Teachings of Mary (RC pt. 5)

Hello everyone, welcome to the Faith and Fries podcast podcast about Christian beliefs that is centered around God and his word. Today's discussion will be the fourth part in my concerns with Roman Catholicism and today's discussion will be about Mary's titles. So again, just as a disclaimer, I'm not a theologian Bible scholar or infallible, so I can be wrong and I'm not as educated on these things as I could be. And I'm also not taking these arguments to the fullest extent possible, there's probably many more points that could be brought up for both sides in support and in opposition that I'm just not able to make simply probably because I don't know them or know them well enough. I simply just want to make a simple case for why I have concerns with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. And again as a disclaimer, I'm not trying to tear down any of my Roman Catholic friends with their faith. I know that Mary is very dear to Roman Catholics and so this might seem blasphemous even for me to be speaking about this, but I do share genuine concerns about Mary and the role that she plays and all of the different titles that are given to her. And so in good faith, I do wish to speak about it and share why I have concerns with it. So if any Roman Catholic friends of mine are listening to this, please don't take offense to me speaking about this. And I can assure you that I don't hate Mary as I've been accused of sometimes by speaking about this, but I do love Mary and she's the mother of Jesus, but that is what she is. And so I want to share some of the concerns about these titles that don't seem biblical. So first, I just wanted to go into a prayer and then I'll speak a little bit more about my concerns before I get into it. Dear Heavenly Father, I thank you for this wonderful day and another opportunity that I have to share my beliefs and share your word. I pray that you help me through this episode to not stumble over my words, my arguments, and I pray that the cases that I make for these different topics are able to fall upon listening ears and those who have ears to hear to let them hear, and that people will be open to not take offense to the things I'm speaking about, but rather faithfully address and look at the concerns that I am bringing up and to know that I'm coming from good faith and I'm not trying to care down or rip on Mary or the beliefs that these friends of mine have. Amen. So first, I just want to read two catechisms and something that was set at the second council of NYSEA, the catechism 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. Even so, the liturgy of the church celebrates Mary as "I Parthenos," which means the ever virgin, catechism 500, against this doctrine, the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, brothers of Jesus, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ. And then we have the second council of NYSEA, which occurred in 787, which says, "If anyone shall not confess the holy, ever virgin Mary, truly and properly the mother of God, to be higher than every creature, whether visible or invisible, and is not with sincere faith, speak her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bore him, let him be anathema." Wow. So, I want to speak about several titles and characteristics that are attributed to Mary that are given by the Roman Catholic Church. The most notorious that I will speak about are as follows. Ever virgin, theotocos, which means mother of God, immaculately conceived, higher than every creature and bodily assumed. Some other titles I will briefly mention include Queen of Heaven, New Eve, Ark of the New Covenant, Refuge of Sinners, Help of Christians, Advocate, Helper, Medi-Atrix, and Kory Demtrix. A couple other titles that I won't discuss but still want to mention as common names are our Lady, Cedar Wisdom, Benefactors, and even Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Either just a handful of titles for Mary with their being about 50 to 100 recognized liturgical titles, aka titles used in worship, and about over 200 historically known titles. From the Bible, there are only a handful of titles given to Mary, including Mary, Mother of Jesus, Handmade, Servant of the Lord, Blessed Among Women, Favoured, and Highly Favoured. I will also mention 10 quotes from Popes about Mary in 4 common prayers that all cause concern. The main concern that Protestants and other Christians have with the titles given to Mary is that they are not given to Mary in the Bible nor they ever discussed by the Apostles or Jesus, and a lot of the titles seem to place Mary in a higher status or position than she was ever given in the Bible, risking idolatry or unjustified authority raising, essentially there is concern of giving someone higher authority than they should be given. Furthermore, a lot of her titles seem to take away from Jesus' unique role as mediator, benefactor, intercessor, sinless, and more. Also, some of Mary's titles bring up the question of the potentially skewed usage of typology. Typology is a method of biblical interpretation where a person, event, or institution, the type, which is found in the Old Testament, prefigures or points forward to a greater reality in the New Testament, called the Anti-Type. Common examples include Adam prefiguring Christ, which we see in Romans 5, 14 through 19. The Passover Lamb prefiguring Jesus, as we see in 1 Corinthians 5, 7, the Ark of Noah prefiguring salvation in Christ, as we see in 1 Peter 3, 2021, and more. The concern that exists is that typology is often used to justify doctrines about Mary that are not existing in Scripture, such as New Eve and Ark of the New Covenant, whereas biblical typology, such as the one mentioned above, have direct ties mentioned in Scripture. To start, I want to address Mary's perpetual virginity, which is the belief that Mary remained a virgin her entire life and did not have any other biological children. So there are three different points that I want to address, and this is about Jesus having brothers and sisters, the idea of Joseph knowing Mary, and the idea of the instructions for Mary's couples. So to start, I want to go to a number of passages in the Bible that say Jesus has brothers, or sorry, had brothers. To start, I want to go to Matthew 12, verse 46 and 48, so there is no verse 47, since some manuscripts insert verse 47, which says someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to you." But since this wasn't found in some early manuscripts, it's not universally included here. So in verse 46, it says, "While he, speaking of Jesus, was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him, but he replied to the man who told him, 'Who is my mother and who are my brothers?' He is stretching out his hand towards his disciples. He said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers, for whoever does the will of my father and heaven is my mother and brother and sister, and heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'" So I just want to speak it. As I said back in the Catechism, it said that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary, but sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ. This just doesn't make sense because it's speaking of Jesus and said, "Behold, his mother and his brothers." So it's natural that his family is here. So secondly, I want to go to Mark 3, 31 and 32, where it says, "And Jesus, his mother and his brothers came and standing outside, they sent to him and called him and a crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, 'Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.'" And he answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking about it, those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and brothers, for whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." The same kind of thing about Jesus is saying about, Jesus was the emphasizing the point of his biological family, but it's still the same point of his mother and his brothers were both there. So what it makes sense to say, "Oh no, this is his mother, but then brothers of a different Mary." It doesn't seem to make sense. next if we will go to Luke 8, 19, sorry, 19 in 20. This is again, this is just a sin not the gospel. So it's the same thing for all three of these. I just want to keep Delivering the point that in his mother and his brothers came to him, but they cannot reach him because of the crowd And he was told your mother and your brothers are standing outside desiring to see you He answered them my mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it Next I want to go to John to 12 Where it says After this he went down a cappernum with his mother and his brothers and his and his disciples and they just stayed there for a few days Next I want to go to John 7 verse 3 through 5 Where it says so the brothers said to him leave here and go to Judea that your disciples also may see the works you are doing This is again Speaking of Jesus's brothers so those are just some verses saying that Jesus had brothers But there are also a couple verses that explicitly give the name of his brothers So for these two verses I want to go to Matthew 13 verse 55 and 56 where it says 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 is speaking directly of Jesus his father Was a carpenter is this not the carpenter's son and to go back up to verse 53 It says and when Jesus had finished these parables he went away from there and coming to his hometown You taught them in their synagogues so that they were astonished and said where did this man get this wisdom in these mighty works And then in verse 55 is not this the carpenter's son speaking of Jesus is not his mother Jesus's mother called Mary or not his brothers Jesus's brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas and are not all his Jesus's sisters with us So again, it's very clear these are this speaking about Jesus's biological family If these were brothers of a different Mary then why would I say it's Jesus being the carpenter's son and his mother Mary It's specifically saying it is Jesus and next I also want to go to mark 6 verse 3 Which says is not this the carpenter the son of Mary and brother of James and Joseph and Judas in Simon And are not his sisters here with us and the and they took offense of him. So again just the same thing here The Greek word used in all of these passages for brother and sister is Adelphos slash Adelphi Adelphos slash Adelphi are both commonly used to refer to a biological sibling as we see in a handful of passages I will turn into a couple and then reference a couple more versus in Matthew 1 verse 2 Where it says Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac the father of Jacob and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers So right there brothers was that Greek word Adelphos slash Adelphi I believe So I forget I think it's Adelpho and Adelphos I don't particularly remember what was the singular in plural Then if we also go to chapter 4 verse 18 of Matthew as well Matthew chapter 4 verse 18 it says While walking by the sea of Galilee he saw two brothers Simon who was called Peter and Andrew is brother again two more examples of biological siblings We'll also see this in Matthew 10 verse 2 Where it says the names of the 12 apostles are these are these first Simon who was called Peter and Andrew his brother James the son of Zebedee and John his brother So the other verses that I won't mention are Luke 614 1039 through 40 John 111 115 1121 1132 Acts 113 and 122 These are just several other examples in the New Testament where this Greek word was used To mean a biological sibling The same Greek word can be referencing spiritual brothers and we see this in Matthew 238 Romans 113 and Acts 115 But this is less apparent and doesn't align with the context of the passages of Jesus in his siblings So the common argument is oh no Adelphos Lashadelphi can mean Kinsfolk or spiritual brothers The issue is that's not the context of the passage and the passage when it speaks of Jesus and Is this not the carpenter's son is not his mother Mary or these not his brothers and sisters It would make sense for him to be saying is this his father and his mother and oh his other Kinsfolk Which are his cousins It just doesn't seem to naturally make sense similarly the natural Most commonly used word or that Adelphos and Delphi is biological brother As I was the first point about the Bible Dispeaks that Jesus had brothers and sisters Which would mean that Mary had other children and therefore was not a perpetual virgin Second, I want to go to Matthew 125 Where it says speaking of Joseph But knew her not until she had given birth to a son and he called his name Jesus So the Greek word used for to know is Gennosco which is used by the Bible to refer to Sexual intercourse as seen in a couple other passages through the passages that I just want to refer to this Argenesis 4 verse 1 where it says now Adam knew Eve and his wife and she conceived in Borcan The Greek word used for until is like he us who or something and it usually means until the time when Meaning that a natural reading of the verse would describe Joseph refraining from sexual intercourse with Mary Until after Jesus's birth where he and Mary would resume normal marital relations Therefore, Mary would not be a perpetual virgin However, there's three main scriptures brought up to try and refute the idea of the word until And indicate that as a potential secondary meaning and I wish to address each But the first verse I want to go to second Samuel 6 verse 23 Where the argument is that it says and Michael the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death And so Catholic apologists were trying to use this to say well, it doesn't mean that at after her death she bore a child But the concern with this is the word until is in essentially zero Translations of this passage and instead says and Michael the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death What doesn't even use the word until? Next even if it did say until No one would expect for someone to be able to have a child after death So they wouldn't read it as oh after her death she had a kid But in Matthew 125 someone would be able to read that and say oh yeah After Jesus was born they resumed normal marital relations Next I want to turn to Deuteronomy 34 verse six Where it says And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth pure But no one knows the place of his burial to this day and again It usually they try and say that it says until this day However to this day is referring to when Deuteronomy was written not a universal eternal fact This is again with since this is part of the Torah it is commonly believed that Moses is the one who wrote this So when he says no one knows of his burial to this day Imagine the time when the people were actually receiving his writing you never said for all eternity That it wasn't this eternal fact Lastly, I want to turn to Matthew 28 verse 20 28 verse 20 where it says teaching them to observe all that I've commanded you and behold I'm with you always to the end of the age age which again in some verses will say until But this is simply marking the limit of his earthly presence as we know no he'll return at the end of the age as we see in 1 Corinthians 1524 So Jesus is physically with them until the end of the age But then he was bodily resurrected into heaven, but will appear a second time And that is when Holy Spirit was sent during his ascension in heaven So that's the second part where in Matthew 125 the most natural reading is Joseph resumed in natural relations with Mary after Jesus was reborn Joseph knew her not until Jesus had been born For the last point Paul speaks about marriage ethics in his letter to the Corinthians And I want to turn to first Corinthians 7 verse 1 through 5 Where Paul says now concerning the matters about which you wrote it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with the woman But because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights which are marriage rights in this context the right to sex is that is in the confines of a marriage. And likewise, the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time that you may devote yourself to prayer, but then come together again so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. As you know, as I mentioned, conjugal rights is essentially the debt or sexual obligation to your partner that married couples have. And that couple should not deprive each other, except for a limited time. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then she would be going against Paul's sexual ethics for couples who are married. Plus, the argument can't be made that Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, as some people try to say, because we see this contradicted in Matthew 118 through 20, 124, Luke 25, and John 145, which all say, speak about Joseph taking his wife. So they were married. So they can't have been said that they weren't married. Nor can the argument be made that Joseph was only present for a short time. As we know that Jesus still had both parents when he was at least 12. And we know this because in Luke 242, I'll turn me real quick. This is speaking about when Jesus was at the temple. It says, and when he was 12 years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group, there went days journey, but when they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So he had both of his parents at this time. And this is when he was 12. So even if people tried to make the argument, oh, Mary had Jesus and then Joseph died over the out of the picture, well, we know he was still in the picture for at least 12 more years. So I think that that goes past a limited time of departing from relations with one another, as Paul speaks about. Two additional verses are also used to try and support the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. And I want to speak about both of these. The first one is Ezekiel 44 verse two. Ezekiel 44 verse two, where it says, this is speaking, I'll go back to verse one. Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east, and it was shut. And the Lord said to me, this gate shall remain shut. It shall not be open, and no one shall enter by it. For the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it. Therefore, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out the same way. And then a speech later about then he brought me by way of the North Gate to the front of the temple, and I looked and behold the glory of the Lord, filled the temple of the Lord. And so essentially, this is an example of typology, where this verse that is speaking about this temple, Roman Catholic apologists will say, oh, that is speaking of Mary, where it says, the gate shall remain shut, and shall not be open, and no one shall enter it. Since the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it, and they say that is speaking of Mary's womb, the problem is that is not a good contextual reading of this verse, and there are many other better interpretations of which I'm not super well versed on, but this has proved my point of, if someone naturally read this, they wouldn't get anything about Mary from this. And similarly, I want to look at John 19 and 26 through 27. John 19, 26, which says, when Jesus saw his mother in the disciple whom he loves, standing nearby, he said to his mother, woman, behold your son, then instead of the disciple, behold your mother from that hour, the disciple took her to his own home. Some people will try and use this argument to say, according to Jewish practice, if the oldest son died, he would entrust his mother to the rest of his brothers and sisters. And so therefore, since Jesus entrust Mary to John, rather than his brothers, that means he didn't have any other biological brothers. But as we see in John 7 verse 5, which I will turn to very quickly, it says, for not even his brothers believed in him, which is speaking of Jesus' brothers. So Jesus didn't entrust Mary to his other brothers because they weren't believers, but John was a believer. Therefore, Jesus was entrusting Mary to his more important spiritual brother, rather than his biological brother. So it's kind of a summary for the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible seems a strongly support that she had other kids, and that's okay. Because again, there was the first point about the Bible speaking in many different places about the brothers of Jesus, and then specifically giving their names, along with saying the son of the carpenter and the son of Mary. So which would most naturally refer to his brothers. And then for the second point about Joseph not knowing Mary until Jesus was born, and then the third point about the sexual ethics of Paul given to married couples. And some people also make the argument, yeah, but they weren't a normal married couple, but they still were a married couple. And so there's no reason to think that they wouldn't have normal marital relations as every married couple should following Jesus. So there are three good different points of evidence to show that Mary was not a virgin, but then the only points to try and say that she was, are verses taken out of context, and then a couple verses that are in proper uses of typology. But the reason why this is so concerning is it should not matter if someone must believe that Mary is a perpetual virgin or not. But the issue is the Roman Catholic Church has it as an inathmatized statement. If you don't believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, then you are an athema, you're excommunicated from the church. And if you're excommunicated from the church and die, you cannot be saved because salvation is only in the Roman Catholic Church when you have knowledge of it. So that is saying you cannot be saved without believing Mary was a perpetual virgin. And it seems to go again, John 647, for instance, who says truly, truly I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. The Bible never says that we have to believe Mary is a perpetual virgin in order to be saved and it doesn't make sense to have to believe that. So the reason why Roman Catholics have to feel the need to take an unnatural reading of scripture is because they are under the presupposition that their institution is infallible and can't be wrong. And that is why it is so so dangerous because they will take a clear natural reading of scripture that is to me plain and will have to distort it and take an unnatural reading of it and point to places that aren't even related in order to try and prove something that isn't true. So next I want to speak about Theotokos which is Mother of God. This is why I'm a little concerned with this. But here's the idea, the logic behind the argument. Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God. However, saying this brings up several concerns, first the Bible never calls Mary the mother of God, but it calls her the mother of Jesus. We see this in John 2 verse 1 as one verse where it says on the third day there was a wedding at Canaan Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. And then also in verse 3 when the wine ran out the mother of Jesus said to him they have no wine. And lastly I want to go to Acts 1 14 where it says all these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer together with the women and marry the mother of Jesus. So the Bible never calls Mary the mother of God, but it does color the mother of Jesus. Secondly Theotokos runs a risk of blurring the creator creature distinction. Mary is a created human while God has uncreated an eternal. We know this from Isaiah 4310 in Psalm 92. Although I don't think I have to go to those because unless you are a more man or Jehovah's Witness then we all agree that God has uncreated an eternal. To call Mary the mother of God begs the question that God had a mother from which he came which isn't true. And based on the Roman Catholic logic does that mean that Mary is also the mother of the Holy Spirit and God the Father. Also early critics such as Nistoryus believe a more proper term would be Christokos because that's what the Bible uses and because Mary gave birth and only contributed to Jesus's human nature not as divine nature. Jesus's divine nature is the logos eternally existed as you see in John 1-1 where it says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Also the reason Theotokos actually came up was when a heresy was coming up that Jesus was not actually divine. And so Theotokos was given to prove and show the divinity of Jesus. However in more recent times it's become a more title to show Mary and to seemingly put her in the spot if she's the mother of God. When the original reason the title was given is to show Jesus came from Mary and Jesus was God. It's a people who reject that Jesus is God or wrong. As for magically conceived, that is the belief that Mary was conceived without original sin and lived her entire life without sinning, this is a huge problem. The reason is because the argumentation for this is behind the Greek word, kechera tomin, which is a perfect pass of participle and means to endow with grace, to favor highly to make full of grace and is used by the angel when greeting Mary in Luke 1.28. I'll turn that real quick, because most translations don't even say full of grace. Most first most translations say, and he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you." So some say, "O favored one," some say, "Holy favored, some say, full of grace." The Roman Catholic Church teaches that this word implies that Mary was free from sin her entire life. The Protestants teased that it just refers to the unique favor that Mary had in the role that was explained to her by the angel, which was carrying the savior of the world. You know, as it says in verse 31, "And behold, you will conceive in you, we will embarrass Sonny, she will call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the son of the most high, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom, there will be no end." So yeah, Mary is highly favored. She's carrying the savior of the world, who will come to save as people as Matthew one tells us. Furthermore, the other issue is that the Bible is clear that all have sinned in the world. We see this in Romans 3, 10 through 12, Romans 3, 23, saying, "For all have sinned "in fallen short of the glory of God." We also see this in Romans 5, verse 12, where it says, "Therefore, just a sin came into the world "through one man and death through sin, "and so death spread to all men "against speaking of mankind, because all sinned." And then we also see this in Ecclesiastes 7, 20, and 1 John 1, 8, where it says, "If anyone says that they do not have sin, "they lie in the truth is not in them." The Bible never gives Mary as an exception. However, the Bible does explicitly say that Jesus was sinless. And this is said in Hebrews 4, 15, 1 Peter 2, 22, 1 John 3, 5, and 2 Corinthians 5, 21. 2 Corinthians 5, 21, for instance, says, "For our sake, he made him to be sin, who knew no sin, "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The claim that Mary was sinless, even before Jesus, takes away from the message and importance of Jesus being the spotless lamb, as 1 Peter 119 tells us, about being a sinless person who completely fulfilled the law, but still died for the sins of the world. 'Cause this, who was sinless? Oh, it was Jesus. Jesus was the sinless spotless lamb to be slain. But now it's no, it was Jesus, but also Mary. But Jesus was specifically said as an exception, Mary was never said. As for Mary being higher than every creature, which is again what the Catechism says, "The verse I don't want to turn to is Matthew 11-11, "where from Jesus himself, he says, "Truly I say to you, among those born of women, "there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist, "yet the one who is least in the kingdom "of heaven is greater than he." Well, I'll mention this again. The point of Jesus in this verse was not to say that oh, we should elevate John the Baptist because he's the greatest in all creation, but it was Jesus pointing out that even the lowest in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest person on earth. But right here, from Jesus's own words, he says, "Among those born of women, "and Mary was born of women, "there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist." But then they say in the second council of Nicaea that Mary is to be higher than every creature, whether visible or invisible. John the Baptist is a creature, and he is the greatest in all creation, as Jesus himself says, "No one has been born "that is greater than him." Next for Mary's bodily assumption, this is the idea that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven and didn't have a physical death. The concern with this is that there's no scriptural evidence that Mary was bodily assumed. Interestingly enough, in the book of Acts, Mary is mentioned in Acts 4, but after that, she just completely falls off. The Bible never really speaks anything else about her. However, the Bible does speak about people who were bodily assumed, and it speaks about Enoch in Genesis 5, 24, in Hebrews 11, 5, into Elijah in 2 Kings 2, 11. The Bible also says that all believers die in a weight resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15, 22, and 23, and 1 Thessalonians 4, 16. With the obvious miraculous exceptions of Enoch and Elijah, death is the common outcome for humans, as we see in Hebrews 9, 27, where it says, "And just as it is appointed for man to die "and after that comes judgment." And then also in 1 Corinthians 15, 53. So again, death is the natural example, Enoch and Elijah were given as miraculous exceptions. Mary was never given as the example. So there's no reason to have to believe in Mary's bodily assumption. This is again like the sinlessness of Mary, where it says Jesus was the only exception to being sinless. Or sorry, it says that everyone was sinless. Jesus was an exception, and never said Mary was an exception, yet that is still held. So now I wanna speak quickly about some other titles. So firstly, Mary is called the Queen of Heaven, which is pulled from a verse in Revelation that speaks of a woman clothed with the sun and wearing a crown of 12 stars on her head. This is in Revelation 12-1. Roman Catholics believe that this is Mary and Protestants believe it is Israel or the Church, but both should be able to agree that it does not explicitly say that it is Mary. The other concern is, Revelation is a book about apocalyptic prophecy, and to turn to a book about apocalyptic prophecy to make a doctrine or to pull something from it is dangerous, especially about giving a title to Mary of Queen of Heaven. However, if some people don't know, the Bible does make use of the title "Queen of Heaven" five times, but each time it was used to reference the pagan goddess, known as Ishtar/Ashhtardi, in the worship was condemned. And the different references that we've seen for this were in Jeremiah 7-18, 44-17, 44-18, 44-19, 44-25, just that again all speaking about the Queen of Heaven, which was a pagan goddess. So the idea of Mary taking a title that was used to describe a pagan goddess, and then to give this title to Mary, based off a passage that came from a book that was about apocalyptic prophecy, which is not the best to use for determining doctrines and different things like this. Also, the Bible only speaks of Jesus ruling over the kingdom of God in Revelation 11-15, and it never speaks of a queen who was ruling by him. As for the title of new Eve, the Bible never speaks of a new Eve. It only speaks of Jesus as being the second Adam, and we see this in 1 Corinthians 15, 45 to 47. Even though the Bible tells us that Eve sinned first, which we see in Genesis 3, 6, in 1 Timothy 2, 13 through 14, Adam is held responsible for humanity. We know this because the Bible says that sin came into the world through one man, Romans 5-12, and many would be made righteous by one man's obedience. Jesus, and we see this in Romans 5-19. The Bible only speaks about the first Adam in the second Adam, Jesus, and that's because the distinction is largely significant in understanding salvation in God's plan for humanity. Trying to equate Mary as being the second Eve is not theologically important, nor is it scripturally stated. Therefore, it should not be a title that she is given. So I'm also called Mary the Ark of the New Covenant. This label is not officially top by the Roman Catholic Church, I believe, but it is a label still used by many Roman Catholics to refer to Mary. This brings up the idea of the incorrect usage of typology, where the idea is that the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle and the Old Testament held God, and Mary held Jesus, who is God, therefore, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. As in saying, she is the carrier of the New Covenant, who is Jesus. However, several issues arise with this. Firstly, the Greek word used for Ark in Ark of the Covenant is Aeron, and it means chest box container, in which Mary fails to fulfill that definition. For instance, Noah's Ark was a chest box container, it would fit that description. Secondly, the Ark of the Covenant, the Old Testament contained the Ten Commandments, a pot of mana in Aaron's blooded rod. Hebrews 9.4, and it was covered with the Mercy Seat, which is where God's presence actually was. So God's presence overall dwelled in the Tabernacle, as we see in Exodus 25.8, but his presence specifically resided right above the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant. But as we see in Exodus 25, 2021 through 22, and Leviticus 16 too. For additional information, Hebra. through for tabernacle is Mishkan and it means dwelling place. The ark contained God's covenant, which were the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments, but God Himself derailed in the entire ark and above it. Therefore, if Mary is being called the ark of the new covenant and it is referencing the old ark of the covenant, it is saying that Mary is in some way God Himself. While Jesus is the new covenant, as we see in Luke 22-20, Hebrews 8.6, 9.15 Jeremiah 31-31-34, he is also God. So, saying that Mary is the ark of the new covenant, disregards the Greek definition for ark in that context as well as the context of what the ark of the covenant was and its significance. For additional titles, also used to describe Mary are refuge of sinners, help of Christians, advocate, and helper. The concern is that the Old Testament consistently speaks of God as being our refuge in Psalm 46-1, 62-8, and 91-2. And the New Testament speaks of Jesus also as being our refuge, as we see in Matthew 11-28, Luke 5-32, in Hebrews 6-18. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that our refuge in help is from anyone other than God, let alone Mary or the saints. Furthermore, the Bible condemns and often speaks about seeking refuge from others in a negative sense. Let me see this in Isaiah 28-15-28-17, Deuteronomy 32-37-38, and Jeremiah 17-5. The idea of Mary being the refuge of sinners, help of Christians, advocate, or helper is nowhere in Scripture and blatantly in adversary with Jesus being all of those things. What about mediators? Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the distributor of all grace from Christ to the church, and they try to use the wedding key feast in Cano to support this that is found in I believe Matthew 3. The word mediator shows up four times in the Bible and three times it is referring to Jesus in the last time it is speaking of an angel. Of the times the Bible is speaking of Jesus, one is saying that Jesus is the singular mediator between God and men in 1 Timothy 2.5, and the other two instances are saying that Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant Hebrews 9-15-12-24. The Bible also teaches that from Jesus' fullness we have received grace upon grace in John 1-14-116, so not for Mary. Paul also speaks about ensuring no one fails to obtain the grace of God, and again we know that grace is received by faith, by an Ephesians 2-8-9, not by Mary or by some other mediator. So the idea that Mary mediates the grace from Christ is nowhere, supported in the Scripture as well as blatantly, honestly disrespects the true giver of grace, and that is Christ. Some Roman Catholics even refer to Mary as "co-redemptrix". The Bible teaches that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and men, as I said in 1 Timothy 2.5, and that salvation is only in Jesus, Acts 4-12, through Jesus, John 14-6, and it specifically says that this redemption is by Jesus' blood. Revelation 5-9 and Ephesians 1-7. Therefore, the title of "co-redemptrix" that has given a Mary and signifies her role in redeeming people just seems to be unbiblical and takes away from the one true Redeemer that is Christ. So that kind of sums up the different names that are given a Mary, and again I don't wish in any way to see that I'm being hateful towards Mary or to those who believe these different titles. I simply just want to show the concern of believing these things, and how that giving these titles to Mary seemed to put her in a position of authority that she was never put in, and because she was never put in those positions of authority or given these titles, I think that was for a reason. She wasn't supposed to be, and I think that's because it would run the risk of idolatry, and all of these things should be pointed to Christ. So when Mary is "co-redemptrix" and "commediatrix" and it's all these different titles slowly take away from Christ who are all of these very unique things. And so that's kind of my concern with it, and that a lot of these things they must believe because the Roman Catholic Church tells them they have to, otherwise they won't be saved, which is horribly sad. Next I want to speak about 10 quotes about Mary that come from different popes, which I'll rattle off. Pope Leo, the 13th said, "No one can go to the most high Father except through the Son, and similarly no one can go to Christ except through his mother." He said this in 1891 in the October 8th, men say. Pope Leo the 13th also said, "Mary is a most sure way to arrive at Christ, just as no part of our body is alive except through their head, so no grace descends from the head to the members except through Mary." 1894, Lucunda Sampair, expect Tassione. Pope Pius XII said, "From her union with Christ, she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the divine Redeemer's kingdom. Mary is the mediatrix of all graces." 1954, add Celi Ragnam. The same Pope also said, "The Blessed Virgin Mary is queen of heaven and queen of the universe, raised above all choirs of angels and saints." 1954, add Celi Ragnam, the same quote, citation. Sorry. Pope Pius VII said, "Hail holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope." He said this in 1815, "Decree approving the Salve Regina." Pope Pius X said, "Mary is the dispenser of all the gifts which Jesus acquired for us by his death and by his blood. Mary is the dispenser of all the gifts." 1904, add D. M. Iloum. Pope Benedict XV said, "Mary suffered with suffered with Christ almost to the point of death. She renounced her mother's rights over her son to procure the salvation of mankind. It can be said she redeemed the human race together with Christ." 1918, inter-sitalisia. Pope Pius IX said, "With her son as mediator, she is the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world, so that she is all but omnipotent in her prayers." 1849, Ubipremum. Pope Pius IX also said, "Let all the children of the Catholic Church fly with utmost confidence to this most sweet mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts, and fears." She delivers from death, she preserves from shipwreck. 1854, inter-fabulous deus. These are a lot of common trends seen among these, and I just wish to bring in several verses that I won't go to, but for people to reference, and that's first Timothy 2, 5, about Jesus being the mediator between God and man. John 14, 6, 7, Rome 5, Romans 5, 2, James 117, John 116, Hebrews 4, 16. Lastly, I just want to say four common prayers for Mary, the Hail Mary, which is the Ave Maria, used in daily prayers slash the rosary. For reference, I'm not sure exactly the number of prayers that are said in the rosary, but I do know that the vast majority of them and the most of them are Hail Mary's. This is what the prayer is. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Jesus, holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Concerns, this is calling Mary the mother of God, the Atokos, which I already shared my concerns with that earlier. Mary, interceding and praying for us, which I will speak about in a later episode on intercession and how the intercession of the physically dead Saints and Mary is not biblical, and continual prayer at the hour of our death, even though Hebrews 927 says that after death comes judgment. The next prayer is the Hail Holy Queen, the Salve Regina, is the hymn at the end of the rosary. Hail Holy Queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee, do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee, do we send up our size? Turn, then, most gracious advocate, bind eyes of mercy towards us. Again, concerns, Mary as this queen, which I spoke about earlier, Mary as our life, which I do want to turn to this one because in Colossians 3, 4, we're not saying John 14, 16, 14, 16, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is the life. Colossians 3, 4 also says, when Christ, who is your life, appears, then you will also with appear with Him in glory. So Mary is not our life. Jesus is our life. Furthermore, Mary as our sweetness, but we are told to rejoice always in God, in Philippians 4, 4, Mary as our hope. And for this one I have 1 Timothy 1-1. Mary being the one we cry to out to and send our size to. Again, I just run a mind in Psalm 18 and 6 in 1 Timothy 2-5 of Jesus being the mediator between God and men, and that God is our refuge and strength. I hope in the night. Also, Mary being a gracious advocate when 1 John 2 1 tells us that if anyone sins, we can know that, let me actually quote it, "My little children, I'm writing these things to you so you know we may not sin, but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father. Jesus Christ the righteous. Jesus is our advocate, not Mary. And Mary having eyes of mercy, which there's just no scripture. The next phrase, memoir, remember almost gracious Virgin Mary that never was it known that anyone who fled to Thy protection, implored Thy help, or sought Thy intercession was left unated. Concerns. This assumes that Mary has power in aiding every person who sought refuge in helping her. And again, the Lord is our refuge in strength, not Mary. Furthermore, Jesus is our mediator in 1 Timothy 2.5. Mary never was. Also, lastly, I have the sub-tune Presidium, which is a 3rd to 4th century prayer. We fly to Thy protection, O holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Concerns. We fly to Mary for our protection when, again, God is our refuge in strength, calling Mary the Mother of God, which I mentioned earlier, seeking Mary's deliverance from evil. And I want to just go to 2nd, for this one, 2nd Thessalonians 3-3, where it says, "But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one." So it's not Mary who is delivering us from all dangers. It is God. It's Jesus. And lastly, calling Mary glorious. Glory is only ever given in God, and sometimes referring to glorified believers in their resurrected. Okay, so that's all that I have for today, but I just want to speak again kind of about just the summary of all of this. So again, I love Mary. You know, I'm not trying to diminish her in any way, but I'm not trying to elevate her into a position that takes away from the glory of God. You know, this goes back to solely Deogloria, which is the 5th Protestant solar, that is, to the glory of God alone. Everything exists for God's glory, for His, not for anyone else's. And the concern is, I love Mary for the reasons why the Bible tells us. And she was the mother of Jesus, my Savior. She was highly favored among women because she carried the Savior of the world. She carried Jesus who would come to save as people, as I believe Matthew 125 tells us. And that is why she was highly favored. But to say then that she was sinless, to say she was a perpetual virgin that she was bodily assumed higher than every creature that she intercedes for us. And we should intercede, or we should seek her intercession, to say that she's benefactorous, advocate, helper, mediator, co-redaptorics, espouse of the Holy Spirit. All of these are just, they're just horrible. It's things that are never given in the Bible to Mary. And I hope those are listening, can understand why Protestants have such a huge concern with what seems like idolatry. This level of authority and importance that Mary is given that she should not be given. The Bible makes us wise for salvation. So, and it never speaks that we must believe Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she was immaculately conceived and that she was bodily assumed, but all of these are anathematized statements of the Roman Catholic Church. So again, here's this institution that is telling you you must believe everything we tell you in order to be saved. And you must believe Mary is a perpetual virgin, although she's bodily assumed. The honest question that I have for Roman Catholics is just logically thinking about the gospel. Why does it matter at all whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not, or if she was sinless? You know, I can tell you more than it mattered that she was not sinless and that she was a sinner because Jesus was unique in the sense of he was sinless. Mary being a perpetual virgin, if people want to believe that, I would disagree with them, but not to now say that you must believe that in order to be saved, that's heresy. That's terrible. Nor in the Bible does this say that, and the Bible speaks a lot about how we are saved. And never is it that we have to believe Mary is a perpetual virgin. We must believe in Jesus. And yes, we must believe in the right things about Jesus. But that is about Jesus himself. Yes, we must believe that he's born of the virgin Mary. But that's it. That's where it ends for the Mary portion. We also must believe that Jesus has a fully divine and fully human nature. We must believe that he's part of the Trinity and that he died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day in accordance with scriptures as first Corinthians tells us. But the part about what we need to believe about Jesus with Mary is simply that he was born of the virgin Mary. That's it. That's where it ends. Nor does it say that we need to believe all of these extra man-made doctrines that are put on by the Roman Catholic Church. And to then have all of these prayers directed to Mary, all of these titles, it truly and honestly takes away from Jesus. And I know that might offend some people who listen to this or that they will claim that it doesn't. But if for sure runs a risk of it, one must agree. You know, I wouldn't call anyone else mediator or choreedometrics or sinless. These things were unique titles given to Jesus. And that's why they are unique. This is our Savior. He's unique in these aspects. No one is alike him. So that is a lot of the concerns that I have with this. That not only are these hundreds, you know, 50 to 100 recognized titles and more than 200 historical titles given to Mary. When the Bible alone only gives her about four titles and the Bible only gives Jesus a large handful of titles, not even close to the number that are given to Mary. And that not only are all of these titles given to Mary that are not scripturally supported and seem to even distort scripture and twist it and take away from Jesus. But now some of these titles are also required in order to be saved. So these reasons alone are why I believe the Roman Catholic Church is unbiblical. So again, I just want any Roman Catholic friend or anyone who is listening to this to just take a second to think, or any of these titles given to Mary in the Bible naturally in scripture without having to distort scripture or have an unnatural reading of it. Let the Jesus said in John 1717, sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth. God's word is truth. It is clear. It's perspicuous in a lot of it. You know, we believe in the perspicuity of scripture. There are times when it is difficult to understand. But when there are verses that are clear about certain things and people just take them and deny them and do and have to bend over backwards to show otherwise. That should be telling them something. You know, and for simply just the perpetual virginity, I would say, there's so much evidence to say she was not a perpetual virgin and so little evidence to say she was. So why must you bend over backwards to believe in this is because your church is telling you that you must. And so then I think that should take into question about why you following this church they were they are telling you to follow something that is unbiblical and that's the problem. So look at these titles consider does the Bible give all of these titles to Mary that the Roman Catholic church says we must use and that we must believe otherwise we aren't saved. And then to also say is there a potential concern with using any of these titles for Mary if they were not truly given in the Bible, especially titles that seem to put her in a higher position such as co redemptrix of all humanity or the dispenser of all the graces given to us by God. So, and then just to take that into question that so I just want to pray real quick and I'll do my closing. The Heavenly Father, I pray that you just help everyone who is listening to this to look at your word and meditate on it and to let it speak for itself. I pray that they can see the concerns that I have over all these titles that are unbiblical that are given to Mary and why it's such a big concern was because they take away from you Lord, they take away from Christ and his work and his role. Christ is the mediator between God and us, Christ is the reason that we are redeemed, Christ is the mediator of graces that we are given, Christ is the redeemer, you are the refuge of sinners, you are the help of Christians, you are the advocate, the benefactor, all of these, you are the one we fly to when we seek help. I pray that you help people understand and see my concern for why this is a big problem to believe these things and for them to then take the scripture and just trust in what scripture teaches not what institution teaches when it tells them that they must believe on biblical things. Thank you, everyone, for listening. episode. If anyone would like to try and contact me or wish to try to refute me on any of these things in a courteous manner, please let me know at faith and fries, faith and [email protected]. And or if they have any questions that they would like me to talk about. And thank you again for everyone listening and I hope you'll be able to join me in the rest of my series that I have about the good turns that I have with Roman Catholicism. Thank you and goodbye. God bless.