www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology ECC and de Montfort Consecration

Is the Total Consecration to Jesus Living in Mary as taught by St. Louis de Montfort and lived out by Pope John Paul II known and practiced by Eastern Catholics? If so, how would it differ from that lived out by Roman Catholics?
Silouan, Mary's monk

With respect, it would seem to be yet another unnessescary latinization.

I've never heard of it. It does sound very Roman Catholic though.

Nick

I am an Eastern Catholic, and have been making the consecration annually since December 8, 1998.

The total consecration (or holy slavery) to Our Lord Jesus Christ through the most holy Mother of God is not alien to Byzantine spirituality. The practices during the 33 day period of preparation, also renewed each year, may easily be adapted to Byzantine prayers: instead of Ave Stella Maris, one can sing Velicanije, which is the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) with "More honorable than the Cherubim..." after each verse. Instead of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, the Akathist, divided into several parts. The Holy Rosary may be recited with Byzantine prayers - if anyone wants to see a thoroughly Byzantine form of the Rosary, e-mail me at gabrielmary@juno.com. Or, and I have done this, simply utilize the Latin-Rite prayers during this period; nothing wrong with that either.

To discern if the Total Consecration is for you, read True Devotion to Mary By St Louis-Marie De Montfort, available from TAN Books.

Sorry, Gabriel, but if it needs to be adapted then it is foreign/alien to the East. There is so much of our Eastern heritage which is ignored, and unknown to most people - why must Western practices be adapted for Eastern use?

I have to agree. It's like the elderly lady who calls the police because she can see a naked man through her window. The officer arrives, looks out the window and says he doesn't see the naked man. The lady says, "Yes you can. Just stand on this chair and look." These Latin devotions are fine in the Latin Church, but the adaptations are rather tortured to make them into devotions in the Eastern Church, where they don't fit or belong. Unfortunately, these Latin devotions usually destroy or replace authentic Eastern devotions. Although I must admit, our Eastern churches could probably do a much better job of teaching authentic Eastern spirituality.

I find the Jesus prayer and devotion to the Mother of God in the Liturgy to be more than sufficient. I don't understand the need for specialized private devotions other than those given to us by the official office of the Church. When I pray morning and evening prayers from the Liturgy book, I know I am praying the prayers of the whole Church. When I pray the Jesus prayer, I know I'm praying one of the most ancient prayers given to us and recommended by all of the ancient church fathers. And I know that I am just one member of the church doing what everyone in the church does. Why must there be some special secret consecration? Isn't every day of our life supposed to be a consecration? Isn't daily prayer, regular confession, and regular reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist total consecration? What else is needed? Why burden oneself with additional vows, rules, alleged promises, and secret mysteries? Why not keep things simple and focused on Christ?

Joe

Joe-

Because it's a legitimate tradition approved by Church authority? It may not be everyone's calling, but it may be the calling of some holy people?

(this of course assumes that one believes the Latin Church is a real, [small o] orthodox Church as I do. I don't mean to bring this point up argumentatively, but it's a necessary caveat)

Markos
[who, admittedly, prefers the Byzantine Divine Praises to the Latin devotions]


Τη υπερμάχω στρατηγώ τα νικητήρια
Ως λυτρωθείσα των δεινών ευχαριστήρια
Αναγράφω σοι η πόλις σου Θεοτόκε.
Αλλ� ως έχουσα το κράτος απροσμάχητον
Εκ παντοίων με κινδύνων ελευθέρωσον
�Ινα κράζω σοι. Χαίρε, Νύμφη ανύμφευτε.

More and more, I think that is incompatible with Eastern Christianity.

In much of Western Christianity, which is so cataphatic, there seems to be have been a loss of conscious awareness and conscious communion with the Holy Spirit.

In the Roman Church, in some quarters, the response seems to be devotion to Mary as a quasi substitute for communion with the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics and other Catholics tend to loudly protest that criticism --and I'm sure I'll get that protest here. But, as I look at the language and the attitude of so many who follow that kind of Marian spirituality, it seems to be summarized by the saying "to Jesus through Mary."

Yet, that's not how communion with Christ works, at least not from an Eastern perspective (at least as I understand it). It's "to Jesus, through the Holy Spirit." Mary, therefore, is Jesus' mom, the Theotokos; and He graciously gave her to us as our spiritual mom (and thus our intercessor too). However, she is not the vehicle or medium of our communion with Christ. The Holy Spirit is the medium of our communion with Christ, the life in Christ.

So, no, this "total consecration" is something I can no longer regard as compatible with Eastern Christianity. I am not against the Theotokos, nor am I against devotion to her, nor am I against Western forms of devotion to her. Personally, for example, I think the Roman Catholic prayer "Hail Mary" is a very good prayer in its language and in its structure; and I pray it often. Nevertheless, I think that there is a tendency in some quarters of the Catholic Church to tend to treat Mary as a kind of substitute for the Holy Spirit, and this consecration is an example of that. Instead, I think what is needed is simply more conscious awareness of and communion with the Holy Spirit: through stillness and silence and prayer (including "Oh Heavenly King..." and The Jesus Prayer).

But, that's just my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.

-- John

I made my entrustment (language that I prefer to "consecration") to the Theotokos kneeling in the Cova at Fatima in 1990 on the Feast of Our Lady's Dormition.

Anyone interested in an Eastern theology of entrustment should consult St. John of Damascus. His theology makes "holy slavery" seem like child's play!

I devised a prayer of entrustment based on his writings. I do not have it handy, but will post it soon, if anyone is interested.

Gordo

To say that entrustment somehow makes Mary a substitute for the Holy Spirit (one of my favorite theologians, Yves Congar, made a similar observation - though not specifically about entrustment - in his three volume work on the Holy Spirit) I think mischaracterizes the spirit of entrustment. If anything, entrustment makes the pneumatological dimension of Mary's mission as Theotokos more explicit. Her spiritual maternity extends to us in Christ. What is wrong with making that explicit by an act of entrustment?

Clearly our Church's "life in the Spirit" is framed by the birth and death of the Theotokos. Are we to say that Church is making Mary a substitute for Christ by constructing her liturgical year this way? Or are we adoring Christ in the mystery of Mary who is a fulfillment of the New Israel?

I vote for the latter.

God bless!

Gordo

John,

You put that beautifully and I agree with everything you have said.

Joe

Gordo,

In my view, the private devotional practices, such as entrustment, spring from a degree of imbalance in Latin spirituality and theology. A sign of this is the extensive devotion to Mary individually without explicit reference to Christ. Since this seen in so much art and statuary where Mary is not shown bearing Christ as the Theotokos, but is portrayed alone, by herself, and giving herself titles, "I am the immaculate conception," etc. Personally, I think that this is an unintentional distortion of the Church's traditional spirituality and I also think that this is one reason why charismatic movements, cursillo movements, special private devotions and organizations, etc. all flourish in the West. It is because of a lack of balance in Trinitarian theology due to the neglect of the Holy Spirit and a somewhat imbalanced Marian piety. I know people are going to vehemently disagree with me, but I'm just stating my perception of things. It is something I spent a good deal of time thinking about.

When I was a Melkite, I used to try to blend Latin and eastern devotions. I would wear a scapular, try to say the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, try to follow various promises given through divine revelations, and so forth. Now, my being obsessive compulsive didn't help matters any. But, in my opinion, I think these kinds of devotions actually breed scrupulosity and obsessive compulsiveness.

I once read Louis de Monfort's "The Secret of the Rosary," and I will just tell you that I thought it was nutts, and borderline heretical. I never understood what Pope John Paul II saw in de Monfort. If you asked me for specifics, I'd have to go dig up a copy and reread it (this was years ago), but I remember the whole tone seemed to be excessive in its elevation of Mary and of its promotion of the Rosary and it seemed to use (inordinately) guilt and fear in order to persuade and move people. I had a very similar impression of some of the sermons of St. Alphonse de Ligouri, especially one sermon where he talks about the sin "beyond which God shall no longer forgive," and another sermon where he heretically says that every priest is higher than the Theotokos because the priest is given the power to make Christ present at every Mass.

Joe

Dear All,

I have received notifications of this thread.

It seems that a simple question has set off a litany of posts about why this one or that one likes this consecration or doesn't like it, etc., and in doing so, some of our Catholic posters have been offended.

I would say that at this point, Father Silouan's question has been sufficiently, and actually, more than sufficiently answered, (or what was needed), so I am closing the thread.

Alice, Moderator