Private Judgment and the Magisterium

[pablope]

I do believe that God is protecting His Church (all believers), but that we are all human and we may err. You ask me who is right and I tell you that I will not be able to determine that infallibly. I will however be able to determine from Scripture and with plain reason what I believe. Unless I am convinced by these I will not believe.
II will however be obedient to the Word God has given in His Scriptures and I will serve my Lord, my God with all of my heart.

You ask me who is right and I tell you that I will not be able to determine that infallibly. I will however be able to determine from Scripture and with plain reason what I believe

Again the question will be-if you cannot, then who will? The Bible does not have a voice of its own, so who will speak for the Bible? to correctly answer the caller’s question? Who will give him the correct answer, as he got conflicting answers? Clearly, the caller got conflicting answers and is seeking the truth…did he go away confused or clear?

 

[rainman10]

I do believe that God is protecting His Church (all believers), but that we are all human and we may err. I do not believe that the Catholic Church is having an advantage in this, simply because I do not believe that the pope nor the magisterium can proclaim infallible teachings. The only infallibility I believe in is found in Scripture, the Word of God, and in God Himself.
You ask me who is right and I tell you that I will not be able to determine that infallibly. I will however be able to determine from Scripture and with plain reason what I believe. Unless I am convinced by these I will not believe.
I do not believe that Matthew 16:18 confers upon the pope the exclusive right to interpret scripture and therefore I do not believe the pope nor the magisterium to be infallible.
I will not act against my conscience.
I will however be obedient to the Word God has given in His Scriptures and I will serve my Lord, my God with all of my heart.

So, Janet1983, I will ask you the same question I asked tester, maybe you have the answer, because tester apparently doesn’t.

If your interpretation of the Bible disagrees with ten other people, equally led by the Holy Spirit, who is right? Which one of the ten people is the Holy Spirit not lying to? Who decides who is right and who is wrong?

 

[tester]

And I will keep asking. I know tester can’t really answer the question and he knows he can’t answer, because if he does, his theology goes down the drain. He will probably continue to avoid the question or disappear. His non-answers really gives us his answer.

I walk in Grace: God does demand perfection from me in thought or deed: Because I love Christ as my Saviour AND submit to him as my Lord: I will follow his direction.

I “get it” that you feel you have no authority to go to straight to God or to God’s Word.
I do

I “get it” that you see the Bible through the Church while I see the Church through the Bible

 

[tester]

tester;7240575:

I think the Catechism is clear…and I will not repeat it here…

why not repeat what the Bible says instead?

Act 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

apparently children are expected to understand the scripture: but not you

2 Timothy 3:14–15
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known tthe Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Luke wrote his gospel that one might know - Lk 1:1-4
John wrote his gospel that one might believe - Jn 20:30-31
Paul wrote for people to understand, to have his knowledge - 2Co 1:13; Ep 3:3-5
John wrote his epistle that one might know - 1Jn 5:13

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

pablope;7241680:

why not repeat what the Bible says instead?

Act 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

apparently children are expected to understand the scripture: but not you

2 Timothy 3:14–15
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known tthe Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Luke wrote his gospel that one might know - Lk 1:1-4
John wrote his gospel that one might believe - Jn 20:30-31
Paul wrote for people to understand, to have his knowledge - 2Co 1:13; Ep 3:3-5
John wrote his epistle that one might know - 1Jn 5:13

Tester please just answer the question. "When people read the same words from the bible and come to different concolusion on what it means to whom do they go to find out which is the correct meaning?

Lets us just take this withing the Prostestant community and leace the Catholic out for just a moments, OK.

So we have Lutherans and Angelicans that say the Bible says that Chirst is truely present in communion. Then we have say Baptist and Pentecostals that say it is just a symbolic meal that christ is not present in the communion. since both get this from the Bible who says which is correct?

Please just answer do not go into long quotes and such, who tells them which is correct from the bible? I mean they both read the Bible verse they even read it from the same translation. and they came to two different things . Which is correct and why?

 

[joe370]

So you are saying that the Catholic Church is the only authority when it comes to Scripture? I don’t believe that it is so. I do believe that God is indeed working in all Christians and I do not believe the Bible to be so cryptic that it cannot be understood by the layman.

Janet, we know that the apostles (first members of Jesus’ church) - were entrusted with the mission/authority to teach and interpret their teachings, and we know that their successors were entrusted with the mission/authority to teach and interpret said teachings:

*Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. *

To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons

*The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. *

With that said, you believe that God is indeed working in all Christians and that the Bible is NOT so cryptic that it cannot be understood by the layman? I don’t think that the bible is cryptic either, the book of Revelation notwithstanding. Janet, please resolve the doctrinal dispute regarding the Eucharist, that exists in Christendom? After all, you did say that the bible is NOT so cryptic and that it can be understood by even the layman.

Janet, were you entrusted with the authority, (just as the apostles and their successors were) - when it comes to scripture, to settle doctrinal disputes? Nope. Was I entrusted with the authority (just as the apostles and their successors were) - when it comes to scripture, to settle disputes? Nope. Was the Catholic Church entrusted with the authority (just as the apostles and their successors were) - when it comes to scripture, to settle doctrinal disputes? Not according to you. Who was entrusted with the authority (just as the apostles and their successors were) - to settle doctrinal disputes, when they arise today, just as they arose when the apostles taught and their immediate successors taught?

 

[tester]

double check when you quote postings
: they are being attributed to the wrong pepole

 

[tester]

So we have Lutherans and Angelicans that say the Bible says that Chirst is truely present in communion. Then we have say Baptist and Pentecostals that say it is just a symbolic meal that christ is not present in the communion. since both get this from the Bible who says which is correct?
Please just answer do not go into long quotes and such, who tells them which is correct from the bible? I mean they both read the Bible verse they even read it from the same translation. and they came to two different things . Which is correct and why?

Your wording is sloppy;

Baptists and Pentecostals do believe that Christ is present in communion because when 2 or 3 are gathered in the name of Christ he will be there?
Baptists and Pentecostals do not believe that the elements CHANGE in substance to the flesh and blood of Christ. And I would say that they are correct compared to the Catholics.

But to your border question when one Protestant group believe “A” and the other believes “not A”, who is right? Both can demonstrate that Bible states their position.

Unfortunately I do not know:
And I don’t have a problem with that at all! I do know that I am not all knowing or in fallible: and neither is anyone else.
Romans 14 does give some freedoms on some things.

When person or a church claims infallibility based on their infallible interpretation then I would expect them to not only resolve almost EVERY point of disagreement ; but also NEVER be in disagreement with the main and plain things of scripture.

The current Catholic Church has so many disagreements with the main and plain things of scripture that it cannot possibly be infallible.

I reject their claims of infallible interpretation of Scripture.
I reject that a human is the Vicar of Christ. ( the Holy Spirit is)
I reject the claim that someone is born sinless by nature other than Christ.
I reject any belief of a co-redeemer or co mediator
I reject that Christ’s perfect sacrifice (bloodless or not) need ever to be repeated.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

And know this without any doubt.I AM in the TRUE church of Christ along with EVERY believer that has had their old self crucified with Christ who as been reborn as a new creature.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=tester;7242695]Your wording is sloppy;

Baptists and Pentecostals do believe that Christ is present in communion because when 2 or 3 are gathered in the name of Christ he will be there?
Baptists and Pentecostals do not believe that the elements CHANGE in substance to the flesh and blood of Christ. And I would say that they are correct compared to the Catholics.

And I would say they are not. I may not agree that Transubstantiation is explicit in scripture, but the true and substantial body and blood of Christ is - This IS my body. As Luther said, “Ist ist ist.”

But to your border question when one Protestant group believe “A” and the other believes “not A”, who is right? Both can demonstrate that Bible states their position.

Unfortunately I do not know:
And I don’t have a problem with that at all! I do know that I am not all knowing or in fallible: and neither is anyone else.
Romans 14 does give some freedoms on some things.

Well, Luther and Melanchthon turned to the ECF’s and the centuries long teaching of the whole Church - east and west.

The current Catholic Church has so many disagreements with the main and plain things of scripture that it cannot possibly be infallible.

I reject their claims of infallible interpretation of Scripture.

I would agree, since there is schism.

I reject that a human is the Vicar of Christ. ( the Holy Spirit is)

Depends on the meaning.

I reject the claim that someone is born sinless by nature other than Christ.

My understanding is the BLessed Virgin was born siness by grace, not by nature.

I reject any belief of a co-redeemer or co mediator

Depends on the meaning.

I reject that Christ’s perfect sacrifice (bloodless or not) need ever to be repeated.

My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it is a once for all sacrifice re-presented, not repeated.

And know this without any doubt.I AM in the TRUE church of Christ along with EVERY believer that has had their old self crucified with Christ who as been reborn as a new creature.

And Baptism…now saves you.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Tester, you said:

But to your border question when one Protestant group believe “A” and the other believes “not A”, who is right? Both can demonstrate that Bible states their position.

Unfortunately I do not know

Thanks for answering his question, and from the protestant perspective, you are right to say that, for the bible is the protestants final authority via private interpretation - not the leaders of any one protestant church, and none of these SS advocates believe that they can teach infallibly, which means that they don’t know either, just as I do not know, which is why I defer to the church founded by Christ. I however, think that Jesus left us with a way to know, and that “way” is Jesus’ church, forever guided by the HS, into all truth.

And I don’t have a problem with that at all! I do know that I am not all knowing or in fallible: and neither is anyone else.
Romans 14 does give some freedoms on some things.

That’s cool; I however did have a problem with the not knowing aspect, as a former non-Catholic. One thing is for certain: no one here is ever going to change your mind; that much I can tell.

You and I are not infallible, nor are the leaders of the CC, nor were the apostles, yet they still wrote infallibly; how did they do that? They were able to write infallibly for the simple fact that the HS was guiding them just as the HS guides the very FALLIBLE CC leaders today.

When person or a church claims infallibility based on their infallible interpretation then I would expect them to not only resolve almost EVERY point of disagreement ; but also NEVER be in disagreement with the main and plain things of scripture.

The teaching office of the CC has resolved every point of disagreement when it comes to revealed doctrinal truth. The teaching office of the CC is NOT in disagreement with the main and plain things of scripture, like all of the protestant churches are, with one another, which can be so aptly demonstrated.

The current Catholic Church has so many disagreements with the main and plain things of scripture that it cannot possibly be infallible.

No one is infallible; if you want to continue to make stuff up about the CC, well, that’s cool…

I reject their claims of infallible interpretation of Scripture.

I know; according to you no one can in-errantly discern truth when it comes to the teachings, such as the Eucharist. According to you the HS is not guiding any one church into all truth anymore; that ended, according to you, when the last apostle passed on. The CC taught innerrantly for at least the first 400 years of Christianity, which you unwittingly believe, otherwise you wouldn’t believe that the bible is infallible, for it was the CC that decided what would be infallibly included in the bible and what would not be included in the bible. That certainly explains why you said the following and makes me wonder why you believe that fallible people wrote infallibly, and how their fallible successors, hundreds of years later, could codify the infallible bible at a time when 7 books of your bible were questioned, as to their authenticity, which was the very reason why the CC convoked more than once, to settle the matter:

Unfortunately I do not know…

Let’s face it, it will always be your fallible private interpretation of your infallible bible that trumps all other interpretations; you are your own magisterium as the holy spirit moves you. That’s cool…

Continued…

 

[tester]

Well, Luther and Melanchthon turned to the ECF’s and the centuries long teaching of the whole Church - east and west

I too take into account the 2000 years of traditions in church history along with reason and experience.

Depends on the meaning.

whether Vicar of Christ or High Priest or co-redeemer or co mediator or Queen of Heaven, mother of God, if there are that many Godly titles applied to humans that seem almost “blasphemous” at first glance, then alarms should start going off…

-Saint Tester

 

[joe370]

I reject that a human is the Vicar of Christ. ( the Holy Spirit is)

Do you believe that the apostles and their successors were vicars of Christ by doing as Jesus commanded, at the last supper? “Do this in remembrance of me.” Probably not… Are they not acting in the person of Christ by doing exactly as Christ did?

I reject the claim that someone is born sinless by nature other than Christ.

Mary? Got it. Fortunately, you were not given the authority to make that judgment call, so your opinion, as well as my opinion, matters naught.

I reject any belief of a co-redeemer or co mediator

You are a mediator; you are mediating right now. We are all mediators teaching on Jesus’ behalf. Paul said:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

And Paul passed on that ambassadorship to other trustworthy men, as per scripture, and told them to do the same. He did not tell people to defer to their bibles; quite the opposite; he told them to defer to the authority of the church. You will always be in denial of the plain reading of scripture, just as my sister is. That’s cool. To each his/her own.

I reject that Christ’s perfect sacrifice (bloodless or not) need ever to be repeated.

You know that the CC does not teach that and yet you repeat that lie over and over.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

And we come full circle…Back to the bible as the Christians only authority via private interpretation. It is NOT in agreement with main and plain things of scripture according to your private interpretation and I disagree with you, and according to you, you and I can never know who is right and who is wrong; if I believed that to be true I wouldn’t even be a Christian today.

And know this without any doubt.I AM in the TRUE church of Christ along with EVERY believer that has had their old self crucified with Christ who as been reborn as a new creature.

You are in the true church of Christ founded by Christ circa AD 33? Okay…Am I??? I can’t be considering the fact that I don’t belong to your church. Hmmmm…

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

My private interpretation of the bible, again, disagrees with your private interpretation of the bible. We have reached an impasse that, according to you, is insurmountable, which begs the question:

What next???

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

And I would say they are not. I may not agree that Transubstantiation is explicit in scripture, but the true and substantial body and blood of Christ is - This IS my body. As Luther said, “Ist ist ist.”

Well, Luther and Melanchthon turned to the ECF’s and the centuries long teaching of the whole Church - east and west.

I would agree, since there is schism.

Depends on the meaning.

My understanding is the BLessed Virgin was born siness by grace, not by nature.

Depends on the meaning.

My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it is a once for all sacrifice re-presented, not repeated.

And Baptism…now saves you.

Agreed.

Jon

Jon, I thank you. You have responded was more charity that I at this time could muster.

You are correct it is Catholic Teaching that we are contained in the mystry of Christ with him at calvery, not that he is resacrificed over and over again.

You are correct The Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate conception was a gift of God grace, not something that she on her part had anything to do with obtaining. Very thing about her points to the Lord . Even the title of co-redemtrix only applies as it points to Christ. On the quester terster raised of Queen of Heaven I have to ask in Revelations 12:1 to whom is this talking to if not the BVM. Also Does not Christ say that we are all to be preist, prophets, and kings? and are we not promised to be crowned in heaven, seems I recall a passage about that?

Teater you know very well that when speaking of Christ presents in communion I was talking about in the Eucharist under the species of the Bread and Wine. not as present withing the community. So you have again sidestepped direct questions. Also I know quite a few Baptist that if you told them that as baptist they beleive that Christ was present in the communion would very quick to correct you on that.

Just so you know I may maybe a cradle catholic, but the Catholics in my family are a small minority. I have a very good understanding of the basic docturine of most of the mainstream protestants denoms. I was a baptist convert myself of a few years before coming back to the Catholic Church. But you keep tring to compare apples and oranges when you compare catholics that argue over what the church teaches and protestants having each having their own belief on what scripture. Also when push comes to shove when confronted with what church teaching is by someone in authority within the Chruch most ( not allas there is one in every bunch) will concede to the Chruch even if they do not like it.

Jon, you are correct in transubstaniation not being explicit in scripture, but the only reason that the the true presents was defined in the western Church was. A) unlike our brothers in the east, men of the west seem not to beable to accept " It a mystery" and must define things. and B) to combate those that denied the presents of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=tester;7242695 Your wording is sloppy;

resorting to personnal attacks? Nice

.

Unfortunately I do not know:
And I don’t have a problem with that at all! I do know that I am not all knowing or in

Well thank you. so lets taking it another step. If Baptist A says that you have to be baptized to be saved, and Baptized B say no you just have to proclaim Chirst are your savior. How am I to know which is correct. the Bible says to look to the Chruch. So which Church. well one Baptist church say one thing about it and the other says something else.

When person or a church claims infallibility based on their infallible interpretation then I would expect them to not only resolve almost EVERY point of disagreement ; but also NEVER be in disagreement with the main and plain things of scripture.

See here you seem to forget that the Chruch and all 3 legs of teaching are infalible. The man withing them are not. you can never look at just one of the legs for the answer. The only person granted with infalibility is the Pope and that does not extend to everything that comes out of his mouth.

The current Catholic Church has so many disagreements with the main and plain things of scripture that it cannot possibly be infallible.

example please.

I reject their claims of infallible interpretation of Scripture.

But you can interpet it correctly?

I reject that a human is the Vicar of Christ. ( the Holy Spirit is)

The Holy spirit is not the Vicar of Chirst. that is close to a denial of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is His own perosn and role with in the God head and does not sit in for your represent eith the Father nor the Son.

I reject the claim that someone is born sinless by nature other than Christ.

Jon answer this quite well, It was by grace not nature.

I reject any belief of a co-redeemer or co mediator

maybe you need to look in to what those teaching are before rejecting them.

I reject that Christ’s perfect sacrifice (bloodless or not) need ever to be repeated.

is not repeated. We are Joined with him at calvery.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

And know this without any doubt.I AM in the TRUE church of Christ along with EVERY believer that has had their old self crucified with Christ who as been reborn as a new creature.

even the Pope say that all christian are apart of the one Church. just some have seperated themselves for full communion.

Why??
Because it is in agreement with main and plain things of scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=tester;7242953]I too take into account the 2000 years of traditions in church history along with reason and experience.

And that you came to a different conclusion about His words fine. I simply disagree.

whether Vicar of Christ or High Priest or co-redeemer or co mediator or Queen of Heaven, mother of God, if there are that many Godly titles applied to humans that seem almost “blasphemous” at first glance, then alarms should start going off…

Mother of God - Holy Theotokos is almost blasphemous? First glance? The Third Ecumenical Council declared it in 431, hardly first glance. It speaks directly to the Incarnation -fully man, fully God at His conception. John Ch. 1.

As for Queen Mother, I have no problem with it, but using the royalty parallel, ISTM it should be Queen Mother of Heaven.

-Saint Tester

Indeed. Saint and Sinner at once. That is an appropriate description of a christian.
Jon

 

[tester]

I reject that Christ’s perfect sacrifice (bloodless or not) need ever to be repeated.

You know that the CC does not teach that and yet you repeat that lie over and over.

Really ?Are you sure you are infallibly interpreting the Magisterium ?(back to the op)

The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin. Please read carefully the following citations from Catholic sources.
If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, **let him be anathema **(Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ…**The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross **because the offering and the priest are the same - Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross…The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were to honor and glorify God; to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; to satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men; to obtain all graces and blessings (Baltimore Catechism).

**As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which ‘Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed’ **(1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366).

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, **but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross **(Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)

It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist,** the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day **(Mysterium Fidei; Encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

So, the Catholic Church officially teaches the Mass is a sacrifice – indeed the very same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary – and it is offered to satisfy God’s justice and atone for sins. During the Mass Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is not only remembered but it is also carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted

So if I directly quote Papal or Magisterial statements :is it a lie?

 

[tester]

Mother of God - Holy Theotokos is almost blasphemous? First glance? The Third Ecumenical Council declared it in 431, hardly first glance. It speaks directly to the Incarnation -fully man, fully God at His conception. John Ch. 1.

I am aware of the distinction between Mother of God and God Bearer (Theotokos)
One title implies authority the other title implies servant.

Will all that Theotokos asks of the God the Son be granted?
Does Theotokos have authorty over the second person of the Trinity (God)?

 

[JonNC]

I am aware of the distinction between Mother of God and God Bearer (Theotokos)
One title implies authority the other title implies servant.

Will all that Theotokos asks of the God the Son be granted?
Does Theotokos have authorty over the second person of the Trinity (God)?

If she “asks”, as you say, there is implied that it is a request, not a demand. Of couse she does not have authority over the Savior. I don’t recall any Catholic stating otherwise. And I as a Lutheran certainly don’t believe it.

I do believe she is God Bearer, Mother of God.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I am aware of the distinction between Mother of God and God Bearer (Theotokos)
One title implies authority the other title implies servant.

Will all that Theotokos asks of the God the Son be granted?
Does Theotokos have authorty over the second person of the Trinity (God)?

Look to the Bible for your answer here. It is all shown in the wedding at canna. they went to Mary, then went to Jesus with the problem, she did not tell him to fix it or any thing just what the problem was and then what did she do. she looked that those in attendence and said do what he tells you to do. That is her role to present your issue to the father and the Son, the to direct us to do what they tell us to do. it not a very complicated thing to understand.

 

[tester]

a quick google of “mary our advocate” return many Catholic sites stateing some thing like…
all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/mary-advocate.html

The Son will Grant All that His Mother Asks

…Mary’s power is greater than all the saints combined, for as Queen Mother and Advocate,** her Son Jesus refuses her nothing**. In the Church-approved Revelations of Our Lord to St.Bridget, St. Bridget heard Jesus say to His mother: “Ask of me what thou wilt, for no petition of thine can be void.”

In the wedding feast of Cana, Jesus, in a dramatic way, gave a concrete, tangible proof to Mary’s role as Advocate and Mediatrix, by granting Mary’s request to turn the water into wine.

It is impossible for the Son to refuse the Mother anything, because everything that the Mother asks for from the Son is always in conformity with His will. Mary is the masterpiece of the Holy Spirit: her union with God is so perfect, so much so that her entire will, her mind, and her heart are always in conformity with the will, mind and heart of God.

and here:
catholictradition.org/Mary/glories6.htm#38

At the command of Mary all obey, even God.

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

Does the Magisterium agree with that?