the eternal king, with the seed of human intercourse. Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing the unbelief of the Jews saying that Christ could not be born of a virgin. For if they accept the doctrine on the authority of priests that Mary had a number of children, then they will strive with greater effort to destroy the truths of faith. (The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation [Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1973], 204)

In other words, according to this bishop of Rome, if one believes Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus and had other children, (1) they are agreeing with the faithless Jews of Jesus’ time who rejected the virginal conception and birth of Jesus and (2) they are denying the faith. Such should convince one that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an unimportant area of study and debate; instead, as it is a defined dogma of Catholicism (while not defined during the time of Siricus, it was at the time a near-universally agreed upon doctrine), it is truly important. Indeed, that is why I spent 50+ pages addressing the best arguments for and against it in my book-length study of Mariology, coming down on the “Helvidian” perspective (i.e., the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were biological [half] siblings of Jesus):

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (pp. 83-138 deals with the perpetual virginity).

1 Nephi 15:21-22: The Tree in a Vision Signifying a Tree

In 1 Nephi 15:21-22, Nephi explains the meaning of the "tree" Lehi saw in a vision:

And it came to pass that they did speak unto me again, saying: What meaneth this thing which our father saw in a dream? What meaneth the tree which he saw? And I said unto them: It was a representation of the tree of life.

In other words, the tree in Lehi’s vision is said to represent a tree. This might seem unusual, but to ancients, it is perfectly acceptable. Commenting on Tertullian and other early Christian writers, J.N.D. Kelly wrote:

Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms, “body” and “blood” may after all be merely symbolic. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as “a figure” (figura) of Christ’s body, and one speaks of “the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.” Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern
fashion.According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’ All that language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of  figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” (emphasis his), (Early Christian Doctrines, [5th ed.; London: Continuum, 1977], 212)

It would not be unusual, therefore, for an ancient like Lehi et al., to think that a sign/symbol in the form of a tree signified a tree, not something else.

The Christ Child: A Nativity Story

The Church posted a very historically accurate depiction of the nativity story:

The Christ Child: A Nativity Story

Jasmin Rappleye has a good blog post addressing the details in this video at:

7 More Details You May Not Have Noticed in the Church’s New Christmas Nativity Video

IMO, it is a very good depiction of the nativity and gives the following (a personal favourite) a run for its money ;-)

Life of Brian Opening Scene

Were Lehi et al Polygamists? Does the Book of Mormon Endorse Polygamy as the Norm for God's People?

Some Fundamentalist Mormon groups and apologists argue that the Book of Mormon actually teaches polygamy is not the exception but the “norm” for God’s chosen people (e.g., this video featuring two such individuals – the entire exchange, including the pseudo-scholarship and eisegesis shows the truly cultic nature of many of these groups). In response, Brian Hales wrote the following:

Some Mormon fundamentalist authors have argued that Lehi and his families were in fact polygamists, but after arriving in America, whoredoms arose causing the Lord to withdraw the privilege . . . However, this is incorrect. The abominations of the Nephites occurred after Lehi’s death (2 Ne. 4:12) and after Nephi’s death as well (Jacob 1:12). When Lehi’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren transgressed by taking plural wives, Jacob called the perpetrators to repentance saying: “the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father” was “that they should have save it were one wife and concubines they should have none” (Jacob 3:5). The chronology shows that Lehi was given the commandment to have one wife decades before his grandchildren and great-grandchildren experimented with polygamy. In their defense they sought to excuse themselves, not because the Lord had permitted their grandparent Lehi to practice polygamy, but “because of the things which were written [upon the brass plates] concerning David and Solomon his son” (Jacob 2:23). In response, Jacob quoted the Lord: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:27). If plural marriage is required for exaltation, God’s commandment to Lehi of monogamy, which continued throughout the entire Book of Mormon, is puzzling. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 3: Theology [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013], 193 n. 9)

Jaroslav Pelikan on Baptismal Regeneration in Acts

The instructions given to Paul at his conversion, as he reported them here, speaking in Aramaic and to a Jewish audience, were: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (22:16). In Peter’s formula at Pentecost, the prepositional phrase in English, “for the forgiveness of your sins,” renders the prepositional phrase in Greek, εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, the preposition εἰς being used here as a “marker of goals” or “to denote purpose.” To the recurring objection of those who reject the orthodox doctrine of sacramental grace that works ex opere operato and who insist that the sacraments do not convey the forgiveness of sins but only announce it—which does seem reminiscent of the objection of the scribes and Pharisees, as reported by Saint Luke, “Who can forgive sins but God only?” (Luke 5:21)—the tenor of the preposition εἰς here would appear to be that the God who alone can forgive sins had, in sovereign freedom, chosen to attach that forgiveness to the means of grace, and specifically to baptism, in a connection described by the Epistle to Titus: “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). (Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts [Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2005], 239)

Jeff Durbin and Apologia Church Keeping it Classy

Jeff Durbin and the rest of Apologia Church demonstrate their class with the following incident:

Apologia Church Saved Private Clergy-Penitent Recordings, Then Released Them to Punish Critics

For someone who holds to Sola Scriptura, perhaps 1 Tim 3:2 (which speaks of being above reproach) is missing in the Apologia Church's version of the Bible. Of course, Durbin et al lacking integrity (intellectual and otherwise) is not a new revelation. See, for e.g.:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism”

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Joseph Jungmann and Henk Jan de Jonge on the Early Christian View of the Eucharist

On the Eucharist in general in the opening two centuries, Jungmann (in his seminal study of the original and development of the Mass) wrote:

. . . before Irenaeus . . . no offering was recognized in the Church except that which consisted in thanksgiving . . ."God does not demand an offering of victim or drink, nor of any visible things" [Aristides, Apology, 1]. He requires "not blood-oblations and drink, not the order of flowers or of incense, since He is the perfect perfume, without want or blemish." The highest sacrifice one can offer Him is to acknowledge Him and tender Him our spiritual service [Athenagoras, Legatio, c. 13]. The only honor worthy of Him is to put His gifts to use for ourselves and for the poor, and to "be thankful and by our spirit send heavenward songs of praise and hymns of glory for our creation . . ." [Justin Martyr, Apology, 1.13]. For this reason, the apologists explained, the Christians had no altar and no temple" [Minucius Felix, Octavius, c. 32, 1]. (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1 [trans. Francis A. Brunner; Christian Classics, 2012], 24-25).

On the Eucharistic theology of the Didache (variously dated between AD 50-100) specifically, Henk Jan de Jonge wrote:

The congregation thanked God not only for material food and drink, but also for spiritual food and drink: knowledge, faith, immortality, and eternal life. It is not stated in these prayers of thanks that the bread and wine stand for Christ’s body and blood. The Didache therefore did not interpret them as representations of his body and blood, and consequently it does not see the meal as a way of becoming one with Christ. It does, however, regard eating and drinking them as an anticipated, proleptic participation in a future salvation, namely the coming kingdom of God. According to 9:2 the wine represents the vine of king David, God’s servant; according to 9:3 the bread symbolizes the unity of the church gathered into God’s kingdom” (Henk Jan de Jonge, The Community Supper according to Paul and the Didache: Their Affinity and Historical Development, eds. Jan Krans, L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, Arie W. Zwiep, Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology, [BRILL, 2013], p. 34).

For a discussion of commonly cited proof-texts from the Didache, writings of Ignatius, Origen, and others, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)