"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio of Peitrelcina

Monday, March 25, 2013

Vatican II: Renewal or a New Religion?

The apostate conclave of the false Vatican II sect

The following article was taken from www.catholicapologetics.info to whom sole credit belongs:

"A Great Renewal." "A Bigger and Better Church." "A Second Pentecost." That's what we were promised when our bishops returned from Rome after having approved sweeping changes to the Church's liturgy, discipline, and its entire orientation. And yet despite the initial enthusiasm, four decades later the Church and all of society finds itself in the midst of terrible crisis and confusion. We must ask ourselves: has the present crisis been caused by Vatican II itself or by a "misapplication" of it? Is the true "spirit" of Vatican II one of renewal or one of revolution and of a whole new religion? To begin our study of these questions and related issues, let's compare Vatican II to past Church Councils.

How Does Vatican II Stack Up Against Other Ecumenical Councils?

Previous 20 Ecumenical Councils:

Called at a time of emergency in the Church.

Purpose was to address a serious problem and to condemn errors that threatened the Church.

Holy Ghost solemnly invoked to protect Council from error.

Errors of the time were condemned.

Teachings contained in Council documents were always built on past Tradition and are clear and unambiguous.

Council documents (teachings) are binding upon all Catholics under pain of excommunication.

Council teaching is always infallible.

These Councils were followed by a great renewal and growth after their implementation.

 Vatican II:

Called at a time of peace in the Church.

Purpose was to make the Church which had been flourishing under Pope Pius XII even better. Doctrinal. Pastoral.

Holy Ghost not solemnly invoked in the traditional way.

No errors condemned. Atheistic Communism and Modernism ignored.

Teachings in this Council's documents are often ambiguous and sometimes contrary to past Tradition.

Council documents are not binding upon all Catholics due to their "pastoral" nature.

Council teaching is not always infallible.

This Council was followed by a great disaster after its implementation. Nowhere do the fruits of Vatican II show real growth.

Was Vatican II Necessary?

No-one disputes that the Catholic Church had been flourishing before Vatican II. Pope John XXIII commented on "the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality." (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.) It was probably because the Church was doing so well that the Cardinals were shocked when Pope John first announced on Jan. 25, 1959, his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity. Cardinal Pellavicini stated:

"To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Cardinals had plenty to fear about having a Council in the 1960?s.

As early as May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI had wanted to convoke an Ecumenical Council to condemn the modern errors of Communism and Modernism. The Cardinals at that time voiced strong opposition to the idea, stating that so many bishops had been imbued with Modernist and liberal ideas that such a Council would do more harm to the Church than good. Cardinal Billot said:

"The worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists . . . are already getting ready . . . to bring forth a revolution in the Church, like that of 1789 [in France]." (Fr. R. Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality of The Second Vatican Council, (French publ.), pp. 9-10).

Due to the dangers involved, Pope Pius XI gave up on the idea of an ecumenical council. He had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Quas Primas (Dec. 11, 1925) restating the rights of Christ the King, Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928) condemning false ecumenism, Casti Connubii (Dec. 31, 1930) condemning the errors of divorce, artificial birth control and abortion, Mit Brennender Sorge (Mar. 14, 1937) condemning certain errors of Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris (Mar. 19, 1937) condemning Communism.

Pope Pius XII decided to resume the project of an Ecumenical Council in 1948, (Fr. R. Dulac, p. 10) because new errors had spread in the Church. But he too had to abandon the idea because by his time ideas of revolution and rebellion had spread to even more bishops and the apparent necessity of such a Council was outweighed by the dangers. Pope Pius XII had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Humani Generis (Aug. 12, 1950) where he condemned several modern errors, including the evolutionary errors of Teilhard de Chardin, and Ad Sinarem Gentem (Oct. 7, 1954) where he condemned certain errors of the Communists.

In 1959, when Pope John XXIII talked about holding Vatican II, the spread of Modernism and revolution among the bishops had grown worse still, and it even affected many Cardinals. It had only been due to the strong-armed rule of Pope Pius XII that the "rebel" clergy had been kept under control. Under the good-hearted Pope John XXIII, the rebels were able to get out of control and let loose their revolution in the Church. Nonetheless, there were several Cardinals who advised Pope John XXIII against having an Ecumenical Council. Buoyed up by his boundless enthusiasm, Pope John XXIII ignored the Cardinals, decided to tempt God and held an Ecumenical Council anyway.

Was Vatican II Infallible?

The Cardinals knew that at a doctrinal Council the Modernist bishops would prolong the discussion of definitions endlessly and that such a Council would never end. It was decided that Vatican II would be a pastoral Council. (Fr. R. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books, p. 20). The fact that Vatican II was a pastoral Council and all the other Ecumenical Church Councils in the Church were doctrinal, makes all the difference in the world.

Doctrinal teachings are always true. Every Catholic must believe the same doctrinal teachings. In fact, anyone who deliberately denies any of the infallibly defined teachings of the Church, if acting willfully and not out of ignorance, is a heretic and is automatically excommunicated from the Church. As Pope Pius XII taught on June 29, 1943, in his encyclical ON THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST:

"Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith."

In order that everyone might clearly understand what they have to believe, doctrinal teachings are always expressed in language that is clear, precise and unambiguous.

Pastoral guidelines and "teachings" cannot be judged to be either "true" or "false." This is because pastoral pronouncements, such as whether books or tape recordings might be useful teaching tools to present the Catholic Faith more effectively, do not apply to all Catholics but are applicable only in those areas where they are pastorally helpful. Thus pastoral pronouncements, rather than being "true" or "false," are instead considered to be "helpful" or "not helpful." And so pastoral pronouncements must be interpreted by each bishop and implemented according to the local situation. The wording of pastoral pronouncements must necessarily be general and vague so that they can take into account the diverse pastoral situations of the whole world, from those of the poor agricultural nations to those of the rich industrialized ones.

The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at an Ecumenical Council. To ensure that the teachings at doctrinal Ecumenical Councils are true and contain no error, the Holy Ghost is solemnly invoked at such Councils. As Pope Pius IX taught on March 12, 1870, at the time of Vatican Council I:

"The Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Ghost . . . it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what is to be believed."

Doctrinal Ecumenical Councils form part of the Church's solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. By the solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, each and every doctrinal teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium is assured to be infallible.

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither "true" nor "false", and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church's day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

It is a consequence of the Church's infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught "always and everywhere" in the Church. If a new "teaching" does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:

"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth."

Thus we may conclude from this that if a "teaching" proposed to us by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is contrary to previous Church teaching, then the new teaching is not infallible, not from the Holy Ghost, and is not to be believed or obeyed. Archbishop Felici, the Council's General Secretary, at the closing of Vatican II, confirmed that we must judge the infallibility of individual pronouncements made by Vatican II by comparing them with previous Church teaching (emphasis ours):

"We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic [infallible] definitions; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations." (Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter, "Ecumenism is a Fraud", Autumn 1988, p. 3; also New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.2).

The Pope said that Vatican II was not Infallible

Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

Later, on Mar. 8, 1972, the same Pope repeated that

"it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions."

The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:

"Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

Thus we conclude that because Vatican II was not infallible like the previous doctrinal Ecumenical Councils had been, it was possible that not only mere ambiguities but actual errors were able to creep into the Council documents. It is shocking enough to realize that errors were possible in the documents of Vatican II. We must now ask: are the errors there?

Do the Documents of Vatican II Contradict Church Teachings?

The Church Teaches:


"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime." - Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.

"[It is an error to say that] "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.

Modern World 

"It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity." - Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.

"No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other . . . It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men." - Pope Leo XIII, Sappientiæ Christianæ, #6 & 7, Jan. 10, 1890.

"About the Rights of Man as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God." - Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.

Religious Liberty 

"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls . . .namely that liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society." - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.

[It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.

"Men who really believe in God must  . . . understand that differing modes of worship . . . cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." - Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.


"The authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme . . . the bishops . . . do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority." - Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #14, June 29, 1896.


"Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth." - Pope Pius XII, Mar. 9, 1956.

Vatican II Teaches: 


"It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren." - Decree on Ecumenism, #8.

"The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion . . . these actions . . . can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation." - Decree on Ecumenism, #3.

Modern World 

"the Church . . . can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life . . . so that she may . . . adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44.

"Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.

"The Church proclaims the rights of man." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.

Religious Liberty 

"The human person has the right to religious freedom . . . this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." - Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2.

"a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people...the profession or repudiation of any religion . . . government is not to act . . . in an unfair spirit of partisanship." - Declaration on Religious Freedom, #6 & 7.

"The right of all . . . religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice." - Declaration on Religious Freedom,  #4 & 6.


"Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff . . . the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church." - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #22.


"Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #16.

Errors in the Council Documents Caused the Spirit of Vatican II

Ecumenism - As a result of ecumenism we have put the tabernacle, rosary, beautiful statues and vestments to the side in our churches because these are "unecumenical." Also as a result of ecumenism, we had no condemnation of Communism at Vatican II. This is because of the Vatican-Moscow Agreement of 1962 whereby the Vatican promised not to condemn Communism if Moscow would agree to send delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church to Vatican II. This policy of "no direct condemnation of Communism" is still in effect to this day. (By contrast, during the reign of Pope Pius XII, any Catholic who voted for a Communist candidate in a general election was automatically excommunicated.)

Modern World - Many post-Vatican II reforms, which tend to "water down" the Church's teaching, have been made in order to please the world. (note that the Beloved Disciple, St. John, warned the people of his day: "Every spirit that dissolveth [waters down] Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist" I Jn. 4:3. St. James the Apostle also said: "the friendship of this world is the enemy of God. Whoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." Jas. 4:4). These post-Vatican II reforms include the abandonment of a distinctive religious habit for nuns, brothers and priests, a softening of the "offensive" teachings on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality, and the increasing involvement of the Church in socialist "causes." (Pope Pius XII, in a speech given on Mar. 9, 1956, confirmed that: "The Church . . . has . . . no mandate . . . no purpose of a cultural order. The purpose which Christ assigns to Her is of a strictly religious nature.") The true Mission of the Church is to proclaim the Rights of God, and convert men to the Truth so that they may please God and save their souls, and not to proclaim the rights of man, and convert the Church to the world so that the Church may please men.

Religious Liberty - The Vatican II teachings on religious liberty say that a government should not "impose" Catholic morality on others. We'll give the example of how the bishops of two countries "obeyed" this "teaching" of Vatican II.

In Canada in 1968, the Canadian bishops, correctly interpreting the "teachings" of Vatican II, told the Justice Minister of Canada, John Turner (who was a Catholic), that it was not possible for a Catholic to "impose" his moral views on the civil law: nor was it possible for the Canadian Government to act "in an unfair spirit of partisanship" or to "impose the profession of any religion" - such as the Catholic religion - on its citizens. The Vatican II teaching on religious liberty prevents any government from passing laws based on Catholic morality. After the Canadian Bishops advised Mr. Turner, in 1969 he liberalized Canadian laws on abortion, homosexuality, divorce, prostitution and pornography. And so Canada had abortion on demand before the USA did, thanks to the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty. It is also not surprising that the bishops in Canada and elsewhere give no real opposition to the liberalization of laws on abortion, divorce, prostitution, pornography, and homosexuality, as these laws had previously "imposed" upon non-Catholics an "unfair" adherence to Catholic Morality.

In the USA, prior to Vatican II, every film made by Hollywood had to pass the scrutiny of a national board established by the US bishops. After Vatican II, the US bishops realized that their censorship of the movies "imposed" their moral views on the rest of the country. And so, in obedience to Vatican II, they disbanded their censorship board (much to the delight of the makers of pornography). And so, in a certain way, pornography is widespread in the USA and the rest of the world, because of the Vatican II "teaching" of religious liberty.

And so today, when any politician says: "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others", he or she is only being obedient to the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty. It is also true that when Catholics protest against abortion, they are actually disobeying Vatican II, because they are trying to "impose the profession of any religion" - in this case the Catholic religion - on their fellow citizens.

The Church's true teaching on religious liberty and religious tolerance was very clearly taught by Pope Pius XII on Sept. 7, 1955:

"The Church . . . regards as an ideal the unity of the people in the true religion and the unanimity of action between itself and the state."

The true religion is the Catholic religion, (if someone doesn't believe this, then why are they still a Catholic?) and although the purpose of the Church is not political, the laws of the state must be made to work in unity with the laws of the Church, which represents the Law of God.

Collegiality - In many countries we can see the disastrous results of the Vatican II teaching of collegiality. In Canada, on September 27, 1968, the Canadian bishops, invoking "collegiality," issued their now famous "Winnipeg Statement," which allowed and even encouraged Canadian Catholics "in good conscience" to disobey the Church's clear position against artificial birth control. It was clearly a teaching of morals and was, in the words of the Canadian bishops, "an exercise of the teaching authority of the Canadian bishops." However,  Pope Pius VI declared in Auctorem Fidei, #85, Aug. 28, 1794, that:

"The proposition stating that: . . . controversies in regard to faith or morals . . . can be ended by an irrefutable decision made in a national council [of bishops] . . . is schismatic and heretical."

From this we can see that in actual fact, by claiming the authority to make decisions on moral teachings, especially when those decisions contradict Church Teaching, the issuing of the Winnipeg Statement itself was a formal act of schism with Rome, the setting up of a schismatic "Canadian Church." The very use of the term "Canadian Church" by the bishops shows that the schism is a reality.

The Church and The Truth - The Church is the source of all truth. This is what Jesus Christ taught when He told His disciples: "When the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all truth." (Jn 16:13). The Church does teach infallibly, as at the 20 Ecumenical Councils before Vatican II. At these Councils it was necessary to solemnly invoke the guidance of the Holy Ghost to ensure infallibility. As previously noted, the Holy Ghost was not solemnly invoked at Vatican II. Why then is it that some bishops at Vatican II claimed that the Church made errors before Vatican II, but now they refuse to admit that the Church could possibly make an error after Vatican II?

Who Won at Vatican II?

Considering that so many errors were taught at Vatican II, we can only wonder: who benefited by such a Council? Thus, it is only reasonable to ask the question: who won at Vatican II?

Modernists - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Modernists in the Church? Prof. Van der Ploeg, O.P., the Dutch biblical scholar, said that "the rise of neo-Modernism is historically connected with the Second Vatican Council." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.2)

Communists - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Communists against the Church? At its 11th Party Congress the Italian Communist Party commented on Vatican II, saying that

"the extraordinary awakening of the Council, which was rightly compared with the Estates General [in France] in 1789, has shown the world that the old politico-religious Bastille [the Church] is shaken to its foundations . . . A hitherto unforeseen possibility has emerged for us to draw nearer to our final victory . . . the Council itself is providing us gratis with the best means of reaching the Catholic public . . . never was the situation so favorable for us." (Bishop Graber, St. Athanasius, pp. 64-65).

Fr. Yves Congar, one of the priest "experts" advising the bishops during Vatican II, confirmed that "the Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution," referring to the Communist Revolution in Russia in October, 1917. (New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.1).

French Revolution of 1789 - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the French Revolution of 1789 in the Church? Cardinal Suenens said, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church." (New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.1). We also find written in the OSSERVATORE ROMANO, the official Vatican newspaper, on Jan. 18, 1984: "The Church . . .with the Council, has assumed and surpassed the liberal democratic conquests of the French Revolution." (de Lassus, p. 17). And finally Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking in his new book PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, said that the text of the Vatican II document THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD "represents an attempt at an official reconciliation of the Church with the world as it has been since 1789." (de Lassus, p. 22)

Secret Societies - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the secret societies against the Church? An excommunicated priest named Fr. Roca had this to say at the end of the last century:

"The liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council . . . the Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the Fathers of the last Council will forge." (Bishop Graber, p. 35)

Fr. Roca could certainly be referring to Collegiality. A Freemason named Yves Marsaudon, in his book ECUMENISM AS SEEN BY A TRADITIONAL FREEMASON, wrote that as of 1908:

"the goal is no longer the destruction of the Church but rather to make use of it by infiltrating it." (Bishop Graber, pp. 38-39)

After Vatican II, the Grand Orient Lodge in France reported a "gigantic revolution in the Church" calling it "a prelude to victory". (Bishop Graber, p. 71)

Protestant Reformers - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Protestant Reformers in the Church? In the French journal, LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE of July 3, 1983, a mixed group of Catholics and Lutherans declared that

"among the ideas of Vatican Council II, one can find a welcoming of the requests made by Luther." (de Lassus, p. 17)

It is also worth considering the Vatican II debates in November of 1962, during which the bishops were debating a text "on the sources of Revelation." It has always been the teaching of the Church that there are two sources of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition. Scripture of course is the Bible and represents all the written books handed down through the ages, terminating with the Age of the Apostles and containing God's Revelation. Tradition is the second source of Revelation and contains all the other things that Christ taught His Apostles: "To them also He showed Himself alone after His Passion by many proofs, during forty days appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3) and "Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." (Jn 20:30). These things taught by Jesus were not written down by the apostles but were passed orally from generation to  generation. They included how to say Mass, how to perform the other sacraments and rituals as well as other aspects of Church teaching. The Protestants deny Sacred Tradition, relying on "Scripture alone." But Pius XII was one of several Popes to teach us as he did on Oct. 24, 1954, about "the double source of Catholic teaching, namely Sacred Scripture and Tradition." The text that the bishops were debating strongly stressed that there were two sources of Revelation. This offended the Protestants however, and a 62% majority (Wiltgen, pp. 49-51) of bishops voted to suspend discussion on the text until an ecumenical version more pleasing to Protestants could be written.

Vatican II Compromised The Blessed Virgin Mary

How could God have allowed the bishops to approve so many errors at Vatican II? The answer may be found in the way the bishops treated the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council. Instead of boldly proclaiming her, the bishops were ashamed of her, and they compromised the Blessed Virgin Mary twice during the Council, because she was not "ecumenical."

The first compromise took place in the Fall of 1963. The bishops were asked to discuss a text on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Very quickly they became divided. Instead of having a document on the Blessed Virgin alone, some bishops thought that the text should be included as part of another document, because this would help foster ecumenical dialogue with "the separated brethren" and also because it would help provide "an antidote to devotional excesses". (Wiltgen, p. 93) How many times since have we heard that Mary should be "put in her proper place?" When the vote was taken on Oct. 29, 1963, the majority of bishops decided not to offend the Protestants and voted to compromise the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the text on her as part of the document on the Church. (Wiltgen, p. 95)

The second compromise of the Blessed Virgin Mary took place in the Fall of 1964. The bishops then resumed discussion on a newly revised text on the Blessed Virgin. In response to the wishes of several bishops, the title "Mary, Mother of the Church" had been removed from the text. Four German priests, including a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, (Wiltgen, p. 91) requested that all references to "Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces" be removed from the document as well. Despite this, some references were left in the text. The liberals were not satisfied and many of them, including Cardinal Leger of Montreal, Canada, loudly protested the inclusion of the title "Mediatrix" in the text. (Wiltgen, p. 154).

The liberals at Vatican II rejected the Blessed Virgin Mary's title: "Mediatrix of all Graces." However, Pope Pius XI would disagree. On May 8, 1928 he proclaimed:

"Trusting in her intercession with Christ our Lord, who though sole Mediator between God and man, wished however to make His Mother the advocate for sinners and the dispenser and mediatrix of His grace . . . " (Miserentissimus Redemptor)

Pope Pius XII would also disagree with Fr. Ratzinger. On several occasions, the Pope taught that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. We'll quote two of them:

"Mary is the Mediatrix and Dispenser of graces." (Radio message, Dec. 8, 1953)

"For she [Mary] has been appointed the Mediatrix of all the graces which look toward sanctification . . . " (Sedes Sapientiae, May 31, 1956)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France was among those who tried to prevent the liberals from compromising the Blessed Virgin a second time. He wrote the bishops at Vatican II a warning. In this text, dated Oct. 11, 1964, feast of the Motherhood of Mary, he criticized the desire of many to "do away with the title of Mary, Mother of the Church." He also noted that "the ecumenists deplore her being named . . . as Mediatrix." Recalling the words of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY, Archbishop Lefebvre called on his brother bishops to "pray to the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for she is at the heart of these disputes and she has always defeated heresies." Those who wanted to compromise the Blessed Virgin Mary refused to take Archbishop Lefebvre's advice.

When the time came for the vote on Oct. 29, 1964, the bishops compromised the Blessed Virgin Mary a second time and voted to approve the watered-down text. This vote proved to be a turning point at Vatican II, because it was only after this that the bishops gave final approval to the texts containing all the errors we have noted above. In retrospect we can see that it was only fitting that just as the majority of bishops and the priests (like Fr. Ratzinger) advising them rejected Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces, so God punished all of them by withholding His graces from them, allowing them to fall into a spiritual blindness, not seeing the errors they were promoting.

The Fruits of Vatican II

Jesus told us that we can judge a tree by the fruits (Mt 7:15-20). After the Council of Trent, no less than one hundred new religious orders were formed in the Church and those that were already in existence saw tremendous growth. After Vatican II however, the situation was quite different. The disastrous results were felt as early as 1963, the year after the Council had begun. For the period of 25 years prior to Vatican II, the number of men leaving the priesthood annually was about 23 for the whole Church. In 1963 this number jumped to 509 and by 1965, the year the Council ended, it had risen to 1,189. (The Wanderer, Aug.19, 1971)

In France, from 1963 to 1973, seminary enrollment declined by 83%. Mass attendance plummeted 66% in France, 54% in Holland, 50% in Italy and 40% in the U.S.A. Infant baptisms are down 50%, adult conversions 75%, while the divorce rates among Catholics, along with birth control, have reached shocking proportions. (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Council had such immediate and disastrous results on the teaching of the Catholic Faith that the then Prefect of the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Cardinal Ottaviani, wrote to all the bishops and religious superiors of the world on July 24, 1966 asking them to reply to an inquiry on the dangers which threatened certain fundamental truths of our Faith. Today the situation grows increasingly worse as millions of Catholics around the world stop practicing their religion, and millions more who still do practice it, no longer understand even the most elementary of Catholic teachings.

Pope Paul VI commented on the disastrous results that Vatican II was producing in the Church. On Dec. 7, 1968, the Pope lamented that

"the Church finds herself in a time of uncertainty, of self-criticism, and even self-destruction. It is like an internal upheaval . . . as if the Church were striking blows to herself."

Then on June 29, 1972 the Pope remarked that

"by some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." (de Lassus, p.9)

It is not reasonable to say, as some do, that such rapid and widespread destruction has been the result of "misinterpretations" of Vatican II. If this were so, then we should not expect the destruction to be so violent, and what is more, we should at least expect to find some dioceses or religious orders that did not undergo the same destruction that we find all around us. The fact is that the only diocese that showed a great flowering after Vatican II is the only diocese where the "reforms" of Vatican II were never implemented, and that is the diocese of Campos, Brazil.

As stated above, pastoral pronouncements are not strictly binding upon all Catholics. Thus after Vatican II, bishops were free to accept any and all of the Council's decisions that were pastorally "helpful" or even to accept none of them. The late Bishop de Castro-Mayer of Campos, Brazil (who joined with Archbishop Lefebvre as a witness in defense of the Traditions of the Church) decided to reject the new "teachings" of Vatican II and he also rejected the "New Mass" of Pope Paul VI. The result? While bishops around the world saw the destruction of their dioceses, in the diocese of Campos, Bishop de Castro-Mayer saw his convents and seminaries full, and the people of his diocese continued the uninterrupted practice of their religion. The destruction of the Faith in Campos began only in 1981, when Bishop de Castro-Mayer was forcibly retired by Rome and his successor began to fully implement the "new order" of Vatican II. Despite this, a great number of Catholics in Campos continue to this day to "buck the system" and fight against their new "reformer" bishop and the entire hierarchy who would destroy their Faith with Vatican II. Thus they have built their own churches, their own schools, and are prepared to defend their Faith to the death whenever the new modern bishop calls in the army against them.

So we see that:

- in every place that Vatican II has been applied there has been a disaster to the Faith

- in the one place it has not been applied there has been a continued flowering of the Faith

therefore we must conclude that the present crisis of faith is caused by Vatican II itself, not a misapplication of it. We have also demonstrated that the errors are contained right in the documents of Vatican II, and are not simply the result of misinterpretations.

Vatican II: A New Religion

We have already seen that the bishops at Vatican II promised to make the Church better with their "reforms". This hasn't happened. So what have the reforms created instead?

The Catholic Religion teaches:

The Catholic Church is the only way to salvation and only the Catholic religion has rights in society.

The Catholic Church is not of this world.

The Catholic Church is a monarchy.

The Catholic Church is the source of all truth.

The Catholic religion venerates the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

Vatican II teaches:

There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights.

The Church should embrace the modern world.

The Church is a democracy.

Christians must search with others to find the truth.

Vatican II compromises the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of ecumenism.

In short, we see that the bishops at Vatican II did not create a renewal of the Catholic Church as they promised, but instead created a new religion with its own system of government, set of teachings and mode of worship that are all in opposition to the Catholic religion.

We believe the situation is serious enough that we must oppose these reforms of Vatican II, just as brave Catholics opposed the Protestant reforms of Cranmer in England.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Flooding at the Shrine of Lourdes in France

View of the flooded Grotto of Lourdes in southwestern France
(Photo credit: 

It is interesting to note that on October 21, 2012, the very same day that a reliquary containing the blood of anti-pope John Paul II was scheduled to arrive in the Shrine of Lourdes in France during a pilgrimage organized by UNITALSI (Italian National Union for Transport of the Sick to Lourdes and International Shrines) which was supposed to have taken place from October 21 to 27 so that it can be seen and venerated by pilgrims from all over the world, in a strange stroke of unbelievable coincidence, severe floods, said to be the worst in 25 years, heavily inundated the shrine after days of non-stop downpour of rain in southwest France and forced the immediate closure of the sanctuary for several days and evacuation of some 450 pilgrims to a nearby conference center and a sports complex. 

The incident clearly shows how the Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary thinks about the great apostate, anti-pope John Paul II.

Two campsites were also evacuated and several roads closed around the Grotto, where the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, as the Gave de Pau burst its river  banks. The water was one meter deep in front of the grotto with debris like bits of wood, candles and branches floating on the surface, and about 80 centimeters in the avenue du Paradis where most of the hotels for pilgrims are situated. Only the massive basilica, built on higher ground, was accessible.

An estimated six million pilgrims visit the shrine every year where many disabled or sick people who went there to pray for a cure were miraculously healed by the Grotto's spring waters. The Catholic church recognizes 67 miracles associated with the shrine.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Sister Faustina’s Divine Mercy Devotion

The following article is taken from the mostholyfamilymonastery.com which is written by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. to whom sole credit belongs:

Sister Faustina Kowalski and the image of the divine mercy

Sister Faustina’s Divine Mercy Devotion is something to avoid.

Over the years we had heard different opinions about the Divine Mercy Devotion; we didn’t know exactly what to think about it. The fact is that in the 1950’s the Divine Mercy Devotion was suppressed and Sr. Faustina’s diary was on the index of forbidden books. It was only rehabilitated around the world by John Paul II after Vatican II. In addition to that, something that concerned us was that it seemed to be popular among the Charismatic “Catholics,” and that it seemed to be used as a substitute for the Rosary. Some time ago one of us decided to quickly flip through the more than 600-page book Divine Mercy in my Soul Diary by Sister Faustina Kowalski. Below are just a few strange things that were found in that investigation that are enough to convince us that this “devotion” is something to be avoided.

On page 23 of the book Divine Mercy in My Soul (The Diary of Sr. Faustina), it says: “and the host came out of the tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time…

On page 89 of the book Divine Mercy in My Soul, it says: “When the priest approached me again, I raised the host for him to put back into the chalice, because when I had first received Jesus I could not speak before consuming the host, and so could not tell Him that the other host had fallen. But while I was holding the host in my hand, I felt such a power of love that for the rest of the day I could neither eat nor come to my senses. I heard these words from the host: I desired to rest in your hands, not only in your heart.”

On page 168, it says: “The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (From Feb. 4, 1935)

On page 176, “Jesus” says to her: “You are a sweet grape and a chosen cluster; I want others to have a share in the juice that is flowing within you.”

On page 191, “Jesus” says to her: “For your sake I will withhold the hand which punishes; for your sake I will bless the Earth.” (Also see page 378.) 

On page 247, “Jesus” says: “And know this, too, My daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.”

On page 260, “Jesus” says: “For many souls will turn back from the gates of Hell and worship My mercy.”

On page 374, “Jesus” says: “If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.”

On page 382, “Jesus” says: “I desire that My mercy be worshipped.”

On page 288, “Jesus” says: “That is why I am uniting myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”

On page 400, “Jesus” says: “I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake I bless the world.”

On page 417, we read that “Jesus” supposedly gave Sr. Faustina this instruction: “Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order.”

On page 583, we read that Sr. Faustina said: “When I took the Messenger of the Sacred Heart into my hand and read the account of the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola, my soul was instantly filled with a great longing that our congregation, too, might have a saint and I wept like a child that there was no saint in our midst. And I said to the Lord, ‘I know your generosity, and yet it seems to me that you are less generous towards us.’ And I began again to weep like a little child. And the Lord Jesus said to me, ‘Don’t cry. You are that saint.’”

On page 602, we read that “Jesus” supposedly said: “I cannot stand them, because they are neither good nor bad.”

On page 612, we read that “Jesus” supposedly said: “I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.”

On page 643, we read that Sr. Faustina said after receiving Communion: “Jesus transform me into another host!… You are a great and all-powerful Lord; you can grant me this favor. And the Lord answered me, ‘You are a living host.’”

On page 208 we learn that “Jesus” supposedly told Sr. Faustina about the new Divine Mercy Devotion and supposedly instructed her that it is to be said on the beads of the Rosary: “This prayer [the Divine Mercy Devotion] will serve to appease my wrath. You will recite it for nine days, on the beads of the Rosary, in the following manner: First of all, you will say one Our Father and Hail Mary and the I Believe in God. Then on the Our Father beads you will say the following words: ‘Eternal Father I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.’ On the Hail Mary beads you will say the following words: ‘For the sake of His sorrowful Passion have mercy on us and on the whole world.’ In conclusion, three times you will recite these words: ‘Holy God, holy mighty one, holy immortal one, have mercy on us and on the whole world.’” (Saturday, Sept. 14, 1935)

The above statements present a number of problems. The first problem is the promotion of Communion in the hand, which is supposedly endorsed by Our Lord. The Host flies into her hand numerous times; Our Lord supposedly says that He desires to rest in her hands. We believe this is a diabolical snare to get Communion in the hand accepted intellectually in advance of the Vatican II religion. 

Second, we see unnecessary praise heaped upon this sister. We see things said to her supposedly by Our Lord that wouldn’t foster humility, but vanity – that she is basically the greatest thing in the world. We don’t believe Our Lord would ever instruct her to tell her superior that she is the most faithful daughter in the Order. Our Lord could have told the superior such a thing, if he wanted it known. 

Third, we see that Sr. Faustina is told that God’s spark – which will prepare the world for His Second Coming – comes out of Poland! This has been interpreted to mean that God’s chosen person was John Paul II, who was from Poland! Since we know that John Paul II was an apostate, a non-Catholic antipope, a man who endorsed the false religions of the world, this shows us again that Sr. Faustina’s revelations were from the Devil. In fact, it shows us how much the Devil wanted to prop up support for John Paul II. 

Fourth, the Divine Mercy Devotion is centered around mercy at a time when mankind was coming closer and closer to having filled up the cup of divine justice. The problem at that time, and today, of course, was that men didn’t fear God and continued to offend Him. They needed to hear about His justice. But the Divine Mercy devotion was the perfect false devotion and message to make people believe that they will receive God’s mercy even if they stay in their sins; it even instructs people to “worship” His mercy. 

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, would God reveal a new devotion to be said on the beads of the Rosary shortly after His Mother came to Fatima to work a profound miracle to reveal, among other things, the necessity of the Rosary? The specific direction given to Sister Faustina for the Divine Mercy Devotion to be prayed on the beads of the Rosary is clearly, we believe, the Devil’s substitute for the Rosary. And we’ve seen it used that way with so many souls. The Divine Mercy Devotion is a clever counterfeit which, being traditional in so many ways, serves the Devil’s purpose to get this counter-devotion inserted into conservative-minded circles, which the Devil hopes will use it as a substitute for the Rosary. 

All these things considered, the Divine Mercy Devotion is something which should be avoided by Catholics. Catholics should say an extra rosary or the Stations of the Cross instead. 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

The Blessed Virgin Mary - The New Ark of the Covenant

The Image of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

The following article is taken from the book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, which was written by, and is therefore the intellectual product of Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B, of the mostholyfamilymonastery.com to whom sole credit belongs:


The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Contrary to the claims of some, the Catholic Church does not teach and has never taught that Mary is God. That would be heresy. Mary is just a creature, but the greatest of all the human beings ever created by God. Please look at this biblical evidence for the Catholic teachings about Mary, and why it’s so necessary to understand her role and importance.

To understand the Bible and what it teaches about Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ), one must understand Biblical types.

Type = a true event, person or institution in the Old Testament which foreshadows or prefigures something in the New Testament.


Jesus Christ was true God and true man. Adam was only a man, the first man. However, the Bible says that Adam was a type of the one who was to come, Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:14 - “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure [type] of him that was to come [Jesus].”

How was Adam a type of Jesus? It’s perhaps best summed up in this passage.

Romans 5:19 - “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Adam plunged the world into sin; Christ came to redeem the world from Adam’s sin. Adam sinned by his disobedience at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; Christ redeemed the world by His obedience and sacrifice on the tree of the Cross. That’s why the Bible says that Christ is the new or second or last Adam. He came to undo what Adam did. He became the head of the new and redeemed race of those who supernaturally live in Christ, whereas Adam, the first man, was the head of humanity which fell into sin.


1 Corinthians 15:45 - “And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”

There are many biblical types. Keep in mind that all of these events, persons and things were real events, persons and things which also prefigured something that would come later. Here are a few examples:

1 Cor. 10:1-2 – The Bible teaches that the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14) prefigured baptism.

1 Peter 3:19-21 – The Bible teaches that Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood prefigured being saved by baptism and the Church.

1 Cor. 5:7 – The Bible teaches that the Passover Lamb, which was sacrificed (Exodus 12), prefigured Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

Heb. 8:8-9 – The Bible teaches that the Old Testament system was a “shadow” or figure of the New Testament.

Matthew 12:40 – The Bible teaches that Jonas’ three days and nights in the belly of the whale prefigured Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead after three days.

Many other examples of biblical types could be given. It’s important to understand that the fulfillment of a type (called an “antitype”) is greater than the type. Jesus Christ is infinitely greater than Adam; the New Testament is greater than the Old; the Resurrection is greater than the travails of Jonas; etc. With that in mind, we must now consider types of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. There are many types of Mary. In addition to other biblical evidence, these types provide undeniable biblical proof for Catholic teachings about Mary. The following points will undoubtedly be new and surprising to many non-Catholics.


As mentioned already, Adam was a type of Jesus Christ. There was a distinct woman who was involved with Adam, the first man, in the downfall of the world into sin. That was Eve, the first woman. It was Adam’s transgression which constituted the original sin. But Eve was instrumental and inextricably bound up with the events leading up to the original sin. The woman (Eve) sinned and was the occasion for Adam to sin.

Genesis 3:1-6 - “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

Just as “the woman” (Eve) was intimately involved in the events leading up to the original sin, there is a distinct woman who was intimately involved in the events leading up to the Redemption. That is Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. She is the new Eve.

There are numerous clear parallels in the Bible between Eve and Mary. These demonstrate that Mary is the new Eve, as Christ is the new Adam.



Genesis 3:4-6 - “And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die… she [Eve] took of the fruit thereof, and did eat ...

Luke 1:26-38 - “the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee… to a virgin… and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women… And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus… And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”

Eve was approached by the serpent (the Devil), a fallen angel. Eve believed his lying words and disobeyed God. Eve sinned and caused her husband to sin, plunging the world into death.

The Annunciation
Mary was approached by Gabriel, a good angel. Mary believed his message of salvation: that she was blessed among women, full of grace, and would bring forth the Savior. Mary obeyed God. By her obedience, she consented to the conception of Jesus Christ in her womb, and enabled Him to come and redeem the world from Adam’s sin.

Even in the very ancient Church, these biblical parallels were recognized as identifications of Mary as the new Eve, just as Christ is the new Adam. St. Irenaeus was a famous apostolic father from the second century. He contrasts the first Eve with the second Eve (Mary).

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. 22, 185 A.D.- “In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to your word (Luke 1:38). But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin… And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”


Genesis 3:20 - “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all the living.”

Eve was called the “mother of all the living” because all who had life descended from her. Mary is also the mother of all the living, but indeed in a greater way. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is Life itself and in whom all life is to be found.

John 1:4 - “In him [Jesus] was life; and the life was the light of men.”

Matthew 1:16 - “Mary, of whom was born Jesus…

John 14:6 - “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Jesus is the Life. Mary is, therefore, literally the mother of Life itself. The parallel to Eve, the mother of all the living, is clear. The difference is that Mary is the mother of a Life that is infinitely greater than human existence. Those who live and die in her Son have access to eternal life in Him and become new creatures.

2 Corinthians 5:17 - “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.”

The fulfillment (Mary as mother of all the living) is again greater than the type (Eve as mother of all the living).


We’ve seen that the Bible indicates that Mary is the new Eve. So the question is: in what state was the soul of Eve created? Eve was created in Genesis 2 free from all sin. The entire creation was perfect until the fall of mankind. Adam and Eve were both created in a state of original justice. They didn’t lose that state of original perfection, in which they were free from all sin, until the original sin in Genesis 3.

If God created the first woman (the first Eve) without any sin, then He could certainly create the second (and greater) Eve (the Blessed Virgin Mary) without any sin. That’s exactly what He did. He had to do so as a matter of proportion and justice because she would be the first member of the redeemed humanity.


Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Dec. 8, 1854 - “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

The Immaculate Conception
Some mistakenly think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary. That’s not correct. Jesus was indeed conceived without any sin in the womb of Mary, but the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother. From the very first instant of her creation, she was preserved from any stain of original sin, which every other member of the human race (except Jesus) inherits.

God preserved her without sin in view of the saving merits of Jesus Christ. It was done for Mary because she had to be the uncursed and pure vessel which would carry the all-holy God. In order to carry infinite holiness, Mary had to be holy from the first instant of her creation.


So, if Mary was preserved from the stain of the original sin, does that mean that she didn’t have a Savior? No. Mary answers that herself.

Luke 1:46-47 - “And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.”

God saved Mary by preventing her from contracting original sin. Suppose that a man falls into a deep hole in the forest, but is pulled out by his friend. It is true to say that the friend saved the man. Now suppose a man sees a woman walking toward the deep hole, and catches her just before she falls in. He stops her from falling into the hole in the first place, so that she doesn’t get injured or dirty at all. Did he save the woman? Certainly he did. He saved her in a greater way, by preventing her from falling into the hole and suffering any of the harmful consequences.

That’s how God saved Mary. Jesus was her Savior in an even greater way, by preventing her from ever contracting original sin, and by preserving her from sin throughout her life. He did this for Mary, in view of her unique role. The sinlessness of Mary is indicated by numerous types in the Bible.

Some express disbelief at the notion that God would create someone completely free from sin. They are forgetting that God created the first man and woman without sin.


We will now see that the Bible without any doubt identifies Mary as the Ark of the New Testament. It identifies Mary as the New Testament counterpart to the Ark of the Old Testament. Mary is the new and greater fulfillment of what was prefigured by the Ark of the Old Testament. This information is some of the most important and revealing about Mary’s profound role.

Ark of the Covenant
Since it carried and represented the presence of God, the Ark of the Old Covenant/Testament was the holiest and most powerful thing on Earth outside of God Himself. The Ark of the Covenant was a sacred chest which contained the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 10:5). The Ark also carried and represented the spiritual presence of God on Earth. When God spoke to Moses, it was from between the two cherubim which were on the Ark.

Numbers 7:89 - “And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.”

Exodus 25:21-22 - “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.”

Let’s now look at how the Bible identifies Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the written word of God (Deut. 10:5).

The Virgin Mary contained the Word of God made flesh, Jesus (Jn. 1:1).

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1). So, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant contained the written word of God, Mary (who is the Ark of the New Covenant) contained the Word of God made flesh.

Apocalypse (Revelation) 19:13 - “And he [Jesus] was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, the Word of God.”

The Ark of the Old Covenant was “overshadowed” by the power and presence of God (Exodus 40:34 -35).

The Virgin Mary was “overshadowed” by the power and presence of the Most High (Luke 1:35)

The tabernacle was constructed to contain the holy Ark (Exodus 40:2-3). When God would come down upon the tabernacle and the Ark to speak to Moses, we read in Exodus 40:34 - 35 that God’s glory cloud or visible presence (called the “Shekinah) “overshadowed” it. The rare word which is used to describe how this unique presence of God would “overshadow” the Ark is episkiasei in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Exodus 40:34-35 - “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud overshadowed it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.”

The very same word “episkiasei” is used in the Greek of the New Testament to describe how the presence of God will “overshadow” the Virgin Mary. The Bible uses this language only about the Ark and about Mary.

Luke 1:35 - “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

The clear implication is that the presence of God overshadows Mary and comes down upon her – since she is the New Ark – just as it overshadowed the Ark of the Old Covenant. This reveals that Mary, while just a creature and infinitely less than God, is the new Ark. She thus has a unique connection to God, a unique holiness, sanctification and power.


The Visitation
Consider the amazing parallels that Scripture gives us between what happened to the Ark of the Old Covenant in 2 Samuel 6 (2 Kings 6 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), and what happened to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, in chapter 1 of Luke’s Gospel. 2 Samuel 6 is the most complete story in the Bible concerning the Ark of the Old Covenant. Luke 1 is the most complete story in the Bible concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Ark of the Old Covenant 2 Samuel 6:9 – “David feared the Lord that day and said, How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"

The Virgin Mary Luke 1:43 –"[Elizabeth said]: And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

David says: “How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?” while Elizabeth asks how is it “that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Elizabeth says the same thing to Mary that David said about the Ark because Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The only difference between the two statements is literally that “mother” is used where Ark was used. The Bible is telling us that the mother of the Lord = the Ark. This is confirmed without any doubt as we carry the story further.

David Leapt Before the Ark: 2 Samuel 6:16 – “As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Saul´s daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord…

The Infant Leapt in the presence of Mary: Luke 1:41-44 – "And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost… For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."

David leapt before the Ark, just as the infant in Elizabeth’s womb leapt before Mary (the new Ark).

The Ark stayed for three months: 2 Samuel 6:11 – “The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed Obededom and his whole house.”

Mary (the Ark) stayed for three months: Luke 1:56-57 – “Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. Now Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come, and she brought forth a son. “

In 2 Samuel 6, we read that the Ark stayed with Obededom the Gittite for three months. Likewise, in Luke 1, we read that Mary (the Ark of the New Covenant) stayed with Elizabeth for three months.

2 Samuel 6:11 also mentions that the Lord blessed Obededom and his house while the Ark was present. “Blessing” in Scripture frequently indicates fruitful offspring. In this fact we see another parallel to Luke 1 and Mary. For Luke 1:57 tells us that after Mary stayed with Elizabeth, the Lord blessed her and her house with the birth of a child, John the Baptist.

David set out to fetch the Ark from Judah: 2 Samuel 6:2 – “Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which bears the name of the Lord of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.”

This occurred when Mary (the Ark) went to Judah: Luke 1:39-40 – “During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.”

As we read here, these incredible parallels occurred when David set out for the hill country of Judah to fetch the Ark (2 Samuel 6:2), and when Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, went to the hill country of Judah (Luke 1:39).

The Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) also indicates that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant:

Revelation 11:19,12-1 - “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. [12:1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

The Bible was not written with any chapters or verses indicated. It wasn’t until the 12th century that the Bible was divided into chapters and verses. Therefore, the author of Revelation, St. John the Apostle, wrote what begins chapter 12 in one continuous stream immediately after what ends chapter 11. At the end of chapter 11, we read that the Ark of Jesus’ testament/covenant was seen in Heaven. The very next verse is Revelation 12:1. Therefore, the words which end chapter 11 flow immediately into the words which begin chapter 12, without any division.

That means that the appearance of the Ark of Jesus’ covenant at the very end of chapter 11 – “the ark of his testament was seen in his temple” (Rev. 11:19) – is immediately explained by the vision of “the woman” clothed with the sun which begins chapter twelve, the very next verse (Rev. 12:1). This indicates that “the woman” clothed with the sun, who bore the Divine Person in her womb (the Virgin Mary), is the Ark of the New Testament.

The Ark contained the manna from the desert: Hebrews 9:4 - “… the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.”

Mary contained the manna from Heaven, Jesus: John 6:48-51 - “I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven… and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

There can be no doubt that the manna in the desert (Exodus 16) prefigured Jesus as the Bread of Life. Jesus makes a connection between the two in John chapter 6. He makes reference to the manna in the desert, and then says that His flesh is the true manna from Heaven. Well, the manna from the desert was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant. That prefigures Jesus Christ Himself (the true manna of the New Testament) being contained within Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

In Hebrews 9:4, we also see that the rod of Aaron was placed within the Ark of the Old Covenant. In Numbers 17, we read that this rod budded to prove the true high-priest. The rod of Aaron thus signified the true high-priest. In the New Testament, Jesus is described as the true high-priest.

Hebrews 3:1 - “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus.”

Also see Hebrews 6:20, Hebrews 9:11, and other passages for more proof that Jesus is the true high-priest. The inescapable conclusion is that Aaron’s rod being placed within the Ark prefigured Jesus Christ, the true high-priest, being contained within Mary (the Ark of the New Covenant).

There is absolutely no doubt that the New Testament indicates that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. This evidence is undeniable.


The Ark of the Covenant was the holiest thing on Earth outside of the presence of God Himself. The Ark was contained in the tabernacle, within the holy of holies. The Ark’s presence is what made the holy of holies so sacred.

2 Chronicles (or 2 Paralipomenon) 35:3 - “Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build.”

The Ark was so holy that when the people of God followed it they had to keep a respectful distance.

Josue 3:3-5 - “When you shall see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests of the race of Levi carrying it, rise you up also, and follow them as they go before: And let there be between you and the ark the space of two thousand cubits: that you may see it afar off, and know which way you must go: for you have not gone this way before: and take care you come not near the ark.”

People who unlawfully touched the Ark were killed.

2 Samuel 6:6-7 - “Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God.”

The men of Bethshemesh were killed because they had dared to look into the Ark.

1 Samuel 6:19 - “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men...

We see how sacred God considered the object which was to come into close contact with His spiritual presence.


God gave the most precise specifications for the construction of the Ark. He ordered that it be made with the most pure gold.

Exodus 25:10-13,24 - “And they shall make an ark of setim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of setim wood, and overlay them with gold…

It’s interesting that the Ark not only had to be overlaid with gold all around, but there is a specific reference to it having a “crown of gold round about.”

The Ark of the Old Covenant had a gold crown: Exodus 25:11 - “And thou… shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.”

The Virgin Mary (the New Ark) also has a crown: Apocalypse 12:1 - “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

The Ark of the Old Covenant had to be perfect and holy because it was the seat of God’s unique spiritual presence. God’s holiness could not be tarnished by contact with that which had defects. Likewise and to a greater degree, the Virgin Mary, as the new Ark and bearer of Jesus Christ, had to be created without sin and in a state of perfection.

She did not merely contain the spiritual presence of God, but Jesus Christ (God Himself). She did not merely contain the written word of God, but the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1). Consequently, Mary must be perfect. She must be free from all sin. She must be an ever-virgin and untouched by man.

If the Ark of the Old Covenant, which contained the written tables of the Law and was overshadowed by the spiritual presence of God, had to be overlaid with the most pure gold and had to be constructed according to the most precise specifications of God, how much greater is God’s construction of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant? The fulfillment is greater than the type. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, must be and is greater than the Ark of the Old Covenant.

Just like the Ark of the Old Covenant, Mary must also have tremendous power over the Devil and God’s enemies. She must have a unique power of intercession with God, in bringing down His blessings and in aiding the people of God, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant did.


The Ark of the Old Covenant had awe-striking power. When it was taken by the Philistines, extraordinary things happened to them and to their false god, Dagon.

1 Samuel 5:1-5 - “And the Philistines took the ark of God, and carried it from the Stone of help into Azotus. And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it into the temple of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. And when the Azotians arose early the next day, behold Dagon lay upon his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord: and they took Dagon, and set him again in his place. And the next day again, when they rose in the morning, they found Dagon lying upon his face on the earth before the ark of the Lord: and the head of Dagon, and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold: And only the stump of Dagon remained in its place. For this cause neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that go into the temple tread on the threshold of Dagon in Azotus unto this day.”

The Philistines began to be destroyed for having taken the Ark. This prompted them to return the Ark to their enemies, the Israelites.

1 Samuel 5:7 - “And the men of Azotus seeing this kind of plague, said: The ark of the God of Israel shall not stay with us: for his hand is heavy upon us, and upon Dagon our god.”

The Ark struck mortal terror into the face of God’s enemies.

1 Samuel 5:10 - “And when the ark of God was come into Accaron, the Accaronites cried out, saying: They have brought the ark of the God of Israel to us, to kill us and our people.”

The waters of the Jordan were miraculously dried up by the Ark.

Josue 3:13-14 - “[And the Lord said to Josue]: And when the priests, that carry the ark of the Lord the God of the whole earth, shall set the soles of their feet in the waters of the Jordan, the waters that are beneath shall run down and go off: and those that come from above, shall stand together upon a heap. So the people went out of their tents, to pass over the Jordan: and the priests that carried the ark of the covenant went on before them...

Mary, the New Ark, has this power and even more; for the fulfillment is greater than the type, and the New Testament is greater than the Old. We must now cover more biblical evidence for Catholic teachings on Mary.


We’ve established that Jesus Christ is the new Adam. Adam was formed from the Earth or ground.

Genesis 2:7 - “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground [adamah], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The Hebrew word for “ground” is Adamah. It’s a feminine noun. Adam is so named because he came from the Adamah; his name means son of the ground, son of the Adamah. (This point was made by Gerry Matatics, Biblical Foundations International, Dunmore, PA.)

This point could be developed, but it’s clear that, on a certain level, the Earth from which Adam was created is a type of Mary. The first Adam was created by God from the ground, and the second Adam (Jesus Christ) took flesh from Mary, His mother. So the question is: what was the state of the Earth when it was created?

Genesis 1:31 - “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

The Earth from which the first Adam was formed – and indeed the entirety of God’s creation before the fall – was completely uncursed, unfallen and perfect. Sin and curse had no place in it.

Mary, who gives birth to the second and greater Adam (Jesus Christ), must likewise be completely uncursed, unfallen and perfect. She must be preserved from all stain of sin and from the curse of original sin. That’s called the Immaculate Conception.


Shortly after the fall of Adam and Eve, God makes this prophecy.

Genesis 3:14-15 - “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”1

God says that there will be enmity – hostility, division, opposition – between the Devil and “the woman.” In the same context we read of the seed of the woman, and the victory which will be granted through the woman and her seed. In the Bible, a man’s children and descendants are spoken of as his seed. The seed of the woman, therefore, is something unique. It refers to a child which is produced by a woman alone. This obviously refers to the virginal conception and birth from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother. The “seed” of the woman refers to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the woman herein identified as having opposition or enmity with the serpent is clearly Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. The woman is not Eve, who gave in to the serpent. It is Mary.

God says that He will put enmity or opposition between the serpent and the woman. As a result, Mary must be completely preserved from sin. For when one sins, one does not have opposition to the Devil, but rather gives in to the Devil. The only way the woman could have complete and definitive opposition to the serpent is by preservation from sin and from the sin of Adam.

The fact that Mary is this “woman,” and therefore completely free from the domination of sin and the Devil, is the reason that Jesus calls Mary “woman” throughout the New Testament. Jesus never calls His mother anything but “woman.” Many non-Catholics think this was Jesus’ way of belittling His mother and downplaying her role; on the contrary, Jesus was identifying Mary as the “woman” of Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 - “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

The Wedding at Cana
John 2:3-5 - “And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.”

Some superficial readings of John 2:3-5 have left people with the impression that Jesus is rebuking His mother at the wedding of Cana. However, it actually reveals the power of Mary’s intercession with Jesus. Jesus said that His hour had not yet come; in other words, it was not yet the time for Him to reveal His miraculous powers. It was His design to wait longer. Nevertheless, at the urging of His mother, who had compassion on the newly married couple, Jesus worked the miracle anyway. He worked this (His first) miracle at the urging of His mother, even though His hour “had not yet come.” This is an excellent example of how graces are obtained from Jesus through Mary – graces which He might not otherwise be inclined to give.

Many non-Catholics also object that if Mary is so crucial, why would Jesus allow the Gospel writers to perhaps give the impression that He was belittling the place of His mother? They contend that certain verses give that impression, or don’t do much to dispel that notion. The answer is that God does not cast pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). He often slightly conceals His truths, or puts them just under the surface, so that superficial efforts or insincere people will pass over them or be left with the wrong impression. However, those who are more patient and dig deeper – or who simply trust the Church which Jesus established – will find the gem and the true meaning.

Luke 8:8-10 - “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.”

This is so very true in the case of the Bible’s teaching on Mary’s profound role. Superficial readings and insincere efforts will keep people blind to it. But it’s there in Scripture. Mary is the new Eve and the woman of Genesis 3:15, as we have seen. She is also the Ark of the New Covenant and much more, as we will see. It’s all there in the biblical typology and in many passages more deeply understood; but so many remain oblivious to it. Seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not. Having failed to trust the one Church which Christ established, they have sadly acquired only a shallow and misguided understanding of the Bible’s teaching.

The Apostle John with the Blessed Virgin Mary
at the foot of the Cross
John 19:26 - “When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple [John] took her to his own.”

Though other women were at the foot of the cross, Jesus singles out His mother. Jesus again calls her nothing other than “woman” because she is the woman of Genesis 3:15: the one in complete opposition to the serpent. Jesus also calls for St. John to take His mother for his own.


In Luke 1, we see a glimpse of the unique privileges that God has bestowed upon Mary.

Luke 1:46-50 - “And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.”

The Bible says that Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord; it doesn’t diminish Him. Mary doesn’t detract from Jesus, but leads people to Jesus. The Ark of the Old Covenant signified God’s power and presence. When it was in their presence, it stirred them to devotion, to confidence, and to love of the Almighty. In a similar, but yet greater way, Mary, the new Ark, directs and centers us powerfully around Jesus Christ. Everything Mary has and everything Mary is comes from being the mother of Jesus Christ. He did great things to her by preserving her from sin.

One should also make a special note of Luke 1:48, in which Mary prophesies that “all generations shall call” her “blessed.” This is a prophecy about the Catholic prayer the Hail Mary. For generations Catholics have prayed: “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.”


Luke 1:27-31 - “… and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought within herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.”

Modern Protestant Bibles do not translate Luke 1:28 as “Hail, full of grace.” They have: “Rejoice highly favored daughter” or something similar. The Protestant translations are wrong. There are a number of simple ways to show that they are wrong. The word in the original Greek is kecharitomene. This word is directly concerned with the idea of "grace." Greek scholars point out that kecharitomene comes from the root word charis, which has a literal meaning of “grace.” Out of about 150 appearances, the King James (a Protestant Bible) translates charis as “grace” 129 times.

It’s also extremely important to note that early Protestant translations had Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” or the equivalent. Famous Protestant William Tyndale (1494-1536) is considered to be a hero among some Protestants. His version of the Bible was translated into early modern English around 1525. Tyndale translated Luke 1:28 as: “Hayle full of grace ye Lorde is with ye: blessed arte thou amonge wemen.” (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/). The English Protestant Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) also rendered the passage as “full of grace.”

St. Jerome (A.D. 347-420) was the biblical scholar of the ancient Church. Even the Protestant translators of the 1611 King James Bible called St. Jerome “a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him” (From the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV). St. Jerome translated "kecharitomene" as "gratiae plena" meaning “full of grace which thou hast received" in the Latin Vulgate. “Grace” was also accepted as the proper translation in the Rheims New Testament in 1582.

The Word Pictures of the New Testament, by the famous Protestant Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, says this about Luke 1:28:

“Highly favoured (kecaritwmenh). Perfect passive participle of caritow and means endowed with grace (cariß), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow.” (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, Luke 1:28.)

If Mary is “full of grace,” that in itself strongly suggests that she is without sin. For grace is in opposition to sin. The angel is not saying that Mary will become full of grace, but that he has encountered Mary already in that state. She was conceived in that state. Moreover, Mary is pronounced “blessed among women” because her position is unique.


We’ve seen that Mary is the new Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. Now we must look at the biblical evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Most Protestants of our day reject the perpetual virginity of Mary; they think it contradicts the Bible. Many of them will be shocked to find out that the first Protestants, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and others all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The idea that Mary ceased to be a virgin and had other children besides Jesus was invented many generations after the original Protestant “reformation.” Thus, the Protestant position on this matter not only contradicts ancient Catholic tradition and the Bible (as we will see), but their own Protestant “tradition.”


The first thing that Protestants usually quote against Mary’s perpetual virginity is Matthew 1:25.

Matthew 1:24-25 - “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.”

According to Protestants, this proves that Mary ceased to be a virgin after the birth of Jesus. This is quite wrong. The Greek word for "until" or “till” (heos) does not imply that Joseph had marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus Christ. It simply means that they had no relations up to that point, without saying anything about what happened after that point. This is proven below by many passages. We should also bear in mind that the Bible was written several thousand years ago. It was written at a time and in languages which don’t express and imply things the same way that they would be expressed and implied in modern English.

For instance, in 2 Samuel 6:23 (2 Kings 6:23 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), we read that God cursed Michal, David’s wife. He cursed her because she mocked David for the manner in which he rejoiced before the Ark of the Covenant. As a result, Michal had no children “until” the day of her death.

2 Samuel 6:23 - “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”

Does this mean that Michal started having children after her death? Obviously it does not. This verse demonstrates that when Scripture describes something as being true “until” or “before” a certain point, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it ceased to be true after that point. Here are numerous other examples of this:

Hebrews 1:13 - “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

This refers to the Son of God. Does this mean that He will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after God’s enemies are made His footstool? Obviously it does not. He will remain at the right hand of God the Father.

1 Timothy 4:13 - “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”

Does this mean that they should abandon reading and doctrine after he comes? Obviously it does not.

Acts 23:1 - “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

Does this mean that Paul necessarily ceased to have a good conscience after that day? Obviously it does not.

The preposition “before” can be used the same way.

John 4:49 - “Come down before my child dies.”

Here we see that the word “before” can be used in a similar manner to the word “until.” This child did not die; Jesus healed him (John 4:50). Thus, the statement in Matthew 1:18, which is quoted below, that Mary was with child “before” she and Joseph came together, doesn’t mean that they came together after she was with child. It simply means that she was pregnant without any sexual contact.

Matthew 1:18 - “Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”

It’s quite certain, therefore, that Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 1:18 do not contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity in any way. Protestants cannot legitimately claim that these passages constitute proof that Mary ceased to be a virgin. These passages do not prove her perpetual virginity, either. Her perpetual virginity is proven by other things in the Bible.


Luke 2:7 - “And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Matthew 1:25 - “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

Firstborn son” is a legal title given to a first-born male child in a Jewish family: in other words, it is given to a male child who is also the first child.

God specifically commanded the Israelites to sanctify (i.e., set apart) their first-born sons for a special consecration and service to God. The title “first-born son” held additional importance because it entitled that child to a double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 21:17). This title of “first-born son” was given to the child regardless of whether the woman had any other children after him. As an example: “we can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf."Biblica" 11, 1930 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: ‘In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.’” (Quoted in “Brothers and Sisters of Jesus,” by William Most)

In Exodus 13 and 34, we read about God’s prescription that the first-born be consecrated to Him. There was a ceremony for the “sanctification of the firstborn” (Exodus 13 and 34:20). It’s not as if they postponed the ceremony for the “first-born son” until after the woman had a second child.

Exodus 13:2,12 - “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine… Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb for the Lord, and all that is first brought forth of thy cattle: whatsoever thou shalt have of the male sex, thou shalt consecrate to the Lord.”

Thus, the statement that Jesus was the “first-born son” of Mary (Luke 2:7) does not in any way contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity. It simply means that He was her first and male child. It says nothing about whether any came later.


Non-Catholics often bring up the passages which mention the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus. First of all, it must be mentioned that never once are these “brothers” described as the children of Mary, Jesus’ mother.

Mark 6:3 - “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.”

Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

In the original Greek the words used are adelphoi (“brethren”) and adelphe (“sisters”). The words adelphoi and adelphe can refer to actual siblings. However, the Bible also uses these words to describe people who are not brothers, but cousins or relatives or step brothers or close neighbors.


Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Abraham was his uncle (see Genesis 11:31; 14:12). Yet, the Bible twice describes Lot as Abraham’s “brother.” That’s because the word “brother” doesn’t necessarily mean a sibling. As stated above, it can mean a cousin or a relative or a step-brother or a close family friend.

Genesis 14:14 - “Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken...

Lot was Abraham’s nephew:

Gen.11:27 - "Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot."

Gen.12: 5 - "And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son...."

Gen.14:12 - "And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed."

The Bible also calls him his “brother”:

Gen.14:14 - "And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive ...."

Gen.14:16 - "And also brought again his brother Lot...."

Some Protestants attempt to respond to this by arguing that the Old Testament was not written in Greek, but Hebrew. Therefore, they say, the case of Lot doesn’t prove that adelphos can refer to a person who is not literally a brother. This is refuted by pointing out that while the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, it was famously translated into Greek by seventy scholars a few centuries before the coming of Christ. This famous translation is called the Septuagint.

This Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, is quoted about 300 times by the inspired writers of the New Testament. That means that the New Testament writers accepted the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, the same Greek word adelphos is used to describe Lot as Abraham’s brother. Adelphos is the singular form of adelphoi, the word used in the New Testament for the “brothers” of Jesus. Therefore, the Old Testament does use adelphos to describe someone who is not literally a brother.

But the point can also be proven from the New Testament. In Acts 3:17 and Romans 9:3, we see that adelphoi (brothers) is used to describe people of the same nationality who are not siblings. Consider these verses to be the death-blow to the Protestant argument in this regard.

Moreover, in Luke 10:29, Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 7:3, we see that adelphos (“brother”) is used for neighbor, not necessarily sibling.


The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is ever-virgin and had no other children. The Catholic Church does not teach that all the “brethren” of Jesus were necessarily His cousins. They may have been extended relatives or close friends or people considered part of the family by marriage or law or homeland. For instance, in 2 Samuel 1:26, King David calls Jonathan his “brother.” Jonathan and David were not brothers or cousins. David had married Jonathan’s sister, Michal, the daughter of King Saul. So David married into the family.

The number of Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi) mentioned in the Bible seems to suggest that some of them were not even extended relatives, but considered part of the family in other ways. If even one or a few of them were not cousins, but more extended relatives or neighbors or close family friends, then the word adelphoi would have been used. Therefore, the fact that the word for cousin was not used does not in any way prove that Mary had other children.


Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

James and Joses are two of the names given as “brothers” of Jesus. It can be shown, by the following points, that these were children of another woman and not siblings of Jesus. Please follow this carefully.

There were three women at the foot of the Cross: 1) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus); 2) Mary the wife of Cleophas (who is said to be the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister); and 3) Mary Magdalene.

John 19:25 - “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus [1] his mother, and [2] his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and [3] Mary Magdalene.”

Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is also described as “the other Mary” in Matthew 28:1. The Bible tells us that James and Joses are the children of this Mary:

Matthew 27:56 - “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.”

Thus, James and Joses (who are called the “brothers” of Jesus) are not His siblings, but at least His cousins. However, they are probably not even first cousins. This is because Mary of Cleophas (the mother of James and Joses), who is said to be the “sister” of Jesus’ mother (John 19:25), is also named Mary. It’s extremely unlikely that two siblings in a Hebrew family would be given the same name. Most likely they were not sisters, but members of the same clan who were called “sisters” in the same way that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were called “brothers” of Jesus. All of this shows that none of the statements in the Bible about the brothers and sisters of Jesus disproves, in any way, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now we must look at the proof that Mary had no other children and that she was perpetually a virgin.


While dying on the Cross, Jesus entrusts His mother to the care of St. John the Apostle.

John 19:26-27 - “When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple [John] took her to his own.”

Scholars point out that this was a formal act of entrustment. (Gerry Matatics, Op. cit.) Jesus entrusted His mother to St. John so that he would take care of her. If Mary had other children, as Protestants contend, Jesus would not have told St. John to take Mary for his mother. She would have been put into the care of one of his many “brothers.” The fact that Jesus entrusted Mary to St. John proves that she had no other children.

Protestants try to respond to this by arguing that Jesus’ “brothers” were not believers and that’s why Jesus entrusted her to St. John. However, that’s refuted by Acts 1:14. It indicates that Jesus’ “brothers” were believers. Jesus certainly knew that they were or would become believers and hence He would not have entrusted her to St. John if they were His siblings.

It’s also quite significant that when Jesus was found in the temple at 12 years old, there is no indication whatsoever that Mary and Joseph had other children (Luke 2:41-51). The indication is that He is an only child. He is also referred to as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as a son of Mary. Never once is Mary said to have had other children.


Luke 1:30-34 - “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not man?

The angel appears to Mary and tells her that she will conceive and bring forth a son. Mary responds by saying: “How shall this be, seeing I know not man?” The actual meaning is: how shall this be since I am a virgin. How shall this be? Mary understood how children were conceived. Her response only makes sense if she had taken a lifelong vow of virginity. She was asking how she could conceive while a virgin.

It should also be pointed out that Mary’s engagement to Joseph doesn’t contradict the notion that she had taken such a vow. Moral behavior at the time dictated that women committed to virginity have a male protector who would guard and respect the vow. That was Joseph’s role.


We’ve already seen that the Bible clearly teaches that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. As the holiest creature on Earth and the vessel of the Most High, it’s totally incongruous – completely out of keeping with the Ark’s dignity and role – to think that she would have any sexual contact. To prepare the people for God’s coming on Mt. Sinai, Moses said:

Exodus 19:14-15 - “And Moses came down from the mount to the people, and sanctified them. And when they had washed their garments, he said to them: be ready against the third day, and come not near your wives.”

When David was on the run and needed bread from the priest, we read:

1 Samuel 21:4 - “And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holy bread, if the young men be clean, especially from women.”

The Ark was created for a more sublime and sacred reason, and never would have sexual contact. Oza was struck dead for merely touching the Ark when he shouldn’t have done so (2 Samuel 6:6-8).


Ezechiel 44:2 - “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.”

Here we see that the Lord shall pass through this gate, and no other man shall pass through it. This is a prophecy about the perpetual virginity of Mary. She is the closed gate, through whom the Lord comes. That’s one reason why Mary has been called “the Gate of Heaven” in traditional Catholic writings.


Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D., Can. 6- “If anyone says that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin is called God-bearer by misuse of language and not truly… let him be anathema.”

Some Protestants and most members of the “Orthodox” Church claim to honor the Second Council of Constantinople. It was the fifth ecumenical council. As we see here, it clearly taught Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Council, 649 A.D., Can. 3 - “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Denzinger 256)

The ancient Christian Church believed that Mary was perpetually a virgin. In the fourth century, St. Jerome, the father of biblical scholarship and the one who translated the Bible into Latin, defended this truth against Helveticus, a heretic who denied it. As mentioned already, even the first Protestants, including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary.


The Glorious Assumption in to Heaven
The Catholic Church teaches that, after her course of life on Earth, the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Her body did not remain in the grave and suffer corruption of the flesh; for this is a punishment for original sin, which she did not have. Since she was free from all original sin and was the privileged Ark, Mary was taken directly to Heaven, body and soul. That’s called the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption.

Non-Catholics claim there is no evidence in the Bible for the Assumption of Mary. On the contrary, we find a description of it in Revelation/Apocalypse chapter 12

Revelation 12:1 - “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

The woman in Revelation 12:1 signifies a number of things. The fathers of the Church understood it to signify the Mother of Jesus; they also understood it to signify, on a certain level, the Church. There is no doubt that it signifies Mary, for the Son of this woman is the one who rules all nations with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5). That’s Jesus, of course; and thus the mother must be the Virgin Mary. Therefore, Revelation chapter 12 provides us with a clear picture of Mary assumed into Heaven and placed as Queen of Heaven.

The Bible also gives us a glimpse of the Assumption of Mary in Psalm 132:8 (Psalm 131:8 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible).

Psalm 132:8 - “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”

This interesting psalm speaks of the Lord and the Ark arising or being carried to a permanent resting place. This is an image of the Assumption; for Jesus is the Lord and Mary is the new Ark, as we’ve shown. Both of them are taken to Heaven, body and soul. Jesus ascends on His own; Mary is assumed by Jesus.

If the Ark of the Old Covenant is spoken of as being carried off to a resting place, how much more the Ark of the new and eternal covenant? We also see that the Ark is spoken of as sanctified.


The bodily Assumption of Mary flows logically from her preservation from all original and actual sin. The corruption of the flesh in the grave is a consequence of original sin (Genesis 3:19). Most Protestants would agree on this point. As the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary did not have original sin. As a result, she was free from its consequences. It follows from this that God did not let her body see corruption.

Psalm 15:10 - “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption.”

This psalm, which speaks of God not allowing His holy one to see corruption, is quoted in the New Testament in Acts chapter 2. It refers to Jesus.

Acts 2:31 - “Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.”

Likewise, because Mary was created free from all sin, she did not suffer any corruption of the flesh in the grave and was assumed body and soul into Heaven.


The Ark of the Old Covenant was made of setim (or shittim) wood, an incorruptible acacia.

Exodus 25:10 - “Frame an ark of setim wood…

Setim wood is so extremely durable that the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, actually translates this word as "incorruptible" or "nondecaying" wood. If the Ark of the Old Covenant was incorruptible, how much more must the Ark of the New Covenant be incorruptible. God specifically prescribed incorruptible wood for the construction of the Ark because it served as a prefigurement of the incorruptible body and soul of the new Ark, the Blessed Virgin.


Some people consider it fanciful that Mary could have been miraculously assumed into Heaven, body and soul. However, the Bible tells us that Elijah was miraculously carried away to Heaven (2 Kings 2:1,11). We also read that Enoch was miraculously carried away to walk with God (Heb. 11:5; Gen. 5:24). It’s also clearly taught in the Bible – and is an article of the ancient Christian faith – that all men, whether good or evil, shall be miraculously reunited with their bodies at the final judgment, for the resurrection of the just and the reprobate (1 Cor. 15). Thus, it’s not in any way contrary to biblical realities – but rather corresponds precisely to them – to believe that Mary was assumed into Heaven because she was God’s perfect Ark and without sin.


God established a covenant with David in order to establish a Kingdom. The Davidic Monarchy, the Kingdom of God on Earth, was meant to be a prototype of the spiritual Kingdom of God which Jesus Christ would establish. That’s why Jesus is called the son of David in the Gospels. It’s why Peter himself says in Acts 2:30 that Jesus sits upon David’s throne. Luke 1:32 says the following of Jesus:

Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father…

In the Hebrew monarchy, the most powerful, honored and important woman in the Kingdom was the mother of the King. She was known as “the Queen Mother. In Hebrew, she was called “the Gebirah.” The Gebirah, the Queen Mother of the Kingdom, possessed a unique power of influence with the King. Her influence, power and prestige surpassed that of the King’s wife. We clearly see the unique influence and power of the “Queen Mother” in 1 Kings 1 and 2 (3 Kings 1 and 2 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible).

King Solomon’s mother was Bathsheba. Bathsheba’s power and influence as Queen Mother was so great that Adonias (or Adonijah) said this to her:

1 Kings 2:17 - “And he (Adonias) said: I pray thee speak to king Solomon (for he cannot deny thee any thing) to give me Abisag the Sunamitess to wife.”

Adonias understood the position and the power of the Queen Mother. However, the request that Adonias made was unreasonable. Adonias wanted to marry Abisag, who was King David’s last wife. By taking her to wife, Adonias could have made a claim on Solomon’s throne. This is why the King could not have granted his request.

Even though Adonias’ request was unreasonable and would never have been granted by the King, this shows us that it was recognized that the Queen Mother had a unique and profound power of influence with the King. This influence was so great that Adonias said: “he cannot deny thee anything.”

The next few verses shed even more light on this truth. In 1 Kings 2:19, we read that Bathsheba (the Queen Mother) went in to speak to King Solomon to ask of him the favor. When she entered, the King bowed himself to her and caused a throne to be set up for her next to him.


1 Kings 2:19-20 - “Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand. And she said to him: I desire one small petition of thee, do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother, ask: for I must not turn away thy face.”

As we can see, the Bible teaches that the Queen Mother is honored on a throne with the King. She is not equal to the King, of course; but she is honored along with him as the Queen of the Kingdom. Here we see a perfect description of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her influence with the King. She is the Queen Mother in the Kingdom of Jesus. Mary is infinitely inferior to her Divine Son. However, she is the perfect Ark, the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

This is why Mary has such a power in Heaven under her Divine Son – a power and influence that is greater than what the Queen Mother of the Old Testament had over the King. It’s why it’s so effective to ask favors of her, so that she can ask them of Jesus. She is placed, in the Kingdom of Jesus, beside Him as the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

In Psalm 45 (Psalm 44 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), we also see a reference to God’s throne and the Queen with Him:

Psalms 45:6, 9 - “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom… The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing…


Some non-Catholics claim that Catholic prayers such as the Hail Mary and the Rosary fall under the denunciation of Jesus.

Queen of the Rosary
Matthew 6:7-8 - “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”

Like the other objections we’ve covered, this objection is also disproven by a deeper consideration of the Bible. Probably the best example to refute the Protestant objection on this point is Revelation (Apocalypse) 4:8.

Revelation 4:8 - “And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.”

The angels in Heaven say over and over again, day and night, “Holy, holy, holy.” So much for the idea that all prayers which contain repetitions are “pagan.” The assertion couldn’t be more wrong.

In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is not condemning prayers which contain words that are repeated; nor is He condemning multiple repetitions of the same prayer (e.g., saying the Our Father or the Hail Mary five times in a row). No, He is denouncing the practices of the pagans. The pagans thought that they could please their false gods by their eloquence and elaborate speeches. They thought that they had to say precisely the correct things and words and names on certain days, lest their false “gods” would not hear them or remember their needs. Jesus is denouncing their paganism. He is teaching that the true God knows all things.

There are other points which obliterate the Protestant objection on this matter. In Psalm 136 (Psalm 135 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), we are given a prayer of praise and thanksgiving which repeats the same phrase – “for his mercy endures forever” – a grand total of 26 times in a row!

Psalms 136:1-26 - “O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever… To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever… [etc.]

Jesus repeats the same prayer three times in a row, when praying to His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. That can be read in Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42, and Matthew 26:44. In Matthew 20:29-33, Jesus responds to the repeated prayer of the blind men to have mercy on them.

As we can see, the Bible contains many examples where prayers to the true God are repeated. They do not constitute “vain repetitions” of pagans. In fact, the Catholic Church’s prayers to Mary in the Hail Mary and the Rosary are predicted by Mary herself in Luke 1:

The Hail Mary prayer: “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.”

Luke 1:46-48 - “And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

Obviously only the Catholic Church fulfills this prophecy, which is about all generations of the true Church.


Immaculate Heart of Mary
The Catholic Church honors and spreads devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary. She had the most pure heart of any human being that ever lived. Just like the Ark of the Old Covenant, the devotion to Mary’s immaculate heart is powerful with God. Some non-Catholics condemn this devotion as unbiblical. On the contrary, only the heart of Mary is specifically mentioned in the New Testament. The heart of no other good or holy person receives the kind of attention that is given to Mary’s heart in the Gospel. Her heart was unique among human beings because it was never defiled by sin.

Luke 2:18-19 - “And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”

Luke 2:51 - “And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Mary’s unique soul also receives a special mention in Scripture.

Luke 2:35 - “(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”


It’s surprising that so many non-Catholics have trouble with the title “Mary, mother of God.” They admit that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but argue that she is not to be considered “mother of God.” Protestants who hold that Mary is not the mother of God don’t seem to realize that it’s not logically consistent to believe that Jesus is God, but to deny that Mary is the mother of God. Such a position actually denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, who is one divine person with two natures.

Fact: Jesus Christ is God. The Bible teaches it in many places (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; Isaias 9:6; etc.)

Fact: Mary is the mother of Jesus. The Bible teaches it in many places (Luke 1:31; Mt. 1:25; etc.)

Undeniable conclusion: Mary is the mother of God.

Blessed Mother Mary
Luke 1:31-32 - “And, behold, thou [Mary] shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

Isaias 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].”

The Bible indicates that Mary is the mother of Immanuel (which means “God with us”).

Luke 1:43 - "[Elizabeth said]: And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Elizabeth also explicitly says that Mary is the mother of the Lord. That is the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is God.

Ephesians 4:5 - “One Lord, one faith, one baptism…

John 20:28 - “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

That should be simple enough. Unfortunately, it isn’t sufficient for some people. The Protestant error on this point needs to be more completely addressed and refuted.

Protestants point out that the divine nature of God is eternal and without beginning. That’s certainly true. Since the nature of God is eternal and it certainly did not come from Mary, they argue, Mary cannot be said to be “mother” of God. This is the main argument that Protestants make on this point. It is a very flawed argument.

The Protestant error on this point stems from attributing to the person of the Son of God only that which belongs to His divine nature. It is to fail to attribute to the person of the Son of God also that which belongs or pertains to His human nature.

Since the Son of God has truly become man, by failing to attribute to Him also that which belongs to His human nature, they actually deny that Jesus Christ is at the same time true God and true man.

The Son of God, Jesus Christ, is one divine person (the second person of the Holy Trinity) with two natures. He is both true God and true man. Jesus Christ is not a man who was united with or inspired by God. No, He is true God who truly became man.

John 1:14 - “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…

Jesus was not just a special human who had a unique inspiration and connection to the Word of God (the Son of God). No, He is the Word of God made flesh. Therefore, to attribute to the Son of God only that which specifically belongs to His divine nature, and not also that which applies to His assumed human nature – as the Protestants do when they deny that Mary is the mother of God – is to divide Jesus into two different people.

In the 5th century there was a certain heretic named Nestorius. He argued like Protestants of our day on this matter. He held that Mary was not to be called Theotokos (mother/bearer of God), but only Christotokos (bearer of Christ). The Church immediately recognized the heresy of Nestorius and condemned it in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. Nestorius’ false view was recognized by the Church to be the heresy which the Bible condemned as the “dissolving” of Jesus and “antichrist.” This false idea “dissolves” Christ by separating from His one person that which pertains to His human nature. It results in the division of Jesus into two people, and the position that Jesus was just a man who carried (or was inspired by) the person of God, rather than a divine person who truly became man. This heresy results in the worship of a man and the worship of two sons. The Church clearly saw this for what it was and condemned it.

Second Council of Constantinople, 553- “The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius… and all those who might later… adopt the same opinions as he held… They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENCE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Council of Ephesus, 431, Can. 5: “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a Godbearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh", and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.”

Jesus is not two different people. He is ONE DIVINE PERSON with two natures. Therefore, that which happens to His human nature truly happens to His one person. His person was conceived and born in His humanity from Mary. She is therefore truly His mother, and the mother of God.

The meaning entailed in this truth is staggering. As the Church has always taught, the Son of God, eternal and equal to the Father, had two births. He was born before time, and from all eternity, from God the Father (John 16:28; John 8:42). He was born in time, as man, from Mary, His mother. Only Mary possesses this inscrutable connection to God, to a person of the Trinity. It is from this truth, that she is truly Mother of God, that all of her other unique prerogatives and privileges come.


These are the biblical reasons why the Catholic Church has always recognized the importance and the necessity of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the new Eve, the new Ark, the pure vessel, the sealed gate, and the Mother of God. To fail to have devotion to her is equivalent to a man in the Old Testament who would refuse to venerate the Ark of the Covenant or would refuse to march behind it to a battle. Such a man would fall prey to the enemies of God and would be separated from the camp of God’s people.

1 Samuel 4:22 - “... The glory is departed from Israel, because the ark of God was taken.”

Protestant translations of the passage are slightly different: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (1611 King James Version). The Protestant Bibles render the final part of the passage as the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, whereas the traditional Catholic versions have it as “she” (the woman) will crush the serpent’s head. An ambiguity in the Hebrew texts makes this issue a matter of scholarly debate. Many of the ancient fathers, however, agree with the traditional Catholic rendering of “she.” Regardless, even if one were to grant, for the sake of argument, the translation which is preferred by Protestants, the point about Mary being the definitive “woman” in opposition to the serpent remains perfectly intact; for Protestants translate the first part just as Catholics do.

(Note: The images were all sourced from the Internet by the Author of Infallible Catholic.)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Follow by Email