Mariolatry (Pt. 4) Immaculate Conception

Was Mary Immaculately Conceived?

No!

It was in 1854 A.D. that the Roman Catholic Church officially proclaimed through the infallible announcement of Pope Pius IX that Mary was immaculately conceived, that is, conceived without the stain of original sin. However, it’s nowhere to be found in Scripture. And yet, there is an immaculate conception in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. As Isaiah 9:6 proclaims, “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given... And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [Father of Eternity], Prince of Peace.”

But, the Catholic will say, “Hold on, there is one passage of Scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception”. And this is what they’ll show you. “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) Douay Rheims Version

This is where Catholics get their “Hail Mary, full of grace” prayer from. Now in most translations it says “Rejoice, highly favored one” (NKJV) or “Greetings, you who are highly favored!” (NIV)

The point of showing you these differences is to show that this statement from the angel Gabriel is merely a greeting, and should NOT be looked at as a basis for praying to Mary. Also, the phrase “full of grace” or “highly favored” comes from the Greek word “khar-ee-to’-ō” (χαριτόω).

It should be noted that, the term “Kecharitomene” (κεχαριτωμένη) is translated in the Latin Vulgate as “gratia plena”, meaning ‘full of grace’. However, all modern versions of the Bible which translate from the original Greek, and NOT from the Latin, translate “kecharitomene” as “highly favored one” “highly favored” “favored one” “favored woman”. All these variations are closer to the original Greek term than the Latin Vulgate term “full of grace”. Even the most recent up-to-date Catholic versions which also translate from the original Greek have translated kecharitomene as “favored one” (NRSVCE, NJB “you who enjoy God’s favor”, NAB, not to be confused with NASB). The actual way of saying ‘full of grace’ in Greek is “playrace khareetos” (plērēs charitos, πλήρης χάριτος).

But what does “full of grace” actually mean for Catholics?

For Catholics, “full of grace” means, “transformation of the subject by favor or grace; plenitude of favor or grace; of a singular and permanent kind; perfection of grace; extensive and from birth the whole lifelong”.

That’s quite a mouth full. Does such a Greek word have that kind of definition? Absolutely Not! Such a Roman Catholic definition is just utter nonsense. All that the Catholics are trying to do is try to come to the false conclusion that Mary never sinned because she was “full of grace”. They reason by saying, “how could Mary have sinned if she was ‘full of Grace’. She cannot sin.” Therefore, in making the declaration that Mary was immaculately conceived, they depend entirely upon this verse only. Essentially, Mary was conceived without sin because she was “full of grace”. They argue that because the Greek word is in the perfect tense, that therefore means that Mary’s ‘full of grace’ is somehow “permanent and of a singular kind”[i], and hence “is unchanging, everlasting, definitive”[ii].

Yet the truth is that the Greek word “charitoō” used here in the perfect tence (kecharitomene)  does not mean what the Catholics want it to mean. This Greek word takes place in the same participle form in Sir 18:17 with no theological importance:

Sir. 18:17: οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ κεχαριτωμένῳ (“Behold, is not a word better than a good gift? But both accompany a favored man”)

Not only that, but the perfect tense in Luke 1:28 merely talks about the current state of Mary without referring to how long Mary has been in that state, or will be in that state. For example, John 14:29 states: “And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe.”

The word “told” is in the perfect tense, but obviously it doesn’t mean that Jesus has told his disciples from the beginning of their lives, i.e. their conception. Instead, He just now told them. Compare Acts. 7:56; 10:45; and Matt. 13:46 as well, where all of them use the perfect tense, yet not one of them imply a permanent state or condition.

If we want to know the meaning of this word, we must look at it in context. We need only to read what follows in Luke 1:30, where the angel Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

God has favored Mary. Even Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance states that the Greek root word charitoō means “to endow with charis, primarily signified ‘to make graceful or gracious’ and came to denote ‘to cause to find favor’”. There’s nothing here about “plenitude of favor or grace, or from beginning to end sinlessness, or being without sin” as the Catholics wish to apply all of this to the term “full of grace”. Contextually speaking, Mary was “favored” by God because she was elected by Him to be the one to conceive and birth the Messiah, NOT because of some permanent and intrinsic quality of grace within Mary. In other words, Mary was not chosen because she was considered ‘highly favored’, but rather, she became ‘highly favored’  because God chose her for the task of conceiving and giving birth to Christ Jesus.

If we turn to Ephesians 1:5-6 the exact same term is used in Greek. Paul is speaking in reference to what God has given to His own, saying “Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.” (NKJV)

The phrase “made us accepted” or in other translations “freely bestowed favor on us” (HNV), or “graced us” (DRA) is the exact same “grace” term that’s used in Luke 1:28.

My response to the Catholics is this: if you are going to define “full of grace” with such a ridiculous definition for Mary, then you must apply that definition to all believers as well based on Eph. 1:6. Catholics can’t have it both ways.

Scripture also tells us that others were “full of grace”, not just Mary. For example, in Acts 6:8 Stephen is said to be “full of grace” (πλήρης χάριτος)(NRSVCE, DRA). In Luke 1:41, Elizabeth is said to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (DRA). In Acts 11:24, Barnabas is said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” (NRSVCE). And as we all know, the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29, NRSVCE, DRA). And many more in Scripture were “full of grace” especially our Lord Jesus Christ in John 1:14, who was “full of grace and truth”. It is only fair, then, to apply the Catholic definition to the term “full of grace” to Stephen, Elizabeth, and Barnabas. But, we already know that the Catholic definition is nothing but a complete myth.

Therefore, the term “full of grace” found in Luke 1:28 simply means that God favored Mary as the context shows in Luke 1:30. Thus, “Full of grace” does NOT mean that Mary was conceived without sin or that she lived a sinless life. Mary was full of grace, and so is every believer. So, Mary's grace was a received grace, NOT grace to bestow to others. She received grace, NOT because of some personal merit, but simply for the sake of free grace. Mary "found favor with God", and thus, her being “full of grace” has nothing to do with being praised for what she supposedly was, immaculately conceived, or for what she supposedly did, living sinless, as Catholics would have us believe. When one is graced by God it glorifies God, not man.

However, some Catholics mistakenly argue that the Greek word “kecharitomene” (κεχαριτωμένη) is a noun, and thus, they reason that because this word is used in place of Mary’s name, it therefore is a title or name given to Mary to indicate a characteristic quality of her unique abundance of grace in a supernatural, godlike state of soul. But, the word “kecharitomene” is a feminine verb since Mary is the subject of this verb, and it’s in the perfect passive participle form derived from the root verb “charitoō”. It’s not a noun. The meaning of “kecharitomene” is “endued with grace”. In other words, Mary was given grace by God, grace that she neither earned nor gained, but rather, because God willed that she would be the one to bear and carry our Savior. She was a blessed recipient of God’s grace, NOT the source of grace, so that she could conceive and bear Jesus without the aid of man through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, the Greek term “kecharitomene” or “kecharitomenos” can be grammatically used to describe any other person without any implication of that person being immaculately conceived or living sinless. Even Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, concedes that kecharitomene “is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense....This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”

Therefore, the phrase, “full of grace” is not evidence for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In fact, even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this, stating that the term kecharitomene “serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma”.

To prove my point even further that the Catholics themselves admit that the term “full of grace” does not refer to the Immaculate Conception, we read in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace.” (Volume VII, Page 378)

Moreover, almost every Catholic NT scholars in current years, including Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, acknowledge that the older Roman Catholic interpretations of the Greek term kecharitomene “clearly go beyond the meaning of Luke’s text.”[iii]

Yet Catholics, will in their desperation claim that when the angel Gabriel says to Mary “Blessed are you among women” (Luke 1:28), that Mary is blessed above all women and above all Mankind because of her supposed Immaculate Conception and sinless life. There are two problems with this argument. One, Catholics who use this argument fail at both English and Greek grammar because it never says that she is blessed above women, but rather she is blessed among women. And Two, the verse only mentions that she’s blessed among women, NOT above the whole Human race.

Still, Catholics will argue that the phrase “Blessed are you among women” should be interpreted as the NAB renders it, “Most blessed are you among women”. But such an interpretation is inconsistent with the Greek Grammar, as well as deceptive.

First, because Greek is a far more specific language, the term "εὐλογημένη" (Blessed) is NOT in the superlative form (i.e. “Most blessed).

Second, "εὐλογημένη" is the feminine form of "εὐλογημένος" and is in the Passive Perfect Participle form derived from the Greek verb “eulogeō” (εὐλογέω).

Third, the feminine superlative form of PP participle “εὐλογημένη” is “εὐλογημένότατη” (Most blessed).

Fourth, in Luke 1:42 both the masculine and feminine forms are used (εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου = Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!) and yet only the feminine is falsely interpreted as "most blessed", just so Catholics could justify lifting up Mary above everyone else. That's being very deceptive.

Fifth, the Catholic Douay–Rheims Bible says "Blessed art thou among women". Even the other more recent Catholic versions which follow the GREEK say "Blessed are you among women" (RSVCE, NRSVCE). Only those versions which follow Catholic theology translate this verse as "Most blessed are you among women" (NAB, not to be confused with NASB), while leaving the second part of the verse unchanged "blessed is the fruit of your womb". WHY the inconsistency? WHY the deception?

Sixth, In Luke 19:38, we read "Blessed be the king who cometh in the name of the Lord..." (DRB) The Greek uses the masculine form "Εὐλογημένος" and it's referring to Jesus. One would think that if "Εὐλογημένος" actually meant "most blessed" that that is how it would have been translated when referring to Jesus Himself, but it's not. There is absolutely NO Bible version which ever translates this as "Most blessed be the King". In fact, even the NAB, which uses "Most blessed" in Luke 1:28,42, simply translates "Εὐλογημένος" as "Blessed is the King".

The inconsistency is so clear as day that it's no surprise Catholics have been trying so hard to find anything in Scripture to support their false Marian beliefs. They would go so far as to change God's word to fit their own dogma.

But even if Catholics still want to believe that Mary is blessed above all of Humanity based on this phrase in Luke 1:28, the phrase “blessed are you among women” is actually not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts and is found in later Greek texts. And even though this phrase is repeated in Luke 1:42 by Elizabeth towards Mary, it does not have as much weight as it would have had from an angel sent by God.

Now, keep in mind that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not approved until 1854 by Pope Pius IX. This means that before 1854, for nearly 1900 years Mary was with sin. And yet, the Catholic religion is not limited to the Bible only. They don’t hold to the Scriptures alone because they believe that they have “rights” to change the Bible according to their man-made traditions and their proclamations of their fallible councils.

And yet, Catholics will object, saying that the Church and the Church faithful throughout history were unanimous in believing in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Really?

The Early Church seems to have been oblivious about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for centuries. In fact Catholics themselves admit this in a book called A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, authored by N.G.M. Van Doornik, S. Jelsma, & A. Van De Lisdonk; and the book was given the Imprimatur or official endorsement of the Vatican Church. In it we read:

““This point of doctrine [the immaculate conception] is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned at all by the Church. Gradually, however, as the idea of the future dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to the closest examination, and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as a dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854” (p. 238).

There are five damaging admissions this Catholic book makes: One, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is never taught “anywhere in the Bible”, and thus, there’s no biblical grounds for this fallacious notion. Two, this dogma was virtually unknown to the 12 Apostles. Three, for centuries this idea was completely foreign to the Early Church. Four, the concept of the Immaculate Conception slowly developed through time. Five, this dogma has no biblical authority, and thus, has no divine approval whatsoever, but is instead believed in simply because the Vatican Church used its ‘authority” that it claims to have to dogmatically teach it through its papacy and fallible councils.

Thus, we arrive at our conclusion, and that is, all generations would call Mary blessed, NOT because of the concept of the Immaculate Conception, but rather, because she was chosen by God to be the humble instrument by which the Son of God became flesh.

---

[i] Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”, 269.

[ii] Laurentine, René. “Pluralism about Mary: Biblical and Contemporary”, 84.

[iii] Raymond Brown et al, eds. Mary in the New Testament, 128.

Mariolatry (Pt. 3) Mother of God?

Should Mary be called the “Mother of God”?

No!

It was in 431 A.D. at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that Mary was proclaimed to be the “Mother of God”. Yet, for 400 years after Christ’s death, Mary was NEVER called the “Mother of God”.

Theotokos

From the very beginning, in the council of Ephesus at Ephesus about 431 A.D., the term “Theotokos” (Literally, God bearer), from which the phrase “Mother of God” is based on, was completely Christological in nature. The term was meant to protect from the Nestorian heresy, which taught that Christ’s two natures were separate, and thus, there were two Christs. And this is why Mary was proclaimed to be “Theotokos” the “God-bearer”, in order to protect the unity of the two natures in one Christ. Essentially, the term “Theotokos” served as a useful term to affirm the deity of Christ even in the womb. Yet as time passed, instead of trying to define who Jesus was (as was the purpose of the term “Theotokos”), some Christians began speculating about who Mary was. By calling Mary “Mother of God” it seemed to unintentionally intensify this speculation, setting off the development of many non-Biblical false assumptions about Mary which continues to grow ever worse in our times. Dr. Ludwig Ott, a highly respected Catholic theologian, testifies to this in his book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, saying “The veneration of Mary was greatly promoted by the definition of her dignity as Mother of God” (p. 216). Hence, neither the phrase “Mother of God”, nor its implied Catholic assertions, is in harmony with the original intent of the term “Theotokos”.

It’s also important to note that during the time of the council of Ephesus and the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), another, more precise term, “mater theou” (Mother of God) was in use as a supplemental term by Cyril of Alexandria, who led the council of Ephesus. However, this supplemental term was never accepted by the framers of both councils.

But, since in our times the title “Mother of God” has altered its purpose from one that maintains the deity of Christ to one that glorifies Mary, the original intent of the title has faded away from use, and for this reason the title should be abandon.

“Mother of God” creates a False Syllogism

Yet, since the Catholics won’t discard the title any time soon, then we must discuss whether the title “Mother of God” is logically sound by looking at it syllogistically.

1^st premise: Jesus is God

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God

If we are to accept the conclusion, then we should also accept the logical continuation:

1^st premise: God is Trinity

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of God

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

If we accept this conclusion (which I don’t), then the final syllogism is as follows:

1^st premise: God the Father subsists within the Trinity

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God the Father

Obviously, this poses a big problem for Catholics, as the 2^nd and 3^rd conclusions are heretical. Yet, they are simply the logical continuation of the first syllogism. Though they may seem valid conclusions, the question is whether their 1^st and 2^nd premises are true or false. If any premise is found to be false, then the syllogism ends up being unsound. First, we look at the 2^nd premise to the last syllogism. Is Mary the mother of the Trinity? Clearly the answer is NO. Hence, we should examine the 2^nd syllogism that came to this conclusion, that is:

1st premise: God is Trinity

2nd premise: Mary is the mother of God

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

When we look at the 1^st premise (God is a Trinity) we accept this as a true premise. Since the conclusion (Mary is the mother of the Trinity) is false, then we can call into question the truthfulness of the 2^nd premise (Mary is the mother of God), and by extension, we can question the soundness of the 1^st syllogism which led to the conclusion “Mary is the mother of God”.

When we look at the premises of the 1^st syllogism (Jesus is God & Mary is the mother of Jesus), we realize where the fallacy takes place. The 1^st premise “Jesus is God” is put forward as a categorical statement affirming something about Jesus, which is more accurately presented as: All of Jesus is God (properly called an A proposition, “All of S is P”). Though this functions well for other singular propositions such as, “All of John is human”, it doesn’t function well with this one. The premise “Jesus is God” is not actually a categorical statement because it’s not true that all of Jesus is God, for Jesus’ humanity cannot be considered divine. Otherwise, Monophysitism (heretical teaching that Christ’s divine and human natures are actually one nature) would be orthodox. Jesus is both God and man, hence, we must use the proposition “some of Jesus is God” (properly called an I proposition, “some of S is P”). Once we accept this, we come to understand that the 1^st syllogism runs into the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The proposition (some of Jesus is God) is an affirmative and particular statement, and hence the middle term (Jesus) cannot be distributed. In the same manner, Mary cannot be said to be mother of all of Jesus, but only of his humanity.

Let’s look at these two premises:

1^st premise: Some of Jesus is God

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of some of Jesus

Can we then conclude that Mary is the “mother of God”? No, because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the two premises. It could very well be that Mary is the mother of only the non-God part of Jesus, and in fact she is.

(I must ask that you forgive me for using terms such as “some of Jesus” and “non-God”. It’s not my intention to be disrespectful, rather, I’m merely using the language of logic)

“Mother of God”, Mother of a Nature or of a Person?

Now, Catholics might object, saying that Mary is not the mother of a nature (divinity/humanity), but of a person. That’s true, but the moment one asserts that Mary is the mother of God, one has broken that distinction because one is stating that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. That is to say, “God” is merely describing Jesus’ divine nature. The person of Jesus is not just God, and the person of Jesus is more than just a man. In other words, Mary gave birth to the person who is both God and man, but she did NOT give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It’s appropriate then to call Mary the “mother of Christ”, but not the “mother of God”. In fact, what Catholics seem to keep on ignoring is the purpose for giving Mary the title “Theotokos” at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and it’s that the title “Theotokos” was meant to confirm and maintain the divine nature of Christ, NOT to establish his personhood.

Besides, in the strict sense, God is not a person, but a being that subsists in three persons. God is a Trinity, yet one cannot say that since Jesus is God then Jesus must be a Trinity. Theologically speaking, all Christians can agree that our Triune God is Eternal and is without a beginning. Thus, God has no mother, just as Jesus Christ had no earthly father. Christ’s human nature had no father and Christ’s divine nature had no mother. So, Mary added nothing to Christ’s divine nature.

Roman Catholics have failed to make the necessary theological distinction between person, nature, and being. Some Catholics argue that Jesus is an exception to this distinction, claiming that Jesus is a “divine person” who took on a human nature. However, such an argument is faced with countless problems. First, the moment one uses the phrase “divine person”, one has already violated the distinction mentioned above: “Divine person” is simply another way of saying “person with a divine nature”. Still, the moment the incarnation happened, the “person” in question was something more, that is, he was a “person with a divine nature and a human nature”, and it was to this person that Mary gave birth to. Furthermore, if one maintains that we have to view Mary as the mother of God on the basis that she gave birth to a “divine person”, we should then ask several probing questions. In Luke 2:52 we read that “Jesus grew in wisdom”; Can it be said that God grew in wisdom because Jesus is God? In Matt. 24:36 we read that Jesus doesn’t know the day and hour of His return; Can it be said that God doesn’t know this information because Jesus is God? In Heb. 4:15 we read that Jesus was “tempted in every way just as we are”; Can it be said that God was tempted because Jesus is God? Since Jesus died on the cross, can it be said that God died because Jesus is God?

Certainly, the Scriptures reveal that God has always possessed all wisdom. God knows all things, and that includes the time period of the return of Christ (Matt. 24:36), God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1:13), and God cannot die because death is a bodily condition that affects all humans (1 Cor. 15:22; “in Adam, all die”), but not God (Ps. 82:6-7; “I said, ‘you are gods’...but you will die like mere men”), nor even the angels (Luke 20:36; “they can no longer die, for they are like the angels”). Clearly, the reason as to how Jesus grew in wisdom, was limited in knowledge, was tempted, died, and of course was born, is only because of his humanity, NOT his divinity. God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born just as He cannot die. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mary bore God (and thus, carries the title “mother of God”), any more than it can be said that the Jews killed God. Jesus in His humanity had no mother; Jesus in His divinity was “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life” (Heb. 7:3).

Belief of the Early Church Fathers about the Jesus/Mary relationship

This also was the belief of the earliest minds concerning the relationship between Jesus and his mother Mary. Augustine comments on John 2, writing:

“At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.” (Augustine, Tract. In Ioannem CXIX, 1)

He makes the same affirmation in another place also:

“It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give birth to my power of working miracles, it was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that is weak in me.” (Ibid., VII, 9)

Evidently, Augustine differentiates between the relation Mary had with Jesus’ humanity, and the relation she had with His Divinity. In the following chapter, Augustine explains what he means by this:

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”? Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, “That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross.” This indeed, is the meaning of “Mine hour is not yet come.”...How then was was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (Ibid., VIII, 9)

Gregory the Great also comments on John 2 and John 19, stating:

“As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not from my mother. For He who from the nature of His Father did miracles, had it from His mother that He could die.” (Gregory, Epist. 41)

Both Augustine and Gregory share the same belief we have asserted above about the distinction between Mary’s relationship to Jesus in His Humanity and the same to Jesus in His Divinity.

A Roman Catholic who rejects this view as ahistorical no longer has any grounds to object it. This view is founded not just on superior logic than the phrase “mother of God”, but is also supported by some of the best thinkers in the Early Church.

“Mother of God” Does Not Distinguish between the Natures of Christ

Another objection to the phrase “Mother of God” is that it does not correctly differentiate between the two natures of Christ. In designating Mary as the “mother of God”, and not “mother of man” there is an implied denial of the Christ’s humanity, or a divinization of His humanity, both of which are heresies. That is to say, it asserts that Mary gave birth to one nature (specifically, deity) stripped of all true humanity. Despite Catholics intensely denying this, the Scriptures over and over again explicitly states that one gives birth not only to a person, but also to a nature. “And the earth brought forth...plants yielding seed after their kind...’Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 24). Jesus was the “son of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), Abraham is “forefather [to the Jews] according to the flesh” (Rom. 4:1). “It is not the children of the flesh [i.e. descendants by human nature from Abraham] who are children of God” (Rom. 9:8)

Now, the framers of the Council of Chalcedon were aware of the danger that calling Mary “mother of God” would make her the one who birthed Jesus’ divine nature, depriving Jesus of His true human nature. Hence, they used the term “Theotokos” (God bearing one), and made no other reference to Mary. And as I mentioned earlier above, they rejected Cyril’s supplementation “mētēr theou” (μήτηρ θεοῦ), literally “Mother of God”, thus reaffirming that Jesus is one person who has two natures. The work of Chalcedon referred to Mary as “God-bearer”, but not without qualification. The content of the document declares, “...as regards [Jesus’] manhood, begotten...of Mary the virgin, the Theotokos...,” thus being cautious NOT to attribute to Mary the idea of giving birth to Christ’s deity. Paul held to the same belief in Rom. 1:3, in which he says that Jesus is the “son of David, according to the flesh”. Hence, Chalcedon merely reaffirmed what the Bible had already made clear. We, along with Chalcedon, believe that God and man are indissolubly united in the person of Jesus from the moment of conception; but, that there is no transformation or mixture of the natures. We have to uphold the distinction between the two natures of Christ, or we will fall into heresy.

In regards to the Incarnation, Mary certainly had a role in producing Christ’s humanity, but she was in no way responsible for producing Christ’s deity. If one really wants to give Mary credit in producing one of the natures of Christ, then it would be far more accurate to call her the “mother of man” rather than “mother of God”. And if we are to maintain the proper unity of Christ’s two natures as Chalcedon demands of us, then it would be even more accurate to call Mary the “mother of Christ” (a general term embracing both natures). This is precisely what Nestorius tried to accomplish by introducing the term “Christotokos” (Χριστοτοκος), literally, “Christ-bearing one”. What Chalcedon had taught is also what Nestorius also apparently taught. As a matter of fact, Nestorius believed himself justified by the conclusions of Chalcedon (Heresies, 182). His opponents mistakenly believed he was teaching only an apparent unity between the two natures based on a misunderstanding of his use of prosōpon [πρόσωπον], literally, “face” (Heresies, 174).

The misleading term “Mother of God” must then be dropped and replaced with another. A more accurate term would be “Mother of Christ the God-Man”, for Mary was merely the Mother of Christ’s humanity, and nothing more. Yet, Catholics will not give up on the idea that Mary had some significant and supernatural part in producing God in the flesh. Mary did not produce God in the flesh. Instead she produced the human vessel of God. Therefore, Mary is to be called Mother of Christ the God-Man, for God created in her womb the uniqueness of the God-Man Jesus and allowed her to carry and bear Him. In other words, since Jesus is God and Mary is His mother in regards to His human nature, then it is in this way that Mary is the Mother of Christ the God-Man. Mary was simply the earthly mother of Jesus Christ, God-incarnate. The End! Period!

“Mother of God” Implies an Ongoing Relationship

The last objection to the title “Mother of God” is that it strongly suggests a continuing relationship. Let’s suppose for a second that we accept the title “Mother of God”. It is one thing to assert that Mary gave birth to Jesus, and thus WAS the mother of God. It is another thing completely to assume that there is an ongoing relationship, and hence say that Mary IS the mother of God. That is to say, even if the Roman Catholic could prove to us that Mary has a part to play in the hypostatic union, it does not logically follow that she keeps the title or status as the “mother of God”.

Let’s read what Scripture teaches us. First, it teaches us of a spiritual relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence Jesus broke off all biological bonds with Mary before he went to Calvary. In Matt. 12:47, a person told Jesus that “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You”. Therefore, Jesus Himself taught in Matt. 12:48-50:

"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"  And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."  

This passage reveals two significant things: One, it shows that Jesus did have actual blood brothers. And Two, those who do the will of our Heavenly Father are spiritually as close or closer to Jesus than His own blood family, his brothers and even Mary herself. Essentially, Jesus declares that nobody has special relations with Him because of biological bonds, not even Mary His mother. The true mother, brothers, and sisters of Jesus are those that do the Father’s will, NOT those that gave birth to Him and grew up with Him. If we put our faith in Christ Jesus, accepting His free gift of Salvation which He provided for us through His death and resurrection, then we will be doing the will our Father in Heaven and we will be in a close intimate relationship with Jesus, as Jesus Himself proclaimed.

Also important to note concerning this is John 2:1-4. John gives an account of a wedding that took place in Cana:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

Jesus’ response to Mary’s request reads in the Greek as “ti emoi kai soi, gunai” (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί γύναι), literally “what to me and to you, woman”, which means “what do we have in common with each other”. It’s interesting to note that this saying is always used as a rebuke in the New Testament, and in each passage the same Greek construction is shown, where every one of those passages involves the idea of distancing and/or rebuff (Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28, John 2:4). 
Indeed, aside from John 2:4, every passage records demons distancing themselves from Jesus. But, one should then ask oneself why John would choose to show this rebuke toward Mary at all. The only logical explanation is that John wanted to make it clear to us that Jesus was indebted to no one, not even Mary His mother. This is very important because John was the apostle who took Mary in to live with him after Jesus’ death on the Cross (John 19:26-27). This means that John knew Mary on an intimate basis, and yet, far from venerating her, he presents her in an undeniably unflattering light. One might even say that an appropriate translation for the phrase “what to me and to you” can be “leave me alone” or “why are you bothering me?”. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek Old Testament, is full of examples using the exact same construction (Judge 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 1 King 17:18; 2 King 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21).

Now, Roman Catholics dislike the idea that Jesus Christ rebukes His mother Mary. Some Catholics have even made efforts to mitigate the meaning by interpreting Jesus’ words as either “What has changed between us?”[i], or “What would you have me do?”[ii]. But, they have never shown an example where the Greek construction is used with these meanings.

Others have tried to interpret Jesus’ title for Mary, “woman”, in more affectionate terms than the Greek permits, such as “dear woman” or “mother”. But such terms cannot be justified. Even Catholics admit that the “woman” (gunai [γύναι]) is “unattested in reference to one’s mother”[iii]. Even Jesus Himself NEVER calls Mary by the title “mother”, but rather 'Woman’ as John 2:4 and John 19:26 testifies. Furthermore, the whole phrase that Jesus says (“what to me and to you”) is a “Hebrew expression of either hostility...or denial of common interest”[iv].

In the end, John 2:4 does teach that Jesus rebuked Mary. This is not a matter of interpretation, rather the Greek construction of this passage necessitates this meaning. Jesus did in fact distance Himself from Mary, and thus, He broke off all normal biological bonds and duties. Any other interpretation is essentially baseless because it does not sufficiently deal with the use of the Greek phrase in other places of Scripture. And if Jesus in this passage (and all other passages where He speaks to & of Mary) breaks off biological bonds, then Mary no longer possesses the title and status of “Mother of God” (If she even had that title in the first place, which she never had).

Finally, Scripture teaches that all true Believers are children of God, for “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12)

Thus, Mary is NOT the Mother of God in any special, supernatural sense as described in the Marian Doctrines. Jesus Christ Himself denied special status to Mary over other believers, and thus, she does not take priority in the Family of God.

Now, no one anywhere in Scripture calls Mary the “Mother of God”. And it’s obvious why. God has no mother. Instead Scripture merely calls her the “mother of Jesus”, as it is written in John 2:1,3 and Acts 1:14, for Mary was simply the mother of Jesus.

Yet, some Catholics will mistakenly argue that in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth called Mary the “mother of my Lord”, and therefore, Mary is called the “Mother of God”. This is false! First, the phrase “mother of my Lord” is not a supernatural title given to Mary. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our Lord, but she is not the mother of Yahweh. Second, the Greek word for “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) is “kü'-rē-os” and it’s meaning is “one who has supreme authority, to whom a person or thing belongs, about which one has power of deciding”. In other words, what Elizabeth was saying is that Mary was the “mother of my Master”. Third, The word “Lord” is to be distinguished from the Greek word “God” or “theos”  meaning “deity and supreme Divinity”. As Thomas declared in John 20:28 “My Lord and my God”. Therefore, Elizabeth never said that Mary was the “Mother of God”, rather she said that Mary was the “mother of the One who is Sovereign over my life”, because Elizabeth was a servant of the Lord. Hence, the word “Lord” (κύριος) is referring to a position of sovereign power, and NOT to a divine nature.

ENDNOTES

[i] J. Cortés, New Testament Abstracts, III (1958-59), 247. This rendering is fraught with difficulties: (1) contra the proposed rendering, there was a change---since this was Jesus’ first miracle (v.11), he could not have granted this kind of request before; (2) Mary gives no indication that she detected a change in relationship, so what need would there be for Jesus to ask “what has changed between us?”; (3) this rendering does not account for the fact that in every other instance, this Greek construction is a rebuke. If it is argued that this cannot be a denial of Mary’s request since Jesus does eventually grant it, it must also be pointed out that Jesus denies requests elsewhere, only to grant them immediately thereafter (Matt. 15:22-28; John 7:3-10).

[ii] M. Lagrange and R. Schnackenburg, quoted in D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP, 1991; Grnad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 171

[iii] Pheme Perkins, notes on John 2:4, Catholic Study Bible

[iv] Ibid.

Mariolatry (Pt. 2) The Sacrilegious Elevation of Mary

To prove to you just how far the Roman Catholic Religion has gone to elevate Mary, Pope Leo XIII, in his 1891 encyclical “Octobri Mense”, said about Mary’s mediation, “as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to Christ but by His Mother, Mary”

This is blasphemy at its worst. Such a statement is so far removed from the inspired word of God.

Pope Pius X said in his encyclical, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, that the source of all blessing “is Jesus Christ...But Mary is the channel”

And Pope Pius XI stated in his encyclical, Ingravescentibus Malis, that every blessing “comes to us from Almighty God through the hands of Our Lady”

Finally, Pope Leo XII declared in his encyclical, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, that, “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”

For any human to say that there are two mediators contradicts God’s Word. As 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. When the Lord said that there was one mediator between God and mankind, that’s exactly what He meant. Even Jesus agreed with the Father saying in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Yet, Catholic theologians don’t see it that way. For example, Thomas Aquinas SPECULATED that Mary stood for all of humanity at the Annunciation. Therefore, Mary’s obedience is on par with Eve’s disobedience. Catholics equate Mary as on the same level as Eve because just as Eve failed the test, and thus, through Eve all men fell, so Mary did not fail the test, and thus, through Mary all men can be saved. Thus, the fallen Eve’s unfaithfulness is undone by Mary’s faithfulness, which leads to Mariolatry, the worship of Mary. Again, this is not only unbiblical, but blasphemous as well. Essentially, the Roman Catholic Religion is a matriarchal religion that includes a female deity as well as a patriarchal religion.

In his celebration of the Marian Year in Rome in 1950, Pope Pius XII accurately reflected the Church's view of the Virgin Mary in his pontifical prayer:

Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, above every other mere creature, from the first moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume! O Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!
O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before Your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the Glory, you are the Joy, you are the Honor of our people! Amen.

Anyone hearing this prayer most certainly knows that this sounds like worship and adoration to a deity, as if Mary is seen as the “fourth part” of the Trinity. This pontifical prayer is blatant idolatry, praying directly to Mary and giving her all these titles which should be reserved to God alone. It’s the same as if one took Rev. 5:6-14 and replaced Jesus with Mary as the worthy Lamb. This prayer goes contrary to Scripture. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2), NOT Mary. Jesus Christ is our Glory, for in Him is “the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27), NOT Mary. Jesus is our joy, for His Joy remains in us so that our “joy may be full” (John 15:11), NOT Mary.  Jesus is our honor, for He “was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12), NOT Mary. It’s the role of the Holy Spirit to convert the wicked and “convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8), NOT Mary. And it is the Holy Spirit who gives comfort to all Christians, for the Holy Spirit is our Comforter (John 14:16,26), NOT Mary. It’s clear that this blasphemous prayer gives titles that belong only to Jesus, and thus, the Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Bible. Pope Pius XII’s prayer is absolute idolatry and presents another false gospel. As Bishop Strossmayer boldy pleaded with the Vatican Council in 1870, “we have made a goddess of the blessed Virgin. Stop, stop, venerable brethren, on the odious and ridiculous incline on which you have placed yourselves. Save the church from the shipwreck which threatens her, asking from the holy Scriptures alone for the rule of faith which we ought to believe and to profess.”

His words fell on deaf ears and that very day the Vatican Church declared the Infallibility of the Pope as Church dogma. Yet, aside from the infallibility of the Papacy, the blasphemous idea that Mary, a mere creature, created by God, is dogmatically paralleled with Christ Himself in Catholic Theology is what upsets us true Christians the most.

Continuing on, Cardinal Spellman in New York wrote, “O, Mary, gate of heaven, none shall enter except through thee”

In Christ’s Holy and Precious Name we cry out, “NO!” Jesus Christ Himself proclaims “I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7) “I am the door. By Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9)

It’s clear that what Catholic theology is doing is attributing to a mere human woman the titles, positions, and offices of God.

According to Pope Leo XIII the knowledge and salvation of God comes through Mary. In his encyclical in 1895, Adiutricem, the pope prayed “O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.”

This prayer is also unbiblical and blasphemous of the highest degree. First, the Bible teaches us that it’s only through Christ that we can know God. As John 1:18 states, “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made Him known.” (NRSVCE) Second, Scripture clearly shows us that salvation is found in and through Jesus Christ alone, not through Mary. As Acts 4:12 states, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” (NRSVCE). Finally, Third, Scripture repeatedly shows us that it’s God the Son, who became incarnate to walk among us, so He could sympathize and help us with our weakness because Jesus was tempted in all ways just like us, yet he never committed a sin. Christ knows what we go through every day. And because He personally died on the Cross to pay for our sins, it’s through Jesus, not Mary, that Scripture states in Hebrews 4:16, that we have been given the privilege to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (NIV).

Yet, Roman Catholics completely ignore Scripture, as they elevate and adore Mary above Christ. For example, this prayer from the book, Devotions to our Mother of Perpetual Help, reads:

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; NOT EVEN FROM JESUS, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
(3 Hail Mary's)

Is there any other prayer that is so anti-Marian, so blasphemous, as this one here? The real Mary would never want anyone to say such blasphemous things about her. The real Mary would always direct people to Jesus Christ. She would never want anyone to entrust their eternal salvation to her. She would never want anyone to seek her mediation or her intercession when there is only One Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus. The real Mary is not listening to any prayer done in her name. The real Mary is in the presence of Christ wholly occupied in the worship of our Triune God, not in hearing prayers asking for her intercession and entrusting their souls to her.

The Roman Catholic Church has seemingly purposefully paralleled in Mary all the unique offices of Jesus Christ. Jesus is without sin and so is Mary. Jesus was raised bodily from the dead and Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. Jesus is our Redeemer and Mary is Co-Redemptrix, not equal to, but alongside Jesus in a lesser sense. Jesus is our Mediator and Mary is our Mediatrix. Jesus is our King in Heaven and Mary is the queen in heaven. All these parallels in Mary to Christ’s unique offices are unbiblical and antichristian.

It is essentially impossible to have to seek the mediation of someone else to appease Christ’s wrath. Anyone who prays like this to Mary does not truly know Jesus Christ. All these Marian Doctrines are from a rogue religious system that believes that it’s not bound by the authority of the inspired Word of God. Entire libraries of theology has been built around no fewer than 4 verses in the Bible that in context literally has nothing to do with these Marian Doctrines which the Catholic Church wants everyone to dogmatically believe under pain of eternal condemnation, under pain of anathema. This is what happens when a religious system adds another source of authority, man-made Tradition, to that which is the ultimate authority, the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.

Let me give a few more examples of just how far the Roman Catholic Church has gone to elevate Mary.

At the end of Pope John Paul’s encyclical, “Veritatis Splendor”, he gave this prayer:

“O Mary, Mother of Mercy, watch over all people, that the Cross of Christ may not be emptied of its power,...”

Does this not sound familiar to anyone?

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Cor. 1:17) NIV

It’s clear that this is the role of the Holy Spirit, not of Mary. The real Mary would know that the Pope’s prayer takes away from the proper form of worship belonging only to God that has been established throughout Scripture. Therefore, the Pope’s prayer is quite literally full blown idolatry.

Also, in his book, The Glories of Mary, Alfonso Maria de' Liguori (declared to be a Doctor of the Church by the Vatican Church) says this, “If God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him.”

Scripture says, “But of Him [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, "He who glories [boasts], let him glory [boast] in the LORD” (1 Cor. 1:29-30)

It is by God, not Mary, that we are in Christ Jesus. It is by Jesus Christ, not Mary, that we have our salvation, so that our boasting is in Yahweh alone, not Mary.

Here are more excerpts from Alfonso de’Ligouri’s work, The Glories of Mary.

There is no doubt, St. Bernard adds, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God...but because men fear the Divine Majesty, which is in Him as God, it was necessary to assign us another advocate to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence; and this Advocate is Mary, than whom we can find no advocate more powerful with the divine majesty and more compassionate towards us. A mediator was then needed with the Mediator Himself.”(p. 221) 

“Console yourselves, then, oh ye faint of heart, I will say with St. Thomas of Villanova, take heart, oh miserable sinners; this great Virgin, who is the mother of your judge and God, is the advocate of the human race. Powerful and able to obtain whatever she wishes from God; most wise, for she knows every method of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend none.” (p. 223-4) 

“And to increase our confidence, St. Anselm adds, that when we have recourse to this divine mother, we may not only be sure of her protection, but that sometimes we shall be sooner heard and saved by invoking her holy name than that of Jesus our Savior. And he gives this reason: Because it belongs to Christ, as our judge, to punish, but to Mary, as our advocate (patroness), to pity (mercy).”(p.149)

“St. Bernardine affirms, that in order to become mother of God, it was requisite that the holy Virgin should be exalted to a certain equality with the divine Persons, by a certain infinity of graces.” (p.425)

These statements from Ligouri’s work is blasphemy unrestrained, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of blasphemous statements like those quoted above throughout this damnable work. To blasphemously think such thoughts about Jesus and His mother is beyond imagining. If Jesus Christ, our only Mediator, has borne our sins in our place and sent His Spirit to dwell within us, then why would anyone fear Jesus? When one says that their prayers will be heard more quickly through Mary than through Jesus Christ Himself simply because He’s a judge, then that person is completely ignorant of the One who alone is our Hope and the Fountain of all Mercy, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Now, because the Roman Catholic Church will not denounce this work from Ligouri as blasphemy of the worst kind, they have proven to the whole world that they have absolutely no knowledge of the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mariolatry (Part 1) Catholic Beliefs & the 8 Steps to Godhood

Hey Friends. Today’s topic of discussion is about the Marian Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and why these doctrines are contrary to scripture and how they rob the all-sufficiency of our Lord Jesus Christ. First let’s start with what the Catholics actually believe about Mary.

Roman Catholics believe Mary is “the Mother of God”, that she is the “Mother of our Head”, the head being, Jesus, who is the Head of the Church. Pope Pius XII agrees with this in his 1943 Encyclical “On the Mystical Body of Christ”.

Catholicism claims Mary is full of grace, free of original sin, and kept from all actual sin.

She is also perpetually a virgin...before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ, essentially denying that Mary had any children after Jesus Christ’s birth.

Catholicism also claims that because of her sinless life Mary was raised up into Heaven after experiencing death. Though there has been debate over whether Mary experienced death, Pope John Paul II has affirmed that Mary did in fact experience death (Mary and the Human Drama of Death)

Catholicism has given Mary the title of “Mediatrix of All Graces”. In other words, the grace that comes from God flows through Mary. A person can then go to Mary to get grace from God. Essentially, SHE is the one who dispenses God’s blessings and grace to those who are spiritually in need of grace. Pope Pius XII agrees that it’s by Mary’s all-powerful prayers that the Divine Redeemer’s Spirit was given to the newly born Church at Pentecost and that through her intercession she obtains from Him abundant streams of grace to all the members of the Mystical Body.

Roman Catholics have elevated Mary by these types of Papal statements and decrees to a position where she is praying and pleading with the Son to the Father, and the Son is always responding to her prayers and never denying her.

Many times when you ask Catholics why they pray to Mary, almost always the answer is that Mary somehow feels closer to them, relates to them, and understands them better in a way that the Son and the Father cannot, and that Mary is a friend to them because she’s soft, tender, and loving in a way that Jesus and God are not. What nonsense, to think that a created being could ever relate to us or understand us better, or has more loving-kindness than our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. What an insult to the real Mary and to her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to think that Mary is a closer Friend to us than Jesus Christ Himself.

Another title that’s given to Mary, but not yet officially sanctioned by the Vatican Church is that Mary is Co-Redemptrix with Jesus. In other words, Mary took part in the Redemption of Humanity in some way, and without HER...salvation would have been impossible. She cooperates with Christ in the work of saving sinners. Her part in the redemption of Mankind has to do with her intercession and suffering along with the suffering of her Son, not just that she gave birth to Jesus.

Catholics must understand that Biblically speaking, Mary in no way or form shared in the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can be added to what he has done. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church has done just that by proclaiming Mary as Co-Redemptrix with the Son. Pope Pius XII confirms this in his encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi , by making this shocking statement, stating that “It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall”. The Pope continues saying that by “bearing...the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she....filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church". That is to say, Mary is the one who gave the offering of atonement and that by her immeasurable sorrows SHE supplies what was lacking in the suffering of Christ. SHE supplies what Christ couldn’t. Everyone should have their eyes opened by now and realize that the Pope’s statements are anathema, i.e. cursed and condemned. This is another gospel entirely, this is a false gospel.

Yet, it doesn’t stop there. Catholics claim that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven where she now reigns with Christ. The pope’s encyclical declares, “Mary, now glorified in body and soul, reigns together with her Son.” As Queen of Heaven, she rules providentially with Christ the King of Heaven. Mary is elevated above all the prophets, apostles, saints, popes and the whole Catholic Church as well. In his book, Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary [Marialis Cultus], Pope Paul VI said, “...the place Mary occupies in the Church: [is] ‘the highest place and the closest to us after Jesus.’”

Say hello to our Queen of queens, and Mistress of mistresses. Every step of the way Catholics have been putting Mary on the same level as Christ Jesus. Is it no wonder, then, that Protestants believe Catholicism has been elevating Mary to Godhood.

These Catholic ideas of Mary is not Biblical and cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. Even Dr. Ludwig Ott, a revered Catholic theologian, admitted this in his book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, saying “The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture” (p.200). In regards to Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven, he states, “The direct and express scriptural proofs of Mary’s bodily assumption are not to be had” (p. 208). And when talking about Mary as Mediatrix and intercessor in Heaven, Ludwig says “Express scriptural proofs are lacking” (p.214).

However, Catholics don’t use the Bible alone for their ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and authority.

Instead Catholics like to say that it’s “fitting” for Mary to be born without sin, that way she wouldn’t have passed original sin to Jesus in her womb. That it’s “fitting” for Mary to have lived a sinless life because she had such a close relationship with Jesus. That it’s “fitting”, being sinless, she would be assumed into Heaven. In a way, Catholics are saying that Mary is almost as unique as Jesus Christ. Yet, as time has passed for the last 2,000 years, not only has Mary been elevated into being assumed into Heaven, but she is now considered a Co-Remptrix and a Co-Medatrix. Now, even with these supposed apparitions of Mary, Mary has been ascended and lifted up even more in Roman Catholic tradition.

On a practical level, most Catholics like this Catholic idea of Mary because they are never taught to have a direct relationship with Jesus, since it’s always through the sacraments and through the Catholic Church that one has a relationship with Jesus. And since women are denied responsibilities, authority, the priesthood, and so forth, they need something to hang on to. So, more and more Mary is elevated to status that almost equals that of Jesus Christ. This is why Catholics have Marian apparitions, Marian statues, Marian pilgrimages, Marian worshippers, and even Pope John Paul II was entirely devoted to Mary. This elevation of Mary is an ongoing elevation, to the point where it has literally become a cult that has gotten out of control.

In his book, The Second Vatican Council and The New Catholicism (1965, p. 239), G.C. Berkouwer noticed that “Mary’s role is often delineated by Catholicism in a way that the gospels ascribe exclusively to Christ.”

Now that we have learned about what Catholics claim about Mary, it’s time to list what I call the “8 Steps to Godhood”, where I explain how Mary is elevated to Godhood in Catholic Theology.

Step One is where the Roman Catholic Church began to elevate Mary, and it begins with Genesis 3: 15. In the English Roman Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims Version, this is how it renders Gen. 3:15:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel.” (DRB)

Roman Catholic Scholars interpret this “SHE” and “HER” in Gen. 3:15 to be a reference to Mary. This is the beginning of Mary’s elevation to Godhood. Now one should understand that we object to this translation and its interpretation. Why? Because the Douay Rheims Version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and in the Latin Vulgate, it uses the Latin word “Ipsa”, that is, “she” in English. This is a complete error and mistranslation. It should have been “ipse”, masculine for “he”. Almost every version of the Bible (NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, HNV, LEB, HCSB, MSG, GNV, AMP, NLV, CJB, GW, WEB, etc.) uses “he” in accordance with the Greek Septuagint “autos” (αὐτός), the masculine “He”. A few other versions use “it” (KJV, Webster’s Bible) in accordance with the original Hebrew “הוּא” pronounced “hoo”, which is a masculine pronoun and can mean either “he” or “it”. The “it” refers to “the seed of the woman”. Therefore, “he”, in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, shall crush the head of the serpent. It is not “she”. Yet, Catholics want to use this mistranslation to say that instead of Jesus alone crushing the head of the serpent; Mary would be the one who would crush the head of Satan by being perfect and sinless. And by doing this, they go on ahead to try to justify all their false Marian Doctrines.

I remember a few years back in the University of Dallas, a catholic university, before the final exam began in my Moral Theology class, I drew a serpent on the board and wrote the words “Final exam” inside the serpent, as a joke to energize the students into crushing the exam. However, while I was sitting on my desk waiting for the exam to begin, a fellow student saw the drawing on the board and proceeded to draw Mary with her feet crushing the head of the Serpent. I was surprised because at the time I didn’t understand why she drew that when it was obvious from Gen. 3:15 that it was Jesus who would crush the head of the serpent, not Mary. Now that I understand that they get it from the mistranslation found in the Latin Vulgate, it is understandable why Catholics would exalt Mary to a position that belonged only to Jesus.

Why then do the Catholics continue saying “she”? It’s because, at the Council of Trent, the Latin Vulgate was declared to be the only translation acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, they accept the rendering “she” despite their own theologians admitting that it was a mistake. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, when talking about the Immaculate Conception, admits that, and I quote, “The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ …”

Even Catholics themselves admit this, as the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Much confusion has resulted from the fact that the second half of this verse [Genesis 3:15] was inaccurately translated in the Vulgate to read, “SHE shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be a mistake for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...,” and consequently CAN NO LONGER BE CITED in favor of the Immaculate Conception.” (Volume VII, page 378)

Also, the Nova Vulgate, the revised Latin version which was authorized by the Vatican, corrected this mistake, changing it from ipsa to ipsum, “it” in the Latin. And in the footnotes of the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, it states that the rendering “ipsa” could have been “due originally to a copyist’s mistake...”

Yet, despite Catholic Scholars conceding this point, Catholicism continues to view it as “she”. And the greater mistake is interpreting the “she” as Mary. And it’s from this starting point that Catholics begin to exalt Mary ever higher to Godhood in Marian theology.

They go on to say that because this “she” is Mary, Mary must be the Second Eve. She crushes the head of the serpent through a perfect and sinless life. Where Eve was imperfect, Mary would be perfect. Where Eve was seduced by the Serpent and failed, Mary would be obedient and not fail. Because the First Eve failed, there had to be a Second Eve to undo what the First Eve had done. And that Second Eve is Mary according to Catholics. Yet, this teaching of a Second Eve is foreign to Scripture because Scripture itself says that it was Adam who fell, and the sin came through Adam, not Eve, and Christ Jesus is the Second Adam who did not fail. Scripture teaches that Christ would be the one who would come and in His perfect obedience Jesus would undo that which Adam had done. Christ would restore what Adam had destroyed. Yet, it’s from this foreign theology of a Second Eve arising from the mistranslation of Gen. 3:15 that the Roman Catholic Church begins to elevate Mary.

So from step one Catholics move on to step 2. And that is, the Roman Catholic religion believes that Mary is the Mother of God. What Catholics mean by this is that Mary gave birth to God Himself. Their reasoning is that since Jesus Christ is God, Mary therefore, gave birth to God. By doing this they are painting Mary as someone powerful, someone so supernatural, someone greater than a mere human being. They cannot ever get it through their minds how a normal human being could ever give birth to Deity. So they make Mary out to be someone beyond a normal human.

Now Protestants, as well as myself, agree that Mary is the mother of God, but only in the sense that she gave birth to that which was fathered by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told that she would be with child through the agency of the Holy Spirit. On her own Mary could not give birth to the God-Man Jesus. And it is in this way that the conception of Jesus Christ is supernatural because it was caused by God, wherein the pre-existent Christ was made in the likeness of Man. That which is God is fathered by the spirit of God. That which is human is given its human nature from Mary. This holy creation is of God, NOT Mary. Mary in no way had any part in giving Jesus His God nature. Christ’s divine nature was given by God through the agency of the Spirit of God.  The only thing Mary gave birth to was Christ’s human nature.

The hypostatic union of Jesus Christ’s divine and human nature was fashioned by God alone. Mary was merely chosen as a humble vessel to give to Jesus His human nature. Christ’s conception and birth was something unique which was made possible by God alone. God did not need Mary’s womb to accomplish this unique creation, yet God so ordained it in order to display the humility of Jesus Christ. I would ask Catholics, since when is the human instrument of the miracle to receive greater adoration than the miracle itself? Therefore, it’s false and an error to conclude that Mary has supernatural status because she somehow gave birth to God.

And it’s from this false conclusion that Catholics are forced to move to the next step to Godhood. They say that “how could Mary possibly give birth to God?” “How could she possibly be the mother of God if she were a normal human being?” Thus, Catholics arrive to the third step, and this is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was born without sin, and thus, she never had sin nor committed any sin whatsoever because she was conceived without sin herself. Starting from the wrong premise of step 2, Catholics deduce that if Mary is going to be mother of God Himself, then she cannot have sin herself. Otherwise, she would pass that sin along to Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, they conclude that because Jesus is without sin, Mary must have been without sin as well.

Catholics must realize that one is in danger if one speculates beyond what the Scriptures say. And that is exactly what they have done. We true Christians believe that Mary was indeed protected from passing along the sin nature from Adam because Scripture tells us that sin is passed along through the Man. The Father of the Lord Jesus Christ was not a man, but God the Holy Spirit. The woman does not pass along the sin nature to her offspring. The Man is responsible for passing along the sin nature because Scripture says that it was through Adam and Adam’s sin that death entered into the world. It was not through Eve. Yet, the Catholic’s belief goes beyond scripture, proclaiming that because Mary is the Mother of God she must not have sin, therefore, they invent the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, where they falsely view Mary as the Second Eve, which only serves to minimize the role of Adam and the Adamic nature.

From this false conclusion, Catholics move to the fourth step towards Godhood. And that is, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Historically, Catholic theologians believed that Mary must not have had any sexual relations whatsoever in order to keep her purity and supernatural status of her human nature intact. They argue that Mary could not have been involved in something as common as sex because that would mean that her devotion would be diverted away from Jesus Christ and to a mere man, to just a human. Such a devotion diverted away from Christ could never be from one who is devoted perfectly to Christ and God. Thus, they deny that Mary had sexual relations with her own husband, not just prior to Jesus’s conception and birth, but after as well.

Now, because Mary has this special relation with God it leads to the fifth step to Godhood, and that is, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Catholic theologians are split as to whether Mary actually died or went up alive into Heaven, just as our Lord Jesus Christ was raised up into Heaven. Because of this uncertainty some Catholic theologians just say that she became “dormant”, that is, her body did not undergo decay at all and was taken up in Heaven.

Let’s look back at the steps we’ve gone through so far before we go to the sixth step of Godhood. First, Mary is mistakenly viewed in Gen. 3:15 as the one who will crush the serpent’s head. Second, Mary is proclaimed as the Mother of God. Third, she was immaculately conceived, and thus, never had sin in her and never committed a sin in her life. Fourth, she was a perpetual virgin, and thus, she gave constant devotion to Christ and God. Fifth, Mary is assumed into Heaven in a perfect state, being without sin and perfectly devoted to God.

Thus, we enter the sixth step of Godhood, and that is, Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. Catholics argue that because Mary was set apart to live this perfect life, then surely, all graces must come through her. People in Catholicism are taught that: If there is anything they need, then they should ask Mary because Jesus always says yes to His mother. They are told to go through Mary if they need anything from Jesus.

From this Mary is then elevated to the seventh step, and that is, Mary is Co-Redemptrix of the Universe. Mary is put on a level on par with Jesus Christ. In terms of salvation, Catholics argue blasphemously that without Mary Jesus could not have been born, without her faithfulness on Earth as a sinless person perfectly devoted to God she would not have set the example for mankind.

And now that Jesus is pleased with her, He elevates her to a state wherein we can go to her for forgiveness of sin, looking to her in her co-redemptive activities, and thus, step 8, she is elevated as the “Queen of Heaven” in Roman Catholic theology.

Now as true believers in Jesus Christ, we do not accept any of these steps as biblical. In fact, they are not only unbiblical, but down right blasphemous. We do not want to give any devotion whatsoever to this imaginary Mary that the Catholics have invented, since it’s an insult to the real Mary, who is blessed among all women. All our devotion should go to our Lord Jesus Christ alone. All our worship should go to God through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything we have is to Christ Jesus alone and His finished work. And if we dare to take one iota of devotion and worship away from God, then we have denied Christ’s Godhood and the sufficiency of His death on the Cross, by introducing a false gospel and a foreign element found in Marian theology, or Mariolatry as we like to call it.