SRR #43 | Roman Catholics and Their Queen Part 3

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Folks, these are wolves.

Truth be told, I oftentimes lay awake at night trying to figure out how I can get rid of wolves.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion. It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to, blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Network Promotion and Podcast Introductions

Alright, I want to welcome everybody back to Simple Riff around the radio. My name is Tim and I'm going to be your host for today. I want to remind everybody that we are part of a network and there's, I believe, 10 podcasts on the network, if my math is correct.

So, let me just go ahead and play this little promotional clip that Tim Heard put out so you can hear all the podcasts.

This podcast is a member of the Bible Thumping Wingnut.

Network. Alright, welcome everybody to another podcast episode with Simple Riff around the radio. Hi, welcome to.

Theology Gals. Welcome.

Everyone to the Logical Belief Ministries podcast. Well, welcome to School of Biblical Harmonetics.

Welcome everybody to Rappling with Theology. What is going.

On, guys? Shine those lights. Coming.

At you. Well, welcome to Slick.

Answers. Good evening and welcome to Conversations from the.

Port. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Bible Thumping Wingnut podcast. The Bible Thumping Wingnut Network. 10 podcasts, 1 network. Check them out. BibleThumpingWingnut .com.

Alright, so that is, those are all the podcasts on there. I noticed that Len Pettis, I believe, was the voice for Wrath and Grace. Now, I just want to say that we really, really appreciate Len Pettis.

He is, I think, taking some time off for family stuff. I know that he got a new job and I think he's, I think he was moving or something like that, but I know that he's really busy. Len, I really appreciate you, man.

I just want you to know that. I also want to say thanks to Tim Hurd. These guys put in a lot of work, a lot of hard work to make the network what it is. We're just grateful to be a part of it. We're grateful for these guys.

I heard Tim Hurd's last episode about him and his wife. I just want to let them know that we are praying for them and also encourage our listeners to pray for Tim and his wife as well. I've been very encouraged with his testimony from the last episode.

It was very, very encouraging to hear that. Love you guys. We're praying for the best for you. Today we have with us our resident expert in Roman Catholicism, Timothy Kaufman. This guy is awesome. I just can't say enough good things about Tim Kaufman.

He writes a lot. You need to check out his blog. The blog is titled Out of His Mouth. The URL is whitehorseblog .com. He writes a lot of stuff about eschatology, Roman Catholicism and a lot of stuff that pertains to history.

It's very interesting stuff. I've really benefited from it. I can't say enough about him. Go check it out. We are going to be continuing in our series on Mother Mary. The series is called Roman Catholics and Their Queen.

For continuity's sake, I'm going to put a part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4. I think that we're going to get probably four episodes out of this. The last two episodes that we did were episodes 39 and episodes 40.

We did two episodes on different topics in between that. One with Doug Dalma. Another episode just coming out in support of Paul Pinton Penn and J .D. Hall regarding the Hank Hanegraaff stuff. As a former Roman Catholic, I was pretty triggered by the stuff that I was hearing from Hank Hanegraaff.

We needed to do that in a timely manner. Let me go ahead and pull up the show notes from the last one. In episode 39, Timothy Kaufman gave a basic overview of Mary. We addressed Mary as Queen Mother and Mary as Theotokos.

Today, we're going to get into the sinlessness of Mary. Last week, the last episode in this series, which was episode 40, we talked about Mary as.

The.

Ark of the New Covenant. This terminology may be a little bit unfamiliar to some evangelicals. There's a lot of evangelicals out there that really aren't familiar with the Reformation or really aren't familiar with Roman Catholicism.

You may be unfamiliar with these terms, but go back and listen to that episode because Tim Kaufman, what he does is he points out that from Mary as the prefiguration of the Ark of the New Covenant, from that idea, from that doctrine, the Roman Catholic uses that as the basis for supporting other Marian dogmas, such as the sinlessness of Mary, which is what we're going to be getting into today.

We're going to get into that, but let me go ahead and give Tim Kaufman an opportunity to say hello and just ask him how he's doing. We're glad that he's here. After that, I have a question for you, Tim.

Hello. Thank you very much for having me on again. I'm certainly enjoying this series.

It's always.

A pleasure to be here.

With you.

The Ark Typology Argument and Forged Patristic Evidence

We're getting ready, as you mentioned, to talk about the sinlessness of Mary. As I mentioned last week, the reason we wanted to start by refuting the Roman Catholic belief that Mary is prefigured in the Ark of the New Covenant was because the firm belief held by Roman Catholics that the Ark of the Covenant prefigured Mary is the basis that they use for these other doctrines about the assumption of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her sinlessness.

It was important last week to show why it can be demonstrated from the early Church Fathers that they did not believe that Mary was prefigured by the Ark of the Old Covenant, and they did not identify Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

It's just so important to deal with that first before you get into all the others, because so much flows from that. That's what we wanted to cover today. I'm just very glad to be back, and I hope everybody's enjoying the series as much as we are.

Well, I do, too. I second that, and I really am enjoying this series. I'm really learning a lot from it.

My.

Question, I had a question that I was listening to the last episodes, and I know that we talked about this last week as well in our conversation, but I wanted to ask you about, you referenced in our previous episode, you referenced a Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Steve Ray, and Steve Ray, you said something about him having an article in which he cites historians, not historians, but he cites historical figures in support of the views of the Roman Catholic position, and I know that Rome tries to position itself as the historical church, and likes to make the claim that we can't go past the 16th century,.

But.

You're showing that that's not the case, that we can take our faith all the way back to the early church fathers, and so my question is when Steve Ray, or guys like Steve Ray, who are Roman Catholic apologists, are they just, are they cherry picking the stuff that they want to show?

Are they, it seems to me like they are in some sense a historical revisionist, because they're trying to cite church fathers who they would say would agree with their position, and clearly what you've shown is that they don't agree with their position, so I'm just wondering if there's maybe some historical revisionism going on, or if there's some cherry picking, and if you could go ahead and comment.

On that. Well, as I.

Mentioned last week, that people like.

Scott Hahn and Steve Ray know very well that they don't have the evidence they need from the first three centuries to show that the early church believed that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, and that she was prefigured by the Ark of the Old Covenant, and so they have to rely on very, very sketchy sources if they want to show evidence before Nicaea, the Council of Nicaea in 325, they have to show, they have to use very, very questionable and dubious sources in order to prove it, and so what I thought would be worthwhile before we get into Mary's sinlessness, because it has everything to do with her identification as the Ark, was to revisit some of the evidence that is used by Roman Catholics to prove that Mary was believed by the early church to be prefigured by the Ark of the Old Covenant, and as I mentioned last week, you have church father after church father after church father even after the 4th century, even Pope Gregory the Great thought that the Ark obviously prefigured the church,.

And so you have.

So many different opinions in the old, from the early church that Jesus was prefigured by the Ark, the church was prefigured by the Ark, the consecrated virgin was, you know, the person who had opted for a life of celibacy was prefigured by the Ark, Christ's tomb was prefigured by the Ark, the individual believer was prefigured by the Ark, all these different things, and one thing that's consistent in all of them is that none of them say that Mary was prefigured by the Ark until you get to the latter part of the 4th century.

Now, in order to prove that this is an apostolic doctrine, they have to come up, they have to find some way to bridge that gap between the apostles and the actual evidence we have from church fathers who believed that Mary was prefigured by the Ark of the Old Covenant.

And so I wanted to review a couple of them. These all show up in Steve Ray's defense of Mary being prefigured by the Ark and that the patristics all held it.

As I showed last week, there's.

Just abundant evidence that they didn't believe it, but when you get to the latter part of the 4th century, suddenly it's all the rage. But I'll just give you a couple of examples. This is one from, let's see, we're going to look at three, we're going to actually look at four very quickly here.

These are all contained in Steve Ray's defense of the patristic support for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, and so he uses Dionysius of Alexandria that's from the late 2nd century to 264 A .D. is when he died.

Gregory.

Thaumaturgus, also known as Gregory the Wonderworker from 213 to 270 A .D., so we're talking 3rd century here. And then Methodius of Olympus who died in 310 A .D. and then Ephraim the Syrian who died in 373 A .D.

And all these men are used as evidence for early belief in the typology of the Ark that is referring to Mary. So I want to just revisit some of these because.

There is, let's just look at this.

Letter from Dionysius of Alexandria refuting Paul of.

Samosata.

And.

In this letter Dionysius of Alexandria is said to say that as Christ our priest is not chosen by hand of man so neither was his tabernacle framed by man but was established by the Holy Ghost and by the power of God and that tabernacle protected to be had an everlasting remembrance Mary, God's virgin mother.

And then in another place not in a servant did he dwell but in his holy tabernacle not made with hands which is Mary the mother of God. So this is all alleged to be mid 3rd century from Paul of Samosata.

Well, what's interesting about this particular because he calls it out Steve Ray calls out this particular citation. Here's the problem. For the first problem is that in this letter Mary is not identified as the Ark but as the tabernacle.

Both times she's identified as the tabernacle. But what's worse is that this is considered to be.

A forgery.

Cardinal Newman was this famous Anglican bishop that converted to Roman Catholicism and he became a great apologist for Roman Catholicism and eventually made it as a cardinal in the papal court. And he acknowledges in his works that this was actually a forgery and it's not really from that time frame and so it's not really evidence of an anti-Nicene view by Dionysius of Alexandria that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant.

It's a forgery. So there's two problems with it. One, it doesn't even say she's the Ark. Two, it's known to be a forgery. But you know what? I think that Steve Ray knows that but he needed evidence from the early church and so he got it.

The next one is from Gregory the Wonderworker Gregory Thaumaturges Thaumaturges.

He was from.

213 -270 AD so about the same time frame as Dionysius of Alexandria.

And he says,.

For the Holy Virgin is in truth an Ark wrought with gold both within and without that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. And that's from his first homily. The problem is that the homilies that are attributed to Thaumaturges are considered even by Roman Catholics to be spurious.

We're going to talk a little bit about Father Livius a little bit later and I'll refer to his work when we get there but even he acknowledged that this was of doubtful genuineness and Philip Schaff in his Antinocene Fathers series lists this particular work by Gregory under his spurious works.

Spurious means that they're not believed to be legitimate they're not actually believed to be from that person or even from that era. Why would Steve Ray include that knowing that it's not even genuine?

So let's go on to Methodius of Olympus.

And.

Methodius of Olympus died in 310 AD so this would be some pretty solid evidence of an Antinocene belief in Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. And he says. For if to the Ark which was the image and type of thy sanctity such honor was paid of God that to no one but the priestly order was the access to open it or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least to thee who art indeed a queen.

Okay, so this is Methodius of Olympus Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna chapter 5.

The problem.

Here is that Methodius' oration is so heavily and hopelessly compromised that it can't be trusted and even scholars recognize that you can't use him to justify these Roman Catholic beliefs.

Because the.

Document is corrupted beyond any realistic guarantee of Antinocene authenticity. Now what's interesting about this, and I would encourage our listeners to go check it out. That is from the oration concerning Simeon and Anna chapter 5 where he goes off on this huge tangent about Mary being this arch and she's the queen and just as the arch was venerated and can't be looked into it should be venerated and cannot be looked into.

But the problem is in chapter 1, that is the part of this that is not considered to be compromised, he actually identifies.

Jesus.

As the arch of the new covenant. He says no second time is an uzzah invisibly punished for daring to touch what may not be touched for God himself invites us. And who will stand. And who will stand hesitating with fear?

He says come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden who then will not run to him?

This is.

Methodius of Olympus quoting Christ and seeing him as the manifestation of the arch whereas the original arch could not be touched, Christ himself can be and that's the difference. Now why on earth would he use the typology of the arch to say look the arch of the old covenant couldn't be touched but Christ can and then later on in chapter 5 say the arch of the covenant could not be touched and therefore Mary cannot.

It's a ridiculous.

Inconsistency.

And it shows that the document that's being cited here the oration concerning Simeon and Anna is not considered an authentic document. And then the final one is also cited by Ray as Ephraim the Syrian.

And I want to read this to you without the editorial notes. And then I want to read it to you with their editorial additions just to show how hard they have to try to make there be some evidence that the early church believed that Mary was the arch of the new covenant.

So I'm going to read it to you without the editorial notes. The rib that was drawn out of Adam the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon.

For in that ark a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the conqueror. Now that's a reference to the time when the ark was actually taken by the Philistines and it was put in the same temple as Dagon and Dagon kept on being knocked over.

But there's no reference in here of Mary. And there's no reference in here.

About about.

This being a type of Mary.

And yet.

What happens is you have this citation where it says there arose from the rib they have to put in parenthesis that is Mary. So there arose from the rib Mary a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon.

For in that ark Mary again a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the conqueror. You know all that Ephraim was doing was talking about inside the ark.

Was.

Was.

A document that actually foretold Christ crushing the serpent's head and this is so interesting that's a reference to Genesis 3 .15. Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that that is a reference to Christ and not to Mary.

That's from John Paul II's general audience January 24, 1996, paragraph 3. So here you have Steve Ray. And actually he's quoting from Father Livius. Again he's saying okay this quote from Ephraim the Syrian it's got to be a reference to Mary so they have to actually pencil it in.

And it's actually a reference to the book of the law that proclaims that Christ would come and crush the serpent's head, the seed of the woman. And that John Paul II acknowledges. Yeah Genesis 3 .15 prophesies Jesus.

It's not a reference to Mary. It's like they're stretching it constantly to the breaking point. But the problem is that all we have to do is actually read what Ephraim said when he talked about the typology of the ark.

He said.

This is from Ephraim on Exodus chapter 37 he says. And Bezalel made an ark of undecaying wood a type of the body of Immanuel which is incorruptible and not soiled by sin. So here's Ephraim the Syrian when he's actually talking about the typology of the ark and doesn't have to be edited by the Roman Catholic apologist he says that the ark is a type of Christ.

So that's just one thing after another. And I want to add one more thing here because Steve Ray also added a note in there about Heshias and it's H-E-S-Y-C-H-I-U-S and it's Heshias of Jerusalem.

And he says hey, he said that Mary was a type of the ark. I mean the ark was a type of Mary and he lists he lived around 300 A .D. So here you have Antinocene evidence.

Right?

Antinocene being before the time of Nicaea well the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry on Heshias of Jerusalem says he was a Presbyter and exegete probably of the 5th century. Nothing certain is known as to the dates of his birth and his death or indeed concerning the events of his life.

So I want you to think about and I want to encourage the listeners go out there and download this evidence that Steve Ray compiled to show that the early church believed that Mary was the ark of the new covenant.

And listen to last week's episode all the church fathers we quoted that believed that it was not Mary it was something else. And just look how much he has to stretch the early church to close a 300 year gap to prove that this is an apostolic teaching.

It's just one thing after another forgeries, disputed documents creative editing creative revisionism in order to just somehow get some evidence before the council of Nicaea that this was broadly held by the church.

And the fact is it wasn't the ark is a late 4th century.

Novelty.

And as I've said in multiple podcasts now we do not have to take the Roman Catholic arguments lying down we need to call them out for what they are. And Steve Ray has created a fraudulent reconstruction of history in order to prove something that he knows is not true.

The early church did not teach that Mary was the ark of the new covenant but he is bound by his teaching authority that is Roman Catholicism to teach otherwise.

Because he.

Has to teach that Mary was considered the ark of the new covenant. Even though the evidence, it's an avalanche of evidence that shows that it just isn't.

True.

And yet because it's the Roman Catholic position, he's got to defend it, it's not an enviable position to be in, just like I said of Scott Hahn last week when he tried to use Hippolytus. And then Hippolytus himself says the ark actually prefigured Christ himself, Christ's body.

And it's not until the 5th century that Scott Hahn can actually find any evidence at all. And the evidence he found was that the patriarch of Antioch thought that Mary was prefigured by the tabernacle.

That is how intellectually vacuous the Roman Catholic argument for Mary as the ark of the new covenant is. And when we get into her sinlessness it just gets even.

Worse.

And I just can't emphasize enough these teachings are not apostolic and Roman Catholicism has created a lie and just like the Mormons, they now have to defend the lie and they'll defend it until the end because their whole, all their security all their salvation is wrapped up in the church being right and so they have to defend it at all costs and it's just absolutely a fraud and historically it cannot be substantiated.

Roman Catholic Revisionism and the Move to Mary’s Sinlessness

Yeah, you know, you just said just like the Mormons and it's funny as you were going through that that's exactly what I was thinking. I was just thinking about how there's a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty that is required in order to suppress the obvious truth and distort these things.

And I was thinking about Mormonism because I have family members who are Mormon. And I was just thinking about how they have no evidence for any of the historicity of their claims. And they talk about cities like Jershaw, Bountiful, Manti, Zarahemla that were great civilizations in the Americas and they have to grasp at straws to try to substantiate their claims.

And they have to rewrite history. And they've been shown to be wrong multiple times. And this is what false religions do. And you know you said there's no history for it, there's no apostolic history for it and there's no biblical basis for that.

So with that let's go ahead and get into the sinlessness of Mary, I know that this is.

And it's funny because this is.

Where a lot of Protestants just want to jump to in their talks with Roman Catholicism. But we laid out the groundwork in the last two episodes and so now we're getting into whether or not Mary was sinless and I know that she that they claim that she was the Immaculate Conception, that she was born without sin and so let's go ahead and get into that.

Okay, let's get into that. Indeed. So we're going to now turn to 1854 and the proclamation by Pope Pius IX called Inefabilis Deus which is the proclamation that was made that it is an apostolic doctrine in a divinely revealed truth that Mary was conceived without sin and what that means is that at the moment of her conception by an act of God's grace they will tell you this and this is important because we're going to get to.

We're going to get into.

A little bit of this later on in this podcast but they would say that all of the benefits of Christ's death were applied to Mary at that singular instant of her conception so that she was not only saved from her sins but saved from sinning.

But it was all by the merits of the cross. And that is important because oftentimes we find Protestants will argue against Roman Catholics and say well Mary calls Jesus her savior and therefore she must have been sinful and Roman Catholics will say no, no, he saved her from sin and from sinning and so he is her savior.

All the merits of the cross were applied to her at the moment of her conception so that it would prevent her from sinning so that he really did save her from sinning. Now I think that's silly because the angel told Mary that that God was going to save his people from their sins.

Of course Roman Catholics say well that's a general statement, it doesn't necessarily apply to Mary. But let's go into the actual proclamation here. I'm only going to pull out a small paragraph from Inefabilis Deus and it's the point where Pope Pius IX draws on the imagery of the Ark and he says in speaking of all, last week we introduced the episode by talking about all the different ways.

Some.

Late church and medieval church fathers saw Mary prefigured in almost everything in the Old Testament and so Pius IX has recited that a little bit and he says. In such illusions the fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the mother of God, her spotless innocence and her sanctity unstained by any fault in a wonderful manner and like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the virgin of whom Jesus was born.

They celebrated the august virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which eternal wisdom built and that as queen who abounding in delights and leaning on her beloved came forth from the mouth of the most high, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.

So that's.

What happens in a proclamation like this from a pope is that he'll go through all the arguments and one of the arguments obviously is that Mary was prefigured as the ark and the ark was actually a type that points us to Mary that is the ark of the new covenant.

So what I want to get to next is say, let's read the actual proclamation from the document itself and the proclamation.

Is he.

Claims, Pope Pius IX claims that this had been always taught by the church and this is what he proclaimed.

In the document, and indeed.

This is quoting from Pius IX, and indeed illustrious documents of venerable antiquity of both the eastern and the western church very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated, and confirmed by the highest authority teaching, zeal, knowledge and wisdom of the church and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner.

This doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine for the church of Christ watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her never changes anything never diminishes anything never adds anything to them but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely.

Okay, so that's Pius IX's summary statement about why it is believed and now infallibly taught, infallibly allegedly taught by Roman Catholicism that Mary was sinless and it's important to remember that we're seeing all these types we're supposed to see all these types in the Old Testament and they're all supposed to point to Mary and they all show that Mary was prefigured in all these things and she was prefigured in such a degree of holiness and by such holy articles as the tabernacle and the ark that she must necessarily be sinless but what we're going to show is that expert Roman Catholic Mariologists.

Acknowledge.

That her sinlessness does not emerge as an idea until the latter part of the 4th century and that it was a novelty at that time when it did. So let's I want to show you why Roman Catholic Apologists have such a conundrum with Pius IX's statement that this has always been held and believed by the entire church and what I want to do is to walk through the various church fathers interpretation of Bible verses and show that they recognized just as we do that the Biblical.

Testimony.

Shows that Mary was a sinner and I know that sounds absolutely anathema to Roman Catholics but remember it's their Pope who said that all the documents the churches from the earliest days east and west forcibly testified to the sinless immaculacy of Mary and it just isn't true and we're going to prove that today.

Mary’s Sinfulness in the Church Fathers

Yeah you know it's funny because the moment you said that I sort of cringed because I was thinking them's fighting words you know with Roman Catholicism.

And.

Yeah.

Well my challenge in response if Roman Catholics think those are fighting words then let me just tell you from the perspective of Semper Reformata Radio that inventing history is fighting words to us and if you want to prove that Mary's Immaculate Conception was an apostolic doctrine then show taught by the Apostles instead of coming to us with fabricated documents, forged documents, spurious documents and highly edited documents changed to make the early Church Fathers say something they weren't saying.

I mean it's a simple request. Amen. Roman Catholics claim to be the guardians of the truth and they come to us with lies and expect us to bend the knee to Rome because a lie is still taught by the Church and Jesus would never lead His Church into error.

You know what? I agree with that. Jesus would never lead His Church into error and that's why we know that Roman Catholicism is not His Church. Right.

Amen. So let's start.

With, I'm going to start with a late 4th century Church Father because he says something quite interesting and this shows that John Chrysostom who lived from 349 to 407 AD he did not seem to be aware that there was an ancient apostolic teaching that Mary was sinless and we know this from his interpretation of.

The.

Visitation and this is the this is the point where.

This is where.

Gabriel announces to Mary that she is going to have the Christ child, she'll bear the Christ child and so John Chrysostom is asking this question, why everybody knows that.

That.

The angel.

Went to visit Mary before she conceived but didn't explain this to Joseph until after Mary had conceived and he said, now why is that? Why would he go to Mary first before the conception instead of after?

And his answer is very very insightful. Now it's not insightful, I think it's just conjecture but it's insightful, it provides some insight for us into what his thinking was. Why then, it may be asked, did he, that is Gabriel not so, in the Virgin's case also, that is not visit her after she had conceived already and declare the good tidings to her after the conception?

And here's John Chrysostom's answer lest she should be in agitation and great trouble, for it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty might have even devised something amiss, touching herself and have gone on to strangle or stab herself not enduring the disgrace.

Now she who is of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting by whatever she might say to convince anyone who should hear of it. But that what had happened was adultery.

So people are going to basically, so she basically says, John Chrysostom saying she was so troubled she might even kill herself. That's why the angel didn't wait till after the conception to inform her.

Now what's important here is that not only do Roman Catholics teach that Mary is sinless.

But she.

Was preserved from even the inclination to sin.

That is.

What they call concupiscence. Not only is she prevented from sinning but she's saved from even the inclination to sin. And yet here John Chrysostom, and we're going to get more from him that gets even more revealing, but this is a very subtle statement but it's a significant one that Mary would have been so troubled at being pregnant and not understanding how or why that she might have gone and killed herself.

And Jesus with.

Her.