True Devotion to Mary Unsupported Dialogues between God and Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flavin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flavin

Guest
I am currently reading the book “True Devotion to Mary” by St. Louis De Montfort and so far in my reading he presents two dialogues between God and Mary which aren’t (directly at least) supported by scripture. I would assume there are more as the book goes on. The two I am referring to are paragraph 31 and paragraph 34. In both instances St. Montefort presents words spoken by God directly to Mary that seem to partly reference Old Testament scripture, but otherwise are original and certainly not depicted as spoken to Mary by God in the New Testament. My question at this point is, where is St. Montefort deriving these dialogues from? If they are from visions he or another saint has had, he does not articulate that, and if they are his personal interpretations of messages God has sent to Mary through his actions which he is expressing to the reading through the device of a fictional dialogue, he is not clear in framing that intent. I am hoping someone can clarify these passages as they are making me not want to continue reading the book any further due to a frustration with the lack of clarity in where the material is sourced from.
 
Not necessarily, but we need to know where these passages are from and what context to take it them in order to assess them accurately. If it is as I speculated fictional dialogues St. Montefort has created to illustrate some points in beautiful, interesting, or easy to understand ways, fair enough, it’s just not clear that that is what he is going for. They are presented as if they are real dialogues we should take as having literally happened.
 
Many saints received this type of revelation from God. Nothing surprising there. We are not Bible-alone people.
 
Once again, I didn’t say we are Bible-alone people, I literally said the opposite of that. What I am saying is, are these revelations from God? It doesn’t say. You say “nothing surprising there” but what is the “there” you are referring to? So far St. Montefort’s book doesn’t attribute these dialogues to anything or anyone.
 
Whose private revelations? It doesn’t say. If that’s what they are fine, but the book doesn’t say whether they are private revelations or not, and even if that’s what they are it doesn’t say who they are attributed to, be it St. Montefort or someone else.
 
I would think that there are plenty of resources detailing the writings of Saint Louis, as well as biographies of him. But, that is very profound spirituality - the deep end of the pool. Many are not ready for it. I’ve been Catholic 33 years and I do not consider myself ready.
 
Flavin said:
What I am saying is, are these revelations from God?
Click to expand...
Given that St. Louis was not writing a made-up story from his own imagination, then the only possible place he could be getting conversations between Mary and God would be from either a) Scripture, b) sacred tradition, or c) private revelation. If they are not in a) or b) then we would presume c).

If St. Louis’ writings bother you, then don’t read them, as there is no requirement that you do so.
 
I think you’re misunderstanding the issue. It’s not that he says they are private revelations, and I’m trying to discern if I should trust him on that or not. The issue is instead that he presents them with no context as to where they are from at all, he doesn’t say they are private revelations.
 
But why do we have to do any guesswork? It seems crazy to me that its not made clear, and this is a book many popes have endorsed so to me its crazy no one is asking this question. I get that it was discovered almost 50 years after it was written, well after St. Montfort passed on so he can’t be asked directly, but the question should still be investigated and clarified by the Church if they are going to hold these writings in such high regard.
 
Flavin said:
But why do we have to do any guesswork? It seems crazy to me that its not made clear, and this is a book many popes have endorsed so to me its crazy no one is asking this question. I get that it was discovered almost 50 years after it was written, well after St. Montfort passed on so he can’t be asked directly, but the question should still be investigated and clarified by the Church if they are going to hold these writings in such high regard.
Click to expand...
Honestly, and this may sound a little flippant, but I don’t care if he explicitly states whether or not they’re private revelations. The investigation of such things would be up to the Vatican. What matters to me is what he’s saying: what am I supposed to understand about Mary? What about her is being conveyed in this conversation? It doesn’t matter to me whether he uses private revelation or makes up a conversation like in the Imitation of Christ. I also don’t think it’s as hard to figure out as you think nor as pressing. If I’m not mistaken, the book has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, so nothing in it is contrary to the Faith and optional to believe in. Even if it was from private revelation, it too would only be pronounced as “worthy of belief” and not “Mary 100% said this”. So I don’t see how it’d make a difference in terms of the book.
 
Last edited:
Flavin said:
But why do we have to do any guesswork? It seems crazy to me that its not made clear
Click to expand...
A lot of us are happy to read True Devotion for what it is - a devotional book and a synthesis/ analysis of Mariology up to that point with some additional insights by St. Louis - without needing to analyze every paragraph to find out exactly where it came from. It has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur so we do not have to worry about being led astray by reading it, and it is a recognized spiritual classic of the Church endorsed by saints like the great St. Pope JPII.

When I read it, it’s not material to me where St. Louis got this or that from. If I were doing a doctoral dissertation on it, then it might be of interest to me and I might go on a hunt through research libraries to find what material can be sourced and what might likely be St. Louis’ private revelations. I’m sure that those considering his cause for Doctor of the Church do just that, since the criteria for Doctor is that the person contribute something new, so if he was simply synthesizing earlier teachings from the Church fathers and other saints and theologians, then it’s not really new.

However, I am using his work as a spiritual reflection/ meditation/ devotional book to help me grow as a Catholic. I am not reading it with some analytical research perspective in mind.

If you have the type of mind that is going to go straight to “where’d he get that from because it’s not in the Bible?” rather than appreciating the spiritual insight being conveyed, I would gently suggest that it (and a lot of other saints’ writings) is not for you.
Flavin said:
the question should still be investigated and clarified by the Church if they are going to hold these writings in such high regard.
Click to expand...
The Church already did whatever investigation they needed to do in order to make him a saint, and will do whatever investigation they need to do in order to decide whether to make him a Doctor of the Church.

The Church doesn’t somehow owe you an explanation or a clarification for a book written by a saint that you’re not obliged to read. Like I said, if you really care, then go to the research libraries and look it up. Most of us don’t care.
 
Last edited:
Your explanation and the one @Fauken provided basically cleared this up for me, thanks. I will say though. I’m not analyzing every single passage trying to find a direct and exact quote from the scripture to support it. Throughout what I’ve read so far, St. Montfort takes the relatively little we know about Mary from the scripture and rationally explores the implications of it, and I have no problem with that, I actually think it’s something we should all try to do not just when it comes to Mary but for many other people, events, and concepts presented in the scripture. The reason I have been harping on these two passages is because they specifically are presented as the direct word of God to Mary being quoted. I think it is reasonable and fair for me to want some context for these passages at least. I’ll try and do more thorough research to get the answers I’m looking for, but the answers you guys provided have helped me get over this being an impediment towards continuing reading through the book. I see now that there is meaning I can derive from them which is independent of how I am supposed to take these passages (be it literally as a private revelation, as a fictional writing device to convey a point, etc.).
 
12 Then the creator of all things commanded, and said to me: and he that made me, rested in my tabernacle,
13 And he said to me: Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thy inheritance in Israel, and take root in my elect. (Ecclesiasticus 24:12-13, Douay-Rheims)
Click to expand...
Paragraphs 29, 31 and 34 quote, directly or indirectly, different parts of Ecclesiasticus 24:13:
Paragraph 29 quotes from the first part of the verse, “Let thy dwelling be in Jacob,”
Paragraph 31 quotes from the middle part, “Let … thy inheritance [be] in Israel,”
Paragraph 34 quotes from the last part, “take root in my elect.”

The words of verse 13 are applied to the Virgin Mary because verse 12 says they apply to one in whose tabernacle the Creator rested which literally occurred when Jesus rested in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

The use of such qualifying phrases as “that is to say” (para. 29) and “It is as if He had said” (para. 31) after quoting Scripture suggests to me that what follows is simply the author’s commentary, not private revelations, even when he does not use a qualifying phrase as in para. 34.

By the way, I was able to cross reference the Latin quotes provided in this PDF version of True Devotion to Ecclesiasticus 24:13 in the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims.
 
Last edited:
Flavin said:
“True Devotion to Mary” by St. Louis De Montfort
Click to expand...
This is not a work of history or of biography, it is a devotional work that uses poetic imagery. It is not an account of things that actually happened, rather, the Saint wrote fiction to express his devotion.
 
TheLittleLady said:
the Saint wrote fiction to express his devotion.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it “fiction” because to me that suggests St. Louis made it up. It is a poetic work meant to express the true, actual relationship between God and Mary, not just St. Louis’ imagination of it.

It is Scripture-based but some of the quotes are indirect references, as the preceding poster stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top