MARY IN THE SCRIPTURES
Mary, the mother of Jesus, appears in the following New Testament passages: She is found in the
narratives concerning the events surrounding Jesus' birth, Matthew 1 and 2 and Luke 1 and 2; we
read of Mary at the wedding feast in Cana, John 2:1-11; we read of her in the event described in
Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:32-35; we read of her at the cross of Jesus in John 19:25-27; and,
finally, we read of Mary in Acts 1:14 in the upper room in Jerusalem. The passage in the first
chapter of Acts is the last time that we read of Mary. There she is said to be joined with the
disciples and other women in prayer and supplication along with the brethren of Jesus. In the
twenty-two books of the New Testament that follow the Acts of the apostles, Mary is not
mentioned. John, who was entrusted with her care by Jesus, does not mention her in any of his
three epistles or in the book of Revelation. There is no place of prominence, no position of
extraordinary honor, given to Mary in the pages of God's word. At no time can we read of prayer
being offered to her or through her. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives this
summation of what we can learn about Mary from the Biblical accounts concerning her. It says,
"The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled."
There is absolutely no indication in God's word of anything that even remotely resembles Roman
Catholic Mariology. Where did it come from? How did this system of veneration grow into what
it is today?
AS IT DEVELOPED
It is safe and correct to say that the early church knew nothing of what has come to be called
Mariology. Standing in sharp contrast to the Biblical account, there appeared certain apocryphal
writings in the latter part of the second century that greatly expanded upon Mary's role and did so
in legendary fashion. The most prominent of these was called "The Protoevangelium of James."
In this work all sorts of things about Mary are stated, such as the names of her parents, that she
stayed for a time in the temple as a little girl, a rather imaginative story about her birth, and it also
states that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Roman Catholic authorities have rejected this
work as spurious, and yet have absorbed many of its legends into their system of Mariology.
As time went on, many other writers added other elements to the story. It is interesting to notice
that a "church father" who is often quoted by Roman Catholic authorities as a Roman Catholic
source raised his voice against these legends and denied that Mary remained a virgin throughout
her life. His name was Tertullian and he died in 222 A.D. There is a picture of Mary found in a
catacomb in Rome that is dated from the latter part of the second century. The necessary
conclusion is that for a least 150 years after the establishment of the church, there was no special
attention paid to Mary. It was not until the middle of the second century that legends concerning
her began to appear.
In the centuries that followed, various groups arose that denied that divinity of Jesus as born from
Mary. They taught that the child conceived in Mary's womb was solely man and not divine until
after his birth. In response to this, the Council of Ephesus declared Mary the "mother of God" in
431 A.D. From this decree the theologians engaged in all sorts of speculations. By 449 A.D., we
find Mary being referred to as a perpetual virgin. The reasoning behind this is not hard to
understand. As the mother of God, surely purely human seed would not taint her womb. From
there the process of elaboration continues with Mary being declared personally sinless and the
teaching that she ascended bodily into heaven. This process has not stopped. Currently, strides are
being taken to have Mary declared co-mediatrix with Jesus. Over the years, the Roman Catholic
church has given her the title of Virgin of Virgins, Gate of Heaven, Queen of Heaven,
Co-Redemptrix, Queen of Sorrows, Virgin Most Merciful, and many, many others. The whole
system has no scriptural basis.
Since there is no scriptural support for Mariology, as well as no historical evidence to sustain it either, how does the Roman Catholic church justify it? It think a quote from the Manual of Catholic Theology concerning just one doctrine in the system of Mariology will explain their approach. It says, "Mary's corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by the Bible and dogma, that the church can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." I suppose that if that's the approach that one chooses to take, then the facts make very little difference. In other words, the Roman Catholic authorities believe their system of Mariology to be true because they say it is true. (From "Catholicism Examined," Edited by Greg Litmer and David Riggs, p. 112-114).