Pints With Aquinas - 152: The Marian Dogmas, with Brant Pitre

Episode Date: April 2, 2019

Today I'm joined around the bar table by Dr. Brant Pitre to discuss the Marian dogmas! Enjoy! SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day, g'day. Two awesome things. One just happened. One's about to. So, I want to tell you about them before we get into today's show. Number one, you'll remember I was just asking for you guys to fund this book that I wrote on Kickstarter. And I can't believe y'all just totally supported it and we got it. We raised the 10 grand for the printing and distribution of this book. As I said in the previous episode, I don't make one cent from this book. This was not about making money. Somebody else ran the Kickstarter. I just gave him the manuscript. I can do things like that because y'all support me on Patreon. So, thank you very much. But anyway, we raised that money. The books are going to be printed. They're hardback. They're full-colored. They're totally beautiful, and all y'all who supported will be getting copies. So, thank you for helping me teach people about Thomas Aquinas and his five ways. The second cool thing is I am coming to Washington DC tomorrow, and I've got several talks at the Catholic University of America. But what's really exciting is I'm going to be doing a live Pints with Aquinas event tomorrow night at Union Pub. Yes, Union Pub at 227 Massachusetts Avenue, Northeast Washington, DC, 20002. All right. So happy hour begins at six. Come and have a drink with me. The talk begins at 7. I would love to hang out with you guys and just chat. So, please come to that. And then I'll be speaking, as I said, at the Catholic University of America. The first talk is on April 4th at 7.45 p.m. So, we'll be talking

about pornography there. And then I give a talk to the seminarians the next day. So, I'm really pumped about that. So, if you're in the area, be sure to stop by and say g'day, especially if you're a patron. All right, enjoy the show. Yes, how's it going? Welcome to Pints of Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today we're joined around the bar table by Dr. Brant Petrie, New Testament scholar, just wrote a beautiful new book on the Blessed Mother. We're going to be talking about Mary and the Marian dogmas and yeah, stuff like that really. So here we go. Right, look, at the outset of this podcast, you might be wondering what on earth we're talking about

the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary on a podcast devoted to Thomas Aquinas, who, I mean, didn't he have major issues with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At least that's what you'll hear. Didn't he deny the Immaculate Conception? First of all, pump the brakes a little bit, Big Rig. At the time when Thomas lived, the Immaculate Conception was still a controverted doctrine. Some held it, others didn't. The church hadn't actually ruled on the matter yet. So like, it has to be admitted. I don't see any way around this. I think some Thomists want to see a way around this. I don't think you can. It has to be admitted that in some of his writings, Thomas Aquinas denies the Immaculate Conception.

But we have to understand the reason why. St. Thomas didn't have issues with the Virgin Mary, right? In fact, he actually thought that she was sanctified in the womb shortly after conception. He thought that she lived a sinless life, right? St. Thomas' real concern was to recognize that Christ saved all mankind. So, in the letter to the Romans, it seems to indicate pretty clearly that everybody needs a savior. I'm thinking of Romans 5.18. He says where one man's trespass led to the condemnation of all, so the righteousness of one man leads to the acquittal and life for all, right? So, in denying the Immaculate Conception, Thomas wanted to make sure that no one was being

exempted from this redemption. If Mary never contracted original sin, then it was Aquinas' fear that she wouldn't need to be redeemed by the grace of Christ. Now, there was a solution that was come up with by blessed John Danskotas, the idea that Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of Christ. That's what the church eventually adopted in her teaching, but it doesn't invalidate the many insights Thomas has on Mary. So I just want to throw that out there before we get into today's show. I have to tell you too, a lovely little anecdote about Thomas Aquinas. I was reading his biography recently and obviously like saints before him and after him, he had a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. There's this cute little story about when

he was a small child, he was seen toddling around the house or the castle with a piece of paper balled up in his fist and they couldn't tear it away from him. And one day the hired help who was in charge of bathing Thomas eventually kind of snatched it from his chubby little hands. And it was a piece of paper, and it just said these words, these four words, Hail Mary, full of grace, in Latin, obviously, Ave Maria, gratia plena, which is a charming story. Fat little child Thomas running around, not wanting a bath, and eventually having to give up this little piece of paper. I think that's lovely. Anyway, so look, hey, I want to say one other thing. In today's episode, I kind of push back a bit on Brant Petrie. So he says some things, and I just play devil's advocate a lot, and you might find it slightly annoying, or you might

wonder why I'm being so incredulous. The reason I was pushing back on him was because, look, I just want to ask the questions that lie in the back of your minds and sometimes my mind. Like it's easy to do like a Catholic radio show, right? Where people ask you softball questions and then just say, okay, fantastic. Next question. You know what I mean? But no, we want to, we want to, look, I know that Brian is a really intelligent guy. And so I knew that I could just say, well, what about this? Well, what about, what do you say to this objection? Knowing that he could answer it. And I also know that we have a lot of evangelical listeners, and I didn't want them to think that I wasn't asking the questions that might be raising up in their minds. So that's

the reason for the apparent incredulity, which it wasn't actually incredulity at all. All right, with those caveats, here's the show. Dr. Bram Petrie, welcome back to Pines with Aquinas. Thanks for having me back, Matt. It's great to be with you again. Yeah, I'm really pumped to have you. I had such a great discussion with you last time, and it was a very popular episode. Oh, good. It's been here. It generated a lot of discussion. Yeah, so it was great. So, your book is called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, and I know in this book, just like the one on the Gospels, and the one on Christ, rather, you dig back into the Old Testament, and you say something like it sheds light on the New Testament. Help us understand that.

the book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, which is this. What I want to try to show is that if you want to understand what Catholics believe about the Eucharist or about Mary, you can't just look at what the New Testament says in isolation. You have to look at what the New Testament says in light of the Old Testament. In other words, you have to read the entire Bible as a whole. And this is particularly true of the Marian doctrines that, as Catholics, we affirm, whether it's her immaculate conception, or her bodily assumption into heaven, or her freedom from sin, or even just the practice of venerating Mary, of honoring her, of calling her the Queen of Heaven, of praying to her and asking her to pray for us. All of these practices and beliefs of Catholicism that are really difficult for many non-Catholic Christians, and I think for most non-Catholic

Christians, this is like where they think, okay, you Catholics might be right about some of this other stuff. Maybe the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is true. But you really cross the line with these affirmations about Mary. They're not only not anywhere to be found in the Bible, but they're contrary to Scripture. That problem of the biblical foundations of the Marian teachings, what I discovered was that, first of all, if you look at the New Testament carefully, it's true. Nowhere does it say Mary was immaculately conceived. Nowhere does it describe her bodily assumption in heaven. And there are passages where it seems to contradict what we believe about Mary. The classic example of this is Romans 3.23, you know, all have sinned and fallen short of the

glory of God. How can we Catholics say that Mary was without sin when Paul says that everyone sinned? And the other big one is, of course, the so-called brothers of Jesus, which at least at first glance seems to imply that Mary had other children. How can we as Catholics affirm that she not only was a virgin when she conceived, but that she remained a virgin her whole life when she was married to Joseph and when the Bible says that Jesus had brothers? Like, these seem to be passages that just outright contradict Catholic doctrines that are of the faith. They're not just opinions. They're

things we have to believe as Catholics. So, what I try to show in the book is, if you want to understand what the church believes about Mary, you have got to look at what the New Testament says about Mary in light of the Old Testament. You cannot isolate it. It was so fascinating, Matt, as I was researching for this book, over and over again, when I read books on Mary, mostly by non-Catholics, that would deny either the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption or the Perpetual Virginity, invariably, those books only looked at the New Testament. They did not look at the Old Testament background, much less at the typology of the New Testament, which depicts Mary as a new Eve, as the new Ark of the Covenant, as the new Queen Mother.

And once you start to look at Mary through the lens of typology, all of a sudden, it all becomes clear. In other words, lots of Christians are used to looking at Jesus as the new Adam, but if he's the new Adam, then who's the new Eve? And lots of Christians would agree that, you know, Jesus is the new David, he's the new king. Well, if that's true, well, who is the new queen? And then finally, you know, lots of Christians would say, well, yes, Jesus is the new manna from heaven, he's the living bread in John 6. Well, if that's true, if he's the new manna, then where is the new ark that the manna was kept in? So, what I'm trying to do in the book is show you that the reason ancient Christians, the early church fathers, believed in the sinlessness of Mary, or her bodily assumption, or her queenship, is precisely because they were looking at

what the New Testament says about Mary in light of the Old Testament. And I throw in there some ancient Jewish traditions as well about the mother of the Messiah. I think what some Protestants would respond is, it's very tricky and sneaky what Catholics are doing. So, they will accept typology. I mean, it's right there in the New Testament. It's Paul himself who says that Adam was a type of the one to come. But you just said there, if Christ is the new Adam, who's the new Eve? But you wouldn't say if Christ is the new Adam, then who is the new Cain and Abel? The answer would be, well, there doesn't need to be a new Cain and Abel. So, if we've spoken a little bit about what typology is, help our evangelical listeners understand when does it go too far? Because clearly an imaginative mind could look into the Old Testament and come up with any sort of bizarre thing they want and say,

well, I'm reading it in the Old Testament. Can't you see it pictured there? So, I guess, help us understand where it can go too far and why Catholics aren't necessarily doing that. Okay. Well, first of all, I would just, as a little side note, throw out that actually, there is a new Abel in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews in 12 and 13 says that the blood of Christ speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel, because Christ is the son of Adam, whose blood was spilled by his brothers, and whose blood cries out on our behalf. So, anyway, just a little side note, he actually is a new Abel in the letter of Hebrews, but I digress. Okay, so one of the things you want to do is you want to ask yourself, in order to make sure that the typological connections that you're affirming are not just fanciful, like not just flights of the imagination, you have to ask, well, is the New Testament itself drawing these connections?

So, what I've done in this book is looked at types of Mary that are actually part of the New Testament depiction of Mary. So, for example, maybe we could begin with Mary as the new Eve, right? So, it's of course true that the New Testament nowhere says Mary is the new Eve, right? That's true. However, there are passages in the Gospel of John and in the Book of Revelation, both of which clearly depict the mother of Jesus in ways that echo the figure of Eve in the New Testament. I'm sorry, in the Old Testament. The classic example of this that everyone's aware of is when twice in the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to Mary, or not refers to her, addresses her as woman, right?

Both in the context of the wedding at Cana in chapter 2, when he says, you know, woman, what is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come. And then secondly, at the cross, whenever Jesus says to her, woman, behold your son. So, this is long puzzled readers of the Gospels. Why would Jesus call his mother woman, right? We don't have any other evidence of a son addressing his mother as woman. And I don't even want to think about what my mom would do if I addressed her as woman, right? So, although it might come off as if he's insulting her, many Johannine scholars, focus on the Gospel of John, have pointed out that if you look at that puzzling address to Mary, and pointed out that if you look at that puzzling address to Mary in the overall light of John's gospel, it fits into a whole web of allusions to the book of Genesis. Because if you go back to

the book of Genesis, which by the way, John's gospel begins with an allusion to, right? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. That's an allusion to the first line of Genesis. If you go back to Genesis, you're going to notice something interesting. Not only is Eve not called Eve except for one time in the first three chapters, but she's called woman almost 12 times. So just the language of woman, woman, woman, woman, woman would be an echo of Eve in the Old Testament. But it gets even better than that. echo of Eve in the Old Testament. But it gets even better than that. If you look at the Gospel of John carefully, what you'll notice is the entire narrative of Jesus' public ministry is depicted as a battle between him and the devil. In fact, in John chapter 12, he describes the crucifixion as the time when the devil, the prince of this world, is going to be cast out. So, like, the

crucifixion is this great triumph over Satan, over the devil. Well, what's fascinating about that is that if you go back to the book of Genesis itself, the image of a woman and her child who is at war with the devil is actually rooted in this very famous prophecy in the book of Genesis, chapter 3, verse 15. It's called the Proto-Evangelium. It means the first gospel. And in that prophecy, in that text, what God says to the serpent is, I'm going to put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head and you will strike at his heel. Now, what I show in the book is, although modern scholars will say, oh, well,

this is just a kind of reference to the fact that most women don't like snakes, you know, a kind of etiology of the battle, you know, the tension between human beings and serpents. What I show in the book is that's not how ancient Jews read the text. They saw this as a prophecy be the mother of the Messiah, and her offspring or her seed would be the Messiah himself, Messiah who's going to conquer the devil, then all of a sudden the reason he addresses his mother as woman becomes clear. It's a sign that she isn't just the mother of Jesus. She is the new Eve. So, just as Eve invites the first Adam, right, to commit the first sin, and just as Eve is with Adam at the fall when he's tempted by the devil to sin, so Mary, who is called woman in the gospel, invites Jesus, the new Adam, to perform his first sign. And just like Eve was with Adam at the fall, now Mary is with Jesus at the crucifixion

when he actually fulfills Genesis 3.15 and conquers the devil. She is the woman whose seed will conquer the serpent on the cross. Does that make sense? Do you see the parallels there? It does, and I think it's important that people recognize that this isn't just a cute little jigsaw puzzle you're putting together out of your own imagination, but this is something that the early church fathers spoke about. Yeah, and not just the early church fathers. Contemporary scholars, my favorite example is John Dominic Crossan, who is an atheist. He says this, implicit in the title woman in John's gospel is that Mary's destiny is to be the woman of Genesis 315.

In other words, the mother of the Messiah, the new Eve. And you're right, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Jerome, all these early church fathers, it's everywhere. Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine. It's just universally recognized that, of course, Mary is the new Eve. Here's something I found really interesting. I just bought Thomas Aquinas' commentaries on John. And I don't mean to bring up something, again, that we haven't kind of discussed prior to the show, but in both of those places that you mentioned in John chapter 2 and is it 19 on the cross? He says nothing about this.

Thomas has apparently no clue that Mary is the new Eve, which I think would lead some people to think, well, if Thomas isn't getting it, can't we just admit that these are just exaggerations that have built up over time? So, sure, Justin Martyr and some of the church fathers found these poetic ways of expressing Mary as the new Eve. Thomas doesn't seem to talk about that, but even if he did, so maybe address that first and then we can... Oh, yeah, sure, sure, sure. Well, I would say even if Thomas doesn't talk about it, what you have to remember is the author of the Gospel of John depicts Mary as the new Eve. That's the key point, that the New Testament depicts her in this way. And it's not just that, it's also the book of Revelation. So, if you look at Revelation chapter 12, there it's very clear that you have the vision of the woman clothed with the sun, right, who's giving birth to the Messiah. And the Messiah is going to be, there's an attempt made to devour him by this

great dragon, which John explicitly identifies as the ancient serpent, the devil and Satan. So, in Revelation chapter 12, you've got a picture of a woman, of her seed, and of the devil, and the devil's trying to destroy the woman's seed, just like Genesis chapter 3. Now, it strains credulity to argue that that woman isn't an Eve figure, especially when you look at her in context, because while it is true that some commentators will say, oh, well, the woman is just a symbol of the church, or she's just a symbol of Israel. It is true there are symbolic connotations there, but the primary meaning and context is really clear. Because if you look at it, think about it this way.

If the serpent represents an individual, the devil, and then the child represents an individual, the Messiah, Christ, neither which no one would deny, individual, the Messiah, Christ, neither which no one would deny, then it makes sense to be, for the sake of consistency, that the woman in the vision in Revelation 12 also reflects an individual, namely the mother of the Messiah, just like Jewish tradition said about Genesis 3.15. And who is the mother of the Messiah in the New Testament? Well, obviously, it's Mary, okay? So, what we have there is not an either-or. The woman in Revelation 12 isn't either the church or Israel or the mother and Messiah. It's both and. She's both an individual figure who represents a collective, just like the serpent there in Revelation 12 is an individual representing Satan, but there's also a collective because he has these

ten horns that Revelation said symbolized ten kings. These are like wicked kings on the earth. So, although modern people, like, we don't like the idea of polyvalent symbols, you know, things that can represent more than one thing, the New Testament has no problem with it. So, both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation link the mother of Jesus with the figure of Eve. So, even if St. Thomas didn't see it himself, that doesn't undo what the New Testament is revealing about her. Okay. Some people might- Does that help?

It does help. Yeah, it helps a great deal. And I'm, of course, on your side. I just like to push back because you're like a hundred times more intelligent than me in this area, and most areas, and so this is really helping me. No, no, well, that's good. No, I'm glad you brought it up. It's also important to remember that Thomas didn't have access to all of the church fathers that we have today. He had a limited number of manuscripts. He's mostly drawing on commentaries of John Chrysostom and Augustine, Dionysius. So, just because he doesn't cite something, it may have to do with his limitations in terms of resources as well. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah.

But at the end of the day, we don't know. I mean, I can't explain why he doesn't. But I mean, why don't you put forth a steel man argument then against the Catholic position? Because like prima facie, it doesn't sound absurd when an evangelical says to us, look, in the beginning, people weren't talking about Mary the way Catholics do today, and it's just developed, and it seems like you're trying to derive sort of firm doctrines from, at best, poetic or prophetic symbols in the Old and New Testaments. Like, you could just as much be wrong. So, I mean, how would you frame the kind of best argument against Catholics looking at typology and drawing these conclusions about Mary? I think the best way to approach this is to ask the question of, is it really plausible to deny that Mary is an Eve figure?

How else do you explain the allusions to Genesis in the book of John chapter 1 and 2 and John 19, as well as, I mean, Revelation 12 is just irrefutably alluding to Genesis. And I would say, you've got to compel me to the position that a first century Jew reading those texts would say, oh no, this has nothing to do with Eve. That becomes really implausible, especially when, as I show in the book, there were Jewish traditions telling us that Genesis chapter 3 and the prophecy of the woman and the serpent is a reference to the Messiah and to his mother, as in the book of 1 Enoch or into some of the Aramaic commentaries on Genesis known as the Targums. That becomes more and more implausible to me as an argument if you start to put the text in its first century

Jewish context. I think evangelicals might, some of them, might be okay saying, fine, you've convinced me. The New Testament authors write saying that Mary is the new Eve, but that doesn't mean that she was sinless. Okay, good. That's a great point. Okay, so if we can agree that the New Testament depicts Mary as the new Eve, the next step is to ask, well, what are the doctrinal implications of that? And this is precisely what it's going to take time for the church to draw out those implications and those meanings. Now, and if someone might say, well, I have a problem with that, well, I would ask you, well, what about the Council of Nicaea?

All right? Nicaea doesn't happen until the fourth century. The church has to draw out the explicit implications of what it means to refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as truly God and truly man. That takes centuries. That's what doctrinal development is all about. The question is whether that original revelation of who Jesus is, is in fact being taught in the New Testament. So, what's being taught in the New Testament, of course, there's going to be development, clarification, debate, various opinions about that. But at the end of the day, that doctrinal development always is meant to bring us back to asking, well, what does the New Testament itself reveal? What does it say? So, if we can agree that the New Testament depicts

Mary as the new Eve, both in, say, the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, then the implications of that are enormous for the question of her sinlessness, because it provides an explanation for why ancient church fathers like Ephraim and Augustine in both the East and the West, writing in Latin and in Greek, would say crazy things like, she is without sin. Augustine says this, you know, that we can't even speak about sin with reference to Mary. And Ephraim says that there's no stain of any kind on Jesus or his mother. So, why would the church fathers make this apparent exception for Mary? Why would they say something that appears to contradict what

Paul says in Romans? And what I show in the book is the reason is that they understand Mary's identity as the new Eve, and they look at it in light of the Old Testament. It is not the case that Catholics are claiming that Mary was the only human being ever created without sin. That's not true. In fact, we claim that there are four human beings who were created without sin. In the Old Testament, Adam and Eve, who in Genesis chapter 1, it says they are created good. In fact, it calls them very good, which the church and even modern Old Testament scholars recognize means that they are created without sin. They are created righteous and just. It's called original holiness.

And then in the New Testament, Jesus is obviously conceived without sin. The New Testament is explicit about that. But if Mary is the new Eve, then it follows that she too would be created without sin and that she would not sin at all during her whole earthly life. Otherwise, the old Eve would be greater than the new Eve. I'm going to say that again. Think about it in terms of typology. Old Testament prefigurations are never greater than their New Testament fulfillments, right? So, David is a type of Christ, but is David greater than Jesus? Well, no. Remember that little incident with Bathsheba? Of course not, right? Solomon is a type of Christ. Is he greater than Jesus? Well, no. I mean, he commits idolatry at the end of his life.

of Christ. Is he greater than Jesus? Well, no. I mean, he commits idolatry at the end of his life. So, the same thing's true with regard to, and just take any type, manna, Eucharist, whatever it might be. So, if Mary is the new Eve, if Mary were to commit a single sin, or if she were created in a state of sin, then she would not be greater than the new Eve, and then the old Eve, she would be less than the new Eve and then the old Eve. She would be less than the old Eve because the old Eve was created without sin. And she sinned in the book of Genesis chapter 3. So, if Mary's the new Eve, according to the law, the basic principles of typology, you see everywhere else in the New Testament, right? Then she too, it follows, that she would be not just conceived without sin,

but that she would not sin at all her entire earthly life. Because if she committed just one sin, it would put her on the same level, if not lower than, the old Eve. And the early fathers recognized this, and they drew this out from her identity, not just as mother of Christ, but as the new Eve. Does that make sense? Does that help? Oh, it makes a lot of sense. I mean, I was an apologist with Catholic Answers for several years, and I've said a lot of the things that I've learned from you and others. I just like pushing back on things, and I imagine someone might say, well, can't she be greater in one

sense, but not necessarily in every sense? So, you know, Mary is greater than Eve in that she can see the second person of the Blessed Trinity within her. Fine. But that doesn't mean that she, you know, that she the issue here. If you go back and you look at Genesis carefully, look at Genesis 2 and 3, right? I mean, that's Mary's, I'm sorry, that's Eve's role, okay? Also, think about the book of Sirach, which says, you know, because of a woman who committed the first sin, we all die. So, in Jewish tradition, Eve's primary identity, this is Sirach 25-24, from a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die. So, her primary role in, you might call it damnation history there instead of salvation history, is to bring sin and commits sin, then she is not, she's going to fail to surpass her type in the most fundamental aspect of who that type was, namely through Eve's sin. Does that make sense?

Or at least, let me put it this way. That's what ancient Christians in both the East and the West believe. That's what ancient Christians in both the Latin and the West. And I think that's what we got to keep pointing back to. That's exactly right. So, yes, that might be your objection, but why then did these ancient Christians read the text this way? You've got to explain to me that then. I've given you a reasonable explanation for why Ephraim and Augustine, these other fathers, said Mary was sinless. Now, you give me a reasonable explanation for why that's an illegitimate inference from the text, if she's the new Eve. Or give me, here Matt, give me one other example of a type where the type is less than the Old Testament prefiguration on a fundamental aspect of the prefiguration itself. Just give me one. If you can give me one, I'd love to hear it.

I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm trying to think of some typology. So, you think like, the Israelites were led through the Red Sea where they sojourned towards the promised land being sustained by manna. And then you say, well, the church, which is greater than Israel, was led from out of the bondage of Satan, led through the waters of baptism, which is better than the Red Sea, sustained not by manna but the Eucharist, which is fundamentally better than manna. And led to a heavenly promised land and not an earthly one. I mean, this is the thing. We always have to remember that maybe it's another angle to approach it too, Matt. Here is this. If Mary is the new Eve, then she is the beginning of the new creation, right?

So, is there going to be sin in the new creation? Think about that real carefully here. Is there going to be sin in the new creation? Well, obviously the answer is no, right? I mean, Revelation 21 and 22 is very clear about that. So, if she's the new Eve and Christ is the new Adam and she's the beginning of this new dispensation of salvation that God's... That's a neat way to put it, yeah. Yeah. Then is it, would it be fitting for her to be under the power of dominion and death and sin in the old covenant? No, because she's a living sign of what we're all heading toward. And note this also, Matt, it doesn't make her any less human to be without sin.

That's a very good point. Because in heaven... We'll be fully human, not less. We're not gonna be less human. Hebrews said that. Hebrews 12 and 13 says, the souls of just men made perfect. So, the saints in heaven are not less human than we are, but they are without sin. And so, in the new creation, we will all be sinless and we will be no less human. In fact, we will be more fully human because we will be free from sin. So, Mary is not less human because of her sinlessness,

she's more human. She's what Eve was always meant to be. C.S. Lewis says that when Protestants look at Catholicism, they see an overrun jungle. When Catholics look at Protestants, they see what looks like a desert. It looks very simple, overly simple, but when Protestants look at Catholics, they just see all this extra baggage, and they're not sure why it has to be there. And I think this is part of it. They look at it, and they just think, okay, wow, my head is spinning with all the Scripture verses and analogies you're making here. But all right, maybe you're right. I still don't see why it's super important.

And you've laid out very well. Oh, it's super important because it tells us about our destiny. Yes, yes, yes. Because Jesus didn't come to just save us from hell. He came to make all things new. Yeah. So, okay, well, then let's look at another thing. You know, Catholics believe that Mary didn't have children, but it clearly said that Christ has brothers.

Yes, great question. I think, you know, Matt, in my own experience, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is the one that's not only difficult for a lot of non-Catholics, but a lot of Catholics. I've had a lot of Catholics tell me, you know... This seems to me, if anything, the second easiest thing to believe about Mary, other than her being the mother of God, this is the one I find the most easy to accept. Oh, really? That's interesting, because a lot of my students have confided to me, I'm not sure, I mean, I believe this, but it doesn't really sound like the Bible's affirming it, you know? I mean, what about the brothers of Jesus? So, let me just lay out a couple of points here. I think there are two issues. First, I think many people will object for this just simply because of the presence of the brothers of Jesus in the New Testament, right? So, Mark chapter 6 mentions how Jesus comes to Nazareth, and there were his mother and his brothers and his sisters, right? And at first glance, I mean, let's be honest, the normal reading of that text would suggest that they are just his brothers. I mean, that's what the word brother in Greek normally means.

But I think as many Catholics have shown over the years, that the word brother, obviously, you can document this from the Old Testament as well, doesn't necessarily mean a child of the same mother. It doesn't necessarily mean a blood brother. In fact, it can be used in the book of Genesis, chapter 14, and other texts in the Old Testament to refer to someone's relatives or someone's cousins, right? So, I think that, you know, many Catholics will make that point. However, a lot of non-Catholics, in my experience, will say, well, you're just special pleading, right? You're just saying that because the doctrine makes you say that, not because the text suggests it. But what I try to show in the book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, is that there are actually lots of other New Testament reasons for believing that Mary did not have other children. And one of them is that

the very passage, this is so cool, the very passage in Mark chapter 6 that names the brothers of Jesus, and it says, I'll read the line, it says, isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph, and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us. That's Mark 6, verse 3. The very gospel that identifies these brothers of Jesus is the same gospel in Mark chapter 15 that tells us that those two guys, James and Joseph, were the sons of another woman named Mary who was at the foot of the cross with Mary Magdalene and Salome in Mark chapter 15. And in fact, Matthew's gospel actually calls the mother of James and Joseph, the same two guys, the other Mary, right? Now, this is really, really important to stress, Matt.

If there were no other passage in Mark's gospel about these guys, James and Joseph, and Judas and Simon, then it would be reasonable to argue that the obvious meaning of the text, the plain meaning of the text, is that they're his brothers. But if, in other words, children of Mary or children of Joseph. But if Mark's gospel itself tells you that these guys are the children of another woman named Mary, then you move to definition number two. In other words, the gospel itself gives you a reason for thinking that the word Adelphos, brother, in this context, isn't being used in the strict sense, it's being used in the broad sense of a relative or a cousin. In fact, Jesus himself in Mark 6, of a relative or a cousin. In fact, Jesus himself in Mark 6, whenever they challenge him, this is really cool, he says that a prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his

cousins, syngenosin in Greek. And in his own, it's the next verse, it's verse 4. Now, why does he say among his cousins, his relatives, when it just mentioned his brothers in the previous verse? It's because he's identifying what the meaning of the word brother is in that context. Virtually nobody sees this. It's one of the discoveries that I kind of put in the book. To make clear. Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Actually, several people have seen it, but it's not widely recognized. No, I've never heard it. Yeah, well, because we read it in English. Well, that's true. But I mean, I've never heard somebody explain that to me. Yeah, well, I mean, the word is

cousin specifically. So, just because the word adelphos or adelphoi can be used to mean non-Uteran brothers, that doesn't mean in Greek there wasn't a word for cousin. That's exactly right. In fact, the word that Jesus used here to describe the people who aren't accepting him, his sungenusen, his kin or his cousins, is the same word that Gabriel uses for Mary with reference to Elizabeth when he says, Elizabeth, your cousin is with child. And so, yes, there is another Greek word for a close relative. Sungenus is that word. Anepsios is also a word for cousin. So, there's a variety of terms that can be used, and the way you decide what they mean, Matt, is you've got to look at the context. And so, if the context of Mark chapter 6 is that James and

Joseph are identified as syngenos, they're his relatives, and then later in the same gospel, Mark 15, he says that James and Joseph are the son of this other woman named Mary, not the mother of Jesus, then the obvious meaning of that word in context is that they're Jesus' relatives and not the children of Mary. Does that make sense? It makes a lot of sense. And it's also important, I think, to point out that the Protestant Reformers were on board with this doctrine also, weren't they? Yeah, they absolutely were. And it was probably because they actually read Eusebius, for example.

So if we look at Eusebius' early church history, in the book, Eusebius is writing in the 4th century. He had a book called The History of the Church, very famous, most important history of the church we have from the patristic period. most important history of the church we have from the patristic period. In that book, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who was a second century Christian writer, who's telling about the fact that two of those so-called brothers of Jesus, namely James, the just, and then Simon, were the bishops of Jerusalem, and that they were widely known to be cousins of the Lord and children of another man named Clopas, who was Jesus' uncle and who is mentioned in the Gospel of John as the husband of Mary, who's standing with the mother of Jesus at the cross. So, I know I just threw a lot of names at you, but can I go to the text real quick? a lot of names at you, but can I go to the text real quick? So, in John chapter 19, verse 25, there's got that famous scene where it says, standing by the cross of Jesus, where his mother and his mother's sister marry the wife of Clopas and marry Magdalene, all right? So, who is this

marry the wife of Clopas? Well, she's the same woman that Mark's gospel identifies as the mother of James and Joseph, the so-called brothers of Jesus. So, this is important. If Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is the wife of Clopas, then she can't be the Virgin Mary, and St. Joseph can't be the father of Jesus' brothers. Yeah. This is really important. It's fascinating, yeah.

In the Eastern Church, there is this tradition, you've probably heard of it, that the brothers of Jesus, James and Joseph and Simon and Juden, were the children of St. Joseph from a previous marriage, right? And that is an ancient tradition. But the problem is, you can't reconcile that tradition with the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John's testimony, not to mention Eusebius' testimony, that the brothers of Jesus are the children of Mary and Clopas, Jesus' uncle. Because it should go without saying that if their mother is still alive, then Joseph would not be a widower. He would be a polygamist, right? So that creates a little bit of a problem.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be flippant, but it's fascinating. It's fascinating. So, again, this is my rejoinder, Matt. It's not just that the church fathers tell us this, it's that the New Testament itself, the Gospels of Mark and John, when you take their evidence together and you look at it carefully, make very clear that the men who are called the brothers of Jesus, namely James and Joseph in particular, are the children of another Mary who was the wife of a man named Clopas. And everybody in the early church knew this. That's why Eusebius records it without even making a point about it. He doesn't use it to defend Mary's perpetual virginity. Hegesippus doesn't use it to defend Mary's perpetual virginity. They're just talking about who were the bishops of Jerusalem. I want to ask you what we can learn about

Mary and her perpetual virginity from the Proto-Evangelium of James. But before I do that, I want to offer a question that a lot of Catholics have asked me when I've tried to defend this doctrine, and hopefully successfully. They'll look at me and say, okay, but why does it even matter? And they're afraid that the church's emphasis on Mary being a virgin prior, during, and after the birth of Christ somehow puts sex in a negative light, and maybe this is why the Catholics are so hung up on Mary being a virgin. Yeah, sure. Now, this is a great question. It kind of gets ahead of, there are other things that I'd love to talk about. For example, in the book, I have a whole section showing how Mary, there's evidence from Luke's gospel that Mary has taken a vow of virginity, and that there's evidence in the Old Testament

itself in the book of Numbers for women, even married women, taking vows of sexual abstinence. So, maybe we talk about that at some point, but let me just answer this because this is a really key question. So, I would say three things. First, Mary's perpetual virginity matters for the same reason that the virginity of Jesus matters, because the truth matters, right? Just as it wasn't right for Dan Brown to claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene because that's historically false, so too, it's irresponsible for scholars to ignore the evidence in the New Testament that Mary intended to remain and did in fact remain a virgin her entire life.

So, just our commitment to the historical truth should be kind of like the starting point. Would you agree? I would agree. It just seems weird to make a doctrine on that basis alone, because you could say perhaps the same thing of St. Joseph. If we happen to know that he was a virgin, or if we happen to know that he had kids, either way, we wouldn't necessarily make a doctrine around that. Okay, I got you. Okay, well, that's just the first basis.

So I think it's important to at least point out. The second reason the perpetual virginity matters is because her virginity points beyond her to the resurrection of the dead and the coming of the new creation. I mentioned earlier in our talk, you know, that she's the new Eve, and this symbolizes the beginning of the new creation. Well, if you go back and you look at the Gospels, Jesus is very clear in Luke chapter 20 and in Mark chapter 12, that in the new creation, there will be no marrying or giving in marriage, but we will all be virgins. We will all be celibate. There's not going to be any more marriage in the new creation, right? Everybody's clear on that? I hope everybody's aware of that text, right? I remember reading that as a boy, you know,

Jesus says in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, in Mark chapter 12, when he responds to the Sadducees. And I remember thinking, oh man, that sounds like a bummer. I'd like to be married in the new creation, you know, what's the big deal? Is there something wrong with marriage? No, there's nothing wrong with marriage, and there's nothing wrong with sexuality. Obviously, the first words out of God's mouth in the book of Genesis, I mean, the first words are, be fruitful and multiply, right? I mean, this is proof that God's Catholic, right? Anyway, just joking, just joking. Because that's the first command in the Old Testament.

But marriage and sexual reproduction are realities, according to Jesus, that belong to the old creation and not not the new creation, right? This is actually really helping me. So, I think that's a great response. When somebody says, the only reason you're so hung up on making it seem or making the claim that Mary is a perpetual virgin is because you're somehow against sex, a good response would be, well, do you believe Jesus was celibate? Yes. Well, therefore, was he against sex? That's a great point. And so, once you understand why Christ was celibate for the kingdom, you'll understand why Mary was.

That's exactly right. So, the rationale and the significance of Mary's virginity is the same as Jesus's virginity. It's about eschatology. It's about living out in a unique way the life of the resurrection now. So, Mary's perpetual virginity points to the fact that in the world to come and in the resurrection and the new creation, ordinary marital relations will pass away because death will be no more, right? And Jesus himself says this, right? You know, there are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. That's Matthew 19. And then Mark chapter 12, you know, in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven. So, we have to look at Jesus' own theology of virginity in order to understand the theological significance of Mary. This is

going to happen over and over again with all the Marian doctrines. Whenever you look at a Marian doctrine, invariably, it's not just going to reveal something about Mary. It's going to be based on something about who Jesus is, and at the same time, it's going to reveal something about who we are in Christ. See, in the new creation, we will all be celibate. There's a funny line from Peter Craife that comes back to my mind. He said, asking, can we have sex in heaven, is like a child asking her parents after having been explained sex, well, okay, but when I have sex with my husband one day, will I still be able to eat candy? And the answer is, oh, sweetheart, you won't want sex with my husband one day, will I still be able to eat candy?

And the answer is, oh, sweetheart, you won't want to. You won't miss it. Something much greater is here. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Yeah, there's going to be, we will all participate in the eternal marriage supper of the Lamb, which will so far transcend the joy and the beauty and the goodness of earthly marriage that will recognize that what that is, and it's a beautiful thing, is still just a sign and a shadow of the marriage of Christ and the church. And there are sacraments that are like that, that pass away. The Eucharist is another one. When you get to the new creation...

Confession, too. Yeah, that's exactly right. But when you get to the new creation, don't...and you're standing before the risen, glorified Jesus, don Jesus, please don't say, Jesus, where's the tabernacle? Yeah, yeah. It's like you're missing the point, man. Yeah, the Eucharist is manna for the journey, right? Marriage is a sacrament that belongs to this world. It points to the new creation, but it's not going to be, sexuality and reproduction is not going to be part of the new creation.

And Jesus says why? Because they will no longer die. Death will be no more. Well, in a sense, aren't all of the sacraments for this life alone? It's not like there's going to be any sacraments present in the... Well, according to the Church's teaching, this will get us into a whole other realm. All of the priestly sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders are indelible. Indelible, but no one will be ordained in heaven, I mean. No, no, no. Or baptized.

That's correct. But the marks that those sacraments imprint on us are eternal in a way that marriage and the Eucharist, for example, are not. I gotcha. I gotcha. That makes sense. So, you know, we've heard how Mary is the new Eve. We could perhaps talk about how she's kind of like the new JL or Judith, that she overcomes the enemy. But I want to ask you, people don't often ask about this. How is Mary like a new Rachel? is on Mary as the new Rachel. And this is one of the ones that's the most daring in a sense, because it's a little less widely known, and some of it's kind of my own insights, but I share it nonetheless. So, the connection between Jesus and Mary, or Mary's identity as a new Rachel, really flows out of the depiction of Rachel in the Old Testament in Jewish tradition, and also the depiction of Jesus as a new Joseph. So, I kind of said it at the beginning of the depiction of Rachel in the Old Testament in Jewish tradition, and also the depiction of

Jesus as a new Joseph. So, I kind of said it at the beginning of the show, but let me reiterate it. What Catholics believe about Mary are always based on, is always based on what we believe about Christ, okay? So, Mary's identity as a new Rachel, in a sense, flows out of the New Testament depiction of Jesus as the new Joseph, right? Now, what do I mean the new Joseph? I mean Joseph from the Old Testament. I mean Joseph of the Technicolor Dreamcoat, right? Okay.

You know, Joseph, the son of Jacob and Rachel. So, if you look at the Old Testament, again, this is something New Testament scholars agree on. thing New Testament scholars agree on. It's not made explicit in the New Testament, but there are enough parallels between Jesus in the New Testament and Joseph in the Old Testament for New Testament scholars to admit that the authors of the New Testament are depicting Jesus as a new Joseph. Just here's a few of them. So, in the Old Testament, Joseph is the firstborn son of Rachel and Jacob. In the New Testament, Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary, right? In the New Testament, Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary. In the Old Testament, remember, Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver by his brother Judah, one of the 12. Well, in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is sold to the Gentiles for 30 pieces of silver by who? Judas, which is the same name as Judah, who's one of the 12 disciples.

You see it? You see the betrayal? So, in the Old Testament, Joseph is 30 years old when he enters Pharaoh's service. And then in the New Testament, Jesus, Luke, is very clear that he's 30 years old when he begins his ministry. And in the, this is really cool, in the Old Testament, Joseph, if you remember, was with two condemned men, the cupbearer and the baker, and one of them was pardoned, and the other one was executed.

Jesus in Luke is depicted with two condemned men, one of whom, the two thieves, who is forgiven by Jesus and enters paradise, and the other who doesn't, right? And if you just go down through, it's fascinating. Joseph is exalted to the right hand of Pharaoh. He gets to rule over the kingdom of Egypt. Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God. He rules over the kingdom of heaven. Joseph in the Old Testament saves Israel and the Gentiles from death by feeding them with life-giving wheat. Jesus saves Israel and the Gentiles by feeding them with life-giving bread from heaven. And it's fascinating. There's all these parallels. But the one I'll focus on here is that in the Old Testament, Joseph, you might remember,

The one I'll focus on here is that in the Old Testament, Joseph, you might remember, gave special honor to Benjamin, the youngest of the 12, at the banquet that he had with his brothers. And in the Gospel of John, Jesus gives special honor to who? The beloved disciple at the Last Supper. If you remember, the beloved disciple is laying on the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper. Remember that? And we usually identify that as John. But the interesting thing is, why doesn't John ever just call himself John? Why does John refer to himself as the beloved disciple? I mean, doesn't it seem like a little egotistical to say, hey, everybody, I'm the one Jesus loved the most, just in case you forgot, I'm the beloved one,

right? Well, what I argue in the book, and what other scholars have seen, is that the title of beloved, there is somebody in the Old Testament who's called beloved, and it's Benjamin, the youngest of the 12 sons of Jacob. So, in the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy 33, Benjamin is called the beloved. That's his title. So, what I argue in the book is if you look at John's gospel really carefully, argue in the book is if you look at John's gospel really carefully, what you see is Jesus is like a new Joseph. John, the beloved disciple, is like a new Benjamin, right? The 12 apostles are like the 12 sons of Jacob. And what's significant about that is if that's true, then Mary parallels Rachel in the Old Testament. Because what was so unique about Rachel, and why was Benjamin so beloved? It's because she was only the mother of those two.

She was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. And so, when you look at John's gospel through that Old Testament lens of Jesus as a new Joseph and John as a new Benjamin, then all of a sudden the scene at the foot of the cross becomes really powerful. Because what does Jesus do with John? He gives John to Mary to be her son, right? The famous verse that I mentioned earlier, when Jesus turns to, it says in John 19, 26, when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved, there it is again, beloved disciple, standing near, he said to his mother, woman, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple,

behold your mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her literally to be his own. In other words, to be his own mother. Now, you might think, okay, well, what is all this about, Dr. Petra? What's going on here? Well, in the book, I can take you kind of through a little more easily step by step. But I just make two points here. First, in ancient Jewish tradition, Rachel in the Old Testament, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, wasn't just anyone. She was regarded as the mother of Israel, right? Because her husband is Jacob, and she is literally the matriarch of Israel, right? And she was regarded as the greatest of all intercessors.

There's this ancient Jewish tradition that Abraham begged God for the exiles to come home and he wouldn't answer him. And then another ancient patriarch, Moses, begged God and God wouldn't answer their prayer. But when Rachel prays for the exiles, God brings them home because of the power of her prayers as a sorrowful mother. And what's interesting about this, Matt, to this day, there's a tomb. Rachel's tomb is still preserved in Israel, and there are accounts we have of Jews going to Rachel's tomb and asking her to intercede for them, right? Fascinating. Yeah, because she is the mother. She's the sorrowful mother. This all goes back to Jeremiah, by the way, the book of chapter 31. If you're wondering, well, wait a second, where's all this coming from? Is this some just wild Jewish

tradition? No, it's in the book of Jeremiah. Whenever the exiles are going into exile, what does Jeremiah say? Rachel weeping for her children, for there is no more. There were no more. And you're like, well, wait up. Rachel died a thousand years before the Babylonian exile. How is she weeping for her children? And in the Jewish tradition, they regarded it as Rachel was alive in heaven, so to speak, and she saw the sorrow of her children and she interceded for them and prayed for them on their behalf. That's where this tradition of Rachel as intercessor arose. So to this day, you can go to Rachel's tomb in Israel and see this site,

which, by the way, is right next to the city of Bethlehem. Oh, I can't wait to go. I can't wait to go. It's really fascinating. I've never been to the Holy Land. Oh, are you kidding me? Oh, wow. Next time you go, I'll have to sign up and be on your tour.

I'd love to come. Oh, well, I'd love to go. I'd love to go. I've been once, and it changes the whole way you read the Bible, Matt, because you see the reality of the places there. In any case, the point is this. There's so much to say. Well, that's why everyone needs to go buy your book. Yeah, if you want more, just get to Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. What's fascinating about the book, what I try to show is there are Jewish scholars like David Flusser and Jacob Neusner, who actually Pope Benedict quotes. Yeah, that's right.

Jacob Neusner says this about Mary. This is fascinating. This is a Jewish scholar, a rabbi, who says, This is why I can find in Mary, a Christian, a Catholic Rachel, whose prayers count when the prayers of great men, fathers of the world, fall to the ground. No wonder that when Rachel weeps, God listens. So, yes, if Rachel, then why not me? Yeah, that's excellent. I love how in love you are with God's word.

Oh, it's just, it's one of these things. I mean, it's like, I get to do this for a living. I have to pinch myself. No, it's true. It's so powerful. It's so good. Basically, in a nutshell, this is the issue. In the Old Testament, Mary, I'm sorry, let me back that up. In the Old Testament, Rachel is the sorrowful mother of Joseph the Savior and Benjamin the Beloved, the youngest of the 12,

right? In fact, if you look at Genesis, when Rachel gives birth to Benjamin, she dies in childbirth. And so, she calls him the child of my sorrow, Ben-Oni. But Jacob renames him Ben-Yamin, the son of my right hand, right? If you fast forward to the New Testament in the Gospel of John, Jesus describes in chapter 16 the woman whose hour is going to come. And when her hour comes, she's going to have sorrow that the child is born into the world, but then she'll have joy. Sorrow because of the pain, joy because of the birth. So, what I show in the book is when Jesus identifies the beloved disciple, when he gives the beloved disciple to Mary to be her son, he's like a new Benjamin. Because just like the Benjamin was the child of Rachel's sorrow, so too John, it becomes Mary's son through the sorrow of the cross. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Like, how is it that she becomes John's mother? It's through the sorrow of the cross. It's through the birth pangs of the cross. Jesus, in John's gospel, actually compares the crucifixion to birth pangs. in John 16, 21. Listen, when a woman, there it is again, is in travail, she has sorrow because her hour has come. But when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish for joy that a child is born into the world. So you, he's talking to the apostles, will have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice and no one will take that joy from you. Now, hold on. I wonder why Jesus compares the crucifixion to a woman who's going to undergo sorrow in the same gospel when from the cross, what does he address Mary as? Woman. So, who is this woman who through child, this pain of the

cross becomes a mother? Well, it's Mary. And who does she become mother to? The beloved disciple. And who are we in Christ, Matt? We're all, like, we should see ourselves in the beloved disciple, right? Because how did Mary become our mother? I mean, she didn't give birth to me. Did she give birth to you?

No. How does she become our mother? She became our mother through the cross. When Jesus gives her to the beloved disciple, in a sense, he gives her to all of us because it's through the water of baptism that we become her children. And the water of baptism is the same water that flowed from the pure side of her crucified son. Because any mother will tell you, you do not become a mother apart from suffering. And the same is true of Mary. We're the children of her sorrow, right? We're like her Benjamins, so to speak. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. Before we wrap up, can I ask you three questions that have

come in from some of our listeners? Oh, yeah, sure. One last question, one last quick point about that. Sure. Remember how I said this was kind of my own idea? Yeah, well, what's the response been to it? I mean, what are... Well, one guy just sent me an email about this. It's fascinating. He said, by the way, you might notice St. Francis de Sales, a doctor of the church, in his book on the love of God, actually says, this is so fantastic. He says that, So, St. Francis de Sales actually does see John as a new Benjamin and as the son of her sorrow.

So, I'm not the first person to see it. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. That's cool, man. It's cool that you get to kind of explore these areas that are unsafe. You're not just sort of rehearsing the same old tropes that others have said, not that there's no merit to that. No, absolutely not. Have you had any evangelicals read the book and respond?

Oh, no, I haven't had any responses to that particular point yet. Actually, I have had evangelicals read the book and respond? Oh, no, I haven't had any responses to that particular point yet. Actually, I have had evangelicals read the book. In fact, I've got a couple of their blurbs on the back there. Chris Tilling is an Anglican friend of mine, a New Testament scholar in London, brilliant guy, and he wrote a very positive blurb on the back of the book. I just thought I'd throw that out for Catholics because I always tell my students, you know, if you're the first person to see something, it's probably wrong, you know? But if the Church Fathers and doctors, like here in this case, St. Francis de Sales, have seen Mary as a new Rachel and John as a new Benjamin, then I think we're treading on safer ground there. Indeed, yeah. All right, well, here's some questions. This one comes from Michael Caggiano. He says, where does Dr. Petrie stand on the debate about the potential definition of

a fifth Marian dogma, that of the title co-redemptrix? So, maybe explain for our listeners what that means and just briefly where you stand on that. Yeah, that's a great question. There's been a lot of books written, I think Dr. Mark Miravalli, who teaches at Franciscan, has probably written the most about this, about whether there should be a fifth Marian dogma, which would define another of her titles as co-redemptrix. In other words, someone who participates in the redemption of the world, along with Christ the Savior. Much in the way that St. Paul will say in Colossians, I fill up what's lacking in the afflictions of Christ, or whatnot. But in a unique way for Mary as the co-redemptrix. What I would say is I haven't studied the topic

enough to be an expert on it for sure, and in this book, I was simply trying to articulate the teachings of the faith which the church has already defined. So, I didn't venture into that territory, because I'm in sales, I'm not in management, right? Sorry, that was supposed to be a better joke. It's great. I don't know where the church is going to go with that. However, what I would say is the popes have taught it before, although it hasn't been infallibly defined. And I would say that you could definitely infer it out of Mary's identity, for example, as the new Eve. Because in the Old Testament, the fall does not happen in isolation, right? Adam and Eve fall together, just as I read from Sirach, you know,

through a woman, death comes into the world. And so, in the sense that Mary is the new Eve, and she participates not just in salvation, but in the redemption of the world in And so, in the sense that Mary is the new Eve, and she participates not just in salvation, but in the redemption of the world in a unique way, then I think you could make a case for that kind of a title. But I do know that some Catholic theologians have been reluctant to use it because it can be misunderstood, not as Mary participating in the unique redemption won by Christ, but as somehow competing with or taking away from. So, I think in this case, it all depends on what you mean by the title, right? It would need to be properly understood as a title for the Blessed Virgin. Does that make any sense? Everything you say makes a lot of sense, I promise. Yeah, it's excellent. Nick Russell says,

in your book, Dr. Petrie, you quote John Damascene saying, he who was born preserved her virginity intact, passing through her and keeping her closed. Does that mean, asks Nick Russell, Christ didn't have a vaginal birth? Can you please clarify what it means? Did Christ just pass through her body like he did the stone at his tomb? Sure. This is an awesome question. One of my favorite chapters in the book is called The Birth of the Messiah. And there I explore the teaching of the church that not only was Jesus' conception a virginal conception, and not only did Mary remain a virgin after birth,

but that she remained a virgin during the birth. This is the doctrine of Mary's virginity in part two. But what I try to do is look at it through a biblical lens. And what I show there is that there was a widespread belief in the early church fathers, both East and the West, that when Jesus was born, his birth was miraculous. In other words, Mary, this is usually articulated by saying that Mary did not experience any birth pangs. And some people are like, well, hold on a second. I mean, she's fully human. What do you mean she didn't experience any birth pangs? Where do you get that crazy idea? Well, guess what? Again, it's the Old Testament. So, if you go back to the book of Isaiah chapter 66, there is this fascinating prophecy of this mysterious woman who will give birth without any pain.

This is Isaiah 66, 7 to 8. Before she was in labor, she gave birth. Before her pain came upon her, she was delivered of a son. Who has heard of such a thing? Who has seen such things? That's Isaiah 66, verse 7 and 8. So, there was the early church fathers jump on that verse, and not just them, actually ancient Jews saw that verse as a prophecy of the fact that in the new creation, the curse of Eve would no

longer be, and that there wouldn't be any pain in childbirth. So, what the church fathers did is they inferred from that prophecy that the only woman who it could be fulfilled in was Mary, the mother of Jesus. And although the New Testament says absolutely nothing about the miraculous nature of his birth, as mother of the Messiah, the fathers inferred from Isaiah 66 that this was fulfilled in the nativity, and that when Jesus was born, he was miraculously born apart from any birth pangs whatsoever, any suffering on Mary's part. Now, over time, this is another good example of development, that would develop into the doctrine of Mary's virginity in part two, which is a doctrine of faith that we as Catholics

have to believe. However, the Church has never defined exactly how that happened. Does that make sense, Matt? So, there's a distinction. I'm trying to make sure. So, we must believe it, but that doesn't mean we must know how it happened. That's exactly right. So, we must believe that Mary remained a virgin in giving birth to Christ, but the Church has not defined exactly how that happened. What I would say is this, in answer to the reader, the listener's question, the majority of the Church Fathers the reader, the listener's question. The majority of the church fathers say that the way it happened is that Jesus passed through Mary's body miraculously just as he passed through the closed door of the tomb on Easter Sunday miraculously. In other words, when Jesus was raised from the dead, we tend to forget this because of the movies. In the movies,

they go to the tomb and the stone's rolled away. But in Matthew's gospel, it's really clear that when they arrive at the tomb, the stone is still there and an angel has to roll it away and then it's empty. So, the fathers recognize that Christ's risen body passes through the stone on the grave without in any way opening the stone or taking anything away from it, and without losing the characteristic of a body. This would be called a miraculous exit, so to speak, from the tomb. And what the Fathers say is that that's how Jesus' birth was. Augustine, and it might not be Augustine, it's Aquinas, I can't remember who it was, one of the common images was as light through a window. Yeah, I believe that's Aquinas. He's really strong on this point.

Well, this was standard Catholic teaching. If you look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it says the same thing. Mary gave birth without pain because she's the new Eve, so it's fitting that she would not have pain because the pain in childbirth is a result of the fall. But also that Christ is born miraculously in such a way that it preserves her integrity. And the Catechism of Trent uses the image of light through a window. That image is okay, but remember, that's a natural image, whereas most of the Fathers use the image of Christ passing through the tomb because they want to recognize that it is a supernatural. And the closed door in the upper room. And the closed door in the upper room is the other analogy that they'll use for that.

So that's one of those things, kind of like the virginal conception. Well, how exactly did the virginal conception happen? Through the power of the Holy Spirit. Well, no, how exactly did it happen? Well, that God has not revealed to us, right? And so, the same thing would be true, I would urge, of the virginal birth. How exactly did it happen? The Scripture doesn't say, and the Fathers speculate about it, but the Church has never defined it. Final question, and this gets us back to what we mentioned a moment ago, or a while ago, about the proto-evangelium of James. Philip Haddon asks, was Mary as a youth involved with the temple and sworn there to virginity? Oh, this is a tough question. Okay, you don't have to give a thorough answer, I promise. You can just...

Yeah, well, let me, I'll point you to two places. First, read my book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. I have a whole chapter on Mary's vow of perpetual virginity. It's chapter five. And I show how the New Testament itself, the gospel of Luke, and Mary's response to the angel, how shall this be since I do not know man, only makes sense if she intends to remain a virgin while marriage. It's like saying, I do not smoke. It means I don't smoke now, and I don't intend to smoke in the future, right? It's an implicit vow of virginity. And I show there how there are vows of sexual abstinence in the book of Numbers, as well as Judaism at the time of Jesus, contrary to

what so many people say, erroneously. Okay, so does that vow have anything to do with her serving in the temple? There's no first century evidence, there's no New Testament evidence whatsoever that Mary is serving as a consecrated virgin in the temple at the time that her response to Gabriel takes place. In fact, it's really clear from Luke that she's actually in Nazareth, right, which is nowhere near the temple. So, the Proto-Evangelium of James, which is a difficult document to date, most people think it's second century, is the first document to give us any clear evidence about consecrated virgins in the Jewish temple. And there are lots of other problems with the depiction of Proto-Evangelium of James with regard to Judaism,

so it's not a consistently reliable source for ancient Jewish practice and belief. So, I would err on the side of the New Testament portrait, which would say Mary had made an implicit vow of virginity, but that there's no evidence she was a consecrated virgin in the temple, at least in the New Testament. Yeah, yeah, yeah, terrific. All right, well, tell us, where can people find your book and just follow the amazing things that you're doing? Oh, sure. Yeah.

So you can actually get copies of the book at my website, brantpitre.com. That's B-R-A-N-T-P-I-T-R-E.com. Or you can get it on Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble or a good local Catholic bookstore near you. Start there. Start with the local Catholic bookstores. And you also have CDs and other lectures that people can get from your website, right? Yeah, I've got about, I guess, 45 or 50 different audio, video, Bible studies at my website.

I've got like six. I prefer Nerd. I think Nerd is more accurate. But if you want to say Machine, Matt, go for it. That's totally fine. Nerdy machine. Nerdy machine. There you go.

So, yeah, you can find out. In fact, yeah, we have a weekly video that I do called The Mass Readings Explained, where I actually do a 30-minute explanation of the lectionary readings for every single Sunday. That might be something to check out or subscribe to. You can subscribe to that. But the book itself, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, Unveiling the Mother Messiah, is available in bookstores everywhere. And I really hope, I especially hope that if you have any friends or family who might be struggling with the Marian teachings, especially converts to the faith. My wife was a convert, and she'll tell you the hardest teachings for her were the Marian teachings because she couldn't see the connection with Scripture very easily or clearly. teachings for her were the Marian teachings, because she couldn't see the connection with Scripture very easily or clearly. So, I really wrote this book for anyone who's ever struggled

with any of the major Marian doctrines of the Catholic faith. Yeah, you do a really great job at taking really complex ideas and making them understandable, so that when people read them, they say, oh, that's what the Church means? Why didn't they just say that? You really have a gift for that. So that's excellent. So you address the assumption, the Immaculate Conception, all these things that people might have questions about. Yeah, we didn't get into, yeah, the veneration of Mary, you know, do Catholics worship Mary? I look at her identity as a Queen Mother, the new Ark of the Covenant. I mean, there's a lot of stuff in there that we didn't actually get to get to today.

Yep, yep, yep. We'll have to save that for another show, but this has been a pleasure. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to be with us today. Thanks, Matt, for having me. I really, really appreciate it. I really enjoyed it. Oh, man, that was so much fun. Brant Petrie is the bomb.diggity. I'm just going to stick to my line.

I don't know how to use the slang like the kids. Do kids say bomb.diggity? They probably don't say that. Hey, thanks for listening. A couple of things I want to ask you to do before you leave. Number one, if you want to start supporting me on patreon.com or directly at Pines with Aquinas, you can do that. So if these episodes have blessed you and you want to give back

and you want to help me sustain what I'm doing and go to the next level, please consider doing that. You can go to patreon.com slash Matt Fradd or pintswithaquinas.com slash donate if you don't want to give through Patreon. Either way is fine. And when you go there, you'll see all the different free rewards, the cool stuff that I'm going to give you in return. We have some new things up there too. I won't tell you what they are. You go check them out. I know the reason most people aren't giving because they get cool rewards sent to them in the mail, although that is a cool bonus. I always like getting cool stuff sent to the mail.

So you can get all that, and you can know that you're supporting media that you actually appreciate and you think is doing good. At least, I presume, the fact that you've listened like an hour and 12 minutes or something into this episode, you probably think that this is worth your time. So thank you so much. Please consider supporting me, and yeah, I'll send you all those free things in return. Also, if you haven't yet, would you subscribe to The Matt Fradd Show? It's a podcast on iTunes or whatever, wherever you're listening to your podcast, type in The Matt Fradd Show, subscribe

there and then go over to YouTube and type in Matt Fradd, subscribe there too so you can start seeing these weekly videos that we're releasing. I think they're really getting a lot of traction and we're having really important discussions. It's super fun. I really love these long-form discussions. It's almost like the complete really love these long-form discussions. It's almost like the complete opposite of Twitter, right? Like on Twitter, you have to say exactly what you want to say. You can't have any doubts about it. You just got to say it.

And if someone disagrees with you, then you just somehow slam them in, what is it, you know, 200 and something characters. The wonderful thing about long-form discussions is you get to think through things. So like my interview with Goma and Luke from Catching Foxes, that was two hours and 55 minutes. And there's no breaks, except for when Luke needed to go do a pee. It was like five seconds because we cut. But look, I mean, two

hours and 55 minutes where we discussed a whole host of issues like the morality of UFC and the morality of swearing and why Facebook is evil. And we discussed all those things and it was just so much fun. So by the way, the fact, like if you're listening to me and you're a patron, you're the reason the Matt Fradd Show exists. Like when I say these things, I want to sustain these things and grow what I'm doing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. So big thank you to you and please subscribe there. Thanks for listening. Have a great bloody day and be sure to get Brant Petrie's book. I have it.

To be honest, I haven't read the entire thing, but what I have read was incredible. He's a wonderful author. You should get a couple. Get one for a friend. Bye. To carry you. To carry you. To carry you.

To carry you, to carry you There were birds in your tears falling from the sky Into a dry riverbed that began to flow down to A cross town high up above the water And maple trees surrounded it leaves caught flame with golden embers