Total Consecration -- If it's so important, why doesn't the church mandate it?

[guanophore]

To be perfectly honest, these types of Marian devotions make me extremely uncomfortable. I was hoping someone could answer some specific questions for me about this concept of total consecration.

If you are uncomfortable, you don’t need to go there.

First of all, the name. I know the official name of this devotion is Total Consecration to Mary through Jesus, but most of the time it’s just referred to as Total Consecration to Mary, including what I assume is the most popular website for the devotion. The number one hit on Google which points to the calendar that you spoke about calls the devotional act “Total Consecration to Mary.” This is troubling, because if you totally consecrate yourself to Mary, where does that leave Jesus?

The soul of Mary magnifies the Lord, so when we look at Him through her, we can see Him more clearly. She is not separated from Him, but in His presence. Think of it this way. When those came to worship Him at his birth, she held Him in her arms. When they came to do Him homage she was there with Him.

Next, there are several references on that site and in the writings of St. Louis de Montfort that seem to be incongruous with Catholic teaching in the Catechism. For example according to de Montfort, there are plenty of “secrets” that are revealed only to those who consecrate themselves to Mary and pray the Rosary. There’s a word for this in Catholicism–Gnosticism, and it’s a heresy. If you could explain to me how it’s not Gnosticism, I’d appreciate it.

These are considered private revelations, and therefore are not binding on the faithful.

If you have a very close friend, they may be more likely to tell you things than they would people who are not as intimate.

Here are a few of the quotes from de Montfort that I find uncomfortable.

“The difficulty, then, is how to arrive at the true knowledge of the most holy Virgin and so find grace in abundance through her. God, as the absolute Master, can give directly what he ordinarily dispenses only through Mary, and it would be rash to deny that he sometimes does so. However, St Thomas assures us that, following the order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true devotion to her.”

So basically de Monfort is saying that we are never free to pray to Jesus–we need to pray to Jesus through Mary. Always.

He perceives Mary as the “neck” of the Church. Christ is the Head, and he dispenses all of His graces to the Body through Mary, the vessel through which He entered the world.

Here he is again:

“We must never go to our Lord except through Mary, using her intercession and good standing with him. We must never be without her when praying to Jesus.”

And finally, to me, the most disturbing quote of all:

“Chosen soul, this devotion consists in surrendering oneself in the manner of a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through her, and then performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.”

Nothing about that sounds even vaguely idolatrous to you?

No, but perhaps it is because I am accustomed to thinking about Mary as his handmaiden. Accompanying her on the journey of being a servant/slave to me is consistent with her life of devotion to Him.

Even as a Catholic, I have a hard time stomaching that, and for Protestants we are trying to convince that we do not worship Mary, they will never be able to get over a quote like that from a canonized saint. The Catechism, by the way, has none of this, and certainly (as you correctly stated) does not require any devotional activity to ensure that God hears our prayers. In fact, all of these devotional activity seems to only have one source–de Montfort himself.

Yes, these are his private devotions and love poetry to Mary. He was deeply in love, and others have been able to appreciate and enter into his passion for Mary, but because it is a private devotion, it is assumed that it does not apply to everyone, which answers your question about why it is not required, or part of the catechism.

Can you please help me make sense of this? I do not ask these questions out of spite or ill-will, but with an honest heart searching for the truth in the Gospel.

When I get blowback from Protestants about his writings, I just tell them that these are his private devotions and love poetry, and try to direct them back to what the Catechism teaches.

The Church’s position is that this devotion will not harm the soul, but neither is everyone obligated to it.

 

[fred_conty]

To me it looks as though the reason for the consecration has not been sufficiently explained. What is the consecration about?

For this we must understand that Mary is Queen of Heaven and “sits” next to her Son. Mary has the highest place in heaven because she was unique in her position chosen by God himself … his earthly mother. She gave birth to Jesus, the source of all grace. This is simply the highest designation and honor given to anyone … to be selected to be the mother of God.

Jesus submitted himself to her care and was obedient to her wishes. On her part she denied him nothing in her power and her will was in complete conformity and love to Jesus. Between the two there was more than just the bond of mother and Child … they were one in mind and heart, each doing what pleased the other.

This type of relationship of Mary/Jesus did not stop at their deaths, but continues even to this day, for they have not changed and so the bond has not changed either.

The story of Cana has always for me had a hiccup to it. It seemed to me that from what Jesus replied to his mother about the wine, was that he really did not want to do that. But regardless, when she told the steward to do whatever her son said, she knew full well he would change that water. That is how much Jesus will do whatever his mother asks. It launched his public career.

Now I’m about to say something which I hope doesn’t offend the sensativities of anyone. But I believe that Jesus gave us his own mother to be ours for the very same reason … to perform miracles … of grace.

Have you ever been low in your spiritual life? It almost seems that at those times the more you pray the worse it gets. And you just don’t know how to pull out of that tailspin. But then there is our mother … Mary. A mother knows us, and cares in a special way for her child. There is nothing like it. We know mom will do all … anything … to protect and help her child. And so even if there has been some bad stuff going on, we feel more at ease going to our mom and discussing it and asking for help. We are just human. And it is just that … human … that Jesus knew he had better give us his mother as well as his life. And this has been a strong tradition in the church … that Mary is our very own mother in heaven … for a reason.

Now Mary’s position is the same as it always was, and has not changed because she is no longer on earth. Her position is to bring as many of her children to her son as she can possibly get. Even the ones that have done henious crimes. But to do this it takes God’s grace. And so the need for the total consecration of those who are willing to take it on, to merit graces for Mary to disperse as she sees fit. For we do merit graces if in sanctifying grace. So the person in total consecration gives all of them away to Mary to help others. She being next to God would know best how and where to distribute them.

On the other hand, since these meritorious graces are given away, the person consecrated then throws themselves on the mercy of God and under the protection of Mary. The total consecrated person asks nothing for themselves of the graces they have earned. But only want those graces to do good for others as Mary sees fit.

This is something not everyone is ready to do. And if not done with love and understanding of why, then it best not be taken on. From what others have written about it they describe it as an heroic act of charity.

But out of this comes the special aid and guidance of Mary to become closer to her son. This is really the reward … her constant goodness to the consecrated person. And this is what St. De monfort is indicating when he says he has a secret to tell us.

 

[cjforJesus]

To me it looks as though the reason for the consecration has not been sufficiently explained. What is the consecration about?

For this we must understand that Mary is Queen of Heaven and “sits” next to her Son. Mary has the highest place in heaven because she was unique in her position chosen by God himself … his earthly mother. She gave birth to Jesus, the source of all grace. This is simply the highest designation and honor given to anyone … to be selected to be the mother of God.

Jesus submitted himself to her care and was obedient to her wishes. On her part she denied him nothing in her power and her will was in complete conformity and love to Jesus. Between the two there was more than just the bond of mother and Child … they were one in mind and heart, each doing what pleased the other.

This type of relationship of Mary/Jesus did not stop at their deaths, but continues even to this day, for they have not changed and so the bond has not changed either.

The story of Cana has always for me had a hiccup to it. It seemed to me that from what Jesus replied to his mother about the wine, was that he really did not want to do that. But regardless, when she told the steward to do whatever her son said, she knew full well he would change that water. That is how much Jesus will do whatever his mother asks. It launched his public career.

Now I’m about to say something which I hope doesn’t offend the sensativities of anyone. But I believe that Jesus gave us his own mother to be ours for the very same reason … to perform miracles … of grace.

Have you ever been low in your spiritual life? It almost seems that at those times the more you pray the worse it gets. And you just don’t know how to pull out of that tailspin. But then there is our mother … Mary. A mother knows us, and cares in a special way for her child. There is nothing like it. We know mom will do all … anything … to protect and help her child. And so even if there has been some bad stuff going on, we feel more at ease going to our mom and discussing it and asking for help. We are just human. And it is just that … human … that Jesus knew he had better give us his mother as well as his life. And this has been a strong tradition in the church … that Mary is our very own mother in heaven … for a reason.

Now Mary’s position is the same as it always was, and has not changed because she is no longer on earth. Her position is to bring as many of her children to her son as she can possibly get. Even the ones that have done henious crimes. But to do this it takes God’s grace. And so the need for the total consecration of those who are willing to take it on, to merit graces for Mary to disperse as she sees fit. For we do merit graces if in sanctifying grace. So the person in total consecration gives all of them away to Mary to help others. She being next to God would know best how and where to distribute them.

On the other hand, since these meritorious graces are given away, the person consecrated then throws themselves on the mercy of God and under the protection of Mary. The total consecrated person asks nothing for themselves of the graces they have earned. But only want those graces to do good for others as Mary sees fit.

This is something not everyone is ready to do. And if not done with love and understanding of why, then it best not be taken on. From what others have written about it they describe it as an heroic act of charity.

But out of this comes the special aid and guidance of Mary to become closer to her son. This is really the reward … her constant goodness to the consecrated person. And this is what St. De monfort is indicating when he says he has a secret to tell us.

This is just more confusing as the thread progresses. The Marian apparition of Catherine Laboure allegedly stated that the gems on her rings that did not give light are the graces that no one asks for. Now you seem to be implying that Mary bestows grace to those she sees fit even if they do not ask.? Her constant goodness only applies to those who have formally consecrated themselves?

I love Mary as much as any other Catholic,but I see her as a model of the perfect Christian and that is how she is presented at the shrine I often attend. She is a loving mother who prays for her children. She can never act contrary to the will of God and she can never violate free will of human persons. She always points to her Son,

A far as total consecration goes ALL baptized persons have been totally consecrated to God.

 

[Mordocai]

The Church doesn’t mandate daily Mass even! Strongly recommend, yes, as it does total consecration. But, heroic love for our Mother is always the way to go. How best can you love Mary with all your heart? Then do that. Consecration is, in it’s essence, a commitment of love for the sake of living a more Christ like life. We need our Mother’s help “Behold your Mother” were some of the Lord’s final words to disciples in need.

That’s you and me.

 

[cjforJesus]

The Church doesn’t mandate daily Mass even! Strongly recommend, yes, as it does total consecration. But, heroic love for our Mother is always the way to go. How best can you love Mary with all your heart? Then do that. Consecration is, in it’s essence, a commitment of love for the sake of living a more Christ like life. We need our Mother’s help “Behold your Mother” were some of the Lord’s final words to disciples in need.

That’s you and me.

We are all consecrated by virtue of our baptism.

The whole world has been consecrated by various popes also.

I cannot find anything in the catechism that even recommends consecration to Mary.

One can love Mary very much without reciting a consecration formula.

I believe St John Paul 2 used the word “entrustment” which I feel much more comfortable with. Asking for Mary’s prayers and intercession.

 

[Richca]

First of all, the name. I know the official name of this devotion is Total Consecration to Mary through Jesus, but most of the time it’s just referred to as Total Consecration to Mary, including what I assume is the most popular website for the devotion. The number one hit on Google which points to the calendar that you spoke about calls the devotional act "Total Consecration to Mary.

 

[Richca]

And finally, to me, the most disturbing quote of all:

“Chosen soul, this devotion consists in surrendering oneself in the manner of a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through her, and then performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.”

 

[cjforJesus]

To be perfectly honest, these types of Marian devotions make me extremely uncomfortable. I was hoping someone could answer some specific questions for me about this concept of total consecration.

First of all, the name. I know the official name of this devotion is Total Consecration to Mary through Jesus, but most of the time it’s just referred to as Total Consecration to Mary, including what I assume is the most popular website for the devotion. The number one hit on Google which points to the calendar that you spoke about calls the devotional act “Total Consecration to Mary.” This is troubling, because if you totally consecrate yourself to Mary, where does that leave Jesus?

Next, there are several references on that site and in the writings of St. Louis de Montfort that seem to be incongruous with Catholic teaching in the Catechism. For example according to de Montfort, there are plenty of “secrets” that are revealed only to those who consecrate themselves to Mary and pray the Rosary. There’s a word for this in Catholicism–Gnosticism, and it’s a heresy. If you could explain to me how it’s not Gnosticism, I’d appreciate it.

Here are a few of the quotes from de Montfort that I find uncomfortable.

“The difficulty, then, is how to arrive at the true knowledge of the most holy Virgin and so find grace in abundance through her. God, as the absolute Master, can give directly what he ordinarily dispenses only through Mary, and it would be rash to deny that he sometimes does so. However, St Thomas assures us that, following the order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true devotion to her.”

So basically de Monfort is saying that we are never free to pray to Jesus–we need to pray to Jesus through Mary. Always. Here he is again:

“We must never go to our Lord except through Mary, using her intercession and good standing with him. We must never be without her when praying to Jesus.”

And finally, to me, the most disturbing quote of all:

“Chosen soul, this devotion consists in surrendering oneself in the manner of a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through her, and then performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.”

Nothing about that sounds even vaguely idolatrous to you? Even as a Catholic, I have a hard time stomaching that, and for Protestants we are trying to convince that we do not worship Mary, they will never be able to get over a quote like that from a canonized saint. The Catechism, by the way, has none of this, and certainly (as you correctly stated) does not require any devotional activity to ensure that God hears our prayers. In fact, all of these devotional activity seems to only have one source–de Montfort himself.

Can you please help me make sense of this? I do not ask these questions out of spite or ill-will, but with an honest heart searching for the truth in the Gospel.

boatofcar,the devotions are totally optional and private. The Church allows for many different manifestations of spirituality.
Remember that Jesus gives us His body,blood,soul and divinity in every Eucharistic celebration. If you do not understand the particular devotion written about by St Demontfort or St Kolbe,consider the consecration to the Eucharistic Heart or Sacred Heart. Mary’s Immaculate Heart is united to her Son’s just as we should be united to Him.

Do not feel less than a Catholic by being unable to understand specific devotions. It is not any indication of a person being more spiritually advanced or favored by utilizing Mary to understand Jesus.

As another poster pointed out these writing are in a very exaggerated flowery style of love.
I started reading them once and could not grasp them so just left it alone. I also had difficulty with St Teresa of Avila “Way of Perfection” which recommends having no attachment to friends or family. I had to consider though she was writing to nuns in the 1500s and there could be a reason for the admonition.

 

[pnewton]

By that token though, surely all the saints are co-mediators?

We all are. That is the problem I have with these terms for Mary that the Church has not yet adopted as dogma. Yes, they are true if understood as intended in Latin. However, they are nothing unique and special to Mary. I do not see the point in the terms themselves.

As to St. Louis, while he is a St. and nothing he says contradicts Church doctrine, not every quote he has is Church doctrine, and he does not speak with ecclesial authority. We are free to disagree with some of the things he said. The very idea that we cannot pray directly to Jesus I find incomprehensible. There is no way, absolutely none, that this critical element of Christianity would have been omitted in the early Church if it were true. The Sacred Scripture is the final revelation from God. All other truth from the Catholic Church is an expansion of something found in Scripture.

 

[cjforJesus]

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

I just can’t rap my head around the consecration to Mary.

1 Timothy 2:5(NABRE)

For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human

That is all we need. Jesus and only Jesus.

Jesus is not separated from His One Body, the Church.

No other could mediate our eternal salvation, but there is much that we can do for one another.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: why almost no devotional prayers or spiritualities are mandated, but a lot of different ones are commended or recommended by the Church -

In the foreword to his book A Manual of Prayers and Other Christian Devotions, Bishop Challoner (yep, the same guy who revised the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible translation) advises that the reader should be:

“…. taking that which serves most for his own devotion, and leaving the rest to others, who perhaps may be more moved by that which seems dry and insipid to him.

"For as several bodies are not equally pleased by the same [foods], so neither is the same spiritual food equally agreeable or beneficial to different souls. And it is for this reason that the most bountiful and provident Hand of Almighty God has appointed so great a variety of nourishment for both.”

From a practical standpoint, of course most of us just move along if we run into a writer or spirituality which we find uncongenial. But of course there’s nothing wrong with trying to figure out a writer who’s baffling to us, like some people find De Montfort. Just don’t be surprised if you never “get” it yourself. We’re not surprised when that happens with secular reading, so don’t be surprised at it happening in religious reading.

OTOH, finding De Montfort “insipid” or “dry” is a reader’s prerogative, but declaring him to be evil, Gnostic, or what-have-you is not. It’s very easy to call good evil and evil good, particularly on the Internet, but it is a great sin. Given how many generations of people have found De Montfort a big boost in their spiritual life and in their closeness to Our Lord, and how many people are known to have amended their lives and turned away from sin by way of the Total Consecration… well, it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit to say nasty things about the ways the Holy Spirit is found working in people’s lives.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: trying to understand De Montfort –

De Montfort is a Catholic writer who was writing to Catholics in France. Both he and his readers were steeped in a particular rhetorical tradition of being able to speak of Mary with very honorable language, while understanding that language to be oriented toward her Son. A fair amount of his work includes Scriptural and patristic references, as well as references to orthodox theologians throughout the ages, because he is drawing from them as well as from his own thoughts. He didn’t annotate them, because his unlearned readers wouldn’t want them, and because anybody who was interested and learned enough to want the references would be expected to spot the references themselves.

For example, De Montfort throws in a “greeting to Mary” which greets her in terms of her relationship to the various Persons of the Trinity. Pope St. John Paul II notes that this is a quote from St. Francis of Assisi. You don’t have to know that to read the passage, although someone who knows it will find it even more enriching.

Similarly, you get stuff like this, which echoes Galatians 2:20 - “And I live, now not I; but Christ lives in me”:

“[Mary] is so transformed into you by grace that she lives no more, she is as though she were not. It is you only, my Jesus, who lives and reigns in her…” (Treatise on True Devotion, n. 63.)

People only get reflexively shocked by this sort of thing, because they aren’t familiar enough with the Bible, or of because they aren’t thinking of this language applying to other Christians besides Paul. (Which is silly, because obviously Paul wants us to be able to apply this language to ourselves! That’s part of why he says these amazing things!)

Similarly, all “co-” this and “co-” that language is rooted in Paul’s comments about us being “co-heirs” with Christ and “co-workers” with the Truth (ie, Christ).

Latin “co-” usually specifically connotes that the co-person is a junior partner. (English “co-” doesn’t, which causes a lot of confusion in people just starting to read theology.) I don’t know whether Greek “syn-” has that connotation or not.

A lot of people throughout Christianity and Judaism have declared themselves slaves of God (“ebed YHWH” in Hebrew), slaves of Christ (as St. Paul did in his letters), or slaves of various saints (if your last name is Kilpatrick or Gilchrist, you are “slave of Patrick” (giolla-Phadraig) or “slave of Christ” (“giolla-Chriost”)). Giolla-mhuire (Gilmary, “slave of Mary” is one of the more standard and popular first names in medieval Ireland, and thus eventually became a surname too. Other Christian countries did similar things.

“Slave” in this context equals disciple, but in a more emphatic form. Think of those old martial arts films. How does a master find out if a student is serious? He puts him to work, treating him like a servant or slave, and seeing if he’ll stick around and do menial work long enough to prove seriousness, while getting him into condition for more advanced martial arts work. (There’s also a connotation in “ebed YHWH”) that one is working at the Temple, or doing some other actual work directed by God.)

There were a lot of books back in the day, even as today, that claimed to promulgate “secrets.” De Montfort is playing off this to get readers’ attention, because everybody loves secrets; and the kind of readers who love occultish books are the same ones who really need to read a good simple religious book. .

If I recall correctly, there was a whole series of early medical popularization books in Spain, at about the same time, which claimed to tell “the secrets of herbs” and “the magic of medicine,” while actually just giving ordinary good advice (for the time) and having a prominent set of approval letters from churchmen and physicians. Again, this cut the ground out from under occult books, while being fun and exciting for readers.

As for De Montfort’s devotion to Christ, the “Montfort religious family” letter of Pope St. John Paul II pointed readers to De Montfort’s book, A Treatise on True Devotion, where he talks about Christ in language even more extreme than what he uses for Mary:

Christ “is our only Master who has to teach us; our only Lord on whom we ought to depend; our only Head to whom we must be united; our only Model to whom we should conform ourselves; our only Physician who can heal us; our only Shepherd who can feed us; our only Way who can lead us; our only Truth whom we must believe; our only Life who can animate us; and our only All in all things who can satisfy us” (Treatise on True Devotion, n. 61).

Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a privileged means “of finding Jesus Christ perfectly, of loving him tenderly, of serving him faithfully” (Treatise on True Devotion, n. 62). St Louis immediately expands this central desire to “love tenderly” into a passionate prayer to Jesus, imploring him for the grace to participate in the indescribable communion of love that exists between him and his mother.

Sorry to ramble on, but I hope this helped.

 

[fred_conty]

This is just more confusing as the thread progresses. The Marian apparition of Catherine Laboure allegedly stated that the gems on her rings that did not give light are the graces that no one asks for. Now you seem to be implying that Mary bestows grace to those she sees fit even if they do not ask.? Her constant goodness only applies to those who have formally consecrated themselves?

I love Mary as much as any other Catholic,but I see her as a model of the perfect Christian and that is how she is presented at the shrine I often attend. She is a loving mother who prays for her children. She can never act contrary to the will of God and she can never violate free will of human persons. She always points to her Son,

A far as total consecration goes ALL baptized persons have been totally consecrated to God.

This is just more confusing as the thread progresses. The Marian apparition of Catherine Laboure allegedly stated that the gems on her rings that did not give light are the graces that no one asks for. Now you seem to be implying that Mary bestows grace to those she sees fit even if they do not ask.? Her constant goodness only applies to those who have formally consecrated themselves?

Thank you for your reply. No I don’t mean to even imply that only those that are totally consecrated receive her special help. And I am grateful to you for bringing that out.

What happens really is that there are degrees of relationship. There is good, better, best.

There is also degrees of need and intensity of prayer as well which makes a difference.

The miraculous medal is a real gift from Mary to everyone who will wear it in her honor. It was on her promise that those persons would receive GREAT and ABUNDANT graces. And those who don’t wear it don’t necessarily receive less, but having that special devotion reasures us that we have that special love from her by designating ourselves as her special son/daughter.

It is the same with Total Consecration to her. It is the same but in a higher way, for it is giving up of all meritorial graces in behalf of Mary so she may distribute them to those in need. The church never demands a person to do this, just as the church never demands that one embraces a religious vocation. There are certain practices in the church which are a bit higher than the average practice and these are never required of a person but are recommended.

I love Mary as much as any other Catholic,but I see her as a model of the perfect Christian and that is how she is presented at the shrine I often attend. She is a loving mother who prays for her children. She can never act contrary to the will of God and she can never violate free will of human persons. She always points to her Son,

That certainly is accurate and Mary would never want a person to try to do something above their capability.

A far as total consecration goes ALL baptized persons have been totally consecrated to God.

Quite so. And the total consecration intensifies this.

This is something that may come with time and thought. Just like the understanding of the Trinity in a sense … after a thourough study, who can say they understand it? But nevertheless, it is so.

So we can only appreciate the elements in our spirituality after much thought. For that is what the life of God is, a continual advance in love and knowledge. So what we don’t understand so well today, we then come back to it from time to time and ponder it in our heart … as Mary did. And someday we might say, “Oh so that’s it”…click.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: quotes found disturbing by the original poster

“The difficulty, then, is how to arrive at the true knowledge of the most holy Virgin and so find grace in abundance through her. God, as the absolute Master, can give directly what He ordinarily dispenses only through Mary, and it would be rash to deny that He sometimes does so. However, St Thomas assures us that, following the order established by His divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts His graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to Him, seeking union with Him, we must use the same means which He used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary His Mother, which is true devotion to her.”

The “St. Thomas” mentioned here is St. Thomas Aquinas. So basically, if you have a problem with this statement, and with the implications drawn from it by De Montfort, you need to go read this passage from Aquinas and find out why he says it.

But even without looking, I can tell you that Jesus is our source of all graces, and that He chose to come to us through being born of Mary. So everything that comes from Christ does come through Mary, according to His Own choice and that of the whole Trinity. And if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the entire course of salvation history, as planned out by God.

Of course, you could also say that these graces come to us through Abraham, and through Adam and Eve, and through Israel/Jacob, and through the House of David, and through Ruth and Rahab. Because historically, and through the Providence of God, that’s exactly how they do come. Jesus Christ was true man and true God, and He went to a lot of trouble to have ancestors in the flesh (as well as being co-eternal with the Father and begotten by the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God).

But let’s look up what Aquinas says. So I plug in some search terms, and here comes an interesting paper on Marian stuff in Aquinas.

According to our Angelic Doctor, the Blessed Virgin Mary “was so full of grace that it overflows on to all mankind” and suffices for the salvation of the world. “It is necessary,” he says, “that whosoever desires to obtain favors with God, should approach this mediatrix, approach her with a most devout heart because, since she is the Queen of Mercy, possessing everything in the kingdom of God’s justice, she cannot refuse your petition.” Making the thought of St. Bernard his own, St. Thomas reflects that no refusal can exist in the presence of the exceeding charity of her pierced and immaculate heart together with the pierced side and wounds of her Son. For St. Thomas, Mary is the throne of grace of whom “the Apostle speaking to the Hebrews said, ‘let us go with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid’.” (Heb 4: 16)

Hmmm. It sounds like that boring old philosopher monk is even more crazy about Mary than De Montfort! What to do???

So why is Mary called the “throne of grace,” “the seat of Wisdom,” “the Ark of the Covenant,” “the mercy seat”, “the tabernacle,” or even “Heaven”?

Because God dwelled in her womb and sat on her lap.

Pretty easy and homey, isn’t it? And yet people work themselves up and get shocked about these ancient and beautiful Scriptural titles.

Re: the OP seeing a reference to Mass

The wording of your quote is “with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.” (In English. I don’t know the French or Latin.)

The wording of the Mass prayer is “through Him, with Him, and in Him…” As you see, the order is significantly different.

There is a hidden Scriptural reference here, possibly taken from St. Bonaventure pointing it out:

Matthew 2:11 - “They found the child with Mary, His mother.”

(And yes, that’s exactly the way the old style of religious education worked. You were supposed to remember the Bible quote when these mini-references came up.)

St. Bernard says that Jesus placed the fullness of all graces (kechairitomene, as St. Gabriel greeted her) “in Mary.” This idea comes down from many of the early Christian Fathers. I’ve already talked about how Jesus came into the world “through Mary.” As for “for Mary,” that’s the incentive. You love Mary like you love your mom, and so you love to do things for her. There are a lot of old country songs on the theme of doing everything for your mother. French people traditionally loved their moms too.

So again, I hope all this rambling helped!

 

[multitude]

The charge of Gnosticism is straight up rank. St. Louis de Montfort found in his earthly time that it was really the supposed simpletons who got it, whilst it is the scholars and learned theologians who were critical of it.

 

[cjforJesus]

Re: quotes found disturbing by the original poster

The “St. Thomas” mentioned here is St. Thomas Aquinas. So basically, if you have a problem with this statement, and with the implications drawn from it by De Montfort, you need to go read this passage from Aquinas and find out why he says it.

But even without looking, I can tell you that Jesus is our source of all graces, and that He chose to come to us through being born of Mary. So everything that comes from Christ does come through Mary, according to His Own choice and that of the whole Trinity. And if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the entire course of salvation history, as planned out by God.

Of course, you could also say that these graces come to us through Abraham, and through Adam and Eve, and through Israel/Jacob, and through the House of David, and through Ruth and Rahab. Because historically, and through the Providence of God, that’s exactly how they do come. Jesus Christ was true man and true God, and He went to a lot of trouble to have ancestors in the flesh (as well as being co-eternal with the Father and begotten by the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God).

But let’s look up what Aquinas says. So I plug in some search terms, and here comes an interesting paper on Marian stuff in Aquinas.

Hmmm. It sounds like that boring old philosopher monk is even more crazy about Mary than De Montfort! What to do???

So why is Mary called the “throne of grace,” “the seat of Wisdom,” “the Ark of the Covenant,” “the mercy seat”, “the tabernacle,” or even “Heaven”?

Because God dwelled in her womb and sat on her lap.

Pretty easy and homey, isn’t it? And yet people work themselves up and get shocked about these ancient and beautiful Scriptural titles.

Re: the OP seeing a reference to Mass

The wording of your quote is “with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.” (In English. I don’t know the French or Latin.)

The wording of the Mass prayer is “through Him, with Him, and in Him…” As you see, the order is significantly different.

There is a hidden Scriptural reference here, possibly taken from St. Bonaventure pointing it out:

(And yes, that’s exactly the way the old style of religious education worked. You were supposed to remember the Bible quote when these mini-references came up.)

St. Bernard says that Jesus placed the fullness of all graces (kechairitomene, as St. Gabriel greeted her) “in Mary.” This idea comes down from many of the early Christian Fathers. I’ve already talked about how Jesus came into the world “through Mary.” As for “for Mary,” that’s the incentive. You love Mary like you love your mom, and so you love to do things for her. There are a lot of old country songs on the theme of doing everything for your mother. French people traditionally loved their moms too.

So again, I hope all this rambling helped!

It is interesting that you quote St Aquinas because in his Summa he himself admitted he had trouble with the dogma of the immaculate conception. Wisely though he deferred to the magisterium just as we should. The Church has not defined Mary as being the lone mediatrix of grace because it is a very problematic concept almost negating the need to ask saintly intercession or directly petitioning The Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit as most Protestants do.

 

[cjforJesus]

Thank you for your reply. No I don’t mean to even imply that only those that are totally consecrated receive her special help. And I am grateful to you for bringing that out.

What happens really is that there are degrees of relationship. There is good, better, best.

There is also degrees of need and intensity of prayer as well which makes a difference.

The miraculous medal is a real gift from Mary to everyone who will wear it in her honor. It was on her promise that those persons would receive GREAT and ABUNDANT graces. And those who don’t wear it don’t necessarily receive less, but having that special devotion reasures us that we have that special love from her by designating ourselves as her special son/daughter.

It is the same with Total Consecration to her. It is the same but in a higher way, for it is giving up of all meritorial graces in behalf of Mary so she may distribute them to those in need. The church never demands a person to do this, just as the church never demands that one embraces a religious vocation. There are certain practices in the church which are a bit higher than the average practice and these are never required of a person but are recommended.

That certainly is accurate and Mary would never want a person to try to do something above their capability.

Quite so. And the total consecration intensifies this.

This is something that may come with time and thought. Just like the understanding of the Trinity in a sense … after a thourough study, who can say they understand it? But nevertheless, it is so.

So we can only appreciate the elements in our spirituality after much thought. For that is what the life of God is, a continual advance in love and knowledge. So what we don’t understand so well today, we then come back to it from time to time and ponder it in our heart … as Mary did. And someday we might say, “Oh so that’s it”…click.

The Church teaches it is NOT the actual medal that imparts grace but it being blessed and worn with contrition of heart. If it were merely the wearing of a medal that would not be in line with our faith. The medal is supposed to be an outward sign of an inward devotion just as any sacramental is.

Do you think consecration to the Sacred Heart is a lower form of devotion? Are those who practice this devotion somehow less spiritually advanced than those who utilize Mary to approach Jesus?

 

[multitude]

The charge of Gnosticism is straight up rank. St. Louis de Montfort found in his earthly time that it was really the supposed simpletons who got it, whilst it is the scholars and learned theologians who were critical of it.

Come to think of it, not much has changed.

 

[guanophore]

So Mary’s title of “co-mediatrix” does not impart any particular status? One could equally describe, let’s say Francis of Assisi as a “co-mediator”?

As Theotokos, Mary has a unique relationship with Christ in salvation history.