PETRONSKI: What? Your post? It simply does not say what you claim it says.
Again, read the excerpt...
God willed that Mary should be intimately associated with His Son in bearing the burden of all sin; surely then, her Immaculate Heart, in union with His divine Heart, should receive reparation from us who have caused them such pain.
Mary bears the burden of our sins with Christ, and therefore she "deserves" "reparation."
Ungodly lies that direct our eyes from Christ alone back onto the creature. There are few sins greater.
Doesn't say that.
Mary should be intimately associated with His Son in bearing the burden of all sin...
It says she should be intimately associated with...
I'd explain it to you again, but you do not believe Mary had the choice--the free will--to say no, so the explanation would be lost on you.
You claimed it says "There it is. Mary "bears the burden of all sin." Blasphemy and lies."
Now everyone can see the difference.
Mary bears the burden of our sins with Christ, and therefore she "deserves" "reparation."
Ungodly lies that direct our eyes from Christ alone back onto the creature. There are few sins greater.
Thanks for the ping. This stuff is unbelievable. I was thinking of some of your findings from yesterday and your efforts to point out what these RC writings are saying. Yet those efforts seem to fall on deaf ears. It's little wonder that the Word of God has no effect when words don't seem to have any meaning. We come to a point where the debate starts to seem a bit futile.