Inasmuch as the Roman Church has designated 1954 as a special holy year in which an International Marian Congress—the first of its kind—is to be held in Rome, with many special events and pilgrimages in honor of Mary, it would be well for us to briefly examine the background for this unusual festival.
The year 1954 is the 100th anniversary of the issuance of papal bull "Ineffabilis Deus" by which the Roman doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" finally became an article of faith for all her communicants, the denial of which is accounted to be heresy. Thus since 1854 all Catholics are bound to subscribe to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Now first, what is a dogma? In the sense in which the Roman Church uses the word it is an official decree of the Church which has absolute authority equal to, if not exceeding, that of the Holy Scriptures themselves. Thus it is evident that the Bible is not their sole guide, but they claim the right to teach and add to what has been written for our learning. From the Word of God, however, we learn that the Church is not to teach, but it is taught (Acts 11:26; 13:126And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
1Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1); Eph. 4:11-1311And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:11‑13)); while in Rev. 2:2020Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2:20) we read of a woman designated by the name of Jezebel who called herself a prophetess, and she usurped a place and taught moral corruption and evil, for which the church at Thyatira was censured.
Second, what is this dogma of the Immaculate Conception which reaches all Catholics with all the authority of the Church? From its wording some might suppose that it has reference to the Lord Jesus Himself as having been begotten of the Holy Spirit, but this is not the case. This strange doctrine says that Mary, from the time of her conception, was holy and free from all stain of sin—that she was different in this respect from all of the other children of fallen Adam.
Now let us test this doctrine by the inerrant Word of God, for that is our only, but always true, resource. And may we remember that when the Apostle Paul was leaving the elders of Ephesus, he commended them to God and to the Word of His grace (Acts 20:3232And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)), not to the Church, nor to any man or group of men. And when the Apostle Peter was about to leave the saints, he wrote so that they would have the precious truth communicated to them always in remembrance. He further said, "Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. 1:12-1512Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. 15Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. (2 Peter 1:12‑15)). Peter said nothing of the Church teaching, Church authority to teach, or of any apostolic succession. The beloved Apostle John likewise made no reference to any such innovation, when warning them of the dangers of the last days, but cast the saints back on "that which ye have heard from the beginning" (1 John 2:2424Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)). So with entire confidence in God and His Word we shall seek to test the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
In Isa. 7:1414Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) we read: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel"; that is, God with us. Now it is evident that this Son of the virgin is God manifest in flesh, and of His holiness there can be no doubt, but not one word is said about the holiness of the virgin. Is this merely an oversight?
Next let us turn to Matthew 1. Joseph was told by the Lord in a dream, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins." vv. 20, 21. Here the altogether singular manner of conception of the virgin's Son is told—"is of the Holy Ghost." Certainly no taint of sin ever sullied His blessed Person, for otherwise He never could have saved His people from their sins. Again there is not the slightest hint that Mary herself was "free from original sin."
The Gospel of Luke gives the most detailed account of the birth of the Lord Jesus, and of Mary herself. Here the angel Gabriel informs Mary beforehand that she had found favor with God, for she was that virgin of whom Isaiah spoke. She was the chosen instrument through whom the wondrous purposes of God were to be wrought in bringing into the world Him who would not only save her people but bless the world. Then the manner of His birth was announced, and because of that which was to be by the power of the Spirit of God, He, although taking on Him manhood, was absolutely free from the slightest taint of man's sinful and fallen state. This depended upon the singularity of His conception: "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." v. 35. He was truly the "Holy One of God." Although He had become a man, and gloried in the title "Son of man," yet withal, He was the Son of God, as much so when in manhood as in the past eternity.
But where in all this is there one word about Mary's being holy? where any intimation that her birth distinguished her from all before her of Adam's race? The birth of Jesus was a miracle outside of the sphere of nature, while the birth of John the Baptist (told in the same chapter) was a miracle within the scope of nature.
After the interview with the angel, Mary went to see her cousin Elizabeth, and there gave expression to a remarkable statement: "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." Luke 1:46, 4746And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46‑47). If Mary had been free from all taint of sin she would not have said that she rejoiced in God her Savior. Yes, blessed as her place was among women, and among her nation, she, just as we, needed and had a Savior through that Holy One who came into the world as the Son of the virgin. Mary then went on to say, "For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name"—not one word about her holiness. She also said that all generations would call her blessed, but note well—not a blesser, nor a Savior, nor a mediatrix.
The next chapter of Luke adds a detail that should forever settle the question in hand. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called Jesus"; at that time Mary offered a sacrifice for herself according to that which was written in the law, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." By reference to Leviticus 12, concerning a mother's cleansing, we find that where people were too poor to bring a larger offering, the two birds would suffice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So we see that Mary on this occasion offered a sin offering. Such an act would have been altogether out of place if the dogma of the Church of Rome were true.
If then this strange doctrine is unsupported by Scripture, in fact is even in conflict with it, on what does Rome base it? and why did she wait more than 1800 years (according to her claim to antiquity) to decree it? Needless to say, superstition crept into the Church very early, but there is nothing very definite about a doctrine of Mary's sinlessness until the year 1140. There are indications that such ideas had been growing, and these came into prominence by the remonstrance of the celebrated Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) when he wrote to the clerics of the cathedral at Lyons, for they had introduced a festival in celebration of that doctrine. Bernard a r g u e d vigorously against this on the ground of its novelty, its unscripturalness (Psalm 51:55Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)), and its absurdity. He said, "On the same principle you would be obliged to hold that the conception of her ancestors, in an ascending line, was also a holy one, since otherwise she could not have ascended from them worthily, and there would then be festivals without number." The supporters of this new thing claimed a document communicated by the virgin herself.
From the time of Bernard there was intermittent agitation for this new doctrine, but foremost in opposing it were the friars of the Dominican order, and they were the ones who zealously sought to guard against heresy, and who supplied men for the inquisitions. They steadfastly h el d out against the new doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, while the Franciscans supported it. Pope after pope decreed against it, or against agitation for it, and one against agitation for or against it, until Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) gave several prelates permission to describe her conception as immaculate. Then Pope Pius IX (18461878) "was induced to address to his bishops from Gaeta an encyclical, inviting them to state how far the dogmatic definition of the dogma would meet their wishes and the wishes of those under their charge. A large majority declared themselves strongly in favor of the proposal." The outcome was that on December 8, 1848, the thing that had crept up as superstition through a thousand years became an article of faith to the Roman Church, and this year they are celebrating the 100th anniversary of that event.
May we praise God that we know the Lord Jesus, the Son of the virgin, as the only sinless and spotless One, and that He in grace took our place—the Just for the unjust and suffered in our stead. All who so know Him are truly saved, and this includes Mary herself, blessed as she certainly was.
"O Head! once full of bruises,
So full of pain and scorn,
'Mid other sore abuses
Mocked with a crown of thorn;
O Head! e'en now surrounded
With brightest majesty,
In death once bowed and
wounded
On the accursed tree:
"Thou Countenance transcendent!
Thou life-creating Sun!
To worlds on Thee dependent—
Yet bruised and spit upon:
O Lord! what Thee tormented
Was our sin's heavy load,
We had the debt augmented
Which Thou didst pay in blood.
"We give Thee thanks unfeigned,
O Savior! Friend in need,
For what Thy soul sustained
When Thou for us didst bleed;
Grant us to lean unshaken
Upon Thy faithfulness;
Until to glory taken,
We see Thee face to face."