Roman Catholic theology includes four Marian dogmas, each proposed as divinely revealed, conscience-binding truths necessary for belief and religious devotion. In this series, we examine each dogma by submitting it to the supreme authority of holy Scripture, which alone is the rule of faith and worship. In the first article, we contrasted the authority of holy Scripture with Rome’s claim to magisterial authority as competing foundations for ruling the Christian conscience. With that biblical foundation in place, we now turn to the Bodily Assumption of Mary, asking whether it is taught by the Word of God.

Mary’s Bodily Assumption into Heaven

Dogma defined by Rome:

“‘Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death’ (LG 59). The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: ‘In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death’” (CCC 966).

The Assumption was dogmatized in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, who declared:

“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”¹

Pius XII explicitly tied Mary’s Assumption to her sinlessness: “She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.” (MD 5). Rome leaves it as an open question whether or not Mary died before going bodily into Heaven, but they necessarily must all agree that she “cannot have died as a penalty for sin.”²

Protestant belief:

Protestants believe Mary’s fate was no different from what Scripture teaches is normative for every godly Christian: She died (Rom 5:12; Heb 9:27), her body was buried and returned to dust (Gen 3:19), and her soul was taken to Heaven and glorified (2 Cor 5:1, 8; Heb 12:23), where she awaits the general resurrection of the body (1 Cor 15:42-44).³ Having seen that the previous dogma of Mary’s sinlessness is an innovation, and is not just absent from the Bible, but positively refuted by the Bible, the dogma of her bodily assumption into Heaven already has no ground to stand upon. The arguments refuting her sinlessness, by necessary consequence, also refute her bodily assumption.

Scripture’s Silence.

Roman Catholic historian Eamon Duffy candidly admitted the problems with this dogma: “The definition embarrassed many Catholic theologians, since it was unsupported in Scripture and was unknown to the Early Church, and it was a disaster for relations with other churches.”⁴ Rome can’t help but admit that this dogma is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but justifies it anyway by its rejection of Sola Scriptura and their concept of revelation contained in extra-biblical “tradition.”⁵ This dogma cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture alone and so it must be cobbled together from the imaginations and fallible opinions of men.

The only divine testimony we have, the Bible, mentions nothing about Mary’s assumption into Heaven. If such a spiritually significant event had occurred, and it were a dogmatic necessity for us to know and devotionally attune our lives to, Scripture would have recorded it. More than that, the Vatican alleges that Mary’s assumption is an exemption from “the general rule” of “victory over death” in the general resurrection at “the end of time” (MD 4-5)—such detail could not be known apart from divine revelation in Scripture. This dogma is not an inconsequential detail, but is set forth as a spiritually significant event that necessarily obligates the belief, reverence, and devotion of every Christian. So the subject matter, if true, is not something the Bible, as the very Word of God and rule for our lives, would ignore or be silent about. “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life” and everything necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly taught in Scripture that anyone who reads it can sufficiently understand it (Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17; Psalm 119:105, 130).⁶ “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path… The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psalm 119:105, 130). Scripture is profitable for everything we need in faith and life, and it “thoroughly equips” the man of God for everything God calls him to believe or do (2 Tim 3:15-17). So, if this Marian dogma were true, God would have clearly taught it to us in the Bible. But since he hasn’t, we can safely conclude it is not true.

The Woman in Revelation 12

The only passage alleged to hint to Mary’s assumption is the woman in Revelation 12, who is described in verses 1-2 as “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.” First, this could only plausibly describe Mary if it is taken for granted that she was assumed into Heaven and made the center of such spiritual mysteries, but that is a circular argument. Secondly, when we compare this passage with others in Scripture, we clearly see that this is a symbol of the people of God under persecution. Gavin Ortlund shows that “In essence, this passage is describing a persecution of the church, not an assumption of Mary.” And summarizes Shoemaker, “That is why interpreting the woman as Mary has no precedent in the church until around the time people begin to wonder about Mary’s ultimate fate.”⁷ Specifically, the symbolism of a woman travailing in labor pains is common throughout the Old Testament for the church’s persecution and deliverance (Jeremiah 4:31, Isaiah 26:17, 66:7, Micah 4:10); the sun, moon, and twelve stars is reminiscent of Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9 about Jacob (Israel) and his sons, who became the twelve tribes of Israel.⁸ The sweeping away of stars calls to mind Satan’s persecution of the church in Daniel 8:10; the woman’s flight into the wilderness for 1,260 days, or “a time, and times, and half a time” is “the same time frame as the persecution described in Daniel 7:25 and 12:7-12,” and so on. We may add that this woman gives birth not only to Jesus but to “the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17), which again corresponds to the Church (cf. Rom 11:26; Gal 4:26). Finally, even if this vision were of Mary, no bodily assumption is mentioned whatsoever, and its temporal scope does not line up with her. Ortlund observes:

“The woman is already in heaven (verse 1) prior to the birth of the Messiah (verse 5). Her flight from the dragon (verse 14), her stay in the wilderness for 1,260 days (verse 6), the persecution of her other children (verse 17)—all of this happens subsequent to John’s initial vision of her in heaven. The idea that Mary was bodily assumed to heaven at the end of her life, after these events, is completely alien to the passage.”⁹

The only aspect of this vision that could plausibly correspond to Mary is that the woman gives birth to a son “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” (Rev 12:5). But it is dubious and eisegetical to reason that simply because “two events have a certain character in common; the first event possesses another character; therefore, it is argued, the second must possess it also.”¹⁰ A false analogy occurs when one argues that because two things share some properties, they must share another property that has not been shown to follow from the similarities. This is the absurd logic of Rome’s pervasive arguments for its theology based on analogy and allegory.¹¹ Just because Mary gave birth to Christ, and so did the woman in this figure, even though no other characteristic of this vision fits with Mary, they attempt to force it to fit because of one common characteristic. That’s not sound biblical interpretation, it’s eisegesis. Similarity in one respect does not entail similarity in all respects.

Lastly, this woman is described as “travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (Rev 12:2). But as we’ve seen, Rome asserts that Mary did not experience pain when delivering Jesus, because she was immaculate and immune from this curse of Eve. So ironically, invoking this passage to support one infallible dogma would necessarily refute two other infallible dogmas: her virginity “even in the act of giving birth” (in partu), and her immaculate sinlessness from her conception in the womb.¹²

Contrary to Clear Biblical Teaching (Analogia Fidei).

Not only is it completely absent from the Bible, this dogma, as defined by Rome, actively contradicts the teaching of the Bible. Answering the question, Can we know anything about Mary’s death? J.H. Heidegger wrote: “That she, at the time appointed by God, departed this world through mortal passing is beyond all doubt, because ‘it is appointed unto men once to die’ (Hebrews 9:27). But when, where, and how she departed this world, we find nothing at all in the Holy Scripture. It is also unnecessary for us to know for our salvation.”¹³ As a believer in Jesus, Mary’s soul is surely in Heaven awaiting the resurrection, along with every other believer who dies.

The Westminster Confession accurately describes what happens to a believer when they die. After death, our bodies return to dust and see corruption (Gen 3:19; Acts 13:36); but our souls immediately return to God who gave them (Ecc 12:7; Luke 23:43). Believers are then made perfect in holiness and received into Heaven, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies (Phil 1:23 with Acts 3:21 and Eph 4:10; 2 Cor 5:1, 6, 8; Heb 12:23). At the last day, those who are found alive shall not die, but be changed (1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thes 4:17); and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever (Job 19:26-27; 1 Cor 15:42-44).¹⁴ The Word of God, our only infallible rule for faith and life, does not imply or describe anything different about Mary’s death.¹⁵ And the reasons Rome gives for positing otherwise, are fundamentally idolatrous and contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. Even the renowned Jesuit doctor Francisco Suarez undermines the core rationale given in the Pope’s definition (MD 5):

“That Mary suffered not only death but all the physical penalties inherited from Adam is the unambiguous teaching of the sixteenth century theologian of the Immaculate Conception, Suarez. He says: ‘The conclusion that the Blessed Virgin did not undergo death or inherit the bodily penalties from Adam is utterly false and contrary to Paul’s statement to the Romans that through sin death has come upon all men.’”¹⁶

The Bible records that Enoch and Elijah were taken bodily into Heaven by the prerogative and mere good pleasure of God to testify of faith and the hope of the heavenly country (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11), not on the basis of an immaculate conception or intrinsic sinlessness. Mary’s alleged assumption is therefore fundamentally disanalogous to theirs, since it is grounded in an entirely different set of causes. The Roman dogma does not merely assert a divine act of translation; it explicitly roots Mary’s assumption in her supposed sinlessness, exemption from the consequences of sin (MD 5), her union and cooperation with Christ in the work of redemption (MD 38-40), the necessity of her ongoing maternal intercession from Heaven (MD 40; ACR 42), and her role as a pledge or surety of the resurrection for believers (MD 42; LG 68). Scripture provides no analogy for such a concept except insofar as it introduces a functional competitor to the unique mediatorship and redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ.¹⁷ And ironically, one of the primary hesitations for Romanists to say that Mary did not die before being assumed is the concern that this would render her superior to Christ, who did truly die.¹⁸ Moreover, following Aquinas, it was widely held that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified in the womb (Jer 1:5; Luke 1:15), though not from conception, and yet Roman Catholics don’t argue that they were assumed bodily into heaven. The Roman dogma thus collapses under the weight of its own theological premises, lacking both biblical foundation and coherence with the clear teaching of Scripture.

Unknown in church history.

The early church believed, without controversy, that Mary was indeed subject to the wages of sin. Augustine exemplifies this when he writes, “Mary, who was of Adam, died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord, which was of Mary, died to put away sin.”¹⁹ And elsewhere in reference to 2 Cor 5:14-15 (“if one died for all, then were all dead…”), Augustine comments, “All, without one exception, were dead in sins.”²⁰ Augustine’s 19th century editor observes here, “Mary is not excepted by any of the Fathers; and the Latin Fathers, the last of whom is St. Bernard, unanimously ascribe to Christ the only immaculate conception.”²¹ This is why any idea of her alleged bodily assumption on account of an exemption from sin’s consequences was unknown in the early church.

The tradition of Mary being assumed bodily into heaven did not emerge in the Christian church until the late 5th century, despite having been prevalent in Gnostic legends far earlier. Historian Stephen Shoemaker writes:

“There is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s Dormition and Assumption from before the fifth century. The only exception to this is Epiphanius’ unsuccessful attempt to uncover a tradition of the end of Mary’s life towards the end of the fourth century, and his failure confirms the otherwise deafening silence. The fifth century itself also has very little to offer, until the very end, when the first fragments of a Dormition narrative appear, as well as limited indications from a few independent sources that confirm a sudden interest at this time in the end of Mary’s life.”²²

He goes on to explain that the “earliest narratives” are theologically aligned with “ancient gnostic Christianity,” because “several doctrines espoused by these narratives suggest this connection, including their emphasis on secret, salvific knowledge, demiurgy, and an Angel Christology.”²³ Gavin Ortlund very ably and thoroughly synthesizes the scholarship on the historicity of the assumption traditions, and concludes:

“Why should anyone accept Mary’s assumption as apostolic when it (1) is completely absent in the church for several centuries, even when one would expect it to come up (for example, in Epiphanius’s search, in lists of those bodily assumed, etc.), (2) seems to originate in heterodox contexts, like The Book of Mary’s Repose, (3) is recognized as tardy when it does finally arise, and (4) comes into view simultaneously with seemingly countless alternative accounts of Mary’s end? The bodily assumption of Mary gives every impression of being a postapostolic accretion that only gradually wormed its way into the piety and imagination of the church… [Furthermore] the idea that the bodily assumption was universally accepted by the church when it did arise is simply false. Over a millennium after Mary lived, it was still not a settled matter in the church.”²⁴

Clearly, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven is not a genuine historical event, but a late development, gradually constructed to serve as an ad hoc justification for Rome’s apotheosis of Mary and the superstitious devotion built around her.

Contradictions on Mary’s mortality.

Another reason to reject the assumption of Mary, is that there is no rational or consistent explanation of her death, or lack thereof. And this is evident in the ongoing inhouse debates between Roman Catholic parties, the one arguing that she did die, and the other that she did not die before being assumed into Heaven. Under either view, there are insurmountable absurdities, and either side has been more than happy to point these out about the other.²⁵

On the one hand, the natural conclusion from the arguments for Mary’s assumption would seem to demand that she did not die, being immaculate and therefore exempt from the penalty of sin, death. This was the view of Gabriel Roschini, one of the foremost Mariologists of the 20th century.²⁶ However, it was later argued by Pope John Paul II that this would make Mary superior to Jesus, who did in fact die.²⁷ Exempting Mary from death also alienates Rome’s ecumenical relations with Eastern Orthodoxy, who have a strong tradition that she died.

On the other hand, the vast majority of assumption legends indicate that Mary died before being raised. So how can it be explained that she was exempt from the penalty of death, and yet still actually died? Two Romanist scholars writing three months before the dogma was defined, explain the sophistry:

“To meet this situation the theologian has, however, found a hypothesis according to which Our Lady, though by right immune from death, consented to die in order to resemble her Son as closely as possible and to unite her sufferings to his. Her death came not according to the general law of nature, but as a free act of piety… The artificial character of this argument is apparent. With the intention of reaching the conclusion that Mary died and yet that her body was preserved from corruption, an argument is first produced which, if valid, would prove that she underwent neither death nor bodily corruption. The attempt is then made to dispose of the undesired part of the conclusion by invoking an entirely unverifiable hypothesis, namely, that Mary voluntarily embraced death while electing to retain an incorruptible body. Such an artifice of debate lacks all ground except that of convenience.”²⁸

The Vatican’s openness to whether Mary died or not before her assumption, far from being a strength, introduces logical incoherence for either position. 

Invalidity of Papal Revelations.

Finally, the Word of God sharply opposes additions of private revelations or dogmas to the deposit of faith (Rev 22:18; Gal 1:8-9; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Deut 12:32). It also teaches that there is no mediator other than Christ, and no creature (angel or saint) is to be prayed to. By this standard, the Assumption dogma, defined by papal authority, is an unauthorized innovation, and a blasphemous usurpation of the crown rights of Jesus Christ.

Further Corruptions Attached to this Dogma:

1. The Assumption of Mary is not just a quaint theoretical belief for Roman Catholics, it demands their devotion and piety, and obligates them to religiously observe many rituals unto her. Pope Francis urged that “devotion to Mary is not spiritual etiquette; it is a requirement of the Christian life.”²⁹ Since Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven, she has also been seated on a throne and crowned by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the “Queen of Heaven.”³⁰ This is depicted in many works of art such as Diego Velázquez’s 1635 painting “Coronation of the Virgin.” The encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (Queen of Heaven) in 1954 by Pope Pius XII instituted “the feast of Mary’s Queenship” declaring “the royal dignity of the Mother of God and of men, to whom every creature is subject, who is ‘exalted to the heavenly throne, above the choirs of angels.'”³¹ Ten years later in 1964, another Pope declared:

“…the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death… Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”³²

Despite spuriously warning that this is not to be understood such that it “takes away from, nor adds anything to, the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator” (LG 62), it necessarily does so, logically and practically. These ideas about Mary simultaneously exalt her to the level of a goddess, requiring our devotion, displace the exclusive majesty and redemptive work of God, and add a Co-Redeemer with Christ.³³ “Conformity with her Son” in his Mediatorial office of Kingship, his Priestly conquering of sin and death, and his heavenly exaltation is ascribing to Mary what can only be ascribed to the Redeemer. Assigning unto her a “saving office,” and “manifold intercession” whereby she “continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” likewise assaults the exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ’s majestic person and salvific work. Martin Luther addresses this with reference to praise songs to Mary:

“Here I must say a few words about the song which is called Salve Regina [Hail Holy Queen]. It is a great blaspheme of God. For it says, ‘Hail you queen of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope.’ Is that not too much? Who could justify calling her our life, sweetness and mercy when she is satisfied to call herself a ‘handmaiden of the LORD’ (Luke 1:38)? …It is the same with the Regina Coeli [Queen of Heaven], which is not much better, in which she is called ‘the Queen of Heaven.’ Is that not doing Christ a disservice when you account to a creature what only belongs to and is proper to God? So forget these ungodly and unchristian words.”³⁴

Rome venerates Mary through graven images of her, prayer unto her, feasts and holy days of obligation unto her,³⁵ and by ascribing divine attributes, titles, and works unto her. But Jehovah plainly says “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). The heartfelt cry of every servant of God is “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30), and Mary herself exemplifies this by humbling herself as “the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). Thus, Rome’s Marian system does not respect the humility of Mary or the glory of Christ, but obscures both by offering to a creature what God has expressly reserved for himself alone.

Attempting to give this idea some semblance of biblical support, Roman apologists draw a tenuous comparison between Mary and Bathsheba. As she was the “queen mother” (gebirah) of King Solomon (1 Kings 2:19-20), so is Mary to King Jesus.³⁶ However, as we saw above, false analogies are not a sound way to establish doctrine. Jesus Christ is King both as he is God and as he is the Theanthropic Mediator³⁷—both of these are unique to him and not communicable with Solomon nor with Mary, his mother “according to the manhood.”³⁸ He is not an earthly king with an earthly kingdom (John 18:36; Luke 12:14), so this analogy does not fit. Much less would it prove the fulness of this queenly redemptive office that Rome has fabricated for Mary: the Mediatrix of graces, “the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace” (MPF 22) next to Christ, the object of our hope and surety, providing heavenly intercession, an object of supreme veneration, etc. Also note how Bathsheba’s queenly intercession results in the supplicant’s death (1 Kings 2:23-25), something Papists would not wish to apply to their “maternal intercessor.”

2. The Vatican has repeatedly claimed that Mary’s assumption serves as a pledge or surety for believers of our future glorification and resurrection:

“Belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.”³⁹ “just as the Mother of Jesus, glorified in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected is [sic] the world to come, so too does she shine forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, as a sign of sure hope and solace to the people of God during its sojourn on earth.”⁴⁰ “the bodily glorification of the Virgin is an anticipation of the glorification that is the destiny of all the other elect.”⁴¹

This is tantamount to replacing Christ with Mary as our eschatological hope being “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18); “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); whose resurrection and ascension would “shew light unto the people” (Acts 26:23); “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Cor 15:20) and thus our surety that we would likewise rise and join God in heaven; “the first begotten of the dead” (Rev. 1:5); “because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19), and “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2b-3). Everywhere, the Scriptures make Christ, and his resurrection and ascension, our hope, and nobody else. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil 3:20-21). While technically affirming that Mary’s glory is the gracious fruit of Christ’s, Rome nevertheless points us to Mary as the hope and surety of our future glorification, supplanting Christ.

3. It is held that since Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven, she can now appear to people on earth. Roman Apologist Robert Sungenis states “She was given a mission from God to communicate God’s message directly to the people on earth. If her body had not been assumed into Heaven, she could not come back with a body to earth and deliver God’s message.”⁴² He goes on to describe the apparition of Mary in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 where she prophesied the end of WWI, the beginning of WWII, and the Russian Revolution. She performed the so-called “Miracle of the Sun,” and later prophesied the worldwide Communist threat of Russia if the country was not consecrated unto Mary. Sungenis states that “Mary, who prophesied events in the 20th century that could’ve only been foreseen by Heaven itself, asks us to believe that she has been commissioned by God to warn us of future events and what to do about them to save our lives and our souls.”

Marian apparitions have been reported numerous times,⁴³ and many have been officially or tacitly verified and endorsed to some degree by the Roman Catholic Church. Some apparitions have even revealed or encouraged the dogmatization of what were later defined as infallible dogmas, such as the immaculate conception of Mary (Rue du Bac apparition in 1830; Lourdes apparition in 1858), and papal infallibility (LaSalette apparition in 1846; Apparition to Don Bosco in Feb. 1870). Pius XII claimed to have seen the same “Miracle of the Sun” from the Fatima apparition, “Pius XII’s note says that he saw the miracle in the year he was to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption, 1950, while he walked in the Vatican Gardens. He said he saw the phenomenon various times, considering it a confirmation of his plan to declare the dogma.”⁴⁴

Timothy Kauffman has compiled numerous primary-source quotations from eyewitnesses to various Marian apparitions; the following is drawn from his work.⁴⁵ These apparitions uniformly convey messages urging participation and trust in distinctively Roman Catholic rituals and teachings. The apparitions of Mary have promulgated many false doctrines about Mary—that she intercedes for us, takes away sin, works to convert and save the world, to defeat Satan, that she receives supreme dignity, participates in divinity, and has dominion over all creation, that Mary protects us by restraining Jesus’ fierce wrath by her motherly compassion, is a Redemptress, priestly intercessor, and Mediatrix between mankind and God, etc.—all of which subvert the unique prerogatives and Mediatorial offices of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, some apparitions have instituted the ritual wearing of the Rosary (apparition to Dominic Guzmán in 1206), Brown Scapular (apparition to Simon Stock in 1251), and the Miraculous Medal (apparition to Catherine Labouré in 1830). In short, the apparitions always promote the papacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of the sacramental elements, prayers and devotion to saints, the use of religious relics, idols, salvation by works, etc., and they always downplay, distract, pervert, and deny the sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Of course, none of these blasphemous and idolatrous messages can be supported by God’s Word. Not only that, they heinously militate against the Gospel and the plain truths of the Bible. Thus, the apparitions fail the biblical tests: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Cor 11:4). “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,⁴⁶ whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1 John 4:1-3). Even if a “sign or wonder comes to pass” in service and validation of a strange and false god, we are not to listen or be persuaded by it, but rather know that “the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deut 13:1-3). “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matt 24:24).

Mary was a godly woman and would not permit people to worship her (Acts 14:15; Rev 19:10; 22:8-9). If the apparitions are not authentically the Virgin Mary, and they are real appearances that have been legitimately experienced by many people, then the only conclusion left is that they are demons hell-bent on deceiving people and turning them away from the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Cor 11:14). “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” (1 Tim 4:1). 

Receiving messages from deceased people is condemned by the Word of God as necromancy and divinization (Deut 18:10-14). King Saul was judged very harshly by God for doing this (1 Sam 28; 1 Chron 10:13), and yet Rome continues to encourage and support people seeking after apparitions of Mary. God points us to his Word, and not to apparitions or signs and wonders: “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:19-20).⁴⁷

Conclusion

This examination has shown that Rome’s four Marian dogmas cannot stand up to scrutiny when measured by the light of Holy Scripture, and have no right to burden the Christian conscience. While we gladly affirm all that the Bible itself teaches about Mary (her faith, humility, and unique role in redemptive history) we must firmly deny those doctrines and devotions that obscure Christ’s sufficiency, burden consciences, and redirect trust from the living God to the vanity of created mediators and fabricated rituals. The Scriptures and the primitive church know nothing of Rome’s elaborate cult of Mary, but proclaim instead a salvation accomplished once for all by Christ alone, received by grace alone through faith alone, and revealed in the Bible alone. Where Rome multiplies false doctrines and corruptions of worship and piety, the gospel frees the believer to rest in the finished work of Christ, our only Redeemer, Mediator, and Advocate. Therefore, the Christian conscience stands not impoverished but enriched by its refusal to bow before the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan. Holding fast instead to the pure, comforting, and Christ-exalting truth of God’s Word. May this study strengthen believers to search the Scriptures more deeply, to love and depend on Christ exclusively, and to worship God alone in spirit and truth.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:25)

---

1. Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950), 44, 45, 47; cf. CCC 966. ↩︎
2. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, p. 217. This provokes much fanciful sophistry about how she could have died apart from sin, or on the other hand, how she was exempt from death but the Lord Jesus himself was not. ↩︎
3. Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith 32.1. ↩︎
4. Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (4th ed., 2014), p. 353. ↩︎
5. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, p. 217. ↩︎
6. Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6-7. ↩︎
7. Gavin Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, pp. 169-170. See also his YouTube video essay, Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible (17 Aug 2023). “Although this exegesis would subsequently become quite popular and has endured even to this day, there is no evidence of its existence before Epiphanius. On the contrary the early church unanimously identified this apocalyptic woman with the church.” (Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, p. 13). ↩︎
8. Ortlund footnotes about the celestial imagery: “There are too many passages like this to cite, but G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 625–31, gives a fuller list, noting in particular the usage of sun and moon imagery in some cases, such as Song of Solomon 6:10 and Isaiah 60:19–20. See also Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 232: ‘The OT frequently pictured Israel as a woman in travail.’” We may also add James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022), Lecture 1 on Revelation 12. ↩︎
9. Gavin Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, p. 170. ↩︎
10. Raymond Winch & Victor Bennett, The Assumption of Our Lady and Catholic Theology (15 Aug 1950), p. 68. ↩︎
11. This principle was traditionally expressed as, “theologia symbolica non est argumentativa.” Symbolic theology is not the basis of argument. “Theology that is the result of symbolical or allegorical reasoning cannot provide the foundation or presupposition of a new argument. Proper argumentation begins from simple, literal foundations.” (Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms (2nd Ed.), p. 365). As Aquinas wrote, “Only the literal sense is used for the destruction of error, since the other senses are through similitudes and there cannot be argumentation by means of terms expressive of similitudes. That is why Dionysius says in the Letter to Titus that symbolic theology is not argumentative.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, Q. 1, Article 5). ↩︎
12. See Timothy Kauffman, Quite Contrary, pp. 41-53 for a thorough treatment. ↩︎
13. J.H. Heidegger, Short Instruction On The holy & highly lauded Virgin Mary, Q&A 18, p. 10. ↩︎
14. Westminster Confession of Faith 32.1-2. ↩︎
15. “That general sentence pronounced upon Adam and all Adam’s seed, must needs also take place in the virgin Mary, ‘Thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return’ (Genesis 3:19). Christ only is excepted, and that by the testimony of the Word of God [Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31-32]. Wherefore, unless this privilege of the virgin could be proved out of Scripture, as Christ’s is, we must needs hold her subject to that general law of corruption.” (Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi: A General View of Papistry, p. 402). ↩︎
16. “Beata Virgo non contraxisset mortem, aliasve corporis poenalitates ex Adamo. Consequens est omnino falsum, & contra Paulum ad Rom. 5 dicentem, mortem in omnes homines per peccatum introiisse.” (Francisco Suarez, Disputationum in Tertiam Partem, T.2 (ed. 1594), p. 21); cited from Raymond Winch & Victor Bennett, The Assumption of Our Lady and Catholic Theology (15 Aug 1950), pp. 75-6. ↩︎
17. In the Roman view, she may not have ascended to Heaven on her own power like Jesus did, but she was assumed into Heaven by her own merits and for the purpose of continuing the work of redemption she cooperates with Jesus in. ↩︎
18. Cf. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, pp. 214-215. ↩︎
19. Augustine, On the Psalms 35.14, NPNF 1-8, p. 83. ↩︎
20. Augustine, City of God 20.6, NPNF 1-2, p. 425. ↩︎
21. A. Cleveland Coxe, NPNF 1-8, p. 83 footnote. ↩︎
22. Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 26. ↩︎
23. Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 285. Gavin Ortlund likewise writes, “The fact that the earliest attestation of the bodily assumption comes in a Gnostic text has led many scholars to conclude the assumption is a heterodox intrusion into mainstream Christianity. R. P. C. Hanson represents a typical claim along these lines, arguing that the assumption ‘can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics.’ (R. P. C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (Durham: University of Durham, 1963), 14).” (What It Means To Be Protestant, p. 167). ↩︎
24. Gavin Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, p. 168. See also his YouTube video essay, Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible (17 Aug 2023). ↩︎
25. Cf. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, pp. 215-217. ↩︎
26. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, p. 214. ↩︎
27. Pope John Paul II, Discourse at General Audience (25 June 1997), 2-3; cited in Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, p. 215. ↩︎
28. Raymond Winch & Victor Bennett, The Assumption of Our Lady and Catholic Theology (15 Aug 1950), p. 78. ↩︎
29. Hannah Brockhaus, Pope on New Year’s Day: Devotion to Mary is a must, Catholic News Agency, 01 Jan 2018. ↩︎
30. The Romanist appeal to texts describing the saints ruling with Christ (e.g. Matt 19:28; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 3:21; 5:10) is a false analogy because Mary’s alleged heavenly rule is qualitatively different and supereminently above the capacity of a mere creature, let alone anything described in Scripture for the people of God. Likewise the Pope’s references to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant (MD 26, 29, 34) are invalid; see Keith Mathison, Is the Ark of the Covenant a Type of Mary? (02 March 2023); see also Henry Bullinger, Jesus Is The Ark Of The Covenant, Decades 3.5, pp. 153-155. ↩︎
31. Pope Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam 46; quoting from the Roman Breviary on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ↩︎
32. Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium 59, 62; cf. CCC 969. ↩︎
33. William Perkins likewise sees this as idolatrous: “The virgin Mary made a goddess. The Roman false gods are two. The first is the virgin Mary, whom the pretended catholics of this time, of a saint make a goddess, for they call her the ‘queen of heaven, the queen of the world, our Lady the mother of grace and mercy.’ She is esteemed as a universal advocate to the whole world, and there be other mediators unto her, as to a queen. There be eight solemn feasts for the honor and invocation of her. Besides this, there is no day passes in which she is not invocated in hymns or in the mass. And they ascribe to her power to command and control her Son in heaven, saying, ‘Ask the Father: command the Son, and command him by the authority of a mother.’ Again, ‘Cause him to receive our prayers.’ This is to make her not only a goddess, but also to place her above God Himself.” (A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, Works VII, pp. 432-3). Charles Drelincourt (1595-1669) writes that Rome adopted this idolatry from Paganism: “The ancient Pagans acknowledged one God who had the universal empire over all creatures. But over and above, they worshipped an infinite number of gods, demi-gods, and goddesses. So the Church of Rome doth likewise confess that there is one Sovereign God, Creatour of all things, and that he hath no companion. But over and besides him there are many he-saints and she-saints, which she invokes in her necessity, and to whom she yields divine honours… And just as the Pagans worshipped very many goddesses, but they had a particular one whom they called the Queen of Heaven [Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25]: So among the she-saints, which the Church of Rome worships, there is one to which many give the title of goddess, and which almost all acknowledge for the Queen of Heaven and Lady of the World.” (The Root of Romish Rites and Ceremonies: Shewing that the Church of Rome Hath Borrowed Most Part of Her Ceremonies of the Jews & Ancient Pagans, pp. 8-9). ↩︎
34. Martin Luther, Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, pp. 160-1; cited from Gavin Ortlund, Is Mary the “Mother of God?”, YouTube, 01 Sep 2023. ↩︎
35. The General Roman Calendar contains 18 feasts dedicated to Mary, three of which are “holy days of obligation,” meaning that Roman Catholics are conscientiously obliged under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass and refrain from unnecessary servile work (cf. Feast Days of Mary, Marians of the Immaculate Conception). This site includes not just the 18 worldwide feasts to Mary, but also local ones, amounting to 357 Marian feasts, and even admitting that there may be some that are missed. ↩︎
36. Will Wright, “How Mary Fulfills the Role of Queen Mother” (08 Sep 2023). ↩︎
37. Cf. Paul J. Barth, Confessional Two Kingdoms, Purely Presbyterian (17 June 2015). ↩︎
38. Chalcedonian Creed, Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62. ↩︎
39. Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (01 Nov 1950), 42. ↩︎
40. Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (21 Nov 1964), 68. ↩︎
41. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on certain questions regarding Eschatology (Recentiores Episcoporum Synodi) (17 May 1979), 6. The SCDF was the Roman Curia’s supreme doctrinal body (successor to the Inquisition founded in 1542 to persecute Protestantism) charged with safeguarding and authoritatively interpreting Roman doctrine under papal authority, and now exists as the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (DDF). In Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the “Roman Curia” is the administrative and judicial apparatus by which the pope governs the Church. In other words, it is the pope’s governing bureaucracy. ↩︎
42. Alpha & Omega Ministries, Debate: The Bodily Assumption Of Mary (White vs Sungenis), YouTube (18 Sep 2014). ↩︎
43. Cf. List of Marian apparitions, Wikipedia. ↩︎
44. Antonio Gaspari, Pius XII Saw Miracle of the Sun: Handwritten Note Reveals Pope’s Experience, 04 Nov 2008. ↩︎
45. Timothy Kauffman, Quite Contrary: A Biblical Reconsideration of the Apparitions of Mary, part 2, pp. 75-104. Much of Kauffman’s analysis aligns with William Perkins’ assessment of the apparition of Mary at Loreto, Italy, in which he gives six arguments that “she is made a goddess, being worshipped with the very same worship wherewith God Himself is worshipped,” and five arguments that “the thing worshipped under the name of the Lady of Lauretto is indeed neither God nor saint, but the devil himself.” (A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, Works VII, pp. 433-4). See footnote 4 of Satan’s Feigned Retreat for examples of Roman Exorcists invoking Mary. ↩︎
46. Demonstrating how Rome is possessed by the spirit of antichrist, see William Perkins: Rome Denies the Mediatorial Offices of Christ; and Francis Turretin: How Rome Denies The Father And The Son. ↩︎
47. “Men, on account of their perversity and the curiosity of their enmity toward God, want to recognize the truth through miracles, as the Jews again and again demanded that Christ give them a sign from heaven (Matthew 12:38; 16:1), or also to have recourse to consultations with the dead and apparitions (Isaiah 8:19). Abraham also told the rich man that men would not very easily be converted even if someone were sent to them from the dead in order to advise them with their best interests in mind (Luke 16:30). The prophets also denied that dead are to be consulted for the sake of the living, but rather insisted that one must instead return to the law of God. Father Abraham also says that men have Moses and the prophets to whom they ought to listen. So also, Christ and Paul warn that many false Christs and prophets will arise, do wonders, and lead men astray (Matthew 24:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9). They also urge us to beware of apparitions of angels (Colossians 2:18), and teach that we should anathematize even angels from heaven should they teach anything different from the written doctrine of the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). Under the Antichrist, however, the Scriptures being neglected and utterly buried, these two fonts of dogma have been almost exclusively utilized: miracles of every sort and innumerable apparitions. These were for the most part either completely counterfeited by swindlers or were indeed pure illusions and deceptions of devils. (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, How to Understand the Sacred Scriptures, pp. 103-4). ↩︎