A Few More Memes to Make Readers THINK

 

Thoughts About Roman Catholicism

Agglomeration

Dallas Jenkins tries to show how it’s okay to watch his horrible The Chosen and his new series House of David. He claims more people are reading the Bible now. Well, if they do, then they wouldn’t waste more time watching them with all the heresy and blasphemy in them. BUT, I sincerely doubt his claim about everyone praising his stuff for leading them to the Bible and salvation.

WOW! Pay attention to how Satan would destroy the minds of our CURRENT generation (vs “the next”).  It’s really spot on!

A reminder that Christians should not be involved with Freemasonry.

Only One Question Solves the Mystery of the Sin of Sodom.

Christianity Today Astray argues that Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross. They caught so much flak that they had to retreat from the idea!

7 Ways New Agers Twist Bible Verses

A Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) now has a Men’s Same-Sex Attraction Group! A bit more information including the connection to Tim Keller.

So why isn’t this Cardinal excommunicated from the Catholic church?!?  AND, why aren’t these bishops excommunicated?!?

Pope Francis: Servant or Enemy of Christ? It’s a 57-minute video examining Francis and even the Catholic Church. Well worth the time.  Additionally, here is an excellent article describing what a hypocrite he was regarding ecology and “climate change.”  So, what will Jesus say to him?

While talking about Catholics, how about this: The Stations Of The Cross: A Practice Of Medieval Fraud

No, Jim Caviezel did NOT hear from Jesus. The movie was unbiblical.

Is there any United Methodist Church left which follows the teaching of Jesus? This woman “pastor” has foolish ideas.  Abject heresy and blasphemy in another UMC. And this Methodist preacher compares Jesus to an MS-13 gang member he supports!!

A Warning to the Church about Todd White.  This guy is really bad news and I’ve often posted links to articles showing just how bad he is.  Another video of a blasphemous “sermon” he taught. 

Baptism is NOT Necessary For Salvation Nor Does It Save You

I’ve had a Catholic criticize my article, Roman Catholic Baptism Is Unbiblical, claiming that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation. He included the following Bible verses as “proof texts” that baptism does indeed provide salvation.  Well, let’s just examine his “proof” for what it is.

Mark 16:16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice it first says, “He who believes.” The belief in Jesus as savior is what saves the person, and the baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Notice in the second phrase it says, “he who does not believe will be condemned.” The one who does not believe will not be saved through baptism. 

John 3:5: Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

IF the water referred to is baptism, then notice one must be born of the Spirit (i.e. born of the Holy Spirit because of faith in the salvation of Jesus). But water here is not literal, rather it refers to cleansing (e.g. Ezekiel 36:24-27). John MacArthur points out, When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with “spirit” (Num.19:17-19; Ps.51:9, 10; Is. 32:15, 44:3-5, 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf. Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.

Notice though, that Jesus is restating vs. 3 where He says, “Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Replace “born again” with “born of water and of the Spirit.” “Born again” has the meaning of placing one’s faith in Christ for salvation.

Acts 2:38-41: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It doesn’t take a theological scholar to see that Peter did not say anyone needed to be baptized to be saved. He stated the first thing to do was “repent.” Then he says the baptism which follows is in the name of Jesus, which implies with their repentance they put their faith in Jesus for salvation. Those who were saved were “those who received his word”— i.e., the sermon he had just preached about Jesus beginning at verse 14. They asked what they should do after hearing this sermon. If they didn’t repent and place their faith in Jesus, being baptized in His name would not give them salvation. Real repentance knows how evil sin is and that it must be forsaken “and the person and work of Christ totally and singularly embraced.”

The Apologetics Study Bible says this: Many groups use these verses to teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet Paul made a distinction between the two when he wrote, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Co. 1:17). He then described the gospel as “the power” to save (v.18). Baptism and the gospel are thus set in opposition to each other. Paul explained that “the gospel . . . is God’s power for salvation” (Rom.1:16).

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This was said by Ananias AFTER Paul had an encounter with Jesus and more teaching by Ananias. Paul had been given the faith and the Holy Spirit. So Ananias is telling him to now be baptized. As most commentaries will point out, grammatically calling on the name of the Lord precedes “rise and be baptized.” Calling on the name of the Lord is what saved Paul, not the baptism.

Romans 6:3-4: Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Notice he says ‘baptized into Christ Jesus.” They were believers and then baptized into that faith. The baptism symbolized their faith in Christ as they were “buried with him through baptism.” BUT that is assuming Paul is talking about water baptism. But what do scholars have to say? “Paul is actually using the word baptized in a metaphorical sense, as we might be saying someone was immersed in his work, or underwent his baptism of fire when experiencing some trouble.” 

This is pretty plain because Paul says we were buried into death and yet we didn’t die.

1 Corinthians 6:11: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This passage doesn’t even mention baptism, rather it is about being washed, etc, but the Spirit! Baptism would come later.

Titus 3:5:  He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit…

Again, this is not about baptism but about regeneration and renewal by the Spirit! Water baptism isn’t even hinted at.

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism … now saves you…

How about we look at the context of this passage starting at vs 18:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the]spirit; in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

So notice he says, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, i.e. not with water but with an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I suggest the reader look at the very thorough explanation at “Got Questions."

Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation is not of oneself, i.e., works—and baptism is a work. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Without the inward faith, baptism has no meaning—it does not provide salvation nor is it necessary for salvation.

Now the amusing thing is that Catholics have four paragraphs in their Catechism which prove they don’t believe that water baptism is what saves you:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

None of this is even hinted at in the Bible and has been invented by the Papist Church as a way to maintain the lie that Baptism is what provides salvation.

Catholic Iconography and the “Saints.”

This article was originally published on 6/28/10 but, as with the others in this series, I thought it needed to be revisited after 15 years. FYI: after I post each part of this series, I take down the original so as to not have two of the same post. But the posts are cut and pasted so as to be identical except for this introduction.

======

Catholicism teaches that images may be made of the apostles and other “saints” (contrary to the Bible’s teaching that all Christians are saints, Rome has to declare people saints after their death based on their good works and other qualifications) so that the faithful may venerate them. Images may be statues or pictures of various types (glass, mosaic, paintings, etc). Let’s look at some paragraphs from the Catechism on this subject:

Paras. 476, 477 “Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was finite. Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate. At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus ‘we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see.’ The individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer ‘who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted’.”

Paras. 1159-1162 “The sacred image, the liturgical icon, principally represents Christ. It cannot represent the invisible and incomprehensible God, but the incarnation of the Son of God has ushered in a new "economy" of images… Christian iconography expresses in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates by words. Image and word illuminate each other… All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the ‘cloud of witnesses’ who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man ‘in the image of God,’ finally transfigured ‘into his likeness,’ who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ: ‘Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.’ … the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart's memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful.

Note also that Catholics pray to the saints for intercession on our behalf.

What response do we have from Scripture? Firstly, Scripture says we are not to make any image to worship or bow down to it because that would be idolatry. (Exod. 20:4-5a)

Secondly, how does anyone know what Jesus looked like? Would not any image of Christ therefore be from someone’s imagination and not really what Christ looked like, and therefore would not the veneration be of another god - one of the artist’s making? Let’s make an analogy here. If I carry a photo of a model in my wallet and tell everyone this photo represents my wife, would I be properly representing my wife? Would it be respectful of my wife or would it cause her to be jealous? God tells us that He is a jealous God, which is why He commands no images for worship.

Images of saints, although not being of God, are nevertheless not to be worshiped (including “veneration”). And, as with images of Christ, these images would be false representations since we do not know what the people looked like.

The issue of praying to the saints would be the same as with praying to Mary. These people are dead and we do not communicate with the dead. Although the Catholic church claims that Mary and the saints are in heaven and are therefore not bound by space and time, the reality is that they would have to be omniscient to hear prayers from people all over the world. The plain fact is that we are told in Scripture that prayers are directed only at God, never to people.

The veneration of the saints and icons is part of the daily practice for Roman Catholics, and yet this is plainly unbiblical and idolatry.

Summary:

We have seen in this series on Roman Catholicism that Rome’s claim to papal infallibility being directly from God, as well as papal authority, is belied by the history of papal behaviors and teaching which are against what God has told us in the Bible. The Church’s claim to authority of the Magisterium for teaching and interpretation of Scripture has no Scriptural basis, but is a tool of control.

We have also seen that Rome’s works-based system of salvation is directly opposed to the Bible’s teaching of salvation by faith alone, in Christ alone. We’ve examined transubstantiation and the mass, and how it does not resemble anything found in Scripture. We’ve seen how Mary is looked at as being almost equal with Christ in the way they pray to her, worship her, and give her unbiblical attributes of perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and the ability to hear and answer prayer. And, finally, we’ve looked at iconography and veneration of saints, both of which are prohibited by the Bible.

These are the heavy burdens of legalism placed upon the members of the Roman Catholic Church, which result in the Roman Catholic Church being a cultic organization, in which the majority of its members are not true Christians (as testimony after testimony of ex-members attest).

How do we then witness to Catholics? The best way is to show them that salvation is a one-time thing and that it is not as a result of works. Point them to Christ, and not to Mary, for salvation. And that everything their leaders say should be passed through the grid of Scripture.

Mary, “Mother of the Church,” Is Not the Mary of the Bible

This article was originally published on 6/25/10 but I thought it needed to be revisited after 15 years. FYI: after I post each part of this series, I take down the original so as to not have two of the same post. But the posts are cut and pasted so as to be identical except for this introduction. (However, all the comments go with the deletion so that is a loss.)

=============

Mary of Roman Catholicism has little in common with the Mary we find in the Bible. There are four dogmas about Mary, and a fifth one being petitioned for, all with their origins in Gnosticism. Here are the dogmas about Rome’s “Mary.”

1. Mother of God: Roman Catholicism elevates Mary, the mother of Jesus, to a status virtually equal to Christ himself. The origin of this unique doctrine seems to have been the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where the title Theotokos was given to her. This title means “God-bearer” or “mother-of-God.” The original purpose of this title was not to exalt Mary but to counter a heresy by the Nestorians which said Christ was actually two separate persons - the divine Word and the man Jesus. Supposedly, “the divine Word clothed himself with the man Jesus” while on earth (The Cult of the Virgin, by Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, p. 20). Since the Council of Nicea in 325 asserted the divinity of Christ, the debate was how the two natures of God and man co-existed, which brought controversy leading to the Nestorian heresy. Chalcedon’s title for Mary was to assert that the man Jesus was born both man and God.

Although there are two natures in Jesus, a woman does not give birth to natures, but to people. Since Jesus is indeed God, in a sense Mary is the mother of God. Yet, this title has to be used with qualifications because Jesus as God the Son existed for eternity, while the title could be taken to mean he came into existence when Mary gave birth to Jesus. However, Rome has used this title to elevate Mary above all other humans. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, in his book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, says, “As the mother of God, Mary transcends in dignity all created persons, angels and men, because the dignity of the creature is the greater the nearer it is to God. … As a true mother she is related by blood to the Son of God according to His human nature.” (p. 197) Is this biblical?

We do know that in the Bible, Elizabeth said Mary was blessed among women (Luke 1:42), and indeed she was, “But this is due more to the important role she was elected to play (bringing the Messiah into the world) than the mere fact of a physical relationship. Actually, with what would appear to be divine foresight, Jesus consistently sought to counter the natural human tendency to esteem carnal relationship with him higher than spiritual (Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 11:27-28; 2:48-50). Rather than emphasize his physical relationship with his mother, he seemed to go out of his way to downplay it, even calling her woman (John 2:1-4; 19:26), which…was not a customary address for a Jewish son to use. Furthermore, Paul and the other New Testament authors do nothing to counter this impression that Mary is not to be exalted on the grounds of her physical relationship to Christ.” (The Cult of the Virgin, pp. 22-23)

2. Perpetual Virginity. Catechism Para. 499: “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. In fact, Christ's birth ‘did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it.’”

In A.D. 553, the Second Council of Constantinople declared Mary “ever virgin.” The idea for this had begun to form as early as the end of the second century, but by the fourth century there was a lot of debate about it. It appears the belief triumphed because of the rise of asceticism and monasticism, which revered celibacy over marriage as being more spiritual. Gnostic beliefs that the material world was evil led to the idea that sexual relations were part of evil pleasures and not good for spiritual growth. Therefore, the idea that Mary could ever have had sexual intercourse was seen as something that would have corrupted her, and that Jesus would never have been born from a woman who would afterwards be soiled with sexual relations.

Ludwig Ott tells us the Catholic teaching that, “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. p.205). Somehow the idea that a baby passing out of the womb and breaking the woman’s hymen would bring corruption to her, even without her having sexual relations!

James McCarthy cites Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Part III (The Gospel According to Rome, p.192) reasons why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin:

a. Since Jesus was the Father’s only son, He should also be the mother’s only son.

b. Sexual relations with Joseph would have “desecrated” Mary’s virginal womb, which would have been an insult to the Holy Spirit whose shrine was Mary’s womb.

c. “It would have been below ‘the dignity and holiness’ of Mary to forfeit her miraculous virginity by carnal intercourse with Joseph.” It would also have shown that Mary was ungrateful and not content with being Jesus’ mother.

d. “It would have been ‘extreme presumption’ for Joseph to have attempted ‘to violate’ Mary.”

In response to this teaching, we have to first ask what the Bible says about sexual relations inside of marriage. Gen. 2:24 says the husband and wife are to become one flesh, which Jesus reiterated in the Gospels. Hebrews 13:4a says, “Marriage is honorable among all…” 1 Cor. 7 tells us that the wife’s body belongs to the husband and his body belongs to her, and that they are not to deprive each other of sexual relations. The Song of Solomon exalts the marital relationship. So we see that while Scripture condemns sexual relations outside of marriage as immoral, sexual relations within marriage are right and proper and intended to make the husband and wife “one flesh.”

What does the Bible say about Mary’s virginity? Firstly, to be married to Joseph and never consummate the marriage would violate the “one flesh” desire of God’s for marriage, let alone violate the teaching that the wife’s body belongs to the husband and she is not to deprive him of relations. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary “till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” The fact that it says “till” (NIV “until”) Mary had her first son implies that afterwards they had relations. Additionally, Matt. 1:18 says “before they came together,” also implying that Mary and Joseph later “came together.” Finally, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 2:7, implying more children followed. Numerous passages in the Gospels and some of Paul’s letters report on Jesus’ “brothers” and “brothers and sisters.” While Rome claims these passages refer to cousins, there is a Greek word for cousins which isn’t used, while the Greek for brothers and sisters are. Sometimes Catholic apologists claim these were half-siblings, children of Joseph from a previous marriage; this is bringing personal bias into the text because there is no hint in the Bible that Joseph was previously married.

The plain reading of the Bible demonstrates that Mary was in every sense a normal wife and mother after the birth of Jesus.

3. Immaculate Conception: Catechism Para. 411: “Mary…was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.” Para. 491-93 “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary…was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ,…preserved immune from all stain of original sin.’…By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.” 

Once the church had decided on Mary’s divine motherhood and perpetual virginity, there needed to be another way to show her complete holiness. Early church fathers said Mary was guilty of many sins, but by the early 4th century “the Latin fathers refrained from charging Mary with sin.” (The Cult p. 31) At first it was taught that Mary had no personal sin, but at the beginning of the 12th century the idea that Mary was preserved from original sin (the sinful nature) was first propagated by a British monk, Eadmer. Virtually all the leading theologians opposed the idea because it contradicted Scripture’s truth of the universality of sin. “A major portion of the credit for establishing the immaculate conception as Catholic dogma goes to John Duns Scotus (1264-1308). He argued that to hold that Mary was preserved from original sin would not depreciate the atonement but rather would magnify it: it would be an even greater work of redemptive grace for Mary to be born without sin than to be given the power to rise above it.” (The Cult, pp.31-32)

This doctrine remained controversial for several more centuries until 1854 when Pope Pius IX defined it. This was the first dogma ever pronounced on the authority of a pope without official sanction of a council. Pius’ statement claimed this “was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” As a result of this dogma, the church says “Mary possesses all gifts, knowledge, and fruits in their fullness, and is exalted above all men and angels.” (The Cult, p.32).

What does the Bible say about Mary and sin?

Firstly, the Bible tells us that all people sin. This evidence is found in both Old and New Testaments. Here are some passages to examine: 1 Kings 8:46a; 2 Chron. 6:36; Job 4:17ff; Job 19; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 143:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 5:12; 1 John 1:9.

Secondly, Mary calls God her savior in Luke 1:47. If she was sinless, why would she need a savior?

Thirdly, in Luke 1:26-38 May is troubled and in wonderment. Why would this be so if she was sinless?

Lastly, in Luke 2:22-24 Mary presents an offering for her sinful condition.

4. The Assumption. Catechism para. 966 “‘Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.’”

If Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless, then death would have no hold over her. This reasoning began by the 5th century in apocryphal literature, and was accepted into church teachings by the beginning of the 6th century. The Feast of the Assumption was first appointed by Gregory I (540-604). This doctrine was accepted and promoted over the centuries until 1950, when Pius XII declared the teaching to be dogma: “We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

There is no biblical warrant for this teaching. In fact, if this was true for Mary, it is highly doubtful that something so miraculous would not have been mentioned by any writers of the New Testament books.

5. Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. While this is not yet dogma, the Pope is indeed being petitioned to make it so; for now it is just doctrine. The idea of co-redemptrix began as early as the 2nd century, while the teaching of Mediatrix began in medieval times. “The title coredemptrix has been in use since the fifteenth century, and was first officially sanctioned by the papacy when Pius X ascribed it to Mary in 1908. Catholic theology understands Mary’s role in redemption to be directly related to her status as the mother of God. Pius XI stated: ‘The most blessed Virgin, conceived without original sin, was chosen to be the Mother of God so that she might be made an associate in the Redemption of mankind.’” (The Cult.. p.48)

Pope Pius XI stated that Mary “participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption.” Benedict XV further stated, “Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind.” (both citations from McCarthy, p.202)

What this teaching leads to is prayers to Mary; she mediates between us and Jesus. She then intercedes on our behalf to her son so that our prayers will be answered. This leads to Mary’s other title, “Queen of Heaven” (a title ascribed to a pagan goddess in Jeremiah).

Rev. John Ferraro, in his, Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, said, “All grace is passed from God to Jesus, from Jesus to Mary, and from Mary to us. The grace of God, cure for our ills, comes to us through Mary like water through an aqueduct.” (cited by Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, p.357)

Catechism para. 2679: “Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.”

What does the Bible say? There is one mediator between God and man - Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Therefore, Mary can not be a mediator. Additionally, there is no biblical support for Mary being a co-redeemer; Christ alone redeemed man from sin by his death and resurrection (Rom. 3:24; Col. 1:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). Mary did not offer Jesus, he offered himself (Heb. 9:14)

Some questions to contemplate: 1) Why is there no mention of praying to Mary in the Bible? 2) If Mary hears and responds to all prayers addressed to her, she would have to be omniscient and omnipresent, which would make her a god. In fact, to answer all the prayers she would also have to be omnipotent. So doesn’t making Mary omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent violate the command against idolatry? 3) What about the Bible’s instructions against talking with the dead (Deut. 18:11-12, et. al)?

Catholic teachings about Mary lead to worshiping her (although Catholics claim “veneration”), hence the many occultic visions of Mary seen around the world. She is ranked next to Jesus in exaltation in heaven and treated by Catholics almost the same as they treat Christ. This has no biblical foundation and ends up being nothing less than idolatry.