Is Mary The Mother Of God? Rome’s Marian Dogma Examined

In Roman Catholic theology, there are four defined Marian dogmas: Mary as the Mother of God, her Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and bodily Assumption into Heaven. These are not optional opinions, but are considered divinely revealed truths by the Church’s magisterium, necessary for salvation, and to be believed with divine faith. To knowingly deny a dogma defined by Rome is considered heresy, which places a person outside the communion of the Church and imperils one’s salvation.1 Mariology is not just an ancillary part of Roman Catholic religion, as a recent Pope frankly stated, “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.”2 But are these dogmas and devotions biblical? Is the Christian conscience bound to believe them and to conform our piety and devotion unto them?

Dogmatic Authority

At the outset, it is necessary to clarify the basis on which matters such as these are to be examined. Rome maintains that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church functions as an infallible judge in religious controversies, thereby binding the Christian conscience to its dogmatic determinations. Protestants, by contrast, hold that Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Bible itself, is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, and that God alone is Lord of the conscience.3 Accordingly, Rome conceives the Church’s authority as magisterial, whereas Protestants understand the Church’s authority to be ministerial. A magisterial authority claims the power to define and determine doctrine (i.e. dogmatize), while a ministerial authority is bound to receive, guard, and declare the teaching already given by God in Scripture. Robert Shaw explains:

“Although the Church or her ministers are the official guardians of the Scriptures, and although it belongs to them to explain and enforce the doctrines and laws contained in the Word of God, yet their authority is only ministerial, and their interpretations and decisions are binding on the conscience only in so far as they accord with the mind of the Spirit in the Scriptures. By this test, the decisions of councils, the opinions of ancient writers, and the doctrines of men at the present time, are to be tried, and by this rule all controversies in religion must be determined (Isa 8:20; Matt 22:29).”4

These differing conceptions of authority necessarily entail differing views of how, and by what standard, the Christian conscience may lawfully be bound in matters of faith and worship. Moreover, the Marian dogmas themselves provide a concrete case study in which the superiority, beauty, and God-glorifying coherence of Sola Scriptura stands in sharp contrast to the arbitrary, conscience-binding, and creature-glorifying accretions of Rome’s magisterium. The following series of four posts seeks to help Christians understand Rome’s four Marian dogmas by weighing them each in turn against the Word of God. Drawing from the holy Scriptures, we aim to show how these doctrines intersect with, yet ultimately depart from, the biblical rule of faith and historic Christian teaching. We will see that the Roman Catholic “Mary” is no closer to the biblical and historic Mary than the Mormon “Jesus” is to the biblical and historic Jesus.5

Mary is the “Mother of God” (Theotokos)

Dogma defined by Rome:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Mary is truly “Mother of God” since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself” (CCC 509).

Protestant Affirmation:

Protestants generally have no problem with referring to Mary as the “mother of God.” But we do not do so as an honorific title for Mary per se, but rather as a statement about the divinity of Jesus Christ. Simply put, Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God. Just as Scripture can say that “God” died (1 John 3:16), and that God “shed his own blood” (Acts 20:28), and that Jesus “came down from heaven” and is currently “in heaven” while speaking face to face with another man (John 3:13), it is likewise appropriate to say that the virgin Mary gave birth to and raised God, because Jesus is God. If one affirms the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable deity of Jesus Christ, then one should have no problem using theological language6 in the same way holy Scripture itself does. This is exactly how the phrase originated and was used in the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and the Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD), which states that Jesus Christ was “born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood.”7

Protestant Denial:

The problem with Rome’s dogma on this point is not the language, nor the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. The main problem is that Rome has taken this historic and accurate phrase as an honorific title for Mary and superstitiously perverted it to idolatry. Francis Turretin states, “the title Mother of God given to the virgin was perverted by superstitious men into an occasion of idolatry, as Paul Sarpi observes, ‘…this, instituted indeed solely for the honor of Christ, by degrees began to be shared with the mother and at length was referred entirely to her alone.’”8

Phillip Schaff writes that the phrase “was meant originally not so much to exalt the Virgin Mary, as to assert the true divinity of Christ and the realness of the Incarnation.” The qualification “according to the manhood”:

“is a very important limitation, and necessary to guard against Mariolatry, and the heathenish, blasphemous, and contradictory notion that the uncreated, eternal God can be born in time. Mary was the mother not merely of the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, but of the theanthropic person of Jesus Christ; yet not of his eternal Godhead, but of his incarnate person, or the Logos united to humanity. In like manner, the subject of the Passion was the theanthropic person; yet not according to his divine nature, which in itself is incapable of suffering, but according to his human nature, which was the organ of suffering. There is no doubt, however, that the unscriptural terms θεοτόκος [“mother of God”], Dei genitrix [“begetter of God”], Deipara [“she who gives birth to God”], mater Dei [“mother of God”], which remind one of the heathen mothers of gods, have greatly promoted Mariolatry, which aided in the defeat of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, 431. It is safer to adhere to the New Testament designation of Mary as “mother of Jesus,” or “mother of the Lord” (Luke 1:43).”9

The fourth century Antiochene churchmen were not Nestorian in their Christology (despite some pre-creedal imprecision); nevertheless, they exercised pastoral prudence, hesitating to adopt the term because of its misuse by heretical groups in their historical context.10 Out of pastoral sensitivity for the ignorant and superstitious, John Calvin likewise cautioned against the use of the phrase:

“To deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part, I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so…for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.”11

No Protestant denies the divinity of Jesus.12 But depending on the context, it may not always be prudent to use this phrase if people are going to take it to be in idolatrous veneration of Mary13 or in an otherwise unorthodox manner. Direct affirmation of Christ’s divinity avoids these problems. Nevertheless, as Turretin wrote, “the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of this name.”14

Further Corruptions Attached to this Dogma:

Rome imports a lot more meaning into the phrase “Mother of God” than is warranted by Scripture, reason, and (as we saw) the historical meaning of the phrase itself. In their eyes, the dogma of Theotokos is pregnant with the entirety of Rome’s Mariology, as one Romanist writes:

“In the hierarchy of Mariological truths, Mary’s being the Mother of God is the pivotal basis for her role in the economy of salvation. Mary has been exalted by grace above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy Mother of God… It is in view of her mission as the Mother of God that she is immaculately conceived. It is due to her motherhood that she remains ever-virgin. It is a result of her motherhood and consequent relationship to the Christ that she is assumed body and soul into heaven.”15

Christians must distinguish between the orthodox meaning of this expression vs. the numerous unorthodox and idolatrous accretions that Rome attaches to it. Just as with many theological terms, we use the same word but have different meanings for it.

Furthermore, the superstitious perversion of this phrase eventually gave way to more superstitious titles and theological ideas about Mary, such as calling her “our Mother” and the Mother of the Church (CCC 963), her alleged “maternal intercession” from Heaven (MPF 27), “Mary’s spiritual motherhood” over all Christians (MPF 35; CCC 501), offering her supreme veneration (hyperdulia) (LV 43), praying to her because “Jesus always listens to his mother,” etc. In  Roman teaching, these concepts are integrally tied together with Mary as the mother of God, and, in practice, often overshadow the orthodox sense of it.16

These are very obviously unbiblical concepts, and not just that, but actively blasphemous and idolatrous, derogating from the glory and honor of the Lord Jesus Christ. Praying to anyone but God, such as in the “Hail Mary” of the Rosary, is idolatry because: 1) Prayer itself is an act of worship (Psalm 141:2; Rom 10:14; Mat 21:13). 2) Faith is necessarily placed in the person called upon (Rom 10:14), and none must be believed in but God alone (Ex 20:3; Jer 17:5; John 14:1; Acts 16:31). 3) And only God knows our thoughts and hears our prayers (Rom 8:26-27; 1 Kings 8:39; Ps 65:2).17 “Viewing Mary as one who intercedes for us either now or at our deaths makes Mary a kind of mediator of our redemption.”18 Mary is portrayed by Rome as the “Mother of the Church,” just as the Bible teaches Christ is the “Head of the Church” (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18). Rome’s Mariology undermines the sufficiency of Christ, as R.C. Sproul wrote:

“The biggest issue in the whole Mariology debate is the sufficiency of Christ. In truth, this is the issue with Roman Catholic theology from beginning to end. It is the issue with Rome’s doctrine of Scripture, its doctrine of justification, and even here, with its doctrine of Mary. Is Christ alone our perfect sacrifice? Does He offer Himself for the sins of His people or is He offered by His mother? Does He alone achieve our redemption or does He have to depend upon the cooperation of His mother? Protestants believe that Christ alone is our justification.”19

Mary was indeed blessed to be chosen to bear the incarnate Word of God (Luke 1:48). And she is a great example of a godly Christian we should all imitate (1 Cor 11:1). But she is not to be set apart as an object of worship, as Augustine wrote of our godly forebears, “they are to be honored by imitation, and not adored with religious rites.”20 She is a believer, adopted by God, along with every other Christian. When a woman exalted Jesus’ mother, he deliberately redirected her away from Marian veneration and toward obedience to God’s Word: “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:27-28). In doing so, Jesus exalted the Word of God and placed Mary in a humble and proper position. We learn from this that Mary is honored, not as an object of devotion, but as an exemplar of faith. This incident exposes Rome’s extravagant Mariolatry as a departure from Christ’s own sober and Scriptural assessment of her blessedness.21

In our next post we will examine the second Marian dogma: Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

  1. “A dogma is a truth proclaimed by the Church to which the Christian owes ‘an irrevocable adherence of faith.’ (CCC, 88) In other words, dogma is not up for debate; it is something a Catholic must believe. Dogmas are essential. They serve as ‘lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure.’ (CCC, 89) Without them, we wouldn’t know what to believe; we would be left in darkness and in error.” (What Catholics Must Believe About the Blessed Virgin Mary (01 July 2022), The Catholic Diocese of Tyler). ↩︎
  2. CCC 971; Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus 56, 02 Feb 1974. ↩︎
  3. See the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 & 20.2. ↩︎
  4. Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith, p. 58. ↩︎
  5. She is so embellished that she eclipses the true Mary and especially the person and work of Christ, as Martyn Lloyd Jones described Roman Catholic apostasy, “it is not so much a matter of denial of the Truth, but rather such an addition to the Truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it.” (The Roman Catholic Church, May 1963). ↩︎
  6. Theologians call this way of speaking about the two natures of Christ in relation to his Person, the Communication of Properties (Communicatio Idiomatum). This doctrine is expressed in Westminster Confession 8.7, “Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself (Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 3:18); yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature (John 3:13; Acts 20:28; 1 John 3:16).” ↩︎
  7. Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62. ↩︎
  8. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XIII.vii.11-12, vol. 2, p. 320. ↩︎
  9. Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62. ↩︎
  10. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), p. 113. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 301-9. ↩︎
  11. John Calvin, Letter to the French Church in London (1552); Tracts & Letters, vol. 5, p. 362. ↩︎
  12. It is often the case that ignorant Evangelicals may not know the history of this phrase, nor understand the communication of properties, and therefore object to calling Mary “the mother of God.” But this does not automatically make them Nestorian nor mean that they deny the divinity of Christ. John Davenant calls us to charity in our relations with our Evangelical brethren: “It is abhorrent to charity and right reason that any, because of consequences from what he holds, neither understood nor granted by him, should be thought to deny or reject a fundamental article which he firmly believes, expressly asserts, and, if he were called to it, would seal the truth of it with his blood.” (John Davenant, An Exhortation to Brotherly Communion, p. 16; cited in Jeremiah Burroughs, Irenicum, p. 268). ↩︎
  13. “Scripture does not recognize the difference between the adoration of latreia, douleia (absolute and relative), but claims religious adoration simply for God alone. Nor will God judge according to those ingenious but idle distinctions and intentions of prevaricating men (which the common people know nothing of), but according to the rule prescribed in his word.” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XI.viii.5, vol. 2; cf. Zacharias Ursinus, “The objections which the Papists bring against us in favor of the Invocation of the Saints,” Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 542-548). ↩︎
  14. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XIII.vii.12, vol. 2, p. 320. ↩︎
  15. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), p. 107. ↩︎
  16. E.g. “Mary is honored in the Church with special reverence. Indeed, from most ancient times the Blessed Virgin Mary has been venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer.’ In all perils and needs, the faithful have fled prayerfully to her protection.” (Pope John Paul II, RM 42). “Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit” gives rise to “her place in the mystery of the Church” (CCC 693). “By pronouncing her ‘fiat’ at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.” (CCC 973). “We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ” (Pope Paul VI, CPG 15, 30 June 1968; CCC 975). ↩︎
  17. Cf. James Ussher, Of Prayer to Saints, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit in Ireland, pp. 362-365. Zacharias Ursinus, “The objections which the Papists bring against us in favor of the Invocation of the Saints,” Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 542-548. ↩︎
  18. R.C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism, p. 104. Indeed, Haffner openly admits and thoroughly argues that “Mary’s Motherhood, did not however stop with the mystery of the Incarnation, but continued on in Christ’s earthly life…Mary’s maternal participation in Her Son’s sacrifice forms the basis for the doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix” (The Mystery of Mary, p. 126). He fully argues for this pp. 187-201. In 1981, Pope John Paul II credited Mary with diverting an assassin’s bullet from vital organs and preserving his life, later writing that he felt her “extraordinary motherly protection and care” (Memory & Identity, p. 184). ↩︎
  19. R.C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism, p. 115. ↩︎
  20. “Honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem.” (Augustine, Of True Religion, ch. 55, § 108; p. 102). ↩︎
  21. “Although recognizing the special role of Mary in the incarnation of the Son, the gospel does not put her in a privileged category. She is part of the spiritual family of God as a believer in the Son, like anyone else, not as mother. She was blessed in the same way other believers were and are, hearing and doing God’s Word, not claiming her motherly role…the family of God is to be qualified by faith in Jesus Christ rather than biological links…” (Leonardo De Chirico, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Mary, p. 13). ↩︎

Leave a comment