Jesus does not have a brother in the catholic tradition, his mother Mary is a perpetual virgin, which can hardly be compatible with having several children. Yet in his epistle to the Galatians (1, 19) , Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord". In the first letter to the Corinthians (9: 4-5) , he mentions other brothers of the Lord who have the right to take their wives during their apostolic mission. It is clear in Paul's formulation that compares his rights with "other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and the apostle Peter" that he does not attribute the qualifier of brother of the Lord only to a few specific individuals. It does not stand as synonym of disciple. From this, several historians hold the position that either Joseph or Mary had children together or from previous relationships for Joseph like P-A. Bernheim(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2584331-james-brother-of-jesus) , or F. Blanchetière[2] (https://brill.com/view/title/15554) , who point out that, Paul never qualifies Peter or John as brother of the Lord, or Fr John P. Meier who denies[3] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838138.A_Marginal_Jew) the theory of cousins that never appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament in which the term *adelphos* marks exclusively the fraternal bond of blood or right. However the Catholic church and many Catholic exegetes believe that Mary didn't had other children, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , following the traditional reading based on the later belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, following Jerome [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm), the first Father of the Church to argue against the siblings theory for the benefit of the cousins one at the end of the fourth century. They also recuse the half-brothers and sisters theory presented in an apocryphal gospel from James, around 180, born of a first marriage of Joseph from previous relationships. Why these "Brothers of the Lord" have been embarrassing for the Catholic Church which make them gradually forgotten and lose their quality of brothers? Why at the same time as the cult of chastity develops, whose mother of Jesus becomes the symbol and which will find its apogee in the doctrine of its perpetual virginity? Note : Other like Assyrian and part of protestants hold this doctrine as well but I narrow my question to the Catholic Church as far as the different schisms had not yet been pronounced when the doctrine was created.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

Over the last thousand years there have been many reported apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, most famously (as far as I can tell) in Fatima, Portugal and in Guadeloupe, Mexico. These apparitions would seem to prove the Roman Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church given the contents of the messages seeming to come directly from Heaven from the mouth of the Mother of God. Additionally, the evidence for these apparitions seems to be high, including miraculous and unexplainable portraits on the tilma of Juan Diego and thousands of eye witnesses to the miracle of the sun at Fatima, making it the most attested to miracle of all time. If these apparitions had overwhelming evidence to their validity, I would think the whole Christian world would come under the Roman Church, yet no such thing has occurred, leading me to wonder if there is reason to doubt the validity of these apparitions. What are the chief arguments against the validity of these Marian apparitions, specifically those of Fatima and Guadeloupe?

> "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" ([John 14:16–17, NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A16-17&version=NIV)) From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is. > But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you. ([John 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A26&version=NIV)) > When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about Me. ([John 15:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A26&version=NIV)) My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?

I heard that a Polish anthem or hymn addressed Our Lady as the "Warrior Queen". Which hymn was this? Is "Warrior Queen" one of her official titles?

The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals. However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual? **Edit:** If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.

Mormons appear to believe that Jesus is the literal, physical offspring of their "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother". What do they believe about how Jesus was born to a human mother? Do they believe that Jesus's human mother, Mary is distinct from "Heavenly Mother"? How did Mary come to be pregnant in Mormon theology?

The Catholic Church always has taught that Our Lord Alone redeemed mankind; and so, only through Him are salvation and Grace obtained. The term *mediator* means a "go-between." Thus, and in a sense, we are *mediators* when we pray to God on behalf of another person. Over the centuries, many Christians have believed the Blessed Virgin is the dispenser of all of the Graces which God deigns to grant; for example, St. Peter Damian: "In thy hands are all the Treasures of Divine Mercies." St. Bernardine of Sienna: "Thou art the dispenser of all Graces; our salvation rests in thy hands." And also, says St. Alphonsus Liguori, "was the doctrine of St. John Damascene, of St. Germanus, of St. Anselm, of St. Antonine, of Idiota, and of so many other learned authors..." Furthermore, although The Church has never solemnly defined this as dogma, the term "Mediatrix of All Graces" seems to have been used for centuries in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. As far as I can tell, the title dates back at least the fifth century, when Bishop Basil of Selucia made use of it. Prior to that, Church Father, St. Ephrem of Syria (4th century) writes: *"after the mediator, you (Mary) are the mediatrix of the whole world."* However, I'm not sure this means "mediatrix of all graces." QUESTION: When might the title, "Mediatrix of All Graces," first have been applied to the Blessed Mother; and, did any of the Church Fathers definitely make use of it (or something equivalent to it) to describe the Mother of God? Thank you.

We read about the introduction to Annunciation in Lk 1:28-29: > And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. Note the words "she was troubled at his saying". Luke does not say that Mary was taken aback to see a male stranger suddenly standing in front of her. Now, most of the images depicting the Annunciation show Mary kneeling down in contemplative prayer in a room, purportedly her at home. But, wouldn't she be startled to see a man appearing before her in the safety of her home? Is it possible that she was outside, tending the garden, or drawing water, or caring for the domestic cattle, or even shopping? Out of her home, she had the chances of meeting a stranger and not getting afraid. Or, is it possible that Mary had an intuition of the ensuing Annunciation, on account of which she was spending time in prayer and contemplation, remaining mostly at home? My question is: Are there any extrabiblical writings on where Blessed Virgin Mary was, at the time the Angel addressed her before the Annunciation?

Joan Carroll Cruz, *Prayers and Heavenly Promises: Compiled from Approved Sources* claims: >PROMISES: According to St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373), the Blessed Virgin grants seven graces to the souls who honor her daily by saying seven *Hail Marys* while meditating on her tears and dolors: > > 1. “I will grant peace to their families.” > 2. “They will be enlightened about the divine Mysteries.” > 2. “I will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.” > 2. “I will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.” > 2. “I will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.” > 2. “I will visibly help them at the moment of their death—they will see the face of their mother.” > 2. “I have obtained this grace from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and dolors will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness, since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son will be their eternal consolation and joy.” Where exactly in *The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden* do these promises occur? I couldn't find them there.

In the *Ineffabilis Deus*, Pope Pius IX states: > Mary ... was > preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed > by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the > faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- **to think > otherwise** than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand > that he is **condemned by his own judgment**; that he has suffered > shipwreck in the faith; that he has **separated from the unity of the > Church**; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the > penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or > writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his > heart. Does this mean that that even if I have confessed my sin, been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands, but I don't believe that Mary was without original sin, then I'm doomed to hell? **If so, why is this an essential doctrine for salvation?** Note that this question asks *if* the Immaculate Conception was necessary for our salvation. I am asking why *belief* in the Immaculate Conception is necessary.

Are there any early or ancient sources suggesting Mary was descended from David? I found an argument in Tertullian’s *Against Marcion, Book III* indicating that Christ’s descent from the “seed” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “bowels” (2 Sam. 7:12) of David could only be fulfilled through Mary. Moreover, because Joseph was descended from Jechoniah—whom God cursed so that none of his “seed” would prosper on David’s throne (Jer. 22:30)—Jesus could not be regarded as the “seed” of David through Joseph. I have also come across arguments suggesting Mary might have been of Aaron’s lineage. First, Elizabeth, who was married to a Levite, is explicitly mentioned as Mary’s close relative (Luke 1:36). Second, there is the promise of an “everlasting priesthood” from the seed of Phinehas (Num. 25:13). I’m somewhat confused by these claims and would appreciate any links or references to authoritative or early sources that discuss these points. Later Addition: I have also found that some early writers took a reading of Num. 36:6–7 that implied all inter-tribal marriage was to be prohibited. From what I have been able to track down, this was proposed by St. John of Damascus in *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De Fide Orth.), Book IV, ch. 14* and later cited by Aquinas in the *Summa Theologica III, question 31, article 3*

The first chapter of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did *not* impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary. How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David? Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines? If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David? Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: [What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/20000/27623) Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: [Perfection Possible](http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/voicefromisles/perfection_possible) . I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception. The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: [Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple](https://oca.org/fs/sermons/sermon-on-the-entry-of-the-theotokos) . Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.

According to the Church Fathers and the Oriental Orthodox Church, was the Blessed Virgin Mary's flesh corruptible?