How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

[Vico]

ginger2, you wrote: “You have misunderstood. I said it doesn’t say “full of grace”. The word “full” is not in the text of Luke.”

Luke 1:28 in Greek " chaire kecharitōmenē" translates to “Hail, full of grace” or “Hail, highly favored one”.

One could also translate it to these: “Hail, full of grace, which thou hast received,” or “Hail, highly favored, which thou hast received”.

Why? Because:

Verb charitō is perfect passive participle vocative singular feminine, ke- means perfect tense, and -mene means passive participle.

There is also temporal information contained here, due to the meaning of kharis. Kharis is a favor and reciprocation of favor. Also kharis (grace) and khaire (hail) are related. Khaire in classical Greek is used to address a god, where there is a reciprocal relationship. (This hail is only used four times in the Sepuaguint, connected with revelations.)

And khaire is used, in classic Greek works, to greet one with kharis (grace), that is with a previously favored one, expected to return favor.

Greek perfect tense means a state of being, not a past event. So Gabriel states that Mary is in a state of kharis, and a reciprocal relationship with God that is permanent and preconceived. This agrees with Catholic theology.

So then this also has bearing on what it means to be the Mother of God, the state of a reciprocal relationship with God, and a virgin since birth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It seems to me as if the Protestants are bent on erecting ‘strawmen’ edifices of what they “say” Catholics teach about Mary, in order to knock down said strawmen.

It’s like, “Yeah, I say she’s ever-blessed. . .ever-blessed to be a vessel of no worth, picked up, discarded to go on with her petty sinful little life, misunderstanding her Son, nagging Him, having to have Him actually call her’ woman’ and then say that she’s nothing and that His followers are His ‘real’ Mother, and even that part with the cross was because she was such a lousy mother that He didn’t want her ruining his (many) brothers and sisters with her sinfulness so He had to have one of his ‘real’ family, the apostle John, take her over.”

Sheesh, with blessings like that who could possibly think that Protestants fell short in the gospel injunction that “all generations would call (Mary) blessed?”

 

[anmparod]

I would like to recommend a book to anyone interested in learning more about Mary’s role in Scripture, especially in regards to why she must not only have been a perpetual virgin, but also a sinless human being. Please read Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God, by Scott Hahn. It looks at Mary’s role throughout Scripture, but focuses largely on what the book of Revelation reveals about her. I think you would be amazed at what we can learn about her with a sound knowledge of God’s Word, read in the context of history.

Dr. Hahn is himself a convert to Catholicism, having once been a very anti-Catholic Protestant minister. He is now one of the modern-day Church’s leading Bible scholars. As a Scripture scholar myself, I have found his works to be extraordinarily insightful. The great thing, too, is that Dr. Hahn’s books are quite easy to follow, despite their depth–even for the average layperson.

With that said, I will bow out of this discussion before I find myself hopelessly immersed in debate. God bless you all.

 

[lorena07]

Hi all, I just want to say what I think about this:

Imagine that you are Mary and you become pregnant. You have the True God inside you!!!
Imagine what kind of experience must that be? I supposse it must be something that we could not imagine, it must be like being in Heaven even when you are still on earth. And when he is born, and you have God, by your side everyday!!! can you imagine that???

how a person living something like this, could have desires of sexual activity or other carnal stuff? when you have EVERYTHING that is really important with you, and even more because this God has decided to live as your own son!!

In the bible says that after Jesus second coming, there will be no husbands or wives, because we will be like angels. So, if God was living with Mary as her own son, why she or Joseph would had been interested in sex?? I find it very very hard to believe, that they could have had sexual relations, I cannot believe that, since they had with them Heaven on earth.

 

[PJM]

A CAF Mary Ever Virgin keep

=JUAN DIEGO,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

I know Randy has shared some very useful information, so I’ll try a different perspective.

Point 1. God is and has to be Perfect. God can be described as “everything Good Perfectly.” Agree?

Point 2. Jesus is God ties in with Point 3

Point 3. If Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is the 'Mother of God." Agree?

Now lets look at what the Bible says. Luke, Chapter 1, starting at verse 26.

*26 “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. *

Point 4. Mary was according to God a “virgin.” V. 26

Pint 5. Mary was impregnated by “The Spirit of God / The Holy SPIRIT” [Not a man but by a miracle by the Spirit of God." So to this point she is “still virgin.”
**
Point 6. Because Jesus retained His Complete Nature as God [verse 35] He is Perfect. Jesus assumed, that is willingly became human with a fully Human Nature, so we have One Person [Jesus /God] with two complete and separate natures. That of God and that of man. Because both natures were conjoined to the same person, BOTH Natures HAD to Be PERFECT.
**
Point 7**. In order to have a Perfect Human nature, Mary His Mother had to be perfected by God as a singular privilege of God. Were she too not Perfect, she would have passed this imperfection on to her Son, Jesus. Take a moment a read Exodus Chapter 26 and see what God demanded from Moses for “His Ark” which only carried the “spirit of God.” Not actually God, as did the womb of Mary.

Point 8. As a direct result of the merits of Her Son Jesus, God kept Mary perfect in every way. Because she agreed to become the Mother of God; because she agreed to travel to Bethlehem; Because she did not complain about giving Birth is a stable; because she agreed to leave family, home and friends and move the pagan country of Egypt to keep Jesus safe, because when Jesus was “lost to her” in the Temple for three days, she did not lose hope or faith, because, prompted by the HS, she urged Jesus to perform His first Public Miracle [water into wine at Cana] knowing that it would mean painful things for both Jesus and herself, and because she was with Her Son Jesus for His Passion and Death. Not only losing her only son, but also seeming and sharing is painful death. Mary NEVER-EVER said NO to God.

Because She is the Mother of God, and God has to be perfect, Mary too had to be made perfect, and was kept perfect by God’s Will and Power in appreciation for all of her "I am the handmaid of the Lord, do with me as YOU WILL."

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[VociMike]

However, marital relations were indeed an important - even vital - part of the marriage relationship. Children were considered a sign of God’s love, blessing and approval of married couples. The more children they had the more blessed they appeared to be.

Something else that was an important - even vital - part of the marriage relationship was to not bear the children of other fathers. But Mary did that, so trying to hold her marriage to normal standards fails from the very start. We all know that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was unique in all of history, so why do some try and “normalize” it?

 

[Tomb54]

I agree that you can’t prove [or disprove] this point. You can only offer evidence for people to consider. For me this is John 19:26-27. I have lived in Saudi Arabia and travelled to Israel and other Arab countries. One thing that stands out [and crosses cultural boundaries] is how important the family is in the Middle East. It is goes to the very core of their societies.
I had one arab guy who came to me asking for a job where there was a lot more overtime available. The reason? His brother had been killed and he now had to look after his brother’s wife and children, as well as his own.

We can be sure that family ties were just as strong - no, moreso - in the 1st Century.
The idea that Jesus would ‘give’ his mother to a man [and vice versa] and that she would go and live with that man, when she had sons and daughters to look after her is just beyond comprehension. It is quite outside any conception in Middle East thought that such a thing could happen. People readin [or hearing this account] at the time would have been very clear about what the situation was: Mary had no other children.

The most likely outcome would have been a blood feud and I doubt John would have been alive very much longer.

It might have been another tread but this is what I brought up before that I feel is the most compelling argument for the Blessed Mary not having anymore children. In fact I think it is close to Jewish law that in Honoring your mother you (the children) must make sure she is cared for (which Jesus did since he did not have other brother and sisters)

 

[kepha1]

There is no proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome.

There is plenty of proof, the problem is that the proof doesn’t fit post-Protestant paradyms.

He could not have been the been the first Pope. Peter went to Babalon and not Rome.

Wrong. Peter was the first Pope, and Babylon is the same word for pagan Rome. Any Bible student from any bible college, Protestant or Catholic, will tell you that.

When Peter died the Apostle John was still alive and if there was ever a Pope he would be in line to be the next Pope.

Wrong. The Apostle John never took the chair of Peter, because Jesus gave him his own chair. John’s successor could not be Pope either, because that successor could not hold the chair of Peter, but the chair of John. Clement was the 4rth Pope at the time John was alive, because Clement held the same office that was passed down from Peter. That is why Clement was Pope and not John. No one questioned the universal authority of Clement at the time, and all this does not compete with or supplant John’s authority at all.

Only one Apostle was chosen after the death of Judas. No other Apostles were chosen for other aspostles that died.

Just because St. Paul stopped writing Epistles does not mean that the activity in the Church stopped. Your theory is contrary to the evidence. It’s too bad you cannot see this evidence until you want to. All the Apostles had successors.

Jesus had brothers and sisters and therefore Mary could not be an eternal virgin. It would be pure paganism to worship a human, Mary.

No one is worshipping Mary, and Jesus did not have biological brothers and sisters. Even the early Protestant reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, So the question is: WHEN WAS THIS DOCTRINE OF MARY’S BIGAMY INVENTED?

The Bible says not to go beyond that which is written. The Bible warns about following traditions.

The bible warns about inventing your own traditions so you can claim you give all glory to God and have no honor left to give to your parents. Matthew 15 2-4 is the only place in the bible where false man made invented tradition is condemned, NOT THE JEWISH TRADITIONS THAT EVEN JESUS FOLLOWED. Jesus followed the proper Jewish traditions and the word of God was partially transmitted by the tradtions of the rabbis.

Just remember that our Catholic traditions existed before the Bible was a whole book, so you don’t want to sever your own roots.

Matthew 15

2] “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
3] He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of *****your *****tradition?
4] For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’

The Church is not an organization and has no headquarters.

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers, is not an organization and has no headquarters?

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
what is the expiration date of this verse?

How do disorganized fellowships, which have their own distinct theology, and often boast that they are “separated,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)?

 

[kepha1]

**THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY **
When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

*Perpetual Virginity: *
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”
Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine .
Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Zwingli used *Exodus *4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

Who was the first to invent this doctrine about Mary, if it did not come from the reformers?

http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

 

[eamonnroma]

Could I please ask for clarification of two points raised in this discussion?

1. When did the infallible Church define Mary’s continuing virginity as a dogma?
2. Where in divine revelation does it state that Mary continued as a virgin? My understanding is that the only divine revelation accepted by the Church would be in the holy scriptures

Thank you

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Could I please ask for clarification of two points raised in this discussion?

1. When did the infallible Church define Mary’s continuing virginity as a dogma?
2. Where in divine revelation does it state that Mary continued as a virgin? My understanding is that the only divine revelation accepted by the Church would be in the holy scriptures

Thank you

1. The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin 1, stressed the threefold character of Mary’s virginity teaching of he “blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary”
2. The majority of Protestants believe divine revelation ceased at last verse of the Bible.
   The Catholic Church teaches ongoing revelation that is in agreement with Scripture (which it too teaches as infallible in morals and faith). Nothing new, nothing added - just revealed. It’s like hearing somebody say something and then afterwards saying “I didn’t know what you meant at the time, now I’ve had time to think about what you said, it’s a lot clearer.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Further on #2: The Church also has Sacred Tradition as part of the ‘3-legged stool’ of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium. After all, Sacred Tradition predates the compilation of the canon of written Scripture by some 350 years. Sacred Tradition does not contradict Sacred Scripture though. Therefore you would not find, say, Sacred Tradition teaching that Mary was not a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception as it is quite clear that she most certainly was.

Now as regards whether she remained so, Scripture itself does not say that Mary had a specific son or daughter or any offspring other than Jesus. It is telling that both Catholic interpretation and our totally ignored brethren the Orthodox have and continue to teach, referencing Scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that she remained so. It is equally telling that the earliest ‘protestants’ likewise taught this, using ‘Scripture alone’.

It has been said that one could twist the Bible’s teaching by ‘selective interpretation’ such that one could claim it taught ‘anything’ including the ‘opposite’ of any given teaching. We have seen this clearly in the last century where after 1900 years of clear understanding that Scripture forbade contraception, first one and then the other protestant groups ‘selectively’ began to interpret Scripture so that by now to them Scripture teaches the opposite–that contraception is not only not evil in itself but can actually be a positive good depending on circumstances.

And as for homosexual actions, well, we all know that for 2000 years every Christian on earth somehow misinterpreted THAT teaching. It is ‘inhospitality’ that is condemned, not sweet loving ‘married’ homosexual relationships. Again, clear Scriptural teaching is ripped from its moorings and cherrypicked to make a claim that no it never DOES condemn homosexuals and especially not the ones who want to marry, and Jesus even supported it, etc. etc.

And there are all the other Protestant scholars who teach us that no matter what Scripture says there was no real ‘miracle’ that ever took place at the hands of Jesus. . .

Etc.

 

[Steven_John]

It is ‘inhospitality’ that is condemned, not sweet loving ‘married’ homosexual relationships.

I often dont read well.

You assert that Hashem loves sodomy provided the couple marries and love each other sweetly?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

Just because something is not going in the direction you want, does not make it misleading.

That is true in part, but misleading.

A couple was considered legally married when betrothed even tho they did not begin living together until later. So consummation was not required at the time a couple were first betrothed.

However, marital relations were indeed an important - even vital - part of the marriage relationship. Children were considered a sign of God’s love, blessing and approval of married couples. The more children they had the more blessed they appeared to be.

Ginger

I think there are a couple of areas that need to be address:

In response to the OP, I do not believe there is a “proof” that would address those who demand proof. In the same manner, today, how would one “prove” someone’s virginity - short of going to an OB/GYN specialist and getting a written report - one is left with taking the person’s word that they are virgin. Maybe I have missed something - but, this is not usually a topic of common conversation.

Secondly, look at the amazing Grace that God freely gave to Mary. How can anyone try to put usual limits on the Mother of God? While no one doubts that marital relations are an important part of marriage - we are not talking about a ‘normal’ family. Simply stated, there really are other considerations.

Now, since we can not “prove” - this is really a matter of faith - perpetual virginity we have to make a decision early on: will we accept the authority of the Holy Spirit in leading the Apostles, Peter and his successors and the Early Church Fathers or do we just trash what they had to say because it is not written down in the pages we have identified as the Bible?

Ultimately, we are left with two groups: one has rejected the Inspiration and Protection of the Holy Spirit in not teaching error in matters of Faith and Morals and nothing will convince this group of anything - except what is in the Bible (the same Bible given by the Catholic Church that they reject! ) The other gorup believes in the Words of Christ in establishing Peter as the head of the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) and gave Christ gave Peter the power to bind and lose. If error were to be taught, it would completely discredit the CC as the One, True Church.

So, the Truth of the matter, Ginger2, is that Mary is ever virgin. Accepting it puts you in step with Christ and His Church. But, this is a matter of faith and not medical reports.

God bless

 

[Tomb54]

Could I please ask for clarification of two points raised in this discussion?

1. When did the infallible Church define Mary’s continuing virginity as a dogma?
2. Where in divine revelation does it state that Mary continued as a virgin? My understanding is that the only divine revelation accepted by the Church would be in the holy scriptures

Thank you

To help answer #2 go to post 159 or 167 about how Jewish law and Family tradition figure in as proof that when Jesus died Mary was still a virgin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Steven,

No, I’m not asserting that. However, some people do. They state that the ‘sin of Sodom’ was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. To me, that is a blatant misinterpretation of clear Scriptural teachings. But I don’t want to derail the thread. The sentence was in the context of my overall point that ‘Scripture alone’ interpretations without authority and context lead to exactly such atrocities and twistings of thought. And further, that attempts to make claims about Mary having other children based on twistings and misinterpretations of Scripture simply because the people are reading into the text without considering context and authority has likewise resulted in people claiming that Mary was NOT ‘ever Virgin’, even though consistent Christian teaching from the time of the apostles and even PAST the time of the first reformers was that she most certainly was.

 

[Steven_John]

Hi Steven,

No, I’m not asserting that. However, some people do. They state that the ‘sin of Sodom’ was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. To me, that is a blatant misinterpretation of clear Scriptural teachings. But I don’t want to derail the thread. The sentence was in the context of my overall point that ‘Scripture alone’ interpretations without authority and context lead to exactly such atrocities and twistings of thought.

Oh i get ya, sorry to have taken your time.

I also follow what you say in the latter part of the post i think.

There are thinks people claim i can not prove,
There are things people claim i can not disprove.
I can only claim or deny that i can prove.

For me though
I don’t claim hearsay believing or feelings as any more than they are, respecting that many do. Just because one has them does not assure they are truth to one who has not them.

 

[elzermank]

In answer to eamonroma

Question 1: ‘Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been officially proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church, it has come to be accepted as a fourth Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium’. Does everyone understand what the Magisterium is?

Question 2: Again I refer you to the scriptural reference relating to the Annunciation. ‘How can this be as I have no knowledge of man?" Our Lady herself affirms her vow of virginity when she is already betrothed to Joseph. Given that she had an Archangel standing before her in glory, it’s not to say she questioned that God could perform a miracle. She was concerned with her vow and how she could honour it while still conceiving of a son. Joseph and Mary had no intention of consummating their union, not before or after Jesus’ birth. This affirms her perpetual virginity.

 

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger2,

…In response to the OP, I do not believe there is a “proof” that would address those who demand proof. In the same manner, today, how would one “prove” someone’s virginity - short of going to an OB/GYN specialist and getting a written report - one is left with takin…

Perhaps you don’t understand my position.
I acknowledge the virgin birth. It is Biblical.
2.
I do not claim Mary had other children - only that the status of children after Jesus cannot positively be proven one way or the other.
3.
I dislike either side making absolute claims that are not absolutely supported by factual evidence.

Ginger

 

[PJM]

Point 1. God is and has to be Perfect. God can be described as “everything Good Perfectly.” Agree?

Point 2. Jesus is God ties in with Point 3

Point 3. If Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is the 'Mother of God." Agree?

Now lets look at what the Bible says. Luke, Chapter 1, starting at verse 26.

*26 “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. *

Point 4. Mary was according to God a “virgin.” V. 26

Pint 5. Mary was impregnated by “The Spirit of God / The Holy SPIRIT” [Not a man but by a miracle by the Spirit of God." So to this point she is “still virgin.”

Point 6. Because Jesus retained His Complete Nature as God [verse 35] He is Perfect. Jesus assumed, that is willingly became human with a fully Human Nature, so we have One Person [Jesus /God] with two complete and separate natures. That of God and that of man. Because both natures were conjoined to the same person, BOTH Natures HAD to Be PERFECT.

Point 7. In order to have a Perfect Human nature, Mary His Mother had to be perfected by God as a singular privilege of God. Were she too not Perfect, she would have passed this imperfection on to her Son, Jesus. Take a moment a read Exodus Chapter 26 and see what God demanded from Moses for “His Ark” which only carried the “spirit of God.” Not actually God, as did the womb of Mary.

Point 8. As a direct result of the merits of Her Son Jesus, God kept Mary perfect in every way. Because she agreed to become the Mother of God; because she agreed to travel to Bethlehem; Because she did not complain about giving Birth is a stable; because she agreed to leave family, home and friends and move the pagan country of Egypt to keep Jesus safe, because when Jesus was “lost to her” in the Temple for three days, she did not lose hope or faith, because, prompted by the HS, she urged Jesus to perform His first Public Miracle [water into wine at Cana] knowing that it would mean painful things for both Jesus and herself, and because she was with Her Son Jesus for His Passion and Death. Not only losing her only son, but also seeming and sharing is painful death. Mary NEVER-EVER said NO to God.

Because She is the Mother of God, and God has to be perfect, Mary too had to be made perfect, and was kept perfect by God’s Will and Power in appreciation for all of her “I am the handmaid of the Lord, do with me as YOU WILL.”

Love and prayers,