Worship: “To honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power.” & “To regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.” (Meriam Webster)
Roman Catholic Statements on Mary
Assuming you’ve read my chapter on prayer, you should already be aware of the blurred lines between veneration and worship, particularly in Roman Catholicism. Church doctrines about Mary would actually be the prevailing argument in that narrative. We are going to continue that argument here.
As the practice and theology of Marian doctrine is poorly defined and purposefully misrepresented by the Roman Catholic Church to both their congregation and their critics, I’ve decided to establish a common ground between us that I will be basing the remainder of this chapter on.
In the mid 19th century, Pope Pius IX codified the doctrines of Mariology in his Papal Bull, the Ineffibalis Deus:
Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless.
Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
Let’s take a look at the assertions from this passage:
- Mary is to be prayed to, invoked, and venerated, implying that she possesses divine power and authority.
- Mary is the Mother of God and lived a blessed virgin.
- Mary was conceived without Original Sin, meaning she never sinned throughout her life.
- Mary was appointed as Queen of heaven and earth, exalted over the angels at the right hand of Jesus.
- Roman Catholics are to pray to Mary to receive mercy and grace, she will oversee the work of their salvation.
- She also serves as a mediator between men and Jesus, who does whatever she asks of Him.
If you’ll humor me for a moment, I really want to drive home how definitive this definition of Mary as a sinless, divine administrator, who’s the overseer of men’s salvation is in Roman Catholicism:
“For God, having given her power over his only-begotten and natural Son, also gave her power over his adopted children – not only in what concerns their body – which would be of little account – but also in what concerns their soul.” -Saint Louis Marie de Montfort, 1673-1716 AD
”It is impossible to save one’s soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection.” -Saint Anselm, Archbishop and Doctor of the Church, 1033-1109 AD
“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors . . . He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins . . . He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven . . . Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation . . . No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” St. Bonaventure
So, how exactly does this not count as worship? She literally holds more power alone than entire pantheons of Pagan gods. The Roman Catholic interpretation of Mary refutes Jesus’ role of being the sole “way, truth, and life,” and rejects Peter’s claim that “by no other name but Jesus must men be saved.” These idolatrous beliefs are frequently professed when Roman Catholics pray to her:
Consecration Prayer to Mary (by St. Kolbe)
IMMACULATA, Queen of Heaven and earth refuge of sinners and our most loving Mother, God has willed to entrust the entire order of mercy to thee. I, N___, a repentant sinner, cast myself at thy feet humbly imploring thee to take me with all that I am and have, wholly to thyself as thy possession and property. Please make of me, of all my powers of soul and body, of my whole life, death and eternity, whatever most pleases thee.
This is not some specific prayer cherry-picked from the annals of history; this is a pre-mediated prayer, written by a saint, meant to be repeated by Catholics, hosted on a website called Traditional Catholic Prayers. It literally has a place to insert your name right before a plea to Mary to take everything of who that person is and has as a dedication to please her. You don’t have anything left to offer God after you’ve offered everything to Mary. But why would you even need to? According to Saints Anslem and Bonaventure, Mary is necessary for salvation.
Scroll back up to the Meriam Webster definition of worship. Their depiction of worship pales in comparison to the physical and spiritual devotion the Catholic Church requires of Mary. Even cradle Catholics who do not understand the depth of Catholicism’s idolatrous teachings are endangered by even the most casual forms of Mary worship. Does the Rosary not invoke the name of Mary more than Jesus Himself? Not only that, but it also proclaims her as a mediator for salvation and pronounces her the holy Queen of Heaven.
Let’s just rip off this band-aid now; God alone is Holy. There is actually irrefutable evidence of this in Revelation:
Revelation 15:4 Who will not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before You, for Your righteous acts have been revealed. “
This isn’t some one-off verse either, here it is again earlier in Samuel:
1 Samuel 2:2: “There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.”
All of these assertions of Marian doctrine are heretical lies that are both directly and indirectly refuted by the Bible. I understand to the Roman Catholic reading this that scripture dominant arguments do not hold a lot of weight, but if you would please bear with me, I can also prove the Early Church did not believe this either.
Mary was not Holy, nor Immaculate
The Mary of the Bible was never professed to be immaculate, nor even holy, for that matter. The Roman Catholic argument for Mary’s holiness is tenuously rooted in the idea that she had to be consecrated to bear Jesus. If Jesus was sinless, so then must be Mary.
“It’s an assumption of Luke’s Gospel and indeed the whole New Testament that Jesus is sinless. Theologically, that implies—requires—that Mary must be sinless, for Jesus must take sinless flesh from his mother. If he were to take sinful flesh on, he wouldn’t be sinless—unless we want to be Gnostic or docetist (two heresies that go hand in hand), and suggest Jesus’ soul was sinless but body sinful.” (Huizenga, 2018 – Catholic World Report)
This Roman Catholic assertion is dangerously foolish and I’m not just talking about the Gnostic strawman. First of all, if Mary had to be sinless to bear Jesus, so that He was sinless, that in turn would require Mary’s father to be sinless so that Mary could be born sinless. This, by virtue of Original Sin being a hereditary affliction, would then require his father to be sinless and so on and so forth.
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.
By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation (by “breeding”) to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act. (CCC, 404)
That’s just not logically cohesive. Furthermore, this Roman Catholic claim of Immaculate Conception is not only wholly incongruent with a greater scriptural narrative that had been established for centuries, but it also clashes with the very essence of Jesus Himself.
Jesus “emptied” Himself out to become a man, lived in abject humility, and refused to consider Himself spiritually equal to God while He was on earth. Then He died being persecuted for legalistic and spiritual crimes He never committed. So, at what point of time, would Jesus, who specifically went out of His way to rub shoulders with some of the most unclean castes of society, require to be born of a sinless woman?
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross.
Jesus came to die on the cross to forever pay for the sins of God’s people. Therefore, people who are free from sin, such as the proposed Roman Catholic Mary, who was born without sin and never sinned during her life, would not need either a savior or grace. This message makes up the majority of the Gospel, which proclaims that anyone who truly holds the belief of Jesus Christ as their savior (from sin) will be saved (John 3:16).
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Not convincing enough? Here’s Paul spelling it out for the skeptics:
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
If Mary was immaculately conceived (or simply born “pure”) and never sinned, she would be the first human in history to be entirely righteous by the Law. She would need no savior. Well, literally in the Magnificat itself, Mary gives us this:
Luke 1:46: “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.
Mary specifically states that God is her savior, as in, she is in need of saving.
Moreso, Mary professes to be His humble servant, as in, not holy. Then she states that as the consequence of bearing Jesus, generations from now on will call her blessed. This directly asserts that she was not blessed before being granted the privilege of bearing Jesus.
Not convinced? Well, here is how the angel, Gabriel introduces himself to Mary:
“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31
Mary was not born Holy, blessed, or favored. From the words of an angel, she had found favor.
Now, if you own a Catholic Bible, you’ll probably be reading this instead:
“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
If you’ve read my chapter on how The Bible is Not a Roman Catholic Book, you would know that this verse was born from the poorly translated Latin Vulgate. Keep in mind, the Vulgate was so full grammatical and doctrinal errors that it was actively rejected by the Early Church. The writer of the Vulgate, Jerome, would ultimately find himself in a feud with Saint Augustine.
Long story short, the original scriptures did not agree with Jerome. When William Tyndale retranslated the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into English, he did not find Jerome’s aberrations in there, either. Historically, the only reason this mistranslation exists today is out of spite for Tyndale and the budding Reformation.
Let’s get back to the original point of Jesus’ holiness not justifying the assumption of Mary’s immaculate conception (and subsequent sinlessness). Jesus specifically went out of His way, as per God’s will, to become as human as possible.
Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
I’m not sure what part of Hebrews 2:14 had confused the Roman Catholic church so badly, but it is a blatant and irreconcilable refutation of the assertion that Jesus had to have been born from an immaculate woman. Jesus needed to be as human as possible, both so He proves his mastery over sin and so He could guide and mediate His flock as the High Priest.
Hebrews 4: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Perhaps had Roman Catholic leaders understood this, they wouldn’t have tried burying Jesus’ priesthood under a mountain unnecessary mediators.
Mary was not Exalted Beyond Men
Mary is not called holy by Jesus, the disciples, or the apostles, even once. Even though Mary was a wonderful proto-Christian who had found favor with God (judging by her Magnificat, it’s obvious why), she was not instrumental to the Gospel past the birth of Jesus. How can I argue this? Well, for starters, Mary is only very briefly mentioned throughout Matthew, Mark, and John, leaving Luke to pick up the slack. If Mary was instrumental to Gospel, and why did three-quarters of the gospels pay her minimal attention?
Outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned just once in Acts as praying with the disciples, and then is promptly never mentioned again in the entirety of scripture. There is no prophecy of an immaculate Mary or Queen of Heaven and Earth in the Old Testament, nor is there any mention of one in the New Testament. For the biblical Mary was simply the mother of Jesus, and even that isn’t true in a spiritual sense, as Jesus had existed thousands of years before she was even born.
Colossians 1:5 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 2 and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.
As all things were created through Jesus. Jesus is not the product of Mary, Mary is the product of Jesus. Mary is not holy, she is just a person. As consequence, here is Jesus stating that Mary is beneath John the Baptist, who in turn is the least amongst all those in Heaven:
Matthew 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Is that not on the nose enough for you? Well, let’s try this again. Here is Jesus explicitly putting Mary beneath His disciples:
Matthew 12:48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
So, by Jesus’ own words, this literally obliterates any idea of Mary receiving any special exaltation for just being Jesus’ earthly mother in His ministry.
In fact, Jesus actually goes as far to rebuke someone who claims Mary to be blessed, once again placing her well beneath the disciples:
Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Notice the operative term, rather. Jesus specifically chose not to add to this man’s claim, but to override it. Adherence to the Gospel is necessary and is important to the Gospel, not Mary. Jesus, who obviously understood the Gospel, was already exposing the foolishness of Marian doctrines centuries before they were even established.
I know it sounds rather harsh, but the significance of Mary’s motherhood tapers off with Jesus’ birth. I implore you to search for yourselves, but Jesus never refers to Mary as mother once in the entirety of the Bible. Jesus clearly cares about her, just before his death He entrusted her to John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, but Jesus never attaches any spiritual significance to the motherhood of Mary. Even though Mary carried many wonderful qualities of a Christian, she is just a person.
So then, the idea of Mary remaining sinless is pretty much steam-rolled by Jesus and Paul as well:
Luke 18: 19: “Why do you call Me good? Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.”
Romans 3:10 “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Paul is quoting scriptures, so why hasn’t he made a new concession for Mary? By Roman Catholic Tradition, his lack of devotion to Mary would see him anathema. But eschewing Tradition for reality sees Paul continuing the biblical narrative all people, Mary included, being sinners in need of a savior.
Mary is Not the Co-Redemptrix, nor Does She Have any Authority over Jesus
Now, what does Mary herself say about her place in the role of God’s work?
“I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said.” (Luke 1:38)
What does Mary say concerning her spiritual being?
“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.” (Luke 1:47)
What does Mary say concerning grace and mercy?
“His mercy extends to those who fear him from generation to generation.” (Luke 1:50)
Does Mary ever command Jesus even once in the Bible? Perhaps as a child, but by the time Jesus’ ministry had began, He was projecting a higher level of authority. Notice how quick she is to hand Him all of the authority in the wedding at Cana in John 2:
“On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to Him, “They have no more wine.”
4“Woman, why does this concern us?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever He tells you.”
Look at that transaction, look at how Jesus conducts Himself. He was not concerned about glorifying or immediately submitting to His mother, who once again, He addresses as woman. Jesus is concerned about His role in the Gospel. The Trinitarian God is the only entity to be venerated.
There’s a reason Jesus is the only way, truth, and life. There is a reason Jesus is the eternal High Priest and sole Mediator between man and God. There is a reason why not a single apostle or disciple ever prayed to any name other than God. Mary is a great Christian because of her complete self-humbling nature and her submission to Jesus and God. To make her Holy and a co-mediatrix of salvation is literally disrespecting her Christly devotion and conduct in her life.
Mary Did Not Remain a Virgin
We can biblically reject the claim of Mary being the “Ever-Virgin” as well.
Matthew 1: 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Let’s focus on the operative word “knew.” Joseph clearly knew Mary in a literal sense, since he was betrothed to her, so that wouldn’t make the remotest sense for Matthew to record. Nor would the term “know” be applicable for the two of them simply being together in person; how do you think Mary got to Bethlehem? Do you know what would make sense for Matthew to record though? An assertion that Mary, who would go on to bear multiple children, was still a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.
You see, “knew” is a euphemism for sexual relations that is used multiple times throughout the Bible. In fact, just in Genesis alone:
Genesis 4:4 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.”
Genesis 4:7 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch.
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
This terminology also exists outside of the Pentateuch, in other Old Testament passages. For example, it describes the conception of Samuel:
1 Samuel 1:19: They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord; then they went back to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her. 20 And in due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, “I have asked for him from the Lord.”
Here it is again, detailing how King David never slept with his final attendant:
1 Kings 1:1 Now King David was old and advanced in years. And although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm. 2 Therefore his servants said to him, “Let a young woman be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king and be in his service. Let her lie in your arms,[a] that my lord the king may be warm.” 3 So they sought for a beautiful young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not.
So, here was Matthew purposefully emphasizing the claim that Mary, a woman with multiple children, did indeed remain a virgin until after she had given birth to Jesus, fulfilling the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.
Isaiah 7:14: Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.
And why would Mary remain a virgin for the entirety of her life? That would require people to ignore the fact one of the earliest commandments God gives people is to “be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen 1:28; Gen 8:27). It’s not as if the Roman Catholic Church does not still observe this, as they denounce most forms of birth control.
It’s not just a commandment though, God values children:
Psalm 127:3: “Children are indeed a heritage from the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is His reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are children born in one’s youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. He will not be put to shame when he confronts the enemies at the gate.”
So even Paul, the actual ever-virgin explicitly states:
1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
So then, why would Mary, a paragon of virtue, go her whole life without “knowing” Joseph when it serves the two-fold purpose of fulfilling conjugal rights and bearing children for God?
Is it really easier for a Roman Catholic, without any legitimate direct biblical evidence, to dismiss all of the verses explicitly stating Mary as being a mother of multiple children. Is it really logical to instead assume that Joseph had borne children from another woman and/or that Mary of Clopas was the actual mother and the other Mary was simply being referred to as their mother? Are we really just going to ignore all of the verses describing Mary’s children and Jesus’s brothers?
Are Roman Catholics really going to act like Joseph had an affair another Mary without any scriptural or historical evidence? Joseph was clearly submissive to God, and divorce is only permitted in the case of adultery or if the other spouse rejects their faith (Romans 7). Neither of those things are mentioned anywhere in the Bible for Joseph.
Mary’s eternal celibacy and Joseph’s extra-marital children are not intellectually or exegetically defendable assertions when faced with even the most benign of arguments wielding literal interpretation. I mean, it’s not as if classical Greek didn’t have words for cousin and stepbrothers at the time. In fact, just to discount all of the above, John blatantly records Jesus traveling with his: mother, brothers, and disciples:
John 2: 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers, and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.
There is John explicitly separating Jesus’ family from His disciples. Just as Jesus Himself did.
Matthew 12:48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Prayer and Invocation of Mary is not Necessary for Grace and Salvation
Let’s bring back Archbishop Bonaventure here for our context:
“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors . . . He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins . . . He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven . . . Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation . . . No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” St. Bonaventure
And of course, the Catechism itself:
“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.” (969)
…In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death. (966)
Roman Catholic dogma truly does preach Mary as necessary to salvation. This is worship. Mary has been effectively added to the God-Head as a proprietor of grace and salvation. The authority of Heaven is no longer under the Triune God, but also of Mary. Add in the practice of praying to saints for intercession and submitting to the Pope as Chief Shepherd, and the Roman Catholic church has effectively recreated a Pantheon of divine (or semi-divine) beings other than God, just as the pagans did. I mean, according to the Catechism, the “perfect Mary” literally sanctifies the Catholic church:
But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary: in her, the Church is already the “all-holy. (Catechism, 829)
Where did Roman Catholic forefathers get this from? Certainly not from the Bible.
Jesus: ″Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:23-24)
Peter: This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation bin no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men3 by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-13)
Paul:, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:8-11)
John: “My little children, these things I write to you, that ye sin not. And if any man sinneth, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2).
Mary is not the Queen of Heaven
“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.”508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians. (966)
Let’s talk about the Assumption for a moment. Even if Mary had somehow outlived all of Jesus’ disciples, there is no feasible way she would have outlived Luke, who compiled his Gospel retroactively and wrote Acts. So, I find it rather telling that in none of the epistles, nor in Revelation, which was believed to be written around 70 AD, mention Mary as ascending into heaven and assuming divine Queenship.
While there is no mention of Mary ascending into Heaven, there are Biblical mentions of the Queen of Heaven, and they are not good.
Jeremiah 4:7: The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.
Jeremiah 44:17: But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster.
The Queen of Heaven was a title held by the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, later known as Asherah.
1 Kings 18:18: 18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
Asherah hails from the same Babylonian pantheon as Baal. In this Pantheon, the highest of their gods was El, who was viewed as the father of the gods. Asherah was El’s wife and thus the mother of the pantheon. She was considered the Mother Goddess, and her various incarnations were viewed exercising roles in fertility, motherhood, and femininity.
Consequently, when El was heretically conflated with God, Asherah was falsely professed to be His queen. This resulted in many altars and statues dedicated to her, which arose not only in pagan temples, but in Israelite temples as well. Obviously, God took exception to this:
“Do not set up any wooden Asherah beside the altar you build to the Lord your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.”—Deuteronomy 16:21-22
“Take your father’s bull and a second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it.”—Judges 6:25
Sources: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Asherah, https://www.compellingtruth.org/queen-of-heaven.html, and https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/asherah-0010611
So, if Jesus is the King of Heaven, and Mary is the Queen of Heaven, this Catholic narrative effectively revives this Pagan narrative. So, when you read through the entirety of the Bible, you will invariably find that not once a Queen of Heaven is alluded to in a non-pagan sense. Understand that this was always the way it was meant to be. Christianity is a monotheistic theology, there is only one God, one Ruler of Heaven, and one Savior:
Isaiah 43:10: “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me, no god was formed, and none will come after Me.
Isaiah 44:8: Do not tremble or fear. Have I not told you and declared it long ago? You are My witnesses! Is there any God but Me? There is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Don’t forget, the church is the bride of Jesus, who is the King; exegetically there is even less room for Mary to be Queen of Heaven.
Isaiah 54:5: For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.
Revelation 12 is not about Mary
In my experience, the most common argument for Mary being the Queen of Heaven is in Revelation 12:
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Let’s talk about this, because the Roman Catholic version of Mary cannot possibly be the woman in this passage. Why? Because Roman Catholic Mary was immaculately conceived, thus not under the curse of original sin. Do you want to know what one of the side effects of original sin was?
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: “I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
As a direct consequence of eating the forbidden fruit, which ushered in the knowledge of good and evil, God afflicted effectively eternal curses on all involved parties. Because of Adam’s involvement in the original sin, all men will suffer and toil to yield their livelihoods. Due to Eve, all women would suffer pains of childbirth. Due to Lucifer taking the form of a snake, snakes would forever slither on the ground.
So, Mary, free from the curse of original sin, would certainly not have suffered pains of childbirth. Also, and I don’t mean to alarm anyone, but Revelation (read exegetically) is prophetic in nature. This means that it takes place well after the birth of Jesus; so it would be kind of foolish to assert that Jesus was being born again when the book was written decades after He ascended.
Not convinced? Well, Irenaeus confirms pain in child birth as a product of the curse the original sin his book, Against Heresies:
“It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: “God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man.” But man received, as the punishment of his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken.
Similarly also did the woman [receive] toil, and labour, and groans, and the pangs of parturition, and a state of subjection, that is, that she should serve her husband; so that they should neither perish altogether when cursed by God, nor, by remaining unreprimanded, should be led to despise God. But the curse in all its fulness fell upon the serpent, which had beguiled them.”
Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
So, who else better fits the allegory of the woman? Well, the Christian church. The church is the bride of Christ. So, under His Kingship, the church would technically be the Queen, if there was such a thing.
Isaiah 54:5: For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.
Revelation 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.
In fact, Israel is specifically referred to as a pregnant woman in labor in Micah.
Micah 4:9 Now why do you cry aloud? Is there no king in you? Has your counselor perished, that pain seized you like a woman in labor? 10 Writhe and groan, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in labor, for now you shall go out from the city and dwell in the open country; you shall go to Babylon. There you shall be rescued; there the Lord will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.
Thus, if Israel is the pregnant women, I suppose her offspring would reasonably refer to the Church, which was inducted into Israel’s plan for salvation:
Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” 26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Furthermore, while Mary is never specifically bequeathed a crown in the Bible, the believers of the church each are.
2 Timothy 4:8 In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
Lastly, the church, being God’s people, are the spiritual progression of God’s original peoples, the Israelites. Thus, the twelve gems in her crown would easily symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. The number twelve also represents the twelve foundations of the Early Church, the apostles:
Revelation 21:12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
So then, if the Woman is Israel (making her offspring the Church), what else could Revelation 12 reasonably mean? Well, amongst eschatologists, I’ve identified two alternate explanations.
The first is one where woman, dragon, and the child are taken at face value as the Church, Satan, and Jesus. Since Satan could not defeat Jesus, the child, he turns and persecutes the people of the church he is defeated. This refers to the three and a half year tribulation period, which would work out to roughly 1260 days, using 360-day lunar cycles.
Revelation 12:5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Symbology of Revelation 12: https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/5_Dellaperute_Final_Dragon-Exegesis_7-9-18.pdf
Layman’s explanation of Tribulation prophecy: https://www.preciousseed.org/article_detail.cfm?articleID=3120
Article on the Tribulation symbology: https://www.unsealed.org/2016/12/revelation-12-escape-to-place-prepared.html
The second explanation involves God announcing the coming of Jesus through the use of astrological signs, just like He did with Jesus’ birth. This explanation is quite reasonable as well, as God is already known for this exact thing:
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4).
That said, Revelation 12 opens with this:
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
In this instance, the woman would be the constellation Virgo (equated to the Goddess of Innocence of Purity to the Hellenic Greeks). The Dragon refers to the constellation, Draco. So, Revelation 12:1 would show an astrological event consisting of Virgo overlapping with the Sun, both of them sitting above the moon. This is actually a thing that has happened back in September 2017. Notably, the constellation Leo is composed of 9 stars, and 3 additional stars aligned with it just above Virgo on the same day, representing the crown of twelve gems.
Now, to blow things out conspiracy theory territory and straight into the Twilight Zone, Jupiter passed through the lower half of Virgo during that same month. For any western nation even remotely touched by the Hellenic Greeks or Romans around the time of Jesus, Jupiter represents Zeus, the king of gods in their cultures. So, the Woman in Heaven had “given birth” to the “king.” This would also be the sign of the End Times (which makes the following decade rather exciting for pre-tribulationists).
If you have time for a deep rabbit hole, there is an incredible 30-page article linked below that covers this prophecy and the actual real-world event in with a level of detail that exceeds the scope of this statement: https://www.godskalender.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Revelation-12-Sign.pdf
The Early Church did not profess Mary Worship
The Roman Catholic Church often likes to assert the false claim that they have never changed their doctrines, and they are a direct spiritual and doctrinal continuation of the apostles:
Has the Roman Catholic Church ever changed its teaching? No, for 2000 years the Church has taught the same things which Jesus taught.” (Catholic Catechism for Adults).
“It is a historical fact the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpretation; the church has proved itself infallible.” (My Catholic Church).
I have refuted this claim repeatedly throughout this order of statements, including the eucharist, the papal office, and idolatry. Marian doctrines, of course, will be no different. With a bit of patience (and google translate), we can debunk this current errant claim right out the gate due to an omission from Pope John-Paul himself:
“Also in relation to other aspects of Marian doctrine, many centuries have been necessary to arrive at the explicit definition of revealed truths regarding Mary. Typical cases of this journey of faith to discover in an ever more profound way the role of Mary in the history of salvation are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, proclaimed, as is well known, by two venerable predecessors of mine, respectively by the Servant of God Pius IX in 1854, and by the Servant of God Pius XII during the jubilee of the year 1950.”
Source: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/es/audiences/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19951108.html
Just like most other Roman Catholic traditions, Marian doctrines are not found in the Bible and was developed through culminating Roman Catholic dogma over time. I know that sounds a little harsh, but, John-Paul pretty much flat out reinforces the complete lack of Marian doctrine in scripture, himself:
“We must recognize that, at first glance, the Gospels provide little information about the person and life of Mary. Of course, we would have liked more abundant indications in this regard, which would allow us to get to know the Mother of Jesus better.
Neither do the other New Testament writings, in which an explicit doctrinal development about Mary, is lacking. Even the letters of Saint Paul, which offer us a rich thought about Christ and his work, limit themselves to saying, in a very significant passage, that God sent his Son, “born of a woman”
So, if you’ve read my chapter on the Early Church, I’ve explained that the Gnostic sects are responsible for a fair amount of Marian scriptures. In that regard, here is writing from the 5th-century Archbishop of Constantinople, Saint John Chrysostom, concerning Mary’s humanity:
“”They have no wine.” For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous. Perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, “Show thyself to the world” (c. xvii. 4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, Ver. 4. “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” To prove that He greatly respected His mother, hear Luke relate how He was “subject to” His parents (Luke ii. 51), and our own Evangelist declare how He had forethought for her at the very season of the Crucifixion.
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him.”
Homilies of Saint John: https://documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0345-0407,_Iohannes_Chrysostomus,_Homilies_on_The_Gospel_Of_John,_EN.pdf
Here is an Archbishop in 400 A.D., explaining in a work published with the authority of the Proto-Catholic Church, that Jesus had rebuked Mary for desiring to indirectly profit off of His miracle at Cana. Not only that, but Saint John asserts that Mary was simply His earthly mother and had no right to exert authority over Him.
Another Archbishop, Nestorious, would become infamous for arguing against the use of the term God-Bearer / Mother of God in favor of Christ Bearer. He argued that as God was eternal, Mary should not be called the Mother of God. In spite of consequent church councils that ruling both for and against his claim, Nestorious was exiled just for making the mere assertion.
Source: https://pursuingveritas.com/2015/02/04/christologies-in-conflict-cyril-and-nestorius/
This judgment would be rendered quite foolish in retrospect, as the Athanasian Creed was accepted by the Catholic Church in the same century, which gives us a passage that flagrantly denies the claim of the Catholic Mary to “God-Bearer.”
“21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.”
Source: https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
So, then, when did anti-biblical Marian doctrines start to coalesce? It’s hard to tell, exactly. In fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, exaggerations of the Mary do indeed extend all the way back to the turn of the third century:
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation both to herself and the whole human race.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies).
Roman Catholic infighting on Marian doctrine would continue at least until the mid-fifth century, where the council of Chalcedon would codify the title of “God-Bearer” for Mary and encourage Marian feasts. From then, each additional century introduced new lore that would eventually cultivate in the same Mariology that John-Paul would declare realized over a millennium later.
Much like the Eucharist and the origin of the Papacy, Marian doctrines were a doctrinal aberration that had been fabricated over time.