The NT fulfills the OT: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. . ." (2 Timothy 3:16)"--the "Scripture" referred to here is the OT, since the NT was still in the process of being written. For most of the first century, "Scripture" for Christians meant the Septuagint translation of the OT. The NT writers frequently invoked the OT to draw lessons for Christians. There is nothing un-Christian about applying Deuteronomy 6:8-9 by using accessories to remind us of what Scripture teaches and of our commitment to live out what it teaches. If you want to carry around Scripture there's no problem with that.
However, the apparition made a specific promise to those who wear the brown scapular.(I forgot there's a green one also plus a medal Catholics can wear).
While reading Deuteronomy is highly recommended, the attempt to justify the promise of the apparition regarding the Scapular with Deuteronomy 6:8 fails.
The apparition made a specific promise based on wearing the scapular.
It is a reach to draw that it's "OK" to do so from Deuteronomy when no promise is made in the passage in question.
This is not the first false promise from the apparition claiming to be Mary. The apparition at Fatima made a number of false promises also.
I did not say Paul was talking about a physical shield. But what we do physically affects what we do internally, and a physical reminder can serve as an effective way to reinforce our internal disposition to be faithful to Christ, just as flash cards can help us memorize Scriptures.
Again, the promise by the apparition is not a "reminder".
“WHOSOEVER DIES IN THIS GARMENT SHALL NOT SUFFER ETERNAL FIRE.”
That's pretty clear. It's not some "little reminder".
I did not take Isaiah out of context. I mentioned that Paul alludes to it, which is noted by most annotated Bibles as well. And I do not think Paul was taking it out of context. He was familiar with some ancient exegetical and hermeneutical principles which are unfamiliar to most Bible readers today, though.
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.
Your post gives the impression you are attempting to link these together...that is justifying the Scapular with Isaiah and Ephesians.
Regarding the apparition that made the promises about the brown scapular, the historical context is that this was spoken to a Carmelite monk who was already familiar with the qualifying disclaimers I mentioned.
However, the apparition made a specific promise which was clearly understood by the monk.
The wording of the promises is meant to be interpreted in the context of how the Carmelites defined these terms, not how 21st-century readers define them upon casual reading.
Yet the apparition does not offer such a disclaimer.Apparently many Roman Catholics today believe the promise of the apparition.
Moreover, this type of apparition has to be approved by Church authorities for its message to be authorized for Catholics, and during this approval process, such qualifications are factored in before approval. No informed Catholic theologian thinks that merely wearing the scapular will save you from hellfire, and wearing it with this attitude without regard for one's interior spiritual state and corresponding external actions will not convey any benefits.
“One day through the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the World,” the Blessed Virgin Mary told Saint Dominic. Our Lady of Fatima during the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917, held out the Brown Scapular. She wants us all to wear it always and to pray at least five decades of the Most Holy Rosary each day. Every Pope since the year 1280 A.D. has worn the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/brown_scapular.pdf
This is how fatima.org portrays the Scapular.
Still, you can hardly avoid every venial sin, no matter how hard you try. And if you’re smart, your purgatory can be shortened almost to nothing. All you have to do is get yourself a ticket marked, “Shortcut to Heaven”.http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/brown_scapular.pdf
Those placing their faith in a piece of cloth have clearly rejected the promise of Christ in John 5:24:
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
My reference to Deuteronomy was explaining the background of scapulars in general, not the brown scapular in particular. Scapulars in general have no promises attached to them. They are most fundamentally part of a monk's clothing uniform. They also came to take on a symbolic significance as reminders. The "shield" symbolism I have been discussing was one aspect of their symbolic significance. They were also symbolically thought of as "yokes", as reminders of Christ's statement, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart. . ." (Matthew 11:29)
This was part of the historical context of the apparition's original statement. The original statement was directed to a Carmelite monk, and what you're quoting is only part of the original full statement by the apparition, which we only have today from second-hand sources (there was one writer who compiled all existing historical accounts in the late 14th century, and we are dependent on his summary of the records--we do not have the original documents today). The wording as transmitted is using language familiar to medieval monks. It is making a promise conditional upon the monk remaining faithful to their vows, which is the meaning of the phrase the site you are quoting has translated as "dies in this garment"--i.e., dies faithful to their vows, as a monk's scapular was symbolic of their vows and taking it off literally or symbolically was equivalent to abandoning their vows. The wording "dies in this garment" indicates the original context where the monk was literally wearing a large scapular, which was how the brown scapular was used in its first several centuries of existence. The smaller version of the scapular more familiar to laity today was not distributed to non-monks until about three centuries after the original apparition. Its use by monks and its later distribution to non-monks would have been conditional upon approval by whatever church authorities had jurisdiction over such things at the time, and they would not have approved anything they interpreted as contradicting Scripture, which would have excluded a simplistic "if you wear this you will be saved no matter what you do spiritually" interpretation of the apparition's statement. An educated and Scripturally well-versed Carmelite such as St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross would have balked at an interpretation so patently contradictory to official Catholic teaching.
Likewise, there was a 13-year investigation of Fatima before church authorities deemed it credible, a decision that was premised on a finding of consistency between the apparition's statements and orthodox teaching. The promises of Fatima are premised upon fidelity to Christ. The "shortcut to heaven" passage from the essay at fatima.org you quote, which is a summary geared towards laymen rather than a technically-precise theological document, is not commending "faith in a piece of cloth". Being saved from hell and avoiding purgatory are two different things, and faith in Christ is required for either in Catholic teaching. You do not get to heaven by merely wearing a piece of cloth. Wearing the cloth is an expression of faith and commitment to internal spiritual fidelity, and the promises attached to it are conditional upon perseverance in faith.