A previous issue drew attention to the journey of the Walsingham image of Mary to different parts of the UK. Even more significant will be the publication, expected this year of the ARCIC document, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ. We need to know where we stand and why.

One mistake we can easily make in speaking about or to Roman Catholics is to think that they don't know basic Bible texts which would quickly put them right. For some that is true, but not all, and certainly not when it comes to official documents. They know the texts. It is how they use them that we need to grasp and deal with.

One Mediator?
This is so when we look at the third section of the chapter on Mary in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium or Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. This section deals with Mary and the Church and it begins by quoting 1 Timothy 2:5,6 on the sole mediatorship of Christ. For us Paul's words end all argument, but not for Rome. Mary's function as mother of men, "in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power" (Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, edited by Austin Flannery O.P Fowler Wright Books Ltd. 1980). Mary's "salutary influence on men" is a result of God's purposes and Christ's merit. It doesn't hinder, but actually helps, our union with Christ.

She was predestined to be the Mother of God, and "by her obedience faith, hope and burning charity' in the Lord's work she co-operated "in restoring supernatural life to souls". So she is also our mother "in the order of grace". This work goes on until "the eternal fulfilment of all the elect". This saving office continues now in heaven through her intercession and care for Christians in their earthly pilgrimage. She may be called on as "Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix". Then comes the qualification, that this is understood in a way that does not take from or add to "the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator".

Closer To Christ?
It is conceded that no creature can "be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer", but her ministry is seen as part of the co-operative priesthood shared by all Christians and depending on Christ as the source. Mary's "subordinate role" is used to bring us closer to Christ. She is a type of the Church with which she is intimately united. She co-operates with her Son in the generation and formation of believers, Christ's brethren.

Through meditation on Mary's holiness, and imitation of her love and obedience, the Church becomes a mother who produces children through preaching, baptism, and the power of God. The Church has reached perfection "in the most Blessed Virgin", so believers, struggling with sin here, look to Mary as "the model of virtues". She unites in herself and sounds out the most important Christian doctrines, and when she is "the subject of preaching and worship" she encourages people towards Christ.

Thus Mary is presented in a very persuasive form as the one through whom we can attain greater knowledge of the Lord and likeness to Him. No wonder Roman Catholics think so much of her. Yet within the Protestant heart there rises the clear conviction that this is simply wrong. It isn't there in Scripture. There we find the believer has union with Christ directly. It is His model we look at. It is His mind which is to dwell in us. It is the Lord Jesus on whom we are to ponder. Mary, as Rome presents her, gets in the way, something the real Mary would surely never want to do.

Tradition Versus Scripture
Here is a clear case of what happens when church tradition is given equal authority with Scripture. However much Rome refines its teaching about Mary, and no matter what qualifications it makes about giving the ultimate honour to God and to Christ, the traditions of men are setting aside the unambiguous teaching of the Word of God.

We cannot, therefore, accept the statement in the next section on "the cult of the blessed virgin in the church" that "she is rightly honoured by a special cult". We find no need to take refuge in her in prayer in all our perils and needs. We can go straight to the One who has told us, through Peter, to cast all our care upon Him because He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7).

Rome does draw an essential distinction between this cult and that of adoration offered to the Persons of the Trinity. The forms of piety towards Mary must be those "approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine", and, while honouring the mother, they will make sure that the Son "is rightly known, loved and glorified" as well as obeyed.

The Council calls on "all the sons of the Church" to foster this cult, holding in high esteem "the practices and exercises of devotion towards her (Mary)", observing the Church's decrees about "the cult images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints". There is a warning against false exaggeration and anything which might lead "the separated brethren" into error in their understanding of the Church's teaching.

"Hope and comfort"?
The chapter ends with a short section headed, "Mary, sign of true hope and comfort for the pilgrim people of God". Mary is this in the glory she now has in body and soul in heaven, and also as "she shines forth on earth". The Council rejoices in those "among the separated brethren" who honour her as Rome does.

The final sentence speaks of "the entire body of the faithful" urgently praying to Mary that in her exaltation above all angels and saints she will intercede before her Son until "all families of people" are joined in "one People of God".

All of this appears so sad to the Protestant who recognises that, despite all that Rome says, to look on Mary in this way is to make the Saviour seem more and more remote. Far from emphasising His glory it takes away from it in ascribing to Mary functions which belong alone to Him. We are never taught in Scripture to pray to another human being now with Christ. We are to come to the Father, through the Son, aided by the Holy Spirit. We can also, as theologians like John Owen pointed out, have communion with each Person of the Trinity. It would be wrong to look elsewhere, granted such a privilege as this.

We have no desire to dishonour Mary, far from it. We recognise what a privilege was hers in being chosen to be the mother of the Saviour. Yet we must stand up against doctrinal developments which are not justified by Scripture and actually undermine the truth.

It may be that it is Rome's preoccupation with Mary as "the Mother of God" which has led to all this false teaching. A title intended originally by the Church to stress the deity of Christ has been used to exalt Mary far beyond her portrayal in Scripture. This in turn has only distorted to an even greater extent the gospel preached by Rome.