The Virgin Mary Against Protestantism

Our Lady of Guadalupe

The vast majority of Protestant Christians today believe that Marian devotion is rank idolatry. For example, the popular Baptist website DesiringGod teaches that prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary “robs [Christ] of the glory that he alone deserves.” Another site well received among Evangelicals, GotQuestions, is emphatic that “we absolutely are not to worship God ‘vicariously’ by praising things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.” The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion likewise teach that the “Romish doctrine” concerning the invocation of the Saints, which would include Marian devotion, is “repugnant to the Word of God.”¹ The Lutheran Augsburg Confession agrees, albeit with kinder language: “But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor.”² Quotes to this effect could be multiplied, however this should suffice. The belief that Marian devotion is contrary to the Word of God and thus idolatrous is consubstantial with historic Protestant orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this universal Protestant belief has some undesirable consequences.

For starters, it’s important to pause on just how serious the accusation of idolatry is. According to the testimony of Scripture, there can be absolutely no coexistence between rank idolatry and divine worship. The Apostle Paul warns Christians to “flee from idolatry” because “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (1 Cor 10:14, 21). This teaching couldn’t have been clearer: “Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). If you are actively engaged in idolatrous worship you cannot be a saved member of Christ’s body. The Lord forcefully demonstrated this when He had three thousand of His own people executed for worshiping the golden calf at Mount Sinai (Ex 32:27-28), showing an absolute zero tolerance of idolatry.

As such, if prayer and devotion to Mary is truly rank idolatry, as the overwhelming majority of Protestants believe today (and have believed throughout history), then we would certainly expect them to view Catholics as unsaved reprobates. Even if these Protestants believe that there may hypothetically be rare cases of ignorance that would allow a Catholic to be saved in spite of this idolatry, this would be the exception and not the rule. And for most “Bible-believing” Protestants, this is indeed what they teach. Most Evangelical “missionaries” treat Catholics as unsaved reprobates (at least in part) on account of their “idolatrous worship” of the Blessed Virgin. If you were to ask the average Protestant what they think of Catholics who pray to Mary, I have little doubt in my mind that their standard response would be, “They’re not saved.” 

Although Catholics may find this offensive, it’s important to recognize that these conservative Protestants are simply being consistent with their beliefs. Just as they condemn Christians who advocate for homosexuality and abortion as sinners who will likely go to hell if they don’t repent, so too do they condemn Catholics as false Christians who promote the “idolatrous worship” of Mary. Indeed, since St. Paul lists sexual immorality, murder, and idolatry together as mortal sins that damn even Christians to hell (Gal 5:19-21), it would be wildly inconsistent for conservative Protestants to anathematize groups of progressive Christians while refusing to anathematize Catholics. Most Protestants today and historically have acknowledged and embraced this fact, and I commend them for their consistency. However, Protestants who are well versed in Church history may have a slightly more difficult time accepting what has been outlined above.

This is because, while Protestants certainly don’t understand our Lord’s promises to the Church in an orthodox sense, they nonetheless believe that these promises have to mean something. The Bible teaches that the coming of the Messiah would put an end to all Gentile idolatry (Mal 1:8); that the Church would bring the true faith to all nations (Is 2:2-3; Acts 1:8); that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18); and that the Church, the Light of the World, the City on a Hill that cannot be hid (Matt 5:14), would never be abandoned by Christ until the end of time (Matt 28:20). The absolute bare minimum of these promises would seem to require that the Church, the visible society of baptized Christians, will never corporately apostatize from saving faith in Jesus Christ. This means that if it could be historically demonstrated that the universal Church at one time actually did embrace a doctrine or practice incompatible with salvation, our Lord would prove to be a false prophet. 

Now remember, it was shown above that Protestant orthodoxy requires Marian devotion to be a practice incompatible with saving faith in Christ. Thus, if it could be demonstrated that Marian devotion was, at some point, universally embraced by all baptized Christians we have an historic record of, this would leave us with one of two conclusions. Either (1) Jesus lied about protecting His Church and Christianity is false, or (2) Marian devotion is not idolatrous. Another option would be to embrace a “great apostasy” theory of Church history, however, most Protestants desperately try to avoid this due to it opening the door to religions like Islam and Mormonism. After all, if the true faith was abandoned at some point in Church history, it would make a lot more sense for a prophet sent from God to recover it rather than some Roman Catholic priests in the 16th century. 

With all of that said, the remainder of this article will largely be a survey of the historic acceptance of Marian devotion in the Catholic Church. I’ll seek to prove that from at least the 6th/7th-16th centuries (about one thousand years) all Christians universally embraced Marian devotion. If I’m successful in proving this, then those Protestants who wish to avoid the “great apostasy” theory must either denounce Christianity, or denounce their condemnation of Marian devotion. Let’s begin.

The concept of Marian devotion can already be seen blossoming in the Catholic Church in the 3rd/4th century, as the ancient hymn, the Sub Tuum Praesidium, demonstrates: “Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger, [O you] alone pure and alone blessed.”³ Although this 3rd/4th century liturgical prayer is ambiguous as to whether the “danger” from which Mary delivers us is physical or spiritual, we have no reason to suspect that the early Christians would’ve separated these, as the example of the Psalms illustrates (Ps 10:2-9 cf. 1 Pet 5:8). Indeed, one of the most prominent Theotokion hymns in the Eastern tradition, To Thee the Champion Leader, was created to remember Holy Mary’s deliverance of Constantinople from a military invasion in AD 626, yet its message that the Theotokos has “delivered [us] from terror” is understood in a spiritual sense as well. The fact that the Sub Tuum Praesidium still exists among all branches of historic Christianity to this day reveals that Mary playing an on-going role in the salvation of God’s people is a most ancient and pious belief of Christian society. 

This belief was further developed by one of the Church’s greatest theological defenders of our Lady, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Speaking against the heretic Nestorius in the 5th century, Cyril affirms that Mary is truly the Mother of God, “through [whom] holy baptism and the oil of gladness are administered to believers… [and] the peoples are led to conversion.”⁴ Elsewhere, Cyril confirms his belief that, “through you [Mary], every faithful soul achieves salvation.”⁵ This is the man whose writings were used as the official rule of faith at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, councils that even most confessional Protestant denominations bind their faithful to, and so we ought to take his teachings very seriously. To adapt the Presbyterian theologian James Jordan’s interpretation of Ephesians 4:8-12,⁶ the godly wisdom of our fathers is part of the treasure of the Church, and to ignore it is to despise the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Taking this to heart, the Church came to embrace St. Cyril’s godly wisdom that it is through the Virgin Mary that all Christians are led to salvation.

Just under a century after Cyril’s blessed repose (ca. 5th/6th century AD), the Eastern Church composed a prayer service that picked up his Marian torch, the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos. This beloved hymn has such statements as: “Unto all maidens and unto all who fly to thee thou art a wall, O maiden Forth-bringer; the Maker of heaven and earth has prepared thee unto this,”⁷ “We see the Blessed Virgin as a lamp of living light shining upon those in darkness; she enkindleth an unearthly light to lead all unto divine knowledge,”⁸ “Hail! thou who enlightenest the initiates of the Triune… Hail! thou who hast redeemed us from pagan rites. Hail! thou who rescuest us from works of mire. Hail! thou who hast quenched the cult of fire. Hail! thou who savest us from passion’s flame. Hail! leader of the faithful in ways of self-control.”⁹ The belief that our Lady plays an indispensable role in our salvation is on full display here. According to the Akathist Hymn, which Christians have faithfully prayed for over one thousand and five hundred years, the Theotokos is (in a sense) the one through whom we’ve received knowledge of the Trinity and been set free from sin, i.e. the one through whom we’re saved. 

Lest you think this was just a phenomenon in the East, let’s turn our attention towards the West. In the 6th century, St. Gregory of Tours wrote his Libri Miraculorum wherein he described many of the Theotokos’ miraculous interventions in the life of the Church. A story of particular interest is that of a young Jewish boy who attended school with some Christian children. One day, the boy decided to go with his Christian friends to Mass in a basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary, and in his childlike innocence even took communion along with them! Upon hearing this, the boy’s father was furious and tried to have him killed by throwing him into a fiery furnace, however the boy was miraculously saved. When asked how he survived the flames, the boy replied:

The woman who sits enthroned in the basilica where I received the bread from the table and who carries a baby in her bosom covered me with her mantle, so that I would not be devoured by the fire.¹⁰

As a result of this physical rescue by our Immaculate Lady, the boy, his mother, and many other Jews in the city all converted to the Catholic faith and were reborn in the waters of baptism.¹¹ St. Gregory thus illustrates the same message that St. Cyril did, “through you [Mary] holy baptism and the oil of gladness are administered to believers… [and] the peoples are led to conversion.” It’s worth mentioning that St. Gregory also accepted the practice of praying to the Saints,¹² which had already been universally established by the great doctors before him. This includes St. Hippolytus of Rome (2nd c.),¹³ St. Basil the Great (4th c.),¹⁴ St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th c.),¹⁵ St. Gregory Nazianzen (4th c.),¹⁶ St. John Chrysostom (4th c.),¹⁷ St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.),¹⁸ St. Augustine of Hippo (4th c.),¹⁹ and St. Paulinus of Nola (5th c.).²⁰ Thus, combined with his witness to an early western belief in Mary’s intercessory power, St. Gregory of Tours reveals that all of the essential elements of Marian devotion were present in 6th century Catholicism.

Around this same time, another westerner, St. Isidore of Seville, would express similar reverence towards our Blessed Mother. Specifically, St. Isidore developed an idea that would become very influential in Spanish Marian devotion, which is Mary’s spiritual embodiment of the Church. He writes, “Mary represents the Church, which, being wedded to Christ, conceived us as a virgin by the Holy Spirit,”²¹ and elsewhere, “In the New Testament, Christ is the head of male virgins, and Mary is the head of female virgins. She is their founder, the Mother of our Head, who is Son of the Virgin and Spouse of virgins.”²² This symbolism even made its way into the 7th century Spanish liturgy, which said of newly baptized catechumens: “Today through a birth as beautiful as the glow of dawn, sons of light are generated by grace from Mother Church, who bears within her the impress of the image of the Virgin Mother, who bore fruit without the intervention of man.”²³ Although it’s rather subtle, Mary being the personal embodiment of the Church suggests that she, like the Church, is an instrument through whom God’s saving grace enters the world. 

Indeed, a Saint contemporary with the above quoted liturgy can help us understand what Mary’s embodiment of the Church meant to Spanish Christians at this time. St. Ildephonsus was the Archbishop of Hispania Toledo around the year 667, and he is perhaps the first Christian we have a record of who made an explicit vow of consecration to the Virgin Mary. Considering that prayerful devotion to the Saints had already been accepted and promoted by the greatest teachers of the Catholic faith before him, St. Ildephonsus’ practical application of Marian theology should come as no surprise:

And now I come to you, only Virgin Mother of God; I come into your presence, only masterwork of the Incarnation of my God; I prostrate myself before you, the only one found to be the Mother of my Lord; I beg you, only one found to be the handmaid of your Son, that you might obtain the removal of the guilt of my sin, that you might command me to be cleansed from the iniquity of my actions, that you might make me to love the glory of your power, that you might show unto me the manifold sweetness of your Son, that you might give me to speak and defend the truthfulness of faith in your Son, that you might grant me even to cling to God and you, to serve your Son and you, to wait upon your Lord and you—to wait upon him as my Maker and upon you as the Mother of my Maker; upon him as the Lord of might, upon you as the Mother of God; upon him as my Redeemer, upon you as the work of my redemption… Therefore I am your servant, because your Son is my Lord. Therefore, you are my mistress, because you are the handmaid of my Lord. Therefore, I am the servant of the handmaid of my Lord, because you, my mistress, became the Mother of my Lord. Therefore I have become your servant, because you have become the mother of my Maker. I pray you, I pray you, O holy Virgin, that I might possess Jesus from that same Spirit by whom you gave birth to Jesus.²⁴

Clearly, Ildephonsus took the theology of Mary’s embodiment of the Church to its natural conclusion. Just as we fully devote ourselves to Mother Church in order to access Jesus Christ, so too can we fully devote ourselves to our Blessed Mother for this same end. Back over in the East, God’s Saints were arriving at this same conclusion. In the 8th century, St. Germanus of Constantinople could uncontroversially explain that Mary is our “mediatrix, first through her supernatural birth and now because of the intercession of her maternal assistance,”²⁵ further affirming that, “No one is saved except through you, O All-Holy [Mary]. No one is delivered from evils except through you, O All-Chaste. No one obtains the grace of mercy except through you, O All-Honorable.”²⁶ At this same time, St. Andrew of Crete would also explain how the Theotokos “acts as [a] mediatrix between the loftiness of God and the lowliness of the flesh.”²⁷ This theology would then lead St. John of Damascus to consecrate himself to the Virgin Mary in a manner very similar to St. Ildephonsus:

We today also remain near you, O Lady. Yes, I repeat, O Lady, Mother of God and Virgin. We bind our souls to your hope, as to a most firm and totally unbreakable anchor, consecrating to you mind, soul, body, and all our being and honoring you, as much as we can, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles.²⁸

The Damascene is a man who’s been hailed as a Doctor of the Church by both East and West for over 1,000 years, and yet Protestant orthodoxy would have us believe he’s an idolater. Now, at this point Protestant readers may be thinking along the same lines as Mr. Jason Klondike. During this time in Church history when Marian devotion was reaching its heights, wasn’t there a strong reaction against it from both eastern and western churchmen? What of the Byzantine and Frankish Iconoclasts who opposed the Second Council of Nicaea’s teaching on venerating images of the Saints? Surely they must have been a proto-Reformed breath of fresh air in the midst of so much Romish idolatry. Unfortunately, the facts of history say otherwise.

When it comes to the 8th century Byzantine Iconoclasts, although they did oppose the cult of images, they absolutely did not oppose Marian devotion. In fact, unlike the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Iconoclast Council of Hieria actually anathematized anyone who refused to pray to our Lady:

(15) If anyone shall not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bore him, let him be anathema.

(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, let him be anathema.²⁹

Thus taught the Byzantine opponents of icon veneration. This was most likely in response to some Iconoclasts who were taking their rejection of images so far as to reject the veneration of the Saints altogether. The fact of the matter is, at that point in Church history, the cult of Mary and the Saints was so widespread and accepted that any challenge to it would’ve been seen as heresy, and so the Iconoclasts went out of their way to defend themselves against that potential attack.

To my knowledge, there’s no reason to suppose that the Franks believed anything different. While many of them rejected the theology of image veneration laid out at Nicaea II, like their Byzantine counterparts, it seems the Carolingians had absolutely no qualms about Marian devotion as such. In fact, the very man whom King Charlemagne personally appointed as the lead scholar of the Carolingian court, St. Alcuin of York, had the following to say about our Lady: “To me you are my dear love, my beauty, the great hope of salvation. Help your servant, O most glorious Virgin. My voice tells of you tearfully; my heart burns for love. Give heed as well to the prayers of all my brothers who cry unto you: O Virgin, you are full of grace; through you may the grace of Christ ever preserve us.”³⁰ These certainly don’t sound like the words of a man who lived in an ecclesial environment that was hostile to Marian devotion.

According to Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne, St. Alcuin was “the greatest scholar of the day,”³¹ and he is considered one of the chief architects of the Carolingian revolution. As far as I’ve seen, at no point were these beliefs of his about the Blessed Virgin Mary contested by anyone in the Frankish court, and we really wouldn’t expect them to be. Once again, at that point in history, the cult of the Virgin had been universally embraced by the visible society of baptized Christians. This is why St. Alcuin’s teachings would go on to inspire men like St. Paschasius Radbertus, another prominent figure in the so-called Carolingian revolution. This is what he had to say about our Lady in the 9th century:

And so, love the Mother of the Lord, who for your sake bore the immortal Bridegroom. She is his sister, and yours as well, because she did the Father’s will and so became a mother. Mary is your relative, not in the flesh, but in the spirit, so that the unity of the Church may be appreciated and the fellowship of the body of Christ understood.³²

She deserves the greatest possible honor because of the grace she received, which makes her even more worthy of veneration. For to give her honor and glory means to give thanks and praise to the Redeemer.³³

Did men like Ss. Alcuin and Paschasius belong to the “idolatry-free church” that many Protestants so desperately hope existed in the Middle Ages? Clearly not. They were just as devoted to our Blessed Mother as Ss. Ildephonsus, John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, and Germanus of Constantinople were.

Indeed, if we survey the great medieval tradition that many magisterial Reformers attempted to claim continuity with, we find nothing but the Roman Catholic understanding of our Lady’s intercessory power. For example, St. Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), a Saint beloved by Protestants such as Gavin Ortlund, prayed to Mary like this: “To you, O Bearer of life, O Mother of salvation, O Temple of kindness and mercy, to you my wretched soul attempts to present itself,”³⁴ “O most clement Lady, heal my weakness, and you will wipe away the foulness that offends you.”³⁵ St. Anselm even taught his students that, “If a man is guilty in the sight of the just God, let him fly for refuge to the loving Mother of the merciful God.”³⁶ Would someone with these beliefs be welcomed as a brother in Christ by Dr. Ortlund’s ecclesial community? Or what about St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153), who exhorted Christians: “Let us venerate Mary with every fiber of our being, from the deepest part of our heart, because this is the will of him who wanted us to receive everything through Mary.”³⁷ And all of this is before we get to the scholastic devotees to our Lady, e.g. Ss. Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas.³⁸ Would these men be tolerated by your local Evangelical mission?

Funnily enough, even as we get closer to the Reformation itself, we still find these “Romish” practices deeply ingrained in the people of God. According to Thomas A. Fudge, actual proto-Reformers like Jan Hus were still “conservative” and “orthodox” by medieval standards on Marian doctrine. “It may be noted that in 1403 Hus preached twenty-five times on the Virgin Mary and her festivals. In these sermons he accepted uncritically the medieval doctrines of her virginity, annunciation, assumption and intercession on behalf of sinners.”³⁹ If not even medievals like Hus can escape the Protestant accusation of idolatry, how much less would the average believer during that time? Using Reformed standards to look for pockets of “non-heretical” and “non-idolatrous” Christianity prior to the Reformation thus proves to be a complete waste of time. The faithful historian is forced to come to grips with reality: if Catholic Marian devotion is idolatrous, then pre-Reformation Christianity was idolatrous.

To further highlight the significance of this point, consider the miracles that our Lady has traditionally been credited with throughout Church history, and the implications these have for Protestant believers. Because let’s say that the Marian devotion pre-Reformation Christianity engaged in truly was idolatrous. Pretend that for one thousand years, the Light to the Nations was enthusiastically promoting the very idolatry that our Lord established the new covenant to end (Jer 31:31-34), and, somehow, He was still guiding His Church into all truth in the midst of that. What would we expect the fruits of this idolatry to have been? Wouldn’t it have led Catholics to the same fate as the Novationists, Arians, and Donatists, i.e. ecclesial extinction? Wouldn’t God have expressed His disapproval of this idolatry in a manner similar to how He did under the old covenant, namely, by allowing His people to be crushed by their enemies? If so, then the following historical anecdotes appear to create a problem for the Protestant narrative.

Above it was mentioned that, in the year of our Lord 626, the city of Constantinople was under siege by the Avars, and it looked as though defeat was imminent. Despite this, Patriarch Sergius processed around the city with images of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging her intercession for a Christian victory over the pagans. Miraculously, the enemies of the Church ended up being defeated, and as a pledge of thanksgiving to our Lady, the people of Constantinople began to pray the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos, quoted from above.⁴⁰ A few centuries later, in the year of our Lord 1571, something like this happened again. The sultan had taken New Rome and proclaimed himself emperor of the Romans, and by all appearances, it looked like he was about to march on Italy and take Old Rome as well. Seeing that they were outnumbered and outgunned, Pope St. Pius V called on all of Catholic Europe to pray the Rosary for victory at the decisive Battle of Lepanto, and he led a procession in honor of our Lady in Rome. That day, Christendom saw an unexpected and miraculous victory over those who wanted to see the Church destroyed. The Ottomans never fully recovered from this defeat, and St. Pius V dedicated October 7th to Our Lady of Victory, now celebrated as Our Lady of the Rosary.⁴¹

What I want to know is, what is the Protestant critic to make of Marian devotion seeming to garner a positive response from Heaven? Atheists may be able to dismiss these accounts as historical accidents or coincidences, but that’s hardly an option for believers in divine providence. As I see it, there’s only a few possible interpretations of these events Christians could have. One would be the Catholic take, which is that our Lord was delighted by those faithful Christians who revered His All-Holy Mother and simply rewarded them for their virtue. Obviously, this is unacceptable to traditional Protestants. Another would be the extremely anti-Catholic take, which is that, because you can’t actually pray to Mary, the devil was the one who received those prayers and deceptively brought about Christian victories through them, for the purpose of tricking people into believing an idolatrous faith. However, if this is your perspective, then you must grapple with its implication: by Reformed standards, Christianity was an idolatrous faith for about one thousand years (AD 626-1571). In fact, on this view, the historic Christian faith was so idolatrous that the demons actually performed mighty works under the guise of “Mary” in an attempt to drag pagans and Muslims into it! But if you really believe this, then good luck convincing any Jews that Jesus really was the Messiah, the one who ushered in a new covenant that is “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke” (‭‭Jer‬ ‭31‬:‭32‬)‬‬.

Things get even worse for Protestants when we consider another historic intervention of the Virgin Mary: Our Lady of Guadalupe. In the year 1531, an indigenous Mexican convert to Christianity, St. Juan Diego, received a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our Lady told St. Juan Diego to have a church built in her honor on Tepeyac Hill, and when the local bishop asked for proof of this, the miraculous Tilma was produced.⁴² Although there had been missionary work done in Mexico prior to this point, many Catholic missionaries still complained that, despite their best efforts, “the Indigenous remained reluctant to convert to Catholicism.”⁴³ However, after the reported appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary, things began to change:

After those first years, Motolinia [Toribio of Benavente] wrote of the great number of Indigenous who asked for baptism, and that at that moment, unexplainably, they counted in the thousands. He confirmed that “Friar Juan de Perfiñán and Friar Francisco de Valencia, baptized more than 100,000 each from the 60 that are in this year 1536.” Motolinia continued counting by thousands the ones who had been baptized and came to the conclusion that the total in 1536 “would be close to 5 million baptized until today.” On his part, Friar Juan de Torquemada informs us in his manuscript Monarquía Indiana that “Many thousands were baptized in one day.” Even the friars were surprised by this massive conversion. [Fray Gerónimo de] Mendieta pointed out that “In the beginning, they started going 200 at a time, then 300 at a time, always growing and multiplying, until they reached the thousands; some from two days journey, others from three, others from four, and some farther away…” The Indigenous would stay in the monasteries in order to learn the catechism; they would repeat it many times in order to memorize the prayers in Latin. “At the time of their baptism, many received that sacrament with tears in their eyes. Who would dare to say that they came without faith: they came from so far away, with so many problems, no one forced them, in their search of the sacrament of baptism?”⁴⁴

Just 14 years after the Protestant Reformation, a supernatural creature claiming to be the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in the New World, and the result was the mass conversion of a pagan people to the Catholic faith. One cannot help but hear an echo of St. Cyril of Alexandria in all of this: “through you [Mary] holy baptism and the oil of gladness are administered to believers… [and] the peoples are led to conversion.” So once again, the Protestant is faced with a dilemma: either this was the work of God or the work of Satan. If the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe was the work of God, then it was clearly intended as a divine repudiation of Protestantism’s rejection of Marian devotion.⁴⁵ However, if it was the work of Satan, then this creates two serious problems. First, it proves yet again that, by Reformed standards, the historic body of baptized Christians was actively engaged in demon worship, which St. Paul tells us is incompatible with saving faith (1 Cor 10:21). This is because Our Lady of Guadalupe brought nothing new to Marian devotion that hadn’t already been accepted by the 6th-7th century Church, and so if it was demons behind this stuff in the 16th century, then it was demons prior to then as well. Second, the Satan hypothesis seems to conflict with our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 12:26, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” Jesus said this in response to the Jews who accused Him of exorcising demons by the power of demons, wouldn’t this same principle apply in the case of a pagan nation getting baptized?

Indeed, I believe that the Matthew 12:26 principle ends up being one of the most powerful arguments against the Protestant rejection of Marian devotion. This is simply because of the obvious spiritual benefits the Blessed Virgin Mary has had in the devotional lives of Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. Just listen to the testimony of someone like Brian Duong, who was saved from pantheistic paganism by Our Lady of the Rosary. Or listen to Gabriel Castillo’s conversion story, wherein he documents how the Virgin Mary saved him from a life of sin and brought him to the sacraments of Jesus Christ. Or consider the witness of Fr. Chad Ripperger, an exorcist who attests to the power our Lady has in casting out demons, perhaps the most direct application of Jesus’ teaching that demons cannot cast out demons! And on and on this list could go. Although testimonial evidence isn’t always the strongest, given that my own experiences with Marian devotion line up perfectly with those of other faithful Catholics, not to mention the historic experience of the Church, I truly believe that this isn’t something Protestant critics can easily dismiss. As one Eastern Orthodox monk put it, if praying to our Blessed Mother is idolatrous, then why is it so fruitful in the spiritual life?

In conclusion, this article has sought to demonstrate that the Blessed Virgin Mary creates a big problem for historic Protestantism. If the Protestants are right that Catholic Marian devotion is rank idolatry, then they end up throwing at the very least one thousand years of Christianity under the bus, including some of their most beloved Saints, all the while undermining our Lord’s Messianic claims. This problem is only exacerbated by the historic experience of the Church with the Blessed Virgin Mary, which strongly points in the direction of Catholicism being correct about her. Returning to the dilemma posed above, I believe this leaves Protestants with only two options. You must either accept that (1) Jesus lied about protecting His Church and Christianity is false, or (2) Marian devotion is not idolatrous. Since Jesus is God and therefore cannot lie,⁴⁶ it follows that Marian devotion is not idolatrous and therefore should be embraced by all Christians. Although He didn’t have to do it this way, the Lord truly has chosen to use His Mother as the instrument through which He brings souls to Himself. This is clearly expressed by the words of King David in Psalm 45, where we see the future Queen of an eternal kingdom being told: 

Hear, O daughter… the King will desire your beauty. Since He is your Lord, bow to Him. The people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people… In many-colored robes she is led to the king, with her virgin companions following behind her. With joy and gladness they are led along as they enter the palace of the king.

Psalm 45:10-12, 14-15.

The Virgin Mary is the woman being prophesied in this Psalm,⁴⁷ and we Christians are represented by the Gentile people of Tyre. Because of the great love the King has for His Queen, we “seek [her] favor with gifts” of devotion in order that we may be among the “virgin companions following behind her” who “enter the palace of the King.” In other words, by entrusting ourselves to Holy Mary, we follow behind her into the eternal Kingdom of her Son. Our Blessed Mother is never the end goal, she is always a means to the divine King. She brings us to Him by helping us be victorious over sin, grow in holiness, and surrender ourselves evermore to God’s holy will. 

1. Article XXII.

2. Article XXI.

3. Cited in Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 79.

4.  Homily IV, cited in Ibid., p. 248.

5. Homily XI, cited in Ibid., p. 245.

6. Jordan, James. Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World. Wipf and Stock, 1999, p. 16.

7. Oikos XIX, cited in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p. 349.

8. Oikos XXI, cited in Ibid., p. 350.

9.  Oikos IX, cited in Ibid., p. 346.

10.  Ibid., p. 356

11. Ibid.

12. This is evident from his work, Glory of the Martyrs: “[Saint] Cyprian, both the blessed bishop of Carthage and a martyr, often offers assistance to ill people who request his aid” (Raymond Van Dam, Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Martyrs, p. 117).

13. “Tell me, you three boys [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego], remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you.” (St. Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, Book II, 30.1)

14. “The one who is in trouble takes refuge in the forty [martyrs], the one who rejoices runs off to them – the former to find release from difficulties, the latter to protect his prosperity. Here a pious woman is found praying for her children, begging for the return of her husband who is away, for his safety because he is sick. Let your petitions be with the martyrs.” (St. Basil, Homily on the Forty Martyrs, par. 8).

15. “For he [St. Ephraim’s friend], being in the greatest danger and expecting death (since the path was littered with barbarians), as soon as he remembered your name and called out: “Saint Ephraim help me,” he escaped unharmed the danger of getting lost and freed himself from fear, unexpectedly saved himself, and protected by your care returned to his homeland beyond expectation… But be that as it may, whether or not, as much as possible, we have fulfilled our holy duty and we believe that you [St. Ephraim] will not turn away from us, the ardent admirers of our father, but will accept our praises, like childish babble, kind to the father. But you, standing before the divine altar and together with the Angels serving the life-giving and most holy Trinity, remember us all, asking for the remission of our sins and for receiving the eternal kingdom.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, A Eulogy to our Reverend Father Ephraim)

16. “Yet, O thou dear and holy one [St. Athanasius]… may you cast upon us from above a propitious glance, and conduct this people in its perfect worship of the perfect Trinity, which, as Father, Son, Holy Ghost, we contemplate and adore. And may thou, if my lot be peaceful, possess and aid me in my pastoral charge, or if it pass through struggles, uphold me, or take me to you, and set me with yourself and those like you (though I have asked a great thing) in Christ Himself, our Lord, to whom be all glory, honour, and power for evermore. Amen.” (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21, par. 37)

17. “For he that wears the purple himself goes to embrace those tombs, and, laying aside his pride, stands begging the Saints to be his advocates with God, and he that hath the diadem implores the tent-maker and the fisherman, though dead, to be his patrons.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXIV, par. 5)

18. “The angels must be entreated for us, who have been to us as guards; the martyrs must be entreated, whose patronage we seem to claim for ourselves by the pledge as it were of their bodily remains. They can entreat for our sins, who, if they had any sins, washed them in their own blood; for they are the martyrs of God, our leaders, the beholders of our life and of our actions. Let us not be ashamed to take them as intercessors for our weakness, for they themselves knew the weaknesses of the body, even when they overcame.” (St. Ambrose, Concerning Widows, 9.55)

19. “It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers… There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols.” (St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XX, 21)

20. “Under thy leadership [St. Felix] I have crossed the seas, I have felt thy protection, overcoming by the power of Christ the angry waters, and I go always in safety through thy succor, whether on land or by sea.” (Cited in Henry Percival, The Invocation of Saints, p. 165)

21. Allegoriae 139, cited in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p. 376.

22. De ecclesiasticis officiis 2, 18, cited in Ibid., p. 377.

23. Ibid., p. 373.

24. Gambero, Luigi. Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologians. Ignatius Press, 2000, E-book ed., pp. 27-28.

25. Homily for the Liberation of Constantinople 23, cited in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p. 387.

26. Homily on the Cincture, cited in Ibid.

27. Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity, cited in Ibid., p. 398.

28. Homily 1 on the Dormition 14, cited in Ibid., p. 408.

29. Council of Hieria, quoted by The Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea.

30. Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, 1:313, cited in Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages, p. 60.

31. Medieval Sourcebook: Einhard: The Life of Charlemagne, 25.

32. Ripberger, Der PseudoHieronymus—Brief IX “Cogitis me,” p. 112, cited in Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages, p. 72.

33. Sermo 3:2, cited in Ibid., p. 75.

34. Oratio 50, PL 158, 948C, cited in Ibid., p. 107.

35. Oratio 50, PL 158, 950A, cited in Ibid., p. 107.

36. Oratio 51, PL 158, cited in Ibid., p. 108.

37. De Aquaeductu, 7, PL 183, 441B, cited in Ibid., p. 129.

38. For an extensive treatment of their Marian devotion, see Ibid., Part Three.

39. Fudge, Thomas A., Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia, I.B. Tauris, 2017, p. 60.

40. “Siege of Constantinople (626).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, September 26, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(626)#Siege. ‌

41. “Battle of Lepanto.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, October 28, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto. ‌

42. For a scientific appraisal of the miraculous Tilma, see Grzegorz Gorny and Rosikon, Janusz. Guadalupe Mysteries: Deciphering the Code, Ignatius Press, 2016. For the historical evidence in favor of the traditional account of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s appearances, see Chávez, Eduardo. Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Juan Diego: The Historical Evidence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006.

43. Chávez, Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Juan Diego [E-book ed.], p. 107.

44. Ibid., pp. 107-108.

45. This is due to the miracle’s temporal proximity to the Reformation. If God really did work a “Marian miracle” just a few years after the Reformers sought to expel Marian devotion from the Church, then this seems to reveal where God stands on the issue. Indeed, Protestant Europeans being grafted out of the Christ’s Church to make room for South Americans also seems like a typological fulfillment of Romans 11:17, “some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree.”

46. Jesus’ claims to divinity were vindicated by His resurrection from the dead, the evidence for which you can find in my article, “Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?.”

47. See my article, Ancient Insights. “The Assumption of Mary,” 2021. Retrieved from https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/the-assumption-of-mary/.