Posted on 04/22/2012 11:23:32 AM PDT by NYer
I would be interested in seeing how Metmom feels they are different and how she thinks my characterization differs from faith as revealed in the total context of Scripture.
What is clear to the believing Christian is that with faith we can convert every evil act promulgated by Satan into a victory for God. Nothing in the history of man was more evil than deicide, yet it lead to the Resurrection and no sin against us fails to glorify God when we forgive.
Right on target.
BTW Here’s another blasphemous quote from one of Ligouri’s writings. I’ll even give you the link to go read it yourself.
'It is a great thing in any saint that he should have grace enough for the salvation of many beside himself; but if he had enough for the salvation of all men, this would be the greatest of all; and this is the case with Christ, and with the Blessed Virgin.' {http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/mustpray.htm}
Putting Mary on an equal basis with Christ is pure blasphemy.
Thank you, Elk. You too.
You wrote:
“OMG! It just dawned on me that you have no clue as to where that quote came from or in what context it was said.”
I know exactly where the original of the quote in question came from because you told me where it came from.
In post #144 you wrote: “Statement by catholic Bishop Liqouri “.......We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.....” She...is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help””
So, you claimed it was from “catholic Bishop Liqouri”. Are you now claiming a different source? Your buddy Lera claims to have given you the book:
“He has the book . I gave him Ligouri’s book myself so don’t accuse him of going to any anti catholic site .” Post # 199.
Which one of you is betelling the truth? It can’t be both since you are now contradicting each other. Do you claim the quote came from Ligouri - as you originally claimed and as Lera said as well - or are you NOW claiming it came from somewhere else? Which is it?
Now, which anti-Catholic website you lifted the deceptively cut quote from I don’t know. But it is clear that the quote as you posted it never appeared in any writing from Ligouri.
“Are you just hoping that it was taken out of context or trying to insinuate hoping others reading this have doubts?”
Read posts #151 and #217 where I prove it was taken out of context.
“If you can’t show that you know the context of that quote this conversation is over.”
Again, I already showed that Ligouri was quoting St. Anselm and Bernadine de Bustis. Strange how you didn’t mention that.
“BTW Here’s another blasphemous quote from one of Ligouri’s writings. I’ll even give you the link to go read it yourself.”
There’s no blasphemy written by Ligouri.
“Putting Mary on an equal basis with Christ is pure blasphemy.”
And as I demonstrated many posts ago, that isn’t what Ligouri did. I also demonstrated that you got the deceptively cut quote from an anti-Catholic website (since no published copy of Ligouri puts the passage in caps).
No, it’s a recognition that rather than address the text or issue Catholics always try to deflect by using the “it comes from an anti Catholic site” as if simply because someone disagrees with you that statement is somehow going to hide the fact that Catholics can’t address the issue.
Give it up. The caps are used to point out the parts of the passage that we disagree with. It’s as simple as that. Also, Ligouri quotes those in agreement or in substantiation of what he is trying to get across. Ligouri certainly doesn’t disagree with the original quote, he is stressing it and using it as evidence. It’s still being used as a position the RCC holds is it not?
>> The question is when will you admit the source of the quote?<<
Ligouri.
>> That’s rich when it is becoming all the more obvious you lifted the quote from an anti-Catholic website.<<
LOL And all of those sites reference his book right? So it came from his book. Right?
You wrote:
“No, it’s a recognition that rather than address the text or issue Catholics always try to deflect by using the “it comes from an anti Catholic site” as if simply because someone disagrees with you that statement is somehow going to hide the fact that Catholics can’t address the issue.”
No. I showed that you claimed one thing (that you did not get it from a website), but that is not so. It clearly is from a website. Anti-Catholics, of course, apparently don’t care about their own dishonesty. I addressed what you posted and even discovered more than you probably wanted anyone to know.
“Give it up. The caps are used to point out the parts of the passage that we disagree with.”
In reality, some anti-Catholic took the quote out of context (i.e. didn’t mention who actually said the quotes: St. Anselm and Bernadine de Bustis; deceptively cut the quote) and added caps not in the original. You posted it here. Your buddy Lera claims you got it from a copy of the book he sent you. You contradict one another with your actions and words. Typical.
“It’s as simple as that.”
Yes it is simple. You got the quote from an anti-Catholic website. You apparently did not know the original context of the quotes.
“Also, Ligouri quotes those in agreement or in substantiation of what he is trying to get across. Ligouri certainly doesn’t disagree with the original quote, he is stressing it and using it as evidence. It’s still being used as a position the RCC holds is it not?”
What you posted is not what Ligouri wrote. If you posted it properly, there would be no problem.
“Ligouri.”
No, it was clearly an anti-Catholic website. That has already been shown. You had your chance. Now, nothing you post can be taken as veritable.
“LOL And all of those sites reference his book right? So it came from his book. Right?”
No. Those who added caps did not get it from his book. Neither did you. I don’t expect you to tell the truth about it. The evidence is plain.
So your beef is that I used caps to highlight the portion I wanted to bring attention to? Seriously? I think I’m done with you. See ya.
You wrote:
“So your beef is that I used caps to highlight the portion I wanted to bring attention to? Seriously?”
No, my “beef” is the typical anti-Catholic dishonesty.
“I think I’m done with you. See ya.”
You were done from the beginning. You never had a chance. When an anti-Catholic has no evidence for his claims and isn’t truthful about where he got what he calls his evidence, he’s done from the start.
Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not attribute motive and are therefore not "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I must admit that one has to work pretty hard to extrapolate the above comment into a personal attack or an accusation of lying or to differentiate it from the categorical ad hominems thrown at Catholics, Rome, Papists, and RCs on a daily basis. Like playoff hockey you ought to just let this play out.
Peace be with you.
The problem was with the last paragraph, not the one you quoted.
You’re getting much to deep. vladimir998 has been telling me that he is much more concerned that I inserted all caps where they were not in the book.
You wrote:
“How is telling you I gave him the book admitting that he is deceptively quoting from it ?”
As I already showed CynicalBear posted a quote that was not said by Ligouri but is made up of quotes from two other men (Anselm and Bernadino de Bustis). CynicalBear used exactly the same punctuation, exactly the same non-standard caps, exactly the same ellipses, exactly the same wording for the quotes as found on several anti-Catholic websites. The origin of what CynicalBear posted is obvious.
“To say such is thing is to put words in my mouth that I did not say ... it’s called telling a nasty little fib dude . Did not your momma teach you better than that ?”
I clearly was right.
“Since your making such a fuss about where he got it I will pick a random quote out of the book for you myself .
Here you go....”
You go ahead. The way I look at it, when dealing with people who do what has been done by the anti-Catholics here, I have no reason to take you seriously anyway.
“So Liguori says Mary was appointed our advocate now lets see who the Bible says is our advocate”
That in no way contradicts 1 John. Christ is our advocate. Mary serves Him and for love of Him she advocates for us. There’s no contradiction.
“Which one are you going to trust ? God’s word or what some man said ?”
I trust God - and Ligouri is not contradicting Him in the least.
“The book is full of blasphemies .”
No, but in the hands of the ignorant it might be viewed that way. Much like I’ve heard some say that about the New Testament.
You wrote:
“You’re getting much to deep. vladimir998 has been telling me that he is much more concerned that I inserted all caps where they were not in the book.”
That’s false. You did not “insert caps”. You lifted the quote from a website. That’s patently obvious.
Who wrote this? Because God certainly didn't. Was it you, vladimir? And you cannot see the contradiction here? It is called ADDING TO GOD'S WORD. God never said it. You or whoever said it just added your own thoughts, inserted Mary into the Scripture, and changed God's word of truth into a lie. Mary does NOT advocate for us. Unless you can show from the Bible God saying she does.
"For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5.
You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You put words into God's mouth that He did not say. It's called telling a nasty little fib dude. Did not your CCC teach you better than that?
You wrote:
“Who wrote this? Because God certainly didn’t. Was it you, vladimir?”
Yes, I wrote it and it is true.
“And you cannot see the contradiction here?”
There is no contradiction.
“It is called ADDING TO GOD’S WORD.”
I added nothing.
” God never said it.”
I never said he did. You are falsely accusing me of something I never did.
“You or whoever said it just added your own thoughts, inserted Mary into the Scripture, and changed God’s word of truth into a lie.”
False. Show me where I inserted Mary into scripture. When you fail - and you will - to show where I inserted Mary into scripture what will that tell us about you?
“Mary does NOT advocate for us.”
All the saints do.
“Unless you can show from the Bible God saying she does.”
I do not hold the false 16th century heresy of sola scriptura. Not all truths are explicitly in scripture.
“For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim. 2:5.
Nothing I said contradicts that in the least.
“You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.”
Nope. I am not claiming a quote existed as is when it never did. I am not claiming that I found a quote in a book when I actually found it on an anti-Catholic website.
“You put words into God’s mouth that He did not say.”
Completely false. Show me where I said, “God said...” It never ceases to amaze me how anti-Catholics create these falsehoods out of thin air.
“It’s called telling a nasty little fib dude. Did not your CCC teach you better than that?”
I told no fib, nor lie. Unlike the anti-Catholics here. I think you know that too. How sad for your soul.
You took 1 John 2:1 that spoke exclusively of Jesus Christ as our advocate with the Father, and "ergo-ed" Mary into the Scripture because of her love of Him, she is an advocate for us. You most certainly DID add to 1 John 2:1. With your own words. God tells us who the advocate is, and you add Mary as another advocate. That friend, is adding to God's Word.
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.