Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[Atemi]

In this thread, you have implied that the presence of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in a book elevates that book to the level of official Church teaching

Yes. Of course.

That Mary is omnipotent is either a true doctrine or it is a false doctrine. Most posters here refuse to acknowledge which it is and just attack me.

If it is false doctrine, where is the repudiation of your church after all this time? I honestly would want to be the first to know where your church has rejected this teaching as false. I can’t find it.

in other words, making it a part of the deposit of faith. That is patently false – if one knows what one is talking about.

Since the “deposit of faith” cannot be linked to or cited, that point is moot. As the OP pointed out:

“I have no doubt that The Glories of Mary is authentic and obedient to the Deposit of the Faith.”

Patently false, huh? I see not a soul correcting that claim…

But you are obstinately and ignorantly (or, worse: obstinately and maliciously) ignoring the fact that also attributes that figurative omniscience directly and solely to the Grace of God!

Figurative means it is not real or effectual.

Is that what you are getting from Ligouri’s teaching here? That Mary is not really all powerful after all?

That is not possible.

That makes it obvious to anyone but the most stubbornly anti-Catholic readers that he is glorifying God while at the same time illustrating Mary’s efficacy as an intercessor.

Her efficacy?

How effective is she?

How much power does she really have as Queen?

I suspect this question will remain unanswered because to answer it is to mean concession.

To persist in denying that fact is to argue from false premises.

Like I said before, wrangling over HOW she is omnipotent is silliness. Either admit that she is omnipotent or reject it as false teaching and show me where the RCC has done the same.

But you have defined nothing, Atemi. You have taken one statement entirely out of context as the basis for your misrepresentation, and in the process thrown out the point that Liguori was making in the first place.

It is not me who is saying Ligouri did not teach that Mary had all the power of God as Queen of the Universe and of Heaven and Earth.

And to deny that IS to throw out the point Ligouri was making. That’s WHY he made it.

…

 

[VociMike]

It is not me who is saying Ligouri did not teach that Mary had all the power of God as Queen of the Universe and of Heaven and Earth.

And to deny that IS to throw out the point Ligouri was making. That’s WHY he made it.

…

Liguori obviously did not teach that Mary had all the power of God. If Mary had all the power of God, she would not have to ask God for anything. I expect everybody else on this board can comprehend that incredibly, blatantly, earth-shatteringly obvious fact.

 

[AngelsAmongUs]

It would seem this conversation has gone as far as it can go. If someone refuses to listen, then so be it. You all have done a remarkable job of explaining the meaning behind Ligouri’s writing. So, let not your heart be troubled. I, for one, am very impressed. :tiphat:

Peace be with you!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.