Questionable piece of St. Louis Montfort's "True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary"

[Mike_O]

I came across this passage in St. Louis de Montfort’s treatist, in which he is discussing the changeless will of God and the prayers of humans in influencing the Divine will:

“Moses by the power of his prayer curbed God’s anger against the Israelites so effectively that the infinitely great and merciful Lord was unable to withstand him and asked Moses to let him be angry and punish that rebellious people. How much greater, then, will be the prayer of the humble Virgin Mary, worthy Mother of God, which is more powerful with the King of heaven than the prayers and intercession of all the angels and saints in heaven and on earth.”

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm#Intro

Of course he is a great saint and I have no doubt he was faithful to Church teaching always.

That said, something about the quoted portion seems a bit “off” insofar as he speaks about Moses’s prayer “curbing the Lord’s anger” and the Lord asking Moses’s permission to unleash His wrath on the Israelites.

Obviously, God is perfect and has no need to check His plans with human beings. Further, in His perfection is included perfect Love. The Old Testament references to wrath and anger seem incompatible with such a concept, also found in such instances as Abraham entreating God to not slew a city if there were 50, then 40, then 10, then only 5 just people.

What does the Magisterium make of these Scriptural verses? Is this merely an instance of the limitation of the authors in speaking about God’s nature, so that they must put His justice in human terms by speaking of “anger” when no such concept exists for God? And what of St. Louis de Montfort’s remark about Moses?

 

[levi86]

Much of what St. Louis de Montfort’s wrote is pure speculation on his part. He makes assumptions that have no basis in Scripture of Sacred Tradition. If I were you I’d take everything he says with a grain of salt

 

[hurst]

Mike O:

That said, something about the quoted portion seems a bit “off” insofar as he speaks about Moses’s prayer “curbing the Lord’s anger” and the Lord asking Moses’s permission to unleash His wrath on the Israelites.

This is not new, and still continues to this day. The wrath of God is hanging over our civilization and has to be disarmed by our prayers. The same is from approved apparitions of Our Lady, one of which is Fatima where the sword of the punishing angel has to be held back by prayers. Another is the Divine Mercy messages, where Faustina saw an angel of wrath with a sword wanting to strike the earth, but was given the Divine Mercy chaplet as a means of holding it off.
Mike O:

Obviously, God is perfect and has no need to check His plans with human beings. Further, in His perfection is included perfect Love.

It is a misconception to think that Love excludes justice. Recall that Jesus said that if we will not forgive our brother, then His Father will not forgive us.
Mike O:

What does the Magisterium make of these Scriptural verses? Is this merely an instance of the limitation of the authors in speaking about God’s nature, so that they must put His justice in human terms by speaking of “anger” when no such concept exists for God?

I can’t help on the Magisterium’s stance at the moment. But God does have “anger” in the sense that He dishes out punishment in retribution for sins. Still, He does not have human passions of anger like we do, nor does He have human passions of love. His anger, His love, and His other attributes are a selfless giving of Himself.

If He is all-Just, it is because there is no injustice in Him. So when He gives Himself to us, the effect will be to eradicate sin. “As wax melts before the fire…”. If we are holding to sin, then God’s love will have the effect of an angry opponent.
Mike O:

And what of St. Louis de Montfort’s remark about Moses?

It must be seen in the right light. Obviously, God is not a growling dog on Moses’ leash. Moses is being shown the effect that God’s closer presence will have on the Israelites, so that he can pray for them to obtain mercy. Don’t we do the same, threatening punishment on our children in order to wake them up to a change of heart and an improvement in their conduct? And don’t we also look to someone in a group to make up for those they are in charge of in order to avoid some threat (think military).

I think this is an important part of understanding God, and should not be discounted just because we don’t understand it at first glance.

Another note: magisterially speaking, it is not right to discount the OT just because of the wrathful aspect shown. The Marcionites did this in the first centuries and it was the basis for the biggest heresy the Church ever encountered, and led to the necessity of defining the canon of the Bible to include the OT as divinely inspired.

hurst

 

[Todd_Easton]

St. Louis de Montfort’s words seem to be a reasonable recap of the events of Exodus 32:9-14:
9And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; 10now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation.” 11But Moses besought the LORD his God… 14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Todd Easton:

St. Louis de Montfort’s words seem to be a reasonable recap of the events of Exodus 32:9-14:
9And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; 10now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation.” 11But Moses besought the LORD his God… 14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

Maybe the Lord was testing Moses, just like he tested Abraham. He seemed to change his mind over the actions of Faith. And maybe that’s why our prayers of intercession are important, it’s more about testing *our * Faith than changing God’s mind.

 

[Mike_O]

This passage would be problematic, then, using St. Louis de Montfort’s description, because God does NOT “change his mind.”

Phrases like “the Lord repented of the evil He would do” are intrinsic impossibilities; not only can God, all-good, NOT do evil, but neither can he “repent” of something given that He exists outside of time and already knows what he will do. Even saying “I will destroy this people” while knowing, with a vision towards all time in the future, that He will NOT carry out the action, seems problematic insofar as He is the God of truth.

 

[JB]

Mike O:

This passage would be problematic, then, using St. Louis de Montfort’s description, because God does NOT “change his mind.”

Phrases like “the Lord repented of the evil He would do” are intrinsic impossibilities; not only can God, all-good, NOT do evil, but neither can he “repent” of something given that He exists outside of time and already knows what he will do. Even saying “I will destroy this people” while knowing, with a vision towards all time in the future, that He will NOT carry out the action, seems problematic insofar as He is the God of truth.

While this is probably true, in the sense that it is a logical way that we can try to understand the nature of God’s eternal existence which we do not ourselves experience, nonetheless, God has in fact revealed Himself to us in terms of Him changing His mind at times, and that human prayer may be a factor in effecting this change.

Can these two concepts be reconciled? Probably not easily, but that doesn’t mean that we can then just hold on to the first concept and discard the second. It’s one of those Mysteries in the Church from which we can continue to draw ever deeper insights about God, but never fully understand, at least not from this side of eternity.

 

[John_Henry]

levi86:

Much of what St. Louis de Montfort’s wrote is pure speculation on his part. He makes assumptions that have no basis in Scripture of Sacred Tradition. If I were you I’d take everything he says with a grain of salt

And yet so many popes have spoken approvingly of him…

 

[havemercy]

Yeah, I’m sorry but this quote is rather disturbing. What on earth was Louis thinking? Moses was great. Mary is my mother.

But this is too much.

 

[DreadVandal]

JB.:

While this is probably true, in the sense that it is a logical way that we can try to understand the nature of God’s eternal existence which we do not ourselves experience, nonetheless, God has in fact revealed Himself to us in terms of Him changing His mind at times, and that human prayer may be a factor in effecting this change.

Can these two concepts be reconciled? Probably not easily, but that doesn’t mean that we can then just hold on to the first concept and discard the second. It’s one of those Mysteries in the Church from which we can continue to draw ever deeper insights about God, but never fully understand, at least not from this side of eternity.

God is impassible, without change. Scriptural passages that speak of God “repenting” should not be understood literally. God does not literally get angry, does not literally have feelings of compassion, and does not literally change his mind. Rather, as St. Thomas Aquinas & St. Anselm would explain:

When God punishes, he does so without anger but it is experienced as anger by us; when God does not punish after a warning, He is not changing His mind but it seems so to us; when God is merciful to us, God does not feel pity; but it is experienced as if He did feel pity toward us.

 

[DreadVandal]

I’ve never been a fan of St. Louis de Monfort. I read his Secret of the Rosary once and I thought it was a bit eccentric. This stuff about God being unable to resist Moses or Mary’s prayer is nonsense. God is moved by nothing. In fact, it is God who provides the very power for Moses and Mary to intercede in the first place. We pray because God commands and wills it. God has already decided from eternity, everthing that He will do. Nothing, in that sense, is contingent. But He has willed that some things come about in response to our prayers and so by praying, we are doing God’s will. But, all of it is really God doing everything the whole time. We are merely colaborators. Nothing can happen without God’s will permitting it and enabling it to happen. God cannot be surprised.

 

[JB]

St. Louis’ words should only be taken as a statement of personal piety, not official Church doctrine. Still, I don’t see any difficulty with them. They are consistent with Scripture regarding God changing His mind in response to prayer. Examples other than those cited would include Abraham’s prayer in which he persuaded God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were as few as ten good men in the cities, and the prayers of the people of Nineveh which persuaded God to spare their city after they heard and responded to Jonah’s prophecy.

St. Louis’ words regarding Mary are also consistent with Christ’s response to His mother’s request at the Marriage at Cana. Should we believe that He loves her and responds to her less now in Heaven than He did on Earth?

 

[DreadVandal]

JB.:

St. Louis’ words should only be taken as a statement of personal piety, not official Church doctrine. Still, I don’t see any difficulty with them. They are consistent with Scripture regarding God changing His mind in response to prayer. Examples other than those cited would include Abraham’s prayer in which he persuaded God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were as few as ten good men in the cities, and the prayers of the people of Nineveh which persuaded God to spare their city after they heard and responded to Jonah’s prophecy.

St. Louis’ words regarding Mary are also consistent with Christ’s response to His mother’s request at the Marriage at Cana. Should we believe that He loves her and responds to her less now in Heaven than He did on Earth?

As long as we are saying that God symbollically changes his mind, then okay. But if St. Louis is proposing that God literally changes His mind, then that is heretical.

 

[Mike_O]

DreadVandal:

God is impassible, without change. Scriptural passages that speak of God “repenting” should not be understood literally. God does not literally get angry, does not literally have feelings of compassion, and does not literally change his mind. Rather, as St. Thomas Aquinas & St. Anselm would explain:

When God punishes, he does so without anger but it is experienced as anger by us; when God does not punish after a warning, He is not changing His mind but it seems so to us; when God is merciful to us, God does not feel pity; but it is experienced as if He did feel pity toward us.

This is a very good explanation of the problem at hand. But you also said “God does not literally have feelings of compassion.”

I think this is true inasmuch as, speaking about love, we speak not of EMOTION or SENTIMENT but of an act of the WILL. The Holy Father’s Lenten message highlights Jesus seeing the crowds and being “moved with pity.” This is the love of God, not an emotional affection as human beings might conceptualize “love.” Some of the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle delved into the different loves; agape, eros…(there are several others which escape me at the moment).

 

[DreadVandal]

Mike O:

This is a very good explanation of the problem at hand. But you also said “God does not literally have feelings of compassion.”

I think this is true inasmuch as, speaking about love, we speak not of EMOTION or SENTIMENT but of an act of the WILL. The Holy Father’s Lenten message highlights Jesus seeing the crowds and being “moved with pity.” This is the love of God, not an emotional affection as human beings might conceptualize “love.” Some of the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle delved into the different loves; agape, eros…(there are several others which escape me at the moment).

Ah, very good points. I will just add that in the Incarnation, God does have human emotions, in Christ.

 

[JB]

DreadVandal:

As long as we are saying that God symbollically changes his mind, then okay. But if St. Louis is proposing that God literally changes His mind, then that is heretical.

Everything we say about God is symbolic to some degree because that is how our minds process thought, through symbols. So yes, we can say that God has revealed Himself symbolically to us as sometimes changing His mind in response to human (and possibly angelic) prayer just as readily as we can symbolically understand God to posess the quality of impassibility. Both symbols are true and useful to us for understanding who God is and how we relate to Him.

We should not make the mistake, though, of saying that because one quality we recognize in God (impassibility) appears to conflict with another Divinely revealed quality of God (that He may be moved to respond to our Prayers even to the extent of changing His mind) that this second Divinely revealed quality must be false. To do so is to adopt an understanding of God no less symbolic than one in which we accept that God may change His mind in response to our prayers, but with a poverty of symbols.

 

[hurst]

Mike O:

This passage would be problematic, then, using St. Louis de Montfort’s description, because God does NOT “change his mind.”

He doesn’t change whether to punish evil and reward good, but it seems like he changes when we change.
Mike O:

Phrases like “the Lord repented of the evil He would do” are intrinsic impossibilities; not only can God, all-good, NOT do evil,

Yes, he does do physical “evil” when he allows physical destruction. For example, termites are good in that they work well in chewing wood etc. But once they are unleashed on our house, we do not consider them good for us because we do not want our house to be eaten up.

Recall the story of Jonah.

Also note that God says “Turn to me and I will turn to you” (Zach 1:3). His actions toward us are a mirror of our actions toward Him. We determine our own fate, and He enforces the consequences of our decisions.
Mike O:

but neither can he “repent” of something given that He exists outside of time and already knows what he will do. Even saying “I will destroy this people” while knowing, with a vision towards all time in the future, that He will NOT carry out the action, seems problematic insofar as He is the God of truth.

He will destroy “this unrepentant” people. But when they repented, He repented because now they were not unrepentant people.

He didn’t change His mind at all, but the decision as it applied to certain people in particular changed according to their conduct. In our free will we determine our own destiny, and in His power He enforces it.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

hurst

 

[DreadVandal]

JB.:

Everything we say about God is symbolic to some degree because that is how our minds process thought, through symbols. So yes, we can say that God has revealed Himself symbolically to us as sometimes changing His mind in response to human (and possibly angelic) prayer just as readily as we can symbolically understand God to posess the quality of impassibility. Both symbols are true and useful to us for understanding who God is and how we relate to Him.

We should not make the mistake, though, of saying that because one quality we recognize in God (impassibility) appears to conflict with another Divinely revealed quality of God (that He may be moved to respond to our Prayers even to the extent of changing His mind) that this second Divinely revealed quality must be false. To do so is to adopt an understanding of God no less symbolic than one in which we accept that God may change His mind in response to our prayers, but with a poverty of symbols.

St. Thomas Aquinas does say that we must distinguish between that which pertains to God’s essence and that which does not. Impassibility pertains to the very essence of God and so it must be that any talk of God “changing this or that” must be understood in terms of the divine impassibility and not vice-versa. That is why the most traditional scholastic understanding is that the language of change applies to the effects of God’s activity in our world of change. God doesn’t really change His mind, but when we experience a change from being under God’s wrath to being under God’s favor then it seems as though God is changing his mind. In reality, we are the ones changing in relation to God.