JESUS LIVING IN MARY:
HANDBOOK OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF ST. LOUIS DE MONTFORT
SECRET OF MARY
Summary
I. Text and its History:
1. The sources;
2. State of the text;
3. Editions;
4. Literary genre and addressee(s);
5. Title;
6. Date.
II. Analysis.
III. Contributions of SM:
1. The first part:
a. Introduction,
b. Goal of our life and means of attaining it,
c. “Necessity” of Mary;
2. The second part: the exposition on “what perfect devotion to
Mary consists in”:
a. What this “devotion” consists in,
b. The manner in which the interior practice is
presented;
3. The two final prayers and the Tree of Life:
a. Prayer to Jesus,
b. Prayer to Mary for use by her faithful slaves of love,
c. “The cultivation and growth of the tree of life, in
other words the way to make Mary live and reign in our
souls.”
IV. The Secret of Mary for Today.
I. Text and its History
1. The sources
The spiritual “way” articulated by St. Louis Marie de Montfort in SM is
identical in substance with the “way” found in TD. The sources are the
same. This also holds for the personal experience that constantly
emerges in both writings. This article, therefore, should be read in
conjunction with the one on TD.
2. State of the text
We do not have Montfort’s original manuscript. Its text has come to us
by way of two copies. One is preserved in the archives of the Company of
Mary, and the other in the archives of the Daughters of Wisdom. The few
variants in the text in no way affect its essential content.
The copy used by the editors of OC bears the following heading: “Copy of
a manuscript that the late Father de Montfort had written by hand and
sent to a person of piety.” Sister Florence, a Daughter of Wisdom, in
her valuable chronicle (which ends in 1761) observes: “By the same
channel we received this admirable letter on the devotion of the Holy
Slavery of Jesus in Mary, which Father de Montfort wrote to a religious
Sister of Nantes.” There were three prayers that were later placed at
the end of the letter: one was addressed to Jesus, another was for those
preaching Holy Slavery, and the third was entitled ‘Multiplication of
the Philosophers’ Stone, or Cultivation of the Tree of Life.’”1
According to the editors of OC, the “same channel” of which Sister
Florence speaks “is doubtless Joseau and Brother Jacques. A companion of
Montfort since 1714. Brother Jacques settled at Saint-Laurent-sur-Sèvre
in 1716 and became friendly with a young man named Joseau, to whom he
gave Father de Montfort’s writings to be copied” (GA 263).
In any case, the copy dates from the first half of the eighteenth
century. Despite the loss of the original manuscript, the text is
without doubt attributable to St. Louis Marie de Montfort. Indeed, its
content and style alone are signature enough.
3. Editions
While fragments of the text are found in various biographies of Father
de Montfort, only in 1868 did a first edition make its appearance. Even
then the text was not complete. In 1898 Father Lhoumeau published the
text almost in its entirety; the only omissions are of certain passages
bearing on the wearing of little chains as a sign of the Consecration of
the slaves of Jesus in Mary.2 The Lhoumeau edition itself contains a
certain number of explanatory notes. It is to Father Huré that we owe
the first “typica” edition, one in complete conformity with the
manuscript, “furnished with an interpretive reflection at each important
break in the text, briefly that summarized and contextualized the
preceding text” (preface, p. iv). As well, marginal numerals were used,
“which provided the uniformity of references, despite the diversity of
editions” (ibid., p. v).
The editors of OC, while retaining the marginal numbering introduced by
Father Huré, have undertaken a painstakingly minute revision of the
text. This has resulted in “the correction of certain textual mistakes
found in the previous editions” (GA 264).
It was not until the manuscript of TD was rediscovered, published, and
met with prompt success that the interest and value of SM came to light.
It is a small booklet size work that has known a growing success in the
footsteps of TD. It is difficult to give the exact number of editions of
SM. A very reasonable estimate would be 350 editions.
4. Literary genre and addressee(s)
The text is presented in the form of a “letter,” which the author
addresses to a “soul”—someone that Saint Louis Marie wishes to convince
of the excellence of the spiritual way. The letter was addressed to a
specific person. The manuscript confirms this. It states that it is a
“copy of a manuscript that the late Father de Montfort had written by
hand and sent to a pious person.” This is supported by Sister
Florence’s statement about “this admirable letter, which Father de
Montfort wrote to a religious Sister of Nantes, on the devotion of
Holy Slavery of Jesus in Mary.”
None of the hypotheses to identify this individual are particularly
compelling. However, this does not seem to be a matter of the primary
importance. The fact that St. Louis Marie sent his “letter” to one
“person of piety” rather than another changes little concerning the
understanding of the text. Indeed, while the tone Montfort employed is
personal (as is also the tone in a number of passages of his other
writings), the text itself teaches us next to nothing about the precise
person to whom it is addressed. It says nothing about the person’s
state, milieu, character, current difficulties, etc. Unless we find a
personal indication in the reference in SM 2 to what little time the
reader has at his or her disposal, this tells us little about the
individual. The only conclusion we can draw about the addressee is that
she is a person of good will and can understand the message being
communicated. Otherwise, apart from the doctrinal knowledge and profound
spiritual experience to which the text testifies, Montfort tells us
nothing about the precise individual. If this is a letter, it is very
different from the saint’s extant personal letters. Were it not for the
statements that we cited, we might imagine a sort of “circular letter,”
intended for a number of persons and yet sent to particular individuals,
of whom Montfort would have thought of more especially as he wrote it.
A personal style, where an author addresses himself directly to a
reader, can be a literary device and altogether appropriate for such a
work of general interest. In the case of SM, it is not artificial. Apart
from certain cultural expressions or constructions that obviously do not
have the same meaning for us today, there is no reason why contemporary
readers should not see themselves as other than directly and personally
addressed by Montfort. The style endows the text with a freshness and
simplicity, not the least among its values.
5. Title
Like TD, we owe the title of the work not to St. Louis Marie but to its
first publishers, and it is an appropriate one. First, Father de
Montfort is fond of the popular word “secret.” Second, in SM 20, he
speaks of a “secret of Mary”: “Happy, indeed sublimely happy, is the
person to whom the Holy Spirit reveals the secret of Mary, thus
imparting to him true knowledge of her. Happy the person to whom the
Holy Spirit opens this enclosed garden for him to enter, and to whom the
Holy Spirit gives access to this sealed fountain where he can draw water
and drink deep draughts of the living waters of grace” (SM 20). The
expression “secret” has a strong, complex meaning for him. In herself,
Mary is a secret. That is, she is hidden (cf. TD 2-13), too beautiful,
too precious, too great, too filled with God, for us to be able to
understand her. Only the Holy Spirit can give us access to her wealth,
since the Holy Spirit is the author of that wealth.
Another meaning of the word “secret” for Montfort is that Mary can
enable us to enter into the very mystery of God. She is the “wonderful
means” given to us by God to permit us to arrive at holiness, which is
union with Jesus Christ. Saint Louis Marie calls for a life experience
of “drawing” on Mary and of “drinking deep draughts of the living waters
of grace.”
Finally, for Montfort, what he calls the “perfect practice of the true
devotion,” by which we strive to make all possible room for Mary in our
life in order to reach Jesus and to be united with him, is the “secret
of holiness” (H 77:19), it is “his” secret. For it is the means,
according to him the best means, of arriving at the goal the Lord
suggests to us. This is the secret he seeks to reveal to his reader:
“Here is a secret, chosen soul, which the most High God taught me” (SM
1). It is a secret rooted in Mary. Since Montfort is convinced that it
is his mission to make known her place in the divine plan, the title,
Secret of Mary, is well chosen.
6. Date
When it comes to determining the date of the booklet composition, the
scarcity of precise data counsels us to be cautious. There is, of
course, Sister Florence’s notation indicating that the writing was sent
to a religious Sister of Nantes, but this only tells us that it was in
this city that Father de Montfort found her. Various differences between
this writing and TD could suggest a certain time lapse between the two
writings. But since Father de Montfort seems to be writing—and rather
hurriedly—a long-thought-out teaching here and since the literary genre
is somewhat different in the two cases, it is difficult to force this
argument. Montfort’s control of his subject and style invite us to see
in SM a work of his maturity.
II. Analysis
The manuscript used by the editors of OC is a continuous text, with only an
occasional “1” or “2” to indicate items in a list. It is thanks to internal
criticism, then, that it has been possible to propose divisions. While
the marginal numerals added by the “typica” edition of 1926 have been
retained by the editors, the latter have rather thoroughly recast the
divisions and the wording of their headings. They have been concerned to
show a kind of parallelism between the structure of SM and that of TD.
The outline proposed is as follows:
Author’s Introduction (1-2)
I. Necessity of Having a True Devotion to Mary (3-23)
A. The grace of God is absolutely necessary (3-5)
B. To find the grace of God, we must discover Mary (6-22)
C. A true devotion to the Blessed Virgin is indispensable (23)
II. What Perfect Devotion to Mary Consists In (24-65)
A. Some true devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary (24-27)
B. The perfect practice of devotion to Mary (28-65)
1. What it consists in (28-34)
2. The excellence of this practice of devotion (35-42)
3. The interior constituents of this Consecration and its
spirit (43-52)
4. The effects that this devotion produces in a faithful
soul (53-59)
5. Exterior practices (60-65) Supplement
Prayers to Jesus and to Mary (66-69)
Prayer to Jesus (66-67)
Prayer to Mary (68-69)
Care and Growth of the Tree of Life (70-78)
1. The Holy Slavery of Love: The Tree of Life (70)
2. How to cultivate it 71-77)
3. Its lasting fruit: Jesus Christ (78)
One need only glance at the outline of TD in GA to observe that with a
certain flexibility—TD being notably more developed—the basic structure
is the same. It is the same spiritual way or path, founded on the same
profound considerations. Thus, it is unnecessary to repeat here what is
said on this subject in the article on TD. On the other hand, it is
useful to take note of certain more explicitly supported points, as well
as several variants that can be observed in SM. And at least in certain
cases, it is important to emphasize their significance.
III. Contributions of SM
1. The first part
a. Introduction.
“Here is a secret, chosen soul, which the most High God taught me and
which I have not found in any book, ancient or modern” (SM 1). St. Louis
Marie is making three assertions here. First, he states that he is about
to reveal a secret. Here he means a hidden reality which is at the same
time an exceptional means to attaining the goal, which in this case is
holiness, the perfection of the Christian life. Next, he states that he
has himself received this secret directly from the Most High. Montfort
is aware of the grace that he has obtained to know Mary and her mission
and to take her into his life, “to himself,” like John the Apostle. We
must take this statement seriously, for it means that we can attain this
knowledge of Mary only through grace. Finally, Montfort tells us
straight out that he has not found this secret “in any book, ancient or
modern” (SM 1). Now, inasmuch as he asserts elsewhere that his secret
“devotion” is old, that it has been approved by the Holy See, and has
been practiced by “many saints and illustrious people” (SM 42; cf. TD
18, 159). How are we to reconcile these apparently different assertions?
Montfort indeed would have found the Holy Slavery of the Mother of God
in various authors (especially in Boudon), along with various formulas
of Consecration. But the fact remains that he was able to bestow upon
this form of Marian devotion a new and original expression. In a certain
sense, he had transformed it, and what he expounded and proposed, he had
not found it in books.3 For that matter, since it is a “secret” it
takes on its whole meaning only when one who lives it by putting it in
practice. It cannot simply be discovered by readings. “This secret
becomes great only insofar as a soul makes use of it. . . . As you go on
using this secret in the ordinary actions of your life, you will come to
understand its value and its excellent quality” (SM 1).
b. Goal of our life and means of attaining it.
The method employed by Montfort to demonstrate Mary for us is basically
the same in SM and TD. More briefly in SM, it articulates in precise
theological terms, the goal of life: “Chosen soul, living image of God
and redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, God wants you to
become holy like him in this life and glorious like him in the next” (SM
3). We are made in the image of God by creation and saved, by Christ. He
explains that we do not belong to ourselves: and that we receive the
goal of our life from the One from whom we receive life and salvation.
God wants simply for us to share in divine holiness here in this world,
in order to share in the divine glory in the next. Thus, right from the
outset, and in few words, the whole love of God is set before our eyes.
It follows that we must respond to it.
“It is certain that growth in the holiness of God is your vocation.”
There is no point in looking elsewhere. Our calling does not depend on
us but on God’s love for us. That sets out a path for us. We ought to
set out on it without any reservations: “All your thoughts, words,
actions, everything you suffer or undertake must lead you towards that
end. Otherwise you are resisting God in not doing the work for which he
created you and for which he is even now keeping you in being” (SM 3).
How are we to find this grace? In finding Mary: “It all comes to this,
then. We must discover a simple means to obtain from God the grace
needed to become holy. It is precisely this I wish to teach you. My
contention is that you must first discover Mary if you would obtain this
grace from God” (SM 6). Montfort then sets forth, much more briefly than
in TD, the arguments upon which his conviction is based (SM 7-23).
c. “Necessity” of Mary.
SM 24, which concludes this part, poses a minor problem of
interpretation. “The difficulty, then, is how to arrive at the true
knowledge of the most holy Virgin and so find grace in abundance through
her. God as the absolute Master, can give directly what he ordinarily
dispenses only through Mary, and it would be rash to deny that he
sometimes does so. However, St. Thomas assures us that, following the
order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his
graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking
union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down
from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us.
That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true
devotion to her” (SM 24).
At one moment in the relatively recent past, when Mariologists were
deeply concerned with debating the question of the “universal mediation
of Mary,” the interpretation of this text of Montfort acquired a
particular importance. Some Mariologists had difficulty in accepting
from Montfort what seemed to them to be a distortion of the principle of
the universal mediation.
Very simply, St. Louis Marie’s concern is different from that of a
university professor. He is a preacher of parish missions. He knows,
however, that he must take certain precautions in order to base his
conclusions on solid ground, and not leave himself open to being
criticized for “exaggerations” in his conceptualization of Mary’s
mission, and in the practice of the devotion to her whom he heralds.
Montfort, the good theologian that he is, makes a distinction. He knows
perfectly well that God is “absolute Master” (SM 23) and that “this
great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and
does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the
accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all
things he has only to will them” (TD 14). God alone can determine, in
all Wisdom and Love, what is to be accomplished in the divine plan and
the ways to accomplish it. If Mary is “necessary,” it is because God
wills her to be necessary, and she is necessary to the extent that God
wills it.
It is possible, and very useful, therefore, to seek out the pathways
that the Lord has actually chosen in order to come to us, and the ways
that same Lord asks us to take in order to come to him. But God’s
ordinary actions teach us that He wishes to use Mary in communicating
and obtaining grace. Montfort showed this in the preceding numbers. It
is what is important to him. Obviously God, in his absolute divine
power, could have done otherwise. Has God at times actually done so?
Will God do so? For Montfort, such questions remain purely hypothetical.
He has no need to be burdened with them. He took all of the necessary
precautions lest he be accused of unduly encroaching upon the mystery of
God. He was careful to avoid proposing a false notion of the person of
Mary and her mission. Montfort simply presented his teachings in a
positive way. Then we meet Montfort’s profound vision of the
Incarnation. In it he perceives the manner of God’s action. He saw
everything as flowing from this mysterious source, for Mary and for us.
“If we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same
means which he used in coming down” to us.4
2. The second part: the teaching on “what perfect devotion to Mary
consists in”
Having briefly indicated that there are “several true devotions to our
Lady,” Montfort arrives at the one dearest to his heart: the perfect
practice of true devotion. Once more, we must refer to the article on
TD. It presents Montfort teaching on this theme in a much more developed
fashion. Two observations suffice:
a. What this “devotion” consists in.
St. Louis Marie’s definition of his perfect practice of the true
devotion is, in a way, more synthetic and more precise than the one we
find in TD: “Chosen soul, this devotion consists in surrendering oneself
in the manner of a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through her, and then
performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for
Mary” (SM 28). There are two elements which make up the spiritual path
for Montfort. He clearly defines and relates them: 1) the total
Consecration (or total gift) of oneself to Jesus through Mary; and 2)
what he calls in TD the “interior practices” (TD 257) and in SM 60
simply the “interior practice.” He restates the principle that this
interior practice is of the essence of the spiritual way in question: “I
have already said that this devotion consists in performing all our
actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary” (SM 43). While
it is not difficult to draw this conclusion on the basis of the
presentation in TD, it must be acknowledged that on this important
point, SM furnishes a clearer and more explicit formulation.
b. The manner in which the interior practice is presented.
The interior practice is presented with several variants in SM and TD:
“Performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for
Mary” (SM 43); “Doing everything through Mary, with Mary, in Mary and
for Mary, in order to do it more perfectly through Jesus, with Jesus, in
Jesus and for Jesus” (TD 257).
The first difference strikes the reader immediately. The order of the
prepositions is not the same. Ultimately, this is not very important in
and of itself. A closer examination reveals that not quite the same
things are said by way of explanation of the prepositions “through” and
“with.” In SM 45, to act “with Mary” means that Mary is taken “as the
accomplished model for all we have to do.” In TD 260, the same idea is
expressed in more developed fashion: “We must look upon Mary, although a
simple human being, as the perfect model of every virtue and perfection,
fashioned by the Holy Spirit for us to imitate, as far as our limited
capacity allows.” But next Montfort will state in SM under “with Mary”
what he has developed in TD under “for Mary”: that we must renounce
ourselves in order to commit ourselves to Mary.
Further, the explanation of “for Mary” in SM is very brief: “We must
never go to our Lord except through Mary, using her intercession and
good standing with him. We must never be without her when praying to
Jesus” (SM 48). This idea is a familiar one in Montfort (cf., e.g., TD
142-43), and he develops it in very rich fashion in TD 258 in order to
explain “through Mary”: it is a matter of obeying Mary “always and being
led in all things by her spirit, which is the Holy Spirit of God.” We
find something of the kind in SM 55: “This devotion faithfully practiced
produces countless happy effects in the soul. The most important of them
is that it establishes, even here on earth, Mary’s life in the soul, so
that it is no longer the soul that lives, but Mary who lives in it. In a
manner of speaking, Mary’s soul becomes identified with the soul of her
servant.”
Thus, “in Mary” is presented somewhat differently. In SM: “We must
gradually acquire the habit of recollecting ourselves interiorly and so
form within us an idea or a spiritual image of Mary. She must become, as
it were, an Oratory for the soul where we offer up our prayers to God
without fear of being ignored. She will be as a Tower of David for us
where we can seek safety from all our enemies. She will be a burning
lamp lighting up our inmost soul and inflaming us with love for God. She
will be a sacred place of repose where we can contemplate God in her
company. Finally, Mary will be the only means we will use in going to
God, and she will become our intercessor for everything we need. When we
pray we will pray in Mary. When we receive Jesus in Holy Communion we
will place him in Mary for him to take his delight in her. If we do
anything at all, it will be in Mary, and in this way Mary will help us
to forget self everywhere and in all things” (SM 47).
In TD 261-64, not altogether the same things are said about “in Mary.”
In SM, it is a question, first, of a certain activity on the part of
anyone who seeks to live “in Mary.” It is up to that individual to form,
within himself or herself, a little “idea or a spiritual image” of Mary,
with all of the consequences and advantages that might accrue. In TD,
Montfort begins by describing the splendor of Mary, that “true earthly
paradise of the new Adam” (TD 261), a splendor that the Holy Spirit was
at pains to describe (TD 262); and it is this Spirit alone Who, by a
“special grace,” can grant “the unfortunate children of Adam and Eve,
driven from the earthly paradise,” access to this new paradise (TD 263).
True, Montfort adds that this grace is to be “obtained by our fidelity”
(TD 263). The effects described in TD 264 in no way contradict what is
said in SM. It is only that they tend to be different, including the
last, which reiterates an idea that is of the utmost importance for
Montfort: we ought to be “delighted to remain in Mary,” in order that
“we may be formed in our Lord and our Lord formed in us” (TD 264).
A second difference can be noted. In TD the Christocentrism of the
interior practice is explicitly and strongly maintained. It does not
appear in the same way in SM. A closer examination, however, reveals
that this essential reference to Christ is actually present, first, in
the act of total bestowal of self “to Mary, and to Jesus through her”
(SM 28), and, next, when there is question of the “spirit” of this
devotion, “which requires an interior dependence on Mary, and
effectively becoming her slave and the slave of Jesus through her” (SM
44).
What can we conclude from these two variants? Perhaps simply that we
should not adopt hidebound formulas, interesting and expressive as they
may be, but ought to undertake to discover the overall spirit. And from
this viewpoint, the differences we find in SM and TD only underscore the
wide-ranging wealth of such formulas. Instead of seeking to discover
contradictions in them, it would be better to see their complementarity.
3. The two final prayers and the Tree of Life
a. Prayer to Jesus.
This is a prayer of thanksgiving to Jesus: “Most loving Jesus, permit me
to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for your kindness in giving me
to your holy Mother through the devotion of holy slavery” (SM 66). After
a mention of the benefits of belonging to Mary comes a little
development that is very interesting because it forcefully asserts that
it is the desire of Jesus himself that we give ourselves utterly to his
Mother. It refers to the example of John at the foot of the Cross: “Like
St. John the Evangelist at the foot of the Cross, I have taken her times
without number as my total good and as often have I given myself to her.
But if I have not done so as perfectly as you, dear Jesus, would wish, I
now do so according to your desire. If you still see in my soul or body
anything that does not belong to this noble Queen, please pluck it out
and cast it far from me, because anything of mine which does not belong
to Mary is unworthy of you.” (SM 66).
This text is important for grasping the spirit that is at the heart of
the Montfort Consecration and of the life that ought to follow from it:
Mary is a gift that Jesus himself has given to us (hence the reference
to John), and the only way to thank him for it is to make place for Mary
in our life, as Jesus desires. Furthermore, if we are able to give
ourselves utterly to Mary, is it not because Jesus gives us the grace to
do so?
The prayer ends with an appeal to the Holy Spirit, whose association
with Mary is appropriately recalled: “Holy Spirit, grant me all these
graces. Implant in my soul the tree of true life, which is Mary. Foster
it and cultivate it so that it grows and blossoms and brings forth the
fruit of life in abundance” (SM 67). To this purpose, Montfort asks the
Spirit to give him “a great love and a longing for Mary, your exalted
spouse. Give me a great trust in her maternal heart and a continuous
access to her compassion, so that with her you may truly form Jesus,
great and powerful, in me until I attain the fullness of his perfect
age” (SM 67). These last words plainly refer to the essential goal of
the Montfort way as an authentic and complete spirituality that will
lead to the perfect age of Christ. They also refer to the primary
mission of Mary, in her association with the Spirit, that of forming
Jesus Christ in us.
b. Prayer to Mary for use by her faithful slaves of love.
The prayer that follows begins with a salutation to Mary very much like
the one that we find in the prayer at the end of the “Little Crown” (cf.
MP 13), with an added statement: “You are all mine through God’s mercy,
but I am all yours by justice” (SM 68). This assertion sheds new light
on the relationship of reciprocal belonging between Mary and each
person. Mary belongs to us “by mercy,” while we belong to her “by
justice”—by reason of all that she has done for us.
Quite naturally, this leads the person uttering the prayer to a renewal
of Consecration: “I am all yours by justice. Yet I do not belong
sufficiently to you, and so once again, as a slave who always belongs to
his master, I give myself wholly to you, reserving nothing for myself or
for others” (SM 68). The mention of Jesus, to whom this Consecration is
ultimately directed, comes later: “Finally, most dearly beloved Mother,
grant, if it be possible, that I may have no other spirit but yours to
know Jesus and his divine will. May I have no soul but yours to praise
and glorify the Lord” (SM 68).
The following expression included in the prayer is especially relevant:
“I do not ask for visions or revelations, for sensible devotion or even
spiritual pleasures” (SM 69), recalling the “pure faith” that “will
cause you to depend less upon sensible and extraordinary feelings” and
of which we read in TD 214.
Finally, the triple Amen that concludes the prayer has no equivalent
elsewhere in Montfort’s work: “The only grace I beg you in your kindness
to obtain for me is that every day and moment of my life I may say this
threefold Amen: Amen, so be it, to all you did upon earth; Amen, so be
it, to all you are doing now in heaven; Amen, so be it, to all you are
doing in my soul. In that way, you and you alone will fully glorify
Jesus in me during all my life and my eternity” (SM 69).
c. “The cultivation and growth of the tree of life, in other words the
way to make Mary live and reign in our souls.”
The expression “Tree of Life,” which Montfort uses on a number of
occasions, does not always have the same application. In SM 22, it
refers to the Cross of Jesus, and in H 123:13, the Cross is Mary’s Tree of
Life. In LEW 204; SM 67, 78; TD 44, 164, 218, 261; and H 81:7, Mary
herself is the Tree of Life, and the fruit she bears is Jesus, as is
explicitly stated in the majority of occurrences (cf. LEW 204; SM 78; TD
44, 164, 218, 261).
Saint Louis Marie begins by proclaiming the happiness of those who,
thanks to the Holy Spirit, can have access to “a secret of which very
few people are aware. If you have discovered this treasure in the field
of Mary, this pearl of great price, you should sell all you have to
purchase it” (SM 70).
But what the Holy Spirit alone has planted must be cared for and
cultivated: “If the Holy Spirit has planted in your soul the true Tree
of Life, which is the devotion that I have just explained, you should
see carefully to its cultivation, so that it will yield its fruit in due
season” (SM 70).
“This tree, once planted in a docile heart, requires fresh air and no
human support. Being of heavenly origin, it must be uninfluenced by any
creature, since a creature might hinder it from rising up towards God
who created it. Hence you must not rely on your own endeavors or your
natural talents or your personal standing or the guidance of men. You
must resort to Mary, relying solely on her help” (SM 71).
Not that we are to wait passively for this tree to bear its fruit!
Therefore:
1. By raising and tending the tree: “The person in whose soul this
tree has taken root must, like a good gardener, watch over it and
protect it. For this tree, having life and capable of producing the
fruit of life, should be raised and tended with enduring care and
attention of soul. A soul that desires to be holy will make this its
chief aim and occupation” (SM 72).
The work of the gardener is to prune away anything that might hinder the
growth of the tree. Accordingly, “by self-denial and self-discipline
you must sedulously cut short and even give up all empty pleasures and
useless dealings with other creatures. In other words, you must crucify
the flesh, keep a guard over the tongue, and mortify the bodily senses”
(SM 73).
2. “You must guard against grubs doing harm to the tree. These
parasites are love of self and love of comfort; . . . for love of self
is incompatible with love of Mary” (SM 74).
3. “You must not allow this Tree to be damaged by destructive
animals, that is, by sins.” And not only sins that deal death but even
“venial sins, which are most dangerous when we do not trouble ourselves
about them” (SM 75).
Over and above this struggle with what might assault the health of the
tree, there is the whole positive aspect of a true spiritual life:
4. “It is also necessary to water this Tree regularly with your
Communions, Masses, and other public and private prayers. Otherwise it
will not continue bearing fruit” (SM 76).
5. Finally, we must not fear difficulties and contradictions, which
are the lot of all who seek to follow Christ faithfully: “This devotion
to our Blessed Lady will surely be called into question and attacked.
But as long as we continue steadfastly in tending [this tree], we have
nothing to fear” (SM 77).
Well protected and well cultivated, the Tree of Life will grow and “will
yield in due season the sweet and adorable Fruit of honor and grace,
which is Jesus, who has always been and will always be the only fruit of
Mary.” This enables Montfort to conclude with the proclamation of a
beatitude: “Happy is the soul in which Mary, the tree of life, is
planted. Happier still is the soul in which she has been able to grow
and blossom. Happier again is the soul in which she brings forth her
fruit. But happiest of all is the soul which savors the sweetness of
Mary’s fruit and preserves it up till death and then beyond to all
eternity. Amen.” (SM 78).
IV. The Secret of Mary Today
Montfort’s vocabulary and rhetorical style reflect the language of his
times. Thus, sometimes he answers our contemporary questions and
sometimes he doesn’t. To cite but two examples: the Christian’s duty to
be committed to temporal tasks and the work of building the city of God
on earth is practically left unaddressed. A concern with the quest for
Christian perfection is situated on a very spiritual and very personal
level, with scarcely any insistence on the apostolic commitment properly
so-called, at least as it is conceived today.
Without contesting the fact of these limitations, two observations are
in order. The first is that no one can blame Montfort for being a person
of his time. The second is that SM is only one of the works that
Montfort has written: his other writings enable us to complete and
better understand the richness of his spiritual way.
Furthermore, SM and TD are clearly complementary. A reading of SM can be
a good introduction to that of TD. At the same time, readers of TD can
discover certain of its aspects better by referring to SM, which must
not be taken as a pale compendium of the longer work. It has its own
wealth and particular power of persuasion.
For that matter, the simple and concise form of this booklet renders it
easily approachable even today, as is demonstrated by the success that
it always enjoys. In a certain sense, while less documented and less
developed than TD, SM is more accessible to certain persons. Indeed,
certain difficulties occasionally raised in connection with TD are far
less applicable to SM. For example, what some might call Montfort’s
“pessimism” is scarcely in evidence in the latter work.
As to content, that remains altogether current. Suffice it is to recall
what is said of the content of TD and of the testimonials it inspires. A
Christian spirituality that, in a balanced way, has accorded to Mary
only the place that the Lord Himself has conferred upon her has the
whole future ahead of it. In SM, as in TD, Montfort does not hesitate to
assert: “We are given reason to believe that, towards the end of time
and perhaps sooner than we expect, God will raise up great men filled
with the Holy Spirit and imbued with the spirit of Mary. Through them
Mary, Queen most powerful, will work great wonders in the world,
destroying sin and setting up the kingdom of Jesus her Son upon the
ruins of the corrupt kingdom of the world. These holy men will
accomplish this by means of the devotion of which I only trace the main
outlines” (SM 59; cf. TD 46-59).
Notes:
(1) Chroniques de Soeur Florence (Chronicals of Sister Florence),
Archival Source, 95. (2) This “omission” is explained by criticisms that
the wearing of this symbol could have occasioned. Certain abuses
provoked by the wearing of these little chains had led the Holy See, at
the end of the eighteenth century, to proscribe their usage and to
condemn certain books of particular confraternities. While aimed only at
the abuses, these condemnations nevertheless cast a pall over this
practice. The prudence of the editors of SM is understandable. On all
this, see GA, 394, n. 419. (3) On this question, see the article True
Devotion in this Handbook. (4) On the central character of the mystery
of the Incarnation in Montfort’s spirituality, see especially the
articles Incarnation, True Devotion, and Mary in this Handbook.
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
|