My Problem with the Catholic Mary

[joe370]

Furthermore, Jesus said:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory…" John 17:20-24

The ultimate goal in life, for Christians is to be “one” with God for all eternity; to remove our earthly shackles (the stain of sin) --and be made perfect (Immaculate) so that we can behold Jesus’ glory for all eternity. (become “one” with God) -In our present state, here on earth, this is not possible; we are marooned, separated from God due to our sinful nature; we are not Immaculate, therefore we cannot be “one” with God!! Mary was not exempt from this condition; to be one with God would necessitate that she too, be free of the stain of sin, “made perfect” (Immaculate) --so she too could behold Jesus’ glory for all eternity. (made one with God) God could never have been “one” with her in her present state on earth, if she were a sinner, just as we cannot become “one” with God in our present state here on earth, as sinners. The obvious difference between us and Mary is that only the “blessed” Mary was physically joined with God here on earth, making her the only human here on earth---- “one” with God, necessitating the need for her to be “made perfect” (Immaculate); no other person shares that distinction!!! Mary is singularly unique in this glorious distinction!!! --Which begs the question: why do so many people doubt her Immaculate Conception?

If Mary were just another sinner like you and I, then she committed some sins while God was one with her flesh, for 9 months; do you really think that is even remotely possible? It is mind-boggling to even entertain such an ungodly idea!

 

[nilofc]

joe367… thank you for your faith.

It’s so sad to think that some say that Mary is just an incubator for Jesus.

I wonder how they will answer Jesus…when He asks them “what did you say about my mother?”

I would hate to be in that situation.

Again…I thank you for your faith Joe.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jlaymon2, you said Catholics argue that when the Bible refers to brothers of Jesus, that these are spiritual brothers and not blood relatives.

Yes Catholics do believe we are all spiritual brothers and sisters but they also believe that Jesus had extended family, who went by the words brother and sister…

“And there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.” John 19:25

“His mother’s sister,” is also named Mary; should we as Christian brothers and sisters…

“But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Matthew 12:48-50

…literally believe that Mary, the wife of Joseph, and Mary, the wife of Cleophas had the same parents, considering the fact that they shared the exact same name? (Parents give their children different names,thereby giving them their own unique identity) --Mary of Cleophas was a close relative, just as Jesus’ “brothers” are to be understood as close relatives? Even if Mary of Cleophas was the true sister of Mary the wife of Joseph, Mother of Jesus --James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are still children of a different mother and father.

The abridged answer is that Mary of Cleophas is probably the Blessed Mary’s sister-in-law. (logic dictates so) --Mary of Cleophas may have had a previous husband named Alpheus, or this Alpheus may have been Cleophas himself. Possibly, Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul. So it’s probable that James is the son of Mary and Cleophas, AKA Alpheus.(either way it doesn’t effect the premise) --The “Blessed” Mary, of course, only had one husband, Joseph. The unabridged answer is as follows…

 

[joe370]

Reading the Bible, we find that Jesus had “brethren” named James, Joseph --Simon and Jude (Matthew 13:55). We also know that Jesus’ Mother Mary had a “sister” named Mary. This other Mary in turn had a husband named Cleophas (John 19:25). Elsewhere, Matthew actually calls her “the other Mary.” (Matthew 28:1) This other Mary is said to be the “sister” of Jesus’ mother. In Acts 1:13 and Matthew 10:3, the younger James, an Apostle, is also said to be the son of Alphaeus, which I will get into later; the point is, Joseph is not his father, ruling him out as a son of the “blessed” Mary.

The Bible never states directly that Mary, mother of Jesus, had other children. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary. Even though the Bible does refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus in several places (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:32; Acts 1:14), they could be the children of Joseph by a former marriage or simply members of Jesus’ clan, which I firmly believe to be the case. Clans and extended families are common in the Bible. There are examples in the Bible where the term “brother” is used in the narrow sense of siblings (Matthew 1:2; 4:18; Mark 3:17). However, there are examples where the terms, “brother” and “sister,” are used in a much wider sense (e.g. John 19:25) –in the New Testament which was written in Greek. In the Hebrew and Aramaic language, there was no word for cousin; brother was always employed. According to the Bible, “he (Abram) brought back…Lot his brother." (Gen 14:16) Yet according to Gen 11:31, Lot was Abram’s nephew. In 2 Sam 1:26, David calls Jonathan his brother, but there was no family connection. Elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus refers to His disciples as brothers (Matt 28:10). Even fellow Christians are called brothers (Acts 1:15-16; 9:30; 13:38; Romans 1:13; 1 Corinthians 1:10).

Paul writes: “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:19) Here the Apostle James is said to be “the Lord’s brother.” --and protestants use this verse more than any other to try and disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity. (Why they care, I’ll never know; it certainly doesn’t effect their salvation; probably because it’s a belief of the C.C.) According to a list of the apostles in Matthew 10:2-3, the older James is said to be the son of Zebedee, which rules him out; whereas, the younger James is said to be the son of Alphaeus, which rules him out as well. None are said to be the son of Joseph or Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Using the Bible, St. Jerome showed that the younger Apostle James was actually a cousin of Jesus, and that his mother’s name was also Mary: the “blessed” Mary’s sister, and I will employ that same line of reasoning.

According to both Matthew and Mark --James and Joseph (or Joses) are the sons of Mary. But this Mary is not referred to as the mother of Jesus; she is in fact the mother of James Joseph, Jude and Simon, as I will shortly illustrate. Even if I couldn’t prove this to be fact, it would be an odd omission, if she were also the mother of Jesus!!! At the death of Jesus on Calvary or Golgotha, we are told that Mary, wife of Cleophas/Clopas (John 19:25) was present. She was described as the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56) in one account, and mother of James the Less and Joses (Joseph) in another.(Mark 15:40) On the other hand, James is also described as the son of Alphaeus, (never Cleophas) in the synoptic Gospels’ listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15). From this, we can infer that Mary, the wife of Cleophas is indeed the mother of James and Joseph, and unlikely to be a true sister of the “blessed” Mary, since they bear the same name. However, they are related in some way!

The author of the letter of Jude identifies himself in the first verse as “Jude…brother of James.” James, the son of Cleophas (step son) --is the author of the letter of James, head of the Church in Jerusalem, and a cousin of Jesus as I have clearly illustrated, so we can also infer that Jude is a cousin of Jesus! This parallels the semitic use of “brother” in relating James, Joseph, and Jude to Jesus…

 

[joe370]

I will concede one thing; nothing certain can be stated about Simon, one way or the other, in the Bible, which is certainly no reason to infer that he was the son of the “blessed” Mary! He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) —lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connection between the three.

Hegesippus, an ancient historian (a Catholic AKA, Universal chronicler of the early Church, who was born in 110 AD, and died in 180 AD in Jerusalem; he wrote against dangerous heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion, and he was right about them (and he was) then we can trust that he is right about other things —can shed further light. A native of Palestine, Hegesippus finished his memoirs in the reign of Pope Eleutherius (AD 175-189) when he was an old man. He draws his information from personal sources, as he was able to question some surviving members of Jesus’ family. Hegesippus informs us that:

“After the martyrdom of James, it was unanimously decided that Simeon, son of Clopas, was worthy to occupy the see of Jerusalem. He was, it is said, a cousin of the Saviour.” Hegesippus recounts in fact that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 11).

St. Epiphanius (bishop of Salamis, born in 310 in Judea and died in 403 AD; He gained the reputation of a strong defender of orthodoxy; He is best known for composing a very large compendium of the heresies down to his own time) --says the same and adds that:

“that this Simeon, the son of Clopas, was a cousin of James the Jus.”

What can we conclude from this logical premise? Well, if Cleophas is the brother of Joseph --(Jesus’ adopted father; the second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s adopted son.) —then it follows that Cleophas’ wife Mary is the “blessed” Mary’s sister in law, which explains why they can have the same name and are called sisters. It also follows that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins, not brothers. However this could still be the case even if Hegesippus is wrong, which is highly unlikely; after all, he is much closer to the source than any protestant or non-believer in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Mary of Cleophas is the mother of the two brothers, (making them cousins) --of Jesus. We also know that Cleophas, Joseph’s brother, was the father of a third son, called Simon (actual son –not step son as is the case with James and Joseph) by the testimony of a very reliable source, Hegesippus, who draws his information from personal sources, as he was able to question some surviving members of Jesus’ family —making him a (step) son of Cleophas --never Joseph.

Since the remaining “brother,” Jude, as I have illustrated, identifies himself in the first verse as “Jude…brother of James” (again, actual son of Cleophas not Joseph) --and is always connected with Simon and is, like him, part of the family of David, it is natural to suppose that he was also a (step) son of Cleophas.

All the points that remain obscure would be cleared up, in my opinion, if two hypotheses are considered:

Mary, the “sister” of the “Blessed” Mary, having two sons, James and Joseph, by a first marriage, was married a second time to Cleophas, brother of Joseph, who also had two sons, Simon and Jude, by a former marriage. In light of the customs of the country and the age, there was nothing extraordinary in the marriage of a widow and a widower, each with children. The second hypothesis is that the “sister” of the Blessed Mary had as her first husband a man of the tribe of Levi, called Alpheus.

Employing this logic, curious questions would be answered:

1)Why James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are always named in that order, as brethren of the Lord.
2) Why James and Joseph are a pair distinct from Simon and Jude.
3) Why Mary, sister of the Blessed Mary, is called the mother of James and Joseph and not the mother of Simon and Jude.
4) Why, according to Hegesippus, Simon (not James who was the son of Alpheus) is the son of Cleophas.
5) Why, again according to Hegesippus, Simon and Jude are of the family of David.
6) Why, according to tradition, James was of sacerdotal ancestry.
7)Why the common opinion of Catholics identifies James, son of Mary, “sister” of the Blessed Mary, with James the Apostle, the son of Alpheus.
8) Why Mary of Cleophas is called in the Gospel, the“sister” of the Blessed Mary, when she was really her sister-in-law, being the wife of St. Joseph’s brother.
9) Why, after the deaths of Joseph and Cleophas, the two sisters brought their families together, so that thereafter the two families seemed to be but one…

 

[joe370]

We do not hear of Cleophas or Joseph (Jesus’ adopted father) in the Gospels during Jesus’ adult life. So it would logical to imagine that after their deaths, the two families --deprived of their protectors and heads --came together under one roof. This would further strengthen their ties, and the fact that Jesus’ brothers were were in fact His cousins.

So, to recap, Jesus is the son of the “blessed” Mary and Joseph; James and Joseph are the sons of the ‘blessed” Mary’s sister in-law Mary and Alpheus, of a former marriage; Simon and Jude are the sons of the “blessed” Mary’s sister in-law Mary and Cleophas, of a later marriage. The two Marys as “sisters” are in fact sister-in-laws and Jesus’ “brothers” are in fact His cousins. Both the Bible and tradition attest to this.

One final observation: Nowhere in Scripture is the Blessed Mary ever explicitly identified as the earthly mother of anyone other than Jesus. There is the alternative argument that the “brothers” appear to be older than Jesus, son of Joseph. The passage of John 7:3 raises some questions about whether the brothers of Jesus mentioned there were sons of Joseph from a former marriage. The argument is not conclusive since it could be debated whether Jesus’ “brothers” are giving him instructions or mere suggestions. Yet it would be consistent with the idea that Jesus’ “brothers” were older than Jesus and, thus, not Mary’s children.

Furthermore, if Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. This insult would not only be from Jesus but also from Mary, since Mary did not stop Jesus. This passage only makes sense, if Mary had no other children to care for her. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense, and illustrates the formation of his disciples who are invited to acknowledge Mary as their own mother, as all Christians are, making the “Blessed” Mary the Mother of the Church:

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!” Then saith he to the disciple, “Behold thy mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” John
19:26-27

Jesus spoke few words from the Cross, because it is extremely painful to speak while being crucified. If Mary had another son or even if John were her son, Jesus would not have wasted His words on the obvious. Not only would this be strange, but it would have been a grave insult to her other sons.

In regards to the old protestant supposition, Matthew 1:25, "Joseph knew Mary not until she had bore a son”–Matthew does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says: “For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Matthew 11:23); So would Sodom still have been destroyed the next day? Paul writes: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25) So will Jesus quit reigning? No! Finally Paul writes: “I charge you to keep the commandments unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Tim 6:14) He is not advising Timothy to break the commandments after the appearance of Christ. In the same manner, Matthew does not imply that Joseph “knew” Mary after the birth of Jesus.

Elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus is called the firstborn of Mary (Luke 2:7).This obviously does not mean that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.
Likewise, the term prôtotokos, “firstborn,” as applied to males is recognized to have a unique legal and cultic meaning. In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.” Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: “You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb.” In Israel a firstborn was defined as such not because he was the first among other siblings, but because he was the first “to open” his mother’s womb, whether his mother would have other children or not. In Numbers 3:40, the Lord ordered to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward.” A one-month-old child could not be declared a first-born because he had other siblings. The term “firstborn” refers above all to the law, and is thus applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son. Luke insists, three times, on showing how Jesus was presented into the Temple as the law demanded for every firstborn male child (Luke 2:22.23.27). This ceremony of redemption must be performed shortly after the birth of the firstborn and not after the birth of the second child. Even if the mother has only a son and no more children, her son would still be called “firstborn.” Every --only-begotten is a firstborn, but not every firstborn is only-begotten. St. Paul refers to Jesus spiritually as the “firstborn” of all Christians since He opened the gates of Heaven. Romans 8:29…

 

[joe370]

Excerpt by:Francois Rossier…

“This plurality of interpretations has been made possible because of the ambiguity of the word “brother” (and “sister”) in ancient Hebrew. This language, like Aramaic, does not distinguish between blood brother and cousin. In fact–and this point might not have been taken into sufficient consideration–the Hebrew word ah, in its literal meaning, applies to any close male relative of the same generation. Once someone belongs to this circle–whether as sibling, half-brother, step-brother or cousin–he is an ah. Within this circle defined by true family brotherhood no further word distinction is made. For ancient Hebrew, one belongs either to the family in-group or not. John P. Meier , for instance, wrote that, in Matthew 13:50, “the final ‘punch line’ of Jesus carries full weight only if the mother, brothers, and sisters all have a close, natural relationship to Jesus.” [John P. MEIER, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 1-28, page 13.] In Meier’s mind, it means that the “brothers and sisters” were Mary’s children. Yet, what Jesus says there still carries full weight if the “brothers and sisters” were half-brothers or half-sisters of his, since such half-brothers and sisters would also belong to the closest family circle.

St. Jerome -Against Heldivius. Where better to get a scriptural defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity than the greatest Bible scholar of his day? The standard Protestant objections of today were handily refuted in AD 383, such that this heresy did not resurface again until relatively modern times. Now, while many of these protestants today regard Mary’s perpetual virginity as a uniquely Catholic belief, it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

Mary represents the Church, she points to it, “And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.” Luke 1 The Church follows the example of Mary. Mary is the archetype that the Church ascends to. Mary is always seen in light of Jesus Christ; nothing is hers alone, all refers to Christ (Mariological Christology).

I personally believe in the “Blessed” Mary’s perpetual virginity because The C.C., the same Church established by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, and told that nothing would defeat it, (Matthew 16:18) and that Jesus would be with His established Church forever, until the end of time (Matthew 28:20) --teaches it. The supernatural Marian apparitions that took place in San Sebastian de Garabandal Spain from 1961-65 assist me in my belief, (not at all required by the C.C.; you can believe or not believe, makes no difference to the C.C.) --and adds to the credibility of Jesus’ established Church, in my personal opinion only! ------I simply offer all of this by way of explanation…

 

[joe370]

For Catholics it really comes down to a few biblical facts; Jesus built one Church circa 33AD;“…you are Peter (kepha) and on this rock (kepha) I will build My Church, not churches. Matthew 16:18 –(It was not established in the 4th century, the 10th century or the 16th century) –and proclaimed that He would be with His established church forever, through every century, until the end of time; GOD has said He will be with His Church (Ecclesia, “assembly, congregation, council”) forever! “I will never leave you, neither will I forsake you.” Heb13:5; John 14:16 “…And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.” --In Mt 28:20, Jesus said, “and I am with you all days, even until the end of the world.” Jesus also said --“to him be glory in the church (not churches) and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” Ephesians 3:21 That means Jesus will be with His Church every day in every century until the end of time. And, Jesus’ church was to be one: John 10:16; – there shall be one fold and one shepherd Eph 4:3-6; – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father Rom 16:17; – avoid those who create dissensions 1 Cor 1:10; – I urge that there be no divisions among you Phil 2:2; – be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing Rom 15:5; – God grant you to think in harmony with one another Jn 17:17-23; – I pray that they may be one, as we are one Jn 17: 23; – that they may be brought to perfection as one 1 Cor 12:13; – in one spirit we were baptized into one body Rom 12:5; – we, though many, are one body in Christ Eph 4:4; – one body, one Spirit, called to one hope Col 3:15; – the peace into which you were called in one body. And finally, Jesus’ church would be comprised of both sinners and saints, the wheat and the chaff; Jesus predicted such corruption was inevitable: “It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come!” Luke 17:1 "And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (The bible says the church is the House of the Living God) "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you: Away from me, you evildoers!” Matthew 7:21-23 “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them…” Acts 20:28 Let us not forget the scandals and human weaknesses of Jesus Christ’s very own inner circle. They are His personally chosen Apostles, the very foundation of His Church: “…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19-22). One betrayed Him (Luke 22:48). One denied Him, not once but three times (Matthew 26:69-75). One doubted Him (John 20:24-29). All ran away from Him (Mark 14:50). Note that all of them, except one, are now saints. Jesus will defend His church from within and from without, against all adversaries for all time, regardless of individual apostasies. God’s worst enemy will never vanquish His church, no matter how hard he tries (devil), "I will build My Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it…

 

[joe370]

If all of the above is true, and it is, if you believe your Bible, (for all you sola scriptura advocates) then Jesus’ one Church which is Jesus’ Body, the house of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (In this world Jesus has one Body; God has one house; the Holy Spirit delivers one truth! (There can be only one truth; truth is not relative) –then all Christians should believe the doctrines of His Church. By listening to His established Church circa 33 AD, when she tells us that Mary was not the mother of Joseph, James Judas, Simon, or any daughters, and that she is the “Ever-Virgin” Mary –we are essentially listening to Jesus Himself; after all He is the head of the Church; the savior of His Body; If the C.C. failed, then God failed.

Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body… Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…That he might present it to himself a glorious church,(those members, at the end of time that Jesus deems worthy to be one with him) not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish…For no man ever yet hated his own body; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church… This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Jesus and His Church are synonymous.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: (not churches) but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Clearly Jesus died for His established Church and anyone who belongs to it.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. There can be only one truth (truth is not relative) ergo there can be only one House of the Living God and one pillar and ground of the truth.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” Colossians 24

Everything done in the name of Jesus Christ should be done for the sake of Jesus’ Mystical Body THE CHURCH!!!