What's on this Page
Go to Table of Contents
On this Page: | A Few Words About Mary | Mary as Redeemer | A Catholic Apologist's Response to Mary as Redeemer | Immaculate Conception | Fathers of the Church on Mary | Why did Mary Die? | Other sons and daughters of Mary | Assumption | Real Source of the Doctrines of Mary | Apparitions of Mary | Who Gets the Honor? | A Catholic Prayer to Mary | Mary Existed before Creation Began? | Do Catholics Worship Mary? |
Devout Catholics think of Mary as akin to their own mother. They believe she is their personal protector, intercessor with God, and redemptrix (savior). They believe she has appeared (and still is appearing) in various 'apparitions of the Virgin Mary,' despite God's own Word that states that there is no communication between the living and the dead, save via the satanic, or what we often call the occult.
To 'take on' Mary is to, in effect, risk the ire of millions of Catholics. Let me say here, at the beginning, that I have no intention of 'taking on' Mary! I have too much respect for the mother of Jesus Christ to do such a thing. And besides, when it comes to Mary, the Mary of the Bible, there is nothing to 'take on,' nothing at all. Beyond the miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (rather than by Joseph, her husband), the Bible shows Mary as an otherwise normal woman and mother. The Bible refers to Jesus having both brothers and sisters,(1) and some of the 'Fathers of the Church' confirm this view. The 'Fathers of the Church' also refer to her death and burial in the city of Ephesus. Since death is the price we humans pay for sin, it is clear that Mary was a sinner just like us. She said as much herself.(2)
| Top of Page | A Catholic Apologist's Response | Table of Contents |
Unless otherwise noted, quotations under "What Rome Says" are from the following official Roman Catholic catechisms:
A: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, English Translation Copyright 1994, United States Catholic Conference. Numbers in brackets indicate page and article numbers.
B: The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon, S.J., copyright 1981.
C: The New Saint Jospeph Baltimore Catechism, Official Revised Edition No. 2; Copyright 1962.
D. Saint Joseph Annotated Catechism, by Rev. Anthony Schraner, Copyright 1981.
What Rome Says
|What God Says|
|(Ref. A1) "(Mary) by her manifold
intercession continues to bring us the gifts of
eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed
Virgin is invoked by the Church under the
titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and
Mediatrix." [A: Page 252, #969]
(Ref. A2) "She (Mary) cooperated . . . in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls." [A: Page 252, #968]
(Ref. A3) "Mary is called our mediatrix first because she cooperated in a unique way with Christ in his redemptive labors on earth. She is also mediatrix because she continues to intercede for us who are still working out our salvation on earth or suffering in purgatory." [(B: Page 69, #253]
(Ref A4) "Mary is the mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What that means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession. Through God's will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary's intercession." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, Copyright 1988; with Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur: Page 279)
(Ref A5) "O god,. . . grant, we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may attain the joys of eternal life." [C: Page 7}
Rome admits there is no Biblical support for this doctrine, but that is came from her 'sacred Tradition.' Want to know the real source of this doctrine of Rome? Just click here to find out!
|(Ref. B1) "Who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth. For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:4-6)
(Ref. B2) " Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34)
(Ref. B3) "Wherefore he (Christ) is able also
to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by him, seeing he (Christ )ever liveth to
make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
(Ref. B4) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
(Ref. B5) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,
the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)
(Ref. B6) "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:11-12)
(Ref. B7) "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:1-2)
Take a few minutes to compare the teaching of Rome with the Word of God. Keep in mind that Rome does agree with the Bible when it says that grace is necessary for salvation (Acts 15:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:5, 8-9). You will soon notice that Rome's idea of grace and the Bible's idea of grace are completely different!
In this matter of grace, compare (Ref. A4) and (Ref. B4). Now please answer the following questions.
QUESTION: Do you see that Rome teaches that the only way the grace for salvation gets to you is through Mary?
|QUESTION: Do you see that the Bible says that grace is free gift, directly from God, and yours for that asking?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Who do you believe - God or Rome?||God||Rome|
|QUESTION: Is it clear that Rome teaches that Mary is our intercessor, our redeemer, and the only one through whom the grace necessary for salvation can come to you?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Is it equally clear that the Word of God teaches that Jesus, and only Jesus, is our intercessor, our redeemer?||Yes||No|
The answer to both questions is clearly "Yes!" This leaves the Roman Catholic in a dilemma: since they contradict each other, both can not be right! Thus the Roman Catholic is forced to ask, "Who shall I believe - God or Rome?" Who do you choose to believe, dear surfer?
|QUESTION: Is there any record of an Apostle or disciple of Jesus praying to Mary.||Yes||No|
You can read the New Testament from beginning to end and never find so much as a hint that the Apostles or disciples every prayed to Mary.
|QUESTION: Is there any record of Jesus declaring that Mary had a share with him as the Mediator between God and Man?||Yes||No|
QUESTION: The Apostles and disciples never prayed to Mary. Jesus never assigned to Mary even the slightest role of intercession with God, but claimed that He, and He alone is our intercessor. These facts are certain. Therefore, isn't the Roman Catholic belief and practice of praying to Mary as our intercessor a direct contradiction of God's Word?
|Your Answer?||Yes, Rome contradicts the Word of God in the matter of praying to Mary as an intercessor.||No, Rome does not contradict the Word of God in the matter of praying to Mary as an intercessor. If you say "No." what is your proof?|
There, my dear Catholic friends, are the unquestionable facts. Will you continue to pray to Mary when that practice contradicts God's own Word? If so, why? Are you aware of how serious a matter it is to perform such worship as God condemns? Will you risk your immortal soul just to satisfy the whims of Rome? And remember, when you stand before Jesus Christ in the judgement to come, the Roman Catholic Church will not be standing beside you! You will be on your own.
| Top of Page | What's On This Page? | Comments? | Table of Contents |
(Paraphrase of Keating's statements) "Mary is necessary for grace, and therefore for salvation, because Mary said 'Yes.' when invited to become the mother of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus could not have been born without Mary's consent, Mary is therefore necessary for grace and thus for salvation."
As I tried to get clarification, I was immediately cut-off! Mr. Keating and his associate, ignoring my question and hitting the 'delay' button to keep my next question off the air, abruptly said, "And now to our next caller....." Not a word of goodbye! All other calls on that program were treated with respect, and each caller was thanked for his/her question. I was just dumped. Clearly Mr. Keating was afraid of where the questions were leading.
Don't believe it? Get a transcript or tape of that day's program and hear it for yourself! I had identified myself as 'Bob from Boston.' I was on right after a caller named 'Jay.'
There you have the official Roman Catholic position: Mary is the source of salvation, not Jesus Christ as portrayed in Scripture. There you have the official Roman Catholic reply to questions on the subject - ignore them, and keep them off the air.
See the problem, dear surfer? With her typical panache, the Roman Catholic church uses untenable, convoluted reasoning to 'prove' her teachings. But when pressed, she either refuses to reply or she backpedals into one of her mutually exclusive teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is full of them. That is why I encourage you to get a copy and study it with your eyes wide open.
BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION. History shows that the concept of a 'mother of god,' the 'Queen of Heaven,' who 'dispenses all grace' first arose on the plain of Shinar (in modern-day Iraq), in the city of Babylon, built by Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10) in direct disobedience to God's commands. There, in ancient Babylon, the mother-goddess Semaramis, pictured with an infant son at her breast, was called the "Queen of Heaven" and the "Mother of God." She also had the appellation "the hope of the whole world." Does any of this sound familiar? (Source: Dionusiaca, Lib. Xii, in Bryant, Vol iii, page 226).
Semaramis was said to have derived her power to mediate grace and forgiveness from that son, named Bacchus, and in other records, Tammuz. Tammuz was said to have died a sacrificial death and been reborn. (Source, ibid.) Mary is also said to 'mediate grace.' Interesting parallel, don't you think?
Do you know the story of Babylon? It is most interesting. You can read it in Genesis 11:1-9. God confounded the speech of the people, forcing them to spread out across the earth in groups that shared the same language. Guess what they brought with them? You are right; they brought their false religion with them. The only things that differed were the names of their 'deities' and some minor details.
CHINA'S 'HOLY MOTHER' Thus you can find Semaramis and Tammuz appearing in ancient China as Shing Moo, the "holy mother," with a golden circle around her head. (Source: Crabb's Mythology, Page 150. Also found in LePerelafitan, Les des Savages Ameriquains, Volume 1, page 235.)
EGYPTS 'DIVINE MOTHER' Yet again the 'divine mother' appears in Egypt as Isis, with her 'divine son' Horus (Osiris), with the same claims to being the 'mother of god' and 'mediator of forgiveness.' It is also of interest to note that in Egypt, the supposed physical body of Horus (the savior) was offered to believers in the form of a round, wafer-like bit of unleavened bread, with three letters imprinted thereon to signify the Egyptian trinity of Isis - Horus - Set. (Source: Bunsen, Volume i, page 438)
These letters, translated into the Latin language, are "IHS." and are imprinted on Rome's 'host.' The proffered meaning is "In Hoc Signos" (in this sign). It occurs to me that the phrase, "In This Sign" appears to have absolutely no meaning, no relationship to Rome's practice of the Eucharist. If there is a connection, it is not in evidence. Is in merely a coincidence of translation that the same English letters could stand for Isis-Horus-Set? If nothing else, it matches perfectly with the original Egyptian practice of eating a wafer-god.
My Roman Catholic surfers will easily recognize this symbolism. For my non-Catholic surfers, I should tell you that this is the exact same form used in the Roman Catholic Eucharist; only the names have been changed. All else remains as it was thousands of years ago in Egypt, and before that in Babylon. Without realizing it, our Catholic friends, thinking they worship Mary and Jesus Christ, really worship Semaramis and Tammuz.
ROME'S 'HOLY MOTHER' Rome freely admits to 'borrowing' many icons, images, concepts and beliefs from the ancient mystery religions, in order to 'Christianize' them. Yet the Bible mentions these particular beliefs only five times (Jeremiah 7:18-19; 44:17-19, 25), and in each case it is with a scathing indictment of the concept itself! God Himself condemned the concept of 'queen of heaven' and 'mother of god!'
When Rome adopted the pagan symbols and doctrines about a 'queen of heaven,' a 'divine mother,' a 'mediatrix of all graces,' a 'mother of god,' and the idea of a reborn redeemer's body and blood being physically present in a wafer of unleavened bread, only one thing changed - the names! All else remained intact. Thus do Roman Catholic believe and worship false gods based, not on the Bible, but on occult sources that God condemns.
| Top of Page | Immaculate Conception | Assumption | Comments? | Table of Contents |
The Immaculate Conception
|What Rome Says||What God Says|
|(Ref C1) "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, Savior of the human race, preserved
immune from all stain of original sin." [A:
Page 124, #491.]
(Ref C2) "The only person preserved from original sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ." [D: Page 70, #48]
|(Ref. D1) For all have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God; (Ro 3:23)
(Ref. D2) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Ro 5:12)
(Ref. D3) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)
(Ref. D4) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Ro 3:10)
(Ref. D5) "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1: 24-25)
(Ref D6) "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt 13:54-56)
(Ref. D7) "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3)
Alright. Now you know that the 'Fathers of the Church" do not unanimously agree on the Immaculate Conception. Better we should call it the 'Immaculate Deception!'
|QUESTION: Can you see that Rome lies when she claims the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' for the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception?||Yes||No|
Fortunately God has not left us without help. The Evangelical belief that 'scripture interprets scripture' applies here. If we can find other Scriptures that address the same topic, they should help us determine which interpretation is correct.
First Proof Consider first, the fact that, in the very same verse, the sisters of Jesus are also mentioned. The Greek term for sisters is adelphe, and means 'a full, own, sister by birth' (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: #79). If the term translated 'brethren' really meant 'cousins.' there would be no point mentioning sisters at the same time! That would be like me saying, of male and female cousins, "These are my cousins and my cousins."
Second Proof Another Scripture that discusses the general topic is this one:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Bible says that Joseph 'knew her (Mary) not until . . ." If Mary had remained a perpetual virgin as Rome tells us, this passage would be irrelevant. If they had remained celibate forever, what would be the point of this passage? Since Matthew felt it necessary to mention the topic at all, why did he not just say that they remained celibate forever? As it is, the passage clearly declares that Joseph and Mary remained celibate only until after Jesus was born. From that time forth, they enjoyed a normal marriage relationship that included sexual intimacy and resulted in other children. To believe otherwise would be to denigrate marriage, a union defined and ordered by God to include sexual intimacy.
Rome holds up to us Joseph and Mary as the ideal marriage. Can you imagine any marriage less ideal than one without such intimacy? What a mockery that would be! Are you a good, married, Roman Catholic? Do you take the teachings of Rome seriously? Alright. Are you then willing to give up all sexual intimacy to follow Rome's role model for a celibate marriage?
Third Proof Yet another Scripture that mentions a blood brother of Jesus is this one:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19)
The Apostle Paul specifically identifies James as the brother of Jesus.
Fourth Proof. Jesus quoted Psalm 69 twice in reference to himself (John 2: 16-17 and John 15:25). This establishes the fact that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm, or a Psalm that applies to the Messiah, or Christ. Further, Jesus attributes a literal meaning to Psalm 69, not a metaphorical one. Let's see what Psalm 69 says of Jesus, His mother, and other family members:
"Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." -Psalm 69: 6-9
|QUESTION: What possible reason could Paul have had to single-out James as the brother of Jesus?||Your Answer?|
|QUESTION: Since Rome portrays the supposedly celibate marriage of Joseph and Mary as the role model for marriage, don't you think you, as a good Catholic husband or wife, should FOLLOW that model?||
|QUESTION: Which Scriptures does Rome offer to support the idea that Joseph and Mary had a perpetually celibate marriage?||Your answer?|
|QUESTION: Is Mary the mother mentioned in Psalm 69?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Is it Jesus who is 'speaking' in Psalm 69?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: According to Psalm 69, does the mother of Messiah have other children?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Can you see that Scripture proves that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin?||Yes||No|
| Rome vs God | Consenting Fathers? | Brothers of Jesus | Mary's Death | A Logical Prerequisite? | Top of Page | Table of Contents | Comments? |
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." (Romans 3:9-10)
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
The Bible is very clear that all, without exception, have sinned. It also says that death is the price paid for sin. How many exceptions can you find in the term 'all?' That's right - none at all.
Had Mary really been sinless since her conception, there would have been no need for her to die. Yet die she did! If any of your Roman Catholic surfers can offer a reason for Mary's death, a reason that makes sense that is, please use my Message Board to send it to me right away.
The obvious logic here is that an immaculate conception requires that the parent have had an immaculate conception. If we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to say that, "For Mary to have been born free of Original Sin, requires that her father and mother be free of Original sin!"
There is no escape from this; we are only accepting the logical premise of Rome and applying it. Chase this back through Mary's family tree and you have a lot of immaculate conceptions, don't you!
"These two dogmas (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) had always been true. But the Church grows in her clear realization of what is revealed truth, and this takes time. Moreover, these two Marian dogmas provide an effective means of leading the modern world to Jesus through his Mother." (The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, Copyright 1981 by John A. Hardon, S.J.)
This statement of Rome deserves very, very careful evaluation. Rome says that the dogmas "had always been believed." This is a lie. Study the writings of the 'Fathers of the Church' and you will find that none of them were acquainted with such a doctrine. Rather, you will find some of them pointedly saying that Mary was a normal human being just like us - a sinner who needed to be saved - a sinner who died because of her sins - a normal mother who lived in a normal marriage with Joseph, with whom she had several sons and daughters.
It is only my opinion, but I am convinced that Rome just assumes Catholics will believe anything they are told. Sadly, this is true for many Catholic people! Rome must also assume that Catholics are too stupid, or too disinterested to check-up on what Rome says. Again, sad to note, Rome's assumptions appear accurate. Since well-programmed Catholics really believe that their salvation is Rome's business and not their own, why should they bother checking? Wouldn't that be a waste of time? And doesn't Rome lay a string of anathemas (curses) on anyone who challenges her supreme authority?
My poor, duped Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, are, as Jesus declares, blind followers of blind guides. Read about this in Matthew 23: 16-46. Where you see the words, 'scribes' and 'pharisees' substitute 'cannon lawyers' and 'priests.' The picture is pretty clear.
Next, note the statement that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are supposed to "... lead(ing) the modern world to Jesus..." The question I ask is, How?! The simple fact is that they do exactly the opposite! What with Mary already the 'mediator of all grace,' and with grace being necessary to salvation, these nefarious dogmas direct one's attention away from Jesus and to Mary. If you don't believe it, just attend a novena some time and see for yourself. In that direction, let's examine just one of the Roman Catholic prayers to Mary:
Regina Coeli (A Prayer to Mary)
"Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve! To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears! Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus! O clement, o loving, o sweet Virgin Mary." (The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Official Revised Edition, copyright 1962).
|Who is the source of all mercy?||Mary||Jesus|
|Who is 'our life?'||Mary||Jesus|
|In whom are we to place our hope?||Mary||Jesus|
|To whom are we supposed to pray (send up our sighs, etc.)||Mary||Jesus|
|Who is our 'gracious advocate' with the Father?||Mary||Jesus|
|Who loved us enough to die for us?||Mary||Jesus|
|Who 'shows us' or confesses us to whom?||Mary-Jesus||Jesus-Father|
|Who are we supposed to ask for mercy?||Mary||Jesus|
|To whom should we turn for salvation?||Your answer?|
| Top of Page | What's On This Page? | Comments? |Table of Contents |
"At the first reading for the feast of the Presentation of Mary says: 'The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. (Prov 8:22-23)."
"Mary's role is not just an individual one, but she also assumes a broader role as a minister of salvation for the whole human race." (The Essential Mary Handbook: A summary of Beliefs, Devotions, and Prayers. Liguori Publications, 1999)
Golly gee! And here I thought God's Word says that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all creation! But no, if you read the implication in this quote, Rome applies the passage in Proverbs to Mary. And again, I always believed that Jesus Christ was the only "Minister of salvation for the whole human race." Well, at least it is what the Bible teaches. But Rome - no, not Rome. She clearly gives those roles to Mary instead.
How does Rome explain her gross distortions of Scripture? Consider this for example:
"As well, Mary's motherhood of Christ and of us can be seen as an expression of the motherly care of God, who in Isaiah is seen as both Father and Mother (Isa 49:15, 66:13) (DCC§56)" (The Essential Mary Handbook: A summary of Beliefs, Devotions, and Prayers. Liguori Publications, 1999, Page 5)
Do the Scriptures offered support the argument that God is both a Father and a Mother? Let's look and see.
"Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you". (Isaiah 49:15)
"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem." (Isaiah 66:13)
Is God saying He is both male and female here? Not hardly. Is he saying he is a mother? No, but he does say that even a mother can forget her own child! Anyone with even a smattering of Scripture knowledge is aware that God very clearly states that he is Father - period. Jesus confirms it - period. This whole idea of a "father-mother god" is of pagan origin. It is what you could call 'New Age' thinking - except that there isn't too much that is new in it. Thus it is not really so surprising to find it arising in a modern day church that is the embodiment of paganism.
| Top of Page | Topics on this Page | Comments? | Table of Contents |
| Top of Page | Topics on this Page | Comments? | Table of Contents |
Roman Catholic Feasts of Honor
|Feasts that Honor Mary||Feasts that Honor Jesus Christ|
|Solemnity of Mary (Jan 1)
Purification of Mary (Feb 2)
Our Lady of Lourdes (Feb 11)
Annunciation (Mar 25)
Visitation of Mary (Mar 31)
Visitation (May 31)
Immaculate Heart of Mary (Sat. After 2nd Sunday after Pentecost)
Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Jul 16)
Parents of Mary (July 26)
Assumption (Aug 15)
Queenship of Mary (Aug 22)
Birth of Mary (Sep 8)
Our Lady of Sorrows (Sep 15)
Our Lady of the Rosary (Oct 7)
Presentation of Mary (Nov 21)
Immaculate Conception (Dec 8)
Our Lady of Guadalupe (Dec 12)
|Christmas (12/25) Birth of Jesus
Epiphany (Jan 6)
Easter (Spring) Resurrection
Good Friday (Spring) Crucifixion
|QUESTION: To whom does Rome give the most honor, Jesus or Mary?||Your answer?|
|QUESTION: Why does Rome elevate Mary above Jesus when it comes to offering honor?||Your answer?|
|QUESTION: Can you see how Rome contradicts the Bible in this area?||Your answer?|
| Top of Page | Topics on this Page | Comments? | Table of Contents |
| Top of Page | Table of Contents | Comments? |
To be sure, Rome categorically denies that Catholics worship Mary. What they do is to dissimulate. . . to assign and re-define other terms for the worship they offer to her. Rome's deceptive claim is that she "worships God, but only venerates Mary and the saints." To get an accurate picture, we need to examine both secular and 'sacred' (i.e., official Catholic) documentation.
To accomplish her deception, Rome invented her own form of 'correctspeak.' She did this by redefining terms that all mean one thing-worship. Rome uses "worship" with respect to God, or Jesus Christ, and "venerate" with respect to Mary and dead people. . . as if "venerate" had a completely different meaning than "worship." Nice try, but it does not wash. Fortunately, however, Rome also uses the term "worship" directly with respect to Mary, thus putting the lie to her dissimulation.
Consider, if you will, the following definitions from a secular source (the American Heritage Dictionary) and three sacred sources (The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism and The Catholic Encyclopedia, and, finally, Pope Paul VI's document Per il retto ordinamento e sviluppo del culto della beata Vergine Maria - esortazione apostolica di Suam Santita Paolu VI):
|QUESTION: According to the reliable source of the American Heritage Dictionary are the terms, adoration and veneration synonyms for the term worship?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Does the Roman Catholic Church assign different definitions to the terms worship, veneration, and adoration. . . as if they were NOT the same thing? (See citations from a Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia, below.)||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: How do you resolve this contradiction?||Your answer?|
Notice how this catechism gives different meanings to adoration and veneration. . . as if they were quite different things entirely. Notice, too, how it tacitly admits that worship is offered by Catholics to angels and 'saints' (dead people of good repute in the eyes of men). Now take a peek at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say!
So it appears that even the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that worship, adoration, and veneration are synonymous terms. And this, despite Rome's efforts to portray them as different things altogether. When you try to justify error, it is almost inevitable that some things will fall through the cracks; this is one of them. If the editors of that volume catch on, look for a radical re-definition in the next edition!
|"From the time that we were called to the Chair of St. Peter, we have constantly worked to
increase the worship of Mary (culto mariano)" [per il retto ordinamento e sviluppo del culto della beata
Vergine Maria - esortazione apostolica di Sua Santita Paolo VII, Page 2 ]
"... it reflects in the forms of worship and redemptive plan of God, by which the extraordinary worship for her (Mary), as also, every authentic progress in Christian worship is necessarily followed by a correct increase in the veneration of the Mother of the Lord." [Page 4, same source as above.]
"We wish to underline: the worship which the universal church renders to the All-holy-one (Mary) is a derivation, promulgation and unceasing increase of the worship that the Church has attributed in every age (to Mary). . . [Page 20-21, same source as above.] Gulp! And I always thought that God alone was the "All-holy-one!"
The worship of the Virgin (Mary) has deep roots in the revealed Word together with solid dogmatic foundations . . . [Page 65, same source as above.]
|QUESTION: Is it clear from official Roman Catholic documentation that Roman Catholics do worship Mary?||Yes||No|
|QUESTION: Rome claims that the worship of Mary "has deep roots in the revealed Word..." Can you supply even one example in which the Word of God tells us to worship Mary?||I didn't think so!|
| Top of Page | Topics on this Page | Comments? | Table of Contents |
1. Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 mention that Jesus had both brothers and sisters.
2. Luke 1:46-47.