What drives the Catholic obsession with Mary . . . ?
Veneration—or worship?
If we restricted ourselves to Biblical revelation, there’d be nothing there that would lead us to Mary’s “perpetual virginity.” In that case . . .
. . . why did anyone feel a “need” to believe that Mary avoided marital sex?
In my view there’s only one possible explanation, which involved two stages:
The belief that virginity is “morally superior” to sex in marriage.
The desire to “venerate” Mary (which led, in practice, to idolizing her).
Number 2 had to follow #1, because you wouldn’t likely venerate Mary if you thought she was engaged in a “dirty” activity. She’d only be worth venerating if she avoided things you believe are morally tainted.
Again—it can’t be said too often—this cultic mentality didn’t come from the Bible. It didn’t even come from the Church at large.
. . . [I]in spite of [later] proliferating notions concerning Mary’s [alleged] ascetic manner of life, a true veneration of Mary was as good as absent from the ancient church. . . .
. . . . . . . .
The ancient church, quite like the New Testament, knew nothing of a sinless Mary. There had been no hesitancy to speak about Mary’s faults and weaknesses, and some passages in the Gospels give occasion to do so. . . . Even Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) . . . was still able to say that Mary was conceived in sin and subject to original sin, only Christ himself having been sinless.1
In the fourth century, “Gregory Nanzianzen defined Mary as ‘prokathartheisa’—literally prepurified[.]”2 Only much later—invented in the 12th century and made official in 1854—came the doctrine of Mary’s “immaculate conception“ (see below).
But a belief in Mary’s “sinlessness” was the natural result of ideas like the one conceived by Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), one of the earliest Christian theologians to elevate Mary beyond her Biblical station:
And even as Eve . . . having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary . . . by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.3
No, Irenaeus, she didn’t. (a) Eve was “the cause of death” in the sense that her own fallenness has a direct connection to the fallen state of her offspring. By contrast, Mary’s obedience to God does not have a direct connection to either my own obedience, or to my faith in Christ, or to Christ’s redemptive work on my behalf. Only Christ himself has that connection with me.
(b) Though Eve was the first human sinner, it’s Adam on whose shoulders the Bible lays the primary blame for the Fall. Why? Because Eve was fooled—but Adam knowingly disobeyed God. Jesus, then, is a “second Adam,” as it were; and we identify either with Adam (meaning we cling to our fallenness) or with Christ (meaning we’re delivered from sin and, eventually, glorified with our risen Savior).
(c) Nowhere does Scripture ever credit Mary with even the smallest aspect of our salvation. The Biblical writers never equate Mary’s birthing of the infant Jesus with somehow “participating” in His later work of redemption at the cross and in His resurrection. Jesus himself gets absolutely all of the glory.
But the notions of Irenaeus were tame compared to what came later:
Since the practice of praying to the saints increased during the Middle Ages, it is not surprising that Mary became especially popular. Jesus came to stand for the stern, forbidding and unapproachable judge. The faithful were pointed to Mary, the compassionate mother who would act as mediator for them. . . . In his work on the glories of Mary [Alphonsus Liguori] said, “God wants all graces to come by the hand of Mary.”4
Mariology was developed further during the Middle Ages. The veneration of Mary, which in the ancient church was found only on the periphery and only at a late date, also became more prevalent. To venerate Mary was to venerate the mother of sorrows, the queen of heaven, the mediatrix in all afflictions. Altars to Mary were set up. Many miracles were ascribed to the ever virgin one. . . . John Paltz (d. 1511), Luther’s teacher at Erfurt, praised the humility of Mary and held that by virtue of her humility she “pulled God down” from heaven, established the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience . . . , and in fact, founded all cloisters, indeed, even the entire Christian faith.5
Any bona fide disciple of Jesus will be stunned and dismayed at some of the statements made about his mother in the stream of Roman Catholic tradition. When I began this paragraph, I intended to cite a few Catholic “saints” and popes who are quoted at a page titled “Devotion to Our Lady is Necessary for Salvation”—but quickly discovered that there are too many to choose from. I’ll leave it up to you to peruse the site. If you’re not stunned by it, something’s wrong.
And if she could read it, Mary would be horrified at what cultists have done to her name and legacy.
Jesus’ mother—like you and me—was a sinner. The Bible tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23; cf. 11:32; 1 John 1:8-10). Logically this must include Mary—since the Bible makes Jesus the only exception—yet Catholicism teaches otherwise. According to Pope Pius IX,
by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . “We declare, pronounce, and define that . . . the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God . . . was preserved free from all stain of original sin[.]”6
And Pius didn’t just state this as a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing; no, he insisted that we’re obligated to believe it:
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.7
But . . . why are we obligated to believe this?
When and where did God command it?
“Where are you getting this?”
For her own part, Mary called God her “Savior” (Luke 1:47)—because she was well aware that, as a sinner, she needed saving. And, to be fair, Catholicism sorta-kinduv acknowledges this, as Pius IX indicated:
. . . [H]er soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin.8
Frederick Holweck, writing later in The Catholic Encyclopedia, elaborates:
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption[.]
However, when we look back at Pius’s official statement, the pope seemed to twist the Biblical conception of “grace”:
. . . [T]he Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.9
Phrases like “seat of all divine graces,” “infinite treasury,” and “inexhaustible abyss” seem to imply that Christians are to obtain these graces from Mary, rather than from God directly through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This flies in the face of what Jesus told his disciples they could look forward to:
“So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again [after Christ’s resurrection] . . . . At that time you won’t need to ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, you will ask the Father directly, and he will grant your request because you use my name. You haven’t done this before. Ask, using my name, and you will receive, and you will have abundant joy. . . .
. . . . I’m not saying I will ask the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loves you dearly because you love me and believe that I came from God. [John 16:22-24, 26-27]
Catholics: if Jesus says you can have this—why would you not want this?
But Pope Pius attempted to defend the Catholic view by appealing, ironically, to Scripture itself, claiming that Mary was “proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God[.]”10
Depends on what translation you’re using. A few Bible versions—including, not surprisingly, the New Catholic Bible—tell us that Gabriel said, “Hail, [you who are] full of grace” (Luke 1:28)—but most do not. What does the original New Testament Greek reveal?
The single word behind the questionable phrase “full of grace” is charitŏō, which derives from charis, “grace” or “favor.” So Gabriel was calling Mary “graced” or “favored” by God. And of course she received a lot of favor: God chose her to be the vessel through which the divine Son would enter the world as a human being!
Yet this doesn’t equate to Mary being a “treasury” or “inexhaustible abyss” of grace in herself, as if she “possessed” grace and is able to dispense it to others. It just means God treated her really, really well, as Mary herself testified: “For he took notice of his lowly servant girl . . . and he has done great things for me.” (Luke 1:48-49)
Nonetheless, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “The salutation of the angel Gabriel— . . . Hail, full of grace[—]indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”11
This directly contradicts the word of God, which tells us to “praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on [charitŏō] us who belong to his dear Son.” (Ephesians 1:6) This is the only other verse in the New Testament where that verb is used.
According to the Bible, then, all believers are as “full of grace” as Mary herself.
But you know who’s really full of grace, in the sense that Catholics wrongly apply this phrase to Mary?
The Word became a human and lived among us. We saw his glory—the glory that belongs to the only Son of the Father—and he was full of grace and truth. . . . Because he was full of grace and truth, from him we all received one gift after another. [John 1:14, 16]
This is cause for rejoicing!
Which leads directly to my next point.
In the Catholic view, Mary was “hailed” by the angel because she was “full of grace.” Sometimes the English verb “hail” means “to greet with enthusiastic approval”; to “acclaim.” Or it can just be a respectful greeting—or even a summons, like when someone “hails” a taxi. You’ll forgive me for believing that the Catholic “Hail, Mary” is recited with the first definition in mind: Mary is being acclaimed. Nobody’s just looking up to Heaven and saying “Hi.”
But again: what is the Bible actually telling us? The Greek word sometimes translated “Hail” in Luke 1:28 is chairō, which isn’t a bland “Hello,” but instead means “Rejoice!” or “Be glad!” Matthew also uses this word in his account of Jesus’ birth: “When [the Magi] saw the star, they were filled with joy!” (Matthew 2:10) We could paraphrase it as “they were rejoiced”—i.e., made glad.12
And, just like the Magi, and Mary herself, it is God whom we should “hail”—acclaim. It is He who is “the seat of all divine graces and . . . gifts of the Holy Spirit”; an “infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts.”
All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. . . . So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son. He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. . . . [H]e has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him. [Ephesians 1:3, 6-7, 14]
Not “praise and glorify” Mary.
In the meantime, Catholicism argues that Mary’s alleged sinlessness was appropriate for her role as Jesus’ mother: “being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin.”13
No indication as to why this would have been necessary; God has nowhere told us that sinlessness was a requirement for the role Mary played. But it also begs the question: If Mary needed to be sinless to carry and bear Jesus—then wouldn’t Mary’s own mother also need to have been sinless? Obviously God is capable of preventing the fallen nature from passing from mother to child in the womb. That being the case, there was no need for Mary herself to be sinless.
On the other hand, perhaps “need” isn’t the real issue here. Notice this comment by Pope Pius IX: “To her did the Father will to give his . . . Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary."14 This is stated under the subheading “Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity.”
His view appears to be not that Mary “needed” to be sinless in order to bear a sinless Messiah—which is what I had for years believed was the Catholic view—but simply that she was created sin-free in order to “share” parentage of Jesus with God the Father.
In other words: Mary is a “co-parent” elevated virtually to God’s level.
Lest I be accused of “misrepresenting” Catholicism, I recognize that devoted Catholics will insist they aren’t “worshipping” Mary alongside God Himself. And I recognize that Rome officially distinguishes between “worship” and “veneration.”
What I’m saying is that they practically worship Mary without realizing they’re doing it.
Regardless, whatever it is they’re doing, allegedly Christians have always done it! From Pius IX once again:
The Catholic Church . . . has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin[.]15
Uh, no, Mr. Ferretti, believers haven’t always held that. A “sinless” Mary wasn’t dreamed up until the Middle Ages.
But cultic imagination went even further than those dreams.
Mary’s not my mom. The cultic elevation of Jesus’ mother to virtual Godhood—by way of “co-parenting” Jesus alongside God the Father—leads naturally to her becoming not only the “Mother of God,”16 but the “Mother” of God’s people, as well.
According to Marian devotee Pope John Paul II, as our “co-parent” with God the Father, Jesus’ mother is
maternally present and sharing in the many complicated problems which today beset the lives of individuals, families and nations; [she is] helping the Christian people in the constant struggle between good and evil, to ensure that it “does not fall,” or, if it has fallen, that it “rises again.”17
Um, no, Mr. Wojtyła, it’s God—and God alone—who does all that. Sure, there’s a sense in which fellow believers help one another to “walk in a new way of life.” (Romans 6:4) And we “[s]hare each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2)18 But ultimately “it is God”—not Mary—“who is working in you, enabling you both to desire and to work out His good purpose.” (Philippians 2:13)19
Nowhere and nowhen has God revealed that Mary—a praiseworthy believer, to be sure—is “present” with us, or is “helping” us “in the struggle between good and evil,” or preventing us from falling. Mary is not our co-parent with God; she is not the “mother of us all.”
The Redeemer doesn’t need a sidekick. Many Catholics—though surprisingly this isn’t official dogma—refer to Mary by two other titles: “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix.” These are separate but related concepts.
In brief:
(1) Mary participates in redemption with Jesus Christ [in part by joining him in his suffering on the cross], (2) grace is granted by Jesus only through the intercession of Mary, and (3) all prayers from the faithful must flow through Mary, who brings them to the attention of her Son.20
As I say, I’m surprised these aren’t official dogmas; the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself cites Irenaeus’s comment that Mary “bec[a]me the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.”21 Likewise Jerome: “Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.”22
In addition, the Catechism continues:
This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.23
Indeed, Pope Leo XIII claimed that Mary
took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. . . . [T]here stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him[.]24
Effectively, such devotion to Mary “redefine[s] the Trinity as a kind of Quartet.”25
Eclipsing Christ
I’ve become convinced that Marian devotion is one of Satan’s devices for replacing Jesus himself in the hearts of Roman Catholics.
I’m not suggesting that devoted Catholics are closet Satanists, or wilfully, knowingly idolatrous. I’m suggesting that—because they aren’t committed to investigating and living by God’s own word—they’ve allowed the Enemy to infect their minds with false theology.
Remember the question I posed earlier: What would Satan want to see happen in churches, and how would he go about it?
He’s already got control of the hordes of people who reject Christ altogether. If he can then get Christians themselves to take their eyes off of Christ—Satan can turn the churches into cults. He can lead us into becoming idolaters rather than true disciples of Jesus.
Satan’s tactic here is Christ-plus:
Christ plus works
Christ plus self-esteem
Christ plus other gods or “spiritualities”
Christ plus human wisdom and power
But the reality is that “Christ-plus” means Christ-replaced. A moment ago I quoted Jerome as saying: “Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.” Jerome inadvertently committed the “replacement” fallacy because he directly contradicted the Apostle Paul, who wrote that
the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But . . . who receive [God's grace] will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone [who trusts in Jesus]. Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous. [Romans 5:17-19]
In other words:
Not “death through Eve” vs. “life through Mary,” but rather—
Death through Adam vs. life through Christ.
Another ancient writer gave the churches a patently false Jesus who
said to His mother: . . . [E]very favour and every gift has been given to thee from my Father in heaven, and from me, and from the Holy Spirit: every soul that calls upon thy name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence, both in the world that now is, and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens.26
This fictional “Jesus” claims that everyone who calls on Mary “shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence.” Yet God’s word says: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:1327)
Cultists view Mary as the “heavenly ladder by which God came down”; the “bridge leading those from earth to heaven.”28 But God has told us plainly that
no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 3:11]
There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. [Acts 4:12]29
And the “heavenly ladder”—an allusion to Jacob’s vision in Genesis 28:10-16—is actually fulfilled by Jesus, who said: “I assure you: You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1:5130)
And when we know that there is “one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)—why on earth would we turn around and look for another; a “mediatrix”?
Pope Paul VI appeared to agree with this—in theory:
There is but one Mediator . . . . The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.
Most of that sounds okay, but how does this elevation of Mary—which is entirely unnecessary—“foster” the union of the believer with Christ? And if it did—why didn’t the Apostles mention it anywhere at all? Instead they tell us that Scriptural revelation is all we need as an infallible guide to commencing and cultivating a relationship with God through Jesus.31
“Eternal life” means having that relationship (John 17:3), and the Apostle John also tells us that “this life is in [God’s] Son”—not the Son’s earthly mother. “Jesus Christ . . . is the true God and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:11, 20-21)
That last verse implicitly rebukes Mariolatry: John is telling us to prevent anyone or anything else from eclipsing Christ in our hearts.
Sadly, though, Marian devotees have done exactly that.
The Catholic Church constructs a parallel of Mary to Christ Jesus. It teaches that just as Christ was sinless, so was Mary. Just as grace comes from Christ, so Mary is the mother of grace. Just as the Lord saves His people from their sins, so Mary is the cause of salvation. The Bible clearly states that there is only one mediator for mankind; amazingly the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is a mediator. Just as Jesus Christ was taken up into heaven and is King of Kings, they teach that Mary has been taken up to heaven body and soul and is Queen of heaven.32
How can anyone who loves the Lord Jesus fail to see what’s going on here?
More to come . . . .
†
Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 1985), 200-201 (italics mine).
Geoffrey Nathan, “The Jovinianist Controversy and Mary Aeiparthenos: Questioning Mary’s Virginity and the Question of Motherhood,” Saeculum 68/II (2018), 226.
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., quoted in William S. Farneman, Roman Catholicism: Working Toward an Objective Understanding (online series), (Dallas: Bible.org, 25 May 2004), “2. Catholic Theology“ (accessed 15 Jan. 2023; italics mine).
Bernhard Lohse, ibid. (emph. mine).
Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (The Immaculate Conception), 8 Dec. 1854 (accessed 17 Jan. 2023).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. (emph. mine).
Ibid.
Italics mine.
This verb in Luke 1:28 is written in an active sense, urging Mary to “rejoice.” In Matt. 2:10 it’s written as a passive: the Magi were caused to rejoice.
Frederick Holweck, “Immaculate Conception,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910) (accessed 19 Jan. 2023; italics mine).
Pope Pius IX, ibid. (italics mine).
Ibid.
I’m not keen on this Marian title either, but it’s argued that all it refers to is Mary’s motherhood of Jesus, who is God. I’ll let this one slide, but again: not a fan of it. It comes across to me as a glorification of Mary, rather than of Christ himself.
John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater | On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church (25 Mar. 1987; accessed 19 Jan. 2023).
Many other passages discuss the resources God continually makes available to His people.
“Is Mary the co-redemptrix / mediatrix?” Got Questions Ministries (© 2002-2023; updated 4 Jan. 2022) (accessed 20 Jan. 2023). Note: the writer of this article points out that “[w]ithin Catholicism, there is a drive to define a new Marian dogma in which Catholics, as a matter of faith, would be obliged to accept these three doctrines[.]”
Bold-emphasis mine.
Italics mine.
“Is Mary the co-redemptrix / mediatrix?” © 2002-2023 Got Questions Ministries (updated 4 Jan. 2022; accessed 20 Jan. 2023).
The Transitus Mariae, a 4th-century “Christian” document about Mary’s “assumption” to Heaven (accessed 19 Jan. 2023).
The 5th-century Akathist Hymn to Mary (translated by N. Michael Vaporis and Evie Zachariades-Holmberg) (accessed 19 Jan. 2023).
Cf. John 14:6. “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite designation for himself.
See also Psalm 19:7-11; 119:9-11; Isaiah 8:20; Mark 12:24. This doesn’t mean we don’t need the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit; that we just crack open a book and study it. I’m talking about Scripture as a source of doctrinal information, which the Spirit uses as His primary tool. After all—He inspired it!