THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE UFO CONNECTION

UFO’s – Unidentified Flying Objects – it seems that almost everyone is intrigued by them, and people want to know what UFO’s are and where they come from.  Hundreds, even thousands, of sightings of unknown objects in the sky have fascinated people all around the world since ancient times, even until now.  Interestingly, there seems to be quite an increase in UFO experiences today, but there are still many people who are skeptical of these sightings. 

Undoubtedly, some of these sightings are hoaxes, pranks, illusions, or imaginations running wild and I’m sure that at least some of the stories out there are wildly exaggerated.  However, because of the sheer multitude of documented cases, not only in the U.S., but worldwide, and because of the consistency of many of these events and their descriptions, it is hard to dismiss them all as mere illusions.  Something is indeed out there.

So what exactly are these Unidentified Flying Objects?  Could they simply be comets or meteorites falling from the sky?  Could they just be hallucinations or the product of someone’s vivid imagination?

Some have suggested that they may be weather balloons or drones, while some will say that these are some type of unusual military aircraft.  This is not always the case, since many of these objects have been caught on multiple sources of radar at the same time by airports and planes (both civilian and military), by sober, experienced aviation personnel, Navy and Air Force pilots and even astronauts.  Many sane and respected people have seen these unearthly objects in the sky with no reason to lie about it. 

Also interesting is the government cover-up in some of these events, for example, the strange “flying saucer” crash that happened at Roswell, New Mexico back in 1947 and the recovery of “bodies.”  Some of that is still classified today.

Identified

So, if these entities flying these UFO’s are real, should we reach out to them or should we shun them?  Should we embrace them or avoid them like the plague?

My personal opinion is that these beings are demonic in nature.  Let me explain why.  They defy our natural laws.  They can move faster than the speed of sound, yet, make no sonic “boom” when the sound barrier is broken.  These aircraft often appear to make no noise at all, and there are often no detectable exhaust fumes.  They turn at right angles effortlessly at extremely high speeds.  They are able to evade our fastest military jets.  Some have even been observed travelling from the air, then into the ocean without any change in speed.  There is literally nothing on earth like them.  They break our natural, physical laws, therefore they are obviously supernatural.   Something is certainly going on and I am convinced that only supernatural beings (beings from another dimension) can do these things.

The Bible tells us of only two categories of supernatural beings – those that are godly and those that are evil.  Jesus said, “He who is not with Me is against me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). There are good ones (those that obey God – Hebrews 1:14) and there are evil ones (those who have been cast out of Heaven – Isaiah 14:12-15; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Revelation 12:4, 7-9).     

Intelligent creatures (including humans) are either “on God’s side” or not.  There is no third option.  Those on God’s side will obey Him and do His will, spread the gospel, help God’s people, etc.  But these strange, intelligent beings flying superior aircraft are not pointing to Scripture or spreading good will, they are not pointing us to God or sharing the gospel.  In fact, they seem to be eerily watching us and will generally evade people, but when they do “make contact,” there is usually a fearful or threatening situation, with some people even claiming abductions.  I have never heard of a story where aliens meet humans and say, “Fear not,” as good angels do in Scripture (e.g., Daniel 10:12; Matthew 28:5; Luke 2:9-10).  If they were from God, they would no doubt say this and encourage people to embrace Jesus Christ and His gospel.

But it seems that these sightings and occurrences never point to Jesus Christ, but rather, these beings seem to have a different agenda.  So, since they are not bringing the gospel, nor any godly message, but rather fear, confusion, paranoia, and general creepiness (and in some cases, harm), I think that we can safely conclude that the motives of these other-worldly beings are not pure. 

Watching Outer Space

Many people don’t know that the Catholic Church has an observatory with giant telescopes in Rome and another one in Arizona with a team of astronomers.

An interesting question would be: “Why would the Catholic Church spend millions of dollars on a giant telescope to stare into outer space when their primary mission is supposed to be spreading the gospel and keeping the Catholic faith alive?”

Perhaps this is a bit of over-compensation for what happened to Galileo (the guy who the Catholic Church imprisoned because he “foolishly” thought that the earth revolved around the sun [heliocentrism])? At that time, the Church believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and therefore accused Galileo of heresy, holding him under house arrest until the time he died.  

We know that the Catholic Church is trying really hard to forget that incident and is trying to prove to everyone that they are now more interested in science.  But isn’t spending millions of dollars for a telescope a bit of overkill?  How will this telescope help the average Catholic grow closer to God?  This money could have been better spent spreading the truth of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20).

The Catholic View

But what does the Catholic Church say about these creatures from “outer space”?  There don’t appear to be any official statements from the Vatican about UFO’s or aliens, but some in high places within the Catholic Church would welcome the idea of extraterrestrials here on earth. 

Father Chris Corbally, S.J., a high-ranking Catholic astronomer and scientist at the Vatican Observatory said of the search for extraterrestrial life, “We would be open to that sort of thing.  Certainly, some of our efforts should be directed toward that.”

 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-12-22-9204260465-story.html

According to Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a retired Catholic priest and former member of the Roman Curia (a high-level body of offices that govern the Catholic Church), “It is reasonable to believe and to affirm that extra-terrestrials exist.  Their existence can no longer be denied for there is too much evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrials and flying saucers as documented by UFO research.  To assert categorically that they are illusions and hallucination, or that eyewitness testimony accounts are not credible, is wrong…” See here:

http://www.angelfire.com/tx/epmufon/index.newspage5b.html

An article in The Telegraph states, “Highly evolved extra terrestrial lifeforms may be living in space and would be welcomed into the church – ‘no matter how many tentacles [they have],’ one of the Pope’s astronomers has said.”

And that astronomer is Brother Guy Consolmagno, curator of the pope’s meteorite collection, and senior Vatican scientist, who said he “would be happy to baptize them [speaking of aliens].”  See here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

Jesuit priest Jose Gabriel Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory and scientific adviser to Pope Benedict, told the Vatican newspaper (L’Osservatore Romano) in 2008 in an interview headlined, The Extraterrestrial is my brother, that he saw no conflict between belief in such beings and faith in God.  He stated, “Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God.  This is not in contrast with our faith because we can’t put limits on God’s creative freedom… Why can’t we speak of a ‘brother extraterrestrial’?  It would still be part of creation.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-extraterrestrials/vatican-scientist-says-belief-in-god-and-aliens-is-ok-idUSL146364620080514

Although Funes’ statements in his interview with L’Osservatore Romano (above), were not official Vatican statements, a National Catholic Register article states:

“However, the fact that they were published in the Vatican newspaper signifies support of the wider Church for the acceptability of his position regarding the possible existence of intelligent aliens…”  And Brother Guy Consolmagno added, “Essentially, it [the fact that the article was printed] is evidence that the Vatican hierarchy agrees that there’s no problem [with these aliens].”  See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/site/article/alien_life_out_there

Pope Francis, himself, stated:

“If – for example – tomorrow an expedition of Martians came, and some of them came to us, here… Martians, right?  Green, with that long nose and big ears, just like children paint them… And one says, ‘But I want to be baptized!’ What would happen?… Who are we to close the doors to the Holy Spirit?... baptism is open to everyone…” See here:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-talks-about-aliens-says-he-would-welcome-martians-to-receive-baptism.html

A different source states that, “Monsignor Corrado Balducci made similar news when he said ETs [Extra-Terrestrials] were actually already interacting with earth and that some of the Vatican’s leaders were aware of it.”

This source also said that maverick Catholic theologian, Father Malachi Martin, when asked why the Vatican was heavily invested in the study of deep space at Mt. Graham Observatory in southeastern Arizona, replied, “Because the mentality… amongst those who [are] at the… highest levels of Vatican administration and geopolitics, know that, now, knowledge of what’s going on in space, and what’s approaching us, could be of great import in the next five years, ten years.” (Emphasis added)

 

One has to wonder, what did he mean by “and what’s approaching us.”  The article continues, “People familiar with Malachi believe he may have been referring to a near-future arrival of alien intelligence.”

 

The article also states that after Funes’ interview with L’Osservatore Romano, Muslim and Jewish leaders joined to say their religion could accommodate an ET reality…”  See here:

https://newswithviews.com/Horn/thomas12.htm

Is this a hint of the move toward a one-world religion (Revelation 13:8)?  In the quest for this one-world religion, some people believe that an alien “mediator” would be the ideal “person” to bring together all the world’s religions.

An Alien Savior?

Ok, so the Catholic Church seems to be willing to embrace these aliens / extraterrestrials.  Wouldn’t that be a good thing, you know, unity, world peace and all that?  No, I certainly don’t believe that.  This would no doubt be a very, very bad move. 

The movie, Independence Day comes to mind, with the large spaceship hovering over the city… and the people on rooftops are in awe and want to welcome these beings.  It is a moment of beauty, excitement and anticipation… until they are suddenly thrust into reality when the ship starts to fire on them and to brutally destroy their city.  Now, I’m not saying that this type of thing is going to actually happen, my point is simply, don’t trust these “alien” supernatural beings.

Many seem to have this view that, with all our problems, maybe these advanced beings could teach us a few things… find cures for diseases, solve political problems, or maybe they could even be our saviors! 

The pope’s astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, echoes this same sentiment of some people in another article:

“…Brother Consolmagno suggested the idea of discovering extraterrestrial life may be so appealing to humanity, with all its pain, injustice and disease, that there is hope that ‘any race advanced enough to cross the stars to visit us must also be advanced enough to show us how to overcome all those human ills.  They look to the aliens to be saviors of mankind.’”

https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2014/vatican-astronomer-just-a-matter-of-time-until-life-found-in-universe.cfm

Thanks, but no thanks, ET.  We already have a source of hope, a Savior, to help us with all our ills.  And His name is Jesus Christ:

“Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” (Ephesians 3:20-21)

“As in the Days of Noah”

It is interesting that Jesus warns us that the end times before His return will be like “the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).  Here, Jesus is alluding to people in those days as having a “business as usual” mindset, i.e., people were eating, drinking, marrying, etc. (v. 38-39).  All the normal everyday stuff we do. 

But many believe that there is more to this passage than just that.  The passage could very well also be pointing to the days of Noah in the book of Genesis, where the “sons of God” took “daughters of men” as wives, and produced giants as offspring, called “Nephilim” (Genesis 6:1-4).   Verse 4 says that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, “... and also afterward.”  This means after the flood, as well, that they ("the sons of God") would somehow return to earth to populate it with these strange (and wicked) hybrids.  After all, this was the reason that the flood came in the first place – to cleanse the land of these hybrids and their wickedness in the land.

 

This passage of Scripture could very well tie into our present-day “alien” activity.  By the way, many, if not most, of the alien abduction stories have something to do with aliens experimenting with human sex organs and reproductive systems.  Could this tie in with Noah’s time and this interest in producing this unusual offspring in humans?

Could the Catholic Church (with its alien agenda) play right into the coming strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:11?

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

I think that this will be the case for many Catholics (and others).

Conclusion

So when the pope says that “baptism is open to everyone,” does he really think that we should baptize these demonic beings?  Why would he think that they would ever even want to be baptized?  The answer to the question as to why couldn’t we speak of a “brother extraterrestrial” is obvious.  Yes, they are indeed part of creation, but so is the devil.  Would the pope baptize Satan, as well? 

This is a warning to Catholics, Protestants, and anyone else.  We should use biblical discernment and we should not trust these particular supernatural entities.  It is my sincere conviction that this “UFO connection” is a part of the great deception of the end times. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-11; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:13)

See this link for a very interesting and informative video on aliens and the last days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACfP5nOH9uo

Here also is an excellent article on alien deception in the end times:

https://www.gotquestions.org/alien-deception.html

CATHOLICISM AND MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY

Today’s article will be different.  It will be about my personal experience with the Catholic Church and its teachings.  Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am not a Catholic and that I disagree strongly with the Catholic Church on many issues, although there are some things they teach with which we can agree.  For the record, I did not leave the Catholic Church for personal reasons.  I was not berated by a bishop.  I was not molested by a priest.  I did not leave the Catholic Church because I wanted to shack up and live guilt-free with my girlfriend, or because I found its views on contraception too strict.  And it wasn’t because Catholics are mean people.  In fact, I live in an area with a high concentration of Catholics and many of them are great people and wonderful neighbors.

 

No, I left the Catholic Church for doctrinal reasons.  I strongly disagree with many of its teachings which I believe are not biblical.

My Childhood

I was raised on a farm and was one of six siblings and, for the most part, had a great childhood.  We were raised Catholic, although we were not devout.  We very seldom went to church except for weddings and funerals.  My dad didn’t see attending church as a necessity, although he certainly taught us right from wrong.  My mom was the one who taught us our prayers and helped us through First Communion, Confirmation, etc. 

Even though I was hardly ever in church in my younger years, I was somewhat tender toward the things of God.  I really did want to go to church, but just didn’t get much opportunity to do so as a child.

I vividly remember one day speaking with my oldest brother about how old some people get.  He said, “Yeah, some people grew to be 500 years old and even older.  It’s in the Bible.”  I thought, “Wow, that’s amazing!  But it must be true if it’s in the Bible.”  Now, I didn’t think this because we were Sola Scriptura (“Bible only”) believers.  In fact, we didn’t even have a Bible at home (that I was aware of) and I knew almost nothing about the Bible, but somewhere down the line, I became aware that it was God’s Word and it needed to be taken seriously.  From that moment, I had a greater respect for the Bible and I will ever be grateful to my brother for sharing that information with me that day.

 

The Skunk

As the years went by, I started attending catechism at my small-town elementary school.  Almost everyone in that school was Catholic and I remember how most of the students knew a lot more about their catechism than I did, since they attended church every week. 

Anyway, as a side note, there was kind of a funny thing that happened one day.  As I said, it was a small school in a small town and we would sometimes walk from the school to the Catholic Church a few blocks away to attend catechism there.  On one of these trips, a group of us were walking back to the school after catechism class and we found a dead skunk in the middle of the street.  As we surrounded it, one of my good friends, Greg, somehow managed to toss it on me.  I don’t remember how it happened, but it certainly did and the evidence was there!  When we got back to school a few minutes later, the teacher immediately smelled it and scolded Greg for his mischievous deed.  We still laugh about it today.

Trouble on the rise… 

As a kid, I very seldom got in trouble.  I was basically a good person in everyone’s eyes, a “goody-two-shoes,” if you will.  But the sinful nature of Adam in me prevailed and I grew tired of this image.  I remember walking down my gravel road one day as I decided I was going to do something bad.  I wasn’t even sure what I was going to do yet, but I really wanted to break out of this “good guy” mold.  At that moment, all I can describe is that something definitely changed.  Something seemed to “click” in my mind.  My heart was set to do evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

 

Because of this, a series of personal events occurred and things quickly went south.  It was almost as though God was saying to me, “Oh, so you want to be a tough guy, huh?  You want to go against the good I’ve given to you all your life?  Ok, then I’ll turn up the heat!”  God loves us but He will discipline us for our own good (Job 5:17; Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; Revelation 3:19).  And the “spanking” began.  This was the start of the worst period in my entire life.  Things began to happen that caused depression, bitterness and hatred to set in.  I had become a miserable, lustful, foul-mouthed and angry young man and I found out that when God decides to spank a wayward child, you’ll know you’ve been spanked!  I don’t know what would’ve happened if God had extended this period of misery, but only by His grace did I survive it.

In desperation one day, I suddenly remembered I had a book written by a preacher collecting dust on my bookshelf.  I opened it and read for the first time about God’s plan for His people.  It was as though the author was speaking directly to me.  I began to cry like a baby in a much-needed emotional release.  At this time, God wonderfully began to change my heart and my whole situation.

Something Lacking

A short time later, my girlfriend and I got married and since we were both Catholic, we were attending a local Catholic church.  One day at work, I met a guy named Elliot, who shared the gospel with me.  He told me things from the Bible that I had never heard in the Catholic Church.  He also encouraged me to read the Bible for myself.  So, I bought one and began reading it.  This was an eye-opening experience. 

My wife and I were still going to the Catholic Church, but we both felt like it was similar to going to a restaurant with a large buffet, yet only taking a tiny taste and leaving unsatisfied.  We enjoyed the very short “homily” (sermon), but everything seemed to be swallowed up in rituals.  As time went on, we discovered that many things the Catholic Church taught were not found in Scripture and that some things actually went against what the Bible teaches.  Once again, we did not leave the Catholic Church for personal reasons, but because of what it teaches.  If you are wondering about which teachings I object to, there are many articles on this blog which will give details on different topics.  One of the most important topics with which we disagreed with Catholics was justification, i.e., how a person is saved, and the differences here are too important to ignore.

Conclusion

I want everyone to know that this blog was not produced out of bitterness or to personally attack Catholics.  Throughout the blog, I am just attempting to share what God has shown me.  Again, I have many great Catholic friends (and family) and this blog is not meant to disparage them.  Rather, I hope that this article arouses their interest and lets everyone know where I am coming from.

 

Having said that, if I am wrong about the content of all these articles, you may have nothing to lose… but if I am right, there are serious spiritual consequences for those Catholics who choose to continue to embrace the teachings of Rome.

Lastly, I want to urge everyone – Catholics, Protestants and otherwise – to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), including the things I say, with Scripture, since it is the only God-breathed revelation for mankind today (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Sanctify them through Thy truth.  Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY… REALLY?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:

“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.  In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’  And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin.’” (CCC #499)

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity teaches that Mary was a virgin before Christ was born, during His birth, and even afterward, all the days of her life.  It is considered a dogma of the Catholic Church and therefore must be believed by the faithful Catholic.  It is not optional.

By the way, the perpetual virginity of Mary is believed by both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well.

Origin

The earliest witness to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to appear in the apocryphal (“hidden,” non-canonical writing) Protoevangelium of James at around 150 A.D.  By the way, this is not one of the seven Apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia also admits that the Protoevangelium of James is apocryphal, is of Catholic origin and that it contains “legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile [childishly foolish or immature] or fantastic [remote from reality].”  Yet, this Catholic encyclopedia claims that this apocryphal book is “based on the canonical gospels.” It also says that this book is the source of “various traditions current among the faithful,” and these traditions “are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age.”  So, in spite of its failings, the book is by no means rejected by the Catholic Church.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

According to J. Warner Wallace, author, speaker and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University, the Protoevangelium of James cannot be trusted.  It is considered to be written too late to be attributed to James or to any eyewitness of the things described.  Wallace states that the author of the Protoevangelium “appears to know little or nothing about the Jewish customs of the 1^st century.”  The writing is even condemned by Pope Gelasius as one of the books to be avoided by Catholics.  See here:

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-james/

So why do Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity?  On what basis do they accept this unusual belief?  Here are some of the reasons…

“Because We Want it to Be True…”

An article by Catholic Answers (the largest apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the U.S. run by lay people) says:

“According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten:  ‘The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ’ (Patrology 1:120-1).”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin

Again, the book’s principal aim, its very purpose, is to promote one of the Marian doctrines, no matter how many errors are found in it, no matter how much inconsistency can be found in it, no matter how unbiblical it is - the Catholic Church will use this volume to continue pushing its false teachings on Mary. 

The Vow

One of the reasons that the Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is at least partly because of the information found in the Protoevangelium of James.  It tells us that Mary had taken a lifetime vow of virginity.

It states that Mary’s mother (since she was supposedly barren), made a vow to God and promised to dedicate her child to Him if He chose to give her one, much like Samuel’s mother, Hannah, did in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 1:10-11).  Supposedly, Mary’s parents brought her to the temple at age three and she mounted the temple steps and she, herself, made a vow of virginity at this time. 

But how much does a three-year-old know about human anatomy and virginity?  Or about sexual activity within the marriage relationship?  A Catholic might say, “Maybe this knowledge was given to her supernaturally.  Don’t you Protestants think that God is able to do this?”  But that’s just begging the question, as this whole “perpetual virginity” issue does.  We should not be expected to prove that it wasn’t supernatural.  The Catholic Church bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was as they say.

Luke 1:34 – When Mary was told by the angel of her soon conception, she stated, “How can this be… since I am a virgin?”

Catholics take Mary’s statement here, as well, to somehow mean that a vow was in place beforehand, and they cling tightly to this idea.

It’s important to note what Mary didn’t say.  She never said, “How can this be, since I will never know a man?”  That would remove all doubt.  And why would Mary ever pledge to be married to Joseph to start with if she had already made a vow of virginity for life?  It just doesn’t make sense. 

Besides, there was no such thing in that culture, historically or biblically, as a married continuous virgin.

Matthew 1:18 – Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

If Mary had made a lifelong vow to remain a virgin, why would the phrase “before they came together” even be there in this context if they never intended to come together in their marriage?  It would just be pointless and would not make sense.  In the gospels, as a whole, there appears to at least be an intent to consummate the marriage.

 

Furthermore, why not just say that Joseph NEVER knew her?  But it doesn’t say that.  We are left with the impression that they went on to have a normal marriage, which would include sex.  Again, it is the burden of the Catholic Church to show her perpetual virginity.

According to an article in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“One might ask why Mary consented to her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of virginity.  As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God’s inspiration in becoming the affianced bride of Joseph.”  

See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Notice here the statement, “As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow…”  The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is begging the question.  They are not only assuming the vow was actually made in the first place, but they are also assuming that Mary’s supposed vow of virginity was under the inspiration of God.   Yet, they admit that this same information is from these highly questionable “puerile” and “fantastic” apocryphal writings.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but I’m not buying it.

Matthew 1:24-25 - And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.

 

This particular passage has seen much debate over the years, but the word “until” is unnecessary and doesn’t make sense if there was a vow of virginity in place.  If there was a vow, the sentence should simply read “…but kept her a virgin and she gave birth to a son.”

Moreover, there is a definite biblical responsibility for the husband in Jewish culture to, as the King James Version puts it, render “due benevolence,” i.e., to “fulfill his duty,” to his wife:

1 Corinthians 7:3-4 – The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

So this “Mary was a lifelong virgin” argument falls flat.

The Church Fathers

Besides the “support” for this doctrine from the Protoevangelium of James, the Catholic Church will also appeal to certain early fathers in the Church.  But establishing doctrine through the teachings of the fathers is not always an accurate way to determine truth.  Biblical evidence far outweighs tradition (Matthew 15:1-9).  The church fathers got some things right and they got some things wrong.  And they did not always agree with each other.  Sometimes a certain church father would even disagree with himself, that is, he changed his mind on certain teachings.  That’s because they were not inspired like the authors of Scripture were.  Scripture tells us we need to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), even the teachings of the fathers.  See this article on the church fathers:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=the+church+fathers

“Biblical” Catholic Arguments Versus the Bible

Catholics will also appeal to Scripture in an attempt to prove the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  Here are some examples of their “biblical” arguments and my response:

Argument 1 – They will say that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible were actually cousins, and not blood brothers of Jesus.  According to Catholics, these children were not born of Mary but were really close relatives. After all, that’s the way Jews spoke back then.  For example, Lot was called Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14:16), even though Lot was actually his nephew.  The Jews had no word for “cousin” and the word that was used for “brothers” in the New Testament (Greek “adelphos”) had a wide range of meanings.  It could mean an actual blood brother, a step brother, a cousin, or a spiritual brother.

Response - While it is true that the Jews (who spoke mostly Hebrew and Aramaic) had no specific word for “cousin,” the Greek DOES have a couple of words that mean cousin, e.g., “suggenes” in Luke 1:36 or “anepsios” in Colossians 4:10).  And it was in the Greek language that the inspired New Testament was written.  So, if the biblical authors really meant to say “cousins,” these Greek words could have easily been used.  But since they didn’t use them, the authors very likely meant to say that these children were actual blood brothers of Jesus, i.e., sons of Mary.

Just because a word has multiple meanings does not mean that you can simply transfer any one of those meanings to any other text which uses that same word.  We must always consider the context in which it is used.

Matthew 13:55 – Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

If these four brothers named here are actually cousins, then why just name four of them?  Surely, He had more cousins that that!  Does anyone really think that he had only four male cousins?

Furthermore, if “brothers” means spiritual brothers here, we have to ask the same question.  Did Jesus have only four believers following Him and all the rest of His followers were unbelievers?

Luke 21:16 – But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death.

Notice that both “brothers” and “relatives” are in the same sentence here.  Why would the author do this if he means the same thing?  If there is no distinction between the words, why is there a distinction here?

Argument 2 – Catholics will also claim that these brothers of Jesus were actually sons from Joseph’s previous marriage before he met Mary.

Luke 2:41-51 – This is the story of Jesus at 12 years old when He was questioning the teachers in the Temple, when His family was worried and looking for Him.  So, Catholics will ask, why is there no mention of these younger siblings here?

Response - But we can say the same thing:  “Why are they (the older brothers from Joseph) not mentioned in the flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or when Jesus stayed behind in the Temple in Luke 2:44? This argument cuts both ways.

If he knew Mary had made a lifelong vow of virginity, what was Joseph’s intent in this betrothal?  Was he only interested in finding a “babysitter” for all his children from his (supposed) previous marriage?  That doesn’t seem likely.

Argument 3

John 19:26-27 – When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother…” 

Here, Jesus, while on the cross, hands His mother over to the care of the apostle John.  Catholics will ask Protestants, “But why would Jesus turn Mary over to John if Mary really had children of her own?  Therefore, they must have not been actual siblings from the same womb.”

Response - Why indeed?!!!  Good question.  Why would Jesus favor John (a non-relative) over actual relatives, whether they came from Mary’s womb or whether they came from Joseph’s former marriage?  Why turn her over to someone who was not even kin to her?  It was for spiritual reasons.  It was because Jesus wanted her to be with believers, not unbelievers.  At this point, Jesus’ family was not believing in Him (Matthew 13:57; John 7:5).  So, this argument doesn’t prove either side.

Furthermore, there seems to be no solid historical evidence that Joseph had children from a previous marriage.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically the only reliable sources… whilst… the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents… it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated.” (Emphasis added)  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

So, we don’t know much about the life of Joseph with certainty.  All we know with certainty about him is what we find in Scripture.  And there is no mention here of children from a previous marriage.

Argument 4 – Catholics try to say that Ezekiel 44:1-3 is referring to Mary when it speaks of the “gate” that is never to be opened again.  Ezekiel sees a vision in the temple where the east gate is entered by the Lord and it has been shut after this, never to be entered into again.  This is pointing to Mary Ever-Virgin.

Response – To say this is to take liberties with typology.  What about the other gates?  Do these have anything to do with Mary, as well?  That is highly doubtful.

This, I think is desperation by someone with an agenda.  Old Testament typology can be, and often is, certainly abused.  And many believe that this is one case.

Argument 5 – Catholics will sometimes place the brothers of Jesus as sons, not of Mary (Jesus’ mother), but of Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25).  These brothers were named James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56).  Some also believe that the other two brothers, Simon and Judas were sons of Clopas from another wife.  So this would explain why these four names of Jesus’ “brothers” demonstrate that they were sons of someone else, not Mary. 

Response – But even if the wives of Clopas did have sons by the names of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, this proves nothing about Mary’s virginity.  It only proves that the names Mary, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were very common names in that society.

Conclusion

Ok, let’s say that someone does a casual reading of Mark 1:16 with no agenda in mind.  It says:

As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the Sea; for they were fishermen.

Let’s be realistic.  In this verse, would anyone automatically assume that Simon and Andrew were cousins?  Of course not.  There is nothing in this context to suggest that.  What about this verse:

Matthew 12:46-47 – While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.  Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

If someone told you this, would your first instinct be to believe that your cousins were waiting for you?  This passage seems to forcefully suggest the actual immediate family of Jesus.  When “brothers and sisters” are used in direct connection with father / mother, it would strongly imply closest relationship, i.e., blood brothers and sisters (e.g., Mark 6:3-4).

Now consider these last two quotes.  If read apart from the context of the perpetual virginity of Mary, no one would question that these were blood brothers.  The idea of relatives or cousins would almost have to be read into the context, i.e., injected from outside (this is called eisegesis).

Once again, it is those people (Catholics and Orthodox) who insist that Mary remained a perpetual virgin that bear the burden of proof.

Catholics will claim that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not created to glorify and exalt Mary, but to actually highlight the uniqueness and holiness of Jesus. Ok, if that’s true, why stop there?  Why not believe that God had given Mary’s mother the gift of perpetual virginity, as well?  Why not believe that God made sure that ten generations of perpetual virgins in Mary’s line existed, with Mary as the grand finale?  What would stop anyone from believing that?  Wouldn’t that highlight even more the uniqueness and holiness of the Savior if perpetual virginity is the means of super holiness?

The Protestant idea of Mary having a normal marriage and a normal sex life with her lawful husband after the birth of Jesus is not a crime or an unbiblical idea.  It is perfectly logical and the only reason to deny this normal relationship after the birth of Jesus seems to be to exalt Mary to a similar status to Jesus.  But Catholics will say that when Protestants attack Mary’s perpetual virginity, they are attacking Jesus’ divinity.  But Catholics don’t have to worry because denying the perpetual virginity of Mary does not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor demean Him in any way.

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way.  If she had a natural sex life after Jesus was born, then fine.  If she really was a virgin all her life, that’s ok.  If there’s no way for us to know, that’s not a problem.  The problem comes when someone makes great claims with no solid proof.

There is sometimes a desperation in Catholic attempts to prove this teaching.  For example, I recently heard a Catholic say that even if Mary DID have other children besides Jesus, she could have STILL remained a virgin, since God is able. 

Well, we’re not denying God’s ability.  But you know the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”  In other words, you can present evidence against a teaching, but if the Catholic insists that it’s true, there’s not much you can do.  And that’s often the case with the Marian doctrines.  This doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of Mary is special pleading at its finest.

THE BROWN SCAPULAR

The Catholic Church has many things that they call “sacramentals.”  These are not sacraments as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (CCC #1667), but sacramentals are associated with the Church’s rituals and are said to put the user of the sacramental in the right frame of mind to receive the sacraments.  One type of sacramental is the scapular, which comes in different sizes, shapes and colors.  Probably the most popular one is the brown scapular.

What is the brown scapular?  It is made up of two small pieces of rectangular brown (sometimes black) pieces of wool cloth connected by a cord or string, worn by Catholics over their shoulders (thus the name “scapular,” which means “shoulder blade”).  One piece is placed in the front on the chest and the other to the back.  This scapular is said to ensure its wearer that he will make it to Heaven if he dies with it on.

Enter Simon Stock

This story of the brown scapular begins with an interesting but little known character, one “Saint” Simon Stock.  He was given the name Stock (which means “tree trunk”) because when he was twelve years old he began living as a hermit in a hollow tree trunk.  Many years later, on July 16, 1251, in Cambridge England, he allegedly received a vision from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and claimed that she appeared to him, holding a brown scapular in her hand and she said to him:

“Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace.  Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”  

See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular

The Pope’s Vision

According to another source, Mary also later appeared to Pope John XXII, and told him:

“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.” (Sacratissimo Uti Culmine, a papal bull [i.e., an official public decree] of Pope John XXII, in 1322)

And this source also claimed:

“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in Purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

This promise from Mary to release Catholics from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death (for those who have faithfully worn the scapular) became known as the “Sabbatine Privilege.”

Entrust Yourself Totally to Mary?

According to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the brown scapular is “an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.” (Emphasis added)

See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

One source says that the scapular is used as a silent prayer and that “[A] prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be.” It also states that “[T]he evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation…”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

Indulgences

There are also indulgences (ways to reduce the amount of punishment for one’s sins) connected with the wearing of this scapular. 

On the day that the scapular is received, there is a plenary (full) indulgence if one goes to Confession and Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

One is promised a plenary indulgence at the moment of death if he has gone to Catholic Confession and Communion and if he devoutly utters the name of Jesus.

Devoutly reciting the prayer known as the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” gets one a 100 day indulgence. 

And each time the scapular is kissed one gets a 500 day indulgence!  See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/faqs-the-brown-scapular/

Ratified by Popes

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online) admits that the bull of Pope John XXII containing the Sabbatine Privilege was later ratified by some popes in the sixteenth century.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “ratify” as “to approve and sanction formally; to confirm.”

One source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was “approved and confirmed” by sixteen different popes.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d026_Sabbatine.htm

At least one source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was an official teaching of the Catholic Church until 1613:

“Pope John XXII claimed that the ‘Blessed Virgin’ came to him in Rome in the year 1322, confirming to him the scapular promise made to Simon Stock and adding the ‘Sabbatine Privilege’ in which she promised to personally descend into purgatory every Saturday and free those who had died wearing her scapular.  This was an official church doctrine until the year 1613.  At that time Pope Paul V modified the Sabbatine Privilege, saying that Mary did not necessarily free the souls in purgatory on Saturday but only aided them and eased their suffering.” (Emphasis added)

https://fdocuments.us/document/a-timeline-of-anti-church-history-first-bible-mystery-of-iniquitypdf.html

Tell Me It Aint So!

But there are some sources that say that the Sabbatine Privilege and Pope John XXII’s bull was a forgery. 

According to the Catholic Dictionary (online):

“There was an earlier version of the Sabbatine Privilege that is now considered certainly erroneous, based on an alleged bull of Pope John XXII, supposedly published in 1322.  This apocryphal document has the Pope say that Carmelites and others who wear the scapular would be delivered by the ‘Blessed Virgin’ from Purgatory on the Saturday after their death.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36174

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), the Sabbatine Privilege is “universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

Concluding Thoughts

Ok, so there seem to be some conflicting ideas, even among Catholics, concerning the brown scapular and its “Sabbatine Privilege.”  What should be far more worrisome for our Catholic friends is the fact that none of this is biblical, including the concept of indulgences, Purgatory and the supposed visions of “Mary” (2 Corinthians 11:14). 

The doctrine of Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the perfect and finished work / suffering of the Savior on the cross (John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10).  There is no need for Christians to suffer any kind of punishment after this life is over.  And if there is no Purgatory, there are no indulgences.

 

Also, special articles of clothing do nothing to help save us.  God looks at the heart.  We are saved by grace, through faith, not by any works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).  The term “grace” screams UNMERITED favor from God (Matthew 18:23-27; Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:21).

There is a definite link between the asceticism (severe religious self-discipline) in the early life of “Saint” Simon Stock (who lived in a hollow tree) and the wearing of the brown scapular.  They are both an intrinsic part of a works-based salvation and God will have no part of that.

Concerning the Sabbatine Privilege, if it was indeed a forgery, or an “un-Catholic” idea, how could it be ratified and endorsed by multiple popes over such a long period?  Does not the Catholic Church have the knowledge or the resources to detect forgeries within a short time?  What happened to those poor souls who believed Pope John XXII until 1613 who expected to be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday?  Did all those popes ratify a false teaching?  If yes, then what does this say about truth in the Catholic Church?  If no, then why did they change the teaching in 1613?

The story of the brown scapular is one containing ridiculous concepts like perfect prayer while holding the scapular, rendering demons powerless in the face of temptation while wearing it, and obtaining time off from Purgatory by kissing this inanimate object. 

Who does the scapular glorify the most?  The whole emphasis of this teaching of the brown scapular seems to be that Catholics must entrust themselves to Mary.  It is (supposedly) Mary that introduced it, and it is Mary who “sustains” it.  It is about her, not about Jesus.  Mary is the star in this story, but let us learn a critical lesson from John the baptist, who said, “He [Jesus] must increase, but I [John] must decrease” (John 3:30).  It appears here (as it often does in the Catholic Church) that, in the teaching of the brown scapular, Jesus has taken a back seat to Mary.