Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[theAuthor]

Because you talked about wide-spread ‘over’ veneration of Mary. Which never is and never has been either widespread or part of Church teaching.

Maybe it depends on what Parish you are in. We live in an extremely Marian parish. Except in Mass, very few prayers would be said directly to Jesus, but most would be said to Mary. She gets more attention and emphasis than her Son, here anyway. It is a very traditional Parish (old school).

In my former Parish, she was not such a focus of attention.

So maybe it is just widespread in our Parish then, but certainly Mary is the focus more than Jesus. If I didn’t have the grounding in the faith that I have, I would certainly be left with the feeling that Mary was indeed a goddess akin to God. After all, we pray to her for help and protection. I’d definitely gleam that people believed that she was in a way actually higher than Jesus, by their actions/ prayers/ suggestions (say a Rosary/ the Memorare, etc), even if they said with their mouths that she is a created being and nobody worships her. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe it depends on what Parish you are in. We live in an extremely Marian parish. Except in Mass, very few prayers would be said directly to Jesus, but most would be said to Mary. She gets more attention and emphasis than her Son, here anyway. It is a very traditional Parish (old school).

In my former Parish, she was not such a focus of attention.

So maybe it is just widespread in our Parish then, but certainly Mary is the focus more than Jesus. If I didn’t have the grounding in the faith that I have, I would certainly be left with the feeling that Mary was indeed a goddess akin to God. After all, we pray to her for help and protection. I’d definitely gleam that people believed that she was in a way actually higher than Jesus, by their actions/ prayers/ suggestions (say a Rosary/ the Memorare, etc), even if they said with their mouths that she is a created being and nobody worships her. Actions speak louder than words.

Except for the Mass? Except for the Mass? Let’s get one thing clear - the Mass is THE supreme prayer and sacrifice, offered to God alone. Because it is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary each single Mass is worth infinitely more than any amount of Memorares or Rosaries, which are NOT sacrificial in nature and are merely vocal prayers.

So unless your priest is saying ‘body of Mary’ at Communion, or teaching that it is HER death which saved us instead of Christ’s, or some such, your worship and your prayer is Christocentric, regardless of how many minor prayers addressed to Mary you may say.

Let me make an analogy. I can love my husband more deeply and devotedly than I love any other human being, yet I will spend 8 hours a day working with other people. Probably much more time than I spend with him in a day.

If I have a secretary of my own, or am working exclusively with one client or one supervisor over me, I may spend those 8 hours exclusively with that one person, because it’s a necessity of the job.

How in any way does the amount of time I spend with a person equate to the amount of my love for them? On the contrary I can even hate my boss, my secretary or client and still spend more time with 'em than my spouse.

Same with Mary. We may say more numerous prayers to her, but put altogether they aren’t worth a bean next to a single Mass offered to God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As the Roman Empire advanced, often it was happy to allow people to follow their own religions, but would often “adjust them” to be compatible with the Empire.

I’d heard many level at the Church that she took Pagan festivals and Christianised them ,but I was chatting to a historian the other day who says that was in fact done by the Roman Empire, not the Church. The Roman empire absorbed the various religions of the people she overcame.

False. The writings of the ECF prove that very wrong and incorrect.

So it could easily have happened that “over-veneration” (eg Omnipotent) of Mary arose as Christianity kind of “beat and absorbed” pagan (goddess-worshipping) ideologies. I am not sure if this would have happened pre or post Constantine, though.
However, he was pivotal in Christianising the Pagans after he converted, of course.

Answer false presumption you have about Early Church history. There was already a Christian Church establish long before Constantine time. Let’s see, there was Pope Peter, Linus, and others who died under the persecution of Pagan ruling emperors.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Maybe it depends on what Parish you are in. We live in an extremely Marian parish. Except in Mass, very few prayers would be said directly to Jesus, but most would be said to Mary. She gets more attention and emphasis than her Son, here anyway. It is a very traditional Parish (old school).

In my former Parish, she was not such a focus of attention.

Marian devotion especially in your parish is never directly to Mary. Even though you claim they focus to Mary, Mary’s prayers always point to her son.

So maybe it is just widespread in our Parish then, but certainly Mary is the focus more than Jesus. If I didn’t have the grounding in the faith that I have, I would certainly be left with the feeling that Mary was indeed a goddess akin to God. After all, we pray to her for help and protection. I’d definitely gleam that people believed that she was in a way actually higher than Jesus, by their actions/ prayers/ suggestions (say a Rosary/ the Memorare, etc), even if they said with their mouths that she is a created being and nobody worships her. Actions speak louder than words.

Do you have the ability to read people’s heart? The last time I check, only God can read the hearts of men.

 

[childofmary1143]

Well I went to search for a Catholic website that has the word Omnipotent defined. I went to this one:

therealpresence.org/dictionary/odict.htm

It defined Omnipotence as the following:

OMNIPOTENCE. The almighty power of God. He can do whatever does not deny his nature or that is not self-contradictory. Since God is infinite in being, he must also be infinite in power. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + potentia, power: omnipotens, all-powerful.)

Omnipotence is the same Omnipotent.

So based on that definition it would appear that saying Our Lady is Omnipotent is heresy. How can that book say such a thing?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well I went to search for a Catholic website that has the word Omnipotent defined. I went to this one:

therealpresence.org/dictionary/odict.htm

It defined Omnipotence as the following:

OMNIPOTENCE. The almighty power of God. He can do whatever does not deny his nature or that is not self-contradictory. Since God is infinite in being, he must also be infinite in power. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + potentia, power: omnipotens, all-powerful.)

Omnipotence is the same Omnipotent.

So based on that definition it would appear that saying Our Lady is Omnipotent is heresy. How can that book say such a thing?

Many Marian books like those written by Liguori’s Glories of Mary are to be read in the light of the teaching of the Catholic Church. At the time it was written, Liguori wrote it in poetic words to express his love for Mary. However, the Church has never teaches that Mary is Omnipotent. Find me a Church document that she did, you can’t find it.

So when Non-Catholic read this Catholic book on Mary, and use against Mary. I am actually looking the Glories of Mary, and many of the claims of the Anti-Catholic like Atemi make is completely taken out of context.

You also have to keep in mind, they are reading the book in Protestant eyes rather than being open minded to the Catholic Church’s teachings.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ok, I’ll pull out the claim that Mary is Omnipotent.

She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son’s power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. 39

Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary.

Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.

One day this Saint heard Jesus saying to Mary: " Ask Me for anything; your request can never be in vain." And this is the beautiful reason He gave: “Because you never refused Me anything on earth, I will refuse you nothing in Heaven.”

From the time that Mary came into the world, her one thought, along with seeking the glory of God, was to help the helpless. And even then, while here on earth, she enjoyed the privilege of being heard in all her requests.

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories6.htm

According to this statement by her own, she not omnipotent. Rather by the grace of her son, God granted her. It’s not through her own. Since Mary also seek to do God’s will.

If you look further down it states, Liguori states,

Consider what happened at Cana. When the wine failed, the Blessed Virgin was touched with pity for the trouble and embarrassment of the bridal couple, and she asked her Son to help them with a miracle. She simply said to her Son: “They have no wine.”

But Jesus answered: "Woman, how does this concern of yours involve Me? My hour has not yet come. " In other words, “It is not time yet for Me to work miracles; that will be when I begin to preach and will need miracles to confirm My doctrines.”

Yet, to content His Mother, He changed the water into the best of wines. How could it be that, against His own predetermined plans, He worked this miracle?

Another key note is that when Ligouri wrote this was in response to a heresy called **Jansenism; whom **, were busy ridiculing devotion to Mary, singling out the Hail Holy Queen [Salve Regina] for particular criticism.

So Liguori wrote a response. He quote the Early Church Fathers, and other saints to show that Marian devotion has always been a part of Christian history.

Guess where I got this information from? The introduction from the same link:

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm#INTRO

It’s either many Non-Catholic completely ignore part of this of the Glories of Mary and like I said, use it to distort Marian devotion.

In Biblical typical, the Jewish queens also have authority second only their son, who are kings.

 

[MariaG]

The Glories of Mary says that Mary is “omnipotent”: all powerful.
The Glories of Mary also has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church and was written by a Catholic Saint.

This is not rocket science, really.

…

Ahh, so you read the link

For any sincerely interested in learning what is meant by those words and see that they are not in fact what is implied above, I highly recommend that explanation/conversation with Dave Armstrong.

Here is a link to a critique in the form of a conversation with a Protestant and Dave Armstrong on this subject.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html

 

[Atemi]

Tell me is the Glories an writing of Pope or a writing of the Magisterium?

Liguori, the Redemptrist priest who wrote it applied poetry to impress his love of Mary, much like a husband would write a letter to his wife.

The Glories of Mary is not part of official teaching of the Magisterium. Liguori himself was no Pope. I know Non-Catholic use his writings to down play “hey” this canonize saint says Mary is omnipotent. Gotcha, the CC got it wrong therefore it is not the Church of God. It’s departed from the truth.

You have to show me an official Magisterium document that proves his writings to be infallible. Well, I don’t think you can find one because the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it.

Just because it has been labeled Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, it isn’t an infallible statement. Mary’s Omnipotent is not even taught in the Catechism.

Either Mary is omnipotent is true or false.

Your church has officially blessed the teachings in that book as true.

If your church blessed false teaching, then we have greater problems here than just one book.

If your church says it is true doctrine, which she clearly does, then your opinion is only your own. You are entitled to it, of course, but lets not pretend that your posts got the official sanction of the RCC as did the Glories of Mary.

…

 

[Atemi]

Ahh, so you read the link

No. I did not read the link.

I read the Glories of Mary.

…

 

[rr1213]

No she wasn’t. The Catholic Church does not affirm that belief. The Church affirms she was a mere creature created perfectly by God. A model for all Christians.

God perfected her in every way and made her full of grace.

You are very wrong and incorrect. No she** was not divine**. I don’t know who taught you bad catechizes, but the Catholic Church does not believe that Mary was divine. She had only one nature, human.

If you claim that she was divne. She would be like her son, Jesus who have both a human nature and divine nature. Mary was not. She was a human person.

Got to give you kudos on this post Manny. You stepped right up to the plate and corrected error from your own folks. That’s good. Seriously.

 

[rpp]

Either Mary is omnipotent is true or false.

Your church has officially blessed the teachings in that book as true.

If your church blessed false teaching, then we have greater problems here than just one book.

If your church says it is true doctrine, which she clearly does, then your opinion is only your own. You are entitled to it, of course, but lets not pretend that your posts got the official sanction of the RCC as did the Glories of Mary.

…

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not, in and of herself, omnipotent.

The book may carry arry and imprimatur, but that does not mean that either the author or the bishop, or you, have made a mistake reading it. I have not read the book, but that does not really matter. There have been a number of cases when an imprimatur, previously granted, has been withdrawn upon further review.

The Church has **never **taught that Mary is omnipotent or divine. If you want to insist this is true, find some more sources. Such a doctrine, if it is what the Church teaches would be found scattered in lots of places. And when I saw documents, I do not mean just some writing of this or that bishop, but a papal encyclical or a document from one of Roman curia, or a statement from a Church council. These are infallible sources. You will not find such a document.

The Glories of Mary is not an infallible document. Since it clearly disagrees with Church teaching, it is equally clearly incorrect on this point.

I think it is highly improbable that your contention is correct when so many faithful and knowledgeable Catholic disagree with you. Unless you as a non-Catholic claim to know more about Church teachings than Catholics.

Why do you keep insisting on telling us what we believe? Especially when we tell you that is not what we believe? I think your skill at reading people’s minds is probably as good as the Blessed Virgin Mary’s. Which, since she is neither divine nor omnipotent, was not very good.

 

[rr1213]

Ok, I’ll pull out the claim that Mary is Omnipotent.

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories6.htm

According to this statement by her own, she not omnipotent. Rather by the grace of her son, God granted her. It’s not through her own. Since Mary also seek to do God’s will.

If you look further down it states, Liguori states,

Another key note is that when Ligouri wrote this was in response to a heresy called Jansenism; whom , were busy ridiculing devotion to Mary, singling out the Hail Holy Queen [Salve Regina] for particular criticism.

So Liguori wrote a response. He quote the Early Church Fathers, and other saints to show that Marian devotion has always been a part of Christian history.

Guess where I got this information from? The introduction from the same link:

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm#INTRO

It’s either many Non-Catholic completely ignore part of this of the Glories of Mary and like I said, use it to distort Marian devotion.

In Biblical typical, the Jewish queens also have authority second only their son, who are kings.

Let’s be fair here though. Reasonable people of good faith can read these descriptions of Mary by this Liguori fellow and ***easily ***come to the conclusion that Mary is being raised to be equal to Christ.

Sometimes Protestant opinions that Catholics worship Mary are based on bad intentions by the Protestants. Sometimes they are based on misinformation or misunderstanding. And, sometimes, they are based on reading nonsense such as written by Liguori. When the latter, the opinion is not without basis.

 

[VociMike]

OK, I went looking for the actual quotes from Liguori, and I found a tempest in a teapot (spurred on in part by what seems to be Liguori’s quixotic use of language). I found a couple of quotes about Mary being omnipotent, both saying essentially the same thing. Here is one:

Jesus, Who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though of course it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is so only by grace. But that she is so is evident from the fact that, whatever the Mother asks for, the Son never denies her…
Now, I think that is not at all a useful definition of omnipotence, but at least he does provide his definition. However, beyond that, let’s examine the assertion, which is that God grants whatever Mary asks. It seems quite fair to ask if that will not be true of each of us when we are in heaven. Will we, upon being united with God, ever ask for something that goes against God’s will? If so, how will this be possible? How can it be in heaven that our will can be opposed to God’s will?

So I ask again, given this (quirky) definition of omnipotence, will we not all be omnipotent in heaven?

 

[Atemi]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not, in and of herself, omnipotent.

That is irrelevant.

In and of myself, I cannot lift a can of peas. Only through God’s grace and power do I do so.

In any event, I can lift a can of peas and Mary is taught to be omnipotent…wherever that power may come from.

The book may carry arry and imprimatur, but that does not mean that either the author or the bishop, or you, have made a mistake reading it. I have not read the book, but that does not really matter. There have been a number of cases when an imprimatur, previously granted, has been withdrawn upon further review.

It still remains to this day with the support from Pope after Pope, bishop after bishop.

This is not some obscure work. This is an RC classic.

There has been no outcry against what it teaches…ever.

The Church has **never **taught that Mary is omnipotent or divine. If you want to insist this is true, find some more sources. Such a doctrine, if it is what the Church teaches would be found scattered in lots of places. And when I saw documents, I do not mean just some writing of this or that bishop, but a papal encyclical or a document from one of Roman curia, or a statement from a Church council. These are infallible sources. You will not find such a document.

So when the Church put its official stamp of approval on this book, they were wrong and still have not corrected such an error after all this time?

Again, your church has officially endorsed this teaching as true…and that remains so till this very day.

I think it is highly improbable that your contention is correct when so many faithful and knowledgeable Catholic disagree with you. Unless you as a non-Catholic claim to know more about Church teachings than Catholics.

I was a Catholic for most of my life and long enough to be more than familiar with Church doctrine. I also do not have a bias to protect the RCC from all bad press.

Why do you keep insisting on telling us what we believe?
Especially when we tell you that is not what we believe?

I have no clue what you believe.

LOL.

What I do know is what your church has officially endorsed as true. Whether you actually believe it is your business.

…

 

[rpp]

That is irrelevant.

In and of myself, I cannot lift a can of peas. Only through God’s grace and power do I do so.

In any event, I can lift a can of peas and Mary is taught to be omnipotent…wherever that power may come from.

It still remains to this day with the support from Pope after Pope, bishop after bishop.

This is not some obscure work. This is an RC classic.

There has been no outcry against what it teaches…ever.

So when the Church put its official stamp of approval on this book, they were wrong and still have not corrected such an error after all this time?

Again, your church has officially endorsed this teaching as true…and that remains so till this very day.

I was a Catholic for most of my life and long enough to be more than familiar with Church doctrine. I also do not have a bias to protect the RCC from all bad press.

I have no clue what you believe.

LOL.

What I do know is what your church has officially endorsed as true. Whether you actually believe it is your business.

…

You do not behave or post as if you are interested in learning what the Church actually teaches. Your mind is made up. You are telling us what we believe on the basis of one sentence in one book.

You are wrong. You have been corrected. You have been told that is false in no uncertain terms.

If you continue to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is divine or omnipotent you are willfully lying. Period.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Let’s be fair here though. Reasonable people of good faith can read these descriptions of Mary by this Liguori fellow and ***easily ***come to the conclusion that Mary is being raised to be equal to Christ.

Sometimes Protestant opinions that Catholics worship Mary are based on bad intentions by the Protestants. Sometimes they are based on misinformation or misunderstanding. And, sometimes, they are based on reading nonsense such as written by Liguori. When the latter, the opinion is not without basis.

Protestants with deep Anti-Catholic intension would use this to make the case against the Church. Any Catholic who read the Glories of Mary, would understand it if that Catholic is properly catechize in Catholicism in its fullness.

I have read it, though if I were Liguori I would use a different word than Omnipresent because some people will put this out of context. I don’t think Liguori intended it as in the same omnipotent as God, but so far modern readers view it that way.

IMO, I don’t think Glories of Mary assist in this. The Catholic Church doesn’t affirm that Mary is Omnipotent, nor does she teaches that Mary is divine.

 

[puzzleannie]

Yes she was divine. How many of us could or even would watch our son die on a cross for all??

no Mary is not divine. She is human, if she were not human, there would be no incarnation, and thus no death on the Cross.

 

[Atemi]

You are telling us what we believe on the basis of one sentence in one book.

Again, I have no clue what you personally believe.

We all can see, however, what the RCC proposes is true.

If I cannot believe the official seal of approval from your church, I can somehow believe you?

You are wrong. You have been corrected. You have been told that is false in no uncertain terms.

All I can do is go by the actions of the RCC here. Your personal “corrections” do not carry as much weight. I am sorry.

If you continue to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is divine or omnipotent you are willfully lying. Period.

If repeating what the Catholic Church has proposed to be true is lying, then I guess we are all liars.

…

 

[rpp]

Again, I have no clue what you personally believe.

We all can see, however, what the RCC proposes is true.

If I cannot believe the official seal of approval from your church, I can somehow believe you?

All I can do is go by the actions of the RCC here. Your personal “corrections” do not carry as much weight. I am sorry.

If repeating what the Catholic Church has proposed to be true is lying, then I guess we are all liars.

…

When you say “the Church teaches…” you are saying what we believe. Because all faithful Catholic believe all that the Church proclaims on matter of faith and morals.

As has been stated many times, that is not what the Church teaches. You know this. You can twist this any way you like, but you know the truth, even if you refuse to admit it. Therefore you are lying when you say the Church teaches Mary is omnipotent or divine.

As has been pointed out in numerous posts, an imprimater and nihil obstat are not guarantees of infallibility and are not themselves infallible.

Only a fool would use one sentence out of millions of pages writings, to hang such a ridiculous claim.

If you want to disagree with what the Church teaches, that is your business. If you want to disagree with the communion of saints, or Original Sin or infant baptism, fine. But do so sincerely.

You have no credibility because you refuse to accept correction. You willfully reject what the Church really teaches and choose to knowingly present falsehoods as genuine Catholic teachings. That is worse than simnply being insincere. That is evil. Pure and simple.