Why should I trust Louis de Montfort?

[losh14]

Most of you are familiar with his writings - “The Secret of Mary” and “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin” and others like it. I personally have much difficulty with them, but that aside i want to ask an open-minded question - what are the reasons why I should accept his writings? I ask this as an open question and will try to refrain from arguing except to understand more fully the reasons.

To my knowledge, he received no vision, no apparition, and makes no note of special revelation to guide his writings. Yet he calls many of them things that were kept secret until the time of his writing in the 17th century. Some of what he writes builds upon earlier Marian saints, but some is certainly new writing if not new teaching.

This is distinct because other Marian devotions have known sources - the Rosary was received from an apparition, the cloak of Juan Diego is evidence of Guadalupe - but Montfort reveals secrets without giving reason as to their origin - did he derive them on his own or pass on what was given him?

Clearly his writings have been trusted in the time since by no less than John Paul II, but why are they deemed trustworthy?

Also, while Montfort’s writings have received imprimatur, these are dated in the 20th century. Are these only most recent imprimatur for each subsequent edition or translation, or did his writings not receive (or were not submitted for) the imprimatur until the 20th century?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I believe the devotion and consecration described by St. Louis de Montfort was also promoted and/or made by Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Ven. Pius XII. And don’t forget that St. Louis de Montfort has been set before us by the Church as a model of sanctity. It’s hard for me to imagine accepting him as a saint while rejecting this devotion which was clearly so important to him.

Also, St. Louis de Montfort allegedly correctly predicted the period of obscurity which his book would go through, which may suggest he received more private revelation than he wrote about specifically.

And of course, as you mentioned, there is a basis in the Marian devotion of earlier saints, such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Bernardine of Siena (as I recall). Not only that, but St. Louis seems to very much see what he describes as being already a received part of the Church’s life and as being implied by the very basics of the Christian faith. Consider this passage, where the bookmark in my copy of True Devotion to Mary just happened to be:

"163. We may also see in Fr. Boudon’s book the different Popes who have approved this devotion, the theologians who have examined it, the persecutions it has undergone and has overcome, and the thousands of persons who have embrased it, without any Pope ever condemning it. Indeed, we cannot see how it could be condemned without overturning the foundations of Christianity.

It is clear, then, that this devotion is not new; and that if it is not common, that is because it is too precious to be relished and practiced by everyone."

Anyway, why should a devotion have to be based in private revelation if it is beautiful, generous, and orthodox, as in my opinion and apparently that of the Church this one is?

 

[TimothyH]

We can’t look only at his writings. We have to look at his whole life. His writings and spirituality are only correctly understood when they are situated within the context of his whole life.

St. Louis de Montfort began studying for the priesthood at eleven and studied sixteen years to get there, saying his first Mass in 1700.

De Montfort walked from Poitiers in Western France to the Vatican, begging for food and shelter along the way. He met with Clement XI in 1706 and poured out his heart to the Holy Father about wanting to become a missionary and work with the poor.

Clement XI stated later that in that meeting he had seen extraordinary gifts of God in the man. De Montfort had asked to be sent to the wilds of Canada or Far East but the Holy Father instead named him Apostolic Missionary and told him to return to France and renew the Church by preaching a renewal of baptismal promises and consecration to the Eternal and Incarnate Wisdom, Jesus, the Son of Mary. Montfort then walked back to France.

He was a vagabond preacher with a Bible, breviary, a few notebooks and some clothes as posessions. He conducted over 200 retreats and missions in his career. He preached boldly about God’s love not only in Churches, but in town squares, barracks and even houses of prostittion.

He was a great champion of the poor. There is an event recorded where he picked up a dying, leperous beggar, carried him to the nearest religious house and yelled, “Open up to Jesus Christ!” The poor took up a collection for him one year to buy him some warm clothes. They called him “One of our own.” People referred to him as "The Father with the big rosary.

Jansenism was rampant in France at the time. The Jansenists harshly stressed the distance between God and man, almost Calvinist, and de Montfort brought thousands of them back to the true faith, even going so far in his insistence on God’s love for us as to recommend daily communion. Bishops used to throw him out of their territory because of the rukus he used to create, but he was always at peace and belived that all should be left to the providence of God.

He spent a total of four years of his life, on and off, in a cave at Mont Saint-Micheal, living as a hermit and spent months in solitude walking from France to Rome. We don’t know that he did not recieve visions, but he did retreat from the world often for extended times of solitude and prayer.

He was only 43 when he died, worn out from a life of poverty by choice and even from attempts on his life. The man was clearly a mystic and just because there are no records of apparitions or visions doesn’t mean that he wasn’t deeply infused with the Holy Spirit for much of his life. The Pope clearly saw something special in the man.

-Tim-

 

[robwar]

Most of you are familiar with his writings - “The Secret of Mary” and “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin” and others like it. I personally have much difficulty with them, but that aside i want to ask an open-minded question - what are the reasons why I should accept his writings? I ask this as an open question and will try to refrain from arguing except to understand more fully the reasons.

To my knowledge, he received no vision, no apparition, and makes no note of special revelation to guide his writings. Yet he calls many of them things that were kept secret until the time of his writing in the 17th century. Some of what he writes builds upon earlier Marian saints, but some is certainly new writing if not new teaching.

This is distinct because other Marian devotions have known sources - the Rosary was received from an apparition, the cloak of Juan Diego is evidence of Guadalupe - but Montfort reveals secrets without giving reason as to their origin - did he derive them on his own or pass on what was given him?

Clearly his writings have been trusted in the time since by no less than John Paul II, but why are they deemed trustworthy?

Also, while Montfort’s writings have received imprimatur, these are dated in the 20th century. Are these only most recent imprimatur for each subsequent edition or translation, or did his writings not receive (or were not submitted for) the imprimatur until the 20th century?

JP II based his motto on him Totus Tuus, or totally yours. St. Montfort greatly influenced him. To understand him as a non Catholic, you first probably need to understand what the church teaches about Mary. the book by him can be summed up in the first part of Chapter 2 which is the first principle is that “Christ must be the ultimate end of all devotions”. It is a beautiful book, very deep and takes time to understand and apply. St. Montfort hopefully will become a Dr. of the Church. St. Montfort quotes St. Bernard who also had a major devotion to Mary. Read his book on Loving God as well.
If you are wondering where is the Bible is all of this, ponder the point that Jesus very first “miracle” at Cana was at the request of Mary. This is the starting point of her intercessory role. True devotion to Mary leads us to Jesus. She is not the end but the quickest path to Jesus. St. Maximillan Kolbe likewise had a strong devotion to Mary, the Immaculata. His devotion lead him to sacrifice his own life in order that another would live. If you just look at the lives of those who have strong devotions to Mary which leads them to Jesus you will see incredible self sacrifice, holiness and character that goes above and beyond.
Everything Mary did was for Jesus. She is our ultimate example to follow to come to Jesus.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, he is a saint so I think is one reason to trust his writings.

 

[robwar]

Reading his books as a protestant with your background will be difficult. It probably would be better to read and understand what the church teaches about Mary first. God bless you on your study. Keep in mind what true devotion is all about. Not everything is about Mary has to come from visions and it seems like St. Montfort writings came from deep study and prayer.

 

[Hokomai]

Most of you are familiar with his writings - “The Secret of Mary” and “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin” and others like it. I personally have much difficulty with them, but that aside i want to ask an open-minded question - what are the reasons why I should accept his writings? I ask this as an open question and will try to refrain from arguing except to understand more fully the reasons.

To my knowledge, he received no vision, no apparition, and makes no note of special revelation to guide his writings. Yet he calls many of them things that were kept secret until the time of his writing in the 17th century. Some of what he writes builds upon earlier Marian saints, but some is certainly new writing if not new teaching.

This is distinct because other Marian devotions have known sources - the Rosary was received from an apparition, the cloak of Juan Diego is evidence of Guadalupe - but Montfort reveals secrets without giving reason as to their origin - did he derive them on his own or pass on what was given him?

Clearly his writings have been trusted in the time since by no less than John Paul II, but why are they deemed trustworthy?

Also, while Montfort’s writings have received imprimatur, these are dated in the 20th century. Are these only most recent imprimatur for each subsequent edition or translation, or did his writings not receive (or were not submitted for) the imprimatur until the 20th century?

Well, speaking as one who does not see any evidence for apparitions, or, for that matter, in revelation: it makes it more likely, not less, that the statements by de Montfort are correct that he claimed no particular event as their source. Had he been seeking to deceive, he would surely have claimed such things. That he did not do so can be taken as evidence of genuine belief on his part. Of course, I see nothing to suggest that he was in any way inspired by anyone. But logic would suggest that someone who makes no recourse to accounts of very unusual experiences is more likely (but not certainly) to be honest than one who does recount such experiences.

 

[Hesychios]

He spent a total of four years of his life, on and off, in a cave at Mont Saint-Micheal, living as a hermit and spent months in solitude walking from France to Rome.

Hi Tim,

Which Mont Saint-Micheal are you talking about here?

Pax

 

[TimothyH]

Hi Tim,

Which Mont Saint-Micheal are you talking about here?

Pax

I’m sorry. I misread the text from which I was drawing and condensing.

It does say that he spent time at the cave of Mervent, but not that he spent four years total at the cave alone. He also spent time at the hermitage of Saint Lazaruse near the villarge of Montfort, at the hermatige of Saint Eloi in La Rochelle, and at Mont Saint-Michel and various Jesuit houses. He was a friend of the Jesuits because they fought the Jansenists.

I have no idea where those places are but want to be clear that I misread the locations as having been a cave exclusively. It was not exclusively a cave at Mont Saint-Michel. In fact, I mistyped the name as Mont Saint-Michael. It says Michel in my book, not Michael.

The point is that he did retire from the world at times.

-Tim-

 

[asia53]

Hi Tim,

Which Mont Saint-Micheal are you talking about here?

Pax

I believe, Tim is talking about Mont Saint-Michel in northern France. The pope refused his request to be a missionary in the wilds of Canada, or the Far East. As far as I know, St Louis de Montfort never left Europe.

 

[De_Montfort]

St. Louis de Montfort lived among the poor his whole life. On one of His travels he lived in a closet like space underneath a stair well were he prayed for weeks at a time.

Not only did he battle Jansenists he also had to deal with Calvinists. And as far as I understand it and have read, the Calvinists tried to poision him, which almost killed him, but he recovered but not fully. In the end it finally took his life.

He started “The Company of Mary” and the “Daughters of Wisdom” with only a few members each when he passed away. Now both of them are in the thousands.

St. Louis de Montforts own bishop made things hard for him since it is said the Jansenists influenced the bishop. St. Louis de Montfort had a very rough life.

 

[losh14]

Quick thought - I’ll reply more thoughtfully when I’ve time - does Father Boudon’s book still exist? Also Father Poir’s “The Triple Crown of the Blessed Virgin”, which Montfort cites as having numerous proofs of what he presents (though he lamentably copies none of them).

 

[Hesychios]

I believe, Tim is talking about Mont Saint-Michel in northern France.

I knew it couldn’t be that.

But the issue has cleared up, so it does not matter.

 

[Hesychios]

Quick thought - I’ll reply more thoughtfully when I’ve time - does Father Boudon’s book still exist?

Looks like it, if the author is Henri Marie Boudon, but if that is the case I am not sure which book is the one you will need …

… Also Father Poir’s “The Triple Crown of the Blessed Virgin”, which Montfort cites as having numerous proofs of what he presents (though he lamentably copies none of them).

I cannot find any reference to such a book anywhere.

Perhaps it is still available in French, but I would think devotees would have sought it out long ago. TAN books would certainly publish a translation if the work has legs.

 

[ready]

You should trust St. Louis de Montfort because he is extremely holy and wise - he is a Saint. He is even a candidate to become a Doctor of the Church, which says a lot about the depth and power of his teachings. His Marian wisdom comes from our Lord, not merely from himself. Doctors of the Church have great wisdom and their teachings aren’t your average teachings. Peace!

 

[Hesychios]

He is even a candidate to become a Doctor of the Church, …

How does one become a candidate for that?

Is there a petition drive, or nominating procedure?

If you can, please list the relevant canons which explain all this, and what part of the process has been completed.

Thanks

 

[TimothyH]

How does one become a candidate for that?

Is there a petition drive, or nominating procedure?

If you can, please list the relevant canons which explain all this, and what part of the process has been completed.

Thanks

Here is the procedure:

Step 1: The Holy Father says, “Hesychios is a Doctor of the Church.”
Step 2: There is no step 2

Here is the relevant canon.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19-19)



-Tim-

 

[MikeDunphy]

Also Father Poir’s “The Triple Crown of the Blessed Virgin”, which Montfort cites as having numerous proofs of what he presents (though he lamentably copies none of them).

I think that Fr. Poire’s book is available online (in French) here, and a paper copy of part of the book (also in French) is for sale here and here.

 

[in_servitude]

I’m a convert. Raised protestant, converted after 17 years of marriage to my Catholic wife (married in the Catholic Church, however).

I presume you are talking about taking the step of “Total Consecration to Mary.”

I did that - about 3 months ago. Going through it was a challenge. Yet, all of the promises have been happening in my life. I’m able to see my sins with great clarity now. Mary does actually bring us closer to her Son, our Lord, our Savior. While I’ve experienced discomfort in the process, the results are rewarding.

The process is a challenge because protestants close themselves off from sources of aid. This, I believe, is one of the best outcomes that Satan could hope for. So, I encourage your “Total Consecration to Mary” so that you too can take down the barriers erected by Satan.

 

[jwinch2]

Well, he is a saint so I think is one reason to trust his writings.

I understand what you are saying Holly, but I think we have to be a bit careful.

To my understanding, the most we can say with confidence regarding one who has been canonized is that he/she achieved a level personal holiness by the end of their life that we are secure in the fact that they are experiencing the beatific vision in Heaven with our blessed Lord.

However, canonization does not mean that a person’s writings are now automatically to be taken as accurate or truthful, let alone as part of the deposit of faith. As I am sure you are well aware, many saints taught things which were later condemned as heresy or at the least, which have not been adopted as part of the deposit of faith. I am not necessarily suggesting that de Montfort’s teachings will someday fall into this category, merely illustrating a point.

I am confident that you know all of this so my comments are really more of a preventive for others who might be confused by your original statement.

Peace of Christ,