Mary Mother of God

[Bill the Cat]

I get my assurance from the declaration of the Church.

Which is not Christ Himself, and therefore, can be wrong...

From the Church which Saint Paul declared pillar and foundation of truth.

Not exactly. THAT church was before a Pope. Where Paul called out Peter to his face. Where James was the leader of the council. Where Clement said no one dared take the name "Apostle" once the original ones died. Where he said Bishops were only responsible for their territory and not of the others.

You get yours from where?

Scripture. The infallible Word of God. And then from those who were closest to the founding of the Church. I take their word much higher than someone 200 years later. Or 2,000 years later.

[hansgeorg]

Which is not Christ Himself, and therefore, can be wrong...

Not on all levels.

Since Christ is with it ALL DAYS to the consummation of a time. Matthew 28.

Not exactly. THAT church was before a Pope. Where Paul called out Peter to his face. Where James was the leader of the council. Where Clement said no one dared take the name "Apostle" once the original ones died. Where he said Bishops were only responsible for their territory and not of the others.

We have had Catholics oppose Popes face to face too.

Popes are called "Apostol-IC" but not "Apostl-ES".

The territory of Roman Bishop is world and Rome. Besides, I gave the verdict of the LOCAL bishop.

Scripture. The infallible Word of God. And then from those who were closest to the founding of the Church. I take their word much higher than someone 200 years later. Or 2,000 years later.

You are 2000 years later, why should I believe you? What is your Scriptural proof against Fatima, if any?

[Spartacus]

You are 2000 years later, why should I believe you? What is your Scriptural proof against Fatima, if any?

He'll probably start with Galatians 1:8.

C'mon, you've both been through this argument 300 times each. Skip to the good parts.

[Bill the Cat]

Not on all levels.

Since Christ is with it ALL DAYS to the consummation of a time. Matthew 28.

As He is with all of us. Doesn't make us Christians infallible

We have had Catholics oppose Popes face to face too.

Popes are called "Apostol-IC" but not "Apostl-ES".

And they can be wrong, as they are about Fatima and Lordes.

The territory of Roman Bishop is world and Rome.

No. It was Rome alone.

Besides, I gave the verdict of the LOCAL bishop.

And he is wrong. Not infallible.

You are 2000 years later, why should I believe you?

Because I am not starting anything the way Maryology was started 200-300 years later.

What is your Scriptural proof against Fatima, if any?

What's yours that such visions happen? I know what the Lord says about necromancy and listening to seducing spirits.

[Spartacus]

What's yours that such visions happen? I know what the Lord says about necromancy and listening to seducing spirits.

OK, so I was wrong about what verse you'd go to, but y'all are still focused on the boring perfunctory interactions. Y'all both already know the usual answers to this stuff. Get to the substance already

[One Bad Pig]

Because I am not starting anything the way Maryology was started 200-300 years later.

This is pretty much an argument from silence, Bill. It also happens to apply nearly as well to the Trinity.

What's yours that such visions happen? I know what the Lord says about necromancy and listening to seducing spirits.

I don't see how you can call those visions necromancy, but I'm admittedly not all that familiar with them. Could they be seducing spirits? Yes; visions should be tested, not uncritically accepted.

[One Bad Pig]

OK, so I was wrong about what verse you'd go to, but y'all are still focused on the boring perfunctory interactions. Y'all both already know the usual answers to this stuff. Get to the substance already

Have you considered supplying substance rather than snark yourself?

[Bill the Cat]

This is pretty much an argument from silence, Bill. It also happens to apply nearly as well to the Trinity.

But the concept is clearly supported by the Bible. Mariology, and all its accoutrements, is not.

I don't see how you can call those visions necromancy, but I'm admittedly not all that familiar with them. Could they be seducing spirits? Yes; visions should be tested, not uncritically accepted.

I see what the Samuel incident was called. While there are differences in that Samuel was summoned, I just don't see in the Bible any other post-mortem spirit contacting the living. And the things this apparition demanded are pretty off...

[One Bad Pig]

But the concept is clearly supported by the Bible. Mariology, and all its accoutrements, is not.

Depends on what you mean by Mariology. On the other hand, Bibliolatry isn't supported by the Bible either.

I see what the Samuel incident was called. While there are differences in that Samuel was summoned,

Isn't that sort of the point of necromancy, though - that the spirit is summoned?

I just don't see in the Bible any other post-mortem spirit contacting the living.

Fair enough, though I don't see that as an absolute bar; the Bible was never intended to be anything like an exhaustive record. It DOES say to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4:1), and post-mortem saints appear to at least know what's going on here (Heb. 12:1, in context).

And the things this apparition demanded are pretty off...

Yeah, that's a red flag.

[Spartacus]

Have you considered supplying substance rather than snark yourself?

Yes, I have. But when I see grown men repeating arguments I'd years ago seen adequately addressed by one side or the other and which I assume they have as well, I find it a little hard to take them seriously.

[hansgeorg]

As He is with all of us. Doesn't make us Christians infallible

1) As He was especially with the Eleven, who were the first BISHOPS of the Catholic Church.
2) We are not infallible individually, but either all bishops or when the Pope intends to bind all the other bishops.
3) An individual bishop should not be opposed without a good reason.

And they can be wrong, as they are about Fatima and Lordes.

While the Apostles lived, it was impossible that all of the apostles were wrong - that you know, I suppose.

It was also impossible that St Peter remained wrong when corrected. If you didn't know that, read up in the Bible.

If you say this collective infallibility of the Church ceased to function when last Apostle died, how do you know which books belong to NT canon?

There were disputes about certain books centuries after that, and if the Church that settled the dispute was already fallible, how can the settlement be infallible?

But if it was still infallible, why was its Mariology not so?

No. It was Rome alone.

Ask the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Corinth what he has to say about St Clement's Letter to the Corinthians. He may deny (as we Catholics affirm) that the second letter, even more Papist, is genuine, but he will not deny that at a certain point in time the Church of Corinth asked the Church of Rome, that is the Pope, to settle a dispute.

And he is wrong. Not infallible.

But neither is your bishop, if you have one.

Therefore your bishop who is NOT the one over Fatima is even more likely to be wrong than the one who was bishop over Fatima.

Because I am not starting anything the way Maryology was started 200-300 years later.

And am I "starting" or was the bishop of Fatima "starting" anything? We are continuing sth and so are you.

Here is the rub. We claim that what we continue was always there.

You claim that at first it wasn't, but then it was there in the Church and later someone had to start "cleaning it up". And the one or the ones who claimed to be "cleaning up" came along and started a new thing - a very clearly new thing for the time, even if they claimed it was just the renewal of the old thing : Reformation.

Totally at variance with Matthew 28:20.

What's yours that such visions happen? I know what the Lord says about necromancy and listening to seducing spirits.

Mine that visions happen?

Acts 2:[16] But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: [17] And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

As far as I know, the Spirit which was poured out that Day is still with the Church.

Necromancy?

Don't widen terms as to possible meanings, please! It's as annoying as when Mathematicians claim zero is a number!

Necromancy is when you are curious about a particular dead person or dead persons in general and you start doing stuff to summon the spirit of that dead person to where you are, like summon the person to appear or summon the person to accept a medium as channeling. That is a very great evil.

Even so, on one occasion, a real spirit of a real saint appeared when Saul was going to a witch who practised necromancy : if the demons had been appearing, the witch would not have been afraid since she was used to them. Also the text says that it was the spirit of Samuel who appeared.

Therefore, spirits of dead people appearing is clearly not against Holy Scripture, since it is clearly stated by Holy Scripture.

Also, Moses has died, and the spirit of Moses appeared for Transfiguration of Our Lord, together with Elijah who has, however, not yet died and who appeared bodily.

So, necromancy is hardly the issue, even if it had been about a saint who actually died and hadn't risen appearing, as St Catherine of Alexandria (or of Siena, but I think of Alexandria) appeared to St Joan of Arc.

As for listening to seducing spirits, that is what non-Catholics are doing over and over again, whether they come in apparitions, as with Joseph Smith or by bad exegesis as with Luther.

[hansgeorg]

Could they be seducing spirits? Yes; visions should be tested, not uncritically accepted.

And in Fatima the testing took some time, despite a very spectacular miracle.

The visions were in 1917, and the approval of the bishop came in 1930.

[hansgeorg]

Mariology, and all its accoutrements, is not.

Did you check my answers to that tract?

Mariology is indeed very Biblical. From the name of Eve, over Genesis 3:15, by the Fleece of Gideon and the Arc of the Covenant and the Love interest of King Solomon ...

[hansgeorg]

And forgot to mention, while at my previous answers which Bill seems not to have read, that the Blessed Virgin is very much not a "dead person".

She is either like Enoch a person who was just taken up, or, more likely, as Her Son, a person who died and resurrected and is in Heaven and whose tomb is empty.

If I believe the tradition of the Church about the Gospels being written as serious accounts by eyewitnesses or by people having access to them, I'll believe the tradition of the Church on this one too.

And the things this apparition demanded are pretty off...

Yeah, that's a red flag.

What exact demands at Fatima would be "pretty off"?

Fasting wednesdays and fridays? One Bad, have they totally abolished "Apostolic Canons" in your jurisdiction?

Praying the Rosary?

If I were against the Rosary, I would be against Fatima. Can anyone here say sth against the Rosary?

And support it biblically?

Doing penance for those who don't do penance?

What is wrong with that?

Consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart? Would have been better if it had been done!

Putin lost quite a lot of sympathy when after he had asked "Pope Francis" if he was consecrating Russia, and after the latter had answered "let's not talk about Fatima", Putin just dropped the subject. I consider that on that same day he betrayed Russia.

[Bill the Cat]

Depends on what you mean by Mariology.

The invented stories about her being immaculately conceived herself, her being sinless, her being assumed bodily into heaven, her being another mediator, etc.

On the other hand, Bibliolatry isn't supported by the Bible either.

Oh, no doubt.

Isn't that sort of the point of necromancy, though - that the spirit is summoned?

Not strictly speaking. Communing with the dead qualifies.

Fair enough, though I don't see that as an absolute bar; the Bible was never intended to be anything like an exhaustive record.

But creating entire dogmas based on silence is quite dangerous.

It DOES say to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4:1), and post-mortem saints appear to at least know what's going on here (Heb. 12:1, in context).

No doubt. That's why I have no problem with petitioning the saints to pray for us.

Yeah, that's a red flag.

And watching hans defend them with oversimplifications is an even bigger red flag.