Scenario: I am a servant of a king. He wants me to carry bullion gold to a small village, so that they can live in perpetuity without fear of starvation or poverty. I deliver the gold and, of course, everyone is delighted and the elders give me a dinner as a thank you. I then go away and I never see that village again.
But, a short while later, the village decides to erect a statue of me in the main square, and publish articles in my honour in their local newspaper. Is any of this acceptable? No, of course not – the honour should go to the king who sent the gold. I was only a messenger. I was no more important, than a courier, even if I arrived wearing an Armani suit, a Rolex watch, and driving a Ferrari, every inch a royal messenger!
Mary is regarded as almost a goddess. She is given special prayers, and many pray to her so that she can mediate between them and God. She is even referred to as ‘mother of God’. What is the truth about Mary?
The Young Girl
Mary was probably (but there is no evidence of actual age) a girl in her early teens. She was considered righteous enough by God to bear His Son, but she was not sinless. Nor was she given any options – God told her what He was about to do; all she was expected to do was accept what was already ordained.
Naturally, she was afraid, especially of the wagging tongues in her village. And her future husband, Joseph, was just as anxious. But, both were calmed and reassured by an angel of God and they married.
Mary went through a normal pregnancy and delivered Jesus in due time. After that Mary became pregnant several times, so that the young Jesus also had half-brothers and sisters.
When Jesus was a man, he had occasion to rebuke his mother, though He still loved her, and at his death we find Mary at his side and grieving. After that we hear nothing about Mary. She simply died as does any human being, and she now awaits the resurrection prior to judgment day. (Or – depending on your view – she might be in a place called Paradise [see my article on this]. If this is a separate place to Heaven, she will still need to undergo the transformation of receiving a new body, which is a prerequisite to entering Heaven. She is NOT already in Heaven. If she was in Heaven, we would be told in scripture. But, Mary was just a carrier of the child. The glory is NOT to her, and so no special favours were bestowed upon her. She is simply dead. . (All believers are perpetually alive in Christ, but in terms of contactability, she is dead).
Mary cannot mediate on our behalf, and we should not assume she does. How can a dead person do anything but be – dead? She carried a child, but she was not the ‘Mother of God’. She was just the earthly mother of a child who was the human form of God. But, be careful when looking at this relationship:
Jesus was implanted into Mary’s womb.
Because Mary and Joseph were sinners, Jesus was not conceived BY her, but was conceived IN her by the Spirit. Joseph had no connection to Him and neither did Mary in the physical sense. This means that neither passed on the sin principle. The role of Mary was just to bear the child. We do not know if Mary’s blood supply and nutrients were given to the growing child within, though I see no problem if this happened, because it is separate from how all humans are born, having the sin principle passed on at conception. As Mary did not conceive Jesus, no sin was passed on.
Thus, Mary was a surrogate mother, not the natural mother.
Jesus was born by normal means and grew normally, and Mary loved Him as her own, but with the knowledge that He was the Son of God. He was her earthly son; she gave birth to a boy, not to God, Who has always been; but His human side was temporary, beginning and ending as with other humans (birth – death). He was God, but this status did not come about by earthly maternal means. To say she was the ‘mother of God’ defies what scripture says and elevates her to the same as Jesus’ status and even God’s.
Rome as Inventor of Fables
Rome loves to pass itself off as having been always there as the ‘mother church’, even though history does not support this lie. In Britain, for example, it appears that Christianity entered the country very soon after the death of Christ, well before 100AD, and spread rapidly through the country. At that time there were a number of kingdoms and each supported its own community of Christian monks. They were not Roman Catholics, because Romanism was not known until Constantine in the 4th century. Thus, this predates the first Roman Catholic ‘churches’ in Europe by three centuries.
Each local form of Christianity was independent of the others and certainly of any churches in Europe or further south. We know from historical narratives that these independent groups were only slowly influenced by Rome around the fourth century (after Christianity became institutionalised by the Roman Caesar). It was only in the late seventh century that Rome finally had its way and took over the churches in Britain. The catalyst was a very technical decision by Rome about the date of Easter. (Note: one excellent source is the chronicles of a monk named ‘Gerald of Wales’, but there are others, such as the venerable Bede). So, for Rome to claim it was always the ‘mother church’ is a deception.
We should see the claim for Mary as the ‘mother of God’ etc., in a similar light – it is a deception and it was invented; it was not part of the earliest Christian history.
To be Respected, not Revered
Mary should be given ordinary respect for her part in mothering the Christ on this earth. But, no other veneration should be given. Roman history is mainly contrived, so no real credibility should be afforded to it. For example, the claim that Mary is given special status “especially in Galatians”. I urge you to read Galatians from start to finish. You will find NOTHING there to venerate Mary! So, reference to her in that Book as one to be venerated is a lie.
Yet, with typical double-talk Rome says it is important to distinguish "true from false devotion, and authentic doctrine from its deformations by excess or defect". (William, Baum [25 March 1988]. "La Virgen María en la formación intelectual y espiritual" [The Virgin Mary in the Intellectual and Spiritual Formation]. The Holy See (in Spanish). Rome: Congregation for Catholic Education). For Rome ‘authentic’ means anything Rome claims, whether or not it can be substantiated by scripture!
Mary was called the ‘mother of God’ because Christ was incarnated in her, and this became a dogma (Manfred Hauke, "The Mother of God" in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Queenship Publishing ISBN 1-57918-355-7 page 167-168).
Though not formally believed in the churches of the time, the first prayer TO Mary was in about 250AD (the sub tuum praesidium), which very clearly was heretical, for it asks the ‘mother of God’ to mediate on behalf of the petitioner. That is, in direct opposition to the New Testament teaching that Christ is the ONLY mediator between men and God. How on earth could Mary mediate, when she was, and still is, dead? Even so, Mariolatry was confirmed as a Romish dogma in 431 (at the Third Ecumenical Council, Ephesus). Luke 1:35 is quoted as ‘proof’ of Mary’s raised status, but it has no weight. It actually says:
“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
This is the KJAV text. Of course, Mariolaters will want to quote a more favourable version (bear in mind that modern versions are all from a corrupt source). Note what the verse says - “the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”. There is nothing in that text to say Mary was the ‘mother of God’; all it says is that the child would be “born of thee”, just as water is delivered to a cup by a pipe, which has no special status. Yes, Christ was both man and God, but the human body, the ‘man side’, was carried in the womb of Mary, NOT the ‘God side’, for she had no part whatever in the divinity of Christ, which was always of Christ in eternity.
One patriarch objected; Nestorius (Saunders, William. "Mary, Mother of God", The Arlington Catholic Herald, December 22, 1994). He was Bishop of Constantinople until 431AD. A notable objector to Nestorius’ opposition to the term ‘Mother of God’ was Cyril of Alexandria, himself no stranger to objections to his own teachings!
As a result of his objections to the title of Mary. Nestorius was removed as bishop on the charge of ‘heresy’ and later anathematised in 451AD. I am often baffled by the false logic in Romanism. If you look at the biblical texts they use to ‘prove’ Mary to be ‘Mother of God’ you will not find much of an argument! Yes, she was told by God that the Christ was to be implanted in her; she would carry the unborn child; she would give birth to Him. But, this does not make her the ‘mother of God’. I say this because the title strongly implies she was responsible for producing God. She was not. She was simply the vessel in which the Christ was carried for nine months.
That I am on the right track can be found in the further affirmation of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium), which stated: "The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer." (Pope Paul VI. Lumen gentium, Vatican, November 21, 1964). Can you see the huge problem with this? It says that MARY “gave Life to the world”. No, she carried Life put into her by the Spirit. There is a massive difference in meaning!
The Falsity of Mary’s Assumption
The Roman Catholic Catechism (item 966) says,
"the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things."
This is NOT in scripture! She was born as all women, with ‘original sin’, the ‘sin principle’. She was NOT taken up ‘body and soul’ straight into Heaven. She was NOT made ‘queen over all things’. None of it can be found in God’s word. Of course, all these falsities come from Rome and heretics, not from Mary herself. Catholics should ask themselves a very simple question – Where is the PROOF that Mary is to be venerated in this way? Sadly, the proof is in the words of Rome: “Because we said so”. Hardly proof; not even evidence!
The Falsity of Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Of course, the problem with saying Mary was without sin means a backtracking into her history to produce even more nonsense and lies. This dogma says that Mary was ‘conceived without original sin’. Again, this is not found in scripture. To maintain this as truth, Mary’s parents would not have been involved in her conception, for both would have passed on sin as a principle! In other words, Rome pretends that Mary was just as sinless as Christ! This implication of saying this is enormous and heretical. This led to saying that Mary was protected all her life from indwelling sin – yet scripture tells us Jesus rebuked her. How could this be if she was without sin or flaw?
Pope Pius XII added, "Who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?" (Encyclical Fulgens corona). (Well, for a start there is me! And all reformed teachers from the start). It is absurd to say she was ‘purer than the angels’, who were created higher than mankind and, in Heaven, had no sin. (Mark Miravalle, 1993, Introduction to Mary, Queenship Publishing ISBN 978-1-882972-06-7 pages 64 and 70, states that Rome teaches Mary to be the “stainless Mother of God”. None of which is found even once in scripture).
The Falsity of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
In their aspiration to make Rome the true church, Roman theologians are quite content to talk about Mary as godlike, and to ignore Biblical logic and fact. Thus, not only do they make Mary sinless, but they also make sure she never sinned throughout her life and remained a virgin... even though scripture tells us she had other children by human means! Rome thus makes Jesus ‘her only biological son’... even though His biological source was completely separate from that of Mary and Joseph – which it had to be.
The Falsity of Mary as ‘Mother of all the Church’
The telling of one lie demands the creation of many other lies, because one lie leads to another, in order to sustain the original lie. Thus, Mary was also affirmed to be the ‘mother of all Christians’ (Second Vatican Council: International Theological Commission, Vol II: 1986-2007 edited by Michael Sharkey and Thomas Weinandy (Aug 21, 2009) ISBN 1-58617-226-3 page 208).
Ambrose of Milan (4th century) first gave the title, but it was rediscovered in 1944. By a strange amalgamation of illogical concepts, Rome said: "The Virgin Mary... is acknowledged and honoured as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer... since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head." "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." ("Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." Catechism).
Really, this is insulting to men of intelligence! She carried the Messiah in her womb, that is all! This did NOT make her co-equal in the matter of redemption. Thus, Mary is NOT ‘mother of the Church’. Christ is the ONLY Head of the Church, the Father being the Father. Mary had nothing to do with it. Pope Paul VI (‘Credo of the People of God’) added, "The Mother of the Church, carries on in heaven her maternal role with regard to the members of Christ, cooperating in the birth and development of divine life in the souls of the redeemed." (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, no. 47, citing Pope Paul VI, Solemn Profession of Faith [30 June 1968], 15: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 60 [1968[ 438f. Also see Mary: The Church at the Source by Benedict XVI, Adrian Walker and Hans Urs Von Balthasar [Oct 1, 2005] ISBN 1-58617-018-X pages 58-59).
Again, I point out the excruciatingly glaring fact that Mary is still dead! She had no other role apart from her historical one of bearing the baby body of Christ and bringing Him up alongside his step-siblings. She has no part whatever in the salvation of souls. It is all extra-biblical. Mary is NOT the “mother of the entire Christian people, both faithful and pastors” (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, no. 47, citing Pope Paul VI, Solemn Profession of Faith (30 June 1968), 15: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 60 (1968) 438f.). Pope Francis also blasphemed by saying that Jesus and his mother are ‘inseparable’: ("Without the Church, Jesus 'is at the mercy of our imagination,' Pope says". Catholic News Agency).
The Falsity of Mary as Queen of Heaven
It is likely that the ridiculous adoration of Mary will continue to the end of time, when, at last, Christ will destroy the tares of Romanism, by pulling it up by its roots and burning it to worthless stubble. Meanwhile we also have Mary as the ‘Queen of Heaven’. We are left in no doubt that Mary, a young girl who carried the child, has been re-invented as someone far greater than she was, and equal to God. What else is the ‘queen of Heaven’?
"Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her mother." (S. Ephraem, Hymni de B. Maria, ed. Th. J. Lamy, t. II, Mechliniae, 1886, hymn. XIX, p. 624). So, Rome thinks Mary is more honourable and to be venerated than Jesus! Another blasphemy. Some of this goes back to Revelation 12 – but a careful reading proves the woman is not Mary! I explain it this way in my study on Revelation 12, verse 1: “Some think the ‘woman’ is Mary. But, the word for woman in this text (gynē) can refer to ANY female, whether married or unmarried, virgin, or widow. It can also refer to a wife. Note that the Church is the Bride of Christ. Nothing in the text implies it is Mary. Rather, I see this as the Church, particularly because of later information. This being so, it agrees with Henry et al, who believe this and the following two chapters are of things past. This would make sense if it refers to the Church of the New Testament, which, by this time, had already been ‘born’.”
“Despite arguments by many Pentecostal, Protestant and a few churches that say that that Mother Mary isn't depicted as the 'Queen of Heaven and the world' in the Bible. The Catholic Church and many others point out the verses from the Book of Revelations in Chapter 12 which states clearly Mother Mary as a Queen, with a crown of twelve stars and the Moon under her feet and cloaked with the Sun.” (Wikipedia, quoting the RCC)
Rome will trample all over facts! There is no mention of Mary at all in the verses, so to say chapter 12 “states clearly Mother Mary as Queen” is rather ridiculous. It is not clear at all. Indeed, it is not found there. Yet, after misusing this text Rome goes on to make Mary “Ruler of the universe” (Leo XIII)! What? In other words Mary usurps the role of Christ.
All this arises falsely from the first false premise – that Mary is the “mother of God”. None of this foolish fawning is found in the biblical references to Mary, who quickly took a back seat when Jesus began His ministry, and even before that for the thirty years he took to reach adulthood (his age at the start of His ministry coincides with the Jewish belief that a man has to be mature – about thirty – before entering the role of priest. Before that age few would listen to a preacher).
And from these totally unscriptural beliefs comes more unscriptural nonsense:
“Certainly, in the full and strict meaning of the term, only Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is King; but Mary, too, as Mother of the divine Christ, as His associate in the redemption, in his struggle with His enemies and His final victory over them, has a share, though in a limited and analogous way, in His royal dignity. For from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom; from her union with Christ finally is derived the inexhaustible efficacy of her maternal intercession before the Son and His Father.” (Ad Caeli reginam 39).
This is nothing but poetic bunkum! Nothing in this paragraph, apart from Mary’s role as earthly mother, is found in scripture, and none of it can possibly be projected from the scriptural texts to support the claims. In truth, it is just pathetic theology. As I said earlier, one lie must produce many more, to surround the original lie! And so with all this invented version of Mary, comes the even worse role given to her by Rome – that of Co-Redemptrix!
The Falsity of Mary as Co-Redemptrix
Roman Catholicism builds blasphemy upon blasphemy and heresy upon heresy! Mary supposedly participates in the salvation process. Again, nothing as radical as this in scripture. Not a dogma of the RCC, it is nevertheless given the same weight as dogma by many Catholics, even theologians. Irenaeus (died 200AD) said that Mary was ‘causa salutis’ – the cause of our salvation.
Rome carefully wraps this idea in the cloak of Christ as the Redeemer, thus avoiding too much opposition. Rome says Mary was herself redeemed by Christ, and so cannot be equally responsible for salvation (Ott Dogmatics 256). But, the very denial implies that she is responsible for some part of it!
As if it makes any difference to the heretical basis of this title, Rome says that ‘co-redemptrix’ means Mary has an ‘unequal’ or ‘indirect’ part in the redemption process.
“the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, as the noble associate of the divine Redeemer.” (Papal bull Munificentissimus Deus 40)
No man, or woman, including Mary the surrogate mother of Jesus, has any part at all in redemption. Only Christ is able to redeem those who are elect. To say Mary has a part, no matter how small, is to blaspheme. This blasphemy continues in the form of ‘Mediatrix’.
The Falsity of Mary as Mediatrix
Yes, Rome teaches that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Even so, Rome also manages to insert Mary into some kind of mediator role! Though Jesus Christ is the only mediator, Rome says this “does not exclude a secondary mediating role for Mary, preparatory, supportive, in the view of several prominent, but not all Catholics.”
This is more bunkum. Rome has held to this idea for a long time, saying that Mary intercedes “for all believers – especially (if they) request (it) through prayer.” What is this but Mary as mediator? Rome can water it down if it wishes, but this means Mary stands in the place of Christ. He does not need to create a supervisor-level role for His earthly mother! He mediates all on His own, as God.
But, Mary is only one of a myriad of mediators in the form of Catholic ‘saints’! That EVERY Christian is a ‘saint’ in biblical terms, seems to escape the popes. The ‘saints’ Catholics like to pray to are, like Mary, dead as a dodo. And if they happen to be saved by grace alone via election by the Lord God in eternity, they will enter Heaven, but as nothing special, because ALL believers are saints. But, being dead, they cannot hear prayers nor help with them before God.
As a dispenser of God’s mercies, Mary comes top of the list of mediators, albeit a sub-mediator next to Christ. Let me repeat - as a dead person, Mary cannot mediate, nor can she dispense God’s graces. In effect, by saying Mary dispenses ALL God’s graces (Superiore anno), those of us who are not Catholic will receive no graces or mercies!
The Falsity of Devotions to Mary
It is obvious to all observers that Catholics pay devotions to Mary, even though doing it means being absurd and unbiblical. This is because Rome teaches its own teachings to be equal to scripture. Catholics waste their time regularly, by praying Rosary Novenas, which are devotional prayers uttered for a set series of days. In other words, mechanical and pointless, spoken to a dead woman. (Ann Ball, 2003 Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices ISBN 0-87973-910-X page 341).
So deep is this Mariolatry, that children and others honestly believe they have visions of her, giving them special messages from God. This, of course, is just superstitious humbug. I have no doubt that some actually ‘see’ Mary or ‘hear’ her – the devil is very good at producing these things so as to deceive. (John T. Ford "Newman on 'Sensus Fidelium' and Mariology," Marian Studies, Vol. 28 , pp. 144-45). So we have the statement:
“If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?” (Pope Pius XII, encyclical Fulgens corona Encyclical Fulgens corona).
Almost everything in the above sections is the result of nothing but tradition and invention. You will find none of it in scripture! Indeed, it all contradicts scripture! Mary was an ordinary young girl, albeit righteous, but she was conceived in sin like every other human being apart from Jesus and Adam and Eve. This means she had the sin principle within, so she could not have been “purer than the angels”, who, in Heaven, are free from sin and its principle. Righteous yes, but purer than angels at all times? Never!
We come to a curious self-accreditation. The popes and bishops claim that the Marian beliefs ‘must be true’ because all the people say so, as do the clerics. This is a self-fulfilling idea... teach the people Mary is holy and God-like for centuries, who then tell the clerics they believe with all their hearts (as do any people brainwashed), and then the clerics tell the people the claims must be true! Eh? Sensus Fidelium might indeed convince Rome and its deceived people, but it has no biblical foundation whatever. More than that, it is repudiated by scripture doctrine. Really, it is the idea of consensus. But, the fact that everyone believes the same thing does not necessarily make it true.
Rome denies that devotion to Mary is ‘worship’. For goodness sake – of course it is. Only a fool would deny that is what it is. Look at any Marian practice and you will see worship. Rome says she is below Christ, but is higher than other people! Hm. The Second Council of Nicaea (787AD) came out with a three-tier hierarchy – first God, then Mary, then the Saints. (Miravalle, Mark. Introduction to Mary'’. 1993 ISBN 978-1-882972-06-7 pages 92–93). Rome loves to play semantics.
There is much more to this growing industry of Mariolatry. As I have shown, ALL the beliefs are based on Roman tradition, which has no scriptural authority whatever. As growing numbers of Protestant and other denominations follow Rome in their various levels of Mariolatry, I warn believers to stay away from the entire movement. It is of Satan, not God.
Just remember – Mary was an ordinary but righteous woman, as so many sincere believers are. She is now dead, and will not enter Heaven until everyone else goes there after being resurrected at the end of time. Therefore, she cannot mediate or do anything on behalf of Christians. Nor can the many so-called Romish ‘saints’.
© September 2016
Published on www.christiandoctrine.com
Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
Please 'Make a Donation' to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries