Behold Your Mother: A Biblical

Wonderful book regarding defending the Catholic faith, especially the Marian Doctrines... Tim Staples does a wonderful job with this book. A Must Have and a Must read for everyone!

One of the best book for learning and defending Marian doctrines.

Book gives deep insight to mysteries of Mary in relation to Holy Trinity. It gives Good knowledge on Catholic teaching with regards to Mariology

A good solid work

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, I read it for quite some time alongside my Bible. It truly addresses in great detail and explains simply the truth behind Mary. It defends the Catholic faith beautifully and certainly does well in sticking to scripture with each page, either Church Fathers or scripture will be quoted as reference. It is certainly worth picking up or reading if you are interested in the faith or simply want to defend it with easy to understand apologetics. It definitely makes easy work of many Fundamentalists and Evangelicalist arguments refuting the Blessed Virgin Mary. I would most certainly recommend giving this book a try regardless of your faith, really is worth the read.

Just finish reading this book, protestant-converts are the best ones explaining the Catholic faith. The Blessed Virgin Mary is one of the biggest stumbling block for a non-catholic to join the True Church of Christ. Ex-protestant Tim Staples provides compelling evidences about the Marian doctrines from the bible, the writings of the early Christians, logic and common sense. He clearly explained the Marian doctrines from any conceivable non-Catholic accusations against the Blessed Mother, from the "Mother of God", "Immaculate Concepcion", "Perpetual Virginity", "The Assumption" and as "Co-Redemptrix". The importance of knowing Mary in order to know who Jesus truly is is sadly lost on our non-Catholic brethren, while some unwittingly and unknowingly fell into heresy, and this book is a treasure of information that will lead us back to know who Jesus truly is by knowing who his mother really is, "Behold thy Mother". Some quotes from the book -"No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus" -"Bad Mariology leads to errant Christology"

I remember when I first started listening to Catholic Answers, I didn't really know who was who. Then one day, I heard someone who was just on fire for Our Lady. This guy had me fist pumping, not only at his biblical and compelling arguments, but at the clear personal love he clearly communicated for Our Lady. That man was of course Tim Staples, and I can think of no one more appropriate to write a Catholic apologetics book on Mary. If you enjoyed Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism," then this book is for you. It could have been titled "Mary and Fundamentalism" as, like Keating's book, it is written to defend Catholic doctrine (on Mary) by appealing in large part to the bible while also interacting with some of the strongest non-Catholic Christian objections. It is also extremely readable and easy to understand, as Keating's book is. Although Staples does not say it specifically, his use of scholastic metaphysical terminology combined with the copious quotes of St Thomas make the case that the abandonment of scholastic thought leads to bad metaphysics which leads to Christological errors. For example, Staples critiques Eric Svensen's claim that "Mary is the mother of some of Jesus." What in the world does "some of" Jesus mean? Presumably this refers to the "human nature part" of Jesus. But this puts us in the odd situation of claiming that Mary gave birth to a nature, not a person. Is the "whole" Jesus the human nature part combined with the divine nature part? This would then seem to deny the simplicity of God. It is unclear what "part" is referring to, and we are left to guess as to its precise metaphysical meaning. But this is unfortunately the result when one jettisons the careful metaphysical terminology and distinctions like essence, substance, and suppositum. I am not claiming that Svensen and others have done this on purpose- careful metaphysics worked out by the scholastics are simply not part and parcel in Catholic culture anymore, let alone in Protestant culture. Part 1 defends the Mary's title Theotokos or "Mother of God." Here Staples interacts with the arguments of non-Catholic Christians Walter Martin and Eric Svensen. In my opinion, Svensen and more generally those associated with James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries (AOMIN) represent the best and most thoughtful critiques of specifically Catholic doctrine that divides Catholics and non-Catholic Christians. Hence we know that when Staples is critiquing their arguments, he is critiquing some of the best arguments against the claims of the Catholic Church available (and of course in my mind, doing it quite successfully). The second Part is devoted to defending the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Staples gives 8 arguments to demonstrate that the teaching is implicitly (if not explicitly) found in scripture. Much of this is based on the use of the phrase "Hail full of grace" in Luke 1:28. Staples argues convincingly that "full of grace" is a name given to Mary that signifies a reality within her. Like Abram to Abraham and Simon to Peter, the name change is more than simply a different title you call someone- it is an ontological reality. But there is one concern I have which is the translation of the Greek word Kecharitomene, which is what we translate as "full of grace." I foresee a Protestant being able to neutralize many of the arguments given by Staples simply by shedding doubt upon how exactly this phrase is translated. It seems reasonable for a Protestant to say "Look, I agree that many things about Mary you are claiming follow IF Kecharitomene is translated as "full of grace." But my bible translates it as "highly favored one" which is hardly a proper name. Furthermore, it seems that there are Greek scholars on both sides who claim that the phrase Kecharitomene is quite esoteric and difficult to translate. We just can't say for sure." This really seems to neutralize any argument a Catholic can make based on "full of grace" because it seems to kick the issue back to the level of scholarly understanding of Greek, which most apologists are not familiar with. Sure, I can do my quick google search to find a Greek scholar who agrees with me, but my Protestant interlocutor can do a google search to find a Greek scholar who is very skeptical about our ability to properly translate Kecharitomene. And the problem is that neither of us are qualified to evaluate the material that the other one gives us. So right now, I see a Protestant who is skeptical of how to properly translate Kecharitomene as being within his rights and thus, it seems to me difficult to make a case for the Immaculate Conception using Luke 1:28 as evidence. Clearly I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong about this, but in order to be fair and not hold a Protestant to a standard I would not hold myself to, I currently see this as being a slight weakness of this argument (as, unless I missed it, Staples never argued exactly why it is clear that Kecharitomene must be translated as "full of grace"). Now that being said, this second Part also gives the best defense of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant I have ever read. This is actually my personal favorite, and I have read Scott Hahn on this, but Staples is able to make some connections and insights with regard to this argument that I haven't even seen in Hahn. Quoting from Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul's excellent book "The Holiness of God," Staples illustrates how the Ark of the Covenant was so holy that one could not even touch it, lest they die. If the Ark of the Old Covenant is this holy, pristine, and sacred, how much more so the Ark of the New Covenant? This comparison is of course fleshed out in more detail. Staples also gives an argument for the Immaculate Conception based on Mary being "blessed." He makes the simple but profound insight that when St Elizabeth calls her blessed in Luke 1:42, that she calls both Mary and Jesus blessed. In other words, it isn't simply "the word" blessed that we are focusing on, but the use of the word to describe BOTH Mary and Jesus in the same breath. There is a parallel that is being drawn here, and Staples does an excellent job of explaining this. Staples also gives some excellent insights into the "Mary as new Eve" argument. In addition to the many parallels, he points out that while Eve received her human nature from only one person (Adam), so Jesus received his human nature form only one person (Mary) and that these are the only pairs of people in the history of the world for this to happen to. Yet, while in the former case the woman comes from the man, the latter case reverses this by having the man comes from the woman. This is symbolic of Jesus and Mary reversing the curse of Adam and Eve. The beauty of these kinds of typological arguments is simply too astonishing to be mere coincidence or forcing some sort of parallel that isn't really there. Part II ends with Staples answering many common Protestant objections from scripture. In particular, he gives the best and most thorough counters to the "Mary gave the sin offering of two doves, thus she has committed sin" found in Luke 2:24 I have ever read. He points out that such a reading would necessitate a commitment to Jesus having sinned (which is of course absurd) as the sin offering is for both mother and child. He points out that this sin offering actually falls under the ritual and ceremonial laws of the Jewish people. This is primarily about ritual impurity, not sin. As we know, Jesus in the gospels reveals the true nature of the impurity laws, and that they point towards the inner dispositions of the heart, not the outward flowing of blood or whatever. Finally, Staples points out that just as Jesus fulfilled and was totally obedient to all the Jewish laws perfectly (e.g. circumcision) as well as being baptized because it was "fitting" (and NOT because he needed it), so too Mary was obedient to the law. Hence, there is simply no reason to this Luke 2:24 implies that Mary committed actual sin. Part III discusses Mary's virginity, both before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord. A good amount of positive evidence for this is given, including a careful study of "betrothal" in first century Judaism. In addition, there are arguments given to show that Joseph would not have consummated his betrothal with Mary given that she was now the bride of the Holy Spirit. This is studied by observing that Joseph would have know his Jewish laws, which forbade a man to return to his wife after she has been with another e.g. the case of David and Absolem. It is an interesting argument and again, one deeply steeped in scripture and Jewish law. As is one of the themes of the book, Staples goes on to say why belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary matters. It restores a sense of the sacred; that is, things which are to be used for a sacred purpose must be treated as such. We have certainly lost such a sense in 21st century America, and the perpetual virginity of Mary is a good reminder of sacredness. All of the standard "brothers of Jesus" arguments are addressed. Staples shows that these supposed brothers cannot be uterine brothers by noting through other biblical evidence that some have a different mother and others a different father than Mary and Joseph, respectively. There is a fairly technical argumenta bout the Greek word "until" found in Matthew 1:25, a verse many Protestants use to claim that Mary and Joseph had relations. Once again, Staples addresses an argument by Protestant Eric Svensen who claims that the Greek word for "until" necessarily implies the action the existence of the action it is modifying. Staples shows that this is patently mistaken. The doctrine of the Assumption is taken up in part IV. This is a shorter part with less time being spent arguing directly for this doctrine and more time spent answering objections. What makes this chapter unique is its careful look into the history of the doctrine. This is the one doctrine where all of a sudden, many Protestants become quite interested in whether or not such a teaching can be found in ancient antiquity and sure enough, since this one has a reputation as being "the latest Catholic doctrine found in history," Protestants are quick to note that it wasn't until at least 499 or so that we see any mention of it. Yet Staples shows reasons why this is false and why new evidence suggests that the doctrine was found much earlier (apart from biblical evidence, of course) than the 6th century. He also points out that this doctrine matters because of the hope it gives us in the promises of Christ; that is, Christ has actually fulfilled many of his promises through Mary and her bodily assumption into heaven. This was an interesting argument that is worth pondering. The last part discusses Mary as Mediatrix and co-redemptrix. What is interesting about this part is that it isn't focused so much on Mary per se, but rather on the Catholic doctrine of justification. This is because if one accepts and understands the Catholic doctrine of justification, Mary's role in salvation automatically follows. To that end, this part contains one of the best, clearest, and most succinct defenses of the Catholic doctrine of justification I have ever read. The careful distinctions are made as to what sense we use the terms like "merit" when discussing what we do and what Christ does. The distinctions between initial justification and graces merited after the initial justification is also made. These distinctions are quite key, because it is the only way to reasonably make sense of all the varying biblical data that we have. As usual, the second half of this part is devoted to answering Protestant objections against the doctrine. The concluding chapter gives a nice discussion of King Solomon and his mother Bathsheba as found in scripture. In particular, Staples demonstrates that before Solomon was King, Bathsheba bows before him, yet after he becomes king, it is Solomon who bows before his mother. This and many other details are significant because it gives us a sense of what royalty was like back in Hebrew culture. We here in 21st century America have very little familiarity with what royalty is like. Yet given many of the biblical practices that we see Staples point out in this analysis, it is clear that the mother of the king is held in extremely high esteem. If Solomon, the fallen human so highly praised his own mother, how much more would the true King and perfect human Jesus praise his own mother? It follows that if we are to be imitators of Christ, we must also place his mother in such a high place of honor. There are several appendices in the book, most of them sharing quotes from early Church fathers concerning Mary. One appendix that I found very interesting was one defending Mary being free from any labor pains during birth. This was something I hadn't really thought much about before, but Staples shows why it is appropriate and how it is taught by the Church through tradition, the liturgy, and the bible. What is most fascinating about this is that Staples proves that if she was free from labor pains, then she must be free from original sin. This is of course because of the punishment given by Our Lord in Genesis. This book is simply a must own for any Catholic who wishes to defend the doctrines concerning Our Lady. It is saturated with biblical texts and analysis of those texts. Each part also looks at common Protestant objections. Very highly recommended.

An amazingly beautiful book citing many sources throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The appendices are very useful to help even further to see the wisdom of the Church's teachings as directed by the Holy Spirit. As a convert I found this book to be very grounding and comforting. Hail Mary, full of Grace!