Mariavitism: a Birthday Reflection

Today is the 150th anniversary of the birth of St. Maria Franciszka Kozlowska – the Mateczka, whose revelations began the movement of religious revival called Mariavitism. That anniversary falls this year on Whitsunday, which can hardly not be regarded as a special coincidence (but more about this below).

Feliksa Magdalena Kozlowska was born on 27 May 1862 in Wieliczna near Wegrowo, Poland, to a family of Roman Catholic nobility. Her father died in the January Uprising .
Her mother Anna and grandmother Jakubina, together with her second husband Seweryn Pulaski, who was related to general Casimir Pulaski , brought her up. Feliksa received a thorough education. As a child she had private tutors, then went to the boarding school for girls of countess Skarbek, and later to the women secondary school in Warsaw. She had a fluent command of Russian, English and French, and after graduating took up the position of home tutor herself. It was early that she felt a desire to join a monastic congregation, which was difficult, however, because after the January Uprising the Russian government prohibited the Roman Catholic religious congregations in the Kingdom of Poland ( Congress Poland ) to accept new candidates. Finally, however, she managed to start a monastic life in a hidden congregation. In 1883 Feliksa Kozlowska became a Franciscan nun, and four years later, in Plock, she founded St. Mother Clara Congregation of Poor Sisters. As a nun she chose the names of Maria Franciszka. It was also then that she began to be called “Mateczka” since it was how the superiors of female congregations were refered to in the nineteenth century Polish. [This title is a diminutive of “mother”, a very affectionate address. In the literature it is often translated as “the little mother”, but the most proper translation seems to be “the dear/beloved mother”.]

On 2 August 1893 she experienced what not only changed her fate but also gave birth to Mariavitism. This is how she described it herself:

In the year 93, on August 2nd, after hearing the Holy Mass and receiving the Holy Communion, I was suddenly taken away from my senses and placed before the Divine Majesty. Unimaginable light overtook my soul and it was then showed to me: the general corruption of the world and the end times – then the moral decay among clergy and the sins the Priests commit. – I saw God’s Justice aimed at punishing the world and his Mercy giving the perishing world, as the last means of rescue, the Veneration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and the help of Mary. After a moment of silence, the Lord spoke: “As a means of spreading this Veneration, I wish that a Congregation of Priests be established under the name of the Mariavites .”

Source

That first revelation began a whole series of mystical experiences which lasted until 1918. But it was also the time of fulfilling the task which, according to Mateczka, she was given by Jesus Christ, and also of the attempts to have the new religious movement accepted by the church authorities. These attempts proved futile. In August 1904 the Roman Inquisition declared the Congregation illegal, and in April 1906 the encyclical “Tribus Circiter” condemning the Mariavites was promulgated. Eventually, on 31 December 1906, Mateczka and the superior of the Congregation of Mariavite Priests, Fr. M. Michal Kowalski, were excommunicated. After 20 days the excommunication was to be extended to all who remained faithful to Mateczka and her revelations. This threat didn’t discourage the 45 thousand lay supporters of Mariavitism, 33 clergy and a number of nuns from taking the side of Mateczka. What is more, in the following years their number greatly increased. In 1909 the Mariavites, by then forming a church of their own, were recived to the Union of Utrecht . On 5 October of that year Fr. M. Michal Kowalski was consecrated a bishop in St. Gertrude’s Old Catholic Cathedral in Utrecht. It is worth noting that the Church of the Mariavites was then the only Old Catholic ecclesial community that really had the character of a broad people’s movement. In that sense its emergence created a new quality and made a great impression for example on the Dutch Old Catholic bishops. All the more so because the movement continued to grow in numbers and developed new activities. In 1918 the church had, among other things, 42 orphanages, 47 schools, 11 soup kitchens, own banks offering cheap credits, farms and manufactures.

Although Bishop M. Michal Kowalski was the leader of the church, Mateczka remained the unquestioned spiritual leader of the Mariavites and enjoyed great authority among them. When she died of cancer on 23 August 1921 in Plock, she was declared a saint.

Everyone who pays some attention to Mariavitism will undoubtedly notice the enormous discrepancy between the respect for Mateczka that Maravites have and the genuine hate her opponents feel to her. For the first she is the Founding Mother, for the latter a “crazy sewer”, “lunatic woman”, and her revelations are mere “delusions”. And this defines the spectrum within which everyone who wants to determine his attitude to the phenomenon of Mariavitism has to choose a position. It applies to us as well. The question who Maria Franciszka Kozlowska actually was, and what do her revelations mean to us, has been nagging us for years. During lat years we have gone a long way, which, to a certain extent, can be traced on the blog. This way has lead us to the Ecumenical Mariavite Congregation (Order) , whose members we became last summer. However, we are not, and don’t intend to become, members of either the Old Catholic Church of the Mariavites or the Catholic Church of the Mariavites. (For the history of Mariavitism and the schism within it see this article .) And it’s not only because these churches don’t operate where we live. Mariavitism remains for us a very important source of inspiration, but at the same time a difficult challenge. Or maybe it is a source of inspiration because it is also a challenge? Below we will try to explain our attitude to Mariavitism and its Foundress in a few points.

1. What makes many at the very outset at least slightly skeptical or ironical, if not openly hostile, is the idea of revelations itself. For those of Roman Catholic origins the so called “private revelations” aren’t, of course, unfamiliar. Some of them gave birth to religious congregations. But in the case of Mariavitism we have to do with a congreation which became an independent church, and that seriously complicates the matter, for there immediately arises the question what role do those revelations play in this church. They certainly cannot be regarded as private, which would mean that every Mariavite could either accept or reject them, as a Roman Catholic has the right to accept or reject for example the revelations of Fatima or Lourdes. Accepting the message of the revelations, called “The Work of Great Mercy”, is inseparable from Mariavitism. But what does it actually mean to “accept the revelations”? This question is related to our vision of God. Does the God we believe in treat human beings as passive instruments which he uses as he pleases, or as partners? If the human being is a passive instrument, then Mateczka was at best a “living word processor”, and accepting the “Work” would mean considering it to be a divine message in its entirety which “came down from heaven” through her. The thing is, however, that we don’t even treat the Scripture like that. And we don’t treat it like that because the Scripture itself testified that God doesn’t treat people as passive instruments. We believe in a God that tries to establish a dialog with the human being, which means that in case of no “sacred text”one can simply separate the divine from the human. Therefore accepting “The Work of Great Mercy” means for us that we see in Mateczka’s revelations an account of an authentic encounter of a human being with God and that is why we read them and draw inspiration from them. Perhaps many Mariavites will consider such an approach insufficient. It enables us, however, to open ourselves to the message of the revelations.

When we discuss the meaning of the revelations for the Mariavite faith, one important thing has to be added. The Mariavites alwayes emphasized their faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and the faith of the church of the first centuries, as expressed in the dogmatic declarations of the ecumenical councils. In this context comes to mind the problem of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin. Belief in it plays an enormous role in the Mariavite spirituality (another thing is how it is understood, for many Mariavites detract from the official content of the 1854 “dogma”). In this sense, we have to do with something more than a mere theological opinion. It should be rather regarded as a profound conviction, deeply rooted in the Mariavite spirituality and expressed in official documents of the Mariavite churches. One should also accentuate that for Mariavites the Immaculate Conception is not a doctrine in the sense of the dogmas proclaimed by the ecumenical councils.

2. Let us go back to that “spectrum” defined by the extreme positions taken with regard to Mateczka. What position do we take? It is a very broad topic where many issues are involved.  We should start by saying that Feliksa Kozlowska was a person one could hardly ignore. Many different people were affected by the power of her personality: Old Catholic bishops, future saints in the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran ministers and simple peasants from Mazovia. The Mariavites call her a saint. But who is a saint, actually? Sainthood is a religious category whose essence lies in relation to God – the Holy One. For a Mariavite an important clue would be the reference to the Mother of God, and particularly to her “Be it unto me according to Thy word”, spoken at the Annunciation. A saint is a human being who hears God’s call as directed to himself or herself and realizes it in such a way that he or she becomes a special sign of God’s presence (even though sometimes in such an ordinary way that almost unnoticeably). We think the words of Br. M. Pawel Rudnicki about the Mother of Jesus are worth quoting here:

Outwardly she was an ordinary woman. The Gospel of St. Matthew (13,55) testifies that it wasn’t how the people imagined a prophet’s mother. But beneath the outward figure of an ordinary woman there was the greatest holiness hidden. Only she is called by the Scripture “full of grace” (Luke 1,28), even before the conception of Christ, even before the beginning of the work of salvation.

Source

The key to sainthood is what we call divine grace, and what in the end is nothing else than the presence of God in the human being, among human beings. In this context there immediately comes to mind the motto of the Reformation, “sola gratia” (“grace alone”). But then another issue must be considered. Some Mariavites, and especially those from the Catholic Church of the Mariavites (the Felicjanow branch) don’t hesitate to call Mateczka the “Holy Spirit enfleshed”. That is why, for example in Wikipedia, you can find her among people regarded as divine. For many this is a reason not to consider this church as Christian, and the form of Mariavitism it represents as a form of Christianity. Is this right? St. Julian of Norwich prayed: “God, of Your goodness give me Yourself, for You are enough for me. And only in You do I have everything”. In the language of mystics, God who gives himself to the human being “dwells” in him or her. This makes it possible to speak of enfleshment not as a single act that happened in the person of Jesus Christ, but as something that should happen in all of us. It was very strongly stressed by the Silesian mystic, Angelus Silesius . We find it also in the “Daily Consecration Prayer” used in The Mariavite Mission Society (independent from the main Mariavite centres):

I know that through You I may enflesh the Word
to restore this fallen World;
that through You I may be a light to those in darkness,
And bring hope to those who despair.

Theology clarifies this (or complicates, if you want…). Let us quote Br. M. Pawel once again:

In theological terminology there are two terms: incarnatio and incorporatio. In Polish both are translated as “wcielenie” [enfleshment] … The thing is that Archbishop Kowalski used the Polish, ambiguous word “wcielenie”, not meaning incarnatio. In a book of an Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky, I recently found the following sentence: “in Mary of Nazareth God the Father has built a home for himself”. “Home”, in the languge of mystics, is the flesh. So it is about enfleshment (incorporatio) of God the Father in the Theotokos, in her flesh. This view is known in Orthodoxy, but appears in western Catholicism as well, where it is expressed by the statement that in Mary were concentrated the creative powers of God the Father, that she is the Lady of the nature. I could elaborate on this topic.

So here as well, in a truly Mariavite spirit, the Blessed Virgin is an example of enfleshment understood as “incorporatio”. A bit further Br. Pawel writes:

When the revelation is spoken out, the Holy Spirit “dwells” in the prophet, incorporatio happans. If that applies to the Old Testament, it applies all the more so to saints living in the world redeemed by Christ…

Source

It’s hard to say if such an interpretation would satisfy Felicjanow Mariavites. It demonstrates, however, that proclaiming the enfleshment of the Holy Spirit in Mateczka, in the sense of “incorporatio”, doesn’t have to mean a detraction from Christian orthodoxy.

This all doesn’t change the fact, however, that, if we free Mateczka of the burden of the sentimental, sweet hagiography, which sadly became the specialty of many Mariavites, we will see a real human being, shaped by certain spiritual atmosphere, characteristic for a given epoch. And, even if Maria Franciszka managed to overcome some of the patterns she was brought up in (above all the unconditional obedience to the church superiors), she remains a doughtier of her times, which doesn’t make it easier for us, living one and a half century later, to establish a dialog with her. We personally think that it finally should be said clearly instead of pretending that the problem doesn’t exist. Between us and the Foundress there is an abyss, which cannon be described only by the slogan that “she was so holy, and we are so un-holy”. This is simply an abyss of time. Contemporary Mariavitism will either finally start working on overcoming it or will continue to reject what is real and create a virtual reality by imposing the nineteenth century piety on its faithful.

3. We would like very much to share the cautious optimism present in the article for the 150th anniversary of Mateczka’s birth which Br. Pawel published in the Mariavite journal Praca nad Sobą (“Work on Oneself”):

Today stagnation and the Mariavite longing for the past, even though still affecting some participants of the Work of Mercy, and even some higher clergy, more and more often is being transformed into positive action, and at least in the will to take such an action.

The only way to overcome the historical abyss separating us from the times of Mateczka doesn’t lie in mindless repeating of her words or, even more so, glorifying her. Here again a parallel with our attitude to the Blessed Mother is warranted. Unlike the piety characterizing many Polish Roman Catholics, Mariavits have never been the champions of the Marian devotion. The essence of their approach to Mary has been the desire to imitate her. The way of a Mariavite doesn’t lead to one of the Marian sanctuaries. Rather, it is the way she herself went, the way of obedience to God’s voice, God’s calling, God’s grace. The same, mutatis mutandis , can be said with regard to Mateczka. The basic task of a Mariavite is not glorifying the Foundress, but following in her footsteps and becoming a witness of “the unlimited divine mercy which will eliminate every barrier between God and the human being” (Jerzy Nowosielski). Br. Pawel is right to say that “what is needed is a deep insight into the whole of the revelations of the Work of Great Mercy, the great action of God to save contemporary humanity”. But you don’t gain this “insight” only through thorough studies. In this context it is perhaps worthwhile to refer to the category of enfleshment again. The Work of Great Mercy has to “become flesh” in us – through who we are, how we think about ourselves and about others, through our actions. Only such “enfleshment” or the internalization of the Work may lead to the realization of (as Br. Pawel writes)

… what is a novelty in the church, what can be realized only at the present stage of the evolution of human souls, what is the most important Mariavite task. It means becoming aware of and drawing conclusions from the fact that the inner development, called by some spiritual, by others – mystical, is not limited to those separated from the world by walls of contemplative monasteries. Rather, it not only can, but should become an aspiration of all Christians, by imitating the life of the Mother of God, Mary of Nazareth, to be able, as she was, to be an ordinary human being outwardly, be with joyful people, as she was at the Wedding at Cana, and with those who weep, as she was on the Way of the Cross, to fulfill their duties to the world as she fulfilled her, the ordinary duties of a housekeeper, wife and mother. And at the same time to develop sainthood in themselves, with all their power. Let us not be afraid of the word “Sainthood”. Mariavitism is the imitation of the life of Mary (in Latin, Mariae Vita). Outward ordinariness – inner sainthood. After Mary, the first person who chose this way in the present times and showed it to us was St. Maria Franciszka Kozlowska – our Mateczka.

It would be good if those who belong to the Mariavite churches, and especially their leaders, realized that, in order to achieve this, they need also Mariavites that do not belong to those churches. As a young Mariavite theologian, Br. M. Daniel Mames wrote:

In the Congregation of Mariavite Priests were not only Mariavite clergy. The grey habit with a monstrance was worn by Old Catholic priests, clergy from the Polish National Catholic Church and protestant ministers. In the Ecumenical Congregation of the Mariavites are brothers and sister who jurisdictionally belong to almost ten different churches.

Source : Mames T., “Mysteria Mysticorum. Szkice z duchowości i historii mariawitów”, Kraków 2009, p. 140.

It’s time to take it seriously! It’s time to take seriously the ecumenical dimension of Mariavitism. It’s time to finally realize that the existence of Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant Mariavites is a great chance for the Work of Great Mercy. We not only bring the Mariavite impuls to our communities, but would also like to share the abundance of the traditions we come from with other Mariavites. Only together and on equal footing we can truly continue the Work of Great Mercy, and so in the best possible way celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of St. Maria Franciszka.

Br. M. Izaak and Br. M. Serafin