Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Exactly, if you just use that one statement which states by itself; it would that she is.

She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king;

However if you look at the other statement in his writings, they don’t affirm that Mary is omnipresent.

Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace

If you would look at the entire text, it doesn’t profess that Mary by herself is omnipotent.

catholictradition.org/Mary/glories6.htm

You should take into account, Alphonsus de Liguori is school in theology.

Alphonsus is also an artist and his talent is clearly show in his writings.

Alphonsus was a lover of beauty and art, being a musician, painter, poet and author at the same time. He put all his artistic and literary creativity at the service of the Christian mission and he asked the same of those who joined his Congregation. Hagiography says that, in his lay days, he liked to go to the local theater, which at the time had a very bad reputation; after being ordained, each time he attended the recitals Alphonsus simply took his optic glasses off and sat in the last row, listening to the music and not paying attention to other distractions.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonsus_Liguori

 

[Atemi]

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?

Who ever said we are speaking of God?

Not me and not Ligouri…so why do you bring it up?

He said Mary is omnipotent. He knew what he was saying and meant it.

Just because someone says someone is omnipotent, it does not automatically mean they are God.

This is basic.

You making this a case about divinity when neither I or Ligouri did so is silly, Mike. That’s nothing but a red herring.

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.

The definition Ligouri supplies himself is that Mary is ALL POWERFUL.

What else is there to wrangle about? How much is she all powerful?

If you do not believe that He meant Mary was ALL POWERFUL, then you are way off base. Ligouri clearly and plainly says that the Queen has all the power of the King at her disposal.

How much power does the King have, Mike?

Anything less than omnipotence?

For you to question the power of Mary as a Catholic, you must also question the very power of God Himself. It seems no one here minds doing that at all.

…

 

[Atemi]

No you are not. You are taking one sentence written by one man who is not infallible falsely claiming this is Church teaching.

Your church had given this work its official seal of approval and has never even considered rescinding it. It has been popular with Pope after Pope and bishop after bishop.

None of them ever saw any of the errors you claim are there. It is the work of your own Saint, not mine.

Either it is true or it is not.

Your church has officially approved it as TRUE.

You just need to deal with that instead of denying it and attacking me for repeating what your church has already done.

…

 

[Atemi]

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?

Wow. I cannot say anything about that.

I as a non-Catholic have read it numerous times.

This is indeed an RC classic. Please do not fault others for any knowledge you may lack.

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.

Where was and is the outrage over this book that still has the offical seal of approval from your own church?

Surely if this was found to be false after all this time your church would have done something about it and remove its Imprimatur.

Surely, no?

When were these steps taken?

I link will suffice. If your church has removed its Imprimatur from this work, I want to be the first to know.

…

 

[Atemi]

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

Calling me names does not change the facts. Please stay on topic and lay off the ad hominem.

…

 

[Atemi]

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.

Wrong, Mike.

He wrote it as plain as day. That is exactly the omnipotence he ascribes to Mary: God’s omnipotence…

“the Mother must have the same power as the Son”

The same power as the Son, Mike.

In actuality, Ligouri is clearly claiming for Mary the same omnipotence that is God’s. I am amazed that you will ignore the very text you propose to defend.

…

 

[LilyM]

Your church had given this work its official seal of approval and has never even considered rescinding it. It has been popular with Pope after Pope and bishop after bishop.

None of them ever saw any of the errors you claim are there. It is the work of your own Saint, not mine.

Either it is true or it is not.

Your church has officially approved it as TRUE.

You just need to deal with that instead of denying it and attacking me for repeating what your church has already done.

…

No - our Church has NOT officially approved every word of Liguori as true, however much you want to believe so.

An imprimatur by a single bishop or two does NOT constitute approval by the Church as a whole. Otherwise, as I pointed out before (which I note you haven’t replied to) - Arianism would be official church dogma, since numerous if not a majority of bishops were Arian at one time.

What matters in regard to official Church teaching are two things - Papal (ex cathedra) pronouncements and Church Council pronouncements. Everything else - bishops, theologians, doctors of the Church - matter only in as much as they are in accord with, or not contrary to, these.

EVEN the declaration of someone as a doctor of the Church, with the general approval that implies of their writings - does NOT mean the Church agrees with every single last blessed sentence of of those writings.

Again, as I have pointed out (and again you haven’t bothered to reply to my last post because it goes against your erroneous preconceptions) if the Church DID, by making someone a Doctor, approve of every word of theirs, that would mean Aquinas and Augustine’s opinions against the Immaculate Conception would be Church teaching. Clearly they aren’t - the Papal pronouncement on her Immaculate Conception, which goes against their opinions, IS.

HE, the Pope, when he speaks officially on matters of faith and morals, is infallible, bishops and theologians never are as mere bishops or theologians. They are only when in concord with the Pope and Church Councils.

Neither are Saints or Church Doctors infallible AS Saints or Church Doctors.

 

[LilyM]

Wow. I cannot say anything about that.

I as a non-Catholic have read it numerous times.

This is indeed an RC classic. Please do not fault others for any knowledge you may lack.

Harsh. If you’ve read it that often, it’s clearly because you are obsessed with Mary in a way that I’ve never seen in even the most devotedly Marian Catholic. For most people once or twice is enough to read such a book, if that

Where was and is the outrage over this book that still has the offical seal of approval from your own church?

Surely if this was found to be false after all this time your church would have done something about it and remove its Imprimatur.

Surely, no?

When were these steps taken?

I link will suffice. If your church has removed its Imprimatur from this work, I want to be the first to know.

…

Allow me to repeat. The book does NOT have the official seal of approval from the Church, no matter how much you may wish it did. It has the seal of the particular bishop or bishops who issued that Imprimatur and no others.

Why do you expect the CHURCH to remove an Imprimatur which the CHURCH didn’t grant in the first place? Do you expect the national government of the US to bother itself with something as petty as a drivers permit issued by an individual state? Or a planning permit given by an individual City’s council? If you do you’re a greater fool than I gave you credit for.

The individual Bishop who gave it may remove the Imprimatur if he is still alive. The Church may take some sort of action (I don’t even know if it’s POSSIBLE for the Imprimatur to be revoked) if people began rioting over the book or something.

Otherwise why be upset over something that every Catholic and knowledgeable non-Catholic understands constitutes approval by that particular Bishop alone and no other? Should I be outraged over a single man’s logging in the Amazonian rainforest, that I can not hope to change, and which doesn’t affect me a bit?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

He said Mary is omnipotent. He knew what he was saying and meant it.

The definition Ligouri supplies himself is that Mary is ALL POWERFUL.

If you do not believe that He meant Mary was ALL POWERFUL, then you are way off base. Ligouri clearly and plainly says that the Queen has all the power of the King at her disposal.

For you to question the power of Mary as a Catholic, you must also question the very power of God Himself. It seems no one here minds doing that at all.

…

Shame on you, Atemi.

Have you not heard of figures of speech? Metaphors, similes, and – in the case of Liguori’s writing – hyperbole?

Of course you have; you’re merely being obstinate.

I can tell by your writings that you are clever and possess a rhetorical skill that many of us cannot match. This covers nicely for your complete unwillingness to do independent research to support your claims; instead, you simply use your wit to redirect the argument and ignore obvious circumstances (such as the use of poetic devices in Liguori’s work) that clearly deflate your point.

Liguori clearly states in the quotes provided above that Mary is omnipotent in effect only – that is, because her Son will not deny her anything she seeks, and because (as a Saint in Heaven) her will is united with God’s, she won’t seek something contrary to His will.

This is Logic 101, Atemi.

Furthermore, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not indications that the Church endorses – let alone proclaims as true – the work which bears them. The Nihil Obstat is a statement that the work does not contradict Church teaching, and the Imprimatur is permission to publish the work. As I’ve already pointed out, The Glories of Mary does not contradict the Church’s teaching that Mary is a human being with no intrinsic power, and that any influence she has is provided by the Grace of her Son. Liguori is writing poetically in order to make his point and illustrate his devotion.

But you don’t care, do you? I admit I’m claiming to read your heart here, so don’t bother throwing that in my face. It’s painfully clear that you are not interested in learning the truth about Catholic teachings, as it’s painfully clear that your motives in this and other such discussions is merely to take whatever ammunition you can glean from what other posters say – not, of course, having done your own homework – and couple it with your cleverness in order to befuddle those who aren’t as verbally nimble as you are. Truly, you have a gift – I won’t dispute that – but you are at best using it misguidedly, and at worst dishonestly and maliciously.

If this were not the case, you wouldn’t claim a) that the presence of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are tantamount to a declaration of infallibility (which, if you’re as well-steeped in Catholic Tradition as you claim, you already knew is not true) or b) that Liguori is doing anything other than using hyperbole to illustrate a point.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Atemi]

Harsh. If you’ve read it that often, it’s clearly because you are obsessed with Mary in a way that I’ve never seen in even the most devotedly Marian Catholic. For most people once or twice is enough to read such a book, if that

I am forced to refer to it regularly as most Catholics are not familiar with what is in it, as your own testimony confirms.

Allow me to repeat. The book does NOT have the official seal of approval from the Church, no matter how much you may wish it did. It has the seal of the particular bishop or bishops who issued that Imprimatur and no others.

The nihil obstat and imprimatur is not the bishop’s personal stamp of approval, but the bishop speaking for the Church.

"An Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

It is of greatest significance in works directly addressing Roman Catholic theology and doctrine, and was introduced as a measure to reduce exposure, particularly of the laity, to heresy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

The whole purpose of the imprimatur is to allow the printing of works that are free from error in regards to all Roman Catholic doctrine, not the personal doctrine of the bishop. Otherwise, imprimaturs would be worthless.

Why do you expect the CHURCH to remove an Imprimatur which the CHURCH didn’t grant in the first place?

The bishop speaks for the RCC in this matter and gives the work the stamp of approval that is to be recognized by all Catholics everywhere.

Your attempt to localize an RC imprimatur is amazing.

Your church has total authority to remove its imprimatur if it so pleases because it is theirs to begin with.

…

 

[Atemi]

Shame on you, Atemi.

Can we now get on topic?

These lectures get boring, Dante.

Have you not heard of figures of speech? Metaphors, similes, and – in the case of Liguori’s writing – hyperbole?

Basically this argument is that Ligouri somehow did not mean what he clearly, and emphatically, and repeatedly said.

How it is that a non-Catholic gives more credit to a Catholic Saint than Catholics is beyond me.

Of course you have; you’re merely being obstinate.

Are you finished? Can we move on without the insults?

Liguori clearly states in the quotes provided above that Mary is omnipotent in effect only – that is, because her Son will not deny her anything she seeks, and because (as a Saint in Heaven) her will is united with God’s, she won’t seek something contrary to His will.

So what, Dante?

I can care less HOW Mary is supposedly omnipotent. My only point is that Ligouri and the Catholic Church teach that she indeed IS.

All the little details why Mary is omnipotent are irrelevant. What is relevant is that she supposedly is.

That is highly erroneous, of course, but it is not my teaching.

BTW, what other created being does your church accept as all powerful?

What other saint or angel?

Furthermore, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not indications that the Church endorses – let alone proclaims as true – the work which bears them. The Nihil Obstat is a statement that the work does not contradict Church teaching, and the Imprimatur is permission to publish the work.

So it is RC teaching that it is not against Church doctrine that Mary, a created being, is as powerful as God and has all His power at her disposal.

This is not getting more comforting, Dante.

Obviously it is not false teaching, or heresy, because the RCC would not have approved it for printing. Something is either false or true, and we have removed one of those options.

But you don’t care, do you? I admit I’m claiming to read your heart here, so don’t bother throwing that in my face. It’s painfully clear that you are not interested in learning the truth about Catholic teachings, as it’s painfully clear that your motives in this and other such discussions is merely to take whatever ammunition you can glean from what other posters say – not, of course, having done your own homework – and couple it with your cleverness in order to befuddle those who aren’t as verbally nimble as you are. Truly, you have a gift – I won’t dispute that – but you are at best using it misguidedly, and at worst dishonestly and maliciously.

More insults and ad hominem?

Why can’t anyone stay on topic?

Do you see me calling any of you names?

No.

If it makes you feel better, here is the other cheek. I simply prefer to stay on the topic as addressed in the OP.

If this were not the case, you wouldn’t claim a) that the presence of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are tantamount to a declaration of infallibility

So now come the false charges.

Of course, no one can find anywhere, on any thread, anywhere on the internet, me saying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur is infallible, but if it sounds good, why not charge me with it?

Sigh.

…

 

[Prometheus1974]

Matthew 5:17-18

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Exodus 20:12

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

I am sure most of the posters here are familiar with these passages.

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, he gives honour, that is perfect obedience, to his parents. His Father of course, is none other than God the Father, and on numerous occasions, Jesus tells us that his will is subordinate to that of the Father. His mother is Mary, and, as the Wedding at Cana illustrates, even when it is not his intention to do so, he is also obedient to his Mother.

As Ligouri states clearly in his passage, Mary is only omnipotent in the sense that her Divine Son is obedient to her - since he is omnipotent, he has infinite power to carry out her wishes.

By analogy for those who still haven’t understood, one might consider a medieval lady and her champion. A poet might say that the lady wields a mighty lance. Of course this is literally untrue since in her case she has never lifted a lance in her life. However, because her knight is always ready to raise his lance in defense of her honor, we can allow the poet a little license.

 

[LilyM]

I am forced to refer to it regularly as most Catholics are not familiar with what is in it, as your own testimony confirms.

A Catholic classic that most Catholics aren’t familiar with? Gimme a break here

The nihil obstat and imprimatur is not the bishop’s personal stamp of approval, but the bishop speaking for the Church.

"An Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

It is of greatest significance in works directly addressing Roman Catholic theology and doctrine, and was introduced as a measure to reduce exposure, particularly of the laity, to heresy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

You’re gonna have to do better than wikipedia on this one mate. Especially a totally unsupported article like that one. Shame on you for even bringing up such a cruddy source. :tsk tsk: Show me a Catholic source that says exactly the same thing about Imprimaturs, then I’ll believe you.

The whole purpose of the imprimatur is to allow the printing of works that are free from error in regards to all Roman Catholic doctrine, not the personal doctrine of the bishop. Otherwise, imprimaturs would be worthless.

They’re far from worthless, and are indeed quite useful in regard to giving indication as to which books are free from heresy.

But being as they are indeed given by individual Bishops largely using their own judgement WITHOUT (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome or anyone outside their own diocese, certainly far from infallibly or universally authoritative.

The bishop speaks for the RCC in this matter and gives the work the stamp of approval that is to be recognized by all Catholics everywhere.

Your attempt to localize an RC imprimatur is amazing.

Your church has total authority to remove its imprimatur if it so pleases because it is theirs to begin with. …

Your own wiki article condemns your interpretation here, and I quote:

"This stamp indicates that the work has been examined and approved by the censor of the diocese, and that he finds it free of doctrinal or moral error. "

So Imprimaturs are indeed ENTIRELY localised - the business of individual dioceses, nothing to do with the worldwide hierarchy of the Church. Does anyone in Rome, for example, even need to be informed that a bishop in Ouagadougou has given his Imprimatur to a book? Absolutely not.

Unlike, for example, his need to report to Rome, or at least to his own superiors who then report to Rome, on the finances of his diocese, on ordinations of clergy and many other matters.

So no, he does NOT directly speak for the hierarchy of the Church in granting his Imprimatur. If they WERE a matter for the RCC as a whole, they would probably be granted BY Rome and FROM Rome for starters!

 

[Atemi]

A Catholic classic that most Catholics aren’t familiar with? Gimme a break here

Lily, most Catholics are not even familiar with the Catechism, so that is not saying much.

You’re gonna have to do better than wikipedia on this one mate. Especially a totally unsupported article like that one. Shame on you for even bringing up such a cruddy source. :tsk tsk: Show me a Catholic source that says exactly the same thing about Imprimaturs, then I’ll believe you.

If you do not even know the purpose of imprimaturs, then I cannot help you. My posts assume the reader has a rudimentary understanding of such things.

I didn’t choose wiki because it was authoritative but because it was accurate.

They’re far from worthless, and are indeed quite useful in regard to giving indication as to which books are free from heresy.

If they are only one bishop’s opinion, like you claimed, and not the OK of the RCC at large, then you would be correct.

If you would like to continue a detailed discussion about the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, then you are more than welcome to start a thread on the topic.

Your own wiki article condemns your interpretation here, and I quote:

"This stamp indicates that the work has been examined and approved by the censor of the diocese, and that he finds it free of doctrinal or moral error. "

So Imprimaturs are indeed ENTIRELY localised - the business of individual dioceses, nothing to do with the worldwide hierarchy of the Church.

It has been waaaaaay long enough to destroy that theory. Any errors would have been addressed already. Your church does not find the idea of an omnipotent created being to be against their doctrine.

…

 

[SyCarl]

I believe in using Catholic sources when dealing with Catholic practices. The nihil obstat and the imprimatur is not a statement by the Catholic hierarchy that a work is free from error. Unfortunately I think that it can give that impression.

Clerics, in practise always priests, appointed according to canon law by the bishop of a diocese to examine, before publication, those writings or other things that are to be submitted to ecclesiastical supervision. The censors are to be chosen either from the secular or regular clergy. Conditions of age, learning, and prudence are to be considered in naming them. As a guarantee of fitness the censors, before entering upon their office, make a profession of faith before the bishop or his vicar-general. In examining what is submitted to them, they must lay aside favoritism, and consider the teachings of the Church and the laws of sound morals in order to determine whether the things in question may be given to the public with safety. In each case the censor must give his opinion in writing. If his opinion is favorable, the permission to publish is granted. The fact of the favorable view of the censor must be shown on the publication. This is usually done by placing there the Latin words, Nihil obstat, meaning “Nothing hinders the publication,” and the name of the censor. Then follows the word, Imprimatur, the name of the local bishop or of his vicar, and the place and date of permission. Chiefly works on religious subjects or those which have a bearing on religion are presented for censorship.

New Catholic Dictionary

---

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd01811.htm

 

[LilyM]

I believe in using Catholic sources when dealing with Catholic practices. The nihil obstat and the imprimatur is not a statement by the Catholic hierarchy that a work is free from error. Unfortunately I think that it can give that impression.

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd01811.htm

Thank you SyCarl - we can only hope Atemi takes note. And I agree, it is important to go to Catholic sources about matters to do with Catholicism.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

…

Giving a nihil obstat is not an official function of the Vatican, but of the specific church diocese. It’s a perogative of the Bishop. The Glories of Mary was written in response to the Jansenism It was written in poetic, hyperbolic language. Just because a book may contain hyperbole and was given a nihil obstat by a Bishop does not mean that it was approving doctrine.

Also, Alphonsus Liguori was not a native English speaker so I am sure that he did not write the book in English. It had to be translated (and it was probably translated into Shakespearean English), and therefore it must be taken in context. Another example of this is the Patriarch of Constantinople’s title is “his most divine all-holy” and while we certainly know the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe the Patriarch of Constantinople to be God – clearly the opposite. Also his context does not state that Mary is God, therefore we should not read that into it and we most definitely can’t say that translations of a book that have a nihil obstate equate to religious doctrine – that is just ridiculous.

The Catholic Church is the Church of the 21 ecumenical councils, and since we hold the ecumenical councils in high esteem and must hold to their canons we cannot violate them. The canons state that Mary is the Theotokos… the God-Bearer. She certainly is not God and those canons clearly testify that.

 

[Atemi]

Thanks Carl for the Catholic reference.

Exactly as I stated.

“Nothing hinders the publication”

And what would hinder publication?

Error, of course.

…

 

[Atemi]

Giving a nihil obstat is not an official function of the Vatican, but of the specific church diocese. It’s a perogative of the Bishop. The Glories of Mary was written in response to the Jansenism It was written in poetic, hyperbolic language.

Usually this excuse is given to say the author did not mean what he clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically said.

He was not writing poetry but teaching doctrine.

Also, Alphonsus Liguori was not a native English speaker so I am sure that he did not write the book in English. It had to be translated (and it was probably translated into Shakespearean English), and therefore it must be taken in context.

There is nothing missing in the “translation.”

Those Catholics that are heavily into Marian devotion totally understand that Ligouri truly meant what he said and he was clear.

To say that we just cannot know what he really meant because of some sort of language barrier is ludicrous.

Also his context does not state that Mary is God, therefore we should not read that into it and we most definitely can’t say that translations of a book that have a nihil obstate equate to religious doctrine – that is just ridiculous.

Who said Ligouri said Mary is God?

I surely did not.

Where is all this coming from?

The Catholic Church is the Church of the 21 ecumenical councils, and since we hold the ecumenical councils in high esteem and must hold to their canons we cannot violate them. The canons state that Mary is the Theotokos… the God-Bearer. She certainly is not God and those canons clearly testify that.

Who said Mary is God?

Not Ligouri and not me.

Did someone else in this thread say Mary is God?

…

 

[childofmary1143]

There is nothing missing in the “translation.”

Those Catholics that are heavily into Marian devotion totally understand that Ligouri truly meant what he said and he was clear.

To say that we just cannot know what he really meant because of some sort of language barrier is ludicrous.

Its ludicrous and idiotic to think that all languages can be ACCURATELY translated into another.