Eph 3 :21 Unto him be glory in the Church
by Christ Jesus throughout all ages
World Without End Amen



Loraine Boettner

Scripture tells us that after the birth of Jesus Mary brought the two offerings prescribed in the law, one, a burnt-offering (symbolizing complete surrender of the will to God), and the other a sin-offering (a sacrifice acknowledging sin) (Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:6-8).

Youngs Literal Translation

King James Version


Roman Catholicism

Loraine Boettner

Part 7


1. Mary’s Place in Scripture. 2. ‘Mother of God.’ 3. Historical Development. 4. Contrast between Roman and Protestant Teaching. 5. Mary as an Object of Worship. 6. Mary Usurps the Place of Christ. 7. Mary Represented as more Sympathetic than Jesus. 8. One Mediator. 9. Adoration or Idolatry? 10. Latria—Dulia—Hyperdulia. 11. Jesus’ Attitude towards Mary. 12. The Protestant Attitude towards Mary. 13. Were There Other Children in the Family of Joseph and Mary? 14. The Immaculate Conception. 15. The Assumption of Mary. 16. Rome’s Real Purpose in the Exaltation of Mary.


    The New Testament has surprisingly little to say about Mary. Her last recorded words were spoken at the marriage in Cana, at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry: ‘Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it’—then silence. But the Church of Rome breaks that silence, and from sources entirely outside Scripture builds up a most elaborate system of Mary works and Mary devotions.

    Following Mary’s appearance at the marriage in Cana, we meet her only once more during Jesus’ public ministry, when she and His brothers came where He was speaking to the multitudes, seeking Him, only to draw the rebuke: ‘Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? . . . Whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother’ (Matt. 12:46-50). She was present at the cross, where she was committed to the care of the disciple John for the remainder of her natural life (John 19:25-27). Finally, in Acts 1:14, she is mentioned as having been with the disciples and the other women and the Lord’s brethren engaged steadfastly in prayer immediately after the ascension, but she has no prominent place.

    The apostles never prayed to Mary, nor, so far as the record goes, did they show her any special honour. Peter, Paul, John, and James do not mention her name even once in the epistles which they wrote to the churches. John took care of her until she died, but he does not mention her in any of his three epistles or in the book of Revelation.

    When the church was instituted at Pentecost there was only one name given among men whereby we must be saved, that of Jesus (Acts 4:12). Wherever the eyes of the church are directed to the abundance of grace, there is no mention of Mary. Surely this silence is a rebuke to those who would build a system of salvation around her. God has given us all the record we need concerning Mary, and that record does not indicate that worship or veneration in any form is to be given to her. How complete, then, is the falsehood of Roman­ism that gives primary worship and devotion to her!


    The doctrine of ‘Mary, the Mother of God’ as we know it today is the result of centuries of growth, often stimulated by pronouncements of church prelates. And yet the full-fledged system of Mariolatry is a comparatively recent development in Roman Catholic dogma. In fact the last one hundred years have quite appropriately been called the ‘Century of Mariolatry.’

    As late as the fourth century there are no indications of any special veneration of Mary. Such veneration at that time could begin only if one were recognized as a saint, and only the martyrs were counted as saints. But since there was no evidence that Mary had suffered a martyr’s death, she was excluded from sainthood. Later the ascetics came to be acknowledged as among the saints. That proved to be the opening wedge for the sainthood of Mary, for surely she of all people, it was alleged, must have lived an ascetic life! The church acknowledged that Christ was born of the virgin Mary. Apocryphal tradition built on those possibilities, and slowly the system emerged.

    The phrase ‘Mother of God’ originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council which met in that city in 451, and in regard to the person of Christ it declared that He was,

    ‘Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the manhood,’

—which latter term means: according to the flesh of human nature. The purpose of the expression as used by the Council of Ephesus was not to glorify Mary, but to emphasize the deity of Christ over against those who denied His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit. A heretical sect, the Nestorians, separated the two natures in Christ to such an extent that they held Him to be two persons, or rather a dual person formed by the union between the divine Logos and the human person Jesus of Nazareth. They were accused of teaching that the Logos only inhabited the man Jesus, from which it was inferred that they held that the person born of Mary was only a man. It was therefore only to emphasize the fact that the ‘person’ born to Mary was truly divine that she was called ‘the Mother of God.’

    But the term as used today has come to have a far different meaning from that intended by the early church. It no longer has reference to the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, but instead is used to exalt Mary to a supernatural status as Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels, and much else, so that, because of her assumed position of prominence in heaven, she is able to approach her Son effectively and to secure for her followers whatever favours they ask through her. When we say that a woman is the mother of a person we mean that she gave birth to that person. But Mary certainly did not give birth to God, nor to Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God. She was not the mother of our Lord’s divinity, but only of His humanity. Instead, Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, has existed from all eternity, and was Mary’s Creator. Hence the term as used in the present-day Roman Church must be rejected.

    In the life and worship of the Roman Church there has been a long course of development, setting forth Mary’s perpetual virginity, her exemption from original sin and from any sin of commission, and now her bodily assumption to heaven. In the Roman Church Mary is to her worshippers what Christ is to Protestants. She is the object of all religious affections, and the source whence all the blessings of salvation are sought and expected.

    The Bible calls Mary the ‘Mother of Jesus,’ but gives her no other title. All that the Roman Church has to substantiate her worship of Mary is a sheaf of traditions entirely outside the Bible telling of her appearances to certain monks, nuns and others venerated as saints. At first glance the term ‘Mother of God’ may seem comparatively harmless. But the actual consequence is that through its use Roman Catholics come to look upon Mary as stronger, more mature, and more powerful than Christ. To them she becomes the source of His being and overshadows Him. So they go to her, not to Him. ‘He came to us through Mary,’ says Rome, ‘and we must go to Him through her.’ Who would go to ‘the Child,’ even to ‘the holy Child,’ for salvation when His mother seems easier of access and more responsive? Romanism magnifies the person that the Holy Spirit wants minimized, and minimizes the person that the Holy Spirit wants magnified.

    Says S. E. Anderson:

    ‘Roman priests call Mary the “mother of God,” a name impossible, illogical, and unscriptural. It is impossible, for God can have no mother; He is eternal and without beginning, while Mary was born and died within a few short years. It is illogical, for God does not require a mother for His existence. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). It is unscriptural, for the Bible gives Mary no such contradictory name. Mary was the honoured mother of the human body of Jesus—no more—as every Catholic must admit if he wishes to be reasonable and Scriptural. The divine nature of Christ existed from eternity past, long before Mary was born. Jesus never called her “mother”; He called her “woman”’ (Booklet, Is Rome the True Church? p. 20).

    And Marcus Meyer says:

    ‘God has no mother. God has always existed. God Himself is the Creator of all things. Since a mother must exist before her child, if you speak of a “mother of God” you are thereby putting someone before God. And you are therefore making that person God. . . . Mary would weep to hear anyone so pervert the truth as to call her the mother of her Creator. True, Jesus was God; but He was also man. And it was only as man that He could have a mother. Can you imagine Mary introducing Jesus to others with the words: “This is God, my Son?” (Pamphlet, No Mother). 

    Furthermore, if the Roman terminology is correct and Mary is to be called God’s mother, then Joseph was God’s step father, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were God’s brothers, Elizabeth was God’s aunt, John the Baptist was God’s cousin, Heli was God’s grandfather, and Adam was God’s fifty-ninth great-grandfather. Such references to God’s relatives sound more like a page out of Mormonism than Christianity.


    It is not difficult to trace the origin of the worship of the Virgin Mary. The early church knew nothing about the cult of Mary as it is practised today—and we here use the word ‘cult’ in the dictionary sense of ‘the veneration or worship of a person or thing; extravagant homage.’

    The first mention of the legend about Mary is found in the so-called Proto-Evangelium of James, near the end of the second century, and presents a fantastic story about her birth. It also states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. Justin Martyr, who died about 165, compares Mary and Eve, the two prominent women in the Bible. Irenaeus, who died about 202, says that the disobedience of the ‘virgin Eve’ was atoned for by the obedience of the ‘virgin Mary.’ Tertullian, one of the greatest authorities in the ancient church, who died in or about 222, raised his voice against the legend concerning Mary’s birth. He also held that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in a normal marriage relationship. The first known picture of Mary is found in the Priscilla catacomb in Rome and dates from the second century.

    Thus the Christian church functioned for at least 150 years without idolizing the name of Mary. The legends about her begin to appear after that, although for several centuries the church was far from making a cult of it. But after Constantine’s decree making Christianity the preferred religion, the Graeco-Roman pagan religions with their male gods and female goddesses exerted an increasingly stronger influence upon the church. Thousands of the people who then entered the church brought with them the superstitions and devotions which they had long given to Isis, Athena, Diana, Artemis, Aphrodite, and other goddesses, which were then conveniently transferred to Mary. Statues were dedicated to her, as there had been statues dedicated to Isis, Diana, and others, and before them the people kneeled and prayed as they had been accustomed to do before the statues of the heathen goddesses.

    Many of the people who came into the church had no clear distinction in their minds between the Christian practices and those that had been practised in their heathen religions. Statues of pagan gods and heroes found a place in the church, and were gradually replaced by statues of saints. The people were allowed to bring into the church those things from their old religions that could be reconciled with the type of Christianity then developing, hence many who bowed down before the images of Mary were in reality worshipping their old gods under a new name. History shows that in several countries Roman Catholicism has absorbed local deities as saints, and has absorbed local goddesses into the image of the Madonna. One of the more recent examples is that of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a goddess worshipped by the Indians in Mexico, which resulted in a curious mixture of Romanism and paganism, with sometimes one, sometimes the other predominating—some pictures of the Virgin Mary now appearing show her without the Child in her arms.

    As we have seen, the expression ‘Mother of God,’ as set forth in the decree of the Council of Ephesus, gave an impetus to Mary worship, although the practice did not become general until two or three centuries later. From the fifth century onwards the Mary cult becomes more common. Mary appears more frequently in paintings, churches were named after her, and prayers were offered to her as an intercessor. The famous preacher Chrysostom, who died in 407, resisted the movement wholeheartedly, but his opposition had little effect in stemming the movement. The Roman Catholics took as their text the words of the angel to Mary, found in Luke 1:28: ‘And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.’ It is to be noted, however, that shortly after the angel spoke to Mary, Elizabeth, speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not say, ‘Blessed art thou above women,’ but, ‘Blessed art though among women’ (Luke 1:42). Starting with the false premise that Mary was above all other women, there developed the practice of worshipping her.

    Invocation of the saints had a similar origin. In the year 610, pope Boniface IV first suggested the celebration of an All Saints’ festival and ordered that the Pantheon, a pagan temple in Rome that had been dedicated to all the gods, should be converted into a Christian church and the relics of the saints placed therein. He then dedicated the church to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs. Thus the worship of Mary and the saints replaced that of the heathen gods and goddesses, and it was merely a case of one error being substituted for another.

    The spiritual climate of the Middle Ages was favourable to the development of Mary worship. Numerous superstitions crept into the church and centred themselves in the worship of the Virgin and the saints. The purely pagan character of these practices, with dates and manner of observance, has been clearly established by a number of competent historians.

    The art of the Middle Ages represented Mary with the child Jesus, or Mary as ‘mater dolorosa’ at the cross. The rosary became popular; poems and hymns were written in honour of the ‘god-mother.’ Stories of miracles performed by her started in response to prayers addressed to her.  

    Also during that period arose the custom of looking to ‘patron saints,’ who in fact were merely Christianized forms of old pagan gods. In polytheism everything had its own god: the sea, war, hunting, merchants, agriculture, and all else. After the same fashion there developed the Roman Catholic gallery of ‘patron saints’ for seamen, soldiers, travellers, hunters, and in modern times for fliers, divers, cyclists, artillerymen, and many others. This kinship with the pagan cults explains why Mary worship developed so rapidly after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.


    We are indebted to Dr. Joseph Zacchello, editor of The Convert, Clairton, Pennsylvania, for the following statement concerning Mary’s rightful place in the Christian church, followed by extracts in one column from Ligouri’s book, The Glories of Mary, and in a parallel column extracts setting forth what the Bible teaches:

    ‘The most beautiful story ever told is the story of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. And a part of that beautiful story is the account of Mary, the mother of our Lord.

    ‘Mary was a pure virtuous woman. Nothing is clearer in all the Word of God than this truth. Read the accounts of Matthew and Luke and you see her as she is—pure in mind, humble, under the hand of God, thankful for the blessing of God, having faith to believe the message of God, being wise to understand the purpose of God in her life.

    ‘Mary was highly favoured beyond all other women. It was her unique honour that she should be the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed was Mary among women. Through her, God gave His most priceless gift to man.

    ‘But, though Mary be worthy of all honour as a woman favoured of God beyond all others, and though she be indeed a splendid, beautiful, godly character, and though she be the mother of our Lord, Mary can neither intercede for us with God, nor can she save us, and certainly we must not worship her. There is nothing clearer in the Word of God than this truth.

    ‘Let us notice this truth as it is diligently compared with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and with the Word of God. The following quotations are taken from the book, The Glories of Mary, which was written by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri, one of the greatest devotional writers of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Word of God taken from the Douay Version which is approved by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Editor’s notice says, “Everything that our saint has written is, as it were, a summary of Catholic tradition on the subject that it treats; it is not an individual author; it is, so to speak, the church herself that speaks to us by the voice of her prophets, her apostles, her pontiffs, her saints, her fathers, her doctors of all nations and ages. No other book appears to be more worthy of recommendation in this respect than The Glories of Mary.”’ (1931 edition; Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn). Note the following deadly parallel:

Mary is Given the Place Belonging to Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

‘And she is truly a mediatrix of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by Mary alone’ (pp. 82, 83). ‘Mary is our life. . . . Mary in obtaining this grace for sinners by her intercession, thus restores them to life (p. 80). ‘He fails and is LOST who has not recourse to Mary (p. 94).

The Word of God:

For there is one God, and ONE Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5). ‘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). ‘Christ...is our life’ (Col. 3:4).

Mary is Glorified More Than Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

‘The Holy Church commands a WORSHIP peculiar to MARY’ (p. 130). ‘Many things . . . are asked from God, and are not granted; they are asked from MARY, and are obtained,’ for ‘She . . . is even Queen of Hell, and Sovereign Mistress of the Devils’ (pp. 127, 141, 143).

The Word of God:

In the Name of Jesus Christ For there is no other name under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved (Act 3:6, 4:12). His Name is ‘above every name. . . not only in this world, but also in that which is to come’ (Eph. 1:21).

Mary is the Gate to Heaven Instead of Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

‘Mary is called .. . the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through HER’ (p. 160).

‘The Way of Salvation is open to none otherwise than through MARY,’ and since ‘Our salvation is in the hands of Mary. . . He who is protected by MARY will be saved, he who is not will be lost’ (pp. 169, 170).

The Word of God:

‘I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved,’ says Christ (John 10:1, 7, 9).

‘Jesus saith to him, I am the way . . . no man cometh to the Father but by me’ (John 14:6). ‘Neither is there Salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12).

Mary is Given the Power of Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

‘All power is given to thee in Heaven and on earth,’ so that ‘at the command of MARY all obey—even God . . . and thus God has placed the whole Church... under the domination of MARY’ (pp. 180, 181). Mary ‘is also the Advocate of the whole human race . . . for she can do what she wills with God’ (p. 193).

The Word of God:

‘All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth,’ so that ‘in the Name of JESUS every knee should bow,’ ‘that in all things He may hold the primacy’ (Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:18).

‘But if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, JESUS CHRIST the Just: and he is the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 2:1, 2).

Mary is the Peace-Maker Instead of Jesus Christ Our Peace

Roman Catholic Church:

‘Mary is the Peace-maker between sinners and God’ (p. 197).

‘We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of MARY, than by invoking that of Jesus.’ ‘She is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help’ (pp. 254, 257).

The Word of God:

‘But now in CHRIST JESUS, you, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace’ (Eph. 2:13, 14).

‘Hitherto you have not asked anything in my name. Ask, and you shall receive,’ for ‘Whatsoever we shall ask according to His will, He heareth us’ (John 16:23, 24).

Mary is Given the Glory that Belongs to Christ Alone

Roman Catholic Church:

‘The whole Trinity, O MARY, gave thee a name . . . above every other name, that at Thy Name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth’ (p. 260).

The Word of God

‘God also hath highly exalted HIM, and hath given HIM a Name which is above all names, that in the Name of JESUS every knee should bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth’ (Phil. 2:9, 10).

    Ligouri, more than any other one person, has been responsible for promoting Mariolatry in the Roman Church, dethroning Christ and enthroning Mary in the hearts of the people. Yet instead of excommunicating him for his heresies, the Roman Church has canonized him as a saint and has published his book in many editions, more recently under the imprimatur of Cardinal Patrick Joseph Hays, of New York.

    In a widely used prayer book, the Raccolta, which has been especially indulgenced by several popes and which therefore is accepted by Romanists as authoritative, we read such as the following:

    ‘Hail, Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, Sweetness, and Hope, all Hail! To thee we cry, banished sons of Eve; to thee we sigh, groaning and weeping in this vale of tears.’

    ‘We fly beneath thy shelter, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessity, and deliver us always from all perils, O glorious and Blessed Virgin.’

    ‘Heart of Mary, Mother of God. . . Worthy of all the veneration of angels and men. . .. In thee let the Holy Church find safe shelter; protect it, and be its asylum, its tower, its strength.’

    ‘Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.’

    ‘Leave me not, My Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost; let me but cling to thee. Save me, my Hope; save me from hell.’

Also in the Raccolta, prayers are addressed to Joseph:

    ‘Benign Joseph, our guide, protect us and the Holy Church.’

    ‘Guardian of Virgins, and Holy Father Joseph, to whose faithful keeping Christ Jesus, innocence itself, and Mary, Virgin of Virgins, were committed, I pray and beseech thee by those two dear pledges, Jesus and Mary, that being preserved from all uncleanness, I may with spotless mind, pure heart, and chaste body, ever most chastely serve Jesus and Mary. Amen.’

    The rosary, which is by far the most popular Roman Catholic ritual prayer, contains fifty ‘Hail Marys?’ The Hail Mary (or Ave Maria) is as follows:

    ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, 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.’


    The devotions to Mary are undoubtedly the most spontaneous of any in the Roman Catholic worship. Attendance at Sun day mass is obligatory, under penalty of mortal sin if one is absent without a good reason, and much of the regular service is formalistic and routine. But the people by the thousands voluntarily attend novenas for the ‘Sorrowful Mother.’ Almost every religious order dedicates itself to the Virgin Mary. National shrines, such as those at Lourdes in France, Fatima in Portugal, and Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, are dedicated to her and attract millions. The shrine of Ste. Anne de Beaupré, in Quebec, the most popular shrine in Canada, is dedicated to Saint Anne, who according to apocryphal literature was the mother of Mary. Thousands of churches, schools, hospitals, convents, and shrines are dedicated to her glory.

    It is difficult for Protestants to realize the deep love and reverence that devout Roman Catholics have for the Virgin Mary. One must be immersed in and saturated with the Roman Catholic mind in order to feel its heart-beat.

    Says Margaret Shepherd, an ex-nun 

    ‘No words can define to my readers the feeling of reverential love I had for the Virgin Mary. As the humble suppliant kneels before her statue he thinks of her as the tender, compassionate mother of Jesus, the friend and mediatrix of sinners. The thought of praying to Christ for any special grace without seeking the intercession of Mary never occurred to me’ (My Life in the Convent, p. 31.)

    The titles given Mary are in themselves a revelation of Roman Catholic sentiment towards her. She is called: Mother of God, Queen of the Apostles, Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels, The Door of Paradise, The Gate of Heaven, Our Life, Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, and many other titles which ascribe to her supernatural powers.

    All of those titles are false. Let us consider just two of them. When she is called ‘Queen of the Apostles,’ is that an apostolic doctrine? Where is it found? Certainly it is not in Scripture. When did the apostles elect Mary their queen? Or when was she appointed by God to be their queen? And the title, ‘Queen of Heaven,’ is equally false, or even worse. Heaven has no ‘queen.’ The only references in Scripture to prayers to the ‘queen of heaven’ are found in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19, 25, where it is severely condemned as a heathen custom practised by some apostate Jews. This so-called ‘queen of heaven’ was a Canaanitish goddess of fertility, Astarte (plural, Ashtaroth) (Judges 2:13). How shameful to impose a heathen title on Mary, and then to venerate her as another deity!

    How can any one of the perhaps one hundred million practising Roman Catholics throughout the world who desire Mary’s attention imagine that she can give him that attention during his prayers to her, his wearing her scapulars for special protection, and his marching in parades in her honour, while at the same time she is giving attention to all others who are praying to her, attending to her duties in heaven, conducting souls to heaven, and rescuing souls from purgatory? The average Roman Catholic acts on the assumption that Mary has the powers of deity.

    There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that any departed human being, however good, has any further contact with affairs on this earth, or that he can hear so much as one prayer from earth. How, then, can a human being such as Mary hear the prayers of millions of Roman Catholics, in many different countries, praying in many different languages, all at the same time? Let any priest or layman try to converse with only three people at the same time and see how impossible that is for a human being. Romanists impose on Mary works which no human being can do. How impossible, how absurd, to impose on her the works which only God can do! Since Mary is not omnipresent nor omniscient, such prayers and worship are nothing less than idolatry—that is, the giving of divine honours to a creature.

    Nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest suggestion that prayer should be offered to Mary. If God had intended that we should pray to her, surely He would have said so. Worship is accorded to the infant Jesus; but never to His mother. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, wise men came from the east, and when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary His mother. Did they then fall down and worship Mary? Or Joseph? Not at all! We read: ‘They fell down and worshipped him’ (Matt. 2:11). And to whom did they give their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh? To Mary? Or to Joseph? By no means! They presented their gifts to Jesus. They recognized Him, not Mary or Joseph, as worthy of adoration.

    Furthermore, in Old Testament times the Jews prayed to God, but never to Abraham, or Jacob, or David, or to any of the prophets. There is never the slightest suggestion that prayers should be offered to anyone other than God. Nor did the apostles ever ask the early Christians to worship, or venerate, or pray to Mary or to any other human being.

    The objections against prayers to Mary apply equally against prayers to the saints. For they too are only creatures, infinitely less than God. How, then, can they listen to and answer the thousands upon thousands of petitions made simultaneously in many different lands and in many different languages? Many such petitions are expressed, not orally, but mentally and silently. How can Mary and the saints, creatures as they were and are, be present everywhere and know the secrets of all hearts?

    That living saints should pray to departed saints seems on the face of it to be the very height of the ridiculous. But the fact is that most Roman Catholics pray to Mary and the saints more than they pray to God. Yet they cannot explain how departed saints can hear and answer prayers. The endless prayers to the Virgin and to the countless saints cannot bring one closer to God. And particularly when we see all the gaudy trappings that are resorted to in Rome’s distorted version of a glamour queen, the whole procedure becomes, to Protestants, truly abhorrent.

    The Roman Catholic Church commits grievous sin in pro­moting the worship of Mary. It dishonours God, first, by its use of images; and secondly, by giving to a creature the wor­ship that belongs only to the Creator. We have here merely another example of Rome’s persistent tendency to add to the divinely prescribed way of salvation. Romanism sets forth faith and works, Scripture and tradition, Christ and Mary, as the means of salvation.

    Charles Chiniquy, a former priest from Montreal, Canada, who became a Presbyterian minister, tells of the following conversation between himself and his bishop when doubts began to assail him regarding the place given to Mary:

‘My lord, who has saved you and me upon the cross?’

He answered, ‘Jesus Christ.’

‘And who paid your debt and mine by shedding His blood; was it Mary or Jesus?’

He said, ‘Jesus Christ.’

‘Now, my lord, when Jesus and Mary were on earth, who loved the sinner more; was it Mary or Jesus?’

Again he answered that it was Jesus.

‘Did any sinner come to Mary on earth to be saved?’


‘Do you remember that any sinner has gone to Jesus to be saved?’

‘Yes, many.’

‘Have they been rebuked?’


‘Do you remember that Jesus ever said to sinners. “Come to Mary and she will save you”?’

‘No,’ he said.

‘Do you remember that Jesus has said to poor sinners, “Come to me”?’

‘Yes, He has said it.’

‘Has He ever retracted those words?’


‘And who was, then, the more powerful to save sinners?’ I asked.

‘O, it was Jesus!’

‘Now, my lord, since Jesus and Mary are in heaven, can you show me in the Scriptures that Jesus has lost anything of His desire and power to save sinners, or that He has delegated this power to Mary?’

And the bishop answered, ‘No.’

‘Then, my lord,’ I asked, ‘why do we not go to Him, and to Him alone? Why do we invite poor sinners to come to Mary, when, by your own confession she is nothing compared with Jesus, in power, in mercy, in love, and in compassion for the sinner?’

To that the bishop could give no answer (Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 262).

    Even to this day the province of Quebec is almost solidly Roman Catholic. Throughout the province one can scarcely hear the Gospel in any church, or in any local radio broadcast, or obtain anything but Roman Catholic literature. Quebec is full of idols. Pope Pius XII declared that the province of Quebec was the world’s most Catholic country. But everywhere Mary, and not Christ, is represented as the only hope of the four million French-Canadians. And, let it be noticed further, the province of Quebec has the most illiteracy, the poorest schools, and the lowest standard of living of any province in Canada.

    It is very difficult to convince Roman Catholic people that Christ has won for them the right to go directly to God in prayer. They read the Bible but very little. Instead they fall back on what their priests have taught them, that to obtain mercy and forgiveness they must cajole some saint, some close and favoured friend of God, to intercede for them. And the most powerful intercessor of all, they insist, is Mary, since she is the mother of Christ. Yet Scripture makes it abundantly clear that neither Mary nor any of the others ever promised, when they were living, that they would pray for their devotees after reaching heaven.

    According to New Testament usage, all true Christians are saints. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians was addressed, ‘to the saints that are at Ephesus’ (1:1); his letter to the Philippians, ‘to all the saints that are at Philippi’ (1:1). See also: Rom. 1:7; 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1. It has well been said, If you want a ‘saint’ to pray for you, find a true Christian and make the request of him. His prayer will be more effective than any request that can be made through departed saints. We have no need for the intercession of Mary, or departed saints, or angels, for we ourselves have direct access to God through Christ. Furthermore, not only do we have no single instance in the Bible of a living saint worshipping a departed saint, but all attempts on the part of the living to make any kind of contact with the dead are severely condemned (Deut. 18:9-12; Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:6; Is. 8:19, 20).

    The Scriptures directly repudiate all saint worship. We have specific examples of Peter, and Paul, and even of an angel rejecting such worship. When Peter went to the house of Cornelius in response to the vision that he had while at prayer on the housetop, we read that ‘Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man’ (Acts 10:25, 26). Although Peter was one of the twelve, and had been personally associated with Jesus, he knew that he had no right to such worship, for he was only a man. At Lystra, after Paul had healed a lame man, the multitude attempted to worship him and Barnabas. We read: ‘But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is’ (Acts 14: 14, 15). And the apostle John writes concerning his experience on the island of Patmos: ‘And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God’ (Rev. 22:8, 9). But how different is the attitude of popes, bishops, and priests who expect people to kneel before them and to kiss their hands or rings! The pope allows or expects that under some conditions they shall even kiss his feet! But how abhorrent to men of true faith are such servile and idolatrous practices!


    A striking phenomenon in Roman Catholicism is the effective way in which they have caused Mary to usurp the place of Christ as the primary mediator between God and men. Christ is usually represented as a helpless babe in a manger or in His mother’s arms, or as a dead Christ upon a cross. The babe in a manger or in His mother’s arms gives little promise of being able to help anyone. And the dead Christ upon a cross, with a horribly ugly and tortured face, is the very incarnation of misery and helplessness, wholly irrelevant to the needs and problems of the people. Such a Christ might inspire feelings of pity and compassion, but not of confidence and hope. He is a defeated, not a victorious, Christ. The Roman Church cannot get its people to love a dead Christ, no matter how many masses are said before Him or how many images are dedicated to Him. There can be no real love for Christ unless the worshipper sees Him as his living Saviour, who died for him, but who arose, and who now lives gloriously and triumphantly—as indeed He is presented in Protestantism. In the Roman Church the people prefer a living Mary to a dead Christ. And the result is that the centre of worship has shifted from Christ to Mary.

    Despite all protestations to the contrary, the fact is that the worship, intercessions, and devotions that are given to Mary obscure the glory of Christ and cause the church to set forth a system of salvation in which human merit plays a decisive part. While asserting the deity of Christ, Rome nevertheless makes Him subservient to the Virgin, and dispenses salvation at a price through the agency of the priest. This most blessed of women, the mother of Jesus, is thus made His chief rival and competitor for the loyalty and devotion of the human heart. In Romanism Mary becomes the executive director of deity, the one through whom the prayers of the people are made effective.

    Mary has nothing whatever to do with our salvation. All who think she has are simply deceived. And yet in Romanism probably ten times as much prayer is directed to her as to Christ. The most popular prayer ritual of Roman Catholics, the rosary, has ten prayers to Mary for each one directed to God. The prayer book contains more prayers which are to be offered to Mary and the saints than to Christ. Mary is unquestionably the chief object of prayer.


    The spiritual climate of the Middle Ages was favourable for the development of the Mary-cult. Particularly in that age Christ was represented as a Man of stern wrath, a strict Judge, avenging evil with an inexorable justice, while Mary was clothed with the virtues of lovingkindness and mercy. Where Christ would demand justice, Mary would extend mercy. The simple believer, who had been told that God was an angry Judge always ready to send the sinner to hell, wanted to flee to the protection of the tender-hearted and loving Mary. Even monks who lived ascetic lives and shunned or even hated women as instruments of their temptation and downfall sought the protection of Mary.

    In The Glories of Mary Ligouri pictures Christ as a stern, cruel Judge, while Mary is pictured as a kind and lovable intercessor. Among other things Ligouri says: ‘If God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him’ (p. 124); ‘O Immaculate Virgin, prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil’ (p. 248); and again: ‘We often obtain more promptly what we ask by calling on the name of Mary, than by invoking that of Jesus’ (p. 248).

    In another instance Ligouri teaches that Mary is the saviour of sinners, and that outside her there is no salvation. He describes an imaginary scene in which a man burdened with sin sees two ladders hanging from heaven, with Christ at the head of one and Mary at the other. He attempts to climb the ladder at which Christ is the head, but when he sees the angry face he falls back defeated. As he turns away despondent, a voice says to him, ‘Try the other ladder.’ He does so, and to his amazement he ascends easily and is met at the top by the blessed virgin Mary, who then brings him into heaven and presents him to Christ! The teaching is, ‘What son would refuse the request of his mother?’

    The same reasoning is found among Roman Catholics today. Christ still is looked upon as a stern Judge. But Mary, being a mother, is looked upon as having a mother’s heart and therefore as more capable of understanding the problems of her children. She can go to her Son with her requests and petitions, and He can never refuse to grant any favour that she asks. She is represented as everywhere present. Romanists are taught to appeal to her with confidence to allay the fierce judgment of Christ, and to turn His serious frown into a friendly smile—all of this in spite of the fact that no prayer by Mary for a sinner can be found anywhere in the New Testament.

    But what a travesty it is of Scripture truth to teach that Christ demands justice, but that Mary will extend mercy! How dishonouring it is to Christ to teach that He is lacking in pity and compassion for His people, and that He must be persuaded to that end by His mother! When He was on earth it was never necessary for anyone to persuade Him to be compassionate. Rather, when He saw the blind and the lame, the afflicted and hungry, He was ‘moved with compassion’ for them and lifted them out of their distress. He had immediate mercy on the wicked but penitent thief on the cross, and there was no need for intercession by Mary although she was there present. His love for us is as great as when He was on earth; His heart is as tender; and we need no other intermediary, neither His mother after the flesh, nor any saint or angel, to entreat Him on our behalf.


    The Bible teaches that there is but one mediator between God and men. It says:

    ‘For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5).

When this verse is understood the whole system of the Roman Church falls to the ground, for it invalidates the papacy, the priesthood, and all Mary worship.

    Other verses which teach the same truth are:

‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6).

‘And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12).

‘He is the mediator of a new covenant’ (Heb. 9:15)

‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John 2:1).

‘Christ Jesus . . . who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us’—Christ, not Mary, the Scripture says, is at the right hand of God making intercession for us (Rom. 8:34).

‘Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them’ (Heb. 7:25).

    Thus Christ, because He is both God and man, is the only Saviour, the only Mediator, the only way to God. Not one word is said about Mary, or a pope, or the priests, or the saints, as mediators. Yet Romanism teaches that there are many mediators, and the great majority of Roman Catholics, if asked, would say that our primary approach to God is through the Virgin Mary, and that only as she begs for us can we enter the presence of God.

    The priests detract from the glory of Christ when they teach that Mary is a mediator. Humanly speaking, that must grieve her who would want all honour to go to Christ. The priests have no right to place her in such an unscriptural position. Mary is presented in Scripture as a hand-maiden of the Lord who fulfilled her office in the church according to promise, just as did John the Baptist and others, but whose work has long since ceased. The great antithesis is not between Eve and Mary, as Rome sets it forth, but between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 45-47). Roman tradition has so altered the picture of Mary that the Mary found in the New Testament and the Mary found in the Roman Catholic Church are two different and conflicting persons. Any fair-minded Roman Catholic knows that his church gives first place to Mary and that Christ is kept in the background.

    The reason that Mary, the saints or angels cannot act as our priest or mediator is because they have no sacrifice, nothing to offer in behalf of our sins. Only a priest with a true sacrifice can serve as mediator between God and men. Christ alone has a true sacrifice, and He alone can act as our priest. In this connection Calvin says:

    ‘I deem it indisputable that the papal priesthood is spurious; for it has been formed in the workshop of men. God nowhere commands a sacrifice to be offered now to Him for the expiation of sins; nowhere does He command that priests be appointed for such a purpose. While then the pope ordains his priests for the purpose of sacrificing, the Apostle (Paul) denies that they are to be accounted lawful priests.’


    The Roman Catholic Church officially denies worshipping Mary. Officially she says that Mary is only a creature, highly exalted, but still a creature, in no way equal to God. Yet she tells us that Mary hears the prayers of millions and that she constantly gives attention to her followers throughout the world. It may well be that, as Rome says, she does not intend idolatry. But the intention and the practical working out of the system are two different things. We must insist that it is worship, and that therefore it is idolatry as practised by millions of people who kneel before Mary’s statues and pray and sing to her. Most of these people know nothing at all of the technical distinctions made by their theologians between adoration and worship. It certainly is idolatrous to give her the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience and to give her titles and functions which belong to God, as when, by pope Pius XII, she was officially designated the ‘Queen of Heaven,’ and ‘Queen of the World,’ and when prayers are made to her for salvation.

    That the prayers addressed to Mary and the saints are idolatrous is clear from the fact that: (1) They are precisely the same kind, and are expressed in the same terms, as those addressed to God; (2) They are presented in the ordinary course of worshipping God; (3) They are offered kneeling; And (4) they form the bulk of the prayers offered.

    We have mentioned the most famous of the prayers addressed to Mary, the Ave Maria, or Hail Mary. As commonly used, this prayer follows the Lord’s prayer and is offered in precisely the same way. Assuming that there are one hundred million ‘practising’ Roman Catholics throughout the world, and that half of them say the rosary at least once each day—the rosary contains fifty ‘Hail Marys’ and takes quite some time to repeat—Mary would have to have the attributes of deity to hear and answer such a mass of prayer. Surely Roman Catholics themselves can see the impossibility of all those prayers being heard and answered by one who by the admission of their own church is not God, but only human. The whole thing is a deceit and an illusion. Even if it were true that the spirits of the departed have access to this world, that could not be known except by divine revelation. And no such revelation exists.

    The growth of Mariolatry is indeed a sad chapter in the history of the church. Like the brazen serpent of Moses, which at the time of Hezekiah had become an object of idolatrous worship and had to be destroyed, so in the Roman Church Mary has come to be looked upon as the instrumental cause of salvation, and as such is given divine honours. The Roman Church ascribes to her large numbers of miracles, fully supernatural and similar in all respects to those performed by Christ. Numerous appearances are claimed for her. On some occasions statues of Mary are said to have blinked or wept. Relics in abundance have been exhibited in European cathedrals. Samples of her clothing, hair, teeth, and milk have been exhibited in numerous places.

    Again, the worship of Mary is a great injustice to Mary herself, for it makes her the occasion for breaking the commandments of God. Nothing is more clearly revealed in Scripture than that divine worship is to be paid to God alone— ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve’ (Matt. 4:10). Nothing is more severely rebuked than idolatry of every kind and form. If Mary could see all the Roman Catholics bowing down before her images in the thousands of churches and millions of homes, how great would be her grief! To pray to Mary is at the least a waste of time. And worse than that, it is idolatry, a direct product of the use of unscriptural doctrines and practices.


    The Church of Rome, without any warrant whatever from Scripture, technically divides worship into three kinds: (1) Latria, the supreme worship, given to God alone; (2) Dulia, a secondary kind of veneration given to saints and angels; and (3) Hyperdulia, a higher kind of veneration given to the Virgin Mary.

    The theory, however, is useless in practice, for the average worshipper is not able to make the distinctions, nor does he even know that such distinctions exist. The subtleties of definition only confuse the issue, for who can balance his feelings so nicely as to give God, the Virgin, and the saints their due proportion? This is particularly true in Roman Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, and Latin America where so many of the people are illiterate and given to all kinds of superstitions. We must insist that any religious worship, whether inward or outward, consisting of prayer, or praise, and expressed by outward homage such as bowing, kneeling, or prostration, is properly termed worship and belongs to God alone.

    The slogan, ‘Through Mary to Christ,’ does not change the fact that for many worshippers the devotion naturally stops with Mary. They pray to Mary, not to Christ. Their prayers are directed to her personally. Roman Catholics are taught that all grace necessarily flows through Mary. She is regarded as a kind of fourth person of the Blessed Trinity. To speak of Mary as ‘holy,’ as ‘the Mother of God,’ and as ‘co-redeemer with Christ,’ cannot but give the impression that she is more than human. Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) gave expression to the thought that Mary suffered with her suffering and dying Son, and that with Him she has redeemed the human race. This pronouncement was also sanctioned by pope Pius XI in 1923.

    The distinction that Rome makes between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia does enable her to maintain officially that she does not teach the ‘worship’ of Mary. However, the lengths to which her apologists have gone in trying to distinguish between such devotions and actual worship is evidence that she feels uncomfortable about the lofty names given to Mary and about the actual results, and that she does not dare take responsibility for what goes on in her churches. And, subtleties aside, some Roman theologians acknowledge that they do worship Mary.


    It is particularly instructive to notice the attitude that the Lord Jesus Himself took towards Mary. The first recorded instance occurred when, at the age of 12, the boy Jesus, after attending the Passover in Jerusalem with His parents, remained in the temple. We read, in the Confraternity Version, that when His parents found Him, ‘His mother said to him, ‘Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold, in sorrow thy father and I have been seeking thee.’ And he said to them, ‘How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?’ And they did not understand the word that he spake to them’ (Luke 2:48, 49).

    Says The New Bible Commentary (Protestant) in explanation of this event: ‘The answer of Jesus is an expression of surprise. There was something about Him which He was surprised His parents did not know. . . . He had always been occupied with His Father’s affairs and had no interests of His own to engage Him. This was what His parents might have known’ (p. 844).

    On two later occasions, after Jesus had reached His maturity, Mary attempted to show her parental authority, but each time was held in check. The first occurred at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, when the wine ran out. We read, again in the Confraternity Version:

    ‘And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there [Notice, it does not say, “Mother of God”]. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the attendants, “Do whatever he tells you” ‘ (John 2:1-5)

    In this instance, the first of its kind after the beginning of His public ministry, Jesus gave Mary to understand that no one, not even His mother, must dictate to Him concerning the time and manner of opening His public ministry, that thenceforth she was not to exercise any authority over Him, and that His working of miracles and the redemption of souls was, strictly speaking, none of her business. He was pointing out to His mother that from then on He had no dependence on her, but that she must depend upon Him. Mary’s words to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’ indicate that she understood and accepted this new role. In any event, Mary is not to be worshipped, nor does she have authority with her Son in behalf of others. Had Jesus submitted to His mother’s suggestion and leading, there might have been some grounds for ‘Mary worship,’ and for the claim of the Roman Church that ‘Mary is the hope of all.’ But here at the very beginning of His public ministry, the ground is cut from under any such claim.

    On another occasion, apparently after weeks of absence, Mary came seeking Jesus at the place where He was preaching to the multitude, but could not get to Him because of the crowd. Apparently she sent word to Him by messenger, making known her desire that He would come to her, or perhaps making the direct request that He come to her without regard as to how that might interrupt His work. But He refused her request. We read (Confraternity Version):

    ‘While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brethren were standing outside, seeking to speak to him. And someone said to him, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing outside, seeking thee.” But he answered and said to him that told him, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?” And stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother”’ (Matt. 12:46-50).

    Instead of granting Mary’s request, He replied in such a way that it was in effect a public rebuke. Undoubtedly she felt it keenly. Perhaps Mary was even ashamed of the fact that her Son was attracting so much attention and wanted to withdraw Him from the crowd, for in Mark’s account of this event we read, ‘And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself’ (3:20, 21). As we read the New Testament we get the impression that neither Mary nor the brothers of Jesus understood His activities while He was on earth (‘For even his brethren did not believe on him,’ John 7:5), and that while Mary believed on Him earlier, His brothers may not have joined the company of believers until after His resurrection, perhaps not until after His ascension.

    As a boy growing up in the home of Joseph and Mary, Jesus was obedient to them. But after His public ministry began, after He had presented Himself as the Son of God and as the Saviour of the world, Mary had to sink into the background. It is to Jesus alone that the world must turn for salvation. Undoubtedly He gave this rebuke purposely, that the world might know that Mary was His mother as man, but not as God.

    If Mary had had the influence and authority over Him that is claimed by the Church of Rome, He would not have answered her as He did but would have honoured her request promptly. Here again we have Scriptural evidence that Mary has nothing to do with the ministry of the Son of God as regards the matter of salvation. By this statement He respect fully classes her and His brethren along with other converts. To Him they were all the same—‘Who is my mother and who are my brethren? . . Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother!’ As the Son of God and the Redeemer of men, His relation to Mary was identically the same as to any others who would hear His Word, and do it.

    On still another occasion a woman in the crowd raised her voice in praise of Mary. We read (Confraternity Version): 

    ‘Now it came to pass as he was saying these things, that a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that nursed thee.” But he said, “Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it”’ (Luke 11:27, 28).

    This was the most subtle attack of all, appealing, as it does, to the sentiments and the emotions. It is a device that even today traps unstable souls into worshipping a woman, that is, into Mariolatry. But here again Jesus gave a plain and decisive answer which should settle forever the question regarding the superiority of Mary or the promotion of any Mary cult. He utterly rejected the idea that Mary occupies a position of holiness above that of other women, or that she was to be crowned the ‘Queen of Heaven’ and become the object of worship. After the ascension of Christ she is seen with the apostles and several other women in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14) but no special honour or position is recorded as having been given to her. She was not, in herself, more than any other virtuous woman, except that she was especially chosen to be the mother of Jesus, and to be the kind and loving parent which she was to the most wonderful Child that ever grew up in a home.

    We notice further that throughout our Lord’s public life He was ever careful to call Mary ‘woman,’ never ‘mother.’ Even when He was dying on the cross He addressed her thus. The Greek, Hebrew, and Latin each had a word for ‘mother,’ as well as for ‘woman.’ But the Scripture says ‘woman,’ not ‘mother.’ He never used the term ‘Lady,’ which is so much used in the Roman Catholic Church. Let us follow the Scripture.

    While Jesus always spoke respectfully to His mother, He nevertheless made it clear that neither she nor anyone else had any part in the work of salvation. No mere human could assist in that work, and the Scriptures are careful to point out that no assistance or dictation in any form was permitted. When Jesus stepped out of His home life at Nazareth and began His public ministry, a new relationship was established. From that time on His supernatural parentage was emphasized. For He was the only begotten Son of the Father in heaven. He rebuked the mistaken tendency which seeks to exalt the human relationship at the expense of the divine, the physical at the expense of the spiritual.


    As evangelical Protestants we honour Mary, the mother of our Lord, with the honour the Scriptures give her as ‘blessed among women.’ No other member of the human race has received such high honour as was conferred upon Mary in that she was chosen to be the mother of the Saviour of the world. She was truly a woman of virtue, and of extraordinary faith. She fulfilled admirably the office assigned to her. She was the chosen vessel to bring the Bread of Life to a sin-cursed world. But she was only the vessel, not the Bread of Life. We cannot eat the vessel; rather it is the Bread of Life that we need. It is not Mary the Jewish maiden, but Jesus the Son of God whom we need as Saviour.

    We honour Mary, and all generations shall call her ‘blessed,’ She believed the word of God and accepted the message of the angel Gabriel. But we do not deify her, nor worship her, nor pray to her, and we are bound to protest strongly when Christ is dethroned and Mary is elevated to that place which belongs to Him alone. We worship with her the Son of God, but we do not worship her, nor worship through her, as if she were a mediator. It is important that all understand the difference between the matter of honouring Mary, and the grossly unscriptural practice of worshipping her. We are constantly reminded of the words of Jesus: ‘Whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother’ (Matt. 12:50).

    Roman priests say that they honour Mary, and accuse Protestants of failing to do so. There is certainly the danger that in revolting against the recognized evil of Mariolatry, we may neglect to give Mary the distinguished and honoured place which the Scripture itself accords her. And we should be on guard against that. But the priests do her a grave injustice in that they impose too much responsibility upon her. Peter, the alleged first pope, did not do that. He did not even mention her in any of his sermons or in his two letters. As is characteristic of Protestants, he said much about Christ as the only Saviour from sin, but he did not present Mary as a mediator. To present her in that capacity is to rob God of part of His glory and to palm off a counterfeit salvation upon the people. There is no record in Scripture of anyone ever calling on Mary for salvation.

    The false estimate of Mary’s position on the part of the Roman Catholic Church is based in large measure on a mistaken interpretation of the words of Jesus spoken on the cross, when He said to John, ‘Behold, thy mother.’ Romanists say that these words were addressed to all men, present and future, and that He was committing all men to Mary as her sons. The truth, however, is that the New Testament is unmistakably clear on this point, and that the Lord committed His mother to John’s care for the remainder of her natural life, and that He laid upon John as an individual the responsibility to serve as a son to her. It reads:

    ‘When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! and from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home’ (John 19:26, 27).

    The natural meaning of these words is that they were addressed to Mary and to John as individuals, that from that time forward Mary should look upon John, the beloved disciple, as her son, as the one who in her life would take the place of Jesus, and that John should assume the duties of a son and care for Mary with filial affection, that he should comfort her in her loneliness, as a true son would. And that Mary and John so understood those words is clear from the immediately following verse, which reads: ‘And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home’ (v. 27).

    This, then, is the Mary we honour—not a weeping statue of stone, not a half-goddess, nor a ‘Queen of Heaven,’ but the humble servant of God, who found favour with Him and became the mother of Jesus.


    The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was virgin-born. But what of the family of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus? Did Joseph and Mary have other children? Or was Jesus the only Child? The answers to these questions pointedly divide Roman Catholics and Protestants.

    In Matthew 13:54-56 we read:

    ‘And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”’

    Mark also names the brothers of Jesus and mentions his sisters (6:3).

    The natural meaning of these verses is that there were other children in the family of Joseph and Mary. There were four sons; and there were at least two daughters, for the term is in the plural. Presumably there were three or more daughters, for the term used is ‘all.’ When there are only two we say ‘both,’ not ‘all.’ And the reference in John 7:5, ‘For even his brethren did not believe on him,’ also finds its most natural meaning in other sons of Joseph and Mary. It was self-evident that the people at large did not believe on Him, but here John says that even His own brothers, the members of His own family, did not believe on Him.

    A prophecy about Christ in Psalm 69, ‘I am become a stranger unto my brethren, And an alien unto my mother’s children’ (v. 8), also finds its natural fulfilment in the attitude of Christ’s brothers towards Him. That this is a Messianic psalm prophetic of the coming and work of Christ, is clear from a number of New Testament references in which it is applied to Him. Compare verses 4, 8, 21, and 25 with John 15:25; 2:17; Rom. 15:3; Matt. 27:34; and Acts 1:20, in which other elements of the psalm are fulfilled. Luke’s statement concerning Mary, ‘And she brought forth her firstborn son’ (2:7), implies that there were other sons born after Jesus. Acts 1:14 refers to ‘Mary the mother of Jesus,’ and ‘his brethren,’ who are mentioned in addition to the disciples.

    These would in fact have been half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus since they were sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary, while He was the Son of Mary only. James, the half-brother of the Lord, became the leader of the church in Jerusalem and presided at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13, 19). And two of the books of the New Testament, James and Jude, were written by the sons of Joseph and Mary.

    The Roman Catholic Church attempts to explain these away as cousins, and therefore not children of Joseph and Mary at all. But the Greek has another word which means cousin, anepsios, as in Colossians 4:10: ‘Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.’

    Another reference indicating the same is Matthew 1:24, 25: ‘And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she brought forth a son: and he called his name Jesus.’ All that the Scripture says is that Joseph knew her not until after the birth of Jesus. The inference is that, after the birth of Jesus, Mary became wholly and completely the wife of Joseph, that they then lived as normal husband and wife, and, taken in connection with the other references that we have cited, that other children were then born into their family.

    The Scriptures affirm that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born. Nothing beyond that is needed to safeguard the Deity of Christ and the purity of Mary. What more is needed to prove that Jesus was virgin-born? What more do we need to prove that Joseph was not the father of Jesus? In going beyond that and teaching the ‘perpetual virginity’ of Mary, the Roman Catholics go beyond Scripture and set up man-made doctrine which has no authority.

    The priests make repeated references to ‘the Virgin Mary.’ They acknowledge that Joseph and Mary were husband and wife and attempt to portray them as the ideal human family, but deny that they lived in a normal marriage relationship. But such an unnatural relationship is absurd on the face of it, and nowhere in Scripture is approval ever given for such an abnormal relationship. Such an arrangement would have been contrary to nature and a frustration for both parties. The priests must either give up the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity, or give up the idea that Joseph and Mary represent the ideal human family.

    Behind Rome’s insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary, of course, is the desire to justify the celibate state of the priests and nuns. Rome teaches that the single state is holier than the married state, that there is something inherently unclean and defiling about marriage. Says one Roman Catholic writer concerning the Virgin Mary: ‘It cannot with decency be imagined that the most holy vessel which was once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by human usage.’ According to this teaching, a woman’s body is ‘desecrated and profaned’ when she becomes a mother in the normal course of family life! A nun is holier than the mother of lovely children! And since Rome thinks of marriage as unholy and unclean, and since she has set herself to maintain the holiness, even the sinless perfection, of Mary, she finds herself obliged to teach that Mary always remained a virgin.


    The doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ teaches that Mary herself was born without sin, that from the very first moment of her existence she was free from the taint of original sin. It holds that while all the rest of mankind are born into an inheritance of original sin, Mary alone, by a special miracle of God, was excepted. The original decree setting forth this doctrine was issued by pope Pius IX, on December 8, 1854, and reads as follows:

    ‘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 Saviour of mankind, and that this doctrine was revealed by God, and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful’ (From the papal bull, Ineffabilus Deus, quoted in The Tablet, December 12, 1953).

     Many Protestants misunderstand this doctrine and assume that it relates to the virgin birth of Christ. It relates, however, to Mary’s own birth, and has therefore no direct reference to the virgin birth of Christ.

    Side by side with the doctrine that Mary was born without sin, there developed the doctrine that she did not commit sin at any time during her life. Then, as one link reached out for another, they gave her the attribute of impeccability, which means that she could not sin, that her nature was such that it was impossible for her to sin! All of this was a natural outgrowth of their worship of Mary, a further step in her deification. Their Mariolatry demanded it! They sensed that if they were to give her the worship that is due to our Lord, she must be sinless.

    But this doctrine, like the other distinctive doctrines of the Roman system, completely lacks any Scriptural support, and in fact is directly opposed to the Scripture doctrine of original sin. The Bible teaches that all men, with the single exception of Christ who was deity incarnate and pre-existent, are sinners. Mary herself acknowledged her need of a Saviour, for she said:

    ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour’ (Luke 1:46,47). 

    Note particularly Mary’s words, ‘my Saviour.’ No one other than a sinner needs a Saviour, for no punishment or evil in any form can be inflicted upon a sinless person. Roman Catholics will have to take Mary’s word or accuse ‘Our Lady’ of lying. For in those words she confessed that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour. That should settle once and for all whether or not a Christian should pray to her. Mary was certainly an admirable character, but she was not sinless, and she was only human. It was, therefore, necessary for her to be born again of the Spirit and to participate in the redemption provided by her Son.

    The Scriptures say clearly: ‘All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23); ‘Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned’ (Rom. 5:12);

    ‘For as in Adam all die. . . .‘ (1 Cor. 15:22); ‘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’ (1 John 1:8, 10); ‘There is none righteous, no, not one’ (Rom. 3:10). Scripture gives us no warrant for excluding Mary from such comprehensive statements as these.

    Further, Scripture tells us that after the birth of Jesus Mary brought the two offerings prescribed in the law, one, a burnt-offering (symbolizing complete surrender of the will to God), and the other a sin-offering (a sacrifice acknowledging sin) (Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:6-8). The last time Mary is mentioned in the New Testament she is praying on the same plane as other needy Christians, not being prayed to by them (Acts 1:13, 14).

    The doctrine of the immaculate conception has had a long and varied history. It was unknown to the apostolic church, and it was not even a matter of discussion until several centuries after the death of Mary. It did not become an official doctrine until the year 1854, more than eighteen centuries after Christ was born of the virgin Mary, and so is one of the later doctrines of the Roman Church. The Council of Ephesus, 431, used the expression, ‘Mother of God,’ but its purpose was to emphasize the deity of Christ, not to set forth a doctrine concerning Mary. But popular opinion reasoned that since the birth of Christ occurred without any taint of sin, Mary herself must have been without sin, even without original sin, which is the lot of all other human beings.

    Augustine, who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was ‘flesh of sin’ (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii. c. 24); and again that ‘Mary springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.’ He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his Sermon on Psalm 2. The doctrine was opposed by Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, most of the great medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Cardinal Cajetan, and also by two of the greatest of the popes, Gregory the Great, and Innocent III.

    Thomas Aquinas says that while Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatsoever, nevertheless ‘the blessed Virgin did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth’ (Summa Theol. III, ad 2; Quest. 27, Art. 1-5); and again that, ‘It is to be held, therefore, that she was conceived in original sin, but was cleansed from it in a special manner’ (Compendium Theol., p. 224). Geddes MacGregor, in his book, The Vatican Revolution, says:

    ‘So strong was St. Thomas (Aquinas’) opposition to the doctrine that it became almost a point of honour throughout the Dominican Order to oppose the notion as theologically untenable. The Franciscans, however, following Duns Scotus, were more inclined to foster the notion, and the Jesuits, later on, made it one of their special concerns to do so. If pope Pius IX was right, let alone infallible, it seems regrettable that the learned theologians of Christendom should have been left for eighteen hundred years with such a marked lack of guidance on the subject, that they not only erred on it but erred almost in proportion to their stature as the leaders of the Church’s intellectual life, the luminaries in the firmament of her mind’ (p. 9; Beacon Press, Boston; Macmillan & Co., Ltd., London and Toronto).

    The dispute between the Dominicans and the Franciscans became so bitter that pope Sixtus IV eventually took a hand and prohibited further discussion, without deciding the question in favour of either side. The Council of Trent, though called primarily to deal with the problems arising out of the Protestant Reformation, was asked by pope Pius IV to make a pronouncement, but left the matter untouched,

    Nevertheless, the idea that Mary was sinless continued to gain ground. Members of the Society of Jesus soon began to propagate the doctrine anew, and it was largely through their work that it was decreed by pope Pius IX, ‘the infallible successor of Peter,’ in 1854, and was officially ratified by the docile Vatican Council of 1870 (which council also ratified the decree concerning the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals).

    Most of the theologians of the Middle Ages opposed the doctrine because they were unable to harmonize it with the universality of original sin. Most of them held that, if Mary were not a partaker of the sin and apostasy of the race, she could not be the point of contact between Deity and humanity as was required for the human nature of Christ. Hence in this case, even tradition, the usual refuge of the Roman Church in matters of doctrine, contradicts this papal dogma.

    So, Mary is now placed on a plane of absolute equality with her adorable Son, Jesus Christ, so far as sinlessness is concerned. Like the other doctrines of Romanism, this one is said to be based on ‘the unanimous consent of the fathers.’ Though the dispute in reality continued for centuries and was at times bitter, it is accepted by all Roman Catholics today, for the official pronouncement by the pope leaves them no other choice. For along with the decree there was issued this condemnation of any who dare to disbelieve it:

    ‘Therefore, if some shall presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they, by this very act, subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if, by word, or writing, or by other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their heart.’

    What a flagrant example of false doctrine and ecclesiastical tyranny! That is the very thing that Peter condemned when he forbade ‘lording it over your charges’ (Confraternity Version, 1 Peter 5:3). The Council of Trent pronounced its anathemas primarily against Protestants who dared to differ from its decrees. But the anathemas pronounced by the later councils have been directed primarily against their own people, in order to force them into line.

    But why should any Roman Catholic embrace that doctrine when the greatest teachers in his own church rejected it? Indeed, why should anyone believe it if the Bible does not teach it?


    The latest addition to the long list of Roman Catholic beliefs (‘inventions’ would be a more accurate term) came on November 1, 1950, with the ex cathedra pronouncement by pope Pius XII that Mary’s body was raised from the grave shortly after she died, that her body and soul were reunited, and that she was taken up and enthroned as Queen of Heaven. And to this pronouncement there was added the usual warning that ‘anyone who may henceforth doubt or deny this doctrine is utterly fallen away from the divine and Catholic faith.’ That means that it is a mortal sin for any Roman Catholic to refuse to believe this doctrine.

    According to tradition, Mary’s assumption was on this wise:

    ‘On the third day after Mary’s death, when the apostles gathered around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been carried up to the celestial paradise. Jesus Himself came to conduct her hither; the whole court of heaven came to welcome with songs of triumph the Mother of the divine Lord. What a chorus of exultation! Hark how they cry, “Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, O eternal gates, and the Queen of Glory shall enter in."'

    This is the type of account that might be expected from a medieval monk who was not satisfied with the information given in the Bible concerning Mary, and who undertook to describe the events as he imagined they might have happened. Here we are told that Mary was not only received into heaven, but that she was raised to a pre-eminence far above that which it is possible for any of the saints to attain. Because of her alleged co-operation in the passion of her Son, she is assigned a dignity beyond even the highest of the archangels. She was crowned Queen of Heaven by the eternal Father, and received a throne at her Son’s right hand.

    Thus Mary’s body was miraculously preserved from corruption, and her resurrection and ascension are made to parallel Christ’s resurrection and ascension. And she, like Him, is said to be enthroned in heaven where she makes intercession for the millions of people throughout the world who seek her assistance. This was a natural consequence of the 1854 pronouncement of the immaculate conception of Mary—a supernatural entrance into life calls for a supernatural exit from life. A mysterious halo of holiness falls over her entire being. Whereas the glorification of the saints will take place at the end of the world, her glorification has already taken place.

    Pope Pius XII was called the ‘Marian pope’ for his work in promulgating this doctrine of the assumption of Mary and in declaring her Queen of Heaven. By his decree a twelve-month period was set aside for this purpose, involving Marian congresses, special services, and pilgrimages to Rome (which naturally brought huge revenues to the Vatican), with the avowed purpose of turning the eyes of the world more intensively towards Mary—which inevitably meant a proportionate turning away from Christ.

    To a Protestant the most amazing thing about the doctrine of the assumption of Mary is that it has no Scripture proof whatever. Not one shred of evidence can Roman Catholics find in the Bible about Mary’s death, burial, location of her grave, or when or how she ascended to heaven. And yet this troubles the Roman Church not in the least. Pope Pius XII made the pronouncement with the utmost confidence, relying on an alleged original ‘deposit of faith’ given to the apostles by Jesus Christ—but which, we note, did not come clearly to light until some nineteen centuries later. The early church fathers, who were closest to those events, knew nothing at all about such an ascension. One marvels that such unscriptural, unhistorical, and unfounded teachings could be embraced by any people and treated as if they were unchallengeable Scripture truth.

    All that the Roman Church pretends to have from an early date supporting this doctrine is an apocalyptic legend, contained in a book, In Gloriam Martyrum, written by Gregory of Tours, southern France, in the sixth century. On the face of it, it is a mere fairy tale. This book narrates how as Mary lay dying with the apostles gathered around her bed, Jesus appeared with His angels, committed her soul to the care of Gabriel, and her body was taken away in a cloud. As Edward J. Tanis appropriately remarks, ‘There is no more evidence for the truth of this legend than for the ghost stories told by our grandfathers’ (What Rome Teaches, p. 26). But this curious medieval folklore has now been made an official doctrine of the Roman Church, and any member who refuses to accept it is declared by papal decree to be ‘utterly fallen away from the divine and Catholic faith.’

    Here we have a typical example of how Roman Catholic doctrines develop. Millions of people are required to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary without the church furnish­ing any Scriptural or historical proof, and they do so without the slightest protest. Not even in the schools of learning is there any voice raised to demand proof for such a doctrine. Whether Scriptural or unscriptural, historical or unhistorical, scientific or unscientific, reasonable or unreasonable, every member of the church is under obligation to accept it and believe it. This shows the baneful effect of the kindred doc­trines that the pope is infallible in his ex cathedra statements, and that the average church member is not to try to reason out his faith but to accept implicitly whatever the church teaches.

    The doctrine of the assumption of Mary is merely one of the so-called ‘logical conclusions’ that the Roman theologians have drawn to support their system. Since Mary was sinless, it is illogical, we are told, to assume that her body remained in the grave. But the answer is:If Mary was sinless, why did she have to die at all? Death is the penalty of sin. And where there is no sin there can be no penalty. God would be unjust if He punished the innocent. Either Mary was sinless and did not die, or she did have sin, she died, and her body remains in the grave.

    Rome has so built up the Mary role that it has become an indispensable part of the present-day church, so much so that if Mary were placed back in the position given her in Scripture, it would change the whole character of that church. Some have even suggested that the Roman Catholic Church should be called the ‘Marian Church,’ because in her life and practice she gives first place to Mary.

    Following the ex cathedra pronouncements concerning the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary, there remains one major link to complete the process to which the Roman Catholic Church is committed in regard to Mary, that of her co-redeemership with Christ. This doctrine has been under discussion for several years. Some prominent churchmen have indicated that the next official pronounce­ment will declare that Mary, though technically not divine, is nevertheless associated with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in matters of salvation, and that she is the ‘Mediatrix of all Graces,’ or ‘Co-redemptrix with Christ.’ At the present rate we eventually shall have in heaven no longer a Trinity but a Quartet! Thus in every age Rome moves forward deliberately in the formulation of her doctrines.


    In the development of this section extensive use has been made of an article, The Secret Purpose of Mariolatry, by Dee Smith, published in Christian Heritage, December, 1958.

    In the Roman Catholic Church so much of myth and legend has been added to Mary’s person that the real Mary has been largely forgotten. Although there are but few references to her in the Bible, she is there presented as a sublimely courageous character. In no other event is her true character brought out so clearly as in her vigil at Calvary. When most mothers would have been in a state of collapse, Mary persisted through a long and agonizing ordeal which only the most valiant spirit could have endured.

    What a contrast there is between this noble, heroic woman and the gaudily-dressed doll that we see in the Roman Catholic Church! Instead of the candid and forthright gaze of one conscious of the dignity and self-respect of her womanhood, the ‘Blessed Virgin’ shrinks in servility with lowered head and lowered eyes, as if ashamed of it. One searches the empty face for a single trace of such character as must have graced the one chosen to nurture the Christ. The astute observer soon realizes that this insipid caricature decked out in superfluous finery has no relationship at all to the Mary of Scripture, and is nothing more than a sheer fabrication, a fiction promoted with ulterior purposes.

    What, then, is the purpose of the hierarchy in promoting this particular type of mannequin? In what way does she serve their interests?

    It is obvious that the Blessed Virgin represents a model for Roman Catholic women, or to put it more accurately, a strait­jacket in which the clergy would like to fasten them. She represents the type of woman most fitted to sustain clerical control over the minds of the Roman masses. Her outstanding qualities are humility, obedience, pliability—abject submission to authority. It is this ideal that the Roman Church wishes to instil—indeed must instil—in Roman Catholic womanhood if it is to retain its hold on the people and maintain the ser­vices rendered in its many institutional enterprises such as schools and hospitals which for the most part are run with unpaid labour.

    The most important service rendered by this caricature of the Blessed Mary is that of maintaining the control of the Roman clergy over Roman Catholic women. For the pro­motion of the church programme it is absolutely essential that they remain spineless, mindless, ‘meek and mild,’ as Mary is pictured, willing to accept dumbly a half-life in which their role is merely to bear and to drudge. In Roman Catholic coun­tries this control remains as complete today as ever it was at any age in the past. In countries freed from the Roman yoke any deviation from this norm is due to the good fortune of those women in being born in a Protestant country in which truly Christian influences make for the general uplift of woman-kind. The hierarchy exacts a service from the women of the church that it cannot obtain from the men, yet ironically its contempt for woman-kind is coupled with a full awareness that its whole power-system rests upon the Catholic woman, and that if she ever raises her bowed head, the world-wide poli­tical machine will lose its efficiency and collapse irreparably.

    In Roman Catholic countries, where women can be kept in total ignorance, the priests, who are educated and intelligent men, have never hesitated to play upon their emotions, to instil fear into their souls, and to encourage superstition, as that suited their purpose. In enlightened countries common knowledge prevents much of that deception, and Roman Catholic women to a large extent share with their Protestant sisters the blessings of a common culture.

    It is well known that the Roman Catholic clergy in all countries urge their people to produce large families. This serves a double purpose. First, it keeps both mothers and fathers so fully occupied, the women in caring for the children, and the fathers in making a living, that they have little oppor­tunity to look around and make undesirable comparisons between the ethics of their creed and that of the Protestant countries. And, secondly this large family programme serves to plug the hole in the dyke left by the defection of a large number who leave their church.

    As an alternative to her child-bearing services for the glory of Rome, the Catholic woman is offered the privilege of becom­ing a holy drudge within the church, namely, a nun in a convent. Here again the Blessed Virgin plays a key role, that of recruiting officer. Add to this the masterly publicity job that has been done on the Roman Catholic girl from infancy to make the nun an object of holy glamour, almost a replica of the Blessed Virgin, and it is somewhat surprising to learn that in recent years the Roman Church is finding it increasingly difficult to persuade American girls to enter convents. It has become so difficult in fact that the Roman Church has been obliged to import sisters from Europe to meet the need for teachers and nurses.

    In concluding the article previously mentioned, Dee Smith says:

    ‘Presiding over the two functions of Roman Catholic womanhood, the child-bearing programme and the unpaid labour pool, stands the puppet figure of the Blessed Virgin, at once the instigator and the patroness.

    ‘Compared with her services in insuring the cushioned privilege and power of the hierarchy by subjugating the Roman Catholic women, the enormous wealth brought to Rome’s exchequer by the financial exploitations of Mariolatry is merely incidental. Yet it is worth a glance.

    ‘From the sale of “holy” pictures, leaflets, scapulars, candles burned before her altars, fees for masses, and so on, the staggering intake at commercialized shrines such as St. Anne de Beaupré, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and others, a steady stream of gold flows into hierarchical coffers. One might almost paraphrase the Roman title, “Mother of God” to "Minter of Gold.”

    ‘But all this is as nothing beside the Blessed Virgin’s vital and indispensable function in maintaining the status quo. Without the inspiration of the Blessed Virgin, the Roman Catholic woman could not be kept at her business of child-bearing and drudging. Without the subjection of the Catholic woman, without her submissive acceptance of the yoke of Mary caricatured by the Roman Church, the all-powerful, self-indulgent ambitious men who constitute the Roman hierarchy would not be able to use their power as a weapon against human liberties and human rights.

    ‘Without doubt, the devotion to the Blessed Virgin constantly impressed upon the Roman population by its clergy is inspired not by piety, but by expediency. For the clergy, devotion to Mary is not merely a matter of dollars and cents, but of survival. Their sinecure depends on it. That is the secret purpose of Mariolatry.’

    What, then, is the remedy for this situation, this entire problem of Mariology and Mariolatry? It is, indeed, very simple. Let the Roman Catholic people read the Bible, particularly the New Testament. There they will find the living, compassionate, redeeming Christ, with very little said about Mary. It is not without reason that the Roman priesthood has striven so hard to keep the Bible from the people, and that even now the people are strictly forbidden to read any Bible except one that contains the approved set of explanatory notes.


* A graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.B., 1928; ThM., 1929), where he studied Systematic Theology under Dr. C. W. Hodge, his books include: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Roman Catholicism, Studies In Theology, Immortality, The Millennium and A Harmony of the Gospels.


David Curtis is now preaching from the NAS if you would like to fallow along

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

  Site Meter

Copyright © 2005 World Without End | Home | Audios | Links | Contact Info