The snare of devotion to Mary.

[PaladinValer]

there is also the declarations by the Church Councils and the Ordinary Teaching of the Magisterium that is also Infallible

But none of them have said anything authorizing this sort of theology, so I think my point remains.

Even bishops...even popes have erred on things. This does not even supposedly disrupt papal infallibility as your church understands it. The point that your church has never formally and officially promulgated the theology being discussed is being missed by the two other parties here, which both your fellow church members and non-members like myself have noted.

 

[Targaryen]

But none of them have said anything authorizing this sort of theology, so I think my point remains.

Even bishops...even popes have erred on things. This does not even supposedly disrupt papal infallibility as your church understands it. The point that your church has never formally and officially promulgated the theology being discussed is being missed by the two other parties here, which both your fellow church members and non-members like myself have noted.

 

[Rhamiel]

But none of them have said anything authorizing this sort of theology, so I think my point remains.

Even bishops...even popes have erred on things. This does not even supposedly disrupt papal infallibility as your church understands it. The point that your church has never formally and officially promulgated the theology being discussed is being missed by the two other parties here, which both your fellow church members and non-members like myself have noted.

true, individual Popes and Bishops have erred
that does not bother the teaching of Papal Infallibility

but there is what SCIM pointed out, that every Pope, in communion with the rest of the Church has upheld the teaching of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces for at least 300 years

we also have that in Belgium, in 1921, the Church allowed a feast day for Mary under this title

I do not think that this should become a Dogma
but it is not needed as a Dogma
it has already been shown to be an accepted title for Our Lady

 

[PaladinValer]

true, individual Popes and Bishops have erred
that does not bother the teaching of Papal Infallibility

but there is what SCIM pointed out, that every Pope, in communion with the rest of the Church has upheld the teaching of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces for at least 300 years

we also have that in Belgium, in 1921, the Church allowed a feast day for Mary under this title

I do not think that this should become a Dogma
but it is not needed as a Dogma
it has already been shown to be an accepted title for Our Lady

Not officially, however. De facto, weakly at that, but not de jure.

 

[Tallguy88]

She is our Mediator and Advocate with Christ, as the Catechism affirms. More than that is adiaphora.

 

[Rhamiel]

"not officially"

it was allowed as a feast day
now it was just a local feast for the country of Belgium
so it was not a universal feast
but it is an accepted term

used in papal encyclicals by different Popes, accepted for a feast day
that seems pretty "official"
if a papal encyclical and the calendar are not official, then you have a SUPER narrow definition of official

not everything NEEDS to be dogmatically defined to be official doctrine

 

[PaladinValer]

"not officially"

it was allowed as a feast day
now it was just a local feast for the country of Belgium
so it was not a universal feast
but it is an accepted term

At a very localized level.

used in papal encyclicals by different Popes, accepted for a feast day that seems pretty "official"
if a papal encyclical and the calendar are not official, then you have a SUPER narrow definition of official

Popes are allowed to have their pious opinions, just like everyone else. The fact is, your church not only has a formal way of declaring dogma, but it has no problem with the idea that doctrine can be fallible, and in fact there are two levels of doctrine: fallible and infallible.

not everything NEEDS to be dogmatically defined to be official doctrine

That's not in question.

 

[Rhamiel]

do you have something to back that up?

maybe your denomination claims that doctrine might be fallible
but I have never heard that about the Catholic Church

 

[Zeek]

With respect, if you consider Scott Hahn a lightweight, then this board is not the place to have your discussions. You should be having discussions with professors at Catholic seminaries.

I found his book on Mary to be very shallow and he spoke as if he was addressing children...he also contradicted himself in a major way..please don't ask for details...happy to do so another time, just expressing why I found him 'lightweight'

Personally, I think it a bit silly to think that folks here can give you better understanding than Scott Hahn, and those from Coming Home for that matter.

I think one can often get a much better sense of things in dscussions with an eclectic mix of people, rather than some dry academic pontifications....this can also be a springboard to further study for oneself.

I am not sure what you are looking for. The catechism is available to one and all.

What I am looking for is anyone who is Catholic who can see why alarm bells are ringing for me...not just because I am not Catholic, but because what I claim to see worries them too.


================

Protestants see some Catholics going overboard in their Marian devotions and beliefs and think that Catholics have faulty theology and reject Scripture. Catholics see those same folks and simply sigh.

Perhaps after reading some of the responses from fellow Catholics there is a little cause for concern, because if someone of going too far in devotion to Mary, they are surely straying from scripture and the teachings of the Church...hence faulty theology.

You keep implying that because a certain understanding is not in Scripture, then it must be untie. We can discuss this at length, but this is not s sustainable view.

No, I have been careful not to fall into the sola scriptura trap; athough I have already been accused of it in a later post, what I am implying is that if a teaching or tradition outside scripture, contradicts or nullifies what is evident within scripture, then there is a problem.

Scripture was not collected into one set until hundreds of years after Jesus. What we hold as the faith was developed as interpretations of Scripture over the centuries. We need Scripture plus Tradition plus Reason plus Experience. Individuals should NOT look at a doctrine and determine that it is not in Scripture and reject that doctrine. They need to understand what the Church teaches.

I don't really have a problem with this understanding.
==============

In the end, you should realize what a big tent the Church really is. There is room for all Christians, the fact that there are those within the Church with very strange views and practices not withstanding.

I totally agree.

To be clear, there is one Church. Since Vatican II, much of the Church has changed in ways that many on this board reject. Many here reject the popes of the 60's. So, I would be very careful before considering their views as what Catholicism means or must mean.

This is something I am learning...there has always only been one Church of which Jesus is the Head and we are the body.
==========

BOTTOM LINE
If you want better arguments, go to a Jesuit seminary or find their courses/discussions on the web. But joining the Church has little to do with accepting every dogma and doctrine in the same ways as those message boards like this one.

To put it another way, there will be no church entity agrees with you on all dogma and doctrines. And you simply choose the closest one to your understandings, you will then need to change again as you grow spiritually. As my Baptist mentor taught me long ago (when I was leaving to join the Catholic Church), find a Church doing God's work and join in and get to work. Theology is a fine hobby, and a fine profession, but I suspect that it should not be the deciding factor in joint a local church.

I am not that interested in intellectual arguments, just in some old fashioned honesty and biblical integrity...this thread was in response to the one in OBOB and from the point of view that Mark was thinking of becoming a Catholic but had a wee bit of problem with Mary...then along comes SCIM and bigs up Mary in such a way that the gospel is weakened and compromised IMHO, thus both adding to and nullifying the gospel under the guise of adding a beneficial and vital component.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

But none of them have said anything authorizing this sort of theology, so I think my point remains.

Even bishops...even popes have erred on things. This does not even supposedly disrupt papal infallibility as your church understands it. The point that your church has never formally and officially promulgated the theology being discussed is being missed by the two other parties here, which both your fellow church members and non-members like myself have noted.

Popes are allowed to have their pious opinions, just like everyone else. The fact is, your church not only has a formal way of declaring dogma, but it has no problem with the idea that doctrine can be fallible, and in fact there are two levels of doctrine: fallible and infallible.

With due respect I strongly suggest that you refrain as a non-Catholic from declaring what is and is not Catholic teaching, especially if you're not familiar with the hierarchy of authority in magisterial teaching.

There exists two expressions of the magisterium of the popes and the Church, those being the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is exercised by the popes when they speak ex cathedra, or by the Church as a whole in an ecumenical council. This is the absolue highest point of authority in the Church. But the ordinary magisterium exists too, and furthermore Catholics are bound to the ordinary magisterium. It is liberal foolishness that states that a Catholic is not bound by the ordinary magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium is the teaching authority of the popes and the bishops outwiith the extraordinary functions of an ex cathedra definition or an ecumenical council. It is not always infallible. However the Second Vatican Council definitively teaches that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church can be infallible. The Church teaches that if a doctrine is consistently taught on the level of the ordinary magisterium then it is infallible.

The then-Cardinal Ratzinger adequately explained the Church's doctrine of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium when he said that "in the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine. Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church."

On the matter of Our Lady as Mexiatrix of All Graces and and as Co-Redemptrix, it belongs firmly to the ordinary and universal magisterium, and even the extraordinary magisterium (as expressed by the Second Vatican Council). The doctrine we're discussing in this thread has been re-affirmed as explicit Catholic teaching by every pope for the last three hundred years and in no less than 16 papal enyclicals. The theology being discussed in this thead has been formally and officially promulgated by the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Chuch and Catholics are bound by it. We owe it religious assent.

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[PaladinValer]

With due respect I strongly suggest that you refrain as a non-Catholic from declaring what is and is not Catholic teaching, especially if you're not familiar with the hierarchy of authority in magisterial teaching.

That assumes that I am not, and it also assumes the opposite is true. At least one is wrong, and perhaps the other opposite is true too.

And pretty much any Vatican Catholic who has posted here will vouch for that.

Oh, and I'm not the subject. Address my posts and not my person. Is your post's argument so poor that it requires addressing my person to look better? That's a sign of having a truly terrible argument.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

That assumes that I am not, and it also assumes the opposite is true. At least one is wrong, and perhaps the other opposite is true too.

And pretty much any Vatican Catholic who has posted here will vouch for that.

Oh, and I'm not the subject. Address my posts and not my person. Is your post's argument so poor that it requires addressing my person to look better? That's a sign of having a truly terrible argument.

Your faith icon is that of an Anglican, so it's a safe assumption that you're an Anglican. And Anglicans are not Catholic.

I am not failing to address your post. You have accused me of making a terrible argument for making this about you, but you've quite clearly ignored everything I actually said in argument for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium that is binding on Roman Catholics. The position you put forward, that the theology discussed in this thread is not official or formal Catholic theology, was wrong. Your concluding remark was a nice dodge, but if I'm putting forward a terrible argument, at least it can be said that I'm putting forward an argument.

You, on the other hand, are not.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[Targaryen]

Your faith icon is that of an Anglican, so it's a safe assumption that you're an Anglican. And Anglicans are not Catholic.

Roman fallacy only held by those that wish to look no further then Rome itself.

Anglicanism is both Catholic and Reformed. When seeking to state fact, it's a good idea to actually represent fact. In fact the term Roman Catholic is an invention by loyal member of the CofE in the 16th and 17 centuries. According to Wikipedia:

The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.[6]
The reign of Elizabeth I of England at the end of the 16th century was marked by conflicts in Ireland. Those opposed to English rule forged alliances with those against the Protestant reformation, making the term Roman Catholic almost synonymous with being Irish during that period, although that usage changed significantly over time.[7]
Like the term Anglican, the term Roman Catholic came into widespread use in the English language only in the 17th century.[8] The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" were both in use in the 17th century and "Roman Catholic" was used in some official documents, such as those relating to the Spanish Match in the 1620s. There was, however, significant tension between Anglicans and Roman Catholics at the time (as reflected in the Test Act for public office). Even today, the Act of Settlement 1701 still prohibits Roman Catholics from becoming English monarchs.

I am not failing to address your post. You have accused me of making a terrible argument for making this about you, but you've quite clearly ignored everything I actually said in argument for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium that is binding on Roman Catholics. The position you put forward, that the theology discussed in this thread is not official or formal Catholic theology, was wrong. Your concluding remark was a nice dodge, but if I'm putting forward a terrible argument, at least it can be said that I'm putting forward an argument.

You, on the other hand, are not.

Funny, I saw that Rhamiel was looking at Paladin's posts in a rather open yet on point critical manner. You have basically said that if your not roman, your not welcome. Which is something that bothers me when it's radical Protestants doing the same thing to Romans or trying to conduct the wars of religion again within the couched guise of theology.

Here's a hint, when trying to make a debate point. try not to make any claim that an outside perspective is not allowed to comment or pop in with viewpoints.

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

Have you done any unbiased research that would point to that direction? I'd like to see your unbiased sources to prove that point, if not then this is a biased and rather wrong statement.

Please provide your third-party sources to point in that direction or maybe you should avoid the anti-Non roman position? After all you might not want to be lumped in with some that are anti-roman would you?

I utterly reject the premise that I must base my beliefs on anything other than the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church that has been granted authority to proclaim the truths of divine revelation, the Catholic Church is the Church which was instituted by Christ with supreme authority over the earth and His people.

No, I will not provide third-party sources, because the teaching of the Church is sufficient. I won't even begin to entertain the foolish belief to the contrary.

Hmm ad hominem.

Why yes, it was. Though I would contend that it was not a fallacious use of the argument. I put forward an argument against your fellow Anglican friend which detailed that Catholics are bound to the ordinary magisterium which also is infallible and that the theology being discussed in this thread forms a part of that magisterium, in contradiction to his belief that Catholics are bound only by the etraordinary magisterium. In passing I mentioned that as a non-Catholic he should refrain from declaring what is and is not Catholic teaching.

For two fellows who are accusing me of avoiding discussing the subjects at hand, you both are leading a merry dance around actually discussing the topic.

[...] but did so without reverting to some sort of attack using a rather dated Roman perspective of heresy regarding Reformed churches.

There is absolutely nothing dated about the Catholic Church's perspective of Protestant heresy.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[Targaryen]

I utterly reject the premise that I must base my beliefs on anything other than the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church that has been granted authority to proclaim the truths of divine revelation, the Catholic Church is the Church which was instituted by Christ with supreme authority over the earth and His people.

No, I will not provide third-party sources, because the teaching of the Church is sufficient. I won't even begin to entertain the foolish belief to the contrary.

Which is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala not listening". Good to know.

Why yes, it was. Though I would contend that it was not a fallacious use of the argument. I put forward an argument against your fellow Anglican friend which detailed that Catholics are bound to the ordinary magisterium which also is infallible and that the theology being discussed in this thread forms a part of that magisterium, in contradiction to his belief that Catholics are bound only by the etraordinary magisterium. In passing I mentioned that as a non-Catholic he should refrain from declaring what is and is not Catholic teaching.

Welcome to GT, where you will get your teaching turned back to you by people that don't understand them. Trust me, you'd rather have Paladin's points raised then some others. but then again, according to you, you'd rather not listen to anything outside the church?

A bit too SSPX for my taste but hey, OBOB is designed to fit you better

For two fellows who are accusing me of avoiding discussing the subjects at hand, you both are leading a merry dance around actually discussing the topic.

Actually someone pointed out your near unbiblical stance in regards to Mary a few post prior, but as it was a non Roman, i'm sure that missed it's target as well

There is absolutely nothing dated about the Catholic Church's perspective of Protestant heresy.

Funny, a lot of Romans would did agree with that, quite a number of them are clergy as well. And funny that the Popes in modern times have been reaching out to us "heretics" eh?

 

[Rhamiel]

A bit too SSPX for my taste but hey, OBOB is designed to fit you better

lol actually if you are promoting SSPX you can get banned from OBOB, it has happened before

as for the point of this little scuffle
SCRIM does not like people who are not in Communion with the Holy See to try and tell us what we "really think"

that is reasonable, is it not?
You do not see me trying to explain Baptist theology to Baptists?

and every educated Roman Catholic knows that the some Anglicans hold a "branch theory" view of the Church and that they view themselves as being "English Catholic"

but the Roman Catholic Church does not hold this view, Pope Leo XIII even made official rulings that state that Holy Orders are null and void in the Anglican Church
so from our POV, The Anglican Communion is a denomination, not a proper Church.

we seem to be getting a bit off topic

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

Which is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala not listening". Good to know.

What care I for the mockeries of the world, and the pearls of earthly wisdom? Truth is found in God, and is revealed by His Church. I won't let you shift the goal posts on this matter. Non-Catholic sources are not inherently superior to Catholic sources by virtue of being non-Catholic.

"As it is, it seems as if God had destined us, his apostles, to be in the lowest place of all, like men under sentence of death; such a spectacle do we present to the whole creation, men and angels alike. We are fools for Christ’s sake, you are so wise; we are so helpless, you so stout of heart; you are held in honour, while we are despised."

Welcome to GT, where you will get your teaching turned back to you by people that don't understand them. Trust me, you'd rather have Paladin's points raised then some others. but then again, according to you, you'd rather not listen to anything outside the church?

Raise any point you wish.

And again you mischaracterise what I said. I did not one say that I would not listen to non-Catholics or that I would not discuss with non-Catholics. I said non-Catholics should refrain from pronouncing on what is and is not binding on Catholics, especially if they are ignorant as to what is in fact binding. Abandon your current misunderstanding of what I said, or not. Though if you don't I will simply take it as proof that you merely wish to engage in an argument of flowery rhetoric. Which I would advise against. I'm very fond of 19th-20th century literature.

A bit too SSPX for my taste but hey, OBOB is designed to fit you better

Then you're obviously not very familiar with the SSPX. No doubt OBOB is designed to fit me better, hence why I have refrained from participating on any other board on this forum until I was called out by the OP.

Actually someone pointed out your near unbiblical stance in regards to Mary a few post prior, but as it was a non Roman, i'm sure that missed it's target as well

Someone earlier in this thread pointed out his own mistaken conceptions of what the Scriptures are and mean. My theology is entirely Scriptural because it is the theology of the Holy Incarnation. The same person I surmise would reject the doctrine of the Trinity since that word is not found in Scripture.

Funny, a lot of Romans would did agree with that, quite a number of them are clergy as well. And funny that the Popes in modern times have been reaching out to us "heretics" eh?

Of course the popes and clergy and even laity have been reaching out to heretics. That doesn't mean that you're not a heretic. That doesn't mean that your doctrine is not heresy. They're reaching out to you precisely because you are a heretic and your doctrine is erroneous.

Show me a single quote from any pope that says that Protestantism is not heresy.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[PaladinValer]

Your faith icon is that of an Anglican, so it's a safe assumption that you're an Anglican. And Anglicans are not Catholic.

And the logical conclusion of your argument is that Anglicans cannot possibly understand Vatican Catholicism?

What a load of dung, especially when there is one Anglican poster here who actually holds a license to teach religion, specifically Vatican Catholicism, in schools under your auspices. Tell us; what of his existence? Rather blows your ideas right out of the water.

So only Muslims can rationally and logically comment or be experts on Islam? Atheists on Atheism? Buddhists on Buddhism? Presbyterians on Presbyterianism? Methodists on Methodism?

Hey, guess what? Only white people can be experts on white people! Blacks for black people! Gays for gays; the disabled for disabled; the gifted for gifted.

That is your implied argument, whether that is acknowledged on your end or not. It is not only illogical, but possibly one of the most foolish things ever posted by a Vatican Catholic in quite some time here on CF, and as someone with 10 years worth of tenure, that says a lot.

I am not failing to address your post.

The word "you" was used. In English, that means the person him- or herself, not something about that person.

You have accused me of making a terrible argument for making this about you, but you've quite clearly ignored everything I actually said in argument for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium that is binding on Roman Catholics.

Nope; you are not your argument. We don't become all new people each time we change our minds in the most minute of ways.

And actually, my posts have been clear acknowledging what papal infallibility is and isn't, and actually, I know full well what the Magistarium is and isn't, and there is not a shred of evidence to back up the implied assertion that I don't, so your posts' implied my ignorance is completely out of line.

Again, 10 years of tenure here, which beats most current participatory members'.

The position you put forward, that the theology discussed in this thread is not official or formal Catholic theology, was wrong.

Shall we invite the individual who does have a license to teach your church's theology here? And I see no primary resources on your end, which should be very easy to obtain.

Your concluding remark was a nice dodge, but if I'm putting forward a terrible argument, at least it can be said that I'm putting forward an argument.

You, on the other hand, are not.

More addressing the person...more proof of your argument's lack of any true substance.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

Can't be; there's no Christ in ad hominems, and that's a fact, not an opinion.

If your position is true, why was there a petition back when John Paul II was still pope for him to declare ex cathedra that St. Mary the Theotokos was Mediatrix of all Graces? If it was, as your argument states, part of the Magistarium's authority, there'd be no need! Here's a link to the petition as it exists on EWTN's official website: Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix

Given EWTN's well-known history of being very true to orthodox Vatican Catholicism, even without a nihil obstat or imprimatur, it is very odd for what your argue to be true with that petition there. They know how your church works and its theology better than both of us, so their witness supersedes anything else.

Furthermore, if it is dogma, why was there a panel back discussion in March of 2010 about whether it should be a dogma, as organized by Inside the Vatican magazine and St. Thomas More College? Here's another primary source: Is the Time Ripe for a 5th Marian Dogma? | ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

So...where's the dogma? Where's the primary source? I got two; your posts offer none except an implied argument of authority which has yet to be substantiated.

 

[WisdomTree]

LiberalAnglicanCatholic, do you mind not using red font? It is really hurting my eyes.

 

[Zeek]

Meanwhile I will reiterate my concerns around these things that have come up in SCIM's posts, and which from the responses so far I see a little distancing by some Catholic brethren from such an intense and dogmatic insistance that demands Mary be given her due...but I see little evidence so far that strongly opposes these views...which gives me further concerns.

1. The idea that Marian devotion is not optional, and that 'devotion to Our Blessed Lady is most necessary to salvation'.

2. Part of Catholicism demands a potential convert develops their devotion to 'Our Lady'...the crux of this being twofold, the first concerns every flavour of Christian when it has been said, a)' if you do not love Mary, you cannot love Jesus, and b) If you have no love for Our Lady and do not let her enter your heart, then you are not a Catholic.

3. Saint Bonaventure was quoted for good measure, "no one "can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate."

4. Every great spiritual author teaches us that we must have Mary in our hearts.
...........................................................

As I am pushed for time, I will make some quick observations relating to the four points.

1. Mary has no direct input into our salvation...she was never included in any preaching of the Gospel.

2. 'If you do not love Mary, you do not love Jesus' is really a rather weighted obsevation, and a bit like putting the cart before the horse...anyone who comes to salvation through Jesus will automatically love Mary...however this is not really the issue...it is they must love Mary according to Catholic doctrine...and IMO this isn't right at all.

3. Trying to make Mary a means for entering Heaven, is adding to the Gospel, it is not true and should be stopped or shown up for what it is.

4. There is nothing that talks about 'having Mary in our hearts'...she is neither the Father, nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit.

Bottom line....this emphasis on Mary is not only wrong it is unscriptural adds to the Gospel and despite denials, it actually detracts from the simplicity of the Gospel and places a burden on people to conform to something that G-d never ordained.

When Paul warned the Galations...

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

He is so emphatic about the power and the truth of the Gospel, that he says even if an Angel brings something different....and apart form the L-rd, an Angel is the highest form of being to ever be present on this earth, with more authority than any person or any institution because they are a Messenger and representative of G-d Himself.

This is serious stuff and really needs to be addressed.