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”)

Mariolatry (Pt. 7) Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces?

Is Mary really the Mediatrix of all Graces?

NO!

Biblical Evidence against Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces

First, let’s start with the Biblical evidence against Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces.

Because the average life-expectancy of the 1^st century society in relation to the New Testament was probably around 20-25 years, it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that Mary died before most of the later New Testament books were written. With this in mind, it’s fascinating to observe that when these New Testament books talk about the subject of the application of heavenly Grace, they invariably declare that it comes from God, never Mary. For instance, Scholars date the Book of Revelation after 66 A.D. In fact, most of these later New Testament books are around 90 to 95 A.D. Now, if Rome is correct that Mary should have been applying grace to all men around this time, the fact remains that Revelation 1:4 states that grace is given by God, not Mary.

“Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1:4)

Furthermore, the Second letter of John was at some point written after 80 A.D. And this Epistle also attests to the fact that Grace comes from God the Father and Jesus Christ, not Mary.

“Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” (2 John 1:3)

Moreover, Scripture says that there is only One Mediator.

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5)

Catholics will object to this, saying that just because the verse says “One Mediator”, doesn’t mean that no one else can participate in the mediation. So there are lesser mediators such as Mary and the saints participating in mediation.

Well let’s allow this logic and apply it not just to the “One Mediator”, but to the “One God”. By the Catholics logic, we can say that just because there’s “One God”, doesn’t mean that no one else can participate in Deity.  Therefore, there are lesser gods participating in God’s deity.

You see how the Catholic’s logic fails. Scripture plainly and emphatically tells us that there is only one true God (Deut. 4:39; 6:4) And Scripture plainly and emphatically tells us there is only one true Mediator, and there is no other.

Similarly, Acts 4:12 declares, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” There is only one name and there is only one Mediator, and that is Jesus Christ. Yet, the Catholic Church blasphemously proposes another mediator.

One must understand that the reason why Jesus is our only Mediator is because He has a basis upon which to mediate, and that basis for mediation is that He shed His blood on our behalf. Thus, when Jesus mediates for us He has a basis upon which He intercedes for us, and that is what He did on the Cross. Jesus Christ is our only Mediator because He alone died and made restitution for our sins. He died as our perfect substitute. He bore our sins in His body upon the tree. Mary and the saints have absolutely no basis upon which to mediate. Mary did not bear my sins in her body. And even the Catholics admit that everything that Mary and the saints have they have from Christ. Therefore, since they cannot be mediators in the sense that Christ is, they cannot participate in Christ’s one mediation, and thus, they cannot mediate for us.

Hence, Mary is NOT the Mediatrix of all Graces.

As a further matter, in order for Mary to be capable of applying grace to billions of believers across the world at the same time, without interruption until the end of the world, as Vatican II claimed, she would need to be capable of being in various places simultaneously. Only an omnipresent being can be present everywhere at the same time. Yet, only God has the divine attribute of Omnipresence (1 King 8:27). Mary would also have to know who to give grace to, which means that she would have to be omniscient. Yet, only God has the divine attribute of Omniscience as well (1 John 3:20). Mary would also need to be powerful enough to apply grace to all believers across the earth simultaneously. And yet, only God has the divine attribute of Omnipotence (Job 42:2).

By declaring Mary as the Mediatrix of all Graces, Catholics end up ascribing to Mary divine attributes that God alone possesses and that serves to glorify God alone.

It should also be noted that in Catholic theology there is this principle idea that Mary is close to Jesus because she’s the ark, the vessel that gave birth to Him. It’s because of this concept that Catholics are taught to pray to Mary because she can speak to Christ for us, since she is His mother, and thus, is closer to Him than we are. This Catholic notion is completely false because Jesus Himself said in Matt. 12:48-50 that those who do the will of the Father are His brother, sister, and mother to Him. Therefore, Mary is no closer to Jesus than we are by the Blood shed for us on the Cross.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matt. 11:28, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

And the Apostle Paul teaches us in Heb. 7:25 that Jesus “is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them”

And in Rom. 10:13 we are taught that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”

Hence, Scripture teaches us that we can go directly to Jesus Christ since He is our ONE and ONLY Mediator. This is the very reason why Jesus came into this world, to save all of us from our sins and give us Eternal Life through Him alone. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Scripture that talk of a Co-Mediatrix of all Graces with Jesus. There are no two mediators. Just ONE! And there is no need for another mediator. Scripture clearly does NOT teach nor has it EVER taught that we somehow need to come to the Father through Jesus via Mary.

Historical Evidence against Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces

Now, we look at the historical evidence that Mary is NOT the Mediatrix of all Graces.

In analyzing the disciples of the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, we find no indication that they thought Mary applies all graces to humanity from heaven. It’s the same situation when we look at the 2^nd century apologists as well as later generations of Church Fathers. According the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholocism, this doctrine is first found in the “late medieval era”. Catholic Scholar Ludwig Ott acknowledges that “Express testimonies, though few in number, to Mary’s position as mediatrix of grace are found since the eighth century” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 214).

As stated by Ott, it’s not until about 700 years after Christ’s death that people begin to assert that Mary is mediatrix of all graces. Even the Patristic Scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, agrees that “centuries had to elapse before the doctrines of...her position as intercessor and mediator...could become elements in the day-to-day faith of Catholic Christians” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 499).

Not only did none of the Patristic Fathers bear witness to this doctrine, proving that the Apostles never passed on this teaching to the Church for all to believe in, but many Patristic Fathers have testified to holding beliefs contrary to this teaching. These Fathers clearly taught that it’s God that gives grace to men, not Mary.

For instance, Clement of Alexandria stated, “For it were truly monstrous that that which is not complete should be called a gift (or act) of God’s grace. Being perfect, He consequently bestows perfect gifts.As at his command all things were made, so on His bare wishing to bestow grace, ensures the perfecting of His grace” (The Paedagogus, Book I, 6).

Likewise, John Chrysostum said, “For the whole is of God who wills to bestow upon many, so that the grace may appear the greater” (Homily 9 on 2 Corinthians)

Moreover, Jerome declared, “It Has been established that the Lord, by the same grace wherewith He bestowed upon us free choice, assists and supports us in our individual actions” (Against the Pelagians, Book III, 6)

In John’s Gospel Chapter 17 our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3). This statement sums up everything we need to know for our eternal salvation and eternal life. To know our Lord Jesus Christ is to know the only true God. Hence, there is no need of Mary for eternal life since our Lord Jesus himself never mentions her anywhere in Scripture concerning eternal life.

Discussing on the medieval Roman misuse of Luke 1:28 in order to support this false doctrine, Church Historian, Alister Mcgrath, said it was disproven by the Catholic Scholar Erasmus saying, “According to the Vulgate, the angel Gabriel greeted Mary as ‘the one who is full of grace’ (gratia plena) (Luke 1:28), thus suggesting the image of a reservoir full of grace, which could be drawn upon at a time of need. But as Erasmus pointed out, the Greek simply meant ‘favored one,’ or ‘one who has found favor’. Mary was one who had found God’s favor, not necessarily one who could bestow it on others. Once more, an important feature of medieval theology seemed to be contradicted by humanist New Testament scholarship” (Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, p. 97)