I remember when I was first introduced to the Catholic view of Mariology. It was from a young atheist in college. As an ex-Catholic, he couldn't understand why I didn't pray to Mary. His parents did, and they taught him to do the same. That fact alone was enough to tell me that Catholicism wasn't as Christian as I had previously believed it to be. But do Catholics really have such a high view of Mary? After all, if you say they "worship" Mary, they'll roll their eyes so far back, they'll be able to see the back of their skull. "We don't worship her, we venerate her". But as we'll see in this article, veneration is just the same rose by a different name, and it is not offered to the correct recipient.
The more I study Catholic Mariology, the more astonished I am that people actually believe it. It is so blatantly antithetical to the Christian faith that a lot of Catholics actually deny that this is what they believe (and, for the most part, they genuinely don't, due to ignorance of their own sources). You can try the "silent quote" trick on them where you quote their own sources as if they were your own summary, then when the Catholic denies it, watch them twitch as you show them where it's from. You know a religion is bad when its most devout followers are ashamed to admit what it teaches, and most of its teachers fail miserably to tell them "this is what we believe".
As I often do when dealing with Catholicism, I want to begin with establishing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I don't want to spend too long on this, so I'll just point to the most commonly used verses to describe the doctrine (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:20-21; Revelation 22:18). But there is one verse a lot of us tend to forget. Even I only started using it after the Lord reminded me of it as an answer to prayer. In Amos 3:7, we read "Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets." This is especially significant with regard to the supernatural events ascribed to Mary, as I'll show you now.
First, Catholicism teaches that Mary was conceived completely free of original sin. In Ineffabilis Deus, for example, Pope Pius IX said "the most Blessed virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was reserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful" (emphasis mine).
The Pope seems pretty adamant about that. If you're a faithful Catholic, you have to constantly and firmly believe that Mary was conceived immaculately. But the Pope also confesses that this is (according to Catholic theology) a singular act of grace and a privilege received only by Mary. In other words, if true, God acted uniquely. And yet, He did not tell a single prophet. Amos 3:7 tells us that God does nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets, which is perfectly consistent with everything we believe about Jesus. The New Testament is heavily grounded in the Old. We know about Jesus' birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and eventual return from the Old Testament. There is nothing missing. Even the more natural details, such as His betrayal by Judas, or His rejection by His brothers and sisters, are mentioned in the Old Testament. Yet, neither the immaculate conception nor the bodily assumption (another Catholic Marian dogma) are even remotely alluded to in the entire Bible. While Pius IX said that all the faithful should believe this, and even claimed it is a doctrine revealed by God, it is not found in anything that can be considered scripture. Thus, it was not revealed by God, but made up by man.
Linking to the alleged "immaculate conception" is the idea that Mary never sinned in her personal life either. Pius XII, for example, said in Mystici Corporis that Mary was "immune from all sin, personal or inherited". It is beyond comprehension to me that a man should hold a Bible in one hand and rosary beads in the other. A sinless woman? For sure, Mary was faithful, but sinless? Not a chance! It is the consistent testimony of scripture that Jesus is the only human being who was ever free of sin.
Consider, for example, Romans 3:23: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Emphasis mine). All would include Mary, would it not? Given that this was written during, maybe even after her life? It is at this point that Catholics point out that "all" certainly doesn't apply to Jesus, but Jesus being the notable exception does not mean there are other notable exceptions, mostly because they aren't noted as exceptions. Mary was never said to be without sin by anyone except Catholics (and just an FYI, this was not an official Catholic dogma until Trent in 1547, so not even Catholics were required to believe it from the third to 15th centuries), and a few deluded Church "Fathers", who had some other pretty wonky views that not even modern Catholics would ask you to hold.
Quite the contrary, sin is linked to our descent from Adam. In Romans 5:12, we're told that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men. This is what the doctrine of original sin teaches. Catholics, as we have just seen, deny that Mary was conceived in sin, but that in itself is one of their own dogmas. It's not found in the Bible. I can prove Jesus didn't know sin, personal or original, from the scriptures, I can't prove that for Mary. But what I do know is that original sin is inherited from the father. Jesus had no father, but was instead conceived by power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). No such miracle can be said of Mary, and thus Romans 5:12 precludes the possibility that she, too, was conceived apart from original sin.
Mary herself did not believe she was sinless. At this point, many Catholics know at least some of what I'm about to say. But Mary believed herself to need a saviour. In Luke 1:47, Mary says "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."
In response to this, Catholic apologists present an analogy. Catholics do not deny that Mary both needed a saviour and had faith in God as that saviour. They use the analogy of a mud pit. It is argued that there are two ways to save someone, the first is saving them after the fact, such as throwing a rope down to pull them out of a dirty ditch, and the second is saving them pre-emptively, such as stopping them falling into the ditch in the first place. Thus, Catholics argue, Mary was simply saved pre-emptively, whereas the rest of humanity was not.
But arguing from analogy is not as powerful as arguing from facts. Catholics can talk all day about mud pits, the fact is no one in all of the first century would have understood it like that. It is a Catholic dogma that evolved hundreds of years after the Bible was written. Mary was a sinner, and she knew it. Proof that she knew it comes from the fact that she offered the required sin offering according to the law. In Luke 2:22-24, she offered "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons" (it's not stated which) as a sacrifice. The relevant law, found in Leviticus 12:6, explicitly states that this is a sin offering, which would not be needed if Mary truly was free of sin.
Already, Catholic Mariology is not off to a great start, and the blasphemy thereof has only just begun, but let's take a step back and look at one of the more "tame" Marian doctrines within Catholic theology. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a one of the older doctrines of Catholicism, even existing before Catholicism to some degree. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man." and "Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save".
Now, I call this a more "tame" doctrine because although it stems from an over-enthusiastic view of Mary, it isn't over the top about it. One could strongly argue that since Mary is worthy of our respect, it's not a terrible thing to ascribe legendary aspects to her to increase her dignity. Certainly no one ever went to Hell for believing Mary never had sex. Nevertheless, the doctrine is demonstrably wrong, and frankly rather perverted.
The first problem with it is that it's not even remotely inappropriate for a married couple, like Mary and Joseph, to have had sex. In fact, sexual relations between spouses are strongly encouraged in the Bible as both a good blessing from God, and as a method of preventing adulterous thoughts (1 Corinthians 7:5). This is how it was created by God in the very beginning (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5), and thus it is very good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4). To say that Mary remaining a perpetual virgin while married to poor Joseph (whom Catholics do not believe was immaculately conceived, and thus would have been open to temptation by Satan had Mary truly deprived him of his marital rights) somehow ascribes more dignity to her is an insult to literally every other good marriage throughout history, from Adam and Eve right the way up to anyone who is lucky enough to have gotten married today (and to those people I say congratulations).
But we have more evidence than just the fact it would have been appropriate for Mary to sleep with Joseph. We also have explicit record that Mary ceased to be a virgin at some point after Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:24-25, for example, tells us that Joseph did marry Mary, "and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The word "until" clearly tells us there was an expiration date to this. Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage, and the Bible even tells us this produced more children. In Matthew 13:55-56, for example, we read "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”" (emphasis mine).
The aforementioned Catechism actually contains a feeble attempt to refute this fact by saying "Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression."
Now, as a general rule, if a Catholic source says "the Church has always understood...", you can be 99% sure the Church has not always understood. The Catholic Church loves to make stuff up, and of course they're going to claim their new inventions are actually old doctrines. Why on earth wouldn't they? It's hard enough for them when they sheepishly admit their doctrines are evolving, why would they admit that their interpretation of the Bible to fit those new doctrines are just as fake? But actually, no, the interpretation that Jesus had literal brothers is older even than the New Testament.
Now, doesn't that sound like a bold claim? Now you know how it feels when Catholics also make bold claims like "The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary." But unlike the Catholic Church, I can, and will, back up my claims. Also unlike the Catholic Church, I'm going to do so with scripture. Turn to Psalm 69. It is clear that this Psalm is Messianic, not just from reading it alongside the New Testament, but also from the fact that it is cited as Messianic in the New Testament (John 2:17; 15:25; Romans 15:3). Pay attention to verse 8: "I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's children;" (emphasis mine).
Messianic Psalms are interesting things. There are always details which do not fit their author, but also do not perfectly fit Jesus. In the case of Psalm 69, verse 5 clearly does not apply to Jesus. But verse 8 certainly helps us understand the repetitive references in the New Testament to Jesus' brothers and sisters. Is it unfair to assume they really were His mother's sons and daughters? Not in the slightest. This is further evidenced by the fact that his countrymen referred to His brothers and sisters alongside Joseph as His father and Mary as His mother, implying a link, and from the fact that Jesus' mother and brothers came looking for Him in Mark 3:31 (which, by the way, He did not respond to in the way a good Catholic would have).
Typically, Catholics argue that the Greek word used for "brother" does not always mean literally, so maybe this could still work, right? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time in history that people were constantly surrounded by their nieces and nephews, (even to the point where Mary apparently brought them to collect Him). Except Greek follows the same logic as most languages: The context surrounding a word determines its meaning. If there is nothing in the context to suggest that the usual meaning of a word does not apply, the usual meaning of that word applies. Exceptions are not typically made for when the usual meaning of a word would contradict the doctrines of a religion that developed long after the text in question was published. The fact is the only reason to assume the many references to Jesus' siblings are not literally referring to siblings is to maintain this weirdly cherished doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
So, that's a more minor doctrine within the Catholic Church refuted, but now let's get back to the stuff that really has no business in Christianity. The Catholic view on prayer to the saints, particularly to Mary, is a very strange one. Catholics will generally tell you they don't pray to the saints, but rather they ask the saints for prayer, which they argue is really no different from asking an earthly friend for prayer, except the saints supposedly have a "more direct access" to the throne than our friends. Nevertheless, while many Catholics do not condone prayers to Mary, many Catholics do pray to her, and Pope John Paul II even wrote, in 2003, "May the Blessed Virgin hear your every prayer."
Before we get to the scriptures, let's highlight the obvious difference between an individual asking their friends to pray for them and an entire religion doing the same to one person in Heaven. I can't speak for everyone, but I can personally only hear one person at a time. Even online, where I can have several conversations at any time, I can only focus on one at a time. Now imagine you have just three people asking you for prayer at the same time. Perhaps you can single out one of them, but the other two would be just background noise. Now picture a noisy café. How many separate conversations can you hear? Perhaps you can hear the people at the table next to you, but everyone else will be white noise. Scale that up again to the Rungrado 1st of May Stadium. This is the largest stadium in the world, and it can seat 114,000 people. Could you hear what any of them were saying?
At the time this article was originally being written, Layla (an admin on the original two ministries) told me about a Catholic she debated who claimed "it's not like she has anything better to do". First of all, even if that were true, we've just seen that she simply couldn't hear that many people. 114,000 people is just too many to focus on, how do you expect Mary could cope with the well over a billion faithful Catholics in the world? But second, really? Mary leaves the pains of this life, enters the eternal bliss of Heaven, and Catholics think she'd even want to dive straight back into the troubles we have here? Somehow, I think the sound of angelic choirs joining her in... worshipping God would drown out all 7 billion people currently on the earth even if we did try to communicate with her.
But setting aside the logistics of a finite being hearing so many prayers, it turns out, communication with Mary is both forbidden, and seriously undermines God's role. In Isaiah 8:19, for example, Isaiah reasons that seeking the dead (like Mary) on behalf of the living (like us sinners) is absurd, because we ought to seek God, not the dead. In verse 20, he doubles down, declaring "to the law and testimony!" (i.e. the scriptures, which explicitly condemn speaking to the dead), and even goes as far as to say that those who say otherwise have no light in them. You have no light in you if you seek the dead on behalf of the living.
Mary, as a devout Jew, no doubt knew about this law. She would have had it hammered down her throat from the day she was able to bear it, and so if she thought that she would be sought out after her death, she would have taken measures to prevent that. Further evidence of this can be seen in 1 Samuel 28, when Saul did manage to summon the dead, namely Samuel. Samuel was not happy about being disturbed, and told Saul very firmly that there was nothing he could do. God had made up His mind. Mary, if it was even remotely possible to contact her, would always say the same thing: "what are you coming to me for? Let me go back to Heaven! Go with what God says."
In John 3:30, John the Baptist tells his followers that he must decrease, while Jesus must increase. This phrase can apply to literally any New Testament figure. Peter, Paul, James, even Mary. It is therefore little wonder that she disappears early on in Acts. There are no references to her after that, which would be very strange if God intended for us to "venerate" her. In fact, Christ Himself downplayed her role in the faith in Luke 11:27-28, in which we read "And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”"
As a servant of God, Mary would not only echo John the Baptist's words, but would weep bitterly if she knew people were going to venerate her. Servants of God simply do not accept this kind of thing. In Acts 14:14, Paul and Barnabas threw a fit when they were worshipped as gods. And again, in Revelation 19:10, John falls at the feet of the angel to worship him, and the angel strongly rebukes him, pointing him to God.
At this point, it's probably wise to point out that Catholics don't typically admit they worship Mary, differentiating between the "divine worship" due only to God and the veneration ascribed to Mary (Catholic Encyclopedia on idolatry). The problem is that this is all wordplay. "I didn't hit him, I slapped him." While the Catholic sources don't define "divine worship", the Bible is quite clear on what does and doesn't constitute worship. Altars, for example, are clearly idolatrous, and yet Catholics erect altars to Mary. "It is not strange, therefore, that after the main or principal altar, the most prominent is that dedicated in a special manner to the Mother of God; and to indicate this specific preference, this altar is usually placed in the most prominent position in the church, i.e. at the right (gospel) side of the main altar. In general it signifies any altar of which the Blessed Virgin is the titular." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Altar of our Lady). Isaiah 44:17 and 45:20 both outline prayer as an act of worship, yet Catechism of the Catholic Church 2675 says "Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries". These are just two examples of the Catholic Church worshipping Mary by Biblical standards. They may dress it up, but idolatry by any other name is still idolatry.
By far the most shocking, and most anti-Gospel view of Mary in the Catholic Church is the view of Mary as co-redemtrix. Now, I will confess that this isn't as bad as it sounds. Co-redemtrix does not necessarily mean her part in salvation is exactly equivalent to Jesus. But generally, Catholics view Mary as a mediator between us and Jesus rather than between God and man. As an example, St. Alphonsus Ligouri claimed "the plentitude of grace was in Christ, as the head from which it flows, as from its source; and in Mary, as in the neck through which it flows." He also claimed "all graces are dispensed through Mary, and all who are saved are saved only by the means of this divine mother".
Now, I don't consider myself to be an emotional man. I confess that it's difficult to read false texts without refuting them in my head, but generally speaking, I am able to calmly examine hostile sources. After all, it's not my salvation they're threatening. But this, ladies and gentlemen, takes the absolute biscuit! And the tea and milk with it. How is it even remotely possible that a Church which claims to have produced the Bible is so unbelievably ignorant of it that they not only misunderstand how we are saved, but also who it is that saves us? The Bible is perfectly clear on this issue. In 1 Timothy 2:5, we are told that there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus. You can read it forwards, backwards, upside down, you can even put it in a blender, you will never be able to re-arrange the Bible to say that there are two mediators. As a matter of fact, you can't find any Catholic Marian dogmas in the Bible, in any language. If you're going to claim to be a Christian, there is only one piece of advice I can give you: Leave the Catholic Church, because there is no greater idolatry currently on the Earth.