Question about the total consecration to Jesus through Maty

[Steveabrous]

Thanks, everyone, for replying. The reason I ask is I have a list of people I know who have passed. I go down the least, each day is a new person I pray for and earn indulegences for.in light of the consecration does anyone have a suggestion on how to word morning offering for each day?

 

[Kaliaa]

When I perform actions that have indulgences attached to them, I do them as normal including the names of people I am doing them for (if it’s specific) and at the end I simply tell Mary that even though I’ve prayed for some specific action/person I still commit all of my merits to her to do with as she wills including what I just completed.

She knows all that, of course, but it keeps me ever mindful of my consecration.

I think you can include anything in this, rosaries, First Saturdays, spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and any other devotion that you like doing. Nothing is left out. Nothing is lost. Nothing and no one is forgotten. All to Jesus through Mary.

 

[BroIgnatius]

You could do with stopping in your efforts to publicly shame the very special consecration to Our Lady, and furthermore, using the Pope and Our Lady, herself, to do so.

I agree. Roseeurekacross is actually coming close to technically committing blasphemy, albeit through ignorance and by not listening when she is corrected, or perhaps that is pride, I do not know. In any event, I think it is about time for the ignore button

 

[friardchips]

I agree. Roseeurekacross is actually coming close to technically committing blasphemy, albeit through ignorance and by not listening when she is corrected, or perhaps that is pride, I do not know. In any event, I think it is about time for the ignore button

WADR, I would ignore the ‘ignore’ button. I personally don’t think it is a good way of sorting something out. :twocents:

 

[BroIgnatius]

WADR, I would ignore the ‘ignore’ button. I personally don’t think it is a good way of sorting something out. :twocents:

Well, St. Paul said it was a good way, several times. So have several saints.

P.S. What is “WADR”. Abbreviations are useless unless everyone including a man in the deep of the Amazon knows it. and is rather discourteous, especially if it is texting non-language, which is an abomination to the English language and the purview of the immature.

 

[friardchips]

Well, St. Paul said it was a good way, several times. So have several saints.

St. Paul never said to ignore people. He said, to brush the dust off and walk on, if people don’t accept their peace. No doubt, if those people came after him or other apostles and disciples, to join them, then they surely would not have not turned them away or ignored them.

P.S. What is “WADR”. Abbreviations are useless unless everyone including a man in the deep of the Amazon knows it. and is rather discourteous, especially if it is texting non-language, which is an abomination to the English language and the purview of the immature.

Quite apt for the thread and our personal dialogue:

‘With all due respect’.

 

[friardchips]

St. Paul never said to ignore people. He said, to brush the dust off and walk on, if people don’t accept their peace. No doubt, if those people came after him or other apostles and disciples, to join them, then they surely would not have not turned them away or ignored them.

Quite apt for the thread and our personal dialogue:

‘With all due respect’.

Sorry, Jesus said, to brush the dust off…

 

[BroIgnatius]

St. Paul never said to ignore people. He said, to brush the dust off and walk on, if people don’t accept their peace. No doubt, if those people came after him or other apostles and disciples, to join them, then they surely would not have not turned them away or ignored them.

Quite apt for the thread and our personal dialogue:

‘With all due respect’.

When people begin a sentence “with all due respect” what comes next is usually nothing resembling respect.

Paul never said to ignore people? You obviously are ignorant of the bible. St. Paul said to shun certain people. Shunning is ignoring. Titus 3:10-11,* “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice,** have nothing more to do with him**, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”*

He also said that we are not even to have supper with certain people. That is ignoring people, I Corinthians 5:1,* "But rather I wrote to you **not to associate *with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one."

The Father of the Prodigal Son said his son was dead to him. That is ignoring, too. But, when the Father saw his son coming home (repenting) he accepted him with open arms.

So do we with those whom we may ignore.

It is a straw man fallacy to make the false argument of “No doubt, if those people came after him or other apostles and disciples, to join them.” as a rebuttal to this point. Those people coming after the apostle are REPENTING.

Obviously, we accept back the repentant. That is the one of the purposes of excommunication and the one of the purposes of ignoring people – to let them know their behavior is egregious enough to warrant the shunning in hopes that they will repent.

That is God’s economy. I do not care, nor does God, about your personal political correct nonsense opinions.

Learn your bible.

There is another reason to ignore people – to protect one’s own spiritual health and peace in Christ.

 

[friardchips]

When people begin a sentence “with all due respect” what comes next is usually nothing resembling respect.

Exactly: at least the either person in this thread can claim ignorance, but you seemingly have memory of Scripture, and yet continue show it, in another way; so, does this mean that I am to ignore you, on the say-so of Scripture?

And no, it is not a ‘strawman argument’ to say that an ‘ignore’ button does not allow for reconciliation and change, as we are told that if someone apologizes we are to forgive them, and in another part of Scripture, we are told that if we successfully correct a person then then we have won a brother (or sister). Ignoring people for good doesn’t really allow for that; therefore, your apparent knowledge of St. Paul doesn’t really concur with this thread, the circumstances, and it rather overtakes your knowledge of the Gospels, also.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Exactly: at least the either person in this thread can claim ignorance, but you seemingly have memory of Scripture, and yet continue show it, in another way; so, does this mean that I am to ignore you, on the say-so of Scripture?

And no, it is not a ‘strawman argument’ to say that an ‘ignore’ button does not allow for reconciliation and change, as we are told that if someone apologizes we are to forgive them, and in another part of Scripture, we are told that if we successfully correct a person then then we have won a brother (or sister). Ignoring people for good doesn’t really allow for that; therefore, your apparent knowledge of St. Paul doesn’t really concur with this thread, the circumstances, and it rather overtakes your knowledge of the Gospels.

My points are not contrary to Scripture. Your understanding is only serving your opinion. There is no contradictions in what St. Paul teaches, but different situations. The fact that you are offering this logical fallacy means that you are not an honorable person, but just trying to bash me for using ignore, and ignoring that St. Paul taught us to shun some people, thereby qualifying for the ignore button yourself. I have no patience with cafeteria Catholics or cafeteria bible readers, and neither did Jesus. Look up what he said about the lukewarm.

By the way, I have taken people off ignore once the repented. So, again your argument is blather.

I guess Catholic Answers is evil for providing us with the ignore function, eh?

You are on ignore, bubba, as you are not worth my time.

 

[friardchips]

To make my point as clearly as I can, I am going to reference your post out of the order written:

He also said that we are not even to have supper with certain people. That is ignoring people, I Corinthians 5:1,* “But rather I wrote to you **not to associate ***with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.”

• this is out of context. We do not know that this person has done some or any of these things. They do not understand and seem to relay the same info. but I dare not pronounce the guilt of a poster in this way referenced as if I know them? They may annoying at times but I dare not judge presumptuously.

Paul never said to ignore people? You obviously are ignorant of the bible. St. Paul said to shun certain people. Shunning is ignoring. Titus 3:10-11,* “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice,** have nothing more to do with him***, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

I think this is a good opportunity to write this out in full:

*Titus 3 -

“Remind them that it is their duty to be obedient to the officials and representatives of the government (not exactly relevant here)…;to be ready to do good at every opportunity; not to go slandering other people or picking quarrels…”*

…but to be courteous and always polite to all kinds of people…

…Remember when you were ignorant, disobedient and misled and enslaved by different passions and luxuries;…

…in wickedness and ill-will, hating each other and hateful of ourselves.

It goes on:

*'Personal Advice to Titus -

"I want you to be quite uncompromising in teaching all this…(regarding the previous context)*…, so that those who now believe in God may keep their minds constantly occupied in doing good works. All this is good, and will do nothing but good to everybody. *

But avoid pointless speculations, and those genealogies, and the quibbles and disputes about the Law - these are useless and can do no good to anyone. If a man disputes what you teach, then after…"*

In other words, the context which he was talking about is not the context of this thread. And if anything, warns about being discourteous. I do not think ignoring people is a compassionate stance to take.

My Bible referencing and knowledge is fine, by the way.

Thank you.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually, not so much. As is typical among so many, you fail to see the biblical and theological principles of the passages, and instead approach them on surface level much like a Protestant.

But, if you wish to continue in this wildly trivial issue of using the ignore button, go right ahead. Your discourtesy and arrogance in this is overwhelming. I am out of this conversation and I reject your attempts to accuse me of some wrong-doing that Scripture plainly states is proper, just because you disagree with it. If you do not wish to use it, then don’t. But, do not act like a Pharisee in accusing others who disagree with you as acting with discourtesy or lack of compassion. It is because of compassion that we ignore.

I will continue to use the ignore feature when the Holy Spirit directs. Whether or not I do, is flatly none of your business.

Goodbye.

 

[friardchips]

I proved my point.

Nothing more to be said.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I proved my point.

Nothing more to be said.

And I proved my point in concert with the Bible and some Saints