HAIL MARY!

“And the angel [Gabriel] came in unto her [Mary], and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28)

Catholics will look at this verse and claim that it is saying that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is indeed an exception to the rule of the universal sinfulness of man.  This means that God saw fit to cause Mary (apart from any other mere human) to be born, and even conceived, sinless and that she remained sinless throughout her entire life.  This concept is known as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which the Catholic Church has dogmatically proclaimed in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.  And since it is a dogma, Catholics are obligated to believe it.

But I just can’t imagine an intelligent person reading the first few chapters of the book of Romans and understanding its message, to then go and read Luke 1:28 (above) and come up with the Catholic interpretation of Gabriel’s message to Mary.  Theirs is not a natural reading of the text.

If this intelligent person reads the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Romans (chapter 1), he will easily see that Paul is proclaiming that the gentiles (non-Jews) are all guilty of sin and living under the wrath of God.  In chapter 2, he then addresses the Jews and tells us that they, too, are all under the curse of sin.  Then in chapter 3, Paul states that the whole world is unrighteous and says that ALL people are under the bondage of sin (v. 10-18), pointing to the Psalms.  He then specifically says:

“For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). (Emphasis added)

And in the rest of this chapter and the next, the apostle Paul goes on to define how all these lost and sinful people can be justified/made right with God, which is, of course, only through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross.  But the Scriptures are clear that no one (i.e., no mere mortal) has escaped the curse of sin.  Jesus Christ is the only exception.

I cannot imagine our intelligent inquirer (after first reading Romans) could come upon Luke 1:28 and conclude that this passage would automatically cause him to understand that Mary must necessarily be an exception to the rule… again, this is NOT a natural reading, and this would turn the easily understandable message found in Romans on its head!  This would negate a very clear biblical concept about the universality of sin in every person.   This is exactly why the Word says, “All have sinned…” 

Issues

So, why indeed does the Catholic Church think that this passage really means that Mary was conceived sinless?  According to them, the angel’s phrase “highly favoured” or “full of grace” in the Greek language (“kecharitomene”) is a very unique term which indicates something that already happened in the past.  I have heard Catholics say that this term is used only once in the New Testament.  I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s assume that it is indeed used only here.

According to one Catholic Answers article, “The word is the past perfect tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred.  It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored

But no, this whole context is about Mary giving birth to the Savior (v. 30-35), that’s all – the whole point of Gabriel’s message was NOT about something that was already accomplished in the past.  Mary giving birth to Jesus was definitely something that had not yet happened.  And yes, Mary certainly received grace and favor, but the angel’s focus was on the sinless Savior coming into the world, not on someone else’s (supposed) sinlessness.

By the way, this same article from Catholic Answers admits that this term is “… difficult to translate because it is a unique use of the word.”  In fact, there are many, many articles out there written on this same passage, and the debate on this topic continues to rage, so I would think that it is safe to say that the term itself is not as clear as it could be. 

It is also interesting that the phrase “full of grace” for this particular verse is very seldom used in the different Bible versions.  I looked at over thirty different versions and saw that only a small percentage of them use “full of grace” (e.g., two Catholic versions and two Aramaic ones).  But these are the only ones in which I saw this term used.

Actually, the only time we find the words “full of grace”  in the New Testament in most Bible versions is in a reference to Jesus Christ, himself (John 1:14) and to Stephen, the deacon (Acts 6:8).

Problems with the Term

But there are even more issues with the Catholic interpretation of the passage.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But the Greek term ‘kecharitomene’ (‘full of grace’) serves only as an illustration, not as proof of the dogma.” (under “Immaculate Conception”)

In another Catholic source, we find:

“The words of Gabriel, ‘Hail, full of grace’ (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation ‘full of grace’ might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)

We also have to ask ourselves a question: Why was Mary troubled and perplexed at the greeting of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28-29)?  If this greeting meant that she was sinless, wouldn’t Mary have already recognized that fact in her life before now?  Hadn’t she already realized that she had never given in to the temptation of any sin up to this point?  So then why would she be troubled or confused if the angel points her “sinlessness” out? 

I believe that she was surprised at the angel’s words, “highly favored” of God, because she knew that she was only a young, humble peasant girl, and she was not aware of the great blessing that God had in store, that is, that she would be allowed to bear the Messiah. 

Furthermore, the final wording of Luke 1:28, “blessed art thou among women” is interesting.  Why would he say, “among women”?  The angel didn’t say “among mankind,” that is, among all people.  She would stand out among women because she would be the envy of all women through giving birth to the Christ.  That was the focus.  There is no reason to believe that the angel was talking about Mary towering over all humans with the gift of sinlessness that no one else among mankind would have.   

So, the Catholic interpretation of this passage doesn’t make sense.

Only Fitting?

It was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be born sinless, not anyone else.  The concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary demands an unbiblical and unnecessary exception of Romans 3:23, based on a questionable and highly debated rendering of a rare Greek term used in Luke 1:28, when there is very strong biblical evidence in both the Old and New Testament that ALL mankind is corrupted with sin.  It would be much simpler (and more biblical) to interpret the phrase as simply “highly favored,” as most Bible versions do.

But Catholics will say that it is “only fitting” that Mary would be without sin.  But why would it be necessary for Jesus to have been kept in a perfect and sinless womb for a mere nine months of His life, when, for 33 years, He was exposed to a very, very sinful world, having a sinful (earthly) father and sinful relatives, and coming in daily contact with sinful people, tainted by a filthy and corrupt society?  Is any of this “fitting” for a Savior?  But if He remained pure and untainted while in contact with this ungodly world for all those years, there was never any need for a sinless mother with a sinless womb in the first place.  

A good question for Catholics is why is it that the only thing that needed to be sinless in Jesus’ world was His mother?  Why did God stop there?  Why couldn’t Joseph (her husband) also be created sinless?  And how about Mary’s parents – if Mary needed to be sinless to bear a sinless Savior, should not Mary’s mother also need to be sinless to bear a sinless Mary?

“But God Could Do It…”

Yes, God could have made Mary sinless before she was even born (as the Catholic Church teaches).  God does indeed have the ability to do such a thing, but God’s ability is not what is in question here.  Just because He could possibly do something does not mean that it was necessary.  Scripture plainly tells us that all of us have sinned.  A Catholic may say, “But the word ‘all’ in Romans 3:23 doesn’t necessarily mean every single person.  There are examples in the Bible where the word ‘all’ clearly does not mean all.”

Well, that’s true, but we could also say that the term “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 may not really mean “full of grace,” either.  And the biblical evidence does indeed suggest that it doesn’t.

See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/05/was-mary-without-sin.html

“IF YOU CAN’T FIND JESUS, LOOK FOR HIS MOTHER”

I had seen bumper stickers of the title above and had also heard similar comments from certain Catholics.  I know that sometimes it may seem that God doesn’t hear our prayers, yet it is one of the most basic needs of a believer to have his prayers answered.  We all want to know that somebody’s listening.  I understand that, and I understand the seeming desperation that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives.    

But this title reminds me of the story of a man who fell off the edge of a cliff at night and managed to grab onto a small shrub on the way down, hanging on for dear life between Heaven and earth.  In the dark, he was unaware that safe and solid ground was only a couple of feet beneath him.  The desperate man calls out several times for help and no one answers.  Finally, he hears a loud voice from Heaven that says, “If you trust Me, let go!”  The desperate man pauses and thinks for a minute and then yells, “Is there anyone else out there?!!” 

Although the story is intended to be funny, there is a disturbing truth within it that causes some to want a “back-up” when praying.  What if God doesn’t answer your plea for help?  Is your need so strong that you are willing to compromise your spiritual walk with God?  Perhaps you, like King Saul, are desperate enough to go to a psychic or a fortune teller if God doesn’t answer? (1 Samuel 28:7-19)

Hopefully, you would never do such a thing, since this would have dire spiritual consequences (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 8:19-22).  You may never even consider such a thing… yet, you may feel like God is “uninterested” or “too busy,” therefore it’s ok, as a Catholic, to call on some other “positive” spiritual entity to help you, like Mary (Jesus’ mother). 

Surely, if Mary appeals to Jesus for you, He couldn’t turn her down, right?  After all, she is His mother, and as a kid, we know that if you wanted something, but you were afraid to ask your father, Mom would often step in to increase your chances of finding favor.  Therefore, it only seems fitting to call on Mary to do the same for you, right?

Several Assumptions

This slogan, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother” assumes several things.  First, it assumes that one can have the ability to communicate with Mary to start with.  It also assumes that one has God’s permission, that it’s ok, to appeal to Mary and ask for her help.  And if it is ok, it assumes that she can actually hear us.  And if she hears us, it also assumes that she is able to help us in some way.

Furthermore, this slogan is assuming that sometimes we (perhaps “less spiritual”) believers just can’t “find” Jesus like we should.  But why would anyone who has any biblical understanding think that? (Matthew 7:7-8; 11:28; 1 Peter 5:6-7)

The slogan is also assuming that Jesus may not be touched by, or concerned with, our needs.  After all, He’s busy running the universe!  What makes us think that we are significant enough to even be on His “radar”?  But seriously, are Catholics really not aware that He is indeed conscious of our needs?

Hard to Find?

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.  Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14-16)

Jesus, Himself, as a human, had needs and was tempted to sin, so He knows what it’s like to be human and He knows our weaknesses.  Either, this passage is a lie or it is the truth.  Its message is very simple, nothing vague about it.  It is telling us that we can, indeed should, call on Him in time of need.  Trusting in Him is how we hold fast to our profession.

But appealing in prayer to someone else (even someone in Heaven, like Mary) is not “holding fast to our profession.”  In fact, doing so would deviate from our profession.  How so?  This passage is magnifying the person and role of our New Testament High Priest, Jesus Christ.  It is pointing to Him alone.

In the case of those who say, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother,” their interpretation of Hebrews 4:14-16 would have to be: “Hey everyone, let’s give honor to Jesus, the Son of God, who has entered Heaven on our behalf and to whom we can directly and boldly come, without hesitation to help us in time of need (whether for salvation or anything else)… BUT, we will go to Mary first!”  I’m sorry, but that’s not giving Jesus the honor He deserves (Revelation 17:14, 19:16) and that’s not putting Him first and foremost.

But is Jesus ever really “hard to find”?  His offer to “come boldly unto the throne of grace” does not permit the idea of praying to someone else in order to get to Him.  It does not leave room for an appeal to another person in Heaven.  He doesn’t say, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace and if I have time, I’ll try to get to you.”  Or, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace by going through other ‘mediators’ first who can then get My attention.”  Or, “Come through My mother, who always puts in a good word for you and convinces Me to help you.  Otherwise, I might not be interested.” 

No, there is no guessing what Hebrews 4:14-16 is saying.  If you turn your heart toward Him and seek Him, you will find Him.  He will make Himself known to you without having to go through other “heavenly intercessors.”  That’s a promise.  To say that there are others to which one should pray is simply eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there).

On Whom are You Really Depending?

Now, Catholics will say, “But we, just like you Protestants, also rely on people here on earth when we ask them to pray for us.  So why can’t we appeal to Mary or the saints in Heaven, who are far more spiritual than anyone on earth?  Their prayers are stronger than anyone else’s.”

But requesting prayer from others here on earth is perfectly fine.  That is totally biblical, while requesting prayer from others who are supposedly in Heaven is not.  Catholics just don’t seem to get the concept that there are absolutely no examples in the whole Bible of anyone praying to Mary or the saints, and there is nothing to suggest that we should.  That idea is utterly absent from the pages of Scripture.  Yet, that doesn’t stop Catholics from doing it.  This is because they are simply being a faithful son or daughter of “Holy Mother Church.”  You are doing what the Catholic Church tells you to do.

This whole concept of depending on Mary’s intercession appears to be saying that somehow, we can better depend on her than we can on Jesus.  So, I would have to ask, when addressing Mary in prayer, on whom are you really depending? 

A Purely Human Concept

Recently, a devout Catholic and I were having a nice discussion and the conversation led to Mary and the subject of praying to her.  At this point, the Catholic gave that familiar comment and said something along these lines: “If, for some reason, you find it hard to pray to Jesus, pray to His mother, instead.  She will surely hear you and appeal to her Son to help you.” 

Well, that sounds good, but this is purely a human (and unbiblical) mindset.  Yes, on earth, moms generally intercede for their kids when speaking to their fathers.  And that’s because many fathers may be harsh and unloving – nothing like the High Priest in Heaven to which we have access today.  But He is a gracious Savior who knows what you need before you even ask (Matthew 6:7-8).  He just wants you to admit your need and come humbly, yet confidently, to Him.  He wants you to come directly to the Savior, not to a relative of the Savior.

Pointing to Jesus

Catholics are quick to say that Mary always points to Christ.  For example, they love to use this particular verse:

“His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). 

And then they say, “See!  Approaching Mary is a good thing, since she always points to her Son.”  But every true Christian does that.  How does that separate Mary from other believers?  It doesn’t. 

And while we are on that topic, “pointing to Jesus” was exactly what John the baptist was doing when he said:

“He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). 

THAT is pointing to Jesus and honoring Him, and John did this while denying himself and lowering his own importance.  But, it’s funny, I have never seen a Catholic ever use this verse to apply to Mary decreasing.  Why do you think that is?  I’ll tell you why.  I believe that they will never accept any lowering of Mary’s status, never admitting that Mary must also decrease, because the Catholic Church will not let them. 

Interestingly, there are far, far more Catholic shrines that were built to honor her than there are to Jesus, and I’ve never seen a pope or any other Catholic official object to this.  The Catholic Church will turn its head the other way when there are large numbers of people who are giving Mary “excessive devotion” (using the Catholic Church’s own term).  No one seems to object to that.   But don’t you dare suggest that Mary diminish her own status!  The Church will simply not let that happen.  

A Bit Much!

For instance, look at this prayer from a doctor and “saint” of the Catholic Church named Liguori:

"Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin! O my Mother! Thou who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, Hope, and Refuge of sinners! I, the most wretched among them, now come to thee. I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past; most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell, which I had so often deserved.  I love thee, Lady most worthy of love, and, by the love which I bear thee, I promise ever in the future to serve thee, and to do what in me lies to win others to thy love.  In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation…” (emphasis added)

See here:

http://laudatedominum.net/marian.php#sal

If this doesn’t offend you as a believer, there is something wrong with you.  These are things said of Mary that the true and biblical Mary would never accept or attribute to herself. 

Actually, the above prayer is from Liguori’s very popular book, The Glories of Mary.  You can find the book online here:

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

It’s funny that some will object that Liguori’s “worship” doesn’t really mean worship, yet the extravagant language they use exposes them.  As the old saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck!”  The activity around Mary is, by definition, worship, regardless of what the non-biblical detractors want it to mean. 

And this is only one of a multitude of blasphemous comments and prayers in his book. 

See also this article addressing Liguori’s book here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2019/04/liguoris-idolatry-and-catholic-churchs.html

Furthermore, I think that another reason for not allowing Mary’s status to diminish is that the Catholic Church plans to use this unbiblical version of her as a tool in the global ecumenical arena to form a one-world religion as the Bible predicts (Revelation 13:8).  As one source describes it, she is:

“… rapidly becoming the ‘queen of ecumenism,’ someone whom diverse religions can honor, rally around, and even worship without offending their respective theologies.” 

Very well said!

See here:

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/mary-who?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=

Conclusion

It is critical to remember that there must be a clear distinction between mankind and the Savior of mankind.  The problem with the Catholic Church’s magnifying of Mary is that it causes this distinction to be blurred by such exalted language.

All this boils down to the fact that the Catholic Church wants Mary to remain exalted, even at the expense of Jesus losing status and staying in the background.  Of course they won’t say this out loud, but this is the logical consequence of a “continually increasing” Mary. 

It is also interesting that many pictures we see of Mary often have her holding the “baby Jesus.”  Folks, let’s not forget that He grew up and that He performed His ministry and death on the cross (the most important part of His life) as an adult, not while on His mom’s lap.  It’s as though there is a force in the Catholic Church that wants Mary to appear to be the one in control, to be the main figure, while Jesus is depicted as a toddler in need of guidance.

Now, I’m certainly not saying that Mary shouldn’t have honor, since the Bible says to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7).  But praying to someone other than God is not “honor” – it is worship.  All Christians will be exalted in due time, but never as the object of prayer. (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 22:8-9)

Again, Mary was a wonderful, humble and godly handmaid, whom I believe is in Heaven today, but I’m sure that never did she expect to have such attention, devotion, veneration and idolization directed toward her.  But if God would allow her, from Heaven, to see all this attention directed toward her, I would bet that the humble Mary of the Bible would be utterly grieved and weep over it.  And I believe that she would say, “If you can’t find Jesus, humble yourself and continue seeking Him, since He is always nearby!” (Matthew 11:28; Acts 17:27)

THE BROWN SCAPULAR

The Catholic Church has many things that they call “sacramentals.”  These are not sacraments as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (CCC #1667), but sacramentals are associated with the Church’s rituals and are said to put the user of the sacramental in the right frame of mind to receive the sacraments.  One type of sacramental is the scapular, which comes in different sizes, shapes and colors.  Probably the most popular one is the brown scapular.

What is the brown scapular?  It is made up of two small pieces of rectangular brown (sometimes black) pieces of wool cloth connected by a cord or string, worn by Catholics over their shoulders (thus the name “scapular,” which means “shoulder blade”).  One piece is placed in the front on the chest and the other to the back.  This scapular is said to ensure its wearer that he will make it to Heaven if he dies with it on.

Enter Simon Stock

This story of the brown scapular begins with an interesting but little known character, one “Saint” Simon Stock.  He was given the name Stock (which means “tree trunk”) because when he was twelve years old he began living as a hermit in a hollow tree trunk.  Many years later, on July 16, 1251, in Cambridge England, he allegedly received a vision from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and claimed that she appeared to him, holding a brown scapular in her hand and she said to him:

“Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace.  Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”  

See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular

The Pope’s Vision

According to another source, Mary also later appeared to Pope John XXII, and told him:

“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.” (Sacratissimo Uti Culmine, a papal bull [i.e., an official public decree] of Pope John XXII, in 1322)

And this source also claimed:

“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in Purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

This promise from Mary to release Catholics from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death (for those who have faithfully worn the scapular) became known as the “Sabbatine Privilege.”

Entrust Yourself Totally to Mary?

According to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the brown scapular is “an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.” (Emphasis added)

See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

One source says that the scapular is used as a silent prayer and that “[A] prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be.” It also states that “[T]he evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation…”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

Indulgences

There are also indulgences (ways to reduce the amount of punishment for one’s sins) connected with the wearing of this scapular. 

On the day that the scapular is received, there is a plenary (full) indulgence if one goes to Confession and Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

One is promised a plenary indulgence at the moment of death if he has gone to Catholic Confession and Communion and if he devoutly utters the name of Jesus.

Devoutly reciting the prayer known as the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” gets one a 100 day indulgence. 

And each time the scapular is kissed one gets a 500 day indulgence!  See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/faqs-the-brown-scapular/

Ratified by Popes

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online) admits that the bull of Pope John XXII containing the Sabbatine Privilege was later ratified by some popes in the sixteenth century.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “ratify” as “to approve and sanction formally; to confirm.”

One source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was “approved and confirmed” by sixteen different popes.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d026_Sabbatine.htm

At least one source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was an official teaching of the Catholic Church until 1613:

“Pope John XXII claimed that the ‘Blessed Virgin’ came to him in Rome in the year 1322, confirming to him the scapular promise made to Simon Stock and adding the ‘Sabbatine Privilege’ in which she promised to personally descend into purgatory every Saturday and free those who had died wearing her scapular.  This was an official church doctrine until the year 1613.  At that time Pope Paul V modified the Sabbatine Privilege, saying that Mary did not necessarily free the souls in purgatory on Saturday but only aided them and eased their suffering.” (Emphasis added)

https://fdocuments.us/document/a-timeline-of-anti-church-history-first-bible-mystery-of-iniquitypdf.html

Tell Me It Aint So!

But there are some sources that say that the Sabbatine Privilege and Pope John XXII’s bull was a forgery. 

According to the Catholic Dictionary (online):

“There was an earlier version of the Sabbatine Privilege that is now considered certainly erroneous, based on an alleged bull of Pope John XXII, supposedly published in 1322.  This apocryphal document has the Pope say that Carmelites and others who wear the scapular would be delivered by the ‘Blessed Virgin’ from Purgatory on the Saturday after their death.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36174

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), the Sabbatine Privilege is “universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

Concluding Thoughts

Ok, so there seem to be some conflicting ideas, even among Catholics, concerning the brown scapular and its “Sabbatine Privilege.”  What should be far more worrisome for our Catholic friends is the fact that none of this is biblical, including the concept of indulgences, Purgatory and the supposed visions of “Mary” (2 Corinthians 11:14). 

The doctrine of Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the perfect and finished work / suffering of the Savior on the cross (John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10).  There is no need for Christians to suffer any kind of punishment after this life is over.  And if there is no Purgatory, there are no indulgences.

 

Also, special articles of clothing do nothing to help save us.  God looks at the heart.  We are saved by grace, through faith, not by any works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).  The term “grace” screams UNMERITED favor from God (Matthew 18:23-27; Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:21).

There is a definite link between the asceticism (severe religious self-discipline) in the early life of “Saint” Simon Stock (who lived in a hollow tree) and the wearing of the brown scapular.  They are both an intrinsic part of a works-based salvation and God will have no part of that.

Concerning the Sabbatine Privilege, if it was indeed a forgery, or an “un-Catholic” idea, how could it be ratified and endorsed by multiple popes over such a long period?  Does not the Catholic Church have the knowledge or the resources to detect forgeries within a short time?  What happened to those poor souls who believed Pope John XXII until 1613 who expected to be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday?  Did all those popes ratify a false teaching?  If yes, then what does this say about truth in the Catholic Church?  If no, then why did they change the teaching in 1613?

The story of the brown scapular is one containing ridiculous concepts like perfect prayer while holding the scapular, rendering demons powerless in the face of temptation while wearing it, and obtaining time off from Purgatory by kissing this inanimate object. 

Who does the scapular glorify the most?  The whole emphasis of this teaching of the brown scapular seems to be that Catholics must entrust themselves to Mary.  It is (supposedly) Mary that introduced it, and it is Mary who “sustains” it.  It is about her, not about Jesus.  Mary is the star in this story, but let us learn a critical lesson from John the baptist, who said, “He [Jesus] must increase, but I [John] must decrease” (John 3:30).  It appears here (as it often does in the Catholic Church) that, in the teaching of the brown scapular, Jesus has taken a back seat to Mary.

IS MARY THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men." (CCC #2676)

One can find much information online, in articles, books and other literature from Catholics calling Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ) the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  They call her this because she has “housed” the Savior in her womb, just as the Old Testament ark of the covenant was “housing” the presence of God.

But what exactly was the Old Testament ark of the covenant?  It was basically a gold-plated wooden box, and it was one of several pieces of furniture placed in the Old Testament tabernacle (and later, in the temple).  The tabernacle consisted of an “outer court” and two separate rooms.  The furniture of the tabernacle included the brazen (brass) altar and the brazen laver sitting outside in the “outer court.”  The first room, called the “holy place,” contained the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense.  And the last room, the “Most Holy Place” (also called the “Holy of Holies”) was the most sacred area in the whole tabernacle and it was separated from the holy place by a thick veil.  The Most Holy place contained only one piece of furniture, and that was the ark of the covenant (on which sat the mercy seat), where the very presence of God dwelt on earth.  No one could ever enter this place without dying, except for the high priest; and he could only enter it one day a year, on the Day of Atonement, to atone for his own sins and then to atone for the sins of all Israel.  See this link for a good discussion on the tabernacle:

http://the-tabernacle-place.com/articles/what_is_the_tabernacle

Catholics seem to see Mary as some kind of fulfillment of the Old Testament ark, since Jesus was in her womb.  That’s why Catholics call her the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  But should Mary be given this title?  Is this proper?  Is it biblical?

The Catholic Church claims that it is indeed biblical.  They will point to passages in the Old Testament about the ark that seem to parallel certain aspects of Mary’s life.  They try to demonstrate similarities between Mary’s discussion with the angel Gabriel, and with the glory of God “overshadowing” the tabernacle.  Or they will see a parallel in Mary’s stay at Elizabeth’s house for three months and David’s moving of the ark to the house of Obed-edom for three months.  Also, they will say that David’s dancing before the ark resembles Elizabeth’s child “leaping” in the womb.  Or they will compare some of the language that David used with that of Elizabeth (John the baptist’s mom).  Catholics will claim that the typology strongly suggests that Mary is now the ark.  We do not deny that there seem to be some parallels in these accounts, but their typology is not as strong as Catholics claim.  There are other things that happened with the ark that would also detract from the claim of Mary as the new ark:

 

For example, if Mary is truly and fully a type of the ark, then who did Uzzah represent?  He was the one who touched the ark and died (2 Samuel 6:6-7).  Had anyone touched Mary and died because of it?  If Mary is the “new ark,” then can Catholics demonstrate that Mary was also captured and stolen by the Philistines, like the ark was in 1 Samuel 4:10-11?  And who held up Mary (as the ark was) while the Jordan River parted (Joshua 3:14-17)?

Of course, Catholics may object and say, “Not every single thing that happened to the ark has happened to Mary.  Typology has its limits, you know.  All types have a breaking point, and you can’t just pick and choose what you want in typology.  It can be subject to abuse.”

That’s exactly the reason we need to be careful with Catholic typology!  Types simply help us to see the big picture, but some will try to force something into being a “type,” when it was never intended to be.  And this Catholic insistence that Mary is the New Covenant Ark is one of those abuses.

But the Bible never says that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  If we’re going to follow this Catholic pattern, then who is now the “New Brazen Altar” or the “New Brazen Laver”?  Or why is no one recognized as the “New Veil”?  Who is the “New Table of Showbread”?  These types are ALL fulfilled in Jesus, and not anyone else.  They point to Him as their final fulfillment (Hebrews 9:1-11).  Why would we think that one of those items (the most important one, no less) should be attributed to Mary?  Was God saving the most important piece of furniture, the holiest one, to represent and honor HER above even her Son?  Does anyone really think that this was God’s intent?  If anyone is the “Ark of the New Covenant,” it is Jesus, Himself.

It is one thing to say that Mary was simply a type of the ark of the covenant for a short time, but it is another thing to give her the permanent status and glory of that holy item, especially when it points to Jesus as the true Ark and the true Temple, containing God’s presence (John 2:18-21).  Remember, Jesus is not in her womb anymore! 

 

The ark of the covenant is only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament (Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19) and there is nothing at all about Mary becoming the “new ark” in either of these passages.  The authors of Hebrews and Revelation had ample opportunity to mention this “important” Catholic concept at this point, but nothing of Mary is mentioned here.

We think that Mary, herself, would heartily disagree with Catholics concerning many of the things they believe about her.  We believe that the biblical Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:38, 48), would admit to being a type of the ark at one point in her life (during her pregnancy), but she would never claim such an exalted title that Catholics try to give her.  We believe that she, like every true Christian, would agree with John the baptist when he said, “He (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).  But Mary is in no way “decreasing” in the Catholic Church today!  For example, in the Catholic rosary, there are many more prayers to Mary than there are to Jesus, or God the Father.  As long as the Catholic version of Mary is around, Jesus just can’t seem to be “increasing” as He should.  But once again, Mary is not the “New Ark.”  Jesus Christ should be recognized as the fulfillment of every part of the tabernacle / temple.  He is the center of all prophecy (Luke 24:27; Revelation 19:10), and He and His plan of redemption can be found on every page of Scripture.