True Devotion to Mary Unsupported Dialogues between God and Mary

[po18guy]

Have you read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas á Kempis? In it, he will have questions, advice or observations attributed to Christ, followed by the believer’s response. It is not presented as a private revelation, thus we take it in principle as to faith and morals. - but not literally.

Best to read it in that spirit and not subject it to analysis which it was never intended to be subject to. If you find elements of it off-putting, then simply seek another devotion.

Regarding the Bible: as to Jesus’ parables, there is not one hint, not one shred of evidence that any of the men and women in those parables ever existed. Should we therefore disregard the parables? Certainly not! They teach truth and moral principle.

 

[Justin_Mary]

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?

It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I don’t remember what you’re talking about.

At first guess, relying on my memory, maybe you’re looking at something St de Montfort relates to Mary as a “type”

Being we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, anything said of Jerusalem or Wisdom, or anything understood to represent Mary/Church he presents it as if God is speaking directly to Mary, which, in a way, he is.

 

[Justin_Mary]

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.

I think this is mostly correct. But more than that. I don’t remember where, but I was once told this is the way 1st century Jews/Christians understood Scripture. Types & references & clues in the synoptic Gospels reveal Jesus as the Christ.

This same way of relating to the Gospel,IMO, supports the claim that the Church has always venerated Mary as our Mother. Mother of the Chiurch. While a straight literal reading of the Bible we see few references to Mary. But with a wholistic view, identifying & applying types (which is really the way our minds work) we see Mary many, many times from Genesis to Apocalypse