The fun continues in the "...we will not know to whom to turn" combox. Thanks to GeneMBridges who has stepped in to provide some timely thoughts. Here are mine in regard to the last two Romanist comments.
I'd like you to imagine a context in which the declaration to Mary: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn" would be comparable to a Reformed pastor saying "Christ died for all men". Limited Atonement is not a necessary article of faith to be saved, and besides that I don't think a seriously Reformed pastor would ever say that anyway. But recourse to CHRIST for forgiveness of sin IS a necessary article of faith, at least biblically. Apparently not in modern RC theology.
So make it as rosy and sunny as you can for your position. Create a scenario in which:
1) the Pope would actually be presenting Christ as the Savior, and
2) this statement would fit and make sense.
Similarly for de Liguori - in what kind of scenario is it permissible to ask for recourse to someone else to rescue you from Jesus? Let's make this a little more practical, more hands-on.
All this sounds suspiciously like you are trying to insert your individual interpretations in place of actual statements from a Pope and from a doctor of the church. It's very Protestant of you. Are you sure you don't want to visit my church this week?
I pray to all three persons of the Trinity, depending. What I don't do is tell a human that I have no hope if I disappoint that human.
Daniel Montoro said a few interesting things. Unfortunately, in none of them did he provide any evidence of an attack on his church in the post. I'm usually happy enough to attack the RCC, but I didn't do so in the post.
Montoro, ironically enough, attacks the church well enough in his acting like a Protestant all thru his comment. What an example for all Prots and Romanists alike to follow! If you don't like what the Magisterium says, just reinterpret it. Of course, isn't that what we Prots get accused of all the time, with regard to the Scr and patristic writings?
She leads people to Christ. Period.
Then why didn't the Pope say that? You sound like a Protestant too.
I'm not quite certain that the Pope would appreciate you correcting him. It appears to be the Protestants here who are taking the Pope at his word, and the Romanists who hasten to change his words.
Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus
B/c I speak up when someone says that there is no recourse if she is no recourse, I hate Mary?
May I honestly recommend you read Svenden's Who Is My Mother?
The short answer is that you are full of it - we don't hate Mary but rather love her and more pointedly her Son enough to want to keep them both in their proper places - Mary as a worshiper and disciple, Jesus as the only true God and Savior. What a disgusting thing to say!
these satanic comments
You seem to me to be just like those holocaust deniers over there in Jersey.
Your blood be on your own hands, man.
still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven?
Let's grant your point for a second. Where does Scr define demotion of Mary as a damnable offense? Where does Scr define mortal sin? How dare you judge my sin as mortal? How do you know that I have sufficient knowledge of the situation to make it a mortal sin, rather than a venial?
What about honoring your father and mother?
I thought Jesus didn't have any siblings. Mary is not my mother.
I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern
Yes, that's what we need - a profane Roman layman to tell us what the Magisterium meant when it called Prots "separated brethren". I think I'll let the Catechism and the Pope do the talking, thank you.