Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[VociMike]

Atemi, does Liguori mean by “omnipotent” what you mean by “omnipotent”?

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, does Liguori mean by “omnipotent” what you mean by “omnipotent”?

Mike, omnipotent means omnipotent.

If there is another definition to “omnipotent” that does not mean omnipotent, then that would bring much humor to this thread, that is for sure.

…

 

[rpp]

Atemi, does Liguori mean by “omnipotent” what you mean by “omnipotent”?

It does not really matter to Atemi. He will have it say whatever he wants it to say because he is more interested in discrediting the Catholic Church than he is in presenting factual information about Church teachings.

We see this type of thing with anti-Catholic nuts who say things like the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There are many people who refuse to believe the truth because a lie about the Church makes them feel comfortable and superior.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It does not really matter to Atemi. He will have it say whatever he wants it to say because he is more interested in discrediting the Catholic Church than he is in presenting factual information about Church teachings.

We see this type of thing with anti-Catholic nuts who say things like the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There are many people who refuse to believe the truth because a lie about the Church makes them feel comfortable and superior.

That seems to be Atemi’s agenda.

 

[VociMike]

Mike, omnipotent means omnipotent.

If there is another definition to “omnipotent” that does not mean omnipotent, then that would bring much humor to this thread, that is for sure.

…

So your answer is, you don’t know. As a matter of fact, with a tiny bit of internet research, I do know. It turns out that he is not using the term “omnipotent” in the standard way. He has in fact created his own definition, for what reason I do not know. I wish he had not done so, since I don’t see how it advances his cause, but there it is. See this post.

I know that you will be greatly relieved to find out that Liguori does not consider Mary to be omnipotent in the way that you and I understand the word. Isn’t that excellent news?

 

[VociMike]

It does not really matter to Atemi. He will have it say whatever he wants it to say because he is more interested in discrediting the Catholic Church than he is in presenting factual information about Church teachings.

We see this type of thing with anti-Catholic nuts who say things like the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There are many people who refuse to believe the truth because a lie about the Church makes them feel comfortable and superior.

I have encountered Atemi on other forums as well as this one, to the point where I almost feel I could write his posts for him. But each of us must remember that there are lurkers out there, and we must write for them as much as for the posters.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

It is clear that there is an oxymoronic context in the way that St. Alphonsus used the word “omnipotent”. He speaks of Mary “being made omnipotent” by the power of her Son. The Divine is not made Divine-- it is, was, and always will be the same. The sentence does not make sense if you take it literally with the literal meaning of the word “omnipotent”. There is a possibility that in St. Alphonsus day, the word was more loosely used. Or perhaps it is just his style. No matter, however, Ps 82:6 says," I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High." So, are we literally gods? NO. Does the church teach that Mary is omnipotent? NO.

Literalistic interpretation is a killer, for saints writings as well as scripture. I agree that St. Alphonsus and St. Louis de Montfort are so flowery in their exhortations of the Blessed Mother, that it makes it difficult for Catholics to explain. However, if you know the mind of the saint and don’t just read random passages, you will see that they indeed know Mary to be a creature of God. St. Louis de Montfort was very devoted to Mary, yet in the beginning of his book True Devotion to Mary, he says, "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”.

You know, the Bible has the Church’s stamp of approval, too, and still people are free to twist the meaning of verses like Ps 82:6 (the LDS actually believe they will be made to be gods). So, we must keep in mind that what the author intended to say has the stamp of approval— what the reader interprets does not.

PS. the 2nd definition (less literal) of omnipotent in Merriam-Websters is " having virtually unlimited authority or influence". Virtually unlimited? In Dictionary.com the 2nd definition is still broader…" having very great or unlimited authority or power."

 

[Atemi]

So your answer is, you don’t know.

Nonsense.

I do know and I told you: omnipotent is omnipotent.

Liguori agrees.

I know that you will be greatly relieved to find out that Liguori does not consider Mary to be omnipotent in the way that you and I understand the word. Isn’t that excellent news?

So what we are to gather from Ligouri’s work is that Mary is not omnipotent?

So when Ligouri said plainly and clearly that Mary is omnipotent, he specifically meant to convey that she is definitely NOT omnipotent.

Absolutely amazing, Mike. How can this position be taken seriously?

…

 

[Atemi]

It does not really matter to Atemi. He will have it say whatever he wants it to say because he is more interested in discrediting the Catholic Church than he is in presenting factual information about Church teachings.

We see this type of thing with anti-Catholic nuts who say things like the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There are many people who refuse to believe the truth because a lie about the Church makes them feel comfortable and superior.

Please note that I am the one who is recognizing what your church has officially appproved of as true. You will not even bring yourself to do the same.

I am sorry this is so hard for you.

…

 

[rpp]

Please note that I am the one who is recognizing what your church has officially appproved of as true. You will not even bring yourself to do the same.

I am sorry this is so hard for you.

…

No you are not. You are taking one sentence written by one man who is not infallible falsely claiming this is Church teaching. You have not produced any other documents to substantiate this teaching.

You have been corrected here at length regarding this. Yet you continue to knowingly present this falsehood as what that the Church teaches.

Here is the suggestion. Provide a reference to an a Church document from either a Pope, the Roman Curia, or a Church council that support your proposition. If you can we will consider it.

Until then, stop spreading a teaching that everyone here has advised you as false.

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[LilyM]

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

Such an RC classic that in 32 years in a devoutly Catholic family - with clergy, nuns and Doctors of Theology as relatives and my parents being well-educated secular Franciscans mind you - none of us had ever heard of it before I came on these boards eighteen months ago? And none of us still have been bothered to read it?

Augustine and Aquinas are classic, so are Therese of Lisieux, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Liguori is not utterly obscure, I grant you, but definitely a poor second in the classics stakes.

I think you need to reread your definition of infallibility. It concerns the pronouncements of Popes and councils primarily, individual bishops only when they are speaking and teaching in union with the Pope and Councils.

One bishop acting alone, as he usually does in granting Imprimaturs, or even in concert with one or two others, is very limited as to capacity to infallibly speak for the whole church.

Note Archbishop Lefebvre of the SSPX - not only was he wrong and not infallible, he greivously broke with the Church. Yet he was a validly ordained Archbishop. Where would the Church be if all his individual pronouncements were binding upon all Catholics?

Individual Bishops do NOT usually speak on behalf of the whole Church. Don’t persist in ignorantly claiming they do. We know better than that.

They are not considered infallible unless they are expressing faithfully Papal and Conciliar teaching. If they branch out on their own, as in the case of Imprimaturs and such - they aren’t.

Otherwise all Christians would still be Arian, since a majority of Bishops were teaching that heresy at one time and individual bishops speak for the whole Church.

Popes and Councils don’t deal in Imprimaturs (at least not often) and certainly did not endorse every single line of everything that Liguori wrote in making him a Doctor of the Church.

They don’t with any Doctor of the Church.

The Popes and Councils themselves have happily, for example, disagreed with some of what Aquinas (and I think Augustine too) wrote about the Immaculate Conception. THAT is the official mind of the Church speaking.

So must you and I take these two authors, along with Liguori and all the other 30 Doctors of the Church, with something of a grain of salt and not as the be-all and end-all of Catholic teaching.

 

[passioncrosslov]

ONLY GOD ALONE is omnipotence, omniscience and anything that pertains to “ALL…”, the absolute. Although, all of us here may not have such intense devotion to Our Lady as much as the author of this book, but creatures are creatures no matter how “divine” they appear to be.

“I am who is, and thou art who are not.” (St. Catherine’s Dialogue)

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is clear that there is an oxymoronic context in the way that St. Alphonsus used the word “omnipotent”. He speaks of Mary “being made omnipotent” by the power of her Son. The Divine is not made Divine-- it is, was, and always will be the same. The sentence does not make sense if you take it literally with the literal meaning of the word “omnipotent”. There is a possibility that in St. Alphonsus day, the word was more loosely used. Or perhaps it is just his style. No matter, however, Ps 82:6 says," I have said:** You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High." So, are we literally gods?** NO. Does the church teach that Mary is omnipotent? NO.

That seems to be not noted by Anti-Catholic such as Atemi.

 

[VociMike]

Nonsense.

I do know and I told you: omnipotent is omnipotent.

Liguori agrees.

Now that is simply false. Liguori supplies a definition of “omnipotent” which is clearly not the definition we use when speaking of God. Now who’s talking nonsense?

So what we are to gather from Ligouri’s work is that Mary is not omnipotent?

So when Ligouri said plainly and clearly that Mary is omnipotent, he specifically meant to convey that she is definitely NOT omnipotent.

Absolutely amazing, Mike. How can this position be taken seriously?

I notice in all of your bolds and italics and underlines you didn’t bother to address the definition (unconventional as it is) that Liguori himself supplies. What that an oversite, or would addressing his own definition be damaging to your case against him?

 

[VociMike]

Please note that I am the one who is recognizing what your church has officially appproved of as true. You will not even bring yourself to do the same.

I am sorry this is so hard for you.

And with the definition that Liguori himself supplies, it may very well be true. But you don’t seem to want to explore that possibility. It’s not fruitful, given your apparent objectives.

 

[childofmary1143]

Putting aside what Atemi has posted here I have noticed 2 different camps here on trying to explain what St. Alphonsus meant.

On one side we have people saying that Omnipotent in the context that St. Alphonsus used is not the same meaning that WE would use it.

On the other side we have people saying that when St. Alphonsus used Omnipotent it is to be understood as how we would understand it but that just because it has an imprimatur doesn’t really affect the Deposit of the Faith.

I am still confused.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please note that I am the one who is recognizing what your church has officially appproved of as true. You will not even bring yourself to do the same.

I am sorry this is so hard for you.

…

Have you taken into the consideration why St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote the Glories of Mary?

If you note, if you probably missed the introduction, which states,

St. Alphonsus wrote The Glories of Mary as a defense of our Lady’s sublime position in traditional Catholic devotion. Certain writers of his time, tainted with Jansenism, were busy ridiculing devotion to Mary, singling out the Hail Holy Queen [Salve Regina] for particular criticism.

St. Alphonsus’ admirable handling of their false scandal over common Catholic practice was simple enough, but overwhelming in its effect. He quoted Saints, Doctors, popes, theologians, Sacred Scripture, the Liturgy, the mind of the Church, the whole vast treasury of Catholic tradition and said, equivalently, “Here is your answer.”

St. Alphonsus did not argue, except now and then. Where was the need for argument? His tone was quiet but devastating, full of the calm assurance which comes from reliance on unimpeachable authority. He was tender, at times rapturous, particularly when directly addressing our Blessed Lady in his beautiful prayers. He wrote with the mind of a genius and the heart of a child, a great theologian who was also a Saint.

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm#INTRO

 

[Mannyfit75]

Putting aside what Atemi has posted here I have noticed 2 different camps here on trying to explain what St. Alphonsus meant.

On one side we have people saying that Omnipotent in the context that St. Alphonsus used is not the same meaning that WE would use it.

On the other side we have people saying that when St. Alphonsus used Omnipotent it is to be understood as how we would understand it but that just because it has an imprimatur doesn’t really affect the Deposit of the Faith.

I am still confused.

His Writings is not part of the deposit of faith. You can’t though use his use of the word “omnipotent” as a burden. But look into the account to prove his case. I don’t believe Alphonsus is equal to Mary. The language he uses is clearly poetic; which is very common amongst the saints of our time.

 

[VociMike]

Putting aside what Atemi has posted here I have noticed 2 different camps here on trying to explain what St. Alphonsus meant.

On one side we have people saying that Omnipotent in the context that St. Alphonsus used is not the same meaning that WE would use it.

On the other side we have people saying that when St. Alphonsus used Omnipotent it is to be understood as how we would understand it but that just because it has an imprimatur doesn’t really affect the Deposit of the Faith.

I am still confused.

It is correct that no matter what Liguori says, he is not the Magisterium of the Church. He could be in error, just like any of us could be in error. However, by examining his own definition of “omnipotent” we can clearly see that he is not claiming for Mary the omnipotence that is God’s. Rather, he is using the word in an unconventional sense. But at least he supplies his definition for all to see.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Nonsense.

I do know and I told you: omnipotent is omnipotent.

Liguori agrees.

Your blind stubbornness amazes me. Don’t you understand that one word may mean more than one thing? You’ve been told that the author specifically explains what he means by the word omnipotent in relation to Mary. It clearly has nothing to do with the omnipotence we normally speak about (that is omnipotence of God). I think it’s a very unfortunate selection of word but there we go.

So what we are to gather from Ligouri’s work is that Mary is not omnipotent?

Based on the standart definition of omnipotence…not at ALL.

If I define omnipotence as ability to scratch my back then clearly I can claim that I’m omnipotent because by that I mean that I can scratch my back. Sure it might not be the best thing to do but you will have to take that with the author of that book and not with us.

Anyways, I don’t really care what the author said. He has no authority in the Church. That being said I believe that what he said is correct…he just uses a really clumsy language (to the extend that he is forced to redefine terms…which he did as you’ve been shown).

So when Ligouri said plainly and clearly that Mary is omnipotent, he specifically meant to convey that she is definitely NOT omnipotent.

:banghead: