The part of the prayer to Mary that I posted was this....
My Queen, My Mother, I offer myself entirely to thee. And to show my devotion to thee, I offer thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as thy property and possession. Amen.
Let me ask you this then....
Are you OK with someone praying that prayer?
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.Devotion comprising all "depth and breadth and height" must refer to God the infinite, not man the finite; and "the ends of being and ideal grace" are terms divine, not human.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
....
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
Yet I'm fairly confident that Miss Barrett did not think Mr. Browning was actually Almighty God. That's the way people wrote in letters to each other! Everyone, even casually, signed off as the other's "Obedient and humble servant" and pledged their "ne'er dying devotion!"
And not just 19th century Romantics. You even have the greatest of Calvinist Puritan poetesses, Anne Bradstreet, to her husband Simon who was far absent from her:
My head, my heart, mine eyes, my life, nay more,"My head, my heart, mine eyes, my life"?
My joy, my magazine of earthly store,
If two be one, as surely thou and I,
How stayest thou there, whilst I at Ipswich lie?
.....
My chilled limbs now numbed lie forlorn;
Return; return, sweet Sol, from Capricorn.
She calls him a sun god, "Sol"?
Doesn't she owe this to Jesus, not Simon Bradstreet?
But who would criticize her poem for that? I would imagine only people whose wimples were a little too starchy, and whose eyes were a little too close to their noses. None of the Puritans did.
And check out how this same Anne Bradstreet wrote of Queen Elizabeth I:
Here lies the pride of Queens, pattern of Kings:Another on Queen Elizabeth I:
So blaze it fame, here’s feathers for thy wings.
Here lies the envy’d, yet unparallel’d Prince,
Whose living virtues speak (though dead long since).
If many worlds, as that fantastic framed,
In every one, be her great glory famed.
Although great Queen, thou now in silence lie,Now. Do you honestly think this 17th century New England Puritan thought that Elizabeth I was the "pattern of KIngs," and that if there were "many worlds" she would be famed in all of them?
Yet thy loud Herald Fame, doth to the sky
Thy wondrous worth proclaim, in every clime,
And so has vow’d, whilst there is world or time.
So great’s thy glory, and thine excellence,
The sound thereof raps every human sense
That men account it no impiety
To say thou wert a fleshly Deity.
Or that she really thought it were "no impiety" to say she was "a fleshly deity"?
So we're dealing with a fervent, florid devotional style that people offered to sovereigns and spouses. Similarly over-the-top--- to us --- are the extravagant hyperboles and obsequies found in Shakespeare and Michelanelo's sonnets. They strike the modern ear as embellishment in the Liberace range--- overheated flourish: but this was the devotional style of the courtly and the romantic age.
Now as to your question:
No, this sort of Marian prayer is not used liturgically (official public prayer) and no, it is not part of my personal prayer life --- though I do love the Litany of Loreto.
However, understood in its context, keep in mind that people were motivated to reach heights of devotional rhetoric which would exceed what people were shoveling on the jeweled head of Elizabeth I of England. Which was quite a challenge: because whatever was highest of the high should go to Christ's fair mother, the maid of Nazareth.
Many may not read this with sympathy or even comprehension. But so few in our age have any comprehension of the language love and devotion of ages past, no culture beyond the Kardashians.
Now, doctrine is a separate thing, and we will surely have plenty of straightforward disagreements there. That's OK by me. But I am simply advising you that an antique style seems excessive because, by our dim cultural lights, they are like a ton of winky-lights on a 10-pound Christmas tree. By their lights, it pertained to the honor of Christ that His sweet mother should be more greatly magnified than any proud and powdered Bess in London or any Empress of Byzantium.