MARY in Roman Catholicism

“My fear is that, just as the serpent seduced Eve

by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted

and you may fall away from your sincere

and complete devotion to Christ”

2nd Corinthians 11:3

We begin this section of essays with this very important warning from Paul. It is very telling; it should be kept in mind while reading through all the essays that follow and it should be kept in mind when reading anything about Mary, whether from Catholic sources or not. Mary was a very special person, the Lord blessed her with the blessing that Jewish women through the centuries could only hope for, that the Messiah be born of them. We should all look forward to meeting Mary in heaven where we could spend centuries asking her what it was like to raise God in the flesh from infancy to manhood. We are not to let false teachings about Mary reflect negatively upon her. All generations shall call her blessed.

The Roman Catholic Church defines dogma as “A truth revealed by God and, therefore, an article of faith. It is thus proposed by the Church to be believed by all Catholics.”[1] In these articles we will explore certain issues regarding Marian dogmas. We will compare Roman Catholic dogmas to the Word of God. As always, we are not interested in attacking persons but in correcting false doctrine. We got our information on Roman Catholic dogma about Mary from the horse’s mouth. We will provide many quote from official Catholic writings in order to give a fair representation of Catholic teachings. The Bibles we will consult are approved for Roman Catholic use. The assumption we work under is that traditions or dogmas, in and of themselves are not problematic; the problem comes when traditions or dogmas contradict the Word of God.
We will begin each section with a brief generalized summary called At a glance, the rest of the article is an explanation of the summary.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”
Colossians 2:8

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

Everything the Bible
Says About Mary

At a glance: Reading everything that the Bible has to say about Mary it is very clear why the Roman Catholic Church must combine Scripture, plus tradition, plus apparition messages. Because taking into consideration everything that the Bible does say about Mary it is utterly impossible to even imagine a Mary who is immaculately conceived, sinless, co-redeemer, assumed into heaven and crowned queen of heaven, intercessor, our mother, etc., etc.

Matthew
1:16-21
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

2:11
when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

12:46-50
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “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.”

13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?

Mark
6:3
Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?”

3:31-35
Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Luke
1:26-46, 56
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house.

2:4-7
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

2:33-35
And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. 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 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

2:41-52
His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

8:19-21
Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

John
2:1-8, 12
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.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it”…After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

6:41
The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

19:25-27
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Acts
1:12-14
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

The way in which Catholicism finds Mary in many other passages of Scripture is by utilizing mystical symbolism, reinterpretation, semantics and loopholes.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

A Review of Marian Dogma
and Apparition Chronology

At a glance: Apparitions of a being claiming to be Mary are a fairly recent matter. Contrary to popular Catholic belief and teaching, these apparitions have taught very un-Biblical teachings.

For the most part Catholic dogmas are claimed to be the original teachings of the Apostles and therefore, are assumed to be authentic. Catholic apologists often point out that traces of certain beliefs that are not found in the Bible nevertheless date back to at least a few centuries after Christ. However, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explains, “It is no exaggeration that the hundred years from 1854 to the close of the Second Vatican Council were the most prolific in doctrinal development in Mariology. Nothing like it was seen in any comparable period of Catholic history.”[1]

Some of the Chronology:
The Hail Mary “is the result of a gradual development from the sixth century to the sixteenth, when the present wording was adopted.”[2]
The Rosary came into being in 1208 by an apparition.
The Brown Scapular of the Carmelites came into being in 1246 by an apparition.
The Church and all of mankind was consecrated to Mary by Pope Pius XII on 10-31-1942.[3]
The apparition at Tepeyac, Mexico, Our Lady of Guadalupe, occurred around 1531 (the earliest narration of this event dates from 1649).
The Council of Trent declared that Mary was sinless throughout her whole life in 1547.
The apparition at La Salette-France occurred in 1846.
Pope Pius IX infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception on 12-8-1854.
An apparition proclaimed “I am the Immaculate Conception” on 2-11-1858 to 7-16-1858 at Lourdes, France.
The apparition at Fatima, Our Lady of Fatima, occurred in 1917.
The apparition at Amsterdam, Our Lady of All Nations, occurred from 1945 to 1959
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven on 11-1-1950.

Fr. Hardon wrote that at “Lourdes, where ‘miraculous favors were granted them, which excited the admiration of all and confirmed the Catholic religion as the only one given approval by God.’”[4]
Are we to ignore history, Scripture and reason in order to believe that the Catholic religion is the only one given approval by God because of a miracle? No, in fact, Jesus explained that we have the Bible and if we will not believe that, then we would not believe even if an astounding miracle such as someone being raised from the dead occurred (see Luke 16:31).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; renowned theologian, Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office), which is the most important Vatican curial office, charged with the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy stated, “the Pope proceeded to reconsecrate the world (with a particular mention of Eastern Europe) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, precisely in accordance with the exhortation of the Virgin of Fatima, and the same John Paul II, wounded by his would-be assassin, on May 13 – anniversary of the first apparition in the Portugese locality – went to Fatima in order to thank Mary, ‘whose hand (he said) had miraculously guided the bullet…it is well known that for years, now, a village in Yugoslavia, Medjugorje, is at the center of world attention because of reported ‘apparitions’ which – whether true or not – have already drawn millions of pilgrims. But they have also provoked deplorable conflicts between the Fransiscans who govern the parish and the bishop of the local diocese…The apparitions that the Church has officially approved – especially Lourdes and Fatima – have their precise place in the development of the life of the Church in the last century.”[5]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine wrote, “There are other sacred places or spaces, too, which are characteristically Catholic. They are the numerous shrines in different parts of the world, where it is believed that God bestows special favors on those who come to pray there. Lourdes in France, Fatima in Portugal, Montserrat in Spain, Assisi in Italy, St. Anne de Beaupre in Canada, the Martyrs’ Shrine in the United States and Canada, Guadalupe in Mexico, Knock in Ireland, Banneux in Belgium, Czestochowa in Poland, and the holy places in Palestine are only some of the best known.”[6]
Note carefully that Jesus was specifically asked regarding the most advantageous place on Earth to pray and gain spiritual blessings, “The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth’” (John 4:19-24).
The answer is clear physical, geographical location is utterly irrelevant it is the state of the heart that is important.

As we have shown throughout the articles under Mary in Roman Catholicism it is commonly claimed that while we do not find these Marian dogmas in the Bible, or while we at best find hints, Catholics have believed these things from a few centuries after Christ. One thing to consider is that someone could have made a mistake a long time ago, however chronology does not correct the error. In fact building on errors could be detrimental to proper theology. And we find that even while Jesus was still alive, people were already falling into error (John 21:20-25). Another important thing to consider is that even 100 years is a long time because “It is thought she [Mary] died in Jerusalem c. A.D. 48.”[7] And so if we trace Marian dogmas back to 200 or 500 years after Christ we are dealing with a great deal of time. To put this into perspective consider that the United Sates of America has been a country just over two centuries. Keep in mind that in just over two centuries America has become a world power, and that in just over two centuries we have experienced wars, and vast technological advances.
The skeptic might state, The same thing applies to Jesus then, after all many doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ were invented by church councils centuries after Jesus’ death.
The difference is that we can look into the Bible and find clear teachings regarding the Trinity and the deity of Jesus (although the word Trinity is not there, the concept is). Sad to say that in their zeal in favor of Marian dogma some Catholic apologists have actually claimed that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible either.

Feast of Mary: “A day set aside to commemorate some title or event in the life of the Blessed Virgin. Some of these feasts are of regional nature, others are universal.”[8] Those observed in the USA are listed as: Jan. 15, Feb. 2, Feb. 11, Mar. 25, May 31, July 2, July 16, Aug. 5, Aug. 15, Aug. 22, Sept. 8, Sept. 12, Sept. 15, Sept. 24, Oct. 7, Oct. 11, Nov. 21, Dec 8, Dec. 12.
“Three years after defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII called on the Catholic world to join in the observance of a Marian Year.” [9]
Month of Mary: “The month of May which is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. Processions and special devotions take place in this period.”[10]
And so we see that within Catholicism you could count on having your attention deviated from Jesus at lest once a month by a feast for Mary. Also note that not attending these Feast Days or Holy Days of Obligation is a mortal sin (one which causes eternal damnation is not forgiven by confession to a priest).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p.155
[2] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 182
[3] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI —PART II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary quoting discourses and radio messages of Pius XII, volume IV, pp. 260-262; cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 34, 1942, pp. 345-346 and Apostolicae Sedis, 56, 1964, p. 1017
[4] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 157 & 160-161 quoting Pius XII, encyclical Fulgens Corona, 3-4.
[5] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; renowned theologian, Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office), which is the most important Vatican curial office, charged with the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy. With Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), pp. 110-111
[6] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. pp. 551-552
[7] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 358
[8] Albert J. Nevins, p. 358
[9] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 162
[10] Albert J. Nevins, p. 358

How Important is Mary?

At a glance: In this article we will present two extremes. One falls under the heading of Catholic Apologetic Theory, under this tile we place the more sober Catholic teaching, many of the quotes here are made in the context of Catholic-Protestant unity and are somewhat well balanced. However, the other extreme, Actual Practice, will show how the ideals are far from lived up to, and to just what extremes Marian Dogma is taken. We have included comments on some of the quotes.

Remember Paul’s warning in 2nd Corinthians 11:3. Here is the way in which three Vatican approved Bibles render the verse.[1]
The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes (Kleist-Lilly translation), “But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his cleverness, so your thoughts may be corrupted and fall from the single-minded devotion and purity you owe to Christ.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (trans. from the Latin Vulgate Challoner-Rhemis version), “But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his guile, so your minds may be corrupted and fall from a single devotion to Christ.”

The New American Bible, “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted from a sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ.”

Also it is very important to point out that the New Testament tells of two great opportunities that Jesus had to exalt his mother Mary, two chances in which He could have set us straight about her role in our lives. He could have taught all of the various dogmas of the Catholic Church regarding her, yet He did not. Rather, Jesus replaces His familial relations for spiritual ones.

“While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’ He replied to him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he 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’” (Matthew 12:46-50 also see Mark 3:31-34 & Luke 8:19-21).
Jesus is showing no disrespect, He is just doing what He came to do, He was showing us that the focus is to always remain on God and no one else.

“a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it’” (Luke 11:27-28).
Here is the best opportunity ever for Jesus to affirm His mother’s role as the mother of the church, as intercessor, as Queen of Heaven. But rather, Jesus places the focus right where it belongs, on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, consider that the Book of Revelation reveals more about heaven than any other. We learn of God’s throne and the sea of glass, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders, the angels and horsemen, the Lamb and the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the menorahs and the bowls of incense, the seven spirits of God and the seven sealed scroll, etc., etc. If Mary was assumed into heaven, crowned as Queen of Heaven, sits at Jesus’ right hand, is our intercessor, co-redeemer and plays a part in the plan of salvation, why is she not mentioned in the book at all? Keep in mind that Revelation 12:1-6 has been dealt with in our articles Immaculately Conceived? , Assumed in to Heaven? and Coronation in Heaven?. She is not on a throne, she is not even a bystander, keep in mind that Mary is thought to have died in 48 AD and John wrote Revelation circa 90-95 AD and writes of many future events. Granted that neither Enoch nor Elijah appear in the book either, however, theoretically they are not as exalted as Mary who would be expected to play a very dominant role in Revelation.

Catholic Apologetic Theory:
“Fr. Francis Martin once observed that anyone who confuses the roles of Mary and Jesus does not have a problem with their ‘Mariology’; their problem is that they have never really met Jesus Christ. Those who really know the life and power of Jesus will never be tempted or able to confuse Jesus’ role with that of Mary.”[2]
The problem is that one does not get to know Jesus very well when they are preoccupied with Mary and the many saints of Roman Catholicism.

Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, “It is not that Mary is more than Jesus, or even equal to Him—that would be intolerable heresy. But it is that, in order to bless Jesus more perfectly, we must begin by blessing Mary. If we praise or glorify her, she immediately praises and glorifies Jesus. (True Devotion, 95, 148.)”[3]

Again Rev. Beiting, “If we establish solid devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is only to establish more perfectly devotion to Jesus Christ, and to provide an easy and secure means for finding Jesus Christ. (True Devotion, 62)”[4]

Pope Paul VI wrote, “Christ is the only way to the Father, and the ultimate example to whom the disciple must conform his own conduct, to the extent of sharing Christ’s sentiments, living his life and possessing his Spirit. The Church has always taught this and nothing is pastoral activity should obscure this doctrine. But the Church, taught by the Holy Spirit and benefiting from centuries of experience, recognizes that devotion to the Blessed Virgin, subordinated to worship of the divine Savior and in connection with it, also has a great pastoral effectiveness and constitutes a force for renewing Christian living.”[5]

“The Second Vatican Council urged that theologians and preachers of the Catholic Church to avoid these extremes: This Synod earnestly exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word that is treating of the unique dignity of the Mother of God, they carefully and equally avoid the falsity of exaggeration on the one hand, and the excess of narrow-mindedness on the other…Pursuing the study of the sacred scripture, the holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgies of the church, and under the guidance of the church’s teaching authority, let them rightly explain the officers [roles] and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which are always related to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity, and piety.”[6]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “the Council warned Catholics to be on their guard not to muddy the issue by falling into either of two extremes: undercutting their marian piety and thus hindering the Eastern Churches from communion with Rome, or imprudently urging devotion to Mary beyond the limits of sound teaching and so compromising the Church before Protestants.”[7]

Again Fr. Hardon, “In order to appreciate the significance of the Vatican’s Mariology, we must see in it the framework of what is happening in the Protestant and Orthodox world. One of the less-known aspects of ecumenism, the Church’s teaching about Mary, is actually the keystone of the world movement for Christian unity.”[8]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. Pior General of the Carmelite Order, “Let us not conclude, however, that the scapular is endowed with some kind of supernatural power which will save us no matter what we do or how much we sin. We might apply here what St. Alphonsus says about devotion to Mary in general: ‘When we declare that it is impossible for a servant of Mary to be lost, we do not mean those who by their devotion to Mary think themselves warranted to sin freely. We state that these reckless people, because of their presumption, deserve to be treated with rigor and not with kindness. We speak here of the servants of Mary who, to the fidelity with which they honor and invoke her, join the desire to amend their lives. I hold it morally impossible that these be lost. A perverse, sinful will can defeat the ‘suppliant omnipotence’ of the Mother of mercy.”[9]

Pope Pius XII wrote, “obtaining of eternal life itself, which is the substance of that promise of the Most Blessed Virgin which has been handed down to us…For the holy Scapular…is a sign and a pledge of the protection of the Mother of God. But not for this reason, however, may they who wear the Scapular think that they can gain eternal salvation while remaining slothful and negligent of spirit, for the Apostle warns us: ‘In fear and trembling shall you work out your salvation’ (Phil. 2:12).”[10]

Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology, “Catholics believe that there is a ‘hierarchy’ or order of Christian truths. In other words, not all Christian truths are equally central to the basic Gospel message. Official Catholic teaching has never considered beliefs about Mary as being equal in importance to truths about God—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Truths about Mary are all related to the basic Gospel message, though they are not the primary focus of the gospels.”[11]

Anthony Wilhelm, “Mary is God’s masterpiece. To honor her is to honor God who made her what she is.”[12]

John L. Stoddard attempts this apologetic, “The Catholic doctrine does not teach, but, on the contrary, forbids, any adoration of the Blessed Virgin. It states that to adore her, in the sense that God should be adored, would be idolatry, for adoration is for God alone. To love and reverence her, however, is both a duty and a privilege.”[13]
This Catholic, attempt to show just how much Protestants misunderstand Marian dogma attempts to play a word game and state that they do not worship Mary and they do not adore Mary but instead they revere Mary. He fails to note that in the Bible revere or reverence is used exclusively of God and so fails to fit in with Marian piety.
“He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend [some translate as awesome] is his name” (Psalm 111:9-10).

“‘…as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.’ Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence” (Joshua 5:13-15). God is the Lord of hosts and Jesus appears here as the Commander of hosts, or the Lord’s army.

“Their assistants also lorded it over the people. But out of reverence for God I did not act like that” (Nehemiah 5:15).

“But I, by your great mercy, will come into your house; in reverence will I bow down toward your holy temple. Lead me, O LORD, in your righteousness” (Psalm 5:7-8).
“Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:30 & Leviticus 26:2).
Here the Temple of God is revered but in reality it is because God dwelled therein.

“I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel’” (Daniel 6:26).

“As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up,’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself’” (Acts 10:25-26).
When Peter (the first Pope according to Catholicism) is revered he instantly rejects it, assuring the man that he too is a mere man.

“Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2nd Corinthians 7:1).

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).

“sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord” (Colossians 3:22).

“worship God acceptably with reverence and awe” (Hebrews 12:28).

Actual Practice:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #971 states, “‘All generations will call me blessed’: ‘The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.’”

St. Louis de Montfort, “Mary will be the only means used by our souls in dealing with God. (Secret of Mary, 47.)”[14]

St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote, “to honor this Queen of Angels is to obtain eternal life.”[15]

“Our Blessed Mother holds such a place in the economy of our salvation that some do not hesitate to state that devotion to her is a necessary condition of salvation. ‘They who are not thy servants, O Mary,’ says St. Albert the Great, ‘shall perish.’ St. Bonaventure repeats the same thought when he says: ‘They who neglect the service of Mary shall die in their sins.’ And again: ‘For them from whom Mary shall turns away her face there is not even hope of salvation.’ St. Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr of the second century, writes: ‘A sinner can be saved only through the holy Virgin who, by her merciful prayers, obtains salvation for so many who, according to strict justice, would be lost.’ If lack of devotion to her is a mark of eternal; reprobation, a constant love for her must be a sign of eternal salvation. Many spiritual writers state that devotion to Mary is a sign of predestination. St. Alphonsus Liguori says: ‘It is impossible that a servant of Mary be damned, provided he serves her faithfully and commends himself to her maternal protection.’ St. Anselm writes: ‘He who turns himself to thee and is regarded by thee cannot be lost.’ St. Antonine is of the same opinion. He says: ‘As it is impossible for them from whom Mary turns away her eyes of mercy to be saved, so it is necessary that they to whom she turns her eyes of mercy and for whom she intercedes to be saved and glorified.’”[16]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. Pior General of the Carmelite Order, “The one thing we should fear most is to forget to call her and to remind her of her promise to save us from hell.”[17]
If we are followers of Jesus, we will do as He did, we will call on the Father not Mary, “Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ When he had said this, he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46).

Again Most Rev. Lynch, “The constant, daily practice of wearing the scapular is therefore, an act of faithful homage to Our Lady but, as St. Alphonsus adds, the desire to amend one’s life is also necessary before we can be morally certain that she will be the cause of our eternal salvation. We should be careful not to place limits upon the mercy of her who is the refuge of sinners and the Mother of mercy. How few there are to whom she could say at the end of life: Well done, thou good and faithful servant! There are countless souls in heaven today who owe their imperishable crowns to the special intercession of Our Lady.”[18]
The Bible is clear about whom we owe our crowns to, “the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God’” (Revelation 4:10-11).

Pope Pius stated, “‘God alone excepted, she [Mary] is superior to all.’”[19]

Venerable Mary of Agreda has Jesus saying, “Just as I have told you that he who knows Me knows also My Father, so I now tell you that he who knows My Mother knows Me.”[20]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “Catholic Christology is unintelligible without knowing the role of Christ’s mother in the development of faith from the simple narrative of the Gospels to the elaborate Mariology of modern times.”[21]

“St. Claude adds: ‘It is not enough to say that the habit [scapular] of the Blessed Virgin is a mark of predestination. Because of the alliance which Mary contracts with us and which we enter into with her, no other devotion renders our salvation so certain.’”[22]

St. Louis de Montfort, “To act BY MARY means to be completely dependent on her…’ we must in all our actions, regard Mary as an accomplished model of every virtue and perfection. We must, therefore, in every action, consider how Mary has done it, or how she would have done it, had she been in our place.’ (True Devotion, 260.)”[23]
Apparently we are now to invent a new popular saying “W.W.M.D.—What Would Mary Do?”
In complete opposition to the sayings of men, Jesus said, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:15).

“All should devoutly venerate her [Mary] and commend their life and apostolate to her maternal care (Vatican Council II, Apostolate of the Laity 4). Let the entire body of the faithful pour forth instant supplications to the Mother of God and Mother of men (Vatican Council II, The Church 690).”[24]

“Pope John XXIII said…For each one of you, may this act of devotion to Mary be a pledge by which you oblige yourself to strive each day to live a life that will be more truly Christian, and more filled with the spirit of Mary (Nov. 13, 1960).”[25]
Being told to be filled with the spirit of Mary is why John wrote such warnings as, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1). What spirit are we to be filled with? “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18 & Acts 9:17).

Saint Joseph New American Catechism, “The Bishops of the United States remind our citizens that our country is under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ‘Since 1859 the United States has enjoyed a special relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary. In that year, at the request of the American Bishops, Pope Pius IX placed the country under the protection of the Immaculate Conception.’”[26]

Fr. Faber, “Mother of mercies, day by day my love for thee grows more and more…and oh, how can I love thy Son, sweet Mother, if I love not thee?”[27]

Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, “In the presence of all the heavenly court I choose thee this day for my Mother and Mistress. I deliver and consecrate to thee, as thy slave, my body and soul…[because we give our bodies to Mary] ‘We will accept all sickness and evil that befall it, and especially the death that will destroy it, for it is now Mary’s property, and she may use it as she sees fit…The soul is that principle in us by which we live, and move, and are. Therefore, when we give our soul to Mary, we really give her our very life…Mary is the one who owns and directs our life; we are happy in the fact that we live it under her loving care.”[28]

Venerable Mary of Agreda has Jesus saying of Mary, “I constitute my sole and universal Heiress of all the gifts of nature, of grace and of glory that are mine. She shall be Mistress and possessor of them all…I desire that She shall be Mistress of angels and men, claim over them full possession and dominion and command the service and obedience of all. The demons shall fear Her and be subject to Her. All the irrational creatures, the heavens, the stars, the planets, the elements with all the living beings, the birds, the fishes and the animals contained in them, shall likewise be subject to Her and acknowledge Her as Mistress, exalting and glorifying Her with Me.”[29]

“Pope Paul VI solemnly brought the third session of Vatican Council II to a close, November 21, 1964, in the presence of the entire body of the Church’s bishops with the words: ‘For the glory of the Virgin Mary and for our own consolation, we proclaim Mary the Mother of the Church, that is, of the whole People of God, of the faithful as well as of the pastors, and we wish that trough this title the Mother of God should be still more honored and invoked by the entire Christian people.”[30]

In glorifying Mary these writers forget or ignore the clear teaching of Scripture:

“I am the LORD, that is my name; and my glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to carved images” (Isaiah 42:8).

“For my own sake, for my own sake, I will do it; for how should my name be profaned? And I will not give my glory to another” (Isaiah 48:11).

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done” (Matthew 16:27).

“And now, O Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was” (John 17:5).

“And the glory which you gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as we are one” (John 17:22). This is why Jesus appears in His Father’s glory (also see Matthew 19:28, 25:31, Mark 8:38, 10:37). Maybe it is not really a problem to refer to the glory of Mary just as long as we are told of the glory of every believer.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] For the footnotes to these Bibles see The Consulted Bibles and the Official Approval.
[2] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 186 quoting Fr. Francis Martin, unpublished address at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, Fall 1982.
[3] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intending to clarify some of the more obscure parts of Saint Louis de Montfort’s work (New York: The Monfort Publications, Montfort Missionaries, nd.) Nihil Obstat: Francis J. Reine, S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Paul C. Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis. p. 20
[4] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 19
[5] Fr. John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 157 quoting Pope Paul VI (1897-1977) who had a great devotion to Mary and mentioned her often in his discourses. Marialis cultus, 57.
[6] Alan Schreck, p. 164-165 quoting Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” no. 67
[7] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p. 171
[8] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 164
[9] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. Pior General of the Carmelite Order, The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 18
[10] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. xi quoting Letter of His Holiness, Pius XII, For The Occasion of the Seventh Centenary of the Brown Scapular. Given at Rome on the Feast of the Apparition oat Lourdes, 2-11-50.
[11] Alan Schreck, p.163
[12] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark. p. 392
[13] John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, nd.) Nihil Obstat: C. Schut, D.D., Censor Deutatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasteri, Die 21 Martii, 1922. pp. 179-180
[14] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intending to clarify some of the more obscure parts of Saint Louis de Montfort’s work (New York: The Monfort Publications, Montfort Missionaries, nd.) Nihil Obstat: Francis J. Reine, S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Paul C. Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis. p. 21
[15] St. Alphonsus Ligouri, The Glories of Mary (Brooklyn: The Redemptionist Fathers, 1931), p. 29
[16] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. General of the Carmelite Order. The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 17-18
[17] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 21
[18] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 19
[19] John A. Hardon, p. 157
[20] Venerable Mary of Agreda, Fiscar Marison (Rev. George J. Blatter) trans., The Mystical City of God, Popular Abridgment of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, written in 1902) Imprimatur: Edwin V. Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe. The 1902 edition carried the Imprimatur of His Excellency, Most Reverend H. J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne. Vol. III p. 765
[21] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 150
[22] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 21
[23] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, pp. 20-21
[24] Arranged and Explained by Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, S.V.D., Saint Joseph New American Catechism No. 3, According to the “Basic Teachings for Catholic Education” (Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) Vatican II Documents and Holy Scripture (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1985-1977), Nihil Obstat: John P. Meier, S.S.L., S.T.L. Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York. p. 214-215, Ch. 24, No. 171
[25] Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, p. 215, Ch. 24, No. 171
[26] Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, p. 215, Ch. 24, No. 171
[27] Fr. Faber quoted by John L. Stoddard, p. 176
[28] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 6, 7, 8.
[29] Venerable Mary of Agreda, p. 569
[30] Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, p. 215, Ch. 24, No. 171

To Jesus Through Mary

Our Lady of Fatima is reported to have stated, “Jesus wants to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. To whoever embraces this devotion I promise salvation; these souls shall be dear to God, as flowers placed by Me to adorn His throne.”

This short quote encapsulates as a perfect example of a myriad of problems within Roman Catholicism’s acceptance of the proclamations of apparitions. Namely: that Mary comes first, that we are to be devoted to her, that she offers us salvation, and that Jesus commands these things to be so. In our article entitled St. Montfort we have dealt with this issue as related to the teachings of one of its main proponents, Louis de Montfort.

Mary First:
The statements of the various alleged Marian apparitions are the quintessence of misinformation. The statements sound doctrinally sound and appealing because shocking heresy is mixed with token allusions to Jesus. The primary problem with the to Jesus through Mary concept is that Mary comes first – while Jesus is a far away goal. Mary is to whom we should strive – while Jesus is not our concern since Mary will take us to Him. Mary is primary – Jesus secondary. It is to Mary that we are to be devoted, prayerful, reliant upon, thankful to, she is our primary focus – Jesus is the far off goal and we ought not be concerned with reaching Him since Mary will get us there.

Devotion:
The concept of devotion to Mary is not only utterly foreign to the text of scripture but is actually antithetical to God’s word. Mary is blessed (Luke 1:28), she is the mother of our Lord (Luke 1:43), and although sometimes confused (Luke 2:48), she is a faithful disciple (Acts 1:14). Yet, she herself gave instructions to the effect of, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (John 2:5). Jesus Himself had an opportunity to solidify our understanding of Mary’s exaltation and an opportunity to instruct us regarding devotion to her, “a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you’” at this point, if Roman Catholicism’s Marian doctrines were accurate, Jesus could have and would have replied in affirmation of His mother’s role as the mother of the church, intercessor, Queen of Heaven, etc. Yet, Jesus places the focus right where it belongs, on the Gospel of Jesus Christ by replying, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it’” (Luke 11:27-28).

Perhaps the most important thing to remember when dealing with this issue is Paul’s warning in 2nd Corinthians 11:3. Here is the way in which three Vatican approved Bibles render the verse.
The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes (Kleist-Lilly translation), “But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his cleverness, so your thoughts may be corrupted and fall from the single-minded devotion and purity you owe to Christ.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (trans. from the Latin Vulgate Challoner-Rhemis version), “But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his guile, so your minds may be corrupted and fall from a single devotion to Christ.”

The New American Bible, “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted from a sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ.”

Devotion to anyone except for Jesus is satanic manipulation.

Salvation:
This is where it gets tricky, not because it is difficult to determine scripturally whether salvation comes by Jesus or Mary, but because convenient qualifications are generally applied in order to protect such statements as salvation through Mary. For example, this apparition said, I promise salvation to which one would instantly respond, and just who are you to promise salvation to me when salvation comes by Jesus alone. The response could be that you and I could also tell to someone I promise salvation since we would not be claiming to be the source of salvation ourselves by we would merely be promising salvation to the person who trusts in Jesus for their salvation. However, that is not the case here since what the apparition expressed in that the means of salvation is devotion to My Immaculate Heart. At this point we see that this is a new gospel, which is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9 also see 2nd Corinthians 11:2-15). But are we not being told that Jesus Himself wants this to be done? On to the next section.

Jesus Commands:
At this point we must consider the fact that scripture tells of false witnesses, false accusers, false prophets, false brothers, false apostles, false teachers, and most importantly within the context of this article, false Christs:
“false witness” (Matthew 15:19).
“false accusers” (2nd Timothy 3:3).
“false brothers” (2nd Corinthians 11:26).
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15).
“And many false prophets will rise and deceive many” (Matthew 24:11).
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits to see if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1).
“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet doing signs before it, (by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast), and those who had worshiped his image. The two were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone” (Revelation 19:20).
“But because of those false brothers stealing in, who stole in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus; they desiring to enslave us” (Galatians 2:4).
“For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect” (Matthew 24:24 & Mar 13:22).
“For such ones are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2nd Corinthians 11:13).
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction” (2nd Peter 2:1).

To these we would add false Marys who bring a message from a false Christ, who is no Christ at all. We can know that they are false because the message that they bring, though couched in gospel-like terminology, is nothing but a false gospel.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

Mary, Full of Grace?

At a glance: The Bible teaches that it is God, it is Jesus, who is full of grace. The Catholic prayer Hail Mary includes some un-biblical teachings.

Roman Catholic Prayer, “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among woman, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” This prayer is also known as the Angelic Salutation or Ave Maria.
The Bible never refers to Mary as being full of grace. Rather, the Bible makes it clear that it is God who is full of grace. The Catholic Catechism #2466 agrees, “In Jesus Christ, the whole of God’s truth has been made manifest. ‘Full of grace and truth,’ he came as the ‘light of the world,’ he is the Truth.” Yet the Catechism #491 also attributes the same title to Mary, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception.”

New American Bible:
John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. And we saw his glory—glory as of the only-begotten of the Father—full of grace and truth.”
The footnote to this verse states, “1, 14: Dwelt: the Greek term has the meaning ‘he pitched his tent among us.’ Grace: the fullness of the supernatural life. Truth: the fullness of divine wisdom and knowledge. Grace and Truth are often used in the Old Testament as qualities of the divine nature, and have the meaning of ‘loving-kindness’ and ‘fidelity.’ Here they modify ‘glory.’”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
John 1:14, “And the Word became man and lived among us; and we have looked upon his glory—such a glory as befits the Father’s only-begotten Son—full of grace and truth!”
The footnote to these verses states, “1:14. the Word became man: see verse 1, ‘the Word was God’—Christ is very God and very man. ‘Many deceivers have appeared in the world, who will not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in human flesh’ (2 Jn. 7). see the note on 6:61. his glory: the glory of his divinity, manifested in his teachings and miracles, and reflected in his human traits and demeanor. Also as man, Christ was ‘full of grace and truth.’ There is an affectionate recollection of the sacred humanity in 1 Jn. 1:1-4.”
The footnote to verse 6:61 states, “6:61. were grumbling: this grumbling may be said to have been the germ of the later heresy called ‘Docetism,’ which denied the reality of Christ’s human nature, and consequently undermined all Christian faith.”

The Sacred Heart League Edition:
John 1:14, “The Word became a human being and lived among us. We saw his glory, full of grace and truth. This was the glory which he received as the Father’s only Son.”

Vatican approved Bibles render the verse from which Hail Mary full of grace is derived:
New American Bible:
Luke 1:28 & 30 “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you…Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”
The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Luke 1:28 & 30 “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…Do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.”
The New Testament of the New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition[1]:
Luke 1:28 & 30 “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you…Do not fear, Mary. You have found favor with God.”
The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Luke 1:28 & 30 “Rejoice, child of grace! The Lord is your helper!…Do not tremble, Mary! You have found favor in the eyes of God.”
The footnote states, “…she must have been uniquely pleasing to God and possessed of an exceptionally abundant measure of ‘grace.’ Even so her ‘fullness’ was only relative, as that of other saintly men and woman (e.g., John the Baptist, 1:15; Elizabeth, 1:41; Zachary, 1:67; Stephen, Acts 6:8)…But since in the New Testament the word ‘grace’ at times means, not that inward endowment of the soul which we call ‘sanctifying grace,’ but a task, office, function, position, etc., imposed on men by the grace of God for some important work in the Church, and since it is not certain in which of these two senses the word was understood by the angel, it seems advisable in the translation to choose an expression that leaves this question undecided. The Challoner version ‘full of grace’ has therefore, been avoided. But whatever translation is adopted, the word ‘grace’ itself must be retained…However, we interpret the Greek word, it means ‘a special grace has been conferred on you’ or ‘you are the recipient of a very special grace.’ Perhaps, however, the joyful as well as solemn moment when this announcement was made to Mary requires something less plain than this…”

Catholic apologist Karl Keating even refers to the Vatican approved NAB translation “The Lord is with you” as an imperfect translation.[2] Consider carefully that because Keating is Catholic and an apologist at that, he has accepted the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church as being the one true church founded and lead by God. How then could he state that this holy mother church could err when it approved the NAB translation of the Bible? Or is it a case of rejecting that which is inconvenient to his point of view, even when it contradicts that which the very church that gives him the authority of being an apologist has proclaimed?

New American Bible Fireside Family Edition—Encyclopedic Dictionary and Biblical Reference Guide, “The Hail Mary consists of three parts; the first two are taken from the New Testament, and the third was added by the Church. According to St. Luke, 1, 28, when the Angel Gabriel came to tell Mary she was to become the mother of God, he greeted her thusly, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ Luke 1,42 tells St. Elizabeth’s greetings to Mary when she came to visit her ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.’ The Catholic Church added the final petition, ‘Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.’”
Note carefully that it is the Catholic Church by her own admission, and not the Bible, that created the dogma of Mary being the mother of God, that she can pray for us and intercede for sinners while we are alive and at our death.
In the Bible there are only two sorts of prayer, one is prayer to God and the other is prayer to false gods. Prayers to Mary have a long history of deviating from prayer to God as we see here, “The earliest prayer of petition addressed to Mary that has come down to us dates from the latter part of the third century. The oldest text, which may well have been a cry for help in the days of the martyrs under Diocletian (303), is the following: We take refuge under the protection of your motherly mercy, O Mother of God. Despise not our fervent cries for help in the necessity in which we find ourselves. But deliver us from danger. Rescue us. Do not lead our plea into temptation, but deliver us from danger.”[3]
It is clear to see that this prayer is a corruption of the one and only prayer that Jesus taught us, the Our Father or Lord’s Prayer. Rather than stating “Do not lead our plea into temptation, but deliver us from danger” the true and authentic prayer states, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (or the evil one)” (Matthew 6:13). The authentic prayer is appropriately prayed to God the Father, not to Mary.

We will now mention the Rosary because its formula includes the Hail Mary. The following quote is taken from “The Story of the Rosary” which appears in the New American Bible Fireside Family Edition. “The Rosary originated about the year 1208…One night, while [St. Dominic was] praying in the chapel of Notre Dame at Prouille, Our Lady appeared to him, holding a Rosary in her hand. According to tradition, she taught him how to say it, and bade him teach it to the world….The complete Rosary consists essentially of 15 Our Fathers and 150 Hail Marys; however, the Church has divided the original Rosary into three equal parts, each consisting of 5 Our Fathers and 50 Hail Marys, and these groups are called the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries…Nowadays, when we speak of the Rosary, we usually refer to only one of the groups, that is, to one-third of the Rosary, which is the ordinary and more convenient length for recitation.”
If Mary did come from heaven to earth in 1208 AD with specific instructions regarding the Rosary, one should wonder why it was changed, and changed out of pure convenience.
Moreover, Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng has written, “the rosary, which was originally Hindu-Buddhist, then Islamic, and finally Christian.”[4]

Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University presents a common argument in favor of repetitive prayer, “When the rosary is said prayerfully, it is not a mindless repetition of rote prayer, but it is an occasion to reflect on these ‘mysteries of salvation.’”[5]
Catholic apologists make such statements because Jesus taught, “and when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words” (Matthew 6:7). And so the argument states that Jesus was not actually teaching us that we should not pray repetitively rather, He was saying that we could do it but not in vain. Jesus was clearly speaking a warning to us that we are not to involve ourselves in the pagan religious practices of His day, which continue in our day. Such as using a word or formula that one repeatedly recites in order to get worked up into an altered state of consciousness or clearing the mind. When we understand that the Bible teaches that prayer is intimate conversation between man and God, we instantly see that repetitive prayer is ridiculous. Certainly if my wife walked through the door and said to me ten times in a row “Hi, honey how are you? Nice to see you! Hi, honey how are you? Nice to see you! Hi, honey how are you? Nice to see you!…….” I would think that she had lost her mind, because I heard and understood it the first time. God hears and understands the first time but those who practice repetitive prayer think that they will be heard for their many words and in reality they are capriciously disobeying Jesus Christ.

The following quote is one of the Promises of Our Lady to Christians Who Recite the Rosary, “Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces…My special protection and the greatest graces…The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell…The soul which recommends itself to Me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish…shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice…shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church…I shall deliver from purgatory, those who have been devoted to the Rosary…You shall obtain all you ask of Me…be aided by Me in their necessities…all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors, the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death…Devotion to My Rosary is a great sign of pre-destination.”[6]
It is supposedly Mary making all of these promises to those who are devoted to her. The problem is that Mary, the true and real Mary, would never demand devotion to herself. Never demand devotion to a repetitive prayer (which her Son forbade). Would never use scare tactics such as promising that repetitive prayer to her is a powerful armor against hell. Neither would she claim to deliver people from purgatory, which is an un-Biblical tale (see our article Purgatory).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Hartdegem, OFM, SSL. and Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970)
[2] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 268
[3] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 182
[4] Hans Küng, Josef van Ess, Heinrich von Stietencron and Jeinz Bechert, Christianity and the World Religions—Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (Garden City, New York; Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1986), p. 25
[5] Alan Schreck, p. 183
[6] The 15 Promises of Our Lady to Christians Who Recite the Rosary, fatima.org/promises.html

Mother of God?

At a glance: Since God is the creator and Mary is one of His creations she cannot be His mother, this is not lost on the Roman Catholic Church, and so we find technicalities which attempt to teach us that she is referred to as such in order to glorify God, but does it? Or does in exalt her beyond what is proper?

New American Bible:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit cried out in a loud voice and said, ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! And how have I deserved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaimed in a ringing voice: ‘Blessed are you beyond all women! And blessed is the fruit of your womb! How privileged am I to have the mother of my Lord come to visit me!”

The Catholic Catechism #495 states, “Called in the Gospels ‘the mother of Jesus,’ Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as ‘the mother of my Lord.’” Admitting that the Scripture refers to Mary in this manner does not keep the Roman church from changing the title to Mother of God. “Early titles used for Mary were Theotokos (God-bearer), Dei Genitrix (Mother of God) and Deipara (God-bearing).”[1]

The dogmatic logic is that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, therefore, she is the Mother of God. The Bible never refers to Mary as Mother of God. God is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, God had no beginning and will have no end. If God is eternal and Mary is His mother then she must be more eternal than He. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, however, Mary is neither the mother of the Holy Spirit nor the mother of the Father. The Bible refers to Mary as the mother of our Lord.
In this case the word Lord is the Greek word kurios κύριος from kuros (supremacy).[2] It is used 748 times in the Bible; Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc. 4. It is not the word LORD הוהי, which is used in place of YHWH, the Tetragrammaton (Yahweh, Jehovah, HaShem, etc.). When Moses asked God in the burning bush what His name was, God’s answer was the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, in Luke 1:43 we are told that Jesus is Lord: Master or Ruler, not that He is LORD: YHWH. We are told that He is LORD else where in Scripture. Jesus as deity had no beginning, yet, Jesus is the God-Man, and so as a man He had a beginning within chronological time.
This point is not lost on the Vatican, “A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, ‘If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned).’ The council carefully stated that Mary is the mother of God ‘according to the flesh’ to clarify that Mary is not the source of Jesus’ divinity.”[3]
And so while affirming that Mary is not the source of Jesus’ divinity we are still to be condemned if we do not accept the title Mother of God. This statement is made because it is claimed that affirming Mary as the Mother of God affirms Christ’s divinity. Catholic apologist Karl Keating states, “‘the honour of Mary is the safeguard, the outpost of the adoration of her son. To acknowledge the Theotokos [‘God bearer’] is to believe in God the Son made man.’”[4]
In reality this is nonsensical because calling Mary the Mother of God doesn’t proved that Jesus is divine. And in fact it can be confusing, misleading or even dangerous to give Mary this title without providing immediate and clear explanation for doing so. This is because in our day that Mary is the Mother of God is used to exalt her and not as tool that is employed to show that Jesus is God.

The following Bibles also read “Mother of my Lord” for Luke 1:43: The Living Bible-Paraphrased, The Holy Bible an American Translation, The Living Bible, Authorized King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, The Answer-New Century Version,
The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English, New International Version, Holy Bible Contemporary English Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Book, Complete Jewish Bible, The New Testament in Modern English, New American Standard Bible-New Testament, New Testament from Aramaic-According to the Eastern Text, New Living Translation, Noah Webster Version, Robert Young’s Literal Translation, J.N. Darby Translation, The Message, American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Version. No Bibles yet consulted have been found to state “Mother of God.”

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 389
[2] Strong’s # 2962. 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord. 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing. 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master. 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor. 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master. 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah.
[3] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. pp. 175-176 quoting The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), “The Anathemas of the Chapter of Cyril against Nestorius,” cannon 1, in The Sources of Catholic Doctrine (Denzinger), trans. Roy Defferari (St. Louis, Mo.: Bitterden Books, 1957), p. 50
[4] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 276 quoting M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies (London: Sheed and Ward, 1974), p. 45

Immaculately Conceived?

At a glance: If Mary was truly born without sin and never sinned (as we discussed in the article Sinless?) she could have been the Savior, the true Redeemer, the spotless lamb of God. However, we will see that the Catholic Church seeks by technicalities to make Mary both sinless and in need of a savior, which is a complete contradiction in terms. And we will clearly see that the text they use to concoct various Marian dogmas is perhaps the best text to use to prove that she was born with original sin.

New American Bible:
Revelation 12:1-2, “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Because she was with child, she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”
The footnote to these verses states, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).”
Genesis 3:16 “To the woman [Eve] he said: ‘I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.’”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Revelation 12:1-2, “AND A GREAT SIGN appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish of delivery.”
The footnote to these verses states, “12, 1: A woman: this is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenant. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon is beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Revelation 12:1-2, “A great sign appeared in the sky: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and cried out because of the pain and anguish of childbirth.”
The footnote to these verses states, “12:1. a woman: the spiritual Israel which gave birth to Christ in his real and in his mystic body, or as St. Augustine and many other Fathers put it, the city of God, which, of course, includes the Virgin Mary. Her clothing is indicative of her grandeur.”

We quote these texts in discussing the Immaculate Conception because Mary is said to be the woman in Revelation 12. The problem is that the woman in this text is suffering from the stain of original sin. The Vatican approved NAB Bible’s footnotes state this fact, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).” Also from another Vatican approved Bible we learned that “this is not the Blessed Virgin…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.” Therefore, a choice must be made; either Mary was Immaculately Conceived or she is the woman in revelation, she cannot be both. For more on this issue see our articles Queen of Heaven? and Coronation in Heaven?

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—A Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information, p. 116, “Immaculate Conception. The singular privilege by which the Blessed Virgin Mary, in view of the future merits of her divine son, Jesus Christ, was conceived free from original sin in the womb of her mother, St. Anne. This privilege of Mary was solemnly defined to be a dogma of faith on December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX in the following words: ‘We declare, pronounce and define that the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin by the singular grace and privilege of the omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, and that this doctrine was revealed by God, and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.’ Catholics likewise believe that Mary was immune from even the slightest sin throughout her whole life, this being a dogma declared by the Council of Trent in 1547. However, Mary’s sinlessness is thought by Catholics to be the result of a special divine privilege, as distinguished from Christ’s sinlessness, which was a necessary postulate of His divinity.”
Note that the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not an official dogma of the Roman Catholic church until circa one 1,854 years after Mary.

New American Bible Fireside Family Edition—Encyclopedic Dictionary and Biblical Reference Guide, “On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius XI issued the bull, ‘Ineffablis Deus’ which defined the Immaculate Conception as an article of faith and truth contained in the original teachings of the Apostles…It is a Holy Day of Obligation.”
We must ask, if the Immaculate Conception of Mary was an authentic teaching of the Apostles, why did it not become Roman Catholic dogma until 1,854 years after the Apostles taught it? Even if it was acceptable from very early times to believe in the Immaculate Conception what happened in 1854 that caused to become a Holy Day of Obligation, which as discussed in our article Assumed in to Heaven? means that if a Catholic does not go to church on that day (and do not confess to a priest), they are condemned to hell for all eternity.[1] This is done in blatant violation of Colossians 2:16-17 “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). And again we are warned, “But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:9-11). “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (Romans 14:5-6).

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “From all eternity Mary was chosen to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate. It is unthinkable that such a mother should have been defiled by sin for even a moment. Therefore, in the instant of her conception she was made immaculate.”[2]
Note the faulty reasoning, a human minded preconceived notion leads to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because the Bible clearly teaches it but because it is unthinkable that Mary was defiled by sin for even a moment.

Un-Biblical Dogma:
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr wrote, “The Immaculate Conception is an example of Catholic doctrine that is not clearly taught in Scripture but which, congruent with Scripture, was believed universally by Catholics for centuries before it was formally defined as doctrine by the pope.”[3]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explains, “Without claiming that Scripture reveals the doctrine explicitly, he [Pope Pius IX] shows that the most common interpretation of the relevant texts by the ancient Fathers and current theologians sees in these texts an implicit teaching that Mary was conceived without sin.”[4]
“[Pope] Sixtus IV approved the feast and Mass of the Immaculate Conception in 1476.”[5]

Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture…The Bull ‘Ineffabilis’ approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation….The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.”[6]
Apparently faulty reasoning, faulty assumptions and faulty interpretations could lead to a divinely inspired infallible dogma. This is the exact point made by Christian theologian James White as he dialogued with Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples. Mr. Staples responds by stating, “You misrepresented Ott. Ott did not say the reasoning was wrong. Ott simply says, as the Catholic Church has always taught—it is the decree, it is what the Pope binds on earth, that is what is bound in heaven, and it’s the answer, it is not the reasoning leading up to it. That’s what Ott said.” Mr. White states, “So in other words, you can misreason, you can misinterpret Scripture and yet, the end result allegedly will be infallible…” Mr. Staples explains, “Do you know why James? Because Peter as he is walking on the water might shake and it might look like he is going down but Jesus is gonna reach His hand down and He’s not gonna let him go under.”[7]

Another thing that Ott certainly did state is the following, “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains.”[8] Therefore, Mary is either not the woman of Revelation 12 or she is this woman but was not immaculately conceived.

Sinless but Saved?:
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr wrote, “the very fact that Mary is our Mother should help us realize what Vatican II taught explicitly—that Mary is one of us, a member of the Church, and one of those redeemed by Christ.”[9]
If Mary was born without sin and sinless throughout her whole life, why is she being referred to as redeemed? The following quote will explain, “Some influential Catholic Christians expressed reservations about this doctrine, because it appeared to imply that Mary did not need Christ as her Savior. The church seemed to be caught in a dilemma: it did not seem correct that the mother of God was stained by sin, but it was necessary to believe that Mary had been redeemed from sin by Jesus Christ like everyone else. Even such a great figure as St. Thomas Aquinas could not fully accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for this reason. Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S., explains…Duns Scotus was able to win the day because of his insight that the Immaculate Conception came through God’s application of the grace of Christ beforehand…she was the first Christian…the Lord applied the grace of Jesus’ salvation to Mary in advance to prepare her for her special role in his plan.”[10]
With regards to Catholic dogmas we often see, as we do here, that the dogmas are not justified by Scripture or history, but rather by lawyer like tactics of semantic, technicalities and loopholes. For example the Church realize that their devotees have been accepting a very questionable belief and so when it comes time for the church to make this belief an official teaching they come up with a loophole. Can you imagine such a scene, the elite of the Church stating, “Good job Duns Scotus, your brilliant technical loophole will go down in history as an inspired revelation from God! As well as the cause of damnation to hell for those who do not come to Church on the feast day (and are not forgiven for that mortal sin)!”
Please note that John Scotus Duns was a “FRANCISCAN philosopher and theologian who attempted to create a new synthesis of Christian belief with Greek and Arab philosophy.”[11]
Supposedly, Mary is not a saved sinner, she was saved from having ever sinned. Mary was saved from sin before she ever sinning, it was impossible for her to sin because she was born without a sin nature (original sin). Then she was not saved from sin, she did not sin and so she needs no savior, how could she need to be saved from sin she never committed? How could she be redeemed before she was in need of redemption?

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. writes, “After the Fathers and up to the early Middle Ages we find explicit references to Mary’s freedom from sin from the moment of her life. Paschasius Radbertus (ninth century), for example, wrote that she was exempt from sin since the beginning of her existence. As early as the late half of the seventh century, a feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated annually in the East under the title ‘Conception of St. Anne.’ St. Andrew Crete (d. A.D. 720) composed a hymn with the inscription: ‘The Ninth Day of December, Conception of the Grandmother of God, St. Anne.’”[12]
Mary is thought to have died in 48 AD[13] consider just how long after her death these teachings came to be. For more on this, see our article A Review of Marian Dogma and Apparition Chronology. Just because a belief is old, it does not make it true.

Pope Leo I wrote, “Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.”[14]

Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary….individual Greek Fathers (e.g., Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity.”[15]

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] If one has this mortal sin forgiven by confession to a priest, they must still suffer for it in Purgatory.
[2] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), p. 286. Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64.
[3] Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M., Director of Catholic Home Study Services, one of America’s most popular interpreters of Catholic faith and the Bible, “We Believe…” A Survey of the Catholic Faith, Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO.: Liguori Publications, 1990), Imprimatur Potest: William A. Nugent, C.SS.R. Provincial, St. Louis Province, The Redemptorists, Imprimatur: Monsignor Maurice F. Byrne, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of St. Louis. p. 68
[4] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p.157
[5] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 153
[6] Ludwig Ott; Roman Catholic Theologian, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Book Publishers, 1974), p. 200
[7] Christian theologian James White and Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples on The Bible Answer Man radio show.
[8] Ludwig Ott, Roman Catholic Theologian, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Book Publishers, 1974), p. 205
[9] Father Oscar Lukefahr, p. 67
[10] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. pp. 178-179 quoting Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S., “Mary in the New Testament and in Catholic Life,” America, May 15, 1982, p. 378
[11] Keith Crim, Gen. Ed., Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions (Nashville, TN: The Parthenon Press, 1981), pp. 231-232
[12] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 152 quoting Paschasius Radbertus, De Partu Virginis, 5, 7.
[13] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 358
[14] “Walter Burghardtm in Juniper B. Carol, ed., Mariology (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1955), p. 1:146” quoted in James R. White, Mary—Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 40
[15] Ludwig Ott, pp. 201, 203

Will She “Crush Your Head”?

At a glance: The mistranslation, misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 3:15 has lead to the false teaching that it is Mary who will defeat satan. Here we will see that not only do other biblical texts state that it is Jesus who will do this, but we will see that Vatican approved Bibles render the verse correctly and elucidate by way of footnotes that the He, the seed, is Jesus. Below we site Affirmations of the Belief that Mary Will Crush satan and Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan. Under A Faulty Apologetic we will see an attempt by Fr. Nicholas Gruner to prove that the verse should read she and her rather than the correct he and his. This last topic is important in that Fr. Gruner makes a lot of accusations, which we must know how to answer.

New American Bible:
Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
The footnote to this verse states, “3, 15: He will strike…at his heel: Since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, ‘They will strike…at their heels.’ However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wis 2, 24; Jn 8, 44; Rv 12, 9; 20, 2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because ‘the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil’ (1Jn 3,8) the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.”

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition:
Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.”

The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew text translated by Jewish scholars in the first half of the third century BC, renders Genesis 3:15 as, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman; and between thy seed and her seed. He will wound thy head, and thou wilt wound his heel”[1]

New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate:
Genesis 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.”
The footnote to this verse states, “She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman. So many of the fathers read this passage conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, i.e., the seed. The sense if the same; for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”
This is the only Bible in the world that renders the verse in this incorrect manner. Even the footnote is faulty because the whole point is that the woman will do no such thing rather, her seed wIL We will discuss this further below under A Faulty Apologetic.

Affirmations of the Belief that Mary Will Crush satan:
A great number of Roman Catholic paintings and statues depict Mary with her foot on a serpent, precisely do to the mistranslation, misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 3:15.

Catholic dogma claims, “From the moment of her [Mary’s] conception God willed that she should crush the head of the serpent.”[2]

Pope Pius IX stated, “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world.”[3]

Pope Pius XII wrote, “‘Just as she took part in the struggle of her only-begotten Son with the serpent of hell, so also she shared in his glorious triumph over sin and its sad consequences.’”[4]

Venerable Mary of Agreda states, “[satan’s] consternation grew, when he heard the sentence, which God pronounced against the guilty ones, in which he himself was implicated. More especially and above all was he tormented by the repetition of that threat: The Woman shall crush thy head (Gen. 3, 15), which he had already heard in heaven….The demons shall fear Her and be subject to Her.”[5]

Fr. Stefano Gobbi has Mary saying, “At the beginning, I am announced as the enemy of Satan; she who will obtain the complete victory over him. ‘I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and hers; she shall crush your head, as you will attempt to bite her heel.’ (Gen. 3:15)”[6]

Regarding the fall into sin, St. Augustine wrote, “All this is the result of Eve’s action which is remedied through Mary.”[7]

Here we have Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explaining a very peculiar occurrence. While the seed of the woman was correctly understood to be Jesus Christ, the Roman Church went on to misapply the text to Mary, apparently she is the woman and she is the seed as well, “the passage in Genesis, where the Lord predicts: ‘I will make you enemies of each other: you and the woman, your offspring and her offspring. It will crush your head and you will strike its heel’ (Gn. 3:15). The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Savior (autos in the Septuagint), so that the Mother of Christ came to be identified with the woman. As early as the second century, this messianic-marian exegesis was known in Christian tradition, for example, in Ireneus, Epiphanius, Cyprian, and [Pope] Leo the Great. The bull Ineffabilis approves this interpretation and draws from it the conclusion that Mary, because of her intimate relation to Christ, ‘with him and through him had eternal enmity toward the evil spirit, triumphed over him completely, and crushed him with her immaculate foot.’”[8]

Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote, “the most famous marian homily of antiquity…Precious vessel, worthy of the whole world’s reverence, you are an ever-shining light…Because of you the holy Trinity is glorified and adored…demons are put to flight; the devil, that tempter, is thrust down from heaven; the fallen race of humanity is taken up on high; all creatures possessed by the madness of idolatry have attained knowledge of the truth; believers receive holy baptism; the oil of gladness is poured out; the Church is established throughout the world; pagans are brought to repentance. What more is there to say? Because of you the light of the only-begotten Son of God has shone upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; prophets pronounced the word of God; the apostles preached salvation to the Gentiles; the dead are raised to life, and kings rule by the power of the holy Trinity.”[9]

A group devoted to Our Lady of Guadalupe write, “The origin of the name Guadalupe has always been a matter of controversy. It is nevertheless believed that the name came about because of the translation from Nahuatl to Spanish of the words used by the Virgin during the apparition to Juan Bernardino, the ailing uncle of Juan Diego. It is believed that Our Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced ‘quatlasupe’ and sounds remarkably like the Spanish word Guadalupe. Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as ‘the,’ while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. So Our Lady must have called herself the one ‘who crushes the serpent.’”[10]
It is important to note that while the apparition of Guadalupe is alleged to have taken place in 1531, the earliest narration of this event dates from 1649 (see Examples of Extreme Deception for more on Guadalupe).

Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan:
“the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1st John 3:8).

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14).

“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death’” (Revelation 12:10-11).

Justin Martyr wrote, “Christ is born of the Virgin, in order that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed.”[11]

Pope-Saint Leo the Great wrote, “at the beginning of the world [God], foretold the remedy his love had prepared for the restoration of us mortals, giving notice to the serpent that the offspring of the woman would come and, by his power, crush its baneful head as it was raised to strike.”[12]

A Faulty Apologetic:
Fr. Nicholas Gruner wrote, “The Woman in Gen. 3:15 Who will crush the serpent’s head is the Blessed Virgin Mary Who from the first moment of Her Immaculate Conception triumphed over the devil. Our Lord referred to the Blessed Virgin as ‘Woman,’ from the cross. (John 19:26) We also have the ‘Woman’ spoken of in chapter 12 of the Apocalypse. In Genesis chapter 3 we read: God speaking to the serpent says, ‘I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, between thy seed and Her seed, and you shall lie in wait and she shall crush thy head with Her heel.’ ‘She Shall Crush Thy Head’ St. Jerome, who died about 430 A.D., is still the greatest Biblical scholar. He translated the Bible from the original, inspired Greek and Hebrew text into Latin—into the version which today is called the Vulgate. It is the Council of Trent that teaches there is no doctrinal error in the Vulgate. St. Jerome, unlike any biblical scholar today, had original texts in Hebrew. One of the early fathers of the Holy Ghost Fathers was a Jewish convert and his father was a rabbi. He points out that the rabbis had changed the scriptures of the Old Testament…about a hundred or two hundred years after the death of Christ, [the Jewish scribes] changed the scripture texts because it became more and more evident that the prophecies could only mean that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Jesus is the Christ. And therefore, to maintain their hold on their people, the Jewish scribes changed the text themselves. This is a convert from Judaism whose father was a rabbi, saying this. St. Jerome didn’t have the poisoned texts, and he had access besides that to texts that are no longer available, they are just wiped out with time. And St. Jerome translated that passage, by saying, ‘She shall crush thy head,’ meaning the Woman will crush. And so when Our Lady of Fatima says, ‘Only I can help you,’ in a certain sense, not even God can help us, ‘but only I.’ Does that sound almost blasphemous, and certainly to Protestants it will sound like it…”[13]

Considering the other Catholic Bibles consulted above, we should wonder why the Vatican would resort to the poisoned texts, which reads He and His.

The Ancient Rabbis Affirm that the Seed is Indeed the Messiah:
In the Targum Pseudo Jonathan, while responsibility is placed on God’s people to keep his commandments, we also learn that the defeat of the serpent will take place when the Messiah comes. In this quote God is speaking to satan-the serpent, “And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They shall make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of the King Messiah.”[14]

Targum Onkelos, “This is that Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah.”

Pesikta Rabbati, p. 161a, & Yalkut on Isaiah 60, “Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the World! The light which is hidden under your throne of Glory, for whom is it?’ He said to him, ‘For him who will turn you back and disgrace you, and shame your face.’ He [Satan] said to him, ‘Master of the World! Show him to me.’ He said to him, ‘Come and see him.’ When Satan saw the Messiah, he trembled and fell upon his face and said, ‘Surely this is the Messiah who in the future will cast me and all the princes of the nations of the world into Gehenna.’”[15]

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis XX:5, “R. Levi said: In the Messianic age all will be healed(1) save the serpent.”
Footnote: (1) I.e. freed of their disabilities.

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis XXIII:5, “AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SETH: FOR GOD HATH APPOINTED ME ANOTHER SEED, etc. R. Tanhuma said in the name of Samuel Kozith(1): [She hinted at] that seed which would arise from another source(2), viz. The king Messiah.”
Footnotes: (1) The meaning of the word is doubtful; ‘Ar. Treats it as a surname, and it is so translated here. (2) I.e. not from Jewish stock, Messiah being descended from Ruth the Moabites; v. infra, LI, 8.

Midrash Rabbah-Ruth VIII:1, “R. Huna said: It is written For God hath appointed me another seed (Gen. IV, 25), that is, seed from another place, referring to the Messiah [V. Gen. R. XXIII, 5; LI, 8].”

Midrash Rabbah-Ruth VII:15, “R. Tanhuma said in the name of R. Samuel: Elsewhere it is written, That we may preserve seed of our father (Gen. XIX, 32). It is not written ‘son’, but ‘seed’; that seed which comes from another place. Who is thus referred to? The Messiah [Descendant through Ruth of Moab, of whose incestuous birth the verse speaks].”

Rabbi David Kimchi (1160 - 1235), “As thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people by the hands of Meshiah, the Son of David, who shall wound satan, who is the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”

Gentile scholar Risto Santala commenting on rabbinic writings, “But who is this ‘seed of the woman’? Why is the personal pronoun hû, ‘he,’ used of it? Is ‘seed’ to be considered a singular or a collective noun? The Targum certainly associates ‘him’ with the Messiah King. But does the ‘seed’ concept have Messianic implications in other contexts too? Indeed it does: the Rabbis discuss this very issue at great length. In Gen. 4:25 we read (in the Hebrew and in the AV): ‘God has granted me another seed in place of Abel.’ Rabbi Tanhuma—of whom it was said that he was ‘the seal of the Midrashim’—mentions that ‘here we are dealing with another seed who is from another place. And who is he? He is the Messiah-King.’ [Bereshit Rabbah 23] Rabbi Huna says that ‘God prepared another seed from another place, and he is the Messiah-King.’ [Ruth Rabbah 8]”[16]

Again Risto Santala, “This method [gematria] is founded upon the statement in the Wisdom of Solomon 11:22 that, ‘God has prepared everything according to measure, number, and weight.’ But what did the sages find out about the ‘Shilo’ idea with the help of their gematria? The numeric value of ‘Shilo will come,’ yavô shilôh, is 358, which corresponds exactly to that of mashiah, ‘Messiah.’ The gematria value of nahash, ‘snake,’ is also 358. Gottlieb Klein wrote that in terms of the Jewish mystical Qabbalah this meant that ‘the Messiah is to crush the head of the serpent.’ Such observations have no scientific basis, but they illustrate the Rabbis’ understanding that the Messiah will overthrow the corruption of sin. This same expectation is reflected in 1 John 3:8, ‘The reason the Son of God appeared was to destray the works of the devil.’”[17]

Since St. Jerome died around 430 AD and the Jewish scribes allegedly changed the scripture about 100 or 200 AD, he must have used the poisoned texts.
What we are not told by Fr. Gruner is what was changed. If the original text said, “She shall crush thy head” why would the scribes change it to “He shall crush thy head,” which would be a clearer indication of Jesus? And if the original text said, “He shall crush thy head” and the scribes change it to “She shall crush thy head” why are we told that She is the original reading? Jerome’s Vulgate is the one Bible known to us that translated the verse as she and her. It is interesting to note that Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics ministry, stated on their radio show that it is thought that the original Vulgate did not translate the verse in this incorrect manner but that it was later inserted into the Vulgate.[18]

Further, we are told that St. Jerome “unlike any biblical scholar today, had original texts in Hebrew.” In reality the original Hebrew texts were not available to St. Jerome, having disintegrated centuries before, he had copies as we do today.

For the Old Testament we have the Masoretic Text which dates to circa 800 to 1,000 AD and which is accepted as standard in traditional Judaism. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that date to the time of Jesus and which where not found until 1947 AD. In addition we have the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the Hebrew text. Although we do not have the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated, we do have the translated Greek text. This is very important in defending against Fr. Gruner’s charge that Jewish scribes corrupted their own scripture (or the Jewish charge that Christians corrupted Jewish scripture). Note that the Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1178 states, “it can be inferred that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in Alexandria during the first half of the third century B.C.E. The designation Septuagint was extended to the rest of the Bible and the non-canonical books that were translated into Greek during the following two centuries.” This is well before Christianity, before the time in which both sides made allegations of purposeful corruption. The oldest manuscript for the Septuagint dates from circa 400 AD, although it is quoted extensively in the New Testament whose manuscripts date from centuries earlier. We find that the Septuagint renders Genesis 3:15 as, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman; and between thy seed and her seed. He will wound thy head, and thou wilt wound his heel”[19] And so we see that even if it is true that St. Jerome had manuscripts that we today do not have, we today have manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that he did not have.

It is sad that people think that a person’s background is viable as credentials, such as this statement by Fr. Gruner, “One of the early fathers of the Holy Ghost Fathers was a Jewish convert and his father was a rabbi” and repeated to make the point “This is a convert from Judaism whose father was a rabbi, saying this.” The fact that a Jewish convert said it and that he is a son of a rabbi is absolutely meaningless in light of the facts. In fact some Jewish converts were personally responsible for giving rise to anti-Semitic attitudes within the church. Such as the Jewish converts who disclosed the places in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings in which Jesus was referred to in a derogatory manner, which caused persecution, forced censorship and destruction of Rabbinic writings.

And so what is the point in the issue of he-his or she-her? The point is that mere men give Mary power and exaltation that is not rightly hers. Fr. Gruner states that “when Our Lady of Fatima says, ‘Only I can help you,’ in a certain sense, not even God can help us, ‘but only I.’ Does that sound almost blasphemous, and certainly to Protestants it will sound like it.”
It is very sad that he attempts to drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics, when in truth not just Protestants but all and any monotheist would and should consider such statements as blatant blasphemy, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. In order to believe that a mere human being (however blessed) can do something, anything, which God cannot do is to abandon monotheism, it is to abandon the doctrine of the omnipotence of God. It is to bestow upon the creature more sovereignty than that of the creator; it is idolatry. Indeed, to believe that that most blessed woman, Mary, defeated satan, that she crushed the serpent’s head, is not just a matter of the corruption of one word it is a teaching that goes against the Judeo-Christian scriptures and against Rabbinic writings. Scripture teaches us, “the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you” (1st John 3:8 & Romans 16:20).

Alternate Readings:
The following Bibles also read he and his for Genesis 3:15,
The Septuagint, The Living Bible-Paraphrased, Genesis-Translated and Commentary by Robert Alter, The Holy Bible an American Translation, The Living Bible, Authorized King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, The Answer-New Century Version, The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English, New International Version, Holy Bible Contemporary English Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Book, Complete Jewish Bible, Robert Young’s Literal Translation, J.N. Darby Translation, American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Version.

The alternative readings are as follows,
The Torah-The Five Books of Moses-A New Translation of the Holy Scripture According to the Traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Text has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.” The Bible in Living English has “issue” instead of “seed” and “it-its” instead of “he-his.” New English Bible has “brood” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.” Good News Bible Today’s English Version has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “her offspring-their” instead of “he-his” the footnote on the word “their” states, “their; or his.” Noah Webster Version has “it-his” instead of “he-his.”

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] The Septuagint Bible, the Oldest Version of the Old Testament in the Translation of Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress of the U.S.A. 1774-1789. As Edited and Revised by C.A. Muses M.A., Ph.D. (Indian Hills, Colorado: The Falcon’s Wing Press, 1954)
[2] Arranged and Explained by Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, S.V.D., Saint Joseph New American Catechism No. 3, According to the “Basic Teachings for Catholic Education” (Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) Vatican II Documents and Holy Scripture (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1985-1977), Nihil Obstat: John P. Meier, S.S.L., S.T.L. Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York. p. 213-214, Ch. 24, No. 170
[3] Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus
[4] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p. 162 quoting Pius XII, encyclical Fulgens Corona, 21.
[5] Venerable Mary of Agreda, Fiscar Marison (Rev. George J. Blatter) trans., The Mystical City of God, Popular Abridgment of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, written in 1902) Imprimatur: Edwin V. Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe. The 1902 edition carried the Imprimatur of His Excellency, Most Reverend H. J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne. pp. 49 & 569
[6] Fr. Stefano Gobbi; who while praying at the Chapel of the apparitions at Fatima the Mother of God impressed upon him her desire that he start the Marian Movement of Priests, To the Priests Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, The Marian Movement of Priests (originally titled Our Lady Speaks to Her Beloved Priests) (St. Francis, Maine: The Marian Movement of Priests, 1998) Imprimatur: Donald W. Montrose, D.D. 2-2-98 and Bernardino Cardinal Echeverria Ruiz, OFM Archbishop Emeritus of Guayaquil Apostolic Administrator of Ibarra 2-2-98. “It is hereby stated that the messages contained in this book must be understood not as words spoken directly by Our Lady, but received, in the form of interior locutions, by Don Stefano Gobbi. Their publication is in conformity with the directives published by Pope Paul VI on the 14th of October, 1996.” p. 625, Section 414
[7] John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 30 quoting Saint Augustine (354-430) Bishop of Hippo, his writings have shaped Christian thought for centuries. Sermon attributed to Augustine.
[8] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 157
[9] John Rotelle, pp. 32-33 quoting Saint Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) who presided as papal legate at the Third Ecumenical Council 431 AD which condemned Nestorius and solemnly recognized the title of Theotokos, Mother of God. Hominl 4.
[10] Our Lady Of Guadalupe—Patroness of the Americas, sancta.org
[11] John Rotelle, p. 19 quoting Justin the Martyr (110-165), a layman, was a professor of philosophy and wrote a famous treatise on Christianity. Dialogue with Trypho 100-101.
[12] John Rotelle, p. 38 quoting Saint Leo the Great (400-461) was elected Pope in 440 and had a part in the Council of Chalcedon. Christmas Sermon II, 1-2.5.
[13] Fr. Nicholas Gruner, B. Comm., S.T.L., S.T.D. (Cand.), The Fatima Crusader—The Calm Before the Storm Part III (Constable, NY: Servants of Jesus and Mary-Fatima Center, Autumn 1998, Issue 58) Bold print and italics in original.
[14] “the Aramaic word for ‘making peace,’ shefiyuta, resembles the Hebrew word for ‘crush,’ yeshufchah, and some Aramaicists would accept the translation, ‘Finally, in the days of the Messiah King, he will be wounded in the heel.’” From Risto Santala, Translated from Finnish by William Kinnaird, 1992, The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings—ch. The Proto Evangel
[15] see Alfred Edersheim, The life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), p. 728
[16] Risto Santala, Translated from Finnish by William Kinnaird, 1992, The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings—ch. The Messiah in the Pentateuch
[17] Risto Santala, ch. The Messiah Who Will Rule the Nations
[18] The show aired 11-15-01 on 1000 AM in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[19] The Septuagint Bible, the Oldest Version of the Old Testament in the Translation of Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress of the U.S.A. 1774-1789. Edited and revised by C.A. Muses M.A., Ph.D. (Indian Hills, Colorado: The Falcon’s Wing Press, 1954)

Sinless?

At a glance: If Mary was sinless, she could have been the ultimate sacrifice and truly our savior. Yet, Mary in her humility declared God to be her savior, she knew the true state of her soul. Again the Catholic apologist come to the rescue of un-Biblical teachings but these semantic loopholes do not suffice, nor do they lessen the impact of declaring that a mere human being can be sinless.

New American Bible:
Luke 1:46-47, “And Mary said: ‘My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.’”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Luke 1:46-47, “And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.’”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Luke 1:46-47, “And Mary said: ‘My soul extols the Lord; and my spirit leaps for joy in God my Savior.’”

Mary calls God her savior—only sinners need a savior. Yet, Catholic apologists claim that she needed a redeemer even though she was absolutely sinless. Jesus was sinless and He never calls God His savior. Moreover, as seen in our article Immaculately Conceived? the woman in Revelation 12, which tradition, the Pope and apparitions attribute to Mary, is suffering from the stain of original sin. Mary for all her blessedness has a mere human and therefore not perfect. She called God her savior because she knew the state of her blessed soul. She was not aware that about one thousand eight hundred fifty four years after she lived she would be infallibly proclaimed as having been born without sin. She also did not know that about one thousand five hundred forty seven years after she lived she would be infallibly proclaimed as having not sinned whatsoever during her whole life.
As we saw in Immaculately Conceived? Mary’s sinlessness is said to be, “thought by Catholics to be the result of a special divine privilege, as distinguished from Christ’s sinlessness, which was a necessary postulate of His divinity.” Why is Mary’s sinlessness different from that of Jesus?
Let us define two forms of sinlessness. One is that of Jesus, which is to say that He lived on earth as a human does and yet He was without sin. The other is the sinlessness of the sinner who is forgiven by God and is therefore, seen as what may be termed positional sinlessness. A sacrifice for sin had to be spotless, unblemished, without sin. If Mary was sinless in conception and through her whole life then by definition she herself could have been the sin barer and Jesus could have stayed in heaven and not humbled Himself in deepest humiliation, unto death. Also, if Mary was sinless, she is the one who fulfilled the Law by keeping it to perfection. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the “Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). This is because God knew that no mere human could live up to absolute perfection. False doctrine is like telling a lie, one must tell more and more lies in order to cover up the original lie. And so if Mary was sinless she could be the sin bearer, this is utterly un-Biblical and so the dogma has to state that she was indeed sinless but it is a divine privilege.
Why this privilege? Because tradition reasons that Jesus could not be born sinless if he were born from a sinner and so Mary was made sinless by dogma. But if Jesus could not be born sinless if he were born from a sinner then how was Mary born sinless from two sinners (her parents)? We must assume that from Adam and Eve onwards there has always been, from generation to generation a lineage of sinless people from whom Jesus came. This is impossible because Adam and Eve sinned and the genealogy of Jesus is full of sinners. And so we are back to the divine privilege. Why, we must ask; If a divine privilege preserve Mary from original sin and practical sin why could it not do the same for Jesus? Why did He have to be born from a sinless mother? Apparently the only reason to impose sinlessness upon Mary is in order to exalt her to a place that she herself in her humility would not accept.

“The perfect sinlessness of Mary had, since Apostolic times, been taught by the Fathers of the Church who appealed to such Scriptural texts as Genesis 3:15 (known as the proto-Evangelium or ‘First Gospel’) and Luke 1:28.”[1]
Genesis 3:15 has absolutely nothing to do with sinlessness and certainly nothing to do with Mary’s sinlessness in particular. Also, Luke 1:28 only speaks of Mary’s sinlessness according to the vivid imagination of un-Biblical dogma. Note also that while it is undeniable that Mary was blessed, so were all believers, here are some examples, “Blessed are the poor in spirit…Blessed are those who mourn…Blessed are the meek…Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are the pure in heart…Blessed are the peacemakers…Blessed are the eyes that see what you see…Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on” (Matthew 5:3-9, Luke 10:23 & Revelation 14:13).

Catholic Apologist Karl Keating wrote, “Mary too required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.”[2]
We are supposed to believe that Mary was perfect and called God her savior, not because she knew the state of her human soul but we are supposed to believe that she understood that she was destined to sin but that, by anticipation, God redeemed her before she ever sinned. This really gets us back to the fact that she never sinned and therefore needed no savior. Jesus did not sin and He never calls God His savior.

The Bible Makes the Issue of Sin Very Clear:
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Romans 3:10-12).

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us…If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1st John 1:8, 10).

The Bible also makes it clear that there is one single exception to this:
“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:14-15).
We are told this about Jesus and no one else in fact it was not until 1547 and 1854 AD that Mary was infallibly referred to by the Vatican as sinless. Although as usual, we find that it is alleged to be an ancient belief, does age make right? “The belief in Mary’s sinlessness appeared early in church history. In the fourth century St. Ambrose spoke of Mary as ‘free of every stain of sin.’”[3] What if someone made a doctrinal error long ago, does it make it truth today?

Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary….individual Greek Fathers (e.g., Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity.”[4]

Indeed, in the very words of scripture we learn that Mary and Joseph brought Jesus “to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord…and to offer a sacrifice according to that said in the Law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:22, 24). Why offer the turtle doves? “when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove, for a sin offering to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest” (Leviticus 12:6).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Wade L. J. Menezes, C.P.M., The Immaculate Conception, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/2000-12/menezes.html
[2] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 270
[3] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 177, quoting Ambrose of Milan, “Commentary on Psalm 118,” 22, 30, in Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, W.A. Jurgens, ed., p. 166
[4] Ludwig Ott; Roman Catholic Theologian, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Book Publishers, 1974), pp. 201 & 203

Eternally a Virgin?

At a glance: This issue is more so than not wrapped up in ancient linguistics. It is very plain that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus, this is countered by claiming that they were close relatives referred to as brothers and sisters due to ancient customs. However, we will see that this is an issue that touches more upon social and political trends than on what the truth of the matter might be.

The Linguistics:
Raymond E. Brown, S.S.; Appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, served on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, The Catholic Biblical Association, The Society of Biblical Literature and the Society of New Testament Studies explains, “Several New Testament writers refer to the ‘brother(s)’ of the Lord (Jesus), using the normal Greek word for brother, and [Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55] speak subsequently of ‘sisters of Jesus.’ One Catholic translation tried to get around ‘brothers’ by using ‘brethren,’ even though that is simply an archaic plural of ‘brother,’ and it was not able to introduce ‘sistren.’ We should stick to a literal translation of what the Greek says and not try to bowdlerize it or modify it because it raises questions...‘the brothers of Jesus’ is not Protestant language but biblical language.”[1]

Again, Raymond Brown, “by the early second century, as we can see from a story contained in an apocryphal gospel, The Protevangelium of James, there was already a tradition circulating that these were not children of Mary....That work had a great influence on the Christian portrayal of Mary, for it tells imaginatively of her background before the annunciation by Gabriel.”[2]
Notice that the explanation of a dogma comes of course not from the Bible but from an apocryphal book written circa 150 years after Mary died. In fact, on page 19, Raymond E. Brown states that this apocryphal book is “probably to be dated from the mid-second century” making it about an even 200 years after Mary. “It is thought she [Mary] died in Jerusalem c. A.D. 48.”[3]

Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, C.M. states, “The New Testament speaks of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus. But it never refers to other children of Mary and Joseph, so it is impossible to prove from the Bible that Jesus actually had blood brothers and sisters...If Mary had other children, it is difficult to explain why Jesus, as he hung on the cross, would have given Mary into the care of the Beloved Disciple (John 19:26-27). The word brothers is frequently used in the New Testament for the followers of Jesus. (See, for instance, John 20:17-18; Luke 8:21)...What is the importance of this belief? It points to the uniqueness of Jesus as the only Son of God...Mary’s virginity is, therefore, another witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ.”[4]
Regardless of the issue of Mary’s virginity, we can understand John 19:26-27 in light of the fact that by the time of the crucifixion Joseph was apparently deceased and Jesus is being very practical by entrusting Mary to the disciple whom He loved. In this case it appears that Jesus’ siblings were not believers as of yet.

The Catholic Catechism #500 states, “Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary.’ They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

Catholic apologist Karl Keating “cites several examples in the Old Testament where the Hebrew equivalent of brother is used with reference to a cousin, or even someone more remotely related. The Hebrew did not have a word for ‘cousin,’ Keating points out, and neither did the Aramaic which Jesus and His disciples spoke. He argues that, although the Greek did have a word for cousin (anepsios), it was common for Jews writing in Greek to continue the Hebrew practice of referring to all relatives as brothers (Greek: adelphos). He cites examples of this from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced in the third century B.C.) and claims that ‘the same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament.’ Hence Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ need only be cousins.”[5]
Elliot Miller provides a well-stated apologetic, “There is one conspicuous ‘ingredient’ missing in Keating’s argument: he never gives an example of a New Testament writer using adelphos for a cousin. The fact that the Septuagint did so does not prove that the New Testament does also. (After all, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus is not in a class with the contemporary narrative and letters of the New Testament.) The reason he fails to provide this important evidence for his case is obvious: there are no such examples. Keating’s case is further weakened by the fact that anepsios is used in the New Testament. In Colossians 4:10 Paul refers to ‘Mark, the cousin [anepsios] of Barnabas.’”[6]

Thus, the adelphos of Jesus are always mentioned in relation with Mary the mother of Jesus while anepsios is used very specifically of a cousin. Therefore, the New Testament writers are clearly differentiating between these two terms that regard familial relation.

Moreover, Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, “The Greek word for ‘brother,’ adelphos, literally means ‘from the same womb.”[7]

Social and Political Influence:
Raymond E. Brown explains, ‘Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all used the term ‘Ever Virgin’ (an ancient description of Mary) without objection...Yet this was already a divisive point in antiquity, for over against The Protoevangelium of James there was a distinguished theologian. Tertullian, who identified the ‘brothers’ as children born of Mary; but Jerome wrote with violent indignation against others who held that view.”[8]

Again, Brown points out, “The enduring virginity of Mary is something that goes beyond any documentary attestation that we have and represents praise of Mary that stems from our faith. We Roman Catholics consider it a doctrine of the church, but that does not necessarily mean that Mary told anyone that she always remained a virgin. We accept this doctrine of the ‘Ever Virgin’ not on basis of a biblical text, but from Christian reflection on the sanctity of Mary and the way in which that sanctity was expressed in her life...One should emphasize, however, that the Church doctrine concerning Mary’s ongoing virginity never identified who the brothers were.”[9]
This last statement is interesting in that, as we also saw in our article Assumed Into Heaven?, a dogma which is slightly implied or non existent in Scripture is defined as being divine truth by the Catholic church and yet, they still leave the issue unclear and leave plenty of room for speculation and or conflict.

Pope Paul VI stated that Mary “remained a virgin ‘during childbirth and after childbirth’-as the Catholic Church has always believed and professed and as was fitting for her who was raised to the incomparable dignity of divine motherhood.”[10]
However, Raymond Brown, whom Pope Paul VI appointed to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission states, “Were not Catholics always taught that the brothers of Jesus were his cousins? Catholics were taught that, but not ‘always.’ In the Western Church, St. Jerome became the spokesman for a solution that differed from the one offered in The Protevangelium of James. Jerome was interested not only in Mary’s virginity, but also in Joseph's virginity as a symbol for encouraging the monastic, celibate life. Accordingly, he disliked the explanation offered by The Protevangelium of James that Joseph had children by a previous marriage. An alternative explanation was that they were the children of Joseph's brother or of Mary’s sister.”[11]

Some Back and Forth:
Alan Schreck; associate professor of theology states, “the belief that Mary was ever-virgin is very ancient. The great teachers of the church from at least the fourth century on spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life.”[12]
But “Tertullian, a writer who lived at the end of the second century, spoke of Mary having a normal married life, and of her having children.”[13]

Karl Keating writes, “At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, she asked, ‘How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man?’ (Lk. 1:34). From the earliest interpretation of the Bible we see that this was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage, If she had taken no such vow, the question would make no sense at all. There is no reason to assume Mary was wholly ignorant of the rudiments of biology. She presumably knew the normal way in which children are conceived. If she anticipated having children and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask ‘how’ she was to have a child, since having a child the normal way would be expected by a newlywed.”[14]
In reality it is not accurate to state that from the earliest interpretation the verse was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, because that idea comes from apocryphal stories.
If Mary had made a life long vow of virginity, why is she “a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1:27). It is a contradiction to claim that a life long virgin would get married and in fact the New Testament does not say a single word about a pledge of life long virginity rather, in direct contradiction to this, it does states that she made a pledge to marry.

We might also ask why if “she had promised God that she would remain a virgin”[15] doesn’t the New Testament clearly speak on this subject.
And so we see that the plain reading of the texts is ignored and given a brand new meaning by adding apocryphal stories to it. The text is too simple to misunderstand, if, we are not attempting to force it to say what we have preconceived. Although perhaps we do have to make an assumption, we assume that the angel spoke to Mary in a manner that made her understand that the pregnancy would be soon, much too soon for her to have the time to be wed and conceive.
The odd thing about considering Mary to be a married virgin is that it contradicts other teachings of the Bible, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command...a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband. I am saying this for
your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord” (1st Corinthians 7:3-6, 34-35).

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. states, “Both she and Joseph understood that they were not ever to engage in sexual relations. Consequently, we must say that both Mary and Joseph were truly married according to the Jewish Law. But we must also say that they abstained from any sexual relation as wife and husband. This is the Church’s official teaching about Mary and Joseph’s virginity.”[16]
He claims that they were married according to the Jewish Law, but fails to point out that in Judaism not having children is considered a sin because it is in opposition of the commandment to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the Earth” (Genesis 1:28).

To the question “What is the best explanation of Joseph’s decision to put Mary away quietly after she was with child? The most comforting reason that I have heard is that St. Joseph realized that something miraculous had occurred and therefore out of humility he decided he was unworthy to be associated with Mary.” Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. answers “The explanation which you give is certainly acceptable. By now there have been many explanations of why Joseph at first decided to put Mary away quietly. The most common explanation is that he certainly thought that Mary was innocent. His problem was to understand why Mary had become pregnant without marital intercourse. Consequently he at first decided to separate from Our Lady, and remain silent about her pregnancy. At this point, God intervened and miraculously revealed to Joseph that Mary was to be the Mother of the Messiah. Her pregnancy was therefore the miraculous intervention by God to provide a human mother for the Savior, without the cooperation of a human father.”[17]
Fr. Hardon refers to the suggested answer as certainly acceptable but there is absolutely no reason to accept it as such. According to the New Testament Joseph had no knowledge of a miraculous event until after he had decided to put Mary away quietly. Notice that the reason for the suggested answer is that it is most comforting and not because it lines up with the Word of God, this is certainly no way to construct a doctrine. We simply do not have much information regarding Joseph’s mindset. However, we point out that while not calling into question Mary’s character, the Scripture states, “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace” (Matthew 1:19). Thus, it was Joseph’s character that kept him from disgracing her, not any knowledge of a miraculous event, nor any sort of understanding of her innocence.

We give the last word to Raymond E. Brown who leaves us with a well balanced statement, “let me urge that we Christians who remain loyal to the tradition of Mary-Ever-Virgin...must be clear in our minds that, if after the birth of Jesus Mary had conceived in a normal way and borne other children, that would have been a saintly action blessed by God, even as was her decision to remain a virgin-a decision implied by the title ‘Ever Virgin’...The authors of this book[18]agree that the question of whether Mary had other children by Joseph is not raised directly by the New Testament nor answered without doubt therein. Rather, for intelligible reasons, depending on their use of subsequent church insight, Christians have emerged with different answers…The difference of this belief is not directly over the Bible; the difference is in large part over the authority of tradition and church teaching.”[19]

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Raymond E. Brown, S.S.; Appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, served on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, The Catholic Biblical Association, The Society of Biblical Literature and the Society of New Testament Studies, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Myles M. Bourke, S.S.L., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: Rev. Msgr. Patrick J. Sheridan Vicar-General, Archdiocese of New York. pp. 92-93
[2] Raymond E. Brown, pp. 94, 20
[3] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat: Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 358
[4] Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M.; Director of Catholic Home Study Services, one of America’s most popular interpreters of Catholic faith and the Bible, “We Believe...” A Survey of the Catholic Faith, Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO.: Liguori Publications, 1990), Imprimatur Potest: William A. Nugent, C.SS.R. Provincial, St. Louis Province, The Redemptorists, Imprimatur: Monsignor Maurice F. Byrne, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of St. Louis. p. 68-69
[5] Elliot Miller, “Part One: From Lowly Handmaid to Queen of Heaven, The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, p. 12 quoting Karl Keating, Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 283
[6] Elliot Miller, p. 12
[7] Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen (New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 2001), p. 66 Nihil Obstat: Rev. James Dunfee, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Gilbert I. Sheldon, Bishop of Steubenville
[8] Raymond E. Brown, pp. 93, 95-96
[9] Raymond E. Brown, pp. 93, 95
[10] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI -PART I quoting St. Leo, martyr, letter, Lectis dilectionis tuae to Flavianum; PL 54, 759; idem, letter, Licet per nostros to Julian, Ep. Coensem: p. 54, 803; St. Hormisdas, Ep. Inter ea quae to Justinian, emperor, PL 63, 407; Lateran Council, October, 609, under Martin I, canon 3: Caspar, ZKG, 51, 1932, p. 88; Conc. Tolet. XVI, Symbol. article 22: J. Madoz, El Simbolo del Concilio XVI de Toledo in Estudios Onienses, ser. I, volume 3, 1946; dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium nn. 52, 55, 57, 59, 63; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57, 1965, pp. 58-64 and St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Part I, q. 25, a. 6, ed. 4
[11] Raymond E. Brown, p. 95
[12] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 174
[13] “Passages from Tertullian regarding Mary’s normal married life and children include: Against Marcion 4, 19; De Monog. 8; De Verg. Vel. 6.” quoted in James R. White, Mary-Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 33
[14] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 283
[15] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, Ask Father Hardon, catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0304-96/index.html Copyright 1996 Inter Mirifica
[16] Fr. John A. Hardon, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/Jul-Aug99/Questions.html Copyright 1999 Inter Mirifica
[17] Fr. John A. Hardon, catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-05-06/answers.html and catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0304-97/index.html Copyright 1997 Inter Mirifica
[18] He is referring to an ecumenical book: Raymond E. Brown, ed., Mary in the New Testament (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), pp. 65-72 [19] Raymond E. Brown, pp. 96-97

Assumed Into Heaven?

At a glance: On the surface the teaching of Mary’s body and soul assumption into heaven is what all believers look forward to. However, this teaching is not in the Bible and it does play a part in the hyper-exaltation of Mary.

It is important here to distinguish between Ascension and Assumption. Ascension, as that of Jesus, denotes that He went to heaven under His own power. Assumption, as that of Mary, denotes that she was taken up not having the power to ascend by her own doing.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating states, “Catholic commentators, not to mention the Popes, have agreed that Mary died…The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not.”[1]
This is interesting in that a dogma which might be slightly implied or non existent in Scripture is defined as being divine truth by the Catholic Church and yet they still leave the issue unclear and leave plenty of room for speculation and or conflict (Also see our article Eternally a Virgin?).

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—A Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information, “Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. 1. The privilege of Mary by which, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heaven, where she now lives on, glorified in both body and soul. This doctrine was solemnly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. In defining the assumption, Pope Pius XII avoided settling a theological dispute connected with the doctrine. Did Mary die? The assumption took place at the end of her earthly life; but her earthly life could have been ended by death or by having been assumed into heaven without dying. The more common opinion is that Mary did die. The assumption, therefore, would be an anticipated resurrection. But since the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and especially since the definition of the assumption, a growing number of theologians have taught that she did not die but was translated body and soul into heaven without ever having died. Catholics are free to hold either opinion.”
Note that the assumption of Mary was not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church until one thousand nine hundred fifty years after Mary lived.

New American Bible Fireside Family Edition—Encyclopedic Dictionary and Biblical Reference Guide, “her assumption has been a common Catholic belief for at least 1500 years, it was not declared as an article of the faith until 1950…The Feast of the Assumption is celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation.”

If Roman Catholic tradition comes from the Apostles why was this not a common Catholic belief for millennia? Moreover, why was it not official until 1950 AD? These questions are very important because the feast of the Assumption is a Holy Day of Obligation, which the Catholic NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines as, “Days on which Catholics are obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass and to abstain from all unnecessary servile work.” Every Sunday in the year as well as certain feast days are designated as such. The NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines mortal sin as, “A most serious offense against God, and it is called mortal because it destroys one’s relationship of friendship with God. Through mortal sin one condemns self to separation from God which is called damnation.” According to Roman Catholicism if a person dies with unrepented mortal sin they will go to hell for all eternity, not to purgatory, which is where, according to dogma, one may suffer for unrepented venial sin or make satisfaction for forgiven mortal sin. Why is it that for 1,950 years it was not a damnable offense but since 1950 it has been? Is it because God said so or because men did?
Under the New Covenant the Word of God knows no such thing as days of obligatory holidays punishable by damnation if they are not kept. In fact, the exact opposite is true, Paul writes, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). Paul also explains, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:8-11). “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (Romans 14:5-6).

Hermano Juan Sandoval taught that three days after Mary died Jesus came down from heaven with her soul and assumed Mary, body and soul into heaven. He taught that her assumption into heaven was more glorious than the ascension of Jesus Christ Himself.[2] What need there is for making such a statement is beyond me, except that while teaching a four day class on Roman Catholicism, Hermano Sandoval proved himself to be, as it is said, mas Mariano que Cristiano—more Marian than Christian. Hermano Sandoval said that his bishop has approved all he taught. We shall see that approval by a bishop does not necessarily mean approval by the Word of God.

Notice a particular statement in Revelation that Roman Catholicism attributes to Mary,
“And there appeared a great sign in the heavens, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head, and having a babe in womb, she cries, being in travail, having been distressed to bear….And she bore a son, a male, who is going to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, so that they might nourish her there a thousand, two hundred and sixty days” (Revelation 12:1-2, 5-6).
The child was caught up to God but the woman was not: no assumption of Mary.

The Bible or the Apocrypha?:
The first time I heard about the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, I asked a devout Catholic if it is called the Assumption because it is only assumed that it occurred (not thinking that it meant to take up, or take on, as in assuming authority). I was told that the story is found in the New Testament, at that time I had read the New Testament once and I said that I did not remember anything of the sort, “Yes, it’s there,” I was told. Being such a young Christian at the time I did not think to ask “Where?—Show me!” I was also told that Mary is the only person to have been blessed in this manner. However, if she was assumed into heaven she is the third, first was Enoch, second is Elijah. We should not hold the ignorance of an individual against a whole church (even though this person was a life long Catholic, had been the Director of Catholic Religious Education for 8 years and had worked at the parish some 28 years), the point is that the story is not found in the Bible.
In reality Mary’s assumption and other such stories come from apocryphal books such as the fourth century Passing of Mary and the sixth century Nativity of Mary.[3]
Regarding the Assumption Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had…The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal, they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing”[4]

Karl Keating stated, “where is the proof [of the Assumption] from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”[5]
The Bible teaches, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1st Thessalonians 5:21). As opposed to this, Hermano Juan Sandoval taught that we are not to question the Holy Mother Church because although individuals can be fooled, the Roman Catholic Church cannot be fooled. Are we back, or still in, the Dark Ages? The Bible is clear that we are to test all things. Paul considered the Bereans more noble because they listened to him teach and then everyday they checked out the Scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was true. How different this is from the Dark Age tactics of forbidding the questioning of the hierarchical power structure of a church (see Acts 17).

Karl Keating goes on to state, “True, no express scriptural proofs for the doctrine [of the Assumption] are available. The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15:23, and it is even suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: ‘and the graves were opened, and many bodies arose out of them, bodies of holy men gone to their rest: who, after his rising again, left their graves and went into the holy city, where they were seen by many.’”[6]
While this text certainly proves the resurrection of the dead, there is not a single word or hint of an assumption into heaven. They rose from the grave and went into Jerusalem, the holy city, where they were seen, nothing more is said in the Bible about these people and so from here we would have to force our preconceived notions into the text.

Where Does Our Hope Lay?:
A common statement made by Catholic apologists is that Mary was assumed into heaven to give us the hope of some day reaching heaven ourselves.

Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology, “Belief in the Assumption is a source of hope for Christians because it foreshadows what will one day happen to each faithful Christian.”[7]

Anthony Wilhelm, “As she was taken to heaven and glorified, we have the assurance that one day we also will be. She was taken in a special way because it was not fitting that the body from which the Son of God had taken his human body should undergo corruption.”[8]

If so why did Jesus ascend after His resurrection? He did not do so in order to prove that heaven is up, that it has a physical or spatial location. The ascension of Jesus has been called a lived parable, He did it to show us that He who has the power to ascend has the power to descend and assume all believers into heaven. This should not be taken away from Jesus by pointing to Mary as our example and hope.
Jesus said, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going” (John 14:1-4). And Jesus “was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:8-10).

Birth of a Dogma:
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explains the thought process behind the Assumption dogma, “Some argued from her virginity, that as her body was preserved in spotless chastity, it should not be subject to natural dissolution after death. But the most cogent reason, later on adopted by Pius XII, was the participation by Christ’s mother in his redemption of the world.”[9]

Karl Keating writes, “[Pope] Pius XII said the Assumption is really a consequence of the Immaculate Conception.”[10]

Fr. Oscar Lukefahr explains that the dogma of the assumption of Mary in heaven “was defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, not on his own initiative but in answer to millions of petitions from all over the world…This doctrine is a sign of hope because it point the way to heaven for us, who are, like Mary, members of the Church.”[11]

Alan Schreck explains that the doctrine of the Assumption was “defined as a Catholic beliefs by an ‘infallible’ statement of Pope Pius XII in 1950 in response to the faith of millions of Catholics who desired that the Pope speak out officially about the truth of this belief. In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter.”[12]

Anthony Wilhelm states, “a tomb of Mary was venerated, but there were no relics of her body, unlike the apostles and other early Christian heroes; when Christian writers and the liturgy became concerned with Mary’s assumption in the 6th and 7th centuries, it was accepted throughout the Church.”[13]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. points out, “The Eastern Emperor Mauritius (582-602) introduced the feast of the Koimesis (Falling Asleep) of the Virgin and ordered its celebration annually…In the West, the earliest extant testimony is the statement of Gregory of Tours (d. 596), that ‘The Lord commanded the holy body [of Mary after her death] to be borne on a cloud to Paradise, where, reunited to its soul…However, the most extensive witness comes from St. Andrew of Crete (d. 720), St. Germanus, patriarch of Byzantium (733), and especially St. John Damascene (d. after 754)…the faith of the people in the doctrine must have been very strong and widespread by the middle of the eighth century.”[14]

Here we see that a half of a millennia pass before this dogma came to be taught, even unofficially.
Also we find that the real reason for the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption is not divine revelation but due to the accumulation of human opinion. The Fatima Crusader stated, “According to Pope Pius XII it was through the petitions of the faithful that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was solemnly and infallibly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith.”[15] Pope Pius XII wrote, “the Bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith.”[16]

Apologist Karl Keating writes, “‘But’, ask fundamentalists, ‘if Mary was immaculately conceived, and if death was a consequence of original sin, why did she die?’ Although she was wholly innocent and never committed a sin, she died in order to be in union with Jesus. Keep in mind that he did not have to die to effect our redemption; he could have just willed it, and that would have been sufficient. But he chose to die.”[17]
Jesus was sinless throughout His whole life and He would have never died and so it is true that He chose to die.[18] According to Catholic dogma we do not know if Mary died or not (why do we not know even when the Holy Spirit inspired Pope infallibly spoke out on the subject?), assuming that Mary did die we are told that it was so that she could be in union with Jesus. This does not really answer why she died, after all are we to believe that neither Enoch nor Elijah are with Jesus because they did not die?[19] Next we are told that Jesus did not have to die, he could have just willed redemption. We could what if the Bible to death but that is not reality; reality is what actually occurred. Paul speaks very clearly on this subject, “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:15-17).
Since when is divinely inspired truth voted on by the popular consensus and peer pressure?

In the Bible the last we know of Mary is that, along with some other Apostles, she received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after that we know nothing of her life or death. However, there is a sure way to get accurate information regarding this, we can ask her once we get to heaven.

If the Assumption of Mary gives hope to the believers, then what hope did believers have before she died in 48 AD [if she died]? They had the authentic hope from the source of true hope, the Ascension of Jesus Christ, which occurred a decade and a half before Mary’s assumed Assumption.

Regarding the Assumption, Roman Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner states, “at best it can only be considered an evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensibly historical account….Otherwise, there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.”[20]

And yet A Catholic Dictionary; The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary states, “This belief is not an article of faith; nevertheless Pope Benedict XIV declared it to be probable opinion, the denial of which would be impious and blasphemous.”[21]

To the question “How were Enoch and Elijah’s being taken directly into Heaven different from Our Lady’s Assumption into Heaven?” Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. answers, “Among others, Enoch and Elijah are identified in the Old Testament as having been taken from this world by God without apparently going through the act of dying. We know much more about Elijah than about Enoch. Presumably Elijah went to heaven without dying. Moreover it was believed that Elijah went to heaven without having first died. Does this mean that Elijah went to heaven directly? Actually the Church has never held as official teaching that Elijah was taken directly to heaven without going through the process of dying. Much less is known about Enoch, the son of Cain. Enoch is said to have walked with God because: ‘God took him.’ No doubt Ecclesiasticus suggests that Enoch was directly taken to heaven. In any case, it is not certain that either Elijah or Enoch was directly taken from this world and assumed into heaven. We may hold that both Elijah and Enoch were mysteriously taken from this world without going through the ordinary human experience of dying. But the Catholic Church has never taught this as a certain article of faith.”[22]
Note first of all that he never answers the question, never even mentions Mary’s assumption, much less as opposed to Enoch’s or Elijah’s. Also note the difficulty he has in trying to construct an answer and the repetitiveness he employs, practically stating everything two or three times, maybe to lengthen the answer, but there is no end result.
What is really disheartening is that while the Bible clearly teaches that Enoch was taken from this world without dying, but since the Vatican has not officially-infallibly declared it Fr. Hardon seems unable to admit what the Bible clearly teaches, “Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’” (Hebrews 11:5 quoting Genesis 5:24).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 273
[2] On March 20, 2001 at St. Joseph on the Rio Grande Roman Catholic Church, Alb., NM.
[3] See Henry Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 747
[4] Ludwig Ott, Roman Catholic Theologian, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Book Publishers, 1974), pp. 208-210
[5] Karl Keating, p. 273
[6] Karl Keating, p. 273
[7] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 181
[8] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark. p. 392-393
[9] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p. 155
[10] Karl Keating, p. 275
[11] Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M.; Director of Catholic Home Study Services, one of America’s most popular interpreters of Catholic faith and the Bible, “We Believe…” A Survey of the Catholic Faith, Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO.: Liguori Publications, 1990), Imprimatur Potest: William A. Nugent, C.SS.R. Provincial, St. Louis Province, The Redemptorists, Imprimatur: Monsignor Maurice F. Byrne, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of St. Louis. p. 68
[12] Alan Schreck, p. 180. He footnotes, “See ‘The Assumption of Our Lady’ in Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pp. 55-57
[13] Anthony Wilhelm, p. 392-393
[14] Fr. John A. Hardon, p.154
[15] The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, Issue 64 (Published by the National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada), p. 62
[16] Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
[17] Karl Keating, p. 275
[18] John 10:17-18, “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” Titus 2:13-14, “we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness”
[19] Genesis 5:24 “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.”
2nd Kings 2:11-12 “As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind…And Elisha saw him no more.”
[20] Karl Rahner; Catholic Theologian, Mary Mother of the Lord (Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire: Anthony Clarke Books, 1963), p. 16
[21] Donald Attwater, gen. ed., A Catholic Dictionary; The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1931), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Arthur J. Scanlan, D.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, 12-13-30, p. 41
[22] Fr. John A. Hardon, Ask Father Hardon, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/Jul-Aug99/Questions.html Copyright 1999 Inter Mirifica

Coronation in Heaven?

At a glance: Related to the labeling of Mary as Queen of Heaven is the teaching that after her assumption into heaven she is said to have been crowned and given power and authority, which the Bible states belong to Jesus alone.

The only place in Scripture where one can even make an attempt at proving that Mary was crowned in heaven as Queen of Heaven is from Revelation 12. Roman Catholicism contradicts itself in that case in stating that it does and does not refer to Mary.

The Catholic New American Bible renders the verse as, “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Because she was with child, she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”
The Vatican approved footnote to the NAB states, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).”
The Vatican approved footnote to The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ states, “A woman: this is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.”
The Vatican approved footnote in The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes states, “a woman: the spiritual Israel which gave birth to Christ…”

William Blake, The Red Dragon & The Woman Clothed With the Sun

And so we see that one Catholic Bible admits that the woman has original sin, another admits that it is not Mary but it is applied to her in order to accommodate man made dogma, and another admits that the woman is symbolic of spiritual Israel.
As seen in our articles Immaculately Conceived? and Sinless? the woman in Revelation 12 is suffering from the stain of original sin, which contradicts traditions about Mary. Therefore, the woman with “a crown of twelve stars on her head” is not Mary. Either Mary was born immaculate (without original sin) or she was crowned in heaven as queen, Catholic dogma cannot have it both ways. There is no biblical support for Mary’s coronation.

Venerable Mary of Agreda states, “He [Jesus] had exalted Her [Mary] among all and above all by the treasures of his Divinity and by conferring upon Her the dominion over all creation together with favors, blessings and graces, such as were never to be conferred upon any other being…[Jesus said, to Mary] I constitute my sole and universal Heiress of all the gifts of nature, of grace and of glory that are mine. She shall be Mistress and possessor of them all…I desire that She shall be Mistress of angels and men, claim over them full possession and dominion and command the service and obedience of all. The demons shall fear Her and be subject to Her. All the irrational creatures, the heavens, the stars, the planets, the elements with all the living beings, the birds, the fishes and the animals contained in them, shall likewise be subject to Her and acknowledge Her as Mistress, exalting and glorifying Her with Me.”[1]

Enoch and Elijah were both assumed into heaven before Mary was but they were not crowned king or even prince of heaven. The only way to exalt Mary above Enoch or Elijah, is for her to be crowned queen of heaven.[2]

In the hyper-Marian movement there is a constant glorification of Mary in which she is taken so close to what God is that to the untrained eye it becomes hard to distinguish one from the other: since God is the King of kings, the devotees of Mary say that right along side of Him, Mary must be the queen.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Venerable Mary of Agreda, Fiscar Marison (Rev. George J. Blatter) trans., The Mystical City of God, Popular Abridgment of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, written in 1902) Imprimatur: Edwin V. Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe. The 1902 edition carried the Imprimatur of His Excellency, Most Reverend H. J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne. pp. 424 & 569
[2] Genesis 5:24 “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.”
2nd Kings 2:11-12 “As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind…And Elisha saw him no more.”

Queen of Heaven?

At a glance: Working under the assumption that Mary’s assumption actually took place; the next step in her exaltation is to crown her as Queen of heaven. This comes from a misidentification and misapplication of the woman in Revelation 12. In the Vatican approved Bible, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version) we find the following footnote: “this is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.” In the Bible the Queen of Heaven is an idol, an abomination to God.

The Catholic Catechism #966 states, “‘Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death’”[1]

“The title ‘Queen’ was first used in association with Mary by Pope Martin in the seventh century. Boniface IX (1389-1404) called her ‘Perfect Queen, royal Virgin, Queen of the heavens.’ Sixtus IV in the following century acknowledged her as ‘Queen of Heaven.’”[2]

Mark Brumley reasons, “as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam (Ad Caeli Reginam, no. 38).”[3]

Saint John Chrysostom wrote, “May we all receive the benefit of having recourse to the holy Virgin and Mother of God. Those of you who are now virgins should be devoted to the Mother of the Lord, because it is she who procures for you this fair and incorruptible possession…Who is holier than she? She is unsurpassed by our ancestors, by the prophets, apostles, or martyrs, by these patriarchs or the Fathers, by the angels, thrones, dominions, seraphim, or cherubim, or by any other created thing visible or invisible…If your beliefs correspond to your own ideas, perceive your danger. But if you believe the word that is preached, it is no longer you who must render an account but the bishop. Believe what we say about the Virgin…Do you desire to know how far the Virgin surpasses the powers of heaven? Give me your attention then. They veil their faces as they hover in fear and trembling, but she offers the human race to God, and through her we receive the forgiveness of our sins…the boast and foundation of our Church. Plead earnestly for us that through you we may obtain mercy on the Day of Judgement.”[4]

The Bible Makes Very Clear Who is Ruler Over All Things:
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’” (Matthew 28:18).

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (Colossians 1:18).

“He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father” (Revelation 2:27, Jesus quoting Psalm 2:8-9).

“in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:20-23).

God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).

“‘you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.’ In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Hebrews 2:7-8).

Note that these statements are all made in the singular He, Him, Jesus, is given everything, not they nor them and there is no sharing of power.

The Real Queen of Heaven:
Now we present some rather lengthy quotations from Jeremiah in order to show what the Bible has to say about the Queen of Heaven.

New American Bible; Jeremiah 7:12-13, 17-20, 24-28, 30, “You may go to Shiloh, which I made the dwelling for my name in the beginning. See what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. And now because you have committed all these misdeeds, says the LORD, because you did not listen, though I spoke to you untiringly; because you did not answer…Do you not see what you are doing in the cities of Judah, in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes for the queen of heaven, while libations are poured to strange gods in order to hurt. Is it I whom they hurt, says the LORD; is it not rather themselves, to their own confusion? See now, says the LORD God, my anger and my wrath will pour out upon this place…But they obeyed not, nor did they pay heed. They walked in the hardness of their evil hearts and turned their backs, not their faces, to me. From the day that your fathers left the land of Egypt even to this day, I have sent untiringly all my servants the prophets. Yet they have not obeyed me nor paid heed; they have stiffened their necks and done worst than their fathers. When you speak all these words to them, they will not listen to you either; when you call to them, they will not answer you. Say to them: This is the nation which does not listen to the voice of the LORD, its God, or take correction. Faithfulness has disappeared; the word itself has vanished from their lips…The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my Name by setting up their abominable idols.’”

Jeremiah 44:15-28, “Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, ‘We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine.’ The women added, ‘When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?’ Then Jeremiah said to all the people, both men and women, who were answering him, ‘Did not the LORD remember and think about the incense burned in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem by you and your fathers, your kings and your officials and the people of the land? When the LORD could no longer endure your wicked actions and the detestable things you did, your land became an object of cursing and a desolate waste without inhabitants, as it is today. Because you have burned incense and have sinned against the LORD and have not obeyed him or followed his law or his decrees or his stipulations, this disaster has come upon you, as you now see.’ Then Jeremiah said to all the people, including the women, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah in Egypt. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You and your wives have shown by your actions what you promised when you said, ‘We will certainly carry out the vows we made to burn incense and pour out drink offerings to the Queen of Heaven.’ ‘Go ahead then, do what you promised! Keep your vows! But hear the word of the LORD, all Jews living in Egypt: ‘I swear by my great name,’ says the LORD, ‘that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, ‘As surely as the Sovereign LORD lives.’ For I am watching over them for harm, not for good; the Jews in Egypt will perish by sword and famine until they are all destroyed. Those who escape the sword and return to the land of Judah from Egypt will be very few. Then the whole remnant of Judah who came to live in Egypt will know whose word will stand—mine or theirs.’”

Clearly the Queen of Heaven was a false goddess, an idol, an abomination to God. To refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven is to incriminate her and those who hold to that tradition, it is offensive to the real blessed Mary. Clearly as we have seen in our articles Immaculately Conceived?, Sinless?, Coronation in Heaven? and here in Queen of Heaven? a choice must be made concerning Marian dogma. Either Mary is the woman in Revelation 12 and she was crowned in heaven as Queen of Heaven, but she was not immaculately conceived. Or else Mary was immaculately conceived but is not the woman in Revelation 12 and therefore, was not assumed into heaven and was not crowned as Queen of Heaven. This is because the woman in Rev. 12 is suffering from the pain of child birth, which means that she is suffering from the stain of original sin and therefore, not immaculate (see Genesis 3:16). Also note that the answer given to Jeremiah is much like the answer given today, when people place candles, flowers, rosaries, scapulars, etc., before the statues of Mary the response is that “Things are well and so we’ll keep doing it.” Pragmatism is not kosher.

Mark Brumley and The Catholic Faith Magazine:
We have decided to a dedicate a section of this article to respond to an article written by Mark Brumley, managing editor of The Catholic Faith[5] magazine (the magazine will be referred to as TCF in this article). While responding to the whole article would take up more room then we can offer here, we will comment on certain attempts to defend Mary as being Queen of Heaven.
Mark Brumley as well as Catholic apologist Tim Staples make a fairly common argument, TCF states, “In 1 Kings 2:19, Bathsheba, the queen mother of Solomon, is honored by her son, who stands to greet her and pays her homage when she comes to him on a matter of state. The Bible declares, ‘Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.’”
First of all, we point out that in Ad Diem Illum-10, Pius X wrote, “Mary as Queen stands at His right hand.” Note that in order to force 1st Kings 2:19 to speak of Mary, apologists make her sit at the king’s side but when the Pope himself spoke out on this issue, he says that she stands. Don’t consider this as a petty issue because the apologists who claim to be part of the one true holy mother church are contradicting the Pope who is supposed to be their infallible leader. Secondly, we point out that while according to Israeli monarchical filial piety the king may have his mother sit by his side, God tells us “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8).

Moreover, we must wonder if 1st Kings 2:19 is a good example to use of Mary’s relationship to Jesus, particularly of her role as co-mediatrix? Verses 19-20 are very useful indeed, “Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand. Then she said, ‘I desire one small petition of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.’”
But we must ask whatever came of this request? Verses 23-25 state, “Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, ‘May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!’ So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died.”
Following this we find out that Joab and Shimei are also executed (v. 34 and 46).
Certainly, this is not the sort of text we aught to exploit in an isogetical manner in order to claim that the Scripture is stating that which it is not.

Pope Paul VI wrote, “To the Catholic bishops of the world. Venerable brothers, health and apostolic blessings. THE GREAT SIGN which the Apostle John saw in heaven, ‘a woman clothed with the sun,’ is interpreted by the sacred Liturgy,[6] not without foundation, as referring to the most blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer.”[7]
TCF, “But who is the Woman? Some commentators have argued that she is the Church, not Mary. Others see the Woman as the Old Testament People of God personified, e.g., the Daughter of Zion. Both of these interpretations have merit, for both express aspects of the Woman. Yet neither of these interpretations is sufficient by itself. Mary must also be included in the passage, though the case for a Marian interpretation of the text is not as obvious as it may seem at first glance…For one thing, the Woman gives birth ‘in travail,’ seemingly contrary to the tradition that Mary was exempt from the pangs of birth…Revelation 12 seems to be such a messianic and prophetic interpretation of Genesis 3:15, so it seems likely that the Woman is Mary. That said, elements of the other two interpretations can be brought together in a Marian interpretation (cf. Redemptoris Mater 24, 47).”
What Mr. Brumley does in order to force Revelation 12 to speak of Mary is to take three interpretations of the text, the views that interpret the woman as Israel, as the church and as Mary. He then rejects some of the framework of each interpretation, glues together what is left over and he ends up with an interpretation which he thinks fits Mary and proves that she is the Queen of Heaven. One of the odd things that he is forced to do is explain away the woman’s stain of original sin, TCF, “If the childbirth in travail does refer to the crucifixion, then the Woman of Rev 12 could just as well be Mary at the foot of the Cross.” He makes this very odd statement because he points out that Jesus likened the sorrow of His crucifixion to childbirth in saying to his Apostles, “you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world” (John 16:20-21). Of course the difference is that while to the Apostles Jesus spoke of birth pangs metaphorically, in Rev. 12 the woman is literally giving birth. Also, note that while the Apostles knew that Jesus was going to be killed, Mary did not know it at the time of His birth (which is what Revelation 12 is supposed to be about) rather, Mary found out later on that something terrible would befall Jesus (see Luke 2:33-35).

Indeed, the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary only in as much as it accords with Roman Catholic theology. Consider that in 12:17 it states, “the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who kept God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus” (Roman Catholic New American Bible). See the point? If Mary was perpetually a virgin then who are the rest of her offspring? The Roman Catholic Douay Version translated from the Latin Vulgate reads “the rest of her seed.”

TCF, “According to the Book of Revelation, Jesus has made His followers ‘a kingdom and priests’ that ‘will reign on earth’ (Rev 5:10; cf. Rev 1:6)…2 Timothy 2:11-12: ‘If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him.’ In Revelation 2:26, the Lord Himself declares, ‘He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with an iron rod, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father’ (RSV)…the aforementioned texts refer to faithful Christians in general. Yet if they apply to all faithful Christians, then surely they also apply to Mary specifically, especially given her deep union with her Son. If all faithful Christians are to reign with Christ as ‘kings’ and ‘queens,’ it makes no sense to object to calling Mary ‘Queen,’ for she, too, is a faithful follower of Jesus.”
If we grant this argument, then by its logical conclusion the Catholic church should be just as adamant in referring to King Peter, King Paul, Queen Priscilla, Queen Magdalene and so on, given their deep union with Jesus, but we find no such thing. In other words the title Queen of Heaven is protected and justified by the above argument, but the above argument is never followed through and applied to “His followers ‘a kingdom and priests’ that ‘will reign on earth’…faithful Christians in general.”
This reasoning does not escape Mr. Brumley who further states in TCF, “Calling Mary ‘Queen’ unduly singles her out; all the saints in glory are kings and queens in Christ…The fact that all the saints in glory have a royal dignity does not mean Mary should not be given the title ‘Queen,’…Mary alone is the Queen Mother of the Messiah in the literal sense. Finally, Scripture itself declares that ‘all ages shall call’ the Virgin blessed (Lk 1:48)…And if Scripture itself singles out Mary in a special way as the one especially blessed by God to be the Mother of the King of Kings, then how can it be objectionable for Christians to acknowledge this?”
Simply stated, since the Bible refers to Mary as blessed then we may acknowledge her as blessed and since it does not refer to her as Queen of Heaven then we are under absolutely no obligation to acknowledge her as such. Note also that while it is undeniable that Mary was blessed, so were all believers, here are some examples, “Blessed are the poor in spirit…Blessed are those who mourn…Blessed are the meek…Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are the pure in heart…Blessed are the peacemakers…Blessed are the eyes that see what you see…Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on” (Matthew 5:3-9; Luke 10:23; Revelation 14:13).

In responding to those who state that Mary is given the title Queen of Heaven (which is an idol, a goddess and an abomination to God), the argument is made in TCF that “The fact that the Devil (or the wicked King of Babylon, depending on your interpretation) is called ‘the morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12 does not mean we cannot use the same title to refer to Jesus, as in 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16.”
We point out that technically it is Lucifer and not the devil who is referred to as the morning star. What we mean is that Lucifer only became the devil or satan (the adversary) after his rebellion. Lucifer means light bearer, shining one, luminescent, and so when Isaiah refers to Lucifer as the morning star he is referring to Lucifer the anointed cherub, the faithful servant of God, the high ranking angel, not the adversary, the father of lies whom he later became. And so referring to Jesus as the morning star, is to refer to Him as a faithful servant of His Father, the anointed, a light, as is made obvious by Peter’s reference to “a lamp shining in a dark place” (2nd Peter 1:19) and John’s recording of the words of Jesus stating that He is “the bright and Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16). In contrast the Queen of Heaven was nothing more than an idol, a goddess and an abomination to God.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16
[2] Elliot Miller, “Part Two: From Lowly Handmaid to Queen of Heaven, The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990, p. 31
[3] Mark Brumley; Managing Editor of The Catholic Faith magazine, Queen of Heaven: Pagan Divinity or Royal Mother of the Messiah?, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/00MarApr/Mariology.html
[4] John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary Through the Ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), pp. 27-28 quoting Saint John Chrysostom (347-407) Archbishop of Canstantinople. Homily attributed to Saint John Chrysostom.
[5] Mark Brumley, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/00MarApr/Mariology.html
[6] Epistle of Mass for the feast of the Apparition of Mary Immaculate, Feb. 11.
[7] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI

Intercessor? Mediator? Advocate?

At a glance: The Bible teaches that there is only one intercessor. Or does it? Can we not intercede for each other and cannot our dead relatives and dead saints intercede for us? We living people, intercede for each other in the name of Jesus, which makes Him the intercessor. We are not to communicate with the dead and so if they are interceding for us we appreciate it (although the Bible does not tell us) but we are not to pray to the dead, but to God only. Any text that is appealed to by Roman Catholicism in order to back up their belief in Mary’s role as intercessor have one thing in common: they have absolutely nothing to do with the dispensation of grace. After all, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

What Saith the Bible?:
After seeing what the Bible states on this matter we will explore some of the reasons that the Bible is disregarded on this issue.

“Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the temple of the LORD. It is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And He will be a priest on his throne” (Zechariah 6:12-13).

“the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will…Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Romans 8:26-27, 34).

“For through Him [Jesus] we both have access to the Father by one Spirit…according to His eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In Him and through faith in Him we may approach God with freedom and confidence…Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 2:18, 3:12, 5:19-21).

“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

“Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them…But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises…He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance…For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence…Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant” (Hebrews 7:24-25; 8:6; 9:15, 24; 12:24).

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1st Timothy 2:5).

“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1st John 2:1).

What Saith Roman Catholicism?:
The Catholic Catechism #966, quoting Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th, addressed to Mary, “by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.’”

The Catholic Catechism #969 states, “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix [LG 62].”

Venerable Mary of Agreda wrote, “Words of the Queen [Mary]...men know me to be their Mother, Advocate and Protectress in heaven, ready to guide and assist them to eternal life...I may justly complain of men, that they load themselves with eternal damnation and refuse me the glory of saving their souls.”[1]

Anthony Wilhelm wrote, “Her faith and obedience to God’s will was total. In heaven now, she continues to totally desire God’s will, asking for whatever he wills to give to men. It is in this light that we must understand such terms as ‘spiritual mother,’ ‘mediatrix,’ ‘co-redemptrix,’ and ‘Queen.’”[2]

St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote, “all graces are dispensed by Mary, and all who are saved are saved only by the means of this divine Mother; it is upon preaching Mary, and exciting all to confidence in her intercession.”[3]

St. Bernard wrote, “Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God...but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason 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.”[4]

St. Montfort wrote, “Such has been the Will of God, who has willed that we should have everything through Mary.”[5]

Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology, “The Second Vatican Council emphasized that Jesus remains the one mediator between God and man (I Tm 2:5). Mary’s intercession in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. For all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on men originate, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure…When Mary is given such titles as ‘Mediatrix’ or ‘Coredemptress,’ extreme care must be taken to explain that Mary has only been given a share in the mediation and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Nothing she has done or could do in herself merits or gives salvation.”[6]
As we have seen over and over in this series of articles, the above quote attempts a sober apologetic. Yet, the actual practice and belief in this dogma is vastly different.

Catholic Apologist Karl Keating writes, “Her status as Mediatrix of all graces exists in a double sense. First, she gave the world its Redeemer, the source of all graces and in this sense she is the channel of all graces...Second, Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What this means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession. We are not to suppose that we are obligated to ask for all graces through her or that her intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of graces. Instead, through God’s will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary’s cooperation. True, scriptural proofs for this are lacking. Theologians refer to a mystical interpretation of John 19:26 (‘Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother’), an interpretation that sees John as the representative of the human race, Mary thus becoming the spiritual mother. They note the doctrine is reasonable because it is fitting...[the dogma] is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references.”[7]
It is puzzling how someone could write as one single thought, “no grace accrues to us without her intercession. We are not to suppose that…her intercession is intrinsically necessary...grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary’s cooperation.” Well, is it or is it not???
It is interesting that when Mary is said to be the mother of all humanity and therefore, our intercessor, as proved by John 19:26-27 the only part quoted is just as above “Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother” when just a little more context would shed a different light on the matter. The text says, “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home” (John 19:26-27). The text is written in the singular about John and not in the plural about humanity. The text says, “the disciple…behold your son…the disciple…behold your mother…into his home.”

Take careful notice of the fact that in order to answer to the verse in 1st Timothy 2:5 that so clearly teaches that there is one mediator which is Jesus Christ, some Roman Catholic apologists have claimed that the word used for one does not mean one and only but rather, one but primary one without excluding another. But the text states, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” the word for one, which is the Greek heis, is used both for referring to the one God and the one mediator. Therefore, if we are to make one mediator mean primary one without excluding another then we would, by necessity, believe that the text teaches that there is one God but that this is not the one and only God but merely the primary one without excluding other gods. Moreover, Biblically there is one true God and many false gods and so we could take this a step further and say that there is one true mediator and many false mediators. Thus, a good example of a faulty apologetic.
See Witnessing Tip: Praying to Mary and Saints for another discussion of this topic.

Why not Pray to Mary and Saints?:
Alan Schreck, “The passage that calls Jesus the ‘one mediator’ (1 Tm 2:1-6), also urges all Christians to bring ‘requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving’ to God (1Tm 2:10)...[Mary] is now with the Lord, continuing to intercede for the needs of God’s people. As the Second Vatican Council stated: By her maternal love, Mary cares for the brethren of her son who still journey on earth....Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.”[8]

Pope Paul VI, “in communion with Jesus Christ, ‘who continues forever and is therefore able at all times to intercede for them,’ [Heb. 7, 25.] she makes herself their Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.’”[9]
It is simply a contradiction to state that “Jesus Christ…continues forever…to intercede for them” But that Mary “makes herself their Advocate” etc. If Jesus forever intercedes for us, what need is there for yet another intercessor, unless Jesus’ intercession is not sufficient in which case no mere human however blessed could stand a chance at helping us, which is the very reason Jesus came to Earth in the first place.
Elliot Miller points out that “In trying not to detract from Christ, its theologians have so defined the role of Mary as to make it entirely dispensable: everything we need we get from Christ. If that’s the case, what is the point or importance of Mary’s mediation? On the other hand, the oft-heard affirmation that Mary can influence her Son otherwise would be less disposed to do so. In fact, the very concept of a mediator presupposes that there are differences that need to be reconciled between two parties. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, apart from Mary’s mediation, Christ Himself would not be perfectly reconciled to us. All this seriously compromises the integrity of His high priesthood.”[10]

John L. Stoddard writes, “Scripture certainly teaches that souls in Heaven retain their love for us, and that they are, to some extent at least, aware of what transpires here. Jesus Himself assures us that ‘joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentence.’ He also tells us:—‘There is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.’...in the Book of Revelation (viii. 3) we read of an Angel, whose duty it is to ‘offer the prayers of all saints upon the altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God.’ Moreover, in the same book (v. 8), we read of ‘golden vials full of perfume, which are the prayers of saints’…Now the prayers of the Saints and Angels can hardly be for themselves, but must rather be for those who need their prayers,—that is, for the poor sinners in this world…Just how the Saints and Angels are made aware of our petitions need not concern us.”[11]
Now we will see that there is a barrier of sorts that Catholic dogma has not breached except to say that it is a mystery (seeming to forget that Biblically mystery means something hidden that is now revealed, not just something unknown or unknowable).
Yes, we are told to intercede for each other and we are taught to pray in the name of Jesus, which makes Jesus the intercessor and not us. It is also true that there is indication that the dead either have some knowledge of what is going on Earth, or are aware enough of heaven to know that all is not yet as it should be. John wrote, “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” (Revelation 6:9-10).
However, it is extremely important to note that only living people are told to intercede and pray for each other (for other living people). There is absolutely no indication that we are to pray for the dead or ask them to intercede for us (see our article Purgatory). Catholic dogma teaches that it is acceptable and beneficial to pray to (communicate with) the dead, this is done in a prayerful state, a meditative state. God tells us that those who communicate with the dead, necromancers and spirits consulters, are an abomination to Him. “thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deuteronomy 18:9-12).
The skeptic might say that this was according to the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was capital punishment so are we to kill those who do not keep the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday)? The New Testament specifically deals with this subject by stating “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, the ceremonial laws such as the strict observance of the Sabbath has been fulfilled. However, we find no indication that it is now acceptable to communicate with the dead, to ask them or to thank them for things.

Catholic apologist Tim Staples said, “In the book of Job, for example, God will not accepted the prayers of the men who are criticizing Job. He [God] asks them, ‘You pray to Job or I’m not going to hear your prayers.’ It was through the intercession of Job that these fellows had their sins forgiven.”[12]
Again, this proves that living people may intercede for each other, but there is not even a hint that it is appropriate to take this concept into the realm of the afterlife. In fact, we know that while King David’s son was sick he prayed for the child, but he instantly stopped once that child died (see 2nd Samuel 12:15-22).

Jesus Taught us How to Pray and Whom to Thank:
If we are Christians i.e., followers of Christ, we are to do as He did and do as He taught. Having worked at a Catholic Church for four and a half years I have seen over and over again Mass intentions offered in thanksgiving to saint and angels, these are offered for prayers answered. Out of hundreds and hundreds I can only recall two or three offered in thanksgiving to God. We are to follow Jesus and He prayed only to the Father, He thanked the Father, into the Father’s hands He committed his spirit.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:6-8).

“one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.’ He said to them, ‘When you pray, say:’ ‘Father, [or Our Father in heaven] hallowed be your name...’” (Matthew 6:9 & Luke 11:1).

“how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11).

“Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25).

“Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:19-20).

“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

Human Opinion Teaches us Otherwise:
Rev. Ralph W. Beiting wrote, “We may, and should pray to the Saints after we have made this consecration [our ourselves to Mary]. Remember that Mary is Queen of all Saints, and that they all serve her as their loving Mistress. When we ask the Saints for a favor, we are, in reality, asking them to intercede for us with our Lady. ‘In vain,’ says Saint Bernard, ‘would a person ask other Saints for a favor, if Mary did not interpose to obtain it.’ The Saints receive all their virtues and graces by the intercession of Mary; so, when we ask them to obtain a special favor for us, we are using them as our advocates with Mary, our Queen.”[13]
Do we now have another step in the hierarchy? We intercede for others or ourselves by going to the saints. The saints intercede for us by going to Mary. Mary intercedes for the saints and us by going to Jesus. Jesus intercedes for Mary, the saints and us by going to the Father. Can there be a greater offense to Jesus than to refuse to come to Him, He who invited us to come to Him? The Bible encourages us to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).
It is also very important to consider that while Jesus is omnipresent, He rightly stated “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20) and “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). We have absolutely no indication that either we, Catholic canonized saint nor Mary, become omnipresent after death and so if two people are praying to the same saint or Mary from two opposite parts of the world, to whom does the saint or Mary turn their attention?

Again, Rev. Beiting, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me a sinner, now and at the hour of my death. Amen.”[14]
At the hour of His death, Jesus called out to the Father, as should all Christians.

Pope Paul VI, “as each one of us can repeat with St. Paul: ‘The Son of God loved me and gave Himself up for me,’ [Galatians 2, 20; cf. Eph. 5, 2] so in all trust he can believe that the divine Savior has left to him also, in spiritual heritage, His Mother, with all the treasures of grace and virtues with which He had endowed her, that she may pour them over us through the influence of her powerful intercession and our willing imitation.”[15]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch stated, “Spiritual writers tell us that it was the intercession of Mary that brought about the conversion of the good thief. Up to his last moments he lived in crime and sin, and even on the cross he filled up the measure of his iniquity by reproaching Jesus. What about his conversion? The prayer of Our Lady standing at the foot of the Cross won for him not only forgiveness but a place in heaven that very day.”[16]
Here we see another deviation from the truth and from complete devotion to Jesus. Note that, “The thief saw the vile manner in which Jesus was being treated and yet he heard Jesus say, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’” (Luke 23:34). He saw Jesus suffering as much and more than the most wretched criminal and so while on the cross next to Jesus, one thief said to the other, “‘We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’” (Luke 23:41-43). The thief was a witness to the love of Jesus since while Jesus was dying He took the time to comfort the repentant thief next to Him. These are the things that caused his salvation, his repentance and reliance upon Jesus. The thief did not say to Mary, “I thank thee for thine intercession,” the thief knew where his salvation came from. The text does not even imply that Mary had anything to do with it.

Sisters of St. Basil published the following Novena (a repetitive prayer), “For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain me the pardon of them...not even from Jesus, my judge.”[17]
The Scripture states, “The LORD is my shepherd…I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Psalm 23:1-4).
Jesus said, “Do not be afraid…For I am with you” (Acts 18:9-10).
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Venerable Mary of Agreda, Fiscar Marison (Rev. George J. Blatter) trans., The Mystical City of God, Popular Abridgment of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, written in 1902) Imprimatur: Edwin V. Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe. The 1902 edition carried the Imprimatur of His Excellency, Most Reverend H. J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne. pp. 793-794
[2] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark. p. 394
[3] St. Alphonsus Ligouri, The Glories of Mary (Brooklyn: The Redemptionist Fathers, 1931), p. 32
[4] St. Bernard quoted by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, p. 195
[5] Louise Marie Grignon de Montfort, A Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin (London: Burns & Oates Ltd., 1904), pp. 12-13
[6] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. pp. 171-172
[7] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. pp. 278-279
[8] Alan Schreck, p. 172 quoting the Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” no. 62
[9] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI -PART I quoting Dom F. Mercenier, L’Antienne mariale grecque la plus ancienne in Le Museon 52, 1939, pp. 229-233 and dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 62: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57, 1965, p. 63, quoting dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 62: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57, 1965, p. 61
[10] Elliot Miller, “Part Two: From Lowly Handmaid to Queen of Heaven, The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990, pp. 30-31
[11] John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, nd.) Nihil Obstat: C. Schut, D.D., Censor Deutatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasteri, Die 21 Martii, 1922. pp. 180-181
[12] Quoted from a broadcast of The Bible Answer Man radio program.
[13] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intending to clarify some of the more obscure parts of Saint Louis de Montfort’s work (New York: The Monfort Publications, Montfort Missionaries, nd.) Nihil Obstat: Francis J. Reine, S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Paul C. Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis. p. 22
[14] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 31
[15] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI -PART II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary
[16] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. Pior General of the Carmelite Order. The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 20
[17] Sisters of St. Basil, Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Uniontown, PA: Sisters of St. Basil, 1968), p. 19, Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat.

Co~Redeemer?

At a glance: In Catholic writings we often find that Mary is referred to as our co-redeemer. However, she was in need of redemption herself, she was aware of this and the Bible teaches that God Himself is the redeemer. Below we will see Where is Mary Called Co-Redeemer? and What Saith the Bible? Technically speaking Mary’s role as co-redeemer has not, as of yet, been officially proclaimed as dogma by the Vatican. Nevertheless, the concept of Mary as co-redeemer has long been peppered throughout Roman Catholic writings.

Here we will see the usual two-sided doctrines about Mary. One side attempts to give a sober reason for referring to her as co-redeemer while the other side is the actual practice that bestows upon her power and position that belongs to God alone.

Where is Mary Called Co-Redeemer?:
Pope Paul VI, “‘she shines forth to the whole community of the elect as a model of the virtues’...participating in the redeeming sacrifice of the Son.”[1]

“In his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (1954), Pius XII taught, ‘Certainly, in the full and strict meaning of the term, only Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is King; but Mary, too, as Mother of the divine Christ, as His associate in the redemption, in His struggle with His enemies and His final victory over them, has a share, though in a limited and analogous way, in His royal dignity’ (no. 39).”[2]

“The title coredemptrix has been used since the fifteenth century, and was first officially sanctioned by the Papacy when Pius X ascribed it to Mary in 1908.”[3]

Associate Professor Alan Schreck, “When Mary is given such titles as ‘Mediatrix’ or ‘Coredemptress,’ extreme care must be taken to explain that Mary has only been given a share in the mediation and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Nothing she has done or could do in herself merits or gives salvation.”[4]

Anthony Wilhelm, “Her faith and obedience to God’s will was total. In heaven now, she continues to totally desire God’s will, asking for whatever he wills to give to men. It is in this light that we must understand such terms as ‘spiritual mother,’ ‘mediatrix,’ ‘co-redemptrix,’ and ‘Queen.’”[5]

“From 1945 to 1959 a woman in Amsterdam, Ida Peerdeman, received messages in which Mary states that she wants to be addressed ‘in these Our times’ as ‘The Lady of All Nations.’ On May 31, 1996, public veneration of the Mother of God under this title was officially authorized by the two bishops of Haarlem-Amsterdam. Our Lady also requests that official recognition of her vocation as ‘Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate,’ promising that ‘The Lady of All Nations will then grant peace, true peace, to the world.’…she promises to grant them [grace, redemption and peace] to everyone who says this prayer before a crucifix or this image.”[6]
The prayer includes these words “May the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary, be our Advocate.” “The meaning of ‘who once was Mary,’ is explained by the Lady of All nations herself: ‘…many people have known Mary as Mary. Now, however, in this new era, which is about to begin, I wish to be the Lady of All Nations. Everyone understand this.’ (July 2, 1951)”[7]

Pope Paul VI, “the blessed Virgin Mary, after participating in the redeeming sacrifice of the Son, and in such an intimate way as to deserve to be proclaimed by Him the…of mankind which he in some way represents…Jesus Himself, by giving her to us as our Mother, has tacitly indicated her as the model to be followed.”[8]

The Catholic Catechism #964, “Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ…in the work of salvation…enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice.”

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “But the most cogent reason [for the doctrine], later on adopted by Pius XII, was the participation by Christ’s mother in his redemption of the world.”[9]

Fr. Hardon also states, “While co-operating with Christ’s redemptive task, by freely consenting to all that he asked of her…It was through the Redemption that the Savior exercised his mediatorial reconciliation, and that his mother shares in the process.”[10]

Rev. James Killgallon and Rev. Gerard Weber, “It was Mary whom the Father chose to be the mother of his Son. But Mary’s work did not end even with this most exalted of roles. God chose, also, to use her cooperation in the work of redeeming us.”[11]
They also explain that “only Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is king; but Mary, too, as mother of the divine Christ, as his associate in the redemption…[she] has a share, though in a limited analogous way, in his royal dignity. She is also called ‘Co-Redemptrix.’”[12]

Again Killgallon and Weber, “For if through his humanity the Divine Word performs miracles and gives graces, if he uses his sacraments and saints as instruments for the salvation of men, why should he not make use of the role and the work of his most holy mother in imparting to us the fruits of the redemption?”[13]

Karl Rahner, “Mary, of the same race as ourselves, is the portal of eternal mercy, the gate of heaven, through which we are in fact saved and redeemed and taken up into the life of God…it is her grace and her deed, placing her whole self, body and soul, at the service of God and his redemptive mercy to humankind. And since this divine motherhood—as an act of faith personally made—belongs intrinsically to the history of redemption, it gives Mary a real relationship to us, for we are living in the history of redemption which she has decisively influenced.”[14]

Francis X. Durwell, “[Mary] bore in her flesh the seed of salvation, she gave birth to Christ, and was associated in the work of redemption, for her own salvation and the salvation of the world.”[15]

Fr. Faber, “[Mary] alone, of all her race, was privileged to co-operate in the work of Redemption by her own free choice…those who thus ignore the love and intercession of the Blessed Virgin rob the religion of Christ of a legitimate tenderness and sweetness they can never know.”[16]

Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, “The fact that Mary became the mother of Christ gave her a unique role in the economy of redemption, because it was through her mediation that the Savior entered the world.”[17]

At Carmel, Fatima and Lourdes “The visions of Our Lady called attention to her role in the economy of redemption and to the old Christian doctrine of prayer and penance.”[18]

Alliance of the Two Hearts, “O Heart of Jesus living in Mary and by Mary! O Heart of Mary living in Jesus and for Jesus! O Heart of Jesus pierced for our sins and giving us Your mother on Calvary! O heart of Mary pierced by sorrow and sharing in the sufferings of your Divine Son for our redemption!”[19]

What Saith the Bible?:
What more can we say but to let Scripture speak for itself, the Scripture is the Word of God, we will now see what God says on this issue.

“O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

“They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer” (Psalm 78:35).

“‘Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you,’ declares the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 41:14)

“This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6)

“all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob” (Isaiah 49:26).

“Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD, the God of truth” (Psalm 31:5).

“No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—that he should live on forever and not see decay…But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself” (Psalm 49:7-9. 15).

“O Israel, put your hope in the LORD, for with the LORD is unfailing love and with him is full redemption. He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins” (Psalm 130:7-8).

Before His resurrection it was said of Jesus, “we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21).

“God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5).

“we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness” (Titus 2:13-14).

Seems Clear Enough!:
What more could be said than that the Bible is perfectly clear on this subject and that is why Catholic apologists walk on eggshells, as it were, when they set out to explain how Mary (or anyone but God) could be called our redeemer. We also learn that this idea comes, in part, from the sayings of an apparition and that it exists nowhere in the Bible, which is why we are presented with Yes/But theology. Yes God is our one and only redeemer, But Mary is a co-redeemer.
Yet, God said, “I myself” along with no other. “the one” not one of the ones nor one of the two. “full redemption” not in part and having the other part be done by a co-redeemer. “He himself” with not need of help. “all their sins” complete redemption by the Lord God Himself.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI -PART I
[2] Managing Editor Mark Brumley, “Queen of Heaven: Pagan Divinity or Royal Mother of the Messiah?,” The Catholic Faith magazine, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/00MarApr/Mariology.html
[3] Elliot Miller, “Part Two: From Lowly Handmaid to Queen of Heaven, The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990, p. 29
[4] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 172
[5] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark. p. 394
[6] The image is of Mary standing on the Earth, with a cross behind her, rays shining forth from her hands and a large group of lambs underneath the Earth.
[7] The Lady of All Nations (Amsterdam: The Shrine of “Our Lady of All Nations,” 1999) Imprimatur: Appr. Devot. Publ. Harlem, 5-31-96. Harlem, 1-7-51 H.J.A. Bomers, C.M., Episc. Harl. Westminster, 9-24-70 Dr. J.M. Punt, Epic. Aux. Harl.
[8] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI — PART I & II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary
[9] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p.155
[10] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 167-168
[11] Reverends James Killgallon and Gerard Weber, Life in Christ, Instructions in the Catholic Faith (Chicago: Life in Christ, 1958) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Thomas F. Sullivan, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Cletus F. O’Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General Archdiocese of Chicago 11-20-66. p. 131
[12] Encyclical on the Queenship of Mary and Encyclical on the Mystical Body, 128, quoted by Reverends James Killgallon and Gerard Weber, pp. 132-133
[13] Encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, quoted by Reverends James Killgallon and Gerard Weber, p. 133
[14] Karl Rahner (1904-1984); a Jesuit and leading Catholic theologian, professor of dogmatic theology in Australia and West Germany. Mary, Mother of the Lord, pp. 59-61, quoted in Fr. John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 158
[15] Francis X. Durwell; Redemtorist who wrote on the theme of Christ’s resurrection. In the redeeming Christ, pp. 288-289, quoted in John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 161
[16] Fr. Faber quoted in John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, nd.) Nihil Obstat: C. Schut, D.D., Censor Deutatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasteri, Die 21 Martii, 1922. p. 177
[17] Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, Mary in the Thought of Saint Augustine, quoted in John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 186
[18] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. General of the Carmelite Order. The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 5
[19] Alliance of the Two Hearts (Two Hearts Media Organization printed in the USA, 1997), p. 5. Nihil Obstat: +Most Rev. Leo Drona, SDB, DD, Bishop of San Jose, Bueva Ecija, 10-13-97. Imprimatur: +His Eminence Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal, DD, Archbishop of Cebu 10-13-97.

Savior?

At a glance: If Mary is our savior then what did Jesus do? By technicalities the Catholic Church states that she is not our savior but she has a part in the plan of salvation and points us to Jesus. However, from here Catholic apologists, theologians, saints and Popes blur the line between the one and only savior Jesus Christ and Mary the blessed human being. She is then transformed into her own savior and that of the world.

New American Bible:
Acts 4:10, 12, “all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead…There is no salvation through any one else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”
The footnote to these verses states, “4, 12: In the Roman world of Luke’s day, salvation was often attributed to the emperor who was hailed as ‘savior’ and ‘god.’ Luke in the words of Peter, denies that deliverance comes through anyone other than Jesus.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Acts 4:10, 12, “be it known to you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead…Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Acts 4:10, 12, “be it known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead…Nor is there salvation in any other, since there is no other name under heaven appointed among men as the necessary means of our salvation.”

Mary’s Essential Role and, Who Gave us the Son?:
Among other things Mary is credited by Popes, Catholic theologians and apologists as being the one who gave Jesus to the world.

The Catholic Catechism:
#494 “[Mary] became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’”
#969 “by her [Mary’s] manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation.”
#964 “Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ…in the work of salvation…enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice.”

In Ad Diem Illum-8 Pius X wrote that Mary was “entrusted with the task of tending and nourishing this Victim [Christ] and even of offering it on the altar at the appointed time.”

Catholic Theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott states, “The Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of mankind by the vicarious atonement of Christ were dependent on her [Mary’s] assent….Mary gave the source of all grace to men.”[1]

Mark Brumley writes, “‘it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love.”[2]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “Except for Our Lady, we would not have the Blessed Sacrament. It is she who gave her Divine Son the flesh and blood in which Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist.”[3]

New American Catechism Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, “Taken up to heaven she [Mary] did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation (Vatican Council II, The Church 62)…In the plan of God, the salvation of the world had been made dependent on Mary’s decision at that moment [the Annunciation]…At the Incarnation, Mary gave Jesus to us. On Calvary, Jesus gave us his Mother. Acting as the One Mediator, he fixed the new plan of salvation.”[4]

Reverends James Killgallon and Gerard Weber, “Mary not only gave Christ to the world, she also gave him back to his Father, receiving in exchange the whole sinful race which had been the cause of his death.”[5]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch stated, “[God] has given his word that if we use the means of salvation which He has left, the crowning grace of final perseverance will be ours. One of the greatest means of final perseverance we have is devotion to our Blessed Mother. It is the constant teaching of the Church that devotion to God’s Mother is not only a means but a pledge of eternal salvation. Those who shelter their weakness in the motherly Heart of the Mother of our redemption ‘shall draw salvation from the Lord.’…She is our life, our sweetness and our hope; in her we may find the beauty of eternal life. To whom shall we go for an assurance of salvation if not to her who, in order to save us, offered both her Only-begotten and herself to the cruel death of the Cross? ‘It is not near the Cross,’ says St. Bernard, ‘that Mary is found but on it, nailed to its beams as Jesus is.’”[6]
Yet Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Archbishop Francis Cardinal Spellman wrote, “God-given glories of grace flow to us through Mary, merciful Mother of mankind, who alone can bring us to Christ as she brought Christ to us. And He, our King of Kings, will save us and the world, if we but go to Him through Blessed Mary…The saints, martyrs, confessors and virgins, the ancient angelic choirs and all the hosts of heaven, blend through hymns of praise with ours, when we acclaim Mary, Queen of Heaven and of Earth…To Christ through Mary, his Mother, we must daily pray for peace, for we…know Mary’s might and her mercy.”[7]

Catholic Apologist Karl Keating, “she gave the world its Redeemer, the source of all graces and in this sense she is the channel of all graces.”[8]

Associate Professor of theology Alan Schreck writes, “Many early Christian writers noted that God allowed his whole plan of salvation to hinge on Mary’s free response to Gabriel’s message. Because of her ‘yes’ to God, Mary is the new Eve, reversing the first Eve’s ‘no.’ By the disobedience of Eve, all mankind became immersed in the bondage of sin. Mary’s obedience to God opened the way for the saving work of Jesus.”[9]
This borders on dismissing God’s omniscience. God was not biting His nails when He sent the angel to Mary, He knew what would happen before the creation of the universe.

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, “‘God’s love,’ says St. Augustine, ‘never deserts us.’ If this be true of the love of God for the sinner, it is, in a sense, even more true of the love of Mary, for her love is that of a Mother. Even though we may desert her, she will never desert us.”[10]
Yet, it is Jesus Christ who said, “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

New American Catechism, Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, “The Blessed Virgin is the collaborator with the Divine Word and with the Holy Spirit in the mighty work of the Incarnation. She occupies the same essential role in the work of sanctification of souls…[she has the] function as mediatrix of all graces.”[11]
Rev. Ralph W. Beiting states that Jesus “became man for our salvation, but it was only in Mary and by Mary. As God could have chosen a thousand other ways of redeeming us.”[12]
Rather than Mary’s obedience scripture point to Christ’s, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus…And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5-8).

Scripture clearly states that it was God who gave us Jesus and that Jesus gave Himself to us:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16).
“The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (John 10:17-18).

Pope Paul VI stated the following:
“We seek refuge under the protection of your mercies, oh Mother of God; do not reject our supplication in need but save us from perdition, O you who alone are blessed.”[13]

“her free consent and her generous cooperation in the designs of God had, and still have, a great influence in the attainment of human salvation.[14] Therefore every Christian must make St. Anselm’s prayer his own: ‘Oh, glorious Lady, grant that through you we may deserve to ascend to Jesus, your Son, who through you deigned [to condescend, do or grant] to descend among us.’”[15]

“Neither the grace of the divine Redeemer, nor the powerful intercession of His Mother and our spiritual Mother, nor yet her sublime sanctity, could lead us to the port of salvation if we did not respond to them by our persevering will to honor Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin with our devout imitation of their sublime virtue.”[16]

“our era may well be called the Marian era. In fact, if it is true that, by an exalted grace of the Lord, the providential role of the most holy Mary in the history of salvation has been more deeply understood by the vast strata of the Christian people.”[17]

“she has a most singular role in ‘the mystery of the Incarnate Word and of the Mystical Body,’ that is to say, in ‘the economy of salvation.’”[18]

“from her who is the Immaculate, the holy, the cooperator of the Son in the work of restoration of supernatural life in souls.”[19]

The Catholic Catechism states:
#494, “As St. Irenaeus says, ‘Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’”[20]

#964, “Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. ‘This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death’; [LG 57] it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:…enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given.”

#969 states, “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation.”

#966, “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection…‘In giving birth you kept your virginity…You conceived the living God and, by your [Mary’s] prayers, will deliver our souls from death.’”[21]

#968, “‘In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.’[LG 61]”

Mary the Savior?:
Poor Mary, she was blessed, so humble and obedient, if tears were possible in heaven she would surely be crying about the false things being taught about her, things that she would have never accepted.

“In his encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, Pope Pius XII taught: If Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of ‘recapitulation,’ in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ ‘in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.’”[22]

Sisters of St. Basil published the following Novena, which is a repetitive prayer, “Come to my aid, dearest Mother…In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul…take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me.”[23]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, “St. Alphonsus addresses her in the following words: ‘Thou canst relieve the most wretched and save the most abandoned.’ And St. Hilary says: ‘Even though one has been a sinner, if he has been devoted to Mary, he shall not perish forever.’”[24]

Saint Augustine wrote, “Eve is the mother of the human race; Mary the author of their salvation. Eve formed us; Mary strengthened us. We multiply every day through Eve; we reign eternally through Mary: we are borne down to earth by Eve, and raised to heaven through Mary.”[25]

Pope Pius IX wrote, “Let all the children of the Catholic Church…with entire confidence have recourse to this sweetest Mother of grace and mercy in all dangers, difficulties, necessities, doubts, and fears…she who bears towards us the affection of a mother, and who through her interest in the affairs of all humankind is solicitous for our salvation.”[26]

Venerable Mary of Agreda wrote, “Words of the Queen [Mary]…men know me to be their Mother, Advocate and Protectress in heaven, ready to guide and assist them to eternal life…I may justly complain of men, that they load themselves with eternal damnation and refuse me the glory of saving their souls.”[27]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “the Blessed Virgin enters as mediatrix par excellence. We presume that she co-operated fully with the graces she received, to save her own soul…Alongside her Son, Mary has become part of this plan by contributing her share to the justification of the human race, beginning with herself and extending to everyone ever justified.” [28]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, “the power of her mercy and the tenderness of her promise to those whom she clothes with her garment of salvation.”[29]

Jesus Corrects Human Error:
In complete opposition to the above teachings, Jesus point to Himself exclusively as the one and only savior with no counterpart and no helper.

“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6).

“And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1st John 5:11-12).

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1st Corinthians 15:1-4).

“Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people” (Deuteronomy 32:43).

Jesus “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Hebrew 5:9).

“Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:24-25)

Jesus said, “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved” (John 10:9)

“Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!” (Romans 5:9-10)

“‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,’ that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:8-9)

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

“Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them…No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:1-2, 11)

“The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord [the gospel] to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:29-33)

Note that these statements are all made in the singular I, He, Him, Jesus, is the one and only savior, not they nor them.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Dr. Ludwig Ott; Catholic Theologian, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th ed., ed. in English by James Canon Bastible, D.D., trans. from the German by Patrick Lynch, Ph.D. (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1960), pp. 212 & 215
[2] Mark Brumley; Managing Editor of The Catholic Faith magazine, Queen of Heaven: Pagan Divinity or Royal Mother of the Messiah?, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/00MarApr/Mariology.html
[3] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, Ask Father Hardon, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/index.html Copyright 1997 Inter Mirifica
[4] Arranged and Explained by Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, S.V.D., Saint Joseph New American Catechism No. 3, According to the “Basic Teachings for Catholic Education” (Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) Vatican II Documents and Holy Scripture (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1985-1977), Nihil Obstat: John P. Meier, S.S.L., S.T.L. Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York. p. 212, Ch. 24, No. 169
[5] Reverends James Killgallon and Gerard Weber, Life in Christ, Instructions in the Catholic Faith (Chicago: Life in Christ, 1958) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Thomas F. Sullivan, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Cletus F. O’Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General Archidiocese of Chicago 11-20-66. p. 131
[6] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. General of the Carmelite Order. The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 16
[7] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. xiii quoting Francis Cardinal Spellman Archbishop of New York, NY 5-12-50.
[8] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. pp. 278-279
[9] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 168. Footnotes, “Justin Martyr (d. 165) was the first theologian of salvation history who contrasted Mary, ‘the Mother of the Redeemer’ with Eve, ‘the Mother of sin and death’ (Dialogue with Trypho, c. 150).”
[10] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 25
[11] Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, p. 213, Ch. 24, No. 170
[12] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intending to clarify some of the more obscure parts of Saint Louis de Montfort’s work (New York: The Monfort Publications, Montfort Missionaries, nd.) Nihil Obstat: Francis J. Reine, S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Paul C. Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis. p. 18
[13] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI -PART I quoting Dom F. Mercenier, L’Antienne mariale grecque la plus ancienne in Le Museon 52, 1939, pp. 229-233 and dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 62: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57, 1965, p. 63.
[14] dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 56; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57, 1965, p. 60
[15] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI —PART I quoting Orat. 54, PL 158, 961
[16] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI —PART II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary
[17] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI —PART II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary
[18] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI quoting chapter VIII, paragraph III, on the Blessed Virgin and the Church, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 55, p. 59 and 54, p. 59
[19] His Holiness Pope Paul VI; Signum Magnum, Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Promulgated on May 13, 1967 Given in Rome, at St. Peter, on the fourth of our pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI —PART II: Devout Imitation of the Virtues of the Most Holy Mary quoting dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 61; Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57, 1965, p. 63
[20] quoting St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22, 4:PG 7/1, 959A
[21] Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th
[22] Mark Brumley; catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/00MarApr/Mariology.html
[23] Sisters of St. Basil, Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Uniontown, PA: Sisters of St. Basil, 1968), p. 19, Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat.
[24] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 20
[25] John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988), p. 30 quoting Saint Augustine (354-430) Bishop of Hippo, his writings have shaped Christian thought for centuries. Sermon attributed to Augustine.
[26] John Rotelle, p. 125 quoting Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on 12-8-1854. Acta 1, 607-618.
[27] Venerable Mary of Agreda, Fiscar Marison (Rev. George J. Blatter) trans., The Mystical City of God, Popular Abridgment of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, written in 1902) Imprimatur: Edwin V. Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe. The 1902 edition carried the Imprimatur of His Excellency, Most Reverend H. J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne. pp. 793-794
[28] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. pp. 166 & 169
[29] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 22

Where Do These Dogmas Come From?

At a glance: Roman Catholic traditions do not merely come from the historically verifiable teachings of the Apostles. They come from the popular beliefs of lay people, from apparitions, from the writings of various saints and Popes.

Regarding Marian dogma and many other un-Biblical teachings, Roman Catholic apologists always claim that these are things that Catholics have believed from the earliest years of the church. There are some puzzling aspects to this claim. If the Holy Mother Church, the one true Church has not infallibly-officially taught a doctrine, why do individual Catholics have to believe in these things as gospel truth? And if these things are gospel truth, why does it take the Catholic Church centuries or even millennia to teach these ancient truths as infallible-official doctrines that Catholics must believe?

Catholic apologist Karl Keating explains, “dogmas are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief…[Pope] Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.”[1]
While this explanation may be helpful in understanding how dogmas are officially defined, it neglects to mention that when the Church formally defines dogma it goes far beyond clearing controversy and helping the faithful by emphasizing. What the Roman Catholic Church does in its official declarations is that it places anathema (condemnation) on those who do not accept the teaching as is. In the case of the inauguration of a Feast Day in relation to a new official dogma, the penalty for not attending Mass for that day places mortal sin upon the Catholic. According to the Catholic Catechism if one dies with unrepented mortal sin they will go to hell for all eternity unless they confess it to a priest. Even if they died with repented-forgiven mortal sin they still have to suffer for it in Purgatory (See our article Purgatory). This is a flagrant disregard of Paul’s teaching about the freedom we have in Christ, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (Romans 14:5-6). Paul also explains, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:8-11).

Following We Provide Quotes that Elucidate the Facts of the Matter:
“Among the less-well-known facts of his life is the cure from epilepsy that John Mary Mastai-Ferretti, the future Pius IX, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. He avowed to do everything in his power to advance her cause and make her better known and loved by the people.”[2]
Note the subjective-emotional motivation for the propagating of Marian devotion.

Alan Schreck, Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University writes, “Where did these teachings [about Mary] come from? They are not explicitly taught in scripture, and it is not even historically clear that they were handed down from the preaching of the original apostles. Rather, these beliefs emerged over time as Christians reflected on what the Bible says about Jesus and his mother.”[3]
Roman Catholicism claims what we may distinguish as three forms of revelation. One is the written Bible, which is a historical record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Second is oral tradition, which claims to have been handed down from the original teachings of the Apostles. And third is infallible revelation, which can be revealed at any time through the Popes. Yet, is it really through the Popes who the Vatican calls “sweet Christ on earth”?[4] Is it really a case of the Pope receiving revelation, making an infallible declaration and officially requiring Catholic acceptance? The reality of the matter appears to be that once people believe something long enough and enough people push for it to become an official doctrine, the Catholic Church folds under the pressure, regardless of whether it is un-Biblical, non-historic or contradictory to earlier revelation.
An example of this is the dogma of the assumption of Mary to heaven that “defined as a Catholic beliefs by an ‘infallible’ statement of Pope Pius XII in 1950 in response to the faith of millions of Catholics who desired that the Pope speak out officially about the truth of this belief. In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter.” [5]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. wrote, “From Gaeta, in the following year [1849], the Pope issued an encyclical letter addressed to the bishops of the Catholic world. It was an act of papal collegiality in which he asked the prelates to help him decide on the question [of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception].”[6]

“This introduces the admission that Rome was asked to define the Immaculate Conception. The initiative came from the bishops and faithful, but the Pope had to speak to make the doctrine irreversible….Almost as soon as Pius IX defined the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Rome was besieged with petitions for defining also her bodily Assumption. It is calculated that from 1870 to 1940, over four hundred bishops, eighty thousand priests and religious, and more than eight million of the laity formally signed requests asking for the definition…The Pope drew the inevitable conclusion from the consent of those whom ‘the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God’…On November 1, 1950, Pius XII answered these requests of the Catholic Hierarchy with a solemn definition…‘We pronounce, declare, and define as divinely revealed dogma: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed, body and soul to the glory of heaven.’…[Pope Pius] told them [the bishops] the joy he felt over the proclamation and the assurance it gave him that Mary would obtain the graces of which mankind stood in such dire need. On the level of piety and devotion, therefore, Mary’s Assumption was only the climax in a series of definitions to honor the Blessed Virgin…Of the two sources of revelation, theologians commonly say the Assumption was implicit in Tradition, in spite of the practical absence of documentary evidence before A.D. 300. Yet the Pope finally declared that the doctrine was in revelation.”[7]

“when Pius XII defined the Assumption, he did more than propose the doctrine for acceptance by the faithful or give them a new motive for devotion to the Blessed Mother. He indicated the Church’s right to authorize a legitimate development in doctrine and piety that scandalizes Protestants and may even surprise believing Catholics.”[8]

The Fatima Crusader published the following add, “More Than 6,000,000 Signatures and Counting! The historic struggle to answer Our Lady’s Fatima request to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart continues unabated! Now, more than ever, we need the help of all Our Lady’s friends in this great crusade…our goal is to collect more than 1,000,000 signatures over the next 12 months…Do petitions really work? According to Pope Pius XII it was through the petitions of the faithful that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was solemnly and infallibly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith.”
It is incredible to think that if Russia is consecrated to Mary’s heart, when this consecration goes down in history it will be stated that God by His Holy Spirit has revealed His divine wIL When in fact mere humans are being asked to bully the Vatican in proclaiming as divine truth a concoction of the words of an ghostly apparition and human opinion. The add goes on to invite the reader to “Send or Call for Your Free Consecration Petition Kit Now!”[9]

Since when is divine revelation being decided on by popular consensus and peer pressure?

Lastly, note the following statements by Roman Catholic apologists:
Catholic apologist Karl Keating admits that certain Roman Catholic dogmas are “accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references.”[10]

Catholic apologist Jerry Matatics made the following statement in his introduction to a debate with Christian apologist James White on four doctrines about Mary, namely the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption and queenly coronation, “Mr. White cannot, with all due respect to his prodigious gifts and his abilities, and his sincerity, cannot really win a debate on these four topics for one simple reason. What the Catholic Church, that Jesus founded, teaches about Mary is quite simply the truth about Mary, and the truth, ultimately, by the power of God, always triumphs.”[11]

Granted, this is not all that these gentlemen have to say on the subject. But why depend upon authority in order to substantiate dogma? Why does Mr. Matatics begin a four part debate by stating that Mr. White cannot win? What we have is a very clear demonstrate that, for them, the beginning and the end of their view of doctrinal issues is the absolute and ultimate authority of the Church.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Karl Keating, Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 272
[2] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p.156
[3] Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, Catholic and Christian, An Explenation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI.: Servant Books, 1984), Nihil Obstat: Monsignor Joseph P. Malara-Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller-Bishop of Steubenville. p. 173
[4] Vatican Official Site, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith The Message of Fatima-Introduction, vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
[5] Alan Schreck, p. 180. He footnotes, “See ‘The Assumption of Our Lady’ in Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pp. 55-57
[6] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 156
[7] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 157, 160-161 quoting Pius XII, constitution Munificentissimus Deus, III, 44.
[8] Fr. John A. Hardon, p. 161
[9] The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, Issue 64 (Published by the National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada:), p. 62
[10] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. pp. 278-279
[11] James White vs. Jerry Matatics debate, The Marian Doctrines, August 1996. Interestingly enough, at the end of the debates Mr. Matatics virtually reverses this order and claims that first he was an anti-Catholic Protestant, the studied the issues, then realized that Roman Catholicism was the true Chruch and thus, their dogmatic proclamations are infallible.

St. Montfort

At a glance: Louis de Montfort was a proponent of consecrating oneself to Jesus through Mary and in general a strong proponent of Marian devotion. Here you will see a Catholic apologist admitting that dogmas about Mary are all too easily misunderstood if one is not acquainted with the minutia of technicalities and semantics. Of course, as we have see in all the articles under MARY in Roman Catholicism, even when we take all the technicalities into consideration it does not help matters.

The Bible states, “Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus….Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 3:1, 12:2).

Regarding the teachings of Louis de Montfort, Catholic apologist Karl Keating states, “The Glories of Mary is precisely the kind of book one should not press into the hands of a non-Catholic who has no appreciation of the Church’s position on Mary—not because it is wrong and not because it reveals ‘secrets’ reserved for the initiate, but because it is not easy to understand…It is remarkably easy for a fundamentalist to be frightened away from the Church. He needs to be shown Catholicism slowly.”[1]
This reminds me of an incident in seventh grade science class. The teacher called out a student’s name and the girl responded something like “I’m not the one who is talking!” The teacher explained that she had not called on her because she was talking during class but pointed out that the student had now given herself away. Mr. Keating’s statement is reminiscent of this because he gave himself away in denying what he was actually doing. What Mr. Keating is proposing is the tactics used by mystery religions wherein you do not find out the real and full story until you are well buried in the group’s assumed authoritative hierarchical teachings. Louis de Montfort is so outrageous that your resistance to his false teachings must be worn down by a long period of accepting doctrine after doctrine, dogma after dogma, until you accept the teachings of Pope after Pope, council after council and apparition after apparition. Until you are taught that you are a member of the one true church outside of which there is no salvation. Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated that the only people in danger of eternal damnation are ex-Catholics because they have left the one true church.[2]

A local church printed the following information regarding one of their ceremonies, “The Apostolate of Mary the morning star is hosting a city wide consecration to Jesus through Mary. Do you seek to grow in the knowledge of Jesus? Do you desire to become strong in your faith through the power His Spirit? Do you want to progress in the spiritual life to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ? St. Louis de Montfort tells us that we can have all these by sincerely consecrating our life to Jesus through Mary…Offering ourselves totally into our Blessed Mother’s care, we learn how to faithfully love and serve God in one another.”[3]
Jesus says no such thing, instead He said that people are to come to Him. And rather than coming to Him through Mary we come to Him by the Father’s prompting.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me’” (Matthew 19:14).
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37).

In order to help clear up some of Montfort’s teachings Rev. Ralph W. Beiting explains, “By the Holy Slavery, however, we give Mary our merits in the strict sense…When we do all our actions FOR Mary, we recall the fact that we are now slaves of the Queen of Heaven.”[4]
“[true devotion to Mary] ‘consists in giving oneself entirely and as a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through Mary’ (Secret of Mary, 28).”[5]

But whom do the inspired writers of the New Testament serve?:
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus” (Romans 1:1).
“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1).
“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2nd Peter 1:1).
“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1).
“The revelation of Jesus Christ…He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John” (Revelation 1:1).
The word servant being use here by the Apostles Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John is the Greek doulos (doo`los) it is defined as: “1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition 1a) a slave 1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men 1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests 2) a servant, attendant.”[6] These mighty men of God, these saints, knew full well where their loyalty rested.

Rev. Ralph W. Beiting wrote a book in defense of Montfort, he states, “We must, from time to time, both during and after the action, renew our act of offering and union [consecration to Mary]. The more often we do so, the sooner we shall be sanctified, and attain to union with Jesus Christ, which always follows necessarily on our union with Mary. (True Devotion, 259.)”[7]
First and foremost, this statement is utterly false and certainly not even hinted at in the New Testament. As we noted above Jesus said, “come to me,” and gives no indication that we come to Him through anyone else. Jesus also said, “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life” (John 6:47). And “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Deuteronomy 31:6 & Hebrews 13:5).

Louis de Montfort wrote, “seeing that we give ourselves entirely to her, to honor and to serve her…She adorns him [who is devoted to Mary] with her merits; she supports him with her power; she illuminates him with her light; she inflames him with her love; she communicate to him her virtues…In a word, as that consecrated person is all Mary’s, so Mary is all his.”[8]

Again Rev. Beiting, “[true devotion to Mary] ‘consists in giving oneself entirely and as a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through Mary’ (Secret of Mary, 28) ‘And to do all our actions by Mary, with Mary, in Mary, and for Mary; so that we may do them all the more perfectly by Jesus, with Jesus, in Jesus, and for Jesus.’ (True Devotion, 257)….HOW CAN WE PERFORM ALL OUR ACTIONS IN MARY? We do this by trying to enter into Mary’s interior and stay there, adopting her views and feelings. Mary must become, as it were, the place and atmosphere in which we live; her influence must penetrate us. In our plans and hopes, we naturally consider her, and assign her a place in all our affairs. In a word, companionship with her becomes the constant state of our soul. As De Montfort says, ‘Mary will be the only means used by our souls in dealing with God.’ (Secret of Mary, 47.)”[9]
Jesus said, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:15).
Some Popes who have accepted and approved of Louis de Montfort’s writings are Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Leo XIII and Benedict XV. [10]

Whom Does the Bible Glorify?:
Considering that St. Montfort’s book is entitled The Glories of Mary and because of the obvious problems such teachings cause it seems important to point out that the Bible teaches that no one deserves or is to be given credited, glorified, thanked or praised except God Himself.

“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols…For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you…For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another” (Isaiah 42:8, 48:9, 11).

“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God…he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal” (Revelation 21:10-11, 19:1).

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began…Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world” (John 17:5, 24).

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and ‑this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 281
[2] He stated it during a broadcast of the Bible Answer Man radio program.
[3] From a 5-13-00 flier from the Queen of Heaven Church, Alb., NM
[4] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intending to clarify some of the more obscure parts of Saint Louis de Montfort’s work (New York: The Monfort Publications, Montfort Missionaries, nd.) Nihil Obstat: Francis J. Reine, S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Paul C. Schulte, D.D. Archbishop of Indianapolis. pp. 15, 21
[5] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 7
[6] Blue Letter Bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/998722388.html
[7] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 23
[8] John Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Mary’s Yes, Meditations on Mary through the ages (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Redeemer Books, Servant Publications, 1988)p. 121 quoting Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716) widely known for his promotion of marian devotion, he expounds the notion of slavery towards Jesus through Mary. True Devotion to Mary 144.
[9] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, pp. 7, 21
[10] Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, p. 25

Examples of Extreme Deception

At a glance: Here we will see the dangers of taking on a world-view based on experience alone. In other words, people are seeing visions, experiencing miracles and are being given information by apparition, but these things do not stand up to Scripture when we test all things.

Mary in the Trinity:
The following quote is an example of the real problem with accepting un-Biblical dogmas. We will see to what extremes people without a firm foundation in the Bible can be deceived.
“‘This thought comes from Me. I am Jesus…You thought you misunderstood when I said I am the cross. You thought you misunderstood when I said I am Light. I am Life, Love, Spirit. I am the cross. Look at the four points on the cross, I will explain. See the Holy Trinity of God in the three points. See in the other point My Mother, part of the Holy Trinity of God. That is all My precious one.’ The theology of Mary being part of the Blessed Trinity, of course, does not sound orthodox. A priest friend suggested that Nancy ask Our Lord if He would explain the last sentence of this teaching in a way we could understand. While Nancy was praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament, she heard the voice of her Savior…‘Begin to write,’ He said. ‘The Trinity of God is the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. As branches are part of a tree, My Mother and all of mankind are part of the Trinity of God.’”[1]
We are supposedly reading a new revelation from Jesus Himself given in 1991. By way of a subjective experience we receive information that is anti-Scriptural and anti-reasonable. Jesus is supposedly telling us that Mary is a part of the Holy Trinity but in that case God is no longer a Trinity but is now a Quadripartite. But that is not all because all of mankind are part of the Trinity of God. This has more in common with the New Age or Pantheistic religions than with the truth as revealed in the Bible.
The Bible makes it clear that we are not part of God, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12-13). God created us all but we are not all His children, or else how and why would we be given the right to become something that we already are?

The quote came from a book published by a group called Our Loving Mother’s Children, we were pleased that we did not find it approved as Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur. However, what the book does state is, “In obedience to Jesus’ request, we have began to publish His Words and those of Our Loving Mother at Conyers, Georgia. According to a decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on October 14, 1966, it is permitted to publish, without an imprimatur, texts relating to new revelations, apparitions, prophecies or miracles. However, in accordance with the regulations of the Second Vatican Council, the publisher states that we do not wish to precede the judgement of the Church in this matter, to which we humbly submit.”

The Scapular:

“Pope Pius XII says, it [the scapular] is in the ‘first rank’ of popular devotions to the Blessed Mother.”[2]
Pope Pius XII wrote, “certainly this most gentle Mother will not delay to open, as soon as possible, through her intercession with God, the gates of heaven for her children who are expiating their faults in purgatory—a trust based on that promise known as the Sabbatine Privilege.”[3]
Most Rev. E. K. Lynch explain the Sabbatine Privilege and how the scapular of the Carmelites came to be, “in 1246, at a Chapter held in Aylesford, they [the Carmelites] elected Simon Stock as their General. As he saw the waves of opposition mounting higher and higher, Simon realized that Our Lady was his only hope…Saluting her as the Flower of Carmel and the Star of the Sea, he asked her for the ‘privilegium,’ that is, the protection a lord would give his vassal. In answer to his fervent prayer she appeared to him, and giving him the scapular of his order she said: ‘This shall be a sign to you and to all Carmelites: whoever dies wearing this shall not suffer eternal fire.’”[4]
The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary defines the effect that the scapular has on its wearer, “The scapular gives the bearer a share in the merits and good works of the particular group of which it is a badge. The wearer should be invested in the scapular by religious authority. It must be worn as described. If set aside for any period, the spiritual benefits cease during that time. Care must be taken in the use of scapulars to guard against superstition.”[5] The warning against superstition is almost a contradiction in terms considering that the description of the scapular is like that of any talisman or good luck charm.
It is interesting and alarming to note that in great error Simon Stock did not look to Jesus as his only hope but instead he turned to Mary and she allegedly appeared to him. First we should wonder how he knows for sure that it was Mary since no one knows what she looks like (same goes for all apparitions). Next we see that he opened himself to deception or demonization by turning away from God and turning placing his hopes on a dead person (be they Mary or another saint). The Bible says, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). The opposite of this is, “Invite the devil and he will appear.” Also remember that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2nd Corinthians 11:14).

In the Catholic Gift Ideas 2002 catalog The Fatima Crusader included adds for scapulars, “Hand-Made Scapulars, Your Protection in Times of Danger.” The Passion of Christi Scapular has this quote by it “All those who wear this Scapular shall receive every Friday an increase of faith, hope and charity.” The Brown Scapular has, “Those who die wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire!” The St. Michael Brown Scapular has, “Relics of St. Peter and St. Constantine touched to images on the Scapular.” Also, to cover all bases you can buy the Five-Fold Scapular which “Includes the Passion Scapular, The Brown Scapular, The Scapular of the Seven Dolors [sic. they must mean colors], The Immaculate Conception Scapular and the Trinity Scapular.”

Guadalupe:

In 1531 an apparition known as Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego in Mexico. This is some of what occurred, Juan Diego “saw a Lady, who was standing there and told him to come hither. Approaching her presence, he marveled greatly at her superhuman grandeur; her garments were shining like the sun…She then spoke to him [in the first apparition]…‘I wish that a temple be erected here quickly, so I may therein exhibit and give all my love, compassion, help, and protection, because I am your merciful mother, to you, and to all the inhabitants on this land and all the rest who love me, invoke and confide in me; listen there to their lamentations, and remedy all their miseries, afflictions and sorrows. And to accomplish what my clemency pretends…that here on this plain a temple be built to me…Be assured that I will be most grateful and will reward you, because I will make you happy and worthy of recompense for the effort and fatigue in what you will obtain of what I have entrusted….[fourth apparition] Am I not here, who is your Mother? Are you not under my protection? Am I not your health? Are you not happily within my fold?’”[6]
These sorts of teachings are tailor made to deviate people from complete devotion to Christ. From Our Lady’s words and certain alleged miracles Guadalupe has become an immensely popular site, and the apparition has become the focus of much prayer and devotion.
However, consider the following admission from a group that is devoted to Our Lady of Guadalupe, “All written narrations about the apparitions of the Lady of Guadalupe are inspired by the Nican Mopohua, or Huei Tlamahuitzoltica, written in Nahuatl, the Aztec language, by the Indian scholar Antonio Valeriano around the middle of the sixteenth century. Unfortunately the original of his work has not been found. A copy was first published in Nahuatl by Luis Lasso de la Vega in 1649.”[7]
We have 118 years from the time of the alleged event to the first known account of those events.
Note carefully that “The apparitions occurred at Tepeyac, a small hill and a former sanctuary to the Aztec goddess Tonanzin. Mary asked Juan Diego to request that the local bishop build a church on that site.”[8]
The article St. Juan Diego New World Apostle from St. Anthony Messenger convinced me more than ever that the apparition at Guadalupe did take place and that it was pure demonic deception. The apparition occurred in the form of a female on the sight of a sanctuary to an Aztec goddess and requests that a sanctuary be built so that she, the apparition, may be revered. In fact, another Catholic publication points out, “One reason…that there was not immediate great publicity among the Spaniards of the apparitions was the concern of confusion of Mary, Juan Diego’s Senora del Cielo [lady of the sky] with idolatry. She did, after all appear on the hill called Tepeyac, where devotion to a goddess had existed. Not all of the Franciscans embraced the apparitions. One who actively opposed devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe was Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, who called it a ‘satanic invention,’ because of his fear that the indigenous would return to their old idols.”[9] They didn’t return to old ones, they just adopted a new one.
Regarding the Natives of the time the article states that “They will not have to abandon their cherished traditions and religious expressions but can combine them with new ones in such a way that both will become better!”[10] A demon who was worshipped as a goddess apparently got lonely since its place of worship had been abandoned and so it disguised itself as an angel of light, a luminous being disguised as a minister of righteousness in order to continue being worshipped. Same game just a different name.
The article states, “10 years after this event, nine million Indians had converted to the Christianity of La Morenita (the beloved dark virgin).”[11] This is a very telling point, the Natives and all who are devoted to this apparition are practicing Christianity as dictated to them by an apparition not according to Jesus Christ. This is a new gospel, which is no gospel at all. The real Gospel warns us of such deceptions, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if even we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you that what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9 also see 2nd Corinthians 11:2-15).
The same article tells us of “thousands of people who began venerating the miraculous image.”[12] The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe allegedly miraculously appeared on Juan Diego’s clothing and this image shows Mary as Our Lady of Guadalupe standing with the moon under her feet. This means that she is identifying herself with the woman in Revelation 12. In our articles Immaculately Conceived?, Sinless? and Coronation in Heaven? we point out that the woman in this text is suffering from the stain of original sin, which contradicts traditions about Mary. This leads to contradictions in official Roman Catholic teachings because either Mary was born immaculate (without original sin) or is the woman in Rev. 12, Catholic dogma cannot have it both ways.

Lourdes and the Immaculate Conception:
“Bernadette Soubirous, the visionary of Lourdes, France. Between the dates of February 11th and July 16th, 1858, 14-year-old Bernadette claimed to have seen, a total of eighteen times…these sightings were approved by the Church as apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They were judged ‘worthy of belief,’ in part, no doubt, because of the fruits they effected. Among these were a miraculous spring-turned-pool and the fact that some 200,000 faithful pilgrims had flocked to Massabielle (the sight of the apparitions by the River Gave) within the first month…Bernadette was instructed by her parish priest to ask the Lady who she was…‘At my third request her face took on a serious expression, and at the same time an expression of deep humility…Joining her palms as if for prayer, she raised them to the height of her breast…She looked up to heaven…then slowly opening her hands and bending down towards me, she said to me in a voice in which one could sense a slight trembling, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’’ (emphasis added)…It should be noted, too, that Mary did not respond to Bernadette that ‘I am immaculately conceived’ or that ‘I am the one who was immaculately conceived.’ Rather, Mary said: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’…In this regard, some orthodox theologians have gone so far as to draw an analogous comparison between this aspect of Mary’s ‘I am’ of the Immaculate Conception to the ‘I AM WHO AM’ of God in the Book of Exodus (3:14)…St. Bernadette’s visions were a confirmation of something the Church had already held for centuries…This dogmatic teaching presented nothing new for the Church. The perfect sinlessness of Mary had, since Apostolic times, been taught by the Fathers of the Church who appealed to such Scriptural texts as Genesis 3:15 (known as the proto-Evangelium or ‘First Gospel’) and Luke 1:28.”[13]
It never ceases to amaze proponents of the Lourdes apparition that while Bernadette allegedly had no knowledge of the term Immaculate Conception these are the very words she reported to the clergy. “How could she have known that?” they ask, it must have been a true apparition of Mary who informed her of it. If we assume for a moment that the apparition was the work of a demonic force disguised as a messenger of God then the answer is very clear. There are demons all over the world, they know what we are up to, they hear what we say and they can communicate with each other. And so we can easily explain how someone could have information that they had no natural way of gaining. One demon tells another that the church has come up with the term Immaculate Conception and they can devise a plan to have one of them disguise themselves as a messenger of God and appear to and deceive a little child. They can tell her to tell the clergy that the apparition of Mary called herself Immaculate Conception and the clergy in turn, are amazed that this child knew of a title that she should not as of yet have heard.
It is very difficult to believe that any orthodox theologians drew a comparison between the apparition’s ‘I am’ and God’s ‘I AM WHO AM.’ God’s name is YHWH: I AM THAT I AM, usually referred to as I AM. This name implies self-existence, self-reliance, eternality, nothing implied by God’s name could possibly be applied to a created being however blessed they may be.
Also, note that the apparition’s message is said to have confirmed Mary’s perfect sinlessness. In other words, when a false doctrine cannot be substantiated from Scripture, you can always take the words of a apparition for it. Yet, Biblically the test of a true or false teaching is not an mystical, emotional, subjective experience but rather, whether or not it agrees with Scripture. Another poor way to authenticate a vision is to do a head count of how many people flock to the site, in this case “They were judged ‘worthy of belief,’ in part…200,000 faithful pilgrims had flocked to Massabielle.”
But besides this Pope Pius IX infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception on 12-8-1854 and the apparition did not occur until 1858. There was a four-year span for Bernadette to have heard the term Immaculate Conception.

© 2005 Life and Doctrine. lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com
Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] Our Loving Mother’s Children, To Bear Witness that I AM the Living Son of God, Vol. 1 (Rockford, IL.: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1991), p. 38
[2] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm.; General of the Carmelite Order. The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 1
[3] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. xi quoting Letter of His Holiness, Pius XII, For The Occasion of the Seventh Centenary of the Brown Scapular. Given at Rome on the Feast of the Apparition oat Lourdes, 2-11-50.
[4] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, p. 4
[5] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 513
[6] Our Lady Of Guadalupe—Patroness of the Americas, sancta.org/nican.html

[7] Our Lady Of Guadalupe—Patroness of the Americas, sancta.org/nican.html
[8] Fr. Virgilio P. Elzondo; priest of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, professor at the Mexican-American Cultural Center, the University of Notre Dame and the University of Texas, “St. Juan Diego New World Apostle,” St. Anthony Messenger, Vol. 110, Num. 2 (July 2002), p. 29
[9] Mark & Louise Zwick, “A Saint for Nobodies, Why San Juan Diego Means so Much to Us,” Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XXII, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 2002, p. 9
[10] Fr. Virgilio P. Elzondo, p. 34
[11] Fr. Virgilio P. Elzondo, p. 30
[12] Fr. Virgilio P. Elzondo, p. 34
[13] Wade L. J. Menezes, C.P.M., The Immaculate Conception, catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/2000-12/menezes.html