The Glories of Mary and the Papacy

Hi,

I’ve recently been reading about Eastern Orthodoxy and it has made me take a closer look at the Papacy, and has strengthened my faith in the Papacy.

Anyway, I realize that I need to do more to follow my own local Bishop as well as the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.

Wanting to follow the Vicar of Christ more closely, I just want to make sure that the Popes have never expressed any doctrinal or other serious concern about the Glories of Mary.

Obvously I accept the Church’s dogmas about Mary, and that Mary is the New Eve, the mother of all men, the Immaculate Conception, the Ark of the Covenant, the Assumption, the Ever-Virginity, etc.

My understanding is that the Popes have endorsed the Marian ideas of St. Louis De Montfort. And that likewise St. Alphonsus Liguori is a saint and doctor of the Church, and as such I would assume that the Glories of Mary is quite sound.

As a person, I have no problem with the Glories of Mary. I love it. I have two copies: one is the 2000 Liguori press copy and also the older version tranlated by Eugene Grimm with the yellow flowers on the front :slight_smile:

I know that some people find it over the top, but I don’t. I am especially helped by Liguori’s teachings from the fathers that Mary is “the breath of Christians”, and that we are called to be like little children who always have on their lips their mother’s name, and that calling on Mary is sufficient for salvation. And I read an article–from April of this year (2015) I think, which said that Pope Francis had recently re-read the Glories of Mary and had spoken positively of it.

In summary, my question is: has there ever been any Magisterial concern or warnings about the Glories of Mary?

Back in the Thirteenth Century the Church was considering defining Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas Aquinas raised a philosophical question: If Mary was conceived without original sin then she did not need a Savior. But everybody needs a savior. Those ideas appear to be in contradiction. So, how could Immaculate Conception be correct?

Aquinas urged the Church to postpone the definition until this question could be logically answered. And that’s exactly what the Church did.

The problem is only a problem if you have a linear mindset about time.

In the centuries that followed, the Church came to understand that Mary’s sinlessness came from an application of the Saving Merits of Calvary which were applied to her in anticipation of Our Lord’s Sacrifice. It does not matter that Calvary happened “after” the Immaculate Conception, because God does not operate within linear time.

Thanks David. And oddly enough, as I understand it, it was Duns Scotus who helped figure out the truth. (Duns Scotus, I’ve heard, was a terrible and individualistic philosopher, along with Ockham).

Anyway, I totally agree with the Immaculate Conception and anything taught by the Magisterium.

But my question is about whether the Papacy has expressed any concerns about Liguori’s book, the Glories of Mary, or if–instead–the Papacy recommends it.

Thanks.

Yeah, good things can sometimes come from disagreeable people. Ockham gave us some useful shaving equipment.

But my question is about whether the Papacy has expressed any concerns about Liguori’s book, the Glories of Mary, or if–instead–the Papacy recommends it.

The Wikipedia Page for St. Louis de Montfort has a section devoted to the topic of A young priest who influenced the popes. You may find that helpful.

Speaking of good things coming from disagreeable people - thanks to anti-Catholics we can be fairly certain that no Pope has ever been cautious or critical of St. LdM. If so, they would surely try to may an issue of it. They don’t like St. LdM in the first place, so any Papal ammo would be included in their arsenal.

In answer to your summary question: I’ve never heard or read of any magisterial warnings about the Glories of Mary. St Alphonsus Liguori is a great saint and doctor of the Church as you have stated. The Church has declared him a great saint and doctor of the Church. The Church canonizes people so that we may follow them and imitate their example. Nobody is going to be in the wrong by following the way or teaching of St Alphonsus who became a canonized saint.

The Glories of Mary is a wonderful work by St Alphonsus. He obviously had a great devotion to Mary as had most saints or better yet everyone of them, some more pronounced than others. St Alphonsus expressed this love he had for Mary in his writings and he is not the only one who has had a strong devotion to Mary as he tells us about other saints and people in the book of course. St Alphonsus, of course, also had a great love for Jesus Christ as Mary did as we find in other writings of his. There is nobody who is going to have a great devotion to Mary who is also not going to have a great devotion to Jesus, Mary’s divine Son. Mary leads us to Jesus.

The expressions you mention found in the Glories of Mary which you really like I would not worry as if the Church or some pope is going to come down on it in some way. They are not untrue. The Church has canonized many saints who were totally consecrated to Mary and who taught this total consecration such as St Louis de Montfort, St Maximilian Kolbe, and Pope St John Paul II. The Church has never declared total consecration to Mary to be heretical in any way but it has expressly approved it for the devotion of the faithful. There are many faithful in the Church today who are living the total consecration to Mary. Besides, all these saints were lovers of Jesus Christ, God, and the Church and they know the end of the consecration to Mary is Jesus Christ and God. Mary, as the Church teaches, is truly our mother in the order of divine grace.

Some of the saints probably had mystical experiences of Mary which experiences can hardly be put or described in words but they may try to express them according to how the best we can in human language. The idea of total consecration to Mary is to be possessed with the spirit of Mary whose spirit was totally possessed by the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ and the Father. Consequently, anyone who breathes the spirit of Mary is breathing forth God the Holy Spirit. And anyone who calls on the name of Mary who is the Queen of heaven and earth is assuredly going to be saved. For

“the will of the Most High, Who exalts the humble, is that heaven and earth bend, with good will or bad will, to the commandments of the humble Mary, whom He has made sovereign of heaven and earth, general of His armies, treasurer of His treasures, dispenser of His graces, worker of His greatest marvels, restorer of the human race, mediatrix of men, the exterminator of the enemies of God, and the faithful companion of His grandeurs and triumphs” (St Louis de Montfort).

When did he get doctorified? I never heard the news.

1871 by Pope Pius IX

Do you have a source for that? A Google search for

“Louis de Montfort” doctor “Pius IX”

doesn’t return anything relevant (it only returns four hits, which I find surprising).

I found several websites about LdM (including his Wikipedia page) that say his doctorification is under consideration.

(and just in case somebody serious comes along, yes, I know that doctorification is not a word. If anyone knows what it’s actually called, I’d be interested to know.)

Thanks for the good laugh! :slight_smile:

The Wikipedia Page for St. Louis de Montfort has a section devoted to the topic of A young priest who influenced the popes. You may find that helpful.

Speaking of good things coming from disagreeable people - thanks to anti-Catholics we can be fairly certain that no Pope has ever been cautious or critical of St. LdM. If so, they would surely try to may an issue of it. They don’t like St. LdM in the first place, so any Papal ammo would be included in their arsenal.

THanks, David. I think St. Louis De Montfort is thoroughly endorsed by the Papacy. But I’m asking about St. Alphonsus Liguori’s “The Glories of Mary”

But what you say probably applies to Liguori too. Thanks again.

Oh, sheesh. I’m always getting those two mixed up. They are like two peas in a pod - both had a great devotion to Our Lady.

I think what you heard about Blessed Duns Scotus, namely, that he was a terrible and individualistic philosopher is an over-exaggeration. He was actually quite a remarkable thinker and his philosophical system in general does not depart radically from the medieval or 13th century scholastic framework where we find the great synthesis of Aquinas, the philosophy of Bonaventura, and others of course. Frederick Copleston, author of a History of Philosophy, classifies Scotism as the last of the great medieval speculative syntheses. Of course, Scotus does have some of his own individual ideas which are at variance with Aquinas and which I personally do not agree with. Scotus also had some ideas that kind of paved the way to the radical criticism of the scholastics , Aquinas, and even Scotus himself such as found in William of Ockham and the nominalist movement. Though Scotus did not take said ideas to the point that Ockham and the nominalists did. Ockham was a much more radical thinker than Scotus and his (Ockham’s) philosophy belongs in a different bracket. Basically, if I’m not mistaken, the nominalists were skeptical concerning what the unaided natural light of reason can know.

I thought u meant St Alphonsus Ligouri not St Louis de Montfort. St Louis de Montfort has not been declared a doctor of the Church but he probably should be.

Thanks, Richca. That’s very helpful.

Yeah, that was me mixing up those two guys.

This article describes a talk where Pope Francis praised the book and talked about re-reading it recently.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1501632.htm

Thanks, Genesis315. That article is helpful.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.