ROMAN
CATHOLICISM
By
Lorraine Boettner
SECTION TWO
Chapter
Six The Papacy
Chapter Seven Mary
Chapter Eight The Mass
Chapter Nine The Confessional
Chapter Ten Purgatory
1.
The Rise of the Papacy
2.
The Claims of the Papacy
3.
Worldly Character of the Papacy
1
The Rise of the Papacy
Much
of what needs to be said in regard to the papacy has already been covered in the
discussion dealing with the church, the priesthood, and Peter. But there remain
some further points that should be clarified.
The
word “pope,” by which the head of the Roman Church is known, and the word
“papacy,” by which is meant the system of ecclesiastical government in which
the pope is recognized as the supreme head, are not found in the Bible. The word
“pope” comes from the Latin papa, meaning “father.” But Jesus
forbade his followers to call any man “father” in a spiritual sense: “And
call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in
heaven” (Matthew 23:9). For centuries this term was applied to all priests,
and even to the present day it is so used in the Eastern Church.
In
Italy the term “pope” came to be applied to all bishops as a title of honor,
and then to the bishop of Rome exclusively as the universal bishop. It was first
given to Gregory I by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 604. This he did to
spite the bishop of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for having
caused the assassination of his (Phocas’) predecessor, emperor Mauritius.
Gregory, however, refused the title, but his second successor, Boniface III
(607) assumed the title, and it has been the designation of the bishops of Rome
ever since.
Likewise,
the title “pontiff” (as also the term “pontificate,” meaning to speak in
a pompous manner), which literally means “bridge builder” (pons,
bridge, and facio, make), comes not from the Bible but from pagan Rome,
where the emperor, as the high priest of the heathen religion, and in that sense
professing to be the bridge or connecting link between this life and the next,
was called “Pontifex Maximus.” The title was therefore lifted from paganism
and applied to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. As the high priest of the
Old Testament was the mediator between God and men, so the pope also claims to
be the mediator between God and men, with power over the souls in purgatory so
that he can release them from further suffering and admit them to heaven, or
prolong their suffering indefinitely.
But
Christ alone is the mediator between God and men: “For there is one God, one
mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
And He alone is the true Head of the church. It was He who founded the church
and redeemed it with His own blood. He promised to be with His church always,
even unto the end of the world. He alone has the perfect attributes needed to
fill that high office, for “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily” (Colossians 2:9). “He put all things in subjection under his feet,
and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body”
(Ephesians 1:22‑23). “And he is the head of the body, the church”
(Colossians 1:18). For the pope or any other man to claim to be the head of the
church and the mediator between God and men is arrogant and sinful.
The
papal system has been in process of development over a long period of time.
Romanists claim an unbroken line of succession from the alleged first pope,
Peter, to the present pope, who is said to be the 262nd member in
that line. But the list is in many instances quite doubtful. The list has been
revised several times, with a considerable number who formerly were listed as
popes now listed as anti‑popes. It simply is not true that they can name
with certainty all the bishops of Rome from Peter to the present one. A glance
at the notices of each of the early popes in the Catholic
Encyclopedia will show that they really know little or nothing about the first ten
popes. And of the next ten only one is a clearly defined figure in history. The
fact of the matter is that the historical record is so incomplete that the
existence of an unbroken succession from the apostles to the present can neither
be proved nor disproved.
For
a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches
attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional churches. The
early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches
who met as equals. There is not a scholar anywhere who pretends to show any
decree, canon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical councils which attempts to
give preeminence to any one church. The
first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual
supremacy on the part of the
bishops of Rome. The papacy really began in the year 590, with Gregory I, as
Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and
started that church on a new course. We quote two contemporary church
historians, one a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic, concerning the
place of Gregory in this development. Says Professor A. M. Renwick, of the Free
Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland:
“His
brilliant rule set a standard for those who came after him and he is really the
first ‘pope’ who can, with perfect accuracy, be given the title. Along with
Leo I (440‑461), Gregory
VII (1073-1085), and Innocent III
(1198-1216), he stands out as
one of the chief architects of the papal system” (The
Story of the Church, p. 64).
And
the Roman Catholic, Philip Hughes, says that Gregory I...
“...is generally regarded as the greatest of all his line. ... It was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards [the invaders from the North] were concerned. He begged his people off and he bought them off. He ransomed the captives and organized the great relief services for widows and orphans. Finally, in 598, he secured a thirty years’ truce. It was St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome and in a very real sense he is the founder of the papal monarchy” (A Popular History of the Catholic Church, p. 75, 1947. Used by permission of The Macmillan Company).
2
The Claims of the Papacy
When
the triple crown is placed on the head of a new pope at his “coronation”
ceremony, the ritual prescribes the following declaration by the officiating
cardinal:
“Receive the
tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes
and Kings, Ruler of the World, the Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ....” (National
Catholic Almanac).
The
New York Catechism says:
“The pope takes the
place of Jesus Christ on earth. ... By divine right the pope has supreme and
full power in faith and morals over each and “ pastor and his flock. He is the
true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of
all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of
and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the
world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by
no one, God himself on earth.”
And
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, The
Reunion of Christendom (1855),
declared that the pope holds “upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
Thus
the Roman Church holds that the pope, as the vicar of Christ on earth is the ruler of the world,
supreme not only over the Roman Church itself but over all kings,
presidents, and civil rulers, indeed over all peoples and nations. The fact is
that on numerous occasions the popes have exercised that authority in countries
where the Roman Church was strong. They have excommunicated and deposed kings
and governors, and, as in the cases of Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Emperor
Henry IV of Germany, they have attempted to arouse rebellions by releasing
subjects from any allegiance to their rulers. They have been prevented from
exercising such authority in the United States because they do not have control
here and because our Constitution serves as a shield against such outside
interference.
The
pope thus demands a submission from his people, and indeed from all people
insofar as he is able to make it effective, which is due only to God. Sometimes
that submission takes a particularly servile form, with even the cardinals, the
next highest ranking officials in the Roman Church, prostrating themselves
before him and kissing his feet! The popes have gone so far in assuming the
place of God that they even insist on being called by His names, e.g., “the
Holy Father,” “His Holiness,” etc. Such titles applied to a mere man are,
of course, blasphemous and unchristian. We cannot but wonder what goes through
the mind of a pope when people thus reverence him, carrying him on their
shoulders, kissing his hands and feet, hailing him as the “Holy Father,” and
performing acts of worship before him. By such means this so‑called vicar
of Christ” accepts the position of ruler of the world which the Devil offered
to Christ, but which Christ spurned with the command, “Get thee hence,
Satan!”
The
triple crown the pope wears symbolizes his authority in heaven, on earth, and in
the underworld—as king of heaven, king of earth, and king of hell—in that
through his absolutions souls are admitted to heaven, on the earth he attempts
to exercise political as well as spiritual power, and through his special
jurisdiction over the souls in purgatory and his exercise of “the power of the
keys” he can release whatever souls he pleases from further suffering and
those whom he refuses to release are continued in their suffering, the decisions
he makes on earth being ratified in heaven.
It
is impossible to denounce strongly enough the folly and guilt of such
glorification of man. The papacy, however, is the direct consequence and end
result of the exaltation of the priests as necessary mediators between God and
men.
But
who can really believe that Christ has built His church upon a man? The Bible
teaches clearly that Christ’s Vicar on earth is the
Holy Spirit—“the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit,
since He is the third person of the Trinity, has the attributes of wisdom and
power which enable Him to perform effectively and perfectly the work of guiding
and developing the church of Christ. Christ does not need such a deputy as Rome
claims that she has in the pope, and history shows that all men who have
attempted to function in that capacity have failed miserably. Over against the
claims of Rome the Reformers set the Word of God. Against Rome’s “Thus saith
the church,” they placed a “Thus with the Lord.” Luther and Calvin were
willing to recognize only Christ as the Head of the Church and denounced the
pope as the Antichrist. Indeed, the claims of the pope to universal and total
authority over the souls of men and over the church and nations are such that
either he is all that he claims to be—the vicar of Christ and the vice-regent
of God—or he is the biggest imposter and fraud that the world has ever seen!
3
Worldly Character of the Papacy
The
fallacy of the claim that the pope is the vice‑regent of Christ is
apparent in the glaring contrast between him and Christ. The pope wears, as a
fitting symbol of the authority claimed by him, a jewel-laden, extremely
expensive crown, while Christ had no earthly crown at all—except a crown of
thorns which He wore in our behalf. In solemn ceremonies the pope is carried in
a portable chair on the shoulders of twelve men, while Christ walked wherever He
needed to go. We cannot imagine Christ, who came not to be ministered unto but
to minister, being carried in luxury on the shoulders of men. The pope is adored
with genuflections (a bowing of the knee in reverence), he is preceded by the
papal cross and by two large fans of peacock feathers, and his garments are very
elaborate and costly, all of which is out of harmony with the person and manner
of Christ. The pope lives in luxury with many servants in a huge palace in
Vatican City, while Christ when on earth “had not where to lay His head.”
Many of the popes, particularly during the Middle Ages, were grossly immoral,
while Christ was perfect In holiness. Christ said that His kingdom was not of
this world, and He refused to exercise temporal authority. But the pope is a
temporal ruler, just like a little king, with his own country, his own system of
courts, vassals, coinage, postal service, and a Swiss military guard (100 men in
16th century uniforms) which serves as a papal bodyguard. The popes
claim political power, and for many years ruled the Papal States, which
stretched all the way across Italy and contained 16,000 square miles and a
population of approximately 3,000,000. Those states were confiscated by Italy,
under the leadership of the patriot Garibaldi, in 1870, and since that time the
popes have been limited to Vatican City, located within the city of Rome, which
has an area of about one sixth of a square mile and a permanent population of
about 1,000, with some 2,000 more employed there. In maintaining his claim to
political power the pope sends ambassadors and ministers to foreign governments,
and in turn receives ambassadors and ministers from those governments. As of
October 12, 1960, 31 nations maintained ambassadors at the Vatican and received
ambassadors from the Vatican, and 11 nations maintained ministers there. In each
country to which a papal ambassador is sent Rome seeks to have her ambassador
designated as the dean of the diplomatic corps, thus giving him rank above the
other ambassadors.
The
affairs of the Roman Church are controlled by a bureaucracy that is tightly
controlled, completely authoritarian, and self‑perpetuating, all of which
is in striking contrast with the New Testament principles of church government
in which the affairs of the church were in the hands of the people. The pope is
elected by the cardinals, who then disband and have no further power to censure
any of his actions. New cardinals are appointed by the pope, without necessary
consultation with anyone; nor is there any limit on the number of new cardinals
that he may appoint, the full number of the college of cardinals having remained
at 70 for centuries until recently when pope John XXIII increased the number to
85.1 The bishops too are appointed by the pope, and may be promoted,
moved, demoted, or dismissed as he pleases. The priests and nuns are chosen by
the bishops, and are promoted, demoted, or transferred by them, without
explanation if they so choose. And the people must be obedient to the priests,
although in all of that elaborate system they have no official voice at all, nor
is there any official channel through which they can express their ideas or
preferences in church affairs. The papacy, therefore, is not a spiritual unity
in Christ, but an external unity under the pope, a cloak which covers divisions
and dissensions between the various church orders which on occasions have
emerged with much rivalry and bitterness.
1
The number was increased to 134 by pope Paul VI, in 1969, ten of whom are
Americans.
We
close this discussion of the papacy with a quotation from Dr. Harris which we
believe states correctly the New Testament teaching concerning church government
and inter‑church affairs:
“The fact is that the early church had no head on earth. Christ was their head and they all were brothers. They did have an organization, however, and Presbyterians point to Acts 15 as a splendid example of how it operated. There was a doctrinal question at Antioch. What should the church of Antioch do to settle it? Should they write a letter to Peter asking his decision? This would be the Romanist position. But they did not. Should they write a letter to the ‘college of Apostles’? This is the episcopal position that the bishops by apostolic succession have the whole authority in the church. But Antioch did not do that. Should they call a congregational meeting of the church at Antioch and have the matter decided by the vote of the congregation? That would be the independent theory of church government. But they did not do this either. Rather they sent representatives to a synod meeting held at Jerusalem where the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter. They considered it carefully with prayer and Scripture study. Finally the apostles and elders decided on a policy and gave out decrees to which all the churches were expected to submit (Acts 16:4). There was no primacy of Peter or of anyone else. There was instead a democratic meeting of the ordained leaders of the churches judging matters according to God’s Word. This is the Scriptural answer to Roman Catholic pretentions on Peter” (The Bible Presbyterian Reporter, January, 1959).
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 toward Mary
12.
The Protestant Attitude toward 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
1
Mary’s Place in Scripture
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 of 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” (Matthew 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 honor. 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. We recall that Prime Minister Churchill used to make it
a special point of honor to mention the Queen in his eloquent public addresses.
Imagine the prime Minister of England never mentioning the Queen in any of his
addresses to Parliament or in any of his state papers!
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!
2
“Mother of God”
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 age 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.”
Hence
the term 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, etc., 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 favors 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 us. 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 honored 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 stepfather; 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
59th great grandfather. Such references to God’s relatives sound
more like a page out of Mormonism than Christianity.
The correct statement of the person of Christ in
this regard is: As His human nature had no father, so His divine nature had no
mother.
3
Historical Development
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 practiced 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-Evangelism
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 in 165 compares Mary and Eve, the two
prominent women in the Bible. Irenaeus, who died in 202, says that the
disobedience of the “virgin Eve” was atoned for by the obedience of the
“virgin Mary.” Tertullian, who was one of the greatest authorities in the
ancient church, and who died in 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 Greek-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, Ishtar, Diana, Athena, 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 practiced 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 on, 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 favored, 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 thou 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 favorable to the development of Mary
worship. Numerous superstitions crept into the church and centered themselves in
the worship of the Virgin and the saints. The purely pagan character of these
practices, with dates and manner of observance, can be traced by any competent
historian.
The
art of the Middle Ages represented Mary with the child Jesus, Mary as “mater
dolorosa” at the cross, etc. The rosary became popular; poems and hymns were
written in honor 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, etc. After the
same fashion there developed the Roman Catholic gallery of “patron saints”
for seamen, soldiers, travelers, hunters, and in modern times, for fliers,
divers, cyclists, artillerymen, etc. This kinship with the pagan cults explains
why Mary worship developed so rapidly after Constantine made Christianity the
official religion.
4
Contrast Between Roman and Protestant Teaching
We
are indebted to Dr. Joseph Zacchello, editor of The
Convert, Clairton, Pennsylvania
for the following statement concerning Mary’s place in the Christian church,
followed by extracts in one column from Liguori’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 favored beyond all other women. It was her unique honor 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 honor as a woman favored 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 the Word of God. The following quotations are taken from the book, The
Glories of Mary, which was written by Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, 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:
Roman
Catholic Church:
“And she is
truly a mediatress 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).
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” (Acts 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).
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).
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).
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).
Liguori,
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
Mary’s.” The Hail Mary (or Ave Maria) is 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.”
5
Mary as an Object of Worship
The devotions
to Mary are undoubtedly the most spontaneous of any in the Roman Catholic
worship. Attendance at Sunday 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 St. Anne de Beaupre, 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 heartbeat. 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
toward 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 others 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 practiced 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 anyone of the perhaps one hundred million practicing 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, his marching in parades in her honor, etc., 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, rescuing souls from purgatory,
etc.? 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. They 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 honors 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. What did they do? Did they fall down and worship Mary? Or Joseph? No! We
read: “They fell down and worshipped him” (Matthew 2:11). And to whom did
they give their
gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh? To Mary? Or to Joseph? No! 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, able to be at only
one place at a time and to do only one thing at a time. 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 only mentally, silently. How can
Mary and the saints, without being like God, 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 Church commits grievous sin in promoting the worship of Mary. It dishonors
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.”
“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?”
“No.”
“Do you
remember that any sinner has gone to Jesus to be saved?”
“Yes, many.”
“Have they
been rebuked?”
“Never.”
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?”
“No.”
“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 on any local radio broadcast, or obtain anything but Roman
Catholic literature. Quebec is full of idols. The late 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 favored friend
of God, to intercede for them. And the most powerful intercessor of all, of
course, is Mary, since she is the mother of Christ. But the absurd thing about
saint worship is 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 letters 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 Romans 1:7, 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2
Corinthians 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 (Deuteronomy 18:9‑12, Exodus
22:18, Leviticus 20:6, Isaiah 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” (Revelation 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 what
nonsense that is, both on the part of the pope and on the part of those who
submit themselves to such a servile practice!
6
In Romanism Mary Usurps the Place of Christ
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 Savior, 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 center 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 does 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.
7
Mary Represented as More Sympathetic than Jesus
The
spiritual climate of the Middle Ages was favorable 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,
Liguori pictures Christ as a stern, cruel Judge, while Mary is pictured as a
kind and lovable intercessor. Among other things Liguori 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 Liguori teaches that Mary is the Savior 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 favor 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 on Scripture truth to teach that Christ demands justice,
but that Mary will extend mercy! How dishonoring it is to Christ to teach that
He is lacking in pity and compassion for His people, 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.
8
One Mediator
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 Timothy 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” (Hebrews 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 (Romans 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” (Hebrews 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 honor to go to Christ.
The priests have no right to place her in such an unscriptural position. Mary is
presented in Scripture as a handmaiden 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 (Romans 5:12‑21; 1 Corinthians 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.”
9
Adoration or Idolatry?
The
Roman 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 practiced 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 which belong to God, as
when, by the late 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 prayer 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
“practicing” Roman Catholics throughout the world, and that half of them say
the rosary at least once each day—the rosary contains 50 “Hail Mary’s”
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 honors. 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.
The
worship of Mary is, of course, 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”
(Matthew 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.
10
Latria, Dulia, Hyperdulia
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 b