You're right on all counts, of course.
God bless and keep you and everyone you love.
Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
“her ability to intercede for them with her Son,”
Christians have a direct line to God, they don’t need a lobbyist, and the scripture makes it clear that no one gets through without HIM (Jesus)
I have lost faith in you.
oh that faith that lasted what 10 minutes?
what a laugh.
St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen..
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Beelzebub.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.......The apostles could only declare what was ALREADY THE TRUTH....Now, the apostles, of course did not know every truth that God did....but He promised that what they declared to be the truth, would be OR HE WOULD NOT INSPIRE THEM to declare it.
In short, He declared that the Catholic church would be infallible in matters of faith and morals because He would not allow her to err.....
Thanks,CB you expressed that very well!!!
I don't think you have standing.
You just seem to ignore the facts and the information that is presented to you, and you just come with rash statements that are not in context.
See posting 642, 626 and 401. The link will send you to the Catholic Bishops website where you can get knowledge about the Catholic faith.
You must be assuming that everything that Jesus and the Apostles did was written in the Bible. As Catholics, we also have our traditions and the Magisterium to help us understand moral law and follow the path of Christ.
In this case, the English word “secret” means private. Any visions had by any saint, are referred to as private revelation, and are neither sanctioned nor required for belief. There are very, very, few officially sanctioned apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima. Rather, private revelations, provided they aren’t contrary to Gospel, are neither promoted nor suppressed.
Specific to St. Louis de Monfort, his understanding of Mary, and his writings, seem rather extreme. Having read some of his complete works, I was put off until I re-read them, and really thought about what he was saying. As a 17th century French priest, I didn’t care for his style of writing, and again, found it off-putting. History tells us his zeal for preaching and serving the poor was equal to his quick temper and being less than a “people person” to those not in need.
Regarding his work, the Secret of Mary, he was attempting to explain (in a stylistically peculiar way for modern people) the role of Mary relative to Jesus. Typical for his time and place, he was taught and believed in showing great respect for angels, especially Guardian Angels.
This connection to the realm behind the veil, influenced his thinking and writing. He observed the spiritual role of Mary, and wrote about it, giving his view of why she is so important to our prayer lives. He writes about imitating Mary as the first disciple, and as one who never, ever, questioned the divinity of Jesus, while staying with him throughout his passion.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the first requirement is to understand that all prayer, worship, is for the glory of God, and for our only saviour, Jesus Christ.
What St. Louis is calling us to do is have the same faith as Mary, the same dedication, and the absolute trust. Mary always, always, points to Jesus. The Gospel of John quotes her as telling the wedding stewards of Jesus, “whatever he says, do it.” That is perfect trust and belief. That is the discovery St. Louis is speaking of, to know Mary means to have the perfect trust and belief.
While I really understand why you interpret the work as you do, and it is reasonable you do so, please recognize there is a lot more meaning than what you may think.
Finally, St. Louis always indicates, and assumes the reader knows and understands, the unquestionable primacy of God. That is why he mentions it once or twice, instead of every section.
Many Catholics haven’t read his works, for the reasons I mentioned above, including having the patience. However, if taken in the spirit in which it was written, to give people a way to grow closer to Jesus, than it is not likely to be understood as blasphemy, as he would dare not mean such.
But you will be dead, as will each and everyone of us. And you are not a saint until judged by God. To assume otherwise is a dangerous assumption.
Is Father Amorth still alive?
It looks like you have been doing that all along! But, go ahead and revenge post to me if it will make you feel better. It's YOUR reputation at stake, not mine.
I think you should reexamine your claim to have "For the Greater Glory of God" as your sign-off. There are many things that you say here to people that have NOTHING to do with glorifying God. And, I will repeat, Elsie has just as much right to post on an open forum thread as you do. Don't like what he says, don't read it. How hard is that?
Why do you always end with the Jesuit motto. Are you a Jesuit? Or just a Satanist?
Pretzels!
Oh goodness. What about the Catholic Reformation (or you might call it the Counter-Reformation)?
What the heck was that all about?
Curious phrasing. Seeing as how the daily modus operandi of the protestant contingent is to mock the Catholic and His/Her Church.
If one actually reviews the Catholic vs. Protestant threads they will find that the dominant group dynamic consists of posts between protestants mocking Catholics.
And the protestant wonders why the Catholic does not give greater consideration to the "fellow Freeper" group dynamic. I mean if we're being honest why should they? When the standard response to a Catholic objecting is, "If you don't like it don't read it." That's not the response of an individual seeking harmony within the group even if they have theological differences.
So you'll forgive me if I find the concern for the "fellow Freeper" dynamic disingenuous.
“In short, He declared that the Catholic church would be infallible in matters of faith and morals because He would not allow her to err.....”
Try reading the first three chaps of Rev and you will realize how impossibly wrong your comment is.
This should be a lot of fun...there are many clues.
Prizes from LS'98 are...
Hey LS'98...tell us what we won!
Wow....just wow. You guys have to redefine everything.
Worship doesn't mean worship
Prayer doesn't mean prayer
Unanimous doesn't mean unanimous
Secret doesn't mean secret
It never stops with catholicism redefining everything to make it fit the narrative
Yet when shown the Greek, catholics discount that. Something verifiable and able to be proved.
Please see: Immaculate conception
Please see: Romans 3:23...all have sinned.
God's Word does not err, yet man does.
Thank you. Glad to hear you are on the mend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.