What About St. Ligouri?
I have had this happen to me before, where a Protestant reaches for the most extreme example of Marian devotion available - the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri - and tries to make the case that the Catholic Church ascribes to Mary qualities that are peculiar to Christ alone.
This passage from Quigley's book was most entertaining on that score:
*******************
[My opponent] quotes passages from the Fathers which assert that God alone is to be adored, that Christ is the One Mediator between God and man, and that all our trust is to be reposed in Him alone. This he says contradicts the "Roman doctrine" on the Blessed Virgin!
Now, I fear this argument proves too much for the Vicar, because it goes towards demonstrating that St. Ligouri himself did not admit the Roman doctrine. And as I am most heartily willing to accept the strongest language he has quoted from the Fathers, or which they have ever used on the subject, it proves that I also reject the Roman doctrine. Yet, if this conclusion is false, how can the premises be true? Let us look at the argument.
Major premiss; "No one who says that all his hope is in Christ can admit the 'Roman doctrine' on the Blessed Virgin."
Minor premiss: "But the Fathers quoted by the Vicar say this." Therefore they do not admit the "Roman doctrine."
The Vicar has proved the minor premiss, which no Catholic ever dreamed of denying; where has he or any of the brood of Littledale & Co. condescended to prove the major, the very subject, be it observed, that he has introduced into this discussion? Nowhere!
I can, however, prove the truth of the contrary proposition, by referring to any of our devotional writers. I open at random the "Soliloquy of the Soul" by Thomas a Kempis. He says of our Lord:
" ... To Him, above all, should every intention, every action, speech, reading, prayer, meditation, and speculation be directed. Through Him salvation is given unto thee and life eternal is prepared for thee."
And again, a few pages farther on:
"For I know that my life and conversation is not such, as I may dare to put any trust in myself: but this is my hope and my consolation, to place my trust and my rest in the price of Thy precious Blood, in which I place my whole repose."
Your Catholic readers will probably be astounded at the information the Vicar has put together as passages from the Fathers, containing the above doctrine as decisive proof against us. Why! we are bound by the Vatican Council to say anathema to whosoever will not receive this doctrine.
But I forget myself. The question is, whether Thomas a Kepmis, after using the language just quoted, could honor the Blessed Virgin in the "Roman" fashion. I turn a few pages and find these words addressed to our Lady:
"Do thou, O most pious mother, vouchsafe to look upon my littleness, for thou canst assist me in many ways, and warm my heart with plentiful consolation amidst my afflictions. When, then, I am girt about with afflictions or temptations, I will presently without dread have recourse unto thee, because mercy is there more ready where greater grace abounds."
This, I suppose, the Vicar will allow to be "Roman doctrine." And if so, it is clear that persons holding the Roman doctrine may still use the language of the Fathers respecting our Divine Lord. But it may be supposed, rather he charges it against us, that we have left off using this language. Let him open a very common Prayer Book, the Garden of the Soul. He will find there that -
"We must believe that neither mercy, nor grace, nor salvation either can or ever could, since Adam's fall, be obtained any otherwise than through the death and passion of the Son of God."
Or again, look at another common book amongst us, the Manual of Devotion. He will find that -
"The Church of God teaches us to put our whole confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ. He is our only Savior, the One Mediator between God and man, as the apostle tells us. It is in His lifegiving Blood alone that we can hope for mercy and grace and salvation."
But what about "St. Ligouri" and "The Raccolta"? Well, in the Saint's address to the reader of "The Glories of Mary," he says: Our Divine Lord "offered and paid the superabundant ransom of His precious Blood, in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection." The italics are the Saint's. Again, the Raccolta has: "O, most compassionate Jesus! Thou alone art our salvation, our life, and our resurrection."
Is it not, then, a wretched mockery, and does it not betray the most disgraceful ignorance of Catholic belief, to quote passages from the Fathers, not one whit stronger than those from St. Ligouri and the Raccolta alone, and thence to argue the diversity of belief between the Ancient and "Modern Roman Church"? (Quigley, pp. 139-141)
This passage from Quigley's book was most entertaining on that score:
*******************
[My opponent] quotes passages from the Fathers which assert that God alone is to be adored, that Christ is the One Mediator between God and man, and that all our trust is to be reposed in Him alone. This he says contradicts the "Roman doctrine" on the Blessed Virgin!
Now, I fear this argument proves too much for the Vicar, because it goes towards demonstrating that St. Ligouri himself did not admit the Roman doctrine. And as I am most heartily willing to accept the strongest language he has quoted from the Fathers, or which they have ever used on the subject, it proves that I also reject the Roman doctrine. Yet, if this conclusion is false, how can the premises be true? Let us look at the argument.
Major premiss; "No one who says that all his hope is in Christ can admit the 'Roman doctrine' on the Blessed Virgin."
Minor premiss: "But the Fathers quoted by the Vicar say this." Therefore they do not admit the "Roman doctrine."
The Vicar has proved the minor premiss, which no Catholic ever dreamed of denying; where has he or any of the brood of Littledale & Co. condescended to prove the major, the very subject, be it observed, that he has introduced into this discussion? Nowhere!
I can, however, prove the truth of the contrary proposition, by referring to any of our devotional writers. I open at random the "Soliloquy of the Soul" by Thomas a Kempis. He says of our Lord:
" ... To Him, above all, should every intention, every action, speech, reading, prayer, meditation, and speculation be directed. Through Him salvation is given unto thee and life eternal is prepared for thee."
And again, a few pages farther on:
"For I know that my life and conversation is not such, as I may dare to put any trust in myself: but this is my hope and my consolation, to place my trust and my rest in the price of Thy precious Blood, in which I place my whole repose."
Your Catholic readers will probably be astounded at the information the Vicar has put together as passages from the Fathers, containing the above doctrine as decisive proof against us. Why! we are bound by the Vatican Council to say anathema to whosoever will not receive this doctrine.
But I forget myself. The question is, whether Thomas a Kepmis, after using the language just quoted, could honor the Blessed Virgin in the "Roman" fashion. I turn a few pages and find these words addressed to our Lady:
"Do thou, O most pious mother, vouchsafe to look upon my littleness, for thou canst assist me in many ways, and warm my heart with plentiful consolation amidst my afflictions. When, then, I am girt about with afflictions or temptations, I will presently without dread have recourse unto thee, because mercy is there more ready where greater grace abounds."
This, I suppose, the Vicar will allow to be "Roman doctrine." And if so, it is clear that persons holding the Roman doctrine may still use the language of the Fathers respecting our Divine Lord. But it may be supposed, rather he charges it against us, that we have left off using this language. Let him open a very common Prayer Book, the Garden of the Soul. He will find there that -
"We must believe that neither mercy, nor grace, nor salvation either can or ever could, since Adam's fall, be obtained any otherwise than through the death and passion of the Son of God."
Or again, look at another common book amongst us, the Manual of Devotion. He will find that -
"The Church of God teaches us to put our whole confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ. He is our only Savior, the One Mediator between God and man, as the apostle tells us. It is in His lifegiving Blood alone that we can hope for mercy and grace and salvation."
But what about "St. Ligouri" and "The Raccolta"? Well, in the Saint's address to the reader of "The Glories of Mary," he says: Our Divine Lord "offered and paid the superabundant ransom of His precious Blood, in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection." The italics are the Saint's. Again, the Raccolta has: "O, most compassionate Jesus! Thou alone art our salvation, our life, and our resurrection."
Is it not, then, a wretched mockery, and does it not betray the most disgraceful ignorance of Catholic belief, to quote passages from the Fathers, not one whit stronger than those from St. Ligouri and the Raccolta alone, and thence to argue the diversity of belief between the Ancient and "Modern Roman Church"? (Quigley, pp. 139-141)
<< Home