Turning over a new leaf on Marian devotion

[mathematoons]

This is a very hard post for me to make, but I think it is the right thing to do after some harsh, angry posts I made:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=740725
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=741676
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602118&page=33
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=730498&page=29
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=740257&page=2

In short, I criticized Marian devotion as idolatry and encouraged others to do so. I still think some of it goes over the top (St. Louis de Montfort is still an enormous stumbling block), but instead of criticizing such devotions, I will simply stay away from them. I apologize to anyone whose feelings I hurt with what I said.

For about four months, after I overdid Marian devotion (which I did after I overcame the temptation to join a Baptist church… Long story there), I came to the conclusion that the only solution was to eschew it altogether. Now, that was probably the right thing for me to do on a temporary basis; since Marian devotion wasn’t leading me to Jesus, but only to Mary, maybe it was the right thing to do. After all, that time away from Mary brought me closer to Jesus. But Lent also brought me closer to Him; that doesn’t mean it needs to last a long time.

That’s right, the guy who complained about other people’s Marian devotion is getting back into it himself. Feel free to gloat and say, “I told you so,” because you all told me so. I’m doing rosaries, taking comfort in Mary’s embrace, and imitating her virtues (which is a huge step because I’m a man).

What happened, you ask? While I was typing a URL on Thursday, my browser suggested the following page (on the list of URLs it suggests) I hadn’t seen since I researched the topic of Marian devotion back in December:

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55781&sid=ae6dfa06b680102040875b5f301b4bf5

Back in December, I didn’t read very far into this, because I dismissed this as no more than opinions by people who knew nothing (talk about pride). But this time, I decided to read the thread in its entirety. Here are the statements that got me thinking:

Yes, that is my difficulty, but I assumed that this was the proper place to ask about it? I have difficulty believing that, though my personal methods of devotion, that if I petition Jesus for anything, that he would say “No, no, you have to go through my mom/St. Frances/ etc first.” I want to know if knowing, respecting, and honoring the role that Mary prayed in Christ’s life is considered devotion. The reason why I ask is because when I petition Mary and to the Saints for prayers, I feel more separated from Christ, not closer.

Well, first of all, I can’t help but notice your use of the word ‘feel’, one thing you need to know is that, in general, and in particular in the spiritual life, while feelings may matter, they aren’t central, and they can be very misleading.

Saying that you ‘feel’ something, does not make it reality. That you ‘feel’ a particular does not mean that the feeling is actually accurate or truthful, sometimes our feelings lie to us. Sometimes, we can be led to trust someone that we shouldn’t, because we ‘feel’ a certain way. Don’t be led by your feelings, sometimes, in fact often, they lie to you.

I preach this all the time, but somehow, I thought the fact that I felt that Marian devotion separated me from Jesus made it so.

No specific devotion is binding, but I think that a general devotion to Mary of some kind is mandatory for all Catholics, i.e. you can’t be a Catholic and just totally ignore Mary, if you do, you will stumble somewhere along the way.

I agree. Because of what the Church teaches us about Mary, a certain attitude and honor of Her should naturally follow. If it doesn’t…there is most likely a problem somewhere.

In an analogous case, a certain attitude and devotion should follow from what the Church teaches on the Eucharist. If it doesn’t, there is most likely a problem somewhere.

Since I have this “certain attitude and devotion” to the Eucharist, this made sense.

Council of Nicea II: Proper Respect for the Mother of God

…

1. If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, let him be anathema!

The Second Council of Nicea, 787

I wondered if it was true that anyone who didn’t pray to Mary was anathema, and then the thought came to me: Even if that’s not true, is it so wise to adamantly refuse Marian devotion over a matter of feeling?

Then the answer came:

Off the cuff, I would say whatever is necessary to show due respect to her role in God’s plan of salvation. I’m afraid this is another one of those things where the absolute minimum is hard to pin down. But then, shooting for the minimum is dangerous anyhow–it doesn’t leave much room for error.

This is something I preach a lot too. People will say, “But X is not a sin,” where X is any act that the Church has not explicitly condemned but follows from one or more teachings, and I say, “Smoking isn’t a sin; that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.”

 

[mathematoons]

So, I have abandoned this foolishness of no Marian devotion. To anyone else considering refusing devotion to Mary, I have this additional argument, which came to me while I was praying about the issue:

The saints and popes throughout Church history had a strong devotion to Mary. To refuse to go their way is to say with your actions that you know more than they do. You may feel closer to Jesus, but is it worth the pride that must necessarily come from straying from what’s traditional and doing your own thing? I had a hard time finding anything Catholic that did not have some kind of devotion to Mary. During those four months, I refused to have anything to do with anything that did. So I kept dealing with temptations to think the Catholic Church was simply wrong in its devotion to Mary, and that maybe the Protestants were right after all. Thus I willingly entered into an occasion of sin. Refusing Marian devotion may or may not be sin, but it leads to sin.

In short: you can be Catholic and not have devotion to Mary, but it can’t last. Either you will repent from such foolishness by the grace of God and get back to Marian devotion, or you will get so fed up with Marian devotion among Catholics that you will contemplate leaving the Church and maybe even go through with it.

Now, while I left the forum over this issue, this doesn’t mean I’m going to be posting much. Looking back, I can see that I was being influenced by threads like this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602118

But this helps me see that I shouldn’t have read such a thread in the first place. So I won’t be coming to CAF much (though I will read your answers to this, of course). I’m too weak and too easily tempted. Let that be a warning to those who think they can read anything without problems.

 

[ready]

Thanks be to God, you’ve got back your Marian devotion! Remember, St. Louis de Montfort is a holy Saint – not just some quack who doesn’t speak the truth. If he did not speak 100% truth on things pertaining to God and our holy Faith, the Church would not have declared him a saint. Keep up your devotion to Our Lady, my friend; it is the best thing you have going for you.

 

[Ophelia23]

Nobody is going to say ‘I told you so’. I would imagine most of us will say this: you are so blessed on this journey and your humility is admirable. Pray for me, and I for you!

 

[R_C]

Dear mathematoons, thanks for this wonderful testimony. We can see your struggle, some of us can relate to it, and your humbleness is very edifying. And especially this comes as a truly wise and prudent advice:

Let that be a warning to those who think they can read anything without problems.

 

[De_Montfort]

mathematoons I also thank you for your humble and honest post. God bless you, and you are in my prayers.

 

[mathematoons]

You’ll all be happy to know that I found a copy of True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort and have started reading it with an open mind. Instead of dismissing anything I don’t agree with right away, I will simply ask my priest about any confusing passages.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As an ex-Protestant, I sometimes find some Catholic traditions are a bit over the top. I doubt vfery much I’ll be considering a “scapular” for example.

Now while I haven’t been much of a Marion devotee (old Protestant habits die hard), I think she is “Biblical” and in fact I think Revelation 12 refers specifically to her - “A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…etc.”

She’s been turning up at Lourdes, Fatima, Akita and other places and each time bearing messages, accompanied with miracles (Fatima involved two miracles - the dancing sun, and also the sudden drying of ground and clothes after hours of rain, to the point where scientists have calculated the energy required was of the order of a ten megaton nuclear bomb).

Therefore she’s certainly got an important role.

In fact, my old PROTESTANT pastor commented “there’s been a lot of them” (Marian apparitions) and that he thought “I think they’re a judgement on a divided church”.

And he was a Protestant.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks be to God, you’ve got back your Marian devotion! Remember, St. Louis de Montfort is a holy Saint – not just some quack who doesn’t speak the truth. If he did not speak 100% truth on things pertaining to God and our holy Faith, the Church would not have declared him a saint. Keep up your devotion to Our Lady, my friend; it is the best thing you have going for you.

Be careful - the sainted Doctor of the Church St Augustine denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Arguably Sts Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Siena, two other sainted Doctors, did also.

A Saint is someone who lived a holy life and set a heroic moral example. Not someone who had their theological ducks all in a row, nor a mini-Pope gifted with infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

All the Old Testament prophets - who never even knew the name of Christ - were saved and are Saints as well.

 

[R_C]

As an ex-Protestant, I sometimes find some Catholic traditions are a bit over the top. I doubt very much I’ll be considering a “scapular” for example.

You mean a devotion that is 800 years old, 3 centuries before protestantism was even thought of?

Now while I haven’t been much of a Marian devotee (old Protestant habits die hard), I think she is “Biblical” and in fact I think Revelation 12 refers specifically to her - “A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…etc.”

Yes, both Genesis and Revelation speak of her as the Woman who fights the devil and with whom the devil is enraged. Both describe us as the children or offspring of the Woman along with the Son who was to reign forever and was caught up to the throne of God. Both speak of the devil as enraged to her offspring, and other parts of Scripture say that "rather than her fathers, she will make her offspring.

In Psalm 45 the Holy Spirit, her Spouse, being profoundly romantic, so speaks of her and to her:

The bride, a princess, looks glorious in her golden gown. In embroidered garments she is presented to the king. In embroidered garments she is led to the king; her virgin companions follow her-- those brought to be with her.

What a joyful and enthusiastic procession as they enter the king’s palace!

In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth.

I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.

Notice well how the Holy Spirit speaks: he will perpetuate her memory so that the nations will praise her, but it is she who will make her offspring princes.

Perhaps some of the grave and yet seemingly truthful errors that so-called “protestantism” collected from the past are still around despite your decision to enter full communion with Holy Church. We don’t teach anything different from what Scripture and the Church Fathers taught.

She’s been turning up at Lourdes, Fatima, Akita and other places and each time bearing messages, accompanied with miracles (Fatima involved two miracles - the dancing sun, and also the sudden drying of ground and clothes after hours of rain, to the point where scientists have calculated the energy required was of the order of a ten megaton nuclear bomb).

Therefore she’s certainly got an important role.

In fact, my old PROTESTANT pastor commented “there’s been a lot of them” (Marian apparitions) and that he thought “I think they’re a judgement on a divided church”.

And he was a Protestant.

Wonderful. Indeed, there are at least 9 approved Marian apparitions, and many more private revelations throughout the centuries in which some of the friends of Christ were chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the Good News or simply to direct them towards their sanctification and in the work of redemption of souls that Christ continues to carry out through His living members.

Another protestant, Martin Luther, said or wrote on separate occasions:

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great.

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough.

 

[R_C]

Be careful - the sainted Doctor of the Church St Augustine denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Arguably Sts Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Siena, two other sainted Doctors, did also.

A Saint is someone who lived a holy life and set a heroic moral example. Not someone who had their theological ducks all in a row, nor a mini-Pope gifted with infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

All the Old Testament prophets - who never even knew the name of Christ - were saved and are Saints as well.

As far as I know, St. Augustine never denied the Immaculate Conception. Addressing the statement of the heretic Pelagius that there were many saints who lived a perfectly moral life - the question is about conduct and not conception - he states:

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.

But he also states:

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin

With St. Thomas of Aquinas, things are also different. In the Summa (ST III, q.27, a.1-2), fighting against the false idea of some who held that since Mary was conceived without sin then she did not need to be redeemed by the merits of Christ, St. Thomas refuses to commit himself to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The impression he and many other theologians had was that if Mary was conceived without sin, then she would not need a Redeemer. However, we know by faith that Mary was indeed redeemed by Christ, therefore, it seemed to St. Thomas that she could not have been conceived immaculate (even though he states that she was cleansed from sin shortly after conception and while yet in the womb, holding that her sanctification was preeminent and singular).

The error in St. Thomas’ consideration of the Immaculate Conception stems from a mistaken understanding of the process of generation and the formation of the child in the womb. St. Thomas (together with others) believed that the body was conceived before the rational soul was created. Hence, his main argument is to prove that our Lady could not have been sanctified before the creation and infusion of her rational soul – and this we can still hold today, Mary was not sanctified before her animation because she was not immaculately conceived before her conception. However, St. Thomas errs when he goes further and states that Mary was sanctified after her conception – for she was, in fact sanctified in the moment of her conception. Still, even here, St. Thomas’ main point is to show that Mary incurred the *debt *of original sin (which is correct), though he mistakenly also gave her the *stain *of original sin as well (which is incorrect).

Regarding s. Catherine of Siena, she affirmed that in Her Conception the Holy Virgin participated in original sin, concerning which she had received a revelation from Christ Himself. I have not read her exact words, but it would seem to be similar to what we described above: Our Lady “participated in original sin” (“participated” being rather vague) inasmuch as she did contract the debt that required the redemptive work of Christ - she needed a redeemer - but did not participate as in receiving the stain of original sin. Our Lord could not have told this to any of his mystics, because He would be contradicting Himself and Our Lady in the way they spoke privately to others, as well as Scripture itself (which proclaims that she had no stain from original sin) and the Church Fathers, too.

Origen speaks of “this Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate”; Hippolytus wisely refers to the Ark formed of incorruptible wood, and affirms: “by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption”; Ephraim the Syrian says: “there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother”; Ambrose prays: “Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin”. Certainly, neither St. Augustine, nor St. Thomas Aquinas, nor any other of our great Doctors wished to contradict what was already in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

As for the Old Testament prophets: Abraham (and we can presume, many many others before him) was justified by faith before circumcision was given, and when it was given, it became (in the words of S. Thomas) a figure of baptism, a Sacrament that was to take away original sin, in fact remitting both original sin and actual sins, but ex opere operantis. It was “a sign of the covenant”, and "grace was bestowed in circumcision, as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ’s future Passion. So nobody was saved without Christ - Christ is Salvation itself, and through Him are saved many many others throughout time who in fact did not/do not know Scripture and did not/do not know Christ due to invincible ignorance.