Did Jesus Declare Mary the Mother of Humanity in John 19:26-27?

By -
Roman Catholics try to justify devotion to Mary by quoting John 19:26-27 and I'll be quoting from Roman Catholic translations instead of the Authorized Version of 1611 which I uphold as the only Bible translation that Christians can use:
When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple there whom He loved, He said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. (New American Bible)
Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there; so he said to his mother, "He is your son." Then he said to the disciple, "She is your mother." From that time the disciple took her to live in his home. (Good News Translation)

That is their defense to why indeed we should have devotion to Mary. It's very easy for them to say that they don't worship Mary but they only pray for her or they don't pray to her at all. It's true Jesus honored His earthly mother but just because He honored certain people doesn't mean that they should be prayed to. Jesus never told His mother to mediate for people.

What did Jesus really mean when he told John "behold your mother"?

Here's something that I found interesting from Just For Catholics:
There were several other disciples beneath the cross. If He meant to appoint Mary the mother of His church, surely He would have addressed all the disciples present. But instead He addressed Mary and John as individuals. At the hour of His death, the Lord asked His beloved disciple, John, to take care of Mary with filial affection and comfort her in her loneliness as a true son would. That John so understood the Lord's words is clear from his own explanation in the sentence immediately following: "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

From Got Questions we also get this statement on the seven last words of Jesus:
(5) "Dear Woman, here is your son!" and "Here is your mother!" When Jesus saw His mother standing near the cross with the Apostle John, whom He loved, He committed His mother’s care into John’s hands. And from that hour John took her unto his own home (John 19:26-27). In this verse Jesus, ever the compassionate Son, is making sure His earthly mother is cared for after His death.

Jesus was making sure that John took His place to care for His earthly mother. This is most likely an instruction to care for those in need. Mary herself no longer had a husband and how he died is not even recorded in Scripture. John was tasked to take care of Mary. Jesus wouldn't hand over care of His mother to His unbelieving half-brothers and half-sisters. Jesus knew His time has come and He knew that Mary had to be take care of. It's a picture of telling Christians to care for those who in the most need of help. Mary was probably considered aged during her time. If she wasn't a sinner then why would she need care. Getting sick and growing old are all parts of the consequences of sin. If yo don't grow old you die young because of sin.

Going back to the scene of a wedding feast in Cana

Let's reread John 2:1-12 to understand the story that Roman Catholics are taking out of context. We notice that Jesus didn't call Mary as "mother" but "woman". Even the New American Bible which is an approved Roman Catholic translation has this footnote about the term "woman" concerning John 2:4:
This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. Cf. also Jn 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, "What is this to me and to you?"—a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Jgs 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hos 14:9; 2 Kgs 3:13). Cf. Mk 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus. My hour has not yet come: the translation as a question ("Has not my hour now come?"), while preferable grammatically and supported by Greek Fathers, seems unlikely from a comparison with Jn 7:6, 30. The "hour" is that of Jesus’ passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn 13:1).

Even the NAB as a Roman Catholic translation has a footnote that ends up acknowledging that Jesus politely told His mother to know her place. Mary fully understood why. Although she's the mother of Jesus in His humanity but she knew she carried the eternal Son of God in her womb. She knew that before she was born that Jesus made her. Although Roman Catholics don't teach that Mary is God (and they shun it as heresy) or that they believe that Jesus created Mary or that He created His mother but they end up deifying Mary without knowing it.

The footnote of John 19:26-27 from the NAB also says:
This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus’ concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in Jn 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in Jn 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (Jn 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus’ revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.

That alone is a contradiction of the first account. If they try and take it in context, normally you don't call your mother as "woman" in a form of respect. Try to notice the problem behind thinking that John became an example that Christians must have Mary as their Heavenly Mother. This is a problem that many Roman Catholics need to answer.

Why did Jesus hand the responsibility to John if he had brothers and sisters? 

Also they say that if Jesus had brothers and sisters so why was Mary handed over to John?
John 7:5  
( Not even His brothers believed in Him.) (GNT)

The idea that Mary remained a virgin is a heresy that even hit the early Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and even those who reject Mary worship still bought the heresy. In reality, some need to understand this verse from the Bible from Psalm 69:8:
I am like a stranger to my relatives, like a foreigner to my family. (GNT)
In the case of the NAB, it's Psalm 69:9 that says:
I have become an outcast to my kindred, a stranger to my mother’s children.

Mary had other children besides Jesus. It would be stupid that Joseph wouldn't exercise his rights to consummate his marriage with Mary.
Matthew 1:20

Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. (NAB)

If Joseph was told not to be afraid to take Mary then he shouldn't be ashamed either to exercise his rights towards Mary. Also Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mean that Mary didn't have other children as the prophecy was already fulfilled when Jesus was born. Also this verse should at least show that Joseph did consummate his relationship with Mary as husband and wife:
Matthew 1:25 
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

The same footnote also manages to just disprove Roman Catholic doctrine:
Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

In short, there's nothing to suggest that Joseph did or did not consummate his right to Mary. The early Reformers were also wrong about it but they didn't claim to be infallible. The problem is that this heresy is taught by those who claim that the Holy Spirit supposedly guarded them from doctrinal error. I believe that he did but these half-brothers of Jesus who shared the same mother but not the same father (because God is His Father) didn't believe yet. What's amazing is to think we read this verse by Paul:
Galatians 1:19 
I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother. (GNT)

Mary was a sinner saved by grace

Besides, Mary already declared it long ago:
Luke 1:47 
My soul is glad because of God my Savior, (GNT)
Luke 2:22-24 
The time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification, as the Law of Moses commanded. So they took the child to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the LORD: "Every first-born male is to be dedicated to the LORD." They also went to offer a sacrifice of a pair of doves or two young pigeons, as required by the law of the Lord.

What Mary did is in complete this task:
Leviticus 12:1-8 
The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. For seven days after a woman gives birth to a son, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. On the eighth day, the child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty-three more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood; she must not touch anything that is holy or enter the sacred Tent until the time of her purification is completed. For fourteen days after a woman gives birth to a daughter, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. Then it will be sixty-six more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood. When the time of her purification is completed, whether for a son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence a one-year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. The priest shall present her offering to the Lord and perform the ritual to take away her impurity, and she will be ritually clean. This, then, is what a woman must do after giving birth. If the woman cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering, and the priest shall perform the ritual to take away her impurity, and she will be ritually clean.

Here's what Catholic Answers has to say to why Mary offered a sin offering if they believe she's sinless:
For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law. 
According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them. 
The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn't imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

While I do agree with what the site had to say that ritual uncleanness was the cause and that there's no moral fault at childbirth. But here's another issue that they may have dodged or left unnoticed. That would be that if Mary wasn't a sinner why would she still be ceremonially unclean? Ceremonial uncleanness is a result of being a sinner. The whole problem of the doctrine of Mary being sinless vs. the doctrine that she's a sinner saved by grace was already argued for centuries until Pope Pius IX declared by the right of papal infallibility whereby Popes are preserved from doctrinal error declared it as a doctrine on December 8, 1854. What's worse is that not all Popes and not all the previous doctors of the Roman Catholic Church upheld it but merely taught that Mary was a sinner saved by grace.  

See also: