/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship★

>>651338

>I'm not sure if there has been a single genuine Marian apparition of the actual Biblical Mary. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that every single one of the supernatural apparitions has been demonic.

wow, you totally figured it out. the one Church that claims it is the authentic 2,000 year Church of Jesus Christ and has personally created and guided the vocation of exorcist doesn't know anything about demons or demonic activity!

what's the next part of your master plan?

>>651380

First of all, the apparitions usually don't appear to any clergymen, but to children, poor farmers or something along that line. So any judgement that the Catholic Church makes is relying on second-hand accounts.

>>651398

>Demonic apparitions would never acknowledge Jesus as God

But demons in the bible do that literally all the time. Just look at Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:26-37. Very clearly, Legion acknowledges Jesus is the Son of God, as do demons in many other parts of scripture.

>or tell people to pray more to God

Wouldn't he though? If a demon could deceive people to stay away from the gospel by teaching them repetitious prayers, would he not do just that? Remember that there will be many anti-christs, even Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses tell people to pray to God.

>>651428

Why would a demon teach christians to pray for Christ to save them from hell and to meditate on five moments of the gospel every day for the good of the world? Don't you think that sounds like a kingdom divided against itself?

>>651330 (OP)

I'm usually not that invested in prophecies. I mean, what can you do? Regardless of prophecy, you have to work your personal salvation. I do pray the Fatima prayer before praying the rosary though.

>>651492

>Marian apparitions have actually told people to depend on herself for their eternal salvation.

What? The traditional sabbatine privilege is that she can intercede with her son for sinners before and after their judgment, not that she pay off Adam's debt. No one could even get to that point without the blood of the Son that she recommends we petition for salvation >>651380, and she certainly is not the judge of our souls. Don't go around slandering God's mom if we can just go and google what she actually said.

>>651504

This. It's the lying anti-Mary shill again that thinks people can't pull up obvious facts with a 5 second search on the internet, or in scripture.

>>651504

>>651523

It's not slander against Mary to call out the apparitions for making questionable statements:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

>Equally doubtful would be any suggestion of replacing "Christ our God, long-suffering, all-merciful, all-compassionate, Who loves the righteous and has mercy on sinners," with a distant, impersonal figure of wrath, bent on punishment and vengeance. The apparition of La Salette said, "I can no longer hold back the heavy arm of my Son;" the apparition of Fatima: "… already He is deeply offended." At San Damiano, 1961, 'The Eternal Father is tired, very tired…. He has freed the Demon, who is working havoc. " At Oliveto Citra, Italy, in 1985, again we hear, "I can no longer hold back the righteous arm of my Son."

>The sayings echo the unbalanced but very popular teachings of some of the Latin saints and preachers of the past, whereby Christ's Kingdom of justice was opposed to Mary's Kingdom of Mercy. "If God is angry with a sinner, Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son and saves him" (Alphonsus Liguari). "She is the sure refuge of sinners and criminals from the rigour of the wrath and vengeance of Jesus Christ;" she "binds the power of Jesus Christ to prevent the evil He would do to the guilty" (Jean-Jacques Olier).

>Absurdities from La Salette speak for themselves, with the apparition claiming that she had given the people six days for work and reserved the seventh for herself

>>651560

(cont'd)

http://www.orthodox.org/fatima.htm

>First of all, no one knows who appeared at Fatima. In the first appearance, the apparition made no claim at all to be the Theotokos. Jacinta first identified her as the Virgin Mary, but Lucia initially was doubtful about who the apparition was.

>In later appearances, the apparition did not always specifically claim to be the Mother of God, but rather spoke of itself, rather oddly, as “Our Lady of the Rosary” and the “Immaculate Heart of Mary.”3 In the fifth appearance, the apparition told the children, “In October Our Lord will come, as well as our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world.” This sounds strange to our ears, since it almost seems to imply that these “Ladies” are different people.

>The Roman Catholic tendency to make Mary equal to the Lord is manifested in the second appearance at Fatima, when the apparition promised salvation to all who practice devotion to the Immaculate Heart. It said, “To all those who embrace (devotion to my Immaculate Heart), I promise salvation and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by the way that will lead you to God.”

>As presented in these sources, in the first appearance, the apparition said, “Will you suffer to obtain the conversion of sinners, to repair the blasphemies, as well as all the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary?” In the third appearance, the one in which the conversion of Russia is mentioned, the apparition tells the children, “Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of you, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”1

>But our sins are not committed against the Theotokos, or her heart; they are committed against God, and it is from Him that we must ask forgiveness. It is before Him that we must repent. Certainly, the Theotokos sorrows when she contemplates our sin and disobedience. In reality, not only the Theotokos, but all the saints - indeed all creation - “groans and travails” because of mankind’s sins. As the prodigal son said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee.” But ultimately, God is the One Who has the authority to forgive our sins. For “who can forgive sins, save God alone?” (Mk. 2:7)

>To say, therefore, that we must make “reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary” literally puts her in the place of God, which is to repeat the blasphemy of Satan who wants us to worship the creation, rather than the Creator. Further, in these instances, the apparition is speaking in the language of the late Medieval scholastics, not with the voice of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. The forgiveness of sins and restoration to sonship which mankind received through the voluntary Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ are not the fruit of a legalistic act demanded by some Divine justice; rather, they are a gift freely given as a result of the supreme act of love freely chosen by God to redeem us.

>There is no reparation, no satisfaction - there is nothing that we can do of ourselves to deserve them. This is why Our Lord Jesus Christ became man, suffered, died and rose again - to break down the wall between us and God. Nothing we do, no suffering of ours can replace what He did for us. This is precisely why in the Divine Liturgy, the Priest exclaims, “Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all, and for all.”

>>651562

(cont'd)

>The full significance of the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays is not made clear in the actual Fatima manifestations, but Sister Lucia, the only one of the children to survive to adulthood, claimed to have received a special revelation in 1925 which provided more information about the First Saturdays. Actually, she not only received many later revelations, but there were also several earlier manifestations to her and a group of children in 1915 and 1916. At this time they saw an angel, sometimes called the Angel of Peace or the Angel of Portugal, and received communion from him one time.

>On the occasion of the revelation in 1925, the so-called “Great Promise” was given; this promise states: “I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the object of making reparation to me.” This promise clarifies the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays which was mentioned in the third appearance in July, 1917.

>Now first of all, this reception of communion in Roman Catholic churches is one of the two conditions for the conversion of Russia; but this is obviously unacceptable for Orthodox Christians. Further, the idea that the Theotokos could give one at death “all the graces necessary for salvation” entails a teaching which is completely foreign and contrary to Orthodoxy. The view of grace presented here is the very materialistic one associated with indulgences, as if grace were a commodity which could be stored and distributed; but grace is God’s uncreated energy at work in the world, not something that can be handed out by the saints in exchange for our good works.

>Our calling as Christians is to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in obedience to God in every aspect and moment of our lives; that obedience, possible only with the grace which comes from the new life in Christ which we receive in Baptism, brings us into a new relationship to God. To think that one could purchase one’s salvation by performing a few pious acts on five consecutive Saturdays trivializes the whole Christian life and makes a mockery of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection.

>In point of fact, the First Saturdays are another instance of the parallelism between the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the seventeenth century Margaret-Mary Alacoque received this promise about the Sacred Heart of Jesus by special revelation: “In the greatness of the mercy of my Heart, its all powerful love will give to all those who receive Communion on the first Friday of every month for nine consecutive months, the grace of full repentance that they shall not die under my displeasure nor without receiving the sacraments, and that my Heart shall be their sure refuge at that last hour.”

>>651570

(cont'd)

And if that pic isn't enough to convince you, just do a Google image search for "Our Lady of Mt. Carmel scapular" There are literally several variations of the same thing.

>>651504

>>651523

It's not shilling to shine a light on some oft-overlooked things. It's one thing to really like Mary and another to take counter-Biblical orders from an entity that you think might be the mother of Jesus because who else could it be appearing to people?

The Scapular Promise:

>Take this Scapular. Whosoever dies wearing it shall not suffer eternal fire. It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and pledge of peace.

That "shall not" is pretty absolute, which is why the Church had to add of its own initiative that no, you can't be an unrepentant sinner. Adding the Sabbatical privilege on top of that simply means that the wearer of the scapular won't go to Hell and will be in Heaven by the next Saturday… if you think the promise is reliable, that is.

Though, the scapular is probably not be the best example, because the apparition is from centuries ago and lacking proper documentation. It is however unlikely that the legend got its start without an initial apparition, unless you have an anti-supernatural bias. This in particular because the apparitions have a pattern of behavior that goes through centuries.

Note: Questioning an apparition and its motives is not the same as slandering the person the apparition is pretending to be.

If you make the Mary of the apparitions the center of your devotion, you are risking that your devotion is to someone else than you think it is.

>>651564

>The sayings echo the unbalanced but very popular teachings of some of the Latin saints and preachers of the past, whereby Christ's Kingdom of justice was opposed to Mary's Kingdom of Mercy.

If he could back up those claims that a theology I've never heard was widespread of then maybe I'd buy it, for all I know he may be right. To draw connections between a 19th-century child's vision and medieval theology is absurd. Equally absurd is to claim that God's kingdom is one of justice alone and that Mary has a kingdom at all, which is not actually implicit in the quote. Mary proved that her intercession can move the hand of her son at Cana, she swayed the very will of God with a word. There is no reason to think that she has lost that ability and to offer it up for us at the command of God is an unspeakable blessing.

>>651562

>This sounds strange to our ears, since it almost seems to imply that these “Ladies” are different people.

If he can't develop that point then "seems" is as far as it can go.

>The Roman Catholic tendency to make Mary equal to the Lord.

Surely an orthodox should know of the dulia vs latria distinction. Obviously, there is more nuance to his critique, but just the thought that anyone would compare the finite to the infinite is heresy most foul. A theologian should do better than to resort to such low blows.

>But our sins are not committed against the Theotokos, or her heart; they are committed against God, and it is from Him that we must ask forgiveness.

This is certainly true, which is why she asks for reparations and not forgiveness. It would be negligent, however, to forget that any sins committed against the littlest of God's children are sins committed against Him. Imagine how much more offensive sins committed against his Mother are in the eyes of God? Her soul magnifies the Lord, in mercy and in wrath.

>>651564

>Further, the idea that the Theotokos could give one at death “all the graces necessary for salvation” entails a teaching which is completely foreign and contrary to Orthodoxy. The view of grace presented here is the very materialistic one associated with indulgences, as if grace were a commodity which could be stored and distributed; but grace is God’s uncreated energy at work in the world, not something that can be handed out by the saints in exchange for our good works.

The personal intercession of a creature with God is not material commodity. That interpretation makes wild assumptions about what kind of graces saints are actually abactually bestow. Assumptions seem to be a running theme of this article. A person making these petitions would not be lacking in their devotion to Christ, and they would be gaining a powerful friend in heaven to plead their case for them. If orthodox can have angels interceding

for them in the toll-houses as an acceptable belief then they shouldn't have a problem with this.

>>651573

>And if that pic isn't enough to convince you, just do a Google image search for "Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Scapular"

I know what they look like. I'm wearing one

>>651608

>To draw connections between a 19th-century child's vision and medieval theology is absurd.

If a child's vision matches up with said theology, it's not absurd at all.

Read this part again:

> "If God is angry with a sinner, Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son and saves him" (Alphonsus Liguari). "She is the sure refuge of sinners and criminals from the rigour of the wrath and vengeance of Jesus Christ;" she "binds the power of Jesus Christ to prevent the evil He would do to the guilty" (Jean-Jacques Olier).

Binding the power of Christ? This goes FAR beyond mere intercession. I don't care how holy or deserving of reference Mary is; Christ, the One True God's power, is not a power to bound by her. Period. And you're right, Jesus is not just justice but mercy as well. Why would the Jesus who spared the adulteress need his own mother to plead or implore mercy before him, or to even literally BIND his power and wrath, as if Jesus had no self-control?

The apparitions repeatedly echo this theological dynamic:

>The apparition of La Salette said, "I can no longer hold back the heavy arm of my Son;" the apparition of Fatima: "… already He is deeply offended." At San Damiano, 1961, 'The Eternal Father is tired, very tired…. He has freed the Demon, who is working havoc. " At Oliveto Citra, Italy, in 1985, again we hear, "I can no longer hold back the righteous arm of my Son."

>If he can't develop that point then "seems" is as far as it can go.

Why would she not just come out and say, "I am the Virgin Mary?" Why dance around the issue with numerous titles? This along, with the appearance of the "the child Jesus." Why would Jesus appear in his child form?

>Surely an orthodox should know of the dulia vs latria distinction.

Of course. But the apparitions make statements that go far beyond this:

> “To all those who embrace (devotion to my Immaculate Heart), I promise salvation and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by the way that will lead you to God.”

> “I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the object of making reparation ==to me.==”

Salvation via devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart; salvation via doing via specific extracurricular works (First Saturdays) dedicated to making reparations to ==Mary in particular==, goes way beyond just mere hyperdulia. It goes way beyond just merely asking for prayers. Sins that are committed against others that are therefore committed against Him, are still ultimately payable to Him on a spiritual level, not an individual Saint, even one as high as Mary. And Jesus paid that price himself in the first place.

Even if it's supposedly "reparations" rather than forgiveness (which honestly sounds like a semantic game to me), all of the Marion apparitions have one thing in common: they tend to point more at themselves than at God. More prayers to Mary, more thinking about Mary, more works for Mary, more statues for Mary, more images of Mary, more trinkets, medals scapulars for Mary etc. etc.etc. This is excessive, and goes far beyond mere veneration and intercession.

Which dovetails into this point:

>>651612

>be a demon

>tell people to pray to Jesus, to forgive them their sins, save them from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls into Heaven, especially those in most need of His mercy.

But the apparitions don't tell people to pray to Jesus. As I just mentioned above, they tell them to pray to Mary. If the demon's plan is to create unwitting idolatry and turning away from God through excessive devotion to Mary via subtle twisting and additions to dogma, it's rather clever and seems to be working quite well, horrifyingly enough.

Btw:

>>651608

>I know what they look like. I'm wearing one

Doesn't it bother you that by wearing this you are essentially saying through your actions "Faith and works through Jesus is not enough to give me faith in salvation, I also have to wear this medallion (recommended by a questionable apparition) that supposedly gives extra bonus insurance towards my salvation. Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was not enough; he specifically sent his mother to instruct me to wear this trinket as well after the fact."

>>651638

(cont'd)

On a side note, referencing Mary's asking Jesus for more wine at Cana is not the best example for the power of Mary's intercession. The Gospel's are filled with people asking Jesus for stuff. Jesus even specifically asks some, like the blind, "What would you have me do?"

>>651638

>If a child's vision matches up with said theology, it's not absurd at all.

They're children brent, not scholastics, and if no more than two theologians can be cited on a subject that conflicts deeply with catholic dogma it should have never been worth consideration. If neither he nor you can back up the claims then they do not stand.

>Why would she not just come out and say, "I am the Virgin Mary?" Why dance around the issue with numerous titles? This along, with the appearance of the "the child Jesus." Why would Jesus appear in his child form?

Because she's been doing so for centuries. This is a matter of style, not of substance.

>Salvation via…

Correction, assistance via graces necessary for salvation. What kind of graces do you think that a creature is capable of bestowing beyond their intercession with the Lord? She can sway the judge but she can't make the judgement, nor can she pay the creditor, and any analysis of the apparitions needs to take this dogma of both our Churches into account.

>And Jesus paid that price himself in the first place.

Well unless you are some off-brand OSAS orthodox then the Lord can still hold a poor opinion of you when he calls you up for judgement. Not everyone who comes to the pearly gates followed the Lord's commandments as well as they think they did, and many saints feared their whole lives for their salvation.

>Even if it's supposedly "reparations" rather than forgiveness (which honestly sounds like a semantic game to me)

Not if you know what the two terms mean. Reparations are works done in order to repair, acts stemming from repentance, and are quite different from a simple act of forgiveness.

>all of the Marion apparitions have one thing in common: they tend to point more at themselves than at God. More prayers to Mary, more thinking about Mary, more works for Mary, more statues for Mary, more images of Mary, more trinkets, medals scapulars for Mary etc. etc.etc.

The glory of the saints does not subtract from the glory of God. The glory of the saints IS the glory of God. All glory and power and honor is his, forever and ever, and Mary would be the first to tell you that.

>But the apparitions don't tell people to pray to Jesus. As I just mentioned above, they tell them to pray to Mary.

Now you're just stubbornly denying the initial post that this is refering to because it proves she isn't a demon. The kingdom is not divided against itself.

>"Faith and works through Jesus is not enough to give me faith in salvation, I also have to wear this medallion (recommended by a questionable apparition) that supposedly gives extra bonus insurance towards my salvation. Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was not enough; he specifically sent his mother to instruct me to wear this trinket as well after the fact."

If by that you mean. "I would like to dedicate myself to the creature who has served creation the most, and has served me personally through by me the grace of a deep personal connection with the Gospel via meditating on the mysteries of the rosary, and in turn this friend will be a powerful advocate in my favor towards God", Then yes. Spin it however you like but when the woman shows up and performs things like the Miracle of the Sun, then I trust what she has to say.

There's 3 groups of people that hate the Holy Mary:

1. Protestants

2. Orthodox

3. Fallen angels

>>651651

>They're children brent, not scholastics,

Doesn't matter. If their visions support said scholastics, it stands. The children do not have to be PhD holders in Theology in order for the visions that the apparitions gave them to line up with said theology. The apparitions could have given said visions to a double-digit IQ janitor, and it would still stand. Think. If a scientist explained to you rocket science accurately, and you went to someone and repeated said knowledge of rocket science, word for word, would said knowledge be invalid and not scientifically sound because you, yourself are not scientist? That's what you're saying: that because they are children and not theologians, their repetition of a conception of Mary and Jesus does not line up to Theology that expresses the exact same dynamic.

If what the apparitions literally said, concerning their relationship with Jesus in terms of having to hold back his anger, literally conflicts deeply with catholic dogma as you said, why were their pronouncements accepted?

>Because she's been doing so for centuries. This is a matter of style, not of substance.

So in other words, no need to double check or confirm, just assume it's the Virgin Mary.

>Correction, assistance via graces necessary for salvation.

Read again. The apparitions do not say graces, they say "Salvation." Once again, your scapular does not say grace, it says "Salvation."

>Well unless you are some off-brand OSAS orthodox

The price of sin was paid by Jesus to God, and we receive his grace and cleansing through his act of sacrifice and thus the Holy Spirit and faith which begets works, by believing in him and following his commandments. We do not need to pay for it to saints. Not OSAS. Don't twist my words.

>The glory of the saints does not subtract from the glory of God.

Yes, but even so, the glory directed towards Mary by the apparitions is excessive even by these standards.

In contrast, read about Orthodox Marion apparitions:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Protection_of_the_Mother_of_God

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2017/08/24/108974-appearance-of-the-mother-of-god-to-st-sergius-of-radonezh

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2016/02/12/100512-icon-of-the-mother-of-god-iveron

http://www.orthodoxmedjugorje.com/apparitions-in-the-orthodox-church/

Notice that in these apparational appearances there are no weird additions to Church Dogma (or bolstering of particularly innovative Catholic Dogma); no "holding back Jesus' wrath"; no weird excessive devotional practices to Mary recommended, except for some events being brought about by prayer to Mary. Almost all of the apparitions follow this pattern:

1. Protection and favor, on behalf of God.

2. Exhortation to build a new church or monastery.

3. A wonder-working icon.

That's it.

>"I would like to dedicate myself to the creature…

Malarkey. The scapular promises Salvation from the eternal fire: "Whosoever dies wearing it shall not suffer eternal fire. It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and pledge of peace." Not "Wear this if you like Mary a lot." It's to the point that as >>651575 says:

>That "shall not" is pretty absolute, which is why the Church had to add of its own initiative that no, you can't be an unrepentant sinner. Adding the Sabbatical privilege on top of that simply means that the wearer of the scapular won't go to Hell and will be in Heaven by the next Saturday… if you think the promise is reliable, that is.

>>651669

Read the links about Orthodox Marion apparitions.

>>651672

>Doesn't matter. If their visions support said scholastics, it stands.

The visions actually don't support the notion that there are two kingdoms divided between a creature or the creator, or that the Kingdom of God is a kingdom of wrath, so it's not particularly relevant either way

.

>If what the apparitions literally said, concerning their relationship with Jesus in terms of having to hold back his anger, literally conflicts deeply with catholic dogma as you said, why were their pronouncements accepted?

The idea that God is storing up wrath for the world does not conflict with Catholic dogma. The idea that prayer can move or still the hand of God does not conflict with Catholic dogma. The idea that Mary, the Mediatrix, is the most powerful intercessor between us and Christ does not conflict with Catholic dogma. Unless you think that this is the only dimension to the relationship between mother and son, creature and creator, which I assume you don't, then this does not conflict with Catholic dogma. What actually does?

>Read again.

Okay

>On the occasion of the revelation in 1925, the so-called “Great Promise” was given; this promise states: “I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the object of making reparation to me.” This promise clarifies the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays which was mentioned in the third appearance in July, 1917.

>>We do not need to pay for it to saints

As I explicitly stated, given that it can only be paid via the blood of God. You shouldn't accuse me of twisting your words one sentence after you twist mine. I'm sure you don't intend it, but now you have no excuse.

>Notice that in these apparational appearances there are no weird additions to Church Dogma (or bolstering of particularly innovative Catholic Dogma); no "holding back Jesus' wrath"; no weird excessive devotional practices to Mary recommended, except for some events being brought about by prayer to Mary. Almost all of the apparitions follow this pattern

Good for them, I'm glad that Mary watches over the East just as much as she does the West. Fatima shows this. But that does not mean that claims of "excessive devotional practices" aren't the most arbitrary standard of interdenominational debate, that claims of extra dogma aren't as flimsy as I've shown them to be, or that claims that marian apparitions are demonic aren't blatantly contradicted by the messages of devotion to Christ contained therein.

>The scapular promises Salvation from the eternal fire: "Whosoever dies wearing it shall not suffer eternal fire. It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and pledge of peace."

And the apparitions at Fatima elucidate in what form, i.e. the graces of intercession. If anyone is unfortunate enough to treat a creature's intercession it like an OSAS ticket, just like some protestants use John 10:29, Hebrews 13:5, and other verses, then they will get whatever comes to them. Sadly, given how thick some people are, Rome needed to state that obvious point. We aren't protestants though and we don't presume that a sacramental superceedes the sacraments or the savior in terms of salvific power.

>>651669

lmao orthos love the theotokos what are you taking about. there's even a weeping icon of her in our parish

>>651720

To Caths, all prots and orthodoz look alike.

>>651720

Real weeping Akita style or just normal weeping? Sacreder stuff has happened around my parish so it's not off the table.

>>651741

>>651742

Absolutely blessed, although I'd recommend you czech behind them just in case someone's damning themselves.

We had one of the century's most famous saints appear after death to cure a man in my hometown of cancer. Picked him up right near the overhyped burger stand, dressed in a white "baker's uniform" looking for a ride to Maria Regina (like a half hours walk away). Hands were laid on in the car, Holy Spirit was felt, and, after he dropped him off, he turned away for a split second and never saw him again.

https://www.messengerofpadrepio.com/testimony

>>651763

thank you lad, what a story. God is great in his saints.

http://orthochristian.com/107788.html

>>651704

So Mary being able to literally bind the wrath of Christ does not conflict with Catholic dogma? I understand that Mary's prayers are powerful, but THAT powerful? If so, that seems pretty divided.

Mary is an intercessor, not one to "hold Jesus' wrath back." Jesus can unleash or hold back his wrath just fine on his own. Even back in the Old Testament, he gave the peoples of the Earth something like 200 years IIRC to repent before sending the Great Flood. He literally patiently tolerated decades of kings dropping the ball, with brief scourgings by neighboring tribes, before the complete destruction of Judah and Israel and the following Babylonian Exile. He has no need for Mary to control his temper. He is a perfectly dispassionate God, with his moments being said as "anger" and "jealousy" in the Bible being expressions designed for us humans to try to comprehend his reactions towards us.

>On the occasion of the revelation in 1925, the so-called “Great Promise” was given; this promise states: “I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the object of making reparation to me.” This promise clarifies the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays which was mentioned in the third appearance in July, 1917.

That's a lot of hoops and devotion directly dedicated to Mary to jump through for just "grace assistance". Also, this line was forgotten:

>“To all those who embrace (devotion to my Immaculate Heart), I promise salvation and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by the way that will lead you to God.”

> As I explicitly stated, given that it can only be paid via the blood of God. You shouldn't accuse me of twisting your words one sentence after you twist mine. I'm sure you don't intend it, but now you have no excuse.

Reparations to Mary's Immaculate Heart, for sins, should not be a thing in the first place Reparations for sins should be to God. Mary is only for intercession, not someone to pay. Even if it's not forgiveness, it is payment/restitution directed at Her, not God..

>But that does not mean that claims of "excessive devotional practices" aren't the most arbitrary standard of interdenominational debate, that claims of extra dogma aren't as flimsy as I've shown them to be,

Prayers to Mary's Immaculate Heart are flimsy? (as well as a promise of salvation as a product of said prayers?) Reparations for sins made against the Immaculate Heart of Mary is flimsy?

Extra-curricular works offering insta-salvation is flimsy?:

>Our calling as Christians is to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in obedience to God in every aspect and moment of our lives; that obedience, possible only with the grace which comes from the new life in Christ which we receive in Baptism, brings us into a new relationship to God. To think that one could purchase one’s salvation by performing a few pious acts on five consecutive Saturdays trivializes the whole Christian life and makes a mockery of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection.

>In point of fact, the First Saturdays are another instance of the parallelism between the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the seventeenth century Margaret-Mary Alacoque received this promise about the Sacred Heart of Jesus by special revelation: “In the greatness of the mercy of my Heart, its all powerful love will give to all those who receive Communion on the first Friday of every month for nine consecutive months, the grace of full repentance that they shall not die under my displeasure nor without receiving the sacraments, and that my Heart shall be their sure refuge at that last hour.”

Wearing special medals and scapulars is flimsy?

>or that claims that marian apparitions are demonic aren't blatantly contradicted by the messages of devotion to Christ contained therein.

The messages of devotion made by the Fatima apparition seem more centered on Mary than Christ.

>we don't presume that a sacramental supersedes the sacraments or the savior in terms of salvific power.

Then why wear it? Why adopt it? If it is literally unnecessary at worst, or superseded by better things at best, they why have it at all? At best, it comes off as bonus points in getting into Heaven focused around Mary as you said earlier, rather than Christ (which I'm still having trouble buying, considering the Salvation language.)

>>651778

(cont'd)

Also:

>Now you're just stubbornly denying the initial post that this is referring to because it proves she isn't a demon.

Are you referring to the video in OP's post? It's a video made by what appears to be a sedevacantist church: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com that claims that the Third Secret of Fatima is an open and shut case of predicating a great apostasy from the top down. When in fact, the Third Secret, according to most sources, is a vague mystery open for interpretation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fátima

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

So far the only sources that are in concurrence with the video are other sede/conspiracy theory sites:

https://novusordowatch.org/fatima-true-third-secret/

(This one in particular even says Vatican II is directly predicted by Fatima.)

>Good for them, I'm glad that Mary watches over the East just as much as she does the West. Fatima shows this.

The Fatima apparition claimed that doing her First Saturday and Immaculate Heart rituals and consecrating Russia would prevent World War II and Communism from spreading (what I assume is implied by "Russia's errors.")

Why did these things still happen? Why was the second secret not revealed until World War 2 was underway? Why has Russia been undergoing an Orthodox revival in the aftermath of catastrophic levels of persecution by the atheist Marxists, rather than being converted to Roman Catholicism?

Fatima does not seem to add up.

>>651778

>So Mary being able to literally bind the wrath of Christ does not conflict with Catholic dogma? I understand that Mary's prayers are powerful, but THAT powerful? If so, that seems pretty divided.

It's not like she physically has him in some wrestling hold; God is listening to his Mom because he dosen't want to see her in sorrow, that's literally all. God has been storing up wrath ever since Romans 2:5 was written (who on earth taught you that the jealous, wrathful god who is love itself is somehow "dispassionite"?) and yes, the prayers of the creatures God loves are THAT powerful, just ask the people of Nineveh.

>That's a lot of hoops and devotion directly dedicated to Mary to jump through for just "grace assistance".

Participating in the sacraments and praying the rosary are the most technical of acrobatics, yes.

>“To all those who embrace (devotion to my Immaculate Heart), I promise salvation and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by the way that will lead you to God.”

Yes, she promises salvation, through her grace and intercession as she stated previously. One sentence doesn't erase the previous one, that's just shoddy logic.

>Reparations to Mary's Immaculate Heart, for sins, should not be a thing in the first place Reparations for sins should be to God

Have you considered the fact that God does not want his mother to suffer from the sight of sinners as much as he does? That God, as Matthew 25:45 shows, takes affronts to his littlest children as affronts to him, suffering their pain as his own? From there, have you considered the fact that Mary is not his littlest childld but his greatest, purest, most innocent, most beloved creature? His parent? Have you considered that an immaculate heart, of perfect empathy, suffers all pain as if it were it's own? With all this in mind, is restitution really so much to ask for all that these two have suffered at the hands of Russia?

>Prayers to Mary's Immaculate Heart are flimsy?

Yes

>Reparations for sins made against the Immaculate Heart of Mary is flimsy?

Yes.

>Extra-curricular works offering insta-salvation is flimsy?

Something something orthoprot.

>Wearing special medals and scapulars is flimsy?

When Mary literally shows up with the brown scapular in her hand and makes the sun dance? You betcha.

>The messages of devotion made by the Fatima apparition seem more centered on Mary than Christ.

When the entirety of 2000 years of your faith is centered on Jesus Christ, the woman who, by the grace of God, can hold back his wrath and make the sun dance deserves a little spotilight, especially give what she has promised her graces can go. If you can't tell, you haven't given me any good reason to doubt these facts.

>Then why wear it? Why adopt it? If it is literally unnecessary at worst, or superseded by better things at best, they why have it at all?

Because I would like to dedicate myself to the creature who has served creation the most, and has served me personally through by me the grace of a deep personal connection with the Gospel via meditating on the mysteries of the rosary, and in turn this friend will be a powerful advocate in my favor towards God. Mary was a mother for me where my own wasn't a lot of the time. The rosary was my first true taste of the spiritual life, and it has been my wellspring ever since. It's never been a matter of what road gets me to heaven the fastest, it's been the love of a son for his mother, plain and pure.

>Are you referring to the video in OP's post?

No I'm referring to the part where she asked us to pray "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are in most need of Thy mercy." Again, the kingdom is not divided against itself.

>Why did these things still happen?

Because Russia wasn't consecrated like Mary requested until the Cold War was nearly over. How did you read the prophecy and miss that condition?

>Why was the second secret not revealed until World War 2 was underway?

Avoidance of general panic? Fear of backlash against superstition? Clerical corruption? No good reason that I can think of but not an argument against the sun falling from the sky, the general accuracy of the prophecy, and fact that none of the children objected to the published version.

>Why has Russia been undergoing an Orthodox revival in the aftermath of catastrophic levels of persecution by the atheist Marxists, rather than being converted to Roman Catholicism?

Because Russia was never Catholic and clearly God is with the Orthodox Church if >>651741 is to be believed.

>>651641

I'd just point out here that His response is it's nothing to do with Him, "My hour has not yet come". But then He does it anyway, for her. He had a plan, He changed it, for her.

>>651811

> (who on earth taught you that the jealous, wrathful god who is love itself is somehow "dispassionate"?)

The Orthodox Church. Part of becoming Christ-like being achieving as much of a dispassionate (meek) state as possible is not a coincidence. His emotions are to be understood on human terms. He is God, after all. Our mortal minds cannot even begin to comprehend his complexity and grandeur.

>But Jesus wept and showed anger and…

Jesus was also God AND human.

> and yes, the prayers of the creatures God loves are THAT powerful, just ask the people of Nineveh.

There's a big difference between a city of people repenting and fasting for their sins when told to by God via Jonah, and the concept of Mary bossing God around.

By the way you don't seem to understand the implications of the first Five Saturdays, "just merely grace assistance" or not:

Being given the "graces necessary" for salvation at the hours of one's death, means instant guaranteed salvation if one does the Five Saturday rituals dedicated to Mary. As an Orthodox, I believe that salvation is a life-long process, not something that can be instantly done and guaranteed via completing a Five Saturday ritual, or just doing Communion every first Friday of every month for nine consecutive months for the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion. And even though you claim the Carmel Scapular is just a sign of devotion to Mary, how it's described indicates otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivefold_Scapular

>The Brown Scapular (also known as the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, or simply as the Scapular) is the most popular scapular. Given to Simon Stock by Our Lady of Mount Carmel, she promised him that "whoever dies clothed in this scapular shall not suffer the eternal flames."

>Later, she appeared to Pope John XXII as the Mediatrix of all graces, promising him that "whoever shall wear my Scapular faithfully, pray the Divine Office [various indults have applied in the past and apply today], and exercise chastity in their state of life shall not suffer Hell, and if they should go to Purgatory, I shall bring them to Heaven on the First Saturday after their death." (Sabbatine Privilege).

First she says "just wear it and be saved", then later she appears and says, oh, by the way, don't forget the Divine Office and be chaste"

Nice clarification. Would've been nice if she'd said that earlier….

Pope Pius XII seems to clarify and make it a bit more palatable:

>the Brown Scapular is "a sign of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" and that "the scapular is not superstitious… One is not saved from Hell merely by wearing it. No, for it is a sign that they must live their lives in total obedience to God and trust in him, through and with the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Okay, okay, that sounds a bit better…. but then one of the Marion apparitions goes and does this:

>Furthermore, it was to Saint Dominic that Virgin Mary appeared with the Rosary and the Brown Scapular, her arms outstretched (a gesture of prayer), saying, "One day by the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the world"

>"One day by the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the world."

>"I will save the world."

Ummm… no. That's Jesus' job. Not hers. Period.

>>651830

(cont'd)

I can understand why you're trying to rationalize reparations for sins to Mary's heart, as well as going

>Yes

>Yes

>Something something orthoprot, La! La! La! La! I can't heeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaar yooooou!

Because I've got to be blunt: the nicest way I can put this is that this stuff is venturing dangerously close into the realm of outright heresy.

>Avoidance of general panic? Fear of backlash against superstition? Clerical corruption? No good reason that I can think of but not an argument against the sun falling from the sky, the general accuracy of the prophecy, and fact that none of the children objected to the published version.

> not an argument against the general accuracy of the prophecy,

When a released prophecy just happens to line up with things already going on, credibility takes a bit of a hit.

>Because Russia was never Catholic and clearly God is with the Orthodox Church if >>651741 is to be believed.

http://www.orthodox.org/fatima.htm

>Lucia had a vision in 1927 in which she was told to ask for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In another vision in 1929, she was told to reveal the first secret, allegedly given to her in 1917, which was that people should pray for the conversion specifically of Russia.16 Normally it is assumed that the apparition was speaking of the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic faith.

>Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the understanding of the vast majority of Roman Catholics, the Fatima message means nothing else but Russia’s conversion to Roman Catholicism. This is precisely the interpretation which has been taught in parochial schools. Even if we grant that the Fatima message does not necessarily imply the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, we still must ask what means are proposed by the apparition for Russia’s conversion from atheism to belief in God.

>Two basic requirements are presented by the apparition in the report of the third appearance: “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturday. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted…The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted…” Thus, the two necessary conditions for the conversion of Russia are that the Pope consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Catholics all over the world make the First Saturday communions

>>651816

No, he did not change his plan. God's plan is his plan, period. God is literally the all-time 4th dimensional chess grandmaster. Everything is under his control. He had literally been prep-timing for the coming of Jesus since Genesis. Did he use Mary's request to begin his signs as indicated in this verse?:

>Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs* in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

>John 2:11

Yes.

Just as he intended to have mercy on Lot and his family from the very beginning, but ALLOWED Abraham to plead for mercy in order to showcase Abraham's mercy and godliness and participate in God's plan.

God has everything down to the most finite detail planned in advance using our free wills, both good and evil. Perhaps he did use that moment to highlight Mary as a future intercessor and my initial assessment was in error after all, but he did not change his entire plan for even his own mother.

God is always in control.

>>651830

>Part of becoming Christ-like being achieving as much of a dispassionate (meek) state as possible is not a coincidence.

This is by far the biggest divide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in regards to mysticism (which I actually forgot about), and it would be pointless to trade blows over it, but I will say that relegating the emotion of Christ to his human side while claiming that the Godhead as a whole is dispassionate reeks of nestorianism to me. God is a human, never forget that.

>concept of Mary bossing God around.

I dispelled that interpretation several posts up. To think that a perfect servant would ever even concieve of bossing God around is damn near satanic, and I am quite frankly mournful that one christian would believe a brother thinks so low of Mary. Like you said, Jesus can unleash or hold back his wrath just fine on his own, but one of the major reasons that he's been holding it for two millenia it back is that we beg his forgiveness on a daily basis. The fact that that is a day in his timeless eyes means changes nothing about that. Like you say, God is the all-time 4th dimensional chess grandmaster, but we have free will and integrating his plan with absolute respect to our free will is top priority. Thus, is not absurd to think that Mary, the Mediatrix, to whom we pray for the intercession of on a daily basis, has been interceeding to the absolute limit of her God' given ability, to more effectiveness than anyone else. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is common sense.

>As an Orthodox, I believe that salvation is a life-long process, not something that can be instantly done and guaranteed via completing a Five Saturday ritual, or just doing Communion every first Friday of every month for nine consecutive months for the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion

I say again; if you think that we think God is going to accept Mary's intercession for someone who had faith in a creature and not the creator, or that she would even intercede for such an ingrate, then you don't understand how personal intercession works.

>"One day by the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the world."

If you accept the scapular, then you should accept La Salette and the power of Marian intercession to quite literally save the world, and this line, when spoken from the mouth of a perfect creature and considered with all that that implies, makes perfect sense. If not, I more than more than understand why it wouldn't, but that's why I'm here to convince you of the validity of Fatima.

>Because I've got to be blunt: the nicest way I can put this is that this stuff is venturing dangerously close into the realm of outright heresy.

Heresy is a buzzword from one denomination to another, especially if the two in question are the only ones that haven't bungled their apostolic succession. As it stands you haven't done much to convince me of that fact, and your comments on the passions of God are to be believed then I can say the same about you. The concern is appreciated, don't get me wrong, but will stand by the True Church until given a good reason not to.

>Normally it is assumed that the apparition was speaking of the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic faith.

The accuracy of assumptions, or lack thereof, are not relevant to the accuracy of the prophecy verbatum. Mary accurately predicted the rise of the faith in Russia and the preceding wars and persecutions. These two conditions; consecration of Russia by Pope John Paul II March 25, 1984, as confirmed by Sister Lucia, along the First Saturday communions, were met, and the ensuing blessings of conversion were granted.

>When a released prophecy just happens to line up with things already going on, credibility takes a bit of a hit.

And the credibility holds when the three children who recieved the prophecy decades prior maintain it's authenticity until their deaths.

>>651860

>claiming that the Godhead as a whole is dispassionate reeks of nestorianism to me. God is a human, never forget that.

Keep in mind, dispassionate, does not imply "emotionless robot." In fact one dictionary definition defines it as: "not influenced by strong emotion, and so able to be rational and impartial."

>I say again; if you think that we think God is going to accept Mary's intercession for someone who had faith in a creature and not the creator, or that she would even intercede for such an ingrate, then you don't understand how personal intercession works.

And I say again: you seem to be dodging the fact that the Five Saturdays and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Communion Fridays outright state "Salvation if completed." It doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that. Even with faith in the creator, Five Saturdays and *kazaam!* Saved, is hogwash.

A Marion apparition claiming that she will "save the world" is putting Mary on the level of God, which is patently ridiculous. What she says is the complete polar opposite of giving glory to God. God saves the world. Period.

>The accuracy of assumptions…

It's not an assumption. It literally came straight from the apparition's mouth:

>Two basic requirements are presented by the apparition in the report of the third appearance: “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturday. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted…The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted…” Thus, the two necessary conditions for the conversion of Russia are that the Pope consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Catholics all over the world make the First Saturday communions.

You said earlier that you will stand by the True Church, but now you're implying that the apparition, when she said "Russia will convert", really meant "Russia will come back to some form of Christianity" rather than conversion back to the True Church. Really?

>And the credibility holds when the three children who recieved the prophecy decades prior maintain it's authenticity until their deaths.

To be blunt, I don't care about children holding true to prophecy or prelest, or about dancing suns, or about scapulars and miracle medals..What I care about is doctrine.

>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>GALATIANS 1:8

I do not see sound doctrine coming from Fatima, or any of the other apparitions for that matter.

>>651612

>be a demon

>appear to people in a nice-looking form

>mix truth with lies

>hear people telling that the apparition must be true because it told truths

>appear to people in a nice-looking form

>mix truth with phase #1 lies and new lies

>hear people telling that the apparition must be true because it told accepted truths, such as the phase #1 lies

>watch the doctrine get ever more distorted and heretical because people think you're trustworthy

>>651811

>the woman who, by the grace of God, can hold back his wrath and make the sun dance deserves a little spotilight

The sun wasn't actually dancing, or else it would have been noted by astronomers and people worldwide. Instead not even everyone in the crowd saw the supposed miracle. This means that we're talking about illusion. Is it really such a stretch to assign the Devil the power to make illusionary light shows? In the Gospels we're told that the Devil showed Jesus all the countries of the world, even though it is impossible the entire globe from a single mountain. Also the apparitions themselves are a form of illusion.

>>651669

>Orthodox

baring false witness is a sin

>>651887

You're right! Forgive me brother. I've been running into a bunch of trolls pretending to be Orthodox.

>>651724

Perhaps if trolls would quit pretending to be Orthodox…

>>651872

>And I say again: you seem to be dodging the fact that the Five Saturdays and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Communion Fridays outright state "Salvation if completed." It doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that. Even with faith in the creator, Five Saturdays and *kazaam!* Saved, is hogwash.

Rather than dodging I've given you a cornucopia of reasons why anyone who approaches their salvation with that kind of pride is a lost cause. Rome affirms as much, as you were the first to point out. Believing that God's hand can be swayed by the Mediatrix, which is the core of all of these disparate issues, is perfectly reasonable when interpreted through the lens of sound doctrine, as Rome has done. Scripture clearly shows that God can be swayed by prayer, and Mary is both God's most beloved creature, the one most united too with his passions, and the most prayed to buy us sinners. No creature even comes close to the relationship with God that Mary has, and the notion that the world's most loving mother in can sway the God who is love to spare a faithful soul is beyond either of us to challenge; we are simply beyond such love. You, however, insist on interpreting these facts at a surface level without even acknowledging the dogmatic context. I understand why, and believe me when I say that an icon on my wall that is holding me back from acting similarly antagonistic manner as much as it can, but if you want to continue arguing in bad faith then I want no part of it.

>A Marion apparition claiming that she will "save the world" is putting Mary on the level of God, which is patently ridiculous.

If it's the mother of the savior that's saying it, then interpreting prayer and a personal devotion as somehow equivalent to the blood of Christ, especially given that she gave this line a sufficient context at La Salette, is what's truly ridiculous. If that's the devil's bait then it's reddit tier.

>You said earlier that you will stand by the True Church, but now you're implying that the apparition, when she said "Russia will convert", really meant "Russia will come back to some form of Christianity'

A form of christianity that has the sacraments, apostolic succession, saints, miracles, marian apparitions, etc. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

To be blunt, I don't care about children holding true to prophecy or prelest, or about dancing suns, or about scapulars and miracle medals. What I care about is doctrine.

That is not the impression I have been getting. I'm quite open to having that impression changed, preferably in the morning, but to do that you need to address the apparitions in question in the context of the speaker and the nature of her relationship with her Son and Lord, not just divorce the events from their theological context and assert prelest.

>>651874

>The sun wasn't actually dancing, or else it would have been noted by astronomers and people worldwide. Instead not even everyone in the crowd saw the supposed miracle. This means that we're talking about illusion.

Same goes for nearly all of the major spiritual events of the last 2000 years. Demonic influences does not logically follow.

>>651902

Yes, Mary has a special relationship with God. Yes God listens to the prayers of the faithful. But even in such context "just do these prayer rituals for five Saturdays and you're guaranteed saved" rings suspicious and hollow and is not merely a surface level critique at all. Even if done in faith, It doesn't sound that far removed from a Catholic version of OSAS. "Well, I've done my Five Saturdays, I'm saved! Time to kick back and relax!" Nowhere in scripture or tradition does God or Jesus ever imply a doing of a set of rituals for a set amount of time and achieving instant salvation. God, Jesus, the saints and Church Fathers all portray a long hard narrow path, carrying one's cross with stoicism and dignity in the face of hardship and sorrow. Not "do some rituals for a set number of times and you're done." Jesus may love his mother, but to change a road of hardship and struggle throughout the history of the church to a super streamlined just five ritual sessions over five days and you've won the ultimate battle with Satan, just for his mother, is not doctrinally sound, no matter how perfect or how much favor she curries. Even Elijah had to struggle and be a mighty prophet before God took him up to heaven. Enoch walked with God for 300 years before he was taken up to heaven. Mary herself was assumed up into Heaven, and as you yourself have outlined, went through horrific tribulation and sorrow before acquiring this privilege. I've read enough stories of Saints being put through the wringer on a spiritual and literal physical level, to view "five days and your done" with absolute disdain.

"But if they had real faith, they'd continue their struggles after the Five Saturdays…" No. She said:

>She promised that, whoever would ever do this, would be given the graces necessary for salvation at the hour of one's death.

That's it. No extra clarification or details. If there is/had to be some sort of "by the way, don't stop being a struggling Christian" addendum added by the church, it makes such a bold promise pointless. God's ultimate plan is for all of us is to take up our crosses and follow him, and everything that implies. Overriding this plan in favor of five days of rituals and done, even for his perfect loving mother is not sound doctrine. I'm not being antagonistic towards you out of spite or bad faith. I legitimately believe that this is questionable at best, and outrageous at worse, doctrine, no matter how close Jesus and Mary are. As I outline earlier, God has a plan: a plan that he won't just drop or alter just for his mother. At best his mother takes on a great role in his plan.

>If it's the mother of the savior that's saying it, then interpreting prayer and a personal devotion as somehow equivalent to the blood of Christ, especially given that she gave this line a sufficient context at La Salette, is what's truly ridiculous. If that's the devil's bait then it's reddit tier.

Even given Mary's favor with God, and even given La Salette, she would still glorify Him, not herself. She is the first and best Christian. As the first and best Christian, she would not say "I will save the world," Can you honestly think of any other saint or martyr giving themselves such glory and/or saying such a line? As Christians, saints or not, all glory goes to God. Period. Even if she is special among saints, she is special because of her faith and godliness within the context of how a Christian should follow and have a relationship with God. She would say "My son will save the world." She would point to her son, not herself. Even our icons of Mary with the baby Jesus always has her pointing towards him.

>A form of Christianity that has the sacraments, apostolic succession, saints, miracles, Marian apparitions, etc. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

No, I don't think this is a gift. I think you want the prophecy of Fatima to line up badly enough that you are willing to say "well, even if Orthodoxy is not the True Chruch, it's close enough, so the Fatima prophecies are true."

>in the context of the speaker and the nature of her relationship with her Son and Lord,

The impression I've been getting is that you think Jesus and Mary's relationship is so special and extraordinary, that it is enough to outright override doctrine. Which I respectfully disagree with.

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than: "Mary is perfect and special and God loves her so much that he's willing to throw doctrine and proper Christian behavior out the window."

>>651970

> I think you want the prophecy of Fatima to line up badly enough that you are willing to say "well, even if Orthodoxy is not the True Chruch, it's close enough, so the Fatima prophecies are true."

Conversion means conversion and you got conversion, along with all of the aforementioned graces that both of our Churches share and that no other Churches possess, including the continued presence of the one making the prophecy. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

>Even given Mary's favor with God, and even given La Salette, she would still glorify Him, not herself

It isn't a matter of glorification if it's a statement of fact, as La Salette and arguably even Fatima shows it to be. Would St. Michal be wrong in stating that he saved heaven from the devil? As a bare statement of fact, no he wouldn't, and to state so does not actually imply any glory unless you want to read it into an angel of all creatures. Scripture glorifies him because the glory of the saints is the glory of God. If this statement is read in the context of the speaker, a woman incapable of sin by her own volition and who would take no pride in her action, period, and in the context of La Salette all but confirming the statement, then it comes off as a simple prediction. If read divorced from the facts and in the context of "probably a prelest demon", then it does not. The choice is yours, but it is a choice.

>"Well, I've done my Five Saturdays, I'm saved! Time to kick back and relax!"

For the third or fourth time, anyone who thinks that God will accept things like this as intercession for a proud ingrate who relies on works for their salvation, against basically all of God's commandments and the established dogma of both of our Churches, is sorely mistaken. Reading the promise as a blanket contractual exchange denies the personal aspect of the promised intercession entirely; it's just bad exegisis and we stay away from such things, Rome having done so explicitly. Jesus promised that nobody will snatch sinners out of his hand. Does does that "bold promise" ensure eternal security? No, because the context of the faith affirms something different. If you can't accept that this promise was delivered to the Roman church and therefore has been read in the context of Roman dogma like I requested, then you have yet to address the promise as we believe in it. Do you believe that everyone who showed up to the pearly gates followed Jesus's commandments as well as they thought they did? Do you think that they all carried their cross as well as Elijah or Enoch or the saints? Of course not, we are fallible creatures and we are liable to placing our will over God's, particularly the laity. If even just one of those unfortunate souls could be saved from the fires of hell on the day of their judgement because they placed their faith in the love God has for his mother alongside their love of Christ, then the promise was worth it, and it is absolutely no stretch to say that God loves his mother enough to forgive the sins of a sinner she loves at her request. If you want to insist that this is "five days and your done" despite both Rome, her dogma, and my explicit requests that you don't read this out of context, then yes, you are arguing in bad faith, pure and simple. If after all of this time you won't address our beliefs, rather than your own strawman of them, I won't humor you anymore.

>>652048

>Conversion means conversion and you got conversion,

But not to the True Church.

>It isn't a matter of glorification if it's a statement of fact,

Statement of fact? Her scapular and rosary "Saves the world?" She prays to God for us, but God ultimately saves us. St. Michael was an instrument of God. Judith was an instrument of God. Esther was an instrument of God. John the Baptist was an instrument of God. We venerate and respect such people, but they didn't "Save the world." Mary praying a lot helps, but it doesn't "Save the world." Christ does. Being incapable of sin and taking no pride in her actions, Mary would not have made that statement in the first place. As I said, she a prime model of Christianity, and no Christian would make a statement that bold and vainglorious. At best La Salette seemed to turn people towards God. There's a big difference between protecting through prayer, and turning people towards God and "Saving the World."

Also, explain how the apparition literally promising graces sufficient for salvation if the Five Saturdays are kept, are not a one and done deal in the context of Roman dogma. How can she say "Keep the Five Saturdays and I will offer enough grace to save you" yet that statement not be taken as is? What is the Roman dogma context that fleshes out this promise?

>But not to the True Church.

Thankfully she never promised that, otherwise a foreign faith would have instigated a massive culture war in Russia at the time when Christian infighting would be the last thing that country needs. This point isn't going anywhere dude.

>Mary praying a lot helps, but it doesn't "Save the world." Christ does. Being incapable of sin and taking no pride in her actions, Mary would not have made that statement in the first place.

Unless, as La Salette shows, the prayers that she makes at our request are quite literally stalling the apocalypse. It's fairly cut and dry as long as you don't take "saving the world" out of the context in which she has shown she does so.

>How can she say "Keep the Five Saturdays and I will offer enough grace to save you" yet that statement not be taken as is?

It can be taken as is IF you don't place your faith in a few works as opposed to Christ and the advocate he sent for us like you assert we do, as opposed to trusting it in a purely legalistic fashion. That is probably the most basic and universal dogma that the Church has If you show up to throne of God faithful yet in sin, as countless sinners have, including the ones who would believe in something like Fatima along with going to Mass and praying the rosary, then having a flawless advocate before God, one who's prayers on our behalf can stay God's judgement of the world, in order to stay his judgement of you, is a blessing to thank God for forever. If, however, you show up unfaithful, hoping that the advocate who asked you to pray for her son to save you and to commune with him at mass will cover for you, all because you performed a few works, then common sense and all of Paul's writings indicate you are screwed. Please don't make me explain this again.

>>652073

>Thankfully she never promised that, otherwise a foreign faith would have instigated a massive culture war in Russia at the time when Christian infighting would be the last thing that country needs. This point isn't going anywhere dude.

I have a LOT of trouble believing that when a Marion apparition said "Russia will be converted", a Marion apparition in full support of Catholic dogma and the consecration of Russia to the Catholic devotional innovation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, said apparition did not mean conversion to Catholicism.

Also, contrary to a foreign faith instigating a massive culture war, the decimation of Orthodoxy in the aftermath of the Communist Revolution could have been a prime opportunity for Catholicism to take root to bring hope to a desperate people. That didn't happen.

> Unless, as La Salette shows, the prayers that she makes at our request are quite literally stalling the apocalypse. It's fairly cut and dry as long as you don't take "saving the world" out of the context in which she has shown she does so.

Stalling the apocalypse? No. La Salette extorted people to respect the repose of the seventh day, and to not take the Lord's name in vain, and warned a famine to come in local areas. But no "holding back the apocalypse" stuff.

At least according to most credible sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-story-of-our-lady-of-la-salette/

Meanwhile, the "holding back the apocalypse" narrative seems to exist only at sketchy and dubious conspiracy theory sites:

http://www.our-lady.net/la-salette.php

http://christianity.redzambala.com/christianity/catholic/our-lady-of-la-salette.html

>>652174

(cont'd):

Speaking of some of the other apparitions:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

Regarding La Sallate

>The discourse of the apparition was very similar to a "Leter [sic] Fallen from Heaven" circulating at the time.

Also interesting fact about Fatima:

>The Lady appeared, announcing that she was Our Lady of the Rosary and that the war would end that day (in fact it did not end till thirteen months later)

Another "Russian conversion" promise:

>At Garabandal, in Spain, a series of apparitions took place between 1961 and 1965, during which time the visionaries, four girls aged from ten to twelve years, claimed to have been favored with two thousand appearances of the Virgin and the Archangel Michael.

>There would be a great miracle at Garabandal in the future, which would be seen by the Pope and Padre Pio (who, of course, died without doing so), and Russia would be converted as a result of the miracle.

>Padre Pio is said to have believed in the apparitions. The local hierarchy did not, and at one stage, Conchita confessed, under lengthy interrogation, to having doubts about her visions. The present bishop, appointed in 1991, is asking Rome to re-open the case.

Even when the apparition claims to be the Virgin Mary, issues arise:

>With the apparitions which began in 1981 in Medjugorje in Yugoslavia, it was back to the familiar atmosphere of youngsters, trances and secrets.

>One of the girls, clutching a jar of holy water, said to the apparition, "if you are satan, go away," (!) and received the reply, "I am the Virgin Mary," come to "convert and reconcile." Later they saw her in a cross of rainbow-coloured light, sad, and repeating, "Peace, peace. Be reconciled."

>gave them messages calling for…respect for other religions.

To be fair, last I heard, the Catholic Church had denounced this apparition as delusion due to that last line.

Here's another "Russia will be converted" story:

>A woman dressed in black, with a child in her arms, appeared in the light, saying that the Ukrainians had been chosen to lead the Russians back to God.

>the Ukrainians had been chosen as Apostles to convert Russia, and if Russia was not converted there would be a third world war. If they stayed loyal to the Pope, the third secret of Fatima would be revealed.

Yes, those loyal to the Pope are just seeking conversion to just any sort of Christianity, not Catholicism. *eye roll*

The Hearts of Mary and Jesus aren't the only parts of their bodies that got cultic worship:

>This must immediately render suspect any shrine or apparition involving the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or encouraging the un-Orthodox cult of devotion to parts of the body---the hearts of Jesus and Mary. (In seventeenth century France, there had even been devotion to the Virgin's left foot and the soles of her shoes.)

You should go read the rest of the article, as it's too much to quote at one time. Needless to say, carrying around a crowned Mary statue in processions has some questionable origins.

>>652175

(cont'd):

But back to the main point:

>It can be taken as is IF you don't place your faith in a few works as opposed to Christ and the advocate he sent for us like you assert we do, as opposed to trusting it in a purely legalistic fashion.

Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly: the Promise applies ONLY…. if you are already doing the things that a good Catholic is supposed to do anyways in addition to the Five Saturdays. I'm sorry but this interpretation makes the Five Saturdays, (and by extension the First Fridays of the Sacred Heart of Jesus), come across less like promises, and more like conditional bonus points. What good is just following regular Catholic dogma if you need to metaphorically unlock these extra achievements to feel extra safe?

And why didn't the apparition just give this context in the first place? The Lady of Mt. Carmel gave no such context either for the scapulars and some semblance of context had to be added by a second apparitional visit from said Lady to Pope John XXII (kinda convenient if you ask me..) Pope Pius XII had to give even MORE context later on (see reference in this post: >>651830 )

By the way, it's interesting that you have no problem with the apparition's First Saturday claims automatically carrying a context of adherence to Catholic dogma. But when the apparition claims "Russian conversion"… nope, no Catholic context there. A "conversion" happened so the prophecy is fulfilled! The apparitions claims have specific context when it's convenient to your argument, but have vague to non-existent context and you are content with the results being void of specific context and within a non-specific ball-park of the prophecies when it's convenient for you.

So the Five Saturdays, First Friday and Scapulars all promise salvation through either Mary's grace assistance or in the case of First Friday's, a Jesus apparition (which came with some theological issues in terms of consecrating Christians.) But on condition that Catholic dogma, which should be enough for salvation by itself in the first place, is followed.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: following Catholic dogma, by itself, should be enough to save people. These extra Fridays and Saturdays and scapulars and medals seem to indicate otherwise though. That there is a need for these extra bonus works in addition; just to be on the safe side. This comes off to me as very questionable and suspicious.

Or just plain wrong, and I think I know why. Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross specifically because centuries of a laws and works based system (The Old Covenant), proved that mankind had a compulsion to sin that could not be healed through works and laws. That mankind had a heart problem that needed to be changed. A change of heart that could only be achieved by Jesus paying for our sins and thus being able to give us the Holy Spirit, to truly begin the process of deification/theosis: us gradually becoming more and more like him through faith, surrendering to the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of such things in the form of works like alms-giving, obeying His commandments, etc.

He literally died to advance us in dignity beyond an excessive law and works based system via The New Covenant, yet all these devotional innovations, scapulars, medals, penances, indulgences, etc. are literally more and more and more works and laws being added to and piled atop a framework (Jesus' Death and Resurrection; Holy Spirit; New Covenant; Early Church Traditions) that should not need them.

The New Covenant by itself should be enough. These Catholic additions imply "No, it's not enough." Which quite frankly is insulting to Jesus' sacrifice. This combined with the fact that there is no basis in Tradition or Scripture of Marion Apparitions apocalyptically heralding the Second Coming, makes this all the more suspect.

>>652174

>I have a LOT of trouble believing that when a Marion apparition said "Russia will be converted", a Marion apparition in full support of Catholic dogma and the consecration of Russia to the Catholic devotional innovation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, said apparition did not mean conversion to Catholicism.

You've made that pretty clear, yeah.

>Also, contrary to a foreign faith instigating a massive culture war, the decimation of Orthodoxy in the aftermath of the Communist Revolution could have been a prime opportunity for Catholicism to take root to bring hope to a desperate people.

Orthodoxy, with it's long cultural history, already present infrastructure, secret faithful, and abundance of graces, Mary's included, was in a far better position than Catholicism to redeem the people of Russia. It didn't happen for multiple reasons and does not contradict the prophecy, plain and simple.

>But no "holding back the apocalypse" stuff.

>At least according to most credible sources

A Wikipedia article and a source that doesn't even contain the full text of the prophecy are not particularly credible. Your third source has the most text, but it is from an apocryphal version published by the girl years later that proved to be wildly inaccurate and was condemned by the Church almost on arrival. Your fourth source is the closest, but it leaves out the part entrusted to the Melanie.

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/lasalette.htm

Here is the full text of the prophecy, even going so far as to differentiate between the real and the apocryphal version of Melanie's secret. If that isn't apocalyptic then I don't know what is.

>>652175

None of these apparitions have been confirmed by the Church. I will go through that article, however. Also I'll need sauce on that promise of the world ending if it conflicts with the accuracy of the prophecy in all other instances.

>>652176

>I'm sorry but this interpretation makes the Five Saturdays, (and by extension the First Fridays of the Sacred Heart of Jesus), come across less like promises, and more like conditional bonus points. What good is just following regular Catholic dogma if you need to metaphorically unlock these extra achievements to feel extra safe?

Because not every Catholic who thinks that they are following the dogma perfectly actually does so, nor do they all confess everything that may actually need confessing. Same goes for you guys as well. I just don't know why you have such a hard time accepting that there are conditions in which intercession is necessary for the salvation of certain souls, even faithful ones, and instead need to misinterpret these devotions as "bonus point"

>And why didn't the apparition just give this context in the first place?

The promise was initially given to the Carmelite Order in the middle ages and wasn't popularized as a lay devotion until centuries later. They were already trying to follow Catholic dogma to a tee. As such, even if the above imperfections of man were certainly a possibility, viewing this as an OSAS pass would have been downright offensive to them.

>By the way, it's interesting that you have no problem with the apparition's First Saturday claims automatically carrying a context of adherence to Catholic dogma. But when the apparition claims "Russian conversion"… nope, no Catholic context there.

There is, however, the context of the Orthodox Church being protected by Mary, as the multiple apparitions you have cited proves, and receiving an abundance of graces that are shared by our two Churches, all of which are things that the Catholic Church recognizes. I'm sorry but you're grasping at straws at this point, at least where this argument is concerned.

>All these devotional innovations, scapulars, medals, penances, indulgences, etc. are literally more and more and more works and laws being added to and piled atop a framework (Jesus' Death and Resurrection; Holy Spirit; New Covenant; Early Church Traditions) that should not need them.

None of these things are works that derive their benefits from the actions of the one who performs them, they all derive their power from the intercession of creatures and the graces that God has given them. Does God not delight in the glory that he grants his creatures and the graces these creatures bestow on us through him? The point of establishing a New Covenant was that legalism is not a replacement for love. This fact has not been lost on the Church.

>The New Covenant by itself should be enough. These Catholic additions imply "No, it's not enough."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P58.HTM

1675 These expressions of piety extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it. They "should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some way derived from it and lead the people to it, since in fact the liturgy by its very nature is far superior to any of them.

Do your research next time.

>>652225

>was in a far better position than Catholicism to redeem the people of Russia.

Then how is Catholicism the True Church then as you claimed earlier?

>None of these apparitions have been confirmed by the Church.

The apparitions on that list include Fatima and La Sallate, which you vehemently defend.

>I just don't know why you have such a hard time accepting that there are conditions in which intercession is necessary for the salvation of certain souls, even faithful ones, and instead need to misinterpret these devotions as "bonus point"

The necessity of intercession itself isn't the issue here. It's that the intercessions offered by adhering to First Saturday's, First Fridays, Scapulars, etc. go far beyond just praying for the departed and whatnot. They specifically offer salvation through pumped up graces. As if normal intercessory prayer is literally not enough. You've got to do super extra hard prayer on specific days so many months in a row to obtain super duper intercessory prayers. It reeks of questionable extracurricular acts of piety like when indulgences were abused.

>http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/lasalette.htm

>Here is the full text of the prophecy, even going so far as to differentiate between the real and the apocryphal version of Melanie's secret. If that isn't apocalyptic then I don't know what is.

1. How the heck did a circa late 90's Geocities looking site get their hands on the "real complete prophecy." from the Vatican? Who are these people/Who is this person?

2. Why do they treat British Empire era Anglican England as the great rekindler of the faith when the Catholics would regard them as heretics?

3. Why is the so-called complete or almost complete prophecy only available on sketchy under-the-radar sites?

4. If they are only available on sketchy under-the radar sites because of some grand conspiracy by the Vatican to keep them secret, again, how the heck did they escape the Vatican archives and wind up on some random Joe's Geocities site?

>The promise was initially given to the Carmelite Order in the middle ages and wasn't popularized as a lay devotion until centuries later.

First Saturdays in honor of Mary started in the Middle Ages with the Carmelites, but the Promise of "Five Saturdays in a row for sufficient graces at death for restitution to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" did not begin until Lucia received said words from the Fatima Apparition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Saturdays_Devotion

>>652256

(cont'd)

>None of these things are works that derive their benefits from the actions of the one who performs them, they all derive their power from the intercession of creatures and the graces that God has given them.

The individual obtains said intercessions from the specific actions performed (i.e. specific prayer rituals on certain Saturdays, etc.) And these are not just ordinary intercessions, like "please take care of my mom," or "pray for my grandfather's soul", these are salvation granting ones (through graces) if the apparitions are to be believed

>1675 These expressions of piety extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it. They "should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some way derived from it and lead the people to it, since in fact the liturgy by its very nature is far superior to any of them.

Once again, if the liturgy is far superior, than why adopt an act that guarantees salvation if done along with the liturgy, when you can just gain salvation from the far superior liturgy? It makes the apparitions' promises utterly pointless, and thus, yes, literally just bonus points and/or hedging your bets.

"I just want to dedicate myself to Mary and the Heart of Jesus a lot."

You've said it yourself. You literally don't need this crap. The early saints didn't have Immaculate or Sacred Hearts or scapulars or medals to hedge their bets with. St. Mary of Egypt started out as an unrepentant super whore. By the end of her life, she had attained such holiness as to literally levitate off the ground. She didn't have strange fire devotionals or medals or trinkets. She was clothed in only her own hair. She merely followed the ascetic practices of Early Church Tradition. The Early Saints, Martyrs and Ascetics, who we are to emulate as role models, were spiritual Tony Starks: they were working out their salvations in caves…. from scraps.

>B-b-but they were Saints, and we're just laymen….

You honestly don't think laymen were getting saved back then too via just normal liturgical activity? Jesus's sacrifice was enough. You don't need scapulars, medals or strange fire devotionals to hedge your bets with (which is what you are doing; I don't care how many times you try to re-frame it as "mere devotion/consecration." I call shenanigans on this. The offer of Salvation by these things is not there for no reason.) All you need is faith in Jesus, surrender to the Holy Spirit, the fruit of works, standard intercessory prayers to Mary and the Saints (none of this Immaculate Scapular crap) and to your Spiritual Father and congregation, to partake in the sacraments and to lead a Godly life according to Jesus' commandments:

>Matthew 11:28-30:

>Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

>Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

>For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

>>652257

(cont'd)

>All you need is faith in Jesus, surrender to the Holy Spirit, the fruit of works, standard intercessory prayers to Mary and the Saints (none of this Immaculate Scapular crap) and to your Spiritual Father and congregation, to partake in the sacraments and to lead a Godly life according to Jesus' commandments:

I almost forgot: fasting too.

>>652258

(cont'd)

Also almost forgot this part:

>There is, however, the context of the Orthodox Church being protected by Mary, as the multiple apparitions you have cited proves, and receiving an abundance of graces that are shared by our two Churches, all of which are things that the Catholic Church recognizes. I'm sorry but you're grasping at straws at this point, at least where this argument is concerned.

So are you, in effect, basically saying that Orthodoxy and Catholicism, together, constitute the True Church?

>>652256

>Then how is Catholicism the True Church then as you claimed earlier?

Because we have all of those graces and more and we never broke with Christ's vicar. I legitimately don't know where you're getting all these straws from.

>So are you, in effect, basically saying that Orthodoxy and Catholicism, together, constitute the True Church?

>The apparitions on that list include Fatima and La Sallate, which you vehemently defend.

Like industrial farming operation amount of straws, seriously.

>1. How the heck did a circa late 90's Geocities looking site get their hands on the "real complete prophecy." from the Vatican? Who are these people/Who is this person?

Hell if I know who they are or what geocities be, but they have links to photocopied version of the original letter signed by the children under the prophecies, along with a book for sources. Same answer for 3 and 4.

>2. Why do they treat British Empire era Anglican England as the great rekindler of the faith when the Catholics would regard them as heretics?

Personally I'm more inlined to think she's talking about the religious revival in Poland, especially given that John Paul II came from there. It's up for debate though as this is the most difficult part of the prophecy.

>The necessity of intercession itself isn't the issue here. It's that the intercessions offered by adhering to First Saturday's, First Fridays, Scapulars, etc. go far beyond just praying for the departed and whatnot. They specifically offer salvation through pumped up graces.

And, unless you can give a compelling reason why Mary can't do that through the means she has described, there's nothing actually wrong with offering the graces necessary for salvation. You gave up on doing several posts ago and moved the goalpost to pointing out the efficacy of standard christian practice ,despite the fact that, as I pointed out, many christians unknowingly fall short of God's standard, sometimes fatally, and would be eternally grateful for such intercession, a point you have ignored completely. The core of my argument so far has, for the most part, been consistently sidestepped, and the arguments you've put up have been tangental at best.

>The early saints didn't have Immaculate or Sacred Hearts or scapulars or medals to hedge their bets with. St. Mary of Egypt started out as an unrepentant super whore. By the end of her life, she had attained such holiness as to literally levitate off the ground. She didn't have strange fire devotionals or medals or trinkets. She was clothed in only her own hair. She merely followed the ascetic practices of Early Church Tradition. The Early Saints, Martyrs and Ascetics, who we are to emulate as role models, were spiritual Tony Starks: they were working out their salvations in caves…. from scraps.

Yes and, like Jesus, none of these people would have had any problem with a servant getting their due wages. Why you seem so obsessed with with the work these saints put in for their salvation, especially when you accuse me of pedling works salvation, I can't tell, but it's an attitude that Jesus crafted the story of the workers in the vinyard specifically to obliterate, so you need to seriously think about purging that tony stark pride from your spirituality if you want to be counted among the saints. And, if not that, you certainly need to stop using it as an argument against the efficacy of intercession, which it dosen't even touch, especially if it leads you to say…

>You honestly don't think laymen were getting saved back then too via just normal liturgical activity?

what

>You don't need scapulars, medals or strange fire devotionals to hedge your bets with (which is what you are doing; I don't care how many times you try to re-frame it as "mere devotion/consecration." I call shenanigans on this.

If you don't care for the devotion of my heart, if you are going to deny the true depth and power of God's love for Mary, if you are going to assert that not needing these things actually means anything in regards to their efficacy or relationship to the liturgy/divine life, and if you are going to flat out ignore all of my posts to put forth insanity like above as as an assertation, then this pointless debate is officially over. If you think that I mean you ill will then I don't, and if I've caused you grief then I humbly request that, all of this tiresome bickering aside you forgive me, but this debate has been an exercise in patience from the start. Maybe it has been so for you too, but it is clear at this point that neither of us are going to "win" today. Say a Lord's Prayer for me and I'll say one for you. Good night and God bless.

>>652281

>Like industrial farming operation amount of straws, seriously.

Sidestepping/half-heartedly acknowledging/answering legitimate questions and calling them "straws", seriously.

Like a list that includes Fatima and La Sallate, which you have been vehemently defending and holding up as penultimate examples of Marian apparitions worth believing in, in terms of prophecies (including the "real prophecies" on a questionable looking web page) and recommended extracurricular works throughout this entire thread, you just dismiss in one line.

It boils down to me thinking the apparitions are questionable, therefore their additional recommended works being questionable. The apparitions literally offer salvation through sufficient graces through specific prayers at specific times in a limited time sequence. Then you agree with me that standard Christian dogma is good enough and that the "salvation promises" mean virtually nothing and even outright say so by literally saying "I just want to do them/wear them because I like Mary a lot." Which considering, the salvific promises of such things, I don't buy, and call you out on hedging your bets. And then get annoyed at me when I question the efficacy of them when you literally just played them down.

If you think the Tony Stark analogy was pride, the point went completely over your head.

And you're right. Our argument is effectively over. We keep going round and round in a circle.

>>652355

(cont'd)

The Tony Stark analogy, is me being trying to communicate that the works of the Saints are based on standard Christian dogma, not the super extra bonus works of the apparitions.

Then there's the questioning of my belief in intercession, when I'm just questioning the efficacy of super extra bonus intercession offered by questionable apparitions.

I too am sorry if I have caused you grief and ask for your forgiveness and will pray for you as well, but yes, clearly we need to move on.

I wish you the best.

>>652356

(cont'd)

I'm sorry, but I've got to say one more thing that has burrowed a hole into the back of my head in the aftermath of this. I don't know if it's the Holy Spirit trying to elucidate, or the Devil trying to restir up passions between us, but I feel compelled to say it because of how it struck me.

My spiel on the Saints and Tony Stark, etc. was me trying to communicate the fact that I trust in Jesus' sacrifice and promises, more than I trust in the promises of questionable apparitions. You probably didn't intend to, but you referred to this as a point of "pride." The fact that trusting in Jesus over the extracurricular devotions and materials of questionable apparitions, can be interpreted as "pride" greatly disturbs me, and makes me all the more uncomfortable and convinced of the questionableness of these apparitions and their practices.

Regardless, God Bless you and keep you safe. I pray that God shows his truth to us, whichever of us is right or wrong or somewhere in between. Maybe God will show me the truth of your claims someday after all, or vice versa, I don't know. Regardless, glory be to God and his saints.

>>652387

>They fact that trusting in Jesus over the extracurricular devotions and materials of questionable apparitions, can be interpreted as "pride" greatly disturbs me, and makes me all the more uncomfortable and convinced of the questionableness of these apparitions and their practices.

I never would question the Lord. What I would question, however, is placing the merits of one man's path to salvation, especially one which does not even exclude Jesus, over the other, as if any of us truly have merit in God's eyes. And don't get me wrong, these were saints through and through and I don't doubt that they were, but they would have been delighted of they knew that the Mediatrix was interceeding for the souls that were not called to the grueling life of aceticism, and the would have been the last to use their crosses as a criticism thereof. Plus, they would not have considered these apparitions quesionable if the Church deemed them worthy of belief. I know that my interpretation was not the intent of your post, but the troubling subtext remains and evoking stark of all people does little to help. I only bring this up again in hopes it may do your soul a little good.

>>652402

>one man's path to salvation

The New Covenant, under Christ is NOT "one man's path of salvation." It is THE path of salvation. Whether, Saint, Martyr, Monastic, Priest, or Laity. It may slightly differ in details for each, but the fundamentals remain the same. I did not exclude Jesus in the explanation; Jesus was literally the entire point.

>and the would have been the last to use their crosses as a criticism thereof.

The relied on The New Covenant, period. Just as laity and others did at the time.

>Plus, they would not have considered these apparitions quesionable if the Church deemed them worthy of belief.

>>652225

>None of these apparitions have been confirmed by the Church.

Once again, Fatima and La Sallette were included on that list. (including the aspects that bring them into question.)

>>652420

>Once again, Fatima and La Sallette were included on that list. (including the aspects that bring them into question.)

Dude I didn't respond to that because it was very obviously implied that the two apparitions that were approved weren't relevant. The debate ended several posts ago.

>>651330 (OP)

>that pic

I chuckled