[geocentrism] Re: PAPAL ERRORS? and geocentrism
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:56:12 +1000
Neville, you are not to be too concerned about not knowing where the Catholic
Church is. Especially today. Many Catholics if not most don't know that either.
I doubt most even care. They have all been humanised, love the world and are
lapping it up. .
This is consistent with living in the age of lies.
Spiritually, the Church is the mystical body of Christ, comprising the faithful
which includes a hierarchy of clerics.
Individuals who depart from Christ , that is apostasise, be they pope or priest
are no longer, can not be any longer with Christ, and thus are outside the
church.
Generally one may not take it upon himself to declare publically on another
person, (their state of mind is known only to God, ) however we know Christian
truth, and should be able to discern when it is being contradicted. The Holy
Ghost will flee from any claiming to be Catholic who commit apostasy or promote
heresy. I likewise may flee also, and not return till they restore all things
in Christ, without my formally declaring any person to be an apostate or
heretic. That is not my office, it belonging only to God and His
representative.
It may seem to be confusing that the Great Apostasy centres at the very heart
of Christs Church, yet isn't it fortold in Scripture? But note very carefully.
Jesus or His Church could never err. Hence apostasy puts the apostates outside
the Church. They are to be considered harlots or if an institution, a
prostituted church.
Hence I say only those who hold fast (as St Paul says) to the traditions they
were given , remain within the Church, and even though that may represent a
remnant, that is where the mystical body of Christ and the Holy Spirit will be.
None of this is to say that some of the remnant are not still in the buildings
of Rome, but they are certainly being very quiet if they are. Perhaps the new
man will do something really bad like deny the Trinity, and that will bring
them out.
Your question of where the Church stands on the issue of geocentrism is in
tradition, and has not been changed.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: PAPAL ERRORS? and geocentrism
Wowzers, I'm more confused than ever now!
I was sort of okay with Robert's information, but now am back to not knowing
what the Catholic position is, nor what the entire church is.
You see, the RC church is well on the way to making John Paul II a "saint" (I
put saint in quotation marks because, as I have made clear, I am not Catholic).
Now the only way that I can reconcile Philip's position is for me to accept his
claim that the current RC church is not the real one. But then where and when
did it cease to be the "real" one?
I don't want to start another Catholic/non-Catholic "debate," I just want to
know what the Roman Catholic position on geocentrism is. By the way, I accept
fully Robert assertion that the majority of its members would not be overly
concerned about the issue anyway.
Simple answers only, please!
Neville.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Many thanks to Robert for his link to JP2's 1992 speech. I affirm that this
represents the mans mind only. As I am of the opinion that since the Council
called "Vatican 2" the "CATHOLIC CHURCH" was forced to retreat to the
"catacombs" , Rome being taken over by a NEW CHURCH doomed to head into total
apostasy, I have taken no heed of, and read very little of anything the New
Rome promulgates.
However as this pertained to our subject I struggled through it entirely. I
append below those points which stood out most strongly in support of our
contentention that the new Rome is humanist and not Catholic or even worthy to
be called Christian. I will bracket [ as this] my comment.
"9. If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the
cultural horizon of Galileo's age was uniform and carried the imprint of a
particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in
itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons
for Galileo's condemnation. The majority of theologians did not recognize the
formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this
led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a
question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation. ......"
[ see here in that last sentence how JP2 is firmly convinced of the TRUTH of
scientific opinion as it is today, as to condemn theologians of the past. ]
"In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen
what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of
possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should
"interpret with great circumspection" every biblical passage which seems to
affirm that the earth is immobile and "say that we do not understand, rather
than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false".........."
[ JP2 fails to see what Bellarmine is saying . Namely "we do not understand"
or in other words, Science is not infallible. Likewise St Augustine below says
the same thing. ]
"(4) Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word
guided St Augustine when he wrote: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred
Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean
that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It
is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning
which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not
what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this
is what Scripture meant".(5) A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in
his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: "Truth cannot contradict truth and we may
be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the
sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself".(6) ........"
[ you all need to see very clearly here how this man takes a clear concise
statement of a Pope and saint, where they refer to TRUTH , or clear and certain
reasoning, and makes this synonymous with, "it should be true or, at least,
seriously and solidly grounded. " (see below) Something that is "seriously and
solidly grounded" is not TRUTH. I have said this so often on this forum.
Science seems to have forsaken the word axiom, and replaced it with theory. ]
"Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not
irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter,
was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.(7)
........"
[ This is the most serious error of all to a Catholic. This man has made a
statement that he could never make as a definitive statement as Pope. He is
denying what has been previously defined as irreformable. A contradiction! He
does not dare, if he thinks he is really Pope, ever attempt to make such a
statement formal. Nor his successor neither. By the way, Canon Settele's
"imprimatur" gives infallibility to nothing.]
"The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the
centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical
world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred
Scripture......"
[Once again, he takes as infallible the word of modern science over that of
Scripture and the theologians who supported it. He should command science to go
take another look, and prove the evidence to conform with scripture. Science
evolves. TRUTH does not]
"What is important in a scientific or philosophic theory is above all that it
should be true or, at least, seriously and solidly grounded. [ ??] And the
purpose of your Academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the
present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as
an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it
would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it. [ more of the same ????] In
this way unnecessary conflicts can be avoided. "
And that my friends is what this new church is more concerned about.. Human
conflicts... To Hell with God. He has to conform. We will make our own
peace..........KABOOOOMB!
Philip.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE
with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Other related posts:
