Over time, the Roman Catholic church has expanded the significance of Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus, in its dogma and doctrine. This enlargement arises from speculation and tradition unsupported by Scripture, which is pure heresy.
The make-over of the view of Mary in Roman Catholic dogma has been briefly stated by Couch as follows:
When Vatican II took place in the mid-1960s, the world of Catholicism drastically changed. This was the opportunity for the Church to re-invent itself and to propel its teachings into the twenty-first century. Since Vatican II, a 1974 apostolic exhortation of Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus, attempted to revitalize popular Marian devotion within the spirit of Vatican II. Paul VI wrote that women could not be inspired to change their status in society if Mary was presented to them as a passive figure, submissive to men in all things. Up to that point, feminists viewed Mary as uninfluential. This was, and still is, not explicitly mentioned in the earlier history of Catholic devotion to Mary.
So, in a sense, Mary had to be made over and placed front and center in Catholic theology. However, the makeover would be more cosmetic than substantive because in the Middle Ages and even more recently in the nineteenth century, the teachings about Mary had already reached their zenith. But now was the time to re-state them in more modern thought forms.[1]
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
In the nineteenth century, the Roman Catholic church sought to correct a difficult theological problem. Augustine held that original sin was transmitted by human sexual intercourse (though Augustine’s holding regarding original sin is more detailed than this sounds). Since Roman Catholic tradition had continued to hold this view since Augustine, this meant that Mary, while still in her mother’s womb, would be tarnished by original sin. This was a problem because if that was true, then Mary could transfer original sin to Jesus. Also, if this were true, then Jesus would be blemished by sin, and thus, He would not be the perfect sacrifice for redeeming the sins of all believers. So, Roman Catholic clerics saw this as a substantial theological concern, assuming Augustine and the Roman church’s presuppositions were accurate.
Pope Pius IX and his advisors devised the “immaculate conception” to solve their theological quandary. In 1845, Pope Pius IX declared ex-cathedra, the new doctrine of the immaculate conception, which held that though Mary was conceived by her parents’ sexual act in the ordinary method of human procreation, God intervened to prevent the transmission of the stain of original sin. They apparently believed that this would allow for the sinlessness of Mary and, consequently, of Jesus.
Many people believe that the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. But this is an error. The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary herself, who, though her parents conceived her in the ordinary human reproductive process, God intervened supernaturally to stop the transmission of original sin, according to Roman Catholic teachings.
However, The Roman Catholic church sought a solution for a problem that didn’t exist because God had already dealt with the sinlessness of Christ. First of all, original sin is transmitted at ordinary human conception, not by sexual intercourse or by natural childbirth. God provided that the guilt of original sin should pass to descendants by natural human procreation, which is initiated at conception with the fertilization of the mother’s ovum by the Father’s sperm. This transfer of the haploid number of 23 chromosomes from each parent begins a new life, and original sin attaches at this moment.
Second, before Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18); thus, there was no genetic material from any human involved, and Jesus was conceived and later born free from original sin. Jesus has absolutely no genetic connection with either Mary or Joseph.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception has no Scriptural support and is, in fact, a mere papal decree inconsistent with biblical truth.
The Imputation of Sinful Corruption to Adam’s Descendants.
When Adam and Eve committed the first sin, the corruption of their nature was the collateral consequence, and it spread throughout their entire human nature. As a result of this corruption, they lost their original righteousness. Under the covenant of works, as long as they obeyed God, they could remain in paradise, where there was eternal life and blessedness.
Their corruption and loss of righteousness resulted in the penalty of spiritual death (Eph. 2:1, 5, 12; 4:18), and they were no longer obediently walking with God. God removed them from paradise because it represented life and blessedness. The disobedience of Adam and Eve also resulted in physical death. Sin deserves death, and this first sin resulted in their being doomed to ultimate physical death (Gen. 3:19).
Because the first sin corrupted every facet of their body and soul, it was a part of their entire human nature. Thus, natural human procreation would infuse the parents’ corruption and depravity into the descendants’ entire nature. This is how sin enters every human descendant at the moment of conception. The parents’ corrupt nature produces a corrupt nature in their offspring through natural sexual reproduction.
The Bible teaches the depravity of the nature of human beings (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 14:3; Rom. 7:18). This depravity is not a depravity that makes human nature utterly depraved to a maximum extent. This corruption of human nature manifests as a spiritual inability to seek God. Since this corruption of nature is throughout the person, body, and soul, the corrupt, sinful nature of Adam and Eve is passed on through sexual reproduction to all descendants. This genealogical transmission of the corrupt, sinful nature to all descendants is original sin. As Berkhof writes:
The guilt of Adam’s sin, committed by him as the federal head of the human race, is imputed to all his descendants. This is evident from the fact that, as the Bible teaches, death as the punishment of sin passes on from Adam to all his descendants. Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:3; 1 Cor. 15:22.[2]
The transmission of original sin is through natural sexual reproduction in Humans. Therefore, at the moment the life of a descendant begins, original sin attaches from the parent to the descendant’s nature.
Any disobedience against God warrants death because of God’s perfect righteousness (Ps. 11:5-7). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). This refers mainly to spiritual death and the loss of eternal life. God will exercise His condemning wrath against unredeemed sinners to eternal spiritual death on the last day at the final judgment.
And because of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, the righteous God cursed all human beings with physical death (Gen. 3:19). God commanded that the nature of Adam and Eve was now corrupted and depraved. Thus, this corruption engulfed their entire nature, body and soul. Because of this corruption, all descendants through procreation will also be corrupted, leading to the physical death of all human beings at the end of terrestrial life.
God’s method for applying the curse of physical death is procreation.
Note also that the entire creation was cursed because of the first sin, which was death entering the creation. Thus, all living things must die.
Conception is the Beginning of Life.
There is no doubt that life begins at conception. Science is clear on this.
Dr. Maureen Condic[3] discussed the beginning of human life when she wrote:
that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos … A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.[4]
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a world-renown geneticist who discovered the genetic cause for Downs syndrome, speaking before a committee of the Canadian Parliament, discussed proof of human life beginning at conception when he wrote:
We know beyond any possible doubt that when the sperm enters the ovum, all the information required to make a human being…is present. We also know, with the same degree of certainty, that no subsequent genetic information, after fertilization, is passed on to a human being.
This is neither the opinion of a moralist nor the hypothesis of a metaphysician, it is a particular observation made during the experiment. If it were not true that all the information required to define each human being is present at fertilization, in vitro fertilization would not be possible. If a human being did not exist at fertilization, it would be impossible for a sperm to enter an ovum in a test tube and for the embryo that may result to be transferred to a woman who is not the biological mother. In other words, the fact that in vitro fertilization exists proves, beyond a doubt, that human life begins at fertilization.[5]
The DNA that constitutes a living human exists in the new individual at conception, and nothing else is transferred to the new person. Since the chromosomes from Adam and Eve were corrupt, that same corruption was also transmitted to their descendants at conception.
Jesus’ Conception by the Holy Spirit and Mary the Biological Mother.
Mary was chosen by God, whose Spirit conceived the fertilized ovum of Jesus in Mary’s womb so that she became pregnant for the purpose of carrying the unborn child, Jesus, to term for God. Mary and Joseph became Jesus’ parents both civilly and legally, and Jesus received all inheritance rights from each parent.
We should clarify one point here regarding the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. We have seen writings that refer to the Holy Spirit as the “father” of Jesus the man. This is an error. Human conception in procreation requires a mother to donate half the chromosomes and a father to donate the other half. That is not what happened in the case of Jesus’ conception. God conceived the new individual Jesus in the womb of Mary through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.
Creation is the act of bringing into existence, while reproduction is the act of reproducing. The Holy Spirit was not the procreative father of Jesus. He did not join with Mary to conceive Jesus by providing half the chromosomes necessary for procreation. The Holy Spirit created the fertilized ovum (Matt. 1:18). He supernaturally brought the fertilized egg into existence in Mary’s womb as the human nature of the Son of God.
Mary contributed nothing to the conception of Jesus other than being the vessel of conception. After the fertilized ovum was conceived in Mary, she began her motherhood in loco parentis. Mary served as God’s surrogate of the unborn child Jesus, conceived by supernatural means outside of natural procreation, for the purpose of carrying the unborn child Jesus to term and, along with Joseph, serving as the parents of Jesus thereafter.
From conception forward, Mary was in every way the biological mother of Jesus, providing nourishment and protection during gestation and until birth and onward, and Joseph was in every way the Father since Mary and Joseph were betrothed at the time (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27) of Jesus’s conception.
Yes, Mary and Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus, which is why original sin was not transmitted to Jesus. The curse of original sin is transferred at the moment a new life begins by conception during human reproduction. Original sin is present at conception. David spoke of this, we think, when he wrote, “In sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:3).
Considering the preceding, we must understand that though Mary (as well as Joseph) contributed nothing to the conception or the traits of Jesus because they contributed no genetic material to Jesus, Mary is nevertheless the biological mother of Jesus. After conception and continuing through to natural birth, Mary was the sole source of nourishment, nurture, and protection of the unborn Jesus. Her blood provided nutrition and immunity against disease. Mary’s body enabled his growth and development in every sense.
So, after conception, the natural human procreative process designed by God at the beginning of human life was in operation throughout the gestation of the unborn child Jesus. Mary was the biological mother of Jesus. However, since she was not involved in the conception of Jesus, the conception by the Holy Spirit ensured the absence of original sin, thus making the doctrine of the immaculate conception as unnecessary as it was heretical.
The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of the immaculate conception is false and inconsistent with Scripture. In the end, this nefarious misrepresentation was unnecessary.
A Note Regarding the Word Surrogate.
The word surrogate was unknown in the first century and remained so until the sixteenth century. We use the word surrogate here to describe in modern language the non-conceiving mother, Mary. Mary’s service as the surrogate or non-conceiving mother in no way diminishes the beautiful blessing bestowed upon Mary as God’s surrogate in bearing the child Jesus.
DIVINE MOTHERHOOD
The Council of Ephesus in AD 431 first declared Mary the Theotokos or mother of God. The Council determined that since Christ was one person with two natures, divine and human, and since Mary gave birth to the human incarnation of Jesus, she was the mother of God because she gave birth to the Word of God in the flesh. The divine motherhood of Mary has since been ingrained within the Christological dogma of the Roman Catholic church (cf. Council of Chalcedon, AD 451).
Apparently, Roman Catholic clerics assert in this Marian dogma that because the divine nature is inseparably connected to the human nature of the person of Christ, giving birth to the human nature in the flesh of the person of the Word of God justifies the title of mother of God. It is difficult to understand how intelligent clerics over the history of the Roman Catholic church could manufacture such an extra-scriptural heresy and teach this falsehood to others.
We assert that the Marian dogma of divine motherhood doesn’t hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. The person of Christ does have two natures, one divine and one human. These two natures are inseparable, though they are distinct and not mixed. Scripture also teaches that God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — has one essence manifested in three persons, and God’s divine nature is self-existent and not created. The God of Christianity is the uncaused first cause and, therefore, is not created by any entity. Consequently, God has no mother, and the term “mother of God” is an absurdity.
Mary is the biological mother of Jesus, the incarnate human nature of the Son of God. The human nature of Jesus is not divine, even though it is connected to the divine nature. The two natures of the person of the Son of God remain distinct. So, Mary is the earthly human mother of the man Jesus, not the mother of God.
The doctrine of the divine motherhood of Mary is false and unscriptural.
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY
Roman Catholic dogma holds that Mary was a virgin, having had no sexual relations with a man at the time the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus and conceived the fertilized egg in her womb. In addition, Mary refrained from having sexual relations with a man until Jesus was born (Matt. 1:25). So far, so good.
But then, the Roman Catholic dogma makes Mary a virgin for life. Scripture does not support this and is a heretical teaching. How do we know that?
Scripture states, as we mentioned before, that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:25). This one verse definitively destroys the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But there is more proof.
Matthew 13:55, 56 states, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” This passage of Scripture implies in context that Mary and Joseph had further natural-born children, male and female. Roman Catholic pundits say the words translated as “brothers” and “sisters” may also be interpreted as male and female relatives such as cousins. This is true. However, the context means brothers and sisters since the focus is on the sons of Mary and Joseph. Thus, the proper interpretation is their other children, namely, the brothers and sisters of Jesus. This also negates the Roman Catholic dogma of perpetual virginity.
But there is more. Scripture mentions Jesus’ mother and his brothers several times (Matt. 12:46; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14). These passages contradict the Roman Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s so-called perpetual virginity.
The Roman Catholic dogma claiming Mary’s perpetual virginity is unsupported by Scripture and is a heresy.
BODILY ASSUMPTION
The tradition of the bodily assumption of Mary has been around in the Roman Catholic church for centuries and was given papal notice by Pope Pius XII. “For the Catholic Church, the dogma was solemnly proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, with the dogmatic constitution Munificentissimus Deus. The pope avoids references either to sleeping or dying: “Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.””[6]
No express statement in the Word of God substantiates this doctrinal statement. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned in six or seven passages and, by our count, is found in only twenty-one specific verses in the New Testament (Matt. 1:16-20, 2:11, 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34; Acts 1:14). This seems to be a scarcity of appearances in Scripture considering the putative venerated state given to Mary, the mother of God and the queen of heaven and earth, by the Roman Catholic church. The occurrence of the names of true deity is voluminous compared to the few times the name of Mary is mentioned. God, Jesus, Christ, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appear hundreds of times and even thousands of times. If Mary was the person the Roman Catholic church purports her to be, we should expect her name to appear at least hundreds of times.
None of these twenty-one verses mention Mary’s bodily assumption or, for that matter, her purported divine motherhood, mediatorship, queenship of heaven and earth, perpetual virginity, sinless birth, and object of prayer and worship.
The Bible teaches that ALL human beings shall die (Acts 2:29-34; Heb. 9:27). Even our Lord Jesus Christ died a human death (Matt. 27:50; Rom. 6:10; John 19:18; Mark 15:39; 2 Cor. 5:15; Acts 2:23; 5:30; Rom. 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:3).
All humans MUST die a physical death, with only the soul continuing to heaven at death. Since this physical death must occur for all humans, except Jesus, as a result of original sin, it is correct to infer from Scripture that Mary also died, and her soul is now in heaven awaiting the general resurrection like all other deceased believers.[7] Of course, this does not apply to Jesus, who was sinless and has already experienced the bodily resurrection that other believers will experience at the general resurrection. The only glorified body in heaven at this time is that of Jesus.
Mary died at some time, which is unknown since Scripture doesn’t reveal this information. When she died, her body returned to the earth, and her soul continued life in heaven in the intermediate state to await the general resurrection. She is not a mediator for sinners or the queen of heaven and earth and is certainly not a divine object of believers’ prayers and worship. She is simply a pious, godly woman that God chose to be His surrogate by carrying the divinely conceived Jesus to term and delivering the baby Jesus to the world. This does not diminish in any way the magnanimous blessing bestowed upon this young woman as the vessel of God for presenting the greatest gift ever given to the world.
QUEEN OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
After her assumption, Roman Catholic tradition has long celebrated Mary’s coronation as the queen of heaven and earth. Pope Pius XII sanctioned this tradition in his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam of October 11, 1954.
Revelation 12:1-6 is one passage of Scripture that has been offered to prove Mary as the queen of heaven. This is the passage about the woman and the dragon. But here, the woman is not Mary but the church.
Also, we should remember that Jesus admonished a woman who shouted “to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” (Luke 11:27). In response, He could have said, “Yes, blessed is the queen of heaven.” “But he said, Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Not even Jesus would affirm His earthly mother, Mary, as queen of heaven and earth. So, why would the Roman Catholic church? In this passage in Luke, Jesus refused to elevate Mary to the deity level.
Jesus responded similarly in another passage, which is also found in Luke. The following occurred while Jesus was proclaiming the gospel to crowds of people, as recorded by Luke. “Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. 20And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” 21But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21).
Clearly, Jesus did not see His mother as a divine person. She was His earthly mother and a godly and pious woman, but she was not a divine queen of heaven and earth.
Another passage in Luke describes Mary’s visit with Elizabeth. During this meeting, Elizabeth told Mary, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” When the baby moved inside Elizabeth, she said, “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
These passages in Luke confirm that what Elizabeth understood and what Jesus knew was that Mary was blessed for her faith, not because of her earthly motherhood of Jesus. Jesus wanted everyone to realize that faith matters most and that having godly relations alone won’t bring eternal life.
The Roman Catholic tradition of Mary as queen of heaven and earth is a specious teaching not supported by Scripture.
INTERCESSION
The Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council elaborated on Mary’s title and role as Mediatrix. Because of her assumption, she is a mediatrix and intercedes between believers and Christ. However, the Council stated that this title and role of Mediatrix is not meant to distract the faithful from Christ or erode His role as the one Mediator. But how can it not distract from Christ as a mediator since the Council states that Christ is the ONE mediator and then makes the duplicitous claim that Mary is the mediator between Christ and His faithful saints?
Scripture expressly supports the claim that Jesus Christ is the sole intercessor in heaven for believers (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1). Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:34).
That this false Roman Catholic church doctrine is false teaching and heresy contrary to the Word of God can be proved expressly and conclusively by one verse in the Holy Bible. This verse in 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Again, the Roman Catholic church has created a title and role for Mary out of thin air. This spurious doctrine has no support in Scripture, and it is, therefore, pure heresy.
HAIL MARY
The deification of Mary grew out of Roman Catholic tradition, and one manifestation of this was the Hail Mary (Latin Ave Maria) prayer. Catholics are taught to pray a petition and praise to Mary as the mother of God, asking for her intercession.
Prayer is a communication or address, such as a petition, to one’s god. With this definition in mind, the Roman Catholic tradition of the Hail Mary prayer to Mary is a prayer to a god, but not the God. Jesus taught that there was only one triune God and He certainly didn’t teach praying to His earthly mother for her intercession in heaven.
The Roman Catholic tradition of praying to Mary has absolutely no support in Scripture. It is a teaching and practice that amounts to rank heresy that promotes a direct violation of the First Commandment (Num. 20:3).
PRAYERS TO AND WORSHIP OF MARY
The worship of God is the only kind of worship permitted for Christians. Theopedia defines worship in this way:
Worship is an active response to the character, words, and actions of God, initiated by His revelation and enabled by His redemption, whereby the mind is transformed (e.g., belief, repentance), the heart is renewed (e.g., love, trust), and actions are surrendered (e.g. obedience, service), all in accordance with His will and in order to declare His infinite worthiness.
We would add that worship involves glorifying awe, reverence, respect, admiration, devotion, and esteem from the worshiper directed to his or her sovereign God.
Christians may only worship the one triune God of the Bible (Ex. 20:3). The First Commandment forbids the worship of any human being, angel, inanimate object, apparition, place, idea, concept, or any so-called god or idol.
Prayer is an address or petition to God. One who prays to or worships Mary, the canonized Saints of the Roman Catholic church, a pope, priests, relics of the church, or apparitions are practicing idolatry and are in direct contravention to the First Commandment.
Prayer to Mary, such as the Hail Mary prayer, is a heretical act forbidden by the Word of God.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Mary was God’s surrogate for carrying to term the divinely conceived Jesus. God chose Mary, a godly, pious believer, for this work, and her biological motherhood of Christ greatly blessed her.
The criticism contained in this article is by no means a criticism of Mary. She did nothing wrong that would offend God or His Word. The teaching of a spurious and specious doctrine about Mary and those responsible for these unsound positions are being criticized.
Much of the teaching by the Roman Catholic church surrounding Mary is heretical nonsense. False teaching about Mary does much violence to the Word of God and can be confusing and have a detrimental effect on the spiritual well-being of Roman Catholics.
Though this Marian error is taught in the Roman Catholic church, this does not mean that all Catholics are not true believers in Christ. Many true believers misunderstand the true meaning of certain passages in the Bible. The author of this article has many dear friends who are members of the Roman Catholic church, and most, if not all, are devout believers in Christ, but their understanding of proper doctrine is wanting. This is important because if they earnestly pray and look to an object that is not a true deity, they could become lost in the faith and ultimately face the situation described by Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23.
Catholics who follow the heretical Marian dogma are sinning against God, and this affects their sanctifying walk with God. We pray that current Catholic brothers and sisters will undertake a discerning review of the Marian dogma of their denomination and properly reject this false and harmful teaching.
[1] Mal Couch, “The Heretical Teaching of Catholic Mariology,” Conservative Theological Journal 5, no. 15 (August 2001), 155-56.
[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 245.
[3] Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.
[4] Maureen Condic, “A Scientific View of When Life Begins,” On Point, Charlotte Lozier Institute (June 2014), https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/.
[5] T.A. Smith, “Dr. Jerome Lejeune: life begins at fertilization,” Clinic Quotes, (December 13, 2016), https://clinicquotes.com/dr-jerome-lejeune-life-begins-fertilzation/.
[6] Rev. David A. Fisher, “The Assumption of Mary: Full of Grace,” Catholic 365, June 30, 2023, https://www.catholic365.com/article/30136/the-assumption-of-mary-full-of-grace.html.
[7] For a discussion of Elijah and Enoch, see the article entitled “Did Elijah and Enoch Die Before Going to Heaven?” on this blog.
