MARY FOR TODAY:

RENEWING MARIAN DEVOTION AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN

COUNCIL THROUGH ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT’S TRUE DEVOTION

TO MARY

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in Theological Studies

By

Mary Olivia Seeger, B.A.

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

Dayton, Ohio

August 2019

i MARY FOR TODAY:

RENEWING CATHOLIC MARIAN DEVOTION AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN

COUNCIL THROUGH ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT’S TRUE DEVOTION

TO MARY

Name: Seeger, Mary Olivia APPROVED BY:

Elizabeth Groppe, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor

Dennis Doyle, Ph.D. Reader

Naomi D. DeAnda, Ph.D. Reader

Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Department Chair

ii

© Copyright by

Mary Olivia Seeger

All rights reserved

2019

iii

ABSTRACT

MARY FOR TODAY:

RENEWING CATHOLIC MARIAN DEVOTION AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN

COUNCIL THROUGH ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT’S TRUE DEVOTION

TO MARY

Name: Seeger, Mary Olivia University of Dayton

Advisor: Dr. Elizabeth Groppe

The purpose and content of my thesis is to investigate and assess how St. Louis-

Marie de Montfort’s contributes to a renewal of Marian devotion in the Catholic after the . My thesis focuses on a close reading of the primary texts of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort (True Devotion to Mary), the

Second Vatican Council (, the Constitution on the Church), and St. John

Paul II (). As part of my theological method, I renewed my Marian and interviewed four other people who currently practice Marian devotion.

The character and limitations of my interview methodology did not allow me the resources or time to interview a large group of people on a sociological scale. Although diverse in age and gender, the persons I interviewed were small in number (4) and were selected by me rather than by a random sampling. The interviews gave an impression of how Marian devotion is understood and practiced by some in the today.

I interviewed the participants with the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and in conformity to their guidelines. My interviewees were all North Americans. Based on the interviews and my study of primary and secondary textual sources, I determined

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary is consistent with the type of

iv

Mariology articulated in eight of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater. All three sources emphasize the same theological criteria for true Marian devotion. According to the three sources, true Marian devotion should be ecclesial, soteriological, eschatological,

Christological, and Trinitarian. True Devotion to Mary meets all of these criteria.

v

Dedicated to my Heavenly Mother, Mary, who gives everything to her Son, .

And to my earthly mother, Stephanie, whose loving example made it easy to believe in a Heavenly Mother like Mary.

And in loving memory of Joseph P. Clayton, who was like a father to me. I would not be where I am today without his generosity and support.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of the wonderful people in my life. First, I am eternally grateful to my family. Their unconditional love has reminded me why I answered ’s call in the first place. In particular, my mother, Stephanie, has been my rock. She is one of the reasons why I applied to the University of Dayton. During the last two years, our long conversations on the telephone have been a source of comfort to me. I would not have been able to finish this degree without her constant words of encouragement. Another person I would like to thank is my dear friend, Hart, whose friendship gave me the confidence I needed to finish this thesis. I owe my title, Mary for Today, to him. I would also like to thank

Joseph P. Clayton and his family. I am indebted to their generosity and kindness. The

Mary Agnes Dugan Clayton scholarship I received while I was a student at Bellarmine

University allowed me to continue my studies and pursue a degree at the graduate level. I will always attribute my success to Joe, who was an impetus to my academic career. Although he has moved on to his heavenly resting place, I know he would be proud of this great accomplishment. Next, I would like to thank my faculty advisor, Dr. Elizabeth Groppe. Dr. Groppe was the first professor I worked with when I arrived at the University of Dayton. Her friendship has meant a lot to me. She was a tremendous help during my endless soul searching. Her professional insight and guidance ensured I remained focused amidst the long and arduous process of writing.

Despite the stress and doubt that comes with writing a thesis, Dr. Groppe helped me to believe in myself. I could not have finished my thesis without her. Lastly, I want to

vii thank God for giving me the Blessed Mary as my Mother. Without her and her

Spouse, the , I would have lost hope a long time ago. Their constant intercession brought me to this moment, and I am deeply humbled by their immense generosity, which gave me the wisdom to write these words and placed such caring people in my life to help me produce this piece of literature. I pray my work on the

Blessed Virgin Mary contributes in some small way to the Catholic Church’s effort to make Mary more loved and served so her son, Jesus , can be more loved and served in the world today.

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS

TD True Devotion to Mary

H Hymns, , The Collected Writings of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort

SR The Secret of the Holy , God Alone, The Collected Writings of St.

Louis-Marie de Montfort

LG Lumen Gentium, The Constitution on the Church

RM Redemptoris Mater

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS ...... ix

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER I A SAINT IS BORN OF MARY: ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT

AND TRUE DEVOTION TO MARY...... 5

Introduction ...... 5

Saint Louis-Marie: A Life of Devotion to Mary ...... 6

Marian Consecration and True Devotion ...... 23

Criteria of True Devotion to Mary ...... 35

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria ...... 36

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria ...... 37

Ecclesial Criteria ...... 40

Conclusion ...... 41

CHAPTER II PATRONESS OF THE COUNCIL: MARY AND THE SECOND

VATICAN COUNCIL ...... 42

Introduction ...... 42

Marian Theology and Devotion Immediately to the Second Vatican Council .... 42

The Discussion of Mary at the Second Vatican Council ...... 43

x

The of Chapter Eight in Lumen Gentium in its Ecclesiological Context .... 46

Conciliar Criteria for True Marian Devotion ...... 52

Ecclesial Criteria ...... 52

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria ...... 59

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria ...... 66

Conclusion ...... 67

CHAPTER III MARY’S : SAINT JOHN PAUL II AND TRUE MARIAN

DEVOTION ...... 69

Introduction ...... 69

The Mariology of Saint John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater ...... 70

Mary in the Mystery of Christ ...... 71

Mother of God at the Centre of the Pilgrim Church ...... 78

Maternal Mediation ...... 82

St. John Paul II’s Theological Criteria for True Marian Devotion ...... 87

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria ...... 88

Ecclesial Criteria ...... 92

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria ...... 95

Conclusion ...... 96

CHAPTER IV MY FIRST NAME IS MARY: PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF

MARIAN CONSECRATION AND DEVOTION ...... 98

Introduction ...... 98

My Personal Experience ...... 99

xi

Other Personal Experiences ...... 109

Conclusion ...... 120

CHAPTER V MARY FOR TODAY: RENEWING CATHOLIC MARIAN DEVOTION

AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THROUGH ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE

MONTFORT’S TRUE DEVOTION TO MARY ...... 122

Introduction ...... 122

Contributions of True Devotion to Mary in the Life of the Catholic Church Today .. 122

Clarifications and Enhancements to True Devotion to Mary for Our Time ...... 124

The Language of “Slavery” ...... 124

Theological Anthropology ...... 130

Self-Mortification ...... 134

Feminist Critiques and Reconstruction of Mariology ...... 138

The Predestinate and Perfect Devotion ...... 145

Post-Conciliar Criteria for True Marian Devotion...... 151

Ecclesial Criteria ...... 152

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria ...... 155

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria ...... 157

Conclusion ...... 159

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 161

xii

INTRODUCTION

“The more we honor the Blessed Virgin,

the more we honor Jesus Christ,

because we honor Mary only that

we may the more perfectly honor Jesus,

since we go to her only as the way

by which we are to find the end

we are seeking, which is Jesus.”

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort

Oftentimes, the reason people are hesitant to foster a personal relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary is because people do not understand that there are theological criteria for true Marian devotion. People assume Marian devotion is a distraction or detraction from Jesus Christ. For this reason, people tend to isolate Mary. She is considered a separate category, an “add-on,” so to speak, to the rest of theology. Such a misunderstanding of true Marian devotion deprives people of the rich theological value and that Mary’s active participation in the life and mystery of Jesus Christ and the

Catholic Church can contribute to who we are and whom we are becoming in our relationship with the Triune God and with one another.

Historically, the controversy surrounding Marian devotion has been about false forms of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. My thesis studies the theological criteria

1

for true devotion to Mary and articulates how true devotion to Mary is distinct from

“false” devotion. By differentiating false devotion from true devotion, my thesis constructs an argument that explains the significance of true Marian devotion in the

Catholic Church today. The topic of my thesis centers on renewing Catholic Marian devotion after the Second Vatican Council through St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True

Devotion to Mary. My interest focuses on what constitutes a true devotion to Mary as well as how true devotion to Mary can inspire a spiritual renewal within the Catholic

Church after the Second Vatican Council. In my thesis, I situate St. Louis-Marie’s

Mariology within his own historical and theological context. I also situate the Second

Vatican Council’s Mariology articulated in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, the

Constitution on the Church within its own historical and theological context. In light of the two historical periods, I investigate and assess the Marian theology articulated by St.

John Paul II. I consider some of the ways in which Marian theology and devotion have developed after the Second Vatican Council. I retrieve the Marian theology articulated by St. Louis-Marie in True Devotion to Mary, in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, and in

St. John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater to determine how a theologically valid Marian devotion can be renewed in the Catholic Church today. Ultimately, the goal of my thesis is to contribute my assessment of the trajectory of Marian devotion and to articulate criteria, based on the writings of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, the Second Vatican

Council, and St. John Paul II for a true devotion to Mary in the Catholic Church today. It is important to note that the use of the term “criteria” is not used in the narrow sense, like a check-list, but as a broad theological heuristic or guidepost for the assessment and evaluation of true Marian devotion.

2

I was motivated to write about the Blessed Virgin Mary because Mary has always held a special place in my heart. My relationship with the Blessed Mother has grown and deepened throughout the years, and this project is a continuation of my desire to always enrich that relationship. A significant reason why I became interested in this topic is that

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary radically impacted my life as a member of the Catholic Church. I have been consecrated to Jesus through Mary for roughly four years now, and I can attest to how much it has rejuvenated and inspired my

Catholic . I firmly believe my Marian devotion has transformed me into a better and more authentic Catholic. Based on my personal experience of St. Louis-Marie’s True

Devotion to Mary, I became interested in how his Mariology connected to the Mariology articulated in the Catholic Church today. I wanted to learn how St. Louis-Marie’s

Mariology could shed light on how the Church conveys a true Marian devotion to the faithful and how the faithful can practice a true Marian devotion today.

Overall, this project is a fruit of my special relationship with the Blessed Virgin

Mary, but it also has a clear pastoral focus. Although I was motivated to write this thesis because I wanted to grow in my relationship with Mary and better understand the

Mariology articulated by St. Louis-Marie, I also wanted to share with others what constitutes a true Marian devotion. I was motivated to write this thesis because I wanted to ensure that other persons interested in Marian devotion understood the theological criteria for true Marian devotion. I wanted people to grasp the theological value of

Mary’s presence in the mystery and life of her son, Jesus Christ, as well as the mystery and life of the Catholic Church.

3

Besides the necessary primary and secondary literature, the scope of my research included renewing my Marian consecration. I followed St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary to re-immerse myself in the mystery and beauty of total consecration to Jesus through Mary. The renewal experience of my consecration inspired new insights. In light of this experience, I articulated how St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary and the advancements in Marian devotion and theology since the Second Vatican Council are vital instruments in fostering a true Marian devotion in a post-conciliar Church today.

Beyond my own renewal experience, I assembled a small group of four people to gain insight into how people interpret their personal experience of Marian devotion in the

Church today. The interview process was conducted with the approval of the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) and in conformity to their guidelines. I interviewed a diverse group of people. The participants varied in age and gender. My interviews focused on the North American experience. My aim was to study how others experience the presence of Mary in their spiritual journeys. My newfound knowledge helped me to analyze the primary and secondary sources as well as draw conclusions about how to renew Marian devotion in the Catholic Church today.

The purpose of my research was to investigate and articulate theological criteria for true Marian devotion today. My thesis sought to understand and explain the significant role the Blessed Virgin Mary has within the life and mystery of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. I hope my research will inspire a stronger love and devotion to the Blessed Mother, so Mary can help us grow in our relationship with the Triune God and one another as members of the .

4

CHAPTER I

A SAINT IS BORN OF MARY:

ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT AND TRUE DEVOTION TO MARY

Introduction

In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie de Montfort makes a haunting prediction. He says his spiritual treatise will be scrutinized, even rejected by the world.

He writes,

I clearly foresee that raging beasts shall come in fury to tear with their diabolical teeth this little writing and him whom the Holy Ghost has made use of to write it – or at least to smother it in the darkness and silence of a coffer, that it may not appear. They shall even attack and persecute those who shall read it and carry it out in practice.1

This prophesy came to fruition nearly a century later. At the end of the eighteenth century, many of St. Louis-Marie’s followers were persecuted by the Jansenists. In an attempt to protect St. Louis-Marie’s precious writing, his followers hid his manuscript in the hopes that one day it would see the light of day again. For over a century since the book was first drafted in 1712, True Devotion to Mary remained buried in a chest of dusty old books. It was rediscovered in 1842 when a Montfort Father stumbled across its pages and recognized the distinguished handwriting of his spiritual father, St. Louis-

Marie de Montfort.

In this chapter, I articulate St. Louis-Marie’s theological definition of Marian consecration in True Devotion to Mary. I also articulate his theological criteria for

1 Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary with Preparation for Total Consecration, trans. , The Fathers of the ed. (North Carolina: Tan Classics, 2010), no. 114.

5

discriminating between true and false devotions to Mary. I study and explain how he develops his theology in True Devotion to Mary and situate it within a larger historical and theological context. I paint with broad brush strokes the landscape of his life. I consider his upbringing and schooling and analyze how each phase of his life impacted his spirituality and writing on Marian consecration and devotion. Who was this humble priest who traveled throughout the provincial woodlands and flatlands of

France to teach and minister to the poor in the early eighteenth century? How did the religious mentality of his day influence his Marian writings? What inspired his true devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary? What primary sources influenced his writings on

True Devotion to Mary? What criteria does he articulate to distinguish true Marian devotion from other forms of devotion that he determined to be false?

Saint Louis-Marie: A Life of Devotion to Mary

St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort was born on a crisp January day in 1673 in a small town called Montfort-la-Cane in Brittany, . It was on this day a saint was born of Mary. His parents, Jean-Baptiste Grignion and Jeanne Robert Grignion, were dutiful . They baptized their second-born son in St. John the Baptist Church.

The name of this Church was providential because St. Louis-Marie spent his entire life in the spirit of St. John paving the way to Jesus Christ through Mary.

In his biography of the young saint, Jean-Baptiste Blain, a close friend and classmate who studied with St. Louis-Marie at St. Thomas à Becket and St. Sulpice

Seminary says St. Louis-Marie was born with a strong devotion to Mary already burning

6

within his heart.2 Blain says St. Louis-Marie’s love for the Blessed Mother was so palpable at school that it was as if Mary had destined him since birth to be her most faithful servant. He writes, “Love for Mary was…innate in M. Grignion; it can be said that she had first chosen him as one of her greatest favourites and had implanted in his young heart the special tenderness which he always showed towards her.”3 St. Louis-

Marie considered his Marian devotion a gift of grace. There were influences in his life that cultivated a spirit of loving receptivity, so he could receive God’s gift of grace more readily. His mother possibly influenced St. Louis-Marie. As a quiet and solemn child,

St. Louis-Marie clung to his mother’s side because of the complicated relationship with his father. His friend, Jean-Baptiste Blain, describes St. Louis-Marie’s father as a very short-tempered man. In his biography of St. Louis-Marie, Blain describes the father’s anger issues. On one occasion, Blain recalls visiting St. Louis-Marie at his family’s country-house, where he found the young saint “scared and almost trembling in fear.”4

At the time, St. Louis-Marie had burned one of his father’s “obscene book[s].”5 St.

Louis-Marie admitted he burned the book out of sincere respect for God. Here, we see

St. Louis-Marie’s resilient faith. We also see how opposed St. Louis-Marie’s personality was to his father’s temperament. On another occasion, Blain describes St. Louis-Marie’s father as “a man of a very violent disposition.”6 He says his father had wild outbursts, especially at the family table. These outbursts would prevent St. Louis-Marie from eating. Blain recalls St. Louis-Marie bore his hunger with grace and . Blain

2 Jean-Baptiste Blain, Summary of the Life of Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, annotated by Louis Pérouas, trans. Julien Rabiller, Louis Gloriau, Ignatius Blackledge, Paul Allerton (Montfortian International Centre: ), 5. 3 Blain, Summary…, 5. 4 Blain, Summary…, 6. 5 Blain, Summary…, 6. 6 Blain, Summary…, 4.

7

writes that St. Louis-Marie refused offerings of food from him because he had a stronger hunger for God. This was the beginning of St. Louis-Marie’s practice of mortification and his desire to be united to Christ, even in his suffering. In his formative years in seminary, one of St. Louis-Marie’s favorite books would be The Holy Ways of the Cross by Henri Marie Boudon, “an exponent of French spirituality.”7 According to theologian

Thomas Myladil, this book “became a foundation of [St. Louis-Marie’s] meditation” because it was “a strict interpretation of poverty and an impassioned fidelity to the

Cross.”8

According to French historian Louis Perouas, St. Louis-Marie had a strained relationship with his father. This possibly strengthened St. Louis-Marie’s bond with his mother. Perouas says the loss of ten of her children possibly drew the mother closer to her eldest son. It is recorded that the mother bore eighteen children, ten of whom died in childhood. As the oldest son, Perouas thinks St. Louis-Marie most likely felt responsible for his mother’s well-being. Perouas cites Grandet, the first biographer of St. Louis-

Marie. According to Perouas, Grandet writes, “‘At only four or five years old [St. Louis-

Marie] began to speak of God…[he] would go to his mother whenever he saw her sad, to console her and encourage her to suffer with patience.’”9

The mutual affection St. Louis-Marie shared with his mother possibly impacted his relationship with Mary. It is likely the close relationship with his mother supported his devotion to Mary. As to how the relationship impacted True Devotion to Mary, I

7 Thomas Myladil, “Mortification,” in Stefano de Fiores, Alphonse Bossard, Patrick Gaffney, and Richard Payne, eds. Jesus Living in Mary: Handbook of the Spirituality of St. Louis Marie de Montfort (Bay Shore, New York: Montfort Publications, 1994), 842. 8 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 842. 9 Louis Perouas, A Way to Wisdom: Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort and His Beliefs (Montfortians Yesterday and Today, 1982), 9.

8

cannot say it determined the entire theological trajectory of the spiritual treatise. In my opinion, True Devotion to Mary went beyond the mere familial and psychological. St.

Louis-Marie was a mystic at heart. Therefore, he understood his Marian devotion as a gift of supernatural grace given by God. As a child, Perouas says, this grace inspired St.

Louis-Marie to prefer solitude and to pray in front of a statue of the Blessed Mother, instead of playing with children his own age.

This special grace also manifested itself in St. Louis-Marie’s acts of charity. As a young child, Perouas says, St. Louis-Marie would give all his best toys to the other children, so he could speak to them about God and entice them to pray to the Blessed

Mother. During his studies at St. Thomas à Becket, and throughout the rest of his life, St.

Louis-Marie would continue to perform acts of charity. At twelve years old, St. Louis-

Marie was sent by his family to St. Thomas à Becket in Rennes, France to study under the Jesuits in 1685. There, he studied the humanities, including philosophy and theology.

He was a student at St. Thomas à Becket for eight years and quickly became a model of piety and . Father Gilbert, a professor of rhetoric, counseled the young saint in catechetical instruction at St. Thomas à Becket.10 In Blain’s biography of St. Louis-

Marie, Blain says he first encountered the young saint when they both studied under the guidance of Father Gilbert. Blain recounts,

Although we studied humanities together under the guidance of Father Camus, who is now of the College of Rennes, I did not really come to know M. Grignion till we were in Rhetoric under the guidance of Father Gilbert. The reason for this is that M. Grignion was of a very solitary disposition and had hardly any dealings with the other students. His great piety, however, began to appear and to shine forth brightly in the midst of a large group of very dissolute young men.11

10 G. Croteau, “Education,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 335. 11 Blain, Summary…, 1.

9

According to Blain, Father Gilbert was “the most suitable man in the world to sustain M. Grignion’s piety. He was a man of consummate and piety, and hardly a day passed without his giving some example of heroic virtue, and patience.”12 Blain says

Father Gilbert showed great patience with his students whenever they publicly insulted him. According to Blain, Father Gilbert aimed to lead his students closer to sanctity rather than to teach them only about the mechanics of rhetoric.13 Blain says Father

Gilbert “did not miss a single opportunity of talking to them about God or of stressing the necessity of serving and loving him.”14

The primacy of God would remain a hallmark of St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality.

Father Gilbert’s piety also left a mark on St. Louis-Marie’s ministry, which focused on the of souls. According to Blain, Father Gilbert was someone St. Louis-Marie eagerly listened to and tried to imitate. Blain said Father Gilbert recognized St. Louis-

Marie’s zeal immediately and “realized even then that this pious young man was one of those whom God favours with special graces.”15 Blain recalls Father Gilbert telling him several years later that “he regarded [St. Louis-Marie] as a saint” even at that time.16

Blain says St. Louis-Marie emulated the pious example of his professor by performing strange acts of charity during his time at school. One act of charity St. Louis-

Marie performed was when he helped a classmate purchase a decent suit. This classmate was mocked and bullied by other students because of his shabby appearance. This student was very poor, so St. Louis-Marie turned himself into a beggar to collect a sum of

12 Blain, Summary…, 1. 13 Blain, Summary…, 1. 14 Blain, Summary…, 1. 15 Blain, Summary…, 2. 16 Blain, Summary…, 2.

10

money to purchase a suit for his friend. At the time, St. Louis-Marie only collected more than half of the necessary sum of money, but, Blain says, St. Louis-Marie still went to the shop. Blain records St. Louis-Marie telling the shop owner, “‘This is my and yours. I have collected as much money as I could from my classmates to get him a decent suit; if that is not enough it is for you to supply the rest.’”17 Blain says,

When the other students heard how [St. Louis-Marie] had got [the decent suit], they were very much surprised and began to regard M. Grignion with a kind of . From then on, he was considered a paragon of virtue among the four hundred students of his class, and those who knew him intimately respected him as a saint.18

St. Louis-Marie’s concern for the poor became a cornerstone of his ministry. For instance, his training in catechetical instruction would be instrumental in his mission as an . Teaching catechism to the poor was instilled by Father Gilbert, who counseled St. Louis-Marie in catechetical instruction. According to scholar G. Croteau,

Father Gilbert’s expertise helped St. Louis-Marie succeed in his catechetical studies so much so that Fr. Julien Bellier, a professor at St. Thomas à Becket, selected St. Louis-

Marie “to teach elementary level catechism and to visit the poor and sick in the hospitals.”19 According to Croteau, this was the beginning of St. Louis-Marie’s career as a teacher and preacher of the poor. Throughout the rest of his life, St. Louis-Marie would continue to teach catechism to the poor. He writes in True Devotion to Mary that he addresses explicitly the poor and simple. He says,

I speak particularly to the poor and simple, who being of good will, having more faith than the common run of schools, believe more simply and more meritoriously, I content myself with stating the truth quite plainly, without stopping to quote the passages, which they would not understand.20

17 Blain, Summary…, 3. 18 Blain, Summary…, 3. 19 Croteau, “Education,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 335. 20 TD, no. 26.

11

Like his predecessors, who instilled in him the importance of sanctifying souls, St. Louis-

Marie utilized his knowledge in the faith to minister to the poor.

Under the Jesuits at St. Thomas à Becket, St. Louis-Marie also developed his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to Croteau, St. Louis-Marie belonged to the Congregation of the Blessed Virgin at St. Thomas à Becket. In his biography on St.

Louis-Marie, Blain describes the Marian devotion of his friend when he studied philosophy under Father Prévost. Blain says, Father Prévost was “very pious and also very zealous for the of his pupils. He was in of the Sodality for the senior boys and had a special devotion to Mary, which he tried to impart with ever greater zeal.”21 Blain says he would have credited Father Prévost with sparking St.

Louis-Marie’s initial devotion to Mary if “ [St. Louis-Marie] had not already revealed it from the cradle.”22 In the end, it is evident St. Louis-Marie’s secondary education at St.

Thomas à Becket marked “a deepening of the interior life and the beginning of an active, concrete, and popular apostolate.”23

In 1693, according to Blain, St. Louis-Marie left Rennes and journeyed to St.

Sulpice Seminary in , France. He journeyed to St. Sulpice under the patronage of

Mademoiselle de Montingny, who suggested St. Louis-Marie continue his theological training there. She would be the person who funded part of St. Louis-Marie’s early education at St. Sulpice Seminary. Blain writes, “When [St. Louis-Marie] left Rennes

[for St. Sulpice] his thoughts were in heaven, his heart [was] in St. Sulpice and a prayer

21 Blain, Summary…, 5. 22 Blain, Summary…, 5. 23 Croteau, “Education,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 335-336.

12

to Mary [was] on his lips.”24 During his journey, St. Louis-Marie continued his pious mission to be amongst the poor. While on foot, he encountered a beggar. Blain says he gave everything he owned to the man, including his new suit and all of his money. This act of charity allowed St. Louis-Marie to practice his devotion to Mary and God, who gave him everything he needed by Divine Providence. At St. Sulpice, St. Louis-Marie formally entered preparation for the priesthood. According to Blain,

The priesthood was the only state of life that appealed to [St. Louis- Marie], the only one that God meant for him…[because]…[St. Louis- Marie’s] only concern was to study theology thoroughly so that he might be in a position to fulfill his duties of the apostolic life for which he was preparing himself.25

Jean Jacques Olier founded St. Sulpice Seminary. Modeled after the French

School of Spirituality, Olier established the school for the formation and preparation of priests. The French School of Spirituality, a name popularized by Henri Bremond’s multi-volume work, A Literary History of Religious Thought in France (1928), was a spiritual movement in France during the seventeenth century. The French School of

Spirituality was founded by Cardinal Pierre Bérulle. Bérulle was deeply influenced by his Marian devotion as well as the Carmelite in during the sixteenth century. According to Sulpician Father and scholar Raymond Deville, “[The French

School of Spirituality] was a school of the interior life, of eminent spirituality based on , and especially on the Incarnation.”26 Bérulle established the School in response to the clerical crisis in France. He reimagined the priesthood in and through Jesus Christ.

During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, many young boys entered

24 Blain, Summary…, 8. 25 Blain, Summary…, 6. 26 Raymond Deville, The French School of Spirituality: An Introduction and Reader, trans. Agnes Cunningham (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press, 1994), 7.

13

seminary either to escape poverty or because their families forced their youngest sons to enter the priesthood. The French School of Spirituality, centered upon the Incarnation, addressed the problems created by forced or economically-motivated seminary entrance by focusing on Christ, who became a true model of authentic priesthood.

When St. Louis-Marie arrived at St. Sulpice, he joined a community led by

Claude Bottu de la Barmondiére. At this time, at the end of the seventeenth century, St.

Sulpice consisted of three separate communities.27 The community St. Louis-Marie belonged to was explicitly intended for poor ecclesiastics. During the course of his studies, St. Louis-Marie relied primarily on scholarships to fund his education. In the beginning, Mademoiselle de Montigny, a family friend, continued to support him. By

1695, Madame d’Álegre and Madame the Duchess of Mortemart became his primary benefactors. When St. Louis-Marie did not have the kindness of friends and strangers to depend on, he kept vigils over the dead to cover the costs of his studies.

After his hospitalization from strenuous mortifications in 1695, St. Louis-Marie returned to St. Sulpice where he joined the Little Seminary. This community was a leading exponent of the French School of Spirituality. The French School of Spirituality not only emphasized the Incarnation, it is also known as the science of the – another name popularized by Henri Bremond’s multi-volume work A Literary History of

Religious Thought in France (1928). According to scholar William M. Thompson, the science of the saints refused to separate theology and spirituality. He writes, “The science dimension links it with the critical clarity of the scholastic tradition. The saints dimension attaches it to the spiritual experience: a deep life of faith and even mystical

27 Perouas, A Way to Wisdom, 25.

14

experience.”28 This integrated way of learning and living appealed to St. Louis-Marie, who had the heart of a mystic, the mind of a preacher, and the spirit of a missionary.

When St. Louis-Marie returned to St. Sulpice, Blain says he read many books about Marian spirituality while he worked as the school’s librarian. In True Devotion to

Mary, St. Louis-Marie lists some of the books he read during this time. He gives a brief synopsis of the Marian theology of these works, which demonstrates that Marian devotion is not a new practice within the Church, but part of a long, rich tradition that includes St. Bernard and St. . Some of the other key figures St. Louis-Marie mentions include St. Odilon, the of Cluny, who lived in 1040. St. Louis-Marie says St. Odilon was one of the first people to publicly practice Marian devotion in

France. Others, who were either consecrated to Mary or helped in the promotion of

Marian devotion, included Peter Cardinal Damian, Caesarius Bollandus, Father Simon de

Roias, the Theatine fathers, Father Stanislaus Phalacius, Father de Los Rios, and

Cornelius à Lapide.29 The two most influential figures mentioned in True Devotion to

Mary were Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle and Henri Boudon. To greater and lesser degrees, these men had a significant impact on St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality and theological writing.

As I have noted, the French School of Spirituality was a theocentric and trinitarian theological movement that reimagined the interior life with an emphasis on the Incarnate

Word. The French School of Spirituality also had a special Marian devotion. According to priest and scholar Vincent R. Vasey, Bérulle’s devotion to Mary centered on

28 William M. Thompson, ed., and Susan A. Muto. Bérulle and the French School, trans. Lowell M. Glendon (Mahwah, New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 32. 29 TD, no. 159-163.

15

relationships. Relationships, for example, are founded and formed in Mary’s Divine

Maternity. According to Vasey, Bérulle understood Mary in relation “to Jesus, to the persons of the , the Church, [and] to individual members of the Church.”30 Mary bore the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. The reformed Carmelite Order in

Spain during the sixteenth century initially influenced Bérulle’s understanding of Mary in this regard. Vasey says Bérulle had encountered a deep Marian spirituality amongst the

Carmelites when he traveled to “Spain to negotiate the establishment of the Teresian

Reform in France.”31 According to Vasey,

[Bérulle] brought back from Spain not only – who had the influence of St. Teresa and were Incarnation-oriented – but also the knowledge that certain old lived there in dependence on Mary, an idea that…[became] central in his Mariology…[and] harmonized so well with the dependence of the Word Incarnate on Mary shown in his conception and dwelling in her womb for nine months.32

Before Bérulle encountered the Spanish mystics and their Marian devotion, Vasey says,

Dionysius’ theory of hierarchic mediation already laid the foundation for his articulation of what he termed a “Holy Slavery” to Jesus and Mary.33 Vasey writes, “Bérulle united…the confraternities and Dionysius, and spoke of Mary’s choir or courts. From her court, her devotees moved to the Court of Jesus.”34 Vasey says this unification of the confraternities’ dependence on Mary and Dionysius was the beginning of Bérulle’s theological formulation of servitude to Jesus and Mary. Vasey writes, “Bérulle introduced the two vows [the vow to Mary and the vow to Jesus] about the same time; the

30 Vincent R. Vasey, “Mary in the of Bérulle on the Mysteries of Christ,” Marian Studies: Vol. 36, Article 11 (Dayton: Ohio, 1985), 79. 31 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 79. 32 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 62-63. 33 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 63. 34 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 63.

16

first consecration or vow of service was made to Mary and then a vow of service to Jesus, to respect the due hierarchy in accord with Dionysian categories.”35 According to Vasey, this formulation was normal because Bérulle considered himself part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. Vasey states Bérulle thought Mary was his intermediary hierarch and believed “his own vocation as that of a hierarch was the duty of leading his subjects to a share in Mary’s mystical graces and then, through the Virgin, to a participation in the mysteries of Christ, and, finally, through the mysteries of Christ to the life of the

Trinity.”36 As we will see, this way of thinking is very similar to St. Louis-Marie’s idea of slavery to Mary and Jesus in True Devotion to Mary.

For Bérulle, the theological basis of servitude to Jesus and Mary is Mary’s sovereignty as the Mother of God. Vasey says, “Mary, the Word’s mother, is thrown, by her divine maternity, into relations not only with the Word Incarnate, the , but with the Father and the Holy Spirit.”37 The reason Mary is in relationship with the Triune

God is that the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and the Son of God was formed within her womb, and it is by the Father’s grace that Mary shared in these special privileges. Likewise, Bérulle says God willfully depends upon Mary. God’s dependency on Mary does not mean God is insufficient without Mary, only that the Father and the

Holy Spirit depended upon her free “yes.” God desired Mary’s participation in salvation history.

Bérulle strengthens Mary’s relationship with the Triune God by connecting it to the dynamism of creation. Like creation, which relies on God as the source of life, Mary

35 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 63. 36 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 63. 37 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 70.

17

relies on God to continually empower her with graces. Vasey says this relationship is continual like creation.38 According to Vasey, these ideas inspired Bérulle to establish within the French School of Spirituality a practice of continual baptismal renewal. Like

Mary, who was dependent on the Holy Spirit, each member of the Church has an obligation to continually renew his or her baptismal promises because we are creatures subject to time and change. This truth connects Mary to the Church and its members.

The renewal of our baptismal promises is a reflection of our creatureliness and Mary’s relationship with the Triune God. In like vein, a relationship with Mary helps us to live our baptismal promises so we can arrive at God through Jesus Christ, her Son. As we shall see, True Devotion to Mary will follow Bérulle’s idea of consecration being a form of baptismal renewal.

Bérulle has a formative influence on St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary.

St. Louis-Marie carried forward Bérulle’s Trinitarian emphasis on the mystery of the

Incarnate Word living and reigning in Mary and Bérulle’s emphasis on continual baptismal renewal. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie writes, “This devotion may rightly be called a perfect renewal of the vows or promises of holy ” because through the devotion “we renounce, as is expressed in the formula of consecration, the devil, the world, , and self; and we give ourselves to Jesus Christ entirely by the hands of Mary.”39 St. Louis-Marie believes the devotion does more than renew the baptismal promises. He writes, “…We do something more; for in Baptism, we ordinarily speak by the mouth of another, our godfather or godmother, and so we give ourselves to Jesus Christ not by ourselves but through another. But in this devotion, we

38 Vasey, “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle…,” 71. 39 TD, no. 126.

18

do it by ourselves, voluntarily, knowing what we are doing.”40 St. Louis-Marie’s zeal in spreading Marian consecration as a form of baptismal renewal was inspired by Jean

Eudes, another Bérullian thinker.41

St. Louis-Marie describes the perfect renewal of our baptismal promises as a slavery of love to Jesus through Mary.42 Henri Boudon’s book, The Holy Slavery of the

Admirable Mother of God (1667) was a proximate source of this dimension of True

Devotion to Mary. I say proximate source because St. Louis-Marie diverges from

Boudon in several important ways. For example, the expression “slaves to Jesus in

Mary” was a major shift from Boudon’s phrase, the “slaves of Mary.” According to

Blain, “slaves to Jesus in Mary” was first suggested to St. Louis-Marie by the of

St. Sulpice, M. Tronson. Blain said M. Tronson suggested this revised language because the expression “slaves of Jesus in Mary” articulated Christ’s superior role more fully.

According to theologian J. Patrick Gaffney, there was yet another way in which

True Devotion to Mary diverged from Henri’s Boudon’s Holy Slavery. Gaffney says

True Devotion to Mary was written for Jesus, the Incarnate Wisdom.43 It was founded on

Mary’s spiritual maternity, and it accepted “Bérulle’s essential insight into the unity of

Consecration and the renewal of the vows of Baptism.”44 Boudon’s Marian consecration, on the other hand, was not written for Jesus.45 Gaffney says it was founded on Mary’s queenship and ignored the essential relationship between consecration and the renewal of baptismal promises. For Gaffney, these differences show St. Louis-Marie reimagined

40 TD, no. 126. 41 Raymond Deville, “The French School of Spirituality,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 456. 42 Deville, “The French School of Spirituality,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 456. 43 J. Patrick Gaffney, “Consecration,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 207. 44 Gaffney, “Consecration,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 207. 45 Gaffney, “Consecration,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 207.

19

Boudon’s Holy Slavery and articulated a new slavery, one that was impacted by his personal experience and knowledge of the and Trinitarian dimensions of the French School of Spirituality.

In 1700, St. Louis-Marie finished his theological education at St. Sulpice and was ordained to the priesthood. After he left Paris, he traveled to to do missionary work. It was his life-long dream to form a religious community and teach catechism to the poor; however, Poitiers did not provide an ideal environment for this work. He expresses his hopes and frustrations in a letter to his spiritual director, Fr. Leschassier, during his first year as a priest. On December 6, 1700, St. Louis-Marie writes,

My intention was, as yours was too, to prepare for mission-work and especially for teaching catechism to the poor, since this is what attracts me most. But I am not doing that at all and I do not think that I shall ever do it here, for there are very few people in the house and no one has any experience except Fr. Lévêque.46

St. Louis-Marie listed several problems at Poitiers, noting a lack of organization and the need for more young and zealous priests. Due to his disappointments at Poitiers, St.

Louis-Marie confessed in a letter to Ft. Leschassier that he was torn between two contradictory feelings. He writes,

On one hand, I feel a secret attraction for a hidden life in which I can efface myself and combat my natural tendency to show off. On the other hand, I feel a tremendous urge to make our Lord and his holy Mother loved, to go in a humble and simple way to teach catechism to the poor in country places and to arouse in sinners a devotion to our Blessed Lady. This was the work done by a good priest who died a holy death here recently. He used to go about from to parish teaching the people catechism and relying only on what Providence provided for him. I know very well, my dear Father, that I am not worthy to do such honourable work, but when I see the needs of the Church I cannot help pleading continually for a small and poor band of good priests to do this work under the banner and protection of the Blessed Virgin. Though I find it difficult,

46 Grignion de Montfort, Louis-Marie. God Alone; the Collected Writings of St. Louis Mary De Montfort (Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1988), 5-6.

20

I try to suppress these desires, good and persistent though they may be. I strive to forget them and self-effacingly place myself in the hands of divine Providence and submit entirely to your advice which will always have the force of law for me.47

Despite St. Louis-Marie’s desire to leave Poitiers, he remained there for two years and founded a called “.” This congregation was a reform movement. According to M. Lepers, a contributor to Jesus Living in Mary:

Handbook of the Spirituality of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, the congregation sought to improve the economic and administrative management of the General Hospital in

Poitiers. In St. Louis-Marie’s time, the General Hospital was a place where the poor, the sick, and the common criminals lodged. St. Louis-Marie established the Daughters of

Wisdom in hopes that it would embody his original for a group of priests to minister and teach to the poor in the name of Jesus living in Mary.

The Daughters of Wisdom expressed the spirituality of St. Louis-Marie. He founded the congregation based on his fundamental devotion to the mystery of the

Incarnation living and reigning through Mary and in response to his followers like Marie

Louise Trichet. In a letter to Fr. Leschassier, written on September 16, 1701, St. Louis-

Marie states:

Since I have been here [at Poitiers], divine Providence has asked me to find a place for another of my poor sisters [] and has established spiritual ties between me and several other persons who are sinners like myself, as well as with a number of devout souls.48

In Marie Louise Trichet, St. Louis-Marie found his future collaborator. According to

Lepers,

The initial encounter was truly providential. Marie Louise Trichet was seventeen years of age of a respected middle-class family of Poitiers. She

47 Montfort. God Alone…, 6. 48 Montfort, Louis-Marie. God Alone…, 12.

21

was gentle, pious, and searching for her vocation. Drawn by the reputation for sanctity Montfort had acquired, she sought his advice in the confessional. “Who sent you to me?” Montfort asked. “My sister” was the reply. “No, it was not your sister but the Blessed Virgin.” In a prophetic intuition, Montfort recognized in the young girl before him the one destined by Providence to be his helper in the realization of his great design.49

Lepers says the relationship continued to develop between Marie Louise and St. Louis-

Marie when she chose him as her spiritual director. In 1702, Marie Louise participated in a retreat St. Louis-Marie preached at the General hospital in Poitiers. There, St. Louis-

Marie invited the young woman to live in the hospital amongst the outcast. Initially,

Lepers says, the denied Marie Louise’s request to live as a governess in the hospital because it was not a . Lepers says Marie Louise found another way around this predicament by becoming a resident of the hospital. As a poor resident,

Marie Louise lived as one of the people. She worked, she slept, and she ate with the poor. Lepers says this period of time was considered Marie Louise’s . After several months of living with the poor, St. Louis-Marie decided it was time to give Marie

Louise her . On February 2, 1703 – the foundation day of the congregation

– Marie Louise received her habit and became Marie Louise de Jesus. She was the first to wear the habit of the Daughters of Wisdom.

The Daughters of Wisdom lasted only for a few months; however, later, Marie

Louise would become the co-foundress of The Company of Mary, the religious congregation formed after the Daughters of Wisdom dissolved. The Company of Mary was a congregation that finally encapsulated St. Louis-Marie’s vision to form a company of that would evangelize the poor by means of parish missions. For the rest

49M. Lepers and B-M. van den Hoof – S. de Fiores, “Daughters of Wisdom,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 283.

22

of St. Louis-Marie’s short life, from 1700 to 1716, he and Marie Louise would continue to teach catechism to the poor.

Marian Consecration and True Devotion

Marian consecration and devotion, according to St. Louis-Marie, reflects the of salvation:

God the Father communicated to Mary His fruitfulness, inasmuch as a mere creature was capable of it, in order that He might give her the power to produce His Son and all the members of His Mystical Body… descended into the virginal womb of Mary [through the power of the Holy Spirit] as the New Adam into His terrestrial paradise, to take His pleasure there, and to work in secret marvels of grace.50

Christ’s willingness to depend entirely on Mary – for “she nourished Him, supported

Him, brought Him up and then sacrificed Him for us”51 – is a sign that “Jesus Christ gave more glory to by submission to His Mother during those thirty years than he would have given Him in converting the whole world by the working of the most stupendous .”52 This is the crux of True Devotion to Mary. True devotion to

Mary is not about Mary, but about serving and glorifying God alone through her and her son, Jesus Christ.

St. Louis-Marie says Mary is the most suitable person in whom to practice this devotion because she, as the Mother of God, is the only creature perfectly united to her

Son, Jesus. She is endowed with special graces through the power of the Holy Spirit because of her spiritual maternity. Although titled True Devotion to Mary, this book would be more appropriately known as “True Devotion to Jesus through Mary.” The goal of this devotion is to make Christ more fully known and loved. This, St. Louis-

50 TD, no. 17-18. 51 TD, no. 18. 52 TD, no. 18.

23

Marie says, is accomplished by cultivating a greater knowledge and love of the mother of the Incarnate Word of God. True Devotion to Mary treats Jesus and Mary as two sides of the same coin. It centers upon “the mystery of Jesus living and reigning in Mary; in other words, …the Incarnation of the Word.”53 The Incarnation of the Word is the foundation of St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality.

As the only creature perfectly united biologically and spiritually to Jesus Christ,

Mary becomes “an easy, short, perfect and secure way of attaining union with Our

Lord.”54 St. Louis-Marie describes his devotion to Mary as “a path of roses and honey.”55 It is a precious path because Christ himself came this way when he first entered the world. At the , the Holy Spirit formed Christ in Mary’s virginal womb. Similarly, the Holy Spirit will form Christ in souls that approach God through

Mary. St. Louis-Marie says, “The Most High has come down to us perfectly and divinely, by the humble Mary, without losing anything of His divinity and sanctity. So it is by Mary that the very little ones are to ascend perfectly and divinely, without any fear to the Most High.”56

St. Louis-Marie admits there are many other ways to approach God, but the way of Mary is the easiest because it is the way prepared for us by Christ. Although the Holy

Spirit formed Jesus within the womb of Mary, true devotion to Mary is a spiritual practice in which the Holy Spirit forms Jesus in the souls of true devotees. St. Louis-

Marie says true devotion to Mary is responsible for producing some of the holiest saints like “St. Ephrem, St. John Damascene, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Bonaventure, St.

53 TD, no. 248. 54 TD, no. 152. 55 TD, no. 152. 56 TD, no. 157.

24

Francis de Sales, and others.”57 The lives of these saints show that Mary strengthens and uplifts her children as they go through life, bearing their crosses upon their shoulders.

Not only is Mary the easiest way, but she is also the shortest way to attaining total union with God. As the Mother of God, Mary is already perfectly united to her Son, both in body and in spirit. She will never stray from him because they share in the same flesh and blood. She also will never stray from him because she wills whatever the Son wills.

Like at the Wedding Feast at Cana, Mary says, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5) until the end of time. Souls that dedicate themselves to Mary will never be apart from

God because the more a soul clings to and imitates Mary the more the Holy Spirit will form Christ within that soul; and the more Christ is found within a soul, the more the soul will align his or her will to God. This is how Mary becomes our spiritual mother because, through the powerful workings of the Holy Spirit, Mary produces the greatest saints by revealing Christ within souls. St. Louis-Marie says,

When the Holy Ghost, [Mary’s] Spouse, has found Mary in a soul, He flies there. He enters there in His fullness; He communicates Himself to that soul abundantly, and to the full extent to which it makes room for his Spouse. Nay, one of the greatest reasons why the Holy Ghost does not now do startling wonders in our souls is because He does not find there a sufficiently great union with His faith and inseparable spouse.58

The Holy Spirit rushes into a soul when Mary is there because she was the first person the Holy Spirit overshadowed to form the God-human. It is the beauty and of

Mary that will attract the Holy Spirit to replicate the mystery of the Annunciation by forming the Incarnate Word within our souls in the order of grace.

57 TD, no. 152. 58 TD, no. 36.

25

This is what makes authentic Marian devotion a perfect path to total union with

God. It is perfect, St. Louis-Marie says, because it unites us totally to Jesus. In this way, the perfection of Marian consecration is built upon its security. Marian devotion that is true is the most secure way to approach God because Mary, as the sugar of life,59 preserves us on our way through Jesus Christ, our Mediator, towards our final end, which is God. St. Louis-Marie says, “This devotion is a secure means of going to Jesus Christ because it is the very characteristic of our Blessed Lady to conduct us surely to Jesus, just as it is the very characteristic of Jesus to conduct us surely to the Eternal Father.”60

St. Louis-Marie formulated the nature of this devotion by drawing on the of St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure’s theology. In True Devotion, St. Louis-

Marie says,

According to them, we have three steps to mount to go to God: the first which is nearest to us and the most suited to our capacity, is Mary; the second is Jesus Christ; and the third is God the Father. To go to Jesus we must go to Mary; she is our of intercession. To go to God the Father, we must go to Jesus, for He is our mediator of .61

According to St. Louis-Marie, the distinction of Mary’s role as “mediatrix of intercession” and Jesus’ role as “mediator of redemption” is a matter of grace and nature.

Mary is mediatrix of intercession in the order of grace. Her spiritual maternity was a gift given by God. Jesus’ role, on the other hand, is a matter of nature. Unlike Mary, Jesus

Christ is consubstantial with the Father in his divine nature. Mary’s role is always relative to Jesus’ role. She is a proximate end in salvation history. She is a signpost that

59 TD, no. 154. 60 TD, no. 164. 61 TD, no. 86.

26

directs us to Christ. Jesus, however, plays an absolute role in salvation history. He is our

Savior.

Despite Mary’s secondary role to Jesus, St. Louis-Marie says she still shares in his special privileges. This is because Jesus loves his Mother very much and desires her to share in his Majesty. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie says,

What I say absolutely of Jesus Christ, I say relatively of Our Lady. Since Jesus Christ chose her for the inseparable companion of His life, of His death, of His glory and of His power in Heaven and upon earth, He gave her by grace, relatively to His Majesty, all the same rights and privileges which He possesses by nature. “All that is fitting to God by nature is fitting to Mary by grace,” say the saints; so that, according to them, Mary and Jesus having but the same will and the same power, have also the same subjects, servants and slaves.62

In this way, Mary’s special privileges are outlined in her Divine Maternity. Mary is totally united to her Son, even in his glory.

Mary can share in Jesus’ glory because she never contradicts him. Mary never contradicts Jesus because of the unity of the mystery of the Incarnation. In True

Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie writes, “[Jesus and Mary] are so intimately united that one is altogether in the other. Jesus is altogether in Mary and Mary is altogether in Jesus; or rather, she exists no more but Jesus alone is in her.”63 He goes on to say that

“it…[would be] easier to separate the light from the sun than Mary from Jesus…we might [even] call Our Lord, ‘Jesus of Mary,’ and our Blessed Lady, ‘Mary of Jesus.’”64

This mystical relationship is founded entirely upon Mary’s Divine Maternity. It a mutual gift of self, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Mary and Jesus are mutually one in another; so much so that Mary is totally transformed into Christ; meaning she is totally

62 TD, no. 74. 63 TD, no. 247. 64 TD, no. 247.

27

transformed into her true self. In a similar way, Christ is totally transformed into Mary and becomes his true self too; meaning he becomes fully human – the Incarnate Word.

According to St. Louis-Marie, if a person removed Jesus from Mary or Mary from Jesus, the mystery of the Incarnation would be diminished. St. Louis-Marie writes that Mary is the only way Christ is fully known and loved. Likewise, Christ is the only way Mary is fully known and loved. In True Devotion to Mary, he says,

If…the knowledge and the kingdom of Jesus Christ are to come into the world, they will be but a necessary consequence of the knowledge and the kingdom of the most holy Virgin Mary, who brought Him into the world for the first time, and will make His second advent full of splendor.65

One aim of True Devotion to Mary is to reimagine Mary’s close relationship with her

Son. It articulates Mary’s necessary role in Redemption so that our understanding of the mysteries of the Incarnation and salvation are enriched and thus given new meaning and significance.

In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie outlines the necessity of Mary’s role in Redemption. He says she was necessary to God in the Incarnation of the Word, and she was necessary to God in the sanctification of souls. Mary was necessary to God not because God was powerless without her, but because he loved her and desired her to be his helper like was Adam’s helper in the Garden of Eden. It follows that Mary was necessary to God in the Incarnation because it was to Mary that the Son of God willingly submitted himself in order to become a man. Throughout his life, Christ continued to willingly submit himself to Mary’s authority and care.

Christ’s obedience is represented at the Wedding Feast at Cana. St. Louis-Marie employs this scriptural example because Mary inspired Christ to perform his first

65 TD, no. 13.

28

at Cana. He says the Wedding Feast marked a pivotal moment in salvation history; it was the moment when Mary first interceded on humanity’s behalf and asked God to pour out his graces. St. Louis-Marie says this miracle of grace opened up Mary’s continual role as the intercessor of graces throughout salvation history. Mary was the reason Christ performed his first miracle; therefore, she will continue to be the reason he performs other miracles until the end of time.66

Although Mary’s authority over Jesus may appear like an abasement of Christ’s power, it is not portrayed that way in True Devotion to Mary. St. Louis-Marie says,

We must take great pains not to conceive this dependence [on Mary] as any abasement or imperfection in Jesus Christ. For Mary is infinitely below her Son, who is God, and therefore she does not command Him as a mother here below would command her child who is below her. Mary, being altogether transformed into God by grace and by the glory which transforms all the saints into Him, asks nothing, wishes nothing, does nothing contrary to the eternal and immutable will of God.67

According to St. Louis-Marie, Mary is “altogether transformed into God” because she shares in God’s Will totally and perfectly. For instance, St. Louis-Marie says,

When we read…the writings of Sts. Bernard, Bernardine, Bonaventure…God Himself is subject[ed] to the Blessed Virgin…because the authority which God has been well pleased to give her is so great that it seems as if she had the same power as God; and that her and petitions are so powerful with God that they always pass for commandments with His Majesty, who never resists the prayer of His dear Mother, because she is always humble and conformed to His will.68

Mary’s humility and union with God’s Will make her obedient in faith. As such, her obedient faith makes her necessary in the sanctification of souls because she always works in union with God’s plan. At the Annunciation, for example, Mary’s “yes” was an

66 TD, no. 19. 67 TD, no. 27. 68 TD, no. 27.

29

example of her obedient faith. Her “yes” transformed her, by the power of the Holy

Spirit, into the “treasure of ;”69 meaning, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, she became the Mother of God and “[God’s] mysterious canal…His aqueduct, through which He makes His mercies flow gently and abundantly” throughout time.70

According to St. Louis-Marie,

God the Son has communicated to His Mother all that He acquired by His life and His death, His infinite merits and His admirable virtues; and He has made her the treasurer of all that His Father gave Him for His inheritance. It is by her that he applies His merits to his members, and that He communicates His virtues, and distributes His graces.71

Mary’s function as God’s treasure is multi-faceted. She not only communicates God’s graces, but she procures great blessings for our neighbors, and preserves them for us.

Mary procures great blessings for our neighbors when we forfeit our good works and merits to her intercession. Through her intercession, Mary perfects them in the order of grace. According to St. Louis-Marie, the giving of our good works and merits is more demanding than . For St. Louis-Marie, Mary is able to procure great blessings for our neighbors when we freely and willingly give her our good works and merits because our good works and merits are perfected through the hands of Mary by

God’s grace. St. Louis-Marie says true Marian devotion is a perfect way we can exercise charity towards our neighbor because, through the hands of Mary, the good works we freely give to her

receive an augmentation of purity, and consequently of merit, and of satisfactory and impetratory value. On this account they become more capable of solacing the souls in and of converting sinners than if they did not pass through the virginal and liberal hands of Mary. It may be little that we give by Our Lady; but, in truth, if it is given without self-

69 TD, no. 23. 70 TD, no. 24. 71 TD, no. 24.

30

will and with a disinterested charity, that little becomes very mighty to turn away the wrath of God and to draw down His mercy.72

Based on this, Mary preserves God’s graces because humanity is too frail and weak to maintain them. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie says human beings are “groveling…toads, more vile than unclean animals, more envious than serpents, more gluttonous than hogs, more furious than tigers, lazier than tortoises, weaker than reeds, and more capricious than weathercocks.”73 Human sinfulness and weakness, St. Louis-

Marie says, requires an advocate. He says we need an advocate like Moses. Moses interceded for the and assuaged the anger of God.74 In a similar but more powerful way, St. Louis-Marie says Mary intercedes for us and safeguards the gifts God gives to us.

The fact that humanity is so despicable it needs an advocate to approach God is a crucial facet of True Devotion to Mary. To St. Louis-Marie, “Our nature…is so corrupted that if we rely on our own works, efforts and preparations in order to reach God and please Him, it is certain that our good works will be defiled or be of little weight before God in inducing Him to unite Himself to us and to hear us.”75 This is the greatest obstacle in True Devotion to Mary – humanity’s fallen state. Human weakness can jeopardize total unification with Jesus. Therefore, True Devotion to Mary encourages humility and self-renunciation. The reason Mary is necessary for the sanctification of souls is that she helps us practice both.

72 TD, no. 172. 73 TD, no. 79. 74 TD, no. 27. 75 TD, no. 83.

31

People will often ask, “Why do I need to go to Mary when I can go straight to

Jesus?” St. Louis-Marie answers this critique with a series of questions. He says,

Is our purity great enough to unite us directly to [Jesus], and by ourselves? Is [Jesus] not God, in all things equal to His Father, and consequently the Holy of Holies, as worthy of respect as His Father? If through His infinite charity He has made Himself our bail and our Mediator with God His Father, in order to appease Him and to pay Him what we owed Him, are we, on that account, to have less respect and less fear for His Majesty and His Sanctity?76

To arrive at God through Mary is a sign of great humility. It respects not only God, who is infinitely higher than us, but Jesus as well, who is equal to the Father. When Jesus hung on the cross, he implicitly gave Mary over to the Church. It seems he intended us to approach him through his mother because he said to the beloved , “Woman, behold your son and son, behold your mother” (John 19:26). It also seems Jesus intended us to honor his mother as he honored her throughout his life, and especially at the

Wedding Feast at Cana. Mary acts as a sponsor or advocate when we rely on her intercession. She is like a lawyer who represents her client during trial. St. Louis-Marie believes it is fitting that we rely on the counsel and intercession of Mary when we approach God because her advocacy will ensure total union with God.

According to St. Louis-Marie, Mary and her faith is a “mysterious pass-key,” which “will give you entrance into all the mysteries of Jesus, into the last ends of man, and into the Heart of God Himself.”77 To gain access to this key, one must give everything to Mary, including personal merits and virtues. Total self-renunciation – more accurately known as Holy Slavery of love to Jesus and Mary – is, St. Louis-Marie says, an essential step in attaining total union with God. Total consecration to Jesus in Mary is,

76 TD, no. 85. 77 TD, no. 214.

32

for St. Louis-Marie, synonymous with renewing our baptismal promises. At our baptism, we renounced our slavery to sin and death and became slaves of Jesus. Similarly, this consecration requires that we die to ourselves, that we renounce everything, including the world and things we possess interiorly and exteriorly, both good and bad, our merits and virtues in order to be saved and freed through a slavery of love to Jesus through Mary. In

True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie says, “If we do not die to ourselves, and if our holiest devotions do not incline us to this necessary and useful death, we shall bring forth no fruit worth anything, and our devotions will become useless.”78

We must submit to what St. Louis-Marie calls slavery of the will. Unlike slavery of nature, which St. Louis-Marie says is a characteristic of all creatures who are subject to God because we inhabit God’s earth and we are God’s creature,79 the slavery of the will “is the most perfect and most glorious” because a slave freely “gives himself whole and entire to his master…demand[s] nothing…[and] has no right to quit his master at will.”80 Being a willing slave of Jesus and Mary is more intense than being a servant because, as St. Louis-Marie says, a slave can never leave its Master. Holy Slavery allows us to perfectly belong to God through Jesus and Mary by imitating their lives and relationship. In True Devotion St. Louis-Marie says, “There is nothing among Christians which makes us more belong to Jesus Christ and His holy Mother than the slavery of the will…[In fact,] Jesus Christ Himself…took on Himself the form of a slave for love of us

(Phil. 2:7); and also…the holy Virgin…called herself the servant and slave of God (Lk.

1:38).”81

78 TD, no. 81. 79 TD, no. 69. 80 TD, no. 69. 81 TD, no. 72.

33

True Devotion to Mary is about meditating on and participating in the virtues (i.e., the faith) of Mary. The key is to resemble Mary so that God is more apt to unite Himself to a soul. In True Devotion to Mary, Mary is called “the faithful echo of God”;82 meaning, “when we praise her, love her, honor her or give anything to her, it is God who is praised, God who is loved, God who is glorified, and it is to God that we give, through

Mary and in Mary.”83 This relationship – where Mary is in perfect communion with God and Mary is fully realized in God– is clearly portrayed in scripture when Mary exclaims during the visitation, “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Luke1:46-55). Mary’s sole mission of salvation is to magnify God’s glory throughout time and space. True Devotion to

Mary is a manifestation of this mission. With the Holy Spirit, True Devotion to Mary produces souls that imitate Mary’s role in the mystery of the Incarnation. At the

Annunciation, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and bore Jesus in her virginal womb. In a similar way, this devotion mimics the mystery of the Incarnation by forming

Christ in souls through the power of the Holy Spirit.

These souls, who share in Mary’s mission to glorify God, are called the “apostles of the latter times.”84 They are servants and children of Mary. According to St. Louis-

Marie, “it was through Mary that the salvation of the world was begun, and it is through

Mary that it must be consummated.”85 As such, the saints of Mary will be “ministers of the Lord.”86 They will be Mary’s most faithful soldiers, “thundering against sin”87 and relying on God alone. “They will walk in the footsteps of Christ, imitating his poverty,

82 TD, no. 225. 83 TD, no. 225. 84 TD, no. 58. 85 TD, no. 49. 86 TD, no. 56. 87 TD, no. 57.

34

humility, contempt for the world, charity,”88 and they will not fear death because they will be fully alive in Christ.

Ultimately, these disciples will be known by their true devotion to Mary. St.

Louis-Marie says the apostles of the latter times “will know what is the surest, the easiest, the shortest, and most perfect means of going to Jesus Christ; and they will give themselves to Mary, body and soul, without reserve…[because they will] belong entirely to Jesus Christ.”89 He also says these disciples are people who are faithful to the exterior and interior practices of True Devotion to Mary. Their devotion is pure and embodied. It will always be practiced for God alone. In this way, the apostles of the latter times will be distinguished by the bloody Cross laid upon their shoulders, with the “the Crucifix

[clasped] in [their] right hand and the Rosary in [their] left.”90

Criteria of True Devotion to Mary

St. Louis-Marie lived in a historical period in which there were some who cried out against any devotion to Mary, while others practiced forms of devotion that in his judgment were false. “Critical devotees,” he explains,

are, for the most part, proud scholars, rash and self-sufficient spirits, who have at heart some devotion to the holy Virgin, but who criticize nearly all the practices of devotion which simple people pay simply and holily to their good Mother, because these practices do not fall in with their own humor and fancy.91

The proud scholars he refers to are people like Widenfelt, who wrote Salutary Advice of the Blessed Virgin to Her Indiscreet Devotees.92 Such scholars misinterpreted the words

88 TD, no. 59. 89 TD, no. 55. 90 TD, no. 59. 91 TD, no. 92. 92 TD, pg. 60; see footnote.

35

of the , St. Louis-Marie says, and they were uneasy about external devotions because they did not “believe so many tales and stories that are told about Our

Lady.”93 Those who do practice devotion but do so falsely fall into a variety of categories. He explains:

Let us then take great care not to be of the number of the critical devotees, who believe nothing and criticize everything; nor of the scrupulous devotees, who are afraid of being too devout to Our Lady, out of respect to Our Lord; nor of the exterior devotees, who make all their devotion consist in outward practices; nor of the presumptuous devotees, who, under the pretext of their false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, wallow in their ; nor of the inconstant devotees, who from levity change their practices of devotion, or give them up altogether, at the least temptation; nor of the hypocritical devotees, who join confraternities and wear the liveries of the Blessed Virgin in order to pass for good people; nor, finally, of the interested devotees, who have recourse to Our Lady only to be delivered from bodily evils, or to obtain temporarily goods.94

True Devotion to Mary includes both implicit and also explicit criteria for distinguishing true devotion to Mary from the false forms present in St. Louis-Marie’s seventeenth and eighteenth-century context. These criteria are Christological and Trinitarian, soteriological and eschatological, and ecclesial.95

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria

St. Louis-Marie explicitly articulates Christological criteria in his critique of scrupulous devotees. These “scrupulous devotees are those who fear to dishonor the Son by honoring the Mother, to abase the one in elevating the other.”96 These devotees fail to realize St. Louis-Marie’s theology of the interconnectedness of Jesus and Mary in the mystery of the Incarnation. As I have emphasized in my discussion of True Devotion to

93 TD, no. 93. 94 TD, no. 104. 95 These criteria come from Mary McCaughey, “The Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’ and the Renewal of Marian Devotion in the Church Today,” Marian Studies Vol. 65, Article 3, 1. 96 TD, no. 94.

36

Mary, this devotion is true because it “consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ.”97 St. Louis-Marie says true devotion to Mary is “the most perfect of all devotions” and a “perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy

Baptism”98 because

Mary being the most conformed of all creatures to Jesus Christ, it follows that, of all devotions, that which most consecrates and conforms the soul to Our Lord is devotion to His holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to Mary, the more it is consecrated to Jesus.99

This consecration is fully trinitarian, for the mystery of the Incarnate Word living and reigning in Mary through her spiritual maternity is founded on Mary’s relationship with her Spouse, the Holy Spirit, and its ultimate goal is union with God. True devotion

“inspires the soul not to seek itself but only God, and God in His holy Mother.”100

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria

These criteria are evident in St. Louis-Marie’s discussion of those devotees he describes as presumptuous, hypocritical, inconstant, self-interested, or merely external in their devotional practices. Presumptuous devotees, he explains, have an illusory devotion to Mary. They assume it is enough to belong to Mary only in name and not in practice, and they are unchanged and continue in their sins. Hypocritical devotees are similar to presumptuous devotees because they “cloak their sins and sinful habits with her mantle.”101 Inconstant devotees “change like the moon,”102 St. Louis-Marie says. They devote themselves “by fits and starts.”103 St. Louis-Marie says these devotees are better

97 TD, no. 120. 98 TD, no. 120. 99 TD, no. 120. 100 TD, no. 110. 101 TD, no. 102. 102 TD, no. 101. 103 TD, no. 101.

37

off not “burden[ing] themselves with so many prayers and practices but to choose a few and fulfill them with faithfulness and love, in spite of the world, the devil and the flesh.”104 Finally, self-interested devotees only have recourse to Mary because they expect Mary to compensate or reward them for their devotion. The interested devotee treats Mary like a genie in a bottle. They are not devoted to Mary because of sincere love for her, but because they expect to gain something in return for their devotion.

According to St. Louis-Marie, true devotion bears fruit in the practice of the virtues that flow from the grace of the Holy Spirit. This implies that this devotion is soteriological and eschatological. True devotion, he writes, must be

“interior…tender…holy…constant... and disinterested.”105 Interiority means “it comes from the mind and the heart. It flows from the esteem we have for [Mary], the high idea we have formed of her greatness.”106 Essentially, St. Louis-Marie says a true devotion to

Mary is based upon a sincere love of her. A sincere love of Mary is a sincere love of

Christ. According to St. Louis-Marie, the more we love Mary, the more we love

Christ.107 If we foster a sincere love for Mary, Mary will help us grow in total union with her son, Jesus Christ, because “it is through the most holy Virgin Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is also through her He has to reign in the world.”108

True devotion is tender, meaning it “is full of confidence” in Mary because, “like a child’s confidence in his loving mother”, St. Louis-Marie says, “this confidence makes the soul have recourse to her in all its bodily and mental necessities, with much

104 TD, no. 101. 105 TD, no. 105. 106 TD, no. 106. 107 TD, no. 13. 108 TD, no. 1.

38

simplicity, trust, and tenderness.”109 According to St. Louis-Marie, a confident devotion in Mary is one where “it implores the aid of its good Mother at all times, in all places and above all things.”110 In other words, a true devotion is dependent and trustful. Another characteristic of true devotion is holiness. It must “lead the soul to avoid sin and to imitate the virtues of the Blessed Virgin, particularly her profound humility, her lively faith, her blind obedience, her continual prayer, her universal mortification, her divine purity, her ardent charity, her heroic patience, her angelic sweetness and her divine wisdom.”111 According to St. Louis-Marie, “these are the ten principal virtues of the most holy Virgin.”112 If the practice of this devotion does not inspire a soul to participate in the virtues of Mary, then, according to St. Louis-Marie, it is undoubtedly a false devotion. True devotion to Mary is also constant and disinterested. This means “it confirms the soul in good and does not let it easily abandon its spiritual exercises.”113 St.

Louis-Marie says,

A person truly devout to our blessed Lady is neither changeable, irritable, scrupulous nor timid…when he falls, he rises again by stretching out his hand to his good Mother. When he loses the taste and relish of devotion, he does not become disturbed…for the just and faithful client of Mary lives by the faith (Heb. 10:38) of Jesus and Mary, and not by natural sentiment.114

Some of St. Louis-Marie’s critique may have been directed to persons influenced by

Jansenism. The general uneasiness and disbelief St. Louis-Marie expresses about the critical devotees could be in reference to them. The heresy of was named after

109 TD, no. 107. 110 TD, no. 107. 111 TD, no. 108. 112 TD, no. 108. 113 TD, no. 109. 114 TD, no. 109.

39

Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638). According to Robert Mayer, Jansenism was “a heresy on grace.”115 It was “a religious movement…[that] developed and attempted to impose an extreme Augustinian conception of man’s relationship with God; it attacked and was resisted by a more humanistic school fostered by the , which continued the optimism of the .”116 For St. Louis-Marie, the of Jansenism opposed True Devotion to Mary because they centered on a person’s ability to strive towards God through the intercession of Mary and the Holy Spirit. For the Jansenists,

God’s role in the infusion of grace cannot be resisted and does not require human assent.

In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie says a person can resist grace in a fallen state, and a false devotion characterizes that refusal of that grace; wherein a person refuses

Mary into his or her heart and therefore he or she never advances beyond exterior practices. These “external devotees” St. Louis-Marie says, “are persons who make all devotions to the Blessed Lady consist in outward practices…they have no love but for the sensible part of devotion, without having any relish for its solidity.”117

Ecclesial Criteria

Finally, it is evident both in St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary and in the story of his life that I have shared in this chapter that true devotion is ecclesial. It is not an individual, private practice, but, like the of baptism that it renews, it takes place in the context of the Church and procures great blessings for our neighbors. It

115 Robert Mayer, “Montfortian Spirituality: A Reply to the Anti-Marian Movement of Jansenism,” PhD diss., ( College, 1967), 3. 116 Gres-Gayer, J. M. "Jansenism." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 7, Gale, 2003, pp. 715 720. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3407705822/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=GVRL&xid=b23f8 d12. Accessed 16 Feb. 2019. 117 TD, no. 96.

40

bears fruit in missionary ecclesial practices such as outreach to the poor, works of charity, and the establishment of congregations such as the congregation of the Company of

Mary.

Conclusion

Overall, True Devotion to Mary is a spiritual treatise that centers on the Incarnate

Word living and reigning in Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. It reimagines baptismal renewal through the hands of Mary and shows that Mary, as the Mother of

God, is instrumental in the Incarnation and the salvation of souls. St. Louis-Marie was a mystic and missionary who sought to transform the Church through the powerful intercession of Mary. In True Devotion to Mary, he argued for a greater emphasis on

Mary. He believed a fuller knowledge and love of Mary would inspire an even greater knowledge and love of Jesus. True Devotion to Mary is a catalyst for how people can share and emulate a purer vision of Jesus Christ in the world.

41

CHAPTER II

PATRONESS OF THE COUNCIL: MARY AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

Introduction

In this chapter, I briefly describe the state of Marian theology and devotion in the decades immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council and articulate the context surrounding the discussion of Mary at the Second Vatican Council. I articulate the

Mariology developed in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium in the context of this

Constitution on the Church. My discussion of post-conciliar Mariology takes place in a context in which there are diverse and even conflicting interpretations of the meaning of the Council.118 In this context, I articulate explicit criteria for Marian devotion based on a close reading of Lumen Gentium. These criteria are ecclesial, Christological, soteriological, Trinitarian, and eschatological.119 These criteria will constructively move my thesis forward.

Marian Theology and Devotion Immediately Prior to the Second Vatican Council

In the decades immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, Marian theology and devotion flourished in what Cardinal Suenens called an “Age of Mary.” For approximately one hundred years before the Second Vatican Council, the special privileges of Mary colored the devotion and theology of this “Marian Age.” The “Marian

Age” culminated in the Dogmatic Constitutions of the in 1854

118 Refer to Massimo Faggioli’s Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (New York: Paulist, 2012) for additional context surrounding the diverse and conflicting interpretations of the meaning of the Council. 119 A helpful secondary source that has supported my work in this chapter is Irish theologian Mary McCaughey’s essay “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’ and the Renewal of Marian Devotion in the Church Today,” Marian Studies Vol. 65, Article 3, 1.

42

and the in 1950. According to Irish theologian Mary McCaughey,

“On the eve of the Second Vatican Council, the type of Mariology familiar to most of the

Council Fathers was what was described as ‘maximalist.’”120 The “maximalist” Marian devotion had roots in high Medieval and Counter-Reformation piety that practiced an affective devotion, emphasized the role of Mary as an intermediary between God and humanity and a miracle worker with powers that were almost divine, and treated Mary as a figure important in her own right rather than placing her in relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.121 Such an excessive emphasis on Mary and her privileges contributed to a maximalist Mariology.

The Discussion of Mary at the Second Vatican Council

The “maximalism” of Mariology before the Second Vatican Council was an important topic for many twentieth-century Catholic theologians at the Second Vatican

Council. According to patristic scholar and theologian Brian Daley, the intention of the

Catholic theologians at the Second Vatican Council was “not to reject [Mary’s] role but to seek new ways of integrating it within the larger field of Christian and teaching.”122 At the Second Vatican Council, the Council fathers and the Catholic theologians who served as their advisors harnessed the spirit of the ressourcement movement in order to accomplish this task. In the 1930s, the ressourcement movement began in France and . By the 1950s, Daley says ressourcement had become an

120 Mary McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 4. 121 See McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 3-5. 122 Brian Daley, “Sign and Source of the Church: Mary in the Ressourcement and at Vatican II,” in John C. Cavadini and Danielle M. Peters eds. Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017), 39.

43

important form of theological thought especially in Europe and North America. On the eve of the Second Vatican Council, Daley writes the ressourcement movement or the

return to the sources of theology signaled a style of studying and teaching the Church’s doctrine and speculation that attempted to move away from the deductive, apologetic rationalism of many nineteenth – and early twentieth-century writers. Instead it looked for historical development, continuities, and influences within a changing but organically growing tradition, inspired by a new encounter with the Church Fathers.123

Following the example of (1896-1991), the ressourcement movement sought to re-integrate Mary into the single mystery and life of Christ and the Church.

Otto Semmelroth (1912-1979), (1904-1995), and (1904-1984), for example, were prominent ressourcement theologians, who, according to Daley, helped develop “a Mariology that was tied integrally to the history of salvation made possible by ‘a renewed, historically grounded, liturgically centered, scripturally expressed, understanding of the Church’ (emphasis in original).”124 This type of

Mariology was articulated fully in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, which is also known as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Daley writes, “The…final section of Lumen

Gentium is in many ways one of the most complete summations we have of modern

Catholic Marian doctrine.”125 Theologian John C. Cavadini echoes Daley and adds that

Lumen Gentium “folds Marian theology formally into the theology of the Church and yet manages to integrate into this theology, and thereby contextualize within it, the privileges strand of the Marian Age, including her role as Mediatrix, which appears as ‘an expression of her continuing motherhood.’”126 Although Lumen Gentium articulated a

123 Daley, “Sign and Source of the Church…,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 40. 124 John C. Cavadini, “Introduction,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 4. 125 Cavadini, “Introduction,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 5. 126 Cavadini, “Introduction,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 5.

44

very cohesive understanding of Mary and , it took three major drafts until the

Catholic theologians at the Second Vatican Council agreed upon the final conciliar text on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The evolution of the conciliar theology of Mary was a long process because there was a significant division within the Council. One primary debate amongst the two groups of Council Fathers about the Blessed Virgin Mary was how the Church should articulate and present a formal teaching on the Blessed Mother. Should the Church teach about Mary in the context of Lumen Gentium, or should Mary’s role in salvation history be treated as a separate text? This question was a fundamental question that the Council

Fathers had to answer at the Second Vatican Council.

According to McCaughey, this motive of this debate is noted in Otto

Semmelroth’s commentary on chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium:

What the dispute was about was not whether the Blessed Virgin should be more honoured or less honoured. Devotion to her has always had its secure place in Catholic piety. Rather the question was how Mary’s position, and devotion to her, could be better explained: should she be treated as a figure apart, as it were in her own right, with all the risk of isolation that would involve, or in a context which alone could bring out her importance in the work of redemption and therefore in the Church’s devotion?127

Since, at the time, the Catholic Church was emerging from an “Age of Mary,” Fr.

Thomas A. Thompson, a lecturer and research assistant for the International Marian

Research Institute at the University of Dayton, says many Catholic (1,074) favored a separate text on the Blessed Virgin Mary. There were others (1,114), however, like Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez of Santiago, Chile, who were wary of treating Mary as a separate topic. According to Thompson, Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez and others

127 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 5.

45

thought a separate text on Mary would encourage further abstraction and isolation of

Marian devotion from the rest of theology. Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez said it was regrettable that Marian devotion was being practiced apart from the rest of theology: “We think it is of great importance and general interest, from both the ecumenical and pastoral viewpoints, that the Marian doctrine does not appear as a sort of independent theological overgrowth, but takes its place in the whole complex of the message of salvation.”128

The final decision to include Mary in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic

Constitution on the Church, was an ecclesial and pastoral effort to incorporate Mary more fully into the corpus of theological thought and the liturgy so it was consistent with

Scripture and tradition recovered by the work of ressourcement. This decision was made with no intent to precipitate what W. Beinert described as “the decade without Mary” after the Second Vatican Council.129

The Mariology of Chapter Eight in Lumen Gentium in its Ecclesiological Context

According to systematic ecclesiologist Dennis M. Doyle, “The Dogmatic

Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, “Light of the Peoples”): promotes an understanding of the church that highlights mystery, , shared authority, the , and the need for reform and renewal.”130 Lumen Gentium is a comprehensive theology of the Church both in the modern world and within salvation history. In the

Constitution, the Church is described as a “sacrament,” which “bring[s] the light of Christ to all men.”131 In Lumen Gentium, the Church is the “Light of the Peoples” because the

128 Thomas A. Thompson, “Recovering Mary’s Faith and Her Role in the Church,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 70. 129 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 6. 130 Dennis M. Doyle, “The Church Emerging from Vatican II: A Popular Approach to Contemporary Catholicism” (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2002), 17. 131 Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium. November 21, 1964, no 1.

46

Church draws its power from Christ, who is the “Light of nations.”132 According to

Doyle,

The title Lumen Gentium, “Light of the Peoples,” applies directly to Christ…The church is lumen gentium to the extent that the light of Christ “is brightly visible on the countenance of the church.” That is, the light that the church has to offer is not, strictly speaking, of itself, but is rather a reflection of Christ shining through it.133

By this understanding, Christ uses the Church as an “instrument” to reveal more fully the

Kingdom of God.134

Lumen Gentium begins with an affirmation that the nature and mission of the

Church is foreshadowed throughout salvation history. “Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of and by means of the Old .”135

Lumen Gentium emphasizes a few metaphors to convey the timelessness of the Church and the Kingdom of God. Lumen Gentium uses metaphors like “the

Church is a sheepfold whose one and indispensable door is Christ,” the shepherd.136 And

“the Church is a piece of land to be cultivated, the tillage of God...land like a choice vineyard…[in which] the true vine is Christ who gives life and the power to bear abundant fruit to the branches, that is, to us, who through the Church remain in Christ without whom we can do nothing.”137 Lumen Gentium alludes to the Church as the “the building of God” as well.138 The Constitution states, “The Lord Himself compared

Himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the

132 LG, no. 1. 133 Doyle, “The Church Emerging from Vatican II…,” 35. 134 LG, no. 1. 135 LG, no. 2. 136 LG, no. 6. 137 LG, no. 6. 138 LG, no. 6.

47

cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles, and from it the

Church receives durability and consolidation…As living stones we here on earth are built into it.”139

Lumen Gentium articulates several theologies of the Church, including the Church as a new creation and the Mystical Body of Christ. The metaphors of the Church that pertain most directly to my thesis are the Church as “our mother” and the Church “as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb.”140 According to Lumen Gentium, the Church is mother and

described as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb, whom Christ “loved and for whom He delivered Himself up that He might sanctify her,” whom he united to Himself by an unbreakable covenant, and whom He unceasingly “nourishes and cherishes,” and whom, finally, He filled with heavenly gifts for all eternity, in order that we may know the love of God and of Christ for us, a love which surpasses all knowledge” because “…in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” He fills the Church, which is His body and His fullness, with His divine gifts so that it may expand and reach all the fullness of God.141

The nuptial mystery of Christ and the Church is embodied perfectly in the personhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is sanctified, nourished, and cherished as the Mother of

God and helps “expand and reach all the fullness of God.”

While the Church is foreshadowed throughout salvation history, “the Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world.”142 According to Lumen Gentium, “This inauguration and this growth are both symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of a crucified Jesus, and are foretold in the words of the Lord referring to His death on

139 LG, no. 6. 140 LG, no. 6. 141 LG, no. 7. 142 LG, no. 3.

48

the Cross: ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.’”143

Again, the source of the Church is Christ, but the Church is united and enlivened in and through the Holy Spirit, which “dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple.”144 In essence, it is the , manifested in the that creates and unites the Mystical Body of Christ. Lumen Gentium states, “Giving the body unity through Himself and through His power and inner joining of the members, this same Spirit produces and urges love among the believers. From all this it follows that if one member endures anything, all the members co-endure it, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice.”145 In this way Lumen Gentium emphasizes one universal Spirit that unites the members of the Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium states, “There is only one Spirit who, according to His own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives His different gifts for the welfare of the

Church.”146 Although the Mystical Body of Christ is made up of many parts, Lumen

Gentium says, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of

Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.”147 In other words, “the Church, which the Spirit guides in the way of all truth and which [Jesus] united in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits.”148 The tension

143 LG, no. 3. 144 LG, no. 4. 145 LG, no. 7. 146 LG, no. 7. 147 LG, no. 8. 148 LG, no. 4.

49

between an ecclesiology of hierarchical gifts and an ecclesiology of the is a topic Doyle develops further in relation to ’ models of the Church. I will not go into detail about Dulles’ models of the Church because that is beyond the scope of my thesis. Doyle uses Dulles’ sixth model, the community of disciples, “to illuminate the purpose of the institutional structures and the sacramental aspects of the church, and to ground the missionary thrust toward evangelization and social transformation.”149

In chapter two, Lumen Gentium addresses the nature and mission of the People of

God to bring clarity and validity to the part of all the baptized in the mystery and life of the Church. According to Lumen Gentium, Christ institutes the new people of God.

More explicitly, they are instituted “in His Blood.”150 The new People of God, according to Lumen Gentium, are united in the saving waters of Baptism because they are

“reborn…not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, [and] are finally established as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people…who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God.”151 Thus, Baptism is a doorway and a gift, which leads to the Kingdom of God.

According to Lumen Gentium, the People of God are saved and ruled by the love of Christ. The People of God are witnesses, whom God has “gathered together as one [in the Spirit and to]…look upon [in faith] upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity.”152 According to Lumen Gentium, the

People of God are oriented towards the “the kingdom of God, which has been begun by

149 Doyle, “The Church Emerging from Vatican II…,” 32. 150 LG, no. 9. 151 LG, no. 9. 152 LG, no. 9.

50

God Himself on earth, and which is to be further extended until it is brought to perfection by Him at the end of time, when Christ, our life, shall appear, and ‘creation itself will be delivered from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the sons of

God.’”153 Until that time, the People of God are “strengthened in Holy Communion by the Body of Christ…[and] manifest in a concrete way that unity of the people of God which is suitably signified and wondrously brought about by this august sacrament.”154

United in the Spirit and brought together in the sacrament of the , the Church, the people of God, are many parts but one Body, “whereby they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources.”155

In a real way, the Second Vatican Council understood that the role of the Blessed

Virgin within salvation history holds within herself the mystery and life of the Church, as described in the chapters of Lumen Gentium on the Church as the Mystical Body of

Christ and the People of God. The Blessed Virgin Mary is known as the “primary patroness of the advent of the new millennium.”156 In chapter eight of Lumen Gentium the Council articulates the role of the Blessed Mother within the single mystery of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Mariology of Lumen Gentium demonstrates the identity and mission of the Catholic Church, exemplified in the Blessed Virgin Mary in the modern world today. While the Mariology in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium is not meant to be “a complete doctrine on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified,” Lumen Gentium does intend to

153 LG, no. 9. 154 LG, no. 11. 155 LG, no. 13. 156 Antoine Nachef, Mary’s Pope: John Paul II, Mary, and the Church since Vatican II (Franklin Wisconsin: Sheed & Ward, 2000), 5.

51

“describe with diligence both the role of the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of the

Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body [the Church], and the duties of redeemed mankind toward the Mother of God, who is mother of Christ and mother of men, particularly of the faithful.”157 From chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, I will outline the implicit theological criteria for true Marian devotion according to the Second Vatican Council. In the following pages, I will emphasize the ecclesial, soteriological, eschatological, Trinitarian, and Christological dimensions of true Marian devotion articulated at the Second Vatican

Council.

Conciliar Criteria for True Marian Devotion

Since Lumen Gentium does not expressly articulate criteria for true devotion to

Mary, I will articulate criteria consistent with the teaching of Lumen Gentium, the

Constitution on the Church. I will draw from my reading of Lumen Gentium and the work of Mary McCaughey to articulate the ecclesial, soteriological, eschatological,

Christological, and Trinitarian dimensions of true Marian devotion.

Ecclesial Criteria

The Council Fathers sought to re-integrate Marian theology and devotion into the rest of the life of the Church. According to McCaughey, “The Mystical Body movement…paved the way for the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium.”158 The ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is an ecclesiology of communion. “Such an ecclesiology,” says

McCaughey, “is based on an understanding of the Church as mystery with its roots in

Trinitarian and Eucharistic ecclesiology.”159 According to Lumen Gentium, “The Church

157 LG, no. 54. 158 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 7. 159 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 8.

52

has been seen as ‘a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy

Spirit.’”160 This ecclesiology of communion articulated in Lumen Gentium refers to both the inner and outer life of the Church, which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and

“exemplified in the person of Mary as its archetype.”161

In Lumen Gentium, the Church is described in chapter one as a communion of

“faith, hope and charity,”162 which “grows from the inside out through the prayer and sacramental participation of its members.”163 In chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, Mary is “‘the mother of the members of Christ…having cooperated by charity that [the] faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head.’”164 Mary is “hailed as pre- eminent and singular member of the Church” and as an “excellent exemplar in faith and charity,” and the Catholic Church must honor and imitate her.165 According to

McCaughey, “Mary is…not just a macro-ecclesial sign of the Virgin-Mother, but also a micro-ecclesial sign or an embodiment of the church in an anthropological way.”166 In other words, McCaughey says Mary is not an institution or a building. She is counted amongst the People of God. According to Lumen Gentium, Mary is amongst the People of God because she is “redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the

Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the

Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit.”167 Although Mary is counted amongst the

160 LG, no. 4. 161 See McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 9 on the relation of the invisible and visible. 162 LG, no. 8. 163 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 9. 164 LG, no. 53. 165 LG, no. 53. 166 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 25. 167 LG, no. 53.

53

People of God because she is “the offspring of Adam” and thus “one with all those who are to be saved,” Lumen Gentium writes, “the gift of sublime grace [of Mary] far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth,” because she is the “pre-eminent and singular member of the Church” and an “excellent exemplar in faith and charity.”168

For McCaughey, Mary “is the ‘ecclesial person’ par excellence, and, because of her, members of the Church are virgin-mothers or ‘ecclesial persons’ in her form, giving birth to Christ (mother) through their openness to grace (virgin).”169 Members of the

Church are “‘ecclesial persons’” in the form of Mary because “Mary represents the ‘yes’ of the Body, which is the ‘yes’ of the Church on behalf of all creation.”170 Lumen

Gentium states, “This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect.”171 According to

Lumen Gentium, this maternal mediation does not end with Mary’s Assumption, but extends until the end of time. Lumen Gentium says it is “by [Mary’s] constant intercession” that she “bring[s] us the gift of eternal salvation.”172 For Lumen Gentium,

Mary’s “yes” at the Annunciation is not an individual “yes.” It is a yes from the past, which echoes far into the future. It is a “yes” for and from the collective whole, the New

Creation and Covenant. It is a “yes” throughout time because Mary’s role as “‘’ is [intimately] connected to her role as ‘mother in the order of grace.’”173

168 LG, no. 53. 169 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 25. 170 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 23. 171 LG, no. 62. 172 LG, no. 62. 173 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 24.; And see also McCaughey’s note 58, “She is our Mother in the order of grace (LG 61), with a ‘maternal duty’ towards men for their salvation which flows from Christ himself and his mediation (LG 60). This role had already begun at the Annunciation and continues until all who are in Christ are brought to with him (LG 62).”

54

At the Annunciation, Mary is greeted by the as “full of grace.”

In the order of grace, the members of the Church are Mary’s sons and daughters. Mary’s

“yes” initiated the Church and its members into the mystery of the Incarnation, and thus into the family of God. Her reception of the Incarnate Word at the Annunciation affected every single person within salvation history. According to Lumen Gentium,

By [Mary’s] belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.174

As our Mother in the order of grace, who brought forth Christ into the world and established a new order of creation with the New Adam (Jesus Christ),

the Church…contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity.175

For this reason, McCaughey refers to the wise words of Blessed of Stella, who says,

“…What is said in general of the Virgin-Mother of the Church is said individually of the

Virgin-Mary, and what is said in the particular case of the Virgin-Mother Mary is rightly understood of the Virgin-Mother Church universally.”176 Yet, Lumen Gentium says, there remains a difference between Mary, as a type of the Church, and the other members of the People of God, who make up the Church. According to Lumen Gentium, “While in

174 LG, no. 63. 175 LG, no. 64. 176 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 25.

55

the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin.”177 Since the followers of Christ are not fully sanctified like the Blessed

Virgin, Lumen Gentium says the members of the Church should “turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues.”178 Lumen

Gentium says, by “piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the

Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse.”179 According to

McCaughey, “The idea of Mary as ‘type of Church’ is not simply an ontological concept but also a historical one that is worked in her life of faith…Mary…exemplifies the role of the People of God journeying in communion with God through history.”180 In Lumen

Gentium, the idea of Mary as “type of Church” is a historical reality, one that shows that

“the Church, contemplating [Mary’s] hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother.”181 According to McCaughey, “The Church as mystery can be concretized as a sacramental sign when those in the Church live out their communion with the Triune God in the world after the form and pattern of Mary.”182 Like the Church prefigured from the dawn of creation in the soteriology of Lumen Gentium, Mary is prefigured from the beginning of time. McCaughey writes, “Mary’s virgin-motherhood…represents the status of the new creation.”183

177 LG, no. 65. 178 LG, no. 65. 179 LG, no. 65. 180 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 9. 181 LG, no. 64. 182 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 10. 183 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 25.

56

Mary as a new creation is prefigured in the Old Testament. The four typological prefigurations in Lumen Gentium are “the promised Woman” (Gen. 3:15), who “is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin”; “the Virgin who shall conceive and bear a Son whose name is Emmanuel (Isa 7:14, Mic 5:2-3, Mt. 1:22-23); the woman who

“stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him”; and the “Daughter of Sion”, who “after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of

God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.”184 According to Lumen Gentium, Mary, as the personification of Sion, “deeply entered into salvation history and unites in herself and radiates the most important teachings of the faith.”185 According to Thompson,

Mary’s role in the inauguration of the , together with the many references to in Luke’s Annunciation narrative, was developed in John Paul’s Redemptoris Mater: “Mary’s faith can also be compared to that of Abraham, whom St. Paul calls ‘our father in faith’ (cf. Rom. 4:12). In the salvific economy of God’s revelation, Abraham’s faith constitutes the beginning of the Old Covenant; Mary’s faith at the Annunciation inaugurates the New Covenant.”186

Notably, this imagery is reminiscent of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s words in True

Devotion to Mary. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie compares Mary’s faith to

Abraham as well:

God made Man [Jesus] found His liberty in seeing Himself imprisoned in her womb. He made His omnipotence shine forth in letting Himself be carried by that humble maiden. He found His glory and His Father’s in

184 LG, no. 55; and see also Thompson, “Recovering Mary’s Faith and Her Role in the Church,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 72-73. 185 LG, no. 65. 186 Thompson, “Recovering Mary’s Faith and Her Role in the Church,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 73.

57

hiding His splendors from all creatures here below, and revealing them to Mary only. He glorified His independence and His majesty in depending on that sweet Virgin in His conception, in His birth, in His presentation in the temple, in His hidden life of thirty years, and even in His death, where she was to be present in order that He might make with her but one same sacrifice and be immolated to the Eternal Father by her consent, just as Isaac of old was offered by Abraham’s consent to the will of God. It is she who nourished Him, supported Him, brought Him up and then sacrificed Him for us.187

In light of Lumen Gentium’s teaching on ecclesiology and Mary, McCaughey observes, “Such a move to a concrete ecclesiology is not a call for a ‘bottom up’ ecclesiology, but is, as affirms, a call to ‘a reality that demands visible expression in the life of our communities’ as agapé.”188 According to

McCaughey, one way the Catholic Church can enact and embody this ecclesiology of communion as agape in Lumen Gentium is through Marian consecration and devotion.

According to Lumen Gentium, “There [are] various forms of piety toward the Mother of

God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved.”189 One such form of piety is Marian consecration, specifically by St. Louis-

Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary. Although McCaughey dedicates a section of her writing to how renewed Marian devotion is explicitly concretized in the new ecclesial movements like The , The , and

Youth 2000, she emphasizes that, “Marian consecration is a way of entering into the mystery of the Triune God as demonstrated archetypically and historically in Mary.”190

187 TD, no. 18. 188 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 10-11. 189 LG, no. 66. 190 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 14.

58

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria

According to Lumen Gentium, Mary’s role in the economy of salvation is prefigured in the Old and . Lumen Gentium refers to Mary’s Immaculate

Conception to highlight the prefiguration of Mary. Lumen Gentium states,

Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God’s command, by an angel messenger as “full of grace,” and to the heavenly messenger she replies: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word.”191

From Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Lumen Gentium states, “The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life.”192 Lumen Gentium builds upon the teachings of the Church Fathers by emphasizing that Mary’s “yes” transformed her into a type of Eve.

In Lumen Gentium, the bishops cite St. who says, “[Mary] ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’”193 Mary is

“‘the Mother of the living’” because “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by

Mary’s obedience; what virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin loosened by her faith.”194 She is the person whom “the Holy Spirit…formed as a new creature”195 and who was able to loosen or untie the grip of death and sin through and by her faith. This imagery is also employed by St. Louis-Marie, who says “God the Son descended into her virginal womb as the New Adam into His terrestrial paradise, to take His pleasure there,

191 LG, no. 56. 192 LG, no. 56. 193 LG, no. 56. 194 LG, no. 56. 195 LG, no. 56.

59

and to work in secret marvels of grace.”196 Lumen Gentium writes, “the mother of

Jesus…gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things.”197 So, “just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life.”198

According to Lumen Gentium, Mary is “a daughter of Adam, [who] consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only mediator.”199 Mary

“embrac[ed] God’s salvific will,” says Lumen Gentium, and “freely cooperat[ed] in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.”200 In contrast with Eve, who did not freely cooperate through faith and obedience. Chapter eight of Lumen Gentium states that the historical significance and subjective role of Mary’s role in the economy of salvation

is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin…She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that he might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.201

Although true Marian devotion must not take away from Christ as sole redeemer,

McCaughey says with theologian Joseph Ratzinger that “always tracing the Mariological back to the Christological can fail to recognize the importance of the Mariological for the

Christological.”202 McCaughey writes,

196 TD, no. 18. 197 LG, no. 56. 198 LG, no. 56. 199 LG, no. 56. 200 LG, no. 56. 201 LG, no. 55. 202 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 17.; See also note 39 Ratzinger, “On the Position of Mariology and Marian Spirituality within the Totality of Faith and Theology,” in The Church and Women: A Compendium, ed. Helmut Moll (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 79.

60

The distinctiveness of Mariology for and all theology is that it recognizes a place for the subjective dimensions of the work of salvation, while not failing to acknowledge the objective work of God. Thus, while salvation is a divine gift from outside the creature, unconnected with any creaturely merits, it also has to be received as a gift in order to be effective. This is demonstrated marvelously and perfectly in Mary. Mary concretizes Trinitarian ecclesiology, proclaiming her that God had indeed worked marvels for her (LK 1:49).203

According to St. John Paul II, as I will explain in chapter three, the subjective dimension of salvation history, personified in Mary’s free human response, is just as important as

God’s objective plan. Redemptoris Mater meditates on St. Elizabeth’s words, “Blessed is she who believed” (Luke 1:45). From these words, St. John Paul II interprets Mary’s free human response, which is a representation of all humanity. He writes, “[Mary] responded, therefore, with all her human and feminine ‘I,’ and this response of faith included both perfect cooperation with ‘the grace of God that precedes and assists’ and perfect openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who ‘constantly brings faith to completion by his gifts.’”204 According to McCaughey, Ratzinger says, “This prioritization of the Mariological as representing the human response ‘expands the horizon beyond salvation history,’ so that the emphasis is not on God alone as the sole agent, but includes the reality of creation that has been summoned by God to respond in him in freedom.”205 St. John Paul II states,

In the expression “Blessed is she who believed,” we can therefore rightly find a kind of “key” which unlocks for us the innermost reality of Mary, whom the angel hailed as “full of grace.” If as “full of grace” she has been eternally present in the mystery of Christ, through faith she became a sharer in that mystery in every extension of her earthly journey. She “advanced in her of faith” and at the same time, in a discreet yet direct and effective way, she made present to humanity the mystery of

203 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 17. 204 RM, no. 13. 205 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 20.; See also note 46 Ratzinger, “On the Position of Mariology…,” 76.

61

Christ. And she still continues to do so. Through the mystery of Christ, she too is present within mankind. Thus through the mystery of the Son the mystery of the Mother is also made clear.206

In Lumen Gentium, Mary’s free and faith-filled response to the Triune God begins with her words spoken at the Annunciation. Mary’s active role in the economy of salvation means Mary is “used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.”207 According to McCaughey, Mary’s free and faith-filled response to the Triune God is a representative of the free human response. McCaughey says this idea is expounded in St. John Paul II’s

Redemptoris Mater, which says, the “Annunciation is the culminating moment of Mary’s faith in her awaiting of Christ” and the point of departure from which her whole “journey towards God begins, her whole pilgrimage of faith.”208 This idea will be explained in more depth in the following chapter.

Lumen Gentium states Mary is united to her Son in the work of salvation from his virginal conception to his death on the cross, and even until the end of time. Lumen

Gentium says Mary is actively present throughout Jesus’ public ministry. In the beginning, her maternal mediation at the Wedding Feast of Cana initiated the miraculous works of Jesus Christ. According to Lumen Gentium, Mary’s active presence in her

Son’s life and death advanced her “pilgrimage of faith” and affirmed her union with

Christ and his sacrifice.209 Lumen Gentium says, Mary “lovingly consent[ed] to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by

206 RM, no. 19. 207 LG, no. 57. 208 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 20.; See also John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Rome : Vatican, March 25, 1987), para. 14. 209 LG, no. 58.

62

the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words:

‘Woman, behold thy son.’”210 According to Lumen Gentium, Mary’s cooperation in salvation, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, is solidified at , where, “by her prayers [she] implore[ed] the gift of the Holy Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation”211 to now come rest upon the disciples of her Son.

Notably, the participation of the disciples in Mary’s faith at Pentecost reveals an effect of the practice of Marian devotion. According to St. Louis-Marie, participation in

Mary’s faith is like “a mysterious pass-key.”212 It “will give you entrance into all the mysteries of Jesus” and “into the Heart of God Himself.”213 Historically, Mary entered and participated in the economy of salvation because of the Incarnation. St. Louis-Marie writes, “It was only through Mary that God the Father gave His Only begotten to the world.”214 “God the Father,” St. Louis-Marie says, “communicated to Mary His fruitfulness, inasmuch as a mere creature was capable of it, in order that He might give her the power to produce His Son and all the members of His Mystical Body.”215 Hence,

St. Louis-Marie says, “it was through Mary that the salvation of the world was begun, and it is through Mary that it must be consummated.”216

Mary’s intimate relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit and thus the Triune God is described in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium. In chapter eight of Lumen Gentium

Mary is called the “Mother of the Son of God…beloved daughter of the Father and the

210 LG, no. 58. 211 LG, no. 59. 212 TD, no. 214. 213 TD, no. 214. 214 TD, no. 16. 215 TD, no. 17. 216 TD, no. 49.

63

temple of the Holy Spirit.”217 From the Annunciation to Pentecost, McCaughey says,

“Mary’s communion with her Son includes communion in faith with the Spirit.”218

Based upon my reading of Lumen Gentium’s teaching of Mary’s Assumption, I would argue Mary’s communion with her Son and the Holy Spirit extend beyond even

Pentecost. Lumen Gentium says Mary is “entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.”219 As a new creature,

McCaughey explains, Mary

symbolizes the generativity of creation under the power of the Spirit. She expresses the freedom of the child of God as one who is continually held in existence by the Spirit. This emphasis on the existential dimensions of the Spirit’s work in fashioning new creatures in Christ and leading them to freedom is a part of Marian devotion which appeals to contemporary sensibilities with a particular prioritization of freedom.220

McCaughey says Mary “embodies the mystery of the Church as a communion in the life of the Triune God.”221 This mystery is actualized, particularly at her Assumption, which

Lumen Gentium teaches is “the sign of created hope and solace to the wandering people of God.”222 According to Lumen Gentium,

The entire body of the faithful pours forth instant supplications to the Mother of God and Mother of men that she, who aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers, may now, exalted as she is above all the angels and saints, intercede before her Son in the fellowship of all the saints, until all families of people, whether they are honored with the title of Christian or whether they still do not know the Saviour, may be happily gathered together in peace and harmony into one people of God, for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.223

217 LG, no. 53. 218 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 23. 219 LG, no. 56. 220 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 23. 221 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 12-13. 222 LG, sec. 5. 223 LG, no. 69.

64

In the Assumption, the unity of the People of God, modeled after the unity of the Trinity, is represented and revealed through Mary. According to McCaughey, theologians David

Schindler and Mary Timothy Provokes illustrates “that the human body’s nuptial capacity for self-giving can be actualized, to bring persons into communion” through Mary.224

McCaughey writes, based upon Prokes demonstration that

a spirituality of “virgin-motherhood,” which is related to the nuptial identity of our bodies, is about living concrete relationships of mutuality, self-gift, and receptivity in families, workplaces, and society. Living a Marian spirituality of “virgin-motherhood” is connected to the ongoing Incarnation in history through the Church. If the Church is to be the sacrament of salvation in the world, then by looking at her members it should be obvious that through them today, “Verbo Caro hic factum est,” the Word has become flesh here.225

This is the eschatological mission of the Catholic Church, exemplified by the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to McCaughey, “Mary is the sign of the redeemed who, through openness to God’s mercy, radiate divine eschatological glory already, even in the midst of creation.”226 According to Joseph Ratzinger, “the

Assumption of Mary brings out the ‘eschatological transcendence of the Incarnation.’”227

McCaughey writes, “This eschatological dimension of Marian spirituality highlights how the work of redemption is present through all stages of life and works to bring about human holiness as an ever deeper integration of body and soul.”228 This transformation of holiness correlates with St. Louis-Marie’s idea of the “apostles of the latter times.”

According to St. Louis-Marie, the “apostles of the latter times” “will know what is the

224 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 27. 225 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 27-29.; See also notes 65 and 66 David Schindler, “Creation and Nuptiality: A Reflection on Feminism IN light of Schmemann’s Liturgical Theology,” Communio 28 (Summer 2001): 265-295, esp. 277. And Mary Timothy Prokes, “The Nuptial Meaning of the Body in Light of Mary’s Assumption,” Communio 11 (Summer 1984): 175. 226 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 29. 227 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 29. 228 McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 29-30.

65

surest, the easiest, the shortest and the most perfect means of going to Jesus Christ; and they will give themselves to Mary, body and soul, without reserve, that they may thus belong entirely to Jesus Christ.”229

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria

In the beginning of chapter eight of the Constitution on the Church, Lumen

Gentium, the Blessed Virgin Mary’s role in salvation history has Christological roots.

According to Lumen Gentium,

Wishing in His supreme goodness and wisdom to effect the redemption of the world, “when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman…that we might receive the adoption of sons.” “He for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit from .” This divine mystery of salvation is revealed to us and continued in the Church, which the Lord established as His body. Joined to Christ the Head and in the unity of fellowship with all His saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory “of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.”230

In the context of Mary’s relationship with Christ, her relationship with the Holy Spirit is always present. According to Lumen Gentium, the Holy Spirit “endowed [Mary] with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit.”231 At the

Annunciation, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and filled her virginal womb with the

Incarnate Word. At Pentecost, which St. John Paul II says is a of the

Annunciation,232 “Mary by her prayers implore[ed] the gift of the Spirit”233 to descend upon the faithful disciples and form within their souls the Incarnate Word. Mary’s

229 TD, no. 55. 230 LG, no. 52. 231 LG, no. 53. 232 RM, no. 26; “…while Mary was with the Apostles in the Upper Room in at the dawn of the Church, her faith, born from the words of the Annunciation, found confirmation.” 233 LG, no. 59.

66

cooperative relationship with the Holy Spirit is exemplified in St. Louis-Marie’s True

Devotion to Mary. St. Louis-Marie says, “To Mary, His faithful spouse, God the Holy

Ghost has communicated His unspeakable gifts; and He has chosen her to be the dispenser of all He possess, in such wise that she distributes to whom she will, as much as she wills, as she wills and when she wills, all His gifts and graces.”234 Her intercession throughout Jesus’ public ministry, especially at Pentecost, and even today, is because

“The Holy Ghost gives no heavenly gift to men which He does not have pass through her virginal hands.”235 Therefore, St. Louis-Marie says, “Mary has produced, together with the Holy Ghost, the greatest thing which has been or ever will be – a God-Man; and she will consequently produce the greatest saints that there will be in the end of time.”236

Conclusion

Overall, the Mariology articulated before the Second Vatican Council evolved and deepened as the Council progressed and resulted in chapter eight of the final version of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. On the eve of the Second

Vatican Council, the maximalist Mariology popular in the Catholic Church focused almost exclusively on Mary’s special privileges; some forms of Marian devotion had become abstract and separate from the rest of the life of the Church and its theology and liturgy. The Council fathers reintegrated Mariology into the narrative of the economy of salvation and the mystery of the Church, and this chapter has articulated the theological criteria for true Marian devotion, as presented in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium. The

234 TD, no. 25. 235 TD, no. 25. 236 TD, no. 35.

67

chapter concluded that these criteria are ecclesial, soteriological, eschatological,

Christological, and Trinitarian.

68

CHAPTER III

MARY’S POPE: SAINT JOHN PAUL II AND TRUE MARIAN DEVOTION

Introduction

In the essay, “Mary and the Church Today,” scholar and theologian James H.

Phalan writes that the approved Marian text in Lumen Gentium “was meant to serve as a guidepost for…[Marian] renewal, and it is clear in the writing of the post-Vatican II that in their estimation it is suited to this task.”237 Nonetheless, the decade after the

Second Vatican Council is known as “the decade without Mary,”238 the time of a decline in Marian practices and a collapse of Mariology. According to Phalan, the steep decline in Marian devotion, particularly in the Western Church, was the result of several factors.

These include “the apparent change in emphasis given to the Blessed Virgin Mary” at

Vatican II as well as “larger issues of and of social and technological change in the late 1960s and since.”239 Phalan does not examine all of these issues that are “beyond the scope” of his study on Mary and the Church today.

These factors are also beyond the scope of my research interest in this thesis; the chapter will not focus on the factors that contributed to the decline of Marian devotion after the Second Vatican Council. Instead, having acknowledged the events surrounding the decline of Marian devotion, I hope to constructively move us forward by studying the theological criteria of true devotion to Mary articulated by St. John Paul II. In the

237 James H. Phalan, “Mary and the Church Today,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 327. 238 See McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…”, 6.; “While De Fiores points out that this is probably an exaggeration in that it ignored the various Marian publications and the continuation of devotion to the Virgin among the majority of the faithful, nevertheless he notes that, by 1970, many Mariologists recognized the waning in Mariology and Marian devotion.” 239 Phalan, “Mary and the Church Today,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 327.

69

chapter, I first present the Mariology articulated in his Redemptoris Mater, which is consistent with chapter eight in Lumen Gentium. I will then articulate his criteria for Marian devotion today, emphasizing that these are essentially a reading of St.

Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary in light of the Second Vatican Council’s

Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.240

The Mariology of Saint John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater

St. John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Mater was written to continue the teaching and spirit of the Second Vatican Council. The four Constitutions of the Council

(including Lumen Gentium) are of the highest authority and are final until there is another council; they function as a guidepost for ongoing interpretation and growth. The encyclical uses the Mariology articulated in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium to renew

Marian devotion in the Church today. Redemptoris Mater harkens back to Lumen

Gentium so much so that the encyclical cites the Constitution ninety-two times in the footnotes.241

St. John Paul II wrote Redemptoris Mater in the (1987), which was intended “to promote a new and more careful reading of what the Council said about the

Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the mystery of Christ and of the Church.”242

The Marian spirituality and devotion he articulated in Redemptoris Mater was developed

240 See St. John Paul II’s letter to the Montfort Religious Family on December 8th, 2003; John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family” (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana), December 8, 2003, no. 1. “However, the considerable development of Marian theology since St. Louis Marie’s time is largely due to the crucial contribution made by the Second Vatican Council. The Montfort teaching, therefore, which has retained is essential validity should be reread and reinterpreted today in the light of the Council.” 241 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 5. 242 John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Rome Italy: Vatican, March 25, 1987), no. 48.

70

in light of the Second Vatican Council, the doctrinal tradition of the Catholic Church, and the life of the faithful. He explains,

Following the line of the Second Vatican Council, I wish to emphasize the special presence of the Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and his Church. For this is a fundamental dimension emerging from the Mariology of the council, the end of which is now more than twenty years behind us.243

Redemptoris Mater reads Lumen Gentium to expound upon Mary’s active role in the single mystery of Christ and the Church in the order of Redemption. It meditates on her heroic faith and exceptional blessedness to articulate her role as Mother of God and archetype of the Church. St. John Paul II centers his Mariology and theological criteria for true devotion on Mary’s relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit, Mary as an archetype of the Church, and her active presence in salvation history. Redemptoris Mater consists of three major parts: Mary in the Mystery of Christ, The Mother of God at the

Center of the Pilgrim Church, and Maternal Mediation.

Mary in the Mystery of Christ

In light of Lumen Gentium, Redemptoris Mater corresponds with Paul VI’s

Marialis Cultus, which defines true Marian devotion as “Trinitarian, Christological, and aware of the role of the Holy Spirit.”244 Redemptoris Mater defines Mary’s active presence in Redemption and the mystery of Christ (hence the encyclical’s title, “Mother of the Redeemer”), Mary’s role at the center of the pilgrim Church, and her maternal mediation as flowing from her Divine Motherhood. According to Redemptoris Mater,

Mary’s Divine Motherhood in the mystery of Redemption is fundamental and is

243 RM, no. 48. 244 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 3.

71

characterized by her relationship with the Incarnate Word and constitutes her presence in

God’s plan of salvation as the archetype of the Catholic Church.

St. John Paul II begins with an exposition of Mary in the mystery of Christ because Divine Maternity constitutes her active presence in salvation history, which is fully revealed in the coming of Christ. The opening statement of Redemptoris Mater defines the salvific understanding of Mary’s Divine Maternity in light of the Incarnate

Word:

The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation, for ‘when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:4-6).245

“In this sense,” Father Antoine Nachef writes, “Mary and Jesus are both indissolubly joined in the Mother-Son relationship.”246 The Mother-Son relationship is indeed a fleshly bond, but it is also a spiritual bond. According to Nachef, this fleshly bond is emphasized in Redemptoris Mater through reflection of the of Luke. In the

Gospel of Luke, an unknown woman in the crowd “‘raised her voice’ and said to Jesus:

‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!’ (Lk. 11:27).”247

The fleshly bond between the Mother and Son is expressed in this unknown woman’s word. The fleshly bond is important because it proves “Jesus, the Son of the Most High

(cf. Lk. 1:32), is a true son of man. He is ‘flesh,’ like every other man: he is ‘the Word

(who) became flesh’ (cf. Jn. 1:14). He is of the flesh and blood of Mary.”248 St. John

245 RM, no. 1.; According to Nachef, this introduction echoes the introduction of Lumen Gentium, the Constitution on the Church. 246 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 21. 247 RM, no. 20. 248 RM, no. 20.

72

Paul II also emphasizes the response of Jesus, who says, “‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it’ (Lk. 11:28).”249 Here, St. John Paul II says Jesus

“wishes to divert attention from motherhood understood only as a fleshly bond, in order to direct it towards those mysterious bonds of the spirit which develop from hearing and keeping God’s word.”250 By focusing on the power of the Spirit, Jesus extends Mary’s

Divine Motherhood from motherhood in the flesh to a Motherhood in the Spirit and the order of grace. The Motherhood in the Spirit is primary to the motherhood in the flesh.

According to St. John Paul II, the significance of her Divine Maternity is established in Mary’s faith and her adherence to the Word of God. In Redemptoris

Mater, Mary’s Divine Maternity is understood in relation to her faith, which was set forth in her Immaculate Conception. According to St. John Paul II, Mary was preserved from because she,

from the first moment of her conception – which is to say of her existence –…belonged to Christ, sharing in the salvific and sanctifying grace and in that love which has its beginning in the “Beloved,” the Song of the Eternal Father, who through the Incarnation became her own Son. Consequently, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the order of grace, which is a participation in the divine nature, Mary receives life from him to whom she herself, in the order of earthly generation, gave life as a mother.251

In Redemptoris Mater, Mary, who is “prophetically foreshadowed in that promise made to our first parents after their fall into sin,” “the Virgin who is to conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel,” the “daughter of Sion,” and the woman who

“stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently await and receive salvation from him,”252 is given a new name, (“full of grace”). This new name, according

249 RM, no. 20. 250 RM, no. 20. 251 RM, no. 10.; see also LG, no. 53. 252 RM, no. 7-8.; LG, no. 55.

73

to St. John Paul II, is rich in biblical meaning; one that “indicates all the supernatural munificence from which Mary benefits by being chosen and destined to be the Mother of

Christ.”253

According to St. John Paul II,

When we read that the messenger addresses Mary as “full of grace,” context, which mingles and ancient promises, enables us to understand that among all the “spiritual blessings in Christ” this is a special “blessing”…[one that] the Council teaches Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently await and receive salvation from him.”254

In Redemptoris Mater, “Mary is ‘full of grace,’ because it is precisely in her that the

Incarnation of the Word, the of the Son of God with human nature, is accomplished and fulfilled.”255 She is “full of grace” because she “is definitely introduced into the mystery of Christ through…the Annunciation by the angel.”256 She is also full of grace because, as St. Elizbeth proclaimed, she is “blessed among women.”

Mary is an extraordinary woman who is the exemplar of faith for the Church. According to St. John Paul II, understanding Mary’s Divine Motherhood in the order of grace is essential to understand her active presence in the life of the Church because her “heroic faith is a kind of key which unlocks for us the innermost reality of Mary.”257

The innermost reality of Mary is the Incarnate Word, who is the mediator of life and Redemption. In the tradition of the Catholic Church, Christ is a type of Adam because, as Nachef writes, “creation and salvation are two phases of the same plan and

253 RM, no. 9. 254 RM, no. 8.; LG, no. 55. 255 RM, no. 9.; St. John Paul II continues, echoing the Council, writing, “Mary is ‘the Mother of the Son of God. As a result she is also the favorite daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace, she far surpasses all other creatures, both in heaven and on earth” (LG, no. 53). 256 RM, no. 8. 257 RM, no. 19.

74

both are oriented toward the same goal, that is, sharing in God’s eternal life.”258 This typological connection is emphasized in Redemptoris Mater, which states,

Just as all are included in the creative work of God “in the beginning,” so all are eternally included in the divine plan of salvation, which is to be completely revealed, in the “fullness of time,” with the final coming of Christ.259

If Christ is a type of Adam, it naturally follows that Mary is a type of Eve. In

Redemptoris Mater, St. John Paul II reiterates the teachings of the Second Vatican

Council and states that Mary’s faith proclaimed at the Annunciation transformed her into a type of Eve. St. John Paul II writes that Mary is “the mother of the living”260 because she is the new Eve. Since death (sin) entered the world through Eve, life (Jesus Christ) entered the world through Mary.261 According to Nachef,

In the thought of John Paul, not only is Eve the first woman, but in the new economy of salvation, Mary is also the first woman because she is the first to believe fully. In the same way that Eve introduced a mark on human history because of the sin of disbelief, Mary introduced into that same history a mark of faith because of the virtue of fully believing.262

Nachef says, “The words of Elizabeth, ‘blessed is she who believed,’…mark the beginning of a new relationship between God and humanity and, therefore, a New

Covenant.”263 This new relationship and covenant is a major theme in Redemptoris

258 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 25. 259 RM, no. 7. 260 RM, no. 19.; LG, no. 56. 261 RM, no. 19.; LG, no. 56. 262 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 28-29. 263 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 29.

75

Mater.264 It is the reason why Redemptoris Mater is considered a prolonged mediation on St. Elizabeth’s words.265

In Redemptoris Mater, Mary’s Divine Maternity is central in St. John Paul II’s

Mariology, but St. John Paul II also emphasizes Mary’s human genealogy as a member of the human race. According to Nachef, “Mary cannot be the New Eve if she is not the descendent of Eve, and she cannot be ‘Eve’ if she is not the offspring of a human being.”266 Since Mary must be a human being, who shares in salvation with the rest of creation, Nachef writes, “The expression ‘New Eve’ is not limited to the chronological process in which Mary replaces Eve. It extends to the ontological reality of Mary’s identity and her role in the economy of salvation. In that salvific context, one can truly speak of the mystery of the Mother.”267 This corresponds to Redemptoris Mater, which states,

The Council does not hesitate to call Mary “the Mother of Christ and mother of mankind”: since she “belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all human beings…Indeed she is “clearly the mother of the members of Christ…since she cooperated out of love so that there might be born in the Church the faithful.” And so this “new motherhood of Mary,” generated by faith, is the fruit of the “new” love which came to definitive maturity in her at the foot of the Cross, through her sharing in the redemptive love of her Son.268

Since Mary is included in the plan of salvation like every human being, and she is saved in an eminent way to be the New Eve by her obedient faith and adherence to the

264 St. John Paul II’s use of the language of “new covenant” is unlike Barnabas or Justin . St. John Paul II does not intend the language of the “new covenant” to mean that God’s covenant with the Jewish people is obsolete or abrogated. See Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki, eds. Pope John Paul II on Jews and Judaism: 1979-1986 (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1987). 265 Ngah Andrew Kushu-Solii, The Relationship between Mariology and Ecclesiology in the Theological Thinking of John Paul II (Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien: Peter Lang, 2012), 126. 266 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 27. 267 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 29. 268 RM, no. 23.; LG, no. 53 and 54.

76

Word of God, St. John Paul II says, “Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word, is placed at the very center of that enmity, that struggle which accompanies the history of humanity on earth and the history of salvation itself.”269 “While Mary stands at the center of the enmity between the serpent and humanity,” says Nachef, “Pope John Paul II does not attribute to Mary the quality of being the direct protagonist of the victory. Even with her position at the center until the final victory, it is the Descendant of Mary who is the direct agent of the victory.”270

As the New Eve, St. John Paul II says,

Mary…remains before God, and also before the whole of humanity, as the unchangeable and inviolable sign of God’s election, spoken of in Paul’s letter: “in Christ…he chose us…before the foundation of the world…he destined us…to be his sons” (Eph. 1:4, 5). This election is more powerful than any experience of evil and sin, than all that “enmity” which marks the history of man. In this history Mary remains a sign of sure hope.271

According to St. John Paul II, Mary has remained a sign of sure hope because her faith and blessedness has been a foretold truth in the “revelations” and “ancient promises” of the past. Even now, Mary remains a sure sign until the end of time because “her exceptional pilgrimage of faith represents a constant point of reference for the Church, for individuals and for communities, for peoples and nations and, in a sense, for all humanity.”272 As Redemptoris Mater states in relation to the Second Vatican Council,

The Mother of God is already the eschatological fulfillment of the Church: “In the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27)”; and at the same time the Council says that “the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin, and so they raise their eyes to

269 RM, no. 11. 270 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 27. 271 RM, no. 11. 272 RM, no. 6.

77

Mary, who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as a model of the virtues.”273

In this way, the Marian Year the Church called in 1987, to which Redemptoris Mater responds, was meant:

not only to remember everything in her [the Church’s] past that testifies to the special maternal cooperation of the Mother of God in the work of salvation in Christ the Lord, but also, on her own part, to prepare for the future the paths of this cooperation. For the end of the second Christian Millennium opens up as a new prospect.274

For St. John Paul II, the New Millennium not only “recall[ed] Mary, [who] ‘preceded’ the entry of Christ the Lord into the history of the human family, but…[it also] emphasiz[ed] ‘the fullness of time,’” which occurred “from the moment when the mystery of the Incarnation was accomplished.” 275

Mother of God at the Centre of the Pilgrim Church

According to St. John Paul II, the Church needs the presence and model of the

Blessed Virgin Mary in order to better understand its identity and mission. Redemptoris

Mater relates the Marian dimension of the Church, stating, “The Council’s teaching emphasized that the truth concerning the Blessed Virgin, Mother of Christ, is an effective aid in exploring more deeply the truth concerning the Church.”276 In Redemptoris Mater,

St. John Paul II reflects “on the role of Mary in the mystery of Christ and on her active and exemplary presence in the life of the Church.”277 According to Nachef, St. John Paul

273 RM, no. 6.; LG, no 65. 274 RM, no. 49. 275 RM, no. 49. 276 RM, no. 47.; St. John Paul II continues, writing, “When speaking of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, which had just been approved by the Council, Paul VI said: ‘Knowledge of the true Catholic doctrine regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary will always be a key to the exact understanding of the mystery of Christ and of the Church’” (see RM, note 136: Pope Paul VI, Discourse of 21 November 1964 AAS 56 (1964) 1015). 277 RM, no. 1.

78

II’s understanding of Mary’s active presence in the mystery and life of the Church “is not an optional choice. Rather it derives from the mechanism of Redemption itself, at whose beginning God the Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin.”278

Nachef writes that St. John Paul II’s definition of “presence” is not explicit in

Redemptoris Mater; however, Nachef assumes St. John Paul II

has in mind the scholastic distinction among the circumscribed presence of earthly bodies, the operative contact of spirits with the world that is not circumscribed, and the presence of God who occupies all the parts of the created universe without being limited by anything.279

Nachef highlights the different terminology St. John Paul II uses in Redemptoris Mater to refer to Mary’s maternal presence in the mystery and life of the Church. Nachef says St.

John Paul II uses words like “‘encounter’” to “designate Mary’s journey of faith as her manner of presence on earth before the Assumption,” and “‘ray of maternal presence,’” to explain the nature of her presence in the Church in her glorious state.280 In the end,

Nachef deciphers St. John Paul’s understanding of Mary’s presence not as “an autonomous Absolute,” but instead as an “interpersonal encounter with the ‘interior space’ of the human person opened by Mary’s faith and present in the Church

(ecclesiastical space) as a covenant with God.”281

According to Nachef, St. John Paul II says Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the eschatological destiny of the Church.282 Nachef says,

Mary is the beginning of the Church because her being the Immaculate Conception anticipates the saving grace of the Lord’s death and resurrection. What will happen to the Church in its eschatological dimension (end of time) has already taken place in Mary and, therefore,

278 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 74. 279 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 76. 280 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 76. 281 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 76. 282 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 78.

79

from the point of view of her immunity from original and actual sin, she is the Church’s own beginning.283

Nachef reflects on St. John Paul II’s encyclical and writes, “Looking at

Mary, the Church sees in her an of her own destiny and realizes that eschatological glorification also constitutes the Church’s ultimate goal.”284 “The reason for [Mary] being the exemplary model and icon of the Church,” Nachef says, “lies in the fact that

‘she is the woman of glory in whom God’s plan could be carried out with supreme perfection.’”285 According to Lumen Gentium, Mary “is hailed as pre-eminent and as a wholly unique member of the Church, and as her type and outstanding model in faith and charity.”286 Although the mystery of the Church (like the Immaculate Conception) exists as a historical reality, Nachef says St. John Paul II does not say it is rooted in history.

According to Nachef, the Immaculate Virgin holds within herself the tension between history and eschatology, and this is how “[St. John Paul II]…expresss[es] the continuity between the historical (now) dimension of the Church and its eschatological destiny.”287

Nachef says the Constitution and St. John Paul II both state: “The Church, being the

‘seed and beginning’ of the Kingdom of God on earth, strives to fulfill in itself the eschatological dimension of its existence and, therefore, should constantly look at

Mary,”288 who is the spotless handmaid of the Lord and exemplar of faith.

In Redemptoris Mater, St. John Paul II echoes Lumen Gentium, which states that the Church draws inspiration and unity from Mary’s pilgrimage of faith. According to St.

283 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 78. 284 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 78. 285 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 79. 286 LG, no. 53. 287 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 78. 288 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 79.

80

John Paul II, Mary’s “yes” at the Annunciation “is the culminating moment of Mary’s faith in her awaiting of Christ, but it is also the point of departure from which her whole

‘journey towards God’ begins, her whole pilgrimage of faith.”289 Mary’s “pilgrimage of faith” incorporates the whole Church into the mystery and life of Christ. Nachef says,

The response of Mary to the Incarnation of the Son of God in the fullness of time marks the moment of humanity’s positive answer to God that will enable the Church, as far as its human dimensions are concerned, to start its journey throughout the ages.290

Mary’s heroic faith, in relationship with the mystery and life of Christ, “becomes a model, pattern, and the highest expression of human response to, and cooperation with, the economy of salvation.”291 This corresponds to Redemptoris Mater, which states Mary is

eternally present in the mystery of Christ, through faith she became a sharer in that mystery in every extension of her earthly journey. She “advanced in her pilgrimage of faith” and at the same time, in a discreet yet direct and effective way, she made present to humanity the mystery of Christ.292

The reason Mary is at the center of the pilgrim Church is that she is continually and actively present with Christ as he establishes and sets up the Church on earth. Based on his reading of Redemptoris Mater, priest and theologian Ngah Andrew Kushu-Solii says

Mary is

actively present at [the Church’s] beginning (the mystery of the Incarnation), in its being set up (the mystery of Cana and of the Cross) and in its manifestation (the mystery of Pentecost); she is the “active presence” throughout the church’s history, being “at the centre of the pilgrim Church,” performing a multiple function: of co-opertion of the birth of the

289 RM, no. 14. 290 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 77. 291 Nachef, Mary’s Pope..., 86. 292 RM, no. 19.

81

faithful in the life of grace, of exemplarity in the following of Christ, of “maternal mediation.”293

As the Mother of the Church, who always has been and always will be present in the setting up of the Church and its continuation until the end of time, the Magnificat, according to Redemptoris Mater, articulates in “a special way” how “the Virgin Mother is constantly present on this journey of faith of the People of God towards the light.”294

According to Redemptoris Mater, we should “all together look to her as our common

Mother, who prays for the unity of God’s family and who ‘precedes’ us all at the head of the long line of witnesses of faith in the one Lord, the Son of God, who was conceived in her virginal womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.”295

Maternal Mediation

Redemptoris Mater corresponds with the Constitution on the Church, which states, “‘The maternal role of Mary towards people in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.’”296 Redemptoris Mater adds, “It is mediation in Christ.”297 Mediation in Christ means Mary is actively and continually present in salvation history because she is actively and continually present in the mystery and life of Christ. For St. John Paul II, “Mary’s mediation [in the mystery and life of the

Church] is intimately linked with her motherhood.”298 Her pilgrimage of faith and consequently her maternal mediation is always accomplished in union with the Incarnate

Word.

293 Kushu-Solii, The Relationship between Mariology and Ecclesiology…, 126. 294 RM, no. 35. 295 RM, no. 30. 296 RM, no. 38.; LG, no. 60. 297 RM, no. 38. 298 RM, no. 38.; See also LG, no. 62.

82

The Wedding Feast at Cana, according to St. John Paul II, conveys the active and maternal cooperation of Mary’s maternal mediation in the life of the Church, the New

Covenant. At the Wedding Feast of Cana, Mary’s maternal mediation is experienced and felt by the disciples. St. John Paul II writes,

The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son’s will, pointing out those things which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested. At Cana, thanks to the intercession of Mary and the obedience of the servants, Jesus begins “his hour.” At Cana Mary appears as believing in Jesus. His faith evokes his first “sign” and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples.299

For St. John Paul II, Mary’s Divine Motherhood culminates in her loving presence at the foot of the Cross. St. John Paul II says, “…Mary’s motherhood of the human race…is clearly stated and established [at the cross].”300 He says,

It emerges from the definitive accomplishment of the Redeemer’s Paschal Mystery. The Mother of Christ, who stands at the very center of this mystery – a mystery which embraces each individual and all humanity – given as mother to every single individual and all mankind.301

On the Cross, Christ purposefully gives Mary over to the beloved disciple John, who represents the Church. According to St. John Paul II, in the Gospel of John, “Mary’s motherhood, which becomes man’s inheritance, is a gift: a gift which Christ himself makes personally to every individual.”302 Mary thus becomes “‘a mother to us in the order of grace.’”303 According to St. John Paul II,

This motherhood in the order of grace flows from her divine motherhood. Because she was, by the design of divine Providence, the mother who nourished the divine Redeemer, Mary became “an associate of unique nobility, and the Lord’s humble handmaid,” who “cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Savior’s work of

299 RM, no. 21. 300 RM, no. 23. 301 RM, no. 23. 302 RM, no. 45. 303 RM, no. 22.; LG, no. 61 and 62.

83

restoring supernatural life to souls.” And “this maternity of Mary in the order of grace…will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect”304 because, as St. John Paul II writes,

At the foot of the Cross, Mary shares through faith in the shocking mystery of [Christ’s] self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest “kenosis” of faith in human history. Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death.305

Mary’s faithful presence at the foot of the cross means Mary has “‘faithfully preserved her union with her Son.’”306 It also means that “this ‘new motherhood of

Mary,’ generated by faith, is the fruit of the ‘new’ love which came to definitive maturity in her at the foot of the Cross, through her sharing in the redemptive love of her Son,” and is thus the love that intercedes for the Church until the end of time. At Pentecost, which St. John Paul II says corresponds to the Annunciation, Mary’s faithful presence and cooperation with the Spirit is eternally relevant because, as the Mother of God, Mary is eternally active in Redemption and the life of the faithful.

Although Mary’s maternal mediation at the Wedding Feast of Cana and, by extension, in the life of the Church is active, it is always subordinate to the mediation of

Christ. This is an important theological point in St. John Paul II’s Mariology articulated in Redemptoris Mater. He uses Lumen Gentium to clarify the Incarnational focus of his

Mariology. He writes,

It is important to note how the Council illustrates Mary’s maternal role as it relates to the mediation of Christ. Thus we read: “Mary’s maternal function towards mankind in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its efficacy,” because “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). This maternal role of Mary flows, according to God’s good pleasure, “from the

304 RM, no. 22.; LG, no. 61 and 62. 305 RM, no. 18. 306 RM, no. 18.; LG, no. 58.

84

superabundance of the merits of Christ; it is founded on his mediation, absolutely depends on it, and draws all its efficacy from it.” It is precisely in this sense that the episode at Cana in Galilee offers us a sort of first announcement of Mary’s mediation, wholly oriented towards Christ and tending to the revelation of his salvific power.307

Mary proclaims the primacy of Christ from the very beginning. As she sings the Canticle of the Magnificat, she expresses her awareness of her total dependency on the mystery of

Christ. According to John Paul II, Mary is aware of the promise made to the fathers that are fulfilled in her. He says Mary is the first time a person

…share[s] in this new revelation of God and, within the same, in this new “self-giving of God”…In her exultation Mary confesses that she finds herself in the very heart of this fullness of Christ…She is thus aware that concentrated within her as the Mother of Christ is the whole salvific economy, in which “from age to age” is manifested he who as the God of the Covenant, “remembers his mercy.”308

Mary’s eternal relationship with the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit means she

“remains for the Church a ‘permanent model’”;309 a model of perfect obedience as virgin and mother. Like Mary, the Church is called to accept God’s word with loving fidelity.310 According to St. John Paul II, “From the Blessed Virgin Mary the Church also learns her own motherhood: she recognizes the maternal dimension of her vocation, which is essentially bound to her sacramental nature, in ‘contemplating Mary’s mysterious sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will.’”311

By contemplating and imitating Mary’s faith, “by accepting God’s Word with fidelity,”312 the Church becomes mother, according to St. John Paul II. The Church

307 RM, no. 22.; LG, no. 60. 308 RM, no. 36. 309 RM, no. 42.; See also LG, no. 63. 310 See also LG, no. 64. 311 RM, no. 43.; LG, no. 64. 312 RM, no. 43.; LG, no. 64.

85

becomes the sign and instrument of intimate union with God because it receives life from the Spirit, like Mary, and generates sons and daughters of God “‘ by preaching and by baptism.’”313 According to St. John Paul II, Mary is at the service of the mystery of the

Incarnation, so the Church is always at the service of the mystery of adoption to sonship through grace.314

Mary’s maternal mediation in the life of the Church is not only one of imitation, but it is about cooperation as well. According to St. John Paul II, “Mary’s motherhood, which becomes man’s inheritance, is a gift: a gift which Christ himself makes personally to every individual. The Redeemer entrusts Mary to John because he entrusts John to

Mary.”315 The entrustment of Mary to the Beloved Disciple is, as St. John Paul II says,

“in the order of grace, for it implores the gift of the Spirit, who raises up the new children of God, redeems through the sacrifice of Christ that Spirit whom Mary too, together with the Church, received on the day of Pentecost.”316 For St. John Paul II, Mary’s “…new motherhood in the Spirit…embraces each and everyone in the church, and embraces each and everyone through the Church.”317 She “helps all her children, wherever they may be and whatever their condition, to find in Christ the path to the Father’s house.”318 One way she helps her children is that by imitating her “the Church…preserves the faith received from Christ. Following the example of Mary, who kept and pondered in her heart everything relating to her divine Son (cf. Lk. 2:19, 51), the Church is committed to preserving the word of God and investigating its riches with and prudence,

313 RM, no. 43.; LG, no. 64. 314 RM, no. 43. 315 RM, no. 45. 316 RM, no. 44. 317 RM, no. 47. 318 RM, no. 47.

86

in order to bear faithful witness to it before all mankind in every age.”319 This understanding of Mary’s maternal mediation in the mystery and life of the Church echoes

St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary, which also says Mary is necessary for salvation because she helps in preserving the grace and treasures we receive from God.

St. John Paul II’s Theological Criteria for True Marian Devotion

Saint John Paul II is known as the “Marian Pope” because he dedicated his life and pontificate to the Blessed Virgin Mary. His special interest in the Blessed Virgin

Mary was inspired by his personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion. In

Karol Wojtyla’s autobiography Gift and Mystery, he credits his Polish upbringing, the

Carmelite spirituality, his devout father, and to Marian as the earliest influences on his Marian devotion. As a young man, St. John Paul II gave special credit to Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary as well.

According to St. John Paul II, his reading of True Devotion to Mary marked a decisive turning point in his life. This turning point, Saint John Paul II says, was a long inner journey. On December 8, 2003, he addressed a letter to the Religious men and women of the Montfortian community to commemorate the 160th Anniversary of True

Devotion to Mary’s publication. In the letter, he wrote: “I myself, in the years of my youth, found reading this book a great help.”320 He claimed True Devotion to Mary dispelled any fear or doubt he felt as an adolescent because it “‘is rooted in the mystery of the Trinity and in the truth of the Incarnation of the Word of God.’”321

319 RM, no. 45.; See also LG, no. 62 and 63. 320 John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family,” no. 1. 321 John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family,” no. 1.

87

As a young factory worker in , St. John Paul II began to fear his strong devotion to the Blessed Mother detracted from the place due to Christ in his life. After reading True Devotion to Mary, St. John Paul II said he acquired a degree of theological clarity. In the letter to the Montfortian religious community, St. John Paul II explicitly articulates his theological criteria for true Marian devotion based upon his personal experience of St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary and a careful reading of chapter eight of Lumen Gentium. While Redemptoris Mater is a more comprehensive statement of St. John Paul II’s Mariology, the letter serves an explicit account of how True

Devotion to Mary influenced St. John Paul’s reading of chapter eight of Lumen Gentium and his articulation of the criteria of true Marian devotion. These criteria are

Christological, Trinitarian, ecclesial, soteriological, and eschatological.

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria

From the beginning, Redemptoris Mater is rooted in Christ. Redemptoris Mater begins like Lumen Gentium, stating,

The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation, for “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:4-6).322

The first theological point of St. John Paul II’s criteria for true devotion is that it must lead us to Jesus Christ because it is through Christ that Mary has an “active and exemplary presence in the life of the Church.”323 According to Redemptoris Mater,

“Mary is definitively introduced into the mystery of Christ through this event: the

322 RM, no. 1. 323 RM, no. 1.

88

Annunciation by the angel.”324 St. John Paul II says Mary and the Annunciation were prophetically foreshadowed in Genesis, after the fall of Adam and Eve, and in Isaiah as

“‘the Virgin who is to conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called

Emmanuel.’”325 At the Annunciation, “Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word, is placed at the very center of that enmity, that struggle which accompanies the history of humanity on earth and the history of salvation itself.”326 St. John Paul II says, “The Annunciation, therefore, is the revelation of the mystery of the Incarnation at the very beginning of its fulfillment on earth.”327 According to St. John Paul II, the Incarnation is

a high point among all the gifts of grace conferred in the history of man and of the universe: Mary is “full of grace,” because it is precisely in her that the Incarnation of the Word, the hypostatic union of the Son of God with human nature, is accomplished and fulfilled. As the Council says, Mary is “the Mother of the Son of God. As a result she is also the favorite daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace, she far surpasses all other creatures, both in heaven and on earth.”328

As a recipient of a gift of sublime grace, Mary is dependent on God through

Christ and the Holy Spirit. St. John Paul II’s letter to the Montfortian religious community follows Redemptoris Mater when it refers to the canticle of the Magnificat to emphasize the Blessed Virgin Mary’s self-proclaimed relativity to the Incarnate Word and God. For St. John Paul II, the Magnificat is evidence that “Mary is the first to share in this new revelation of God and, within the same, in this new ‘self-giving’ of God.”329

324 RM, no. 8. 325 RM, no. 7.; LG, no. 55. 326 RM, no. 11. 327 RM, no. 9. 328 RM, no. 9. 329 RM, no. 36.

89

From the beginning, Mary was aware that her active and cooperative role was in service of the Incarnate Word. By this, St. John Paul writes,

In her exultation Mary confesses that she finds herself in the very heart of this fullness of Christ…She is thus aware that concentrated within herself as the mother of Christ is the whole salvific economy, in which “from age to age” is manifested he who as the God of the Covenant, “remembers his mercy.”330

After Mary’s self-proclaimed reliance, established in her faith and motherhood, St. John

Paul II says St. Louis-Marie defines true Marian devotion as being fully conformed and united to Jesus Christ because Mary is the most perfectly conformed and united to her

Son. According to St. John Paul II, “Mary’s total relativity to Christ and through him, to the Blessed Trinity, is first experienced in [St. Louis-Marie’s] observation:”331

You never think of Mary without Mary interceding for you with God. You never praise or honour Mary without Mary’s praising and honouring God with you. Mary is altogether relative to God; and indeed, I might well call her the relation to God. She only exists with reference to God. She is the echo of God that says nothing, repeats nothing, but God. If you say “Mary,” she says “God.” St Elizabeth praised Mary and called her blessed because she had believed. Mary, the faithful echo of God, at once intoned: “Magnificat anima mea Dominum”; “My soul magnifies the Lord’ (LK 1:46). What Mary did then, she does daily now. When we praise her, love her, honour her or give anything to her, it is God who is praised, God who is loved, God who is glorified, and it is to God that we give, through Mary and in Mary” (cf. Treatise on True Devotion, n. 225).332

Mary’s relativity indicates that “‘the maternal role of Mary towards people in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power’: it is mediation in Christ.”333 The mediation in Christ is through the power of the Holy Spirit.

St. John Paul II writes,

330 RM, no. 36. 331 John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family,” no. 3. 332 John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family,” no. 3. 333 RM, no. 38.; LG, no. 60.

90

The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents the truth of Mary’s mediation as “a sharing in the one unique source that is the mediation of Christ himself.” Thus we read: “The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that, encouraged by this maternal help, they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.”334

St. John Paul II’s second theological criteria for true Marian devotion is that it must be Trinitarian and aware of the role of the Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit makes everything possible. Mary is made spotless and without wrinkle because of the

Holy Spirit. The Incarnate Word is formed in her virginal womb because of the Holy

Spirit. The birth of Christ’s members through Baptism, along with the ongoing call to holiness in the mystery and life of the Church is accomplished through Mary’s maternal mediation because of the intercession of the Holy Spirit. According to Redemptoris

Mater, “The Church knows and teaches that ‘all the saving influences of the Blessed

Virgin on mankind originate…from the divine pleasure. They flow forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rest on his mediation, depend entirely on it, and draw all their power from it. In no way do they impede the immediate union of the faithful with Christ. Rather, they foster this union.”335 “This saving influence,” St. John

Paul II writes, “is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who, just as he overshadowed the Virgin

Mary when he began in her the divine motherhood, in a similar way constantly sustains her solicitude for the brothers and sisters.”336 In the encyclical, St. John Paul II writes,

In addressing Jesus, St Louis-Marie expressed the marvel of the union between the Son and the Mother: “She 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 reign in her…Ah! If we knew the glory and the love which you receive in this admirable creature…She is intimately united

334 RM, no. 38. 335 RM, no. 38. 336 RM, no. 38.

91

with you…She loves you more ardently and glorifies you more perfectly than all the other creatures put together” (ibid., n. 63).337

For this reason, St. John Paul says, Mary’s maternal mediation in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit “flows from her divine motherhood and can be understood and lived in faith only on the basis of the full truth of this motherhood. Since by virtue of divine election Mary is the earthly Mother of the Father’s consubstantial Son and his

‘generous companion’ in the work of redemption, ‘she is a mother to us in the order of grace.’ This role constitutes a real dimension of her presence in the saving mystery of

Christ and the Church.”338 Mary is transformed by the Holy Spirit in the order of grace to lead people securely and perfectly to Christ and God. She is a guidepost of holiness for the Church because she is, according to St. John Paul II, an eminent member of the

Mystical Body of Christ and Mother of the Church.

Ecclesial Criteria

This is the third theological criteria of St. John Paul II’s Marian devotion.

According to St. John Paul II, true Marian devotion must be at the center of the Pilgrim

Church because as the Constitution on the Church taught, “the Blessed Virgin, Mother of

Christ, is an effective aid in exploring more deeply the truth concerning the Church.”339

According to Redemptoris Mater,

It is precisely in this ecclesial journey or pilgrimage through space and time, and even more through the history of souls, that Mary is present, as the one who is “blessed because she believed,” as the one who advanced on the pilgrimage of faith, sharing unlike any other creature in the mystery of Christ. The Council further says that “Mary figured profoundly in the

337 John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family,” no. 4. 338 RM, no. 38.; LG, no. 61. 339 RM, no. 47.; St. John Paul II writes, “When speaking of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, which had just been approved by the Council, Paul VI said: ‘Knowledge of the true Catholic doctrine regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary will always be a key to the exact understanding of the mystery of Christ and of the Church’” (see RM, note 136: Pope Paul VI, Discourse of 21 November 1964 AAS 56 (1964) 1015).

92

history of salvation and in a certain way unites and mirrors within herself the central truths of the faith.” Among all believers she is like a ‘mirror’ in which are reflected in the most profound and limpid way “the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11).340

Mary’s presence in the center of the Pilgrim Church is evident in sacred Scripture. She is present with Christ as he establishes his Church on earth. According to St. John Paul II,

Mary’s presence in the center of the Pilgrim Church is revealed explicitly at Pentecost.

He writes, “We know that at the beginning of this journey Mary is present. We see her in the midst of the Apostles in the Upper Room, ‘prayerfully imploring the gift of the

Spirit.’”341 According to St. John Paul II, “The journey of faith made by Mary, whom we see praying in the Upper Room, is thus longer than that of the others gathered there:

Mary ‘goes before them,’ ‘leads the way’ for them.”342 Although “Mary did not directly receive the apostolic mission”343 from Christ at Pentecost, St. John Paul II says,

She was present with them. In their midst Mary was “devoted to prayer” as the “mother of Jesus” (cf. Acts 1:13-14), of the Crucified and Risen Christ. And that first group of those who in faith looked “upon Jesus as the author of salvation,” knew that Jesus was the Son of Mary, and that she was his Mother, and that as such she was from the moment of his conception and birth a unique witness to the mystery of Jesus, that mystery which before their eyes had been disclosed and confirmed in the Cross and Resurrection. Thus, from the very first moment, the Church “looked at” Mary through Jesus, just as she “looked at” Jesus through Mary. For the Church of that time and of every time Mary is a singular witness to the years of Jesus’ infancy and hidden life at Nazareth, when she “kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Lk. 2:19; cf. Lk 2:51).344

340 RM, no. 25.; LG, no. 65. 341 RM, no. 26.; LG, no. 59. 342 RM, no. 26.; LG, no. 63. 343 RM, no. 26. 344 RM, no. 26.; LG, no. 9.

93

As “an exceptional witness to the mystery of Christ”345 amongst them, the Church should share in Mary’s faith. According to Redemptoris Mater, “It is precisely this lively sharing in Mary’s faith that determines her special place in the Church’s pilgrimage as the new People of God throughout the earth.”346

According to St. John Paul II,

When the Church “enters more intimately into the supreme mystery of the Incarnation,” she thinks of the Mother of Christ with profound reverence and devotion. Mary belongs indissolubly to the mystery of Christ, and she belongs also to the mystery of the Church from the beginning, from the day of the Church’s birth.347

“Therefore,” St. John Paul II says, “why should we not all together look to her as our common Mother, who prays for the unity of God’s family and who ‘precedes’ us all at the head of the long line of witnesses of faith in the one Lord, the Son of God, who was conceived in her virginal womb by the power of the Holy Spirit?”348 According to

Redemptoris Mater, “the Church seeks to rediscover the unity of all who profess their faith in Christ, in order to show obedience to her Lord, who prayed for this unity before his Passion.”349 This desire for unity is expressed in the Magnificat, which professes that

God is faithful to his promise of unity. The Magnificat also shows that “the Virgin

Mother is constantly present on this journey of faith of the People of God towards the light” because “she is…aware that concentrated within herself as the mother of Christ is the whole salvific economy, in which ‘from age to age’ is manifested he who as the God of the Covenant, ‘remembers his mercy.’”350

345 RM, no. 27. 346 RM, no. 27. 347 RM, no. 27.; LG, no. 65. 348 RM, no. 30. 349 RM, no. 35. 350 RM, no. 36.

94

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria

According to St. John Paul II, the “fullness” of time “denotes the blessed moment when the Word that ‘was with God…became flesh and dwelt among us’ (Jn. 1:1, 14).”351

Redemptoris Mater states, “This ‘fullness’ marks the moment when, with the entrance of the eternal into time, time itself is redeemed, and being filled with the mystery of Christ becomes definitively ‘salvation time.’ Finally, this ‘fullness’ designates the hidden beginning of the Church’s journey.”352 The hidden beginning of the Church’s journey took place at the Annunciation.

Explicit in the Magnificat is Mary’s faith in the Lord’s promises.353 By Mary’s faith, Mary became the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church. In a similar way,

St. John Paul II says,

The Church “becomes herself a mother by accepting God’s word with fidelity.” Like Mary, who first believed by accepting the word of God revealed to her at the Annunciation and by remaining faithful to that word in all her trials even unto the Cross, so too the Church becomes a mother when, accepting with fidelity the word of God, “by her preaching and by baptism she brings forth to a new and immortal life children who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God.”354

In this way, the Church not only imitates Mary and her virtues, but it also cooperates with her in the regeneration of the people into a new and immortal life through the waters of

Baptism. Until the end of time, Mary’s maternal mediation, “‘in the birth and development of divine life in the souls of the redeemed,’”355 is in the order of grace.

Mary’s motherhood in the order of grace goes beyond the biological or physical

351 RM, no. 1. 352 RM, no. 1. 353 RM, no. 42. 354 RM, no. 43.; LG, no. 64. 355 RM, no. 47.; See also RM, note 135: Pope Paul VI, Solemn Profession of Faith (30 June 1968), 15: AAS 60 (1968) 438f.

95

connection between mother and child. St. John Paul II says, “Mary’s motherhood [in the order of grace], which becomes man’s inheritance, is a gift: a gift which Christ himself makes personally to every individual. The Redeemer entrusts Mary to John because he entrusts John to Mary.”356 “Hence,” St. John Paul says, “as Christians raise their eyes with faith to Mary in the course of their earthly pilgrimage, they ‘strive to increase in holiness.’ Thus, throughout her life, the church maintains with the Mother of God a link which embraces, in the saving mystery, the past, the present and the future, and venerates her as a spiritual mother of humanity and the advocate of grace.”357

Conclusion

The decline of Marian devotion after the Second Vatican Council called people like St. John Paul II to read Lumen Gentium carefully. St. John Paul II cites Lumen

Gentium ninety-two times in the footnotes, showing it is “the most authoritative comment on Lumen Gentium.”358 Redemptoris Mater was written in preparation for the Marian

Year. It was

meant to promote a new and more careful reading of what the Council said about the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the mystery of Christ and of the Church…[and] speak not only of the doctrine of faith but also of the life of faith, and thus of authentic “Marian spirituality,” seen in light of Tradition, and especially the spirituality to which the Council exhorts us.359

In Redemptoris Mater, St. John Paul II recalls St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, “who proposes consecration to Jesus through the hands of Mary, as an effective means for

Christians to live faithfully their baptismal commitments.”360 According to Nachef, St.

356 RM, no. 45. 357 RM, no. 47.; LG, no. 65. 358 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 5. 359 RM, no. 48. 360 RM, no. 48.

96

Louis-Marie de Montfort “is the only theologian of modern times mentioned in John

Paul’s Marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater.”361 In Nachef’s opinion, St. John Paul II mentions St. Louis-Marie in his encyclical letter because “the Holy Father intends to point out the value and the actuality of the spirituality of De Montfort in today’s life of the Church.”362 For Nachef this “important place for De Montfort” in St. John Paul II’s

Mariology “results from the parallel approaches between Vatican II and De Montfort in their outlook on Mary, mainly in her relationship with the mystery of Christ and the

Church.”363 In this chapter, I outlined the comprehensive Mariology of St. John Paul, as written in Redemptoris Mater, which was influenced by St. Louis-Marie’s theological writings and the Mariology articulated in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, and I articulated St. John Paul II’s theological criteria for Marian devotion. These criteria are

Christological and Trinitarian, ecclesial, and soteriological and eschatological.

361 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 3. 362 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 4. 363 Nachef, Mary’s Pope…, 4.

97

CHAPTER IV

MY FIRST NAME IS MARY: PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF MARIAN

CONSECRATION AND DEVOTION

Introduction

St. John Paul II once said of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to

Mary, “The reading of this book was a decisive turning-point in my life. I say ‘turning- point,’ but in fact it was a long inner journey.” Like St. John Paul II, the encounter with

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary marked a decisive turning point in my life. My personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion has been a long inner journey of gradual conversion as well. In fact, it continues to transform me today.

In this chapter, I articulate my personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion.

I articulate how St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary impacted my own life. I also describe individual interviews in which I invited people to reflect on their personal experiences of Marian consecration and devotion. The genre of this chapter is personal experience presented in the form of testimony rather than theological analysis.

The character and limitations of my interview methodology did not allow me the resources or time to interview a large group of people on a sociological scale. Although diverse in age and gender, the persons I interviewed were small in number (4) and were selected by me rather than by a random sampling. In spite of these limitations, this chapter offers examples of the active presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the lives of the faithful today. This is evidence of the contemporary relevance of St. Louis-Marie de

98

Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary and the need for a renewed articulation of the criteria of true devotion.

My Personal Experience

Although I was not introduced to the idea of Marian consecration and devotion until I was a sophomore in college, I like to think my devotion to the Blessed Mother began the night I was born. By Divine Providence, I was born on the Feast of the

Immaculate Conception. It was a cold, December night. The snow began to fall. My parents were dutiful Christians and gave their first-born daughter the sacred name, Mary.

I believe my birthday and namesake are signs from God. I believe God wanted me to belong to the Blessed Mother from the very beginning. To this day, my personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion has been shaped by this fateful day. It is the reason why I confirmed my name as Mary on the day of my Confirmation. My

Confirmation marked a significant point in my life. It was the first time I desired to consecrate myself to Mary willingly. I choose Mary as my confirmation saint because she is the – the saint of saints. I believed she would give me the confidence I needed to confirm my identity in Christ wholeheartedly. At thirteen years old, I claimed Mary as my own for the first time – just like I believe she claimed me on the day of my birth.

My earliest memory of the Blessed Mother is in the second grade. Traditionally,

First Communicants are given the honor and privilege of crowning Mary during the May at school. I have a distinct memory of how I was chosen to crown Mary with a garland of flowers. I was sitting in class; the smell of freshly sharpened pencils perpetually hanging in the air. The room buzzed with excitement as children wiggled in

99

their seats, hoping to be picked by the teacher as she drew a random name from a hat. On that particular day, for whatever reason, I was not paying attention in class. When my name was announced, I did not know how to respond.

I remember I wanted to blurt out “no!” if only to escape the burning gaze of my peers. But, before I could form the word, a still small voice spoke deep within me. It whispered a gentle command, instructing me to say “yes.” Despite my initial fear, a surge of confidence pulsed through my body. I replied with an enthusiastic, “yes!” The other children gave a collective sigh of disappointment. As the teacher moved on to the next lesson, I sat at my desk, mystified by what had happened. I looked around the room, confused. It seemed no one else had heard the voice. Today, as I reflect on the memory,

I know it was the voice of God because the feeling has never escaped me. This encounter has always remained fresh in my mind. I believe God sought me out that day in my second-grade classroom because my participation in the May procession foreshadowed what was to come. I was meant to honor and serve Mary for the rest of my life.

As I grew up, my bond with Mary became stronger and more intentional. The first time I was introduced to the idea of Marian consecration was in college. I was a sophomore when a close friend invited me to follow Gaitley’s book, 33 Days to

Morning Glory. In college, I did not know what Marian consecration was. Only after I purchased Michael Gaitley’s book did I recognize a very familiar name within its pages.

The name was St. Louis-Marie de Montfort.

The name jumped out at me because nearly two years earlier, when I was a junior in high school, I had researched St. Louis-Marie for a project. In high school, my French teacher assigned a project. The project was about a prominent French person. While all

100

of my other classmates were busy researching about Céline Dion and Napoleon

Bonaparté, I wanted to do my project on a prominent French saint. Since I was not familiar with any French saints at the time, I decided to perform a simple google search.

I typed in popular French saint names into the search bar, and I clicked on the first link that popped up. I scrolled for a few minutes, and I suddenly realized, as the names blurred passed, that there were far too many saints to pick from! Overwhelmed, I scrolled as fast as I could and decided I would research the first saint my cursor landed on. My cursor landed on the name of St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort. I remember

I shrugged initially and thought, “That’s pretty cool. He has the same name as my older brother!” It was based on this fact alone that I began to do more research about his life.

Fast forward two years later, and one can imagine my surprise as I held Michael Gaitley’s book in my hands and read St. Louis-Marie’s name. I was stunned! Believing it was a sign from God, I supplemented Michael Gaitley’s book with St. Louis-Marie’s True

Devotion to Mary. This began my first journey towards total consecration.

Before total consecration, my prayer life was very different from what it is today.

The way I prayed did not change as much as it became deeper and more profound. My personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion can be divided into two parts.

There was a time before when I was not consecrated, and there is a time now, after consecration. Although I still walk the same path of holiness and even pray the same prayers, Marian consecration marked a decisive turning point. Mary drastically changed how I approached God. For instance, I no longer address Jesus and God directly in prayer. Instead, I speak to Mary, who intercedes for me. This practice occurred naturally. So naturally, I cannot recall the exact moment when this change took place.

101

The change was as natural as breathing. This practice – of praying to God and Jesus through Mary – did not make me feel further away from God; it actually brought me closer to Him.

Before total consecration, I compare my prayer life to looking up at the sky from underwater. In the beginning, the world looked milky and unclear. I was blind and deaf to the signs and sounds around me. I floated, content with my current state of life until suddenly a hand reached down and broke through the surface. Mary was the reason I began to swim. After total consecration to Mary, I began to experience prayer differently. By differently, I mean in a more profound and meaningful way. It became much more enjoyable. It was like Mary pulled me out of the depths of my own fears and scruples and brought me into a new way of life. I emerged with fresh air in my lungs – the breath of love. I could hear new sounds, like the voice of Mary, and I could see more clearly the face of Jesus Christ. Ever since my consecration, my prayer life has become easier; not in the sense that I do not have daily struggles, because I do, but I do not struggle alone anymore.

My personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion also brought me closer to my neighbor. I believe my personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion has been an experience of true Christian discipleship. Mary, who is the exemplar of faith, is the most perfect example of Christian discipleship. By this devotion, I can participate in the faith of Mary. I learn about and practice her virtues to become a better Christian disciple. Although Marian consecration and devotion are a deeply personal experience, I believe a personal encounter with God from within is a fundamental prerequisite for becoming a better witness to the faith. The deeper I go

102

within myself, the more I encounter God and the more transformed I am in the relationships I foster with other people.

I do not think it matters if someone prepares for total consecration alone or in a group setting, so long as he or she has a personal encounter with God within his or her own soul. My first act of total consecration was in November of 2015. I was nineteen years old. I prepared for this act of total consecration with a group. I do not remember much of my preparation because I was still unfamiliar with the nature of the practice. I believe my inability to connect on the day of my first act of total consecration was the result of my spiritual immaturity and not because I was part of a group. Nearly four years later, as I prepared to renew my consecration on my twenty-fourth birthday in December of 2018, I had a much more profound experience; not because I was alone, but because I knew what I was getting myself into. I had grown significantly in my prayer life since my first act of total consecration. Based on this knowledge, I believe preparation is key.

Both mental and spiritual preparation is essential to the actual act of consecration itself.

For me, I noticed a significant difference between my first and second act of total consecration.

I took my renewal more seriously because I understood the devotion better. In

2018, I renewed my consecration according to St. Louis-Marie’s original text. Unlike my first act of total consecration, I did not use Michael Gaitley’s book during my second act of total consecration. Instead, I kept a journal as I read and prayed through St. Louis-

Marie’s True Devotion to Mary. The second time I strictly followed St. Louis-Marie’s practices, such as going to confession before . The first time I consecrated myself to

Mary, I did not go to confession because I was not yet comfortable with the sacrament.

103

Since then, I have fallen in love with it. When I renewed my consecration, I made it a priority to go to visit the confessional before celebrating the Eucharist. I believe being faithful to all of St. Louis-Marie’s requirements made a significant difference in my experience the second time around. Today, I realize the importance of Reconciliation and how it relates to Marian devotion. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is the ultimate means of self-renouncement and a means to restore communion with God.

I believe my confession experience opened wide the door for a spiritual experience to take place. Unlike my first act of total consecration, where I simply went through the motions, my second act of total consecration was something I will never forget. It was a crisp, December morning on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

On this day, I attended the Church of the Incarnation in Centerville, Ohio. Initially, I had planned to attend my home parish, St. Mary of the Assumption in Springboro, Ohio. Due to scheduling, I was unable to go to St. Mary’s. Looking back, the name of Incarnation

Church was an appropriate nod to True Devotion to Mary, which centers upon the mystery of the Incarnation; Jesus living and reigning in Mary. I believe it was by Divine

Providence that I renewed my Marian consecration at Incarnation Church instead of St.

Mary of the Assumption because the name Incarnation was a symbol for the true meaning of the devotion.

My personal experience happened during the celebration of the Eucharist. At the beginning of Mass, I believe I felt the presence of Mary overshadow me with the power of the Holy Spirit. Never before had I experienced anything like it. The way in which I believe the Spirit united itself to me felt as it if came from within me, but also from without. I felt the force of this unification in everything I did. From the words I sang,

104

from the responses I uttered, even in the movements of my body as I sat, stood, and knelt; everything felt heightened, like the power within me was making me more embodied. It was as if I was speaking and participating in a suspended reality even though I remained grounded in my reality. I was more me than ever before, yet I was no longer me. The culmination of this spiritual encounter took place at the consecration of the Eucharist.

As the priest lifted high the Host, an overwhelming feeling of sadness washed over me. Grief suddenly gripped me as I looked upon the Eucharist. Tears pooled in my eyes. My heart swelled. The image of the priest holding the Host swam in my eyes as I heard a woman’s voice speak deep within me. As I prayed the words of St. Thomas, “My

Lord and my God,” suddenly, I heard a voice from within say, “My Son.” I was stunned.

It was like the world stopped spinning. I began to cry. In the last thirty-three days, I had worked tirelessly to renew my Marian consecration despite my busy schedule. At that moment, all my hard work paled in comparison to what God had given to me during the

Mass. God had opened my eyes to Mary’s participation in the Eucharist. He also revealed to me how much I needed Mary and this devotion to become a better person and

Christian. Although I put a lot of effort into my Marian devotion, it is ultimately God’s grace that can save me. These are the things I realized in my heart when I renewed my

Marian consecration on December 8th, 2018.

Although I had a profound encounter with Mary on the day of my renewal, I do not believe everyone needs to have an mystical experience to understand the true meaning and power of this consecration. In fact, I believe God gives his children what they need most to grow in holiness. I think my personal experience during my second act

105

of total consecration revealed to me how much I needed True Devotion to Mary to be completely dependent on and united to God through Jesus and Mary.

Despite having renewed my Marian consecration once, I try to renew it each and every day in little ways as well. Although sometimes I fail, I always try to practice the interior and exterior practices of St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary. One spiritual exercise I try to implement into my daily life is devotion to the Holy Rosary. Before my consecration, the rosary felt like a chore. Now, my consecration taught me to pray it through Mary’s perspective. This has greatly enriched my personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion. Since my consecration, the Holy Rosary has become a source of spiritual wisdom and consolation. Although I go through periods when I do not practice this devotion, I always find myself returning to it. When I do pray the rosary, it makes me feel more at peace.

Another practice I attempt to do every morning is to recite a consecration prayer to Mary. Before the day begins, I will recite the traditional consecration prayer: “My

Queen and my mother, I give myself entirely to you; and to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am your own, keep me, guard me, as your property and possession.” This morning prayer helps orient my mind and heart towards

Mary. Throughout the day, I will try to repeat this prayer. It inspires me to live each moment consciously by Mary, with Mary, in Mary, and for Mary.

According to St. Louis-Marie, a person lives by the spirit of Mary when he or she allows himself or herself to be led by the spirit of Mary, which is the Holy Spirit of God.

For St. Louis-Marie, “Those who are led by the spirit of Mary are the children of Mary,

106

and consequently the children of God.”364 St. Louis-Marie says the spirit of Mary and the

Spirit of God are so united that Mary is “never led by her own spirit, but always by the

Spirit of God, who has rendered Himself so completely master of her that He has become her own spirit.”365 This means Mary’s spirit is so fully conformed to God, and God is so fully conformed to Mary that because of her Son, Jesus, she wills as God wills and God wills as Mary wills. When a person allows Mary to live, work, and move in his or her life, Mary continually unites a person’s will to God’s Will through her son, Jesus Christ.

St. Louis-Marie says there are three ways that a soul may let itself be led by

Mary’s Spirit, who is again God’s Holy Spirit. First, St. Louis-Marie says a soul must

“renounce its own spirit and its own lights and wills before it does anything…Second, we must deliver ourselves to the spirit of Mary to be moved and influenced by it in the manner she chooses [that is, the way God chooses]…Thirdly, we must, from time to time, both during and after the action, renew the same act of offering and of union.”366 This continual act of offering oneself to Jesus through Mary helps a person to do everything with Mary. St. Louis-Marie says all our actions must be performed with the Blessed

Mother: “we must…in every action consider how Mary has done it, or how she would have done it, had she been in our place.”367 He says we must practice her virtues - faith, humility, and purity to be transformed. This transformation makes everything possible in

Mary.

St. Louis-Marie calls Mary the terrestrial paradise for the New Adam; that is,

Jesus Christ. He likens her to the Tree of Life, who bore the Fruit of Life, Jesus Christ.

364 TD, no. 258. 365 TD, no. 258. 366 TD, no. 259. 367 TD, no. 260.

107

He says she is the Eastern Gate, through which the High Priest, Jesus Christ, enters and then leaves the world. As sinners, St. Louis-Marie says it is difficult for us to gain access into this paradise, to eat from this tree of life, and to enter through this gate of a new dawn. However, it is not impossible. St. Louis-Marie says the Holy Spirit can give us a special grace to enter the gate through Mary. He says we are given this grace by our fidelity to the devotion. Once given this grace, St. Louis-Marie says we can do everything in Mary because she will nourish us, deliver us from all our troubles, fears, and scruples, protect us against our enemies, and form souls into Jesus Christ by forming

Jesus Christ in our souls. St. Louis-Marie says we should always do everything for God through Mary; meaning we must practice this devotion for the sole purpose of loving

Jesus in Mary, who do everything for us because they love us. I believe my simple morning prayer consciously encompasses the nature of this interior devotion. I try to recite it throughout the day, making it a continual prayer to safeguard my fidelity to the

Blessed Mother. One day, my conscious efforts will hopefully be transformed in the

Spirit so the true interior devotion of doing everything by, with, in, and for Mary will be fulfilled.

The interior practices are ways I renew my Marian consecration each and every day. There are also exterior practices that help me to keep Mary at the forefront of my mind. For example, I wear a consecration ring and a to remind me of my interior devotion. I also have a Marian in my home and a particular Marian cross I am devoted to. Although these last two exterior practices are not explicitly described in True Devotion to Mary, they nonetheless make room for Mary in my life and home like my interior devotion makes room for Mary in my heart and mind. These

108

exterior practices are important to my personal experience of Marian consecration and devotion, but they are only manifestations of the interior devotion I have for her.

According to St. Louis-Marie, exterior practices are always secondary, but essential to the interior practices. He says if a person is not faithful to his or her interior devotion, then the exterior practices are useless and empty.

Based upon the primacy of the interior practices, I believe the future of Marian consecration and devotion depends upon people having a true love for the Blessed Virgin

Mary. I think the only way Marian devotion can be renewed in the Church today is to invite people to practice the interior devotions in loving fellowship. St. Louis-Marie says Marian devotion is a “secret,” but by this he does not mean it is something that should be kept hidden, but only shared with “those who pray, who live in charity, who do , who suffer persecutions gladly, who are not worldly and have no wish for such worldly things as power or wealth or influence or ease, and who are zealous for the salvation of souls.368 According to St. Louis-Marie, many people will not faithfully and continually practice the interior devotion. That is way he considers true Marian devotion a secret. I believe extending an invitation and being an authentic Christian witness has the power to motivate and inspire people to truly consecrate themselves to Jesus through

Mary.

Other Personal Experiences

In the second part of the chapter, I will describe other people’s personal experiences of Marian consecration and devotion. To protect the identity and privacy of my interviewees, I will refer to the participants using pseudonyms. I interviewed two

368 St. , The , (1989), 7.

109

men and two women with the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and in conformity to their guidelines. The diversity in gender will enable an analysis of how

Marian consecration and devotion are interpreted according to a man’s perspective and a woman’s perspective. The participants vary in age. The older man and older woman are roughly in their forties, while the younger woman and man are in their early twenties.

The age gap will provide a basis for consideration of how different generations interpret personal experiences of Marian consecration and devotion. This section articulates how

Marian consecration and devotion are being practiced by some persons in the United

States Catholic Church today. My interviews are limited to the United States and do not represent other countries, some of which have strong traditions of Marian devotion.

The first participant I will call “Joseph.” He was first consecrated to Jesus through Mary nearly twenty years ago. He was introduced to the idea of Marian consecration through a Catholic Apostolate based in Ohio called the Mary Foundation.

The Mary Foundation is inspired by the spirit of St. . Joseph said he would periodically receive newsletters from the founder of the organization. These newsletters shared information about St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Militia Immaculata. The organization also had a special devotion to the . Joseph said he had never heard of St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Militia Immaculata, so he decided to do some research. This is how he first learned about Marian consecration and devotion.

During the interview, Joseph shared he had a previous career in information technology. When he left that career, his family moved to Ohio, and he began to work as a lay volunteer in the Church. Joseph said he was a lay volunteer for a couple of decades.

Although he worked as a lay volunteer, Joseph said he still had a lot to learn about the

110

faith. For example, he spoke of the importance of preparing for total consecration. He admitted, “I didn’t understand what it meant when I went through it the first time. The preparation is obviously so key because when you’re sort of thinking about things like trusting Mary to use all of your prayer and intention and action in the best way she sees fit it is like giving up control. So, I think that’s why having the preparation and going through it is kind of important because I did not really understand it and that helped a lot.” For Joseph, consecration to Mary was a foreign and intimidating idea, but after he read more about Marian consecration and devotion, he began to realize how significant it was to have a personal relationship with Mary.

I asked Joseph how developing a personal relationship with Mary changed his prayer life and relationship with God. Since his consecration, he said his prayer life did not change as much as it evolved and deepened over time. Although his prayer life became more profound, Joseph also said it became more frustrating. He said, “Despite this devotion, I don’t feel satisfied that my relationship is even today as strong as it could be with the Blessed Mother. Maybe the consecration has an ongoing means of continually drawing you into the relationship.”

Joseph recognizes Mary’s important role in the mediation of grace. He sums up the tension he feels with this phrase: “Desperation plus expectation equals an invitation for the Spirit to act in our lives.” For Joseph, his frustration has positively affected his relationships with other people because it translates into a sense of urgency to minister to others. Joseph said, “Since the consecration, I feel the urgency with which Christ wants us to be carrying out his mission; that as desperate as I am to want to reach people whether it is through an adult study or the children’s Parish School of Religion

111

program, it doesn’t compare to the urgency which Christ has for saving souls. I think the consecration has given me a somewhat deeper understanding of the desperation I need to have [for the mission of Christ]. I think the consecration itself has made me more aware that I need to have greater desperation for living out the mission.”

During the interview, Joseph spoke of a time when he was inspired to show love to another person. He said, “I am part of a home base Christian community. We make blessing bags for the homeless, and so we keep them in our cars, and if we’re driving somewhere and someone homeless is asking for something then we will give them this bag that contains all kinds of things that meet their immediate temporal needs. [As] I am driving one day with my daughter, it’s pouring down rain and I get up to this busy intersection where I am turning right and, in the middle [of the median] a person is standing in the pouring down rain with a sign who needs help. I turn the corner and drive a little bit, and I told my daughter I have to turn around. It was like I had to go do this, and, the Lord will provide a way for me to do it.” When Joseph reflected on this moment, he said, “It’s almost like God has given us Mary and this consecration so that we don’t feel completely helpless; this is what you do with your desperation, you are weak, you are powerless. This is the answer God is giving us to our weakness and powerlessness.”

Joseph then describes how he practices his devotion in more personal ways. He spoke of the importance of sacramentals, which remind us throughout the day to pray to

Mary and God. Although sacramentals are good, Joseph said they are not the most critical thing in keeping his devotion alive. He said, “I have a rosary that’s been touched to the true of the True Cross and first-class of several saints but, honestly, it

112

could be any rosary. Sacramentals just end up being something that enhances the spiritual experience because you feel closer. It makes you want to pray the rosary or any devotion even more.” According to Joseph, the use of his sacramentals helps to bolster his resolve, but they are not the reason for his devotion. He is devoted to Mary because he loves her like a child loves his mother.

Overall, Joseph’s experience has allowed him to go deeper into his prayer life and to strengthen his relationship with God and other people. He admits he has only begun to scratch the surface though. One critique Joseph had about Marian consecration and devotion is the lack of explanation the devotion gives to Mary’s relationship with the

Holy Spirit. He said, “A lot of people will pray to Jesus or [to] God the Father [but] they kind of miss the Holy Spirit completely. They don’t understand…the relationship

[between Mary and the Holy Spirit] that well.” Joseph’s recommendation is to spend more time on the Holy Spirit during the preparation. He said, “In the preparation, we should explain more explicitly the relationship between Mary and her spouse, the Holy

Spirit.” Joseph believes if the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit were more pronounced and better articulated, then more people would be comfortable with Marian consecration and devotion. They would be more open to thinking about Marian consecration and devotion.

In the end, Joseph described his relationship with Mary as a source of comfort in his life. He said he drew confidence from the fact that Mary was his mother. Although the other candidates said similar things, it was the women, particularly other mothers, who took their relationship with Mary a step further. One interviewee, Elizabeth

(pseud.), for example, is a mother herself and she resonated with Mary, especially during

113

her difficult pregnancy with her son. While Joseph exclusively related to Mary like an adult child relates to his mother, Elizabeth found solidarity with Mary in their shared motherhood.

My interview with Elizabeth was informative and very interesting. She not only added dimension because she was a mother, but she is also a Catholic convert. During the interview, Elizabeth said her relationship with Mary started when she began to pray the Holy Rosary. She was inspired by EWTN to practice this devotion. She said, “I was still a protestant at the time. I was watching EWTN. This was before I was pregnant, so it was quite a long time ago. I started praying the rosary on my own, and I think that helped a lot with some of the anxiety I was having in my personal life at that time.”

Elizabeth spoke about her personal devotion to the Holy Rosary. She said it was the final push she needed to convert to Catholicism. When she decided to become

Catholic, she said she “decided to check out a Catholic Church and attend RCIA classes.”

She said her son got baptized when he was three years old and they, along with her husband, joined the Church and got confirmed at the same time. Elizabeth said this all happened in April of 2010. A few months later, in September, she consecrated herself to

Mary. She was thirty years old at the time of her first consecration. When I asked

Elizabeth how her age affected her experience, she said, “In my case, my age definitely had something to do with it because I wasn’t even Christian when I was growing up and at that time I was going through a lot of difficulties, so I think I needed a maternal, spiritual presence in my life.” Elizabeth said, “Mary was a very important person to me.

I felt like she brought me a lot of grace that I wouldn’t have been able to receive [on my own]. So, [no,] I don’t think I would have been as receptive to a Marian spirituality when

114

I was younger.” For Elizabeth, her Marian consecration was a way to give thanks to

Mary. She said, “The consecration…was something I felt I wanted to do partly probably because I wanted to show gratitude to Mary for everything she had done in my life.”

Since EWTN introduced Elizabeth to the Holy Rosary, I asked if she learned about Marian consecration in the same way. She did not recall precisely how she was introduced to Marian consecration. She said it could have been the influence of EWTN or it could have been the influence of one of the several Marian organizations she occasionally donated to. One Marian organization she gave to at the time was America

Needs Fatima. Elizabeth said she would periodically receive booklets in the mail from the organization. She believes she might have received a booklet on Marian consecration from the organization, and that is how Elizabeth began to learn more about Marian consecration and devotion, but she is unsure.

Nonetheless, Elizabeth said the first time she consecrated herself to Mary, she did it alone. She prepared for it privately because she was still in RCIA. Elizabeth said, “I think the first time around it is a very personal choice because it is a charism within the

Catholic Church and there are so many different styles of spirituality, and you are able to explore and see what works; not everyone is drawn to this and definitely not at the same time in life.” She said she did seek advice at one point during her preparation. She said she tried to approach her at her Church. She said, “When I went to talk to my pastor because everyone in the RCIA class was supposed to meet with the pastor and discuss whatever questions we had, one of the things I mentioned to him was that I wanted to do this Marian consecration. He kind of just brushed it off, and he said it was just a personal and private thing. He didn’t really ask me why I wanted to do it or if I

115

needed any help or if I wanted to talk about this. It wasn’t something he was interested in.” As I have expressed in previous chapters, true Marian devotion is anything but private. It may start from a point of personal encounter, but it flowers to affect others.

Elizabeth said her experience with the older priest was very different from the relationship she developed with the younger priest, who moved to her parish several years later. Elizabeth said the differences between the older and younger priest were like night and day. She said the younger priest was very knowledgeable about Marian consecration and spent more time with her discussing its importance. This generational gap between priestly formation in Marian devotion is beyond the scope of my thesis; however, it would be interesting to see how priestly formation has changed its approach in studying Mary since the Second Vatican Council.

When Elizabeth spoke about how Marian consecration and devotion impacted her conversion experience and relationship with God, she said, “For me [the change] was not as obvious. There was definitely a lot of maturation that had to take place after I became

Catholic. I think in the first couple of years after we became Catholic, there was a phase where I was very enthusiastic about a lot of things. You know, being a convert, you feel so excited. But, I had a lot to learn, and I think a lot of it had to do with humility. I think that’s the part that Mary really helps me with; to have better self-knowledge and to see the shortcomings that I have; to be more lenient towards others and to see my own shortcomings more than I do others. I definitely would credit Mary for helping me grow in humility. I would say that is the biggest help she has given me.”

Another way Elizabeth felt Mary had helped her after her conversion to

Catholicism was in the way she related to others, especially her family. During the

116

interview, Elizabeth spoke about her experience being a mother and how her experience of Marian consecration and devotion influenced her understanding of motherhood. She said, “I believe [Mary] has helped me become a better mother. I guess you always keep growing as a person and as your child grows up, of course, you are going to be better, but

I think the amount of difficulties I was having and the things I was able to do with her helped me. I don’t think I would have been able to do that on my own and I think it’s because of her prayers for me and to have that model to look at helped me a lot.”

I asked Elizabeth how she understands her interior practice of Marian devotion – for instance, how does she live by Mary, with Mary, in Mary, and for Mary in her everyday life? She confessed she still did not know what that looked like. She grappled with the question by thinking about Mary in her understanding of Carmelite spirituality.

In particular, she spoke about St. and discussed his theology on vocal prayer, , and contemplative prayer. She said as a person moves closer to contemplative prayer, their minds are purified. Elizabeth believes this is the interior devotion St. Louis-Marie is describing in True Devotion to Mary. Elizabeth said St. John of the Cross believes Mary ideally embodies the contemplative life. In other words, she is so contemplative and so transformed by God that she does not hesitate to carry out the

Will of God. For Mary, carrying out the Will of God has become second nature. Based upon this understanding, Elizabeth believes we should empty our minds as well; but this involves also emptying our minds of the conscious effort to do everything by Mary, with

Mary, in Mary, and for Mary. Elizabeth said this is the only way she thinks an interior devotion to Mary be can be true. It is only through a supernatural grace that we can embody the interior practice of St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary. In the scope of

117

my thesis, this is very important for the character of true devotion, according to St. Louis-

Marie.

Another insight Elizabeth articulated was the way she understands consecration renewal. She admitted she tried to renew her consecration twice already but failed to complete it each time. Elizabeth said, “I tried to repeat the process two times, and I don’t think I was able to finish the process for both those times, mainly because there really wasn’t communal support.” Although she failed to complete the renewal process twice, she knew it was not the most important thing. She said, “Part of the benefits of this consecration is you don’t ever revoke it unless you explicitly tell Mary ‘I’m going to revoke this relationship.’ So, you have that sense of security. It’s not a legalistic type of procedure you go through.” She says it would have been helpful though if she had a support group, so she could renew it properly. Elizabeth is a busy mother who is working on her doctorate, so she has very little time on her hands. She said, “If I was able to be part of a or something of a small group setting where we had more of a communal life together, I think it would be much more fun to do it with someone else.”

The third candidate I interviewed I will call “Catharine” (pseud.). Catharine is a twenty-three-year-old female. Catharine drew a lot of support from the group setting she was in during her first act of total consecration. She was part of the same college group I was in when I first consecrated myself to Mary. She was eighteen years old at the time, and she recalled the fellowship we shared in the group, saying, “We were a small group of about five. I think it was great to have other friends involved. It was how I was introduced to a lot of wonderful faith-filled people. They really encouraged me and held me accountable to the daily readings and reflections. We were able to share our

118

experiences of the consecration together at Mass one morning. We said the consecration prayer together at the Marian altar at a parish across from the college, then we went to get breakfast together. It was nice to know that I wasn’t alone. A lot of kids in college aren’t consecrating themselves to Mary. In a group, I felt like I wasn’t so odd that other people were doing it too.”

Before Catharine was introduced to Marian consecration by a mutual friend,

Catharine said she understood Mary to be her mother, but she did not have a personal relationship with her. She said, “I knew that we called Mary ‘Mother’ but I didn’t feel like I had much of a personal relationship with her until after my consecration. I started to pray the rosary before, something I used to hate and didn’t understand. I found that I wanted to now [after consecration] and that I had the perseverance to do it. I used to pray the rosary on the way to schools for student teaching [Catharine was an education major in college]. I would actually start to get imaginative with the decades, trying to understand Mary’s perspective on Jesus’ life. [Mary] made holiness more real to me.

She was totally human but was able to become the Mother of God because she said “yes” to His will for her. She became the total model of womanhood and sainthood for me.”

Catharine said one way she continues to renew her devotion to Mary is praying a daily rosary. Without it, she feels like her day is “off.” She also said she asks for Mary’s intercession during the Mass and she has a greater devotion to the different ; including Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of , and . These devotions, along with the use of sacramentals like the brown , a consecration ring, and wearing a miraculous medal help Catharine to renew her consecration in small ways each and every day. With formal consecration renewal, Catharine said she tried

119

rereading Michael Gaitley’s book again; however, she lost interest because she did not think she was learning anything new. She said she would probably learn more if she read

St. Louis-Marie’s original text. Now that Catharine is older, she feels more spiritually prepared to study True Devotion to Mary. But, she has not found the time to do so because of her busy schedule.

After my interview with Catharine, it was interesting to see how two people who started in the same place developed different personal relationships with Mary. Catharine and I consecrated ourselves to Mary together for the first time in November of 2015.

Today, we still share the same love for Mary, but the particular we have focused on throughout are slightly varied. Needless to say, all of these devotions of true Marian devotion are equally good and important. God and Mary know what each of us needs. Although Catharine and I have different Marian interests, our motivation for consecration remains the same.

My last candidate, a twenty-year-old male, is still searching for motivation.

Matthew is a college student who has been aware of Marian consecration and devotion for most of his life but has not formally consecrated himself to Mary. He gave three possible reasons for why he has not yet consecrated himself to Mary. One, he is afraid of failure. Two, his believes his lack of commitment stems from general laziness, or three, he is too scrupulous and believes he is unworthy of Mary’s help.

Conclusion

The interviews give four examples of what Marian consecration and devotion looks like in the U.S. Church today. The ongoing importance of Marian consecration in the Church today as evident in the theology and life of Saint Pope John Paul II (chapter

120

three), my own life and the lives of those I have interviewed (chapter four), raises the questions of the contributions of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary, the interpretation of this 18th century work in a 21st century context, and the theological criteria of true Marian devotion. These questions will be the subject of chapter five.

121

CHAPTER V

MARY FOR TODAY: RENEWING CATHOLIC MARIAN DEVOTION AFTER THE

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THROUGH ST. LOUIS-MARIE DE MONTFORT’S

TRUE DEVOTION TO MARY

Introduction

So far, my thesis has defined theological criteria for true Marian devotion according to St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary, the Second Vatican

Council’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and St. John Paul II’s

Redemptoris Mater. In this chapter, I first highlight the contributions True Devotion to

Mary is making to the post-conciliar Church today. Secondly, I discuss aspects of True

Devotion to Mary that may easily be misunderstood in our twenty-first-century context and clarify and enhance St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s Mariology for our time. Finally, I conclude the chapter and my thesis with a synthesis of the implicit and explicit theological criteria of True Devotion to Mary in light of the Church’s explicit theological criteria of true Marian devotion articulated at the Second Vatican Council and in the writings of St. John Paul II. By synthesizing these primary sources, I articulate renewed theological criteria for true Marian devotion after the Second Vatican Council through engagement with St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary.

Contributions of True Devotion to Mary in the Life of the Catholic Church Today

The contributions of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary were initially and continue to be real and practical. It is a book written for ordinary people. In

St. Louis-Marie’s life and ministry, he desired to live amongst the poor. He criticized

122

pompous scholars and wrote True Devotion to Mary in the language of the poor and simple. He spoke in terms that the poor could understand because he wanted to emphasize the power of God’s grace in a relatable and easily accessible way (i.e., through true devotion to Mary). The accounts of the interviews I summarized in chapter four reveal how applicable and relevant True Devotion to Mary is in the lives of diverse ordinary people even today. True Devotion to Mary presents a practical way in which people today can grow in faith, hope, and charity and live out their Christian vocation of love. True Devotion to Mary helps ordinary people live out their Christian vocation of love, particularly in service to the poor. As evident in St. Louis-Marie’s own life, described in chapter one, the Mariology articulated in True Devotion to Mary opens the hearts of people through self-renunciation (Holy Slavery of love to God through Jesus and Mary) and the power of the Holy Spirit to renew our baptismal promises, which is articulated in the context of building up the entire Mystical Body of Christ.

The building up of the Mystical Body of Christ implies unification, and this unification is with God and with one another, particularly other Christians. Another important contribution True Devotion to Mary makes in the life of the Church today is its ability to bridge relationships between Christians, especially Catholics and Protestants.

True Devotion to Mary emphasizes the primacy of Jesus Christ. For Protestants, the primacy of Jesus Christ is foundational, and this is one reason for Protestant objection to

Catholic Mariology and Marian spirituality. Yet, St. Louis-Marie describes true Marian devotion as being totally conformed, united, and consecrated to Jesus Christ through the

Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Louis-Marie articulates a theologically rich understanding of

Mary, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. His Christocentric and Trinitarian definition of

123

Marian consecration and true devotion can open doors for ecumenism and Christian dialogue, especially between Catholics and Protestants.

Clarifications and Enhancements to True Devotion to Mary for Our Time

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary was written in 1712 in a context that was in some ways very different from our own. The testimony of St. John

Paul II, the persons I interviewed, and my own experience is evidence that True Devotion to Mary continues to be a practical and meaningful spirituality for twentieth and twenty- first century Catholics. At the same time, there are some ways in which True Devotion to

Mary can be clarified and enhanced to support its proper interpretation in our context. I will address several points of clarification, including St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s language of “slavery,” his theological anthropology, his of self-mortification, the relation of True Devotion to Mary to contemporary feminist Mariologies, and St.

Louis-Marie’s position on the predestinate and perfect devotion.

The Language of “Slavery”

Today, the word “slavery” has a negative connotation because it is associated with abuse and oppression. In my exposition of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s theology in chapter one, I have already explicated his theology of Holy Slavery to God through

Jesus and Mary in True Devotion to Mary. I now wish to emphasize that his use of this term must not be misunderstood to connote abuse or oppression. Nor can this term be excised from his theology. Although the word “slavery” should not be used lightly, it is necessary because this word most accurately conveys the theological context of St.

Louis-Marie’s Mariology articulated in True Devotion to Mary as well as the undeniable reality of totally depending on and belonging to God through Jesus and Mary. Even the

124

word “servant” is not an adequate substitute; as St. Louis-Marie says, being a slave is more intense and permanent than being a servant because, unlike a servant the slave will never and can never abandon God in good faith and love.

The spirituality of the French School heavily influences St. Louis-Marie’s understanding of the word “slavery.” As I explained in chapter one, the term “Holy

Slavery” was used by both Bérulle and Boudon. St. Louis-Marie’s use of the word is not determined by the history of enslavement of other human beings. According to theologian T. Koehler, St. Louis-Marie’s understanding of the word “slavery” is articulated in light of Christ, scripture, liturgy, and a deeply spiritual experience of living and acting in and for Mary, which ultimately leads to total liberation in the Spirit through

Jesus and Mary.369 Koehler explains that St. Louis-Marie uses the example of St. Paul from sacred Scripture to convey the nobleness of being a slave of Christ (and consequently, Mary). According to St. Louis-Marie, “The Apostle [St. Paul] call[ed] himself by a title of honor, ‘the slave of Christ.’”370 St. Louis-Marie says the earliest

Christians proudly called themselves slaves of Christ “because there were no servants then like those of the present day.”371 In the New Testament, to be a slave of Christ (and of Mary) was a sign of great honor because it conveyed total belonging to Jesus Christ

(and Mary). Being a slave of Christ (and of Mary) showed a willingness to imitate his

(and her) example of loving slavery, which was exemplified in the Mother-Son

369 T. Koehler, “Slavery of Love,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1163-1165. 370 TD, no. 72. 371 TD, no. 72.; St. Louis-Marie also comments on the passage from the Gospel: “I call you not servants but friends” (John 15: 15) in his explanation of how he understands and uses the word “slave.”

125

relationship for the greater glory of God.372 St. Louis-Marie described this as a slavery of the will in True Devotion to Mary.

A slavery of the will should not be confused with the modern understanding of the word “slavery.” In True Devotion to Mary, slavery to God through Jesus and Mary is not a slavery of hatred or exploitation. It is a slavery of love. It is a slavery of freedom. It is a free decision to completely belong to God and to participate fully in His glory through

Jesus and Mary. By willingly surrendering to God, St. Louis-Marie writes, God

in recompense for the loving captivity in which we put ourselves, takes from the soul all scruple and servile fear, which are capable only of cramping, imprisoning or confusing it; He enlarges the heart with firm confidence in God, making it look upon Him as a Father, and He inspires us with a tender and filial love.373

The tender and filial love experienced in Holy Slavery is the reason why a slave of love cannot leave its Master. While slaves of human exploitation typically cannot leave their master because they are forced into a life of oppression and abuse, a slave of love cannot leave its Master because a slave of love does not wish to leave. This term “slave” must be understood thus in order to interpret St. Louis-Marie’s theology of Holy Slavery accurately.

For St. Louis-Marie, we are introduced into the slavery of love in Baptism.

According to St. Louis-Marie, total abandonment to God through Jesus and Mary cannot be expressed only in maternal and filial language, because the relationship is more serious than that. We are slaves of love because we freely choose to totally and permanently belong to Christ and consequently the Triune God. Through a slavery of

372 This could imply that the Mother-Son (filial) filial relationship does in fact signify the same thing that St. Louis-Marie means by slavery of love. 373 TD, no. 169.

126

love we are baptized into a new way of life; into a new existence in the order not of nature but of grace. For St. Louis-Marie, Marian devotion is a form of baptismal renewal. As a form of baptismal renewal, we are no longer slaves to sin and death.

According to St. Louis-Marie, Marian devotion inverts the negative power of slavery.

Marian devotion reclaims the freedom instituted by Christ in Baptism in a new form of slavery – a slavery of love, a slavery of the will.

According to St. Louis-Marie, Mary is the devil’s great enemy. He states that the devil fears Mary more than all angels and men, and in a sense more than God Himself.

According to St. Louis-Marie, the devil’s fear of Mary is not an indication of Mary being more powerful than God. St. Louis-Marie explains,

Not that the anger, the hatred and the power of God is not infinitely greater than those of the Blessed Virgin, for the perfections of Mary are limited; but first, because , being proud, suffers infinitely more from being beaten and punished by a little and humble handmaid of God, and her humility humbles him more than the divine power; and secondly, because God has given Mary such great power against the devils that – as they have often been obliged to confess, in spite of themselves, by the mouths of the possessed – they fear one of her sighs for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats against them is more than all other torments.374

As the devil’s great enemy, Mary protects and empowers devotees to be slaves of love instead of slaves of sin and death in a state of abuse and oppression. In True Devotion to

Mary, St. Louis-Marie writes,

What Lucifer has lost by pride, Mary has gained by humility. What Eve has damned and lost by obedience, Mary has saved by obedience. Eve, in obeying the serpent, has destroyed all her children together with herself, and has delivered them to him; Mary, in being perfectly faithful to God, has saved all her children and servants together with herself, and has consecrated them to His Majesty.375

374 TD, no. 52. 375 TD, no. 53.

127

In this way, a slave of love is not trapped or forced into oppression, but, instead, a slave of love is so completely united to God through Jesus and Mary by the power of the Holy

Spirit that a slave of love would not wish to be separated from God because God is our final end and fulfillment. He is our liberation. This is why St. Louis-Marie calls a slavery of the will a free act. It is superior to a slavery of nature, which is engrained in human nature because all persons belong to God as his creation. A slavery of the will is superior to a slavery of nature because it involves humanity’s willingness to participate in

God’s glory.

Unlike the human practice of oppressive slavery, those who are slaves of Jesus and Mary are not cheated of their dues, according to St. Louis-Marie. For St. Louis-

Marie, total self-renunciation, including the renunciation of personal virtues and merits – means Mary is more liberal and generous with God’s graces. Although total self- renunciation sounds confining, in True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie illustrates its richness and depth. According to St. Louis-Marie, giving everything freely to Mary does not mean a soul is left with nothing. On the contrary, since a soul sacrifices everything in the name of love, Mary can more readily transform, perfect, and augment personal virtues and merits in order to serve the salvation of all souls more fully. This is because Mary’s intercessory role is not about taking anything away from salvation. It is only about magnifying it. God, in his infinite love and mercy, is always self-giving. True Devotion to Mary makes the boundlessness of God’s love more easily felt and experienced because

Mary emulates the self-giving of God by giving herself to Him, and she, in turn, receives from God infinite love. In this way, St. Louis-Marie’s understanding of “Holy slavery”

128

uses the word “slavery” in a paradoxical sense, and this should clearly be defined when explaining and sharing True Devotion to Mary.

Unfortunately, the paradoxical meaning of the word “slavery” in the writings of

St. Louis-Marie is not easily understood by the average person today. For this reason, more consideration should be given to the language of “slavery” and what it connotes in the midst of the long history and ongoing reality of unholy human enslavement.376 Other ways to alternatively express the intent of St. Louis-Marie’s language of “slavery” (i.e. a relationship more permanent than that of “servant”) is to use the baptismal language of filiation. Although St. Louis-Marie says the language of filiation is not enough to convey the total and permanent reality of Holy Slavery to Jesus and Mary, the baptismal language of filiation (becoming sons and daughters of God and sisters and brothers to one another) could be helpful in articulating the total and permanent reality of what St. Louis-

Marie calls a Holy Slavery of love. This filial language could be consistent, for example, with the emphasis on Mary giving birth through the power of the Holy Spirit to members of the Body of Christ. In St. Louis-Marie’s summation, true Marian devotion is a renewal of our baptismal promises. Implicit in the renewal process is the use of free will, because a person says “yes” without a Godparent representing them. Based on Mary giving birth through the power of the Holy Spirit to members of the Body of Christ in

Baptism and based on our free ability to renew our baptismal promises through true

376 For further research on the language of “slavery” see sources like Willie Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010).; Cain Hope Felder, ed. Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).; Anthony G. Reddie, ed. Black Theology, Slavery, and Contemporary Christianity (Farnham, Surrey, England/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010).; and Courtney Lee Hall, Black : A Womanist Look at Mary of Nazareth (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017).

129

Marian devotion, the use of filial language could substitute for the use of “slavery” and still convey the total consecration or entrustment of belonging entirely to Jesus and Mary.

Theological Anthropology

Another aspect of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s theology in need of clarification is his theological anthropology, which appears to be very negative in its assessment of the human condition. It is important to note that there are other approaches that are not as negative in the Catholic tradition. In fact, some of these approaches foreground the

Immaculate Conception, the perfection of Mary, and her willing cooperation with God as symbols of the human potential for virtue and cooperation with grace.377 But, as in the case of St. Louis-Marie’s language of “slavery to Jesus and Mary,” the negative theological anthropology in True Devotion to Mary should be read in light of his historical and theological context. According to theologians J. Patrick Gaffney and

Richard J. Payne, St. Louis-Marie’s anthropology has a clear Christological root. They write that St. Louis-Marie’s understanding of human sinfulness is “not so much as an abomination, or a revolt, or a betrayal, but more as the breaking of a relationship with love who is God.”378 According to Gaffney and Payne, St. Louis-Marie’s “underlying concept of sin is not based on a legalistic model but on the model of the spousal relationship.”379 St. Louis-Marie’s relational understanding of sin, say Gaffney and

377 See Michael Heintz, “Mariology as Theological Anthropology: Louis Bouyer on Mary, ,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 204-225. Heintz writes that Mary is the exemplar of theological anthropology, a model for Church to emulate until the end of time. She is a more appropriate source of theological anthropology than Jesus Christ who was indeed fully human and is our model of holiness, but he is also fully divine, which we are not. Mary, on the other hand, is fully human, sanctified in a special way through grace. From her Immaculate Conception to her Assumption into heaven, the living icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary shows “all the possibilities of a redeemed humanity, of just what it might look like for a human person to be configured fully to Christ, her Son” (211). For this reason, it is Mary who is the more appropriate model for humanity and therefore the Church. 378 Patrick Gaffney and Richard Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary..., 1145. 379 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary..., 1145.

130

Payne applies not only to God but sin also ruptures our relationship with the Blessed

Virgin Mary, who is part of Redemption in St. Louis-Marie’s Mariology, and with our neighbor. According to Gaffney and Payne, “Since Mary plays a part in the redemption of sins, to refuse redemption, to refuse forgiveness, to break out of harmony with her Son is to disrupt harmony with the woman who is perfect harmony with Christ. ‘Sinners, we by our crimes make Mary and Jesus two very innocent victims.’ (H 74:7).”380 This corresponds with the theological thought of St. Louis-Marie who says anything you say absolutely of Jesus Christ you say relatively of his Mother, Mary. Mary shares in Jesus’s glory, just as she shares in his death.

Gaffney and Payne say, “Sin is also a transgression against one’s brothers and sister (cf. H 2: 148).”381 The unity of Christians is established in the waters of Baptism.

Since True Devotion to Mary is synonymous with the renewal of our baptismal promises, to sin is to violate that renewal process and thus, our relationships with one another.

According to Gaffney and Payne, “Contemporary teaching of the Church states in the same vein: ‘The sinner wounds God’s honor and love, his own human dignity as a man called to be a son of God, and the spiritual well-being of the Church, of which each

Christian ought to be a living stone.’”382

The original sin of Adam and Eve and the personal offenses of an individual all contribute to the ruination of our relationships and thus heighten the weakness of man, according to St. Louis-Marie. At times, St. Louis-Marie’s understanding of human

380 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1145. 381 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary..., 1145. 382 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary..., 1146.

131

sinfulness and weakness can seem despairing and hopeless. In True Devotion to Mary, he states:

The sin of our first father has spoilt us all, soured us, puffed us up and corrupted us…The actual sins which we have committed, whether mortal or venial, pardoned though they may be, have nevertheless increased our concupiscence, our weakness, our inconstancy and our corruption, and have left evil remains in our souls…We have within ourselves nothing but nothingness and sin and we deserve nothing but the anger of God and everlasting sin.383

It is important to understand, however, that St. Louis-Marie emphasizes our unworthiness and nothingness in order to highlight our total dependence on Christ. In his experience, true devotion to Mary will reveal to us even more clearly through the power of the Holy

Spirit “our inward corruption, our incapacity for every good thing useful for salvation, our weakness in all things, our inconstancy at all times, our unworthiness of every grace, and our iniquity in every position.”384 But, this realization has a positive purpose. The contempt of self and knowledge that we cannot do anything good on our own is a realization and affirmation that we need our Redeemer, Jesus Christ to intercede and save us.

Gaffney and Payne write, “[St. Louis-Marie’s] doctrine on the utter destruction left in man in the wake of sin is an affirmation of the primacy of Christ, who, through this sinful world, brings about the kingdom.”385 According to Gaffney and Payne, St. Louis-

Marie’s “experience of this weakness ‘by nature’ never impeded his joyful creativity and his determination to reform the Church and renew the face of the earth. He is not (as some of his writings read out of context would lead one to believe) a heavy, morose man,

383 TD, no. 79. 384 TD, no. 79.; St. Bernard, in contrast, one of St. Louis-Marie’s influences, did emphasize that even in a state of original and actual sin we retain a free will capable of cooperating with grace. 385 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1149.

132

pessimistically harping on sin: far from it.”386 Gaffney and Payne say, “Montfort’s insistence on the ‘nothingness’ of man – which is not removed by the grace of baptism – is overwhelmed by his conviction that man is ‘omnipotent’ in Christ Jesus.”387 Despite

St. Louis-Marie’s negative theological anthropology, Gaffney and Payne explain that St.

Louis-Marie assures his readers “that the slimy toads, the proud peacocks, and the greedy pigs perform incredible wonders in building ” because they are “personal instruments of the Spirit to the extent they recognize their absolute nothingness and are open to the omnipotence of God.”388 In this way, write Gaffney and Payne, “Montfort’s

‘joy in the Cross,’ his seeming delight in proclaiming his nothingness and the nothingness even of Mary and of all creation, is never to be considered in isolation from its essential context: Christ’s of creation precisely in its emptiness.”389

“Since no one is so much a ‘slave of the Lord,’ since no one has so emptied oneself of self as Our Lady,” Gaffney and Payne continue, “she is, then, the summit of those divinized in and through Christ Jesus.”390 In the person of Mary, St. Louis-Marie sees human nature and God’s grace perfectly harmonized. As such, the means of avoiding sin according to St. Louis-Marie is to be devoted to Jesus through the Blessed

Virgin Mary. Gaffney and Payne explain,

Not only does the consecration bring about a share in Mary’s faithfulness, but her intercession is especially strong for her children who have fallen: “Are you in the miserable state of sin? Then call on Mary and say to her, ‘Ave,’ which means ‘I greet you with the most profound respect, you who are without sin,’ and she will deliver you from the evil of your sins’ (SR 57).”391

386 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1149. 387 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1148-1149. 388 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1149. 389 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1149. 390 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1149. 391 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1153.

133

Gaffney and Payne highlight the recitation of the rosary as a practice of true devotion to

Mary. According to St. Louis-Marie, they explain that the rosary prayed thoughtfully and intentionally will help devotees “persevere and grow in the grace of God; sinners, that they may rise from their sins (SR 118).”392

Overall, St. Louis-Marie’s severe treatment of human sinfulness and weakness is meant to highlight the love and grace of God. According to Gaffney and Payne, he does not emphasize human sinfulness and weakness in itself, but always in order to remind us of God’s love, which, I would add, is personified in the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is in and through True Devotion to Mary that St. Louis-Marie has an answer to human sinfulness and weakness. St. Louis-Marie does not abandon us in our wretchedness, but, instead uses the active and maternal presence of Mary in the mystery and life of Christ and the

Church to assure us that “those who dwell in Mary in spirit shall fall into no considerable fault.”393

Self-Mortification

As in the case of this theological anthropology, St. Louis-Marie’s theology of mortification must be understood in his historical and theological context. According to theologian T. Myladil, St. Louis-Marie’s theological understanding of mortification is influenced by the French School of Spirituality. Myladil says, “The Bérullian asceticism embodies the double movement of total renunciation of self and total clinging to God.

The total renunciation of the self is only authentic and valid to the extent that it frees us to cling to God alone.”394 As I discussed in chapter one, St. Louis-Marie was shaped by the

392 Gaffney and Payne, “Sin,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1153. 393 TD, no. 264. 394 T. Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…,” 842.

134

French School of Spirituality and Myladil explains that he mortifies the self and roots his desire in “God Alone” because he thinks that “in God Alone we find our neighbor, especially the poor and the brokenhearted – and not on oneself.”395 There are four motives for Bérullian mortification, according to Myladil. The first motive is total dependence and unity with God Alone. The second motive is that mortification is a means to overcome human weakness and sinfulness. The third motive is total union with

Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, Myladil explains, is the only means in which humanity can be both reconciled with God and be re-created. By imitating Jesus carrying the Cross, humanity not only dies with Him, but humanity is born to eternal life. The fourth motive correlates to the imitation of the Cross. According to Myladil, “Bérulle’s doctrine on the total surrender of the humanity of Christ to the Divine Presence can be considered…self- abnegation.”396 Myladil says, “Bérulle’s concept of Consecration – Holy Slavery – is modeled on the truth that the humanity of Christ so totally clings to the Divine that the human nature has no ontological personality of its own. This total self-emptying, the kenosis, is, then, a call to the followers of Christ to practice mortifications to belong as much as possible to the Divine Word.”397 All four motives ultimately inspire a loving attentiveness to God and neighbor. St. Louis-Marie practiced Bérulle’s doctrine of mortification seriously in his own life by rejecting comforts of this world in order to live as a poor vagabond preacher, and Bérulle’s doctrine also influenced his writing of True

Devotion to Mary, which is a theology of a Holy Slavery of love, rooted in a total self-

395 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 842. 396 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 843. 397 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 843.

135

renunciation that leads humanity to be perfectly conformed, united, and consecrated to

God through Jesus and Mary.

According to Myladil, St. Louis-Marie’s teaching on mortification “should be understood and practiced in the context of our relationship with Christ, [the fact that] it is universal, and it is far more than external acts.”398 In light of St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality, Gaffney and Payne say, “Christian life is about acquiring and possessing

Jesus Wisdom and remaining with him.”399 For St. Louis-Marie Jesus is Wisdom. This is a hallmark of St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality. According to theologian J. P. Prévost, St.

Louis-Marie’s definition of Wisdom is multi-faceted, but it suffices to say that “the

‘primary meaning’ of the term wisdom” in St. Louis-Marie’s spirituality is that it

“‘designate[s] especially the Son of God, generated by the Father from all eternity, who became a human being in the womb of the Virgin Mary – Jesus Christ, Wisdom at once

Eternal and Incarnate.’”400 For St. Louis-Marie, humanity acquires, possesses, and remains with Christ through imitation and participation in the mystery of the Cross. The imitation and participation in the Paschal Mystery is eternal and universal. Myladil says it is eternal because Christ will judge by the Cross.401 It is universal because mortification, in the context of carrying the Cross like Jesus, “is required of all at all times.”402 Myladil says St. Louis-Marie used the exceptional person of Mary to represent universal mortification and “lists mortification as one of her ten principal virtues, which should be imitated by those who are devoted to her. Acts of interior or exterior

398 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 844 399 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 844. 400 J. P. Prévost, “Wisdom,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 1262. 401 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 845. 402 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 846.

136

mortification may be performed as one of the five principal practices of true devotion to her (TD 108, 116).”403

For St. Louis-Marie, there is a distinction between interior and exterior mortification. “Montfort,” Myladil explains, “points out that interior mortifications are more important than exterior ones, even though the latter are not to be disregarded.”404

According to Myladil, St. Louis-Marie describes interior mortifications as conquering the will. St. Louis-Marie practiced interior mortifications throughout his entire life. At St.

Sulpice in Paris, France, Jean-Baptiste Blain, his close friend and classmate, described one interior practice. The interior practice was what Blain called mortification of the eyes. According to Blain, St. Louis-Marie literally closed his eyes to everything except the Blessed Virgin Mary as he walked through the city. Blain says St. Louis-Marie possessed an extraordinary ability to sense when an image of Our Lady was near. Blain writes, St. Louis-Marie would greet the images of Mary by removing his hat. Both conquering the will and practicing exterior mortifications, Myladil says should inspire joy, not dread, because mortification for St. Louis-Marie “brings with it the knowledge of obeying the command of the Lord and of imitating him.”405 Myladil writes, for St. Louis-

Marie, “Mortification is necessary because self-denial and renunciation of the world and self are ways to possess Incarnate Wisdom.”406 Interior mortifications, with the help of exterior mortifications, unite humanity to God and the Incarnate Word through the intercession and example of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

403 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 847. 404 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 847. 405 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 847. 406 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 845.

137

According to Myladil, the relevance of St. Louis-Marie’s Christocentric teaching on mortification today is that he “does not think that ‘mortification performed for its own sake has value,” but that “acts of penance and mortification become meaningful, useful, and necessary as our participation in the mystery of the Cross of Christ and as means for our union with God through him.”407 Myladil also says the universal call to holiness involves mortification, and that this “is relevant especially today, when more and more people seem to think less and less of mortification and asceticism as an integral part of the Christian or spiritual life.”408 Mortification as an essential element of the Christian and spiritual life corresponds to the primacy of interior mortification, which Myladil says,

“should change our lives, behavior patterns, and relationships for the better.”409

According to Myladil, true mortification is what St. Louis-Marie lived by, and it is the spirit in which he understood and articulated his true devotion to Mary.

Feminist Critiques and Reconstruction of Mariology

In the decades since the Second Vatican Council, there have been a number of feminist critiques and reconstructions of Marian theology and devotion.410 A full account of these feminist theologies is beyond the scope of my thesis, but I will engage Elizabeth

A. Johnson’s essay, “Truly Our Sister: A Critical Reading of the Marian Tradition” in the

407 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 848. 408 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 848. 409 Myladil, “Mortification,” in Jesus Living in Mary…, 848.; See also McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 27-29 about the nuptial identity of Mary’s body and soul, actualized in her Assumption as both virgin and mother. 410 There is a large body of literature on in general and feminist Mariology in particular, which extends beyond Elizabeth Johnson’s article, “Truly Our Sister: A Critical Reading of the Marian Tradition.” Since it is beyond the scope of my thesis, I will not go into detail about this topic. But, it suffices to say, that Elizabeth Johnson’s article is not representative of every feminist critique and reconstruction of Marian theology and devotion after the Second Vatican Council.

138

volume Abounding in Kindness as one important and influential example of feminist

Mariology.

One of Johnson’s primary critiques is that traditional Marian theology and devotion have functioned in the Catholic tradition to bring out qualities such as compassion, mercy, and immanence in God, which are generally absent from more stern, distant, harsh, and punitive images of God. Mary then becomes “the maternal face of

God,” as a book with this title by theologian Leonardo Boff explained. Rather than using

Mary as a corrective for a distant and punitive Father-God figure, Johnson argues that the better theological approach is to revise the false, patriarchal theology of God.

While false theologies of God are indeed an issue that needs to be addressed, I do not think St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary is in need of any revision in this regard. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie articulates the necessity of Mary as

Our Mediatrix with Our Mediator, Jesus Christ, not in order to compensate for a patriarchal theology of God the Father, but because of the reality of human sinfulness and the beneficence of God’s grace. According to St. Louis-Marie, “Our nature…is so corrupted that if we rely on our own works, efforts and preparations in order to reach God and please Him, it is certain that our good works will be defiled or be of little weight before God in inducing Him to unite Himself to us and to hear us.”411 For St. Louis-

Marie, the necessity of Mary’s role as Mediatrix with our Mediator, Jesus Christ is for our spiritual benefit. Mary’s role as Mediatrix has a soteriological function in the order of grace. Mary is not only a necessary advocate in how we approach Jesus, our Mediator, and God, but she also helps to preserve the graces and treasures we have received from

411 TD, no. 83.

139

God.412 The intercessory role of Mary, according to St. Louis-Marie safeguards the graces we receive from God against the devil and the corruption of sin through the practice of the virtue of humility. The practice of humility is key to understanding why

St. Louis-Marie thinks it is necessary to have Mary as Mediatrix with our Mediator Jesus, because humility is the antidote to human sinfulness or a life separate from God.

In True Devotion to Mary, Mary does not function as a maternal divinity who is an alternative to a patriarchal God. Rather, Mary surely magnifies the glory of God, and she does so, in relation to Christ. She mediates the bringing of all creation into full communion with the Triune God, and she supports us in preserving the graces we receive from God who is love. This corresponds to the teachings of Redemptoris Mater (and the

Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium), which states that Mary unifies all

Christians through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As St. Louis-Marie says, Mary is “the faithful echo of God.”413 I believe St. Louis-Marie would agree with Johnson that Mary should not be used as a way to annunciate certain “absent” qualities in God, because

Mary “only exists with reference to God.”414 For St. Louis-Marie, it is through Mary that we humble ourselves in order to unite ourselves more fully through Jesus and the

Holy Spirit to God.415 Mary is not a maternal alternative to God but has a necessary intercessory role as Mediatrix with our Mediator, Jesus. It is important to clarify this given Johnson’s critique of Mariologies such as that of Leonardo Boff.

A second critique articulated by Johnson and also found in the work of other feminist theologians is that traditional Marian theology and devotion portrays Mary as the

412 TD, no. 87. 413 TD, no. 225. 414 TD, no. 225. 415 TD, no. 41

140

role model of the ideal woman – one who is relational, gentle, nurturing, non-assertive, non-competitive, and a giver of service to others – a feminine ideal that results in the social subordination of women to men. Although St. Louis-Marie’s spiritual treatise does not explicitly describe Mary as an ideal form of femininity, it could be argued that the gender dynamics Johnson describes are operative even when not explicitly discussed.

This is evident, for example, in Johnson’s discussion in She Who Is of the manner in which religious symbols function.416 On the other hand, my interpretation of True

Devotion to Mary is that Mary’s active presence in the mystery and life of Christ and the

Church transcends traditional norms, such as gender. True Devotion to Mary is a spiritual interpretation of Mary’s active and maternal presence in salvation as Mediatrix of graces and thus the role model for both women and men. As St. Louis-Marie writes,

Every day, from one end of the earth to the other, in the highest heights of the heavens and in the profoundest depths of the abysses, everything preaches, everything publishes, the admirable Mary! The nine choirs of Angels, men of all ages, sexes, conditions and religions, the good and the bad, nay, even the devils themselves, willingly or unwillingly, are compelled by the force of truth to call her “Blessed.” St. Bonaventure tells us that all the Angels in Heaven cry out incessantly to her: “Holy, holy, holy Mary, Mother of God and Virgin”; and that they offer to her, millions and millions of times a day, the Angelical Salutation, Ave Maria, prostrating themselves before her, and begging of her in her graciousness to honor them with some of her commands. Even St. Michael, as St. Augustine says, although the prince of the heavenly court, is the most zealous in honoring her and causing her to be honored, and is always anxiously awaiting the honor of going at her bidding to render service to some of her servants.417

In the words of St. Louis-Marie, we see that all people, including men and women, honor

Mary. This is especially seen in the figure of St. Michael who is a man who honors Mary

416 See Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Discourse (New York: Crossword, 1993). 417 TD, no. 8.; My emphasis on the word, “all…sexes.”

141

and shows it is possible to not subjugate women or men through true devotion to Mary.

Yet, it should be noted that even though St. Louis-Marie presents Mary as a model of faith and love for both women and men to honor, the significance of this must also be consider the social context in which the call to conversion occurs. As Valerie Saiving has written in an influential essay about the subordinated and marginalized persons whose lives are shaped by abnegation, a call to selflessness and humility has very different connotations than the same call made to persons in positions of power or social superiority. Saiving’s work is summarized in She Who Is by Elizabeth Johnson.418 A feminist approach would emphasize that criteria for true Marian devotion is it bears fruit in relationships of mutuality and equality between men and women. I believe True

Devotion to Mary meets the criteria. At the same time, in my opinion, if we limit St.

Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary to the issue of gender, we undermine its mystical reality.

A third point in Johnson’s essay is reconstructive. Having critiqued some traditional Mariologies, she articulates a theology of Mary as a faithful Jewish woman from a poor family who was broken-hearted by the suffering of her Son. According to

Johnson, she is a member of the , like one of us, a sister with whom we can identify and whom we can emulate. Johnson seeks to “invite Mary to come down from her glorified counter-Reformation pedestal and rejoin us, the community of disciples, on the ground amid the graced struggle of history.”419 St. Louis-Marie’s

Mariology is consistent with this vision. He lived during the counter-Reformation and

418 See Johnson, She Who Is, 64. 419 Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Truly Our Sister: A Critical Reading of the Marian Tradition,” in Abounding in Kindness: Writings for the People of God, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015), 290.

142

always ensured the Blessed Mother remained close to his side as he ministered and preached to the poor, often at a great personal sacrifice. By the example of his own life and his theology of Mary’s salvific role as Mediatrix in the order of grace, I think Mary as presented in True Devotion Mary is someone the Church can identify with and reasonably emulate.

In Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the

Church in the Modern World, the Council responds “to the contemporary global cultural, economic, and political situation, especially the global impact of the increased emphasis on autonomy and the secularity flowing from Western modernity.”420 According to the

Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, the first part of the constitution provides “a social doctrine, an attitude, and a vision, grounded in the dignity of the human person and the essentially social character of human nature.”421 In the first part, the constitution “concludes with an affirmation of the Christ as the ultimate meaning of man.”422 Although Gaudium et Spes is beyond the scope of my thesis, it suffices to say that there are ways in which Marian consecration and devotion could contribute to the mission of the Church in the modern world today; especially in a world of injustice and suffering. The relationship between Gaudium et Spes and true Marian

420 “Gaudium Et Spes.” Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, Michael L. Coulter, ed. Vol. 1, Scarecrow Press, 2007, 462-465. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3281000351/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=GVRL&xid=7f2715e1. Accessed 17 July 2019. 421 “Gaudium Et Spes.” Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, Michael L. Coulter, ed. Vol. 1, Scarecrow Press, 2007, 462-465. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3281000351/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=GVRL&xid=7f2715e1. Accessed 17 July 2019. 422 “Gaudium Et Spes.” Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, Michael L. Coulter, ed. Vol. 1, Scarecrow Press, 2007, 462-465. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3281000351/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=GVRL&xid=7f2715e1. Accessed 17 July 2019.

143

devotion is particularly witnessed in chapter four, with the testimony of Joseph whose

Marian devotion led to outreach to the homeless and in Marian Confraternities like St.

Louis-Marie’s Company of Mary that enact service to the impoverished and marginalized.

Johnson’s Mariology includes a constructive articulation of the historical Virgin.

Johnson situates within history “Miriam of Nazareth as a partner in hope in the company of all the holy women and men who have gone before us; to reclaim the power of her memory for the flourishing of suffering people, and to draw on the energy of her memory for a deeper relationship with the living God and stronger care for the world.”423 In regard to the historical reconstruction of the life of Mary and its context, True Devotion to Mary could be enhanced to a certain degree. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-

Marie’s understanding of the historical Mary is very implicit.

St. Louis-Marie mentions the Magnificat as a practice of True Devotion to Mary only in passing. He writes that the Magnificat “is the greatest sacrifice of praise which

God ever received from a pure creature in the law of grace. It is, on the one hand, the most humble and grateful, and on the other hand, the most sublime and exalted, of all canticles.”424 In the Magnificat, Mary’s free human agency as well as the mutuality of her relationship to Jesus Christ is reiterated and foregrounded. St. Louis-Marie says that several pious people devoted their lives to exploring its depths and its rich theological tradition. In the encyclical Redemptoris Mater, St. John Paul II explicitly articulates its significance in expressing Mary’s historical role as a Jewish woman. For St. John Paul

II, the Magnificat situates Mary within her Jewish heritage by recognizing the fulfillment

423 Johnson, “Truly Our Sister…,” 301. 424 TD, no. 255.

144

of God’s promises to His people and expressing Mary’s total dependency on God. St.

John Paul II also goes beyond the historical Mary to say the Magnificat represents the

Pilgrim Church throughout time. According to St. John Paul II, the Magnificat highlights the Church’s responsibility for the poor as well. In light of St. John Paul II’s emphasis on the Magnificat, True Devotion to Mary could be enhanced with greater attention to the historical Mary and her context. Although St. Louis-Marie does not explicitly state the role of the historical Mary in his spiritual treatise, I do not think the essence of the historical Mary is lost in translation completely; for True Devotion to Mary’s calls for self-renunciation and Holy Slavery to God through Jesus and Mary, and the theology of

Mary as Mediatrix and Queen of all hearts implies a deeper a relationship between God and others.

The Predestinate and Perfect Devotion

In True Devotion to Mary, St Louis-Marie echoes the saints and tradition of the

Catholic Church when he writes that true devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation and a mark of the predestinate.425 By this, St. Louis-Marie means the liturgical and spiritual forms of any true Marian devotion, which adhere to the correct theological criteria and lead to conversion and virtue, are necessary for salvation, and not the devotion in the exact manner he himself advances in his spiritual treatise. In True Devotion to Mary, St.

425 TD, no. 40.; See and Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (New York/Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist, 1992). Today, the Catholic Church currently teaches that salvation is possible outside of the Church, but not outside of Christ. The position is that Christ is active salvifically even outside the visible Church among people who are not Catholic or Christian. In this context, we can understand Mary’s role as Mother of God and Mediatrix in a way that encompasses all people. For example, St. John Paul II in RM, no. 23 says, “The Mother of Christ, who stands at the very center of this mystery [the mystery of salvation]…embraces each individual and all humanity – is given as mother to every single individual and all mankind” (my italics). St. John Paul II implies that Mary, as the Mother of God, is also active among all the human family. Th passage from RM affirms Mary’s embrace of all persons including those who are not Catholic. As the Mother of Christ, she is the mother of all humanity.

145

Louis-Marie writes that the forms of true Marian devotion, including those articulated before his time are necessary for salvation because

The figures and words of the Old and New Testaments prove this. The sentiments and examples of the saints confirm it. Reason and experience teach and demonstrate it. Even the devil and his crew, constrained by the force of truth, have often been obliged to avow it in spite of themselves. Among all the passages of the holy Fathers and Doctors, of which I have made an ample collection in order to prove this truth, I shall for brevity’s sake quote but one: “To be devout to you, O Holy Virgin,” says St. John Damascene, “is an arm of salvation which God gives to those whom He wishes to save.”426

This understanding, that forms of true devotion to Mary are necessary for salvation, is the reason St. Louis-Marie calls true Marian devotion a “secret.” According to St. Louis-Marie, true Marian devotion is a secret because one must faithfully practice the devotion not only exteriorly but also in an interior and transformative way unlike the

“external devotees” that he critiques. True devotion is a secret not because it is an exclusive grace given by God to particular people, but it is a secret because not everyone will accept the grace to practice it faithfully. The Secret of Mary is a little pamphlet St.

Louis-Marie wrote to a religious Sister in France. He wrote to her to explain his form of consecration and devotion to Jesus through Mary. According to the editor of The Secret of Mary (1989), Eddie Doherty says The Secret of Mary is a much shorter version of St.

Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary “and is meant to be an application of his Marian way to one already somewhat advance in the spiritual life.”427 St. Louis-Marie writes his devotion is “a secret of sanctity”428 because it was taught to him by the Most High and

426 TD, no. 40. 427 Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort and Eddie Doherty ed. The Secret of Mary (Bay Shore: New York: Montfort Publications, 1989), 4. 428 Saint Louis de Montfort, The Secret of Mary (Bay Shore, New York: Montfort Publications, 1978), 7.

146

the Holy Spirit inspired him to share it with other predestinate souls.429 St. Louis-Marie defines predestinate souls as people who enter into the interior spirit of this devotion.

Predestinate souls foster and practice an authentic love for the Blessed Virgin Mary and

Jesus Christ. By this he means that the grace of true devotion will be extended to all, but only a few will freely accept it and enter into the interior devotion he describes in True

Devotion to Mary. In chapter one, I articulated St. Louis-Marie’s definition of a “true” and “interior” devotion. In this chapter, I clarify and enhance St. Louis-Marie’s explicit and seemingly exclusive statement that true devotion is necessary for salvation and reserved for the predestinate.

According to St. Louis-Marie, “The predestinate tenderly love and truly honor our

Blessed Lady as their good Mother and Mistress. They love not only in word but in truth.

They honor her not only outwardly but in the depths of their hearts.”430 St. Louis-Marie compares the predestinate to Jacob and contrasts them with the reprobate who are represented in sacred Scripture by Jacob’s twin brother, Esau. St. Louis-Marie describes the reprobate as persons who

put all their trust in themselves. They only eat, with the prodigal, what the swine eat. They eat earth like the toads, and, like children of the world, they love only visible and external things. They have no relish for the sweetness of Mary’s bosom. They have not that feeling of a certain resting-place and a sure confidence, which the predestinate feel in the holy Virgin, their good Mother. They are miserably attached to their outward hunger, as St. Gregory says, because they do not wish to taste the sweetness which is prepared within themselves, and within Jesus and Mary.431

429 Montfort, The Secret of Mary (1978), 7. 430 TD, no. 197. 431 TD, no. 199.

147

This harsh language against the reprobate should be read in light of St. Louis-Marie’s historical and theological context. St. Louis-Marie wrote True Devotion to Mary in eighteenth-century France in the midst of the Catholic Church’s false priest crisis and in response to proud scholars and heretical groups like the Jansenists who critiqued Marian devotion. St. Louis-Marie is very explicit and critical of the reprobate in True Devotion to Mary because he is challenging the critiques and false teachings of people who do not promote true Marian devotion.

In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis-Marie also boldly states true Marian devotion is “the most perfect of all devotions” because it is the devotion that “most perfectly conforms, unites, and consecrates us to Jesus Christ.”432 He writes,

Now, Mary being the most conformed of all creatures to Jesus Christ, it follows that, of all devotions, that which most consecrates and conforms the soul to Our Lord is devotion to His Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to Mary, the more it is consecrated to Jesus…it comes to pass that the most perfect consecration to Jesus Christ is nothing else but a perfect and entire consecration of ourselves to the Blessed Virgin, and this is the devotion which I teach; or, in other words, a perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy Baptism.433

According to St. Louis-Marie, because Mary is the most perfect creature, and it is through Mary that Jesus Christ has paved the way to salvation:

This practice of devotion to our Blessed Lady is also a perfect path by which to go and unite ourselves to Jesus; because the divine Mary is the most perfect and the most holy of creatures, and because Jesus, who has come to us most perfectly, took no other road for His great and admirable journey.434

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has recognized the diversity of popular devotions. According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

432 TD, no. 120. 433 TD, no. 120. 434 TD, no. 157.

148

“Since popular devotions arise in response to the spiritual needs of the culture in which they take shape, the degree to which any particular devotion is practiced will vary over time and according to culture.”435 The USCCB cites Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Marialis

Cultus to articulate how the Catholic Church has responded to the different forms of

Marian devotion. According to , the Church

does not bind herself to any particular expression of an individual cultural epoch or to the particular anthropological ideas underlying such expressions. The Church understands that certain outward religious expressions, while perfectly valid in themselves, may be less suitable to men and women of different ages and cultures.436

In the context of the Church’s current teachings about the various popular devotions, St.

Louis-Marie’s bold statement that Marian devotion is “a perfect path” and a “perfect renewal of our baptismal promises” may seem a bit extreme.

While other popular devotions, besides true forms of Marian devotion, are valuable and are indeed good, I think St. Louis-Marie insists true Marian devotion is “a perfect path” not because he wants to be exclusive or condemning of other devotions, but because he has such a pure desire for how true Marian devotion should be authentically understood and practiced. St. Louis-Marie wants people to take this devotion seriously because it has serious implications for our redemption, our relationship with Christ, the

Holy Spirit, the Triune God, and the Catholic Church.

For instance, in light of Mary’s active presence in the mystery and life of Christ and the Catholic Church, and because Mary is the most perfect of all creatures, who “is

435 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “Popular Devotional Practices: Basic Questions and Answers,” Issued on November 12, 2003. Available at: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers- and-devotions/prayers/popular-devotional-practices-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm 436 Paul VI, Marialis Cultus. February 2, 1974, no. 26.

149

the excellent masterpiece of the Most High,”437 it is fitting for true Marian devotion to be

“a perfect path” because “the Most High has come down to us perfectly and divinely, by the humble Mary, without losing anything of His divinity and sanctity. So it is by Mary that the very little ones are to ascend perfectly and divinely, without any fear, to the Most

High.”438 The Blessed Mother is the first devotion to Jesus Christ because Mary was immaculately conceived. She is the woman in whom the Word of God choose to take flesh and to live under her authority and care while growing up and she is the woman who freely accepted the call to become the mother of God. According to St. Louis-

Marie,

God made Man found His liberty in seeing Himself imprisoned in her womb. He made His omnipotence shine forth in letting Himself be carried by that humble maiden. He found His glory and His Father’s in hiding His splendors from all creatures here below, and revealing them to Mary only. He glorified His independence and His majesty in depending on that sweet Virgin in His conception, in His birth, in His presentation in the temple, in His hidden life of thirty years, and even in His death, where she was to be present [at the Cross] in order that He might make with her but one same sacrifice and be immolated to the Eternal Father by her consent, just as Isaac of old was offered by Abraham’s consent to the will of God. It is she who nourished Him, supported Him, brought Him up, and then sacrificed Him for us.439

True Marian devotion is “a perfect path” because Christ himself practiced a Marian devotion by his very existence and throughout his entire life. Moreover, Jesus Christ implicitly established Marian devotion for the whole Church on the bloodied cross. For this reason, St. Louis-Marie says true Marian devotion is “a perfect path” even until the end of time because Mary is the way He will return. St. Louis-Marie explains,

When my sweet Jesus comes a second time on earth in His glory, as it is most certain He will do, to reign there, He will choose no other way for

437 TD. no. 5. 438 TD, no. 157. 439 TD, no. 18.

150

His journey than the divine Mary, by whom He came the first time so surely and so perfectly. But there will be a difference between His first and His last coming. The first time He came secretly and hiddenly; the second time He will come gloriously and resplendently. But both times He will have come perfectly, because both times He will come by Mary. Alas! Here is a mystery which is not understood. “Here let all tongues be mute.”440

Post-Conciliar Criteria for True Marian Devotion

Having articulated the ongoing relevance and importance of St. Louis-Marie de

Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary in its own historical and theological context, I now conclude my thesis by articulating theological criteria for true Marian devotion. As I explained in chapter one, St. Louis-Marie explicitly articulated some criteria for true devotion in his critiques of the false devotees of his seventeenth and eighteenth-century context. The most prominent of these critiques concerned the inconstancy, hypocrisy, or presumption of the false devotees. In our own context, there have also been critiques of

Marian devotion. As I explained in describing the context of the Second Vatican Council in chapter two, the primary concerns in our own context include the isolation of Marian devotion from the liturgy, the separation of Marian theology from the rest of theology, and Marian maximalism. Patristic scholar and theologian, Brian Daley faults even St.

Louis-Marie himself in this regard. He cites St. Louis-Marie as an example of preconciliar forms of devotion that “shifted the emphasis of Christian belief and piety from Jesus to Mary…to such an extent that ‘Christianity seems to have been transformed into ‘Marianity!’”441 With a close reading of True Devotion to Mary, in contrast, I have determined that this is not the case and that implicit in the work of St. Louis-Marie are

440 TD, no. 158. 441 Daley, “Sign and Source of the Church: Mary in the Ressourcement and at Vatican II,” in Mary on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council, 37-38.

151

theological criteria for true devotion to Mary that are consistent with the criteria of

Lumen Gentium and St. John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater. I have demonstrated that all three sources emphasize, to greater and lesser degrees, the ecclesial, soteriological, eschatological, Christological, and Trinitarian dimensions of true Marian devotion.

These criteria provide a theological framework for evaluating Marian devotion.

Evaluating St. Louis-Marie’s approach with this theological framework, I conclude that

True Devotion Mary not only helps articulate criteria but also meets the criteria for true devotion to Mary today.

Ecclesial Criteria

The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and the encyclical Redemptoris Mater both emphasize the active role Mary plays in the mystery and life of the Church. St. Louis-Marie’s True Devotion to Mary is consistent with the ecclesial criteria evident in these conciliar and post-conciliar sources because the spiritual treatise, True Devotion of Mary, is synonymous with a perfect renewal of our baptismal promises. According to St. Louis-Marie, the renewal of baptismal vows through total consecration is a Holy Slavery of love. This Holy Slavery of love inspires participation in Mary’s faith and mediates through Mary to transformation into the likeness of Christ. According to St. Louis-Marie, this transformation “gives us great interior liberty,” which inspires a “tender and filial love.”442 This tender and filial love

“procures great blessing for our neighbor.”443 True Devotion to Mary requires people to surrender everything, even our virtues and merits to God through Jesus and Mary to be

442 TD, no. 169. 443 TD, no. 171.

152

completely liberated. Total surrender permits Mary, as Mediatrix of graces, to dispense the gifts of the Holy Spirit more generously and perfectly; thus, allowing more people to benefit from God’s salvific grace in a truly magnified way.

In the preparation required for total consecration to God through Jesus and Mary, there is further evidence True Devotion to Mary has a clear ecclesial focus. Dates of consecration are set with the liturgical calendar of the Church in mind. In the beginning, a person selects a particular Marian feast day as the date of consecration. By being entuned with the liturgical seasons, people participate in the life of the Church in a real and practical way. The daily readings and prayers during the thirty-three days of preparation are also rooted in the mystery and life of the Church. The readings and prayers, based on Sacred Scripture and the prepare people for the and the Liturgy. The readings especially model a life after Christ for the devotees while the prayers entreat the Holy Spirit to come through Mary and Christ and transform us. The aim of True Devotion to Mary is the Eucharist. According to St.

Louis-Marie, the more one belongs to Jesus Christ, the more one belongs to the Blessed

Mother and vice versa. The long mediation on Sacred Scripture and the Imitation of

Christ during the thirty-three days prepares a person to approach the Sacrament of

Reconciliation and the Eucharist with a tender heart. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is the ultimate form of total self-renunciation, or death to the self, and thus, the final step before receiving Christ in the Eucharist, which is the Church’s ultimate form of unification with God. At Holy Communion, a person participates in the mystery and life of the Church in an ultimate way. The Eucharist, through the power of the Holy Spirit, transforms a person into a slave of love in a mystical way. According to St. Louis-Marie,

153

The more you allow Mary to act in your Communion, the more Jesus will be glorified; and then you will allow Mary to act for Jesus and Jesus to act in Mary in the measure that you humble yourself and listen to them in peace and in silence, without troubling yourself about seeing, tasting or feeling; for the just man lives throughout on faith, and particularly in Holy Communion, which is an action of faith: “My just man liveth by faith.” (Heb. 10:38).444

As a slave of love, a person enters into and participates in the loving exchange between the Blessed Mother and the Triune God as a little Mary, present within the Eucharist. In the contemporary practice of True Devotion to Mary, becoming a member of the

Confraternity of Mary, Queen of all hearts is a way to reach out to others. According to

St. Louis-Marie, “It is recommended that persons making the consecration register as members of the of Mary, Queen of All Hearts” because “the purpose of the

Confraternity…is to help the members live and publicize the Marian way of life as the easier and more secure means to sanctify themselves.”445 The obligation of the

Confraternity, St. Louis-Marie says, is for the members “to live always in dependence on

Mary and to perform all their actions in union with her – doing all things with Mary, through Mary, in Mary, and for Mary. By this means, they will more perfectly live and act with, through, in, and for Jesus Christ.”446 The members of the Confraternity are recommended

to make a small offering or to do a good work in honor of Our Lady on the day of Consecration. “It would be well,” says St. Louis de Montfort, “that on that day they should pay some tribute to Jesus Christ and our Blessed Lady…This tribute ought to be according to the devotion and ability of each one, such as a fast, a mortification, and alms or a candle.” It is also recommended to wear the medal of Mary, Queen of All Hearts.447

444 TD, no. 273. 445 TD, pg. 299. 446 TD, pg. 300. 447 TD, pg. 301.

154

Although St. Louis-Marie encourages members to make a small offering or perform a good work explicitly on the day of consecration, I would argue devotees should continually make offerings and perform acts of charity in the daily living out of their consecration. According to St. Louis-Marie, the members of the Confraternity share in the good works, remember the special feast day of the Confraternity (March 25th, the

Feast of the Annunciation), and gain plenary upon enrollment and through their continued practice of the devotion.

Christological and Trinitarian Criteria

Lumen Gentium emphasizes that the Church is a sacrament that exists within the mystery of the Triune God (LG, no. 1). This is the context for the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’s discussion of Mary in Lumen Gentium chapter eight. The Council’s

Mariology is clearly Trinitarian and Christological. According to St. Louis-Marie, Mary is “our proximate end, our mysterious means and our easy way to go to Him.”448 Mary was necessary to God in the Incarnation of the Word because “it was through Mary that

God the Father gave His Only begotten to the World.”449 By the word “necessary,” St.

Louis-Marie is not exposing some insufficiency in God, but rather “God the Father communicated to Mary His fruitfulness, inasmuch as a mere creature was capable of it, in order that He might give her the power [of the Holy Spirit] to produce His Son and all the members of His Mystical Body.”450 According to St. Louis-Marie, Mary produces the members of His Mystical Body through the power of the Holy Spirit by transforming souls into the likeness of Jesus Christ. He writes, “If Mary, who is the tree of life, is well

448 TD, no. 265. 449 TD, no. 16. 450 TD, no. 17.

155

cultivated in our soul by fidelity to the practices of this devotion, she will bear her fruit in her own time, and her fruit is none other than Jesus Christ.”451 “In seeing her,” St. Louis-

Marie continues, “we see our pure nature.”452 By participating in her faith, which is, according to St. Louis-Marie, “the greatest of all that ever were on earth, greater than the faith of all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and saints put together,”453 “the soul of our Blessed Lady will communicate itself to you, to glorify the Lord,”454 transforming us into the likeness of Christ by Mary. This transformation, according to St. Louis-

Marie, will be safeguarded by Mary, who

is the “sealed fountain” (Cant. 4:12), the faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost, to whom He alone has entrance. Mary is the sanctuary and the repose of the Holy Trinity, where God dwells more magnificently and more divinely than in any other place in the universe, not excepting His dwelling between the Cherubim and Seraphim. Nor is any creature, no matter how pure, allowed to enter into that sanctuary except by a great and special privilege.455

Mary, who holds the treasures of the Lord within her, preserves us in and through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

This account is consistent with the Mariology and Trinitarian theology articulated at the Second Vatican Council and in the post-conciliar Church, which places Mary at the center of the Pilgrim Church. It is the teaching of the Church that Mary gives birth to the

Head, who is Christ, and consequently to His members. Similarly, St. Louis-Marie writes, “If Jesus Christ, the Head of men, is born in her, then the predestinate, who are the members of that Head, ought also to be born in her, by a necessary consequence.”456

451 TD, no. 119. 452 TD, no. 85. 453 TD, no. 214. 454 TD, no. 217. 455 TD, no. 5. 456 TD, no. 32.

156

Mary gives birth to Christ’s members, who mystically constitute his Body. She gives birth to the members of Christ until the end of time too. According to St. Louis-Marie,

“God the Father wishes to have children by Mary till the consummation of the world.”457

This is consistent with the Christological ecclesiology of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, emphasized in Lumen Gentium.

Soteriological and Eschatological Criteria

St. Louis-Marie says Mary is necessary for the sanctification of souls because she is necessary for their formation into the Mystical Body of Christ. According to St. Louis-

Marie, Mary is the Queen of all Hearts: “Mary is the Queen of Heaven and earth by grace, as Jesus is the King of them by nature and by conquest.”458 This statement is consistent with Lumen Gentium and Redemptoris Mater’s position on Mary’s active role in the mystery and life of Christ and the Church. For St. Louis-Marie, Mary is the Queen of all Hearts because

Mary has received from God a great domination over the souls of the elect; for she cannot make her residence in them as God the Father ordered her to do, and, as their mother, form, nourish and bring them forth to eternal life, and have them as her inheritance and portion, and form them in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in them, and strike the roots of her virtues in their hearts and be the inseparable companion of the Holy Ghost in all His works of grace – she cannot, I say, do all these things unless she has a right and domination over their souls by a singular grace of the Most High, who, having given her power over His only and natural Son, has given it also to her over His adopted children, not only as to their bodies, which would be but a small matter, but also as to their souls.459

457 TD, no. 29. 458 TD, no. 38. 459 TD, no. 37.; See McCaughey, “Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’…,” 27-29. This relates to McCaughey, who references the words of David Schindler and Mary Timothy Prokes. All three theologians emphasize that the creaturely and bodily self-giving of Mary is demonstrated in her and motherhood and actualized in her Assumption into heaven. As Prokes writes, “‘Mary’s body illustrates that the human body’s nuptial capacity for self-giving can be actualized, to bring persons into communion.’” They argue that living out mutual relationships of loving receptivity through a Marian spirituality is key to inspiring communion in every sphere of life.

157

As the Queen of all Hearts, or, in the language of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Church, Mary, the Mother of the Church and Mother of God, has a duty to work alongside her Son to bring about salvation. Since Mary is the most perfect creature,

“during her sojourn here below, she acquired such an unspeakable aggregate of graces and merits that it were easier to count the stars of the firmament, the drops of water in the sea or the grains of sand upon its shore, than her merits and graces.”460 By practicing true devotion to Mary a person will acquire special perfection through Mary and the Holy

Spirit and “will give Jesus more glory in a month than by any other practice, however difficult, in many years.”461

According to St. Louis-Marie, the greater glory given to God by and through this devotion will fully manifest itself in what he calls “the latter times.” He writes, “It was through Mary that the salvation of the world was begun, and it is through Mary that it must be consummated.”462 According to St. Louis-Marie, “Mary has produced, together with the Holy Ghost, the greatest thing which has been or ever will be – a God-Man; and she will consequently produce the greatest saints that there will be in the end of time.”463

In the latter times, “the power of Mary over all the devils will especially shine forth” because Mary, with the Holy Spirit, will form the apostles of the latter times in souls where Mary, its Spouse, is found. The apostles of the latter times will be slaves of love, according to St. Louis-Marie. They will be recognizable because “they know what is the surest, the easiest, the shortest and the most perfect means of going to Jesus Christ; and

460 TD, no. 222. 461 TD, no. 222. 462 TD, no. 49. 463 TD, no. 35.

158

they will give themselves to Mary, body and soul, without reserve, that they may thus belong entirely to Jesus Christ.”464

Conclusion

St. Louis-Marie de Montfort responded to the needs of his own context and also speaks to our own time. He fostered, practiced, and articulated a profound devotion and understanding of the Blessed Mother within the mystery and life of Jesus Christ and the

Church long before Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council in 1959.

Based on my research, I have assessed and concluded that within St. Louis-Marie de

Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary are both implicit and explicit criteria for true devotion to Mary that are consistent with the criteria of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Catholic Church, Lumen Gentium and St. John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris

Mater, an encyclical that was itself inspired in part by Lumen Gentium and the writings of

St. Louis-Marie. I see, in retrospect, how much closer the Church is to arriving at what

St. Louis-Marie called “the reign of Mary.” It was St. Louis-Marie’s belief that the reign of Mary would usher in the reign of Jesus Christ. In True Devotion to Mary, he pined for the reign of Mary, writing,

When will the happy time come when the divine Mary will be established Mistress and Queen of all hearts, in order that she may subject them fully to the empire of her great and holy Jesus? When will souls breathe Mary as the body breathes air? When that time comes, wonderful things will happen in those lowly places where the Holy Ghost, finding His dear spouse, as it were, reproduced, in souls, shall come in with abundance, and fill them to overflowing with His gifts, and particularly with the gift of wisdom, to work miracles of grace. My dear brother, when will that happy time, that age of Mary, come, when many souls, chosen and procured from the Most High by Mary, shall lose themselves in the abyss of her interior, shall become living copies of Mary, to love and glorify Jesus? That time will not come until men shall know and practice this

464 TD, no. 55.

159

devotion which I am teaching, “That Thy reign may come, let the reign of Mary come.”465

Although the Catholic Church still has a lot of work to do in order to promote true

Marian devotion, it is clear the Church, since the Second Vatican Council, has taken great strides to move in the direction St. Louis-Marie hoped for hundreds of years ago. I hope this thesis has successfully contributed in some small way to the coming of the age of

Mary and thus the age of Jesus.

465 TD, no. 217.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberigo, Guiseppe, and Joseph A. Komonchak, eds. History of Vatican II. Vol. 4.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995.

Alive for God in Christ Jesus: Proceedings, Conference on the Contemporary

Significance of the French School of Spirituality, August 18-24, 1995, Simpsonwood

Conference and Retreat Center, Norcross, Ga. Buffalo, NY: St. John Eudes Center,

1995.

Blain, Jean-Baptiste. Summary of the Life of Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort

Translated by Julien Rabiller, Louis Gloriau, Ignatius Blackledge, and Paul Allerton.

Rome: Montfortian International Centre.

Cavadini, John C., and Danielle M. Peters, eds. Mary on the Eve of the Second

Vatican Council. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017.

Daniel-Rops, Henri. The Church in the Seventeenth Century. Translated by J. J.

Buckingham. London/New York: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD/E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1963.

Deville, Raymond. The French School of Spirituality: An Introduction and

Reader, trans. Agnes Cunningham. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press,

1994.

De Fiores, Stefano, and René Latourelle, ed. “Mary in Postconciliar Theology.” In vol. 1 of Vatican II, Assessment and Perspectives: Twenty-Five Years After (1962-1987),

469-539. New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1988.

Doyle, Dennis M. The Church Emerging from Vatican II: A Popular Approach to

Contemporary Catholicism. Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 2002.

Faggioli, Massimo. Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning. New York: Paulist, 2012.

161

Felder, Cain Hope, ed. Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical

Interpretation, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Fisher, Eugene J., and Leon Klenicki, eds. Pope John Paul II on Jews and

Judaism: 1979-1986. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1987.

Gaffney, Patrick J. “St. Louis Mary Grignion De Montfort and the Marian

Consecration.” Marian Studies: Vol. 35, Article 14 (1984): 111–156. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol35/iss1/14

______. Stefano De Fiores, Alphonse Bossard, and Richard Payne, eds.

Jesus Living in Mary: Handbook of the Spirituality of St. Louis Marie de Montfort. Bay

Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1994.

“Gaudium Et Spes.” Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, Michael L. Coulter, ed. Vol. 1, Scarecrow Press, 2007, 462-465. Gale

Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3281000351/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=GVRL&x id=7f2715e1. Accessed 17 July 2019.

Gillespie, Christopher. “The Role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the New

Evangelization in the Writings of Blessed John Paul II.” Marian Studies: Vol. 64, Article

13 (2013): 171-197. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol64/iss1/13.

Graef, Hilda C., and Thomas A. Thompson. Mary: A History of Doctrine and

Devotion. Notre Dame, Ind.: Christian Classics, 2009.

Gres-Gayer, J. M. "Jansenism." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 7, Gale,

2003, pp. 715 720. Gale Virtual Reference

162

Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3407705822/GVRL?u=dayt72472&sid=

GVRL&xid=b23f8d12. Accessed 16 Feb. 2019.

Grignion de Montfort, Louis-Marie. True Devotion to Mary with Preparation for

Total Consecration. Edited by The Fathers of the Company of Mary. Translated by

Frederick W. Faber. Charlotte, N.C.: Tan Books, 2010.

______. The Love of the Eternal Wisdom. trans. by A. Somers. Pennsylvania:

The Peter Reilly Co., 1949.

______. The Secret of Mary. 12th. ed. Unclassified Marian Library

Pamphlet Collection. Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Fathers, 1978.

______, and Eddie Doherty, ed. The Secret of Mary. Bay Shore: NY:

Montfort Publications, 1989.

______. God Alone; the Collected Writings of St. Louis Mary De Montfort.

Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1988.

Hall, Courtney Lee. : A Womanist Look at Mary of Nazareth,

Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017.

Jennings, Willie. The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race,

New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Johnson, Elizabeth A. “Truly Our Sister: A Critical Reading of the Marian

Tradition,” in Abounding in Kindness: Writings for the People of God. Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis, 2015.

______. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Discourse. New York:

Crossroad, 1993.

163

Kushu-Solii, Ngah Andrew. The Relationship between Mariology and

Ecclesiology in the Theological Thinking of John Paul II. Frankfurt am

Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wein: Lang, 2012.

Mayer, Robert J. "Montfortian Spirituality: A Reply to the Anti-Marian

Movement of Jansenism." Thesis (M.A.), Oblate College, 1967.

McCaughey, Mary. “The Marian Spirituality of ‘Lumen Gentium’ and the

Renewal of Marian Devotion in the Church Today." Marian Studies: Vol. 65, Article 3

(2014): 1-42. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol65/iss1/3.

Miller, Frederick L. Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood: Lumen Gentium and the New

Evangelization.” Marian Studies: Vol. 64, Article 7 (2013): 36–58.

Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol64/iss1/7.

______. “St. Louis de Montfort: Priest of Jesus Christ and Preacher of True

Devotion to Mary.” Marian Studies: Vol. 65, Article 9 (2014): 213–232.

Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol65/iss1/9.

Nachef, Antoine. Mary's Pope: John Paul II, Mary, and the Church since Vatican

II. Franklin, Wis.: Sheed & Ward, 2000.

O'Connor, Edward D. "The Roots of Pope John Paul II's Devotion to Mary,"

Marian Studies: Vol. 39, Article 12 (1988): 78-114. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol39/iss1/12.

Paul II, John. Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater. March 25, 1987.

______. Letter of John Paul II to the Montfort Religious Family. December

8, 2003.

Paul VI. Apostolic Exhortation Marialis Cultus. February 2, 1974.

164

Perouas, Louis. A Way to Wisdom: Louis Marie Grignion De Montfort and His

Beliefs. Montfortians Yesterday and Today, 1982.

Phalan, James. “Mission, Evangelization, and the Blessed Virgin Mary Today,”

Marian Studies: Vol 64, Article 5 (2013): 1-13. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol64/iss1/5.

Plessis, Armand. Commentary on the Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed

Virgin. 2014.

Reddie, Anthony G., ed. Black Theology, Slavery, and Contemporary

Christianity. Farnham, Surrey, England/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.

Roten, Johann. “Marian Devotion for the New Millennium,” Marian Studies: Vol.

51, Article 7 (2000): 52-95. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol51/iss1/7.

Sedgwick, Alexander. Jansenism in Seventeenth-Century France: Voices from the

Wilderness. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977.

Thompson, William M. ed., and Susan A. Muto. Bérulle and the French School:

Selected Writings, trans. Lowell M. Glendon. New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “Popular Devotional Practices:

Basic Questions and Answers,” Issued on November 12, 2003. Available at: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/prayers/popular- devotional-practices-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm.

Vasey, Vincent R. “Mary in the Doctrine of Bérulle on the Mysteries of Christ,”

Marian Studies: Vol. 36, Article 11 (1985): 1-21. Available at: https:

//ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol36/iss1/11.

165

Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium. November 21, 1964.

Vatican Council II. Gaudium et spes. December 7, 1965.

166