justasking4:
2 timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Or lets take Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
can you show me where your traditions has this kind of authority?
The key to 2 Tim 3:16 is the word “all”. You argue as if the word were “only”. It is not. Catholics revere the Bible, which we canonized, as the true word of God. Our beliefs do not contradict the Bible when the Bible is interpreted properly. Jesus left a teaching authority on earth because scripture is “difficult to understand, which the ignorant will twist to their own destruction” 2 Pet 3:16. That authority is the Church. (of course, that has been thoroughly discussed in numerous threads)
There are about 30 verses at this
site which shows that not only is ‘sola scriptura’ is an unbiblical belief, but that we are commanded to obey apostolic Tradition. In other words the spoken Word of God as preached by those whom Jesus commanded to preach has just as much authority as the written Word of God.
Now, back to the discussion, it seems to have been disregarded so I will say it again. The writings of the Saints, including all of the Early Church Fathers are not considered infallible. The only exception to this would be Saints that wrote canonized scripure…St. Paul, St. Peter etc. or a Saint who was also a pope that made a statement ex Cathedra. So, while a Catholic may read St. Alphonsus Liguori and find his observations enlightening or helpful, we are not required to read what he wrote nor does the Church proclaim his works to be without error. Also, just like scripture, the writings of saints can be hard to understand. Liguori’s writing, from what I have researched is very flowery and poetic. I’m not sure it is meant to be read from a literalist perspective.
In the quote provided before “Mary is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son” Liguori is saying something that you may have missed completely because you were so focused on the “omnipotence” issue. That is the fact that Mary is
made powerful by her Son. If she was “made” anything that means she is not being put on the same level as God. God is not made omnipresent, omnipotent or anything else. He is and was and will be forever. We view Mary’s intercessory power as a gift of God. Not anything that she has done on her own, but all on the merits of Our Lord. By the way, one of the most famous of saints who wrote about Mary was St. Louis De Montfort. He was very devoted to her. And yet, right in the beginning of his famous work “True Devotion to Mary” he states “With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, “I am he who is”. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them.” So there is a context here that needs to be stated; whatever is said about the “glories of Mary” , we Catholics believe now and always have that she is a human being and not even close to what God is. Every thing she ever was or is, is due solely to the generosity of God.
I believe the point Liguori was trying to express was the power of Mary’s prayers and intercession. Would I have used hs choice of words? No. But I get his point. Mary would never ask for something that is contrary to God’s will and the Bible says: