Mariolatry (Pt. 9) Refuting Catholic Arguments for Mary as Mediatrix

Refuting Rome’s Biblical arguments for Mary as Mediatrix

Luke 2:34-35

In order to make the case that Mary suffered at the base of the Cross in a saving manner regarding redemption, Catholics bring up Luke 2:34-35 which reads:

Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Remarking on this passage, Catholics writer Alessandro Apollonio asserts:

“The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (cf. Lk 2:22-40) further clarifies the bases of this mediation: not only Mary’s vocation as Mother of God, but her role as Co-redemptrix in the Realization of the redemptive sacrifice which secures the ‘salvation of his people’” (Allessandro M. Apollonio, Mary Mediatrix of all Graces, ed. Mark I. Miravalle, Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacans, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, [Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008], p. 434 italics mine)

Yet the fact that Simeon prophesied that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul at her Son’s death is supposed evidence for Romanists in that she had in some manner a restoring gift of supernatural life to souls and that her faith, obedience, and hope somehow made this happen. Anyone that reads Luke 2:34-35 would never come up with that sort of bizarre and shockingly bad interpretation from the passage. It’s true, Mary suffered when she saw her Son nailed on the Cross, like any mother would suffer after seeing her son being slaughtered on a wooden cross in such a humiliating death. It’s true, Mary would be ached at the heart, yet to interpret from this text that she would also have a part in the gift of salvation, the office of salvation, etc., is entirely ridiculous.

John 19:26-27

Roman Catholic Scholar Ludwigg Ott claims that since Mary is supposedly the spiritual mother of all believers as stated in John 19:26-27 then consequently she helps and mediates in heaven for believers. Supposedly this is biblical evidence for Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate, quote:

“It [John 19:26-27] corresponds to the position of Mary as spiritual mother of the whole of redeemed humanity that she, by her powerful intercession, should procure for her children in needs of help all graces by which they can attain eternal salvation” (Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [TAN Books and Publishers, 1960], p. 214 brackets mine)

The passage being discussed reads:

 “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ 27 Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19:26-27)

Catholics erroneously deduce from this that Jesus was identifying Mary as Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, Mediatrix, giving her a saving office, and giving her the task of granting us eternal life. Nothing comes close to how bizarre and ridiculous this is. Anyone reading the passage would never come to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is Jesus entrusted the care of Mary His mother to the Christian community surrounding Him at the Cross. The fact of the matter is He required His followers to treat Mary in the same manner He would have treated Mary His mother after His death. No connection exists whatsoever to the strange Roman Catholic claims about Mary based upon these two texts (Luke 2:34-35; John 19:26-27)

The passage refers to John the beloved disciple, not the human race. Second, as D.A. Carson states, the words are:

“reminiscent of legal adoption formulae” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, ed. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991], p. 616)

Which shows that Jesus was leaving Mary in the care of John by which John would provide for her. Not all of mankind is adopted by John, and therefore, not all of mankind is Mary’s metaphorical child. The context is merely concerned with John being tasked to watch over Mary when Jesus ascended. Third, it’s crucial to point out that verse 27 states, “from that hour that disciple took her to his own home”, which confirms the outcome of Jesus’s words was that John cared for Mary. Hence Catholics are completely backwards when they emphasize Mary caring John or the Church. As Carson states:

“Roman Catholic exegesis has tended not so much to see Mary coming under the care of the beloved disciple, as the reverse.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, ed. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991], p. 617)

As a matter of fact, this passage actually calls into question the Catholic’s view. As A.W. Pink commented:

“We surely need no stronger proof here than we have here, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was never meant to be honored as Divine, or to be prayed to, Worshipped and trusted in, as the friend and patroness of sinners. Common sense points out that she who needed the care and protection of another, was never likely to help men and women to heaven, or to be in any sense a mediator between God and man!” (A.W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, [Zondervan, 1975], p. 1056)

Rev. 5:8

Rome frequently brings up Rev. 5:8 and 8:3-4, both of which say the same thing, as alleged evidence for saints being prayed to, as well as them presenting these prayers to God. The passage says:

“Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Rev. 5:8; cf. 8:3-4)

Catholic writers Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch argue from this text, saying:

“The saints in heaven mediate the praises and petitions of the saints on earth (8:3)” (Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, [Ignatius Press, 2010], p. 499)

The Catholics are at fault in twisting this passage. The body of facts indicate that these 24 elders do not have prayers because they were prayed to as Catholic authors propose, rather they have prayers which people offer to God alone and they symbolically bring them to God.

The twenty-four elders clothed in white raiment are representative of the church according to most Bible scholars. The fact that they are in white robes in Rev. 4:4 is the church is to be clothed in white robes, the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (Rev. 7:9,13-14). They also have golden crowns on their heads representing the various crowns that believers will receive (1 Cor. 9:24,25; 1 Thess. 2:19, 20 & Dan 12:3; James 1:12 & Rev. 2:8-11; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Since they have white robes and crowns of victory, this implies a conflict and endurance that we as believers go through. In Rev. 5:9 these 24 “Elders” sing a song of praise in which they say Christ has “redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation”, meaning that these 24 Elders represent the whole church of God, both in the Old-Testament and in the New-Testament state; not the ministers of the church, but rather the representatives of the people. So in Rev 15:3, "the song of Moses, and of the Lamb," the double constituents of the Church are implied, the Old Testament and the New Testament. "Elders" is the very term for the ministry both of the Old and New Testament, the Jewish and Gentile Church. Most likely these “Elders” are the 24 Patriarchs in the line of the promised seed of Abraham found in Genesis, but it’s not certain.

Now in Rev. 5:8, the 24 Elders present before the Lamb of God golden bowls full of incense, which symbolically represent the prayers of the saints. However, they are not interceding for the saints, functioning as mediators for God's people. First, we are reminded that there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). These elders are not praying for the saints, and this in no wise justifies the Roman Catholic practice of praying to the saints, asking them to pray for us. Second, the connection between prayer and incense is shown in Psalm 141:2, “Let my prayer be set before You as incense, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.”

In this we see how precious the prayers of the saints are to God. He regards them as a sweet smelling incense, as if set in precious golden bowls. Third, when comparing Rev. 5:8 with the other references to petitionary prayers of the saints found in Rev. 6:10; 8:3-4, we come to understand that the prayers of the saints are directed towards God Himself, and NOT to some supposed mediating saints. In Rev. 6:10, the contents of the prayers of the saints are one of justice for their martyrdom in which they ask God to avenge them.

“And they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’”

In Rev. 8:3-4, these same prayers are symbolically represented as the incense inside the golden censers being offered on the golden altar. As the smoke of the incense ascend to God, this symbolically represents the prayers of the saints ascending to God. These prayers, which are directed to God, and NOT the alleged mediating saints, are then answered through the judgments of the seven trumpets. Hence, when one reads Rev. 5:8 in relation to Rev. 6:10; 8:3-4, we find that there is no contextual nor exegetical grounds in this verse for Catholics to claim that believers can offer their prayers to mediating saints.

Luke 9:21

Tim Staples adduces Luke 9:21-31 as supposed proof that Jesus prayed to the dead during His Earthly ministry. He erroneously argues:

“Our Lord ascends a mountain with Peter, James, and John. There, He is transfigured before them, and Moses and Elijah appeared and ‘talked with him’ about his death (cf. Luke 9:30)….At His transfiguration, Jesus prays to the saints. And aren’t Christians supposed to imitate Christ?” (Tim Staples, Nuts and Bolts, [Basilica Press, 2007], p. 60)

However, what Deut. 18:11 forbids biblically is that MAN must not pray to the dead, not that the transfigured God-Man Jesus could not talk with Elijah and Moses if they appeared on Earth at the time of His First Coming. There is a significant difference. Jesus never beseeches nor seeks help from Moses, Elijah, or any of the saints in Heaven during His Earthly ministry as He evidently does so many times when referring to His Father. Furthermore, James Whites correctly reasons:

“Are we seriously to believe that the unique, one-of-a-kind event of the Transfiguration itself is a meaningful foundation for communication with those who have passed from this life? Do I really need to point out that there is actually no example of communication the apostles and Moses and Elijah, that it is limited to Jesus, and hence would not, even if it was pressed far out of its meaningful context, support such a concept?” (James White, A Brief Comment on the “Communion of Saints” and Catholic Blogger “Devman”)

Jesus and Lucifer, how are they both called a "morning star"?

Let me begin by explaining how and why Satan is called "Lucifer".

Now as for the name” Lucifer”. The Old Testament Hebrew says Heylel “הֵילֵל”, which can mean “shining one”, but also means “boastful one” since this word comes from the root word “halel” הָלַל, which means to shine, to make a show, to boast, and thus, be foolish.
And judging by the boastful rant that this “shining one” gives in Is. 14:13-14, it’s no wonder why he’s a “boastful one”. Now the Greek Septuagint translates 'Heylel' to Heosphoros ἑωσφόρος, meaning 'bringer of dawn'. Heosphoros is a variant name of Eosphorus (Greek Ἐωσφόρος, "bearer of dawn"), which in turn comes from Phosphorus (Ancient Greek: Φωσφόρος, "bearer of light"). Both these names are said to be the personification of the “Morning Star” in Greek Mythology. This is NOT to say that these names are from Greek Mythology, but merely that these names are considered the personification of the “Morning Star”. Both Heosphoros and Lucifer are proper names within the Greek and Latin language. Because Heosphoros is a name, the Latin Vulgate translated it to “Lucifer”, meaning “shining one, morning star, bringer of light”. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to view Lucifer or “Shining one” as a name.

Now, “Morning Star” is also a divine title given to Jesus Christ in 2 Pet. 1:19 “φωσφόρος” (Phosphoros-morning star), and in Rev. 22:16 “ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός” (Bright and Morning Star). Lucifer (Greek Heosphoros-morning star, Hebrew Heylel- shining one), the son of the morning, was meant to be a type of Christ (just as all Christians are to imitate Christ), but failed because of his pride.  Now, the real issue is the meaning behind Heylel and Heosphoros. Both of which refer to the morning star, especially with it’s complimentary line “son of the morning”. The phrase that’s used to describe Jesus as morning star is completely different from the phrase that’s used to describe Satan as a morning star. And yet because these different phrases mean the same thing, this is why Lucifer was a type of Christ. Much like when Scripture says “sons of  God” and “Son of God”, “spirit” and “Spirit”, “son of man” and “Son of Man”, “morning stars” and “Bright and Morning Star”. One is referring to angels or men, while the other is a divine title reserved only to God. This is why Jesus is the true Day Star.

If you're still confused over why Jesus and Lucifer are both called "morning star", then let me explain further: The angels of God are called sons of God because they are created spirit beings meant to serve God. We Christians are called sons and daughters of God because we are sinners adopted into God’s Family through the Redemption found in Christ Jesus. Yet, there is only one true Son of God, Jesus Christ, because only he is the Eternal Son who eternally proceeds from the Father, meaning only Jesus came directly from the Father, uncreated and eternally existing with Him from all Eternity. It’s the same then when talking about “morning star”. Lucifer is referred as a “morning star” in Isaiah 14:12. And even all the angels of God are referred to “morning stars” in Job 38:7. And yet, just like there is only one morning star (Venus) in the night sky, so there is only one true Morning Star, Jesus Christ. While Lucifer and the angels of God are referred as “morning star(s)” in the sense that they are spirits of light reflecting the glory of God, Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star in the sense that He is the source of eternal Light and Life, for only He is the very Glory of God. Plus, when Lucifer is referred as “morning star” the Greek word that is used is “heōsphoros” (ἑωσφόρος), which means “dawn-bringer” referring to the morning star. However, when Jesus is referred to as the “Morning Star”, Rev. 22:16 has a far different Greek phrase used to describe Him, and that is “ho astēr ho lampros kai orthrinos”(ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός). The Bright and Morning Star! Literally, the Star of the Bright and Morning (a descriptive phrase always only referring to Venus, the morning star). Hence, Jesus and Lucifer is not the same “morning star”, they are totally different from each other.

Let me show you the differences between Satan and Jesus by first looking at their titles each one has, and then revealing their meaning, and finally how they were translated down through time. Let’s start with Satan in Is. 14: 21 “O Lucifer” (KJV)  Hebrew “heylel” (הֵילֵל) = shining one, boastful one Hebrew was translated into Greek as: Greek “heosphoros” (ἑωσφόρος) = bringer of dawn, personification of morning star Greek was translated into Latin as: Latin “lucifer” = shining one, morning star, bringer of light Latin was translated to English as: English “Lucifer” (KJV) Greek and Hebrew was translated to English as: English “Day Star” (ESV), “morning star” (NIV), “star of the morning” (NASB), “shining one” (NET) Now let’s look at Jesus in 2 Pet. 1:19 “morning star” Greek “phōsphoros” (φωσφόρος” = bearer of light, personification of morning star Greek was translated into English as: English “day star” (KJV), “morning star” (NKJV) And the Greek phrase “astēr o lampros kai orthrinos” (ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός) in Rev. 22:16 was translated as "the Bright and Morning Star" Notice that in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) both Satan and Jesus have very different titles. However, because of the very similar meanings of these titles, English translations have sometimes used the same words to describe both Satan and Jesus as “morning star”. For example, notice how “heosphoros” (Satan) and “phosphoros” (Jesus) are both personifications of the morning star. Yet, “heosphoros” is the bringer of dawn, while “phosphoros” is the bearer of light. Simply put, Jesus the Bearer or Source of light is superior to Lucifer who merely brings the light. Just as the angels (i.e. messengers) bring the commands and decrees of God, so Satan was once the Bringer of the light of God. But Satan was never the Bearer or Source of the light of God. Keep in mind that angels merely reflect the light of God, while Jesus Himself is the Light.  Think of it like this: Jesus is the Sun who shines on the world during the day, while the angels are the Moon reflecting/bringing the light of the Sun during the night. That is what Lucifer used to be, but not anymore.