(cont'd)
I can understand why you're trying to rationalize reparations for sins to Mary's heart, as well as going
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.
When a released prophecy just happens to line up with things already going on, credibility takes a bit of a hit.
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?:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And the credibility holds when the three children who recieved the prophecy decades prior maintain it's authenticity until their deaths.
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."
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.
It's not an assumption. It literally came straight from the apparition's mouth:
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?
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.
I do not see sound doctrine coming from Fatima, or any of the other apparitions for that matter.
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.
baring false witness is a sin
You're right! Forgive me brother. I've been running into a bunch of trolls pretending to be Orthodox.
Perhaps if trolls would quit pretending to be Orthodox…
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.
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.
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.
Same goes for nearly all of the major spiritual events of the last 2000 years. Demonic influences does not logically follow.
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:
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.