Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[theAuthor]

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

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.

Above, the underlined is not a link. Did you know that?

I know there was a church before the time of Constantine. I was saying that it was Roman practice to either annihilate a religion (eg the druids) or to let the people have it but absorb the beliefs into the Roman mindset. So some “muddying of the waters” of Early Christianity would certainly have happened.

And at the time of Constantine there was a tussle between the Pagan and Christian religions. When the Emperor converted, Christianity won, but She absorbed some of the Pagan mindset when she absorbed the people. A people used to worshipping a goddess would have very much liked the idea of worshipping the female (Mary). Not that Mary does not deserve it, but when cultures meld, neither culture remains pure.

 

[theAuthor]

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… This actually makes good sense to me. It has an example in the Bible (wedding of Cana, Jesus’ first miracle). Jesus must honour his mother according to the commandments.

I must say that I find it concerning that people say things like “they are looking at it with a Prot mind, but we who were raised Catholic…” So the Truth isn’t self-evident? Unless one is a cradle Catholic with the associated conditioning, they are just reading it wrong???

 

[fellowChristian]

Reminds me of another verse:

1 King 2

19 When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

20 “I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
The king replied, “Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you.”

And I think I have the book everyone is talking about. I just haven’t read it.Yet.

 

[theAuthor]

I love types and shadows:thumbsup: That verse was a great help to me in overcoming praying to Mary for intercession. It was forshadowed in the OT.

 

[LilyM]

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.

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.

Who said Ligouri said Mary is God?

I surely did not.

Where is all this coming from?

Who said Mary is God?

Not Ligouri and not me.

Did someone else in this thread say Mary is God?

…

And you know that he was teaching doctrine and doing nothing else in Glories of Mary … how, exactly? Did HE say he was writing Glories of Mary (which title alone should give you some clue as to the fact that he was writing it primarily to GLORIFY - praise - her rather than giving official teaching about her) to teach and nothing else?

After all, St Augustine’s Confessions, which contains much good solid philosophy and teaching, ALSO has, mixed right in with it, plenty of poetry, metaphor, hyperbole and so on.

Liguori probably didn’t, in the original language, even say that Mary was omnipotent. At least not in the same sense as that word is meant in English. Only someone who’s read it in the original language and is fluent in it and in English can tell us that.

And now that several of us have told you (citing at least one good source of Catholic information) the truth, that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are STRICTLY matters of individual bishops and dioceses, will you please apologise to us and admit that you are mistaken in your understanding of them?

 

[mich2]

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… This actually makes good sense to me. It has an example in the Bible (wedding of Cana, Jesus’ first miracle). Jesus must honour his mother according to the commandments.

I must say that I find it concerning that people say things like “they are looking at it with a Prot mind, but we who were raised Catholic…” So the Truth isn’t self-evident? Unless one is a cradle Catholic with the associated conditioning, they are just reading it wrong???

As a catholic, I don’t see anything wrong in believing Mary as being divine…by grace, not by nature. While she is a creature, I find it possible for her to have been capable in receiving the fullness of God,something that no other creature is capable of
receiving due to it’s finite nature. Therefore, Mary’s nature, as a creature, could still be infinite. She is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and, as scriptures reads, the two shall be as one. In one apparation, Mary identifies herself as “one who is within the Holy Trinity”. Those are obscure words, which may have a deep theological meaning.
With all the early testimonies of Mary being far greater than any creature, I personally don’t have any problems with the words of St Liguori’

Andre

 

[theAuthor]

As a catholic, I don’t see anything wrong in believing Mary as being divine…by grace, not by nature. While she is a creature, I find it possible for her to have been capable in receiving the fullness of God,something that no other creature is capable of
receiving due to it’s finite nature. Therefore, Mary’s nature, as a creature, could still be infinite. She is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and, as scriptures reads, the two shall be as one. In one apparation, Mary identifies herself as “one who is within the Holy Trinity”. Those are obscure words, which may have a deep theological meaning.
With all the early testimonies of Mary being far greater than any creature, I personally don’t have any problems with the words of St Liguori’

Andre

Whoa, careful there. That’d be a private revelation you speak of I presume?

 

[mich2]

Whoa, careful there. That’d be a private revelation you speak of I presume?

Yes!!! Clearly. I’m not speaking in the name of the Church. Not because the Church teache’s otherwise, but is silent on the issue.If you read carfully, I have written "in my opinion"

Andre

 

[mich2]

Whoa, careful there. That’d be a private revelation you speak of I presume?

I think I might have misinterpreted your question…
Is this concerning the words “She who is within the Holy Trinity”?

yes…it comes from private revelation…“private” does not mean false, you know.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Can we now get on topic?

These lectures get boring, Dante.

First, I apologize if my previous post was a bit harsh, but I stand by the sentiment.

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.

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

It is not an insult to say you are being obstinate, because the above quote illustrates this quite plainly.

The argument is obviously not that he didn’t mean what he said, but that he is using figurative language. This is a literary device in which the writer crafts his words in such a way that there is a secondary meaning beyond the obvious, literal one – in this case, that Mary has great influence as an intercessor.

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?

Again: obstinate.

It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church or of Liguori that Mary is literally omnipotent.

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.

Were the Church or this Saint teaching that Mary is literally omnipotent, you’d be correct. Since this is not the case, as I have exhaustively and repeatedly pointed out, you are mistaken.

B]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.

I am staying on topic, and in so doing, pointing out your tendency to distort the truth in backing up your own false allegations. This is not merely an ad hominem attack; it is the truth.

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?

Perhaps not in so many words, but when you say that a work bearing these marks is the equivalent of doctrine – i.e., an infallible statement by the Pope or the Magisterium – this is precisely what you have done.

Let me repeat the main point here, just for clarification:

St. Alphonsus Liguori does not teach that Mary is literally omnipotent. He uses figurative language in a poetically crafted devotional work to demonstrate how powerful an intercessor she is. Figurative language permeates all literature – including Scripture, as our Lord was fond of using it, and the prophets, too – because it possesses great power in communicating ideas that are bigger than our words.

The Church does not teach that Mary is omnipotent, either, and I challenge you to find one single shred of evidence other than a literary work by one of its members (who did not possess the charism of infallibility) that says otherwise.

If you were really interested in the truth, as you claim, you’d find another source to back your claim.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Mannyfit75]

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

…

Your objection to the Catholic faith seem to point that way, Atemi.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

…

Did you read the entire Glories of Mary? or do you just stick to one line in his writings to push your personal agenda?

Second, The writings of Glories of Mary is not a infallible writings. You want to accuse the Catholic Church it doesn’t teaches show me a Church document that shows that Mary is omnipotent?

 

[VociMike]

Who ever said we are speaking of God?

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

Well hardy-har-har. We’re here on a Catholic (that is, Christian) forum, talking about omnipotence, and you are shocked, shocked, that I am discussing omnipotence in terms of God. The audacity of me, to think that your objection to calling Mary omnipotent was that it somehow related to the omnipotence associated with God! What was I thinking?!

Oh, and by the way, on top of all that you are incorrect. Liguori most certainly did talk of the omnipotence of Christ, who is, of course, God.

 

[VociMike]

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.

But you claimed that neither you nor Liguori was talking about the omnipotence of God. You can’t keep trying to have it both ways here. I’m getting a headache.

BTW, you never answered my question. Will we not all be omnipotent, in Liguori’s meaning, when we are in heaven?

 

[LilyM]

Atemi:

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

Really? It’s beyond you to comprehend that Catholics just maybe better understand the proper place of the writings of saints in terms of our doctrine than yourself? And thus give them less credit than yourself? What vanity.

The writings of the saints, even the Doctors among them, have not a bit of relevance in terms of infallible or binding doctrine. Not unless they be Popes, or participate in Church councils, or their writings are relied upon and cited by Popes or Councils, and even then only in very limited circumstances.

I note you still have not acknowledged or apologised for your gross misunderstanding of what Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur mean, in spite of clarification by several Catholics and non-Catholics on this thread. Unless and until you do apologise and acknowledge your mistakes, if you persist in presuming on your own limited knowledge and refusing reasonable correction, you’ll have no credibility you know. And deservedly so.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks Carl for the Catholic reference.

Exactly as I stated.

“Nothing hinders the publication”

And what would hinder publication?

Error, of course.

…

Beside the point - it is entirely the individual Bishop and/or Censor’s *private personal opinion *that there is no error that inhibits or permits the granting of a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur. They don’t really need to refer to the mind of the Church at all in making this determination.

They don’t need to give reasons or any sort of detailed analysis as to why they’ve done so. They don’t need to refer it to Rome to check their conclusion that there is no error according to capital-o Official teaching, nothing of the sort.

Being a decision of an individual Bishop and/or his delegate, there is no suggestion of infallibility and little even of ‘the mind of the Church’ about it - purely the mind of the individual Bishop and/or Censor.

 

[DebChris]

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.

Thanks Mannyfit. I am not familiar with the Glories of Mary. Like much that is used to portray Catholic teaching as not scriptural, it is not required reading.
This post does demonstrate what the Church actually teaches. Mary was human, chosen in time to carry the Divine within her womb. She is the mother of Jesus who is God, the Ark of the New Covenant.
Semper Fi–good post on the problem with translations. Words have limitations and definitions change with time.
Tradition(T) is the depost of faith handed to us from the Apostles through apostolic succession. Traditions(t) can be modified or even eliminated over time. A good example is the addition of the Luminous Mysteries to the rosary by John Paul II.

 

[VociMike]

I am disappointed that Atemi has refused to address the very exact meaning that Liguori assigns to “omnipotent” when speaking of Mary. That meaning, which he cites over and over, is that Mary is omnipotent in that God grants everything she asks. Now immediately we see that this is not our usual meaning of “omnipotent”, since Mary must ask and God must grant. There’s certainly nothing heretical in that concept.

So, the only question left to discuss (and which Atemi has steadfastly refused to discuss) is whether God does indeed grant every request of Mary’s. I am aware of no Catholic teaching that clearly answers “yes” or “no” to that question, but going on general principles it would seem quite reasonable to believe that the answer is “yes”. Why? Because in heaven our wills are perfectly aligned with the will of God. In heaven we would never ask for anything that went against the will of God. That is certainly a reasonable thing to believe. If one does not believe it, one must explain how our will in heaven could go against God’s will in heaven. But at least the entire question is open to reasoned discussion.

But there has been no reasoned discussion of this one question from the anti-Catholics on this thread. Their determined refusal to discuss this one, legitimate question points to less than pure motives on their part.

 

[VociMike]

I am disappointed that Atemi has refused to address the very exact meaning that Liguori assigns to “omnipotent” when speaking of Mary, but has only feigned horror over the use of the word. That meaning, which Liguori cites over and over, is that Mary is omnipotent in that God grants everything she asks. Now immediately we see that this is not our usual meaning of “omnipotent”, since Mary must ask and God must grant. There’s certainly nothing heretical in the concept of God granting something we ask!

So, the only question left to discuss (and which Atemi has steadfastly refused to discuss) is whether God does indeed grant every request of Mary’s. I am aware of no Catholic teaching that clearly answers “yes” or “no” to that question, but going on general principles it would seem at least reasonable to believe that the answer is “yes”. Why? Because in heaven our wills are perfectly aligned with the will of God. In heaven we would never ask for anything that went against the will of God. That is certainly a reasonable thing to believe. If one does not believe it, one must explain how our will in heaven could go against God’s will in heaven. But at least the entire question is open to reasoned discussion, rather than hysterical polemics.

But there has been no reasoned discussion of this one question from the “other side” on this thread. Their determined refusal to discuss this one, legitimate question points to less than pure motives on their part.

 

[Atemi]

Liguori probably didn’t, in the original language, even say that Mary was omnipotent. At least not in the same sense as that word is meant in English. Only someone who’s read it in the original language and is fluent in it and in English can tell us that.

Sorry, but that is a cop out.

Not only does Ligouri clearly teach that Mary is omnipotent, but emphasizes his point repeatedly.

For example, Ligouri also clearly says that Mary has the same power as God. If you cannot also gather “omnipotence” from that, then you are on your own.

No loss in any translation here at all.

Like I said, those heavily in Mariology accept and understand this. I guess it is only RC apologists that must deny it.

And now that several of us have told you (citing at least one good source of Catholic information) the truth, that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are STRICTLY matters of individual bishops and dioceses, will you please apologise to us and admit that you are mistaken in your understanding of them?

Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are for the safety and correct doctrine of all Catholics and that is why the auditors are so carefully chosen by the Church.

I will not apologize for actually understanding what they are for and the function they are designed to serve. They are surely not designed to serve the doctrinal whims of lone bishops as some would imagine.

…