True Devotion to Mary book

  • Thread starter Thread starter fin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fin

Guest
For those of you who have read this book, Louis said that the devotion he talks about is not new. yet he also mentioned in the book that the devotion he’s about to unfold was something that he didn’t read or talk about with intelligent people around him so far.
so which is which?
any ideas?
 
fin said:
For those of you who have read this book, Louis said that the devotion he talks about is not new. yet he also mentioned in the book that the devotion he’s about to unfold was something that he didn’t read or talk about with intelligent people around him so far.
so which is which?
any ideas?
Click to expand...
If you have specific quotes, that might help to foster the conversation.
 
christcnection1 said:
If you have specific quotes, that might help to foster the conversation.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. I wanted to respond to OP’s question, but I would like to see the questionable parts from Louis de Montfort in context so I can understand the question better. I browsed through my copy and couldn’t find them. What chapters, etc.?
 
PhilotheaZ said:
Yes, absolutely. I wanted to respond to OP’s question, but I would like to see the questionable parts from Louis de Montfort in context so I can understand the question better. I browsed through my copy and couldn’t find them. What chapters, etc.?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think he’s right, at least in part. I do recall reading those things, but the wording might be a little different. I do not think St. Louis is contradicting himself, but it does need clarification.
 
fin said:
For those of you who have read this book, Louis said that the devotion he talks about is not new. yet he also mentioned in the book that the devotion he’s about to unfold was something that he didn’t read or talk about with intelligent people around him so far.
so which is which?
any ideas?
Click to expand...
Any understanding of what St. Louis means requires understanding the devotion.

The devotion does not involve special prayers to Mary, special rites for Mary, or any of that. It’s about living one’s entire life dedicated to Christ in the person of Mary - who is the fullness of grace, faith, hope, and love.

St. Louis states that the true devotion means reflecting on how Mary would act in certain situations. For instance, an elderly woman crashes into the back of your car. How do react? St. Louis calls us to act in the spirit of Mary for the love of Christ.

He says this devotion isn’t new because Mary, who is the personification of grace, is needed to approach God. Again, if Mary is full of grace, then her entire will is also the will of God; if her entire will is the will of God, due to grace, then any action we make relying on her intercession, or acting in her part will only please God.

Essentially, the theology of the devotion has been around since the beginning. Practically, as St. Louis will state, even if we don’t realize it, Mary delivers all our prayers to God (again, due to her fullness of grace).

St. Louis can also state that he has not discussed this devotion with more intelligent types (like the Jansenists during his day) because such groups try to eliminate Mary from the equation, failing to see that God imbued her with grace, made her the holiest of all vessels for His Son, etc. The more intelligent types would rather see salvation as a matter of pure theology (aided by grace) and not aided by Mary.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks for the references, fin. That helped a lot; I was able to find them in my copy.

When St. Louis de Montfort wrote in section 159 ff. that “the practice which I am teaching is not new,” he was attempting to put it into historical context and demonstrate that many respected Christians (including well-known saints, royalty, priests, theologians, popes, and religious of various orders) throughout history (for more that 700 years prior to Louis de Montfort’s writing in the early 1700s) had consecrated themselves to Mary, written about it, or expressed approval of this kind of devotion. He gives this history to make us comfortable that the devotion is reliable and trustworthy, not some crazy, new-fangled idea he had just come up with.

When St. Louis wrote in section 118 that “having read nearly all the books which profess to treat of devotion to Our Lady, and having conversed familiarly with the best and wisest of men of these latter times, I have never known nor heard of any practice of devotion toward her at all equal to the one which I now wish to unfold,” he is leading us to the idea that not just any practice of devotion to Mary is enough; he desires us to practice it perfectly. He believes that his method — total consecration — goes further than most devotions to Mary in that it is more demanding of sacrifice, and as a result, gives more glory to God and does more to sanctify our souls and benefit our neighbors.

I am guessing that none of his predecessors who practiced Marian consecration laid it out in quite the same comprehensive way as he was doing in True Devotion to Mary.
 
Please forgive my ignorance in this comment. Maybe you all could shed some light for me. I love the Blessed Virgin Mary and am quite devoted to her, but when I read St. Louis de Monfort’s book, I felt uncomfortable because he had such praise for her that I felt should only belong to God. I was so uncomfortable I had to stop reading the book. It sounded like worship to me. And I know that is not true. Can you shed any light for me. I would like to try reading it again if I had a better understanding (I am definitely not a theologian, so please don’t use big words :-)). Thanks for your help.

Carmel
 
CarmelG said:
Please forgive my ignorance in this comment. Maybe you all could shed some light for me. I love the Blessed Virgin Mary and am quite devoted to her, but when I read St. Louis de Monfort’s book, I felt uncomfortable because he had such praise for her that I felt should only belong to God. I was so uncomfortable I had to stop reading the book. It sounded like worship to me. And I know that is not true. Can you shed any light for me. I would like to try reading it again if I had a better understanding (I am definitely not a theologian, so please don’t use big words :-)). Thanks for your help.

Carmel
Click to expand...
The concept is that to be perfectly united with Mary, is to be perfectly united with our Lord. (…because she was perfectly united with Him.)

As a former Evangelical Protestant, I understand your concern; however, in several placed within the book, St. Louis says things like, “but He is infinitely worth more… Mary is but a mere creature” Yada Yada… (how’s that for theological terminology?)

Anyhow, your concern is fair, but unwarranted in light of Catholic theology. As we become closer with our spiritual mother, we will inevitably become closer with our dear Lord.

The language St. Louis uses is very direct and forceful, and could potentially appear to be a contradiction in some places. That being said, I accept the practice in principle, but I still have some concerns and reservations.

As a Catholic, you are not obliged to accept True Devotion as gospel, though many Saints and Church leaders probably do.
 
CarmelG said:
I love the Blessed Virgin Mary and am quite devoted to her, but when I read St. Louis de Monfort’s book, I felt uncomfortable because he had such praise for her that I felt should only belong to God. I was so uncomfortable I had to stop reading the book. It sounded like worship to me. And I know that is not true. Can you shed any light for me.
Click to expand...
I had some of the same concerns when I began reading the book, but I plugged along and asked questions (as you are doing now).

One thing to be aware of is the difference in linguistic style.

First, Louis de Montfort did not write in English, and any translation is likely to be imperfect in conveying the exact nuances of what he was trying to say.

Also, he wrote in a different day and age when language was a little more flowery, had a little more dramatic effect. What may seem “exaggerated” to us was probably taken as normal for the reader of his time.

The use of specific words may be different from what we are accustomed to. For example, I balked at St. Louis’s use of the word “divine” (section 6, where he referred to her as “the divine Mary”). I found the footnotes helpful in cases like this:

“… the word ‘divine’ may be used without attributing the nature of divinity to the person or thing thus qualified. We speak of our own prayers, whether addressed to God or to His saints, as a ‘divine service.’ The Psalmist speaks of us all as being gods and sons of the the Most High; and yet no one takes offense, because the sense given to the words uttered is understood. Mary may be called ‘divine’ because divinely chosen for the divine office of Mother” of a divine person, Jesus Christ.
Another thing to keep in mind: the beauty and greatness of the creature (Mary) does not detract from the greatness of the Creator (God). On the contrary, her greatness always points to the surpassing greatness of her Creator. (“My soul magnifies the Lord,” she says in her Magnificat.) After all, only a truly amazing God could have created such a wonderful creature! Think of a king surrounded by fabulous servants. They do not make us think the king is less important, but rather more important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top