Mary and the "Holy of Holies"

[patricius79]

I think it is also quite consistent with the teachings of the two best books I know of about Mary: the Glories of Mary and True Devotion to Mary, by St. Alphonsus Liguori (Doctor of the Church) and St. Louis DeMontfort, respectively. St. Louis’s Marian teachings are quite respected by the Papacy as I understand it. In Mother of the Redeemer JPII singles out St. Louis for his role in Marian devotion in the West.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think it is also quite consistent with the teachings of the two best books I know of about Mary: the Glories of Mary and True Devotion to Mary, by St. Alphonsus Liguori (Doctor of the Church) and St. Louis DeMontfort, respectively. St. Louis’s Marian teachings are quite respected by the Papacy as I understand it. In Mother of the Redeemer JPII singles out St. Louis for his role in Marian devotion in the West.

That’s right. Some think Alphonsus may go too far in his devotional writings. However, time may prove him correct. In any event, I don’t think either saint will lead any Catholic astray.

 

[patricius79]

To further the analogy, maybe we could say that she is the new temple and her womb is the new inner room of the temple, the holy of holies.
.

Just thinking about this more, Frank. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis quotes St. Augustine, saying that all the predestinate are in this life hidden and nourished in the womb of the Blessed Mother. I found that so beautiful. He also talks about hiding and losing ourselves in the depths of Mary’s soul. So beautiful.

 

[patricius79]

That’s right. Some think Alphonsus may go too far in his devotional writings. However, time may prove him correct. In any event, I don’t think either saint will lead any Catholic astray.

Thanks, Ambrose. I appreciate it. I think St. Maximillian Kolbe would probably say St. Alphonsus and st. Louis don’t go far enough!

 

[Usagi]

Thanks, Ambrose. I appreciate it. I think St. Maximillian Kolbe would probably say St. Alphonsus and st. Louis don’t go far enough!

In one sense, it is likely that no earthly superlatives could encompass the privileges (and current state of glory) granted to our Blessed Mother.

On the other hand, when we use our words to honor her, it is best to leave some room “above” her for words that apply to God alone, since we know Him to be infinitely greater than any creature (and that of Himself, not by grant of privilege from an outside source).

I think that’s where most Protestants and even many of us Catholics have trouble with the elevated language used by Sts. Alphonsus and Louis for Our Lady. In one way, even those exalted words are inadequate to the reality, but in another, one wonders what words they have left for the Creator and Son of Mary Who is the source of all her glories.

 

[Mintaka]

“Porta Caeli” or “Porta Coeli,” meaning “Gate of Heaven,” is an extremely common and ancient title for the Virgin Mary, as well as a common name for Catholic parishes! I guarantee you that St. Alphonsus didn’t think it up!

The reference is from Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 43:1-5
“And he brought me to the gate that looked towards the east. And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east. And his voice was like the noise of many waters, and the earth shone with his majesty. … And the majesty of the Lord went into the temple by the way of the gate that looked to the east… and behold, the house was filled with the glory of the Lord.”

Ezekiel 44:1-
"And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut.

“And the Lord said to me, “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it, and it shall be shut to the prince. The prince himself shall sit at it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out the same way.””

Mary is the closed Gate of the Temple, just as she is the “sealed fountain” and “garden shut up” of the Song of Songs.

But then we get to the Book of Revelation, which talks a lot about the stuff from Ezekiel. So it’s not surprising that we also find out what happened with the Closed Gate:

Revelation 11:19 - 12:1 –

“And the Temple of God was opened in Heaven: and the Ark of His Covenant was seen in His Temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in Heaven - a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…”

But yes, literally we do come to Heaven by way of Jesus, and God willed that Jesus would be born into the world as the son of a woman, Mary. Just as we wouldn’t get to Heaven except for the existence of Abraham and Sarah, and David, and Solomon, and even of many great sinners, God brings us to Heaven by Jesus, through Mary. If you don’t like salvation history, it’s a bit late to disapprove of the way God likes to do things.

 

[Mintaka]

St. Epiphanius of Salamis seems to have been the earliest written source we have for the title “Gate of Heaven,” but he was such a stickler for strictness that it must have been around quite a bit longer, for him to use it so freely.

From “Homily in praise of Holy Mary Theotokos”:

“Hail, full of grace, Gate of Heaven, about whom in the Song of Songs the prophet plainly and openly utters those words: “My sister, my spouse is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.””

St. Ephrem of Syria uses the same title in Prayer 9:

“O Virgin Mother of God, O Gate of Heaven and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of thy pure mercy, O Lady.”

He also uses it in his songs of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

“Hail, gate of Heaven, staircase and means by which all may ascend there. Hail, thou by whom the gates of the heavenly paradise are unlocked… Hail, key of the heavenly Kingdom.”

But heck, why boggle at calling her the “Gate of Heaven”?

St. Ephrem of Syria also pointed out in an Annunciation Day sermon that, for nine months, Mary’s womb pretty much was Heaven. From Sermons on Diverse Subjects, Sermon 3: “On the praises of the Theotokos”:

“Today, then, Mary is made for us a Heaven, bearing the godhood which Christ (without leaving His Father’s glory) shut up within the narrow limits of her womb, so that He might raise up humans to a higher dignity… She is that mystical “new Heaven” (Rev. 21:1) where the King of Kings dwelt, as in His Own mansion.”

The proper thing is not to be shocked at this, but rather to be amazed at God’s gracious plan of salvation. He chose to make humans important to that plan, and to ask us to cooperate with Him. Mary is our hometown girl who did good, but it’s God Who gave her a glorious part to play, and Who gave her the ability to do it.

 

[patricius79]

In one sense, it is likely that no earthly superlatives could encompass the privileges (and current state of glory) granted to our Blessed Mother.

On the other hand, when we use our words to honor her, it is best to leave some room “above” her for words that apply to God alone, since we know Him to be infinitely greater than any creature (and that of Himself, not by grant of privilege from an outside source).

I think that’s where most Protestants and even many of us Catholics have trouble with the elevated language used by Sts. Alphonsus and Louis for Our Lady. In one way, even those exalted words are inadequate to the reality, but in another, one wonders what words they have left for the Creator and Son of Mary Who is the source of all her glories.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three of the titles that apply strictly and only to God.

Yes, I know that Mary is God’s creature. I’ve hardly heard anyone call her the Holy of Holies. But then I’ve barely heard anyone call God that either. I think St. Alphonsus may have referred to both as the Holy of Holies at times in different senses. Likewise the Church officially calls Mary “Helper”, which is a title for her Spouse the Holy Spirit.

I guess I go back to the fact that the first Holy of Holies not only wasn’t God, but wasn’t even a person.

 

[TimothyH]

People need to keep in mind that St. Alphonsus Ligouri, as well as St. Bernard of Clairvaux who’s work was previously dismissed, were Doctors of the Church.

You can dismiss their work if you want but their writings are not just the writings of a very holy person or some speculative theologian. The fact that they were Doctors of the Church elevates their teaching far above that of ordinary writers and theologians.

It seems to me, and this is just my observation, that there is selective dismissal when it comes to Doctors of the Church and writing about Mary.

-Tim-

 

[patricius79]

St. Epiphanius of Salamis seems to have been the earliest written source we have for the title “Gate of Heaven,” but he was such a stickler for strictness that it must have been around quite a bit longer, for him to use it so freely.

From “Homily in praise of Holy Mary Theotokos”:

St. Ephrem of Syria uses the same title in Prayer 9:

He also uses it in his songs of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

But heck, why boggle at calling her the “Gate of Heaven”?

St. Ephrem of Syria also pointed out in an Annunciation Day sermon that, for nine months, Mary’s womb pretty much was Heaven. From Sermons on Diverse Subjects, Sermon 3: “On the praises of the Theotokos”:

The proper thing is not to be shocked at this, but rather to be amazed at God’s gracious plan of salvation. He chose to make humans important to that plan, and to ask us to cooperate with Him. Mary is our hometown girl who did good, but it’s God Who gave her a glorious part to play, and Who gave her the ability to do it.

Thanks Mintaka,

(What do you think of the idea of calling Mary the Holy of Holies?

As to your post: good points. Also, Jesus left Mary’s womb physically. But I don’t think he ever ceased to be within Mary in a unique way, mystically.

St. Louis calls Mary “the sanctuary of the Divinity”?

another possibly related idea is that St. Louis approvingly quotes St. Augustine as saying that all the predestinate are within the womb of Mary during the whole of this life.

 

[patricius79]

St. Louis does call Mary the sanctuary of the Divinity. I didn’t mean to put a question mark at the end of that sentence.

 

[patricius79]

People need to keep in mind that St. Alphonsus Ligouri, as well as St. Bernard of Clairvaux who’s work was previously dismissed, were Doctors of the Church.

You can dismiss their work if you want but their writings are not just the writings of a very holy person or some speculative theologian. The fact that they were Doctors of the Church elevates their teaching far above that of ordinary writers and theologians.

It seems to me, and this is just my observation, that there is selective dismissal when it comes to Doctors of the Church and writing about Mary.

-Tim-

Interesting. I love the Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus, who quotes Bernard a lot I think… And though St. Louis–who also quotes St. Bernard-- is not declared a doctor of the Church, his teachings about Mary are rather approved by the Church as I understand it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he is declared a doctor the Church one day.

I love how St. Louis says that all the predestinate are in the womb of Mary, so as to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.

• Saint Augustine, surpassing himself as well as all that I have said so far, affirms that in order to be conformed to the image of the Son of God all the predestinate, while in the world, are hidden in the womb of the Blessed Virgin where they are protected, nourished, cared for and developed by this good Mother, until the day she brings them forth to a life of glory after death, which the Church calls the birthday of the just. This is indeed a mystery of grace unknown to the reprobate and little known even to the predestinate!*
  ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

Here’s the passage about titles that St Louis attributes to our Mother:

The Holy Spirit also calls her the Sanctuary of the Divinity, the Resting-Place of the Holy Spirit, the Throne of God, the City of God, the Altar of God, the Temple of God, the World of God. All these titles and expressions of praise are very real when related to the different wonders the Almighty worked in her and the graces which he bestowed on her. What wealth and what glory! What a joy and a privilege for us to enter and dwell in Mary, in whom almighty God has set up the throne of his supreme glory!
ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

Recently I’ve been reading from Carl Anderson’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Mother of the Civilization of Love.

He quotes Pope Benedict as saying that a child in the womb is an image of what being a human being is. That we cannot survive without others. And I would add, we cannot survive without our Mother.

 

[patricius79]

I ran across a passage where St. Louis does call Mary “holy of holies”. He also calls Christ “the Holy of Holies”, in explaining why we should always go to Jesus through Mary

218. If Mary, the Tree of Life, is well cultivated in our soul by fidelity to this devotion, she will in due time bring forth her fruit which is none other than Jesus. I have seen many devout souls searching for Jesus in one way or another, and so often when they have worked hard throughout the night, all they can say is, “Despite our having worked all night, we have caught nothing.” To them we can say, “You have worked hard and gained little; Jesus can only be recognised faintly in you.” But if we follow the immaculate path of Mary, living the devotion that I teach, we will always work in daylight, we will work in a holy place, and we will work but little. There is no darkness in Mary, not even the slightest shadow since there was never any sin in her. She is a holy place, a holy of holies, in which saints are formed and moulded.
ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

85. But have we no need at all of a mediator with the Mediator himself? Are we pure enough to be united directly to Christ without any help? Is Jesus not God, equal in every way to the Father? Therefore is he not the Holy of Holies, having a right to the same respect as his Father? If in his infinite love he became our security and our Mediator with his Father, whom he wished to appease in order to redeem us from our debts, should we on that account show him less respect and have less regard for the majesty and holiness of his person?
ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM