Hail Mary or Hail Christ? A Biblical Examination of Marian Devotion

J Neil Daniels 

[N.B. The following is a greatly condensed excerpt from a draft of a chapter for a current work in progress on Mariology. Footnotes have been removed.]

Introduction

A crucial component of any meaningful critique of Marian devotion within Roman Catholicism must address the definition and nature of worship. Catholics typically argue that they do not "worship" Mary in the same way they worship God. Instead, they distinguish between latria (the worship due to God alone), dulia (the veneration given to saints), and hyperdulia (a unique, elevated form of veneration given only to Mary). This tripartite distinction, originating in the works of Thomas Aquinas (particularly Summa Theologica II-II, q.84, a.1), is central to their claim that their devotion to Mary does not constitute idolatry.

However, this argument hinges entirely on an ecclesiastically-defined taxonomy of religious acts rather than on the Scriptural or phenomenological reality of what worship entails. Biblical Hebrew terms like shachah and Greek terms such as proskyneō do not maintain these precise distinctions. The Catholic taxonomy also allows for a type of semantic evasion, wherein acts that appear functionally identical to worship are reclassified as lesser forms of devotion based on an internal theological framework that lacks external verification.

The Mass and the "Loophole" of Liturgical Worship

Roman Catholicism asserts that true worship is reserved for the sacrifice of the Mass. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§1354), the Church "presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him" (Catechism §1354). Because Christ is being offered to the Father—and not to Mary—Catholics argue that this absolves them from the charge of idolatry with regard to Marian devotion.

This definition attempts to restrict the concept of worship to a narrowly defined liturgical action, thus creating a hermeneutical loophole: unless Mary is the recipient of the Eucharistic sacrifice, no act toward her can be regarded as worship. However, such a definition is neither biblically nor theologically adequate. Scripture recognizes multiple modalities of worship—sacrifice (Gen 22:5), prayer (Ps 95:6), song (Ps 29:2), physical prostration (Ex 34:8), and ritual honor (Isa 66:23). The consistent biblical testimony does not limit worship to the act of sacrificial offering alone. The Deuteronomic prohibition against idolatry (Deu 5:8–9) encompasses not only sacrifice but bowing down to images, suggesting a broader conception of worship than Catholic theology acknowledges. Hence, the Catholic claim appears more as a legal fiction than a theological safeguard against idolatrous practice.

The Catechism's Own Definition of Idolatry

What renders this defense more problematic is the Catechism's own teaching on idolatry. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines idolatry as follows:

"Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. It consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc." (Catechism §2113)

The Catechism rightly acknowledges that idolatry is not limited to crude forms of bowing to statues. It includes "honoring and revering a creature in the place of God," even if unintentionally. According to this principle, any attribution to Mary of roles or titles that properly belong only to God—such as "Mediatrix of all graces," "Queen of Heaven," or "Refuge of Sinners"—may constitute functional idolatry, regardless of liturgical intent. These titles, especially as employed in prayers like the Salve Regina and devotional practices such as the consecration to Mary (promoted by Louis de Montfort), blur the distinction between Creator and creature that Scripture maintains (Rom 1:25).

Moreover, the Catechism underscores that idolatry "rejects the unique Lordship of God" and is "incompatible with communion with God" (Catechism §2113). If this is true, then the danger lies not only in formal acts of sacrifice but in the elevation of any creature—however revered—to a functional position of divine mediation or authority. When Pope Pius IX declared Mary the "Mediatrix of all graces" (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854), he effectively positioned her in a role that Scripture reserves exclusively for Christ (1 Tim 2:5).

The Contradiction of Eucharistic Adoration

This problem is further exacerbated by Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Catechism condemns the making and adoration of "idols, silver and gold, the work of men's hands." It warns that "these empty idols make their worshippers empty" (Catechism §2112). Yet, the Catholic Church encourages Eucharistic adoration—kneeling before and praying to a consecrated host of bread, believed to be transubstantiated into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

To the biblically-informed mind, this constitutes a profound inconsistency. The wafer is a product of human hands. Its adoration as the incarnate presence of Christ requires not only assent to transubstantiation, but the veneration of an object that appears and functions like an idol. That the Church insists this is true worship of God only adds to the irony, given the visible similarities between Eucharistic adoration and the practices condemned in Scripture (cf. Ps 115:4–8; Isa 44:9–20). The Protestant critique, articulated by figures like Calvin in Institutes (IV.17.35–37), questions whether the distinction between substance and accidents in transubstantiation sufficiently safeguards against the very idolatry the Catechism condemns.

Superstition and the Excesses of Religion

Finally, the Catechism offers a definition of superstition as "a perverse excess of religion" (Catechism §2110). The elevation of Mary to a position of near-omnipresence and omnipotence in the devotional life of many Catholics—being called on in prayer, trusted for deliverance, and exalted as the spiritual mother of all Christians—arguably exemplifies this "excess of religion." What begins as "honor" easily slips into dependency, and what is called "veneration" may (and in practice does) functionally replace trust in Christ alone.

Concrete examples of this problematic devotion include the practice of the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, which promises that "whosoever dies clothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire" (a promise attributed to the Virgin Mary herself in the 13th century). Similarly, the proliferation of Marian apparitions at sites like Lourdes, Fatima, and Medjugorje has created devotional subcultures centered on Mary's alleged messages rather than on Christ's definitive revelation. These practices often push beyond mere veneration into something functionally indistinguishable from worship.

In effect, the system does not safeguard monotheism but disguises a multi-tiered devotional structure that grants godlike attention to a creature. The Latin theological vocabulary may be precise, but the lived reality often betrays an idolatrous affection, even if unintentionally.

Conclusion: Beyond Terminology to Theological Substance

It is not sufficient to debate Roman Catholic Marian devotion merely on the basis of what Catholics say they are doing. One must also evaluate the theological substance and practical effect of their actions. Even if the Eucharistic sacrifice is formally directed to God, and even if Mary is not offered the Mass, the excessive reverence, exaltation, and reliance placed on Mary frequently violates the very standards the Catechism sets for avoiding idolatry.

By the Catechism's own criteria—divinizing what is not God, honoring a creature in the place of God, participating in excessive superstition, and venerating the work of human hands—many practices in Roman Catholic piety call for serious reconsideration and outright rejection. Such devotional expressions may not constitute formal idolatry in Catholic theological terms, but they bear a functional resemblance to practices explicitly condemned in Scripture (Ex 20:4–5; 1 John 5:21) that cannot be easily dismissed through terminological distinctions alone.