Disturbing passage of the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin

[Silvio]

I’ve just begun to read the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, by St. Louis de Montfort.
Right at the introductory part (more precisely at topic 5), St. Louis put the things this way:
“She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her “Woman” as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels.”
Well, what I thought disturbing is that the Treatise is a paramount book on Mariology and it seems to me that St. Louis is roughly overinterpreting the situation. Based on what could he make such an assumption?
To presume that Jesus, our savior, God himself made flesh, would humiliate and conceal (hide) his mother to foster her humility … For me, with all my respect, that’s too much. IMHO, he is simply victimizing Mary, what is absolutely unnecessary.
Also, calling her “woman” has nothing to do with disrespect. I’m not going to reproduce here two very interesting texts that could explain that. I cannot put links here, but you can google it with this terms: Why Jesus Called Mary “Woman”. One text is at Catholic Exchange and the other at Aleteia
Does someone has another view on that matters?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ve just begun to read the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, by St. Louis de Montfort.
Right at the introductory part (more precisely at topic 5), St. Louis put the things this way:
“She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her “Woman” as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels.”
Well, what I thought disturbing is that the Treatise is a paramount book on Mariology and it seems to me that St. Louis is roughly overinterpreting the situation. Based on what could he make such an assumption?
To presume that Jesus, our savior, God himself made flesh, would humiliate and conceal (hide) his mother to foster her humility … For me, with all my respect, that’s too much. IMHO, he is simply victimizing Mary, what is absolutely unnecessary.
Also, calling her “woman” has nothing to do with disrespect. I’m not going to reproduce here two very interesting texts that could explain that. I cannot put links here, but you can google it with this terms: Why Jesus Called Mary “Woman”. One text is at Catholic Exchange and the other at Aleteia
Does someone has another view on that matters?

First of all, the book wasn’t originally written in English (I’m assuming it was either French or possibly Latin), and Jesus and Mary didn’t speak English.

To address a female as “Woman” in English would be very awkward, unidiomatic, and would undoubtedly be seen as crude, coarse, or abrupt in a way I can’t quite describe. That said, I have heard it used before. It may be a dialect thing. A co-worker of mine, Southern to the bone but, for some curious reason, unencumbered by traditional Southern notions of delicacy and genteelness (you would have to know her), would commonly refer to her female colleagues (and even her boss!) as “Woman”. It sounded very coarse and unladylike, but as I alluded to above, that was just “her”. She was the epitome of “what you see is what you get”. Refreshing in one way, repellent in another.

My point, the Aramaic equivalent of “Woman”, as a term of address, may have a softer meaning that is lost in English. I don’t know. There is nothing outlandish about thinking that Our Lord would shelter her in some way, and not reflect, even to her, on her unique role in the economy of salvation. I wouldn’t call that “humiliating” or “victimizing”. She was not an omniscient goddess — perhaps her faith was imperfect and grew with time, and Our Lord didn’t wish to burden His mother with the full significance of “who she was”.

 

[sealabeag]

to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility.

I see nothing wrong with this. Humility is a virtue, so God fostering humility is a good thing, not a bad. It doesn’t say he “humiliated” her, in your words, in the modern sense, which implies demeaning and disrespecting, though. He is in no way victimising Mary, what element of the quote makes you feel that in is the case?

With regards the wedding feast at Cana, where he calls her “Woman”, I’m not 100% percent sure what the correct interpretation of his calling her that in the fashion he did is, so others can chime in, however, one perspective could be this: When Pilate presented Jesus, scourged, to the people he said “Behold the Man”. His words carried a weight that Pilate himself could not have intended, but the Holy Spirit moved him to speak like this. “The Man” - In other words the Man. The perfect man, the Man above all other men. So perhaps, when Jesus said “Woman”, he meant it in a similar way. But that’s only a reflection of my own.

And remember, St. Louis’ thoughts are his own, and not Gospel. You don’t have to agree with them, not that there’s anything wrong with what he said.

 

[Stephen_says]

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t also find it disturbing. It certainly is a different interpretation of the reason why Jesus called her “woman” than is found in many other commentaries, but I don’t think St. Louis meant that Jesus HUMILIATED her. I’m open to hearing more about why you find it “disturbing”. St. Louis isn’t immune from error.

 

[MikeInVA]

but I don’t think St. Louis meant that Jesus HUMILIATED her.

“humble” is not the same as “humiliate”.

I think the OP needs to read the entire book and reflect on it first before getting bogged down on a phrase that may make more sense when taken as part of the whole.

 

[OddBird]

St. Louis is roughly overinterpreting the situation. Based on what could he make such an assumption?

From what I recall of my readings about the wedding at Cana, the expression – and the whole phrasing of the following question, “what is there between you and me” – is indeed harsh in Greek.

I think you’re reading saint Louis-Marie with contemporary glasses, maybe forgetting that he was a man of his time (17th-18th century). He belonged to what was later called the “French school of spirituality”. Humbling oneself – at the image of the Lord who had undergone incarnation, human life and Passion – was at the heart of that spirituality. The figure who is credited with giving birth to the movement, Pierre de Bérulle, wrote a treatise titled “Brief Discourse on Interior Abnegation” (Bref discours de l’abnégation intérieure).

The whole movement insisted so much on Jesus’ voluntary abasement and self-surrender that it viewed Christian life as doing the same – and how could the model of Christian life itself, Mary, have lived anything else as a life of abasement and self-surrender, in the image of her Son’s ?

 

[OddBird]

I don’t think St. Louis meant that Jesus HUMILIATED her.

I just checked and the French word here is “humilier” (humiliate).

Here’s the sentence in French :

Marie est la Mère admirable du Fils, qu’il a pris plaisir à humilier et à cacher pendant sa vie, pour favoriser son humilité, la traitant du nom de femme, mulier, comme une étrangère, quoique dans son coeur il l’estimât et l’aimât plus que tous les anges et les hommes.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To address a female as “Woman” in English would be very awkward, unidiomatic, and would undoubtedly be seen as crude, coarse, or abrupt in a way I can’t quite describe.

My grandfather and my husband addressed their wives as “Woman” from time to time in conversation. It was understood as a cultural colloquialism (Irish-American or lower-class British-American) and did not convey any lack of respect. At times it was even romantic.

Neither one of them were “crude” or “coarse”. Their Irish-American wives wouldn’'t have put up with disrespect or rudeness.

I’ve never heard Jesus’ words to Mary as disrespectful because I hear “woman” in the voice of my husband or my granddad.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

To address a female as “Woman” in English would be very awkward, unidiomatic, and would undoubtedly be seen as crude, coarse, or abrupt in a way I can’t quite describe.

My grandfather and my husband addressed their wives as “Woman” from time to time in conversation. It was understood as a cultural colloquialism (Irish-American or lower-class British-American) and did not convey any lack of respect. At times it was even romantic.

Neither one of them were “crude” or “coarse”. Their Irish-American wives wouldn’'t have put up with disrespect or rudeness.

I’ve never heard Jesus’ words to Mary as disrespectful because I hear “woman” in the voice of my husband or my granddad.

OK, I’ll buy that, I wasn’t aware of that cultural aspect of it. My grandmother was in all likelihood of Scots-Irish heritage — no way to know for sure, she had an Irish surname, and I have found DNA links to various places in Ulster, mostly around Belfast, through AncestryDNA.com . She had certain idiosyncratic expressions, such as reading “Mrs” as “Mistress”, not “Missus”, and she would often exclaim “Jesus, lover of my soul!” (she wasn’t Catholic). Strong lady, widowed at a young age, left with a family to raise.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Stephen_says:

I don’t think St. Louis meant that Jesus HUMILIATED her.

I just checked and the French word here is “humilier” (humiliate).

Here’s the sentence in French :

Marie est la Mère admirable du Fils, qu’il a pris plaisir à humilier et à cacher pendant sa vie, pour favoriser son humilité, la traitant du nom de femme, mulier, comme une étrangère, quoique dans son coeur il l’estimât et l’aimât plus que tous les anges et les hommes.

But does “humilier” have the same connotation as “humiliate” does in English? I don’t speak French well enough (je parle seulement un peu) to be able to pick up on subtle semantic shades of meaning like that.

“Humiliate” in English, at least in contemporary usage, has a connotation of shame, debasement, and embarrassment. I do know that past Presidents have called for “days of fasting and humiliation”, which indicates to me that the word did not have quite the pejorative connotation it does today, rather, it seems more to be along the lines of “bringing oneself ‘down’, stripping away pride and self-centeredness, and reflecting upon one’s own insignificance”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This book, while loved by a group of Catholics, is a devotional book. It is not dogma, nor doctrine, the good Saint was not impeccable in his writings.

Well, what I thought disturbing is that the Treatise is a paramount book on Mariology

No, this is devotional writing, it is a love letter to Mary.

 

[OddBird]

“Humiliate” in English, at least in contemporary usage, has a connotation of shame, debasement, and embarrassment.

Here’s the entry in the 1694 Dictionnaire de l’Académie française :

Humilier. v. a. Abbaisser, soumettre. Dieu humilie les superbes. humilier l’ orgueil, la fierté, l’ audace de quelqu’ un .
Il signifie aussi, Mortifier, donner de la confusion. Il l’ a bien humilié. il a esté bien humilié .
Il a un grand usage dans la devotion. Humilier son coeur. humilier son esprit ; Et en ce sens il se met plus souvent avec le pronom personnel. Il faut s’ humilier devant Dieu. un coeur qui s’ humilie. quiconque s’ humilie sera exalté .

Translation :

Humiliate. To demean, submit. God humiliates the proud. To humiliate the pride, the boldness of someone.
It also means, to mortify, to embarrass. He completely humiliated him. He was completely humiliated.
It is much used in devotion. To humiliate one’s heart, one’s mind. And in that sense it is often used with the personal pronoun. One has to humiliate oneself before God. The heart which humiliates itself. Those who humiliate themselves will be exalted.

 

[phil19034]

This is why the pastor at the FSSP parish near me said that True Devotion really should be read when accompanied by talks from a priest.

There are some things in there that are not very clear unless you are a priest or educated in the theological language used by the good Saint.

God Bless

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“Humiliate” in English, at least in contemporary usage, has a connotation of shame, debasement, and embarrassment.

Here’s the entry in the 1694 Dictionnaire de l’Académie française :

Humilier. v. a. Abbaisser, soumettre. Dieu humilie les superbes. humilier l’ orgueil, la fierté, l’ audace de quelqu’ un .
Il signifie aussi, Mortifier, donner de la confusion. Il l’ a bien humilié. il a esté bien humilié .
Il a un grand usage dans la devotion. Humilier son coeur. humilier son esprit ; Et en ce sens il se met plus souvent avec le pronom personnel. Il faut s’ humilier devant Dieu. un coeur qui s’ humilie. quiconque s’ humilie sera exalté .

Translation :

Humiliate. To demean, submit. God humiliates the proud. To humiliate the pride, the boldness of someone .
It also means, to mortify, to embarrass. He completely humiliated him. He was completely humiliated .
It is much used in devotion. To humiliate one’s heart, one’s mind. And in that sense it is often used with the personal pronoun. One has to humiliate oneself before God. The heart which humiliates itself. Those who humiliate themselves will be exalted.

Wow! The 1694 Dictionnaire de l’Académie française — that would be the definitive authority on what St Louis meant by “humilier” if anything would be. You are quite the scholar. Thanks so much.

 

[OddBird]

You are quite the scholar.

Oh, thank you ! I did work in academia for some time, and some reflexes become ingrained with time.

I’m not very familiar with Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort’s work, but his period is one in which I have an interest for other reasons.

On that topic of humiliation, he is, I think, quite in the line of Saint François de Sales, who wrote things like this :

[T]he highest point of humility consists in not merely acknowledging one’s abjection, but in taking pleasure therein, not from any want of breadth or courage, but to give the more glory to God’s Divine Majesty, and to esteem one’s neighbour more highly than one’s self. […] A religious receives a sharp rebuke from his superior meekly, or a child from his parent, and every one will call it obedience, mortification, wisdom; but let a knight or a lady accept the like from some one, albeit for the Love of God, and they will forthwith be accused of cowardice. This again is abject suffering. One person has a cancer in the arm, another in the face; the former only has the pain to bear, but the latter has also to endure all the disgust and repulsion caused by his disease; and this is abjection. And what I want to teach you is, that we should not merely rejoice in our trouble, which we do by means of patience, but we should also cherish the abjection, which is done by means of humility.

(Introduction to devout life, III, 6)

I think one cannot really understand Saint Louis-Marie’s sentence on Mary if one doesn’t grasp how much humility/humiliation are seen, in that line of thought, not as a shame and a disrespect (what they are in the eyes of the world), but as a gift to cherish because they bring close to Christ in his Passion.

Maybe I’m not shocked because the French school of spirituality deeply shaped French spirituality, extending very long roots. I suspect that’s what was, for example, in the back of sainte Thérèse de Lisieux’s mind when she wrote about her desire not to be a conspicuous, strong-scented flower, but the kind one would tread on without noticing if one were not careful.

It’s also deeply linked to devotions like Eucharistic devotion or devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus – it’s the very context in which the latter was born and developed.

I’m French and I live in a part of Switzerland which very much gravitates in France’s orbit, and that’s the kind of spirituality my Catholic SD still upholds as a model for me : humiliating the ego and continuously making it die, so that Christ may live instead (long way to go) – along with the aforementioned devotions.

ETA: not coincidentally, he calls the whole process “giving birth to Mary’s image”.

 

[twf]

In English we wouldn’t say we “humiliate” ourselves. We would say we “humble” ourselves. In contemporary English, the former always has a negative connotation.

 

[quies]

I believe Brant Pitre’s book

Amazon.com

will give his explanation of the “woman” quote by a side by side comparison of Eve and Mary, The New Eve.

 

[OddBird]

In contemporary French, it has both connotations, but the entry I referenced insists rather on the negative one, I think (demean, submit, mortify, embarrass).

 

[Theosis]

I see that you have a desire to grow in love with our Lady! Beautiful.

However, I see no problem with what St. Louis de Montfort has said concerning her and I do not believe our Lady would say that she is concerned either… since she is gentle and humble of heart like her divine Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. “Woman,” depending on intent, can be understood as several different things… too often we immediately recall what modern man has done with this word as if some disorderly man was calling for his “woman” to fetch him a beer. This is far from the truth!

Recall this blessed Woman, the new Eve (the first woman), was the “woman” whom would “bruise [the] head” of the serpent with her children against the serpent’s children (Gen 3:15).

At first glance, for me, I see a reference in this above passage from Genesis when Jesus was on the Cross destroying sin and death: “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” (John 19:26-27)

 

[Organist78]

Saint Louis de Montfort is a tad over the top in the language he uses to describe his devotion to Mary. But, you have to understand that de Montfort is not speaking in theological language here, he is speaking the language of love and devotion.

The language of love and devotion is of its nature over the top when it describes the object of affection. For example “I would swim one thousand oceans for you” “Every breath you take, every move you make…” de Montfort’s language for Mary is similar.

While I can’t say that I share de Montfort’s over the top devotion to Mary, at the same time what he writes does not trouble me–because I keep in mind the context.