I made no mistake. You are not following the argument closely enough to understand what I was saying.
Arguing Catholicism from the cathechism with a committed Protestant is pointless. They don't believe that, in fact, they believe it's laced with spiritual toxins, and so to stack up authoritieis of the Church, one on top of the other, does nothing but persuade them in their prejudices.
What they DO respect and hold dear, is Scripture, and it is from Scripture that one must begin with them. Now, in the here and now, with the miracles going on at Lourdes, there is no Scripture that talks about Marian shrines or miracles in the 20th Century, but Protestants THINK there is. They think, at first blush, that this is all those false signs that Jesus warned about. So, it is an easy step to simply say first there are no miracles, but second, if there are, they are demonic.
And that's what we saw appear on this thread.
The first argument, that there are no miracles at Lourdes, is a factual question. It is answered, completely, by referring to the thousands of medical files in the library of the International Medical Committee at Lourdes. Doctors study these healings and sceintifically records what happens. Many cases are found "not scientifically explicable" (science never classifies anything as a "miracle", because such a categorization is unknown to science). There are too many of them, and too many striking cases, for anyone to deny that Lourdes is a fountain of amazing cures. So, the healings are not false.
Which then takes us to the second prong: that they are demonic. One cannot address a Protestant's arguments by using words like Theotokis and bleeding out a river of ink of love and veneration of Mary. They don't share the sentiment and don't accept the authority. Their ASSUMPTION is that a place full of statues of MARY, where cures are indisputably taking place, has demonic power in it.
How does one address THAT? Not by saying that the Devil cannot do supernatural things! Jesus himself warns of false prophets performing "signs", and though Jesus poo-poos the argument that his OWN healings are the work of the Devil, asking if Satan can cast out Satan, that doesn't perforce mean (to a stubborn Protestant who hates the whole idea of a Shrine to Mary in the first place) that the healings at Lourdes, in such an "idolatrous" place, isn't just examples of demonic signs by healing.
Now, I myself would say that the Devil actually CAN'T heal anybody,, and rely on Jesus' say-so in that regard; but then, I rely on Jesus' say-so about Purgatory and Hell ("Gehenna", one and the same, to a Jew), and this is not going to persuade any Protestant (or Catholic) to change his view.
So the final resort is to Jesus' severe warning not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Now THAT has bite. It has bite because it is categorical, and says its an UNFORGIVEN sin. And what's more, once the mind accepts the healings of Lourdes, whatever one's doctrines there is the problem that there are REAL healings at Lourdes, and everybody knows it, and nobody knows FOR SURE why or how. To get up and use the sort of abusive rhetoric about idols and demons MIGHT be to damn the Holy Spirit as a demon because the Holy Spirit is doing something one does not like (if one's a Protestant and doesn't like the idea of God healing at Shrine to Mary, because it's so supportive of the Catholics!). I note that, although the Protestants here, some of whom are terrible Cold Warriors with the Catholic Church, will mock the Catholic image of Mary, but pull far, far back from committing the nuclear weapon and DEFINITIVELY condemning the healing power at Lourdes as that of a demon.
In other words, THEY GET IT. They SEE the risk, and won't charge into that breach and potentially commit a gross blasphemy. They THINK Lourdes is rubbish (even though they know it's not) because that's the easiest thing to think. They don't like it. But they won't take that stp of potentially damning the Holy Spirit as a demon. Which means that they are cautious and really believe their religion, and that's a good thingh.
You saw none of this, and thought me in error, because I didn't use Catholic speak to talk with those who reject it.
This would be our starting point. What would you say is the difference between those who have been healed at Lourdes & those that were not healed after making a pilgrimage there?
*Your words. If you think it persuasive to adopt the errors of others in dialoguing with them, by all means have at it. But, don't think those reading your public comments won't conclude you actually believe what you write.
And now your defense of calling the Catholic Church a "sect" is....
So, given that reality,why wouldn't I think you believed what you wrote when you wrote...And because you do not know, it COULD indeed be demons, and therefore you must be properly cautious.
*Now, I am done with this thread because I am too anchored in reality to waste time trying to guess what you mean when you post your own words.
For all I know, you don't even really mean what you wrote in this post I am responding to.
I'll note, for the record, nobody is ever confused about what I believe