@jathanasius1@CatholicPods Ignoring the errors with this take on our view of Mary, if your only issue with this is the Marian devotion, why bring up the scroll? Certainly the scroll is actually an area of lesser Marian devotion than what St. Alphonsus lives elsewhere.
@antitheistdad This is true for the common cultural conception of objective morality, as some sort of independent field that applies to actions. But true objective morality rests in a highest good, God.
Christianity is weird. To the world the Cross itself is foolishness. But regardless, if Saint John and the Prophet Ezekiel may consume scrolls to signify their reception of the words of God, I see not why a man may not consume a scroll of the Immaculata to signify his reception of her. So long as he understands, as I’m sure you would not dispute St. Alphonsus did, that this is a sacramental, pointing towards prayer and accompanying it, not the petition of the soul itself.
St. Alphonsus wrote a whole book on prayer (Great Means of Salvation), and a repeated point he makes throughout all his works is that the principal end of prayer is spiritual, not temporal, goods, and that said temporal goods ought only be prayed for conditionally. Of course Saint Alphonsus suffered horribly in his later life, from a decrepit back, partial blindness, deafness, and crippling pain, and even then he only prayed for relief conditionally and on the grounds of it limiting his service. There are also accounts of him refusing to prayer for minor relief, from things such as headaches. All this said, I am not disputing that he may have eaten a scroll of the Immaculata, this is possible, but it was certainly done as a conditional petition, not as some sort of guarantee of healing.
@monachus_iners This logic could apply to the Chalcedonian schism, even the Nestorian one. This is not how infallibility works, especially when Bishops out of communion with Rome do not belong to the Church in the same way as those within, and especially when those bishops are a minority anyway
@AlexAvgvstin Yes. To take a woman you intend to marry into your home prior to marriage is such an extreme level of temptation that it is sinful in the same way an alcoholic buying alcohol would be sinful.
I mean He isn’t. He could make us pure the moment we die. He is perfectly capable of doing that. Why does He discipline us on earth rather than just making us pure directly (“He disciplines the one He loves”)? Is He too weak to do that? Certainly not, because capability is not equivalent to doing, and we cannot reason our way into the mind of God, for “only the spirit knows the things of God.” This is why Holy Scripture and Revelation as a whole is so important, to reveal to us what we do not know, purgatory being part of this.
@monachus_iners He can’t
Indulgences are not get-out-of-purgatory free cards. Even for those on earth they only apply insofar as one is detached from sin, hence why the Church attaches them to meritorious acts, and does not simply reply on the Apostolic pardon.