www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Louis Marie de Montfort's thinking

I attended a retreat led by a Latin priest this past weekend where he used St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort's dicta, "To Jesus through Mary." It frankly made me uncomfortable because the priest said the only way to get to Jesus is through Mary, using practically the same language the Bible uses about getting to God the Father.

It almost smacks to me of heresy. Is there any way to reconcile it with Eastern thinking or of Orthodox Mariology? Marian maximalism makes me extremely uncomfortable. Perhaps it is my Lutheran upbringing. My Roman Catholic female friend always tells me to "give it to Mary."

I find the Eastern approach to Mary far more acceptable to my ears. I'd appreciate any advice or thoughts.

John,

I think that this topic is always a little bit challenging because of the language "to Jesus through Mary". On a surface level, it sounds like Mary is somehow being artificially inserted in-between Jesus and ourselves.

I think one has to understand the Orthodox-Catholic perspective on secondary mediation, which is the basis for our ecclesiology, the sacramental economy and our understanding of redemption as a whole. To say that we go to Jesus through the Church does not seem unreasonable. The Church stands as the matrix or maternal womb of our salvation. Mary is the image of the Church, and through her the Author of Grace entered this world and took flesh. Her position of Maternal mediation as Theotokos does not end with her Dormition and Assumption into heaven. Rather, it is glorified and perfected.

This is one of the reasons why I appreciate so much the icons of Pentecost that have the Mother of God at the center. The Lucan symmetry is made even more abundantly clear - Mary is the Mother of Jesus when she is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation by the Archangel Gabriel in Nazareth. Mary is made Mother of the Church (the Body of Christ) when she is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit along with the Apostles and the disciples in the Upper Room in Jerusalem after the annunciation of Jesus' return at the Ascension.

Her maternal role as advocate and intercessor continues and this is beautifully expounded upon in the Dormition homilies/encomia of Sts. John of Damascus, Germanus of Constantinople and Andrew of Crete.

The Byzantine (Greek and Slavic) and Syriac East have developed a marvellous - and quite balanced - approach to Mary's maternal mediation. I believe Vatican II borrowed heavily, under the influence of the Melkite Patriarchate, from the East's Mariology. Problems in Latin devotionalism have arisen primarily when Mary is seemingly removed from both her Christological and ecclesiological contexts.

If you want to hear possibly the best exposition of the rationale (from a Latin perspective) for "to Jesus through Mary", I would recommend de Montfort's True Devotion. It is a relatively short work, but I think you can at least get the gist of the theological position.

St. John of Damascus possibly comes closest to the view of de Montfort in the area of radical entrustment to the Theotokos. We have had previous discussion on this board regarding the act of "Total Consecration".

For my part, I tend to think about "to Jesus through Mary" iconographically, as in the icon of Our Lady of the Sign.

Part of the issue may be understanding what it means practically to come "to Jesus through Mary". Essentially, it is an act of entrusting to her maternal care and protection our past, present and future - our whole being - in order to give ourselves more perfectly to Jesus Christ. That is the essence of St. John of Damascus's prayer.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I think that Mary is like the gate. Jesus came to the world throug Mary and in the same manner we go to Jesus through Mary.

Is that a good assessment?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I share a bit of your discomfort. This stuff runs in cycles on the forum, but you can count on Montfort, the rosary, and papal jurisdiction coming up on the forum nearly every other week or so. It seems to me that eastern spirituality and eastern marian theology are so rich and complete that there is no need to import from the west.

I had to chuckle about the cycle comment. You forgot Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception!

I agree - no need to "import" (which is why I love the prayer of St. John of Damascus). But I see nothing wrong with being informed.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Yeah...I can totally dig what you guys are feeling about (the discomfort, etc.).

The West seems so scrupulous when it comes to Mariology or even ANY theology. While the East seems to have more developed and mature understanding of Mary.

Many popes and Western Church Fathers have credited the East for their solid foundation and belief in Mary...and is more developed theologically.

So sometimes, I feel that being scrupulous is really a waste of energy and time. Life is too short to be too rigid about everything...let's enjoy G-d's gift to mankind from the Cross...His Mother.

It's funny...the other day...the Greek priest was giving a sermon about Mary...because of Dormition...he was saying how so many Catholics have taken a lot of beat and heat from many faiths for having devotion to Mary and that the Orthodox have more honor and love to Mary than the Romans and yet the Orthodox don't take as much of a heat from other faiths. He also mentioned that we need to support the Catholic who are putting up with the attacks on Mary.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane,

With all due respect to your priest, I completely disagree with his assessment here. I'm not even sure how he could quantify such a thing. How much is "more love" from one Church to the other? How do you determine this? To be sure, there are similarities and differences in the development of the Eastern and Western theologies of Mary, but I think it borders on arrogance to say that the Orthodox love Mary more or have a superior devotion to the Mother of God than the Latin Catholics do. It is one thing to be proud of ones Marian traditions. It is quite another to assert that "we love Mary more!"

And I would say the same to any Latin Catholic who breathed similar words against the Orthodox.

The fact that Protestants generally attack the West more on this issue has more to do with the history between Protestants and Latin Catholics, as well as their general ignorance of Eastern practices and devotion, than any virtue on the part of Orthodox theology and devotion over and above Latin Catholic theology and devotion. It may also have something to do with the fact that Latin Catholics by and large tend to be more "missionary" if you will about their devotion to the Theotokos, especially by letting others know about various devotional practices such as the Rosary and the Scapular.

I think there are elements that are praiseworthy in both traditions and I think that should be respected.

That being said, I will certainly be the first to criticize the Latins for, for instance, not embracing the doctrinal value of the Dormition of the Theotokos in their theology, liturgy and devotional practices. I also recognize that there are certain devotional excesses which merit criticism. So it is not that Latins (or Orthodox) are above all criticism. I just disagree with the attempt to measure "love" for Mary against each other.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

Hi. An excellent post. Not to mention that, in the "beginning" (i.e., 16th C.) the denial of Our Lady's role in the history of salvation became one of the rallying points for Protestantism against the "Papists".

But I didn't understand what you meant by this:

Could you expand a bit?

In Christ,
Michael

Sometimes, in my opinion, some Latin devotions to Mary border on superstition.

This is one of those atomic issues that can easily go nuclear. I'm going to try to express myself civilly without watering down my opinion, with respect to the idea that people can disagree on this topic.

I think that the Roman Church has, in effect, substituted devotion to Mary for devotion to the Holy Spirit as the way to unite people to Jesus. The idea, language, and devotion of "to Jesus through Mary" seems to indicate this as does the almost paltry references to the Holy Spirit in the Roman Liturgy and other devotions. Indeed, just the Roman paintings of her alone --without holding Jesus-- seem to depict her not only as "full of grace" but as a source of grace. I'm sure that is not what they are meaning to say, but that (to me) is what their saying means.

In contrast, the Eastern Church treats Mary as the Mother of God, the icon of Christians, and the spiritual mother of all -- but not as a substitute for the Holy Spirit. There is the Eastern Church's frequent emphasis on all the Persons of the Trinity throughout the Liturgy and other services, and there is the ubiquitous Eastern prayer to the Holy Spirit (Oh Heavenly King . . .), and there is the Eastern emphasis on theosis and acquiring the grace of the Holy Spirit. And, the Theotokos is almost always depicted in icons with Jesus.

Finally, I think the filioque had a role in diminishing the importance of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Church and leading to the overemphasis of Mary as a connection to Christ. After all, if the Holy Spirit is (in effect) a Divine by-product of the Father and the Son, why bother with Him ? Why worship Him and seek His grace ? But there is still a need for connection to Christ. Hence (it seems to me) the Roman Church developed an over emphasis on Mary, to bridge that gap.

I know that this view will come off as offensive to many Roman Catholics. I apologize to any who are offended; that is not my intent or desire. Please understand that I do not disrespect Mary, I do not disrespect devotion to Mary, and I do not disrespect people who are or have been devoted to Mary. However, please also understand that I think the Roman Church underemphasizes the Holy Spirit and it has grown to use devotion to Mary as (in effect) a substitute.

-- John

Let's play "Name that Saint". Who wrote the following?


I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a Latin.

Peace and God bless!

Michael,

Thanks for your comments.

I am referring to the fact that the Latin Church has not fully acknowledged or explored the theology of Mary's Dormition. When Pius XII defined the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950, he was very careful NOT to weigh in officially on the mortalist or the immortalist side of the debate. I believe this to be a mistake, since the Byzantine tradition, which has equal magisterial (I would even say dogmatic) value with the Latin tradition is very clearly mortalist.

So while their theology of the Assumption of Mary is developed, it is incomplete since it does not really understand the nature of her falling asleep, burial and resurrection which preceded it.

Does that help clarify?

In ICXC,

Gordo

John,

Certain Latins practice a devotionalism which I believe represents a form of unhealthy Marian excess, and which I believe you can rightly say borders on superstition. I would not personally place the De Montfortian writings in that category (when properly understood and practiced), although some do. In this category, you also have the "Apparition Chasers" (like "Storm Chasers") who go from place to place whenever a new purported Marian apparition in inner locution seems to occur. Everybody's waiting for the next Fatima Miracle of the Sun!

Then there is a very healthy, worthy Latin form of devotion to Mary which is quite inspiring when you see it. This to me was the type of devotion that defined the pontificate of Pope John Paul the Great, of blessed memory.

Personally, I prefer the Byzantine approach to devotion to the Mother of God, which I believe to be very balanced and liturgical. I have never personally witnessed any of the Marian excess in an Eastern context that I have in a Western/Latin context. That said, maybe I don't get around enough!

In ICXC,

Gordo

John,

Thank you for your post.

Naturally I disagree with some of your analysis here. I would see certain elements of Latin Marian devotion probably more rooted in Western European fuedalism and the ideals of chivalry. Mary came to embody the Royal and Holy Lady and Queen that tempered some of the Barbarian passion and elevated it to a noble ideal.

As to the Latin practice of iconography, there are many Eastern icons that I have seen of the Mother of God without Christ.

Also, much of the Latin theological understanding of Mary's role as Mediatrix can be traced back to the Syrian Fathers, usually a group of Fathers sadly unfamiliar to many Byzantines.

Also, recall that Arianism and its effects lasted far longer in the Barbarian West than it did in the East. Hence the perceived pastoral need for filioque. I also don't entirely subscribe to the Losskyan view that all theology issues between East and West subsequently developed from differences over the interpolation of the filioque into the Symbol. The filioque is not a form of subordinationism of the Holy Spirit, rather it is the West's way of explaining the Spirit's relation to the Son.

But part of your theory regarding Mary as a "substitute" for the Holy Spirit was also held by no less a theologian of Holy Tradition than Yves Congar, OP. So it is not that I do not believe that certain aspects of your views are without merit. I just don't believe it can be isolated as the sole cause for the different emphases that developed within the respective traditions, nor do I personally disapprove of all Latin doctrines and devotions to Mary.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

What specific evidence do you have that connects modern Mariological thought and devotion in the Latin Church to the Syrian Fathers?

God bless,
Todd