JESUS LIVING IN MARY:
HANDBOOK OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF ST. LOUIS DE MONTFORT
POPES/BISHOPS
Summary
I. France and Gallicanism during Montfort’s lifetime:
1. Montfort’s sensus fidei;
2. Montfort’s "Roman spirit;"
II. Montfort’s Relationship with the Pope and Bishops:
1. Bishops Montfort met;
2. An evaluation:
a. Montfort’s obedience;
b. Montfort’s persecution.
III. The Pope and the Bishops in Montfort’s Writings.
IV. Relevance of Montfort’s Obedience to Popes and Bishops.
"When Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort . . . came to this august city of
Rome, to venerate devoutly the tomb of Blessed Peter, he learned from
our predecessor pope Clement XI . . . that he was destined to preach the
truth of the Gospel, not to the foreign nations as he had wished, but
rather to regenerate Christian practice in the heart of his own country.
This is why, submitting quite willingly to this invitation, Louis-Marie
Grignion de Montfort returned to France, and during his life left no
stone unturned in responding by energetic apostolic activity to the
invitation and plan of the Sovereign Pontiff."1 It is with these words
that Pope Pius XII began his homily on the occasion of Montfort’s
canonization on July 20, 1947. This article may be considered a
commentary on the words of the Holy Father.
I. FRANCE AND GALLICANISM DURING MONTFORT’S LIFETIME
1. Montfort’s sensus fidei.
To understand Montfort’s ecclesial attitude—which entails his attitude
toward the popes and the bishops—it is necessary to recall the
incredible struggle between the opposing forces of "Ultramontanism" and
"Gallicanism,"2 which existed in the Church from the Council of Trent
down to Vatican I. The former looked toward Rome and the Holy See, the
latter looked to the church of France. St. Louis de Montfort was well
acquainted with these movements. He was richly endowed with a sense of
the faith and gifts of the Spirit that guided the disciples of Christ.
This guided him to recognize the primary role of the pope and the
bishops.
2. Montfort’s "Roman spirit."
In Montfort’s time France was troubled by the controversy surrounding
Jansenism and Gallicanism. Church doctrine "was the root and foundation of
Jansenism’s moral notions and, at least indirectly, of its attitude toward
discipline;"3 however, Jansenism did not consider infallible, nor
consequently binding, the judgment of the Church on the theses held by
Jansenius in the Augustinus. In the best of cases it hid behind an
"obsequious silence" which precluded inner assent to the Roman decrees. In
1705, the year before Montfort’s Roman pilgrimage, the Bull Vineam Domini
of Clement XI rejected the theory of the Jansenists. Thus it is true that
in the west of France, evangelized by Montfort, people still lived in the
beneficent atmosphere of the Pax Clementina (1669) until the beginning of
the eighteenth century, when the conflict rekindled. But it is also true
that, "we would fall into the opposite mistake were we to refuse to
consider the undoubted repercussions of the Jansenist struggle on Louis’s
career, sent back as he was to the heart of the Gallican Church, furrowed
with rebellion."4 Montfort never let himself be won over by Jansenist
ideas: "Jansenism, away with you!" (H 139:55). As for the Gallican
controversies, which accompanied the Jansenist ones in the eighteenth
century, "a complex frame of mind, defiant of Roman authority, jealous of
its own independence, very attached to its own ways, faced with State
interference, was then quite widespread in France."5 "It cannot be said,"
observes G. De Luca with a touch of irony, "that in the France of that day
there was an excessive devotion to the papacy."6
II. MONTFORT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE POPE AND BISHOPS
The study of Montfort’s relationship with the hierarchy will first
examine, in chronological order, the Popes and Bishops Montfort
encountered, followed by an attempt to evaluate the often strained
relations between the missionary and those in ecclesiastical authority.
1. Bishops Montfort Encountered.
a. Henri Bazan de Flamenville, Bishop of Perpignan (d. 1721).
Around 1693–1694 Montfort was his collaborator in the evangelization of
the footmen of Paris. It was he who ordained him priest on June 5, 1700.
b. Antoine Girard de la Bournat, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 1702).
In April 1701, Montfort told him about "the attraction he had for
working for the salvation of the poor" (L 6). The bishop "rather curtly"
thanked him for the information (L 6). Later, Bishop Girard, impressed
by the petition addressed to him by the management of the local
poorhouse, called Montfort back, spoke to him "more calmly," and ordered
him to write to his spiritual director, Fr. Leschassier, to ask him to
decide what should be done (cf. L 6). Toward the end of August 1701, the
bishop wrote to Montfort in these words: "Father, those at the poorhouse
continue to want you with them . . . I even think that Mme. de Montespan
was kind enough to write you about this. But now I think I owe it to you
to write to you myself that their desires, together with what Fr.
Leschassier took the trouble to tell me, lead me to believe that God
wishes you at their side, if your bishop [the bishop of Nantes] is
willing."7 Louis Marie felt that he had no inclination "to withdraw into
his shell" (cf. L 9), and the letter from the bishop, spokesman for the
poor, was possibly the long-awaited sign. Thus, without much delay, he
went to Poitiers on October 20, 1701. Bishop A. Girard greeted him "with
open arms" (L11), and offered him room and board at the seminary "while
waiting for hospital authorities" (L 10; cf. L 11). In the meanwhile, he
taught "catechism to the poor beggars of the town with the approval and
the help of the Bishop" (L 10). He made himself poor with the poor, as
he himself wrote to Fr. Leschassier on November 3, 1701: "I explained to
the Bishop that even in the poorhouse I do not wish to be separated from
my mother, Divine Providence, and with this in mind I am happy to share
the meals of the poor and to have no fixed salary. The Bishop agreed
heartily to this and offered to act as a father to me" (L 10). "The
Bishop, unable to resist the insistent appeals of the poor any longer,
allowed [him] to go to the poorhouse shortly after All Saints Day" (L
11). Once there, with the bishop’s consent and that of the whole
administration (cf. L 11), Montfort served the poor in the refectory and
went round the town begging for something extra for them (L 11). With
the approval of the bishop he gave a conference each week to thirteen or
fourteen schoolboys who were the elite of the local Jesuit school (cf. L
11). But in the poorhouse there was "a quick-witted girl who is the
craftiest and proudest girl I have ever met" (L 11). For this reason,
Montfort wrote to Fr. Leschassier on July 4, 1702, "I am afraid that
Bishop de la Poype, like his predecessor, has been greatly deceived by
her, because he was too credulous. If you judged it proper you could
warn him about this" (L 11).
c. Jean-Baptiste de Saint-Vallier, Bishop of Québec (d. 1727).
Montfort’s relationship with this missionary bishop, alumnus of Saint-
Sulpice, is described by De Fiores: "The affinities of temperament and
spirituality of Bishop de Saint-Vallier and Montfort explain the deep
friendship that existed between them and attested to by first-hand
sources. The bishop of Quebec intervened on behalf of Montfort:
recommending his sister to the future Bishop of Poitiers, Antoine
Girard, praising his behavior, acting as a mediator in order to avoid
the destruction of the Calvary of Pontchâteau. When he asked to leave
for Canada, probably in September 1700, Montfort did not fail to think
of Bishop de Saint-Vallier in whom he would have found understanding and
help for the accomplishment of his vast missionary plans."8
d. Jean Claude de la Poype de Vertrieu, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 1732).
"A generous and very spiritual shepherd,"9 he received Montfort like a
father who at the end of the summer of 1702 returned from Paris to
Poitiers. Giving him discreet assistance, he allowed him to attempt a
complete reform of the poorhouse and to admit, among the poor, Marie
Louise Trichet.
But in the spring of 1703, the position of the young chaplain became
unbearable. "Louis reacted severely to the indecent behavior of a boy,
which released a storm of complaints, and the bishop who had been
misinformed acted on impulse. Tired with this priest who put him in such
an awkward position, he forbade him to say Mass," although "once the
situation was clarified, not in a few days but a few hours, the
prohibition was rescinded." After this "harsh action of the good
bishop,"10 around Easter 1703, Montfort set out for Paris where he
passed through a veritable calvary of rejections. Yet it was to this man
of God that Fr. Madot, delegated by the cardinal of Paris, entrusted the
reform of the hermits of Mont Valérien.
In the meanwhile things in Poitiers were changing. In two letters, now
lost, Bishop de la Poype asked Louis Marie to return while at the same
time the residents of the poorhouse were clamoring for Montfort, their
"angel" and "venerable shepherd." Louis Marie then returned to Poitiers
where the bishop supported him and the poor loved him. Yet in a very
short time new jealousies cropped up in his regard. "He sought counsel
from Bishop de la Poype who had not withdrawn his confidence and who
evaluated objectively the chaplain’s untenable position."11 Finally,
Montfort shook the dust from his feet, and left the poorhouse for good.
The Bishop then gave him lodging in the House of Penitents and Montfort
had his first encounter with missionary work.
When the missionary was preaching in the church of Our Lady of
Calvary, Father de Villeroi, one of the vicars general of the diocese,
reprimanded him publicly, expressing disapproval of one of Montfort’s
personal initiatives. "Louis Marie got down on his knees. His face was
ashen and expressionless. When the other man withdrew, he said merely,
‘My brothers, we were ready to plant a cross at the door of this church.
It was not God’s will. Our superiors were against it. Let us plant it
then in the midst of our hearts.’"12 The following day the church was
full. Father Révol, another vicar general, friend of Louis Marie’s, and
the Bishop-elect of Oloron, went into the pulpit and thanked Montfort
with great feeling, with the explicit purpose of repairing the damage
done. But the news of what had happened at Our Lady of Calvary had
already reached Bishop de la Poype. Although he appreciated and
understood Montfort, and had granted him generous protection in other
difficult moments, he now felt obligated to sacrifice him to keep the
peace. Father de Montfort "had barely begun to preach a retreat to the
Dominican nuns of Sainte-Catherine when a letter reached him containing
the order of the Bishop to leave Poitiers immediately. The blow was a
hard one for Louis Marie, not only because of the break with the now
familiar atmosphere but because this new ordeal cast a thick shadow over
the most precious ideal of Father de Montfort’s life: the preaching
ministry."13
He then decided to go to Rome to "see Peter" (Gal 1:18). Before
leaving he wrote a letter to all who had profited from the missions he
preached: "If God preserves my life, I will pass by here again, and stay
for a while subject to your illustrious Bishop, who is so zealous for
the salvation of souls and compassionate with our failings" (LPM). Back
from Rome, Montfort showed up in Poitiers, but his presence sounded so
loud an alarm that an order came from Bishop de la Poype asking him to
leave the town without delay. Montfort took refuge in a religious house
for six days of prayer. He then left Poitiers for good and made his way
to Brittany.
A few years later he was again in Paris looking for vocations for his
Company of Mary. Before going back to La Rochelle, he met in Poitiers
with the first two Daughters of Wisdom, Marie Louise Trichet and
Catherine Brunet. The next day Louis Marie received an "invitation" from
Bishop de la Poype to get out of Poitiers within twenty-four hours.
e. Pope Clement XI (d. 1721).
In the beginning of 1706, five years of difficulties came to a head. Not
knowing what God was doing with him, Montfort expressed to Clement XI
his availability for whatever ministry the Pope wished. "Louis Marie
asked to be sent into the Church by the Church."14 The conversation he
had with Clement XI was decisive in Montfort’s life. "Father, you have
in France a large enough field for your zeal. Go nowhere else, and
always work in perfect submission to the Bishops of the dioceses to
which you will be called. Because of this God will bless your labors."
The Pope conferred on him the title "apostolic missionary" and
graciously blessed a small ivory cross that Louis Marie presented to him
and that he would later attach to his pilgrim’s staff.
f. Vincent-Francis Desmaretz, Bishop of Saint-Malo (d. 1739).
In 1707, after a short missionary experience with Dom Leuduger, Louis
Marie withdrew to the Saint-Lazare hermitage near the town of his birth.
Bishop Desmaretz of Saint-Malo, known for his Jansenist sympathies,
listened to the rumors circulating about the apostolate of the reclusive
priest. It was said that Montfort opposed an exaggerated sense of
autonomy on the part of the local clergy, and had spoken against the
canons of the Cathedral, etc. Louis Marie was therefore forbidden any
form of ministry in the diocese of Saint-Malo.
When he was ready to withdraw, there was a dramatic turn of events.
Msgr. Hindré, pastor of Bréal, had come to see Bishop Desmaretz for the
precise purpose of having Father de Montfort preach a mission in his
parish. Surprisingly, the Bishop responded affirmatively.15 In the
spring of 1708, Bishop Desmaretz came back to the town of Montfort.
"This time his speech was unambiguous and terse. He forbade Louis Marie
to preach outside of parish churches, including in the prohibition the
hermitage chapel [of Saint-Lazare]."16
g. Gilles de Beauveau de Rivau, Bishop of Nantes (d. 1717).
After leaving Saint-Malo, Montfort went back to the diocese of Nantes,
where he preached with remarkable success during 1708–1709.
During the mission at Pontchâteau he launched the idea of a monumental
Calvary. After more than a year of work everything was ready for the
dedication. However, on September 13, 1710, Montfort received a message
from the bishop forbidding him to proceed to the blessing of the Calvary
scheduled for the next day. Montfort left immediately for Nantes on foot
to plead with Bishop de Beauveau. He was unsuccessful in getting the
prohibition rescinded, which had come to him like a bolt from the blue.
Late in the morning of the following day, Louis Marie was back at
Pontchateau. The missionary informed them that on orders of the local
Ordinary, no blessing would take place. Bishop de Beauveau had concealed
that the real reason for his prohibition was that he had received an
order from the King to destroy the Calvary. Although he tried to defend
the missionary, the Bishop felt Montfort’s behavior was imprudent. While
he was preaching a mission at Saint-Molf, Father Olivier, one of his co-
workers, came to him with a letter from the bishop forbidding Montfort
any ministry whatsoever in the diocese of Nantes and ordered him to get
far away from the Calvary of Pontchâteau, never to return. Louis Marie
returned to Nantes to speak with the bishop, who finally decided to let
him know that the order for the demolition of the Calvary had come from
higher up. He marveled at Montfort’s calm and told his vicar general:
"Father de Montfort has to be either a great saint, or an arrogant
hypocrite!" Montfort spent the next eight days making a retreat at the
house of the Jesuits in the city. He said nothing about what had
happened, and there was nothing in his behavior that gave any indication
of his distress, even though he had burst out in tears when first
informed of the Bishop’s demand to destroy the entire site of the
immense calvary.17
h. Étienne de Champflour, Bishop of La Rochelle (d. 1724) and Jean-
François Salgues de Lescure, Bishop of Luçon (d. 1723).
After the drama of Pontchâteau, these two pastors opened "the doors of
their dioceses to the missionary, who from this point on would be
carrying with him a collection of prohibitions and limitations in the
ministry. For the first time he met two genuine shepherds, especially
Bishop de Champflour, who were to show him constant and unfailing
consideration. Holy prelates like the bishop of Poitiers and prudent
ones like the bishop of Nantes, while keeping their esteem for Louis
Marie, allowed themselves to be influenced by opinions adverse to the
missionary. Both the bishops of Luçon and La Rochelle remained loyal to
him."18 The favor the bishop of La Rochelle showed Montfort did not
falter when faced with enemies who accused Louis Marie: "Three canons
well versed in theology were commissioned by Bishop de Champflour to
check Louis’s preaching and they upheld his orthodoxy. From this moment,
the bishop gave him his complete confidence."19
On the subject of free schools for boys, a project very dear to St.
Louis Marie’s heart, he met with Bishop de Champflour and had lengthy
discussions with him in the spring of 1714. In the beginning of 1715, on
the verge of completing the foundation of the girls’ schools, Montfort
wrote to Sister Marie Louise of Jesus and Sister Conception: "I have
spoken several times to His Lordship, the bishop of La Rochelle, about
you and about our plans and he thinks you ought to come here and begin
the work we want so much. He has rented a house for the purpose until
another house can be bought and suitably furnished. . . I am writing you
on behalf of the bishop, so keep this confidential" (L 27). On April 22
1716, Bishop de Champflour paid a pastoral visit to Saint-Laurent-sur-
Sèvre, where Montfort was preaching his last mission. "Louis was moved.
It was a bit like receiving his bishop in his own house. A rare
opportunity was given him to show his loyalty and gratitude to the
shepherd who had given him asylum and who had been a father and a friend
to him the last five years. What turn would Father de Montfort’s life
have taken if he had never met Bishop de Champflour? We understand the
missionary’s excitement and his generous desire to have a celebration
for his guest."20 The saint died six days after the bishop’s visit. In
his will of April 27, 1716, Montfort left the bishop of La Rochelle and
Father Mulot his personal property and mission books (W).
i. Monseigneur Le Pileur, Bishop of Saintes (d. 1726).
On his return trip to Paris via La Rochelle, Montfort stopped in 1713
to preach in the parish of Vanneau in the diocese of Saintes. He was in
the middle of the mission when the bishop, unfavorably informed about
the missionary, withdrew from Montfort the right to exercise his
ministry. Only the intervention of the pastor succeeded in keeping the
mission from being interrupted.
j. Monseigneur Turpin de Grissé de Sanzai, Bishop of Rennes.
In the spring of 1714, Montfort took a trip to Rouen where he wanted
to meet his friend Blain. He made a long stop at Rennes and asked the
bishop for permission to preach, but to no avail. He ended up by making
an eight day retreat with the Jesuits.
k. François Rolland de Coètanfao, Bishop of Avranches (d. 1720).
After leaving Rennes, Montfort continued on to Avranches, arriving
there on August 14, Assumption Eve. "The next day he presented himself
to the bishop with the testimonial letters of Bishop de Champflour, but
he met with a bitter surprise. The bishop forbade him to say Mass, and
this on Mary’s solemnity. A desperate ride on a horse rented for the
moment brought Louis Marie outside the inhospitable diocese. He arrived
before noon at Villedieu-les-Poêles in time to beg the bewildered pastor
to allow him to celebrate Mass."21
l. Monseigneur François de Nesmond, Bishop of Bayeux (d. 1715).
"The next stopping place (after Avranches) was Caen in the diocese of
Bayeux, which was hosting its bishop, François de Nesmond. After the
recent refusals he had met with, Louis found in this prelate a fatherly
welcome and an invitation to stay in the town to exercise his
ministry."22
2. An evaluation.
a. Montfort’s obedience.
Montfort always worked in complete compliance with the bishops in the
dioceses to which he was called; it is not known of any time that he did
anything contrary to their orders.23 His obedience was never a mere
"obsequious silence." Obedience, seen in the light of God’s will, caused
Montfort’s initiatives to mature "through the unpredictable changes
between the great deeds and the weaknesses of the Church in its
historical expression";24 it also made his own missionary activity all
the more zealous without ever allowing that holy inner freedom to fade
out. Like any disciple of Christ, "he learned obedience in the school of
suffering" (Heb 5:8). "This man, who at Saint-Sulpice learned to obey .
. . had continually to risk anew the confrontation of his charism with
the institution in a painful tension of unity."25 In this sense, it also
appears that there was a development in Montfort’s attitudes. The day
after one of the most frustrating experiences Montfort ever had, the
demolition of the Calvary of Pontchâteau, Pierre des Bastières said: "I
thought I would find him overcome with sorrow . . . But I was quite
surprised when I saw him happier and more content than I who needed
consolation more than he did."26
b. Montfort’s persecution.
How then can it be explained that a great number of the bishops Montfort
encountered made him leave their dioceses like a priest in disgrace? If
it is true that "the fate of some saints in their lifetime is one of the
darkest mysteries of the Church,"27 it must also be acknowledged that
these difficulties with the hierarchy are almost impossible for the
biographer to explain. "Looking at all the solutions attempted," said
Henri Daniel, "without any one of them being fully satisfying, we might
wonder whether it is simply beyond solution. Yet however disturbing it
may be, it is of such significance that we have to face up to it and not
minimize it . . . several of the ecclesiastical authorities [who
expelled Montfort] are rightly remembered with veneration."28 The same
author then proposes his own solution according to which none of the
measures taken by the bishops against Montfort could be attributed to
doctrinal differences or to Jansenist intrigue. He adds that logically,
judging him from the outside, Montfort must have seemed to be a great
saint, or perhaps a hypocrite.
G. De Luca seems to join Henri Daniel in his "judgment of Solomon"
when he writes, "Today we do not think we have to defend any
eccentricity of Louis Marie’s. We do not accuse his accusers, but we do
not think we have to excuse the saint. . . . He received public
condemnations and prohibitions from the civil and church authorities. He
was hunted down like a dog, he was held up to ridicule as a pretender,
pitied and shunned like a fool. He was never cowed by such adversity and
stayed calm, obedient, courageous and smiling. The strength of his own
temperament changed into this new strength, the strength of
gentleness."29
The judgment of Cardinal Tedeschini on those who did not understand
Montfort and persecuted him seems more severe. "His enemies, these
sterile Christians who tolerated neither adherence to the head of the
Church nor a breath of love in the holy ministry, opposed him every step
of the way and along with them, all those people who were influenced by
calumny or led on by the corrupt. And among their number, unfortunately,
as with Christ, there were not lacking certain Church authorities who
were ill-disposed toward him, whose names I would rather not recall, and
who took no account of the immense services Montfort rendered to
people’s souls. On many occasions they did not hesitate to inflict on
him the most painful suspensions for a priest, those that concerned the
sacred ministry. They were misinformed, set against him, and God
permitted them to do what they did; they undoubtedly intended to achieve
a greater good. Despite all this Montfort bowed to their authority with
humility and docility."30
The words of Daniel-Rops in regard to Montfort are à propos: "It was
not inappropriate that the Christianity of the grand siècle be reminded
that the theology of the Beatitudes is not one of human prudence, and
that there is no more violent scandal than that of the cross. . . Louis
Marie Grignion de Montfort was a loner in his time, a kind of
unpredictable bastion of the religious life, totally outside the austere
and rather conformist norms in which the ideal of priesthood was firmly
set at the time. An eccentric if you will, but there have been a number
of eccentrics in the Church who nevertheless played an important rôle in
its life. . . . Even better, he was a fool for God."31 This is an
explanation that pleased Grandet and Blain, the first biographers of
Montfort. Grandet appeals to God’s law of the history of salvation (cf.
1 Co 1:27) according to which He chooses certain saints and makes them,
through the outpouring of the Spirit, "men of a new species," to "combat
the false wisdom of worldly men by the apparent folly of His gospel."32
"As a man of the absolute," De Luca adds, "Montfort lived as he
believed."33 Montfort’s absolute obedience to the Gospel, then,
basically explains why he was misunderstood and persecuted during his
life.
While accepting this Gospel explanation, Montfort himself is obliged
to add another more human one. He candidly acknowledged to Blain the
"eccentric" ways that he came by "naturally" and which brought him the
privilege of humiliation.34 Yet he is well aware that beyond the bounds
of nature, every Christian life, when taken seriously, and every genuine
proclamation of the Gospel are inseparable from the Cross. Suffering
becomes a source of a fruitful apostolate. He admits this himself to his
"very dear sister," Sister Catherine de Saint-Bernard, in a letter that
has nothing pathologically self-centered about it:
"I have forever to be on the alert, treading warily as though on
thorns or sharp stones. I am like a ball in a game of tennis; no
sooner am I hurled to one side than I am sent back to the other, and
the players strike me hard. This is the fate of the poor sinner that
I am and I have been like this without rest or respite all the
thirteen years since leaving St. Sulpice. However, my dear sister,
thank God for me for I am content and happy in all my troubles. I
think there is nothing in the whole world so welcome as the most
bitter cross, when it is steeped in the blood of Christ crucified and
in the milk of his holy Mother. Besides this inward happiness, there
is the great merit of carrying the crosses. I wish you could see
mine. I have never had more conversions than after the most painful
and unjust prohibitions" (L 26).
III. THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS IN MONTFORT’S WRITINGS
Montfort recognized in the "Bishop of Rome" (H 142:2) the "Vicar of
Jesus Christ, / An organ of the Holy Spirit" (H 147:3). From this he
draws conclusions: "Believe Jesus in His Vicar, / In all that touches on
faith, / And take what he says as Pope / As an oracle and certain law"
(H 6:50); "I believe what the Holy Father says, / Despite the shrewd
hounds of hell, /He is my leader and my light, / I see nothing, he sees
most clearly" (H 6:57). In his methods for reciting the rosary Montfort
recalls the "faith and obedience to the pope as Vicar of Jesus Christ"
(MR 16). And to justify the form of devotion to Mary he fosters, the
saint appeals to the bulls and indulgences accorded to it by the popes
(cf. SM 42) and to the "great indulgences of Gregory XV" (TD 160). He
mentions "the different popes who have approved this devotion" (TD 163),
adding that "no pope has condemned it" and that "it could not be
condemned without overthrowing the foundations of Christianity" (TD
163). Montfort also names the pontiffs who were devoted to the Holy
Rosary: Pius V, Leo X, Gregory XIII, Julius III, Innocent III, Urban
VIII (cf. SR 80, 93, 132). It was to Blessed Pius V, canonized on May
12, 1712, that Montfort dedicated his Hymn 147. Montfort’s missionary
work and his religious foundations constitute an act of obedience to the
mission received from Clement XI in 1706. Saint Louis Marie stipulates
that his missionaries should have people renew their baptismal promises
in accordance with the order received from the pope (RM 56). They were
to recite the Roman breviary (RM 31).
In evening prayer Montfort includes an act of faith: "My God, I firmly
believe all that the Catholic, Roman and Apostolic Church believes and
teaches, because you, the sovereign Truth, have revealed it" (NP 14).
Montfort also urges obedience to the bishop, shepherd of the local
Church, not only by his example but in his writing as well: "With regard
to the government of the community they [the Daughters of Wisdom] obey
the bishop" (RW 54). In a parallel way the missionaries of the Company
of Mary "will obey the bishop of the diocese to which they belong, the
Vicars-General and other ecclesiastical superiors who represent the
bishop" (RM 22).
IV. RELEVANCE OF MONTFORT’S OBEDIENCE TO POPES AND BISHOPS
Obedience to the Holy See is intrinsic to Montfort spirituality. The
same can be said of all Catholic schools of spirituality; yet, because
of Montfort’s staunch fidelity to Rome while in the midst of Gallican
tendencies among the French hierarchy, respect for the papal Magisterium
is even more pronounced in his heritage. Moreover, Saint Louis Marie’s
recourse to Pope Clement XI to resolve a fundamental crisis in his life
is also a significant sign, not only for the communities he founded, but
for all who follow his steps. He alludes to the famous dictum, "Roma
locuta est, causa finita est," not only concerning pronouncements ex
cathedra but in regard to the ordinary Magisterium of the pastor of all
the faithful (cf. H 6:50, 57). His teaching appears to be an early
rendition of the famous text of Vatican II: "Loyal submission of the
will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic
teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex
cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be
acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions
made by him, conformably to his manifest mind and intention" (LG 25; cf.
CCC 892).
Benedict XV, on the occasion of the bicentenary of Blessed Louis Marie
de Montfort’s death (1916), summarized this aspect of Montfort
spirituality in a handwritten letter to the Father General of the
Montfort family: "Among the reasons that make your two communities
(Company of Mary and Daughters of Wisdom) so respected, we mention two
that are of special importance, that were left to you as an inheritance
by your founder: reverence for the apostolic see and devotion to the
Virgin Mary. A very enlightening proof of such a devotion . . . is the
fact that your members have been in the first rank of those to be
relentlessly ill-treated by both the Gallican and Jansenist heretics
because they seemed so attached to the Roman pontiff and for the same
reason they had to suffer all sorts of acts of cruelty during the French
revolution. . . . Furthermore, these two elements [reverence for the
apostolic see and devotion to the Virgin Mary] are closely
interconnected: the person who truly loves Mary, being incapable of not
loving Jesus—for through the intermediary of the Mother we go directly
to Jesus—must for this reason have attachment and devotion to the Vicar
of Christ."35
The bishops who expelled Saint Louis de Montfort from their dioceses,
whatever their motives, have become witnesses to the saint’s joyful
obedience. Although he believed that at times he was treated unjustly
and did not hesitate to lay his case before them hoping for a change of
decision, he obeyed when he lost his appeal—not begrudgingly, not
bitterly, but bolstered by a week’s retreat to strengthen him, lovingly
praising God for the occasion of such a cross. At times his reputation
was clearly damaged by well-intentioned but irresponsible superiors, and
the claims of his detractors that he was a fool were thereby
strengthened. Instead of curling within himself in discouragement and
self-pity, these so called failures became occasions of incredible
growth. There is little doubt that it was his deep faith that endowed
him with this ability. Saint Louis de Montfort is clearly an example to
contemporary Christians and, in a special way, to many preachers and
theologians who, at least in this regard, feel a close affinity with
him.
Notes:
(1) Pius XII, "Homily on the occasion of the canonization of
Louis-Marie de Montfort (7-21-1947)," in AAS 39 (1947) 330. (2) G.
Martina, La Chiesa nell’età dell’assolutismo, del liberalismo, del
totalitarismo. Da Lutero ai nostri giorni (The Church in the Age of
Absolutism, Liberalism, Totalitarianism: From Luther to Our Times),
Morcelliana, Brescia 1974, 364. (3) Ibid., 332. (4) B. Papàsogli,
L’homme venu du vent. Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, Bellarmin,
Montréal 1984, 247. English translation: Montfort, A Prophet for Our
Times, Edizioni, Monfortane, Rome, 1991. (5) G. Martina, La Chiesa, 187.
(6) G. De Luca, Luigi Maria Grignion de Montfort. Saggio biografico,
Edizioni di storia e letteratura, Rome 1985, 203. (7) Quoted in OC, 25,
n. 1. (8) De Fiores, 251. On Bishop de Saint-Vallier, cf. Anon.,
Monseigneur de Saint-Vallier et l’hôpital général de Québec (Bishop de
Saint-Vallier and the Gereral Hospital of Quebec), Darveau, Québec 1882;
T. Ronsin, Le Bx de Montfort et Mgr de Saint-Vallier (Blessed De
Montfort and Bishop de Saint-Vallier), in Messager de Marie reine des
coeurs 30 (1933) 271–76. (9) Papàsogli, 167. On this bishop cf. G.-J.-C.
Paulze-d’Ivoy de la Poype, Un évêque de Poitiers au XVIIe siècle, Mgr
J.-Cl. de la Poype de Vertrieu (A Bishop of Poitiers in the 17th
Century: J.C. de la Poype de Vertrieu), Poitiers 1889. (10) Papàsogli,
173–74. When Montfort’s biographers speak of the "prohibitions" to which
he was subjected, they do not mean to say that he received some
particular ecclesiastical censure that is defined by the word
"interdict": cf. the note of Cardinal Villecourt in A. Pauvert, Vie du
vénérable Louis-Marie Grignion e Montfort, Oudin, Paris-Poitiers 1875,
643. (11) Papàsogli, 228–29. (12) Ibid, 228-229. (13) Ibid, 230. (14)
Ibid, 231. (15) Ibid, 272. (16) Ibid. (17) On the drama of Pontchâteau,
we have given a summary here of pages 297–300 of Papàsogli. (18)
Papàsogli, 307. (19) Papàsogli, 310. On this bishop cf. A. de Lantenay,
Étienne de Champflour, évêque de La Rochelle, avant son épiscopat.
Mélange de biographie et d’histoire (Stephen de Campflour, Bishop of La
Rochelle Before His Episcopate: Both Biography and History), Bordeaux
1885; L. Pérouas, Le diocèse de La Rochelle de 1648 à 1724 (The Diocese
of La Rochelle from 1648 to 1724), Sociologie et pastorale, Paris 1964,
256–397. (20) Papàsogli, 411. (21) Papàsogli, 368–69. (22) Papàsogli,
369. (23) Grandet, 339. (24) Papàsogli, 178. (25) Papàsogli, 231. (26)
Grandet, 304. (27) I. Silone, L’avventura di un povero cristiano (The
Adventure of a Poor Christian), Mondadori, Milano 1968, 181. (28) H.
Daniel, Saint Louis-Marie Grignion e Montfort. Ce qu’il fut, ce qu’il
fît (St. Louis de Montfort: Who He was and What He Did), Téqui, Toulouse
1967, 12. (29) De Luca, 237, 233. (30) Card. F. Tedeschini, Discorso
inaugurale in lode di San Luigi Maria di Montfort (Inaugural Discourse
in Praise of St. Louis Marie de Montfort), (December 8, 1948), Typ. Pio
X, Roma, 28–29. (31) H. Daniel-Rops, L’Église des temps classiques. Le
grand siècle des âmes, Fayard (The Church of Classical Times. The grande
siécle of souls), Paris 1958, 330. (32) Grandet, preface. (33) De Luca,
234. (34) Blain, 184–90. (35) Benedict XV, "Letter to Fr. Antonin
Lhoumeau," April 19, 1916, in AAS 8 (1916) 172–73.
Taken from: Jesus Living in Mary: Handbook of the Spirituality of St.
Louis de Montfort (Litchfield, CT: Montfort Publications, 1994).
Provided courtesy of the Montfort Fathers © All Rights Reserved.
Electronic Copyright © 1998 EWTN
All Rights Reserved
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
|