Originally posted by hansgeorg
View Post
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment