Part 1 of She Magnifies the Lord: Why Catholic Devotion to Mary Leads Us to Christ

A Catholic response to common objections about Mary, Scripture, the Church, and the Communion of Saints

My brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, before we read what follows, let us and all who may read it, ask for what no argument alone can give.

Lord Jesus Christ, you are the one Mediator between God and man, the source of every grace, the Head of your Body the Church, and the reason every word that follows exists. This series belongs to you. If it serves your truth, let it bear fruit. If it falls short, correct it by your Spirit.
 
Holy Spirit, Advocate, Paraclete, Spirit of Truth, you who guided the Church through every age and every controversy, prepare the hearts of those who read this. Remove pride, fear, inherited assumption, and every obstacle that stands between their souls and the fullness of truth Christ entrusted to His Church. Remind us of everything He has told us.
 
Our Lady, Mother of the Church, pray for us. Saint Joseph, guardian of the Holy Family, pray for us.

Father, hear us and the petitions of those in heaven with you. Not because we who remain here in this valley of tears have earned it, but because your Son asked you to.

Amen.

This series began as a response to a sincere question about Catholic teaching on Mary. Like many Catholics, I have seen how Marian doctrine can sound alarming when it is filtered through short-form apologetics, isolated quotations, or Protestant objections that do not begin from the Catholic understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

The question is not whether Catholics should love Mary instead of Jesus. The Church has never taught that. The question is whether the Catholic understanding of Mary, when read within the whole mystery of Christ, actually leads away from Him or more deeply into Him.

So if these are questions you have encountered, whether in yourself or in someone you love, I want to answer carefully, not as someone trying to “win” a debate, but as a brother in Christ and as a fellow Catholic who believes the Church has not invented these teachings, but received them, guarded them, and expressed them more clearly over time.

Before going further, I also want to place one distinction at the foundation of the whole series, one that should be held in view throughout:

There is a difference between what the Catholic Church teaches and how Catholics sometimes live, express, or distort that teaching in practice.

Those are not the same thing.

A Catholic can speak carelessly. A Catholic culture can develop devotional habits that are exaggerated, poorly explained, or pastorally harmful. Even clergy and lay faithful can fail to live in a way that reflects the Church’s actual doctrine. When that happens, the failure is real, and it can cause scandal.

But a failure to honor and live what the Church teaches does not invalidate the teaching itself. It reveals the fallen condition of the human person and the ongoing need for Christ, His grace, His sacraments, His Church, and His correction. If someone abuses Marian devotion, speaks about Mary as though she were independent from Christ, or practices devotion in a way the Church herself would correct, that is not an argument against the Catholic doctrine of Mary. It is an argument that Catholics need to be better formed by the very doctrine the Church actually teaches.

So throughout this series, I am going to try to distinguish carefully between the Church’s teaching, my own explanation of that teaching, and examples of Catholic language or practice that may be imprecise or unhelpful. Where Catholics fail to live the faith well, I do not want to defend the failure. But I also do not want to confuse the failure of Catholics with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

And before I answer the Marian questions directly, I think I need to say something about method and spiritual discernment, because I believe this is where much of the confusion begins.

The instinct to compare the Catechism to Scripture is good. It is not offensive to the Catholic faith at all. It is Catholic to desire that every doctrine be faithful to divine revelation. But as Catholics, we do not believe divine revelation is received by isolating one passage from the rest of Scripture, or by taking the Gospels alone as though the rest of the New Testament, the Old Testament, apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s teaching office were secondary additions.

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same divine source and form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, entrusted to the Church. Scripture and Tradition are not rival authorities competing against each other. They are two modes by which the one Word of God is handed on, interpreted, protected, and proclaimed in the Church Christ founded. This is why the Catechism says that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are “bound closely together, and communicate one with the other,” flowing from the same divine source and moving toward the same end (CCC 80). That phrase “bound closely together” bears more weight than what's typically perceived at its first appearance. It rests within the deeper mystery of Christ’s union with His Church. St. Paul teaches that Christ is the Bridegroom who gives Himself for His Bride, the Church, and that this mystery is so profound that he speaks of the two becoming “one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31–32). So the Church is not a detached institution standing outside Christ, collecting religious information about Him from a distance. She is His Body and His Bride, mystically united to Him, receiving, guarding, and proclaiming His Word by the life of the Spirit.

This does not mean the Church is Christ, or that the Church stands above the Word of God. It means Christ has joined the Church to Himself and entrusted His Word to her. Therefore, Scripture and Tradition are not separable streams that can be set against each other, as though Scripture belonged to Christ while Tradition belonged merely to men. Both belong to the one divine economy by which Christ speaks to, forms, and governs His Bride. The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church, not as a power above the Word, but as a service to the Word Christ entrusted to His Body and Bride (CCC 85–86).

That means the question is not merely, “Can I find this exact phrase in one Gospel verse?” The better Catholic question is, “When all of God’s written and handed-on revelation is held together, and when it is read within the Church Christ founded, does this teaching faithfully express what God has revealed?”

Many Protestant critiques of Catholic doctrine use a method that Catholics do not share. They often isolate a passage, ask whether a Catholic phrase appears there in explicit form, and then conclude that the doctrine must be an invention.

But that same method would create problems for many doctrines all Christians hold. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is not handed to us in one isolated proof text as a complete doctrinal formula. It is received by holding together the whole witness of Scripture and then allowing the Church to define the truth against errors that diminished either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

Also, before addressing specific Marian objections, I think it is important to distinguish confidence from authority. A person may speak with sincerity, clarity, and conviction, while still presenting a narrow or incomplete account of the faith. This is especially true in short-form media, where a single verse can be made to sound decisive because the larger biblical, historical, and ecclesial context has been left outside the frame. My concern is not to mock those who make these arguments, nor to question their sincerity, but to help us evaluate whether confidence is matched by theological depth. A confident objection is not necessarily a serious objection, and a serious question deserves more than a confident answer.

So when we come to Mary, I do not want to ask whether one isolated verse uses the exact phrase “Mother of the Church” or “Queen of Heaven.” I want to ask whether the Church’s teaching follows from the whole mystery of Christ: His Incarnation, His Davidic kingship, His Body the Church, His words from the Cross, Mary’s presence at Pentecost, and the way the Church has received these truths from the beginning.

There is also a loving caution I want to offer here. The Church has never treated religious teaching as spiritually neutral. That is not because the Church is afraid of questions. It is because she knows that the human person is not a neutral vessel. We are body and soul, and what we expose ourselves to through the body can affect the soul. What we watch, hear, read, and meditate upon can form our imagination, shape our instincts, strengthen trust, cultivate suspicion, clarify truth, or quietly deform our judgment.

St. John warned the early Christians not to receive those who did not bring the teaching of Christ, because to welcome false teaching as though it were harmless is to share in the damage it does: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work” (2 John 10–11). That warning is severe, but it reveals something important: from the apostolic age, doctrine was never treated as mere content. Teaching either forms the soul in truth or deforms it away from truth.

The Church has carried that same concern forward. In 1975, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that the pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings, and even, when necessary, to condemn writings that attack faith or morals. The 1983 Code of Canon Law preserves this same principle, teaching that pastors have the duty and right to be watchful so that the faith and morals of the Christian faithful are not harmed by writings or by the use of instruments of social communication (Canon 823 §1).

The same concern reaches through YouTube clips, podcasts, reels, and shorts are not spiritually neutral simply because they are short or informal. They teach. They frame questions. They train instincts. They can build confidence in the Church, or they can quietly train a Catholic to distrust the Church before he has even studied what she actually teaches.

I also want to name one danger directly and plainly, not as accusation, but as loving warning. Much of the Protestant apologetics content aimed at Catholic teaching is not simply neutral Bible study from Christians who happen to read Scripture differently. Some of it is produced by people who know exactly where many Catholics are least formed, which Catholic phrases sound most alarming when isolated from the whole teaching of the Church, and which questions create the most doubt in someone who sincerely loves Scripture and wants to be faithful to Christ.

That does not mean every Protestant is acting in bad faith, that Protestant Christians are malicious, or that every question they raise is dishonest. Many sincerely love Christ and are trying to defend what they believe to be true. But adult Catholics bear responsibility for their own formation and should learn to recognize the difference between a sincere question and a question framed in such a way that the Catholic answer is made to look guilty before it is even heard.

Most Protestants today are not knowingly doing this. They have inherited objections from those who inherited them from others. Somewhere behind that inheritance, however, lies a decisive claim: that an individual Christian, or a group of Christians, could judge the meaning of Scripture against the Church to whom Christ entrusted its reception, guardianship, and proclamation through the centuries. Whatever mixture of sincerity, conviction, grievance, or pride accompanied that judgment historically, the principle itself places human judgment over the authority it claims to test. Most heirs of that tradition carry it sincerely. Their sincerity does not erase the underlying error, and recognizing the error at the root is not an accusation against every branch that grew from it.

This is why consuming anti-Catholic or Protestant apologetics content requires discernment. Content like this often speaks the language of Scripture, invokes the name of Christ, and appeals to the sincere desire for biblical faithfulness. That is precisely why it can be persuasive. But when it isolates Catholic doctrine from the full life and teaching of the Church, it is not leading Catholic viewers into a fuller Catholic understanding. It is training them to distrust the Bride of Christ before they have understood what the Bridegroom entrusted to her: the truth He gave her to receive, guard, proclaim, and protect until He comes again.

There is a real difference between a formed Catholic studying Protestant objections in order to understand and answer them, and a Catholic without much theological formation consuming anti-Catholic or Protestant apologetics content as spiritual nourishment.

The first can be an act of study. The second can become a danger to faith.

That is why I want to be careful here. St. Paul himself tells us to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). But testing everything does not mean letting every voice have equal authority over your soul.

As Catholics, we test questions inside the full deposit of faith, with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium held together. We should not test the Church by first adopting a method that already assumes the Church is wrong.

From this follows the need for spiritual caution. Arguments do not merely pass through the mind untouched; they can train the soul toward trust or suspicion. There is a difference between a difficulty that unsettles the mind and a judgment that places the faith itself under suspicion. In their Moral Theology, Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P., and Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., distinguish negative doubt, in which the mind remains suspended before a difficulty without yet judging against the certainty of faith, from positive doubt, in which one decides that the article of faith itself has become doubtful or uncertain. The danger of spiritually reckless consumption is that it can train the soul to move from the first (negative doubt) to the second (positive doubt) without noticing: from wrestling with an objection to granting the objection authority over what God has revealed. This is why the saints read critically and prayed constantly. The mind needs the anchor the unaided human will cannot supply.

So here is what this series will do. First, it will say clearly what the Church does not teach about Mary, because much confusion begins with claims the Church has never made. Then it will show that the Catechism’s Marian teaching is sourced, not invented. After that, it will walk through the titles often questioned, especially Mother of the Church and Queen, and show where they come from in Scripture, Tradition, and the mystery of Christ. Finally, it will address where I think Catholics sometimes speak about Mary in ways that are imprecise, excessive, or pastorally unhelpful, while submitting my own understanding and my failures of understanding to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. That is the full scope of what follows.

With that established, we can begin the work itself: looking carefully at what the Church actually teaches about Mary, where that teaching comes from, and why it does not compete with Christ but depends entirely upon Him.

So in tomorrow's article, we will begin with the simplest and most necessary clarification: what the Catholic Church does not teach about Mary. Many objections to Catholic Marian doctrine begin by opposing claims the Church herself has never made.

Until then, go forth in the peace of Christ. Pray before you speak. Seek truth over victory. Speak with charity. And when the Lord gives you light, do not hide it. Share the good news of Jesus Christ, who is Truth Himself, and who entrusted that truth to His Church for the life of the world, a truth the baptized are called to receive, guard, and proclaim. Read on:

Part 2 of She Magnifies the Lord: Mary Is Not God: What the Catechism Actually Teaches About the Mother of God

Author's Note: Part 2 link added at the close, and a new paragraph inserted after paragraph 30 for pastoral clarity. Both additions made on 8/21/2026.

_{© Copyright 2026 Matthew Fumi. All Rights Reserved.}