But addressing the brown scapular specifically, what you're quoting needs to be interpreted in context, as cautioned to Catholics who misunderstand the scapular here, specifically addressing the quote you cite: "This must not be understood superstitiously or magically, but in light of Catholic teaching that perseverance in faith, hope and love are required for salvation. The scapular is a powerful reminder of this Christian obligation and of Mary's promise to help those consecrated to her obtain the grace of final perseverance." To elaborate, the Catholic Church classifies the scapular as a sacramental. A sacramental does not convey the grace of a sacrament and does not have salvific power in itself. The priviledges mentioned in the quote you cited depend on the wearer remaining in a state of grace--remaining under the protection of the "shield of faith" from Ephesians. The scapular protects faith. It is a reminder to reinforce faith, which is how it is similar to the clothing accessories mentioned in the Deuteronomy passage I referenced.
As for proper Biblical exegesis, if I were doing exegesis, I would be reviewing the rabbinical rules for exegesis, diagramming sentence structures and key words in Hebrew, discussing the authorship and audience of the passage, considering the literary and historical context, reviewing the history of the interpretation of the passage in commentaries and scholarly articles, etc. Simply referencing a footnote is not doing exegesis.
If we're living under the OT you may have an argument. But we're under the NT...at least Christians are...Roman Catholics I'm not sure sometimes. Further, the OT passage you reference doesn't make the claim made by the apparition so the appeal to the OT fails.
Also, look at the Levitical priestly clothing prescriptions and especially at the passages on the armor of God in Ephesians and Colossians. The scapular was called a "shield" centuries before the brown scapular was introduced, with reference to the "shield of faith" Paul mentions in Ephesians, a passage in turn referencing OT passages such as Isaiah 59:16-19.
When Paul mentions the shield of faith he doesn't mean an actual physical shield as this is the shield of faith.
His ultimate appeal though in this passage is to the Word of God. No mention of "tradition".
You've completely taken Isaiah out of context which is not unusual for a Catholic to do to justify their beliefs.
But addressing the brown scapular specifically, what you're quoting needs to be interpreted in context, as cautioned to Catholics who misunderstand the scapular here, specifically addressing the quote you cite: "This must not be understood superstitiously or magically, but in light of Catholic teaching that perseverance in faith, hope and love are required for salvation.
The Catholic tries to disguise this form of idolatry with a lot of qualifications. That should tell you you're on sinking sand.
However, the apparition didn't give those disclaimers when it made the statement.
A sacramental does not convey the grace of a sacrament and does not have salvific power in itself. The priviledges mentioned in the quote you cited depend on the wearer remaining in a state of grace--remaining under the protection of the "shield of faith" from Ephesians. The scapular protects faith. It is a reminder to reinforce faith, which is how it is similar to the clothing accessories mentioned in the Deuteronomy passage I referenced.
Again, the apparition did not give those disclaimers.
The clothing passages in Deuteronomy did not promise salvation from the hell-fire as the apparition did.
That's difference number one and in itself should be enough.
However, the Catholic seems to want to live under the OT Laws with the sacrifices and a priesthood that has to offer a sacrifice via the Mass. None of which is found in the NT.
We have nothing in the NT to suggest we should be wearing a piece of cloth to protect us from the hell-fire as told by the apparition.
The appeal to Deut for support of this fails.
As for proper Biblical exegesis, if I were doing exegesis, I would be reviewing the rabbinical rules for exegesis, diagramming sentence structures and key words in Hebrew, discussing the authorship and audience of the passage, considering the literary and historical context, reviewing the history of the interpretation of the passage in commentaries and scholarly articles, etc. Simply referencing a footnote is not doing exegesis.
Roman Catholicism has done none of this in consideration of the "promise" of the apparition. If it did it would have rejected this "promise" centuries ago.
Walking back what MARY plainly said?
Shameful!!